[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

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

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


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: 117964
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  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Deckard (#0)

I'm with you on this one Deckard.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-03   11:01:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Deckard (#0) (Edited)

Deckard, I've just about had it with your "jury nullification" bullshit. You wanna play that game? Fine.

Did you know that a jury can also convict a defendant if the jury disagrees with the law? Yes they can. The jury has the final word, one way or the other.

Now, how about if you're on trial and I hand out fliers in front of your courtroom informing potential jurors they have the power to convict you even if you didn't violate the letter of the law? You woudn't consider that jury tampering?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-03   12:57:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: misterwhite, Deckard, A K A Stone (#2)

Now, how about if you're on trial and I hand out fliers in front of your courtroom informing potential jurors they have the power to convict you even if you didn't violate the letter of the law?

I think Deckard should tell his lawyer not to let you on his jury.     : )

I favor the FIJA and their positions. However, we've seen a number of cases where standing on the sidewalk outside the courthouse (on the same block, on the lawn or sidewalk) has resulted in convictions for jury tampering.

Stand across the street, set up a booth there, hold a demonstration, wave big signs.

Just stay off the block that the courthouse is on unless you're willing to be arrested.

We see some comparable cases for blocking abortion clinic doors and sidewalks. The pro-lifers comply but still manage to protest effectively IMO.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-06-03   13:18:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Tooconservative (#3) (Edited)

"I favor the FIJA and their positions."

Position. Singular. Release the criminal if you don't like the law.

But I have to give them credit. In their Jurors' Handbook they have a paragraph or two on "nullification convictions" -- convict the defendant despite the law. So at least they acknowledge that's also an option for the jury, though they buried it on page 12 (of 14).

Since a "nullification conviction" is a real option for juries, you have to admit that someone handing out fliers informing potential jurors of this -- even if they're across the street -- would be very disruptive to the legal system we've come to understand.

In my opinion, if you support one form of disruption you have to support the other. Let's have not only an informed jury, but a fully informed jury. Yes? No?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-03   14:39:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: misterwhite (#2)

Did you know that a jury can also convict a defendant if the jury disagrees with the law? Yes they can. The jury has the final word, one way or the other.

Uhhh... That's not completely true, actually. Judges have the power to vacate jury convictions, but not jury acquittals. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-03   14:45:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: misterwhite (#4)

But I have to give them credit. In their Jurors' Handbook they have a paragraph or two on "nullification convictions" -- convict the defendant despite the law. So at least they acknowledge that's also an option for the jury, though they buried it on page 12 (of 14).

I always considered that and we can all think of instances where it occurred (or should have).

The jury is the most radical and unaccountable of all American institutions, much as it was under the British common law system.

In my opinion, if you support one form of disruption you have to support the other. Let's have not only an informed jury, but a fully informed jury. Yes? No?

Sure. However, a judge in most state and federal cases has considerable discretion to override a jury's intent. As do appeals courts. A jury convicting despite the law will have nowhere near the same impact as a jury exonerating despite the law (and incidentally rendering judgment on the law itself). But then, this is part of the purpose of a jury. It is why we have them, why we don't have instead, as most countries do, a system of courts where only a judge or panel of judges hear the cases and determine the outcomes.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-06-03   14:52:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Pinguinite, nolu chan, misterwhite (#5) (Edited)

Uhhh... That's not completely true, actually. Judges have the power to vacate jury convictions, but not jury acquittals. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You're right.

I think in at least some states, a judge can set aside a jury's verdict and call a mistrial even after the jury has returned its verdict. I'm pretty certain they can set aside a guilty verdict in some states, not sure if they can set aside an acquittal.

Maybe nolu has a link or two on the topic.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-06-03   14:54:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Pinguinite (#5)

"Uhhh... That's not completely true, actually. Judges have the power to vacate jury convictions, but not jury acquittals."

You're correct. If the judge so chooses. But he may hate the defendant more than the jury. It still doesn't change the fact that the jury can convict despite what the law says.

But think what this would mean. Juries will play it safe and convict knowing that if they are wrong the judge -- who is the expert, after all -- will acquit and correct their "error". The reverse, as you pointed out, isn't true.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-03   15:34:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Tooconservative (#6)

"Sure. However, a judge in most state and federal cases has considerable discretion to override a jury's intent. As do appeals courts. A jury convicting despite the law will have nowhere near the same impact as a jury exonerating despite the law (and incidentally rendering judgment on the law itself)."

I agree with all that. All these safeguards are in place for the defendant.

Meaning the jury will be comforted knowing that their guilty verdict will be voided by expert jurists if they made the wrong decision. However, if they make the wrong decision by acquitting, THAT error cannot be corrected by anyone.

So, once the jury knows ALL their options, how do you think they'll vote?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-03   15:47:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: misterwhite (#9)

Meaning the jury will be comforted knowing that their guilty verdict will be voided by expert jurists if they made the wrong decision. However, if they make the wrong decision by acquitting, THAT error cannot be corrected by anyone.

I'm not sure. If the judge believes that there was something prejudicial or if he believes someone on the jury was nullifying, he could set aside the verdict and declare a mistrial, avoiding double-jeopardy.

So, once the jury knows ALL their options, how do you think they'll vote?

They'll vote the same in 99.9% of all cases. But a handful of cases would change if FIJA had its way in educating jurors about their options.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-06-03   16:01:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Tooconservative (#10)

"I'm not sure. If the judge believes that there was something prejudicial or if he believes someone on the jury was nullifying, he could set aside the verdict and declare a mistrial, avoiding double-jeopardy."

It would certainly have the appearance of double jeopardy. Even Judge Lance Ito, who had about two dozen valid reasons to do that, held back.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-03   16:16:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: misterwhite (#11)

I'm pretty sure the discretion of a judge in a state court varies from state to state on what reasons they can set aside a jury's verdict and what else they can do, like ordering a new trial.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-06-03   16:19:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Tooconservative (#10)

"They'll vote the same in 99.9% of all cases."

You're dreaming. Here's the instruction to the jury:

A) If you vote guilty and you're wrong, don't worry. The judge in this case and possibly higher courts will review your decision and will overturn your verdict if you screwed up. Or,

B) If you vote not guilty and you're wrong, you just let a guilty man go free to commit more crimes. There's no going back. There's no second bite at the apple.

I'll ask again. Once the jury knows ALL their options, how do you think they'll vote?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-03   16:25:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: misterwhite (#8)

You're correct. If the judge so chooses. But he may hate the defendant more than the jury. It still doesn't change the fact that the jury can convict despite what the law says.

People have literally been hanged contrary to law. Ultimately, written laws have only as much power as those in control allow, and that cannot be helped.

But jury "nullification" really refers to nullifying laws that someone is accused of violating, not convicting someone who stands falsely accused. And given the civil theory is that it's better for a guilty man to be go free than an innocent man to go to jail. Nullification stands as a final voice of the average people on whether criminal laws passed by representatives are acceptable, and that is simply not a bad thing in my view. Fugitive slave laws falling "victim" to jury nullification being one example.

I see no reason why juries should not openly have nullification power explained to them. While it may result in people truly deserving of punishment going free on occasion, #1) I think that would be extremely rare, and #2) I think the value of giving average people a voice on what laws are acceptable is far more valuable a thing than is the harm in letting a true thug go free, so I thikn the benefit greatly outweighs the (very rare) harm.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-03   17:18:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: misterwhite (#13)

I'll ask again. Once the jury knows ALL their options, how do you think they'll vote?

You're presuming the average jury has multiple FIJA types on it or people with a political agenda.

I don't think there are that many people willing to sit on a jury who are going to have those motives and carry through with them. They'll generally follow the judge's instructions.

The average juror is not weighing their options like a lawyer would. I don't really think they want to.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-06-03   17:18:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Pinguinite (#14)

"I see no reason why juries should not openly have nullification power explained to them."

I agree. IF both types of nullification are explained to them:

A) If they think the law is unfair they can vote not guilty.

B) If they think the defendant did not violate the letter of the law but did violate the spirit of the law, they can vote guilty. Or they can vote guilty if they simply don't like him.

Otherwise, they can forget about the jury altogether and have a bench trial.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-03   17:53:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: misterwhite (#13)

You're dreaming. Here's the instruction to the jury:

A) If you vote guilty and you're wrong, don't worry. The judge in this case and possibly higher courts will review your decision and will overturn your verdict if you screwed up. Or,

B) If you vote not guilty and you're wrong, you just let a guilty man go free to commit more crimes. There's no going back. There's no second bite at the apple.

You have pessimism down to an art.

There's no reason, practical or theoretical, to tell them their guilty verdict could be overturned. At least I can't think of any. You just tell them to consider facts of the case as well as the applicable law, and render a verdict.

And it is extremely, extremely rare for a judge to set aside a jury conviction, as any judge who would be inclined to do that based on the merits of the case would most likely dismiss the charges before jury deliberations even start. I'm sure that is far, far more common.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-03   17:58:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Tooconservative (#15)

"You're presuming the average jury has multiple FIJA types on it or people with a political agenda."

My only point was that if you're going to instruct the jury on nullification acquittal then, to be fair and complete, you should also instruct the jury on nullification conviction.

No matter if the judge does the instruction or if FILA does the instruction, or if some guy on the street handing out flyers does the instruction. That was all I was saying.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-03   17:59:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: misterwhite (#16)

I agree. IF both types of nullification are explained to them:

A) If they think the law is unfair they can vote not guilty.

B) If they think the defendant did not violate the letter of the law but did violate the spirit of the law, they can vote guilty. Or they can vote guilty if they simply don't like him.

Given that convictions require unanimous agreement, and given that jurists are initially screened to ensure they have no personal relations with the accused, and given the average person would be willing to judge a stranger fairly, I would be inclined to accept your terms.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-03   18:03:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Pinguinite (#17)

"You just tell them to consider facts of the case as well as the applicable law, and render a verdict."

Sure. I'd prefer that.

But this article deals with nullification acquittal whereby the jury is informed that they can void the applicable law if they think it's unfair and find the defendant not guilty.

So, in response to THAT, I'm saying that the jury should also be informed of nullification conviction whereby the jury can find the defendant guilty even if he didn't violate the letter of the law.

I would also tell them at the same time not to worry about the guilty verdict since that verdict could be overturned by the judge or a higher court if it was unreasonable.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-03   18:11:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Pinguinite (#19)

"Given that convictions require unanimous agreement, and given that jurists are initially screened to ensure they have no personal relations with the accused, and given the average person would be willing to judge a stranger fairly, I would be inclined to accept your terms."

This would actually be beneficial in cases that are lost because of a technicality. The jury could be instructed that they can examine the technical infraction and make a determination as to how much weight to give it.

Every time the defense yells "objection", the jury does not have to disregard what led up to the objection.

The jury would be allowed give police testimony more weight than others who testify.

This could change everything.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-03   18:25:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: misterwhite (#18)

My only point was that if you're going to instruct the jury on nullification acquittal then, to be fair and complete, you should also instruct the jury on nullification conviction.

You're kind of making up that whole "nullification conviction" thing.

The point of a "nullification acquittal" is to exonerate the defendant but also to nullify the underlying law. If juries refuse repeatedly to convict, that law becomes nullified and no prosecutor will bring a case to court because they don't like to lose and usually have plenty of other cases to prosecute that they can win.

A "nullification conviction" in no way can nullify the underlying law. At least, I can't imagine how. Such a conviction would probably be easily overturned on appeal.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-06-03   18:28:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: misterwhite (#21)

You are trying very hard to get people to say that jury nullification would be a disaster.

But I'm still not going to do that.

The jury would be allowed give police testimony more weight than others who testify.

People already do that.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-03   19:19:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Tooconservative (#22)

"You're kind of making up that whole "nullification conviction" thing."

I got it from your FIJA web site. Go to fija.org and click on Juror's Handbook. Page 12:

"When jurors get wind of the appearance that at least some of our most fundamental rules are really just window dressing, what protection will we have against "nullification convictions" by jurors who refuse to release dangerous or despicable villains entitled to acquittals on the basis of seemingly unjust legal technicalities?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-03   20:04:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Pinguinite (#23)

"You are trying very hard to get people to say that jury nullification would be a disaster."

My only point was that if you're going to instruct the jury on nullification acquittal then, to be fair and complete, you should also instruct the jury on nullification conviction.

As to whether or not nullifying laws that someone is accused of violating would be a disaster, that depends on the law in question. Put a Muslim on a jury and he may nullify a spousal abuse law. A Christian may nullify a gay rights law.

Jurors are not supposed to write the laws. If the law is bad or unfair, there are ways to handle that outside a jury room.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-03   20:19:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Tooconservative (#22)

"If juries refuse repeatedly to convict, that law becomes nullified and no prosecutor will bring a case to court"

Is that the way we change laws in our country? By a relatively small number of people with an agenda?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-03   20:22:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Tooconservative, Pinguinite, misterwhite (#7)

I think in at least some states, a judge can set aside a jury's verdict and call a mistrial even after the jury has returned its verdict. I'm pretty certain they can set aside a guilty verdict in some states, not sure if they can set aside an acquittal.

Maybe nolu has a link or two on the topic.

The judge can overrule a guilty verdict. He cannot overrule a not guilty verdict after the fact due to jury nullification. As a seperate, and distinct possibility, an acquitted defendant may be retried upon a later finding of a rigged jury. That possibility proceeds in the face of double jeopardy claims on the theory that jeopardy never attached in the trial with the rigged jury.

A judge issuing an acquittal notwithstanding the verdict I believe is most commonly issued when the judge decides he erred in sending the case to the jury as there was insufficient evidence presented to justify a finding of guilty.

If a juror should be found, during a trial (before a verdict) to be engaging in juror nullification (or intending to do so), said juror may be removed from the jury.

Defense counsel may not argue jury nullification.

Criminal Procedure, Fifth Edition, West Publishing, Thomson Reuters (2009), by Wayne R. LaFave, Jerold H. Israel, Nancy J. King, and Orin S. Karr

[footnotes omitted]

[1075]

(f) Jury Nullification. The function of the jury is commonly said to be that of ascertain­ing the facts and then applying the law, as stated by the judge, to those facts. Indeed, it is not at all unusual for a jury in a criminal case to be instructed that it has the “duty” to proceed in such a fashion. But it is nonetheless true that, a jury in a criminal case has the power to acquit even when its findings of fact, if literally applied to the law as stated by the judge, would have resulted in a conviction. This is because a jury verdict of not guilty is not subject to reversal or to review in any manner whatsoever. On occasion, juries will acquit defendants who appear sympathetic, who are charged with violating an unpopular law, who the jurors speculate would otherwise be sentenced too severely, or who haven’t been proven guilty under standards for proof the jurors believe are required despite the judge’s instruction otherwise. Some have argued that this practice, usually referred to as jury nullification, is part of the right to jury trial guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Arguably the language that the Supreme Court has used to describe that right appears to encompass the nullification process. In Duncan v. Louisiana; holding that right applicable to the states, the Court declared that in the view of the framers “[i]f the defen­dant preferred the commonsense judgment of a jury to the more tutored but perhaps less sympathetic reaction of the single judge, he was to have it.” Similarly, in emphasizing the need for juries drawn from a cross-section of the community the Court later asserted: “The purpose of a jury is to guard against the exer­cise of arbitrary power—to make available the commonsense judgment of the community as a hedge against the overzealous or mistaken prosecutor and in preference to the profession­al or perhaps overconditioned or biased re­sponse of a judge."

Rather than treating nullification as an af­firmative right of the accused (or the juror), however, most courts treat the jury’s nullifica­tion power as an inevitable by-product of the finality of verdicts of acquittal. As a result, pre-verdict procedures discouraging nullifica­tion abound. Members of the venire who admit that they will not follow the law may be ex­cused for cause, for example. And in United States v. Thomas, the Second Circuit conclud­ed that a juror’s intent to acquit regardless of the evidence constitutes a basis for the juror’s removal during the deliberations, reasoning, “Nullification is, by definition, a violation of a juror’s oath to apply the law as instructed by the court * * * We categorically reject the idea that, in a society committed to the rule of law, jury nullification is desirable or that courts may permit it to occur when it is within their authority to prevent.”

The prevailing view is also that the Consti­tution does not require that a jury be told

[1076]

specifically that it has the power to disregard the law and acquit. This view is often attrib­uted to Sparf and Hansen v. United States."Two sailors charged with murder asked the judge to instruct the jury on the lesser offense of manslaughter, but the judge refused on the ground that there was no evidence which would support a manslaughter verdict. Rather, he instructed: “In a proper case, a verdict for manslaughter may be rendered, * * * and even in this case you have the physical power to do so; but as one of the tribunals of the country, a jury is expected to be governed by law, and the lawr it should receive from the court.” Holding the jury had not been improp­erly instructed, the Supreme Court reasoned that “if a jury may rightfully disregard the direction of the court in matters of law, and determine for themselves what the law is in the particular case before them, it is difficult to perceive any legal ground upon which a verdict of conviction can be set aside by the court as being against law.”

It is fair to say that Sparf did not settle the jury nullification issue, for the Court did not address the specific question whether jurors should be told they can refuse to enforce the law’s harshness when they conclude that jus­tice so requires. But lower courts have rather consistently ruled that no such instruction should be given, that defense counsel may not make a nullification closing argument, and that “the potential for nullification is no basis for admitting otherwise irrelevant evidence.” When jurors have no responsibility for sen­tencing, for example, a court will typically prohibit them from learning of the sentencing consequences of their verdict through evidence or argument. This ensures that their decision to convict or acquit is based entirely on the evidence of guilt or innocence and not upon their punishment preferences for the defen­dant.

One leading case on the propriety of limiting the information and argument provided to the jury on its power to disregard the law is Unit­ed States v. Dougherty." There the court con­cluded that the “jury system has worked reasonably well overall” without resort to a nullification instruction, “with the jury acting as a ‘safety valve’ for exceptional cases, out being a wildcat or runaway institutution. This is because, the court explained, the jury “gets its understanding as to the arrangements in the legal system” not only from judge’s instructions but also through “the formal communication from the total culture," and the “totality of input generally convey adequately enough the idea of prerogative, of freedom in an occasional case to depart from what the judge says.” The court expressed fear that a nullification instruction would upset the existing balance and produce more hung juries. Finally, the court in Dougherty declared that such an instruction would deprive the individual juror of an important protection he now enjoys and to which he is entitled: that “when he takes action that he knows is right, but also knows is unpopular either in the community at large or in his own particular grouping, that he can fairly put it to friends and neighbors that he was merely following the instructions of the court.” In opposition to the Dougherty position, it has been contended that there is no reason to assume that juries will act in a different and less desirable way if informed about their nullification power, that there are political advantages to be gained by not lying to the jury, and that a nullification instruction would serve to discourage acquittals based on prejudice instead of encouraging them, by setting justice and conscience as the standards for acquittal rather than leaving the jurors to use their own biases as standards.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-03   23:41:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: misterwhite (#25)

My only point was that if you're going to instruct the jury on nullification acquittal then, to be fair and complete, you should also instruct the jury on nullification conviction.

Fair? Fair to whom?

Is the idea that every person accused of a crime enter a courtroom with as close as possible to a 50/50 chance of being convicted, and if the odds are only 20%, then some rule changes should be done to make it closer to 50%, because then the trial will be more "fair"?

The entire premise of the US criminal justice system is supposed to be based on the idea that defendants get the benefit of a doubt at every step. Prosecutors have to see enough merit to press charges, grand juries have to affirm there's a criminal case, judges have to agree, defendants are given attorneys if they can't afford one, juries have to be convinced of guilt "beyond reasonable doubt", and even after all that, appellate judges can be called in to give an opinion on whether everything was done right.

Jury nullification would/could/should be just one more test of guilt added to many others that already exist. It's not about being fair or not fair. Nullification serves as a test of the law itself, that it is something that an average cross section of people agree with. And it's not as though a single jury engaging in nullification would cause a law to be repealed throughout an entire land. It would only affect the outcome of a single trial. Only if many juries began to nullify one particular law repeatedly would the law be effectively gutted, and if that were to happen, then it probably means it's a bad law that should be gutted, one example being the Fugitive Slave Act which I understand was frequently nullified on sound moral grounds. And if that's the case, why shouldn't such an unpopular law be gutted?

I don't understand why a judge would even care if a jury engaged in nullification. It's no money out of his pocket. Why would he not simply accept it as one more thing, added to many others, that could happen?

As to whether or not nullifying laws that someone is accused of violating would be a disaster, that depends on the law in question. Put a Muslim on a jury and he may nullify a spousal abuse law. A Christian may nullify a gay rights law.

If only a single juror nullifies while all others affirm guilt then the defendant can be retried, and probably would be in most cases.

Jurors are not supposed to write the laws. If the law is bad or unfair, there are ways to handle that outside a jury room.

Nullification is not writing laws. It's only limiting application of a law or laws against a single defendant or set of defendants. Once the case is over, the nullification has no further legal effect.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-04   1:02:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: nolu chan (#27)

The judge can overrule a guilty verdict. He cannot overrule a not guilty verdict after the fact due to jury nullification. As a seperate, and distinct possibility, an acquitted defendant may be retried upon a later finding of a rigged jury.

Hmmm...it almost sounds contradictory. I suppose a nullified jury is not the same as a rigged jury, although I don't really see the difference in the outcome for an individual defendant.

It would seem to allow for nullified outcomes by jurors, just no bribing or conspiring of jurors as a "rigged jury". So now I'm no longer sure what the exact legal definition of a rigged jury is.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-06-04   1:04:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: misterwhite (#26)

Is that the way we change laws in our country? By a relatively small number of people with an agenda?

Don't forget that juries are supposed to be a random cross section of the general public. A Gilligan's Island crew of unrelated people of every walk of life, so if most of them have a shared agenda, it would generally mean that it's also an agenda shared by most of the general public.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-04   1:07:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: misterwhite (#2)

That was John Jays position you anti American dumb ass. You don't know your own nations history.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-04   7:34:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: misterwhite (#4)

Fake and unconstitutional laws is the disruption of our legal system, not exercising free speech to tell the truth. You would have been a very good and loyal nazi.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-04   7:36:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: misterwhite (#8)

But think what this would mean. Juries will play it safe and convict knowing that if they are wrong the judge -- who is the expert, after all

No only statists like you look at judges as authority figures. It is like they are your some of your gods.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-04   7:40:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: misterwhite (#11)

I'll agree with you this time. It would be double jeopardy.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-04   7:42:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: misterwhite (#13)

I'll ask again. Once the jury knows ALL their options, how do you think they'll vote?

That is an easy one. If they think the guy did something wrong they will convict. If it is one of those stupid laws you support like licensing 10 year olds to mow a lawn, or putting someone in jail for cutting a friend's hair. Then there will be at least one sane person to nullify the stupid laws.

After all the first supreme court justice John Jay said it was the juries job to judge both the law and alleged crime.

Everyone isn't like you thinking we should follow bullshit immoral "laws".

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-04   7:47:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: misterwhite (#16)

Or they can vote guilty if they simply don't like him.

That explains a lot about you. You are a hater and you just want people you disagree with locked up. No wonder you are wrong so much of the time.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-04   7:52:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: misterwhite (#18)

the jury on nullification conviction.

You are a dumb ass friend of tyrants. You don't convict someone be3cause you don't like them. You don't tell jurors that. Comprende asswipe.?

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-04   7:56:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: misterwhite (#20)

But this article deals with nullification acquittal whereby the jury is informed

They should be informed. People have free speech rights despite assholes like you who hate free speech. Who hate the constitution.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-04   7:58:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: misterwhite (#25)

My only point was that if

You have made no valid points. The only point you have made is that if the government had a dick you would happily be sucking on it.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-04   8:00:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Pinguinite (#28)

"Fair? Fair to whom?"

To the jurors. To justice. To the rule of law.

The jury has the power to acquit AND the power to convict. How is it fair to instruct the jury that they can ignore the law and acquit, while not telling them they have the power to ignore the law and convict?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-04   10:14:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: Pinguinite (#28)

"The entire premise of the US criminal justice system is supposed to be based on the idea that defendants get the benefit of a doubt at every step."

That's only one part. Another premise of the US criminal justice system is that the jury will apply the law.

When one jury convicts a defendandant for violating a law and another jury acquits a defendandant for violating the same law based on jury nullification we no longer have the rule of law. We have the rule of man.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-04   10:20:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: Pinguinite, nolu chan (#28)

"Nullification serves as a test of the law itself"

You don't know that. Jurors are not required to fill out a questionairre describing the reasons the voted the way they did.

As nolu chan pointed out, "... juries will acquit defendants who appear sympathetic, who are charged with violating an unpopular law, who the jurors speculate would otherwise be sentenced too severely, or who haven’t been proven guilty under standards for proof the jurors believe are required despite the judge’s instruction otherwise."

Was OJ acquitted because the law against murder was unfair?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-04   10:26:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: Pinguinite (#28)

Nullification is not writing laws. It's only limiting application of a law or laws against a single defendant or set of defendants.

It's re-writing the law as it applies to that one individual.

It is undemocratic, unconstitutional and un-American to have one set of rules for some and a different set for others. Are you comfortable with Hillary getting away with violating laws that you and I would go to prison for? Are you comfortable with OJ walking the streets (looking for the real killer)?

A man rapes a 14-year old girl. No doubt. One, two or maybe all of the jurors conclude she "asked for it". They acquit.

You have no problem with that?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-04   10:38:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: A K A Stone (#39)

You have made no valid points. The only point you have made is that if the government had a dick you would happily be sucking on it.

Thank you. This is how I know I've won the argument.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-04   10:40:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: misterwhite (#40)

"Fair? Fair to whom?"

To the jurors. To justice. To the rule of law.

How can anyone rationally argue that having various option on what to consider in a case would violate the rights or otherwise be unfair to a juror?

And how could anyone argue that a society of living, breathing people are bound to dispense fairness to a "rule of law" as though it was a person with rights, when it's the other way around, that the very purpose of the rule of law is to serve and protect society?

Fair to the Rule of Law? Give me a break. The law serves the people. The people do not serve the law.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-04   11:23:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: misterwhite (#41)

Another premise of the US criminal justice system is that the jury will apply the law.

That is your whole claim, but this whole debate is about whether jurors should have the option to NOT do this, but acquit if they feel the law is bad, or otherwise should not be applied in a specific case for any reason.

When one jury convicts a defendandant for violating a law and another jury acquits a defendandant for violating the same law based on jury nullification we no longer have the rule of law. We have the rule of man.

No we don't have the rule of man as the verdicts do not change the law itself. Obviously the legal system is not perfect as guilty people go free and innocent people get convicted (and have even been exonerated after execution), so if that is not considered the "rule of man" then the legal system can survive nullification as well.

Nullification is simply one more test of many that serves as a check on the laws themselves in very isolated cases, and it's value to society would greatly outweigh the possibility of harm of errant verdicts in individual cases.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-04   11:36:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: misterwhite (#42)

"Nullification serves as a test of the law itself"

You don't know that. Jurors are not required to fill out a questionairre describing the reasons the voted the way they did.

Yes, I do know that. The very definition of Nullification is when jurors judge the law. While nullification couldn't be proven in any individual case, it would be easily apparent if nullification was happening on a large scale involving a specific law, as is reputed to have happened with the Fugitive Slave Act and certainly was in play in the famous William Tell trial.

As nolu chan pointed out, "... juries will acquit defendants who appear sympathetic, who are charged with violating an unpopular law, who the jurors speculate would otherwise be sentenced too severely, or who haven’t been proven guilty under standards for proof the jurors believe are required despite the judge’s instruction otherwise."

Jurors are first and foremost humans, and that is the reason why they are used to render judgments in jury trials. They are chosen because they are human, not in spite of being human.

Was OJ acquitted because the law against murder was unfair?

Like I said, injustice occurs regularly in the legal system in spite of best intentions, and OJ's acquittal certainly was no result of nullification. They just didn't think he did it for whatever reason. Are you afraid that nullification would means murderers would be routinely acquitted? Do you think the average person believes murder should be legal? There's no way that's true.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-04   11:48:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: misterwhite (#43)

You are attempting to completely mischaracterize nullification with your examples.

Are you comfortable with Hillary getting away with violating laws that you and I would go to prison for? Are you comfortable with OJ walking the streets (looking for the real killer)? A man rapes a 14-year old girl. No doubt. One, two or maybe all of the jurors conclude she "asked for it". They acquit.

I have a problem with all those things but none of them have anything to do with jury nullification. I also have a problem with people going to jail for supposed crimes in which there is no victim.

And I have a problem with the Land of the Free having the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-04   11:54:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: Pinguinite (#45)

"How can anyone rationally argue that having various option on what to consider in a case would violate the rights or otherwise be unfair to a juror?"

Easy. It's not fair to inform the juror of only one option -- nullification acquittal. The juror has another -- nullification conviction -- and he should be informed of that option at the same time.

"... that the very purpose of the rule of law is to serve and protect society?"

I agree. The rule of law is to serve and protect society, not the defendant. How does jury nullification -- which violates the rule of law -- serve society? An otherwise guilty man goes free.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-04   12:18:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: Pinguinite (#46)

"Nullification is simply one more test of many that serves as a check on the laws themselves in very isolated cases"

Fine. Let's accept that argument. If we are to accept nullification acquittal, then why not nullifiction conviction?

If the law, as written, can be considered unfair by the jury because it is too harsh, can't the law be considered unfair by the jury because it is too lenient?

Why should a jury be forced to release a career criminal because of some loophole or minor technicality?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-04   12:27:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: Pinguinite (#48)

"I also have a problem with people going to jail for supposed crimes in which there is no victim."

Yeah. I was wondering when you'd get around to disclosing your true intention.

You are so obsessed with our drug laws that it blinds you to all the negative consequences of what you're proposing. Either that or you simply don't care about the negative consequences as long as your precious recreational drugs are legal.

The people don't want legal recreational drugs so you figure you can do an "end around" by using nullification in the courts, hoping to send a message to lawmakers. What a cowardly approach. If the drug laws are bad, repeal them. Don't pervert and corrupt our justice system for this one issue.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-04   12:39:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: Pinguinite (#48)

And I have a problem with the Land of the Free having the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world.

Disregard the black and Hispanic prisoners and our per capita incarceration rate is no different than any other industrialized nation.

There's nothing wrong with our laws. Our problem is that a disproportionate number of minorities violate them.

Oh, wait! Are you suggesting that we should have a different set of laws for minorities? Was that what you were leading up to?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-04   12:47:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: misterwhite (#49)

Easy. It's not fair to inform the juror of only one option -- nullification acquittal. The juror has another -- nullification conviction -- and he should be informed of that option at the same time.

You completely dodged my point. "Fair" to whom? It's not unfair to a jurist to give him any particular set of instructions, regardless of whether it includes or does not include anything about nullification. You are just struggling to invent anything you can against nullification.

How does jury nullification -- which violates the rule of law -- serve society? An otherwise guilty man goes free.

Whether the man is truly guilty or not is determined by the jury. If the jury chooses to acquit due to nullification, then the jury honestly feels that the man was not deserving of a guilty verdict. And if a jury feels that way after all considerations in a trial environment, then who are you as an outsider to tell them they ruled wrongly? If you truly feel that juries should simply rubber stamp popular opinion in a case, then you should probably favor replacing juries with computers.

As for nullification violating the rule of law. I've repeatedly stated it was a final test of criminal law, and a valid one at that, in which case it's no more a violation of law than a presidential veto is of a law passed by Congress, and in fact, far more limited, of course.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-04   12:52:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: misterwhite (#50)

Fine. Let's accept that argument. If we are to accept nullification acquittal, then why not nullifiction conviction?

You refer not to what juries can do, as obviously juries are free to do both right now. You are instead referring to instructions given to juries. And the answer is because the benefit of a doubt should always go to the defendant, not the prosecution, and instructing juries that they may convict absent any violation of the law would carve away at that benefit of a doubt. So no, it shouldn't be done for that reason.

If the law, as written, can be considered unfair by the jury because it is too harsh, can't the law be considered unfair by the jury because it is too lenient?

They can, obviously, and may if they feel a true thug would walk free on a mere technicality.

Why should a jury be forced to release a career criminal because of some loophole or minor technicality?

Forced? You're losing this debate with that question. Juries are never forced to rule one way or the other. (The William Tell trial being one exception).

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-04   13:00:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: Pinguinite (#53)

"It's not unfair to a jurist to give him any particular set of instructions, regardless of whether it includes or does not include anything about nullification."

Yes, but you're missing my point. I'm saying IF the jury is informed about nullification acquittal then they should be informed about nullification conviction at the same time. Isn't presenting both sides "fair"?

I'm not in favor of nullification of any kind. I'm merely suggesting that any information or instructions to the jury be complete, balanced, and fair.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-04   13:05:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: misterwhite (#49)

The rule of law is to serve and protect society, not the defendant. How does jury nullification -- which violates the rule of law -- serve society?

You are a complete idiot. Go live in mainland China.

buckeroo  posted on  2017-06-04   13:05:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: Pinguinite (#53)

"If the jury chooses to acquit due to nullification, then the jury honestly feels that the man was not deserving of a guilty verdict."

He did violate the law, making him a criminal. Even though the jury voted not guilty for other reasons, they still let a criminal go free to roam among the rest of society.

"If you truly feel that juries should simply rubber stamp popular opinion in a case, then you should probably favor replacing juries with computers."

That's a cheap shot. I never said nor implied that. I believe the jury's decision should be guided by the rule of law.

" As for nullification violating the rule of law. I've repeatedly stated it was a final test of criminal law, and a valid one at that"

Fine. Then, as part of the final test of criminal law, also allow for nullification conviction.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-04   13:13:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: misterwhite (#51)

You are so obsessed with our drug laws that it blinds you to all the negative consequences of what you're proposing. Either that or you simply don't care about the negative consequences as long as your precious recreational drugs are legal.

Apart from the occasional glass of wine, I don't do drugs. I don't smoke anything either. I'm sure a lot of people posting on this site, perhaps including you, are more into drugs than I am.

The people don't want legal recreational drugs so you figure you can do an "end around" by using nullification in the courts, hoping to send a message to lawmakers. What a cowardly approach. If the drug laws are bad, repeal them. Don't pervert and corrupt our justice system for this one issue.

You want to believe my position is all about drugs. It's not. I do believe the USA is overly bureaucratic (clearly it is) to the point where the founding principles of the country have been long since compromised, and I do see nullification as one means of many to make the USA a better place. I do think marijuana should be legal. I am less sure about what the legal status should be for harder drugs.

I do not think that 535 legislators can reasonably represent the will of 300+ million people. I do favor a massive cut back of federal power, with some of that power restored to local government. I do think that the people of the US would be much better off if it was cut into about 6 smaller countries, so people in California don't have to put up with people from the southeast, and vice versa.

And I see nullification as a way of ensuring that laws passed by a tiny number of representatives meets the approval of the average commoners that have to live under such laws. I think of it as a form of veto power that can be held by the people, in whom all authority rightly rests as per the DoI:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Jury nullification is a means of ensuring that the governed do indeed lend consent regarding specific laws. It's a good and proper thing.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-04   13:21:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: misterwhite (#52)

Oh, wait! Are you suggesting that we should have a different set of laws for minorities? Was that what you were leading up to?

You've entered lala land, and it's clear there is little reason to continue further dialog with you on this thread.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-04   13:24:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: Pinguinite (#54)

"You are instead referring to instructions given to juries."

Exactly. In the rare instance where instructions on nullification are given.

"And the answer is because the benefit of a doubt should always go to the defendant"

Well, that's an answer. Just not the right one. Benefit of a doubt has nothing to do with it. The jury knows he's guilty -- they just don't want to find him guilty. So they find some excuse to vote not guilty.

"Juries are never forced to rule one way or the other."

"Forced" in the sense that the judge instructs the jury to vote based on the law. If the defendant goes free because the search warrant was signed in blue ink -- and the law says it must be signed in black ink -- I think the jury should be allowed to ignore that.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-04   13:25:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: misterwhite (#57)

He did violate the law, making him a criminal. Even though the jury voted not guilty for other reasons, they still let a criminal go free to roam among the rest of society.

He's not a criminal if he's found not guilty. Except perhaps in your head.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-04   13:27:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: Pinguinite (#58)

"You want to believe my position is all about drugs. It's not."

Ah! Then what "victimless crimes" were you referring to?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-04   13:28:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: Pinguinite (#61)

"He's not a criminal if he's found not guilty. Except perhaps in your head."

Not guilty is a legal term. It does not mean innocent.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-04   13:30:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: Pinguinite (#58)

"And I see nullification as a way of ensuring that laws passed by a tiny number of representatives meets the approval of the average commoners that have to live under such laws."

Yeah! Like in the 1800's when white juries used nullification to refuse to convict white men of murdering blacks. The good ol' days, right?

Screw the rule of law. We average commoners will convict who WE want to convict.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-04   13:34:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: buckeroo (#56)

You are a complete idiot.

Don't call me an idiot when you're the one who can't comprehend what I'm saying.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-04   13:36:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: misterwhite (#60)

The jury knows he's guilty -- they just don't want to find him guilty. So they find some excuse to vote not guilty.

-----------

It so happened that the man whose horse had been stolen had always made it a point to get the best of any person with whom he had any dealings. He had never tried to do anything good for anyone other than himself. Consequently, the man whose horse had been stolen didn’t have a single friend in the entire town. The case was tried and presented to the jury.

The evidence against the accused man was pretty strong. After about thirty minutes of deliberation, the jury returned to the court chambers.

“What is your verdict?” inquired the judge.

There were a few moments of silence and then the chairman spoke. “We find the defendant not guilty if he will return the horse.”

“I cannot accept that verdict. You will have to retire until you reach another verdict,” said the judge. The jury went back into their room to deliberate toward another verdict.

They re-entered the courtroom. They took their place in the jury box and the courtroom grew silent.

“Gentlemen of the jury,” began the judge, “have you reached a verdict?” The chairman of the jury stood up.

“Yes we have, your honor,” he replied. “What is your verdict?” asked the judge.

“We find the defendant not guilty, and he can keep the horse!”

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-04   13:37:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: misterwhite (#65)

The US Constitution is designed to ensure individual rights unlike the perspective of YOUR AUTHORITARIAN COLLECTIVE RIGHTS BULLSHIT.

buckeroo  posted on  2017-06-04   13:39:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: buckeroo (#67)

The US Constitution is designed to ensure individual rights unlike the perspective of YOUR AUTHORITARIAN COLLECTIVE RIGHTS BULLSHIT.

Thank you. Will that be on the test?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-04   13:48:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: misterwhite (#68)

Yes.

buckeroo  posted on  2017-06-04   13:54:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: misterwhite, Pinguinite (#60) (Edited)

Exactly. In the rare instance where instructions on nullification are given.

About the only such instructions given to jurors by judges is that it is illegitimate to nullify any law, that the duty of the jury is to judge the defendant on the charges and evidence and only on the legal grounds explained by the judge.

I can't say I know of any case where any judge ever explained to a jury that they could nullify the law by exonerating a defendant, even if they were guilty. But there have been many cases where judges tried to intimidate juries or mislead them on this count. It's pretty routine for judges to do this, both state and federal.

Nothing makes judges and prosecutors quite as mad as a jury they suspect of nullification.

Maybe a little review of the origins of jury nullification is in order:

Largely, the earliest juries returned verdicts in accordance with the judge or the Crown. This was achieved either by "packing the jury" or by "writ of attaint". Juries were packed by hand-selecting or by bribing the jury so as to return the desired verdict. This was a common tactic in cases involving treason or sedition. In addition, the writ of attaint allowed a judge to retry the case in front of a second jury when the judge believed the first jury returned a "false verdict". If the second jury returned a different verdict, that verdict was imposed and the first jury was imprisoned or fined.

This history, however, is marked by a number of notable exceptions. In 1554, a jury acquitted Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, but was severely punished by the court. Almost a century later in 1649, in the first known attempt to argue for jury nullification, a jury likewise acquitted John Lilburne for his part in inciting a rebellion against the Cromwell regime. The theoretician and politician Eduard Bernstein wrote of Lilburne's trial:

His contention that the constitution of the Court was contrary to the fundamental laws of the country was unheeded, and his claim that the jury was legally entitled to judge not only as to matters of fact but also as to the application of the law itself, as the Judges represented only 'Norman intruders', whom the jury might here ignore in reaching a verdict, was described by an enraged judge as 'damnable, blasphemous heresy'. This view was not shared by the jury, which, after three days' hearing, acquitted Lilburne — who had defended himself as skilfully as any lawyer could have done — to the great horror of the Judges and the chagrin of the majority of the Council of State. The Judges were so astonished at the verdict of the jury that they had to repeat their question before they would believe their ears, but the public which crowded the judgment hall, on the announcement of the verdict, broke out into cheers so loud and long as, according to the unanimous testimony of contemporary reporters, had never before been heard in the Guildhall. The cheering and waving of caps continued for over half an hour, while the Judges sat, turning white and red in turns, and spread thence to the masses in London and the suburbs. At night bonfires were lighted, and even during the following days the event was the occasion of joyful demonstrations.[19]
In 1653, Lilburne was on trial again and asked the jury to acquit him if it found the death penalty "unconscionably severe" in proportion to the crime he had committed. The jury found Lilburne "Not guilty of any crime worthy of death".[20]

In 1670, a grand jury refused to convict William Penn of unlawful assembly in Bushel's Case. The judge attempted to find the jury in contempt of court; this was ruled inappropriate by the Court of Common Pleas.

In 1681, a grand jury refused to indict the Earl of Shaftesbury. Then in 1688, a jury acquitted the Seven Bishops of the Church of England of seditious libel. Juries continued, even in non-criminal cases, to act in defiance of the Crown. In 1763 and 1765, juries awarded £4,000 and £300 to John Wilkes and John Entick respectively, in separate suits for trespass against the Crown's messengers. In both cases, messengers were sent by Lord Halifax to seize allegedly libelous papers.

There were other key cases in which juries were terribly mistreated by officials, suffering years of imprisonment, etc. So it was a Big Thing at the time and our laws and history still reflect that today.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-06-04   16:08:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: misterwhite (#13)

I'll ask again. Once the jury knows ALL their options, how do you think they'll vote?

Once the jury knows all their facts, they will vote with their conscience.

But of course that depends on how the prosecution wants to relay those facts to the jury.

If the jury does not have all the facts, because a corrupt prosecution team has opted to withhold pertinent information, then the jury has no options. It becomes a mistrial and possible collusion as well as misapplication of the law.

The only option that is left is for this entire mess to be reviewed under standard review by the appellate courts.

goldilucky  posted on  2017-06-04   19:55:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: Tooconservative (#29) (Edited)

It would seem to allow for nullified outcomes by jurors, just no bribing or conspiring of jurors as a "rigged jury". So now I'm no longer sure what the exact legal definition of a rigged jury is.

Watch this movie. It's an excellent example of how the jury is manipulated by the prosecution and the lawyers involved. It's one of my favorites and explains how the real world works in our courtrooms. And from personal experience I have known of court clerks colluding with opposing counsel teams to have perfectly legitimate cases thrown out by tampering with witnesses and evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_Jury

goldilucky  posted on  2017-06-04   20:10:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: goldilucky (#72)

Eh, it's a movie made from a Grisham novel about a widow suing over her husband dying from smoking. So they made it into an anti-gun movie instead.

Usually I prefer documentaries or historical films to novels or based-on-a-real-story type movies.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-06-04   20:25:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: Tooconservative (#73) (Edited)

Eh, it's a movie made from a Grisham novel about a widow suing over her husband dying from smoking. So they made it into an anti-gun movie instead.

No it's a movie that reveals tactics that lawyers and prosecution teams apply to obfuscate of matters in law. Jury nullification has become too broadened in applying court procedure that it should be a chapter all in its own on how to deceive and deprive the jury of facts and other tricks used to keep the jury in check all the while the prosecution is playing them all for suckers.

Usually I prefer documentaries or historical films to novels or based-on-a-real-story type movies.

Then I suggest a reader for you to get keen insight on how courts, judges and lawyers prepare you for the trial process to grooming your client. It's entitled, The First Trial by Steven H. Goldberg

goldilucky  posted on  2017-06-04   20:39:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: misterwhite (#44)

Thank you. This is how I know I've won the argument.

That is why you were mentally incapable of responding to even one post.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-04   23:11:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#76. To: Pinguinite (#5)

Judges have the power to vacate jury convictions, but not jury acquittals. Correct me if I'm wrong.

They have the power to vacate both convictions and acquittals and enter a judgment NOV (non obstante veridictum - notwithstanding the verdict).

The problem is that if they do that to override an acquittal, they are very likely (though not absolutely certain) to be overridden on appeal, so they generally don't do it.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-06-04   23:18:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: Vicomte13 (#76)

They have the power to vacate both convictions and acquittals

They do not have the power to over rule acquittals. That is ridiculous. That would be double jeopardy.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-04   23:23:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: goldilucky, Tooconservative, *Bang List* (#74) (Edited)

it's a movie that reveals tactics that lawyers and prosecution teams apply to obfuscate of matters in law. Jury nullification has become too broadened in applying court procedure that it should be a chapter all in its own on how to deceive and deprive the jury of facts and other tricks used to keep the jury in check all the while the prosecution is playing them all for suckers.

Yeah, but I still hate the movie for it's libtard gun grabber theme, and the dopey notion that it's the manufactures fault if you get harmed by their product.

Sue the spoon manufacturer for making Michael Moore a fat slob! /s

www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XO2b-45Wnw


The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party

"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul

Hondo68  posted on  2017-06-04   23:27:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#79. To: A K A Stone (#77)

They do not have the power to over rule acquittals. That is ridiculous. That would be double jeopardy.

You're right. This is a civil trial option only. In civil trials judges can overrule a jury finding for the defendant.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-06-04   23:29:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: Vicomte13 (#79)

But in civil trials there are no convictions or acquittals, only findings for plaintiff or defendant.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-05   0:36:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#81. To: Tooconservative (#70)

Yes it was William Penn not William Tell. I think Tell had a different kind of legal problem related to his marksmanship.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-05   0:41:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#82. To: Tooconservative (#29)

I suppose a nullified jury is not the same as a rigged jury, although I don't really see the difference in the outcome for an individual defendant.

They are not the same. In one case the jury has been corrupted, typically by a bribe of some sort. Said juror agrees to render a not guilty verdict regardless of the evidence and the law. The juror in question commits a criminal offense.

A juror practicing jury nullification takes the law from the judge, carefully applies it to the facts, determines the proper verdict, and further determines that rendering a verdict of guilty would result in an injustice. He votes his conscience. No crime is committed.

This does not affirm a right. Should the juror state his intent to vote based on nullification, a judge can properly remove him from the jury at ant point before the verdict is rendered, including during deliberations. His conscience prevents him from carrying out the oath he took, but he is not prosecuted criminally.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-05   1:10:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#83. To: misterwhite (#42)

You don't know that. Jurors are not required to fill out a questionairre describing the reasons the voted the way they did.

As nolu chan pointed out, "... juries will acquit defendants who appear sympathetic, who are charged with violating an unpopular law, who the jurors speculate would otherwise be sentenced too severely, or who haven’t been proven guilty under standards for proof the jurors believe are required despite the judge’s instruction otherwise."

Jurors will do what jurors do, including when they feel a defendant is guilty according to the letter of the law, but that a verdict of guilty would result in an injustice that they are unable to reconcile with their personal conscience.

The judicial result is that shit happens.

Was OJ acquitted because the law against murder was unfair?

OJ was acquitted because the prosecutiion failed miserably to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that OJ committed the crime. Much prosecution evidence, and many witnesses, were destroyed on the stand.

What happened in the courtroom, and what was reported on the evening news and talk shows, frequently differed greatly.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-05   1:27:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#84. To: Vicomte13, Pinguinite, A K A Stone (#76)

They [nc- Judges] have the power to vacate both convictions and acquittals and enter a judgment NOV (non obstante veridictum - notwithstanding the verdict).

The Count has a point, albeit presented incompletely. A judge may render a Judgment as a Matter of Law [JMOL], a/k/a/ Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, or judgment non obstante veredicto, or JNOV, in a civil case.

A judge has the power to set aside a guilty verdict by a jury in a criminal court. The judge's decision to set aside a guilty verdict is appealable. This is in Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

For criminal proceedings, see Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

He has no authority to set aside a jury verdict of acquittal in a criminal court which would federally be known as judgment of acquittal.

Rule 29. Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal

(a) Before Submission to the Jury. After the government closes its evidence or after the close of all the evidence, the court on the defendant's motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. The court may on its own consider whether the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. If the court denies a motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the government's evidence, the defendant may offer evidence without having reserved the right to do so.

(b) Reserving Decision. The court may reserve decision on the motion, proceed with the trial (where the motion is made before the close of all the evidence), submit the case to the jury, and decide the motion either before the jury returns a verdict or after it returns a verdict of guilty or is discharged without having returned a verdict. If the court reserves decision, it must decide the motion on the basis of the evidence at the time the ruling was reserved.

(c) After Jury Verdict or Discharge.

(1) Time for a Motion. A defendant may move for a judgment of acquittal, or renew such a motion, within 14 days after a guilty verdict or after the court discharges the jury, whichever is later.

(2) Ruling on the Motion. If the jury has returned a guilty verdict, the court may set aside the verdict and enter an acquittal. If the jury has failed to return a verdict, the court may enter a judgment of acquittal.

(3) No Prior Motion Required. A defendant is not required to move for a judgment of acquittal before the court submits the case to the jury as a prerequisite for making such a motion after jury discharge.

(d) Conditional Ruling on a Motion for a New Trial.

(1) Motion for a New Trial. If the court enters a judgment of acquittal after a guilty verdict, the court must also conditionally determine whether any motion for a new trial should be granted if the judgment of acquittal is later vacated or reversed. The court must specify the reasons for that determination.

(2) Finality. The court's order conditionally granting a motion for a new trial does not affect the finality of the judgment of acquittal.

(3) Appeal.

(A) Grant of a Motion for a New Trial. If the court conditionally grants a motion for a new trial and an appellate court later reverses the judgment of acquittal, the trial court must proceed with the new trial unless the appellate court orders otherwise.

(B) Denial of a Motion for a New Trial. If the court conditionally denies a motion for a new trial, an appellee may assert that the denial was erroneous. If the appellate court later reverses the judgment of acquittal, the trial court must proceed as the appellate court directs.

Notes

(As amended Feb. 28, 1966, eff. July 1, 1966; Pub. L. 99–646, §54(a), Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3607; Apr. 29, 1994, eff. Dec. 1, 1994; Apr. 29, 2002, eff. Dec. 1, 2002; Apr. 25, 2005, eff. Dec. 1, 2005; Mar. 26, 2009, eff. Dec. 1, 2009.)

JMOL, Judgment as a Matter of Law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_notwithstanding_verdict

Judgment notwithstanding the verdict, also called judgment non obstante veredicto, or JNOV, is a type of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) that is sometimes rendered at the conclusion of a jury trial. In U.S. federal civil court cases, the term has been replaced by the renewed judgment as a matter of law, which emphasizes its relationship to the judgment as a matter of law (formerly called a directed verdict).[1] In U.S. federal criminal cases, the term is "judgment of acquittal".[2]

JNOV is the practice in American courts whereby the presiding judge in a civil jury trial may overrule the decision of a jury and reverse or amend their verdict. In literal terms, the judge enters a verdict notwithstanding the jury findings. This intervention, often requested[citation needed] but rarely granted, permits the judge to exercise discretion to avoid extreme and unreasonable jury decisions.[3]

A judge is not allowed to enter a JNOV of "guilty" following a jury acquittal in United States criminal cases; such an action would violate a defendant's Fifth Amendment right not to be placed in double jeopardy and Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury. If the judge grants a motion to set aside judgment after the jury convicts, however, this action may be reversed on appeal by the prosecution.

A JNOV is appropriate only if the judge determines that no reasonable jury could have reached the given verdict. For example, if a party enters no evidence on an essential element of their case, and the jury still finds in their favor, the court may rule that no reasonable jury would have disregarded the lack of evidence on that key point and reform the judgment.

Reversal of a jury's verdict by a judge occurs when the judge believes that there were insufficient facts on which to base the jury's verdict, or that the verdict did not correctly apply the law. This procedure is similar to a situation in which a judge orders a jury to arrive at a particular verdict, called a directed verdict. A judgment notwithstanding the verdict is occasionally made when a jury refuses to follow a judge's instruction to arrive at a certain verdict.[4]

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-05   2:48:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#85. To: Tooconservative, Pinguinite, misterwhite (#7)

Of possible interest:

This is a very rare case where a defendant was acquitted in criminal case and later reindicted and convicted for the same crime. It was a bench trial wherein the Chicago gangster bribed the Chicago judge.

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/138/302/473725/

Aleman v Judges of the Circuit Court of Cook County, 138 F3d 302 (7th Cir 1998)

Harry Aleman, Petitioner-appellant, v. the Honorable Judges of the Circuit Court of Cook County,criminal Division, Illinois, Honorable Michael P. Toomin,judge Presiding, Honorable Richard Devine, State's Attorneyof Cook County, Illinois, Ernesto Velasco, Executivedirector, Cook County Department of Corrections,respondents-appellees, 138 F.3d 302 (7th Cir. 1998)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit - 138 F.3d 302 (7th Cir. 1998) Argued Dec. 2, 1997. Decided March 6, 1998

Allan A. Ackerman, Chicago, IL, David I. Bruck (argued), Columbia, SC, for Harry Aleman.

Rita M. Novak, Office of the Attorney General, Chicago, IL, James E. Fitzgerald, John Blakey, Cook County State's Attorney, Chicago, IL, Renee G. Goldfarb (argued), Office of the State's Attorney of Cook County, Criminal Appeals Divison, Chicago, IL, for Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Criminal Division, Michael P. Toomin, Judge, and Ernesto Velasco.

James E. Fitzgerald, John Blakey, Cook County State's Attorney, Chicago, IL, Renee G. Goldfarb (argued), Office of the State's Attorney of Cook County, Criminal Appeals Division, Chicago, IL, for Richard A. Devine.

Before WOOD, Jr., COFFEY, and FLAUM, Circuit Judges.

FLAUM, Circuit Judge.

Harry Aleman successfully bribed a Cook County Circuit Judge to acquit him of a murder charge in a 1977 bench trial. A grand jury returned a second indictment against Aleman on this murder charge in 1993 after evidence of the bribery surfaced. In addition, Aleman was indicted for the first time on a different murder charge. Aleman moved to dismiss both indictments, but the Illinois state courts rejected his arguments. In a lastditch effort to avoid (re)trial, Aleman requested a stay of state court proceedings while a federal district court considered his challenge to the indictments in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The case proceeded to trial after the district court denied this petition and motion to stay, and a Cook County jury convicted him of the Logan murder;1 the trial judge thereafter sentenced Aleman to 100-300 years in prison. Aleman appeals the district court's denial of the petition. His conviction will stand, though, because we affirm the district court's denial of Aleman's petition.

While walking to work on the morning of September 27, 1972, William Logan was shot and killed by Harry Aleman. Three years later, in October 1975, Aleman also shot and killed Anthony Reitinger, allegedly because Reitinger neglected to pay a "street tax"2 on his bookmaking operation to local organized crime figures. A grand jury indicted Aleman for the Logan murder in December 1976, but he was not charged at this time with the Reitinger murder. After numerous substitutions of counsel and judges, the Logan case proceeded to a bench trial before Cook County Circuit Court Judge Frank Wilson, who acquitted Aleman of the Logan murder in May 1977.

Nearly twenty years after the trial, however, two witnesses from the Federal Witness Protection Program were made available to testify that Aleman had murdered both Logan and Reitinger and that he had purchased the Logan acquittal with a $10,000 bribe to Judge Wilson. The first witness, Vincent Rizza, was a former Chicago police officer who ran an illegal bookmaking operation in order to supplement his government salary. Rizza paid a street tax to the local mafia and agreed to report bookmakers who were not making such payments to Aleman; one of the independent bookmakers whom Rizza offered up to Aleman was Anthony Reitinger. This evidence would provide a crucial link between Aleman and Reitinger's unsolved murder.

Rizza also supplied corroboration of Aleman's bribe of Judge Wilson in the Logan murder trial. In the early winter of 1977, after Aleman's indictment but before the trial, Aleman told Rizza that the trial was "all taken care of". Aleman said that he requested a bench trial "because the case was all taken care of" and that this way he was not going to jail. Later, when newspaper accounts began to paint a bleak picture of Aleman's chances of gaining an acquittal, he again told Rizza calmly that the case was "taken care of".

The second federal government informant was Robert Cooley, a former lawyer steeped in corruption who admitted that he frequently bribed judges, prosecutors, clerks, and sheriffs before entering the Federal Witness Protection Program.3 Cooley was a close friend of Judge Wilson and, at the request of some local organized crime figures, pitched the idea of a "fix" to Wilson. Cooley told Wilson that the case against Aleman was weak, that it could be handled very easily, and that an acquittal would be worth $10,000. Wilson agreed to fix the case if Aleman's counsel, Thomas Maloney, a good friend of Wilson's, would withdraw from the case in order to reduce the appearance of impropriety.4 Cooley thereupon paid Wilson $2,500, and the two men agreed that Wilson would receive the remaining $7,500 after the acquittal. Unbeknownst to Wilson, Cooley had also arranged a $10,000 payment to secure the favorable testimony of an eyewitness to the murder. Cooley then met with Aleman and assured him that an acquittal was guaranteed.

The evidence against Aleman, however, was not as flimsy as Cooley had indicated to Judge Wilson. After the second day of trial, Cooley met with Wilson, who was upset at Cooley's misrepresentations and at the prosecutor's allegations that a witness had received $10,000 in exchange for offering false testimony. Amazingly, the issue for Wilson was not whether he would still acquit Aleman, but for how much. Wilson expressed annoyance that a witness was getting the same amount of money as a "full circuit judge"; he said to Cooley that he would "receive all kinds of heat" for the acquittal and requested more bribe money: " [T]hat's all I get is ten thousand dollars? I think I deserve more."

Throughout these meetings, the acquittal itself was never in question. Judge Wilson fulfilled his end of the bargain on May 24, 1977, when he acquitted Aleman in a brisk oral ruling and quickly exited the courtroom. Cooley's contacts in organized crime gave him a $3,000 "commission" for his work and an envelope containing $7,500 for Judge Wilson. Cooley and Wilson dined together at a restaurant soon after the trial, and, in the men's room, Cooley slipped Wilson the promised $7,500 envelope. Wilson expressed concern because the press was "all over" him about the seemingly inexplicable acquittal; he complained to Cooley: "That's all I'm going to get? I don't get any more than that?" Wilson then left the restaurant in frustration.

In addition to this extraordinary informant testimony, other evidence confirmed the bribery. An F.B.I. agent interviewed Judge Wilson at his retirement home in Arizona in November 1989. The agent informed Wilson that Cooley had become a government informant, that Cooley had secretly taped a recent conversation with Wilson in which the two men discussed the $10,000 Aleman bribe, and that the Government was currently investigating allegations that Wilson accepted a bribe to acquit Aleman. Wilson denied the accusations, but he failed to appear in Chicago for a grand jury subpoena concerning the matter on December 6, 1989. A few months later, Judge Wilson walked into the backyard of his home and shot himself to death.

Finally, Monte Katz, a friend of Aleman's in federal prison,5 claimed that Aleman admitted that he murdered William Logan. Katz and Aleman became friends in prison, and, apparently, Aleman often discussed his criminal exploits. Specifically, Aleman told Katz that he "fixed" the Logan trial by paying money to "reach" the judge. Aleman stated that he was not worried about being tried again for the murder because it "was a double jeopardy situation."

The Circuit Court noted that the circumstantial evidence of a bribe was also significant. The record revealed "the rather curious spectacle" of Aleman, who originally deemed Judge Wilson to be a prejudiced judge, within the passage of ten weeks, withdrawing his objection and allowing the case to be assigned to Wilson. In addition, Aleman was released from state custody on bond despite facing the state's most serious criminal charge, and the case proceeded to trial in less than five months from the date of his arraignment. The Circuit Court also took pause from the fact that Aleman's attorney, Frank Whalen, set the case for trial within six weeks of filing his appearance and requested no interim continuances to conduct the "adequate preparation one might reasonably anticipate in a case of this magnitude."

Based on this body of evidence, in December 1993, the Cook County State's Attorney again charged Aleman for the Logan murder and for the first time charged Aleman with the murder of Reitinger. A grand jury returned indictments on both counts. Aleman claimed to the Circuit Court, as he claims to us on appeal, that the Logan indictment violated the Double Jeopardy Clause and that the prejudicial pre-indictment delay on both charges violated his due process rights. After an evidentiary hearing concerning the alleged bribe, the Circuit Court rejected the double jeopardy argument based on the overwhelming factual evidence that Aleman's first trial was a sham. The Court emphasized its certainty that Aleman had bribed Judge Wilson:

Although the court earlier observed that the State's burden was to establish the bribery by a preponderance of the evidence, the court also concurs in the State's appraisal that the evidence presented also meets the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Were this a prosecution for the substantive offense of bribery, the court would have little difficulty in concluding that the People had presented a credible and coherent case against the defendant. The evidence clearly establishes the tendering of money to a public officer to influence him in the performance of his duties.

(Citations omitted). Based on this factual finding, the Circuit Court held that there was no double jeopardy bar to reprosecuting Aleman for the Logan murder because there was never any jeopardy at the first trial. Furthermore, because crucial witnesses were not available at an earlier time, the court denied Aleman's claims of unconstitutional preindictment delay. These rulings were upheld on appeal. See People v. Aleman, 281 Ill.App.3d 991, 217 Ill.Dec. 526, 667 N.E.2d 615 (Ill.App.), review denied, 168 Ill. 2d 600, 219 Ill.Dec. 567, 671 N.E.2d 734 (1996), and cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S. Ct. 986, 136 L. Ed. 2d 868 (1997). The district court below also rejected these contentions in Aleman's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. United States ex rel. Aleman v. Circuit Court of Cook County, 967 F. Supp. 1022 (N.D. Ill. 1997).

Aleman raises three claims on appeal. First, he takes issue with the Circuit Court's factual findings that he bribed Judge Wilson in the Logan trial. Second, he challenges the effect of those factual findings upon his double jeopardy claim. See Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 89 S. Ct. 2056, 23 L. Ed. 2d 707 (1969) (holding that the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause apply to the states). Finally, he urges us to recognize that the pre-indictment delays of twenty-one and eighteen years in the Logan and Reitinger murders, respectively, violated his due process rights. Our collateral review, however, is quite limited. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (1), we can only grant Aleman's petition if one of the Circuit Court's legal rulings was either "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States." Aleman's factual challenge can succeed only if he can show by "clear and convincing evidence" that the Circuit Court's findings are erroneous. See id. § 2254(d) (2). He meets neither of these stringent standards.

Aleman's challenge to the Circuit Court's factual findings can be dismissed in short order. He rightly points out that the common law has always presumed the neutrality of judges. See, e.g., 3 W. BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES (" [T]he law will not suppose a possibility of bias or favour in a judge, who is already sworn to administer impartial justice, and whose authority greatly depends upon that presumption and idea."); see also Del Vecchio v. Illinois Dep't of Corrections, 31 F.3d 1363, 1372-73 (7th Cir. 1994) (applying the common-law presumption), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1037, 115 S. Ct. 1404, 131 L. Ed. 2d 290 (1995). Aleman seems to think that reciting this principle alone can somehow overcome the great weight of evidence showing that he bribed Judge Wilson. However, we have always recognized that the presumption of a judge's neutrality is a rebuttable one. See Del Vecchio, 31 F.3d at 1373; see also Bracy v. Gramley, --- U.S. ----, ----, 117 S. Ct. 1793, 1799, 138 L. Ed. 2d 97 (1997). As in Bracy, the Circuit Court found that the ordinary presumption had been soundly rebutted in this case.

Beyond the presumption argument, Aleman argues that the State's witnesses were unreliable based solely on the length of time between the relevant events and the Circuit Court's evidentiary hearing. He relies on dicta from our decision in Bracy v. Gramley, 81 F.3d 684, 693 (7th Cir. 1996), in which we commented that the petitioner did not show "good cause" for discovery because, in part, there would be a "pall of doubt" over the reliability of any exculpatory witnesses' testimony based on a fourteen-year interval between the events and an evidentiary hearing. Id. The Supreme Court, however, implicitly expressed its disapproval of this statement when overruling the case. See --- U.S. ----, 117 S. Ct. 1793, 138 L. Ed. 2d 97 (1997). Aleman nevertheless tries to spin gold from this frayed strand. He notes that most of the key players in this story are deceased and, of those that are still living, the events occurred so long ago that their testimony is inherently unreliable.

Aleman's position on this point is flawed on many levels. First, the Supreme Court disagreed with our view of Bracy's ability to show good cause based on such testimony. Second, dicta from our Bracy opinion would not have established any sort of general rule that testimony concerning events from over fourteen years ago was presumptively unreliable. Such a rule would have called into question the constitutionality of countless statutes of limitations. Third, and most importantly, any alleged presumption of unreliability would have been rebutted in this case by the Circuit Court's evaluation of the testimony. The Court heard the evidence and concluded that it was reliable "beyond a reasonable doubt". Aleman did not attempt to rebut the State's strong evidence with anything but vacuous and inapposite presumptions. This is a far cry from the "clear and convincing evidence" of factual error that we require before invalidating Circuit Court findings of fact.

Aleman's legal challenge presents a unique and interesting question, but it ultimately fares no better than his factual one. The Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause guarantees that no one shall "be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." Aleman argues that the Double Jeopardy Clause unambiguously bars his reindictment on the Logan murder charge because he faced trial on that murder charge in 1977 and was acquitted by Judge Wilson. In support of his position, he points to a long line of Supreme Court cases reiterating that an acquittal on a charge absolutely bars retrial on that charge. See, e.g., Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 503, 98 S. Ct. 824, 829, 54 L. Ed. 2d 717 (1978) ("The constitutional protection against double jeopardy unequivocally prohibits a second trial following an acquittal.... If the innocence of the accused has been confirmed by a final judgment, the Constitution conclusively presumes that a second trial would be unfair."); Ball v. United States, 163 U.S. 662, 671, 16 S. Ct. 1192, 1195, 41 L. Ed. 300 (1896) ("[I]n this country a verdict of acquittal ... is a bar to a subsequent prosecution for the same offense."). Aleman argues that it is irrelevant how he obtained his acquittal and that there is no room for courts to question those circumstances and lift the double jeopardy bar to reprosecution. See, e.g., Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 11 n. 6, 98 S. Ct. 2141, 2147 n. 6, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1978) ("[W]here the Double Jeopardy Clause is applicable, its sweep is absolute. There are no 'equities' to be balanced, for the Clause has declared a constitutional policy, based on grounds which are not open to judicial examination."); Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.S. 141, 143, 82 S. Ct. 671, 672, 7 L. Ed. 2d 629 (1962) (stating that an acquittal triggers the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause even if "the acquittal was based upon an egregiously erroneous foundation"). Aleman contends that the Circuit Court's decision is contrary to, or an unreasonable application, of this body of the Supreme Court's interpretations of federal law.

The legal conclusion urged by Aleman might not be an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent,6 but the highly deferential standard of collateral review leads us to hold that the contrary interpretation--the one adopted by the Illinois courts in this case--is also not unreasonable. The Illinois courts viewed the authority cited by Aleman as begging the question; the Double Jeopardy Clause may well be absolute when it applies, see Burks, 437 U.S. at 11 n. 6, 98 S. Ct. at 2147 n. 6, but determining if it applies is the real issue in this case. Similarly, the State argues that the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause only extend to a defendant who was once before in jeopardy of conviction on a particular criminal charge; the State contends that, by bribing Judge Wilson, Aleman created a situation in which he was never in jeopardy at his first trial. The first trial, therefore, was a sham and the acquittal there rendered has no effect for double jeopardy purposes. Under this theory, the State was free to re-indict him because he has never been in jeopardy of conviction on the Logan murder charge.

The Circuit Court concluded that Aleman's first trial was a nullity because he was never truly at risk of conviction. The Supreme Court has emphasized that " [j]eopardy denotes risk. In the constitutional sense, jeopardy describes the risk that is traditionally associated with criminal prosecution." Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519, 528, 95 S. Ct. 1779, 1785, 44 L. Ed. 2d 346 (1975); see also United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564, 569, 97 S. Ct. 1349, 1353-54, 51 L. Ed. 2d 642 (1977) ("The protections afforded by the [Double Jeopardy] Clause are implicated only when the accused has actually been placed in jeopardy.") (emphasis added); Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377, 391-92, 95 S. Ct. 1055, 1064-65, 43 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1975) ("Without risk of a determination of guilt, jeopardy does not attach, and neither an appeal nor further prosecution constitutes double jeopardy.... In particular, it has no significance in this context unless jeopardy has once attached and an accused has been subjected to the risk of conviction."); Price v. Georgia, 398 U.S. 323, 331, 90 S. Ct. 1757, 1762, 26 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1970) ("The Double Jeopardy Clause, as we have noted, is cast in terms of the risk or hazard of trial and conviction, not of the ultimate legal consequences of the verdict."). Indeed, the Court has stated that preventing the hazards associated with risking conviction is the raison d'etre of the Double Jeopardy Clause: The underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty.

Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 187-88, 78 S. Ct. 221, 223-24, 2 L. Ed. 2d 199 (1957).

Aleman had to endure none of these risks because he "fixed" his case; the Circuit Court found that Aleman was so sanguine about the certainty of his acquittal that he went so far as to tell Vincent Rizza before the trial that jail was "not an option". Aleman may be correct that some risk of conviction still existed after Judge Wilson agreed to fix the case, but it cannot be said that the risk was the sort "traditionally associated" with an impartial criminal justice system.7 See Breed, 421 U.S. at 528, 95 S. Ct. at 1785. It seems only appropriate that a defendant should not be allowed to escape punishment for murder because he bribed the judge. To allow Aleman to profit from his bribery and escape all punishment for the Logan murder would be a perversion of justice, as well as establish an unseemly and dangerous incentive for criminal defendants. The Illinois courts' holdings, therefore, were not contrary to, or unreasonable applications of, federal law as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

For these reasons, we affirm the district court's rejection of the double jeopardy claims contained in Aleman's petition.

[snip]

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-05   2:58:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#86. To: Deckard (#0)

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.

More shitposting by Deckard.

He was doing his deed in front of the courthouse. It matters not that he moved as far as the sidewalk in front of the courthouse. His intent to reach jurors was manifest by this and prior behavior.

http://fox17online.com/2017/06/01/jury-finds-man-guilty-of-jury-tampering-by-passing-out-juror-rights-pamphlets/

BIG RAPIDS, Mich. — A jury of six found Keith Wood guilty within 30 minutes Thursday, convicting him of attempting to influence a jury in Mecosta County.

He was convicted of ATTEMPTING TO INFLUENCE A JURY.

http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2015/title-18/part-i/chapter-73/sec.-1504/

2015 US Code
Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure (Sections 1 - 6005)
Part I - Crimes (Sections 1 - 2725)
Chapter 73 - Obstruction of Justice (Sections 1501 - 1521)
Sec. 1504 - Influencing juror by writing

18 U.S.C. § 1504 (2015)

§1504. Influencing juror by writing

Whoever attempts to influence the action or decision of any grand or petit juror of any court of the United States upon any issue or matter pending before such juror, or before the jury of which he is a member, or pertaining to his duties, by writing or sending to him any written communication, in relation to such issue or matter, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the communication of a request to appear before the grand jury.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 770; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(4h1vst4md522er2w1vdprirf))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-750-120a

Section 750.120a

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)

Act 328 of 1931

750.120a Willfully attempting to influence juror by intimidation or other improper means; retaliating against person for having performed duties as juror; penalties.

Sec. 120a.

(1) A person who willfully attempts to influence the decision of a juror in any case by argument or persuasion, other than as part of the proceedings in open court in the trial of the case, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or both.

(2) A person who willfully attempts to influence the decision of a juror in any case by intimidation, other than as part of the proceedings in open court in the trial of the case, is guilty of a crime as follows:

(a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both.

(b) If the intimidation is committed in a criminal case for which the maximum term of imprisonment for the violation is more than 10 years, or the violation is punishable by imprisonment for life or any term of years, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than $20,000.00, or both.

(c) If the intimidation involved committing or attempting to commit a crime or a threat to kill or injure any person or to cause property damage, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15 years or a fine of not more than $25,000.00, or both.

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not prohibit any deliberating juror from attempting to influence other members of the same jury by any proper means.

(4) A person who retaliates, attempts to retaliate, or threatens to retaliate against another person for having performed his or her duties as a juror is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than $20,000.00, or both. As used in this subsection, “retaliate” means any of the following:

(a) Committing or attempting to commit a crime against any person.

(b) Threatening to kill or injure any person or threatening to cause property damage.

(5) This section does not prohibit a person from being charged with, convicted of, or punished for any other violation of law including any violation of law arising out of the same transaction as the violation of this section.

(6) The court may order a term of imprisonment imposed for violating subsection (2) or (4) to be served consecutively to a term of imprisonment imposed for any other violation of law including any violation of law arising out of the same transaction as the violation of this section.

History: Add. 1955, Act 88, Eff. Oct. 14, 1955 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 450, Eff. Mar. 28, 2001 ;-- Am. 2003, Act 280, Imd. Eff. Jan. 8, 2004

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-05   3:58:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#87. To: nolu chan (#86)

It matters not that he moved as far as the sidewalk in front of the courthouse.

Piss off spam-bot. It was a PUBLIC SIDEWALK.

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

Deckard  posted on  2017-06-05   5:31:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#88. To: nolu chan (#86)

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.

All of his article headlines are like that -- the resident was merely "standing on the sidewalk", or "sitting in his car", or "walking down the street".

Yeah. Right.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-05   8:28:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#89. To: nolu chan (#83)

"OJ was acquitted because the prosecutiion failed miserably to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that OJ committed the crime."

And all along I thought it was because nine African-American jurors in an LA courtroom refused to convict a famous and and admired black man.

I believed Marcia Clark when she said she convicted murderers with a fraction of the evidence in this case. The OJ trial was the poster child for jury nullification.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-05   8:40:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#90. To: nolu chan (#82)

This does not affirm a right. Should the juror state his intent to vote based on nullification, a judge can properly remove him from the jury at ant point before the verdict is rendered, including during deliberations. His conscience prevents him from carrying out the oath he took, but he is not prosecuted criminally.

True enough. And good reason why any fully-informed juror should never confirm that was how he voted.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-06-05   11:12:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#91. To: nolu chan (#86)

BIG RAPIDS, Mich. — A jury of six found Keith Wood guilty within 30 minutes Thursday, convicting him of attempting to influence a jury in Mecosta County.

He was convicted of ATTEMPTING TO INFLUENCE A JURY.

He was, of his own admission, attempting to influence (educate) jurors with regard to a specific trial that was occurring, potentially both jurors and substitute jurors.

Had he merely been handing out brochures without a specific demonstrable (or confessed) intent to influence a particular jury trial, he would have been fine. If, for instance, he made a habit of handing out pamphlets constantly adjacent to the courthouse (but not on its sidewalk), it would be far harder to prosecute him. But he was trying to influence a specific jury and confessed to it as well as having considerable circumstantial evidence that that was his entire intent.

So, yes, this could be considered tampering but it is a narrow ruling on the law. People can still hand out FIJA literature, just not to try to influence specific juries to produce a particular trial outcome.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-06-05   11:24:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#92. To: nolu chan (#86)

§1504. Influencing juror by writing

nolu chan, while you present a federal statute that would be most applicable to a set of jurors to remind them of what their official duties are, it is also the courts obligation to inform those same jurors of their rights. Jurors do have rights. They have a right to question the judge and even the prosecution when there is not sufficient evidence for them to make their votes. If this statute is to apply to jurors then it shall also equally apply to the prosecution team because as you noted in the OJ Simpson acquittal case, we all know how corrupt our courts can be.

Jurors are expected to abide by those laws as the prosecution and lawyers (including judges). Jurors are also a special people in that they are not officers of the courts but are serving in the capacity of those courts in doing official court business.

goldilucky  posted on  2017-06-05   13:31:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#93. To: Deckard (#87)

Piss off spam-bot. It was a PUBLIC SIDEWALK.

He broke the law on a PUBLIC SIDEWALK. That does not change the sentence and it only took 30 minutes for a jury to render a unanimous verdict of guilty.

He moved to the sidewalk this time, thinking it made a difference. His clear intent was to hand out his information in that location because he believed he would reach his target of passing jurors or persons called to jury duty.

The intent to violate the law, and the actual violation, are present in that location. He could always try standing on a soapbox at Speaker's Corner, not near the entrance of a courthouse.

Following your imaginary law earns some poor guy a conviction.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-06   17:21:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#94. To: misterwhite (#89)

The OJ trial was the poster child for jury nullification.

Curiously, I never get this from people who actually watched the court testimony. The prosecution was a mess.

The evidence was not presented to sustain a conviction. They were so unprepared to go to trial, they diddled about a a few months before presenting evidence that somebody had died.

They screwed up the handling of the blood evidence. For the most part, the state case was dead after Barry Scheck got done destroying the LAPD witnesses.

The jury took four hours to reach a unanimous verdict of acquittal.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-06   17:33:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#95. To: Tooconservative (#91)

Had he merely been handing out brochures without a specific demonstrable (or confessed) intent to influence a particular jury trial, he would have been fine.

As long as his intended target was actual jurors, or persons called for jury duty, he had a problem. His was a failed effort to circumvent the law.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-06   17:37:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#96. To: goldilucky (#92)

it is also the courts obligation to inform those same jurors of their rights. Jurors do have rights. They have a right to question the judge and even the prosecution when there is not sufficient evidence for them to make their votes.

I wish you the best of luck in arguing your jury nullification to a judge.

It is for the Court to determine the applicable law. The Court instructs the jury on the applicable law. The jury determines the facts, based on the evidence presented.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-06   17:47:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#97. To: nolu chan (#94)

The evidence was not presented to sustain a conviction.

They had 10X more than they needed.

"For the most part, the state case was dead after Barry Scheck got done destroying the LAPD witnesses."

Pffft! All he did was intentionally confuse the jury. He didn't present anything to cause reasonable doubt.

"The jury took four hours to reach a unanimous verdict of acquittal."

That's the time it took to convince the three non-black jurors.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-06   19:49:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#98. To: nolu chan (#95)

As long as his intended target was actual jurors, or persons called for jury duty, he had a problem. His was a failed effort to circumvent the law.

That's true.

But can a prosecutor be so certain that he can find a jury who won't nullify a conviction of a FIJA activist?

I'm not sure how often it comes up but the prosecutors have to consider this in deciding to bring a case.

This guy trying to help the Amish with their whole milk customers did target the jurors of that trial and admitted it. And that is probably the only reason they got a conviction on him.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-06-06   22:39:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#99. To: nolu chan (#96)

I wish you the best of luck in arguing your jury nullification to a judge.

It is for the Court to determine the applicable law. The Court instructs the jury on the applicable law. The jury determines the facts, based on the evidence presented.

Here are the fact. Marbury vs Madison was usurpation. The courts were NEVER given the power they have under the constitution.

It is also a fact that the first chief justice of the supreme court. A founding father. Said jurors have a right to judge the law.

It is also a fact that you can ignore the judges instructions and render any verdict you want to.

When the judge tells you to ignore that evidence. You can also ignore that and nothing the black robe can do about it.

We have a corrupt judiciary exercising power they were never given by the constitution.

That is why you cannot cite from the constitution the supreme courts authority.

You can only cite the authority they gave themselves. That doesn't make it legitimate. It makes it color of law not real law.

Color of law is a legal term in blacks law dictionary.

You may disagree with me but that is ok.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-07   6:58:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#100. To: nolu chan (#94)

The evidence was not presented to sustain a conviction.

I'd have to disagree with that. That is nonsense.

That is whey everyone knows OJ is guilty. Even you.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-07   7:00:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#101. To: nolu chan (#94)

I was in law school at the time and watched quite a bit of the trial. I agree with your assessment. The prosecution really did not put on a persuasive case. They spent oceans of time giving a mini- course on DNA evidence that was excessive.

And when they demanded that OJ Simpson put on the glove, they blew themselves up. Whether it didn't fit because he scrunched up his fingers, or it didn't fit because he was wearing a latex glove to preserve evidence, the bottom line is that it didn't fit, and OJ got to hold up his hand and say "It doesn't fit."

They pulled a stunt, and in doing so they violated one of the key rules of presenting a case: never ask a question to which you don't already know the answer.

It was the dramatic high point of their case, when the prosecution stood up and demanded OJ to put on the glove. Everything built up to that, all of the exhausting and overdone lessons on DNA evidence, it was all built up to this staged stunt, wherein OJ would slide on the glove, linking him to everything.

It didn't fit.

And with that, the wings were off the plane and the case was going down like a lawn dart.

Johnny Cochrane understood theater too, repeating over and over in his closing argument the mantra "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit."

That's exactly what the jury did. The defense team was very effective. The prosecution was not.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-06-07   7:22:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#102. To: Vicomte13 (#101)

And when they demanded that OJ Simpson put on the glove, they blew themselves up.

Bullshit only a moron was fooled by OJ opening his hands up and pretending.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-07   7:27:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#103. To: Vicomte13 (#101)

It didn't fit.

Bullshit. You are very gullible.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-07   7:28:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#104. To: Vicomte13 (#101)

The defense team was very effective. The prosecution was not.

I never thought you stupid. But anyone who thinks OJ is not guilty is capital S STUPID!

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-07   7:29:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#105. To: Vicomte13 (#101)

"or it didn't fit because he was wearing a latex glove to preserve evidence"

After all that handling, do you think OJ's defense team would ever let that glove be used as evidence in the future? Me neither.

Therefore, the prosecution should have conceded that and told OJ to try it on without the latex glove. What have they got to lose?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-07   9:42:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#106. To: nolu chan (#94)

The evidence was not presented to sustain a conviction.

101 PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT PROOVE O.J. SIMPSON MURDERED NICOLE:

http://pages.infinit.net/reparvit/nicole12.html

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-07   9:44:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#107. To: misterwhite (#105)

After all that handling, do you think OJ's defense team would ever let that glove be used as evidence in the future? Me neither.

Therefore, the prosecution should have conceded that and told OJ to try it on without the latex glove. What have they got to lose?

Yep. But they didn't. They foolishly staged a grandstanding event, but did not set it up properly, and ran their own case up on the rocks.

And defense counsel seized on the error and pounded it over the prosecution's head.

Our legal system is a game. It has rules. It has well-paid gladiators. It has winners and losers. It amuses me that people get mad at ME because our legal system is crappy.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-06-07   9:54:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#108. To: A K A Stone (#104)

I never thought you stupid. But anyone who thinks OJ is not guilty is capital S STUPID!

I didn't say what I personally think about his innocence. I merely recounted why the prosecutors lost the case. Apparently that distinction was lost on you. Obviously OJ Simpson is guilty as sin. He won his case in spite of that because the prosecution was weak and the defense team was strong.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-06-07   9:56:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#109. To: Vicomte13 (#107)

Yep. But they didn't. They foolishly staged a grandstanding event, but did not set it up properly, and ran their own case up on the rocks.

51. The glove at the murder scene and the glove at OJ's home are extra large: OJ's size. And they are a matching right and left glove.

52. Both gloves are identical to the type Nicole bought for Simpson at Bloomingdales in December of 1990, one of only two hundred pairs like them sold through out the whole country that year.

53. Photos and videos of OJ show him wearing the gloves that match the ones found at his home and the murder scene.

------------------ -----------------------------------------------

Plus, OJ couldn't produce those gloves. Where did they go? The gloves in evidence were his.

As for trying them on? As a juror I would have looked at the contortions OJ went through to make it look like they didn't fit and concluded they were his. They didn't have to fit.

In retrospect it was a bad move. But only because it gave jurors an excuse to acquit.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-07   10:09:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#110. To: A K A Stone (#103)

Bullshit. You are very gullible.

No, the prosecutors were very stupid. They put themselves in a position where O.J. himself could put on the show he did and torpedo their case, which he did.

I merely recounted what they did, what he did, and how that lost them their case.

If you yourself were on trial for your life, and you could hire Darden or hire me, given all of your comments about my intelligence you'd no doubt hire Darden.

In the bigger picture of things, that would have been for the best, because justice very probably would have been served. Were you to hire me instead, justice would have a much lower probability of being served, because you would have a better chance of getting away with it.

So by all means be sure to hire Dudley Do-right as your defense attorney if you ever get picked up for a DUI. That way you'll be sure to pay society every penny for your crime, as you should, of course. You will also pay Dudley (in advance, no doubt - even Dudley Do-right isn't stupid).

If you want to, you can hire a defense attorney who will make sure justice is served. That's your prerogative.

Most people hire defense attorneys to avoid punishment, whether they are innocent or guilty.

It is always your call as the client.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-06-07   10:13:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#111. To: misterwhite (#109)

In retrospect it was a bad move. But only because it gave jurors an excuse to acquit.

In retrospect?

You have a black jury in LA. You don't give them the excuse. You don't give the perp the opportunity to weasel out.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-06-07   10:15:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#112. To: misterwhite (#109)

Plus, OJ couldn't produce those gloves. Where did they go? The gloves in evidence were his.

But the LAPD put on cops who perjured themselves, and had a bad chain of evidence.

And the prosecution took six months to present the case, hammered away on domestic violence instead of the DNA evidence, and then had a disaster in the chain of evidence.

The crime occurred in Simi Valley, a white suburb. The prosecutors CHOSE to bring the trial in the heart of black downtown LA, before a mostly female black jury.

They didn't start with their strongest evidence: the DNA, but with weeks of domestic violence evidence. Domestic violence is not probative of murder, particular not before a black jury pool where domestic violence is probably the NORM, but where it hardly ever leads to murder.

The cops broke all sorts of rules, and the prosecution sought to cover it up. Remember: Mark Furhman was later convicted of PERJURY.

Relying on a black inner city jury's faith in the integrity of the police is an error, and putting a dirty cop before them who gets caught in a lie was devastating.

The prosecution blew the case. The defense team played the game brilliantly.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-06-07   10:32:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#113. To: Vicomte13 (#111)

"You don't give them the excuse."

The excuse wasn't given. It was taken by those wanting to acquit.

How did the matching glove get on OJ's property? Why, the racist Mark Fuhrman planted it! Where's the evidence of that? Nowhere. None. Zip.

There's excuse #2. And the list goes on.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-07   10:59:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#114. To: Vicomte13 (#112)

"Remember: Mark Furhman was later convicted of PERJURY."

He said on the stand that he had not used a racial epithet in the prior ten years. Turns out he did. THAT'S the perjury charge. Who in the f**k was on trial?

It had nothing to do with the case and doesn't mean he hates blacks -- his minority co-workers supported him. And there was zero evidence he planted or manufactured evidence in the OJ case.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-07   11:08:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#115. To: Vicomte13 (#112)

The prosecutors CHOSE to bring the trial in the heart of black downtown LA, before a mostly female black jury.

I agree. Two huge mistakes from the get-go.

But, if you think you have an open and shut case -- and it was -- perhaps the prosecution felt safe in doing this. Trying the case in Simi Valley with an all-white jury could lead to riots in LA with blacks believing THAT was the reason OJ was convicted.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-07   11:12:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#116. To: Vicomte13 (#112)

Blah, blah, blah. There's this and there's that. Technicality here, technicality there. They wore purple gloves not pink ones. They signed their reports in blue ink not black ink. They told a lie in 5th grade.

Got it. You made your point. I'll ask again, OJ couldn't produce those gloves. Where did they go?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-07   11:16:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#117. To: A K A Stone (#99)

Here are the fact. Marbury vs Madison was usurpation. The courts were NEVER given the power they have under the constitution.

Here is the fact. Marbury has stood as good law for over two centuries. In a court, you will not be permitted to argue otherwise. You are entitled to your opinion. The Court is empowered to order youk not to attempt to argue such a thing, and to hold you in contempt if you try.

It is also a fact that the first chief justice of the supreme court. A founding father. Said jurors have a right to judge the law.

This is John Jay in a unique case. It is the only jury trial ever held at SCOTUS. However, it was not a jury of one's peers, but of specially selected experts in the subject matter of the case. It is an anomaly, not applicable to any other case.

It is also a fact that you can ignore the judges instructions and render any verdict you want to.

Yes, that is correct. However, it is violating one's oath to do so, and if one states his intent to do so, e.g., to other jurors, it is grounds to be kicked off the jury.

When the judge tells you to ignore that evidence. You can also ignore that and nothing the black robe can do about it.

It sure isn't perfect. As they say, you can't unring a bell. A judge's instruction cannot make one forget what one has heard, but that is the cure available. The alternative is to have every trial a party is losing, to have that party relate something inadmissible as evidence, cause a mistrial. A mistrial is other alternative.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-07   12:15:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#118. To: A K A Stone (#100)

I'd have to disagree with that. That is nonsense.

That is whey everyone knows OJ is guilty. Even you.

You are welcome to present the evidence, or even start another thread on the OJ criminal case. I believe it was possible that two people were there, possibly O.J. and another. I know that the criminal prosecution failed to prove its case against O.J.

What you may "know" is not the relevant issue. What did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt?

There were massive failures.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-07   12:22:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#119. To: misterwhite (#106)

101 PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT PROOVE O.J. SIMPSON MURDERED NICOLE:

http://pages.infinit.net/reparvit/nicole12.html

1. Nicole's pet dog Kato, a ferocious Akita, did not attack the killer, suggesting the murderer was someone who the dog knew, such as OJ.

Reason #1 is typical. Accepted as true, it does not prove much of anything.

Pick one out from the laundry list that you feel is strong, or strongest, and I will take it on.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-07   12:29:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#120. To: nolu chan (#119)

"Pick one out from the laundry list that you feel is strong, or strongest, and I will take it on."

Well, when you post "101 Reasons" you know there are going to be some lame ones.

But I would say OJ's blood at the crime scene, victim's blood in the Bronco, the gloves with victim's blood, OJ's shoe print at the murder scene, the fact that OJ can't produce the shoes or gloves, hair and fibers matching.

Now, you can argue that each one individually proves nothing. But taken together, there's only one explanation.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-07   14:23:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#121. To: misterwhite (#116)

You made your point. I'll ask again, OJ couldn't produce those gloves. Where did they go?

Objection, your honor. The burden of proof is on the state to prove the case against my client. He has invoked the 5th Amendment and cannot be compelled to testify.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-06-07   15:32:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#122. To: misterwhite (#116)

Blah, blah, blah. There's this and there's that. Technicality here, technicality there.

Correct. Our legal system is a game. The winner plays the game the best. It's a hard game, so if one has a great deal at stake, one hires the best gladiators to fight on one's behalf.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-06-07   15:34:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#123. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#101)

I was in law school at the time and watched quite a bit of the trial. I agree with your assessment. The prosecution really did not put on a persuasive case. They spent oceans of time giving a mini- course on DNA evidence that was excessive.

And when they demanded that OJ Simpson put on the glove, they blew themselves up. Whether it didn't fit because he scrunched up his fingers, or it didn't fit because he was wearing a latex glove to preserve evidence, the bottom line is that it didn't fit, and OJ got to hold up his hand and say "It doesn't fit."

I got to watch it all in real time, except for one day. Except for that day, I also had it all on videotape, long since discarded. However, I have a full transcript.

After watching what happened during the day, watching the fake news at night was like entering the twilight zone.

They quickly brought charges. Simpson quickly invoked a California speedy trial provision. The prosecution was forced to begin months before they had the RFLP DNA results back. They spent months with repetitive and nonsense testimony, just stalling.

The mess started to go south at a pretrial procedure where the autopsy doctor was destroyed. Dr. Golden, who performed the autopsy, testified at a pre-trial procedure, and he was utterly destroyed. He was so bad that when the trial came about, the prosecution kept him off the stand and had the Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Lakshmanan (aka Dr. Lucky) testify about the autopsy. Dr. Lakshmanan was not at the autopsy. He never examined the victims other than by looking at photographs after the bodies had been released.

Prosecutor Brian Kelberg wasted 8 days on direct examination. Defense Counsel Robert Shapiro ripped it to shreds in a few hours. This monumental waste of time was an object lesson in how to lose a sequestered jury. Remember, this jury was sequestered as the trial dragged on and on and on. That was just the prosecution case.

Long before the glove fiasco, who can forget Barry Scheck, time after time, showing pictures demonstrating that the testimony of criminalist Dennis Fung was in error, punctuated with, "What about that, Mr. Fung?"

A likely answer as to why the glove did not fit was that it got wet. Get leather wet and it shrinks. The case was in dire straights by then and the glove stunt was a desperation move.

AS Prosecutor Kelberg made up one ridiculous hypothetical after another, the direct testimony of Dr. Lakshmanan seemed like it would never end.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[11504]

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I want you to assume that there were bloody shoeprints found along the walkway leading from the bodies to the back of the Bundy location and that I want you to assume hypothetically that there will be testimony that those bloody shoeprints are consistent with a person who has a size 12 shoe, and I want you to further assume hypothetically that people who wear size 12 shoes tend to be six feet to six feet four based upon studies conducted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the FBI. Doctor, would that type of evidence, assuming it is true, serve to confirm your opinion that a single killer of a height greater than Mr. Goldman in a swift and violent assault on both of these human beings is the perpetrator?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. May we approach?

THE COURT: No. Overruled.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I already said it could--it could be such a kind of perpetrator.

MR. KELBERG: And Mr. Shapiro asked you would you stake your reputation to a reasonable medical certainty. Remember that question?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would you stake your reputation that based upon the forensic pathology evidence you reviewed, that all of that evidence is in fact consistent with one killer, six foot two, 210 pounds, athletically built with the element of surprise with a 6-inch long single-edged knife killing Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman? Would you risk your reputation, stake your reputation on that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I said that one person could have done all the injuries, yes, I did say that.

MR. KELBERG: And will you stake your reputation that all of the evidence is consistent with that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

To see what horsecrap that was, we can visit what else was brought out.

That was from transcript page 11504. The below excerpts are in chronological order, starting on page 11392.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[11392]

06/14/1995, Cross Examination by Robert Shapiro

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SHAPIRO

MR. SHAPIRO: Good afternoon, Dr. Lakshmanan.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Good afternoon.

MR. SHAPIRO: Dr. Lakshmanan, you've been on the witness stand for approximately eight days?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, sir.

MR. SHAPIRO: And as I understand your testimony, you can tell us with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that both Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were victims of a homicide?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: And you can also tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that both of these victims died as a result of stab wounds?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Sharp force injuries.

MR. SHAPIRO: And you can also tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that both of these individuals bled to death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: You cannot tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty what time they died?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.

MR. SHAPIRO: In fact, all of your expertise lends you to the opinion that a layperson could give, that they were last seen alive at 9:00, that they were found dead at 12:15, and that is the range of death; isn't that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, that's what I opined also, between 9:00 and 12:30.

MR. SHAPIRO: And with all of your training, experience, education, reading all these books, you cannot tell us with a reasonable degree of medical certainty how many people were responsible for the deaths of these two people?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I--I said that one person could have done it with one single-edged knife in my testimony.

MR. SHAPIRO: Can you tell us with a reasonable degree of medical certainty how many people are responsible for these homicides?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Can you tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty how many different weapons were used to accomplish these homicides?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I already opined saying that a single-edged knife could have caused all the injuries, but with reasonable medical certainty, I cannot exclude a second knife.

MR. SHAPIRO: Can you exclude other types of sharp instruments within a reasonable medical certainty?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Could you expand on what you mean by "Other types of sharp instruments" before I--

MR. SHAPIRO: In your range of this vast experience, are there any other types of sharp instruments that you can tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty could or could not have caused these injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I would like you to be specific, what type of sharp instruments because I want to know what type of instrument you are talking about. I don't have experience like you do with these sharp instruments.

MR. SHAPIRO: Are there any sharp instruments that you are aware of that you can tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainly could have caused these injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The main sharp instruments which I think could have caused these injuries is a--could have caused all the injuries was a single-edged knife. I already opined that.

MR. SHAPIRO: Can you tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that a double-edged knife could not have caused most of these injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I said that most--some of the injuries could have been caused by a double-edged knife, but a double-edged knife could not have caused all the injuries.

MR. SHAPIRO: Could two single-edged knives have caused all the injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's a possibility.

MR. SHAPIRO: Could three single-edged knives have caused all the injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Possibility.

MR. SHAPIRO: Could three single-edged knives and a double-edged knife have caused all the injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's also a possibility.

MR. SHAPIRO: Could three single-edged knives and two double-edged knives have caused all the injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is also a possibility.

MR. SHAPIRO: Could three single-edged knives, two double-edged knives and a broken piece of glass have caused all the injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I don't see--there's no evidence of any glass pieces on the bodies which I could see or--and also, the wounds look more like a more sharp instrument like a knife.

MR. SHAPIRO: Are you saying a sharp broken piece of glass could not have caused any of these injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's a possibility in some of the wounds.

MR. SHAPIRO: Could a razor blade have caused some of these injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: On incised wounds, it's a possibility.

MR. SHAPIRO: So after eight days, there's only about four facts that you can tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that can help this jury in reaching an opinion?

MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. SHAPIRO: Isn't it true, doctor, after eight days on the stand, there's only four facts you can testify to within a reasonable degree of medical certainly based on your education, background, experience as to how these two people died?

MR. KELBERG: That's argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence and it's vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I've already discussed the findings. I've discussed my opinion that they were significant stab wounds to both the victims. I opined that the significant wounds on the body were caused by a single-edged knife. I think that's an important opinion which I have given. I have said that some of the other incised wounds could have been caused by a single-edged or double-edged knife which you cannot exclude with medical certainty. So I think I've been very clear that at least in most of the significant stab wounds, there's clear evidence that it was a single-edged knife. But your questions were more general wherein I indicated some of the wounds or most of the wounds, incised wounds, it was difficult to tell what type of weapon it was, wherein the stab wounds--the wounds we see on--some of the significant stab wounds on Miss Simpson and also on Mr. Ron Goldman, it was definitely a single-edged knife; and with reference to some of the incised wounds also, it would favor a single-edged knife rather then a double-edged knife, even though I cannot totally exclude it, especially the neck wound on Miss Simpson, it would favor a single-edged knife because of the bridge of tissue on the left side which I have discussed a few days ago. So I think I have given some direction. I won't say totally, but I think I have clearly established the cause of death in these two decedents. I also think I have given evidence which supports my opinion on the single-edged knife theory. And it seems medically, I can't exclude a doubleedged blade. I think it seems illogical that you have all the significant wounds caused by a single-edged blade, and you bring up the theory of a double-edged blade causing some of the not so significant wounds. So I don't think my eight days of testimony has been wasted. But if that's your position, I can't change it.

MR. SHAPIRO: Well, you came to us because you have expertise above and beyond an average person in a specific field of medicine and science; isn't that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: My question to you was a simple one. Can you tell us with that expertise within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that one single-edged knife caused all the injuries to both victims?

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, excuse me. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. SHAPIRO: That one single-edged knife caused all the injuries to both of the victims.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is my opinion. I said it could have caused--

MR. SHAPIRO: No. My question--I want you to listen to this question very carefully. Can you tell us as a doctor, as a scientist and as the Chief Medical Examiner of one of the largest counties in the United States that within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, you will put your reputation on the line that one single-edged weapon was responsible for all the injuries to both victims in this case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I can't say that.

MR. SHAPIRO: Is Dr. Golden sick?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. He's still working in the Coroner's office.

MR. SHAPIRO: Is he on vacation?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, he's not on vacation. I told you he's working every day in the Coroner's office.

MR. SHAPIRO: When did you find out he was not going to be called as a witness and you were?

MR. KELBERG: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. KELBERG: Compound as well.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SHAPIRO: When did you find out he wasn't going to be called as a witness?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The same time when Mr. Kelberg announced that he's not going to call him as a witness because Monday at 9:30, I thought they were meeting with him because that was the morning I was giving a lecture in Ventura. So that's the same time when you knew--I knew he was not testifying.

MR. SHAPIRO: You would expect, as the person who is in charge of this medical office, that a doctor who performed the autopsy who is not sick, not on vacation, not doing other things that would prevent him from coming to court, would in fact be a witness; would you not?

MR. KELBERG: Objection. Argumentative and irrelevant.

THE COURT: It's argumentative.

MR. SHAPIRO: Is that your practice; that the doctor who does the autopsy, if available, testifies?

MR. KELBERG: Excuse me, your Honor. Objection. It's not within the province of the Coroner's office to determine who testifies and who does not.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Could you repeat the question again?

MR. SHAPIRO: Is it the practice of the Coroner's office that you supervise that the doctor who performed the autopsy, when otherwise available, testifies?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.

MR. SHAPIRO: And what is the reason that you have been told that Dr. Golden is not going to be called to testify?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, the same reason which was outlined here. They felt that I presented evidence in a manner which the jury can understand, and they didn't want to repeat the testimony again. This is my understanding from what was told in court right in front of all of us because I was not aware he was not going to testify until Monday morning when it was announced in court, and that's the truth.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[11404]

MR. SHAPIRO: And when mistakes are made, don't you have a responsibility to do an intensive review immediately to correct those mistakes?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: We did do that.

MR. SHAPIRO: Don't you also have an obligation to somebody who is accused to make sure that asgood a job as is medically possible be done?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: And don't you have an obligation to correct mistakes immediately and look for errors?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: We do that as soon as I ever find out about a mistake and it is a mistake, and I'm the first person to accept it and I always direct my doctors to correct it. And if there's a change of cause of death, we call the family and tell them that. At least all the cases--I'm aware of whenever there's a mistake, as I told this Court and this jury, we have to identify any mistake first to accept it.

MR. SHAPIRO: Have you filed a report in this case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: A report in the sense--what kind of report do you mean?

MR. SHAPIRO: Have you filed any reports in this case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I've not filed any reports except for the knife report I made, which I examined four knives presented to me by LAPD, and the other report which has been put in evidence as this chart, which I played a role in developing.

MR. SHAPIRO: Have you filed any supplemental report to correct all the errors that you have found in this autopsy?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Do you intend to do that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: We could do that, but I thought we already presented the evidence in court. And we can do that.

MR. SHAPIRO: Do you intend to do that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I can and I--

MR. SHAPIRO: The question is, do you intend to?

MR. KELBERG: Excuse me. I don't think the witness finished the answer.

THE COURT: Yes. Finish the answer, doctor.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I don't plan to do it because I was testifying here and the whole proceeding being televised and we have the--my charts which I introduced in evidence. But I could do it.

MR. SHAPIRO: So you don't believe you have an obligation to the victims in this case to file a report that correctly reflects the autopsy in this case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: We have issued an addendum already. I met my obligation correcting the first mistakes we were aware of. These other smaller mistakes we just talked about, for example, in Goldman's, these abrasions, were not described in the addendum, and several other mistakes, we have notissued an addendum as yet. And as I said, it can be done, but--and I'll be happy to do it.

MR. SHAPIRO: Are you going to do it?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: When are you going to do it?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: After the trial, after the testimony is over.

MR. SHAPIRO: You think that's proper, a year later, to file a report after the case is over?

MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor. Irrelevant, argumentative.

THE COURT: It's argumentative. You want to rephrase the question?

MR. SHAPIRO: I'll just go on. Thank you, your Honor.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[11434]

MR. SHAPIRO: Are you certain as to whether the assailant--as to whether there was one or more assailants regarding Nicole Brown Simpson?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I'm not certain.

MR. SHAPIRO: Are you certain as to whether the assailant or assailants were right or left-handed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I've already opined on that, I think.

MR. SHAPIRO: I'm asking you are you certain?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I'm not certain.

MR. SHAPIRO: And again, that is because you weren't there and there are no eyewitnesses to this; isn't that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct, but what I gave was what are the possibilities and based on the wounds. For example, the last wound on Nicole Brown Simpson had to be right-hand person because the wound travels, in my opinion, from left to right and it has to be done from the back based on the blood.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[11504]

06/15/95 Lakshmanan Day Nine, Direct Examination by Kelberg.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would you stake your reputation that based upon the forensic pathology evidence you reviewed, that all of that evidence is in fact consistent with one killer, six foot two, 210 pounds, athletically built with the element of surprise with a 6-inch long single-edged knife killing Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman? Would you risk your reputation, stake your reputation on that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I said that one person could have done all the injuries, yes, I did say that.

MR. KELBERG: And will you stake your reputation that all of the evidence is consistent with that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

16506

MR. SHAPIRO: Can you, as an expert medical examiner to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, tell the height of the assailant or assailants in this case?

DR. BADEN: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Can you, as an expert medical examiner within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, tell the weight of the perpetrator or perpetrators?

DR. BADEN: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Can you, as an expert medical examiner, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, tell the physique of the perpetrator or perpetrators?

DR. BADEN: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Would you say you would have as much chance as determining whether or not somebody had a mustache from observing ashes in a cremation as you could of coming up with whether -- what the size, weight and height was of the perpetrators in this case?

MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor, argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled. I would like to hear the answer to this one.

[16507]

DR. BADEN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Regarding the timing of injuries, can this be based on the appearance of injuries in a photograph?

DR. BADEN: Very dangerous to do it that way.

MR. SHAPIRO: Why?

DR. BADEN: Because part of the--of the timing of injuries, how long an injury has been present, is based on color changes, and that is very dependent on the color film, the speed, the flash and how it is developed. The naked eye direct visualization is very helpful and looking at the tissue under the microscope is the best means of determining how long an injury has been present in general.

MR. SHAPIRO: And so that I understand you correctly, and the jury does, that when we are talking about timing of injuries, we are talking about whether it occurred before death, at the time of death or after death?

DR. BADEN: Okay. That--I was going--how long before death an injury occurs and also the same applies for distinguishing whether--or trying to distinguish whether an injury occurred after death or before death, but that also is very difficult and often impossible.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[16559]

MR. KELBERG: So, doctor, is it your use of the term "Possibility" to relate to doctors who talk in terms of "Consistent with" or "Inconsistent with" when questions are posed?

DR. BADEN: What I said is that the witness, me in the blue chair, Dr. Lakshmanan in the blue chair here, can only answer the questions that the lawyers put to us, and I think we try to answer the questions the best we can. But if all we say is it's possible that it happened by a bushy-haired stranger whose righthanded from behind, yes, but it's also equally consistent with a bald-headed midget from the front who is left-handed. It's all -- it depends on what kind of information I want to give across as an expert, but I don't have control over your questions or Mr. Shapiro's questions.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-07   15:50:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#124. To: Vicomte13 (#121)

"Objection, your honor. The burden of proof is on the state to prove the case against my client. He has invoked the 5th Amendment and cannot be compelled to testify."

Correct. OJ cannot be compelled to testify. He could present his shoes and gloves, however.

The prosecution will simply leave it out there that OJ's rare and expensive shoes and gloves, evidence of which was found at a murder scene, cannot be produced by the defendant.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-07   16:25:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#125. To: nolu chan (#123)

Just re-reading this testimony gives me a f**king headache. I have never read so many hypotheticals in a cross-examination based on zero evidence to the contrary.

Could a Martian have done this? Could he have used a scalpel? Will you stake your reputation on your answer?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-07   16:35:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#126. To: nolu chan (#117)

Here is the fact. Marbury has stood as good law for over two centuries.

Except that is isn't a law it is a judicial decision.

It sounds like you think legislating from the bench is a good thing.

You know that is what they did that is why you called it a "law".

If it is good or bad is irrelevant to the fact that it was a usurption of power never ever granted by congress or signed by any President.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-07   17:04:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#127. To: misterwhite, nolu chan (#125)

I have never read so many hypotheticals in a cross-examination based on zero evidence to the contrary.

I agree with White on this one. It was legal mumbo jumbo meant to trip up dumb people.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-07   17:05:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#128. To: nolu chan (#117)

Yes, that is correct. However, it is violating one's oath to do so, and if one states his intent to do so, e.g., to other jurors, it is grounds to be kicked off the jury.

I would argue that the prosecutor is the one who "broke their oath" when they acted contrary to the constitution and interfere with the rights of the jury as John Jay made very clear.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-07   17:07:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#129. To: nolu chan (#117)

This is John Jay in a unique case. It is the only jury trial ever held at SCOTUS. However, it was not a jury of one's peers, but of specially selected experts in the subject matter of the case. It is an anomaly, not applicable to any other case.

I disagree. All we both have is our opinions.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-07   17:09:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#130. To: Vicomte13 (#110)

So if you were on the jury you would have said not guilty. Ok.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-07   17:11:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#131. To: Vicomte13 (#110)

given all of your comments about my intelligence

There is nothing wrong with your intelligence. You're smart. But you are also wrong on things.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-07   17:12:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#132. To: Vicomte13 (#110)

if you ever get picked up for a DUI

That will never happen.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-07   17:12:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#133. To: nolu chan (#96)

It is for the Court to determine the applicable law. The Court instructs the jury on the applicable law. The jury determines the facts, based on the evidence presented.

No, it is for the court to enforce the already existing law in the books; not make them up. In making up laws this judge can be accused of judicial activism. As for the jury determining those facts, let's us hope they are actually receiving those facts and that the prosecution is not intentionally withholding some of those facts. We have seen this happen is many cases.

goldilucky  posted on  2017-06-07   19:43:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#134. To: Vicomte13 (#101)

That's exactly what the jury did. The defense team was very effective. The prosecution was not.

At the time that this OJ Simpson case was going on I was also studying law and do understand the basics about evidence. The defense team was effective because the LAPD botched up the forensics procedure on the blood evidence. In essence the LAPD had much to do with the acquital process. Even Mark Furman was disgusted with how the LAPD handled the investigation and tainting of evidence. They knew something and I believe they deliberately botched it up so as to prevent another Rodney King riot like what we endured in '92.

goldilucky  posted on  2017-06-07   19:52:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#135. To: A K A Stone (#132)

All you have to do is run into a 'roid ragin' cop and bam! You're an arrest resister with drugs in your car. And a jury of your peers will support the cops against you. You lose, unless you've got a Johnny Cochran working for you. Then you win.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-06-07   21:04:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#136. To: A K A Stone (#130)

If I were on the jury, it's difficult to say. The LAPD and the forensics lab truly did make a hash of it. Without the forensics, what was there?

I probably would have heard the evidence about the hand cuts and the blood evidence and decided he was guilty. I would not have been able to persuade the rest of the jury though.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-06-07   21:07:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#137. To: misterwhite (#124)

They did - the prosecution did put that out there. But whatever negative inference there may have been was overwhelmed by the other problems in the prosecution's case.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-06-07   21:22:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#138. To: A K A Stone (#126)

Except that is isn't a law it is a judicial decision.

It sounds like you think legislating from the bench is a good thing.

You are wrong. We use the Common Law system of law (except for the state of Louisiana). The collection of court rulings is the common law.

A function of the judicial branch is to interpret the laws. That is not legislating.

Again, Marbury has been binding precedent for over two centuries.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-08   0:48:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#139. To: goldilucky (#133)

No, it is for the court to enforce the already existing law in the books; not make them up. In making up laws this judge can be accused of judicial activism.

Argue your nonsense in court and the judge will order you to stop, sit down, and not repeat the mistake. If you persist, you will be locked up in another room and watch the rest of your proceeding on TV.

Your peculiar notions about the legal system are only good for blog posts.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-08   0:52:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#140. To: misterwhite (#125)

Just re-reading this testimony gives me a f**king headache. I have never read so many hypotheticals in a cross-examination based on zero evidence to the contrary.

And that is but a teeny excerpt. Dr. Lakshmanan testified for 8 days on direct examination. The trial opening arguments were in January 95 and this is what they were doing months later in June. And the jury was sequestered the whole time.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-08   1:02:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#141. To: Vicomte13, misterwhite (#137)

The LAPD and the forensics lab truly did make a hash of it. Without the forensics, what was there?

Not enough for a conviction. The forensics was a mess. LAPD criminalist Colin Yamauchi essentially conceded he had all the evidence for testing out at once, subjecting everything to cross-contamination.

Some wag may not have been wrong when he suggested the LAPD was caught trying to frame a guilty man. They were caught doing stuff that discredited whatever case they may have had.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-08   1:19:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#142. To: nolu chan, flip flopper, A K A Stone (#138)

A function of the judicial branch is to interpret the laws.

Now you're saying that the jury should judge the law too. Make up your mind!


The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party

"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul

Hondo68  posted on  2017-06-08   1:39:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#143. To: misterwhite (#106)

http://pages.infinit.net/reparvit/nicole12.html

101 PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT PROOVE O.J. SIMPSON MURDERED NICOLE.

5. Witness Jill Shively says she saw OJ driving his speeding Bronco from the Bundy murder scene around the time of the slayings.

That is some real proof there. Jill Shively sold her story to Hard Copy. She was discredited by the prosecution, never called to testify, and never said anything in court. Her story sold to Hard Copy was never evidence before the jury.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-08   3:54:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#144. To: misterwhite (#120)

(a) OJ's blood at the crime scene,

You mean the blood shown to contain EDTA?

Or do you refer to the initially collected blood samples which were left in a truck all day in the heat, destroying DNA content?

(b) victim's blood in the Bronco,

You mean the blood that was not there, and then significantly later, it was.

(c) the gloves with victim's blood,

Gloves with the victim's blood prove there were gloves with the victim's blood. Gloves that Christopher Darden decided to ask OJ to try on in front of the jury. They didn't fit.

Mark Fuhrman conveniently found one glove at Bundy and went to Rockingham and found the other. He also was forced to plead the fifth, and the lady [McKinny] with the tape that proved him a liar, testified that Fuhrman stated that police planted evidence against black suspects.

(d) OJ's shoe print at the murder scene,

Not in evidence. At the criminal trial, it was only shown that the shoe prints indicated shoes of a size worn by OJ, and millions of others.

(e) the fact that OJ can't produce the shoes or gloves,

The defendant is not required to produce any evidence for the prosecution, and need not say anything. He need not put on a case at all. The jury is instructed it may not draw any negative inference on that basis. It may only consider evidence actually presented in court.

It is impossible for you to know that OJ couldn't produce something.

(f) hair and fibers matching.

They eyeballed hair and they eyeballed fibers. In this case, matching was used to denote consistent with. The found hairs did not include roots and were not testable for DNA.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The blood evidence was a great big bust. Serology cannot provide a definitive match. Yamauchi cross-contaminated everything with a blood-draw sample taken from O.J. Simpson. Barry Scheck absolutely destroyed Dennis Fung and Collin Yamauchi on cross-examination.

One cannot impute much to evidence whose handling and processing is proven to be a scientific disaster.

[7457]

Prosecutor Goldberg questioning expert Matheson.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And I would like to turn to some of the testing that you performed in this case, Mr. Matheson. First of all, when blood evidence is collected from a crime scene and then submitted to the serology laboratory for analysis, what kind of information are you as a serologist looking for to derive from that blood evidence?

MR. MATHESON: Well, first off, we want to know whether in fact it is blood. If that's what we have, if there is blood present, we want to know whether or not that blood is human in origin. And if that is a fact, then we continue on to identify the different genetic markers that might be present or identifiable in a bloodstain or an exemplar blood sample.

MR. GOLDBERG: And are the tests that you perform in serology known as tests of exclusion?

MR. MATHESON: That's a term for it, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what does that mean?

MR. MATHESON: Well, the idea being is, there aren't any tests, particularly in conventional serology that would make a definitive match between a bloodstain and a particular individual. They can merely include somebody. In particular, they can exclude somebody. If you're doing an analysis and you find a marker that is in a stain that is not in a reference sample, then you can say absolutely that that bloodstain could not have come from that individual. It's an exclusion.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[9807]

Prosecutor Harmon and Criminalist Collin Yamauchi

MR. HARMON: When you processed the items that are labeled 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52 in this case, generally were there two bindles in each of those envelopes?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: How many bindles were in each of the coin envelopes?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Two.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And will you please describe your practice with respect to processing or how you process coin envelopes?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, only one coin envelope or set of evidence item would be opened at one time. So in other words, I wouldn't have two coin envelopes open simultaneously.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And why is that?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, that's bad lab practice. You want to eliminate any chance of crosscontamination. So you work on one thing at one time.

Defense Counsel Barry Scheck Cross-Examining Criminalist Collin Yamauchi

[10,000]

MR. SCHECK: And that was being done at the same time as the Bundy blood drops on June 14th?

MR. HARMON: Objection. "Being done at the same time" is vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: That was part of your 23 samples?

MR. YAMAUCHI: It was in that group, yes.

MR. SCHECK: And also within those 23 samples was blood from the reference tube of Mr. Simpson?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, on June 15th, you received specimens, completed PCR amplification and obtained results on 19 different samples?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. On the 15th, counting the controls and everything, 19.

MR. SCHECK: And you did all those in one day, June 15th?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. I got through the hybridization step in that time period.

MR. SCHECK: You received the samples, you cut them, you did PCR extraction and you did typing on the strip so that you could report results by the end of the day on all 19 of those?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, I couldn't report the results till all the other things were in place and everything was looked at and written out. But I would have results available for interpretation.

MR. SCHECK: The evening of June 15th, you called Greg Matheson and gave him results on those 19 samples based on the PCR typing strips?

[10,001]

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. I told him what I got up to that poison.

MR. SCHECK: The only thing that was missing, as far as the way you did this, was the PCR product gel, right?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, was it part of your training to avoid analyzing a large number of samples in a short period of time because that can increase the chance of inadvertent cross-contamination and mix up?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, if you're referring to this case, I didn't do it in a short period of time. I did it in--

MR. SCHECK: Mr. Yamauchi--

MR. YAMAUCHI: --quite a big block of time.

THE COURT: Wait, wait. No. You don't get to cut off the answer.

MR. SCHECK: Move to strike. Nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Overruled. Let him finish the answer.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, because I went way beyond what a normal workday is in order to complete those steps.

MR. SCHECK: Move to strike, not responsive. I asked him about his training, only his training.

THE COURT: You're asking about the short period. Overruled. Proceed. Proceed.

MR. SCHECK: In your training, were you taught to avoid analyzing a large number of samples in a short period of time because that can increase the chance of inadvertent cross-contamination and mix-up?

MR. YAMAUCHI: You know, I don't know in those words if that was ever said to me.

MR. SCHECK: Are you familiar with the amplitype user guide?

THE COURT: Why don't you just ask him if he agrees with that concept.

MR. SCHECK: No. I would like to show him the actual user guide. He said he didn't have anything in his training.

[10,002]

THE COURT: We're talking about common sense things here and we're spending a lot of time on it.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, we are talking about basic points of training. That's correct.

THE COURT: All right. So let's proceed.

MR. SCHECK: We're trying to establish with the witness what a basic point of training is.

THE COURT: Proceed. Proceed.

MR. SCHECK: Did you review in the amplitype user guide--withdrawn. In your training, did you review special precautions that are included in the amplitype user guide?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. I've read through that entire user guide.

MR. SCHECK: And you studied it?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

THE COURT: And you rely upon it.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, that along with another book, which would be our own protocol and procedure manual, and a lot of other journal articles and experience to make up my opinions, if that's what you're asking.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. May I approach the witness?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. HARMON: May I see that section?

THE COURT: Counsel, I assume you have that as well. Proceed.

MR. SCHECK: And you're familiar with the section of the user guide entitled "Special precautions"?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And are familiar with paragraph 14 of the section on "Special precautions"?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

[10,003]

MR. SCHECK: And do you rely on that paragraph?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. I would agree with that.

MR. SCHECK: And does not that paragraph state that you should limit the quantity of samples handled in a single run to a manageable number, approximately 15, "This precaution will reduce the risk of sample mix up and the potential for sample-to-sample contamination"?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. And I think 23 is a reasonably close number to 15.

MR. SCHECK: You do?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, I do.

And then there were the comments of the world renowned Dr. Henry Lee about the mishandled scientific evidence is like finding a cockroach in your spaghetti. Do you look to count how many cockroaches there are, or do you just throw it all out?

[17544 - 17545]

DR. LEE: This examination, it's not a quantitative examination. It's not a laboratory test, the concentration becoming important issue. The best analogy I can give it to you is, if I order--goes to a restaurant, order a dish of spaghetti. While eating the spaghetti, I found one cockroaches. I look at it. I found another cockroaches. It's no sense for me to go through the whole plate of spaghetti, say, there are 13.325 cockroaches. If you found one, it's there. It's a matter of whether or not present or absence. I'm not coming here to tells you exactly how many and what's the distribution or quantitative analysis.

[17620]

DR. LEE: Only opinion I can giving under this circumstance, something wrong.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-08   3:59:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#145. To: hondo68 (#142)

A function of the judicial branch is to interpret the laws.

Now you're saying that the jury should judge the law too. Make up your mind!

So, you mindlessly believe jurors are members of the judicial branch. Seek treatment.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-08   4:06:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#146. To: goldilucky (#133)

No, it is for the court to enforce the already existing law in the books;

Dang, your law school taught that the courts are a law enforcement group.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-08   4:10:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#147. To: nolu chan (#140)

"Dr. Lakshmanan testified for 8 days on direct examination."

In any other trial it would have been no more than 8 hours. If that.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-08   10:07:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#148. To: nolu chan (#141)

LAPD criminalist Colin Yamauchi essentially conceded he had all the evidence for testing out at once, subjecting everything to cross-contamination.

I see. The DNA crawled from one sample to the other? Maybe it flew through the air?

What exactly did Mr. Yamauchi do to cross-contaminate the samples?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-08   10:14:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#149. To: nolu chan (#143)

"She was discredited by the prosecution"

Only because she sold her story.

"Because the road was illuminated well, Shively said it was easy to see Simpson at the wheel and that she recognized him from his role in a Naked Gun film. She said that Simpson "glared" at her before she took down his license plate, only getting one letter wrong."

"Because she places the sighting at 10:50 p.m., she's right on target for the suggested murder timeline. But even though detectives questioned her, Shively's decision to take money from Hard Copy undermined her ability to share her eyewitness account in court."

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-08   10:22:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#150. To: nolu chan (#141) (Edited)

Yes, and that's a real problem.

Had I been in the jury room, I would have initially voted to find him guilty. But when the other jurors did not go along (and they would not have gone along), I could have been persuaded that the processes used by the LAPD crime lab were such that the evidence was tainted, and we all know that the cops are not trustworthy (though back then I trusted them a lot more than I do now).

I probably could have been persuaded, after a lot of arguing, that the evidence did not exist to convict him.

This is a non-reciprocal thing: if my ithoughts coming out of the trial were that he was probably not guilty, if I were the lone holdout on the jury I probably would have remained so. In my mind, in a jump ball of uncertainty, I will always skew "Not Guilty". I fear and distrust the authorities too much to ever give them the benefit of the doubt when somebody's life is at stake.

Granted, two people were dead here, but that's just it - they're did. Justice is not served by destroying the third life of an innocent man.

I think OJ was guilty. If I were the lone holdout for guilty on a jury, I could have been persuaded, with patient argument, how the evidence was untrustworthy to establish guilt, and voted not guilty. I could never be persuaded in the opposite direction.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-06-08   10:34:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#151. To: misterwhite (#148)

What exactly did Mr. Yamauchi do to cross-contaminate the samples?

Enough to raise reasonable doubt.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-06-08   10:36:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#152. To: goldilucky (#133) (Edited)

It is for the court to enforce the already existing law in the books

I learned that in French law school. The maxim of French law is "Le juge n'est que la bouche qui prononce les mots de la loi" - "The judge is nothing more than the mouth that pronounces the words of the law."

To emphasize that point, the French legislature has two criminal statutes that punish any judge who, in a legal decision, either cites to principles of equity, or who cites judicial precedent. It is a crime for French judges to write a legal decision based upon precedent or upon principles of fairness. They are limited to the laws passed by the legislature and the decrees and ordinances of the government. They must cite the specific loi, decret, or ordonnance upon which their decision is based. French legal decisions (never "opinions") are very short and direct, of the genre "Given Article 7 of the Law of 1938, given the following facts, now therefore it is found that the defendant has violated provision x, y, and z and is sentenced thus ..."

In the Common Law system, of course, equity has been unified with law, and judges have full powers of equity as well as law. Further, the decisions of higher courts on matters are binding upon lower courts, so the Common Law system itself is a source of law for the judges of the Common Law judges. The combination of precedent, the dictum of earlier court decisions, and the appeal to general principles of fairness and equity work together to make American courts very unpredictable places.

In France, what you wrote above is true. But in America and the rest of the Common Law world judges - by the very design of the common law - have equitable power far beyond merely enforcing the laws in the books.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-06-08   10:49:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#153. To: nolu chan (#144)

You mean the blood shown to contain EDTA?

Really? Are you sticking with that, despite it being refuted?

OJ and Kato went to McDonalds that evening. French fries contain EDTA preservative, as do other foods. Small amounts of EDTA in human blood are considered normal. That's all that was found, not the larger amounts in a preserved blood sample.

This is the kind of crap the defense used. If there was a one-in-a- billion chance of some other possibility, they focused on it and the jury believed it.

"Or do you refer to the initially collected blood samples which were left in a truck all day in the heat, destroying DNA content?"

"They also claimed that the blood had been severely degraded by being stored in a lab truck, but the prosecution's DNA expert, Harlan Levy, said that the degradation would not have been sufficient to prevent accurate DNA analysis. He also pointed out that control samples were used that would have shown any such contamination, but Scheck suggested that the control samples had been mishandled by the lab ... all five of them---and the jury bought it."

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-08   11:02:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#154. To: nolu chan (#144)

"Mark Fuhrman conveniently found one glove at Bundy and went to Rockingham and found the other."

Are you saying that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove at OJ's house not knowing if OJ had an airtight alibi for that night and that someone else did the crime? A glove that might not be the right size? How did he know OJ owned these kind of gloves?

And where's your proof that Fuhrman planted the glove?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-08   11:27:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#155. To: nolu chan (#144)

You mean the blood that was not there, and then significantly later, it was.

It wasn't there or it wasn't seen? How did it get there later?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-08   11:29:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#156. To: misterwhite (#148)

I see. The DNA crawled from one sample to the other? Maybe it flew through the air?

What exactly did Mr. Yamauchi do to cross-contaminate the samples?

You're doing a good job.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-08   11:46:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#157. To: nolu chan (#141)

LAPD criminalist Colin Yamauchi essentially conceded he had all the evidence for testing out at once, subjecting everything to cross-contamination.

Yep, and what happened to that evidence?

goldilucky  posted on  2017-06-08   19:46:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#158. To: nolu chan (#139)

Argue your nonsense in court and the judge will order you to stop, sit down, and not repeat the mistake. If you persist, you will be locked up in another room and watch the rest of your proceeding on TV.

You don't argue with a judge that usurps the law. You have them recused.

goldilucky  posted on  2017-06-08   19:47:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#159. To: nolu chan (#146) (Edited)

No, they didn't teach me this. They taught me that the job of the judge is to conduct our courts in an impartial manner and to enforce existing law already in our books.

goldilucky  posted on  2017-06-08   19:50:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#160. To: Vicomte13 (#152)

Very interesting that you mention about Common law because sadly to say that most of our American courts do not acknowledge it anymore.

I am familiar with the maxims of law.

goldilucky  posted on  2017-06-08   19:55:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#161. To: misterwhite (#147)

"Dr. Lakshmanan testified for 8 days on direct examination."

In any other trial it would have been no more than 8 hours. If that

The stalling actions were clearly because the prosecution was not prepared to proceed with the case on the scientific test results which were months away from being ready. Had they not stalled and wasted time, the prosecution would have run out of witnesses they were prepared to present. And so the trial proceeded as the slowest moving train wreck in recorded history — with a sequestered jury.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-09   1:49:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#162. To: misterwhite (#148)

I see. The DNA crawled from one sample to the other? Maybe it flew through the air?

What exactly did Mr. Yamauchi do to cross-contaminate the samples?

Precisely. Only one sample should be open at a time to prevent airborne contamination. PCR is very sensitive to the slightest contamination. It takes an infinitesimal sample of DNA and copies it tens or hundreds of millions of times.

The specific topic of potential airborne contamination was covered in the cross-examination of Gary Sims. Considering the documented sloppy lab procedures with the evidence, the possibility of cross-contamination with the reference sample was allowed. I such circumstances, when a positive result occurs, it is impossible to rule out cross-contamination as the cause. Such evidence can not provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yamauchi did not follow protocol to ensure against cross-contamination.

I already presented the testimony of Collin Yamauchi.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And will you please describe your practice with respect to processing or how you process coin envelopes?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, only one coin envelope or set of evidence item would be opened at one time. So in other words, I wouldn't have two coin envelopes open simultaneously.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And why is that?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, that's bad lab practice. You want to eliminate any chance of crosscontamination. So you work on one thing at one time.

There is much more detail in the cross-examination of Gary Sims of the California Department of Justice. Yamauchi testified from 5/24 - 5/31. Sims testified on 5/16 - 5/22 and 5/31 - 6/1. My excerpt is taken from 5/18.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

AEROSOL CONTAMINATION - Scheck cross of Sims

[9230]

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.

[9231]

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.
MR. HARMON: Thank you.
MR. SCHECK: Now, let's turn to--what is this?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. SCHECK: Umm--

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

[9232]

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.

[9233]

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.

[9234]

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.

[9235]

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.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And in terms of--let's go back to our situation with the test-tube being with the dried swatches being scraped out with the pipette.

[9236]

MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: And paper below the test-tube.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Would it not be an important precaution against cross-contamination to change the paper every time you removed a set of swatches? MR. SIMS: I'm having a little trouble conceptualizing what is that swatch then being directed into? I need to get clarification on that.
MR. SCHECK: All right. There is paper--butcher paper covering the table.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Section of a table.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: And then on top of that butcher paper is a rectangular bindle.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: You saw bindles in this case, did you not?
MR. SIMS: I did.
MR. SCHECK: Bindles from the Los Angeles Police Department?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Bindles that contained swatches?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: I ask you to assume that the bindle is on top of the butcher paper.
MR. SIMS: Okay.

[9237]

MR. SCHECK: And that the test-tube with the dried swatches is being--the swatch is being scraped out of that test-tube with the pipette aiming for the bindle surrounded by the paper.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Would it not be sound fundamental laboratory practice to change the paper underlying the bindle every time you moved to a new item?
MR. SIMS: I think I would do that. I don't know if it is absolutely mandatory to do that, because the bindle does act like a new piece of paper if it is big enough, but I think it would be a good idea to put a clean piece of paper underneath each bindle, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Well, the particles or the aerosol may not hit the bindle. MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: And to protect against cross-contamination from those particles, it would be sound practice to change the paper?
MR. HARMON: Objection, asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: Well, I would--I think it would be a good idea to either change the paper or to put like a wipe or something, some kind of tissue over that paper so that you covered that area, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Instruments. Withdrawn. Before I move from--now, in your laboratory is it not part of your protocol that not only--that the paper underlying an item that you just examined, right, should be changed every time you examine another item of evidence?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I would do that.
MR. SCHECK: Isn't that part of your protocol?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And when you are cutting or sampling an item you would change the paper for each different item?
MR. SIMS: Yes, yes.

[9238]

MR. SCHECK: That would apply to a blood swatch?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: That would apply to cuttings from a glove?
MR. SIMS: Well, now between each cutting? Is that what you are saying?
MR. SCHECK: (Nods head up and down.)
MR. SIMS: I believe that is what I did in this particular case, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, instruments. There are various kind of instruments that are used to manipulate biological evidence in a crime lab?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Tweezers?
MR. SIMS: Yes or forceps is what we call them in the scientific world.
MR. SCHECK: Forceps?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And is it important to make sure that you clean all instruments that are used in manipulating biological specimens?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Gloves. Is it part of your protocol to change gloves every time you handle a different item of biological evidence?
MR. SIMS: I don't believe I change my gloves after every item. Umm, what I do sometimes would be usually to wash my gloves, and certainly if I had any indication at all that I may have something on my gloves, I would discard them right away and after, for example, I have been working around the laboratory and handling doors and things like that, I would change my gloves also, but I don't believe I would change my gloves necessarily between each separate item.
MR. SCHECK: Did you change your gloves between each swatch that you handled in this case?

[9239]

MR. SIMS: I don't believe so. No, I don't think so.
MR. SCHECK: Would you agree that not changing gloves--well, let's start this way: In handling a wet swatch would you change your gloves between handling each swatch?
MR. HARMON: Objection. "handling" is vague, your Honor.
THE COURT: Rephrase.
MR. SCHECK: All right.
THE COURT: What part of the process are we talking about?
MR. SCHECK: In removing a swatch, wet swatch from a plastic bag, would it be sound practice to change gloves between handling each set of wet swatches?
MR. HARMON: Objection. "removing" is vague, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: Well, I think if you mean by the scenario we talked about earlier where you are sticking the tube up in there--
MR. SCHECK: Yeah.
MR. SIMS: --I think if there was any danger that you would have blood getting onto that tube and then you touched that tube, for example, that would be a good idea to change your gloves, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. And in the process we talked about where you are scraping the swatches out of the test-tubes onto the bindle and paper, between each set of evidence items would you change your gloves?
MR. SIMS: Well, now there--as you are explaining it, you are sort of--you know, you are creating a situation where it is coming down onto your gloves. I'm not sure that the criminalist might have the--the material out in front of him or her so that they are really not having the particle come down onto the gloves. Do you understand what I'm saying?
MR. SCHECK: Well, if--are you--would you, as a precautionary practice, describing--looking at the process we are talking about, scraping the swatches out of the tube--
MR. SIMS: Okay.

[9240]

MR. SCHECK: --dried swatches out of the tube, would you change your gloves between handling each of those items?
MR. SIMS: No, I don't--I don't think so, because I think one could reach into that tube and dislodge that sample in such a way that then one wouldn't get powder onto the gloves. I don't--I don't know that I have ever done that procedure, so it is hard for me to evaluate it on my own experience, but I think at least one might wash one's gloves after each item. That would probably be a good idea.
MR. SCHECK: So your testimony then is you would either change your gloves or wash your gloves between each of these items?
MR. SIMS: I think that would be a good idea, but again, it depends on how exactly that manipulation is performed.
MR. SCHECK: Maybe I asked you this question--let's make sure I asked you this question: Did you either change your gloves or wash your gloves between handling each swatch in this case?
MR. HARMON: Objection, compound.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: All right. You testified a second ago that you didn't necessarily change your gloves between each item?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Would you, between handling each of the swatch items in this case, have either changed your gloves or washed your gloves? MR. SIMS: Yes, I believe that is correct.
MR. SCHECK: All right. So you were either using a new set of gloves when you handled each separate item or you were using a set of gloves that you had washed?
MR. SIMS: Yes. I was trying to save the taxpayers a little money by washing them.
MR. SCHECK: Okay.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. SCHECK: Now, would you agree that with respect to--well, actually--can we move to I? In viewing

[9241]

each of these different factors in terms of cross-contamination, okay--
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: --starting to the right hand of that white line, right?
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: --the first one we were talking about, degraded samples.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
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 crosscontamination?
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.

[9242]

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?

[9243]

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  2017-06-09   1:53:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#163. To: misterwhite (#149)

The discussion is of the actions of the jury in the criminal case. Jill Shively produced no evidence whatever in the criminal case.

Jill Shively told prosecutors she had not spoken to anyone but her mother about what she allegedly had seen. She testified at the Grand Jury. Then the interview, which she did before her Grand Jury appearance, became public. Jill Shively admitted she misled prosecutors under questioning by Marcia Clark.

"I must ask you to completely disregard the statements given and the testimony given by Jill Shively in this case," Clark told grand jurors. "I cannot allow her to be part of this case now that she has proven to be untruthful as to any aspect of her statement."

Only because she sold her story.

Oh, nonsense. She LIED to the prosecutors about it. She testified to the Grand Jury and was recalled because of her lie. Her pitiful attempt at an excuse is laughable. They would not even use this liar at the civil trial. Proven liars are not credible witnesses.

Marcia Clark addressed the jury:

I MUST NOW ASK YOU TO COMPLETELY

1 DISREGARD THE STATEMENTS GIVEN AND THE TESTIMONY GIVEN BY
2 JILL SHIVELY IN THIS CASE.
3 ALTHOUGH HER FAILURE TO TRUTHFULLY ANSWER A
4 QUESTION POSED TO HER DURING AN INTERVIEW CANNOT SUBJECT
5 HER TO PERJURY CHARGES GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE SUSPECT DOES
6 NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY PRESENT TO CROSS-EXAMINE HER AT THIS
7 PROCEEDING AND THAT AT THIS POINT IN TIME WE HAVE NO WAY TO
8 INDEPENDENTLY CORROBORATE HER TESTIMONY, I CANNOT ALLOW HER
9 TO BE PART OF THIS CASE AT THIS TIME NOW THAT SHE HAS
10 PROVEN TO BE UNTRUTHFUL AS TO ANY ASPECT OF HER STATEMENT.
11 PLEASE COMPLETELY DISREGARD THE TESTIMONY OF
12 JILL SHIVELY.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Please enjoy the testimony of this discredited liar.

[21322]

JILL SHIVELY,
18 RECALLED AS A WITNESS BEFORE THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY GRAND
19 JURY, HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY DULY SWORN, RESUMED THE STAND
20 AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:
21
22 E X A M I N A T I O N (RESUMED)
23 BY MS. CLARK:
24 Q. MISS SHIVELY, YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY APPEARED AND
25 TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS GRAND JURY ON JUNE 21, WHICH WAS
26 TUESDAY OF THIS WEEK.
27 A. THAT'S CORRECT.
28 Q. NOW, CONCERNING THE MATTER BEFORE -- THE MATTER

413

1 TO WHICH YOU TESTIFIED ON JUNE 21, DID YOU FIRST CONTACT
2 THE POLICE CONCERNING YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THESE EVENTS ON
3 JUNE 14?
4 A. YES, I DID.
5 Q. AND YOU WERE INTERVIEWED BY THE POLICE ON THE
6 FOLLOWING DAY, JUNE THE 15TH?
7 A. I THINK, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, I WAS
8 INTERVIEWED RIGHT AWAY.
9 I THINK IT WAS THE NEXT DAY.
10 Q. AND THEN YOU WERE SUBPOENAED TO APPEAR BEFORE
11 THIS GRAND JURY ON SATURDAY, JUNE 18?
12 A. THAT'S CORRECT.
13 Q. AND THEN YOU HAD AN INTERVIEW -- YOU WERE
14 INTERVIEWED BY A TELEVISION NEWS PROGRAM CALLED "HARD COPY"
15 CONCERNING THIS SUBJECT MATTER TO WHICH YOU LATER TESTIFIED
16 BEFORE THIS GRAND JURY AND DURING WHICH YOU SHOWED YOUR
17 SUBPOENA ON CAMERA?
18 A. THAT'S CORRECT; I DID.

[21323]

19 Q. AND THAT INTERVIEW WAS CONDUCTED ON MONDAY,
20 JUNE THE 20TH, ON THE AFTERNOON OF THAT DAY?
21 A. YES, IT WAS.
22 Q. AND YOU WERE PROMISED PAYMENT BY "HARD COPY"
23 FOR THAT INTERVIEW OF $5,000.
24 IS THAT RIGHT?
25 A. THAT IS CORRECT.
26 Q. ON THE NIGHT AFTER YOUR INTERVIEW -- THAT IS,
27 YOU WERE INTERVIEWED BY "HARD COPY" ON MONDAY AFTERNOON,
28 JUNE 20.

414

1 FOLLOWING THAT INTERVIEW, YOU CONTACTED A
2 DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WITH WHOM YOU WERE ACQUAINTED --
3 NOT MYSELF OR MR. CONN -- AND YOU INDICATED TO HIM THAT YOU
4 WERE CONCERNED AND NERVOUS ABOUT ALL THE MEDIA CONTACTS
5 MADE TO YOU.
6 A. THAT'S CORRECT.
7 Q. ON TUESDAY MORNING, JUNE 21, THE MORNING OF
8 YOUR TESTIMONY WHEN YOU APPEARED TO TESTIFY BEFORE THIS
9 GRAND JURY, YOU MET WITH MYSELF AND MR. CONN FOR THE VERY
10 FIRST TIME.
11 IS THAT CORRECT?
12 A. THAT'S TRUE.
13 Q. PRIOR TO THAT MORNING, WE HAD HAD NEITHER PHONE
14 CONTACT OR ANY CONTACT AT ALL.
15 IS THAT CORRECT?
16 A. THAT'S TRUE.
17 Q. AND JUST BEFORE YOU TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS GRAND
18 JURY ON JUNE 21, MR. CONN AND MYSELF INTERVIEWED YOU IN THE
19 CONFERENCE ROOM NEAR TO THIS JURY ROOM.
20 IS THAT CORRECT?
21 A. THAT'S TRUE.
22 Q. DURING THE COURSE OF THAT INTERVIEW, YOU WERE
23 ASKED BY MR. CONN WHETHER YOU HAD DISCUSSED THE SUBJECT
24 MATTER OF YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN THIS CASE OR THE STATEMENT
25 THAT YOU HAD GIVEN TO THE POLICE WITH ANYONE ELSE.
26 A. THAT'S TRUE.
27 Q. AND YOU TOLD HIM AT THAT TIME, YOU TOLD MYSELF,
28 ALSO, THAT YOU HAD ONLY SPOKEN TO YOUR MOTHER?

415

1 A. THAT'S TRUE. 2 Q. ON JUNE 22, WHICH WAS THE DAY AFTER YOUR
3 INTERVIEW WITH "HARD COPY" -- EXCUSE ME -- ON JUNE 22, THE
4 DAY AFTER YOUR INTERVIEW WITH "HARD COPY" WAS HEARD ON

[21324]

5 T.V., WE HAD YOU BROUGHT BACK TO THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT
6 ATTORNEY FOR AN INTERVIEW WITH US.
7 IS THAT CORRECT?
8 A. THAT'S TRUE.
9 Q. IT WAS ON THE EVENING OF YOUR TESTIMONY BEFORE
10 THIS GRAND JURY TUESDAY, THAT WAS JUNE 21, THAT THE "HARD
11 COPY" INTERVIEW WITH YOU CONCERNING YOUR TESTIMONY BEFORE
12 THIS JURY WAS AIRED.
13 IS THAT CORRECT?
14 A. THAT'S TRUE.
15 Q. THE VERY NEXT DAY, JUNE 22, YOU WERE BROUGHT
16 INTO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND YOU SPOKE WITH
17 MYSELF AND MR. CONN.
18 IS THAT CORRECT?
19 A. THAT'S TRUE.
20 Q. AND WHEN MR. CONN ASKED YOU WHY YOU HAD TOLD US
21 THAT YOU HAD ONLY SPOKEN TO YOUR MOTHER ABOUT THE SUBJECT
22 MATTER OF YOUR TESTIMONY WHEN, IN FACT, YOU HAD ALSO SPOKEN
23 TO AT LEAST "HARD COPY," YOU REPLIED THAT YOU DIDN'T
24 REALIZE THAT HE MEANT ANYONE OTHER THAN FAMILY AND FRIENDS.
25 IS THAT CORRECT?
26 A. I -- THAT'S CORRECT; THAT'S WHAT I SAID.
27 AND I AM -- I WAS NERVOUS AND HADN'T SLEPT ALL
28 WEEK AND WASN'T REALLY THINKING.

416

1 I WASN'T TRYING TO HIDE ANYTHING BECAUSE I KNEW
2 IT WAS BEING AIRED THE NEXT DAY AND I ASSUMED I WOULD BE
3 INVOLVED IN THE TRIAL, SO I WASN'T DOING ANYTHING TO BREAK
4 THE TRUST.
5 I REALLY DIDN'T THINK IT WAS WRONG. I'M SORRY
6 NOW. BUT I WASN'T TRYING TO HIDE ANYTHING. I HADN'T SLEPT
7 ALL WEEK AND I WAS NERVOUS.
8 I DON'T KNOW. I -- I DID TALK TO THEM AND, YOU
9 KNOW, I KNEW IT WOULD BE AIRED THE NEXT DAY SO I COULDN'T
10 HIDE IT FROM YOU.
11 Q. BUT IT IS A FACT WHEN YOU WERE INTERVIEWED BY
12 MYSELF AND MR. CONN ON THE MORNING OF YOUR TESTIMONY THAT
13 YOU INDICATED YOU HAD ONLY SPOKEN TO YOUR MOTHER ABOUT THE
14 EVENTS OF THE NIGHT OF JUNE 12, 1994.
15 IS THAT CORRECT?
16 A. THAT IS TRUE.
17 AND I MISINTERPRETED THE QUESTION, BECAUSE ALL
18 THE TIME PEOPLE WOULD ASK YOU, "WHO DID YOU SPEAK TO
19 FIRST?" AND THAT'S WHO I HAD SPOKEN TO FIRST.
20 I DON'T REMEMBER MUCH. I WAS NERVOUS ABOUT

[21325]

21 GOING BEFORE THE GRAND JURY AND THAT'S ALL I REMEMBER.
22 Q. IN ANY CASE, MS. SHIVELY, WHEN MR. CONN ASKED
23 YOU WHO YOU HAD SPOKEN TO ABOUT THIS CASE, ABOUT YOUR
24 INVOLVEMENT IN IT, YOU DID NOT TELL US THAT YOU HAD GIVEN
25 AN INTERVIEWED ALREADY AT THAT POINT TO "HARD COPY."
26 IS THAT CORRECT?
27 A. THAT'S TRUE; I DID NOT.
28 Q. AND IN THE COURSE OF OUR DISCUSSION, OUR

417

1 INTERVIEW WITH YOU WOULD FOLLOWING THE AIRING OF THE "HARD
2 COPY" BROADCAST, THAT IS THE FOLLOWING MORNING AFTER THAT
3 BROADCAST WAS AIRED --
4 A. RIGHT.
5 Q. -- YOU FURTHER INDICATED TO US THAT YOU HAD
6 ALSO SPOKEN TO A COUPLE OF YOUR FRIENDS AND CO-WORKERS
7 ABOUT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF YOUR TESTIMONY BEFORE WE SPOKE
8 TO YOU FOR THE FIRST TIME ON TUESDAY, JUNE THE 21ST.
9 ISN'T THAT TRUE?
10 A. RIGHT.
11 Q. AND YOU ALSO INDICATED TO US THAT AFTER YOU
12 RECEIVED YOUR GRAND JURY SUBPOENA ON MONDAY WHEN YOU WENT
13 TO WORK, YOU PUT IT ON YOUR BOSS' DESK, WHERE IT WAS IN
14 FULL VIEW OF YOUR FELLOW CO-WORKERS.
15 ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
16 A. THAT'S TRUE.
17 Q. AND YOU HAD SPOKEN TO THOSE FRIENDS AND
18 CO-WORKERS AND DISPLAYED YOUR GRAND JURY SUBPOENA AND GIVEN
19 AN INTERVIEW TO "HARD COPY" BEFORE YOU EVER SAW MYSELF OR
20 MR. CONN ON JUNE THE 21ST, 1994?
21 A. RIGHT; THAT'S TRUE.
22 I TALKED TO HIM ON MONDAY, ON THE MONDAY, THE
23 20TH.
24 Q. AND YOU SPOKE TO US FOR THE FIRST TIME ON
25 JUNE 21?
26 A. THAT'S CORRECT; RIGHT.
27 MS. CLARK: I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
28 THE FOREPERSON: IF ANY MEMBERS OF THE GRAND JURY

418

1 HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE WRITE THEM ON A PIECE OF PAPER.
2 THEY WILL BE PICKED UP BY THE
3 SERGEANT-AT-ARMS.
4
5 (SHORT PAUSE.)
6

[21326]

7 MR. WHITE: THERE WILL BE NO QUESTIONS.
8 THE FOREPERSON: THERE WILL BE NO QUESTIONS.
9 THANK YOU.
10 MISS SHIVELY, YOU WILL RECALL THAT YOU HAVE
11 PREVIOUSLY BEEN ADMONISHED REGARDING THE SECRECY OF THESE
12 PROCEEDINGS AND MUST HEED THAT ADMONISHMENT.
13 THE WITNESS: OKAY.
14 THE FOREPERSON: THANK YOU.
15 YOU ARE EXCUSED.
16 THE WITNESS: THANK YOU.
17
18 (THE WITNESS EXITS THE GRAND
19 JURY HEARING ROOM.)
20
21 MS. CLARK: MADAME FOREMAN, IF I MAY ADDRESS THE
22 GRAND JURY BRIEFLY AT THIS TIME.
23 THE COURT: YOU MAY DO SO.
24 MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.
25 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THIS JURY, BECAUSE IT
26 IS OUR DUTY AS PROSECUTORS TO PRESENT ONLY THAT EVIDENCE IN
27 WHICH WE ARE 110 PERCENT CONFIDENT AS TO ITS TRUTHFULNESS
28 AND RELIABILITY, I I MUST NOW ASK YOU TO COMPLETELY

1 DISREGARD THE STATEMENTS GIVEN AND THE TESTIMONY GIVEN BY
2 JILL SHIVELY IN THIS CASE.
3 ALTHOUGH HER FAILURE TO TRUTHFULLY ANSWER A
4 QUESTION POSED TO HER DURING AN INTERVIEW CANNOT SUBJECT
5 HER TO PERJURY CHARGES GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE SUSPECT DOES
6 NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY PRESENT TO CROSS-EXAMINE HER AT THIS
7 PROCEEDING AND THAT AT THIS POINT IN TIME WE HAVE NO WAY TO
8 INDEPENDENTLY CORROBORATE HER TESTIMONY, I CANNOT ALLOW HER
9 TO BE PART OF THIS CASE AT THIS TIME NOW THAT SHE HAS
10 PROVEN TO BE UNTRUTHFUL AS TO ANY ASPECT OF HER STATEMENT.
11 PLEASE COMPLETELY DISREGARD THE TESTIMONY OF
12 JILL SHIVELY. YOU MUST NOT ALLOW IT TO BE ANY PART OF YOUR
13 CONSIDERATIONS OR DELIBERATIONS IN THIS MATTER.
14 IF ANY OF YOU FEEL THAT YOU CANNOT DO SO, I
15 ASK YOU NOW, PLEASE, IN FAIRNESS AND IN JUSTICE, EXCUSE
16 YOURSELF FROM ANY FURTHER INVOLVEMENT IN THIS CASE.
17 MADAME FOREMAN, I NOTICE THAT NO ONE HAS
18 EXCUSED THEMSELVES.
19 THE FOREPERSON: THANK YOU.
20 MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.
21 THE FOREPERSON: YOU MAY PROCEED.
22 MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-09   1:54:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#164. To: Vicomte13 (#150)

I think OJ was guilty.

I don't think he was innocent, but I do not think the criminal prosecution succeeded in proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. At times the LAPD witnesses sounded like a liar's convention.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-09   1:57:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#165. To: misterwhite (#153)

You mean the blood shown to contain EDTA?

Really? Are you sticking with that, despite it being refuted?

I am going with the evidence adduced at trial, not fictional nonsense.

Some of the samples were scientifically proven to have been contaminated with EDTA. When your pronouncement that such was refuted is accompanied by the identity of the witness at trial who performed this imaginary magic feat, I will take it seriously.

Small amounts of EDTA in human blood are considered normal.

You are hallucinating.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dr. Fredrich Rieders, Defense EDTA expert 7/24, 8/14

Rieders determined there was EDTA in the samples from the back gate and on the socks. For that matter, so did FBI Agent Martz (not a ph.d.).

Far from refuting Reiders, Marcia Clark gat her ass handed to her by Reiders, and worked herself up to this:

SIDEBAR

[16762]

THE COURT: All right. We are over at the side bar. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. I regrettably have asked to approach because I feel that the People's right to a fair trial is being abrogated by the Court's clear bias in the manner in which it has handled the cross-examination of Dr. Rieders. I have attempted to confine my questioning to the relevant portions upon which the Court has ruled there has been relevance concerning the Sconce case. The Court has indicated by its tone and its demeanor and its ruling its disapproval of my every question, practically, in the area, and has told the jury, in direct contravention to its own finding, that the Sconce matter is relevant, "Let's get back to this case," and has basically signaled to the jury, if not with tone and with action and with rulings, its disapproval of my behavior. I do not see what I have done that has been inappropriate. I have attempted to abide by all of the Court's rulings. I asked to approach when I wanted to elicit something that has been previously ruled on. And the jury can only think that the Court has signaled its position on the presence of EDTA on the blood on the sock and the gate and the Court has based its determination--has made a determination that it was indeed present and that my questioning is inappropriate and ineffective. And on behalf of the People I would ask that the Court make some indication to the jury that it is not intending to signal any position on the issue, because at this point I think the signals have been very clear and very loud and I think that the People's right to a fair trial has been damaged.

MR. COCHRAN: May I respond just briefly?

THE COURT: No. Mr. Blasier is handling this.

MR. COCHRAN: I'm sorry.

[16763]

MR. BLASIER: The Court gave Miss Clark many, many signals. We spent most of the cross on this, the Sconce case. It wasn't like she wasn't allowed to go into it. She has been going into matters that are far collateral to this case and the Court sustained many objections. And I don't think the Court's comment was inappropriate at all and I think it would be complete inappropriate to go back and say I didn't mean what I said. So I would object to any such correcting instruction or statement by the Court.

MS. CLARK: Let me just indicate--

THE COURT: The issue as to the Sconce case was that Dr. Rieders did testing that somebody else disagreed with. It goes to his competence. That has been established and that was established ad infinitum ad nauseam to a degree that was unwarranted and there were attempts to bring in hearsay documents that clearly there was no foundation for and to bring in opinions of other people regarding Dr. Rieders' performance on the Sconce case. I allowed you to establish the foundation that somebody else disagrees with Dr. Rieders' finding in the Sconce case. That is all that is relevant here.

MS. CLARK: Well, okay. It is my position that there were other issues regarding the witness' credibility that were highly germane. The Court disagreed, I understand, but I have never seen a lawyer for the Defense treated in the manner in which this Court has treated me throughout this cross-examination.

THE COURT: Well, look at Mr. Neufeld some time when I get impatient with him for the same reason, that the cross-examination is ridiculously long. I will note your objection, but I think it is not well taken.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Defense Counsel Blasier Redirect of Dr. Frederic Reiders

[16798]

MR. BLASIER: Now, I want to ask you a couple of questions about the differences between what Agent Martz has testified to and what you have testified to with respect to whether or not this is EDTA that's on the gate and the sock. Do you have that in mind?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Is it accurate that both of you agreed that the retention time that he got is consistent with EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: That the presence of the parent ion, the 293 parent ion that he found is consistent with the presence of EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: The presence of the 160 daughter ion that he found, would you agree, is consistent with the presence of EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And he agreed with that; did he not?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that the only difference between your opinion and his opinion is based on his inability to find the other piece, the other daughter ion, the 132 daughter ion?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Leading.

[16799]

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. BLASIER: Is it your understanding--what's your understanding with respect to Agent Martz' unwillingness to declare that what he saw was EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: That he performed one analysis where he scanned widely between 130 and 293 across the spectrum for both daughter ions, and he claimed that in that, he didn't see anything, didn't see the 132 daughter ion, that there was nothing there because the computer didn't print out any numbers.

MR. BLASIER: Now, this machinery that he has--

MS. CLARK: Objection. That misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: The machinery that he has--do you recall that we were talking before about the analogy of a television camera that's set up to focus on you and maybe scan back and forth, but not deviate very much from where you're sitting? Remember that analogy?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And that's the analogy that relates to looking for the 160 daughter ion, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Looking either at the 160 daughter ion or scanning across and seeing what it appears in that scan.

MR. BLASIER: And when Agent Martz did that scan of the 160 ion, the small range, 158 to 162, he found the 160 daughter ion, didn't he?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, does that machinery that he has, that the FBI has at their lab, is it capable of also looking at the 132 ion?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Is it capable of scanning that area within a small range?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Did he ever do that?

[16799]

DR. RIEDERS: He said he did not.

MR. BLASIER: Now, did you hear Miss Clark's questions about whether it's incumbent upon a scientist to do every possible test available to test a hypothesis?

DR. RIEDERS: I remember the question, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Did Agent Martz do every possible test available to try and see whether or not the 132 ion was there?

DR. RIEDERS: No.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you indicated that Agent Martz did one test that provided some information about whether or not EDTA on a metal can might be lost because--by virtue of it being on a metal surface. Remember that?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: What were you talking about? What were you talking about when you referred to that?

DR. RIEDERS: He put some EDTA blood on a metal can surface and also on a control swatch. Then he wiped the surface subsequently, so he had a swatch from the surface and he had a control swatch, and he analyzed both.

MS. CLARK: Objection. No foundation of personal knowledge.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. BLASIER: Did you review Agent Martz' testimony?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Did you read it and look at it on videotape?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Did you hear his discussion about his test results with respect to the amount of EDTA he got off of his metal can versus the cloth swatch?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

[16800]

MR. BLASIER: And what's your understanding of that testimony?

DR. RIEDERS: That he found EDTA in both, there was less in the one from the can than on the control swatch.

MR. BLASIER: And scientifically, what inference can be drawn from that?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, one obvious inference--

MS. CLARK: Objection. Misstates the testimony, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. RIEDERS: One obvious inference is that he got less back than what he put on the can. So suddenly it was broken down by the can, swallowed by the can or otherwise. But the likely thing is destroyed, broken down after.

MR. BLASIER: Would it be fair to characterize Agent Martz' testimony with respect to quantity, that his opinion is that he didn't find enough of whatever it was that he found that it could have come from a purple top tube, that he didn't find as much as he would have expected to find?

DR. RIEDERS: I--in my direct, I already answered that. He had no clue as to how much he started with in his samples. So how could he determine what the concentration was? He could only have prior amounts. If you don't know what the concentration is, you don't know what you're dealing with. Said there was EDTA in the blood. And if it was a tiny, tiny amount, then the concentration was the same in the EDTA tube. He doesn't know what the concentration was.

MR. BLASIER: Did he do any experimentation or anything as a result of you watching his testimony indicating that he tested to find out how much EDTA he would expect to find after eight months under the conditions which these samples were subjected to?

DR. RIEDERS: No.

MR. BLASIER: Is that something that if you were trying to do every possible test to test a hypothesis, that he should have done?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, I would think so, at least partly. I mean, for a period of time. Not necessarily eight months.

MR. BLASIER: Now, if Agent Martz were testing the hypothesis as to whether food or other substances can create levels of EDTA in the blood equivalent to the amount found on the gate and the sock, what

[16801]

would be the proper way to test that hypothesis? What would one proper way be?

DR. RIEDERS: To test 10 or 20 random blood samples from normal people or as many as you can conveniently. It's a simple test, so you can test a lot. It's a standard procedure.

MR. BLASIER: Do you feel that him testing his own blood after placing it in a red top tube for a period of time is an adequate test to determine how much EDTA he might have had in his blood originally?

DR. RIEDERS: Not without adequate quality control such as testing red top tubes, if you put things in them, whether there's any EDTA in the stopper or in the lining, in the silicone lining, which wouldn't be too unusual. You know, without that, it's not a very good way of getting an answer. Besides that, if you put blood in a red top tube, you can't test blood. You blood serum or plasma.

MR. BLASIER: Why is that?

DR. RIEDERS: Because it clots.

MR. BLASIER: How long does it take to clot?

DR. RIEDERS: Five to seven minutes.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Defense Counsel Blasier Redirect of Dr. Frederic Reiders

[16804]

MR. BLASIER: Doctor, after being cross-examined and hearing Agent Martz' testimony, do you stand by your opinion that what was found on the back gate and the sock to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty was EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Do you stand by your opinion that the probable source for that EDTA was a purple top tube?

MS. CLARK: Objection. That misstates, conclusion.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. RIEDERS: Probably, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know of any other possible source for that amount of EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, theoretically.

MR. BLASIER: Any other source that you would expect to find in someone's human blood?

DR. RIEDERS: If they've been treated with intravenous calcium EDTA within the last eight hours for lead poisoning, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Other than that?

DR. RIEDERS: Or for other forms of treatment, diagnostic or treatment with disodium calcium EDTA.

MR. BLASIER: How about after just a normal diet?

DR. RIEDERS: No way.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

And from the more recent case of Steven Avery:

Despite its ubiquitous presence, metabolism studies have shown that little, if any, EDTA should be present in human blood. In 1954, a metabolism study using laco-labeled calcium-EDTA given intravenously showed that EDTA was detectable in the plasma but not in the blood cells (7). On average, 95% of an oral dose was recovered in the urine and feces within three days of administration with no EDTA detected in the plasma, and the remaining 5% was detected in the urine within 18h. More recent metabolism studies using the NaFe(III)-EDTA complex report that it dissociates during digestion and confirm that only about 5% of the EDTA is absorbed and excreted in urine (8).

Determining EDTA in Blood, A murder trial sheds light on the need for a better analytical method, Robin L. Sheppard, Jack Henion, Cornell University. Analytical Chemistry, August 1, 1997, 69, 477A-480A, Exhibit 437, 05 CF 381, Date 03-05-00, in the Steven Avery proceeding. The Steven Avery case was the subject of the NETFLIX series, Making a Murderer. Taken from page 2 of 6 of the Report used as a trial exhibit.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-09   2:01:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#166. To: misterwhite (#154)

And where's your proof that Fuhrman planted the glove?

You keep forgetting the defense need prove nothing.

The prosecution proved that the gloves in evidence did not fit O.J. Simpson. You can make all manner of conjecture, but the prosecution still proved the gloves did not fit.

Amazingly, Fuhrman went to Rockingham and found that glove.

[Defense Counsel Gerald Uelman]

[18311]

Well, your Honor, this is the same Mark Fuhrman who in his conversations with Laura McKinny--and I am now quoting from tape no. 3 at page 3--makes the following comments:

"Fuhrman: Well, I really love being a policeman. "McKinny: Why do you love being a policeman?

"Fuhrman: When I can be a policeman. It's like my partner now. He's so hung upon the rules and stuff. I get pissed sometimes and go, `you just don't even fuck'in understand. This job is not rules. This is a feeling. Fuck the rules. We'll make them up later.'"

Well, there are rules about what kind of search activity a police officer can engage in without a search warrant. The activity of Detective Fuhrman on the morning of June 13th raises serious questions about whether he followed those rules, and the attitude exhibited inthis exchange that is on tape in the McKinny tapes certainly raises a question that should be asked about Detective Fuhrman's understanding of the rules and limits on the kind of activity that he could engage in.

The next issue relates to the role of Detective Fuhrman in the investigation of this case after he is takenoff of the case at approximately 2:30 in the morning. Your Honor will recall that almost three hours after he is removed from the case, it is Detective Fuhrman who leads the other detectives from Bundy to the Rockingham residence of the Defendant. It is Detective Fuhrman who finds the speck on the Bronco. It is Detective Fuhrman who then leads the detectives over the wall into the premises and it is Detective Fuhrman who ultimately finds the glove. And with respect to all of this investigative activity, there are no notes, there are no logs, there are no reports. His testimony is: "I stopped making any record of what I was doing as soon as I was taken off the case at approximately 2:30 in the morning." Perfect setup. No way to double-check any of his activity in terms of what happened after he was relieved from the case. And, your Honor, this is the same Detective Fuhrman who in his exchange with Miss McKinny--and this is on the tape 6--6A. I'm reading from page 3 to page 4.

"This is embarrassing." This is Detective Fuhrman speaking.

"Then you go to court and I'm the only one who knows how to testify. You have five officers on the case, and I'm the only one there that knows how to testify. "The D.A. goes, `yeah, but you were the fourth car. But would you testify?' "'yeah.' "'but you did see--' "I saw it. Don't worry about it. Yeah, I saw him do that. Yeah, I saw him do that. Yeah, yeah. Okay. Goodbye.' "Why do I have to do everything? That's what it is coming down to. I have to fight the guy, I have to catch the guy, I have to keep the guy's mouth shut at the station because they're not going to do it for a female. I just can walk by and say, `shut up or I'm going to kick your face in.'"

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-09   2:03:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#167. To: misterwhite (#155)

It wasn't there or it wasn't seen? How did it get there later?

Items had been searched and not blood was found or reported. Mark Fuhrman arrived to save the day and he remarkably found all you could want. Ask Fuhrman how he did that hours after he was removed from the case and stopped taking notes. Nah, forget it, he took the Fifth.

[18328]

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. UELMEN

MR. UELMEN: Detective Fuhrman, was the testimony that you gave at the preliminary hearing in this case completely truthful?

DET. FUHRMAN: I wish to assert my 5th amendment privilege.

MR. UELMEN: Have you ever falsified a police report?

DET. FUHRMAN: I wish to assert my 5th amendment privilege.

[...]

MR. UELMEN: Detective Fuhrman, did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case?

DET. FUHRMAN: I assert my 5th amendment privilege.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-09   2:38:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#168. To: goldilucky (#157)

Yep, and what happened to that evidence?

It was ignored by the jury as unreliable.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-09   2:40:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#169. To: goldilucky (#159)

No, it is for the court to enforce the already existing law in the books;

Dang, your law school taught that the courts are a law enforcement group.

No, they didn't teach me this. They taught me that the job of the judge is to conduct our courts in an impartial manner and to enforce existing law already in our books

So your law school taught you that

[145] "It is for the court to enforce the already existing law in the books

but

[159], No, they didn't teach me this. They taught me that the job of the judge is to conduct our courts in an impartial manner and to enforce existing law already in our books.

If the court enforces existing law, what do the law enforcement agencies do? That would be the gun toting members of the Executive Branch.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-09   2:52:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#170. To: nolu chan (#169)

If the court enforces existing law, what do the law enforcement agencies do?

The same damn thing.

goldilucky  posted on  2017-06-09   8:56:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#171. To: nolu chan (#168)

I'm disappointed to hear that. Either that or it was never presented to the jury at all.

goldilucky  posted on  2017-06-09   8:59:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#172. To: nolu chan (#167)

At the time of the OJ trial, California law stated that anyone who fabricated evidence in a death penalty case could be sentenced to death themselves. Mark Fuhrman, as a detective, certainly knew this.

Mark Fuhrman was at the crime scene and saw the mountain of evidence -- bloody shoeprints, the glove, a watch cap, and a trail of blood drops. Then a matching bloody glove and more blood drops at OJ's house.

Now you're saying Mark Fuhrman didn't think that was enough evidence, so he later planted microscopic traces of EDTA-contaminated blood in the Bronco -- knowing that he could be sentenced to death if he were caught. You say this despite the fact that you have no proof other than the fact that he pled the 5th.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-09   9:55:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#173. To: Vicomte13 (#150)

Justice is not served by destroying the third life of an innocent man. I think OJ was guilty.

You can't have it both ways. Though you do try.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-09   9:58:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#174. To: misterwhite (#173) (Edited)

You can't have it both ways. Though you do try.

In truth, you can't have it your way.

You have this massive fetish for the "Rule of Law", but you do not seem to comprehend that what rule IS is determined by judges and lawyers and politicians, not you.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-06-09   10:02:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#175. To: Vicomte13 (#174)

"but you do not seem to comprehend what that rule IS is determined by judges and lawyers and politics, not you."

The law is written by the people through their elected representatives. The law is then interpreted and applied by the judicial system. That is called the Rule of Law.

When exceptions to the law are carved out for certain individuals or certain circumstances, we no longer have the Rule of Law. We have the Rule of Man.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-09   10:07:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#176. To: misterwhite (#175)

The law is written by the people through their elected representatives. The law is then interpreted and applied by the judicial system. That is called the Rule of Law.

When exceptions to the law are carved out for certain individuals or certain circumstances, we no longer have the Rule of Law. We have the Rule of Man.

That's nice.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-06-09   10:16:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#177. To: goldilucky (#170)

If the court enforces existing law, what do the law enforcement agencies do?

The same damn thing.

What do the courts enforce the law with, a charm offensive?

The Federal Judicial Branch has, as its law enforcement branch, the United States Marshal's Service (USMS). They track down fugitives, transport prisoners, protect officers of the court, and babysit the Witness Protection Program, and serve federal warrants. Covering the entire UInited States, the Marshal's Service is but a small fraction the size of the NYPD, with about one tenth the manpower, and about a quarter of the budget.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marshals_Service

The United States Marshals Service (USMS) is a federal law enforcement agency within the U.S. Department of Justice (see 28 U.S.C. § 561). It is the oldest American federal law enforcement agency, which was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789 during the presidency of George Washington. The Marshals Service is attached to the Judicial branch of government, and is the enforcement arm of the federal courts. It is the primary agency for fugitive operations, responsible for prisoner transport, the protection of officers of the court, and for the effective operation of the judiciary. The Marshals Service operates the Witness Protection Program, and serves federal level arrest warrants.

https://www.usmarshals.gov/duties/factsheets/facts.pdf

Facts and Figures

2017 Personnel

  • 94 U.S. marshals, one for each federal court district
  • 3,709 deputy U.S. marshals and criminal investigators
  • 1,435 administrative employees and detention enforcement officers
  • 5,238 total employees
  • 94 districts, 218 sub-offices, three foreign field offices

Budget FY 2016 enacted:
$1.23 billion (salaries and expenses)

For comparison with a real law enforcement group, try the NYPD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Police_Department

The NYPD's current authorized uniformed strength is 34,450. There are also approximately 4,500 Auxiliary Police Officers, 5,000 School Safety Agents, 2,300 Traffic Enforcement Agents, and 370 Traffic Enforcement Supervisors currently employed by the department.

[...]

Employees: 49,526 (2013)
Annual budget: $4.8 billion

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-10   23:36:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#178. To: goldilucky (#171)

[nc 141] LAPD criminalist Colin Yamauchi essentially conceded he had all the evidence for testing out at once, subjecting everything to cross-contamination.

[goldilucky #157] Yep, and what happened to that evidence?

[nc #168] It was ignored by the jury as unreliable.

[goldilucky] I'm disappointed to hear that. Either that or it was never presented to the jury at all.

As most people who watched the trial, the evidence was presented live before the jury and the entire world.

Government officials employees and employees enjoy a presumption regularity in the performance of their duties. However, this is a rebuttable presumption. Once Barry Sheck demonstrated for the whole world to see, that the LAPD Crime Lab was a cesspool of contamination, the presumption of regularity was lost.

The fact that the defense proved that the blood evidence came and went in a ghostly fashion also contributed to establish complete disbelief in the credibility of the LAPD witnesses.

[misterwhite #120] But I would say OJ's blood at the crime scene, victim's blood in the Bronco....

The Bronco blood evidence is an example of evidence that appeared in a ghostly fashion, as was brought out by Barry Scheck in cross-examination of LAPD criminalist Dennis Fung.

[6812]

MR. SCHECK: And there was a blood spot that you saw on July 3rd that was labeled 116?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And you did not see that on the photograph, the blown-up photograph that was taken on June 13th?

MR. GOLDBERG: This is beyond the scope, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FUNG: I did not see it.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And you cannot tell us from your own personal knowledge how 116 got there on July 3rd?

MR. FUNG: Not from my personal knowledge, no.

Fung found that spot on July 3rd. When confronted by a photograph of the Bronco taken on June 13th, Fung encountered difficulty explaining why the blood spot was not seen in the photograph taken weeks earlier.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-10   23:38:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#179. To: misterwhite (#172)

At the time of the OJ trial, California law stated that anyone who fabricated evidence in a death penalty case could be sentenced to death themselves. Mark Fuhrman, as a detective, certainly knew this.

The same applied to perjury. Fuhrman was proved to be a perjurer in front of the jury.

Mark Fuhrman was at the crime scene and saw the mountain of evidence -- bloody shoeprints, the glove, a watch cap, and a trail of blood drops. Then a matching bloody glove and more blood drops at OJ's house.

And you know all this how? You heard a proven liar claim it?

Now you're saying Mark Fuhrman didn't think that was enough evidence, so he later planted microscopic traces of EDTA-contaminated blood in the Bronco -- knowing that he could be sentenced to death if he were caught. You say this despite the fact that you have no proof other than the fact that he pled the 5th.

There you go again. Please link to where I claimed Mark Fuhrman planted blood on the Bronco, or anywhere else? Why do you think Fuhrman may have planted blood on a blood-soaked glove? When did Fuhrman do this? What blood do you believe Fuhrman used to plant blood on the blood-soaked glove?

As your inventive observation of "microscopic traces of EDTA," recalling the testimony of now discredited FBI Agent Roger Martz, Barry Scheck observed, "The EDTA was the linchpin, the best proof we had of tampering with evidence." He added, "There was enough EDTA, in parts per million, to kill a person."

As for discrediting FBI Agent Martz, see USDOJ/OIG FBI Labs Report, Executive Summary, by Michael R. Bromwich, Inspector General, April 1997.

Under Finding and Recommendations Concerning Individuals,

CTU Chief Roger Martz should not hold a supervisory position in the Laboratory, and the FBI should assess whether he should continue to serve as a Laboratory examiner.

Under E. Testimony by Agent Martz in the O.J. Simpson Case (Part Three, Section F)

That testimony ill served the FBI because it conveyed a lack of preparation, an inadequate level of training in toxicological issues, and deficient knowledge about other scientific matters that should be within the expertise of a chief of a unit handling chemical and toxicological analyses in the Laboratory.

Under Under VI. Findings and Recommendations Concerning Individuals (Part Five)

4) Late in our investigation, Whitehurst wrote a letter to the OIG expressing concerns about testimony given by CTU Chief Roger Martz in Florida v. George Trepal, a case that resulted in the conviction and death sentence of Trepal for having added the poison thallium nitrate to bottles of Coca-Cola. We found that Martz could have properly opined that certain samples were consistent with thallium nitrate having been added to them. Martz, however, did not limit his conclusions that way, but instead offered an opinion stronger than his analytical results would support. He also failed to conduct certain tests that were appropriate under the circumstances, failed to document adequately his work, and testified inaccurately on various points. Martz's work in this case was seriously deficient.

Under VI. Findings and Recommendations Concerning Individuals (Part Five)

CTU Chief Roger Martz lacks the judgment and credibility to perform in a supervisory role within the Laboratory. If Martz continues to work as an examiner, we suggest that he be supervised by a scientist qualified to review his work substantively and that he be counseled on the appropriate manner for testifying about forensic work. We further recommended that another qualified examiner review any analytical work by Martz that is to be used as a basis for future testimony.

In short, the EDTA testimony of Dr. Rieders was not refuted. The testimony of Dr. Rieders so destroyed the credibility of Agent Martz that it embarrassed the FBI. The whole of the atrociously bad FBI lab was under attack, and Agent Martz had made a public spectacle of it on a world stage. The FBI circled the wagons as best they could to defend their lab, but there was only so much they could do for Martz.

The Defense discovered that Detective Mark Fuhrman was interviewed for a screen play and that these interviews were taped. The tapes reveal that Fuhrman made numerous racial slurs and that he may have engaged in police misconduct. This bolsters the Defense's claim that Fuhrman is a racist and that he may have planted evidence. Whether these would be played before the jury became a hotly contested issue.

Judge Ito: All right. We are in chambers with counsel for both sides. What is up? Miss Clark?

Ms. Clark: Yeah. It would appear, based on my review of stuff that I have seen so far, and Johnnie has corroborated that he agrees he has been shown that, back in `85, on the `85 tapes I think it is, and also `87, Mark Fuhrman discusses Lieutenant York.

Judge Ito: Uh-huh.

Ms. Clark: And their run-ins at West L.A. and he makes derogatory comments. Of course I have to tell you, Judge, this is a book about men against women, that is the whole thing, so he tees off on women through the whole thing. I mean--

Mr. Cochran: Just a minute. That is basically true, but he doesn't like blacks or Mexicans or Jews.

Ms. Clark: Or whites either, or Jews.

Mr. Cochran: He hates women. He hates everybody basically except white Anglo-Saxon men who are police officers.

Ms. Clark: Yeah, and even them not necessarily.

Mr. Cochran: Unless they are cowards.

Mr. Scheck: Or pukes.

Mr. Cochran: Or pukes.

Ms. Clark: So I mean--

Judge Ito: We call them squints in the D.A.'s office, but that is okay.

Mr. Cochran: Judge, this will be--

Ms. Clark: Is this going to be sealed, Judge?

Judge Ito: No. I have to tell you no.

Mr. Cochran: Careful.

Ms. Clark: Motion to strike all of the above.

-- August 14, 1995

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-10   23:39:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#180. To: nolu chan (#179)

"Fuhrman was proved to be a perjurer in front of the jury."

On an unrelated matter where he was asked to recall 10 years of conversations. Who's on trial here?

"Barry Scheck observed, "The EDTA was the linchpin ...There was enough EDTA, in parts per million, to kill a person."

Not in any of the blood found at the crime scene. I have no idea what he's referring to.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-11   9:14:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#181. To: Vicomte13 (#174)

but you do not seem to comprehend that what rule IS is determined by judges and lawyers and politicians, not you.

The law is determined by the words of the laws passed.

Sometimes the judges are honest. Other times they exercise tyranny through color of law.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-06-11   9:25:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#182. To: nolu chan (#179)

"There you go again. Please link to where I claimed Mark Fuhrman planted blood on the Bronco, or anywhere else? Why do you think Fuhrman may have planted blood on a blood-soaked glove?"

Happy to. What else could you possibly have meant when you posted:

"Items had been searched and not blood was found or reported. Mark Fuhrman arrived to save the day and he remarkably found all you could want."

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-11   9:31:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#183. To: misterwhite (#180)

[misterwhite #180] On an unrelated matter where he was asked to recall 10 years of conversations. Who's on trial here?

Mark Fuhrman's credibility was on trial. The credibility of every witness is always on trial.

- - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - -

"Barry Scheck observed, "The EDTA was the linchpin ...There was enough EDTA, in parts per million, to kill a person."

[misterwhite #180] Not in any of the blood found at the crime scene. I have no idea what he's referring to.

It is abundantly obvious that Scheck is referring explicitly to the blood found at the crime scene which was proven by the scientific evidence to have been laced with EDTA. Get the full context below.

The prosecution scientific evidence on EDTA came from the now discredited FBI agent Roger Martz. The Martz testimony was destroyed at trial. His testimony was an embarrassment to the FBI.

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/fbi-lab-taint-aid-simpson-case-article-1.763389

FBI LAB TAINT MAY AID SIMPSON'S CASE

BY Juan Gonzalez
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Monday, February 3, 1997, 12:00 AM

SANTA MONICA Last week, as the jury in O.

J. Simpson's civil trial began deliberations, a decision with a curious connection to the case was being made 2,700 miles away in Washington. Four senior employes at the FBI's world-renowned forensic laboratory were suspended after a Justice Department investigation revealed that evidence in numerous major criminal cases had been badly mishandled. Among the four was Roger Martz, chief of the FBI's chemistry unit, who is accused, according to published reports, of slipshod work in two of the highest-profile criminal cases of our time the World Trade Center and Oklahoma City bombings. In southern California it would be especially difficult not to notice that Roger Martz' name was all over those stories about the FBI shakeup, even though few mentioned his critical connection to Simpson's criminal trial.

[...]

But before that, the area that the jury had seemed to be examining the most in its deliberations defense allegations that blood evidence was planted is precisely the area in which Martz played a crucial role in the criminal trial. It was Martz, if you recall, who was asked by prosecutors to "refute the possibility" that blood found on the socks in Simpson's house and on the back gate outside Nicole Brown Simpson's Bundy Drive condo contained EDTA, a preservative. Signs of EDTA would prove that someone had planted that blood after the murders. Martz, indeed, said he found chemical traces of what looked like EDTA, and he was questioned at the first trial by defense attorney Robert Blasier: Blasier: "When you found what you did find, whether it is EDTA or something that just looked like EDTA, did you advise the prosecution of what you found?

"Martz: "I had prepared a report, yes.

"Blasier: "Did they ever ask you to find what that might be, other than EDTA?

"Martz: "No, I mean, it was not necessary because I had clearly answered the question, the fact that it did not come from preservative.

"Martz said he had tested some of his own blood and found similar residues, and argued that EDTA, as a food preservative, can be found in all blood. But under relentless questioning from Blasier, Martz admitted he had not read the FBI's own procedures for validating the presence of EDTA and that he had erased from the FBI computer the raw data on which he based his findings. "The EDTA was the linchpin, the best proof we had of tampering with evidence," said Barry Scheck, recalling Martz' testimony. "There was enough EDTA, in parts per million, to kill a person.

"After Martz took the stand, another FBI lab chemist, Frederick Whitehurst, the main whistleblower in the current crime laboratory scandal, offered to testify that his colleague Martz had violated normal procedures in Simpson's and other cases. But Judge Lance Ito refused to allow Whitehurst to appear. So questionable had Martz' methods become among his colleagues that during the investigation of the second World Trade Center bombing conspiracy, Whitehurst and another FBI agent, Steven Burmeister, mixed common manure and urine and submitted it as evidence taken from a suspect's home. Martz later identified the phony mixture as an explosive. No wonder, then, that Baker, Simpson's lead civil trial attorney, spent considerable time in his closing argument blasting Martz. He knew the head of the FBI's chemistry unit was in trouble. This is what Baker told the jurors: "So Rogert Martz . . . does a test. And he finds EDTA on both samples. . . . This is obviously absolutely devastating to the prosecution. It refutes what the prosecution says. "So what does the FBI do? Roger Martz said, 'I tested my own blood, it came out with essentially the same reading.

'But, contrary to FBI procedures, he erases his computer run so nobody can come back and look, and at the same time that he that he says that, the time he says that, no one knows that EDTA is undetectable in the human blood. Those tests haven't been devised yet.

"Where was Roger Martz? Baker asked the jurors. Why wasn't he testifying? A FEW DAYS later, in the front-page accounts of the FBI laboratory scandal, we found out exactly where Martz was somewhere in limbo after being suspended. The first evidence the civil jury reviewed were exhibits concerning the blood that the once-unassailable FBI lab had insisted was not planted.

USDOJ/OIG FBI Labs Report, Executive Summary, by Michael R. Bromwich, Inspector General, April 1997.

Under Finding and Recommendations Concerning Individuals,

CTU Chief Roger Martz should not hold a supervisory position in the Laboratory, and the FBI should assess whether he should continue to serve as a Laboratory examiner.

Under E. Testimony by Agent Martz in the O.J. Simpson Case (Part Three, Section F)

That testimony ill served the FBI because it conveyed a lack of preparation, an inadequate level of training in toxicological issues, and deficient knowledge about other scientific matters that should be within the expertise of a chief of a unit handling chemical and toxicological analyses in the Laboratory.

Under Under VI. Findings and Recommendations Concerning Individuals (Part Five)

4) Late in our investigation, Whitehurst wrote a letter to the OIG expressing concerns about testimony given by CTU Chief Roger Martz in Florida v. George Trepal, a case that resulted in the conviction and death sentence of Trepal for having added the poison thallium nitrate to bottles of Coca-Cola. We found that Martz could have properly opined that certain samples were consistent with thallium nitrate having been added to them. Martz, however, did not limit his conclusions that way, but instead offered an opinion stronger than his analytical results would support. He also failed to conduct certain tests that were appropriate under the circumstances, failed to document adequately his work, and testified inaccurately on various points. Martz's work in this case was seriously deficient.

Under VI. Findings and Recommendations Concerning Individuals (Part Five)

CTU Chief Roger Martz lacks the judgment and credibility to perform in a supervisory role within the Laboratory. If Martz continues to work as an examiner, we suggest that he be supervised by a scientist qualified to review his work substantively and that he be counseled on the appropriate manner for testifying about forensic work. We further recommended that another qualified examiner review any analytical work by Martz that is to be used as a basis for future testimony.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-11   19:15:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#184. To: misterwhite (#182)

"There you go again. Please link to where I claimed Mark Fuhrman planted blood on the Bronco, or anywhere else? Why do you think Fuhrman may have planted blood on a blood-soaked glove?"

Happy to. What else could you possibly have meant when you posted:

"Items had been searched and not blood was found or reported. Mark Fuhrman arrived to save the day and he remarkably found all you could want."

You have a remarkable sense of humor and demonstrate a certain talent for ripping a comment out of context. Of course, my comment explicitly referred to "victims blood in the Bronco."

[misterwhite #120]

Well, when you post "101 Reasons" you know there are going to be some lame ones.

But I would say OJ's blood at the crime scene, victim's blood in the Bronco, the gloves with victim's blood, OJ's shoe print at the murder scene, the fact that OJ can't produce the shoes or gloves, hair and fibers matching.

[nc #144]

(b) victim's blood in the Bronco,

You mean the blood that was not there, and then significantly later, it was.

[misterwhite #155] It wasn't there or it wasn't seen? How did it get there later?

[nc #167] Items had been searched and not (sic - no) blood was found or reported.

[nc #178, re a Bronco stain]

MR. SCHECK: 166-a. Show you this photograph, 166-a.

MR. SCHECK: Mr. Fung, where is drop 116 that you saw on July 3rd?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I'll object. He's already gone into this.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FUNG: It does not appear in the picture. However, it may be on the curved area behind it. It just doesn't appear in the picture though.

MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. And it may be that it got there sometime between June 13th and July 3rd.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: You can't tell us from your own personal knowledge?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, makes--motion to strike.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: No further questions.

[nc #178, re the rear gate blood spot]

MR. SCHECK: And there was a blood spot that you saw on July 3rd that was labeled 116?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And you did not see that on the photograph, the blown-up photograph that was taken on June 13th?

MR. GOLDBERG: This is beyond the scope, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FUNG: I did not see it.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And you cannot tell us from your own personal knowledge how 116 got there on July 3rd?

MR. FUNG: Not from my personal knowledge, no.

Fuhrman was not alleged to have planted blood on the gloves, by me or the OJ defense. The gloves were soaked in an abundance of blood.

Fuhrman is photographed at Bundy, at night, pointing to the blood-soaked Bundy glove. That is before his trip to Rockingham, his jumping over the fence, and his lonesome self "finding" the matching blood-soaked glove at OJ's place. Or, alternatively, putting one of the blood-soaked gloves in a bag at Bundy and transporting it to Rockingham, and jumping the fence with it, and "finding" it.

To believe the testimony, when Fuhrman jumped the fence to gain warrantless entry to the OJ residence, OJ was not a suspect. They just had an urgent need to notify OJ of what had happened to his ex-wife. OJ was on a flight to Chicago, so he did not answer the intercom. Had Fuhrman jumped the fence considering OJ a suspect, or to conduct a search, it would have been an illegal warrantless search. Thus, the fairy tale. Cause to search the house could be provided by some sort of evidence, say a blood-soaked glove, or a blood stain observed on the Bronco.

Hilariously, there was testimony that the cops feared the killer might still be in the house. Then they were busted on the witness stand for fibbing about how they gained entry to the house. They claimed they gained entry through the rear entrance.

[13334]

MR. COCHRAN: So you returned home and was anyone at home when you returned home after 12:30 on now June 13, 1994?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

[13335]

MR. COCHRAN: And who was home?
MS. SIMPSON: Kato.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Anybody else that you are aware was there?
MS. SIMPSON: No.
THE COURT: I think we know who she is talking about, but since we have two Katos here--
MS. SIMPSON: I'm sorry, Kato Kaelin.
MR. COCHRAN: Kato the human being?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Kato Kaelin. All right. When you returned home, where did you go at that point, if you recall?
MS. SIMPSON: To my room.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. That is Arnelle's room; is that correct?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Then do you know about--did you at some point go to sleep?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Do you know what time approximately you went to bed, went to sleep?
MS. SIMPSON: It had to have been around one o'clock. Between 1:00 and 1:30.
MR. COCHRAN: When you returned home did you notice anything unusual at all about the residence?
MS. SIMPSON: No.
MR. COCHRAN: Now, if you went to bed and went to sleep about 1:00, 1:30 or thereabouts, did there come a time that you were awakened on the morning hours of June 13, 1994?

[13336]

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Describe for the Court and jury the circumstances that you were awakened, ma'am, if you recall.
MS. SIMPSON: Umm, I was awakened around between 5:00 and 5:30 by two gentlemen knocking at my door.
MR. COCHRAN: And these gentlemen knocking at your door, what did they say, if you recall?
MS. SIMPSON: They just--they were knocking on my door and they said that they had been outside ringing the bell and that they needed to speak with somebody who lived at the house.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. I presume, having been in bed, you were attired in your pajamas or whatever?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you get up at that point?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And then tell us what happened at that point.
MS. SIMPSON: Umm, they had told me that they needed to get in touch with my father and if I knew where he was.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. What did you say in response to that?
MS. SIMPSON: I said that, umm, he wasn't home but I didn't know where he was but I knew how to get in touch with him.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Then what happened after that?
MS. SIMPSON: Umm, we left out of my room and I went to--to go to get my phone book to get in touch with somebody who would know where my dad was.
MR. COCHRAN: When you say you went to get your phone book, I presume you didn't have your phone book with you at that point?
MS. SIMPSON: No, it wasn't.

[13337]

MR. COCHRAN: With the Court's permission, did you go to some location to get your phone book?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: You were talking to two men, were you?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: These two people, were they Los Angeles Police Department detectives?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Do you know their names now?
MS. SIMPSON: I believe Phillips and Lange.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Can you describe the person you think is Lange for us?
MS. SIMPSON: Lange would be the salt and pepper, he has more hair on him, and I think Phillips is the one with the mustache and the bald head.
MR. COCHRAN: You may have them reversed. There was one with a bald head?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Let's call him Lange.
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Phillips, describe him again.
MS. SIMPSON: Salt and pepper hair, older, bigger build.
MR. COCHRAN: Let's for the time being call him Phillips?
MS. SIMPSON: I switched.
MR. COCHRAN: Did you have occasion then--would you step down and I want you to show the jury and the Court the route that you took as you sought to get this number so you could try to find your father. You could step all the way down if you want.

[13338]

MS. SIMPSON: (Witness complies.) You want me to do what?
MR. COCHRAN: The question is can you look at this diagram and draw with the pointer the route that you took as you went to get your book to get the number to call--locate your dad?
MS. SIMPSON: Okay. Out of here, (Indicating), this way.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Your Honor, she is leaving, your Honor, the area marked "Arnelle's room" and she walks west to an area with some stairs. She goes up the stairs and proceeds past the pool.
MR. COCHRAN: Is that right?
MS. SIMPSON: Uh-huh.
MR. COCHRAN: She went around the north side of the house to an area marked "Driveway" again on People's 66.
MR. COCHRAN: And you went to an area marked "Entrance." Now, is that the entrance to the Rockingham residence?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And what did you do when you got to that entrance, ma'am?
MS. SIMPSON: I went over here to the kitchen, through the kitchen to the phone here and then walked through here, (Indicating), to get to my car.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Let's back up for a moment. When you went to--got to the front door of the residence there, did you have to do anything before you got inside that residence?
MS. SIMPSON: I had to turn the alarm off.
MR. COCHRAN: There was an alarm on?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And you turned the alarm off; is that correct?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: When you walked that route that you just described for the Court and the jury, was

[13339]

anyone accompanying you at that point?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Who was?
MS. SIMPSON: The two detectives.
MR. COCHRAN: The two people we described earlier?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Lange and Phillips?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: You walked around and took the alarm off before you went inside?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Let me ask you specifically did you ever at any time walk from your residence here marked "Arnelle's room" and go through some door here at the back of the house?
MS. SIMPSON: No.
MR. COCHRAN: When the alarm is on is that possible?
MS. SIMPSON: No.
MR. COCHRAN: Can't go in that way; is that right?
MS. SIMPSON: No.
MR. COCHRAN: The alarm key pad is where?
MS. SIMPSON: In the front of the house.
MR. COCHRAN: So you went around to the front of the house and turned off that alarm and then these two detectives came in behind you; is that correct?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

As was pointed out at trial, the blood-soaked glove had been "found" shortly after the warrantless entry by jumping the fence purely for the purposes of notifying OJ Simpson of what had happened to his ex-wife. After "discovering" the matching blood-soaked glove at Rockingham, surely, this was no longer just purely a matter of notification. Surely they must have considered that a vicious, evil, blood-soaked killer could be in the house, dangerous, lurking, ready to pounce. So they woke up Arnelle Simpson at the guest area, she went to the main house and opened the front entrance, turned off the alarm, and they let the young lady lead them about the house.

Lange and Vanatter were known as Dumb & Dumber. Add Phillips, and it filled out the cast for the sequel, Dumb & Dumberer. As Mark Fuhrman observed, he was the only one with a brain who knew how to testify.

Fuhrman was at Kato Kaelin's room. Over by the patio area, by the pool, was Vanatter.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-11   19:22:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#185. To: misterwhite (#149)

[nc #143]

5. Witness Jill Shively says she saw OJ driving his speeding Bronco from the Bundy murder scene around the time of the slayings.

That is some real proof there. Jill Shively sold her story to Hard Copy. She was discredited by the prosecution, never called to testify, and never said anything in court. Her story sold to Hard Copy was never evidence before the jury.

[misterwhite #149]

"She was discredited by the prosecution"

Only because she sold her story.

"Because the road was illuminated well, Shively said it was easy to see Simpson at the wheel and that she recognized him from his role in a Naked Gun film. She said that Simpson "glared" at her before she took down his license plate, only getting one letter wrong."

"Because she places the sighting at 10:50 p.m., she's right on target for the suggested murder timeline. But even though detectives questioned her, Shively's decision to take money from Hard Copy undermined her ability to share her eyewitness account in court."

ALL DISCREDITED BULLSHIT, AND ALL WRONG.

- - - - - - - - - -

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-11   19:23:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#186. To: misterwhite (#120)

[misterwhite #120] the fact that OJ can't produce the shoes or gloves

Both videos show that the gloves did not fit O.J. Simpson, showing the disastrous glove demonstration from the trial.

The second video further brings up an interesting possibility. There was evidence that Nicole Simpson bought two pairs of Aris Isotoner Light XL gloves at Bloomingdales in NYC. There was no evidence showing that they were given to O.J. This video interestingly offers an argument that the gloves belonged to Ron Goldman. They were certainly not needed to keep hands warm, they were light and could function well as driving gloves. Ron Goldman drove Nicole's Ferrari.

- - - - - - - - - -

O.J. and the Gloves : The Truth About What Really Happened

- - - - - - - - - -

An interesting theory. The bloody gloves were a gift from Nicole to Ron Goldman.

IS O.J. INNOCENT? THE MISSING EVIDENCE

The argument is that the gloves did not fit O.J. because they were not his gloves, they were Ron Goldman's. Compares Goldman's defensive hand wounds on his hands and the knife punctures on the gloves.

"Please remember, if the gloves were worn by the killer they wouldn't have had any defensive wounds on them. The killer wasn't blocking any knives."

It is an interesting theory, significantly more interesting than the theory that if people only say enough times that the gloves really did fit, everyone can just ignore the video that shows they did not fit.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-11   19:26:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#187. To: nolu chan (#186)

"If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." - Johnny Cochrane

It was a simple and effective closing argument.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-06-12   6:42:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#188. To: nolu chan (#186)

"Ron Goldman drove Nicole's Ferrari."

Not that night. Ron Goldman drove his girlfriend's car.

But say he did drive Nicole's Ferrari. He wasn't killed in the car. So why would he still be wearing those gloves when he walked up to her condo?

Did Ron Goldman wear extra-large gloves? By the way, Nicole purchased those gloves three years before she even met Ron Goldman.

There was a picture of OJ wearing gloves. Lo and behold, they were the same model as gloves found at the murder scene and behind his house, glove expert Richard Rubin testified.

Lastly, if those were Ron Goldman's gloves, how did one of them end up behind OJ's house covered in OJ's blood and the blood of both victims?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-12   11:17:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#189. To: nolu chan (#184)

"To believe the testimony, when Fuhrman jumped the fence to gain warrantless entry to the OJ residence, OJ was not a suspect. They just had an urgent need to notify OJ of what had happened to his ex-wife."

No. His ex-wife had been brutally murdered and the police were concerned that OJ could be next. They thought his life was in danger and went there to warn him. The police were justified in doing what they did because of exigent circumstances.

"Of course, my comment explicitly referred to "victims blood in the Bronco."

Yes. But you also said the all-inclusive, "Mark Fuhrman arrived to save the day and he remarkably found all you could want."

Now you're saying you meant, "Mark Fuhrman arrived to save the day and he remarkably found all you could want excluding the Bronco"? Nice try.

"Or, alternatively, putting one of the blood-soaked gloves in a bag at Bundy and transporting it to Rockingham, and jumping the fence with it, and "finding" it."

And your proof that happened is what? None. OJ could have been out of town all week and had an airtight alibi. Fuhrman didn't know OJ's schedule. Fuhrman didn't know OJ's glove size. And how did OJ's blood get on the glove? Plus, planting evidence in a murder case would make Fuhrman subject to the death penalty.

Come on.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-12   11:35:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#190. To: misterwhite (#188)

[Youtube at #186] "Ron Goldman drove Nicole's Ferrari."

Not that night. Ron Goldman drove his girlfriend's car.

Nobody claimed that Goldman drove Nicole's Ferrari on an unexpected visit to Nicole's house that night. Presumably, Nicole had the Ferrari parked somewhere.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-13   2:58:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#191. To: misterwhite (#188)

But say he did drive Nicole's Ferrari. He wasn't killed in the car. So why would he still be wearing those gloves when he walked up to her condo?

Gee, you're not very romantic, are you? Perhaps because Nicole gave him the gloves as a gift, and the waiter with the girlfriend who let him drive her Ferrari wanted to show her how much he appreciated her. Perhaps she gave him more than gloves and he was hopeful she would give him some that night.

Officer Robert Riske

A: JUST EAST OF THE MASTER BEDROOM, THERE'S LIKE A BALCONY THAT OVERLOOKS THE LIVING ROOM AND THERE'S SOME WORKOUT EQUIPMENT IN THERE.
Q: AND WAS THAT LIT?
A: I BELIEVE THE LIGHT WAS ON IN THERE, YES.
Q: AND THE BATHROOM, IN WHAT CONDITION WAS THE BATHROOM NEAR THE MASTER BEDROOM?
A: THE LIGHTS WERE OFF, BUT THERE WERE CANDLES LIT. THE TUB WAS FULL OF WATER.
Q: LIKE SOMEONE WAS GETTING READY TO TAKE A BATH?
A: YES, MA'AM.

Because everyone turns off the lights, and lights candles, when getting ready to take a bath, while waiting for Ron Goldman to arrive.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-13   2:59:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#192. To: misterwhite (#188)

Did Ron Goldman wear extra-large gloves?

There is no evidence that he did, or did not. A lack of evidence is not evidence. There is clear evidence that the gloves did not fit O.J. Simpson. They may have fit Ron Goldman.

Do not forget that you claim the prosecution at the criminal trial produced evidence at the criminal trial that justified a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The complete burden of proof was on the prosecution, not O.J. Simpson. To prove your claim wrong, one need only show cause for reasonable doubt.

There is more than a reasonable doubt that the gloves did not fit O.J. Simpson.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-13   3:00:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#193. To: misterwhite (#188)

By the way, Nicole purchased those gloves three years before she even met Ron Goldman.

[11519]

MR. DARDEN: And what was the selling price on December 18, 1990, if you know?
MS. VEMICH: They were $55.00, but during December 18th they were marked down at thirty percent off.
MR. DARDEN: Could you describe style no. 70263, the Aris Isotoner leather light glove?
MS. VEMICH: Yes. This particular glove has many characteristics that are very distinctive to this type of glove. One of the first characteristics is the leather. The leather is extremely lightweight, almost paper thin, and that was one characteristic. The second was the stitching. The stitching of this glove was called a Brossier stitch which is a very refined whip stitch.

- - - - - - - - - -

[11553]

MR. DARDEN: Miss Vemich, what was it about those gloves that made them sell?
MR. COCHRAN: Just a moment. That calls for speculation, I suppose.
THE COURT: I think she is an expert.
MS. VEMICH: These gloves were extremely lightweight. The reason they sold, from my experience in waiting on customers, is that they were almost like a second skin. Umm, you could pick up a penny or a needle practically with them and they were very--again they are very, very thin, and many people like that about these gloves and that is why they were called leather light and that is why we marked them leather lights and it was a big seller. It was a big part of my business.

The gloves used paper thin leather. They would not keep hands warm in New York or Chicago in winter. It looks like she was Christmas shopping in New York.

What difference does it make when Nicole bought two sets of those gloves? O.J. could not wear them, they did not fit. Someone who drives a Ferrari can ignore the bother of returning something to Bloomingdale's in Manhattan. Moreover, it was never established that the gloves in evidence were purchased in the known transaction from December 1990.

The receipt for the gloves bought in December 1990 show style 70268 (not 70263), no size, no color, Ms. Vemich testified she did not know if style 70268 had ever been sold in the United States, and, when asked directly, "Is there [any] way for you to tell us that the two gloves I showed you here in court were purchased during the transaction shown here in People's 372-A?," Ms. Vemich answered, "No."

[11528]

MR. DARDEN: And to the right of the "2" we see the number "$77.00"?
MS. VEMICH: Yes. That is the retail for the two pair of gloves.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. And to the right of the "$77.00" we see the no. "30"; is that correct?
MS. VEMICH: Yes. And that is thirty percent off.
MR. DARDEN: So that means in the two pairs of gloves were purchased for thirty percent off at $77.00?
MS. VEMICH: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Can you tell us what the regular price of the gloves was?
MS. VEMICH: The regular price of gloves of this style is $55.00.

[...]

[11529]

MR. DARDEN: How many different types of Aris gloves did you sell at $55.00 during December?
MS. VEMICH: There was only one Aris glove that I sold at $55.00.
MR. DARDEN: Was style number was that?
MS. VEMICH: 70263.
MR. DARDEN: And which glove the style number is 70263?
MS. VEMICH: Aris leather light glove.
MR. DARDEN: So the gloves I showed you in court today then fit the descriptions given on this sales receipt?
MS. VEMICH: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Now, the style number on the sales receipt indicates 70268; is that correct?
MS. VEMICH: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Did Bloomingdales ever sell an Aris glove style no. 70268?

[11530]

MS. VEMICH: No, they did not.
MR. DARDEN: To borrow a phrase, is that a mistake?
MS. VEMICH: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Does that mistake--strike that. The mistake is that the "8" should have been a "3"?
MS. VEMICH: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, misleading.
THE COURT: Sustained. The answer is stricken. Rephrase the question.
MR. DARDEN: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. DARDEN: What is the mistake?
MS. VEMICH: The last digit should be a "3," not an "8." MR. DARDEN: Has Bloomingdales ever purchased Aris glove style no. 70268?
MS. VEMICH: No.
MR. DARDEN: Do you know whether or not Aris style no. 70268 has ever been sold in the United States?
MS. VEMICH: Not that I--I don't know. MR. DARDEN: May I have one moment, your Honor? THE COURT: Certainly. (Brief pause.) MR. DARDEN: Now, does the sales receipt indicate the size of the glove? MS. VEMICH: No, it does not. MR. DARDEN: Does it indicate the color of the glove?

[11531]

MS. VEMICH: No, it does not. MR. DARDEN: Is there way for you to tell us that the two gloves I showed you here in court were purchased during the transaction shown here in People's 372-A? MS. VEMICH: No.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-13   3:06:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#194. To: misterwhite (#188)

There was a picture of OJ wearing gloves. Lo and behold, they were the same model as gloves found at the murder scene and behind his house, glove expert Richard Rubin testified.

Lo and behold, your claim is imaginary. There was no such testimony by Richard Rubin at the criminal trial. His actual testimony was given on 15 and 16 June 1995. Nice try, though.

Also, Lo and behold, in case you forgot, Johnnie Cochran put on the evidence gloves during the examination of Richard Rubin. Before the defense goaded Christopher Darden into the evidence blunder of the century, Cochran had tested them for how they fit his size hand. At the time, with a glove on, Johnnie Cochran observed, "it seems too small for me." All he had to do was compare his own hand size to O.J.'s hand size, and he could know in advance how Darden's disaster would turn out.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-13   3:09:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#195. To: misterwhite (#188)

Lastly, if those were Ron Goldman's gloves, how did one of them end up behind OJ's house covered in OJ's blood and the blood of both victims?

For purposes of your question, it matters not who wore the gloves that did not fit O.J. Simpson. It could have been O.J., Ron Goldman, or any other person.

Only one person had his picture taken at Bundy pointing at that glove before the notification party proceeded over to Rockingham. That would be Det. Mark Fuhrman. Somebody transported the blood-soaked glove from Bundy to Rockingham. Suspect number one is Mark Fuhrman. The wet glove had very little debris, indicating that it was placed rather than dropped.

Also, there was a persistent and horrible problem with the timeline that the prosecution was never able to resolve.

If O.J. damn near cut off Nicole's head, and tussled with and killed Ron Goldman, he would have been covered with blood. If he just jumped in the Bronco at Bundy, to return to Rockingham, the Bronco would have been laden with blood. And when did he have the time to shower and get rid of the blood, and leave no evidence of blood in the plumbing?

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-13   3:10:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#196. To: misterwhite (#189)

His ex-wife had been brutally murdered and the police were concerned that OJ could be next. They thought his life was in danger and went there to warn him. The police were justified in doing what they did because of exigent circumstances.

This nonsense fails when it is understood that they woke up Arnelle Simpson, she opened the front door, she proceeded to the alarm and shut it off, and she led them about the house. The police did not lead, they did not go in with weapons drawn — they followed the little lady. The police did not proceed at all as if they suspected a killer might have been present in the house.

Besides, the police explicitly stated they made entry to notify O.J. Simpson.

[526]

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: P-43.
MS. CLARK: THIS IS INSIDE THE HOUSE. THIS IS RIGHT INSIDE THE FRONT DOOR IN THE FOYER AREA. THERE WERE A SERIES OF THREE BLOOD DROPS HERE CLOSE UP.
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: P-44.
MS. CLARK: YOU CAN SEE THEM HERE. I'M CIRCLING THEM. HAVING SEEN ALL OF THIS, THE DETECTIVE THEN REALIZED THAT THIS WAS NOT JUST AN OCCASION TO MAKE NOTIFICATION, THAT IN FACT THEY HAD UNCOVERED EVIDENCE THAT INDICATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD COMMITTED THESE MURDERS. THEY SECURED THE HOME AND PREPARED TO CONDUCT A SEARCH.

They were lacking probable cause evidence to search. Fuhrman jumped the fence and "found" the bloody glove, effectively declaring "Let the games begin!"

Your creative fiction about exigent circumstances and thinking O.J. was in danger flies in the face of what they said and what they did.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-13   3:12:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#197. To: misterwhite (#189)

"Of course, my comment explicitly referred to "victims blood in the Bronco."

Yes. But you also said the all-inclusive, "Mark Fuhrman arrived to save the day and he remarkably found all you could want."

Now you're saying you meant, "Mark Fuhrman arrived to save the day and he remarkably found all you could want excluding the Bronco"? Nice try.

Fuhrman allegedly planted the glove. Planting of blood in the Bronco was allegedly done by persons unknown, after June 13th. Fuhrman was removed from the case before he ever went to Rockingham in the early morning of the 13th.

They did not really establish that the tiny spot Fuhrman found on the Bronco was human blood, or even blood, much less the blood of anyone in particular.

[nc] #179. To: misterwhite (#172)

Now you're saying Mark Fuhrman didn't think that was enough evidence, so he later planted microscopic traces of EDTA-contaminated blood in the Bronco -- knowing that he could be sentenced to death if he were caught. You say this despite the fact that you have no proof other than the fact that he pled the 5th.

There you go again. Please link to where I claimed Mark Fuhrman planted blood on the Bronco, or anywhere else? Why do you think Fuhrman may have planted blood on a blood-soaked glove? When did Fuhrman do this? What blood do you believe Fuhrman used to plant blood on the blood-soaked glove?

There is blood found on the Bronco, photographed on July 3rd that does not appear on a photo taken on June 13th. That is strong evidence someone planted blood on and in the Bronco after June 13th.

Why the hell would Fuhrman plant blood on the glove? It was dripping with the stuff. Whose blood do you think he planted? O.J.'s? On June 13th? Where did Fuhrman supposedly get that? O.J. had taken a flight to Chicago.

Fuhrman "found" the glove with lots of blood. There was a tiny spot on the door that looked like blood but was not verified as blood. Vanatter signed a false affidavit that human blood had been found in obtaining a search warrant for the premises. In reality, Vanatter order Fung to perform a phenophthalein test on the spot on the Bronco door. This is a presumptive test. Even when positive, it is only a presumptive test for blood. A negative test strongly indicates the absence of blood. A positive test does not prove the presence of blood, and gives no indication whatever that the blood is human blood. And the phenolphthalein test forever destroyed the spot evidence for DNA testing.

[524]

MS. CLARK: THE CASE WAS ASSIGNED TO THE ROBBERY/HOMICIDE DIVISION, DETECTIVES PHILIP VANNATTER AND TOM LANGE, THE INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ASSIGNED TO HANDLE THE CASE. THEY ARRIVED AT THE SCENE JUST AFTER 4:00 A.M. AND THEN VIEWED THE CRIME SCENE AND THE EVIDENCE AS I HAVE JUST DESCRIBED IT TO YOU. THEY FOUND THE SAME THINGS THAT OFFICER RISKI FOUND. GIVEN THE FACT THAT THERE WERE TWO YOUNG CHILDREN BEING HELD AT THE STATION PENDING SOME ADULT WHO COULD TAKE CHARGE OF THEM, THEY DETERMINED THAT THEY WOULD GO AND MAKE NOTIFICATION TO THE DEFENDANT. THEY THEN PROCEEDED TO THE DEFENDANT'S HOUSE. NOW, THEY GOT TO THE DEFENDANT'S HOUSE AT APPROXIMATELY 5:00 A.M. AT THAT TIME THEY STARTED TO RING THE ASHFORD GATE AND THEY BUZZED AND THEY BUZZED, BUT THEY GOT NO ANSWER. NOW AT THAT POINT THEY COULD SEE THERE WERE LIGHTS ON IN THE HOUSE, THERE WERE CARS IN THE DRIVEWAY, BUT NO ONE WAS ANSWERING. THEY EVENTUALLY GOT THE DEFENDANT'S HOME PHONE NUMBER, CALLED IT REPEATEDLY, BUT AGAIN THEY GOT NO ANSWER. THEN THE DETECTIVE SAW THE WHITE FORD BRONCO PARKED AT THE ROCKINGHAM GATE.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: P-30.

MS. CLARK: THIS IS THE POSITION IN WHICH THE BRONCO WAS FOUND JUST TO THE NORTH OF THE ROCKINGHAM GATE AND THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT HERE. THIS AREA HERE IS THE ROCKINGHAM GATE ENTRANCE TO THE DEFENDANT'S HOME. THIS IS THE LOCATION THAT ALLAN PARK DROVE BY EARLIER THAT NIGHT AT 10:39 AND SAW THAT THERE WAS NO BRONCO THERE AT THAT TIME.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: P-31.

MS. CLARK: THE DETECTIVE NOTICED THAT THERE WAS A SMALL SPOT OF BLOOD NEAR THE DRIVER'S HANDLE OF THAT DOOR. THE CRIMINALIST IS POINTING TO IT HERE. THAT IS DENNIS FUNG.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: P-32.

MS. CLARK: THAT IS A CLOSE-UP. YOU CAN SEE HOW SMALL THAT SPOT OF BLOOD IS.

- - - - - - - - - -

Marcia Clark:

[526]

CRIMINALIST DENNIS FUNG ARRIVED AT ROCKINGHAM AT ABOUT 7:00 A.M. WHERE HE BEGAN TO TEST ALL OF THE BLOOD DROPS THEY HAD FOUND. HE TESTED THE BRONCO AND THEN HE TESTED THE DROPS ON THE DRIVEWAY, DETERMINED THAT THE DROPS ON THE DRIVEWAY WERE INDEED BLOOD, THEN HE WENT TO TEST THE GLOVE AND FOUND THAT IT, TOO, CONTAINED BLOOD.

Actually, no, he had not even established that anything was blood.

- - - - - - - - - -

Defense Counsel Gerald Uelman, January 13, 1995

[332]

SOMEHOW, THE PROSECUTION SUGGESTS THE THEORY OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN PLANTING A GLOVE, IF INDEED THAT'S GOING TO BE A THEORY PRESENTED BY THE DEFENSE IN THIS CASE, IS ANALOGOUS TO SUGGESTING THAT SOME THIRD PARTY COMMITTED THE CRIME AND THAT THE ONLY EXPLANATION FOR SUCH CONDUCT BY A POLICE OFFICER WOULD BE THAT HE WAS TRYING TO FRAME AN INNOCENT PERSON. AND THE DIFFICULTY WITH THAT ATTEMPTED ANALOGY IS THAT ONCE AGAIN, IT MAKES SOME VERY FAR-OUT ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHAT MIGHT MOTIVATE AN OFFICER TO ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY PLANT EVIDENCE. AND WE SUGGESTED IN OUR PAPERS THAT THERE MAY BE A NUMBER OF PLAUSIBLE MOTIVATIONS FOR A DETECTIVE SUCH AS FUHRMAN TO WANT TO DISTURB THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. FIRST, THAT HE MAY HAVE BEEN ANGRY THAT HE HAD BEEN KICKED OFF THE CASE. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS NOT JUST A TAGALONG POLICE OFFICER IN THESE PROCEEDINGS. HE WAS IN CHARGE OF THIS INVESTIGATION. HE WAS THE FIRST DETECTIVE, HOMICIDE DETECTIVE TO ARRIVE AT THE BUNDY SCENE AND TAKE CHARGE OF THE INVESTIGATION; AND VERY SHORTLY THEREAFTER, HE WAS TOLD HE WAS OFF THE CASE. HE WAS BEING REASSIGNED. SECONDLY, THERE MAY HAVE BEEN

[333]

MOTIVATION TO WANT TO APPEAR SOMEHOW AS THE HERO THAT SOLVED THE CASE. I MEAN, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS THE DETECTIVE WHO CLAIMS HE SAW THE BLOOD SPOT ON THE BRONCO, HE WENT OVER THE WALL AND THEN HE QUESTIONED KATO KAELIN AND THEN HE FOUND THE KEY PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT BROKE THE CASE. THAT'S QUITE A ROLE FOR A DETECTIVE TO PLAY WHO HAS BEEN PULLED OFF THE CASE AND REASSIGNED. AND THIRDLY, HE MAY HAVE BEEN MOTIVATED SIMPLY BY WANTING TO PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE SO THAT A SEARCH WARRANT COULD BE OBTAINED TO GO INTO THE HOUSE AND LOOK FOR OTHER EVIDENCE.

- - - - - - - - - -

THE CLERK: PLEASE HAVE A SEAT ON THE WITNESS STAND AND STATE AND SPELL YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAMES FOR THE RECORD.
THE WITNESS: MY NAME IS DENNIS FUNG, D-E-N-N-I-S F-U-N-G.
THE COURT: MR. GOLDBERG.
MR. GOLDBERG: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GOLDBERG:
Q: GOOD MORNING, MR. FUNG. WHAT IS YOUR OCCUPATION AND YOUR ASSIGNMENT?
A: I AM A CRIMINALIST EMPLOYED BY THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT. I'M ASSIGNED TO THE FIREARMS ANALYSIS UNIT OF THE SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION DIVISION.
Q: AND THAT'S FOR THE LAPD?
A: YES.
Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WERE YOU SO EMPLOYED ON JUNE THE 13TH OF 1994?
A: YES, I WAS.
Q: SIR, ON JUNE THE 13TH OF 1994, WERE YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR COLLECTING CERTAIN EVIDENCE AT 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM AND 875 BUNDY IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES?
A: YES.
Q: AND LATER ON JUNE THE 14TH, WERE YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR COLLECTING CERTAIN EVIDENCE IN A BRONCO THAT HAD BEEN IMPOUNDED FROM THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION?
A: YES.

- - - - - - - - - -

[373]

MS. CLARK: THE PHENO TEST IS A DIFFERENT STORY. THAT HAS BEEN ADMISSIBLE FROM I CAN'T TELL HOW MANY YEARS AGO. IT IS LIMITED IN TERMS OF ITS VALUE OF WHAT BOTH SIDES CAN ARGUE. IT INDICATES THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD. THAT IS ALL IT DOES. WE ARE NOT SAYING IT DOES ANY MORE THAN THAT. AND THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT COUNSEL IS COMPLAINING OF ARE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PINK COLOR ON THE PHENO STICK THAT INDICATES THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD IN TWO AREAS -- THREE AREAS ACTUALLY IN THE DEFENDANT'S BATHROOM.

- - - - - - - - - -

[4736]

THE COURT: TO REBOLSTER DETECTIVE VANNATTER'S TESTIMONY. DO YOU ALSO THINK THAT THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE PROOF OF THE SUBSTANTIVE FACTS ARE THAT IN DISPUTE, THE FACT THAT THIS WAS AN UNANTICIPATED TRIP TO CHICAGO AND THAT AT THE TIME THAT THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT WAS WRITTEN NO TEST HAD BEEN COMPLETED WITH REGARDS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS HUMAN BLOOD? MY RECOLLECTION OF OUR DISCUSSIONS AT THE 1538 IS THAT IT WAS ONLY A PRESUMPTIVE TEST FOR BLOOD.

MS. CLARK: CORRECT.

THE COURT: AND NOT A DETERMINATION THAT IT WAS HUMAN BLOOD.

MS. CLARK: THAT'S CORRECT. WHAT WE WILL BE REQUIRED TO DO AT THAT POINT IS TO EXPLAIN, THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND OTHER WITNESSES, PRECISELY WHAT BROUGHT HIM TO THOSE -- BROUGHT HIM TO THE POINT WHERE HE MADE THOSE STATEMENTS IN THE AFFIDAVIT. WITH RESPECT TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS HUMAN BLOOD ON THE DOOR OF THE BRONCO, THE PEOPLE CONCEDE IT WAS A PRESUMPTIVE TEST FOR BLOOD AND YET IT WAS A LOGICAL CONCLUSION THAT THE BLOOD PLACED ON THE DOOR HANDLE OF A CAR WOULD BE BY A HUMAN BEING, AS WE HAVE STATED BEFORE. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY ANIMALS KNOW HOW TO DRIVE CARS OR COULD REACH THE DOOR HANDLE OF A BRONCO, AND I DON'T THINK THE DEFENSE IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO ARGUE ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY WITH RESPECT TO THAT.

- - - - - - - - - -

Detective Phillip Vanatter, one half of Dumb and Dumber:

[4750]

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AND YOU ORDERED DETECTIVE -- YOU ORDERED CRIMINALIST FUNG TO DO A PHENOTHALINE TEST ON THAT SMALL BLOOD DROP ON THE BRONCO; IS THAT CORRECT?

[4751]

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU REALIZE AT THAT TIME THAT BY DOING THE TEST YOU WOULD PERMANENTLY DESTROY THAT EVIDENCE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT DNA ANALYSIS?

A: NO, I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT.

Dumber, of Dumb and Dumber, DESTROYED the spot on the door as evidence of anything more than blood by ordering a phenolphthalein test. After that, it could only be conjectured as human blood. A DNA test was out of the question.

That is the evidence used to justify a search warrant with a false affidavit claiming human blood had been found.

And, somewhat amazingly, except for it being the LAPD, criminalist Dennis Fung performed that destructive phenolphthalein test.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-13   3:19:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#198. To: nolu chan (#197)

"That is the evidence used to justify a search warrant with a false affidavit claiming human blood had been found."

So you admit it was blood, but you're saying it was a false affidavit because it wasn't proven to be human blood. Meaning what? An animal drove the car?

There's a huge difference between doubt and reasonable doubt that you're missing here. The instruction to the jury is reasonable doubt. That's also my instruction to you.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-13   8:47:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#199. To: nolu chan (#190)

"Nobody claimed that Goldman drove Nicole's Ferrari on an unexpected visit to Nicole's house that night. Presumably, Nicole had the Ferrari parked somewhere."

You said, "This video interestingly offers an argument that the gloves belonged to Ron Goldman ... they were light and could function well as driving gloves ... gloves ... Ron Goldman drove Nicole's Ferrari".

If the gloves belonged to Ron Goldman and as proof you say he could have used them as driving gloves when he drove Nicole's Ferrari, aren't you saying he drove the Ferrari that night? Why bring up the Ferrari if Ron Goldman didn't drive it (wearing those driving gloves) that night?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-13   8:57:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#200. To: nolu chan (#191)

"Perhaps because Nicole gave him the gloves as a gift"

Perhaps? Is that a new legal term?

So he wears them all the time? The temperature that night was in the mid-70's. He would look foolish wearing those gloves, gift or not.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-13   9:02:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#201. To: nolu chan (#192)

"There is no evidence that he did, or did not."

Well, if those were Ron Goldman's gloves, wouldn't that be important? If he had small hands and a drawer full of small gloves, couldn't we exclude him as the owner of extra-large gloves?

Yet, amazingly, you don't care.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-13   9:06:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#202. To: nolu chan (#193)

The gloves used paper thin leather. They would not keep hands warm in New York or Chicago in winter.

They were cashmere-lined, fine for cool weather. Oh, here they are:

Did Nicole give them to OJ with the intent that he wear them in Chicago or New York in winter? No? Then why bring it up? You got a picture of Ron Goldman wearing those gloves?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-13   9:21:49 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#203. To: nolu chan (#194)

"There was no such testimony by Richard Rubin at the criminal trial."

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-13   9:33:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#204. To: nolu chan (#195)

Somebody transported the blood-soaked glove from Bundy to Rockingham. Suspect number one is Mark Fuhrman.

Suspect number only is OJ.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-13   9:44:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#205. To: misterwhite (#198)

So you admit it was blood, but you're saying it was a false affidavit because it wasn't proven to be human blood. Meaning what? An animal drove the car?

I did not admit it was blood, and the prosecution failed to produce evidence that it was blood.

A presumptive test was performed. No result from a presumptive test proves the presence of blood, any more than a presumptive test for marijuana proves the presence of marijuana.

With a presumptive test, a negative result indicates an absence of the amount of the substance tested for in the quantity sufficient to trigger a positive result.

With a presumptive test, a positive result indicates a likelihood that the substance tested for is present. I provides probable cause to perform a definitive lab test. If the definitive lab test is not performed, or is not positive, there is insufficient evidence to establish that the substance tested for is present.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kastle%E2%80%93Meyer_test

The Kastle–Meyer test is a presumptive blood test, first described in 1903, in which the chemical indicator phenolphthalein is used to detect the possible presence of hemoglobin.

[...]

Limitations

While the Kastle–Meyer test has been reported as being able to detect blood dilutions down to 1:107, there are a number of important limitations to the test. Chemical oxidants such as copper and nickel salts will cause the Kastle–Meyer reagent to turn pink before the addition of the hydrogen peroxide, thus it is vitally important to add the reagent first, then wait a few seconds, then add the hydrogen peroxide.

The Kastle–Meyer test has the same reaction with human blood as it does with any other hemoglobin-based blood, so a confirmatory test such as the Ouchterlony Test must be performed to definitively conclude from which species the blood originated.

Color catalytic tests are very sensitive, but not specific. The positive color test alone should not be interpreted as positive proof of blood. A negative result is generally proof of the absence of detectable quantities of heme, however a false negative can be generated in the presence of a reducing agent.

There was a tiny red spot, not proven to be blood. The false affidavit claimed the verified presence of human blood, something the test is incapable of verifying.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-15   4:31:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#206. To: misterwhite (#199)

If the gloves belonged to Ron Goldman and as proof you say he could have used them as driving gloves when he drove Nicole's Ferrari, aren't you saying he drove the Ferrari that night? Why bring up the Ferrari if Ron Goldman didn't drive it (wearing those driving gloves) that night?

Obviously not.

[nc #190] Nobody claimed that Goldman drove Nicole's Ferrari on an unexpected visit to Nicole's house that night. Presumably, Nicole had the Ferrari parked somewhere.

The claim that Nicole let Ron Goldman is on the youtube video at 9:12. The text there reads,

"According to family and friends, Ron Goldman was a great kid that liked to live in the fast lane and also liked driving fast cars. Ron had driven Nicole's fast Ferrari."

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-07-03/news/mn-11580_1_ronald-goldman/4

Outside the coffee bar Simpson and the guys exchanged tidbits--plans for the day, her children, their acting auditions. Goldman appeared no closer to her than the rest of them--except that he got an occasional chance to drive her white convertible Ferrari.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-oj-anniv-goldman-story.html

Goldman, 25, also had an increasingly close relationship with 35-year-old Nicole Brown Simpson, whom he had exercised with, accompanied to dance clubs and often met for coffee and dinner during the past month and a half.

He told others that he was just friends with Simpson. But he boasted of her stunning good looks and talked about the special kick it gave him to see heads turn when the two of them pulled up in her white Ferrari in front of The Gate, a fashionable West Hollywood dance club, with him behind the wheel.

From the ever reliable reddit,

https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/2n1329/til_ronald_goldman_didnt_even_know_nicole_brown/

Simpson had complained bitterly to anyone who would listen about Niclole allowing Goldman to drive around town in her (OJ -purchased) Ferrari. More to the point, "I left my glasses at table x" (at Mezzaluna, Brentwood's cocaine central) was code for bring me x grams of blow," which Goldman was in the process of doing when he was murdered.

If waiter Ron Goldman got to drive her fast Ferrari (plate L84AD8), and hot rich chick Nicole had given him driving gloves, he could have worn those gloves to drive his own car to her house for a nighttime rendezvous, where she awaited in spandex with the tub full and hot, the bathroom lights off, and the candles on.

Ron Goldman was working at Mezzaluna. Nicole called the restaurant about glasses left behind. Ron Goldman punched out and drove to Nicole's. Unless Nicole left the Ferrari with Ron at Mezzaluna, he drove something else. Duh.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-15   4:33:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#207. To: misterwhite (#200)

Perhaps? Is that a new legal term?

No. It is an old term used to respond to really stupid questions.

So he wears them all the time? The temperature that night was in the mid-70's. He would look foolish wearing those gloves, gift or not.

The young waiter who liked styling in a Ferrari with the hot chick, and a hard on, wouldn't worry too much about the gloves looking foolish. He may have worn them frequently during the six weeks or so he was styling with Nicole, thinking with his little head.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-15   4:36:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#208. To: misterwhite (#201)

Well, if those were Ron Goldman's gloves, wouldn't that be important? If he had small hands and a drawer full of small gloves, couldn't we exclude him as the owner of extra-large gloves?

Yet, amazingly, you don't care.

If you have such imaginary evidence that was presented to the jury in the criminal trial, present it.

You did not care enough to watch the trial or read the transcript. You have falsely claimed nonsense about the pictures of the gloves and the testimony, as documented in my responses to #202 and #203.

Your chosen expert said the stretch leather gloves in M thru XL would get on O.J's hand.

[11590]

MR. RUBIN: I would venture to say that almost every glove that was manufactured by Aris Philippines from size medium to extra large would get on his hand. Some might be tight, some might be loose, but they would get on his hand.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-15   4:38:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#209. To: misterwhite (#202)

#202. To: nolu chan (#193)

The gloves used paper thin leather. They would not keep hands warm in New York or Chicago in winter.

They were cashmere-lined, fine for cool weather. Oh, here they are:

https://i2.wp.com/altereddimensions.net/main/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/image-42.png

Did Nicole give them to OJ with the intent that he wear them in Chicago or New York in winter? No? Then why bring it up? You got a picture of Ron Goldman wearing those gloves?

misterwhite posted on 2017-06-13 9:21:49 ET

I do not have a picture of Ron Goldman wearing those gloves. You do not have a picture of O. J. Simpson verified as wearing those gloves.

There is no evidence that either of the two evidence gloves have been verified as purchased by Nicole Simpson, or given to O.J. Simpson.

There is no picture of O.J. Simpson wearing gloves that obviously did not fit, except for Darden's demonstration disaster of the century.

You present a picture of O. J. Simpson wearing a pair of BLACK gloves, as O.J. wearing those gloves. Text associated with the image: "Newscast video frame showing OJ wearing black gloves just like (sic - the evidence gloves were brown) those found at the murder scene and behind Kato's cabin." Maybe this is why your source is called Altered Dimensions.

The left-hand glove found at Nicole’s home and the right-hand glove found at OJ’s home prove to be a match. They also prove to be Simpson’s size (despite Simpson’s theatrics in court, pretending that the glove did not fit). Even though Simpson claimed under oath that he did not own a pair of Aris Isotoner gloves, several media pictures emerged showing Simpson wearing these exact gloves.

The gloves were not Aris Isotoner gloves.

[11607]

MR. COCHRAN: All right. One last question. With regard to Aris--the Aris--and Mr. Darden kept saying Isotoner. Did you tell us yesterday it wasn't Isotoner, these are Aris lights?

MR. RUBIN: Isotoner was a different product line than leather gloves. These are Aris leather light gloves.

I understand how hard it is for wingnut news to get the details right, but when all else fails, read the transcript.

And Altered Dimensions seems to think that a picture of O. J. Simpson wearing BLACK gloves, gloves they identify as Aris Isotoner gloves, definitely depict O. J. Simpson wearing the same exact gloves as the BROWN Aris Leather Light gloves in evidence.

- - - - - - - - - -

Oh, here they are:

https://i2.wp.com/altereddimensions.net/main/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/image-42.png

The image link is shown above.

Oh, there they ain't.

http://altereddimensions.net/2012/oj-simpson-murders

The image appears in the article at Altered Dimensions at the link above.

The image has the embedded text, "O. J. wearing the same type of gloves."

[18774]

MR. BLASIER: You're indicating unequivocally that in your opinion, from those pictures that you had last July, it was an Aris glove, correct?

MR. RUBIN: That's not the case. What I meant by that statement categorically was that I did not see any features in any one of those photos that would indicate that it would be any other style that I had knowledge of. That's what I meant by that statement.

The gloves depicted in the image are BLACK. The gloves in evidence are BROWN.

The expert could not unequivocally say the gloves in the pictures were Aris gloves at all. He could not rule out that they were Aris gloves. He also could not rule out that is was a different glove from a different manufacturer.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-15   4:44:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#210. To: misterwhite (#203) (Edited)

[misterwhite #188] "There was a picture of OJ wearing gloves. Lo and behold, they were the same model as gloves found at the murder scene and behind his house, glove expert Richard Rubin testified."

[nolu chan #194] "Lo and behold, your claim is imaginary. There was no such testimony by Richard Rubin at the criminal trial."

[misterwhite #203, youtube]

Do you see the three needlepoints you described earlier

Yes

Transcript:

[18757]

MR. DARDEN: While you are here, let me direct your attention to the photographs taken by Michael Romano. There are two photographs to the right of the board depicting the Defendant wearing black gloves; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Also on frame 30706, your Honor.

[18758]

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Do you see the three needlepoints that you described earlier?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: In both photographs?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I do.

- - - - - - - - - -

[misterwhite #203, youtube]

Are all the characteristics that you've observed in the brown gloves worn by the defendant consistent with style 72063

Objection asked and answered

Overruled

Yes

Recall consistent with as Prosecution Counsel Kelberg herniated himself raising a hypothetical to Dr. Lakschmanan

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would you stake your reputation that based upon the forensic pathology evidence you reviewed, that all of that evidence is in fact consistent with one killer, six foot two, 210 pounds, athletically built with the element of surprise with a 6-inch long single-edged knife killing Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman? Would you risk your reputation, stake your reputation on that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I said that one person could have done all the injuries, yes, I did say that.

MR. KELBERG: And will you stake your reputation that all of the evidence is consistent with that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

- - - - - - - - - -

And recall that nothing burger was fried to a crisp by Robert Shapiro and Dr. Baden:

MR. SHAPIRO: No. My question--I want you to listen to this question very carefully. Can you tell us as a doctor, as a scientist and as the Chief Medical Examiner of one of the largest counties in the United States that within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, you will put your reputation on the line that one single-edged weapon was responsible for all the injuries to both victims in this case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I can't say that.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. KELBERG: So, doctor, is it your use of the term "Possibility" to relate to doctors who talk in terms of "Consistent with" or "Inconsistent with" when questions are posed?

DR. BADEN: What I said is that the witness, me in the blue chair, Dr. Lakshmanan in the blue chair here, can only answer the questions that the lawyers put to us, and I think we try to answer the questions the best we can. But if all we say is it's possible that it happened by a bushy-haired stranger whose righthanded from behind, yes, but it's also equally consistent with a bald-headed midget from the front who is left-handed. It's all -- it depends on what kind of information I want to give across as an expert, but I don't have control over your questions or Mr. Shapiro's questions.

Consistent with does not state something as fact. It states something is a possibility.

Now that it is clear that your claim is bullcrap, we can explore in more depth what Richard Rubin actually said. Like Dr. Unlucky, Richard Rubin did not escape cross-examination.

[18773]

MR. BLASIER: Did you indicate in your letter on all eight photos none of the detail that can be seen indicates that the gloves could be a style other than 70263?

MR. RUBIN: I did.

[18774]

MR. BLASIER: You're indicating unequivocally that in your opinion, from those pictures that you had last July, it was an Aris glove, correct?

MR. RUBIN: That's not the case. What I meant by that statement categorically was that I did not see any features in any one of those photos that would indicate that it would be any other style that I had knowledge of. That's what I meant by that statement.

MR. BLASIER: Remember us asking you yesterday what you meant by that statement?

MR. RUBIN: Yes. That's exactly what I said.

MR. BLASIER: And you didn't indicate to us that what you meant by that was that it was your opinion back then that from those pictures, you could make an identification that those are Aris 70263?

MR. RUBIN: I felt I could, but in context, I wanted to see more detail.

MR. BLASIER: All right. Did you tell us yesterday that you had decided that what you meant by this sentence in here, that you decided back then that your expert opinion was that those were the same style glove?

MR. RUBIN: I was not a hundred percent sure at that point in time.

MR. BLASIER: Did you tell us yesterday that that's what you meant by that sentence?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor. This is vague.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. BLASIER: Did you tell us yesterday that what you meant by that sentence is what it says, that you could--that in your opinion, these were the Aris style gloves?

MR. DARDEN: Misstates the testimony.

MR. RUBIN: What I meant--

THE COURT: Excuse me. Overruled.

MR. RUBIN: What I meant by that statement categorically was that the features that I could see in the pictures, not one feature would lead me to a non 70263 Aris light style. That's what I meant by the statement.

[18775]

MR. BLASIER: By the statement you made yesterday to us?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[18772]

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER

MR. BLASIER: Good afternoon, Mr. Rubin.

MR. RUBIN: Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Rubin, have you tried to be completely impartial in this case?

MR. RUBIN: Absolutely.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you haven't been currying favor with one side or the other?

MR. RUBIN: Absolutely not.

MR. BLASIER: You don't have any agenda here for one side or the other?

MR. RUBIN: I do not.

MR. BLASIER: You haven't tried to shade your opinion in any way to favor one side or the other?

MR. RUBIN: Absolutely not.

[...]

[18775]

MR. BLASIER: Now, when you wrote that letter to the Prosecution back on July 6th, did you include as part of that letter--

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: --"If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me at anytime. Please thank everyone for their hospitality during my visit. Maybe I can make it to the victory party," exclamation point, exclamation point?

MR. RUBIN: Correct.

MR. BLASIER: Now, was this party being planned before the Defense started?

MR. RUBIN: This statement was made in jest, no differently than on the first day that I testified here, as I walked out, I wished Mr. Simpson and the crowd the best of luck. It meant nothing.

MR. BLASIER: Had the victory party been planned before the Defense started?

MR. RUBIN: Absolutely not.

MR. BLASIER: Were you expecting an invitation to it?

MR. RUBIN: No. I was never expecting an invitation.

MR. BLASIER: Do you consider yourself a member of the Prosecution team at that point?

MR. RUBIN: No, I do not.

MR. BLASIER: Also, did you indicate in that letter in a P.S., "At your convenience, could you obtain business cards from all the members of your staff as I want to make one, only one piece for my office as memorabilia of my experience. Please include Mr. Hodgman and Miss Clark"?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I did.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you were planning to construct some sort of memorabilia for your office for your

[18776]

customers to see?

MR. RUBIN: I have probably 300 envelopes that have been sent to me around the country regarding this testimony. Most of them I haven't even opened yet, and I was planning on actually taking one article, putting some business cards in it and framing it and putting it in my office as a remembrance of my experience. That's all it was.

MR. BLASIER: Cards from the Prosecution?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Recall that rare, distinctive brossier stitch? Mr. Rubin investigated that.

[18762]

MR. BLASIER: Now, you made some effort to try and find out what other manufacturers in the world might have used Brossier stitching and produced gloves without stitching, correct?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I did.

MR. BLASIER: And how many different companies did you check with?

MR. RUBIN: I only checked with two.

MR. BLASIER: There are a lot more companies than that in the world, aren't there?

MR. RUBIN: In the world? Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, did you ever check with any glove companies in Europe or Italy?

MR. RUBIN: No, I did not.

MR. BLASIER: In Europe?

MR. RUBIN: No, I did not.

MR. BLASIER: Other glove companies other than the two that you've told us about?

MR. RUBIN: No, I did not.

MR. BLASIER: And what are those two companies?

MR. RUBIN: Fownes gloves, F-O-W-N-E-S, and Mr. Zuckerware's company, grand-o gloves.

MR. BLASIER: And Grand-O does produce a glove with Brossier stitching, doesn't it?

MR. RUBIN: They told me that they had produced a glove with Brossier stitching a couple of years ago in small quantity.

MR. BLASIER: And they had it in stock?

MR. RUBIN: They didn't mention that to me.

[18783]

MR. BLASIER: Okay. So the two companies--the only two companies that you checked with, one of them does this stitch, correct?

MR. RUBIN: One out of two.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-15   4:47:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#211. To: misterwhite (#204)

Somebody transported the blood-soaked glove from Bundy to Rockingham. Suspect number one is Mark Fuhrman.

Suspect number only is OJ.

Preliminary Hearing, MARK FUHRMAN, Cross-examination by Defense Attorney Gerald Uelman, July 5, 1994.

07 Q All right.
08 And from that vantage point, you first
09 observed the glove that you told us about?
10 A Not first, no.
11 Q When did you first observe it?
12 A We had flashlights. We were looking at the
13 female victim. We looked at the male victim.
14 I noticed the glove when I walked around to
15 the -- after I exited the residence the first time and
16 walked around to the side -- or the north side, north
17 perimeter of 875 Bundy.
18 There's an iron fence and through that iron
19 fence you can get very close to the male victim. And
20 looking there I could see them down at his feet.

The gloves. On July 5, 1995, Mark Fuhrman recollected first seeing them, plural, down at the feet of the male victim, Ron Goldman.

O.J. Trial, March 13, 1995, FUHRMAN cross-examination by F. Lee Bailey

[4236]

Q: WELL, LOOK, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THAT TESTIMONY, ISN'T THERE, THE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE VIEW THROUGH THE FENCE?

A: NO, THERE ISN'T.

Q: THERE IS A PROBLEM THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION, ISN'T THERE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: NO.

Q: WHEN DISCUSSING THIS EVENT IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND TALKING ABOUT THE

[4237]

GLOVE, YOUR TONGUE SLIPPED AND YOU SAID "THEM," DIDN'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU HAVE EXAMINED THAT IN THE TRANSCRIPT, HAVEN'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU KNOW IT HAS BEEN PLAYED ON VIDEO TO THE JURY? THE WORD "THEM" IS CLEAR?

A: YES.

Q: THAT IS A SLIP OF THE TONGUE?

A: NO.

Them is a problem.

Preliminary Hearing, MARK FUHRMAN, Cross-examination by Defense Attorney Gerald Uelman, July 5, 1994.

Q CAN YOU TELL US WHAT IS SHOWN IN PHOTOGRAPH 'B'

A IN PHOTOGRAPH B, THE SMALL RED STAIN HERE IS THE STAIN THAT I SAW I BELIEVED WAS BLOOD. AND THIS IS RIGHT ABOVE THE DRIVER'S SIDE DOOR HANDLE

Q AND WHAT ELSE DID YOU SEE?

A AT THAT TIME THERE WAS -- I INSPECTED THE DOOR MORE CLOSELY. I GOT DOWN ON THE GROUND AND LOOKED AT THE DOORJAMB AREA, WHICH WOULD BE IN PHOTO

A. THIS AREA, THE SEAM OF THE LOWER DOOR WHERE IT OPENS

Q WHERE THE DOOR MEETS THE FLOOR OF THE DRIVER'S SIDE OF THE CAR?

A YES

Q WHAT DID YOU SEE THERE?

A I SAW FOUR -- THREE OR FOUR LITTLE LINES, RED-STAINED LINES, THAT LOOKED LIKE A BRUSH MARK WHICH ALSO LOOKED LIKE BLOOD. THEY WERE VERY SMALL, ABOUT A QUARTER OF AN INCH LONG

- - - - - - - - - -

Barry Scheck closing,

[19953]

Now, we know from what was said to Dr. Baden that in the course of getting things together on leaving, Mr. Simpson sustained a cut going into the Bronco, retrieving materials on his way out packing, and that it is the position of the Defense, that the bloodstains that you see and--well, briefly, why don't we take out that board and I will come back to it. This is the Prosecution's bloodstain pattern and the Bronco board, if you will recall it. Now, there are bloodstain patterns in the handle, instrument panel, console, of course, and then these are other items, that is, the footprint area and on top of the windowsill, okay? The windowsill is somewhere around here, (Indicating), that are consistent, everybody agrees, with a cut to the left hand of somebody getting into the car sitting down looking for something, consistent with our theory, consistent arguably with their theory. But then when you start looking at the rest of the bloodstain patterns, you have to start asking which interpretation is reasonable?

Now, the first point that has to be made--take this down for a second--is that of course initial deposits would be made by Mr. Simpson that evening and then somebody else was in that Bronco. Now, we know someone else was in that Bronco, and that has been, I submit to you, demonstrated by the evidence. Let's take a look at this picture. Mr. Cochran has already reviewed with you the testimony of Mark Fuhrman at the preliminary hearing, and you heard it on videotape, where he said he saw the--found blood in the Bronco, a bit of a Freudian slip, but I submit to you one of the most significant moments has to do with the testimony of Dennis Fung and the blood--bloodstain patterns on the doorsill of the Bronco. You recall that Detective Fuhrman testified at the preliminary hearing at this trial that he observed four brush mark bloodstain patterns on the doorsill of the Bronco that he could observe when the door was closed. When

[19954]

Mr. Fung came in, he circled these pictures, and if you will recall his testimony, the bottom circle closest to the door, that is only one stain. He said that that stain could be observed when the door was closed, but the other three stains that are represented by those other two circles could only be seen when the door was opened. Could only be seen when the door was open. From their own witnesses, evidence, he was in the Bronco and it only makes sense that he would go in that Bronco. And how much credibility do you really put in this man's testimony? But here is evidence that he was in there.

Do you know what other evidence there is? There is one of the most interesting facts, and it is hard scientific evidence that supports our position with respect to the bloodstain pattern in the Bronco, the steering wheel. You recall that the typing on the steering wheel was 1.1, 1.2, a genotype consistent with O.J. Simpson, and 4. Who is the contributor of the 4 allele? That was an issue, and much was made of it, on the--in the case, was it not? Lots of crossexamination, lots of highlighting of that 4 allele in the steering wheel. And the Prosecution well knew that it was the contention of the Defense that Mr. Fuhrman and/or other officers had been in the Bronco.

Doesn't take much to get a blood sample or you just take a swab and the testimony is you run it through somebody's mouth, you can do a quick DQ-Alpha test. What is Mark Fuhrman's genotype? We know that Andrea Mazzola and Dennis Fung, just like you do eliminations, they--their genotypes were taken so we would know what they were. They are not consistent with the 4. None of them has the 4. They are eliminated. Why wasn't Mark Fuhrman eliminated? Why didn't they take exemplars from the police on this? Why? But I think that a fair inference consistent with innocence, which you are under oath obliged to take.

You must consider that Mr. Fuhrman was in the Bronco and the evidence is that a picture, 4:30, around 4:30 in the evening [sic - morning], he is pointing at that glove at Bundy, walking through a pool of blood. Now comes into that Bronco, the vicinity of that Bronco, the area of 5:00 in the morning, right, initially, then go out and does his circuitous little trip where he finds the glove and is alone for fifteen minutes around 5:15.

Now, there is very interesting testimony from Dennis Fung at page 21438 of the transcript about the ground and he is talking here about Fuhrman and he is talking about an arriving--excuse me--Vannatter, he is talking about arriving--arriving initially at the Rockingham location and he talks about how he was shown a red stain on the driver's door of the vehicle and a blood trail and:

"Question: Okay. Did you notice anything about the temperature at that time or the weather?

"Answer: It was fairly cool.

What about the lawns? Did you notice anything that looked like it could have been dew on the lawns?

"Answer: I did notice there was some, that the grass was wet.

"Question: All right."

So Fung tells us that the grass is wet, but we know that there is no dew. We introduced into evidence under 1280 the weather, and when it was introduced--and you can take this back into the jury room. You can examine the areas that are highlighted in purple. The only thing to--that doesn't really make much of a difference to be tricky about this.

Professor MacDonell explained all of this, that when you look at the time listing over here, it is standard time, so anytime you see a time you have to add an hour, but when you look at the temperature and the dew point, you are going to see that the temperature was always many degrees above the dew point, so in other words, when you look through this you will see there is no dew, but the grass was wet.

And you were at that location and you noticed the sprinkler heads and the sprinkler system and right in that area, that grass area where the Bronco was parked, there was six sprinkler heads. The grass, a fair inference, was watered regularly at that location. The grass was wet. That is the fact. Now, if you have, as Agent Bodziak indicated, blood that is caked on the inside of your shoe, even if loafers like Mr. Fuhrman in the inside heel area in your shoe, and then you walk through a wet area and then you step onto the carpet, you are going to get the same kind of pattern that was testified to for the Prosecution side in terms of the fibers going into the shoes and getting out blood that would be consistent with the genotype of Nicole Brown

[19955]

Simpson that is found on the carpet of the Bronco. Then we have the issue of the bloodstain pattern on the console. Now, let me be precise, because when Mr. Cochran was showing you about the seven/tenths of a drop of blood, I just want to make sure that I saw some--even the Prosecutors with a quizzical look--but that happened, I think you will recall, at the very end of the trial, and that was the testimony of Gary Sims.

You will recall that he came back, he was testifying about the RFLP tests and the combining of all the stains, and I asked him a series of questions about combining all the stains, that is, the collection on June 14th from the console of 30 and 31, then the August 26th sample, 303, 304, 305. And we talked about the amount of DNA that you would get, you know, with one drop containing 1000 nanograms of high molecular-weight DNA, and then when he looked at the amount of DNA when you combined all the samples, he said that wasn't over a hundred, and:

"Question: So that is one/tenth of one drop of blood?"

That is what it is. A hundred nanograms. One/tenth of one drop of blood. He said--qualified he said:

"Answer: Well, you have to remember with a drop of blood, for example, if you were testing liquid blood, that is not the same as extracting DNA out of a stain's worth of one drop of blood, so there is--you are not quite talking apples--you are somewhat talking apples and oranges there, but in terms of the ballpark you are talking about, you know, maybe getting three/quarters of that DNA out, so you can figure it from that."

Then I asked him a question trying to make it English:

"All right. "So what you are basically saying to us is maybe if you are just dealing with a pristine drop of blood you wouldn't get a thousand nanograms you would get 750?

"Something like that.

"Is that what you just said in English.

"Answer: Yes, that is what I said.

"Okay.

"If we were to--and I mean no disrespect for that, just summarizing it. "And so if you've got about a hundred nanograms of DNA and 750 nanograms in a drop of blood, can you give me that fraction quickly?

"That would be, what, about a seventh?

"Answer: Something like that."

Okay. So in other words, make it very, very simple-hand science, when you combine the amount of DNA and you give them all favorable inferences, Gary Sims, their own witness, says, when you look at the smears of blood on the console, it is seven/tenths of a drop. And how could that be you are saying? Let's say it is a drop or two. How could that be?

Well, that is because as Dr. Lee explained, that when you have a blood drop and you smear it over a non-absorbent surface, it smears, so it looks--small amount of blood can make a big smear.

And of course Mr. Goldman's contribution to that seven/tenths of a drop of blood is at the most thirty, forty percent. That is very, very, very little. And so then you have to ask yourself does this make any sense? How could so little--even if we assume, you know, how could so little be there? How could so little be there?

You know, Miss Clark was trying to say, well, this is how the blood got there. We know the Rockingham glove had a lot of blood, mostly from Mr. Goldman, some from Nicole Brown Simpson, and that was somehow placed on the side of the console, so that is why we get the little amount of Goldman's DNA that is on the console. That is their theory.

Well, that is consistent with Mr. Fuhrman placing the glove in there. It is consistent with even Mr. Fuhrman having handled the glove and getting blood on his sleeve and just searching around the area for one of the other police officers and just getting a small smear of it with his sleeve on the console. That is consistent with this evidence.

And you know what isn't consistent with this evidence? Think about it. What are they really saying? If Mr. Simpson had committed these murders and he grabbed the glove, as they are saying, with his open left hand, all right, and placed it on the side, well, then in getting into the car why aren't there mixtures on the window, right, on the window, on all those other drops? Everything else, all those other bloodstains. There is no trace of--of blood from either of the victims. There is no mixtures. Wouldn't there be other blood on the hand? And

[19956]

of course their theory before you, this is extraordinary, is that he is wearing these clothes that we've just been through the evidence of struggle. If there is blood on pants, it is going to be on the seat. If there is blood from the struggle with Goldman, it should be there. We know there is no hair. There is no trace. There is no fibers from clothing. There is no berries, there is nothing in that Bronco that would be consistent with somebody that had committed a violent double homicide that had been in a life and death struggle with Mr. Goldman. It doesn't make one bit of sense if you look at the bloodstain pattern in the Bronco. You have to have a reasonable doubt about that.

And haven't we shown you by credible, fair and reasonable evidence that this Detective Fuhrman would have gone in that car? And by his own testimony and exposed lies from the Prosecution's own witnesses, there is evidence he was there. Those--those stains on the doorsill give you the lie, don't they? He was in that car and probably more than one of them was in that car.

Now, with respect to the credibility of the evidence, very briefly, and I know you are--you followed this, we have to make a distinction. You know, in our opening statement Miss Clark actually said to you that all she was going to talk about in her opening statement with respect to the Bronco were the stains that were collected on June 14th. She didn't even indicate they were going to offer you anything from--after August 26th, because they know how terribly this was handled and that no jury could really accept the integrity of the evidence after this car was abandoned. But could we bring up the board, please?

On 13--I think it is 1351; the DNA board with the--

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. SCHECK: Very briefly, you will recall this, and we made a distinction here. We have to look at the samples that were collected on June 14th and the samples that were collected on August 26th, as Dr. Gerdes suggested to you. If you look at the June 14th DNA evidence, okay, with sample 30 and 31, nothing in 30. 31 they are calling this faint 1.3 allele, where the 1.3 is showing up in the controls. And you will remember the whole business about development length and the notion of controls failing. This is it. From June 14th this is it with respect to DNA from Mr. Goldman and the Bronco. That is it.

And as Dr. Gerdes indicated to you, that is not credible scientific evidence. Of course they are offering you evidence that was collected on August 26th after this vehicle was literally abandoned, after the no special care hold had been taken off it, after there was a theft.

Now, Mr. Meraz, he wasn't the world's most credible witness on the issue of the theft, but I really think that is besides the point. No. 1, he is stealing, he is inside that car. What is going on? He didn't see blood.

But you don't have to accept Meraz. What about Detective Mulldorfer who is investigating this? She doesn't see blood.

And then there is Mr. Blasini. He doesn't see blood on the console.

And we know that there is all kind of people allowed into this vehicle, and probably more disturbing than anything else is Detective Mulldorfer indicated the rules are violated and there is no record kept of any authorized police personnel, of any police personnel going in and out of there. They could just go in and out and no records were kept and nobody would know period. And all of a sudden what we have on August 26th, when the car is finally brought in, and Miss Clark said it was--she must have misspoke when she tried to imply that the inspection of the Bronco was at the request of the Defense. Those are not the facts. The facts are that they brought it in, they allowed two Defense people to observe and then Michele Kestler looks in the vehicle and there is a photographer that was brought down from life magazine at the behest of the police commissioner to witness this grand examination of the Bronco, and low and behold, they find as much

[11957]

blood on the console on August 26th as there was on June 14th. And then when they do the DNA testing patterns, they find out only Mr.--traces of Mr. Goldman's blood, but Nicole Brown Simpson's blood in those same areas. That is awfully odd. So the integrity of the evidence again is in question here in terms of what you can accept beyond a reasonable doubt, but even if you are willing to look aside from that, and I don't really think that one can in fairness, I think that the Defense version of how the blood got there and the bloodstain pattern in the Bronco is far more plausible than the Prosecution's version. It just doesn't fit.

There would be mixtures on all those stains, according to their own theory. There should be more blood in the Bronco, given what occurred in this case. The bloodstain patterns don't make sense, do they? They really don't. Nor does the hair and fiber in that Bronco.

Johnnie Cochran closing argument,

[19961]

In case there was any question about what we had said earlier. Mr. Scheck has covered the brush mark on the door, but what I would like for you to do is look back at your notes, because Fuhrman said that regarding these brush marks, he said he saw these marks on that door while the door of the Bronco was closed, remember? The reason why this has become so important was he was trying to say he hadn't gotten inside. Then we called Larry Ragle who said you couldn't see the ones at the top unless the door was opened. And then Fuhrman also had said that he told Fung about these brush marks. If you look at Fung's testimony, I think you will find that Fung never says that he heard that from Fuhrman. And so you know, with regard to Fuhrman, I could have gone on and on and on about lies, but that would be counterproductive after a while because

[19962]

you know who he is now. There is one other point I wanted to share with you about Fuhrman before we take our leave of him, is that there was a question--some questions, and counsel, at 18906, about opportunity for Detective Fuhrman and here was a series of quick questions: "When you arrived at the scene this night were you wearing a coat, a jacket of some sort?

"When I first arrived at the scene, yes. "Can you describe it? "Answer: A blue blazer. "All right. And you were wearing the trousers and shirt that we see you in with your weapon in picture pointing at the lefthanded glove? "Yes, tan slacks. "Okay. "Now, at some point did you walk back to your vehicle and take off your blazer and hang it to lay in the vehicle somewhere? "Yes, sir. "Okay.

"Can you tell the court and jury about what time of day that happened, bearing in mind that you arrived at about 2:10, that is A.M.? "It would be after I was relieved from the case." Now, he is relieved a short time after he gets there. He is relieved about three o'clock, isn't he, before three o'clock? "All right. That would be close to three o'clock? "Yes, sir. "Question: And that is when you walked back to the vehicle and left the jacket and stood waiting for your relief? "Yes, sir." Now, I don't believe hardly anything he says except that it is true that in this photograph taken at 4:30 or before sunrise, the one you saw where he is pointing at the glove, he doesn't have a jacket on. So he had a jacket, went to that car by himself. There is many things in that car. This man had ample opportunity to get up to that scene.

You know, as I told you, it so stretches the credulity to believe that so neatly placed were this knit hat and his glove, were there two gloves at some point when he says I saw them. Why would you see them? There weren't two gloves. And you know it is so unusual because everything else is spread all out. This was a vicious fight. There is a beeper over here and there is keys over there, but these items are right there, right where he could point at them. It is too, too pat. So you can ask yourself those questions when you go back into that jury room. Now, in this case I discussed with you Miss Juanita Moore, a lady that I called to the stand, and I think I misspoke myself. I think I mentioned to you--I think I may have said she said that Mr. Simpson did not have dandruff, and if I did say that, I got that wrong. She said Mr. Simpson would get dandruff I think in the off season, in the string and summer when he was here, as opposed to when he was in New York.

And I wanted to make sure. In looking at the transcript over the lunch hour I noted Miss Clark seemed to be amazed when Mr. Scheck said that Kelly Mulldorfer said that she didn't see blood on that Bronco, so to save her some time I'm going to read you the transcript. Kelly Mulldorfer at 38268, lines 26 through line 9, I think on 38269.

"Question: And when you looked at the console do you remember seeing any blood there?

"Answer: No, I don't have any specific recollection."

That is the lady, the investigator who was looking at this.

And so now we come to some jury instructions which I think have some real relevance as we conclude this case, hopefully. We have already talked about a witness willfully false. We talked an awful lot and you know now a lot about circumstantial evidence, and I dare say you know the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. We want to talk further about--and you know what happens where the proved circumstances are equally consistent, one of which points to innocence and the other which points to guilt. Where they are both reasonable, you must adopt that which points to innocence. You understand that. You understand about circumstantial evidence. So enough about this. And we have displayed this and we have talked about how this works and how it inures to the benefit of the Defendant because there is this burden of proof. But there is another instruction which I want to talk to you about now and this is one that--where the Prosecutors keep wanting to change things around and ask what we proved and what we didn't do.

This is what the law is:

"The Prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crimes." There is no doubt about it among any of us, is it. "The Defendant is not required to prove him or herself innocent or to prove that another person committed the crime charged."

So now if that is what the law is and the judge gave you that, why did Mr. Darden ask the question, who did this? Who committed this crime? Why would he ask you that when the judge just said the Defendant doesn't have to show anything, when we know in this case in a rush to judgment they didn't look at anybody else. That is a question he should be asking these detectives, not us. We are the ones who had to depend on experts who wanted to help out and they wouldn't accept this. How can he ask us that question? How can he ask us that question in good faith? The answer is you go ask your detectives. That is the answer.

Now, you ask another question. He said, well, where was O.J. Simpson? And he says, well, you know, how does he account for his whereabouts after ten o'clock? Well, let me just talk a minute about that. He asked that question. Let me answer it for you and for him. Some of you in your former life probably lived alone. If you lived alone, if something happened between ten o'clock and six o'clock in the morning, it is real difficult, if you live alone, to prove where you were if nobody lives there with you. Isn't that true? Is that common sense? Mr. Simpson lived alone. We have done more than that. We can I think establish where he was. He was at home. That Bronco was outside. He was packing and getting ready and rushing around at the last minute and coming outside to that Bronco, getting his phone, getting the paraphernalia for that phone. That is what he was doing. He was packing, he was getting the golf bags and golf bag out of his car that was seated out there. He was getting golf shoes and whatever goes with golf if you are a golfer. That is what he is doing, getting the little knapsack out that has golf balls in it and bring another bag down, all of which were ready when Park and Kato were out there and he comes down with the other bag carrying it. That is what he was doing, Mr. Darden. That is where he was.

It is your speculation he is on the side of his house running into an air conditioner. That didn't happen. That is unreasonable. Nobody here believes it. It is not going to help save their case. They are speculating again, speculating, speculating, and it is not going to work.

And so that brings me to this other instruction. It is called alibi. You remember during voir dire I asked you about this. I said that you won't place a bad connotation on the term "Alibi," because that is what the law calls it, alibi. And it says as follows:

"That evidence has been received for the purpose of showing that the Defendant was not present at the time and place of the commission of the alleged crime for which he is here on trial. If after a consideration of all the evidence you have a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was present at the time the crime was committed, you must find him not guilty."

Can I repeat that last part for you? "If after a consideration of all the evidence you have a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was present at the time the crime was committed." It doesn't say you might find him not guilty, you might think about it. It says: "You must find him not guilty."

And so you know when you talk about this whole concept of reasonable doubt, and we will talk a little more about that, it is how you feel inside about this evidence. It is how you feel inside about these messengers and their message. It is when you have that queasy feeling, you can't trust this evidence. Barry Scheck described it, well, as a cancer. He talked about one cockroach. You don't need to see any more because you know if you see there is a lot of them around. All you need is one and that is going to make you go the other way.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-15   4:51:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#212. To: nolu chan (#211)

Q: WHEN DISCUSSING THIS EVENT IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND TALKING ABOUT THE GLOVE, YOUR TONGUE SLIPPED AND YOU SAID "THEM," DIDN'T YOU?

A: YES.

Slip of the tongue. As he testified. Other officers were there before Fuhrman and saw only one glove.

All the rest of your screed is speculation, innuendo, and conspiracy theory. No evidence. No proof. 90% of this should have not been allowed in front of the jury. Save it for closing arguments.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-15   10:11:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#213. To: nolu chan (#209)

The expert could not unequivocally say the gloves in the pictures were Aris gloves at all.

No. He said he saw no features that would indicate they were not Aris gloves. Read the transcript.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-15   10:49:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#214. To: nolu chan (#209)

"MR. COCHRAN: All right. One last question. With regard to Aris--the Aris--and Mr. Darden kept saying Isotoner. Did you tell us yesterday it wasn't Isotoner, these are Aris lights?

MR. RUBIN: Isotoner was a different product line than leather gloves. These are Aris leather light gloves

The company started in Europe as Aris Glove Company -- a maker of fine leather gloves. They moved to the US and created a new glove they called isotoner. It became so popular that Aris adopted it and changed the name of the company to Aris Isotoner, Inc.

All the gloves they make are called Aris Isotoner gloves. They have many styles of gloves. One of them is Aris Isotoner leather lights -- sometimes referred to simply as Aris leather lights.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-15   11:10:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#215. To: nolu chan (#211)

12 A We had flashlights. We were looking at the
13 female victim. We looked at the male victim.
14 I noticed the glove when I walked around

I noticed the glove.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-15   12:43:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#216. To: misterwhite (#202)

Did Nicole give them to OJ with the intent that he wear them in Chicago or New York in winter? No? Then why bring it up?

The miscellaneous pictures of O.J. Simpson wearing some unidentified brand(s) and model(s) of gloves were taken in New York, Chicago, Buffalo, and Cincinnati, all of which get freezing ass cold.

The receipt from Bloomingdale's indicates Nicole bought two set of gloves on December 18th, in the winter, a week before Christmas.

O.J. Simpson lived at Bristol Plaza, 210 E 65th St, in Manhattan. Bloomingdale's was at 59th St.

For what purpose do you contend O.J. packed gloves and carried them to Los Angeles?

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-16   23:38:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#217. To: misterwhite (#212)

Slip of the tongue. As he testified. Other officers were there before Fuhrman and saw only one glove.

All the rest of your screed is speculation, innuendo, and conspiracy theory. No evidence. No proof. 90% of this should have not been allowed in front of the jury. Save it for closing arguments.

Your opinion is noted. You were not the judge. I am discussing evidence and testimony that was actually admitted. Evidence or testimony that is not presented at the trial, or is rejected by the judge, is not to be discussed in closing argument.

The gloves. On July 5, 1994, Mark Fuhrman recollected first seeing them, plural, down at the feet of the male victim, Ron Goldman. This was testimonial evidence adduced at the Preliminary Hearing.

O.J. Trial, March 13, 1995, FUHRMAN cross-examination by F. Lee Bailey

[4236]

Q: WELL, LOOK, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THAT TESTIMONY, ISN'T THERE, THE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE VIEW THROUGH THE FENCE?

A: NO, THERE ISN'T.

Q: THERE IS A PROBLEM THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION, ISN'T THERE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: NO.

Q: WHEN DISCUSSING THIS EVENT IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND TALKING ABOUT THE

[4237]

GLOVE, YOUR TONGUE SLIPPED AND YOU SAID "THEM," DIDN'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU HAVE EXAMINED THAT IN THE TRANSCRIPT, HAVEN'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU KNOW IT HAS BEEN PLAYED ON VIDEO TO THE JURY? THE WORD "THEM" IS CLEAR?

A: YES.

Q: THAT IS A SLIP OF THE TONGUE?

A: NO.

- - - - - - - - - -

The problem is this is not the only self-incriminating, alleged "slip of the tongue" by Mark Fuhrman. He couldn't help himself. Sometimes he had trouble keeping his lies and truith straight.

Mark Fuhrman swore, under oath, that he saw four (4) lines that looked like blood on the Bronco. Also sworn to was that neither Fuhrman, nor anyone else, entered the Bronco while at Rockingham. The official story is that the Bronco was towed to the print shed and opened the following day, at the print shed, with a slim jim.

Mr. Fung came in, he circled these pictures, and if you will recall his testimony, the bottom circle closest to the door, that is only one stain. He said that that stain could be observed when the door was closed, but the other three stains that are represented by those other two circles could only be seen when the door was opened. Could only be seen when the door was open.

For convenience, I quoted that from the closing argument of Barry Scheck. However, if you prefer to see it from the transcript of Dennis Fung on direct and cross-examination I can humor you with the testimony.

Fung on Direct-examination by Prosecutor Goldberg.

[6709]

MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you. Can we see that? Thanks. Let's just see--can we just see one that's a--that's a view of the whole photograph first?

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Sir, what does this depict?

MR. FUNG: This depicts the same area. It's the running board of the front driver door of the Bronco.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And now can we zoom in on the running board area? Maybe just go back a little bit. Okay. That's fine.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Fung, can you see any of the stains depicted there that you were referring to that you saw on the 14th?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And this photograph that we're looking at now, is this one that you caused to be taken on the 14th?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe using the telestrator, we can mark--well, first of all, how many stains do you see?

MR. FUNG: There are, depending on how you count stains, one, two, three, four.

[6710]

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Let's see if we can mark all four of them.

MR. FUNG: Okay. Up and to your left. Right there. There's two of them there (Indicating).

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, let's just have one marked with the two or let's circle the two of those. Now, sir, when the door is closed, if you know, is it possible to see those two?

MR. FUNG: I don't believe it's possible to see those when the door's closed.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now let's mark the next stain.

MR. FUNG: From that circle there, if you go in a 7 o'clock direction, there's a small blip right there and it's to the left of that (Indicating). Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: So these would be three of the four stains that you're referring to?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what about the one that we've just marked that's below the two stains? Is it possible to see that when the door's closed?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now let's go to the third--the fourth stain.

MR. FUNG: The fourth area is back towards the right and down and there's a smear that's fairly elongated along that ridge. That's the general area (Indicating).

Fung on cross-examination by Defense Attorney Barry Scheck:

[6801]

MR. SCHECK: Now, after the weekend and looking at photographs, you're now prepared to say that 197-b shows four red stains that you saw on the morning of June 14th?

MR. FUNG: Those are areas that were present that I--well, I don't specifically remember these stains, but I do remember stains present on the vehicle at--in that--in those locations approximately and these are consistent with those areas.

MR. SCHECK: Well, you're telling us that you have an independent recollection of seeing four stains on June 14th?

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony, your Honor.

MR. FUNG: No, that's not what I'm saying.

MR. SCHECK: You're not saying that?

MR. FUNG: I'm not saying that.

MR. SCHECK: All right. So basically what you are telling us is that you looked at this photograph and you're now reconstructing the fact that those must be four red stains?

MR. FUNG: I knew that I--I remember seeing stains on this door sill that day, and looking at the photograph, I'm identifying these as possible red stains.

MR. SCHECK: Now, three of the items that you've circled here can only be seen if the door is open?

MR. FUNG: The two--the very top one and the one to the right, that's correct.

MR. SCHECK: So to see these items, someone would have to open the door of the car?

MR. FUNG: To see those, yes.

So, did Mark Fuhrman have another slip of the tongue when recalling and describing the four spots he observed? Or, as the defense claimed, did he prove that the prosecution contained a lie about when the Bronco was first entered?

Fuhrman talked about spots that were there, but which could only be seen with the door open.

After how many lies does Fuhrman cease to suffer from slips of the tongue?

After how many lies does he lose all credibility?

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-16   23:40:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#218. To: misterwhite (#213)

The expert could not unequivocally say the gloves in the pictures were Aris gloves at all.

No. He said he saw no features that would indicate they were not Aris gloves. Read the transcript.

Really. What transcript did you read?

The tortured phrasing was, "What I meant by that statement categorically was that I did not see any features in any one of those photos that would indicate that it would be any other style that I had knowledge of."

He could not unequivocally identify the photo gloves as Aris, or anything else. He saw features that were not unique to Aris. He does not claim to have knowledge of every brand of glove, and he worked for only one brand.

In his tortured way, he admitted he could not unequivocally say the photo gloves were Aris gloves, and he admitted that he saw nothing to unequivocally identify them as any other brand. He saw non-unique features that did not identify any brand.

[18773]

MR. BLASIER: Did you indicate in your letter on all eight photos none of the detail that can be seen indicates that the gloves could be a style other than 70263?

MR. RUBIN: I did.

[18774]

MR. BLASIER: You're indicating unequivocally that in your opinion, from those pictures that you had last July, it was an Aris glove, correct?

MR. RUBIN: That's not the case. What I meant by that statement categorically was that I did not see any features in any one of those photos that would indicate that it would be any other style that I had knowledge of. That's what I meant by that statement.

Asked directly if he was saying unequivocally that the glove in the pictures was an Aris glove, Richard Rubin testified, "That's not the case."

He could not unquivocally identify the glove in the pictures as an Aris glove.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-16   23:41:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#219. To: misterwhite (#214)

All the gloves they make are called Aris Isotoner gloves. They have many styles of gloves. One of them is Aris Isotoner leather lights -- sometimes referred to simply as Aris leather lights.

What is your source for this line of crap?

"MR. COCHRAN: All right. One last question. With regard to Aris--the Aris--and Mr. Darden kept saying Isotoner. Did you tell us yesterday it wasn't Isotoner, these are Aris lights?

MR. RUBIN: Isotoner was a different product line than leather gloves. These are Aris leather light gloves

The company name was Aris Isotoner. The Aris Leather Lights were not marketed under the Aris Isotoner brand. As Mr. Rubin testified, "Isotoner was a different product line than leather gloves."

[11607]

MR. COCHRAN: All right. One last question. With regard to Aris--the Aris--and Mr. Darden kept saying Isotoner. Did you tell us yesterday it wasn't Isotoner, these are Aris lights?

MR. RUBIN: Isotoner was a different product line than leather gloves. These are Aris leather light gloves.

Read it again, Isotoner was a different product line than leather gloves.

Direct examination by Prosecutor Christopher Darden,

[11564]

MR. DARDEN: And is this an Aris Isotoner glove?

MR. RUBIN: It's actually an Aris leather glove. It's not an Isotoner glove.

[11589]

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Let the record reflect that all the jurors have withdrawn from the courtroom. Mr. Rubin is still on the witness stand. Mr. Darden, proceed.

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, I have here in my hand what appears to be a pair of leather gloves. There is a tag attached. The tag reads, "Aris leathers by Isotoner, extra large, cashmere lined," selling price of $55 by Bloomingdales. May they be marked 372-C?

THE COURT: 372-C.

(Peo's 372-C for id = leather gloves)

Richard Rubin (402), called as a witness by the People, pursuant to evidence code section 402, having previously been sworn, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION (402) BY MR. DARDEN

MR. DARDEN: Before I hand these gloves to the witness--showing you the gloves that have been marked 372-C, are those Aris Isotoner gloves?

MR. RUBIN: They're Aris gloves, but these are not Aris lights gloves that were like the ones we're talking about from 1982 until 1990.

https://www.isotoner.com/aboutus

In the early 1970s, Aris created a glove unlike any other made from a nylon/spandex fabric with leather trim. Recognizing the glove's unique 4-way stretch and massaging properties, Aris named the glove isotoner by combining the words "isometric" and "toning." The isotoner glove was a major success with a name so recognizable that Aris adopted it and became ARIS isotoner, Inc. Following the success of isotoner women's gloves, isotoner men's gloves and slippers quickly followed.

After the company corporate name change, the gloves made of nylon/spandex with leather trim were marketed as Aris Isotoner. The line of gloves made out of leather, without the nylon/spandex fabric, were marketed as Aris Leather gloves.

Your fiction was spun out of whole cloth from your creative mind. However, even if you could actually show that the testimony of glove expert Richard Rubin was in error, both on direct and cross examination, it was unchallenged at the criminal trial and was the only professional expert opinion available to the jury.

I will remind you again, and as many times as necessary, that your claim Marcia Clark and company produced 10x more evidence than needed to sustain a conviction at the criminal trial.

I understand that your search for such evidence has entered the state of desperation, and desperation calls for desperate measures. It is obvious, at this point, that you neither watched the testimony, read a transcript, or know what was actually placed in evidence.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-16   23:44:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#220. To: misterwhite (#215)

I noticed the glove.

The gloves. On July 5, 1995, Mark Fuhrman recollected first seeing them, plural, down at the feet of the male victim, Ron Goldman.

O.J. Trial, March 13, 1995, FUHRMAN cross-examination by F. Lee Bailey

[4236]

Q: WELL, LOOK, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THAT TESTIMONY, ISN'T THERE, THE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE VIEW THROUGH THE FENCE?

A: NO, THERE ISN'T.

Q: THERE IS A PROBLEM THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION, ISN'T THERE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: NO.

Q: WHEN DISCUSSING THIS EVENT IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND TALKING ABOUT THE

[4237]

GLOVE, YOUR TONGUE SLIPPED AND YOU SAID "THEM," DIDN'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU HAVE EXAMINED THAT IN THE TRANSCRIPT, HAVEN'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU KNOW IT HAS BEEN PLAYED ON VIDEO TO THE JURY? THE WORD "THEM" IS CLEAR?

A: YES.

Q: THAT IS A SLIP OF THE TONGUE?

A: NO.

Them is a problem.

And, as covered above, Fuhrman's attesting of seeing blood spots on the Bronco that could only be seen with the door open is another problem. I don't want to cover that one yet again, so let's move on to the problem of the photo of Fuhrman pointing at the glove?

Was this photograph taken before Fuhrman went to Bundy and found the second glove.

Fuhrman denied any such thing as follows:

[4006]

Q: OKAY. AND IS THAT -- WHO'S THAT MAN IN THE PHOTOGRAPH THERE POINTING TO THE BUSH?

A: THAT'S ME.

[...]

A: THE FOREMOST IN THE PICTURE IS A GLOVE AND ABOVE IT APPEARS TO BE A DARK BLUE KNIT CAP.

Q: NOW, WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU SAW THOSE TWO ITEMS IN PARTICULAR THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO DETECT WHAT THEY WERE?

A: FROM THAT LANDING, OFFICER RISKE SHINED HIS LIGHT ON THOSE ONCE AGAIN SHOWING SEVERAL OBJECTS THAT HE HAD PREVIOUSLY SEEN.

- - - - - - - - - -

[4045]

Q: THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT WE SHOWED YOU YESTERDAY OF YOU POINTING TO THE ITEMS UNDERNEATH THAT BUSH, WHEN WAS THAT TAKEN, SIR?

A: I BELIEVE THAT WAS SOMEWHERE AROUND 7:00 OR 7:15 THAT MORNING.

Q: AT THAT POINT, SIR, HAD YOU ALREADY BEEN TO ROCKINGHAM AND COME BACK TO BUNDY?

A: YES, MA'AM.

- - - - - - - - - -

So, the photo was taken around 7:00 or 7:15 in the morning, in the daylight, after Fuhrman returned to Bundy, or Fuhrman was a lying sack of shit. Well, we know Fuhrman was a lying sack of shit, let's see the evidence that proved that to the jury again.

Rolf D. Rokahr, called as a witness by the Defendant, was sworn and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: Raise your right hand, please. You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

MR. ROKAHR: I do.

THE CLERK: Please have a seat on the witness stand and state and spell your first and last names for the record.

MR. ROKAHR: My last name is Rokahr, R-O-K-A-H-R, first name is Rolf, R-O-L-F, middle initial D.

THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. NEUFELD

MR. NEUFELD: Good afternoon, Mr. Rokahr.

MR. ROKAHR: Good afternoon, Mr. Neufeld.

MR. NEUFELD: Mr. Rokahr, would you please tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what you do for a living.

[18140]

MR. ROKAHR: I'm a photographer for the city of Los Angeles assigned to the police department.

MR. NEUFELD: And how long have you been working as a photographer for the Los Angeles Police Department?

MR. ROKAHR: As a civilian employee, almost 10 years. It's nine years and two months, and I've worked as a reserve officer since 1980 or `81 up until `86. I'm still working as a reserve officer.

- - - - - - - - - -

[18147]

MR. NEUFELD: All right. When you met up with Mark Fuhrman at about 4:10 in the morning, what did Mark Fuhrman do with you, sir?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the witness' testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled. What happened? Mr. Rokahr, what happened when you met up with Detective Fuhrman?

MR. ROKAHR: Detective Fuhrman asked me to come around I believe it's Dorothy Street to the back of the house to show me what we have as far as a crime scene is concerned and as far as evidence is concerned.

[18148]

MR. NEUFELD: And at that time when he took you through, did he ask you to take a few pictures of something in particular?

MR. ROKAHR: By the time we arrived to the actual crime scene, he first of all pointed out--the bodies were obvious--where there is some evidence, and he asked me to photograph it.

MR. NEUFELD: Now--I'm sorry.

MR. ROKAHR: Yeah. And he--I asked him to actually point out where the evidence is because it was rather dark in the green foliage there.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, sir, if, as you indicated yesterday during the interview, that you first encountered Mark Fuhrman at 4:10 A.M., how long did it take you to walk with Mark Fuhrman to the location where these items of evidence were in the green foliage approximately?

MR. ROKAHR: I really don't want to narrow myself down on that because I'm not sure.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, I'm not asking you for a specific--whether it's four minutes or seven minutes, sir. I'm just asking you, would it be fair to say, for instance, that it's less than 15 minutes from the time that Mr. Fuhrman encountered you and the time you got to those items of evidence which are in the green foliage?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor. This is leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: Would that be a fair estimate of time?

MR. ROKAHR: Could be 15 minutes, could be 20 minutes, 30. I'm not sure.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Would it be a fair estimate that it was something between 15 minutes and 30 minutes?

MR. ROKAHR: I think it's a fair estimate.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. So, sir, if, as you told me yesterday, that it was approximately 4:10 in the morning when you encountered Mr. Fuhrman at 875 Bundy at the time that he was having you take pictures of items of evidence that were in and about the green foliage, would that be sometime between 4:25 in the morning and 4:40 in the morning based on your estimate, sir?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Argumentative.

[18149]

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. ROKAHR: I would say it's fair.

[...]

MR. NEUFELD: And did you at that moment take pictures of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove and the hat?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, I did.

MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, was one of the reasons that you asked Detective Fuhrman to point to the item is because it was nighttime and thus, the glove was difficult to see?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry. What was your answer, sir?

[18149]

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

- - - - - - - - - -

[18155]

MR. NEUFELD: And the camera you used that night at Bundy, did it have a counter?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.

MR. NEUFELD: And could you please tell the ladies and gentleman of the jury how that works.

MR. ROKAHR: When we arrive at a crime scene, there is a data back on the back of my camera and I can set, as far as the counter is concerned, six numbers, 000000. From then on, it will count up every shot that is taken. It adds a number, a digit to it.

MR. NEUFELD: So, in other words, the first one will be 000001?

MR. ROKAHR: That would be my slate in the photograph.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, in this particular instance, can you by looking in your book tell us what the numbers were in sequence of the two photographs you took of Detective Mark Fuhrman pointing at the glove?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, I could.

MR. NEUFELD: Would you please do so.

MR. ROKAHR: That would be 34 and 35.

MR. NEUFELD: That means that those are the 34th and 35th pictures that you took at Bundy that night?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

- - - - - - - - - -

[18156]

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, what I want you to do is look at photographs 36, in other words, the one immediately after 35, where Fuhrman is pointing at the glove, all the way through 43. Do you see those?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, isn't it a fact, sir, that when you took those photographs, the first eight photographs after Fuhrman is pointing at the glove, that as to those eight photographs, you were not having any detective instruct you as to what to shoot, but you were simply relying on your own professional judgment? Isn't that a fact?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, I would say it's a fact because of the--the sequence in these photographs, which is the way I shoot.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Thank you. Now, you said earlier to the jury that you were using Kodak color print film asa 200; is that correct?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And how many exposures are there in each roll that you use, sir?

MR. ROKAHR: 36 exposures.

MR. NEUFELD: Is that your standard practice?

MR. ROKAHR: That is what I prefer.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And on this night, when you were at Bundy shooting, you were using rolls of 36?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

- - - - - - - - - -

[18159]

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So, sir, to the best of your recollection--I'm sorry. To the best of your recollection, would this contact sheet, except for the fact that the actual negatives are slightly larger when they're printed there than they would be on a routine contact sheet, do they represent the first roll of film you shot that night at Bundy?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.

MR. NEUFELD: And the first 33 frames on that roll, those would be those overall shots you talked about that you took between approximately, oh, 3:25 and say 3:55 in the morning?

MR. ROKAHR: Whatever the time was, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And the last two shots that appear on there, those would be the two shots that you took sometime between 4:20 and 4:35 in the morning; is that correct?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, didn't you--didn't you say just before the break that the time that the photographs were taken of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove, given the times that you gave for the other events

- - - - - - - - - -

[18162]

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And by the way, all the other photographs on that first roll, 1 through 33, those were all shot at nighttime; isn't that correct?

MR. ROKAHR: They were shot what?

MR. NEUFELD: At nighttime.

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.

MR. NEUFELD: And as to 34, the 34th picture, do you see that on the screen?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.

MR. NEUFELD: Is that Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove?

MR. ROKAHR: That is Detective Fuhrman.

MR. NEUFELD: And in 35, is that also Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove?

MR. ROKAHR: That is also Detective Fuhrman.

MR. NEUFELD: And those were the last two pictures you took on that first roll of film during the night at Bundy on June 13th--in the early morning hours of June 13th, 1994?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: At night?

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: That's what he--your Honor, at this time, I have no further questions. I would like to pose--I would like to pass this to the jury so they can at least look at it.

- - - - - - - - - -

[18170]

MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, you mentioned on cross-examination that you may not be, you know, absolutely certain as to what time a particular photograph or precisely what time a particular photograph was taken. But would you agree, sir, that there's a difference between a photograph taken a half hour, an hour before sunrise and a photograph taken an hour and a half after the sun comes up?

MR. DARDEN: Objection.

MR. NEUFELD: You know, in terms of light in the air?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Light in the air?

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry. In terms of how light it is, that there is an obvious difference between a photograph taken an hour to an hour and a half before the sun rises and a photograph taken an hour to an hour and a half after the sun rises?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, there's a difference.

MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, if the sun raised that morning at 5:41 A.M., you would be able to tell the difference without being precise whether that photograph was a nighttime shot, shot perhaps an hour, hour and a half before sunrise and one shot an hour and a half after sunrise, wouldn't you?

MR. ROKAHR: I would like to think so.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you. Nothing further.

THE COURT: Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: Nothing further. I'm sorry.

After how many lies does Fuhrman cease to suffer from slips of the tongue?

After how many lies does he lose all credibility?

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-16   23:50:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#221. To: nolu chan (#220)

He said "I noticed the glove". The glove. One glove.

When he said "gloves" he admitted it was a slip of the tongue. Let it go, 'cause I sure am.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-17   11:24:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#222. To: nolu chan (#219)

"What is your source for this line of crap?"

Wiki. Same as yours.

"Read it again, Isotoner was a different product line than leather gloves."

Yes. But made by the same company -- Aris Isotoner, Inc.

"After the company corporate name change, the gloves made of nylon/spandex with leather trim were marketed as Aris Isotoner. The line of gloves made out of leather, without the nylon/spandex fabric, were marketed as Aris Leather gloves."

Yes. But all made by the same company, Aris Isotoner, Inc.

Me: Do you drive a GM car?
You: No, I drive a Chevy.
Me: But Chevy is just one product line of GM.
You: I drive a Chevy. That's different.

I can't have a discussion with you. You're on a different planet.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-17   12:54:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#223. To: nolu chan (#218)

"He could not unquivocally identify the glove in the pictures as an Aris glove."

He didn't see anything to make him think it wasn't an Aris glove. Potayto, potahto.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-18   9:41:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#224. To: misterwhite (#221)

He said "I noticed the glove". The glove. One glove.

When he said "gloves" he admitted it was a slip of the tongue. Let it go, 'cause I sure am.

Your mission impossible, which you chose to accept, was to prove that the O.J. Simpson jury had sufficient evidence before it to return a verdict of guilty.

I quoted the evidence adduced at the criminal trial, which you may read for the first time, or ignore for however many times.

O.J. Trial, March 13, 1995, FUHRMAN cross-examination by F. Lee Bailey

[4236]

Q: WELL, LOOK, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THAT TESTIMONY, ISN'T THERE, THE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE VIEW THROUGH THE FENCE?

A: NO, THERE ISN'T.

Q: THERE IS A PROBLEM THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION, ISN'T THERE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: NO.

Q: WHEN DISCUSSING THIS EVENT IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND TALKING ABOUT THE

[4237]

GLOVE, YOUR TONGUE SLIPPED AND YOU SAID "THEM," DIDN'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU HAVE EXAMINED THAT IN THE TRANSCRIPT, HAVEN'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU KNOW IT HAS BEEN PLAYED ON VIDEO TO THE JURY? THE WORD "THEM" IS CLEAR?

A: YES.

Q: THAT IS A SLIP OF THE TONGUE?

A: NO.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-18   20:22:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#225. To: misterwhite (#222)

"What is your source for this line of crap?"

Wiki. Same as yours.

"Read it again, Isotoner was a different product line than leather gloves."

Yes. But made by the same company -- Aris Isotoner, Inc.

"After the company corporate name change, the gloves made of nylon/spandex with leather trim were marketed as Aris Isotoner. The line of gloves made out of leather, without the nylon/spandex fabric, were marketed as Aris Leather gloves."

Yes. But all made by the same company, Aris Isotoner, Inc.

No, my source was not Wiki. That was your unlinked source whose content you mischaracterized. I linked to it and showed what it actually said.

I will remind you again, your mission impossible, which you chose to accept, was to prove that the O.J. Simpson jury had sufficient evidence before it to return a verdict of guilty.

The only matter that could justify any finding by the jury is evidence adduced at trial. You provided mischaracterized nonsense from Wiki and I provided testimonial evidence adduced at the trial, from a transcript of said testimony.

The gloves were not Aris Isotoner gloves. The only expert testimony adduced at the trial was that the gloves were not Isotoner gloves. The Aris expert so testified on both Direct and Cross. You are invited to produce conflicting testimony, adduced at the trial. In the presence of this affirmative evidence, and in the absence of your conflicting opinion based on your creative interpretation of a Wiki article, the jury in the O.J. criminal trial had to accept the only evidence it had -- it was not an isotoner glove.

[11564]

MR. DARDEN: And is this an Aris Isotoner glove?

MR. RUBIN: It's actually an Aris leather glove. It's not an Isotoner glove.

He identified a brossier stitch which he admitted was also found on non-Aris gloves. He identified three lines on the back which he admitted were found on non-Aris gloves. He identified a vent which he admitted is found on non-Aris gloves. He observed nothing unique to a specific manufacturer.

In terms of cars, he was unable to unequivocally identify a car as a GM product. It could have been a Ford or a Chrysler or a Honda or a Toyota. He observed it had a fender which also appears on cars of other manufacture. He observed it had a windshield which also appears on cars of other manufacture. He observed it had doors which also appears on cars of other manufacture. He observed nothing inconsistent with it being a Chevy, or Ford, or Toyota. He observed no unique identifying feature. He observed nothing inconsistent with it being a Chevy, just as he observed nothing inconsistent with it being a Ford, Chrysler, Honda, or Toyota.

After he failed to identify the manufacturer, you want to conclude that he observed nothing inconsistent with a Chevy Corvette which has a fender, a windshield and doors, and declare that you have proof that it was a Chevy Corvette.

- - - - - - - - - -

[11607]

MR. COCHRAN: All right. One last question. With regard to Aris--the Aris--and Mr. Darden kept saying Isotoner. Did you tell us yesterday it wasn't Isotoner, these are Aris lights?

MR. RUBIN: Isotoner was a different product line than leather gloves. These are Aris leather light gloves.

A receipt was entered in evidence but the prosecution was not able to show that the gloves indicated by the receipt included the gloves in evidence.

[11531]

MR. DARDEN: Is there way for you to tell us that the two gloves I showed you here in court were purchased during the transaction shown here in People's 372-A?

MS. VEMICH: No.

The evidence presented at the criminal trial presented proof that O.J. Simpson sometimes wore gloves when it was cold. The prosecution was unable to show proof that O.J. Simpson either owned or wore an Aris Leather Light, Brown, XL gloves.

The expert testimony affirmatively testified that the evidence gloves were not Isotoner gloves. He testified that he could not unequivocally identify any of the photographed gloves as Aris brand, or style 70263.

Almost all the photographed gloves were black, like the pair in your irrelevant picture at #202 where you stated, "Oh, here they are:" Of course, the evidence gloves were brown.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-18   20:24:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#226. To: misterwhite (#223)

"He could not unquivocally identify the glove in the pictures as an Aris glove."

He didn't see anything to make him think it wasn't an Aris glove. Potayto, potahto.

I will remind you again, your mission impossible, which you chose to accept, was to prove that the O.J. Simpson jury had sufficient evidence before it to return a verdict of guilty.

The only matter that could justify any finding by the jury is evidence adduced at trial. I provided testimonial evidence adduced at the trial, from a transcript of said testimony.

MR. BLASIER: Did you tell us yesterday that what you meant by that sentence is what it says, that you could--that in your opinion, these were the Aris style gloves?

MR. DARDEN: Misstates the testimony.

MR. RUBIN: What I meant--

THE COURT: Excuse me. Overruled.

MR. RUBIN: What I meant by that statement categorically was that the features that I could see in the pictures, not one feature would lead me to a non 70263 Aris light style. That's what I meant by the statement.

[18775]

MR. BLASIER: By the statement you made yesterday to us?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

- - - - - - - - - -

[18773]

MR. BLASIER: Did you indicate in your letter on all eight photos none of the detail that can be seen indicates that the gloves could be a style other than 70263?

MR. RUBIN: I did.

[18774]

MR. BLASIER: You're indicating unequivocally that in your opinion, from those pictures that you had last July, it was an Aris glove, correct?

MR. RUBIN: That's not the case. What I meant by that statement categorically was that I did not see any features in any one of those photos that would indicate that it would be any other style that I had knowledge of. That's what I meant by that statement.

Asked directly if he was saying unequivocally that the glove in the pictures was an Aris glove, Richard Rubin testified, "That's not the case."

He could not unquivocally identify the glove in the pictures as an Aris glove.

He admitted that he was not familiar with all styles of gloves by all manufacturers in the world. He worked for one manufacturer, and one only.

- - - - - - - - - -

The glove expert testified that he could not unequivocally identify the photographed gloves were Aris brand gloves, much less specifically style 70263.

He identified features on Aris gloves that are also present on other brands of gloves.

He identified a brossier stitch which he was forced to admit was also found on non-Aris gloves. He identified three lines on the back which he admitted were found on non-Aris gloves. He identified a vent which he admitted is found on non-Aris gloves. He identified no feature unique to Aris brand gloves.

He didn't see anything to make him think it wasn't an Aris glove.

And he did not see anything to make him certain it was an Aris glove.

Proving, he saw a glove in a photograph which he could not positively identify.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-18   20:25:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#227. To: nolu chan (#226)

"was to prove that the O.J. Simpson jury had sufficient evidence before it to return a verdict of guilty."

No. They had to present evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. You're trying to set a new standard where if the prosecution can cause any doubt whatsoever the evidence should be ignored.

He identified a brossier stitch which he was forced to admit was also found on non-Aris gloves. He identified three lines on the back which he admitted were found on non-Aris gloves. He identified a vent which he admitted is found on non-Aris gloves. He identified no feature unique to Aris brand gloves.

He admitted that or you assumed that? Because I can't find anything in the transcript to back up your claim. You're ignoring all the other glove evidence presented to the jury which, when taken together with Rubin's testimony, is consistent and damning.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-19   9:12:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#228. To: misterwhite (#227)

He identified a brossier stitch which he was forced to admit was also found on non-Aris gloves. He identified three lines on the back which he admitted were found on non-Aris gloves. He identified a vent which he admitted is found on non-Aris gloves. He identified no feature unique to Aris brand gloves.

He admitted that or you assumed that? Because I can't find anything in the transcript to back up your claim. You're ignoring all the other glove evidence presented to the jury which, when taken together with Rubin's testimony, is consistent and damning.

He affirmatively testified to it as fact. I am sorry you can't find it in the transcript. You have not presented a whisper of the phantom "other glove evidence presented to the jury which, taken together with Rubin's testimony, is consistent and damning." You have not even identified what it is about.

And next time give me a warning when you are going to say you read the transcript. My keyboard and my side thingees thank you.

On direct, Rubin was asked if the brossier stitch is unique to the Aris glove. He said "Very."

And he testified that "[t]he palm vent is the least unique characteristic of the specific style in question."

On cross, it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the brossier stitch was not unique to the Aris glove.

He testified that silking, the three stripes on the back, is very common.

[18744]

MR. DARDEN: The Brossier stitching is unique to the glove?

MR. RUBIN: Very.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. How about the vent, the palm vent?

MR. RUBIN: The palm vent is the least unique characteristic of the specific style in question.

- - - - - - - - - -

Zero for effort. Rubin testified that he checked with two companies to see if they might have used Brossier stitching and produced gloves without stitching (blind seam). The second one said yes, and he stopped looking.

[18782]

MR. BLASIER: Now, you made some effort to try and find out what other manufacturers in the world might have used Brossier stitching and produced gloves without stitching, correct?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I did.

MR. BLASIER: And how many different companies did you check with?

MR. RUBIN: I only checked with two.

MR. BLASIER: There are a lot more companies than that in the world, aren't there?

MR. RUBIN: In the world? Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, did you ever check with any glove companies in Europe or Italy?

MR. RUBIN: No, I did not.

MR. BLASIER: In Europe?

MR. RUBIN: No, I did not.

MR. BLASIER: Other glove companies other than the two that you've told us about?

MR. RUBIN: No, I did not.

MR. BLASIER: And what are those two companies?

MR. RUBIN: Fownes gloves, F-O-W-N-E-S, and Mr. Zuckerware's company, grand-o gloves.

MR. BLASIER: And Grand-O does produce a glove with Brossier stitching, doesn't it?

MR. RUBIN: They told me that they had produced a glove with Brossier stitching a couple of years ago in small quantity.

- - - - - - - - - -

Mr. Rubin contacted two companies to inquire if they used a brossier stitch. The second company, half of the total, affirmed it used the brossier stitch in gloves. Mr. Rubin's search ended at that point. He admits there could be hundreds of glove manufacturers in Europe, and he expresses that he has no idea how many use a brossier stitch. He admits he has actually seen the stitch on Italian gloves.

The brossier stitch was not unique to Aris 70263.

[18783]

MR. BLASIER: Okay. So the two companies--the only two companies that you checked with, one of them does this stitch, correct?

MR. RUBIN: One out of two.

MR. BLASIER: Now, if--do you have any idea how many other glove manufacturers there are in the world?

MR. RUBIN: I have no idea.

MR. BLASIER: If--would you agree that there's over a hundred other glove manufacturers in various parts in the world that--go ahead.

MR. RUBIN: If you define glove manufacturers as anybody who is manufacturing quantity and distributing it on their own, a person who has six employees in a small shop technically is a glove manufacturer. So I'd say in places like Italy, Hungary and certain other eastern European countries, there could be hundreds of manufacturers. They would relatively be quite small as far as production.

MR. BLASIER: How many of those have a Brossier machine?

MR. RUBIN: I have no idea.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you know that--you've seen this stitch on an Italian glove some years ago, didn't you?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I did.

MR. BLASIER: From a small company?

MR. RUBIN: I don't know what company it was from.

MR. BLASIER: Have you made any effort to contact singer to find out other machines there are throughout the world?

MR. RUBIN: No, I have not.

MR. BLASIER: Are there any other machines that can make a stitch that looks like this stitch?

MR. RUBIN: This stitch is a very fine whip stitch, and the machine that I'm familiar with, it does make a stitch that's similar. That's the Ozan sewing machine. The one I'm thinking of is made by a company called treasure.

[18784]

MR. BLASIER: And can that make a stitch that looks like this?

MR. RUBIN: Similar, but not the same.

MR. BLASIER: Different in what way?

MR. RUBIN: The Ozan sewing machine normally runs at about 10 to 12 stitches per minute. The Brossier sewing machine runs at twice that, and the difference is in the bite. When it's a whip stitch, most of those whip stitch type machines in the bite, you get a high, low effect on the Ozan stitching machine and you get a larger seam than you would on a continuous seam and fine seam on the Brossier. But to a layman, the stitch is--stitches would appear to be somewhat similar.

MR. BLASIER: Can the Ozan machine do a 22-inch--22 stitch per inch stitch?

MR. RUBIN: I'm not a technician. I'm not sure if it's capable of making a stitch that tight or not. I've never seen Aris production or some other production with Ozan do more than 12 stitches an inch on the Ozan machine.

MR. BLASIER: Did you make any effort - incidentally, Ozan machines are fairly common, aren't they?

MR. RUBIN: Within Aris, the largest amount of gloves that were out on the marketplace were Ozan.

MR. BLASIER: Other companies have Ozan stitching machines, don't they?

MR. RUBIN: I believe they do.

MR. BLASIER: It's a common machine, isn't it?

MR. RUBIN: It's a common machine, readily available.

MR. BLASIER: Are you familiar with the Bonis Golden series never-stop machines?

MR. RUBIN: I've heard the term Bonis, but I'm not familiar with the machine.

MR. BLASIER: Let me show you a flyer for that machine.

MR. DARDEN: Objection. He's not familiar with it.

THE COURT: I'm sorry?

[18785]

MR. DARDEN: Objection. What he's relying on, he's not familiar with.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Can I see the flyer then?

(Brief pause.)

MR. DARDEN: It's dated 1995. Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: Would you take a look at that, tell me if you're familiar with that machine?

MR. DARDEN: 352, your Honor. No authentication.

THE COURT: Overruled. The question is, is he familiar with the machine.

MR. RUBIN: Since I never really looked at the numbers on the machines that were at Aris Philippines for style--I've seen similar machines to this with the wheel. I'm very familiar with that. It's very common.

But I don't know for a fact that it was a Bonis BG12 machine.

MR. BLASIER: All right. So the machines you've seen, they can do 25 stitches an inch, can't they?

MR. RUBIN: I've never seen them do 25 stitches to the inch.

MR. BLASIER: Can they do 25 stitches an inch?

MR. RUBIN: I could not state that to this court if I had not done it myself. I've never--

MR. BLASIER: Can that machine do 25 stitches an inch?

MR. RUBIN: According to the flyer, this will--

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

- - - - - - - - - -

Silking, the three stripes on the back, is very common. Rubin made no effort to find out what other machines might make a stitch as fine as the brossier stitch made by Aris.

[18786]

MR. BLASIER: So I take it then other than calling two companies and asking them specifically about the Brossier machine, you made no effort to find out what kind of other machines might make a stitch that fine?

MR. RUBIN: I have not.

MR. BLASIER: Now, the two companies that you contacted, did you just ask them about the Brossier stitching?

MR. RUBIN: Well, in regard to Fownes, I asked them if they had any of the equipment. They told me no, and that was pretty much the end of the conversation. And I do have friends that work there. So we may have discussed other things that I'm not aware of. In regard to my conversation with Mr. Zuckerware, a technician within their company was in the room and mentioned the style number or the--

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Nonresponsive.

THE COURT: All right. Ask your next question.

MR. RUBIN: You know, I don't remember what I spoke with them about.

THE COURT: Hold on.

MR. BLASIER: You didn't ask anybody about the three lines, the silking on the back, did you, in terms of how other people may or may not use that?

MR. RUBIN: I did not discuss anything other than the Brossier.

MR. BLASIER: So you've made no effort to find out how common or rare the silking is, and that's the three points on the back?

MR. RUBIN: I think I earlier stated that it's very common.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-19   23:20:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#229. To: misterwhite (#227)

No. They had to present evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. You're trying to set a new standard where if the prosecution can cause any doubt whatsoever the evidence should be ignored.

The defense did not have to prove anything, not even reasonable doubt.

The prosecution had the sole responsibility to provide proof of each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

If there is any reasonable competing explanation to any claim of fact based on circumstantial evidence, the claim pointing to innocence must be adopted.

In your attempts to prove that the prosecution met its burden, your attempts have:

  • failed to show that the gloves purchased by Nicole Simpson were ever given to, or worn by, O.J. Simpson.

  • produced a picture of O.J. Simpson wearing black gloves and claimed they were the gloves.

  • Failed to overcome the testimony of glove expert Richard Rubin that he could not unequivocally identify any glove being worn by O.J. Simpson in a photograph as an Aris brand glove.

  • Failed to overcome the testimony of Bloomindale's expert that the Nicole Simpson receipt does not show that the two gloves in evidence at the court were purchased during that transaction.

There is a good reason you cannot prove, on the basis of the evidence in the criminal trial, that the evidence gloves belonged to, and were worn by, O.J. Simpson. The prosecution never proved it in court. The criminal prosecution never proved that O.J. Simpson ever owned or wore Bruno Magli shoes either.

I will attempt to demonstrate that the defense presented the more believable theory of how the one glove got to Rockingham, as shown by the actual evidence at trial. The prosecution theory has a serious problem with science.

And I wish to note that Det. Fuhrman planting the glove at Rockingham is consistent with O.J. Simpson and/or one or more others having committed the murders. The Rockingham glove could not be ignored, but it presented a problem for the prosecution. Admitting Det. Fuhrman planted it would taint all the evidence in the case.

Lead Detective Phillip Vanatter's testimony is incredible, as in it defies all rational belief. According to Det. Vanatter, two paragraphs are the totality of notes he took about the activities of the 12th and 13th of June.

[4697]

BY MR. SHAPIRO:

Q: DETECTIVE VANNATTER, OVER THE NOON HOUR YOU WERE REQUESTED TO FIND YOUR NOTES OF THE ACTIVITIES THAT TOOK PLACE AT BUNDY AND ROCKINGHAM ON THE 12TH THROUGH THE 13TH OF JUNE. HAVE YOU BEEN ABLE TO LOCATE THOSE NOTES?

A: I DIDN'T REALIZE I WAS SUPPOSED TO DO THAT, BUT AS FAR AS ACTUAL PHYSICAL NOTES, THERE AREN'T ANY OTHER THAN THE PARTIAL STATEMENT I WAS GOING ON, KATO KAELIN.

Q: AND THAT CONSISTS OF TWO PARAGRAPHS?

A: APPROXIMATELY, YEAH.

Q: AND THAT IS THE EXTENT OF WHAT WAS -- WHAT TOOK PLACE AS FAR AS RECORDING INFORMATION BY YOU?

A: I DIRECTED OTHER INFORMATION BE RECORDED, BUT YES, THAT IS TRUE.

Lead Detective Phillip Vanatter admitted the information he included in his sworn statement to obtain a search warrant was false.

[4757]

Q: AND IN FILLING OUT A SEARCH WARRANT YOU INDICATED TO A MAGISTRATE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT YOU WERE TOLD THAT O.J. SIMPSON HAD LEFT ON AN UNEXPECTED MIGHT TO CHICAGO, DID YOU NOT?

A: I DIDN'T SAY I WAS TOLD THAT.

Q: YOU REPORTED --

A: I DID WRITE THAT IN THE SEARCH WARRANT, YES.

Q: AND YOU SIGNED THAT UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY?

A: YES. THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.

Q: AND THAT WASN'T TRUE, WAS IT?

A: I FIND -- I FOUND OUT LATER THAT THAT INFORMATION WAS INCORRECT. THAT WAS BASED ON ARNELLE SIMPSON'S RESPONSE THAT MORNING, AS WELL AS KATO KAELIN TELLING ME THAT HE HAD RECEIVED A PHONE CALL AFTER SIMPSON HAD LEFT THE RESIDENCE TELLING HIM TO ALARM THE HOUSE, THAT HE WAS GOING TO CHICAGO ON A

[4758]

BUSINESS TRIP FOR HERTZ.

Q: YOU FILLED OUT THE AFFIDAVIT FOR THE SEARCH WARRANT AT WHAT TIME, SIR?

A: I STARTED THAT APPROXIMATELY 7:45 IN THE MORNING.

Q: AND WHAT TIME DID YOU PRESENT IT TO A MAGISTRATE, SIR?

A: IT WAS SIGNED AT 10:45.

Q: AND THE MAGISTRATE ASKED YOU TO MAKE SOME HAND CORRECTIONS IN THERE, DID SHE NOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND ISN'T IT TRUE, SIR, THAT AT SIX O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING YOUR HANDWRITTEN NOTES INDICATE THAT IN YOUR INTERVIEW WITH KATO KAELIN THAT HE TOLD YOU THAT O.J. SIMPSON HAD LEFT ON A FLIGHT FOR CHICAGO FOR HERTZ?

A: YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND DID YOU ALSO INDICATE, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, SIR, THAT YOU OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE HUMAN BLOOD, WHICH WAS LATER CONFIRMED BY A CRIMINALIST TO BE HUMAN BLOOD?

A: YES, I SAID THAT.

Q: AND ISN'T IT TRUE AT THE TIME THAT THAT WAS NOT A TEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS HUMAN BLOOD?

A: THAT IS TRUE. I MISSTATED THAT I GUESS BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE. I BELIEVED IT WAS HUMAN BLOOD AND I THINK NOW -- I THINK STILL IT IS HUMAN BLOOD. I THINK IT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE HUMAN BLOOD.

Q: YOU ALSO SAID, SIR, DID YOU NOT, YOU OBSERVED BLOOD ON THE CONSOLE OF THE BRONCO AND BLOOD INSIDE THE DOOR PANELING OF THE BRONCO, DID YOU NOT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: DID YOU INCLUDE THAT INFORMATION IN YOUR SEARCH WARRANT?

A: NO.

Q: WHY NOT?

[4759]

A: I JUST -- THAT WAS A QUICK ATTEMPT TO GET A SEARCH WARRANT TO MOVE THE INVESTIGATION ALONG. I DIDN'T -- I MISSED SOME THINGS IN IT THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN IT.

Q: DID YOU MAKE ANY NOTES IN THAT IN ANY REPORTS THAT WERE FILED IN THIS CASE?

A: NO, SIR, I DIDN'T.

Q: REGARDING THE GLOVE THAT YOU SAW, WHERE IN YOUR REPORTS REGARDING ROCKINGHAM DID YOU SHOW THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: IT IS IN THE SEARCH WARRANT AND IT IS ALSO IN THE FOLLOW-UP REPORT.

Q: IT IS IN THE -- I SAID WHERE IN YOUR NOTES ARE THEY SHOWN?

A: THERE ARE NO NOTES.

Q: WHERE IN DETECTIVE LANGE'S NOTES IS IT SHOWN THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: I -- I -- I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS IN LANGE'S NOTES.

Q: WHERE IN DETECTIVE PHILLIPS' NOTES IS IT SHOWN THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE HE HAS ANY NOTES.

Q: WHERE IN DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S NOTES IS IT SHOWN THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND IN ROCKINGHAM?

A: IT IS NOT, SIR.

Q: WHERE IN THE MASTER NOTE-TAKER'S NOTES IS IT SHOWN THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: IT IS IN THE CRIMINALIST'S NOTES THAT HE RECOVERED THE PIECE OF EVIDENCE AND THOSE WERE TAKEN AT MY DIRECTION.

Q: WHEN WAS THAT?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: WHEN WERE THOSE NOTES TAKEN?

[4760]

A: THE MORNING OF THE 13TH.

Q: AT YOUR DIRECTION?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

Q: DO YOU HAVE THOSE NOTES?

A: NO, SIR, I DON'T. THOSE ARE CRIMINALIST WORK PRODUCT.

Q: A CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD IS REQUIRED TO BE KEPT IN ALL CASES OF HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION, IS IT NOT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: WHERE IN THE CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD DOES IT INDICATE THAT ANY OF THE FOUR OFFICERS THERE RECOVERED A GLOVE?

A: IT DOESN'T.

How Criminalist Fung was caught on videotape, Rockingham glove in hand, stepping over Ron Goldman's body.

[6758]

MR. SCHECK: Well, do you recall a videotape of you stepping over the body holding what you've told us was the Rockingham glove with your bare hand and a bag?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

The unexplained movement of the Bundy glove between photographs.

[6759]

MR. SCHECK: You do concede however from looking at still photographs that the glove had been moved from a position where it was originally photographed when Detective Fuhrman was pointing at it to a second position when you directed the photographer to photograph it--

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FUNG: Yes.

Detective Mark Fuhrman at the Preliminary Hearing, July 5, 1994, the year before the O.J. Trial, which I offer only for the purpose of showing that the prosecution was stuck with this story. At 0054:

03 Q When you saw that glove, did it have some
04 significance to you?
05 A Yes. It looked very similar to the glove
06 that I observed on Bundy hours before.
07 Q And based on that observation, sir, what did
08 you do?
09 A I looked at it a little closer. I noted that
10 it did not match the terrain.
11 As you can see, there's a lot of dirt and
12 leaves. This glove was not dirty in the least. It
13 looked a little sticky and moist. Two fingers were
14 stuck to the glove. It looked like it was stuck there
15 with some type of a liquid.

16 I didn't touch it. I went past the air
17 conditioning duct that you can see in photo 'A', and as
18 soon as I went past that air conditioning duct, looking
19 for the person that might have dropped this glove,

20 thinking that they were farther down the walkway, I ran
21 into spider webs immediately.

Det. Fuhrman went past the air conditioning duct looking for the killer who had nearly severed the head of Nicole Simpson. Did he call for backup or draw his weapon. Nahhh.

At the criminal trial, Detective Mark Fuhrman observed the Rockingham glove was moist and sticky; it had a glean or glisten to it.

[4141]

Q: OKAY. AND SO DO THESE -- ARE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS -- ARE ANY OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS THE ONES THAT WERE TAKEN AT YOUR DIRECTION WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHER AT

[4142]

ROCKINGHAM? AND WHEN I SAY "THESE," I'M REFERRING TO PEOPLE'S 116?

A: I'M NOT SURE -- I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAD ANY NUMBERS AT THAT TIME.

Q: UH-HUH. AND PHOTOGRAPH E, WHERE THERE IS NO NUMBER THEN, MIGHT THAT BE ONE OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN AT YOUR DIRECTION BY MR. ROKAHR?

A: YES.

[...]

Q: AFTER HE TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS, WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: WE RETURNED TO THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE.

Q: OKAY. NOW, WHEN YOU POINTED THE GLOVE OUT TO MR. ROKAHR FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS, DID YOU POINT OUT ASPECTS OF THE GLOVE THAT YOU WANTED HIM TO TAKE NOTE OF IN PHOTOGRAPHS?

A: NO. I BELIEVE I JUST WANTED PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE GLOVE. I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANYTHING WE COULD DEPICT THAT WE WOULD NEED PHOTOS OF FROM ANY ANGLE.

Q: YOU DESCRIBED EARLIER THAT THE -- THAT YOU NOTICED IT TO BE -- THE GLOVE TO BE MOIST AND STICKY. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: THAT IS THE WAY IT APPEARED, YES.

Q: DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER ANY FINGERS WERE STUCK TOGETHER?

A: I DO RECALL THAT THERE WAS ONE FINGER THAT WAS STUCK TO ONE PART OF THE GLOVE.

Detective Mark Fuhrman

[4284]

Q: WHAT DID YOU SAY?

A: I SAID, "IT LOOKS LIKE IT COULD BE SIMILAR TO THE ONE ON BUNDY."

Q: YOU HAVE TOLD US A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU NOTICED ABOUT THE GLOVE WAS THAT IT WAS MOIST AND STICKY, CORRECT?

A: YES, YES.

Q: AND DID YOU POINT THAT OUT TO DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, THAT NOT ONLY DID IT LOOK LIKE THE GLOVE FROM BUNDY, BUT THAT IT APPEARED TO HAVE A SUBSTANCE ON IT MAKING IT STICKY WHICH COULD WELL HAVE BEEN BLOOD?

A: I'M NOT SURE IF I DID OR IF I DIDN'T.

Q: BUT IT HAD BEEN THROUGH YOUR MIND, HADN'T IT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE STICKY PART I TAKE IT YOU OBSERVED WHEN YOU TOOK THAT LITTLE TINY FLASHLIGHT OF YOURS AND SHINED IT ON THE GLOVE AND SAW SOMETHING OF A SHINY NATURE, AS OPPOSED TO A CAKED OR DRY SURFACE?

A: IT APPEARED THAT IT HAD SOMEWHAT OF A GLEAN OR A GLISTEN TO IT.

Photographer Rokahr established that Detective Fuhrman's timeline was skewed by several hours.

[4045]

Q: THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT WE SHOWED YOU YESTERDAY OF YOU POINTING TO THE ITEMS UNDERNEATH THAT BUSH, WHEN WAS THAT TAKEN, SIR?

A: I BELIEVE THAT WAS SOMEWHERE AROUND 7:00 OR 7:15 THAT MORNING.

Q: AT THAT POINT, SIR, HAD YOU ALREADY BEEN TO ROCKINGHAM AND COME BACK TO BUNDY?

A: YES, MA'AM.

As I documented at #220, photographer Rolf Rokahr established that he took the photograph at night, at an approximate time between 4:25 and 4:40 a.m., before Detective Fuhrman left Bundy for Rockingham.

The defense theory of how one glove got to Rockingham is that Detective Fuhrman found two gloves at Bundy, put one in a plastic bag, and transported that glove to Rockingham. The prosecution theory is that O.J. Simpson was wearing both gloves at Bundy, lost one at Bundy, and dropped the other one at Rockingham.

Under the defense theory, the Rockingham glove was not there until after Detective Mark Fuhrman placed the glove after interviewing Kato Kaelin and hearing about the three thumps. Under this theory, the glove was planted sometime after 6:00 a.m on April 13.

Under the prosecution theory, the Rockingham glove must have been dropped before O.J. left with Alan Park, the limo driver. That was around 11 p.m. More specifically, it ties to the three thumps heard by Kato Kaelin around 10:40 to 10:45 p.m. on April 12.

There is a conundrum which must be addressed by the prosecution. It is rather like the cooking time of regular grits in My Cousin Vinny. Do the laws of science not apply at the Rockingham address?

According to the prosecution theory, the glove was out in the warm summer air of Los Angeles in June for a period of over seven (7) hours. And yet, the Rockingham glove was moist and sticky, and had a glean or glisten to it.

What prevented the blood from drying for seven hours?

The defense theory posits that the glove was in a plastic bag, in Det. Fuhrman's pocket, for seven hours and esposed to the air for minutes.

The prosecution theory is.... what?... blood does not dry at the Rockingham address?

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-19   23:23:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#230. To: nolu chan (#229)

The prosecution had the sole responsibility to provide proof of each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

No they didn't. If there was reasonable doubt about a specific piece of evidence or testimony, that specific piece of evidence or testimony could be disregarded.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-20   9:37:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#231. To: nolu chan (#229)

"failed to show that the gloves purchased by Nicole Simpson were ever given to, or worn by, O.J. Simpson."

Well, let's see:

-- She was married to OJ when she bought the gloves.
-- The gloves she purchased were a size XL. (OJ wore a size XL.)
-- They were of a fine leather, cashmere-lined, and expensive. Something a celebrity like OJ would wear.
-- OJ was pictured wearing gloves that sure did look like the ones she purchased.
-- One glove, identical to the glove she purchased, was found at the crime scene.
-- The matching glove was found at OJ's house.
-- The original gloves Nicole purchased were never produced at trial as a defense exhibit.

Now, based on the totality of that evidence, isn't it reasonable to assume those gloves were given to, and worn, by OJ?

Oh, sure. It IS possible that Nicole bought those gloves for some unknown boyfriend ... who also wore a size XL. And that the real killer coincidentally wore a size XL and shopped at the same store Nicole did and had a taste for rare expensive gloves to wear to a murder. And that the glove at OJ's house was planted by someone who knew that OJ wore a size XL and didn't have an alibi. And that OJ threw away the gloves given to him by Nicole.

Yes. I will grant you that all of this is possible. But which scenario is reasonable?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-20   10:03:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#232. To: nolu chan (#229) (Edited)

"And yet, the Rockingham glove was moist and sticky, and had a glean or glisten to it."

No. He testified that it looked moist and sticky.

"12 leaves. This glove was not dirty in the least. It
13 looked a little sticky and moist."

An air conditioner removes heat and humidity from a house and blows it outside. I would imagine it was pretty humid under the air conditioner where the glove was found -- slowing the drying process.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-20   10:15:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#233. To: nolu chan (#228)

You have not presented a whisper of the phantom "other glove evidence presented to the jury which, taken together with Rubin's testimony, is consistent and damning."

That can be found in my post #231.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-20   10:26:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#234. To: misterwhite (#230)

The prosecution had the sole responsibility to provide proof of each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

No they didn't. If there was reasonable doubt about a specific piece of evidence or testimony, that specific piece of evidence or testimony could be disregarded.

Read it again. Your response is nonsense.

The prosecution had the sole responsibility to provide proof of each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

You can't prove any element of the crime by disregarding evidence, physical or testimonial. You can only prove something by bringing forth physical or testimonial evidence.

The prosecution must prove each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. As Judge Ito instructed the jury, "EACH FACT WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO COMPLETE A SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT."

If the prosecution fails to provide proof of any element, it fails to prove the accused committed the crime. In such case, the jury is instructed, it must return a verdict of not guilty.

From Judge Ito's instructions to the jury:

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY:

IT IS MY DUTY TO INSTRUCT YOU ON THE LAW THAT APPLIES TO THIS CASE. THE LAW REQUIRES THAT I READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS TO YOU. YOU WILL HAVE THESE INSTRUCTIONS IN WRITTEN FORM IN THE JURY ROOM TO REFER TO DURING YOUR DELIBERATIONS.

YOU MUST BASE YOUR DECISION ON THE FACTS AND THE LAW.

YOU HAVE TWO DUTIES TO PERFORM. FIRST, YOU MUST DETERMINE THE FACTS FROM THE EVIDENCE RECEIVED IN THE TRIAL AND NOT FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE. A "FACT" IS SOMETHING PROVED DIRECTLY OR CIRCUMSTANTIALLY BY THE EVIDENCE OR BY STIPULATION. A STIPULATION IS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ATTORNEYS REGARDING THE FACTS.

SECOND, YOU MUST APPLY THE LAW THAT I STATE TO YOU TO THE FACTS AS YOU DETERMINE THEM AND IN THIS WAY ARRIVE AT YOUR VERDICT AND ANY FINDING YOU ARE INSTRUCTED TO INCLUDE WITH YOUR VERDICT.

YOU MUST ACCEPT AND FOLLOW THE LAW AS I STATE IT TO YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU AGREE WITH THE LAW. IF ANYTHING CONCERNING THE LAW SAID BY THE ATTORNEYS IN THEIR ARGUMENTS OR AT ANY OTHER TIME DURING THE TRIAL CONFLICT WITH MY INSTRUCTIONS ON THE LAW, YOU MUST FOLLOW MY INSTRUCTIONS.

[...]

EVIDENCE CONSISTS OF THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES, WRITINGS, MATERIAL OBJECTS OR ANYTHING PRESENTED TO THE SENSES AND OFFERED TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF A FACT.

EVIDENCE IS EITHER DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL. DIRECT EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE THAT DIRECTLY PROVES A FACT WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF AN INFERENCE. IT'S EVIDENCE, WHICH BY ITSELF, IF FOUND TO BE TRUE, ESTABLISHES THAT FACT.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE, IF FOUND TO BE TRUE, PROVES A FACT FROM WHICH AN INFERENCE OF EXISTENCE OF ANOTHER FACT MAY BE DRAWN. AN INFERENCE IS A DEDUCTION OF FACT THAT MAY LOGICALLY AND REASONABLY BE DRAWN FROM ANOTHER FACT OR GROUP OF FACTS ESTABLISHED BY THE EVIDENCE.

IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT FACTS BE PROVED BY DIRECT EVIDENCE. THEY MAY BE PROVED ALSO BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OR BY A COMBINATION OF DIRECT EVIDENCE AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

BOTH DIRECT EVIDENCE AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ARE ACCEPTABLE AS A MEANS OF PROOF. NEITHER IS ENTITLED TO ANY GREATER WEIGHT THAN THE OTHER.

HOWEVER, A FINDING OF GUILT AS TO ANY CRIME MAY NOT BE BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE UNLESS THE PROVED CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT ONLY, ONE, CONSISTENT WITH THE THEORY THAT THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME, BUT, TWO, CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH ANY OTHER RATIONAL CONCLUSION.

FURTHER, EACH FACT WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO COMPLETE A SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. IN OTHER WORDS, BEFORE AN INFERENCE ESSENTIAL TO ESTABLISH GUILT MAY BE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, EACH FACT OR CIRCUMSTANCE UPON WHICH SUCH INFERENCE NECESSARILY RESTS MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

ALSO, IF THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS TO ANY PARTICULAR COUNT IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF TWO REASONABLE INTERPRETATIONS, ONE OF WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT AND THE OTHER TO HIS INNOCENCE, YOU MUST ADOPT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S INNOCENCE AND REJECT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO HIS GUILT.

IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, ONE INTERPRETATION OF SUCH EVIDENCE APPEARS TO YOU TO BE REASONABLE AND THE OTHER INTERPRETATION TO BE UNREASONABLE, YOU MUST ACCEPT THE REASONABLE INTERPRETATION AND REJECT THE UNREASONABLE.

[...]

YOU MUST NOT BE INFLUENCED BY PITY FOR A DEFENDANT OR BY PREJUDICE AGAINST HIM. YOU MUST NOT BE BIASED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN ARRESTED FOR THIS OFFENSE, CHARGED WITH A CRIME OR BROUGHT TO TRIAL. NONE OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IS EVIDENCE OF GUILT AND YOU MUST NOT INFER OR ASSUME FROM ANY OR ALL OF THEM THAT HE IS MORE LIKELY TO BE GUILTY THAN INNOCENT.

YOU MUST NOT BE INFLUENCED BY MERE SENTIMENT, CONJECTURE, SYMPATHY, PASSION, PREJUDICE, PUBLIC OPINION OR PUBLIC FEELING. BOTH THE PROSECUTION AND THE DEFENDANT HAVE A RIGHT TO EXPECT THAT YOU WILL CONSCIENTIOUSLY CONSIDER AND WEIGH THE EVIDENCE, APPLY THE LAW AND REACH A JUST VERDICT REGARDLESS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

YOU MUST DECIDE THIS CASE SOLELY UPON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED HERE IN THE COURTROOM.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-20   21:44:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#235. To: misterwhite (#231)

Your mission impossible, which you chose to accept, was to prove that the O.J. Simpson jury had sufficient evidence before it to return a verdict of guilty.

Well, let's see:

-- She was married to OJ when she bought the gloves.
-- The gloves she purchased were a size XL. (OJ wore a size XL.)
-- They were of a fine leather, cashmere-lined, and expensive. Something a celebrity like OJ would wear.
-- OJ was pictured wearing gloves that sure did look like the ones she purchased.
-- One glove, identical to the glove she purchased, was found at the crime scene.
-- The matching glove was found at OJ's house.
-- The original gloves Nicole purchased were never produced at trial as a defense exhibit.

Now, based on the totality of that evidence, isn't it reasonable to assume those gloves were given to, and worn, by OJ?

Of course, you do not cite any evidence before the jury in the criminal trial. Your laundry list is not evidence, and is directly contradicted by actual evidence adduced at the trial.

-- She was married to OJ when she bought the gloves.

There is no evidence adduced at the criminal trial that Nicole bought the gloves. It was impossible for the prosecution to establish when the gloves in evidence were purchased, or by whom.

Bloomingdale's expert Brenda Vemich testified that there was no way for her to tell that the gloves in evidence were purchased during the Bloomingdale's transaction for which a receipt was found. There was no evidence before the jury as to when, of even if, Nicole Simpson bought the gloves in evidence.

You are entitled to your opinion about the evidence adduced at the criminal trial. You are not entitled to your own imaginary evidence.

MR. DARDEN: Now, does the sales receipt indicate the size of the glove?

MS. VEMICH: No, it does not.

MR. DARDEN: Does it indicate the color of the glove?

MS. VEMICH: No, it does not.

MR. DARDEN: Is there way for you to tell us that the two gloves I showed you here in court were purchased during the transaction shown here in People's 372-A?

MS. VEMICH: No.

- - - - - - - - - -

-- The gloves she purchased were a size XL. (OJ wore a size XL.)

There is a receipt for the purchase of gloves. There is no evidence whether they were black or brown, or what size they were, and there is expert testimony that it was impossible to tell that the gloves in evidence were purchased during the Bloomingdale's transaction for which a receipt was found. You assume to have determined, of your own expertise, what the Bloomingdale's expert could not.

-- They were of a fine leather, cashmere-lined, and expensive. Something a celebrity like OJ would wear.

It is vague as to what they refers to. It could refer to the gloves on the Blomingdale's receipt, or it could refer to the gloves in evidence.

The prosecution at the criminal trial was unable to establish they were one and the same, and their expert witness testified that it was impossible to tell that the gloves in evidence were purchased during the Bloomingdale's transaction for which a receipt was found.

Neither the receipt gloves, nor the evidence gloves, were ever proven to have been owned or worn by O.J. Simpson.

OJ was pictured wearing gloves that sure did look like the ones she purchased.

Proving nothing. Not even the Aris expert could identify any of the gloves in the photographs as Aris gloves. Most of the gloves in the photographs were black, and the evidence gloves were brown.

-- One glove, identical to the glove she purchased, was found at the crime scene.

There was no such evidence was produced at trial. The two pairs of gloves purchased by Nicole Simpson could have been black, as established by the expert testimony.

The expert testimony was that the receipt did not indicate the size or color of the gloves purchased, and there was no way to tell that the gloves in evidence were purchased during the Bloomingdale's transaction for which a receipt was found.

-- The matching glove was found at OJ's house.

The glove found at Rockingham matched the glove found at Bundy.

Neither evidence glove was shown to match whatever gloves of unknown size and color were purchased at Bloomingdale's.

Neither evidence glove was shown to have been owned or worn by O.J. Simpson.

-- The original gloves Nicole purchased were never produced at trial as a defense exhibit.

Irrelevant.

The gloves purchased by Nicole were never established as being any particular size or color, and the Bloomingdale's expert testified there was no way to tell that the gloves in evidence were purchased during the Bloomingdale's transaction for which a receipt was found.

It was not established at trial that O.J. Simpson ever owned or wore the gloves in evidence.

The defense is not required to put on any case whatever. When the prosecution rests, the defense can simply say, "The defense rests."

Any failure to produce evidence falls directly on the prosecution. There is no obligation for the defense to do anything but show up. The defense can stand mute and offer no evidence and no testimony and no negative inference can be drawn from that. It's that dreaded Fifth Amendment thingee at work.

Now, based on the totality of that evidence, isn't it reasonable to assume those gloves were given to, and worn, by OJ?

Based on your presentation of a fantastical laundry list, it is reasonable to assume that you either do not know what evidence is, or have none to offer and don't care.

It is reasonable to believe O.J. owned the gloves. It is reasonable to believe it has not been proven who owned the gloves.

It is unreasonable for a juror to assume guilt of a crime based on an unproved assumption.

Oh, sure. It IS possible that Nicole bought those gloves for some unknown boyfriend ... who also wore a size XL.

As Judge Ito instructed the jury:

IF THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS TO ANY PARTICULAR COUNT IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF TWO REASONABLE INTERPRETATIONS, ONE OF WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT AND THE OTHER TO HIS INNOCENCE, YOU MUST ADOPT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S INNOCENCE AND REJECT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO HIS GUILT.

The size, color, and date of purchase of the purchased gloves is unknown.

And that the real killer coincidentally wore a size XL and shopped at the same store Nicole did and had a taste for rare expensive gloves to wear to a murder.

A pair of XL gloves were used by the killer. There was no evidence brought forth that they were purchased in Bloomingdale's in NYC. No evidence was brought forth that they were bought by Nicole Simpson, or when they were bought. There was no evidence brought forth that they were owned or worn by O.J. Simpson.

And that the glove at OJ's house was planted by someone who knew that OJ wore a size XL and didn't have an alibi.

There was no need for Det. Fuhrman to know that O.J. wore an XL glove.

There was no need for Det. Fuhrman to know that O.J. didn't have an alibi.

It only required for Det. Fuhrman to assume that O.J. Simpson was the killer, and for Det. Fuhrman to be motivated to create probable cause to search his residence. If it turned out that O.J. Simpson was in Chicago gladhanding for Hertz, that does not incriminate Det. Fuhrman. It would just mean only Det. Fuihrman would know how the glove got there. If Fuhrman had not "found" the glove, but had waited for someone else, perhaps Vanatter, to find the glove, would that mean Det. Vanatter planted it, because O.J. had an alibi?

The evidence for planting is the blood evidence in the Bronco seen with xray vision, and the testimony of Det. Fuhrman.

At the criminal trial, Detective Mark Fuhrman observed the Rockingham glove was moist and sticky; it had a glean or glisten to it.

And Det. Fuhrman's false testimony about the time of the photograph depicting him pointing to the Bundy glove.

That was the evidence before the jury. A reasonable theory for why the glove was moist and sticky, and appeared to have a glean or glisten to it, is that it was in a plastic bag being carried around by Det. Fuhrman, rather than in the open air on a warm June night and morning in Los Angeles.

This theory is consistent with O.J. Simpson, or anyone else, leaving two gloves at Bundy.

The theory that it was O.J. Simpson who transported the glove in the Bronco is inconsistent with the blood in the Bronco. There was not enough of it.

[4141]

Q: OKAY. AND SO DO THESE -- ARE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS -- ARE ANY OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS THE ONES THAT WERE TAKEN AT YOUR DIRECTION WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHER AT

[4142]

ROCKINGHAM? AND WHEN I SAY "THESE," I'M REFERRING TO PEOPLE'S 116?

A: I'M NOT SURE -- I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAD ANY NUMBERS AT THAT TIME.

Q: UH-HUH. AND PHOTOGRAPH E, WHERE THERE IS NO NUMBER THEN, MIGHT THAT BE ONE OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN AT YOUR DIRECTION BY MR. ROKAHR?

A: YES.

[...]

Q: AFTER HE TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS, WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: WE RETURNED TO THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE.

Q: OKAY. NOW, WHEN YOU POINTED THE GLOVE OUT TO MR. ROKAHR FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS, DID YOU POINT OUT ASPECTS OF THE GLOVE THAT YOU WANTED HIM TO TAKE NOTE OF IN PHOTOGRAPHS?

A: NO. I BELIEVE I JUST WANTED PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE GLOVE. I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANYTHING WE COULD DEPICT THAT WE WOULD NEED PHOTOS OF FROM ANY ANGLE.

Q: YOU DESCRIBED EARLIER THAT THE -- THAT YOU NOTICED IT TO BE -- THE GLOVE TO BE MOIST AND STICKY. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: THAT IS THE WAY IT APPEARED, YES.

Q: DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER ANY FINGERS WERE STUCK TOGETHER?

A: I DO RECALL THAT THERE WAS ONE FINGER THAT WAS STUCK TO ONE PART OF THE GLOVE.

Detective Mark Fuhrman

[4284]

Q: WHAT DID YOU SAY?

A: I SAID, "IT LOOKS LIKE IT COULD BE SIMILAR TO THE ONE ON BUNDY."

Q: YOU HAVE TOLD US A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU NOTICED ABOUT THE GLOVE WAS THAT IT WAS MOIST AND STICKY, CORRECT?

A: YES, YES.

Q: AND DID YOU POINT THAT OUT TO DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, THAT NOT ONLY DID IT LOOK LIKE THE GLOVE FROM BUNDY, BUT THAT IT APPEARED TO HAVE A SUBSTANCE ON IT MAKING IT STICKY WHICH COULD WELL HAVE BEEN BLOOD?

A: I'M NOT SURE IF I DID OR IF I DIDN'T.

Q: BUT IT HAD BEEN THROUGH YOUR MIND, HADN'T IT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE STICKY PART I TAKE IT YOU OBSERVED WHEN YOU TOOK THAT LITTLE TINY FLASHLIGHT OF YOURS AND SHINED IT ON THE GLOVE AND SAW SOMETHING OF A SHINY NATURE, AS OPPOSED TO A CAKED OR DRY SURFACE?

A: IT APPEARED THAT IT HAD SOMEWHAT OF A GLEAN OR A GLISTEN TO IT.

- - - - - - - - - -

And that OJ threw away the gloves given to him by Nicole.

There is no evidence that O.J. threw away any gloves given to him by Nicole. It is pure speculation. There is no evidence of record that O.J. Simpson either owned or threw away any Aris glove, or any other glove. Regarding the gloves purchased by Nicole, there is no evidence of record that either or both were either brown or any other color, and there is no evidence of the size. There is nothing in any theory of the case that requires that O.J. threw away gloves.

Yes. I will grant you that all of this is possible. But which scenario is reasonable?

According to the prosecution timeline, the gloves would have had to be out in the open air for over seven (7) hours without drying out. That is unreasonable.

According to the prosecution timeline, O.J. had to nearly sever the head of Nicole, engage in a struggle with Ron Goldman and knife him to death, and several minutes later arrive at Rockingham in the Bronco, jump the fence, drop the Rockingham glove, and shortly after 11 p.m. leave to catch a scheduled flight to Chicago.

This theory is not reasonable. The killer cut both carotid arteries of Nicole from the front. He had to sustain a shower of blood. Then the killer had to sustain more blood from Ron Goldman, almost immediately hop in the Bronco, and not leave the Bronco a mess of blood stains.

The prosecution ran into severe problems with their timeline trying to show that it was possible for O.J. Simpson, as the killer, to have arrived at Bundy at 10:40 or 10:45 as the prosecution argued throughout the trial. The defense had destroyed that timeline with ear- and eye-witness testimony. Marcia Clark argued in closing that the thumps occurred at 10:52 p.m.

That was a valiant effort to salvage a destroyed timeline. It is unreasonable in terms of how O.J. Simpson cleaned up. It eliminates any possibility that he cleaned up at all at Rockingham. He certainly did not clean up in the Bronco. The killer had to be a bloody mess at Bundy. He cleaned up before leaving Bundy and left no evidence of doing so anywhere? The prosecution offers no explanation for where the blood on the killer disappeared to, if it was O.J. Simpson.

The killer was covered in an ocean of blood. Could he have gone anywhere at the Bundy residence without leaving a trail of blood? Where and when did he do the cleanup before getting in the Bronco.

A parade of defense witnesses testified about being at or near the Bundy residence after 10:15. Francesca Harmon was there at 10:20 and saw and heard nothing. Ellen Aaronson and Dan Mandel left Mezzaluna and walked directly past the walkway at Nicole's Bundy residence at about 10:25. They saw no blood, they heard no barking dogs. A photo by police photographer Rolf Rokahr showing what could have been seen had the murders already occurred. Nicole's body was in plain view. Also, blood flowed down the walkway, Bloody paw prints went southbound on Bundy. Denise Pilnak lived across the street. A guest, Judy Telander left Pilnak's house at about 10:24 and Pilnak that it was very quiet. Pilnak said she called her mother as soon as she went back inside. Her phone records placed the call at 10:25. She said the quiet continued for at least another 10 minutes, or until about 10:35 p.m. Robert Heidstra was out walking his dogs. Just like Denise Pilnak, he recall the barking starting at 10:35 p.m. While in the alleyway, east of 875 South Bundy, he hears a voice yell, "Hey, hey, hey," and then heard a gate slam. He then, about 10:40 or 10:45, he saw a white vehicle he described as a van or a jeep.

The prosecution knew of, but did not call these witnesses.

Kato Kaelin had testified the thumps were at about 10:40 to 10:45. By the time the defense got done with the timeline, the prosecution needed to perform emergency emergency resuscitation their timeline. The killer could not leave Bundy and thump on Kato's wall at the same time. Det. Vanatter did a test drive to measure the time needed to get from Nicole's to O.J.'s place. It was six (6) minutes.

If the murders happened at 10:35, and the struggle took about five (5) minutes, the killer left around 10:40 or later, agreeing with the 10:40 to 10:45 sighting of a white van or jeep. If the killer was O.J., and he jumped in the Bronco as a bloody mess, he would barely make it within the timeline. However, he is left with no time to clean up, he is a bloody mess in the Bronco, he is a blody mess at Rockingham, and he is a bloody mess on the way to Chicago. Remember that they checked the drains at Rockingham for blood. None was found.

The first mention of 10:52 was in the testimony of limo driver Allan Park on January 24, 1995.

IN THE MEANTIME, JUST BEFORE KATO CAME OUT ONTO THE SIDE YARD, ALLAN PARK WAS STANDING AT THE ASHFORD GATE RINGING THE BUZZER, STILL GETTING NO ANSWER. FINALLY HE HEARD THE CAR PHONE RINGING INSIDE HIS CAR AND IT WAS 10:52. HE HAD STILL RECEIVED NO ANSWER TO THE BUZZING AT THE ASHFORD GATE, GOT BACK INTO THE CAR AND SPOKE TO HIS BOSS, TELLING HIS BOSS "I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS HOME. WHAT SHALL I DO?" HIS BOSS TOLD HIM TO WAIT A LITTLE LONGER. AND WHEN HE HAD BEEN SPEAKING TO HIS BOSS FOR THREE MINUTES HE SAW KATO COMING OUT THE SIDE YARD WITH HIS LITTLE FLASHLIGHT. ALMOST SIMULTANEOUSLY SEEING KATO IN THE SIDE YARD, HE SAW A PERSON SIX FOOT TALL, 200 POUNDS, WEARING ALL DARK CLOTHING, AFRICAN AMERICAN, WALK QUICKLY UP THE DRIVEWAY AND INTO [T]HE FRONT DOOR ENTRANCE. IMMEDIATELY AS THAT PERSON ENTERED THE HOUSE THE DOWNSTAIRS LIGHTS WENT ON.

Allan Park heard his phone ring at 10:52. That is fixed by phone records. He testifies that aftger he talked to his boss for three (3) minutes, he saw Kato with his flashlight. Arithmetic suggests that time was 10:55. Nearly at the same time, but after seeing Kato, Allan Park noticed a man, presumably O.J. Simpson proceed up the walkway and enter the house. That would be about 10:55 or 10:56.

In Marcia Clark's closing argument, based on this, she placed the thumps at 10:52 and the sighting of Kato Kaelin at 10:54, and the sighting of O.J. Simpson at 10:54. With Marcia Clark, 10:52 plus :03, plus a little more is 10:54. The timeline had to be adjusted later to make it physically possible for O.J. to get there. And it had to be adjusted earlier than the Allan Park testimony and phone records would indicate, to make it physically possible for O.J. to bring out all his bags and get in the limo and be on his way shortly after 11:00.

So, right after thumps, Kato comes out with his flashlight. At the same time, presumably O.J. is observed walking up the driveway and entering the front door. Where is the trail of blood? When did he have an opportunity to get rid of all the blood and leave no trace of doing so? And how did he take the drive in the Bronco and leave only seven-tenths (7/10) of one drop of blood on the console? There was a speck of something that may have been blood outside near the door handle.

Was O.J. chipping golfballs before he walked up and entered the house?

Or did he kill two people at Bundy, nearly beheading one of them from the front while cutting both carotid arteries, then almost immediately jump in the Bronco which was mistaken for a van or a jeep, rush to Rockingham, jump the fence because opening the gate would have been too easy for his arthritic self, bang on Kato's wall, and then walk up to the house, and depart minutes later, without leaving a massive trail of blood?

The prosecution theory of the case, and it's timeline, are broken. It's a dog that just won't hunt. The emergency repair, adjusting the time of the thumps to 10:52 in closing argument, really does not work.

[Marcia Clark, Opening Statement, January 25, 1995]

THINK I CAN GUARANTEE THAT. WITH RESPECT TO THE TIMING, THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH, 1994, THE DEFENDANT HAD AN HOUR AND 10 MINUTES OF TIME IN WHICH HIS WHEREABOUTS ARE UNACCOUNTED FOR. AND WE WILL SHOW THAT IT WAS DURING THAT HOUR AND 10 MINUTES THAT THE MURDERS WERE COMMITTED. AND SO THE EVIDENCE WILL PROVE THAT KATO LAST SAW THE DEFENDANT ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH AT 9:35 AT THE LATEST, HE DID NOT SEE THE DEFENDANT AGAIN UNTIL 10 -- EXCUSE ME -- AFTER 11:00 O'CLOCK. IN BETWEEN THOSE TWO TIMES, AT 10:15, A DOG IS HEARD BARKING THAT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW WAS NICOLE'S DOG, WHICH FIXES THE TIME AT WHICH THE MURDER OCCURRED. AT 10:45, KATO HEARD THUMPS ON HIS WALL. AND SHORTLY AFTER 11:00, HE SAW THE DEFENDANT. AN HOUR AND 10 MINUTES DURING WHICH THE MURDER OCCURRED -- MURDERS OCCURRED IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT'S WHEREABOUTS ARE UNACCOUNTED FOR. I'LL COME BACK TO THAT POINT.

[Marcia Clark Closing Argument, 26 Sep 1995]

Now, let go back to Kato for a moment. Let's--concerning those thumps and when they happened. Kato said that he hung up from his call with Rachel pretty quickly after he heard the thumping. He estimated for you two to three minutes. Now, with Allan's cell phone call bill we can be very, very precise when that was. He indicated that he went out to investigate the noises, hung up with Rachel, went out to investigate two to three minutes after he heard the thumping. Allan told you he saw Kato and the Defendant at--I'm saying he is the Defendant. He said the man that looked like the Defendant. You understand I'm talking about what we know based on all of the evidence, that it was him. 10:54 he saw Kato approximately, because it was at the same time he saw the Defendant. And he hung up thirty seconds after seeing him walk in the house and after seeing Kato on the side yard, so at 10:54 Kato was out in the side yard. Hearing the thumping noises two to three minutes before, that means that he heard the thumping on his wall at 10:51 to 10:52. So what we have, about two minutes after the thumping, the Defendant was walking up--was walking into his house from the driveway and Kato out in the side yard. In other words, we have the thumping, and Kato walking out and the Defendant walking around at the same time and the thumping happened very shortly, what is it, within half an hour of the murders. And the Defense would have you believe, ladies and gentlemen, that the Defendant's appearance on the driveway just two minutes after the thumping on Kato's wall is a coincidence and the Defense would have you believe that the thumping and the appearance of that glove, the Defendant's glove, were unrelated events. And the thumps themselves, just think about that. Regardless of where or how they happened, just the fact that they happened shortly after the murders at the Defendant's house and just before the Defendant walked up his driveway in dark clothing, like the dark blue or black sweat outfit that Kato described, you just put those facts together and you realize what has happened. The Defendant came back from Bundy in a hurry. Ron Goldman upset his plans and things took a little longer than anticipated. He ran back behind the house, that dark narrow south pathway--you all saw it. You were there in daytime. But imagine how dark it is at night--that dark, narrow south pathway thinking he could get rid of the glove, the knife, in that dirt area in the back. You recall back behind the guest houses there is a dirt area, just all dirt, not very well tended, but he was in a hurry. He was moving quickly down a dark narrow pathway overhung with trees, strewn with leaves, and in his haste he ran right into that air conditioner that was hanging over that south pathway and running into that air conditioner caused him to fall against the wall, making the wall of Kato's room shake. You recall that air conditioner. It was hanging low. You had to stoop to get down under it. And if you are in a hurry and you are not looking where you are going in that dark, narrow pathway, you can see how it can easily happen how someone in a hurry can do that. And it was just as simple as that. Simple common sense tells you that the thumping, the glove and the Defendant's appearance on the driveway almost immediately thereafter are all part of one set of events, all connected in time and space. You don't need science to tell you that; you just need reason and logic.

[Johnnie Cochran, Closing argument, September 27, 1995)

I said earlier that Mr. Darden did a good job in his argument, but one thing he tended to trip over and stumble over was when he started to talk about our case. He doesn't know our case like we know our case. It was interesting, wasn't it, because first he stood up and started talking about the time line being at 10:15. Then he said, well, they didn't prove anything, but, "Golly, well, it may have been as late as 10:30." That's interesting, isn't it? Never heard that before. You look back and see what Miss Clark promised you a year ago. 10:15. 10:15 was all they talked about, and they were going to use, because of the incompetence of this investigation, the wail of a dog. So that's what we've been relegated to in this case because of this very, very important investigation.

But having said the Defense doesn't have to prove anything in this case, we did in fact. So Mr. Darden can talk all he wanted to about his theories about motive. They're just that, his speculative theories about motive. But when it came down to the end, he wasn't talking about motive, was he? He was trying to talk about our time line. Why would he do that? Let's talk about why he would. Because the Defense in this case called many witnesses who corroborated each other and who shattered the Prosecution's time line. Now, these are witnesses to a person who were known by the Prosecution, but discarded by the Prosecution. Why? Because they didn't fit their tortured, narrow window of opportunity. So when you invisualize for me that jig-saw puzzle where they want to reduce this case down to a jig-saw puzzle, the part that deals with opportunity is the time line. And we're going to start off with that because in a search for truth, let's look for the truth. Not some contorted, twisted truth, but the real truth, the facts that you heard during the course of this particular case. We think after you look at this time line for the Defense, you will agree with our earlier analysis. This is a case about a rush to judgment, a case where there's been obsession to win at all costs, and in the words of Dr. Henry Lee, something is wrong with the Prosecution's case.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-20   22:01:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#236. To: misterwhite (#232)

"And yet, the Rockingham glove was moist and sticky, and had a glean or glisten to it."

No. He testified that it looked moist and sticky.

"12 leaves. This glove was not dirty in the least. It
13 looked a little sticky and moist."

Your mission impossible, which you chose to accept, was to prove that the O.J. Simpson jury had sufficient evidence before it to return a verdict of guilty.

You are quoting testimony from the 1994 Preliminary Hearing, explicitly flagged as such by me, and not testimony from the trial.

Detective Mark Fuhrman at the Preliminary Hearing, July 5, 1994, the year before the O.J. Trial, which I offer only for the purpose of showing that the prosecution was stuck with this story. At 0054:

03 Q When you saw that glove, did it have some
04 significance to you?
05 A Yes. It looked very similar to the glove
06 that I observed on Bundy hours before.
07 Q And based on that observation, sir, what did
08 you do?
09 A I looked at it a little closer. I noted that
10 it did not match the terrain.
11 As you can see, there's a lot of dirt and
12 leaves. This glove was not dirty in the least. It
13 looked a little sticky and moist. Two fingers were
14 stuck to the glove. It looked like it was stuck there
15 with some type of a liquid.

I know you like all the "evidence" that was never evidence at the criminal trial, but none of that could have been considered by the jury at the criminal trial. There was a reason that I flagged this and emphasized this as being from the 1994 Preliminary Hearing the year before the trial. It was not evidence before the jury at the criminal trial. In the testimony at the criminal trial, Det. Fuhrman was asked about his testimony at the 1994 Preliminary Hearing. I provided the relevant excerpt from his 1994 Preliminary Hearing just to show why the prosecution at the criminal trial could not ignore the topic or claim the glove was dry.

You may not like what Det. Fuhrman testified to at the criminal trial, but I provided it and flagged it as the testimony from the 1995 criminal trial.

At the criminal trial, Detective Mark Fuhrman observed the Rockingham glove was moist and sticky; it had a glean or glisten to it.

[4141]

Q: OKAY. AND SO DO THESE -- ARE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS -- ARE ANY OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS THE ONES THAT WERE TAKEN AT YOUR DIRECTION WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHER AT

[4142]

ROCKINGHAM? AND WHEN I SAY "THESE," I'M REFERRING TO PEOPLE'S 116?

A: I'M NOT SURE -- I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAD ANY NUMBERS AT THAT TIME.

Q: UH-HUH. AND PHOTOGRAPH E, WHERE THERE IS NO NUMBER THEN, MIGHT THAT BE ONE OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN AT YOUR DIRECTION BY MR. ROKAHR?

A: YES.

[...]

Q: AFTER HE TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS, WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: WE RETURNED TO THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE.

Q: OKAY. NOW, WHEN YOU POINTED THE GLOVE OUT TO MR. ROKAHR FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS, DID YOU POINT OUT ASPECTS OF THE GLOVE THAT YOU WANTED HIM TO TAKE NOTE OF IN PHOTOGRAPHS?

A: NO. I BELIEVE I JUST WANTED PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE GLOVE. I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANYTHING WE COULD DEPICT THAT WE WOULD NEED PHOTOS OF FROM ANY ANGLE.

Q: YOU DESCRIBED EARLIER THAT THE -- THAT YOU NOTICED IT TO BE -- THE GLOVE TO BE MOIST AND STICKY. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: THAT IS THE WAY IT APPEARED, YES.

Q: DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER ANY FINGERS WERE STUCK TOGETHER?

A: I DO RECALL THAT THERE WAS ONE FINGER THAT WAS STUCK TO ONE PART OF THE GLOVE.

Detective Mark Fuhrman

[4284]

Q: WHAT DID YOU SAY?

A: I SAID, "IT LOOKS LIKE IT COULD BE SIMILAR TO THE ONE ON BUNDY."

Q: YOU HAVE TOLD US A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU NOTICED ABOUT THE GLOVE WAS THAT IT WAS MOIST AND STICKY, CORRECT?

A: YES, YES.

Q: AND DID YOU POINT THAT OUT TO DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, THAT NOT ONLY DID IT LOOK LIKE THE GLOVE FROM BUNDY, BUT THAT IT APPEARED TO HAVE A SUBSTANCE ON IT MAKING IT STICKY WHICH COULD WELL HAVE BEEN BLOOD?

A: I'M NOT SURE IF I DID OR IF I DIDN'T.

Q: BUT IT HAD BEEN THROUGH YOUR MIND, HADN'T IT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE STICKY PART I TAKE IT YOU OBSERVED WHEN YOU TOOK THAT LITTLE TINY FLASHLIGHT OF YOURS AND SHINED IT ON THE GLOVE AND SAW SOMETHING OF A SHINY NATURE, AS OPPOSED TO A CAKED OR DRY SURFACE?

A: IT APPEARED THAT IT HAD SOMEWHAT OF A GLEAN OR A GLISTEN TO IT.

You are now back at square one. FROM THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE JURY AT THE CRIMINAL TRIAL, how do you explain how the glove sat outside in the warm Los Angeles summer air in June for over seven (7) hours, without drying out, and was moist and sticky with somewhat of a glean or a glisten to it?

An air conditioner removes heat and humidity from a house and blows it outside. I would imagine it was pretty humid under the air conditioner where the glove was found -- slowing the drying process.

Where, in your reading of the transcripts, did you find the expert testimonial evidence to support this statement? Or any expert or non-expert trial evidence that the air conditioner slowed the drying process?

There is no such testimonial evidence, therefore this is nothing. The jury could not reach a verdict of guilty based on the ruminations of misterwhite or anyone else who did not appear in court and testify. For this flyer, you would need to have an expert witness.

Judge Ito,

EVIDENCE CONSISTS OF THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES, WRITINGS, MATERIAL OBJECTS OR ANYTHING PRESENTED TO THE SENSES AND OFFERED TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF A FACT.

EVIDENCE IS EITHER DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL. DIRECT EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE THAT DIRECTLY PROVES A FACT WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF AN INFERENCE. IT'S EVIDENCE, WHICH BY ITSELF, IF FOUND TO BE TRUE, ESTABLISHES THAT FACT.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE, IF FOUND TO BE TRUE, PROVES A FACT FROM WHICH AN INFERENCE OF EXISTENCE OF ANOTHER FACT MAY BE DRAWN. AN INFERENCE IS A DEDUCTION OF FACT THAT MAY LOGICALLY AND REASONABLY BE DRAWN FROM ANOTHER FACT OR GROUP OF FACTS ESTABLISHED BY THE EVIDENCE.

[...]

YOU MUST DECIDE THIS CASE SOLELY UPON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED HERE IN THE COURTROOM.

Your mission impossible, which you chose to accept, was to prove that the O.J. Simpson jury had sufficient evidence before it to return a verdict of guilty. You are arguing the affirmative on that proposition, supposedly.

Judge Ito, instruction to the jury,

HOWEVER, A FINDING OF GUILT AS TO ANY CRIME MAY NOT BE BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE UNLESS THE PROVED CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT ONLY, ONE, CONSISTENT WITH THE THEORY THAT THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME, BUT, TWO, CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH ANY OTHER RATIONAL CONCLUSION.

FURTHER, EACH FACT WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO COMPLETE A SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. IN OTHER WORDS, BEFORE AN INFERENCE ESSENTIAL TO ESTABLISH GUILT MAY BE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, EACH FACT OR CIRCUMSTANCE UPON WHICH SUCH INFERENCE NECESSARILY RESTS MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

ALSO, IF THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS TO ANY PARTICULAR COUNT IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF TWO REASONABLE INTERPRETATIONS, ONE OF WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT AND THE OTHER TO HIS INNOCENCE, YOU MUST ADOPT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S INNOCENCE AND REJECT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO HIS GUILT.

Only the prosecution is tasked with presenting evidence. With circumstantial evidence, any rational explanation by the defense that leads to innocence must be accepted by the jury.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-20   22:06:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#237. To: misterwhite (#233)

You have not presented a whisper of the phantom "other glove evidence presented to the jury which, taken together with Rubin's testimony, is consistent and damning."

That can be found in my post #231.

You provided zero evidence at your #231. Not even a whisper of a phantom hint of evidence. You produced your laundry list of crap which I have clearly demonstrated, point by point, with transcription evidence, was directly contrary to the evidence adduced at the criminal trial.

Judge Ito explained what was evidence for the criminal trial jury:

YOU MUST DECIDE ALL QUESTIONS OF FACT IN THIS CASE FROM THE EVIDENCE RECEIVED IN THIS TRIAL AND NOT FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE.

[...]

EVIDENCE CONSISTS OF THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES, WRITINGS, MATERIAL OBJECTS OR ANYTHING PRESENTED TO THE SENSES AND OFFERED TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF A FACT.

EVIDENCE IS EITHER DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL. DIRECT EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE THAT DIRECTLY PROVES A FACT WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF AN INFERENCE. IT'S EVIDENCE, WHICH BY ITSELF, IF FOUND TO BE TRUE, ESTABLISHES THAT FACT.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE, IF FOUND TO BE TRUE, PROVES A FACT FROM WHICH AN INFERENCE OF EXISTENCE OF ANOTHER FACT MAY BE DRAWN. AN INFERENCE IS A DEDUCTION OF FACT THAT MAY LOGICALLY AND REASONABLY BE DRAWN FROM ANOTHER FACT OR GROUP OF FACTS ESTABLISHED BY THE EVIDENCE.

This crap is not evidence:

Well, let's see:

-- She was married to OJ when she bought the gloves.
-- The gloves she purchased were a size XL. (OJ wore a size XL.)
-- They were of a fine leather, cashmere-lined, and expensive. Something a celebrity like OJ would wear.
-- OJ was pictured wearing gloves that sure did look like the ones she purchased.
-- One glove, identical to the glove she purchased, was found at the crime scene.
-- The matching glove was found at OJ's house.
-- The original gloves Nicole purchased were never produced at trial as a defense exhibit.

Now, based on the totality of that evidence, isn't it reasonable to assume those gloves were given to, and worn, by OJ?

This is evidence:

MR. DARDEN: Now, does the sales receipt indicate the size of the glove?

MS. VEMICH: No, it does not.

MR. DARDEN: Does it indicate the color of the glove?

MS. VEMICH: No, it does not.

MR. DARDEN: Is there way for you to tell us that the two gloves I showed you here in court were purchased during the transaction shown here in People's 372-A?

MS. VEMICH: No.

The criminal trial failed to show that the purchased gloves were XL or any other size, that they were brown or any other color, that they were the same as the gloves in evidence, or that O.J. Simpson ever owned or wore them.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-20   22:09:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#238. To: nolu chan (#237)

The criminal trial failed to show that the purchased gloves were XL or any other size, that they were brown or any other color, that they were the same as the gloves in evidence, or that O.J. Simpson ever owned or wore them.

Nicole was married to OJ at the time she bought those gloves. Subsequent to that, OJ was pictured wearing gloves that looked identical to the gloves his wife purchased.

A glove, identical to the one Nicole purchased, was found at the crime scene, and it's mate was found on OJ's property. OJ never produced, as evidence for the defense, the gloves he was wearing in the photos -- - -- -- despite the fact that it would have absolutely destroyed the prosecution's case.

Now, you take all those facts together -- which I've really watered down -- and you tell me they don't point to OJ? As I said to you before, you think that all these little pickaninny doubts you've collected amount to reasonable doubt? Pfffft!

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-21   10:31:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#239. To: nolu chan (#236)

and was moist and sticky with somewhat of a glean or a glisten to it?

I believe he testified three times that it appeared moist and sticky. How could he possibly know it was moist and sticky unless he touched it? Which he didn't. Let it go. I am.

"Where, in your reading of the transcripts, did you find the expert testimonial evidence to support this statement? Or any expert or non-expert trial evidence that the air conditioner slowed the drying process?"

Where, in your reading of the transcripts, did you find the expert testimonial evidence to support your statement that the glove would have dried out in 7 hours and would no longer appear to be moist and sticky?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-21   10:52:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#240. To: misterwhite (#238)

Nicole was married to OJ at the time she bought those gloves. Subsequent to that, OJ was pictured wearing gloves that looked identical to the gloves his wife purchased.

Provide your source of knowledge of when the gloves worn by the killer were purchased?

The expert testimony, as I quoted, stated that it was impossible to say if the gloves in evidence were the gloves of the Bloomingdale's receipt.

Your claim of a photograph with O.J. wearing gloves that appear identical to the gloves in evidence is without foundation. The Aris glove expert stated he could not positively identify any glove in the photographs as an Aris glove.

What say you about the glove found in a chest of drawers in O.J.'s bedroom at Rockingham on 13 April 1995? What was he doing with a size Large glove?

MR. DARDEN: Now, the glove that you removed from the Defendant's chest, was that an Aris glove?

DET. LUPER: I don't believe so. It may have been, but I'm not too sure.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. But it was a size large glove, wasn't it?

DET. LUPER: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Not an extra large, but a large, correct?

DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: And you thought the glove was significant, so you kept it in your possession, right?

DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: And then you went downstairs?

DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Why did you place that glove on the table?

DET. LUPER: Well, I knew that there was blood spots or what appeared to be blood splats--blood spots at the--in the foyer, and I was just trying to look for additional spots on the wood floor, and there appeared to be several going--trailing from the foyer and past to the den area. And in trying to examine them, I put my notebook down on the floor as well as the glove on that--on the little table there to take a better look at it. That's all.

MR. DARDEN: And that glove was videotaped by Mr. Ford as it lay on that table, correct?

DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: And that glove was also photographed by the crime scene photographer, Mike Wilson; is that correct?

DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.

- - - - - - - - - -

A glove, identical to the one Nicole purchased, was found at the crime scene, and it's mate was found on OJ's property. OJ never produced, as evidence for the defense, the gloves he was wearing in the photos -- - -- -- despite the fact that it would have absolutely destroyed the prosecution's case.

The expert testimony, which I quoted to you from a transcript, proves that your repeated attempts to claim the Bloomingdale's transaction involved the gloves of the killer, the gloves in evidence, is without foundation.

O.J. was under no obligation to produce evidence. The jury could not consider your negative inference as it would require a violation of the 5th Amendment of the Constitution.

What is very obvious is that you are unable to cite evidence produced at the trial to support your empty claims.

MR. DARDEN: Now, does the sales receipt indicate the size of the glove?

MS. VEMICH: No, it does not.

MR. DARDEN: Does it indicate the color of the glove?

MS. VEMICH: No, it does not.

MR. DARDEN: Is there way for you to tell us that the two gloves I showed you here in court were purchased during the transaction shown here in People's 372-A?

MS. VEMICH: No.

Now, you take all those facts together -- which I've really watered down -- and you tell me they don't point to OJ? As I said to you before, you think that all these little pickaninny doubts you've collected amount to reasonable doubt? Pfffft!

You have repeatedly served up empty claims and have demonstrated an inability to cite actual evidence at trial to back up said claims.

Evidence, real or imaginary, which points toward someone is decidedly not proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, of guilt.

[nolu chan #94] The evidence was not presented to sustain a conviction.

[misterwhite #97] They had 10X more than they needed.

Why do you not have 10x more evidence than you need?

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-23   6:18:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#241. To: misterwhite (#239)

I believe he testified three times that it appeared moist and sticky.

I believe that what you believe was not in evidence before the jury at the criminal trial. The actual testimony at the trial was evidence before the jury for them to consider.

Actually, you are making believe you are responding to my #236 wherein I quoted the testimony verbatim from a transcript.

On March 13, 1995:

On Direct, questions by Marcia Clark

Q: BY MS. CLARK: CAN YOU PLEASE DESCRIBE THE APPEARANCE OF THE GLOVE, SIR.

A: WELL, IT APPEARED TO BE -- IT DIDN'T MATCH THE TERRAIN. THERE IS LEAVES ALL OVER THE WALKWAY. IT WAS DIRTY IN THE AREA. IT WAS UNKEPT (SIC). THIS GLOVE DIDN'T HAVE ANY SIGNS OF DIRT OR LEAVES OR TWIGS ON IT. IT APPEARED A DARK LEATHER GLOVE. IT APPEARED TO BE SOMEWHAT MOIST OR STICKY. I DIDN'T TOUCH IT, BUT IT APPEARED THAT PARTS WERE STICKING TO OTHER PARTS OF THE GLOVE.

[...]

Q: YOU DESCRIBED EARLIER THAT THE -- THAT YOU NOTICED IT TO BE -- THE GLOVE TO BE MOIST AND STICKY. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: THAT IS THE WAY IT APPEARED, YES.

On March 14, 1995:

On Cross, questions by Barry Scheck.

A: I SAID, "IT LOOKS LIKE IT COULD BE SIMILAR TO THE ONE ON BUNDY."

Q: YOU HAVE TOLD US A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU NOTICED ABOUT THE GLOVE WAS THAT IT WAS MOIST AND STICKY, CORRECT?

A: YES, YES.

Q: AND DID YOU POINT THAT OUT TO DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, THAT NOT ONLY DID IT LOOK LIKE THE GLOVE FROM BUNDY, BUT THAT IT APPEARED TO HAVE A SUBSTANCE ON IT MAKING IT STICKY WHICH COULD WELL HAVE BEEN BLOOD?

A: I'M NOT SURE IF I DID OR IF I DIDN'T.

Q: BUT IT HAD BEEN THROUGH YOUR MIND, HADN'T IT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE STICKY PART I TAKE IT YOU OBSERVED WHEN YOU TOOK THAT LITTLE TINY FLASHLIGHT OF YOURS AND SHINED IT ON THE GLOVE AND SAW SOMETHING OF A SHINY NATURE, AS OPPOSED TO A CAKED OR DRY SURFACE?

A: IT APPEARED THAT IT HAD SOMEWHAT OF A GLEAN OR A GLISTEN TO IT.

Q: OKAY. NOW, MY QUESTION IS DID YOU BRING THAT TO THE ATTENTION OF DETECTIVE PHILLIPS?

A: I COULD HAVE.

Q: DID YOU BRING IT TO THE ATTENTION OF DETECTIVE LANGE?

A: I COULD HAVE.

Q: DID YOU BRING IT TO THE ATTENTION OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER?

A: I COULD HAVE.

Q: YOU DON'T HAVE A MEMORY OF ANY OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS AS WE SIT HERE?

A: I DON'T HAVE A MEMORY OF A SPECIFIC COMMENT THAT I MADE TO ANY OF THOSE DETECTIVES WHEN WE WERE STANDING BY THE GLOVE.

Det. Vanatter, 16 March 1995

Direct, questions by Christopher Darden,

Boldface added to text to indicate the point Christopher Darden was attemptig to make.

A: NO, HE DID NOT.

Q: WHEN YOU SAW THE GLOVE, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER OR NOT IT APPEARED MOIST OR STICKY?

A: WHEN I ILLUMINATED THE GLOVE, IT APPEARED TO HAVE BLOOD ON THE GLOVE OR WHAT LOOKED TO ME LIKE BLOOD AND IT DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE DRIED BLOOD WHERE IT WOULD BE FLAKY AND FALLING OFF. IT APPEARED THAT IT WAS MOIST.

[...]

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID THE GLOVE APPEAR SHINY AT ALL?

A: IT APPEARED TO BE -- IT APPEARED TO BE WET WITH SOMETHING, WHICH WOULD MAKE IT SHINY OR MOIST. IT APPEARED TO BE A LEATHER MAN'S GLOVE.

- - - - - - - - - -

How could he possibly know it was moist and sticky unless he touched it? Which he didn't. Let it go. I am.

Are you claiming he was a bumbling amateur?

Dr. Henry Lee, Questions by Hank Goldberg, 28 August 1995

DR. LEE: Experienced criminalist should know how long to get dry. Once you dump out on paper, you should see whether or not dry. To touch or not touch, the amateur does that. We don't do that.

MR. GOLDBERG: It would be a very bad idea to actually take my glove off and touch it to make sure, wouldn't it?

DR. LEE: Well, some people does that, but I don't do that.

MR. GOLDBERG: And you wouldn't recommend doing that, would you?

DR. LEE: I would not suggest people--you should make sure it dry basically.

MR. GOLDBERG: But not with your hands, right?

DR. LEE: Not your hand.

- - - - - - - - - -

"Where, in your reading of the transcripts, did you find the expert testimonial evidence to support this statement? Or any expert or non-expert trial evidence that the air conditioner slowed the drying process?"

Where, in your reading of the transcripts, did you find the expert testimonial evidence to support your statement that the glove would have dried out in 7 hours and would no longer appear to be moist and sticky?"

Your mission impossible, which you chose to accept, was to prove that the O.J. Simpson jury had sufficient evidence before it to return a verdict of guilty. You have made no attempt to show where any such proof was offered to the jury.

It is reasonable that something that dries "very rapidly" does not remain wet for seven (7) hours in the weather conditions that prevailed in Los Angeles on that night and early morning. It is sheer desperation to claim that the air conditioner for the guest house being used by Kato Kaelin significantly changed the atmospheric conditions outdoors on Simpson's estate. The prosecution did not attempt to make that particular argument, so the jury was deprived of its levity and could not consider it.

FBI Agent Bodziak, question by F. Lee Bailey, 19 June 1995

MR. BAILEY: Blood dries rather rapidly; does it not?

MR. BODZIAK: Very rapidly.

Prof. Herbert MacDonell, 31 July 1995

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And first of all, can you tell us, sir, what was the temperature range between approximately ten o'clock in the evening on June 12th, 1994, and 9:30 the morning of June 13th, the approximate--June 13th?

MS. CLARK: Well, objection. The report speaks for itself.

THE COURT: Overruled.

PROF. MACDONELL: The temperature range was between 63 degrees Fahrenheit and 66 degrees Fahrenheit, according to the document I have.

MR. NEUFELD: And during that same period of time, sir, when you said the temperature range was between 63 and 66 degrees, does it also state what the dew point was?

PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, it does.

MR. NEUFELD: And during that same period of time, sir, is there any indication from the official national weather service printout here that there was any dew on the ground on the night of June 12th into the early morning hours of June 13th?

PROF. MACDONELL: Well, it indicates that the temperature--the dew point range was below the temperature range all the times, so there would have been no dew formation.

[...]

MR. NEUFELD: You said that the temperature between those hours of approximately ten o'clock on the evening of the 12th and 9:00, 9:30 the next day, were between 63 and 66 degrees; is that correct?

PROF. MACDONELL: That is correct.

Dr. Henry Lee, Questions by Barry Scheck, 28 August 1995,

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, are you familiar with this study of drying times?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, Mr. Goldberg asked you about drying times with different kinds of materials under different conditions. Do you recall that?

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, on this study are a series of experiments performed for different amounts of blood.

DR. LEE: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: One being a single drop, one being one milliliter of blood, one being five milliliters of blood, one being a hundred milliliters of blood.

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. SCHECK: And then there are a series of materials listed on the chart; is that correct?

DR. LEE: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: And out of the materials listed, which one would be the most comparable to the swatches at issue in this case?

MR. GOLDBERG: Objection. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: Cotton cloth.

MR. SCHECK: Now, what are the drying times for a single drop of blood under the three different conditions for cotton cloth?

MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LEE: It says condition 1, 55 minute, condition 2, 50 minute, condition 3, 350 minute.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And 350 minutes would be?

DR. LEE: Approximately six, seven, six some hours.

MR. SCHECK: And--

DR. LEE: Six--little under six hours.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, in terms of this experiment, what is condition 3? What set--in terms of temperature, humidity what is condition 3?

DR. LEE: Condition 3 appear in this handout, laboratory cold with good air movement, temperature 38 degree Fahrenheit plus minus .1 degree, relative humidity, 80 percent plus minus 6 percent.

MR. SCHECK: Well, in plain English, is that a cold, damp room?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. SCHECK: Is that something close to precipitation?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. SCHECK: Now, what about condition 1 and condition 2?

DR. LEE: Condition 1 says laboratory work table which no more room, air circulation, temperature, 75 degree Fahrenheit plus minus 2 degree, relative humidity, 44 percent plus minus 2 percent.

MR. SCHECK: Would that be what would be ordinarily referred to as room temperature in a laboratory?

DR. LEE: Yes, sir.

MR. SCHECK: And what is condition 2?

DR. LEE: Condition 2, it says drying hood with good air movement, temperature, 76 degree Fahrenheit plus minus 2 degree, relative humidity, 44 percent plus minus 2 percent.

MR. SCHECK: So for a single drop of blood then under condition 1 which described as normal room temperature, the findings of labor and Epstein is the drying time is 55 minutes?

DR. LEE: Yeah. Under one hour.

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony, leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: And under condition 2, it's 50 minutes?

DR. LEE: Yeah. Only 50 minutes. 50, not 15. Five zero.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-23   6:24:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#242. To: nolu chan (#241)

So? He said it appeared moist. He never said it was moist.

Did anyone testify that the glove was bone dry at the scene? Did anyone testify that it was moist at the scene? Besides you, of course.

There's no evidence Fuhrman or anyone else planted that glove. None. Pure, desperate speculation. Fuhrman was a cop for 20 years. Don't you think he knew how long it takes for blood to dry?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-23   10:40:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#243. To: nolu chan (#240)

Your claim of a photograph with O.J. wearing gloves that appear identical to the gloves in evidence is without foundation.

I was trying to be as generous as possible. I refrained from saying the gloves were identical.

"The expert testimony, as I quoted, stated that it was impossible to say if the gloves in evidence were the gloves of the Bloomingdale's receipt."

Again, in an attempt to be generous, I refrained from saying the gloves were the ones purchased at Bloomindales. Simply that they appeared to be the same. My point was that, taken together, it's clear these are all the same gloves.

"What say you about the glove found in a chest of drawers in O.J.'s bedroom at Rockingham on 13 April 1995? What was he doing with a size Large glove?"

Different brand. Different fit. You'd better hope that's the case because if OJ did indeed wear a size Large, then why didn't the Extra Large fit him at the trial? Was OJ faking it?

"O.J. was under no obligation to produce evidence."

True. But why wouldn't he in this case? It would have essentially destroyed the prosecutions case.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-23   10:54:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#244. To: misterwhite (#242)

He said it appeared moist. He never said it was moist.

Det. Fuhrman testified:

Q: YOU HAVE TOLD US A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU NOTICED ABOUT THE GLOVE WAS THAT IT WAS MOIST AND STICKY, CORRECT?

A: YES, YES.

And Det. Vanatter testified:

Q: WHEN YOU SAW THE GLOVE, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER OR NOT IT APPEARED MOIST OR STICKY?

A: WHEN I ILLUMINATED THE GLOVE, IT APPEARED TO HAVE BLOOD ON THE GLOVE OR WHAT LOOKED TO ME LIKE BLOOD AND IT DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE DRIED BLOOD WHERE IT WOULD BE FLAKY AND FALLING OFF. IT APPEARED THAT IT WAS MOIST.

[...]

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID THE GLOVE APPEAR SHINY AT ALL?

A: IT APPEARED TO BE -- IT APPEARED TO BE WET WITH SOMETHING, WHICH WOULD MAKE IT SHINY OR MOIST. IT APPEARED TO BE A LEATHER MAN'S GLOVE.

And Dr. Henry Lee testified,

DR. LEE: Experienced criminalist should know how long to get dry. Once you dump out on paper, you should see whether or not dry. To touch or not touch, the amateur does that. We don't do that.

And, you try to maintain that does not mean the Rockingham glove was moist or sticky.

With the Bloomingdale's glove, based on expert testimony that it was impossible to say that the glove was black or brown, L or XL or any other size, with no evidence that O.J. Simpson ever owned or wore the Bloomingdals glove, you affirmatively conclude that Nicole Simpson was married to O.J. Simpson at the time it was bought.

You conclude that the photographs show O.J. wearing the killer's gloves where the expert testimony concluded that it was not possible to conclude that it was the same brand as the killer's glove, much less the same exact glove.

It is like Alice in Wonderland, the testimonial evidence means exactly what you want it to mean, neither more nor less.

Did anyone testify that the glove was bone dry at the scene? Did anyone testify that it was moist at the scene? Besides you, of course.

I did not testify. I quote actual testimony and you post personal opinions.

Det. Fuhrman testified that it was moist and sticky.

Q: YOU HAVE TOLD US A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU NOTICED ABOUT THE GLOVE WAS THAT IT WAS MOIST AND STICKY, CORRECT?

A: YES, YES.

And Det. Vanatter testified:

Q: WHEN YOU SAW THE GLOVE, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER OR NOT IT APPEARED MOIST OR STICKY?

A: WHEN I ILLUMINATED THE GLOVE, IT APPEARED TO HAVE BLOOD ON THE GLOVE OR WHAT LOOKED TO ME LIKE BLOOD AND IT DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE DRIED BLOOD WHERE IT WOULD BE FLAKY AND FALLING OFF. IT APPEARED THAT IT WAS MOIST.

And Dr. Henry Lee testified,

DR. LEE: Experienced criminalist should know how long to get dry. Once you dump out on paper, you should see whether or not dry. To touch or not touch, the amateur does that. We don't do that.

And, you try to maintain that does not mean the Rockingham glove was moist or sticky.

There's no evidence Fuhrman or anyone else planted that glove. None. Pure, desperate speculation.

There is affirmative evidence that it and the Bundy glove were a pair. There was affirmative evidence that they contained blood from the Bundy victims. There is evidence that someone transported the glove from Rockingham to Bundy after the murders. There is a lack of evidence that Simpson transported the glove. Such theory is especially troublesome to the prosecution timeline(s). The theory that Fuhrman transported the glove is reasonable. Any reasonable explanation leading to innocence must be adopted over a competing theory leading to guilt.

It is not proof by a preponderance of the evidence, it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that is required.

Fuhrman was a cop for 20 years. Don't you think he knew how long it takes for blood to dry?

Fuhrman was a corrupt, racist cop. After F. Lee Bailey got done with him, he pleaded the 5th Amendment and was useless as a detective and left the LAPD.

He was notoriously exposed as a corrupt detective who lied on the witness stand in a murder trial.

Det. Fuhrman was not Einstein, he was a high school dropout with a GED.

Dr. Henry Lee is an internationally renowned expert. Dryness on blood evidence is determined by looking at the evidence, not touching it. Fuhrman looked at the glove.

Fuhrman testified,

Q: YOU HAVE TOLD US A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU NOTICED ABOUT THE GLOVE WAS THAT IT WAS MOIST AND STICKY, CORRECT?

A: YES, YES.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-23   23:04:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#245. To: misterwhite (#243)

Your claim of a photograph with O.J. wearing gloves that appear identical to the gloves in evidence is without foundation.

I was trying to be as generous as possible. I refrained from saying the gloves were identical.

"The expert testimony, as I quoted, stated that it was impossible to say if the gloves in evidence were the gloves of the Bloomingdale's receipt."

Again, in an attempt to be generous, I refrained from saying the gloves were the ones purchased at Bloomindales. Simply that they appeared to be the same.

The gloves did not appear to be identical. That is not the testimony. The appearance was consistent with the evidence gloves, based on the observance with certain features, features that were also consistent with other gloves.

The result was that the expert testified that he could not state unequivocally that the photographed gloves were the same brand, Aris, as the killer's gloves in evidence. He testified that he could not even swear that they were the same brand.

The Bloomingdale's expert testified that it was impossible to tell, from the receipt, whether the gloves involved in that transaction were the gloves in evidence.

My point was that, taken together, it's clear these are all the same gloves.

Just because something appears like something else is not proof that it is something else. You and the prosecution have presented insufficient evidence to justify a finding that the photographed gloves are, in fact, beyond a reasonable doubt, the killer's gloves in evidence. Appear to be is not a substitute for is.

In your argument about the Rockingham gloves, you attempt to maintain that Fuhrman testified:

Q: YOU HAVE TOLD US A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU NOTICED ABOUT THE GLOVE WAS THAT IT WAS MOIST AND STICKY, CORRECT?

A: YES, YES.

And Vanatter testified:

Q: WHEN YOU SAW THE GLOVE, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER OR NOT IT APPEARED MOIST OR STICKY?

A: WHEN I ILLUMINATED THE GLOVE, IT APPEARED TO HAVE BLOOD ON THE GLOVE OR WHAT LOOKED TO ME LIKE BLOOD AND IT DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE DRIED BLOOD WHERE IT WOULD BE FLAKY AND FALLING OFF. IT APPEARED THAT IT WAS MOIST.

[...]

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID THE GLOVE APPEAR SHINY AT ALL?

A: IT APPEARED TO BE -- IT APPEARED TO BE WET WITH SOMETHING, WHICH WOULD MAKE IT SHINY OR MOIST. IT APPEARED TO BE A LEATHER MAN'S GLOVE.

And Dr. Henry Lee testified,

DR. LEE: Experienced criminalist should know how long to get dry. Once you dump out on paper, you should see whether or not dry. To touch or not touch, the amateur does that. We don't do that.

And, you try to maintain that does not mean the Rockingham glove was moist or sticky.

With the Bloomingdale's glove, based on expert testimony that it was impossible to say that the glove was black or brown, L or XL or any other size, you afformatively conclude that Nicole Simpson was married to O.J. Simpson at the time it was bought.

You conclude that the photographs show O.J. wearing the killer's gloves where the expert testimony concluded that it was not possible to conclude that it was the same brand as the killer's glove, much less the same exact glove.

It is like Alice in Wonderland, the testimonial evidence means exactly what you want it to mean, neither more nor less.

"What say you about the glove found in a chest of drawers in O.J.'s bedroom at Rockingham on 13 April 1995? What was he doing with a size Large glove?"

Different brand. Different fit. You'd better hope that's the case because if OJ did indeed wear a size Large, then why didn't the Extra Large fit him at the trial? Was OJ faking it?

There is no testimony to affirmatively establish that these were a different brand or fit. Before Det. Luper left the scene, he replaced the glove in O.J.'s chest of drawers.

MR. COCHRAN: And the brown glove that you had on the table that you had inadvertently left on the table downstairs, did you do anything regarding the brown glove?

DET. LUPER: Yes, sir. That particular item, after a conversation I had with Detective Lange and Vannatter, was returned to the location I had recovered it from.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. In other words, what you did with it, you took it back upstairs; is that right?

DET. LUPER: That's correct.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. COCHRAN: I'm saying, by the end of the day, did you take the glove back upstairs at some point?

DET. LUPER: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you put it back in the--

DET. LUPER: I put it back where I had found it.

MR. COCHRAN: You put it back where you got it from?

DET. LUPER: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: You didn't leave there with it, did you?

DET. LUPER: No, sir.

Det. Luper's non-expert testimony about it being an Aris brand glove was, "I don't think so." That expresses uncertainty and will not support your assertion that it was a different brand. It is not proof that it either was or wasn't an Aris glove.

That glove was never in evidence. Det. Luper testified that after he discovered he had left it on the downstairs table, he took it upstairs and put it back where he found it. The only reason the people found out about that glove is that Det. Luper, after keeping the video in his desk for three or four months, allegedly took it to Parker Center and left it in a filing cabinet in the O.J. Simpson war room. In the last week of February 1995, Luper was informed he might have to testify about the search warrant. In March, Luper alleged went to Parker Center and found the tape. Alternatively, Det. Luper may have been informed of his need to testify and removed the tape from his desk, taken it to Parker Center, put it in a filing cabinet, and declared it found. He did not tell anybody about the existence of the tape until March 22 or 23, 1995.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, AT SOME POINT, YOU WERE TOLD THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE TO TESTIFY IN CONNECTION WITH THE SEARCH WARRANT?

A: THAT'S RIGHT.

Q: IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE HERE?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: YOU DIDN'T TESTIFY IN ANY OF THE PRETRIAL MOTIONS, DID YOU?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHEN WERE YOU TOLD THAT AND BY WHOM?

A: I WAS TOLD THAT THE LAST WEEK OF FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS DETECTIVE VANNATTER WHO INFORMED ME OF THAT.

Q: SO IN FEBRUARY, VANNATTER TOLD YOU YOU MIGHT HAVE TO TESTIFY IN CONNECTION WITH THE SEARCH WARRANT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT. YES, SIR.

Q: AND THEN YOU STARTED LOOKING AT PHOTOGRAPHS AND VIDEOS AND YOU DISCOVERED THIS TAPE, RIGHT?

A: I -- LOOKING AT PHOTOS, YES. NO VIDEO, BUT I DO -- I REALIZED WE HAD A VIDEO AT THAT TIME, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHEN DID YOU BRING THE FACT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT YOU HAD THIS VIDEO?

A: THAT WAS EITHER MARCH 22ND OR MARCH 23RD OF THIS YEAR, SIR.

Q: SO EVEN THOUGH YOU KNEW -- YOU DISCOVERED IT YOURSELF BACK IN FEBRUARY?

A: NO. I BELIEVE IT WAS PROBABLY A WEEK OR TWO AFTER THAT THAT THAT I DISCOVERED IT.

Q: SO MAYBE THE FIRST PART OF MARCH?

A: YEAH. WITHIN THE FIRST TWO WEEKS OF MARCH, YES, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU FIRST -- YOU TOLD THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ABOUT THIS OR SOME REPRESENTATIVE ON OR ABOUT MARCH 22ND?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, SIR.

Q: WHO WAS TOLD?

A: DETECTIVE TOM LANGE WAS TOLD, AT WHICH TIME WE MADE A NOTIFICATION TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND THEN THERE WAS -- THEN SUBSEQUENTLY TURNED OVER TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

Q: WHO IN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DID YOU TALK TO?

A: I DON'T RECALL THE NAME, SIR. I DIDN'T MAKE THE CALL.

Q: THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE FIRST WEEK OR SO OF MARCH?

A: NO. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ON MARCH 22ND OR THE 23RD.

Q: BUT WHEN YOU FIRST DISCOVERED IT DURING THE FIRST WEEK OF MARCH, WHO IN THE ROBBERY-HOMICIDE DIVISION DID YOU TALK TO ABOUT THIS?

A: NOBODY.

Q: YOU DIDN'T TELL ANYBODY AT FIRST?

A: NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME YOU TOLD SOMEBODY IN ROBBERY-HOMICIDE?

A: IT WAS EITHER -- IT WOULD HAVE HAD TO EITHER BE MARCH 22ND OR THE 23RD BECAUSE THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT IT WAS BROUGHT UP BY MYSELF.

Q: AND WHO DID YOU TELL AT THAT POINT?

A: DETECTIVE LANGE.

Q: SO ANY PARTICULAR REASON YOU DIDN'T TELL ANYBODY BETWEEN THE TIME YOU DISCOVERED IT THE FIRST WEEK OF MARCH AND MARCH 22ND, 23RD?

A: NO PARTICULAR REASON OTHER THAN I DIDN'T AT THAT TIME FEEL THAT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT THEY NEEDED TO KNOW BECAUSE OF THE REASONS IT WAS BEING HELD INITIALLY.

Q: I SEE. AND WHAT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING FOR WHY THIS TAPE WAS SHOT ORIGINALLY?

A: IT WAS SHOT STRICTLY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES, TO RECORD THE VALUABLE ITEMS AT MR. SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE AND TO PREVENT ANY CIVIL LIABILITY THAT MIGHT ARISE IN THE FUTURE.

- - - - - - - - - -

You'd better hope that's the case because if OJ did indeed wear a size Large, then why didn't the Extra Large fit him at the trial?

I do not have to hope anything. As you observe, the gloves in the Darden evidence demonstration fail of the century did not fit. Seeing this, the jury did acquit.

"O.J. was under no obligation to produce evidence."

True. But why wouldn't he in this case? It would have essentially destroyed the prosecutions case.

Because pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, Simpson had no duty to volunteer evidence, and it is forbidden to draw any negative inference for any such failure to volunteer evidence. A lawyer who argued your "point" would be subject to sanctions by the court.

The jury cannot support a verdict of guilt by a claim that Simpson, based on a unsupportable claim that Simpson had such evidence, and did not volunteer it. The defendant need not product either testimonial or physical evidence.

The prosecution had the sole responsibility to produce evidence proving Simpson's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Whether you believe Simpson did the crime, or whether you perceive real or imaginary evidence that was not presented to the jury is not the topic of dicsussion. It is whether the prosecution produced sufficient evidence for the jury to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and reach a verdict of guilty. You said, at #97, "[t]hey had 10x more than they needed." If the jury had it, you seem to be having trouble finding it, substituting your personal beliefs for evidence not actually presented, frequently in direct conflict with evidence actually presented.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-23   23:09:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#246. To: nolu chan (#245)

"Appear to be is not a substitute for is."

Are you setting a new prosecutorial standard? The government doesn't have to prove "is". They only have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

I summarized the glove evidence in my post #231. Add it all up and it's reasonable to conclude these are all the same gloves. To conclude anything else, you'd have to unreasonably speculate that evidence was planted (no proof), that DNA flies through the air, and all the other evidence is bogus.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-24   11:34:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#247. To: nolu chan (#245)

"The jury cannot support a verdict of guilt by a claim that Simpson, based on a unsupportable claim that Simpson had such evidence, and did not volunteer it."

I'm not saying the jury would vote "guilty" just because OJ didn't produce the evidence he had. Give me a fucking break.

I'm saying that OJ was on trial for first degree murder and the inculpatory evidence was pointed right at him as being the murderer. While it's true that Simpson had no duty to volunteer evidence, why wouldn't he submit exculpatory evidence which would set him free?

The answer is ... he had no such evidence. His gloves were the prosecution's exhibit. THAT'S why. You know it. I know it. Everyone knew it.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-24   11:51:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#248. To: nolu chan (#244)

And, you try to maintain that does not mean the Rockingham glove was moist or sticky.

No. I claimed no such thing. I don't know if the blood on the glove was moist or dry. All I know is that Fuhrman testified that it appeared moist. That's it.

Your turn. Do you have any testimony from any expert witness who said the blood on that glove was moist? Dry? Or are you simply making shit up?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-24   12:00:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#249. To: nolu chan (#245)

As you observe, the gloves in the Darden evidence demonstration fail of the century did not fit.

But if OJ wore a size Large as you claim, an Extra Large should easily fit, right? Yet OJ struggled and struggled to get them on. How do you explain that?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-24   12:03:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#250. To: misterwhite (#246)

Are you setting a new prosecutorial standard? The government doesn't have to prove "is". They only have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

To submit a claim to the jury that A is the same as, or identical to B, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that A is the same as, or identical to B. Showing that they look alike is not enough.

Experts who examined the receipt could not tell if the purchased gloves were brown or black, or what size they were.

Experts who examined the photographs of OJ wearing gloves could not determine if any of the gloves in the pictures were from the same manufacturer as the evidence gloves.

The only glove found at OJ's was not thoought to be a match in manufacturer or size and was simply put back where it was, in OJ's chest of drawers.

The expert testimony was unable to find sufficient evidence to declare any match other than the Bundy and Rockingham gloves being a pair. That was the evidence before the jury. Deal with it.

I summarized the glove evidence in my post #231.

You neither quoted nor identified any testimonial evidence at your #231.

Well, let's see:

-- She was married to OJ when she bought the gloves.
-- The gloves she purchased were a size XL. (OJ wore a size XL.)
-- They were of a fine leather, cashmere-lined, and expensive. Something a celebrity like OJ would wear.
-- OJ was pictured wearing gloves that sure did look like the ones she purchased.
-- One glove, identical to the glove she purchased, was found at the crime scene.
-- The matching glove was found at OJ's house.
-- The original gloves Nicole purchased were never produced at trial as a defense exhibit.

What part of your laundry list do you claim is a quote of testimony given at the trial?

For example, on your laundry list you claim "The gloves she purchased were a size XL. (OJ wore a size XL.)" The Bloomingdale's expert testified that the receipt did not identify either the color or size of the glove purchased. The only glove found at OJ's house was testified to as being a size L. There was no testimony as to what glove OJ wore. There was expert testimony as to what size should give him a proper fit. These were stretch gloves. There was testimony that the XL gloves would fit a hand from M to XL.

As another example, you laundry list says, "The original gloves Nicole purchased were never produced at trial as a defense exhibit. Had the prosecution argued that point, they would have been slapped with sanctions for violating the constitutional rights of O.J. Simpson.

This was not evidence, it was your imaginary wish list.

To conclude anything else, you'd have to unreasonably speculate that evidence was planted (no proof), that DNA flies through the air, and all the other evidence is bogus.

There was plenty of evidence that evidence was planted. The most notorious examples involved the socks and the rear gate blood stain at Bundy. With the socks, each of which had four (4) surfaces, for illistration purposes referred to as left outside, left inside, right inside, right outside. The clear expert testimony indicated that stain indicated a compression transfer, not a smear or spatter. The mode of transfer was a compression transfer where the pressure forced the blood from one inside surface to the other inside surface. The expert testimony concluded that it was impossible for a foot to have been in the sock at the time of transfer. And the expert testimony was that there was detectable EDTA in the blood, and that it was present in sufficient quantity that a person exhibiting such level would be dead.

The famous Bundy blood stain on the rear gate was photographed and collected on July 3, 1995. The gate was also inspected and photographed on June 13, 1995.

The blood stain on the rear gate is memorable for the cross-examination utter destruction of criminalist Dennis Fung by Barry Scheck.

The stain photographed and collected on July 3rd was not collected on June 13th. It did not appear on a photograph of the gate taken on June 13th. Mr. Fung testified he could not see it on a blown up photograph taken on June 13th. Fung testified he did not know how it got there on July 3rd.

As for seeing any the blood stain on the rear gate on June 13th, Andrea Mazzola testified, "I honestly don't even remember a rear gate."

MR. GOLDBERG: Let me see if I can find the exhibit number for counsel.

MR. SCHECK: While we are looking for it, let me just ask you some questions.

MR. SCHECK: Do you remember seeing that photograph?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And there was a blood spot that you saw on July 3rd that was labeled 116?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And you did not see that on the photograph, the blown-up photograph that was taken on June 13th?

MR. GOLDBERG: This is beyond the scope, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FUNG: I did not see it.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And you cannot tell us from your own personal knowledge how 116 got there on July 3rd?

MR. FUNG: Not from my personal knowledge, no.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you remember all of the testimony that you gave over the last eight days during the direct and cross-examinations?

MR. FUNG: It is all a blur.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, do you remember the question when you were shown the picture of the rear gate and Mr. Scheck said, "Where is it, Mr. Fung"?

MR. FUNG: I remember that.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, do you recall at the Bundy location seeing any stains on a rear gate on the 13th?

MS. MAZZOLA: I honestly don't even remember a rear gate.

- - - - - - - - - -

This is like much of the most incriminating blood evidence, so called. It was collected weeks or months after the crime. After previous inspection with the blood stain not being observed, al of a sudden it inexplicably appears in a ghostly fashion.

Dennis Fung had seen no blood on the socks when he bagged them as evidence on June 13; LAPD lab supervisor Michele Kestler, and defense experts Michael Baden and Barbara Wolf, had seen no blood on them when they examined them on June 22; no one had seen blood on them when they were examined as part of an inventory of evidence on June 29. Then somehow on August 4, a large stain, nearly an inch in diameter, appeared, providing enough DNA for a definitive RFLP test. As Barry Scheck showed the sock to the jury, no one had any problem noticing the bloodstain.

Tainting Evidence, Inside the Scandals at the FBI Crime Lab, by John F. Kelly and Phillip K. Wearne, Chap 7: O. J. Simpson: Dirty Hands, Bad Blood, 1998, pg. 260.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-25   2:43:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#251. To: misterwhite (#247)

I'm not saying the jury would vote "guilty" just because OJ didn't produce the evidence he had. Give me a fucking break.

Arm, leg, or neck?

You keep making this unconstitutional argument to spuriously "support" you position that the jury had 10x the evidence required to return a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I keep repeating that such an argument is unconstitutional and would draw sanctions against any attorney who attempted it.

Nobody tried this brain fart, not even in closing arguments.

I'm saying that OJ was on trial for first degree murder and the inculpatory evidence was pointed right at him as being the murderer.

You keep talking about "the evidence" but failing to identify, specifically, what this evidence is.

You ignore the evidence that the physical blood evidence collected on June 13th was placed in plastic bags and stored in an uncooled vehicle with an operating refrigerator for over 7 hours.

You ignore the evidence that blood evidence was degraded, contaminated, and/or planted.

You ignore the evidence that unseen evidence magically appeared weeks or months later.

You ignore the evidence that the LAPD testimony resembled a meeting of a liar's convention. Fuhrman wound up having to take the 5th. Fung was repeatedly shown video directly contradicting his testimony. Yamauchi was similarly destroyed. Vanatter and Luper were embarrassing. Mazzola's claimed memory was worse than Hillary; her mind was in a blender.

I'm saying that OJ was on trial for first degree murder and the inculpatory evidence was pointed right at him as being the murderer.

You assume facts not in evidence. The one glove found at his house was not an Aris glove. The testimony at trial of the Bloomingdale's expert established that nobody could, from the receipt in evidence, identify the size or color of the gloves purchased, and it was not possible to say the gloves in evidence were part of that transaction. It was also impossible to show that OJ had ever owned or worn the gloves in evidence. The prosecution failed to establish that the Bloomingdale's gloves had any evidentiary value.

While it's true that Simpson had no duty to volunteer evidence, why wouldn't he submit exculpatory evidence which would set him free?

Because he had lawyers who were not idiots.

OJ providing two pair of Aris gloves would prove nothing other than that he owned and, presumably, wore Aris gloves. Just as there was no way for the prosecution to show that the evidence gloves were the Bloomingdale's gloves, there would have been no way for OJ to prove another two pairs of gloves were the Bloomingdale's gloves.

The answer is ... he had no such evidence. His gloves were the prosecution's exhibit. THAT'S why. You know it. I know it. Everyone knew it.

The prosecution could argue that they knew what you claim to know, because they failed to produce enough evidence to establish a good faith basis to make such a claim.

Mr. Goldberg: Okay. All right. Have you read Mr. MacDonnell's article on the "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?

Dr. Lee: (No audible response.)

Mr. Goldberg: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?

Dr. Lee: I'm a Chinese. Take me a while to think about this double-talk. Absence--

-- August 28, 1995

You Chinese?

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-25   2:45:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#252. To: misterwhite (#248)

I don't know if the blood on the glove was moist or dry. All I know is that Fuhrman testified that it appeared moist. That's it.

That's strange. The following were verbatim quotes from a transcript. Dr. Lee testified that the way to determine if blood is wet or dry is to look at it. Det. Vanatter not only observed the qualities of wet blood, he observed the absence of what he stated were the qualities of dried blood.

Your turn. Do you have any testimony from any expert witness who said the blood on that glove was moist? Dry? Or are you simply making shit up?

Det. Fuhrman testified:

Q: YOU HAVE TOLD US A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU NOTICED ABOUT THE GLOVE WAS THAT IT WAS MOIST AND STICKY, CORRECT?

A: YES, YES.

And Det. Vanatter testified:

Q: WHEN YOU SAW THE GLOVE, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER OR NOT IT APPEARED MOIST OR STICKY?

A: WHEN I ILLUMINATED THE GLOVE, IT APPEARED TO HAVE BLOOD ON THE GLOVE OR WHAT LOOKED TO ME LIKE BLOOD AND IT DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE DRIED BLOOD WHERE IT WOULD BE FLAKY AND FALLING OFF. IT APPEARED THAT IT WAS MOIST.

[...]

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID THE GLOVE APPEAR SHINY AT ALL?

A: IT APPEARED TO BE -- IT APPEARED TO BE WET WITH SOMETHING, WHICH WOULD MAKE IT SHINY OR MOIST. IT APPEARED TO BE A LEATHER MAN'S GLOVE.

And Dr. Henry Lee testified,

DR. LEE: Experienced criminalist should know how long to get dry. Once you dump out on paper, you should see whether or not dry. To touch or not touch, the amateur does that. We don't do that.

And, you try to maintain that does not mean the Rockingham glove was moist or sticky.

How did Simpson jump the fence with kneemonia?

Judge Ito: If it is rheumatoid arthritis in his knee or if it is osteoarthritis in his knee, it is still arthritis, and we agree that looking at the railroad tracks on the side of his knee and looking at the number of hits the guy took, he probably has got knee problems. He has got kneemonia.

-- July 18, 1995

- - - - - - - - - -

Your turn. Do you have any testimony from any expert witness who said the blood on that glove was moist? Dry? Or are you simply making shit up?

Just what do you infer from Vanatter's testimony that it looked like blood and it didn't appear to be dried blood, where it would be flaky and falling off???

It not only looked wet, it lacked the properties of blood that is dried.

Det. Vanatter testified:

Q: WHEN YOU SAW THE GLOVE, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER OR NOT IT APPEARED MOIST OR STICKY?

A: WHEN I ILLUMINATED THE GLOVE, IT APPEARED TO HAVE BLOOD ON THE GLOVE OR WHAT LOOKED TO ME LIKE BLOOD AND IT DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE DRIED BLOOD WHERE IT WOULD BE FLAKY AND FALLING OFF. IT APPEARED THAT IT WAS MOIST.

It appeared to be blood.

It was not flaky and falling off as one would expect of dried blood.

It appeared that it was moist.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-25   2:50:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#253. To: misterwhite (#249)

But if OJ wore a size Large as you claim,

I did not claim that OJ wore anything.

I quoted the verbatim transcript of testimony that the only glove found at OJ's residence was believed to be a non-Aris brand, and size large, and not size extra large.

MR. DARDEN: Now, the glove that you removed from the Defendant's chest, was that an Aris glove?

DET. LUPER: I don't believe so. It may have been, but I'm not too sure.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. But it was a size large glove, wasn't it?

DET. LUPER: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Not an extra large, but a large, correct?

DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.

Maybe OJ didn't wear that glove but kept it as a reminder that Nicole did not know his glove size. I do not know and don't care.

an Extra Large should easily fit, right? Yet OJ struggled and struggled to get them on. How do you explain that?

Like the prosecution, I do not explain it.

The important fact is that the killer's glove demonstrably did not fit O.J. Simpson.

Whether is was mislabeling or manufacturer's defect, the evidence gloves did not fit. If they do not fit, you must acquit.

Or you must come up with a very good, believeable explanation, something the prosecution failed to do.

Your mission impossible, which you chose to accept, was to show that the O.J. Simpson jury had sufficient evidence before it to return a verdict of guilty.

In contrast, the mission I chose to accept, was to show that the prosecution failed to place sufficient evidence before the jury to justify their returning a verdict of guilty. I am not trying to prove OJ as innocent. I am showing the prosecution was an abysmal mess and failed to provide evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

When they got done, there was a better case to convict the LAPD witnesses of serial perjury than to convict Simpson of murder.

The socks at Rockingham led to one of the funniest lawyer fails between a prosecution attorney and Judge Ito. The witness was Det. Bert Luper.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU DID NOT SEE HER BEING BRIEFED BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AT ALL?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: WHO GAVE HER THIS WALK-THROUGH?

A: I DID.

Q: AND WHAT TIME DID THE WALK-THROUGH START, IF YOU RECALL?

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. THIS IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS HEARING.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. IT IS PROBABLY THE MOST RELEVANT QUESTION I'VE HEARD SO FAR THIS MORNING.

MS. LEWIS: OH.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

MS. LEWIS: THE RELEVANCE JUST OCCURRED TO ME.

THE COURT: THERE IS A DISCOVERY SANCTIONS ISSUE I THINK.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-25   2:54:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#254. To: nolu chan (#253)

Maybe OJ didn't wear that glove but kept it as a reminder that Nicole did not know his glove size.

Yeah. Right. That sounds reasonable.

So the defense is more than willing to present glove evidence -- even though you insist they didn't have to. Fine. Then why not produce the Aris gloves while they're at it?

Hmmmmm?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-25   11:21:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#255. To: nolu chan (#252)

"Dr. Lee testified that the way to determine if blood is wet or dry is to look at it."

He testified in generalities, not that glove. I think an even better way to determine if blood is wet or dry is to touch it with a sterile swab. Anyone do that with the glove? No?

I guess they all just hovered around the glove laying on the ground saying, "It appears shiny. No, it appears wet. To me it appears sticky. Nah. It appears moist."

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-25   11:30:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#256. To: nolu chan (#252)

How did Simpson jump the fence with kneemonia?

Not well. He staggered into the air conditioner when he landed, dropping a bloody glove he was wearing during the double murder.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-25   11:37:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#257. To: nolu chan (#251)

You ignore the evidence that the physical blood evidence collected on June 13th was placed in plastic bags and stored in an uncooled vehicle with an operating refrigerator for over 7 hours.

You ignore the evidence that blood evidence was degraded, contaminated, and/or planted.

So you're suggesting that real killer's blood was "collected and stored in an uncooled vehicle with an operating refrigerator for over 7 hours and that it degraded and became contaminated" and turned into the blood of OJ, Nicole, and Ron Goldman in the process.

Yeah. That sounds reasonable.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-25   11:51:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#258. To: nolu chan (#250)

"What part of your laundry list do you claim is a quote of testimony given at the trial?"

Moot point. That wasn't my intent. I'm simply looking at the evidence from a jury's point of view, stripping away all the nit-picky arguments and using common sense.

I presented seven points that you can't dispute, and drawing a conclusion based on those seven points.

Sure. You can isolate them and pick them apart by saying "That doesn't mean anything. You can't prove that." But when you put it all together in addition to other evidence -- the shoes, blood everywhere, the watch cap, the cut finger, the motive, the means, and the opportunity -- it all points to only one person. OJ.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-25   12:07:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#259. To: misterwhite (#254)

[misterwite #247 to nolu chan #252]

[misterwhite 254] So the defense is more than willing to present glove evidence -- even though you insist they didn't have to. Fine. Then why not produce the Aris gloves while they're at it?

Hmmmmm?

In #252 I responded to your question by stating that OJ did not provide gloves to the prosecution "because he had lawyers who were not idiots."

You attempt to misstate this as "So the defense is more than willing to present glove evidence -- even though you insist they didn't have to."

The prosecution did not unconstitutionally demand that the defense produce more gloves. The defense did not volunteer to produce more gloves, and did not provide more gloves. That was because the very excellent defense lawyers were not idiots.

[nolu chan #251]

Because he had lawyers who were not idiots.

OJ providing two pair of Aris gloves would prove nothing other than that he owned and, presumably, wore Aris gloves. Just as there was no way for the prosecution to show that the evidence gloves were the Bloomingdale's gloves, there would have been no way for OJ to prove another two pairs of gloves were the Bloomingdale's gloves.

Advice to a defendant is like advice to a military nube -- keep your mouth shut, your bowels open, and never volunteer. The was no advantage to be gained by O.J. in providing any gloves, despite your absurd argument to the contrary.

Further, it is unconstitutional to draw any negative inference in relation to O.J. not volunteering evidence you assume to have been in his possession.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-27   4:01:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#260. To: misterwhite (#255)

[nolu chan #252] "Dr. Lee testified that the way to determine if blood is wet or dry is to look at it."

- - - - - - - - - -

[misterwhite #255] He testified in generalities, not that glove. I think an even better way to determine if blood is wet or dry is to touch it with a sterile swab.

There you go thinking again.

It appears that your testimony is that you have never worked or been trained in law enforcement or in the proper method of evidence collection.

That is pretty much the dumbest idea that I have seen. If you have an expert source to back you up on touch the evidence with a swab to see if it is wet, please present it.

http://www.terriwoodlawoffice.com/pdfdocs/Forensics_Blood_Stains.pdf

Items such as damp bloodstained clothing should be allowed to airdry at room temp away from direct sunlight; then the items should be packaged separately an[d] loosely in paper bags.

If a criminalist must test an item to know if it is wet or dry, he should have some other job. The criminologist acted properly in not sucking the liquid out of the stain. To the extent possible, the technician collecting the evidence should preserve it for the serologist or lab for testing.

http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/blood.html

Wet Bloodstains

If the item is small and transportable, then package it in a paper bag (or plastic bag to prevent contamination of other objects). Bring it to a secured location, take it out of the bag and allow the evidence and the bag to thoroughly air dry. Repackage in the original paper bag or, if necessary, a new paper bag. If a new paper bag is used, then the air dried original container should be packaged with the item of evidence.

Advantages: Requires a minimal amount of interaction with the bloodstains by the investigator; allows the serologist to make the decisions involved in collecting the samples.

Disadvantages: More work for the serologist; bulky items use more storage space.

Dennis Fung,

A. It is best to not manipulate the evidence and to leave it in as much an undisturbed condition as possible so that it can later be analyzed in a proper setting, back at the laboratory.

By manipulating the evidence out at the scene, valuable trace evidence could be lost; so what we try to do is just leave it as undisturbed as possible by packaging it and bringing it back to the lab.

Q. You try to do as little testing as you can of items in order to preserve them?

A. Yes.

Q. And only if it is absolutely necessary do you test them at the scene?

A. Yes.

- - - - - - - - - -

Anyone do that with the glove? No?

Which glove? Do you speak of the Rockingham glove? Do you indicate that you do not know whether someone touched the glove with a sterile swab at the scene, or do you indicate that nobody touched the glove with a sterile swab at the scene?

Are you claiming something, or are you just throwing out nonsense questions firmly answered by testimonial evidence? Why do you not know the answer to your question?

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-27   4:02:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#261. To: misterwhite (#256)

How did Simpson jump the fence with kneemonia?

Not well. He staggered into the air conditioner when he landed, dropping a bloody glove he was wearing during the double murder.

OJ lived there. He knew where the air conditioner was, and he knew where the gate was, and he knew how to open the gate. Considering his kneemonia, it would have been easier to just open the gate.

In any case, like the rest of your "proof," what is lacking is the proof.

What witness saw OJ climb a fence, walk into an air conditioner, or drop a glove? This was a prosecution theory which you offer as evidence.

The theory gave the prosecution timeline problems they were never able to overcome. You have been unable to address the timeline. Your ignoring the need for timeline does not make the problem go away.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-27   4:03:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#262. To: misterwhite (#257)

So you're suggesting that real killer's blood was "collected and stored in an uncooled vehicle with [sic - without] an operating refrigerator for over 7 hours and that it degraded and became contaminated" and turned into the blood of OJ, Nicole, and Ron Goldman in the process.

My actual statement at #251, before passing through your mistranslation, was:

You keep talking about "the evidence" but failing to identify, specifically, what this evidence is.

You ignore the evidence that the physical blood evidence collected on June 13th was placed in plastic bags and stored in an uncooled vehicle with an operating refrigerator for over 7 hours.

You ignore the evidence that blood evidence was degraded, contaminated, and/or planted.

You ignore the evidence that unseen evidence magically appeared weeks or months later.

You ignore the evidence that the LAPD testimony resembled a meeting of a liar's convention. Fuhrman wound up having to take the 5th. Fung was repeatedly shown video directly contradicting his testimony. Yamauchi was similarly destroyed. Vanatter and Luper were embarrassing. Mazzola's claimed memory was worse than Hillary; her mind was in a blender.

So, you are suffering from hallucinations from all that blue crystal.

There was an argument at one point (30 Jan. 1995) that blood had deteriorated from one type into another. That was by Marcia Clark:

MS. CLARK: THE PART THAT I HAVE DRAWN, YOUR HONOR, THE BRACKET AROUND, THAT IS THE ITEM IN ISSUE. "ITEM 84-A" IS THAT "84-B AND 118-A COULD NOT HAVE COME FROM NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, RONALD GOLDMAN OR O.J. SIMPSON; HOWEVER, NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON CANNOT BE EXCLUDED AS A SOURCE OF THE STAIN IN THE EAP. TYPE B OBSERVED ON THE ITEMS WERE DEGRADED FROM A TYPE B A."

The testimonial evidence showed that the blood evidence collected on June 13th was placed in plastic bags and left in a truck which had a refrigerator that did not work properly.

http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/evidenc3.html

Emphasis in original.

Blood and Body Fluids

[...]

Dried blood and body fluid stains should be collected in the following manner: If the stained object can be transported back to the crime lab, then package it in a paper bag or envelope and send it to the lab; if the object cannot be transported, then either use fingerprint tape and lift it like a fingerprint and place the tape on a lift back; scrape the stain into a paper packet and package it in a paper envelope; or absorb the stain onto 1/2" long threads moistened with distilled water. The threads must be air dried before permanently packaging. For transportation purposes and to prevent cross contamination, the threads may be placed into a plastic container for no more than two hours. Once in a secure location, the threads must be removed from the plastic and allowed to air dry. They may then be repackaged into a paper packet and placed in a paper envelope. Wet blood and body fluid stains should be collected in the following manner: all items should be packaged separately to prevent cross contamination, if the item can be transported to the crime lab, then package it in a paper bag (or plastic bag if the transportation time is under two hours), bring it to a secure place and allow it to thoroughly air dry, then repackage it in a paper bag. If the item cannot be transported back to the lab, then absorb the stain onto a small (1"x1") square of pre-cleaned 100% cotton sheeting. Package it in paper (or plastic if the transportation time is less than two hours), bring it to a secure place and allow it to thoroughly air dry; then repackage it in a paper envelope. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD WET OR MOIST ITEMS REMAIN IN PLASTIC OR PAPER CONTAINERS FOR MORE THAN TWO HOURS. Victim and suspect's known whole blood samples will have to be collected in yellow, red, or purple top "Vacutainers." Contact the lab to which the samples will be submitted for specific information.

When the blood evidence is kept in plastic bags, in the heat, for seven hours, it degrades markedly and becomes useless for DNA testing.

The most popular DNA test results did not come from the evidence collected, degraded, contaminated, or otherwise made useless. It came from evidence planted and collected weeks or months later, and contained EDTA.

As with the amazing socks, there was the amazing Bundy rear gate stain, and the Bronco stains. And the statistics were proven to be bogus.

By the time Roger Martz made it to the witness stand, the final blow to the DNA evidence had already been delivered. On June 22, the prosecution brought one of the key protagonists in the DNA numbers war to the stand. Dr. Bruce Weir, a professor of statistics and genetics at North Carolina University, was a key “pro-admissibility,” anticeiling man, who advocated and used the FBI’s method. Putting Weir in front of the jury allowed the whole issue of statistics to be aired. Worse still for the prosecution, the O. J. Simpson case now became the first trial in which a serious debate took place about the probabilities of matches in samples involving mixtures of blood, a new twist that multiplied the disagreements between the two sides in the numbers war.

The mixed blood samples from inside O. J. Simpson’s Bronco, particularly those containing Ron Goldman’s blood, were among the most incriminating evidence against Simpson. But there was a problem. In the PCR test being used by the prosecution, one of the alleles found in Ron Goldman’s blood tended to mask one of the alleles found in O. J. Simpson’s blood when the two were mixed. “You can infer that this allele, the 1.2, is there when dealing with blood from a single person but not when it’s mixed,” explains Bill Thompson. “Weir assumed it was, something he admitted in court.”

Peter Neufeld was merciless in cross-examination. “The numbers on that board are biased against Mr. Simpson, isn’t that correct?” he insisted. “As it turns out, it looks that way, yes,” Weir replied. It illustrated the difficulty of a statistician dealing with figures derived from molecular genetics. A recalculation by Weir reduced a 1 in 3,900 probability that a stain on the Bronco's steering wheel contained a mixture of Ron Goldman’s and O. J. Simpson's blood to a 1 in 1,600 chance. It was another turning point in the trial. It the results had been proven wrong once, were they worth considering at all?

With cross-examinations like those of Fung, Yamauchi, and Weir, Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld, and Bob Blasier had, among them, virtually demolished the prosecution’s forensic case before calling a single witness of their own. The prosecution wound up with key elements of the defense’s case unrebutted. The missing blood, the sock, the famous glove that did not fit— all served to make the defense’s theory of contamination and framing at least possible. Many of the prosecution witnesses had undone themselves, a combination of sloppiness, overconfidence, and brinkmanship brought on perhaps by the sheer quantity of evidence they had against O. J. Simpson. But in the end it was forensic science’s DNA typing that was put on trial and found wanting.

The witness who did most of the job for the defense was Dr. John Gerdes, a microbiologist from Denver. Gerdes looked the part of a scientist; solid and bespectacled, he was a medical lab director inclined to apply the standards of the rigorous government regulation of the Clinical Laboratories Inspection Act to forensic labs. As such he was the perfect candidate to set about a thorough study of the LAPD lab. He was also the perfect candidate to impress the jury. His solid image was reinforced by a dramatic style of delivery.

Reviewing test materials covering fifteen months of examinations from May 1993 to August 1994, Gerdes concluded that the LAPD lab had a contamination problem that was “persistent and substantial . . . month after month.” He rammed home his point by saying a responsible oversight agency “would shut the lab down.”

Tainting Evidence, Inside the Scandals at the FBI Crime Lab, by John F. Kelly and Phillip K. Wearne, Chap 7: O. J. Simpson: Dirty Hands, Bad Blood, 1998, pg. 262-63.

Although Yamauchi insisted he had changed his gloves, the fact that he had not recalled the blood spill in preliminary testimony left plenty of room for doubt. By reconstructing each step of his tests, Scheck was able to show that the quantity of DNA consistent with that in O. J. Simpson’s blood in the swatches collected from the crime scene declined in the order in which Yamauchi handled them. Tracking contamination through the evidence? And the leather glove found at Nicole's condominium which Yamauchi had handled first and cut small rectangular samples from: might it not have been contaminated from the stains on the reference tube? It was an intriguing prospect. The DNA allele matching Simpson’s was only found in samples from the wrist leather where Yamauchi had written his initials to signal who had made the sample cuts.

Tainting Evidence, Inside the Scandals at the FBI Crime Lab, by John F. Kelly and Phillip K. Wearne, Chap 7: O. J. Simpson: Dirty Hands, Bad Blood, 1998, pg. 259.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-27   4:05:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#263. To: misterwhite (#258)

"What part of your laundry list do you claim is a quote of testimony given at the trial?"

Moot point. That wasn't my intent. I'm simply looking at the evidence from a jury's point of view, stripping away all the nit-picky arguments and using common sense.

Your intent, in the abvsence of evidence, was to baffle and bullshit.

Your laundry list was not evidence before the jury. It you really believe it was, identify the witness and the date.

Your "view" of the evidence was not presented to the jury.

The views of talking heads on the evening news were not presented to the jury.

What was presented to the jury was the actual testimony. You vseem so unfamiliar with that testimony that you are unable to produce such evidence by witness and date to support your fantastic claims.

I presented seven points that you can't dispute, and drawing a conclusion based on those seven points.

As your personal arguments were never presented to the jury, they do absolutely nothing to present a case that the jury had 10x, or even 1x, the evidence presented to justify the jury returning a verdict of guilty.

You presented your laundry list at #120.

#120. To: nolu chan (#119)

"Pick one out from the laundry list that you feel is strong, or strongest, and I will take it on."

Well, when you post "101 Reasons" you know there are going to be some lame ones.

But I would say OJ's blood at the crime scene, victim's blood in the Bronco, the gloves with victim's blood, OJ's shoe print at the murder scene, the fact that OJ can't produce the shoes or gloves, hair and fibers matching.

Now, you can argue that each one individually proves nothing. But taken together, there's only one explanation.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-07   14:23:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply

I answered your ridiculous #120 at my #144

As for hair and fiber "matching" try to keep up with the science. That was relegated to the ash heap of junk science. You seem unaware and are still citing that crap as proof of something besides FBI lab corruption.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/04/fbi_s_flawed_forensics_expert_testimony_hair_analysis_bite_marks_fingerprints.html

The Washington Post published a story so horrifying this weekend that it would stop your breath: “The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.”

What went wrong? The Post continues: “Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far.” The shameful, horrifying errors were uncovered in a massive, three-year review by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Innocence Project. Following revelations published in recent years, the two groups are helping the government with the country’s largest ever post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.

Chillingly, as the Post continues, “the cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death.” Of these defendants, 14 have already been executed or died in prison.

The massive review raises questions about the veracity of not just expert hair testimony, but also the bite-mark and other forensic testimony offered as objective, scientific evidence to jurors who, not unreasonably, believed that scientists in white coats knew what they were talking about. As Peter Neufeld, co-founder of the Innocence Project, put it, “The FBI’s three-decade use of microscopic hair analysis to incriminate defendants was a complete disaster.”

https://californiainnocenceproject.org/issues-we-face/dna-forensic-analysis/

Experts were, for the most part, comparing two pictures of hairs and determining whether they looked sufficiently similar to the extent they may have come from the same source. As such, the subjective nature of the science, combined with the fact that there is no statistical approach to distinguishing characteristics between individuals, left plenty of room for error.

The New View

In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences published a report (Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward [“NAS Report”]) that noted there is no scientifically accepted statistics about the frequency of particular characteristics of hair distributed within the population. The NAS Report went on to cite an FBI study in which 80 hair comparisons were thought to be “associated,” but using Mitochondrial DNA testing showed that 9 of the comparisons (12.5%) were actually from different sources.

The NAS Report concluded that, because of advances in DNA testing, microscopic hair analysis can be useful in determining which hairs to test, but should not be relied upon otherwise. Similarly, macroscopic hair comparisons can be helpful in determining whether different hairs have similar color, length, and size, but should not be used in identifying an individual suspect.

STR (root) v. Mitochondrial (shaft)

Today, scientists can use Short Tandem Repeat (STR) DNA testing so long as the hair sample contains a root. In crime scene investigations, it is often the case that hairs forcefully pulled from a person’s head contain a root. Typically, however, hairs are shed without a root. A hair without a root requires mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) testing. MtDNA testing is limited due to the fact that all siblings from the same mother have identical mtDNA. Regardless, the use of DNA testing on hairs is far superior to the subjective guess work used by experts in microscopic hair comparisons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/11/opinion/junk-science-junk-evidence.html

Conventional hair analysis, based on looking at one strand of hair under a microscope and comparing it to another, is subjective junk science.

In short, the FBI lab had been outed for using bullshit as evidence for a few decades.

It appears you want to make believe that my #144 did not respond to your tall tales and junk science.

#144. To: misterwhite (#120)

(a) OJ's blood at the crime scene,

You mean the blood shown to contain EDTA?

Or do you refer to the initially collected blood samples which were left in a truck all day in the heat, destroying DNA content?

(b) victim's blood in the Bronco,

You mean the blood that was not there, and then significantly later, it was.

(c) the gloves with victim's blood,

Gloves with the victim's blood prove there were gloves with the victim's blood. Gloves that Christopher Darden decided to ask OJ to try on in front of the jury. They didn't fit.

Mark Fuhrman conveniently found one glove at Bundy and went to Rockingham and found the other. He also was forced to plead the fifth, and the lady [McKinny] with the tape that proved him a liar, testified that Fuhrman stated that police planted evidence against black suspects.

(d) OJ's shoe print at the murder scene,

Not in evidence. At the criminal trial, it was only shown that the shoe prints indicated shoes of a size worn by OJ, and millions of others.

(e) the fact that OJ can't produce the shoes or gloves,

The defendant is not required to produce any evidence for the prosecution, and need not say anything. He need not put on a case at all. The jury is instructed it may not draw any negative inference on that basis. It may only consider evidence actually presented in court.

It is impossible for you to know that OJ couldn't produce something.

(f) hair and fibers matching.

They eyeballed hair and they eyeballed fibers. In this case, matching was used to denote consistent with. The found hairs did not include roots and were not testable for DNA.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The blood evidence was a great big bust. Serology cannot provide a definitive match. Yamauchi cross-contaminated everything with a blood-draw sample taken from O.J. Simpson. Barry Scheck absolutely destroyed Dennis Fung and Collin Yamauchi on cross-examination.

One cannot impute much to evidence whose handling and processing is proven to be a scientific disaster.

[7457]

Prosecutor Goldberg questioning expert Matheson.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And I would like to turn to some of the testing that you performed in this case, Mr. Matheson. First of all, when blood evidence is collected from a crime scene and then submitted to the serology laboratory for analysis, what kind of information are you as a serologist looking for to derive from that blood evidence?

MR. MATHESON: Well, first off, we want to know whether in fact it is blood. If that's what we have, if there is blood present, we want to know whether or not that blood is human in origin. And if that is a fact, then we continue on to identify the different genetic markers that might be present or identifiable in a bloodstain or an exemplar blood sample.

MR. GOLDBERG: And are the tests that you perform in serology known as tests of exclusion?

MR. MATHESON: That's a term for it, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what does that mean?

MR. MATHESON: Well, the idea being is, there aren't any tests, particularly in conventional serology that would make a definitive match between a bloodstain and a particular individual. They can merely include somebody. In particular, they can exclude somebody. If you're doing an analysis and you find a marker that is in a stain that is not in a reference sample, then you can say absolutely that that bloodstain could not have come from that individual. It's an exclusion.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[9807]

Prosecutor Harmon and Criminalist Collin Yamauchi

MR. HARMON: When you processed the items that are labeled 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52 in this case, generally were there two bindles in each of those envelopes?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: How many bindles were in each of the coin envelopes?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Two.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And will you please describe your practice with respect to processing or how you process coin envelopes?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, only one coin envelope or set of evidence item would be opened at one time. So in other words, I wouldn't have two coin envelopes open simultaneously.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And why is that?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, that's bad lab practice. You want to eliminate any chance of crosscontamination. So you work on one thing at one time.

Defense Counsel Barry Scheck Cross-Examining Criminalist Collin Yamauchi

[10,000]

MR. SCHECK: And that was being done at the same time as the Bundy blood drops on June 14th?

MR. HARMON: Objection. "Being done at the same time" is vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: That was part of your 23 samples?

MR. YAMAUCHI: It was in that group, yes.

MR. SCHECK: And also within those 23 samples was blood from the reference tube of Mr. Simpson?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, on June 15th, you received specimens, completed PCR amplification and obtained results on 19 different samples?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. On the 15th, counting the controls and everything, 19.

MR. SCHECK: And you did all those in one day, June 15th?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. I got through the hybridization step in that time period.

MR. SCHECK: You received the samples, you cut them, you did PCR extraction and you did typing on the strip so that you could report results by the end of the day on all 19 of those?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, I couldn't report the results till all the other things were in place and everything was looked at and written out. But I would have results available for interpretation.

MR. SCHECK: The evening of June 15th, you called Greg Matheson and gave him results on those 19 samples based on the PCR typing strips?

[10,001]

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. I told him what I got up to that poison.

MR. SCHECK: The only thing that was missing, as far as the way you did this, was the PCR product gel, right?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, was it part of your training to avoid analyzing a large number of samples in a short period of time because that can increase the chance of inadvertent cross-contamination and mix up?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, if you're referring to this case, I didn't do it in a short period of time. I did it in--

MR. SCHECK: Mr. Yamauchi--

MR. YAMAUCHI: --quite a big block of time.

THE COURT: Wait, wait. No. You don't get to cut off the answer.

MR. SCHECK: Move to strike. Nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Overruled. Let him finish the answer.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, because I went way beyond what a normal workday is in order to complete those steps.

MR. SCHECK: Move to strike, not responsive. I asked him about his training, only his training.

THE COURT: You're asking about the short period. Overruled. Proceed. Proceed.

MR. SCHECK: In your training, were you taught to avoid analyzing a large number of samples in a short period of time because that can increase the chance of inadvertent cross-contamination and mix-up?

MR. YAMAUCHI: You know, I don't know in those words if that was ever said to me.

MR. SCHECK: Are you familiar with the amplitype user guide?

THE COURT: Why don't you just ask him if he agrees with that concept.

MR. SCHECK: No. I would like to show him the actual user guide. He said he didn't have anything in his training.

[10,002]

THE COURT: We're talking about common sense things here and we're spending a lot of time on it.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, we are talking about basic points of training. That's correct.

THE COURT: All right. So let's proceed.

MR. SCHECK: We're trying to establish with the witness what a basic point of training is.

THE COURT: Proceed. Proceed.

MR. SCHECK: Did you review in the amplitype user guide--withdrawn. In your training, did you review special precautions that are included in the amplitype user guide?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. I've read through that entire user guide.

MR. SCHECK: And you studied it?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

THE COURT: And you rely upon it.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, that along with another book, which would be our own protocol and procedure manual, and a lot of other journal articles and experience to make up my opinions, if that's what you're asking.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. May I approach the witness?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. HARMON: May I see that section?

THE COURT: Counsel, I assume you have that as well. Proceed.

MR. SCHECK: And you're familiar with the section of the user guide entitled "Special precautions"?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And are familiar with paragraph 14 of the section on "Special precautions"?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

[10,003]

MR. SCHECK: And do you rely on that paragraph?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. I would agree with that.

MR. SCHECK: And does not that paragraph state that you should limit the quantity of samples handled in a single run to a manageable number, approximately 15, "This precaution will reduce the risk of sample mix up and the potential for sample-to-sample contamination"?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. And I think 23 is a reasonably close number to 15.

MR. SCHECK: You do?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, I do.

And then there were the comments of the world renowned Dr. Henry Lee about the mishandled scientific evidence is like finding a cockroach in your spaghetti. Do you look to count how many cockroaches there are, or do you just throw it all out?

[17544 - 17545]

DR. LEE: This examination, it's not a quantitative examination. It's not a laboratory test, the concentration becoming important issue. The best analogy I can give it to you is, if I order--goes to a restaurant, order a dish of spaghetti. While eating the spaghetti, I found one cockroaches. I look at it. I found another cockroaches. It's no sense for me to go through the whole plate of spaghetti, say, there are 13.325 cockroaches. If you found one, it's there. It's a matter of whether or not present or absence. I'm not coming here to tells you exactly how many and what's the distribution or quantitative analysis.

[17620]

DR. LEE: Only opinion I can giving under this circumstance, something wrong.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-08   3:59:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


- - - - - - - - - -

You can isolate them and pick them apart by saying "That doesn't mean anything. You can't prove that." But when you put it all together in addition to other evidence -- the shoes, blood everywhere, the watch cap, the cut finger, the motive, the means, and the opportunity -- it all points to only one person. OJ.

When you put together multiple pieces of crap, the result is a pile of crap.

The glaring fact remains that you are either incapable, or unwilling, to discuss the actual evidence presented to the jury.

Your generalities, conclusions, and fantasies were not presented to, or considered by, the jury.

Matter that was not presented to the jury is irrelevant to the question at hand of whether the jury in the criminal trial had enough evidence presented to it to justify a verdict of guilty.

When it comes to actual evidence, you run faster than Usain Bolt.

When was the Rockingham socks collected, and who collected them?

What the hell was proven at the criminal trial about any shoes? No evidence was produced that O.J. ever owned or wore Bruno Magli shoes.

Johnnie Cochran wore the knit cap during closing arguments. As he pointed out, it was not a disguise. He was still just Johnnie Cochran in a knit cap.

Blood everywhere all was mishaldled by the LAPD criminalists, and it was all cross-contaminated at the LAPD crime lab.

It al points to the conclusion that all the blood evidence collected on June 13th could be thrown in the garbage.

When it comes to actual evidence, you run faster than Usain Bolt.

When was the Rockingham socks collected, and who collected them?

Who collected the Bundy blood drops?

Was Andrea Mazzola a trainee or the Officer in Charge?

Did Fung admit that he handled evidence with his bare hands?

Did Mazzola handle evidence with her bare hands?

Did Mazzola work unsupervised?

Was a proper chain of evidence maintained?

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-27   4:11:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#264. To: nolu chan (#259)

"OJ providing two pair of Aris gloves would prove nothing other than that he owned and, presumably, wore Aris gloves."

The prosecution claimed that Nicole purchased two pairs of Aris gloves and gave them to OJ. The prosecution further claimed that one pair was used in the murder.

If OJ presented both pairs of gloves that he was given, well, that blows up the prosecution's case, does it not? Yet he didn't.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-27   9:03:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#265. To: nolu chan (#259)

Further, it is unconstitutional to draw any negative inference in relation to O.J. not volunteering evidence you assume to have been in his possession.

But it's OK for the jury to draw a negative inference about Mark Fuhrman. Or an inference that blood was planted -- with no proof. Or an inference that blood DNA degraded and turned into OJ's blood.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-27   9:06:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#266. To: nolu chan (#260)

That is pretty much the dumbest idea that I have seen. If you have an expert source to back you up on touch the evidence with a swab to see if it is wet, please present it.

How do you think the blood evidence was collected from the crime scene? Answer: With a sterile swab.

"Do you indicate that you do not know whether someone touched the glove with a sterile swab at the scene, or do you indicate that nobody touched the glove with a sterile swab at the scene?"

It appears as though no one at the scene touched the glove with a sterile swab to see if the blood was wet or dry. But you claim it was indeed wet, simply because it appeared wet. And because it fits your conspiracy theory.

But without sworn testimony, you don't know for a fact that it was wet.

Funny. I make an assumption or draw a conclusion and you howl with protest. Yet when you do so I'm supposed to accept it as the Gospel truth.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-27   9:17:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#267. To: nolu chan (#262)

"When the blood evidence is kept in plastic bags, in the heat, for seven hours, it degrades markedly and becomes useless for DNA testing."

The blood was tested. It was useful. The DNA matched OJ, Nicole, and Ron Goldman.

You're suggesting that the "real" killers blood was collected from the crime scene, degraded in the heat, and turned into OJ's blood.

You're ridiculous.

"The most popular DNA test results did not come from the evidence collected, degraded, contaminated, or otherwise made useless. It came from evidence planted and collected weeks or months later, and contained EDTA."

Ah. You're back to the planted evidence with zero proof. Plus any any EDTA found was trace amounts, found in everyone's blood. You got nothing.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-27   9:25:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#268. To: nolu chan (#144)

What was presented to the jury was the actual testimony.

Correct. But that testimony did not say (much less prove) the gloves Nicole purchased were NOT an Extra Large. Or that she DIDN'T give them to OJ. Or that the gloves OJ wore in the pictures and video were NOT Aris. Or that the gloves found at the crime scenes were NOT OJ's. Or that evidence WAS planted by Fuhrman or others. Or that the blood WAS cross-contaminated. Or that the watch cap was NOT OJ's. Or that the shoeprints were NOT made by OJ's "ugly- ass" shoes.

Your "actual" testimony said nothing. Proved nothing. All that testimony did, and all it was intended to do, was cause doubt. The defense hoped it would rise to the level of reasonable doubt. To me, it didn't.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-27   11:40:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#269. To: misterwhite (#264)

The prosecution claimed that Nicole purchased two pairs of Aris gloves and gave them to OJ. The prosecution further claimed that one pair was used in the murder.

The prosecution claimed, and the prosecution expert witness testified that the prosecution evidence was insufficient to verify the claim.

A prosecution claim is not a fact without supporting evidence.

If OJ presented both pairs of gloves that he was given, well, that blows up the prosecution's case, does it not? Yet he didn't.

No. I would rather have a drunk lawyer from night court than you.

It was impossible for the prosecution to prove that the gloves in evidence were part of the Bloomingdale's transaction. The prosecution was unable to prove that OJ Simpson ever owned or wore Aris Leather Light brown XL gloves. Further, the prosecution was unable to prove that O.J. Simpson ever owned or wore any Aris brand glove, of any size or color.

Had OJ possessed and produced two more pairs of Aris Leather Light gloves, they could not be proven to be part of the Bloomingdale's transaction. He may have owned six pairs, or none at all. That was for the prosecution to prove. They did not.

Had O.J. Simpson possessed and produced two more pairs of Aris Leather Light gloves, the prosecution could use them to establish that O.J. Simpson owned and wore Aris Leather Light gloves. If he produced a pair in brown, XL, the prosecution could establish that he owned and wore Aris Leather Light goves in brown, XL.

The prosecution could argue that he owned more than two pairs of Aris Leather Light gloves, and more than one pair in brown, XL.

There is a significant downside for O.J. Simpson. There is no upside. Contary to your ridiculous assertion, O.J. Simpson producing Aris Leather Light gloves for the prosecution would not have blown up the prosecution case.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-28   3:48:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#270. To: misterwhite (#265)

Further, it is unconstitutional to draw any negative inference in relation to O.J. not volunteering evidence you assume to have been in his possession.

But it's OK for the jury to draw a negative inference about Mark Fuhrman. Or an inference that blood was planted -- with no proof.

Try to find the right Amendment.

Mark Fuhrman testified on Direct. On Cross, he took the 5th Amendment and refused to answer questions.

Amendment Six of the Constitution guarantees the right of an accused to be confronted with witnesses against him. He has the constitutional right to cross-examine that witness. Once a piece of trash like Fuhrman testifies for the prosecution and then refuses to answer questions by the defense, the jury may disregard anything and everything stated by the witness. The Defense did not move to strike the Fuhrman testimony. He crashed and burned. The Defense moved for a jury instruction regarding Fuhrman's inavailability for further cross-examination, and they got one that stated, His unavailability for further testimony both on cross-examination--excuse me--on cross-examination is a factor which you may consider in evaluating his credibility as a witness.

From the closing instructions of Judge Ito:

A Defendant in a criminal trial has a constitutional right not to be compelled to testify. You must not draw any inference from the fact that a Defendant does not testify. Further, you must neither discuss this matter nor permit it to enter into your deliberations in any way.

In deciding whether or not to testify, the Defendant may choose to rely upon the state of the evidence and upon the failure, if any, of the Prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every essential element of the crime charged against him. No lack of testimony on the Defendant's part will make up for a failure of proof by the Prosecution so as to support a finding against him on any such essential element.

Fuhrman took the 5th amendment out of sight of the jury. The jury was informed that Fuhrman became unavailable for further cross-examination and that this could be considered in evaluating his credibility. Judge Ito on Fuhrman taking the 5 Amendment:

Therefore, the court will instruct the jury as possible--excuse me--as follows: Detective Mark Fuhrman is not available for further testimony as a witness in this case. His unavailability for further testimony both on cross-examination--excuse me--on cross-examination is a factor which you may consider in evaluating his credibility as a witness. Now, having found that Detective Fuhrman is unavailable as a witness under evidence code section 240, the court then has reexamined its ruling with regards to the five excerpts which are now offered as statements against penal interest, and the court having evaluated those, finds that the court's previous ruling was appropriate and the objections will be sustained. All right. Are you ready to proceed?

Or an inference that blood DNA degraded and turned into OJ's blood.

Put down the blue crystal, or show where anyone claimed or inferred that blood DNA degraded and turned into OJ's blood.

In fact, this is the first time I have seen someone claim that DNA degrades and turns into blood. Have you also learned how to degrade lead into gold?

There was a deterioration argument offered by Marcia Clark for the prosecution. Perhaps you find the prosecution argument absurd. Or maybe it just extremely confused you into babbling about DNA morphing into somebody's blood. Ms. Clark was talking blood types, A, B, AB and O, and it seems to have overwhelmed you.

MS. CLARK: THE PART THAT I HAVE DRAWN, YOUR HONOR, THE BRACKET AROUND, THAT IS THE ITEM IN ISSUE. "ITEM 84-A" IS THAT "84-B AND 118-A COULD NOT HAVE COME FROM NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, RONALD GOLDMAN OR O.J. SIMPSON; HOWEVER, NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON CANNOT BE EXCLUDED AS A SOURCE OF THE STAIN IN THE EAP. TYPE B OBSERVED ON THE ITEMS WERE DEGRADED FROM A TYPE B A."

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-28   3:52:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#271. To: misterwhite (#266)

That is pretty much the dumbest idea that I have seen. If you have an expert source to back you up on touch the evidence with a swab to see if it is wet, please present it.

How do you think the blood evidence was collected from the crime scene? Answer: With a sterile swab.

Put down the blue crystal and present the testimony where anyone touched evidence with a swab to see if it was wet. After this imaginary test, did the anonymous tester get a result? Who testified to this test and result, and on what date.

"Do you indicate that you do not know whether someone touched the glove with a sterile swab at the scene, or do you indicate that nobody touched the glove with a sterile swab at the scene?"

It appears as though no one at the scene touched the glove with a sterile swab to see if the blood was wet or dry. But you claim it was indeed wet, simply because it appeared wet. And because it fits your conspiracy theory.

But without sworn testimony, you don't know for a fact that it was wet.

Funny. I make an assumption or draw a conclusion and you howl with protest. Yet when you do so I'm supposed to accept it as the Gospel truth.

Did somebody touch the Rockingham glove with a sterile swab? It is really a yes or no question. Either you know the answer or you don't.

Just above you stated, "How do you think the blood evidence was collected from the crime scene? Answer: With a sterile swab." Are you now saying blood evidence was not collected from the Rockingham glove? Try to keep your fantasy story straight.

Either evidence is collected with a sterile swab as you state, or it is not. Either someone touched the Rockingham glove with a sterile glove or not.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-28   3:53:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#272. To: misterwhite (#267)

"When the blood evidence is kept in plastic bags, in the heat, for seven hours, it degrades markedly and becomes useless for DNA testing."

The blood was tested. It was useful. The DNA matched OJ, Nicole, and Ron Goldman.

There you go again.

What blood, collected on what date, with what test, yielded what result, pursuant to what witness?

Was this part of the magic evidence that was collected after June 1995, and which tested positive for EDTA?

You're suggesting that the "real" killers blood was collected from the crime scene, degraded in the heat, and turned into OJ's blood.

Put down the blue crystal, or show where anyone claimed or inferred that blood degraded and turned into OJ's blood.

"The most popular DNA test results did not come from the evidence collected, degraded, contaminated, or otherwise made useless. It came from evidence planted and collected weeks or months later, and contained EDTA."

Ah. You're back to the planted evidence with zero proof. Plus any any EDTA found was trace amounts, found in everyone's blood. You got nothing.

As Dr. Rieders testified, in the amount found, the person would be dead. That was the expert testimony at trial. It was found in an amount where blood would not clot.

Your repeated mantra does not change the actual evidence. You look the other way for Agent Martz who allegedly tested his own blood and reported the same level of EDTA as was found on the evidence blood with EDTA.

Dr. Rieders testified that normal is a maximum of 4 ppb. Martz found EDTA in ppm. The sensitivity of the Martz test started at ppm. Had Martz' reported test results for his circulating blood have been correct, he would have been dead. It was all very embarrassing for the FBI and its crime lab. Agent Martz made no notes and prepared no report regarding testing of his own blood. Martz erased all his raw data and explained, "We only have so much computer space." He fared very poorly in the ensuing IG investigation. Agent Martz was relieved of his duties.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: Dr. Rieders, good afternoon.

DR. RIEDERS: Good afternoon.

MS. CLARK: Now, you've just testified, sir, that according to you, your reading of an EPA report, that normally you will find no more than two or four parts per billion EDTA in a normal person's blood. Is that what you just said, sir?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. That normal is no more than four parts per billion. Right.

MS. CLARK: Okay. No more than. In other words, you're saying that the maximum amount of EDTA that you will find in a normal person's blood is no more than four parts per billion, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: That's what the EPA says and I accept that. I have nothing better.

MS. CLARK: And that's based on the report that you had; is that correct, sir?

DR. RIEDERS: It's an EPA publication, the ONTADS, which is one of their publications.

MS. CLARK: Now, if what that--strike that. In the evidence stain, sir, you said you found EDTA in the levels of parts per million, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: I didn't find it. Mr. Martz did and I agreed that they are in the parts per million based on his analysis.

MS. CLARK: So the amount of EDTA found in the evidence stains on the gate and the sock were in parts per million; is that right?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. Because you cannot detect anything that is less than parts per million in any of the samples that he prepared or tested. His detection limit is in the parts per million.

MS. CLARK: The answer is yes. The amount that was found in the gate and the sock were in parts per million, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And the amount that should be found, the maximum amount that could be found in a person, a normal healthy person's blood is in parts per billion, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, according to the best available information.

MS. CLARK: And if that information is incorrect and the actual information is in parts per million, then the amount found in the gate and the sock are a normal person's maximum allowable amount; wouldn't that be true, sir?

DR. RIEDERS: If the best information is it's parts per billion, then yes.

MS. CLARK: I have a report to show you, sir.

[...]

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. I see the problem.

MS. CLARK: Yes, you see the problem, sir. Is that what you said?

DR. RIEDERS: No. I see the paragraph.

MS. CLARK: Oh, I see. And what does it say here?

MR. BLASIER: Objection to the comments by counsel.

THE COURT: Sustained. Jury is to disregard. Miss Clark.

DR. RIEDERS: I said clearly "Paragraph."

MS. CLARK: I'm sorry?

DR. RIEDERS: I said clearly "Paragraph," not "Problem."

MS. CLARK: "Paragraph." Tell the jury what this means in terms of amount, sir? "EDTA should not exceed two milligrams per milliliter of blood." What does that translate to in terms of either parts per million or parts per billion?

DR. RIEDERS: What that is, it should not be less than 2,000 parts per million. That's the same amount that you find in EDTA in blood. At two parts at million--at 2,000 parts per million EDTA in blood, the blood won't clot. People will bleed to death all over the place. It's absurd.

[...]

From the FBI IG Report,

E. Testimony by Agent Martz in the O.J. Simpson Case (Part Three, Section F)

[...]

We did not criticize Martz for the substance of the analytical work performed by him and the FSRU chemists, but rather for his deficient record-keeping and note-taking and for the manner in which Martz testified. That testimony ill served the FBI because it conveyed a lack of preparation, an inadequate level of training in toxicological issues, and deficient knowledge about other scientific matters that should be within the expertise of a chief of a unit handling chemical and toxicological analyses in the Laboratory.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-28   3:58:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#273. To: misterwhite (#268)

What was presented to the jury was the actual testimony.

Correct. But that testimony did not say (much less prove) the gloves Nicole purchased were NOT an Extra Large. Or that she DIDN'T give them to OJ. Or that the gloves OJ wore in the pictures and video were NOT Aris. Or that the gloves found at the crime scenes were NOT OJ's. Or that evidence WAS planted by Fuhrman or others. Or that the blood WAS cross-contaminated. Or that the watch cap was NOT OJ's. Or that the shoeprints were NOT made by OJ's "ugly- ass" shoes.

All the things that the testimonial evidence at trial did not prove do not amount to proof of anything.

Your "actual" testimony said nothing. Proved nothing. All that testimony did, and all it was intended to do, was cause doubt. The defense hoped it would rise to the level of reasonable doubt. To me, it didn't.

My actual testimony is non-existent. I did not testify at the O.J. trial.

Presumably, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses was intended to prove the prosecution case. It did not. The prosecution took up the vast majority of the time. The defense was not required to prove anything.

The prosecution case went from January 31 to July 6.

The defense case went from July 10 to September 19.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-28   4:00:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#274. To: misterwhite (#263)

[nolu chan #263]

C * R * I * C * K * E * T * S

The glaring fact remains that you are either incapable, or unwilling, to discuss the actual evidence presented to the jury.

Your generalities, conclusions, and fantasies were not presented to, or considered by, the jury.

Matter that was not presented to the jury is irrelevant to the question at hand of whether the jury in the criminal trial had enough evidence presented to it to justify a verdict of guilty.

When it comes to actual evidence, you run faster than Usain Bolt.

When was the Rockingham socks collected, and who collected them?

What the hell was proven at the criminal trial about any shoes? No evidence was produced that O.J. ever owned or wore Bruno Magli shoes.

Johnnie Cochran wore the knit cap during closing arguments. As he pointed out, it was not a disguise. He was still just Johnnie Cochran in a knit cap.

Blood everywhere all was mishaldled by the LAPD criminalists, and it was all cross-contaminated at the LAPD crime lab.

It al points to the conclusion that all the blood evidence collected on June 13th could be thrown in the garbage.

When it comes to actual evidence, you run faster than Usain Bolt.

When was the Rockingham socks collected, and who collected them?

Who collected the Bundy blood drops?

Was Andrea Mazzola a trainee or the Officer in Charge?

Did Fung admit that he handled evidence with his bare hands?

Did Mazzola handle evidence with her bare hands?

Did Mazzola work unsupervised?

Was a proper chain of evidence maintained?

C * R * I * C * K * E * T * S

When was the Rockingham socks collected, and who collected them?

Was it this time or that time, this one or that one?

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-28   4:03:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#275. To: nolu chan (#269)

A prosecution claim is not a fact without supporting evidence.

I see. But a defense claim that Fuhrman was a racist and planted evidence can stand with no evidence whatsover.

"Had O.J. Simpson possessed and produced two more pairs of Aris Leather Light gloves, the prosecution could use them to establish that O.J. Simpson owned and wore Aris Leather Light gloves."

Oh, really? Remember when the prosecution suggested that the murder weapon was a 15-inch knife with a retractable blade that Simpson purchased at a downtown Los Angeles shop? Hmmmm?

Well, during the preliminary hearing, "Simpson’s defense team produced that knife in an envelope that became known as the “mystery envelope.” Remember that? "Forensic tests later showed that the knife had no scratches or bloodstains to suggest that it had been used in a double murder."

So, the defense produced the knife as exculpatory evidence but not the gloves? Why, pray tell?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-28   9:07:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#276. To: nolu chan (#273)

"You look the other way for Agent Martz who allegedly tested his own blood and reported the same level of EDTA as was found on the evidence blood with EDTA."

Meaning the amount of EDTA in the blood evidence was normal -- NOT consistent wirh blood stored in a vial.

By the way, Rieders stated under oath that he couldn’t tell how much EDTA was in the blood nor did he test the actual evidence.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-28   9:28:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#277. To: nolu chan (#271)

Did somebody touch the Rockingham glove with a sterile swab? It is really a yes or no question.

I have no idea. Which means neither of us know if the blood was wet, dry or something inbetween. We have testimony saying it looked wet. You erred by assuming it was wet.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-28   9:36:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#278. To: nolu chan (#270)

On Cross, he took the 5th Amendment and refused to answer questions.

If a person takes the 5th, are we allowed to draw any inference from that action? You know, like assuming they're "a piece of trash"?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-28   9:42:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#279. To: misterwhite (#275)

A prosecution claim is not a fact without supporting evidence.

I see. But a defense claim that Fuhrman was a racist and planted evidence can stand with no evidence whatsover.

"Had O.J. Simpson possessed and produced two more pairs of Aris Leather Light gloves, the prosecution could use them to establish that O.J. Simpson owned and wore Aris Leather Light gloves."

Oh, really? Remember when the prosecution suggested that the murder weapon was a 15-inch knife with a retractable blade that Simpson purchased at a downtown Los Angeles shop? Hmmmm?

Well, during the preliminary hearing, "Simpson’s defense team produced that knife in an envelope that became known as the “mystery envelope.” Remember that? "Forensic tests later showed that the knife had no scratches or bloodstains to suggest that it had been used in a double murder."

So, the defense produced the knife as exculpatory evidence but not the gloves? Why, pray tell?

Your mission impossible is to show that the jury at the criminal trial had sufficient evidence before it to justify returning a verdict of guilty.

The quotes from your unlinked, unidentified source (Mercury News, March 4, 2016), refer to a knife that was never in evidence at the criminal trial. It is irrelevant to the present discussion.

Unlike the evidence gloves, evidence indicated that O.J. had purchased, owned, and possessed the particular knife.

The prosecution at the criminal trial did not produce that knife. The defense at the criminal trial did not produce that knife. It had nothing to do with the criminal trial.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-29   3:13:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#280. To: misterwhite (#276)

"You look the other way for Agent Martz who allegedly tested his own blood and reported the same level of EDTA as was found on the evidence blood with EDTA."

Meaning the amount of EDTA in the blood evidence was normal -- NOT consistent wirh blood stored in a vial.

By the way, Rieders stated under oath that he couldn’t tell how much EDTA was in the blood nor did he test the actual evidence.

The purported Martz test result proved that Martz test was in error, or he was walking about with blood that would not clot.

Martz, with a degree in biology, was under investigation stemming from internal complaints about his bogus tests and unscientific testimony in the field of toxicology and explosives.

Martz testified that he tested matter from an evidence sock and the test responded like the substance was EDTA and the test result was consistent with the presence of EDTA.

As we previously learned from Dr. Frederic Rieders, the Martz test only detected threshold levels of parts per million, a fatal dose for circulating blood in a human.

Roger Martz, direct examination by defense counsel Robert Blasier,

MR. BLASIER: And you actually had the sock itself?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I did.

MR. BLASIER: And when you got the sock was the green area indicated on the chart already cut out?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, it was.

MR. BLASIER: And you then took a cutting from the edge area of the stain?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you were also sent A--another swatch inside a little aliquot tube, were you not?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: That is what you call Q207?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

[...]

MR. BLASIER: I would like to put Q207 on the elmo.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, that is a picture of what was sent to you, Q207?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And you now know that that came from the stain area that had been cut out of the sock?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Once you found out what that was, did you ever request to have it sent back so that you could run tests, positive ion tests on that?

MR. MARTZ: No.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Could we have 1257-R.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, is the chart that is now on the screen an accurate depiction of the two tests that you ran on Q206, the stain from the--the cutting from the edge of the stain?

MR. MARTZ: Two of the tests that I ran, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And do you agree that the peaks demonstrated on the chart were peaks that you found in your testing?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Now, would you agree that you detected the presence of the 293 parent ion which is the parent ion for EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: Umm, I detected the 160 ion which came from the parent ion of 293.

MR. BLASIER: Well, isn't it true that the machine is set so that it only let's through the 293 parent ion?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: So is it accurate to say that you can conclude from that chart that you have found both the 293 parent ion and the 160 daughter ion?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: All right. Now, Agent Martz, would you agree that the pattern that you got on the sock, Q206, is consistent with the presence of EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: Umm, it certainly warrants further testing. It responded like EDTA responded, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Is it consistent with the presence of EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

Rieders testified that EDTA was normally present in human blood in parts per billion, not exceeding 4 ppb. Martz' test found EDTA and had a threshold sensitivity of parts per million. Stop making shit up.

Rieders testified that maximum blood level was 4 parts per billion, citing to the EPA and the Foreman and Trujillo studies.

EDTA in blood levels in parts per million would be fatal.

Martz being alive was an indication that his purported test was more of his horsecrap. The USDOJ/OIG Special Report found, "Martz's rough notes in this case confirmed the absence of any notes or reports of these examinations. Additionally, Martz failed to number and initial his notes, identify the case number in some notes, or set forth his procedures for some of his testing. We find the foregoing record-keeping practices to be unacceptable."

With the publication of the USDOJ/OIG Special Report, Martz' empire of incompetence and corruption fell apart.

MS. CLARK: Now, you've just testified, sir, that according to you, your reading of an EPA report, that normally you will find no more than two or four parts per billion EDTA in a normal person's blood. Is that what you just said, sir?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. That normal is no more than four parts per billion. Right.

MS. CLARK: Okay. No more than. In other words, you're saying that the maximum amount of EDTA that you will find in a normal person's blood is no more than four parts per billion, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: That's what the EPA says and I accept that. I have nothing better.

[...]

MS. CLARK: "Paragraph." Tell the jury what this means in terms of amount, sir? "EDTA should not exceed two milligrams per milliliter of blood." What does that translate to in terms of either parts per million or parts per billion?

DR. RIEDERS: What that is, it should not be less than 2,000 parts per million. That's the same amount that you find in EDTA in blood. At two parts at million--at 2,000 parts per million EDTA in blood, the blood won't clot. People will bleed to death all over the place. It's absurd.

- - - - - - - - - -

MS. CLARK: Now, do you know whether these forms of EDTA were ever tested for the purpose of determining what the maximum tolerance would be in a normal healthy person?

DR. RIEDERS: You mean in food? Is that it? When you say maximum tolerance, how? Intravenous or in food or what? Vast difference.

MS. CLARK: No, sir. I asked you whether there was any testing that you know of that determined whether any of the forms of EDTA that we have just talked about, those four--

DR. RIEDERS: Right.

MS. CLARK: --was ever done to see what the normal level would be in an average healthy person?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. The study of Foreman and Trujillo dealt with normal healthy persons.

MS. CLARK: Objection, nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Overruled, overruled.

DR. RIEDERS: And in this they determined what the level in their blood was, which was in the low parts per billion below their detection levels.

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we need to take a comfort break for the jurors. We will take ten minutes.

- - - - - - - - - -

Roger Martz testified that he did not know how much EDTA was normally present in blood.

MR. BLASIER: Now, would you agree that under those circumstances that we have described that is consistent with the literature, that the amount of EDTA that you might expect to find in a person's blood after they ate something with EDTA in it is likely to be very, very small, in the range of parts per billion?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I think if you take everything into account it would be difficult to say that. I mean, you are looking at one study in 1954 and it mentions at the end of that that there its some conflicting data based on iron and yttrium being eliminated very quickly from the body when it is ingested, when EDTA is ingested, and that paper only mentions one of the salts that the FDA permits to be used in the food. There is two other salts. So relying totally on one paper in 1954 with a lot of other conflicting information and information that is not available, I--to be perfectly honest with you, I don't believe that anyone knows exactly how much EDTA is present.

- - - - - - - - - -

USDOJ/OIG Special Report

The FBI Laboratory: An Investigation into Laboratory Practices and Alleged Misconduct in Explosives-Related and Other Cases (April 1997)

E. Testimony by Agent Martz in the O.J. Simpson Case (Part Three, Section F)

[...]

We did not criticize Martz for the substance of the analytical work performed by him and the FSRU chemists, but rather for his deficient record-keeping and note-taking and for the manner in which Martz testified. That testimony ill served the FBI because it conveyed a lack of preparation, an inadequate level of training in toxicological issues, and deficient knowledge about other scientific matters that should be within the expertise of a chief of a unit handling chemical and toxicological analyses in the Laboratory.

The USDOJ/OIG Special Report found that non-chemist Roger Martz demonstrated an inadequate level of training in toxicological issues, and deficient knowledge about other scientific matters that should be within the expertise of a chief of a unit handling chemical and toxicological analyses in the Laboratory. That is polite science-speak for he did not know what he was talking about, and Dr. Frederic Rieders embarassingly depantsed him on national television.

The USDOJ/OIG Special Report found that non-chemist Roger Martz maintained insufficient documentation, and that CTU Chief Roger Martz should not hold a supervisory position in the Laboratory, and the FBI should assess whether he should continue to serve as a Laboratory examiner, he should be supervised by a scientist qualified to review his work, he be counseled on the appropriate matter for testifying about forensic work, and another qualified examiner review any analytical work by Martz to be used as a basis for future testimony.

- - - - - - - - - -

Insufficient Documentation of Test Results by the examiner who had performed work on hundreds of cases, including Psinakis and the UNABOM investigation, and by the CTU Chief.

The cited CTU Chief was Roger Martz.

- - - - - - - - - -

CTU Chief Roger Martz should not hold a supervisory position in the Laboratory, and the FBI should assess whether he should continue to serve as a Laboratory examiner.

- - - - - - - - - -

CTU Chief Martz was derelict in his technical review and misleading memorandum in 1989. The 1992 review largely failed as an effort to ascertain fully the true extent of the deficiencies in Rudolph's files. Had Laboratory managers performed responsibly, the Rudolph matter might have been appropriately resolved much earlier than 1995. Instead, the Rudolph problem continued to fester.

- - - - - - - - - -

4) Late in our investigation, Whitehurst wrote a letter to the OIG expressing concerns about testimony given by CTU Chief Roger Martz in Florida v. George Trepal, a case that resulted in the conviction and death sentence of Trepal for having added the poison thallium nitrate to bottles of Coca-Cola. We found that Martz could have properly opined that certain samples were consistent with thallium nitrate having been added to them. Martz, however, did not limit his conclusions that way, but instead offered an opinion stronger than his analytical results would support. He also failed to conduct certain tests that were appropriate under the circumstances, failed to document adequately his work, and testified inaccurately on various points. Martz's work in this case was seriously deficient.

- - - - - - - - - -

CTU Chief Roger Martz lacks the judgment and credibility to perform in a supervisory role within the Laboratory. If Martz continues to work as an examiner, we suggest that he be supervised by a scientist qualified to review his work substantively and that he be counseled on the appropriate manner for testifying about forensic work. We further recommended that another qualified examiner review any analytical work by Martz that is to be used as a basis for future testimony.

- - - - - - - - - -

Ninth, the FBI should develop a uniform program for training examiners with respect to court testimony and monitoring such testimony. We found the problem of examiners testifying to matters beyond their expertise or in ways that were unprofessional in Hahn's testimony in the Avianca case, Williams'testimony in the World Trade Center case, and Martz' testimony in Trepal and Simpson.

Testifying to matters beyond their expertise is science-speak for trying to baffle the jury with bullshit.

Laboratory management failed to assure that concerns about Rudolph's casework were thoroughly investigated in 1989. First, neither Butler in his initial review nor Martz in his subsequent review addressed the concern raised by AUSA Burch that Rudolph in Psinakis had erroneously relied on information from a field agent instead of conducting sufficient confirmatory tests to identify PETN. On a related point, as part of the 1989 reviews of Rudolph's work, Laboratory management failed to obtain and review a transcript of Rudolph's trial testimony in Psinakis. In light of the prosecutor's complaints, the transcript should have been reviewed.

- - - - - - - - - -

We also find fault in the way Nimmich and Martz handled the follow-up review. Given Butler's findings, the Laboratory should have reviewed Rudolph's work to determine whether sufficient analyses were done to support the stated conclusions. Although Nimmich might reasonably have expected Martz, as an experienced examiner and unit chief, to understand the need for a thorough technical review, in retrospect Nimmich should have taken steps, preferably through written instructions, to assure that Martz understood this to be his task. It also would have been desirable for Martz to have clearly stated the object and methodology of his review in his memorandum.

Whatever he understood Nimmich's instructions to be, Martz stated the conclusions of his review in a misleading way. He observed that analyses had been performed that were sufficient, yet he told the OIG that he did not review the sufficiency of Rudolph's work to support the stated conclusions. Martz's August 16, 1989, memorandum shows that he knew of Butler's August 2, 1989, memorandum, which recommended an in depth review of Rudolph's cases. Martz in his memorandum indicated he conducted a technical review and recommended that there be no further review of Rudolph's cases. As a unit chief, Martz should have recognized that this misleadingly suggested that he had completed an in depth review and concluded that further review was not necessary.

Martz also failed to note in his memorandum that, in his review, he found that notes and other documentation were missing. These findings deserved comment even if Nimmich did not ask Martz to conduct an administrative review of the files. Finally, Martz stated in his August 16, 1989, memorandum that, while other tests could have been performed, no changes would be made in the reporting of the 95 cases reviewed. Martz lacked any basis to make this statement if, as he told the OIG, he did not assess whether the analyses identified in the files were sufficient to support the stated conclusions.

Martz's review of the Psinakis case was inadequate to address the concerns raised by AUSA Burch. Martz commented that LC might be sufficient to identify explosives, depending on other circumstances. This begged the relevant question of whether LC was sufficient in Psinakis, which it clearly was not. Martz also noted that it was not uncommon for defense attorneys to question examiners about tests they knew had not been performed. The proclivities of defense counsel were not pertinent to the issues Martz should have been addressing. Martz's comments about Psinakis inappropriately tended to excuse Rudolph.

Nimmich told the OIG that he understood from Martz's memorandum that Martz had concluded that Rudolph had a sufficient basis for his conclusions in Psinakis. Martz confirmed in his interview with the OIG, however, that he did not review Rudolph's work in Psinakis and did not address AUSA Burch's concerns about the lack of confirmatory techniques. Given these facts, Martz should not have included his comments concerning the Psinakis case in his memorandum, because they misleadingly suggested that he had approved Rudolph's work.

[...]

In sum, the Laboratory's 1989 review of Rudolph was inadequate. The allegations that prompted the review came not from Whitehurst but from an Assistant United States Attorney with first-hand knowledge of the alleged deficiencies. The AUSA not only rendered his own low opinion of Rudolph's work, but repeated the similar view of the district court judge who almost excluded Rudolph's testimony. The AUSA further stated that Rudolph's inadequate work contributed to an acquittal. These were serious charges. That the Laboratory did so little in response to these allegations is deplorable. The Laboratory should have recognized Rudolph's incompetence in 1989 and initiated a complete file review and appropriate disciplinary measures. This was not only required by the proper administration of justice, but it also might have obviated the great time and effort expended in later reviews of Rudolph's files that were still continuing seven years later.

Martz was relegated to being one of the deplorables.

- - - - - - - - - -

Re the O.J. case:

We do conclude that because of his lack of preparation, his deficient record-keeping and note-taking practices, and certain aspects of his presentation and demeanor at trial, Martz poorly represented the Laboratory and the FBI in this case.

- - - - - - - - - -

In July 1995, Simpson's counsel sent a letter to the FBI requesting all digital data underlying the LC/MS and HPLC testing in the case. The FBI Office of General Counsel (OGC) responded by letter that the underlying digital data had not been saved in the computer. The following day, the OGC clarified this remark in a letter stating that the FBI had saved the digital data underlying its validation studies at the FSRU, but not the data underlying forensic testing by Martz.

- - - - - - - - - -

On July 25 and 26, 1995, Martz testified in the Simpson case as a witness called by the defense.

[...]

Martz also answered questions by defense counsel concerning his failure to retain digital data underlying his charts. Martz explained that the raw data is stored on a computer with limited storage space. Martz stated that in this case he printed out the appropriate charts, drew his conclusions, and did not need to look at the data again. Therefore, Martz told us that he permitted the data to be erased.

- - - - - - - - - -

Martz made additional noteworthy statements during his testimony. In particular, when the defense counsel asked whether Martz had decided during a break to become more aggressive in answering questions, Martz responded, I think I decided that I had to be more truthful. I was not telling the whole truth with yes and no answers. . . . I decided that I wanted to tell the whole truth. At another point in the testimony, Martz acknowledged that he had performed analyses using his own blood in May and July 1995, but had not made any notes describing how he conducted the analyses.

- - - - - - - - - -

Although we conclude that Martz did not mislead the court as suggested by Whitehurst, we think this case illustrates the importance of principal examiners reviewing the work performed by other examiners and researchers. Given the importance of this case and the obvious expertise on the defense side, Martz was surprisingly unprepared for his testimony.

- - - - - - - - - -

Although we do not criticize Martz's erasure of the digital data under the circumstances of this case, we are troubled by Martz's other record-keeping practices. Martz testified that he examined his own blood for the presence of EDTA in May and July 1995, but did not make any notes describing how he conducted these analyses. Martz explained at trial that because he examined his own blood in the same way he had examined other samples, he decided not to write down the procedure again. Martz further stated that he did not prepare a report because he considered these runs to be research, not case work. According to Martz, he would not generate a report when he did case-related research if he thought he could readily remember the examination.

Martz's rough notes in this case confirmed the absence of any notes or reports of these examinations. Additionally, Martz failed to number and initial his notes, identify the case number in some notes, or set forth his procedures for some of his testing.

We find the foregoing record-keeping practices to be unacceptable. Martz should have made and retained notes describing his procedures, even if he considered the procedures to be background research and not case work. As a general rule, an examiner should make and retain notes for all work related to any case, but especially work that might be the subject of examination at trial. Further, another examiner should be able to review such notes and have a complete understanding as to all procedures performed in any case. Martz's work in this regard was deficient.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-29   3:18:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#281. To: misterwhite (#277)

Did somebody touch the Rockingham glove with a sterile swab? It is really a yes or no question.

I have no idea. Which means neither of us know if the blood was wet, dry or something inbetween. We have testimony saying it looked wet. You erred by assuming it was wet.

Why do you have no idea? Under what circumstances does someone touch the evidence with a wet sterile swab? Let me help a clueless brother out regarding the Rockingham glove.

I assumed nothing. Dr. Henry Lee testified that the way to determine if blood is dry is to look at it, only amateur touches, he does not do that. You claimed that you would poke it with a swab to see if it was wet. You assume wrong.

I cited and quoted the testimony of witnesses who looked at the glove and observed indicia that it was moist or sticky, and observed as missing, indicia that it was dry.

Testimony indicates the glove was touched with a wet swab.

18 Now, to ascertain whether there was blood on
19 the glove, you did a presumptive test.
20 A Yes.
21 Q You applied a cotton swatch to the glove?
22 A No, a cotton swab.
23 Q Cotton swab?
24 A Like a Q-tip type of thing.
25 Q All right.
26 What portion of the glove did you apply that 27 swab to?
28 A I believe the -- whatever area was facing
0069
01 upwards, I looked for a dark -- darker area than
02 appeared on the rest of the glove and applied the wet
03 swab to that portion and performed the rest of the test.
04 Q Do you recall where that portion was?
05 A No, I don't.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-29   3:30:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#282. To: misterwhite (#278)

On Cross, he took the 5th Amendment and refused to answer questions.

If a person takes the 5th, are we allowed to draw any inference from that action? You know, like assuming they're "a piece of trash"?

Det. Fuhrman did not take the fifth amendment in the presence of the jury so they could draw no inference whatever from what they did not know.

The jury could draw a negative inference from the unavailability of Fuhrman as a witness, pursuant to the explicit instructions of the Court.

The jury could adopt an informed opinion that Fuhrman was a liar, a perjurer, and a genocidal racist from the testimony of Det. Fuhrman, the testimony of Laura Hart McKinny, the taped statements of Fuhrman proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Fuhrman had lied to the jury, and the instruction of the Court that Fuhrman would no longer be available as a witness.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-29   3:31:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#283. To: nolu chan (#281)

"Testimony indicates the glove was touched with a wet swab."

It was?!? Well, according to you that's a dumb idea, isn't it? After all, you DID say:

"That is pretty much the dumbest idea that I have seen. If you have an expert source to back you up on touch the evidence with a swab to see if it is wet, please present it."

If the condition of the glove (ie., if it's wet or dry) was significant, then why wasn't that checked out at the scene?

Cop #1: Hey. That glove appears moist and wet and sticky.
Cop #2: You're right. It looks shiny, too.
Cop #1: But wait a minute. I'm a detective and I know that blood should be dried by now.
Cop #2: Yeah. I'm a detective, too. That's why they send us to investigate murders.
Cop #1: Well, this is significant. Maybe we should have forensics test the blood.
Cop #2: Nah. We'll just say it "looked" wet.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-29   10:28:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#284. To: nolu chan (#280)

Martz, with a degree in biology, was under investigation stemming from internal complaints about his bogus tests and unscientific testimony in the field of toxicology and explosives.

You going to bring up that shit? You want me to do the same with your Dr. Reiders -- who has a history of being wrong?

"purported Martz test result proved that Martz test was in error, or he was walking about with blood that would not clot."

Something was wrong. Martz was smart enough to realize something was wrong and took the extraordinary step to test his own blood to prove something was wrong.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-29   10:36:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#285. To: nolu chan (#279)

The defense at the criminal trial did not produce that knife.

But it WAS produced by the defense. The gloves were not. Why not?

Well, we know why not. The gloves were already people's exhibit.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-29   10:40:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#286. To: misterwhite (#285)

The defense at the criminal trial did not produce that knife.

But it WAS produced by the defense. The gloves were not. Why not?

The knife was not produced at the criminal trial by anybody. It provided zero evidence for the jury to consider. Remember, you are supposedly working feverishly to find the evidence that the prosecution produced which the criminal jury could have relied upon to return a verdict of guilty.

Bullshitting about extraneous material that was never part of the criminal trial just doesn't get it. Try harder.

The gloves were not. Why not?

Well, we know why not. The gloves were already people's exhibit.

If either you or the prosecution could have proved that, you would have evidence instead of bullshit.

The prosecution failed in its efforts to show that O.J. Simpson had ever bought, owned, or wore an Aris glove, black, brown, XL or any other size.

The prosecution produced a receipt for gloves purchased by Nicole Brown Simpson. Experts could not verify that the purchased gloves were the same gloves as the evidence gloves. There was no evidence provided that showed that O.J. Simpson ever owned or wore the purchased gloves, or what the size and color of the purchased gloves were.

Results from your magic 8 ball are not considered evidence.

If the prosecution wanted to established that O.J. Simpson wore the evidence gloves, all they had to do was prove it. They failed to do so.

The blatantly obvious reason you do not argue with evidence is that you do not have any, and you do not have any because the prosecution did not have any.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-29   18:08:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#287. To: misterwhite (#284)

Martz, with a degree in biology, was under investigation stemming from internal complaints about his bogus tests and unscientific testimony in the field of toxicology and explosives.

You going to bring up that shit? You want me to do the same with your Dr. Reiders -- who has a history of being wrong?

You are welcome to try. The shit I brought up was quoted from a Department of Justice Special Report.

It is rather humorous watching you herniate yourself trying to rehabilitate the testimony of Martz in your rather obvious incorrect impression that he was a prosecution witness.

Let me disabuse you of that notion. Martz and his report were so bad for the prosecution that even though they retained his services, the prosecution never called upon Martz to testify at the criminal trial. It was the defense who forced Martz to take the stand during the defense case. Note that defense counsel Blasier questioned Martz on Direct, not Cross.

It was the prosecution who ran away from Martz, and it was the defence who put him on the stand after Rieders had testified.

Something was wrong. Martz was smart enough to realize something was wrong and took the extraordinary step to test his own blood to prove something was wrong.

The DoJ Special Report found Martz to be incompetent. In purporting to test his own blood, destroying all evidence of said test, and submitting an impossible result, something was indeed wrong. The DoJ found his record keeping, or lack thereof, unacceptable. The DoJ found Martz had an inadequate level of training in toxological issues and toxilogical analyses in the laboratory. Thje DoJ recommended that another qualified examiner review any analytical work by Martz to be used as a basis for future testimony. With specific reference to the O.J. case, the DoJ found, Martz was surprisingly unprepared for his testimony, and that Martz poorly represented the Laboratory and the FBI in this case.

Martz attempted to maintain that nobody knows how much EDTA was normally present in human blood. He allegedly tested his own blood, destroyed all evidence of said test, and claimed his blood test to the same amount of EDTA as evidence blood. His minor problem was that his test had a threshold of detection of EDTA in parts per million, and this ill-prepared and incompetent toxicologist with his degree in biology was mistaken in his belief that a level in parts per million was normal. The competent toxicological expert set the record straight that the normal level of EDTA in humans was 4 parts per billion, citing an EPA study and a Foreman and Trujillo study. Further, the toxicology expert Dr. Rieders testified that "a 2,000 parts per million EDTA in blood, the blood won't clot. People will bleed to death all over the place. It's absurd." That effectively dispatched a Marcia Clark brainfart.

Martz was not all that swift, as the DoJ Report documented. Something was wrong. Martz proved that he would and did submit a false report.

Indeed, Scheck and Neufeld had launched an attack against the FBI lab in general, in a series of cases. The outcome was that the science and research underpinning the FBI's DNA typing methodology was flawed, and the FBI tried, but failed, to prevent the release of data to prove it. FBI hair and fiber analysis was relegated to junk science. The FBI DNA standards were cleaned up. Hundreds of cases were shown to have been tainted by bogus evidence.

MS. CLARK: Let me show you another report. Now, the report that you just pulled out from your briefcase, sir, I'm going to cite you to a passage where it says, "Insight to amelioration AML, dredge undissolved solid." That's in your report, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: That's part of their report. That's part of the copy that I gave you.

MS. CLARK: This is the EPA report that you used to base your opinion on that the normal amount of EDTA that you'll find in blood or the maximum allowable amount in a normal healthy person would be in the parts per billion, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: This and the paper by Trujillo and foreman is--foreman is the other author.

MS. CLARK: Now, with respect to this report, sir, on which you just said you based your opinion from the EPA, you read that to allow for the maximum allowable amount in a normal person to be two parts per billion?

DR. RIEDERS: Right.

MS. CLARK: Right. Now, is it possible, sir, that you have a typo here that caused you to conclude there were two parts per billion as the maximum allowable when in fact, it is 1,000 times less, two parts per million as the maximum allowable amount in a normal healthy person?

DR. RIEDERS: It's possible that this is a typo, but this is--a 2,000 parts per million is absurd as I told you. The people would be bleeding to death at that level.

MS. CLARK: In other words, if this is the correct EPA report, you disagree with it?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, obviously. I mean, it's--obviously it's a typo in there because I can't imagine that the EPA would say that it's all right to run around with blood that won't clot.

MS. CLARK: Sir, you earlier just premised your person on the maximum allowable amount for a normal person on the EPA report, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And in your report, it says two mg/ml?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you interpret that to mean two nanograms per milliliter?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. That's the only one possible.

MS. CLARK: That's the only one possible from an ng as oppose to an mg, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And so you determined that what the EPA was saying was the maximum allowable amount was two parts per billion, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: That they were saying what is consistent with their radioactive study, and that's what they say, yes. Sure. Makes sense.

MS. CLARK: But the radioactive study, sir, was not able to pick up EDTA in the blood, was it?

DR. RIEDERS: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: It gave no lower trace amounts that it was able to detect or measure in blood, did it?

DR. RIEDERS: I'm sorry?

MS. CLARK: That report back in the 50's of radioactive EDTA did not state any specific amount for anything detected in blood resembling EDTA; isn't that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: That's not correct.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I object. I thought we weren't going into this. I mean I'm happy to.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: I can't--

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: What was the objection?

THE COURT: Court's previous ruling on this regard, that report. Proceed.

Dr. Rieders submitted an EPA report that cited a level of 2 mg/ml. Dr. Rieders' professional expertise allowed him to recognize the typo of mg for ng, the only thing scientifically reasonable. Agent Martz did not catch the typo, and his lack of expertise let him proceed as though it made sense. Agent Martz went on to dry lab a test of his own blood for which he claimed a result consistent with the typo, an impossible result for someone still living.

As for your desire to bring up cases regarding Rieders, that was attempted at trial. Judge Ito considered the argument out of the presence of the jury and disallowed the proposed argument to continue. I will save you the bother of looking for it. Enjoy your nothing burger.

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, JULY 24, 1995 9:16 A.M.

Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)

(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the Court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Douglas, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Blasier. The People are represented by Miss Clark and Mr. Kelberg. The jury is not present. Counsel, anything we need to take up before we take up the next witness?

MR. KELBERG: Yes, your Honor. I am down here not as a result of anyone else's efforts, but of my own accord, because I couldn't help on Friday but review the Court's ruling with respect to Mr. MacDonell's testimony and then to review Dr. Rieders' report, my understanding being that Dr. Rieders will be the next witness called by the Defense. And it struck me as ironic, if nothing else, that in the Court's ruling regarding Mr. MacDonell, the Court, on page 2 of its ruling, noted near the end, just before the section dealing with discovery violations, the previous evidence code section 352 objection by the Defense: "The phenolphthalein based presumptive tests for human blood is still well taken for all the reasons previously advanced." And what struck me from that in the Court's order is Dr. Rieders' report concerning his analysis of the test results of Mr. Martz from the FBI because on page 2 in the concluding paragraph of Dr. Rieders' report he says: "Thus the finding of EDTA in a micro blood specimen, such as in the present ones, is consistent with, indicative of and presumptive for the blood having originated from a specimen which has been placed into a usually lavender top blood collection" and handwritten in is "EDTA tube such as is commonly used to draw blood from a living person and keep it from coagulating." What I believe the evidence would show, your Honor, with respect to the analysis by Dr. Rieders, is there can be, among the eleven preliminary organic compounds known in the universe, hundreds perhaps that would give a reading, a pattern, to use a shorthand version, of findings consistent with what Dr. Rieders in his report is only willing to say is a pattern which is consistent with, indicative of and presumptive for EDTA. It seems to me that for all the reasons expressed by the Defense to keep out phenolphthalein testing, because it is misleading, confusing to the jury of the real issues, and so forth, the same applies with respect to Dr. Rieders' testimony, proposed testimony, with respect to the EDTA testing of the two bloodstains. This is not evidence that in fact shows there is EDTA, according to Dr. Rieders' own report. It only reflects that the result is presumptive of EDTA, and we can go into the technicalities about basically the full spectrum that you need to see in order to say I identify EDTA is absent, that it is not a full spectrum, and only what is present can be used to say in the opinion of Dr. Rieders it is indicative of, consistent with, presumptive for. What is good for the goose, your Honor, I submit is good for the gander. Now, why is this important? Because if there is only one other compound in the universe which besides EDTA could give the pattern which is the pattern found in the stains from the gate and the socks and from- -I will get into that, Miss Clark, in just a moment--if there is only one other compound that could give that pattern, then the evidence may have far more probative value than if hundreds of other compounds could provide that result. But we don't know which hundreds could provide it because as the evidence would show, Dr. Rieders, no. 1, has never done this test for EDTA using this equipment. His laboratory does not have this equipment. And the laboratory that he has to go to when he wants to use this kind of equipment does not have electrospray which is in fact the process used by the FBI, but it is the FBI's report and analysis which Dr. Rieders is going to come in here and talk about supposedly. Now, I find it most curious that a man who has never been testing for EDTA using this equipment who doesn't have the equipment in his laboratory and who has to go to a lab to do this kind of laboratory test but can't do it on that equipment because it is not previously the same kind is going to come in here and start talking about is this EDTA or is this not EDTA. And what is important, all he is going to say is about his own admission in his own report is it is presumptive of. Let me give the Court a further understanding of why I think it is so potentially misleading and it is an example from Dr. Rieders' past, recent past. A very wellknown case in the southern California area, the sconce, s-c-o-n-c-e, case, oleander poisoning. The history, a gentleman was found dead in 1985, death attributed to cardiac arrest, a young man, a very overweight man and a man in the funeral business, a competitor of Mr. Sconce's. There was an informant who in about 1990 suggested that Mr. Sconce or that the victim, had been poisoned by oleander poisoning. As a result of which the Ventura County District Attorney's office retained the services of Dr. Rieders to perform an analysis of various substances preserved from autopsy to determine the presence of something called oleandrin which is part and parcel of the oleander plant and is a toxin. Let me read the Court just very briefly Dr. Rieders' testimony at the preliminary hearing in 1990, October 4th, regarding his findings. "In this case three independent tests were done; thin layer chromatography, fluorescent spectrophotometry and radioimmunoassay. These are physiochemically different things. The chances that a substance has all the properties in all three tests in common and is in actuality another substance," and his opinion was that these tests showed it was oleandrin, "From experience are so extremely remote that one then has a very high degree of scientific certainty that if one says that this is oleandrin, in fact it is. A hundred percent, never. For a hundred percent you go to the seminary because that depends on faith. Science is never a hundred percent, it is statistical, and it is reasonably certain that chances are remote. And if you want to go over into the area of, in that area, the hand of all mighty God can make anything happen, so possibilities of course are there, but it is a high degree of reasonable scientific certainty and the operative word is `reasonable' a scientist goes by reason and not by feeling." Well, the Defense attorney for Mr. Sconce didn't think going by feeling was a very good way to go either, so he proposed having additional and more sophisticated tests performed. And guess what? The Prosecution, which included Mr. Giss of our office as a specially designated Prosecutor for Ventura County, agreed to split the $20,000 bill to have the sophisticated testing done using LCMS/MS equipment at Cornell University, incidentally, where Mr. MacDonell, I believe, makes his headquarters, Cornell, New York, and that the testing was to be done to determine the presence or absence of oleandrin and another metabolite product. And guess what? Wasn't there. The testing by Dr. Henion demonstrated that what Mr.--Dr. Rieders was willing to say to reasonable scientific certainty, not to a hundred percent because he is not God, it wasn't there. And guess what happened? A man charged with a potential capital offense saw his case dismissed as a result of Dr. Henion's findings. And guess what further happened, your Honor? Because I'm sure the Court understands that before the Prosecutor is going to dismiss a potential capital murder offense based upon an expert's finding he is going to want to go back to the original expert, Dr. Rieders, and say explain, please, where is Dr. Henion wrong? Tell us. Dr. Rieders--I talked to Mr. Giss in Miss Clark's office on Friday--basically gave a rambling nonresponsive answer, but a newspaper account of the story is succinct and to the point. From the April 4th, 1991 Los Angeles Times. "Henion reported last week that he had found no signs of oleandrin but he said he was still looking for substances created when oleandrin breaks down in the body. After trial recessed, when Henion testified with his results, no evidence of poison. Rieders, reached at his home near Philadelphia, said he could not account for the difference between his finding and Henion's. "In science' Rieders said, quote, `nothing is unquestionable,' unquote. Now, your Honor, I submit that this is exactly why presumptive test results should not be given to this jury under 352, because they are so misleading. They are not probative. Dr. Rieders cannot say what other compounds could produce the findings that the lab reports from Mr. Marks indicate, and to allow Dr. Rieders to give presumptive testing when the Court sustained Defense objections to presumptive testing is not to be fair to both sides in this case using basically the same rule of law applied to the same general aspect of the case. Now, as the Court will recall when I was last here arguing the admissibility of Mr. Simpson's statement on the exercise video, I argued something on the assumption the Court may not accept my position that the statement was admissible. That is, I wanted the tape played to show the physical movement. I make the same statement now that I made then, your Honor, that I believe this motion should be granted, but I also feel it incumbent on myself to raise additional points in the event the Court feels that the motion is not well taken. No. 1, the oleandrin incident is a clear mistake by Dr. Rieders, which using the rationale of the Defense with respect to Dr. Golden--and of course that is really why I'm done here because I have some familiarity with the evidentiary issues on this issue where the issue is the competency of the expert witness--the Court found that these specific examples of mistakes become admissible. And here, unlike Dr. Golden with gunshot wounds versus knife wounds, here we have the very same process taking place. Are we looking at something which is indicative of, consistent with and presumptive for the chemical or are we identifying the chemical in the substance? Big difference. And that is exactly what is at issue here, because I believe--I submit to the Court the evidence will show that in fact this is not EDTA. Agent Martz' unpreserved blood gave the same result as was found on the stains from the glove and from the gate, not a quantitative result, but showing the same pattern, unpreserved. That is a pretty interesting finding with respect to whether we carry EDTA in our systems, if it is EDTA, or whether there is some other compound that gives the same pattern. So no. 1, the issue of does he get cross-examined if he testifies about his mistake, I submit to the Court using parity of reason he gets cross-examined. No. 2, and I mentioned this to Miss Clark is really why I thought it important that I come down and argue this point, because the Court will recall in cross-examining Dr. Golden Mr. Shapiro wanted to cross-examine Dr.-- I'm sorry--cross-examine Dr. Lakshmanan, wanted to cross-examine Dr. Lakshmanan regarding the legal implications from the mistakes in the Gaye Phillips case which Dr. Golden acknowledged making. The Court will recall that area of proposed cross-examination, and I objected to it on, among other grounds, that it is irrelevant and that was because the issue for the mistake went to the competency of Dr. Golden. But I submit to the Court that it is proper cross-examination of Dr. Rieders to show the legal implications from his failure and refusal to acknowledge that he was wrong, because now we are not talking about his competency, we are talking about his bias. Dr. Rieders put his professional standing, his ability to get future business, his ability to retain his position as director of a laboratory, above the liberty rights of Mr. Sconce, rather than acknowledge that Dr. Henion's more sophisticated test proved that in fact there was no oleandrin poisoning. He takes the position in science "Nothing is unquestionable." Goes to bias, the legal ramifications. So I submit to the Court that if Dr. Rieders gets to testify, he gets cross-examined not only about the mistake, but he gets cross-examined regarding his response to that mistake and the legal implications from his failure or refusal to acknowledge it as a mistake because he needed to place his selfish interests above those of Mr. Sconce, the criminally charged Defendant. So again, your Honor, I raise these two points not because I believe our motion to preclude his testimony in its entirety is not well taken; I raise these points because I don't know how the Court is going to rule and I want to give the Court the full picture of what I believe are issues related to Dr. Rieders' proposed testimony.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.

MR. KELBERG: May I have just one moment, your Honor?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: Good morning, your Honor.

THE COURT: Good morning, counsel.

MR. BLASIER: Let me talk about the second issue first. I think it is just absolutely outrageous that Mr. Kelberg would come in and read from a newspaper and argue that there has been some determination that Dr. Rieders made a mistake in the sconce case. If we want to litigate the sconce case, we can, but it is going to take us about a month. The testing that was done by Mr. Henion was done on a five-year old autopsy, a different autopsy, different tissue than the testing done by Dr. Rieders earlier. Dr. Henion in his reports, my understanding, acknowledges that perhaps what Dr. Rieders saw might have been there when he saw it, but because the second autopsy five years later might not show the same thing. The case was dismissed. There were other reasons for its dismissal. We can litigate that from here to Sunday. And it is absolutely ludicrous to say that they should be able to cross-examine him on that kind of a case where there has been no legal determination that any mistake was made. In fact no mistake was made. These are contrary opinions on scientific evidence which happens all the time. And the notion that Mr. Kelberg would come in and raise his voice because a scientist would say he is not certain about something is outrageous. No scientist is going to get up there and tell you he is absolutely positive about anything if he's a real scientist. So I make a motion that they not be allowed to cross-examine on that issue at all. On 352 grounds, certainly, and a lack of showing that there is any legal basis to cross-examine. As to the first issue, on whether this is a presumptive test or not, first of all, Mr. Kelberg has not read Dr. Rieders' report carefully. His report states that the testing done by the FBI does show the presence of EDTA in the bloodstain from the sock and from the gate. There is no language about "Presumptive for" in that part of his report. The second part of the report where he tries to attribute a source as to where this could have come from is where he uses the term "Presumptive" not in the sense of a phenolphthalein test where the phenolphthalein test we know that there are a lot of common-occurring substances that can give the same response as blood and therefore it is only a test that narrows it down somewhat, could have been something else, so they have to do follow-up tests to confirm it. These are not presumptive tests. I find it fascinating that Mr. Kelberg would use Mr. Henion's LCMS/MS test to go prove that Dr. Rieders made a mistake when he is claiming now that LCMS/MS is just a presumptive test. That is the same testing that was done in this case. They might say that there are hundreds of compounds that could give this pattern. They can't name a single one. I asked Agent Martz. He can't name a single one. They have not looked at all eleven million organic compounds. There may be eleven billion in the universe, we don't know. So you can't absolutely say that there isn't something else out there that we have never seen before that might give this same pattern. That doesn't make it a presumptive test. I'm assuming that the Los Angeles District Attorney's office has been prosecuting people for years based on LCMS tests or GC/MS tests which has less information than the tests run by the FBI in this case. Those tests have been used since the seventies to demonstrate that you have a particular substance in your blood, for instance. They are not presumptive tests. There is no case that says they are a presumptive test. They are determinative tests. They can make arguments that maybe there is some other compound out there somewhere, the name of which we do not know, that might give the same result, and Agent Marks will say that and Dr. Rieders will say that also, but they will say the only compound they know that gives everything we see, the right retention time, the right parent ion and the right daughter ion and the right characteristic you must have before something can even be tested, is EDTA. And Dr. Rieders will say in his opinion this is EDTA because it meets every one of those characteristics. On the electrospray issue, electrospray is a process by which you move from the chromatography stage to the mass spec stage. With liquid chromatography you are working with a liquid that has to be converted to a gas before you can do the mass spec part of it. All electrospray does is change the liquid to the gas. It doesn't change the ions. It doesn't change the compound. It doesn't change the measurement system. You still wind up with chromatograms that you look at and you analyze. Saying that this should be determinative of whether an expert testifies is like saying that Julia Childs can't tell you anything about cooking because she doesn't use a Cuisinart. It is one technique that is used as one step in the process. It doesn't change anything. You wind up with a chromatogram that is interpreted just like they all are. So I would submit that this is clearly not a presumptive test, and further, that the Prosecution should not be allowed to cross-examine on the sconce case or any other case that they may not have mentioned, unless they present it beforehand, so that we can litigate that as well.

MR. KELBERG: May I just briefly respond, your Honor?

THE COURT: Briefly.

MR. KELBERG: No. 1, just for consistency, it is Dr. Henion; it is not Mr. Henion. No. 2, it is a more sophisticated test than any of the tests that Dr. Rieders used. No. 3, the evidence is clear Dr. Rieders--in fact, we have his article "A quest for oleandrin in decayed human tissue"--noted his findings showed it wasn't there and he doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Dr. Rieders having been possibly correct in the past with respect to his analysis. If that were the case, this case might still have been prosecuted. We are not inclined to lightly dismiss capital murder cases, your Honor. That is dismissed because of the overpowering and overwhelming and compelling nature of Dr. Henion's results. Last thing is, who is the proponent of this evidence? The people at the left side of counsel table to my left. It is their responsibility to show no other compound. It is not our responsibility to say, oh, gee, you know, there is only one or two others or maybe a couple hundred. It is their responsibility when they are talking about it is presumptive of, and that is really what the conclusion is. The issue for this jury is, hey, where does this stuff come from? If it is EDTA, where does it come from? And that is this issue that the jury is being asked to decide when in fact the expert, the best he is going to say is it is presumptive for. If he is using the language, I didn't put words in his mouth, I didn't put the words in this report; he wrote them. He should have to live by them. I submit for all the reasons previously expressed, your Honor, he should be precluded from testifying. But if the Court feels differently than I on this, that the two areas of inquiry that I have indicated are appropriate, Dr. Henion's--I asked Mr. Hodgman to make sure he is available to clear the air should there be any air need clearing regarding what the test results were and I have every expectation that he would be available.

THE COURT: All right. For the purposes of the record, Mr. Blasier, do we have Dr. Rieders' report marked as an exhibit at this point?

MR. BLASIER: I don't think we do. We provided it to the Court last week.

THE COURT: I think we should have--I think for the purpose of the appellate court I think we need to have a copy here.

MR. BLASIER: I will submit my copy, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. The 352 objection as to Dr. Rieders' testimony regarding his testing for the presence of EDTA, the objection is overruled. I will allow his testimony. The cross-examination as to other testing in other cases done by Dr. Rieders appears to be a fair game for cross-examination. Legal ramifications, however, of scientific testing, appears to the Court to be a 352 problem because there are many explanations as to why things are done legally. It is an apple and oranges argument. So the objection by the Defense as to legal ramifications is sustained. All right. For the purposes of the record we will mark a copy of Dr. Rieders' report as Court's exhibit 18.

(Court's 18 for id = Dr. Rieders' report)

THE COURT: All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-29   18:11:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#288. To: misterwhite (#283)

It was?!? Well, according to you that's a dumb idea, isn't it? After all, you DID say:

"That is pretty much the dumbest idea that I have seen. If you have an expert source to back you up on touch the evidence with a swab to see if it is wet, please present it."

You claimed you would touch the glove with a swab to see if it was wet. Are you really idiot enough to touch a glove with a wet swab to see if the glove is wet?

You claimed "It appears as though no one at the scene touched the glove with a sterile swab to see if the blood was wet or dry." And, you rhetorically ask and answer, "How do you think the blood evidence was collected from the crime scene? Answer: With a sterile swab."

The wet swab was not used for evidence collection, it was used in a phenolphthalein test allegedly performed by you know who. It was not allegedly using a wet swab to see if the glove was wet. Using a wet swab would rather defeat the purpose of testing to see if the glove was wet. Brilliant minds, such as your own, may disagree.

Of course, this clown got caught in so many lies that it is difficult to give credence to anything he said.

If the condition of the glove (ie., if it's wet or dry) was significant, then why wasn't that checked out at the scene?

Perhaps it was because the geniuses in charge were called Dumb and Dumber. But Dumb observed that the indicia of the glove being moist and sticky were there, and the indicia of the glove being dry were absent.

While you are at it, why did they not collect the blood drops off the back of Nicole Brown Simpson's body? You never know, there may have been some of the killer's blood. I would have given it serious consideration as evidence to be preserved.

Why did the autopsy doctor throw out the stomach contents? It made determining the time of death more difficult, with the prosecution resorting to attaching the time of death to a barking dog.

As for the Crime Scene Identification Check List at Rockingham:

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, while you were going to the Rockingham location in the truck, was there any conversation with respect to filling out the crime scene identification checklist, the Officer in Charge portion?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, at this time I would like to take a look at People's 161 identification.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Miss Mazzola, is the resolution on your screen good enough so that you can--

MS. MAZZOLA: Not really.

MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe we can just focus in on the area that says "OIC name." Okay. You need to pull the paper a little bit over to the right.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, can you recognize this?

MS. MAZZOLA: Right.

MR. GOLDBERG: And did you--is this your handwriting?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it is.

MR. GOLDBERG: And your name is where it says "Officer in Charge"?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

The crime scene identification check list identifies Andrea Mazzola as the Officer-in-Charge.

Blood evidence is collected on swatches, not swabs or Q-tips. When all else fails, read the testimony. It tells you explicitly how the blood evidence is collected, and the procedures for recording the place and time collected. The criminalists first west to Rockingham, upon leaving Rockingham went to Bundy, and later returned to Rockingham. It was on the return visit to Rockingham that the magic sock was collected.

First the basics of evidence collection and documentation, and then I will proceed to the actual collection of the magic sock. This is foundational to discussing who collected the magic sock and when. Your magic 8-ball does not apply.

MR. GOLDBERG: Using this demonstration board, can you describe for us, starting with the first cell on People's 162, the steps that are involved in collecting a stain?

MS. MAZZOLA: May I--

MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe we can see that--can we see that cell?

THE COURT: All right. Miss Mazzola, can you see it on your monitor here?

MS. MAZZOLA: Oh, okay.

THE COURT: Sorry?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. That shows two spots, blood spots, that are numbered.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And is the first phase in this collection stated on the board the numbering and measuring phase?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it is.

MR. GOLDBERG: And is there a documentation aspect to that phase as well?

MS. MAZZOLA: The location, measurements, the photo i.d. Numbers and a brief description are noted on the evidence collection sheet.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And are the items also photographed before they are collected?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, they are.

MR. GOLDBERG: So all of that occurs prior to the physical collection?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, directing your attention to cell no. 2 that says "Dampened swatch," what is involved in this stage of the collection procedure?

MS. MAZZOLA: A small cloth swatch of the approximate size you need is selected with a pair of clean tweezers. A drop of distilled water is put on the swatch. It is then shaken so any excess water is shaken off.

MR. GOLDBERG: And directing your attention now to cell no. 3 that says "Collect substrate control," what is done in this phase of the correction procedure?

MS. MAZZOLA: The cloth swatch is placed on the substrate, the concrete or whatever, as close to the stain as possible, but without getting it in the stain, to get a background control of what the sample is on.

MR. GOLDBERG: What does the term "Substrate" mean?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is just the substance that the item of interest is on.

MR. GOLDBERG: So if the item of interest, for example, instead of being on a walkway, were on a wall, what would be the substrate?

MS. MAZZOLA: The wall would be the substrate.

MR. GOLDBERG: Or if it were on clothing, what would be the substrate?

MS. MAZZOLA: The clothing.

MR. GOLDBERG: What is the purpose of taking this control that is near the stain but not on the stain?

MS. MAZZOLA: Well, it could be used for two factors: One is to provide a background, what the sample was on, so when they go to run tests on the sample, they can see if the background itself would interfere with the tests. The control can also be checked for DNA or other items of interest to see if any contamination took place.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, so this control is basically just a blank swatch that has water on it that is put on the concrete in this example?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: So do you handle this piece of evidence exactly--or this piece of swatch exactly the same way that you would handle a swatch that was actually put on the stain?

MS. MAZZOLA: It is handled the same way.

MR. GOLDBERG: Why is it that you use the identical handling procedures for the substrate control that you would use for a swatch that was actually put on the stain?

MS. MAZZOLA: Because you want them to be as identical as possible. The only difference being one will contain the item of interest; the other won't.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, directing your attention to cell no. 4 on People's 1--excuse me--162 for identification, what phase of the collection procedure is shown here?

MS. MAZZOLA: It looks like the cloth swatch is being placed into a small plastic envelope, small plastic bag. The control is placed in one bag.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And now directing your attention to cell no. 5 that says "Clean tweezers"-- excuse me. I'm sorry. Now, directing your attention to cell no. 5, that says "Clean tweezers" in our demonstration?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. After the control is taken, the tweezers are cleaned with distilled water and a chem wipe, which is like a laboratory Kleenex.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, directing your attention to cell no. 6, which says on our board "Take new swatch, then dampen it," what does this phase of the collection procedure involve?

MS. MAZZOLA: Our swatches are stored in plastic tubes so you have to take a small selection of them out of the tube without handling them and then you can select the correct size that you need, so that is what is being shown.

MR. GOLDBERG: How do you decide which size to take?

MS. MAZZOLA: It depends on the size of the stain. You want to select a size swatch that is small enough that--so when you apply it to the stain you would get it as concentrated as possible.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in this particular photograph it is kind of hard for me to see that there are actually swatches in that little bottle, but is that what you are saying?

MS. MAZZOLA: Right.

MR. GOLDBERG: The swatches come from that bottle?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's right.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, let's take a look at cell no. 7 that says "Collect stain" and "Number card removed" is in parentheses. What are you doing here?

MS. MAZZOLA: That would be the actual collection of the stain.

MR. GOLDBERG: And did you have to dampen the swatch before you--

MS. MAZZOLA: Right, the same as with the control. You dampen the swatch, shake off the excess water, then you apply the swatch to the stain.

MR. GOLDBERG: And finally taking a look at cell no. 8 that says, "Package stain in same envelope with substrate control," what is involved in this procedure?

MS. MAZZOLA: The swatch with the stain is placed in a separate plastic envelope. Both the control and the swatch with the item you are interested in are placed in the same coin envelope with the item number written on the outside.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now when you are--thank you.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you are collecting one of these stains, do you collect one stain at a time?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And I want to ask you some questions about different things that could happen when you are collecting a stain. Do you--do you ever drop the tweezers while you are doing that?

MS. MAZZOLA: That can happen.

MR. GOLDBERG: What happens if you do that?

MS. MAZZOLA: You clean them all over again.

MR. GOLDBERG: When you are taking a swatch that actually has blood on it, do you ever drop that bloody swatch?

MS. MAZZOLA: That has never happened to me.

MR. GOLDBERG: When you are pouring the--maybe pouring is not the right word, but you are taking some of those little swatches out of the container, the little pill bottle--

MS. MAZZOLA: Uh-huh.

MR. GOLDBERG: --do those swatches ever fall?

MS. MAZZOLA: They do occasionally, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: What do you do with those swatches?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't use them.

MR. GOLDBERG: Could you use them as substrate controls?

MS. MAZZOLA: You could.

MR. GOLDBERG: But you do not do that?

MS. MAZZOLA: But I personally don't do that.

MR. GOLDBERG: So you just throw them away?

MS. MAZZOLA: Right.

MR. GOLDBERG: When you are picking up a swatch, do any of the swatches ever stick together?

MS. MAZZOLA: That happens sometimes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. What do you do in that kind of instance?

MS. MAZZOLA: If you are taking either the control or the actual item, you can use both swatches.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But what if you have two swatches stuck together? Do you try to separate them or is it possible that you could apply both of them to the stain at the same time, without knowing it?

MS. MAZZOLA: You can tell if two of them are stuck together. Umm, you separate them and you--you use one swatch at a time, either to pick up the control or to pick up the stain itself.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And what about the labeling of the coin envelopes? Have you ever mislabeled one of those by writing the wrong item number?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. When are they--when are the envelopes labeled in relationship to when the collection takes place? Before--

MS. MAZZOLA: The envelopes were labeled before.

MR. GOLDBERG: So do you put the--if you are collecting stain no. 5, for example--

MS. MAZZOLA: Uh-huh.

MR. GOLDBERG: --in our demonstration, you are going to put that in an envelope that is labeled what?

MS. MAZZOLA: No. 5.

MR. GOLDBERG: And that would be done before you moved on to no. 6?

MS. MAZZOLA: Right.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you were at the Rockingham location did you place your initials on all the coin envelopes as you were collecting them?

MS. MAZZOLA: At the time I thought I did. Looking back I apparently didn't.

MR. GOLDBERG: And do you recall testifying at what we've been referring to or sometimes referred to as a griffin hearing on August 23, I believe, of 1994?

MS. MAZZOLA: I remember testifying at the griffin hearing.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And in that--when you were testifying at that hearing at that time, did you believe that you had put all of your initials or your initials on all of the items that you had collected on the 13th?

MS. MAZZOLA: At that time I believe I had.

MR. GOLDBERG: And did you since learn that you did not?

MS. MAZZOLA: Right.

MR. NEUFELD: Objection. What she assumes is hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Did you since look at photographs of some of the items collected?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And have you learned that you did not?

MS. MAZZOLA: I learned I had not.

MR. GOLDBERG: On the other scenes that you had processed--

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I'm sorry. Move to strike the last answer. It is conclusionary as opposed to testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, on the other stains--excuse me--other scenes that you had collected stains on prior to the 13th, had you initialed on those occasions?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And why wasn't that done here at the scene?

MS. MAZZOLA: I was told that there were only two of us that--

MR. NEUFELD: Objection as to what she was told.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Without telling us what was said, was there a conversation about this?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And after the conversation did--was there some conclusion that was arrived at?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what was the conclusion?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: What is the basis?

MR. NEUFELD: Hearsay again.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: There were only going to be two of us at the scenes collecting evidence. We were working as a team, so it really didn't matter if our initials were on the envelopes since we were working as a team.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, as to the crime scene identification checklist that we talked a little bit about, when you testified at the griffin hearing, what was your understanding of how that checklist was supposed to be used?

MS. MAZZOLA: At the time I thought that everything had to be filled out. The other scenes that I had gone on they had filled out the checklist.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Maybe we can see a portion. I think it is 1107.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Let's just take a look at the last page of the exhibit. It is 1107 for identification.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Fairtlough, what page number is that? They are numbered at the top.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Page 2 of 2.

MR. GOLDBERG: I don't think it has a number. It is the one that has 17, 18 and 19.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. GOLDBERG: Or 18, 17 and 19.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Is this the form that you use out in the field when you are collecting evidence?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: It is a little blurry there.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, prior to testifying at the griffin hearing did you believe that every single box in every single column needed to be filled out?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And as a result of your training and experience after the griffin hearing, did you learn something different?

MS. MAZZOLA: I learned that this is a general guideline for us. Some of the boxes really don't apply to us at the scene.

MR. GOLDBERG: When did you start--when did you learn that?

MS. MAZZOLA: Right after I testified at the griffin hearing.

MR. GOLDBERG: And got back to the laboratory?

MS. MAZZOLA: Right.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. With respect to the time column, have you noticed now, based upon the experience that you have to date, that different criminalists in the Los Angeles Police Department have different practices with respect to how they fill out that column?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And how is that used?

MS. MAZZOLA: Some fill out every single individual time that something is collected. Others put a starting time that they start collecting evidence and an ending time when they stop. Everything that is collected is collected while you are at the scene, so it happens between those two times.

MR. GOLDBERG: And then are there some people that use what I guess you might call an intermediate type usage of that time column and put in some times, as you did on the 13th?

MS. MAZZOLA: Right.

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Sustained. The answer is stricken. Rephrase the question.

MR. GOLDBERG: Are there some people that use an intermediate technique?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, getting back to the collection of the evidence at Rockingham, perhaps we can take a look at People's 120 for identification. It is the board of Rockingham, the outside stains.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to People's 120 for identification, do you recognize what is depicted here?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is not showing up.

MR. GOLDBERG: It is not going to be on the monitor. Maybe you can just step down for a moment and take a look at this.

MS. MAZZOLA: Okay. Yes, I recognize it.

MR. GOLDBERG: And are these photographs that depict various items that you participated in collecting on the 13th at Rockingham?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Yes.

THE COURT: Overruled. May we have a side bar, your Honor?

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you were doing the physical collection on these, do you recall what order they were done in? Were they done in numerical order?

MS. MAZZOLA: For the most part, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And would that mean that you started with the stains that are down towards the gate?

MS. MAZZOLA: The first stain that was collected was on--excuse me--on the door of the Bronco.

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you know who physically collected that?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know who physically collected that.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear.

MS. MAZZOLA: Excuse me. I was the one who collected the one on the Bronco.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the stains that are leading from the Bronco into the driveway area, did you and Dennis Fung physically collect those--

MR. NEUFELD: Objection as to her and Dennis Fung.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, can you tell us, when you first started the collection, can you be more specific as to who was doing what in terms of the physical collection?

MS. MAZZOLA: As I said, I was the one that collected the stain offer the Bronco, and Mr. Fung collected the stain on the street. When we got to the driveway, he did, I believe it was like the first two stains, and I took over from there and was the one who physically collected the rest.

MR. GOLDBERG: With respect to the other stains, do you have a recollection of whether he physically participated in collecting any of those?

MS. MAZZOLA: He was present for some.

MR. GOLDBERG: So at the beginning of the stains he was doing more of the physical collection and then towards the end less?

MS. MAZZOLA: Right.

MR. GOLDBERG: And with respect to the first phase of the collection procedure, the documentation, the numbering and the measuring phase, how did the two of you work together to accomplish that?

MS. MAZZOLA: We worked as a team.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, with respect to the stains at the end of the outdoor area, stain no. 7 and stain no. 8, do you recall where Dennis Fung was around the time that those were collected?

MS. MAZZOLA: At first he was not present, but as I kept working, he came up.

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you recall whether anyone else was present at the time those stains were collected?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: In the immediate area?

MS. MAZZOLA: There was someone in the immediate area.

MR. GOLDBERG: Who was that?

MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Steve Johnson.

MR. GOLDBERG: Who is he?

MS. MAZZOLA: He is the assistant lab director.

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you know where Dennis Fung was at the time that he was not present?

MS. MAZZOLA: No, I don't.

MR. GOLDBERG: Where he went?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: But he went somewhere and at some point came back?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the stains at the Rockingham location, were--was every single last stain collected or were there some that were not collected?

MS. MAZZOLA: There were some that were not collected.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what is your training with respect to the need to collect every stain as opposed to less than all the stains?

MS. MAZZOLA: Well, on a trail you want to get a representative sample, you want to get the first few stains, you want to pick up the last few stains. The ones in between, as long as they appear to be going in the general direction, there is nothing out of the ordinary with them, not every single stain has to be collected.

MR. GOLDBERG: And is that the technique that you and Mr. Fung used with respect to collecting these stains?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right--you can--I want to ask you some questions that you may have to refer to your crime scene identification checklist for, so you may want to return to the stand.

MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.)

THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg, are you going to refer back to this exhibit, People's 120, for a minute.

MR. GOLDBERG: I want to talk about stains, unless logistically we can't do that.

THE COURT: Well, if you are going to be referring to it, proceed.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. With respect to the stains numbered 4 through 6 on our diagram, with the photo i.d. Numbers, 4 through 6, down towards the beginning portion of the driveway, can you tell us the time frame that those stains were collected?

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry, your Honor. The record should reflect that the witness is refreshing her recollection from some notes. May I approach the witness and see?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.

THE COURT: Miss Mazzola, what are you referring to?

MS. MAZZOLA: I'm referring to the crime scene notes.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Proceed.

MS. MAZZOLA: They were collected around nine o'clock, all within a few minutes of each other.

MR. GOLDBERG: And with respect to the stains that are up towards the--close to the entrance area, stain no. 7, stain no. 8, what was the time frame of those stains?

MS. MAZZOLA: Those were approximately ten to fifteen minutes later.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you have some time frames in your crime scene identification checklist to give us?

MS. MAZZOLA: Item 7 was collected approximately 9:10. Item 8, approximately fifteen minutes later.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, when you were at the location, from what you saw of all of the stains, did any of them appear to have been stepped in?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, before--I can take this down now, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Mr. Fairtlough, why don't you swing that around.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Before you left the Rockingham location, did you and Mr. Fung do any--go through any process in terms of double-checking the evidence that you had?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: What was that?

MS. MAZZOLA: We knew what item numbers we collected. We look at each individual item to make sure that we had everything.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And is that a routine thing that you have done on the other crime scenes that you were on before this?

MS. MAZZOLA: At the other crime scenes we make sure that we have everything that we collected.

MR. GOLDBERG: What did you do with the various coin envelopes that you had with the biological evidence of them--in them?

MS. MAZZOLA: They were put in a small paper bag.

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you recall whether they were lying down or standing up?

MS. MAZZOLA: They were standing up.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what was done with the paper bag?

MS. MAZZOLA: The paper bag was put into the back of the crime scene truck.

MR. GOLDBERG: Was the crime scene truck locked?

MS. MAZZOLA: All the time.

MR. GOLDBERG: Approximately what time was it that you left the Rockingham location?

MS. MAZZOLA: It was approximately ten o'clock, somewhere around there.

MR. GOLDBERG: Were you wearing gloves during the collection procedure of the biological evidence at Rockingham?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And do you know whether you were wearing the same pair of gloves the whole time?

MS. MAZZOLA: I probably changed gloves. I don't remember how many times, but--

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor, speculative. She said "I probably," and move to strike the answer.

THE COURT: Strained. Rephrase the question. Excuse me. The jury is to disregard the last answer and question.

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you have a practice at a crime scene to wear the same pair of gloves throughout the entire crime scene?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: What is your practice?

MS. MAZZOLA: I change the gloves when they start getting uncomfortable. If I am done possessing an area and I am moving on to a completely separate area, I will change gloves.

MR. GOLDBERG: By the way, just going back for a second to the blood collection procedure, can you-- do you ever touch the blood with your gloved hands?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: When you are collecting it?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: What about the swatches?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Is that something that has happened to you by accident where you have touched a bloody swatch with your gloved hands?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, what do you do with the gloves that you are wearing at the time that you leave the Rockingham location? Do you keep them on?

MS. MAZZOLA: No. We take a paper bag which we label "Trash" and any trash that we generate, whether it is used gloves, swabs, chem wipes, anything, goes into this bag and we take it with us.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, after you left the Rockingham location where did you go?

MS. MAZZOLA: We went to Bundy.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-29   18:15:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#289. To: misterwhite (#288)

Dennis Fung, 4 April 1995

In this section Dennis Fung clearly identified Item 13 as the magic socks.

THE COURT: IT'S A GOOD THING THERE'S NO WIND IN THIS PLACE.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: MR. FUNG, I AM DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO WHAT'S BEEN MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 169 AND IS ENTITLED "ROCKINGHAM INTERIOR BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE." DID YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THIS EXHIBIT PRIOR TO THE TIME IT WAS BROUGHT DOWN TO COURT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE CALL OUT NUMBER THAT SAYS 14, WHAT DOES THAT SHOW? WHAT AREA OF THE RESIDENCE DOES THAT SHOW?

A: THAT IS IN THE MASTER BATH -- BATHROOM.

Q: SO THAT WOULD BE DEPICTING THE UPSTAIRS OF THE HOUSE?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT DO THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT ARE ATTACHED TO ITEM 14 SHOW?

A: THE PHOTOGRAPH ON THE RIGHT DEPICTS CRIMINALIST MAZZOLA DISPLAYING THE RESULTS OF A PHENOLPHTALEIN TEST AND THE PHOTOGRAPH ON THE LEFT IS A CLOSE-UP AND YOU CAN SEE THE STAIN HERE (INDICATING).

Q: OKAY. YOU'RE POINTING TO AN AREA THAT'S JUST TO THE RIGHT ON THIS PHOTOGRAPH ABOUT AN INCH AND A HALF OR SO FROM THE CARD?

A: YES.

Q: AND IS THE OTHER PHOTOGRAPH TO THE LEFT SIMPLY A PERSPECTIVE SHOT DEMONSTRATING THE SAME GENERAL THING?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE ITEM CALL OUT NO. 13, WHAT GENERAL AREA IS BEING POINTED TO THERE WITH THAT CALL OUT LINE? A: THAT IS THE MASTER BEDROOM.

Q: WHAT ABOUT THE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS THAT ARE ATTACHED TO THAT CALL OUT LINE? WHAT DO THOSE SHOW?

A: THOSE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS SHOW A PAIR OF DARK COLORED SOCKS ON THE THROW RUG.

Q: THOSE ARE THE SOCKS THAT YOU RECOVERED AND LISTED AS ITEM 13?

A: YES.

Q: AND NOW TO FINALLY DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE CALL OUT LINE THAT SAYS 12, WHAT GENERAL AREA OF THE HOUSE IS THAT POINTING TO?

A: THAT IS -- WELL, THOSE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS DEPICT THE FOYER OF THE HOUSE, WHICH IS THE ENTRANCE, AND THERE ARE THREE LARGE STAINS ON THE FLOOR. THAT IS A -- A CLOSE-UP OF THAT IS SHOWN IN THE RIGHT PICTURE.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dennis Fung, 18 April 1995

In this section Dennis Fung provides testimonial evidence of when the magic socks were collected.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what time was 12 collected, approximately, according to the crime scene identification checklist?

MR. FUNG: According to the checklist, it was collected at 4:30.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And do you recall my asking you on recross whether you were sure about whether 13 was collected before 14?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Are you a hundred percent sure?

MR. FUNG: Not a hundred percent sure, no.

MR. GOLDBERG: Which one do you think was collected first?

MR. FUNG: I think the socks and item 13 were collected first.

MR. GOLDBERG: Before 14?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: But you can't be a hundred percent sure?

MR. FUNG: I'm not a hundred percent sure.

MR. GOLDBERG: When was 14, the item in the bathroom, master bathroom, collected, that stain?

MR. FUNG: That stain was collected around 4:40.

MR. GOLDBERG: So you are saying, I believe, that the socks were collected after 4:30--well, between 4:30 and 4:40, approximately?

MR. FUNG: In that general time frame, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And as far as you are concerned, Mr. Fung, does it make the slightest bit of difference that you can figure out, when they were collected within that general time frame?

MR. FUNG: No, it doesn't make any difference to me.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-30   23:40:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#290. To: nolu chan (#289)

I'd like to know which hand he used to pick up the socks, and if he was 100% sure he used that hand. And why that particular hand.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-01   9:44:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#291. To: nolu chan (#289) (Edited)

OJ did it. Justice would be one dead OJ.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-07-01   9:47:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#292. To: A K A Stone (#291)

Did it ever occur to the forensics team that just because the glove didn't fit OJ doesn't rule out that he didn't do it. Did they bother to turn the gloves inside out and dust for prints?

goldilucky  posted on  2017-07-01   18:58:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#293. To: misterwhite (#290)

I'd like to know which hand he used to pick up the socks, and if he was 100% sure he used that hand. And why that particular hand.

When did you say he collected the socks? I couldn't hear you.

I am still waiting for you to identify what evidence, produced at the criminal trial, would have justified a jury verdict of guilty. I the mean time I will keep posting testimonial evidence showing perjury and planting of evidence.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-01   23:33:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#294. To: A K A Stone (#291)

OJ did it. Justice would be one dead OJ.

This is not about whether OJ did it or not. It is about whether the prosecution in the criminal trial produced evidence that would have justified the jury returning a verdict of guilty.

Perjury and planted evidence don't get it. I could not get a straight answer to the question of when the socks were collected, so I am providing the testimony of when they were collected and how the collection was recorded. I have only just started on that. There is more to come.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-01   23:41:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#295. To: goldilucky, A K A Stone (#292)

Did it ever occur to the forensics team that just because the glove didn't fit OJ doesn't rule out that he didn't do it. Did they bother to turn the gloves inside out and dust for prints?

They were cashmere lined.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-02   1:36:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#296. To: misterwhite (#290)

I'd like to know which hand he used to pick up the socks, and if he was 100% sure he used that hand. And why that particular hand.

You just donot want to engage on when the magic socks were collected.

Dennis Fung, 11 April 1995, Cross examination by Barry Scheck

Note that Fung testifies to the collection of Item 12, downstairs, at 4:30 or thereabouts, recorded as 4:30, before he and Mazzola proceeded upstairs to continue collecting evidence, the first piece of evidence collected upstairs being Item 13, the socks, at an unrecorded time, and then Item 14 recorded at 4:40.

Q: AND THE -- THERE'S A BOX THERE THAT INDICATES TIMES; IS THERE NOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THEN STARTING AT I BELIEVE ITEM 11 -MR. SCHECK: IF WE COULD FOCUS ON THAT, MR. HARRIS, STARTING AT ITEM 11, IF YOU COULD ZERO IN ON THAT, MOVE IT JUST -- THAT'S IT. GREAT.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. ITEM 11 REPRESENTS THE FIRST ITEM THAT WAS COLLECTED WHEN YOU AND MISS MAZZOLA RETURNED TO ROCKINGHAM IN THE AFTERNOON?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU PUT DOWN THAT TIME AS 3:40 OR 1540 HOURS?

A: THAT WAS THE TIME THAT WAS PUT DOWN.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS THAT ACCURATE?

A: THAT'S THE GENERAL TIME FRAME THAT IT WAS COLLECTED.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN THE NEXT ITEM WAS A RED STAIN FROM THE FOYER AREA INSIDE ROCKINGHAM, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT ONE WAS COLLECTED AT 4:30?

A: YES.

Q: AND -

A: OR THEREABOUTS.

Q: OR THEREABOUTS. AND THE NEXT ITEM YOU COLLECTED WERE THE SOCKS?

A: YES.

Q: BUT THERE'S NO TIME INDICATED FOR THAT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND THE NEXT ITEM AFTER THAT YOU INDICATED WAS A RED STAIN THAT WAS FOUND IN THE MASTER BATHROOM?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT TIME IS AT 4:40?

A: YES.

Q: SO I BELIEVE IT WAS YOUR TESTIMONY ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT YOU COLLECTED THE SOCKS SOMETIME BETWEEN 4:30 AND 4:40?

A: ABOUT THEN, YES.

Q: AND THEN BEFORE YOU LEFT THE RESIDENCE, YOU COLLECTED TWO OTHER ITEMS, NUMBERS 15 AND 16, AND THOSE WERE AT 5:00 AND 5:05?

A: THE CHECKLIST STATES 15, 16 WERE COLLECTED AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME.

Q: WELL, WHAT TIMES WERE THOSE LISTED ON THE CHECKLIST? PERHAPS YOU COULD HELP. IT'S A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO SEE.

A: THEY BOTH SAY THE SAME TIME. 5:00 O'CLOCK.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-02   1:37:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#297. To: misterwhite (#290)

I'd like to know which hand he used to pick up the socks, and if he was 100% sure he used that hand. And why that particular hand.

I will continue to present actual testimonial evidence on the magic socks, and then move on to the magic blood drops on the side of the Bronco.

You have said there is no evidence of planting. I am feeding you the evidence.

Andrea Mazzola, 20 April 2017, Direct examination by Hank Goldberg

Ms. Mazzola testified she and Mr. Fung left Bundy at about 3:30 or 3:15 and returned to Rockingham around 3:30 or so. (Of interest for another time is why the trip took 15 to 30 minutes as the prosecution timeline for the killer puts the time at about 6 minutes.)

In recording a collection time, Andrea Mazzola recalled that she just glanced at her watch for the time.

Andrea Mazzola testified she personally did the physical swatching on Item 12 in the downstairs foyer, and personally recorded the time of collection in her own handwriting.

And,

MS. MAZZOLA: After item 12, item 13 was picked up.

MR. GOLDBERG: And after item no. 13, what was picked up?

MS. MAZZOLA: Item 14.

Ms. Mazzola testified that Item 14 was collected at 1640 (4:40 pm) and the collection time was reflected as such in her notes. It does not appear that Hank Goldberg bother to ask about the collection time of Item 12 on direct, but Peter Neufeld filled in the gap on cross.

As for Ms. Mazzola on cross by Peter Neufeld, she testified about the time of collection of Item 12:

MR. NEUFELD: All right. Well, what time did you actually pick up item no. 12? Did you record that in your notes?

MS. MAZZOLA: Let's see. Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And what time was that?

MS. MAZZOLA: 1630.

MR. NEUFELD: That would be 3:30--3:30. No. 4:30, 4:30 in the afternoon.

MS. MAZZOLA: 4:30.

That is 1630, or 4:30 p.m., prior to proceeding upstairs to continue evidence collection with Item 13, the socks.

I will provide a substantial excerpt of that cross examination shortly.

Ms. Mazzola continued. In this section, Ms. Mazzola provides testimonial evidence of who collected the Rockingham socks, and the time of collection.

For identification purposes, Item #13 was the magic socks.

MR. GOLDBERG: Approximately what time did you leave the Bundy location?

MS. MAZZOLA: Oh, it was approximately 3:15 or so, 3 o'clock, 3:15.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And where did you go after you left?

MS. MAZZOLA: We went back to Rockingham.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you take the crime scene truck?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what would you have done with the gloves that you had been wearing at the Bundy location when you left?

MS. MAZZOLA: They were taken off and put in the trash bag.

MR. GOLDBERG: Before you left, did you do the same evidence inventory procedure that you've described?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And do you have--are you--do you have an independent recollection of exactly where that took place?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not an exact recollection. I have an idea where it took place, but I can't be absolutely positive.

MR. GOLDBERG: Was it outdoors?

MS. MAZZOLA: It was outdoors, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Can you tell us in terms of being towards the front of the Bundy location? By that, I mean the Bundy side or to the rear towards the alley side?

MS. MAZZOLA: It was up front.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. What time did you return to the Rockingham location?

MS. MAZZOLA: Probably around 3:30 or so.

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you have any notes with you that you can use to give us the time that you collected the first item of evidence once you returned to Rockingham in the afternoon?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I do.

MR. GOLDBERG: Can you tell us? Do you have it memorized or do you need something?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't have it memorized.

MR. GOLDBERG: Please tell us what you are referring to to give us that information.

MS. MAZZOLA: Okay. I'm referring to the evidence collection sheet.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I am sorry. I'll object. I would say there has to be a proper foundation laid before she refreshes her recollection. She hasn't done that.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: Okay. This says 1540.

MR. GOLDBERG: So that's 3:40?

MS. MAZZOLA: 3:40.

MR. GOLDBERG: Was the notation as to the time in your handwriting or Mr. Fung's?

MS. MAZZOLA: My handwriting.

MR. GOLDBERG: And when you made that notation, how did you do it? Did you ask someone or look at your watch or what?

MS. MAZZOLA: I think I just glanced at my watch.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And this first item was stain no. 11?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: Which was on which side of the house?

MS. MAZZOLA: It was on the side of the house near the garage, on that end of the house.

MR. GOLDBERG: That little narrow walkway area?

MS. MAZZOLA: Right.

MR. GOLDBERG: And that's outdoors?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's outdoors.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, I would like to direct your attention back to some testimony at the Griffen hearing on page 758. Well, actually 757, line 25 through 758, line 4.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry? What lines?

MR. GOLDBERG: Line 25 and 758 to line 4.

THE COURT: Do you have that, Mr. Neufeld?

MR. NEUFELD: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Proceed.

MR. GOLDBERG: At the Griffen hearing, did you give the following answers to the following questions? "Question: And what time did you get back to Rockingham was it? "Answer: Right around 4 o'clock, somewhere in there. "Question: How do you know it was about 4 o'clock? "Answer: Because of the time that is noted that we collected the sample in the foyer." Do you remember giving that testimony?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So was this testimony that you got back there at 4 o'clock correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: And why did you testify that way?

MS. MAZZOLA: Because I was--just had a chance to glance at the notes as I was testifying.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, I would like to read you another passage that occurred just previously to that on page 757.

MR. GOLDBERG: Counsel, it's lines 12 through 15. 757, 12 through 15.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. GOLDBERG: Just previously to that, did you give the following answer to this question? "Question: So as soon as you got back to Rockingham, the first thing that you did was walk inside and lift item no. 12? "Answer: After it was photographed." Do you recall that?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: So was item no. 12 in fact the first item that you collected?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: So why did you think that item no. 12 was the first thing that you collected and that it was at 4 o'clock?

MS. MAZZOLA: Because as I said, I was just going off of the notes. I didn't have time to go through them and refresh my memory and I looked at the wrong line.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you--didn't you see no. 11 at that time when you were testifying at the Griffen hearing and looking over the crime scene identification checklist?

MS. MAZZOLA: I honestly don't remember.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But based upon the crime scene identification checklist, was item no. 11 in fact the first stain that you collected in the afternoon?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And who did the physical collection on that?

MS. MAZZOLA: I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, did you in fact collect a stain no. 12 in the foyer area of Rockingham?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Perhaps we can see People's 169, which is the interior Rockingham map.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Can you see this, Miss Mazzola? Directing your attention to the photographs on this exhibit that are labeled with photograph numbers--photograph no. 12 and the call out line, do those depict where this item was collected?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it does.

MR. GOLDBERG: And this was the first interior item?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: And who did the physical collection in terms of the swatching of this item?

MS. MAZZOLA: I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: Was Mr. Fung watching you on this item?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, he was.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, after collecting this item from the foyer area, where did you go in the location?

MS. MAZZOLA: We started making our way upstairs looking as we were going for any items of evidence.

MR. GOLDBERG: So you collected downstairs first before going upstairs?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: And when you got upstairs, did you go to the master bedroom area of the house?

MS. MAZZOLA: We did go there.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you see the item that's contained in photographs 13?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: And where were they?

MS. MAZZOLA: They were at the foot of the master bedroom bed.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And did you also see the item that's depicted in the photographs that are labeled 14?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what are you doing in this photograph?

MS. MAZZOLA: That-

MR. GOLDBERG: Photograph that shows you holding a q-tip.

MS. MAZZOLA: That is a simple presumptive test for blood.

MR. GOLDBERG: Is that the phenolphtalein test?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it is.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, if you look closely at that photograph, in the upper right-hand corner, you can see that there is some clothing on the ground. Can you see that? It's right behind the shower door. No. The one that has you doing the presumptive test.

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: The one that has photograph no. 14.

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you recall how that clothing got there?

MS. MAZZOLA: One of the detectives was looking through the clothing.

MR. GOLDBERG: Was that while you and criminalist Fung were in this master bathroom, master bedroom area?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it was.

MR. GOLDBERG: And prior to this detective looking at this item, where was the clothing?

MS. MAZZOLA: The clothing was in a clothes hamper. You can't really see that.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. That's fine. You can resume the witness stand.

MS. MAZZOLA: Thank you.

MR. GOLDBERG: So when the detective took the items out of the hamper, did he ever put them back in the hamper that you saw or did he just leave them on the floor?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if he put them back or not.

MR. GOLDBERG: But he did--but he did take them out and put them on the floor?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. You can take that down.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you know how the towels got on the floor?

MS. MAZZOLA: No, I don't.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, after collecting item no. 12, what was the next item number that you collected, that was collected in your presence?

MS. MAZZOLA: May I check my notes?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.

(Brief pause.)

MS. MAZZOLA: After item 12, item 13 was picked up.

MR. GOLDBERG: And after item no. 13, what was picked up?

MS. MAZZOLA: Item 14.

MR. GOLDBERG: And who physically collected item no. 13?

MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Fung.

MR. GOLDBERG: What time was item no. 14 collected?

MS. MAZZOLA: Approximately 1640.

THE COURT: And the record should reflect that Miss Mazzola is referring to her notes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And were you referring to the crime scene identification checklist?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I was.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, is there a time for 13 on that list or is it just 12 and 14?

MS. MAZZOLA: Just 12 and 14.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I would just like to clarify something before I ask my next question.

THE COURT: Yes. At the sidebar with the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, what do you need to clarify?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I know on 15 and 16, the airline ticket and the baggage claim--

THE COURT: Oh, no, not this again.

MR. GOLDBERG: That's why I wanted to approach, so I can make sure I'm not going to go--we've had testimony there was a 15 and 16 collected at 5 o'clock, but that's it, which from my view, it sort of went beyond the Court's-

MR. SCHECK: What do you want to do? Maybe we won't have any objection. Just tell us what you want to do.

MR. GOLDBERG: I was just going to ask her when 15 and 16 were collected, not ask what they were.

MR. NEUFELD: We have no objection.

THE COURT: Just that one question.

MR. GOLDBERG: I should have brought the transcript up with me, but there's some inconsistent statements she makes regarding when she left the location. She thought it was shortly after 5:00, and it's based on the time of the collection of 15 and 16. There's reference in that transcript to collectively 15 and 16, the airline ticket. My proposal would be simply not to read that, redact that out.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Does the transcript--Hank, does the transcript refer to where it was collected from though?

MR. GOLDBERG: Uh-uh. I don't think it does.

MR. NEUFELD: I mean-

MR. GOLDBERG: If it does, if it refers to anything else-

MR. NEUFELD: No. I'm saying it's fine to bring out the location. In fact, just to take care of it now, if you don't bring it out, we will bring it out later on. Just items were collected in the bathroom and items were collected on the bench outside the front door.

THE COURT: Okay. If they have no objection.

MR. GOLDBERG: I don't know. I mean if it wasn't suppressed, it wasn't suppressed. But if it were suppressed, it's suppressed.

THE COURT: No. What happened was, there was an agreement the People were not going to offer it rather than it being suppressed. But the objection has to be made by the Defense to suppress it or otherwise keep it out. If they have no objection, then I assume we can talk about it.

MR. NEUFELD: It's basically our decision--frankly, the way it was brought out on two separate occasions by the People as part of their direct case created an impression upon the jurors now there's something we're trying to hide rather. So it's only under that kind of pressure that we feel compelled to, you know, simply say where those items were.

THE COURT: Keep your voice down. But it's a tactical decision on your part. So if that's your decision, that's fine with me.

MR. SCHECK: In terms of the location and the item numbers.

THE COURT: Right. Location and item numbers. That's correct. And then you intend on going into time and we're agreed you will just read the part that says item 15 and 16, not what they are, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. May I just have one moment?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: Okay. Done.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: These are the most educational sidebars so far. All right. Thank you, counsel. Proceed.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Thank you. All right. And was there an item no. 15 and an item no. 16 that were collected? And just answer that yes or no.

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what time were those items collected?

MS. MAZZOLA: I thought at approximately 5 o'clock.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And that was according to your crime scene identification checklist?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: May I just have one moment, your Honor?

THE COURT: Certainly.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MR. GOLDBERG: And can you tell us the location of where, using your crime scene identification checklist, these two items were located, just the location?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: First of 15 and then of 16.

MS. MAZZOLA: 15 was collected in a downstairs bathroom trash can, 16 was collected from a bench outside the front door.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, I'd like to show you another tape that we've marked as People's 186 and then I'm going to ask you some questions about it. If you'd take a look at it.

THE COURT: Is this from Rockingham?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah. It's the beta tape from Rockingham.

(At 11:37 A.M., People's exhibit 186, a videotape, was played.)

MR. GOLDBERG: If we could just stop for one second. We're at frame 17:11.

MR. GOLDBERG: So if we assume that this is correct, this would be 5:11?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: And in this scene, what are you and criminalist Fung doing?

MS. MAZZOLA: We are putting items of evidence in the back of the crime scene truck.

MR. GOLDBERG: And would these be the items of evidence that you had collected in the afternoon at Rockingham?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, are you placing anything in addition to the evidence itself in the truck at this time?

MS. MAZZOLA: Our kits.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what are your kits?

MS. MAZZOLA: They are two cases that contain things we need to pick up evidence, package it at the scene.

MR. GOLDBERG: Do those contain all of your packaging materials?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, they do.

MR. GOLDBERG: And in addition to the bags, the brown paper bags that we've seen, what other kinds of packaging materials do you have?

MS. MAZZOLA: Plastics, bags, coin envelopes of varying sizes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So at this point in time, those items are being placed in the rear of the crime scene truck?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: And would this have been after you did the inventory for the afternoon items?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you know where physically that inventory took place?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know for sure, no.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Let's continue.

THE COURT: All right. Just for the record, that's 17:11 actually and 50 seconds because there's a lot in between.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Thank you, your Honor. If you could just stop for another second. So this is 17:11:57:02 that we're looking at.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you just lock the crime scene truck?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: So at this time, where is all of the evidence that was collected from the morning at Rockingham?

MS. MAZZOLA: In the back of the truck.

MR. GOLDBERG: And all of the evidence that was collected at Bundy?

MS. MAZZOLA: In the back of the truck.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what about the evidence that was collected in the afternoon?

MS. MAZZOLA: In the back of the truck.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Let's continue. If we could stop for just a second. I have another-- I have a question.

MR. GOLDBERG: And the crime scene identification checklist that we've been referring to, where is that at this time as you and Mr. Fung are walking away from the-

MS. MAZZOLA: That is also on the back of the truck.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-02   1:42:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#298. To: nolu chan (#297)

Ms. Mazzola testified she and Mr. Fung left Bundy at about 3:30 or 3:15 and returned to Rockingham around 3:30 or so. (Of interest for another time is why the trip took 15 to 30 minutes as the prosecution timeline for the killer puts the time at about 6 minutes.)

But wait! If they left Bundy at 3:30 and returned to Rockingham at 3:30, it took zero time, right?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-02   10:25:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#299. To: nolu chan (#297)

That entire line of questioning was useless. What a f**king waste of my time.

Next time make a pont and back it up with specific testimony, not the entire court transcript. If you don't, I will not read it or respond.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-02   10:32:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#300. To: nolu chan (#296)

Q: SO I BELIEVE IT WAS YOUR TESTIMONY ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT YOU COLLECTED THE SOCKS SOMETIME BETWEEN 4:30 AND 4:40?

OK. I read through all the testimony. The socks were collected between 4:30 and 4:40.

Your point?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-02   10:37:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#301. To: goldilucky (#292)

Did they bother to turn the gloves inside out and dust for prints?

The gloves were lined with cashmere.

Shapiro admitted he tried the glove on earlier. That could have torn the lining. Darden said, "I think Johnnie (Cochran) tore the lining. There were some additional tears in the lining so that O.J.'s fingers couldn't go all the way up into the glove."

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-02   10:47:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#302. To: misterwhite (#301)

The gloves were lined with cashmere.

Are you telling me that cashmere linen cannot be scanned for DNA?

goldilucky  posted on  2017-07-02   15:27:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#303. To: goldilucky (#302)

Are you telling me that cashmere linen cannot be scanned for DNA?

Scanned for DNA? I thought you said "dust for prints".

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-02   15:37:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#304. To: misterwhite (#303)

Well what do you think they dust for?

goldilucky  posted on  2017-07-02   20:51:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#305. To: goldilucky (#304)

Well what do you think they dust for?

Fingerprints.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-03   10:19:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#306. To: misterwhite (#298)

Ms. Mazzola testified she and Mr. Fung left Bundy at about 3:30 [sic 3:00] or 3:15 and returned to Rockingham around 3:30 or so. (Of interest for another time is why the trip took 15 to 30 minutes as the prosecution timeline for the killer puts the time at about 6 minutes.)

But wait! If they left Bundy at 3:30 and returned to Rockingham at 3:30, it took zero time, right?

Oh noes! You caught me in a typo. The transcript I provided did not contain my typo. In case you are still befuddled, here it is repeated from the transcript.

[excerpts from transcript at my #297]

MR. GOLDBERG: Approximately what time did you leave the Bundy location?

MS. MAZZOLA: Oh, it was approximately 3:15 or so, 3 o'clock, 3:15.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And where did you go after you left?

MS. MAZZOLA: We went back to Rockingham.

[...]

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. What time did you return to the Rockingham location?

MS. MAZZOLA: Probably around 3:30 or so.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-04   3:07:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#307. To: misterwhite (#300)

[misterwhite #299]

That entire line of questioning was useless. What a f**king waste of my time.

Next time make a pont and back it up with specific testimony, not the entire court transcript. If you don't, I will not read it or respond.

[misterwhite #300]

Q: SO I BELIEVE IT WAS YOUR TESTIMONY ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT YOU COLLECTED THE SOCKS SOMETIME BETWEEN 4:30 AND 4:40?

OK. I read through all the testimony. The socks were collected between 4:30 and 4:40.

Your point?

Very well, I will proceed consistent withy your representation that you have read all the testimony, and the socks were collected between 16:30 and 16:40.

Fung and Mazzola testified that they collected Item #12 downstairs at 4:30, before proceeding upstairs.

Where were the magic socks at 4:13? That's fifteen to twenty-five minutes before Fung went upstairs, discovered the black socks on the white carpet in the master bedroom, and collected them. The collection time is very relevant.

The videographer clearly testified that the socks were not there when he walked across the carpet, stood at the foot of the bed, and videoed the master bedroom at 4:13 p.m., according to the auto time record of his video recording. He also testified that he left the location at 4:30 p.m. as verified by the crime scene log maintained by the police.

The magic socks were not there for videographer Willie Ford at 4:13, but for Mr. Fung between 4:30 and 4:40, they appeared.

When they appeared, they contained an impossible amount of EDTA for circulating blood in a human, and there was a compression stain that went from one outer surface to the inner surface to the opposite inner surface to the opposite outer surface. It could not have been done with a foot in the sock, or by blood spatter. The socks were a great help for the defense, not the prosecution.

Sanction hearings for discovery failure regarding the tape were held on 3/31, 4/3, and 4/4, and the prosecution fairy tale was rejected and they were sanctioned.

Also, the tape, and testimony about the tape, were grossly inconsistent with the assertions under oath of Det. Vanatter to claim probable cause for a June 28 search warrant to seize the pair of gloves that had been found and allegedly inadvertently left at Rockingham.

Willie Ford, 19 July 1995, reviewing the videotape he recorded at Rockingham.

(advance to 34m 40s)

OJ Simpson Trial - July 19th, 1995 - Part 3 (Last part)

Willie Ford, 19 July 1995:

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Counsel is aware of this, your Honor. This is exhibit 1068, is the videotape. I'd like now to--let me say a word to Mr. Harris before we start, your Honor. I don't want to spend the entire day going all the way through. I want to get right to the important part.

MR. DARDEN: Is this going to begin at the beginning? May I confer for a moment?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MR. COCHRAN: Okay, your Honor. I wanted to save some time because we're getting close to 4 o'clock. I'm going to ask Mr. Harris to start this video at the beginning, and then we'll stop it after I lay a foundation, then go upstairs. Very well. Mr. Harris, thank you. This is, your Honor, for the record exhibit 1068.

(At 3:51 P.M., Defendant's exhibit 1068, a videotape, was played.)

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, where this--you see that-

MR. COCHRAN: Well, Mr. Harris, back up a little bit. Okay. Let's back it up to the outside.

MR. COCHRAN: You see that--

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Stop it there, Mr. Harris. Thank you.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Do you see where it says 6-13-94? That was the date; is that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And where it says 2:13 P.M., that should be 3:13 P.M., right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

[...]

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, is this the--do you recognize this as being the stairway leading upstairs to Mr. Simpson's home?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And that would be about 4:08 P.M. on June 13th, 1994?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. This was shot by you; isn't that right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And this was one of the bedrooms, the children's bedrooms at the location?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, you're now entering—it's about 4:13 P.M. you're now entering—is this Mr. Simpson's bedroom area?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And you took a photograph of a blanket there and an easy chair?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You continued on in that room. And you walked into this room; did you not?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you remember seeing this couch in that room?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Remember the fireplace in that room?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, stop right there.

MR. COCHRAN: You stood right in that room; isn't that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And you shot toward the fireplace at that time; isn't that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Simpson's bed was to the right; was it not?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: About 4:13 in the afternoon; is that right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You walked in that room--you see that--stop again. You took a photograph of something on top of the bed, is that correct, that was out?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: What are those? Do you remember what those were?

MR. FORD: It looked to me like belt or tie.

MR. COCHRAN: Maybe suspenders or something like that?

MR. FORD: Maybe.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. It was something on top of the bed; is that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you shot that, did you?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now-

MR. COCHRAN: Back up a little bit.

MR. COCHRAN: You continued to shoot, did you, now?

MR. FORD: This is going forward. You said back up?

MR. COCHRAN: Yeah. Well, he's going-

MR. COCHRAN: Go ahead and back it up. All right. Stop it there.

MR. COCHRAN: You see that carpet there or that rug right in front of the bed?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You saw that rug that particular day; did you not?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And in fact, you walked past that rug when you went into the other room, into the bathroom area, didn't you?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Any socks on that rug that day, Mr. Ford?

MR. FORD: No.

MR. COCHRAN: You didn't videotape any and there were none there; is that correct?

MR. FORD: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: It's 4:13 P.M., about that time on June 13th, 1994 that you walked through there, right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And if there had been socks there, you would have taken photographs of them or video, correct?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You can move it on, please.

MR. COCHRAN: There's another shot. Now, you're basically--you're shooting from the foot of that bed; is that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: At that point, you're right on that particular--that rug or carpet there; isn't that correct?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: The foot of the bed. You didn't see any socks or anything else there, did you?

MR. FORD: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Then from that point-

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, Mr. Harris.

MR. COCHRAN: From that point, you went on into an alcove area where there's kind of bureau I guess we can call it? A vanity I think you'd call it.

MR. FORD: Yes.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dean Uelman at Sanctions Hearing, 4 April 1995

WE HAVE NOTED INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE DISCOVERY OF THE GLOVE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE CLOSET OF MR. SIMPSON'S BEDROOM, AS PORTRAYED IN THE TAPE WHERE A SINGLE GLOVE WAS REMOVED, BROUGHT DOWNSTAIRS, PUT ON A TABLE AND APPEARS IN THE VIDEOTAPE. THAT IS NOT THE WAY THAT INCIDENT WAS DESCRIBED IN THE AFFIDAVIT FOR A SEARCH WARRANT WHICH WAS SUBSCRIBED TO UNDER OATH BY DETECTIVE VANNATTER BACK ON JUNE 28TH. AT THAT POINT DETECTIVE VANNATTER SAID -- AND THIS WAS THE PROBABLE CAUSE YOU WILL RECALL TO GO BACK TO MR. SIMPSON'S HOME AND EXECUTE A SECOND SEARCH WARRANT TWO WEEKS AFTER THE EXECUTION OF THE FIRST WARRANT. THE PROBABLE CAUSE INCLUDED THE ALLEGATION THAT:

"ADDITIONALLY, SINCE THE SERVICE OF THE FIRST WARRANT, OTHER OFFICERS PRESENT DURING THAT SERVICE HAVE TOLD YOUR AFFIANT THAT THEY SAW ANOTHER PAIR OF GLOVES INSIDE SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE. THESE OFFICERS HAD ALSO SEEN THE GLOVE FOUND AT THE MURDER LOCATION AND HAVE TOLD YOUR AFFIANT THAT THE GLOVES IN THE RESIDENCE APPEARED TO BE OF THE SAME TYPE AS THE ONE FROM THE CRIME SCENE.

"YOUR AFFIANT WISHES TO SEIZE THE GLOVES LEFT IN THE SIMPSON RESIDENCE BECAUSE THEY WILL TEND TO FURTHER ESTABLISH THAT THE BLOODY GLOVES RECOVERED BELONGED TO SIMPSON IN THAT HE FAVORED THIS TYPE, STYLE AND SIZE OF GLOVE.

"THESE GLOVES WERE INADVERTENTLY LEFT BEHIND AT THE SIMPSON RESIDENCE."

NOW, WE BELIEVE THAT CROSS-EXAMINATION, BOTH OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND THE DETECTIVES INVOLVED IN FINDING THAT GLOVE, WOULD HAVE DISCLOSED ADDITIONAL MISREPRESENTATIONS IN THE AFFIDAVIT FOR THIS SECOND WARRANT IN THAT THE VIDEOTAPE REVEALS ONE GLOVE WHEREAS THE AFFIDAVIT REFERS TO A PAIR OF GLOVES. THE AFFIDAVIT SAYS THE GLOVES WERE INADVERTENTLY LEFT BEHIND WHEN WE HAVE SINCE BEEN TOLD THAT THE DETECTIVES ACTUALLY CONFERRED WITH THE DETECTIVES IN CHARGE AND MADE A DECISION NOT TO SEIZE THE GLOVE. IT WAS NOT AN INADVERTENT LEAVING BEHIND. THEY ACTUALLY DECIDED BEFORE THEY LEFT THE PREMISES THAT THEY WOULD NOT TAKE THIS GLOVE OR THESE GLOVES, IF THERE ARE TWO.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-04   3:24:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#308. To: nolu chan (#307)

Detective Bert Luper said he believes Fung collected the socks between 3:30 and 3:45 p.m., while Fung said he believed he picked up the socks between 4:30 and 4:40 p.m. although he was not exactly sure of the time.

Where's Luper's testimony? Why did you omit it?

Fung and Mazzola got back to Rockingham at around 3:30 and proceeded to collect items 11, 12, and 13 (the socks). Which corresponds to Luper's timeline.

You would have us believe that Fung and Mazzola stood around for an hour and did nothing. That's not in the testimony.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-04   10:07:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#309. To: all (#308)

Det. Bert Luper testimony of 20 July 1995

MR. COCHRAN: Will you look at items 12, 13 and 14, just look down at those.
(The witness complies.)
MR. COCHRAN: Have you looked at the log now?
DET. LUPER: Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: Do you recognize that as a log kept by the members of the Special Investigations Division regarding the collection of items at a crime scene?
MR. DARDEN: Objection to the form of the question.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Do you recognize that particular log and how it's used, sir.
MR. DARDEN: Same objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DET. LUPER: I've never seen a log used like this before.
MR. COCHRAN: Have you ever seen a log used by the members of the Special Investigation Division at all?
DET. LUPER: No. I mean, I've never paid much attention to how they record their evidence.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you know who collected these socks allegedly on that day?
DET. LUPER: What I saw was Mr. Fung collecting them.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And what time of day did Mr. Fung collect these socks? Well, without looking at the log.
DET. LUPER: Well, there's no time on the log anyway. So it had to be in-between 3:30, 3:45, somewhere in that general area.
MR. COCHRAN: 3:30, 3:45?
DET. LUPER: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, if a--
MR. DARDEN: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. COCHRAN: I haven't asked a question.
THE COURT: I know. It was "If a."
MR. COCHRAN: Huh? "If a." I want to phrase this question, your Honor, if I might. May I phrase the question?
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to Dennis Fung, have you had occasion to see his testimony in this court before this jury regarding the time that he picked these socks up allegedly?
DET. LUPER: No, sir, I have not.
MR. COCHRAN: Have you had occasion to talk with Mr. Fung at all regarding the time these socks were picked up?
DET. LUPER: No, sir, I have not.

MR. COCHRAN: Are you aware of whether or not the foyer blood drops, the socks were picked up sequentially or in order from the standpoint of time, one being first and the other being second and something was third? Are you aware of that?
DET. LUPER: No, I'm not aware.
MR. COCHRAN: Now, your estimate is that Mr. Fung picked these socks up at--what time was that now?
DET. LUPER: Well, about 3:30, 3:45, in that general area in the afternoon.
MR. COCHRAN: And is that--do you have that written in a report anywhere?
DET. LUPER: No, sir, I do not.

MR. COCHRAN: Who do you think would have the best recollection of what the time these socks were picked up; you or Mr. Fung?
MR. DARDEN: Objection. That's argumentative. Calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. COCHRAN: Well, may I ask it another way, your Honor?
MR. COCHRAN: Who do you think would be in the best position to know what time these socks were picked up; the person who collected them allegedly or you, sir?
MR. DARDEN: Same objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I have another question I'd like to ask if I might at this point.
THE COURT: Do you want to approach before you do that.
MR. COCHRAN: Yes. Yes.
THE COURT: All right.
(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.) (The following proceedings were held in open court:)
MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: Detective Luper, do you know what time Dennis Fung collected or Dennis Fung or Andrea Mazzola collected the spots in the foyer?
DET. LUPER: Not without looking at their notes.

MR. COCHRAN: Would you like to look at their log?
MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor.
MR. COCHRAN: Well, if that refreshes his recollection.
THE COURT: He can use it if it will refresh his recollection.
MR. DARDEN: He never testified that he ever knew.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. COCHRAN: May I proceed?
MR. DARDEN: Foundation.
MR. COCHRAN: Will you look at this and see what--if you can look at this and see if it refreshes your recollection as to what time they picked up the spots in the foyer?
DET. LUPER: According to their log, it said-
MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. COCHRAN: Now, the proper way I guess, your Honor-
MR. COCHRAN: Having looked at the log, does that refresh your recollection as to the time that Mr. Fung or Miss Mazzola picked up the--collected the spots in the foyer?
MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor. Lack of foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. COCHRAN: I'm asking.
MR. COCHRAN: You can answer that.
DET. LUPER: It would appear by their log that they-
MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Again, I'll rephrase it again.

MR. COCHRAN: With regard to the document I placed before you, is your memory refreshed as to the time that Dennis Fung or Andrea Mazzola collected these spots in the foyer at Rockingham on June 13th, 1994 in the afternoon?
MR. DARDEN: Foundation, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DET. LUPER: The log indicates--
MR. DARDEN: Pardon me, sir.
THE COURT: Yes. Wait a minute. Detective Luper, the question is, is your personal recollection refreshed as--after having read the log as to when those spots were recovered in the foyer?
DET. LUPER: No, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. So you have no way of knowing at all?
DET. LUPER: No, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: Do you know whether or not that the foyer spots were collected prior to the time that you say the socks were collected?
MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, may the record reflect the witness is looking at the log?
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. COCHRAN: Want me to remove that?
DET. LUPER: Yeah, would you? Thank you. I don't know how they were--if they were done in a certain order or sequentially. I know that Miss Mazzola and Dennis Fung were working pretty much-
MR. DARDEN: I object at this time as nonresponsive.
THE COURT: All right. Next question.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. So--there was an objection to the question by Mr. Darden. So I didn't get to finish hearing it. So you don't know-- I guess my question was, do you know whether or not the spots in the foyer were collected prior to anything being collected upstairs?
DET. LUPER: I don't know.
MR. COCHRAN: You don't know. And the form that I've given you does not refresh your recollection?
DET. LUPER: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And you've not spoken with either Mazzola or Fung about their testimony?
DET. LUPER: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: And you don't know the times that they said?
DET. LUPER: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you know the time that Mr. Willie Ford videoed Mr. Simpson's bedroom and there were no socks at the foot of that bed? Do you know that time?
MR. DARDEN: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. COCHRAN: Do you know that time, sir?
DET. LUPER: I did not look at my watch on that particular day to be specific. No, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Well, you weren't in the bedroom at the time Mr. Ford was videoing the area of Mr. Simpson's bedroom?
DET. LUPER: No, I was not in the bedroom.
MR. COCHRAN: You were someplace else in the house, right?
DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. He was accompanied by some other people, not you?
DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.
MR. DARDEN: Assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, you mentioned, sir, that when you were downstairs, one of the reasons that you had inadvertently put down the glove that we talked about was because you were trying to follow some blood spots or wood spots or something?
DET. LUPER: Well, they appeared to be discolored discoloration on the wood floor and they appeared to be spots that were not one right after another, but fairly far apart from each other.
MR. COCHRAN: Did you pursue these spots?
DET. LUPER: Yes, sir, I did.
MR. COCHRAN: And you found out later that was not blood, was it?
DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: So it was kind of like a trail of no blood, right?
DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, speaking of that by the way, as a detective and as the first person up those stairs-
MR. DARDEN: Objection. That assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. COCHRAN: Well--counsel is absolutely correct.

MR. COCHRAN: As the police officer who went up the stairs after 12:00 o'clock on that date, you didn't see any blood on the stairs going up there, did you?
DET. LUPER: I didn't see any, no, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: And you didn't see any blood on the carpet of Mr. Simpson's bedroom as you go in there, did you?
DET. LUPER: No, sir, I did not.
MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to these socks that you had seized, you didn't see any blood on those socks either, did you?
DET. LUPER: I didn't get close enough to examine them.
MR. COCHRAN: Is the answer, you didn't see any blood on the socks?
DET. LUPER: No, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: And it's your testimony that you had these socks seized or asked to have them seized whatever time they were seized because they were out of place; is that right?
DET. LUPER: They were out of place and it seemed like a very good idea.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you had them seized; is that correct?
DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: And you never got very close to them at that time?
DET. LUPER: No, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And so-- I may have asked you this. You did not have the straps on the bed seized at any point, right?
DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Those were just left there; is that correct?
DET. LUPER: That's right, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: May I have just a moment, your Honor?
THE COURT: Certainly.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. COCHRAN: May I have just a moment, your Honor?
THE COURT: Certainly.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. COCHRAN: Just a couple other questions.

MR. COCHRAN: Few other questions. Detective Luper, again, with regard to--strike that. With regard to criminalists Fung and Mazzola, did you notice as they were doing their work at Rockingham that day, they had kind of a clipboard or something of that nature where they were logging and writing down things as they would pick up various items? Do you remember seeing that?
MR. DARDEN: Objection. Leading.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DET. LUPER: Yes, I did.
MR. COCHRAN: And so that as they--you would see them in one particular area. They would then write something down on a piece of paper although you don't know what they were writing, right?
DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: Your experience as a detective of some eight years and a 23-year member of the Los Angeles Police Department, you believe that what you saw them writing was a log that they kept consistent with keeping track of what they were collecting and the time that they were collecting these items; isn't that correct?
MR. DARDEN: Objection. Calls for speculation and it's leading, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. COCHRAN: Well, what did you think this was that they were writing down as they could collect various items?
MR. DARDEN: Objection. Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DET. LUPER: I felt that what they were writing down was the dimensions as to where certain items were being recovered and as to its description.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. So item--location of the item, where recovered, right?
DET. LUPER: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: The item collected, right?
DET. LUPER: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: The time collected?
MR. DARDEN: Objection. This is leading.
MR. COCHRAN: I'm asking.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. COCHRAN: You can answer that.
DET. LUPER: I was unaware that they were making a notation of time.

MR. COCHRAN: But it was possible, wasn't it?
MR. DARDEN: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, I want to make sure I understand this. You took clothes out of the hamper to have photographs taken of them and didn't seize any of those clothes, right?
DET. LUPER: That is correct.
THE COURT: Mr. Cochran, we've gone through this a number of times.
MR. COCHRAN: This is foundational, your Honor. It's foundation. Bear with me.
MR. COCHRAN: You took--you looked in the closet and you never seized anything there, right?
DET. LUPER: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: You saw these suspenders or--strike that. You saw these straps on the bed and you never seized those, right?
DET. LUPER: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: You took a glove from upstairs and brought it all the way downstairs and you didn't seize that either, right?
DET. LUPER: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: It's your testimony that you saw some socks that were out of place and you instructed that be seized; is that right?
DET. LUPER: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: And it's your best testimony before this jury that those items were seized about 3:30 to 3:45 on June 13th?
DET. LUPER: That general time frame, yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Thank you very kindly, your Honor. I have nothing further of this witness.
THE COURT: Mr. Darden.
MR. DARDEN: Just a few questions, your Honor.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN
MR. DARDEN: And we are talking about general time frames, aren't we, detective?
DET. LUPER: Yes, we are, sir.
MR. DARDEN: You weren't checking your watch to see when and the exact time that Mazzola and Fung picked up an item, were you?
DET. LUPER: No, sir, I was not.

MR. DARDEN: You didn't think that was necessary, did you?
MR. COCHRAN: Objection. Leading and suggestive, improper.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.
MR. DARDEN: You didn't think that was necessary, did you?
DET. LUPER: No, I did not, sir.
MR. DARDEN: I mean they're the criminalists, right?
DET. LUPER: That's correct.
MR. DARDEN: It's their job to pick up and collect the biological evidence, right?
DET. LUPER: Yes, sir.
MR. DARDEN: It's not your job, is it?
DET. LUPER: No, sir, it's not.
MR. DARDEN: You don't know the exact sequence in which everything was collected, right?
MR. COCHRAN: Asked and answered, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DET. LUPER: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: As far as the socks are concerned, you weren't looking for blood on the socks, were you?
DET. LUPER: No, sir, I was not.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. You didn't want to get too close to the socks, right.
MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DET. LUPER: That's correct, sir.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In reading the below, bear in mind that the prosecution was sanctioned for its repeated failure to turn over the Willie Ford video of 13 June 1994, received by Det. Bert Luper on 14 June 1994. Det. Bert Luper sequestered it in his desk drawer for three or four months (so he testified) and then moved it to a filing cabinet (so he testified). No records of possession or transfer were kept (so he testified).

According to Det. Luper, notification of the existence of the video was made March 22, 1995 to District Attorney's office, and the city attorney's office and Robbery Homicide then or the following day.

The prosecution's claimed excuse for not turning over the video, despite repeated defense requests and news reports of the presence of a videographer at Rockingham, was that the prosecution remained blissfully unaware of its existence.

The unbelieveable excuse was not believed.

The crime scene log shows Willie Ford, the videographer, arriving at 3:10. The crime scene log does not show Marcia Clark arriving or leaving. About the only thing Det. Luper is certain of is that Marcia Clark left before Willie Ford arrived.

The amazingly flexible memory of Det. Luper is truly unbelieveable.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On 3 April 1995, Det. Bert Luper testified at a sanctions hearing:

Q: NOW, BACK TO MISS CLARK. MISS CLARK WAS THERE AND YOU TOOK HER ON A WALKTHROUGH AFTER THE SEARCH WARRANT HAD BEEN COMPLETED?
A: AFTER THE EVIDENCE HAD BEEN LOCATED, YES.

Q: RIGHT. SO THE SEARCH WARRANT HAD BEEN EXECUTED AT THIS POINT AND YOU TOOK HER -- TELL THE COURT BRIEFLY WHERE YOU TOOK HER ON THE WALK-THROUGH.
A: I TOOK HER ON THE BOTTOM LOCATION OF THE RESIDENCE, THE FIRST FLOOR, TO SHOW WHERE SOME OF THE PRESUMPTIVE TESTS I WANTED DONE, TOOK HER UPSTAIRS, SHOWED HER THE VANITY -- I MEAN NOT THE VANITY, I'M SORRY, THE LINEN CLOSET, AND SHOWED HER THE SOCKS AND THE BLOOD EVIDENCE THAT HAD BEEN FOUND IN THE BATHROOM, AND TOOK HER I THINK TO THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, SHOWED HER A WIRE THAT I WANTED CHECKED AND WHAT WAS IN THE TRASH CAN THERE BY THE ENTRYWAY TO THE OFFICE, I BELIEVE THERE WAS AN AIRLINE TICKET. AND THEN ON THE EXTERIOR THERE WAS A BENCH SEAT RIGHT THERE BY THE FRONT DOOR THAT HAD A LUGGAGE TAG THROWN ON ONE END OF IT, AND THAT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT TO HER.

Q: DID YOU MAKE A REPORT OF ALL OF YOUR OBSERVATIONS WITH MISS CLARK?
A: NO, SIR.
Q: DO YOU KNOW -- HAVE YOU SEEN ANY REPORT WITH REFERENCE TO YOUR TAKING HER THROUGH THE PREMISES AND NOTING THESE OBJECTS?
A: NO, SIR.
Q: YOU NEVER MADE A REPORT LIKE THAT, DID YOU?
A: NO, SIR.
Q: DID MARCIA CLARK SIGN IN ON THE LOG WHEN SHE CAME TO THAT RESIDENCE?
A: YOU WON'T FIND HER ON THAT LOG, NO, SIR.
Q: WHY WON'T WE?
A: GOOD QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW.
Q: WELL, WAS THERE ANY OTHER LOG THAT SHE SIGNED IN ON WHEN SHE CAME THERE?
A: TO THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION?
Q: YES, SIR, ROCKINGHAM?
A: NO, SIR, NOT THAT I AM AWARE OF.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On 3 April 1995, Det. Bert Luper testified at a sanctions hearing:

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
MS. LEWIS: JUST BRIEFLY, YOUR HONOR.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. LEWIS:

Q: DETECTIVE LUPER, ACTUALLY AT THAT POINT IN TIME YOUR ONLY PURPOSE IN HAVING THAT VIDEOTAPE TAKEN WAS FOR CIVIL LIABILITY REASONS; ISN'T THAT TRUE?
A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: AND YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION IS THAT MARCIA CLARK LEFT THE PREMISES AT ABOUT THREE O'CLOCK OR BY THREE O'CLOCK, WITHIN THAT TIME FRAME?
A: IN THAT APPROXIMATE TIME FRAME, YES, MA'AM.
Q: AND THE VIDEOGRAPHER ARRIVED APPROXIMATELY, AS WE KNOW FROM SEEING THE VIDEOTAPE, APPROXIMATELY 3:11 OR; SO, ISN'T THAT TRUE?
A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, MA'AM.

MS. LEWIS: THANK YOU. NOTHING FURTHER.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE LUPER, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.
MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE ONE LAST QUESTION, YOUR HONOR, OF MR. LUPER BEFORE HE LEAVES.
THE COURT: SURE.

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: YOU RECALL -- DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT MR. ADKINS AND MR. FORD HAD ARRIVED PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT MISS CLARK ARRIVED?
A: NO. THEY ARRIVED AFTER MISS CLARK HAD BEEN THERE AND GONE, SIR.
Q: ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT?
A: YES, SIR.
Q: DOES YOUR LOG -- OF COURSE THERE IS NO LOG THAT REFLECTS THAT, IS THERE?
MS. LEWIS: OBJECTION, VAGUE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IS THERE ANY LOG THAT REFLECTS THAT?
A: AS I INDICATED EARLIER, I DON'T HAVE HER CHECKED IN OR CHECKED OUT AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION AND I AM GIVING YOU THE BEST RECOLLECTION THAT I CAN.
Q: JUST ONE MORE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR. SO IF YOU HAVE THEM IN AT 3:10 IN THE AFTERNOON, IT IS POSSIBLE MISS CLARK MAY HAVE BEEN THERE AS LATE AS 3:10, ISN'T IT?
MS. LEWIS: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
MR. COCHRAN: I AM ASKING.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IT IS POSSIBLE, ISN'T IT?
A: NO, BECAUSE SHE WASN'T THERE -- SHE AND I STUCK TOGETHER -- EXCUSE ME -- "STUCK TOGETHER" IS A POOR USE OF THE WORD. WE WERE TOGETHER THROUGH THAT TIME WHILE SHE WAS THERE AND I DID SEE HER LEAVE BEFORE THEY ARRIVED ON THE SCENE, SIR.
Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU ARE SURE ABOUT THAT, RIGHT?
A: YES, SIR.
Q: ALL RIGHT. SO THAT WHEN SHE TOLD US THAT SHE CAME PERHAPS AT 2:00, 2:10, STAYED UNTIL THREE O'CLOCK, THOSE ARE JUST ESTIMATES?
MS. LEWIS: MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY. HE STATED 2:20.
Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: 2:20?
A: THAT IS MY RECOLLECTION, YES.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-05   19:15:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#310. To: misterwhite (#308)

Where's Luper's testimony? Why did you omit it?

I had not finished presenting evidence when you posted at #300, OK. I read through all the testimony. The socks were collected between 4:30 and 4:40.

You claimed you read all the testimony and then conceded the point.

And at #299, you stated, "Next time make a po[i]nt and back it up with specific testimony, not the entire court transcript. If you don't, I will not read it or respond."

I posted relevant Luper testimony separately at #309, addressed it to all, and you can read it, or not read it, as you choose.

You can post as much or as little testimony as you choose. So far you have posted nothing.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-05   19:17:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#311. To: misterwhite (#308)

Detective Bert Luper said he believes Fung collected the socks between 3:30 and 3:45 p.m., while Fung said he believed he picked up the socks between 4:30 and 4:40 p.m. although he was not exactly sure of the time.

Why waste time with the "recollection" of Bert Luper who kept no log, took no notes, and can't recall the time a single piece of evidence was collected, except for his vague and convenient memory of Item 13?

The primary collector of the blood stains was Andrea Mazzola; not Bert Luper who collected none, and not Dennis Fung who collected only a few. Andrea Mazzola kept the official log, recorded times of collection, and consulted her watch in doing so.

Dennis Fung testified on 28 April 1995 that he was not 100% sure that Item #13 was collected before Item #14, but that he thought it was. Andrea Mazzola kept the log and was certain. Dennis Fung did not change his recollection of the time frame for Items #12-14 being from 1630 to 1640.

[Testimony of Andrea Mazzola, 25 April 1995]

MR. NEUFELD: And in contrast to those first couple of crime scenes, Miss Mazzola, where you were present in this case on June 13th of 1994, you were in fact the primary collector of blood stains, as opposed to Dennis Fung; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's right.
MR. NEUFELD: And the Simpson case was your very first case in which you were the primary collector of blood stain evidence; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

[Testimony of Andrea Mazzola, 25 April 1995]

MR. NEUFELD: You testified on August 23rd, 1994--were you asked these questions and did you give these answers? "Question: And which--I'm sorry. At Bundy again. At Bundy again, were there certain bloodstains that you collected and other bloodstains that were collected by Mr. Fung? "Answer: Yes. "Question: And which bloodstains were collected by Mr. Fung? "Answer: I believe he collected the red stains that were near the shoeprints that were made on the walkway. "Question: Would you please look at your notes and tell me which numbers those are? "Question: And when you say that, you say he collected the actual foot--shoeprints or he collected alleged drops that were near the shoeprints? "Answer: He if I remember correctly took swatches of the red stains that were constituting the footprint itself. "Question: Can you tell us which ones those were, please? "Answer: Property items 55 and 56. "Question: And that is it? "Answer: Yes. "Question: All other bloodstains at the Bundy crime scene were collected by you, ma'am? "Answer: Yes. "And while he collected 55 and 56, were you collecting some of your bloodstains? "Answer: Yes." Were you asked those questions and did you give those answers under oath on August 23rd, 1994?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

Ms. Mazzola kept the official record, collected nearly all the blood stains, consulted her watch, and recorded the times of collection, as required. Her records were clear and contemporaneous with the events.

MS. MAZZOLA: After item 12, item 13 was picked up.
MR. GOLDBERG: And after item no. 13, what was picked up?
MS. MAZZOLA: Item 14.
MR. GOLDBERG: And who physically collected item no. 13?
MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Fung.
MR. GOLDBERG: What time was item no. 14 collected?
MS. MAZZOLA: Approximately 1640.
THE COURT: And the record should reflect that Miss Mazzola is referring to her notes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And were you referring to the crime scene identification checklist?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I was.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, is there a time for 13 on that list or is it just 12 and 14?
MS. MAZZOLA: Just 12 and 14.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I would just like to clarify something before I ask my next question.
THE COURT: Yes. At the sidebar with the court reporter, please.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, what do you need to clarify?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I know on 15 and 16, the airline ticket and the baggage claim--
THE COURT: Oh, no, not this again.
MR. GOLDBERG: That's why I wanted to approach, so I can make sure I'm not going to go--we've had testimony there was a 15 and 16 collected at 5 o'clock, but that's it, which from my view, it sort of went beyond the Court's--

If Bert Luper's wacko bullshit were correct, Fung and Mazzola collected 12-14 between 1530 - 1545 and then impersonated the walking dead until they stumbled upon Items 15 and 16 at 5:00.

Let us also recall the testimony of Dennis Fung on 22 June 1994, only eight (8) days after the evidence was collected, and all shone sparkling bright in the memory of Mr. Fung, before uncertainty set in:

A. I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY HOURS A BLOOD DROP IS OLD; HOWEVER, I CAN TELL YOU ON THIS DAY, WHEN WE WERE AT THE CRIME SCENE OF MR. SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE IN THE MORNING, THE BLOOD DROPS APPEARED TO BE FAIRLY FRESH. THEY HAD A REDDISH TINGE TO THEM.

HOWEVER, BY THE END OF THE DAY WHEN WE RETURNED AROUND 4:00 O'CLOCK OR 5:00 O'CLOCK, AROUND THERE, THE SAME BLOOD DROPS WERE A DARK BROWN.

Q. DID YOU FORM ANY -- WHAT TIME WAS IT WHEN YOU WERE COLLECTING THOSE BLOOD DROPS?

A. THE BLOOD DROPS AT MR. SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE WERE RECOVERED IN THE EARLY MORNING, AROUND 8:00 O'CLOCK.

Q. AND WHAT ABOUT THE BLOOD DROPS AT THE CRIME SCENE AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY DRIVE?

A. THOSE WERE COLLECTED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 11:00 O'CLOCK AND 4:00 O'CLOCK.

Q. SO THOSE WERE COLLECTED AFTERWARDS, AFTER THE BLOOD DROPS WERE COLLECTED AT MR. SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE?

A. YES. EXCEPT FOR THE BLOOD STAINS THAT WERE COLLECTED INSIDE OF MR. SIMPSON'S HOUSE. THOSE WERE COLLECTED IN THE LATE AFTERNOON.

Q. WERE THOSE THE LAST TO BE COLLECTED?

A. ON THAT DAY, YES.

Bert Luper cannot be seen as the purveyor of the best evidence of the collection times. He kept no notes, and his expressed as extremely vague or nonexistent, time after time.

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: WERE YOU PRESENT WITH THE VIDEOGRAPHER WHEN HE WAS VIDEOTAPING THE MASTER BEDROOM?
A: NO, MA'AM.

Bert Luper testimony at a hearing, 3 Apr 1995

- - - - - - - - - -

Q: AND DO YOU HAVE AN INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION OF EXACTLY WHEN THE VIDEOGRAPHER ARRIVED AT THE CRIME SCENE?
A: NOT AN INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE CRIME SCENE LOG.

Bert Luper testimony at a hearing, 3 Apr 1995

- - - - - - - - - -

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: YOU RECALL -- DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT MR. ADKINS AND MR. FORD HAD ARRIVED PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT MISS CLARK ARRIVED?
A: NO. THEY ARRIVED AFTER MISS CLARK HAD BEEN THERE AND GONE, SIR.
Q: ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT?
A: YES, SIR.
Q: DOES YOUR LOG -- OF COURSE THERE IS NO LOG THAT REFLECTS THAT, IS THERE?
MS. LEWIS: OBJECTION, VAGUE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IS THERE ANY LOG THAT REFLECTS THAT?
A: AS I INDICATED EARLIER, I DON'T HAVE HER CHECKED IN OR CHECKED OUT AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION AND I AM GIVING YOU THE BEST RECOLLECTION THAT I CAN.
Q: JUST ONE MORE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR. SO IF YOU HAVE THEM IN AT 3:10 IN THE AFTERNOON, IT IS POSSIBLE MISS CLARK MAY HAVE BEEN THERE AS LATE AS 3:10, ISN'T IT?
MS. LEWIS: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
MR. COCHRAN: I AM ASKING.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IT IS POSSIBLE, ISN'T IT?
A: NO, BECAUSE SHE WASN'T THERE -- SHE AND I STUCK TOGETHER -- EXCUSE ME -- "STUCK TOGETHER" IS A POOR USE OF THE WORD. WE WERE TOGETHER THROUGH THAT TIME WHILE SHE WAS THERE AND I DID SEE HER LEAVE BEFORE THEY ARRIVED ON THE SCENE, SIR.
Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU ARE SURE ABOUT THAT, RIGHT?
A: YES, SIR.
Q: ALL RIGHT. SO THAT WHEN SHE TOLD US THAT SHE CAME PERHAPS AT 2:00, 2:10, STAYED UNTIL THREE O'CLOCK, THOSE ARE JUST ESTIMATES?
MS. LEWIS: MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY. HE STATED 2:20.
Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: 2:20?
A: THAT IS MY RECOLLECTION, YES.
Q: THE LOG INDICATES THEY ARRIVED ABOUT 3:10; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
MS. LEWIS: OBJECTION, VAGUE AS TO WHO.
Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ADKINS AND FORD?
A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, SIR.

Bert Luper testimony at a hearing, 3 Apr 1995

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-05   19:26:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#312. To: misterwhite (#308)

Fung and Mazzola got back to Rockingham at around 3:30 and proceeded to collect items 11, 12, and 13 (the socks). Which corresponds to Luper's timeline.

No, it does not.

Bert Luper expressed no timeline. Item #11 was picked up outside before entering the Rockingham residence in the afternoon. Luper never made any reference to it. Fung was not even present to observe. Item #12 was the first item collected inside the residence upon afternoon return to Rockingham. Luper did not know when Item #12 was collected, or if it was collected before or after Item #13. On everything but Item #13, Det. Luper sounds like Sgt. Shultz.

[Andrea Mazzola testimony 26 April 1995]

MR. NEUFELD: Now, when you first got back to Rockingham, Miss Mazzola, the first place you inspected was the exterior south side of Mr. Simpson's residence; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And while you were down inspecting and examining that location of Mr. Simpson's property, you noticed a red mark on a wire hanging down; did you not?
MS. MAZZOLA: It was brought to my attention that there was a red mark on a wire back there.
MR. NEUFELD: And who was it that brought that to your attention?
MS. MAZZOLA: I can't remember if it was Mr. Fung or a detective.
MR. NEUFELD: And after it was brought to your attention, did you then return to the front of the house to go get your stain collection kit?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And then once you got the stain collection kit, you alone went back to the side of the house to collect that stain; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And that reddish discoloration that you collected on that wire, that became item no. 11; did it not?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you collected that item no. 11 without Dennis Fung even being present to observe; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

Luper's ridiculous testimony is more notable for what he claimed he did not know, than for what he claimed to know about the socks.

If Burt Luper's testimony is to be believed:

He recalls:

  • Item 13, the socks, were collected by Dennis Fung in the general timeframe between 1530 - 1545.

  • Marcia Clark was there.

  • He pursued a trail of spots that turned out to be a trail of no blood.

  • He saw no blood on the stairs, he saw no blood on the carpet, he saw no blood on the socks.

  • He seized the socks because they looked out of place.

  • He did not seize the clothing in the washing machine.

As for the clothing in the washing machine not seized, Marcia Clark wrote,

I was studying a picture of Dennis Fung crouched near the laundry hamper in Simpson's master bathroom. He was holding something dark in his hand. I looked closer. Could it be? It had to be. Jesus! It was the dark sweatshirt Kato had described Simpson wearing when they drove to McDonald's! Why hadn't anyone told me about this? Those sweats had to be tested for blood immediately. Unless of course they were never seized.

Clark, Without a Doubt, 376.

Mark Fuhrman wrote that the sweats were discovered by his partner, Brad Roberts.

The authors of the June 28 warrant seem to be trying to cover up mistakes made during the execution of the June 13 warrant. I know because I was there and watched the evidence discovery during both warrants. With one exception—the request to search Simpson's Bentley for the "absence of blood"—the entire second warrant sought permission to search for items that had already been found, but never collected.

[...]

And his discovery of the sweats was no secret. Brad and I saw the sweats, as did two RHD detectives, as well as Dennis Fung and the video photographer. As the detective in charge of the investigation, Phil Vanatter would have been informed about the sweats. But in the second warrant affidavit it clearly states that "your affiant did not know which specific clothing to look for and can no longer remember whether clothing of that description was present at the location, as literally hundreds of items of clothing were seen. Your affiant now wishes to examine the clothing in the residence for specific black cotton type sweat suit described, and if found, to examine that clothing more closely for traces of blood."

The words "can no longer remember" seem comical, as there was a videotape of the sweats, and at least six people who saw them in the washing machine.

The words, "to examine that clothing more closely for traces of blood," seems an odd way to describe a first look at an item. By using "more closely" it would almost appear that they had already been inspected at an earlier time.

Fuhrman, Murder in Brentwood, paperback, 326.

And for what he does not know or recall:

  • He does not know when Item #12 was collected, or in what order 12, 13, and 14 were collected.

  • He could not say when Item #12, the spots in the foyer were collected without looking at their notes.

  • Looking at the log did not refresh his memory. Regarding Item #12, by his personal knowledge, he had no way of identifying who collected the spots or when.

  • He did not know whether the spots in the foyer were collected before anything was collected upstairs.

  • He did not know the time when Willie Ford videoed Mr. Simpson's bedroom and there were no socks at the foot of the bed.

  • As a detective for eight years, and a 23-year member of the LAPD, when the criminalists were writing on their evidence collection sheet, he was unaware that they were making a notation of time items were collected.

Det. Luper kept no notes of anything.

The actual testimony does not support your unsupported opinion.

3:40 is the time that Andrea Mazzola contemporaneously recorded, in writing, the collection of Item 11. That was on the side of the house, outdoors, near the garage. She testified about glancing at her watch to verify the time.

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you have any notes with you that you can use to give us the time that you collected the first item of evidence once you returned to Rockingham in the afternoon?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I do.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you tell us? Do you have it memorized or do you need something?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't have it memorized.
MR. GOLDBERG: Please tell us what you are referring to to give us that information.
MS. MAZZOLA: Okay. I'm referring to the evidence collection sheet.
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I am sorry. I'll object. I would say there has to be a proper foundation laid before she refreshes her recollection. She hasn't done that.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Okay. This says 1540.
MR. GOLDBERG: So that's 3:40?
MS. MAZZOLA: 3:40.
MR. GOLDBERG: Was the notation as to the time in your handwriting or Mr. Fung's?
MS. MAZZOLA: My handwriting.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when you made that notation, how did you do it? Did you ask someone or look at your watch or what?
MS. MAZZOLA: I think I just glanced at my watch.

[Mazzola testimony, 20 Apr 1995]

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. GOLDBERG: What time was item no. 14 collected?
MS. MAZZOLA: Approximately 1640.
THE COURT: And the record should reflect that Miss Mazzola is referring to her notes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And were you referring to the crime scene identification checklist?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I was.

[Mazzola testimony, 20 Apr 1995]

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Thank you. All right. And was there an item no. 15 and an item no. 16 that were collected? And just answer that yes or no.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what time were those items collected?
MS. MAZZOLA: I thought at approximately 5 o'clock.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And that was according to your crime scene identification checklist?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

[Mazzola testimony, 20 Apr 1995]

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, after collecting item no. 12, what was the next item number that you collected, that was collected in your presence?
MS. MAZZOLA: May I check my notes?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
(Brief pause.)
MS. MAZZOLA: After item 12, item 13 was picked up.
MR. GOLDBERG: And after item no. 13, what was picked up?
MS. MAZZOLA: Item 14.

[Mazzola testimony, 20 Apr 1995]

- - - - - - - - - -

Q: APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME WAS ITEM NO. 12 COLLECTED?
A: THAT WAS COLLECTED AT APPROXIMATELY 4:30.
Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, AFTER COLLECTING ITEM NO. 12, DID YOU GO UPSTAIRS IN THE LOCATION?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: DO YOU RECALL WHAT WAS THE NEXT ITEM OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU COLLECTED?
A: THE NEXT ITEM WAS A PAIR OF SOCKS IN THE MASTER BEDROOM.

[Dennis Fung testimony, 3 Apr 1995]

- - - - - - - - - -

Dennis Fung, 18 April 1995

In this section Dennis Fung provides testimonial evidence of when the magic socks were collected.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what time was 12 collected, approximately, according to the crime scene identification checklist?
MR. FUNG: According to the checklist, it was collected at 4:30.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And do you recall my asking you on recross whether you were sure about whether 13 was collected before 14?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Are you a hundred percent sure?
MR. FUNG: Not a hundred percent sure, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: Which one do you think was collected first?
MR. FUNG: I think the socks and item 13 were collected first.
MR. GOLDBERG: Before 14?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: But you can't be a hundred percent sure?
MR. FUNG: I'm not a hundred percent sure.

MR. GOLDBERG: When was 14, the item in the bathroom, master bathroom, collected, that stain?
MR. FUNG: That stain was collected around 4:40.
MR. GOLDBERG: So you are saying, I believe, that the socks were collected after 4:30--well, between 4:30 and 4:40, approximately?
MR. FUNG: In that general time frame, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And as far as you are concerned, Mr. Fung, does it make the slightest bit of difference that you can figure out, when they were collected within that general time frame?
MR. FUNG: No, it doesn't make any difference to me.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. SCHECK: "Question: And then the next item was a red stain from the foyer area inside Rockingham, correct? "Answer: Yes. "Question: And that one was collected at 4:30? "Answer: Yes. "And/or thereabouts--"Question: Or thereabouts? "And the next item you collected were the socks? "Answer: Yes. "But there is no time indicated for that? "Answer: That's correct. "And the next item after you--after that you indicated was a red stain that was found in the master bathroom? "Answer: Yes. "And that time is at 4:40? "Answer: Yes. "So I believe it was your testimony on direct examination that you collected the socks sometime between 4:30 and 4:40? "Answer: About then, yes."
MR. SCHECK: Were you asked those questions and did you give those answers?
MR. FUNG: Yes.

[Dennis Fung testimony, 18 Apr 1995]

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-05   19:53:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#313. To: misterwhite (#308)

You would have us believe that Fung and Mazzola stood around for an hour and did nothing. That's not in the testimony.

You have not provided any testimony except your own drivel. Zip. Zero. Nada. Just your own commentary.

The first item collected inside the house was at 4:30. Ms. Mazzola testified about what she was doing between 3:40 and 4:30.

There was no time to do the inspection after the evidence collection upstairs.

Items 15 and 16 were collected downstairs at about 5:00. At 5:11, a video shows Fung and Mazzola putting items in the truck in preparation for leaving.

(At 11:37 A.M., People's exhibit 186, a videotape, was played.)
MR. GOLDBERG: If we could just stop for one second. We're at frame 17:11.
MR. GOLDBERG: So if we assume that this is correct, this would be 5:11?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And in this scene, what are you and criminalist Fung doing?
MS. MAZZOLA: We are putting items of evidence in the back of the crime scene truck.
MR. GOLDBERG: And would these be the items of evidence that you had collected in the afternoon at Rockingham?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, are you placing anything in addition to the evidence itself in the truck at this time?
MS. MAZZOLA: Our kits.

[Mazzola testimony 20 Apr 1995]

MR. NEUFELD: And once you entered the house after you collected item 11, the first item that you collected inside the house was item no. 12; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Those would be the drops of blood that you found in the foyer of Mr. Simpson's home?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And before you collected item no. 12, you did an inspection of the first floor of the house; did you not?
MS. MAZZOLA: I can't remember if we inspected first or picked up first.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. Well, what time did you actually pick up item no. 12? Did you record that in your notes?
MS. MAZZOLA: Let's see. Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And what time was that?
MS. MAZZOLA: 1630.
MR. NEUFELD: That would be 3:30--3:30. No. 4:30, 4:30 in the afternoon.
MS. MAZZOLA: 4:30.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you. And either before or after you picked up item 12, you did do an inspection of the first floor of the house looking for bloody clothing; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: For blood in general.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. Looking for bloodstains?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Looking for blood smears?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Looking for flecks of dry blood?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you examined the kitchen, didn't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you examined the kitchen sink?
MS. MAZZOLA: I did not personally.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, did you--do you know whether Dennis Fung examined the kitchen sink?
MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation, personal knowledge.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Personally I don't know if he did or not.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Did you examine the laundry room?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you examine the living room?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And the dining room?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree that except for the several drops that you found right in the foyer inside the front door, that there were no bloodstains found anywhere on the first floor of that house?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And that there was no blood smears found anywhere on the first floor of that house?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And that there were no blood flakes, flakes of dry blood found anywhere on the first floor of that house?
MS. MAZZOLA: We did not find any.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, that's what you were looking for, weren't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you were taught, ma'am, looking for blood evidence to examine the location in a systematic way; isn't that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: This has been asked and answered.
THE COURT: It is redundant.
MR. NEUFELD: Not to the inside of the house.
THE COURT: Yes, it is.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay.
THE COURT: Especially with negative results.
MR. NEUFELD: And after you inspected the first floor, you went up to the second floor; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And did you inspect counters?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you inspect light switches?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you inspect the shelves in Mr. Simpson's closet?
MS. MAZZOLA: As the shelves themselves or the contents? What--
MR. NEUFELD: Just the front of the shelves.
MS. MAZZOLA: I--
MR. NEUFELD: For any sign of blood.
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if we looked at the front of the shelves or not.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you look at knobs on the drawers?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: And no flakes of dry blood were found in those locations that I just enumerated to you; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And no smears of wet blood were found in those locations that I just enumerated to you?
MS. MAZZOLA: We did not find any.
MR. NEUFELD: One moment.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel and Defendant.)
MR. NEUFELD: And while you were there, Miss Mazzola, did you inspect either the intercom or the telephone to see whether or not there were any bloodstains on it?
MS. MAZZOLA: I did not personally, no.
MR. NEUFELD: Do you know whether Dennis Fung did?
MS. MAZZOLA: I do not know personally if he did or not.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, are telephones one of the locations that you were taught at the SID mini academy to examine for the presence of blood?
MS. MAZZOLA: We were not taught to look at the phone. We were taught to look at things in general.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, up on the second floor in Mr. Simpson's bedroom, were you shown a pair of dark socks on the floor?
MS. MAZZOLA: There were a pair of dark socks on the floor.

[Mazzola testimony, 28 Apr 1995]

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-05   19:56:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#314. To: nolu chan (#313)

You have not provided any testimony except your own drivel.

No need. If I add up all your posts, I think I have the entire trial.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-06   9:56:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#315. To: misterwhite (#314)

You have not provided any testimony except your own drivel.

No need. If I add up all your posts, I think I have the entire trial.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

#308. To: nolu chan (#307)

Detective Bert Luper said he believes Fung collected the socks between 3:30 and 3:45 p.m., while Fung said he believed he picked up the socks between 4:30 and 4:40 p.m. although he was not exactly sure of the time.

Where's Luper's testimony? Why did you omit it?

Fung and Mazzola got back to Rockingham at around 3:30 and proceeded to collect items 11, 12, and 13 (the socks). Which corresponds to Luper's timeline.

You would have us believe that Fung and Mazzola stood around for an hour and did nothing. That's not in the testimony.

misterwhite posted on 2017-07-04 10:07:57 ET

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Same old, same old. You bitch when I have not yet gotten around to posting the testimony of Bert Luper, and then you bitch when I post it, pointing out that his testimony was hilariously absurd.

You have claimed to have read all the testimony. And now you claim I have posted the entire trial. Since you have never watched or read the testimony, it is my pleasure to inform you that the trial transcript is about 20,000 pages.

Your mission impossible, which you chose to accept, is to show that the jury at the criminal trial had sufficient evidence before it to justify returning a verdict of guilty.

You want more cowbell? I'll give you more cowbell.

Los Angeles, California; Tuesday, April 25, 1995 1:30 P.M.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, also there were some legal issues as to matters that they would like to use during cross-examination, but perhaps bring up before the jury comes back.
THE COURT: Such as? Why don't you move that easel back.
MR. NEUFELD: Toward you, you mean?
THE COURT: Just move it back so when the jury comes in, they don't have to step over it. Thank you. All right. Let's proceed. Let's have the jurors, please.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can we bring up those issues, your Honor?
THE COURT: I haven't seen anything yet.
MR. GOLDBERG: I don't understand. Well, one of the issues is the Defense would like to use a demonstration video that the Prosecution created, which is a video that was done simultaneously to the demonstration boards of the blood collection. And I don't object to the use of the video portion of the tape, per say, although it is probably not relevant, but there is an audio portion of the tape that basically doesn't pertain to anything other than my own conversations with the cameraman and with one of the criminalists as to how best to create that evidence, how best to edit it, how best to present it to the jury, and we ended up never using it. Probably I should not have released those comments to the Defense on the ground that they are privileged work product, but I was confident that there was so little to them that I just gave them the entire tape and didn't realize until later that I shouldn't have done so.
THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld.
MR. GOLDBERG: But at any rate, I don't see any relevancy to them and I don't know why counsel would want to play those.
THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld.
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, may I ask Miss Mazzola to please step out during this discussion?
THE COURT: Sure. How long is this videotape?

(Miss Mazzola exits the courtroom.)

MR. GOLDBERG: It is about--
MR. NEUFELD: Seven, eight minutes maybe.
THE COURT: Do you intend on having the audio portion with counsel's comments?
MR. NEUFELD: Absolutely, your Honor, because--they are not just counsel's comments, your Honor; they are counsel's instructions to the witness on what to do at certain points. And not only is counsel giving instructions on what to do, but counsel is actually conveying certain important messages of bias to the witness during the course of that videotape.
THE COURT: When do you plan on using the videotape?
MR. NEUFELD: Maybe--maybe in about 45 minutes.
THE COURT: Let's see the tape.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay.

(Brief pause.)
(At 1:35 P.M. a videotape was played.)

THE COURT: Turn the sound up.

(The videotape continues playing.)
(At 1:45 the tape concludes.)

THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you, your Honor. I take it from what Mr. Goldberg said he is not objecting to the playing of the tape, he is objecting to the sound portion, so I will restrict my comment to the sound portion. Your Honor, the portion I believe Mr. Goldberg is concerned with and doesn't want to be played for the jury goes as follows, we made actually a transcript of the one small segment which we believe is certainly relevant and should be played to the jury. And although we are not opposed to playing the rest of the sound track, it goes like this: By Mr. Goldberg. "Is there any way we can get out that little part where she dropped some of the swatches? "Answer: I don't think I got it. "MR. GOLDBERG: Oh, you didn't?" Then by the camera operator: "But if it is on there, it is on there. "MR. GOLDBERG: No. I mean is there any way you can edit it out? "Camera: Of course. If it is on there, I will edit it out." By Mr. Goldberg. "But then will you have a gap? "Camera: No, it will be like two pieces of video cut together." One second.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I guess I'm not going to be winning the award at the Cannes Film Festival this year.
THE COURT: I would say Morris Dees is not shaking in his boots.
MR. GOLDBERG: It is kind of like watching ice cream melt, and I don't mean Haagen Das. And your Honor, what I've heard from the Defense here is really absurd and I think it is fairly clear what they are trying to do, and it should not be permitted, and what we have here is where the People are creating a piece of demonstrative evidence. And that is all that this is. It is clear from all of my comments that that is going on, including comments like "You don't need to collect more than one swatch because one is enough for them to get the general idea" or "Can you please turn this way so we can get a better shot of you filling out the card." We are entitled to create this piece of evidence and make it as perfect as we like. We are entitled, as I at one point thought of doing, adding graphics, adding sound, subtracting from the tape, adding to the tape. I could have scored it to the theme music of mission impossible if I had wanted to, which I actually thought of doing. We are entitled to create this any way we want to and what counsel is really trying to do is he is trying to suggest that there is something wrong or untoward that has gone on here in terms of the creation of this documentary piece of evidence. The distinction is that we are not documenting an event. We are not trying to record a historical event. What we are trying to illustrate--
THE COURT: Isn't the issue, though, work product and demonstration of demonstrative evidence? Isn't that the issue?
MR. GOLDBERG: I realize this, your Honor, and it is work product and I believed this was the kind of thing that Defense would not try to use that, there was no reason to redact it out, and then subsequently changed my mind after the tape had already been released to them. , I don't think it is relevant, I'm sure Mr. Neufeld would agree, and I probably should have, and it is my work product and my discussion and creation of an exhibit. And more importantly it is not relevant. I point out what we have in a chronology is where we have a situation that I talked about doing something that I'm entirely within my rights to do, but did not do, and maintained the evidence unedited and then turned it over unedited to the Defense. So the idea that they would come forward and try to argue that there is some impropriety where we have a situation where I am discussing doing something that I am entitled to do that I didn't do, and the only reason they know I even discussed it is because I turned it over for them and maintained it, and for them now to try to introduce this into this case as an issue is grossly improper and should not be allowed and it doesn't have any relevance whatsoever.
THE COURT: Briefly.
MR. NEUFELD: Fine. Two things, your Honor. Just so the record at least on how this tape is received is clear, in fact--
THE COURT: Counsel, I don't care how you got it. You got it.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay.
THE COURT: The issue is how you get over the work product problem and how do you get over a 352 objection.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, it is not work product, your Honor, because what we are introducing it for is simply his statements in the presence of this witness to influence her testimony on the witness stand. And any statements that a lawyer makes in the presence of a witness, which has the effect of influencing her testimony, is admissible because it goes to her bias. That is how it comes in. And even if it wasn't his intent, even if it wasn't his deliberate intent to influence her testimony, it has that effect and we are allowed to argue that it has this effect to this jury. That is an inference that they are permitted to draw. Clearly the statements were made in her presence. That is the point. That is not work product. And in terms of 352, I don't see that as a big problem here, your Honor, because certainly it has probative value as to whether or not he said in her presence, you know, let's try and get rid of the portion where you are making this mistake, where you are dropping these swatches. That is a very important message being conveyed to her that the Prosecution in this case wants to make this whole procedure look as simple as possible and wants to cover up any kind of mistakes that can and do happen.
THE COURT: Which is why they gave you the tape with her dropping the swatches.
MR. NEUFELD: They gave me the tape and they didn't even know it had the sound track on it. Initially I thought it was silent as well and he was going to edit out his comments, your Honor, and then we played it up and we found the volume was there. That is why. The reason he turned over the tape, your Honor, is because you ordered him to. You may recall we went into chambers and he said he had this tape and I laid a foundation with you and you said, "Mr. Goldberg, turn over this tape now."
THE COURT: Counsel, as I indicated to you, I'm not interested in how you got it. You got it.
MR. NEUFELD: I understand.

And, so it came to pass that prosecutor Hank Goldberg turned over the tape with the audio track where he conferred with the videographer on editing out Mazzola's goofs. The jury did not get treated to Goldman's audio track, but they got Neufeld and Mazzola doing a stop action review of the tape. It would be a daunting task to count the number of goofs. As well, the admissions of the lack of supervision, training and procedures was telling. And Mazzola collected almost every drop of blood at Bundy and Rockingham. Neufeld firmly established the problems endemic to the LAPD crime lab and its criminalists.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, let's just jump ahead a second to the June 14th search you did of the Bronco at the print shed. Okay?
MS. MAZZOLA: Okay.
MR. NEUFELD: And I believe you mentioned that you did what is known as a phenolphthalein test on the accelerator, the brake pedal and the emergency brake pad; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And when you did those three tests, did you place a single swab of cotton on each of those three items? Is that what you did?
MS. MAZZOLA: I was told just to use one swab and test all three.
MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry, what?
MS. MAZZOLA: I was told to use one swab and test all three.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you use one swab for all three? Is that what you are saying?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So in other words, you used the same swab on the accelerator, the brake pad and the emergency brake; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Who was it who told you that you should use the same swab to do a presumptive test for blood on three separate items?
MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Fung.
MR. NEUFELD: Prior to your going out there on June 14th had you received any instruction or training on the use of the phenolphthalein test?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And when you received that training, Miss Mazzola, didn't they tell you that you should use separate swabs on separate items?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, when Mr. Fung, your supervisor that day on June 14th, told you to use the same single swab on three different items to test for the presence of blood, did you say to him, "Mr. Fung, Dennis, this is not what I'm supposed to be doing"? Did you say that?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: He was your supervisor that day; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And so you just followed his directions; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

Well, that was entertaining and educational about the LAPD criminalists. Just on that day alone, there are another 100 pages equaling and exceeding it. When you doubt the LAPD could contaminate the evidence, let them made a demonstration tape showing off their collection procedure. And let a prosecutor add an audio track.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-07   23:34:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#316. To: nolu chan (#315)

And, so it came to pass that prosecutor Hank Goldberg turned over the tape with the audio track where he conferred with the videographer on editing out Mazzola's goofs.

ON A DEMONSTRATION TAPE, for crying out loud.

"MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So in other words, you used the same swab on the accelerator, the brake pad and the emergency brake; is that right?"

What's the big deal?. It was a phenolphthalein test for blood, not a DNA test.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-08   10:16:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#317. To: misterwhite (#316)

"MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So in other words, you used the same swab on the accelerator, the brake pad and the emergency brake; is that right?"

What's the big deal?. It was a phenolphthalein test for blood, not a DNA test.

After using one swab for multiple items, you are unable to say what tested positive.

When using one swab for multiple items, it is impossible to use a meaningful negative control.

And, instructions for the pheno test explicitly inform one not to use a swab to test more than one item.

MR. NEUFELD: Ma'am, in your training at SID did they ever teach you to use what are called negative controls?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Could you please tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what a negative control is.
MS. MAZZOLA: It is using the same item, be it a swatch or a swab, that you would use to collect a stain or to run a test. You run the test on the--a brand new different swab. It should be negative since nothing has been collected on the swab.
MR. NEUFELD: And, ma'am, when you did the phenolphthalein test with the single swab on the brake pedal, the emergency brake and the accelerator, you didn't use any negative control to see whether or not something else other than blood might be generating a false positive reaction, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.

[...]

MR. NEUFELD: And when you received that training, Miss Mazzola, didn't they tell you that you should use separate swabs on separate items?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

It was a problem in followup questioning on 27 April 1995

MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you. Now, turning to the Bronco search and collection of evidence, you said that on the pedals, that you used the same swab for the purposes of the phenolphtalein test?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why was that done?
MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Fung just wanted to see if the pedals had been manipulated as if someone had driven the Bronco.
MR. GOLDBERG: As opposed to what?
MS. MAZZOLA: As opposed to just getting in the Bronco and then getting right back out.

The prosecutors should learn to make up better b.s. stories. As brought out by Peter Neufeld, such a test is useless to establish whether anyone drove the car rather than just got in and back out. If there were blood only on the emergency brake, but not on either the accelerator or brake pedal, how would it prove somebody drove the car?

It was a big problem when Peter Neufeld played the tape for the jury and questioned Andrea Mazzola, the sometimes unsupervised trainee who was the primary collector of the blood drops at Bundy and Rockingham.

A prosecution expert, demonstrating to the jury that she did not know what she was doing, is a problem for the prosecution. Demonstrating that the prosecution was playing hide-the-ball is another problem.

MAZZOLA, testimony 25 April 1995, VIDEO

MR. NEUFELD: Do you recognize the photographs contained on this board?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And in fact that is you in the photographs; is it not?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it is.
MR. NEUFELD: And are these a series of still photographs which you are attempting to capture different aspects of the collection process?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

[...]

MR. NEUFELD: Well, is there a time when you were taken out by the Prosecutors in this case and asked to do a demonstration?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And was a Prosecutor present?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Mr. Goldberg?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it was.
MR. NEUFELD: And were other members of SID present as well?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Was a camera operator there as well?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Both a still camera operator and a video camera operator?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And have you ever been asked to do a demonstration of stain collection before on any other case?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.

[...]

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, aside from Mr. Goldberg being present and a still photographer and a video photographer, were there other people present?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And did they assist you or at least give you instructions during the course of this demonstration?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I would object to that.
THE COURT: Vague.
MR. NEUFELD: Did--who else was present besides Mr. Goldberg and the camera operators?
MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Fung and Mr. Yamauchi.
MR. NEUFELD: And during the course of your doing this demonstration, having these photographs taken, did any--did either Mr. Yamauchi or Mr. Fung give you any direction?
MR. GOLDBERG: It is still vague.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Did Mr. Goldberg give you some instructions?
MR. GOLDBERG: It is vague as to "Instructions."
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, can we approach?
THE COURT: No. I think counsel understands the parameters here.
MR. NEUFELD: During the time that you were actually doing the demonstration, did Mr. Goldberg give you any direction as to what to do?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I still think it is vague and overbroad.
THE COURT: Overruled. Yes or no?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't understand what he means by "Instruction."
THE COURT: All right. Obviously this is a demonstration project, a piece of demonstrative evidence. I'm sure the jury understands it was created for this case. Proceed.
MR. NEUFELD: And during the course of that did Mr. Goldberg give you specific instructions?
MS. MAZZOLA: As to what he wanted to depict, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And the sequence there when you should do certain thing?
MS. MAZZOLA: No, not the sequence.

[...]

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, again calling your attention to collecting a stain demonstration board with the still photographs on it, would you agree, Miss Mazzola, that the still photographs depicted--shown on this board, because they are still photographs, don't capture the continuous motion involved in the entire process of bloodstain collection?
MR. GOLDBERG: It's argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And when you first set out to do this demonstration for Mr. Goldberg and the Prosecution, did the Prosecution attempt to record this demonstration with a videotape as well?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And the video was shot at the same time that the still photographs were taken?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And it was your job during this videotape demonstration to act out the role of the criminalist collecting bloodstains?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: I mean this wasn't a real case, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Let me put this down now.

[...]

MR. NEUFELD: What was your understanding--when you were engaged in this demonstration for the District Attorney and the videocamera is rolling, what is your understanding of what the purpose of this videotape was going to be?
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: That it might be shown to the jury.
MR. GOLDBERG: And so while the District Attorney was producing this videotape, you tried to perform the task of criminalist to the best of your ability; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And knowing that the videotape was meant to represent the process of bloodstain collection as practiced by you, you also tried to make it as realistic as possible; did you not?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And is the tape--have you seen the videotape?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.

[...]

MR. NEUFELD: Did Mr. Goldberg or any Prosecutor ever tell you that it was important to convey to this jury how simple crime scene--I'm sorry--bloodstain collection is?
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant. Calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question. Was that ever said to you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not to show how simple it was. Just to show the procedure.
MR. NEUFELD: Did any Prosecutor ever express to you the importance of conveying to this jury that it's actually--that it is a simple procedure?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: It is a simple procedure, but that-­

[...]

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, during your prep sessions with Mr. Goldberg, did he tell you that there was a chance that this videotape might be played for the jury?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if he said there was a chance it might.
MR. NEUFELD: Are you aware of the fact that on the videotape you are depicted dropping swatches?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And were you at all concerned that the videotape depicted you dropping swatches?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.

[...]

MR. NEUFELD: All right. Well, was one of the questions that you discussed during those prep sessions a question involving you dropping swatches during a crime scene collection?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know if that was during one of the prep sessions.
MR. NEUFELD: Are you saying that the very first time you ever heard that question asked was when you took the witness stand here?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe it was mentioned when we were taking the photographs for the collection demonstration.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. At this time, your Honor, I would like to play the videotape.
THE COURT: All right. Let's mark it.
MR. NEUFELD: What's next in order?
THE COURT: 1117.

(Deft's 1117 for id = videotape)

THE COURT: Proceed.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I've never done this before in front of the jury. So there may be a couple of times where I ask to go back and slow it down and please indulge me a little bit.
THE COURT: Well, you've seen your colleagues.
MR. NEUFELD: Exactly. All right.

(At 3:29 P.M., People's exhibit 1117, a videotape, was played.)

MR. NEUFELD: Stop it a second.
MR. NEUFELD: By the way, did you notice the date at the beginning of this?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: It says 4-4-95. Does that refresh your recollection as to when this videotape was made?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not really.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Okay. Go ahead. I'm sorry. Do me a favor. I'm sorry, your Honor. Could you just go back to the beginning one more time? Can you stop there a minute?
MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, is that your--you're wearing leather gloves, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And it's your right hand that's now resting on the ground, isn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: Can you just back up a few frames? That's good. Thank you.
MR. NEUFELD: Is that your right hand that's resting on the ground?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Would it be fair to say that the ground there outside on the street is dirty?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
THE COURT: You want to describe--unfortunately, Mr. Neufeld, since we don't have a real-time counter and if you're going to isolate particular items, you're going to need to describe them, either print them or describe them.
MR. NEUFELD: This will be 1117-A.

(Deft's 1117-A for id = printout)

MR. NEUFELD: And, Miss Mazzola, just before this shot where you put the right hand down on the dirty ground, did you clean the tweezers?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, can you continue?
MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola-­
MR. NEUFELD: Stop again.
MR. NEUFELD: --did you just take the tweezers and put them--and move them from the left hand and transfer them to the right hand?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And that's the right hand that you just had put down on the dirty ground; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

[...]

MR. NEUFELD: All right. And the same hand that you're using to catch that swatch at that point, if that's what you could have been doing, is the same right hand that you had just put down on the dirty ground; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Continue.
MR. NEUFELD: What you're doing now is, you're making the control swatch?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Item no. 5?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And, Miss Mazzola, on the dirty pavement outdoors like this, would you expect to see some kind of dirt or debris on the control swatch?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for conclusion.
MR. NEUFELD: Based on your experience.
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Might, might not.
MR. NEUFELD: Hmm?
MS. MAZZOLA: Might, might not. I don't know.
MR. NEUFELD: Even on an out-door pavement like this, you wouldn't expect to find some dirt?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: It's a possibility you would find some dirt.
MR. NEUFELD: Is it a probability that you would find some dirt, Miss Mazzola?
MR. GOLDBERG: It's argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Continue, please.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, when you put the plastic bag in the envelope at that point, you folded it over to seal it, didn't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And that would retain the moisture in it, wouldn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: It would help keep the swatch from slipping out.

MR. NEUFELD: Hold it one second, please.
MR. NEUFELD: Other than preventing the swatches from slipping out, by folding over the top of the plastic bag when it's wet inside, that also will--that will also result in preserving the moisture in those swatches, wouldn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: One moment.

(Briefpause.)

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Could you just back up about--back up. Go a little more. Okay. Now go forward a little bit.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, after you make the control swatch, Miss Mazzola, you then clean the tweezers off before you go on to actually collect the bloodstain; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Can you freeze it there for a second?
MR. NEUFELD: And what you just did, ma'am, was to pick up--you're going to use that wet wipe or Kleenex to clean the tweezer, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. The chem-wipe.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. And you just picked up that chem-wipe with the same right hand which you had been resting on the dirty concrete, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

[...]

MR. NEUFELD: Now you're pouring more swatches out of the bottle, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And are some of the swatches falling to the ground and missing the cap?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

[...]

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, when you made this demonstration tape, were you aware of the fact that your right hand had been resting on the dirty concrete?
MS. MAZZOLA: No, I don't believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: Is this the first time you knew that?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And, Miss Mazzola, you said you did know, however, that you had dropped swatches during the course of this videotape, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And in fact, comment had been made by others present about the fact that you had dropped swatches; isn't that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Well--you also testified on direct examination, Miss Mazzola, that you had never dropped the swatch that had blood on it. Was that your testimony?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, had the Prosecutor told you during the prep sessions that it was safe for you to give that answer because we don't have you doing that on the videotape?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this is improper. It's argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained. The jury is to disregard the implication of that question. Proceed.
MR. NEUFELD: You also testified, Miss Mazzola, on direct examination that one reason--I'm sorry. Withdrawn. You also testified that at crime scenes, your gloved hand has never touched a bloodstain or wet blood; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: But isn't one reason why you wear these protective gloves in the first place is because you could accidentally touch a bloodstain or wet blood?
MS. MAZZOLA: We wear them for our own protection because we are around blood.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, when you say you wear these gloves for your own protection, Miss Mazzola, isn't that protect--isn't that to protect you from an accidental contact with blood? Isn't that the whole purpose you wear the gloves?
MS. MAZZOLA: Blood among other things, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So it's anticipated by the people who taught you at SID to wear gloves that accidental contact between a criminalist and blood does happen from time to time; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: So when you say that you have never touched blood or a wet bloodstain even with your protected gloves on, what you're really saying is that you've never done it such as that you're aware of it; isn't that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: I think that misstates her testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Such that I was aware of, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. Now, this is going to be the swatch of the actual evidence, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Could you stop there?

[...]

MR. NEUFELD: Now that you see the control swatch just as it's about to hit the control area next to stain no. 5, would you agree that the discoloration we saw later on when you're actually about to lift the bloodstain is moisture from the control swatch?
MS. MAZZOLA: Well, it's a little hard to tell. It's possible-­
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, do you actually see any discoloration in the area immediately adjacent to that bloodstain in this picture before you put that wet control swatch on the ground?
MS. MAZZOLA: I see the area slightly in front of the swatch between the swatch and the stain itself.
MR. NEUFELD: Isn't the area at that point, Miss Mazzola, fairly consistent and not darker, appreciably darker in the area--in the immediate area where you're placing down the control swatch at this point? Isn't that a fair assessment of what's depicted here, ma'am?
MS. MAZZOLA: Well, it looks slightly darker to me, but-­
MR. NEUFELD: Now, could you go forward to where she's about to put down the--yeah. Go a little bit further. Slow it down. In slow-mo. That's right.
MR. NEUFELD: Now do you see the discoloration created by the moisture emanating out from the control swatch?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And that's a different color than the other discolorations in the pavement, isn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it is.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. All right. And you can see even at that point the moisture has almost touched the bloodstain, hasn't it?
MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to almost.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: There's still separation between the two.
MR. NEUFELD: There's still some separation there. Okay.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, go forward to the next place where we're about to collect the evidence.

[...]

MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, can you see that the moisture has spread out from the control swatch so it is in fact touching the blood drop stain?
MS. MAZZOLA: It appears to be.

[...]

MR. NEUFELD: When you received your instruction on how to collect bloodstain evidence, although you were taught to collect a control close to the bloodstain, you were also taught, Miss Mazzola, not to allow the moisture from the control swatch to come into contact with the bloodstain; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe that was ever mentioned.
MR. NEUFELD: well, Miss Mazzola, if in fact that swatch itself had been contaminated by your dirty hand, for instance, would the contamination be transferred to the moisture that is emanating out from the swatch? Could that happen?
MR. GOLDBERG: It's vague as to which swatch.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know.
MR. NEUFELD: You don't know if it could happen?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know if it could happen.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, if there was dirt on your hand and your hand came into contact with the control swatch, would you agree that it's possible that there could be a transfer of that trace evidence of that contaminant from your glove to the swatch?
MS. MAZZOLA: It would be possible.
MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree, ma'am, that if that control swatch was moistened with water, that there could be a transfer of trace evidence from the swatch to the water?
MS. MAZZOLA: There would be items from the ground in the water, but the bloodstain itself is on the ground. So it's all in the same substrate.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, that assumes, does it not, Miss Mazzola, that everywhere on the ground, you have the same contaminants and the same substrate? Isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That close a substrate would be approximately the same.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, when you put your right hand down on the ground, you didn't do that two inches away or one inch away from the blood drop. You did that several feet away, didn't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And if your hand came into contact, the hand that touched the dirty pavement several feet away came into contact with the control swatch, it could contaminate the control swatch with whatever contaminant your right hand came in contact with, couldn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: If the hand came in contact with that particular swatch, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And if that swatch then comes into contact with water, the water can pick up that contaminant, can't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: A possibility.
MR. NEUFELD: And if that water then spreads outward and actually comes into contact with the bloodstain, then the bloodstain can come into contact with the very same contaminant that the right hand initially came into contact with. Isn't that a possibility?
MS. MAZZOLA: A possibility, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. But it's your testimony that you were never instructed to keep the control swatch moisture not in contact with the bloodstain? They never taught you that at the SID mini academy?
MS. MAZZOLA: It was never a strong point that was brought up.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, was it a small point that was brought up?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember.
MR. NEUFELD: So is it--best of your recollection, it could have been, but you just don't recall?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't recall.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, as you sit here today, would it make sense to you as a criminalist not to let the moisture from the control swatch come into contact with the bloodstain?
MS. MAZZOLA: That would be preferable.

[...]

MR. NEUFELD: And you're putting it in the coin envelope now?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And the coin envelope is not sealed, is it?
MS. MAZZOLA: No. Not sealed.
MR. NEUFELD: Now you're cleaning the tweezers again?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And again, Miss Mazzola, you're holding the tweezers in your right hand now?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Same right hand that touched the ground, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: My right hand.
MR. NEUFELD: Yes. And is that your right hand hitting the ground again?
MS. MAZZOLA: My hand was on the ground, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Notice you're stretching.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Is it tiring bending down there to do even a single swatch?
MS. MAZZOLA: No. When it is extremely cold, my left knee tends to tighten up a bit.
MR. NEUFELD: And in this instance, you're actually brushing away the swatches that you actually dropped to the ground?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: By the way, Mr. Yamauchi and Dennis Fung were also present during this?
MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Yamauchi was.
MR. NEUFELD: And did Mr. Yamauchi-- I thought you said Dennis Fung was there as well.
MR. NEUFELD: Would you hold it a second, please?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe he was back and forth between the demonstration area and the lab itself.
MR. NEUFELD: One moment.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Just back up a second, please.
MR. NEUFELD: And when you actually collected the swatch, were your knees on the ground?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Can you back up? Back up to just where she's about to get up.
MR. NEUFELD: And are you now putting your left hand on your knee?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And that's the knee that was just on the pavement?
MS. MAZZOLA: I think it was on the pavement.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And when--you're wiping the ground now with your right hand, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you didn't change gloves before you went on to the next swatching, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Hold it one second. You're going forward. What are you doing?

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: And there are more swatches that have dropped to the ground again, haven't there?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Again, your right hand with the tweezers is going down to the dirty ground?
MS. MAZZOLA: Is on the ground.
MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree that the pavement outside where you're shooting this has dirt on it, ma'am?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: By the way, Miss Mazzola-­
MR. NEUFELD: Let's stop for one second.
MR. NEUFELD: I notice in the demonstration board, when you're actually--when they show you either using the control swatch or swatch on a piece of evidence, you don't see any of the swatches that are lying on the ground; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: That they don't show any swatches lying on the ground?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: After you finished making this videotape, did the Prosecutor ask you to repeat the exercise again?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.

[...]

MR. NEUFELD: See the moisture moving out from the control swatch, Miss Mazzola?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: You see it-­
MR. NEUFELD: Hold it.
MR. NEUFELD: You see it coming into contact with the portion of the bloodstain that moves out in an arm to the right?
MS. MAZZOLA: It appears that it is.
MR. NEUFELD: One second. Can you just back it up a little bit, please, about five seconds? Stop.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, see the dirt on the fingertips of the third and fourth fingers of your glove?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Continue. Stop.

[...]

­MR. NEUFELD: Dropped other swatches there, Miss Mazzola; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, you were having some difficulty getting the swatch to get onto the stain there, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Right.
MR. NEUFELD: Slow down. Stop.
MR. NEUFELD: And so now you've moved your fingers on the dirty glove that had been in contact with the pavement down toward the tip of those tweezers, haven't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: They are still a ways away from the tip.
MR. NEUFELD: I understand that. But you've moved them down away from the position they were normally in to try and get that swatch to come off the tip, haven't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And that's the same hand that had the dirt on the fingers, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: Continue.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, between the collection--now you're collecting item no. 6; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, between the collection of item 5 and item no. 6, you never changed your gloves, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And the reason you never changed your gloves is because no one at SID ever taught you to change your gloves?
MS. MAZZOLA: They don't need to teach you when to change your gloves. You change your gloves periodically.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, did anyone at LAPD SID ever teach you to change your gloves between the handling of different blood stains?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, you said that one of the procedures that you have been taught--
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.

(At 4:16 P.M., the playing of the videotape concluded.)

MR. NEUFELD: One of the procedures that you have been taught at LAPD was to put some scale in the photograph such as a tape--such as a ruler to indicate the size of the actual bloodstain, correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: That misstates the evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, were you taught as part of your instruction on forensic photography to have a ruler placed in the scene?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, did you use a ruler when doing this demonstration to indicate--for purposes of documenting the stain, the size of the stain?
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: And did you not do that because the Prosecutors didn't tell you to do that?
MS. MAZZOLA: I didn't do that, but no one told me not to.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. One moment, your Honor.
THE COURT: Certainly.

(Briefpause.)

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, how many crime scenes have you collected bloodstains at since June 13th, 1994?
MS. MAZZOLA: Two I believe.
MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree that additional training and more experience makes you more proficient today than you were 10 months ago?
MS. MAZZOLA: Experience helps.
MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree that when collecting blood or bloodstains, mistakes can occur?
MS. MAZZOLA: Mistakes can happen, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree that when collecting bloodstains, especially in evidence that's going to go out for DNA analysis, that the criminalist must understand how in the course of making different mistakes DNA could become degraded?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't think we bear in mind DNA specifically. We look at any serological testing.
MR. NEUFELD: Were you ever taught at the SID mini academy any connection at all between the mistakes that can happen at a crime scene and the effects it will have on DNA or other serological testing?
MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, the wet swatches, Miss Mazzola, were placed in the truck in brown paper bags; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Does the LAPD SID unit have a written procedure for storing biological evidence in the van?
MS. MAZZOLA: I do not know.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, there's a refrigerator in the van, isn't there?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Did Fung instruct you to put the bloodstain swatches in the refrigerator?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: No, he did not.
MR. NEUFELD: And you did not see Fung put them in the refrigerator, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree, Miss Mazzola, that or were you aware of the fact that the refrigerator worked at least some of the time?
MS. MAZZOLA: I was aware that it worked some of the time, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And that it would work for several hours eventually before the battery going dead?
MS. MAZZOLA: I wasn't sure how long it would work.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, have you ever been aware of the fact that it did work for more than one or two hours?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if I ever found that out.
MR. NEUFELD: You didn't find out how long it did work for?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, would you agree, Miss Mazzola, that even a few hours of keeping wet blood swatches in the refrigerator is better than not keeping them there at all?
MR. GOLDBERG: Beyond the scope of her expertise.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, you said that you had been told by people at LAPD SID that heat can have some effect on bacteria growing on the blood swatches; isn't that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained. Counsel, I assume there's some other witness who is going to testify to these events.
MR. NEUFELD: One moment, your Honor.

(Briefpause.)

MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, when you came back to Rockingham later in the afternoon on the 13th, the first item of evidence that you collected inside the house was item no. 12; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And item no. 12 is more than a single drop of blood, isn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: If I remember correctly, it is.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, it is three drops of blood, isn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: I'm not exactly sure how many.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, the other drops of blood that you or bloodstains that you collected from the driveway that day, they were all individual drops; were they not?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And weren't you taught, Miss Mazzola, that whenever you have distinct drops, even if they're close together, that they should be collected in separate packages?
MS. MAZZOLA: That was up to the discretion of the supervisor.
MR. NEUFELD: Let me show 14-

­(Briefpause.)

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, did you receive a handout from the SID unit entitled, "Collection and preservation of body fluids"? Do you have it?
MS. MAZZOLA: I might have. I don't remember.
MR. NEUFELD: Next in order would be?
THE COURT: 1118? 1118.

(Deft's 1118 for id = handout)

MR. NEUFELD: Show you this, ask you to take a look at item no. 13.
MS. MAZZOLA: Okay.
MR. NEUFELD: By the way, Miss Mazzola--also look at that. Do these two pages represent a handout that you received at the SID mini academy?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. They look familiar.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And in the handout that you received from the SID mini academy, weren't you told specifically, quote, if there is more than one distinct stain, these should be treated as different stains and collected separately?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's what the handout says.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. And, Miss Mazzola, does it anywhere in that handout say, "Oh, but wait a second. You can make an exception if the senior criminalist says to"?
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you ever receive any written instructions at all from LAPD SID suggesting that you could make an exception from that rule when the senior criminalist so chose?
MS. MAZZOLA: There is nothing written down.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, even on the demo board that we just looked at, Miss Mazzola, items 5 and 6 are only several inches apart, aren't they?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe--well, what do you call by several?
MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree, Miss Mazzola, that items 5 and 6 are within a foot of one another?
MS. MAZZOLA: They could be within a foot, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And, Miss Mazzola, I believe you said that you had also been taught it wasn't necessary to pick up every single drop in a area, but only to pick up representative drops; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, other than the three drops that you saw in the foyer where you picked up item no. 12, weren't there some other small drops in the vicinity that you didn't bother to collect?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if I saw any other little drops around that area or not.

(Briefpause.)

MR. NEUFELD: But you would agree, ma'am, that there were at least a few drops in that foyer area where you collected no. 12?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

[...]

MR. NEUFELD: I believe you said, Miss Mazzola, before that you can't tell whether or not this trail of blood drops at Rockingham is leading from the house to the Bronco or from the Bronco to the house; isn't that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.
MR. NEUFELD: Just for foundation for the next question.
THE COURT: That's what she said.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, Miss Mazzola, from what you've just said, the greater number of drops that you saw in any particular area was that concentration of drops in the foyer inside the front door; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

[...]

(Deft's 1119 for id = photograph)

[...]

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, do you recognize that photograph?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And is that photograph showing at least three different blood drops?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: On the foyer near the card no. 12?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it true, Miss Mazzola, that that was the only blood drops or bloodstains that you observed on the first floor of the house?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it true, Miss Mazzola, that after you collected those blood drops in item no. 12 in the foyer near the front door, that you then walked up the stairway?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe we started going upstairs, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you examined the light carpet on the stairs?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And as you examined that light carpet on the stairs, there was absolutely no bloodstains seen there at all, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: I did not observe any.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, you were looking, weren't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Right.
MR. NEUFELD: And wasn't Dennis Fung looking?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And he didn't say he observed any either, did he?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you were not only looking for blood drops at that point, you were also looking for dry flecks of blood as well, weren't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Anything that was red.
MR. NEUFELD: And you didn't see anything that was red on this white carpet ascending all the way up the stairs?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember what color the carpet was.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, was it light color ma'am?
MS. MAZZOLA: It was light, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: It was the kind of color that if there was a red drop, it would stand out, wouldn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And then as you walked down the hallway on that second floor toward Mr. Simpson's bedroom, there was also that same light colored carpeting, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't recall. Could be. I don't remember.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, when you--you were examining the floor, weren't you, at that point?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you didn't see any blood drops there either, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you didn't see any flecks of blood, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: And when you examined that stairway going up the stairs, ma'am, did you examine the banister also?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And on the banister, ma'am, there were no flecks of blood, were there?
MS. MAZZOLA: I personally did not observe any.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, did Mr. Fung personally observe them in your presence?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not in my presence, no.
MR. NEUFELD: And on that banister, there were no flecks of blood either, were there?
MS. MAZZOLA: I did not see any.
MR. NEUFELD: And Mr. Fung didn't mention any to you, did he?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: And if you had seen them, you would have collected them, wouldn't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you would have photographed them?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And also on that banister, ma'am, there were no smears of blood, were there, indicating that somebody had blood on their hands? Isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: I did not recall seeing anything like that.
MR. NEUFELD: And Mr. Fung didn't observe any either that he mentioned to you, did he?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for conclusion. Hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Did Mr. Fung in your presence say to you that he had observed any smears of blood on the banister?
THE COURT: Sustained. Counsel, why don't you rephrase that question; did Mr. Fung point out to you any blood smears, et cetera, et cetera.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. NEUFELD: You can answer the Judge's question.
MS. MAZZOLA: No, he did not.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-09   6:23:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#318. To: nolu chan (#317)

"such a test is useless to establish whether anyone drove the car rather than just got in and back out."

Uh-huh. Why would they get in with bloody shoes then immediately get out?

Like everything else you claim, it's possible, but why would it be reasonable for anyone to do it?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-09   11:54:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#319. To: nolu chan (#317)

"After using one swab for multiple items, you are unable to say what tested positive."

Swab "A", nothing. Swab "B", nothing. Swab "C", bingo. Sure you can.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-10   11:30:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#320. To: misterwhite (#318)

Uh-huh. Why would they get in with bloody shoes then immediately get out?

Why would someone get in the car to plant blood and take it for a drive?

Mazzola's testimony is coming. Enjoy!

As for the shoes, I intent to prove that there was insufficient evidence to support a claim of a Bruno Magli shoeprint to any degree of scientific certainty. Try not to get apoplexy. That will covewred with the testimony of FBI Special Agent William J. Bodziak.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-10   22:00:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#321. To: misterwhite (#319)

"After using one swab for multiple items, you are unable to say what tested positive."

Swab "A", nothing. Swab "B", nothing. Swab "C", bingo. Sure you can.

Mozzola only used swab "A".

Mozzola collected no substrate control.

If there was a positive result, there is no way of telling whether A, B, or C indicated the possibility of the presence of blood.

With no substrate control, there is no way of telling if one of the combined items contained beet juice and would have tested positive using distilled water on an area outside any stain.

What you've got is squat. I was proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the criminalists did not know what they were doing, or didn't care, and not much else.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-10   22:01:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#322. To: all (#319)

Andrea MAZZOLA testimony, 20 April 1995; EXCERPTS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you have a practice at a crime scene to wear the same pair of gloves throughout the entire crime scene?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: What is your practice?
MS. MAZZOLA: I change the gloves when they start getting uncomfortable. If I am done possessing an area and I am moving on to a completely separate area, I will change gloves.
MR. GOLDBERG: By the way, just going back for a second to the blood collection procedure, can you--do you ever touch the blood with your gloved hands?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: When you are collecting it?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: What about the swatches?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is that something that has happened to you by accident where you have touched a bloody swatch with your gloved hands?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MS. MAZZOLA: The hat and the glove at Bundy were touching each other. They were not in two completely separate areas. They were in physical contact with each other.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And when you were at a crime scene and collecting evidence, is it your habit to, if you see something on your gloves or see some blood or trace on your gloves, to change them?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: So the glove and the hat were in close proximity?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MS. MAZZOLA: The sample item no. 18, 17, 19, are mine. The "Received--received in serology" under 18 is mine. 17, the location of item "Received from Vannatter" is Mr. Fung's writing. My writing is the writing under the "Item collected" for that item number, and Mr. Fung's writing is "Removed from." Mine is "Item 9" and his is the "Hairs and fibers."
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, did you do this document on your own initially or did Mr. Fung do it together with you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Initially it was mine.
MR. GOLDBERG: And then did you call Mr. Fung's attention to it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you put in the time for item no. 17, 17:20--that is what it says, 17:20, where did you get that from?
MS. MAZZOLA: From Mr. Fung.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is that 5:20?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: It came from him and not an analyzed--and not an analyzed envelope or another piece of paper?
MS. MAZZOLA: He told me. I don't--that is all I know.
MR. GOLDBERG: And where did you get the time nine o'clock for the "Removed item 9, 19"?
MS. MAZZOLA: That I glanced at the clock while he was working on it.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what about the 8:30 time for the "Received" for item no. 18?
MS. MAZZOLA: That was from Mr. Fung.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Were you present when any pair of sneakers was handed over?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: So after you created this document and then brought it to Mr. Fung's attention, what happened?
MS. MAZZOLA: He wanted the numbers--sample item numbers changed.
MR. GOLDBERG: And why was that?
MS. MAZZOLA: He wanted to keep the items in chronological order as they had been received.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Were you present when any pair of sneakers was handed over?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: So after you created this document and then brought it to Mr. Fung's attention, what happened?
MS. MAZZOLA: He wanted the numbers--sample item numbers changed.
MR. GOLDBERG: And why was that?
MS. MAZZOLA: He wanted to keep the items in chronological order as they had been received.
MR. GOLDBERG: And based upon your own experience as a criminalist, is there any advantage to doing that in terms of other reports that need to be done, such as property reports?
MS. MAZZOLA: Well, when they are kept in chronological order as to the day they were received, on the property reports you can put all of the items received on the same day on the property report. If they were out of order, you would have to generate a new property report for each item.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Do you have any recollection of why that was erased and the other--and "Received from Vannatter" put in there?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe I was trying to put them in the order that Mr. Fung wanted, 17, 18 and 19, and had started to write "Received in serology," meaning the tennis shoes, and Mr. Fung wanted it kept 18 first, then 17 and then 19.
MR. GOLDBERG: And he just changed those item numbers?
MS. MAZZOLA: Right, yeah.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-10   22:02:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#323. To: all (#319)

Andrea MAZZOLA testimony, 25 April 1995, EXCERPTS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: And it is when they took you over to see the Bronco that you first began to fill out the vehicle search checklist; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And notwithstanding, Miss Mazzola, yours and Dennis Fung's testimony that upon arrival at Rockingham that he announced that he would be the officer in charge, that on the vehicle search checklist which you began to fill out--I'm sorry. Withdrawn. Isn't it true, Miss Mazzola, that even though you had been informed in advance of filling out the vehicle search checklist that he would be the officer in charge, that you nonetheless put yourself down as the officer in charge on that vehicle search checklist?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Yet, ma'am, no one erased your name as the OIC, the officer in charge, on the vehicle search checklist; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: You continued to have that title throughout?
MS. MAZZOLA: Title-­
MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to "Title."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, your title on that report was never changed; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: And Miss Mazzola, even at your first two crime scenes, when you were on probation, the supervising criminalist didn't bother to stay with you the entire time; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And even at your first two crime scenes, when you were on probation, there were times when you collected blood stains unassisted by a supervising criminalist?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Is there a policy and practice of the LAPD that student or trainee—I'm sorry—that probationer criminalists participating in their very first crime scene collection matter should be there in an unsupervised capacity when they are collecting critical evidence?
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant. Also vague as to "Critical evidence."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I do not know what their policy is.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Is there a policy and practice of the LAPD SID unit that new probationers like yourself learn from mistakes when you are collecting critical evidence at a murder crime scene?
MR. GOLDBERG: Vague, argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: When you are trained on how to collect evidence, you don't make mistakes on how to pick it up.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, you are saying that it is impossible for you to make a mistake at a crime scene?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, that misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. NEUFELD: I'm asking her a question.
MS. MAZZOLA: I collect the evidence the way I was trained. That is the only way I know how to do it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: And in contrast to those first couple of crime scenes, Miss Mazzola, where you were present in this case on June 13th of 1994, you were in fact the primary collector of blood stains, as opposed to Dennis Fung; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's right.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: To your knowledge, ma'am, does the Los Angeles Police Department publish any guidelines at all as to how to supervise and train a new criminalist at a crime scene?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know.
MR. NEUFELD: You have never heard of any?
MS. MAZZOLA: I have never heard of it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Well, to your knowledge, Miss Mazzola, is each supervising criminalist free to allow you to do as much or as little as a particular supervising criminalist chooses?
MR. GOLDBERG: It is irrelevant, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know. I'm not a supervising criminalist. I don't know what their guidelines are.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, since you have been at the Los Angeles Police Department are you aware of the L.A. Police Department's crime scene field unit protocol and procedures manual?
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes a fact not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: That they have one.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I am not familiar with that, no.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, has it ever been given to you to look at?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Has anyone ever instructed you to read it?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Have you received, during the year and a half that you have been with the Los Angeles Police Department, any manual prepared by SID laying out the various procedures and rules that you are inquired to follow?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Is there any written manual, ma'am, that you rely on when you go out to process evidence at a crime scene?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Is there any book distributed to you to instruct you on how to conduct crime scene investigation?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Now, one of the things you have been taught to do, Miss Mazzola, is to fill out and prepare crime scene investigation field notes; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: We have been shown the notes before, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And these crime scene checklists and field notes are a series of reports and forms that you are expected to accurately and completely fill out in connection with crime scene investigations; isn't that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: It is compound, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I was told to fill in the parts that were the most important.
MR. NEUFELD: And were you told, ma'am, to fill out these reports and forms contemporaneously with the activities that you are engaged in?
MS. MAZZOLA: For the most part, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And were you taught, ma'am, in your Los Angeles Police Department-- I think you said you attended the mini academy; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, isn't it a fact that it was your understanding, when you testified on August 23rd, that you were required to fill out these reports completely and accurately?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe I testified something like that.
MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it a fact, Miss Mazzola, that it was only after you finished testifying on August 23rd and you had testified to this duty to fill—fill these reports out completely, that when you then got back to the—the L.A. Police Department SID lab, that individuals for the first time said, no, no, no, it is not necessary to fill them out completely? Isn't that what happened?
MS. MAZZOLA: As I said before, I had seen other criminalists fill out portions; some fill out the entire form.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, I asked you didn't you believe that up until August 23rd, when you testified in this case, that is, for the first seven or eight months of your employment, that you were required to fill out these reports completely?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Not just to fill out portions, but to fill them out in totality; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Miss Mazzola, one of the requirements on these forms is to note for each item collected the location it is found; is that right?
MR. GOLDBERG: States facts not in evidence as to "Requirements."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And another item on the form is "Time," the time each item is collected; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And another item that you are--that up until August 23rd you also believed you were required to fill out was "By whom" the item was collected; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And so, ma'am, if as recently as August 23rd you believed you were required to fill out these reports completely, you also operated under that belief when you were present on June 13th and June 14th to participate in the crime scene investigation in Mr. Simpson's case; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, I ask you again have you ever received a handout from your superiors at the Los Angeles Police Department SID unit instructing you that you are required to keep complete and accurate field notes?
MS. MAZZOLA: That page does not look familiar to me.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Well, separate and apart from actually receiving a handout, at some point at this mini academy did your instructors ever teach you that it was very important, in terms of your professional responsibility, to make accurate and complete field notes?
MS. MAZZOLA: (No audible response.)
MR. NEUFELD: Isn't that something that they taught you?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: And were you taught, Miss Mazzola, that if swatches, for instance, were not properly marked, packaged and identified, they could get mixed up?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And were you taught that if items of evidence were not properly packaged and identified, it made it easier for someone to tamper with those items?
MS. MAZZOLA: That was never brought up.
MR. NEUFELD: You never received any instruction at all, during your entire time at this mini academy, on taking measures to avoid evidence tampering?
MS. MAZZOLA: No one would tamper with the evidence.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, would you agree that at least on June 13th in these notes Dennis Fung did not complete field notes?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I would object. I think this has been covered.
THE COURT: That is a new question. You can answer that question.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, when you got back to the laboratory, either on June 13th or on June 14th, did you tell Dennis Fung that he hadn't kept complete and accurate field notes for June 13th?
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant. Calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I didn't tell Mr. Fung anything like that.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you go to either Miss Kestler, the head of the laboratory, did you go to her and tell her that the person you were working with that day did not comply with the requirement as you believed at that time, that is, to keep complete field notes?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you go to Mr. Matheson, the no. 2 person, and tell him that your teammate had failed to follow the requirement of keeping field notes?
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence, that it was a requirement.
THE COURT: Sustained. Did you tell anybody about this?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, you said, and I quote, that "Some boxes don't apply to the criminalist at the scene." Let's start with the box that says "Collected by," Miss Mazzola. Is it your testimony that the box where they are asking you to write down who it is who collected each item doesn't apply to the criminalist at the scene? Yes or no?
MS. MAZZOLA: As of June 13th I was informed we were working as a team. The box was not necessary to be filled out.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, the first time you were told that was August 23rd, that you didn't have to fill out all these boxes; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: No, it was June 13th.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, isn't it relevant to know who collected the item of evidence for purposes of establishing a chain of custody? Were you taught that?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not to really establish the chain of custody.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, were you taught anything about chain of custody in your training?
MR. GOLDBERG: This is overbroad.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And were you taught that the first thing one has to do in establishing a chain of custody is establish who the person is who actually collects the item of evidence?
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes a fact not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. NEUFELD: Weren't you taught that?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe so.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, let's go on to the i.d. Markings. There is a column on here that says "I.d. Mark"; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And the mark stands for identification markings; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, weren't you taught that what this column is for is for you to know what markings you put on a particular item of evidence so it can be identified at a later time as being a particular item that you collected? Weren't you taught that?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Were you ever taught anything with respect to the purpose of the column on your field note report that says "I.D. mark"?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember.
MR. NEUFELD: You don't remember being taught that at all?
MS. MAZZOLA: I might have been taught. I don't remember.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: And Miss Mazzola, on the crime scene checklist there is a box, a question that says "Has the scene been altered? If so by whom and how?" Isn't there?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: and in fact there is four lines that follow that question; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know the exact number of lines.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, they leave you space so you can answer those questions, don't they?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you would agree, ma'am, that that is a very important question, isn't it?
MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to "Important."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for a conclusion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, isn't it relevant to the overall investigation to know whether a crime scene has been altered?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, ma'am, if a crime scene has been altered it could render subsequent scientific analysis unreliable, couldn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't have the experience to answer that.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, ma'am, for instance, if a blanket, for instance, okay, was used to alter the crime scene and it left trace evidence where there had been none previously, that could render an analysis of certain trace evidence unreliable, couldn't it?
MR. GOLDBERG: Incomplete hypothetical. Calls for a conclusion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: It is possible.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. And that is why the Los Angeles Police Department Scientific Investigation Division has asked you to fill out this question, "Has the scene been altered and if so by whom and how"; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: And ma'am, isn't it fair to say that you cannot assume that no one altered the crime scene before you arrived; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it correct, ma'am, that the reason that they asked you to investigate whether the crime scene had been altered is because they don't want you to assume it hasn't been; isn't that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes a fact not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: We do not investigate who has been in the crime scene area.
MR. NEUFELD: Ma'am, are you required to investigate whether the crime scene has been altered?
MS. MAZZOLA: What do you mean by "Investigate"?
MR. NEUFELD: Are you required to make a determination as to whether the crime scene has been altered?
MS. MAZZOLA: (No audible response.)
MR. NEUFELD: isn't that what SID wants you to do when you get to a crime scene, ma'am?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I would ask that he not badger the witness.
THE COURT: We are close.
MS. MAZZOLA: Was the last question--I'm sorry.
MR. NEUFELD: Hasn't the SID unit of the L.A. Police Department instructed you to make a determination, when you get to the crime scene, as to whether it has been altered?
MR. GOLDBERG: It is vague and overbroad as to "Determination."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Other than knowing who arrived, I don't see how we can determine if the scene itself had been altered.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, do you think that one thing you might be able to do is simply ask a detective whether or not he or she has done anything to alter the scene?
MS. MAZZOLA: It is possible.
MR. NEUFELD: What did they teach you at the SID mini academy what you are supposed to do to answer this important question "Has the scene been altered? If so by whom and how?"? What did they teach you to do to answer that question?
MS. MAZZOLA: Just get an idea of who had been there.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, did they teach you at the SID mini academy that you are to ask the detectives whether or not they moved any articles of evidence, for starters? Did they teach you that?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: They didn't teach you that? Did they teach you to ask the officers who were there or detectives who were there whether they walked into a critical area where there may be shoeprints? Did they teach you that?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe they went into depth in that--with that question.
MR. NEUFELD: Did they teach you to ask detectives whether they brought any foreign matter into the crime scene, such as a blanket?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Did they teach you that?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: So correct me if I am mistaken, Miss Mazzola. Is it your testimony that you received absolutely no training on how to answer that question, that is, "Has the scene been altered? If so, by whom and how?"? Is that a fair statement, that you really didn't receive any training on how to answer those questions at a crime scene?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: You didn't do any processing of samples on the 14th?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not in the morning, no.
MR. NEUFELD: And you then went out and you went to the Bronco on the 14th?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And is the reason you went out with Dennis Fung on the 14th to the Bronco because it is a standard L.A. Police Department SID procedure that once a criminalist becomes involved in the case, he or she continues with the case and subsequent searches and investigations?
MS. MAZZOLA: For the most part, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: For the most part? There are exceptions to that?
MS. MAZZOLA: If you are absolutely unable to get away, if you had to go to Court or something like that, another criminalist would step in.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. But aside from either illness or--or you have responsibilities testifying in Court, it is the standard procedure at LAPD that once a criminalist is assigned to a case that he or she sticks with it for each of the searches; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: For the most part, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: That is why you went back on the 14th to the Bronco with Dennis Fung?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: But in this case, ma'am, you didn't stick with this case beyond the 14th, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct. Well, I take that back. We did go for the Bentley.
MR. NEUFELD: What day was that?
MS. MAZZOLA: Let me check my-­
MR. NEUFELD: Please.
MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.) It was on the 30th.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: On June 28th you did not participate in the search of the Bronco, did you?
MR. GOLDBERG: Beyond the scope of the direct.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: And on June 28th you did not participate with Dennis Fung in the search of Mr. Simpson's home, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: On each of those occasions, to your knowledge, Mr. Fung had another team member, right?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, calls for speculation.
MR. NEUFELD: If you know?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know.
THE COURT: You can answer the question.
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know.
MR. NEUFELD: And on July 3rd, when Mr. Fung went back out to Bundy on a crime scene investigation, you didn't go with him on that occasion either?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola on June 28th were you out sick?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: On June 28th were you in Court testifying?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: On July 3rd were you out sick?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: On July 3rd were you in Court testifying?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe so.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: However, a positive result, when that little swab turns that-- I think you say magenta?
MS. MAZZOLA: Magenta pink, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Turns that magenta pink color, it is not a definitive result; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And in fact, all it means is, is that the stain could possibly be blood, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Right.
MR. NEUFELD: And the test that you do, this phenolphthalein test, it certainly isn't a test for human blood; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And in your training at this--at SID, umm, did you learn in fact that there are many other substances, other than blood, which can also give you that magenta color, which aren't blood?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And were you taught, ma'am, that some of them are the juices from common vegetables and fruits?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, on June 14th it was yours and Dennis Fung's job to collect every single blood stain on the outside and inside of the Bronco that was visible to you; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: And each time that you set out to collect blood stains in this case, for each stain that you collected, Miss Mazzola, weren't you instructed to collect as much of the stain as you possibly could collect?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, you were supposed to collect the entire visible stain; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And it would be--and you were taught, ma'am, to keep swatching that blood stain until the blood was completely collected; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: To get as much up as possible, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And in fact you have been taught by the laboratory that it was important to get as much up as possible in the event that DNA testing might be considered?
MS. MAZZOLA: I think it was also just for a basic serology; not necessarily DNA.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And on the morning of the 14th you arrived at the print shed around 10:30?
MS. MAZZOLA: May I check my notes?
MR. NEUFELD: Please.
MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.)
MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry, do you have an independent recollection of what time you arrived?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Then please do.
MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.) Yes, it was around 10:30.
MR. NEUFELD: And you stayed there for approximately three hours?
MS. MAZZOLA: Umm, approximately.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And when you were there during those three hours the press wasn't there to distract you, were they?
MS. MAZZOLA: We did not see them.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And there was--was there a large group of detectives with you when you were at the print shed?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: so they weren't--so the detectives weren't distracting you either that day, were they?
MS. MAZZOLA: The detectives were really not a distraction to begin with.
MR. NEUFELD: In other words, Miss Mazzola, when you were at the print shed on the 14th you were able to pursue your tasks conscientiously and professionally as best you could; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: As we did on the 13th, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And so was Dennis Fung, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And during those three hours that you were at the Bronco on June 14th, you made a systematic examination of the outside of that car, didn't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Umm, Mr. Fung and myself, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you systematically examined the entire exterior of the Bronco for even the smallest yet visible specks of blood; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you looked on the fenders, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: We looked at the outside.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, the fenders are part of the outside, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Right.
MR. NEUFELD: Hum?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: You looked on the doors?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Top and bottom?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you pointed out to Dennis Fung every single stain that you noticed, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: He was a little better at picking out the stains than I was.
MR. NEUFELD: And Dennis Fung pointed out every stain that he noticed to you, didn't he?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it true, Miss Mazzola, that on June 14th Dennis Fung never pointed out to you any dark red stains on the white metal portion of the sill on the driver's door, did he?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if he did or not.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, did he point out any stains to you on that car?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: On the exterior?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: You actually remember him pointing out some stains, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, you remember him pointing out a stain outside the passenger door; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: You actually remember that independently?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And as you sit here today you have no independent recollection of Dennis Fung ever pointing out to you any small stains on the sill of the driver's door; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: In fact, during your prep sessions with the Prosecutors, did they tell you that the issue of whether or not there were bloodstains located on the sill area was an issue in the case? Did that come up at all during your prep sessions?
MS. MAZZOLA: It came up, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And-­
MR. NEUFELD: One moment.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)


MR. NEUFELD: In fact, Miss Mazzola, the only stains or smears that you saw anywhere on the exterior of the car on the 14th was a couple of tiny specks on the passenger door, isn't that correct, on the exterior passenger door?
MS. MAZZOLA: From independent recollection, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well-­
MR. NEUFELD: Let me show this.

(Briefpause.)


MR. NEUFELD: Next in order would be?
THE COURT: Defense-­
THE CLERK: 1113.
THE COURT: --1113.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.

(Deft's 1113 for id = photograph)


MR. NEUFELD: Show you Defendant's 1113. Is that picture familiar to you? Do you recognize it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And what is it a picture—I'm sorry. Is that a photograph of what is item 20 in this case that you referred to on direct examination?
MS. MAZZOLA: Let me make sure it's the right-­
MR. NEUFELD: Okay.

(Briefpause.)


MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it is item 20.
MR. NEUFELD: That's on the passenger side, correct, the opposite side?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, you said you had been taught that if you had seen other stains or smears on the exterior of the car, that you had been taught that they too would have been photographed, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you had also been taught, ma'am, that if you saw stains that could possibly be blood, that you were--you were also instructed to swatch them, is that correct, and bring them back to the laboratory?
MS. MAZZOLA: If they were pheno positive, yes, we would collect them.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So you were instructed then to do a pheno test as well on stains?
MS. MAZZOLA: If there was any question, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. And obviously no pheno test was done on any portion of the driver's sill on the 14th; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: I honestly don't remember.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, did you--well, let me ask you this. If a pheno test was done, would it be recorded in your notes?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Would you please look at your notes to see whether or not any pheno test was done on the sill of the driver's door to the Bronco?
MS. MAZZOLA: No, one was not done.
MR. NEUFELD: Excuse me?
MS. MAZZOLA: One was not done.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: By the way, Miss Mazzola--to the--to the best of your recollection, ma'am, you didn't even see the specks in that upper circle on the 14th, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: To the best of my recollection, I did not.
MR. NEUFELD: And you did not see the speck in the lower circle, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: And you did not see the smear or grayish or-- I am sorry--discoloration indicated in the third circle, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: You didn't see any of those on the 14th, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: To the best of my recollection, I did not.
MR. NEUFELD: Right. Miss Mazzola, you didn't see them on the morning of the 13th either, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: I wasn't-­
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes a fact that she looked.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: On the 13th, I don't believe I was looking that carefully.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, you were shown the car on the 13th by the detectives, didn't you? Weren't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you walked over with the detectives and Dennis Fung to examine the Bronco, didn't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And in fact, I think you said that you personally even swatched the stain on the handle of the Bronco, didn't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And that stain was pointed out to you by Detective Fuhrman, wasn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: I'm not sure which one pointed it out.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, you were there when Detective Fuhrman pointed it out to--oh, I'm sorry. Withdrawn. You were at the Bronco with Dennis Fung and the detectives when one of the detectives pointed out a small speck near the handle on the driver's door; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And at that point in time, when that speck was pointed out to you and Dennis Fung, no other speck was pointed out to you and Dennis Fung on the exterior of the car; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember. I just remember the one on the driver's handle.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, with respect to your independent recollection, Miss Mazzola, as it stands today, is it fair to say that you have no independent recollection of any detective showing you any other speck or stain on that car other than the speck next to the driver's handle?
MS. MAZZOLA: That I can recall, no.
MR. NEUFELD: That's what I'm asking you. Your independent recollection, from what you can recall.
MS. MAZZOLA: My independent recollection, no.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: When you were standing out on the sidewalk and they were moving the bodies, what did you see or where did you see Dennis Fung standing?
MS. MAZZOLA: Up in the area where they were removing the bodies.
MR. NEUFELD: Was he on the sidewalk or was he on the steps?
MS. MAZZOLA: I can't remember.
MR. NEUFELD: And do you have any idea what he was doing when he was in there?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, now that you've done that examination, okay, of that crime scene that day, you do know that he wasn't removing perishable or other small items near the bodies; is that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation, personal knowledge.
THE COURT: Overruled. Do you understand the question?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.
THE COURT: All right. Go ahead and answer.
MS. MAZZOLA: I do not believe that he was removing any perishable items at that time.
MR. NEUFELD: Nor was he removing any small items that were in close proximity to the bodies, was he?
MS. MAZZOLA: No. He did not appear to be, no.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Now, at 7:00 A.M., you said when--that's when you arrived. A little bit after 7:00 A.M., you arrived at Rockingham with Dennis Fung?
MS. MAZZOLA: If I may check my notes.
MR. NEUFELD: Sure. You don't have an independent recollection as to what time you arrived?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not independent recollection, no.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay.
MS. MAZZOLA: It was approximately around 7:00 A.M., yes.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: And so as to the items in the driveway, the detectives told you which items to collect?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: But you didn't even bother collecting any of the stains until 8:15; isn't that right?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, it's vague as to didn't bother. That's argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Sorry. You didn't collect any of the stains until at least 8:15; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: May I check the time?
MR. NEUFELD: Sure.

(Briefpause.)


MS. MAZZOLA: The stain on the Bronco was collected approximately 8:15.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And that was the first stain to be collected?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it was.
MR. NEUFELD: And the stains in the driveway were collected after that, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: All right. Did you ask the detectives whether or not the bodies had been removed yet at 8:00 A.M. in the morning before you started collecting stains at Rockingham?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Did Mr. Fung ask the detectives that in your presence?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not in my presence.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, after you collected the drop on the Bronco, it was still--it was not until 9:00 o'clock that you began picking up the other drops in the driveway; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: May I check the notes?
MR. NEUFELD: Please do.

(Briefpause.)


MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. Approximately 9:00 A.M.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So at this point, you had already been at the scene, ma'am, an hour and a half approximately; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not quite an hour and a half.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: were you taught at the SID, Miss Mazzola, that acceptable crime scene photography should tell a story by itself absent of any written or oral narration? Were you taught that concept?
MS. MAZZOLA: Something like that, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And were you taught, Miss Mazzola, at SID that the photographs should have some scale in it so a person who's looking at the photograph will know how big the object is?
MR. GOLDBERG: It's vague as to what type of photograph.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. NEUFELD: Were you taught that?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if we were or not.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, let me--just for a second, look at what is here in this picture, photograph b on Prosecution's exhibit 120. Do you see it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And do you see a red stain in the picture?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree, ma'am, that if there was no ruler in that picture, you would have-- a viewer would have no idea how large that stain is? Would you agree?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: and isn't it true that because of that fact, you were taught at SID that it is important to put some kind of scale or ruler in a photograph so when someone looks at the photograph, they will have an idea as to how large the stain is?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is possibility, to have a ruler in the scene.
MR. NEUFELD: I'm not asking you whether it's a possibility, ma'am. I'm asking you whether or not your instructors at the Los Angeles Police Department Scientific Investigation Division taught you that for forensic photography, that you should put or instruct the photographer to put a ruler in the picture when you take a picture of a bloodstain so that anyone else who is looking at it will know how big the stain is.
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe they told us that. Forensic photographers know how to photograph evidence. It's up to them.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, isn't the job of the criminalist to instruct and direct the forensic photographer at the scene? Isn't that one of your responsibilities?
MS. MAZZOLA: It is the supervising Criminalist's responsibility.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: So would it be fair to say that it was Dennis Fung's responsibility as the senior criminalist at the scene to instruct the forensic photographers on how to take the pictures of various items of evidence?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not as to how, but which items he wanted photographed.
MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it--weren't you instructed, Miss Mazzola, to make sure there was comprehensive coverage of each item of evidence at the crime scene?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And weren't you instructed, ma'am, to make sure that the forensic photographer takes close-up shots as well as distant shots of each item of evidence?
MS. MAZZOLA: Photographers are trained to-­
MR. NEUFELD: I--I'm sorry.
MS. MAZZOLA: Go ahead.
MR. NEUFELD: I asked whether you were instructed to make sure that that happens, you being a criminalist.
MS. MAZZOLA: We were given information on the way the forensic photographers photograph crime scenes.
MR. NEUFELD: And who brings the numbers that are put down to identify different items for the photographer to take pictures of?
MS. MAZZOLA: We do.
MR. NEUFELD: That's your job, the criminalist, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Right.
MR. NEUFELD: You set the item numbers down?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Now I'm going to question about the board.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And I believe you said on direct examination that Dennis Fung was not with you when you collected item 7 and item 8 at Rockingham; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And he was with you when items 4, 5 and 6 were collected; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And item 4 is shown--I'm sorry--in photograph a, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And item 5 and 6 is shown in photograph c, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, in items 5 and 6, is there a ruler in the photograph?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Did Dennis Fung instruct the photographer to place a ruler in the photograph?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation.
MR. NEUFELD: In your presence.
MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry, your Honor. Is there a ruling on--
THE COURT: No. You rephrased the question. I assume you withdrew it and rephrased it.
MR. NEUFELD: No. I rephrased it for the--okay.
MS. MAZZOLA: In my presence, no.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Well, did--there's only one photograph here that has an arrow and a northerly direction on it; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: There appears to be, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And that's for item 7, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And item 7, Dennis Fung wasn't with you when you collected it, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, the person that was with you when you collected item 7 was a--one of the most senior supervisors in the whole SID, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And what's his name?
MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Steve Johnson.
MR. NEUFELD: And did Mr. Johnson direct that the "N" in the arrow be placed in the photograph?
MS. MAZZOLA: I do not remember.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, did you direct that it be placed in the photograph?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree, ma'am, that in terms of the drops that were collected, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, that for those drops that do not have a ruler in the picture, there is no record of the size of those drops?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree, ma'am, that for the drops at Bundy, there is no ruler in any of those photographs?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe that is so.
MR. NEUFELD: You believe it's so, that there is no ruler in any of those photographs?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And so would you also agree that there is no record for the size of any of these bloodstains at Bundy--of the drops on the walkway?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And would you also agree that all blood drops are not the same size?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is definitely correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And as you sit here today 10 months later, do you have an independent recollection of the size of each bloodstain at Rockingham and Bundy?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: And at any time while you were at Rockingham and Bundy, did Dennis Fung instruct you to note the size of each of the bloodstains in writing on the field notes?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this is irrelevant and under 352, I object.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: No, he did not.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, did you personally do the phenolphtalein test on the speck next to the driver's handle?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And did you do that at the direction of Dennis Fung?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And after you did the phenolphtalein test and it came up magenta, pink, you collected that swatch, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And to your knowledge, to this day, Miss Mazzola, has any confirmatory test ever been done to make sure that that speck was human blood?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered, hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled. Do you know if any confirmatory test was done on that?
MS. MAZZOLA: I do not know.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Now, back at Rockingham in the morning of June 13th, isn't it a fact that you personally and exclusively collected every drop of blood that was seen at Rockingham?
MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Fung assisted on a few of the drops.
MR. NEUFELD: When you say that Dennis Fung assisted on a few of the drops, what do you mean by that?
MS. MAZZOLA: That he also took some swatches.
MR. NEUFELD: And on which items did he--do you now say that he also took some swatches?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this has been asked and answered, this whole thing.
THE COURT: Rephrase the question.
MR. NEUFELD: You say this morning that Dennis Fung assisted you on some of the stains?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you say what you mean by assisting you, that he took some of the swatches?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Do you mean that for some items, you took some swatches and he took some swatches? MS. MAZZOLA: Correct. MR. NEUFELD: so on each of the items, you personally took swatches? MS. MAZZOLA: Correct. MR. NEUFELD: But at least as to some, he also took some swatches; is that correct? MS. MAZZOLA: Correct. MR. NEUFELD: Ma'am, when you testified on direct examination or on cross-examination last Thursday, didn't you say that with respect to items 4, 5 and 6, that Dennis Fung alone was the collector of those items and not you? Wasn't that your testimony just this last Thursday? MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if it was or not.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Were you asked these questions and did you give these answers? "Question: Miss Mazzola, you said a moment ago that you testified this morning on direct examination that it is now your recollection that Mr. Fung and not you collected the drops, items number 4, 5 and 6; is that correct? "Answer: That's correct." Did you give that answer to that question last Thursday?
MS. MAZZOLA: If you have it, I guess I did.
MR. NEUFELD: You don't recall?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, motion to strike the witness' answer.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. NEUFELD: Would you prefer to actually read it yourself, ma'am?
MS. MAZZOLA: No. That's--that's fine.
MR. NEUFELD: Huh?
MS. MAZZOLA: I'll take your word for it.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I would make a motion to strike the comment-­
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola--
THE COURT: Overruled. Excuse me, counsel. When other counsel is making an objection, would you at least allow them to finish?
MR. NEUFELD: Certainly.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. NEUFELD: So, Miss Mazzola, on Thursday, you testified that you were not involved in the collection of 4, 5 and 6 and that Dennis Fung collected that; is that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. NEUFELD: Is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: At the time, I thought that Mr. Fung alone had, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: That was as recently as last Thursday?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And now today, you have a different recollection of what transpired back on June 13th, 1994? Is that your testimony, ma'am?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And when you testified on August 23rd, 1994, at that point, it was your recollection, was it not, that you had personally collected all the blood drops at Rockingham; is that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: I object to that.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Have you looked at any notes to refresh your recollection between Thursday and today that led you to change your mind from Thursday to today's testimony with respect to who collected what on items 4, 5 and 6?
MS. MAZZOLA: Notes, no.
MR. NEUFELD: Have you looked at any videotapes to refresh your recollection so that you would change your memory as to who collected what portions of 4, 5 and 6?
MS. MAZZOLA: Videos, no.
MR. NEUFELD: Have you looked at any documents to refresh your recollection that you didn't have available to you last Thursday so you could have a different memory as to who collected what with respect to items 4, 5 and 6?
MS. MAZZOLA: Documents, no.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you have a conversation with any members of the Prosecution staff between last Thursday and today with regard to who collected items 4, 5 and 6?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you have a conversation with Dennis Fung between Thursday and today as to who collected items 4, 5 and 6?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: But you now say that it's your recollec--that your recollection has changed your memory of what your involvement was with regard to items 4, 5 and 6 from just this last Thursday to today; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And, ma'am, it would be fair to say-- I think you said it earlier--that you never wrote down in your notes which of you collected which items; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And so the only way you can recall or testify as to who collected which items is strictly from your independent recollection; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Has your memory of who collected which items been aided by the prep sessions that you had with the Prosecutors in this case?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: You testified on August 23rd, 1994--were you asked these questions and did you give these answers? "Question: And which—I'm sorry. At Bundy again. At Bundy again, were there certain bloodstains that you collected and other bloodstains that were collected by Mr. Fung? "Answer: Yes. "Question: And which bloodstains were collected by Mr. Fung? "Answer: I believe he collected the red stains that were near the shoeprints that were made on the walkway. "Question: Would you please look at your notes and tell me which numbers those are? "Question: And when you say that, you say he collected the actual foot--shoeprints or he collected alleged drops that were near the shoeprints? "Answer: He if I remember correctly took swatches of the red stains that were constituting the footprint itself. "Question: Can you tell us which ones those were, please? "Answer: Property items 55 and 56. "Question: And that is it? "Answer: Yes. "Question: All other bloodstains at the Bundy crime scene were collected by you, ma'am? "Answer: Yes. "And while he collected 55 and 56, were you collecting some of your bloodstains? "Answer: Yes." Were you asked those questions and did you give those answers under oath on August 23rd, 1994?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And on August 23rd, 1994, ma'am, would you agree that the events of June 13th were fresher in your mind than they are now 10 months later?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not necessarily fresher.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, would you agree, ma'am, that your memory of an event that happened two months previously is stronger than your memory of an event that happened 10 months previously?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, that question is irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I had not thought of the events of June 13th since we had gotten done with the property reports up until the time I walked into this courtroom for the griffin hearing.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, would you agree that your memory of an event that happened two months prior to your testifying is fresher than it is when you've had 10 months gone by?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not necessarily.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Well, Miss Mazzola, June 13th, you collected these items; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: And, Miss Mazzola, you were relying exclusively on your memory, on your independent recollection when you testified on August 23rd, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That and Mr. Matheson's notes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, Mr. Matheson's notes were the original notes that you and Dennis Fung took on June 13th; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know if they were the originals or not.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, the notes that—well, were they copies of the notes that you and Dennis Fung took then on June 13th?

MS. MAZZOLA: They could have been copies, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Or originals?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's true.
MR. NEUFELD: And what those notes were the sum total of all the notes that you and Dennis Fung took on June 13th at Bundy and Rockingham; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And that would constitute the field notes and the crime scene inspection list that this jury has already seen; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And there are no other notes, are there, that were prepared by you that you've used to refresh your recollection today?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: And there were no other notes other than those notes that you relied upon to refresh your recollection when you testified on August 23rd; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And when you testified on August 23rd, ma'am, isn't it a fact that there was no way—there is no note saying which items you personally collected and which items Dennis Fung personally collected?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And so between August 23rd and today, ma'am, it's not as if you've had additional notes to look at which will help you to remember which items Dennis Fung collected as opposed to which items you collected; isn't that right?
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained as phrased.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, are there any other notes other than your field notes that you got from Mr. Matheson that day that indicate which items you collected and which items Dennis Fung collected?
MS. MAZZOLA: Notes, no.
MR. NEUFELD: And there are no notes, ma'am, or reports that were prepared by you that you looked at on August 23rd which indicated which items you collected and which items Dennis Fung collected, correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Badgering the witness in terms of testimony.
THE COURT: We're there. All right.
MR. NEUFELD: Can I just ask two more questions and I'll finish this area?
THE COURT: Two more. Slower though. However, the Court reporter is about to go on us.
MR. NEUFELD: So both today and on August 23rd, you're relying exclusively on your independent recollection as opposed to any documentary evidence to recall which items you collected and which items Dennis Fung collected, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Memory and photographs.
MR. NEUFELD: Are you--do you--have you seen a single photograph showing Dennis Fung collecting items 4, 5 or 6?
MS. MAZZOLA: At the Griffen hearing, I did not have a chance to look at the photographs before.
MR. NEUFELD: Ma'am, I'm simply asking you this, please. Have you seen a single photograph between June 13th and this morning or this afternoon that shows Dennis Fung collecting items 4, 5 or 6?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: All right. Well, Miss Mazzola, let me ask you a question: You said before that when you collected item 7, the blood drop on the Rockingham driveway-­
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: --you said Dennis Fung wasn't even there to observe; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you collected that one yourself, didn't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, this chart here, this LAPD evidence disposition summary, says for item no. 7 "Collected," it says, "Fung and Mazzola, 6/13/94." Do you see that? If you want to step down, please do.
MS. MAZZOLA: I have seen it when you put it up.
MR. NEUFELD: That is not correct? You are the person who collected item number-­
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: It is vague as to what he means by "Collect."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. NEUFELD: Isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: I physically swatched it, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, Miss Mazzola, on August 23rd when you were asked questions about what you collected, you understood the word "Collect" to mean that you physically swatched and collected those swatches; isn't that right?
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And that is your--you understood the meaning--I'm sorry. Withdrawn. You understood the word "Collect" to mean that on August 23rd, and that is the normal way that you use the word "Collect"; is it not?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So again, Miss Mazzola, on this Prosecution exhibit where it says "No. 7," "Item no. 7 Fung and Mazzola collected by," that is not correct? It was only collected by you, Miss Mazzola; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: It was collected by me, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Now, let me show you the other LAPD evidence summary board which is 177-C. Do you remember the drops along the pathway at Bundy?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: That would be items 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Let me double-check on that.

(Briefpause.)


MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you personally collected item 47, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Let's see. 47 was-­
MR. NEUFELD: One moment.

(Briefpause.)

MR. NEUFELD: Isn't that correct, ma'am, you personally collected item 47?
MS. MAZZOLA: I did. Mr. Fung managed to get a little more blood off of that one spot, but I collected the majority of it.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, what--can I see what you are looking at now to refresh your recollection?
MS. MAZZOLA: I'm just looking at this, because this is the one that was at the corner of the house, the first drop on the trail.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it a fact, ma'am, with respect to item 47, even after the meeting you had with Dennis Fung, you indicated that 47 was collected only by Mazzola?
MS. MAZZOLA: At the time I thought that was correct, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. And you thought that was correct when you testified on August 23rd also, didn't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And with respect to item 48, ma'am, you were the only person who collected that item, too, weren't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And with respect to item 49, ma'am, you were the only person who collected that as well, weren't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: There was one other drop on the trail that Mr. Fung helped with. I don't remember which one it was.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, when you met with Dennis Fung at this discussion that you had after August 23rd and you reviewed with him who collected what, didn't you put down that you, only you, Mazzola, collected item 49?
MS. MAZZOLA: At the time I did, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And Miss Mazzola, as respect to item no. 50, weren't you the only person who collected that?
MS. MAZZOLA: Let me check my sketch.

(Briefpause.)

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And Miss Mazzola, as to item 52, you were the only person who collected that, too, weren't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, Mr. Fung wasn't even observing you collect item 52, was he?
MS. MAZZOLA: Item 52? No, Mr. Fung was not there.
MR. NEUFELD: So the Prosecutor's diagram where it says, for instance, on item 52 "Collected by Fung and Mazzola," that is incorrect, isn't it?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, that calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: Conclusion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: As it stands there, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: That is incorrect?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And as to item 50, Miss Mazzola, where the Prosecutor's exhibit says, "Item 50 collected by Fung and Mazzola," that, too, is incorrect, isn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And with respect to item 48, Miss Mazzola, where it says, "Collected by Fung and Mazzola," that, too, is incorrect in the Prosecution's exhibit, isn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: That one I don't know about. As I said before, there is one stain on the path that Mr. Fung helped with. I don't remember exactly which one.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, there is one stain-­
THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait.
MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry.
THE COURT: Let her finish the answer.
MR. NEUFELD: If there is one stain that you say that you have a recollection that he helped you collect, then as to the other stains on that walkway where it says, "Fung and Mazzola" collecting it, as to other stains, that would all be incorrect; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: No. 47 he helped with and there is one other that he helped with on this path.
MR. NEUFELD: So as to the other three, Miss Mazzola, this board would be incorrect; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Now, you said that the reason a, b and c were uncollected is because you were only interested in collecting what you termed representative stains; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, at Bundy, ma'am, every drop along that walkway was collected, wasn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: You didn't leave out any drops simply because you deemed them representative, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Or I'm sorry, because you didn't deem them relevant, did you?
MR. GOLDBERG: It is vague as to which drops.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. At Bundy there were five drops, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52 that you observed on June 13th, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you collected them all?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: There were no other drops along that same walkway that you didn't--that you saw but didn't collect; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: So you did not know on June 13th which direction these drops were going in, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, other than items a, b and c which were photographed but not collected, was there anything else worth documenting with a photograph on the driveway that was photographed?
MS. MAZZOLA: I do not believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: That was it, just the--just those drops, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 and a, b and c; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: I'm not sure what else the photographer took pictures of.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, would you agree that the blood drop that you have identified as no. 5--I'm sorry--as no. 6, as a and as b are all to the left side of the driveway as you walk in toward the house? Is that a fair statement?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, Detective Vannatter testified that it was his theory that Mr. Simpson had returned home the night of the 13th or the 12th, I'm sorry, and opened the gate and walked directly along the south side of this driveway toward the location where the glove was recovered?
MR. GOLDBERG: This is an improper question.
MR. NEUFELD: I'm laying a foundation, your Honor. It is a hypothetical.
THE COURT: All right. Assume that.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: I'm going to show you what has been previously admitted as exhibit 1072 which is a surveyor's drawing of Mr. Simpson's home and property. Do you see that? Have you had a chance to look at it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, the only blood stain that is on the south side of the driveway would be stain a; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: (No audible response.)
MR. NEUFELD: Which wasn't collected by you?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree that the distance from stain a to the location where the glove was collected is a distance of approximately 250 feet?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, no foundation that she knows.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, do you know where the glove was collected, ma'am?
MS. MAZZOLA: I know the area, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And you had seen it?
MS. MAZZOLA: I had not seen the glove before it was collected.
MR. NEUFELD: But you were shown the place where it had been collected by Mr. Fung?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. And by looking at this surveyor's drawing of Mr. Simpson's house and property, can you see the approximate location where it was, approximately?
MS. MAZZOLA: Approximately, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. Now, beginning at the curb and going to that location, approximately how many feet is that?
MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation that she knows.
THE COURT: Looking at that can you tell what the distance is?
MS. MAZZOLA: The approximate distance.
THE COURT: All right. What is the approximate distance?
MS. MAZZOLA: It is approximately 250 feet from the curb.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. And now, instead of the curb, if we come into the location of stain a, which is the one stain that is on the south side of the driveway, approximately how far is stain a from the curb, approximately?
MS. MAZZOLA: From the curb?
MR. NEUFELD: Yes.
MS. MAZZOLA: Let me check.

(Briefpause.)


MS. MAZZOLA: It is approximately twenty feet or so.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. So would it be fair to say that the distance from stain a to the glove is approximately 230 feet?
MS. MAZZOLA: Approximately, yes.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it true that when you were at Rockingham on the 13th you examined the walkway for evidence, the walkway leading up to the garage?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. Mr. Fung and myself looked at the driveway.
MR. NEUFELD: And you were examining the driveway for blood evidence, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And then you also examined the walkway on the south side of the house heading out to where the glove was recovered, did you not?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it a fact that on that walkway, all the way to where the glove was recovered, you never saw any drop of blood on the sidewalk?
MS. MAZZOLA: Personally, no.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, the last two stains that you swatched and collected that morning were no. 7 and 8, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And as to no. 7 and 8, did you keep swatching those two drops until you had collected the entire blood stain?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't recall if I did or not.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, was it your standard procedure to do that?
MS. MAZZOLA: To get up as much as possible, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Oh, Okay. And to the best of your recollection did you get up as much of the stain that was visible as you possibly could?
MS. MAZZOLA: (No audible response.)
MR. NEUFELD: As to item 7 and item 8?
MR. GOLDBERG: It is vague as to "Visible."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I think I got up as much as I could.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: I believe you said, Miss Mazzola, that the only training you have received in collecting blood stains is for--is for serological testing in general and not for DNA testing in particular; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not in DNA particular, that's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Are there any written guidelines in the--that you have received from the LAPD dealing with any of the particular problems encountered with DNA evidence?
MS. MAZZOLA: No, I don't believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: Have you received any handouts from the LAPD regarding the negative effects that heat and humidity have on the reliability of blood stain evidence?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Are you aware, to your knowledge, as you sit here today, as to whether heat and humidity can have negative effects on the reliability of blood stain evidence?
MR. GOLDBERG: It is vague as to "Reliability."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I know that it can affect them. I'm not sure to what extent.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: When you say you are aware that heat and humidity can affect--can affect DNA--I'm sorry. Withdrawn. When say you are aware that heat and humidity can have an effect on blood stain evidence, what effect is it that you believe it will have?
MS. MAZZOLA: That it might have some effect on the testing, but I'm not sure to what extent or how it would be affected.
MR. NEUFELD: No one has told you how heat and humidity will affect blood stain evidence, only that it has an effect? Is that what you are saying, ma'am?
MS. MAZZOLA: Well, I don't know personally how much it would degrade, if at all, and over what period of time.
MR. NEUFELD: Ah, okay, but as you sit here today, it is your understanding that the effect of heat and humidity are that it can degrade the blood stain evidence; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is one possibility.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, in this particular case you took wet blood swatches and you placed them in a clear plastic bag; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And then you fold over the top of the plastic bag so they don't fall out; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And sometimes these wet swatches that are in the plastic bag actually stick together, don't they?
MS. MAZZOLA: That happens.
MR. NEUFELD: Sometimes they even stick to the side of the plastic bag, don't they?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Were you aware that putting wet swatches in a plastic bag causes the swatches to retain moisture?
MS. MAZZOLA: I was not told that.
MR. NEUFELD: But you knew that anyway, didn't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: I mean, you know that just from your everyday experiences, that if you take a wet item and if you put it in a plastic bag and you close the top of the plastic bag, it is going to still be real moist in there, isn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: It will stay moist, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: As opposed to if you take the item out of the plastic bag and let it dry in the air it will dry much faster, won't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And did you know, prior to taking the witness stand today, that by keeping the swatches moist in that plastic bag that that can—I'm sorry. That that can promote the growth of bacteria on those swatches? Did you know that?
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence as phrased.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: No, not really.
MR. NEUFELD: Have you ever had the common everyday experience of putting a wet item, such as a wet bathing suit or something, in a plastic bag and then taking it out hours later and it smells moldy? Has that ever happened to you?
MS. MAZZOLA: I would say it smells moldy.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: And have you been told by people at LAPD that just like moisture, heat also can promote bacterial growth?
MS. MAZZOLA: It is possible, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And have you been told by people at LAPD--by the way, did you have these conversations with people at LAPD prior to June 13th, 1994, or since June 13th, 1994?
MS. MAZZOLA: I can't remember exactly when it was.
MR. NEUFELD: Do you remember where it was?
MS. MAZZOLA: At work.
MR. NEUFELD: Was it just a casual conversation or was it one of the lectures at the mini academy?
MS. MAZZOLA: I'm not really sure.
MR. NEUFELD: And did any of these people, who you had these discussions with at work, talk to you about the combined effects of heat and humidity on a wet blood swatch kept in a sealed plastic bag?
MS. MAZZOLA: No, I don't believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: well, did those people tell you, I think you said a moment ago, that heat can cause bacteria to develop? Isn't that right?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: It is a possibility that it could occur.
MR. NEUFELD: And that humidity, the moisture of the swatch in the sealed plastic bag can also possibly cause bacteria to develop as well? You were told that by these people at LAPD; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Ma'am, have you been taught at the LAPD Scientific Investigation Division that with respect to preserving wet stains you should do the following: "Items containing wet blood, semen or chemical stains shall be permitted to dry at room temperature before packaging. Plastic containers or plastic wrap shall not be used as a packaging material?" Were you taught that at LAPD?
MS. MAZZOLA: For final booking, yes, that is entirely correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, ma'am, were you given particular pages of the LAPD manual to know for booking evidence?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Were you told by anybody at SID that the LAPD manual is simply a guideline and not rules which you are required to follow?
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe I heard it was to be used as a guideline.
MR. NEUFELD: And who told you that it was a guideline, ma'am?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember offhand.
MR. NEUFELD: Was it one of your supervisors at the mini academy?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember.
MR. NEUFELD: One moment, your Honor.

(Briefpause.)

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)


MR. NEUFELD: Are you aware of the fact, Miss Mazzola, that the Los Angeles Police Department manual states: "That all employees of the department are to conform with the rules and provisions herein contained"? Are you aware of that?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes fact not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree, ma'am, that that statement from the Los Angeles Police Department manual declares that this manual sets directions for you and they are not simply guidelines, correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Umm--
MR. NEUFELD: Would you like me to show you the actual section of the manual?
THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. We have gone through this manual in front of this jury for approximately 45 minutes with another witness. You've already established what was done in this case. You've established what the manual says.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, you stated that your understanding of the section in the LAPD manual on preserving wet stains is only instructions for final packaging, not temporary packaging; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Is there any place in the actual rule listed in the LAPD manual that creates that exemption for temporary packaging?
MS. MAZZOLA: I-­
MR. NEUFELD: Do you see that anywhere in the rules?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know. I haven't read it.
MR. NEUFELD: You have never read the LAPD manual section on how to preserve wet stains?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Is that what you are saying?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Have any of your instructors at the LAPD ever read to you the section from the Los Angeles Police Department manual on how to preserve wet stains at a crime scene?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not from the manual, no, I don't believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: No one in the whole year and a half that you have been there has ever read that to you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not from the manual.
MR. NEUFELD: You have never read it yourself?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Now, section 510.12 of the Los Angeles Police Department manual states, A: "Analyzed evidence requiring freezer storage shall be booked at Central Property Division no later than six hours after it is obtained." During the time that you have been at the Los Angeles Police Department have you ever personally read that section of the LAPD manual?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: During the year and a half that you have been with the Los Angeles Police Department has anybody at the LAPD SID mini academy ever read to you this particular section of the Los Angeles Police Department manual?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree, ma'am, that neither you nor Mr. Fung booked any of the evidence that needed to be frozen within six hours after it was obtained?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, I show you what has already been previously introduced as Prosecution exhibit 163-H which are three analyzed evidence envelopes. Now, when you obtained a reference sample of fresh blood, what color envelope is it to be stored in?
MS. MAZZOLA: I know in toxicology we receive our blood sample in the gray envelope.
MR. NEUFELD: And since you have been--I'm sorry. That is your only experience with--with receiving blood vials, would be in toxicology?
MS. MAZZOLA: Except for the occasion in this case which I had limited involvement with the blood.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And in those cases where you receive a fresh--a fresh vial of blood, it is in the gray envelope; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's right.
MR. NEUFELD: And on the gray envelope under the word "Analyzed evidence," would you please tell the jury what it says.
MS. MAZZOLA: "To be refrigerated."
MR. NEUFELD: And that is an instruction to the person that holds that gray envelope that the evidence is to be refrigerated, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Have you ever been told by anyone, since you have been working at the Los Angeles Police Department SID, that it is perfectly okay, instead of refrigerating a blood vial, to leave it on a counter overnight in a trash bag? Has anyone ever told you that?
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative, calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: No, I don't believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: Did anyone ever teach you at what rate blood breaks down and degrades?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Did anyone at SID mini academy ever teach you that it is okay to let wet blood stains remain in a sealed plastic bag in the rear of a truck in the middle of June for seven hours?
MS. MAZZOLA: That was never brought up.
MR. NEUFELD: It was never brought up at the mini academy?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-10   22:04:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#324. To: all (#319)


Andrea MAZZOLA testimony, 26 April 1995; EXCERPTS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MS. MAZZOLA: I changed my gloves many times. There is no reason to change it. You don't think about it; you just do it.
MR. NEUFELD: You said you have an independent recollection that you changed your gloves many times while you were at Bundy; is that right?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Now, ma'am, between the time that you picked up the hat and the glove at Bundy, you didn't change your gloves then, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: And the reason you know that you didn't do that then is because you saw it on the videotape; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: I did see a videotape, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And that is the reason you know that you didn't change your gloves then, isn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: At that point, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, I think you testified that until you saw the videotape you didn't even have an independent recollection of having picked up the glove and the hat at Bundy that day; isn't that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: That misstates the testimony, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I wasn't sure if I picked them up or Mr. Fung.
MR. NEUFELD: Right. And so in the absence of independent--I'm sorry--so am I correct in stating that you didn't have an independent recollection of it until you actually saw the videotape?
MS. MAZZOLA: I could not remember, that is correct.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(At 9:31 A.M., Defense exhibit 1083, a videotape, was played.)

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola--can you stop for one second. Miss Mazzola, are you a lefty?
MS. MAZZOLA: Right-handed.
MR. NEUFELD: But you picked up the hat with your left hand; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And--and could you go forward.
THE COURT: All right. Frame 13:51:46:18.

(The videotape resumes playing.)

MR. NEUFELD: Stop, stop.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, at this point you are using the--obviously the same hands with the same gloves and you are opening up the bag, correct, for the next item?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And the next item is the glove, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you are--okay. Continue, please.

(The videotape resumes playing.)

MR. NEUFELD: Stop.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, you used the same left hand to pick up the glove that you used to pick up the hat, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, you used the same fingers, didn't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know if I used the exact same fingers, but I used the same hand.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. And Miss Mazzola, you didn't, in between picking up the hat and the glove, look down to see whether or not you had picked up any other biological material or any trace evidence on your hand, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, before you picked up the hat, you didn't inspect your hand to see whether or not you had any other biological matter on your fingertips, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: And, umm, after you picked up the hat and put it in the bag, you didn't inspect your hand to see whether or not there was any trace evidence from the hat before you picked up the glove, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Had you been taught to do that, ma'am, at the SID mini academy?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree, ma'am, that it is possible that trace evidence from the hat can be transferred to the rubber glove--transferred to your rubber glove when you pick it up?
MS. MAZZOLA: It is possible.
MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree, ma'am, that it is possible that trace evidence that is on your rubber glove can then be transferred to the leather glove when you pick that up?
MS. MAZZOLA: Improbable since I handled other items between picking up the hat and the glove.
MR. NEUFELD: Ma'am, did you say before that one way that trace evidence gets transferred from one object to another is when those two objects come in contact?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree that not every time two objects come in contact does trace evidence move from one object to the next, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Depends on what type of items they are.
MR. NEUFELD: Depends on what kind of item they are, it depends where the fibers are; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Depends where the hairs are?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: So you could handle several different things and the hairs and fibers might not come off on the first thing or the second thing you touched, but might come off on the third item; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, initially on direct examination, Miss Mazzola, didn't you say that it wasn't necessary to change your gloves between picking up the hat and the leather glove because the two objects were touching? Did you testify to that on direct examination?
MS. MAZZOLA: They were in close contact, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you testify not that they were simply in close contact, but did you testify that they were actually touching?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if I said touching or close contact.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, would you agree--I'm sorry. When you use the expression "Close contact," Does that mean touching or does that mean the two objects are close to one another but not actually touching?
MS. MAZZOLA: It could be anywhere from extremely close to each other to actually touching.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, how did you mean it, when you said in close proximity, ma'am?
MS. MAZZOLA: Extremely close.
MR. NEUFELD: But not necessarily touching?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not necessarily touching.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD:

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: Beginning at volume--
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, when you testified on direct examination last week in this case were you asked these questions and did you give these answers? "Question: And did you change gloves in between collecting the hat and the glove? "Answer: No. "Question: Why not? "Answer: The hat and the glove at Bundy were touching each other. They were not in two completely separate areas. They were in physical contact with each other." Were you asked those questions and did you give those answers last week at this trial?
MS. MAZZOLA: Apparently so, yes. "very close proximity to each other."
MR. NEUFELD: And, ma'am, after you testified to that, there was a recess, wasn't there?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know if there was a recess or not.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, later on Mr. Goldberg asked you the same question again about the physical relationship to the hat and the glove, did he not? <
b>MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember.

[...]

MR. NEUFELD: Well, ma'am, at page 23790 were you asked these questions and did you give these answers? "Question by MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, you said on direct examination, when I was asking you about collecting the glove and the watch cap, the cap, that they were in close proximity or touching? "Answer: Uh-huh. "Question: Which was it? "Answer: Reviewing photographs, they were invery close proximity to each other." Were you asked those questions and did you give those answers?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And just before you were asked those questions and you gave those answers at page 23790, were you sitting in this courtroom and present when--when Judge Ito said to you--
THE COURT: Wait, wait. Do you recall if there was a recess of any type in between those questions?
MS. MAZZOLA: I honestly can't remember when the recesses are.
THE COURT: All right. The Court will--
MR. NEUFELD: Can I show her the transcript to refresh her recollection?
THE COURT: Wait, wait. We have a procedure called taking judicial notice of the Court's own proceedings. I will take judicial notice, and the jury is to assume to be true, that there was in fact a recess between those two sessions. It is a matter of the Court's own record. Proceed.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, during that luncheon recess, Miss Mazzola, did the Prosecutor tell you that the photographs would not support your testimony that the hat and the glove were actually touching?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I object to this. Perhaps we can approach.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: I object to counsel's insinuations.
THE COURT: Did you have any discussion with the Prosecutor or any attorney regarding this issue over the lunch recess, if you recall?
MS. MAZZOLA: I looked at a photograph.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. NEUFELD: And was that photograph shown to you by the Prosecutor?
MS. MAZZOLA: I can't recall who showed it to me, but I saw a photograph.
MR. NEUFELD: You didn't have your own? Someone else in this building had to show it to you; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And it was after you were shown those photographs or a photograph that you then changed your testimony after lunch; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: I saw that they were extremely close but not touching, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And so you changed your testimony after lunch; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: I corrected it, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.
MR. NEUFELD: And ma'am, is it your position that the reason you didn't have to that change your gloves between picking up the hat and the glove is because the two items were in close proximity to one another?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, when you make that decision that two objects in close proximity but not touching don't require a change of gloves on your part, are you assuming that the hat and the glove were worn by the same person?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't assume anything.
MR. NEUFELD: And you can't assume anything about that, can you?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: So you don't know whether or not the hat and the glove were worn by the same person, do you?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: You certainly didn't know that at the time you were collecting the items?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you don't even know when the items were placed at that location when you collected them; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: You don't know whether those two items were placed on the ground at different times, do you?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it true, since you can't assume either of those two facts, ma'am, that one cannot assume that just because two items are close to one another, although not touching, that the trace evidence on one will most likely be on the other?
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes a fact not in evidence, that there was trace evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, in the event that--I'm sorry. One moment.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: When you pick up the hat, you have to be careful because there may be trace evidence on it? That is something that you were taught at the SID mini academy; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: I was taught that, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you were also taught to be careful with different items that are collected at a crime scene because they may have different types of hairs and fibers on them; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not necessarily different hairs and fibers, but just hairs and fibers.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, were you taught to assume that all items found at a crime scene are likely to have the same hairs and fibers because they are found at the same crime scene?
MR. GOLDBERG: Unintelligible.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: There is no telling what type of hairs and fibers are present.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And there is no telling whether or not the same hairs and fibers on one object would be found on another object, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you can't make that assumption based on how far apart two items are to one another, can you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: So, ma'am, would it--so wouldn't you agree that your earlier testimony in this case that you didn't have to change your gloves between picking up the hat and the leather glove here, because they were close to one another and therefore trace evidence on one would be on the other one, is not really consistent with what you were taught by the SID people?
MS. MAZZOLA: I--I don't know.
MR. NEUFELD: When you say you don't know, do you mean you don't know what the supervisors at SID taught you?
MS. MAZZOLA: I'm saying I don't know if it would be inconsistent with.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, if the objects had been fifteen feet apart, had you been taught by people at SID academy to change gloves before picking up the different objects?
MR. GOLDBERG: Improper hypothetical, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Gloves would be changed.
MR. NEUFELD: You were taught that they should be changed under those circumstances?
MS. MAZZOLA: Well, if they are far apart, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, I said ten or fifteen apart under those circumstances?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not getting down to exact distances, but far apart, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, in your own mind, based on your own experience, do you consider ten feet far apart?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: So would you change the gloves under those circumstances?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: How about five feet?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Three feet?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: But you made the decision here that because the two items were within inches of one another that you didn't have to change the gloves; is that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence, "Inches."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: The decision to change gloves was made--we did not change gloves.
MR. NEUFELD: Was the decision made by you or was the decision given to you by Dennis Fung?
MS. MAZZOLA: I can't recall if I asked him about it or what. I'm not exactly sure what conversation we had at that time.
MR. NEUFELD: You mean it may very well be that you asked Dennis Fung whether you should change your gloves for this situation and he said no?
MS. MAZZOLA: It is possible.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Was it--had you been taught by anyone at the SID mini academy that it was okay to store a vial of whole blood in a trash bag on a counter in an unrefrigerated capacity overnight?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe that was brought up.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, the first time that the blood vial of Mr. Simpson is recorded in your notes is the next morning, June 14th; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe it was sometime the next day.
MR. NEUFELD: Do you know if it was the morning or the afternoon?
MS. MAZZOLA: I--I'm not sure which one it was.
MR. NEUFELD: Do you have any independent recollection as to when it was?
MS. MAZZOLA: No, I do not.
MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it true that it was not--that the blood vial was not recorded by you until after you were told about the sneakers that Detective Lange had dropped off at the SID laboratory?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And thus, it was at that point in time that you made the notations in the field notes identifying the tennis sneakers as item 17; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: They were recorded in the notes, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And it's at that point in time after you were told about the sneakers that you were then told about Mr. Simpson's blood vial; isn't that right?
MR. GOLDBERG: Still calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it true that you then recorded--after you recorded the sneakers as item 17, that you then recorded the blood vial of Mr. Simpson as item 18?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And the reason that you recorded it in that sequence at that time is, at that point in time, it was your understanding, was it not, that item 17 had been collected prior to item 18?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: The tennis shoes were brought to my attention first. So I recorded it first.
MR. NEUFELD: Ma'am, didn't you also say a little while ago that it was your practice whenever possible to record items as they are collected sequentially?
MS. MAZZOLA: As much as possible, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Right. And so when you received these items, the reason you recorded no. 17 as the sneakers and no. 18 as the blood vial is because at that point in time, it was your state of mind that no. 18 was received by SID after the sneakers?
MS. MAZZOLA: The sneakers were brought to my attention. I wrote them in the field notes. Later the blood vial was brought to my attention.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, I think you said earlier or we agreed earlier, I don't recall which, that there were more than 50 items collected on the 13th and 14th by you and/or Dennis Fung; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe we agreed on that, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it true that the only items of evidence where you were instructed to change the numbers were for the sneakers and the blood vial?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe that is correct, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, on August 23rd, 1994, you testified at a hearing in this case, didn't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe it was sometime in August, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you swore to tell the truth at that hearing?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And when you were asked that question on August 23rd, you were testifying based on your memory, weren't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: To the best I remembered, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, you never said, ma'am, in regard to that question, "I don't recall, I don't know," Did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: I said there I believe so, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And then you said yes, "I believe I was, yes." Isn't that your answer?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe I was, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. You didn't in any way say, "This is something I don't remember. I don't recall if I was with Mr. Fung the entire time," Did you?
THE COURT: It's argumentative. The answer stands and speaks for itself, counsel.
MR. NEUFELD: One moment, your Honor.

(Brief pause.)


MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it true, Miss Mazzola, that after item 16 was collected, no other item was recorded in your notes as having been received on June 13th?
MS. MAZZOLA: At that time, no.
MR. NEUFELD: And since you testified back in August with regard to this matter, have other people suggested to you that your failure to substantiate Vannatter's and Fung's claim that Mr. Simpson's blood was given to Fung on June 13th was a problem for the Prosecution's case?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. GOLDBERG: Are you aware of any mistakes that you made or could have made to contaminate those stains?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-10   22:05:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#325. To: nolu chan (#321)

Swab "A", nothing. Swab "B", nothing. Swab "C", bingo. Sure you can.

Ah. I see my mistake. Swab surface "A", nothing. Swab surface "B", nothing. Swab surface "C", bingo. Sure you can.

Looking for DNA on any of those items was a waste of time. DNA could have been picked up by anyone's shoes, anywhere, and deposited.

They wanted to do a quick test to see if there was any blood on the pedals. So they dipped a swab in phenolphthalein and wiped the three surfaces. They get this, there's blood:

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-11   9:43:36 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#326. To: misterwhite (#325)

They wanted to do a quick test to see if there was any blood on the pedals. So they dipped a swab in phenolphthalein and wiped the three surfaces. They get this, there's blood:

You stubbornly do not get it.

MR. NEUFELD: And when you received that training, Miss Mazzola, didn't they tell you that you should use separate swabs on separate items?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

not to collect multiple items with one swab.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to confirm the PRESENCE of blood with a pheno test. Your claim of "Bingo" goes contrary to the science.

It is only possible to confirm the ABSENCE of blood with a pheno test. A positive pheno test result, without a confirmatory positive test result, is inadmissible as evidence of the presence of blood.

It will indicate positive when reacting to human blood, animal blood, and hundreds of other substances, e.g., beet juice.

In the absence of a confirmatory test, the obtainment of a positive pheno result is a waste of time.

What was the crap elicited by prosecutor Hank Goldberg on direct, and stated by Andrea Mazzola under oath, claiming the "tests" (plural), "were" (plural), positive?

There was no mention of the idiotic one swab test on direct.

On direct, Mazzola referred to the "tests were" plural, "positive."

And then they supposedly they not bother to collect a single swatch to enable the performance of any confirmatory test.

There was no confirmation of the presence of blood, and there was presence of misleading testimony by omission of the single swab being used, and referring to the "tests" plural.

MR. GOLDBERG: Miss Mazzola, I don't know whether you can see this. I would like to draw your attention to one of the call-out lines that does not have a number on it, it is just a red dot, but it hooks up to a photograph that has an item no. 33 and depicts the brake pedals in the Bronco. Do you recognize that?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when you were at the location did you do any testing on the brake pedals and the gas pedal as depicted in that photograph?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I did a phenolphthalein test.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you do that personally or did Mr. Fung do that?
MS. MAZZOLA: I did that personally.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you tell us what is involved in a phenolphthalein test?
MS. MAZZOLA: It is simply taking a cotton swab, cotton-tipped swab, dampening it with a little distilled water, shaking out the excess, applying the swab to the area, adding a drop of the reagent. If there is no color change, we add a drop of hydrogen peroxide. If it is negative, nothing happens. If it is positive, it turns like a magenta hot pink.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you do that phenolphthalein test for each one of the three pedals that are depicted in the photograph that has the call-out line with no number on it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: What was the result?
MS. MAZZOLA: May I check my notes?
MR. GOLDBERG: Sure.
THE COURT: All right. Miss Mazzola, could you try to keep your voice up.
MS. MAZZOLA: Okay.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

(Brief pause.)

MS. MAZZOLA: The phenolphthalein tests were positive.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: And in fact, neither you nor Mr. Fung that day collected any swatches from any of those three items, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No, we did not.
MR. NEUFELD: And it is not because you were only looking for representative stains, because there were no other stains on any of those three items, were there?
MS. MAZZOLA: I do not know if there were any stains present.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, you didn't see any stains, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: I personally did not, no.
MR. NEUFELD: And again, repeating his Honor's question to you and I'm going to get it wrong--perhaps you could repeat your own question. Did Mr. Fung direct your attention to any stains at all on either of these three items?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: No.

- - - - - - - - - -

During Mazzola's testimony on the 26th, similar crap elicited this from Judge Ito:

THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, with regards to Miss Mazzola's testimony concerning the testing of the wire using the phenolphtalein presumptive test, I'm going to direct you to disregard her testimony that she got a positive result from that test. The reason for that is, phenolphtalein is a--what is called a presumptive test. It only means that it's possible that blood is there, but other things also give a positive test. And unless there is a test to confirm that it is in fact blood and human blood, then you should not consider that result. So since there is no confirmatory test on this particular wire, you are to disregard the fact that there was a positive phenolphtalein test on the wire. All right. Thank you. Mr. Neufeld.

- - - - - - - - - -

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-11   16:23:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#327. To: nolu chan (#326)

"And then they supposedly they not bother to collect a single swatch to enable the performance of any confirmatory test."

Ah. You're saying it could have been animal blood on the accelerator. Or beet juice.

The detectives had what they needed. They knew it was blood. Human blood. But it's evidentiary value was zero, even if they did a confirmatory test. And, as far as I know, the prosecution never presented it as evidence.

So it's a moot point. It means nothing to the case. Yet here you are, harping on it as though it represents the entire case. And wasting my time.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-11   17:27:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#328. To: misterwhite (#327)

Ah. You're saying it could have been animal blood on the accelerator. Or beet juice.

Or one of several hundred other substances which will yield a positive result on a pheno test.

As I said and documented for the umpteenth time, a pheno test is incapable of proving the presence of blood. It is an exclusionary test which can show the absence of blood.

The detectives had what they needed. They knew it was blood. Human blood. But it's evidentiary value was zero, even if they did a confirmatory test. And, as far as I know, the prosecution never presented it as evidence.

You are responding another post where I quoted the testimonial evidence from a transcript. It was inadmissible as evidence of the presence of blood, animal or human.

The detectives opinion plus a pheno test fails to qualify as proof of the presence of blood, animal or human.

THE COURT: ... phenolphtalein is a--what is called a presumptive test. It only means that it's possible that blood is there, but other things also give a positive test. And unless there is a test to confirm that it is in fact blood and human blood, then you should not consider that result.

Which part do you deliberately not understand?

And, as far as I know, the prosecution never presented it as evidence.

As they never even collected a swatch, it was impossible to do a confirmatory test.

So it's a moot point. It means nothing to the case.

As they failed to do a confirmatory test, whatever they did with the one swab does mean something in the case. It means the direct testimony was misleading or false, and the criminalists were incompetent or worse.

Yet here you are, harping on it as though it represents the entire case.

I am documenting the monumental failure of the criminalists to follow mandatory collection procedures. It screwed the entire case.

And wasting my time.

You are wasting your time. You claimed the prosecution had 10x the amount of evidence necessary for the jury to return a verdict of guilty. We are now past post number 300 and you have produced no actual evidence from the criminal trial whatever.

The prosecution in the criminal case failed to produce sufficient to justify a conviction. That is why there is such difficulty finding it.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-11   18:07:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#329. To: misterwhite (#327)

FUHRMAN FALSE TESTIMONY

Det Mark FUHRMAN questioned by Marcia CLARK:

4045 - 4046 March 10, 1995

Q: THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT WE SHOWED YOU YESTERDAY OF YOU POINTING TO THE ITEMS UNDERNEATH THAT BUSH, WHEN WAS THAT TAKEN, SIR?

A: I BELIEVE THAT WAS SOMEWHERE AROUND 7:00 OR 7:15 THAT MORNING.

Q: AT THAT POINT, SIR, HAD YOU ALREADY BEEN TO ROCKINGHAM AND COME BACK TO BUNDY?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: SO AT THE POINT THAT YOU WROTE THE SKI MASK, HOW CLOSE HAD YOU GOTTEN TO THAT ITEM?

A: NO CLOSER THAN THE LANDING WHERE I OBSERVED THE TWO VICTIMS FROM WHERE THE FIRST SHOEPRINT --

Q: THAT WAS THE CLOSEST OBSERVATION YOU HAD AT THAT POINT?

A: YES.

[...]

Q: DID YOU EVER GO BACK INTO THE CRIME SCENE BEFORE GOING TO ROCKINGHAM LATER THAT MORNING?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: SO AFTER THE POINT THAT YOU LEFT THE RESIDENCE AFTER COMPLETING YOUR NOTES, YOU NEVER WENT BACK IN AGAIN UNTIL LATER IN THE MORNING AFTER HAVING GONE TO ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES, YOU ARE CORRECT. I DID RETURN AT ABOUT 7:00, 7:15, YES.

That was all lies, under oath.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-19   19:57:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#330. To: nolu chan (#329)

I haven't followed this thread to closely. So I have to ask now you know it is lies?

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-07-19   21:25:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#331. To: A K A Stone (#330)

I haven't followed this thread to closely. So I have to ask now you know it is lies?

I am going to continue on this thread for at least a week or two. I can prove that to be lies beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. I am first laying the foundation for the claim. The N-word testimony was not directly relevant and material to the O.J. trial. The false statements about the gloves was. Follow further posts and you will see how closely resort to the fifth amendment followed.

The defense had asked for the photographer's contact prints for seven months. The prosecution claimed they did not exist. Then, when shoe expert, FBI Special Agent Bodziak testified, he produced clear contact prints in court. At a morning discovery hearing on 1 September 1995, Judge Ito ordered the prosecution to provide a copy of the contact sheets to the defense by 12 noon.

The contact sheets showed the order the photographs were taken, and proved that the photograph of Det. Fuhrman was taken at night, before he ever went to Rockingham, directly contradicting the prior testimony of Det. Fuhrman and the other detectives. It was a big oh shit moment for the prosecution in general, and for Det. Fuhrman in particular. Four days later, Det. Fuhrman was forced to invoke the 5th Amendment.

Note how the prosecution was caught hiding discoverable evidence - again.

Hearing on discovery of the contact prints, 1 September 1995.

THE COURT: All right. How about the discovery matter?
MR. DARDEN: We just received a letter a few moments ago on the discovery matter and we have one copy and we're trying to read it, read over it right now.
THE COURT: All right. Well, I'll hear from Mr. Scheck on the discovery issue and let's see how far we get.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you, your Honor. As you know, yesterday, we had a status conference on discovery, and you were I know occupied writing your decision, and as a consequence, were unable to join us and asked us to put some of the results of that conference in a letter. We have a number of issues that we believe the court must take up. The first--many of them dealing with the rebuttal case and discovery of the Prosecution's rebuttal case. But before I get to that, we would like to call to the court's attention an extremely significant point. As the court probably recalls, the Defense has been requesting for several months in this case, really from the beginning, contact sheets of the crime scene photographs. We have never had a photo log in this case and we never had contact sheets indicating the order in which pictures were taken. Yesterday, we saw for the first time big beautiful color contact sheets of crime scene photographs. We saw those because Mr. Bodziak of the FBI had requested negatives and prepared contact sheets apparently in anticipation of assisting the Prosecution in the cross-examination of Dr. Lee and calling Mr. Bodziak as a rebuttal witness in this case. Examination of those contact sheets reveal that the picture of Mark Fuhrman pointing to the glove at Bundy appears to have been taken at night because the pictures to our eyes at this point prior to and subsequent to the Fuhrman picture, pointing at the glove, revealed that to be taken at night. Now, this has very serious implications. The Prosecution turned over a long time ago a statement of a photographer named Rolf Rokahr who initially told investigators, Detective Luper, that he had arrived at the Bundy scene sometime after midnight, had waited for the arrival of Detective Phillips and Fuhrman. When they arrived, he was then directed by them to go take individual pictures of evidence. Prior to their arrival, he had taken some overall shots. He then indicated in his statement-­
THE COURT: Did he-- I thought Mr. Rokahr testified. I know we've heard his name and seen his likeness on some of the-­
MR. SCHECK: I understand that. But my point is-­
THE COURT: No. I'm just asking you if you have some-­
MR. SCHECK: I don't recall him testifying at the trial-­
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SCHECK: --but his name did come up in the suppression hearings, and in fact, there was an indication by the Prosecution--they filed I think in a responsive brief to Mr. Uelmen's papers--that his initial statement as to the chain of events on the morning of June 13th was mistaken as to times and perhaps as to sequence, and they submitted an amended version of his testimony. The point is, is that he had given us this statement a long time ago indicating that the pictures of Fuhrman pointing to the glove would be consistent with having been taken at night. The crime scene log at Bundy indicates his arrival at 3:25. His initial statement says later. But even if he had arrived at 3:25 and took pictures at that time, that's still night. The sworn testimony of Detective Fuhrman in this case-­
THE COURT: Darkness hours, yeah.
MR. SCHECK: --is that that picture was taken after 7 o'clock in the morning. That is also essentially the testimony of Detective Phillips. It is consistent with the testimony of Detective Lange and Vannatter, indicating that they directed Fuhrman to go back and do this comparison of gloves and take a photograph.
THE COURT: All right. So you feel at this point that you need to have this contact.
MR. SCHECK: Yes. We need to have that contact print because we think that that opens up a whole avenue that impeaches not only Detective Fuhrman's testimony, but it impeaches the other detectives as to their movements between crime scenes that evening. There are no notes about exactly how they proceeded and there are other contradictions, substantial contradictions.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Scheck, does the contact sheet that you saw yesterday include frame numbers?
MR. SCHECK: Yes, it did. What we arranged with Mr. Hodgman at the end of the day--Mr. Hodgman--and I'm sure he'll speak for himself, but he indicated to us at that conference, and I'm sure he'll confirm today, that he personally recalls Mr. Neufeld asking him several months ago for these contact sheets, had determined they didn't exist. And I know that we asked for them previously.
THE COURT: I recollect our discussion about the lack of a photo log.
MR. SCHECK: And these contact sheets. Right now, it's my understanding that we have made arrangements, and at this moment, Mr. Neufeld is at a laboratory with the representative of the District Attorney's office attempting to have high quality reproductions made of these contact sheets. Also, I should add-
­THE COURT: Well, let me ask the more important question. Where are the original negatives?
MR. SCHECK: I believe that-­
MR. HODGMAN: Well, they're at the photo lab now.
MR. SCHECK: They're at the photo lab.
MR. HODGMAN: They're being handled right now, your Honor.
MR. SCHECK: So we are very, very concerned about that. In addition, as the court noted when Dr. Lee testified-­
THE COURT: Well, let me ask another question, see if we can just cut to the chase at this point. When will they be available to the Defense, Mr. Hodgman?
MR. HODGMAN: Well, your Honor, they're being made available to the court or--excuse me--to the Defense right now. We made arrangements with the Defense yesterday. We obtained the negatives. We have an investigator. We agreed to a non-machine reproduction or development of these photos. We have an investigator there just to make sure we don't lose our negatives. But it's being taken care of right now. These contact sheets, which simply show an order--photos which the Defense has had for months and months, were recently acquired by us. I don't know precisely when. I would estimate, but I'll have to let Mr. Goldberg address this.
THE COURT: All right. So don't we need to see these contact sheets, have Mr. Scheck evaluate them and then take the matter up at that point to see what the significance is?
MR. HODGMAN: I think that would be appropriate, your Honor. But the point is, your Honor, discovery is being made. We made the arrangements yesterday. And I'm sure Mr. Scheck has more he'd like to address the court about. So we'll handle it item by item.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SCHECK: But the major point here is that we've been asking these for a long time and they told us they didn't exist and they couldn't be made. And now, just because Mr. Bodziak had them made in an effort to confront Dr. Lee's testimony, all of a sudden, we find something that we think is extremely significant on a crucial matter.
THE COURT: All right. Well, Mr. Scheck, why don't we do this. Let's assume that you get your copies of the contact sheets sometime later today. You'll have time to evaluate them.
MR. SCHECK: Yes.
THE COURT: And if you can--after evaluating them, there is some significance to you and to the Defense position, then we'll take that up at that time.
MR. SCHECK: Yes. Your Honor, I should note in the Brady motion that we filed with the court today, we indicate the lines we are pursuing here because we think it has significance with respect to the decision you rendered. I should note also with respect to the--these photographs that the enlargements in the treated photographs that we saw yesterday--and we're endeavoring to have these copies made as well-­we think provide, just from my untrained eye, looking at them--and that doesn't substitute, as the court has acknowledged, for Dr. Lee's trained eye, Dr. Lee's magical eye frankly. But looking at those photographs, I think that there may be some additional parallel line imprints in the walkway area that are consistent with our contention that we have footprints of two individuals involved in this homicide.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SCHECK: And we think that those pictures are potentially quite exculpatory as well and we should have seen them earlier. The next issue with respect to discovery is that Miss Clark had indicated that we were going to see all these photographs. And of course, they were slow in coming, but you had ordered forthwith it was our understanding.
THE COURT: Which photographs are we speaking about since we've done this several times?
MR. SCHECK: Let's start with the gloves. We thought that you had ordered forthwith for production yesterday or-­
THE COURT: Day before.
MR. SCHECK: --whatever forthwith means, the--what they had with respect to videotapes or blow-ups on the gloves and whatever they propose to introduce in their rebuttal case.
THE COURT: I recollect--
MR. SCHECK: And we're not by any means conceding they have a right to do that. We haven't gotten that.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Hodgman.
MR. HODGMAN: Your Honor, as I indicated to the court I believe it was Wednesday, there was an event concerning these photographs yesterday and basically we were having them reviewed by someone. We've had the benefit of that event having occurred. Accordingly, I've instructed our staff to prepare for submission either to the Defense or to the court under 1054.7, just to be overly cautious about it, the photos and videos that we would either potentially or actually seek to introduce in our rebuttal case. I was informed earlier this morning that we should have the package complete by noon. I should advise the court that-­
THE COURT: They're to be turned over by noon?
MR. HODGMAN: Yes. And by being turned over, the bulk of it we'll give to the Defense. There will be perhaps one or two submissions to the court where we're still not quite sure. So--but out of an abundance of caution, we will turn it over to the court under 1054.7.
THE COURT: All right. Then what I'm going to do is direct that that package be made available to the Defense by noon today, that anything that you feel is not within the discovery statute, submit to the court by noon today for the court's review.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-19   22:04:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#332. To: A K A Stone (#330)

I significantly quoted photographer Rokahr's testimony at my #220 above. I am here only making its significance in-your-face obvious. The glove photo was taken at Bundy very shortly before Fuhrman went to Rockingham. Fuhrman lied and testified that the photo was taken after he got back from Rockingham.

- - - - - - - - - -

On March 10, 1995, Det. Fuhrman testified that the photograph of him pointing at the Bundy glove was taken at around 7 or 7:15 in the morning, and that he had already been to Rockingham and had returned to Bundy. He further testified that up until that point, he had gotten no closer to that glove than the landing at Bundy.

In his March testimony, Det. Fuhrman had provided his own alibi against assertions that he had planted a glove at Rockingham, testifying that, before his return to Rockingham, he had never gotten closer to the Bundy glove than the landing, and that the photograph was taken after he returned to Bundy from Rockingham. That testimony was false. Unlike his lies about using the N-word, these lies were directly relevant and material to the murder case, and his discovery and handling of evidence.

Very shortly before the testimony of photographer Rolf Rokahr on September 5, 1995, seven months after Peter Neufeld's formal request, the prosecution was forced to provide a copy of the photographer's contact sheets to the defense. The first contact sheet proved, absolutely, that the picture of Det. Fuhrman was taken at the end of the first roll of film shot by the photographer who had arrived at Bundy shortly after 3 a.m.

According to Lawrence Schiller, in a meeting on August 31, 1995, Barry Scheck exclaimed, "The first contact sheet, of the first roll of film shot, shows the order in which the pictures were taken... The pictures on the contact sheet taken before and after the glove photos show they were taken at night. Fuhrman testified that the picture in which he is pointing at the glove was taken at seven a.m. or later. Fuhurman testified that he was never near the glove before he went to Rockingham at four-forty."

Alan Dershowictz chimed in, "His finger in the photograph is three inches away from the glove. God only knows how cose it was when the camera wasn't shooting."

A little later O.J. calls and Scheck exclaims, "I got him, I got Fuhrman!" Bailey asks how he got him. Scheck explains, "I have Rokahr's photo log here. I have Fuhrman's testimony here. Peter has seen the D.A.'s set of Rokahr's contact sheets, and it shows that the picture of Fuhrman pointing to the glove was taken at night." Pounding on the table, Sheck exhorts, "Now we got proof, now we got proof!"

On September 5, 1995, photographer Rolf Rokahr's testimony made clear that the picture of Det. Fuhrman pointing at the Bundy glove, with his fiinger about three inches from it, was taken at night, not after 7 a.m., but before daybreak which was at 5:41a.m. The photograph was taken at about 4:20 to 4:35 in the morning.

At about 5 a.m., Fuhrman and Vanatter arrived at Rockingham.

The Fuhrman self-alibi against the accusation of glove planting at Rockingham was false testimony.

Rokahr's testimony was on September 5th. The next day, September 6th, is when Det. Fuhrman invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to testify further in the case.

As for Det. Fuhrman's own contradictory testimony, see Det. Fuhrman on March 13, 1995:

Q: ALL RIGHT. AFTER DETECTIVE LANGE AND DETECTIVE VANNATTER HAD THAT CONVERSATION, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

A: THEREABOUTS SOMETIME DETECTIVE VANNATTER TOLD DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND MYSELF TO GO BACK TO BUNDY TO LOOK AT THAT GLOVE THAT WE HAD SEEN ON BUNDY.

Q: AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE, SIR?

A: TO SEE IF THERE WAS A SIMILARITY, IF WE HAD A RIGHT AND A LEFT, SEE IF THE COLOR AND THE LEATHER AND THE LINING MATCHED.

Q: AND SO AFTER DETECTIVE VANNATTER ASKED YOU TO DO THAT, DID YOU?

A: YES. DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND I LEFT THE ROCKINGHAM SCENE AND WENT BACK TO BUNDY.

Q: OKAY. IN THE SAME CAR YOU GUYS CAME IN EARLIER?

A: YES.

Q: YOU DROVE TOGETHER, DID YOU?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT TIME WAS IT WHEN YOU WENT BACK TO BUNDY?

A: I BELIEVE ABOUT 7:00 IN THE MORNING, MAYBE A LITTLE LATER.

Q: AGAIN, WERE YOU LOOKING AT YOUR WATCH WHEN YOU LEFT ROCKINGHAM TO GO BACK TO BUNDY?

A: NO, I WASN'T.

Q: IS THAT AN APPROXIMATION, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN YOU WENT BACK TO BUNDY, WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: DETECTIVE PHILLIPS INSTRUCTED ME TO GET A PHOTOGRAPHER. I DID. WE WALKED DOWN DOROTHY, ENTERED THE ALLEY AND CAME IN THROUGH THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCE.

Of course, Mr. Rokahr was called at 2:48 a.m. and arrived at Bundy about 3:30 a.m. The photograph of Fuhrman pointing at the Bundy glove was taken in the dark, with a flash, about an hour and a half before sunrise. The contact sheet pictures before and after the glove picture prove that the glove picture was taken at night.

Photographer Rokahr met up with Det. Fuhrman at about 4:10 a.m. and was asked to go around to Dorothy St.

A: TO SEE IF THERE WAS A SIMILARITY, IF WE HAD A RIGHT AND A LEFT, SEE IF THE COLOR AND THE LEATHER AND THE LINING MATCHED.

Oops! If Det. Fuhrman had not gotten closer to the Bundy glove than the landing, in the dark, just how could Det. Fuhrman know if the color and lining of the Bundy glove and the color and lining of the Rockingham glove were a match?

At the Preliminary Hearing, July 5, 1994

Q From that vantage point, looking down on the victims, were you able to see any items of evidence?

A Yes, looking down, directly below the landing, there -- I believe at that point there was a heel print which appeared to be going in a westbound direction, away from the bodies, towards the alley. There was also a knit cap or what appeared to be a knit cap, dark cap-type object, and what looked like a glove at the feet of the male victim in the shrubbery area just to the north of the female victim.

Q Can you describe the glove any better?

A At that time, it was difficult to see it. There was another location from the north residence that I got a better view of it, a little later. And then I noticed that it was a dark brown -- or it could have been even black in the light that I was looking at it -- and it did appear to be a stocking cap when I got a closer look.

Q So it was a -- it looked to you to be a dark brown or even black leather glove, and a -- did you say what color the hat was?

A It was very dark. Maybe dark blue or black.

Q Knit cap?

A It appeared to be knit, yes.

From the landing, Det. Fuhrman testified he couldn't tell much. It was only later, after he obtained a better view, that he was able to determine the glove was dark brown or black. From the landing, Det. Fuhrman was uncertain if the knit cap was a knit cap, or whether it was dark blue or black. And he did not appear to determine anything whatever about the lining of the glove.

While Det. Fuhrman was a practiced liar, and could do it convincingly with a straight face, that does not mean that his false statements could withstand scrutiny.

Det. Fuhrman could not afford to go another round with F. Lee Bailey at the criminal trial, and he did not testify at the civil trial.

The lies of Mark Fuhrman destroyed the credibility of Mark Fuhrman. They also destroyed the credibility of Marcia Clark who solicited his unbelieveable lies to the jury. Fuhrman was meant to be Christopher Darden's witness. After Darden was unable to swallow Fuhrman's claims about the N-word in a prep session, he refused to participate in the presentation of Fuhrman's testimony to the jury. Only then did Marcia Clark present Fuhrman's lies to the jury, get exposed for doing it, and lose credibility with the jury for having participated in that charade.

As for Fuhrman, it was the lies in his testimony about the gloves that threatened to send him to prison. Those were directly relevant and material to the murder case.

- - - - - - - - - -

Marcia Clark, Closing Argument

Let me come back to Mark Fuhrman for a minute. Just so it is clear. Did he lie when he testified here in this courtroom saying that he did not use racial epithets in the last ten years? Yes. Is he a racist? Yes. Is he the worse LAPD has to offer? Yes. Do we wish that this person was never hired by LAPD? Yes. Should LAPD have ever hired him? No. Should such a person be a police officer? No. In fact, do we wish there were no such person on the planet? Yes.

It was impossible to bullshit the jury and rehabilitate Det. Fuhrman or the prosecution case. Directly relevant and material false testimony was solicited and given to the jury, and it was exposed and proven. Exposed were not only Det. Fuhrman, but the other detectives who tried to cover for him, and Marcia Clark who presented Det. Fuhrman and tried to blow smoke up their collective ass.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-19   22:15:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#333. To: nolu chan (#329)

That was all lies, under oath.

Where's the lie?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-20   10:48:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#334. To: nolu chan (#220)

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, what I want you to do is look at photographs 36, in other words, the one immediately after 35, where Fuhrman is pointing at the glove, all the way through 43. Do you see those?

MR. NEUFELD: And how many exposures are there in each roll that you use, sir?
MR. ROKAHR: 36 exposures.

Hmmm. Pretty good to get 43 photos from a roll holding 36.

Photography is my hobby. When you load a roll of film, the first few inches are exposed to light and useless. So you close the back and advance the film at least twice to get unexposed film behind the shutter.

Which means you're lucky to get 33 or 34 exposures from a roll of 36.

My guess is he got 34 shots at night on the original roll, loaded fresh film, then started shooting again at 7:15am. If he didn't reset the counter, you wouldn't know that.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-20   12:14:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#335. To: nolu chan (#220) (Edited)

Testimony Of LAPD Officer Robert Riske

A: HE'S POINTING TO THE GLOVE.

Q: THE GLOVE AND THE CAP?

A: THE CAP.

Q: THE ONES THAT YOU SAW WHEN YOU ARRIVED SHORTLY AFTER MIDNIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: SO -- LET ME ASK YOU SOMETHING. WHAT'S HE WEARING THERE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: LOOKS LIKE WHITE SUIT SHIRT, PAIR OF SLACKS.

Q: NO JACKET?

A: NO.

Q: NOW, IN THAT PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH, YOU HAD SAID THAT THE LEAVES OF THE PLANT THAT KIND OF HUNG OVER THAT ONE GLOVE AND THE SKI CAP?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND THAT ACTUALLY YOU HAD TO LEFT IT UP TO SEE?

A: RIGHT.

Q: NOW, AT THIS POINT, THE LEAVES ARE NOT LIFTED UP; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I BELIEVE THAT'S HIS LEFT HAND HOLDING THE LEAVES BACK AND HIS RIGHT HAND POINTING TO THE --

MS. CLARK: PULL BACK A LITTLE BIT, JONATHAN.

THE WITNESS: OH, NEVER MIND. THAT'S THE SHOE OF THE VICTIM?

Q: BY MS. CLARK: THE SHOE OF THE VICTIM. SO HE'S JUST POINTING TO IT WITH HIS RIGHT HAND?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: NOW, WHAT TIME WAS IT THAT YOU WERE RELIEVED FROM THIS CRIME SCENE?

A: 7:15.

Q: AT 7:15?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND HOW -- IN RELATIONSHIP TO THAT TIME THAT YOU LEFT THE CRIME SCENE, WHEN DID DETECTIVE FUHRMAN APPEAR AND POINT THINGS OUT TO THE PHOTOGRAPHER?

A: I WOULD SAY WITHIN 40 MINUTES. I'M NOT REALLY SURE. WITHIN AN HOUR.

Q: SO IT WAS SHORTLY BEFORE YOU LEFT --

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: -- THE CRIME SCENE COMPLETELY?

A: RIGHT.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-20   12:38:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#336. To: misterwhite (#333)

That was all lies, under oath.

Where's the lie?

The contact sheets proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the glove photo was taken at night, before 5:41, contrary to Fuhrman and those who would cover for Fuhrman.

LAPD lies. The photographs did not.

The photographs of Fuhrman pointing at the glove at Bundy were taken as #34 and #35, the last two shots on the first roll shot by photographer Rokahr. #1 thru #33 were shot at night, as were #36-#43, the first eight shots of the second roll.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry. In terms of how light it is, that there is an obvious difference between a photograph taken an hour to an hour and a half before the sun rises and a photograph taken an hour to an hour and a half after the sun rises?
MR. ROKAHR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. ROKAHR: Yes, there's a difference.
MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, if the sun raised that morning at 5:41 A.M., you would be able to tell the difference without being precise whether that photograph was a nighttime shot, shot perhaps an hour, hour and a half before sunrise and one shot an hour and a half after sunrise, wouldn't you?
MR. ROKAHR: I would like to think so.

There is also Fuhrman's lie that he did not get closer to the glove than the landing at Bundy before going to Rockingham.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-21   2:30:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#337. To: misterwhite (#334)

Pretty good to get 43 photos from a roll holding 36.

Photography is my hobby. When you load a roll of film, the first few inches are exposed to light and useless. So you close the back and advance the film at least twice to get unexposed film behind the shutter.

Which means you're lucky to get 33 or 34 exposures from a roll of 36.

My guess is he got 34 shots at night on the original roll, loaded fresh film, then started shooting again at 7:15am. If he didn't reset the counter, you wouldn't know that.

I do not guess.

What you guess is impossible. If the photog reset the databack number, he would have duplicate numbers on the shoot, and everybody would know it.

The photog does not reset the number for the databack for the duration of the shoot. Your guess is directly proven impossible by the contact sheets.

You have to be a novice or a bit incompetent to get 33 or 34 from a roll of 36. You will never get 43.

A roll of film allows adequate length to obtain 36 exposures, 37 if you are lucky. 35 if you want to be absolutely certain the first exposure is good.

You have to be a novice or a bit incompetent to get 33 or 34 from a roll of 36. You will never get 43. You should get 35 - 37.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And, sir, if you'd like to compare it to your album, please go right ahead. But the question I have for you is, does this sheet--except for the fact that the images are slightly larger than they would be if it was a direct contact, does this page reflect the sequence of photographs on the very first roll of film that you shot that night at Bundy?
MR. ROKAHR: Yes, it does.
MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, do the first--by the way, how many exposures did you get out of that first roll?
MR. ROKAHR: There would be 36, 35, 36.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And so sometimes when you're shooting a roll of 36, you only get 35?
MR. ROKAHR: It depends on how the camera on its first--on its first advance advances or depending on how far I have pushed the film into its position.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay.
MR. ROKAHR: So I may run out at 36 and sometimes you might even get 37.

Good try at impressing me with your photographic credentials. I won an honorable mention at the PFLI (Photographic Federation of Long Island) myself. That was not restricted to amateurs, and included, for example, Newsday photographers. Entrants develop and print their own photos. That outranks a local win I had. It looks as if you have never developed a roll of film, or printed a contact sheet, in your life, and it seems you have never heard of a databack.

Hmmm. Pretty good to get 43 photos from a roll holding 36.

A hideously stupid comment. When you get 43 from a roll of 36, tell the Guinness book of records. You do not get 43 photos from a roll holding 36. As the photographer testified, sometimes you get 37. Try developing a few rolls and find out what you are talking about.

Photography is my hobby. When you load a roll of film, the first few inches are exposed to light and useless. So you close the back and advance the film at least twice to get unexposed film behind the shutter.

And you might advance a little more if you are a crime scene photographer or wish to make sure your first picture is a picture and not a black space.

As noted at my #235, I significantly posted testimony of the photographer, Rolf Rokahr, at my #220.

The crime scene photographer uses a camera with a data back with a counter for the photo shoot where his first photo will be 000001 and the others will be numbered sequentially.

The very first shot on the very first roll, photo 000001 would be a picture of his slate for the photo shoot. That's rather like the thing someone is holding when a movie director says "action!" I contains the identifying information for the photo shoot. The first roll cannot be mistaken for any other.

The 34th and 35th exposures on the first roll were the pictures of Det. Fuhrman pointing at the glove in a nighttime photo with flash. Shots 1-33 were shot in the dark. Shots 34 and 35 ended the first roll and were shot in the dark. Shots 36-43 were the first shots on the second roll. They were also shot at nighttime. The contact sheets prove, beyond all doubt, that shots 34 and 35 were shot at night, and not at 7 to 7:15 a.m., nearly an hour and a half after daybreak.

Photographer Rolf Rokahr, 5 Sep 1995

MR. NEUFELD: In this particular roll, do you notice that the last shot on the roll is item no. 35--not item number, but photograph no. 35?
MR. ROKAHR: Yeah. I think it's--let me just check with this one.
MR. NEUFELD: Certainly.
THE COURT: You may.

(Brief pause.)

MR. ROKAHR: This is 35, this is no. 36.
MR. NEUFELD: That's the next roll?
MR. ROKAHR: Yeah. Either the next roll or the last negative. I may have reloaded walking around to the front of the building.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So, sir, to the best of your recollection--I'm sorry. To the best of your recollection, would this contact sheet, except for the fact that the actual negatives are slightly larger when they're printed there than they would be on a routine contact sheet, do they represent the first roll of film you shot that night at Bundy?
MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.
MR. NEUFELD: And the first 33 frames on that roll, those would be those overall shots you talked about that you took between approximately, oh, 3:25 and say 3:55 in the morning?
MR. ROKAHR: Whatever the time was, yes.

The first roll did not contain the absurdly ridiculous misterwhite claim of 43 shots; it contained 35 shots, as testified to by the photographer, and verified by the contact sheets. Shot 36 was the first apppearing on the second roll, corresponding to shot 36 on the camera databack. The camera databack number appeared on each sequential picture. Again, this is verified by the contact sheets.

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, didn't you--didn't you say just before the break that the time that the photographs were taken of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove, given the times that you gave for the other events that evening, would be somewhere between 4:20 and 4:35 in the morning?
MR. DARDEN: Misstates the testimony.
MR. NEUFELD: Didn't you say that, sir?
MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. ROKAHR: I probably did. I have frankly no recollection as to the actual times involved.
MR. NEUFELD: Sir, yesterday, when you were interviewed by me, were you interviewed by me for approximately an hour and a half?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And would it be fair to say that the majority of that time, you were giving a narrative of what happened, the order it happened and the times it happened on June 13th of 1994? Isn't that correct?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: May I publish it to the jury, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes. Why don't you ask him--you want to ask him a question about the frame numbers?
MR. NEUFELD: That appears in each picture? Okay.
MR. NEUFELD: Aside from the number in the lower right-hand corner of the actual print, is there also a number beneath the print which indicates which frame it was or which shot it was in the roll?
MR. ROKAHR: There's only one imprint on the negative. There are no other numbers.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, no. Are there numbers below each print there that would show you it is the third frame or the fourth frame or the sixth frame?
MR. ROKAHR: You mean the ones that are put on by Kodak?
MR. NEUFELD: Yes. The one put on by Kodak.

MR. ROKAHR: Okay.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And do those also appear on those sheets?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Neufeld.
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, before I publish it, I would like to use the elmo, and I think we have to cut the feed.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. NEUFELD: Just a couple questions first. Sir, in the--those establishment, location, overall shots, whatever you want to call it, those first 33 shots, in those 33 shots, you used the flash?
MR. ROKAHR: I use a flash on every photograph I take.
MR. NEUFELD: And the--and in addition to the flash, there were streetlights that to some extent or other artificial lights that were there that illuminated the scene as well; is that correct?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you can see the illumination given off by those other lights in these various prints; can you not?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. And when you shot the two photographs of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove, as to those two shots, you shot those with a flash; did you not?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: I'm now going to show you what is frame 34 and 35 on your first roll of film.
MR. NEUFELD: Is the feed cut?
MR. NEUFELD: Sir, first of all, let me show you one at a time. Do you see those two?
MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And by the way, all the other photographs on that first roll, 1 through 33, those were all shot at nighttime; isn't that correct?
MR. ROKAHR: They were shot what?
MR. NEUFELD: At nighttime.
MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.
MR. NEUFELD: And as to 34, the 34th picture, do you see that on the screen?
MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.
MR. NEUFELD: Is that Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove?
MR. ROKAHR: That is Detective Fuhrman.
MR. NEUFELD: And in 35, is that also Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove?
MR. ROKAHR: That is also Detective Fuhrman. MR. NEUFELD: And those were the last two pictures you took on that first roll of film during the night at Bundy on June 13th--in the early morning hours of June 13th, 1994?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.

A photographic print does not usually include the the exposure number printed on the film by Kodak. It includes the databack number assigned by the user. A contact sheet includes everything, including the sprocket holes and the number assigned by Kodak.

1-33 and 34 and 35 on the first roll were taken at nighttime, as were the first eight exposures 36-43 on roll two.

Fuhrman and Riske testified falsely.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-21   2:33:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#338. To: misterwhite (#335)

You accidentally on purpose left out the date again. That was testimony on direct examination by Marcia Clark on 9 Feb 1995. Riske also testified on 14 Feb 1995. Photographer Rokahr testified on 5 Sep 1995. Next day, Fuhrman took the Fifth Amendment.

Q: NOW, WHAT TIME WAS IT THAT YOU WERE RELIEVED FROM THIS CRIME SCENE?

A: 7:15.

Q: AT 7:15?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND HOW -- IN RELATIONSHIP TO THAT TIME THAT YOU LEFT THE CRIME SCENE, WHEN DID DETECTIVE FUHRMAN APPEAR AND POINT THINGS OUT TO THE PHOTOGRAPHER?

A: I WOULD SAY WITHIN 40 MINUTES. I'M NOT REALLY SURE. WITHIN AN HOUR.

Q: SO IT WAS SHORTLY BEFORE YOU LEFT --

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: -- THE CRIME SCENE COMPLETELY?

A: RIGHT.

The LAPD lied. The photographs did not. The photographs of Fuhrman pointing at the glove at Bundy were taken as #34 and #35, the last two shots on the first roll shot by photographer Rokahr. #1 thru 33 were shot at night, as were 36-43, the first eight shots of the second roll.

Riske's response is sufficiently vague that he has left an escape. The contact sheets prove the photograph was taken at night. As a matter of record, daybreak was at 5:41 a.m. Officer Riske's testimony, while acting to cover for Det. Fuhrman in April, cannot actually change night into day, or change the time of daybreak on 13 June 1995. The only inference to be drawn is that Officer Riske's testimony was false or mistaken.

Riske under cross examination on 14 Apr 1995.

Q: SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR, WHILE YOU WERE THERE THE PHOTOGRAPHER NEVER CAME INSIDE AND TOOK THINK PICTURES OF ANYTHING INSIDE THAT PLACE, RIGHT?
A: NOT THAT I WAS AWARE OF, NO.
Q: YOU NEVER INSTRUCTED HIM TO DO THAT?
A: NO.
Q: AND IN YOUR PRESENCE YOU NEVER HEARD EITHER PHILLIPS OR FUHRMAN OR LANGE OR VANNATTER INSTRUCT THE PHOTOGRAPHER TO TAKE ANY PICTURES OF THE INTERIOR?
A: NO.

[...]

Q: OKAY. WE TALKED LAST WEEK ABOUT THE TIME THAT THE DETECTIVES LEFT TO GO OVER TO THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE. DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A: I REMEMBER SPEAKING OF IT.
Q: WHAT TIME DID THEY LEAVE?
A: I REALLY DON'T KNOW.
Q: YOU TOLD US THEY WERE GONE ABOUT AN HOUR?
A: HOUR, HOUR AND A HALF.
Q: YOU THOUGHT THEY GOT BACK ABOUT WHAT TIME?
A: BETWEEN 6:30, 6:45.
Q: 6:30, 6:45. SO THEY WOULD HAVE LEFT-- IF THEY WERE GONE ABOUT AN HOUR AND A HALF, THEY WOULD HAVE LEFT ABOUT 5:00, WOULD THAT BE FAIR?
A: 5:15, 5:30. I DON'T REMEMBER.
Q: DO YOU KNOW WHAT TIME THE SUN CAME UP THAT MORNING IN JUNE?
A: NO, I DON'T.
Q: SO SOMEWHERE AN HOUR, HOUR AND A HALF AFTER THEY WERE GONE OUT OF YOUR PRESENCE?
A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q: WHEN THEY LEFT, WHEN ALL FOUR DETECTIVES LEFT, THE THREE WHO WERE NOW IN CHANGE OF THAT SCENE, WHO WAS IN CHARGE AT THE SCENE AT ROCKINGHAM?
A: MY SUPERVISOR.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-21   2:37:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#339. To: A K A stone, misterwhite (#332)

Continuing along with the destruction of the LAPD criminalists,

OJ - FUNG FICTION AND VIDEO

Mr. Fung having a terrible, no good day, April 11, 1995.

How about that, Mr. Fung?

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, CAN YOU SEE THAT ENVELOPE IN THE BAG?
A: YES.
Q: NOW, THE OTHER ITEMS OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU COLLECTED IN THE BUNDY SCENE, WEREN'T THEY PUT INTO COIN ENVELOPES IF THEY WERE BLOOD DROPS?
A: YES.
Q: AND THE PAGER WAS PUT INTO A BAG?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: WHY DON'T YOU TAKE OUT YOUR EVIDENCE COLLECTION SHEET AND READ ALONG WITH ME. THE KEYS WENT INTO A COIN ENVELOPE, CORRECT?
A: YES.
Q: THE PAGER WENT INTO A COIN ENVELOPE?
A: YES.
Q: THAT OBJECT WE SEE YOU AND MISS MAZZOLA HANDLING IT IS NOT THE KEYS OR THE PAGER, IS IT?
A: NO.
Q: IT IS NOT THE GLOVE?
A: NO.
Q: IT IS NOT THE HAT?
A: NO.
Q: IT IS NOT THE RING?
A: NO.
Q: IT IS NOT ANY OF THE RED STAINS THAT YOU RECOVERED AT BUNDY?
A: THAT'S CORRECT.
Q: WELL, LOOKING AT YOUR EVIDENCE CHECKLIST, CAN YOU SUGGEST ONE THING, OTHER THAN THAT ENVELOPE, THAT WE SAW ON THAT VIDEOTAPE?
A: NOTE PAD MAYBE.
Q: A NOTE PAD MAYBE. WHICH NOTE PAD?
A: IT WOULDN'T BE EVIDENCE; IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE USED TO TAKE NOTES.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

THE COURT: FOR THE RECORD, MR. SCHECK, WHAT ARE WE DOING?
MR. SCHECK: WE ARE LOOKING AT IT THREE MORE TIMES.
THE COURT: THIS IS 1082?
MR. SCHECK: 1082.

(DEFENSE EXHIBIT 1082, A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.)

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. SCHECK: AND NOW WE HAVE THE STILL.

(A STILL PHOTOGRAPH WAS DISPLAYED.)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: LOOKING AT THAT STILL AND HERE IF YOU WANT, WE HAVE A PRINTOUT FROM THE ELMO, ARE YOU TELLING US THAT THAT IS A NOTE PAD AND NOT THE ENVELOPE?
A: I'M SAYING IT COULD BE ANYTHING, BUT IT IS NOT THE ENVELOPE HERE.
Q: WELL, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT IT IS NOT ANY OTHER ITEM OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU COLLECTED AT THE SCENE? COULDN'T BE ANY OTHER ITEM OF EVIDENCE EXCEPT FOR THAT PRESCRIPTION ENVELOPE, RIGHT?
MR. GOLDBERG: WAIT A MINUTE. I WOULD OBJECT.
THE COURT: BASIS?
MR. GOLDBERG: THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IS THERE ANY OTHER ITEM OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU COLLECTED AT BUNDY THAT YOU COULD BE HANDING MISS MAZZOLA?
MR. GOLDBERG: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW WHAT TIME FRAME THIS STILL WAS TAKEN, SO I CAN'T GIVE YOU AN ACCURATE --
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: THAT IS A PICTURE OF MR. JACOBO AND MISS RATCLIFFE?
A: OKAY.
Q: THEY ARE FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE?
MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, NOW COUNSEL IS TESTIFYING. MOTION TO STRIKE.
THE COURT: THAT IS TRUE. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ARE THEY FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE?
A: YES.
Q: AND THEY WERE AT THE SCENE WHEN YOU ARRIVED?
A: YES.
Q: AND THEY LEFT AT ABOUT 11:15, AS I RECALL?
A: RIGHT.
Q: SO IT HAS GOT TO BE BETWEEN THE TIME THAT YOU FIRST ARRIVED AT THE SCENE AND THE TIME THAT THE CORONERS LEFT?
A: YES.
Q: ARE YOU TESTIFYING THAT THAT IS NOT THE ENVELOPE?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE. ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, MR. HARRIS ADVISES ME THAT PERHAPS WE COULD PLAY IT ONE MORE TIME IN SLOW MOTION AND HE THINKS HE CAN GET A BETTER STILL.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHY DON'T YOU TRY IT.

(DEFENSE EXHIBIT 1082, A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.)

THE COURT: I THINK WE NEED TO START THE SLOMO SOONER THAN THAT. START AT THE BEGINNING. WELL, WE ARE GOING BACKWARDS AT THIS POINT. HOW ABOUT SOME MORE? NO, BACKWARDS, BACKWARDS, BACKWARDS.

MR. SCHECK: THERE. THERE.

Q: HOW ABOUT THAT, MR. FUNG?

THE COURT: IS THAT A QUESTION, MR. SCHECK?

MR. SCHECK: YES.

Q: HOW ABOUT THAT PICTURE, MR. FUNG, DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION THAT YOU TOOK THE ENVELOPE FROM ANDREA MAZZOLA WITH YOUR BARE HAND?

A: WHEN YOU POINTED OUT THE TIME FRAME, IT MAKES IT EVEN MORE SURE IN MY MIND THAT THAT IS NOT THE ENVELOPE, BECAUSE WE DID NOT START PICKING UP EVIDENCE UNTIL WELL AFTER THE CORONERS WERE GONE.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. HARRIS, DO YOU HAVE THAT FRAME?
MR. HARRIS: YES, YOUR HONOR, I DO.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT WILL BE 1082-A PRINTOUT.

(DEFT'S 1082-A FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ARE YOU SAYING THAT IS A NOTE PAD?
A: I'M SAYING I'M NOT SURE WHAT IT IS, BUT I KNOW IT IS NOT THAT ENVELOPE.
Q: DO YOU SEE WHERE THERE IS A SLIGHT -- THAT OBJECT THAT MISS MAZZOLA HAD IN HER HAND, IT APPEARS TO HAVE A CERTAIN FULLNESS TO IT?
A: I CAN'T TELL FROM THE VIDEO, NO.
Q: YOU CAN'T TELL? YOUR HONOR, WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION, RATHER THAN HAVE THE JURY TOUCH IT, BUT I WOULD ASK THAT THIS BAG THAT CONTAINS THE ENVELOPE BE PASSED THROUGH THE JURY SO THAT THEY CAN LOOK AT IT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. HAND IT TO JUROR NO. 1, PLEASE.

(THE BAG CONTAINING THE GLASSES ENVELOPE WAS PASSED AMONGST THE JURY.)

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

[...]

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A BRIEF RECESS. PLEASE REMEMBER ALL MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU. DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DO NOT ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU WITH REGARD TO THE CASE, DO NOT CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU. WE WILL TAKE A 15- MINUTE RECESS. THANK YOU.

(RECESS.)

[...]

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, A FEW MOMENTS AGO, MR. FUNG, WHEN YOU SAW THE VIDEO OF THE ENVELOPE, YOU SAID THAT IT HAD REFRESHED YOUR RECOLLECTION WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THE FRAME BECAUSE YOU KNEW THAT COULDN'T BE THE ENVELOPE SINCE THE EVIDENCE COLLECTION DID NOT BEGIN UNTIL THE PEOPLE FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE LEFT?

A: THAT'S WHAT I INDICATED, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU THIS PIECE OF VIDEOTAPE, MR. FUNG.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MARK THIS AS 1083.

(DEFT'S 1083 FOR ID = VIDEOTAPE)

(AT 10:45 A.M., DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1083, A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AND YOU'VE BEEN WATCHING THIS AT THE BREAK, HAVEN'T YOU?
A: YES, I HAVE.
Q: NOW, THIS IS MISS MAZZOLA PUTTING THE HAT IN THE BAG, CORRECT?
A: YES.
Q: AND IF YOU LOOK IN THE BACK OF THE STEPS, THOSE ARE THE PRINT PEOPLE WALKING BACK AND FORTH, THE ONES IN THE WHITE COATS?
A: YES.
Q: AND YOU SEE IN BACK OF HER WHAT LOOKS LIKE THE TAPE MEASURE?
A: I COULDN'T MAKE IT OUT.
Q: SEE IT NOW?
A: YES. COULD BE, YES.
Q: NOW SHE'S PICKING UP THE GLOVE? NOW, YOU REMEMBER THAT MR. JACOBO FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE, HE WAS THE GENTLEMAN IN THE BLUE SUIT, THE BLUE JUMPSUIT?
A: YES.
Q: I WOULD LIKE YOU TO WATCH VERY CAREFULLY THE FRAME, THESE SHOES. SEE THOSE SHOES, SEE THOSE BLUE PANTS?
A: YES.

Q: THAT'S MR. JACOBO, ISN'T IT?

A: APPEARS TO BE, YES.

Q: SO YOU DID BEGIN EVIDENCE COLLECTION BEFORE THE CORONERS LEFT?

A: YES.

Q: SO WHAT YOU SAID BEFORE WASN'T TRUE?

A: IT WAS TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION AT THE TIME.

Q: WELL, WHEN YOU FILLED OUT YOUR EVIDENCE COLLECTION REPORT, MR. FUNG, FOR THE BUNDY SCENE -- I THINK WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE -- THERE'S A BOX THAT HAS TIMES ON IT, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU DIDN'T FILL OUT ANY TIMES FOR THE COLLECTION OF THESE -- OF THESE PIECES OF EVIDENCE, DID YOU?

A: THEY WERE NOT FILLED IN.

(AT 10:46 A.M., THE PLAYING OF DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1083, THE VIDEOTAPE, CONCLUDED.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Mr. Fung] WHEN YOU POINTED OUT THE TIME FRAME, IT MAKES IT EVEN MORE SURE IN MY MIND THAT THAT IS NOT THE ENVELOPE, BECAUSE WE DID NOT START PICKING UP EVIDENCE UNTIL WELL AFTER THE CORONERS WERE GONE.

Followed by Barry Scheck showing Dennis Fung a video depicting evidence being picked up while a coroner is in the background of the picture. BUSTED.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-21   2:51:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#340. To: nolu chan (#339)

Maybe they were leaving then they started collecting evidence so they were in picture.

OK is guilty and should have been executed.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-07-21   9:33:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#341. To: A K A Stone (#340)

Maybe they were leaving then they started collecting evidence so they were in picture.

And maybe the LAPD witnesses lied and lied and lied and got caught time after time after time after time.

The question under discussion is not whether O.J. did it, but whether the prosecutors sufficient credible evidence to the jury to enable them to return a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed miserably.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-22   7:46:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#342. To: A K A Stone, misterwhite (#340)

Moving on,

Evidence collected on the 13th was not booked until the 16th. Fung says that was "very quick."

Fung testifies he only collected a "representative sample" from the Bronco console, not the whole stain.

Protocol was to collect the entire stain. To relieve reader befuddlement on why Fung might give contrary testimony, recall that after the 14 June 1995 stain collection, there were several subsequent visits to the Bronco and the collection of more blood from the original area. If he had swatched the entire blood smear the first time, there should have been no blood there for a 2nd, 3rd or 4th collection.

Jury Foreman Armanda Cooley, Madam Foreman 1995, pg. 111.

I felt that Dennis was too busy trying to be protective of his position. His rank is a Criminalist II, but somewhere along the line I think he missed something. I think that he did not do a professional job in collecting the evidence. The whole thing about putting that evidence in the truck with no refrigerator was ridiculous. Mazzola was young and new on the job. Mazzola was sitting there in the living room and nodded out for twenty minutes or so. If she didn't have anything to do for nearly a half hour, she could have taken the evidence to Parker Center or wherever, and had it booked or refrigerated while Dennis continued to collect or do whatever he had to do. I think what happened is a lot of people just got too caught up in the moment and didn't do their jobs properly. I just thought he was sloppy.

June 18, 1995 testimony of Mr. Fung

MR. SCHECK: Where is it in the rules of your laboratory that there's a doctrine about taking only representative samples?
MR. FUNG: I don't know if it's written anywhere, but that's the way I was trained and that's been the policy handed down and taught to every Criminalist that's worked for the Los Angeles Police Department.
MR. SCHECK: Is there any document that you know of in the crime lab that talks about taking only representative samples?
MR. FUNG: I'm not aware of one."
MR. SCHECK: And in terms of swatching a stain so that you only get a representative sample, is that in any document in the crime lab?
MR. FUNG: I don't know of any document to that effect.
MR. SCHECK: And we're clear on this; you recall testifying that when you swatch stains in the Bronco, you didn't swatch the whole stain. You only swatched a representative sample of the stain?
MR. FUNG: I believe that was for--that wasn't for every stain, but a--one stain in particular that you were talking about.
MR. SCHECK: Stains on the console?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: But as far as you know, the only document in the crime lab that instructs you about swatching for purposes of DNA testing directs the Criminalist to get as much of the stain as possible?
MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FUNG: The collection for conventional serological or conventional serology and DNA collection are essentially the same.
MR. SCHECK: You--do you recall--withdrawn. Haven't you seen a handout that gives directions on how Criminalists should swatch blood evidence?
MR. FUNG: If you could show it to me, I--I may be refreshed, but--
MR. SCHECK: Do you recall you and I went through a form that had about 13 different directions on them?
MR. FUNG: You've shown a lot of things to me over the last eight days.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, on redirect examination, you indicated that you didn't think that you were necessarily covered by the rules in the Los Angeles Police Department manual.
MR. FUNG: I believe I--
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you cite a specific page of the transcript?
MR. SCHECK: Let's do it this way.
MR. SCHECK: Do you believe that you're covered by the rules in the Los Angeles Police Department manual?
MR. GOLDBERG: Overbroad as to rules.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FUNG: Certain aspects of the manual do pertain to the civilians, yes.
MR. SCHECK: The manual as it sets forth rules on the booking and handling of evidence, does that govern you?
THE COURT: Haven't we gone over this already?
MR. SCHECK: Well, he did it on redirect. I'm doing it fast.
THE COURT: Doesn't mean we have to do it again.
MR. SCHECK: Well, I'll do it fast. I just have two or three questions here.
MR. FUNG: The guidelines in the general principles are applicable to us, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Well, there are guidelines and general principles, but you don't feel that you have to follow those rules as written with respect to booking evidence?

MR. FUNG: As long as I'm following the intention of the policy, that's what the manual's for.

MR. SCHECK: And the rules say that you should book biological evidence as soon as possible?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And in this case, you did not book by putting the items into the evidence processing--evidence control unit, the swatches from Bundy where Mr. Simpson's blood sample or the glove or the hat or any of these items, until June 16th?

MR. GOLDBERG: Beyond the scope of the redirect, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FUNG: Booking the--those items of evidence by June 16th was very quick.

MR. SCHECK: You--my question, sir, you did not take them to the ECU and have them stamped and booked until June 16th?

MR. FUNG: That is correct.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-22   8:11:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#343. To: nolu chan (#342)

Fung testifies he only collected a "representative sample" from the Bronco console, not the whole stain.

Protocol was to collect the entire stain.

Who's protocol? Fung said, "... but that's the way I was trained and that's been the policy handed down and taught to every Criminalist that's worked for the Los Angeles Police Department".

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-22   9:38:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#344. To: nolu chan (#342)

The whole thing about putting that evidence in the truck with no refrigerator was ridiculous.

Right. Because without refrigeration, the real killer's DNA would magically transform into OJ's DNA.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-22   9:41:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#345. To: nolu chan (#338)

He left around 7:15am. His testimony, which matches Furman's, was that Furman's photo was taken shortly before that. The sun was rising. The glove was under a bush.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-22   9:47:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#346. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#343)

Who's protocol?

Must be some transvestite you met in a bar.

Or did you mean whose? In that case, it is the protocol of the LAPD, the California DoJ, and pretty much everybody concerned with the stuff.

Fung said, "... but that's the way I was trained and that's been the policy handed down and taught to every Criminalist that's worked for the Los Angeles Police Department".

Just because Fung cut corners and violated all the rules in the book does not make it official policy. Policy for Fung was what he felt like doing at a particular time.

Fung, 3 April 1995, 5803

Q: MR. FUNG, I JUST WANTED TO GO BACK FOR A MINUTE TO THE COLLECTION OF BLOOD STAINS AND SUBSTRATE CONTROLS. WHEN YOU COLLECT A STAIN, IF YOU APPLY A SWATCH TO THAT STAIN, AND IT DOES NOT COLLECT THE ENTIRE STAIN, WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

A: I WOULD SELECT ANOTHER SWATCH, WET IT, APPLY IT TO THE STAIN AND PUT IT IN THE SAME PLASTIC BAG AS THE FIRST CLOTH SWATCH FOR THAT ITEM.

Q: AND ON SOME OF THE STAINS THAT WERE COLLECTED IN THIS CASE, SIR, IN FACT MOST OF THE STAINS, WERE THERE MORE THAN ONE SWATCH THAT WAS USED TO COLLECT THE STAIN ITSELF? I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SUBSTRATE CONTROL, BUT THE STAIN.

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DO ALL THOSE GO INTO THE SAME PLASTIC BAGGIE TOGETHER?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN THAT BAGGIE OR THAT PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING THE VARIOUS STAIN SWATCHES AND THE OTHER PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING THE CLOTH CONTROL GO WHERE?

A: THOSE TWO BAGS GO INTO A COIN ENVELOPE WITH THE PHOTO I.D. NUMBER CORRESPONDING TO THE STAIN.

Matheson, 3 May 1995

MR. BLASIER: If it is a manageable size stain, they should collect all of it, correct?

MR. MATHESON: As much as possible, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And the reason for that is you can't tell from looking at a stain how good the mood or whatever it happens to be is going to be in terms of your being able to extract any information from it?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: So you try to get as much as you can, correct?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And your people understand that?

MR. MATHESON: I believe so, yes.

Ragle, 21 August 1995

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when one is collecting a bloodstain at a crime scene, do you believe that it is not necessary to remove the entire stain?

MR. RAGLE: You know, stain, for instance, underneath a body can be huge, and so that's not necessary. If--having been involved in the laboratory analysis of some samples in the past, the more you collect, the better. So efforts should be made to collect all of the stain. If it's--you're talking about an individual drop, a smear, something such as that, all of it should be taken.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-22   17:27:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#347. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#344)

Right. Because without refrigeration, the real killer's DNA would magically transform into OJ's DNA.

Throwing collected evidence into a bag with OJ's reference sample overnight can cross-contaminate it.

Leaving blood samples in plastic bags overnight can degrade the samples so an RFLP DNA test is impossible. It makes an anonymous blood sample.

Jurors Marsha Rubin-Jackson, Carrie Bess, and Armanda Cooley seemed to have understood the problem with degraded blood samples, even if you refuse to do so.

"I had no doubt in my mind that that wasn’t O.J.’s blood, the blood drops," says Marsha. "But by them being so degraded they could have been there before. Prior to the murders. He visited that place often. See, the first blood they found was the blood that was on the gate, two, three days later, or two weeks later. Samples 47, 48, 49, 50, 52 were all degraded, it could have been there prior to the murders."

Carrie says, "Well, like I stated, the blood by the shoe print are the drops that they talked about. I didn’t have a problem with it being the same type as O.J.'s. but the only thing I had a problem with was that it was so degraded you couldn’t read some of it. Most of it you couldn’t read. The part that they really read, which I think were samples 50 and 52 coming out the back gate, was the only drops that they really, really could say was O.J.’s and the one that was on the fence that had EDTA in it. And I really can’t speak out for that because they never tested to see what the kids’ blood drops were. They never compared anybody eise's blood."

Armanda interrupts: "Excuse me. But there was testimony from the fingerprint man, there were a lot of fingerprints there that they never did find out who they belonged to."

"There was so much degradation in that blood that they could never really pinpoint it to say this is the type it was." says Carrie, "And when they got to the autorads, to say these are his drops, they still had a problem, saying that some of it was so weak that they couldn’t even say so. On that point, I can’t say one way or the other."

The blood evidence collected on June 13th was too degraded to identify with RFLP testing.

The blood samples that could be RFLP tested were collected weeks or months after the murders. Blood that had been exposed to the weather for several weeks or more had a remarkably strong and testable amount of DNA. It also had a testable amount of EDTA in parts per million, a fatal dose if in the circulating blood of a human.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-22   17:29:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#348. To: misterwhite (#345)

He left around 7:15am. His testimony, which matches Furman's, was that Furman's photo was taken shortly before that. The sun was rising. The glove was under a bush.

Oh, his testimony matches that of the convicted perjurer, Mark Fuhrman. Big whoop.

The picture was taken at night, in the dark. It is proven beyond a doubt by the contact sheets.

Unlike LAPD Detective Fuhrman, the photographs were not indicted and convicted for perjury.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-22   17:30:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#349. To: nolu chan (#348)

Convicted perjurer?

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-07-22   17:39:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#350. To: A K A Stone (#349) (Edited)

Convicted perjurer?

Yes, convicted perjurer. A convicted felon.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-10-03/news/9610030184_1_detective-mark-fuhrman-mr-fuhrman-simpson-civil-trial

Fuhrman Bargains Out Of Jail Time

Facing Perjury Charge, He Gets 3-year Probation

October 03, 1996

By V. Dion Haynes, Tribune Staff Writer. Tribune news services contributed to this report.

He was indicted for his testimony at the O.J. trial and pleaded nolo contendre (no contest), was found guilty, and pleaded out to 3 years of probation and a $200 fine.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-22   18:50:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#351. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#343)

Protocol was to collect the entire stain.

Who's protocol? Fung said, "... but that's the way I was trained and that's been the policy handed down and taught to every Criminalist that's worked for the Los Angeles Police Department".

See the cluster foxtrot created by Dennis Fung with the Bronco.

Fung, 11 April 1995

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE CONSOLE THAT MR. GOLDBERG SHOWED YOU ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT WAS IN THAT CHART, RIGHT?
A: I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT PICTURE.
Q: WELL, DO YOU RECALL THIS AS BEING A PICTURE OF THE CONSOLE -- WITHDRAWN. YOU HAVE SEEN PICTURES OF THE CONSOLE THAT WERE TAKEN ON AUGUST 26TH, HAVE YOU NOT?
A: I'M NOT SURE OF THE DATE, BUT I HAVE SEEN THIS PICTURE. I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS THE PICTURE THAT IS ON THE BOARD, THOUGH.
Q: AND IT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS PICTURE OR PICTURES LIKE IT OF THE CONSOLE THAT YOU HAVE BEEN SHOWN WERE TAKEN ON AUGUST 26TH?
A: I DON'T KNOW THE DATE.
Q: WELL, YOU KNEW THEY WERE TAKEN SOME THREE MONTHS AFTER YOU DID SWATCHING?
A: THEY WERE TAKEN SOMETIME AFTER I WAS DONE WITH MY INITIAL SEARCH, YES.
Q: AND WERE THERE DISCUSSIONS WITH YOU THAT IT LOOKED AS THOUGH -- WITHDRAWN. THE -- THE -- YOU SEE WHERE IT SAYS "303" IN THIS PICTURE?
A: YES.
Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, IF ONE ASSUMES THAT 303 REFERS TO THE SMEAR TO THE LEFT OF IT THAT RUNS FROM THE TOP OF THE CONSOLE DOWN BELOW, JUST TO THE LEFT OF WHAT IS MARKED 306, DOES THAT APPEAR TO BE A STAIN IN EXACTLY THE SAME POSITION AS STAIN NO. 30 THAT YOU IDENTIFIED ON JUNE 14TH?
A: IT IS IN THE SAME RELATIVE POSITION, YES.
Q: ALL RIGHT. AND AS FAR AS LOOKING AT IT, DOES IT LOOK ANY DIFFERENT TO YOU IN THIS PICTURE THAN WHAT YOU SAW ON JUNE 14TH?
A: THE LIGHTING CONDITIONS ARE MUCH BETTER.
Q: ALL RIGHT. DOES IT LOOK LIKE THERE IS ANY LESS STAIN THERE?
A: THAT WOULDN'T BE FAIR TO MAKE A COMPARISON FROM THE LIGHTING CONDITIONS ON JUNE 14TH AND THE LIGHTING CONDITIONS BACK IN THE LABORATORY.
THE COURT: MR. SCHECK, DO YOU WANT TO MARK THIS PHOTO?
MR. SCHECK: YES, THIS IS --
THE COURT: 1088.
MR. SCHECK: 1088.

(DEFT'S 1088 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AND THE SPOT THAT IS LABELED "304," THAT RED STAIN AREA, IS THAT IN THE SAME POSITION AS THE ONE THAT WAS MARKED -- THAT YOU MARKED AS 31 ON JUNE 14TH?
A: IT IS IN THE SAME RELATIVE AREA.
Q: AND DOES IT APPEAR TO HAVE AS MUCH RED STAIN, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT LIGHTING CONDITIONS, BUT THE BEST YOU CAN TELL FROM THIS PICTURE, AS WHAT YOU SAW ON JUNE 14TH BEFORE YOU EVEN BEGAN SWATCHING?
A: THE LIGHTING CONDITIONS ARE SO DIFFERENT THAT IT IS JUST A DIFFERENT THING TO -- I CAN'T REALLY COMPARE IT. I KNOW THAT I DID COLLECT BLOOD FROM THAT AREA, THOUGH.
Q: UMM, AT SOME POINT, BEFORE YOU CAME TO TESTIFY IN THIS CASE, DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH ANYBODY AT THE SID LABORATORY ABOUT THE FACT THAT STAINS THAT YOU IDENTIFIED ON JUNE 14TH SEEMED -- ON THE CONSOLE, SEEMED TO REAPPEAR IN AUGUST OF 1994?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE AND ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH ANYONE AT SID ABOUT THE FACT THAT STAINS WHICH YOU SAID YOU SWATCHED ON JUNE 14TH WERE STILL PRESENT ON AUGUST 26TH?
A: YES.
Q: YOU SPOKE TO MICHELE KESTLER ABOUT THAT?
A: YES.
Q: WHEN DID YOU SPEAK TO HER?
A: I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT DATE.
Q: WAS IT BETWEEN JUNE AND AUGUST?
A: I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT TIME FRAME. IT WAS SHORTLY AFTER SHE HAD DONE A SEARCH.
Q: SHE HAD DONE A SEARCH?
A: WELL, SHE PARTICIPATED IN ONE, YES.
Q: OF THE BRONCO?
A: YES.
Q: AND DID YOU DISCUSS THIS WITH ANYBODY ELSE IN THE LABORATORY, BESIDES MICHELE KESTLER?
A: MR. MATHESON WAS ALSO PRESENT.
Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHERE DID THIS CONVERSATION TAKE PLACE?
A: THIS TOOK PLACE IN HER OFFICE, MISS -- MISS KESTLER'S OFFICE, MRS. KESTLER'S OFFICE.
Q: WAS IT IN THE MONTH OF AUGUST, DO YOU RECALL?
A: I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT MONTH.
Q: IN THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER?
A: I DON'T KNOW.
Q: WAS IT PRIOR TO -- HOW LONG WAS IT PRIOR TO COMING IN HERE AND TESTIFYING?
A: MONTHS.
Q: ALL RIGHT. AND IT WAS BEFORE YOU BEGAN YOUR PREPARATION SESSIONS WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE?
A: YES.
Q: AND LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS EXHIBIT. DO YOU SEE ANOTHER RED STAIN THAT IS LABELED "305"?
A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q: DO YOU SEE THAT?
A: YES.
Q: DID YOU SEE THAT ON JUNE 14TH?
A: I DON'T RECALL IF I DID OR NOT. I DON'T -- I DIDN'T MARK IT DOWN AS SOMETHING I WOULD -- WAS GOING TO COLLECT, THOUGH.
Q: WELL, WHEN YOU CONDUCTED THIS SEARCH OF THE BRONCO ON JUNE 14TH, DID YOU SEARCH THE FRONT SEAT AREA?
A: THE FRONT SEAT AREA?
Q: YEAH.
A: YES, YES.
Q: THE DRIVER'S SEAT?
A: YES.
Q: THE PASSENGER SEAT?
A: YES.
Q: BETWEEN THE SEATS?
A: WHAT DO YOU MEAN "BETWEEN"?
Q: I MEAN BETWEEN THE DRIVER'S AND THE PASSENGER SEAT?
A: YOU MEAN THE CONSOLE AREA?
Q: YES.
A: YES.
Q: BOTH SIDES OF IT?
A: YES.
Q: DID YOU LOOK UNDER THE DRIVER'S SEAT FROM THE FRONT?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: DID YOU LOOK UNDER THE PASSENGER SEAT FROM THE FRONT?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: DID YOU LOOK UNDER THE PASSENGER SEAT FROM THE BACK AREA?
A: I DON'T RECALL IF I DID OR NOT.
Q: DID YOU LOOK UNDER THE DRIVER'S SEAT FROM THE BACK AREA?
A: I DON'T RECALL IF I DID OR NOT.
Q: DID YOU GET INTO THE BACK AREA, THE BACKSEAT AREA OF THE BRONCO, WHEN YOU WERE CONDUCTING THIS SEARCH?
A: AT A LATER PORTION, YES, I DID.
Q: AND YOU SAW SOME RED STAINS ON THIS CONSOLE, DID YOU NOT?
A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q: ON JUNE 14TH?
A: I DID SEE RED STAINS ON THE CONSOLE, YES.
Q: AND WHEN SEEING RED STAINS ON THE CONSOLE, DIDN'T YOU THEN EXAMINE THAT CONSOLE AS CAREFULLY AS YOU COULD, SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU SAW SOME RED STAINS ON IT?
A: I EXAMINED THE CONSOLE FOR RED STAINS.
Q: EXAMINE IT CAREFULLY?
A: I EXAMINED IT FOR RED STAINS.
Q: YOU WON'T SAY YOU EXAMINED IT CAREFULLY?
A: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "CAREFULLY"?
Q: WITH CARE?
A: YES.
Q: AND MR. FUNG, HAS IT BEEN SUGGESTED TO YOU THAT THERE IS A POTENTIAL CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THE FACT THAT YOU COLLECTED STAINS ON JUNE 14TH, BUT THERE ARE MORE STAINS ON AUGUST 26TH THAN THERE WERE ON JUNE 14TH?
MR. GOLDBERG: ASSUMES FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE. ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH YOU ABOUT HOW YOU SHOULD ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THESE RED STAINS AND THEIR APPEARANCE ON JUNE 14TH AND AUGUST 26TH WITH MEMBERS OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE?
A: WE TOUCHED ON THE SUBJECT BRIEFLY, BUT NOT VERY LONG.
Q: DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT MICHELE KESTLER ABOUT HOW YOU SHOULD TESTIFY ON THIS SUBJECT?
A: NO.
Q: DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSION WAS GREG MATHESON ABOUT HOW YOU SHOULD TESTIFY ON THIS SUBJECT?
A: NO.
Q: DID ANYBODY EXPRESS THE CONCERN TO YOU THAT IF THE JURY WERE TO BELIEVE YOU FOLLOWED YOUR INSTRUCTIONS ON COLLECTING STAINS FOR DNA ANALYSIS --
THE COURT: I DON'T LIKE THE WAY THE QUESTION IS GOING.
MR. SCHECK: YOU CAN TELL. I WILL WITHDRAW IT.
THE COURT: YES.
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION WITH YOU BY PERSONNEL AT SID THAT IF YOU HAD FOLLOWED THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR COLLECTING STAINS FOR PURPOSES OF DNA ANALYSIS, THE RED STAIN THAT IS 31 ON JUNE 14TH AND 303 ON AUGUST 26TH SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE ON AUGUST 26TH? A: THEY DID INDICATE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE LIKED ME TO COLLECT MORE OF THE STAIN.
Q: THEY? WHO IS "THEY"?
A: MISS -- MISS KESTLER AND MR. MATHESON.
Q: WELL, DID THEY INDICATE TO YOU THAT IF YOU TOOK THE POSITION THAT YOU HAD FOLLOWED EXPECTED PROCEDURES THAT THE STAIN FOUND ON AUGUST 26TH SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE?
A: THEY DIDN'T SAY THAT, NO.
Q: DID THEY EXPRESS ANY CONCERN ABOUT THAT?
A: THEY DID SAY I -- THEY DID WANT TO KNOW WHY ALL OF THE STAIN WASN'T GONE BY THE TIME THEY GOT THERE.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-22   18:56:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#352. To: nolu chan (#351) (Edited)

MR. GOLDBERG: ASSUMES FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE. ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

That entire back and forth accomplished nothing.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-22   19:08:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#353. To: A K A Stone (#349)

Convicted perjurer?

Not for his testimony about the glove.

Something unrelated to the case. He couldn't recall if he ever said "nigger" in his life and they showed he did years before.

So that made him a perjuror AND a racist, despite the fact that his fellow black cops said he wasn't.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-22   19:16:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#354. To: nolu chan (#347) (Edited)

Throwing collected evidence into a bag with OJ's reference sample overnight can cross-contaminate it.

Was all the evidence, along with OJ's reference sample, in the same plastic baggie?

No? Then did the defense team provide proof as to how this cross- contamination can occur? Or did they merely speculate, assuming the jury was too ignorant to know it was impossible for DNA to migrate out of one plastic baggie, out of the coin envelope, into another coin envelope and into another plastic baggie in search of alien DNA?

The threshold is "reasonable doubt", not "doubt caused by wild speculation and innuendo".

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-22   19:27:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#355. To: misterwhite, nolu chan (#353)

If it is because he said nigger. Who cares.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-07-22   19:43:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#356. To: nolu chan (#350)

He was indicted for his testimony at the O.J. trial and pleaded nolo contendre (no contest), was found guilty, and pleaded out to 3 years of probation and a $200 fine.

And???

The felony complaint was dropped and his record expunged. Like it never happened. Except for you where it will never go away.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-22   20:45:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#357. To: A K A Stone (#355)

"If it is because he said nigger. Who cares."

The defense (and nolu chan) since his use of the word automatically means he's a racist and that he planted evidence.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-22   20:48:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#358. To: misterwhite (#352)

MR. GOLDBERG: ASSUMES FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE. ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

That entire back and forth accomplished nothing.

You are absolutely, willfully and deliberately, full of shit. Your bullshit attempt is pathetic.

It was one question, highlighted below in blue font. The question was rephrased and the answer came into evidence. Your bullshit had zero effect on any other part of the exchange, repeated in full below for your reading pleasure, with your bullshit diversion highlighted in blue.

The subject was the protocol required by the LAPD. The exchange clearly addresses that issue and dismisses the Fung absurd nonsense which you tried to defend.

Your diversionary make-believe response accomplished nothing other than to reveal your shallowness.

Fung, 11 April 1995

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE CONSOLE THAT MR. GOLDBERG SHOWED YOU ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT WAS IN THAT CHART, RIGHT?
A: I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT PICTURE.
Q: WELL, DO YOU RECALL THIS AS BEING A PICTURE OF THE CONSOLE -- WITHDRAWN. YOU HAVE SEEN PICTURES OF THE CONSOLE THAT WERE TAKEN ON AUGUST 26TH, HAVE YOU NOT?
A: I'M NOT SURE OF THE DATE, BUT I HAVE SEEN THIS PICTURE. I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS THE PICTURE THAT IS ON THE BOARD, THOUGH.
Q: AND IT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS PICTURE OR PICTURES LIKE IT OF THE CONSOLE THAT YOU HAVE BEEN SHOWN WERE TAKEN ON AUGUST 26TH?
A: I DON'T KNOW THE DATE.
Q: WELL, YOU KNEW THEY WERE TAKEN SOME THREE MONTHS AFTER YOU DID SWATCHING?
A: THEY WERE TAKEN SOMETIME AFTER I WAS DONE WITH MY INITIAL SEARCH, YES.
Q: AND WERE THERE DISCUSSIONS WITH YOU THAT IT LOOKED AS THOUGH -- WITHDRAWN. THE -- THE -- YOU SEE WHERE IT SAYS "303" IN THIS PICTURE?
A: YES.
Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, IF ONE ASSUMES THAT 303 REFERS TO THE SMEAR TO THE LEFT OF IT THAT RUNS FROM THE TOP OF THE CONSOLE DOWN BELOW, JUST TO THE LEFT OF WHAT IS MARKED 306, DOES THAT APPEAR TO BE A STAIN IN EXACTLY THE SAME POSITION AS STAIN NO. 30 THAT YOU IDENTIFIED ON JUNE 14TH?
A: IT IS IN THE SAME RELATIVE POSITION, YES.
Q: ALL RIGHT. AND AS FAR AS LOOKING AT IT, DOES IT LOOK ANY DIFFERENT TO YOU IN THIS PICTURE THAN WHAT YOU SAW ON JUNE 14TH?
A: THE LIGHTING CONDITIONS ARE MUCH BETTER.
Q: ALL RIGHT. DOES IT LOOK LIKE THERE IS ANY LESS STAIN THERE?
A: THAT WOULDN'T BE FAIR TO MAKE A COMPARISON FROM THE LIGHTING CONDITIONS ON JUNE 14TH AND THE LIGHTING CONDITIONS BACK IN THE LABORATORY.
THE COURT: MR. SCHECK, DO YOU WANT TO MARK THIS PHOTO?
MR. SCHECK: YES, THIS IS --
THE COURT: 1088.
MR. SCHECK: 1088.

(DEFT'S 1088 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AND THE SPOT THAT IS LABELED "304," THAT RED STAIN AREA, IS THAT IN THE SAME POSITION AS THE ONE THAT WAS MARKED -- THAT YOU MARKED AS 31 ON JUNE 14TH?
A: IT IS IN THE SAME RELATIVE AREA.
Q: AND DOES IT APPEAR TO HAVE AS MUCH RED STAIN, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT LIGHTING CONDITIONS, BUT THE BEST YOU CAN TELL FROM THIS PICTURE, AS WHAT YOU SAW ON JUNE 14TH BEFORE YOU EVEN BEGAN SWATCHING?
A: THE LIGHTING CONDITIONS ARE SO DIFFERENT THAT IT IS JUST A DIFFERENT THING TO -- I CAN'T REALLY COMPARE IT. I KNOW THAT I DID COLLECT BLOOD FROM THAT AREA, THOUGH.
Q: UMM, AT SOME POINT, BEFORE YOU CAME TO TESTIFY IN THIS CASE, DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH ANYBODY AT THE SID LABORATORY ABOUT THE FACT THAT STAINS THAT YOU IDENTIFIED ON JUNE 14TH SEEMED -- ON THE CONSOLE, SEEMED TO REAPPEAR IN AUGUST OF 1994?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE AND ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH ANYONE AT SID ABOUT THE FACT THAT STAINS WHICH YOU SAID YOU SWATCHED ON JUNE 14TH WERE STILL PRESENT ON AUGUST 26TH?
A: YES.
Q: YOU SPOKE TO MICHELE KESTLER ABOUT THAT?
A: YES.
Q: WHEN DID YOU SPEAK TO HER?
A: I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT DATE.
Q: WAS IT BETWEEN JUNE AND AUGUST?
A: I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT TIME FRAME. IT WAS SHORTLY AFTER SHE HAD DONE A SEARCH.
Q: SHE HAD DONE A SEARCH?
A: WELL, SHE PARTICIPATED IN ONE, YES.
Q: OF THE BRONCO?
A: YES.
Q: AND DID YOU DISCUSS THIS WITH ANYBODY ELSE IN THE LABORATORY, BESIDES MICHELE KESTLER?
A: MR. MATHESON WAS ALSO PRESENT.
Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHERE DID THIS CONVERSATION TAKE PLACE?
A: THIS TOOK PLACE IN HER OFFICE, MISS -- MISS KESTLER'S OFFICE, MRS. KESTLER'S OFFICE.
Q: WAS IT IN THE MONTH OF AUGUST, DO YOU RECALL?
A: I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT MONTH.
Q: IN THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER?
A: I DON'T KNOW.
Q: WAS IT PRIOR TO -- HOW LONG WAS IT PRIOR TO COMING IN HERE AND TESTIFYING?
A: MONTHS.
Q: ALL RIGHT. AND IT WAS BEFORE YOU BEGAN YOUR PREPARATION SESSIONS WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE?
A: YES.
Q: AND LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS EXHIBIT. DO YOU SEE ANOTHER RED STAIN THAT IS LABELED "305"?
A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q: DO YOU SEE THAT?
A: YES.
Q: DID YOU SEE THAT ON JUNE 14TH?
A: I DON'T RECALL IF I DID OR NOT. I DON'T -- I DIDN'T MARK IT DOWN AS SOMETHING I WOULD -- WAS GOING TO COLLECT, THOUGH.
Q: WELL, WHEN YOU CONDUCTED THIS SEARCH OF THE BRONCO ON JUNE 14TH, DID YOU SEARCH THE FRONT SEAT AREA?
A: THE FRONT SEAT AREA?
Q: YEAH.
A: YES, YES.
Q: THE DRIVER'S SEAT?
A: YES.
Q: THE PASSENGER SEAT?
A: YES.
Q: BETWEEN THE SEATS?
A: WHAT DO YOU MEAN "BETWEEN"?
Q: I MEAN BETWEEN THE DRIVER'S AND THE PASSENGER SEAT?
A: YOU MEAN THE CONSOLE AREA?
Q: YES.
A: YES.
Q: BOTH SIDES OF IT?
A: YES.
Q: DID YOU LOOK UNDER THE DRIVER'S SEAT FROM THE FRONT?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: DID YOU LOOK UNDER THE PASSENGER SEAT FROM THE FRONT?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: DID YOU LOOK UNDER THE PASSENGER SEAT FROM THE BACK AREA?
A: I DON'T RECALL IF I DID OR NOT.
Q: DID YOU LOOK UNDER THE DRIVER'S SEAT FROM THE BACK AREA?
A: I DON'T RECALL IF I DID OR NOT.
Q: DID YOU GET INTO THE BACK AREA, THE BACKSEAT AREA OF THE BRONCO, WHEN YOU WERE CONDUCTING THIS SEARCH?
A: AT A LATER PORTION, YES, I DID.
Q: AND YOU SAW SOME RED STAINS ON THIS CONSOLE, DID YOU NOT?
A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q: ON JUNE 14TH?
A: I DID SEE RED STAINS ON THE CONSOLE, YES.
Q: AND WHEN SEEING RED STAINS ON THE CONSOLE, DIDN'T YOU THEN EXAMINE THAT CONSOLE AS CAREFULLY AS YOU COULD, SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU SAW SOME RED STAINS ON IT?
A: I EXAMINED THE CONSOLE FOR RED STAINS.
Q: EXAMINE IT CAREFULLY?
A: I EXAMINED IT FOR RED STAINS.
Q: YOU WON'T SAY YOU EXAMINED IT CAREFULLY?
A: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "CAREFULLY"?
Q: WITH CARE?
A: YES.
Q: AND MR. FUNG, HAS IT BEEN SUGGESTED TO YOU THAT THERE IS A POTENTIAL CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THE FACT THAT YOU COLLECTED STAINS ON JUNE 14TH, BUT THERE ARE MORE STAINS ON AUGUST 26TH THAN THERE WERE ON JUNE 14TH?
MR. GOLDBERG: ASSUMES FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE. ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH YOU ABOUT HOW YOU SHOULD ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THESE RED STAINS AND THEIR APPEARANCE ON JUNE 14TH AND AUGUST 26TH WITH MEMBERS OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE?
A: WE TOUCHED ON THE SUBJECT BRIEFLY, BUT NOT VERY LONG.
Q: DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT MICHELE KESTLER ABOUT HOW YOU SHOULD TESTIFY ON THIS SUBJECT?
A: NO.
Q: DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSION WAS GREG MATHESON ABOUT HOW YOU SHOULD TESTIFY ON THIS SUBJECT?
A: NO.
Q: DID ANYBODY EXPRESS THE CONCERN TO YOU THAT IF THE JURY WERE TO BELIEVE YOU FOLLOWED YOUR INSTRUCTIONS ON COLLECTING STAINS FOR DNA ANALYSIS --
THE COURT: I DON'T LIKE THE WAY THE QUESTION IS GOING.
MR. SCHECK: YOU CAN TELL. I WILL WITHDRAW IT.
THE COURT: YES.
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION WITH YOU BY PERSONNEL AT SID THAT IF YOU HAD FOLLOWED THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR COLLECTING STAINS FOR PURPOSES OF DNA ANALYSIS, THE RED STAIN THAT IS 31 ON JUNE 14TH AND 303 ON AUGUST 26TH SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE ON AUGUST 26TH? A: THEY DID INDICATE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE LIKED ME TO COLLECT MORE OF THE STAIN.
Q: THEY? WHO IS "THEY"?
A: MISS -- MISS KESTLER AND MR. MATHESON.
Q: WELL, DID THEY INDICATE TO YOU THAT IF YOU TOOK THE POSITION THAT YOU HAD FOLLOWED EXPECTED PROCEDURES THAT THE STAIN FOUND ON AUGUST 26TH SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE?
A: THEY DIDN'T SAY THAT, NO.
Q: DID THEY EXPRESS ANY CONCERN ABOUT THAT?
A: THEY DID SAY I -- THEY DID WANT TO KNOW WHY ALL OF THE STAIN WASN'T GONE BY THE TIME THEY GOT THERE.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-25   0:49:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#359. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#353)

Convicted perjurer?

Not for his testimony about the glove.

Something unrelated to the case. He couldn't recall if he ever said "nigger" in his life and they showed he did years before.

So that made him a perjuror AND a racist, despite the fact that his fellow black cops said he wasn't.

What made him a convicted perjurer and a felon was his PLEA OF GUILTY to a FELONY.

The tapes were conclusive to all but the willfully ignorant.

Closing statement of Marcia CLARK:

Let me come back to Mark Fuhrman for a minute. Just so it is clear. Did he lie when he testified here in this courtroom saying that he did not use racial epithets in the last ten years? Yes. Is he a racist? Yes. Is he the worst LAPD has to offer? Yes. Do we wish that this person was never hired by LAPD? Yes. Should LAPD have ever hired him? No. Should such a person be a police officer? No. In fact, do we wish there were no such person on the planet? Yes.

Considering the closing argument of Marcia Clark, for the prosecution, one might just begin to suspect that Det. Mark Fuhrman had been discredited.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-25   0:51:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#360. To: misterwhite (#354)

Throwing collected evidence into a bag with OJ's reference sample overnight can cross-contaminate it.

Was all the evidence, along with OJ's reference sample, in the same plastic baggie?

Try again. The sample vial was supposedly placed in a TRASH BAG, not a little plastic baggie.

Then did the defense team provide proof as to how this cross- contamination can occur?

You keep wanting to reverse the burden of proof. It is the prosecution's burden of proof to show a continuous chain of custody, and to demonstrate that established procedures were followed to prevent cross-contamination.

Or did they merely speculate, assuming the jury was too ignorant to know it was impossible for DNA to migrate out of one plastic baggie, out of the coin envelope, into another coin envelope and into another plastic baggie in search of alien DNA?

There was no plastic baggie involved; there was no coin envelope involved. There was a large black trash bag. Such is how it goes when misterwhite attempts to bullshit like the LAPD witnesses.

Nobody speculated on your imaginary bullshit. According to the official story, once upon a time, Phil Vannatter carried a sample vial of OJ's blood out to the crime scene and gave it to criminalist Dennis Fung, with no record of the transfer, and with criminalist Mazzola unaware. As it came to pass, after Fung and Mazzola had locked their kits, including their normal packing material, in the truck, they returned for a final check and collected Items 15 and 16 and packed them in a black plastic garbage bag. On the field notes where it says "Packaged in," criminalist Mazzola left the space blank. The tale continues that it was around this time that Vannatter gave the vial of blood to Fung. And lo and behold, Fung put the glass vial of OJ's blood into the garbage bag without informing Mazzola of its existence. And Mazzola carried the garbage bag, with evidence and OJ's reference blood sample, to the truck, and proceeded to the lab where everything was left out overnight, including the reference blood sample. The trash bag was deposited on a counter and left there overnight until the morning of the 14th. The sample blood vial and other evidence was not booked into evidence until the 16th.

It is only the impeccable reputation of the LAPD, and the unquestioned veracity of the LAPD, that relieves one from questioning the chain of custody, and whether Det. Vanatter kept that blood vial in his possession overnight, as he did with the Reebok sneakers. Had he done so, one could have at least hoped that he refrigerated it.

The next day, Lange brought in the sneakers which he had kept overnight and Mazzola recorded the sneakers as Item #17. She found out about the blood vial after she had recorded the Reebok sneakers, and recorded the blood vial as Item #18. Subsequently, the sneakers were reassigned to Item #18, and the blood vial was assigned Item #17 at the direction of Dennis Fung. Thus, the blood vial became Item #17 from the black trash bag.

Mazzola's field notes say Item #16 was collected at 5:00 p.m. That was 11 minutes before the criminalist gear was locked up in the van. She knows that time must have been incorrect because she has an independent memory of packing Items #15 and #16 in the large black trash bag because their kits were locked in the van.

If the log were correct, then the items would have been packaged normally and not in a trash bag. If the trash bag contained trash, and it was the only bag carried out after the van was locked at 5:11, who was carrying the blood on their person? There must have been a trash bag used for evidence... no other container came out to the van which might have contained the blood vial.

The glass vial certainly did not get carried to the truck in the criminalists' kits. Video showed those had already been locked up in the van before Vannatter allegedly passed the vial to Fung, who allegedly added it to the trash bag without telling Mazzola, and without logging it in, or having Mazzola log it in.

A curious soul might ask, if the only trash bag carried out contained a reference sample of blood and evidence, what did they do with the trash?

THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. NEUFELD: Were you asked these questions and did you give these answers back on August 23rd at a hearing in this case? "Question: Were you with Mr. Fung the entire time after you picked up the last item at 1700 hours until you departed for your next designation? "Answer: I believe I was, yes." On August 23rd, you were asked that question and you gave that answer, didn't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And when you were asked that question on August 23rd, you were testifying based on your memory, weren't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: To the best I remembered, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, you never said, ma'am, in regard to that question, "I don't recall, I don't know," Did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: I said there I believe so, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And then you said yes, "I believe I was, yes." Isn't that your answer?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe I was, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. You didn't in any way say, "This is something I don't remember. I don't recall if I was with Mr. Fung the entire time," Did you?
THE COURT: It's argumentative. The answer stands and speaks for itself, counsel.
MR. NEUFELD: One moment, your Honor.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it true, Miss Mazzola, that after item 16 was collected, no other item was recorded in your notes as having been received on June 13th?
MS. MAZZOLA: At that time, no.
MR. NEUFELD: And since you testified back in August with regard to this matter, have other people suggested to you that your failure to substantiate Vannatter's and Fung's claim that Mr. Simpson's blood was given to Fung on June 13th was a problem for the Prosecution's case?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.

Perish the thought that Mazzola might have joined Team Blue Wall.

The new and improved story was:

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now--now, as to the question that you were asked at the Griffen hearing about your recollection, that as soon as you picked up that item, that you and Mr. Fung left the premises, when you say you think it was a little bit after that, what was that recollection based on?
MS. MAZZOLA: Which item are you--
MR. GOLDBERG: You were asked whether you left after you collected 15 and 16, and you said it was a little bit after that.
MS. MAZZOLA: Right.
MR. GOLDBERG: What was that recollection based on?
MS. MAZZOLA: The fact that Mr. Fung spent some time talking to the detectives. So it would have been after that.
MR. GOLDBERG: What were you doing in that interval between the time that you got back to the location after locking everything in your crime scene truck and when you came out with the plastic bag?
MS. MAZZOLA: For a short time, I was with Mr. Fung and the detectives and the photographer. After a while, the photographer and I went into the living room and sat down.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what was your mental state at that time?
MS. MAZZOLA: Exhaustion.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you have a clear sense of how much time was going by when you were sitting down on the couch?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when you testified that you believed--when you were asked whether you were with Mr. Fung the entire time between 1700 hours until you departed and you said that you believed that you were, what was the basis of that belief?
MS. MAZZOLA: It was--felt like a few minutes. Didn't feel like a long time at all.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, were any other items logged in on the 13th after 15 and 16?
MS. MAZZOLA: As to having been received on the 13th?
MR. GOLDBERG: In other words, on the 13th, did you or Mr. Fung in your presence make any paperwork on the crime scene identification checklist, logging in any item after 16?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.

[...]

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, I will get into that in just a second, but I wanted to ask a few clarifying questions. When you were sitting on the couch at the Rockingham location, before you left, I guess this would have been after 5:11?
MS. MAZZOLA: Uh-huh.
MR. GOLDBERG: Were your eyes opened or closed?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe they were closed.
MR. GOLDBERG: At what point did you close your eyes?
MS. MAZZOLA: Probably the second I sat down.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you--did you fall asleep?
MS. MAZZOLA: No, I wasn't asleep.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you lose track of time when you were sitting on the couch?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

And so it came to pass that Andrea Mazzola, although with Dennis Fung, had sat down on the couch, closed her eyes but did not sleep, lost track of time, and had no idea that Vannatter had given a vial of blood to Dennis Fung while her eyes were closed but she was not sleeping. And she had no idea that Dennis Fung had put the blood vial in the black trash bag, and she left the blood unrefrigerated in violation of LAPD directives but did not know it.

And they all lived happily after.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-25   1:01:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#361. To: A K A Stone (#355)

If it is because he said nigger. Who cares.

The LAPD witnesses engaged in serial perjury and were exposed. Who cares? The jury cared.

When the LAPD witnesses were exposed time and again covering for each other and trying to bullshit the jury, they lost all credibility.

Question by Jay Monahan, attorney and legal consultant for Fox Television.

What did you think when Detective Vannatter testified that Mark Fuhrman told him that Kato had talked about thumps on the wall, after hearing Fuhrman testify he never told Vannatter that Kato had told him?

[Jury Foreman Armanda Cooley] "My feeling was, I sort of felt like I said earlier, that Fuhrman was a liar and I had problems with him. ... So I had sort of discredited him and probably Vannatter from the beginning."

[Juror Carrie Bess] “Number one, that was confusing testimony that was torn apart by both the prosecutors and the defense. Vannatter stating that Fuhrman told him what he was doing, that when he was talking with Kato, Fuhrman came around and told him that he was gonna go and check out things. Then he comes back and says that Vannatter didn’t know anything about what he was doing. Vannatter has been found to prevaricate in two incidents in this case, so I'm really not surprised to find that. You have to really discredit these two police officers.”

[Juror Marsha Rubin-Jackson] “But what brought my attention to those two was when they said they had come through that back door off the pool into the house. Then Arnelle Simpson got on the stand and said that she had to go around to undo the alarm system and they entered through the front door. They both had said they had come through the back gate, off the pool doors. So their whole testimony didn’t really hold any weight with me after I got into the deliberation room. I figured those two were trying to cover for each other. I don’t know if they were in any type of conspiracy, you know, but conspiring to cover for each other, yes.”

[Juror Carrie Bess] Well, it was obvious to me already what I had to do. When we got the chance to listen to those tapes, the judge told us, 'You have the right to discredit all or any parts of his testimony.'"

When a witness gets caught blatantly lying to the jury, they may discredit all of his testimony. It was established that Mark Fuhrman was a liar, and would and did lie under oath. The witness loses all presumption of truthfulness. Mark Fuhrman was removed from the case

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3514002/Mark-Fuhrman-s-racist-tapes-transcript-key-witness-OJ-Simpson-case-saying-N-word-41-TIMES-detailing-incidents-racially-motivated-violence-involving-members-LAPD.html

Fuhrman spoke into McKinny's tape recorder after the murders, "I'm the key witness in the biggest case of the century. And, if I go down, they lose the case. The glove is everything. Without the glove - bye, bye."

And he said of his partner, Brad Roberts, "

At one point he also makes disparaging comments about the looks and work ethic of a female superior, Captain Margaret York, implying she advanced in the ranks through sexual favors.

Witnesses who were members of the police force were listed on a spousal conflict form and Captain York was required to review the list and sign off on the fact that she did not have a relationship with any members of the LAPD who would appear at trial.

Questions then arose how she could not remember Fuhrman given the fact that he spoke so angrily about her on the tapes.

The prosecution called for Judge Ito to recuse himself believing he could not be fair given this new development, while the defense argued against that.

6 Sep 1995

MR. COCHRAN: ... May I read something to the court my counsel just shared with me, your Honor? This has to do with--let me just read this and I think it puts it in perspective about lying and covering up. This is describing--there was our no. 10 describing the necessity of police officers to be willing to lie. "Well, I really love being a policeman when I can be a policeman. It is like my partner now. He is so hung up with the rules and stuff"--

THE COURT: "He has more morals than he has got hair."

MR. COCHRAN: Remember that? "You just don't fucking even understand. The job is not rules. This is a feeling. Fuck the rules. We will make them up later. He's a college graduate, as you know, a catholic college," et cetera. "He was going to be a priest," et cetera, "And he has got more morals than he has got hair. "What do you mean he has got more morals?" "He doesn't know how to be a policeman, especially can't lie. Oh, you make me fucking sick to my guts. You know, you do what you have to do to put these fucking assholes in jail. If you don't, you fuckin' get out the fuckin' game. He just wants to be one of the boys. He doesn't want to play--pay the dues, so how does he deal with it? He doesn't lie. Well, I know for a fact in this Internal Affairs investigation he has a 10-day suspension, he will roll." He goes on to say: "He will drop a dime on me. He will squeal."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Fuhrman

Fuhrman asserts that the police and the prosecution made other errors that reduced the chances of a guilty verdict. For example, Fuhrman and his partner, Brad Roberts, found a bloody fingerprint on the north walkway gate of Nicole Brown Simpson's house. According to Fuhrman, at least some of it belonged to the suspect, as there was enough blood at the scene to suggest the suspect was bleeding. This was potentially critical evidence; Simpson claimed that he'd cut himself on the night of the murders but hadn't been to his ex-wife's house in a week. Had the fingerprint been tied to Simpson in any fashion it would have been a crippling, and possibly fatal, blow to his defense. It also could have contradicted the defense's allegations that Fuhrman planted the glove, since Fuhrman did not know or have reason to know that it was Simpson's blood.[42] However, the fingerprint was destroyed at some point and was only mentioned superficially at trial. In fact, Fuhrman later discovered that Vannatter and Vannatter's partner, Tom Lange, didn't even know the fingerprint was there because they never read Fuhrman's notes. Roberts could have offered testimony to corroborate that the fingerprint was there but was never called to testify– something that rankled Fuhrman almost as much as the fact that Vannatter and Lange never read his notes. Fuhrman also claimed that Roberts could have corroborated many of his other observations, but Marcia Clark didn't call him (to avoid embarrassing Vannatter on the stand).[42]

Not only was Brad Roberts (Fuhrman's partner) never called as a witness, he was never interviewed regarding the case. Perhaps Fuhrman was right and Roberts would not lie. That presented a special problem with regard to Det. Vannatter. A la Dennis Fung claiming credit for work done by Andrea Mazzola, Det. Vannatter testified to his own discovery of evidence that had been discovered by Brad Roberts. When Marcia Clark arrived on scene, it was Brad Roberts who gave her the guided tour. If put on the stand, Brad Roberts would have perjured himself, or testified to the perjury of Det. Vannatter.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-25   1:18:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#362. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#357)

Moving on,

April 3, 1995

The rear gate stain seen on July 3rd could not be seen in the photo from June 13th

Direct Examination by prosecutor Hank Goldberg

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, I would like to ask you about the rear gate stain that you recovered on July the 3rd of 1994.
MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, do you know--did you see that stain from your own independent recollection on the 13th?

MR. FUNG: I don't recall seeing it on the 13th.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And is it your--do you--is it your understanding of the People's position that the stain was there on the 13th?
MR. SCHECK: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.

- - - - - - - - - -

April 18, 1995

MR. SCHECK: Now, you were shown a photograph of the rear gate at Bundy?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: That was taken on June 13th.
MR. SCHECK: Do we have that here?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Let me see if I can find the exhibit number for counsel.
MR. SCHECK: While we are looking for it, let me just ask you some questions.
MR. SCHECK: Do you remember seeing that photograph?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And there was a blood spot that you saw on July 3rd that was labeled 116?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you did not see that on the photograph, the blown-up photograph that was taken on June 13th?
MR. GOLDBERG: This is beyond the scope, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FUNG: I did not see it.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And you cannot tell us from your own personal knowledge how 116 got there on July 3rd?
MR. FUNG: Not from my personal knowledge, no.
MR. SCHECK: But you're certain it was not planted there by anybody?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, that calls for speculation. It's argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.

You put some evidence in,
You take some evidence out,
You do the hokey pokey and you move it all about,
Reasonable doubt.

This sort of crap went on for a more than a week of testimony June 4-5, 11-17. It was a slow moving train wreck. In an odd scene, when he was dismissed, Fung went and shook the hands of the defense attorneys and defendant Simpson. Fung was followed by Mazzola.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

https://www.youtube.com/embed/lQRCN8ke-WM

FUNG FUNG FUNG
By OJ MANIA

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

USA: OJ SIMPSON TRIAL:
AP Archive
Published on Jul 21, 2015

- - - - - - - - - -

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-25   1:23:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#363. To: nolu chan (#362)

"The rear gate stain seen on July 3rd could not be seen in the photo from June 13th"

Doesn't mean it wasn't there. It simply means it could not be seen in the photo. As a matter of fact, Detective Tom Lange saw the stain.

"Tom Lange said (testified) he directed police criminalists to collect the bloodstains on the rear gate on June 14, but learned on July 3 that they had not yet been collected. The stains were then collected by criminalist Dennis Fung ..."

Mystery solved. No conspiracy.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-25   10:17:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#364. To: nolu chan (#359)

"What made him a convicted perjurer and a felon was his PLEA OF GUILTY to a FELONY."

You contradict yourself.

"He was indicted for his testimony at the O.J. trial and pleaded nolo contendre (no contest), was found guilty, and pleaded out to 3 years of probation and a $200 fine."

Can't keep up with your own lies? Not to worry. I'll do it for you.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-25   10:22:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#365. To: nolu chan (#360)

"returned for a final check and collected Items 15 and 16 and packed them in a black plastic garbage bag."

Item #15 -- Airline ticket receipt
Item #16 -- Baggage tag

As far as I know, these items were not presented as DNA evidence. SO WHO CARES??

The blood sample was in a sealed vial which was "in a special envelope designed to carry blood evidence." Vannatter testified that he did not book Simpson's blood sample into evidence immediately because he wanted to deliver it directly to the criminalist working on the case.

So, are you saying OJ's blood crawled out of the sealed vial, out of the sealed envelope and, what, got all over the airline ticket receipt and the baggage tag (even though there was no blood on the airline ticket receipt and the baggage tag)?

You keep pointing out these minor indiscrepancies as though they're significant to the case ... without pointing put their significance.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-25   10:42:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#366. To: misterwhite (#363)

Doesn't mean it wasn't there. It simply means it could not be seen in the photo. As a matter of fact, Detective Tom Lange saw the stain.

"Tom Lange said (testified) he directed police criminalists to collect the bloodstains on the rear gate on June 14, but learned on July 3 that they had not yet been collected. The stains were then collected by criminalist Dennis Fung ..."

Mystery solved. No conspiracy.

Mystery solved by an anonymous quote?

The quote is from a UPI story from June 1, 1995, almost two months before Dr. Frederic Rieders demonstrated that said stain contained EDTA in parts per million, more than enough to kill anyone with said amount in their circulating blood. If Tom Lange saw that exact stain on June 13th or 14th, it was truly a miracle.

But if Tom Lange said in February or March of 1995 that he saw a bloodstain on June 14, 1995, or ordered the collection of one seen the previous day, it must be true. Tom Lange saw the blood stain with EDTA in parts per million and directed its collection on June 14, 1995. Because Benghazi.

Why did he not supervise the collection of anything on June 13, 1995? Why is it necessary to just take Lange's word for it? Because neither Lange nor Vannatter took any notes whatever at the crime scene on June 13, 1995.

There was no evidence collection at Bundy on June 14th. The Bundy search warrant of the 13th had been executed. On the 14th, Fung and Mazzola went to the print shed to examine the Bronco which had been seized pursuant to the search warrant of the 13th.

Phil Vannatter and Tom Lange, two of LAPD's most experienced homicide detectives, supposedly took no extemporaneous notes at the crime scenes and during the early days of the investigation. In distinguished careers of more than two decades apiece, neither detective had ever neglected this aspect of basic homicide investigation before. It is also contrary to the norm throughout law enforcement. This reporter, furthermore, has personally never experienced nor heard of a murder investigation wherein the homicide case officer in charge did not make notes of his initial observations at the crime scene.

Joseph Bosco, A Problem of Evidence, 1st ed., pg. 74

The fact is that the stain was collected on July 3, 1995.

Tom Lange testified he did not return to Bundy after his June 13th departure at 3:45 until June 16th, but did not enter the property on June 16th, and was there on June 23rd. This is what happens when you are too damn lazy to check the testimony and rely on the first google hit you can find.

Q: AND BETWEEN THAT TIME, 3:45, ON JUNE 13TH, AND JULY 3RD, 1994, DID YOU EVER GO BACK OUT TO THE SCENE BETWEEN THOSE DATES?
A: I BELIEVE I DID.
Q: WHAT DATE DID YOU GO BACK?
A: I BELIEVE I WAS THERE ON JUNE 23RD.
Q: ALL RIGHT. SO THERE WAS A TEN-DAY PERIOD BETWEEN THE TIME YOU WERE THERE ON THE 13TH AND THE TIME YOU CAME BACK ON THE 23RD?
A: THAT WOULD BE TEN DAYS, BUT I'M NOT CLEAR ON WHETHER I MIGHT HAVE GONE BACK IN BETWEEN THOSE TWO DATES.
Q: DO YOU HAVE SOME NOTES THAT WILL HELP YOU IN THAT REGARD?
Q: CAN YOU LOOK AT THEM?
A: CERTAINLY.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
THE WITNESS: MY NOTES INDICATE I WAS AT THE LOCATION ON JUNE 16TH, BUT I DIDN'T ENTER THE PREMISES. I JUST DID A -- A MILEAGE CHECK FROM THE LOCATION.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-26   2:25:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#367. To: misterwhite (#364)

"What made him a convicted perjurer and a felon was his PLEA OF GUILTY to a FELONY."

You contradict yourself.

"He was indicted for his testimony at the O.J. trial and pleaded nolo contendre (no contest), was found guilty, and pleaded out to 3 years of probation and a $200 fine."

Can't keep up with your own lies? Not to worry. I'll do it for you.

I am sorry you are too legally illiterate to understand the plea of nolo contendere. I will try to help you out of your state of legal ignorance.

"No contest," I said. The plea of no contest, or nolo contendere, is not an admission of guilt. While the technical equivalent of a guilty plea, it allows a defendant to maintain his innocence while accepting the plea.

Mark Fuhrman, Murder in Brentwood, pbk 1997, pg. 2

Idindonuffin. Let's skip to sentencing. And, as a convicted felon, I can still say idindonuffin.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/question-no-contest-plea-nolo-contendere-28127.html

A no-contest plea, known often by its Latin name nolo contendere, has the same legal effect as a guilty plea. If you plead no contest to a criminal charge, you will have a conviction on your record, just as though you had pleaded guilty or been convicted after a trial.

The advantage of a no-contest plea compared to a guilty plea is that a no-contest plea generally cannot be offered into evidence in a civil case.

Following his nolo contendere plea, Fuhrman was convicted of a felony, stripped of his badge, stripped of his right to possess a gun, and stripped of his right to vote.

The only difference is a nolo plea cannot be used in a civil action as an outright admission of guilt.

Regarding the criminal result, the guilty plea and the nolo plea is a distinction without much difference. Fuhrman was convicted and sentenced just the same.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-26   2:27:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#368. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#365)

As far as I know, these items were not presented as DNA evidence. SO WHO CARES??

[...]

You keep pointing out these minor indiscrepancies as though they're significant to the case ... without pointing put their significance.

Here ya go, sunshine. I will point out the significance.

The detective who took the blood home overnight. The story of carrying the envelope out to the van died with the videotape. Nobody could carry it in their hand without it being seen. The trash bag story was a last, desperate grope. It is the sort of silly bullshit story that accompanied every piece of bullshit evidence in the case. It is the sort of fairy tale that loses juries.

What happened to your plastic baggie and coin envelope that were locked up in the truck?

The blood sample was in a sealed vial which was "in a special envelope designed to carry blood evidence." Vannatter testified that he did not book Simpson's blood sample into evidence immediately because he wanted to deliver it directly to the criminalist working on the case.

Vannatter was a proven liar with no credibility. The jury so found. The evidence of Vannatter's lies was so apparent that none but the willfully ignorant could deny it.

Of course, during the trial much was said about Detective Vannatter leaving downtown headquarters with O. J. Simpson's whole blood sample but, instead of walking a few hundred yards and booking it into evidence at Parker Technical Center, driving twenty-two miles to the Rockingham scene where he says he handed it over to criminalist Dennis Fung. (Barry Scheck's cross-examination of Fung brought out ad nauseam that we have to take Vannatter, Fung, and Andrea Mazzola's word that the transfer of the blood vial actually took place; on news video, the gray envelope was not in the hands of Fung or Mazzola when they twice brought evidence out to their van before leaving Rockingham.) Such a thing, all agreed, was totally contrary to LAPD's written rules and procedures, to say nothing about simple logic.

Still, even privately, Vannatter's only answer to why, in his twenty-five years as a cop, working many big cases, this was the first time he had ever done anything like this is "I don't know. I just don't know, all right!"

Forget the baloney being peddled by Vannatter's high visibility apologist, Vincent Bugliosi, that since Vannatter didn't know the reference number to book it under, it would've messed up Dennis Fung's numbering system. If that was reasonable, why has nothing like this ever happened before? Everyone from the police chief on down has said that it was against procedure and precedent.

Joseph Bosco, A Problem With Evidence, 1st ed., pg. 74-75.

The story is an insult to the intelligence of anyone with a two-digit IQ.

As for the contaminated blood samples, that was proven through Collin Yamauchi and John Gerdes. The reference samples of Nicole and Goldman were contaminated with OJ's DNA.

Lawrence Schiller, American Tragedy, pbk, 569-70:

Some months earlier, the defense had hired Dr. John Gerdes to evaluate LAPD crime lab procedures in the year before the case. He concluded the lab was a "cesspool of contamination," and he would testify to that. Gerdes had also discovered that the vials containing the reference samples from Nicole and Goldman were contaminated with Simpson's DNA. That fact and its implications were crucial.

Yamauchi had worked with O.J.'s reference sample immediately before he handled the Rockingham glove. If Yamauchi got blood on himself, or if he got some on the table when he opened O.J.'s vial—a real possibility, considering the bloodstains on the vial—he could have transferred O.J.'s blood to the glove.

The swatches collected from the Bundy walkway placed O.J. at the crime scene more convincingly than any eyewitness. The defense had to show that somewhere, somehow, by accident, by design, or both, Simpson's reference blood was transferred to the Bundy swatches.

During the first two weeks in May, Barry went through all of Yamauchi's notes in the discovery material with a finetoothed comb. Months earlier, Bill Pavelic had shown the team a photograph in which the outside of Simpson's reference vial was stained, even caked, with blood. Beyond a doubt, that vial had been carelessly handled. That was Scheck's starting point.

Scheck wanted to determine the sequence of events in the lab on June 14. The LAPD would not allow the defense to interview Yamauchi, but after days of shuffling and reshuffling. Barry assigned what seemed to be the correct order to Yamauchi's notes, some of which bore no dates.

Yamauchi had worked with OJ.'s reference sample immediately before he handled the Rockingham glove. If Yamauchi got blood on himself, or if he got some on the table when he opened O.J. 's vial—a real possibility, considering the bloodstains on the vial—he could have transferred O.J.'s blood to the glove. Then Scheck worked out from the lab notes the order in which Yamauchi handled the Bundy blood swatches. Scheck compared that order to the amount of Simpson's DNA found on each sample.

Paydirt. For the first time Scheck and his team could see that the Bundy swatch with the largest quantity of O.J. 's DNA, swatch number 51, was the first one that Yamauchi touched after he handled the Rockingham glove. The swatch containing the second-highest quantity was the second one he touched. And so forth.

Common sense indicated that Yamauchi had to have gotten some of Simpson's blood on his own glove, or on the table, or both. It was like stepping into a mud puddle, then continuing onto dry ground. Your first footprint leaves a lot of mud; the next one leaves a bit less; the third leaves still less. Scheck could see Yamauchi's "footprint" on the glove and Bundy blood swatches.

The sequence was clear: Yamauchi gets O.J.'s reference blood on his gloved hands. Maybe on his worktable. Then he transfers O.J.'s blood to the Rockingham glove. Next he handles the Bundy swatches and contaminates them with Simpson's blood.

Scheck knew this was a bombshell. Top Secret-Eyes Only.

But there was also blood from someone on the swatches before Yamauchi ever touched them. What about the original DNA in the blood on the Bundy swatches? The jury already had that answer, but it hadn't been explained to them yet. When Fung left those swatches in the hot van all day, Scheck would argue, the original DNA, possibly the killer's, had degraded so much that it no longer showed up in testing.

The tide was now shifting in favor of the defense. Barry's theory that O.J.'s DNA was unwittingly transferred to the swatches by Yamauchi stood up to scrutiny. It was scientifically valid. It also reinforced the defense's assertion that the first PCR test results that incriminated Simpson were unreliable, like everything else that came from the LAPD's "Black Hole."

Johnnie and Carl didn't have to stretch their imaginations to believe that those first tests might have given some cops the impetus to plant, fabricate, or doctor other evidence. This guy's guilty. Don't let him get away with it. Make it stick.

The only question left was: What exactly happened to O.J.'s reference blood on June 14, the day Yamauchi worked on the glove and the Bundy swatches? Scheck would have to get his answer in his cross-examination of Collin Yamauchi.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Collin Yamauchi cross-examination by Barry Scheck

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. SCHECK: Did you get blood on your gloves when you opened Mr. Simpson's reference tube?
MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. Soaked through the paper.
MR. SCHECK: You remember that now?
MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, I do.
MR. SCHECK: In other words, didn't you testify before that as you opened the tube, you did it with a chem-wipe?
MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. And blood soaks through the chem-wipe.
MR. SCHECK: So you're now saying that you have an independent recollection that the blood soaked through the chem-wipe?
MR. YAMAUCHI: Along the tip edges, yeah.
MR. SCHECK: And that's something that you didn't even recall when you were asked about this on direct examination?
MR. YAMAUCHI: Was I asked that specifically?
MR. SCHECK: Well, do you recall being asked how you handled Mr. Simpson's reference tube on direct examination and giving a description?
MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, I recall describing that process.
MR. SCHECK: And when you gave that description, did you include the fact that the blood went right through the chem-wipe, got your gloves dirty?
MR. YAMAUCHI: No, I don't believe so.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. SCHECK: Now, this morning, in reviewing your notes a little bit more carefully--well, withdrawn. I shouldn't say that. In reviewing your notes, you agreed that you could have cut samples from the glove before you cut swatches from the Bundy samples?
MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

- - - - - - - - - -

THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Let me try it this way: On the morning of June 14th you did an extraction on Mr. Simpson's reference sample?
MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: On the morning of June 14th you did an extraction on the Bundy samples?
MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: That was in the series of 23 tubes that you were doing in one day?
MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you did those extractions in the serology laboratory?
MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you did it in your hood?
MR. YAMAUCHI: Part of the time.
MR. SCHECK: And the location was either your hood or your desk right next to the hood where you were doing these extractions?
MR. YAMAUCHI: My work station and the hood, yes.
MR. SCHECK: That was the location?
MR. YAMAUCHI: Locations.
MR. SCHECK: And the time that it took you to do the extraction on these 23 tubes was how long?
MR. YAMAUCHI: It is approximately an hour and a half that that process would take place over.
MR. SCHECK: And as far as you are concerned, your protocol says it is perfectly all right to handle Mr. Simpson's reference tubes along with those 23 samples in that location during that timing period? That is perfectly fine?
MR. YAMAUCHI: Sure, provided you take the precautions that I take.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dr. John GERDES, Direct by Barry Scheck

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. SCHECK: Now, could you please define for the jury the term "Contamination" in a forensic setting, in terms of DNA work?
DR. GERDES: In terms of DNA work it is quite simply human DNA that is found where it shouldn't be.
MR. SCHECK: Now, in terms of DNA laboratories, would it be useful to break down the kind of contamination that one encounters?
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And could you please tell us--could you break those down to us in certain categories?
DR. GERDES: Certainly. I think a way to look at this is to start all the way back at the beginning at the crime scene and the first type of risk of contamination is going to be called what is called cross-contamination, and as I mentioned, this is human DNA finding its way into a sample where it shouldn't be there, and the--that is as a result of cross-transferring from one space to another physically, and that can happen by mishandling. And the--that is because if you have a sample here with a large amount of DNA and another sample with small amount of DNA, this technique is so exquisitely sensitive that you can transfer without even knowing it frequently a small amount of DNA from item 1 where there was a large amount to item 2.
MR. SCHECK: When you say "Exquisitely sensitive," we have heard that term before. What do you mean by that? It is a scientific term?
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: But could you try to define that a little in plainer English, if we could?
DR. GERDES: Yeah. It simply means that you can find a very, very, very small amount. This technique can theoretically find a single copy of what you are looking for.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, we discussed cross-contamination. Is there something about cross-contamination that is a particular problem in terms of the different kinds contamination you get?
DR. GERDES: Yes. This--this particular kind of contamination is the one that is the most subversive and that--by that I mean that once you've done that, once you have accidentally transferred from one item to the next, if you were to do the DNA analysis of both items, the DNA analysis doesn't distinguish where that human DNA came from. It is simply going to type what human DNA is there. So that means that if you were to type those two items and you had accidentally done that, those items were--would probably type as the same item, especially, you know, the smaller amount would be most likely overwhelmed by the transferred DNA. So they would type as the same DNA, meaning coming from the same individual, and it wouldn't matter if at that point from that point on it wouldn't matter if this sample that was falsely incorporated--falsely incorporated, if that sample was typed by five, ten, other laboratories or by five or ten different gene systems, it is always going to come up as a match. And the problem with that is there really is no control, unfortunately. There is no way of incorporating into the system a control that says that happened.
THE COURT: Next question.
MR. SCHECK: What other kind of categories of contamination are there?
DR. GERDES: Well, the second is usually once the DNA or the specimen is transferred to a laboratory, now you can have the same kind of transfer, by the way, cross-transfer can happen anytime that item is manipulated, either in the crime scene, in the laboratory itself, or anytime they are handled, those specimens, all the way through the process that can happen. A second type of contamination, though, that occurs, is the fact that when you are dealing with DNA the samples are fairly dirty samples. In the process of analyzing them you have to add these liquid solutions that contain all of the building blocks for the DNA and the enzyme that is responsible for allowing us to copy it, and the components of that reaction that allows the PCR process to occur.
MR. SCHECK: These are the reagents that you pour into things?
DR. GERDES: Correct, they are called reagents.
MR. SCHECK: Can they get contaminated?
DR. GERDES: Yes, they can.
MR. SCHECK: And what is known as amplicon or PCR carry-over contamination?
DR. GERDES: That is a slightly different concept, and the PCR process I'm sure you are aware of that now, basically allows us to take a small number and copy it, sort of like a molecular Xeroxing up to a very high number. Now, if you do that for the same gene over and over, day after day, with multiple samples, what happens is you have a build-up or can have a build-up of the copies, and when you have a build-up of those copies it is very easy to accidentally get one of those into your reagent or into your reactions, and that is called amplification product carry-over.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Dr. Gerdes, based on your review of the data in this case, have you formed an opinion as to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty about contamination at the LAPD DNA laboratory?
MR. CLARKE: Objection, no foundation.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, my method here is that I'm going to elicit the opinions of the doctor and then give the basis of his expert opinion.
THE COURT: Overruled, overruled.
MR. SCHECK: Have you an opinion, within a degree of scientific certainly, about contamination at the LAPD laboratory?
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: What is it?
DR. GERDES: I found that the LAPD laboratory has substantial contamination problem that is persistent and substantial.
MR. SCHECK: Is it chronic? What does that term mean?
DR. GERDES: Chronic--it is chronic and it is chronic in the sense that it doesn't go away. I can find it month after month and it persists.
MR. SCHECK: Is--as a DNA lab director do you have an opinion about the risk of error due to contamination at the LAPD?
MR. CLARKE: Objection, no foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: As a molecular biologist and DNA laboratory director, do you have an opinion about the collection, specimen handling and sampling method used by the personnel at the Los Angeles Police Department in this case?
MR. CLARKE: Objection, no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And what is it?
DR. GERDES: I found that the specimen handling procedures were done in such a manner that it had a tremendous--there was a tremendous risk of the potential of cross-contamination.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. SCHECK: Have you heard the testimony or are you familiar with the testimony of Mr. Yamauchi, Mr. Matheson, that this hood is a laminar flow hood?
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Are they correct in their statement that it is a laminar flow hood?
DR. GERDES: No.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. SCHECK: Are you familiar with the testimony of Mr. Yamauchi as to what he did on the morning of June 14th, starting at around 9:00 A.M. through 11:20 A.M. when he processed the reference sample of Mr. Simpson, the Rockingham glove and the Bundy swatches, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52?

[...]

MR. SCHECK: Well, assumes facts not in evidence. In your opinion, sir, in terms of the handling of samples in a DNA laboratory, are there problems when one is handling degraded samples with low amounts or no DNA at the same time or period or location when handling samples with high contents of DNA.
MR. CLARKE: Objection, no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. GERDES: Yes, there definitely are problems under those circumstances.
MR. SCHECK: And is that a situation which increases the risk of cross-contamination?
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And why is that?
DR. GERDES: Well, I also believe at the very beginning of my testimony I described the fact that if you have something in high concentration next to something in low concentration there is a greater chance that you can get small amounts of material from the substance with high concentration into the one with low, and so there is a greater risk of that kind of cross-contamination because you are handling the two at the same time next to each other.
THE COURT: And the nodding of the jurors indicate that they recollect that from this trial, too, and they recollect it from a month ago.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. SCHECK: All right. Are you familiar with--do you know, according to their protocol--withdrawn. Let's get back to LAPD. Are you familiar with the testimony of Mr. Yamauchi that at about nine o'clock-­well, let's take care of all foundation items. Are you familiar with the serology item description notes which are 1185, I have shown them to Mr. Clarke, of Mr. Yamauchi for June 14th and June 15th, his notes of handling the samples?
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Are you familiar with his testimony that between the period of 9:00 A.M. and 11:20 A.M. he handled Mr. Simpson's reference sample and created a fitzco card?
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: He moved next to the Rockingham glove, did a series of pheno tests and cuttings and initialed that glove?
DR. GERDES: That's correct.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. SCHECK: Took samples? And then moved on to do the so-called Bundy blood drop items, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52? Are you familiar with that?
DR. GERDES: I believe the order was 52 and then the others, but the exact sequence is different than what you stated, but they were done.
MR. SCHECK: They handled the Bundy blood drops all within that period?
DR. GERDES: Yes, they did.
MR. SCHECK: Now, in your judgment was--what is your opinion of this laboratory practice of handling Mr. Simpson's reference tubes in the way Mr. Yamauchi described it and these evidence samples within that period?
MR. CLARKE: Objection, no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. GERDES: That is not an acceptable practice in any forensic laboratory.
MR. SCHECK: Why?
DR. GERDES: Because of the unacceptable risk of contamination from the reference sample which has high levels of DNA and the evidence items that were processed which have low levels.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. SCHECK: Now, do you recall that section of Mr. Yamauchi's testimony where he describes that he opened Mr. Simpson's reference sample and blood came out of the tube that went through the chem wipe and onto his glove?
DR. GERDES: Yes, I recall that.
MR. SCHECK: Now, in your experience when you open one of these vacutainer tubes, what happens or what happened?
DR. GERDES: Well, you can hear-­
MR. CLARKE: Excuse me. Objection, no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. GERDES: It is a vacutainer. That means it is under vacuum. It is sort of like opening a coffee can, you can hear it and there is an aerosol that is created.
MR. SCHECK: When you say "Aerosol" what do you mean?
DR. GERDES: Aerosol is very small fine mist of droplets that would then spray.
MR. SCHECK: That is of blood?
DR. GERDES: Of blood in this case, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And is in--in terms of the DNA content of a reference tube and that aerosol, how does it compare--what is the nature of the DNA content of--of such a substance?
DR. GERDES: Well, it doesn't take very much blood to have a substantial amount of DNA.
MR. SCHECK: Now, you read Mr. Yamauchi's testimony where you indicated that after he opened the reference tube and the blood went through his chem wipe and went onto his glove that he then disposed of the gloves, he can't recall, either in the evidence processing room or in the serology lab?
DR. GERDES: That is what I remember, yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, given the nature of his testimony about the way he opened the tube, do you think that what he did next in terms of moving onto the analysis of the other sample was an acceptable laboratory practice?
DR. GERDES: No. I mean, you know, you've had a spillage, you should have basically stopped everything, cleaned down the entire lab and waited for a period of time before you move on to something as critical as evidence items.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. SCHECK: Is it a good laboratory practice to have proceeded from handling the reference sample under the circumstances described by Mr. Yamauchi and turn to manipulation of the wrist area of the glove in the fashion that he described?
MR. CLARKE: Objection, asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. GERDES: No. It represents unacceptable risk of cross-contamination.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. SCHECK: Is it a good laboratory practice to handle in the same period in the same location samples that have high DNA content and low DNA content?
MR. CLARKE: Objection, asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained I think we have visited that topic now for the third time.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Well, let's move to the next one.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: One question. Is it a good laboratory-well, maybe not one. Is it a good laboratory practice, sir, to handle in the same period in the same location samples from different scenes?
MR. CLARKE: Objection, no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. GERDES: No, it is not.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Are you aware that on June 15th Mr. Yamauchi handled samples from—that included the reference sample from Nicole Brown Simpson, the reference sample from Ronald Goldberg, samples from the Bronco and samples from the Rockingham foyer LAPD item no. 12?
MR. CLARKE: Objection, beyond the scope of this witness' expertise.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. GERDES: Yes, he handled those at that time.
MR. SCHECK: And of course on June 14th he handled the Rockingham glove and the Bundy swatches?
DR. GERDES: Correct.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: Is it a good idea to handle reference samples from suspects and victims in the same
MR. CLARKE: Objection, beyond the scope of this witness' expertise.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. GERDES: No, it is not a good idea because of again the risk of cross-contamination.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. SCHECK: All right. You've heard the testimony about how Mr. Yamauchi sampled and then proceeded to test on June 14th twenty individual samples?
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Does that seem to you, in terms of ordinary laboratory practices--well, in your opinion, what do you think about handling all those samples in the time period he described?
DR. GERDES: It seems to be a lot of samples for that time period.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, as a microbiologist and DNA laboratory director do you believe that analysts handling blood samples should routinely change their gloves between handling each item?
DR. GERDES: Yes, I believe they should do that.
MR. SCHECK: And why?
DR. GERDES: Especially with a technique like PCR. This is such a sensitive technique you might not even notice that you have a small amount of blood or even an aerosol of that blood on your glove, and unless you change the glove you can't eliminate the possibility that you might transfer that to the next sample.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. SCHECK: Now, in terms of laboratory paper, are you familiar with the testimony of Mr. Fung and Miss Mazzola that when the samples were brought into the LAPD laboratory and they were taken out of the plastic bags and put into the test-tubes that they did not change laboratory paper between handling those items?
DR. GERDES: I'm familiar with that.
MR. SCHECK: Are you familiar with their testimony that when they took the swatches out of the tubes the next morning and scraped them out with a pipette on to a bindle that they did not change the laboratory paper between each item?
DR. GERDES: I'm familiar with that.
MR. SCHECK: In your opinion are those sound laboratory practices in terms of the danger of cross-contamination?
DR. GERDES: That is going to create a shower of an aerosol which is going to fall down on that entire area and can easily be transferring DNA from one item to another.
MR. SCHECK: In terms of aerosols then, since that is one of our little logos, I take it--what was that you were saying about scraping the swatches out of the tubes?

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. SCHECK: We've heard some questions being asked in this trial such as you heard them, "Can DNA fly?" Have you heard that?
DR. GERDES: Yes, I have.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, when aerosols are created of these kind of particles in a laboratory do they just fall right to the ground or how long do they remain ambient in an atmosphere?
MR. CLARKE: Objection, foundation, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Are you familiar with the problem of dust or aerosols in DNA laboratories?
DR. GERDES: Yes.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. SCHECK: Are you familiar with Mr. Yamauchi's testimony that in processing the Rockingham glove and the LAPD items 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52 on the morning of June 14th, that he did not routinely change laboratory paper between those items?
DR. GERDES: Yes, I am familiar with that.
MR. SCHECK: Is that a sound laboratory practice?
DR. GERDES: It creates unacceptable risk.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Gerdes, let's return for a minute to 1306, the chelex bottle. Now, what role does chelex play in the DNA process? How do you use--how was it used at the Los Angeles Police Department and at other laboratories in the DNA testing process?
MR. CLARKE: Objection. Foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. GERDES: This is the first solution that you use in the process of extracting DNA from a specimen.
MR. SCHECK: And how much does the protocol indicate should be taken out of a bottle of chelex?
DR. GERDES: It's basically a drop, very small amount.
MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. And in terms of the amount that you take out of the bottle, does that have any relationship to the use of aliquots in terms of the way certain laboratories handle this kind of solution?
DR. GERDES: Yes. With this kind of solution where you use a very small amount of each item, you would tend to aliquot it into smaller volumes so that you don't go into that bottle a long time. The amount that's shown in this bottle is a six-month supply.
MR. CLARKE: Excuse me. Objection. No foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SCHECK: And why is it--why--if you went into the bottle many times in terms of contamination, does that have any consequences?
DR. GERDES: Yes. Every time you open the bottle, there's a chance of something falling in there. Every time you pipette or put a pipetter into that bottle, there's a chance of introducing something accidentally. So it goes back to the manipulation we talked about earlier. The more you manipulate things, the more you go in and out of them, the higher the risk. Every time you open, there's a risk and the more times you open it, the greater the risk.
MR. SCHECK: Have you reviewed records in connection with the hybridization sheets from the Los Angeles Police Department as to lots of chelex? Have you done that?
DR. GERDES: Yes. Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, up here on this particular bottle, there is a no. 5. What does that represent?
DR. GERDES: That's their lot number.
MR. SCHECK: Have you looked at lot numbers on the laboratory sheets with respect to the use of chelex at the lab?
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And what is the frequency in general terms of how often they go to a new lot?
DR. GERDES: The lot numbers are used, the same lot numbers recorded for DNA extractions over a period of months.
MR. SCHECK: Is that a good practice in your opinion?
DR. GERDES: No.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. SCHECK: This is 1307. What is this a picture of, Dr. Gerdes?
DR. GERDES: This is another reagent. This particular reagent called TE buffer is used to resuspend DNA.
MR. SCHECK: And whose TE buffer is this, if we can go a little tighter on this picture?
DR. GERDES: You'll notice there's a CY on the bottle. So this is Collin Yamauchi's.
MR. SCHECK: And so this picture was taken at his work station?
DR. GERDES: At his work station, yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And, again, how much TE buffer is used in the course of running a DNA test?
DR. GERDES: Less than a dot. A drop.
MR. SCHECK: And is this another kind of reagent that is--ought to be aliquotted?
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And what is the date on this particular picture?
DR. GERDES: 5-25-93.
MR. SCHECK: And when was this picture taken?
DR. GERDES: January 18th, 1995.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. SCHECK: Let me get back to it this way. In terms of the--in your review of the LAPD laboratory strips in terms of contamination, what is the significance of the degree of contamination you found in the extraction control versus the amplification control?
MR. CLARKE: Objection. Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. GERDES: The significance is that it indicates that the area at which contamination is occurring in this laboratory is an early area, most likely in the DNA extraction or sample handling.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. SCHECK: Now, besides your view that--about the substrate--your views about the substrate controls being handled in parallel, the fact that negative controls don't always clean negative controls don't always indicate contamination and the notion of "Carrier," do you have any evidence from review of the data that indicates that there was cross-contamination of DNA between samples handled by Mr. Yamauchi in this case?
DR. GERDES: I believe there is some indication of that.
MR. SCHECK: And does this cross-contamination show up--does this evidence show up not just in the way samples were handled at LAPD, but how they were typed then subsequently at DOJ and Cellmark?
DR. GERDES: Yes.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Gerdes, are you familiar with the fact that on June 15th, 1994 at the evidence processing room and at the serology lab, Mr. Yamauchi handled item no. 12, blood drops recovered from the foyer of Mr. Simpson's home and the reference sample from Nicole Brown Simpson and the reference sample from Ronald Goldman?
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, on this chart, there's a--could you explain what the-­
DR. GERDES: Sure.
MR. SCHECK: --code is over here?
DR. GERDES: Yeah. These indicate the typings for the three reference individuals, the DQ-Alpha and one locus, the GC locus of the polymarker gene system.
MR. SCHECK: So those represent the genotypes for the three individuals here?
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: So on the DQ-Alpha-­
DR. GERDES: On the DQ-Alpha, there's a 1.1, 1.2 for Mr. Simpson, there's a 1.1, 1.1 for Nicole Brown Simpson and there's a 1.3, 4 for Ron Goldman.
MR. SCHECK: And on the GC locus and the polymarker system, what are the types for these three individuals?
DR. GERDES: On the GC locus of the polymarker gene, it's a BC for Mr. Simpson and a C for Nicole Brown Simpson and an AA for Mr. Goldman.
MR. SCHECK: Now, the next three boxes indicate something called "LAPD typing sheet," "Cellmark type sheets" and "DOJ type sheets"?
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: What are those?
DR. GERDES: These are the recorded results that were found on the typing sheets of--on those dates when these specific references were typed.
MR. SCHECK: Now, let's move first to June 15th, 1994 when Mr. Yamauchi did this initial typing. I take it he recorded for item no. 12, the blood drops found in the foyer, Mr. Simpson's genotype, 1.1, 1.2?
DR. GERDES: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, with respect to the reference sample, could you tell us what was recorded and also what you observed on the sheet?
DR. GERDES: Yes. There—it was recorded as a 1.1, 1.1, and on the actual typing, I can see a very faint 1.2.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. SCHECK: Now, with respect to Mr. Goldman's reference sample, the LAPD records there a 1.3, 4; and is the term very faint 1.1 what's on their record?
DR. GERDES: It's on their report, yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now--and you can see that very faint 1.1 on the strip itself?
DR. GERDES: Yes. Should I put the arrow on it?
MR. SCHECK: And so we'll call the new arrow here-­
DR. GERDES: It's right here (Indicating).

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. SCHECK: Okay. So from looking here at the LAPD typing sheet--now, with respect to item no. 12, is it your understanding, sir, that item no. 12 were--drops in Mr. Simpson's foyer that were the last blood drops collected on June 13?
DR. GERDES: That's correct.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. SCHECK: Well, do you know if Mr. Yamauchi handled item no. 12 in the same time and location that he handled the reference samples from Nicole Brown Simpson and Mr. Goldman on June 15th?
MR. CLARKE: Same objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. GERDES: Yes, he did.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. SCHECK: All right. What did these results indicate to you?
MR. CLARKE: Same objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. GERDES: These results are consistent with cross-contamination of the 1.2 from item 12 into Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman's reference samples.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. SCHECK: But what about the 1.2 dot on Nicole Brown Simpson's reference sample? Is that an artifact or contaminant?
DR. GERDES: That's a contaminant because the 1.2 doesn't have that kind of artifact. And if you see anything on there, that means there's DNA there.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, let's move to the next typing of reference samples of Nicole Brown Simpson and Mr. Goldman. That was done at Cellmark on August 5th, 1994?
DR. GERDES: That's correct.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. SCHECK: Now, was there, however--what is the significance of the faint b recorded on the polymarker system for Nicole Brown Simpson?

[...]

MR. SCHECK: All right. The b in terms of the polymarker system, is that a contaminant or an artifact?
DR. GERDES: That's a contaminant.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. SCHECK: Let's move on to the next time the reference samples were typed at the Department of Justice.
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Was that on December 31st, 1994?
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And what do the typing sheets for the Department of Justice indicate?
DR. GERDES: The Department of Justice recorded on Nicole Brown Simpson a 1.1, 1.1 with a faint trace 1.3 and a trace of 1.2.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, with respect to Mr. Goldman, what did they record?
DR. GERDES: Mr. Goldman, they recorded a 1.3, 4 with a faint trace 1.1.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And given the rules of interpretation, what does that mean about a 1.2?
DR. GERDES: You would also have to consider the fact in this setup, that there might be a mask 1.2.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. SCHECK: All right. In your opinion, based on the principles of the DQ-Alpha system as you understand it, what does the appearance of that 1. Dot indicate?
MR. CLARKE: Same objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. GERDES: It indicates contamination.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, with respect to the 1.3, could that be an artifact?
DR. GERDES: In this case, again, that is known to have a cross-hybridization problem under certain circumstances, and the difficulty here is, we also have the 1 allele showing up again because of the 1.1 and, therefore, you can't really tell if this is an artifact or real.
MR. SCHECK: And when you said under the circumstances where 1.3 is an artifact are what kind of circumstances?
DR. GERDES: With high level of DNA, which this may be because it's a reference sample and the fact that there's also the 1 dot showing.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. SCHECK: What in your opinion is the significance of this pattern of typings?
MR. CLARKE: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. GERDES: My interpretation of this pattern is, it has two possible explanations. The first explanation is that there is cross-contamination of Mr. Simpson's blood into Nicole Brown Simpson or Ronald Goldman, which is then subsequently typed by the two laboratories that LAPD sent their specimens to. The second explanation is that there are possibly contaminants and artifacts that are found at LAPD that are also found at Cellmark and also found at DOJ, and those artifacts just happen to be consistent with the contamination of the cross-contamination pattern.
MR. SCHECK: So in other words, there would have to be--at LAPD, with respect to Nicole Brown Simpson, that 1.2 would have to be LAPD contaminating it?
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: But from--and the 1.1 would be an artifact?
DR. GERDES: Yes.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. SCHECK: Well, what would the b in the polymarker system have to be if this were not cross-contamination that started at LAPD, but another explanation?
MR. CLARKE: Same objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. GERDES: That b would have to be a contaminant that coincidentally is consistent with cross-contamination from Mr. Simpson to Nicole Brown Simpson.
MR. SCHECK: And what about the DOJ typing? What about that 1.2? What would that have to be if this were not cross-contamination that started at LAPD?
DR. GERDES: That would have to be, again, coincidental appearance of the 1.2 that is consistent with cross-contamination from Mr. Simpson's blood into Nicole Brown Simpson's.
MR. SCHECK: And then the 1.1, what could that be?
DR. GERDES: 1.-­
MR. SCHECK: 1.1 in Mr. Goldman's sample.
DR. GERDES: Oh, in Mr. Goldman's sample, it's the same answer. That's would have to be a DX or an artifact that's consistent with cross-contamination.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you. Does that data, Dr. Gerdes--what effect does that data have on your view with respect to the efficacy of substrate controls that were used at LAPD in this case?
MR. CLARKE: Objection. No foundation, calls for speculation, beyond the expertise of the witness.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. GERDES: It undermines my confidence in those controls since there is some evidence here that the cross-contamination occurred.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. SCHECK: I have some additional questions now about RFLP results. I believe you gave us yesterday, concerning your views of the RFLP result on LAPD item 52 and—which was analyzed on the morning of June 14th by Mr. Yamauchi, correct?
DR. GERDES: Yes, yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And you've expressed your opinion, your concerns, with respect to that RFLP result?
DR. GERDES: In terms of cross-contamination, yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right.
DR. GERDES: It could be cross-contaminated.

- - - - - - - - - -

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-26   2:35:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#369. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#368)

Moving on,

OJ Trial - Garbage In, Garbage Out

Instruction to the jury by Judge Ito.

SPECIAL INSTRUCTION NO. D2

Evidence of the comparison of blood drops allegedly found on the 'walkways and driveways of the Bundy crime scene with a blood sample provided by Mr. Simpson has been introduced for the purpose of showing the identity of the perpetrator of the murders.

Before you may even consider such evidence, you must first determine whether the blood drops allegedly found at the crime scene were deposited by the perpetrator of the murders on June 12, 1994. If you determine this fact to be true, such evidence may then be considered by you for the purpose of determining whether it tends to show the identity of the perpetrator of the murders. If you determine that the alleged blood drops may have been deposited at some other time, however, you must disregard this evidence and not con: ider it for any purpose

SPECIAL INSTRUCTION NO. D3

“Evidence of the comparison of blood which was not discovered on the back gate at the Bundy crime scene until July 3, 1994, and of blood which was not discovered on a sock allegedly found in Mr. Simpson's bedroom until August 4, 1994 with a blood sample provided by Mr. Simpson and a blood sample recovered from the body of Nicole Brown Simpson has been introduced for the purpose of showing the identity of the perpetrator of the murders. Before you may even consider such evidence, you must first determine whether the blood found on the back gate and the sock was deposited by the perpetrator or victim of the murders on June 12, 1994. If you determine such fact to be true, such evidence may then be considered by you for the purpose of determining whether it, tends to show the identity of the perpetrator of the murders. If you determine that blood may have been deposited on the back gate or socks at some time subsequent to June 12, 1994, however, you must disregard this evidence and not consider it for any purpose.”

- - - - - - - - - -

Lawrence Schiller (American Tragedy, paperback, 388-89) described the prep menu of Barry Scheck,

It could could be demonstrated, he wrote, that something odd, suspicious, or just plain wrong had occurred during the colleciton or LAPD lab testing and handling of just about every drop or smear of blood evidence. "The DNA and forensic evidence simply cannot be trusted," Scheck concluded.

[...]

It's very easy to contaminate blood samples under the best of conditions in a medical laboratory," Scheck said. Then in PCR testing, you amplify the wrong DNA.

[...]

We will show," Scheck said grandly, "that the LAPD laboratory is a cesspool on PCR contamination. We'll demonstratethey had no special procedures for collection and handling of biological evidence. And we will show they broke the few rules they had for whatever whatever kind of test was going to be used."

Scheck, Neufeld and Blasier succeeded in accomplishing that task. Criminalists Fung and Mazzola were destroyed on the stand. Special Agent Martz was destroyed by a leading EDTA scientist, Dr. Rieders.

- - - - - - - - - -

The blood on the sock and the blood on the back gate were keystones in the defense argument that blood evidence had been “planted” in the case. Defense experts testified the stain on the back gate was suspicious for two reasons: (1) although it was not “discovered” until two weeks after the crime scene had been cleaned up, the samples were far less degraded that the samples recovered the morning after the murders; (2) analysis of the sample showed the presence of EDTA, a preservative used to prevent coagulation of blood specimens in test tubes, but not found in natural blood. The stain on the sock was not observed by the detectives who seized it, the criminalists who initially examined it, or the defense experts who initially examined it. The stain soaked through to the opposite surface, a phenomenon which would not have occurred if there was a foot in the sock when the blood came in contact with it.

Attorney Gerald F. Uelmen, The O.J. Files, Evidentiary Issues in a Tactical Context, American Casebook Series, West Group, St. Paul, Minn., 1998, at 37-38.

- - - - - - - - - -

https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/more/resources/the-five-lessons-of-the-oj-trial/

Hard lesson number four is also a message for law enforcement: Garbage in is garbage out. The scientific breakthroughs that brought us DNA technology place a very powerful tool in the hands of law enforcement. Like any other technology, however, it's only as good as the people who operate it.

The incredible sensitivity of new testing regimens brings with it a greatly enhanced risk of human error. At the outset of the trial, Clark told the jury that collecting specimens for blood testing was as easy as mopping up your kitchen with a sponge. Apparently, the LAPD. actually believes that.

Attorney Gerald F. Uelmen, The Five Hardest Lessons from the O.J. Trial, originally published in Issues in Ethics - V. 7, N. 1 Winter 1996.

- - - - - - - - - -

Criminalist Andrea Mazzola was the primary collector of blood evidence and criminalist Dennis Fung only collected about two items. The examination by Peter Neufeld documented and demonstrated that prosecutor Hank Goldberg had used a demonstration board filled with false claims that Fung had participated in collecting items he did not collect at all, including items for which it was shown that he was not even present at the collection to observe.

The prosecution was desperate to show that Dennis Fung had participated meaningfully in the collection of the blood evidence. They lied trying. During the testimony of Dennis Fung, the prosecution cast a false light on the participation of Dennis Fung in the collection of evidence. During the subsequent testimony of Andrea Mazzola, the prosecution was embarrassingly outed. Not only was the credibility of Dennis Fung demolished, so was the credibility of Hank Goldberg, and by extension, the prosecution team.

During the testimony of Andrea Mazzola, it was clearly shown on video that she put her gloved hands on the dirty ground and then went directly to picking up evidence with her dirty gloved hand. This was a repeated occurrence, demonstrated over and over.

Ms. Mazzola also knelt on her knees, got up and brushed off the dirt, contaminating her gloved hands, and then directly went to pick up evidence with her dirty gloved hand.

Two pieces of evidence were collected with no glove change upon the claim that the pieces were touching and shared the same trace evidence. Photographic evidence proved the items were not touching.

Three items were pheno tested with one swab. No substrate control was obtained. The defense established that this was contrary to the mandatory written procedures. The nonsense result was never submitted for confirmation.

Luminol testing, as with phenophthalein testing, is presumptive and not admissible to show the presence of blood in the absence of a positive confirmatory test. Luminol testing in the Bronco was excluded from both the criminal and civil trials, as no confirmatory test was performed. The alleged bloody shoeprints in the Bronco were inadmissible as evidence.

The jury foreman later wrote, "I had problems understanding how they found the blood smears on the console of the Bronco. Why were they seen after they had torn the inside of this car completely up?" The blood stains, purportedly in plain sight, were not discovered in multiple examinations of the Bronco, and then, suddenly, they were there.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-27   12:45:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#370. To: nolu chan (#369)

Defense experts testified the stain on the back gate was suspicious for two reasons: (1) although it was not “discovered” until two weeks after the crime scene had been cleaned up, the

Well, that's a lie. Detective Tom Lange testified that he saw it that night and ordered it collected.

"The stain soaked through to the opposite surface, a phenomenon which would not have occurred if there was a foot in the sock when the blood came in contact with it."

That's a lie also. If blood soaked through the sock and the sock was removed and left on the floor, the blood would come in contact with the opposite surface.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-07-27   13:04:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#371. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#370)

Defense experts testified the stain on the back gate was suspicious for two reasons: (1) although it was not “discovered” until two weeks after the crime scene had been cleaned up, the

Well, that's a lie. Detective Tom Lange testified that he saw it that night and ordered it collected.

Well, that's a lie. Half of Dumb and Dumber said it long after the fact, covering his own ass, and that other dumb ass.

The full quote, in context, with the words correctly attributed to attorney Gerald F. Uelman, former Dean of Santa Clara Law School:

The blood on the sock and the blood on the back gate were keystones in the defense argument that blood evidence had been “planted” in the case. Defense experts testified the stain on the back gate was suspicious for two reasons: (1) although it was not “discovered” until two weeks after the crime scene had been cleaned up, the samples were far less degraded that the samples recovered the morning after the murders; (2) analysis of the sample showed the presence of EDTA, a preservative used to prevent coagulation of blood specimens in test tubes, but not found in natural blood. The stain on the sock was not observed by the detectives who seized it, the criminalists who initially examined it, or the defense experts who initially examined it. The stain soaked through to the opposite surface, a phenomenon which would not have occurred if there was a foot in the sock when the blood came in contact with it.

Attorney Gerald F. Uelmen, The O.J. Files, Evidentiary Issues in a Tactical Context, American Casebook Series, West Group, St. Paul, Minn., 1998, at 37-38.

Either Lange and Vannatter kept no notes at the scene, or they disappeared their notes. What appears certain is that Fuhrman's notes went unread until it was too late to recover from their monumental fuckup.

Barry A.J. Fisher, Techniques of Crime Scene Investigation, 7th Ed., 2004

At 49:

Note taking at a crime scene is essential. Well-written, contemporaneous notes are invaluable later in the investigation and especially at the time of trial. It can be extremely frustrating for an officer assigned an old open case if the case notes of the original investigator's initial observations are inadequate or even shoddy. There are no substitutes for good note taking at all phases of the investigation.

At 75:

Note Taking

Of all the duties and responsibilities of an officer conducting the crime scene search, perhaps the most important is note taking. Note taking is important for several reasons. It forces investigators to commmit observations to writing and to keep a detailed record of everything observed and accomplished.

Lange's trial testimony that he saw the spots of blood are at odds with his recorded contemporaneous notes. Allegedly, no contemporaneous crime scene notes were kept by Lange or Vannatter. Apparently they saw nothing worthy of taking notes about. Certainly not blood drops or a bloody fingerprint on the rear gate.

Trial testimony of Mark Fuhrman, questions by Marcia Clark:

Q: OKAY. AND IS THAT THE REAR GATE WHERE YOU JUST DESCRIBED SEEING THE BLOOD DROPPING ON THE LOWER REAR -- LOWER RUNG AND THE MIDDLE AND THEN THE SMUDGE ON THE LATCH?
A: YES.
Q: AND WHAT ELSE WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE ON THAT GATE, SIR? A: NOT AT THAT TIME, BUT LATER, I SAW A PARTIAL POSSIBLE FINGERPRINT THAT WAS ON THAT KNOB AREA.
Q: DID YOU THEN WALK THROUGH THE REAR GATE, SIR, WITH OFFICER RISKE AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS?

Comment of Mark Fuhrman regarding above questioning, Murder in Brentwood, pbk 204:

I'm not an attorney, but I have been questioned in hundreds of criminal trials. To me the obvious next question should have been, "Did anyone else see this possible fingerprint other than you?" But Marcia didn't ask this.

Trial testimony of Mark Fuhrman, questions by Marcia Clark:

Q: OKAY. AND WHEN YOU SAY "THE FIRST ROUND OF NOTES," SIR, CAN YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT?
A: MOST OF THESE NOTES WERE WHAT OFFICER RISKE WAS POINTING OUT TO DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND MYSELF, AND WHAT I OBSERVED.
Q: WHAT DID YOU INTEND TO DO -- WERE THESE NOTES ROUGH NOTES?
A: YES.
Q: WHAT DID YOU INTEND TO DO WITH THESE NOTES LATER ON?
A: USED THEM TO GO BACK TO THESE AREAS AND USE THEM AS A GUIDE IN WHAT TO GO BACK TO AND PRIORITIZE THEM.

Comment of Mark Fuhrman regarding above questioning, Murder in Brentwood, pbk 205:

In her direct questions concerning my notes, Marcia actually had me describe what Vannatter should have done after receiving them. He should have analyzed the various evidence and put priority on fragile items such as the fingerprint, a piece of evidence that should have been isolated and recovered.

Trial testimony of Det. Vannatter, questions by Christopher Darden,

Q: NOW, AFTER YOUR ARRIVAL AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE, WERE YOU EVER GIVEN ANY DOCUMENTS AT ALL?
A: YES.
Q: WHAT DOCUMENTS?
A: I WAS GIVEN MARK FUHRMAN'S NOTES THAT HE HAD COMPLETED BEFORE MY ARRIVAL.
Q: AND WHO GAVE YOU THOSE NOTES?
A: DETECTIVE PHILLIPS.
Q: OKAY. AND YOU'VE SEEN DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S NOTES ON THE ELMO HERE IN COURT, HAVE YOU?
A: YES, I HAVE.
Q: ARE THOSE THE SAME NOTES DETECTIVE PHILLIPS GAVE YOU?
A: YES.
Q: AND DID YOU MAINTAIN POSSESSION OF THOSE NOTES?
A: THAT'S CORRECT.
Q: AND DO YOU RECALL WHAT TIME IT WAS THAT DETECTIVE PHILLIPS GAVE YOU THOSE NOTES?
A: WOULD HAVE BEEN SHORTLY AFTER 4:05, MY ARRIVAL. WE STOOD AND TALKED FOR APPROXIMATELY FIVE MINUTES AND DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME, HE GAVE THEM TO ME.
Q: NOW, AS YOU WALKED DOWN THE WALKWAY AT BUNDY AND EXITED THE REAR GATE, DID YOU NOTICE ANYTHING ON THE REAR GATE AT ALL?
A: YES, I DID.
Q: WHAT DID YOU NOTICE?
A: I NOTICED WHAT APPEARED TO BE BLOOD WIPINGS ALONG THE UPPER RAIL OF THE GATE AND WHAT APPEARED TO BE BLOOD DROPS ON THE BOTTOM RAIL OF THE GATE.
Q: AND WERE THESE BLOOD WIPINGS AND BLOOD DROPS POINTED OUT TO YOU BY DETECTIVE PHILLIPS?
A: THEY WERE.
Q: YOU'VE TOLD US THAT YOU HAVE VISITED APPROXIMATELY 500 HOMICIDE SCENES; IS THAT RIGHT?
A: APPROXIMATELY, YES.

Comment of Mark Fuhrman regarding above questioning, Murder in Brentwood, pbk 190:

While he asked Vannatter whether he received my notes, he never asked whether he had read them. Of course, Vanatter hadn't read my notes. Marcia knew it. And so did Darden, or he would have asked Vannatter if he had.

Comment of Mark Fuhrman, Murder in Brentwood, pbk 185:

In January 1995, as the prosecution was well into preparation for the trial, I was discussing the case with Marcia Clark and asked her about the print. She looked somewhat taken aback and acted as if she didn't know what fingerprint I was talking about. I didn't know why she reacted that way, since we had gone over my notes in detail during the preliminary hearing. I reminded her about my notes and the ovservation of the bloody fingerprint. I saw the hesitation in her face as she told me. The print was never photographed or lifted.

"How could they duck up a crucial piece of evidence like that?" I exclaimed. "It was right there in my notes."

Marcia looked at me with sympathy and said, "Mark, they didn't read your notes."

Mark Fuhrman had his faults, but he was not incompetent like Fuckup #1 and Fuckup #2.

Comment of Mark Fuhrman, Murder in Brentwood, pbk 42,

While Dennis Fung was at Rockingham testing the blood on the Bronco door, latent print specialists from SID were at Bundy, eager for something to do. Instead of having the latent print specialists wait until Fund returned to secure all the blood evidence, Lange had them dust the exterior and interior of Bundy for prints. Left to themselves, latent print specialists would not be concentrating on the blood evidence. In fact, they would avoid anything with the obvious indication of blood, knowing full well that their fingerprint dust would most probably contaminate that evidence. But with a fingerprint on the rear gate, the SID personnel should have been directed to photograph and inspect it.

Testimony of Mark Fuhrman at Preliminary Hearing, 5 July 1994:

Q AFTER YOU MADE THOSE OBSERVATIONS WALKING TO THE RIGHT OF THE PRINTS AS YOU INDICATED, WHAT DID YOU DO NEXT?

A CONTINUED INTO THE -- CONTINUED WEST ON THE WALKWAY TO A GATE. IT APPEARED TO BE ABOUT FIVE- FIVE-AND-A-HALF-FOOT GATE THAT WAS VERY SIMILAR TO THE FRONT GATE THAT LED INTO THE RESIDENCE. I OBSERVED BLOOD ON THE TOP OF THE GATE, RED STAINS THAT I THOUGHT WAS BLOOD. IT LOOKED LIKE A SMALL SPECOF BLOOD ON THE TURNSTILE OF THE LOCK, AND AT THE BOTTOM RAIL OF THE GATE.

Between 5 July and 13 July, a lightbulb must have gone on, and Dumb and Dumbr must have realized their monumental screwup. And they could not unscrew it because Lou Brown had had the lock changed on the gate and if the bloody fingerprint had not been destroyed by the SID print dusting team, it had certainly been disposed of by the locksmith. That part of the gate was not around any more. And the scene had been washed down. I can understand why they may not have wanted to retain any notes documenting their incompetence.

However, the evidence was enshrined in Fuhrman's notes taken at the crime scene and handed over to Det. Vannatter.

13) At gate on n/s of resid - two blood spots at bottom inside of gate. This area might have been where the dog was kept. Susp ran through this area. Susp possibly bitten by dog?

14) Rear gate, poss blood smudge on upper rail of gate.

15) Rear gate, inside dead bolt (turn knob type) poss blood smudge and visible fingerprint.

Comment of Mark Fuhrman, Murder in Brentwood, pbk 41,

When I was turning over the Bundy crime scene to Robbery/Homicide, it never occurred to me to lead two veteran homicide detectives by the hand and show them the bloody fingerprints. It would have been an insult for me to emphasize a single piece of evidence to senior detectives. The fingerprint was clearly described right there in my notes, and I had no reason to think they wouldn't read my notes before walking through the scene, since doing so is standard procedure. The importance of the fingerprint was obvious.

From the Investigator's Report, 13 June 1994

According to Det. Lange, at about 0030 hrs. 6-13-94 a resident observed the dog belonging to the decedent 94-01536 wandering about the neighborhood. The resident reportedly walked the dog back to the abvove address and observed the decedents unresponsive. Emergency services were called to the scene and death was pronounced by Eng. 19* at 0045 hr.

The decedent 94-05136 was last known to be alive at about 2300 hrs. speaking to her mother on the telephone. Her mother had left her eyeglasses at a restaurant that evening and the decedent reportedly advised her mother that she should ask if an employee could bring them to her residence.

And that was some good detecting by Det. Lange. Det. Fuhrman described him as a joke in a detective suit.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-28   2:44:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#372. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#370)

"The stain soaked through to the opposite surface, a phenomenon which would not have occurred if there was a foot in the sock when the blood came in contact with it."

That's a lie also. If blood soaked through the sock and the sock was removed and left on the floor, the blood would come in contact with the opposite surface.

Your bullshit is refuted by world experts. If you have evidence that Drs. Herbert MacDonnell and Henry Lee were lying in their testimony, bring it.

Gary Sims, of the California DOJ, testified that the few reddish brown specks he observed on this inner surface of the opposite side were merely powdered blood that he believed had flaked off the initial stain after it was already dried.

Dr. Henry Lee observed the tell-tale little red balls, pointed them out to Dr. Herbert MacDonnell who then also observed them, and Dr. Henry Lee photographed the scientific proof that these microscopic little red balls, that appeared to be blood, had penetrated to surface 3.

If the blood was acquired by the sock at the crime scene, it would have dried before the socks could have been deposited at Rockingham. Moreover, it was impossible for your bullshit to have created a compression transfer. The blood was pressed in with a certain pressure. It was not a mere contact transfer.

The blood was pressed into surface 1 and through to surface 3. It could have included some slight swiping motion.

What you describe is impossible based on the scientific evidence. It could not be from mere contact or from dripping blood. The blood could not possibly have just soaked through to surface 3. If the blood was pressed into the sock by a hand, it was done by one finger only. The scientific evidence on this was conclusive, Dr. MacDonell and Dr. Lee were in agreement, and they brought the photographic evidence to back it up.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dr. Herbert MacDONNELL, renowned expert on blood spatter analysis.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: All right. In your opinion, Professor MacDonell, is the ankle stain that you saw a spatter stain?
PROF. MACDONELL: Not based upon just the--what you said or my examination. The examination--
MS. CLARK: Objection. That misstates the witness' testimony. He never indicated he saw a stain, just a cut-out.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.
MR. NEUFELD: No.
PROF. MACDONELL: Not based upon the examination that I made of the socks at that time. I did not find any distribution of blood that I could consider a spatter. I have seen other more convincing evidence of it.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, with respect to the ankle stain, I want you to focus on that, in your opinion was the ankle stain a spatter stain?
PROF. MACDONELL: Oh, no, not the ankle stain. I thought you meant the entire stocking.
MR. NEUFELD: No. I'm focusing now on the ankle stain in particular.
PROF. MACDONELL: The ankle stain was very large; it was not spatter.
MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. That calls for speculation. This witness only saw a hole. There was no stain there; it was cut out.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. NEUFELD: Professor MacDonell, first of all, was there stain surrounding the perimeter of the hole that was cut out?
PROF. MACDONELL: Yes. The cut-out was taken out of the middle of the stain. That is the way you usually do it.
MR. NEUFELD: Are you aware that Mr. Sims has already testified that there was a bloodstain on the perimeter of that cut-out area?
PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, I am.
MR. NEUFELD: Could you please define what "Spatter" is.
PROF. MACDONELL: Spatter" is simply the result of impact to usually a liquid. In this instance we are discussing blood, and it creates a spray of small drops, not like gunshot, but it creates a spray and that spray then is projected, and if it strikes a target, in the case of the target, I mean a surface that it hits, like it might hit the table or a table top or a wall, when it strikes that, when you see a sufficient number of small spots, you can determine that it is the result of an energy source consistent with a spattering, such as just clapping your hands if you had a liquid in your hands."
MR. NEUFELD: Now, you said that in your opinion the stain on the ankle was not a spatter--spatter pattern or spatter?
PROF. MACDONELL: No, it was very large. It was about an inch-by-inch-and-a-half oval.
MR. NEUFELD: And in your opinion, sir, what type of stain was that bloodstain?
PROF. MACDONELL: That was a transfer pattern resulting from, I'm quite sure but not positive, a compression transfer. A lateral or swiping action is the other possibility, but on the dark socks I could not see any evidence of a feathering out on either side, so I conclude it has to be a compression transfer with no lateral movement sideways, or if any, extremely slight.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, when you say a compression movement, would that be consistent with a smear as opposed to a spatter?
PROF. MACDONELL: Yes. A smear generally I think is interpreted as having some kind of a lateral motion, otherwise it is just a drop or a pool, but it is not as consistent with a smear as it is just having blood on your hand or some object and touching it and pulling it away. For example, a fingerprint made with blood that is identifiable is not a swipe action or a smear or it would not be identifiable. It is a direct compression and release.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, are you familiar, sir, with Gary Sims' testimony that when he examined the inner surface of the opposite side of this ankle stain he said, "There was no indication seen of soaking through to the other side," unquote? That is at page 27767 in the transcript. Were you aware that Mr. Sims said that?
PROF. MACDONELL: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And sir, are you familiar with Mr. Sims' testimony that the few reddish brown specks he observed on this inner surface of the opposite side were merely powdered blood that he believed had flaked off the initial stain after it was already dried? Are you aware of that, sir?
PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, I am.
MR. NEUFELD: Do you agree with Mr. Sims' conclusions?
PROF. MACDONELL: Well, I can't disagree with what he has said about what he saw, but I saw things in addition to what he has said. He said he saw powdered blood, powdered red material. He may have. I didn't see very much of that, but I did see some red spots that could be characterized as powdered blood, but to me a powder is ground up. It is like fine sugar, powdered sugar, confectioner's sugar as opposed to flakes, and I saw more of what you might call Cornflakes compared to sugar or something like that.
MR. NEUFELD: When you looked through the microscope at the inner surface of the opposite side of the sock, did you see any evidence that the blood had actually soaked through to the other side of the sock?
PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, I did.
MR. NEUFELD: Could you please tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what evidence you saw that led you to that conclusion.
PROF. MACDONELL: I saw little balls of blood which were obviously wet.
MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. Objection, objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Could you, without making a conclusion as to what the balls were, could you please describe them for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury?
PROF. MACDONELL: I saw some small red balls that appeared to be a dried liquid that was on some of the fibers on the inside of the opposite side and some of these were photographed, one in particular. But again, it is impossible to see from a single photograph the different depths of focus or depths of field, rather, so we had one that was particularly good, Dr. Lee called my attention to it, and we photographed it. There were several.
MR. NEUFELD: Without reaching the conclusion of what they actually were, did these little red balls have the appearance of blood?
PROF. MACDONELL: Yes, they certainly did.
MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dr. Henry Lee, world renowned criminalist. The Connecticut state crime lab run by Dr. Henry Lee was ranked #1 in the nation.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. SCHECK: May I call your attention to close-up of two socks?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And what does that appear to be in relation to the picture above it?
DR. LEE: This appear to be a close-up showing this pair of same socks.
MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. Now, is there anything about the way those socks are lying on the carpet that is of interest in terms of subsequent analysis?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: What is it?
DR. LEE: This two socks is clearly in two different location, not on top each other. This two socks both have a similarity. The top appear to be folding downward. These two socks, both side, the tip, the toe area cannot be seen whether or not due to this photograph, two-dimensional representation or in reality was tucked in, which I don't know. One sock appear to be crunched in a three-dimensional setting. The other one also, it's not flat. It's also crunched in certain fashion. These two socks, I can not determine just by looking at them inside out or outside in (Indicating).
MR. SCHECK: In terms of the proper practices for collection of these socks, what should be done?
DR. LEE: If I do it, I can not say about any other people. These two socks--
MR. GOLDBERG: Not responsive.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: These two socks should be put in two separate bags. However, before I even pick it up, should noted the condition, dry, wet, moist or damp. In addition, should definite indicates inside out or outside in, the toe stuck inside or not or exposed, the top, whether or not in fact fall down works or not. A physical description and any obvious trace material or stain should be noted.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, before we get to this board entitled, "History of the socks, item 13, February 16, 1995 examination at LAPD lab," I would like to put on the board a Prosecution exhibit which is 285 entitled, "Henry Lee's sock examination."
DR. LEE: Can I step down, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, where did this examination of the sock take place?
DR. LEE: It taken place a small conference room at LAPD laboratory.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, could you tell us, first of all, whose equipment was being used?
DR. LEE: Before I left Seattle, I made a request because I can not bring my own laboratory to L.A. I was in a conference give speech. I have no equipment, no camera, no gears. I said have to provide me with all those equipment, all the gears, glove, anything I need. I was informed, yes, everything you need will be there.
MR. SCHECK: All right. When you got there, what was provided to you?
DR. LEE: When I get there, they provide a microscope, a box of glove.
MR. SCHECK: Now, this microscope, could you describe for us the nature of this microscope?
DR. LEE: This microscope appears to be similar to a stereoscope. Have two oculars, so-called binocular. Will view from the top. The object is putting underneath, and the external light source was also provided.
MR. SCHECK: Now, what was the quality of this microscope?
DR. LEE: It's terrible shape, unacceptable in the scientific standard.
MR. SCHECK: Why do you say that?
DR. LEE: The ocular is moving. The objective shaky. I can't even focus. Looks like need a lot of w--DW--WD 40, something.
MR. SCHECK: What was that?
DR. LEE: Some kind of solution. WD 40, degrease type of solution. I can't even focus. I wasn't provide any microphotographer attachment. In other words, I have yeen ability to take pictures through the microscope.
MR. SCHECK: What's been called photomicrograph?
DR. LEE: Photomicrograph to document what I'm seeing.
MR. SCHECK: What about the power of that microscope?
DR. LEE: Because the adjustment almost impossible to make a true assessment. So impossible for me to make a--such determination.
MR. SCHECK: Can you please describe your activities as depicted on Prosecution 285?
DR. LEE: There are seven lawyers in the room, including my good friend here, Mr. Goldberg, yourself, Bob Blasier, Hodgman, he's another excellent attorney, and attorney Clark, another excellent attorney, good friend, and another attorney.
MR. SCHECK: You're indicating here Mr. Harmon.
DR. LEE: Mr. Harmon. Used to be a friend. Also, there are laboratory people. When I walk in, I can see this feeling, I'm not welcome.
MR. SCHECK: Anything said to you as to instructions at the beginning of this examination?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: What was that?
DR. LEE: I ask what procedure for this examination, what's the rule or regulation, what can I do, what can I not do.
MR. SCHECK: What was said to you?
DR. LEE: An individual that's not the attorney, it's laboratory scientist, say, "You're the expert. You should know it," in a very mean manner and unprofessional.
MR. SCHECK: Could you please go back to the board, describe what happened next in terms of what's depicted here, the course of the examination.
DR. LEE: The next question I ask, is there any better equipment I can use. The same manner, "That's the best we can give you." I feel little bit upset for this, uncalled for, unprofessional.
THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, you need to ask questions here.
MR. SCHECK: Now, this picture over here, there's an indication--you're putting your arm into the bag up to the elbow. Why were you doing that?
DR. LEE: To exam whether or not have trace material inside the bag.
MR. SCHECK: The second picture shows you with a piece of paper in the bag. What are you doing there?
DR. LEE: I notice some trace material. However, I was instruct cannot be collected. So I put hand into the paper bag.
MR. SCHECK: What were you doing next with respect to the picture on the far right?
DR. LEE: I notice the socks already cut, seven holes from the one sock, three holes from the other sock. It's not in original condition which I understand.
MR. SCHECK: Now, it's not depicted on this board, but another photograph has been shown in this courtroom of you holding socks up to a light for examination.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Can you explain why you were doing that?
DR. LEE: This is simple basic technique which we use which we call back lighting. You have fabric material, any stain on it, if you lift it up, look, the light shine from the back, it's easily--quickly you can identify potential stain. That's the first, you know, basic technique we instruct student to do.
MR. SCHECK: And incidentally, given the bloodstains that were eventually identified in the sock, if in earlier examination, the criminalist had picked up one of these socks and looked up into the light, would they have been able to visualize a bloodstain if it were there?
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.
DR. LEE: In theory, should be able to see that. When I pick up the socks, I can see all the stain.
MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, there's an indication here of moving from one sock to the other sock.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And did you examine one sock and then the other sock?
DR. LEE: Yes. I exam one sock at a time.
MR. SCHECK: And between the examination of one sock to the other sock, did you change gloves?
DR. LEE: Yes, I did.
MR. SCHECK: Any question about that in your mind?
DR. LEE: No question about it.
MR. SCHECK: Now, can you tell us what you were able to observe--I think we're--is there anything else of note on this board?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: What is that?
DR. LEE: I notice that both socks in one bag, in one envelope. I made a comment, I said why those two socks in one envelope.
MR. SCHECK: And what is the significance of putting both socks in one envelope for--in terms of forensic procedure?
DR. LEE: Start that initial moment, you pick up the socks, put in one envelope, you already contaminate both socks. You have a cross-contamination. It's no longer its virgin state.
MR. SCHECK: Is there any significance in terms of this examination that you are not wearing a lab coat or a hair net?
DR. LEE: I wasn't provide with a lab coat nor a hair net. After I look, these both socks already put in one envelope. Doesn't matter what I wear, space suit, body armor. Still contaminated.
MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, is there anything else of interest depicted on this board with respect to your examination on February 16th before we move to the Defense board?
DR. LEE: Yes. Because the difficulty of this microscope, I start using magnifying lens to exam. A magnifying lens can only go to four times. Not really great magnification. I look at the microscope. Yes, I can see some reddish stain which resemble to blood. However, if I can not focus onto the surface, I'm not sure. As I scientist, if anything I'm not sure, I don't want to come to this courtroom to testify.
MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, as you were conducting this examination, what was your--and you indicated that began around 12:40?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHECK: What was your understanding as to when it had to end? DR. LEE: Has to be ended before 1:30.
MR. SCHECK: Move to the next board?
DR. LEE: No. Not yet. I haven't finished.
MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry. You have a--
THE COURT: Well, who's doing the examination here, Mr. Scheck?
MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, call your attention to the picture in the bottom right-hand column, "Turns inside out." Can you explain the significance of that?
DR. LEE: I want to see both side of the socks.
MR. SCHECK: Why is that important?
DR. LEE: The out--exterior surface and interior surface, when you made transfer, you should see both side, try to understand the nature or mechanism of any of those transfer.
MR. SCHECK: With respect to the bottom left-hand photograph, could you describe what's going on there?
DR. LEE: I'm taking pictures. However, only this not a photomicrograph, just a regular picture. In addition, I put a ruler on top of the socks.
MR. SCHECK: Why did you put a ruler there?
DR. LEE: To show the dimension of this cutting.
MR. SCHECK: Any other pictures that would assist you in describing the next board that's on the Prosecution's board?
DR. LEE: The ruler of this and that is a two different rulers.
MR. SCHECK: Oh, these are--and what are these rulers?
DR. LEE: The ruler--I carry a lot of rulers. As matter of fact, like a business card. A lot of people collect my rulers or usual, after I exam, just pass away, give it to someone. In this day, I give quite a few ruler to people in the room.
MR. SCHECK: So these are two different rulers? DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now turning to--I forget the number.
THE COURT: 1353.
MR. SCHECK: 1353.
MR. SCHECK: Could you describe for us what these photographs are on 1353?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Concerning the examination you did on February 16th, 1995.
DR. LEE: This board consist of nine pictures, three columns. Column 1, picture no. 1 depicts a portion of view of this brown paper bag, numerous writing on this brown paper bag, initials, numbers, tape, which indicative numerous examination already performed. Second photograph depicts an envelope appear to be from Department of Justice. This envelope also have initials and writings and different date, which again consistent with this envelope being open, socks being exam. The last picture of this first column is an overall view when I took the content out. Consists of two socks, two little subterfuge tubes. Inside of subterfuge tube appear to be little fabric material remain in those tubes (Indicating). Column no. 2 depicts the socks--
MR. GOLDBERG: Narrative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: Depicts socks 13-A, an overall view, shows the socks with my ruler. On the socks, I notice some trace material adhere on the socks. I did not remove it. Also, I notice there cutting. One of the cutting have blood-like stain on the periphery area. There are some reddish smear on the other side of the socks.
MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, let me stop you right there. Would you say that this photograph is what is 13-A, right?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHECK: And this is the cutout from the ankle stain area, 13-A?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And this is--the cut-out section was the material that was used to do RFLP typing by the Department of Justice and cellmark that got RFLP results consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, you've indicated that on what has been characterized in previous testimony as surface no. 3--
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: --that you saw reddish stain?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Did you put that in your notes?
DR. LEE: No.
MR. SCHECK: Why not?
DR. LEE: I can not document. I can not prove the existence of it. Therefore, I did not put down.
MR. SCHECK: And you can't do that because?
DR. LEE: Because I don't have a--equipment capable to do a close-up photomicrograph documentation.
MR. SCHECK: Could you please move on to the column 13-B.
DR. LEE: Column 13-B shows the other socks, overall view picture. It's the first frame. Next picture shows the three cutting on the socks, some marking on the socks. The last frame of the socks again shows they are different stain and trace material adhere on the socks.
MR. SCHECK: Anything else of interest with respect to the socks on this board?
DR. LEE: No.
MR. SCHECK: And I'd ask that the next board be put up, which would be marked 13--
THE COURT: 54.
MR. SCHECK: 54? 1354, your Honor, is entitled, "History of socks, item 13, April 2nd, 1995, examination at Taylor's laboratory."
THE COURT: Thank you.
(Deft's 1354 for id = board)
MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, did you have an opportunity to examine the socks again on April 2nd, 1995?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And where did this take place?
DR. LEE: This take Mark Taylor's laboratory in California.
MR. SCHECK: And were representatives of the Los Angeles Police Department laboratory present?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And when you were conducting this examination?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, could you please describe for us through these photographs the examination.
DR. LEE: The overall picture shows the package April the 2nd when this been transferred to me to exam. Before any cutting, I photograph document, now have more bags, envelopes.
MR. SCHECK: Is it your understanding that between the time that you examined the sock on February 16th and this examination, that Agent Martz performed the EDTA testing at the FBI?
MR. GOLDBERG: No personal knowledge.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Do you have an understanding an examination was performed at the FBI prior to your receiving this on April 2nd?
MR. GOLDBERG: Same objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Please proceed.
DR. LEE: Examine this envelope, I see FBI labels which indicative this--
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: So first paragraph indicates the package.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: In terms of your examination in the photographs, can you describe what was done next?
DR. LEE: Next one, after this envelope was cut open, inside contents of envelope, I photograph this envelope again to document the condition. Now have more signatures and initials.
MR. SCHECK: What is the photograph 13-A, 42-A?
DR. LEE: 13-A, because this have different numbering system, I see some locations say 42. So that's why we say parenthesis 42-A. That's one socks, the ankle stain depicts in this photo.
MR. SCHECK: Now, to your knowledge, is 42-A the Department of Justice reference to the sock and 13 would be the LAPD item number?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Were there any differences between the cutting as you saw it on April 2nd and the one on February 16th?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: What are they?
DR. LEE: I saw this hole being enlarged, additional piece being cut away. Initially, it's a rectangle shape. Now, become irregular jagged edge shape.
MR. SCHECK: Call your attention now to 13-B, parenthesis 42-B photograph. What's that?
DR. LEE: 13-B, 42-B depicts a close-up view, shows that's three holes which been cut from this particular socks.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Call your attention now to a photograph that is called close-up 42-A-1. What is that?
DR. LEE: This because the quashing, which we want to constantly reexam, is relate to this particular stain. This particular stain, which shows a close-up view, shows the surface 1 and surface 3 (Indicating).
MR. SCHECK: Now, incidentally, what kind of equipment were you using at the time of this examination?
DR. LEE: I use my own microscope with photographic attachment. Also use a light source, which my own light source.
MR. SCHECK: And what is the magnification on that microscope?
DR. LEE: It's approximately seven to 17 times.
MR. SCHECK: And--why does the color change incidentally between the photographs in the middle that are dark and the close-up of 42-A-1 that appears--
DR. LEE: You have an external light source and start reflecting and photograph the document, going to have artificial light source for color.
MR. SCHECK: What is the next photograph in the upper right-hand side labeled, "Close-up exterior surface left side 42-A-1"?
DR. LEE: This one depicts an area here, the periphery surface, one in the photomicrograph, approximately 25 times. Shows where bloodstain on the surface still remain on the surface.
MR. SCHECK: What is the photograph on the bottom right hand?
DR. LEE: The bottom right hand, it's approximately the same magnification. However, shows surface 3, one area of surface 3.
MR. SCHECK: Did you make any observations from this photograph B, surface 3?"
DR. LEE: Surface 3, if we look at this picture around 5:00 o'clock, this location, I see numerous little dot, reddish color blood-like substances.
MR. SCHECK: You actually can see that on the picture entitled close-up interior surface?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Would it be possible to just circle a few of them?
DR. LEE: Yes. (The witness complies.)
MR. SCHECK: Before we turn to the next--the next board has further close-ups; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Is there anything else of interest before we move to the next set of close-ups?
DR. LEE: Yes. With this magnification, I can see a different population as a blood-like material. Some appear in a ball shape. Other appear in a crust, flaked type of shape. Some of those flecks, flake appear adhere on the fiber. Other appear to be loosely on the surface.
MR. SCHECK: So those are flakes and balls?
DR. LEE: And crust.
MR. SCHECK: Crust. Any other observations before we move to the next set of close-ups?
DR. LEE: No.
MR. SCHECK: Can we have the next board, please? This would be, your Honor?
THE COURT: 1355.
MR. SCHECK: 1355 entitled, "History of socks, item 13, close-up view of bloodstain on item 13-A, (42-A)." (Deft's 1355 for id = board)
MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, would you explain to us what these series of six photographs represent?
DR. LEE: The six photograph, the top row, three, represent exterior surface with magnification. The bottom row, three frame of picture, represent the interior surface with magnification.
MR. SCHECK: So the bottom row is what's known as surface 3?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHECK: Now, we previously had, when Professor MacDonell was testifying, two photographs put into evidence, one exhibit no. 1277, and the other one, 1278. Ask you to examine these and tell us if either of these photographs are also on this board.
DR. LEE: Yes. Exhibit no. 1277 represent a view of the 3rd column, top. The landmark is a 2 curvature of fabric showing in the middle portion of this photograph. The second one, which representing this board, the second column, bottom frame, a ball-like reddish stain showing in this location.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. And so this photograph, Defendant's 1278, with the circle, the blue circle, that is what Professor MacDonell was referring to as a little red ball?
DR. LEE: Yes. The same location, but this have a higher, bigger enlargement.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Dr. Lee, would you please proceed with your description of the examination you performed in terms of these six photographs.
DR. LEE: First row, exterior surface, on the surface, fabric surface, have blood-like stain. Those bloodstain basically distribute on the fabric itself. So these two view represent two different locations. When you enlarge it, you see the socks have gaps, little holes. When you look at the fabric itself, the wave pattern looks very tight. The fabric itself very smooth. It's a non-absorbent type of a fabric. The bloodstain basically sitting on the surface, did not absorb into the fabric itself. These little holes, if you focus through the hole, you can see some reddish stain, blood-like stain went through the hole. Next row of picture depicts the surface 3. Again, we can see those little ball-like, bead-like material. However, it's become very difficult to photograph to--into 70 time. The distance, room for focus getting less and less. So you only can focus and photograph one stain at a time. You can not say take a picture, shows a row of balls. You only can show one. The rest going to be out of focus. This picture shows one of the better representation. Subsequently, I took some other picture, and I see some little ball material in here. In addition, there piece of unknown substances was also found on these socks (Indicating).
MR. SCHECK: Could you please circle on the photograph to the far--far right-hand corner some of the other little balls that you saw.
DR. LEE: (The witness complies.)
MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, altogether, how many little balls did you observe on April 2nd?
DR. LEE: I observed--observed approximately 10.
MR. SCHECK: If--and you say that this observation was made by changing the focus of the microscope?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, why did you just document these two pictures?
DR. LEE: This examination, it's not a quantitative examination. It's not a laboratory test, the concentration becoming important issue. The best analogy I can give it to you is, if I order--goes to a restaurant, order a dish of spaghetti. While eating the spaghetti, I found one cockroaches. I look at it. I found another cockroaches. It's no sense for me to go through the whole plate of spaghetti, say, there are 13.325 cockroaches. If you found one, it's there. It's a matter of whether or not present or absence. I'm not coming here to tells you exactly how many and what's the distribution or quantitative analysis.
MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, in order for these red balls to have come to be as they appear on surface no. 3, does this require a transfer between surface 2 and surface 3?
MR. GOLDBERG: Leading.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: It not necessary to have a surface 2, surface 3, but surface 1--surface 2 have to be contact surface 3.
MR. SCHECK: So surface 1 has to contact surface 3?
DR. LEE: No.
MR. SCHECK: Surface 2 has to contact surface 3. They'd be lying on each other?
DR. LEE: Right.
MR. SCHECK: And in terms of the significance of these balls, what does--what does that indicate, the form of those red balls?
DR. LEE: It consistent with this transfer being a liquid stage.
MR. SCHECK: And how does that distinguished from the--you said there were flakings that you had seen in other photographs. What's the difference?
DR. LEE: Those transfer, some could be in liquid stage, did not form a ball, prior to the forming of ball, collect, or due to a secondary transfer from another surface during examination and get transfer.
MR. SCHECK: Now, Professor MacDonell testified that the stain on surface 1 and surface 2 and surface 3 was consistent with a transfer stain starting when the socks were laying on a flat surface and no leg was in the sock. Are you aware of that.
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation, conjecture.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: That's his testimony. I have nothing to dispute with him.
MR. SCHECK: So you agree?
DR. LEE: I agree.
MR. SCHECK: Now, let me ask you--well, I take it, if a leg is in the sock, you can't have contact between those two surfaces?
DR. LEE: Very difficult to do such a thing.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Let me ask you about some suggestions that have been made about mechanisms of transfer. Let me ask you to assume that this sock were--was at the crime scene and one of the victims, perhaps Miss Simpson, grabbed the sock. Could that have caused the transfer, assuming there was a leg in the sock?
MR. GOLDBERG: Improper hypothetical, calls for speculation, conjecture.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: Before I answer this, the mechanism, manner of transfer, that's two separate thing. Mechanism and manner is different.
MR. SCHECK: Well, could you please explain the difference?
DR. LEE: A mechanism, for example, if the blood goes through this little hole, did not touch the foot surface too, that's a mechanism. Just like a screen window have little holes. When the screen window wet, the stain going to be on top of the screen window. Unless certain force, certain condition, that little drop of a liquid may go through the hole, and subsequently, you have a contact, can soak through and get the formation. That's called mechanism. Manner can be touching with hand, touch with pointer, touch with an ear, touch with a nose. Those manner can be different, can subject to a lot of interpretation and possibilities.
MR. SCHECK: So let me rephrase my question in terms of the manner of transfer.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Assume that these socks were at the crime scene on an individual. If they had been grabbed by one of the victims whose hands were bloody, could that manner of transfer have caused what you see?
DR. LEE: It's hard--
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation, conjecture.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: It's highly unlikely.
MR. SCHECK: Why is that?
DR. LEE: If a grabbing, if both--other side of forefinger touch, I should see both sock have a contact or contact smear. In addition, if somebody's leg is inside of the socks, still, when that cause this manner of mechanism of transfer.
MR. SCHECK: If--ask you--a suggestion has been made that--you're aware that a phenolphtalein test was performed on the socks on August 4th, 1994?
MR. GOLDBERG: No personal knowledge.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Well, ask you to assume that a phenolphthalein test was performed on the socks on August 4th, 1994. Could the application of a swab in a phenolphthalein test to this stain be the mechanism of transfer?
DR. LEE: If a phenolphthalein test, the technique used properly, in other words, not soaking the swab wet to wet, usually just moist the swab, it's not sufficient liquid to redissolve because the contact of the swab to surface should be brief. Shouldn't have that, but I can not rule out all the possibilities. As a scientist, I only can tell you some may be consistent with, some may be high unlikely.
MR. SCHECK: Is this one unlikely?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: This probably unlikely, but I can not rule out. I'm not the one did the swabbing.
MR. SCHECK: Now, in terms of the blood crust and the issue of diffusion, does that have some relationship to your opinion that this is an unlikely mechanism of transfer?
DR. LEE: Because here have sufficient amount of blood crust on a surface, in general, we use a dry swab or dry filter paper, which will avoid this potential problem since all those crusts, you probably don't need to rub back and forth hard to cause a transfer.
MR. SCHECK: It has been suggested that if a bloodstain occurred on this sock and then someone was sweating in the socks, that this would cause the stain to dry more slowly and could be the mechanism of transfer.
MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: That's as to the form of the question, your Honor?
THE COURT: Foundation is what it is.
MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry?
THE COURT: Foundation.
MR. SCHECK: Foundation?
MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, let's assume that a bloodstain was deposited on the sock and then 10, 15 minutes later, some--during that 10-, 15-minute period, someone was sweating in the socks and then the socks were taken off. Could that result--could that be a mechanism or manner of transfer that would be consistent with your observations here?
MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: Also calls for speculation, conjecture.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: The bloodstain on the surface still in an intact shape, if a bloodstain dissolves, say, the socks with a lot of sweat should become a diffused pattern. But again, I can not rule out any possibility. May be possible, but unlikely.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And this is another one of those examples of something where a leading forensic scientist or a number of forensic scientists can look at an item and they just can't provide us with all of the answers; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. That doesn't mean something is wrong, does it? DR. LEE: It does mean something wrong. If at the beginning first day I have an opportunity to look at the socks, I can give you a really, really close estimation, but since a big hole there, I cannot create or recreate a hole.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, weren't there photographs, though, of the socks before the hole was cut out?
DR. LEE: I was not privileged to have a photograph shows the bloodstain intact.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But the point is, is that even with all those things, sometimes we can't do anything more than give a rough estimation; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir, that's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: That doesn't mean something is wrong, does it?
DR. LEE: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, let's talk a little bit about the mechanism of transfer. You've explained what a compression transfer is. Can you just give us a very, very brief additional explanation of that, sir?
DR. LEE: The liquid blood either on an object or already on surface have certain pressure applied to it. I cannot come here again tell you how big the pressure, certain pressure. This liquid transfer onto the surface, that is called compression stain.
MR. GOLDBERG: And can you give us a brief explanation as to what a swipe is?
DR. LEE: A swipe you start generally when first moment contact, that probably can be a compression. Then with a lateral movement you--either the surface--receiving surface move or the applying surface move and could be both surface moved. That is called a swipe.
MR. GOLDBERG: And those are two separate things; is that correct, doctor?
DR. LEE: They are two separate definition.
MR. GOLDBERG: And to a forensic scientist, such as yourself, that has some expertise in the area of blood splatter, that is an important distinction, isn't it, between swipe and compression?
DR. LEE: It is important, but sometime again have a gray area. You can't really tell too clearly that is a compression or a swipe. Sometime it is a combination.
MR. GOLDBERG: But if you can make a distinction, that is an important one from--for a forensic scientist, correct?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And if Mr. MacDonnell testified that that distinction was not important, would you agree with it?
DR. LEE: I don't know exactly he refer to. If you refer a special situation, that is not wrong. If, say, every case you shouldn't distinguish a compression or a swipe, then it is wrong. Certain situation a compression and swipe may be a combination. That is again each individual have their own opinion and I'm not going to argue with other--everybody entitle, other expert entitled to their opinion. Certain scientific fact should not be argued about it. As far as the opinion, they are entitle give their opinion.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, Dr. Lee, with respect to the socks, getting back to the socks, is the stain 42-A that we've been talking about--
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: --consistent with a person at the crime scene touching the socks?
DR. LEE: You just look at surface 1 or you look at the whole socks?
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Let's take surface 1 so far.
DR. LEE: Surface 1, in order to have that, that is my interpretation now, okay? In order to have somebody touch somebody else socks, the pants and the shoes have to have a separation to expose the surface. The best example I can give to you, have to wear the pants like Michael Jackson. Certain portion of socks have to expose. If I wear my pants and socks like that, if touch, have to touch my pants, not going to be the socks, so that is one condition. The second condition the blood has to be liquid, not coagulate, not dry, has to be in liquid state. Third thing has to have certain pressure. I don't--I cannot tell you how much pressure. Not just a gentle touch.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Well, having said all that, if the pants are pulled up--
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: --or if someone is bent over or however it happens, the sock is exposed and someone didn't grab the socks, but touched the sock with a bloody finger, wet bloody finger--
DR. LEE: Has to be single finger.
MR. GOLDBERG: Single finger?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And could it also be a--a result--this transfer, of or consistent with someone wearing that sock and the sock coming up against a bloody object?
DR. LEE: Has to have a pressure in that one location, because we look at that--just that one location and very defined parameter.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So the answer is yes?
DR. LEE: Has to be certain condition to cause that transfer.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, yeah. If someone come into contact with some pressure with some object that has wet blood on it, you can get that transfer?
DR. LEE: Right.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, you were asked about the socks being packaged together in an envelope and I just wanted to clarify your testimony on this topic. Is the packaging--let's say that you have two socks at a crime scene and you collect them together and you put them in the same bag together.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is it your position that there could be a transfer from one sock to another sock?
DR. LEE: Could be.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And that transfer could be hair and trace?
DR. LEE: Also could be biological material.
MR. GOLDBERG: If the socks are wet at the time they are collected?
DR. LEE: If the socks are wet, if have some body tissues or body material can cause a transfer.
MR. GOLDBERG: Are you going to expect a transfer, in your experience, at that time if the socks are dry?
DR. LEE: If have dry skin, tissue, those you don't need any wet material. If it is bloodstain, sometime this touch can have a trace transfer. If it is wet, you definitely going to expect transfer.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is packaging the socks together the way that I just described going to change the DNA type on the socks that was deposited there?
DR. LEE: I cannot say specifically will relate to this case, but if a case, for example, a simple example, let's say ABO typing, the victim is type A, the decedent is type B. If have a transfer, our reading going to be type AB, a mixture. What AB means could be an AB type. There are people AB type. There could be a mixture of a and B. In other words, the interpretation gets so complicated now. Sometime possible to resolve; other times just impossible. You just call it could be a mixture.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Let me make the hypothetical a little bit more specific then. Let's say that in our hypothetical we have a 15-probe RFLP match--
DR. LEE: Uh-huh.
MR. GOLDBERG: --on one of the stains on our hypothetical socks that were packaged together at the time they were collected.
DR. LEE: Yes, right.
MR. GOLDBERG: Does packaging at the time that they were collected change the DNA type?
DR. LEE: In theory shouldn't; however, if let's say hypothetical because a lot of impossible, let's say just happen, I have to look at the band, I have a homozygote or heterozygote--let's call the band a heterozygote, two bands instead of one, it is remote, almost remote, but do have a possibility two individual, each one have one band mixed together become two bands.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, if we know the contributors to the biological evidence on that sock and let's say we know there is more than one donor--
DR. LEE: Uh-huh.
MR. GOLDBERG: --to the blood on the two socks--
DR. LEE: Uh-huh.
MR. GOLDBERG: --then we can eliminate some of those mixture problems; is that correct?
DR. LEE: If we have a complete profile maybe we can be able to do that.
MR. GOLDBERG: And would you agree that even if the two socks are packaged together, a 15-probe match would be an extremely significant piece of evidence?
DR. LEE: If it is genuine, that is an important piece of evidence.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Dr. Lee, just very briefly on the issue of collecting clothes and then we will move on to a different topic. Is it your position that in training police officers that where clothes are in a pile, for example, a number of different articles of clothes, they should in fact collect the clothes as a group and package them together in the same package? Is that the way that you train them?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So there is not an absolute that you always have to package the clothing separately?
DR. LEE: If they are separate, you should package separate. If you have clothing on top of each other, or mingled together, for example, certain people take off their pants, the underpant come with it altogether, you don't have to separate them in the crime scene, you should collect as one group.
MR. GOLDBERG: And would you agree that with respect to the sock photos that you have seen in this case, in your analysis of the sock, we could never exclude the possibility that the sock came into contact with one another prior to being collected anyway?
DR. LEE: I only can testify what I see. I saw the picture, there is two socks separate.
MR. GOLDBERG: Right.
DR. LEE: Clearly. Before that, I don't know.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, is it possible, doctor, in your judgment that in the process of taking off the socks, if one was cut and they deposited some of their blood on the toe of the sock and they turned the upper part of the sock inside out, that the toe could come into contact with wall 3, which is now inside out?
DR. LEE: Any type of transfer has--in this situation has to be wet. Still in liquid stage, only have minute transfer. It's not a large amount of blood or blood drop on it. It's little, tiny bead. So I can not rule out say possibilities.
MR. GOLDBERG: The scenario that I just gave you?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And would it be fair to say, as in the case with some of the other photographs, the photographs that you saw of the socks at Rockingham were again second or third generation?
DR. LEE: The picture I--my testimony is first generation, base my own observation, own photograph. The picture provide to me is different picture taken by different peoples.
MR. GOLDBERG: I'm talking about the Rockingham picture.
DR. LEE: Rockingham picture is maybe second, maybe third. I don't know how many generation before get to my hand.

- - - - - - - - - -

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, would you collect that from Deputy Bashmakian, please. All right. Let the record reflect that each of the jurors had the opportunity to carefully review People's 596, the sock photograph.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. GOLDBERG: I'd like to move on to another topic if we may, and that's to ask you a couple clarifying questions about bindle no. 47. Now, it is your opinion that there was a wet transfer in that bindle; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Yes. That's no doubt in my mind it's a wet transfer.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. SCHECK: Now, you were shown a picture that's 596 on cross-examination of the socks in Mr. Simpson's bedroom. Do you recall that?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHECK: And you indicated that that was the best quality photograph you had been able to see prior to this occasion.
DR. LEE: Yes. That's an excellent photo.
MR. SCHECK: See any blood on those socks, Dr. Lee?
MR. GOLDBERG: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: I can not determine any bloodstain on there or not.
MR. GOLDBERG: I didn't hear the last part of the answer.
THE COURT: He said he cannot determine any bloodstain on there or not.

- - - - - - - - - -

DR. LEE: He have a great amount of experience and did lot of experiment in the past, publish a book involving interpretation of the bloodstain analysis.
MR. SCHECK: And did you examine the socks with Professor MacDonell?
DR. LEE: Uh, yes, we did.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Did you see the red balls depicted in photo micrographs that he testified about?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Did you take those pictures?
DR. LEE: I took those pictures.
MR. SCHECK: Do you agree with the testimony of Professor MacDonell that in terms of the mode of transfer, which I believe was the form of the question on cross-examination, that this--the mode of transfer here with respect to the ankle stain on the sock was side 2 having come into contact with side 3?
MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony. Also calls for speculation, no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.
DR. LEE: Yes.

- - - - - - - - - -

nolu chan  posted on  2017-07-28   3:05:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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  


#404. To: goldilucky, misterwhite (#395)

[Goldilucky #395] How can any contaminant with a trace amount not have an effect on the analysis? How is that possible?

It is not possible.

A blood sample which is an admixture of two or more people cannot function as a reference sample. In a mixture you can't really tell what proportion of the mixture is truly from one contributor or another. misterwhite can do that, but a molecular biologist cannot.

Dr. John Gerdes, 3 Aug 1995

DR. GERDES: That would be the positive control and the negative controls from that particular case and any sample that was referred to as a reference sample would have been known to have come or defined to have been derived from one individual.

[...]

MR. SCHECK: Now--a known reference sample in a case would be, let's say, in a sexual assault case if they took a sample from the victim, that would be a blood sample that would be considered a known; is that right?
DR. GERDES: It is considered to have come from one individual. I wouldn't know the type--the anticipated type, but it is--I think I--it is safe to assume that that is defined to have been obtained from a single individual.
MR. SCHECK: So--
DR. GERDES: It should not be a mixture.
MR. SCHECK: So when you are looking at a DQ-Alpha strip from a reference sample in case work from a known individual, you should see no more than two alleles or two--
DR. GERDES: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: If you see three alleles--
DR. GERDES: That is an indication that it has to be a mixture, or in this case, since it was defined as having come from one individual, if you have an indication of three there, then that has to be contamination, that has to be foreign DNA that was incorporated or somehow got into that sample.

One DNA test does not reveal the identity of anyone. It only does so by comparison to a known sample.

Det. Vannatter, Grand Jury Testimony, 22 June 1994

25 Q. NOW, THE BLOOD SAMPLE THAT WAS REMOVED FROM
26 MR. SIMPSON, WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THAT?
27 A. I PERSONALLY HAND-CARRIED THAT TO THE
28 CRIMINALIST WHO WAS WORKING ON THE CASE, DENNIS FUNG, AND

349

1 GAVE IT TO HIM TO BE BOOKED WITH THE OTHER EVIDENCE.
2 Q. AND THE BLOOD THAT WAS EXTRACTED FROM THE
3 VICTIMS DURING THE AUTOPSY PERFORMED BY DR. GOLDEN, DID YOU
4 DO SOMETHING WITH RESPECT TO THOSE BLOOD SAMPLES?
5 A. YES, I DID.
6 I PICKED THOSE UP AT THE CORONER'S OFFICE AND
7 HAND-DELIVERED THOSE TO THE SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION LAB
8 AND TURNED THEM OVER TO COLIN YAMAUCHI, I BELIEVE IS THE
9 WAY IT IS PRONOUNCED, WHO IS THE ANALYST WHO IS WORKING ON
10 THE CASE.

Vannatter failed to take contemporaneous notes, except for two paragraphs regarding Kato Kaelin.

Det. Vannatter testimony 20 March 1995

BY MR. SHAPIRO:

Q: DETECTIVE VANNATTER, OVER THE NOON HOUR YOU WERE REQUESTED TO FIND YOUR NOTES OF THE ACTIVITIES THAT TOOK PLACE AT BUNDY AND ROCKINGHAM ON THE 12TH THROUGH THE 13TH OF JUNE. HAVE YOU BEEN ABLE TO LOCATE THOSE NOTES?
A: I DIDN'T REALIZE I WAS SUPPOSED TO DO THAT, BUT AS FAR AS ACTUAL PHYSICAL NOTES, THERE AREN'T ANY OTHER THAN THE PARTIAL STATEMENT I WAS GOING ON, KATO KAELIN.
Q: AND THAT CONSISTS OF TWO PARAGRAPHS?
A: APPROXIMATELY, YEAH.
Q: AND THAT IS THE EXTENT OF WHAT WAS -- WHAT TOOK PLACE AS FAR AS RECORDING INFORMATION BY YOU?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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.

That is wingnut psychobabble, unrelated to science and the expert testimony at trial.

The reference samples of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman showed alleles consistent with, among others, O.J. Simpson. Criminalist Andrea Mazzola also possessed those alleles. Your reference to <.0001% is a meaningless figure pulled out of your butt.

MR. SCHECK: Are the amounts of DNA on the D1S80 results there within the nanogram range between two, three, nanogram range as reflected on the DOJ typing results?
MR. CLARKE: Same objection, same grounds.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. GERDES: The total amount of DNA there is--I don't remember exactly the amount, but the point is that is a mixture, and in a mixture you can't really tell what proportion of the mixture is truly from one contributor or another, although the D1S80 typing result consistent with Mr. Simpson appears to be a minor contributor and that is consistent with the possibility of cross-contamination.

There was sufficient DNA for an allele that did not belong to Ron Goldman or Nicole Simpson to show up in what was supposed to be reference samples of the blood of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman.

Criminalist Dennis Fung, 4 April 1995, questions by prosecutor Hank Goldberg:

Q: WHO IS GREG MATHESON?
A: MR. MATHESON IS OR WAS AT THAT TIME THE SUPERVISOR OF SEROLOGY. HE IS NOW A CHIEF FORENSIC CHEMIST.
Q: AND WHAT ABOUT MR. YAMAUCHI? WHAT WAS HIS POSITION IN THE LABORATORY AT THE TIME?
A: MR. YAMAUCHI IS A CRIMINALIST ASSIGNED TO THE SEROLOGY UNIT.

Greg Matheson testimony 2 May 1995, questions by prosecutor Hank Goldberg:

MR. BLASIER: Would you believe that the suspect's reference sample in a criminal case is an extremely important piece of evidence?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. BLASIER: And could you use the analogy that with a wheel? All items of evidence are compared to that, correct?
MR. MATHESON: To that and other reference samples, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And that reference sample in effect is the hub of the wheel from which everything else is looked at, correct?
MR. MATHESON: Along with other references, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And if the integrity of that reference sample is compromised in some fashion, then that would affect the validity of the analysis of other things that are compared to it, would you agree with that?
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: Yes. If there is some problem that compromises the validity of it, then there is a concern, yes.

The LAPD violated state law by failing to immediately notify the coroner's office. The police were "warned two years ago that state law required them to notify the coroner immediately in cases of murder and certain other deaths, and Police Chief Willie L. Williams responded by issuing a tough new policy to that effect," reported the LA Times, September 17, 1994.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-08-01   3:34:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#405. To: misterwhite (#397)

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.

The video and photographs do not lie. The LAPD could and did.

As for Willie Ford's testimony, produce testimony with Willie Ford saying that the socks had been collected before he went to the bedroom, or that he ever knew on June 13th, 1994 when the socks were collected, or that he even knew on said date that the socks existed.

As the jury foreman wrote,

I think it might have been reasonable to suspect Mr. Simpson, based on the past history he had, but they weren't straight with us about why they chose to do what they did, and that made us suspect everything else we hard from them. That's the thing with Vannatter when he was saying O.J. was not the prime suspect. Why would he even get up there with that lie? Why didn't he just tell the truth? Don't tell me you're going to the house because you think maybe the same thing is happening over on Rockingham and you're concerned about the Rockingham family. And then the first person you send in the door is the daughter.

That is the lying LAPD. Even Judge Ito found that Vannatter swore to the search warrant affidavit with a reckless disregard for the truth.

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.

Bert Luper's supposed memory of sock collection time is contradicted by the video and photographic evidence. What are you going to believe, Bert Luper or your lying eyes?

Adelbrained Luper's testimony proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and to a moral certainty, that the video was taken before the socks had been collected. It was very nice of him to be an unwitting dupe because he did not recognize the significance of his lifting up the straps.

Det. Luper first saw the socks as in the picture showing the socks hanging down.

Det. Luper moved the straps up onto the bed to look under the bed, as they are depicted in the other photo.

He looked under the bed and found a photo of O.J. and Nicole in formal attire.

After this, the socks were collected.

And before the straps were lifted up onto the bed, and before the evidence cards were placed, and before the socks were collected, the video was taken with the straps handing down.

The video was taken before Luper moved the straps.

The video was taken at 4:13 p.m., before the socks magically appeared.

The video was taken before the evidence cards were put down.

In relative time, no matter what time the video was taken, it was taken before the straps were moved.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Det. Adelberto Luper testimony, 20 July 1995

MR. COCHRAN: Okay, detective. With regard to the residence of Mr. Simpson on this occasion, you've indicated that you were upstairs in the bedroom and that you saw the condition of Mr. Simpson's bedroom, did you not, during the course of the day after you arrived there at 12:00 o'clock?
DET. LUPER: Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: And I want to show you--I want to approach and I want to show you a couple of photographs.
MR. COCHRAN: One is People's 167 now in evidence, your Honor, and one is--one I'd like to mark as Defendant's next in order if the Court pleases. 12--
THE COURT: 1257.
MR. COCHRAN: 1257? I'd like to approach, your Honor.
THE COURT: Please.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: All right. Actually 1256.
MR. COCHRAN: 56? Thank you, your Honor.

(Deft's 1256 for id = photograph)

MR. COCHRAN: I'm going to approach the witness if I might, your Honor.
MR. COCHRAN: I want to show you first of all--and I'll put this on the elmo I guess--People's 167. And do you--I want you to see - have you ever seen that photograph before?
DET. LUPER: Yes, I have.
MR. COCHRAN: And do you see on the bed there there's something that looks like some kind of straps. Remember ever seeing that that day?
DET. LUPER: Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: What were those straps?
DET. LUPER: Those were luggage straps or shoulder straps you'd put on luggage.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Were those seized at all?
DET. LUPER: No, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: Were those moved at all?
DET. LUPER: Yes, they were.
MR. COCHRAN: And who moved them?
DET. LUPER: I did.
MR. COCHRAN: And with regard--I want you to take a look at 1256 now. See that photograph, 1256?
DET. LUPER: Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: And are the luggage straps depicted there also?
DET. LUPER: Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: And they're in a different position, aren't they?
DET. LUPER: That's correct. One of them is.
MR. COCHRAN: And was that because you moved it?
DET. LUPER: That's correct, yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And you moved it prior to having the photograph taken or after the photograph was taken?
DET. LUPER: I don't understand your question.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. On this photograph here, 167, none of the straps are hanging down on the bed; is that correct?
DET. LUPER: Okay. I understand your--yes, that's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: And on the other photograph, Defendant's 1256 now, one of the straps is hanging down the bed; is that correct?
DET. LUPER: That's correct, yes.
THE COURT: Over the side of the bed.
MR. COCHRAN: Over the side of the bed. Thank you, your Honor.
MR. COCHRAN: And does that indicate that you had moved it at that point?
DET. LUPER: No. It had not been moved as of yet. This--the 3-by-5 that you are showing me was prior to me moving it, and the other one, the larger photograph, was after it was moved.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now-
- THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. The record should reflect that the smaller photograph that Detective Luper referred to was 1256.
MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor. 1256.
MR. COCHRAN: It appears that in 1256, the smaller photograph, something is hanging down by the side of the bed; does it not?
DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: Was that the condition you found it in?
DET. LUPER: That's the way it was found, yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: And you then moved it up on the bed to take a picture of it?
DET. LUPER: No. I moved it so I could look underneath the bed itself and then it was photographed.
MR. COCHRAN: I see. So you actually moved this yourself?
DET. LUPER: Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And so if we want to demonstrate that for the jury, we can show how it was found and how it was moved by you; is that right?
DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Let's look at 1256 first of all. Now, that's the photograph of Defendant's 1256. It's your testimony that you found the--this luggage strap as you described it over the side of the bed like that hanging down toward the floor; is that correct?
DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: And you then moved that luggage strap?
DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And at what time did you see the luggage strap and the condition as indicated in 1256?
DET. LUPER: 12:35, 12:40 in the afternoon.
MR. COCHRAN: And were you the first police officer to go upstairs that day?
DET. LUPER: I was the only police officer that went upstairs to my knowledge to that point. We didn't have a search warrant.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you came back pursuant to a search warrant?
DET. LUPER: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: Now, there had been other police officers in that house earlier that morning, had there not been?
DET. LUPER: I was not aware of that.
MR. COCHRAN: You weren't aware that Detective Fuhrman, Detective Lange, Detective Vannatter were in the house earlier that morning?
MR. DARDEN: Objection. Hearsay, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. COCHRAN: Weren't you aware they were there earlier?
DET. LUPER: No, sir. I was not aware they were inside the house prior to that, no.
MR. COCHRAN: You didn't know that Detective Phillips was there also?
DET. LUPER: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: You weren't aware that four of your brethren had been there earlier that morning?
DET. LUPER: I knew they had been there--
MR. DARDEN: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DET. LUPER: I knew they had been there, but I didn't know where they had been in the house if they had been in the house.

[...]

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, with regard to 1256, which we've now shown, you then--you then moved the luggage handles as depicted in 167; is that correct? So if we look at 167, we notice now there's no--the strap is no longer hanging over the side of the bed; is that correct?
DET. LUPER: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: And you say you moved that so that you could look under the bed?
DET. LUPER: Yes, sir.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

See the pictures. See the video. It's all here. See the prosecution destroyed by the proof that the video was taken before the straps were moved and, therefore, before the socks were collected.

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)

nolu chan  posted on  2017-08-01   3:42:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#406. To: misterwhite (#398)

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".

Nobody has a theory of planting "microscopic blood evidence from Nicole on OJ's sock" but you. Since when is a 1 by 1½ inch ankle stain become microscopic? Dr. Henry Lee and the jurors eyeballed it court.

Stop making things up. It makes you look stupid and desperate, and bores me.

Professor Herbert MacDonnell testified, 31 July 1995,

MS. CLARK: Okay. And what was the size of the stain that you measured on the ankle bone of the sock, the ankle bone area of the sock?
PROF. MACDONELL: There was no specific drop or circle. It was smeared in a sense. That's why it was not uniform in its density. The overall size was about one by one and a half inches.

Dr. Henry Lee testified,

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.

Surface 3 on the inside of the second sock had a tiny stain that resulted from a compression transfer from Surface 2. Surface 1 had a large 1 by 1½ inch ankle stain that Dr. Lee and the jury saw with their eyeballs. The significance of the tiny red balls on surface three is that there could not have been a foot in the sock at the time of transfer, and it was a compression transfer in a liquid state.

On 29 June 1995, the socks were inspected by LAPD Lab Director Michelle Kestler, Greg Matheson, Supervisor of Serology, and criminalist Collin Yanauchi, and they issued a report that said, "DRESS SOCKS; BLOOD SEARCH (NONE OBVIOUS)."

Dr. Henry Lee demonstrated that the stain was large and very visible. The jury had no difficulty seeing it as the socks were observed by them.

As Dr. Lee testified,

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.

And,

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.

And,

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.

And,

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.

Yamauchi, 31 May 1995

MR. HARMON: On June 29th, when you are in Michele's office looking at the socks, was a stereomicroscope used?
MR. YAMAUCHI: No.
MR. HARMON: Was there any sort of alternative light source used?
MR. YAMAUCHI: No.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Was there anything else, other than the naked eye, used to scan those socks?
MR. YAMAUCHI: No. We just visually looked at them.
MR. HARMON: Okay. It is true, is it not, that you saw no--
MR. SCHECK: Objection, leading, the form of that question.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HARMON: Is it true that you saw no apparent stained or discolored areas on the socks on that day?
MR. SCHECK: Objection, leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HARMON: Did you see any discolored areas on the socks on June 29th?
MR. YAMAUCHI: We didn't look at it that well to note anything.
THE COURT: Mr. Yamauchi, the question was what did you see?
MR. YAMAUCHI: No.

Three LAPD scientists gather together and examine a pair of socks with a 1 by 1½ inch stain at the ankle. They do not look well enough to note anything. They say they did not see the stain. The jury can see the stain without a magnifying glass. With a horsecrap story like that, one cannot expect the jury to believe it.

Very little of the mountain of manure came with an RFLP result.

As juror Marsha Rubin-Jackson observed about the blood drops,

But by them being so degraded they could have been there before. Prior to the murders. He visited that place often. See, the first blood they found was the blood that was on the gate, two, three days later, or two weeks later. Samples 47, 48, 49, 50, 52 were all degraded. It could have been there prior to the murders."

Juror Carrie Bess observed about the blood evidence,

Most of it you couldn't read. The part of it that they really read, which I think were samples 50 and 52 coming out the back gate, was the only drops that they really, really could say was O.J.'s and the one that was on the fence that had EDTA in it.

That is the supposed mountain of evidence. A couple of blood drops with EDTA in them, collected long after the fact. But those drops collected after being out in the weather for weeks or months were so good on DNA that it set off bullshit detectors.

Juror Sonya Hamlin observed,

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 than the original drops were.

The verdict was unanimous, and the mountain of manure was not believable.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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?

They did this after they realized that they had cooked all the blood evidence from the 13th in the truck for eight hours unrefrigerated, and then left it on a counter overnight at room temperature, still in plastic bags, and then realized that the evidence was so degraded they could not get RFLP results.

Of course, in violation of state law, they kept the coroner away for about 10 hours, as the DNA in the bodies degraded.

There were spots of somebody's blood on Nicole's back. Lange did not instruct the coroners to collect it. They didn't. When the body was washed, the evidence went down the drain.

Lange and Vannatter observed the autopsies. They sat mute and watched the gastric contents get thrown away. Then the prosecution tried to use the bark of a dog to set the time of death.

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?

It would have been funnier if O.J. had tried on a pair of European size 46 shoes and they were too short and too narrow.

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.

Nobody has accused Dumb and Dumbr of being to bright. Vanatter lied on the search warrant affidavit, and he lied when he told the jury O.J. was not a suspect, and he lied when he said they were afraid a homicidal killer might have been in the house. And a separate evidence planting case involving Mark Fuhrman was settled for $100.000 during the O.J. trial.

The defense lawyers caught the LAPD witnesses testlying time and again. By the end of the trial, they had credibility only with the willfully deaf and blind.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-08-01   3:52:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#407. To: nolu chan (#406)

Since when is a 1 by 1½ inch ankle stain become microscopic? Dr. Henry Lee and the jurors eyeballed it court.

On 29 June 1995, the socks were inspected by LAPD Lab Director Michelle Kestler, Greg Matheson, Supervisor of Serology, and criminalist Collin Yanauchi, and they issued a report that said, "DRESS SOCKS; BLOOD SEARCH (NONE OBVIOUS)."

Oh, wait. They're lying. Add them to the list.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-08-01   8:12:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#408. To: misterwhite (#407)

Since when is a 1 by 1½ inch ankle stain become microscopic? Dr. Henry Lee and the jurors eyeballed it court.

On 29 June 1995 (sic 1994) socks were inspected by LAPD Lab Director Michelle Kestler, Greg Matheson, Supervisor of Serology, and criminalist Collin Ya[m]auchi, and they issued a report that said, "DRESS SOCKS; BLOOD SEARCH (NONE OBVIOUS)."

Oh, wait. They're lying. Add them to the list.

Oh shucks, you let my error slide. Yamauchi testified about the meeting in May 1995. The meeting where they saw no stain was in June 1994, a little over two weeks after the murders.

Nobody has accused them of lying about seeing no stain observable on June 29, 1994. Take them off your list.

The EDTA blood stain was not there yet on 29 June 1994. The 1 by 1½ inch bloody EDTA ankle stain on the socks was not discovered until August 4, 1994, almost two months after the murders, and after numerous examinations by criminalists.

Dr. Henry Lee demonstrated that the stain was large and very visible. The jury had no difficulty seeing it as the socks were observed by them.

As Dr. Lee testified,

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.

Prosecutor Rock Harmon, to the Court, 3 February 1995,

The question posed was not whether EDTA was there – but rather whether did the blood come from a tube with EDTA in it, Harmon said.

It took time to get an EDTA blood stain on the socks. Indeed, the socks were collected on 13 June 1994 before the O.J. blood sample had been hand delivered to Dennis Fung.

If EDTA were a natural phenomenon in circulating human blood, it should have been found in all blood evidence that claimed O.J. Simpson as a donor — every drop. Even where DNA degrades, EDTA is persistent.

THERE'S EITHER GOING TO BE EDTA THERE OR THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE EDTA THERE. AND WE'RE WILLING TO ACCEPT THE OUTCOME, WHATEVER THAT IS. ONE CAN ONLY IMAGINE THE ONLY REASON THAT THE DEFENSE MIGHT NOT WANT TO JOIN IN MUTUALLY AGREEING ON THIS IS BECAUSE THEY ALREADY KNOW THERE'S NO EDTA THERE AND THEY ALREADY KNOW HOW THAT BLOOD GOT THERE. WE AGREE TO ACCEPT THOSE RESULTS IN ADVANCE.

When the tests showed the presence of EDTA in blood evidence re O.J., excuse making began with claims that everybody's blood may have EDTA in it.

As juror Carrie Bess observed,

They said everybody's blood may have EDTA in it. How come they didn't find EDTA in Mr. Simpson's blood that they had collected for other samples?

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-40422003000600020

EDTA: the chelating agent under environmental scrutiny

ABSTRACT

The chelating agent EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid) is a compound of massive use world wide with household and industrial applications, being one of the anthropogenic compounds with highest concentrations in inland European waters. In this review, the applications of EDTA and its behavior once it has been released into the environment are described. At a laboratory scale, degradation of EDTA has been achieved; however, in natural environments studies detect poor biodegradability. It is concluded that EDTA behaves as a persistent substance in the environment and that its contribution to heavy metals bioavailability and remobilization processes in the environment is a major concern.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-08-02   14:17:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#409. To: nolu chan (#408)

How come they didn't find EDTA in Mr. Simpson's blood that they had collected for other samples?

Because they didn't test for it?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-08-02   14:25:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#410. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone (#408)

THE "BRUNO MAGLI" SHOES

Bodziak, criminal trial, 19 Jun 1995

a 46 falls between the 11 and a half and 12.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. The--this is the--this is the compression molded sole and I received a left and right for size 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 47. The company refers to it as their U2887 mold and that is molded in the back of it, as well as the European size. The European size is on this sole because it is made in Italy, which is of course Europe, and so that is the sizing system that they would typically put on their molds and their soles when they make it. This is the same size sole. This one is a 47, which was on one of the prior displays, and shows the different design elements and the different aspects of this shoe design.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.
MR. BODZIAK: For instance, this is a size 42 and there is quite a bit of difference between the 42 and the 46, and it is that reason that I did not ask for the 38, 39, 40 and 41, because they were literally tiny compared to the larger impressions that we had.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now-
­ THE COURT: Mr. Bodziak, may I see one of those, please?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you, on January the 23rd of 1995, actually go to Italy to visit the Silga factory and the 4C factory?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And which facility did you go to first?
MR. BODZIAK: I went to the Silga factory first where they actually have the molds and through a compression molding process manufacture the--what I call the outsole or the sole unit of the shoe.

- - - - - - - - - -

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, showing you this diagram—excuse me--this series of photographs and the top part that says "Silga, factory A, B and C," using those photographs can you describe for us what you saw when you were observing the manufacturing process of the Silga sole?
MR. BODZIAK: Okay. I would like to point to a few things if I might.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sure.
MR. BODZIAK: The top three pictures are pictures that I took at the Silga factory in Italy. On the left it shows a bottom and top of a compression mold. The point I'm pointing to, which is to the right or actually in the center of the photograph, is the bottom of the mold and that is the part of the mold which would have the pattern and design and also the logo that says "Bruno Magli" in it. And to the left in the southwest corner of this photograph is the upper, and that would be the portion which puts the design in the back of the sole, sort of a honeycomb design. And just to the right of it, (Indicating), a couple of soles which happened to be there at the time, and this is known as compression molding or an open mold process, because like a waffle iron, they will put the pre-measured rubber in this mold cavity with this portion over top of it and they will mold it. It will melt and conform each time to the exact size and shape features and come out of the mold the same size and shape each time. In the photograph marked B at the top is a close-up showing the heel cavity of one of these molds, and in particular showing the word "Made in Italy" which I previously pointed to on the outsole, which are just in front of the heel. And also there is an oval area and removed-­that is normally where the name goes, Bruno Magli, but the slug which is removed is sitting next to that mold and this was the purpose of taking this picture, was to show that this can be removed. The factory has another set of slugs which have the name lord, l-o-r-d, on them and that was the name on the shoe that the national police agency in Japan had identified as part of their reference collection from Europe. There is a little circular area between the heel and the oval area, and this--at this point it is blank, but if these shoe soles were made in Europe, the European size, such as 42, 46, 47, would go there if they desired to have them on the bottoms. There was one other name that they did have that went into this area, I can never remember how to spell it, but it is a-n-t-i-c-a, and I believe the last name is c-o-u-r-i-c-i-a or c-a, and it basically means tradition of fine shoe making in Italian, I'm told, and it was only for the display shoes, they had never sold a shoe with that name on it. And they only had a couple of those slugs. They didn't have them for every mold. On the right under C on the chart, (Indicating), is a compression molding oven, and once the biscuit of rubber has been put in the cavity of the mold and this top has come down and placed on top of it, it will then be pushed into this oven and the oven will close and under heat and pressure it will cause the melting of that biscuit of rubber and the resultant rubber sole in the same size and shape each time. I obtained a pair of these size 46 soles and hand carried them to the Silga factory—I'm sorry--the 4C factory.
MR. GOLDBERG: Hold on for a second. I had a couple of questions I wanted to ask about the Silga.
MR. BODZIAK: Sure.
MR. GOLDBERG: When you were at Silga did you look at only one mold or a variety of the molds?
MR. BODZIAK: I examined all of the molds from size 38 to 47.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Then when you left Silga what did you have with you?
MR. BODZIAK: I had a pair of size 46 left and right soles.
MR. GOLDBERG: And where did you go with those?
MR. BODZIAK: I then went to the 4C factory, which was a few miles down the road, and that is the factory which Bruno Magli had commissioned to make the upper of their shoes and glue those uppers to the molded soles. Picture number D shows in the background, slightly out of focus, a shoe that is being--the glue is being applied to, and in the foreground in the center of the photograph, the outsole, which is having some glue applied to it. This glue is applied, it is allowed to cure and then before the two are put together, it is reactivated with heat to give sort of a contact cement arrangement. In photograph E the person there is taking an upper of the shoe and right next to his thumb is a little bit of green that you can see and that is part of the last that was used that had the upper of the shoe stitched around.

Bodziak testimony in criminal trial, 19 June 1995

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you make any effort to assist law enforcement in trying to locate someone that might have sold the shoe to the Defendant, a Bruno Magli shoe?
MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: What did you do in terms of that?
MR. BODZIAK: Initially I obtained the distribution records from Mr. Peter Grueterich, who is the owner of the Bruno Magli store in New Jersey that distributed the shoes in this case, and that listed all of the shoes in size 12 and 13 which were sent out or distributed in 1991 and 1992. The reason included size 13 was this request was made before I ever had any samples of the soles from Silga, and I was just, as I had mentioned earlier, making that general specific determination of shoe size, just with the measurement, whereas later on I would have only needed to ask him about the size 12. But I went and requested those and I also requested a list of 40 locations in the United States and Puerto Rico which sold these shoes, and I provided that information, along with photographs of the Bruno Magli shoes which he had sent me, and provided them to the Los Angeles Police Department and to the FBI office in Los Angeles for the purposes of looking for sales records at those stores of those shoes.
MR. GOLDBERG: To your knowledge was a salesperson located who could recall having sold a Bruno Magli shoe of either the Lorenzo or Lyon type to the Defendant?
MR. BODZIAK: No. To the best of my knowledge that was never done, because every store had a problem searching their records back that far.
MR. GOLDBERG: And to your knowledge was any determination made whether or not these shoes were given to the Defendant as a gift?
MR. BODZIAK: That is a possibility.

The Bruno Magli shoes played no big role in the criminal trial as the FBI visited every store in the United States that sold them, all 40 of them, and nobody had any record of O.J. Simpson ever purchasing a pair of them, nor did anybody recall selling any Bruno Magli shoes to him, and the photographic evidence of O.J. wearing a Bruno Magli shoe was not developed until about a year after the criminal trial ended. At this time it may be conceded that O.J. Simpson owned and wore a Bruno Magli shoe, style Lorenzo.

What is questionable is scientific proof of a Bruno Magli shoeprint at the Bundy crime scene.

Bruno Magli is a designer of the Lorenzo shoe, not a manufacturer. The company was then headquartered in Italy; it is now in New York City. The manufacturing is still in Italy. The evidence at the Bundy crime scene was of a Silga sole, European size 46, which approximately measures out between an American 11½ and 12.

A company called 4C manufactured the uppers. There was no evidence at the crime scene of what uppers were attached to the soles.

An Italian company called Silga Gomma SRL manufactured the soles. Silga owned the molds.

The specific sole involved was a Silga U-2887, European size 46. The shoeprint at the scene does not identify what the sole was attached to, whether a Bruno Magli Lorenzo or Lyon, or some totally different style by one of multiple other manufacturers.

Some additional information was shed on the matter when Special Agent Bodziak published the Second Edition of his book, Footwear Impression Evidence in 1999. On page 446, Bodziak referenced, "approximately 20 shoe companies who had made shoes with those soles." It was not just Bruno Magli and 4C who manufactured shoes with that Silga sole, but 20 additional shoe companies.

Regarding the testimony,

There was one other name that they did have that went into this area, I can never remember how to spell it, but it is a-n-t-i-c-a, and I believe the last name is c-o-u-r-i-c-i-a or c-a, and it basically means tradition of fine shoe making in Italian, I'm told, and it was only for the display shoes, they had never sold a shoe with that name on it.

Well, Bruno Magli would not sell a shoe with the name Antica Couieria, would they? That's would be like Nike selling a shoe with the name Adidas or Reebok.

An FBI expert using the terminology "basically means tradition of fine shoe making in Italian, I'm told," set off my bullshit detector. Surely, the FBI has the wherewithal to give a more precise translation than that, and not as mere hearsay. At a glance, I did not see anything that could translate as shoe making. And really, the FBI Special Agent who traveled the world to gain this knowledge could not bring the correct name with him for his testimony? It was not couricia, but cuoieria.

Bodziak's rough translation may as well have been Bodziak's momma wears combat boots.

Bodziak's book on page 444 informs us that,

It is common for manufacturers to create molds for shoe soles, which have interchangeable name or logo plates. This allows the manufacturer to use the same molds for more than one customer, by using more than one name in the mold. The interchangeable name plates can be any shape, but they are most commonly oval or rectangular. This was the case with the U2887 soles samples. When I received the samples from SILGA, I noticed there was an oval shape in the arch area of the sole where the brand name would appear. One of the molds, shown in Figure 15.10 with the oval slug bearing the name Bruno Magli resting on it, depicts how those slugs are changed. The sole samples I received shared three different names. One of these, of course, was the Bruno Magli name. The other soles contained either the name LORD, or the Italian words, ANTICA CUOIERIA. ANTICA CUOIERIA is not a brand name, but when translated mean something like "maker of fine footwear". The interchangeable inserts having the words ANTICA CUOIERIA were only produced for one mold size, since they were only used for samples. The name LORD, however, was a name used on other soles molded and sold by SILGA. I believed it was important to determine if there was a possibility that this same sole design, possessing the name LORD, was being sold in the U.S. These names, located just in front of the raised heel, are held off the ground and do not record in an impression on a hard surface. None of the Bundy impressions revealed any impression from this area of the shoe. This meant that, based upon the information provided by the crime scene impressions, the soles (and shoes) could not be limited to only those bearing the Bruno Magli name, but could have been made by shoes having the LORD name, if any of the LORD shoes had been sold in the U.S.

Here, 'ANTICA CUOIERIA is not a brand name, but when translated means something like "maker of fine footwear".'

Here the precise scientific translation, after another four years of pondering it, is "something like 'maker of fine footwear'."

No, it is not something like maker of fine footwear either.

ANTICA is not too difficult. Aside from its relationship to antique, in context it could translate to "time honored" or "old fashioned."

CUOIERIA translates as a leather goods shop. Antica Quoieria may be translated as time honored leather goods shop, or perhaps, Ye Olde Leather Goods Shoppe.

As to ANTICA CUOIERIA not being a brand name, let me help a brother out,

http://www.anticacuoieriafirenze.it/en/about-us.html

90% of our products is of own production: we work with well-known brands, the classic one, Antica Cuoieria, which gave the shop its name, and the trendy one, Canto de’ Ricci, in which quality is enriched with fashion.

ANTICA CUOIERIA is a classic shoe brand in Italy.

https://www.valentinacalzaturefirenze.com/en/7_antica-cuoieria

"made in Italy by Italian shoe brand Antica Cuoieria, spring summer 2017 Light laced shoes for men, with woven leather."

https://www.amazon.it/Scarpe-borse-ANTICA-CUOIERIA/s?ie=UTF8&page=1&rh=n%3A524006031%2Cp_4%3AANTICA%20CUOIERIA

They are on AMAZON IT.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/250-NEW-ANTICA-CUOIERIA-SHOES-HANDMADE-ITALY-SZ11-/350293788875

Get 'em on eBay.

$250 NEW ANTICA CUOIERIA SHOES HANDMADE ITALY SZ11
Brand: ANTICA CUOIERIA

Shop Antica Cuoieria in Florence.

https://www.yelp.com/biz/antica-cuoieria-firenze

- - - - - - - - - -

based upon the information provided by the crime scene impressions, the soles (and shoes) could not be limited to only those bearing the Bruno Magli name, but could have been made by shoes having the LORD name, if any of the LORD shoes had been sold in the U.S.

This is a strange qualification for an FBI Special Agent to make. Why would the killer's shoes have had to be bought in the U.S.? How about Antiqa Quoieria shoes? Were those sold in the U.S. prior to the murders?

What if shoes with a size 46 Silga U2887 sole, had been purchased in Cabo San Lucas in Mexico, or anywhere else in the world, by the killer or by someone who gave them to the killer? What if shoes with such a sole had been mail ordered from anywhere in the world?

At page 434, Bodziak states, "The soles were manufactured in Civitinova (sic) Marche, Italy, by the SILGA company...." That shoud be Civitanova Marche.

The U2887 soles went to approximately 20 manufacturers in addition to C4 for Bruno Magli. All the Bruno Magli uppers were attached to the Silga soles at C4 in Civita Marche. However, Silga U2887 soles were attached to non-Bruno Magli by about 20 other shoe manufacturers.

Circular logic holds that,

(1) the size 46 Silga U2887 sole belonged to O.J. because he was the killer, and the sole therefore must have been attached to a Bruno Magli upper, and

(2) O.J. is proven to be the killer because a size 46 Silga U2887 sole was at the Bundy crime scene.

In order to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the U2887 shoeprint was put there by a shoe belonging to O.J., without the shoe, one needs to assume that O.J. was at the crime scene.

The heel and partial sole print cannot prove the make or style of the shoe. Absent the shoes, this is not a case of matching the print to the actual sole.

If O.J. were the killer, he could have left the shoeprint with his Bruno Magli shoes. Also, the killer could have left that shoeprint wearing that sole as used in shoe manufacture by 20 additional shoe companies.

Of course, at the criminal trial, the prosecution was unable to show that O.J. Simpson had ever owned or wore Bruno Magli shoes.

As juror Carrie Bess said,

During the time the blood was found at Bundy, it was looking strong against O.J. This was Bruno Magli shoes and the hair and all of these things. This was looking terrible for O.J. But then this is when another change came. They turn around and bring in a guy from New York or Chicago where O.J. was supposed to have purchased some shoes. They didn't really go anywhere with that shoe deal. That guy had the shoe prints, but they couldn't do anything with them. It was like that all the way.

The prosecution showed that there was a shoeprint of a Silga U2887 European size 46 sole that was sold to Bruno Magli and 20 other shoe companies.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-08-02   15:00:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#411. To: nolu chan (#410)

So you concede he owned those size 12 Bruno Magli shoes which could have made those bloody footprints.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-08-02   15:44:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#412. To: misterwhite (#411)

So you concede he owned those size 12 Bruno Magli shoes which could have made those bloody footprints.

The Scull photographs appear conclusive that O.J. wore a pair of Bruno Magli shoes, style Lorenzo.

The soles that produced the shoeprints at Bundy were European size 46, not American size 12. If sold in the U.S. under Bruno Magli brand, they may have had an American size 12 upper, built on an American size 12 last, at 4C. The Silga U2887 soles were not unique to Bruno Magli shoes. The same model soles, produced from the same mold by Silga, would be consistent with shoes from another 20 shoe companies.

The topic we have been on is not whether O.J. did it, but whether the prosecution in the O.J. criminal trial provided sufficient proof of his guilt to warrant a guilty verdict. Having been acquired in the course of the civil trial, a year after the criminal trial, the photos are a nothing burger in relation to the criminal trial.

The photos do indicate that O.J. lied about not wearing those ugly ass shoes.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-08-03   17:06:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#413. To: nolu chan (#412)

Where are the shoes that he was wearing in the photo nine months prior to the murder?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-08-03   17:12:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#414. To: misterwhite (#409)

[Juror Carrie Bess] How come they didn't find EDTA in Mr. Simpson's blood that they had collected for other samples?

Because they didn't test for it?

Another juror asked in deliberations,

Why was there EDTA in the blood on the fence and why wasn't there EDTA in the blood trails at Bundy?

The state lost all credibility on maintaining evidence integrity. Evidence was mishandled and contaminated.

It was a lose-lose situation. Had they found more Q samples with EDTA, that would have been hard to explain. Had they found no more Q samples with EDTA, that would leave the known EDTA samples difficult to explain. And the jury proved that the problem did not go away by itself.

The prosecution failed to carry its burden of showing that the collected and presented evidence was trustworthy.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-08-03   17:37:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#415. To: misterwhite (#413)

Where are the shoes that he was wearing in the photo nine months prior to the murder?

The Scull photo from 26 Sep 1993 shows black Bruno Magli Lorenzo uppers with Silga U2887 soles. The Flammer photos were taken on the same date and onne of those was published in the November 1993 Buffalo Bills Report in black and white. Because of the foot positioning, the Scull photo shows enough of the sole to identify it as a Silga U2887.

The sole could be a match for Bundy, but that is not proven.

The sole at Bundy was a European size 46 Silga U2887 sole which was sold to Bruno Magli and 20 other shoe companies. The upper cannot be identified from the shoeprint, actually a heel print and partial sole print.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-08-03   17:58:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#416. To: nolu chan (#404) (Edited)

A blood sample which is an admixture of two or more people cannot function as a reference sample. In a mixture you can't really tell what proportion of the mixture is truly from one contributor or another. misterwhite can do that, but a molecular biologist cannot.

If the blood sample was performed by a member of the forensics team working for the LAPD, then they as well as the LAPD violated state law.

referring to post 107 where misterwhite mentioned in part the following:

On 29 June 1995, the socks were inspected by LAPD Lab Director Michelle Kestler, Greg Matheson, Supervisor of Serology, and criminalist Collin Yanauchi, and they issued a report that said, "DRESS SOCKS; BLOOD SEARCH (NONE OBVIOUS)."

This is about the only part that I would agree on.

The LAPD violated state law by failing to immediately notify the coroner's office. The police were "warned two years ago that state law required them to notify the coroner immediately in cases of murder and certain other deaths, and Police Chief Willie L. Williams responded by issuing a tough new policy to that effect," reported the LA Times, September 17, 1994.

goldilucky  posted on  2017-08-03   20:19:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#417. To: goldilucky (#416)

referring to post 107 where misterwhite mentioned in part the following:

On 29 June 1995, the socks were inspected by LAPD Lab Director Michelle Kestler, Greg Matheson, Supervisor of Serology, and criminalist Collin Yanauchi, and they issued a report that said, "DRESS SOCKS; BLOOD SEARCH (NONE OBVIOUS)."

The quote in #407 was taken from my #406.

Also from Tainting Evidence, Inside the Scandals at the FBI Crime Lab by John F. Kelly and Philip K. Wearne, 1998, at pg. 260:

Dennis Fung had seen no blood on the socks when he bagged them as evidence on June 13; LAPD lab supervisor Michelle Kestler, and defense experts Michael Baden and Barbara Wolf, had seen no blood on them when they examined them on June 22; no one had seen blood on them when there were examined as part of an inventory of evidence on June 29. Then somehow on August 4, a large stain, nearly an inch in diameter, appeared, providing enough DNA for a definitive RFLP test. As Barry Scheck showed the sock to the jury, no one had any problem noticing the bloodstain.

Various major pieces of evidence were accompanied by such a tall tale.

- - - - - - - - - -

If the blood sample was performed by a member of the forensics team working for the LAPD, then they as well as the LAPD violated state law.

There were victims reference samples drawn by the Coroners prior to the autopsy.

The OJ reference sample was drawn by nurse Thano Peratis, Los Angeles City Jail nurse.

There were also samples collected at the scene by LAPD personnel as victim reference samples, their description, not mine. These were drawn from puddles of blood near each victim's body. In theory, these were held out as known samples. As there were drops of blood on the walkway, and drops of blood on Nicole's back, consider me skeptical that any pool of blood could realistically be known to have only one donor.

Below is testimony about the "reference samples" drawn from pools of blood on the ground at Bundy.

Criminalist Dennis Fung, 4 April 1995

Q: OKAY. NOW, STARTING WITH ITEM NO. 41 ON THIS CHART, CAN YOU TELL US WHERE THAT IS? OH, I'M SORRY. WHAT WAS THE FIRST ITEM, SIR, THAT YOU COLLECTED, THE FIRST STAIN THAT WAS COLLECTED AT BUNDY?

A: THAT WOULD BE ITEM 41 WHICH IS --

Q: IT'S NOT ON -- IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE ON HERE.

A: NO.

Q: WHERE WAS ITEM 41 COLLECTED FROM?

A: THAT WAS COLLECTED FROM A STUMP IN THIS AREA HERE (INDICATING).

MR. GOLDBERG: FOR THE RECORD, HE'S REFERRING TO THE AREA THAT HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS THE FENCED-OFF AREA THAT'S ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE WALKWAY.

THE COURT: YES.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE WAS ITEM 41 COLLECTED?

A: ITEM 41 WAS COLLECTED AS A REFERENCE FOR THE MALE VICTIM.

Q: WELL, WHEN YOU SAY --

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: NOW, WHEN YOU SAY THAT IT WAS COLLECTED FOR A REFERENCE FOR THE VICTIM, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?

A: THAT WAS WHERE THE MALE VICTIM WAS -- HAD BEEN AND THAT WAS WHERE HE HAD BLED.

Q: OKAY. NOW, WITH RESPECT TO ITEM NO. 42, IS THAT DEPICTED ON THIS CHART?

A: YES. ITEM 42 IS DEPICTED HERE (INDICATING).

Q: NOW, THAT HAS A LITTLE PHOTO CARD. MAYBE WE CAN HAVE THAT ONE UP THERE, ITEM 42.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: SIR, THAT HAS A CARD IN IT --

THE COURT: HOLD ON.

MR. SCHECK: WE'RE NOT GETTING --

THE COURT: SMALL MONITOR DOWN BELOW. JUROR NO 1, CAN YOU SEE THAT?

JUROR NO. 1: YES.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: THAT HAS A CARD IN IT THAT SAYS 107; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, WHAT DOES THAT 107 REPRESENT?

A: 107 IS A PHOTO ID CARD REPRESENTING THE STAIN AT THE BASE OF THE STEP RIGHT HERE (INDICATING).

Q: AND THAT WAS EVENTUALLY ASSIGNED ITEM NO. 42?

A: YES.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A: THE ITEMS I GAVE TO CRIMINALIST YAMAU -- OR THE ITEMS THAT CRIMINALIST YAMAUCHI SAMPLED THAT DAY WERE ITEM 9, 41, WHICH WAS PHOTO ID NO. 106, ITEM 42, WHICH WAS PHOTO ID NO. 107, ITEM 47, WHICH WAS PHOTO ID NO. 112, ITEM 48, WHICH WAS PHOTO ID NO. 113, ITEM 49, PHOTO ID NO. 114, ITEM 50, PHOTO ID NO. 115, THAT'S 115, AND ITEM 52, WHICH WAS PHOTO ID NO. 117.

Q: NOW, DO YOU RECALL WHY IT WAS THAT YOU DECIDED TO GIVE HIM ITEM 41 AND 42? I THINK THOSE WERE THE REFERENCE SAMPLES THAT YOU TESTIFIED TO YESTERDAY.

A: THOSE WERE GIVEN TO HIM TO -- FOR THE TESTING PROCEDURE BECAUSE WE HAD NOT YET OBTAINED REFERENCE SAMPLES FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE.

Q: YOU MEAN FROM THE VICTIMS?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO FOR WHAT PURPOSE THEN WOULD YOU BE GIVING HIM, IF YOU CAN CLARIFY, 41 AND 42?

A: 41 AND 42 WERE GIVEN TO HIM SO THAT HE COULD IDENTIFY WHAT TYPES THE VICTIMS WERE AND DETERMINE IF ANY ADDITIONAL BLOODSTAINS FOUND AT THE CRIME SCENE WERE FROM A THIRD PARTY OR MORE.

Q: DID YOU SAY THAT WAS BECAUSE YOU DID NOT HAVE THE SAMPLES FROM THE CORONER YET REPRESENTING RONALD GOLDMAN AND NICOLE BROWN?

A: NOT AT THAT TIME.

Q: OKAY. NOW, I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LITTLE YESTERDAY, BUT DID YOU SAY THAT THESE ITEMS WERE TAKEN AS REFERENCE SAMPLES AT THE TIME THAT THEY WERE COLLECTED?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHY IS IT, IF YOU KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO GET BLOOD EVENTUALLY FROM THE CORONER, WHY WOULD YOU BOTHER TAKING A REFERENCE SAMPLE AT THE SCENE?

A: THERE ARE TIMES WHEN THE REFERENCE SAMPLES OBTAINED FROM THE CORONERS ARE SOMEWHAT DEGRADED AND MANY TIMES THE BLOOD AT THE SCENE WHICH HAS BEEN ABLE TO DRY QUICKLY IS A BETTER SAMPLE OR -- YES, A BETTER SAMPLE OF THE VICTIM'S BLOOD TYPES.

Q: WELL, WHAT DOES DRYING QUICKLY HAVE TO DO WITH IT?

A: WHEN A -- WHEN BLOOD OR FOR ANY MATTER BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE IS IN A WET STATE, IT WILL DEGRADE FASTER THAN WHEN IT IS DRY.

Q: OKAY. AND WITH RESPECT TO ITEM 42, THE ITEM THAT WAS COLLECTED AT THE BASE OF THE FIRST SET OF STAIRS, WHAT WAS THE CONDITION OF THAT POOL OF BLOOD IN THE AREA WHERE IT WAS COLLECTED FROM?

A: THE POOL WAS SOMEWHAT TACKY. IT WAS SOMEWHAT WET STILL. IT WAS NOT COMPLETELY DRY.

Q: OKAY. AT THE TIME THAT IT WAS COLLECTED?

A: YES.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-08-04   0:07:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#418. To: nolu chan (#417)

Thank you for the correction on the quote from post 407. I meant to reference it but had a dyslexic moment.

Question here on ethics: When taking blood samples from the victim, is it considered ethical to be taking sample evidence before the coroner has their sample evidence?

goldilucky  posted on  2017-08-05   0:19:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#419. To: goldilucky (#418)

Question here on ethics: When taking blood samples from the victim, is it considered ethical to be taking sample evidence before the coroner has their sample evidence?

I don't know with respect to ethics. I have found nothing directly addressing your question. They cannot draw blood from the bodies, but they can collect samples from blood spots, stains, or pools. I do not see how to certify a sample from a pool of blood as an exemplar, known to be from the victim, while simultaneously holding that at least one more person, not a victim, was walking in the crime scene dripping blood.

I know they bollixed up all of the blood collection by recording Items such as 1, 2, 3; but did not count the number of swatches or stains within an Item. There was no way to ascertain if one or more swatches went missing. None of the evidence was booked until the 16th.

The best I can tell from the timing is that Collin Yamauchi had to use the "reference samples" from the blood pools for his mass 23-sample PCR test on June 14th with results achieved in a single work day.

Also, you may recall that the nurse, Thano Peratis, who drew O.J.'s blood was not available to testify, and the doctor who performed the autopsy did not testify.

Note the qualifiers/disclaimers in the testimony of Greg Matheson when it came to Item 42 (Nicole's blood pool "reference" blood).

Greg Matheson, LAPD Chief Chemist, 2 May 1995, testimony:

MR. GOLDBERG: In the forensic science literature, is there any recommendation of looking at a pool of the victim's blood or blood on her clothing in resolving degradation issues?
MR. MATHESON: Looking at blood that's known to come from a victim, yes, there is.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why is that?
MR. MATHESON: Because it is blood that leaves the body around the time that the event occurred. It is known to be that person's. It's kind of like a reference sample that enters the environment at the same time as the evidence samples.
MR. GOLDBERG: To your knowledge, was item 42 collected as a circumstantial reference sample of the victim's blood?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it was.
MR. GOLDBERG: And from a forensic science standpoint, would it be appropriate to look at test results on that blood for the purposes of resolving what was happening under the fingernails?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it wouldn't resolve it, but it would allow some additional information to be obtained, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And why is that?
MR. MATHESON: Well, because it is blood that is believed to be the victim's given its location and quantity and like I mentioned earlier, entered the environment at the same time as the rest of the blood samples at the scene or relatively close to the same time, and thus it should reflect the types that we get in the exemplar samples, the reference samples that are taken from that person.

Greg Matheson, May 2, 1995 testimony,

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the reference sample on Nicole Brown's blood, that was a BA; is that correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: So when you tested item 42, did you see any evidence of the a bands?
MR. MATHESON: No, I did not.
MR. GOLDBERG: So what happened to them?
MR. MATHESON: Well, going off the assumption that item 42 was in fact collected as a secondary exemplar reference sample, it should have come back to be a BA just like the reference sample that was received from her from the Coroner's office. So it appears that 42 degraded to the point where the a bands were no longer visible and almost degraded to the point where the--or, you know, lack of sensitivity where the b's were starting to fade away to nothing.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what significance if any does that have in terms of understanding what was happening on 84-A and B, the nail scrapings?
MR. MATHESON: Well, the significance is, is the phenomenon or the situation that is known to exist with the EAP system, and that is this degradation result of a BA to a B, did in fact occur in a--or it's possibly occurring because of the inconclusive in a situation regarding a sample at this scene.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, let me ask you this. If you have a situation at a crime scene where the victim is lying in a pool of her own blood and that blood, her pool of blood is shown to have degraded from a type BA to the point that it contains two very faint bands which are most consistent with a B and then you also have fingernail scrap--what can you say about the material underneath the fingernails that appears to be most consistent with a b?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Unintelligible.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: Well, like I just mentioned, the fact that you do have what appears to be degradation occurring in a sample that we know came from a person of a certain type, this phenomenon has shown that, you know, it does appear it's existing even at this location, it applies some reason that you can carry this through potentially to other items in the--that were elected in the same vicinity at roughly the same time.

As the samples at the scene were collected before the coroner's reference samples were drawn, and they were put through testing next day, a question arises about why the crime scene samples were so degraded while the coroner's later sample was not, assuming the different blood typing was actually due to degradation.

Greg Matheson testimony, May 2, 1995

MR. BLASIER: Now, reference blood from victims is taken by the Coroners, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: That is not a function of SID, correct?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-08-07   2:58:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#420. To: goldilucky (#418)

In another source, collection of a known blood sample by the police forensic personnel is not even considered by Henry Lee.

Known blood samples

Whole blood samples from victims and suspects will be necessary for comparison purposes. The forensic laboratory, in an attempt to individualize unknown bloodstains collected at the crime scene, will do comparison of genetic markers, including DNA. The appropriate known or standard blood sample is whole blood collected from all individuals in the investigation. A nurse or medical personnel collect the whole blood sample into a test tube vacutainer. Generally, blood standards or knowns are collected into purple-top (contains an anticoagulant EDTA) and red-top (sterile, no additives) vacutainers (as shown in Photo 6.29). The nurse or doctor collecting the blood should mark the tube directly with the name of the source, the date, the time of collection, and the initials of the collector. The tube of blood should then be placed in a padded envelope or box that is sealed, marked and preserved as described previously.

Henry Lee's Crime Scene Handbook, Henry C. Lee, Timothy Palmbach and Marilyn T. Miller, Elsevier 2001, reprint 2006, p. 169.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-08-09   19:15:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#421. To: All (#420)

Moving on to the scientists and the scientific evidence, the prosecution offered Roger Martz of the LAPD crime lab regarding DNA and EDTA, and Dr. Bruce Weir regarding the DNA statistics. The head of the FBI chemistry toxicology unit had a degree in biology, but not chemistry. When Peter Neufeld attempted to lead him through calculating the area of a circle, comedy ensued about pi. Dr. Weir was the subject of some miscalculations spotted by Dr. Terence Speed and brought out by Peter Neufeld. It is never good for the prosecution when there expert witness admits he is embarrassed.

Martz was not only head of the Chemistry and Toxicology Unit at the time he testified in the Simpson trial, but he was acting head of the seven-unit Scientific Analysis Section, a very senior position supervising scores of staff.

Tainting Evidence: inside the scandals at the FBI crime lab, John F. Kelly and Phillip K. Wearne, The Free Press 1998, pg. 266.

Roger Martz testimony 25 July 1995:

MR. BLASIER: Now, what is your occupation--within the FBI, what is your occupation? What do you do?
MR. MARTZ: I am presently assigned as the unit chief in charge of the chemistry toxicology unit at the FBI laboratory in Washington D.C.
MR. BLASIER: Could you please describe briefly your educational background.
MR. MARTZ: I have a bachelor's degree of science from the University of Cincinnati in Cincinnati, Ohio. I received that in 1974. After that I joined the FBI and received extensive training with the FBI laboratory.
MR. BLASIER: So you have a bachelor in science?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Do you have a master's degree?
MR. MARTZ: No, I do not.
MR. BLASIER: Do you have a Ph.D. degree?
MR. MARTZ: No, I do not.
MR. BLASIER: Do you have any advanced degree whatsoever?
MR. MARTZ: No. I have taken some advanced courses, but never attained a degree.

Roger Martz testimony, next day, 26 July 1995:

MR. BLASIER: Do you have any--you don't have a degree in pharmacology, do you?
MR. MARTZ: No, I do not.
MR. BLASIER: Did you take any courses in your undergraduate in pharmacology?
MR. MARTZ: Not specifically.
MR. BLASIER: And your degree, is it in biology?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: So you don't even have a degree in chemistry, do you?
MR. MARTZ: I have a minor.
MR. BLASIER: Do you have any kind of a degree in pharmacokinetics?
MR. MARTZ: No, I do not.
MR. BLASIER: Do you know what that is?
MR. MARTZ: Oh, not specifically.
MR. BLASIER: Do you know what pharmacokinetics is?
MR. MARTZ: Not specifically.

Roger Martz testimony 26 July 1995:

MR. BLASIER:Now--and you had previously determined by other tests that you needed not only a swatch one millimeter on the side, but .5 microliters of blood as the minimum detectable blood, correct?
MR. MARTZ: Based on negative ion. On positive ion it would be one/tenth of that.
MR. BLASIER: Now, put .5 microliters down by the swatch.
MR. MARTZ: (Witness complies.)
MR. BLASIER: So is it accurate that you calculated that you needed a swatch one half the size--I'm sorry--one/tenth of the size of your five-microliter circle to get a big enough swatch to have a minimum detectable amount of EDTA?
MR. MARTZ: Based on negative ion.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. But that is the ratio we are talking about, correct?
MR. MARTZ: No. We were talking about positive ion there. It would be one/tenth.
MR. BLASIER: In terms of five microliters, .5, there is a ten-fold difference?
MR. MARTZ: Right.
MR. BLASIER: So the area of your circle should be ten times bigger than your swatch, right?
MR. MARTZ: Right.
MR. BLASIER: Can you calculate the area of a circle with a five-millimeter diameter?
MR. MARTZ: I mean I could. I don't--math--I don't--I don't know right now what it is.
MR. BLASIER: Well, what is the formula for the area of a circle?
MR. MARTZ: Pi r squared.
MR. BLASIER: What is pi?
MR. MARTZ: Boy, you are really testing me. 2.12, 2.17.
THE COURT: How about 3.12 .14.
MR. BLASIER: Isn't pi kind of essential to being a scientist knowing what it is?
MR. MARTZ: I haven't used pi since I guess I was in high school.
MR. BLASIER: Let's try 3.12.
MR. MARTZ: Is that what it is? There is an easier way to do--
MR. BLASIER: Let's try 3.14. And what is the radius?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dr. Bruce Weir, testimony of 23 June 1995:

MR. NEUFELD: And Dr. Weir, for items 303, 304 and 305--sorry--on the console, Mr. Simpson cannot be excluded; is that correct?
DR. WEIR: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And the calculations you did for the frequency of the mixtures for those stains fail to include the additional pairings; isn't that correct?
DR. WEIR: That's correct, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And by failing to include the additional pairings in these samples, in these items, which do not exclude Mr. Simpson, the numbers that are arrived at by you and put on that board are biased against Mr. Simpson; isn't that correct?
DR. WEIR: As it turns out it looks that way, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And sir, would you agree that you made this same error, which is biased against Mr. Simpson, not only on items 303, 304 and 305, but also on item 31 in the Bronco?
DR. WEIR: I don't know.
MR. NEUFELD: Would you please look at your notes.
DR. WEIR: Help me with the page number.
MR. NEUFELD: Would you please look at page 32, table 23-A and B.
MR. CLARKE: Your Honor, I object. I think counsel is arguing with the witness at this point.
THE COURT: Overruled. Mr. Neufeld.
MR. NEUFELD: Am I right, sir, that not only did you make this same mistake which has the effect of being biased against Mr. Simpson for items 303, 304 and 305, but also as to item 31?
DR. WEIR: Well, this item assumes that all the alleles listed on the board are present and I have made calculations accordingly.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, but of course, as you know from what you did on that other item, sir, on the glove, you know that you can't necessarily make that assumption that you assume that it is either there or then assume it is not there to consider the other pairs or frequencies; isn't that correct?
MR. CLARKE: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. WEIR: On item 31, I did not see the word "Possible" so I conclude that it is present.
MR. NEUFELD: Were you told about how the system functions, though, because of this masking phenomena?
DR. WEIR: All my analyses are based on the reported profiles, whether or not they match, and their details. I have generally ignored, although apparently sometimes I didn't, but in this case there is no suggestion that the 2.1 allele is not there, so I assume it was there.
MR. NEUFELD: Sir, but isn't it--when you put on your own report, with respect to other items, both on table 25-A and again on table 26-A, if you care to look at 26-A as well--
DR. WEIR: I believe in those items the word "Possible" was listed on the board and on item 31 it was not listed as being possible, so I assumed the allele is there.

Dr. Bruce Weir, testimony of 23 June 1995:

MR. NEUFELD: And so, sir, even on your reduced exhibit board that you relied upon when you wrote these tables, on your copy, sir, for item G10, it says on your copy a possible 1.2 allele, correct?
DR. WEIR: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So you had that information available to you when you prepared these tables; is that right?
DR. WEIR: That's right.
MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, these same biased mistakes that you made for these particular items that we just described--
THE COURT: Counsel, why don't you rephrase that question, please.
MR. NEUFELD: Sure.
MR. NEUFELD: The same mistakes you made in your calculations and computations for items 303, 304, 305, 31 and G10, those mistakes apply to your calculations for your two-donor theory; is that correct?
MR. CLARKE: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence as phrased.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. WEIR: I should probably clarify what we're talking about. We're talking about calculations involving DQ-Alpha on the mixed stains. If there was a possibility of there being a 1.2--and it's not seen, so we don't know whether it's present or not present--then the calculation should include both those possibilities for all my calculations. And if I did not include them, then I'm sincerely sorry and I'm also embarrassed. And I haven't finished. The DQ-Alpha results are, of course, part of the profile frequencies I report. They are generally--they are an important part. I don't tend to minimize that. They are not the most important part in the sense that their frequencies are not the most discriminating.
MR. NEUFELD: Dr. Weir, the same mistake that you made on each of those items for your two-donor calculations also applies to all of your three-donor calculations for the same items; is that correct, sir?
DR. WEIR: I think I just said that all my calculations involving DQ-Alpha on the mixed stains, if there was a possibility of 1.2 of not being seen, should have included both the possibilities. If I did not, then it was an error.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-08-09   23:06:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#422. To: nolu chan (#421)

Moving on to the scientists and the scientific evidence

spit

buckeroo  posted on  2017-08-09   23:51:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/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