A Silent Murder?

[tazzybaby]

Taz,

The reason why I believe Simpson and Kardashian were not behind it is because BW was in a pretty safe place to make a sweetheart deal. Also, some of the books I have read, mainly Joe Boscoe's there was an issue that had divided the DA's, that is that Simpson had an accomplice. The DA's also really wanted Kardashian to give testimony, what better way then to get 2 people to flip on Simpson?


Also, Kardashian was hardly a media favorite, he was almost as hated as Simpson was. Don't you think all of his alleged illegal activites would not have been exposed?

Okay, to me you don't sound very educated on everything concerning BW.

Make a sweetheart deal? That's rediculous. He was in jail way before the murders. They had the note book with their personal numbers and Nicole's activities BEFORE anything to do with the murders. That's not helping him get a sweetheart of a deal. Neither side wanted to deal with him. Neither the DA's nor the defense could use them to their benefit. There wouldn't be a reason for him to continue on with his story.

Joe Bosco believed BW and you're making reference to his book.

Kardashian was not hated. He was looked at as an accomplice after the fact and he was not trusted. That's nothing compared to murdering two people. No one knew of all his illegal activity (with OJ). I'm sure the DA's did. But, they had their hands full just trying to prosecute OJ. They thought they had enough evidence without having to bring Kardashian up on charges of illegal activity. They were busy with the murder trial. Even if his illegal activities were exposed they wouldn't have compared to OJ murdering two people.

[weezer]

Kardashian was "almost as hated as Simpson"? Oh, I don't think so. Can't compare him to a man that stabbed two people to death.

What "illegal activites" were threatened with exposure? Was Kardashian's law license pulled? It seems to me that would be the first course of action against a lawyer, if they are partaking in "illegal activities".

I see where the NG's put the bad guys together - BW, Kardashian and orenthal -- but the only connection to Nicole is that BW was stalking Nicole?

[tazzybaby]

Taz,

From the first paragraph from the link you posted:

"William Benson Wasz was a robber, car thief, and cocaine dealer. Wasz took drugs himself and led a dangerous life.

Wasz frequently sold cocaine to customers in clubs, and claimed he was hired by Robert Kardashian to give or sell cocaine to O.J. Simpson and Nicole Simpson many times. It was at Los Angeles' famed Roxbury Club where Wasz first met O.J. and Kardashian. Charge card receipts show they were there during the time Wasz said they met, and in addition, witnesses placed all three men together on more than one occasion. Wasz claimed that Kardashian and O.J. were involved in money laundering, prostitution, pornography, sports betting and point shaving. It should be noted, however, that Wasz produced no evidence to support these claims."

But, did you also see the phrase witnesses placed all three men together on more than one occasion. ? He had the notebook PRIOR to the murders. He had their personal (unlisted) numbers PRIOR to the murders.

I personally think the whole Bill Wasz thing is very interesting. There is definately something there. You really should check out the whole story with an open mind. There are things there for both sides. Does it clear it up completely? No. Even Joseph Bosco (whom you referred to above) believed him and corresponded with him.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Here is the problem with alot of the evidence in this case, the DA's had a tremendous amount money, they had scores of team members were "experts" in their own particular speciality and yet, they came up with misleading presentations time and time again.

You say the hat was Simpson's, it was worn that night and the hairs found inside the cap were his. Yet, the defense presented evidence that questioned this. Now you take the hairs found inside the hat found at Bundy and the hairs inside the hat inside the hat found inside the Bronco and every other hat they find and compare them and then you have a much better case?

I'm sorry, I do not believe for one minute that Fuhrman was mistaken, unless he wrote about he made the mistake, then I'm not buy it. There is a huge difference between a ski mask and hat. He was in the service, he knows what a watch cap is and probably, if he was ever stationed in a cold climate was issued one. He knows the difference.

Also, he had plenty of time to "correct" his errors, yet he never did.

There was no blood on that cap either, was there?


limakey, you say the prosecutors came up with misleading presentations time and time again. What presentations were misleading?

You say the defense presented evidence that questioned the knit cap belonged to Simpson. What evidence?

The knit cap was not spread out and displayed when it was first seen, it was partially hidden under foliage and evidently not easily recognized as a hat since Fuhrman mistakenly thought it might have been a knit ski mask They can look similar. When it was collected it was found to be a knit cap. A watchman's cap. Fuhrman's notes were turned over to the Robbery Homicide detectives before any of the evidence was collected. Fuhrman didn't have them to correct them.

There was no blood on the cap only hair and fiber evidence that pointed to Simpson.

bobaugust

[martin II]

limakey, you say the prosecutors came up with misleading presentations time and time again. What presentations were misleading?

You say the defense presented evidence that questioned the knit cap belonged to Simpson. What evidence?

The knit cap was not spread out and displayed when it was first seen, it was partially hidden under foliage and evidently not easily recognized as a hat since Fuhrman mistakenly thought it might have been a knit ski mask They can look similar. When it was collected it was found to be a knit cap. A watchman's cap. Fuhrman's notes were turned over to the Robbery Homicide detectives before any of the evidence was collected. Fuhrman didn't have them to correct them.

There was no blood on the cap only hair and fiber evidence that pointed to Simpson.

bobaugust

bob
i am glad you said POINTED to simpson rather than proved they belonged to simpson.

martin II

[weezer]

bob
i am glad you said POINTED to simpson rather than proved they belonged to simpson.

martin II

martin, can you provide a link that shows orenthal denied the cap as his?

[martin II]

martin, can you provide a link that shows orenthal denied the cap as his?

weezer

i have not commented on what oj said about some cap. why are you asking me for a link??

martin II

[martin II]

weezer
what is it about my post to bob at # 507 that makes you feel you can ask me for a link?

imo
martin II

[weezer]

weezer
what is it about my post to bob at # 507 that makes you feel you can ask me for a link?

imo
martin II

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobaugust
limakey, you say the prosecutors came up with misleading presentations time and time again. What presentations were misleading?

You say the defense presented evidence that questioned the knit cap belonged to Simpson. What evidence?

The knit cap was not spread out and displayed when it was first seen, it was partially hidden under foliage and evidently not easily recognized as a hat since Fuhrman mistakenly thought it might have been a knit ski mask They can look similar. When it was collected it was found to be a knit cap. A watchman's cap. Fuhrman's notes were turned over to the Robbery Homicide detectives before any of the evidence was collected. Fuhrman didn't have them to correct them.

There was no blood on the cap only hair and fiber evidence that pointed to Simpson.

bobaugust

bob
i am glad you said POINTED to simpson rather than proved they belonged to simpson.

martin II

[martin II]

weezer
what is in my post to BOB at #507 that makes you think that you can ask me for a link to what i posted??

martin II

[n.n]

The manipulated evidence I'm talking about is the EDTH blood on the socks, and the gate. The blanket used (against all procedural rules) to cover Mrs. Simpson's body. The missing labels on evidence according to a lab assistant who had put them on the containers herself but found them gone the next morning ... the misleading stats given by the proscution's expert witness.

[socaldiva]

weezer
what is in my post to BOB at #507 that makes you think that you can ask me for a link to what i posted??

martin II

Post #507 isn't yours, it's FBG's. Perhaps you should read her post #510.

[weezer]

The manipulated evidence I'm talking about is the EDTH blood on the socks, and the gate. The blanket used (against all procedural rules) to cover Mrs. Simpson's body. The missing labels on evidence according to a lab assistant who had put them on the containers herself but found them gone the next morning ... the misleading stats given by the proscution's expert witness.

First, no one has ever testified to EDTH being in the blood -- not even the defense witnesses.

[martin II]

n.n.

i have not found Martz listed as a prosecution witness called to testify about
his testing methods to support their case.(NO EDTA) wonder why the prosecution did not call him as a prosecution witness?? seems strange. imo

martin II

[weezer]

n.n.

i have not found Martz listed as a prosecution witness called to testify about
his testing methods to support their case.(NO EDTA) wonder why the prosecution did not call him as a prosecution witness?? seems strange. imo

martin II

what in the world are you talking about?

[Suzee10]

what in the world are you talking about?


What is wrong with Martin? Sounds like.....:beer:

[martin II]

what in the world are you talking about?

i have not found Martz listed as a prosecution witness in the list i have.

IF YOU HAVE A LIST SHOWING HIM AS A PROSECUTIONH WITNESS, YOU CAN SHARE IT IF YOU LIKE.IMO

MARTIN ii

[weezer]

i have not found Martz listed as a prosecution witness in the list i have.

IF YOU HAVE A LIST SHOWING HIM AS A PROSECUTIONH WITNESS, YOU CAN SHARE IT IF YOU LIKE.IMO

MARTIN ii

I still have no clue what you are talking about! A "prosecutionh" witness when?

[martin II]

what in the world are you talking about?

i donot see martz name listed as a prosecution witness. wonder why they did not call him.imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

i donot see martz name listed as a prosecution witness. wonder why they did not call him.imo
martin II

IIRC he was a defense witness who was declared hostile. :shrug:

[weezer]

IIRC he was a defense witness who was declared hostile. :shrug:

that's what I understood -- I'm not understanding what martin thinks his point he's marking! :shrug:

[socaldiva]

that's what I understood -- I'm not understanding what martin thinks his point he's marking! :shrug:

I don't know what point he is trying to make either, yet he's posted the same question on two threads.

[William Anthony]

n.n.

i have not found Martz listed as a prosecution witness called to testify about
his testing methods to support their case.(NO EDTA) wonder why the prosecution did not call him as a prosecution witness?? seems strange. imo
martin II

Martin,

Imho, the reason why the prosecution did not call Martz was, as Dr. R. testified, Clark knew his results were absurd.

[bobaugust]

Martin,

Imho, the reason why the prosecution did not call Martz was, as Dr. R. testified, Clark knew his results were absurd.

Martz's tests conclusively showed that neither the gate blood or the sock blood contained or came from EDTA preserved blood. A conclusion that was supported by other evidence.

Please support your claim that Clark "knew" the test results were absurd.

bobaugust

[socaldiva]

Martz's tests conclusively showed that neither the gate blood or the sock blood contained or came from EDTA preserved blood. A conclusion that was supported by other evidence.

Please support your claim that Clark "knew" the test results were absurd.

bobaugust

Yes, I'd also like to see something that supports that assertion.

[Wukong]

I think William may be talking about the testimony I posted yesterday. I had posted testimony from Reiders where he said, in answer to Clark's question, that the test results from Martz' own blood, which showed presence of EDTA, was absurd. It was not Marcia Clark, nor Reiders, saying the test results on the sock and gate were absurd. I believe William may be either confused or purposely twisting the facts in testimony to fit a theory. Since he seems intelligent, I lean towards the latter.

[weezer]

I think William may be talking about the testimony I posted yesterday. I had posted testimony from Reiders where he said, in answer to Clark's question, that the test results from Martz' own blood, which showed presence of EDTA, was absurd. It was not Marcia Clark, nor Reiders, saying the test results on the sock and gate were absurd. I believe William may be either confused or purposely twisting the facts in testimony to fit a theory. Since he seems intelligent, I lean towards the latter.

a word to the wise: don't lean too far, we don't want you to fall :tongue:

[William Anthony]

a word to the wise: don't lean too far, we don't want you to fall :tongue:

Wukong,

You do not have to worry when you are on a wall that William built, because you will find yourself on a solid enduring foundation. Too fast, they jump to find my opinions claims. Here is my post with emphasis added in bold.

Imho, the reason why the prosecution did not call Martz was, as Dr. R. testified, Clark knew his results were absurd.

[William Anthony]

I think William may be talking about the testimony I posted yesterday. I had posted testimony from Reiders where he said, in answer to Clark's question, that the test results from Martz' own blood, which showed presence of EDTA, was absurd. It was not Marcia Clark, nor Reiders, saying the test results on the sock and gate were absurd. I believe William may be either confused or purposely twisting the facts in testimony to fit a theory. Since he seems intelligent, I lean towards the latter.

I did not say that Clark said his results were absurd, I said she knew they were, as Dr, testified, and that explains why she did not call him as a witness.

Here is the a portion of the testimony you posted without spin.

It just seems totally absurd to me just like that 2,000 parts per million. You would be dead. I mean, you know, these absurd numbers.
MS. CLARK: Is it your answer that the results obtained by testing Agent Martz' blood showing EDTA in the range of parts per million very similar to the range shown on the gate and the sock? Correct?
DR. RIEDERS: Very similar.
MS. CLARK: Very similar. And your answer to that is, it is absurd and you dismiss it; is that correct?
DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

One can read it as him making a meaningless explanatory comment, or one can read it as a statement the she knew. This is the problem with reading unanimated transcripts and stating, you know, them as facts. However, you read the words they imply knowledge on the part of the person to whom they were addressed. I doubt that he would have to make a meaningless explanatory comment about absurdity. Thank you for stating I seem intelligent. Those sentiments are reciprocal.

[bobaugust]

I did not say that Clark said his results were absurd, I said she knew they were, as Dr, testified, and that explains why she did not call him as a witness.

Here is the a portion of the testimony you posted without spin.

It just seems totally absurd to me just like that 2,000 parts per million. You would be dead. I mean, you know, these absurd numbers.
MS. CLARK: Is it your answer that the results obtained by testing Agent Martz' blood showing EDTA in the range of parts per million very similar to the range shown on the gate and the sock? Correct?
DR. RIEDERS: Very similar.
MS. CLARK: Very similar. And your answer to that is, it is absurd and you dismiss it; is that correct?
DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

One can read it as him making a meaningless explanatory comment, or one can read it as a statement the she knew. This is the problem with reading unanimated transcripts and stating, you know, them as facts. However, you read the words they imply knowledge on the part of the person to whom they were addressed. I doubt that he would have to make a meaningless explanatory comment about absurdity. Thank you for stating I seem intelligent. Those sentiments are reciprocal.

Neither Martz or Clark ever said the levels were 2000 parts per million, only Rieders suggested that. Martz testified that the amount of what he couldn't identify as EDTA but could possibly be EDTA found in his aged blood, and the gate and sock blood on his later tests were levels that were 100 times smaller than EDTA found in preserved blood.

Clark never said she knew or believed any of Martz's results were absurd. She understood that all of Martz tests were conclusive that neither the gate blood or the sock blood came from EDTA preserved blood. That was the question Martz was asked to answer and his tests results answered it.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Neither Martz or Clark ever said the levels were 2000 parts per million, only Rieders suggested that. Martz testified that the amount of what he couldn't identify as EDTA but could possibly be EDTA found in his aged blood, and the gate and sock blood on his later tests were levels that were 100 times smaller than EDTA found in preserved blood.

Clark never said she knew or believed any of Martz's results were absurd. She understood that all of Martz tests were conclusive that neither the gate blood or the sock blood came from EDTA preserved blood. That was the question Martz was asked to answer and his tests results answered it.

bobaugust

I do not wish to reread his testimony. I recall that he testified to parts per million and believe that Clark knew his tesults were wrong/absurd. If he was such a strong witness showing that the blood was unpreserved, she would have called him but she chose not to, because she knew his results were wrong/absurd, imho.

[bobaugust]

I do not wish to reread his testimony. I recall that he testified to parts per million and believe that Clark knew his tesults were wrong/absurd. If he was such a strong witness showing that the blood was unpreserved, she would have called him but she chose not to, because she knew his results were wrong/absurd, imho.

I'm sorry but you recall wrong, your arguments are wrong, and your accusations are false concerning the strategy the prosecutors used to let the defense call Martz as a witness.

What Dr. Rieder's called absurd and Clark repeated was a paragraph in an EPA report saying, "EDTA should not exceed two milligrams per milliliter of blood." A report that had nothing to do with the tests that Martz conducted or the results he obtained. The very low amounts of what could possibly be EDTA that Martz found in later testing of his blood and the gate and sock blood were at least one hundred times smaller than the amount of EDTA found in preserved blood. Again proving that neither the gate blood or the sock blood came from EDTA preserved blood.

July 4, 1995
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: It's absurd. This is the basis for the EPA report that you referred to, sir, this absurd thing here?
*

July 25, 1995
MS. CLARK: And what impact, if any, would there be on the ultimate result in terms of the relative degrees or relative amounts of EDTA would there be on any discrepancy in the amount of EDTA extracted from the evidence stain versus the reference sample?

MR. MARTZ: In my opinion, it would have no effect whatsoever. We're dealing with chemicals that are placed in blood at 2,000 parts per million. That is a very, very, very large quantity of any substance in the blood. It's very easy to distinguish 2,000 parts per million from what could possibly be one part per million.

If you notice, I said "Possibly." I'm not even convinced that what was found in my blood and in the sock and in the gate was EDTA. I was not able to prove that. If it is, it's still in the parts per million at the most. And to distinguish between parts per million, one or two parts per million and 2,000 parts per million in chemistry with analytical instruments is very easy to do.

MS. CLARK: So, sir, then are you saying that the dramatic difference in the results more than compensates for any small degree of variation?

MR. MARTZ: That is correct.

bobaugust

[martin II]

I'm sorry but you recall wrong, your arguments are wrong, and your accusations are false concerning the strategy the prosecutors used to let the defense call Martz as a witness.

What Dr. Rieder's called absurd and Clark repeated was a paragraph in an EPA report saying, "EDTA should not exceed two milligrams per milliliter of blood." A report that had nothing to do with the tests that Martz conducted or the results he obtained. The very low amounts of what could possibly be EDTA that Martz found in later testing of his blood and the gate and sock blood were at least one hundred times smaller than the amount of EDTA found in preserved blood. Again proving that neither the gate blood or the sock blood came from EDTA preserved blood.

July 4, 1995
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: It's absurd. This is the basis for the EPA report that you referred to, sir, this absurd thing here?
*

July 25, 1995
MS. CLARK: And what impact, if any, would there be on the ultimate result in terms of the relative degrees or relative amounts of EDTA would there be on any discrepancy in the amount of EDTA extracted from the evidence stain versus the reference sample?

MR. MARTZ: In my opinion, it would have no effect whatsoever. We're dealing with chemicals that are placed in blood at 2,000 parts per million. That is a very, very, very large quantity of any substance in the blood. It's very easy to distinguish 2,000 parts per million from what could possibly be one part per million.

If you notice, I said "Possibly." I'm not even convinced that what was found in my blood and in the sock and in the gate was EDTA. I was not able to prove that. If it is, it's still in the parts per million at the most. And to distinguish between parts per million, one or two parts per million and 2,000 parts per million in chemistry with analytical instruments is very easy to do.

MS. CLARK: So, sir, then are you saying that the dramatic difference in the results more than compensates for any small degree of variation?

MR. MARTZ: That is correct.

bobaugust

bob
the critical report on Martz by his superiors IG and FBI on his overall performance in the oj case and other cases and his subsquent transfer out of that unit, makes his testimony suspect
imo

martin II

[weezer]

bob
the critical report on Martz by his superiors IG and FBI on his overall performance in the oj case and other cases and his subsquent transfer out of that unit, makes his testimony suspect
imo

martin II

there was NO critical report from IG and/or FBI on Martz's performance in the simpson case. You know this but continue to misstate the facts.

[martin II]

there was NO critical report from IG and/or FBI on Martz's performance in the simpson case. You know this but continue to misstate the facts.


this is from the IG fbi REPORT.


We find no basis to conclude that Martz committed perjury or misled the jury or defense in the Simpson case. Nor do we conclude that Martz improperly erased digital data from his results. 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.


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.

After hearing Martz's testimony, Budowle complained to Forensic Science Research and Training Center Chief Kenneth Nimmich that Martz had not properly credited the FSRU for developing the testing procedures. As a result, Nimmich prepared an August 30, 1995, memorandum to Laboratory management that criticized Martz for failing to retain his digital data and for testifying that he did not review or rely upon the FSRU's data and validation study. Nimmich recommended that Martz be orally reprimanded.

[weezer]

this is from the IG fbi REPORT.


We find no basis to conclude that Martz committed perjury or misled the jury or defense in the Simpson case. Nor do we conclude that Martz improperly erased digital data from his results. 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.


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.

After hearing Martz's testimony, Budowle complained to Forensic Science Research and Training Center Chief Kenneth Nimmich that Martz had not properly credited the FSRU for developing the testing procedures. As a result, Nimmich prepared an August 30, 1995, memorandum to Laboratory management that criticized Martz for failing to retain his digital data and for testifying that he did not review or rely upon the FSRU's data and validation study. Nimmich recommended that Martz be orally reprimanded.

and this is what you are 'hyping' at the critical report? LOL

[martin II]

and this is what you are 'hyping' at the critical report? LOL

that is the critical work report the IG and FBI gave Agent Marts before they transfered him out of the lab where he claim he did various test in the oj case. This part was only for the oj case. The other critical reports had to do with his othert work on other cases. Like when he testified falsy and got a man a life sentance in jail

His tesimony is suspect at best.
imo

martin II

[bobaugust]

bob
the critical report on Martz by his superiors IG and FBI on his overall performance in the oj case and other cases and his subsquent transfer out of that unit, makes his testimony suspect
imo

martin II

martin II, once again the FBI investigation specifically regarding Martz's testimony in the Simpson case concluded, "We find no basis to conclude that Martz committed perjury or misled the trier of facts or defense in the Simpson case. Nor do we conclude that Martz improperly erased digital data underlying his results."

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

this is from the IG fbi REPORT.


We find no basis to conclude that Martz committed perjury or misled the jury or defense in the Simpson case. Nor do we conclude that Martz improperly erased digital data from his results. 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.


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.

After hearing Martz's testimony, Budowle complained to Forensic Science Research and Training Center Chief Kenneth Nimmich that Martz had not properly credited the FSRU for developing the testing procedures. As a result, Nimmich prepared an August 30, 1995, memorandum to Laboratory management that criticized Martz for failing to retain his digital data and for testifying that he did not review or rely upon the FSRU's data and validation study. Nimmich recommended that Martz be orally reprimanded.


martin II, the first paragraph you posted is from the FBI report, the next two paragraphs are opinions that were offered before the FBI investigation,

The report addressed these allegations.

SECTION F: ROGER MARTZ'S TESTIMONY IN O.J. SIMPSON CASE

"On February 19, 1995, Martz utilized this LC/MS/MS procedure in the negative ion mode to analyze the known samples of preserved blood taken from Nicole Brown Simpson and O.J. Simpson and the bloodstain evidence from the rear gate and socks. Miller assisted Martz in that analysis at the FBI Laboratory. Using this procedure, Martz was able to detect EDTA in the known samples of preserved blood from Nicole Brown Simpson and O.J. Simpson, but not in the bloodstains from the rear gate and socks. These results appear in Martz's report. In the following week, Martz also used the positive ion mode procedure substantially similar to that used at the FSRU to test the known blood samples from Nicole Brown Simpson and O.J. Simpson and to conduct parent-daughter ion experiments with the bloodstain evidence from the gate and socks. Martz also used a High Pressure Liquid Chromatography procedure, which confirmed Martz's reported results.

With this background, we conclude that on balance, Martz's testimony fairly characterized his responsibility for the testing procedures and was not false or perjury. To be sure, early in his testimony, Martz emphasized his own role in developing a set of conditions for using LC/MS/MS in the negative ion mode. He testified that he designed the method over a period of one week and described it as my method. He stated that he conducted his own validation study and did not look at a validation study by the FSRU. He added that if the defense counsel wanted to know about the FSRU's validation study, the defense counsel would have to ask them. He stated that he was not aware of any FSRU study to test the efficiency of his extraction method. Martz also indicated that he was responsible for the method used to extract blood from the sock and gate swatch. At least initially, Martz appeared to ignore the contributions of the FSRU.

Martz corrected that impression later in his testimony, however. Martz testified that the studies that I did and the studies that were done at Quantico demonstrated that one could easily distinguish between preserved and non-preserved blood. He further testified that he ran a blind test on February 8, 1995, and analyzed the results with procedures developed by myself and--at Quantico . . . . Martz later acknowledged that the FSRU had tested the efficiency of his extraction method. Martz further testified that he kept current in the field of mass spectrometry by contact with his peers, noting, [W]e have a staff at Quantico, a lot of Ph.Ds that do a lot of research and we keep in contact with them.

In reaching the conclusion that Martz did not commit perjury, we also considered the comments of the scientists at the FSRU. McCord, Fetterolf, Miller, and Budowle all told us that they did not consider Martz's testimony to be perjurious or inaccurate. Budowle and Miller noted that Martz appeared initially to take credit for work at the FSRU, but later gave credit to the FSRU. Fetterolf and Budowle told us that they viewed Martz's problem as one of presentation and demeanor.

In sum, we find that Martz's testimony was sufficient to communicate his collaboration with the FSRU, as well as his role in developing the particular negative ion procedure used to analyze the evidence. We find that Martz did not testify falsely or commit perjury by claiming that he authored this procedure."

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, the first paragraph you posted is from the FBI report, the next two paragraphs are opinions that were offered before the FBI investigation,

The report addressed these allegations.

SECTION F: ROGER MARTZ'S TESTIMONY IN O.J. SIMPSON CASE

"On February 19, 1995, Martz utilized this LC/MS/MS procedure in the negative ion mode to analyze the known samples of preserved blood taken from Nicole Brown Simpson and O.J. Simpson and the bloodstain evidence from the rear gate and socks. Miller assisted Martz in that analysis at the FBI Laboratory. Using this procedure, Martz was able to detect EDTA in the known samples of preserved blood from Nicole Brown Simpson and O.J. Simpson, but not in the bloodstains from the rear gate and socks. These results appear in Martz's report. In the following week, Martz also used the positive ion mode procedure substantially similar to that used at the FSRU to test the known blood samples from Nicole Brown Simpson and O.J. Simpson and to conduct parent-daughter ion experiments with the bloodstain evidence from the gate and socks. Martz also used a High Pressure Liquid Chromatography procedure, which confirmed Martz's reported results.

With this background, we conclude that on balance, Martz's testimony fairly characterized his responsibility for the testing procedures and was not false or perjury. To be sure, early in his testimony, Martz emphasized his own role in developing a set of conditions for using LC/MS/MS in the negative ion mode. He testified that he designed the method over a period of one week and described it as my method. He stated that he conducted his own validation study and did not look at a validation study by the FSRU. He added that if the defense counsel wanted to know about the FSRU's validation study, the defense counsel would have to ask them. He stated that he was not aware of any FSRU study to test the efficiency of his extraction method. Martz also indicated that he was responsible for the method used to extract blood from the sock and gate swatch. At least initially, Martz appeared to ignore the contributions of the FSRU.

Martz corrected that impression later in his testimony, however. Martz testified that the studies that I did and the studies that were done at Quantico demonstrated that one could easily distinguish between preserved and non-preserved blood. He further testified that he ran a blind test on February 8, 1995, and analyzed the results with procedures developed by myself and--at Quantico . . . . Martz later acknowledged that the FSRU had tested the efficiency of his extraction method. Martz further testified that he kept current in the field of mass spectrometry by contact with his peers, noting, [W]e have a staff at Quantico, a lot of Ph.Ds that do a lot of research and we keep in contact with them.

In reaching the conclusion that Martz did not commit perjury, we also considered the comments of the scientists at the FSRU. McCord, Fetterolf, Miller, and Budowle all told us that they did not consider Martz's testimony to be perjurious or inaccurate. Budowle and Miller noted that Martz appeared initially to take credit for work at the FSRU, but later gave credit to the FSRU. Fetterolf and Budowle told us that they viewed Martz's problem as one of presentation and demeanor.

In sum, we find that Martz's testimony was sufficient to communicate his collaboration with the FSRU, as well as his role in developing the particular negative ion procedure used to analyze the evidence. We find that Martz did not testify falsely or commit perjury by claiming that he authored this procedure."

bobaugust

bob
the IG and FBI reports on Martz stand as they are reported. not only for the OJ Simpson case but for other cases martz was involved in.
i need no explanation form you. He was transfered out of the unit that he had supervised and required to have his work supervised or reviewed.

Th oj case was not the only case. there was a history and that IMOP is why he was demoted and tansfered out of that lab unit.

since his work superiors found serious fault with his work and trial preperations
WHY should i believe him. i don't especially after Dr Reiders testified.
IMO
MARTIN ii

[martin II]

martin II, the first paragraph you posted is from the FBI report, the next two paragraphs are opinions that were offered before the FBI investigation,

The report addressed these allegations.

SECTION F: ROGER MARTZ'S TESTIMONY IN O.J. SIMPSON CASE

"On February 19, 1995, Martz utilized this LC/MS/MS procedure in the negative ion mode to analyze the known samples of preserved blood taken from Nicole Brown Simpson and O.J. Simpson and the bloodstain evidence from the rear gate and socks. Miller assisted Martz in that analysis at the FBI Laboratory. Using this procedure, Martz was able to detect EDTA in the known samples of preserved blood from Nicole Brown Simpson and O.J. Simpson, but not in the bloodstains from the rear gate and socks. These results appear in Martz's report. In the following week, Martz also used the positive ion mode procedure substantially similar to that used at the FSRU to test the known blood samples from Nicole Brown Simpson and O.J. Simpson and to conduct parent-daughter ion experiments with the bloodstain evidence from the gate and socks. Martz also used a High Pressure Liquid Chromatography procedure, which confirmed Martz's reported results.

With this background, we conclude that on balance, Martz's testimony fairly characterized his responsibility for the testing procedures and was not false or perjury. To be sure, early in his testimony, Martz emphasized his own role in developing a set of conditions for using LC/MS/MS in the negative ion mode. He testified that he designed the method over a period of one week and described it as my method. He stated that he conducted his own validation study and did not look at a validation study by the FSRU. He added that if the defense counsel wanted to know about the FSRU's validation study, the defense counsel would have to ask them. He stated that he was not aware of any FSRU study to test the efficiency of his extraction method. Martz also indicated that he was responsible for the method used to extract blood from the sock and gate swatch. At least initially, Martz appeared to ignore the contributions of the FSRU.

Martz corrected that impression later in his testimony, however. Martz testified that the studies that I did and the studies that were done at Quantico demonstrated that one could easily distinguish between preserved and non-preserved blood. He further testified that he ran a blind test on February 8, 1995, and analyzed the results with procedures developed by myself and--at Quantico . . . . Martz later acknowledged that the FSRU had tested the efficiency of his extraction method. Martz further testified that he kept current in the field of mass spectrometry by contact with his peers, noting, [W]e have a staff at Quantico, a lot of Ph.Ds that do a lot of research and we keep in contact with them.

In reaching the conclusion that Martz did not commit perjury, we also considered the comments of the scientists at the FSRU. McCord, Fetterolf, Miller, and Budowle all told us that they did not consider Martz's testimony to be perjurious or inaccurate. Budowle and Miller noted that Martz appeared initially to take credit for work at the FSRU, but later gave credit to the FSRU. Fetterolf and Budowle told us that they viewed Martz's problem as one of presentation and demeanor.

In sum, we find that Martz's testimony was sufficient to communicate his collaboration with the FSRU, as well as his role in developing the particular negative ion procedure used to analyze the evidence. We find that Martz did not testify falsely or commit perjury by claiming that he authored this procedure."

bobaugust

BOB

FBI

Maby you missed this from my post.

martin Ii

After hearing Martz's testimony, Budowle complained to Forensic Science Research and Training Center Chief Kenneth Nimmich that Martz had not properly credited the FSRU for developing the testing procedures. As a result, Nimmich prepared an August 30, 1995, memorandum to Laboratory management that criticized Martz for failing to retain his digital data and for testifying that he did not review or rely upon the FSRU's data and validation study. Nimmich recommended that Martz be orally reprimanded.

[bobaugust]

BOB

FBI

Maby you missed this from my post.

martin Ii

After hearing Martz's testimony, Budowle complained to Forensic Science Research and Training Center Chief Kenneth Nimmich that Martz had not properly credited the FSRU for developing the testing procedures. As a result, Nimmich prepared an August 30, 1995, memorandum to Laboratory management that criticized Martz for failing to retain his digital data and for testifying that he did not review or rely upon the FSRU's data and validation study. Nimmich recommended that Martz be orally reprimanded.

martin II, no I didn't miss it, that's why I posted the section of the FBI report that addressed it.

"In reaching the conclusion that Martz did not commit perjury, we also considered the comments of the scientists at the FSRU. McCord, Fetterolf, Miller, and Budowle all told us that they did not consider Martz's testimony to be perjurious or inaccurate. Budowle and Miller noted that Martz appeared initially to take credit for work at the FSRU, but later gave credit to the FSRU. Fetterolf and Budowle told us that they viewed Martz's problem as one of presentation and demeanor."

The fact is that FBI report concluded that specifically regarding Martz's testimony in the Simpson case, "We find no basis to conclude that Martz committed perjury or misled the trier of facts or defense in the Simpson case. Nor do we conclude that Martz improperly erased digital data underlying his results."

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, no I didn't miss it, that's why I posted the section of the FBI report that addressed it.

"In reaching the conclusion that Martz did not commit perjury, we also considered the comments of the scientists at the FSRU. McCord, Fetterolf, Miller, and Budowle all told us that they did not consider Martz's testimony to be perjurious or inaccurate. Budowle and Miller noted that Martz appeared initially to take credit for work at the FSRU, but later gave credit to the FSRU. Fetterolf and Budowle told us that they viewed Martz's problem as one of presentation and demeanor."

The fact is that FBI report concluded that specifically regarding Martz's testimony in the Simpson case, "We find no basis to conclude that Martz committed perjury or misled the trier of facts or defense in the Simpson case. Nor do we conclude that Martz improperly erased digital data underlying his results."

bobaugust

bob
why do you think martz was transfered out of the lab and demoted??

martnii

[bobaugust]

bob
why do you think martz was transfered out of the lab and demoted??

martnii

martin II, what ever happened to Martz after the Simpson case is meaningless to the reality of the tests he performed, his testimony, and his conclusions regarding the gate and sock blood in the Simpson case. Based on every test Martz conducted he concluded that neither the gate blood or the sock blood came from EDTA preserved blood. Furthermore his conclusions are supported by other evidence that proved the defense claims false that these blood stains were planted from preserved blood.

That's the issue.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I'm sorry but you recall wrong, your arguments are wrong, and your accusations are false concerning the strategy the prosecutors used to let the defense call Martz as a witness.

What Dr. Rieder's called absurd and Clark repeated was a paragraph in an EPA report saying, "EDTA should not exceed two milligrams per milliliter of blood." A report that had nothing to do with the tests that Martz conducted or the results he obtained. The very low amounts of what could possibly be EDTA that Martz found in later testing of his blood and the gate and sock blood were at least one hundred times smaller than the amount of EDTA found in preserved blood. Again proving that neither the gate blood or the sock blood came from EDTA preserved blood.

July 4, 1995
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: It's absurd. This is the basis for the EPA report that you referred to, sir, this absurd thing here?
*

July 25, 1995
MS. CLARK: And what impact, if any, would there be on the ultimate result in terms of the relative degrees or relative amounts of EDTA would there be on any discrepancy in the amount of EDTA extracted from the evidence stain versus the reference sample?

MR. MARTZ: In my opinion, it would have no effect whatsoever. We're dealing with chemicals that are placed in blood at 2,000 parts per million. That is a very, very, very large quantity of any substance in the blood. It's very easy to distinguish 2,000 parts per million from what could possibly be one part per million.

If you notice, I said "Possibly." I'm not even convinced that what was found in my blood and in the sock and in the gate was EDTA. I was not able to prove that. If it is, it's still in the parts per million at the most. And to distinguish between parts per million, one or two parts per million and 2,000 parts per million in chemistry with analytical instruments is very easy to do.

MS. CLARK: So, sir, then are you saying that the dramatic difference in the results more than compensates for any small degree of variation?

MR. MARTZ: That is correct.

bobaugust

What do you not understand? Dr. R testified that it was absurd to have results on unpreserved blood in the parts per million range, whether it be 2 or 2 million. In one part of his testimony he said he identified EDTA and in another he said he detected EDTA. He then states, per your quote "If it is, it's still in the parts per million at the most." This would indicate that the blood was from preserved blood and Martz fabricated his results.

[bobaugust]

What do you not understand? Dr. R testified that it was absurd to have results on unpreserved blood in the parts per million range, whether it be 2 or 2 million. In one part of his testimony he said he identified EDTA and in another he said he detected EDTA. He then states, per your quote "If it is, it's still in the parts per million at the most." This would indicate that the blood was from preserved blood and Martz fabricated his results.

No William, you're the one who doesn't understand this. You're wrong in what you think Rieders said. He started by saying "two parts at million" and then corrected himself saying at "2000 parts per million EDTA in blood, the blood won't clot."

Blood does not clot at 2 parts per million EDTA in blood. Martz testified that the concentration of EDTA in a purple topped tube is somewhere between a thousand and 2000 parts per million.

The amount of possible EDTA Martz detected in his blood, the gate blood and the sock blood was about one to two parts per million. "If the blood on the rear gate and the socks has come from the preserved tube, the EDTA indicators would have been just as high. Instead they're about one hundredth the size."

July 24, 1995
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.

July 25, 1995
MR. BLASIER: What is the concentration of EDTA in a purple-topped tube?
MR. MARTZ: Somewhere between a thousand and 2000 parts per million.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that if someone had 2000 parts per million EDTA in their blood they would be dead?
MR. MARTZ: Well, for any sustained period of time. I think they use it also for transfusions. I don't know the exact amount that they use. It would not be a good idea, I don't think, to have that amount in your blood, I agree with that.
MR. BLASIER: Does that number bear any relationship at all to what the FDA allows in terms of EDTA as a food additive?
MR. MARTZ: Umm, no. No, I don't believe it does.
MR. BLASIER: And it is your understanding that particular study was a study on fish?
MR. MARTZ: Umm, that's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And it was to determine the toxic level that would kill fish?
MR. MARTZ: No. I did some further research and actually the whole reference has to do with how much EDTA is used to preserve food. It has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with how much you would expect to find in fish or humans. It was completely out of context.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

No William, you're the one who doesn't understand this. You're wrong in what you think Rieders said. He started by saying "two parts at million" and then corrected himself saying at "2000 parts per million EDTA in blood, the blood won't clot."

Blood does not clot at 2 parts per million EDTA in blood. Martz testified that the concentration of EDTA in a purple topped tube is somewhere between a thousand and 2000 parts per million.

The amount of possible EDTA Martz detected in his blood, the gate blood and the sock blood was about one to two parts per million. "If the blood on the rear gate and the socks has come from the preserved tube, the EDTA indicators would have been just as high. Instead they're about one hundredth the size."

July 24, 1995
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.

July 25, 1995
MR. BLASIER: What is the concentration of EDTA in a purple-topped tube?
MR. MARTZ: Somewhere between a thousand and 2000 parts per million.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that if someone had 2000 parts per million EDTA in their blood they would be dead?
MR. MARTZ: Well, for any sustained period of time. I think they use it also for transfusions. I don't know the exact amount that they use. It would not be a good idea, I don't think, to have that amount in your blood, I agree with that.
MR. BLASIER: Does that number bear any relationship at all to what the FDA allows in terms of EDTA as a food additive?
MR. MARTZ: Umm, no. No, I don't believe it does.
MR. BLASIER: And it is your understanding that particular study was a study on fish?
MR. MARTZ: Umm, that's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And it was to determine the toxic level that would kill fish?
MR. MARTZ: No. I did some further research and actually the whole reference has to do with how much EDTA is used to preserve food. It has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with how much you would expect to find in fish or humans. It was completely out of context.

bobaugust

As I read Dr. R.'s testimony, he is saying that from 2 to 2,000 parts per million the person would be dead. Here is a post I placed on another thread which I believe will clarify his testimony as to the blood being planted and the amount of EDTA.

Here is a portion of Dr. R.'s testimony given on 8/24/95.

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.

MR. BLASIER: That's all I have.
__________________

[William Anthony]

bobaugust

Good Morning, Bobaugust. I apologize for letting my manners slip.

[bobaugust]

As I read Dr. R.'s testimony, he is saying that from 2 to 2,000 parts per million the person would be dead. Here is a post I placed on another thread which I believe will clarify his testimony as to the blood being planted and the amount of EDTA.

Here is a portion of Dr. R.'s testimony given on 8/24/95.

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.

MR. BLASIER: That's all I have.
__________________


You read Dr. Riders testimony wrong. Rieders was only referring to 2000 parts per million when he said blood would not clot and a person will bleed to death, not 2 parts per million. If you can't understand this from reading the transcript I suggest you listen to your video tape.

Since you feel you have to repeat Dr. Rieder's wrong opinion that the gate blood and the sock blood could have come from preserved blood, I will repeat my response.

Dr. Rieder's opinion was wrong.

The fact is that Martz's nonpreserved blood contained the same low level amounts of what could be EDTA as he found in the gate and sock blood. Levels that were one hundred times lower then levels found in EDTA preserved blood. "If the blood on the rear gate and the socks had come from the preserved tube, the EDTA indicators would have been just as high. Instead they're about one hundredth the size."

In addition other evidence proved the defense claims false that the gate and sock blood were planted from preserved blood. That proof supported Martz's conclusions not Reiders. Dr. Rieder's opinion was wrong.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

You read Dr. Riders testimony wrong. Rieders was only referring to 2000 parts per million when he said blood would not clot and a person will bleed to death, not 2 parts per million. If you can't understand this from reading the transcript I suggest you listen to your video tape.

Since you feel you have to repeat Dr. Rieder's wrong opinion that the gate blood and the sock blood could have come from preserved blood, I will repeat my response.

Dr. Rieder's opinion was wrong.

The fact is that Martz's nonpreserved blood contained the same low level amounts of what could be EDTA as he found in the gate and sock blood. Levels that were one hundred times lower then levels found in EDTA preserved blood. "If the blood on the rear gate and the socks had come from the preserved tube, the EDTA indicators would have been just as high. Instead they're about one hundredth the size."

In addition other evidence proved the defense claims false that the gate and sock blood were planted from preserved blood. That proof supported Martz's conclusions not Reiders. Dr. Rieder's opinion was wrong.

bobaugust

You read it your way and I will read it mine. It seems that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. It must be reassuring to know that you are the only person in the world who is never wrong and be so knowledgeable on all things.

[bobaugust]

You read it your way and I will read it mine. It seems that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. It must be reassuring to know that you are the only person in the world who is never wrong and be so knowledgeable on all things.

The way you read it is wrong. The facts are the facts. The problem is you William, not people who do understand what what was said. If you want to continue to read it wrong and make false statements instead of admitting to your mistake that's your choice.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The way you read it is wrong. The facts are the facts. The problem is you William, not people who do understand what what was said. If you want to continue to read it wrong and make false statements instead of admitting to your mistake that's your choice.

bobaugust

The problem is that I disagre with you and have posted the testimony and have explained how I read it. You are capable of reading the same testimony and come to a different conclusion of what was said. However, the fact that the defense recalled Dr. R. to the stand and he clarified what he meant on August 14, 1995 , which was that if there was blood in the parts per million in blood stains, it was his expert opinion to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that the blood must have come from preserved blood containing EDTA and from a purple top tube. I think that my reading of his prior testimony is more consistent with his latter testimony than yours. Who better to explain what they meant, other than the person who said it? The fact is that there is different and conflicting testimonies from two experts, which leaves to the members of the jury to determine who was more credible, not to you or to me.

[bobaugust]

The problem is that I disagre with you and have posted the testimony and have explained how I read it. You are capable of reading the same testimony and come to a different conclusion of what was said. However, the fact that the defense recalled Dr. R. to the stand and he clarified what he meant on August 14, 1995 , which was that if there was blood in the parts per million in blood stains, it was his expert opinion to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that the blood must have come from preserved blood containing EDTA and from a purple top tube. I think that my reading of his prior testimony is more consistent with his latter testimony than yours. Who better to explain what they meant, other than the person who said it? The fact is that there is different and conflicting testimonies from two experts, which leaves to the members of the jury to determine who was more credible, not to you or to me.

You're taking Rieder's testimony out of context, it had nothing to do with the opinion he offered on August 14, 1995.

When Rieders gave his answer he was talking about the EPA report. Rieder's was not giving a range from 2 parts per million to 2000 parts per million. He said, "At two parts AT million--at 2000 parts per million EDTA in blood" He first misspoke and then corrected himself.

The fact that there is different and conflicting testimonies from two experts doesn't leave it to the jury to determine who was more credible when there is other evidence that tells them who was right and who was wrong. And there was other evidence that proved Martz was correct and Rieders was wrong.

July 24, 1995
DR. RIEDERS: Yep, I have a copy.
MS. CLARK: You have it, sir?
DR. RIEDERS: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Miss Clark, may I have a copy?
MS. CLARK: The source of this is EPA, your Honor.
MS. CLARK: I'm going to show you what's now been marked as People's 537.
MS. CLARK: And I'm going to ask if we can have it copied for counsel so they can keep it with them.
THE COURT: How many pages is that?
MS. CLARK: One page.
MS. CLARK: Do you see the relevant passage at the bottom, 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.

MS. CLARK: It's absurd. This is the basis for the EPA report that you referred to, sir, this absurd thing here?

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

You're taking Rieder's testimony out of context, it had nothing to do with the opinion he offered on August 14, 1995.

When Rieders gave his answer he was talking about the EPA report. Rieder's was not giving a range from 2 parts per million to 2000 parts per million. He said, "At two parts AT million--at 2000 parts per million EDTA in blood" He first misspoke and then corrected himself.

The fact that there is different and conflicting testimonies from two experts doesn't leave it to the jury to determine who was more credible when there is other evidence that tells them who was right and who was wrong. And there was other evidence that proved Martz was correct and Rieders was wrong.

July 24, 1995
DR. RIEDERS: Yep, I have a copy.
MS. CLARK: You have it, sir?
DR. RIEDERS: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Miss Clark, may I have a copy?
MS. CLARK: The source of this is EPA, your Honor.
MS. CLARK: I'm going to show you what's now been marked as People's 537.
MS. CLARK: And I'm going to ask if we can have it copied for counsel so they can keep it with them.
THE COURT: How many pages is that?
MS. CLARK: One page.
MS. CLARK: Do you see the relevant passage at the bottom, 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.

MS. CLARK: It's absurd. This is the basis for the EPA report that you referred to, sir, this absurd thing here?

bobaugust

I thinkthat is why he was recalled, after the defense saw that his testimony, as it appeared on paper was not clear. Hence, he testified that it was his expert to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that the stains came from preserved blood, because the results should have been in the parts per billion, not million.

[martin II]

I thinkthat is why he was recalled, after the defense saw that his testimony, as it appeared on paper was not clear. Hence, he testified that it was his expert to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that the stains came from preserved blood, because the results should have been in the parts per billion, not million.

he also testified that all three ions indicating EDTA were present.

martin II

[William Anthony]

he also testified that all three ions indicating EDTA were present.

martin II

You are correct, Martin. Perhaps, this is why the FBI suggested that Martz should continue his career outside their laboratory.

[bobaugust]

I thinkthat is why he was recalled, after the defense saw that his testimony, as it appeared on paper was not clear. Hence, he testified that it was his expert to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that the stains came from preserved blood, because the results should have been in the parts per billion, not million.

martin II, you're wrong on both of your thoughts.

I have posted the testimony regarding the report that Rieders relied on for that amount and that the number parts per billion was an error. Evidently you can't comprehend that fact since you keep referring to Rieders mistaken testimony.

August 14, 1995
Fredric Rieders, called on behalf of the Defendant, having been previously sworn, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

THE COURT: All right. The record should reflect that Dr. Fredric Rieders is again on the witness stand. And ladies and gentlemen, if you recollect, on July the 24th Dr. Rieders presented his direct testimony under questioning by Mr. Blasier and on July the 25th we started the cross-examination by Miss Clark. And because of Dr. Rieders' other commitments, we had to interrupt his cross-examination, completion of his testimony, and we are going to conclude his testimony this morning. Having said that, good morning, Dr. Rieders.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

martin II, you're wrong on both of your thoughts.

I have posted the testimony regarding the report that Rieders relied on for that amount and that the number parts per billion was an error. Evidently you can't comprehend that fact since you keep referring to Rieders mistaken testimony.

August 14, 1995
Fredric Rieders, called on behalf of the Defendant, having been previously sworn, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

THE COURT: All right. The record should reflect that Dr. Fredric Rieders is again on the witness stand. And ladies and gentlemen, if you recollect, on July the 24th Dr. Rieders presented his direct testimony under questioning by Mr. Blasier and on July the 25th we started the cross-examination by Miss Clark. And because of Dr. Rieders' other commitments, we had to interrupt his cross-examination, completion of his testimony, and we are going to conclude his testimony this morning. Having said that, good morning, Dr. Rieders.

bobaugust

You are wrong. I am not Martin. Regardless of whether or not his testimony was concluded he clarified what he meant.

[martin II]

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.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Let me show you 1259-C.

(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: And could you tell was that is, please?

MR. MARTZ: That is A--the daughter ion spectrum or chromatogram that I had run for Q206.

MR. BLASIER: And let's put that on the elmo.

MR. BLASIER: When you run the full daughter, what is it that you are looking for?

MR. MARTZ: Well, in this particular case I'm looking for the 160 to be the base peak, the 293 to be the second largest peak and the 132 ion to be about a third the size of the parent ion, so I'm looking for three ions in certain ratios.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. And one of those is the 132, correct?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you have already detected the 160 in the parent ion and in this sample, have you not?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I have.

MR. BLASIER: Now, what is the range that you scan in looking for the 132 daughter ion with this chart?

MR. MARTZ: In this particular experiment I set up scanning mass 130 to mass 295.

MR. BLASIER: Now, did you--were you following the analogy that we were talking about yesterday of a TV camera panning back and forth?

MR. MARTZ: Do I understand that analogy?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Is that a fair analogy?

MR. MARTZ: Sure, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And would you agree that if you scan from 130 to--what did you say?

MR. MARTZ: 295.

MR. BLASIER: --to 295, you are looking for a lot of things other than 132?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And would you agree also that under that particular method it is--if 132 is there you are not going to be looking at it very much at all?

MR. MARTZ: Well, it is relative. I mean, every 1.5 seconds I am looking at it for a considerable amount of time. It is all relative.

[weezer]

that is the critical work report the IG and FBI gave Agent Marts before they transfered him out of the lab where he claim he did various test in the oj case. This part was only for the oj case. The other critical reports had to do with his othert work on other cases. Like when he testified falsy and got a man a life sentance in jail

His tesimony is suspect at best.
imo

martin II

good grief martin -- Martz was not the witness that gave false testimony that sent an innocent man to prison -- it was Reiders (the guy you like to quote as being the expert)!

[weezer]

bob
the IG and FBI reports on Martz stand as they are reported. not only for the OJ Simpson case but for other cases martz was involved in.
i need no explanation form you. He was transfered out of the unit that he had supervised and required to have his work supervised or reviewed.

Th oj case was not the only case. there was a history and that IMOP is why he was demoted and tansfered out of that lab unit.

since his work superiors found serious fault with his work and trial preperations
WHY should i believe him. i don't especially after Dr Reiders testified.
IMO
MARTIN ii

then you should let them stand without your misinterpretations and false statements to the contrary! There was no history and your "IMOP" means nothing except you can't back up your post.

The fact that you find Reiders more credible than Martz is not surprising. Reiders sent an innocent man to prison by giving false/inaccurate testimony BUT he did testify for the defense in the simpson case. I guess since he was a defense witness, you can overlook his little misstep.

[bobaugust]

You are wrong. I am not Martin. Regardless of whether or not his testimony was concluded he clarified what he meant.

My apologies for calling you martin II.

Dr. Rieder's opinion that the gate and sock blood probably came from preserved blood is contradicted by the evidence that the levels of possible EDTA in the gate and sock blood were one hundred times smaller than the levels of EDTA in the preserved blood samples.

Dr. Rieder's opinion is contradicted by another expert, Dr. Terry Lee, who testified in the civil trial.

Dr. Reader's opinion is contradicted by the reality of the photographic evidence that Simpson's blood was on the rear gate many hours before any blood was even taken from Simpson and preserved proving the gate blood was not planted from Simpson's preserved blood sample.

Dr. Rieder's opinion is contradicted by the evidence that based on the degradation levels of Nicole's blood on Simpson's sock compared to her preserved blood autopsy sample Dr. Cotton found that Nicole's blood on Simpson's sock was fresher in DNA making it impossible for her blood on the sock to have come from her preserved blood autopsy sample.

bobaugust

[martin II]

then you should let them stand without your misinterpretations and false statements to the contrary! There was no history and your "IMOP" means nothing except you can't back up your post.

The fact that you find Reiders more credible than Martz is not surprising. Reiders sent an innocent man to prison by giving false/inaccurate testimony BUT he did testify for the defense in the simpson case. I guess since he was a defense witness, you can overlook his little misstep.

bob

I think it was Martz false/wrong testimony that got a man the death penalty.
right?

martin II

[martin II]

good grief martin -- Martz was not the witness that gave false testimony that sent an innocent man to prison -- it was Reiders (the guy you like to quote as being the expert)!

correction.

Weezer
On the subject of martz testimony . here is something you may have overlooked.

martin II

http://ftp.fas.org/irp/congress/1997_hr/h970513a.htm


Bromwich also proposed demotion and possible transfer for Roger Martz, head of the chemistry-toxicology unit, who he said "lacks the judgment and credibility to perform in a supervisory role."

Martz was criticized for testifying to an "opinion stronger than his analytical results would support" in a Florida trial that resulted in a death sentence for George Trepal for putting poison in Coca-Cola bottles.

The report also said Martz did a "seriously deficient" review of allegations of errors by lab examiner Terry Rudolph.

[weezer]

bob

I think it was Martz false/wrong testimony that got a man the death penalty.
right?

martin II

then you 'think' wrong . . . .

[martin II]

then you 'think' wrong . . . .

weezer
see post #565 above.

martin II

[weezer]

correction.

Weezer
On the subject of martz testimony . here is something you may have overlooked.

martin II

http://ftp.fas.org/irp/congress/1997_hr/h970513a.htm


Bromwich also proposed demotion and possible transfer for Roger Martz, head of the chemistry-toxicology unit, who he said "lacks the judgment and credibility to perform in a supervisory role."

Martz was criticized for testifying to an "opinion stronger than his analytical results would support" in a Florida trial that resulted in a death sentence for George Trepal for putting poison in Coca-Cola bottles.

The report also said Martz did a "seriously deficient" review of allegations of errors by lab examiner Terry Rudolph.

martin, martin, martin. . . .it doesn't matter how you twist and spin this, the fact is Martz's testing and testimony in the simpson trial was accurate and correct. Reiders, however, did not do any testing and re/mis-interpreted a test YOU find to be not credible.

George Trepal was found guilty by the evidence -- one of which was his CONFESSION.

Reiders however, DID send an INNOCENT man to prison by falsley testifying about a test he DID do.

[martin II]

martin, martin, martin. . . .it doesn't matter how you twist and spin this, the fact is Martz's testing and testimony in the simpson trial was accurate and correct. Reiders, however, did not do any testing and re/mis-interpreted a test YOU find to be not credible.

George Trepal was found guilty by the evidence -- one of which was his CONFESSION.

Reiders however, DID send an INNOCENT man to prison by falsley testifying about a test he DID do.

weezer
let me help you

it is not possible for me to twist or spin direct quotes from the IG /FBI report.
I really am a little puzzled as to why the prosecution selected Martz to prove their point. Unless they figured he would say what was requested. but there must have been several more qualified scientist they could have used.imo
martin II

[martin II]

martin, martin, martin. . . .it doesn't matter how you twist and spin this, the fact is Martz's testing and testimony in the simpson trial was accurate and correct. Reiders, however, did not do any testing and re/mis-interpreted a test YOU find to be not credible.

George Trepal was found guilty by the evidence -- one of which was his CONFESSION.

Reiders however, DID send an INNOCENT man to prison by falsley testifying about a test he DID do.

weezer
i wonder if they meant Martz lied?

"Martz was criticized for testifying to an "opinion stronger than his analytical results would support" in a Florida trial that resulted in a death sentence for George Trepal for putting poison in Coca-Cola bottle"
martin II

[weezer]

weezer
i wonder if they meant Martz lied?

"Martz was criticized for testifying to an "opinion stronger than his analytical results would support" in a Florida trial that resulted in a death sentence for George Trepal for putting poison in Coca-Cola bottle"
martin II

Nope -- that's not what they meant AND unlike Reiders, he didn't give false testimony.

[weezer]

weezer
let me help you

it is not possible for me to twist or spin direct quotes from the IG /FBI report.
I really am a little puzzled as to why the prosecution selected Martz to prove their point. Unless they figured he would say what was requested. but there must have been several more qualified scientist they could have used.imo
martin II

I apologize if I mistook your lack of comprehension as twisting and spinning.

[martin II]

Nope -- that's not what they meant AND unlike Reiders, he didn't give false testimony.

He gave FALSE TESTIMONY.

http://www.sptimes.com/News/030501/Worldandnation/Sloppy_lab_work_casts.shtml

George Trepal

Trepal
Trepal, 52, a chemistry buff and onetime computer programmer, was sentenced to death in 1991 for killing a neighbor, Peggy Carr, by spiking her Coca Cola with thallium nitrate, a rat poison. Polk County deputies said Trepal was fed up with the Carr family's loud music and their dogs, which chased his cats. The case became known as the "Mensa murder" because Trepal was a member of the Mensa high-IQ club.

FBI lab examiner Roger Martz testified at the trial that, based on chemical tests of three Coca Cola samples, thallium nitrate had been added to the Coca Cola. But at a 1999 hearing, testimony by Martz and other scientists established that Martz had failed to label tests correctly, improperly documented his results, misrepresented results to the jury and testified falsely about specific tests performed on one of the samples.

In a ruling last October, retired Circuit Judge E. Randolph Bentley called Martz's conduct "outrageous and shocking." The judge also said portions of testimony by two other FBI examiners were "not credible."

Bentley refused to grant Trepal a new trial, however. According to the judge, it is doubtful that information known now would have led to a different verdict or sentence because other evidence, he said, amply demonstrated Trepal's guilt.

But Bentley also acknowledged that he was disturbed by the conclusions the law led him to, saying he is "not comfortable with the outcome which the current law requires." He urged the Florida Supreme Court to "carefully review the law in this area."


weezer
try not to miss this.
"Martz had failed to label tests correctly, improperly documented his results, misrepresented results to the jury and testified falsely about specific tests performed on one of the samples."

MARTIN ii

[martin II]

I apologize if I mistook your lack of comprehension as twisting and spinning.

It seems that when you stated that Martz did not testify falsly on this case it make me believe it may be you that has comprehension problems.
see my post # 573.It corrects your FALSE statement.
MARTIN ii

[weezer]

He gave FALSE TESTIMONY.

http://www.sptimes.com/News/030501/Worldandnation/Sloppy_lab_work_casts.shtml

George Trepal

Trepal
Trepal, 52, a chemistry buff and onetime computer programmer, was sentenced to death in 1991 for killing a neighbor, Peggy Carr, by spiking her Coca Cola with thallium nitrate, a rat poison. Polk County deputies said Trepal was fed up with the Carr family's loud music and their dogs, which chased his cats. The case became known as the "Mensa murder" because Trepal was a member of the Mensa high-IQ club.

FBI lab examiner Roger Martz testified at the trial that, based on chemical tests of three Coca Cola samples, thallium nitrate had been added to the Coca Cola. But at a 1999 hearing, testimony by Martz and other scientists established that Martz had failed to label tests correctly, improperly documented his results, misrepresented results to the jury and testified falsely about specific tests performed on one of the samples.

In a ruling last October, retired Circuit Judge E. Randolph Bentley called Martz's conduct "outrageous and shocking." The judge also said portions of testimony by two other FBI examiners were "not credible."

Bentley refused to grant Trepal a new trial, however. According to the judge, it is doubtful that information known now would have led to a different verdict or sentence because other evidence, he said, amply demonstrated Trepal's guilt.

But Bentley also acknowledged that he was disturbed by the conclusions the law led him to, saying he is "not comfortable with the outcome which the current law requires." He urged the Florida Supreme Court to "carefully review the law in this area."


weezer
try not to miss this.
"Martz had failed to label tests correctly, improperly documented his results, misrepresented results to the jury and testified falsely about specific tests performed on one of the samples."

MARTIN ii

I was concentrating on this part:

"Bentley refused to grant Trepal a new trial, however. According to the judge, it is doubtful that information known now would have led to a different verdict or sentence because other evidence, he said, amply demonstrated Trepal's guilt."

[martin II]

I was concentrating on this part:

"Bentley refused to grant Trepal a new trial, however. According to the judge, it is doubtful that information known now would have led to a different verdict or sentence because other evidence, he said, amply demonstrated Trepal's guilt."


weezer
HOLD ON Lets not skip over the issue.

you stated that Martz DID NOT TESTIFY FALSY in the Trepal case.

The judge said Martz testified FALSLY in the TREPAL case.
you did not miss that did you.
imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

*snip*
The judge said Martz testified FALSLY in the TREPAL case.


What do this have to do with the Simpson case? I'd say nothing.

[weezer]

weezer
HOLD ON Lets not skip over the issue.

you stated that Martz DID NOT TESTIFY FALSY in the Trepal case.

The judge said Martz testified FALSLY in the TREPAL case.
you did not miss that did you.
imo
martin II

oh well -- my bad -- I guess I haven't put as much importance on Martz's testimony against a guilty murderer as I did Reider's false testimony that sent an innocent man to prison.

hey, I wonder if orenthal remembers this quote of his:

"The day you take complete responsibility for yourself, the day you stop making any excuses, that's the day you start to the top.
O. J. Simpson"

[socaldiva]

*snip*
"The day you take complete responsibility for yourself, the day you stop making any excuses, that's the day you start to the top.
O. J. Simpson"

Too bad he's never put that thought into practice. Do you read in If I Did It that Nicole started becoming physical with him after she had Jason? What a crock! I've yet to see him take responsibility. He's such a loser.

[weezer]

Too bad he's never put that thought into practice. Do you read in If I Did It that Nicole started becoming physical with him after she had Jason? What a crock! I've yet to see him take responsibility. He's such a loser.

his idea of her being physical was when she put her hands up to defend herself.............I have three words for orenthal: karma, karma, karma......

[socaldiva]

his idea of her being physical was when she put her hands up to defend herself.............I have three words for orenthal: karma, karma, karma......

Yes, that's my wish for Orenthal. A big serving of karma :tongue:

[martin II]

oh well -- my bad -- I guess I haven't put as much importance on Martz's testimony against a guilty murderer as I did Reider's false testimony that sent an innocent man to prison.

hey, I wonder if orenthal remembers this quote of his:

"The day you take complete responsibility for yourself, the day you stop making any excuses, that's the day you start to the top.
O. J. Simpson"

good advise

'THE DAY YOU LET GO OF THE HATE AND ANGER IS THE DAY YOU FIND PEACE."

martin II

[martin II]

his idea of her being physical was when she put her hands up to defend herself.............I have three words for orenthal: karma, karma, karma......

If oj forced NICOLE TO HAVE JASON she should have been pissed.

martin ii

[weezer]

good advise

'THE DAY YOU LET GO OF THE HATE AND ANGER IS THE DAY YOU FIND PEACE."

martin II

yeah -- I liked this one too:

"You've been out here eight times before and now you're going to arrest me for this? This is a family matter.
O. J. Simpson "

[weezer]

If oj forced NICOLE TO HAVE JASON she should have been pissed.

martin ii

WTH are you talking about?

[William Anthony]

My apologies for calling you martin II.

Dr. Rieder's opinion that the gate and sock blood probably came from preserved blood is contradicted by the evidence that the levels of possible EDTA in the gate and sock blood were one hundred times smaller than the levels of EDTA in the preserved blood samples.

Dr. Rieder's opinion is contradicted by another expert, Dr. Terry Lee, who testified in the civil trial.

Dr. Reader's opinion is contradicted by the reality of the photographic evidence that Simpson's blood was on the rear gate many hours before any blood was even taken from Simpson and preserved proving the gate blood was not planted from Simpson's preserved blood sample.

Dr. Rieder's opinion is contradicted by the evidence that based on the degradation levels of Nicole's blood on Simpson's sock compared to her preserved blood autopsy sample Dr. Cotton found that Nicole's blood on Simpson's sock was fresher in DNA making it impossible for her blood on the sock to have come from her preserved blood autopsy sample.

bobaugust

We have discussed the possibility of doctored photos. Let's not talk about blood that was not collected, even though allegedly pointed out. The reality is that in between the time the photos were allegedly taken and the stain collected Simpson's blood had been taken.

The fact is that you must make an observation of a witness in order to determine if their testimony is credible and one can find one witness more credible than five. I am speaking of reasonable doubt.

[bobaugust]

We have discussed the possibility of doctored photos. Let's not talk about blood that was not collected, even though allegedly pointed out. The reality is that in between the time the photos were allegedly taken and the stain collected Simpson's blood had been taken.

The fact is that you must make an observation of a witness in order to determine if their testimony is credible and one can find one witness more credible than five. I am speaking of reasonable doubt.

Very good, maybe you are starting to realize the reality of what happened. Simpson's defense claimed that the blood on the rear gate wasn't collected the morning after the murders because it wasn't on the gate, that it was planted sometime before it was later collected on July 3. The crime scene photograph taken on June 13 documents that one of those stains was on the rear gate. Simpson's attorneys never disputed that fact, or questioned the authenticity of the photograph. Simpson's defense objected because the photo was enlarged to show the blood stain. They were overruled. During his testimony Fung compared the June 13 photograph to the July 3 photograph and testified they both showed the blood stain in the same configuration and same location on the rear gate.

April 3, 1995
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WE'RE OVER AT THE SIDEBAR.
MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS APPARENTLY A BLOWUP
OF A PHOTOGRAPH. WE HAVE A SMALL VERSION OF THAT
PHOTOGRAPH, BUT WE NEVER HAD A BLOWN UP VERSION OF THIS
PHOTOGRAPH.
OBVIOUSLY IT'S BEING USED AT THIS POINT IN TIME
TO TRY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT SOME STAINS ON THIS REAR GATE
WHICH WERE FOUND ON JULY 3RD WERE THERE ON (JUNE 13TH), AND
I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE HAD PRIOR NOTICE THEY WERE GOING TO
ENGAGE IN THIS KIND OF BLOWUP SO THAT WE WOULD HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE AN EXPERT STUDY IT AND PERHAPS DO OUR
OWN OR GET ACCESS TO THE NEGATIVES.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, FOR THE RECORD, THIS IS
ONE OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN ON JUNE THE 13TH AND THEY ALL
HAVE HAD IT IN DISCOVERY FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS. I MEAN, I
DON'T UNDERSTAND THE BASIS OF THE OBJECTION.

MR. SCHECK: THE BASIS OF THE OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR,
IS, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT PROCESSES THEY USED. THEY ARE GOING
TO BE OFFERING IT TO THIS JURY. WE, OF COURSE, HAVE LOOKED
AT A SMALLER VERSION OF THIS PHOTOGRAPH AND ATTEMPTED TO
SEE IF WE CAN SEE SOMETHING THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH BOTH
115 AND 116 THERE AND FROM THE SMALLER VERSION, YOU KNOW,
COULD NOT REACH SUCH CONCLUSIONS. AND THE PROBLEM IS, WE
HAVE NO IDEA HOW THIS WAS BLOWN UP. WE HAD NO OPPORTUNITY
-- ACCESS TO NEGATIVES AND EXAMINE OUR OWN OR FIGURE OUT
WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THIS KIND OF PHOTOGRAPHY.
THAT'S ALL.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. GOLDBERG.
MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM
DISCOVERY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. WE'VE GIVEN THEM THE
PHOTOGRAPHS. THEY'VE HAD IT FOR MONTHS. THEY HAVE KNOWN
THIS EXISTED.
WHAT THEY ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT IS, THEY DON'T
KNOW WHAT OUR TRIAL TACTIC IS GOING TO BE. WE DON'T HAVE
TO GIVE THEM NOTICE OF HOW BIG THE PHOTOGRAPH -- WILL YOU
PLEASE WAIT -- OF HOW BIG THE PHOTOGRAPH IS GOING TO BE.
AND THEY DON'T HAVE ANY -- WE DON'T HAVE TO
GIVE THEM NOTICE OF SPECIFICALLY WHAT WE ARE GOING TO USE,
YOU KNOW, WHAT WE ARE GOING TO USE TO HANDLE ISSUES THAT
THEY'VE RAISED PER SE AS LONG AS THEY HAVE THAT DISCOVERY,
AS LONG AS THEY HAVE ACCESS TO THE MATERIAL. WHAT THEY ARE
COMPLAINING ABOUT IS, THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT MY STRATEGY WAS
GOING TO BE.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, WHAT I'M COMPLAINING ABOUT
IS THE FACT THAT OBVIOUSLY THIS IS BEING OFFERED FOR A VERY
MATERIAL PURPOSE. THAT IS TO SAY THAT YOU CAN SEE
SOMETHING THERE THAT'S VERY, VERY FAINT AND SOMETHING THAT,
YOU KNOW, WE HAD DIFFICULTY SEEING IN A SMALL PHOTOGRAPH.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT PROCESSES WERE USED TO BLOW
THIS UP. THEY HAVE ACCESS TO THE NEGATIVES. IF THEY WERE
GOING TO BE ENGAGING IN BLOWING UP A PHOTOGRAPH OF THIS
KIND, PARTICULARLY FOR THIS IMPORTANT PURPOSE, THEY WERE
REQUIRED TO TELL US, SHOW US SO THAT WE CAN INVESTIGATE
THIS PHOTOGRAPH, GET ACCESS TO THE NEGATIVES OURSELVES AND
BLOW IT UP EVEN FURTHER.
YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS IS A SURPRISE TACTIC AND
THEY'RE OBLIGATED TO SHOW US THIS. THEY CAN'T GIVE US A
PHOTOGRAPH WHERE YOU CAN'T REALLY SEE ANYTHING AND TRY TO
PROVE THAT THERE'S REALLY BLOODSTAINS ON A GATE ON JUNE
13TH THAT THEY CAME BACK AND FOUND JULY 3RD. I DON'T THINK
THAT'S FAIR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THE
PHOTOGRAPH. IT DOES APPEAR TO BE A ROUGHLY EIGHT BY TEN
COLOR PHOTOGRAPH THAT APPEARS TO DEPICT THE BOTTOM PORTION
OF THE FENCE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUNDY WALKWAY. AND BY
USING A MAGNIFYING GLASS, I CAN SEE FROM THIS BLOWN-UP
PHOTOGRAPH WHAT APPEARS TO BE A REDDISH STAIN AT THE BOTTOM
OF THE GATE WHICH APPARENTLY IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT
HERE.
I DON'T NOTICE ANYTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THE
MANNER IN WHICH THIS HAS BEEN BLOWN UP. IT DOESN'T APPEAR
TO BE DISTORTED IN ANY WAY, AND I'LL OVERRULE THE
OBJECTION.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Very good, maybe you are starting to realize the reality of what happened. Simpson's defense claimed that the blood on the rear gate wasn't collected the morning after the murders because it wasn't on the gate, that it was planted sometime before it was later collected on July 3. The crime scene photograph taken on June 13 documents that one of those stains was on the rear gate. Simpson's attorneys never disputed that fact, or questioned the authenticity of the photograph. Simpson's defense objected because the photo was enlarged to show the blood stain. They were overruled. During his testimony Fung compared the June 13 photograph to the July 3 photograph and testified they both showed the blood stain in the same configuration and same location on the rear gate.

bobaugust

You are agruing apples and oranges here. The defense already intimated and provided some evidence through testimony that the photo was not taken when it said it was. The jury and others are free to speculate and engage in conjecture that the other were not what they were presented to be (doctored). Ergo, there is reason to believe that the stain was not there on June 13. What we know for sure is that Mazzola did not remember seeing a gate, even though the stain was allegedly pointed out to her and that neither she nor Fung collected the alleged stain on June 13 or anytime thereabouts. What we also know is that Simpson had given his blood by the time the stain was collected. What we also know is that there was conflicting testimony as to whether or not that stain came from a purple top tube containing EDTA, which was used to preserve blood. you may choose to believe that everyting was as the prosecution stated, even though the photographer was confused and others may chose to believe that something is amiss. Does the phrase beyond a reasonable doubt come to mind? Before anyone jumps to a wrong conclusion, where I used the word know I meant what we can surmise based on the evidence presented.

[bobaugust]

You are agruing apples and oranges here. The defense already intimated and provided some evidence through testimony that the photo was not taken when it said it was. The jury and others are free to speculate and engage in conjecture that the other were not what they were presented to be (doctored). Ergo, there is reason to believe that the stain was not there on June 13. What we know for sure is that Mazzola did not remember seeing a gate, even though the stain was allegedly pointed out to her and that neither she nor Fung collected the alleged stain on June 13 or anytime thereabouts. What we also know is that Simpson had given his blood by the time the stain was collected. What we also know is that there was conflicting testimony as to whether or not that stain came from a purple top tube containing EDTA, which was used to preserve blood. you may choose to believe that everyting was as the prosecution stated, even though the photographer was confused and others may chose to believe that something is amiss. Does the phrase beyond a reasonable doubt come to mind? Before anyone jumps to a wrong conclusion, where I used the word know I meant what we can surmise based on the evidence presented.

Simpson's defense never argued that this crime scene photograph was not taken on June 13 when all the evidence at Bundy was photographed. If you think they did then support your claim.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Simpson's defense never argued that this crime scene photograph was not taken on June 13 when all the evidence at Bundy was photographed. If you think they did then support your claim.

bobaugust

I never stated the argued that. I said they intimated that and it was done through the evidence on cross by showing evidence that one of the photos was not what it was alleged to be and that the trier of fact was free to disregard any or all of the evidence, if they found it lacking in credibility. As you say what the lawyers say is not evidence. In this instance, they let the evidence speak for itself, imho.

[bobaugust]

I never stated the argued that. I said they intimated that and it was done through the evidence on cross by showing evidence that one of the photos was not what it was alleged to be and that the trier of fact was free to disregard any or all of the evidence, if they found it lacking in credibility. As you say what the lawyers say is not evidence. In this instance, they let the evidence speak for itself, imho.

There was no intimation. If you took it that way then you evidently didn't understand the fact that Simpson's defense had been given that photograph months before and it had been entered into evidence with all the crime scene photographs. The fact is that seven witnesses testified to seeing the blood on the rear gate on June 13 and that photograph documented one of the stains they saw proving the defense planting theory false. Simpson's attorneys knew that and their desperate attempts to try to stop the prosecutors from presented the enlarged version of the photograph failed. After Fung's testimony regarding this blood stain Simpson's defense never again claimed that Simpson's blood on the rear gate was planted from Simpson's reference sample, something you evidently still can't or refuse to accept.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

There was no intimation. If you took it that way then you evidently didn't understand the fact that Simpson's defense had been given that photograph months before and it had been entered into evidence with all the crime scene photographs. The fact is that seven witnesses testified to seeing the blood on the rear gate on June 13 and that photograph documented one of the stains they saw proving the defense planting theory false. Simpson's attorneys knew that and their desperate attempts to try to stop the prosecutors from presented the enlarged version of the photograph failed. After Fung's testimony regarding this blood stain Simpson's defense never again claimed that Simpson's blood on the rear gate was planted from Simpson's reference sample, something you evidently still can't or refuse to accept.

bobaugust

I read Rokahr's testimony and watched him testify. Nothing you post alters my opinion that the defense sucessfully suggested/intimated that the photos were doctored. The defenses objection was not to the enlargment. It was a foundational objection as to the admissibility of the enlargment, as I understood the testimony. I am not familiar enough with the California rules of evidence to say whether Ito's ruling was on solid ground. I think you missed the point that, once the orginal could have been discredited by the jury, the enlargment was only a bigger discredit.

[bobaugust]

I read Rokahr's testimony and watched him testify. Nothing you post alters my opinion that the defense sucessfully suggested/intimated that the photos were doctored. The defenses objection was not to the enlargment. It was a foundational objection as to the admissibility of the enlargment, as I understood the testimony. I am not familiar enough with the California rules of evidence to say whether Ito's ruling was on solid ground. I think you missed the point that, once the orginal could have been discredited by the jury, the enlargment was only a bigger discredit.

I think you missed the point that the defense never intimated or suggested any crime scene photograph was doctored. If you think they did, post the testimony.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I think you missed the point that the defense never intimated or suggested any crime scene photograph was doctored. If you think they did, post the testimony.

bobaugust

We have had this discussion and I have told you what I meant by the word doctored, evidence represented to be something it is not, i.e. the photo was taken when it was not. In this case, the photo was allegedly taken in the daylight, when the cross ellicited it was taken at night. That testimony has been posted.

[bobaugust]

We have had this discussion and I have told you what I meant by the word doctored, evidence represented to be something it is not, i.e. the photo was taken when it was not. In this case, the photo was allegedly taken in the daylight, when the cross ellicited it was taken at night. That testimony has been posted.

Your definition of doctored relating to a photograph is wrong. A doctored photograph is when the image on that photograph has been altered to show something that it did not show. The crime scene photographs were not doctored and no attorney in the Simpson case in either trial ever suggested or claimed that they were. The fact that there was a dispute as to the time of day that a photograph was taken doesn't change the authenticity or credibility of what that photograph documents.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Your definition of doctored relating to a photograph is wrong. A doctored photograph is when the image on that photograph has been altered to show something that it did not show. The crime scene photographs were not doctored and no attorney in the Simpson case in either trial ever suggested or claimed that they were. The fact that there was a dispute as to the time of day that a photograph was taken doesn't change the authenticity or credibility of what that photograph documents.

bobaugust

I posted Webster's defintion of the word doctored, which is consistent with mine. If anyone does not agree with you they are wrong, imho. I found them to be not credible based on the testimony and lacked, not authenticity but authentification. A doctored photo remains an authentic doctored photo, if it is the original. However, the law accepts duplicates, which would make a duplicate a duplicate of the original doctored photo, i.e. represented to be taken at night when it was taken in the daylight or vice versa. Reasonable doubt comes to mind.

[bobaugust]

I posted Webster's defintion of the word doctored, which is consistent with mine. If anyone does not agree with you they are wrong, imho. I found them to be not credible based on the testimony and lacked, not authenticity but authentification. A doctored photo remains an authentic doctored photo, if it is the original. However, the law accepts duplicates, which would make a duplicate a duplicate of the original doctored photo, i.e. represented to be taken at night when it was taken in the daylight or vice versa. Reasonable doubt comes to mind.

Maybe I missed it but I don't recall you posting a dictionary definition for the word "doctoring." Either way please post it again. According to Merriam-Webster the definition for doctoring is "to adapt or modify for a desired end by alteration or special treatment" and "to alter deceptively" Neither of which was ever suggested or claimed to have happened to any of the crime scene photographs by anyone in this case.

Your explanation has nothing to do with what happened in this case. The photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove was not a duplicated photograph it was a first generation photograph that was provided to the defense months earlier. The defense claim that the photograph was taken at night was not based on the photograph but on the testimony from a witness who was confused as to what time of day he took that photograph. Other evidence tells us the photograph was taken some two hours later then the defense imagined it was taken.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Maybe I missed it but I don't recall you posting a dictionary definition for the word "doctoring." Either way please post it again. According to Merriam-Webster the definition for doctoring is "to adapt or modify for a desired end by alteration or special treatment" and "to alter deceptively" Neither of which was ever suggested or claimed to have happened to any of the crime scene photographs by anyone in this case.

Your explanation has nothing to do with what happened in this case. The photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove was not a duplicated photograph it was a first generation photograph that was provided to the defense months earlier. The defense claim that the photograph was taken at night was not based on the photograph but on the testimony from a witness who was confused as to what time of day he took that photograph. Other evidence tells us the photograph was taken some two hours later then the defense imagined it was taken.

bobaugust

If you missed it post then please find it. The fact remains that there was evidence that the photo was not what it was represented to be (doctored), i.e. a photo taken in daylight. This evidence was offered by the person who allegedly took the photo. Ergo, reasonable doubt, imho.

[weezer]

Maybe I missed it but I don't recall you posting a dictionary definition for the word "doctoring." Either way please post it again. According to Merriam-Webster the definition for doctoring is "to adapt or modify for a desired end by alteration or special treatment" and "to alter deceptively" Neither of which was ever suggested or claimed to have happened to any of the crime scene photographs by anyone in this case.

Your explanation has nothing to do with what happened in this case. The photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove was not a duplicated photograph it was a first generation photograph that was provided to the defense months earlier. The defense claim that the photograph was taken at night was not based on the photograph but on the testimony from a witness who was confused as to what time of day he took that photograph. Other evidence tells us the photograph was taken some two hours later then the defense imagined it was taken.

bobaugust

I never saw a post giving the definition either BUT it could have been couched in one of the more rambling posts and I simply skipped over it. :shrug:

[martin II]

I never saw a post giving the definition either BUT it could have been couched in one of the more rambling posts and I simply skipped over it. :shrug:

weezer

If it was posted maby you missed that as you did the judges decision that Martz testified FALSELY.Post 578
We all miss things from time to time.

imo
martinII

[bobaugust]

If you missed it post then please find it. The fact remains that there was evidence that the photo was not what it was represented to be (doctored), i.e. a photo taken in daylight. This evidence was offered by the person who allegedly took the photo. Ergo, reasonable doubt, imho.

Not only is your definition of the word "doctored" incorrect you can't even back up your claim that you posted any definition at all. I asked you nicely to please repost your alleged definition which should not be very hard to do if you already posted it somewhere previously before but evidently you can't or won't honor my simple request.

The claim that the photograph was not taken when Rokahr mistakenly told the defense he thought it was in no way changes the actual photograph. Since Rokahr testified that he always used a flash to take his photographs be it at night, or at dawn there is no way anyone can tell from that photograph at what time of day it was taken.

That is not doctoring of the photograph that's doctoring of your false claim.

bobaugust

[weezer]

weezer

If it was posted maby you missed that as you did the judges decision that Martz testified FALSELY.Post 578
We all miss things from time to time.

imo
martinII

hmmm -- maybe.....I'm not very good at reading rambling, non-sensical postings. Either that or he didn't post the definition.

[William Anthony]

Not only is your definition of the word "doctored" incorrect you can't even back up your claim that you posted any definition at all. I asked you nicely to please repost your alleged definition which should not be very hard to do if you already posted it somewhere previously before but evidently you can't or won't honor my simple request.

The claim that the photograph was not taken when Rokahr mistakenly told the defense he thought it was in no way changes the actual photograph. Since Rokahr testified that he always used a flash to take his photographs be it at night, or at dawn there is no way anyone can tell from that photograph at what time of day it was taken.

That is not doctoring of the photograph that's doctoring of your false claim.

bobaugust

I have never used this before but, after reading this post, I must say WTH. Did you forget the testimony I posted of Rokahr where he said he took it at night. Did you forget his statements that he taked with the MF withing 5-10 minutes of taking the overalls and that is when he took the photo of the MF point at the glove. You are correct there is no way to tell when the photo was taken. Ergo, reasonable doubt comes to mind.

I have posted it and explained my definition, if you want to do the research feel free, as I have neither the time nor inclination. However, if you want to pay me for my time, I will send you the bill.

[bobaugust]

I have never used this before but, after reading this post, I must say WTH. Did you forget the testimony I posted of Rokahr where he said he took it at night. Did you forget his statements that he taked with the MF withing 5-10 minutes of taking the overalls and that is when he took the photo of the MF point at the glove. You are correct there is no way to tell when the photo was taken. Ergo, reasonable doubt comes to mind.

I have posted it and explained my definition, if you want to do the research feel free, as I have neither the time nor inclination. However, if you want to pay me for my time, I will send you the bill.

No I didn't forget what Rokahr said, but he was confused and his memory was not correct. He may have thought he took the photograph at night but the evidence is that he took it at dawn. He may very well have spoken to Fuhrman after he shot the overalls, but the evidence that he took the next photograph after the overalls later in the morning at dawn.

You say you dismiss all of Rokahr's testimony because he was confused and not credible and now not only are you relying on it as being credible you claim it causes you to have reasonable doubt. Your doubt is not reasonable at all since other evidence tells us that photograph was taken later than Rokahr remembered.

You claim you posted a dictionary definition for the word doctored yet you can't even support that claim. This subject has been discussed on more than one thread and I haven't found any posting of yours where you have posted any dictionary definition of the word "doctored." I've posted the dictionary definition, you haven't. The photograph didn't change. The only thing argued was the time of day when it was taken. No crime scene photograph was ever doctored and no attorney in this case in either trial ever suggested or claimed otherwise. Your claim that it was doctored is false and your claim that you posted a dictionary definition of the word "doctored" to support that false claim is also false. Prove me wrong please.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

No I didn't forget what Rokahr said, but he was confused and his memory was not correct. He may have thought he took the photograph at night but the evidence is that he took it at dawn. He may very well have spoken to Fuhrman after he shot the overalls, but the evidence that he took the next photograph after the overalls later in the morning at dawn.

You say you dismiss all of Rokahr's testimony because he was confused and not credible and now not only are you relying on it as being credible you claim it causes you to have reasonable doubt. Your doubt is not reasonable at all since other evidence tells us that photograph was taken later than Rokahr remembered.

You claim you posted a dictionary definition for the word doctored yet you can't even support that claim. This subject has been discussed on more than one thread and I haven't found any posting of yours where you have posted any dictionary definition of the word "doctored." I've posted the dictionary definition, you haven't. The photograph didn't change. The only thing argued was the time of day when it was taken. No crime scene photograph was ever doctored and no attorney in this case in either trial ever suggested or claimed otherwise. Your claim that it was doctored is false and your claim that you posted a dictionary definition of the word "doctored" to support that false claim is also false. Prove me wrong please.

bobaugust

The definition you posted was similar to mine, if not identical. The words used were to alter in order to decieve, i.e. to represent something as being done at a time it was not. I have not relied on his testimony and only asked you did you forget it. The other evidence you rely on is contingent upon finding others credible and I have addressed that issue. My claim of doctoring is not false, only that it is different from your understanding. Why is it that when someone does not agree with you they what they offer is false or wrong?

[William Anthony]

No I didn't forget what Rokahr said, but he was confused and his memory was not correct. He may have thought he took the photograph at night but the evidence is that he took it at dawn. He may very well have spoken to Fuhrman after he shot the overalls, but the evidence that he took the next photograph after the overalls later in the morning at dawn.

You say you dismiss all of Rokahr's testimony because he was confused and not credible and now not only are you relying on it as being credible you claim it causes you to have reasonable doubt. Your doubt is not reasonable at all since other evidence tells us that photograph was taken later than Rokahr remembered.

You claim you posted a dictionary definition for the word doctored yet you can't even support that claim. This subject has been discussed on more than one thread and I haven't found any posting of yours where you have posted any dictionary definition of the word "doctored." I've posted the dictionary definition, you haven't. The photograph didn't change. The only thing argued was the time of day when it was taken. No crime scene photograph was ever doctored and no attorney in this case in either trial ever suggested or claimed otherwise. Your claim that it was doctored is false and your claim that you posted a dictionary definition of the word "doctored" to support that false claim is also false. Prove me wrong please.

bobaugust

You have called me false so many times. You have tried to bait me so that I could get banned. I will not call you false and only say that you must have overlooked the post in your search. I will not ask you for a public apology, since you have shown you will not. I am not trying to prove you wrong but following your request. Here it the post.

06-12-2007, 11:41 PM
William Anthony
Super Member Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: love everlasting
Posts: 3,871


Quote:
Originally Posted by bobaugust
Evidently you forgot that you said, "There were intimations that the pictures were not taken when they said they were as well as an implication that they could have been doctored."

That's false. There was never any implication any crime scene photograph could have been doctored.

Based on your false claim you then said, "An intelligent jury is free to disbelieve any of the evidence presented if any of the evidence presented by a witness(es) is discredited."

The criminal trial jury had no reason not to believe any crime scene photograph was not credible.

bobaugust

Perhaps, I did not make myself clear. This is from Webester's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988-"to change in order to decieve." This could mean something as simple as saying a picture was taken when it was not. Therefore, as I have previously stated, the jury was free to disbelieve any or all of the photographic evidence.
__________________
Doc Holiday

The best way to win a war is to not fight one.

As you can see that was posted on June 12, 2007, which was not that long ago. I hope that this is no indication of how thorough your search for the truth is, smile. Since it only took me about 5 minutes to find it, I will waive the fee, smile.

[martin II]

You have called me false so many times. You have tried to bait me so that I could get banned. I will not call you false and only say that you must have overlooked the post in your search. I will not ask you for a public apology, since you have shown you will not. I am not trying to prove you wrong but following your request. Here it the post.

06-12-2007, 11:41 PM
William Anthony
Super Member Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: love everlasting
Posts: 3,871


Quote:
Originally Posted by bobaugust
Evidently you forgot that you said, "There were intimations that the pictures were not taken when they said they were as well as an implication that they could have been doctored."

That's false. There was never any implication any crime scene photograph could have been doctored.

Based on your false claim you then said, "An intelligent jury is free to disbelieve any of the evidence presented if any of the evidence presented by a witness(es) is discredited."

The criminal trial jury had no reason not to believe any crime scene photograph was not credible.

bobaugust

Perhaps, I did not make myself clear. This is from Webester's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988-"to change in order to decieve." This could mean something as simple as saying a picture was taken when it was not. Therefore, as I have previously stated, the jury was free to disbelieve any or all of the photographic evidence.
__________________
Doc Holiday

The best way to win a war is to not fight one.

As you can see that was posted on June 12, 2007, which was not that long ago. I hope that this is no indication of how thorough your search for the truth is, smile. Since it only took me about 5 minutes to find it, I will waive the fee, smile.


wiliam
thanks. i see no " rambling, non-sensical postings" there.imo
martin II

[bobaugust]

You have called me false so many times. You have tried to bait me so that I could get banned. I will not call you false and only say that you must have overlooked the post in your search. I will not ask you for a public apology, since you have shown you will not. I am not trying to prove you wrong but following your request. Here it the post.

06-12-2007, 11:41 PM
William Anthony
Super Member Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: love everlasting
Posts: 3,871


Quote:
Originally Posted by bobaugust
Evidently you forgot that you said, "There were intimations that the pictures were not taken when they said they were as well as an implication that they could have been doctored."

That's false. There was never any implication any crime scene photograph could have been doctored.

Based on your false claim you then said, "An intelligent jury is free to disbelieve any of the evidence presented if any of the evidence presented by a witness(es) is discredited."

The criminal trial jury had no reason not to believe any crime scene photograph was not credible.

bobaugust

Perhaps, I did not make myself clear. This is from Webester's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988-"to change in order to decieve." This could mean something as simple as saying a picture was taken when it was not. Therefore, as I have previously stated, the jury was free to disbelieve any or all of the photographic evidence.
__________________
Doc Holiday

The best way to win a war is to not fight one.

As you can see that was posted on June 12, 2007, which was not that long ago. I hope that this is no indication of how thorough your search for the truth is, smile. Since it only took me about 5 minutes to find it, I will waive the fee, smile.

Thank you for posting that. June 12 was not that long ago but based on how many postings have been made on this discussion group since then and not knowing what thread you posted that message on it was not worth my time to continue looking for something that you wrote when you could easily find it and post it. June 12 is longer ago than June 19 when I posted the article where one juror said that Simpson was found liable for murder that you've been claiming was said by juror(s) and you just recently said it was such a long time ago that I posted it.

No I have not tried to bait you or get you banned only get you to support your claim. The problem here is not the dictionary definition William but your distorted misinterpretation of what the word doctored means regarding the crime scene photograph. Change in order to deceive or doctored is referring to something that is physically done to a photograph to change it. No crime scene photograph was ever doctored. The photograph in question was not changed in any way. The issue was when it was taken not what it showed.

Your claim that you posted a dictionary definition of the word doctored was not a false claim, I apologize, but your claim that the photograph showing Fuhrman pointing to the glove was doctored is a false claim.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

wiliam
thanks. i see no " rambling, non-sensical postings" there.imo
martin II

Thank you martin for always acting as a gentleman, imho.

[William Anthony]

Thank you for posting that. June 12 was not that long ago but based on how many postings have been made on this discussion group since then and not knowing what thread you posted that message on it was not worth my time to continue looking for something that you wrote when you could easily find it and post it. June 12 is longer ago than June 19 when I posted the article where one juror said that Simpson was found liable for murder that you've been claiming was said by juror(s) and you just recently said it was such a long time ago that I posted it.

No I have not tried to bait you or get you banned only get you to support your claim. The problem here is not the dictionary definition William but your distorted misinterpretation of what the word doctored means regarding the crime scene photograph. Change in order to deceive or doctored is referring to something that is physically done to a photograph to change it. No crime scene photograph was ever doctored. The photograph in question was not changed in any way. The issue was when it was taken not what it showed.

Your claim that you posted a dictionary definition of the word doctored was not a false claim, I apologize, but your claim that the photograph showing Fuhrman pointing to the glove was doctored is a false claim.

bobaugust

I understand that is your interpretation of the word doctored and will allow you to have it without making derrogatory comments about your interpretation. I will only say that I disagree and ask you to allow me my interpretation minus your derrogatory comments about my interpretation. The dictionary did not say to physically change, not even in the definition you posted. I do not limit myself to thinking with any preconcieved idea of what something means but look to the actual wording.

I accept your apology but in the same sentence you accuse me of making another false claim, based on my interpretation of the word doctored. I challenge you to find in the definition you supplied the words physically change.

[bobaugust]

The definition you posted was similar to mine, if not identical. The words used were to alter in order to decieve, i.e. to represent something as being done at a time it was not. I have not relied on his testimony and only asked you did you forget it. The other evidence you rely on is contingent upon finding others credible and I have addressed that issue. My claim of doctoring is not false, only that it is different from your understanding. Why is it that when someone does not agree with you they what they offer is false or wrong?

You can distort the meaning of doctoring all you want it but it doesn't make it correct. Doctoring a photograph is physically changing the photograph. The crime scene photograph was not changed. It was not doctored. Your claim that the the photo was doctored is a false claim. It's very simple when you make a statement that is false you are wrong.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I understand that is your interpretation of the word doctored and will allow you to have it without making derrogatory comments about your interpretation. I will only say that I disagree and ask you to allow me my interpretation minus your derrogatory comments about my interpretation. The dictionary did not say to physically change, not even in the definition you posted. I do not limit myself to thinking with any preconcieved idea of what something means but look to the actual wording.

I accept your apology but in the same sentence you accuse me of making another false claim, based on my interpretation of the word doctored. I challenge you to find in the definition you supplied the words physically change.

Doctored:
to adapt or modify for a desired end by alteration or special treatment
to alter deceptively
to become different
to change in order to deceive

None of the definitions say physically changed they say altered. Do you know what it means when something is altered? Or what it means to become different. or to change? You claim the photograph was doctored. Tell us William what was altered on the photograph? How was the photograph changed? What was different about the photograph than what it was taken of?

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Doctored:
to adapt or modify for a desired end by alteration or special treatment
to alter deceptively
to become different
to change in order to deceive

None of the definitions say physically changed they say altered. Do you know what it means when something is altered? Or what it means to become different. or to change? You claim the photograph was doctored. Tell us William what was altered on the photograph? How was the photograph changed? What was different about the photograph than what it was taken of?

bobaugust

To change in order to decieve-to say it was taken when it was not
to become different-to say it was taken when it was not
to alter deceptively-to say it was taken when it was not
to adapt or modify for a desired end by alteration or special treatment-to say it was taken when it was not

Thank you for admitting the word doctored is not limited to a physical change. The photo was doctored by testimony and that is why I discredit the photos, after discrediting the testimony, of one who was confused, one who a judge found his credibility questionable and a convicted perjuror. However, this is not to say that you should share in my opinion, but you have stated that you were looking for a reason to believe Simpson was not the killer. Did you search as hard as you did for my defintion from the dictionary of the word doctored?

[bobaugust]

To change in order to decieve-to say it was taken when it was not
to become different-to say it was taken when it was not
to alter deceptively-to say it was taken when it was not
to adapt or modify for a desired end by alteration or special treatment-to say it was taken when it was not

Thank you for admitting the word doctored is not limited to a physical change. The photo was doctored by testimony and that is why I discredit the photos, after discrediting the testimony, of one who was confused, one who a judge found his credibility questionable and a convicted perjuror. However, this is not to say that you should share in my opinion, but you have stated that you were looking for a reason to believe Simpson was not the killer. Did you search as hard as you did for my defintion from the dictionary of the word doctored?

Altering a photograph is not done with words. You're explanation has got to be one of the most ridiculous things you have ever posted. Once again I will be sure to add it to my list and give you full credit for it. Your claim that the crime scene photograph was doctored is outright false.

bobaugust

[socaldiva]

*snip*
Altering a photograph is not done with words.

No even if you are David Copperfield :biggrin:

[William Anthony]

Altering a photograph is not done with words. You're explanation has got to be one of the most ridiculous things you have ever posted. Once again I will be sure to add it to my list and give you full credit for it. Your claim that the crime scene photograph was doctored is outright false.

bobaugust

You read the definition and posted it. You are quick to make a claim that what I post is false, as with your claim that I had not posted the dictionary definition of the word false, for which you, imho, half-heartedly apologized. Again, you are free to disagree with my definition of the word doctored, but please do not call it false, as I have supported it with the dictionary definition, which you admit does not say physically change. Altering, to me, means that something is presented to be something it is not, i.e. a photograph taken at night and presented to be taken in the daylight. I realized by your posts that you may not understand the difference from authentic and authentification. Imho, if you alter the authentification process of a photo, it should not have been entered into evidence or, simply said the photo was altered and, therefore not authenticated, because it lacked the proper foundation. The cross allow the jury to judge the crediblity of the photos based on the testimony of the person who testified to the uncertainty of the time he took them. I do believe that the defense realized that they could destroy the credibilty of the photos on cross. To say that you took a photo, but to say you took it at one time and then say you took it at another, thereby altering the photo, questions the testimony and the credibility of the photo. To me, this is a fine point in the law as is the word doctored. Unless you can point to anything in the defintion that shows that something must be physically altered to mean it was doctored, I hold to my interpretation and ask you to stop calling them false.

[William Anthony]

To testify that one uses a falshbulb to take a photo in the daytime, when there is evidence that the photo was taken at night is a feat of magic that can be performed by someone with less skill than any known magicaian, whereby a photo taken at night may be altered/doctored through words to represent a photo taken in the daylight. Some may say that the altering was done by the confused to confuse, or some may say it was a lie, or some may say it was just confusion. However, the magic leads to reasonable doubt, imho.

[William Anthony]

Doctored:
to adapt or modify for a desired end by alteration or special treatment
to alter deceptively
to become different
to change in order to deceive

None of the definitions say physically changed they say altered. Do you know what it means when something is altered? Or what it means to become different. or to change? You claim the photograph was doctored. Tell us William what was altered on the photograph? How was the photograph changed? What was different about the photograph than what it was taken of?

bobaugust

Alter-to make different in details but not in substance, modify,. Another definition is to become different, change, vary

These definitions are from the dictionay I previously cited. Hence there is nothing that says physically change, modify, vary or make become different. Ergo, the testimony altered the photos, which is entirely consistent with my interpretation of the word doctored. Thank you for motivating me to research the meaning, although I thought and now know it was unnecessary. Further explanation, by altering the time/details, the photo was doctored.

[weezer]

To testify that one uses a falshbulb to take a photo in the daytime, when there is evidence that the photo was taken at night is a feat of magic that can be performed by someone with less skill than any known magicaian, whereby a photo taken at night may be altered/doctored through words to represent a photo taken in the daylight. Some may say that the altering was done by the confused to confuse, or some may say it was a lie, or some may say it was just confusion. However, the magic leads to reasonable doubt, imho.

it may be YOUR definition that something can be altered/doctored through 'words' but that you are wrong. imo

[William Anthony]

it may be YOUR definition that something can be altered/doctored through 'words' but that you are wrong. imo

As I have previously stated, I have no problem with anyone expressing an opinion that my interpretations is wrong-only when they claim as fact it is wrong and/or ridiculous and act in an uncivil manner. I respect your opinion as that and continue to hold tight to mine.

[bobaugust]

You read the definition and posted it. You are quick to make a claim that what I post is false, as with your claim that I had not posted the dictionary definition of the word false, for which you, imho, half-heartedly apologized. Again, you are free to disagree with my definition of the word doctored, but please do not call it false, as I have supported it with the dictionary definition, which you admit does not say physically change. Altering, to me, means that something is presented to be something it is not, i.e. a photograph taken at night and presented to be taken in the daylight. I realized by your posts that you may not understand the difference from authentic and authentification. Imho, if you alter the authentification process of a photo, it should not have been entered into evidence or, simply said the photo was altered and, therefore not authenticated, because it lacked the proper foundation. The cross allow the jury to judge the crediblity of the photos based on the testimony of the person who testified to the uncertainty of the time he took them. I do believe that the defense realized that they could destroy the credibilty of the photos on cross. To say that you took a photo, but to say you took it at one time and then say you took it at another, thereby altering the photo, questions the testimony and the credibility of the photo. To me, this is a fine point in the law as is the word doctored. Unless you can point to anything in the defintion that shows that something must be physically altered to mean it was doctored, I hold to my interpretation and ask you to stop calling them false.

Words to do not alter or change photographs. The dictionary definition of the word doctored you posted does not support your definition. Words do not change photographs. The dictionary definition of the word altered does not support your definition. Words to not make photographs different.

Altering:
to become different
to make different without changing into something else

I gave you a half hearted apology because you don't deserve anything more. Since it was up to you to support your claim that you had posted the dictionary definition for the word doctored and you weren't going to do it I called your claim false and asked you to prove me wrong so you would do the search and post it as you should of when I requested you to. Thank you.

Your opinion that the crime scene photographs lacked proper foundation has no credibility and is contradicted by the reality that the real attorneys in this case never questioned the authenticity of any crime scene photograph in either trial. The defense argument regarding when the photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove was taken was based solely on the testimony of a confused witness who admitted he didn't know the time of day that photograph was taken. It was a non issue and dropped by Simpson's defense.

False:
intentionally untrue
adjusted or made so as to deceive
intended or tending to mislead

The crime scene photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove was not not altered or changed in any way. Your claim that the crime scene photograph was doctored is outright false.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

To testify that one uses a falshbulb to take a photo in the daytime, when there is evidence that the photo was taken at night is a feat of magic that can be performed by someone with less skill than any known magicaian, whereby a photo taken at night may be altered/doctored through words to represent a photo taken in the daylight. Some may say that the altering was done by the confused to confuse, or some may say it was a lie, or some may say it was just confusion. However, the magic leads to reasonable doubt, imho.

Talk about a circular argument. The only evidence that the photograph was taken at night was the testimony of a confused witness who not only said he didn't really know what time of day that photograph was taken but he used a flash to take his photographs at night as well a during the day. That fact made it impossible to tell from the photograph the time of day it was taken.

Using a flash is not magic, it provides consistent lighting for a photograph regardless of what kind of natural lighting is available. Words do not doctor a photograph. You can repeat your false interpretation as many times as you want to but no matter how many times you say it doesn't make it correct. The only reasonable doubt that's raised by your argument has to do with your ability to admit you are wrong regarding this issue. So far you haven't been able to.

Your claim that this photograph or any crime scene photograph was doctored is outright false.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Words to do not alter or change photographs. The dictionary definition of the word doctored you posted does not support your definition. Words do not change photographs. The dictionary definition of the word altered does not support your definition. Words to not make photographs different.

Altering:
to become different
to make different without changing into something else

I gave you a half hearted apology because you don't deserve anything more. Since it was up to you to support your claim that you had posted the dictionary definition for the word doctored and you weren't going to do it I called your claim false and asked you to prove me wrong so you would do the search and post it as you should of when I requested you to. Thank you.

Your opinion that the crime scene photographs lacked proper foundation has no credibility and is contradicted by the reality that the real attorneys in this case never questioned the authenticity of any crime scene photograph in either trial. The defense argument regarding when the photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove was taken was based solely on the testimony of a confused witness who admitted he didn't know the time of day that photograph was taken. It was a non issue and dropped by Simpson's defense.

False:
intentionally untrue
adjusted or made so as to deceive
intended or tending to mislead

The crime scene photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove was not not altered or changed in any way. Your claim that the crime scene photograph was doctored is outright false.

bobaugust


Again I ask you to show me in the dictionay where it says to physically make different, change, vary, alter, or become different. Again, imho, you have shown that you do not understand the difference between authentic and authentification or the defense's cross. Again, you have used the word false in connection to my post. Thank you for admitting your apology was half-hearted. I do not consider it an apology. You claimed that I made a false post as to my posting of the dictionary definition of doctoring. When proven that your post was false, you responded with a half-hearted apology. Why am I not surprised? People thought the sun revolved around the earth, because of egocentrism. The English language, like the Constitution, is a living thing, which adapts to the times. What did not adapt to the times was the photo. It was doctored and altered through the testimony of the only witness who could lay the proper foundation to authenticate them. The only thing that is deceptive is that one will not admit that there is nothing in the definitions stating that an item must be physically changed, imho,but continue to promulgate that it must so that their defintion is correct.

[bobaugust]

Alter-to make different in details but not in substance, modify,. Another definition is to become different, change, vary

These definitions are from the dictionay I previously cited. Hence there is nothing that says physically change, modify, vary or make become different. Ergo, the testimony altered the photos, which is entirely consistent with my interpretation of the word doctored. Thank you for motivating me to research the meaning, although I thought and now know it was unnecessary. Further explanation, by altering the time/details, the photo was doctored.

The simple reality is the only way to doctor, alter, or change a photograph is by physically changing it. Words do not change photographs.

Your claim that this particular crime scene photograph or any crime scene photograph was doctored is outright false.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The simple reality is the only way to doctor, alter, or change a photograph is by physically changing it. Words do not change photographs.

Your claim that this particular crime scene photograph or any crime scene photograph was doctored is outright false.

bobaugust

Your reality is not backed up by the dictionary, imho.

[bobaugust]

Your reality is not backed up by the dictionary, imho.

The dictionary definition of the word doctored means to alter, to change, to become different. The reality is that words do not alter or change photographs.

Your made up interpretation is wrong and your claim that the crime scene photograph showing Fuhrman pointing to the glove was doctored is false.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The dictionary definition of the word doctored means to alter, to change, to become different. The reality is that words do not alter or change photographs.

Your made up interpretation is wrong and your claim that the crime scene photograph showing Fuhrman pointing to the glove was doctored is false.

bobaugust

I, for one, am not pleased or inclined to share your perception of reality and do not share your tendency to snoop to name calling and derrogatory remarks, when the evidence does not support my view. I am through with the subject, because it is obvious that your reality is simply yours.

[bobaugust]

I, for one, am not pleased or inclined to share your perception of reality and do not share your tendency to snoop to name calling and derrogatory remarks, when the evidence does not support my view. I am through with the subject, because it is obvious that your reality is simply yours.

It seems your perception of reality isn't the same as anyone else's. You made the claim that a crime scene photograph was doctored and when your claim was shown to be false instead of admitting you were mistaken you made up your own interpretation of what the word doctored meant.

Your made up interpretation is wrong and your claim that a crime scene photograph was doctored is false. And you still can't admit to your mistake. Good job William.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

It seems your perception of reality isn't the same as anyone else's. You made the claim that a crime scene photograph was doctored and when your claim was shown to be false instead of admitting you were mistaken you made up your own interpretation of what the word doctored meant.

Your made up interpretation is wrong and your claim that a crime scene photograph was doctored is false. And you still can't admit to your mistake. Good job William.

bobaugust

I was not shown or proven to be wrong on my interpretation and nothing supports your claim that something must be phsically done to alter evidence, i. e. photo(s). The jury was free to believe, after hearing tha alleged confused testimony and drawing reasonable inferences from Rokahr's testimony, that he tried through his testimony to doctor the details of the photo(s) in order to decieve them that the photo(s) were not taken at the times they were testified to being taken, and, hence the photo(s) were doctored making them to become something they were not in order to decieve the jury into believing they were taken in the daytime, when they were taken at night. Your claim that evidence must be physically changed is not supported by anything you posted and admitted that the dictionary did not say that. Ergo, I will not call your posts false or any other derrogatory remark and chalk it up to mistakes and human error.

[bobaugust]

I was not shown or proven to be wrong on my interpretation and nothing supports your claim that something must be phsically done to alter evidence, i. e. photo(s). The jury was free to believe, after hearing tha alleged confused testimony and drawing reasonable inferences from Rokahr's testimony, that he tried through his testimony to doctor the details of the photo(s) in order to decieve them that the photo(s) were not taken at the times they were testified to being taken, and, hence the photo(s) were doctored making them to become something they were not in order to decieve the jury into believing they were taken in the daytime, when they were taken at night. Your claim that evidence must be physically changed is not supported by anything you posted and admitted that the dictionary did not say that. Ergo, I will not call your posts false or any other derrogatory remark and chalk it up to mistakes and human error.

Of course you were proven wrong. There is no dictionary definition that supports your made up interpretation of the word doctored. I doubt if the criminal trial jury believed what you suggest since no attorney ever suggested or claimed any crime scene photograph was doctored. I have already posted twice now that the dictionary definition does not say the words "physically change" it says to alter or change. But the reality is to doctor a photograph meaning to alter or change it can only be done by physically changing the photograph. Words do not alter or change what a photograph shows.

Your claim that a crime photograph was doctored is a false claim.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Of course you were proven wrong. There is no dictionary definition that supports your made up interpretation of the word doctored. I doubt if the criminal trial jury believed what you suggest since no attorney ever suggested or claimed any crime scene photograph was doctored. I have already posted twice now that the dictionary definition does not say the words "physically change" it says to alter or change. But the reality is to doctor a photograph meaning to alter or change it can only be done by physically changing the photograph. Words do not alter or change what a photograph shows.

Your claim that a crime photograph was doctored is a false claim.

bobaugust


Imho, you are angry because you know that the dictionary does not support your mistakened or confused or altered view of what the word doctored means. You want to leave out that portion that said to alter the details. The details of the photo was supplied through the allegedly confused testimony. I challenge you to now produce a link showing that one of the photos, of which we were discussing, that spoke and told the jury what time it was taken and who took it. The reality is that those details were doctored through the confused testimony. Ergo, the photos were doctored. unless you have the link, showing the photo spoke and said it was not, I maintain my interpretation.

[weezer]

Imho, you are angry because you know that the dictionary does not support your mistakened or confused or altered view of what the word doctored means. You want to leave out that portion that said to alter the details. The details of the photo was supplied through the allegedly confused testimony. I challenge you to now produce a link showing that one of the photos, of which we were discussing, that spoke and told the jury what time it was taken and who took it. The reality is that those details were doctored through the confused testimony. Ergo, the photos were doctored. unless you have the link, showing the photo spoke and said it was not, I maintain my interpretation.

you've proposed a very interesting challenge to bobaugust -- I wonder, can you produce a link that shows the photo was 'changed' from the original taken. The reality is, no crime scene photo was shown to have been 'doctored/altered' -- your insistence that your new made-up definition makes it so is ridiculous. imo

[William Anthony]

you've proposed a very interesting challenge to bobaugust -- I wonder, can you produce a link that shows the photo was 'changed' from the original taken. The reality is, no crime scene photo was shown to have been 'doctored/altered' -- your insistence that your new made-up definition makes it so is ridiculous. imo

I have never claimed that the photo was changed from the original. When asked about my use of the word doctored, I explained and provided the dictionary definition that supported my usage. You are entitled to your opinion that my interpretation is ridiculous as I could say that, imho, your interpretation is ridiculous and irrelevant to my interpretation, since you are talking about physical altering and I am talking about doctoring. I could also say that, imho, anyone who asserts that the dictionary definition says that something must be physically altered or changed to be doctored is making up a definition, but I will not say any of those statements where I said I could say. I will do my best to maintain civility.

[weezer]

I have never claimed that the photo was changed from the original. When asked about my use of the word doctored, I explained and provided the dictionary definition that supported my usage. You are entitled to your opinion that my interpretation is ridiculous as I could say that, imho, your interpretation is ridiculous and irrelevant to my interpretation, since you are talking about physical altering and I am talking about doctoring. I could also say that, imho, anyone who asserts that the dictionary definition says that something must be physically altered or changed to be doctored is making up a definition, but I will not say any of those statements where I said I could say. I will do my best to maintain civility.

you are wrong. :shrug:

[bobaugust]

I have never claimed that the photo was changed from the original. When asked about my use of the word doctored, I explained and provided the dictionary definition that supported my usage. You are entitled to your opinion that my interpretation is ridiculous as I could say that, imho, your interpretation is ridiculous and irrelevant to my interpretation, since you are talking about physical altering and I am talking about doctoring. I could also say that, imho, anyone who asserts that the dictionary definition says that something must be physically altered or changed to be doctored is making up a definition, but I will not say any of those statements where I said I could say. I will do my best to maintain civility.

We are talking about a photograph.

In the criminal trial all of the crime scene photographs were entered into evidence. During the trial Rokahr, the photographer, was interviewed by the defense and was asked about the photograph that showed Fuhrman pointing to the glove. Rokahr was not a well man he had problems remembering exactly the time of day he took each photograph back on June 13. Based only on his confusion the defense claimed that photograph was taken two hours earlier than when the prosecution said it was taken. The time the photograph was taken could not be determined by what the photograph showed. The photograph was not altered or changed to show the time it was taken and no one ever claimed, suggested, or intimated that it was.

You're the only one who has ever used the word doctored regarding that photograph. You posted that the defense intimated that it was doctored when in fact they never said that or intimated it. This whole argument is based on your mistaken perception of what the defense said and your use of the word doctored, no one else's. You're the only who used the word doctored in regards to any crime scene photograph and then you tried used the dictionary definition of the word doctored incorrectly applying it a photograph to justify your claim. The dictionary definition you used said, "to change in order to deceive." The photograph was never changed and no one ever suggested or intimated that it was. The only thing the defense claimed was different was the time of day the photograph was taken.

Your claim that the crime scene photograph was doctored is a false claim.

The best way to maintain civilly is to admit to your mistake and in this situation you are mistaken on both of your claims. No crime scene photograph was ever doctored and use of the word doctored does not apply to any crime scene photograph in this case.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

We are talking about a photograph.

In the criminal trial all of the crime scene photographs were entered into evidence. During the trial Rokahr, the photographer, was interviewed by the defense and was asked about the photograph that showed Fuhrman pointing to the glove. Rokahr was not a well man he had problems remembering exactly the time of day he took each photograph back on June 13. Based only on his confusion the defense claimed that photograph was taken two hours earlier than when the prosecution said it was taken. The time the photograph was taken could not be determined by what the photograph showed. The photograph was not altered or changed to show the time it was taken and no one ever claimed, suggested, or intimated that it was.

You're the only one who has ever used the word doctored regarding that photograph. You posted that the defense intimated that it was doctored when in fact they never said that or intimated it. This whole argument is based on your mistaken perception of what the defense said and your use of the word doctored, no one else's. You're the only who used the word doctored in regards to any crime scene photograph and then you tried used the dictionary definition of the word doctored incorrectly applying it a photograph to justify your claim. The dictionary definition you used said, "to change in order to deceive." The photograph was never changed and no one ever suggested or intimated that it was. The only thing the defense claimed was different was the time of day the photograph was taken.

Your claim that the crime scene photograph was doctored is a false claim.

The best way to maintain civilly is to admit to your mistake and in this situation you are mistaken on both of your claims. No crime scene photograph was ever doctored and use of the word doctored does not apply to any crime scene photograph in this case.

bobaugust

Again and for the last time since I am becoming bored with this whole subject. I have posted the posts showing you that I did not claim, as you say, that the photograph was doctored. I said in the post that started this all too-long discussion, imho, that the defense intimated as well as impied that the photo could have been doctored and the jury, if the believed the defense's version was free to discredit all the photos. I could say that Your claim that I claimed that is an angry and false claim. However, I will not say that and understand that in the heat of an argument that sometimes one interprets differently what was said. I myself am guilty of that sometimes.

Why do you omit from the dictionary I posted that altered also regards the details. The photo is incapable of providing the details and my challenge to you remains open. The only one who could have provided the details surrounding the picture, i.e. what the picture represented, was Rokahr. He altered the photograph to represent a picture taken in the daylight and the defense ellicited testimony from him that it was taken at night. Ergo, he doctored the photo to either represent a photo taken at that was taken in the daylight or vice versa. I recently posted a definition for change which was to say things in many various ways (paraphrasing). I think Rokahr's testimony is a prime example of that definition.

[weezer]

Again and for the last time since I am becoming bored with this whole subject. I have posted the posts showing you that I did not claim, as you say, that the photograph was doctored. I said in the post that started this all too-long discussion, imho, that the defense intimated as well as impied that the photo could have been doctored and the jury, if the believed the defense's version was free to discredit all the photos. I could say that Your claim that I claimed that is an angry and false claim. However, I will not say that and understand that in the heat of an argument that sometimes one interprets differently what was said. I myself am guilty of that sometimes.

Why do you omit from the dictionary I posted that altered also regards the details. The photo is incapable of providing the details and my challenge to you remains open. The only one who could have provided the details surrounding the picture, i.e. what the picture represented, was Rokahr. He altered the photograph to represent a picture taken in the daylight and the defense ellicited testimony from him that it was taken at night. Ergo, he doctored the photo to either represent a photo taken at that was taken in the daylight or vice versa. I recently posted a definition for change which was to say things in many various ways (paraphrasing). I think Rokahr's testimony is a prime example of that definition.

please post a link to where in the testimony (anybody's) there is a discussion regarding the photo being doctored/altered.

[William Anthony]

please post a link to where in the testimony (anybody's) there is a discussion regarding the photo being doctored/altered.

I do not have to provide a link to something I did not say. However, the link to what I did say is Rokahr's testimony.

[martin II]

I do not have to provide a link to something I did not say. However, the link to what I did say is Rokahr's testimony.

:beer: :beer:

[bobaugust]

Again and for the last time since I am becoming bored with this whole subject. I have posted the posts showing you that I did not claim, as you say, that the photograph was doctored. I said in the post that started this all too-long discussion, imho, that the defense intimated as well as impied that the photo could have been doctored and the jury, if the believed the defense's version was free to discredit all the photos. I could say that Your claim that I claimed that is an angry and false claim. However, I will not say that and understand that in the heat of an argument that sometimes one interprets differently what was said. I myself am guilty of that sometimes.

Why do you omit from the dictionary I posted that altered also regards the details. The photo is incapable of providing the details and my challenge to you remains open. The only one who could have provided the details surrounding the picture, i.e. what the picture represented, was Rokahr. He altered the photograph to represent a picture taken in the daylight and the defense ellicited testimony from him that it was taken at night. Ergo, he doctored the photo to either represent a photo taken at that was taken in the daylight or vice versa. I recently posted a definition for change which was to say things in many various ways (paraphrasing). I think Rokahr's testimony is a prime example of that definition.

Your continued use of the word doctored to reinforce your incorrect use of it regarding photographs is funny.

YOU are the only one who has ever used the word doctored regarding a crime scene photograph. No attorney in this case in either trial claimed, suggested, or intimated that any crime scene photograph was "doctored." This is only your perception and your use of the word doctored regarding a photograph. Disputing the time of day when a photograph was taken does not doctor the photograph.

To doctor a photograph means to alter it, change it, or make it different. Simpson's defense in the civil trial tried to claim that the Scull photograph that showed Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes was doctored. They called their so called expert who testified that based on some distortions he saw in the photograph that it may have been doctored, that the shoes that Simpson is shown wearing may not be the shoes he was wearing when the photograph was taken. His testimony was contradicted by the plaintiff expert who authenticated the Scull photograph when he he pointed out that the defense expert was using a copy of the Scull photograph he made at Kinko's to come to his conclusions and he explained the cause of every distortion in that copy and none were evidence of doctoring.

Later in the trial over thirty more photographs surfaced taken the same day at the same football game that Scull took his photograph nine months before the murders. All of the over thirty authenticated Flammer photographs showed Simpson wearing the same clothing and the same Bruno Magli shoes he was shown wearing in the Scull photograph. The Flammer photographs proved that the Scull photograph was not doctored.

That is what it means to doctor a photograph. Your claim that a crime scene photograph was doctored is a false claim and your use of the word doctored referring to time of day disputes when a photograph was taken is an incorrect and deceiving use of the word doctoring. Your new claim that Rokahr's confused testimony doctored the photograph he took is an incorrect use of the word doctored regarding a photograph and your refusal to admit to your mistake is causing you to make even more foolish and false claims. Nice job, William.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Your continued use of the word doctored to reinforce your incorrect use of it regarding photographs is funny.

YOU are the only one who has ever used the word doctored regarding a crime scene photograph. No attorney in this case in either trial claimed, suggested, or intimated that any crime scene photograph was "doctored." This is only your perception and your use of the word doctored regarding a photograph. Disputing the time of day when a photograph was taken does not doctor the photograph.

To doctor a photograph means to alter it, change it, or make it different. Simpson's defense in the civil trial tried to claim that the Scull photograph that showed Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes was doctored. They called their so called expert who testified that based on some distortions he saw in the photograph that it may have been doctored, that the shoes that Simpson is shown wearing may not be the shoes he was wearing when the photograph was taken. His testimony was contradicted by the plaintiff expert who authenticated the Scull photograph when he he pointed out that the defense expert was using a copy of the Scull photograph he made at Kinko's to come to his conclusions and he explained the cause of every distortion in that copy and none were evidence of doctoring.

Later in the trial over thirty more photographs surfaced taken the same day at the same football game that Scull took his photograph nine months before the murders. All of the over thirty authenticated Flammer photographs showed Simpson wearing the same clothing and the same Bruno Magli shoes he was shown wearing in the Scull photograph. The Flammer photographs proved that the Scull photograph was not doctored.

That is what it means to doctor a photograph. Your claim that a crime scene photograph was doctored is a false claim and your use of the word doctored referring to time of day disputes when a photograph was taken is an incorrect and deceiving use of the word doctoring. Your new claim that Rokahr's confused testimony doctored the photograph he took is an incorrect use of the word doctored regarding a photograph and your refusal to admit to your mistake is causing you to make even more foolish and false claims. Nice job, William.

bobaugust

Your post are becoming, imho, more agressive and insulting. Are you gellin? I asked you to show where altered.doctored means to pysically change. You admitted it did not. Hence the dictionary defintion is not inconsistent with my use of the word and my use is only incosistent with what you believe word should mean. I am becoming extremely bored with this discussion and chose to take leave of it, for now. So feel free to post on it the rest of this holiday. Unles I feel that one of your post is too insulting, I will no longer engage in the discussion of this topic with you. I hope that the rest of your holiday will be pleasant and peaceful.

[bobaugust]

Your post are becoming, imho, more agressive and insulting. Are you gellin? I asked you to show where altered.doctored means to pysically change. You admitted it did not. Hence the dictionary defintion is not inconsistent with my use of the word and my use is only incosistent with what you believe word should mean. I am becoming extremely bored with this discussion and chose to take leave of it, for now. So feel free to post on it the rest of this holiday. Unles I feel that one of your post is too insulting, I will no longer engage in the discussion of this topic with you. I hope that the rest of your holiday will be pleasant and peaceful.

If you find my postings more aggressive it's simply because you can not seem to comprehend the reality of what a doctored photograph is. If you find the truth insulting than that's your problem not mine.

The fact is that altering a photograph can only be done physically. If you think you know another way to alter the image on a photograph then physically altering it please inform us. No crime scene photograph in the Simpson case was ever altered, or changed, or made different. Period. No one in this case in either trial ever claimed, suggested, or intimated that any crime scene photograph was ever doctored.

You and only you made the false claim that a crime scene photograph was doctored.

Thank you I too hope the rest of your holiday will be pleasant and peaceful. Maybe after the holiday you may decide to own up to your mistake regarding doctored photographs and that will put this issue to rest on this discussion group.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

If you find my postings more aggressive it's simply because you can not seem to comprehend the reality of what a doctored photograph is. If you find the truth insulting than that's your problem not mine.

The fact is that altering a photograph can only be done physically. If you think you know another way to alter the image on a photograph then physically altering it please inform us. No crime scene photograph in the Simpson case was ever altered, or changed, or made different. Period. No one in this case in either trial ever claimed, suggested, or intimated that any crime scene photograph was ever doctored.

You and only you made the false claim that a crime scene photograph was doctored.

Thank you I too hope the rest of your holiday will be pleasant and peaceful. Maybe after the holiday you may decide to own up to your mistake regarding doctored photographs and that will put this issue to rest on this discussion group.

bobaugust


:seeya: :seeya: :seeya: :seeya: