Issues In The Criminal Trial

[William Anthony]

"Blood on Bundy identified as O.J.’s in the Piper Tech lab went into a coin envelope with the initials of criminalist Andrea Mazzola on it and came out of an envelope with no initials. Blood that went into that envelope dry came out with evidence that it went in wet. The FBI did not test this blood for EDTA because the lab director Michelle Kestler said there wasn’t enough of it to send to the FBI."

It seems that someone did something with the evidence and did not want to admit they did it. That sounds like MF to me, :).

[tv]

After all of 98 post we should just shut this mother down. what wisdom and insight.:no:This was two days and two pages ago. What good does it do to drag it back up?

[tv]

"The cause of truth is not well served when people or institutions become scapegoats. This is true whether the scapegoat is Henry Lucas, Mark Fuhrman, or the LA Police dept." [QUOTE]

The cause of truth is not well served when LE engages in corrupt activities to make others the scapegoats, imho.

I believe that by naming Henry Lucas the quote is making the same point.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9103784]"The cause of truth is not well served when people or institutions become scapegoats. This is true whether the scapegoat is Henry Lucas, Mark Fuhrman, or the LA Police dept."

I believe that by naming Henry Lucas the quote is making the same point.

That is not my quote and the board seems to be acting up, again. According to the poster's post, Henry Lucas was a private citizen wrongfully convicted by LE corruption. The same cannot be said for a detective that admitted to planting evidence and asked that one specific incident not be used, because the statute of limitations had not expired and the justice department stated that they could not say this detective did not do something corrupt but that the statute of limitations had expired and the history of LAPD negates any possibility that this detective of LAPD were scapegoats and Henry Lucas was not engaged in LE corruption he was the scapegoat/victim of the corruption.
Are you ready to support your claim that the chain of custody in the Simpson criminal trial was not broken as it relates to the evidence?

[tv]

[QUOTE=tvdinner;9103799]

That is not my quote and the board seems to be acting up, again. According to the poster's post, Henry Lucas was a private citizen wrongfully convicted by LE corruption. The same cannot be said for a detective that admitted to planting evidence and asked that one specific incident not be used, because the statute of limitations had not expired and the justice department stated that they could not say this detective did not do something corrupt but that the statute of limitations had expired and the history of LAPD negates any possibility that this detective of LAPD were scapegoats and Henry Lucas was not engaged in LE corruption he was the scapegoat/victim of the corruption.
Are you ready to support your claim that the chain of custody in the Simpson criminal trial was not broken as it relates to the evidence?

I reallize that wasn't your quote. I was commenting on your comment to it. I can't get into the discussion of the chain of evidence now as I'm on my way out. I'll take a raincheck.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9103800]

I reallize that wasn't your quote. I was commenting on your comment to it. I can't get into the discussion of the chain of evidence now as I'm on my way out. I'll take a raincheck.

Have a nice outing.

[William Anthony]

I haven't posted until today. Out of respect. You and Martin have been busy. Two and counting...:no:

Perhaps, you should show more respect. :seeya: :seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

[martin II]

I haven't posted until today. Out of respect. You and Martin have been busy. Two and counting...:no:

When posting to others how about you leave my nic out of your post.

[tv]

[QUOTE=tvdinner;9103801]

Have a nice outing.Thank you. :) It was very nice but tiring and we ran into a few rainstorms along the way. Okay...I'm ready for the Mazzola debate.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9103802]Thank you. :) It was very nice but tiring and we ran into a few rainstorms along the way. Okay...I'm ready for the Mazzola debate.

tv
without adding a lot of fuzz to this issue. it seems quite simple.

Mazzala testified that she prepared some blood samples and put them in some bendels/envelopes and that she identified them by putting her initials on the outside indicating to her and anyone else that she had prepared/handeled these items.

Under cross by a defense lawyer, the bendels in evidence were presented to her on the stand and she was asked to show the court her initials that she testified she had put on them. NO bendel had her initials on them.

When asked why this was the case she said i don't know or had no answer.

The obvious question became were these the same blood samples she said she handeled or some other set of samples or what happened to the samples she put her initials on.

imo
martin II

[tv]

[QUOTE=tvdinner;9103821]

tv
without adding a lot of fuzz to this issue. it seems quite simple.

Mazzala testified that she prepared some blood samples and put them in some bendels/envelopes and that she identified them by putting her initials on the outside indicating to her and anyone else that she had prepared/handeled these items.

Under cross by a defense lawyer, the bendels in evidence were presented to her on the stand and she was asked to show the court her initials that she testified she had put on them. NO bendel had her initials on them.

When asked why this was the case she said i don't know or had no answer.

The obvious question became were these the same blood samples she said she handeled or some other set of samples or what happened to the samples she put her initials on.

imo
martin IIValid questions. It's possible that she thought she initialed them but didn't. It's possible she didn't want to admit she forgot or neglected to do so. If the defense felt like they had evidence that LE or the lab had switched the blood samples why didn't they just say that? They never made a direct accusation of that.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=martin II;9103823]Valid questions. It's possible that she thought she initialed them but didn't. It's possible she didn't want to admit she forgot or neglected to do so. If the defense felt like they had evidence that LE or the lab had switched the blood samples why didn't they just say that? They never made a direct accusation of that.


excuses excusses excusses excusses.

I assume she made notes of her work as others did.which she could review before her first testimony.

The question the defense put to the jury by this cross was, based on this testimony someone in that lab switched samples.

[martin II]

TV
This is testimony on the subject.
I will post more in a little while.

MR. NEUFELD: And did you realize that when the Prosecutors showed you the coin envelopes, that if your sworn testimony of August 23rd was correct, then the absence of your initials on some of these coin envelopes could mean that the original evidence may have been tampered with?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor--

MR. NEUFELD: In your mind?

MR. GOLDBERG: --argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, when the Prosecutors showed you those photographs, up until that time, you believed to the best of your recollection that you had written your initials on the original coin envelopes at the scene on June 13th; isn't that true?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree, ma'am, that if your testimony on August 23rd was truthful and was accurate, that that would mean that these envelopes were not the original envelopes?

THE COURT: Sustained. Speculation, counsel.

MR. NEUFELD: And before you testified on direct examination, Miss Mazzola, did the Prosecutors tell you that they wanted you to testify at this trial that your August 23rd testimony was false?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this is not--

THE COURT: Sustained. Counsel, without the Court reporter, please.

(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

(The following proceedings were held in open Court:)

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=martin II;9103823]Valid questions. It's possible that she thought she initialed them but didn't. It's possible she didn't want to admit she forgot or neglected to do so. If the defense felt like they had evidence that LE or the lab had switched the blood samples why didn't they just say that? They never made a direct accusation of that.

The defense did not have to make accusations or prove the implications of the evidence. They only had to show that the evidence was not trustworthy. It is possible that the evidence was tampered with and when someone touches the evidence or examines it, if you will, there should be a record kept as to when the touching or examining was done. Reasonable doubt and don't forget the jury instruction.

[William Anthony]

:seeya: [QUOTE=martin II;9103830]

The defence asked the jury to accept that based on this testimony someone in the lab switched samples. That is what you're trying to say? Can you prove this? Excuse only has one s. I maybe several thousand posts behind you but I'll catch up.:)

Try starting with the posts on which party bore the burden of proof. :)

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=martin II;9103823]Valid questions. It's possible that she thought she initialed them but didn't. It's possible she didn't want to admit she forgot or neglected to do so. If the defense felt like they had evidence that LE or the lab had switched the blood samples why didn't they just say that? They never made a direct accusation of that.

Can you explain why the evidence in the envelope went in dry and was wet when brought out, IIRC?

[William Anthony]

Nope.:) Someone in the lab switched samples.

Eureka, LE tampered with the evidence.

[William Anthony]

Then, what is yours or do you simply share the opinions of other posters?

[martin II]

What caused MAZZOLA to change her testimony?


MR. NEUFELD: Do you know as to your recollection that day, were the swatches all dry as they were put into the paper bindles?

MS. MAZZOLA: The swatches were all dry before they were put into the paper bindles.

MR. NEUFELD: Do you have an independent recollection of that?

MS. MAZZOLA: If they were not dry, they would not be put into the paper.

MR. NEUFELD: That's just standard procedure?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, to your knowledge, have any of the swatches been mixed up and placed in the wrong paper bindle or the wrong coin envelope either accidentally or intentionally in this case?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.



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

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, when was the first time you learned that the paper bindles that the Prosecution intended to introduce in this case did not have your initials on them?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, would you please now look through those envelopes and show this jury which if any of those bindles have your initials on them?

MS. MAZZOLA: As I said before, they do not have my initials on them.

MR. NEUFELD: And you know that, Miss Mazzola, because before this jury walked in here today, you opened each and every one of those coin envelopes, didn't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: I had known that my initials were not on the bindles before today.

MR. NEUFELD: When was it that you first learned that your initials were not on the coin--on the bindles, Miss Mazzola?

MS. MAZZOLA: It was sometime ago.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, was it after August 23rd, Miss Mazzola?

MS. MAZZOLA: It was after, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Was it during one of the prep sessions with the Prosecutors that you learned that, Miss Mazzola?

MS. MAZZOLA: No, I do not believe so.

MR. NEUFELD: Was it one of your superiors at the--at SID who first brought that to your attention?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Was it another employee at SID who brought that to your attention?

MS. MAZZOLA: I do not believe it was other employee who brought it to my attention.

MR. NEUFELD: Were you shown photographs of those bindles?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: One moment.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: Who was it that first brought it to your attention that the bindles that the Prosecution was saying were the original bindles did not have your initials on them?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I had seen a few of the bindles in serology, and they did not have my initials on them.

MR. NEUFELD: And when was that approximately?

MS. MAZZOLA: I can't tell you approximately. I don't remember the date.

MR. NEUFELD: When you say you saw a few of the bindles, approximately how many bindles did you see?

MS. MAZZOLA: I can't remember the exact number or even approximate number.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, you said--

MS. MAZZOLA: It was some bindles.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. But as you know, Miss Mazzola, there were at least 30 or 40 bindles generated in this case, correct, by you on the 13th and 14th?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, would you agree, Miss Mazzola, that there were more than 25 bindles generated by bloodstain evidence in this case?

MS. MAZZOLA: I did not count them.

MR. NEUFELD: Would you please take a quick look at your notes? Maybe that will refresh your recollection as to how many blood stain bindles were generated in this case.

(The witness complies.)

MS. MAZZOLA: It's approximately 35.

MR. NEUFELD: And you said you saw a few in serology one day; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: By the way, you're not assigned to serology. You're assigned to toxicology; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Were you brought over to serology to look at some of the bindles that had been collected in this particular case?

MS. MAZZOLA: I was not brought over, no.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, why were you looking at some of the bindles in this case in the serology laboratory?

MS. MAZZOLA: Because I had gone over there to look at them.

MR. NEUFELD: And had someone asked you to come over to look at them?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, how did you know that these bindles were out on the counter in the serology laboratory?

MS. MAZZOLA: I saw them as I was passing by.

MR. NEUFELD: You mean--how big is the lab--the serology laboratory, Miss Mazzola?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, would you agree that it's certainly longer than the width of this courtroom, the entire serology laboratory?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't go into serology a lot. I couldn't tell you honestly.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, just approximate. Would you say it's almost as long as this room?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know.

MR. NEUFELD: Is it at least half the size of this room, Miss Mazzola?

MS. MAZZOLA: At least half the length, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And there are many different work spaces in there?

MS. MAZZOLA: There are the main table down the middle, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And that table runs the entire length of the room, doesn't it?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not the entire length, no.

MR. NEUFELD: And there are work stations around the perimeter of the room as well?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know if those are work stations or not.

MR. NEUFELD: Just one moment.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: And, Miss Mazzola, the bindles that you're talking about are about this size that I'm showing you right now (Indicating)?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm referring to bindles in People's exhibit 1630-d.

THE COURT: Approximately inch by inch and a half, two inches.

MR. NEUFELD: And is it your testimony that you just happened to be walking through this room and you noticed that a couple of the bindles that were on the counter somewhere happened to be from your case? Is that what you're saying?

MS. MAZZOLA: I had seen them out, people working, and I went in to see.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, did you go in to see because you knew that people were working on the bindles in this case? Is that the reason you went into serology?

MS. MAZZOLA: I saw they were working on something. I went in to check out what it was.

MR. NEUFELD: You mean you had no idea that what they were working on was this particular case?

MS. MAZZOLA: They work on several cases.

MR. NEUFELD: They work on hundreds of cases, don't they?

MS. MAZZOLA: Probably hundreds, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. But you walked in thinking that perhaps they were working on the serology of this particular case. Isn't that fair to say?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: That's what peeked your interest, isn't it?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.



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



MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, did you realize at some point that based on your August 23rd testimony, that if the Prosecutors could not produce the original bindles that you claimed you had initials, that that could be devastating?

[William Anthony]

If she was just passing by and did not know they were working on this case and the bindles did not have her initials on them, how did she know they were the ones she collected?

[William Anthony]

MR. NEUFELD: All right. But you walked in thinking that perhaps they were working on the serology of this particular case. Isn't that fair to say?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: That's what peeked your interest, isn't it?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

I guess at some point she realized her answers were not reasonable.

[William Anthony]

When she realized the bindles did not have her initials, I guess she went over stood next to the blue wall and got silent. :)

[martin II]

If she was just passing by and did not know they were working on this case and the bindles did not have her initials on them, how did she know they were the ones she collected?

Right. It is my opinion that she went out of her department to one where she did not work simply to look for the bindels to see if they were the same ones she had put her initials on. I guess she may have decided to make up a excuse than stick to what she knew was the truth.imo

I don't think she fooled the jury on this issue.imo

[martin II]

MR. NEUFELD: All right. But you walked in thinking that perhaps they were working on the serology of this particular case. Isn't that fair to say?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: That's what peeked your interest, isn't it?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

I guess at some point she realized her answers were not reasonable.

That was a good example of a skilled lawyer causing a witness that is being untruthful to just continue to answer questions until her story/excuse makes no sense. I don't believe her excuse for going there made any sense to the jury.imo

[William Anthony]

Right. It is my opinion that she went out of her department to one where she did not work simply to look for the bindels to see if they were the same ones she had put her initials on. I guess she may have decided to make up a excuse than stick to what she knew was the truth.imo

I don't think she fooled the jury on this issue.imo

I think it's possible that when she saw what was going on she wished that gate, which she claimed not to have seen, was there at that time so she could make her exit not be seen. But alas, it was not a she was stuck by the blue wall standing in silence, imho.

[tv]

Right. It is my opinion that she went out of her department to one where she did not work simply to look for the bindels to see if they were the same ones she had put her initials on. I guess she may have decided to make up a excuse than stick to what she knew was the truth.imo

I don't think she fooled the jury on this issue.imoI guess I'm missing something. What do you think her reason was for going to look at the bindles? Also, I would think if the bindles had been switched by evil lab technicians and LE they would have been smart enough to use the same envelopes. I think Mazzola was new, overwhelmed by the case and simply thought she initialed the envelopes and didn't or being new it wasn't something she did automatically and she didn't want to admit it. I'm sure you won't appreciate my personal experience but there have been times when I would have sworn on my life that I signed that I gave medication but my intials aren't there. It happens.

[martin II]

I guess I'm missing something. What do you think her reason was for going to look at the bindles? Also, I would think if the bindles had been switched by evil lab technicians and LE they would have been smart enough to use the same envelopes. I think Mazzola was new, overwhelmed by the case and simply thought she initialed the envelopes and didn't or being new it wasn't something she did automatically and she didn't want to admit it. I'm sure you won't appreciate my personal experience but there have been times when I would have sworn on my life that I signed that I gave medication but my intials aren't there. It happens.

I think she had been told that she had to change her testimony about her initials.I think she went looking for the bindels as she knew she had put her initials on them and did not understand why they could not still be there.
If the bindels were switched the person doing the switching could have prepared the bindels and just switched them without concern for what may have been on them.

i am sure she went over what she had done before the hearing using her notes which she did make.
At any rate it is reasonable to believe that she was not truthful on one or the other testimonies and according to the jury instructions they could reject all of her testimony.imo

[martin II]

I think it's possible that when she saw what was going on she wished that gate, which she claimed not to have seen, was there at that time so she could make her exit not be seen. But alas, it was not a she was stuck by the blue wall standing in silence, imho.

By the time she took her place on the wall i believe there were already two or three others already there. She took her place and left some space next to herself for Fung as she figured he would be there soon.imo:cool:

[William Anthony]

I guess I'm missing something. What do you think her reason was for going to look at the bindles? Also, I would think if the bindles had been switched by evil lab technicians and LE they would have been smart enough to use the same envelopes. I think Mazzola was new, overwhelmed by the case and simply thought she initialed the envelopes and didn't or being new it wasn't something she did automatically and she didn't want to admit it. I'm sure you won't appreciate my personal experience but there have been times when I would have sworn on my life that I signed that I gave medication but my intials aren't there. It happens.

So, you would rather believed she lied about placing her initials on the bindles, as opposed to LE tampering with the evidence. The fact are, if you are to believe this, that someone was examining/touching the evidence, which she observed, and she had testified she placed her initials on the bindles; she was not new and near completing her trainee period; she did not inform the people doing the evidence touching that her initials were not on the bindles; there was no record kept of who touched the bindles, IIRC, and none of this explains why the evidence went in wet but came out wet, with the exception of evidence tampering. Did not one of the posters say if it walks like a duck...?

[William Anthony]

I think she had been told that she had to change her testimony about her initials.I think she went looking for the bindels as she knew she had put her initials on them and did not understand why they could not still be there.
If the bindels were switched the person doing the switching could have prepared the bindels and just switched them without concern for what may have been on them.

i am sure she went over what she had done before the hearing using her notes which she did make.
At any rate it is reasonable to believe that she was not truthful on one or the other testimonies and according to the jury instructions they could reject all of her testimony.imo

With all due respect, what were they rejecting-a bunch of I-don't-knows and I can't explain it, and I was too tired to do my job even though I accepted the pay? I think the jury saw there was no glass in that window pain, shortened version for window pane and pain of trying to answer questions on cross.

[William Anthony]

By the time she took her place on the wall i believe there were already two or three others already there. She took her place and left some space next to herself for Fung as she figured he would be there soon.imo:cool:

Vannatter, MF, Matheson and Kestler, and Martz would be keeping them company.

[William Anthony]

MR. NEUFELD: Do you recognize the photographs contained on this board?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And in fact that is you in the photographs; is it not?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it is.

MR. NEUFELD: And are these a series of still photographs which you are attempting to capture different aspects of the collection process?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: When were these photographs taken, ma'am?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know the exact date.

MR. NEUFELD: What month?

MS. MAZZOLA: To tell you the truth, I don't know.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, is there a time when you were taken out by the Prosecutors in this case and asked to do a demonstration?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And was a Prosecutor present?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Mr. Goldberg?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it was.

MR. NEUFELD: And were other members of SID present as well?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Was a camera operator there as well?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Both a still camera operator and a video camera operator?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And have you ever been asked to do a demonstration of stain collection before on any other case?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Do you know approximately when it was that you were taken out to do this demonstration?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know the exact date.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm not asking the exact date.

MS. MAZZOLA: Or even a month.

MR. NEUFELD: Was it in February or March?

MS. MAZZOLA: All I remember is it being cold and it was raining. I don't--

MR. NEUFELD: You don't even know whether it is in 1995 or 1994?

THE COURT: She was trying to answer the question, Mr. Neufeld. You have interrupted her again.

MS. MAZZOLA: To be honest, I don't recall.

[tv]

By the time she took her place on the wall i believe there were already two or three others already there. She took her place and left some space next to herself for Fung as she figured he would be there soon.imo:cool:You don't want to believe OJ Simpson is a murderer but you would accuse LE, the lab, criminalists and anyone else that you need to accuse of conspiring against Simpson.

[tv]

So, you would rather believed she lied about placing her initials on the bindles, as opposed to LE tampering with the evidence. The fact are, if you are to believe this, that someone was examining/touching the evidence, which she observed, and she had testified she placed her initials on the bindles; she was not new and near completing her trainee period; she did not inform the people doing the evidence touching that her initials were not on the bindles; there was no record kept of who touched the bindles, IIRC, and none of this explains why the evidence went in wet but came out wet, with the exception of evidence tampering. Did not one of the posters say if it walks like a duck...?

The defense should have asked to dust the bindle envelopes for Mazzola's prints and to see if anyone else's prints were there that shouldn't be there. Wonder why they didn't?

[William Anthony]

The defense should have asked to dust the bindle envelopes for Mazzola's prints and to see if anyone else's prints were there that shouldn't be there. Wonder why they didn't?

Again you misplace the burden of proof. It was the prosecution's duty to show that the evidence is what it is purported to be and that it could be trusted. Wonder why the prosecution did not do what you suggest?

[martin II]

The defense should have asked to dust the bindle envelopes for Mazzola's prints and to see if anyone else's prints were there that shouldn't be there. Wonder why they didn't?

Many paople had handeled thoser items before Mazzola was caught.imo

[martin II]

The defense should have asked to dust the bindle envelopes for Mazzola's prints and to see if anyone else's prints were there that shouldn't be there. Wonder why they didn't?

why woud she leave evidence out in the open on a table overnight rather than secured under lock and key. remember she said one could enter the lab by that back elevator.i think she lied the second time she testified.imo

[martin II]

MR. NEUFELD: Do you recognize the photographs contained on this board?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And in fact that is you in the photographs; is it not?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it is.

MR. NEUFELD: And are these a series of still photographs which you are attempting to capture different aspects of the collection process?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: When were these photographs taken, ma'am?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know the exact date.

MR. NEUFELD: What month?

MS. MAZZOLA: To tell you the truth, I don't know.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, is there a time when you were taken out by the Prosecutors in this case and asked to do a demonstration?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And was a Prosecutor present?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Mr. Goldberg?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it was.

MR. NEUFELD: And were other members of SID present as well?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Was a camera operator there as well?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Both a still camera operator and a video camera operator?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And have you ever been asked to do a demonstration of stain collection before on any other case?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Do you know approximately when it was that you were taken out to do this demonstration?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know the exact date.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm not asking the exact date.

MS. MAZZOLA: Or even a month.

MR. NEUFELD: Was it in February or March?

MS. MAZZOLA: All I remember is it being cold and it was raining. I don't--

MR. NEUFELD: You don't even know whether it is in 1995 or 1994?

THE COURT: She was trying to answer the question, Mr. Neufeld. You have interrupted her again.

MS. MAZZOLA: To be honest, I don't recall.

'TO BE HONEST' sounds strange comming from her.

[martin II]

The defense should have asked to dust the bindle envelopes for Mazzola's prints and to see if anyone else's prints were there that shouldn't be there. Wonder why they didn't?

the prosecution had control of all of the bindels and could have dusted for fingerprints but too many had handeled them by then and she was completely outed by the defense on the stand. i am sure the jury got that.
So you got any idea as to why the samples were still wet when the were suppose to be dry and left smears on the inside of the envelope?

[William Anthony]

'TO BE HONEST' sounds strange comming from her.

Makes a person think she was not honest in the rest of her testimony, imho.

[William Anthony]

MR. NEUFELD: Wasn't one of your responsibilities at Bundy to participate in the documenting of items of evidence?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And part of the documenting of evidence entails the photographing of items, does it not?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And one of the things that you had been taught at the SID mini academy was to get various angles or various distances of the different items, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: The forensic photographers know that, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: To shoot a close-up and to shoot it further away?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And you--did you, with Dennis Fung, put down the various numbers along the way so the items could be photographed?

MS. MAZZOLA: I helped put down some of them, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Do you have an independent recollection, as you sit here today, as to which number you put down and which numbers he put down?

MS. MAZZOLA: The ones I participated in were up near the front of the house in the area that the crime occurred.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. But where 115 is in this picture, Miss Mazzola, is actually where item 50, the blood stain is; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And you personally knelt down and collected that stain, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And Miss Mazzola, when you collected that stain, you were just a few feet in front of that rear gate, weren't you?

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MS. MAZZOLA: It appeared--

MR. NEUFELD: Weren't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: It appears that 115 is near the gate, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And you have to pass through that gate to get to 117 which became item 52, don't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, if photographs--did seeing photographs refresh your recollection, Miss Mazzola? When you were shown this photograph, when you looked at the different photographs at the scene of Bundy before taking the witness stand, did that refresh your recollection that there was in fact a rear gate located there?

MS. MAZZOLA: The photographs show that yes, there was a rear gate.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, did seeing that photograph refresh your recollection even before you took the witness stand in this case, that there was a rear gate at that location?

MS. MAZZOLA: That morning I did not recall seeing a back gate.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, when you say, "That morning," you mean the morning of June 13th?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: When you say you didn't recall seeing a gate on June 13th, are you saying that at a certain point in time when I thought back to June 13th I don't recall seeing a gate? Is that what you mean by that statement?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, it misstates the testimony as to a "Rear gate."

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: That morning I did not remember seeing a back gate. After seeing photographs apparently there is a back gate.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. Miss Mazzola, when was the first time that somebody asked you about a back gate?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember the exact date.

MR. NEUFELD: The month?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not even the month.

MR. NEUFELD: The season?

MS. MAZZOLA: I can't even remember that.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, was it several months after you were out there in June, more or less?

MS. MAZZOLA: It was after we had been out there in June.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, when you say "After," was it the next day?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So it was many weeks later?

THE COURT: I think we have given the jury a picture of what the state of the recollection is.

[martin II]

MR. NEUFELD: Wasn't one of your responsibilities at Bundy to participate in the documenting of items of evidence?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And part of the documenting of evidence entails the photographing of items, does it not?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And one of the things that you had been taught at the SID mini academy was to get various angles or various distances of the different items, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: The forensic photographers know that, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: To shoot a close-up and to shoot it further away?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And you--did you, with Dennis Fung, put down the various numbers along the way so the items could be photographed?

MS. MAZZOLA: I helped put down some of them, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Do you have an independent recollection, as you sit here today, as to which number you put down and which numbers he put down?

MS. MAZZOLA: The ones I participated in were up near the front of the house in the area that the crime occurred.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. But where 115 is in this picture, Miss Mazzola, is actually where item 50, the blood stain is; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And you personally knelt down and collected that stain, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And Miss Mazzola, when you collected that stain, you were just a few feet in front of that rear gate, weren't you?

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MS. MAZZOLA: It appeared--

MR. NEUFELD: Weren't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: It appears that 115 is near the gate, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And you have to pass through that gate to get to 117 which became item 52, don't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, if photographs--did seeing photographs refresh your recollection, Miss Mazzola? When you were shown this photograph, when you looked at the different photographs at the scene of Bundy before taking the witness stand, did that refresh your recollection that there was in fact a rear gate located there?

MS. MAZZOLA: The photographs show that yes, there was a rear gate.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, did seeing that photograph refresh your recollection even before you took the witness stand in this case, that there was a rear gate at that location?

MS. MAZZOLA: That morning I did not recall seeing a back gate.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, when you say, "That morning," you mean the morning of June 13th?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: When you say you didn't recall seeing a gate on June 13th, are you saying that at a certain point in time when I thought back to June 13th I don't recall seeing a gate? Is that what you mean by that statement?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, it misstates the testimony as to a "Rear gate."

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: That morning I did not remember seeing a back gate. After seeing photographs apparently there is a back gate.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. Miss Mazzola, when was the first time that somebody asked you about a back gate?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember the exact date.

MR. NEUFELD: The month?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not even the month.

MR. NEUFELD: The season?

MS. MAZZOLA: I can't even remember that.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, was it several months after you were out there in June, more or less?

MS. MAZZOLA: It was after we had been out there in June.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, when you say "After," was it the next day?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So it was many weeks later?

THE COURT: I think we have given the jury a picture of what the state of the recollection is.


i believe she is saying that she collected samples from the path inside the gate,walked through the gate and collected another sample out side the gate and did not see the gate. She had better vision when she walked in that room and saw techs working on many bindels and recognized her bindels even though she said her initials were not on them.
i believe this was just another instance where the jury listening to her testimony had reason not to believe her or to have serious questions about her testimony.imo

[martin II]

even in the prosecution SID arranged demonstration to show Mazzola collecting "evidence" she was still dropping stuff on the ground, resting her hands on the dirty ground while collecting stuff.
But she did say that she thought the lapd lab wrtten rules/procedures for
collecting evidence were only guidelines.

[William Anthony]

i believe she is saying that she collected samples from the path inside the gate,walked through the gate and collected another sample out side the gate and did not see the gate. She had better vision when she walked in that room and saw techs working on many bindels and recognized her bindels even though she said her initials were not on them.
i believe this was just another instance where the jury listening to her testimony had reason not to believe her or to have serious questions about her testimony.imo

Considering the evidence that came out about the stains on the gate, I think it was her way of distancing herself from those issues, while enjoying her company along the blue wall.

[martin II]

Considering the evidence that came out about the stains on the gate, I think it was her way of distancing herself from those issues, while enjoying her company along the blue wall.

I thought the same thing.If this lady did not even see the gate that she walked through how should she be expected to see the blood stain on the gate. very slick way to evade that issue, but i don't think the jury was fooled at all.

[William Anthony]

I thought the same thing.If this lady did not even see the gate that she walked through how should she be expected to see the blood stain on the gate. very slick way to evade that issue, but i don't think the jury was fooled at all.

And all of this adds to the Mountain of Reasonable Doubt, in this case, imho.

[tv]

And all of this adds to the Mountain of Reasonable Doubt, in this case, imho.The mountain of reasonable doubt is very small next to the Mt. Everest of Convincing Evidence. :)

[William Anthony]

The mountain of reasonable doubt is very small next to the Mt. Everest of Convincing Evidence. :)

You mean that untrustworthy evidence, which was tantamount to grains of sands or, at best, pebbles that the prosecution convinced some was a mountain of evidence. I have found that those who do not completely understand science tend to give more credit to it simply because they do not know how to refute it. Thank heavens for the dream team, because we now understand that collection, storage, handling and tampering of evidence breaks down the few pebbles into grains of sand.

[tv]

You mean that untrustworthy evidence, which was tantamount to grains of sands or, at best, pebbles that the prosecution convinced some was a mountain of evidence. I have found that those who do not completely understand science tend to give more credit to it simply because they do not know how to refute it. Thank heavens for the dream team, because we now understand that collection, storage, handling and tampering of evidence breaks down the few pebbles into grains of sand.William, don't get me confused with the criminal jurors who admitted they didn't understand the science so they ignored it. I understand it. Nothing that was done in the collection, storage or handling of the blood evidence turned someone else's blood into OJ Simpson's. No evidence was ever presented that proved tampering.

[William Anthony]

William, don't get me confused with the criminal jurors who admitted they didn't understand the science so they ignored it. I understand it. Nothing that was done in the collection, storage or handling of the blood evidence turned someone else's blood into OJ Simpson's. No evidence was ever presented that proved tampering.

Let me begin with your continued reluctance or complete nonacceptance of the burden of proof and the importance thereof. The defense did not have to prove the evidence was planted/tampered with. They only had to show evidence from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that it was, which they did so magnificently, imho. First, I am not confusing you with the criminal jury and they did not argue with the testimony of the effects of degradation on cross contamination that causes false positives. They understood that their duty was not to impose their limited understanding on the DNA evidence but to listen to both sides as they presented evidence of how the evidence was collected, handled, stored, contaminated, cross contaminated or tampered with or planted and to draw reasonable inferences from the totality of the evidence, keeping in mind that the defense did not have to proof any of this just provided evidence from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that the evidence is not credible enough to convict. The criminal jury performed their duty magnificently, impartially and correctly, imho. They did not try to make their limited understanding of the scientific evidence superior to the understanding of the experts. They simply listen to and evaluated the evidence, as presented, in terms of reasonable doubt, imho.

[martin II]

The mountain of reasonable doubt is very small next to the Mt. Everest of Convincing Evidence. :)

Reasonable doubt, when it occurs in strategic places of the foundation can cause the whole house to collapse. Garbage in Garbage out.

[martin II]

William, don't get me confused with the criminal jurors who admitted they didn't understand the science so they ignored it. I understand it. Nothing that was done in the collection, storage or handling of the blood evidence turned someone else's blood into OJ Simpson's. No evidence was ever presented that proved tampering.

One important instance of reasonable doubt was given to the defense by Miss MAZZOLA and fair minded people will not ignore that.imo

[martin II]

Let me begin with your continued reluctance or complete nonacceptance of the burden of proof and the importance thereof. The defense did not have to prove the evidence was planted/tampered with. They only had to show evidence from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that it was, which they did so magnificently, imho. First, I am not confusing you with the criminal jury and they did not argue with the testimony of the effects of degradation on cross contamination that causes false positives. They understood that their duty was not to impose their limited understanding on the DNA evidence but to listen to both sides as they presented evidence of how the evidence was collected, handled, stored, contaminated, cross contaminated or tampered with or planted and to draw reasonable inferences from the totality of the evidence, keeping in mind that the defense did not have to proof any of this just provided evidence from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that the evidence is not credible enough to convict. The criminal jury performed their duty magnificently, impartially and correctly, imho. They did not try to make their limited understanding of the scientific evidence superior to the understanding of the experts. They simply listen to and evaluated the evidence, as presented, in terms of reasonable doubt, imho.



Very clear and on point.:beer: :beer: :patriot:
martin II

[martin II]

William, don't get me confused with the criminal jurors who admitted they didn't understand the science so they ignored it. I understand it. Nothing that was done in the collection, storage or handling of the blood evidence turned someone else's blood into OJ Simpson's. No evidence was ever presented that proved tampering.

If Mazzola put her initials on those bindels as she testified that she did , then the set that was used for further testing/results that did not have her initials must have been some other blood samples.imo

[martin II]

William, don't get me confused with the criminal jurors who admitted they didn't understand the science so they ignored it. I understand it. Nothing that was done in the collection, storage or handling of the blood evidence turned someone else's blood into OJ Simpson's. No evidence was ever presented that proved tampering.

I am not sure one can say the jury (all) ignored the dna evidence. One juror, a white female stated that the DNA evidence was shakey.I assumed by shakey she meant that she did not believe the prosecutions presentation of it and maby believe the cross of B Shack (sp) more.imo

[William Anthony]

Reasonable doubt, when it occurs in strategic places of the foundation can cause the whole house to collapse. Garbage in Garbage out.

Especially when the foundation is made of straw. :)

[fgump2]

So, you would rather believed she lied about placing her initials on the bindles, as opposed to LE tampering with the evidence. The fact are, if you are to believe this, that someone was examining/touching the evidence, which she observed, and she had testified she placed her initials on the bindles; she was not new and near completing her trainee period; she did not inform the people doing the evidence touching that her initials were not on the bindles; there was no record kept of who touched the bindles, IIRC, and none of this explains why the evidence went in wet but came out wet, with the exception of evidence tampering. Did not one of the posters say if it walks like a duck...?
I think that most people greatly underestimate the number of careless mistakes that others make. I first came to this conclusion when I took an English composition class many years ago; before word processors were in use. I was with some friends, and passed each others papers around, and made light pencil marks on the mistakes that we saw on other’s papers. I had a smug feeling of superiority when I saw how many mistakes everyone else had. That smug feeling of superiority vanished when I got my paper back and realized that my paper was no better than the rest.
Another area in which I have learned the same thing is in dealing with computers. In there first decade or two of computer programming one of the things that the early computer scientists learned was that even the most careful of people make lots of careless mistakes. Humans usually ignore minor mistakes in spelling and punctuation; computers don’t.
I have noticed since then that most people do a lousy job of noticing their own mistakes, quite a bit better when noticing the mistakes of strangers, but really good at noticing the mistakes of people they don’t like. For example, I have noticed that WA has brought attention to spelling mistakes in postings he disagrees with, but not those he agrees with.
I have often thought that this is something that people should be taught in school.
In the days when income tax reports were filled out with pencil, it was generally accepted that even CPAs found it difficult to fill out an income tax report without making a mistake. This is true even if the CPA checked several times for errors. Because of this, the IRS tries to distinguish between important mistakes and trivial mistakes; otherwise they would call most taxpayers in for an audit.
To cite on example of a mistake that almost anyone could make is that a person who isn’t a compulsive fault finder would probably ignore it when a person says ‘them’ when referring to one glove, although it might make more sense to use the word ‘it’. If everybody (or even a large portion of the human race) made a big deal out of trivial mistakes like this, we would all quickly drive each other nuts.
Processing a mountain of evidence in a criminal trial is probably going to produce a lot more mistakes than filling out an income tax report; it is inevitable that there would be quite a few errors in processing the evidence in the Simpson trial.
To judge careless mistakes so harshly as the dream team backers would mean that the more evidence against an accused person, the easier it is to disregard the evidence on the basis of careless mistakes.
Most people don’t know enough about criminology to be able to distinguish important criminology mistakes from unimportant mistakes. This is especially true for the lazy and not very smart jurors in the Simpson criminal trial. I write lazy because some of the jurors after the trial made some statements that were clearly contradicted by the testimony in the trial. Some of these misunderstandings may have been do to their lack of intelligence, but I think some was do to laziness as well.
I thought most of the mistakes the defense complained about were quite trivial.
One juror the Simpson trial said she thought that the blood that was identified as being from OJS might have been from A. Mazzola on the grounds that the blood type was the same. Another said after the trial ‘I didn’t understand the DNA stuff at all; to me it was just a waste of time. and it carried no weight with me’. The juror who the prosecution thought would understand the DNA evidence the best said the scientific testimony that impressed her the most was the way Henry Lee smiled at the jury.
I found it frustrating that millions of dollars was spend arguing about DNA, and then a jury passed judgment on things that were simply way over their heads. I also feel disrespect for the supporters of the Simpson defense who criticize the police criminologists so much, and are so tolerant of the foolish jury.

[fgump2]

I thought Gerdes who came up with that phrase, 'garbage in, garbage out', got his testimony disproved. In any case, if it was garbage in, garbage out’ there were a lot of coincidences about the blood evidence.
The biggest coincidence is that the evidence hung together in a logical consistent manner.
It was also strange that the blood evidence came from only the three principals, and that most of the drops of blood picked up and processed were contained only DNA from one of the three principals; not a mixture.
One of the many places that Cochran’s logic was weak was in that he claimed that NBS had a fourth person’s blood under her fingernail, that proved there was a fourth person there; a second killer. Does this mean that the ‘garbage in garbage out’ argument only works when the blood evidence is inconvenient for the defense?
Considering the fact that the LA police labs process evidence for large numbers of crimes, it is quite odd that nobody else's DNA was found in the evidence. Just the fact that all the blood that the prosecution thought was from the killer turned out to be 100% OJS is an amazing coincidence.
The defense also complained that the police didn’t process all the blood evidence. According the Bugliosi, this is the usual process when there is a lot of blood evidence.
The defense also complained that the LA criminologists should have used special procedures because OJS was a celebrity. Do they really think the courts would back that up? The OJS trial wasn’t the first time a celebrity has been tried in the LA, let alone the US.

[martin II]

I think that most people greatly underestimate the number of careless mistakes that others make. I first came to this conclusion when I took an English composition class many years ago; before word processors were in use. I was with some friends, and passed each others papers around, and made light pencil marks on the mistakes that we saw on other’s papers. I had a smug feeling of superiority when I saw how many mistakes everyone else had. That smug feeling of superiority vanished when I got my paper back and realized that my paper was no better than the rest.
Another area in which I have learned the same thing is in dealing with computers. In there first decade or two of computer programming one of the things that the early computer scientists learned was that even the most careful of people make lots of careless mistakes. Humans usually ignore minor mistakes in spelling and punctuation; computers don’t.
I have noticed since then that most people do a lousy job of noticing their own mistakes, quite a bit better when noticing the mistakes of strangers, but really good at noticing the mistakes of people they don’t like. For example, I have noticed that WA has brought attention to spelling mistakes in postings he disagrees with, but not those he agrees with.
I have often thought that this is something that people should be taught in school.
In the days when income tax reports were filled out with pencil, it was generally accepted that even CPAs found it difficult to fill out an income tax report without making a mistake. This is true even if the CPA checked several times for errors. Because of this, the IRS tries to distinguish between important mistakes and trivial mistakes; otherwise they would call most taxpayers in for an audit.
To cite on example of a mistake that almost anyone could make is that a person who isn’t a compulsive fault finder would probably ignore it when a person says ‘them’ when referring to one glove, although it might make more sense to use the word ‘it’. If everybody (or even a large portion of the human race) made a big deal out of trivial mistakes like this, we would all quickly drive each other nuts.
Processing a mountain of evidence in a criminal trial is probably going to produce a lot more mistakes than filling out an income tax report; it is inevitable that there would be quite a few errors in processing the evidence in the Simpson trial.
To judge careless mistakes so harshly as the dream team backers would mean that the more evidence against an accused person, the easier it is to disregard the evidence on the basis of careless mistakes.
Most people don’t know enough about criminology to be able to distinguish important criminology mistakes from unimportant mistakes. This is especially true for the lazy and not very smart jurors in the Simpson criminal trial. I write lazy because some of the jurors after the trial made some statements that were clearly contradicted by the testimony in the trial. Some of these misunderstandings may have been do to their lack of intelligence, but I think some was do to laziness as well.
I thought most of the mistakes the defense complained about were quite trivial.
One juror the Simpson trial said she thought that the blood that was identified as being from OJS might have been from A. Mazzola on the grounds that the blood type was the same. Another said after the trial ‘I didn’t understand the DNA stuff at all; to me it was just a waste of time. and it carried no weight with me’. The juror who the prosecution thought would understand the DNA evidence the best said the scientific testimony that impressed her the most was the way Henry Lee smiled at the jury.
I found it frustrating that millions of dollars was spend arguing about DNA, and then a jury passed judgment on things that were simply way over their heads. I also feel disrespect for the supporters of the Simpson defense who criticize the police criminologists so much, and are so tolerant of the foolish jury.

there are many claims in your post. I am not sure where to start to reply, so i will just pass for now.

[William Anthony]

I think that most people greatly underestimate the number of careless mistakes that others make. I first came to this conclusion when I took an English composition class many years ago; before word processors were in use. I was with some friends, and passed each others papers around, and made light pencil marks on the mistakes that we saw on other’s papers. I had a smug feeling of superiority when I saw how many mistakes everyone else had. That smug feeling of superiority vanished when I got my paper back and realized that my paper was no better than the rest.
Another area in which I have learned the same thing is in dealing with computers. In there first decade or two of computer programming one of the things that the early computer scientists learned was that even the most careful of people make lots of careless mistakes. Humans usually ignore minor mistakes in spelling and punctuation; computers don’t.
I have noticed since then that most people do a lousy job of noticing their own mistakes, quite a bit better when noticing the mistakes of strangers, but really good at noticing the mistakes of people they don’t like. For example, I have noticed that WA has brought attention to spelling mistakes in postings he disagrees with, but not those he agrees with.
I have often thought that this is something that people should be taught in school.
In the days when income tax reports were filled out with pencil, it was generally accepted that even CPAs found it difficult to fill out an income tax report without making a mistake. This is true even if the CPA checked several times for errors. Because of this, the IRS tries to distinguish between important mistakes and trivial mistakes; otherwise they would call most taxpayers in for an audit.
To cite on example of a mistake that almost anyone could make is that a person who isn’t a compulsive fault finder would probably ignore it when a person says ‘them’ when referring to one glove, although it might make more sense to use the word ‘it’. If everybody (or even a large portion of the human race) made a big deal out of trivial mistakes like this, we would all quickly drive each other nuts.
Processing a mountain of evidence in a criminal trial is probably going to produce a lot more mistakes than filling out an income tax report; it is inevitable that there would be quite a few errors in processing the evidence in the Simpson trial.
To judge careless mistakes so harshly as the dream team backers would mean that the more evidence against an accused person, the easier it is to disregard the evidence on the basis of careless mistakes.
Most people don’t know enough about criminology to be able to distinguish important criminology mistakes from unimportant mistakes. This is especially true for the lazy and not very smart jurors in the Simpson criminal trial. I write lazy because some of the jurors after the trial made some statements that were clearly contradicted by the testimony in the trial. Some of these misunderstandings may have been do to their lack of intelligence, but I think some was do to laziness as well.
I thought most of the mistakes the defense complained about were quite trivial.
One juror the Simpson trial said she thought that the blood that was identified as being from OJS might have been from A. Mazzola on the grounds that the blood type was the same. Another said after the trial ‘I didn’t understand the DNA stuff at all; to me it was just a waste of time. and it carried no weight with me’. The juror who the prosecution thought would understand the DNA evidence the best said the scientific testimony that impressed her the most was the way Henry Lee smiled at the jury.
I found it frustrating that millions of dollars was spend arguing about DNA, and then a jury passed judgment on things that were simply way over their heads. I also feel disrespect for the supporters of the Simpson defense who criticize the police criminologists so much, and are so tolerant of the foolish jury.

Your first sentence conveys that the untrustworthiness of the evidence was due to mistakes and carelessness. This may or may not have been the case. Either or it was those careless mistakes or uncovered instances of evidence tampering/planting is not the recipe for conviction. I understand your analogy on the English Composition class and realize that grades suffer because of careless mistakes, which holds true for the prosecution since they were the ones that created the composition.

Most intelligent people realize that any mistake is important when it comes to depriving an individual of one of his unalienable rights (which I really do not agree with, as I believe they are privileges). Suffice it for now that, we will refer to that sacred concept as a right. The stuff of trials is direct and cross examination and not everyone who takes an oath to tell the truth in a trial tells the truth, as evidenced by the person who used the word them when referring specifically to one glove, and his lie on the stand, proven by direct evidence.

Let's talk about your feelings of disrespect. You feel it is alright to disrespect others who disagree, when there is evidence of rampant police corruption in the department where the charges were brought. You think it is alright to feel disrespect for those who do not believe the prosecution proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt, because they place more weight in things other than the science. I guess you disrespect most of the legal community, who feel that the prosecution failed to prove its case.Although I am not a
Simpson supporter, I am a supporter of respect. I just wonder if you've ever stopped to ask yourself who are the people that feel you are worthy of respect. I understand your frustration over the millions that were spent. I guess it was something like what Hilary must have felt.

With all due respect, a little history lesson will serve you well along with the English Composition class. There is a poster, who assumed the position of resident editor/corrector (which is affectionately given), and helped me to improve the quality of my postings. I pointed to this poster's mistake only to let the poster know that I appreciated the value of proof reading. I pointed to the mistakes of others, after they have falsely accused me, responded to me in an uncivil, impolite, rude and disrespectful manner. I do not criticize other posters' mistakes until they have acted in the manner mentioned above of as with the resident editor I was trying to improve upon my skills. Since I am not a Simpson supporter you have not disrespected me yet. I fault LE for there sloppiness, poor collection, storing and evidence handling techniques, as well as the evidence of contamination and/or cross contamination and view with a questioning eye their claim not to have committed evidence tampering/planting. All the evidence leads me to believe that an impartial, sophisticated, intelligent and dutiful jury reached the correct verdict in the Simpson criminal trial.

[William Anthony]

I thought Gerdes who came up with that phrase, 'garbage in, garbage out', got his testimony disproved. In any case, if it was garbage in, garbage out’ there were a lot of coincidences about the blood evidence.
The biggest coincidence is that the evidence hung together in a logical consistent manner.
It was also strange that the blood evidence came from only the three principals, and that most of the drops of blood picked up and processed were contained only DNA from one of the three principals; not a mixture.
One of the many places that Cochran’s logic was weak was in that he claimed that NBS had a fourth person’s blood under her fingernail, that proved there was a fourth person there; a second killer. Does this mean that the ‘garbage in garbage out’ argument only works when the blood evidence is inconvenient for the defense?
Considering the fact that the LA police labs process evidence for large numbers of crimes, it is quite odd that nobody else's DNA was found in the evidence. Just the fact that all the blood that the prosecution thought was from the killer turned out to be 100% OJS is an amazing coincidence.
The defense also complained that the police didn’t process all the blood evidence. According the Bugliosi, this is the usual process when there is a lot of blood evidence.
The defense also complained that the LA criminologists should have used special procedures because OJS was a celebrity. Do they really think the courts would back that up? The OJS trial wasn’t the first time a celebrity has been tried in the LA, let alone the US.

I don't have time to respond to anything but your last paragraph at this time. They did not complain, because they did not give Simpson special procedures. They pointed out that this case would likely get a lot of attention (they weren't wrong) and that they should have been more careful after realizing that fact (I'll bet they wish they had been).

[William Anthony]

I thought Gerdes who came up with that phrase, 'garbage in, garbage out', got his testimony disproved. In any case, if it was garbage in, garbage out’ there were a lot of coincidences about the blood evidence.
The biggest coincidence is that the evidence hung together in a logical consistent manner.
It was also strange that the blood evidence came from only the three principals, and that most of the drops of blood picked up and processed were contained only DNA from one of the three principals; not a mixture.
One of the many places that Cochran’s logic was weak was in that he claimed that NBS had a fourth person’s blood under her fingernail, that proved there was a fourth person there; a second killer. Does this mean that the ‘garbage in garbage out’ argument only works when the blood evidence is inconvenient for the defense?
Considering the fact that the LA police labs process evidence for large numbers of crimes, it is quite odd that nobody else's DNA was found in the evidence. Just the fact that all the blood that the prosecution thought was from the killer turned out to be 100% OJS is an amazing coincidence.
The defense also complained that the police didn’t process all the blood evidence. According the Bugliosi, this is the usual process when there is a lot of blood evidence.
The defense also complained that the LA criminologists should have used special procedures because OJS was a celebrity. Do they really think the courts would back that up? The OJS trial wasn’t the first time a celebrity has been tried in the LA, let alone the US.

Now let me address the remainder of your post. As I watched the trial the evidence started to unravel at the introduction of the time line and a barking dog.

You seem to indicate that the defense had to make sense of the prosecution's mistakes. There was trace evidence and blood evidence that did not belong to the "three principals", imho.

The magnificent Cochran did not have to do the testing for the prosecution; only show what it did or did not prove, which he did magnificently.

What is amazing, imho, is the missing blood and the staged production of Peratis attempting to change his testimony.

VB wasn't part of this trial, although I believed he wished he was.

[martin II]

I thought Gerdes who came up with that phrase, 'garbage in, garbage out', got his testimony disproved. In any case, if it was garbage in, garbage out’ there were a lot of coincidences about the blood evidence.
The biggest coincidence is that the evidence hung together in a logical consistent manner.
It was also strange that the blood evidence came from only the three principals, and that most of the drops of blood picked up and processed were contained only DNA from one of the three principals; not a mixture.
One of the many places that Cochran’s logic was weak was in that he claimed that NBS had a fourth person’s blood under her fingernail, that proved there was a fourth person there; a second killer. Does this mean that the ‘garbage in garbage out’ argument only works when the blood evidence is inconvenient for the defense?
Considering the fact that the LA police labs process evidence for large numbers of crimes, it is quite odd that nobody else's DNA was found in the evidence. Just the fact that all the blood that the prosecution thought was from the killer turned out to be 100% OJS is an amazing coincidence.
The defense also complained that the police didn’t process all the blood evidence. According the Bugliosi, this is the usual process when there is a lot of blood evidence.
The defense also complained that the LA criminologists should have used special procedures because OJS was a celebrity. Do they really think the courts would back that up? The OJS trial wasn’t the first time a celebrity has been tried in the LA, let alone the US.


Why do you think MAZZOLA testified that she put her initials on the bindels and then several months later testified that she didn't?

[William Anthony]

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you were at the Rockingham location did you place your initials on all the coin envelopes as you were collecting them?

MS. MAZZOLA: At the time I thought I did. Looking back I apparently didn't.

MR. GOLDBERG: And do you recall testifying at what we've been referring to or sometimes referred to as a griffin hearing on August 23, I believe, of 1994?

MS. MAZZOLA: I remember testifying at the griffin hearing.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And in that--when you were testifying at that hearing at that time, did you believe that you had put all of your initials or your initials on all of the items that you had collected on the 13th?

MS. MAZZOLA: At that time I believe I had.

MR. GOLDBERG: And did you since learn that you did not?

MS. MAZZOLA: Right.

MR. NEUFELD: Objection. What she assumes is hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Did you since look at photographs of some of the items collected?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And have you learned that you did not?

MS. MAZZOLA: I learned I had not.

MR. GOLDBERG: On the other scenes that you had processed--

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I'm sorry. Move to strike the last answer. It is conclusionary as opposed to testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, on the other stains--excuse me--other scenes that you had collected stains on prior to the 13th, had you initialed on those occasions?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And why wasn't that done here at the scene?

MS. MAZZOLA: I was told that there were only two of us that--

MR. NEUFELD: Objection as to what she was told.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Without telling us what was said, was there a conversation about this?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And after the conversation did--was there some conclusion that was arrived at?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what was the conclusion?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: What is the basis?

MR. NEUFELD: Hearsay again.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: There were only going to be two of us at the scenes collecting evidence. We were working as a team, so it really didn't matter if our initials were on the envelopes since we were working as a team.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, as to the crime scene identification checklist that we talked a little bit about, when you testified at the griffin hearing, what was your understanding of how that checklist was supposed to be used?

MS. MAZZOLA: At the time I thought that everything had to be filled out. The other scenes that I had gone on they had filled out the checklist.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Maybe we can see a portion. I think it is 1107.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Let's just take a look at the last page of the exhibit. It is 1107 for identification.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Fairtlough, what page number is that? They are numbered at the top.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Page 2 of 2.

MR. GOLDBERG: I don't think it has a number. It is the one that has 17, 18 and 19.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. GOLDBERG: Or 18, 17 and 19.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Is this the form that you use out in the field when you are collecting evidence?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: It is a little blurry there.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, prior to testifying at the griffin hearing did you believe that every single box in every single column needed to be filled out?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And as a result of your training and experience after the griffin hearing, did you learn something different?

MS. MAZZOLA: I learned that this is a general guideline for us. Some of the boxes really don't apply to us at the scene.

MR. GOLDBERG: When did you start--when did you learn that?

MS. MAZZOLA: Right after I testified at the griffin hearing.


"MR. NEUFELD: Who was it that first brought it to your attention that the bindles that the Prosecution was saying were the original bindles did not have your initials on them?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I had seen a few of the bindles in serology, and they did not have my initials on them.

MR. NEUFELD: And when was that approximately?

MS. MAZZOLA: I can't tell you approximately. I don't remember the date."

I thought she said she learned from photographs.

[martin II]

Your first sentence conveys that the untrustworthiness of the evidence was due to mistakes and carelessness. This may or may not have been the case. Either or it was those careless mistakes or uncovered instances of evidence tampering/planting is not the recipe for conviction. I understand your analogy on the English Composition class and realize that grades suffer because of careless mistakes, which holds true for the prosecution since they were the ones that created the composition.

Most intelligent people realize that any mistake is important when it comes to depriving an individual of one of his unalienable rights (which I really do not agree with, as I believe they are privileges). Suffice it for now that, we will refer to that sacred concept as a right. The stuff of trials is direct and cross examination and not everyone who takes an oath to tell the truth in a trial tells the truth, as evidenced by the person who used the word them when referring specifically to one glove, and his lie on the stand, proven by direct evidence.

Let's talk about your feelings of disrespect. You feel it is alright to disrespect others who disagree, when there is evidence of rampant police corruption in the department where the charges were brought. You think it is alright to feel disrespect for those who do not believe the prosecution proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt, because they place more weight in things other than the science. I guess you disrespect most of the legal community, who feel that the prosecution failed to prove its case.Although I am not a
Simpson supporter, I am a supporter of respect. I just wonder if you've ever stopped to ask yourself who are the people that feel you are worthy of respect. I understand your frustration over the millions that were spent. I guess it was something like what Hilary must have felt.

With all due respect, a little history lesson will serve you well along with the English Composition class. There is a poster, who assumed the position of resident editor/corrector (which is affectionately given), and helped me to improve the quality of my postings. I pointed to this poster's mistake only to let the poster know that I appreciated the value of proof reading. I pointed to the mistakes of others, after they have falsely accused me, responded to me in an uncivil, impolite, rude and disrespectful manner. I do not criticize other posters' mistakes until they have acted in the manner mentioned above of as with the resident editor I was trying to improve upon my skills. Since I am not a Simpson supporter you have not disrespected me yet. I fault LE for there sloppiness, poor collection, storing and evidence handling techniques, as well as the evidence of contamination and/or cross contamination and view with a questioning eye their claim not to have committed evidence tampering/planting. All the evidence leads me to believe that an impartial, sophisticated, intelligent and dutiful jury reached the correct verdict in the Simpson criminal trial.

William

Thanks for that post. :beer: :beer:
martin II

[martin II]

I thought Gerdes who came up with that phrase, 'garbage in, garbage out', got his testimony disproved. In any case, if it was garbage in, garbage out’ there were a lot of coincidences about the blood evidence.
The biggest coincidence is that the evidence hung together in a logical consistent manner.
It was also strange that the blood evidence came from only the three principals, and that most of the drops of blood picked up and processed were contained only DNA from one of the three principals; not a mixture.
One of the many places that Cochran’s logic was weak was in that he claimed that NBS had a fourth person’s blood under her fingernail, that proved there was a fourth person there; a second killer. Does this mean that the ‘garbage in garbage out’ argument only works when the blood evidence is inconvenient for the defense?
Considering the fact that the LA police labs process evidence for large numbers of crimes, it is quite odd that nobody else's DNA was found in the evidence. Just the fact that all the blood that the prosecution thought was from the killer turned out to be 100% OJS is an amazing coincidence.
The defense also complained that the police didn’t process all the blood evidence. According the Bugliosi, this is the usual process when there is a lot of blood evidence.
The defense also complained that the LA criminologists should have used special procedures because OJS was a celebrity. Do they really think the courts would back that up? The OJS trial wasn’t the first time a celebrity has been tried in the LA, let alone the US.

I am not sure special procedures were necessary.IF lapd protocols and rules had been followed by le and lab tech there may not have been the large number of suspect activities by both.You may believe it is proper to convict based on le 'MISTAKES'. The cjs does not and neither did the intellegent , fair minded jury members that heard and saw every witness testify. Some just accepted all of what the prosecution presented and ignored the defense cross
of those witnesses that created all of the mistakes you speak of.imo

[weezer]

The Devil Is in the Details
By LAURA MANSNERUS
Published: January 12, 1997
WITH the holiday drought of O. J. Simpson news over, the anchorman on Court TV's ''Prime Time Justice'' last Monday night announced ''stunning new evidence'' in the civil trial. It was new, all right: a string of 30 photographs showing Mr. Simpson in size-12 Bruno Magli shoes, exactly the model that left bloody prints by the bodies at his ex-wife's doorstep on June 12, 1994.

On Friday Mr. Simpson himself took the stand so his lawyers could exhibit a solicitous family man who could, and did, deny that he ever hit his wife. (''To the jury, it's too practiced, too slick,'' one Court TV commentator said with a frown when the day came to an end.)

And so, while most people had assumed that after Mr. Simpson's 369-day criminal trial there was nothing left to say, it turns out that there is. At the same time, something awfully big is missing in this round: Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki has barred most of what the defense proposes to say, or insinuate, about a police conspiracy.

Now suppose that two juries of Martians had gone to Los Angeles, one to hear the criminal trial, the other to hear the wrongful-death case, each ignorant of the other. Consider how they might later compare notes. The criminal jurors might wonder why, along with missing the defendant's testimony (and his shoes), they never heard about his failing a lie-detector test or about a frightened woman named Nicole calling a women's shelter five days before Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald L. Goldman died.

The civil jurors would be surprised that they had missed so much about planted evidence and about Mark Fuhrman, the former police detective. They might ask: Was he even important? And as for the fit of the bloody glove, they'd say: How were we supposed to know?

Such an exercise raises the question of whether any trial -- if evidence can be swept out, sliced up, reconfigured and glued together to support any number of stories -- can tell Americans what they expect to find out from it: what happened.

Most lawyers say that's not the point. Alan Dershowitz, an attorney for many vilified clients, including O. J. Simpson, at his first trial, put it this way in ''Reasonable Doubts'' (Simon & Schuster, 1996): ''A criminal trial is anything but a pure search for the truth.''

And Mr. Dershowitz considers that a fine thing, since protecting defendants' rights requires some obfuscation. But many legal scholars think otherwise.

''We have a deeply dysfunctional system in which we have rewarded people for truth-defeating tactics,'' said John H. Langbein, a law professor at Yale University, pointedly naming Mr. Dershowitz as an example.

Akhil Reed Amar, also at Yale, argues that juries, especially those in criminal trials, could perform better if rules intended to insure their objectivity did not deprive them of information. ''We should trust them to discount things based on the reliability of the evidence,'' he said.

It's not that the Simpson litigation has been short on evidence; it's that the evidence has been edited, with sometimes puzzling results.

In the first trial, ''you got the feeling that history was being written more completely by 'Geraldo,' '' said George P. Fletcher, a law professor at Columbia University who appeared occasionally as a commentator on Geraldo Rivera's nightly Simpsonfest.

Mr. Simpson's second trial looks different for many reasons. There aren't so many restrictions on evidence in a civil proceeding. Mr. Simpson faces different opponents, represented by different (and most say better) lawyers. The judges have different ideas about what jurors should hear. The plaintiffs' lawyers, having watched the prosecutors, have learned a great deal about what not to do, and witnesses have learned what not to say. And new fragments of information have been found.

The question of exactly what happened on June 12, 1994, will probably never be answered in court because a trial is often not so much a dispassionate inquiry as it is a morality play. At best it is an attempt to recapture events that were ambiguous in the first place; at worst it is a contest between opposing public relations machines, each trying to sell its own stylized version of reality.

It is, in any event, a game. ''If one side makes a mistake, it has to live with the mistake, even if it terribly distorts the outcome,'' said Burt Neuborne, a professor at the New York University Law School. ''The feeling is that the outcome is less important than the process, than defending the adversary process in the long run.''

Living with a mistake ordinarily means forfeiting evidence. In Mr. Simpson's criminal trial, prosecutors couldn't present their finding that carpet fibers at the crime scene had to be from a 1993 or 1994 Bronco (Mr. Simpson's was a 1994) because, in violation of court rules, they failed to give their report to the defense.

In criminal trials, prosecutors cannot use evidence gathered in an improper search, and they cannot call the defendant to the stand. In both civil and criminal trials, evidence can be excluded because it is hearsay (that's what Judge Lance Ito ruled about the phone call to the women's shelter), or because it is deemed irrelevant (as Judge Fujisaki decided about Mark Fuhrman), or so prejudicial that it would mislead the jury (as both judges concluded about some accounts of wife-battering by Mr. Simpson).

Most lawyers and legal scholars believe such editing serves the truth in the long run. Even more say it serves justice in the long run -- that excluding evidence is the only means of forcing police and prosecutors to comply with the law, and insuring that a defendant is judged only for the act with which he is charged.

Still, the American system is remarkable for its restrictive trial rules. Most countries' courts admit information more informally and give judges a much bigger role, cutting short the laborious process of posing questions and objections. In Europe, Mr. Langbein said, ''you're looking at a legal system so much fairer, cheaper and more accurate than ours that they view us the way we view witch doctors.''

What Jurors Want

European judges routinely ask for a defendant's record of crimes, or what American law calls, more generally, ''bad acts.'' American jurors want to know about them, too, to judge from the comments of those who deadlocked in the recent trial of Alex Kelly, who was charged with raping a 16-year-old girl in Connecticut. Only later did they learn, to their dismay, that a second girl had accused him of a similar attack.

But James F. Flanagan, a professor at the University of South Carolina Law School, argues that a prior conviction is not usually such useful information anyway. ''The question before the jury is whether the individual did this act,'' he said.

Besides, Mr. Flanagan said, juries hear plenty of facts, which stretch only so far. Mr. Simpson's lawyers must have appreciated that, he said, when confronted with the photographs of the Bruno Maglis: ''They got whapped by reality evidence.''

In the Simpson case, it is possible that no number of cold facts can lead to an acceptable conclusion. ''It happened in the Rosenberg case and in the Hiss case and in this case,'' said Mr. Fletcher at Columbia.

Mr. Fletcher said there are better ways to get at information than staging trials, but they are not necessarily satisfying. With official inquiries and commissions, he said, ''the idea is you have the best evidence you can put together.'' The Warren Commission, he added, was such an effort -- and 30 years later, ''a vast percentage of the public doesn't believe it.''

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D05E7DF1538F931A25752C0A9619582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

[weezer]

Why do you think MAZZOLA testified that she put her initials on the bindels and then several months later testified that she didn't?

The relevant fact is that the bindles inside those coin envelopes were identified with her handwriting on them.

[tv]

I am not sure special procedures were necessary.IF lapd protocols and rules had been followed by le and lab tech there may not have been the large number of suspect activities by both.You may believe it is proper to convict based on le 'MISTAKES'. The cjs does not and neither did the intellegent , fair minded jury members that heard and saw every witness testify. Some just accepted all of what the prosecution presented and ignored the defense cross
of those witnesses that created all of the mistakes you speak of.imo

Speaking of protocols and rules, why do you think Dr. Lee visited the LAPD lab and did not wear a hair net or change his gloves while handling various pieces of evidence? Hmm...something wrong.

[tv]

Again you misplace the burden of proof. It was the prosecution's duty to show that the evidence is what it is purported to be and that it could be trusted. Wonder why the prosecution did not do what you suggest?
I don't misplace the burden of proof. If the defense really felt that there was a police conspiracy they should have followed up on it. The truth is that they didn't really believe that there was. They exploited the inexperience of Mazzola to get the their client off.

Why would the prosecution do such a thing when they didn't believe there was a police conspiracy?

[tv]

Many paople had handeled thoser items before Mazzola was caught.imo
Mazzola was caught. What does that mean?

[martin II]

Speaking of protocols and rules, why do you think Dr. Lee visited the LAPD lab and did not wear a hair net or change his gloves while handling various pieces of evidence? Hmm...something wrong.

I believe this was because the lab did not furnish him with gloves but at any rate LEE does not work for lapd lab.

[martin II]

Mazzola was caught. What does that mean?

As in between two DIFFERENT testimonies she gave to the same question at two different times on the subject of some blood evidence she handeled and in trying to explain how she happened to see some bindels in another department that did not have her initials on them as she walked through this department which was not believable imo

[martin II]

I don't misplace the burden of proof. If the defense really felt that there was a police conspiracy they should have followed up on it. The truth is that they didn't really believe that there was. They exploited the inexperience of Mazzola to get the their client off.

Why would the prosecution do such a thing when they didn't believe there was a police conspiracy?

The defense was not the investigative agency in this case. That was the job of the prosecution. The defense only had to do what they did, show to the jury that what the prosecution claimed was not believable and they did just that.

[martin II]

I don't misplace the burden of proof. If the defense really felt that there was a police conspiracy they should have followed up on it. The truth is that they didn't really believe that there was. They exploited the inexperience of Mazzola to get the their client off.

Why would the prosecution do such a thing when they didn't believe there was a police conspiracy?

If the prosecution wanted to show that the bindels in court were the same that Mazzola handeled they could have dusted the bindels to show that she handeled those that were in court.But for some strange reason they did not do that.hhhmmmmm

[martin II]

Mazzola was caught. What does that mean?

Mazzola testified that in previous collection activities she did initial the bindels containing blood samples she collected AND she testified that she did so in the colleciton of samples in this case.
Then several months later when she could not show her initials on what was supposed to be the same bindels she changed her testimony and the jury heard her change her testimony.

[William Anthony]

Look it was obvious all those years ago that the prosecution was bungled.

Eureka.

[William Anthony]

I don't misplace the burden of proof. If the defense really felt that there was a police conspiracy they should have followed up on it. The truth is that they didn't really believe that there was. They exploited the inexperience of Mazzola to get the their client off.

Why would the prosecution do such a thing when they didn't believe there was a police conspiracy?

Yes that has been my point. The prosecution thought that the jury would believe them just because they said they believed Simpson did it. They forgot they had the duty to prove the charges and to rebut the defense case.

"Look it was obvious all those years ago that the prosecution was bungled."-Joseph Bell

[William Anthony]

The Devil Is in the Details sniped for relevance
By LAURA MANSNERUS
Published: January 12, 1997
WITH the holiday drought of O. J. Simpson news over, the anchorman on Court TV's ''Prime Time Justice'' last Monday night announced ''stunning new evidence'' in the civil trial. It was new, all right: a string of 30 photographs showing Mr. Simpson in size-12 Bruno Magli shoes, exactly the model that left bloody prints by the bodies at his ex-wife's doorstep on June 12, 1994.





Such an exercise raises the question of whether any trial -- if evidence can be swept out, sliced up, reconfigured and glued together to support any number of stories -- can tell Americans what they expect to find out from it: what happened.

Most lawyers say that's not the point. Alan Dershowitz, an attorney for many vilified clients, including O. J. Simpson, at his first trial, put it this way in ''Reasonable Doubts'' (Simon & Schuster, 1996): ''A criminal trial is anything but a pure search for the truth.''

And Mr. Dershowitz considers that a fine thing, since protecting defendants' rights requires some obfuscation. But many legal scholars think otherwise.

''We have a deeply dysfunctional system in which we have rewarded people for truth-defeating tactics,'' said John H. Langbein, a law professor at Yale University, pointedly naming Mr. Dershowitz as an example.

Akhil Reed Amar, also at Yale, argues that juries, especially those in criminal trials, could perform better if rules intended to insure their objectivity did not deprive them of information. ''We should trust them to discount things based on the reliability of the evidence,'' he said.

It's not that the Simpson litigation has been short on evidence; it's that the evidence has been edited, with sometimes puzzling results.

In the first trial, ''you got the feeling that history was being written more completely by 'Geraldo,' '' said George P. Fletcher, a law professor at Columbia University who appeared occasionally as a commentator on Geraldo Rivera's nightly Simpsonfest.



The question of exactly what happened on June 12, 1994, will probably never be answered in court because a trial is often not so much a dispassionate inquiry as it is a morality play. At best it is an attempt to recapture events that were ambiguous in the first place; at worst it is a contest between opposing public relations machines, each trying to sell its own stylized version of reality.

It is, in any event, a game. ''If one side makes a mistake, it has to live with the mistake, even if it terribly distorts the outcome,'' said Burt Neuborne, a professor at the New York University Law School. ''The feeling is that the outcome is less important than the process, than defending the adversary process in the long run.''

Living with a mistake ordinarily means forfeiting evidence. In Mr. Simpson's criminal trial, prosecutors couldn't present their finding that carpet fibers at the crime scene had to be from a 1993 or 1994 Bronco (Mr. Simpson's was a 1994) because, in violation of court rules, they failed to give their report to the defense.

In criminal trials, prosecutors cannot use evidence gathered in an improper search, and they cannot call the defendant to the stand. In both civil and criminal trials, evidence can be excluded because it is hearsay (that's what Judge Lance Ito ruled about the phone call to the women's shelter), or because it is deemed irrelevant (as Judge Fujisaki decided about Mark Fuhrman), or so prejudicial that it would mislead the jury (as both judges concluded about some accounts of wife-battering by Mr. Simpson).

Most lawyers and legal scholars believe such editing serves the truth in the long run. Even more say it serves justice in the long run -- that excluding evidence is the only means of forcing police and prosecutors to comply with the law, and insuring that a defendant is judged only for the act with which he is charged.

Still, the American system is remarkable for its restrictive trial rules. Most countries' courts admit information more informally and give judges a much bigger role, cutting short the laborious process of posing questions and objections. In Europe, Mr. Langbein said, ''you're looking at a legal system so much fairer, cheaper and more accurate than ours that they view us the way we view witch doctors.''

What Jurors Want

European judges routinely ask for a defendant's record of crimes, or what American law calls, more generally, ''bad acts.'' American jurors want to know about them, too, to judge from the comments of those who deadlocked in the recent trial of Alex Kelly, who was charged with raping a 16-year-old girl in Connecticut. Only later did they learn, to their dismay, that a second girl had accused him of a similar attack.

But James F. Flanagan, a professor at the University of South Carolina Law School, argues that a prior conviction is not usually such useful information anyway. ''The question before the jury is whether the individual did this act,'' he said.

Besides, Mr. Flanagan said, juries hear plenty of facts, which stretch only so far. Mr. Simpson's lawyers must have appreciated that, he said, when confronted with the photographs of the Bruno Maglis: ''They got whapped by reality evidence.''

In the Simpson case, it is possible that no number of cold facts can lead to an acceptable conclusion. ''It happened in the Rosenberg case and in the Hiss case and in this case,'' said Mr. Fletcher at Columbia.

Mr. Fletcher said there are better ways to get at information than staging trials, but they are not necessarily satisfying. With official inquiries and commissions, he said, ''the idea is you have the best evidence you can put together.'' The Warren Commission, he added, was such an effort -- and 30 years later, ''a vast percentage of the public doesn't believe it.''

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D05E7DF1538F931A25752C0A9619582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

"Look it was obvious all those years ago that the prosecution was bungled."-Joseph Bell

[William Anthony]

The relevant fact is that the bindles inside those coin envelopes were identified with her handwriting on them.

"Look it was obvious all those years ago that the prosecution was bungled."-Joseph Bell

[William Anthony]

Joseph Bell got one thing right-one and counting.:)

[martin II]

No you won't turn my words around me William. I've ALWAYS said that the prosecution stuffed it up. You and your friend can post 50 000 times and it won't change the truth. No, I'm not upset or particularly interested. I just wonder if either of you have posted on any other thread before this one. Or if this has been your one and only all.:)

I have posted on several ctv threads so what does that mean for you?

[martin II]

No you won't turn my words around me William. I've ALWAYS said that the prosecution stuffed it up. You and your friend can post 50 000 times and it won't change the truth. No, I'm not upset or particularly interested. I just wonder if either of you have posted on any other thread before this one. Or if this has been your one and only all.:)

No turning involved, Those are your words.

[martin II]

Joseph Bell got one thing right-one and counting.:)

I have waited for trial info but so far nothing but personal attacks from this poster.

[martin II]

Look it was obvious all those years ago that the prosecution was bungled. Yet you still continue this useless harangue that Simpson was innocent. I suppose everyone needs a hobby. After 7 000 odd posts, have you ever posted on anything except Simspon?

Joseph
After all of 100 post do you know enough about the trial to post anything other than personal attacks on other posters? That is the quesiton for me.

[William Anthony]

No you won't turn my words around me William. I've ALWAYS said that the prosecution stuffed it up. You and your friend can post 50 000 times and it won't change the truth. No, I'm not upset or particularly interested. I just wonder if either of you have posted on any other thread before this one. Or if this has been your one and only all.:)

Why Joseph, are we cross? I have more than one friend. I have admitted that the only thing you have gotten right, imho, is "the prosecution bungled the case." If it is fair for you to point to the two mistakes I made, iyo, in my numerous posts, surely it is fair for me to point out the one thing you got right, imho, in your many posts. You do far too much wondering about what I am doing, imho, which reminds of a song I heard in church, "You've got six months to mind your own business and six months to leave mine alone."

[William Anthony]

No turning involved, Those are your words.

Thank you Martin and I would also like to thank you for your recognition and say I have found your posts very informative. Keep up the good work.

[William Anthony]

Sweetie, what personal attack have I posted on you today? Or yesterday?
:eek:

I do not know what neck of the woods you hail from but in this community we do not refer to posters with male nics as sweetie, or, for that matter, female. Several posters complained after I posted on a certain female avatar (a par of lips). I am sure that the posters will be up in arms about your remark and I expect to see post publicly as they did with me. Let me be the first. Those types of remarks I find offensive.

[martin II]

Look it was obvious all those years ago that the prosecution was bungled. Yet you still continue this useless harangue that Simpson was innocent. I suppose everyone needs a hobby. After 7 000 odd posts, have you ever posted on anything except Simspon?

Joseph
After all of 100 post do you know enough about the trial to post anything other than personal attacks on other posters? That is the quesiton for me.

[weezer]

I do not know what neck of the woods you hail from but in this community we do not refer to posters with male nics as sweetie, or, for that matter, female. Several posters complained after I posted on a certain female avatar (a par of lips). I am sure that the posters will be up in arms about your remark and I expect to see post publicly as they did with me. Let me be the first. Those types of remarks I find offensive.

:confused: that was you?

[William Anthony]

:confused: that was you?

Yes, I am sure you remember when the lips were displayed in the avatar and my comment was that they were beautiful. I received many posts on what some found offensive and inappropriate. Whether it was me or not does not have anything to do with you expressing your offense at Martin being called sweetie by this poster.

[martin II]

Yes, I am sure you remember when the lips were displayed in the avatar and my comment was that they were beautiful. I received many posts on what some found offensive and inappropriate. Whether it was me or not does not have anything to do with you expressing your offense at Martin being called sweetie by this poster.

I remember those lips and remember the comments that they were offensive to some and they said so.
martinII

[weezer]

Yes, I am sure you remember when the lips were displayed in the avatar and my comment was that they were beautiful. I received many posts on what some found offensive and inappropriate. Whether it was me or not does not have anything to do with you expressing your offense at Martin being called sweetie by this poster.

I'm trying to remember but I honestly don't remember circumstances connecting it to you.

[William Anthony]

I'm trying to remember but I honestly don't remember circumstances connecting it to you.

Let's address Joseph Bell's inappropriate and offensive remark to Martin. Do you have anything to say about that? If not, :seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

[martin II]

I'm trying to remember but I honestly don't remember circumstances connecting it to you.

You do remember the nagative comments about the lips right?

[tv]

I believe this was because the lab did not furnish him with gloves but at any rate LEE does not work for lapd lab.martin, I don't know if you've ever been in a lab but gloves are everywhere. It's not a matter of them being provided. It doesn't matter if he worked for the LAPD lab or not. Dr. Lee knew better. Just because he didn't work for them didn't mean he couldn't contaminate the evidence just like you say they did.

[weezer]

martin, I don't know if you've ever been in a lab but gloves are everywhere. It's not a matter of them being provided. It doesn't matter if he worked for the LAPD lab or not. Dr. Lee knew better. Just because he didn't work for them didn't mean he couldn't contaminate the evidence just like you say they did.

excellent point!

[tv]

If the prosecution wanted to show that the bindels in court were the same that Mazzola handeled they could have dusted the bindels to show that she handeled those that were in court.But for some strange reason they did not do that.hhhmmmmm The prosecution's job was to prosecute OJ Simpson not disprove the wild accusations of the defense.

[tv]

Yes that has been my point. The prosecution thought that the jury would believe them just because they said they believed Simpson did it. They forgot they had the duty to prove the charges and to rebut the defense case.

"Look it was obvious all those years ago that the prosecution was bungled."-Joseph BellI've always said the prosecution wasn't good. I still believe it was a winnable case. They provided more evidence than almost any other criminal trial I've seen. The jury was looking for an excuse to acquit Simpson and the defense provided it with unsubstantiated mumbo-jumbo which they eagerly latched on to for an excuse to acquit.

[William Anthony]

martin, I don't know if you've ever been in a lab but gloves are everywhere. It's not a matter of them being provided. It doesn't matter if he worked for the LAPD lab or not. Dr. Lee knew better. Just because he didn't work for them didn't mean he couldn't contaminate the evidence just like you say they did.

Whose responsibility do you think it was to ensure the evidence was not contaminated by anyone?

[weezer]

I've always said the prosecution wasn't good. I still believe it was a winnable case. They provided more evidence than almost any other criminal trial I've seen. The jury was looking for an excuse to acquit Simpson and the defense provided it with unsubstantiated mumbo-jumbo which they eagerly latched on to for an excuse to acquit.

Perfect! :beer:

[tv]

I remember those lips and remember the comments that they were offensive to some and they said so.
martinIII don't know what the heck you people are talking about but I don't think 'lips' has anything to do with this thread. In other words --it's OFF-TOPIC.

[William Anthony]

I've always said the prosecution wasn't good. I still believe it was a winnable case. They provided more evidence than almost any other criminal trial I've seen. The jury was looking for an excuse to acquit Simpson and the defense provided it with unsubstantiated mumbo-jumbo which they eagerly latched on to for an excuse to acquit.

It is not the quantity of the evidence it's the quantity, which the magnificent defense showed that the quality of the quantity was less that qualified to convict. I have not seen your remark about Bell calling Martin Sweetie.

[William Anthony]

I don't know what the heck you people are talking about but I don't think 'lips' has anything to do with this thread. In other words --it's OFF-TOPIC.

With all due respect, being off topic has not stopped you and other posters from pointing out when someone broke the rules. Please, Let's be honest and mature and say when a poster may have broken the rules. I thought we were interested in the truth.

[tv]

Whose responsibility do you think it was to ensure the evidence was not contaminated by anyone?It depends where you are talking about. In the case of the lab, Dr. Lee knew better, but I'm sure no one dared to question the great Dr. Lee. He was wrong not to use a hair net and gloves. It's not only for the protection of the evidence but personal protection as well.

[William Anthony]

The prosecution's job was to prosecute OJ Simpson not disprove the wild accusations of the defense.

The prosecution's job was to show that the evidence was sufficient to withstand the scrutiny of cross and sufficient to allow for a reasonable inference that Simpson was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, with all due respect. The prosecution failed and that is the bottom line.

[tv]

Perfect! :beer:
IMO, this really wasn't a complicated case. Simpson was a convicted wife batterer, LE had coddled him for years, he and Nicole had a volatile relationship filled with violence, his blood was at both crimes scenes as was the two victims, he told conflicting stories, he tried to flee...the identity of the double-murderer isn't hard to figure out.

[tv]

It is not the quantity of the evidence it's the quantity, which the magnificent defense showed that the quality of the quantity was less that qualified to convict. I have not seen your remark about Bell calling Martin Sweetie.It's not my job to moderate this board.

[tv]

The prosecution's job was to show that the evidence was sufficient to withstand the scrutiny of cross and sufficient to allow for a reasonable inference that Simpson was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, with all due respect. The prosecution failed and that is the bottom line.The prosecution failed to appreciate the mindset of the jury in several respects. They failed to understand that the jury wouldn't understand the DNA evidence, they failed to understand that they were dazzled by celebrity, they failed to understand they were looking for any excuse to acquit and Marcia Clarke failed to believe that black women would be reluctant to find him guilty.

[tv]

With all due respect, being off topic has not stopped you and other posters from pointing out when someone broke the rules. Please, Let's be honest and mature and say when a poster may have broken the rules. I thought we were interested in the truth.Your outrage is duly noted. Let's let it go.

[martin II]

I don't know what the heck you people are talking about but I don't think 'lips' has anything to do with this thread. In other words --it's OFF-TOPIC.

tv
this was before your time posting here.But others i am sure remember the discussion about a posters red lips avatar.There was great objection to the lips being called beautiful. It was just a picture of some red lips but the comments against it was strong.

[tv]

tv
this was before your time posting here.But others i am sure remember the discussion about a posters red lips avatar.There was great objection to the lips being called beautiful. It was just a picture of some red lips but the comments against it was strong.Thank you for the explanation. What was the outcome of the complaints? I may as well go off-topic since it looks like the discussion has been derailed once again.

[William Anthony]

It's not my job to moderate this board.

I see that when you want to relinquish your usurped position when it comes to someone inappropriately making comments about Martin and me. This is the type of inequality I fight so vehemently against. Did you forget all your posts on me being off-topic and this one?

"William, this is completely inappropriate. You have made a blunder and been called on it. If I had made the same mistake you and another poster would harrass me about it for pages. Joseph Bell did not make a false accusation. Admit your mistake and move on."

Please continue in your usurped position long enough to comment on Bell's inappropriate posts. I think your bias may be showing through and I need to grab a glass of fresh water, so I can cool down.

[martin II]

The prosecution failed to appreciate the mindset of the jury in several respects. They failed to understand that the jury wouldn't understand the DNA evidence, they failed to understand that they were dazzled by celebrity, they failed to understand they were looking for any excuse to acquit and Marcia Clarke failed to believe that black women would be reluctant to find him guilty.

NO
That jury would have convicted oj simpson in a heart beat if the prosecution had proven their case.

The prosecution thought they could present a weak case full of their Mistakes,changed and not believable testimony from their bunch of 'EXPERTS' and that the jury would just accept it as they bumbeled through the case because they were the prosecution. The jury waited and waited for proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the prosecution never gave it to them. The defense showed the jury why the prosecutions claims could not be believed
so the jury did the only thing that was available to them. They deliberated and found that all 12 believed the prosecution did not prove their case. They then voted NOT GUILTY.

[William Anthony]

Your outrage is duly noted. Let's let it go.

I will be glad to let it go when the community becomes willing to step up to the plate. I was disciplined for calling some of the posters who agreed with me a bevy of beauties. This poster with a male nic has called another poster Sweetie and there have been no comments about this poster's violation of the rules, except mine. You do not seem to keep silent when you think that Martin and I have broken the rules.

[tv]

I see that when you want to relinquish your usurped position when it comes to someone inappropriately making comments about Martin and me. This is the type of inequality I fight so vehemently against. Did you forget all your posts on me being off-topic and this one?

"William, this is completely inappropriate. You have made a blunder and been called on it. If I had made the same mistake you and another poster would harrass me about it for pages. Joseph Bell did not make a false accusation. Admit your mistake and move on."

Please continue in your usurped position long enough to comment on Bell's inappropriate posts. I think your bias may be showing through and I need to grab a glass of fresh water, so I can cool down.

William, I can't believe you're getting so bent out of shape about the word sweetie. You want to be mature and honest so let's put it into perspective -- it's a mild endearment. It wasn't a racial slur or any kind of a derogatory name. My comments on you being off-topic related to the thread. This doesn't. My question for you is why am I the only poster you're demanding a comment from?

[weezer]

Thank you for the explanation. What was the outcome of the complaints? I may as well go off-topic since it looks like the discussion has been derailed once again.

oh -- now I remember the vulgar interchange.

I don't see any need to drag the community back through that. How about we move on?

[tv]

I will be glad to let it go when the community becomes willing to step up to the plate. I was disciplined for calling some of the posters who agreed with me a bevy of beauties. This poster with a male nic has called another poster Sweetie and there have been no comments about this poster's violation of the rules, except mine. You do not seem to keep silent when you think that Martin and I have broken the rules.
I comment when it relates to providing a link or going off-topic. I think your objection to what JB said is because it was from someone with a male nic. Really, it's not a reflection on you.

[William Anthony]

The prosecution failed to appreciate the mindset of the jury in several respects. They failed to understand that the jury wouldn't understand the DNA evidence, they failed to understand that they were dazzled by celebrity, they failed to understand they were looking for any excuse to acquit and Marcia Clarke failed to believe that black women would be reluctant to find him guilty.

The prosecution failed miserably to meet to prove to the jury and the majority of the legal professionals beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson was guilty and this was due to the evidence of mistakes, evidence tampering/planting, contamination, cross contamination, degradation, sloppy evidence handling, storing and packaging and lies, inconsistent time lines, missing blood, blood not being found where it should have been, staged videos, ghost, dead people testifying and the reluctance to call witnesses that did not fit their theory.

[William Anthony]

I comment when it relates to providing a link or going off-topic. I think your objection to what JB said is because it was from someone with a male nic. Really, it's not a reflection on you.

It is a reflection of what is not allowed in this community or what a community dedicated to equality should not tolerate. The poster whose lips were her avatar posted she did not find it offensive but that did not stop certain members from complaining. Are you saying that I should not be afforded that same opportunity?

[tv]

NO
That jury would have convicted oj simpson in a heart beat if the prosecution had proven their case.

The prosecution thought they could present a weak case full of their Mistakes,changed and not believable testimony from their bunch of 'EXPERTS' and that the jury would just accept it as they bumbeled through the case because they were the prosecution. The jury waited and waited for proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the prosecution never gave it to them. The defense showed the jury why the prosecutions claims could not be believed
so the jury did the only thing that was available to them. They deliberated and found that all 12 believed the prosecution did not prove their case. They then voted NOT GUILTY.

martin, I think the jury would have found him not guilty if the prosecution had left them no other alternative. The prosection could have done that but they didn't realize they had to go above and beyond the call of duty to do it. I've never been a fan of the way the prosection ran this case but I still believe there was more than enough evidence to convict. The defense felt the same way or they wouldn't have put LE on trial. Their strategy worked. I don't know what they billed OJ Simpson but they earned every penny.

[William Anthony]

oh -- now I remember the vulgar interchange.

I don't see any need to drag the community back through that. How about we move on?

There was no vulgar exchange unless you mean vulgar to mean common. I simply said I found her avatar beautiful. If finding something beautiful is vulgar, then calling another man sweetie must be despicable to you.

[tv]

It is a reflection of what is not allowed in this community or what a community dedicated to equality should not tolerate. The poster whose lips were her avatar posted she did not find it offensive but that did not stop certain members from complaining. Are you saying that I should not be afforded that same opportunity?
William, what would your reaction had been if I called you sweetie? I'm not sure that I haven't called you sweetie on this board at some time or another.

[William Anthony]

martin, I think the jury would have found him not guilty if the prosecution had left them no other alternative. The prosection could have done that but they didn't realize they had to go above and beyond the call of duty to do it. I've never been a fan of the way the prosection ran this case but I still believe there was more than enough evidence to convict. The defense felt the same way or they wouldn't have put LE on trial. Their strategy worked. I don't know what they billed OJ Simpson but they earned every penny.

The defense did it's duty. They did not create the evidence. They exposed it for what it was. Maybe, this is what this community should do as it relates to Bell's recent post.

[William Anthony]

William, what would your reaction had been if I called you sweetie? I'm not sure that I haven't called you sweetie on this board at some time or another.

What has that got to do with a man calling another man Sweetie? I found that offensive, just as some claimed they found my comment on the avatar offensive. You can say that you did not find Bell's comment offensive. That is your right.

[weezer]

What has that got to do with a man calling another man Sweetie? I found that offensive, just as some claimed they found my comment on the avatar offensive. You can say that you did not find Bell's comment offensive. That is your right.

I thought you were all for tolerance! guess not.

If you feel that someone broke rules on this board, you have every right to report it. besides, who says Joseph Bell is a male?

[tv]

The defense did it's duty. They did not create the evidence. They exposed it for what it was. Maybe, this is what this community should do as it relates to Bell's recent post.Oh, I see. You're following the example of the Simpson defense by making a mountain out of a mole hill. Got it now. :)

[William Anthony]

I thought you were all for tolerance! guess not.

If you feel that someone broke rules on this board, you have every right to report it. besides, who says Joseph Bell is a male?

I do not know whether he is male or female but, even if female, it was inappropriate as Martin has a nic. It is just more offensive if he is a male. I do believe you were one of the ones that commented on my remark that the posters avatar was beautiful and I have seen similar comments on other posters' avatars. If you did not find Bell's comment offensive, then you can say that. That is your right.

[William Anthony]

Oh, I see. You're following the example of the Simpson defense by making a mountain out of a mole hill. Got it now. :)

No, I am following the lead of some in this community and seeking equality. Do you get it now?

[weezer]

sounds like someone needs a time-out. . . .;)

[William Anthony]

sounds like someone needs a time-out. . . .;)

Feel free to take one.

[William Anthony]

Let he that is without sin cast the first stone. I do not think that anyone here has the right to call the jury biased. With that said, it seems I must work harder to improve the equality in this community.

[tv]

Let he that is without sin cast the first stone. I do not think that anyone here has the right to call the jury biased. With that said, it seems I must work harder to improve the equality in this community.Interesting -- I would have taken you for a supporter of the First Amendment.

[weezer]

sounds like a good plan. ;)

[William Anthony]

Interesting -- I would have taken you for a supporter of the First Amendment.

I support the First Amendment if it is applied equally. I thought you would have supported an equal application of the rules and an equal amount of commentary from the posters on what could be construed as offensive. Maybe, you considered that to post on the offensive comments of some might be seen by some that are biased as vulgar.

[William Anthony]

sounds like a good plan. ;)

Such a short time out.

[weezer]

Such a short time out.

no need to be rude -- I'm here to back up your plan on making the community better. you know, equality and all that. did you need help with spelling 'tolerance'?

[William Anthony]

no need to be rude -- I'm here to back up your plan on making the community better. you know, equality and all that. did you need help with spelling 'tolerance'?

I was not being rude; only addressing your need for a time out, or was that rudely meant for someone else. Actions speak louder than words. You may need help grasping the concept of tolerance as it relates to equality and I would be willing to provide you with as much assistance as necessary. As I do not believe, based on your actions, that you are aligned with my vision of improving the community, I will take the action, which I feel is warranted in this situation and in response to your post, :seeya: :seeya: :seeya: :seeya: .

[tv]

I support the First Amendment if it is applied equally. I thought you would have supported an equal application of the rules and an equal amount of commentary from the posters on what could be construed as offensive. Maybe, you considered that to post on the offensive comments of some might be seen by some that are biased as vulgar.I do support equal application of the rules. You are equally entitled to comment on what another poster says and I'm equally entitled not to do the same. You are also equally entitled to report any post you feel is inappropriate. Sounds like plenty of equality to me. :)

[William Anthony]

I do support equal application of the rules. You are equally entitled to comment on what another poster says and I'm equally entitled not to do the same. You are also equally entitled to report any post you feel is inappropriate. Sounds like plenty of equality to me. :)

I think the evidence is that you are more prone to make comments on some posters' posts, while not commenting on others. If you will recall, when I started talking about improving this community I saw apologies as an alternative to reporting posts. I guess I mistakenly thought that there would be more willingness and participation in improving this community, by the temporary exodus of some to a community that was supposed to be fair. I did not realize that they were just following their leader to a land that was not filled with greener grass but was filled with weeds. I thought they had returned to this community seeking what was promised at the other one. I guess I was wrong they seemed to have come back just to sow the seeds of weeds. What you are not equally entitled to do is to apply your comments and allowance for rule breaking unequally, imho. Like I said your definition of equality is different from mine.

[tv]

I think the evidence is that you are more prone to make comments on some posters' posts, while not commenting on others. If you will recall, when I started talking about improving this community I saw apologies as an alternative to reporting posts. I guess I mistakenly thought that there would be more willingness and participation in improving this community, by the temporary exodus of some to a community that was supposed to be fair. I did not realize that they were just following their leader to a land that was not filled with greener grass but was filled with weeds. I thought they had returned to this community seeking what was promised at the other one. I guess I was wrong they seemed to have come back just to sow the seeds of weeds. What you are not equally entitled to do is to apply your comments and allowance for rule breaking unequally, imho. Like I said your definition of equality is different from mine.

If you think I'm behaving inappropriately or outside of the rules then it's your right to report me. Who is this leader you speak of? Several of us went to Sycamore because we were given the impression that this message board was closing. When the discussion lagged over there we came here to post. If the discussion picks up over there I'll add my opinion where I see fit. Some people didn't like syacamore because they flouted the rules and were univited to post but that's the nature of message boards. It happens. Now we've spent two pages on this off-topic topic. What did it gain us?

[William Anthony]

If you think I'm behaving inappropriately or outside of the rules then it's your right to report me. Who is this leader you speak of? Several of us went to Sycamore because we were given the impression that this message board was closing. When the discussion lagged over there we came here to post. If the discussion picks up over there I'll add my opinion where I see fit. Some people didn't like syacamore because they flouted the rules and were univited to post but that's the nature of message boards. It happens. Now we've spent two pages on this off-topic topic. What did it gain us?

Yes, some thought they could flout the rules here and apply rules unequally, imho. However, I believe they were discovered along with their tactics. They promised a new and better community. I was surprised to see the thread asking for donations in the new community. I believe the wrong message was given so as to entice others there. I have recently received some information that indicates at least one was engaged in the same activity that caused others to be banned. I am not saying the information, which that is only a portion of, is true. I have my suspicions and I think you do too. They say it is always wise to know your opponent. I think I have a better understanding of you, and that was what I gained. You may add your opinion where you think it fits. However, if it does not fit, you must acquit.

[William Anthony]

I am through with the conversation and let's continue the discussion of how Mazzola slanted her testimony to favor her friends.

[weezer]

http://www.std.com/obi/Legal/OJ/04.27.95

[weezer]

Yes, some thought they could flout the rules here and apply rules unequally, imho. However, I believe they were discovered along with their tactics. They promised a new and better community. I was surprised to see the thread asking for donations in the new community. I believe the wrong message was given so as to entice others there. I have recently received some information that indicates at least one was engaged in the same activity that caused others to be banned. I am not saying the information, which that is only a portion of, is true. I have my suspicions and I think you do too. They say it is always wise to know your opponent. I think I have a better understanding of you, and that was what I gained. You may add your opinion where you think it fits. However, if it does not fit, you must acquit.

the rules for this board do not allow for stuff to be brought over from other boards. :no:

[William Anthony]

the rules for this board do not allow for stuff to be brought over from other boards. :no:

I think tvdinner will listen to your admonishment, and I said I was through with that conversation.

"If you think I'm behaving inappropriately or outside of the rules then it's your right to report me. Who is this leader you speak of? Several of us went to Sycamore because we were given the impression that this message board was closing. When the discussion lagged over there we came here to post. If the discussion picks up over there I'll add my opinion where I see fit. Some people didn't like syacamore (sic) because they flouted the rules and were univited to post but that's the nature of message boards. It happens. Now we've spent two pages on this off-topic topic. What did it gain us?
Reply With Quote"

[weezer]

I think tvdinner will listen to your admonishment, and I said I was through with that conversation.

"If you think I'm behaving inappropriately or outside of the rules then it's your right to report me. Who is this leader you speak of? Several of us went to Sycamore because we were given the impression that this message board was closing. When the discussion lagged over there we came here to post. If the discussion picks up over there I'll add my opinion where I see fit. Some people didn't like syacamore (sic) because they flouted the rules and were univited to post but that's the nature of message boards. It happens. Now we've spent two pages on this off-topic topic. What did it gain us?
Reply With Quote"

tv's answer was an explanation to the silly post -- your post was gossip.

Can we please just move on --

[William Anthony]

tv's answer was an explanation to the silly post -- your post was gossip.

Can we please just move on --

We had and you brought it back up. I never mentioned the community but others here have mentioned a community by name. I think they will follow your admonition. As far as gossip goes, everything that is posted that is not from the testimony, such as accusatory opinions published in works of fiction or the media are gossip, imho.

[martin II]

I am through with the conversation and let's continue the discussion of how Mazzola slanted her testimony to favor her friends.

SLANTED

You are so kind

[weezer]

*SNIPPED*". . . everything that is posted that is not from the testimony, such as accusatory opinions published in works of fiction or the media are gossip, imho."

I like your rule -- let's add theories and imaginary scenarios that aren't backed by evidence.

[William Anthony]

SLANTED

You are so kind

I picked up on your diplomacy.:)

[William Anthony]

*SNIPPED*

I like your rule -- let's add theories and imaginary scenarios that aren't backed by evidence.

The things that I have posted are backed by the evidence, even though you may not see it or desire to see it. What isn't are those pigeon-toed shoe prints you post about. I would call that gossip.

[weezer]

The things that I have posted are backed by the evidence, even though you may not see it or desire to see it. What isn't are those pigeon-toed shoe prints you post about. I would call that gossip.

nope -- it's a fact.

[William Anthony]

nope -- it's a fact.

:seeya: :seeya: :seeya: :cool:

[tv]

http://www.std.com/obi/Legal/OJ/04.27.95Thank you for attempting to get us back on topic. :)

[William Anthony]

Thank you for attempting to get us back on topic. :)

I know you now. Was that before she brought it back up? :seeya: :seeya: :seeya: :cool:

[tv]

I know you now. Was that before she brought it back up? :seeya: :seeya: :seeya: :cool:I have no clue what this was supposed to mean.

[William Anthony]

SLANTED

You are so kind

Martin,

I think she felt she had no choice. She wanted to fit in with those she thought were her friends and looked to the prosecution for protection.

[weezer]

Martin,

I think she felt she had no choice. She wanted to fit in with those she thought were her friends and looked to the prosecution for protection.

how did I know you couldn't adhere to your own rule?

Originally Posted by William Anthony
". . . everything that is posted that is not from the testimony, such as accusatory opinions published in works of fiction or the media are gossip, imho."

[martin II]

I have not read a excuse as to how the samples went in wet and came out wet.:shrug:

[weezer]

I have not read a excuse as to how the samples went in wet and came out wet.:shrug:

sorry but I'm going to need a little more info -- like what are you talking about?

[martin II]

Martin,

I think she felt she had no choice. She wanted to fit in with those she thought were her friends and looked to the prosecution for protection.

Like trading her honesty for the blue wall. I believe that at some later date she may have regretted her decision.imo

[William Anthony]

I have not read a excuse as to how the samples went in wet and came out wet.:shrug:

That is the testimony and the fact is that she changed her story on several points. I think that anyone is allowed to draw reasonable inferences from the testimony. What I do not think they are allowed to do is make up things from their imagination and state is as a fact. I thought it was settled a long time ago that opinions as to the evidence were allowed on this board. I understand that people will post things that support their opinion, which is why I have looked so arduously and cannot find any fact that pigeon-toed shoe prints were found. I think that to post something as a fact without any evidence to support it is GOSSIP.

[martin II]

nope -- it's a fact.

Then post the link to what you clain is FACT.

[weezer]

Then post the link to what you clain is FACT.

martin, you and I have had this discussion so many times over the years and I have posted that link/article so many times. I believe it's a waste of time and energy for me to continue over and over again to post a link simply because you don't like what it says.

[William Anthony]

Then post the link to what you clain is FACT.

I have never seen the link and never heard anyone except this particular poster make that claim.

[tv]

Like trading her honesty for the blue wall. I believe that at some later date she may have regretted her decision.imoWhat makes you think that?

[martin II]

sorry but I'm going to need a little more info -- like what are you talking about?

If you don't know, you can skip responding as actually my post was meant for others.

martinII

[martin II]

What makes you think that?


Most people improve their prespective on things with age even if it is only a few years.imo

[martin II]

martin, you and I have had this discussion so many times over the years and I have posted that link/article so many times. I believe it's a waste of time and energy for me to continue over and over again to post a link simply because you don't like what it says.

Wrong

Starting with the first time you made the claim i and another poster have asked for proof. I have never seen a link by you proving what you claim. The FBI footprint expert did not identify any pigeon toed foot prints in his testimony or his drawings pesented in court so i have no idea as to where you got your claim from.
Since you frequently make the claim you should give the link at that time.
Without it i can only say it is just more gossip.imo

[tv]

Most people improve their prespective on things with age even if it is only a few years.imoOkay, I thought maybe she'd made a statement about her testimony at some point after the trial.

[weezer]

Wrong

Starting with the first time you made the claim i and another poster have asked for proof. I have never seen a link by you proving what you claim. The FBI footprint expert did not identify any pigeon toed foot prints in his testimony or his drawings pesented in court so i have no idea as to where you got your claim from.
Since you frequently make the claim you should give the link at that time.
Without it i can only say it is just more gossip.imo

tsk, tsk, tsk -- you've had proof over and over again.

[William Anthony]

Most people improve their prespective on things with age even if it is only a few years.imo

While that is true, honesty, courage and integrity often are lifelong qualities that have very little to do with age. There is one poster that shows those qualities and I believe that poster is relatively young compared to some of the others. I think that the decision whether to barter those qualities and in exchange for what is a personal decision. Personally speaking, I can say for a fact that I do not sell mine cheaply and have not met someone with an amount that I would be willing to trade them for. I have had the pleasure of knowing some wealthy people but none have asked me to trade my principals.

[martin II]

Okay, I thought maybe she'd made a statement about her testimony at some point after the trial.

It is my opinion she could not change her testimony again. She was already on the blue wall.:cool:

[martin II]

tsk, tsk, tsk -- you've had proof over and over again.

nope
martinii

[William Anthony]

It is my opinion she could not change her testimony again. She was already on the blue wall.:cool:

Once you have made a commitment, you should be man or woman enough to stand by it, imho. As my father told me, if you make your bed hard, you have to lie in it.

[weezer]

Once you have made a commitment, you should be man or woman enough to stand by it, imho. As my father told me, if you make your bed hard, you have to lie in it.

I don't see that she changed her testimony -- BUT, if as the OJI's believe she did, why? AND, if it was such a big frame up, why leave some with her initials?

[limakey]

I believe the DA's did an excellent job. Think about it, how many times have you read that the jury didn't understand the DNA? There was never any question of who's DNA it was, it was always a question of when and how did it get there. I believe the only question of who's DNA it may have been was with the drops where the iles (sp?) were so faint, the jurors could not identify who's it was.

Yes, there was a lot of evidence for the DA's, however, the defense challenged each and every piece of it. The jurors were duty bound to give the benefit of the doubt to the defense. I can't think of one slam dunk piece of evidence the DA's had. Perfect example, the cut on Simpson's hand. There were at least two witnesses who testified they did not see any cuts on Simpson's hand, one who was looking at hands to see if he had a championship ring. The jurors had to give that one to the defense.

The socks, when the DA's own witness testifies that he can't understand how the blood was not seen on the socks, what was the jury suppose to do with that?

The DA's did a great job with what they had to work with, however, their downfall, IMO, is that they kept using the same excuse over and over again to try to explain away the very clear pattern of problems with the evidence.

IMO.

[martin II]

I believe the DA's did an excellent job. Think about it, how many times have you read that the jury didn't understand the DNA? There was never any question of who's DNA it was, it was always a question of when and how did it get there. I believe the only question of who's DNA it may have been was with the drops where the iles (sp?) were so faint, the jurors could not identify who's it was.

Yes, there was a lot of evidence for the DA's, however, the defense challenged each and every piece of it. The jurors were duty bound to give the benefit of the doubt to the defense. I can't think of one slam dunk piece of evidence the DA's had. Perfect example, the cut on Simpson's hand. There were at least two witnesses who testified they did not see any cuts on Simpson's hand, one who was looking at hands to see if he had a championship ring. The jurors had to give that one to the defense.

The socks, when the DA's own witness testifies that he can't understand how the blood was not seen on the socks, what was the jury suppose to do with that?

The DA's did a great job with what they had to work with, however, their downfall, IMO, is that they kept using the same excuse over and over again to try to explain away the very clear pattern of problems with the evidence.

IMO.


Limakey

Hi
I am pleased to see you posting again.

martin II

[martin II]

I don't see that she changed her testimony -- BUT, if as the OJI's believe she did, why? AND, if it was such a big frame up, why leave some with her initials?

Mazzloa testimony at hearing "i put my initials on all of the bindels i collected.
Mazzola testimony in the criminal trial " i must not have put my initials on the bindels i collected"

[William Anthony]

I don't see that she changed her testimony -- BUT, if as the OJI's believe she did, why? AND, if it was such a big frame up, why leave some with her initials?

Logic. :shrug: :shrug: :seeya: :seeya:

[William Anthony]

Mazzloa testimony at hearing "i put my initials on all of the bindels i collected.
Mazzola testimony in the criminal trial " i must not have put my initials on the bindels i collected"

Imho, that is a reasonable inference to be gleaned from the evidence. What evidence is there that the shoe prints were pigeon-toed?

[William Anthony]

Today is the 14 year anniversary of Simpson's arrest and the beginning of the process that led to the not guilty verdict.

[weezer]

Today is the 14 year anniversary of Simpson's arrest and the beginning of the process that led to the not guilty verdict.

karma, karma, karma :cuss: :cuss:

[martin II]

Imho, that is a reasonable inference to be gleaned from the evidence. What evidence is there that the shoe prints were pigeon-toed?

Considering that GOSSIP is not evidence even at a kitchen table discussion, i would say there is zero evidence of any pigeon toed shoe prints at Bundy.
The Fbi expert did not repot any in his diagram of the shoe prints.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9104144]While that is true, honesty, courage and integrity often are lifelong qualities that have very little to do with age. There is one poster that shows those qualities and I believe that poster is relatively young compared to some of the others.

Thanks William for your kind thoughts. I know I've not posted as many replies as you and your bud but I have a life. :seeya:

Then by all means get on with it and leave mine alone. It appears that your life is only to envy the amount of posts by others and to harass. With that said, I am not going to allow you that privilege. Believe this much the thoughts were not addressed to you. I am thinking what is something good that I can say about you. Oh yes, it's good that you post so infrequently. Since you were wrong about who I posted to-two wrongs and counting, in such an infrequent amount of posts due to your alleged event filled life.:seeya: :seeya: :seeya: :cool:

[SlowHandSam]

I see we're raising the quality of the board again this morning.

[end sarcasm]

[William Anthony]

Considering that GOSSIP is not evidence even at a kitchen table discussion, i would say there is zero evidence of any pigeon toed shoe prints at Bundy.
The Fbi expert did not repot any in his diagram of the shoe prints.

I agree but only I think the GOSSIP occurs over a tvdinner stand.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9104144]While that is true, honesty, courage and integrity often are lifelong qualities that have very little to do with age. There is one poster that shows those qualities and I believe that poster is relatively young compared to some of the others.

Thanks William for your kind thoughts. I know I've not posted as many replies as you and your bud but I have a life. :seeya:

I am not sure but what made you think williams post spoke of you? and who is bud?

[William Anthony]

I see we're raising the quality of the board again this morning.

[end sarcasm]

I think that was an exercise in futility along with the concept of equality in this community. Alas, I will respond in kind. Some will be happy!

[martin II]

I agree but only I think the GOSSIP occurs over a tvdinner stand.

A good place to pick up media sound bites and GOSSIP.

[William Anthony]

A good place to pick up media sound bites and GOSSIP.

You think the poster could have heard wrong and they were actually saying a pig towed the Bronco and left shoe prints?

[weezer]

I see that not everyone took their meds this morning. :tongue:

[martin II]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9104144]While that is true, honesty, courage and integrity often are lifelong qualities that have very little to do with age. There is one poster that shows those qualities and I believe that poster is relatively young compared to some of the others.

Thanks William for your kind thoughts. I know I've not posted as many replies as you and your bud but I have a life. :seeya:

Most posters posting here have many post.You are not suggesting that they do not have a life are you?

[William Anthony]

It appears that some, or at least one here, have been off their medication for quite sometime as they are having hallucinations, imho.

[tv]

I agree but only I think the GOSSIP occurs over a tvdinner stand.How clever of you. ;) I'm not sure why you feel the need to cloak what you're saying in innuendo but my skin is thicker than yours. I won't demand an apology or appear to be outraged. These remarks are similiar to your comments from yesterday about my 'usurped position' and 'fresh water' --- merely amusing. I don't know why you've targeted me this morning but if it makes you feel better go for it. It doesn't change the fact that OJ Simpson slaughtered the mother of his children like an animal and butchered Ron also. It doesn't change the fact that you yell LE consipiracy but have no facts to back it up. It doesn't change the fact that as much as you would like to think so people that think Simpson is guilty aren't hallucinating. :)

[Kate Sachel]

No turning involved, Those are your words.

Yes, those are his words and he has said those words from day one.

His point on turning, from what I can gather, is that it seemed made to appear as though he admitted something that he wouldn't originally confess to and that is misleading. The point being, he has said similar words before and they weren't focused on until this one particular post. It may make some wonder if a nerve was touched on someone other than Mr. Bell.

For the record, the majority of us on this forum have said at one time or another that the prosecution bungled their case and no issue was ever made of those. It makes one wonder, why now, why that particular post?

It really makes me wonder at this point, after sifting through an entire novel of nonsense, why some who insist that others elevate the level of posting also insist on not abiding to the same etiquette.

Kate

[William Anthony]

How clever of you. ;) I'm not sure why you feel the need to cloak what you're saying in innuendo but my skin is thicker than yours. I won't demand an apology or appear to be outraged. These remarks are similiar to your comments from yesterday about my 'usurped position' and 'fresh water' --- merely amusing. I don't know why you've targeted me this morning but if it makes you feel better go for it. It doesn't change the fact that OJ Simpson slaughtered the mother of his children like an animal and butchered Ron also. It doesn't change the fact that you yell LE consipiracy but have no facts to back it up. It doesn't change the fact that as much as you would like to think so people that think Simpson is guilty aren't hallucinating. :)

Without going into a long discussion over yesterday's events, because I am sure you, of all posters, realize that it is off-topic. Something seems to have pricked your alleged thick skin. I have been instructed by medical personnel to drink more liquids. When I suggested alcohol, they said to drink fresh water.:)
As to your usurped position, I was speaking about the inequality of the number of times you have made accusations toward me about breaking the rules and your allowance for others who break the rules. You seem to want to be my personal moderator. Thanks, but I am not currently accepting applications.

I would like to correct your post, if you will allow me. The facts are that he was found not guilty of murdering Nicole and was not found liable for causing her wrongful death. As far as the subject of hallucinations go, suffice it to say that you seemingly misunderstood what I was saying. To coin one of your favorite sayings, at least when it comes to some posters, can we get back on topic.

[tv]

Without going into a long discussion over yesterday's events, because I am sure you, of all posters, realize that it is off-topic. Something seems to have pricked your alleged thick skin. I have been instructed by medical personnel to drink more liquids. When I suggested alcohol, they said to drink fresh water.:)
As to your usurped position, I was speaking about the inequality of the number of times you have made accusations toward me about breaking the rules and your allowance for others who break the rules. You seem to want to be my personal moderator. Thanks, but I am not currently accepting applications.

I would like to correct your post, if you will allow me. The facts are that he was found not guilty of murdering Nicole and was not found liable for causing her wrongful death. As far as the subject of hallucinations go, suffice it to say that you seemingly misunderstood what I was saying. To coin one of your favorite sayings, at least when it comes to some posters, can we get back on topic.I'm not sure what all this babble means but I really don't feel like putting any energy into figuring it out.

[William Anthony]

Yes, those are his words and he has said those words from day one.

His point on turning, from what I can gather, is that it seemed made to appear as though he admitted something that he wouldn't originally confess to and that is misleading. The point being, he has said similar words before and they weren't focused on until this one particular post. It may make some wonder if a nerve was touched on someone other than Mr. Bell.

For the record, the majority of us on this forum have said at one time or another that the prosecution bungled their case and no issue was ever made of those. It makes one wonder, why now, why that particular post?

It really makes me wonder at this point, after sifting through an entire novel of nonsense, why some who insist that others elevate the level of posting also insist on not abiding to the same etiquette.

Kate

I think that, when someone asks for assistance in raising the level of posting on the board, they are not endeavoring in a solo effort but are asking for the community to take a stand. There have been some, who have expressed a desire to participate in the endeavor in raising the level of posting. I would think that those, who have expressed such a desire, would speak out when they see personal attacks and name calling.

Yes, Mr. Bell, as you call him and I have in the past, IIRC, has struck a nerve with me almost immediately, since his posts were first made to close down a thread, that you found meritorious. Mr. Bell then went on to launch several rude, impolite personal attacks, which I attempted to ignore. It was obvious to me that he did not want me to ignore his remarks as they continued. It was at this point, after not hearing any protests from anyone who wanted to raise the level of posting in this community, that I thought they might want me to set Mr. Bell straight. Mr. Bell then went on to say that I had made a mistakes and that I would not admit to it and posted my words, IIRC. I then showed Mr. Bell that I had admitted my mistake and that he failed to realize it. You are also aware, and I appreciate your participation, falsely accused me of slandering Drew Peterson. You are aware of several posters, who chimed in siding with Mr. Bell and none addressed his prior rudeness.

With all due respect, if Mr. Bell can point to my words, then equality demands that I should be allowed to do likewise. While I understand and appreciate your comment and see it as means to say that I should set an example, I hope you can appreciate my position on respect. When someone states that Martin is mine, with all the implications, attached to that false accusation, they have disrespected both Martin and me, imho. When someone disrespects me, I see no need and will not respect them. Without participation from the community, I think my efforts have been useless. It seems to me that the majority of posters on the Simpson threads are not willing to actively participate in raising the level of posting and making this community more equal. So be it.

I mean this with the utmost respect. That subject had been dropped and I do not want you to fall victim of some yelling this is off topic. I suggest that we discuss the case so that neither you nor I will experience the off topic protests, smile. I think I understand your concerns but sometimes a little righteous indignation over personal attacks and lack of active participation by members interested in raising the level of posting throughout the entire community is called for, imho.

[William Anthony]

I'm not sure what all this babble means but I really don't feel like putting any energy into figuring it out.

Good. :seeya: :seeya: :seeya: :cool:

[Kate Sachel]

I think that, when someone asks for assistance in raising the level of posting on the board, they are not endeavoring in a solo effort but are asking for the community to take a stand. There have been some, who have expressed a desire to participate in the endeavor in raising the level of posting. I would think that those, who have expressed such a desire, would speak out when they see personal attacks and name calling.

Yes, Mr. Bell, as you call him and I have in the past, IIRC, has struck a nerve with me almost immediately, since his posts were first made to close down a thread, that you found meritorious. Mr. Bell then went on to launch several rude, impolite personal attacks, which I attempted to ignore. It was obvious to me that he did not want me to ignore his remarks as they continued. It was at this point, after not hearing any protests from anyone who wanted to raise the level of posting in this community, that I thought they might want me to set Mr. Bell straight. Mr. Bell then went on to say that I had made a mistakes and that I would not admit to it and posted my words, IIRC. I then showed Mr. Bell that I had admitted my mistake and that he failed to realize it. You are also aware, and I appreciate your participation, falsely accused me of slandering Drew Peterson. You are aware of several posters, who chimed in siding with Mr. Bell and none addressed his prior rudeness.

With all due respect, if Mr. Bell can point to my words, then equality demands that I should be allowed to do likewise. While I understand and appreciate your comment and see it as means to say that I should set an example, I hope you can appreciate my position on respect. When someone states that Martin is mine, with all the implications, attached to that false accusation, they have disrespected both Martin and me, imho. When someone disrespects me, I see no need and will not respect them. Without participation from the community, I think my efforts have been useless. It seems to me that the majority of posters on the Simpson threads are not willing to actively participate in raising the level of posting and making this community more equal. So be it.

I mean this with the utmost respect. That subject had been dropped and I do not want you to fall victim of some yelling this is off topic. I suggest that we discuss the case so that neither you nor I will experience the off topic protests, smile. I think I understand your concerns but sometimes a little righteous indignation over personal attacks and lack of active participation by members interested in raising the level of posting throughout the entire community is called for, imho.

I don't mind if anyone wants to yell at me for being off topic because there is an issue that needs to be addressed.

If I were to go back through the history on this forum, I could point out numerous occassions in which martin has been extremely brash and outright rude and attacking and believe that I can say with certainty that, following such postings by him, I would not find a post of yours in which you outright take a stand and advise him directly that his comments and attacks are inappropriate. In fact, you rarely even allude to such.

If you truly want to make all things equal, then I will rest assured that the next time martin is inappropriate that you will immediately follow with a post advising him of such directly.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I don't mind if anyone wants to yell at me for being off topic because there is an issue that needs to be addressed.

If I were to go back through the history on this forum, I could point out numerous occassions in which martin has been extremely brash and outright rude and attacking and believe that I can say with certainty that, following such postings by him, I would not find a post of yours in which you outright take a stand and advise him directly that his comments and attacks are inappropriate. In fact, you rarely even allude to such.

If you truly want to make all things equal, then I will rest assured that the next time martin is inappropriate that you will immediately follow with a post advising him of such directly.

Kate

I think that is the truest since of equality. I will be more than happy to do so when I am certain that others will speak out about other posters' inappropriate post, or would you like me to begin the process, :) .

[Kate Sachel]

I think that is the truest since of equality. I will be more than happy to do so when I am certain that others will speak out about other posters' inappropriate post, or would you like me to begin the process, :) .

I'd first like to clarify if this is sarcasm?

Why do others have to be willing to do so first? It's a very comfortable place to expect change without being willing to do your part. It appears you're reclining into that very comfortable chair.

The difference between yourself, that you have created, and others on this forum is that you are the one calling for change, the one requesting that other members of this community step up and react when posts are rude and out of line. How, might I ask, would you expect to even request what you yourself are unwilling to adhere to?

And, I think you and I both know what you can do with your last sentence. We both know that you wouldn't be beginning the process because we both know that we can go back recently and find several instances in which I have posted regarding what I felt was unfair and unequal bashing. I took my hit for those postings in which I recieved numerous PM's asking me why I was acting "differently all of a sudden". I will continue to take my hits, as I have always been willing to do, and I will continue to stand up for what I believe is right - regardless of whether anyone else cares to do so.

Kate

[martin II]

MR. NEUFELD: On August 23rd, when you testified under oath, were you asked these questions and did you give these answers, Miss Mazzola? "Question: When you placed the plastic into the coin envelope, you said you make a notation on the coin envelope; namely, the photo number at that point as well? "Answer: It is labeled the photo item number. "Question: Do you initial the plastic bag yourself? "Answer: The coin envelope is initialed. "Question: By you? "Answer: That is correct. "Question: And in each of these instances where you collected the stain, you personally initial the envelope? "Answer: I collected the stain, it was initialed by me." did you give those answers to those questions under oath on August 23rd, 1994?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, your Honor, also page 768, line 16 through 18.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: And then again on page 768, Miss Mazzola, at the same hearing on August 23rd, 1994, were you asked this question, did you give this answer? "Question: Well, I'm sorry. You know the coin envelopes were initialed by you, correct? "Answer: Correct." did you give that answer to that question on August 23rd?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.



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

MR. NEUFELD: "Question: And in each of these instances where you collected the stain, you personally initialed the envelope? "Answer: I collected the stain, it was initialed by me." you were asked that question, you gave that answer, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

[martin II]

William

You deserve and get the "Patience Award " Steuben Glass Cup.

MARTINII

[martin II]

MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, what I'm asking you to do is, in that pile of coin envelopes that you have in front of you with the numbers that I just gave you, each of those numbers represents a different item number; does it not?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: What I'm asking you to do is to pull out the coin envelopes with the item numbers for the blood drops found at the Rockingham property that at that August 23rd hearing I just read to you from in this case has your initials on them.

MR. GOLDBERG: It's still argumentative and unintelligible.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, do any of those coin envelopes that have been produced in Court today by the Prosecutor have your initials on them?

MS. MAZZOLA: These alone or--

MR. NEUFELD: Well, I'm asking you about those. Those are the Rockingham--those have been reported to be the Rockingham blood drops.

MS. MAZZOLA: No, they do not.

[weezer]

"Q WHEN YOU BROUGHT THE ITEMS BACK FROM THE BUNDY AND ROCKINGHAM LOCATION ON THE EVENING OF THE 13TH, HOW DID YOU GET INTO THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM?

A I BELIEVE WE -- ONE OF US ENTERED THE EVIDENCE
PROCESSING ROOM AND OPENED THE LARGE OUTER DOOR.

Q CAN YOU OPEN THE LARGE OUTER DOOR FROM THE EXTERIOR OF THE FACILITY?

A WE CANNOT.

Q SO YOU HAVE TO GO IN AND GO THROUGH THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM FIRST?

A CORRECT.

Q WHAT IS THIS LARGE OUTER DOOR IN THE EVIDENCE
PROCESSING ROOM?

A IT IS A LARGE HEAVY-DUTY METAL DOOR THAT IS ELECTRIC THAT CAN BE ROLLED UP TO GAIN ACCESS TO THE ROOM.

Q OKAY. AND WHEN YOU WENT IN THROUGH THE LARGE METAL DOORS, DID YOU BRING THE ITEMS WITH YOU, YOU AND MR. FUNG?

A THAT IS HOW WE BROUGHT THEM INTO THE ROOM, YES.

Q DID ANYONE ELSE GO IN THERE WITH YOU?

A NO.

Q IS IT POSSIBLE THAT MAYBE SOME PERSON RAN IN THERE AND SNUCK INTO THE EVIDENCE POSSESSING ROOM AND THEN HID UNTIL YOU AND MR. FUNG LEFT?

MR. NEUFELD: OBJECTION, LEADING AND SPECULATIVE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, DID YOU SEE ANYONE SCURRY INTO THE ROOM AND HIDE WAITING FOR YOU AND MR. FUNG TO LEAVE?

A NO.

Q ALL RIGHT. AND WHEN YOU LEFT THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM WERE THE DOORS CLOSED?

A THE DOOR WAS CLOSED.

Q AND LOCKED?

A AND LOCKED, YES.

Q NOW, IN ORDER TO GET INTO THIS DOOR IN THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM, DO YOU NEED ANY KIND OF KEY OR ELECTRONIC DEVICE?

A IT IS OPERATED BY A COMPUTER LOCK. WE HAVE AN I.D. CARD THAT WE MUST PUT OVER THE LOCK FOR THE DOOR TO UNLOCK."

martin, are you accusing Mazzola and Fung of planting evidence?

[William Anthony]

I'd first like to clarify if this is sarcasm?

Why do others have to be willing to do so first? It's a very comfortable place to expect change without being willing to do your part. It appears you're reclining into that very comfortable chair.

The difference between yourself, that you have created, and others on this forum is that you are the one calling for change, the one requesting that other members of this community step up and react when posts are rude and out of line. How, might I ask, would you expect to even request what you yourself are unwilling to adhere to?

And, I think you and I both know what you can do with your last sentence. We both know that you wouldn't be beginning the process because we both know that we can go back recently and find several instances in which I have posted regarding what I felt was unfair and unequal bashing. I took my hit for those postings in which I recieved numerous PM's asking me why I was acting "differently all of a sudden". I will continue to take my hits, as I have always been willing to do, and I will continue to stand up for what I believe is right - regardless of whether anyone else cares to do so.

Kate

No, I did not mean it to be sarcastic. I have suggested burying the hatchet as it pertains to all posters and those they feel have aggrieved them. This has not helped. Since I began requesting to make this an improved community, Martin and I have received admonishments, if you will, from other community members. I saw no need to beat a dead horse (that is sarcasm). Seriously, I think that Martin and I have in many instances been unjustly targeted and treated unequally. I sincerely hope that the use of the ignore button will disappear. However, it is an option provided by the community. Personally, I feel that open and honest communication fosters understanding.

I have repeatedly posted about what I thought were inappropriate posts and asked for the assistance of other community members. However, it seems that some are only interested in admonishing Martin and me. That could be seen as their efforts to improve the community and I only asked that they do likewise to others to keep it equal. :) You have been honest and have posted some things in my defense that may have placed you in an unfavorable position with some. I realize this. There was nothing in my post that was intended to be offensive toward you. What I did not understand is why, when you look at the way Mr. Bell, has without provocation began an immediate assault of personal attacks on Martin and me and nothing was said, you did not understand that I would use his words, after he had used mine, in posts to others, who sided with him and would not tell him that the personal attacks were unwarranted. I realize that you may have been absent or did not understand my motivation. I had posted that my effort to raise the level in this community was an exercise in futility and that I would respond in kind. However, if there are still those interested in raising the level of posting, I am willing to give it a college try, so long as the rules and comments are applied equally.

Yes, I am requesting change but I am wise enough to know that my wants can sometimes hurt. Yes, you are right that I was reclining into that comfortable chair after seeing that my efforts were not reciprocated by some.
I am willing to start anew and wipe the slate clean with all posters. I think that I have shown that in my response to a poster who once said he had no respect for me. I am willing to speak out on all posts that I feel are inappropriate. Will you continue to assist me in that endeavor, regardless of who the inappropriate poster is?

[William Anthony]

MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, what I'm asking you to do is, in that pile of coin envelopes that you have in front of you with the numbers that I just gave you, each of those numbers represents a different item number; does it not?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: What I'm asking you to do is to pull out the coin envelopes with the item numbers for the blood drops found at the Rockingham property that at that August 23rd hearing I just read to you from in this case has your initials on them.

MR. GOLDBERG: It's still argumentative and unintelligible.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, do any of those coin envelopes that have been produced in Court today by the Prosecutor have your initials on them?

MS. MAZZOLA: These alone or--

MR. NEUFELD: Well, I'm asking you about those. Those are the Rockingham--those have been reported to be the Rockingham blood drops.

MS. MAZZOLA: No, they do not.

Martin, would you agree that there are approximately 70 days between July 13th and August 23rd?

Martin, would you agree that any number of individuals could have entered the room where the evidence was stored in those 70 days.

Martin, do you think it is possible that someone with a key, who had an alleged valid reason to be there, could have let someone enter with him?

Objection calls for speculation.

Your honor, I am not asking him to speculate as to what happened only to give an opinion based on his layman's expertise as to the possibility of more than one person entering a room at the same time.

Sustained.

Let's move on.
Martin, would you agree that Ms. Mazzola testified that she placed her initials on the bindles she collected on June 13th?

Martin, would you agree that Ms. Mazzola testified he initials were not on those bindles?

Martin, would you agree that this evidence indicates evidence tampering?

Objection-calls for speculation

Sustained.

Let me try to rephrase.

Martin, are you familiar with Ms. Mazzola's testimony?

Martin, to the best of your knowledge, did Ms. Mazzola testify that she had touched those bindles after she collected them?

Martin, to the best of you knowledge, did Ms. Mazzola say that she had altered anything that she placed on the bindles, after she collected them on June 13th?

Martin, to the best of your knowledge, did Ms. Mazzola testify that she had ever used an eraser on those bindles after she collected them?

Martin, to the best of your knowledge did Ms. Mazzola testify that she apparently did not place he initials on the bindles, after she had testified that she placed her initials on those bindles when she collected them?

Martin, did you understand my question to be about the bindles Ms. Mazzola testified about collecting at Bundy on June 3th, which she testified she place her initials on at that time?

[weezer]

*Snipped*". . .
Martin, would you agree that any number of individuals could have entered the room where the evidence was stored in those 70 days.

Martin, do you think it is possible that someone with a key, who had an alleged valid reason to be there, could have let someone enter with him? . . ."

"Q WHEN YOU BROUGHT THE ITEMS BACK FROM THE BUNDY AND ROCKINGHAM LOCATION ON THE EVENING OF THE 13TH, HOW DID YOU GET INTO THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM?

A I BELIEVE WE -- ONE OF US ENTERED THE EVIDENCE
PROCESSING ROOM AND OPENED THE LARGE OUTER DOOR.

Q CAN YOU OPEN THE LARGE OUTER DOOR FROM THE EXTERIOR OF THE FACILITY?

A WE CANNOT.

Q SO YOU HAVE TO GO IN AND GO THROUGH THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM FIRST?

A CORRECT.

Q WHAT IS THIS LARGE OUTER DOOR IN THE EVIDENCE
PROCESSING ROOM?

A IT IS A LARGE HEAVY-DUTY METAL DOOR THAT IS ELECTRIC THAT CAN BE ROLLED UP TO GAIN ACCESS TO THE ROOM.

Q OKAY. AND WHEN YOU WENT IN THROUGH THE LARGE METAL DOORS, DID YOU BRING THE ITEMS WITH YOU, YOU AND MR. FUNG?

A THAT IS HOW WE BROUGHT THEM INTO THE ROOM, YES.

Q DID ANYONE ELSE GO IN THERE WITH YOU?

A NO.

Q IS IT POSSIBLE THAT MAYBE SOME PERSON RAN IN THERE AND SNUCK INTO THE EVIDENCE POSSESSING ROOM AND THEN HID UNTIL YOU AND MR. FUNG LEFT?

MR. NEUFELD: OBJECTION, LEADING AND SPECULATIVE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, DID YOU SEE ANYONE SCURRY INTO THE ROOM AND HIDE WAITING FOR YOU AND MR. FUNG TO LEAVE?

A NO.

Q ALL RIGHT. AND WHEN YOU LEFT THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM WERE THE DOORS CLOSED?

A THE DOOR WAS CLOSED.

Q AND LOCKED?

A AND LOCKED, YES.

Q NOW, IN ORDER TO GET INTO THIS DOOR IN THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM, DO YOU NEED ANY KIND OF KEY OR ELECTRONIC DEVICE?

A IT IS OPERATED BY A COMPUTER LOCK. WE HAVE AN I.D. CARD THAT WE MUST PUT OVER THE LOCK FOR THE DOOR TO UNLOCK."

[William Anthony]

*Snipped*

"Q WHEN YOU BROUGHT THE ITEMS BACK FROM THE BUNDY AND ROCKINGHAM LOCATION ON THE EVENING OF THE 13TH, HOW DID YOU GET INTO THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM?

A I BELIEVE WE -- ONE OF US ENTERED THE EVIDENCE
PROCESSING ROOM AND OPENED THE LARGE OUTER DOOR.

Q CAN YOU OPEN THE LARGE OUTER DOOR FROM THE EXTERIOR OF THE FACILITY?

A WE CANNOT.

Q SO YOU HAVE TO GO IN AND GO THROUGH THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM FIRST?

A CORRECT.

Q WHAT IS THIS LARGE OUTER DOOR IN THE EVIDENCE
PROCESSING ROOM?

A IT IS A LARGE HEAVY-DUTY METAL DOOR THAT IS ELECTRIC THAT CAN BE ROLLED UP TO GAIN ACCESS TO THE ROOM.

Q OKAY. AND WHEN YOU WENT IN THROUGH THE LARGE METAL DOORS, DID YOU BRING THE ITEMS WITH YOU, YOU AND MR. FUNG?

A THAT IS HOW WE BROUGHT THEM INTO THE ROOM, YES.

Q DID ANYONE ELSE GO IN THERE WITH YOU?

A NO.

Q IS IT POSSIBLE THAT MAYBE SOME PERSON RAN IN THERE AND SNUCK INTO THE EVIDENCE POSSESSING ROOM AND THEN HID UNTIL YOU AND MR. FUNG LEFT?

MR. NEUFELD: OBJECTION, LEADING AND SPECULATIVE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, DID YOU SEE ANYONE SCURRY INTO THE ROOM AND HIDE WAITING FOR YOU AND MR. FUNG TO LEAVE?

A NO.

Q ALL RIGHT. AND WHEN YOU LEFT THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM WERE THE DOORS CLOSED?

A THE DOOR WAS CLOSED.

Q AND LOCKED?

A AND LOCKED, YES.

Q NOW, IN ORDER TO GET INTO THIS DOOR IN THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM, DO YOU NEED ANY KIND OF KEY OR ELECTRONIC DEVICE?

A IT IS OPERATED BY A COMPUTER LOCK. WE HAVE AN I.D. CARD THAT WE MUST PUT OVER THE LOCK FOR THE DOOR TO UNLOCK."

And your point is? How did the samples get to serology where she observed them when passing. Obviously, someone with a key got into where they were stored and took them out. I could only guess how many people got in there and took them out in approximately 70 days.

[weezer]

And your point is? How did the samples get to serology where she observed them when passing. Obviously, someone with a key got into where they were stored and took them out. I could only guess how many people got in there and took them out in approximately 70 days.

ahh yes -- the great conspiracy. So what number of people involved are you up to now? everyone but orenthal was involved in the murders -- LOL

At the time of her death, Nicole had been abused, stalked and threatened by only one person: orenthal james simpson.

At the time of her death, Nicole was afraid of only one other human: orenthal james simpson

At the time of her death, Nicole had pictures of her bruised/battered body naming only one person as responsible: orenthal james simpson

Sadly, on the night of his death, Ron Goldman was doing a friend a favor and orenthal james simpson butchered him.

[William Anthony]

ahh yes -- the great conspiracy. So what number of people involved are you up to now? everyone but orenthal was involved in the murders -- LOL

At the time of her death, Nicole had been abused, stalked and threatened by only one person: orenthal james simpson.

At the time of her death, Nicole was afraid of only one other human: orenthal james simpson

At the time of her death, Nicole had pictures of her bruised/battered body naming only one person as responsible: orenthal james simpson

Sadly, on the night of his death, Ron Goldman was doing a friend a favor and orenthal james simpson butchered him.

I must remind you that this thread is limited to the issues in the criminal trial and, since I started the thread, I must say that the pictures of her bruises were not an issue in the trial and, by that I mean, not presented to the jury for them to reach reasonable doubt. I do not know how many or few may have been involved in a frame up. I do know that Mazzola's testimony, missing blood, EDTA found in the sock and gate stains, and evidence tampering were issues for the jury to determine in considering whether or not there was reasonable doubt. There was evidence to contradict the stalking. I think the other things you mentioned were excluded and the jury found Simpson not guilty.

[William Anthony]

Martin, would you agree that there are approximately 70 days between July 13th and August 23rd?

Martin, would you agree that any number of individuals could have entered the room where the evidence was stored in those 70 days.

Martin, do you think it is possible that someone with a key, who had an alleged valid reason to be there, could have let someone enter with him?

Objection calls for speculation.

Your honor, I am not asking him to speculate as to what happened only to give an opinion based on his layman's expertise as to the possibility of more than one person entering a room at the same time.

Sustained.

Let's move on.
Martin, would you agree that Ms. Mazzola testified that she placed her initials on the bindles she collected on June 13th?

Martin, would you agree that Ms. Mazzola testified he initials were not on those bindles?

Martin, would you agree that this evidence indicates evidence tampering?

Objection-calls for speculation

Sustained.

Let me try to rephrase.

Martin, are you familiar with Ms. Mazzola's testimony?

Martin, to the best of your knowledge, did Ms. Mazzola testify that she had touched those bindles after she collected them?

Martin, to the best of you knowledge, did Ms. Mazzola say that she had altered anything that she placed on the bindles, after she collected them on June 13th?

Martin, to the best of your knowledge, did Ms. Mazzola testify that she had ever used an eraser on those bindles after she collected them?

Martin, to the best of your knowledge did Ms. Mazzola testify that she apparently did not place he initials on the bindles, after she had testified that she placed her initials on those bindles when she collected them?

Martin, did you understand my question to be about the bindles Ms. Mazzola testified about collecting at Bundy on June 3th, which she testified she place her initials on at that time?

correction-Martin, did you understand my question to be about the bindles Ms. Mazzola testified about collecting at Bundy on June 13th, which she testified she place her initials on at that time?

[weezer]

*Snipped*". . .I must say that the pictures of her bruises were not an issue in the trial and, by that I mean, not presented to the jury for them to reach reasonable doubt. . ."

the pictures were shown to the jury by Darden.

[William Anthony]

*Snipped*

the pictures were shown to the jury by Darden.

I recall that they were shown to the public and I am not sure about the jury. It is my understanding and the pictures I am speaking of are those found in the safe-deposit box. Please, provide a date and who laid the foundation for the pictures?

[weezer]

my apologies to the board for the huge print in my post. I don't have a clue what happened. :o

[weezer]

*Snipped*". . .EDTA found in the sock and gate stains. . ."

no EDTA found --

[martin II]

Martin, would you agree that there are approximately 70 days between July 13th and August 23rd?

Martin, would you agree that any number of individuals could have entered the room where the evidence was stored in those 70 days.

Martin, do you think it is possible that someone with a key, who had an alleged valid reason to be there, could have let someone enter with him?

Objection calls for speculation.

Your honor, I am not asking him to speculate as to what happened only to give an opinion based on his layman's expertise as to the possibility of more than one person entering a room at the same time.

Sustained.

Let's move on.
Martin, would you agree that Ms. Mazzola testified that she placed her initials on the bindles she collected on June 13th?

Martin, would you agree that Ms. Mazzola testified he initials were not on those bindles?

Martin, would you agree that this evidence indicates evidence tampering?

Objection-calls for speculation

Sustained.

Let me try to rephrase.

Martin, are you familiar with Ms. Mazzola's testimony?

Martin, to the best of your knowledge, did Ms. Mazzola testify that she had touched those bindles after she collected them?

Martin, to the best of you knowledge, did Ms. Mazzola say that she had altered anything that she placed on the bindles, after she collected them on June 13th?

Martin, to the best of your knowledge, did Ms. Mazzola testify that she had ever used an eraser on those bindles after she collected them?

Martin, to the best of your knowledge did Ms. Mazzola testify that she apparently did not place he initials on the bindles, after she had testified that she placed her initials on those bindles when she collected them?

Martin, did you understand my question to be about the bindles Ms. Mazzola testified about collecting at Bundy on June 3th, which she testified she place her initials on at that time?


Yes to all and this indicates to me that someone tampered with those evidence samples collected at Rockham. If i were on the jury i would have tossed the rickingham results out.imo

[William Anthony]

my apologies to the board for the huge print in my post. I don't have a clue what happened. :o

Blame it on your spell checker. :) It doesn't matter how large you print something or how loudly you yell it, imho, if it is irrelevant.

[martin II]

*Snipped*

"Q WHEN YOU BROUGHT THE ITEMS BACK FROM THE BUNDY AND ROCKINGHAM LOCATION ON THE EVENING OF THE 13TH, HOW DID YOU GET INTO THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM?

A I BELIEVE WE -- ONE OF US ENTERED THE EVIDENCE
PROCESSING ROOM AND OPENED THE LARGE OUTER DOOR.

Q CAN YOU OPEN THE LARGE OUTER DOOR FROM THE EXTERIOR OF THE FACILITY?

A WE CANNOT.

Q SO YOU HAVE TO GO IN AND GO THROUGH THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM FIRST?

A CORRECT.

Q WHAT IS THIS LARGE OUTER DOOR IN THE EVIDENCE
PROCESSING ROOM?

A IT IS A LARGE HEAVY-DUTY METAL DOOR THAT IS ELECTRIC THAT CAN BE ROLLED UP TO GAIN ACCESS TO THE ROOM.

Q OKAY. AND WHEN YOU WENT IN THROUGH THE LARGE METAL DOORS, DID YOU BRING THE ITEMS WITH YOU, YOU AND MR. FUNG?

A THAT IS HOW WE BROUGHT THEM INTO THE ROOM, YES.

Q DID ANYONE ELSE GO IN THERE WITH YOU?

A NO.

Q IS IT POSSIBLE THAT MAYBE SOME PERSON RAN IN THERE AND SNUCK INTO THE EVIDENCE POSSESSING ROOM AND THEN HID UNTIL YOU AND MR. FUNG LEFT?

MR. NEUFELD: OBJECTION, LEADING AND SPECULATIVE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q BY MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, DID YOU SEE ANYONE SCURRY INTO THE ROOM AND HIDE WAITING FOR YOU AND MR. FUNG TO LEAVE?

A NO.

Q ALL RIGHT. AND WHEN YOU LEFT THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM WERE THE DOORS CLOSED?

A THE DOOR WAS CLOSED.

Q AND LOCKED?

A AND LOCKED, YES.

Q NOW, IN ORDER TO GET INTO THIS DOOR IN THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM, DO YOU NEED ANY KIND OF KEY OR ELECTRONIC DEVICE?

A IT IS OPERATED BY A COMPUTER LOCK. WE HAVE AN I.D. CARD THAT WE MUST PUT OVER THE LOCK FOR THE DOOR TO UNLOCK."

Stop yelling

The lock on the door does not mean that another person from outrside or a person inside did not have the opportunity manipulate those bindels that did not seem to be the ones she collected and initialed. Didn't she leave everything out overnight on a table instead of under lock and key.Why did she do that.

[William Anthony]

*Snipped*

no EDTA found --

In some stains but definitely in the socks and gate stain, unless you believe in the ghost in the machine.

[martin II]

correction-Martin, did you understand my question to be about the bindles Ms. Mazzola testified about collecting at Bundy on June 13th, which she testified she place her initials on at that time?

Yes
martinII

[William Anthony]

Stop yelling

The lock on the door does not mean that another person from outrside or a person inside did not have the opportunity manipulate those bindels that did not seem to be the ones she collected and initialed. Didn't she leave everything out overnight on a table instead of under lock and key.Why did she do that.

She was just so drained but not too drained to accept her full pay. In fairness to her and, judging from the testimony, DF did very little, except for, imho, looking for coffee, dough nuts and magical socks. He may have told her just leave them out and I'll see that they are taken care of. :)

[William Anthony]

Martin,

I just wanted to make sure you meant to answer yes to these two questions.

Martin, to the best of you knowledge, did Ms. Mazzola say that she had altered anything that she placed on the bindles, after she collected them on June 13th?

Martin, to the best of your knowledge, did Ms. Mazzola testify that she had ever used an eraser on those bindles after she collected them?

[martin II]

She was just so drained but not too drained to accept her full pay. In fairness to her and, judging from the testimony, DF did very little, except for, imho, looking for coffee, dough nuts and magical socks. He may have told her just leave them out and I'll see that they are taken care of. :)

I had always wonder that maby Vanhatter, instead of depositing ojs blood samples at SID where he was, maby had a donut fit and went directly to Dunkin Donut for a six pack and large coffee. Then he carried blood evidence to a crime scene to give to D FUNG who said no one had ever brought him evidence TO a crime scene before.
So i guess the jury may have asked themselves why did he do that?

[martin II]

Martin,

I just wanted to make sure you meant to answer yes to these two questions.

Martin, to the best of you knowledge, did Ms. Mazzola say that she had altered anything that she placed on the bindles, after she collected them on June 13th?

Martin, to the best of your knowledge, did Ms. Mazzola testify that she had ever used an eraser on those bindles after she collected them?

NO she did not
NO she did not

I think she was caught off guard when the prosecution told her that the set of bindels that they would present in court now did not have her initials on them. She must have not believed them as she left her department and went into another area to see for herself.imo

This is when i believe she was shown the location of the blue wall.

[martin II]

ahh yes -- the great conspiracy. So what number of people involved are you up to now? everyone but orenthal was involved in the murders -- LOL

At the time of her death, Nicole had been abused, stalked and threatened by only one person: orenthal james simpson.

At the time of her death, Nicole was afraid of only one other human: orenthal james simpson

At the time of her death, Nicole had pictures of her bruised/battered body naming only one person as responsible: orenthal james simpson

Sadly, on the night of his death, Ron Goldman was doing a friend a favor and orenthal james simpson butchered him.

All of your post has nothing to do with what happened on 6/12.
But if we are now discussing nicoles life prior to her death maby we should look at that to see if there is truth to what you claim.

[William Anthony]

As it pertains to the Mazzola issue, I have been operating from the perspective of what the criminal jury heard. We know that they were unaware that Simpson claimed to have cut himself reaching for his phone. I am unclear as to the location of the blood drops Mazzola collected at Rockingham. I think I read that MF collected some blood in this case. I found that to be strange. In any event the criminal jury had to judge the evidence as it came in and they did not hear testimony from anyone who saw Simpson bleeding on the night of June 12th. This is not to say that someone did not switch the samples Mazzola collected, considering the EDTA later found in the sock and gate stain. This is not to say that someone did switch the samples she collected. What this is to say is that there was evidence of reasonable doubt, imho.

[William Anthony]

I had always wonder that maby Vanhatter, instead of depositing ojs blood samples at SID where he was, maby had a donut fit and went directly to Dunkin Donut for a six pack and large coffee. Then he carried blood evidence to a crime scene to give to D FUNG who said no one had ever brought him evidence TO a crime scene before.
So i guess the jury may have asked themselves why did he do that?

If what you suspect is true, he may have had a sugar high and rushed out blood in hand to the crime scene, while thinking what did MF get us into. This is all speculation, even if it is reasonable, :).

[martin II]

As it pertains to the Mazzola issue, I have been operating from the perspective of what the criminal jury heard. We know that they were unaware that Simpson claimed to have cut himself reaching for his phone. I am unclear as to the location of the blood drops Mazzola collected at Rockingham. I think I read that MF collected some blood in this case. I found that to be strange. In any event the criminal jury had to judge the evidence as it came in and they did not hear testimony from anyone who saw Simpson bleeding on the night of June 12th. This is not to say that someone did not switch the samples Mazzola collected, considering the EDTA later found in the sock and gate stain. This is not to say that someone did switch the samples she collected. What this is to say is that there was evidence of reasonable doubt, imho.

I believe i read that Mazzola collected some the blood samples starting outside the rockingham gate, up the driveway and maby up to the area near the garage or across from the garage.imo

[William Anthony]

It's great to see you taking care of each other. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU MEANT TO ANSWER YES TO THESE TWO QUESTIONS. Wow. That's a leading question. Overuled. No 3 by my count.:no:

Leading questions are allowed on cross and some on redirect. You're still at one right in so many posts. I am really not inclined to partake in your rude posts, today. As the song goes, you do you and I'll do me. By the way it is spelled overruled but you know that, because you claim you can spell. Let me point out what I consider rude, which is to say that I take care of Martin and vice versa. I take care of my wife, myself and family members. Martin does not share either of those aforementioned relationships with me. Martin has never requested that I take care of him, nor I of him, which leads me to believe that he is capable of taking care of himself, and I know that I am with God's help. Please, refrain from the personal attacks? With that said, :seeya: :seeya: :seeya: :cool: .

P.S. Don't you mean sustained?

[William Anthony]

I believe i read that Mazzola collected some the blood samples starting outside the rockingham gate, up the driveway and maby up to the area near the garage or across from the garage.imo

Thanks. I did not know exactly what she collected and neither did DF. I couldn't resist the last part of the above sentence.

[William Anthony]

Martin,

Do you often disagree with yourself?

[William Anthony]

Oh even better. You can't agree between yourselves. Number 4. :biggrin:

If this was meant for me, :seeya: :seeya: :seeya: :cool: .

[William Anthony]

I believe i read that Mazzola collected some the blood samples starting outside the rockingham gate, up the driveway and maby up to the area near the garage or across from the garage.imo

One poster really makes my morning. 1/111 right, as opposed to his claim that I have 7,190/7,194 right. I think that in this instance I am the Celtics and he is the Lakers.

P.S. That is the poster's claim that I have 4 wrong. Neither spelling, the law nor counting seems to be this poster's forte. Perhaps, the poster could win a contest on being the most rude.

[William Anthony]

Take a step back and read your post.:no:

With all due respect, Mr. Bell I have 7, 196 posts to date. Which one would you like me to reread? I enjoy a witty and intelligent discussion. With that said, :seeya: :seeya: :seeya: :cool:.

[William Anthony]

H'm. You are getting really touchy. Defending the indefensible is a hard job.:D

Then you should stop trying, imho.

[weezer]

In some stains but definitely in the socks and gate stain, unless you believe in the ghost in the machine.

nope -- no EDTA

[weezer]

Martin,

I just wanted to make sure you meant to answer yes to these two questions.

Martin, to the best of you knowledge, did Ms. Mazzola say that she had altered anything that she placed on the bindles, after she collected them on June 13th?

Martin, to the best of your knowledge, did Ms. Mazzola testify that she had ever used an eraser on those bindles after she collected them?

I think your 'examination' of martin is pretty funny. you don't think his opinion to your questions carries any weight with anyone but the two of you do you? LOL

[weezer]

I had always wonder that maby Vanhatter, instead of depositing ojs blood samples at SID where he was, maby had a donut fit and went directly to Dunkin Donut for a six pack and large coffee. Then he carried blood evidence to a crime scene to give to D FUNG who said no one had ever brought him evidence TO a crime scene before.
So i guess the jury may have asked themselves why did he do that?

this is silly --

[tv]

I think your 'examination' of martin is pretty funny. you don't think his opinion to your questions carries any weight with anyone but the two of you do you? LOL

I was wondering why William was talking to martin like he's a mental patient. I didn't realize it was meant to be an 'examination'. Now it all becomes clear.

[weezer]

As it pertains to the Mazzola issue, I have been operating from the perspective of what the criminal jury heard. We know that they were unaware that Simpson claimed to have cut himself reaching for his phone. I am unclear as to the location of the blood drops Mazzola collected at Rockingham. I think I read that MF collected some blood in this case. I found that to be strange. In any event the criminal jury had to judge the evidence as it came in and they did not hear testimony from anyone who saw Simpson bleeding on the night of June 12th. This is not to say that someone did not switch the samples Mazzola collected, considering the EDTA later found in the sock and gate stain. This is not to say that someone did switch the samples she collected. What this is to say is that there was evidence of reasonable doubt, imho.

in order to further your argument you really should stick to the known facts:

Simpson said he cut himself

Fuhrman did not collect blood samples

Simpson said he was bleeding from his hand the night he murdered Ron and Nicole

There was no EDTA in either the socks or the gate stain

There was no reasonable doubt

[tv]

I had always wonder that maby Vanhatter, instead of depositing ojs blood samples at SID where he was, maby had a donut fit and went directly to Dunkin Donut for a six pack and large coffee. Then he carried blood evidence to a crime scene to give to D FUNG who said no one had ever brought him evidence TO a crime scene before.
So i guess the jury may have asked themselves why did he do that?

Why do you believe Dennis Fung about this when you don't give him credibilty on anything else? Could it be because it's good for the defense?

martin, to the best of your knowledge, did Phillip Vannatter stop off at a Dunkin Donuts before taking the blood to Dennis Fung?

[tv]

It is pretty funny. I'm sure it was meant as a joke.;)I'm sure you're right. I wasn't sure whether to laugh or not. I didn't want to be inappropriate. :)

[tv]

It wouldn't matter what I said it would be taken as inappropriate. I think it's interesting however that neither Martin or William are posting. I wonder why?:rolleyes:

Maybe because they know they're wrong and are trying to think of a good way to admit it? :D

[Kayleighjo]

William

You deserve and get the "Patience Award " Steuben Glass Cup.

MARTINII

Undoubtedly announced and presented by the sole voter in the matter. :rolleyes:

[weezer]

Undoubtedly announced and presented by the sole voter in the matter. :rolleyes:

LOL -- no doubt.

Hey, long time no see you post.

[Kayleighjo]

LOL -- no doubt.

Hey, long time no see you post.

Yeah, most of the time the unabashed ignorance on this board (you know who I'm talking about)gives me too much of a headache to deal with ... lol ... but then the urge to have a little fun kicks in and I play.