Issues In The Criminal Trial

[weezer]

Martin, I think you are probably correct about the air conditioner. I couldn’t find any evidence that the prosecution said OJS knocked down the air conditioner.
I think that you are partly wrong also. For one thing the prosecution never said that OJS ran into a wall three times. Kato said that he heard three thumps, but he was obviously afraid at the time, of both earthquakes and criminals. Human memory is inaccurate in the best of circumstances, and even more inaccurate when a person is afraid; but I think that something bumped against the wall at that time, although not necessarily three times. There is no evidence that Kato was suffering from hallucinations.
To believe that OJS wasn’t the cause of the noise that Kato heard would be to add to the number of coincidences that we must buy into to believe in OJS’s innocence.
First of all we must think that the noise was unrelated to OJS, it would have been an amazing coincidence to happen just a few minutes before the limo drive first saw OJS.
Secondly the police theory of what caused the bumps and how the right hand glove got to the Rockingham estate is amazingly similar to a story that Al Cowlings told at the civil trial. The Dec 3, 1996 transcript has the following internet address: http://walraven.org/simpson/dec03-96.html
AC said that OJS had went back to his estate, when NBS called the police, and hid a bag of something (drugs or jewelry) in the garbage can of a neighbor, and dropped a set of keys belonging to a friend. OJS described to AC how to retrace the route, which involved a route that was unlikely to be seen by others. The route involved going into a neighbor’s yard, and vaulting a fence into his (OJS) yard. AC found the keys close the fence that OJS had vaulted over. It is obvious that AC’s story of OJS dropping the keys is very similar to the police theory of OJS dropping the glove,
I don’t thing these coincidences alone are enough to convict or even arrest OJS, but there were a lot of other coincidences unrelated to this. I thought one of the most important statements about the case against OJS was: There are too many coincidences here for OJS to be innocent. Some things like grapes and bananas naturally come in bunches, coincidences don’t.
I also found some convincing evidence (URL) that OJS illegally had xanax with him when he was arrested. I’ll get back to that later.

excellent post!

[martin II]

fgump2


Furthermore, from the vine covered entrapments on the walk in that area, there certainly was no "running" by Simpson or anybody else, as Marcia Clark asserted. A running person would have been flat on his face before he got this far. (Did Clark not bother to look at the crime scene photos before she concocted her "crashing into the air conditioner" idea? Or was it just that she figured the jury had not seen that picture, and so would not know any better?)
Wagner

[martin II]

fgump2

Consider, also, the situation that is confronted by the hypothetical Simpson bent on getting over the fence from the Salingers' side. No matter whether he comes down the walk beside Rosa Lopez' window or up the Salingers' driveway, by the time he gets to the back end of their house he is at a point opposite his utility area, and he can see (if he was not already familiar with the fact) that the hedge is only about 7 feet high in that place. But, if he goes a few feet farther, to the Salingers' carport, the hedge is suddenly 20' high, and relatively untended and wild. From the position at the back of the Salingers' house, it would be an irrational and senseless choice for Simpson to go farther -- to negotiate the uncertainties of the carport AND confront a much taller and unruly hedge than was there at hand.

The idea that Simpson could have (much less would have) come through that hedge of trees and vines from the Salingers' back yard is completely incredible to anyone who has confronted such a hedge.

Wagner

[weezer]

fgump2


Furthermore, from the vine covered entrapments on the walk in that area, there certainly was no "running" by Simpson or anybody else, as Marcia Clark asserted. A running person would have been flat on his face before he got this far. (Did Clark not bother to look at the crime scene photos before she concocted her "crashing into the air conditioner" idea? Or was it just that she figured the jury had not seen that picture, and so would not know any better?)
Wagner

so Fuhrman was able to do it but orenthal couldn't?

[martin II]

Martin, I think you are probably correct about the air conditioner. I couldn’t find any evidence that the prosecution said OJS knocked down the air conditioner.
I think that you are partly wrong also. For one thing the prosecution never said that OJS ran into a wall three times. Kato said that he heard three thumps, but he was obviously afraid at the time, of both earthquakes and criminals. Human memory is inaccurate in the best of circumstances, and even more inaccurate when a person is afraid; but I think that something bumped against the wall at that time, although not necessarily three times. There is no evidence that Kato was suffering from hallucinations.
To believe that OJS wasn’t the cause of the noise that Kato heard would be to add to the number of coincidences that we must buy into to believe in OJS’s innocence.
First of all we must think that the noise was unrelated to OJS, it would have been an amazing coincidence to happen just a few minutes before the limo drive first saw OJS.
Secondly the police theory of what caused the bumps and how the right hand glove got to the Rockingham estate is amazingly similar to a story that Al Cowlings told at the civil trial. The Dec 3, 1996 transcript has the following internet address: http://walraven.org/simpson/dec03-96.html
AC said that OJS had went back to his estate, when NBS called the police, and hid a bag of something (drugs or jewelry) in the garbage can of a neighbor, and dropped a set of keys belonging to a friend. OJS described to AC how to retrace the route, which involved a route that was unlikely to be seen by others. The route involved going into a neighbor’s yard, and vaulting a fence into his (OJS) yard. AC found the keys close the fence that OJS had vaulted over. It is obvious that AC’s story of OJS dropping the keys is very similar to the police theory of OJS dropping the glove,
I don’t thing these coincidences alone are enough to convict or even arrest OJS, but there were a lot of other coincidences unrelated to this. I thought one of the most important statements about the case against OJS was: There are too many coincidences here for OJS to be innocent. Some things like grapes and bananas naturally come in bunches, coincidences don’t.
I also found some convincing evidence (URL) that OJS illegally had xanax with him when he was arrested. I’ll get back to that later.


I think ACS testimony was about the entrance from the area of the tennis court,Eric Watts's backyard. Not the south walkway where the glove was found. right?

[martin II]

so Fuhrman was able to do it but orenthal couldn't?

i have given you a answer to this already.

[martin II]

fgunp2

Three LE detectives testified that there was no evidence that oj or anyone jumped the fence and landed in the south walkway on 6/12. no oj blood, no broken bushes,no broken vines and no distrubed leaves, no marks on the airconditioner or the house wall. no indication that anyone ran along the walkway and stopped to open and replace the two gates.
Yet you suggest that this testimony should be ignored because of what you
believe must have happened? The prosecution had to prove oj was there and they didn't. So that was a unproven claim.imo

[bobaugust]

As I have said I posted the testimony. Because you do not understand it, does not mean it isn't so.

I’m sorry but you’re the one who doesn’t understand that the testimony you are referring to was all regarding blood from a reference sample. No lawyer in this case ever inferred or claimed that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock came from any other source except from her reference sample. And Dr. Cotton’s degradation comparisons proved that claim false.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

It was explained, as you know, that a person could not live with the amount of
EDTA that Martz claimed he found in his own unpreserved blood. Hence, enter the artifact/ghosting effect/carry over result in the machine of Terri Lee in his effort to explain away the problem with Martz's results.

The small trace amount of EDTA that Martz found in the two evidence stains and his own non-preserved blood was the result of a carryover contamination in the instruments in the third test Martz conducted. Martz testified to that possibility in the criminal trial and Dr. Lee confirmed it in the civil trial. That trace amount was never in anyone’s body and it was a 1000 time smaller than the amount of EDTA in the reference samples.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I think I said before that I believe in the Holy Ghost. However, you credit Terri Lee's and Martz's testimony so it seems that you believe in ghosts. Because I believe in the Bible, I do believe in ghosts, or spirits, if you will. However, I do not think that Martz was able to return from the dead. Do you? Do you think a ghost resided in the machine or somehow got in the machine and was identified as an artifact? Do you believe the preposterous testimony of Terri Lee that he had seen the ghost over a hundred times and did nothing to alert the scientific community or to have that community take steps to eliminate the ghost in the machine?

Now you’re being funny again. No I don’t believe in ghosts. Dr. Lee testified that carryover contamination was not an uncommon problem with this particular instrument if someone first runs a sample that contains a large amount of EDTA through the instrument before running a sample that doesn’t contain any EDTA. Whooooo!

What is your source that leads you to believe Martz died?

bobaugust

[martin II]

Now you’re being funny again. No I don’t believe in ghosts. Dr. Lee testified that carryover contamination was not an uncommon problem with this particular instrument if someone first runs a sample that contains a large amount of EDTA through the instrument before running a sample that doesn’t contain any EDTA. Whooooo!

What is your source that leads you to believe Martz died?

bobaugust

i think Martz was at least half dead when he testified or when he found all of that EDTA in his own blood.

[fgump2]

I have some URLS, but they aren't as clean cut as I would have liked them to be. I was unable to get an internet address which describes what was in the bronco on 6/17/94 when OJS was arrested. But I have some other URL/internet addresses:
C. Darden mentioning the xanax in the criminal trial:
http://walraven.org/simpson/jan26.html
OJS claimilng he took xanax from NBS to save her from drug problems
http://walraven.org/simpson/oj_depo1.html
I gave a URL to the enemy!! not many posters do that
Someone else claiming the xanax was originally for Dr. Fischman, and OJS took it from him to save him from the evils of drugs:
http://walraven.org/simpson/cr_depo1.html
another URL for the enemy. I admit I have no proof he ever took xanax, but it is true that the misuse of xanax can lead to violence, and NBS told friends she was concerned about OJS's use of mind altering drugs.

[fgump2]

Let me know if you have testimony that Zanax was found on oj when he was
arrested.
I don't know if the fence was the same. I was probably overstating it when I wrote that it was very similar; but dropping something as he vaulted a fence while trying to avoid detection is fairly similar.

[martin II]

I have some URLS, but they aren't as clean cut as I would have liked them to be. I was unable to get an internet address which describes what was in the bronco on 6/17/94 when OJS was arrested. But I have some other URL/internet addresses:
C. Darden mentioning the xanax in the criminal trial:
http://walraven.org/simpson/jan26.html
OJS claimilng he took xanax from NBS to save her from drug problems
http://walraven.org/simpson/oj_depo1.html
I gave a URL to the enemy!! not many posters do that
Someone else claiming the xanax was originally for Dr. Fischman, and OJS took it from him to save him from the evils of drugs:
http://walraven.org/simpson/cr_depo1.html
another URL for the enemy. I admit I have no proof he ever took xanax, but it is true that the misuse of xanax can lead to violence, and NBS told friends she was concerned about OJS's use of mind altering drugs.



fgump2
Thanks for your comments.
I am not the enemy.
Most all posterd know the URL where the testimony is posted.
The subject of what was found on oj when he was arrested has been posted and discussed on these threads many times.There was no Zanaz found on oj.
Zanax and many other antidepressant drugs can cause problems for some people when thet are abused.

Most of the time it is not the drug but the abuse of the drug that causes problems.
Now. Faye resnick testified that she had seen oj use cocaine one time but she indicated that she thought he used it many times.She also told Cora that Nicole had freebased cocain with her.
Does these 1-2 times use of cocain mean that OJ and Nicole used drugs many times or that either abused cocain? I don't think so.

Initially you used the argument that of was using Zanax on 6/12 and this could have caused him to 'LOOSE IT" and kill two people in a rage.Now you find out that there was absolutely no proof that oj used Zanaz or any other drug ON 6/12. You seend to ignore the fact that his blood test on 6/13 showed he only had TRACES OF MARIJUANA in his system. No Zanax.

Now i have posted the info of three le detectives that investigated the area of the fence on the south walkway and stated that there was no evidence found in that walkway that oj or anyone else jumped that fence and ran/walked past the two gates and to the driveway, yet you still seem to believe that oj must have been there. Do you believe the three detectives lied? Why is it that the pictures of the walkway does not show that someone
did pass through the bushes ,trees and vines? No oj blood or anything else to prove he was there.

[martin II]

I don't know if the fence was the same. I was probably overstating it when I wrote that it was very similar; but dropping something as he vaulted a fence while trying to avoid detection is fairly similar.

The south walkway fence was not the same as the east fence on a neighbors property so there is no same and one has nothing to do with the other.That is not proof of anything related to the case.

Did you read the description of the green growth at the south walkway?

[William Anthony]

Now you’re being funny again. No I don’t believe in ghosts. Dr. Lee testified that carryover contamination was not an uncommon problem with this particular instrument if someone first runs a sample that contains a large amount of EDTA through the instrument before running a sample that doesn’t contain any EDTA. Whooooo!

What is your source that leads you to believe Martz died?

bobaugust

Although off topic, let's see what Terri Lee's testimony was.

MR. P. BAKER: This is next in order.
THE CLERK: 2405.
MR. P. BAKER: Dr. Lee's notes.
(The instrument herein referred to as Dr. Terry Lee's notes was
marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit No. 2405.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you said in your notes --
MR. BAKER: Go down to outcome No. 3.
MR. P. BAKER:
(Adjusts Elmo.)
MR. BAKER: Back it off, please.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) "If detectable levels of EDTA are found in the
stains, but significantly lower than the levels from blood in the
tube, then interpretation becomes problematic." What you meant by
that, sir, it becomes a problem to determine the EDT
A. Isn't that true, sir?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative.
A. No.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Let's go down to the next one. You say, if not
planted -- can you read that for us -- convincing argument must be
found why EDTA is present at that level.
A. Yes. You want me to read it?
Q. Yes, because I have trouble reading your writing.
A. So do I.
Q. I can understand that.
A. "If not planted, convincing argument must be found for why the
EDTA is present at these levels.
Q. Now, read the next one.
A. I can't even finish that one.
Q. I'm sorry.
A. I think it's -- I don't know that word.
Q. You were attempting to find convincing argument as to why the
EDTA --
A. Oh, I think I can do it now. One would be direct contamination
from either the environment or contamination from the lab during the
sample analysis.
Q. So you were attempting to find convincing argument to explain
away the EDTA found by Rodger Martz, and you understood that to be
your -- your -- your goal; correct, sir?
A. No, that wasn't my goal. My goal was to understand why the trace
levels that were observed in that particular analysis were there.
Q. Well, now, so you came up with this ghosting or carry-over effect
from the equipment, correct? That's your theory of why these levels
of EDTA were found by Rodger Martz?
A. Another most reasonable explanation, yes.
Q. You have no information whatsoever about how Rodger Martz runs
his lab, correct?
A. Direct information, no.
Q. And from a the available data, you can't determine what the
matrix used to dissolve the sample. You can't determine the quantity
and you can't determine the volume equilibrium was done before the
next analysis, can you?
A. There was statements in the materials that I reviewed with --
with regard to the matrix, with -- with -- with regard to rough
estimations about the quantity. I have no information at all with
regard to the exact procedures with respect to the chromatography
and the sample injection procedures.
Q. You would agree it's sheer speculation --
MR. BAKER: You can take that down.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) -- it's sheer speculation on your part as to
whether or not there was any ghosting or cross-over effect; true?
A. No. My opinion is based upon evidence.
Q. Well, your opinion --
A. The data that's present there tells me something.
MR. PETROCELLI: Need a break, Your Honor for the juror?
(Juror is coughing.)
THE COURT: Do you want to take a recess?
JUROR: I'm okay.
THE COURT: All right. You -- All right. Let's a take a ten-minute
recess.
(Recess.)
(Jurors resume their respective seats.) CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR.
BAKER:
Q. You discussed in your deposition the way to design an
experiment in such a way there would be no carryover effect?
A. Yes, we discussed those things.
Q. And you had testified that you'd have to be very, very careful
about the blank, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. You testified that the blank would have to be done exactly the
same way the samples were done, using exactly the same matrix,
exactly the same volume, and exactly the same procedure?
A. Yes.
Q. And if you do that, you would have greater confidence that what
you were seeing in your samples came from what was exactly in the
sample; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you don't know whether or not Roger Martz designed the
experiments and was very, very careful about his blank, was done
exactly the same way as the samples were done, using exactly the
same matrix, exactly the same volume, and exactly the same
procedure, do you?
A. I know what his blanks are. I don't know about his procedures,
yes."

[William Anthony]

Now you’re being funny again. No I don’t believe in ghosts. Dr. Lee testified that carryover contamination was not an uncommon problem with this particular instrument if someone first runs a sample that contains a large amount of EDTA through the instrument before running a sample that doesn’t contain any EDTA. Whooooo!

What is your source that leads you to believe Martz died?

bobaugust

EDTA results.

[William Anthony]

I’m sorry but you’re the one who doesn’t understand that the testimony you are referring to was all regarding blood from a reference sample. No lawyer in this case ever inferred or claimed that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock came from any other source except from her reference sample. And Dr. Cotton’s degradation comparisons proved that claim false.

bobaugust

Re:read: the testimony, please?

[bobaugust]

Although off topic, let's see what Terri Lee's testimony was.

MR. P. BAKER: This is next in order.
THE CLERK: 2405.
MR. P. BAKER: Dr. Lee's notes.
(The instrument herein referred to as Dr. Terry Lee's notes was
marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit No. 2405.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you said in your notes --
MR. BAKER: Go down to outcome No. 3.
MR. P. BAKER:
(Adjusts Elmo.)
MR. BAKER: Back it off, please.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) "If detectable levels of EDTA are found in the
stains, but significantly lower than the levels from blood in the
tube, then interpretation becomes problematic." What you meant by
that, sir, it becomes a problem to determine the EDT
A. Isn't that true, sir?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative.
A. No.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Let's go down to the next one. You say, if not
planted -- can you read that for us -- convincing argument must be
found why EDTA is present at that level.
A. Yes. You want me to read it?
Q. Yes, because I have trouble reading your writing.
A. So do I.
Q. I can understand that.
A. "If not planted, convincing argument must be found for why the
EDTA is present at these levels.
Q. Now, read the next one.
A. I can't even finish that one.
Q. I'm sorry.
A. I think it's -- I don't know that word.
Q. You were attempting to find convincing argument as to why the
EDTA --
A. Oh, I think I can do it now. One would be direct contamination
from either the environment or contamination from the lab during the
sample analysis.
Q. So you were attempting to find convincing argument to explain
away the EDTA found by Rodger Martz, and you understood that to be
your -- your -- your goal; correct, sir?
A. No, that wasn't my goal. My goal was to understand why the trace
levels that were observed in that particular analysis were there.
Q. Well, now, so you came up with this ghosting or carry-over effect
from the equipment, correct? That's your theory of why these levels
of EDTA were found by Rodger Martz?
A. Another most reasonable explanation, yes.
Q. You have no information whatsoever about how Rodger Martz runs
his lab, correct?
A. Direct information, no.
Q. And from a the available data, you can't determine what the
matrix used to dissolve the sample. You can't determine the quantity
and you can't determine the volume equilibrium was done before the
next analysis, can you?
A. There was statements in the materials that I reviewed with --
with regard to the matrix, with -- with -- with regard to rough
estimations about the quantity. I have no information at all with
regard to the exact procedures with respect to the chromatography
and the sample injection procedures.
Q. You would agree it's sheer speculation --
MR. BAKER: You can take that down.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) -- it's sheer speculation on your part as to
whether or not there was any ghosting or cross-over effect; true?
A. No. My opinion is based upon evidence.
Q. Well, your opinion --
A. The data that's present there tells me something.
MR. PETROCELLI: Need a break, Your Honor for the juror?
(Juror is coughing.)
THE COURT: Do you want to take a recess?
JUROR: I'm okay.
THE COURT: All right. You -- All right. Let's a take a ten-minute
recess.
(Recess.)
(Jurors resume their respective seats.) CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR.
BAKER:
Q. You discussed in your deposition the way to design an
experiment in such a way there would be no carryover effect?
A. Yes, we discussed those things.
Q. And you had testified that you'd have to be very, very careful
about the blank, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. You testified that the blank would have to be done exactly the
same way the samples were done, using exactly the same matrix,
exactly the same volume, and exactly the same procedure?
A. Yes.
Q. And if you do that, you would have greater confidence that what
you were seeing in your samples came from what was exactly in the
sample; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you don't know whether or not Roger Martz designed the
experiments and was very, very careful about his blank, was done
exactly the same way as the samples were done, using exactly the
same matrix, exactly the same volume, and exactly the same
procedure, do you?
A. I know what his blanks are. I don't know about his procedures,
yes."


January 16. 1997 Dr. Terry Lee,

Q. The test results that Roger Martz got when he found this little trace, that little molehill that we saw in testing his own blood, you testified during the examination by Mr. Baker that that couldn't be actual EDTA in his own blood, true?
A. That's correct.
Q. And therefore, it has to be some artifact that's creating that trace result, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And what is your opinion of the artifact that's creating that trace result?
A. That artifact is most likely the result of carryover from previous analyses in that
instrument.
Q. What's most likely creating the trace, little trace level, we saw in the evidence sample?
A. The same effect.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

EDTA results.

I see so when you said “Your conclusion is based on the testimony of a dead expert” you were just making another funny but dumb comment. Thank you.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Re:read: the testimony, please?

There is no testimony that supports your claim. If you think there is you post it so we can all read it. Include the date please.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

January 16. 1997 Dr. Terry Lee,

Q. The test results that Roger Martz got when he found this little trace, that little molehill that we saw in testing his own blood, you testified during the examination by Mr. Baker that that couldn't be actual EDTA in his own blood, true?
A. That's correct.
Q. And therefore, it has to be some artifact that's creating that trace result, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And what is your opinion of the artifact that's creating that trace result?
A. That artifact is most likely the result of carryover from previous analyses in that
instrument.
Q. What's most likely creating the trace, little trace level, we saw in the evidence sample?
A. The same effect.

bobaugust

Here my learned colleague is your prior post.

The small trace amount of EDTA that Martz found in the two evidence stains and his own non-preserved blood was the result of a carryover contamination in the instruments in the third test Martz conducted. Martz testified to that possibility in the criminal trial and Dr. Lee confirmed it in the civil trial. That trace amount was never in anyone’s body and it was a 1000 time smaller than the amount of EDTA in the reference samples.

bobaugust

Do you now see how your, imho, prejudice and bias causes you to post wrong information? Re:read: the cross I posted and you will see that Terri Lee did not confirm anything and really should not offer an opinion, as he did not know what procedures Martz followed. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

I see so when you said “Your conclusion is based on the testimony of a dead expert” you were just making another funny but dumb comment. Thank you.

bobaugust

No it was based on the scientific evidence. What is funny and dumb is your inability to recognize that, imho.

[William Anthony]

There is no testimony that supports your claim. If you think there is you post it so we can all read it. Include the date please.

bobaugust

Previously done.

[William Anthony]

January 16. 1997 Dr. Terry Lee,

Q. The test results that Roger Martz got when he found this little trace, that little molehill that we saw in testing his own blood, you testified during the examination by Mr. Baker that that couldn't be actual EDTA in his own blood, true?
A. That's correct.
Q. And therefore, it has to be some artifact that's creating that trace result, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And what is your opinion of the artifact that's creating that trace result?
A. That artifact is most likely the result of carryover from previous analyses in that
instrument.
Q. What's most likely creating the trace, little trace level, we saw in the evidence sample?
A. The same effect.

bobaugust

Let me see if I can simplify the cross to make it easier to comprehend as it pertains to Terri Lee's notes?

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) "If detectable levels of EDTA are found in the
stains, but significantly lower than the levels from blood in the
tube, then interpretation becomes problematic." What you meant by
that, sir, it becomes a problem to determine the EDT
A. Isn't that true, sir?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative.
A. No.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Let's go down to the next one. You say, if not
planted -- can you read that for us -- convincing argument must be
found why EDTA is present at that level.
A. Yes. You want me to read it?
Q. Yes, because I have trouble reading your writing.
A. So do I.
Q. I can understand that.
A. "If not planted, convincing argument must be found for why the
EDTA is present at these levels.
Q. Now, read the next one.
A. I can't even finish that one.
Q. I'm sorry.
A. I think it's -- I don't know that word.
Q. You were attempting to find convincing argument as to why the
EDTA --
A. Oh, I think I can do it now. One would be direct contamination
from either the environment or contamination from the lab during the
sample analysis.

The obvious import of his testimony is that the results indicate planting. To form a "convincing argument" against planting is a "problem". If it was a common experience to see the ghost in the machine, it would not have been a "problem" to form a "convincing argument". Terri Lee goes on to say he thinks he can do it now, suggesting direct environmental contamination or contamination from the lab, either of which (I am sure you realize) would be a "problem" for the prosecution/plaintiffs. Even though he admits that no one has devised a test for the presence of unpreserved EDTA in human blood, he suggests that Martz's test results were caused by the ghost in the machine in order to form a "convincing argument against the problematic evidence of planting." You want to talk about dumb and funny!;):cool:

[bobaugust]

Do you now see how your, imho, prejudice and bias causes you to post wrong information? Re:read: the cross I posted and you will see that Terri Lee did not confirm anything and really should not offer an opinion, as he did not know what procedures Martz followed. ;):cool:

My post is correct. In the criminal trial Martz testified to the possibility that the small trace amount of EDTA he found in the results from the third test he conducted “could be EDTA or it could be some artifact in the instrument due to some type of matrix effect with the blood.”

In the civil trial Dr. Lee confirmed Martz’s suspicions with his opinion that the small trace amount was the result of an artifact that was “most likely the result of carryover from previous analyses in that instrument.”

The fact is that Martz’s conclusion that neither the gate blood nor the sock blood came from the reference samples was based on the fact that no EDTA was detected in the first two tests he conducted on the evidence stains. And his conclusion was the same regarding the third test results because the small trace amount of EDTA that showed up in the two evidence stains and Martz’s own non-preserved blood was 1000 times smaller than the amount of EDTA contained in the reference samples.

Dr Lee also concluded that neither the gate blood nor the sock blood came from the reference samples. Photographic evidence and degradation evidence conclusively proved that neither the gate blood nor the sock blood were planted from reference samples.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

No it was based on the scientific evidence. What is funny and dumb is your inability to recognize that, imho.

What is funny but dumb is referring to someone being dead when you knew they were not dead. What is funny but dumb is calling a carryover contamination in an instrument a ghost. What is funny but dumb is arguing that “right after he’s arrested” means almost a month after he’s arrested.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Previously done.

Never done and you never will because there is no testimony that supports your claim that the defense argued that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock came from somewhere other than Nicole’s autopsy reference sample. And that claim was proved false.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Let me see if I can simplify the cross to make it easier to comprehend as it pertains to Terri Lee's notes?



The obvious import of his testimony is that the results indicate planting. To form a "convincing argument" against planting is a "problem". If it was a common experience to see the ghost in the machine, it would not have been a "problem" to form a "convincing argument". Terri Lee goes on to say he thinks he can do it now, suggesting direct environmental contamination or contamination from the lab, either of which (I am sure you realize) would be a "problem" for the prosecution/plaintiffs. Even though he admits that no one has devised a test for the presence of unpreserved EDTA in human blood, he suggests that Martz's test results were caused by the ghost in the machine in order to form a "convincing argument against the problematic evidence of planting." You want to talk about dumb and funny!;):cool:

And at the conclusion of Baker's cross examination Dr. Lee was asked and answered,

Q. So your theory here is that it was contaminated, he didn't do the test correctly, and the elements that you see are not because they were actually EDTA from a purple top test tube, but they were EDTA that was left somehow in the machine and occurred only on the samples from the socks and the back gate, right?
A. That's incorrect.

On Redirect Dr. Lee was asked and answered,

Q. The test results that Roger Martz got when he found this little trace, that little molehill that we saw in testing his own blood, you testified during the examination by Mr. Baker that that couldn't be actual EDTA in his own blood, true?
A. That's correct.
Q. And therefore, it has to be some artifact that's creating that trace result, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And what is your opinion of the artifact that's creating that trace result?
A. That artifact is most likely the result of carryover from previous analyses in that instrument.
Q. What's most likely creating the trace, little trace level, we saw in the evidence sample?
A. The same effect.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

My post is correct. In the criminal trial Martz testified to the possibility that the small trace amount of EDTA he found in the results from the third test he conducted “could be EDTA or it could be some artifact in the instrument due to some type of matrix effect with the blood.”

In the civil trial Dr. Lee confirmed Martz’s suspicions with his opinion that the small trace amount was the result of an artifact that was “most likely the result of carryover from previous analyses in that instrument.”

The fact is that Martz’s conclusion that neither the gate blood nor the sock blood came from the reference samples was based on the fact that no EDTA was detected in the first two tests he conducted on the evidence stains. And his conclusion was the same regarding the third test results because the small trace amount of EDTA that showed up in the two evidence stains and Martz’s own non-preserved blood was 1000 times smaller than the amount of EDTA contained in the reference samples.

Dr Lee also concluded that neither the gate blood nor the sock blood came from the reference samples. Photographic evidence and degradation evidence conclusively proved that neither the gate blood nor the sock blood were planted from reference samples.

bobaugust

Most likely is not a confirmation. To confirm something is to say it is. Your post is and was wrong.

[William Anthony]

What is funny but dumb is referring to someone being dead when you knew they were not dead. What is funny but dumb is calling a carryover contamination in an instrument a ghost. What is funny but dumb is arguing that “right after he’s arrested” means almost a month after he’s arrested.

bobaugust

The scientific evidence is that he was dead and there is no evidence of a ghost in the machine when the test Martz conducted had never been done previously and, consequently, there was no evidence of a ghost in the machine in regard to that particular test. I have never argued your false statement that right after means a month after he was arrested. It is funny and dumb to disbelieve scientific information and ignore protocols and believe inaccurate statements.

[William Anthony]

And at the conclusion of Baker's cross examination Dr. Lee was asked and answered,

Q. So your theory here is that it was contaminated, he didn't do the test correctly, and the elements that you see are not because they were actually EDTA from a purple top test tube, but they were EDTA that was left somehow in the machine and occurred only on the samples from the socks and the back gate, right?
A. That's incorrect.

On Redirect Dr. Lee was asked and answered,

Q. The test results that Roger Martz got when he found this little trace, that little molehill that we saw in testing his own blood, you testified during the examination by Mr. Baker that that couldn't be actual EDTA in his own blood, true?
A. That's correct.
Q. And therefore, it has to be some artifact that's creating that trace result, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And what is your opinion of the artifact that's creating that trace result?
A. That artifact is most likely the result of carryover from previous analyses in that instrument.
Q. What's most likely creating the trace, little trace level, we saw in the evidence sample?
A. The same effect.

bobaugust

No matter how redundantly you post the same thing, nothing changes what his note said and meant or explains his ghost of a theory. For some reason, you do not seem to understand that his prejudice and bias was clearly illuminated, imho.

[William Anthony]

Never done and you never will because there is no testimony that supports your claim that the defense argued that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock came from somewhere other than Nicole’s autopsy reference sample. And that claim was proved false.

bobaugust

Previously done.

[William Anthony]

I am Thinking that Weezer may know since she decides what below average is according to something.I think she may use looks.imo

I don't think fbgweezer is interested in those type of statistics, only Blacks that she thinks were acquitted for murdering Whites.

[William Anthony]

Limakey you may think the reason I posted is unacceptable but you were not a lawyer in this case. Marcia Clark explained this in her book. Clark wrote,
“Since the defense had done no tests of their own, we knew they would have to call
Agent Martz as their own witness - after all, he had performed the case's only EDTA
testing. Only he could give the testimony that would get the results into evidence.”

Based on your comment, “it is clear that Martz’s results were not trustworthy” I’m not sure you even know what Martz actually testified to. When Martz said he had decided that he had to be more truthful, he was referring to giving yes and no answers that did not tell the whole truth.

What samples are you referring to when you say Martz’s testimony also doesn’t address why all the samples did not contain EDTA? When and why the blood was collected on the back gate and on the socks had nothing to do with the tests Martz conducted. Martz was asked to determine whether or not he could determine whether the two bloodstains, the gate and sock blood, originated from purple topped test tubes or test tubes that were preserved with EDTA. And that’s what he did and he concluded that the two bloodstains did not come from preserved blood.

The defense expert Dr. Rieders never conducted any testing on the blood samples in this case, he only offered his opinion on the documented results that Martz obtained. And even then Dr. Rieders never even mentioned the possibility of contamination in the instruments. Rieders was either not very knowledgeable about this or he intentionally avoided that explanation. In the civil trial Dr. Terrie Lee reviewed all of Martz’s work as well as both Martz and Dr. Rieder’s criminal trial testimony. Dr. Lee gave a reasonable logical explanation based on his extensive experience with the instruments Martz was using and concluded that the small trace amount of EDTA that Martz found in the evidence samples and Martz’s own non-preserved blood in the third test he conducted was the result of a carryover contamination in the instruments. He explained that this was not an uncommon problem based on the procedure that Martz used by first running the reference samples containing a large quantity of EDTA through the instruments before running the two evidence stains and his own blood sample that didn’t contain any EDTA.

bobaugust

I still have that ocean front property for sale in Arizona.

[tv]

William Anthony, is Martz dead?

[weezer]

William Anthony, is Martz dead?

hello tvdinner -- we've missed you.

[martin II]

William Anthony, is Martz dead?

hi
tv

Reiders said according to Martz test results he should have been dead from EDTA.imo

[bobaugust]

Most likely is not a confirmation. To confirm something is to say it is. Your post is and was wrong.

No, I’m not wrong. Dr Lee confirmed Martz’s suspicions when he said that the trace amount was the result of an artifact. Dr. Lee also agreed with Martz when he said that it was his opinion that the evidence stains did not come from the reference samples.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The scientific evidence is that he was dead and there is no evidence of a ghost in the machine when the test Martz conducted had never been done previously and, consequently, there was no evidence of a ghost in the machine in regard to that particular test. I have never argued your false statement that right after means a month after he was arrested. It is funny and dumb to disbelieve scientific information and ignore protocols and believe inaccurate statements.

Wrong, the scientific evidence is that the small trace of EDTA was not in Martz’s blood when his non-preserved blood was in his body. You are right about one thing, there was no ghost in the instruments Martz used to conduct his third test. There was a carry over contamination in the machine.

As to your funny but dumb interpretation of what Scheck meant when he told the jury that Simpson’s hair samples were taken right after he was arrested you did not say the words almost a month later, you said right after meant days later. But the fact is that it was 27 days later. That’s almost a month later.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

No matter how redundantly you post the same thing, nothing changes what his note said and meant or explains his ghost of a theory. For some reason, you do not seem to understand that his prejudice and bias was clearly illuminated, imho.

There was no prejudice or bias by Dr. Lee. You always seem to make that lame accusation about anyone who says something that contradicts your beliefs. Funny.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Previously done.

You have never posted any testimony that supports your imagined claim and your refusal to do so now is proof that there is none.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I still have that ocean front property for sale in Arizona.

No thanks, you bought it you keep it.

[martin II]

No thanks, you bought it you keep it.

bob cain't you use another vacation home?

[William Anthony]

William Anthony, is Martz dead?

According to his EDTA test results on his own alleged unpreserved blood, he was dead 14 years ago.

[William Anthony]

No, I’m not wrong. Dr Lee confirmed Martz’s suspicions when he said that the trace amount was the result of an artifact. Dr. Lee also agreed with Martz when he said that it was his opinion that the evidence stains did not come from the reference samples.

bobaugust

Sorry my claimed learned colleague, "most likely" is not a confirmation. I thought you realized that much.

[William Anthony]

Wrong, the scientific evidence is that the small trace of EDTA was not in Martz’s blood when his non-preserved blood was in his body. You are right about one thing, there was no ghost in the instruments Martz used to conduct his third test. There was a carry over contamination in the machine.

As to your funny but dumb interpretation of what Scheck meant when he told the jury that Simpson’s hair samples were taken right after he was arrested you did not say the words almost a month later, you said right after meant days later. But the fact is that it was 27 days later. That’s almost a month later.

bobaugust

Wrong, Martz testified to the amount of EDTA he allegedly found in his own unpreserved blood, which we know should have been in the parts per billion or 1/1000 times the amount he alleged to have found, which would have made him a testifying ghost. You may buy into the theory that the carryover/ghost did it, but the notes of the author tells us that "If not planted", Martz's results are "problematic" and a "convincing argument must be made" to explain them away.

No, you again claimed in your post that Simpson's hair sample was taken a month after his arrest. You seem to want to lengthen the time that right after means but offer an excuse for what immediate means.

[William Anthony]

There was no prejudice or bias by Dr. Lee. You always seem to make that lame accusation about anyone who says something that contradicts your beliefs. Funny.

bobaugust

I posted the note and his testimony thereto. Just because you don't seem to understand it, does not mean it isn't true.

[William Anthony]

No thanks, you bought it you keep it.

I did not buy it but I said I own it. It was inherited from Martz and Terri Lee, acting as Martz's agent and owing Martz a fiduciary responsibility implored me to sell that ocean front property in Arizona specifically to you. He said that you would be the person to pay the most for it, due to your unquestioning loyalty.;):cool:

[William Anthony]

bob cain't you use another vacation home?

It would make him an excellent investment opportunity, imho. :)

[William Anthony]

The prosecution seems to used a lot of testilying and ghostifying.

[bobaugust]

Sorry my claimed learned colleague, "most likely" is not a confirmation. I thought you realized that much.

Martz testified that the small trace amount of EDTA could be an artifact in the instrument and Dr. Lee testified that based on the test results it had to be some artifact that created those results. Results that Dr. Lee said are consistent with a carryover in the instruments.

Martz concluded that neither the gate blood nor the sock blood came from reference samples. Dr. Lee testified that it was his opinion that neither of the evidence stains could have come from test tubes treated with EDTA.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Wrong, Martz testified to the amount of EDTA he allegedly found in his own unpreserved blood, which we know should have been in the parts per billion or 1/1000 times the amount he alleged to have found, which would have made him a testifying ghost. You may buy into the theory that the carryover/ghost did it, but the notes of the author tells us that "If not planted", Martz's results are "problematic" and a "convincing argument must be made" to explain them away.

No, you again claimed in your post that Simpson's hair sample was taken a month after his arrest. You seem to want to lengthen the time that right after means but offer an excuse for what immediate means.

No I’m not wrong. Dr. Lee testified it was impossible for Martz to have those levels of EDTA in his own blood when that blood was in his body but Martz didn’t know that at the time. Therefore it had to be some artifact that created that test result.

You’re wrong. I said your funny but dumb interpretation that right after he was arrested means days later was actually 27 days later or almost a month later. It was a month after the murders

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I posted the note and his testimony thereto. Just because you don't seem to understand it, does not mean it isn't true.

Just because you see prejudice and bias in everyone that contradicts your beliefs does not make it true.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Martz testified that the small trace amount of EDTA could be an artifact in the instrument and Dr. Lee testified that based on the test results it had to be some artifact that created those results. Results that Dr. Lee said are consistent with a carryover in the instruments.

Martz concluded that neither the gate blood nor the sock blood came from reference samples. Dr. Lee testified that it was his opinion that neither of the evidence stains could have come from test tubes treated with EDTA.

bobaugust

Thanks for admitting that you were wrong. Terri Lee did not confirm Martz.

[William Anthony]

No I’m not wrong. Dr. Lee testified it was impossible for Martz to have those levels of EDTA in his own blood when that blood was in his body but Martz didn’t know that at the time. Therefore it had to be some artifact that created that test result.

You’re wrong. I said your funny but dumb interpretation that right after he was arrested means days later was actually 27 days later or almost a month later. It was a month after the murders

bobaugust

You said a month after he was arrested.

[William Anthony]

Just because you see prejudice and bias in everyone that contradicts your beliefs does not make it true.

bobaugust

I do not see prejudice and bias in everyone that contradicts or disagrees with my beliefs and have readily admitted when I was wrong. However, I think it is clear by his notes that Terri Lee was motivated to help the plaintiffs, regardless of how funny and dumb his explanation.

[William Anthony]

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/oig/fbilab1/01new2b.htm

"Whitehurst' s allegations became publicized in the late summer and early fall of 1995. On August 14, 1995, he was called by the defense to testify in the trial of Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, who was charged with various co-defendants with a conspiracy that included the World Trade Center bombing as an overt act, other bombings in New York, and the murder of two individuals. In testifying, Whitehurst claimed that he had been pressured to bias his interpretation of evidence in the World Trade Center investigation and that initial reports about the presence of urea nitrate were incorrect.

Nearly one month later, on September 12, 1995, defense attorneys subpoenaed Whitehurst to testify in People v. O.J. Simpson, the California state court trial of O.J. Simpson for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. Shortly thereafter, Whitehurst made several media appearances, appearing on the television programs Prime Time Live on September 13, 1995; The Larry King Show on September 14, 1995; and The Today Show on September 25, 1995. An article about Whitehurst' s allegations also appeared in the September 25, 1995, issue of Newsweek magazine.

In response to the media attention, the FBI issued a press release on September 13, 1995. The release noted that Whitehurst had raised a variety of concerns about forensic protocols and procedures employed in the FBI Laboratory, and stated that the FBI had vigorously investigated his concerns and is continuing to do so. The FBI press release further stated that the FBI had reviewed more than 250 cases involving prior work in the Laboratory and to date had found no evidence tampering, evidence fabrication, or failure to report exculpatory evidence. The press release observed that [a]ny finding of such misconduct will result in tough and swift action by the FBI. The release also stated that the FBI was fully cooperating with the OIG investigation of Whitehurst' s allegations.

On September 16 and 17, 1995, defense attorneys and prosecutors in the Simpson case interviewed Whitehurst regarding Roger Martz and related matters. In July 1995, Martz had testified in the Simpson trial that he had examined certain blood samples and concluded that they did not contain blood that had been preserved with the compound EDTA. The defense in Simpson proposed calling Whitehurst to testify that Martz had a habit or custom of biasing test results to support the prosecution.

In an order issued September 20, 1995, California Superior Court Judge Lance Ito ruled that Whitehurst would not be allowed to testify. Judge Ito noted that Whitehurst had no direct knowledge concerning the EDTA testing in the Simpson case and that whether Martz was qualified to conduct explosives residue testing in other cases had no direct bearing on the EDTA testing.

[William Anthony]

MS. CLARK: Well, doctor, how do you account for the readings that came up from Agent Martz' blood? How do you account for the fact that his blood unpreserved gave the readings that it did consistent with EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, I don't account for it. I think he would have to account for it because I think it's absurd to find that much EDTA in normal blood. Even if--all I can say, it's in the part per million range. It just seems totally absurd to me just like that 2,000 parts per million. You would be dead. I mean, you know, these absurd numbers.

MS. CLARK: So given the fact that we have a test result from someone's unpreserved blood--

DR. RIEDERS: Uh-huh.

MS. CLARK: --that shows a presence of EDTA in the parts per million, your answer--the way in which you account for that is to say it's absurd, you dismiss it?

DR. RIEDERS: I give you a scenario how that can happen very easily. May I?

MS. CLARK: Dr. Rieders, would you answer my question, please?

THE COURT: Answer the question.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I object. I think he's entitled to answer the question that she asked.

THE COURT: No. That's proposing an answer, not to a question. Ask a question.

MS. CLARK: Can you answer the question I have asked?

DR. RIEDERS: You want to repeat it?

MS. CLARK: Is it your answer that the results obtained by testing Agent Martz' blood showing EDTA in the range of parts per million very similar to the range shown on the gate and the sock? Correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Very similar.

MS. CLARK: Very similar. And your answer to that is, it is absurd and you dismiss it; is that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. I'll tell you--I'll give you a reasonable probability at how that can happen. Not that it did, but I'll give you a reasonable probability.

MS. CLARK: Then, doctor, I would like you--

MR. BLASIER: Objection.

MS. CLARK: Nonresponsive.

THE COURT: It is.

MR. BLASIER: May he be allowed to explain his answer?

THE COURT: You can ask the question, not in that manner though. Proceed.

MS. CLARK: Now, doctor, isn't it true, sir, that you cannot tell us that the substance detected by you in the gate and the sock and--not by you--excuse me--by the testing done by Agent Martz as you interpret it, you can not tell us, sir, that those--that substance is EDTA to the exclusion of all other substances, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: You never can say. No, I can't and I can't say that for any analysis that you present me, even in Nobel Prize winning ones.

MS. CLARK: Then given--considering the EDTA results that Agent Martz got on his unpreserved blood, sir, is it your opinion that the bloodstains on the sock and the gate had to have come from the preserved blood to the exclusion of all other sources?

DR. RIEDERS: I didn't say that. I said that it's sort of like if you hear hoof beats, it's probably horses and that the most likely source for EDTA in a blood sample when you have a control that is negative is that it was EDTA blood to begin with. That's what I said. So it could be. I didn't say it was. I said could reasonably be considered that and doesn't exclude other possibilities, but I don't know what they are.

MS. CLARK: You don't know what they would be?

DR. RIEDERS: No, I do not. I deny that there's any reasonable probability that it could be from food or from the normal level of EDTA in the blood of a person.

MS. CLARK: Even though you also realize that there is no study indicating what that normal level would be?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, there is, but it is not a study which was designed to determine the normal level in the world's population like has been done with blood typing and with other things. But from the study that is a very good study--

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. I'm sorry. That's nonresponsive.

THE COURT: No. He can finish the answer.

DR. RIEDERS: May I finish?

THE COURT: You may.

DR. RIEDERS: From the study that is an excellent study that the authors can be proud of, on the number of people that they tested, they didn't find any EDTA. I don't see any reason why they should find it now.

MS. CLARK: Except that it was found, isn't that correct, in Agent Martz' blood?"

[William Anthony]

http://members.tripod.com/the_solipsist/id51.htm

"VINCENT BUGLIOSI: -the whole lot of you - the whole lot of you should have been hogtied and whipped in the town square at noon time -

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: You know, now- now, Vince-

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: You got by with murder.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: -now, no- Vince now you are getting personal-

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: Yeah, I am getting personal, because you are getting-

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: -and you said you wouldn't get personal-

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: -because you are getting personal with Vannatter-

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: No, I'm not- no-

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: Here's a guy on the force for 28 years, not one citizen complaint against him for 28 years, he's about to retire with his wife Rita, to his farm in Indiana, and he's going to risk his good name -

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Major violin, right?

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: -his pension and jeopardize his life-

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: But he-

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: -because in California, you plant evidence and testify falsely in a capital case, you can get the death penalty yourself.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: That is a lie, Vince. Vince, that is a lie.

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: Section 128.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: It's in your book and it's a lie. I-

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: Section 128 is a lie?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: I will make a $1,000 contribution to the Police League if you can demonstrate that you can get the gas chamber in California for testifying falsely. It is in your book and it's a lie.

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: In a capital case-

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: The United States Supreme Court-

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: In a capital case- 128 - Section 128-

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: You are absolutely wrong. You are lying.

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: That's not- wait awhile -

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: The United States Supreme Court-

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: -wait awhile -

LARRY KING: Wait-

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: -Alan-

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: -the United States Supreme Court has ruled-

LARRY KING: Wait-

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: -128, if you testify-

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: -that you can't get the death penalty-

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: No, that's constitutional-

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: -execpt for murder-

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: -you testify falsely-

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: -constituion's-

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: -you testify falsely in a capital case where the person ends up getting executed, you can get the death penalty yourself-

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: That is a lie.

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: -128. What do you mean it's false?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: It is a lie- it is a lie- it's untrue.

LARRY KING: We will be back with our remaining moments-

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: You're lying.

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: Well, this is absurd, this whole thing is absurd. This-

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: You're lying, Vince.

LARRY KING: We will be back with Vince and Alan and our remaining moments after this.

[Commercial break]

LARRY KING: You have 45 seconds each. Mr. Dershowitz, a closing statement, I will stop you at 45.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: First of all, there is no question that Vannatter committed perjury in what could have been a capital case. The judge found him to have been in reckless disregard of the truth and I don't think there is a person out there, including Vince Bugliosi who believes that he told the truth when he said he didn't regard O.J. Simpson as any more of a suspect than he did Robert Shapiro. Second, the United States Supreme Court said that you cannot execute anybody, no matter how serious their crime, unless it is murder. You cannot execute somebody even if the statute says you can and many states have that statute. It's unconstitutional.

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: How about treason?"

VB, with his last question, shows he knew he was telling a lie, imho. He comes up with the funny but dumb and irrelevant question on treason.

[martin II]

http://members.tripod.com/the_solipsist/id51.htm

"VINCENT BUGLIOSI: -the whole lot of you - the whole lot of you should have been hogtied and whipped in the town square at noon time -

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: You know, now- now, Vince-

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: You got by with murder.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: -now, no- Vince now you are getting personal-

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: Yeah, I am getting personal, because you are getting-

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: -and you said you wouldn't get personal-

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: -because you are getting personal with Vannatter-

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: No, I'm not- no-

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: Here's a guy on the force for 28 years, not one citizen complaint against him for 28 years, he's about to retire with his wife Rita, to his farm in Indiana, and he's going to risk his good name -

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Major violin, right?

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: -his pension and jeopardize his life-

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: But he-

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: -because in California, you plant evidence and testify falsely in a capital case, you can get the death penalty yourself.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: That is a lie, Vince. Vince, that is a lie.

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: Section 128.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: It's in your book and it's a lie. I-

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: Section 128 is a lie?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: I will make a $1,000 contribution to the Police League if you can demonstrate that you can get the gas chamber in California for testifying falsely. It is in your book and it's a lie.

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: In a capital case-

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: The United States Supreme Court-

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: In a capital case- 128 - Section 128-

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: You are absolutely wrong. You are lying.

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: That's not- wait awhile -

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: The United States Supreme Court-

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: -wait awhile -

LARRY KING: Wait-

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: -Alan-

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: -the United States Supreme Court has ruled-

LARRY KING: Wait-

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: -128, if you testify-

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: -that you can't get the death penalty-

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: No, that's constitutional-

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: -execpt for murder-

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: -you testify falsely-

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: -constituion's-

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: -you testify falsely in a capital case where the person ends up getting executed, you can get the death penalty yourself-

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: That is a lie.

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: -128. What do you mean it's false?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: It is a lie- it is a lie- it's untrue.

LARRY KING: We will be back with our remaining moments-

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: You're lying.

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: Well, this is absurd, this whole thing is absurd. This-

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: You're lying, Vince.

LARRY KING: We will be back with Vince and Alan and our remaining moments after this.

[Commercial break]

LARRY KING: You have 45 seconds each. Mr. Dershowitz, a closing statement, I will stop you at 45.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: First of all, there is no question that Vannatter committed perjury in what could have been a capital case. The judge found him to have been in reckless disregard of the truth and I don't think there is a person out there, including Vince Bugliosi who believes that he told the truth when he said he didn't regard O.J. Simpson as any more of a suspect than he did Robert Shapiro. Second, the United States Supreme Court said that you cannot execute anybody, no matter how serious their crime, unless it is murder. You cannot execute somebody even if the statute says you can and many states have that statute. It's unconstitutional.

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: How about treason?"

VB, with his last question, shows he knew he was telling a lie, imho. He comes up with the funny but dumb and irrelevant question on treason.


Old Vince caught in a lie on national tv and in that book.
That lie has been repeated on the oj threads by many.

hahahaha

[tv]

hi
tv

Reiders said according to Martz test results he should have been dead from EDTA.imo

Thank you, martin. I thought it was a joke, but wasn't really sure.

[tv]

hello tvdinner -- we've missed you.

Hi weezer, I've missed some of you too and I've been trying to keep up with the discussion every few days.

[bobaugust]

Thanks for admitting that you were wrong. Terri Lee did not confirm Martz.

No I was not wrong. Dr. Lee did confirm Martz’s suspicion that it was an artifact that caused the small trace amount of EDTA. Dr. Lee also supported Martz’s conclusion that neither the gate blood nor the sock blood came from EDTA preserved blood.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You said a month after he was arrested.

Yes I did originally say a month and I corrected it to almost a month. So what? That doesn’t change your ridiculous claim that “right after he was arrested” means 27 days later or almost a month later nor does it change the fact that you made that claim trying to defend Scheck’s deceiving misstatement to the jury. Funny.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I do not see prejudice and bias in everyone that contradicts or disagrees with my beliefs and have readily admitted when I was wrong. However, I think it is clear by his notes that Terri Lee was motivated to help the plaintiffs, regardless of how funny and dumb his explanation.

Dr. Lee was an experienced and knowledgeable research scientist who performed hundreds of times the same three tests Martz had performed. Dr. Lee gave a logical reasonable explanation for the small trace amount of EDTA that Martz’s third test results showed. Dr. Lee’s explanation confirmed Martz’s suspicions that it was the result of an artifact in the instruments and Dr. Lee’s opinion supported Martz’s opinion that the evidence stains did not come from preserved blood.

The only funny but dumb comments regarding this issue have all been made by you William claiming Martz was dead and calling a carry over contamination a ghost.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Old Vince caught in a lie on national tv and in that book.
That lie has been repeated on the oj threads by many.

hahahaha

Too much stock in works of fiction but they will not buy my ocean front property in Arizona, go figure? ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

No I was not wrong. Dr. Lee did confirm Martz’s suspicion that it was an artifact that caused the small trace amount of EDTA. Dr. Lee also supported Martz’s conclusion that neither the gate blood nor the sock blood came from EDTA preserved blood.

bobaugust

It appears to me that no matter how many times I reiterate the fact that "most likely" is not the same as it is that you will not recognize the truth, so with that said, enough said on the subject of confirmation.

[William Anthony]

Yes I did originally say a month and I corrected it to almost a month. So what? That doesn’t change your ridiculous claim that “right after he was arrested” means 27 days later or almost a month later nor does it change the fact that you made that claim trying to defend Scheck’s deceiving misstatement to the jury. Funny.

bobaugust

There was nothing of Scheck's to defend. I offered what you have said many times, as it relates to the prosecution's testilying and ghotifying witnesses' testimonies, "a reasonable explanation".

[William Anthony]

Dr. Lee was an experienced and knowledgeable research scientist who performed hundreds of times the same three tests Martz had performed. Dr. Lee gave a logical reasonable explanation for the small trace amount of EDTA that Martz’s third test results showed. Dr. Lee’s explanation confirmed Martz’s suspicions that it was the result of an artifact in the instruments and Dr. Lee’s opinion supported Martz’s opinion that the evidence stains did not come from preserved blood.

The only funny but dumb comments regarding this issue have all been made by you William claiming Martz was dead and calling a carry over contamination a ghost.

bobaugust

Wrong again. Terry Lee did not conduct the same test Martz did. Re:read: the testimony. Martz was the first to allegedly come up with a method to test for the presence of EDTA in unpreserved human blood.

[Irvdon]

Hi Guys!

I have a couple of questions which I hope the experts here can help me with:

1 - The first uniformed officer at the crime scene arrived at ~12.10. 13 other uniformed officers were logged in before Fuhrman arrived at ~2.10. During this two hour interval, did any of the 14 officers leave Bundy? I understand Sergeant Coon maintained the sign in sheet - is this available anywhere?

2 - If there were two gloves at Bundy, why on earth would Fuhrman or anyone else want to plant one of the gloves at Rockingham? If you wanted to plant a glove to frame OJ, the best place to put it would be Bundy! That's the crime scene! That's where CSI begins their search. There's nothing to be gained by moving it. The glove, and the evidence in or on it, is what incriminates Simpson, not the location.

Planting the glove at Rockingham would not have increased the odds that investigators would've considered Simpson a potential suspect. He would have been under the investigative gun if the glove had been found at Bundy, at Rockingham, in a storm drain down the street, or if there had been no glove at all. This because homicide investigators, unless they have good reason to believe otherwise, always start looking at the people closest to the victim and work their way out.

[William Anthony]

Hi Guys!

I have a couple of questions which I hope the experts here can help me with:

1 - The first uniformed officer at the crime scene arrived at ~12.10. 13 other uniformed officers were logged in before Fuhrman arrived at ~2.10. During this two hour interval, did any of the 14 officers leave Bundy? I understand Sergeant Coon maintained the sign in sheet - is this available anywhere?

2 - If there were two gloves at Bundy, why on earth would Fuhrman or anyone else want to plant one of the gloves at Rockingham? If you wanted to plant a glove to frame OJ, the best place to put it would be Bundy! That's the crime scene! That's where CSI begins their search. There's nothing to be gained by moving it. The glove, and the evidence in or on it, is what incriminates Simpson, not the location.

Planting the glove at Rockingham would not have increased the odds that investigators would've considered Simpson a potential suspect. He would have been under the investigative gun if the glove had been found at Bundy, at Rockingham, in a storm drain down the street, or if there had been no glove at all. This because homicide investigators, unless they have good reason to believe otherwise, always start looking at the people closest to the victim and work their way out.

Welcome aboard,

I am not sure about your first question. However, let me explain my position on your second. I have never stated that MF planted evidence in this case. However, I am of the opinion that there was evidence to support the fact that he had motive (his hatred and treatment of interracial couples), means (access to the gloves at Bundy and the method to transport one, his marine corp training) and opportunity (when he was alone behind Mr. Kato's quarters).

The motive to implicate Simpson in the murders is clear by the evidence in regard to MF. What better way to implicate a Black involved with a White woman than to plant one of the gloves on his property, after discovering that a witness heard three thumps and the Black was not home? Why leave the glove at Bundy, when it would have taken valuable time to ascertain who was the source of the blood on the glove? When the glove was planted, if it was at Rockingham, Simpson was immediately involved in the murders. I do believe that you are correct and that Simpson was a suspect early on. What better way to keep him a suspect than to have a piece of evidence found on his property? Let's not forget the missing blood and the fact that no evidence that related to Simpson was found on the Bundy glove, IIRC. I think that we all realize that hatred might well be a stronger motivation than love to some.

[Redmama]

Yes I did originally say a month and I corrected it to almost a month. So what? That doesn’t change your ridiculous claim that “right after he was arrested” means 27 days later or almost a month later nor does it change the fact that you made that claim trying to defend Scheck’s deceiving misstatement to the jury. Funny.

bobaugust

Ok, sometimes I'm a bit slow - and I read too fast but has this whole to and fro been about whether 27 days is a month or not?

[William Anthony]

Ok, sometimes I'm a bit slow - and I read too fast but has this whole to and fro been about whether 27 days is a month or not?

No, and I wish it were that simple, even though, imho, it would take bobaugust 50 posts to try to justify it, :). No, there are much larger issues, such as the misinformation bobaugust posts as facts, imho. The most recent ones are that Terri Lee confirmed Martz' conclusion that the results were from an artifact in the machine, when his testimony was that it was most likely but admitted there were other possibilities, including planting in his notes, and the fact that Terry Lee had done the same three tests as Martz, when Lee's testimony was the no one, other than Martz had designed a method to test for the presence of EDTA in unpreserved human blood. The 27 day thing is just an example of bobaugust's proclivity to misstate things and post them as facts. I know this may seem minuscule to you but I have attempted to have bobaugust rectify this behavior from the time I joined and have had some success when honest posters have stepped in and, according to them, which I believe, have been rebuked for so doing.

[Redmama]

No, and I wish it were that simple, even though, imho, it would take bobaugust 50 posts to try to justify it, :). No, there are much larger issues, such as the misinformation bobaugust posts as facts, imho. The most recent ones are that Terri Lee confirmed Martz' conclusion that the results were from an artifact in the machine, when his testimony was that it was most likely but admitted there were other possibilities, including planting in his notes, and the fact that Terry Lee had done the same three tests as Martz, when Lee's testimony was the no one, other than Martz had designed a method to test for the presence of EDTA in unpreserved human blood. The 27 day thing is just an example of bobaugust's proclivity to misstate things and post them as facts. I know this may seem minuscule to you but I have attempted to have bobaugust rectify this behavior from the time I joined and have had some success when honest posters have stepped in and, according to them, which I believe, have been rebuked for so doing.


Well, in my opinion, and from and outsiders point of view that has been lurking here a very long time - actually almost an embarrassingly very long time - your attempts to correct whatever behaviors you believe are incorrect only reflect poorly back on you. I am a very passionte person myself when it comes to some subjects so I understand where you are coming from, but I'm not sure you will gain what you are trying to gain this way. It may make more sense from members that were there from the beginning, but it just looks like bickering back and forth to me. It would be a very interesting study in human behavior if we could read things subjectively even though we had an opinion one way or another...not sure if I'm being very clear here, but as a believer in OJ's guilt, I probably skip over comments that others would take personally and don't really have an emotional response to them. But I probably do have an emotional response to things that those that believe OJ is inoccent state or even just believe the prosecution didn't prove their case. I am not into this case for the same reasons as some - about the whole legal system - I understand that is one of your passions - I am just interested from a human interest point of view that wonders how people live through such horrific things happening within their families - literally from either side.

Anyway, I'm truly not trying to step on any toes - just giving my honest opinion...and as usual, typical me, trying to figure out all of the personalities.

[Irvdon]

Welcome aboard,

I am not sure about your first question. However, let me explain my position on your second. I have never stated that MF planted evidence in this case. However, I am of the opinion that there was evidence to support the fact that he had motive (his hatred and treatment of interracial couples), means (access to the gloves at Bundy and the method to transport one, his marine corp training) and opportunity (when he was alone behind Mr. Kato's quarters).

The motive to implicate Simpson in the murders is clear by the evidence in regard to MF. What better way to implicate a Black involved with a White woman than to plant one of the gloves on his property, after discovering that a witness heard three thumps and the Black was not home? Why leave the glove at Bundy, when it would have taken valuable time to ascertain who was the source of the blood on the glove? When the glove was planted, if it was at Rockingham, Simpson was immediately involved in the murders. I do believe that you are correct and that Simpson was a suspect early on. What better way to keep him a suspect than to have a piece of evidence found on his property? Let's not forget the missing blood and the fact that no evidence that related to Simpson was found on the Bundy glove, IIRC. I think that we all realize that hatred might well be a stronger motivation than love to some.

Let's say that Fuhrman is a totally vile racist whose sole ambition on earth is to take down Simpson for marrying Nicole. He gets the idea of planting a glove at Rockingham. He has two choices:

Plant the glove at Rockingham. What are the downsides:

a - He's committing a crime. Furthermore, he has to enlist the other 14 uniformed officers and the three detectives into a criminal conspiracy thereby risking their careers and their freedom in order to do a favor for a complete stranger. (Phillips excepted) He is the junior detective present, and the uniforms are in a different chain of command, so there's nothing he can do to them, and there's nothing he can do for them.

b - He doesn't know anything about the glove. It might belong to OJ, or it might belong to one of the ten million other people in the LA area. He doesn't know if there is any evidence in or on the glove that point to anyone - much less Simpson. What happens if he plants the glove at Rockingham, and the glove is proven to belong to Nicole's next door neighbor? How does he explain that one? There are a lot of "How To" books written these days, and I doubt if there's one about tampering with evidence, but if there were, I'm sure that one of the first instructions would be:

"If you're going to plant evidence in order to incriminate an innocent person, make sure, make absolutely sure, that the evidence you plant does incriminate your intended victim"

c - That same "How To" book would also have this instruction:

"If you're going to plant evidence in order to incriminate an innocent person, make sure, make absolutely sure, that your intended victim does not have a rock solid alibi"

In this case, given what Fuhrman knew, the chances were that OJ did have an alibi. Simpson was rich, single, a celebrity, known to have an eye for the ladies, the crime took place around ten thirty on a Friday night and OJ wasn't home. Fuhrman and his comrades had to hope that Simpson was alone in a rented room somewhere watching reruns of "Leave it to Beaver" or darning his socks.

Leave the glove at Bundy - what are the downsides?

None - He's doing his duty.

If the glove is found at Rockingham, what happens? It's found, sent to the lab, and found to contain blood and fiber belonging to OJ, Ron, and Nicole. If the glove is found at Bundy, what happens? It's found, sent to the lab, and found to contain blood and fiber belonging to OJ, Ron, and Nicole. Same result except I believe that, if the glove had been found at Bundy, it would have been more damming because it would shown OJ, Ron, and Nicole bleeding together at Bundy at the same time.

If the glove was found at Bundy, OJ would have immediately been be considered a potential suspect, and as soon as the investigators found out that he had no alibi, had a cut on his left hand, and was, by his own admission, walking around dripping blood at the same time the murders took place, you can bet that he would have remained a suspect.

[William Anthony]

Well, in my opinion, and from and outsiders point of view that has been lurking here a very long time - actually almost an embarrassingly very long time - your attempts to correct whatever behaviors you believe are incorrect only reflect poorly back on you. I am a very passionte person myself when it comes to some subjects so I understand where you are coming from, but I'm not sure you will gain what you are trying to gain this way. It may make more sense from members that were there from the beginning, but it just looks like bickering back and forth to me. It would be a very interesting study in human behavior if we could read things subjectively even though we had an opinion one way or another...not sure if I'm being very clear here, but as a believer in OJ's guilt, I probably skip over comments that others would take personally and don't really have an emotional response to them. But I probably do have an emotional response to things that those that believe OJ is inoccent state or even just believe the prosecution didn't prove their case. I am not into this case for the same reasons as some - about the whole legal system - I understand that is one of your passions - I am just interested from a human interest point of view that wonders how people live through such horrific things happening within their families - literally from either side.

Anyway, I'm truly not trying to step on any toes - just giving my honest opinion...and as usual, typical me, trying to figure out all of the personalities.

When I joined this forum it was soon stated to me repeatedly that this was a search for the truth. I was amazed to see that some of those, who made that claim, were posting things that were untrue. You are correct in that I feel passionately about somethings and I think that, if you have lurked for an embarrassingly long time, then you may know some of the things I feel passionately about. I think that you meant to say that one should look at another's post from an objective point of view, since subjectively leads to a view from one's own personal feelings. I am sure that I will not gain what I am attempting to gain from some but I do not think that anyone who understands me believes that the things I have responded to reflect poorly on me. There are some things that we, as human beings, should have in common, imho. Among those things are tolerance and respect for one another. If you could have read the beginning posts, I think that you will find that I have taken quite a bit before engaging in the bickering back and forth. However, as I have said, it's a poor dog that won't wag its own tail. If that reflects poorly on me in the minds of some, then I do not apologize. There comes a point when some things become intolerable and I think that everyone deserves the right to choose that point and their reactions to it. There is a history on this forum that you may or may not be aware of. However, I do believe that people have the right to disagree with any opinions offered but, others, who post things as facts, when the facts are contradictory to what they post, have mislead quite a few posters. If my efforts to correct the misstatements are taken by some as a poor reflection on me, then I think they may not be truly interested in the search for truth. If I have done all that I can do to correct those misstatements, then I am able to look the man in the mirror straight in the eye. I understand how you feel and all it would take is for some to discard their self-assumed superiority and arrogance and realize that they embarrass themselves by posting untruths while claiming to search for the truth. Perhaps, it is my optimistic believe in mankind's honesty that causes me to bicker so vehemently with those who refuse to admit they were either intentionally or unintentionally incorrect.

[William Anthony]

Let's say that Fuhrman is a totally vile racist whose sole ambition on earth is to take down Simpson for marrying Nicole. He gets the idea of planting a glove at Rockingham. He has two choices:

Plant the glove at Rockingham. What are the downsides:

a - He's committing a crime. Furthermore, he has to enlist the other 14 uniformed officers and the three detectives into a criminal conspiracy thereby risking their careers and their freedom in order to do a favor for a complete stranger. (Phillips excepted) He is the junior detective present, and the uniforms are in a different chain of command, so there's nothing he can do to them, and there's nothing he can do for them.

b - He doesn't know anything about the glove. It might belong to OJ, or it might belong to one of the ten million other people in the LA area. He doesn't know if there is any evidence in or on the glove that point to anyone - much less Simpson. What happens if he plants the glove at Rockingham, and the glove is proven to belong to Nicole's next door neighbor? How does he explain that one? There are a lot of "How To" books written these days, and I doubt if there's one about tampering with evidence, but if there were, I'm sure that one of the first instructions would be:

"If you're going to plant evidence in order to incriminate an innocent person, make sure, make absolutely sure, that the evidence you plant does incriminate your intended victim"

c - That same "How To" book would also have this instruction:

"If you're going to plant evidence in order to incriminate an innocent person, make sure, make absolutely sure, that your intended victim does not have a rock solid alibi"

In this case, given what Fuhrman knew, the chances were that OJ did have an alibi. Simpson was rich, single, a celebrity, known to have an eye for the ladies, the crime took place around ten thirty on a Friday night and OJ wasn't home. Fuhrman and his comrades had to hope that Simpson was alone in a rented room somewhere watching reruns of "Leave it to Beaver" or darning his socks.

Leave the glove at Bundy - what are the downsides?

None - He's doing his duty.

If the glove is found at Rockingham, what happens? It's found, sent to the lab, and found to contain blood and fiber belonging to OJ, Ron, and Nicole. If the glove is found at Bundy, what happens? It's found, sent to the lab, and found to contain blood and fiber belonging to OJ, Ron, and Nicole. Same result except I believe that, if the glove had been found at Bundy, it would have been more damming because it would shown OJ, Ron, and Nicole bleeding together at Bundy at the same time.

If the glove was found at Bundy, OJ would have immediately been be considered a potential suspect, and as soon as the investigators found out that he had no alibi, had a cut on his left hand, and was, by his own admission, walking around dripping blood at the same time the murders took place, you can bet that he would have remained a suspect.

You seem to be weighing the pros and cons of evidence planting but missed a view vital points, imho.

The first thing is the history of LE in Los Angeles. The second is MF's statements on the tapes, acknowledging his corruption and the willingness of others to cover it up. You also seem to be laboring under the assumption that the frame was mean to name Simpson as the killer, as opposed to somehow being involved, i.e. murder for hire. You also seem to think that racism is somehow rational, which I do not think was your intention. Let me say that another way, those who engage in crimes because of their feelings toward race do not act rationally, imho.

Assuming that no one knew what the evidence would produce, what better way to implicate or involve Simpson in the murders than to plant a glove identical to the one seen at Bundy, which MF admitted to seeing two at Bundy, imho? You also seem not to regard the fact that he did not plant/find the glove until after Mr. Kato had told him the approximate time Simpson had left for the airport and the time he heard the thumps. If the glove, did not contain any incriminating evidence of Simpson's guilt, like the Bundy glove did not, then the obvious excuse would have been that the killer came to kill Simpson and was scared off for some reason. However, we can not forget the missing blood. We can not forget that no blood was found behind Mr. Kato's quarters but a blood trail was found leading from Rockingham into Simpson's front door. The lies VB told were exposed by AD but all too many on this board have repeated and I think actually believed that LE would have faced death or life in prison for planting evidence. I think that MF knew the ways to turn suspicion away from him, if Simpson had an alibi or there was no evidence found on the glove that incriminated Simpson as I have previously said. I have already talked of the evidence of MF's, motive means and opportunity and when that is combined with the evidence of the missing blood and Martz's EDTA results as well as MF's slips/non slips of the tongue, I think there is reasonable doubt as to how that glove got to Rockingham and I do not think that MF would have been in the precarious position as many seem to think he would have been. I think he had enough experience to cover his tracks and enough faith in his fellow officers not to worry about being detected.

[bobaugust]

It appears to me that no matter how many times I reiterate the fact that "most likely" is not the same as it is that you will not recognize the truth, so with that said, enough said on the subject of confirmation.

Dr. Lee didn’t testify it was most likely an artifact, he testified it had to be an artifact.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

There was nothing of Scheck's to defend. I offered what you have said many times, as it relates to the prosecution's testilying and ghotifying witnesses' testimonies, "a reasonable explanation".

Scheck either intentionally or unintentionally misstated the evidence in this case in his closing argument when he said Simpson gave his hair samples “right after he was arrested.” You have defended Scheck’s misstatement by claiming Scheck didn’t make a mistake and claiming that “right after he was arrested” means days after he was arrested. The fact is it was 27 days after he was arrested when Simpson’s hair samples were taken on July 13 which is almost a month after he was arrested.

The only evidence of Simpson having dandruff was a month after the murders on July 13, not on May 23 when his barber last saw him, not on the night of the murders, not on the days following the murders, and not on June 17 the day he was arrested.

I agree with you that Scheck didn’t make a mistake; he intentionally deceived the jury by misstating the evidence to falsely insinuate that Simpson had dandruff five days after the murders. Your claim that “right after he was arrested” means almost a month later is completely ridiculous.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Wrong again. Terry Lee did not conduct the same test Martz did. Re:read: the testimony. Martz was the first to allegedly come up with a method to test for the presence of EDTA in unpreserved human blood.

Wrong. I didn’t say Dr Lee conducted tests for EDTA, I said he performed hundreds of times the same three tests Martz performed. The first test was a negative ion mass spectrometry test. The second test was an HPLC test, a high pressure high performance liquid chromatography test; and the third test was a positive ion mode test.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Hi Guys!

I have a couple of questions which I hope the experts here can help me with:

1 - The first uniformed officer at the crime scene arrived at ~12.10. 13 other uniformed officers were logged in before Fuhrman arrived at ~2.10. During this two hour interval, did any of the 14 officers leave Bundy? I understand Sergeant Coon maintained the sign in sheet - is this available anywhere?

2 - If there were two gloves at Bundy, why on earth would Fuhrman or anyone else want to plant one of the gloves at Rockingham? If you wanted to plant a glove to frame OJ, the best place to put it would be Bundy! That's the crime scene! That's where CSI begins their search. There's nothing to be gained by moving it. The glove, and the evidence in or on it, is what incriminates Simpson, not the location.

Planting the glove at Rockingham would not have increased the odds that investigators would've considered Simpson a potential suspect. He would have been under the investigative gun if the glove had been found at Bundy, at Rockingham, in a storm drain down the street, or if there had been no glove at all. This because homicide investigators, unless they have good reason to believe otherwise, always start looking at the people closest to the victim and work their way out.

Irvdon, I could be wrong but I don’t recall any evidence that any of the fourteen police officers who were logged in at Bundy left before Phillips and Fuhrman arrived.

I agree with your reasoning that if there were two gloves at Bundy it doesn’t make any sense for anyone not to have reported it let alone try to conceal it for four hours and plant it at Rockingham. The fact is there is no evidence of a second glove at Bundy when the police arrived there and there is no evidence that the glove was planted at Rockingham. There are other reasons why the theory that Fuhrman planted the glove is so ridiculous.

Triumph of Justice, Daniel Petrocelli

“No one ever saw a second glove at Bundy. Cops were crawling all over this crime scene for two full hours before Fuhrman arrived. They found one glove only, not two. There was no second love at Bundy to plant at Rockingham.

For many hours after the discovery of the bodies, police were canvassing the Bundy neighborhood, knocking on doors, asking what people had seen and heard. How did Fuhrman know what this would reveal? What if someone had said, "I saw four short men with ski masks come tearing out of the condo and go running south on Bundy at 10:45'? Or, it was three white guys. One had red hair, one was blond, the third was six foot eight and had rings in his nose. Their car was blocking my driveway and I got the license plate.” Where's the frame job then? How did Fuhrman know an eyewitness would not walk right up to the police and say, "I saw the murders." If he'd planted the glove at Rockingham and they'd caught a different killer, Fuhrman would go to jail, conceivably for life.

The crime scene was swimming with blood. How did Fuhrman know whose blood that was? The real killer could have dropped gallons all over the garden. It could have been anyone's blood. The killer would have been positively identified by this blood, clearing Simpson and leaving Fuhrman exposed.

What if the glove Fuhrman supposedly planted at Rockingham was covered with someone's blood other than Simpson's? To frame Simpson you need Simpson's blood at Simpson's home. How could Fuhrman possibly know the blood on the glove was Simpson's?

What if Simpson had an air tight alibi? Fuhrman was sleeping when the cops caught the call. How did he know Simpson wasn't on an airplane or at a restaurant or making a television appearance at the time of the murders?

There are no answers to these and many, many more questions except to say that this theory of the planted glove is absurd and discredited. It didn't happen. The glove was found at Rockingham for one reason" O.J. Simpson dropped it there falling against a wall in the dark when returning from killing Ron and Nicole.”

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Ok, sometimes I'm a bit slow - and I read too fast but has this whole to and fro been about whether 27 days is a month or not?

That’s just William Anthony trying to find something wrong with what I said so he can avoid admitting that his interpretation of what Barry Scheck told the jury was wrong. Simpson was arrested on June 17, five days after the murders. On July 13 Simpson’s hair samples were taken and they showed signs of dandruff.

Barry Scheck in his closing argument to the criminal trial jury misstated the evidence by telling the jury that Simpson gave his hair samples right after he was arrested insinuating that Simpson may have had dandruff five days earlier on the night of the murders.

When I pointed this out to William he defended Scheck by claiming that right after he was arrested means days after he was arrested. I said it was a month after he was arrested. Instead of William admitting that his interpretation was wrong he pointed out that I was wrong because 27 days was not a month. So I corrected my comment to him by saying almost a month and now every time he is confronted with his ridiculous interpretation he brings up my mistake of calling 27 days a month. It’s funny.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

When I joined this forum it was soon stated to me repeatedly that this was a search for the truth. I was amazed to see that some of those, who made that claim, were posting things that were untrue. You are correct in that I feel passionately about somethings and I think that, if you have lurked for an embarrassingly long time, then you may know some of the things I feel passionately about. I think that you meant to say that one should look at another's post from an objective point of view, since subjectively leads to a view from one's own personal feelings. I am sure that I will not gain what I am attempting to gain from some but I do not think that anyone who understands me believes that the things I have responded to reflect poorly on me. There are some things that we, as human beings, should have in common, imho. Among those things are tolerance and respect for one another. If you could have read the beginning posts, I think that you will find that I have taken quite a bit before engaging in the bickering back and forth. However, as I have said, it's a poor dog that won't wag its own tail. If that reflects poorly on me in the minds of some, then I do not apologize. There comes a point when some things become intolerable and I think that everyone deserves the right to choose that point and their reactions to it. There is a history on this forum that you may or may not be aware of. However, I do believe that people have the right to disagree with any opinions offered but, others, who post things as facts, when the facts are contradictory to what they post, have mislead quite a few posters. If my efforts to correct the misstatements are taken by some as a poor reflection on me, then I think they may not be truly interested in the search for truth. If I have done all that I can do to correct those misstatements, then I am able to look the man in the mirror straight in the eye. I understand how you feel and all it would take is for some to discard their self-assumed superiority and arrogance and realize that they embarrass themselves by posting untruths while claiming to search for the truth. Perhaps, it is my optimistic believe in mankind's honesty that causes me to bicker so vehemently with those who refuse to admit they were either intentionally or unintentionally incorrect.

That’s funny coming from you who still refuses to admit to the many misinterpretations and mistakes you have made on this discussion group; misinterpretations that resulted in ridiculous claims and speculation that are contradicted by the actual evidence.

bobaugust

[tv]

Welcome aboard,

I am not sure about your first question. However, let me explain my position on your second. I have never stated that MF planted evidence in this case. However, I am of the opinion that there was evidence to support the fact that he had motive (his hatred and treatment of interracial couples), means (access to the gloves at Bundy and the method to transport one, his marine corp training) and opportunity (when he was alone behind Mr. Kato's quarters).

The motive to implicate Simpson in the murders is clear by the evidence in regard to MF. What better way to implicate a Black involved with a White woman than to plant one of the gloves on his property, after discovering that a witness heard three thumps and the Black was not home? Why leave the glove at Bundy, when it would have taken valuable time to ascertain who was the source of the blood on the glove? When the glove was planted, if it was at Rockingham, Simpson was immediately involved in the murders. I do believe that you are correct and that Simpson was a suspect early on. What better way to keep him a suspect than to have a piece of evidence found on his property? Let's not forget the missing blood and the fact that no evidence that related to Simpson was found on the Bundy glove, IIRC. I think that we all realize that hatred might well be a stronger motivation than love to some.Yes you have.

[William Anthony]

Dr. Lee didn’t testify it was most likely an artifact, he testified it had to be an artifact.

bobaugust

This is just an example of your obstinate refusal to admit when you are wrong and proclivity to post wrong information. This is your post #5903.

January 16. 1997 Dr. Terry Lee,

Q. The test results that Roger Martz got when he found this little trace, that little molehill that we saw in testing his own blood, you testified during the examination by Mr. Baker that that couldn't be actual EDTA in his own blood, true?
A. That's correct.
Q. And therefore, it has to be some artifact that's creating that trace result, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And what is your opinion of the artifact that's creating that trace result?
A. That artifact is most likely the result of carryover from previous analyses in that instrument.
Q. What's most likely creating the trace, little trace level, we saw in the evidence sample?
A. The same effect.

bobaugust


Now read your post#5910 after I pointed out your mistake.

My post is correct. In the criminal trial Martz testified to the possibility that the small trace amount of EDTA he found in the results from the third test he conducted “could be EDTA or it could be some artifact in the instrument due to some type of matrix effect with the blood.”

In the civil trial Dr. Lee confirmed Martz’s suspicions with his opinion that the small trace amount was the result of an artifact that was “most likely the result of carryover from previous analyses in that instrument.”

The fact is that Martz’s conclusion that neither the gate blood nor the sock blood came from the reference samples was based on the fact that no EDTA was detected in the first two tests he conducted on the evidence stains. And his conclusion was the same regarding the third test results because the small trace amount of EDTA that showed up in the two evidence stains and Martz’s own non-preserved blood was 1000 times smaller than the amount of EDTA contained in the reference samples.

Dr Lee also concluded that neither the gate blood nor the sock blood came from the reference samples. Photographic evidence and degradation evidence conclusively proved that neither the gate blood nor the sock blood were planted from reference samples.

bobaugust



When you place all of Terry Lee's testimony in context, you see that he was attempting to explain away Martz's results and he testified that his results were "most likely" the result of a ghost in the machine. His notes however indicate the most likely explanation, when he said, "If not planted".

[William Anthony]

Yes you have.

I never have. If you think I did, then post it, please?

[William Anthony]

That’s funny coming from you who still refuses to admit to the many misinterpretations and mistakes you have made on this discussion group; misinterpretations that resulted in ridiculous claims and speculation that are contradicted by the actual evidence.

bobaugust

I have always stood corrected when I made mistakes and have sometimes hesitated to respond in a fashion similar to this rude one. You have not shown me that you understand evidence of inferences, so I will not take offense at your comments but will simply chalk it up to your ignorance of legal concepts and that arrogance that makes you think you are right, even though you have been proven wrong by others and me.

[William Anthony]

That’s just William Anthony trying to find something wrong with what I said so he can avoid admitting that his interpretation of what Barry Scheck told the jury was wrong. Simpson was arrested on June 17, five days after the murders. On July 13 Simpson’s hair samples were taken and they showed signs of dandruff.

Barry Scheck in his closing argument to the criminal trial jury misstated the evidence by telling the jury that Simpson gave his hair samples right after he was arrested insinuating that Simpson may have had dandruff five days earlier on the night of the murders.

When I pointed this out to William he defended Scheck by claiming that right after he was arrested means days after he was arrested. I said it was a month after he was arrested. Instead of William admitting that his interpretation was wrong he pointed out that I was wrong because 27 days was not a month. So I corrected my comment to him by saying almost a month and now every time he is confronted with his ridiculous interpretation he brings up my mistake of calling 27 days a month. It’s funny.

bobaugust

What is funny is that you get offended when someone points out your multitude of mistakes. So, lets put the conversation in its proper context. My explanation of Scheck's right after comment was made in response to your acceptance of testimony that immediate means as soon as possible within the investigation, or words to that effect.

[William Anthony]

Irvdon, I could be wrong but I don’t recall any evidence that any of the fourteen police officers who were logged in at Bundy left before Phillips and Fuhrman arrived.

I agree with your reasoning that if there were two gloves at Bundy it doesn’t make any sense for anyone not to have reported it let alone try to conceal it for four hours and plant it at Rockingham. The fact is there is no evidence of a second glove at Bundy when the police arrived there and there is no evidence that the glove was planted at Rockingham. There are other reasons why the theory that Fuhrman planted the glove is so ridiculous.

Triumph of Justice, Daniel Petrocelli

“No one ever saw a second glove at Bundy. Cops were crawling all over this crime scene for two full hours before Fuhrman arrived. They found one glove only, not two. There was no second love at Bundy to plant at Rockingham.

For many hours after the discovery of the bodies, police were canvassing the Bundy neighborhood, knocking on doors, asking what people had seen and heard. How did Fuhrman know what this would reveal? What if someone had said, "I saw four short men with ski masks come tearing out of the condo and go running south on Bundy at 10:45'? Or, it was three white guys. One had red hair, one was blond, the third was six foot eight and had rings in his nose. Their car was blocking my driveway and I got the license plate.” Where's the frame job then? How did Fuhrman know an eyewitness would not walk right up to the police and say, "I saw the murders." If he'd planted the glove at Rockingham and they'd caught a different killer, Fuhrman would go to jail, conceivably for life.

The crime scene was swimming with blood. How did Fuhrman know whose blood that was? The real killer could have dropped gallons all over the garden. It could have been anyone's blood. The killer would have been positively identified by this blood, clearing Simpson and leaving Fuhrman exposed.

What if the glove Fuhrman supposedly planted at Rockingham was covered with someone's blood other than Simpson's? To frame Simpson you need Simpson's blood at Simpson's home. How could Fuhrman possibly know the blood on the glove was Simpson's?

What if Simpson had an air tight alibi? Fuhrman was sleeping when the cops caught the call. How did he know Simpson wasn't on an airplane or at a restaurant or making a television appearance at the time of the murders?

There are no answers to these and many, many more questions except to say that this theory of the planted glove is absurd and discredited. It didn't happen. The glove was found at Rockingham for one reason" O.J. Simpson dropped it there falling against a wall in the dark when returning from killing Ron and Nicole.”

bobaugust

The fact that no one else claimed to have seen a second glove at Bundy does not mean that MF did not see one, as evidenced by his testimony. You seem to want to discredit and call absurd and ridiculous thing you either don't understand or choose to ignore. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

That’s funny coming from you who still refuses to admit to the many misinterpretations and mistakes you have made on this discussion group; misinterpretations that resulted in ridiculous claims and speculation that are contradicted by the actual evidence.

bobaugust

Previously responded to.

[martin II]

Irvdon, I could be wrong but I don’t recall any evidence that any of the fourteen police officers who were logged in at Bundy left before Phillips and Fuhrman arrived.

I agree with your reasoning that if there were two gloves at Bundy it doesn’t make any sense for anyone not to have reported it let alone try to conceal it for four hours and plant it at Rockingham. The fact is there is no evidence of a second glove at Bundy when the police arrived there and there is no evidence that the glove was planted at Rockingham. There are other reasons why the theory that Fuhrman planted the glove is so ridiculous.

Triumph of Justice, Daniel Petrocelli

“No one ever saw a second glove at Bundy. Cops were crawling all over this crime scene for two full hours before Fuhrman arrived. They found one glove only, not two. There was no second love at Bundy to plant at Rockingham.

For many hours after the discovery of the bodies, police were canvassing the Bundy neighborhood, knocking on doors, asking what people had seen and heard. How did Fuhrman know what this would reveal? What if someone had said, "I saw four short men with ski masks come tearing out of the condo and go running south on Bundy at 10:45'? Or, it was three white guys. One had red hair, one was blond, the third was six foot eight and had rings in his nose. Their car was blocking my driveway and I got the license plate.” Where's the frame job then? How did Fuhrman know an eyewitness would not walk right up to the police and say, "I saw the murders." If he'd planted the glove at Rockingham and they'd caught a different killer, Fuhrman would go to jail, conceivably for life.

The crime scene was swimming with blood. How did Fuhrman know whose blood that was? The real killer could have dropped gallons all over the garden. It could have been anyone's blood. The killer would have been positively identified by this blood, clearing Simpson and leaving Fuhrman exposed.

What if the glove Fuhrman supposedly planted at Rockingham was covered with someone's blood other than Simpson's? To frame Simpson you need Simpson's blood at Simpson's home. How could Fuhrman possibly know the blood on the glove was Simpson's?

What if Simpson had an air tight alibi? Fuhrman was sleeping when the cops caught the call. How did he know Simpson wasn't on an airplane or at a restaurant or making a television appearance at the time of the murders?

There are no answers to these and many, many more questions except to say that this theory of the planted glove is absurd and discredited. It didn't happen. The glove was found at Rockingham for one reason" O.J. Simpson dropped it there falling against a wall in the dark when returning from killing Ron and Nicole.”

bobaugust


I have in several post, posted testimony from Vanhatter and two other detectives that as a result of their investigation or review of the heavy foliage at the fence where the glove was found and the leaves on the ground
at that area where the prosecution say oj simpson jumped the fence and dropped the glove before running out of the walkway,that they found no evidence that ANYONE jumped that fence on 6/12. There was no evidence that anyone was on the sallingers property side of the fence and no evidence that oj simpson was on either side of the fence on 6/12.

So i am not sure why Bob continues to say oj fell against the wall after jumping the fence and dropped that glove. imo

[martin II]

Hi Guys!

I have a couple of questions which I hope the experts here can help me with:

1 - The first uniformed officer at the crime scene arrived at ~12.10. 13 other uniformed officers were logged in before Fuhrman arrived at ~2.10. During this two hour interval, did any of the 14 officers leave Bundy? I understand Sergeant Coon maintained the sign in sheet - is this available anywhere?

2 - If there were two gloves at Bundy, why on earth would Fuhrman or anyone else want to plant one of the gloves at Rockingham? If you wanted to plant a glove to frame OJ, the best place to put it would be Bundy! That's the crime scene! That's where CSI begins their search. There's nothing to be gained by moving it. The glove, and the evidence in or on it, is what incriminates Simpson, not the location.

Planting the glove at Rockingham would not have increased the odds that investigators would've considered Simpson a potential suspect. He would have been under the investigative gun if the glove had been found at Bundy, at Rockingham, in a storm drain down the street, or if there had been no glove at all. This because homicide investigators, unless they have good reason to believe otherwise, always start looking at the people closest to the victim and work their way out.

irvdon hi

If my memory serves me correctly i believe at least some of the original officers at bundy did leave the bundy crime scene as some were directed to spread throught the community knocking on doors looking for people that might have heard or seen something.

The moving of the glove to rockingham if by furhman would implicate simpson
regardless of where simpson may have been. Furhman did have a long term interest in nicole and oj as a result of his previous involvement with them and his advice to nicole. I think when the identity of nicole was known, that oj would have immediately come to mind. i think furhmans previously stated negative attitude towards mixed couples could have caused him to do whatever required to involve simpson.

I believe that the 14 officers main responsibility was to protect the perimeter of the Bundy crime scene and were not stationed inside the actual murder scene where the evidence was.
I know that the sign-in log i think it was called the murder log was referred to by some lapd at trial but don't think that log was made public.

I think it was Vanhatter, not sure , that testified that no notes were made by any of the detectives during their investigation/after they arrived at Rockingham.


Considering the handeling of the blood by vanhatter and the many problems of collection and blood samples problems in the lapd lab, i quote Mr BAKER
'we do not know if the blood collected on the ground is the blood sent out for DNA testing"

I don't think there would have to be some grand conspiracy on the part of le to frame someone.

[martin II]

Let's say that Fuhrman is a totally vile racist whose sole ambition on earth is to take down Simpson for marrying Nicole. He gets the idea of planting a glove at Rockingham. He has two choices:

Plant the glove at Rockingham. What are the downsides:

a - He's committing a crime.so. furhman commited a crime when he planted the knife on Mr Bratton, Furthermore, he has to enlist the other 14 uniformed officers and the three detectives into a criminal conspiracy thereby risking their careers and their freedom in order to do a favor for a complete stranger. the 14 uniform officers were in the crime scene.no it would only take 2-3 detectives, the blue wall os silence would be enough. (Phillips excepted) He is the junior detective present, and the uniforms are in a different chain of command, so there's nothing he can do to them, and there's nothing he can do for them.

b - He doesn't know anything about the glove. he knows there are two gloves and oj simpson in his mind and vanhatters that oj is the suspect.It might belong to OJ, or it might belong to one of the ten million other people in the LA area. He doesn't know if there is any evidence in or on the glove that point to anyone - much less Simpson. What happens if he plants the glove at Rockingham, and the glove is proven to belong to Nicole's next door neighbor? How does he explain that one? Once the glove is planted on ojs property oj is implicated.There are a lot of "How To" books written these days, and I doubt if there's one about tampering with evidence, but if there were, I'm sure that one of the first instructions would be:

"If you're going to plant evidence in order to incriminate an innocent person, make sure, make absolutely sure, that the evidence you plant does incriminate your intended victim"

c - That same "How To" book would also have this instruction:

"If you're going to plant evidence in order to incriminate an innocent person, make sure, make absolutely sure, that your intended victim does not have a rock solid alibi"

In this case, given what Fuhrman knew, the chances were that OJ did have an alibi. Simpson was rich, single, a celebrity, known to have an eye for the ladies, the crime took place around ten thirty on a Friday night and OJ wasn't home. Fuhrman and his comrades had to hope that Simpson was alone in a rented room somewhere watching reruns of "Leave it to Beaver" or darning his socks.

Leave the glove at Bundy - what are the downsides?

None - He's doing his duty.

If the glove is found at Rockingham, what happens? It's found, sent to the lab, and found to contain blood and fiber belonging to OJ, Ron, and Nicole. If the glove is found at Bundy, what happens? It's found, sent to the lab, and found to contain blood and fiber belonging to OJ, Ron, and Nicole. Same result except I believe that, if the glove had been found at Bundy, it would have been more damming because it would shown OJ, Ron, and Nicole bleeding together at Bundy at the same time.

If the glove was found at Bundy, OJ would have immediately been be considered a potential suspect, and as soon as the investigators found out that he had no alibi, had a cut on his left hand, and was, by his own admission, walking around dripping blood at the same time the murders took place, you can bet that he would have remained a suspect.


do you believe that lapd have not ever planted evidence before and would not know how to do that?

[Irvdon]

do you believe that lapd have not ever planted evidence before and would not know how to do that?

It doesn't matter. If there had been a second glove at Bundy, and the LAPD thought that it might help to nail Simpson the best thing they could have done is leave it where it was. Bundy is the crime scene! - the first place CSI will look for evidence. Who ever heard of trying to frame someone by removing evidence FROM the crime scene? If you're going to plant evidence, that's the best place to put it.

[William Anthony]

It doesn't matter. If there had been a second glove at Bundy, and the LAPD thought that it might help to nail Simpson the best thing they could have done is leave it where it was. Bundy is the crime scene! Who ever heard of trying to frame someone by removing evidence FROM the crime scene? If you're going to plant evidence, that's the best place to put it.

Again you are considering that the evidence may have been only planted to frame Simpson for the murders, as opposed to implicating him in them. Let's also not forget that LE claimed to have spotted blood on the Bronco door before they invaded his property. Let's not forget that there were two crime scenes. It is much the same as finding someone shot and then finding the gun/murder weapon in someone's home or on someone.

[William Anthony]

Wrong. I didn’t say Dr Lee conducted tests for EDTA, I said he performed hundreds of times the same three tests Martz performed. The first test was a negative ion mass spectrometry test. The second test was an HPLC test, a high pressure high performance liquid chromatography test; and the third test was a positive ion mode test.

bobaugust

You are wrong again and you continue to refuse to admit when you are wrong, which embarrasses you, imho. The tests that Martz did were with EDTA. Here is the relevant testimony that will show that Terry Lee did not do the same three tests as Martz.

"Q. It would be important for you to know exactly what Rodger Martz
was attempting to do in arriving at your opinions and conclusions,
since you didn't do any test to determine EDTA in any sample,
correct?
A. Would you state that again? I'm not sure I followed it.
Q. Okay. Sure be happy to. You did absolutely no testing yourself,
correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you don't have -- never designed a test to determine the
presence or absence of EDTA; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you knew from your reading of material, that Rodger Martz had
never designed a test to determine the presence or absence of EDTA
in any material; correct?
A. Prior to the work that he did, that's correct."

Ergo, from this testimony it was impossible for Terry Lee to have done the same three tests that Martz did. It would be accurate if you said that Terry Lee claimed to have done the same three types of tests that Martz did. This is the constant type (pun intended) of misinformation you continue to post and stubbornly refuse to admit to when you are proven wrong. ;):cool:

[Irvdon]

Again you are considering that the evidence may have been only planted to frame Simpson for the murders, as opposed to implicating him in them. Let's also not forget that LE claimed to have spotted blood on the Bronco door before they invaded his property. Let's not forget that there were two crime scenes. It is much the same as finding someone shot and then finding the gun/murder weapon in someone's home or on someone.

If the glove is found at Rockingham, Simpson as the next of kin, is a suspect. If the glove is found at Bundy, Simpson as the next of kin, is a suspect. Simpson is implicated in any case. Given that, there is nothing to be gained by moving that glove.

[martin II]

It doesn't matter. If there had been a second glove at Bundy, and the LAPD thought that it might help to nail Simpson the best thing they could have done is leave it where it was. Bundy is the crime scene! - the first place CSI will look for evidence. Who ever heard of trying to frame someone by removing evidence FROM the crime scene? If you're going to plant evidence, that's the best place to put it.

When furhman arived at Bundy no one knew whoes blood was on the gloves.
Only that the gloves appeared to have been used in the murders.They didn't even know if the glove belonged to Ron or not.

Being detectives they assumed the gloves belonged to the killers and understanding that one victim was the ex of oj, they made another assumption that he was involved, This could cause Furhman or someone to remove a glove from Bundy and place it at Rockingham. This placement involved oj either directly or indirectly. He did it or someone he knew did it.

How various blood eventually got on diffrerent pieces of evidence that was tested and sent out for DNA testing is another question.

But my question to you is when and how did the rockingham glove get to where it was 'FOUND' by Furhman ? imo

[William Anthony]

If the glove is found at Rockingham, Simpson as the next of kin, is a suspect. If the glove is found at Bundy, Simpson as the next of kin, is a suspect. Simpson is implicated in any case. Given that, there is nothing to be gained by moving that glove.

If the glove found at Bundy did not contain any of Simpson's DNA or anything linking him to the murders, as it did not, Simpson is only a suspect. However, with another identical glove being found at Rockingham, Simpson is a strong suspect and definitely implicated. There is something to be gained when you consider all the evidence in context-charges were brought but the case was too weak to be proven, which only goes to show that a weak case will not prevent a person from being damaged, as evidenced by the opinions on this forum.

[martin II]

If the glove is found at Rockingham, Simpson as the next of kin, is a suspect. If the glove is found at Bundy, Simpson as the next of kin, is a suspect. Simpson is implicated in any case. Given that, there is nothing to be gained by moving that glove.


The only way to make sure simpson is drawn into the case is to place evidence on his prooperty regardless of what the evidence may show later as that can always be manipulated to fit the frame.
As you know simpson was not next of kin.The browns were. ojs and the browns numbers were displayed on the kitchen message board at the phone used be a detective in nicoles kitchen and Daddy was next to oj number.imo

[William Anthony]

I may have misspoke but I do not believe any of Simpson's DNA was found on the Bundy glove.

[Irvdon]

The only way to make sure simpson is drawn into the case is to place evidence on his prooperty regardless of what the evidence may show later as that can always be manipulated to fit the frame.
As you know simpson was not next of kin.The browns were. ojs and the browns numbers were displayed on the kitchen message board at the phone used be a detective in nicoles kitchen and Daddy was next to oj number.imo

There was no way that Simpson was not going to be drawn into the case. As the ex husband he would be the first person detectives looked at. Once they discovered that he had no alibi, had a serious cut on his left hand and was dripping blood at about the same time Nicole and Ron were butchered, he would have been at the top of the list regardless of where the gloves were found.

[martin II]

If the glove is found at Rockingham, Simpson as the next of kin, is a suspect. If the glove is found at Bundy, Simpson as the next of kin, is a suspect. Simpson is implicated in any case. Given that, there is nothing to be gained by moving that glove.

as far as the gloves are concerned.
if there is no glove at rockingham and only the glove at bundy not eventually linked to oj which no one knew at that time. as the ex he is a suspect even though Vanhatter did lie on this issue.They go to his house and he is in Chicago.His alibi is he was home alone until about 10:45 geting ready for his trip.The glove transported to Rockingham and 'FOUND' immediately implicates him in the murders. That is why most experts say Fuhrman finding the glove was one of the most incriminating pieces of evidence against simpson. but then the problem became proving simpson was in the south walkway to drop the glove and the prosecution was not able to do so.imo

[martin II]

There was no way that Simpson was not going to be drawn into the case. As the ex husband he would be the first person detectives looked at. Once they discovered that he had no alibi, had a serious cut on his left hand and was dripping blood at about the same time Nicole and Ron were butchered, he would have been at the top of the list regardless of where the gloves were found.

But none of what you offer was known when the glove was moved to Rockingham.

[William Anthony]

as far as the gloves are concerned.
if there is no glove at rockingham and only the glove at bundy not eventually linked to oj which no one knew at that time. as the ex he is a suspect even though Vanhatter did lie on this issue.They go to his house and he is in Chicago.His alibi is he was home alone until about 10:45 geting ready for his trip.The glove transported to Rockingham and 'FOUND' immediately implicates him in the murders. That is why most experts say Fuhrman finding the glove was one of the most incriminating pieces of evidence against simpson. but then the problem became proving simpson was in the south walkway to drop the glove and the prosecution was not able to do so.imo

Excellent post and I agree totally.

[William Anthony]

There was no way that Simpson was not going to be drawn into the case. As the ex husband he would be the first person detectives looked at. Once they discovered that he had no alibi, had a serious cut on his left hand and was dripping blood at about the same time Nicole and Ron were butchered, he would have been at the top of the list regardless of where the gloves were found.

I do not think that anyone is arguing that Simpson would not have been a suspect, regardless of where the gloves were found. I think the point is that the alleged finding of the glove at Rockingham contributed to the rush to judgment that he was involved in the murders and made him a hundred times more the suspect. I think the alleged finding of the glove place the lead detectives in a rather perilous position as it related to the case being compromised. If they suspected that the glove had been planted, they realized that it would weaken the case against Simpson. Enter Vannatter and his handling of the blood and the missing blood. Of course no one know what actually happened but we must consider all the evidence in order to conclude whether of not there was reasonable doubt or, if, as some have claimed, an ignorant and racially biased jury let a butcher go free.

[bobaugust]

This is just an example of your obstinate refusal to admit when you are wrong and proclivity to post wrong information.

When you place all of Terry Lee's testimony in context, you see that he was attempting to explain away Martz's results and he testified that his results were "most likely" the result of a ghost in the machine. His notes however indicate the most likely explanation, when he said, "If not planted".


Read again what Dr. Lee said.

Q. And therefore, it has to be some artifact that's creating that trace result, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And what is your opinion of the artifact that's creating that trace result?
A. That artifact is most likely the result of carryover from previous analyses in that instrument.

Dr. Lee did not say it was most likely an artifact, he agreed it had to be some artifact that created the trace result. He then said the artifact is most likely the result of carryover from the previous analyses in that instrument. I was correct when I said Dr. Lee confirmed Martz’s suspicion that it was an artifact.

December 16, 1996 Dr. Lee

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
Q. Dr. Lee, these notes that you were shown before by Mr. Baker, he just had you read this one paragraph which -- would you read both paragraphs to the jury and then explain what these notes are all about.

Mr. Lambert read from a letter, mission statement, from Rockne Harmon to Roger Martz.)

A. (Reading:)
"If not planted, a convincing argument must be found for why the EDTA is present at those levels. Direct contamination from environment or contamination from the lab during the sample process and it planted – convincing arguments must be found to explain why the levels are so low. Is to say why would --" where did the rest of it go?

(Indicating to Elmo screen.)
Q. And what is your intent in setting forth those two possibilities in your notes?
A. This was just organizing my thinking as to what the issues were.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I have always stood corrected when I made mistakes and have sometimes hesitated to respond in a fashion similar to this rude one. You have not shown me that you understand evidence of inferences, so I will not take offense at your comments but will simply chalk it up to your ignorance of legal concepts and that arrogance that makes you think you are right, even though you have been proven wrong by others and me.

Wrong. You William have made many mistakes that you still refuse to admit to. You falsely claimed that one part per billion is equal to 1000 parts per million. I corrected your incorrect claim by posting the correct relationship that one part per billion is equal to one one-thousandth part per million, not 1000 parts per million. And then did you admit you were wrong? No you posted some of your own incorrect convoluted math to try and prove your false claim was true.

You falsely claimed that Mark Fuhrman said he saw two gloves under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet based only on Fuhrman saying the word “them” referring to what he saw under the plant leaves. And then you ignore the fact that Mark Fuhrman testified that when he said the word “them” he was referring to one glove and a knit cap, the same evidence that every witness testified to seeing under the plant leaves and that Fuhrman had previously testified to. You even tried to support your false claim by referring to an unclear one word answer Fuhrman gave to an improper compound question. And after Fuhrman was then asked a specific question and gave a clear answer to that question you claim he was contradicting his unclear answer.

And more recently when it was brought to your attention that Barry Scheck misstated the evidence saying that Simpson’s hair samples were taken right after he was arrested you claimed that “right after he’s arrested” means to you almost a month after he’s arrested.

I think your false claims are funny but I simply chalk them up to your ignorance of simple math, ignorance of what an improper compound question is, lack of common sense, and an arrogance that makes you think you are right even though you have been proven wrong.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

What is funny is that you get offended when someone points out your multitude of mistakes. So, lets put the conversation in its proper context. My explanation of Scheck's right after comment was made in response to your acceptance of testimony that immediate means as soon as possible within the investigation, or words to that effect.

There are no comparisons to your claim that when Barry Scheck said “right after he was arrested” means almost a month after he’s arrested. Whatever I said pertaining to events that happened within hours has absolutely nothing to do with your ridiculous claim.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The fact that no one else claimed to have seen a second glove at Bundy does not mean that MF did not see one, as evidenced by his testimony. You seem to want to discredit and call absurd and ridiculous thing you either don't understand or choose to ignore. ;):cool:

The fact is that none of the officers who were at Bundy two hours before Fuhrman arrived ever saw a second glove under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet next to the knit cap. Every officer who testified what the evidence was under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet said there was one glove and a knit cap. The blood and fiber evidence found on the killer’s right hand glove behind Kaelin’s room points to only one person as having handled that glove and that person is Orenthal James Simpson. That’s reality not the absurd and ridiculous fantasy you have imagined regarding two gloves at Bundy and Mark Fuhrman planting one of those gloves at Rockingham.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You are wrong again and you continue to refuse to admit when you are wrong, which embarrasses you, imho. The tests that Martz did were with EDTA. Here is the relevant testimony that will show that Terry Lee did not do the same three tests as Martz.

"Q. It would be important for you to know exactly what Rodger Martz
was attempting to do in arriving at your opinions and conclusions,
since you didn't do any test to determine EDTA in any sample,
correct?
A. Would you state that again? I'm not sure I followed it.
Q. Okay. Sure be happy to. You did absolutely no testing yourself,
correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you don't have -- never designed a test to determine the
presence or absence of EDTA; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you knew from your reading of material, that Rodger Martz had
never designed a test to determine the presence or absence of EDTA
in any material; correct?
A. Prior to the work that he did, that's correct."

Ergo, from this testimony it was impossible for Terry Lee to have done the same three tests that Martz did. It would be accurate if you said that Terry Lee claimed to have done the same three types of tests that Martz did. This is the constant type (pun intended) of misinformation you continue to post and stubbornly refuse to admit to when you are proven wrong. ;):cool:

When I said the same three tests I was referring to the kind of tests that Martz performed. I did not say that Dr. Lee conducted tests for EDTA or performed any of those tests on EDTA blood. By posting the names of those three tests I thought I cleared up any confusion you might have had, but it seems either you just didn’t comprehend what I said or you want to argue just to argue.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Read again what Dr. Lee said.

Q. And therefore, it has to be some artifact that's creating that trace result, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And what is your opinion of the artifact that's creating that trace result?
A. That artifact is most likely the result of carryover from previous analyses in that instrument.

Dr. Lee did not say it was most likely an artifact, he agreed it had to be some artifact that created the trace result. He then said the artifact is most likely the result of carryover from the previous analyses in that instrument. I was correct when I said Dr. Lee confirmed Martz’s suspicion that it was an artifact.

December 16, 1996 Dr. Lee

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:
Q. Dr. Lee, these notes that you were shown before by Mr. Baker, he just had you read this one paragraph which -- would you read both paragraphs to the jury and then explain what these notes are all about.

Mr. Lambert read from a letter, mission statement, from Rockne Harmon to Roger Martz.)

A. (Reading:)
"If not planted, a convincing argument must be found for why the EDTA is present at those levels. Direct contamination from environment or contamination from the lab during the sample process and it planted – convincing arguments must be found to explain why the levels are so low. Is to say why would --" where did the rest of it go?

(Indicating to Elmo screen.)
Q. And what is your intent in setting forth those two possibilities in your notes?
A. This was just organizing my thinking as to what the issues were.

bobaugust

That is the direct and I posted the cross. However, you need to re:read: the direct for you will see that his first thought process in the organization is "If not planted." Thanks for the posting. The key word to understanding his thought processes in "If", imho.

[William Anthony]

Wrong. You William have made many mistakes that you still refuse to admit to. You falsely claimed that one part per billion is equal to 1000 parts per million. I corrected your incorrect claim by posting the correct relationship that one part per billion is equal to one one-thousandth part per million, not 1000 parts per million. And then did you admit you were wrong? No you posted some of your own incorrect convoluted math to try and prove your false claim was true.

You falsely claimed that Mark Fuhrman said he saw two gloves under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet based only on Fuhrman saying the word “them” referring to what he saw under the plant leaves. And then you ignore the fact that Mark Fuhrman testified that when he said the word “them” he was referring to one glove and a knit cap, the same evidence that every witness testified to seeing under the plant leaves and that Fuhrman had previously testified to. You even tried to support your false claim by referring to an unclear one word answer Fuhrman gave to an improper compound question. And after Fuhrman was then asked a specific question and gave a clear answer to that question you claim he was contradicting his unclear answer.

And more recently when it was brought to your attention that Barry Scheck misstated the evidence saying that Simpson’s hair samples were taken right after he was arrested you claimed that “right after he’s arrested” means to you almost a month after he’s arrested.

I think your false claims are funny but I simply chalk them up to your ignorance of simple math, ignorance of what an improper compound question is, lack of common sense, and an arrogance that makes you think you are right even though you have been proven wrong.

bobaugust

I posted the math and you could not post anything to contradict it. Because you do not understand something, does not make it convoluted or false.

As it relates to MF's testimony, I posted the testimony and his use of the word them in response to a specific question about seeing one glove at Bundy and the follow up questions were he was not asked about the cap in several pages of testimony. Because you do not understand something, does not make it convoluted or false.

You are wrong again. I said that Scheck's use of the term right after could have meant the 27 days later just as you claim that immediate meant as soon as practicable within the investigation, or words to that effect. Because you do not understand something, does not make it convoluted or false.

In response to your last paragraph, I am reminded of something that I said before, which is that I will consider the source. IMHo, it is obvious to me that you do not understand math, English, testimony, legal concepts and your prejudice and bias clouds your common sense. Because you do not understand something, does not make it convoluted or false.

[William Anthony]

There are no comparisons to your claim that when Barry Scheck said “right after he was arrested” means almost a month after he’s arrested. Whatever I said pertaining to events that happened within hours has absolutely nothing to do with your ridiculous claim.

bobaugust

Another example of your assumed superiority and prejudice and bias, imho. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

The fact is that none of the officers who were at Bundy two hours before Fuhrman arrived ever saw a second glove under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet next to the knit cap. Every officer who testified what the evidence was under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet said there was one glove and a knit cap. The blood and fiber evidence found on the killer’s right hand glove behind Kaelin’s room points to only one person as having handled that glove and that person is Orenthal James Simpson. That’s reality not the absurd and ridiculous fantasy you have imagined regarding two gloves at Bundy and Mark Fuhrman planting one of those gloves at Rockingham.

bobaugust

I think that there is evidence that all people see different things, especially when it comes to eye witness testimony. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

When I said the same three tests I was referring to the kind of tests that Martz performed. I did not say that Dr. Lee conducted tests for EDTA or performed any of those tests on EDTA blood. By posting the names of those three tests I thought I cleared up any confusion you might have had, but it seems either you just didn’t comprehend what I said or you want to argue just to argue.

bobaugust

I see instead of admitting your post was untrue you now want to claim that you were referring to the same three kinds of tests. However, as I pointed out, your original post was incorrect and you obstinately refuse to admit you were wrong. The simple fact is the same three tests is not the same as the same three types of tests. The other simple fact is that not all chemicals or compounds react the same under testing. Ergo, Terry Lee did not have a basis to espouse his ghost in the machine theory, since he readily admitted that Martz was the first to design such an alleged test and that he, Terry Lee, did no testing of that type himself. Because you do not understand something, does not make it convoluted or false. It seems that you would rather argue than admit that your statement was incorrect.

[martin II]

When I said the same three tests I was referring to the kind of tests that Martz performed. I did not say that Dr. Lee conducted tests for EDTA or performed any of those tests on EDTA blood. By posting the names of those three tests I thought I cleared up any confusion you might have had, but it seems either you just didn’t comprehend what I said or you want to argue just to argue.

bobaugust

bob
if Martz test were created by him, how is it that Lee had done these kind of test 100 times?

[martin II]

first of all Martz used a type of machine that would be less likely to give him desired results based on what his task was. second he devised a method that had never been used before so to say that lee had previouisly done the same type of test that martz used is not possible.
Martz destroyed the details of his method which made is impossible for lee or anyone to review how he got the results he claimed he got.
Reiders was asked to explain Marts results on EDTA and he said 'YOU WILL HAVE TO ASK MARTZ THAT QUESTION" with those results Martz would have been dead.imo
Then there was the nonsense that the prosecution lawyer offered that the EDTA amount could have come from a big mac.imo

[tv]

I never have. If you think I did, then post it, please?

Post 5614 in this thread -- "I posted actual testimony and the remarks of the justice system when they investigated the admitted evidence planter, MF. Like it or not the fact that the admitted evidence planter planted evidence in this case was an issue in the criminal trial."

[William Anthony]

Post 5614 in this thread -- "I posted actual testimony and the remarks of the justice system when they investigated the admitted evidence planter, MF. Like it or not the fact that the admitted evidence planter planted evidence in this case was an issue in the criminal trial."

There is nothing in my quote where I said MF planted evidence in this case. I said MF was an admitted evidence planter and the fact that the admitted evidence planter, MF, planted evidence in this case was an issue in the criminal trial. Let me make it clear. One of the issues in the criminal trial was evidence planting as it pertains to the fact that MF admitted to planting evidence. Please, note that I am capable of saying MF planted evidence in the criminal trial, if that is what I chose to say. However, I have always said that it is my opinion that by the evidence and his admissions that MF planted evidence in the case and have never claimed that he did in fact plant evidence in the case.

[fgump2]

The fact that the cap was underneath some leaves has nothing to do with its arrangement. The cap neither appeared to be kicked or lost during a struggle, imho. It appeared to be neatly arranged underneath the leaves, imho.

The defense does not make claims. The prosecution called an expert, who testified to unscientific assumptions attempting to explain why the hairs in and on the cap did not fit the prosecution's case. The magnificent one handled those unscientific explanations with Ms. Moore's testimony and his theme, "If it does not fit...."
I believe that Johnnie Cochran and the rest of his team deserve more criticism than they got. Even most of the news media who thought OJS was guilty seemed reluctant to criticize Johnnie Cochran
My main criticism of him is that he broke the discovery rules twice. He failed to notify the prosecution about information he was obligated to give them. He did this twice, the first time on his opening statement, the second about Rosa Lopez.
In his opening statement J.C. referred to 14 different witnesses that the defense had failed to notify the prosecution about. The defense never called any of these witnesses. One of the witnesses was May Ann Gerchas who was going to testify that she saw four men (none of them black) in knit caps leaving the murder scene and speeding away in their car. M. A. Gerchas had had 34 lawsuits against her, some alleging fraud or non payment of bills. J.C. wisely never called her to testify.
The opening statement along shows that JC lacked either competence or honesty. JC’s problem with his opening statement is described in Vincent Bugliosi’s book Outrage starting at page 300.
Judge Ito also gave JC a rap on the knuckles for breaking the reciprocal discovery rules on Rosa Lopez. The defense claimed that Rosa Lopez would testify that white bronco that OJS used was at the Rockingham estate at the time of the murders.
Calling Rosa Lopez as a witness was a waste of time except for giving JC another opportunity to break the discovery rules and get chewed out by Judge Ito. The internet address for the judge’s statement is: http://walraven.org/simpson/lopez.html
It is bad enough to break the discovery rules twice in one trial but there are several reasons that make the whole thing ridiculous: First of all JC had plenty of time to prepare the opening statement; months I think. He also had some assistants working with him. After the judge sanctioned JC for the first violation, he should have been careful to make sure he didn’t make the same mistake again; and yet he not only did it again, he did it on a witness he claimed was fairly important. I can’t understand why anyone would call this behavior magnificent.
I think Johnnie Cochran was guilty of witness tampering with Rosa Lopez; but I could be wrong about that. I think he got her to change the times she noticed the white bronco on the murder night.
I find it a bad reflection about the supporters of JC and the dream team that they criticize the prosecution so harshly for trivial mistakes, and then ignore more serious mistakes by the defense. For example, the supporters of the dream team usually criticize the prosecution quite harshly the following mistakes:
- D Fung thinking he did a specific task that was done by his assistant, A Mazzola
- A Mazzola thinking she initialed an envelope when she hadn’t.
- A police photographer getting confused about the time he took a picture. The
photographer was suffering from congestive heart failure which causes memory
problems.
The supporters of the dream team also ignore the following mistakes by the defense and by OJS:
- Henry Lee forgetting what he wrote in one of his books about gathering hair from a person accused of a crime.
- The fact that Henry Lee thought some trowel marks in the cement were actually foot prints.
- Henry Lee saying one thing, and then B Scheck misquoting him in a way that
made things look better for the defense.
- OJS coming up with about several different stories about how he cut his fingers.
- OJS’s inability to remember what he was doing at the time of the murders, from 10:00 pm to 11:00 pm the night of the murders. He told the limo driver that he was asleep; he later claimed he was in his back yard practicing golf.
- Johnnie Cochran forgetting about the discovery rules.

It looks to me that the supporters of the dream team have on set of standards for
the prosecution, and another for the defense, or maybe anything goes for the defense. They strain on a gnat and swallow a camel.

[William Anthony]

I do not know why my computer is not allowing me to respond to frump2's last post. However, I have saved it. I have tried various ways to respond but it keeps coming up that the method is not implemented, but it did allow me to make this post and post on another thread?

[William Anthony]

I believe that Johnnie Cochran and the rest of his team deserve more criticism than they got. Even most of the news media who thought OJS was guilty seemed reluctant to criticize Johnnie Cochran
My main criticism of him is that he broke the discovery rules twice. He failed to notify the prosecution about information he was obligated to give them. He did this twice, the first time on his opening statement, the second about Rosa Lopez.
In his opening statement J.C. referred to 14 different witnesses that the defense had failed to notify the prosecution about. The defense never called any of these witnesses. One of the witnesses was May Ann Gerchas who was going to testify that she saw four men (none of them black) in knit caps leaving the murder scene and speeding away in their car. M. A. Gerchas had had 34 lawsuits against her, some alleging fraud or non payment of bills. J.C. wisely never called her to testify.
The opening statement along shows that JC lacked either competence or honesty. JC’s problem with his opening statement is described in Vincent Bugliosi’s book Outrage starting at page 300.
Judge Ito also gave JC a rap on the knuckles for breaking the reciprocal discovery rules on Rosa Lopez. The defense claimed that Rosa Lopez would testify that white bronco that OJS used was at the Rockingham estate at the time of the murders.
Calling Rosa Lopez as a witness was a waste of time except for giving JC another opportunity to break the discovery rules and get chewed out by Judge Ito. The internet address for the judge’s statement is: http://walraven.org/simpson/lopez.html
It is bad enough to break the discovery rules twice in one trial but there are several reasons that make the whole thing ridiculous: First of all JC had plenty of time to prepare the opening statement; months I think. He also had some assistants working with him. After the judge sanctioned JC for the first violation, he should have been careful to make sure he didn’t make the same mistake again; and yet he not only did it again, he did it on a witness he claimed was fairly important. I can’t understand why anyone would call this behavior magnificent.
I think Johnnie Cochran was guilty of witness tampering with Rosa Lopez; but I could be wrong about that. I think he got her to change the times she noticed the white bronco on the murder night.
I find it a bad reflection about the supporters of JC and the dream team that they criticize the prosecution so harshly for trivial mistakes, and then ignore more serious mistakes by the defense. For example, the supporters of the dream team usually criticize the prosecution quite harshly the following mistakes:
- D Fung thinking he did a specific task that was done by his assistant, A Mazzola
- A Mazzola thinking she initialed an envelope when she hadn’t.
- A police photographer getting confused about the time he took a picture. The
photographer was suffering from congestive heart failure which causes memory
problems.
The supporters of the dream team also ignore the following mistakes by the defense and by OJS:
- Henry Lee forgetting what he wrote in one of his books about gathering hair from a person accused of a crime.
- The fact that Henry Lee thought some trowel marks in the cement were actually foot prints.
- Henry Lee saying one thing, and then B Scheck misquoting him in a way that
made things look better for the defense.
- OJS coming up with about several different stories about how he cut his fingers.
- OJS’s inability to remember what he was doing at the time of the murders, from 10:00 pm to 11:00 pm the night of the murders. He told the limo driver that he was asleep; he later claimed he was in his back yard practicing golf.
- Johnnie Cochran forgetting about the discovery rules.

It looks to me that the supporters of the dream team have on set of standards for
the prosecution, and another for the defense, or maybe anything goes for the defense. They strain on a gnat and swallow a camel.

Since I cannot respond as I would like to, I will simply say that it is the Constitution and the case law, not the supporters, who place the difference burdens on the prosecution and the defense, because of the precautions that the innocent are not wrongly convicted. I had formed a response that explained the difference but cannot post it. The law and the Constitution makes the camel easier to swallow and until the law evolves to a point were the obligations are equal the camel will remain easier to swallow, imho, which is one of the oddities in the law.

[bobaugust]

That is the direct and I posted the cross. However, you need to re:read: the direct for you will see that his first thought process in the organization is "If not planted." Thanks for the posting. The key word to understanding his thought processes in "If", imho.

I think you’re confused again. Do you not see the words REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I posted the math and you could not post anything to contradict it. Because you do not understand something, does not make it convoluted or false.

As it relates to MF's testimony, I posted the testimony and his use of the word them in response to a specific question about seeing one glove at Bundy and the follow up questions were he was not asked about the cap in several pages of testimony. Because you do not understand something, does not make it convoluted or false.

You are wrong again. I said that Scheck's use of the term right after could have meant the 27 days later just as you claim that immediate meant as soon as practicable within the investigation, or words to that effect. Because you do not understand something, does not make it convoluted or false.

In response to your last paragraph, I am reminded of something that I said before, which is that I will consider the source. IMHo, it is obvious to me that you do not understand math, English, testimony, legal concepts and your prejudice and bias clouds your common sense. Because you do not understand something, does not make it convoluted or false.

Your claim that one part per billion is equal to 1000 parts per million is absolutely wrong because one part per billion is equal to 1/1000 parts per billion not 1000 parts per billion. No one understands your convoluted math because it’s incorrect math that makes no sense. This is the simple math that proves you wrong and anyone who is familiar with simple math understands it.

1 ppm = 1000 ppb
1 ppb = 1/1000 ppm

Once again you just can’t admit you are wrong even when you are proved wrong.

It is you who can not understand simple testimony. When Fuhrman was asked about a glove he responded using the words “the glove.” He then continued describing his position on the other side of the fence and said the word “them” referring to the evidence he could see under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet. That evidence is and has always been one glove and a knit cap. Your claim that Fuhrman admitted to seeing two gloves under the plant leaves is a ridiculous imagined fantasy and contradicted by the actual evidence in this case.

No you didn’t say “could have meant.” In your post #5664 you said, “I am not disappointed that right meant some days later.” The fact is that it was 27 days later or almost a month later.

Just because you William can’t comprehend you are wrong even when you are proved wrong does not make your false claims true, it only shows your lack of integrity. These examples as well as the one you are evidently too embarrassed even to address, that a one word answer to an improper compound question is an unreliable answer, makes it very clear to anyone who has followed these discussions that you just can’t admit you are wrong even when you are proved wrong.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Another example of your assumed superiority and prejudice and bias, imho. ;):cool:

Just because you William can’t comprehend you are wrong even when you are proved wrong does not make your false claims true, it only shows your lack of integrity.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I think that there is evidence that all people see different things, especially when it comes to eye witness testimony. ;):cool:

All the witnesses in this case who testified to seeing the evidence under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet testified to seeing one glove and a knit cap. That is the evidence in this case despite your ridiculous fantasy that there were two gloves and a knit cap under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I see instead of admitting your post was untrue you now want to claim that you were referring to the same three kinds of tests. However, as I pointed out, your original post was incorrect and you obstinately refuse to admit you were wrong. The simple fact is the same three tests is not the same as the same three types of tests. The other simple fact is that not all chemicals or compounds react the same under testing. Ergo, Terry Lee did not have a basis to espouse his ghost in the machine theory, since he readily admitted that Martz was the first to design such an alleged test and that he, Terry Lee, did no testing of that type himself. Because you do not understand something, does not make it convoluted or false. It seems that you would rather argue than admit that your statement was incorrect.

Just because you didn’t understand what I said does not make me wrong it only shows your inability to comprehend what I said. Your opinion has no credibility that Dr. Lee did not have the basis to offer a reasonable explanation for the trace amount of EDTA that Martz’s test results indicated. Your unqualified opinion only shows your ignorance, prejudice, and bias.

December 16, 1996 Dr. Terry Lee
Q. Now, have you reviewed the various tests performed by FBI Agent Martz on certain evidence samples from this case?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Can you tell the jury precisely what you have reviewed in preparation for coming here?
A. I reviewed the analyses that were submitted to the -- to the I.G.'s -- the Court, related to direct analyses of the samples. There was also a set of analyses that were termed validation studies which I believe were not done by Agent Martz but by other people at the FBI. I reviewed Martz's testimony that he gave in the criminal trial. I reviewed Dr. Rieders' testimony that he gave at the criminal trial. I reviewed Dr. Rieders' testimony that he gave in this trial.
Q. Have you been asked to determine from the test results of Agent Martz whether or not the evidence samples tested by Agent Martz could have come from test tubes treated with the chemical EDTA?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you formed an opinion in that regard?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. What is that opinion?
A. My opinion is that it could not have come from those test tubes.
*

Q. Now, one of the tests that Agent Martz performed is a test that he called a negative ion test. What kind of a test is that, sir?
A. That refers to negative ion mass spectrometry. In mass spectrometry, you have the option of looking at either positive ions or negative ions. In that particular analysis, Agent Martz found no evidence that there was any contamination in the blood samples by EDTA.
Q. When Agent Martz performed the negative ion test, was he able to see any EDTA at all in the evidence samples?
A. No.
Q. Have you yourself ever performed a negative ion test?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you reviewed the results of other persons who have performed them?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Are you familiar with those tests?
A. Very familiar.
*

Q. Are you familiar with the profession known as liquid chromatography?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. One of the processes that is at issue in this case is a cell called HPLC test. Are you familiar with that test?
A. Yes.
Q. How long have you been involved in doing HPLC tests?
A. Since my graduate work, so it would be in excess of 20 years.
Q. How many times have you yourself run tests using the HPLC method?
A. Hundreds of times.
*

Q. One of the other tests at issue in this case involves the use of liquid chromatography combined with tandem mass spectrometry using an electrospray interface, what Dr. Rieders referred to as LCESMSMS; are you familiar with that technology?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. How many times have you, yourself, run tests using such technology?
A. Hundreds of times.
*

Q. Finally, Dr. Lee, Agent Martz also performed a so-called positive ion mode test. What kind of test is that, sir?
A. That's a test exactly like the negative ion test except you're looking at the positive ions instead of the negative ions.
Q. That's another form of the LCESMSMS testing technology?
A. That's correct.
Q. Have you yourself performed such tests?
A. Yes.
Q. How many times?
A. Hundreds of times.
Q. Have you ever reviewed the test results of other people?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. How often?
A. Hundreds of times.
Q. Now, incidentally, Dr. Lee, are you familiar with the equipment that Agent Martz used to perform these tests?
A. Yes. We have the same equipment in our laboratory.
Q. You have the very same equipment you used in your lab?
A. It's the same mass spectrometry and the same electrospray source, yes.
Q. Have you yourself used that equipment?
A. Yes.
Q. So you're familiar with the equipment?
A. I'm very familiar with it.

bobaugust

[martin II]

I believe that Johnnie Cochran and the rest of his team deserve more criticism than they got. Even most of the news media who thought OJS was guilty seemed reluctant to criticize Johnnie Cochran
My main criticism of him is that he broke the discovery rules twice. He failed to notify the prosecution about information he was obligated to give them. He did this twice, the first time on his opening statement, the second about Rosa Lopez.
In his opening statement J.C. referred to 14 different witnesses that the defense had failed to notify the prosecution about. The defense never called any of these witnesses. One of the witnesses was May Ann Gerchas who was going to testify that she saw four men (none of them black) in knit caps leaving the murder scene and speeding away in their car. M. A. Gerchas had had 34 lawsuits against her, some alleging fraud or non payment of bills. J.C. wisely never called her to testify.
The opening statement along shows that JC lacked either competence or honesty. JC’s problem with his opening statement is described in Vincent Bugliosi’s book Outrage starting at page 300.
Judge Ito also gave JC a rap on the knuckles for breaking the reciprocal discovery rules on Rosa Lopez. The defense claimed that Rosa Lopez would testify that white bronco that OJS used was at the Rockingham estate at the time of the murders.
Calling Rosa Lopez as a witness was a waste of time except for giving JC another opportunity to break the discovery rules and get chewed out by Judge Ito. The internet address for the judge’s statement is: http://walraven.org/simpson/lopez.html
It is bad enough to break the discovery rules twice in one trial but there are several reasons that make the whole thing ridiculous: First of all JC had plenty of time to prepare the opening statement; months I think. He also had some assistants working with him. After the judge sanctioned JC for the first violation, he should have been careful to make sure he didn’t make the same mistake again; and yet he not only did it again, he did it on a witness he claimed was fairly important. I can’t understand why anyone would call this behavior magnificent.
I think Johnnie Cochran was guilty of witness tampering with Rosa Lopez; but I could be wrong about that. I think he got her to change the times she noticed the white bronco on the murder night.
I find it a bad reflection about the supporters of JC and the dream team that they criticize the prosecution so harshly for trivial mistakes, and then ignore more serious mistakes by the defense. For example, the supporters of the dream team usually criticize the prosecution quite harshly the following mistakes:
- D Fung thinking he did a specific task that was done by his assistant, A Mazzola
- A Mazzola thinking she initialed an envelope when she hadn’t.
- A police photographer getting confused about the time he took a picture. The
photographer was suffering from congestive heart failure which causes memory
problems.
The supporters of the dream team also ignore the following mistakes by the defense and by OJS:
- Henry Lee forgetting what he wrote in one of his books about gathering hair from a person accused of a crime.
- The fact that Henry Lee thought some trowel marks in the cement were actually foot prints.
- Henry Lee saying one thing, and then B Scheck misquoting him in a way that
made things look better for the defense.
- OJS coming up with about several different stories about how he cut his fingers.
- OJS’s inability to remember what he was doing at the time of the murders, from 10:00 pm to 11:00 pm the night of the murders. He told the limo driver that he was asleep; he later claimed he was in his back yard practicing golf.
- Johnnie Cochran forgetting about the discovery rules.

It looks to me that the supporters of the dream team have on set of standards for
the prosecution, and another for the defense, or maybe anything goes for the defense. They strain on a gnat and swallow a camel.

so you think MAZZOLA testifying more than once that she, as a regular way of identifying samples she process just had some mental lapse on ojs blood samples when she THOUGHT she was was placing her initials on the bindels and did not realize she didn't until told by the prosecution that she didn't.
imo

[martin II]

I believe that Johnnie Cochran and the rest of his team deserve more criticism than they got. Even most of the news media who thought OJS was guilty seemed reluctant to criticize Johnnie Cochran
My main criticism of him is that he broke the discovery rules twice. He failed to notify the prosecution about information he was obligated to give them. He did this twice, the first time on his opening statement, the second about Rosa Lopez.
In his opening statement J.C. referred to 14 different witnesses that the defense had failed to notify the prosecution about. The defense never called any of these witnesses. One of the witnesses was May Ann Gerchas who was going to testify that she saw four men (none of them black) in knit caps leaving the murder scene and speeding away in their car. M. A. Gerchas had had 34 lawsuits against her, some alleging fraud or non payment of bills. J.C. wisely never called her to testify.
The opening statement along shows that JC lacked either competence or honesty. JC’s problem with his opening statement is described in Vincent Bugliosi’s book Outrage starting at page 300.
Judge Ito also gave JC a rap on the knuckles for breaking the reciprocal discovery rules on Rosa Lopez. The defense claimed that Rosa Lopez would testify that white bronco that OJS used was at the Rockingham estate at the time of the murders.
Calling Rosa Lopez as a witness was a waste of time except for giving JC another opportunity to break the discovery rules and get chewed out by Judge Ito. The internet address for the judge’s statement is: http://walraven.org/simpson/lopez.html
It is bad enough to break the discovery rules twice in one trial but there are several reasons that make the whole thing ridiculous: First of all JC had plenty of time to prepare the opening statement; months I think. He also had some assistants working with him. After the judge sanctioned JC for the first violation, he should have been careful to make sure he didn’t make the same mistake again; and yet he not only did it again, he did it on a witness he claimed was fairly important. I can’t understand why anyone would call this behavior magnificent.
I think Johnnie Cochran was guilty of witness tampering with Rosa Lopez; but I could be wrong about that. I think he got her to change the times she noticed the white bronco on the murder night.
I find it a bad reflection about the supporters of JC and the dream team that they criticize the prosecution so harshly for trivial mistakes, and then ignore more serious mistakes by the defense. For example, the supporters of the dream team usually criticize the prosecution quite harshly the following mistakes:
- D Fung thinking he did a specific task that was done by his assistant, A Mazzola
- A Mazzola thinking she initialed an envelope when she hadn’t.
- A police photographer getting confused about the time he took a picture. The
photographer was suffering from congestive heart failure which causes memory
problems.
The supporters of the dream team also ignore the following mistakes by the defense and by OJS:
- Henry Lee forgetting what he wrote in one of his books about gathering hair from a person accused of a crime.
- The fact that Henry Lee thought some trowel marks in the cement were actually foot prints.
- Henry Lee saying one thing, and then B Scheck misquoting him in a way that
made things look better for the defense.
- OJS coming up with about several different stories about how he cut his fingers.
- OJS’s inability to remember what he was doing at the time of the murders, from 10:00 pm to 11:00 pm the night of the murders. He told the limo driver that he was asleep; he later claimed he was in his back yard practicing golf.
- Johnnie Cochran forgetting about the discovery rules.

It looks to me that the supporters of the dream team have on set of standards for
the prosecution, and another for the defense, or maybe anything goes for the defense. They strain on a gnat and swallow a camel.

Are you sure oj claimed he was in his BACK YARD PLAYING GOLF ON 6/12?. What are the SEVERAL ways oj claimed he cut his finger on 6/12?

[martin II]

Fgunp2
You have shown a interest in the glove being moved or not moved to Rockingham.
Do you have ideas as to how the glove got to where it was found in the south
walkway of ojs home.

[weezer]

Fgunp2
You have shown a interest in the glove being moved or not moved to Rockingham.
Do you have ideas as to how the glove got to where it was found in the south
walkway of ojs home.

:seeya:oh, oh let me! after murdering Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown and while trying to access his property without being seen, orenthal dropped the glove.

[William Anthony]

I think you’re confused again. Do you not see the words REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT?

bobaugust

I truly thought that you would understand this simple legal concept. Direct, which I said, is a manner of questioning in which the examiner is not permitted to a certain degree to ask questions that suggest the answer. It matters not that it is direct of redirect, since it is DIRECT. I apologize if I thought you knew more than you did.

[tv]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9119039]There is nothing in my quote where I said MF planted evidence in this case. I said MF was an admitted evidence planter and the fact that the admitted evidence planter, MF, planted evidence in this case was an issue in the criminal trial. Let me make it clear. One of the issues in the criminal trial was evidence planting as it pertains to the fact that MF admitted to planting evidence. Please, note that I am capable of saying MF planted evidence in the criminal trial, if that is what I chose to say. However, I have always said that it is my opinion that by the evidence and his admissions that MF planted evidence in the case and have never claimed that he did in fact plant evidence in the case.[QUOTE]

"I posted actual testimony and the remarks of the justice system when they investigated the admitted evidence planter, MF. Like it or not the fact that the admitted evidence planter planted evidence in this case was an issue in the criminal trial."

You stated here that it is a FACT that Mark Fuhrman planted evidence in this case. This is only one example of you making this statement. It doesn't matter to me if you say it's a fact that he planted evidence but please don't insult us all by denying you have said it.

[William Anthony]

Your claim that one part per billion is equal to 1000 parts per million is absolutely wrong because one part per billion is equal to 1/1000 parts per billion not 1000 parts per billion. No one understands your convoluted math because it’s incorrect math that makes no sense. This is the simple math that proves you wrong and anyone who is familiar with simple math understands it.

1 ppm = 1000 ppb
1 ppb = 1/1000 ppm

Once again you just can’t admit you are wrong even when you are proved wrong.

It is you who can not understand simple testimony. When Fuhrman was asked about a glove he responded using the words “the glove.” He then continued describing his position on the other side of the fence and said the word “them” referring to the evidence he could see under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet. That evidence is and has always been one glove and a knit cap. Your claim that Fuhrman admitted to seeing two gloves under the plant leaves is a ridiculous imagined fantasy and contradicted by the actual evidence in this case.

No you didn’t say “could have meant.” In your post #5664 you said, “I am not disappointed that right meant some days later.” The fact is that it was 27 days later or almost a month later.

Just because you William can’t comprehend you are wrong even when you are proved wrong does not make your false claims true, it only shows your lack of integrity. These examples as well as the one you are evidently too embarrassed even to address, that a one word answer to an improper compound question is an unreliable answer, makes it very clear to anyone who has followed these discussions that you just can’t admit you are wrong even when you are proved wrong.

bobaugust

The more you call my math convoluted the more I understand that you are not well adept at math, imho. The word part in math and in plaint English means a fraction. The clear import of what Martz was told by the EPA representative and what you nor he seemed to understand is that a Part per million (1/100,000) when multiplied by a thousand parts per million is a part per billion, i/1000 x 1/1,000=1/billion.

The only thing that is iaagined and ridiculous, with all due respect, is your refusal to admit that MF used the word them when specifically asked about seeing one glove and was not asked about seeing a glove and a cap.

We have had several posts on the subject of what right after and immediate meant. You show you integrity by taking a sentence out of context. However, even the sentence you quoted did not say that was what he meant. It says that I was not disappointed at his use of the phrase to describe some days later.

Unfortunately, you are again incorrect, because I admit when I am wrong. You simply call me wrong even though you can't prove it, because, imho, you think you are always right, which we know is wrong. Do you treally want to talk integrity when you blamed your spell checker when you deleted testimony? Everyone with common sense, knows there is no reason to spell check testimony that you quote. Please, stop the excuses, because, imho, they tend to embarrass yourself?

[William Anthony]

Just because you didn’t understand what I said does not make me wrong it only shows your inability to comprehend what I said. Your opinion has no credibility that Dr. Lee did not have the basis to offer a reasonable explanation for the trace amount of EDTA that Martz’s test results indicated. Your unqualified opinion only shows your ignorance, prejudice, and bias.

December 16, 1996 Dr. Terry Lee
Q. Now, have you reviewed the various tests performed by FBI Agent Martz on certain evidence samples from this case?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Can you tell the jury precisely what you have reviewed in preparation for coming here?
A. I reviewed the analyses that were submitted to the -- to the I.G.'s -- the Court, related to direct analyses of the samples. There was also a set of analyses that were termed validation studies which I believe were not done by Agent Martz but by other people at the FBI. I reviewed Martz's testimony that he gave in the criminal trial. I reviewed Dr. Rieders' testimony that he gave at the criminal trial. I reviewed Dr. Rieders' testimony that he gave in this trial.
Q. Have you been asked to determine from the test results of Agent Martz whether or not the evidence samples tested by Agent Martz could have come from test tubes treated with the chemical EDTA?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you formed an opinion in that regard?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. What is that opinion?
A. My opinion is that it could not have come from those test tubes.
*

Q. Now, one of the tests that Agent Martz performed is a test that he called a negative ion test. What kind of a test is that, sir?
A. That refers to negative ion mass spectrometry. In mass spectrometry, you have the option of looking at either positive ions or negative ions. In that particular analysis, Agent Martz found no evidence that there was any contamination in the blood samples by EDTA.
Q. When Agent Martz performed the negative ion test, was he able to see any EDTA at all in the evidence samples?
A. No.
Q. Have you yourself ever performed a negative ion test?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you reviewed the results of other persons who have performed them?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Are you familiar with those tests?
A. Very familiar.
*

Q. Are you familiar with the profession known as liquid chromatography?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. One of the processes that is at issue in this case is a cell called HPLC test. Are you familiar with that test?
A. Yes.
Q. How long have you been involved in doing HPLC tests?
A. Since my graduate work, so it would be in excess of 20 years.
Q. How many times have you yourself run tests using the HPLC method?
A. Hundreds of times.
*

Q. One of the other tests at issue in this case involves the use of liquid chromatography combined with tandem mass spectrometry using an electrospray interface, what Dr. Rieders referred to as LCESMSMS; are you familiar with that technology?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. How many times have you, yourself, run tests using such technology?
A. Hundreds of times.
*

Q. Finally, Dr. Lee, Agent Martz also performed a so-called positive ion mode test. What kind of test is that, sir?
A. That's a test exactly like the negative ion test except you're looking at the positive ions instead of the negative ions.
Q. That's another form of the LCESMSMS testing technology?
A. That's correct.
Q. Have you yourself performed such tests?
A. Yes.
Q. How many times?
A. Hundreds of times.
Q. Have you ever reviewed the test results of other people?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. How often?
A. Hundreds of times.
Q. Now, incidentally, Dr. Lee, are you familiar with the equipment that Agent Martz used to perform these tests?
A. Yes. We have the same equipment in our laboratory.
Q. You have the very same equipment you used in your lab?
A. It's the same mass spectrometry and the same electrospray source, yes.
Q. Have you yourself used that equipment?
A. Yes.
Q. So you're familiar with the equipment?
A. I'm very familiar with it.

bobaugust

Please. stop embarrassing yourself? The same three tests is not the same as the same three types of tests. Terri Lee admitted that he had never done any testing on EDTA was in human blood and that Martz was the first to design an alleged test to accomplish that purpose. Terry Lee only reviewed Martz results and did not preform that test. Terri Lee admitted he could not have performed that test since he did not know Martz's procedures. There was no scientific literature provided, since this was the first alleged test and there would have been no literature on the ghost in the machine misconstruing those results. Ergo, Terry Lee had not basis to form his conclusion.

[Renee01]

Anyone heard anything from Marcia Clark and/or Chris Darden? I know they were doing commentating on various shows, but it's been awhile since I have seen them.

I read that Marcia got divorced for a third time to that musician.

[martin II]

Anyone heard anything from Marcia Clark and/or Chris Darden? I know they were doing commentating on various shows, but it's been awhile since I have seen them.

I read that Marcia got divorced for a third time to that musician.

Chris Darden is a defense lawyer. M Clarke i don't know.

[martin II]

:seeya:oh, oh let me! after murdering Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown and while trying to access his property without being seen, orenthal dropped the glove.

As usual you make a claim without proof.

[weezer]

As usual you make a claim without proof.

only an NG would think that orenthal's hair, blood, hat, glove, fiber and size 12 BM pigeon-toed footprints at the murder scene aren't proof. LOL

[martin II]

only an NG would think that orenthal's hair, blood, hat, glove, fiber and size 12 BM pigeon-toed footprints at the murder scene aren't proof. LOL

You seem to be confused.

My question was to another poster asking how did he/she believe the glove got to the south walkway at Rockingham.

You decided to answer that 'OJ Dropped the glove"

Now you are responding about what you say was found at the Bundy crime scene.
Maby you should read my quesiton to the poster instead of changing the subject.imo

[bobaugust]

I truly thought that you would understand this simple legal concept. Direct, which I said, is a manner of questioning in which the examiner is not permitted to a certain degree to ask questions that suggest the answer. It matters not that it is direct of redirect, since it is DIRECT. I apologize if I thought you knew more than you did.

Evidently you don’t know what you said, Your words, “That is the direct and I posted the cross.”

What I posted was not the direct it was the redirect after the cross.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The more you call my math convoluted the more I understand that you are not well adept at math, imho. The word part in math and in plaint English means a fraction. The clear import of what Martz was told by the EPA representative and what you nor he seemed to understand is that a Part per million (1/100,000) when multiplied by a thousand parts per million is a part per billion, i/1000 x 1/1,000=1/billion.

The only thing that is iaagined and ridiculous, with all due respect, is your refusal to admit that MF used the word them when specifically asked about seeing one glove and was not asked about seeing a glove and a cap.

We have had several posts on the subject of what right after and immediate meant. You show you integrity by taking a sentence out of context. However, even the sentence you quoted did not say that was what he meant. It says that I was not disappointed at his use of the phrase to describe some days later.

Unfortunately, you are again incorrect, because I admit when I am wrong. You simply call me wrong even though you can't prove it, because, imho, you think you are always right, which we know is wrong. Do you treally want to talk integrity when you blamed your spell checker when you deleted testimony? Everyone with common sense, knows there is no reason to spell check testimony that you quote. Please, stop the excuses, because, imho, they tend to embarrass yourself?

You can try and spin this all you want and try to blame Martz for your false claim but what ever you’re trying to say now doesn’t change all the postings where you falsely claimed that one part per billion is equal to 1000 parts per million. You were wrong then and you’re still wrong and your refusal to admit to that fact continues to show your lack of integrity.

Uelmen’s questions and Fuhrman’s answers speak for them self. Fuhrman was asked about one glove and his answers were about one glove before he said the word “them” and after he said the word “them.” It is clear that when Fuhrman said “them” he was referring to the evidence he saw under the plant leaves. The evidence he and every other witness testified to seeing, a glove and a knit cap. Your claim that when Fuhrman said the word “them” he was referring to two gloves in completely ridiculous and only shows your prejudice and bias towards someone you have make clear that you despise.


July 5, 1994 Preliminary Hearing Mark Fuhrman

Q. How far would you say you were from where the bodies were located?
A. I was directly above the female victim, which was probably three feet. The male victim would have been ten feet, twelve feet.
Q All right. And from that vantage point, you first observed the glove that you told us about?
A. Not first, no.
Q. When did you first observe it?
A We had flashlights. We were looking at the female victim. We looked at the male victim. I noticed the glove when I walked around to the -- after I exited the residence the first time and walked around to the side -- or the north side, north perimeter of 875 Bundy. There's an iron fence and through that iron fence you can get very close to the male victim. And looking there I could see them down at his feet.
Q. All right. The glove was located at the feet of the male victim?
A. Yes.
Q. What --
A. At the foot. At one of the feet.
Q Was it obscured by any sort of plant?
A There was a plant that kind of cascaded over the top of one portion of it, yes. That's why it was easier to see from that location to the north.

You’re the one trying to take this issue out of context. Barry Scheck either intentionally or unintentionally misstated that Simpson’s hair samples were taken right after he was arrested (on June 17) to insinuate that Simpson’s hair samples had dandruff five days after the murders and maybe five days earlier, when in fact the only evidence in this case as to when Simpson’s had dandruff was on July 13 a month after the murders. There is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on May 23, or on June 12, or on June 17, only on July 13. The claim you made trying to defend Scheck’s deceiving comment that “right after he was arrested” means 27 days after he was arrested is completely ridiculous.

The moderator checked out my explanation that my Netscape Navigator spell checker inadvertently changed one word in the testimony and she not only told you that she advised you to drop it. There was no reason for me to change that word since it had nothing to do with I was explaining to you at the time. Your inability to comprehend that by still crying about this and not let it go again shows your lack of integrity and lack of credibility.

And again you have ignored your biggest embarrassment where you, as someone studying law, still can’t understand why a one word answer to an improper compound question is not reliable. Funny.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Please. stop embarrassing yourself? The same three tests is not the same as the same three types of tests. Terri Lee admitted that he had never done any testing on EDTA was in human blood and that Martz was the first to design an alleged test to accomplish that purpose. Terry Lee only reviewed Martz results and did not preform that test. Terri Lee admitted he could not have performed that test since he did not know Martz's procedures. There was no scientific literature provided, since this was the first alleged test and there would have been no literature on the ghost in the machine misconstruing those results. Ergo, Terry Lee had not basis to form his conclusion.

The only one embarrassing him self here regarding this issue is you William. Not only do you not seem to be able to understand Dr. Lee’s experience and expertise regarding the technology, the instruments, and the tests Martz performed you also can’t seem to understand the evidence Dr. Lee used to come to his conclusions and opinions. That’s why your ridiculous ghost comments and your opinion regarding Dr. Lee have no credibility.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Evidently you don’t know what you said, Your words, “That is the direct and I posted the cross.”

What I posted was not the direct it was the redirect after the cross.

bobaugust

You do not understand what I said. DIRECT IS DIRECT WHETHER OR NOT IT IS RE. DIRECT IS A STYLE OF QUESTIONING.

[William Anthony]

You can try and spin this all you want and try to blame Martz for your false claim but what ever you’re trying to say now doesn’t change all the postings where you falsely claimed that one part per billion is equal to 1000 parts per million. You were wrong then and you’re still wrong and your refusal to admit to that fact continues to show your lack of integrity.

Uelmen’s questions and Fuhrman’s answers speak for them self. Fuhrman was asked about one glove and his answers were about one glove before he said the word “them” and after he said the word “them.” It is clear that when Fuhrman said “them” he was referring to the evidence he saw under the plant leaves. The evidence he and every other witness testified to seeing, a glove and a knit cap. Your claim that when Fuhrman said the word “them” he was referring to two gloves in completely ridiculous and only shows your prejudice and bias towards someone you have make clear that you despise.


July 5, 1994 Preliminary Hearing Mark Fuhrman

Q. How far would you say you were from where the bodies were located?
A. I was directly above the female victim, which was probably three feet. The male victim would have been ten feet, twelve feet.
Q All right. And from that vantage point, you first observed the glove that you told us about?
A. Not first, no.
Q. When did you first observe it?
A We had flashlights. We were looking at the female victim. We looked at the male victim. I noticed the glove when I walked around to the -- after I exited the residence the first time and walked around to the side -- or the north side, north perimeter of 875 Bundy. There's an iron fence and through that iron fence you can get very close to the male victim. And looking there I could see them down at his feet.
Q. All right. The glove was located at the feet of the male victim?
A. Yes.
Q. What --
A. At the foot. At one of the feet.
Q Was it obscured by any sort of plant?
A There was a plant that kind of cascaded over the top of one portion of it, yes. That's why it was easier to see from that location to the north.

You’re the one trying to take this issue out of context. Barry Scheck either intentionally or unintentionally misstated that Simpson’s hair samples were taken right after he was arrested (on June 17) to insinuate that Simpson’s hair samples had dandruff five days after the murders and maybe five days earlier, when in fact the only evidence in this case as to when Simpson’s had dandruff was on July 13 a month after the murders. There is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on May 23, or on June 12, or on June 17, only on July 13. The claim you made trying to defend Scheck’s deceiving comment that “right after he was arrested” means 27 days after he was arrested is completely ridiculous.

The moderator checked out my explanation that my Netscape Navigator spell checker inadvertently changed one word in the testimony and she not only told you that she advised you to drop it. There was no reason for me to change that word since it had nothing to do with I was explaining to you at the time. Your inability to comprehend that by still crying about this and not let it go again shows your lack of integrity and lack of credibility.

And again you have ignored your biggest embarrassment where you, as someone studying law, still can’t understand why a one word answer to an improper compound question is not reliable. Funny.

bobaugust

Your limited knowledge of legal concepts really hampers you, imho. The preliminary hearing is not a trial and the defense gets a chance to see the weaknesses in the prosecution's case and ask questions, which is why the prosecution favors a grand jury indictment. The weaknesses are then exposed during trial in front of the trier of fact, as Bailey brilliantly did. The soon to be convicted perjurer was trapped by Bailey in more ways than one.

You, who have not studied law, do not realize that a question is not improper unless objected to and the objection sustained. It is funny that you think you know so much and will not educate yourself but just believe that because you say something it is true. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

You can try and spin this all you want and try to blame Martz for your false claim but what ever you’re trying to say now doesn’t change all the postings where you falsely claimed that one part per billion is equal to 1000 parts per million. You were wrong then and you’re still wrong and your refusal to admit to that fact continues to show your lack of integrity.

Uelmen’s questions and Fuhrman’s answers speak for them self. Fuhrman was asked about one glove and his answers were about one glove before he said the word “them” and after he said the word “them.” It is clear that when Fuhrman said “them” he was referring to the evidence he saw under the plant leaves. The evidence he and every other witness testified to seeing, a glove and a knit cap. Your claim that when Fuhrman said the word “them” he was referring to two gloves in completely ridiculous and only shows your prejudice and bias towards someone you have make clear that you despise.


July 5, 1994 Preliminary Hearing Mark Fuhrman

Q. How far would you say you were from where the bodies were located?
A. I was directly above the female victim, which was probably three feet. The male victim would have been ten feet, twelve feet.
Q All right. And from that vantage point, you first observed the glove that you told us about?
A. Not first, no.
Q. When did you first observe it?
A We had flashlights. We were looking at the female victim. We looked at the male victim. I noticed the glove when I walked around to the -- after I exited the residence the first time and walked around to the side -- or the north side, north perimeter of 875 Bundy. There's an iron fence and through that iron fence you can get very close to the male victim. And looking there I could see them down at his feet.
Q. All right. The glove was located at the feet of the male victim?
A. Yes.
Q. What --
A. At the foot. At one of the feet.
Q Was it obscured by any sort of plant?
A There was a plant that kind of cascaded over the top of one portion of it, yes. That's why it was easier to see from that location to the north.

You’re the one trying to take this issue out of context. Barry Scheck either intentionally or unintentionally misstated that Simpson’s hair samples were taken right after he was arrested (on June 17) to insinuate that Simpson’s hair samples had dandruff five days after the murders and maybe five days earlier, when in fact the only evidence in this case as to when Simpson’s had dandruff was on July 13 a month after the murders. There is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on May 23, or on June 12, or on June 17, only on July 13. The claim you made trying to defend Scheck’s deceiving comment that “right after he was arrested” means 27 days after he was arrested is completely ridiculous.

The moderator checked out my explanation that my Netscape Navigator spell checker inadvertently changed one word in the testimony and she not only told you that she advised you to drop it. There was no reason for me to change that word since it had nothing to do with I was explaining to you at the time. Your inability to comprehend that by still crying about this and not let it go again shows your lack of integrity and lack of credibility.

And again you have ignored your biggest embarrassment where you, as someone studying law, still can’t understand why a one word answer to an improper compound question is not reliable. Funny.

bobaugust

Let's not talk about the antics of the former moderator on this board or the one she started. There is no need to spell check a quote, common sense. Yes, the former moderator tried to save you and told us to drop the subject. However, fair minded individuals realize the flaw in your claim. You tried to delete the very thing that I have proven mathematically. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

The only one embarrassing him self here regarding this issue is you William. Not only do you not seem to be able to understand Dr. Lee’s experience and expertise regarding the technology, the instruments, and the tests Martz performed you also can’t seem to understand the evidence Dr. Lee used to come to his conclusions and opinions. That’s why your ridiculous ghost comments and your opinion regarding Dr. Lee have no credibility.

bobaugust

It is ridiculous, imho, for you to claim that Terri Lee did the same three experiments as Martz, when his testimony contradicts another of your false claims. He could have had no experience in doing the test Martz did on his own blood, since Martz was the first to claim he had so done and Terry Lee testified he did not know the procedures Martz used. Ergo, Terry Lee had no experience, using the machine or the technology in the test Martz allegedly devised. Enter his ghost in the machine theory. ;):cool:

[martin II]

You do not understand what I said. DIRECT IS DIRECT WHETHER OR NOT IT IS RE. DIRECT IS A STYLE OF QUESTIONING.

Poor Bob

[William Anthony]

Correction-The more you call my math convoluted the more I understand that you are not well adept at math, imho. The word part in math and in plain English means a fraction. The clear import of what Martz was told by the EPA representative and what you nor he seemed to understand is that a Part per million (1/100,000) when multiplied by a thousand parts per million is a part per billion, 1/1,000,000 x 1,000/1,000,000=1,000/1,000,000,000,000, when reduced to lowest terms equals 1/1,000,000,000 "or a part per billion", which is what you claimed your spell checker deleted.

[weezer]

Poor Bob

I wouldn't feel sorry for bobaugust -- he's waaaaaay ahead in this game!

[snoop_doxie]

as far as the gloves are concerned.
if there is no glove at rockingham and only the glove at bundy not eventually linked to oj which no one knew at that time. as the ex he is a suspect even though Vanhatter did lie on this issue.They go to his house and he is in Chicago.His alibi is he was home alone until about 10:45 geting ready for his trip.The glove transported to Rockingham and 'FOUND' immediately implicates him in the murders. That is why most experts say Fuhrman finding the glove was one of the most incriminating pieces of evidence against simpson. but then the problem became proving simpson was in the south walkway to drop the glove and the prosecution was not able to do so.imo




how did they(the defense) [B]disprove simpson was in the south walkway?

i, too, have been lurking for a long time on this thread. :seeya:

what was presented in court? how, in your opinion could the prosecution have proven simpson was in the south walkway (to drop the glove)?

[snoop_doxie]

Ok, sometimes I'm a bit slow - and I read too fast but has this whole to and fro been about whether 27 days is a month or not?


redmama,

hello, i have been lurking a long time, too! :cool:

what i see is bob august trying to get william anthony to admit that 27 days is a much longer time than the few days (immediately) inferred by barry scheck in his closing arguments? (to get the samples, such as hair, to prove whether or not simpson had dandruff.)

william anthony seems to deftly avoid to respond to this, and deflects to some argument about poorly collected samples.

that is what i see anyway.:shrug:

[Redmama]

[/B]


redmama,

hello, i have been lurking a long time, too! :cool:

what i see is bob august trying to get william anthony to admit that 27 days is a much longer time than the few days (immediately) inferred by barry scheck in his closing arguments? (to get the samples, such as hair, to prove whether or not simpson had dandruff.)

william anthony seems to deftly avoid to respond to this, and deflects to some argument about poorly collected samples.

that is what i see anyway.:shrug:

Well welcome - I see we both decided to quit being lurkers - I still think it is a bit scary out here but I'm willing to try!!

[martin II]

[/B]




how did they(the defense) [B]disprove simpson was in the south walkway?

i, too, have been lurking for a long time on this thread. :seeya:

what was presented in court? how, in your opinion could the prosecution have proven simpson was in the south walkway (to drop the glove)?

Snoop hi'
The defense is not required to prove anything in a criminal trial. i guess you would agree.

It was the prosecution that made the claim that Simpson jumped the south walkway fence from the Salingers property,bounced against the air conditioner, fell, dropped the glove, ran out of the walkway in a hurry to get into his house. This they were required to prove to the jury that this happened.

There was no evidence found on the Salingers property, 0r the south walkway
to prove that simpson was there although he was supposed to have been bleeding all over the place.
Three le detectives testified that they saw no evidence that anyone jumped that fence and fell against the airconditioner because of the heavy bushes,trees and vines growing in that area and the non disturbance of leaves on the ground where the glove was found.One of these was Vanhatter.

The glove was found in the walkway and the prosecution just offered the idea that Simpson Must have jumped the fence but was not able to offer proof that he did. I think the prosecution made this claim and thought they could get by with it because there was no physical evidence to back it up and no evidence to prove simpsons presence. But that is my opinion.

The defense questioned le Rockingham investigators about what was found or not found in the walkway and there was no evidence found that would show Simpson was there. imo

[weezer]

Snoop hi'
The defense is not required to prove anything in a criminal trial. i guess you would agree.

It was the prosecution that made the claim that Simpson jumped the south walkway fence from the Salingers property,bounced against the air conditioner, fell, dropped the glove, ran out of the walkway in a hurry to get into his house. This they were required to prove to the jury that this happened.

There was no evidence found on the Salingers property, 0r the south walkway
to prove that simpson was there although he was supposed to have been bleeding all over the place.
Three le detectives testified that they saw no evidence that anyone jumped that fence and fell against the airconditioner because of the heavy bushes,trees and vines growing in that area and the non disturbance of leaves on the ground where the glove was found.One of these was Vanhatter.

The glove was found in the walkway and the prosecution just offered the idea that Simpson Must have jumped the fence but was not able to offer proof that he did. I think the prosecution made this claim and thought they could get by with it because there was no physical evidence to back it up and no evidence to prove simpsons presence. But that is my opinion.

The defense questioned le Rockingham investigators about what was found or not found in the walkway and there was no evidence found that would show Simpson was there. imo

the converse of this argument is the theory by the NG's that Fuhrman was able to plant the glove without leaving a trace that he had been there. go figure.

[martin II]

the converse of this argument is the theory by the NG's that Fuhrman was able to plant the glove without leaving a trace that he had been there. go figure.

Not true

If furhman planted the glove all he had to do is walk carefully in the walkway from the garage area to the second gate and toss the glove to where it was found.imo

[weezer]

Not true

If furhman planted the glove all he had to do is walk carefully in the walkway from the garage area to the second gate and toss the glove to where it was found.imo

so there were signs that the glove had been tossed? orenthal couldn't have left the glove there without disturbing the surroundings or dropping blood but Fuhrman was able to 'toss' the glove over a fence and down a walkway without any blood being anywhere around and without disturbing any of the surroundings? And, he was able to put the glove on the ground and blood on the wire in the spot where Kato heard/felt the thumps? Amazing.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9119039]There is nothing in my quote where I said MF planted evidence in this case. I said MF was an admitted evidence planter and the fact that the admitted evidence planter, MF, planted evidence in this case was an issue in the criminal trial. Let me make it clear. One of the issues in the criminal trial was evidence planting as it pertains to the fact that MF admitted to planting evidence. Please, note that I am capable of saying MF planted evidence in the criminal trial, if that is what I chose to say. However, I have always said that it is my opinion that by the evidence and his admissions that MF planted evidence in the case and have never claimed that he did in fact plant evidence in the case.[QUOTE]

"I posted actual testimony and the remarks of the justice system when they investigated the admitted evidence planter, MF. Like it or not the fact that the admitted evidence planter planted evidence in this case was an issue in the criminal trial."

You stated here that it is a FACT that Mark Fuhrman planted evidence in this case. This is only one example of you making this statement. It doesn't matter to me if you say it's a fact that he planted evidence but please don't insult us all by denying you have said it.

The only fact I stated was that it was an issue in the criminal trial that the admitted evidence planter, MF, planted evidence in the criminal case. I will not deny what I say but I ask that you understand what I say before you accuse me.

[William Anthony]

The only game bobaugust is waaaay ahead of in anything as it applies to this board is posting false information and having some believe him, imho. Poor bobaugust. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

[/B]


redmama,

hello, i have been lurking a long time, too! :cool:

what i see is bob august trying to get william anthony to admit that 27 days is a much longer time than the few days (immediately) inferred by barry scheck in his closing arguments? (to get the samples, such as hair, to prove whether or not simpson had dandruff.)

william anthony seems to deftly avoid to respond to this, and deflects to some argument about poorly collected samples.

that is what i see anyway.:shrug:

Quite untrue, :). I offered an explanation and questioned why bobaugust would allow for immediate to mean as soon as practicable within the investigation and not allow Barry to say right after meaning 27 days later or as soon as it became practicable for the prosecution within the investigation. ;):cool: If this is your first post on this forum, let me welcome you.

[William Anthony]

The testimony is this. MF saw no disturbance behind the quarters and he walked down the walkway to the location where the glove was allegedly found. Therefore, the evidence is, as testified to by MF, that any disturbance of the scene was caused by MF, the admitted evidence planter, and whoever he directed to that location. MF did not have to worry about disturbing the scene, because he was allegedly investigation but not looking but saw none, as opposed to planting

[martin II]

so there were signs that the glove had been tossed? orenthal couldn't have left the glove there without disturbing the surroundings or dropping blood but Fuhrman was able to 'toss' the glove over a fence and down a walkway without any blood being anywhere around and without disturbing any of the surroundings? And, he was able to put the glove on the ground and blood on the wire in the spot where Kato heard/felt the thumps? Amazing.

Please stop twisting my words.

I said IF furhman planted the glove it could have been tossed from the gate.

I guess if one is willing to ignore the testinmony of the le detectives and the absence of evidence against Simpson and not look at the walkway pictures, one could come to the conclusion you seem to have come to.

The main issue is that the prosecution claimed that oj jumped the fence and dropped the glove and was not able to present evidence to prove that he did

You seem to be trying to change the issue. It is not whether Furhman or anyone else planted the glove.

The spot of blood on that wire was not proven to have come from Simpson. The one bent wire found months later after the gardner cut the foilage does not prove that Simpson bent the wire. imo

[William Anthony]

[/B]


redmama,

hello, i have been lurking a long time, too! :cool:

what i see is bob august trying to get william anthony to admit that 27 days is a much longer time than the few days (immediately) inferred by barry scheck in his closing arguments? (to get the samples, such as hair, to prove whether or not simpson had dandruff.)

william anthony seems to deftly avoid to respond to this, and deflects to some argument about poorly collected samples.

that is what i see anyway.:shrug:

I wonder what you think about this. This was the testimony of Martz, which caused some disagreement between bobaugust and me.

"MR. MARTZ: I don't believe so. When I first got that study, which was I believe two nights ago, maybe it was Sunday night, I received that study, and the first thing in looking at it, it appeared to be out of place. They were talking about toxic clean-up of EDTA and they had a lot of things that were mentioned, and all of a sudden, out of nowhere came the fact that it said one part per billion would be normally expected in a human or considered to be the normal level. And it just didn't make sense to me why that would be there. So what I did was, the next morning, I called back to the laboratory and had them search the same reference. And it ended up that it was not a part per million, but it was a thousand--or a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million. Evidently when it was printed out without good resolution--I really don't have the explanation now. In talking to EPA, they claim that it's a thousand parts per million is what it's supposed to be. So I did some further research, and it ended up that that was solely based on some studies to determine how much EDTA was needed to preserve blood. It had absolutely nothing at all what to do with the amount that would be expected in a person or could be toxic to a person. It was completely out of context and it was wrong."

After I showed bobaugst that a part per million multiplied by a thousand parts per million is a part per billion, bobaugust left changed the testimony to this, "And it ended up that it was not a part per million, but it was a thousand-- It was a thousand parts per million." When I corrected him on this, he blamed his spell checker for changing the context. Bobaugust, seems to fool some of the people all of the time. I hope you aren't one of them. ;):cool: The blanks indicate that it was not a part per million but a thousand parts per million times a part per million or a part per billion. Martz then stated it was a thousand parts per million, which we know is enough to preserve blood. Ergo, any amount in the part per million would be wrong as Terry Lee and Dr. Reiders testified. Matz said the study was wrong but the science prove that Lee and Reiders were correct. The only person to seem to not understand this is bobaugust, even though I have repeated shown it to him mathematically, and he seem to share the tendency of Martz by saying everyone else is wrong when they fail to understand things, smile, wink, cool.

[martin II]

so there were signs that the glove had been tossed? orenthal couldn't have left the glove there without disturbing the surroundings or dropping blood but Fuhrman was able to 'toss' the glove over a fence and down a walkway without any blood being anywhere around and without disturbing any of the surroundings? And, he was able to put the glove on the ground and blood on the wire in the spot where Kato heard/felt the thumps? Amazing.

You are twisting again.

[martin II]

The testimony is this. MF saw no disturbance behind the quarters and he walked down the walkway to the location where the glove was allegedly found. Therefore, the evidence is, as testified to by MF, that any disturbance of the scene was caused by MF, the admitted evidence planter, and whoever he directed to that location. MF did not have to worry about disturbing the scene, because he was allegedly investigation but not looking but saw none, as opposed to planting

William
Thanks.

[weezer]

William
Thanks.

odd that you are willing to accept some of Fuhrman's testimony while calling him a perjurer. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

William
Thanks.

No thanks necessary as I was only saying what the evidence was, whether or not you believe it. The trier of fact determined what evidence was credible. Perhaps, they thought that MF had no reason to look for or see any disturbance, since he was the first person to have walked behind the quarters that night, at least that is what the state of the evidence was. There was only a theory with no evidence to support it that someone, allegedly Simpson, was behind the quarters. I think the justice system was glad to have had a jury with common sense and some legal sophistication.

[bobaugust]

You do not understand what I said. DIRECT IS DIRECT WHETHER OR NOT IT IS RE. DIRECT IS A STYLE OF QUESTIONING.

You evidently didn’t understand what you said. When you responded to the testimony I posted you said, “That is the direct and I posted the cross.” That sounds to me like you were referring to direct examination and cross examination, not the style of questioning.

The fact is that the testimony I posted where Dr. Lee explained that the intent of setting forth those two possibilities in his notes was for just organizing his thinking as to what the issues were, was not during direct examination. It was during redirect examination after the cross examination by Baker that you posted.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Your limited knowledge of legal concepts really hampers you, imho. The preliminary hearing is not a trial and the defense gets a chance to see the weaknesses in the prosecution's case and ask questions, which is why the prosecution favors a grand jury indictment. The weaknesses are then exposed during trial in front of the trier of fact, as Bailey brilliantly did. The soon to be convicted perjurer was trapped by Bailey in more ways than one.

You, who have not studied law, do not realize that a question is not improper unless objected to and the objection sustained. It is funny that you think you know so much and will not educate yourself but just believe that because you say something it is true. ;):cool:

Bailey didn’t trap Mark Fuhrman regarding this issue. Mark Fuhrman consistently testified that there was a glove and knit cap under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet, just as every other witness did. The only thing Bailey did was try to insinuate that when Mark Fuhrman said the word “them” in the preliminary hearing Fuhrman was somehow referring to two gloves under the plant leaves at Bundy. Bailey’s insinuation was false, ridiculous, and contradicted by every witness who testified to seeing that evidence before Mark Fuhrman saw it. The only person I have ever encountered who actually fell for that bullcrap is you William. Not only did you fall for it you took further than any attorney in this case ever did just like you did with Barry Scheck’s false insinuation. You are so gullible I actually feel sorry for you.

I’m not going to get into a discussion with you why a compound question is not improper if it is not objected to. The fact is that “a compound question is one that actually asks several things which might require different answers.” That’s why a one word answer is not a clear answer. Bailey understood this, that’s why he followed up with a more specific question that Fuhrman answered. You’re the only one who can’t seem to comprehend that. How embarrassing for you.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Let's not talk about the antics of the former moderator on this board or the one she started. There is no need to spell check a quote, common sense. Yes, the former moderator tried to save you and told us to drop the subject. However, fair minded individuals realize the flaw in your claim. You tried to delete the very thing that I have proven mathematically. ;):cool:

The spell checker spell checks everything that is written in a message including the testimony I copied and pasted. The moderator investigated this incident even going so far as to find someone with the exact spell checker I was using at the time and she told you that was exactly what the spell checker did. She also told you that she accepted my public apology for not realizing the mistake and the explanation I provided. She also said to move forward and she expected no additional mention of this incidence. Something you William have completely ignored.

There was no flaw in my claim. The only flaw here is in your personality and your inability to understand common sense explanations and admit when you are wrong when you make false claims.

The only thing you have proved mathematically with the incorrect convoluted math you posted many times is just how low you will sink to avoid admitting that you are wrong. Your claim that one part per billion is equal to 1000 parts per million was a false claim when you made it, it was false every time you tried to defend it, and it’s still a false claim that you continue to refuse to admit is wrong.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

It is ridiculous, imho, for you to claim that Terri Lee did the same three experiments as Martz, when his testimony contradicts another of your false claims. He could have had no experience in doing the test Martz did on his own blood, since Martz was the first to claim he had so done and Terry Lee testified he did not know the procedures Martz used. Ergo, Terry Lee had no experience, using the machine or the technology in the test Martz allegedly devised. Enter his ghost in the machine theory. ;):cool:

It is ridiculous that you can’t seem to understand that neither Dr. Lee nor I ever claimed that Dr. Lee conducted any tests on the evidence samples, on Martz’s own non-preserved blood, or on the reference samples. The fact is that Dr. Lee testified he had reviewed all of the analyses and testimony regarding this issue as well as testifying to his extensive experience of performing hundreds of times the same three kinds of tests that Martz conducted using the same exact kind of instruments that Martz used. That is what qualified Dr. Lee to give a logical, reasonable explanation for the small trace amount of EDTA that showed up in the results in the third test Martz performed.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I wonder what you think about this. This was the testimony of Martz, which caused some disagreement between bobaugust and me.

"MR. MARTZ: I don't believe so. When I first got that study, which was I believe two nights ago, maybe it was Sunday night, I received that study, and the first thing in looking at it, it appeared to be out of place. They were talking about toxic clean-up of EDTA and they had a lot of things that were mentioned, and all of a sudden, out of nowhere came the fact that it said one part per billion would be normally expected in a human or considered to be the normal level. And it just didn't make sense to me why that would be there. So what I did was, the next morning, I called back to the laboratory and had them search the same reference. And it ended up that it was not a part per million, but it was a thousand--or a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million. Evidently when it was printed out without good resolution--I really don't have the explanation now. In talking to EPA, they claim that it's a thousand parts per million is what it's supposed to be. So I did some further research, and it ended up that that was solely based on some studies to determine how much EDTA was needed to preserve blood. It had absolutely nothing at all what to do with the amount that would be expected in a person or could be toxic to a person. It was completely out of context and it was wrong."

After I showed bobaugst that a part per million multiplied by a thousand parts per million is a part per billion, bobaugust left changed the testimony to this, "And it ended up that it was not a part per million, but it was a thousand-- It was a thousand parts per million." When I corrected him on this, he blamed his spell checker for changing the context. Bobaugust, seems to fool some of the people all of the time. I hope you aren't one of them. ;):cool: The blanks indicate that it was not a part per million but a thousand parts per million times a part per million or a part per billion. Martz then stated it was a thousand parts per million, which we know is enough to preserve blood. Ergo, any amount in the part per million would be wrong as Terry Lee and Dr. Reiders testified. Matz said the study was wrong but the science prove that Lee and Reiders were correct. The only person to seem to not understand this is bobaugust, even though I have repeated shown it to him mathematically, and he seem to share the tendency of Martz by saying everyone else is wrong when they fail to understand things, smile, wink, cool.

Wrong. I posted that portion of Martz’s testimony correctly several times in our many discussions and the one time I posted it with an inadvertent spell check error we were not even discussing that portion of the testimony. We were discussing another false claim you made when you claimed that the concentration of EDTA in preserved blood is 2000 parts per billion when in fact it is 2000 parts per million, not billion.

Not only did you not understand what Martz was saying when he gave that testimony, you still don’t understand what he said. And you even left off the rest of what Martz said that puts his testimony in the correct context. Your interpretation of what you think Martz said is based only your continued ignorance of the relationship between parts per billion and parts per million. The dashes in the transcripts indicate where Martz changed his thought as to what he was saying. Martz never said 1000 parts per million was a part per billion. You William are the only who has ever made that ignorant false claim. Not only did you then try to prove your claim was true by posting some ridiculous incorrect convoluted math you even falsely claim that was what Martz believed and you’re still making that false claim and you have never admitted that it is wrong. Unbelievable!

July 25, 1995 Roger Martz
MS. CLARK: Now, you recall that Dr. Rieders testified that he felt that based on the EPA study concerning the maximum tolerance for EDTA in the blood based on an experiment with fish extrapolated from that that the normal amount or the maximum amount you would find in people would be in parts per billion. Do you recall that testimony?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: In your expert opinion, sir, is it--was it appropriate for him to use that
EPA study to form a conclusion as to what would be the normal amount of EDTA you would expect to find in an average person?

MR. MARTZ: I don't believe so. When I first got that study, which was I believe two nights ago, maybe it was Sunday night, I received that study, and the first thing in looking at it, it appeared to be out of place. They were talking about toxic clean-up of EDTA and they had a lot of things that were mentioned, and all of a sudden, out of nowhere came the fact that it said one part per billion would be normally expected in a human or considered to be the normal level. And it just didn't make sense to me why that would be there. So what I did was, the next morning, I called back to the laboratory and had them search the same reference. And it ended up that it was not a part per million, but it was a thousand--or a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million. Evidently when it was printed out without good resolution--I really don't have the explanation now. In talking to EPA, they claim that it's a thousand parts per million is what it's supposed to be. So I did some further research, and it ended up that was solely based on some studies to determine how much EDTA was needed to preserve blood. It had absolutely nothing at all what to do with the amount that would be expected in a person or could be toxic to a person. It was completely out of context and it was wrong.

MS. CLARK: Now, if all of the--well, are you aware, sir, of any study that has been conducted to determine what amount of EDTA you could expect to find in any one of us on a given day?

MR. MARTZ: No, I'm not aware of any study.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

You evidently didn’t understand what you said. When you responded to the testimony I posted you said, “That is the direct and I posted the cross.” That sounds to me like you were referring to direct examination and cross examination, not the style of questioning.

The fact is that the testimony I posted where Dr. Lee explained that the intent of setting forth those two possibilities in his notes was for just organizing his thinking as to what the issues were, was not during direct examination. It was during redirect examination after the cross examination by Baker that you posted.

bobaugust

Let me see if I can explain it in a way that you can understand. DIRECT IS DIRECT AND CROSS IS CROSS WHETHER OR NOT EITHER ARE RE. DIRECT EXAMINATION IS THE NAME GIVEN TO A STYLE OF QUESTIONING ALLOWED BY THE PARTY THAT CALLS THE PERSON AS THEIR WITNESS, UNTIL THERE HAS BEEN A DETERMINATION FROM THE BENCH THAT THE WITNESS IS HOSTILE, WHICH WILL ALLOW FOR CROSS EVEN THOUGH THE PARTY CALLED THE WITNESS. ERGO, YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THAT DIRECT DOES NOT MEAN THE EXAMINATION BUT REFERS TO THE TYPE OF QUESTIONS THAT THE COURT WILL ALLOW TO BE ASKED DURING THE EXAMINATION, IF NOT OBJECTED TO. DEPENDING ON THE DETERMINATION MADE BY THE COURT, A PARTY MAY BE ALLOWED TO ASK LEADING QUESTIONS (CROSS), BECAUSE THE PERSON HAS BEEN DEEMED HOSTILE. SOME SAY THAT A WITNESS IS CALLED ON DIRECT, BECAUSE THE PARTY SPONSORING THE WITNESS CALLS HIM. HOWEVER, THE PROPER WAY TO SAY THIS IS THAT THE WITNESS IS CALLED EITHER IN THE CASE-IN-CHIEF OR IN REBUTTAL AND IS ASKED DIRECT QUESTIONS IN BOTH PHASES BY THE CALLING PARTY, UNLESS THE WITNESS IS DECLARED HOSTILE. I SAID TYPE OF QUESTIONING, MEANING METHOD OF QUESTIONING AS I FIRST SAID. I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE EASIER FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND IF I SAID TYPE, SINCE I HAD USED THE WORD TYPE IN REFERENCE TO YOUR OTHER FALSE POST ON TERRY LEE AND MARTZ.

[William Anthony]

Wrong. I posted that portion of Martz’s testimony correctly several times in our many discussions and the one time I posted it with an inadvertent spell check error we were not even discussing that portion of the testimony. We were discussing another false claim you made when you claimed that the concentration of EDTA in preserved blood is 2000 parts per billion when in fact it is 2000 parts per million, not billion.

Not only did you not understand what Martz was saying when he gave that testimony, you still don’t understand what he said. And you even left off the rest of what Martz said that puts his testimony in the correct context. Your interpretation of what you think Martz said is based only your continued ignorance of the relationship between parts per billion and parts per million. The dashes in the transcripts indicate where Martz changed his thought as to what he was saying. Martz never said 1000 parts per million was a part per billion. You William are the only who has ever made that ignorant false claim. Not only did you then try to prove your claim was true by posting some ridiculous incorrect convoluted math you even falsely claim that was what Martz believed and you’re still making that false claim and you have never admitted that it is wrong. Unbelievable!

July 25, 1995 Roger Martz
MS. CLARK: Now, you recall that Dr. Rieders testified that he felt that based on the EPA study concerning the maximum tolerance for EDTA in the blood based on an experiment with fish extrapolated from that that the normal amount or the maximum amount you would find in people would be in parts per billion. Do you recall that testimony?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: In your expert opinion, sir, is it--was it appropriate for him to use that
EPA study to form a conclusion as to what would be the normal amount of EDTA you would expect to find in an average person?

MR. MARTZ: I don't believe so. When I first got that study, which was I believe two nights ago, maybe it was Sunday night, I received that study, and the first thing in looking at it, it appeared to be out of place. They were talking about toxic clean-up of EDTA and they had a lot of things that were mentioned, and all of a sudden, out of nowhere came the fact that it said one part per billion would be normally expected in a human or considered to be the normal level. And it just didn't make sense to me why that would be there. So what I did was, the next morning, I called back to the laboratory and had them search the same reference. And it ended up that it was not a part per million, but it was a thousand--or a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million. Evidently when it was printed out without good resolution--I really don't have the explanation now. In talking to EPA, they claim that it's a thousand parts per million is what it's supposed to be. So I did some further research, and it ended up that was solely based on some studies to determine how much EDTA was needed to preserve blood. It had absolutely nothing at all what to do with the amount that would be expected in a person or could be toxic to a person. It was completely out of context and it was wrong.

MS. CLARK: Now, if all of the--well, are you aware, sir, of any study that has been conducted to determine what amount of EDTA you could expect to find in any one of us on a given day?

MR. MARTZ: No, I'm not aware of any study.

bobaugust

Unlike you, I do not go into superfluous commentary but try to limit the topic to what is being discussed. The topic being discussed was whether or not your claim that your spell checker deleted a part (pun intended) of the part (pun intended) of Martz's testimony, which was relevant to the question I asked.

If we were not discussing that claim, then why did you post it? The truth is you posted it, because I told you what the blanks meant and proved to you mathematically what the EPA representative told Martz, which neither you nor him understood. The dashes could not indicate that he changed his mind, because he testified that the amount to preserve blood would be in the thousand parts per million. The EPA statement was clear, as Martz's testimony indicated, the amount expect to be found in human blood was a part per billion. Martz did not understand this and somehow came up with results that indicated he was dead. You really do not want me to post the cross where Blaizer got Martz to admit to how much EDTA was in food, retention time of EDTA and how much was excreted and absorbed into the blood. Those things form a study, even if you not Martz understood to what he testified. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

It is ridiculous that you can’t seem to understand that neither Dr. Lee nor I ever claimed that Dr. Lee conducted any tests on the evidence samples, on Martz’s own non-preserved blood, or on the reference samples. The fact is that Dr. Lee testified he had reviewed all of the analyses and testimony regarding this issue as well as testifying to his extensive experience of performing hundreds of times the same three kinds of tests that Martz conducted using the same exact kind of instruments that Martz used. That is what qualified Dr. Lee to give a logical, reasonable explanation for the small trace amount of EDTA that showed up in the results in the third test Martz performed.

bobaugust

I have proven you wrong and you changed your original post from Terry Lee doing the "same three tests" as Martz, after I pointed out your mistake to the same "three kinds of tests." You could have simply admitted you were wrong as opposed to continuing to embarrass yourself. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

Bailey didn’t trap Mark Fuhrman regarding this issue. Mark Fuhrman consistently testified that there was a glove and knit cap under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet, just as every other witness did. The only thing Bailey did was try to insinuate that when Mark Fuhrman said the word “them” in the preliminary hearing Fuhrman was somehow referring to two gloves under the plant leaves at Bundy. Bailey’s insinuation was false, ridiculous, and contradicted by every witness who testified to seeing that evidence before Mark Fuhrman saw it. The only person I have ever encountered who actually fell for that bullcrap is you William. Not only did you fall for it you took further than any attorney in this case ever did just like you did with Barry Scheck’s false insinuation. You are so gullible I actually feel sorry for you.

I’m not going to get into a discussion with you why a compound question is not improper if it is not objected to. The fact is that “a compound question is one that actually asks several things which might require different answers.” That’s why a one word answer is not a clear answer. Bailey understood this, that’s why he followed up with a more specific question that Fuhrman answered. You’re the only one who can’t seem to comprehend that. How embarrassing for you.

bobaugust

Bailey trapped the slimy forked-tongued, convicted perjurer, genocidal speaking racist, as supported by the evidence, and evidence planter, as supported by direct evidence, and interracial hating couple, as supported by the evidence into saying he had a slip of the tongue and then saying he did not have a slip of the tongue.

You can not get into the discussion with me about any improper question, since your concept of legal principles is limited, imho. If the question is not objected to it is waived, as was the one Bailey asked MF and the question and answer stands. That is the evidence. Bailey followed up because he knew MF was trapped and that's why he asked him if he had been asked about the cap in several pages of testimony before he responded to the question asking about seeing a single glove. The one thing that you have not embarrassed yourself by is showing a reluctance to discuss an improper question and the lak of objection. However, you continue to embarrass myself, imho, when you say that Bailey understood and followed up with a more specific question. Perhaps, because you have never questioned a person in court or in deposition, which I have, you don't understand that there is a certain amount of gamesmanship that goes on between witnesses and the adversary. I have found that it is beneficial to throw the opponent off and then come back at a later time, during the cross, with the nail that seals the coffin, because the opponent may be anticipating your question on a particular issue. I think that MF was thinking of his ridiculous answers on the slip that was a non slip of the tongue and Bailey took his mind away by asking simple questions and then hit him with the fact that he had not been asked about seeing the cap in several pages of testimony, sealing the coffin around what you call a reasonable explanation. This is a testimony to Bailey's brilliance.;):cool:

[limakey]

William and Martin,

Here is a new way to look at the glove found at Rockingham. I have always believed that if those thumps had anything to do with the murders, then he was meant to hear them.

If the glove was not found behind the wall, the DA's would have said that those thumps were a ploy to draw Kato out of his room. However, this person could not have known how long it would have taken Kato to check out the noise. The person could not have known that he nothing more then a penlight.

Also, even if Kato did come out of his room, then this person must have known that Kato would not have been been able to see him because of the fence and the vegatation. In other words, this person would have used this as a cover----a lot better then knit cap and dark clothes--huh?

While I believe Furham did plant the glove, I do believe that it is also possible that some one made the thumps to distract Kato. It is obvious the DA's could not find the source of the thumps. Also, if I read the testimony correctly, didn't Kato say he believed the noise caused the picture to move?

Remember, Clark only focused on how loud they were.

[snoop_doxie]

Well welcome - I see we both decided to quit being lurkers - I still think it is a bit scary out here but I'm willing to try!!

heehee
yep, it is scary, but i feel that i have lurked long enough (and read alot) to join in.
let's give it a shot.
:patriot:

[snoop_doxie]

[QUOTE=martin II;9119457]Snoop hi'
The defense is not required to prove anything in a criminal trial. i guess you would agree.

oh, i absolutely agree.

It was the prosecution that made the claim that Simpson jumped the south walkway fence from the Salingers property,bounced against the air conditioner, fell, dropped the glove, ran out of the walkway in a hurry to get into his house. This they were required to prove to the jury that this happened.

okay, so the prosecution had to prove its theory, as opposed to the defense having to prove a negative (he was not there).

There was no evidence found on the Salingers property, 0r the south walkway
to prove that simpson was there although he was supposed to have been bleeding all over the place.
Three le detectives testified that they saw no evidence that anyone jumped that fence and fell against the airconditioner because of the heavy bushes,trees and vines growing in that area and the non disturbance of leaves on the ground where the glove was found.One of these was Vanhatter.

The glove was found in the walkway and the prosecution just offered the idea that Simpson Must have jumped the fence but was not able to offer proof that he did. I think the prosecution made this claim and thought they could get by with it because there was no physical evidence to back it up and no evidence to prove simpsons presence. But that is my opinion.

The defense questioned le Rockingham investigators about what was found or not found in the walkway and there was no evidence found that would show Simpson was there. imo

okay, i am much clearer on the walkway evidence. thank you.

[snoop_doxie]

Quite untrue, :). I offered an explanation and questioned why bobaugust would allow for immediate to mean as soon as practicable within the investigation and not allow Barry to say right after meaning 27 days later or as soon as it became practicable for the prosecution within the investigation. ;):cool: If this is your first post on this forum, let me welcome you.

thank you for your welcome, william anthony.
i think i understand what you are saying, and if i were a defendant, i would want you on my side, i think. :D

[bobaugust]

Let me see if I can explain it in a way that you can understand. DIRECT IS DIRECT AND CROSS IS CROSS WHETHER OR NOT EITHER ARE RE. DIRECT EXAMINATION IS THE NAME GIVEN TO A STYLE OF QUESTIONING ALLOWED BY THE PARTY THAT CALLS THE PERSON AS THEIR WITNESS, UNTIL THERE HAS BEEN A DETERMINATION FROM THE BENCH THAT THE WITNESS IS HOSTILE, WHICH WILL ALLOW FOR CROSS EVEN THOUGH THE PARTY CALLED THE WITNESS. ERGO, YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THAT DIRECT DOES NOT MEAN THE EXAMINATION BUT REFERS TO THE TYPE OF QUESTIONS THAT THE COURT WILL ALLOW TO BE ASKED DURING THE EXAMINATION, IF NOT OBJECTED TO. DEPENDING ON THE DETERMINATION MADE BY THE COURT, A PARTY MAY BE ALLOWED TO ASK LEADING QUESTIONS (CROSS), BECAUSE THE PERSON HAS BEEN DEEMED HOSTILE. SOME SAY THAT A WITNESS IS CALLED ON DIRECT, BECAUSE THE PARTY SPONSORING THE WITNESS CALLS HIM. HOWEVER, THE PROPER WAY TO SAY THIS IS THAT THE WITNESS IS CALLED EITHER IN THE CASE-IN-CHIEF OR IN REBUTTAL AND IS ASKED DIRECT QUESTIONS IN BOTH PHASES BY THE CALLING PARTY, UNLESS THE WITNESS IS DECLARED HOSTILE. I SAID TYPE OF QUESTIONING, MEANING METHOD OF QUESTIONING AS I FIRST SAID. I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE EASIER FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND IF I SAID TYPE, SINCE I HAD USED THE WORD TYPE IN REFERENCE TO YOUR OTHER FALSE POST ON TERRY LEE AND MARTZ.

This is not complicated William. You posted testimony from Baker’s cross examination that led you to come to some incorrect conclusions based on what was written in Dr. Lee’s notes. I posted Dr. Lee’s testimony in redirect examination that came after the testimony you posted where Dr. Lee explained that the intent of his notes was only to organize his thinking as to what the issues were.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Unlike you, I do not go into superfluous commentary but try to limit the topic to what is being discussed. The topic being discussed was whether or not your claim that your spell checker deleted a part (pun intended) of the part (pun intended) of Martz's testimony, which was relevant to the question I asked.

If we were not discussing that claim, then why did you post it? The truth is you posted it, because I told you what the blanks meant and proved to you mathematically what the EPA representative told Martz, which neither you nor him understood. The dashes could not indicate that he changed his mind, because he testified that the amount to preserve blood would be in the thousand parts per million. The EPA statement was clear, as Martz's testimony indicated, the amount expect to be found in human blood was a part per billion. Martz did not understand this and somehow came up with results that indicated he was dead. You really do not want me to post the cross where Blaizer got Martz to admit to how much EDTA was in food, retention time of EDTA and how much was excreted and absorbed into the blood. Those things form a study, even if you not Martz understood to what he testified. ;):cool:

Unlike you I checked my posting where I posted Martz’s testimony that contained the spell check error and the subject I was responding to had nothing to do with that portion of the testimony where the error occurred. I was responding to another one of your false claims that the concentration of EDTA in preserved blood is 2000 parts per billion, when in fact it is between 1000 to 2000 parts per million, not billion. I had posted Martz testimony because in that testimony Martz says, “In talking to EPA, they claim that it's a thousand parts per million is what it's supposed to be. So I did some further research, and it ended up that was solely based on some studies to determine how much EDTA was needed to preserve blood.”

As to when Martz previously said, “So what I did was, the next morning, I called back to the laboratory and had them search the same reference. And it ended up that it was not a part per million, but it was a thousand--or a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million.

What Martz was actually saying was that the reference ended up that it was not a part per million or a part per billion, it was a thousand parts per million. He continued, “Evidently when it was printed out without good resolution--I really don't have the explanation now. In talking to EPA, they claim that it's a thousand parts per million is what it's supposed to be.”

You are the only one William who had ever made the ignorant false claim that one part per billion is equal to 1000 parts per million. And no matter how many times I have proved your claim false and explained to you the correct relationship that one part per billion is equal to one one-thousandth part per million, not 1000 parts per million, you still can’t seem to grasp that reality and admit you were wrong. I even posted it in the simplest form I could find on the internet so that anyone with some basic math education could understand it. But evidently you still can’t.

1 ppm = 1000 ppb
1 ppb = 1/1000 ppm

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I have proven you wrong and you changed your original post from Terry Lee doing the "same three tests" as Martz, after I pointed out your mistake to the same "three kinds of tests." You could have simply admitted you were wrong as opposed to continuing to embarrass yourself. ;):cool:

No you didn’t prove me wrong you just couldn’t seem to understand (or intentionally didn’t want to understand) that “tests” refers to the kind of tests that were conducted not what was being tested. Now that you seem to understand that then you shouldn’t have any trouble understanding my original statement. Dr. Lee testified that he performed the same three tests hundreds of times that Martz had performed. Those three tests are the negative ion test, the HPLC test, and the positive ion test.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Bailey trapped the slimy forked-tongued, convicted perjurer, genocidal speaking racist, as supported by the evidence, and evidence planter, as supported by direct evidence, and interracial hating couple, as supported by the evidence into saying he had a slip of the tongue and then saying he did not have a slip of the tongue.

You can not get into the discussion with me about any improper question, since your concept of legal principles is limited, imho. If the question is not objected to it is waived, as was the one Bailey asked MF and the question and answer stands. That is the evidence. Bailey followed up because he knew MF was trapped and that's why he asked him if he had been asked about the cap in several pages of testimony before he responded to the question asking about seeing a single glove. The one thing that you have not embarrassed yourself by is showing a reluctance to discuss an improper question and the lak of objection. However, you continue to embarrass myself, imho, when you say that Bailey understood and followed up with a more specific question. Perhaps, because you have never questioned a person in court or in deposition, which I have, you don't understand that there is a certain amount of gamesmanship that goes on between witnesses and the adversary. I have found that it is beneficial to throw the opponent off and then come back at a later time, during the cross, with the nail that seals the coffin, because the opponent may be anticipating your question on a particular issue. I think that MF was thinking of his ridiculous answers on the slip that was a non slip of the tongue and Bailey took his mind away by asking simple questions and then hit him with the fact that he had not been asked about seeing the cap in several pages of testimony, sealing the coffin around what you call a reasonable explanation. This is a testimony to Bailey's brilliance.;):cool:

Bailey’s brilliance? No, sorry just Bailey’s bullcrap. What is really funny is that you William are so gullible that you actually fell for, believe in, and actually try to argue Bailey’s bullcrap.

The reality is that there isn’t one shred of evidence of a second glove at Bundy when the police first arrived there or when Fuhrman and Phillips arrived two hours later. And the blood and fiber evidence found on the killer’s right hand glove at Rockingham points only to one person handling that glove. That person is Orenthal James Simpson.

Mark Fuhrman never said, inferred, suggested, or claimed to have seen two gloves under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet. Mark Fuhrman clearly testified that when he said the word “them” he was referring to a glove and a knit cap. The same evidence that Fuhrman as well as every other witness who saw that evidence all testified to seeing every time they were asked, the same evidence that was documented in crime scene photographs.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

William and Martin,

Here is a new way to look at the glove found at Rockingham. I have always believed that if those thumps had anything to do with the murders, then he was meant to hear them.

If the glove was not found behind the wall, the DA's would have said that those thumps were a ploy to draw Kato out of his room. However, this person could not have known how long it would have taken Kato to check out the noise. The person could not have known that he nothing more then a penlight.

Also, even if Kato did come out of his room, then this person must have known that Kato would not have been been able to see him because of the fence and the vegatation. In other words, this person would have used this as a cover----a lot better then knit cap and dark clothes--huh?

While I believe Furham did plant the glove, I do believe that it is also possible that some one made the thumps to distract Kato. It is obvious the DA's could not find the source of the thumps. Also, if I read the testimony correctly, didn't Kato say he believed the noise caused the picture to move?

Remember, Clark only focused on how loud they were.

Limakey, the fact is that some one hit that sturdy back wall hard enough to cause the loud thumps Kaelin heard and the vibrations Kaelin felt that tilted a picture on the wall near his bed. If you read Schiller’s book you would have read this,

American Tragedy,
“On Sunday afternoon, June 26, Shapiro, Kardashian, Pavelic, and Drs. Baden and Lee played sleuth during their critical official visit to Rockingham.

Inside Kato's apartment, they banged hard on the wall. The picture didn't move. Kardashian led half the team to the back walkway. He and others rammed into the wall like football players. Again, the picture stayed motionless.”

Why did the picture remain motionless? Because no one could generate enough force against that wall to cause the vibrations to tilt the picture. Common sense tells us that if a 200 lb man jumped from the top of the fence and collided with that wall that there would have been enough force to create the loud noises and vibrations that Kaelin felt and that tilted the picture. That’s what scared Kaelin causing him to believe that if there wasn’t an earthquake then someone was behind his room.

bobaugust

[One2Snoop]

:seeya: Y'all never venture out of here much so just dropping by to say hello to my fellow posters.

Let me get this straight and I don't want any legal mumbo jumbo, just a straight answer...

Mark Furhman planted the glove? Yes or No?

I say NO. I'd like to know when he had time to do it during the course of the investigation? Means? motive? and opportunity?


The spot of blood on the wire belonged to Simpson?

Yes or No? :shrug: I have no clue - what about the DNA on the blood? Who does it belong to? :shrug:

one final thing -

Conversation between William Anthony and Bobaugust -
Let's not talk about the antics of the former moderator.

ITA - new moderator, new thoughts, new ideas. Bring it on guys and gals. :beer:

[One2Snoop]

P.S.

Just thought you should know there are other cases posted here that are starving for your expertise. :D


Change is good my friends. :beer: :patriot:

[William Anthony]

:seeya: Y'all never venture out of here much so just dropping by to say hello to my fellow posters.

Let me get this straight and I don't want any legal mumbo jumbo, just a straight answer...

Mark Furhman planted the glove? Yes or No?

I say NO. I'd like to know when he had time to do it during the course of the investigation? Means? motive? and opportunity?


The spot of blood on the wire belonged to Simpson?

Yes or No? :shrug: I have no clue - what about the DNA on the blood? Who does it belong to? :shrug:

one final thing -

Conversation between William Anthony and Bobaugust -
Let's not talk about the antics of the former moderator.

ITA - new moderator, new thoughts, new ideas. Bring it on guys and gals. :beer:

As far as MF goes, who knows for sure. The evidence supports the fact that it was possible he planted the glove. Yes, his motive was his hatred of interracial couples, as supported by the evidence. His means was his marine training and access to plastic bags, as supported by the evidence. His opportunity was when he went behind Mr. Kato's quarters alone, as supported by the evidence.

There was no evidence I know of as to whom the spot of blood on the wire belongs to.

In regard to your final thought, history should never be ignored, imho, as it helps to explain the sense of entitlement that some posters feel they have, imho.

[William Anthony]

P.S.

Just thought you should know there are other cases posted here that are starving for your expertise. :D


Change is good my friends. :beer: :patriot:

So say the democrats. :)

[William Anthony]

Bailey’s brilliance? No, sorry just Bailey’s bullcrap. What is really funny is that you William are so gullible that you actually fell for, believe in, and actually try to argue Bailey’s bullcrap.

The reality is that there isn’t one shred of evidence of a second glove at Bundy when the police first arrived there or when Fuhrman and Phillips arrived two hours later. And the blood and fiber evidence found on the killer’s right hand glove at Rockingham points only to one person handling that glove. That person is Orenthal James Simpson.

Mark Fuhrman never said, inferred, suggested, or claimed to have seen two gloves under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet. Mark Fuhrman clearly testified that when he said the word “them” he was referring to a glove and a knit cap. The same evidence that Fuhrman as well as every other witness who saw that evidence all testified to seeing every time they were asked, the same evidence that was documented in crime scene photographs.

bobaugust

Your reality seems to be based on the idea that a convicted perjurer told the whole truth and nothing but the truth combined with a denial of police corruption and an ignoring of the fraternal order of police. Your reality seems to deny the existence of things that everyone knows exists an a completed disregard for the testimony or a skewed and contradictory view of what the evidence was, as evidenced by your posts. ;):cool: We have already discussed those photographs and Rohkar's testimony and the evidence showing he and MF lied.

[William Anthony]

No you didn’t prove me wrong you just couldn’t seem to understand (or intentionally didn’t want to understand) that “tests” refers to the kind of tests that were conducted not what was being tested. Now that you seem to understand that then you shouldn’t have any trouble understanding my original statement. Dr. Lee testified that he performed the same three tests hundreds of times that Martz had performed. Those three tests are the negative ion test, the HPLC test, and the positive ion test.

bobaugust

Test means an examination of something. The same three tests means the identical examinations on the same things. The same three types of tests means three examinations meaning, for instance, that there could be multiple choice, essay and short answer questions on two different things or that the questions, while of the same type, were not identical. Please, stop embarrassing yourself?

[William Anthony]

Unlike you I checked my posting where I posted Martz’s testimony that contained the spell check error and the subject I was responding to had nothing to do with that portion of the testimony where the error occurred. I was responding to another one of your false claims that the concentration of EDTA in preserved blood is 2000 parts per billion, when in fact it is between 1000 to 2000 parts per million, not billion. I had posted Martz testimony because in that testimony Martz says, “In talking to EPA, they claim that it's a thousand parts per million is what it's supposed to be. So I did some further research, and it ended up that was solely based on some studies to determine how much EDTA was needed to preserve blood.”

As to when Martz previously said, “So what I did was, the next morning, I called back to the laboratory and had them search the same reference. And it ended up that it was not a part per million, but it was a thousand--or a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million.

What Martz was actually saying was that the reference ended up that it was not a part per million or a part per billion, it was a thousand parts per million. He continued, “Evidently when it was printed out without good resolution--I really don't have the explanation now. In talking to EPA, they claim that it's a thousand parts per million is what it's supposed to be.”

You are the only one William who had ever made the ignorant false claim that one part per billion is equal to 1000 parts per million. And no matter how many times I have proved your claim false and explained to you the correct relationship that one part per billion is equal to one one-thousandth part per million, not 1000 parts per million, you still can’t seem to grasp that reality and admit you were wrong. I even posted it in the simplest form I could find on the internet so that anyone with some basic math education could understand it. But evidently you still can’t.

1 ppm = 1000 ppb
1 ppb = 1/1000 ppm

bobaugust

You seem to be getting hostile when I proved to you mathematically what the EPA representative told Martz, which neither he nor you understood. You forget that it was me that originally said 1 ppm=1000 ppb. I stand by that. Here it is again so that you will understand. 1/1,000,000/1,000,000,000 (inverting and multiplying) you get 1,000,000,000/1,000,000=1,000. However, that is not the issue. The issue is what the EPA told Martz as indicated by the testimony, including the blanks. Your second equation, which I have prove mathematically is what the EPA representative told Martz, which was that 1/100,000 x 1,000/1,000,000=1,000/1,000,000,000,000=1/1,000,000,000 or 1ppb = 1/1,000 ppm. Simply stated, a part per million multiplied by a thousand parts per million, which Martz nor you understand, is a thousand parts per trillion (the blanks in his testimony) "or a part per billion." The problem is not with the math or the testimony. The problem is with your understanding of both. You have shown your ignorance of math and legal concepts and continue to embarrass yourself with these type of posts.

Before you further embarrass yourself by saying that I said that a thousand parts per million is the same as a part per billion, let me do this again for you. 1,000/1,000,000,=1/1,000. 1,000,000/1,000,000,000=1/1,000. You see the relationship stays the same when you speak of wholes and when you speak of parts you use that relationship or 1/100,000 x 1/1,000=1/1,000,000,000, which is what the EPA tried to explain and some because of their ignorance of math seem to not understand, imho.

[William Anthony]

This is not complicated William. You posted testimony from Baker’s cross examination that led you to come to some incorrect conclusions based on what was written in Dr. Lee’s notes. I posted Dr. Lee’s testimony in redirect examination that came after the testimony you posted where Dr. Lee explained that the intent of his notes was only to organize his thinking as to what the issues were.

bobaugust

The only one who does not understand is you. I have never said that what you posted didn't follow the cross. I said it was DIRECT. I REACHED A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION THAN YOU DID BASED ON THE TESTIMONY. I REITERATE THAT, BECAUSE SOME ONE DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOU, DOES NOT MAKE THEM WRONG AND ADD THAT YOU HAVE SHOWN THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE A STRONGHOLD ON WHAT IS CORRECT AS EVIDENCE BY YOUR FIRST POST FROM YOUR HIATUS AND THE ONES THAT HAVE ENSUED THAT RETURN. THE PHRASE "A CONVINCING ARGUMENT' MUST BE MADE SHOWS HIS MOTIVATION. THE FACT THAT HE HAD TO ORGANIZE HIS THOUGHTS I DO NOT DISAGREE WITH, BECAUSE HIS FIRST CONCERN WAS "IF NOT PLANTED" (THE SPOTS ON THE GLOVE AND GATE). HE ORGANIZED HIS THOUGHTS AND, ALTHOUGH HE NEVER DID THE TEST OR KNEW MARTZ'S PROCEDURES, CAME UP WITH THE THEORY THAT MARTZ'S RESULTS WERE THE RESULT OF THE GHOST IN THE MACHINE. HIS THOUGHT PROCESS WAS TO CREATE A CONVINCING ARGUMENT TO ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN AWAY THE EVIDENCE OF PLANTING, WHICH SHOWED HIS PREJUDICE AND BIAS, IMHO, AND, WHICH YOU SEEM TO WANT TO DENY THAT EVIDENCE OR CALL WRONG ANYONE WHO SEE THE EVIDENCE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU CLAIM IT SHOWS. IMHO, YOUR PREJUDICE AND BIAS CAUSES YOU TO FORGET THE JURY INSTRURCTION ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND REASONABLE DOUBT.

[William Anthony]

Quite untrue, :). I offered an explanation and questioned why bobaugust would allow for immediate to mean as soon as practicable within the investigation and not allow Barry to say right after meaning 27 days later or as soon as it became practicable for the prosecution within the investigation. ;):cool: If this is your first post on this forum, let me welcome you.

thank you for your welcome, william anthony.
i think i understand what you are saying, and if i were a defendant, i would want you on my side, i think. :D

You are quite welcome and I think you have added a voice of reason and intelligence to the discussion, not just because you think you would want me on your side :), but, because of your willingness to consider a point of view that may differ with yours and your ability to remain civil in your posts. Again, I welcome you aboard and hope that you will post more.

[martin II]

Limakey, the fact is that some one hit that sturdy back wall hard enough to cause the loud thumps Kaelin heard and the vibrations Kaelin felt that tilted a picture on the wall near his bed. If you read Schiller’s book you would have read this,

American Tragedy,
“On Sunday afternoon, June 26, Shapiro, Kardashian, Pavelic, and Drs. Baden and Lee played sleuth during their critical official visit to Rockingham.

Inside Kato's apartment, they banged hard on the wall. The picture didn't move. Kardashian led half the team to the back walkway. He and others rammed into the wall like football players. Again, the picture stayed motionless.”

Why did the picture remain motionless? Because no one could generate enough force against that wall to cause the vibrations to tilt the picture. Common sense tells us that if a 200 lb man jumped from the top of the fence and collided with that wall that there would have been enough force to create the loud noises and vibrations that Kaelin felt and that tilted the picture. That’s what scared Kaelin causing him to believe that if there wasn’t an earthquake then someone was behind his room.

bobaugust


bob
not true.
All we know about the south house wall is Kato said he heard some noise that he thought was against his bedroom wall. There has been no proof or evidence that someone bouncing against the wall caused this noise. There has been no proof that oj simpson was in the south walkway on 6/12. Only some that offer "IT MUST HAVE BEEN OJ" and that is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.imo.

[martin II]

:seeya: Y'all never venture out of here much so just dropping by to say hello to my fellow posters.

Let me get this straight and I don't want any legal mumbo jumbo, just a straight answer...

Mark Furhman planted the glove? Yes or No?

I say NO. I'd like to know when he had time to do it during the course of the investigation? Means? motive? and opportunity?


The spot of blood on the wire belonged to Simpson?

Yes or No? :shrug: I have no clue - what about the DNA on the blood? Who does it belong to? :shrug:

one final thing -

Conversation between William Anthony and Bobaugust -
Let's not talk about the antics of the former moderator.

ITA - new moderator, new thoughts, new ideas. Bring it on guys and gals. :beer:


From memory. the green growth was cut back some months after the murders or after the trial. not sure. One bent wire on the south fence was seen and one small drop of blood.
I have looked but have not found any testimony about the identity of this one drop of blood or that it belonged to Simpson.However some have claimed that it must have belonged to oj as a way of trying to place him at the walkway.

[weezer]

bob
not true.
All we know about the south house wall is Kato said he heard some noise that he thought was against his bedroom wall. There has been no proof or evidence that someone bouncing against the wall caused this noise. There has been no proof that oj simpson was in the south walkway on 6/12. Only some that offer "IT MUST HAVE BEEN OJ" and that is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.imo.

Kato's testimony was that he heard/felt the thumps on his wall. Thumps that actually moved the picture hanging over his bed. Thumps that were strong enough for Kato to ask his friend if they were having an earthquake.

[weezer]

From memory. the green growth was cut back some months after the murders or after the trial. not sure. One bent wire on the south fence was seen and one small drop of blood.
I have looked but have not found any testimony about the identity of this one drop of blood or that it belonged to Simpson.However some have claimed that it must have belonged to oj as a way of trying to place him at the walkway.

LOL -- yep I still remember the look on orenthal's face when he saw that bent wire in his video -- priceless! :D

I don't remember it as a 'drop' of blood but rather as a smear on the cable. Do you have a link to the 'drop' of blood and where it was located?

[martin II]

LOL -- yep I still remember the look on orenthal's face when he saw that bent wire in his video -- priceless! :D

I don't remember it as a 'drop' of blood but rather as a smear on the cable. Do you have a link to the 'drop' of blood and where it was located?

If oj made some video of that fence i assume it was after the criminal trial.
much had happened between the night of the murders and after the criminal trial and many people had been in that walkway.

Wagner claims that the photographer that took the overhead picture of the glove was standing on top of the wire fence.

The problem with your bent wire claim is that this fence had been there for years prior to the murders and you have no way to know or prove when and by whom this wire was bent. It could have been bent when installed or by the landscape company that cut all the hedges and vines away. Saying oj must have done it it not proof.

I think your impressions on what ojs expression was or what you think it meant is only your opinion. We cannot use that as proof of nothing but your impression.

You are the one that posted the claim that blood on the wire was found. i don't know what you mean when you say smear on a cable

I have not found any testimony of Fung collecting and testing any blood on a wire or smear on a cable from the south walkway and testfying that the blood came from Simpson.IMO

So maby you should ask yourself for a link to this blood. imo

[martin II]

Kato's testimony was that he heard/felt the thumps on his wall. Thumps that actually moved the picture hanging over his bed. Thumps that were strong enough for Kato to ask his friend if they were having an earthquake.

That is what Kato said he heard/felt and what he asked his girlfriend.

Now prove by evidence that oj was the one that made the thumps/noise.

[William Anthony]

William and Martin,

Here is a new way to look at the glove found at Rockingham. I have always believed that if those thumps had anything to do with the murders, then he was meant to hear them.

If the glove was not found behind the wall, the DA's would have said that those thumps were a ploy to draw Kato out of his room. However, this person could not have known how long it would have taken Kato to check out the noise. The person could not have known that he nothing more then a penlight.

Also, even if Kato did come out of his room, then this person must have known that Kato would not have been been able to see him because of the fence and the vegatation. In other words, this person would have used this as a cover----a lot better then knit cap and dark clothes--huh?

While I believe Furham did plant the glove, I do believe that it is also possible that some one made the thumps to distract Kato. It is obvious the DA's could not find the source of the thumps. Also, if I read the testimony correctly, didn't Kato say he believed the noise caused the picture to move?

Remember, Clark only focused on how loud they were.

Three thumps on the wall being caused by Simpson never made sense to me. It is more consistent with a drunk than a murderer. I do not think that Mr. Kato was biased and must therefore accept his testimony. I think some of his answers were not easily understandable but I do believe that was his normal way of speaking. I also saw some confusion on Mr. Kato's part. The three thumps have always puzzled me as to who, if it was a person, made them and why. I think he did say the noise or vibrations, if you will, caused the picture to move.

[weezer]

If oj made some video of that fence i assume it was after the criminal trial.
much had happened between the night of the murders and after the criminal trial and many people had been in that walkway.

Wagner claims that the photographer that took the overhead picture of the glove was standing on top of the wire fence.

The problem with your bent wire claim is that this fence had been there for years prior to the murders and you have no way to know or prove when and by whom this wire was bent. It could have been bent when installed or by the landscape company that cut all the hedges and vines away. Saying oj must have done it it not proof.

I think your impressions on what ojs expression was or what you think it meant is only your opinion. We cannot use that as proof of nothing but your impression.

You are the one that posted the claim that blood on the wire was found. i don't know what you mean when you say smear on a cable

I have not found any testimony of Fung collecting and testing any blood on a wire or smear on a cable from the south walkway and testfying that the blood came from Simpson.IMO

So maby you should ask yourself for a link to this blood. imo

I know what I posted -- my request was for info on the 'drop' of blood you posted.

[weezer]

That is what Kato said he heard/felt and what he asked his girlfriend.

Now prove by evidence that oj was the one that made the thumps/noise.

dude you need to chill :cuss:

[William Anthony]

"I have not found any testimony of Fung collecting and testing any blood on a wire or smear on a cable from the south walkway and testfying that the blood came from Simpson.IMO" martin II

[William Anthony]

That is what Kato said he heard/felt and what he asked his girlfriend.

Now prove by evidence that oj was the one that made the thumps/noise.

Chill out, martin, your requests are becoming too difficult for some. ;):cool::)

[bobaugust]

Your reality seems to be based on the idea that a convicted perjurer told the whole truth and nothing but the truth combined with a denial of police corruption and an ignoring of the fraternal order of police. Your reality seems to deny the existence of things that everyone knows exists an a completed disregard for the testimony or a skewed and contradictory view of what the evidence was, as evidenced by your posts. ;):cool: We have already discussed those photographs and Rohkar's testimony and the evidence showing he and MF lied.

Yes we have discussed Rokahr and Fuhrman’s testimony regarding the photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove. We have also discussed Riske, Phillips, and Clairborne’s testimony that tells us the truth as to when that photograph was taken supporting Fuhrman testimony. Rokahr, Riske, Phillips, and Clairborne were never found to have lied in their testimony. Besides the fact the crime scene photographs that document the glove and the knit cap under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet were taken before that photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove was taken.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Test means an examination of something. The same three tests means the identical examinations on the same things. The same three types of tests means three examinations meaning, for instance, that there could be multiple choice, essay and short answer questions on two different things or that the questions, while of the same type, were not identical. Please, stop embarrassing yourself?

Martz conducted three tests. A negative ion test, an HPLC test, and a positive ion test. Dr Lee had extensive experience having conducted those same three tests hundreds of times using the exact kind of instruments that Martz used to conduct those tests. The things that were tested may have been different but the tests were the same.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You seem to be getting hostile when I proved to you mathematically what the EPA representative told Martz, which neither he nor you understood. You forget that it was me that originally said 1 ppm=1000 ppb. I stand by that. Here it is again so that you will understand. 1/1,000,000/1,000,000,000 (inverting and multiplying) you get 1,000,000,000/1,000,000=1,000. However, that is not the issue. The issue is what the EPA told Martz as indicated by the testimony, including the blanks. Your second equation, which I have prove mathematically is what the EPA representative told Martz, which was that 1/100,000 x 1,000/1,000,000=1,000/1,000,000,000,000=1/1,000,000,000 or 1ppb = 1/1,000 ppm. Simply stated, a part per million multiplied by a thousand parts per million, which Martz nor you understand, is a thousand parts per trillion (the blanks in his testimony) "or a part per billion." The problem is not with the math or the testimony. The problem is with your understanding of both. You have shown your ignorance of math and legal concepts and continue to embarrass yourself with these type of posts.

Before you further embarrass yourself by saying that I said that a thousand parts per million is the same as a part per billion, let me do this again for you. 1,000/1,000,000,=1/1,000. 1,000,000/1,000,000,000=1/1,000. You see the relationship stays the same when you speak of wholes and when you speak of parts you use that relationship or 1/100,000 x 1/1,000=1/1,000,000,000, which is what the EPA tried to explain and some because of their ignorance of math seem to not understand, imho.

Wrong, you’re the one who doesn’t understand this testimony, Martz testified what the EPA told him and it wasn’t what you imagine they told him. Martz said, “In talking to EPA, they claim that it's a thousand parts per million is what it's supposed to be.”

Yes I agree you did originally post that 1 ppm=1000 ppb. And after posting that you then claimed over and over again that one part per billion is equal to (or the same as) 1000 parts per million and you posted over and over again some incorrect math to support that false claim. That’s why I have been telling you over and over again that you are wrong. I even posted the simple math over and over again that 1 ppm = 1000 ppb and 1 ppb = 1/1000 ppm.

Now without having the integrity to admit you were wrong you have finally posted some math that comes to the correct reciprocal that one part per billion is equal to one one-thousandth part per million, not 1000 parts per million.

But you still keep making the false interpretation of what Martz said in his testimony and you still keep making the false claim as to what the EPA told Martz. If now you are saying that you never said that one part per billion is equal to (or the same as) one thousand parts per million then you are outright lying.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The only one who does not understand is you. I have never said that what you posted didn't follow the cross. I said it was DIRECT. I REACHED A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION THAN YOU DID BASED ON THE TESTIMONY. I REITERATE THAT, BECAUSE SOME ONE DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOU, DOES NOT MAKE THEM WRONG AND ADD THAT YOU HAVE SHOWN THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE A STRONGHOLD ON WHAT IS CORRECT AS EVIDENCE BY YOUR FIRST POST FROM YOUR HIATUS AND THE ONES THAT HAVE ENSUED THAT RETURN. THE PHRASE "A CONVINCING ARGUMENT' MUST BE MADE SHOWS HIS MOTIVATION. THE FACT THAT HE HAD TO ORGANIZE HIS THOUGHTS I DO NOT DISAGREE WITH, BECAUSE HIS FIRST CONCERN WAS "IF NOT PLANTED" (THE SPOTS ON THE GLOVE AND GATE). HE ORGANIZED HIS THOUGHTS AND, ALTHOUGH HE NEVER DID THE TEST OR KNEW MARTZ'S PROCEDURES, CAME UP WITH THE THEORY THAT MARTZ'S RESULTS WERE THE RESULT OF THE GHOST IN THE MACHINE. HIS THOUGHT PROCESS WAS TO CREATE A CONVINCING ARGUMENT TO ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN AWAY THE EVIDENCE OF PLANTING, WHICH SHOWED HIS PREJUDICE AND BIAS, IMHO, AND, WHICH YOU SEEM TO WANT TO DENY THAT EVIDENCE OR CALL WRONG ANYONE WHO SEE THE EVIDENCE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU CLAIM IT SHOWS. IMHO, YOUR PREJUDICE AND BIAS CAUSES YOU TO FORGET THE JURY INSTRURCTION ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND REASONABLE DOUBT.

I posted what Dr. Lee said regarding his notes. You responded to my post saying, “That is the direct and I posted the cross.” That sounds to me like you were referring to direct examination and cross examination, not the style of questioning. That’s why I pointed out to you that the testimony I posted was on redirect examination not direct examination.

If as you now say you were referring to the style of questioning and not the order of the testimony was given I will be happy to except your clarification just as I expect you to accept my clarification that when I said Dr. Lee conducted hundreds of times the same tests that Martz conducted means the same kind of tests, not what was being tested.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Correction-The more you call my math convoluted the more I understand that you are not well adept at math, imho. The word part in math and in plain English means a fraction. The clear import of what Martz was told by the EPA representative and what you nor he seemed to understand is that a Part per million (1/100,000) when multiplied by a thousand parts per million is a part per billion, 1/1,000,000 x 1,000/1,000,000=1,000/1,000,000,000,000, when reduced to lowest terms equals 1/1,000,000,000 "or a part per billion", which is what you claimed your spell checker deleted.

I missed this post of yours William but now having seen it I feel it deserves a response. This is another example of you posting some math that has noting to do with what the EPA told Martz, or the correct relationship between parts per billion and parts per million, or what my spell checker changed.

The EPA never told Martz what you claim they told him. Martz testified what the EPA told him and said, “In talking to EPA, they claim that it's a thousand parts per million is what it's supposed to be.”

This is the correct relationship between parts per billion and parts per million not what you have previously claimed it is.
1 ppm = 1000 ppb
1 ppb = 1/1000 ppm

On 8/28/07 I posted a response to another one of your false claims. I started that post by saying, “Wrong. Your claim that the concentration of EDTA in preserved blood is 2000 parts per billion is outright wrong.”

I then posted Martz’s testimony again because Martz referred to how much EDTA it takes to preserve blood, “In talking to EPA, they claim that it's a thousand parts per million is what it's supposed to be. So I did some further research, and it ended up that was solely based on some studies to determine how much EDTA was needed to preserve blood.”

In posting Martz’s full testimony I inadvertently missed seeing a small change the spell checker I was using at that time made in one line of what Martz said. It did not delete the words “or a part per billion” as you now claim, it deleted “--or”

The correct line in the testimony was:
“And it ended up that it was not a part per million, but it was a thousand--or a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million.”

My spell checker change that to:
“And it ended up that it was not a part per million, but it was a thousand a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million.”

That change didn’t make any sense at all but that didn’t stop you from falsely accusing me of deliberately changing that line. A false accusation so you could change the subject and avoid admitting that your claim that the concentration of EDTA in preserved blood is 2000 parts per billion was outright wrong.

bobaugust

[Redmama]

Bob, This is one argument I have followed from the beginning and I completely agree with you. I also completely understand the spell checker - I have been the sender and receiver of many of those too. I once was writing to a gentleman named Dimmit and what was sent was Dimwit - I was REAL popular for awhile.

[martin II]

dude you need to chill :cuss:

weezer
I am not your DUDE
just post your proof on your claim and we can then move foward.

[martin II]

Bob, This is one argument I have followed from the beginning and I completely agree with you. I also completely understand the spell checker - I have been the sender and receiver of many of those too. I once was writing to a gentleman named Dimmit and what was sent was Dimwit - I was REAL popular for awhile.

Thanks for you opinion.it is noted.

[William Anthony]

Yes we have discussed Rokahr and Fuhrman’s testimony regarding the photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove. We have also discussed Riske, Phillips, and Clairborne’s testimony that tells us the truth as to when that photograph was taken supporting Fuhrman testimony. Rokahr, Riske, Phillips, and Clairborne were never found to have lied in their testimony. Besides the fact the crime scene photographs that document the glove and the knit cap under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet were taken before that photograph of Fuhrman pointing to the glove was taken.

bobaugust

Yes, the photo's were all taken after MF could have hidden the other glove. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

Martz conducted three tests. A negative ion test, an HPLC test, and a positive ion test. Dr Lee had extensive experience having conducted those same three tests hundreds of times using the exact kind of instruments that Martz used to conduct those tests. The things that were tested may have been different but the tests were the same.

bobaugust

The types of tests were the same but they were not the same tests, as you falsely posted.;):cool:

[William Anthony]

I posted what Dr. Lee said regarding his notes. You responded to my post saying, “That is the direct and I posted the cross.” That sounds to me like you were referring to direct examination and cross examination, not the style of questioning. That’s why I pointed out to you that the testimony I posted was on redirect examination not direct examination.

If as you now say you were referring to the style of questioning and not the order of the testimony was given I will be happy to except your clarification just as I expect you to accept my clarification that when I said Dr. Lee conducted hundreds of times the same tests that Martz conducted means the same kind of tests, not what was being tested.

bobaugust

There is quite a difference between what you posted and what I posted. You said the were the same three tests, which they were not. I said that it was direct, which it was. Because of your limited knowledge of legal concepts, now to include direct examination, you think that I should accept your clarification, when I was not wrong. You have proven repeatedly, imho, that what you are often wrong based on what something sounds like to you. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

I missed this post of yours William but now having seen it I feel it deserves a response. This is another example of you posting some math that has noting to do with what the EPA told Martz, or the correct relationship between parts per billion and parts per million, or what my spell checker changed.

The EPA never told Martz what you claim they told him. Martz testified what the EPA told him and said, “In talking to EPA, they claim that it's a thousand parts per million is what it's supposed to be.”

This is the correct relationship between parts per billion and parts per million not what you have previously claimed it is.
1 ppm = 1000 ppb
1 ppb = 1/1000 ppm

On 8/28/07 I posted a response to another one of your false claims. I started that post by saying, “Wrong. Your claim that the concentration of EDTA in preserved blood is 2000 parts per billion is outright wrong.”

I then posted Martz’s testimony again because Martz referred to how much EDTA it takes to preserve blood, “In talking to EPA, they claim that it's a thousand parts per million is what it's supposed to be. So I did some further research, and it ended up that was solely based on some studies to determine how much EDTA was needed to preserve blood.”

In posting Martz’s full testimony I inadvertently missed seeing a small change the spell checker I was using at that time made in one line of what Martz said. It did not delete the words “or a part per billion” as you now claim, it deleted “--or”

The correct line in the testimony was:
“And it ended up that it was not a part per million, but it was a thousand--or a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million.”

My spell checker change that to:
“And it ended up that it was not a part per million, but it was a thousand a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million.”

That change didn’t make any sense at all but that didn’t stop you from falsely accusing me of deliberately changing that line. A false accusation so you could change the subject and avoid admitting that your claim that the concentration of EDTA in preserved blood is 2000 parts per billion was outright wrong.

bobaugust

If I incorrectly typed a thousand part per billion and meant million nearly a year ago and did not correct that then II apologize. However, from the new scientific test and results that were found, we now know that evidence of manipulation/planting would occur in the parts per billion range.

MY point is not with what Martz said the EPA representative told him. It is wiith his understanding or what the representative told him, which I have proven mathematically and, which the new scientific test upholds, and which the blanks in his testimony indicate. The sentence began with "but it was' and said or a "part per billion." You have spent countless post not arguing about my alleged post saying that the amount that it took to preserve blood was a thousand parts per billion but arguing that I falsely claimed that a part per million times a thousand parts per million is a part per billion (what the blanks in Martz testimony indicate he was told by the EPA representative).

You truly need to stop with the spell checker nonsense. Please, stop embarrassing yourself. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

Bob, This is one argument I have followed from the beginning and I completely agree with you. I also completely understand the spell checker - I have been the sender and receiver of many of those too. I once was writing to a gentleman named Dimmit and what was sent was Dimwit - I was REAL popular for awhile.

I agree with what you have posted as to what your spell checker did and you have proven that it did not delete four words but changed the spelling of one. Thanks for your honesty. I think that is how most spell checkers work. Besides, who would spell check a quote of testimony, because that would change the testimony. Perhaps, bobaugust's spell checker causes him to be wrong so many times as he sees testimony that is contradictory to what the testimony really is. I had thought it was his arrogance and thought he need to change that. Perhaps, he just needs to change spell checkers. :)

[William Anthony]

Let's look at Martz testimony and see where he was wrong.

"MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, is it your testimony that you can tell with any precision how much blood is in a solution by looking at it?

MR. MARTZ: For this particular case, I think that it is, because EDTA in preserved blood is at least a thousand parts per million. If it is present in humans, at a part per million, which we have now established, that is a thousand-fold difference and I don't believe that any technique that I could have used could have been off by a thousand percent. I mean, I didn't need to be that accurate in order to determine whether or not the bloodstains were from preserved blood or from non-preserved blood. I was very, very careful in the sizes that I cut and I always made sure that I took more sample from the questioned samples than the control samples. That is why I very carefully looked at the color as I extracted and I was convinced that I had at least as much blood on the control areas as I did on the questioned areas or as on the--I had at least as much on the questioned areas as I did on the control areas. I was very, very careful in this analysis."

We now know that it would be in the part per billion, less than 15ng, IIRC, because 15ng would indicate manipulation/planting.

Martz went on to say the following in this portion which we have posted several times.

"MR. MARTZ: I don't believe so. When I first got that study, which was I believe two nights ago, maybe it was Sunday night, I received that study, and the first thing in looking at it, it appeared to be out of place. They were talking about toxic clean-up of EDTA and they had a lot of things that were mentioned, and all of a sudden, out of nowhere came the fact that it said one part per billion would be normally expected in a human or considered to be the normal level. And it just didn't make sense to me why that would be there. So what I did was, the next morning, I called back to the laboratory and had them search the same reference. And it ended up that it was not a part per million, but it was a thousand--or a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million. Evidently when it was printed out without good resolution--I really don't have the explanation now. In talking to EPA, they claim that it's a thousand parts per million is what it's supposed to be. So I did some further research, and it ended up that that was solely based on some studies to determine how much EDTA was needed to preserve blood. It had absolutely nothing at all what to do with the amount that would be expected in a person or could be toxic to a person. It was completely out of context and it was wrong."

We now know that the only people who did not understand the context and were wrong were bobaugust and Roger Martz, as testified to by Dr. R. and the plaintiff's expert, Terri Lee. I think bobaugust and Martz are employed by the same company, "Failing Big Investigations.":)

[bobaugust]

Bob, This is one argument I have followed from the beginning and I completely agree with you. I also completely understand the spell checker - I have been the sender and receiver of many of those too. I once was writing to a gentleman named Dimmit and what was sent was Dimwit - I was REAL popular for awhile.

Redmama, thank you. People who are familiar with different spell checkers can understand how this might happen and how it can be overlooked.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The types of tests were the same but they were not the same tests, as you falsely posted.;):cool:

The tests were the same. What was being tested was different.

[bobaugust]

There is quite a difference between what you posted and what I posted. You said the were the same three tests, which they were not. I said that it was direct, which it was. Because of your limited knowledge of legal concepts, now to include direct examination, you think that I should accept your clarification, when I was not wrong. You have proven repeatedly, imho, that what you are often wrong based on what something sounds like to you. ;):cool:

You didn’t understand what I meant and I didn’t understand what you meant. You clarified what you meant and I accepted your clarification. I clarified what I meant but you do not want to accept my clarification, you just want to argue. That’s the difference.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

If I incorrectly typed a thousand part per billion and meant million nearly a year ago and did not correct that then II apologize. However, from the new scientific test and results that were found, we now know that evidence of manipulation/planting would occur in the parts per billion range.

MY point is not with what Martz said the EPA representative told him. It is wiith his understanding or what the representative told him, which I have proven mathematically and, which the new scientific test upholds, and which the blanks in his testimony indicate. The sentence began with "but it was' and said or a "part per billion." You have spent countless post not arguing about my alleged post saying that the amount that it took to preserve blood was a thousand parts per billion but arguing that I falsely claimed that a part per million times a thousand parts per million is a part per billion (what the blanks in Martz testimony indicate he was told by the EPA representative).

You truly need to stop with the spell checker nonsense. Please, stop embarrassing yourself. ;):cool:

Incorrectly typed? So now you’re claiming that you incorrectly typed a thousand parts per billion in every post you made claiming that preserved blood contained 2000 parts per billion of EDTA? If that’s what you are claiming then you are a liar.

Martz knew exactly what EPA told him because Martz testified that the concentration of EDTA in a purple topped tube is between a thousand and 2000 parts per million. You William are the only who couldn’t seem to comprehend that then and evidently you still can’t comprehend it. That’s why your interpretation of what Martz actually said in his testimony is ridiculous and wrong. It’s what you believe not what Martz believed.

This is what Martz said,
“And it ended up that it was not a part per million, but it was a thousand--or a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million.”

What Martz was saying was that it was not a part per million, or a part per billion but it was a thousand parts per million.

Before he finished saying “but it was a thousand (parts per million)” he paused and added what else it was not “--or a part per billion.” That’s what the dashes represent in the transcript, a pause. He then finished what he started to say before he paused. “It was a thousand parts per million.”

Your claims were false when you repeatedly made them. Your convoluted math was incorrect and you have never admitted that you were wrong. The only thing different now is that you will lie about what you said.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I agree with what you have posted as to what your spell checker did and you have proven that it did not delete four words but changed the spelling of one. Thanks for your honesty. I think that is how most spell checkers work. Besides, who would spell check a quote of testimony, because that would change the testimony. Perhaps, bobaugust's spell checker causes him to be wrong so many times as he sees testimony that is contradictory to what the testimony really is. I had thought it was his arrogance and thought he need to change that. Perhaps, he just needs to change spell checkers. :)

Stop exaggerating William. The spell checker I used at the time did not delete four words.

Who would spell check a quote of testimony? The answer is anyone who copies and pastes the testimony to a message and then spell checks the message using a Netscape Spell Checker. Maybe that’s one of the reasons Netscape is being discontinued but it is one the reasons I no longer use it.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Let's look at Martz testimony and see where he was wrong.

"MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, is it your testimony that you can tell with any precision how much blood is in a solution by looking at it?

MR. MARTZ: For this particular case, I think that it is, because EDTA in preserved blood is at least a thousand parts per million. If it is present in humans, at a part per million, which we have now established, that is a thousand-fold difference and I don't believe that any technique that I could have used could have been off by a thousand percent. I mean, I didn't need to be that accurate in order to determine whether or not the bloodstains were from preserved blood or from non-preserved blood. I was very, very careful in the sizes that I cut and I always made sure that I took more sample from the questioned samples than the control samples. That is why I very carefully looked at the color as I extracted and I was convinced that I had at least as much blood on the control areas as I did on the questioned areas or as on the--I had at least as much on the questioned areas as I did on the control areas. I was very, very careful in this analysis."

We now know that it would be in the part per billion, less than 15ng, IIRC, because 15ng would indicate manipulation/planting.

Martz went on to say the following in this portion which we have posted several times.

"MR. MARTZ: I don't believe so. When I first got that study, which was I believe two nights ago, maybe it was Sunday night, I received that study, and the first thing in looking at it, it appeared to be out of place. They were talking about toxic clean-up of EDTA and they had a lot of things that were mentioned, and all of a sudden, out of nowhere came the fact that it said one part per billion would be normally expected in a human or considered to be the normal level. And it just didn't make sense to me why that would be there. So what I did was, the next morning, I called back to the laboratory and had them search the same reference. And it ended up that it was not a part per million, but it was a thousand--or a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million. Evidently when it was printed out without good resolution--I really don't have the explanation now. In talking to EPA, they claim that it's a thousand parts per million is what it's supposed to be. So I did some further research, and it ended up that that was solely based on some studies to determine how much EDTA was needed to preserve blood. It had absolutely nothing at all what to do with the amount that would be expected in a person or could be toxic to a person. It was completely out of context and it was wrong."

We now know that the only people who did not understand the context and were wrong were bobaugust and Roger Martz, as testified to by Dr. R. and the plaintiff's expert, Terri Lee. I think bobaugust and Martz are employed by the same company, "Failing Big Investigations.":)

There is no dispute that Martz didn’t know at that time how much EDTA could be found in human blood, since there weren’t many studies regarding that at the time. But Martz did know that the concentration of EDTA in preserved blood was 1000 to 2000 parts per million. And Martz knew that the small trace amount of EDTA that was indicated in the results from the third test he performed, the positive ion test, was one part per thousand. 1000 times less found in preserved blood. That’s why Martz suspected that trace amount of EDTA may have been the result of an artifact in the instrument. Dr. Lee confirmed that possibility when he testified in the civil trial.

bobaugust

[martin II]

William and Martin,

Here is a new way to look at the glove found at Rockingham. I have always believed that if those thumps had anything to do with the murders, then he was meant to hear them.

If the glove was not found behind the wall, the DA's would have said that those thumps were a ploy to draw Kato out of his room. However, this person could not have known how long it would have taken Kato to check out the noise. The person could not have known that he nothing more then a penlight.

Also, even if Kato did come out of his room, then this person must have known that Kato would not have been been able to see him because of the fence and the vegatation. In other words, this person would have used this as a cover----a lot better then knit cap and dark clothes--huh?

While I believe Furham did plant the glove, I do believe that it is also possible that some one made the thumps to distract Kato. It is obvious the DA's could not find the source of the thumps. Also, if I read the testimony correctly, didn't Kato say he believed the noise caused the picture to move?

Remember, Clark only focused on how loud they were.


i understand your point.

le detectives including Furhman testified that their investigation on the glove area/fence did not show that anyone had jumped the fence. the only person that we know walked down the walkway was furhman.

The mystery is What did Kato hear if anything. Is proof required to verify his story. If he did hear something, it must have been something very large and powerful to shake a wall attatched to the house.Something larger than most humans i think.

The prosecution had a huge problem of proving their claim that oj jumped the fence bounced against the air conditioner/wall three times fell to the ground/dropped the glove, ran out of the walkway, stopped and open and replaced the two broken gates and walked into his house, without leaving one piece of evidence or trace of blood that he did any of this.
I think the jury would have been waiting for the prosecution to offer proof of this event but they never did. They only said the glove was found there. so it MUST have been place there by Simpson. This was not proof and the defense did not have the responsibility to prove that Simpson was not there
as some believe.imo

[Redmama]

Thanks for you opinion.it is noted.

Cool - I don't have to keep track of my response now:)

[weezer]

i understand your point.

le detectives including Furhman testified that their investigation on the glove area/fence did not show that anyone had jumped the fence. the only person that we know walked down the walkway was furhman.

The mystery is What did Kato hear if anything. Is proof required to verify his story. If he did hear something, it must have been something very large and powerful to shake a wall attatched to the house.Something larger than most humans i think.

The prosecution had a huge problem of proving their claim that oj jumped the fence bounced against the air conditioner/wall three times fell to the ground/dropped the glove, ran out of the walkway, stopped and open and replaced the two broken gates and walked into his house, without leaving one piece of evidence or trace of blood that he did any of this.
I think the jury would have been waiting for the prosecution to offer proof of this event but they never did. They only said the glove was found there. so it MUST have been place there by Simpson. This was not proof and the defense did not have the responsibility to prove that Simpson was not there
as some believe.imo

martin you keep referring to two broken gates -- IIRC, there is testimony about the one to the side yard -- where was the other?

[martin II]

martin you keep referring to two broken gates -- IIRC, there is testimony about the one to the side yard -- where was the other?

I am not sure what you are refering to when you say "one to the side YARD."

Actually there were three gates in the south walkway at ojs house.
one at the back edge of the garage and the south walkway.
one at the pool throphy room in the south walkway
one in back of Arnelles quarters in the south walkway.

MartinII

[weezer]

I am not sure what you are refering to when you say "one to the side YARD."

Actually there were three gates in the south walkway at ojs house.
one at the back edge of the garage and the south walkway.
one at the pool throphy room in the south walkway
one in back of Arnelles quarters in the south walkway.

MartinII

which two broken gates were there? I remember testimony about one having to be gone through --

[martin II]

which two broken gates were there? I remember testimony about one having to be gone through --

Are you speaking of the gates in the south walkway or some gates in some YARD at another location on the property?

South walkway gates

Ist gate by garage was 6 ft high on broken hinge but in place
2nd gate was 3 ft high but closed.

Kato terstimony.

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

Clarke would have us believe that in the pitch dark in the south walkway oj was running west from the spot where the glove was, stopped to open the first 3ft gate walked through and close it, ran to the 1st 6 ft gate took it off of its hinges walked through and replaced it on the hinges in the pitch dark and then ran to the walkway.

Kato said he took the 1st 6ft gate off of its hinges and placed it against a tree on his first trip.

Kato said the second 3ft gate was closed. and he only went close to it on his second trip but not through it.

He turned around and walked back out of the walkway because he only had a small pen light and it was dark in the walkway.

[martin II]

which two broken gates were there? I remember testimony about one having to be gone through --

In order to get from the glove to the walkway one would have to open and close the 2nd gate and take the 1st gate off of its hinges and place it back on the hinges in the pitch black as there was no outside ligh source.

[weezer]

Are you speaking of the gates in the south walkway or some gates in some YARD at another location on the property?

South walkway gates

Ist gate by garage was 6 ft high on broken hinge but in place
2nd gate was 3 ft high but closed.

Kato terstimony.

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

Clarke would have us believe that in the pitch dark in the south walkway oj was running west from the spot where the glove was, stopped to open the first 3ft gate walked through and close it, ran to the 1st 6 ft gate took it off of its hinges walked through and replaced it on the hinges in the pitch dark and then ran to the walkway.

Kato said he took the 1st 6ft gate off of its hinges and placed it against a tree on his first trip.

Kato said the second 3ft gate was closed. and he only went close to it on his second trip but not through it.

He turned around and walked back out of the walkway because he only had a small pen light and it was dark in the walkway.

YOU'RE the one that said: ". . .stopped and open and replaced the two broken gates. . ." -- I was simply asking what two gates were broken as you were posting.

[martin II]

YOU'RE the one that said: ". . .stopped and open and replaced the two broken gates. . ." -- I was simply asking what two gates were broken as you were posting.

THE issue is that there was a 6ft broken gate on hinges that had to be taken off manually and replaced on hinges to walk through. another 3ft gate that had to be opened and closed in order to walk through and oj was supposed to have done this while running through the walkway in the pitch dark according to m clarke.
the gates were only a secondary issue as le detectives stated that they saw nothing that would cause them to believe anyone jumped that south walkway fence. So how did the glove get to be where it was 'Found'

[weezer]

THE issue is that there was a 6ft broken gate on hinges that had to be taken off manually and replaced on hinges to walk through. another 3ft gate that had to be opened and closed in order to walk through and oj was supposed to have done this while running through the walkway in the pitch dark according to m clarke.
the gates were only a secondary issue as le detectives stated that they saw nothing that would cause them to believe anyone jumped that south walkway fence. So how did the glove get to be where it was 'Found'

YOU'RE the one that kept posting about TWO gates -- I simply asked what two gates! geez. I think you have the gates sizes backwards.

I think it's funny that the one thing you choose to believe LE detectives about is your posting that they didn't 'believe anyone jumped that south walkway fence. . . ." LOL

[martin II]

YOU'RE the one that kept posting about TWO gates -- I simply asked what two gates! geez. I think you have the gates sizes backwards.

I think it's funny that the one thing you choose to believe LE detectives about is your posting that they didn't 'believe anyone jumped that south walkway fence. . . ." LOL


Why do you believe i have the gate sizes wrong?I think you do not know how many gates there were. ha ha ha


"Specifically, there are two chain link gates at issue. The "first gate" is six feet tall and can block the path at the place where the garage ends and the utility area begins. There is also a half height (3 feet tall) gate, the "second gate," where the utility area ends and the narrow walk behind the bungalows begins. Kato says that in his aborted investigation of the cause of the "three thumps" he went back there twice. On the first trip the first gate was closed (but broken) and he opened it and, since it was "broken off its hinges" leaned it against a tree; he only went about five feet farther and did not come to the second gate. On his second trip he went through the first gate opening and up almost to the second gate, but says he "did not open it." (Some people take that to mean that the second gate was closed when Kato was there, but he does not exactly say so.)"

wagner

Give evidence presented in court that oj was in the walkway on 6/12

[William Anthony]

The tests were the same. What was being tested was different.

That is dumb and funny, since you claimed they were the same three test that Martz did. :)

[William Anthony]

You didn’t understand what I meant and I didn’t understand what you meant. You clarified what you meant and I accepted your clarification. I clarified what I meant but you do not want to accept my clarification, you just want to argue. That’s the difference.

bobaugust

The difference is that you were wrong and I was not. :)

[martin II]

That is dumb and funny, since you claimed they were the same three test that Martz did. :)

If as bob says what was being tested was different but the test was the same how could the test be the same. If one test for EDTA the results would be the same if one test for clorox?

[William Anthony]

Incorrectly typed? So now you’re claiming that you incorrectly typed a thousand parts per billion in every post you made claiming that preserved blood contained 2000 parts per billion of EDTA? If that’s what you are claiming then you are a liar.

Martz knew exactly what EPA told him because Martz testified that the concentration of EDTA in a purple topped tube is between a thousand and 2000 parts per million. You William are the only who couldn’t seem to comprehend that then and evidently you still can’t comprehend it. That’s why your interpretation of what Martz actually said in his testimony is ridiculous and wrong. It’s what you believe not what Martz believed.

This is what Martz said,
“And it ended up that it was not a part per million, but it was a thousand--or a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million.”

What Martz was saying was that it was not a part per million, or a part per billion but it was a thousand parts per million.

Before he finished saying “but it was a thousand (parts per million)” he paused and added what else it was not “--or a part per billion.” That’s what the dashes represent in the transcript, a pause. He then finished what he started to say before he paused. “It was a thousand parts per million.”

Your claims were false when you repeatedly made them. Your convoluted math was incorrect and you have never admitted that you were wrong. The only thing different now is that you will lie about what you said.

bobaugust

Oh, now I will admit I did not understand. If you are saying that I typed 2,000 parts per billion would be preserved blood after I posted the new scientific study that evidence of manipulation/planting would occur in the 15ng part per million range, then yes that is what I said, if I said that. However, if you are claiming I said that before I found the sturdy, then it was a typo.

So, now you are saying that the amount of human blood is in the thousand part per million as what Martz said. Remember, that the sentence that Martz disagreed with was the amount of EDTA in unpreserved blood. Just because you can't show my math to be wrong is an indication that it is correct and not convoluted. The fact that you can't understand math and testimony does not make it wrong. The sentence in the EPA report was clear as to what the part per billion referred, unpreserved human blood. Martz's testimony and you upholding of it shows that neither you nor he understood what the representative told him and what I have proven mathematically as to what he actually told Martz. You only have your "unsupported speculation" as to what it meant.

[martin II]

YOU'RE the one that kept posting about TWO gates -- I simply asked what two gates! geez. I think you have the gates sizes backwards.

I think it's funny that the one thing you choose to believe LE detectives about is your posting that they didn't 'believe anyone jumped that south walkway fence. . . ." LOL

look
when le lie as vanhatter did i don't thrust him. when he testifies to something that makes sense i believe him. simple as that.

[martin II]

YOU'RE the one that kept posting about TWO gates -- I simply asked what two gates! geez. I think you have the gates sizes backwards.

I think it's funny that the one thing you choose to believe LE detectives about is your posting that they didn't 'believe anyone jumped that south walkway fence. . . ." LOL

weezer
just take your time and give court testimone that prooves that oj was in the south walkwayon 6/12

[William Anthony]

Stop exaggerating William. The spell checker I used at the time did not delete four words.

Who would spell check a quote of testimony? The answer is anyone who copies and pastes the testimony to a message and then spell checks the message using a Netscape Spell Checker. Maybe that’s one of the reasons Netscape is being discontinued but it is one the reasons I no longer use it.

bobaugust

No exaggeration, bobaugust. I remember when you blamed you spell checker after I called you on it and you claimed your spell checker deleted "or a part per billion." in fact, I think I am generous since, according to your preposterous claim your spell checker deleted five words. However, this is all based on memory but I will see if I can research it to be accurate. The point is your claim that your spell checker deleted something. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

There is no dispute that Martz didn’t know at that time how much EDTA could be found in human blood, since there weren’t many studies regarding that at the time. But Martz did know that the concentration of EDTA in preserved blood was 1000 to 2000 parts per million. And Martz knew that the small trace amount of EDTA that was indicated in the results from the third test he performed, the positive ion test, was one part per thousand. 1000 times less found in preserved blood. That’s why Martz suspected that trace amount of EDTA may have been the result of an artifact in the instrument. Dr. Lee confirmed that possibility when he testified in the civil trial.

bobaugust

That's what I've been trying to explain to you all along. Martz thought his results were correct as to the amount of EDTA in human blood, because he testified as follows, If it is present in humans, at a part per million, which we have now established". Martz would have been dead and he also testified that there was no study done in order to determine the amount of EDTA to be found in unpreserved human blood, which you readily admit he was wrong by your statement, "There is no dispute that Martz didn’t know at that time how much EDTA could be found in human blood, since there weren’t many studies regarding that at the time." However, the more damaging came from Dr. R., testifying that Martz would be dead and Terry Lee that Martz was wrong and did not know he was wrong and the EPA report telling him that the amount of EDTA in unpreserved blood would be in the part per billion, which he called wrong.

[weezer]

*SNIPPED*". . .Why do you believe i have the gate sizes wrong?I think you do not know how many gates there were. ha ha ha. . ."

and I don't think you know how many gates were broken. hahahaha

[martin II]

*SNIPPED*

and I don't think you know how many gates were broken. hahahaha

read my post and you will see.
just give me evidence that oj was in the walkway. that is the issue. not what you are ragging on about. hopefully you have been informed about the number of gates.

[martin II]

*SNIPPED*

and I don't think you know how many gates were broken. hahahaha

see post #6121 and be informed,

you still have not answered the question.

[martin II]

bo is on his way