Issues In The Criminal Trial

[Redmama]

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.

I probably have as more experience in this area than most. It is directly connected what I've been doing for more than 25 years. An yes, this is how some of them work.

[weezer]

I probably have as more experience in this area than most. It is directly connected what I've been doing for more than 25 years. An yes, this is how some of them work.

tell us more please -- I don't understand what you've said. It's probably just me since this is not an area I've any knowledge of.

[Redmama]

tell us more please -- I don't understand what you've said. It's probably just me since this is not an area I've any knowledge of.

I've worked in the Corporate world for over 25 years. Everything I do is some type of documentation of something - some type of communication or method or procedure document. Spell Checkers have tried to get so smart that they actually hurt us sometimes. They often have grammar checks and other checks. I guess when they were written these checks were considered to be an upgrade. When you get really used to them, it is very easy to click right by and assume that they are correct. They are not always. Literally hitting the enter key is all it takes for the change to be accepted and changed on your document. They will change a word or a succession of words. If you have "Word," the Microsoft Application on your PC - look under Tools - if you have the same version I do, it actually says Spelling and Grammar. It checks both at the same time. Most browsers and other applications are built just like Word is.

[Redmama]

I've worked in the Corporate world for over 25 years. Everything I do is some type of documentation of something - some type of communication or method or procedure document. Spell Checkers have tried to get so smart that they actually hurt us sometimes. They often have grammar checks and other checks. I guess when they were written these checks were considered to be an upgrade. When you get really used to them, it is very easy to click right by and assume that they are correct. They are not always. Literally hitting the enter key is all it takes for the change to be accepted and changed on your document. They will change a word or a succession of words. If you have "Word," the Microsoft Application on your PC - look under Tools - if you have the same version I do, it actually says Spelling and Grammar. It checks both at the same time. Most browsers and other applications are built just like Word is.

Hey is this legal - to respond to your own thread? Anyway, I guess I was reading pretty fast - I really meant to respond to the spell checker question - don't want you to think i'm a blood expert or anything!

[weezer]

Hey is this legal - to respond to your own thread? Anyway, I guess I was reading pretty fast - I really meant to respond to the spell checker question - don't want you to think i'm a blood expert or anything!

thanks for the answer. but if you work in the corporate world, you probably are a 'blood expert' of sorts. LOL

and, yes, I did think you were talking about the blood/tests but I appreciate your answer as to the spell checker. I use the same program and have gotten myself into trouble more than once doing exactly what you described. :eek:

[Redmama]

thanks for the answer. but if you work in the corporate world, you probably are a 'blood expert' of sorts. LOL

and, yes, I did think you were talking about the blood/tests but I appreciate your answer as to the spell checker. I use the same program and have gotten myself into trouble more than once doing exactly what you described. :eek:


Yeah - I really need to slow down...I always realize what I've done after I've opened my mouth...oh well if you can't laugh at yourself...

Have a great evening!

[William Anthony]

I've worked in the Corporate world for over 25 years. Everything I do is some type of documentation of something - some type of communication or method or procedure document. Spell Checkers have tried to get so smart that they actually hurt us sometimes. They often have grammar checks and other checks. I guess when they were written these checks were considered to be an upgrade. When you get really used to them, it is very easy to click right by and assume that they are correct. They are not always. Literally hitting the enter key is all it takes for the change to be accepted and changed on your document. They will change a word or a succession of words. If you have "Word," the Microsoft Application on your PC - look under Tools - if you have the same version I do, it actually says Spelling and Grammar. It checks both at the same time. Most browsers and other applications are built just like Word is.

I have never had a spell checker that deleted things. I still do not know why anyone would want to spell check a quote of the testimony they posted, smile. Let's not forget that we are working on the internet and not on documents.

[snoop_doxie]

I have never had a spell checker that deleted things. I still do not know why anyone would want to spell check a quote of the testimony they posted, smile. Let's not forget that we are working on the internet and not on documents.

if quoting from documents, can one assume they have been spell-checked and/or grammar checked? what is the process for transcripts?

are there pictures or measured drawings to show the walkway?

[William Anthony]

if quoting from documents, can one assume they have been spell-checked and/or grammar checked? what is the process for transcripts?

are there pictures or measured drawings to show the walkway?

If I was quoting someone, who said it ain't so, that is what I would cut and copy and would not change it to it isn't so. However, I have not been involved in a criminal trial. The cases in which I have been involved in were civil. In the cases of deposition, the witness is allowed to review that transcript and enter any corrections they feel that were actually said on the correction sheet. They cannot change the substance of the answer in so doing. The trial transcript becomes the record of what was said in Court. There is no need to spell check that transcript by someone else, once it is the record.

[William Anthony]

if quoting from documents, can one assume they have been spell-checked and/or grammar checked? what is the process for transcripts?

are there pictures or measured drawings to show the walkway?

These are the sentences of the testimony that have been the subject of much debate between bobaugust and me, "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." After I pointed out what the sentences said, beginning with the portion "but it was a thousand--or a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million", bobaugust, IIRC, posted the following as a quote of the testimony, And it ended up that it was not a part per million, but it was a thousand. It was a thousand parts per million.", changing the substance of the testimony.

I think there were drawings and measurements used during the criminal trial.

[martin II]

if quoting from documents, can one assume they have been spell-checked and/or grammar checked? what is the process for transcripts?

are there pictures or measured drawings to show the walkway?

There are scale drawings and pictures

[bobaugust]

That is dumb and funny, since you claimed they were the same three test that Martz did. :)

That’s correct the same three tests. The first test was a negative ion test. The second test was an HPLC test, and the third test was a positive ion test. What is funny is that for someone who is supposedly familiar with Dr. Lee’s testimony can’t seem to understand what I said even after I clarified it.

January 16, 1997 Dr. Terry Lee

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. Now, another test that Agent Martz performed is what we've talked about earlier, this
so-called HPLC test, and would you describe briefly what an HPLC test is?
A. HPLC is -- is short for high pressure or high performance liquid chromatography. It separates mixtures, and the analysis relies upon being able to separate what you want to look for from everything else and assign what is called a retention time to it. The identification is based on the retention time of the compound coming out of the instrument and the UV absorbance signal that the detector monitors.
Q. You mentioned before you yourself have performed many of these tests?
A. Yes, hundreds.
*
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

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The difference is that you were wrong and I was not. :)

No I was not wrong. I used the word “same” to refer to kind of tests Martz conducted not the substance he tested. You used the words direct and cross to refer to a type of questioning not the trial process; I thought you were referring to. You clarified what you meant and I accepted your clarification since it wasn’t really a big deal. I clarified what I meant yet you refuse to accept my clarification trying to make it into some kind of big deal. That’s the difference.

bobaugust

[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.

You’re wrong again. The only thing you have proved is that you still do not understand how much EDTA it takes to preserve blood. Your claim that preserved blood contains 2000 parts per billion of EDTA is false. Preserved blood contains between 1000 and 2000 parts per million of EDTA. The article you are referring to clearly stated that the concentration of EDTA in preserved blood is 1300 parts per million.

I agree Martz did not know how much EDTA could be found in a person but he did know how much EDTA is contained in preserved blood. One had nothing to do with the other. Martz said the reference was unclear possibly due to a printing problem. So he called the laboratory and they searched the same reference and it ended up that it was not a part per million, it was not a part per billion, it was a thousand parts per million. And when he talked to EPA they also said it was suppose to be a thousand parts per million.

Your claim that one part per billion is equal to or the same as one thousand parts per million is outright false and any math you have posted that comes to that conclusion is incorrect math.

bobaugust

[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:

You remember wrong, I never said any such thing. I just recently posted a message to you showing what the correct line was and what my spell checker changed and that the end result didn’t make any sense. My post #6096, page 153. In case you did not comprehend what I posted I will post it again and if you still can’t comprehend it then I suggest you go to your private messages and read Freshwaters message to you dated 8/31/07 entitled “The omission of ‘or’” and read where she told you that the Netscape e-mail messenger spell check did exactly as I had said it did eliminating “--or”

I repeat:
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.”

bobaugust

[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.

Dr. Rieders testified that the EPA report was unclear and he used his own interpretation of what he thought it should have said. Martz’s copy of the EPA report was also unclear and that’s why he had the lab check another copy of it and that’s why he called EPA. And that’s why he testified, “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.”

The whole issue of how much EDTA may be found in a person is completely meaningless to the question “Did the evidence stains came from preserved blood?” because the small trace amount of EDTA that was indicated in the third test results was in parts per million, 1000 times more than what Dr. Rieders testified was in human blood, and 1000 times less than what is in preserved blood.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I have never had a spell checker that deleted things. I still do not know why anyone would want to spell check a quote of the testimony they posted, smile. Let's not forget that we are working on the internet and not on documents.

I have no idea what method you use to type your messages but there are many ways to do it. When I posted the message with the spell check error I was using a method of typing my messages on Netscape e-mail messenger because it contained a spell checker. I would type my message, copy and paste testimony onto it and then I would spell check the message. When the spell checker found discrepancies in the message including the pasted copy of the transcripts it would ask me if I wanted to make the change and I would select ignore if it was regarding something in the transcripts. After reading my message I would make changes and spell check again and repeat this until I was felt the message was ready to post. During one of those times I inadvertently missed the ignore option and the spell checker made a change I was unaware of. I no longer use Netscape email messenger. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding you may have.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

These are the sentences of the testimony that have been the subject of much debate between bobaugust and me, "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." After I pointed out what the sentences said, beginning with the portion "but it was a thousand--or a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million", bobaugust, IIRC, posted the following as a quote of the testimony, And it ended up that it was not a part per million, but it was a thousand. It was a thousand parts per million.", changing the substance of the testimony.

I think there were drawings and measurements used during the criminal trial.

You’re wrong again. Eventually you’re going to realize what you keep saying is incorrect. And then we will see if you have the integrity to admit you are mistaken about this.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I have no idea what method you use to type your messages but there are many ways to do it. When I posted the message with the spell check error I was using a method of typing my messages on Netscape e-mail messenger because it contained a spell checker. I would type my message, copy and paste testimony onto it and then I would spell check the message. When the spell checker found discrepancies in the message including the pasted copy of the transcripts it would ask me if I wanted to make the change and I would select ignore if it was regarding something in the transcripts. After reading my message I would make changes and spell check again and repeat this until I was felt the message was ready to post. During one of those times I inadvertently missed the ignore option and the spell checker made a change I was unaware of. I no longer use Netscape email messenger. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding you may have.

bobaugust

I would have accepted this explanation, except for the fact that you argued with me constantly that the civil verdict meant that the jury found Simpson liable for killing both Ron and Nicole. Despite my several posts that you were wrong, you continued to argue and did not stop until an honest poster, who believes Simpson is guilty told you the same thing. You then tried to defend yourself by saying the jury questions had been posted several times. The issue was not the jury questions. The issue was your several false posts as to what the jury found and what the verdict meant.

[William Anthony]

Dr. Rieders testified that the EPA report was unclear and he used his own interpretation of what he thought it should have said. Martz’s copy of the EPA report was also unclear and that’s why he had the lab check another copy of it and that’s why he called EPA. And that’s why he testified, “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.”

The whole issue of how much EDTA may be found in a person is completely meaningless to the question “Did the evidence stains came from preserved blood?” because the small trace amount of EDTA that was indicated in the third test results was in parts per million, 1000 times more than what Dr. Rieders testified was in human blood, and 1000 times less than what is in preserved blood.

bobaugust

You seem to want to ignore the obvious and the new scientific study. Dr. R. and the EPA report said the amount of EDTA in unpreserved human blood was in the part per billion. The new scientific evidence showed that any planting of evidence/manipulation would be in the part per billion range. The amount in the 2 part per million range that Martz found in his own blood would be a thousand times what science has proven that was in unpreserved human blood. Contrary to your assertion as to what Martz testified to, as I believe you know and are trying again to mislead others, the amount of 2,000 parts per million is the amount in a purple top test tube and not the amount to preserve blood.

[William Anthony]

You remember wrong, I never said any such thing. I just recently posted a message to you showing what the correct line was and what my spell checker changed and that the end result didn’t make any sense. My post #6096, page 153. In case you did not comprehend what I posted I will post it again and if you still can’t comprehend it then I suggest you go to your private messages and read Freshwaters message to you dated 8/31/07 entitled “The omission of ‘or’” and read where she told you that the Netscape e-mail messenger spell check did exactly as I had said it did eliminating “--or”

I repeat:
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.”

bobaugust

I understand what you posted but that does not comport with my memory.

[William Anthony]

You’re wrong again. The only thing you have proved is that you still do not understand how much EDTA it takes to preserve blood. Your claim that preserved blood contains 2000 parts per billion of EDTA is false. Preserved blood contains between 1000 and 2000 parts per million of EDTA. The article you are referring to clearly stated that the concentration of EDTA in preserved blood is 1300 parts per million.

I agree Martz did not know how much EDTA could be found in a person but he did know how much EDTA is contained in preserved blood. One had nothing to do with the other. Martz said the reference was unclear possibly due to a printing problem. So he called the laboratory and they searched the same reference and it ended up that it was not a part per million, it was not a part per billion, it was a thousand parts per million. And when he talked to EPA they also said it was suppose to be a thousand parts per million.

Your claim that one part per billion is equal to or the same as one thousand parts per million is outright false and any math you have posted that comes to that conclusion is incorrect math.

bobaugust

I Incorrectly posted that evidence of manipulation would occur in the 15 ng part per million, when it should have been part per billion.

[William Anthony]

You’re wrong again. The only thing you have proved is that you still do not understand how much EDTA it takes to preserve blood. Your claim that preserved blood contains 2000 parts per billion of EDTA is false. Preserved blood contains between 1000 and 2000 parts per million of EDTA. The article you are referring to clearly stated that the concentration of EDTA in preserved blood is 1300 parts per million.

I agree Martz did not know how much EDTA could be found in a person but he did know how much EDTA is contained in preserved blood. One had nothing to do with the other. Martz said the reference was unclear possibly due to a printing problem. So he called the laboratory and they searched the same reference and it ended up that it was not a part per million, it was not a part per billion, it was a thousand parts per million. And when he talked to EPA they also said it was suppose to be a thousand parts per million.

Your claim that one part per billion is equal to or the same as one thousand parts per million is outright false and any math you have posted that comes to that conclusion is incorrect math.

bobaugust

I love it when you call me wrong and you continue to embarrass yourself. Here is the link to the article and here is the portion where 1300 is mentioned.

http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/ac/97/aug/det.html

"What was wrong with the laboratory testing? First, it was not clear whether the method had ever been used before. Most likely the method was developed quickly under a great deal of time pressure. In retrospect, FBI chemists now believe that the EDTA detected may have been injection carryover in the LC/MS/MS (2) instrumentation because a water blank instead of a matrix blank had been run before the sample. Second, the EDTA concentration was not rigorously quantitated. Certainly, the volume of the blood stain could have been estimated. EDTA is present at about 4.5 mM (~1300 ppm) in EDTA-preserved blood, which would be a very concentrated sample and easily detected by electrospray LC/MS/MS. It appeared that the amount of EDTA detected in the forensic blood samples was orders of magnitude below 4.5 mM. Regardless of what happened in the Simpson trial, it became apparent that a definitive and valid method for determining EDTA in human blood was needed."

The article did not say the amount that was needed to preserve blood was 1300 ppm but said that it is present at that level in preserved blood, which is a very concentrated sample and that it was detected in a level below the 1300 ppm and further testing need to be done to determine EDTA in human blood.

The article then went on to state the following;

"Using this sample preparation procedure and the SRM-CE/MS method, we achieved a detection limit of 7.3 ng/mL EDTA in human plasma and a lower level of quantitation (LLQ) of 15 ng/mL (~6 fmol injected). If this method was used to determine whether a forensic blood stain had been "planted", this LLQ corresponds to "planting" 1-3 nL of EDTA-preserved blood. Because it would be physically difficult to manipulate such a small volume, any such forensic sample would probably contain at least 1 µL. This hypothetical scenario illustrates the excellent sensitivity and potential forensic usefulness of the method. Similarly, the GC/MS/MS method developed by Ballard and colleagues demonstrated a comparable detection limit of 10 ng/sample, which corresponds to ~7 or 8 nL of EDTA-preserved blood (13).

CONCLUSIONS
Many techniques have been used over the years to determine EDTA in various matrices, and most can be adapted to biological samples. However, SRM-CE/MS provides the highest specificity and the best detection level of any method currently published.

We have been able to demonstrate that typical human plasma samples do contain detectable EDTA, but at levels that are lower than the LLQ reported in this work. The LLQ of our method, at 15 ng/mL, is a factor of 105 lower than the typical concentration found in EDTA-preserved blood (4.5 mM or 1.3 X 106 ng/mL). But more importantly, we have demonstrated that CE/MS methods can be used for routine bioanalytical analysis with acceptable precision, accuracy, and adequate detection levels for quantitation of trace-level concentrations (24).

CE/MS techniques will undoubtedly become an important forensic technique because of the low volumes of sample required for analysis, as well as the ability to use the mass spectrometer to achieve selectivity higher than with any other on-line detector.

The question of blood-evidence tampering in a criminal trial has led not only to improved analytical techniques for the determination of EDTA, but also to the demonstration that a relatively new technique is ready to be used as credible scientific evidence in the courtroom."

The article only states that the 1300 amount of EDTA is the "typical concentration" found in preserved human blood, which I think is because of the type of test tubes used to collect the blood.

Here is a link showing what ng/ml means.

http://delloyd.50megs.com/photo.html

[fgump2]

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.
I disagree. I think that the prosecution has the greater burden of proof in the jury room, and that is how it should be. In the courtroom, most of the rules are the same for the prosecution and the defense.
J. Cochran was dishonest or at least deliberately misleading in what he did. I think he knew what he was doing when he broke the discovery laws. To criticize Fung and Mazzola for minor errors of memory, and ignore J. Cochrans more serious errors is illogical, and calling Mr Cochran magnificent is even more illogical and unfair.
I'd like to make a few points about OJS's problems remembering how he cut his left hand. Story #1 was that he cut it in his Rockingham complex while getting ready to leave. Story #2 was that he cut it in Chicago, when the LA cop told hime about NBS's death; he said the then slamed the glass on the table and cut his hand when the glass broke.
The Chicago police said it didn't happen that way for 2 reasons. There were no small pieces of glass on the table, but there were small pieces of glass on the bath room floor, so the glass was broken the bathroom.
Story #3 was that he was sitting on the toilet as though it were a chair, and talking the cop over the phone. The Chicago police said that wasn't possible because the phone cord wasn't long enough.
Story # 4 was the he broke the glass in the bathroom after the phone call.
I don't have good documentation on this. Also stories 2 and 3 weren't under oath, they were to news media, or maybe on the video he sold.

[martin II]

I disagree. I think that the prosecution has the greater burden of proof in the jury room, and that is how it should be. In the courtroom, most of the rules are the same for the prosecution and the defense.
J. Cochran was dishonest or at least deliberately misleading in what he did. I think he knew what he was doing when he broke the discovery laws. To criticize Fung and Mazzola for minor errors of memory, and ignore J. Cochrans more serious errors is illogical, and calling Mr Cochran magnificent is even more illogical and unfair.
I'd like to make a few points about OJS's problems remembering how he cut his left hand. Story #1 was that he cut it in his Rockingham complex while getting ready to leave. Story #2 was that he cut it in Chicago, when the LA cop told hime about NBS's death; he said the then slamed the glass on the table and cut his hand when the glass broke.
The Chicago police said it didn't happen that way for 2 reasons. There were no small pieces of glass on the table, but there were small pieces of glass on the bath room floor, so the glass was broken the bathroom.
Story #3 was that he was sitting on the toilet as though it were a chair, and talking the cop over the phone. The Chicago police said that wasn't possible because the phone cord wasn't long enough.
Story # 4 was the he broke the glass in the bathroom after the phone call.
I don't have good documentation on this. Also stories 2 and 3 weren't under oath, they were to news media, or maybe on the video he sold.

i have never heard your #3 can you post this testimony.
A doctor examined oj cut and gave his opinion that the cut was ziz zag that one would expect from a glass cut.

Do mean small pieces of glass on the sink? i never read any testimony about a table.

give the name of the chicago police officer so i can find his testimony.

[weezer]

I disagree. I think that the prosecution has the greater burden of proof in the jury room, and that is how it should be. In the courtroom, most of the rules are the same for the prosecution and the defense.
J. Cochran was dishonest or at least deliberately misleading in what he did. I think he knew what he was doing when he broke the discovery laws. To criticize Fung and Mazzola for minor errors of memory, and ignore J. Cochrans more serious errors is illogical, and calling Mr Cochran magnificent is even more illogical and unfair.
I'd like to make a few points about OJS's problems remembering how he cut his left hand. Story #1 was that he cut it in his Rockingham complex while getting ready to leave. Story #2 was that he cut it in Chicago, when the LA cop told hime about NBS's death; he said the then slamed the glass on the table and cut his hand when the glass broke.
The Chicago police said it didn't happen that way for 2 reasons. There were no small pieces of glass on the table, but there were small pieces of glass on the bath room floor, so the glass was broken the bathroom.
Story #3 was that he was sitting on the toilet as though it were a chair, and talking the cop over the phone. The Chicago police said that wasn't possible because the phone cord wasn't long enough.
Story # 4 was the he broke the glass in the bathroom after the phone call.
I don't have good documentation on this. Also stories 2 and 3 weren't under oath, they were to news media, or maybe on the video he sold.

this is what I found on Partridge testimony re: other deaths:

". . .A. He said -- in response to one of my questions, he said she had been killed. And I asked if it had been a crime, and he said yes.

Q. So he indicated to you that a criminal killing had occurred?

A. Yes.

Q. And he indicated to you that there was not just one killing. But two killings, correct?

A. Yes? At a point in the flight, he said that someone else had been killed, too.

Q. So by the end of your conversation with him on this flight, Mr. Simpson had told that you Nicole had been killed criminally, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And another person had been killed in a criminal manner, correct?

A. Told me that somebody else had been killed.

MR. PETROCELLI: Moving down to page 156, Mr. Leonard, line 9. (Reading:)

Q. He said that Nicole had been killed, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that a man had been killed, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that they, meaning the man and Nicole, had been found in the garden, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And he told you that they were found in the garden by the street where Nicole lived, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you are 100 percent confident that Mr. Simpson told you this information, correct?

A. I am confident that he said that, yes. That was, you know, why I wrote the notes at the time, so I could be confident about that, yes. . ."

[martin II]

this is what I found on Partridge testimony re: other deaths:

". . .A. He said -- in response to one of my questions, he said she had been killed. And I asked if it had been a crime, and he said yes.

Q. So he indicated to you that a criminal killing had occurred?

A. Yes.

Q. And he indicated to you that there was not just one killing. But two killings, correct?

A. Yes? At a point in the flight, he said that someone else had been killed, too.

Q. So by the end of your conversation with him on this flight, Mr. Simpson had told that you Nicole had been killed criminally, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And another person had been killed in a criminal manner, correct?

A. Told me that somebody else had been killed.

MR. PETROCELLI: Moving down to page 156, Mr. Leonard, line 9. (Reading:)

Q. He said that Nicole had been killed, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that a man had been killed, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that they, meaning the man and Nicole, had been found in the garden, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And he told you that they were found in the garden by the street where Nicole lived, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you are 100 percent confident that Mr. Simpson told you this information, correct?

A. I am confident that he said that, yes. That was, you know, why I wrote the notes at the time, so I could be confident about that, yes. . ."


Lang did not tell oj much about what had happened In their phone conversation.

Oj made several telephone callf from the plane to people he knew and one was to Skip Taft his /lawyer and this is how he was informed of the details of what had happened and how he was able to discusse this info with Partridge while on the plane before arriving back to LA.
imo

[martin II]

Originally Posted by martin II
When the chicago LA plane took and mr Partridge was in the seat next to oj,
Partridge testified that oj simpson make several phone calls from the plane.

One call Partridge remember was a call to a person named SKIP. That was skip taff. It is resaonable to believe that the call to his lawyeer Skip Taff and the other calls to people from the plane is how oj was informed about the details of who had been murdered.
So my question to you is what does this mean to you other than oj was told while on the plane what had happened in LA.


MS. CLARK: And you indicate after the plane took off, he immediately requested a telephone, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: That's right.

MS. CLARK: The stewardess brought him a phone, did she?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: The first call, were you able to hear who he was speaking to?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I heard a name, yes.

MS. CLARK: And the name was?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I wasn't able to hear. I heard a name.

MS. CLARK: And the name was?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Skip.

MS. CLARK: And approximately how long did he speak to this person named Skip?

MR. PARTRIDGE: That particular call was quite brief. I would say a minute.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And I take it you've somewhat followed this case; have you not, sir?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Somewhat, yes.

MS. CLARK: Have you heard the name of an attorney named Skip Taft?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I have heard that name.

[bobaugust]

I would have accepted this explanation, except for the fact that you argued with me constantly that the civil verdict meant that the jury found Simpson liable for killing both Ron and Nicole. Despite my several posts that you were wrong, you continued to argue and did not stop until an honest poster, who believes Simpson is guilty told you the same thing. You then tried to defend yourself by saying the jury questions had been posted several times. The issue was not the jury questions. The issue was your several false posts as to what the jury found and what the verdict meant.

I really don’t care if you accept my explanation or not. I posted this explanation more for the benefit of other posters who may have been following this discussion. Anyone who is familiar with computers and spell checkers will understand how the error occurred in my posting and that the end result not only didn’t make any sense but it had nothing to do with your false claim that preserved blood contains a concentration of EDTA in 2000 parts per billion. Your accusation that I intentionally changed the testimony is false and your new accusation that my spell checker had deleted four or five words is false.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You seem to want to ignore the obvious and the new scientific study. Dr. R. and the EPA report said the amount of EDTA in unpreserved human blood was in the part per billion. The new scientific evidence showed that any planting of evidence/manipulation would be in the part per billion range. The amount in the 2 part per million range that Martz found in his own blood would be a thousand times what science has proven that was in unpreserved human blood. Contrary to your assertion as to what Martz testified to, as I believe you know and are trying again to mislead others, the amount of 2,000 parts per million is the amount in a purple top test tube and not the amount to preserve blood.

No I don’t ignore the new scientific study. Unlike you I understand what the article said and what it didn’t say regarding those studies. Both Martz and Dr. Rieders testified that it was unclear what the amount of EDTA was in the EPA report.

The article discussing new methods to determine EDTA in blood never said that blood could be preserved with a concentration of EDTA in parts per billion. The article clearly stated that “EDTA is present at about 4.5 mM (~1300 ppm) in EDTA-preserved blood. That’s the range that both Martz and Dr. Rieders testified is in EDTA preserved blood.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I Incorrectly posted that evidence of manipulation would occur in the 15 ng part per million, when it should have been part per billion.

You were also incorrect in your interpretation of what the article was saying when they referred to a hypothetical “planting.” It had nothing to do with how much EDTA is found in preserved blood. It had to do with the extremely small volumes of EDTA-preserved blood that the new methods could determine EDTA in.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I love it when you call me wrong and you continue to embarrass yourself. Here is the link to the article and here is the portion where 1300 is mentioned.

http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/ac/97/aug/det.html

"What was wrong with the laboratory testing? First, it was not clear whether the method had ever been used before. Most likely the method was developed quickly under a great deal of time pressure. In retrospect, FBI chemists now believe that the EDTA detected may have been injection carryover in the LC/MS/MS (2) instrumentation because a water blank instead of a matrix blank had been run before the sample. Second, the EDTA concentration was not rigorously quantitated. Certainly, the volume of the blood stain could have been estimated. EDTA is present at about 4.5 mM (~1300 ppm) in EDTA-preserved blood, which would be a very concentrated sample and easily detected by electrospray LC/MS/MS. It appeared that the amount of EDTA detected in the forensic blood samples was orders of magnitude below 4.5 mM. Regardless of what happened in the Simpson trial, it became apparent that a definitive and valid method for determining EDTA in human blood was needed."

The article did not say the amount that was needed to preserve blood was 1300 ppm but said that it is present at that level in preserved blood, which is a very concentrated sample and that it was detected in a level below the 1300 ppm and further testing need to be done to determine EDTA in human blood.

The article then went on to state the following;

"Using this sample preparation procedure and the SRM-CE/MS method, we achieved a detection limit of 7.3 ng/mL EDTA in human plasma and a lower level of quantitation (LLQ) of 15 ng/mL (~6 fmol injected). If this method was used to determine whether a forensic blood stain had been "planted", this LLQ corresponds to "planting" 1-3 nL of EDTA-preserved blood. Because it would be physically difficult to manipulate such a small volume, any such forensic sample would probably contain at least 1 µL. This hypothetical scenario illustrates the excellent sensitivity and potential forensic usefulness of the method. Similarly, the GC/MS/MS method developed by Ballard and colleagues demonstrated a comparable detection limit of 10 ng/sample, which corresponds to ~7 or 8 nL of EDTA-preserved blood (13).

CONCLUSIONS
Many techniques have been used over the years to determine EDTA in various matrices, and most can be adapted to biological samples. However, SRM-CE/MS provides the highest specificity and the best detection level of any method currently published.

We have been able to demonstrate that typical human plasma samples do contain detectable EDTA, but at levels that are lower than the LLQ reported in this work. The LLQ of our method, at 15 ng/mL, is a factor of 105 lower than the typical concentration found in EDTA-preserved blood (4.5 mM or 1.3 X 106 ng/mL). But more importantly, we have demonstrated that CE/MS methods can be used for routine bioanalytical analysis with acceptable precision, accuracy, and adequate detection levels for quantitation of trace-level concentrations (24).

CE/MS techniques will undoubtedly become an important forensic technique because of the low volumes of sample required for analysis, as well as the ability to use the mass spectrometer to achieve selectivity higher than with any other on-line detector.

The question of blood-evidence tampering in a criminal trial has led not only to improved analytical techniques for the determination of EDTA, but also to the demonstration that a relatively new technique is ready to be used as credible scientific evidence in the courtroom."

The article only states that the 1300 amount of EDTA is the "typical concentration" found in preserved human blood, which I think is because of the type of test tubes used to collect the blood.

Here is a link showing what ng/ml means.

http://delloyd.50megs.com/photo.html

No I’m not wrong you just can’t seem to understand what it means. Just as you posted the article said that “EDTA is present at about 4.5 mM (~1300 ppm) in EDTA-preserved blood” That is the same range that both Martz and Dr. Rieders testified was in preserved blood. 1000 to 2000 parts per million. It then said as you posted, “It appeared that the amount of EDTA detected in the forensic blood samples was orders of magnitude below 4.5 mM” That is also correct since the results in the third test Martz performed indicated a small trace amount of EDTA in one part per million. That is an amount far below 1300 parts per million.”

You also can’t seem to understand that when the article referred to the hypothetical amount of 1-3 nl of EDTA-preserved blood it was referring to how small a volume of blood the new methods could determine that contained EDTA. It did not say that was the amount it took to preserve blood.

The article never said that blood could be preserved with a concentration of EDTA in parts per billion. Your claim that preserved blood contains 2000 parts per billion of EDTA is false.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

No I’m not wrong you just can’t seem to understand what it means. Just as you posted the article said that “EDTA is present at about 4.5 mM (~1300 ppm) in EDTA-preserved blood” That is the same range that both Martz and Dr. Rieders testified was in preserved blood. 1000 to 2000 parts per million. It then said as you posted, “It appeared that the amount of EDTA detected in the forensic blood samples was orders of magnitude below 4.5 mM” That is also correct since the results in the third test Martz performed indicated a small trace amount of EDTA in one part per million. That is an amount far below 1300 parts per million.”

You also can’t seem to understand that when the article referred to the hypothetical amount of 1-3 nl of EDTA-preserved blood it was referring to how small a volume of blood the new methods could determine that contained EDTA. It did not say that was the amount it took to preserve blood.

The article never said that blood could be preserved with a concentration of EDTA in parts per billion. Your claim that preserved blood contains 2000 parts per billion of EDTA is false.

bobaugust

This is what you said, "The article you are referring to clearly stated that the concentration of EDTA in preserved blood is 1300 parts per million." Your spell checker must have deleted the remainder of the sentence saying that it was a very concentrated sample.

I am sure you realize that planting expresses a more than normal amount of EDTA found in human blood. If it is more than normal, then it must have come from some source that was used to preserve the blood, with the exception of oral or administration by injection. That is what you do not understand. The concentration does not need to be that high to preserve blood. I am sure you realize that EDTA can be diluted or tests results distorted. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

You were also incorrect in your interpretation of what the article was saying when they referred to a hypothetical “planting.” It had nothing to do with how much EDTA is found in preserved blood. It had to do with the extremely small volumes of EDTA-preserved blood that the new methods could determine EDTA in.

bobaugust

The article clearly stated that 15ng/mL, lower level quantification, would be planting and then went on to say this, We have been able to demonstrate that typical human plasma samples do contain detectable EDTA, but at levels that are lower than the LLQ (lower level quantification, reported in this work. "The LLQ of our method, at 15 ng/mL, is a factor of 105 lower than the typical concentration found in EDTA-preserved blood (4.5 mM or 1.3 X 106 ng/mL)". What don't you understand? You use words like volume to try and conceal the truth. It is not the size of the stain, it had to do with the "concentration" of EDTA in the sample. Stay with me here, the lower level quantification is 105 times lower than the typical concentration and would evidence planting. Martz's results were ten to the 2nd times lower than the typical concentration and, consequently ten to the 3rd, 1,000, times more than the what would evidence planting. Hence, Terry Lee's notes stating, "if not planted, Martz's results become problematic and a convincing argument must be made." (Pardon me, if the quote is not exact). Enter the ghost.;):cool:

[William Anthony]

I disagree. I think that the prosecution has the greater burden of proof in the jury room, and that is how it should be. In the courtroom, most of the rules are the same for the prosecution and the defense.
J. Cochran was dishonest or at least deliberately misleading in what he did. I think he knew what he was doing when he broke the discovery laws. To criticize Fung and Mazzola for minor errors of memory, and ignore J. Cochrans more serious errors is illogical, and calling Mr Cochran magnificent is even more illogical and unfair.
I'd like to make a few points about OJS's problems remembering how he cut his left hand. Story #1 was that he cut it in his Rockingham complex while getting ready to leave. Story #2 was that he cut it in Chicago, when the LA cop told hime about NBS's death; he said the then slamed the glass on the table and cut his hand when the glass broke.
The Chicago police said it didn't happen that way for 2 reasons. There were no small pieces of glass on the table, but there were small pieces of glass on the bath room floor, so the glass was broken the bathroom.
Story #3 was that he was sitting on the toilet as though it were a chair, and talking the cop over the phone. The Chicago police said that wasn't possible because the phone cord wasn't long enough.
Story # 4 was the he broke the glass in the bathroom after the phone call.
I don't have good documentation on this. Also stories 2 and 3 weren't under oath, they were to news media, or maybe on the video he sold.

The discovery rules are not the same for the prosecution and the defense. The defense does not have to turn over evidence that tends to prove their client is guilty, whereas the prosecution must turn over evidence that the defense's client may be innocent. The prosecution also broke the discovery rules, IIRC, and were what you call deliberately misleading. There is no dispute as to JC's magnificence, since he headed the winning team in a case that so many have claimed should have been a slam dunk. It is also unfair to claim that the prosecution's witnesses had a lapse of memory and not allow Simpson the same, imho.

[martin II]

I disagree. I think that the prosecution has the greater burden of proof in the jury room, and that is how it should be. In the courtroom, most of the rules are the same for the prosecution and the defense.
J. Cochran was dishonest or at least deliberately misleading in what he did. I think he knew what he was doing when he broke the discovery laws. To criticize Fung and Mazzola for minor errors of memory, and ignore J. Cochrans more serious errors is illogical, and calling Mr Cochran magnificent is even more illogical and unfair.
I'd like to make a few points about OJS's problems remembering how he cut his left hand. Story #1 was that he cut it in his Rockingham complex while getting ready to leave. Story #2 was that he cut it in Chicago, when the LA cop told hime about NBS's death; he said the then slamed the glass on the table and cut his hand when the glass broke.
The Chicago police said it didn't happen that way for 2 reasons. There were no small pieces of glass on the table, but there were small pieces of glass on the bath room floor, so the glass was broken the bathroom.
Story #3 was that he was sitting on the toilet as though it were a chair, and talking the cop over the phone. The Chicago police said that wasn't possible because the phone cord wasn't long enough.
Story # 4 was the he broke the glass in the bathroom after the phone call.
I don't have good documentation on this. Also stories 2 and 3 weren't under oath, they were to news media, or maybe on the video he sold.


Your post.
"I think that the prosecution has the greater burden of proof in the jury room,"


I Think the prosecution has to prove their case in court. The jury decides what was and what was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt in deliberations.imo

[bobaugust]

This is what you said, "The article you are referring to clearly stated that the concentration of EDTA in preserved blood is 1300 parts per million." Your spell checker must have deleted the remainder of the sentence saying that it was a very concentrated sample.

I am sure you realize that planting expresses a more than normal amount of EDTA found in human blood. If it is more than normal, then it must have come from some source that was used to preserve the blood, with the exception of oral or administration by injection. That is what you do not understand. The concentration does not need to be that high to preserve blood. I am sure you realize that EDTA can be diluted or tests results distorted. ;):cool:

Here is the complete paragraph for posters to read regarding what the article said about the EDTA testing in the Simpson case.

“What was wrong with the laboratory testing? First, it was not clear whether the method had ever been used before. Most likely the method was developed quickly under a great deal of time pressure. In retrospect, FBI chemists now believe that the EDTA detected may have been injection carryover in the LC/MS/MS (2) instrumentation because a water blank instead of a matrix blank had been run before the sample. Second, the EDTA concentration was not rigorously quantitated. Certainly, the volume of the blood stain could have been estimated. EDTA is present at about 4.5 mM (~1300 ppm) in EDTA-preserved blood, which would be a very concentrated sample and easily detected by electrospray LC/MS/MS. It appeared that the amount of EDTA detected in the forensic blood samples was orders of magnitude below 4.5 mM. Regardless of what happened in the Simpson trial, it became apparent that a definitive and valid method for determining EDTA in human blood was needed.”

To summarize,
• The FBI chemist now believe that the EDTA detected may have been injection carryover in the instruments just as Dr. Lee testified he believed had happened.
• EDTA preserved blood is a very concentrated sample of blood that would easily be detected by the instruments Martz used.
• And the small trace amount of EDTA detected in the evidence samples was about 1000 times less than what was detected in the reference samples.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The article clearly stated that 15ng/mL, lower level quantification, would be planting and then went on to say this, We have been able to demonstrate that typical human plasma samples do contain detectable EDTA, but at levels that are lower than the LLQ (lower level quantification, reported in this work. "The LLQ of our method, at 15 ng/mL, is a factor of 105 lower than the typical concentration found in EDTA-preserved blood (4.5 mM or 1.3 X 106 ng/mL)". What don't you understand? You use words like volume to try and conceal the truth. It is not the size of the stain, it had to do with the "concentration" of EDTA in the sample. Stay with me here, the lower level quantification is 105 times lower than the typical concentration and would evidence planting. Martz's results were ten to the 2nd times lower than the typical concentration and, consequently ten to the 3rd, 1,000, times more than the what would evidence planting. Hence, Terry Lee's notes stating, "if not planted, Martz's results become problematic and a convincing argument must be made." (Pardon me, if the quote is not exact). Enter the ghost.;):cool:

Your interpretations are as wrong as your other false claims and the ghost you believe in. This is what the artilcle said.

“Using this sample preparation procedure and the SRM-CE/MS method, we achieved a detection limit of 7.3 ng/mL EDTA in human plasma and a lower level of quantitation (LLQ) of 15 ng/mL (~6 fmol injected). If this method was used to determine whether a forensic blood stain had been "planted", this LLQ corresponds to "planting" 1-3 nL of EDTA-preserved blood. Because it would be physically difficult to manipulate such a small volume, any such forensic sample would probably contain at least 1 µL. This hypothetical scenario illustrates the excellent sensitivity and potential forensic usefulness of the method. Similarly, the GC/MS/MS method developed by Ballard and colleagues demonstrated a comparable detection limit of 10 ng/sample, which corresponds to ~7 or 8 nL of EDTA-preserved blood (13).”

The article was talking about new detection methods regarding EDTA in human plasma and how this method could hypothetically be used to determine whether an extremely small blood stain was EDTA preserved blood.

Here is the paragraph you referred to.

CONCLUSIONS

“Many techniques have been used over the years to determine EDTA in various matrices, and most can be adapted to biological samples. However, SRM-CE/MS provides the highest specificity and the best detection level of any method currently published.

We have been able to demonstrate that typical human plasma samples do contain detectable EDTA, but at levels that are lower than the LLQ reported in this work. The LLQ of our method, at 15 ng/mL, is a factor of 105 lower than the typical concentration found in EDTA-preserved blood (4.5 mM or 1.3 X 106 ng/mL). But more importantly, we have demonstrated that CE/MS methods can be used for routine bioanalytical analysis with acceptable precision, accuracy, and adequate detection levels for quantitation of trace-level concentrations.”

This paragraph is regarding extremely small quantities of EDTA contained in human plasma compared to the typical concentration found in EDTA preserved blood. It has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of EDTA in the evidence samples in the Simpson case. Nothing in this article says anything to support your false claim that that blood could be preserved with a concentration of EDTA in parts per billion. Your claim that preserved blood contains 2000 parts per billion of EDTA is outright false.

bobaugust

[pearyb]

Your post.
"I think that the prosecution has the greater burden of proof in the jury room,"


I Think the prosecution has to prove their case in court. The jury decides what was and what was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt in deliberations.imo

There was so much talk about blood that I could only understand Dr Lees statement, "Something not quite right here". Once Frankie got done with Furhman the whole world knew things didn't add up. The time frame to me is very decisive for my concluded post. Some arthritic, out of shape, celebity has about 20 minutes to drive, perhaps eat a burger, switch vehicles, drive, kill and kill again young, in shape people, get rid of the evidence and fly, on time, to Chicago; the case only added up for the prosecution before trial.

[William Anthony]

Here is the complete paragraph for posters to read regarding what the article said about the EDTA testing in the Simpson case.

“What was wrong with the laboratory testing? First, it was not clear whether the method had ever been used before. Most likely the method was developed quickly under a great deal of time pressure. In retrospect, FBI chemists now believe that the EDTA detected may have been injection carryover in the LC/MS/MS (2) instrumentation because a water blank instead of a matrix blank had been run before the sample. Second, the EDTA concentration was not rigorously quantitated. Certainly, the volume of the blood stain could have been estimated. EDTA is present at about 4.5 mM (~1300 ppm) in EDTA-preserved blood, which would be a very concentrated sample and easily detected by electrospray LC/MS/MS. It appeared that the amount of EDTA detected in the forensic blood samples was orders of magnitude below 4.5 mM. Regardless of what happened in the Simpson trial, it became apparent that a definitive and valid method for determining EDTA in human blood was needed.”

To summarize,
• The FBI chemist now believe that the EDTA detected may have been injection carryover in the instruments just as Dr. Lee testified he believed had happened.
• EDTA preserved blood is a very concentrated sample of blood that would easily be detected by the instruments Martz used.
• And the small trace amount of EDTA detected in the evidence samples was about 1000 times less than what was detected in the reference samples.

bobaugust

I provided the link to the article so that posters, who were interested could read the whole scientific research. The research went on to determine a valid method for determining how much EDTA was in unpreserved human blood, which was a thousand times less than Martz's results. It matters not what the FBI or Terry Lee believed. What matters is what the researchers/scientists that did the study showed, which was that the Lower Level Quantification indicated that Martz's results showed manipulation/planting.

[William Anthony]

Here is the complete paragraph for posters to read regarding what the article said about the EDTA testing in the Simpson case.

“What was wrong with the laboratory testing? First, it was not clear whether the method had ever been used before. Most likely the method was developed quickly under a great deal of time pressure. In retrospect, FBI chemists now believe that the EDTA detected may have been injection carryover in the LC/MS/MS (2) instrumentation because a water blank instead of a matrix blank had been run before the sample. Second, the EDTA concentration was not rigorously quantitated. Certainly, the volume of the blood stain could have been estimated. EDTA is present at about 4.5 mM (~1300 ppm) in EDTA-preserved blood, which would be a very concentrated sample and easily detected by electrospray LC/MS/MS. It appeared that the amount of EDTA detected in the forensic blood samples was orders of magnitude below 4.5 mM. Regardless of what happened in the Simpson trial, it became apparent that a definitive and valid method for determining EDTA in human blood was needed.”

To summarize,
• The FBI chemist now believe that the EDTA detected may have been injection carryover in the instruments just as Dr. Lee testified he believed had happened.
• EDTA preserved blood is a very concentrated sample of blood that would easily be detected by the instruments Martz used.
• And the small trace amount of EDTA detected in the evidence samples was about 1000 times less than what was detected in the reference samples.

bobaugust

Are you talking about the FBI that was recently exposed for providing Faulty Ballistic Information?

[William Anthony]

Here are some more links on the tactics of the FBI

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1927471/posts

http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIIc.htm

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:CBt9XCKGlisJ:caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/b113866.doc+The+FBI+testified+falsely+about+being+ able+to+identify+ammunition&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us

[martin II]

Are you talking about the FBI that was recently exposed for providing Faulty Ballistic Information?

Is Bob talking about Martz that was demonted from his lab spuervisor position by the FBI after his testimony in the Simpson trial. one reason was testifying above his qualifications. imo

[weezer]

There was so much talk about blood that I could only understand Dr Lees statement, "Something not quite right here". Once Frankie got done with Furhman the whole world knew things didn't add up. The time frame to me is very decisive for my concluded post. Some arthritic, out of shape, celebity has about 20 minutes to drive, perhaps eat a burger, switch vehicles, drive, kill and kill again young, in shape people, get rid of the evidence and fly, on time, to Chicago; the case only added up for the prosecution before trial.

I assume "frankie" is flee bailey? that arthritic, out of shape celebrity had made a workout film -- he didn't appear out of shape. that arthritic, out of shape celebrity was making a film that called on him 'being in shape' --

I don't understand your 20 minutes timeline.

after Dr Lee testified in the civil trial that he did not believe there could have been planting, did you change your mind about the blood evidence? how did you reconcile the hair, glove, hat, fiber, blood, and size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints at the murder scene?

[fgump2]

I assume "frankie" is flee bailey? that arthritic, out of shape celebrity had made a workout film -- he didn't appear out of shape. that arthritic, out of shape celebrity was making a film that called on him 'being in shape' --

I don't understand your 20 minutes timeline.

after Dr Lee testified in the civil trial that he did not believe there could have been planting, did you change your mind about the blood evidence? how did you reconcile the hair, glove, hat, fiber, blood, and size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints at the murder scene?

I have several comments on this.
When people are excited, they are often capable of great feats; adrenaline is a powerful chemical. Most people have heard of stories about average size women lifting a car off of their child. Some athletes can do things in the excitement of a game that they couldn’t do in practice. In any case the exercise video that OJS made showed that he wasn’t a cripple.
It would probably have been easy for OJS to quickly and silently kill NBS.
Some people who have studied the problems of abused women say that if a woman sees a man who has beaten her; she will often freeze up. OJS may have also snuck up on her
Ron Goldman was probably in a relaxed mood because most people are at the end of the day. He was also trapped by an iron fence. Some newsmen thought that by the time Ron knew his life was threatened he probably had no escape paths, and very little room to maneuver. .
OJS would have been full of adrenaline and anger, Ron could easily have been in a very peaceful mood; so the mood difference would have been a big advantage for OJS. OJS was also bigger than Ron.

[William Anthony]

Terry Lee did not testify that there could be no planting. I think adrenaline would have kicked in once a person saw someone coming at them with a knife, regardless of the time of day or their mood.

[William Anthony]

Happy Labor Day to one and all. Let us say a prayer for those that may feel the effects of Gustav.

[bobaugust]

I provided the link to the article so that posters, who were interested could read the whole scientific research. The research went on to determine a valid method for determining how much EDTA was in unpreserved human blood, which was a thousand times less than Martz's results. It matters not what the FBI or Terry Lee believed. What matters is what the researchers/scientists that did the study showed, which was that the Lower Level Quantification indicated that Martz's results showed manipulation/planting.

You’re wrong. The article “Determining EDTA in Blood” never said that the LLQ indicated that Martz’s results showed manipulation/planting.
http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/ac/97/aug/det.html

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You have forgotten the prior statements that based on the evidence in the Simpson case and what was wrong with Martz's testing a new and valid method was needed to determine how much EDTA was in human blood and that the Lower Level Quantification indicated planting. Of course the research had everything to do with the Simpson case and they did not test the samples in the Simpson case. They based their conclusion on what was reported in the Simpson case as to Simpson's sample and Martz's results compared to their research. Based on the research, you can see that evidence of planting or preserving blood would occur in the parts per billion range. Just because you don't understand something does not make it wrong. ;):cool:

You’re wrong. The article never said that Lower Level Quantification indicated planting. The article spoke about how a new method could detect extremely small volumes of EDTA in human plasma and if this new method hypothetically was used to determine whether a forensic blood stain had been “planted” how that LLQ corresponded to a planting of a small volume of EDTA preserved blood. The article never said that preserved blood contains parts per billion; your claim that preserved blood contains 2000 parts per billion of EDTA is outright false.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

You’re wrong. The article “Determining EDTA in Blood” never said that the LLQ indicated that Martz’s results showed manipulation/planting.
http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/ac/97/aug/det.html

bobaugust

I never said the article stated that Martz's results showed planting. Here is the relevant portion of what the article said, "If this method was used to determine whether a forensic blood stain had been "planted", this LLQ corresponds to "planting" 1-3 nL of EDTA-preserved blood. Because it would be physically difficult to manipulate such a small volume, any such forensic sample would probably contain at least 1 µL. " I have posted what the 1 µL means. Ergo, as I said the article indicated that Martz's results showed the blood was planted.

[martin II]

I have several comments on this.
When people are excited, they are often capable of great feats; adrenaline is a powerful chemical. Most people have heard of stories about average size women lifting a car off of their child. Some athletes can do things in the excitement of a game that they couldn’t do in practice. In any case the exercise video that OJS made showed that he wasn’t a cripple.
It would probably have been easy for OJS to quickly and silently kill NBS.
Some people who have studied the problems of abused women say that if a woman sees a man who has beaten her; she will often freeze up. OJS may have also snuck up on her
Ron Goldman was probably in a relaxed mood because most people are at the end of the day. He was also trapped by an iron fence. Some newsmen thought that by the time Ron knew his life was threatened he probably had no escape paths, and very little room to maneuver. .
OJS would have been full of adrenaline and anger, Ron could easily have been in a very peaceful mood; so the mood difference would have been a big advantage for OJS. OJS was also bigger than Ron.

Ron, faced by a person with a knife REMAINED IN A PEACEFUL MOOD.

Oj COULD HAVE. MUST HAVE, PROBABLY DID = ZERO PROOF.
imo
martinii

[William Anthony]

You’re wrong. The article never said that Lower Level Quantification indicated planting. The article spoke about how a new method could detect extremely small volumes of EDTA in human plasma and if this new method hypothetically was used to determine whether a forensic blood stain had been “planted” how that LLQ corresponded to a planting of a small volume of EDTA preserved blood. The article never said that preserved blood contains parts per billion; your claim that preserved blood contains 2000 parts per billion of EDTA is outright false.

bobaugust

I reiterate, just because you do not understand something does not make it wrong. The article went on to say that the new method could be used in court. Of course, it was not used in court at the time of the Simpson trial, because the scientific study had not been done. I reiterate that I posted what µL means and I will say this again in conclusion, just because you do not understand something does not make it wrong. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

bobaugust,

Perhaps, you should read this from this link and maybe you will understand what I am saying.

http://www.courttv.com/talk/chat_transcripts/2001/0202lee.html

"shandy9 asks: With the O.J. Simpson case, the blood on the gate supposedly had EDTA in it...other than from a tube, how would it have EDTA added?

Dr. Henry Lee: EDTA is a preservative, a so-called anti-coagulant, preventing coagulation. It's not going to appear in a human body. It's a chemical additive to a test tube. When you collect a sample, you add it in the test tube to prevent the blood from coagulating. Dr. Reider, one of the well-known toxicologist from Philadelphia, he read the FBI laboratory results, when he reviewed the result of the testing, found EDTA in some of the samples tested, including the very crucial sample found on the back gate, also from a sample found on the socks. If you find EDTA, it could mean that this blood is not found from human circulation, rather from a test tube. Therefore the source of the blood becomes questionable. That's how all the controversy started. "

[bobaugust]

I reiterate, just because you do not understand something does not make it wrong. The article went on to say that the new method could be used in court. Of course, it was not used in court at the time of the Simpson trial, because the scientific study had not been done. I reiterate that I posted what µL means and I will say this again in conclusion, just because you do not understand something does not make it wrong. ;):cool:

Determining EDTA in Blood,
http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/ac/97/aug/det.html

“Because it would be physically difficult to manipulate such a small volume, any such forensic sample would probably contain at least 1 µL.”

If you are now claiming that you posted that “1 µL” somehow means parts per billion you are wrong. The article was again referring to the size of the sample not the amount of EDTA it contained. Your claim that preserved blood contains 2000 parts per billion of EDTA is outright false.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

bobaugust,

Perhaps, you should read this from this link and maybe you will understand what I am saying.

http://www.courttv.com/talk/chat_transcripts/2001/0202lee.html

"shandy9 asks: With the O.J. Simpson case, the blood on the gate supposedly had EDTA in it...other than from a tube, how would it have EDTA added?

Dr. Henry Lee: EDTA is a preservative, a so-called anti-coagulant, preventing coagulation. It's not going to appear in a human body. It's a chemical additive to a test tube. When you collect a sample, you add it in the test tube to prevent the blood from coagulating. Dr. Reider, one of the well-known toxicologist from Philadelphia, he read the FBI laboratory results, when he reviewed the result of the testing, found EDTA in some of the samples tested, including the very crucial sample found on the back gate, also from a sample found on the socks. If you find EDTA, it could mean that this blood is not found from human circulation, rather from a test tube. Therefore the source of the blood becomes questionable. That's how all the controversy started. "

As far as I know Dr. Henry Lee was not a research scientist, with a Ph.D. degree in chemistry conducting studies related to the analysis of biomolecues by mass spectrometry and having first hand experience in conducting the same three tests that Martz conducted on the evidence stains and reference sample as Dr. Terry Lee was. So Dr. Henry Lee didn’t have the knowledge that Dr. Terry Lee or the FBI chemists had who concluded that the small trace amount of EDTA that was detected in the test results of the third test Martz conducted, the positive ion test, was the result of a carryover in the LC/MS/MS instrumentation.

bobaugust

[limakey]

I disagree. I think that the prosecution has the greater burden of proof in the jury room, and that is how it should be. In the courtroom, most of the rules are the same for the prosecution and the defense.
J. Cochran was dishonest or at least deliberately misleading in what he did. I think he knew what he was doing when he broke the discovery laws. To criticize Fung and Mazzola for minor errors of memory, and ignore J. Cochrans more serious errors is illogical, and calling Mr Cochran magnificent is even more illogical and unfair.
I'd like to make a few points about OJS's problems remembering how he cut his left hand. Story #1 was that he cut it in his Rockingham complex while getting ready to leave. Story #2 was that he cut it in Chicago, when the LA cop told hime about NBS's death; he said the then slamed the glass on the table and cut his hand when the glass broke.
The Chicago police said it didn't happen that way for 2 reasons. There were no small pieces of glass on the table, but there were small pieces of glass on the bath room floor, so the glass was broken the bathroom.
Story #3 was that he was sitting on the toilet as though it were a chair, and talking the cop over the phone. The Chicago police said that wasn't possible because the phone cord wasn't long enough.
Story # 4 was the he broke the glass in the bathroom after the phone call.
I don't have good documentation on this. Also stories 2 and 3 weren't under oath, they were to news media, or maybe on the video he sold.

Hello,

I would like to make a few points on your points:

1. Mr. Simpson's account of bleeding at his house before he left for Chicago is consistent with the blood trail that led to his front door. There was no blood trail leading to the neighbor's yard nor on the walk way where the glove was found.

2. Had Mr. Simpson been precise when and how he cut his hand would have been more consistent with his being guilty. Had Mr. Simpson committed the murders, he would have known that the blood at his house was the least of his problems, it was the blood that he may have left at Bundy. He said he was not at Nicole's for about 10 days before the murders.

3. The LAPD said they went to his home to tell him the terrible news about Nicole. They also said they wanted to help pull himself together so he could take care of his minor children. In fact, that is why at least 4 detectives went over to Rockingham and I think a police cruiser was also there. Yet, they did not have the same concerns when they told him over the phone about Nicole's death. The LAPD could have had members of the Chicago PD present when they told him the news. Even if they didn't have the cops present in the room when he was told, they could have been waiting outside his door and could have been let in right away, even if Simpson refused to open the door.

4. There are more then one telephone in a hotel room. I believe Mr. Simpson was in suite and I don't remember if all the phones were taken talked about in the trial.

5. Mr. Simpson believed he re-opened a cut that he already had. Why would he draw attention to a wound where he already knew that several members of the public had already seen his hands before got on the airplane and while he was on the airplane?

In regards to Mozzalla and Fung. There was nothing simple about their "errors". Dennis Fung was impeached with video tapes. At the very least his "errors" proved that he picked the wrong career field and his work could not be trusted. Don't forget, the DA's turned him into a scape goat. As for Mozzola, she testified that she did put her initals on the bindles. She was not responsible for those bindles once she sealed them and put her initials on them. It is not very hard to make a person believe believed that they did or did not do something. This was her second case, had she remained firm about her initals then she confirms that the bindles were tampered with. Put her initials on bindles is clearly a very routine but imperative that it be done. There is nothing to suggest that she would have made this error. However, if you do highlight her errors that she did make in the case, then she is in the same boat with Fung--there work could not be trusted.

All of my points are IMO.

[limakey]

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

Mr. August,

Do you mean to tell us that neither the defense nor the DA's ever thought of having a man, the same size as Simpson jump off your bent wire in the wall? The DA's never even attempted to explain how Simpson got back there.

Again, you not taking all of Kato's testimony into consideration. He described the noise as three thumps, never told the police he thought it was a body crashing to the wall.

He did investigate the noise, he saw that at least one gate was not moved out of the way, he did not need a super flash light to make this observation. His concern about the thumps ended when he knew he was the only one on the estate, that makes no sense.

Did he know the maid was not home and not going to be home that night? Why not express his concerns to her or warn Arnelle when he heard her arrive home?

I don't know what Kato heard, however, if they had anything to do with the murders, then he was meant to hear them, IMO.

[bobaugust]

Hello,

I would like to make a few points on your points:

1. Mr. Simpson's account of bleeding at his house before he left for Chicago is consistent with the blood trail that led to his front door. There was no blood trail leading to the neighbor's yard nor on the walk way where the glove was found.

2. Had Mr. Simpson been precise when and how he cut his hand would have been more consistent with his being guilty. Had Mr. Simpson committed the murders, he would have known that the blood at his house was the least of his problems, it was the blood that he may have left at Bundy. He said he was not at Nicole's for about 10 days before the murders.

3. The LAPD said they went to his home to tell him the terrible news about Nicole. They also said they wanted to help pull himself together so he could take care of his minor children. In fact, that is why at least 4 detectives went over to Rockingham and I think a police cruiser was also there. Yet, they did not have the same concerns when they told him over the phone about Nicole's death. The LAPD could have had members of the Chicago PD present when they told him the news. Even if they didn't have the cops present in the room when he was told, they could have been waiting outside his door and could have been let in right away, even if Simpson refused to open the door.

4. There are more then one telephone in a hotel room. I believe Mr. Simpson was in suite and I don't remember if all the phones were taken talked about in the trial.

5. Mr. Simpson believed he re-opened a cut that he already had. Why would he draw attention to a wound where he already knew that several members of the public had already seen his hands before got on the airplane and while he was on the airplane?

In regards to Mozzalla and Fung. There was nothing simple about their "errors". Dennis Fung was impeached with video tapes. At the very least his "errors" proved that he picked the wrong career field and his work could not be trusted. Don't forget, the DA's turned him into a scape goat. As for Mozzola, she testified that she did put her initals on the bindles. She was not responsible for those bindles once she sealed them and put her initials on them. It is not very hard to make a person believe believed that they did or did not do something. This was her second case, had she remained firm about her initals then she confirms that the bindles were tampered with. Put her initials on bindles is clearly a very routine but imperative that it be done. There is nothing to suggest that she would have made this error. However, if you do highlight her errors that she did make in the case, then she is in the same boat with Fung--there work could not be trusted.

All of my points are IMO.

Limakey, you say that Simpson’s account of bleeding at his house before he left for Chicago is consistent with the blood trail that led to his front door? I don’t know what you think Simpson’s account was but he testified that he was not cut before he left for Chicago and the only blood he saw was on his baby finger when he was in his kitchen with Kaelin and he wiped that blood up.

Simpson never knew he was dripping blood everywhere he went after the murders, at Bundy, in his Bronco, on his driveway, and on his foyer floor, That’s why he could honestly testify that he didn’t see any blood.

When Phillips talked to Simpson on the phone he told him that his children were at the police station and asked Simpson what they should do about them. Simpson told him he would leave Chicago on the first available flight. After Phillips spoke with Simpson, Arnelle spoke with her father. Arnelle testified that the detectives asked her to pick up Justine and Sydney. Arnelle testified that she told them she needed help and she called Al Cowlings to help her.

Why would Simpson draw attention to his wound? Simpson was able to keep the clean knife cut across the knuckle on his left hand out of sight on his way to Chicago so no one noticed it. After Simpson told the police on the phone that he would return to LA he knew that he would have to account for that cut. By re-cutting his finger with a piece of glass he turned a clean knife cut into a ragged glass cut and made sure everyone saw the new cut on his way back to LA. That way he could tell the police he wasn’t cut before he went to Chicago. He didn’t know that he had dripped his blood everywhere after he committed the murders. It was only when he was being interviewed by the police and he was asked about bleeding in his Bronco that he started lying and contradicting himself.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Do you mean to tell us that neither the defense nor the DA's ever thought of having a man, the same size as Simpson jump off your bent wire in the wall? The DA's never even attempted to explain how Simpson got back there.

Again, you not taking all of Kato's testimony into consideration. He described the noise as three thumps, never told the police he thought it was a body crashing to the wall.

He did investigate the noise, he saw that at least one gate was not moved out of the way, he did not need a super flash light to make this observation. His concern about the thumps ended when he knew he was the only one on the estate, that makes no sense.

Did he know the maid was not home and not going to be home that night? Why not express his concerns to her or warn Arnelle when he heard her arrive home?

I don't know what Kato heard, however, if they had anything to do with the murders, then he was meant to hear them, IMO.

At the time of the murders and months after the murders there was overgrown foliage covering the top of the fence behind Kaelin’s room. Simpson’s defense didn’t know Simpson had scaled that fence to enter his estate and evidently no one saw that bent wire.

As to what Kaelin testified to, he could only answer the questions that were asked of him regarding the noises he heard, the vibrations he felt, and what he thought at the time. In his deposition and civil trial testimony Kaelin was asked more specific questions regarding many details that that were never brought up in the criminal trial.

Mark Fuhrman wrote that he asked Kaelin if anything unusual happened that night and Kaelin told him that he heard and felt a couple of loud thumps on the wall above his bed, and thought there had been an earthquake because the thumps had caused a picture above his bed to shake.

On both the trips that Kaelin made to the south path he moved the broken gate and when he returned he put it back in place, just as Simpson could have. Kaelin’s concerns did not end after Simpson left for the airport. He testified when Simpson called him and asked him to set the house alarm he was still scared and didn’t want to be outside. After setting the alarm he said he ran back to his room.

Kaelin was not asked if he knew Gigi had left for the weekend but not only would he have not seen her car parked anywhere when he went with Simpson to McDonalds but later before Simpson left for the airport Kaelin went into Simpson’s house. He would have been well aware that Gigi was not there that night.

Kaelin testified that he thought someone was behind his room. The evidence is that there were only three people on Simpson’s estate at the time Kaelin heard and felt the noises on his back wall; Kaelin, Allan Park, and Simpson. It wasn’t Kaelin, and it wasn’t Park.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

As far as I know Dr. Henry Lee was not a research scientist, with a Ph.D. degree in chemistry conducting studies related to the analysis of biomolecues by mass spectrometry and having first hand experience in conducting the same three tests that Martz conducted on the evidence stains and reference sample as Dr. Terry Lee was. So Dr. Henry Lee didn’t have the knowledge that Dr. Terry Lee or the FBI chemists had who concluded that the small trace amount of EDTA that was detected in the test results of the third test Martz conducted, the positive ion test, was the result of a carryover in the LC/MS/MS instrumentation.

bobaugust

Perhaps, I need to place in bold the relevant parts so that you will understand.

"If you find EDTA, it could mean that this blood is not found from human circulation, rather from a test tube. Therefore the source of the blood becomes questionable." Ergo, you have reasonable doubt, unless you buy into the prejudicial and biased argument, imho, of Terry Lee who started with the assumption, "If not planted".

[William Anthony]

Determining EDTA in Blood,
http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/ac/97/aug/det.html

“Because it would be physically difficult to manipulate such a small volume, any such forensic sample would probably contain at least 1 µL.”

If you are now claiming that you posted that “1 µL” somehow means parts per billion you are wrong. The article was again referring to the size of the sample not the amount of EDTA it contained. Your claim that preserved blood contains 2000 parts per billion of EDTA is outright false.

bobaugust

I posted a link showing how a µL is converted. Because you do not understand or want to understand something does not make it wrong.

[William Anthony]

Limakey, you say that Simpson’s account of bleeding at his house before he left for Chicago is consistent with the blood trail that led to his front door? I don’t know what you think Simpson’s account was but he testified that he was not cut before he left for Chicago and the only blood he saw was on his baby finger when he was in his kitchen with Kaelin and he wiped that blood up.

Simpson never knew he was dripping blood everywhere he went after the murders, at Bundy, in his Bronco, on his driveway, and on his foyer floor, That’s why he could honestly testify that he didn’t see any blood.

When Phillips talked to Simpson on the phone he told him that his children were at the police station and asked Simpson what they should do about them. Simpson told him he would leave Chicago on the first available flight. After Phillips spoke with Simpson, Arnelle spoke with her father. Arnelle testified that the detectives asked her to pick up Justine and Sydney. Arnelle testified that she told them she needed help and she called Al Cowlings to help her.

Why would Simpson draw attention to his wound? Simpson was able to keep the clean knife cut across the knuckle on his left hand out of sight on his way to Chicago so no one noticed it. After Simpson told the police on the phone that he would return to LA he knew that he would have to account for that cut. By re-cutting his finger with a piece of glass he turned a clean knife cut into a ragged glass cut and made sure everyone saw the new cut on his way back to LA. That way he could tell the police he wasn’t cut before he went to Chicago. He didn’t know that he had dripped his blood everywhere after he committed the murders. It was only when he was being interviewed by the police and he was asked about bleeding in his Bronco that he started lying and contradicting himself.

bobaugust

Circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences, Simpson with his celebrity status would have been noticed by others and, if a cut was not noticed and there was no bleeding, there was no cut that was bleeding at that time and must have been a small one, which made the blood trail that was consistent with him cutting his finger/hand while reaching into the Bronco at Rockingham and entering his front door.

[William Anthony]

In case I did not post the link, because I went back and only saw a link to ng/ml, here it is.

http://www.smarte.org/smarte/dynamic/resource/sn-units-of-measure.xml.pdf

If a part per billion equals a µL and a ng/ml equals a part per billion and 15ng/ml indicates planting, then 133.33 times as much indicates planting or preserved blood.

[bobaugust]

Perhaps, I need to place in bold the relevant parts so that you will understand.

"If you find EDTA, it could mean that this blood is not found from human circulation, rather from a test tube. Therefore the source of the blood becomes questionable." Ergo, you have reasonable doubt, unless you buy into the prejudicial and biased argument, imho, of Terry Lee who started with the assumption, "If not planted".

Just because a small trace amount of EDTA may raise a question doesn’t mean it creates reasonable doubt. Martz concluded that based on all the test results from the three tests he conducted, that the two evidence stains could not have come from the preserved blood reference samples.

Dr. Terry Lee testified he was hired to review the data and give an opinion. After reviewing all the data and testimony his opinion was that the evidence samples could not have come from test tubes treated with the chemical EDTA.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

In case I did not post the link, because I went back and only saw a link to ng/ml, here it is.

http://www.smarte.org/smarte/dynamic/resource/sn-units-of-measure.xml.pdf

If a part per billion equals a µL and a ng/ml equals a part per billion and 15ng/ml indicates planting, then 133.33 times as much indicates planting or preserved blood.

You’re wrong about all these symbols just as you were wrong about them a year ago.
1 µL is not equal to a part per billion. 1 µL is a unit of measure of the volume of a drop,

1 ppm = 1 mg/mL
1 ppb = 1 µg/mL
1 ppt = 1 ng/mL

The article Determining EDTA in Blood said,
“Using this sample preparation procedure and the SRM-CE/MS method, we achieved a detection limit of 7.3 ng/mL EDTA in human plasma and a lower level of quantitation (LLQ) of 15 ng/mL (~6 fmol injected).”

The new method achieved a detection limit of EDTA in human plasma measured in parts per trillion. And then told how that detection capability might be used to determine whether a forensic blood sample had been “planted.” The article never said preserved blood contained EDTA in parts per billion.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences, Simpson with his celebrity status would have been noticed by others and, if a cut was not noticed and there was no bleeding, there was no cut that was bleeding at that time and must have been a small one, which made the blood trail that was consistent with him cutting his finger/hand while reaching into the Bronco at Rockingham and entering his front door.

Neither Simpson nor anyone else would have any trouble keeping a clean cut across the knuckle of the middle finger on their left hand out of sight if that was that was their intention. The evidence that Simpson was cut before he went to Chicago are his blood drops found at Bundy, on his driveway, and on his foyer floor that were all seen and documented before Simpson returned from Chicago.

It seems you also don’t believe Simpson when he testified that he never saw any cuts on his hand or the fingers of his hands before he went to Chicago.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You’re wrong about all these symbols just as you were wrong about them a year ago.
1 µL is not equal to a part per billion. 1 µL is a unit of measure of the volume of a drop,

1 ppm = 1 mg/mL
1 ppb = 1 µg/mL
1 ppt = 1 ng/mL

The article Determining EDTA in Blood said,
“Using this sample preparation procedure and the SRM-CE/MS method, we achieved a detection limit of 7.3 ng/mL EDTA in human plasma and a lower level of quantitation (LLQ) of 15 ng/mL (~6 fmol injected).”

The new method achieved a detection limit of EDTA in human plasma measured in parts per trillion. And then told how that detection capability might be used to determine whether a forensic blood sample had been “planted.” The article never said preserved blood contained EDTA in parts per billion.

bobaugust

Correction: In checking newer sources of information I have found that they contradict the source I used for a reference last year. A source that is no longer on the internet.

parts-per-million ppm
1 µg/g, or approximately 1 µg/mL or 1 mg/L

parts-per-billion ppb
1 ng/g, or approximately 1 ng/mL or 1 µg/L

parts-per-trillion ppt
1 pg/g, or approximately 1 pg/mL or 1 ng/L

The article Determining EDTA in Blood said, “Using this sample preparation procedure and the SRM-CE/MS method, we achieved a detection limit of 7.3 ng/mL EDTA in human plasma and a lower level of quantitation (LLQ) of 15 ng/mL (~6 fmol injected).”

The new method achieved a detection limit of EDTA in human plasma measured in parts per billion. And then told how that detection capability might be used to determine whether a forensic blood sample had been “planted.” The article never said preserved blood contained EDTA in parts per billion.

1 µL is not equal to a part per billion. 1 µL is a unit of measure of the volume of a drop,

bobaugust

[limakey]

Limakey, you say that Simpson’s account of bleeding at his house before he left for Chicago is consistent with the blood trail that led to his front door? I don’t know what you think Simpson’s account was but he testified that he was not cut before he left for Chicago and the only blood he saw was on his baby finger when he was in his kitchen with Kaelin and he wiped that blood up.

Simpson never knew he was dripping blood everywhere he went after the murders, at Bundy, in his Bronco, on his driveway, and on his foyer floor, That’s why he could honestly testify that he didn’t see any blood.

When Phillips talked to Simpson on the phone he told him that his children were at the police station and asked Simpson what they should do about them. Simpson told him he would leave Chicago on the first available flight. After Phillips spoke with Simpson, Arnelle spoke with her father. Arnelle testified that the detectives asked her to pick up Justine and Sydney. Arnelle testified that she told them she needed help and she called Al Cowlings to help her.

Why would Simpson draw attention to his wound? Simpson was able to keep the clean knife cut across the knuckle on his left hand out of sight on his way to Chicago so no one noticed it. After Simpson told the police on the phone that he would return to LA he knew that he would have to account for that cut. By re-cutting his finger with a piece of glass he turned a clean knife cut into a ragged glass cut and made sure everyone saw the new cut on his way back to LA. That way he could tell the police he wasn’t cut before he went to Chicago. He didn’t know that he had dripped his blood everywhere after he committed the murders. It was only when he was being interviewed by the police and he was asked about bleeding in his Bronco that he started lying and contradicting himself.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

In Simpson's statement to the police, he says he remembered bleeding at his house. If Simpson did not know he was bleeding, then how was he able to only bleed from the Bronco to his front door?

Again, you miss the point--the detectives gave several reasons on why they went to Rockingham, the main one being that they wanted to give him support to ensure he was able to pull himself together for his minor children. Yet, they did show the same concern when they told him over the phone. They did not show concern that Simpson may have already learned about the murders--I'm pretty sure they have TV and radio in Chicago.

Your theory about Simpson makes no sense. First, he doesn't know he was bleeding so he has no way of knowing if he left a blood trail. Then he remembered seeing blood on his finger but wiping it off with napkin. Yet, he did this in front of Kato---did Kato see the cut on his hand?

He showed no obvious concern over this cut, it was small on his pinky finger I think, then why would he feel he would have to account for this cut? No one saw it, no one made mention of it.

To even think that Simpson broke a glass and used a piece of it to "trace" it so fool people is just plain dumb, IMO. Why would he only trace one cut? Why not punch a wall and turn his hand into ground beef to ensure there would be no way that anyone would be able to tell how he cut it?

Mr. Simpson never made any attempt to hide his hands while he was with Kato and the limo driver. He never made any attempt to hide his hands from people who saw him at the airport or on the plane. No one testifed that Simpson was trying to hide his hands from view. And even if he was, he didn't do a very good job because at least two witnesses looked right at hands.

[limakey]

At the time of the murders and months after the murders there was overgrown foliage covering the top of the fence behind Kaelin’s room. Simpson’s defense didn’t know Simpson had scaled that fence to enter his estate and evidently no one saw that bent wire.

As to what Kaelin testified to, he could only answer the questions that were asked of him regarding the noises he heard, the vibrations he felt, and what he thought at the time. In his deposition and civil trial testimony Kaelin was asked more specific questions regarding many details that that were never brought up in the criminal trial.

Mark Fuhrman wrote that he asked Kaelin if anything unusual happened that night and Kaelin told him that he heard and felt a couple of loud thumps on the wall above his bed, and thought there had been an earthquake because the thumps had caused a picture above his bed to shake.

On both the trips that Kaelin made to the south path he moved the broken gate and when he returned he put it back in place, just as Simpson could have. Kaelin’s concerns did not end after Simpson left for the airport. He testified when Simpson called him and asked him to set the house alarm he was still scared and didn’t want to be outside. After setting the alarm he said he ran back to his room.

Kaelin was not asked if he knew Gigi had left for the weekend but not only would he have not seen her car parked anywhere when he went with Simpson to McDonalds but later before Simpson left for the airport Kaelin went into Simpson’s house. He would have been well aware that Gigi was not there that night.

Kaelin testified that he thought someone was behind his room. The evidence is that there were only three people on Simpson’s estate at the time Kaelin heard and felt the noises on his back wall; Kaelin, Allan Park, and Simpson. It wasn’t Kaelin, and it wasn’t Park.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Simpson's defense knew Mr. Simpson didn't scale that wall because of their expert witnesses. That area was searched with a fine tooth comb by the CSI team. The could find no evidence that Simpson scaled the fence and crashed into the wall. Fung did find a trace of blood on the wire, yet it could not be determined if the blood came from an animal or a human.

What Kalin thought the thumps were are just that, he neither heard or saw anything that led him to believe it was a person back there. If Kato was so scared, then why didn't he call the police? Why didn't he warn Arnelle when she came home? If Kato did know that the maid was not home does further ask the question why he didn't call the police. Sure, Simpson asked him to set the alarm, but did that alarm also work if someone was trying to break into one of the guest houses?

Yes, Kato was asked different questions for his depo and civil trial testimony, however, he also gave this depo and testimony after he was creamed in the press for being loyal to Simpson and the betrayer of Nicole. I'm sure that played a role in it. And again, at least one civil trial juror felt that Fuhrman did in fact plant the glove---so what did she think the noise was?

Okay, if Simpson did move the fence, why wasn't there blood on it? Why wasn't it dusted for prints? Your timeline is messed up if you have Simpson crashing into the wall but taking his time on leaving the alley and moving a gate.

Again, he had no idea if Kato was going to come out right away. One thing I would like to know is if someone could be heard running or walking behind the wall. The DA's had to ask vague questions, they had no explaination for the thumps any more then Petrocelli or the defense had. IMO.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

In Simpson's statement to the police, he says he remembered bleeding at his house. If Simpson did not know he was bleeding, then how was he able to only bleed from the Bronco to his front door?

Again, you miss the point--the detectives gave several reasons on why they went to Rockingham, the main one being that they wanted to give him support to ensure he was able to pull himself together for his minor children. Yet, they did show the same concern when they told him over the phone. They did not show concern that Simpson may have already learned about the murders--I'm pretty sure they have TV and radio in Chicago.

Your theory about Simpson makes no sense. First, he doesn't know he was bleeding so he has no way of knowing if he left a blood trail. Then he remembered seeing blood on his finger but wiping it off with napkin. Yet, he did this in front of Kato---did Kato see the cut on his hand?

He showed no obvious concern over this cut, it was small on his pinky finger I think, then why would he feel he would have to account for this cut? No one saw it, no one made mention of it.

To even think that Simpson broke a glass and used a piece of it to "trace" it so fool people is just plain dumb, IMO. Why would he only trace one cut? Why not punch a wall and turn his hand into ground beef to ensure there would be no way that anyone would be able to tell how he cut it?

Mr. Simpson never made any attempt to hide his hands while he was with Kato and the limo driver. He never made any attempt to hide his hands from people who saw him at the airport or on the plane. No one testifed that Simpson was trying to hide his hands from view. And even if he was, he didn't do a very good job because at least two witnesses looked right at hands.

That’s right in his statement to the police Simpson did admit to bleeding at his house before he left for the airport and if there was blood there he dripped it there and he re-cut his finger in Chicago. But by the time Simpson testified in his deposition and the civil trial he changed what he had told the police and denied that he was cut and the only blood he saw was on his pinky finger. So was he lying when he talked to the police or was he lying when he testified, or was he lying every time?

The police didn’t give several reasons why they went to Rockingham. They went there following the order to notify Simpson in person of his ex-wife’s murder. Detective Lange came up with idea to take Phillips and Fuhrman along so that after the notification the two West LA detectives could help Simpson recover his two small children who had been taken to their police station. When the detectives called Simpson in Chicago the press had not yet learned about the murders.

Simpson knew he was cut but he never realized he was dripping blood everywhere. As to what he told the police it was all lies and fabrications. The story about seeing blood on his finger while he was kitchen was a fabrication and Kaelin was not in the kitchen with him at that time. There was no cut on his pinky finger after the murders. Later Simpson testified that he saw what he thought was blood on his hand so he tore a piece of tissue and wiped his hand.

I don’t agree that it was dumb for Simpson to re-cut his knuckle; it fooled a lot of people including you. Simpson screwed up when he told that to the police and later he denied it saying he only assumed he re-cut it.

How do you know what Simpson wasn’t keeping the cut across his knuckle on his left hand from not being noticed? It isn’t really that hard to do. Of course no one testified the he was tying to hide his hands because he didn’t make it obvious that he was. I don’t know what two witnesses you are referring to but no one saw the clean knife cut because it wouldn’t have been that noticeable and he didn’t let anyone see it.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Simpson's defense knew Mr. Simpson didn't scale that wall because of their expert witnesses. That area was searched with a fine tooth comb by the CSI team. The could find no evidence that Simpson scaled the fence and crashed into the wall. Fung did find a trace of blood on the wire, yet it could not be determined if the blood came from an animal or a human.

What Kalin thought the thumps were are just that, he neither heard or saw anything that led him to believe it was a person back there. If Kato was so scared, then why didn't he call the police? Why didn't he warn Arnelle when she came home? If Kato did know that the maid was not home does further ask the question why he didn't call the police. Sure, Simpson asked him to set the alarm, but did that alarm also work if someone was trying to break into one of the guest houses?

Yes, Kato was asked different questions for his depo and civil trial testimony, however, he also gave this depo and testimony after he was creamed in the press for being loyal to Simpson and the betrayer of Nicole. I'm sure that played a role in it. And again, at least one civil trial juror felt that Fuhrman did in fact plant the glove---so what did she think the noise was?

Okay, if Simpson did move the fence, why wasn't there blood on it? Why wasn't it dusted for prints? Your timeline is messed up if you have Simpson crashing into the wall but taking his time on leaving the alley and moving a gate.

Again, he had no idea if Kato was going to come out right away. One thing I would like to know is if someone could be heard running or walking behind the wall. The DA's had to ask vague questions, they had no explaination for the thumps any more then Petrocelli or the defense had. IMO.

The area was not searched let alone with a fine tooth comb. There was no CSI team. The detectives could tell nothing about what happened behind Kaelin’s room by looking at the summer growth overgrown foliage and bushes more than seven hours after Kaelin heard someone behind his room. The evidence that someone had been there were the noises and vibrations that Kaelin heard and felt and the killer’s right hand glove. A glove that had blood on it that was later identified as a mixture of Nicole, Ron, and Simpson’s blood as well as fiber evidence that pointed to Simpson.

Kaelin testified in the criminal trial, his deposition, and the civil trial that he believed that someone was behind his room.

No the time line is not messed up at all. Simpson fell against the wall and then continued down the south path. When he got to the broken fence he simply picked it up and then put it back and continued on around the garage to his driveway. Kaelin testified it wasn’t difficult to do. Petrocelli believed that Simpson scaled his fence and I believe he even knew about the bent wire that was documented in the video Simpson made after the foliage had been trimmed back. During Simpson’s deposition Petrocelli asked Simpson about that foliage shown in the video. He just didn’t bring it up at the trial.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I really don’t care if you accept my explanation or not. I posted this explanation more for the benefit of other posters who may have been following this discussion. Anyone who is familiar with computers and spell checkers will understand how the error occurred in my posting and that the end result not only didn’t make any sense but it had nothing to do with your false claim that preserved blood contains a concentration of EDTA in 2000 parts per billion. Your accusation that I intentionally changed the testimony is false and your new accusation that my spell checker had deleted four or five words is false.

bobaugust

I do not care that you do not care. Your explanation failed with me and any reasonable thinking poster, imho. Of course what you deleted did not have anything to do with how much EDTA was needed to preserve blood. It had to do with how much EDTA was in human blood that was not preserved, as the EPA article stated. It is you obstinate refusal to admit you are wrong, such as your repeated disservice to this community by falsely saying that the civil verdict found Simpson liable for killing both victims, despite the fact that I believe you knew differently, that causes me not to believe you.

[William Anthony]

No I don’t ignore the new scientific study. Unlike you I understand what the article said and what it didn’t say regarding those studies. Both Martz and Dr. Rieders testified that it was unclear what the amount of EDTA was in the EPA report.

The article discussing new methods to determine EDTA in blood never said that blood could be preserved with a concentration of EDTA in parts per billion. The article clearly stated that “EDTA is present at about 4.5 mM (~1300 ppm) in EDTA-preserved blood. That’s the range that both Martz and Dr. Rieders testified is in EDTA preserved blood.

bobaugust

If you are going to quote the article, quote it correctly. The article said that was the typical concentration in preserved blood, not that was what was required to preserve blood. You keep leaving that part out but you now claim you have changed spell checkers. I guess the fault was not in your spell checker. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

You were also incorrect in your interpretation of what the article was saying when they referred to a hypothetical “planting.” It had nothing to do with how much EDTA is found in preserved blood. It had to do with the extremely small volumes of EDTA-preserved blood that the new methods could determine EDTA in.

bobaugust

What you continue to ignore is that the what you call a hypothetical indicates how the LLQ would be used to show planting. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

No I’m not wrong you just can’t seem to understand what it means. Just as you posted the article said that “EDTA is present at about 4.5 mM (~1300 ppm) in EDTA-preserved blood” That is the same range that both Martz and Dr. Rieders testified was in preserved blood. 1000 to 2000 parts per million. It then said as you posted, “It appeared that the amount of EDTA detected in the forensic blood samples was orders of magnitude below 4.5 mM” That is also correct since the results in the third test Martz performed indicated a small trace amount of EDTA in one part per million. That is an amount far below 1300 parts per million.”

You also can’t seem to understand that when the article referred to the hypothetical amount of 1-3 nl of EDTA-preserved blood it was referring to how small a volume of blood the new methods could determine that contained EDTA. It did not say that was the amount it took to preserve blood.

The article never said that blood could be preserved with a concentration of EDTA in parts per billion. Your claim that preserved blood contains 2000 parts per billion of EDTA is false.

bobaugust

I have posted the conversion tables and the article stated what 15ng/ml was equivalent to. The only one who does not seem to understand the conversion table is you, imho.

[William Anthony]

Just because a small trace amount of EDTA may raise a question doesn’t mean it creates reasonable doubt. Martz concluded that based on all the test results from the three tests he conducted, that the two evidence stains could not have come from the preserved blood reference samples.

Dr. Terry Lee testified he was hired to review the data and give an opinion. After reviewing all the data and testimony his opinion was that the evidence samples could not have come from test tubes treated with the chemical EDTA.

bobaugust

Only in your mind, because you want to deny what the issue was in the criminal trial and insert testimony from the civil trial, which is why I provided the new scientific study, which you also want to deny, is testimony that is questionable or creates a controversy not reasonable doubt and you also ignore the jury instruction. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

You’re wrong about all these symbols just as you were wrong about them a year ago.
1 µL is not equal to a part per billion. 1 µL is a unit of measure of the volume of a drop,

1 ppm = 1 mg/mL
1 ppb = 1 µg/mL
1 ppt = 1 ng/mL

The article Determining EDTA in Blood said,
“Using this sample preparation procedure and the SRM-CE/MS method, we achieved a detection limit of 7.3 ng/mL EDTA in human plasma and a lower level of quantitation (LLQ) of 15 ng/mL (~6 fmol injected).”

The new method achieved a detection limit of EDTA in human plasma measured in parts per trillion. And then told how that detection capability might be used to determine whether a forensic blood sample had been “planted.” The article never said preserved blood contained EDTA in parts per billion.

bobaugust

Your limited knowledge of math and ability to make reasonable inferences are showing again,, imho. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

Neither Simpson nor anyone else would have any trouble keeping a clean cut across the knuckle of the middle finger on their left hand out of sight if that was that was their intention. The evidence that Simpson was cut before he went to Chicago are his blood drops found at Bundy, on his driveway, and on his foyer floor that were all seen and documented before Simpson returned from Chicago.

It seems you also don’t believe Simpson when he testified that he never saw any cuts on his hand or the fingers of his hands before he went to Chicago.

bobaugust

That is for another thread. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

The area was not searched let alone with a fine tooth comb. There was no CSI team. The detectives could tell nothing about what happened behind Kaelin’s room by looking at the summer growth overgrown foliage and bushes more than seven hours after Kaelin heard someone behind his room. The evidence that someone had been there were the noises and vibrations that Kaelin heard and felt and the killer’s right hand glove. A glove that had blood on it that was later identified as a mixture of Nicole, Ron, and Simpson’s blood as well as fiber evidence that pointed to Simpson.

Kaelin testified in the criminal trial, his deposition, and the civil trial that he believed that someone was behind his room.

No the time line is not messed up at all. Simpson fell against the wall and then continued down the south path. When he got to the broken fence he simply picked it up and then put it back and continued on around the garage to his driveway. Kaelin testified it wasn’t difficult to do. Petrocelli believed that Simpson scaled his fence and I believe he even knew about the bent wire that was documented in the video Simpson made after the foliage had been trimmed back. During Simpson’s deposition Petrocelli asked Simpson about that foliage shown in the video. He just didn’t bring it up at the trial.

bobaugust

I see you now agree with me that Mr. Kato only testified to the fact that he believed someone was behind the quarters and not that he did as you or your spell checker falsely claimed previously. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

Correction: In checking newer sources of information I have found that they contradict the source I used for a reference last year. A source that is no longer on the internet.

parts-per-million ppm
1 µg/g, or approximately 1 µg/mL or 1 mg/L

parts-per-billion ppb
1 ng/g, or approximately 1 ng/mL or 1 µg/L

parts-per-trillion ppt
1 pg/g, or approximately 1 pg/mL or 1 ng/L

The article Determining EDTA in Blood said, “Using this sample preparation procedure and the SRM-CE/MS method, we achieved a detection limit of 7.3 ng/mL EDTA in human plasma and a lower level of quantitation (LLQ) of 15 ng/mL (~6 fmol injected).”

The new method achieved a detection limit of EDTA in human plasma measured in parts per billion. And then told how that detection capability might be used to determine whether a forensic blood sample had been “planted.” The article never said preserved blood contained EDTA in parts per billion.

1 µL is not equal to a part per billion. 1 µL is a unit of measure of the volume of a drop,

bobaugust

Maybe, you should have your new spell checker go back and check the abundance of false information, imho, that you have posted on this board be it intentional or not. ;):cool:. If you decided to do that, it will keep you busy while I am attending classes, since the new semester has started.

[martin II]

The area was not searched let alone with a fine tooth comb. There was no CSI team. The detectives could tell nothing about what happened behind Kaelin’s room by looking at the summer growth overgrown foliage and bushes more than seven hours after Kaelin heard someone behind his room. The evidence that someone had been there were the noises and vibrations that Kaelin heard and felt and the killer’s right hand glove. A glove that had blood on it that was later identified as a mixture of Nicole, Ron, and Simpson’s blood as well as fiber evidence that pointed to Simpson.

Kaelin testified in the criminal trial, his deposition, and the civil trial that he believed that someone was behind his room.

No the time line is not messed up at all. Simpson fell against the wall and then continued down the south path. When he got to the broken fence he simply picked it up and then put it back and continued on around the garage to his driveway. Kaelin testified it wasn’t difficult to do. Petrocelli believed that Simpson scaled his fence and I believe he even knew about the bent wire that was documented in the video Simpson made after the foliage had been trimmed back. During Simpson’s deposition Petrocelli asked Simpson about that foliage shown in the video. He just didn’t bring it up at the trial.

bobaugust

bob

I guess that you are saying that the two le detectives that testified that they saw no evidence of anyone jumping the fence and Vanhatters testimony that no one jumped the fence was just lies for some reason. Kato testified that the 2nd fence was closed not that someone kicked it. the 1st fence was on its hinges according to Kato so this means that oj would have had to take the fence off of its hinges, walk through and then in the pitch dark find the hinges to reset the gate, all while according to M Clarke he was RUNNING out of the south walkway to get to the house in time.Not believable since there was no evidence found that Simpson was even in the walkway.imo
The blood found on that wire belonged to who??? Give proof that Simpson bent that wire later found after the vines were trimmed months later.

Because you say something that you think happened does make it true or proof.imo

[William Anthony]

bob

I guess that you are saying that the two le detectives that testified that they saw no evidence of anyone jumping the fence and Vanhatters testimony that no one jumped the fence was just lies for some reason. Kato testified that the 2nd fence was closed not that someone kicked it. the 1st fence was on its hinges according to Kato so this means that oj would have had to take the fence off of its hinges, walk through and then in the pitch dark find the hinges to reset the gate, all while according to M Clarke he was RUNNING out of the south walkway to get to the house in time.Not believable since there was no evidence found that Simpson was even in the walkway.imo
The blood found on that wire belonged to who??? Give proof that Simpson bent that wire later found after the vines were trimmed months later.

Because you say something that you think happened does make it true or proof.imo

I think bobaugust is of the opinion that the evidence presented in the criminal trial matters only if it fits the scenario that Simpson was guilty as charged.

[bobaugust]

I do not care that you do not care. Your explanation failed with me and any reasonable thinking poster, imho. Of course what you deleted did not have anything to do with how much EDTA was needed to preserve blood. It had to do with how much EDTA was in human blood that was not preserved, as the EPA article stated. It is you obstinate refusal to admit you are wrong, such as your repeated disservice to this community by falsely saying that the civil verdict found Simpson liable for killing both victims, despite the fact that I believe you knew differently, that causes me not to believe you.

The spell checker I was using deleted one word “--or.” You continue to make false claims even after your claims are proven false.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

If you are going to quote the article, quote it correctly. The article said that was the typical concentration in preserved blood, not that was what was required to preserve blood. You keep leaving that part out but you now claim you have changed spell checkers. I guess the fault was not in your spell checker. ;):cool:

You’re wrong again. The article went on to say, “which would be a very concentrated sample and easily detected by electrospray LC/MS/MS.” A concentrated sample, not a typical sample, and because preserved blood is a concentrated sample Martz was able to easily detect it in the reference samples and compare it to the small trace amount of EDTA that showed up in the third test he performed.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

What you continue to ignore is that the what you call a hypothetical indicates how the LLQ would be used to show planting. ;):cool:

No I have not ignored it. Unlike you I understand what the article said. The LLQ would not be used to show planting, the new method could be used to show planting. The LLQ is a quantification of the detection limit and shows how small a sample of EDTA preserved blood it could detect. A volume so small that,”it would be physically difficult to manipulate.” This has nothing to do with your incorrect false claim that preserved blood contains 2000 parts per billion of EDTA.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I have posted the conversion tables and the article stated what 15ng/ml was equivalent to. The only one who does not seem to understand the conversion table is you, imho.

And I have posted that parts per billion is expressed as ng/mL the same way it is shown in the article Determining EDTA in Blood. Nothing you have posted supports your incorrect false claim that preserved blood contains 2000 parts per billion of EDTA.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Only in your mind, because you want to deny what the issue was in the criminal trial and insert testimony from the civil trial, which is why I provided the new scientific study, which you also want to deny, is testimony that is questionable or creates a controversy not reasonable doubt and you also ignore the jury instruction. ;):cool:

I responded to your posting of an article written in 2008 that had to do with the EDTA issue, not the criminal trial. The Article said “Therefore the source of the blood becomes questionable.” And you William wrote," Ergo, you have reasonable doubt.”

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Your limited knowledge of math and ability to make reasonable inferences are showing again,, imho. ;):cool:

And you were wrong when you said that a part per billion equals a µL. And the incorrect math you posted that concluded that one part per billion is equal to 1000 parts per million is a clear example of your limited knowledge of math. And your ridiculous inferences that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders and that Mark Fuhrman admitted he saw two gloves under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet are well documented on this discussion group.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I see you now agree with me that Mr. Kato only testified to the fact that he believed someone was behind the quarters and not that he did as you or your spell checker falsely claimed previously. ;):cool:

The testimony I previously posted was that Kaelin believed someone was behind his room.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Maybe, you should have your new spell checker go back and check the abundance of false information, imho, that you have posted on this board be it intentional or not. ;):cool:. If you decided to do that, it will keep you busy while I am attending classes, since the new semester has started.

While you are attending classes maybe you will learn what a compound question is, why it is improper, and why a one word answer is not reliable. Funny.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

bob

I guess that you are saying that the two le detectives that testified that they saw no evidence of anyone jumping the fence and Vanhatters testimony that no one jumped the fence was just lies for some reason. Kato testified that the 2nd fence was closed not that someone kicked it. the 1st fence was on its hinges according to Kato so this means that oj would have had to take the fence off of its hinges, walk through and then in the pitch dark find the hinges to reset the gate, all while according to M Clarke he was RUNNING out of the south walkway to get to the house in time.Not believable since there was no evidence found that Simpson was even in the walkway.imo
The blood found on that wire belonged to who??? Give proof that Simpson bent that wire later found after the vines were trimmed months later.

Because you say something that you think happened does make it true or proof.imo

martin II, it was not possible to tell if someone had pushed their way through the summer grown bushes and foliage on the Salinger’s property over seven hours earlier. The evidence that Simpson scaled his fence is the fact that he did not enter his estate through either of his gates, the noises and vibrations that Kaelin heard and felt on that wall, the fact that there is only evidence of three people on Simpson’s estate at that time, and the killer’s right hand glove that was later found there.

Additional evidence was the fresh green leaves near the glove shown in the crime photographs and the bent wire that was documented in Simpson’s video after the foliage had been trimmed back.

What makes you think someone kicked the fence?

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The spell checker I was using deleted one word “--or.” You continue to make false claims even after your claims are proven false.

bobaugust

Blah, blah, blah.;):cool:

[William Anthony]

You’re wrong again. The article went on to say, “which would be a very concentrated sample and easily detected by electrospray LC/MS/MS.” A concentrated sample, not a typical sample, and because preserved blood is a concentrated sample Martz was able to easily detect it in the reference samples and compare it to the small trace amount of EDTA that showed up in the third test he performed.

bobaugust

The article said that the 1300 ppm was a very concentrated sample and was a typical concentration present in blood preserved with EDTA. What you call a small trace was a thousand times more than what is found in human blood that has not been preserved and indicated planting. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

No I have not ignored it. Unlike you I understand what the article said. The LLQ would not be used to show planting, the new method could be used to show planting. The LLQ is a quantification of the detection limit and shows how small a sample of EDTA preserved blood it could detect. A volume so small that,”it would be physically difficult to manipulate.” This has nothing to do with your incorrect false claim that preserved blood contains 2000 parts per billion of EDTA.

bobaugust

The most important part of the article was that the LLQ showed evidence of planting and it could be used because the new method was valid, unlike Martz's method. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

And I have posted that parts per billion is expressed as ng/mL the same way it is shown in the article Determining EDTA in Blood. Nothing you have posted supports your incorrect false claim that preserved blood contains 2000 parts per billion of EDTA.

bobaugust

Thanks, the new scientific study does. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

And you were wrong when you said that a part per billion equals a µL. And the incorrect math you posted that concluded that one part per billion is equal to 1000 parts per million is a clear example of your limited knowledge of math. And your ridiculous inferences that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders and that Mark Fuhrman admitted he saw two gloves under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet are well documented on this discussion group.

bobaugust

I posted the link to what a µL means when converted. You can call my math incorrect, but with your indicated knowledge of math, you have not been able to prove it wrong for over a year and the testimony of the convicted perjurer stands for itself. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

The testimony I previously posted was that Kaelin believed someone was behind his room.

bobaugust

Yes, you are correct as to what you posted and, after I pointed out from what you posted that Mr. Kato only testified to believing someone was behind the room, which was contradictory to you post that he testified someone was behind his room, you now want to claim suggest that your post wasn't false, which is another reason why I don't believe you claim about your old spell checker. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

While you are attending classes maybe you will learn what a compound question is, why it is improper, and why a one word answer is not reliable. Funny.

bobaugust

I know what a compound question is and also know that it is not objectionable unless objected to. A one word answer is always reliable. The only reason why the convicted perjurer's testimony is unreliable to you is because he was trapped by the brilliant Bailey on the issue of planting. Perhaps, if you would garner more education in math and legal concepts and take some classes, we would have more intelligent discussions, i.e. if you don't try to prove the instructors wrong. ;):cool:

[bobaugust]

The article said that the 1300 ppm was a very concentrated sample and was a typical concentration present in blood preserved with EDTA. What you call a small trace was a thousand times more than what is found in human blood that has not been preserved and indicated planting. ;):cool:

No, the article “Determining EDTA in Blood” did not say 1300 ppm was a “typical concentration” it said it would be a concentrated sample and easily detected. What I call a small trace amount is what Dr. Terry Lee testified to in the civil trial, “little trace signals.” A small trace amount that did not indicate planting since it was 1000 times less than what was found in the evidence reference samples and had nothing to do with what would be found in human blood.

http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/ac/97/aug/det.html

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The most important part of the article was that the LLQ showed evidence of planting and it could be used because the new method was valid, unlike Martz's method. ;):cool:

That was not the most important part of article and you still can’t seem to understand what the article said regarding the detection capabilities of the new methods. The LLQ was used in a hypothetical example to show how small an amount of EDTA-preserved blood it could detect.

http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/ac/97/aug/det.html

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Thanks, the new scientific study does. ;):cool:

Wrong, the article never said that preserved contains 2000 parts per billion. Your ignorant claim is incorrect and false.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I posted the link to what a µL means when converted. You can call my math incorrect, but with your indicated knowledge of math, you have not been able to prove it wrong for over a year and the testimony of the convicted perjurer stands for itself. ;):cool:

You never posted any link that says µL is a symbol to designate parts per billion. The symbol µL is used to designate a drop. Your math is incorrect because the answer you got is incorrect. Mark Fuhrman’s testimony does stand for itself and your incorrect false interpretation of what you imagine Fuhrman meant is well documented on this discussion group.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Yes, you are correct as to what you posted and, after I pointed out from what you posted that Mr. Kato only testified to believing someone was behind the room, which was contradictory to you post that he testified someone was behind his room, you now want to claim suggest that your post wasn't false, which is another reason why I don't believe you claim about your old spell checker. ;):cool:

You have a bad memory. I had posted that Kaelin heard someone behind his room and you responded in your post #5647, “Wrong, Mr. Kato only testified that he heard noises.”
Your statement was incorrect and I posted, “Kaelin testified that he thought if the loud noises and vibrations were not an earthquake then someone was behind his room.”

You then asked me to post the testimony where Kaelin said someone was behind his quarters. When I did you then responded, “He thought someone was back there and did not testify there was someone back there.

What you cleverly did was ignore your original incorrect statement by creating a meaningless issue about what I said Kaelin thought. You declared a victory and now you’re even using that as an excuse to not believe me regarding your incorrect claims about what my spell checker did? The lengths you will go to avoid admitting you are wrong are amazing.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I know what a compound question is and also know that it is not objectionable unless objected to. A one word answer is always reliable. The only reason why the convicted perjurer's testimony is unreliable to you is because he was trapped by the brilliant Bailey on the issue of planting. Perhaps, if you would garner more education in math and legal concepts and take some classes, we would have more intelligent discussions, i.e. if you don't try to prove the instructors wrong. ;):cool:

Wrong. “A compound question is one that actually asks several things which might require different answers. In a legal trial, a compound question will likely raise an objection, as the witness may be unable to provide a clear answer to the inquiry.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_question

The proof that Bailey realized that Fuhrman’s one word answer to his compound question was not a clear answer is the fact that he followed it up with a specific question regarding one part of his previous compound question. To which Fuhrman then gave a clear answer. Bailey didn’t trap Fuhrman; you just want to believe something that you imagined happened. Ask your teacher about it.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

No, the article “Determining EDTA in Blood” did not say 1300 ppm was a “typical concentration” it said it would be a concentrated sample and easily detected. What I call a small trace amount is what Dr. Terry Lee testified to in the civil trial, “little trace signals.” A small trace amount that did not indicate planting since it was 1000 times less than what was found in the evidence reference samples and had nothing to do with what would be found in human blood.

http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/ac/97/aug/det.html

bobaugust

Here is the direct quote from that article, "We have been able to demonstrate that typical human plasma samples do contain detectable EDTA, but at levels that are lower than the LLQ reported in this work. The LLQ of our method, at 15 ng/mL, is a factor of 105 lower than the typical concentration found in EDTA-preserved blood (4.5 mM or 1.3 X 106 ng/mL)." Just because you do not understand something, does not mean it is not there. That seems to be your problem, imho, your assumed arrogance may be the source of your embarrassment. What Terry Lee testified in the trial that is off topic for this thread does not matter, because what he testified to that was a small trace amount was a thousand times more than was need to show planting. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

Wrong, the article never said that preserved contains 2000 parts per billion. Your ignorant claim is incorrect and false.

bobaugust

Blah, blah, blah. You must be able to read between the lines, :). 2 parts per million is equal to 2,000 parts per billion, which the new scientific study showed that evidence of planting would occur at a much lower LLQ. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

You never posted any link that says µL is a symbol to designate parts per billion. The symbol µL is used to designate a drop. Your math is incorrect because the answer you got is incorrect. Mark Fuhrman’s testimony does stand for itself and your incorrect false interpretation of what you imagine Fuhrman meant is well documented on this discussion group.

bobaugust

Not only was my math correct and my results correct and it showed what the blanks meant as to what the EPA representative told Martz. Leaving out the obliter dicta, Martz's testimony is this "but it was a thousand or a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million (which makes no sense). A part per billion is a thousand parts per million times a part million, which I have shown you and shown that is what the EPA representative told Martz, which he nor you understand. Yes, and I have said you can believe the ridiculous explanation of the convicted perjurer, who spoke words of a genocidal racists and other can choose not to. He was trapped on the stand by the brilliant Bailey and MF's slimy quivering forked tongue caused MF's buttocks to tighten so tight MF's tongue could not find a way out. imho. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

You have a bad memory. I had posted that Kaelin heard someone behind his room and you responded in your post #5647, “Wrong, Mr. Kato only testified that he heard noises.”
Your statement was incorrect and I posted, “Kaelin testified that he thought if the loud noises and vibrations were not an earthquake then someone was behind his room.”

You then asked me to post the testimony where Kaelin said someone was behind his quarters. When I did you then responded, “He thought someone was back there and did not testify there was someone back there.

What you cleverly did was ignore your original incorrect statement by creating a meaningless issue about what I said Kaelin thought. You declared a victory and now you’re even using that as an excuse to not believe me regarding your incorrect claims about what my spell checker did? The lengths you will go to avoid admitting you are wrong are amazing.

bobaugust

Yes, you are correct. If you only posted that Kato heard someone behind his room, that was not his testimony. I asked it to prove your statement of fact by the testimony. You could not and cannot, because that was not his testimony. He testified that he believed someone was behind the quarters due to the noises. I do not take pride or claim a victory in pointing out your numerous false posts and find doing so to be tedious and boring, which is why that I ask you to re:read: carefully before allowing what you think as it comes up to come out. I do so for the benefit of the community and especially the poster, who reminds us that a reckless disregard for the truth shows the character of the person. Thank you for your verbose post, admitting your wrongness, and hope you now understand my reluctance to accept your claim about your former (pun intended as that term is used to describe the ex moderator, who I believe is still with us) spell checker.

[William Anthony]

Wrong. “A compound question is one that actually asks several things which might require different answers. In a legal trial, a compound question will likely raise an objection, as the witness may be unable to provide a clear answer to the inquiry.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_question

The proof that Bailey realized that Fuhrman’s one word answer to his compound question was not a clear answer is the fact that he followed it up with a specific question regarding one part of his previous compound question. To which Fuhrman then gave a clear answer. Bailey didn’t trap Fuhrman; you just want to believe something that you imagined happened. Ask your teacher about it.

bobaugust

Thanks again for now admitting you were wrong on the issue of a compound question being an improper question, even though I do not place full faith in your source. As I have said it is an objectionable question and your source said it would 'most likely receive an objection'. Since the question at issue was not the source of an objection, the question stood and no court ruled it an improper question. The Brilliant Bailey trapped the convicted perjurer, MF, into admitting that his tongue had not slipped, even though MF previously claimed it had. ;):cool: I have had instructions and practical actual experience in asking questions to witnesses under oath. All my teachers have told me that an objection is waived, except for the subject of jurisdiction, if not placed on the record and cannot be the subject of an appeal. You really do not understand the basics of a trial, imho, . The defense does not try to rehabilitate a prosecution witness, they try to discredit them. Your argument that the brilliant Bailey somehow tried to rehabilitate the soon to be convicted perjurer makes no sense, imho.;):cool:

[William Anthony]

A certain poster is not a poet. The magnificent one said, If it does not fit..acquit." The particular poster says, "If it does not fit, it is wrong." ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

That’s right in his statement to the police Simpson did admit to bleeding at his house before he left for the airport and if there was blood there he dripped it there and he re-cut his finger in Chicago. But by the time Simpson testified in his deposition and the civil trial he changed what he had told the police and denied that he was cut and the only blood he saw was on his pinky finger. So was he lying when he talked to the police or was he lying when he testified, or was he lying every time?

The police didn’t give several reasons why they went to Rockingham. They went there following the order to notify Simpson in person of his ex-wife’s murder. Detective Lange came up with idea to take Phillips and Fuhrman along so that after the notification the two West LA detectives could help Simpson recover his two small children who had been taken to their police station. When the detectives called Simpson in Chicago the press had not yet learned about the murders.

Simpson knew he was cut but he never realized he was dripping blood everywhere. As to what he told the police it was all lies and fabrications. The story about seeing blood on his finger while he was kitchen was a fabrication and Kaelin was not in the kitchen with him at that time. There was no cut on his pinky finger after the murders. Later Simpson testified that he saw what he thought was blood on his hand so he tore a piece of tissue and wiped his hand.

I don’t agree that it was dumb for Simpson to re-cut his knuckle; it fooled a lot of people including you. Simpson screwed up when he told that to the police and later he denied it saying he only assumed he re-cut it.

How do you know what Simpson wasn’t keeping the cut across his knuckle on his left hand from not being noticed? It isn’t really that hard to do. Of course no one testified the he was tying to hide his hands because he didn’t make it obvious that he was. I don’t know what two witnesses you are referring to but no one saw the clean knife cut because it wouldn’t have been that noticeable and he didn’t let anyone see it.

bobaugust

I really would like to thank Limakey for being able to expose the flaws in your argument based on all the circular reasoning you use in making this argument.;):cool:

[bobaugust]

Here is the direct quote from that article, "We have been able to demonstrate that typical human plasma samples do contain detectable EDTA, but at levels that are lower than the LLQ reported in this work. The LLQ of our method, at 15 ng/mL, is a factor of 105 lower than the typical concentration found in EDTA-preserved blood (4.5 mM or 1.3 X 106 ng/mL)." Just because you do not understand something, does not mean it is not there. That seems to be your problem, imho, your assumed arrogance may be the source of your embarrassment. What Terry Lee testified in the trial that is off topic for this thread does not matter, because what he testified to that was a small trace amount was a thousand times more than was need to show planting. ;):cool:

I quoted what the article said regarding 1300 ppm EDTA in preserved blood and you responded that I didn’t quote it correctly, that it said typical concentration not what it takes to preserve blood. You were wrong I did quote it correctly and I said that’s within the range that both Martz and Dr. Riders testified was in preserved blood.

Now you are referring to something the article said in the conclusion of the article when it was again speaking about the detection level of the new methods to detect EDTA in human plasma and said the LLQ of their new method “at 15ng/mL, is a factor of 10(5) lower than the typical concentration found in EDTA-preserved blood.” I agree that 1300 ppm is a typical concentration since Martz testified the concentration of EDTA in a purple topped tube is between a thousand and 2000 parts per million.

Your claim that preserved blood contains 2000 parts per billion is incorrect and false. And your additional comment that Dr. Lee’s testimony is off topic while you quote from an article written after Dr. Lee testified is funny.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Blah, blah, blah. You must be able to read between the lines, :). 2 parts per million is equal to 2,000 parts per billion, which the new scientific study showed that evidence of planting would occur at a much lower LLQ. ;):cool:

The article never said that preserved blood contains a concentration of EDTA of 2 parts per million.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Not only was my math correct and my results correct and it showed what the blanks meant as to what the EPA representative told Martz. Leaving out the obliter dicta, Martz's testimony is this "but it was a thousand or a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million (which makes no sense). A part per billion is a thousand parts per million times a part million, which I have shown you and shown that is what the EPA representative told Martz, which he nor you understand. Yes, and I have said you can believe the ridiculous explanation of the convicted perjurer, who spoke words of a genocidal racists and other can choose not to. He was trapped on the stand by the brilliant Bailey and MF's slimy quivering forked tongue caused MF's buttocks to tighten so tight MF's tongue could not find a way out. imho. ;):cool:

The dashes in the transcript indicated a pause by Martz before completing what he was going to say and adding in another example of what it was not (or a part per billion) and then finishing what he started to say. “It was a thousand parts per million.”

And now you’re saying that the EPA told Martz, “A part per billion is a thousand parts per million times a part million?” That makes no sense at all and is not what Martz testified the EPA him. Martz said, “In talking to EPA, they claim that it's a thousand parts per million is what it's supposed to be.”

All of Martz’s testimony clearly shows he understood the correct relationship between parts per billion and parts per million. Your interpretation of what you think Martz meant in his testimony regarding the EPA report is as ridiculous as your ignorant claim and incorrect math trying to prove that one part per billion is equal to 1000 parts per million.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Yes, you are correct. If you only posted that Kato heard someone behind his room, that was not his testimony. I asked it to prove your statement of fact by the testimony. You could not and cannot, because that was not his testimony. He testified that he believed someone was behind the quarters due to the noises. I do not take pride or claim a victory in pointing out your numerous false posts and find doing so to be tedious and boring, which is why that I ask you to re:read: carefully before allowing what you think as it comes up to come out. I do so for the benefit of the community and especially the poster, who reminds us that a reckless disregard for the truth shows the character of the person. Thank you for your verbose post, admitting your wrongness, and hope you now understand my reluctance to accept your claim about your former (pun intended as that term is used to describe the ex moderator, who I believe is still with us) spell checker.

When I originally posted that “Kaelin testified that he thought if the loud noises and vibrations were not an earthquake then someone was behind his room.” I was responding to your incorrect comment that “Wrong, Mr. Kato only testified that he heard noises.”

My paraphrasing may have not been clear enough for you but it certainly wasn’t as wrong as your incorrect comment that “Mr. Kato only testified that he heard noises.” You seem to take a lot of pride in pointing out small errors other posters make while you refuse to admit to your own incorrect comments.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Thanks again for now admitting you were wrong on the issue of a compound question being an improper question, even though I do not place full faith in your source. As I have said it is an objectionable question and your source said it would 'most likely receive an objection'. Since the question at issue was not the source of an objection, the question stood and no court ruled it an improper question. The Brilliant Bailey trapped the convicted perjurer, MF, into admitting that his tongue had not slipped, even though MF previously claimed it had. ;):cool: I have had instructions and practical actual experience in asking questions to witnesses under oath. All my teachers have told me that an objection is waived, except for the subject of jurisdiction, if not placed on the record and cannot be the subject of an appeal. You really do not understand the basics of a trial, imho, . The defense does not try to rehabilitate a prosecution witness, they try to discredit them. Your argument that the brilliant Bailey somehow tried to rehabilitate the soon to be convicted perjurer makes no sense, imho.;):cool:

It’s funny how you ignore your mistakes. The issue is not if Bailey’s compound question was improper, the issue is Fuhrman’s answer. Your claim that a one word answer to a compound question is “always reliable” is wrong. I don’t believe Bailey was trying to rehabilitate Fuhrman. Bailey asked a more specific question because he realized Fuhrman’s one word answer to his compound question was not a clear answer. If anyone was trapped here it was Bailey allowing Fuhrman to clarify his answer.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I quoted what the article said regarding 1300 ppm EDTA in preserved blood and you responded that I didn’t quote it correctly, that it said typical concentration not what it takes to preserve blood. You were wrong I did quote it correctly and I said that’s within the range that both Martz and Dr. Riders testified was in preserved blood.

Now you are referring to something the article said in the conclusion of the article when it was again speaking about the detection level of the new methods to detect EDTA in human plasma and said the LLQ of their new method “at 15ng/mL, is a factor of 10(5) lower than the typical concentration found in EDTA-preserved blood.” I agree that 1300 ppm is a typical concentration since Martz testified the concentration of EDTA in a purple topped tube is between a thousand and 2000 parts per million.

Your claim that preserved blood contains 2000 parts per billion is incorrect and false. And your additional comment that Dr. Lee’s testimony is off topic while you quote from an article written after Dr. Lee testified is funny.

bobaugust

You falsely claimed that the article did not say that the 1300 ppm was a typical concentration in blood preserved with EDTA. I reminded you that just because you did not understand something does not mean it wasn't said. Here is what the article said in one part, "EDTA is present at about 4.5 mM (~1300 ppm) in EDTA-preserved blood, which would be a very concentrated sample and easily detected by electrospray LC/MS/MS." Here is what is said in another part, "The LLQ of our method, at 15 ng/mL, is a factor of 105 lower than the typical concentration found in EDTA-preserved blood (4.5 mM or 1.3 X 106 ng/mL)." Do you not understand the simple math that 4.5mM is the same as 4.5mM? I would thank you for your agreement that it was what the article said, if you had not made the false claim that it did not.

The difference between you calling me wrong and my calling you wrong is that I support my accusation with evidence/proof. You on the other hand simply call me wrong.;):cool:

IIRC, you were the first to mention the article. ;):cool: It really does not matter since we are off topic and I have agreed to pacify you.

[William Anthony]

The article never said that preserved blood contains a concentration of EDTA of 2 parts per million.

bobaugust

Do the math. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

The dashes in the transcript indicated a pause by Martz before completing what he was going to say and adding in another example of what it was not (or a part per billion) and then finishing what he started to say. “It was a thousand parts per million.”

And now you’re saying that the EPA told Martz, “A part per billion is a thousand parts per million times a part million?” That makes no sense at all and is not what Martz testified the EPA him. Martz said, “In talking to EPA, they claim that it's a thousand parts per million is what it's supposed to be.”

All of Martz’s testimony clearly shows he understood the correct relationship between parts per billion and parts per million. Your interpretation of what you think Martz meant in his testimony regarding the EPA report is as ridiculous as your ignorant claim and incorrect math trying to prove that one part per billion is equal to 1000 parts per million.

bobaugust

Your argument begins with the same flawed assumption Martz made, which was that he was right and the EPA was wrong. However, both Dr. R. and the plaintiff's alleged expert said that Martz's results on his blood were wrong.

The issue is whether or not the blanks could have meant something that was inaudible, a pause or something the court reporter did not hear and what the EPA representative told Martz. According to Martz's testimony which was in the relevant portion, "but it was a thousand--or a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million." I think the blanks indicated that the EPA representative told him it was a thousand parts per million times a part per million, or a part per billion (the subject was how much EDTA was in human blood that had not been preserved), which Martz thought about on the stand and changed it to a thousand parts per million, imho. I have told you that for over a year and proven it mathematically. However, since it seems that you may now have gained some understanding of what I was telling you, here it is again, 1000/1,000,000 X 1/1,000,000=10/1,000,000,000,000=
1/1,000,000,000. Let's not forget the jury instruction and the concept of reasonable doubt. It is really not necessary to call my claim ignorant, since all the evidence supports that fact that you posses a ignorance of math and legal concepts. I ignored your remark the first time. You have really demonstrated you ignorance of mathematics, when you did not realize that 4.5mM=4.5mM and your ignorance of legal concepts with your terms of legitimate evidence and credible evidence. Just because you do not understand something, does not make it incorrect or ignorant, just beyond your level of comprehension/education. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

When I originally posted that “Kaelin testified that he thought if the loud noises and vibrations were not an earthquake then someone was behind his room.” I was responding to your incorrect comment that “Wrong, Mr. Kato only testified that he heard noises.”

My paraphrasing may have not been clear enough for you but it certainly wasn’t as wrong as your incorrect comment that “Mr. Kato only testified that he heard noises.” You seem to take a lot of pride in pointing out small errors other posters make while you refuse to admit to your own incorrect comments.

bobaugust

Then allow me to point out another. You originally said that Mr. Kato said that he heard someone behind the quarters. I said he only said he heard noises. You posted the testimony in which he said he believed someone was behind the quarters. I corrected you. Mr. Kato did not say he heard anyone behind the quarters. I take no pride in the antics of someone who continues to post false information as they were facts and I have to continuously correct them, because they do a disservice to the community with the numerous false posts. I will reiterate two things. You call me wrong but I produce evidence/proof that you are wrong and just because you do not understand something does not mean it is wrong.;):cool:

[William Anthony]

It’s funny how you ignore your mistakes. The issue is not if Bailey’s compound question was improper, the issue is Fuhrman’s answer. Your claim that a one word answer to a compound question is “always reliable” is wrong. I don’t believe Bailey was trying to rehabilitate Fuhrman. Bailey asked a more specific question because he realized Fuhrman’s one word answer to his compound question was not a clear answer. If anyone was trapped here it was Bailey allowing Fuhrman to clarify his answer.

bobaugust

The issue was your statement that a compound question was an improper question and your continued snide remarks to me about the furtherance of my education. I never said that a one word answer to a compound question is reliable. I said a one word answer is always reliable, since they typically are yes or no. I did not say they were truthful. You can rely on that answer because the examiner can later ask did you respond to this question with a yes, for instance. The longer the answer, typically the longer the wiggle room. This is what the brilliant Bailey did to the tight behind, stuck-forked-slimy tongued, soon-to-be convicted perjurer, who tried unsuccessfully to get his tongue loose from his buttocks and you somehow believe that the brilliant Bailey's questions were to in some manner rehabilitate the soon to be convicted perjurer by the brilliant Bailey's questions as opposed to trapping him and proving him a liar. The only thing MF clarified on the stand, imho, was that he was a stupid liar and racist and a corrupt officer. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

Correction-1000/1,000,000 X 1/1,000,000=1000/1,000,000,000,000=
1/1,000,000,000.

[bobaugust]

You falsely claimed that the article did not say that the 1300 ppm was a typical concentration in blood preserved with EDTA. I reminded you that just because you did not understand something does not mean it wasn't said. Here is what the article said in one part, "EDTA is present at about 4.5 mM (~1300 ppm) in EDTA-preserved blood, which would be a very concentrated sample and easily detected by electrospray LC/MS/MS." Here is what is said in another part, "The LLQ of our method, at 15 ng/mL, is a factor of 105 lower than the typical concentration found in EDTA-preserved blood (4.5 mM or 1.3 X 106 ng/mL)." Do you not understand the simple math that 4.5mM is the same as 4.5mM? I would thank you for your agreement that it was what the article said, if you had not made the false claim that it did not.

The difference between you calling me wrong and my calling you wrong is that I support my accusation with evidence/proof. You on the other hand simply call me wrong.;):cool:

IIRC, you were the first to mention the article. ;):cool: It really does not matter since we are off topic and I have agreed to pacify you.

The fact that the article used the word typical in the closing paragraph does not make what I quoted wrong. Maybe if you had made your response clearer instead of falsely claiming I did not correctly quote what I had posted then maybe we wouldn’t have wasted time on this meaningless issue.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Do the math. ;):cool:

The article never said that preserved blood contained 2 parts per million.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Your argument begins with the same flawed assumption Martz made, which was that he was right and the EPA was wrong. However, both Dr. R. and the plaintiff's alleged expert said that Martz's results on his blood were wrong.

The issue is whether or not the blanks could have meant something that was inaudible, a pause or something the court reporter did not hear and what the EPA representative told Martz. According to Martz's testimony which was in the relevant portion, "but it was a thousand--or a part per billion. It was a thousand parts per million." I think the blanks indicated that the EPA representative told him it was a thousand parts per million times a part per million, or a part per billion (the subject was how much EDTA was in human blood that had not been preserved), which Martz thought about on the stand and changed it to a thousand parts per million, imho. I have told you that for over a year and proven it mathematically. However, since it seems that you may now have gained some understanding of what I was telling you, here it is again, 1000/1,000,000 X 1/1,000,000=10/1,000,000,000,000=
1/1,000,000,000. Let's not forget the jury instruction and the concept of reasonable doubt. It is really not necessary to call my claim ignorant, since all the evidence supports that fact that you posses a ignorance of math and legal concepts. I ignored your remark the first time. You have really demonstrated you ignorance of mathematics, when you did not realize that 4.5mM=4.5mM and your ignorance of legal concepts with your terms of legitimate evidence and credible evidence. Just because you do not understand something, does not make it incorrect or ignorant, just beyond your level of comprehension/education. ;):cool:

Martz didn’t make a flawed assumption and he never said the EPA report was wrong about saying it should have been 1000 parts per million. Martz was wrong about how much EDTA might be found in human blood but that had nothing to do with the small trace amount that was indicated in the third test results. Martz’s suspicions that small trace amount may have been from an artifact in the instrument turned out to be correct.

Now you’re even taking what Martz said out of context to try to justify your ridiculous interpretation. 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.”

It’s pretty clear to anyone who reads this that Martz was saying, “And it ended up that it was not a part per million, but it was a thousand parts per million.” But he paused after saying a thousand and gave another example of what it was not, “--or a part per billion.” and then finished what he was going to say before he paused. “It was a thousand parts per million.”

Your belief that the dashes mean the EPA representative told him it was a thousand parts per million times a part per million, or a part per billion is all in your imagination. Martz said exactly what the EPA representative told him.

“In talking to EPA, they claim that it's a thousand parts per million is what it's supposed to be.”

Because you have put together some meaningless numbers and meaningless math to come to an answer of 1/1,000,000,000 doesn’t change the fact that your claim that one part per billion is equal to 1000 parts per million is outright false. It only shows how far you will go to avoid admitting you were wrong. I’ve posted the simple math showing the correct relationship between parts per billion and parts per million many times, without the meaningless convoluted math you are have posted.

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

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Then allow me to point out another. You originally said that Mr. Kato said that he heard someone behind the quarters. I said he only said he heard noises. You posted the testimony in which he said he believed someone was behind the quarters. I corrected you. Mr. Kato did not say he heard anyone behind the quarters. I take no pride in the antics of someone who continues to post false information as they were facts and I have to continuously correct them, because they do a disservice to the community with the numerous false posts. I will reiterate two things. You call me wrong but I produce evidence/proof that you are wrong and just because you do not understand something does not mean it is wrong.;):cool:

The fact is that Kaelin was saying he heard someone behind his room when he said if it wasn’t an earthquake then he believed someone was back there.

You comment that, “Mr. Kato only testified that he heard noises” is incorrect.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The issue was your statement that a compound question was an improper question and your continued snide remarks to me about the furtherance of my education. I never said that a one word answer to a compound question is reliable. I said a one word answer is always reliable, since they typically are yes or no. I did not say they were truthful. You can rely on that answer because the examiner can later ask did you respond to this question with a yes, for instance. The longer the answer, typically the longer the wiggle room. This is what the brilliant Bailey did to the tight behind, stuck-forked-slimy tongued, soon-to-be convicted perjurer, who tried unsuccessfully to get his tongue loose from his buttocks and you somehow believe that the brilliant Bailey's questions were to in some manner rehabilitate the soon to be convicted perjurer by the brilliant Bailey's questions as opposed to trapping him and proving him a liar. The only thing MF clarified on the stand, imho, was that he was a stupid liar and racist and a corrupt officer. ;):cool:

The issue is Fuhrman’s one word unclear answer to Bailey’s (improper) compound question. You claim that a one word answer is always reliable. If it is unclear how can it be reliable? Bailey understood that Fuhrman’s answer was unclear, that’s why he asked him a more specific question regarding one part of his previous compound question.

The fact is there was no second glove under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet when the police arrived at Bundy and no witness including Mark Fuhrman ever said, insinuated, or suggested there was. This whole subject by Bailey was nothing more than smoke and mirrors and no one in this case ever made the false claim that Mark Fuhrman admitted to seeing a second glove under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet. You’re the only who has ever done that.

Your colorful descriptions and name calling clearly shows the prejudice and bias behind your false claims regarding what Mark Fuhrman testified to regarding this subject.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Correction-1000/1,000,000 X 1/1,000,000=1000/1,000,000,000,000=
1/1,000,000,000.

Your supposed correction to your meaningless math doesn’t change the fact that it has absolutely nothing to do with what Martz testified to or to your false claim that one part per billion is equal to 1000 parts per million.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The fact that the article used the word typical in the closing paragraph does not make what I quoted wrong. Maybe if you had made your response clearer instead of falsely claiming I did not correctly quote what I had posted then maybe we wouldn’t have wasted time on this meaningless issue.

bobaugust

The issue was not whether or not you correctly quoted a portion of the article. The issue was your false post that the article did not say that it was a typical concentration in EDTA preserved blood. You want to blame me for your false post, simply because you did not understand and, like I have informed you, does not make something wrong.;):cool:

[William Anthony]

The article never said that preserved blood contained 2 parts per million.

bobaugust

Perhaps, if you can do the math, you will understand that the article did say that. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

Martz didn’t make a flawed assumption and he never said the EPA report was wrong about saying it should have been 1000 parts per million. Martz was wrong about how much EDTA might be found in human blood but that had nothing to do with the small trace amount that was indicated in the third test results. Martz’s suspicions that small trace amount may have been from an artifact in the instrument turned out to be correct.

Now you’re even taking what Martz said out of context to try to justify your ridiculous interpretation. 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.”

It’s pretty clear to anyone who reads this that Martz was saying, “And it ended up that it was not a part per million, but it was a thousand parts per million.” But he paused after saying a thousand and gave another example of what it was not, “--or a part per billion.” and then finished what he was going to say before he paused. “It was a thousand parts per million.”

Your belief that the dashes mean the EPA representative told him it was a thousand parts per million times a part per million, or a part per billion is all in your imagination. Martz said exactly what the EPA representative told him.

“In talking to EPA, they claim that it's a thousand parts per million is what it's supposed to be.”

Because you have put together some meaningless numbers and meaningless math to come to an answer of 1/1,000,000,000 doesn’t change the fact that your claim that one part per billion is equal to 1000 parts per million is outright false. It only shows how far you will go to avoid admitting you were wrong. I’ve posted the simple math showing the correct relationship between parts per billion and parts per million many times, without the meaningless convoluted math you are have posted.

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

bobaugust

Martz said that out of nowhere came the statement that human blood contained EDTA in the part per billion range, which he said was out of context and wrong. That was his assumption. He then called and the EPA representative, according to him, told him “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.” Dr. R. and Terry Lee testified that Martz's result, or what you call a small trace amount was wrong and Terry Lee went so far as to say that Martz did not know he was wrong. Why Martz did not know he was wrong was because of his erroneous assumption that the EPA was wrong. The new scientific tests showed Martz wrong and the EPA correct. You seem to forget that the amount of EDTA Martz called wrong and questioned was in regard to the statement of how much EDTA was in human blood that was not preserved. That is why the "but it was a thousand--or a part per billion (which is what the EPA report originally stated) becomes important in figuring out what the blanks meant. I have shown you mathematically what those blanks meant (a thousand parts per million times a part per million or a part per billion).

You have posted your simple understanding of what you believe the correct relationship is without understanding that what I have posted is the same thing. Just because you do not understand something, does not make it wrong.;):cool: The only difference is in how one believes it was explained to Martz and why he was wrong and why his results indicated planting. Do not forget the jury instruction and the concept of reasonable doubt. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

The fact is that Kaelin was saying he heard someone behind his room when he said if it wasn’t an earthquake then he believed someone was back there.

You comment that, “Mr. Kato only testified that he heard noises” is incorrect.

bobaugust

Quite untrue, as usual. You testified that Mr. Kato testified he heard someone behind the quarters. The only thing he heard was noises. Those noises cause him to believe that someone was back there. He never testified that he saw or heard anyone back there. The only thing he testified to hearing behind the quarters or, if you will, as it relates to the state of existence, was noise. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

The issue is Fuhrman’s one word unclear answer to Bailey’s (improper) compound question. You claim that a one word answer is always reliable. If it is unclear how can it be reliable? Bailey understood that Fuhrman’s answer was unclear, that’s why he asked him a more specific question regarding one part of his previous compound question.

The fact is there was no second glove under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet when the police arrived at Bundy and no witness including Mark Fuhrman ever said, insinuated, or suggested there was. This whole subject by Bailey was nothing more than smoke and mirrors and no one in this case ever made the false claim that Mark Fuhrman admitted to seeing a second glove under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet. You’re the only who has ever done that.

Your colorful descriptions and name calling clearly shows the prejudice and bias behind your false claims regarding what Mark Fuhrman testified to regarding this subject.

bobaugust

The issue was, which I have proven you wrong, was you statement that a compound question was an improper question. I will now entertain you premise that a one word answer is not always reliable. I will use an example not from the trial but hope that you see how it relates. The examiner asks where you asked these questions and did you give this answer during the preliminary hearing did you see the defendant running from the room with a gun in his hand and you answered I saw them. The examiner then asks have you been informed that there was a problem with this testimony and did you tongue slip (compound). The answer is no. This indicates that he had not been informed of any problematic (pun intended) testimony and his tongue did not slip. The witness tries to come up with a reasonable explanation saying that when he answered the question he was talking about two guns when he said them. The examiner then points out that he had not been asked about seeing two guns in several pages of testimony and then asks again did the witness' tongue slip and the answer is yes. Therefore, as the testimony stands, the witness' tongue slipped and admits that he saw two guns in the hands of the running defendant. The brilliance comes in when knowing whether to ask a closed or an open ended question. I hope that you now understand the reliability of the one word answer both for the purposes of cross and direct. If allowed to give a narrative answer, such as what did you see the witness may say something to the effect of I saw the defendant running from the room after I heard the shot and I recall seeing two guns in the defendant's hand at some point but I do not recall if they were in his hands when I saw him running from the room. I hope you can see that the last question and answer in unreliable as it pertains to exactly what the witness saw. ;):cool:

I have no prejudice or bias against MF. I am just giving him his proper accolades, imho.

[William Anthony]

Your supposed correction to your meaningless math doesn’t change the fact that it has absolutely nothing to do with what Martz testified to or to your false claim that one part per billion is equal to 1000 parts per million.

bobaugust

Just because you do not understand something, does not make it irrelevant, meaningless or wrong. ;):cool: 1000/1,000,000=1/1000,
1/1000 x 1/1,000,000=1/1,000,000,000 or 1/1,000,000,000/1,000/1,000,000,=1,000,000/1,000,000,000=1/1,000.

[tv]

The issue was, which I have proven you wrong, was you statement that a compound question was an improper question. I will now entertain you premise that a one word answer is not always reliable. I will use an example not from the trial but hope that you see how it relates. The examiner asks where you asked these questions and did you give this answer during the preliminary hearing did you see the defendant running from the room with a gun in his hand and you answered I saw them. The examiner then asks have you been informed that there was a problem with this testimony and did you tongue slip (compound). The answer is no. This indicates that he had not been informed of any problematic (pun intended) testimony and his tongue did not slip. The witness tries to come up with a reasonable explanation saying that when he answered the question he was talking about two guns when he said them. The examiner then points out that he had not been asked about seeing two guns in several pages of testimony and then asks again did the witness' tongue slip and the answer is yes. Therefore, as the testimony stands, the witness' tongue slipped and admits that he saw two guns in the hands of the running defendant. The brilliance comes in when knowing whether to ask a closed or an open ended question. I hope that you now understand the reliability of the one word answer both for the purposes of cross and direct. If allowed to give a narrative answer, such as what did you see the witness may say something to the effect of I saw the defendant running from the room after I heard the shot and I recall seeing two guns in the defendant's hand at some point but I do not recall if they were in his hands when I saw him running from the room. I hope you can see that the last question and answer in unreliable as it pertains to exactly what the witness saw. ;):cool:

I have no prejudice or bias against MF. I am just giving him his proper accolades, imho.:biggrin:

[William Anthony]

Correction-I hope you can see that the last question and answer is unreliable as it pertains to exactly what the witness saw and when he saw them. Also, the witness is usually told to pay close attention and answer the question asked to him. The witness is given the opportunity to ask the lawyer to rephrase a question. You forget that there was testimony that officers were trained how to testify. You also forget that MF said he was relied (pun intended) by the prosecution, because he knew how to testify. Being able to trap a soon to be convicted perjurer, soon to be proven racists and an admitted corrupt officer, is a sign of the brilliance of the examiner, imho.

[William Anthony]

:biggrin:

I have said many times that I despise MF's conduct. However, I am not prejudiced or biased against him, even though he would not be a person that I would choose to socialize with. He would be one that I would give a good leaving alone for certain.

[William Anthony]

bobaugust,

Here is your post that started the discussion about Mr. kato's testimony and my response.

Originally Posted by bobaugust View Post
Wrong. Kaelin testified that he thought if the loud noises and vibrations were not an earthquake then someone was behind his room. Mark Fuhrman never said there were no signs of anyone being back there.
bobaugust

Post the testimony where Mr. Kato said someone was behind the quarters. MF testified he was looking for disturbance and blood to see if anyone had been back there and he found none. Got it yet?

The problem is that you want to believe what you want to believe even if the testimony does not support it. Before you go on a tirade about MF's testimony, let me remind you of the phrase circumstantial evidence. Before you go on a tirade about Mr. Kato's testimony being circumstantial evidence, let me explain the difference in the testimonies. MF posed the preposterous testimony that he was not looking but, (as a trained detective), he did not see any evidence of any disturbance behind the quarters. Mr. Kato was only explaining his state of mind (which was direct evidence of his state of mind and circumstantial evidence of nothing), i.e. he did not say that, because there was no earthquake then someone was behind his room, as your post indicates. You have said that the prosecution witnesses all made minor mistakes or human errors and you now say that your mistake is minor. Yet, you call others, who disagree with you as false. Minor or not, the fact remains that the mistakes cause false information to be disseminated. ;):cool:

[limakey]

The area was not searched let alone with a fine tooth comb. There was no CSI team. The detectives could tell nothing about what happened behind Kaelin’s room by looking at the summer growth overgrown foliage and bushes more than seven hours after Kaelin heard someone behind his room. The evidence that someone had been there were the noises and vibrations that Kaelin heard and felt and the killer’s right hand glove. A glove that had blood on it that was later identified as a mixture of Nicole, Ron, and Simpson’s blood as well as fiber evidence that pointed to Simpson.


bobaugust

Mr. August,

Your above quote is why neither the DA's, the LAPD or the CSI team has any credibility. If what you are saying is true, then that means, again, the DA's gave the criminal trial jurors the middle finger on another key issue. What, they didn't search this area because they just didn't want to look for any trace evidence? The alleged key piece of evidence that was found and explained soley based on Kato's testimony? A man who the DA's tried to demonize in front of the jury by making him a hostile witness, making every effort to protray him as being loyal only to Simpson, yet they wanted to use his testimony regarding the noise and his timeline as proof of Simpson's guilt?

Again, what Kato thought he heard and what he though the thumps were only his thoughts, there was no evidence produced to prove that. None, not a fiber, not a broken leaf or twig, not a blood drop, not even a mark on the wall.

Your arguement about the foliage is just plain dumb, IMO. Are you saying that any broken leaf, any blood evidence, any broken twig or branch would have repaired itself in what about 7 hours, therefore, nature itself hiding the evidence that someone scaled the fence and jumped into the wall? However, when your nature arguement goes against this, you can't accept it. Like why the was glove still stickey and moist when it should have been dried by the time Fuhrman saw it?

And even if you do buy the "nature" cure all for the wounds of the foliage and vetatian, then what "nature" law repaired the wall? What nature law repaired the footsteps that should have been there from all the dirt and debris behind Kato's wall?

The only scenario that makes sense is if these noises had anything to do with murders, then Kato was meant to hear them. And if he was meant to hear them, then it was to draw him out of his room. From what I remember, I don't think Kato would have been able to see anyone on the other side of the fence.

The fact that a blue plastic bag was found on the other side of the fence is also troubling. How is only one piece of "trash" (which is what the DA's wanted every to believe) was found? The only way the glove could have remained sticky and moist is if it was inside of something to preserve that state. Perhaps a blue plastic bag would have filled that bill.

Again Mr. August, if you truly believe that area was not searched what does that really say about the whole case?

Wasn't it their job to at least look and search for any evidence that might have explained how that glove got back there? The fact, if you are telling the truth (by that I mean--the DA's telling the truth) about that area not being searched, then that is another prime example of the DA's not wanting to know about a key piece of evidence in the case--just like they didn't want to know about the key witness who found the key piece of evidence. By them not searching the area is proof, IMO, that they, the other 3 detectives and the DA's suspected that the glove was planted. Again, IMO.

[limakey]

Mr. August,

Why did agent Martz do three tests for EDTA? The defense had a witness who has been involved with EDTA since 1954. The DA's expert, who they didn't even call to the stand, apparently knew nothing about it.

He was told what not to find in a letter from the DA's. When he did in fact it, he came up with a second test, when he found it a second time, he came up with a third test. It is clear that Martz's had one agenda, that is to discredit his own test results to make the DA's happy.

Also, the defense only asked for two samples to have this test conducted on. How is that these two pieces evidence were the same ones where blood was first not seen then weeks and month's later they were found? Not to mention that the DNA and the samples themselves, should have been totally useless to test in the first place. You can't have the Bundy evidence being baked to hell and the Rockingham evidence not be baked to hell, especially since it was in the truck longer then the Bundy evidence.

Martz's testimony was very confusing. It was obvious that he was a hostile witness for the defense, however, it was the DA's who wrote to him and they declined to call him. Martz's wanted his testimony to be as clear as mud.

He his "muddy" testimony did not explain why the DNA counts in the drop of blood on the back gate was so high even after being out in the elements for how many weeks? His "muddy" testimony did not explain why no saw blood on the socks for months nor did his "muddy" testimony explain why Dr. Lee only\got photographs of the socks---oh, maybe he did, maybe he told the jury that the socks were "lost" when Dr. Lee wanted to see them.

No expert the DA's could have put on the stand was going to able to explain the key facts about the back gate and the socks. None. (As for the Civil Trial--again, what tests did Dr. Lee perform to prove, in fact that Martz was wrong--how did he prove that the machine was "dirty". BTW, how can you trust any man who uses "dirty" equipment? Does exactly ooze confidence does it?

And before you start that the defense didn't run tests, first, it wasn't their job to do them. Second, the DA's have priority when it comes to any test that will use up and destroy the said sample. Judge Ito told the defense they could not conduct certain tests and in fact, warned them that if they destroyed any samples for their tests, they were going to be sanctioned, big time. Judge Ito told the defense they could observe the tests being done, however, they could not do certain testing.

I also believe it was Judge Ito who told both the DA's and the defense that these tests would be conducted by the FBI and that all results were to come to him and he would take care of distributing the results.

[William Anthony]

Mr. August,

Why did agent Martz do three tests for EDTA? The defense had a witness who has been involved with EDTA since 1954. The DA's expert, who they didn't even call to the stand, apparently knew nothing about it.

He was told what not to find in a letter from the DA's. When he did in fact it, he came up with a second test, when he found it a second time, he came up with a third test. It is clear that Martz's had one agenda, that is to discredit his own test results to make the DA's happy.

Also, the defense only asked for two samples to have this test conducted on. How is that these two pieces evidence were the same ones where blood was first not seen then weeks and month's later they were found? Not to mention that the DNA and the samples themselves, should have been totally useless to test in the first place. You can't have the Bundy evidence being baked to hell and the Rockingham evidence not be baked to hell, especially since it was in the truck longer then the Bundy evidence.

Martz's testimony was very confusing. It was obvious that he was a hostile witness for the defense, however, it was the DA's who wrote to him and they declined to call him. Martz's wanted his testimony to be as clear as mud.

He his "muddy" testimony did not explain why the DNA counts in the drop of blood on the back gate was so high even after being out in the elements for how many weeks? His "muddy" testimony did not explain why no saw blood on the socks for months nor did his "muddy" testimony explain why Dr. Lee only\got photographs of the socks---oh, maybe he did, maybe he told the jury that the socks were "lost" when Dr. Lee wanted to see them.

No expert the DA's could have put on the stand was going to able to explain the key facts about the back gate and the socks. None. (As for the Civil Trial--again, what tests did Dr. Lee perform to prove, in fact that Martz was wrong--how did he prove that the machine was "dirty". BTW, how can you trust any man who uses "dirty" equipment? Does exactly ooze confidence does it?

And before you start that the defense didn't run tests, first, it wasn't their job to do them. Second, the DA's have priority when it comes to any test that will use up and destroy the said sample. Judge Ito told the defense they could not conduct certain tests and in fact, warned them that if they destroyed any samples for their tests, they were going to be sanctioned, big time. Judge Ito told the defense they could observe the tests being done, however, they could not do certain testing.

I also believe it was Judge Ito who told both the DA's and the defense that these tests would be conducted by the FBI and that all results were to come to him and he would take care of distributing the results.

We (the prosecution) believe that Simpson was behind the quarters, despite the fact that we have no evidence to prove such and there is evidence in the form of a blood trail, indicating he never went behind the quarters, because we believe Simpson was the murderer. The verdict proved their belief, pertaining to a need to produce evidence was wrong.

[William Anthony]

Mr. August,

Your above quote is why neither the DA's, the LAPD or the CSI team has any credibility. If what you are saying is true, then that means, again, the DA's gave the criminal trial jurors the middle finger on another key issue. What, they didn't search this area because they just didn't want to look for any trace evidence? The alleged key piece of evidence that was found and explained soley based on Kato's testimony? A man who the DA's tried to demonize in front of the jury by making him a hostile witness, making every effort to protray him as being loyal only to Simpson, yet they wanted to use his testimony regarding the noise and his timeline as proof of Simpson's guilt?

Again, what Kato thought he heard and what he though the thumps were only his thoughts, there was no evidence produced to prove that. None, not a fiber, not a broken leaf or twig, not a blood drop, not even a mark on the wall.

Your arguement about the foliage is just plain dumb, IMO. Are you saying that any broken leaf, any blood evidence, any broken twig or branch would have repaired itself in what about 7 hours, therefore, nature itself hiding the evidence that someone scaled the fence and jumped into the wall? However, when your nature arguement goes against this, you can't accept it. Like why the was glove still stickey and moist when it should have been dried by the time Fuhrman saw it?

And even if you do buy the "nature" cure all for the wounds of the foliage and vetatian, then what "nature" law repaired the wall? What nature law repaired the footsteps that should have been there from all the dirt and debris behind Kato's wall?

The only scenario that makes sense is if these noises had anything to do with murders, then Kato was meant to hear them. And if he was meant to hear them, then it was to draw him out of his room. From what I remember, I don't think Kato would have been able to see anyone on the other side of the fence.

The fact that a blue plastic bag was found on the other side of the fence is also troubling. How is only one piece of "trash" (which is what the DA's wanted every to believe) was found? The only way the glove could have remained sticky and moist is if it was inside of something to preserve that state. Perhaps a blue plastic bag would have filled that bill.

Again Mr. August, if you truly believe that area was not searched what does that really say about the whole case?

Wasn't it their job to at least look and search for any evidence that might have explained how that glove got back there? The fact, if you are telling the truth (by that I mean--the DA's telling the truth) about that area not being searched, then that is another prime example of the DA's not wanting to know about a key piece of evidence in the case--just like they didn't want to know about the key witness who found the key piece of evidence. By them not searching the area is proof, IMO, that they, the other 3 detectives and the DA's suspected that the glove was planted. Again, IMO.

I responded to the wrong one of your posts in my previous response. However, let me elaborate on why MF's testimony that he was not looking for disturbance or did not see any is preposterous. Part of the reasons LE gave for, imho, the illegal invasion onto Simpson's property dealt with their suspicions that they may have either had a wounded victim or suspect on the property. Either way someone, according to them, had probably gone onto the property and be it victim or suspect the reasonable explanation is that they were trying to gain entry into the home. It would only be logical for a trained to detective to look for the route the suspect or victim would have taken after making entry onto the property. The question then becomes what allegedly caused MF's eyes to only become fixed or, if you will, look at the ground where the glove was allegedly found. The answer is obvious, imho, if someone had wanted to plant an object, what better place than in the proximity of where a person had said they heard suspicious noises? I think it was the lack of disturbance that caused the other detectives to become suspicious of MF and to send him away back to Bundy to cover his tracks, imho.

[William Anthony]

Mr. August,

Why did agent Martz do three tests for EDTA? The defense had a witness who has been involved with EDTA since 1954. The DA's expert, who they didn't even call to the stand, apparently knew nothing about it.

He was told what not to find in a letter from the DA's. When he did in fact it, he came up with a second test, when he found it a second time, he came up with a third test. It is clear that Martz's had one agenda, that is to discredit his own test results to make the DA's happy.

Also, the defense only asked for two samples to have this test conducted on. How is that these two pieces evidence were the same ones where blood was first not seen then weeks and month's later they were found? Not to mention that the DNA and the samples themselves, should have been totally useless to test in the first place. You can't have the Bundy evidence being baked to hell and the Rockingham evidence not be baked to hell, especially since it was in the truck longer then the Bundy evidence.

Martz's testimony was very confusing. It was obvious that he was a hostile witness for the defense, however, it was the DA's who wrote to him and they declined to call him. Martz's wanted his testimony to be as clear as mud.

He his "muddy" testimony did not explain why the DNA counts in the drop of blood on the back gate was so high even after being out in the elements for how many weeks? His "muddy" testimony did not explain why no saw blood on the socks for months nor did his "muddy" testimony explain why Dr. Lee only\got photographs of the socks---oh, maybe he did, maybe he told the jury that the socks were "lost" when Dr. Lee wanted to see them.

No expert the DA's could have put on the stand was going to able to explain the key facts about the back gate and the socks. None. (As for the Civil Trial--again, what tests did Dr. Lee perform to prove, in fact that Martz was wrong--how did he prove that the machine was "dirty". BTW, how can you trust any man who uses "dirty" equipment? Does exactly ooze confidence does it?

And before you start that the defense didn't run tests, first, it wasn't their job to do them. Second, the DA's have priority when it comes to any test that will use up and destroy the said sample. Judge Ito told the defense they could not conduct certain tests and in fact, warned them that if they destroyed any samples for their tests, they were going to be sanctioned, big time. Judge Ito told the defense they could observe the tests being done, however, they could not do certain testing.

I also believe it was Judge Ito who told both the DA's and the defense that these tests would be conducted by the FBI and that all results were to come to him and he would take care of distributing the results.

Dead talking experts, a ghost in the machine, a soon to be convicted perjurer and magical socks and a gate sounds like the stuff of a Greek tragedy, with M. Clark and C. Darden playing the part of the fallen heroine and hero. C. Darden's uncontrollable temper and M. Clark's belief as to her irresistible sexual appeal combined with both of their and the soon to be convicted perjurer's assumed arrogance lead to the catastropic climax (no pun intended) in which they were involved, imho. The talking dead expert and the magical gate and socks and soon to be convicted perjurer lead M. Clark and C. Darden on an oddessy from which the ghost in the machine could not ensure their safe return and they ended up in a bed of grief (oops, any pun was subliminal). I do not think Homer could have written a better screenplay (pun intended). :)

[William Anthony]

bobaugust,

I hope that this will end the discussion on Martz's testimony and will stop you from further embarrassing yourself. I will post the relevant parts of Martz's testimony in chronological order.

"MR. BLASIER: Did you recall yesterday Miss Clark asking Dr. Rieders questions about that document as it relates to the maximum daily allowance of EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: I don't know if it necessarily had to do with maximum daily allowance or what you would expect to find in a person. I think it was more relating to how much you would expect to find in a person's blood.

MR. BLASIER: Does that abstract indicate that you would expect to find 2000 parts per million in anybody's blood?

MR. MARTZ: No.

MR. BLASIER: And umm--

MR. MARTZ: It states that it should not exceed 2000 parts per million.

MR. BLASIER: What is the concentration of EDTA in a purple-topped tube?

MR. MARTZ: Somewhere between a thousand and 2000 parts per million."

We see that Martz thought that it was acceptable to have almost 2000 parts per million in human blood that was not preserved.

"MR. MARTZ: Yeah. Approximately two and a half milligrams, according to that paper.

MR. BLASIER: Now, that paper also talks about when it gets into the blood stream that it also gets into other extracellular fluid, in other words, other fluid in the body, correct?

MR. MARTZ: Right, correct.

MR. BLASIER: And the total volume approximately of this other fluid in the body is what?

MR. MARTZ: I think the paper there may have used forty liters. It would depend of course on the size of the individual, so that would be probably an average.

MR. BLASIER: Now, would you agree that it is a relatively easy calculation to figure out if you had 2.5 milligrams in forty liters how much parts per million, billion or whatever that is?

MR. MARTZ: Right, yeah.

MR. BLASIER: What is that figure?

MR. MARTZ: I believe it was sixty parts per billion, approximately. Approximately sixty parts per billion.

MR. BLASIER: We are talking in the range of parts per billion rather than parts per million, correct?

MR. MARTZ: According to this study, yes."

The study contradicted Martz's above assumption.

"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,..."

He assumed that he had established something that was correct and he had not.

"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 have Martz saying that a thousand parts per million is what it takes to preserve blood. Hence, according to Martz. 999/1,000,000 would be an acceptable level of EDTA to have in human blood that had not been preserved, which would be-999/1,000,000/1/1,000,000,000 or 999,000,000,000/1,000,000 or 999,000 times more than what the EPA report stated should be in human blood. We now know, as did Dr. R and Terry Lee that Martz was wrong and his testimony that a thousand parts per million was required to preserve blood was wrong. How do we know that? The consensus is that the amount of EDTA in human blood that has not been preserved is in a part per million. Ergo, his result of 2/1,000,000 would be, 2/1,000,000/1/1,000,000,000=2,000,000,000/1,000,000 or 2,000 times as much. This is why I say that 2,000 parts per billion is enough to preserve blood and why Dr. R. said Martz would be dead and why Terry Lee said, "if not planted, Martz's results become problematic and why Terry Lee testified that Martz did not know this, i.e. that Martz was dead. ;):cool: That is why I suggested that you do the math.

[martin II]

The area was not searched let alone with a fine tooth comb. There was no CSI team. The detectives could tell nothing about what happened behind Kaelin’s room by looking at the summer growth overgrown foliage and bushes more than seven hours after Kaelin heard someone behind his room. The evidence that someone had been there were the noises and vibrations that Kaelin heard and felt and the killer’s right hand glove. A glove that had blood on it that was later identified as a mixture of Nicole, Ron, and Simpson’s blood as well as fiber evidence that pointed to Simpson.

Kaelin testified in the criminal trial, his deposition, and the civil trial that he believed that someone was behind his room.

No the time line is not messed up at all. Simpson fell against the wall and then continued down the south path. When he got to the broken fence he simply picked it up and then put it back and continued on around the garage to his driveway. Kaelin testified it wasn’t difficult to do. Petrocelli believed that Simpson scaled his fence and I believe he even knew about the bent wire that was documented in the video Simpson made after the foliage had been trimmed back. During Simpson’s deposition Petrocelli asked Simpson about that foliage shown in the video. He just didn’t bring it up at the trial.

bobaugust

Bob
Are you suggesting that the three lapd detectives testimony about their investigation of the south walkway fence was only lies? They testified that they saw no evidence that anyone jumped that fence.Since no evidence was found to support the idea that oj jumped the fence, you are now suggesting that there was NO investigation by these three detectives or anyone else?
You are suggesting that the place where the glove was found was not investigated by lapd?

[bobaugust]

Perhaps, if you can do the math, you will understand that the article did say that. ;):cool:

Post from the article where you think it said preserved blood contained 2 parts per million of EDTA.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Martz said that out of nowhere came the statement that human blood contained EDTA in the part per billion range, which he said was out of context and wrong. That was his assumption. He then called and the EPA representative, according to him, told him “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.” Dr. R. and Terry Lee testified that Martz's result, or what you call a small trace amount was wrong and Terry Lee went so far as to say that Martz did not know he was wrong. Why Martz did not know he was wrong was because of his erroneous assumption that the EPA was wrong. The new scientific tests showed Martz wrong and the EPA correct. You seem to forget that the amount of EDTA Martz called wrong and questioned was in regard to the statement of how much EDTA was in human blood that was not preserved. That is why the "but it was a thousand--or a part per billion (which is what the EPA report originally stated) becomes important in figuring out what the blanks meant. I have shown you mathematically what those blanks meant (a thousand parts per million times a part per million or a part per billion).

You have posted your simple understanding of what you believe the correct relationship is without understanding that what I have posted is the same thing. Just because you do not understand something, does not make it wrong.;):cool: The only difference is in how one believes it was explained to Martz and why he was wrong and why his results indicated planting. Do not forget the jury instruction and the concept of reasonable doubt. ;):cool:

What the EPA report said had nothing to do with the small trace amount of EDTA that was indicated in the third test results and the new methods in the article “Determining EDTA in Blood” had absolutely nothing to do with the EPA report.

Your interpretation is incorrect and your math is meaningless. The numbers you chose to use have nothing to do with anything in the report or in Martz’s testimony. The EPA told Martz the report should have said 1000 parts per million and Martz said, “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.”

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The issue was, which I have proven you wrong, was you statement that a compound question was an improper question. I will now entertain you premise that a one word answer is not always reliable. I will use an example not from the trial but hope that you see how it relates. The examiner asks where you asked these questions and did you give this answer during the preliminary hearing did you see the defendant running from the room with a gun in his hand and you answered I saw them. The examiner then asks have you been informed that there was a problem with this testimony and did you tongue slip (compound). The answer is no. This indicates that he had not been informed of any problematic (pun intended) testimony and his tongue did not slip. The witness tries to come up with a reasonable explanation saying that when he answered the question he was talking about two guns when he said them. The examiner then points out that he had not been asked about seeing two guns in several pages of testimony and then asks again did the witness' tongue slip and the answer is yes. Therefore, as the testimony stands, the witness' tongue slipped and admits that he saw two guns in the hands of the running defendant. The brilliance comes in when knowing whether to ask a closed or an open ended question. I hope that you now understand the reliability of the one word answer both for the purposes of cross and direct. If allowed to give a narrative answer, such as what did you see the witness may say something to the effect of I saw the defendant running from the room after I heard the shot and I recall seeing two guns in the defendant's hand at some point but I do not recall if they were in his hands when I saw him running from the room. I hope you can see that the last question and answer in unreliable as it pertains to exactly what the witness saw. ;):cool:

I have no prejudice or bias against MF. I am just giving him his proper accolades, imho.

Your example has nothing to do with what Fuhrman was asked or what he testified to or what all the other witnesses testified to or what the evidence is in this case. In the preliminary hearing Uelmen asked Fuhrman some questions about the glove Fuhrman had testified to seeing and Fuhrman answered those questions using the word “the glove.” Fuhrman never said the word “gloves” or “more than one glove.” Fuhrman described his location and what he could see from that location and used the word “them” to refer to the evidence he saw under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet. Fuhrman testified that evidence was a knit cap and a glove. Fuhrman testified it was not a slip of the tongue because what he said was correct.

Your fantasy and false claim that Fuhrman really meant that he saw two gloves under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet is contradicted by the testimony of every other witnesses who testified to seeing a knit cap and one glove under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet two hours before Fuhrman even arrived at Bundy.

That’s reality and that’s the evidence in this case. Bailey tried to distort Fuhrman’s testimony by making up the slip of the tongue fantasy that Fuhrman clearly denied. And because of your prejudice and bias towards Fuhrman not only did you fall for Baileys deceiving tactics you call them brilliant and then use them like no lawyer in this case ever did when you falsely claim that Fuhrman admitted to seeing two gloves under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet. Hatred blinds you and makes you stupid.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Quite untrue, as usual. You testified that Mr. Kato testified he heard someone behind the quarters. The only thing he heard was noises. Those noises cause him to believe that someone was back there. He never testified that he saw or heard anyone back there. The only thing he testified to hearing behind the quarters or, if you will, as it relates to the state of existence, was noise. ;):cool:

You’re comment that, “Mr. Kato only testified that he heard noises” is incorrect. That is not the only thing he testified to. Kaelin testified that if the noises he heard were not caused by an earthquake then he believed someone was behind his room. Since there was no earthquake that means he heard someone behind his room and no one in this case ever disputed the fact that someone was behind his room.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Just because you do not understand something, does not make it irrelevant, meaningless or wrong. ;):cool: 1000/1,000,000=1/1000,
1/1000 x 1/1,000,000=1/1,000,000,000 or 1/1,000,000,000/1,000/1,000,000,=1,000,000/1,000,000,000=1/1,000.

The correct relationship between parts per million and parts per billion and the reciprocal can be simply stated without using your meaningless convoluted math.

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

Your claim that one part per billion is equal to 1000 parts per million is incorrect and false.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

bobaugust,

I hope that this will end the discussion on Martz's testimony and will stop you from further embarrassing yourself. I will post the relevant parts of Martz's testimony in chronological order.

"MR. BLASIER: Did you recall yesterday Miss Clark asking Dr. Rieders questions about that document as it relates to the maximum daily allowance of EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: I don't know if it necessarily had to do with maximum daily allowance or what you would expect to find in a person. I think it was more relating to how much you would expect to find in a person's blood.

MR. BLASIER: Does that abstract indicate that you would expect to find 2000 parts per million in anybody's blood?

MR. MARTZ: No.

MR. BLASIER: And umm--

MR. MARTZ: It states that it should not exceed 2000 parts per million.

MR. BLASIER: What is the concentration of EDTA in a purple-topped tube?

MR. MARTZ: Somewhere between a thousand and 2000 parts per million."

We see that Martz thought that it was acceptable to have almost 2000 parts per million in human blood that was not preserved.

"MR. MARTZ: Yeah. Approximately two and a half milligrams, according to that paper.

MR. BLASIER: Now, that paper also talks about when it gets into the blood stream that it also gets into other extracellular fluid, in other words, other fluid in the body, correct?

MR. MARTZ: Right, correct.

MR. BLASIER: And the total volume approximately of this other fluid in the body is what?

MR. MARTZ: I think the paper there may have used forty liters. It would depend of course on the size of the individual, so that would be probably an average.

MR. BLASIER: Now, would you agree that it is a relatively easy calculation to figure out if you had 2.5 milligrams in forty liters how much parts per million, billion or whatever that is?

MR. MARTZ: Right, yeah.

MR. BLASIER: What is that figure?

MR. MARTZ: I believe it was sixty parts per billion, approximately. Approximately sixty parts per billion.

MR. BLASIER: We are talking in the range of parts per billion rather than parts per million, correct?

MR. MARTZ: According to this study, yes."

The study contradicted Martz's above assumption.

"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,..."

He assumed that he had established something that was correct and he had not.

"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 have Martz saying that a thousand parts per million is what it takes to preserve blood. Hence, according to Martz. 999/1,000,000 would be an acceptable level of EDTA to have in human blood that had not been preserved, which would be-999/1,000,000/1/1,000,000,000 or 999,000,000,000/1,000,000 or 999,000 times more than what the EPA report stated should be in human blood. We now know, as did Dr. R and Terry Lee that Martz was wrong and his testimony that a thousand parts per million was required to preserve blood was wrong. How do we know that? The consensus is that the amount of EDTA in human blood that has not been preserved is in a part per million. Ergo, his result of 2/1,000,000 would be, 2/1,000,000/1/1,000,000,000=2,000,000,000/1,000,000 or 2,000 times as much. This is why I say that 2,000 parts per billion is enough to preserve blood and why Dr. R. said Martz would be dead and why Terry Lee said, "if not planted, Martz's results become problematic and why Terry Lee testified that Martz did not know this, i.e. that Martz was dead. ;):cool: That is why I suggested that you do the math.

Both Martz and Dr. Rieders were correct that preserved blood contains between one thousand and 2000 parts per million of EDTA. The article “Determining EDTA in Blood” also stated that the concentration of EDTA in preserved blood is 1300 parts per million. Any math you perform that comes to a different conclusion is meaningless.

Your previous claim that preserved blood contains 2000 parts per billion of EDTA is incorrect and false. And your new claim that preserved blood contains one part per million of EDTA is also incorrect and false.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Why did agent Martz do three tests for EDTA? The defense had a witness who has been involved with EDTA since 1954. The DA's expert, who they didn't even call to the stand, apparently knew nothing about it.

He was told what not to find in a letter from the DA's. When he did in fact it, he came up with a second test, when he found it a second time, he came up with a third test. It is clear that Martz's had one agenda, that is to discredit his own test results to make the DA's happy.

Also, the defense only asked for two samples to have this test conducted on. How is that these two pieces evidence were the same ones where blood was first not seen then weeks and month's later they were found? Not to mention that the DNA and the samples themselves, should have been totally useless to test in the first place. You can't have the Bundy evidence being baked to hell and the Rockingham evidence not be baked to hell, especially since it was in the truck longer then the Bundy evidence.

Martz's testimony was very confusing. It was obvious that he was a hostile witness for the defense, however, it was the DA's who wrote to him and they declined to call him. Martz's wanted his testimony to be as clear as mud.

He his "muddy" testimony did not explain why the DNA counts in the drop of blood on the back gate was so high even after being out in the elements for how many weeks? His "muddy" testimony did not explain why no saw blood on the socks for months nor did his "muddy" testimony explain why Dr. Lee only\got photographs of the socks---oh, maybe he did, maybe he told the jury that the socks were "lost" when Dr. Lee wanted to see them.

No expert the DA's could have put on the stand was going to able to explain the key facts about the back gate and the socks. None. (As for the Civil Trial--again, what tests did Dr. Lee perform to prove, in fact that Martz was wrong--how did he prove that the machine was "dirty". BTW, how can you trust any man who uses "dirty" equipment? Does exactly ooze confidence does it?

And before you start that the defense didn't run tests, first, it wasn't their job to do them. Second, the DA's have priority when it comes to any test that will use up and destroy the said sample. Judge Ito told the defense they could not conduct certain tests and in fact, warned them that if they destroyed any samples for their tests, they were going to be sanctioned, big time. Judge Ito told the defense they could observe the tests being done, however, they could not do certain testing.

I also believe it was Judge Ito who told both the DA's and the defense that these tests would be conducted by the FBI and that all results were to come to him and he would take care of distributing the results.

Martz was asked to determine if two evidence samples, Simpson’s blood found on the rear gate at Bundy and Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock could have come from their preserved blood reference samples because Simpson’s defense claimed both of these stains were planted from reference samples.

Martz conducted two tests on the evidence samples, a negative ion test and an HPCL test. Both of those tests showed no EDTA present in the evidence stains and Martz concluded that neither the gate blood nor the sock blood came from the preserved blood reference samples.

But Martz went further. He wanted to distinguish between preserved blood and non- preserved blood that had aged for several months. He took a sample of this own non-preserved blood and aged it and then ran a third test, a positive ion test. First he ran the preserved blood reference samples through the instrument and then he ran the evidence stains and his own non-preserved blood through the instrument. The results indicated a small trace amount of EDTA in all three blood samples. Martz didn’t known what caused that trace amount but because it was 1000 times smaller than the amount of EDTA in the reference samples he again concluded that that neither of the evidence stains came from the preserved blood reference samples. Martz suspected the small trace amount was from an artifact in the instrument. Later Martz’s work and results were reviewed by FBI chemists and Dr. Terry Lee, a research scientist who testified in the civil trial. They all independently concluded that the small trace amount was the result of artifact in the instrument; a carryover contamination in the instrument.

In addition photographic evidence proved the defense planting theory false that Simpson’s blood was planted on the rear gate from his reference sample and degradation testing later proved the defense planting theory false that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock was planted from her autopsy reference sample.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Post from the article where you think it said preserved blood contained 2 parts per million of EDTA.

bobaugust

Already done and I have done the math for you.

[William Anthony]

What the EPA report said had nothing to do with the small trace amount of EDTA that was indicated in the third test results and the new methods in the article “Determining EDTA in Blood” had absolutely nothing to do with the EPA report.

Your interpretation is incorrect and your math is meaningless. The numbers you chose to use have nothing to do with anything in the report or in Martz’s testimony. The EPA told Martz the report should have said 1000 parts per million and Martz said, “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.”

bobaugust

I can only say that Martz's alleged further research lead him to the wrong conclusion and his testimony was that the report said the amount of EDTA in human blood that was not preserved was a part per billion.;):cool:

[William Anthony]

The correct relationship between parts per million and parts per billion and the reciprocal can be simply stated without using your meaningless convoluted math.

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

Your claim that one part per billion is equal to 1000 parts per million is incorrect and false.

bobaugust

I see that you are beginning to understand what you have previously denied. This is what you still do not understand 1/1,000,000,000=1/1,000,000 x 1/1,000, which is what the EPA representative told Martz and which Martz said was a thousand parts per million, which is how I originally told you that.;):cool:

[William Anthony]

Both Martz and Dr. Rieders were correct that preserved blood contains between one thousand and 2000 parts per million of EDTA. The article “Determining EDTA in Blood” also stated that the concentration of EDTA in preserved blood is 1300 parts per million. Any math you perform that comes to a different conclusion is meaningless.

Your previous claim that preserved blood contains 2000 parts per billion of EDTA is incorrect and false. And your new claim that preserved blood contains one part per million of EDTA is also incorrect and false.

bobaugust

Not true, as you well know. The article said that EDTA is present in preserved blood at 1300 ppm, which would be a very concentrated and typical concentration. It did not say that was the concentration of blood preserved with EDTA. Do the math. ;):cool:

[limakey]

Martz was asked to determine if two evidence samples, Simpson’s blood found on the rear gate at Bundy and Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock could have come from their preserved blood reference samples because Simpson’s defense claimed both of these stains were planted from reference samples.

Martz conducted two tests on the evidence samples, a negative ion test and an HPCL test. Both of those tests showed no EDTA present in the evidence stains and Martz concluded that neither the gate blood nor the sock blood came from the preserved blood reference samples.

But Martz went further. He wanted to distinguish between preserved blood and non- preserved blood that had aged for several months. He took a sample of this own non-preserved blood and aged it and then ran a third test, a positive ion test. First he ran the preserved blood reference samples through the instrument and then he ran the evidence stains and his own non-preserved blood through the instrument. The results indicated a small trace amount of EDTA in all three blood samples. Martz didn’t known what caused that trace amount but because it was 1000 times smaller than the amount of EDTA in the reference samples he again concluded that that neither of the evidence stains came from the preserved blood reference samples. Martz suspected the small trace amount was from an artifact in the instrument. Later Martz’s work and results were reviewed by FBI chemists and Dr. Terry Lee, a research scientist who testified in the civil trial. They all independently concluded that the small trace amount was the result of artifact in the instrument; a carryover contamination in the instrument.

In addition photographic evidence proved the defense planting theory false that Simpson’s blood was planted on the rear gate from his reference sample and degradation testing later proved the defense planting theory false that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock was planted from her autopsy reference sample.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Plain and simple, Martz testifed as an expert witness on this subject and he was not. He did not perform the test that should have been performed. If EDTA was found in one piece of evidence, then it should have been found in all of them.

EDTA was not the only factor to take into consideration. It was the DA's who asked him to refute the defense's claim, but they didn't call him as their witness. They were afraid of his testimony and they knew what they were afraid of his testimony.

The reason why they were afraid of his testimony because you start to add up the facts, it is clear that the evidence does strongly point to evidence being planted. The fact that blood was found much later on these two items. The fact the DNA levels on the blood drops at Bundy were not even close, yet a drop of blood found three weeks later had more DNA levels then the evidence that was gathered with in 10 hours after the murders.

Martz could not, anymore then Gary Sims could say when and how the blood got there. Martz was asked to "refute" the defense's claim. Why would they write that?

When Martz was asked to do this, did he get advice from another expert on this issue? Did he seek outside guidence when he knew he didn't know what he was doing? As for Dr. Lee in the civil trial, why didn't he conduct his own tests? He was not allowed to talk even talk to Martz.

And in all fairness to civil trial expert Dr. Lee, where was he during the criminal trial? When did the DA's produce an expert that supported Martz's claim?

[limakey]

Your example has nothing to do with what Fuhrman was asked or what he testified to or what all the other witnesses testified to or what the evidence is in this case. In the preliminary hearing Uelmen asked Fuhrman some questions about the glove Fuhrman had testified to seeing and Fuhrman answered those questions using the word “the glove.” Fuhrman never said the word “gloves” or “more than one glove.” Fuhrman described his location and what he could see from that location and used the word “them” to refer to the evidence he saw under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet. Fuhrman testified that evidence was a knit cap and a glove. Fuhrman testified it was not a slip of the tongue because what he said was correct.

Your fantasy and false claim that Fuhrman really meant that he saw two gloves under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet is contradicted by the testimony of every other witnesses who testified to seeing a knit cap and one glove under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet two hours before Fuhrman even arrived at Bundy.

That’s reality and that’s the evidence in this case. Bailey tried to distort Fuhrman’s testimony by making up the slip of the tongue fantasy that Fuhrman clearly denied. And because of your prejudice and bias towards Fuhrman not only did you fall for Baileys deceiving tactics you call them brilliant and then use them like no lawyer in this case ever did when you falsely claim that Fuhrman admitted to seeing two gloves under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet. Hatred blinds you and makes you stupid.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

I agree with you that hatred blinds you and makes you stupid. However, why don't you apply this to Mark Fuhrman?

Fuhrman said it was ski mask, not a knit cap. So what does this mean? Another point, Fuhrman was not inside the house when Simpson was told about the murders. At that time he testified that he was looking for a possible victim or an intruder, however, once the glove was found, it was automatically assumed that Simpson was the person who could have dropped that glove. And that they did not even need to send a CSI team to look for evidence. They did not search the whole estate nor did they even bother to see if Simpson had other ways to enter his property. Or other ways to get into his home.

Because of what the DA's wrote about Fuhrman in their books and because of what Fuhrman said on those tapes, there is no doubt in my mind he could have seen two gloves and knew that "them" was going to create problems for the DA's. He didn't care and he knew he was covered and he knew he could have testified to anything and no one on his "side" was going to challenge him. Like he said on the tapes, "if I go down, the glove goes down and Clark knows it."

[William Anthony]

Mr. August,

I agree with you that hatred blinds you and makes you stupid. However, why don't you apply this to Mark Fuhrman?

Fuhrman said it was ski mask, not a knit cap. So what does this mean? Another point, Fuhrman was not inside the house when Simpson was told about the murders. At that time he testified that he was looking for a possible victim or an intruder, however, once the glove was found, it was automatically assumed that Simpson was the person who could have dropped that glove. And that they did not even need to send a CSI team to look for evidence. They did not search the whole estate nor did they even bother to see if Simpson had other ways to enter his property. Or other ways to get into his home.

Because of what the DA's wrote about Fuhrman in their books and because of what Fuhrman said on those tapes, there is no doubt in my mind he could have seen two gloves and knew that "them" was going to create problems for the DA's. He didn't care and he knew he was covered and he knew he could have testified to anything and no one on his "side" was going to challenge him. Like he said on the tapes, "if I go down, the glove goes down and Clark knows it."

bobaugust has made the claim that no lawyer in the case made the claim that MF saw two gloves but forgets the closing argument I posted showing inf fact that the claim was made. Specifically, during the argument the question was asked did MF mean he saw two gloves when he said the word them. I guess he has never heard of a rhetorical or, if you will, a leading question as indicated by his limited knowledge of legal concepts. He seems to be upset that I use the word brilliant in regard to Bailey and the fact that he trapped the slimy-forked-stuck tongue soon-to-be convicted perjurer, racist and admitted corrupt police officer and has the audacity to make the statement that hatred of someone makes you blind and stupid. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

Water seeks its own level.

[William Anthony]

bobaugust,

Have you ever referred to Mr. Cochran as the b*****d that got Simpson off and what proof do you have, if you did, that he was a b*****d and does this mean that you hate him, if he we the son of a married woman and man?

[William Anthony]

bobaugust,

Let's end this seemingly endless debate. The EPA report stated that the amount of EDTA in human blood that was not preserved was a part per billion. Martz disagreed with that statement and claimed it was wrong and out of context. Martz testified that we have established that EDTA in human blood was in a part per million. Martz was wrong and the EPA report was correct. Martz's results on his own blood about the amount of EDTA was wrong. Have you ever considered the possibility that Martz, thinking he was right diluted the amount of EDTA he found in the sock and the gate stain and added EDTA to his own blood in order to attend the victory party he so wanted to attend? The simple fact is that Martz's results either sowed evidence of planting or, if you believe there was an artifact, they were not trustworthy. Have you considered that the jury instruction mandating the jury to choose the inference that points to innocence?

[bobaugust]

Already done and I have done the math for you.

I’m not interested in your math since it’s meaningless. Anyone can create math to come to any answer they desire. You made the claim that the article Determining EDTA in Blood says that preserved blood contains 2 parts per million of EDTA. Support your claim and post what the article said that leads you to believe that.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I can only say that Martz's alleged further research lead him to the wrong conclusion and his testimony was that the report said the amount of EDTA in human blood that was not preserved was a part per billion.;):cool:

Martz didn’t come to any wrong conclusion, you did. Your interpretation of what you think Martz said is wrong and your claim and math based on your interpretation that one part per billion is equal to 1000 parts per million is incorrect and false.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Not true, as you well know. The article said that EDTA is present in preserved blood at 1300 ppm, which would be a very concentrated and typical concentration. It did not say that was the concentration of blood preserved with EDTA. Do the math. ;):cool:

Martz testified that the concentration of EDTA in a purple topped tube is between a thousand and 2000 parts per million.

Dr. Rieders testified that there are 2000 parts per million of EDTA in an EDTA tube. That is blood that won’t coagulate. Dr. Rieders also explained the relationship between parts per million and parts per billion that contradicts your incorrect false claim that one part per billion is equal to 1000 parts per million.

The article was discussing the EDTA issue in the Simpson case and said “that EDTA is present at about 4.5 mM (1300 ppm) in EDTA blood, which would be a very concentrated sample and easily detected by electrospray LC/MS/MS.” It also said that “the amount detected in the forensic blood samples was orders of magnitude below 4.5 mM.” Later in the article it referred to 4.5mM as a typical concentration of EDTA-preserved blood. 1300 ppm would be typical concentration since the range of the amount of EDTA in preserved blood is between 1000 to 2000 parts per million. No where in that article was it ever claimed that EDTA in preserved blood was in 2 parts per million or in parts per billion.

Math is not needed to understand this.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I see that you are beginning to understand what you have previously denied. This is what you still do not understand 1/1,000,000,000=1/1,000,000 x 1/1,000, which is what the EPA representative told Martz and which Martz said was a thousand parts per million, which is how I originally told you that.;):cool:

You’re the one who made the incorrect false claim that one part per billion is equal to 1000 pats per million. You’re the one who created meaningless math to support that false claim.

You’re the one who still can’t understand that Martz testified what the EPA told him. You’re the one who has crated an imaginary fantasy of what you claim the EPA told Martz. You’re the one who has put a ridiculous interpretation on what Martz said based on your imagined fantasy. My post that you responded to is the same exact thing I have been telling you for over a year and now that you are finally admitting that I was right you still evidently haven’t the integrity to admit that you were wrong.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

bobaugust has made the claim that no lawyer in the case made the claim that MF saw two gloves but forgets the closing argument I posted showing inf fact that the claim was made. Specifically, during the argument the question was asked did MF mean he saw two gloves when he said the word them. I guess he has never heard of a rhetorical or, if you will, a leading question as indicated by his limited knowledge of legal concepts. He seems to be upset that I use the word brilliant in regard to Bailey and the fact that he trapped the slimy-forked-stuck tongue soon-to-be convicted perjurer, racist and admitted corrupt police officer and has the audacity to make the statement that hatred of someone makes you blind and stupid. ;):cool:

I was looking for that part in the closing arguments. Which lawyer said it?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

bobaugust,

Have you ever referred to Mr. Cochran as the b*****d that got Simpson off and what proof do you have, if you did, that he was a b*****d and does this mean that you hate him, if he we the son of a married woman and man?

No, I never called Cochran that name and I never hated him.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

bobaugust,

Let's end this seemingly endless debate. The EPA report stated that the amount of EDTA in human blood that was not preserved was a part per billion. Martz disagreed with that statement and claimed it was wrong and out of context. Martz testified that we have established that EDTA in human blood was in a part per million. Martz was wrong and the EPA report was correct. Martz's results on his own blood about the amount of EDTA was wrong. Have you ever considered the possibility that Martz, thinking he was right diluted the amount of EDTA he found in the sock and the gate stain and added EDTA to his own blood in order to attend the victory party he so wanted to attend? The simple fact is that Martz's results either sowed evidence of planting or, if you believe there was an artifact, they were not trustworthy. Have you considered that the jury instruction mandating the jury to choose the inference that points to innocence?

This debate is easy to end. All you have to do William is admit your claims are false. And if you’re not capable of doing that just stop making them.

We don’t know exactly what the EPA report said about EDTA in human blood. It was not clear to Dr. Rieders who gave his interpretation of what he thought it said and Martz testified that the report was evidently printed out without good resolution. But the fact is that report had absolutely nothing to do with the test results or conclusions Martz obtained in the three tests he performed on the evidence stains.

Martz wanted to attend a victory party? Where did you get this information from? No I don’t believe Martz tampered with the evidence or the test results and neither did the DOJ who investigated allegations made against him.
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/oig/fbilab1/07simpso.htm

In the first two tests Martz conducted on the evidence stains no EDTA was indicated in either the gate blood or the sock blood. The third test results indicated a small trace amount of EDTA in the gate blood, the sock blood, and Martz’s own non-preserved blood. Despite that small trace amount of EDTA Martz’s opinion was that neither the gate blood nor the sock blood came from the preserved blood reference samples in this case.

FBI chemists and Dr. Terry Lee independently reviewed all of Martz’s work, documentation, and results and came to the same conclusion that the small trace amount of EDTA indicated in the third test results was caused by a carryover contamination in the instruments. Dr. Lee’s opinion was that neither the gate blood nor the sock blood came from the preserved blood reference samples. Photographic and degradation evidence proved the defense blood planting theories false and Martz and Dr. Lee’s opinions correct.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I’m not interested in your math since it’s meaningless. Anyone can create math to come to any answer they desire. You made the claim that the article Determining EDTA in Blood says that preserved blood contains 2 parts per million of EDTA. Support your claim and post what the article said that leads you to believe that.

bobaugust

Just because you do not understand something, does not make it meaningless or not true. Math follows a set of fundamental rules and no one can create anything that does not adhere to those rules, except for Martz, Terry Lee and you. ;):cool: Do the math.

[William Anthony]

Martz didn’t come to any wrong conclusion, you did. Your interpretation of what you think Martz said is wrong and your claim and math based on your interpretation that one part per billion is equal to 1000 parts per million is incorrect and false.

bobaugust

The what did Terry Lee, on whom you rely, mean when he said that Martz's results were problematic, if not planted and that Martz was wrong and did not know this? The only one that is incorrect thus far is you and Martz. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

You’re the one who made the incorrect false claim that one part per billion is equal to 1000 pats per million. You’re the one who created meaningless math to support that false claim.

You’re the one who still can’t understand that Martz testified what the EPA told him. You’re the one who has crated an imaginary fantasy of what you claim the EPA told Martz. You’re the one who has put a ridiculous interpretation on what Martz said based on your imagined fantasy. My post that you responded to is the same exact thing I have been telling you for over a year and now that you are finally admitting that I was right you still evidently haven’t the integrity to admit that you were wrong.

bobaugust

I have never said the what you posted in regard to the vulgar way of expressing the relationship between a ppm and a ppm was wrong. You have never realized that I expressed it in another way that was in line with what the blanks in his testimony indicate Martz told him, as he tried to change the content of the sentence to the amount of EDTA in preserved blood, when the subject and content of the sentence was that there was a PPb in human blood that had not been preserved.

[William Anthony]

I was looking for that part in the closing arguments. Which lawyer said it?

bobaugust

:read::read::read:and :read:again.;):cool: I have already posted it and proven you wrong. How soon they forget.

[William Anthony]

No, I never called Cochran that name and I never hated him.

bobaugust

Someone else must have your same nic. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

This debate is easy to end. All you have to do William is admit your claims are false. And if you’re not capable of doing that just stop making them.

We don’t know exactly what the EPA report said about EDTA in human blood. It was not clear to Dr. Rieders who gave his interpretation of what he thought it said and Martz testified that the report was evidently printed out without good resolution. But the fact is that report had absolutely nothing to do with the test results or conclusions Martz obtained in the three tests he performed on the evidence stains.

Martz wanted to attend a victory party? Where did you get this information from? No I don’t believe Martz tampered with the evidence or the test results and neither did the DOJ who investigated allegations made against him.
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/oig/fbilab1/07simpso.htm

In the first two tests Martz conducted on the evidence stains no EDTA was indicated in either the gate blood or the sock blood. The third test results indicated a small trace amount of EDTA in the gate blood, the sock blood, and Martz’s own non-preserved blood. Despite that small trace amount of EDTA Martz’s opinion was that neither the gate blood nor the sock blood came from the preserved blood reference samples in this case.

FBI chemists and Dr. Terry Lee independently reviewed all of Martz’s work, documentation, and results and came to the same conclusion that the small trace amount of EDTA indicated in the third test results was caused by a carryover contamination in the instruments. Dr. Lee’s opinion was that neither the gate blood nor the sock blood came from the preserved blood reference samples. Photographic and degradation evidence proved the defense blood planting theories false and Martz and Dr. Lee’s opinions correct.

bobaugust

Did you forget the links I posted on the tactics of the FBI and did you forget that Martz was removed from his position?

In regard to the victory party and Martz's desire, :read:.

Martz's results were wrong. Ergo, in conclusion he came to, regarding the results were, like his results, untrustworthy, imho.

Why do you continue to post false information and embarrass yourself? Terry Lee only testified that it was "most likely" that Martz's results were the result of carryover. Terry Lee ruled out and atthe MOST LIKELY source as evidence by his statement "IF NOT PLANTED" and attempted to form "A CONVINCING ARGUMENT" with his ghost in the machine theory. The photographic evidence was highly suspect and the degradation evidence prove nothing, imho. ;):cool: Remember when Matheson was shown on cross to have come up with a theory of degradation that contradicted the source on whom he relied and was shown that his testimony was not in line with what was considered ethical?

[William Anthony]

Correction-Then what did Terry Lee, on whom you rely, mean when he said that Martz's results were problematic, if not planted and that Martz was wrong and did not know this? The only one that is incorrect thus far is you and Martz.

[William Anthony]

Correction-Why do you continue to post false information and embarrass yourself? Terry Lee only testified that it was "most likely" that Martz's results were the result of carryover. Terry Lee ruled out the MOST LIKELY source as evidence by his statement "IF NOT PLANTED" and attempted to form "A CONVINCING ARGUMENT" with his ghost in the machine theory. The photographic evidence was highly suspect and the degradation evidence prove nothing, imho. Remember when Matheson was shown on cross to have come up with a theory of degradation that contradicted the source on whom he relied and was shown that his testimony was not in line with what was considered ethical?

[William Anthony]

Correction for clarity-I have never said the what you posted in regard to the vulgar way of expressing the relationship between a ppm and a ppm was wrong. You have never realized that I expressed it in another way that was in line with what the blanks in his testimony indicate what, Martz, realizing he was wrong, told the jury what the representative told him, as he tried to change the content of the sentence to the amount of EDTA in preserved blood, when the subject and content of the sentence was that there was a PPb in human blood that had not been preserved.

[William Anthony]

You’re the one who made the incorrect false claim that one part per billion is equal to 1000 pats per million. You’re the one who created meaningless math to support that false claim.

You’re the one who still can’t understand that Martz testified what the EPA told him. You’re the one who has crated an imaginary fantasy of what you claim the EPA told Martz. You’re the one who has put a ridiculous interpretation on what Martz said based on your imagined fantasy. My post that you responded to is the same exact thing I have been telling you for over a year and now that you are finally admitting that I was right you still evidently haven’t the integrity to admit that you were wrong.

bobaugust

Let's see how Terry Lee rehabilitated Martz.

"Q. And you're aware that Roger Martz threw away all the computer
data relative to the test on his own blood, correct?
A. That's my understanding. He threw away all the computer data as
to any of the test.
Q. No one could ever go back and see, but we know -- you are aware
that the tests that Roger Martz ran on his own blood is icorrect,
correct?
A. Incorrect in what sense?
Q. That's a poor question. I apologize. The levels that he found in
his blood is inconsistent with life, correct?
A. If you're saying that it would be impossible for him to have
found EDTA levels at those levels in his own blood, that is true,
but he didn't know that at the time.
Q. He was alive; he knew that, didn't he?
A. Yes. But he didn't know it was impossible for him to have EDTA
levels that high in his own blood; he did not know that.
Q. You talked to him about that?
A. No. There's no way I could have known. Nobody knew it at that
point.
Q. Now, it is common knowledge in the scientific industry that there
are no detectable levels of EDTA in a normal human being's blood,
correct?
A. In the past year there have been two labs that have designed
tests to prove that point, and they have determined that there's no
detectable levels of EDTA in anybody's blood."

By the time Martz testified, but after he had allegedly performed the test on his own blood and the sock and gate stain, he had been made aware of the EPA report on the amount of EDTA in human blood that was not preserved. His only escape from this rat trap was to attempt to say that the statement was out of context and wrong. However, Terry Lee basically stated that Martz's results were incorrect and rehabilitated the statement in the report. Terry Lee also testified that the FBI would not allow him to talk to Martz and he did not know the procedures used in the FBI lab. Therefore, he did not know, if it was the practice to clean the machine during tests. Martz made the mistake of thinking that his way of thinking was the only correct one and that he knew the facts. ;):cool:

[bobaugust]

Just because you do not understand something, does not make it meaningless or not true. Math follows a set of fundamental rules and no one can create anything that does not adhere to those rules, except for Martz, Terry Lee and you. ;):cool: Do the math.

The fundamental rules of math do not change; the numbers you arbitrarily used to arrive at a preconceived false conclusion is what make your math and its results meaningless. One part per billion is NOT equal to 1000 parts per million no matter how many times you have posted your incorrect math.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The what did Terry Lee, on whom you rely, mean when he said that Martz's results were problematic, if not planted and that Martz was wrong and did not know this? The only one that is incorrect thus far is you and Martz. ;):cool:

Baker read from Dr. Lee’s notes, "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 Dr. Lee was saying was that because the levels of EDTA found in the evidence stains were significantly lower compared to the levels from the reference samples that means the stains could not have come from those reference samples, so the question is where did the trace amount of EDTA come from? Dr. Lee’s answer was an artifact, most likely the result of carryover from previous analyses in that instrument.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I have never said the what you posted in regard to the vulgar way of expressing the relationship between a ppm and a ppm was wrong. You have never realized that I expressed it in another way that was in line with what the blanks in his testimony indicate Martz told him, as he tried to change the content of the sentence to the amount of EDTA in preserved blood, when the subject and content of the sentence was that there was a PPb in human blood that had not been preserved.

Every time you claimed that one part per billion is equal to 1000 parts per million you have shown you do not understand the relationship between parts per billion and parts per million. Every time you posted your math to prove that one part per billion is equal to 1000 parts per million you have shown you do not understand the relationship between parts per billion and parts per million. Every time you have posted what you imagine the FDA told Martz you have shown you do not understand the relationship between parts per billion and parts per million.

Martz didn’t try to change the subject or the context of the sentence regarding human blood in the EPA report. He said it was not clear. Dr. Riders said it was not clear. Martz told how part of that sentence was not printed with good resolution and it was out of context based on what the report was discussing.

The fact is that the issue of how much EDTA would be found in human blood had nothing to do with the small trace amount of EDTA that was indicated in the results from the third test Martz conducted on the two evidence stains and his own non-preserved blood. That small trace amount was not in anyone’s blood when that blood was in their body.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

:read::read::read:and :read:again.;):cool: I have already posted it and proven you wrong. How soon they forget.

Cochran misstated the facts in his closing argument regarding Fuhrman’s testimony about saying the word “them”.

September 28, 1995 Cochran Closing Argument
“He talks about them. Remember there is a question he was asked about gloves and lee bailey asked him about. Well--he says, well--he is talking about gloves and he says, ‘Them.’ He never explained that. He says ‘Them.’ Does that mean two gloves? He said, ‘I saw them.’ Is that two gloves? Why would you say ‘Them’? He is intelligent enough to come and lie to you.”

* Fuhrman was never asked about two gloves.
* Fuhrman did explain what he meant when he said the word “them.”
* The answer to Cochran’s question “Is that two gloves?” is no.
There was only one glove and a knit cap under the plant leaves when the police arrived at Bundy, not two gloves and a knit cap. No witness in this case ever testified to seeing two gloves at Bundy. That’s the evidence in this case and no lawyer in this case ever claimed differently.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Someone else must have your same nic. ;):cool:

No, this is just another example of your bad memory.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Did you forget the links I posted on the tactics of the FBI and did you forget that Martz was removed from his position?

In regard to the victory party and Martz's desire, :read:.

Martz's results were wrong. Ergo, in conclusion he came to, regarding the results were, like his results, untrustworthy, imho.

Why do you continue to post false information and embarrass yourself? Terry Lee only testified that it was "most likely" that Martz's results were the result of carryover. Terry Lee ruled out and atthe MOST LIKELY source as evidence by his statement "IF NOT PLANTED" and attempted to form "A CONVINCING ARGUMENT" with his ghost in the machine theory. The photographic evidence was highly suspect and the degradation evidence prove nothing, imho. ;):cool: Remember when Matheson was shown on cross to have come up with a theory of degradation that contradicted the source on whom he relied and was shown that his testimony was not in line with what was considered ethical?

Whatever tactics you posted regarding the FBI and Martz’s later removal from his position had nothing to do with what Martz testified to in the Simpson case. Dr. Lee clearly testified that it was his opinion that the small trace amount of EDTA indicated in the third test results had to be from some artifact. He said that artifact is most likely the result of carryover from previous analyses in that instrument. FBI chemists also believed that the EDTA detected may have been injection carryover in the LC/MS/MS) instrumentation.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Let's see how Terry Lee rehabilitated Martz.

"Q. And you're aware that Roger Martz threw away all the computer
data relative to the test on his own blood, correct?
A. That's my understanding. He threw away all the computer data as
to any of the test.
Q. No one could ever go back and see, but we know -- you are aware
that the tests that Roger Martz ran on his own blood is icorrect,
correct?
A. Incorrect in what sense?
Q. That's a poor question. I apologize. The levels that he found in
his blood is inconsistent with life, correct?
A. If you're saying that it would be impossible for him to have
found EDTA levels at those levels in his own blood, that is true,
but he didn't know that at the time.
Q. He was alive; he knew that, didn't he?
A. Yes. But he didn't know it was impossible for him to have EDTA
levels that high in his own blood; he did not know that.
Q. You talked to him about that?
A. No. There's no way I could have known. Nobody knew it at that
point.
Q. Now, it is common knowledge in the scientific industry that there
are no detectable levels of EDTA in a normal human being's blood,
correct?
A. In the past year there have been two labs that have designed
tests to prove that point, and they have determined that there's no
detectable levels of EDTA in anybody's blood."

By the time Martz testified, but after he had allegedly performed the test on his own blood and the sock and gate stain, he had been made aware of the EPA report on the amount of EDTA in human blood that was not preserved. His only escape from this rat trap was to attempt to say that the statement was out of context and wrong. However, Terry Lee basically stated that Martz's results were incorrect and rehabilitated the statement in the report. Terry Lee also testified that the FBI would not allow him to talk to Martz and he did not know the procedures used in the FBI lab. Therefore, he did not know, if it was the practice to clean the machine during tests. Martz made the mistake of thinking that his way of thinking was the only correct one and that he knew the facts. ;):cool:

The EPA study and the discussions regarding how much EDTA could be found in a person had nothing to do with the small trace amount of EDTA the third test results indicated in the two evidence samples and Martz’s own non-preserved blood.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The EPA study and the discussions regarding how much EDTA could be found in a person had nothing to do with the small trace amount of EDTA the third test results indicated in the two evidence samples and Martz’s own non-preserved blood.

bobaugust

This according to bobaubust.;):cool: How can a discussion of how much EDTA that is found in human blood that is not preserved have no9thing to do with Martz's results?

[William Anthony]

I’m not interested in your math since it’s meaningless. Anyone can create math to come to any answer they desire. You made the claim that the article Determining EDTA in Blood says that preserved blood contains 2 parts per million of EDTA. Support your claim and post what the article said that leads you to believe that.

bobaugust

Do the math of what the article said. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

Martz didn’t come to any wrong conclusion, you did. Your interpretation of what you think Martz said is wrong and your claim and math based on your interpretation that one part per billion is equal to 1000 parts per million is incorrect and false.

bobaugust

You now disagree with Martz, Terry Lee and the EPA report. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

Martz testified that the concentration of EDTA in a purple topped tube is between a thousand and 2000 parts per million.

Dr. Rieders testified that there are 2000 parts per million of EDTA in an EDTA tube. That is blood that won’t coagulate. Dr. Rieders also explained the relationship between parts per million and parts per billion that contradicts your incorrect false claim that one part per billion is equal to 1000 parts per million.

The article was discussing the EDTA issue in the Simpson case and said “that EDTA is present at about 4.5 mM (1300 ppm) in EDTA blood, which would be a very concentrated sample and easily detected by electrospray LC/MS/MS.” It also said that “the amount detected in the forensic blood samples was orders of magnitude below 4.5 mM.” Later in the article it referred to 4.5mM as a typical concentration of EDTA-preserved blood. 1300 ppm would be typical concentration since the range of the amount of EDTA in preserved blood is between 1000 to 2000 parts per million. No where in that article was it ever claimed that EDTA in preserved blood was in 2 parts per million or in parts per billion.

Math is not needed to understand this.

bobaugust

You too easily dismiss what you cannot understand, imho.;):cool:

[William Anthony]

The fundamental rules of math do not change; the numbers you arbitrarily used to arrive at a preconceived false conclusion is what make your math and its results meaningless. One part per billion is NOT equal to 1000 parts per million no matter how many times you have posted your incorrect math.

bobaugust

That statement was made in regard to what Martz claimed the EPA representative told him and I showed you by the blanks and the math what was, imho, as supported by the math what was really told to him.

[William Anthony]

Baker read from Dr. Lee’s notes, "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 Dr. Lee was saying was that because the levels of EDTA found in the evidence stains were significantly lower compared to the levels from the reference samples that means the stains could not have come from those reference samples, so the question is where did the trace amount of EDTA come from? Dr. Lee’s answer was an artifact, most likely the result of carryover from previous analyses in that instrument.

bobaugust

I have posted the testimony and do not forget the, "IF NOT PLANTED".;):cool:

[William Anthony]

Every time you claimed that one part per billion is equal to 1000 parts per million you have shown you do not understand the relationship between parts per billion and parts per million. Every time you posted your math to prove that one part per billion is equal to 1000 parts per million you have shown you do not understand the relationship between parts per billion and parts per million. Every time you have posted what you imagine the FDA told Martz you have shown you do not understand the relationship between parts per billion and parts per million.

Martz didn’t try to change the subject or the context of the sentence regarding human blood in the EPA report. He said it was not clear. Dr. Riders said it was not clear. Martz told how part of that sentence was not printed with good resolution and it was out of context based on what the report was discussing.

The fact is that the issue of how much EDTA would be found in human blood had nothing to do with the small trace amount of EDTA that was indicated in the results from the third test Martz conducted on the two evidence stains and his own non-preserved blood. That small trace amount was not in anyone’s blood when that blood was in their body.

bobaugust

I have posted the testimony and don't forget the out of nowhere...it didn't make sense...it was entirely out of context and it was wrong, according to Martz.

[William Anthony]

Cochran misstated the facts in his closing argument regarding Fuhrman’s testimony about saying the word “them”.

September 28, 1995 Cochran Closing Argument
“He talks about them. Remember there is a question he was asked about gloves and lee bailey asked him about. Well--he says, well--he is talking about gloves and he says, ‘Them.’ He never explained that. He says ‘Them.’ Does that mean two gloves? He said, ‘I saw them.’ Is that two gloves? Why would you say ‘Them’? He is intelligent enough to come and lie to you.”

* Fuhrman was never asked about two gloves.
* Fuhrman did explain what he meant when he said the word “them.”
* The answer to Cochran’s question “Is that two gloves?” is no.
There was only one glove and a knit cap under the plant leaves when the police arrived at Bundy, not two gloves and a knit cap. No witness in this case ever testified to seeing two gloves at Bundy. That’s the evidence in this case and no lawyer in this case ever claimed differently.

bobaugust

The only one who are attempting to mislead others are Martz, MF, Terry Lee, you, the prosecution, and Vannatter, just to name a few. ;):cool: I will answer this more fully when I find time.

[William Anthony]

No, this is just another example of your bad memory.

bobaugust

Not quite true as I did some research and found that comment under your nic and mailed the link to martin. ;):cool: That's why I asked instead of accusing as you may share a nic with someone unbeknown to you, wink, cool.

[William Anthony]

Whatever tactics you posted regarding the FBI and Martz’s later removal from his position had nothing to do with what Martz testified to in the Simpson case. Dr. Lee clearly testified that it was his opinion that the small trace amount of EDTA indicated in the third test results had to be from some artifact. He said that artifact is most likely the result of carryover from previous analyses in that instrument. FBI chemists also believed that the EDTA detected may have been injection carryover in the LC/MS/MS) instrumentation.

bobaugust

Yes and he summarily dismissed the obvious source saying if not planted.;):cool:

[William Anthony]

The EPA study and the discussions regarding how much EDTA could be found in a person had nothing to do with the small trace amount of EDTA the third test results indicated in the two evidence samples and Martz’s own non-preserved blood.

bobaugust

This according to bobaugust. ;):cool:

[bobaugust]

This according to bobaubust.;):cool: How can a discussion of how much EDTA that is found in human blood that is not preserved have no9thing to do with Martz's results?

Because the small trace amount Martz found in the third test results was 1000 times more than would be found in human blood.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Do the math of what the article said. ;):cool:

It’s not up to me or any other poster to try and find something that you claim the article Determining EDTA in Blood says. You made the claim; it’s up to you to support it. Quote from the article the portion you believe says that preserved blood contains EDTA in a concentration of 2 parts per million, please.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You now disagree with Martz, Terry Lee and the EPA report. ;):cool:

No, I disagree with your claim that one part per billion is equal to 1000 parts per million. You’re the only one who has ever made that false claim.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You too easily dismiss what you cannot understand, imho.;):cool:

I understand this just fine, you’re the one who can’t seem to understand that preserved blood is a concentrated solution containing EDTA in 1000 to 2000 parts per million. Not parts per billion and not 2 parts per million.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

That statement was made in regard to what Martz claimed the EPA representative told him and I showed you by the blanks and the math what was, imho, as supported by the math what was really told to him.

You still can’t seen to grasp the reality that your interpretation of what you imagine the EPA told Martz is wrong. Not only is your interpretation contradicted by what Martz testified the EPA told him, your math proves your interpretation is wrong because your math based on your interpretation comes to a false conclusion. One part per billion is NOT equal to 1000 parts per million.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I have posted the testimony and do not forget the, "IF NOT PLANTED".;):cool:

You asked me what Dr. Lee mean when he said that Martz’s results were problematic. I’ve explain what he meant. Now you’re reverting back to something that Dr. Lee explained in his testimony.

January 16, 1997

"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]

The only one who are attempting to mislead others are Martz, MF, Terry Lee, you, the prosecution, and Vannatter, just to name a few. ;):cool: I will answer this more fully when I find time.

Take all the time you want. Your claim that Mark Fuhrman admitted to seeing two gloves under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet is outright false.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Not quite true as I did some research and found that comment under your nic and mailed the link to martin. ;):cool: That's why I asked instead of accusing as you may share a nic with someone unbeknown to you, wink, cool.

I have never used that word in any post on Court TV discussion groups. Email me the link or send it to me in a private message please, so I may see what you are talking about.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

This according to bobaugust. ;):cool:

No, according to the fact that the small trace amount Martz found in the third test results was 1000 times more than would be found in human blood.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Because the small trace amount Martz found in the third test results was 1000 times more than would be found in human blood.

bobaugust

Correct, the amount of EDTA which you have called a small trace amount was a thousand times more than what is in blood that has not been preserved, which was Martz's result and the discussion was therefore of necessity about his results and how much EDTA is in human blood that is not preserved.

[William Anthony]

It’s not up to me or any other poster to try and find something that you claim the article Determining EDTA in Blood says. You made the claim; it’s up to you to support it. Quote from the article the portion you believe says that preserved blood contains EDTA in a concentration of 2 parts per million, please.

bobaugust

I have already posted it and it is now up to you to do the math as I informed you. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

No, I disagree with your claim that one part per billion is equal to 1000 parts per million. You’re the only one who has ever made that false claim.

bobaugust

Your post,

"Martz didn’t come to any wrong conclusion, you did. Your interpretation of what you think Martz said is wrong and your claim and math based on your interpretation that one part per billion is equal to 1000 parts per million is incorrect and false."

As I said you disagree with Dr. R and Terry Lee. To save you embarrassment over what you don't understand is that I was referring to that portion of Martz's testimony where he testifies, now that we have established. That portion was in regard to EDTA being present in the part per million range in human blood that was not preserved. ;):cool:

[limakey]

FBI chemists and Dr. Terry Lee independently reviewed all of Martz’s work, documentation, and results and came to the same conclusion that the small trace amount of EDTA indicated in the third test results was caused by a carryover contamination in the instruments. Dr. Lee’s opinion was that neither the gate blood nor the sock blood came from the preserved blood reference samples. Photographic and degradation evidence proved the defense blood planting theories false and Martz and Dr. Lee’s opinions correct.

bobaugust[/QUOTE]

Mr. August,

1. If you truly believe that Martz is telling the truth, then even you must agree that he never should have conducted even 1 test in this area let alone three. It is beyond obvious he was either way, way out of his league or he knew enough about the subject and knew what it would do to the DA's case and used the "clear as mud" style of testifying. It is either one or the other.

2. What was the compound that caused the contamination of the equipment?
If you do not know what the compound then you can't rely on Martz's testimony or results. With out knowing the compound, you don't know if the make up of this compound would automatically skew the test.

3. If it was the contamination that caused the false positive or whatever it was, why didn't he clean the equipment and do the test again?

4. You can't pick and chose when it comes to photographs in regards to the evidence.

5. You can't use your degraded blood evidence when you have no proof how the degration occured. When did the DA's prove when and how the blood degraded. Yes, I believe they did blame the broken AC unit in the truck, however, what experiments did they conduct to in fact prove this was the only way this could have happened? They couldn't conduct any experiments for the simple reason that if one sample was degraded from the broken AC unit, then all of them would be rendered basically useless.

IMO, of course!

BTW, Martz did not use the test he was supposed to use for it--hence rendering his results useless. Dr. Lee's review and testimony on what Martz's did or didn't do means zippo. However, had Dr. Lee conducted the test that should have been done and compared them to Martz's, then I would value his testimony.

Had Dr. Lee done the exact same tests that Martz's did and compared his results to Martz's, again that might have added to the creditabilty of his testimony. Had Dr. Lee run the tests using the exact contamination that Martz's had and then ran the same test with "clean" equipment, again, the value of his testimony rises.

However, Dr. Lee's testimony based on Martz's results mean even less then when Dr. L was called to the stand rather then Dr. Golden (is that his name). Neither man witness the autopsy or the test being conducted so how valuable is their testimony when it is soley based on their collegues screw ups?

[William Anthony]

I understand this just fine, you’re the one who can’t seem to understand that preserved blood is a concentrated solution containing EDTA in 1000 to 2000 parts per million. Not parts per billion and not 2 parts per million.

bobaugust

With all due respect, you are talking about the amount in a lavender or, if you will, a purple top test tube and not the amount that it takes to preserve blood.;):cool: Just because you claim to understand something, doesn't mean you do. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

You asked me what Dr. Lee mean when he said that Martz’s results were problematic. I’ve explain what he meant. Now you’re reverting back to something that Dr. Lee explained in his testimony.

January 16, 1997

"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

I am referring back to his notes and the fact that his first thought was that the blood was planted. However, he was hired by the plaintiffs, so he dismissed his first thought, writing in his notes, if not planted, Martz's results become problematic and a convincing argument must be made. The convincing argument must be to show that the blood was not planted. The only one he convinced with that argument of the ghost did it was you, imho.

[William Anthony]

Take all the time you want. Your claim that Mark Fuhrman admitted to seeing two gloves under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet is outright false.

bobaugust

Blah, blah, blah.

[William Anthony]

No, according to the fact that the small trace amount Martz found in the third test results was 1000 times more than would be found in human blood.

bobaugust

Already answered-blah, blah, blah;):cool:.

[limakey]

Mr. August,

Dr. Lee's testimony means nothing. I will use a very simple example on why this is so.

When a person is very ill, many times this person is told, even by own their own doctors to get a second opinon. Very reasonable and understandable, right? So this person goes to another doctor, with my so far? How much value could this second opinion have when the doctor bases his diagonis (sp?) on the first doctor's tests and results. That makes no sense--especially if the doctor didn't even know how the first tests and results were interpeted.

In regards to a second glove at Bundy. The uniform police are not responsible for looking for evidence, in fact, they are not even suppose to go near the bodies because of the contamination factors. Riske only approached Goldman because he had to see if Ron was alive or dead. Yes, they may report evidence that they see upon arrival or in plain view, but actually looking for evidence--they have to wait for the detectives.

Another point that you have tried to make that just doesn't make sense. The claim that Fuhrman was never alone and he had no opportunity. Well, if all these detectives and cops were paying more attention watching Fuhrman, then isn't it a fair question on what they did not see because they were watching Fuhrman?

To the best of my knowledge, there was only one person who could have vouched for this theory and that was Fuhrman's partner, Brad Roberts. He never testified. Also, when NG's talk about a second glove at Bundy, that does not mean we have to believe that the second glove would all fall off inside the killing cage.

There was blood drops and coins found by Nicole's jeep--yet we don't know who's blood it was. Also, you have never have explained how all these cops and detectives missed the bloody fingerprint on the gate.

I remember something you posted about the female officer who was investigating the break in of the Bronco. When she testified that she did not see the blood, she said first of all, she was not looking and 2nd of all, it wasn't her job to look for it either--she was there for one reason only.

Well if she did not see or was looking for evidence in such a confined place, why is so hard for you to believe that cops may have missed the second glove - they had a much larger area to look for evidence.

I also find very, very interesting that MF also used this excuse regarding the glove at Rockingham---he was looking for evidence of some one jumping the fence. He was not looking for evidence in regards to seeing foot prints, etc.

This makes no sense at all! According to MF's testimony, when Kato told him about the thumps, he went to where the sound was. He thought it could have been a victim or suspect back there. Are we to believe that Fuhrman was not looking where he was walking. That he is experienced to know that every steps he takes, he may be destroying evidence?

Also, it makes no sense that Fuhrman was not looking for blood evidence because he strongly felt the suspect was bleeding. So how much sense does it make that none of the detectives thought to looking for any blood?

How much sense does it make that no CSI team was ever told to search this area, looking for blood and how important it was because they knew the suspect was bleeding at Bundy?

Last but not least, it makes no sense that the detectives determined that the only blood drops they needed led from the Bronco to the front door? It makes no sense that Simpson was able to avoid detection by the limo driver, yet didn't have the same concerns regarding Kato?

It makes no sense that if Simpson was the killer, he would walk through his own front gate and risk being seen the limo drive---remember, he had no idea that his regular driver was off that night. Dale St. John would have recognized him.

Also, when Simpson entered his front gate and went undetected, does it only make sense that he would have gone right to where the glove was found? And if that is the case, doesn't that explain why blood was not found?

However, with this theory, the thump theory goes down the drain, IMO.

[limakey]

With all due respect, you are talking about the amount in a lavender or, if you will, a purple top test tube and not the amount that it takes to preserve blood.;):cool: Just because you claim to understand something, doesn't mean you do. ;):cool:

William,

Clark's cross of Rieders, IMO, was very damaging to her case. She kept on about one incident where he made a mistake regarding another color top test tube. In fact she wasted so much time that Judge Ito told to "try the Simpson case". It seemed to me that Clark was praying that the jurors would be swayed by this mistake and perhaps neutralize his testimony.

[William Anthony]

William,

Clark's cross of Rieders, IMO, was very damaging to her case. She kept on about one incident where he made a mistake regarding another color top test tube. In fact she wasted so much time that Judge Ito told to "try the Simpson case". It seemed to me that Clark was praying that the jurors would be swayed by this mistake and perhaps neutralize his testimony.

I think the issues relevant to the trial were the mistakes made by Vanatter, Lang, MF, DF, Ms. Corn Oil, Matheson, Peratis, Rokhar, Park, Clark and Darden in the instant case. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

[William Anthony]

I have never used that word in any post on Court TV discussion groups. Email me the link or send it to me in a private message please, so I may see what you are talking about.

bobaugust

My question was whether or not you had ever used that word in regard to him, I did not save the link and do not know whether martin has it. Is it possible that you have used the word and have now forgotten (oops, I sound like the brilliant Bailey)? ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

bobaugust,

I have done some further research and cannot find the link that linked your nic to the comment. I did find a link linking a comment to another nic. However, in my research I was surprised to find your nic and website mentioned in a Supreme Court brief on a claim of invasion of privacy as it relates to the pictures of Ms. Nicole. I am not certain as to whether or not you are aware of this but, if you aren't you may want to reconsider what you disseminate via the internet. Here is the later link. To be fore warned is to be fore armed.

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-954/02-954.mer.pet.html

If you have not made the other comment, I stand corrected but it was linked to your nic, which is why I asked the question.

[tv]

bobaugust,

I have done some further research and cannot find the link that linked your nic to the comment. I did find a link linking a comment to another nic. However, in my research I was surprised to find your nic and website mentioned in a Supreme Court brief on a claim of invasion of privacy as it relates to the pictures of Ms. Nicole. I am not certain as to whether or not you are aware of this but, if you aren't you may want to reconsider what you disseminate via the internet. Here is the later link. To be fore warned is to be fore armed.

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-954/02-954.mer.pet.html

If you have not made the other comment, I stand corrected but it was linked to your nic, which is why I asked the question.

Instead of standing corrected, why don't you apologize? You stated that you sent the link to martin as if you had proof. Why can't you just debate the facts of the case without engaging in character assassination of a fellow poster? This derails the discussion and serves no purpose.

By the way, before you go off on a rant about the reasons for my defense of this poster I want to state that my involvement with bobaugust is limited to what you see on this forum. I've always found him to be civil and in command of the facts. I don't know how old you are, William, but we all have to grow up sometime.

[William Anthony]

Instead of standing corrected, why don't you apologize? You stated that you sent the link to martin as if you had proof. Why can't you just debate the facts of the case without engaging in character assassination of a fellow poster? This derails the discussion and serves no purpose.

By the way, before you go off on a rant about the reasons for my defense of this poster I want to state that my involvement with bobaugust is limited to what you see on this forum. I've always found him to be civil and in command of the facts. I don't know how old you are, William, but we all have to grow up sometime.

Let me begin at the end as it relates to growing up. I never accused bobaugust. I asked a question of him. I provided the link to martin as to what I had found and that link stated it was someone using the nic bobaugust that made the comment. I did not jump to conclusions and say he did that, as I realized that he did not own a copyright to that particular nic. In doing some research to find the link I had previously found, I found another link that attributed a similar, if not identical to someone of another nic, which may or may not have been bobaugust. The reason that I said I stand corrected is because of the new link I found and I am unable to furnish the first link. I stand corrected when I am wrong or when there is evidence that I may have been wrong. There is no apology necessary, since I made no accusation against bobaugust. I do not need to engage in character assassination of bobaugust, since his posts speak glaringly to his character. I think his posts serve as a testament to his character and others, who read them, can form their own respective opinions of his character, just as you have done.

I have always debated the case and proven what is true, as opposed to what others claim is true, or show that there are alternative ways to view the same evidence. If you think that my pointing out bobagust's many posts, containing false information, is character assassination, then I wish you would state that as your opinion. However, I point out the false posts so that the community can form and intelligent and informed opinion.

I must respectfully disagree, as I think most honest and impartial posters will, with your opinion that bobaugust has always been civil in his posts. However, I do realize that it is your right to hold that opinion. I don't know how you feel that telling someone you have no respect for them is being civil and I sincerely hope that statement was the catalyst for bobaugust's hiatus. However, as I have said, you are entitled to your opinion, regardless of whether or not the facts reinforce your opinion. I am of the opinion that facts and evidence should be considered in forming an opinion but realize that others may not share my caution in forming an opinion.

As I have stated previously, I think the proper method is to ask for a clarification before making an accusation, as I did with bobaugust. I think that this is a sign of maturity. I think that to make an accusation without considering what was actually said is a sign of immaturity and reiterate that I did not accuse bobagust but you did erroneously accuse me. I have found that bobaugust claims to have a command of facts and have proven that the claim is not factual, which, imho, is a testimonial to the fact that a mature person realizes and appreciates that there is more than one way to view things, such as my caution to bobaugust was simply that, and his posting of Ms. Nicoles pictures has not gone unnoticed by members of the legal profession and not, as you imply, a statement of his character. I have realized his limited knowledge of legal concepts and realize that his potential invasion of privacy may have been inadvertent. Your intimation that his actions somehow speak to his character are what you took from my caution and that opinion belongs entirely to you.

[tv]

Your long-winded post says very little when all the rhetoric is condensed down so I won't take up bandwidth quoting it. The bottom line here is that you've been searching the internet to find dirt on bobaugust and then dragging it to this board to make him look bad. Whatever this thing is about Nicole and her photo is irrelevant to this discussion, has no place on this forum and is really no one's business unless bobaugust wants to discuss it. If bobaugust had posted the same kind of erroneous information about you that you posted about him you would be standing on your head demanding an apology. By the way, there is nothing uncivil about telling someone you have no respect for them as long as you state it in a civil manner. :rolleyes:

FYI: to save you some time I'll tell you that is is the only place I use this nic. ;)

[weezer]

Your long-winded post says very little when all the rhetoric is condensed down so I won't take up bandwidth quoting it. The bottom line here is that you've been searching the internet to find dirt on bobaugust and then dragging it to this board to make him look bad. Whatever this thing is about Nicole and her photo is irrelevant to this discussion, has no place on this forum and is really no one's business unless bobaugust wants to discuss it. If bobaugust had posted the same kind of erroneous information about you that you posted about him you would be standing on your head demanding an apology. By the way, there is nothing uncivil about telling someone you have no respect for them as long as you state it in a civil manner. :rolleyes:

FYI: to save you some time I'll tell you that is is the only place I use this nic. ;)

actually, if someone is bringing posts to this board from another board, it's against the rules. :no: but then we know that there are those that have no respect for the rules sooooooooooooo. . . . .

and goodness knows we have some folks on this board :eek: -- and other boards -- that are forced to reinvent themselves periodically because of their disrespect for the rules.

I have found bobaugust to be both civil and kowledgeable. That may be what others find objectionable about him -- he doesn't sink to the lower level. :D

[William Anthony]

Your long-winded post says very little when all the rhetoric is condensed down so I won't take up bandwidth quoting it. The bottom line here is that you've been searching the internet to find dirt on bobaugust and then dragging it to this board to make him look bad. Whatever this thing is about Nicole and her photo is irrelevant to this discussion, has no place on this forum and is really no one's business unless bobaugust wants to discuss it. If bobaugust had posted the same kind of erroneous information about you that you posted about him you would be standing on your head demanding an apology. By the way, there is nothing uncivil about telling someone you have no respect for them as long as you state it in a civil manner. :rolleyes:

FYI: to save you some time I'll tell you that is is the only place I use this nic. ;)

My loquaciousness is duly noted and is a sign of the lawyer inside of me straining to escape.:) You have now made a false assumption that resulted in a false post, despite my advisement to you. I searched the internet not to look up dirt on bobaugust but to gain and understanding of him. Anticipation and preparation are two of the tools that most benefit a lawyer and others, imho. I have never posted erroneous information about bobaugust. I have pointed out the erroneous information he posted as facts. ;):cool: As I have said, you are entitled to your own opinion even though it is not supported by the facts. I truly think that there is no way to civilly state that you have no respect for a person, absent a proven racist, murder, rapist, child molester, and convicted perjurer. I know that others may include those convicted of other horrific crimes to that list to include a spousal abuser. I do not think anyone who is impartial and honest will agree that you can civilly state you have no respect for someone that disagrees with your assertions. No one is mandated to respect anyone. However, there are rules on this board that we are mandated to follow. I respect your opinion no matter how erroneous I consider it to be. ;):cool:

[tv]

My loquaciousness is duly noted and is a sign of the lawyer inside of me straining to escape.:) You have now made a false assumption that resulted in a false post, despite my advisement to you. I searched the internet not to look up dirt on bobaugust but to gain and understanding of him. Anticipation and preparation are two of the tools that most benefit a lawyer and others, imho. I have never posted erroneous information about bobaugust. I have pointed out the erroneous information he posted as facts. ;):cool: As I have said, you are entitled to your own opinion even though it is not supported by the facts. I truly think that there is no way to civilly state that you have no respect for a person, absent a proven racist, murder, rapist, child molester, and convicted perjurer. I know that others may include those convicted of other horrific crimes to that list to include a spousal abuser. I do not think anyone who is impartial and honest will agree that you can civilly state you have no respect for someone that disagrees with your assertions. No one is mandated to respect anyone. However, there are rules on this board that we are mandated to follow. I respect your opinion no matter how erroneous I consider it to be. ;):cool:There are so many things in this post that I could address but I'm already tired of talking to you...bobaugust is more than capable of holding his own with you without my help, so...:seeya:

[William Anthony]

Please,

Point out something that I brought from another board in regard to the latest issue being discussed. I never said where the comment came from but it appears that some may have been aware of it. My question was did he ever refer to the magnificent one by that name. A link does not equate to another board, as evidenced by my findlaw link, hmmm. I have said that I respect others' opinions no matter how erroneous I consider them to be. ;):cool:

[tv]

actually, if someone is bringing posts to this board from another board, it's against the rules. :no: but then we know that there are those that have no respect for the rules sooooooooooooo. . . . .

and goodness knows we have some folks on this board :eek: -- and other boards -- that are forced to reinvent themselves periodically because of their disrespect for the rules.

I have found bobaugust to be both civil and kowledgeable. That may be what others find objectionable about him -- he doesn't sink to the lower level. :DHi weezer, I thought it might be against the rules but I wasn't sure. That has been the rule on most message boards that I've been on and I think it's a good rule. People do reinvent themselves when the need arises and then get mad when they're called out on it, LOL. I agree about bobaugust...he maintains his civility at all times. He sure hasn't sunk to the recent low that I saw posted about a witness in the criminal trial recently. It was rather disgusting. :eek:

[William Anthony]

There are so many things in this post that I could address but I'm already tired of talking to you...bobaugust is more than capable of holding his own with you without my help, so...:seeya:

I wish you had realized that two posts ago. Forming a logical, consistent, truthful and intelligent argument is tedious, whereas opening the mouth and saying something that amounts to nothing is very easy for some to do. ;):cool:

[tv]

William, you're unable to supply a link on this board where bobaugust called Johnny Cochran a b****** or whatever it is you allege. You're wrong so let it go already.

[tv]

I wish you had realized that two posts ago. Forming a logical, consistent, truthful and intelligent argument is tedious, whereas opening the mouth and saying something that amounts to nothing is very easy for some to do. ;):cool:You just can't let that hinged-in-the-middle tongue be silent, can you? :rolleyes:

[William Anthony]

Hi weezer, I thought it might be against the rules but I wasn't sure. That has been the rule on most message boards that I've been on and I think it's a good rule. People do reinvent themselves when the need arises and then get mad when they're called out on it, LOL. I agree about bobaugust...he maintains his civility at all times. He sure hasn't sunk to the recent low that I saw posted about a witness in the criminal trial recently. It was rather disgusting. :eek:

It should be against the rules, if it is not, to make false accusations. Yes, the reinvention of identity seems to be an epidemic that is not limited to just members. ;):cool: In case you are not aware, and, unless the rule has been changed, participants in the trial, i.e. witnesses, are fair game while uncivil and rude comments to members are not. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

William, you're unable to supply a link on this board where bobaugust called Johnny Cochran a b****** or whatever it is you allege. You're wrong so let it go already.

There is no need to supply a link to a question, which is what you seem to be persistently ignoring in what I suspect is a failed attempt to inflame. ;):cool:

[tv]

There is no need to supply a link to a question, which is what you seem to be persistently ignoring in what I suspect is a failed attempt to inflame. ;):cool:Again, :seeya:

[William Anthony]

You just can't let that hinged-in-the-middle tongue be silent, can you? :rolleyes:

It is better to have a hinged-in-the-middle tongue, rather than the one that escapes the stuck-in-the-behind tongue, as with MF or one that flares out uncontrollably making false accusations, imho. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

Again, :seeya:

Promises, promises, promises.;):cool:

[Kate Sachel]

Promises, promises, promises.;):cool:

Whether you were accusing or asking, what was your point in even bringing that nonsense to this board? Or for that matter telling us that you mailed the link to martin? I can think of only several reasons and none of those reasons paint your character in a very decent light.

Does anyone on this forum need to know whether or not another individual referred to a deceased lawyer by a not so pretty word at some point in time? Why was that important enough that you felt you had to post it publicly to us? Could you not have asked it privately of bobaugust if you so felt the desire to know? Could you not have sent a message privately to bobaugust regarding the issue of privacy in regard to photos of Nicole Brown?

In my own opinion, no you could not do any of those things because for some reason you wanted to attempt to cast a shadow on the character of another poster. I do find it interesting however that there are so many things you condemn bobaugust for while seemingly choosing to skip and swing your way over all of the utterly distasteful, disgusting, and sickening things that your fellow poster martin has brought to this public forum. He, apparently, gets a pass. Is that because he agrees with you on everything?

Kate

[William Anthony]

Whether you were accusing or asking, what was your point in even bringing that nonsense to this board? Or for that matter telling us that you mailed the link to martin? I can think of only several reasons and none of those reasons paint your character in a very decent light.

Does anyone on this forum need to know whether or not another individual referred to a deceased lawyer by a not so pretty word at some point in time? Why was that important enough that you felt you had to post it publicly to us? Could you not have asked it privately of bobaugust if you so felt the desire to know? Could you not have sent a message privately to bobaugust regarding the issue of privacy in regard to photos of Nicole Brown?

In my own opinion, no you could not do any of those things because for some reason you wanted to attempt to cast a shadow on the character of another poster. I do find it interesting however that there are so many things you condemn bobaugust for while seemingly choosing to skip and swing your way over all of the utterly distasteful, disgusting, and sickening things that your fellow poster martin has brought to this public forum. He, apparently, gets a pass. Is that because he agrees with you on everything?

Kate

Allow me to first address what I feel is the most germane part of your post. I have no desire to speak to bobaugust privately and only speak to him publicly because of the content of his erroneous posts and because they are posted as if they were facts instead of his opinion. I will continue to inform the community of his numerous false posts and claims to know the facts in a public manner. I feel that any private conversation I had with bobagust would serve no useful purpose. Please, respect those feelings?

Why would I want to send something privately to bobaugust when he speaks so loudly and clearly on this forum. I think he and the community should be informed of the potential liabilities that could occur from posting things on their websites and then telling posters to visit their websites. I did it in an effort to raise community awareness. I thought I explained that, although I have repeatedly (perhaps, over a hundred times) stated that I did not hate anyone bobaugust stated my hatred blinded me in regard to my descriptions of MF. He made his statement not as an opinion but as a fact. I then thought it only fair that I should ask him if he ever made that remark. He did not send his message to me privately and I thought that he desired to participate in a public discussion.

I do not give anyone a pass, irrespective of their point of view. Since I became a member, I have seen many things posted on this forum that, if they are not blatantly racially discriminatory they are at least covertly so. As you are aware I have spoken out on various things that I find totally unacceptable, regardless of the affiliation of the person making the posting. I have been most vocal over racist comments, disrespect and victim bashing. You have also said that we have all said things in the heat of passion that should not have been said and admitted that you reacted inappropriately to one of Martin's posts. Martin has been the victim of some of those comments and attacks and they did not start with him if I remember correctly as of the time when I became a member. One of the most recent ones was the use of ha ha ha. I am not defending martin but I am saying that I made myself clear on the issue of victim bashing. I have said that it is a poor dog that will not wag its own tail.

As I do everyone, I respect your opinion even If I consider it erroneous. As I have also said, there is no need for me to cast aspersions on bobaugust's character as his posts speak glaringly as to his character. All any poster needs to do, if interested, is to search his posts and form their own opinion as to his character and likewise for martin, you and me. You of all people should know that I do not cast aspersions on people's character, because they disagree with me or agree with me, and have given respect to those, who disagree with me respectfully, civilly and conduct themselves in an honest manner. That will not change.

[Redmama]

Whether you were accusing or asking, what was your point in even bringing that nonsense to this board? Or for that matter telling us that you mailed the link to martin? I can think of only several reasons and none of those reasons paint your character in a very decent light.

Does anyone on this forum need to know whether or not another individual referred to a deceased lawyer by a not so pretty word at some point in time? Why was that important enough that you felt you had to post it publicly to us? Could you not have asked it privately of bobaugust if you so felt the desire to know? Could you not have sent a message privately to bobaugust regarding the issue of privacy in regard to photos of Nicole Brown?

In my own opinion, no you could not do any of those things because for some reason you wanted to attempt to cast a shadow on the character of another poster. I do find it interesting however that there are so many things you condemn bobaugust for while seemingly choosing to skip and swing your way over all of the utterly distasteful, disgusting, and sickening things that your fellow poster martin has brought to this public forum. He, apparently, gets a pass. Is that because he agrees with you on everything?

Kate

I’m assuming the question was rhetorical, but, I agree, no one needs to know whether a poster used a reference such as what Bob was accused of. I don’t know if he did, but I can tell you that when he said he did not, I believed him. I believe that because of the opinion I have formed of him after reading his posts for over a year. He is very knowledgeable and puts the facts forward in a way that is very understandable and has the proof to back it up. He also keeps his cool at times when I have to admit I would totally lose it.

Somewhere a while back I read that the character of a person comes out in his/her posts. I think the last couple of days is more than proof that this is definitely true.

Redmama

[William Anthony]

I’m assuming the question was rhetorical, but, I agree, no one needs to know whether a poster used a reference such as what Bob was accused of. I don’t know if he did, but I can tell you that when he said he did not, I believed him. I believe that because of the opinion I have formed of him after reading his posts for over a year. He is very knowledgeable and puts the facts forward in a way that is very understandable and has the proof to back it up. He also keeps his cool at times when I have to admit I would totally lose it.

Somewhere a while back I read that the character of a person comes out in his/her posts. I think the last couple of days is more than proof that this is definitely true.

Redmama

No one needs to be accused of hatred after they denied it perhaps a hundred times. No one needs to be disrespected. No one needs to be told that the words they choose to describe a person, as supported by the evidence, shows their hatred of that person. No one needs to be falsely accused, which is why I did not accuse but asked bobaugust a question. I hope that you agree with those sentiments.

Some will believe a person even after the person is shown to be wrong. That is sad but true. He claims to be knowledgeable but, as I have shown, many many of his posts contain false knowledge. If your opinion is that keeping one' cool is telling a poster that disagrees with you that you have no respect for them and, if I might add, a poster that has proven you wrong, then I respect you opinion, even if I consider it erroneous. I think that you should do some research before you make comments about character. I am sure you saw the three false statements that I proved bobaugust wrong on in his first post back from his hiatus and his spell checker claim that you somehow agree with and I am not sure that you know he repeatedly posted as fact that the civil verdict meant that the jury found Simpson liable for killing Ron and Nicole. Again, I respect your opinion even though I consider it erroneous and I would like to add that I reserve the right to change my opinion of anyone. ;):cool:

[martin II]

actually, if someone is bringing posts to this board from another board, it's against the rules. :no: but then we know that there are those that have no respect for the rules sooooooooooooo. . . . .

and goodness knows we have some folks on this board :eek: -- and other boards -- that are forced to reinvent themselves periodically because of their disrespect for the rules.

I have found bobaugust to be both civil and kowledgeable. That may be what others find objectionable about him -- he doesn't sink to the lower level. :D

I think posting pms one received from a poster to the board is also against the rules.Right weezer?

[bobaugust]

I have already posted it and it is now up to you to do the math as I informed you. ;):cool:

Saying you previously posted something does not support your claim. Your refusals to post from the article the portion you are referring to only shows that you can’t support your claim. The article “Determining EDTA in Blood” never said that EDTA in preserved blood was in 2 parts per million or in parts per billion.

http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/ac/97/aug/det.html

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Your post,

"Martz didn’t come to any wrong conclusion, you did. Your interpretation of what you think Martz said is wrong and your claim and math based on your interpretation that one part per billion is equal to 1000 parts per million is incorrect and false."

As I said you disagree with Dr. R and Terry Lee. To save you embarrassment over what you don't understand is that I was referring to that portion of Martz's testimony where he testifies, now that we have established. That portion was in regard to EDTA being present in the part per million range in human blood that was not preserved. ;):cool:

We were discussing Martz’s testimony regarding the EPA study. That is what my response was referring to.

As to your claim that I disagree with Dr. Rieders and Dr. Lee; I do not disagree with anything Dr. Lee testified to but I do disagree with some of Dr. Rieders opinions.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

With all due respect, you are talking about the amount in a lavender or, if you will, a purple top test tube and not the amount that it takes to preserve blood.;):cool: Just because you claim to understand something, doesn't mean you do. ;):cool:

No, I am talking about your false claim William regarding the concentration of EDTA in preserved blood.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I am referring back to his notes and the fact that his first thought was that the blood was planted. However, he was hired by the plaintiffs, so he dismissed his first thought, writing in his notes, if not planted, Martz's results become problematic and a convincing argument must be made. The convincing argument must be to show that the blood was not planted. The only one he convinced with that argument of the ghost did it was you, imho.

The issue is the defense claimed that the two evidence stains were planted from the reference samples. Both Martz and Dr. Lee’s opinions that the evidence stains did not come from the reference samples were based on the fact that no EDTA was indicated in the evidence samples in the first two tests Martz conducted. And on the fact that in the third test the trace amount levels of EDTA found in the evidence stains and Martz’s own non-preserved blood were significantly lower compared to the levels in the reference samples. Other evidence later confirmed their opinions by conclusively proving the defense blood planting theories false.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

bobaugust,

I have done some further research and cannot find the link that linked your nic to the comment. I did find a link linking a comment to another nic. However, in my research I was surprised to find your nic and website mentioned in a Supreme Court brief on a claim of invasion of privacy as it relates to the pictures of Ms. Nicole. I am not certain as to whether or not you are aware of this but, if you aren't you may want to reconsider what you disseminate via the internet. Here is the later link. To be fore warned is to be fore armed.

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-954/02-954.mer.pet.html

If you have not made the other comment, I stand corrected but it was linked to your nic, which is why I asked the question.

My web site has been on the internet since February 1997. There are many sites I have reciprocal agreements with for links but I don’t doubt there may be other sites I am unaware of that also provide links to it. Thanks for your suggestion but I’m not concerned about any of the content or photographs shown on my web site. I never referred to Cochran by that name.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

1. If you truly believe that Martz is telling the truth, then even you must agree that he never should have conducted even 1 test in this area let alone three. It is beyond obvious he was either way, way out of his league or he knew enough about the subject and knew what it would do to the DA's case and used the "clear as mud" style of testifying. It is either one or the other.

2. What was the compound that caused the contamination of the equipment?
If you do not know what the compound then you can't rely on Martz's testimony or results. With out knowing the compound, you don't know if the make up of this compound would automatically skew the test.

3. If it was the contamination that caused the false positive or whatever it was, why didn't he clean the equipment and do the test again?

4. You can't pick and chose when it comes to photographs in regards to the evidence.

5. You can't use your degraded blood evidence when you have no proof how the degration occured. When did the DA's prove when and how the blood degraded. Yes, I believe they did blame the broken AC unit in the truck, however, what experiments did they conduct to in fact prove this was the only way this could have happened? They couldn't conduct any experiments for the simple reason that if one sample was degraded from the broken AC unit, then all of them would be rendered basically useless.

IMO, of course!

BTW, Martz did not use the test he was supposed to use for it--hence rendering his results useless. Dr. Lee's review and testimony on what Martz's did or didn't do means zippo. However, had Dr. Lee conducted the test that should have been done and compared them to Martz's, then I would value his testimony.

Had Dr. Lee done the exact same tests that Martz's did and compared his results to Martz's, again that might have added to the creditabilty of his testimony. Had Dr. Lee run the tests using the exact contamination that Martz's had and then ran the same test with "clean" equipment, again, the value of his testimony rises.

However, Dr. Lee's testimony based on Martz's results mean even less then when Dr. L was called to the stand rather then Dr. Golden (is that his name). Neither man witness the autopsy or the test being conducted so how valuable is their testimony when it is soley based on their collegues screw ups?

Limakey, no I don’t agree that Martz should not have conducted tests on the evidence stains. Based on the defense blood planting theories someone had to conduct a test on them. The fact is that in the first two tests Martz conducted on the two evidence stains there was no indication of EDTA in either of the stains and Martz concluded that neither of those stains came from preserved blood. Martz could have simply stopped then but he decided to conduct another test to distinguish between preserved blood and non-preserved blood that had aged for several months. After taking a sample of his own non-preserved blood, he aged it and then ran a third test. Unfortunately during that test he was unaware that by running the references samples through the instrument first he unknowing left a small contamination in the instruments that subsequently showed up as a small trace of EDTA in the evidence samples and his own non-preserved blood sample. It wasn’t until Martz was reviewing the documented test results not long before he testified that he saw the small indication of what could be EDTA. Even though Martz did not have an answer for why that small trace amount was there, although he suspected that it might have been from an artifact in the instrument, he was still able to conclude based on the fact that the small trace amount of EDTA was significantly lower than the levels of EDTA in the reference samples that the evidence samples did not come from preserved blood. Over a year and a half later in the civil trial Dr. Lee, an experienced research scientist who was very familiar with the three tests Martz conducted and the instruments Martz used testified that was not an uncommon problem with that instrument. Something that Martz was not aware of at the time. After reviewing all the data and prior testimony Dr. Lee concluded that the evidence stains did not come from the reference samples.

A crime scene photograph taken the morning after the murders was entered into evidence in the criminal trial When that photograph was enlarged it clearly showed one of the blood drops on the rear gate at Bundy that was later identified as Simpson’s blood. That photograph proved the defense gate blood theory false that Simpson’s blood was later planted on the rear gate from Simpson’s reference sample.

In the civil trial Dr. Cotton testified that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock had virtually little or no degradation compared to her degraded autopsy sample. That fact made it impossible for Nicole’s blood to have been planted on Simpson’s sock from her autopsy sample proving the defense sock planting theory false.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Dr. Lee's testimony means nothing. I will use a very simple example on why this is so.

When a person is very ill, many times this person is told, even by own their own doctors to get a second opinon. Very reasonable and understandable, right? So this person goes to another doctor, with my so far? How much value could this second opinion have when the doctor bases his diagonis (sp?) on the first doctor's tests and results. That makes no sense--especially if the doctor didn't even know how the first tests and results were interpeted.

In regards to a second glove at Bundy. The uniform police are not responsible for looking for evidence, in fact, they are not even suppose to go near the bodies because of the contamination factors. Riske only approached Goldman because he had to see if Ron was alive or dead. Yes, they may report evidence that they see upon arrival or in plain view, but actually looking for evidence--they have to wait for the detectives.

Another point that you have tried to make that just doesn't make sense. The claim that Fuhrman was never alone and he had no opportunity. Well, if all these detectives and cops were paying more attention watching Fuhrman, then isn't it a fair question on what they did not see because they were watching Fuhrman?

To the best of my knowledge, there was only one person who could have vouched for this theory and that was Fuhrman's partner, Brad Roberts. He never testified. Also, when NG's talk about a second glove at Bundy, that does not mean we have to believe that the second glove would all fall off inside the killing cage.

There was blood drops and coins found by Nicole's jeep--yet we don't know who's blood it was. Also, you have never have explained how all these cops and detectives missed the bloody fingerprint on the gate.

I remember something you posted about the female officer who was investigating the break in of the Bronco. When she testified that she did not see the blood, she said first of all, she was not looking and 2nd of all, it wasn't her job to look for it either--she was there for one reason only.

Well if she did not see or was looking for evidence in such a confined place, why is so hard for you to believe that cops may have missed the second glove - they had a much larger area to look for evidence.

I also find very, very interesting that MF also used this excuse regarding the glove at Rockingham---he was looking for evidence of some one jumping the fence. He was not looking for evidence in regards to seeing foot prints, etc.

This makes no sense at all! According to MF's testimony, when Kato told him about the thumps, he went to where the sound was. He thought it could have been a victim or suspect back there. Are we to believe that Fuhrman was not looking where he was walking. That he is experienced to know that every steps he takes, he may be destroying evidence?

Also, it makes no sense that Fuhrman was not looking for blood evidence because he strongly felt the suspect was bleeding. So how much sense does it make that none of the detectives thought to looking for any blood?

How much sense does it make that no CSI team was ever told to search this area, looking for blood and how important it was because they knew the suspect was bleeding at Bundy?

Last but not least, it makes no sense that the detectives determined that the only blood drops they needed led from the Bronco to the front door? It makes no sense that Simpson was able to avoid detection by the limo driver, yet didn't have the same concerns regarding Kato?

It makes no sense that if Simpson was the killer, he would walk through his own front gate and risk being seen the limo drive---remember, he had no idea that his regular driver was off that night. Dale St. John would have recognized him.

Also, when Simpson entered his front gate and went undetected, does it only make sense that he would have gone right to where the glove was found? And if that is the case, doesn't that explain why blood was not found?

However, with this theory, the thump theory goes down the drain, IMO.

Limakey, Dr. Lee was experienced and knowledgeable regarding the three different tests Martz conducted and the instruments he used to conduct those tests. Dr. Lee reviewed all of the documentation from the tests as well as both Martz’s and Dr. Rieder’s testimony and concluded that based on all the tests Martz conducted that neither of the evidence stains came from the preserved blood reference samples. If anyone was not qualified to express an opinion regarding this it was Dr. Rieders. He didn’t have the experience or the knowledge to even consider the possibility of a contamination in the instrument in the third test Martz conducted or if he did he never brought it up.

The police officers may not have been responsible for looking for evidence but they know what they saw. Both Officer’s Terrazas and Riske saw the evidence under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet and both testified there was a glove and a knit cap under the plant leaves, not two gloves. No one in this case ever testified to seeing a second glove under those plant leaves.

The police didn’t miss the bloody fingerprint, Fung and Mazzola did. They didn’t collect any blood evidence from the rear gate at Bundy when the crime scene was processed. No blood was ever seen on any natural surface, with the exception of the plant leaves near Ron’s body. Not on grass, not on leaves, not on bushes, not on dirt. That doesn’t mean there wasn’t any it just means no one was able to see any.

I agree that it makes no sense that Simpson would risk being heard by opening the Rockingham gate to enter his estate. Based on where Simpson’s blood drops were found on each side of that gate, in the center of the driveway, and how the gate opened and closed from one side proves that Simpson did not enter that locked gate when he returned from Bundy. Simpson had no choice that night but to find another way onto his estate and that way was to scale his fence behind Kaelin’s room. That was where his fence was at its lowest point because of the difference in elevations between Simpson’s property and the Salinger’s property.

bobaugust

[weezer]

I think posting pms one received from a poster to the board is also against the rules.Right weezer?

did he do that too?!!! :eek:

[William Anthony]

Saying you previously posted something does not support your claim. Your refusals to post from the article the portion you are referring to only shows that you can’t support your claim. The article “Determining EDTA in Blood” never said that EDTA in preserved blood was in 2 parts per million or in parts per billion.

http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/ac/97/aug/det.html

bobaugust

Do the math. :)

[William Anthony]

We were discussing Martz’s testimony regarding the EPA study. That is what my response was referring to.

As to your claim that I disagree with Dr. Rieders and Dr. Lee; I do not disagree with anything Dr. Lee testified to but I do disagree with some of Dr. Rieders opinions.

bobaugust

I don't understand are you saying that Martz conclusion that we have established that the amount of EDTA in human blood that was not preserved is off limits in proving you claim wrong that Martz did not come to any wrong conclusions or are you saying your spell checker deleted the portion of your post that Martz didn't come to any wrong conclusions about the EPA report?;):cool:

Either way your post is false, because the statement that he said came from out of nowhere as to the amount of EDTA in human blood that was not preserved was correct and Martz saying it was wrong was his wrong conclusion. ;):cool: