Issues In The Criminal Trial

[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

This is your post which contains no reference to Martz's testimony and the one that I responded to that prompted your above response.

"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"

Then you do not disagree that Martz's results were wrong and that there should have been no detectable EDTA in human blood that was not preserved and that Martz did not know this, as testified to by Terry Lee.;):cool:

[William Anthony]

No, I am talking about your false claim William regarding the concentration of EDTA in preserved blood.

bobaugust

Do the math. :)

[William Anthony]

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

There must be someone else with the same nic. I think you may have misunderstood. I was not saying that you should be concerned about the content of the photos on your website. I was saying that you should be concerned about the dissemination of those photos, as that might subject you to some liability.

[martin II]

did he do that too?!!! :eek:

Who do you believe did that weezer?

[bobaugust]

Do the math. :)

Do the math on what?

bobaugust

[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:

Martz said, “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.”

Martz was questioning why there would be something in that study regarding how much EDTA would be normally expected in a human. That’s what didn’t make sense to him. That’s what he said was “completely out of context and wrong” Martz was incorrect when he said it was wrong because he didn’t know how much EDTA might be found in human blood. Martz’s conclusion was that it was out of context.

Martz was then asked,
MS. CLARK: Now, if all of the--well, are you aware, sir, of any study that has been conducted to determine what amount of EDTA you could expect to find in any one of us
on a given day?
MR. MARTZ: No, I'm not aware of any study.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

This is your post which contains no reference to Martz's testimony and the one that I responded to that prompted your above response.



Then you do not disagree that Martz's results were wrong and that there should have been no detectable EDTA in human blood that was not preserved and that Martz did not know this, as testified to by Terry Lee.;):cool:

No, Martz’s test results were not wrong, they were what they were. The first two tests results on the evidence stains showed no indication of any EDTA. Later a third test results indicated a small trace amount of EDTA in the evidence stains and in Martz’s own non-preserved blood. A trace amount that was significantly lower than the amount of EDTA in the preserved blood reference samples.

Dr. Lee testified in January 1997 and said at that time, “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.”

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Do the math. :)

It doesn’t matter what kind of math you do, the fact is that it takes a concentration of one thousand to 2000 parts per million of EDTA to preserve blood, not 2 parts per million and not parts per billion.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

There must be someone else with the same nic. I think you may have misunderstood. I was not saying that you should be concerned about the content of the photos on your website. I was saying that you should be concerned about the dissemination of those photos, as that might subject you to some liability.

As I said I’m not concerned about any of the photographs on my web site. My site is certainly not the only one on the internet that shows the Bundy crime scene photos.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Do the math on what?

bobaugust

The statements in the research in the article.

[William Anthony]

Martz said, “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.”

Martz was questioning why there would be something in that study regarding how much EDTA would be normally expected in a human. That’s what didn’t make sense to him. That’s what he said was “completely out of context and wrong” Martz was incorrect when he said it was wrong because he didn’t know how much EDTA might be found in human blood. Martz’s conclusion was that it was out of context.

Martz was then asked,
MS. CLARK: Now, if all of the--well, are you aware, sir, of any study that has been conducted to determine what amount of EDTA you could expect to find in any one of us
on a given day?
MR. MARTZ: No, I'm not aware of any study.

bobaugust

Why are you posting irrelevant testimony? Your statement was that Martz did not reach any wrong conclusion. His testimony was that we have now established that EDTA in human blood is in the part per million range. Science and the so-called expert called by the plainitiffs (Terry Lee), Dr. R. and the EPA report all proved Martz's conclusion wrong. Is it to hard for you to admit that your statement was wrong?

[William Anthony]

No, Martz’s test results were not wrong, they were what they were. The first two tests results on the evidence stains showed no indication of any EDTA. Later a third test results indicated a small trace amount of EDTA in the evidence stains and in Martz’s own non-preserved blood. A trace amount that was significantly lower than the amount of EDTA in the preserved blood reference samples.

Dr. Lee testified in January 1997 and said at that time, “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.”

bobaugust

Do you understand that incorrect means wrong? I see your spell checker is at work again. :) Here is the testimony in context, so that it will not be distorted by an overactive spell checker. :)

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."

This is why I place no credibility on Terry Lee's testimony. You have already admitted that there were studies on how much EDTA was in food and the retention time of EDTA in the human body. The EPA report 's statement that the amount of EDTA in human blood was in the part per billion was in line with those studies. Terry Lee attempted to mislead the jury and may have mislead you. By the evidence, he certainly confused your spell checker into believing it was your old one. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

It doesn’t matter what kind of math you do, the fact is that it takes a concentration of one thousand to 2000 parts per million of EDTA to preserve blood, not 2 parts per million and not parts per billion.

bobaugust

I do rudimentary math that is fundamentally correct. I cannot help if it seems convoluted to you.;):cool:

[William Anthony]

No, Martz’s test results were not wrong, they were what they were.
bobaugust

WTH? ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

As I said I’m not concerned about any of the photographs on my web site. My site is certainly not the only one on the internet that shows the Bundy crime scene photos.

bobaugust

So be it. I did not know that there were two bobaugust's with websites on the Simpson murders. That must be a constant source of stress for you. The only thing I can think of that would be more stressful is getting rid of a spell checker that functioned improperly, getting another and that one wanted to imitate the first. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

bobaugust,

Since you have previously invited people on this forum to visit your website, I will ask you the following. Do the words "CONCLUSION Crime Scene Photographs" appear on your website? We know that you have claimed to have at least one crime scene photograph, i.e. MF pointing at the glove. I have visited the above section of that website and saw a picture of Ms. Nicole's dead body.

[William Anthony]

It is better to have your tongue glued to the roof of you mouth than to let lies role off it.

[weezer]

Who do you believe did that weezer?

I don't have a clue what you are talking about! You asked if it was against the rules to post a PM and I thought you were saying someone had. Geez martin -- I don't think you're very good at this -- IF you want to accuse someone of breaking the rules, do it.

[William Anthony]

I hope all understand the arduousness of trying to tell a poster that their response is inappropriate. It takes a great level of tolerance to respond in a civil fashion wen a poster asks a legitimate question of another poster about the rules and the poster responds in a juvenile fashion asking did "he do that to" and the tries to say that the poster falsely accused the questioning poster of accusing someone and tells the poster that they are no good at something. I hope all understand that it is a poor dog that will not wag its own tail. However, should martin elect to respond in a civil manner to an obviously rude and baiting post, I think it would demonstrate a great level of maturity on his part. Of course, this is all just my opinion.

[William Anthony]

I hope all understand the arduousness of trying to tell a poster that their response is inappropriate. It takes a great level of tolerance to respond in a civil fashion wen a poster asks a legitimate question of another poster about the rules and the poster responds in a juvenile fashion asking did "he do that to" and the tries to say that the poster falsely accused the questioning poster of accusing someone and tells the poster that they are no good at something. I hope all understand that it is a poor dog that will not wag its own tail. However, should martin elect to respond in a civil manner to an obviously rude and baiting post, I think it would demonstrate a great level of maturity on his part. Of course, this is all just my opinion.

Correction-and the poster responds in a juvenile fashion asking "did he do that too"

[bobaugust]

The statements in the research in the article.

Your claim that the article “Determining EDTA in Blood” says there are 2 parts per million or parts per billion in preserved blood is an outright false claim. Your refusal to post from the article the portion that you are referring to proves you know your claim is false.

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

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Why are you posting irrelevant testimony? Your statement was that Martz did not reach any wrong conclusion. His testimony was that we have now established that EDTA in human blood is in the part per million range. Science and the so-called expert called by the plainitiffs (Terry Lee), Dr. R. and the EPA report all proved Martz's conclusion wrong. Is it to hard for you to admit that your statement was wrong?

Hold on lets back up a little bit.

We were having a discussion regarding your incorrect interpretation of what Martz said and what you imagined the EPA told Martz and you said in post #6288,

“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.”

I responded in my post #6298

“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.”

My response was regarding Martz’s conclusion based on what he was told by someone back at the laboratory what the report said and by what the EPA told him the report should have said. I’ve already said I agree that Martz’s beliefs at the time were incorrect as to how much EDTA might be found in a person.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Do you understand that incorrect means wrong? I see your spell checker is at work again. :) Here is the testimony in context, so that it will not be distorted by an overactive spell checker. :)

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."

This is why I place no credibility on Terry Lee's testimony. You have already admitted that there were studies on how much EDTA was in food and the retention time of EDTA in the human body. The EPA report 's statement that the amount of EDTA in human blood was in the part per billion was in line with those studies. Terry Lee attempted to mislead the jury and may have mislead you. By the evidence, he certainly confused your spell checker into believing it was your old one. ;):cool:

I see nothing in Dr. Lee’s testimony that is not credible. The subject of detectable levels of EDTA in a person was evidently not a very clear issue at the time of the criminal trial and the civil trial. Dr. Lee’s opinion regarding this issue had nothing to do with the tests Martz performed and the results that were obtained. The small trace amount of EDTA that was indicated in the third test results could not have been in Simpson, Nicole’s or Martz’s blood when that blood was in their bodies.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I do rudimentary math that is fundamentally correct. I cannot help if it seems convoluted to you.;):cool:

There’s no need to do any math to be able to understand what witnesses testified to or what the article “Determining EDTA in Blood” said regarding how much EDTA is preserved blood.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

So be it. I did not know that there were two bobaugust's with websites on the Simpson murders. That must be a constant source of stress for you. The only thing I can think of that would be more stressful is getting rid of a spell checker that functioned improperly, getting another and that one wanted to imitate the first. ;):cool:

I never said there were two bobaugust’s with websites on the Simpson murders, although I do know there are other people on the internet with the name Bob August.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

bobaugust,

Since you have previously invited people on this forum to visit your website, I will ask you the following. Do the words "CONCLUSION Crime Scene Photographs" appear on your website? We know that you have claimed to have at least one crime scene photograph, i.e. MF pointing at the glove. I have visited the above section of that website and saw a picture of Ms. Nicole's dead body.

I see nothing in Dr. Lee’s testimony that is not credible. The subject of detectable levels of EDTA in a person was evidently not a very clear issue at the time of the criminal trial and the civil trial. Dr. Lee’s opinion regarding this issue had nothing to do with the tests Martz performed and the results that were obtained. The small trace amount of EDTA that was indicated in the third test results could not have been in Simpson, Nicole’s or Martz’s blood when that blood was in their bodies. Now can we drop this please and stay on the thread topic.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Your claim that the article “Determining EDTA in Blood” says there are 2 parts per million or parts per billion in preserved blood is an outright false claim. Your refusal to post from the article the portion that you are referring to proves you know your claim is false.

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

bobaugust

Let me see if I am able to simplify this for you. If I say that I saw the men, Tom, Dick, Harry and Bob go to the store. I have said that I saw four men go to the store. I did not say that the article specifically stated that there were 2 parts per billion in preserved blood. I said the article said there was and told you how to understand what the article said when I repeatedly instructed you to do the math. Just because you do not understand something, does not make it false.;):cool:

[William Anthony]

Hold on lets back up a little bit.

We were having a discussion regarding your incorrect interpretation of what Martz said and what you imagined the EPA told Martz and you said in post #6288,

“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.”

I responded in my post #6298

“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.”

My response was regarding Martz’s conclusion based on what he was told by someone back at the laboratory what the report said and by what the EPA told him the report should have said. I’ve already said I agree that Martz’s beliefs at the time were incorrect as to how much EDTA might be found in a person.

bobaugust

I understand what you limited your response to because you did not understand what was said (pun intended). That seems to be something you and Martz have in common, imho. Lets look at what I said in the relevant part, “I can only say that Martz's alleged further research lead him to the wrong conclusion..." I think it is pretty clear that, after he allegedly did his further research he concluded that the statement in the EPA report about how much blood was in human blood that had not been preserved was wrong, which we know Martz was wrong with that conclusion. I think it is pretty clear that, after he did his research, he concluded that he had established that the amount of EDTA in human blood that was not preserved was in the part per million range, which Terry Lee, Dr. R. and the new scientific research all contradict. Your statement that Martz did not reach any wrong conclusion is false as is your statement that you do not disagree with anything Terry Lee said. If you also claim to have disagreed previously that Martz's conclusion was wrong as to how much EDTA was found in human blood that was not preserved, how can you justify saying Martz did not reach any wrong conclusion. WTH? ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

I see nothing in Dr. Lee’s testimony that is not credible. The subject of detectable levels of EDTA in a person was evidently not a very clear issue at the time of the criminal trial and the civil trial. Dr. Lee’s opinion regarding this issue had nothing to do with the tests Martz performed and the results that were obtained. The small trace amount of EDTA that was indicated in the third test results could not have been in Simpson, Nicole’s or Martz’s blood when that blood was in their bodies.

bobaugust

WTh? Did you not read this portion, "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."?

This had to directly do with the tests Martz conducted on his own blood and the alleged results he obtained.

That was not Terry Lee's testimony that it was not clear. Did you not read this portion, 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."

His testimony was that no one knew. The EPA obviously did and there were studies on how much EDTA was in food and the retention time. He was obviously trying to rehabilitate Martz and exaggerated his testimony. It would have been more credible, if he had just said, "No. There's no way I could have known."

I think we have reached an agreement in that the amount of EDTA had to be added by your statement, "...amount of EDTA that was indicated in the third test results could not have been in Simpson, Nicole’s or Martz’s blood when that blood was in their bodies." Eureka, I think you are getting it. ;):cool: However, I anticipate your argument base on the statements of the less than credible Terry Lee that the ghost did it, smile.

[William Anthony]

There’s no need to do any math to be able to understand what witnesses testified to or what the article “Determining EDTA in Blood” said regarding how much EDTA is preserved blood.

bobaugust

If you truly want to understand something, you must be able to analyze what is said. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

I never said there were two bobaugust’s with websites on the Simpson murders, although I do know there are other people on the internet with the name Bob August.

bobaugust

The link to the brief filed in the Supreme Court posted bobaugust not Bob August and gave the link to the website, concerning invasion of privacy. I did not say you said there were two bobaugusts. You denied that you had any crime scene photos on your website. I find it odd that, since you are now saying that there are not two bobaugusts with websites on the Simpson murders that a lawyer, who submitted a brief to the Supreme Court, would place in said brief a false claim about the contents of your website. Since it is a matter of public record, you may contemplate pursuing a legal claim of slander against the law firm. However, you will have to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the lawyers knew the information they posted was false and I do not know why they would choose you to slander, unless they knew who you were or just did not like what you have been doing. There have been many posts about the idea that MF would not plant evidence in the Simpson case, because of what he stood to loose. Can you think of any reason a lawyer would slander you, considering what he/she had to loose? ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

I see nothing in Dr. Lee’s testimony that is not credible. The subject of detectable levels of EDTA in a person was evidently not a very clear issue at the time of the criminal trial and the civil trial. Dr. Lee’s opinion regarding this issue had nothing to do with the tests Martz performed and the results that were obtained. The small trace amount of EDTA that was indicated in the third test results could not have been in Simpson, Nicole’s or Martz’s blood when that blood was in their bodies. Now can we drop this please and stay on the thread topic.

bobaugust

That was an issue in the trial. Why bobaugust, did you ask me, who you have said you have no respect for, to please drop something? You have said that you have no crime scenes photos on your website and the crime scene photos are an issue in the trial. I simply asked were those words, "CONCLUSION Crime Scene Photographs on your website on the possible chance that you may be able to share with the community, if an issue should be discussed concerning one of the photos, a photo as you did with the photo of the crime scene,which you said was from your website, IIRC, showing MF pointing at the glove. I thank you for putting forth such a respectful request. I hope that you understand that any information I asked about was in regard to being of service to the community on a possible source for information and not to discomfort you. If I have brought you any discomfort, I hope that all my children are born naked.;):cool: I reckon (pun fully intended) that we have reached a point that the community can decide for themselves if you will be able to assist them with any of their potential requests. Wink Cool. I truly appreciate your fervor, even if I consider it erroneously placed and I would not argue so vehemently if you place things in your opinion, as opposed to stating them as facts. Wink Cool.

[William Anthony]

Hold on lets back up a little bit.

bobaugust

Why bobaugst,

I do not back up unless I have been punched very very very hard. I once punched a man so hard that he starved to death stumbling. :) I still have that ocean front property for sale in Nevada. Perhaps, you can back up all the way there and take a look at it, or perhaps, you may want to back up to the point that you made the remark that you have no respect for me and reconsider that statement. I know that I would not for the sake of notoriety insensitively post pictures of the dead or make comments about the dead, such as a death had been vindicated, when I knew it had not. However, I realize that others do not share my character value barometer and I am not trying to enforce my barometer on them. I am certain that my barometer would not allow me to deny doing something that I had done like that but I would immediately apologize for my callousness. A judgment of character is like any other judgment-it can be poor and biased. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

I understand what you limited your response to because you did not understand what was said (pun intended). That seems to be something you and Martz have in common, imho. Lets look at what I said in the relevant part, “I can only say that Martz's alleged further research lead him to the wrong conclusion..." I think it is pretty clear that, after he allegedly did his further research he concluded that the statement in the EPA report about how much blood was in human blood that had not been preserved was wrong, which we know Martz was wrong with that conclusion. I think it is pretty clear that, after he did his research, he concluded that he had established that the amount of EDTA in human blood that was not preserved was in the part per million range, which Terry Lee, Dr. R. and the new scientific research all contradict. Your statement that Martz did not reach any wrong conclusion is false as is your statement that you do not disagree with anything Terry Lee said. If you also claim to have disagreed previously that Martz's conclusion was wrong as to how much EDTA was found in human blood that was not preserved, how can you justify saying Martz did not reach any wrong conclusion. WTH? ;):cool:

Corrections-for clarity-I understand what you limited your response to, because you did not understand what was said (pun intended). That seems to be something you and Martz have in common, imho. Lets look at what I said in the relevant part, “I can only say that Martz's alleged further research lead him to the wrong conclusion..." I think it is pretty clear that, after he allegedly did his further research he concluded that the statement in the EPA report about how much blood was in human blood that had not been preserved was wrong, which we know Martz was wrong with that conclusion. I think it is pretty clear that, after he did his research, he concluded that he had established that the amount of EDTA in human blood that was not preserved was in the part per million range, which Terry Lee, Dr. R. and the new scientific research all contradict. Your statement that Martz did not reach any wrong conclusion is false as is your statement that you do not disagree with anything Terry Lee said. If you also claim to have agreed previously that Martz's conclusion was wrong as to how much EDTA was found in human blood that was not preserved, how can you justify saying Martz did not reach any wrong conclusion. WTH? ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

Your claim that the article “Determining EDTA in Blood” says there are 2 parts per million or parts per billion in preserved blood is an outright false claim. Your refusal to post from the article the portion that you are referring to proves you know your claim is false.

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

bobaugust

Let me help you out. This is what the article said in the relevant part.

"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."

15ng/mL corresponds to planting. Here is another converting ng/mL to parts per billion. I was unable to copy and paste the table containing it.

http://www.lcresources.com/resources/getstart/4b01.htm

"1 mg / L = 1 ng / mL = 1 pg / mL = 1 ppb"

If 15ng/mL or 15 parts per billion indicate planting by adding the preservative, the assuredly 2000 parts per million or, if you will, 2 parts per million, which is 2000/15 or 400/3 or 133.33 times as much as need to indicate planting is enough to preserve it, which would roughly be 266.66 times the detectable amount of EDTA found in human blood that was not preserved (7.3ng/mL). I am sure you can see the common sense and logic in this. Let me anticipate your argument and remind you that the 1300 ppm as stated in the article only said that EDTA was present in that amount and that was the typical concentration, not that it was what was required to preserve blood. That amount is found in test tubes, which are used to preserve blood for long lengths of time. Using logic and common sense, the amount of EDTA that would be added to preserve blood for a shorter length of time would be less, as evidenced by Martz's testimony that he let his blood sit for 5 days before he tested it and it had barely started to coagulate, IIRC. Let us not forget, that his blood was collected in a red top test tube and that he said there was no EDTA in that test tube. Using common sense, how did his blood not fully coagulate in a 5 day period?

[William Anthony]

"MR. BLASIER: When you put this blood in a red top tube and let it sit for several days, where did it sit?

MR. MARTZ: In the refrigerator at work.

MR. BLASIER: And was it still blood when you got it out several days later?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: How long does it take blood to coagulate unpreserved?

MR. MARTZ: Oh, I think about 5 minutes.

MR. BLASIER: Did this blood coagulate at all?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: So it had been coagulating for five days?

MR. MARTZ: It was a couple days, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And sitting in the red top tube for five days?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Have any indication that the blood that was used on these stains was clotted blood?

MR. MARTZ: No.

MR. BLASIER: One of the compound--one of the things that EDTA is used in is rubber, correct?

MR. MARTZ: I don't know that specifically, but I wouldn't--I would assume that it could be.

MR. BLASIER: What's the stopper made out of on the red top tube that you had the blood in for several days?

MR. MARTZ: Uh, I don't know to be perfectly honest with you.

MR. BLASIER: Does it look like rubber?

MR. MARTZ: It's either a rubber or synthetic rubber.

MR. BLASIER: Is the inside of a red top tube coated with anything?

MR. MARTZ: Uh, the red test tubes that were used had a chemical in them. I don't know what it was.

MR. BLASIER: Silicon?

MR. MARTZ: I don't know.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know whether there's EDTA in silicon on the insides of blood tubes?

MR. MARTZ: Uh, no, I do not.

MR. BLASIER: Did you ever do any studies by putting plain water in a red top tube, letting it sit for several days and testing to see whether it had any EDTA in it?

MR. MARTZ: No, I did not.

MR. BLASIER: So is it fair to say that you do not know the answer to the question of whether or not the EDTA or what looked like EDTA that you found in your blood came from the tube itself?

MR. MARTZ: Uh, I don't know that EDTA has ever been used in anything other than the purple top tube. Other than that, I don't have any information.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. I'm not talking about EDTA as a preservative in a liquid form in the tube. I'm talking about the tube itself containing materials that have EDTA. Did you do any research at all to determine whether or not what you found in the blood came from the tube rather than you?

MR. MARTZ: No.

MR. BLASIER: Now, when you went back this weekend, you ran that sample again, didn't you?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I did.

MR. BLASIER: And it had been sitting in--at that point, sitting in the red top tube for how long?

MR. MARTZ: Well, since May, and then I analyzed it in July.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

MR. MARTZ: May--

MR. BLASIER: Was your purpose in running it again to determine whether you really had EDTA in your blood or not?

MR. MARTZ: No. It was just to show the stability of EDTA over time."

This testimony, according to Martz, meant that there was EDTA in his system in the 2 part per million range and it preserved his blood for months and he was not dead at the time he ran his tests. ;):cool: Given the half life retention time of EDTA in human blood and the excretion factor for EDTA and the fact that all EDTA is not absorbed into the human system, it indicates that at sometime relatively close to the time that he had his blood tested, he had 2000 parts per million in his system, wink cool smile.

[bobaugust]

I understand what you limited your response to because you did not understand what was said (pun intended). That seems to be something you and Martz have in common, imho. Lets look at what I said in the relevant part, “I can only say that Martz's alleged further research lead him to the wrong conclusion..." I think it is pretty clear that, after he allegedly did his further research he concluded that the statement in the EPA report about how much blood was in human blood that had not been preserved was wrong, which we know Martz was wrong with that conclusion. I think it is pretty clear that, after he did his research, he concluded that he had established that the amount of EDTA in human blood that was not preserved was in the part per million range, which Terry Lee, Dr. R. and the new scientific research all contradict. Your statement that Martz did not reach any wrong conclusion is false as is your statement that you do not disagree with anything Terry Lee said. If you also claim to have disagreed previously that Martz's conclusion was wrong as to how much EDTA was found in human blood that was not preserved, how can you justify saying Martz did not reach any wrong conclusion. WTH? ;):cool:

I explained to you that when I said Martz didn’t reach a wrong conclusion in my post #6298 I was referring to his conclusion that the report said 1000 parts per million as the lab and EPA told him. Martz’s also didn’t reach a wrong conclusion regarding his further research finding that 1000 parts per million was based on some studies to determine how much EDTA was needed to preserve blood.

Martz did reach the wrong conclusion of how much EDTA might be found in a human before he even testified in the criminal case.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

WTh? Did you not read this portion, "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."?

This had to directly do with the tests Martz conducted on his own blood and the alleged results he obtained.

That was not Terry Lee's testimony that it was not clear. Did you not read this portion, 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."

His testimony was that no one knew. The EPA obviously did and there were studies on how much EDTA was in food and the retention time. He was obviously trying to rehabilitate Martz and exaggerated his testimony. It would have been more credible, if he had just said, "No. There's no way I could have known."

I think we have reached an agreement in that the amount of EDTA had to be added by your statement, "...amount of EDTA that was indicated in the third test results could not have been in Simpson, Nicole’s or Martz’s blood when that blood was in their bodies." Eureka, I think you are getting it. ;):cool: However, I anticipate your argument base on the statements of the less than credible Terry Lee that the ghost did it, smile.

Let’s look at this testimony again. January 16, 1997 Dr. Lee

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.


Dr. Lee was correct; Martz 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.

Baker continued,
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.

Dr. Lee testified as to what his knowledge was at that time concerning detectable levels of EDTA in human blood. Previously in the criminal trial Dr. Rieders referred to some studies and the EPA report but we don’t know how those studies or the EPA arrived at the conclusion that human blood had levels of EDTA in parts per billion. Concluding that there is EDTA in human blood and actually being able to detect EDTA in human blood seems to me to be two different things.


The article “Determining EDTA in Blood” published August 1, 1997 said,
“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.”

“EDTA is also used extensively as a food preservative, a water-softening agent, and to deliver trace minerals in animal feeds (6). Despite its ubiquitous presence, metabolism studies have shown that little, if any, EDTA should be present in human blood. In 1954, a metabolism study using 14C4-labeled calcium-EDTA given intravenously showed that EDTA was detectable in the plasma but not in the blood cells (7). On average, 95% of an oral dose was recovered in the urine and feces within three days of administration with no EDTA detected in the plasma, and the remaining 5% was detected in the urine within 18 h. More recent metabolism studies using the NaFe(III)-EDTA complex report that it dissociates during digestion and confirm that only about 5% of the EDTA is absorbed and excreted in urine (8).”

“Although there are numerous published methods for determining EDTA in various matrices such as mayonnaise (9), wastewater (10), and ophthalmic solutions (11), our lab and one other group have recently attempted to develop improved methods that could be used for the forensic measurement of EDTA in biological matrices (12, 13)”

“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.”

I’m surprised that it wasn’t until my last post William that you finally realized what I have been telling you all along is that the small trace amount of EDTA indicated in the third test was a thousand times more than what would be found in a person and a thousand times less than what was found in the reference samples. Since you understand that you should be able to understand that the extremely small amount of EDTA that might be found in a person, parts per billion, is too small a concentration of EDTA to preserve blood.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

If you truly want to understand something, you must be able to analyze what is said. ;):cool:

Some things are said that are very clear without needing to analyze them. When you use math to come to a preconceived false conclusion your math is incorrect, When you claim an article says something yet you refuse to post what the article says your claim has no credibility.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The link to the brief filed in the Supreme Court posted bobaugust not Bob August and gave the link to the website, concerning invasion of privacy. I did not say you said there were two bobaugusts. You denied that you had any crime scene photos on your website. I find it odd that, since you are now saying that there are not two bobaugusts with websites on the Simpson murders that a lawyer, who submitted a brief to the Supreme Court, would place in said brief a false claim about the contents of your website. Since it is a matter of public record, you may contemplate pursuing a legal claim of slander against the law firm. However, you will have to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the lawyers knew the information they posted was false and I do not know why they would choose you to slander, unless they knew who you were or just did not like what you have been doing. There have been many posts about the idea that MF would not plant evidence in the Simpson case, because of what he stood to loose. Can you think of any reason a lawyer would slander you, considering what he/she had to loose? ;):cool:

I was under the impression you found a link to something where I called Cochran a name and you sent that link to martin, but now you are unable to find that link and evidently martin doesn’t have it ether. Is that correct? Now you are saying there is a link to a brief filed in the Supreme Court (state or U.S.?) that mentioned the name bobaugust. Do you the still have the link to that brief? If you do post it please.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

That was an issue in the trial. Why bobaugust, did you ask me, who you have said you have no respect for, to please drop something? You have said that you have no crime scenes photos on your website and the crime scene photos are an issue in the trial. I simply asked were those words, "CONCLUSION Crime Scene Photographs on your website on the possible chance that you may be able to share with the community, if an issue should be discussed concerning one of the photos, a photo as you did with the photo of the crime scene,which you said was from your website, IIRC, showing MF pointing at the glove. I thank you for putting forth such a respectful request. I hope that you understand that any information I asked about was in regard to being of service to the community on a possible source for information and not to discomfort you. If I have brought you any discomfort, I hope that all my children are born naked.;):cool: I reckon (pun fully intended) that we have reached a point that the community can decide for themselves if you will be able to assist them with any of their potential requests. Wink Cool. I truly appreciate your fervor, even if I consider it erroneously placed and I would not argue so vehemently if you place things in your opinion, as opposed to stating them as facts. Wink Cool.

Wow. My mistake. I guess I was getting tired and didn’t realize I had added the last line onto a previous post I made and then posted that instead of the post I wrote answering your question.

I never said I didn’t have any crime photos on my website (At least I hope I didn’t.) I said that the photograph of Mark Fuhrman pointing to the glove is not on my website. I simply posted that photo on the internet during the discussions of the knit cap and glove. Yes, my home page has a link to a page called “Conclusions” and in smaller type says, “Crime Scene Photographs.” On the conclusion page there is a link to another page entitled “Crime Scene Photographs Warning” On the page “Photographs” it says “Warning…Murder Scene Photographs” and then there are links to photographs of Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman, and OJ Simpson.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Let me help you out. This is what the article said in the relevant part.

"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."

15ng/mL corresponds to planting. Here is another converting ng/mL to parts per billion. I was unable to copy and paste the table containing it.

http://www.lcresources.com/resources/getstart/4b01.htm

"1 mg / L = 1 ng / mL = 1 pg / mL = 1 ppb"

If 15ng/mL or 15 parts per billion indicate planting by adding the preservative, the assuredly 2000 parts per million or, if you will, 2 parts per million, which is 2000/15 or 400/3 or 133.33 times as much as need to indicate planting is enough to preserve it, which would roughly be 266.66 times the detectable amount of EDTA found in human blood that was not preserved (7.3ng/mL). I am sure you can see the common sense and logic in this. Let me anticipate your argument and remind you that the 1300 ppm as stated in the article only said that EDTA was present in that amount and that was the typical concentration, not that it was what was required to preserve blood. That amount is found in test tubes, which are used to preserve blood for long lengths of time. Using logic and common sense, the amount of EDTA that would be added to preserve blood for a shorter length of time would be less, as evidenced by Martz's testimony that he let his blood sit for 5 days before he tested it and it had barely started to coagulate, IIRC. Let us not forget, that his blood was collected in a red top test tube and that he said there was no EDTA in that test tube. Using common sense, how did his blood not fully coagulate in a 5 day period?

I see now why you didn’t want to post this.

15ng/mL does not correspond to planting and has nothing to do with how much EDTA is in preserved blood.

15 ng/mL is the LLQ (lower level of quantification) of the detection limit of the new method and capable of detecting EDTA in an amount of EDTA-preserved blood that is so small that it would be physically difficult to manipulate.

“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).”

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

"MR. BLASIER: When you put this blood in a red top tube and let it sit for several days, where did it sit?

MR. MARTZ: In the refrigerator at work.

MR. BLASIER: And was it still blood when you got it out several days later?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: How long does it take blood to coagulate unpreserved?

MR. MARTZ: Oh, I think about 5 minutes.

MR. BLASIER: Did this blood coagulate at all?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: So it had been coagulating for five days?

MR. MARTZ: It was a couple days, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And sitting in the red top tube for five days?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Have any indication that the blood that was used on these stains was clotted blood?

MR. MARTZ: No.

MR. BLASIER: One of the compound--one of the things that EDTA is used in is rubber, correct?

MR. MARTZ: I don't know that specifically, but I wouldn't--I would assume that it could be.

MR. BLASIER: What's the stopper made out of on the red top tube that you had the blood in for several days?

MR. MARTZ: Uh, I don't know to be perfectly honest with you.

MR. BLASIER: Does it look like rubber?

MR. MARTZ: It's either a rubber or synthetic rubber.

MR. BLASIER: Is the inside of a red top tube coated with anything?

MR. MARTZ: Uh, the red test tubes that were used had a chemical in them. I don't know what it was.

MR. BLASIER: Silicon?

MR. MARTZ: I don't know.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know whether there's EDTA in silicon on the insides of blood tubes?

MR. MARTZ: Uh, no, I do not.

MR. BLASIER: Did you ever do any studies by putting plain water in a red top tube, letting it sit for several days and testing to see whether it had any EDTA in it?

MR. MARTZ: No, I did not.

MR. BLASIER: So is it fair to say that you do not know the answer to the question of whether or not the EDTA or what looked like EDTA that you found in your blood came from the tube itself?

MR. MARTZ: Uh, I don't know that EDTA has ever been used in anything other than the purple top tube. Other than that, I don't have any information.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. I'm not talking about EDTA as a preservative in a liquid form in the tube. I'm talking about the tube itself containing materials that have EDTA. Did you do any research at all to determine whether or not what you found in the blood came from the tube rather than you?

MR. MARTZ: No.

MR. BLASIER: Now, when you went back this weekend, you ran that sample again, didn't you?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I did.

MR. BLASIER: And it had been sitting in--at that point, sitting in the red top tube for how long?

MR. MARTZ: Well, since May, and then I analyzed it in July.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

MR. MARTZ: May--

MR. BLASIER: Was your purpose in running it again to determine whether you really had EDTA in your blood or not?

MR. MARTZ: No. It was just to show the stability of EDTA over time."

This testimony, according to Martz, meant that there was EDTA in his system in the 2 part per million range and it preserved his blood for months and he was not dead at the time he ran his tests. ;):cool: Given the half life retention time of EDTA in human blood and the excretion factor for EDTA and the fact that all EDTA is not absorbed into the human system, it indicates that at sometime relatively close to the time that he had his blood tested, he had 2000 parts per million in his system, wink cool smile.

I agree that Martz was wrong by thinking that he might have blood in his body with a concentration of 2 parts per million of EDTA.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I explained to you that when I said Martz didn’t reach a wrong conclusion in my post #6298 I was referring to his conclusion that the report said 1000 parts per million as the lab and EPA told him. Martz’s also didn’t reach a wrong conclusion regarding his further research finding that 1000 parts per million was based on some studies to determine how much EDTA was needed to preserve blood.

Martz did reach the wrong conclusion of how much EDTA might be found in a human before he even testified in the criminal case.

bobaugust

The EPA report said that one part per billion was what was found in human unpreserved blood, which Martz called wrong, which the report was right. Martz called it wrong and that was a wrong conclusion on his part. Martz said it was out of context, which did not make it so, regardless the statement was right and Martz was wrong. See how simple?

A test is research when the results are promulgated as was Martz. My thesaurus says that to follow a line of investigation is synonymous with research.;):cool:

[William Anthony]

I was under the impression you found a link to something where I called Cochran a name and you sent that link to martin, but now you are unable to find that link and evidently martin doesn’t have it ether. Is that correct? Now you are saying there is a link to a brief filed in the Supreme Court (state or U.S.?) that mentioned the name bobaugust. Do you the still have the link to that brief? If you do post it please.

bobaugust

I already posted it.

[William Anthony]

Wow. My mistake. I guess I was getting tired and didn’t realize I had added the last line onto a previous post I made and then posted that instead of the post I wrote answering your question.

I never said I didn’t have any crime photos on my website (At least I hope I didn’t.) I said that the photograph of Mark Fuhrman pointing to the glove is not on my website. I simply posted that photo on the internet during the discussions of the knit cap and glove. Yes, my home page has a link to a page called “Conclusions” and in smaller type says, “Crime Scene Photographs.” On the conclusion page there is a link to another page entitled “Crime Scene Photographs Warning” On the page “Photographs” it says “Warning…Murder Scene Photographs” and then there are links to photographs of Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman, and OJ Simpson.

bobaugust

I stand corrected, because you did not deny posting the pictures on your website and relied on safety in numbers. The brief did not single you out. I admire your honesty in admitting that you posted the images of Ms. Nicole's dead body for the world, if interested, to view.

[William Anthony]

Wow. My mistake. I guess I was getting tired and didn’t realize I had added the last line onto a previous post I made and then posted that instead of the post I wrote answering your question.

I never said I didn’t have any crime photos on my website (At least I hope I didn’t.) I said that the photograph of Mark Fuhrman pointing to the glove is not on my website. I simply posted that photo on the internet during the discussions of the knit cap and glove. Yes, my home page has a link to a page called “Conclusions” and in smaller type says, “Crime Scene Photographs.” On the conclusion page there is a link to another page entitled “Crime Scene Photographs Warning” On the page “Photographs” it says “Warning…Murder Scene Photographs” and then there are links to photographs of Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman, and OJ Simpson.

bobaugust

I stand corrected, again. I was in a rush, because I had to leave and only took a quick look. However, when I returned, I did find the post and here it is.

"As I said I’m not concerned about any of the photographs on my web site. My site is certainly not the only one on the internet that shows the Bundy crime scene photos.

bobaugust"

I guess you would call your mistake innocent, as you state you did not intend to deny that your website had those photos. Too bad you changed spell checkers. ;)

[William Anthony]

Let’s look at this testimony again. January 16, 1997 Dr. Lee

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.


Dr. Lee was correct; Martz 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.

Baker continued,
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.

Dr. Lee testified as to what his knowledge was at that time concerning detectable levels of EDTA in human blood. Previously in the criminal trial Dr. Rieders referred to some studies and the EPA report but we don’t know how those studies or the EPA arrived at the conclusion that human blood had levels of EDTA in parts per billion. Concluding that there is EDTA in human blood and actually being able to detect EDTA in human blood seems to me to be two different things.


The article “Determining EDTA in Blood” published August 1, 1997 said,
“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.”

“EDTA is also used extensively as a food preservative, a water-softening agent, and to deliver trace minerals in animal feeds (6). Despite its ubiquitous presence, metabolism studies have shown that little, if any, EDTA should be present in human blood. In 1954, a metabolism study using 14C4-labeled calcium-EDTA given intravenously showed that EDTA was detectable in the plasma but not in the blood cells (7). On average, 95% of an oral dose was recovered in the urine and feces within three days of administration with no EDTA detected in the plasma, and the remaining 5% was detected in the urine within 18 h. More recent metabolism studies using the NaFe(III)-EDTA complex report that it dissociates during digestion and confirm that only about 5% of the EDTA is absorbed and excreted in urine (8).”

“Although there are numerous published methods for determining EDTA in various matrices such as mayonnaise (9), wastewater (10), and ophthalmic solutions (11), our lab and one other group have recently attempted to develop improved methods that could be used for the forensic measurement of EDTA in biological matrices (12, 13)”

“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.”

I’m surprised that it wasn’t until my last post William that you finally realized what I have been telling you all along is that the small trace amount of EDTA indicated in the third test was a thousand times more than what would be found in a person and a thousand times less than what was found in the reference samples. Since you understand that you should be able to understand that the extremely small amount of EDTA that might be found in a person, parts per billion, is too small a concentration of EDTA to preserve blood.

bobaugust

WTH? I have been telling you that what you call "a small trace amount" is one thousand times the amount of EDTA found in upreserved human blood as nauseum. Of course the proper amount of EDTA found in human blood, 7.3ng/mL is not enough to preserve blood or the person would be dead. WTH is your point? The article said that roughly twice that amount would indicate planting. I am sure, using your common sense, you can see that 266.66 times that amount would be indicate preserved blood, or, at least I hope you do. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

I see now why you didn’t want to post this.

15ng/mL does not correspond to planting and has nothing to do with how much EDTA is in preserved blood.

15 ng/mL is the LLQ (lower level of quantification) of the detection limit of the new method and capable of detecting EDTA in an amount of EDTA-preserved blood that is so small that it would be physically difficult to manipulate.

“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).”

bobaugust

You obviously don't understand. The 7.3ng/mL was the concentration they were able to detect in human blood. Converting using the link I supplied this means that in unpreserved human blood there is a concentration, or if you will, quantitation, not quantification, as you posted, (read the quote you posted carefully) of 7.3 parts per billion. Roughly, twice that concentration or 15ng/mL indicates planting. Ballard and colleauges found a comparable detection limit of EDTA in unpreserved human blood at the concentration of 10ng/mL or 2.7ng/mL higher than the new research. They were simply showing the validity of their research and saying it was comparable to the research done by Ballard and colleagues. The fact is that Martz's results were 266.66 times higher than what was in unpreserved human blood, Ergo, it was planted from blood that had been preserved. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

I agree that Martz was wrong by thinking that he might have blood in his body with a concentration of 2 parts per million of EDTA.

bobaugust

You have no choice but to agree, which means Martz's conclusion was wrong, which makes your statement that Martz did not form any wrong conclusions wrong.

[limakey]

Mr. August,

Why did Judge Ito say only the DOJ could conduct the EDTA test? Because he believed that they were the best qualified to conduct this test. However, the person who was assigned was not an expert--something that his witness claimed to be.

Okay, I do understand that there are many people who embellish their skills or whatever, however, a man's freedom was at stake. For Martz's to protray himself as an expert when he wasn't was either a brilliant move on his part or he never should have been given the assignment.

Why did Martz conduct three tests, none of them being the right one? Why not do the only test that mattered? Had any of these tests ever been used before to determine if EDTA was presnt in a blood sample?

Your arguement loses all power when you say that he did two tests found nothing, yet did a third test and when he found it, he determined that it HAD to be from contamination. So why didn't he do a forth test? Without the contamination?

What did he have three test limit? Is that a rule? Or was he brilliant enough to know that if he conducted these others tests, they would not give him the results he wanted but it would give him something even more valuable, like conducting tests that he knew would use up most of the sample and not leaving enough for another test to be completed--either by him or any body else?

If he did do this, then I have to take my hat off to him. He knew his orders and while he may have looked bad on the stand and was a very poor witness for the FBI, he did make sure that no one else would ever been able to test those samples.

The fact that Martz used his own blood for another test, makes no sense whats so ever and he even made himself look worse infront the jury. If he didn't know what he was doing with the samples from the trial, then why would he suddenly know what he was doing with his own blood?

And where is his proof that there was contamination on or inside the instruments? It doesn't strike you odd that he never testified to what that was and how it would affect this test? IMO, he basically said that the test he did do that showed EDTA had to come from contamination--yet where was his proof that was the reason?

[William Anthony]

WTH? I have been telling you that what you call "a small trace amount" is one thousand times the amount of EDTA found in upreserved human blood as nauseum. Of course the proper amount of EDTA found in human blood, 7.3ng/mL is not enough to preserve blood or the person would be dead. WTH is your point? The article said that roughly twice that amount would indicate planting. I am sure, using your common sense, you can see that 266.66 times that amount would indicate preserved blood, or, at least I hope you do. ;):cool:

Correction-ad nauseum.

[William Anthony]

I stand corrected, again. I was in a rush, because I had to leave and only took a quick look. However, when I returned, I did find the post and here it is.



I guess you would call your mistake innocent, as you state you did not intend to deny that your website had those photos. Too bad you changed spell checkers. ;)

I stand corrected again. I seem to overlook the word only. I guess you are not holding my attention or I am getting tired of having to correct you might be a better way of saying that. In any event, I will pay closer attention to what you post. Don't be scared. :)

[William Anthony]

You obviously don't understand. The 7.3ng/mL was the concentration they were able to detect in human blood. Converting using the link I supplied this means that in unpreserved human blood there is a concentration, or if you will, quantitation, not quantification, as you posted, (read the quote you posted carefully) of 7.3 parts per billion. Roughly, twice that concentration or 15ng/mL indicates planting. Ballard and colleauges found a comparable detection limit of EDTA in unpreserved human blood at the concentration of 10ng/mL or 2.7ng/mL higher than the new research. They were simply showing the validity of their research and saying it was comparable to the research done by Ballard and colleagues. The fact is that Martz's results were 266.66 times higher than what was in unpreserved human blood, Ergo, it was planted from blood that had been preserved. ;):cool:

Correction-I apologize studying and responding is getting the best of me.

Ballard and colleauges found a comparable detection limit of EDTA in preserved human blood at the concentration of 10ng/mL or 5ng lower than the new research.

Ballard and colleauges found a comparable detection limit of EDTA in unpreserved human blood at the concentration of 10ng/mL or 2.7ng/mL higher than the new research. Do not forget the purpose of the research, “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.”

[limakey]

Mr. August,

One last thing. The EDTA amounts found were from contamination, right? So why does contamination only play a factor on this piece of evidence?

[bobaugust]

The EPA report said that one part per billion was what was found in human unpreserved blood, which Martz called wrong, which the report was right. Martz called it wrong and that was a wrong conclusion on his part. Martz said it was out of context, which did not make it so, regardless the statement was right and Martz was wrong. See how simple?

A test is research when the results are promulgated as was Martz. My thesaurus says that to follow a line of investigation is synonymous with research.;):cool:

I’ve explained what I was referring to when I said Martz didn’t reach a wrong conclusion in the testimony he gave regarding the EPA report. Your interpretation of what you think Martz said when he was explaining what the lab told him is a wrong interpretation and what you imagine the EPA told Martz is also wrong. A test may be research but Martz didn’t conduct any tests based on what the EPA told him he said he “did some further research, and it ended up that (1000 parts per million) was solely based on some studies to determine how much EDTA was needed to preserve blood.”

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I stand corrected, because you did not deny posting the pictures on your website and relied on safety in numbers. The brief did not single you out. I admire your honesty in admitting that you posted the images of Ms. Nicole's dead body for the world, if interested, to view.

I thank you but there’s no reason for me to be dishonest about this since search engines have always and still show the link to the photograph page on my web site if someone is searching for crime scene photographs of the Bundy murders.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

WTH? I have been telling you that what you call "a small trace amount" is one thousand times the amount of EDTA found in upreserved human blood as nauseum. Of course the proper amount of EDTA found in human blood, 7.3ng/mL is not enough to preserve blood or the person would be dead. WTH is your point? The article said that roughly twice that amount would indicate planting. I am sure, using your common sense, you can see that 266.66 times that amount would be indicate preserved blood, or, at least I hope you do. ;):cool:

The fact that the small trace amount, one to 2 parts per million, is 1000 times the amount of EDTA found in unpreserved human blood is irrelevant. The significant fact is how that small trace amount compares to the preserved blood reference samples. That’s the issue. The fact that the small trace amount of EDTA, one to 2 parts per million, is 1000 times less than the 1000 to 2000 parts per million found in the reference samples is what tells us that the evidence blood did not come from the reference samples.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You obviously don't understand. The 7.3ng/mL was the concentration they were able to detect in human blood. Converting using the link I supplied this means that in unpreserved human blood there is a concentration, or if you will, quantitation, not quantification, as you posted, (read the quote you posted carefully) of 7.3 parts per billion. Roughly, twice that concentration or 15ng/mL indicates planting. Ballard and colleauges found a comparable detection limit of EDTA in unpreserved human blood at the concentration of 10ng/mL or 2.7ng/mL higher than the new research. They were simply showing the validity of their research and saying it was comparable to the research done by Ballard and colleagues. The fact is that Martz's results were 266.66 times higher than what was in unpreserved human blood, Ergo, it was planted from blood that had been preserved. ;):cool:

You’re correct I misspelled the word quantitation, but that doesn’t change what the article said.

The article used a hypothetical scenario to demonstrate the detection capabilities of the new method. It did not say that 15 ng/mL indicates planting, it 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.

It then compared the detection capabilities of this method to the method that was developed by Ballard and colleagues that demonstrated a comparable detection limit of 10 ng/sample which corresponds to ~7 or 8 nL of EDTA-preserved blood.

The hypothetical scenario did not say anything about the concentration of EDTA in preserved blood.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You have no choice but to agree, which means Martz's conclusion was wrong, which makes your statement that Martz did not form any wrong conclusions wrong.

I’ve explained several times what I was referring to when I said Martz didn’t reach a wrong conclusion in the testimony he gave regarding the EPA report and I had agreed before this series of postings that Martz was wrong about how much EDTA could be found in a normal person. This conversation is like beating a dead horse.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

One last thing. The EDTA amounts found were from contamination, right? So why does contamination only play a factor on this piece of evidence?

Limakey, because the trace contamination is not evidence that the evidence stains were planted from the reference samples as the defense claimed.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I’ve explained what I was referring to when I said Martz didn’t reach a wrong conclusion in the testimony he gave regarding the EPA report. Your interpretation of what you think Martz said when he was explaining what the lab told him is a wrong interpretation and what you imagine the EPA told Martz is also wrong. A test may be research but Martz didn’t conduct any tests based on what the EPA told him he said he “did some further research, and it ended up that (1000 parts per million) was solely based on some studies to determine how much EDTA was needed to preserve blood.”

bobaugust

:read::read:the testimony again. What prompted his claim of further research was the statement in the report that he claimed came from out of nowhere that EDTA in human unpreserved blood was a part per billion, which we know is correct. Martz concluded that statement was wrong and further concluded that he/we had established that the amount of EDTA in human unpreserved blood was in the part per million range. Martz was wrong on both conclusions, just like your statement is wrong that he did not form any wrong conclusion is wrong.

[William Anthony]

I thank you but there’s no reason for me to be dishonest about this since search engines have always and still show the link to the photograph page on my web site if someone is searching for crime scene photographs of the Bundy murders.

bobaugust

Can I take from that statement that you will only be dishonest, if you think you have a reason to be? :)

[William Anthony]

The fact that the small trace amount, one to 2 parts per million, is 1000 times the amount of EDTA found in unpreserved human blood is irrelevant. The significant fact is how that small trace amount compares to the preserved blood reference samples. That’s the issue. The fact that the small trace amount of EDTA, one to 2 parts per million, is 1000 times less than the 1000 to 2000 parts per million found in the reference samples is what tells us that the evidence blood did not come from the reference samples.

bobaugust

Yes, as DNA was a relatively new science as was the study determining amounts of EDTA in human unpreserved blood was, then the defense may have theorized that the blood came from the reference tube and they may be correct, since EDTA can be dilluted. However, the more germane point is that the one thousand times more result (of what should have been found in upreserved human blood) of EDTA found in the sock and gate stain indicate planting, i.e. support a finding of reasonable doubt.

[William Anthony]

You’re correct I misspelled the word quantitation, but that doesn’t change what the article said.

The article used a hypothetical scenario to demonstrate the detection capabilities of the new method. It did not say that 15 ng/mL indicates planting, it 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.

It then compared the detection capabilities of this method to the method that was developed by Ballard and colleagues that demonstrated a comparable detection limit of 10 ng/sample which corresponds to ~7 or 8 nL of EDTA-preserved blood.

The hypothetical scenario did not say anything about the concentration of EDTA in preserved blood.
bobaugust

My point was not that you misspelled the word but, in so doing, you changed the meaning or, if you will, the content of what the article said. Here is a link to the meaning of quantitation.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quantitation

We then consider what the article said to determine what they measuring, which I am copying from your above post, "If this method was used to determine whether a forensic blood stain had been "planted", this LLQ corresponds to "planting" 1-3 nL [B]of EDTA-preserved blood." The LLQ was 15ng/mL or the concentration or the quantitative analysis of EDTA in preserved blood. Ergo, the article was saying that the hypothetical could be used to show that 15 parts per million was preserved blood.

[William Anthony]

I’ve explained several times what I was referring to when I said Martz didn’t reach a wrong conclusion in the testimony he gave regarding the EPA report and I had agreed before this series of postings that Martz was wrong about how much EDTA could be found in a normal person. This conversation is like beating a dead horse.

bobaugust

If you are saying that your statement was wrong without saying it was wrong, then I agree.

[limakey]

Limakey, because the trace contamination is not evidence that the evidence stains were planted from the reference samples as the defense claimed.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

IMO, your posts are much more helpful to NG's then the G's. Why? Because "trace evidence" is not evidence that the blood was not planted. While I suffered through science at school, even I know that certain compounds can have a major affect on another compound. I also know that mixing this compound with another type of compound will not have any effect on it.

You do not what the compound was and therefore you don't know what affect it would have on the test.

Another point. Martz's claimed that when he ran the test and found the EDTA, he used his own blood to conduct another test, so know he has run two tests on eqiupment he already is having problems on.

Another point. Isn't only common sense for any expert to ensure the conditon of their equipment is working and is clean? Are we to believe that Martz did not clean his equipment after each use?

Another point that totally kills your theory---if the contamination compound was in fact what caused a false positive, then why did this same compound affect the first two tests he ran?

Last point, the battle of the tops of the test tubes--what is the difference of their make up? I remember much focus was placed on the color of the test tube. It makes no sense that the color of the top has anything to do with anything, IMO.

And you if come back and says that there is a difference, then you better be able to explain why Martz didn't put his blood in the exact same tube with the same color.

[bobaugust]

:read::read:the testimony again. What prompted his claim of further research was the statement in the report that he claimed came from out of nowhere that EDTA in human unpreserved blood was a part per billion, which we know is correct. Martz concluded that statement was wrong and further concluded that he/we had established that the amount of EDTA in human unpreserved blood was in the part per million range. Martz was wrong on both conclusions, just like your statement is wrong that he did not form any wrong conclusion is wrong.

Martz testified that what prompted his further research was the EPA telling him the report was supposed say 1000 parts per million.

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

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Can I take from that statement that you will only be dishonest, if you think you have a reason to be? :)

No you shouldn’t take that from my statement. I’m not a dishonest person and I do make dishonest statements.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Yes, as DNA was a relatively new science as was the study determining amounts of EDTA in human unpreserved blood was, then the defense may have theorized that the blood came from the reference tube and they may be correct, since EDTA can be dilluted. However, the more germane point is that the one thousand times more result (of what should have been found in upreserved human blood) of EDTA found in the sock and gate stain indicate planting, i.e. support a finding of reasonable doubt.

The fact that there is an extremely small amount of EDTA in a person’s blood is irrelevant to the defense claim that the evidence stains were planted from the EDTA-preserved blood reference samples. The relevant issue is how the small trace amount of EDTA compares to the levels of EDTA in the EDTA-preserved blood reference samples.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

My point was not that you misspelled the word but, in so doing, you changed the meaning or, if you will, the content of what the article said. Here is a link to the meaning of quantitation.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quantitation

We then consider what the article said to determine what they measuring, which I am copying from your above post, "If this method was used to determine whether a forensic blood stain had been "planted", this LLQ corresponds to "planting" 1-3 nL [B]of EDTA-preserved blood." The LLQ was 15ng/mL or the concentration or the quantitative analysis of EDTA in preserved blood. Ergo, the article was saying that the hypothetical could be used to show that 15 parts per million was preserved blood.

You posted the correct definition for quantitation but you then stated incorrectly as to how it is used. “to measure or estimate the quantity of; especially; to measure or determine precisely”

The article said, “this LLQ (lower level of quantitation) of 15 ng/mL (~6 fmol injected)) corresponds to ‘planting’ 1-3 nL of EDTA-preserved blood.

“10 ng/sample which corresponds to ~7 or 8 nL of EDTA-preserved blood.

It does not say that the 15 ng/mL or the 10 ng/ sample are the concentrations of EDTA in preserved blood.

The article continues,
“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).

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

If you are saying that your statement was wrong without saying it was wrong, then I agree.

No, I’m saying that no matter how many times I have explained to you what I was referring to when I said Martz didn’t come to a wrong conclusion you just can’t seem to understand it.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

IMO, your posts are much more helpful to NG's then the G's. Why? Because "trace evidence" is not evidence that the blood was not planted. While I suffered through science at school, even I know that certain compounds can have a major affect on another compound. I also know that mixing this compound with another type of compound will not have any effect on it.

You do not what the compound was and therefore you don't know what affect it would have on the test.

Another point. Martz's claimed that when he ran the test and found the EDTA, he used his own blood to conduct another test, so know he has run two tests on eqiupment he already is having problems on.

Another point. Isn't only common sense for any expert to ensure the conditon of their equipment is working and is clean? Are we to believe that Martz did not clean his equipment after each use?

Another point that totally kills your theory---if the contamination compound was in fact what caused a false positive, then why did this same compound affect the first two tests he ran?

Last point, the battle of the tops of the test tubes--what is the difference of their make up? I remember much focus was placed on the color of the test tube. It makes no sense that the color of the top has anything to do with anything, IMO.

And you if come back and says that there is a difference, then you better be able to explain why Martz didn't put his blood in the exact same tube with the same color.

Limakey, Martz first conducted two different tests on the two evidence stains, a negative ion test, and an HPCL test. In the results from those two tests no EDTA was indicated in either of the two evidence stains.

Martz later ran a third test, a positive ion test, on Nicole and Simpson’s reference samples, on the two evidence stains, and on stains made with his own non-preserved blood. The result from those tests indicated a small trace amount of EDTA in the two evidence stains and in Martz’s own non-preserved blood. A small trace amount that was significantly lower than the levels of EDTA in the reference samples.

The amount of EDTA in the reference samples was 1000 to 2000 parts per million. The trace amount of EDTA in the evidence stains and in Martz’s own non-preserved blood was 1 to 2 parts per million, a thousand times less than what was in the reference samples. If the evidence stains had come from blood in the reference samples, as the defense claimed, then the levels of EDTA in the evidence stains would have been the same as the levels of EDTA in the reference samples.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

No you shouldn’t take that from my statement. I’m not a dishonest person and I do make dishonest statements.

bobaugust

This is a perfect example of your flawed reasoning, imho. You are an honest person that makes dishonest statements, because you say you are honest.

[William Anthony]

Martz testified that what prompted his further research was the EPA telling him the report was supposed say 1000 parts per million.

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

bobaugust

Not quite honest. What prompted him to call/research was the statement that he said came from out of nowhere, which was that the amount of EDTA in unpreserved human blood was a part per billion. Did you not understand the words, further research?

[William Anthony]

The fact that there is an extremely small amount of EDTA in a person’s blood is irrelevant to the defense claim that the evidence stains were planted from the EDTA-preserved blood reference samples. The relevant issue is how the small trace amount of EDTA compares to the levels of EDTA in the EDTA-preserved blood reference samples.

bobaugust

This is another example of flawed reasoning. The question is how did a thousand times the amount that is in unpreserved human blood get into the sock and gate stain. It is very easy to dilute a concentration and it is also very easy to add to a concentration. The question is where the EDTA that was a thousand times more than was supposed to be detected get there. Remember the jury instruction and reasonable doubt.

[William Anthony]

You posted the correct definition for quantitation but you then stated incorrectly as to how it is used. “to measure or estimate the quantity of; especially; to measure or determine precisely”

The article said, “this LLQ (lower level of quantitation) of 15 ng/mL (~6 fmol injected)) corresponds to ‘planting’ 1-3 nL of EDTA-preserved blood.

“10 ng/sample which corresponds to ~7 or 8 nL of EDTA-preserved blood.

It does not say that the 15 ng/mL or the 10 ng/ sample are the concentrations of EDTA in preserved blood.

The article continues,
“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).

bobaugust

The LLQ is 15ng/mL or the concentration of 15 nanograms of EDTA to a milliliter of blood. The lower level amount of EDTA not reported in the article indicates that amount of EDTA in unpreserved blood, the LLQ responds to planting. Thank you for admitting that the article said the 1300 parts per million of EDTA only admitted that was the typical concentration in preserved blood.

[William Anthony]

No, I’m saying that no matter how many times I have explained to you what I was referring to when I said Martz didn’t come to a wrong conclusion you just can’t seem to understand it.

bobaugust

It seems that no matter how many times I explain it to you that your statement, irrespective of your intent, was wrong/inaccurate/dishonest as stated.

[limakey]

Limakey, Martz first conducted two different tests on the two evidence stains, a negative ion test, and an HPCL test. In the results from those two tests no EDTA was indicated in either of the two evidence stains.

Martz later ran a third test, a positive ion test, on Nicole and Simpson’s reference samples, on the two evidence stains, and on stains made with his own non-preserved blood. The result from those tests indicated a small trace amount of EDTA in the two evidence stains and in Martz’s own non-preserved blood. A small trace amount that was significantly lower than the levels of EDTA in the reference samples.


bobaugust

Mr. August,

Explain to me why Martz did 2 tests that were negative for EDTA but "later" ran a third test?

Explain to me the value of any test being conducted for a compound where that test is not designed to find the compound he was testing for?

Explain to me why Martz was suppose to be conducting a test for a compound that was in perserved blood but he would conduct a test on his own non-preserved blood?

The test that should have been run began with a C--it was in Stephen Singular's book. I believe the expert he consulted was Dr. Ambrosco (sp?).

Explain to me why Martz did not do a 4th test on the samples he was suppose to be testing? His using his own blood makes no sense--unless he wanted to give the jury the message that he didn't know what he was doing? Didn't he clearly state that he was not saying that he found EDTA that only it was "consistent" with it?

Another point to consider, Marcia Clark clearly writes in her book why she did not use Simpson's statement. While she made the statement that the detectives did get Simpson to say that he was not at Nicole's in the last 10 days, she countered that the defense was going to say it was "old" blood anyway so that statement didn't help her case.

What Clark was saying that the defense had a arguement for "old" blood that should could not disprove. She did not call the nurse, even after knowing about the defense theory in the defense's opening statements. She did not call the Dr. who conducted the autospy. She did not call Martz as a witness.

The reason why she didn't call certain witnesses is because she knew that she could not disprove the defense's claim.

To say that Martz did not reach wrong conclusions is just plain wrong from the get go. First off, he reached the wrong conclusion on how many tests that needed to be run to find EDTA. Second, he reached the wrong conclusion on what test need to be run. Third, he reached the wrong conclusion that the EDTA, if it was EDTA had to come from contamination in his equipment.

However, he did reach one conclusion--that his testimony was going to put the final nail into the DA's case. He was wise enough to make himself look like another expert witness who was no expert. He was wise enough to make sure that he used enough of the sample to ensure that no other tests could be run and that by throwing away some of his results, no one would ever know for sure.

Also, in what order and which samples did Martz test? What I mean is, did he run the tests on each stain? What was the break down. Did he run three separate test on each stain totalling a total of 6 tests?

And lets no forget the police leak that Nicole's and OJ blood would be found on the socks----months before the socks were even sent out for testing--which the way, is another mark against the DA's. Again, very key pieces of evidence were ignored for how long?

[limakey]

Mr. August,

Another question, would exposure to the elements have any effect on the levels of EDTA found? In other words, if the blood drop on the back gate was collected on the morning after the murders have the same amount EDTA if it was found and collected three weeks later?

What effect would the broken AC unit have on the EDTA levels on the socks?

And did you ever wonder why the DA's and Martz never conducted these same tests on other stains collected at the scene? Doesn't it only make sense that the DA's would have said that not only do these two stains have EDTA in them but so does this stain, taken from Rockingham, this stain taken from the drive way, this stain taken from where ever?

If these two stains had EDTA, then shouldn't all them have had it? Doesn't only make sense the DA's would have used this?

[bobaugust]

This is a perfect example of your flawed reasoning, imho. You are an honest person that makes dishonest statements, because you say you are honest.

Your comments are becoming obnoxious. Drop this subject please it has nothing to do with the topic on this tread.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Not quite honest. What prompted him to call/research was the statement that he said came from out of nowhere, which was that the amount of EDTA in unpreserved human blood was a part per billion. Did you not understand the words, further research?

Martz said that when he read what the report said about EDTA in human blood “it appeared to be out of place.” “And it just didn't make sense to me why that would be there.” That’s why he called the lab and then called EPA and then did some further research and found that it (1000 parts per million) “was solely based on studies to determine how much EDTA was needed to preserved blood.”

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

This is another example of flawed reasoning. The question is how did a thousand times the amount that is in unpreserved human blood get into the sock and gate stain. It is very easy to dilute a concentration and it is also very easy to add to a concentration. The question is where the EDTA that was a thousand times more than was supposed to be detected get there. Remember the jury instruction and reasonable doubt.

That question was later answered by FBI chemists, and Dr. Terry Lee. The small trace amount indicated in the third test results was from an artifact in the instruments, most likely a carry over contamination.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The LLQ is 15ng/mL or the concentration of 15 nanograms of EDTA to a milliliter of blood. The lower level amount of EDTA not reported in the article indicates that amount of EDTA in unpreserved blood, the LLQ responds to planting. Thank you for admitting that the article said the 1300 parts per million of EDTA only admitted that was the typical concentration in preserved blood.

Your reasoning is flawed. What part of a hypothetical scenario do you not understand? What part of “If this method was used to determine WHETHER a forensic blood stain had been planted” do you not understand? What part of “corresponds to 1-3 nL of EDTA-preserved blood” and “corresponds to ~7 or 8 nL of EDTA-preserved blood” do you not understand?

If tiny drops of blood contain EDTA in parts per billion that would indicate that blood probably came from a person, not from EDTA-preserved blood.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Another question, would exposure to the elements have any effect on the levels of EDTA found? In other words, if the blood drop on the back gate was collected on the morning after the murders have the same amount EDTA if it was found and collected three weeks later?

What effect would the broken AC unit have on the EDTA levels on the socks?

And did you ever wonder why the DA's and Martz never conducted these same tests on other stains collected at the scene? Doesn't it only make sense that the DA's would have said that not only do these two stains have EDTA in them but so does this stain, taken from Rockingham, this stain taken from the drive way, this stain taken from where ever?

If these two stains had EDTA, then shouldn't all them have had it? Doesn't only make sense the DA's would have used this?

Limakey, Dr. Lee testified that there is no scientific literature that supports the opinion that EDTA could degrade significantly. You ask if these two stains had EDTA why shouldn’t all of them have it. Because the trace amount of EDTA was the result of a carry over contamination in the instrument during the third test Martz performed and only contaminated the three blood stains that were run through the instrument at that time; Simpson’s gate blood, Nicole’s sock blood, and Martz’s own non-preserved blood.

January 16, 1996 Dr. Terry Lee
“EDTA is a very unstable compound; it's not likely to degrade under normal circumstances. And these evidence samples were -- came from different places and were treated differently; yet they all show the same levels. And so it's difficult to imagine the degradation that would be common to all the samples’

The defense never claimed that Simpson’s blood at Bundy was old blood. In the civil trial both Officer Terrazas and Dennis Fung testified that the blood drops were bright red, looked moist, appeared to be fresh blood. The fact is that old blood can not appear to be fresh blood.

It doesn’t matter what happened to the socks after they were collected.

Triumph of Justice,
“Dr. Cotton explained that when blood is drawn for testing by labs, it is preserved with the chemical EDTA, which stops the DNA in the blood from degrading. (Degradation is simply the breaking down of a chemical into its component parts over time.) But when she compared the degradation levels of Nicole's autopsy vial, Dr. Cotton found the autopsy vial contained the more degraded blood. The blood on the sock was fresher and richer in DNA content than the blood in the vial. Once blood has degraded, it is impossible to raise its DNA count; you can't pony it back up. Under the conspiracy theory, the blood used to plant on the sock came from Nicole's autopsy vial, but that blood had a lower DNA count than the blood on the sock. Nicole's blood was fresher when it spurted out and splashed onto Simpson's sock as he was killing her than two days later when the coroner collected it. This completely destroyed the notion of any planting; its impossible for degraded blood to become fresh again. Nicole's blood on the sock could not have been planted.”

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Your comments are becoming obnoxious. Drop this subject please it has nothing to do with the topic on this tread.

bobaugust

I beg to differ. In any discussion, the information contained in posts are always subject to review by the community at large in their effort to reach an informed opinion. I thank you for honestly admitting that you make dishonest statements. I think that anyone who reads these posts is looking for information or entertainment.

[William Anthony]

Martz said that when he read what the report said about EDTA in human blood “it appeared to be out of place.” “And it just didn't make sense to me why that would be there.” That’s why he called the lab and then called EPA and then did some further research and found that it (1000 parts per million) “was solely based on studies to determine how much EDTA was needed to preserved blood.”

bobaugust

I hope that you will not take this as obnoxious but I cannot see how you can, since you used it, what part don't you understand. Martz called about the statement and said after that he did some "further" research. Martz realized that his call was part of his research on that issue. What part of further don't you understand?;):cool:

[William Anthony]

That question was later answered by FBI chemists, and Dr. Terry Lee. The small trace amount indicated in the third test results was from an artifact in the instruments, most likely a carry over contamination.

bobaugust

Not quite true. The FBI's and Terry Lee's attempts to explain away the evidence of planting were ambiguous at best. The FBI claimed it came from water and Terry Lee claimed it came from a ghost. Therefore, the possibilities are planting, water and ghosts. Remember reasonable doubt and the jury instruction. The fact is what you call a small trace amount was a thousand times the part of concentration (part per million/part per billion) what was supposed to be found in unpreserved human blood based on the new scientific research.

[William Anthony]

Your reasoning is flawed. What part of a hypothetical scenario do you not understand? What part of “If this method was used to determine WHETHER a forensic blood stain had been planted” do you not understand? What part of “corresponds to 1-3 nL of EDTA-preserved blood” and “corresponds to ~7 or 8 nL of EDTA-preserved blood” do you not understand?

If tiny drops of blood contain EDTA in parts per billion that would indicate that blood probably came from a person, not from EDTA-preserved blood.

bobaugust

Your spell checker seems to be imitating your previous one by selectively deleting the germane parts of statements. The article said that if the LLQ was used it would correspond to planting. The LLQ was 15ng/mL, which indicated EDTA preserved blood. Of course, since they did not have the sock and gate stain, they had to use other samples to do their research, which means that they could show that, if they had access and could have tested the gate and sock stains that 15 parts per billion would have indicated planting and we know that Martz said it was 2 parts per million in those stains. Your spell checker seemed to omit that portion that tells that the concentration they were able to detect in EDTA preserved blood was 15ng/mL or 15 parts per billion as supported by the link showing that a ng/mL is a part per billion.

[Kate Sachel]

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.

I appreciate that you respect my opinion, though I don't for a moment waiver in what I believe to be your true motivations behind this issue with bobaugust.

I do believe you are defending martin, and believe that will continue indefinitely for reasons that are best not expressed publicly though I would welcome a private discussion regarding such.

It continues to both surprise and baffle me to see you still engaging in the very behavior you claim to find inappropriate of other individuals. You act as though there is no other choice when it comes to bobaugust, and there is. You can continue to correct what you feel are his erroneous postings, and point out alternative ways of approaching certain arguments of evidence while leaving the personal attacks out or sinking to the very levels you continue to call him out for sinking to. In the end I have to ask, does it really matter to you whether or not bobaugust respects you, or what he thinks of you given that you have made it clear how little you think of him? It seems to me that it matters quite a bit.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

I hope all understand the arduousness of trying to tell a poster that their response is inappropriate. It takes a great level of tolerance to respond in a civil fashion wen a poster asks a legitimate question of another poster about the rules and the poster responds in a juvenile fashion asking did "he do that to" and the tries to say that the poster falsely accused the questioning poster of accusing someone and tells the poster that they are no good at something. I hope all understand that it is a poor dog that will not wag its own tail. However, should martin elect to respond in a civil manner to an obviously rude and baiting post, I think it would demonstrate a great level of maturity on his part. Of course, this is all just my opinion.

I'm about done in with type of thing at this point.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I appreciate that you respect my opinion, though I don't for a moment waiver in what I believe to be your true motivations behind this issue with bobaugust.

I do believe you are defending martin, and believe that will continue indefinitely for reasons that are best not expressed publicly though I would welcome a private discussion regarding such.

It continues to both surprise and baffle me to see you still engaging in the very behavior you claim to find inappropriate of other individuals. You act as though there is no other choice when it comes to bobaugust, and there is. You can continue to correct what you feel are his erroneous postings, and point out alternative ways of approaching certain arguments of evidence while leaving the personal attacks out or sinking to the very levels you continue to call him out for sinking to. In the end I have to ask, does it really matter to you whether or not bobaugust respects you, or what he thinks of you given that you have made it clear how little you think of him? It seems to me that it matters quite a bit.

Kate

What matters to me quite a bit is being respected. To have someone say that they do not respect me, simply because I disagree with their claims, matters to me. It does not matter what he thinks of me but to say that he does not have any respect for me on a public forum is what matters to me. It is the matter of principle. The levels to which you refer to sinking to is a common occurrence, imho, for some and seems to be their most effective way of communicating. Any attempt on my part to ascertain that level is simply stating things in terms that I feel they can appreciate. I would like to address your other post within this one and I do agree that it is time to stop this type of thing. I look at some of the posts on the children thread to see how quickly that thread deteriorated.

[Kate Sachel]

What matters to me quite a bit is being respected. To have someone say that they do not respect me, simply because I disagree with their claims, matters to me. It does not matter what he thinks of me but to say that he does not have any respect for me on a public forum is what matters to me. It is the matter of principle. The levels to which you refer to sinking to is a common occurrence, imho, for some and seems to be their most effective way of communicating. Any attempt on my part to ascertain that level is simply stating things in terms that I feel they can appreciate. I would like to address your other post within this one and I do agree that it is time to stop this type of thing. I look at some of the posts on the children thread to see how quickly that thread deteriorated.

I don't know the reasons behind why bobaugust said that he does not respect you, did he actually say it is because you disagree with him? From an outsider's perspective I offer this - I think that you have both given each other reasons for not respecting one another.

The levels of sinking is a common occurrence, but it being a common occurrence should not be viewed as a free pass to conduct ourselves on the same level. If we claim there are changes we want to see, we should be willing to set a bar. And if no one else wants to follow along, so be it but at least I can know for myself that I'm holding to a higher standard.

I've not even been able to bring myself to the "children" thread, I may venture over that way now.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I don't know the reasons behind why bobaugust said that he does not respect you, did he actually say it is because you disagree with him? From an outsider's perspective I offer this - I think that you have both given each other reasons for not respecting one another.

The levels of sinking is a common occurrence, but it being a common occurrence should not be viewed as a free pass to conduct ourselves on the same level. If we claim there are changes we want to see, we should be willing to set a bar. And if no one else wants to follow along, so be it but at least I can know for myself that I'm holding to a higher standard.

I've not even been able to bring myself to the "children" thread, I may venture over that way now.

Kate

I have never met bobaugust personally, not do I think he has met me. We have had some heated debates over things he claims to know as facts and the things he has said about posters, who disagree, those he chose to call liars and those he says made innocent mistakes and human errors, as well as, the things that I have proven him false about. It was during one of those types of debates that he made the statement that he did not respect me and failed to apologize. I have never stated publicly that I have no respect for him, even though I do not agree with most of what he posts. I do not like what I see as his assumed superiority and arrogance and have so stated. As long as I do not publicly state that I have no respect for a poster, I feel that I have held myself to a higher standard. :) Seriously, I understand your point, although I find it harder to do with some posters than others.

[Kate Sachel]

I have never met bobaugust personally, not do I think he has met me. We have had some heated debates over things he claims to know as facts and the things he has said about posters, who disagree, those he chose to call liars and those he says made innocent mistakes and human errors, as well as, the things that I have proven him false about. It was during one of those types of debates that he made the statement that he did not respect me and failed to apologize. I have never stated publicly that I have no respect for him, even though I do not agree with most of what he posts. I do not like what I see as his assumed superiority and arrogance and have so stated. As long as I do not publicly state that I have no respect for a poster, I feel that I have held myself to a higher standard. :) Seriously, I understand your point, although I find it harder to do with some posters than others.

But, you show your lack of respect for him in every way other than to just come out and say it. I don't personally think there is anything wrong with either one of you not respecting the other at this point based on what your exchanges have come down to.

There is definitely a poster on this forum that I can say with all honesty that I have no respect for, with the reasons being well deserved in my opinion and I do believe that I have made my utter distaste and lack of respect for that indivdual very well known.

Kate

[William Anthony]

But, you show your lack of respect for him in every way other than to just come out and say it. I don't personally think there is anything wrong with either one of you not respecting the other at this point based on what your exchanges have come down to.

There is definitely a poster on this forum that I can say with all honesty that I have no respect for, with the reasons being well deserved in my opinion and I do believe that I have made my utter distaste and lack of respect for that indivdual very well known.

Kate

I have not shown or said that I have no respect for bobaugust. I have shown disdain for his posts and his assumed position of authority reflected in those posts. A lack of respect is not the same as having no respect for a person, imho.

I think that to say that you have no respect for a person does the author of the statement a true disservice to himself. I do think that you have respect for that poster but not for what the poster might post. I think there is a difference.

[bobaugust]

I beg to differ. In any discussion, the information contained in posts are always subject to review by the community at large in their effort to reach an informed opinion. I thank you for honestly admitting that you make dishonest statements. I think that anyone who reads these posts is looking for information or entertainment.

I see the problem and it is my mistake. In my post #6453 I posted.
“No you shouldn’t take that from my statement. I’m not a dishonest person and I do make dishonest statements.”

I made a mistake in that post. What I meant to post was that “I’m not a dishonest person and I do NOT make dishonest statements.”

I apologize for calling your response “obnoxious” since I was unaware of the mistake I had posted. Now please drop this subject, it is not on topic for this thread.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Your spell checker seems to be imitating your previous one by selectively deleting the germane parts of statements. The article said that if the LLQ was used it would correspond to planting. The LLQ was 15ng/mL, which indicated EDTA preserved blood. Of course, since they did not have the sock and gate stain, they had to use other samples to do their research, which means that they could show that, if they had access and could have tested the gate and sock stains that 15 parts per billion would have indicated planting and we know that Martz said it was 2 parts per million in those stains. Your spell checker seemed to omit that portion that tells that the concentration they were able to detect in EDTA preserved blood was 15ng/mL or 15 parts per billion as supported by the link showing that a ng/mL is a part per billion.

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. The article didn’t say that EDTA-preserved blood contains a concentration of EDTA in parts per billion.

Your interpretation that the LLQ of 15ng/mL indicates preserved blood is incorrect. The LLQ was the detection capabilities of the new method that was achieved in detecting EDTA in human plasma. “The LLQ of our method, at 15ng/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).”

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

What matters to me quite a bit is being respected. To have someone say that they do not respect me, simply because I disagree with their claims, matters to me. It does not matter what he thinks of me but to say that he does not have any respect for me on a public forum is what matters to me. It is the matter of principle. The levels to which you refer to sinking to is a common occurrence, imho, for some and seems to be their most effective way of communicating. Any attempt on my part to ascertain that level is simply stating things in terms that I feel they can appreciate. I would like to address your other post within this one and I do agree that it is time to stop this type of thing. I look at some of the posts on the children thread to see how quickly that thread deteriorated.

Let’s set the record straight. I never said I have no respect for you because you disagree with my claims. I said I had no respect for you because you refuse to admit you’re wrong about your claims.

Earlier this year there were some heated discussions regarding your interpretations of the law and your claim that Mark Fuhrman admitted to seeing two gloves under the plant leaves at Bundy. There were comments made by both of us regarding respect. My comments started by saying I have no respect for your opinions. After some more heated discussions I said, “Not only are you wrong you refuse to admit you are wrong just as you have refused to admit to being wrong about other ridiculous arguments you've attempted to make. That's why I have no respect for you.” Which then led to a pretty good retaliatory rant from you.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I see the problem and it is my mistake. In my post #6453 I posted.
“No you shouldn’t take that from my statement. I’m not a dishonest person and I do make dishonest statements.”

I made a mistake in that post. What I meant to post was that “I’m not a dishonest person and I do NOT make dishonest statements.”

I apologize for calling your response “obnoxious” since I was unaware of the mistake I had posted. Now please drop this subject, it is not on topic for this thread.

bobaugust

Apology accepted. We are all more wrong than we are right.

[Kate Sachel]

I have not shown or said that I have no respect for bobaugust. I have shown disdain for his posts and his assumed position of authority reflected in those posts. A lack of respect is not the same as having no respect for a person, imho.

I think that to say that you have no respect for a person does the author of the statement a true disservice to himself. I do think that you have respect for that poster but not for what the poster might post. I think there is a difference.

Let me be clear - I have no respect for that person. Or for what that person might post. Both.

Kate

[William Anthony]

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. The article didn’t say that EDTA-preserved blood contains a concentration of EDTA in parts per billion.

Your interpretation that the LLQ of 15ng/mL indicates preserved blood is incorrect. The LLQ was the detection capabilities of the new method that was achieved in detecting EDTA in human plasma. “The LLQ of our method, at 15ng/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).”

bobaugust

We have reached a point of agreement that the LLQ is 15ng/mL. Now, let's look at what the article says.

'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). "

Here is a link making the conversion.

http://www.convertunits.com/from/nL/to/millilitre

This would mean 15,000,000ng/mL or using Ballard's the 10 ng would become 10,000,000ng/mL. This is why they are saying that it would take a large sample to manipulate, which does not change the concentration they are looking for to indicate planting.

[William Anthony]

Let me be clear - I have no respect for that person. Or for what that person might post. Both.

Kate

Have you had a personal relationship with that person?

[bobaugust]

We have reached a point of agreement that the LLQ is 15ng/mL. Now, let's look at what the article says.

'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). "

Here is a link making the conversion.

http://www.convertunits.com/from/nL/to/millilitre

This would mean 15,000,000ng/mL or using Ballard's the 10 ng would become 10,000,000ng/mL. This is why they are saying that it would take a large sample to manipulate, which does not change the concentration they are looking for to indicate planting.

Yes I agree that the LLQ is 15 ng/mL. As I understand the article to say, without the use of any math, 15 ng/mL is the detection capability that the new method achieved. 15 ng/mL has nothing to do with the concentration of EDTA in preserved blood. The new method using that LLQ capability would be able to detect EDTA in extremely small amounts of EDTA-preserved blood, 1-3 nL, so small that it would be physically difficult to manipulate them.

In the article conclusion it was explained how the detection capability of 15 ng/mL compares to the typical concentration found in EDTA preserved blood and said how the new method can be used with acceptable precision, accuracy, and adequate detection levels for quantitation of trace-level concentrations.

“The LLQ of our method, at 15 ng/mL, is a factor of 10(5) 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).”

bobaugust

[limakey]

Limakey, Dr. Lee testified that there is no scientific literature that supports the opinion that EDTA could degrade significantly. You ask if these two stains had EDTA why shouldn’t all of them have it. Because the trace amount of EDTA was the result of a carry over contamination in the instrument during the third test Martz performed and only contaminated the three blood stains that were run through the instrument at that time; Simpson’s gate blood, Nicole’s sock blood, and Martz’s own non-preserved blood.

January 16, 1996 Dr. Terry Lee
“EDTA is a very unstable compound; it's not likely to degrade under normal circumstances. And these evidence samples were -- came from different places and were treated differently; yet they all show the same levels. And so it's difficult to imagine the degradation that would be common to all the samples’

The defense never claimed that Simpson’s blood at Bundy was old blood. In the civil trial both Officer Terrazas and Dennis Fung testified that the blood drops were bright red, looked moist, appeared to be fresh blood. The fact is that old blood can not appear to be fresh blood.

It doesn’t matter what happened to the socks after they were collected.

Triumph of Justice,
“Dr. Cotton explained that when blood is drawn for testing by labs, it is preserved with the chemical EDTA, which stops the DNA in the blood from degrading. (Degradation is simply the breaking down of a chemical into its component parts over time.) But when she compared the degradation levels of Nicole's autopsy vial, Dr. Cotton found the autopsy vial contained the more degraded blood. The blood on the sock was fresher and richer in DNA content than the blood in the vial. Once blood has degraded, it is impossible to raise its DNA count; you can't pony it back up. Under the conspiracy theory, the blood used to plant on the sock came from Nicole's autopsy vial, but that blood had a lower DNA count than the blood on the sock. Nicole's blood was fresher when it spurted out and splashed onto Simpson's sock as he was killing her than two days later when the coroner collected it. This completely destroyed the notion of any planting; its impossible for degraded blood to become fresh again. Nicole's blood on the sock could not have been planted.”

bobaugust


Mr. August,

With all due respect, all the information you posted, in regards to the quotes, do not answer a single question. Both Cotton's and Lee's comments are nothing more then throwing everything out there and sees what sticks and they way they threw it, it all stuck but it still "stinks".

Again, what was the compound that was said to have contaminated the results? Again, where is the documentation that proves that the equipment was bascially, dirty enough where it would taint the results?

Why and how were all the stains treated differently?

It was Clark, the lead DA on the case who said that the defense was going to use "old" blood on some of the stains found at Bundy. She said that while Lange and Vanatter did get Simpson to say that he had not been at Nicole's in the last 10 days, it did not help her case.

Unless the officer and Fung had x-ray vision and could count the DNA levels in the blood drops they saw, really doesn't say much when it came to their overall job performance. Fung saw the blood drops how many hours later? How many times was he told to collect certain evidence and he apparently did not?

The DNA levels in the five blood drops were significantly different. In fact, two of them were useless to test. The DNA levels should have been the same even if the degradation was from the heat inside the truck. And which DA expert testified that the degradation on those blood drops could only have come from a broken AC unit in the truck?

Also, neither you nor I, or anybody else outside maybe one or two people know for sure which blood stains came from which place and how and when they got there. The DA's got caught by the defense and Judge Ito about sending out blood stains to be tested with one set of numbers and them coming back with a different set of numbers. Rockne Harmon had to admit to the judge that this was done and it was meant to cause confusion. Why?

[William Anthony]

Yes I agree that the LLQ is 15 ng/mL. As I understand the article to say, without the use of any math, 15 ng/mL is the detection capability that the new method achieved. 15 ng/mL has nothing to do with the concentration of EDTA in preserved blood. The new method using that LLQ capability would be able to detect EDTA in extremely small amounts of EDTA-preserved blood, 1-3 nL, so small that it would be physically difficult to manipulate them.

In the article conclusion it was explained how the detection capability of 15 ng/mL compares to the typical concentration found in EDTA preserved blood and said how the new method can be used with acceptable precision, accuracy, and adequate detection levels for quantitation of trace-level concentrations.

“The LLQ of our method, at 15 ng/mL, is a factor of 10(5) 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).”

bobaugust

I understand what you think the article says. However, you have ignored that the detection level was 7.3ng/mL, which there is no notation that was blood preserved with EDTA. The article then stated that the LLQ was 15ng/mL, upon which we have agreed. The article then went on to say that if this LLQ was used and in parenthesis right beside it and planting said (6 fmol, injected)-1-3 nL of EDTA preserved blood. The 6 is what is comparable to to Ballard's 7-8 nL of EDTA preserved blood. That is why the article speaks to trace level concentrations. The 15ng/mL using the conversion table indicates that a concentration of 15 parts per million would indicate planting. The concentration of 2 parts per million is roughly 133.33 times more than what indicates planting or blood preserved with EDTA. The 7.3ng/mL is the concentration they detected in unpreserved human blood, which 2 parts per million is 266.66 times more than what is found in unpreserved blood.

The article then went on to explain that they had an LLQ or 15ng/mL that detected blood that was preserved with EDTA in a concentration that was 10 to the 5th or 100,000 times lower than what was found in the typical concentration in EDTA preserved blood.

[William Anthony]

I understand what you think the article says. However, you have ignored that the detection level was 7.3ng/mL, which there is no notation that was blood preserved with EDTA. The article then stated that the LLQ was 15ng/mL, upon which we have agreed. The article then went on to say that if this LLQ was used and in parenthesis right beside it and planting said (6 fmol, injected)-1-3 nL of EDTA preserved blood. The 6 is what is comparable to to Ballard's 7-8 nL of EDTA preserved blood. That is why the article speaks to trace level concentrations. The 15ng/mL using the conversion table indicates that a concentration of 15 parts per million would indicate planting. The concentration of 2 parts per million is roughly 133.33 times more than what indicates planting or blood preserved with EDTA. The 7.3ng/mL is the concentration they detected in unpreserved human blood, which 2 parts per million is 266.66 times more than what is found in unpreserved blood.

The article then went on to explain that they had an LLQ or 15ng/mL that detected blood that was preserved with EDTA in a concentration that was 10 to the 5th or 100,000 times lower than what was found in the typical concentration in EDTA preserved blood.

Correction-The 15ng/mL using the conversion table indicates that a concentration of 15 parts per billion would indicate planting.

[Kate Sachel]

Have you had a personal relationship with that person?

How is that relevant?

Kate

[William Anthony]

Triumph of Justice,
“Dr. Cotton explained that when blood is drawn for testing by labs, it is preserved with the chemical EDTA, which stops the DNA in the blood from degrading. (Degradation is simply the breaking down of a chemical into its component parts over time.) But when she compared the degradation levels of Nicole's autopsy vial, Dr. Cotton found the autopsy vial contained the more degraded blood. The blood on the sock was fresher and richer in DNA content than the blood in the vial. Once blood has degraded, it is impossible to raise its DNA count; you can't pony it back up. Under the conspiracy theory, the blood used to plant on the sock came from Nicole's autopsy vial, but that blood had a lower DNA count than the blood on the sock. Nicole's blood was fresher when it spurted out and splashed onto Simpson's sock as he was killing her than two days later when the coroner collected it. This completely destroyed the notion of any planting; its impossible for degraded blood to become fresh again. Nicole's blood on the sock could not have been planted.”

bobaugust

I have done a quick word search of Cotton's testimony and I did not find anything related to EDTA or degrading. Perhaps, you can pinpoint that testimony or I will be forced to believe that Petrocelli was again exaggerating in his work of fiction. Thanks.

[William Anthony]

How is that relevant?

Kate

It is relevant to me, but it may not be to you. The point I was making is that I can continue a discussion with anyone, even though I disagree with their opinions and do not respect those opinion, which would not cause me to say that I have no disrespect for the person. For instance, I have no respect for the sentiments expressed by MF. However, I would respect him as a person up and until I met him personally and he disrespected me or that he publicly stated in some fashion that he had no respect for me. I do not believe that you have met that poster personally or that he has done something in your physical presence to say that he disrespected you. I guess what I am saying is that I am able to make a distinction between a person's words and there actions, unless they have said they have no respect for me. The action of typing those words to me implies an intention to mean what they say. I believe that some words or phrases injure more than others and I realize that it is a personal emotion as to the degree one has been harmed. I am not saying that you don't have the right to feel as you do. I am saying that because of the nature of those words they should be used with caution.

[William Anthony]

Let’s set the record straight. I never said I have no respect for you because you disagree with my claims. I said I had no respect for you because you refuse to admit you’re wrong about your claims.

Earlier this year there were some heated discussions regarding your interpretations of the law and your claim that Mark Fuhrman admitted to seeing two gloves under the plant leaves at Bundy. There were comments made by both of us regarding respect. My comments started by saying I have no respect for your opinions. After some more heated discussions I said, “Not only are you wrong you refuse to admit you are wrong just as you have refused to admit to being wrong about other ridiculous arguments you've attempted to make. That's why I have no respect for you.” Which then led to a pretty good retaliatory rant from you.

bobaugust

I do not deny that I responded to your remark that you had no respect for me. I thank you for acknowledging that your insulting remark was made because you disagreed with my opinions or as you say claims on the law and the evidence. You think that opinions are ridiculous, because they do not agree with yours or because they see things differently. You are entitled to your opinion of my opinion and I am entitled to and demand respect.

[Kate Sachel]

It is relevant to me, but it may not be to you. The point I was making is that I can continue a discussion with anyone, even though I disagree with their opinions and do not respect those opinion, which would not cause me to say that I have no disrespect for the person. For instance, I have no respect for the sentiments expressed by MF. However, I would respect him as a person up and until I met him personally and he disrespected me or that he publicly stated in some fashion that he had no respect for me. I do not believe that you have met that poster personally or that he has done something in your physical presence to say that he disrespected you. I guess what I am saying is that I am able to make a distinction between a person's words and there actions, unless they have said they have no respect for me. The action of typing those words to me implies an intention to mean what they say. I believe that some words or phrases injure more than others and I realize that it is a personal emotion as to the degree one has been harmed. I am not saying that you don't have the right to feel as you do. I am saying that because of the nature of those words they should be used with caution.

You're right, it holds no relevance to me. I am not of the opinion that you have to personally meet an individual and be disrespected directly in order to have no respect for that person.

Kate

[William Anthony]

You're right, it holds no relevance to me. I am not of the opinion that you have to personally meet an individual and be disrespected directly in order to have no respect for that person.

Kate

I have acknowledge the exception, which is when a person says that he has no respect for me. Of course, this is just my set of values and I was seeking your particular mindset on that issue. I happen to know some of the history that might have prompted your remark and I do not equate your comment to bobaugust's. To me, they are very hurtful comments, because of the historical connotations to that remark. I am not attempting to start a debate on history but I am trying to allow you to understand my point of view. It would cause the same amount of harm regardless of who the speaker was, because I am first and foremost a human being.

[bobaugust]

I understand what you think the article says. However, you have ignored that the detection level was 7.3ng/mL, which there is no notation that was blood preserved with EDTA. The article then stated that the LLQ was 15ng/mL, upon which we have agreed. The article then went on to say that if this LLQ was used and in parenthesis right beside it and planting said (6 fmol, injected)-1-3 nL of EDTA preserved blood. The 6 is what is comparable to to Ballard's 7-8 nL of EDTA preserved blood. That is why the article speaks to trace level concentrations. The 15ng/mL using the conversion table indicates that a concentration of 15 parts per million would indicate planting. The concentration of 2 parts per million is roughly 133.33 times more than what indicates planting or blood preserved with EDTA. The 7.3ng/mL is the concentration they detected in unpreserved human blood, which 2 parts per million is 266.66 times more than what is found in unpreserved blood.

The article then went on to explain that they had an LLQ or 15ng/mL that detected blood that was preserved with EDTA in a concentration that was 10 to the 5th or 100,000 times lower than what was found in the typical concentration in EDTA preserved blood.

The article “Determining EDTA in Blood” was about new methods to detect EDTA in human plasma. No matter how you spin and interpret the numbers in the article it doesn’t change the fact that preserved blood contains EDTA in a concentration of 1000 to 2000 parts per million, not parts per billion.

When you say, “The 6 is what is comparable to to Ballard's 7-8 nL of EDTA preserved blood.” I assume the “6” you are referring to is (~6 fmol injected). That was part of the description of the LLQ of 15 ng/mL achieved using the SRM-CE/MS method, not the comparable detection limit of 10 ng/sample in the GC/MS/MS method developed by Ballard and colleagues.

The article never said that the LLQ of 15 ng/mL detected blood that was preserved with EDTA in a concentration 10 to the 5th lower than the typical concentration, it said, “The LLQ of our method, at 15 ng/mL, (the detection limit) is a factor of (10 to the 5th) lower than the typical concentration found in EDTA-preserved blood (4.5 mM or 1.3 X 106 ng/mL).”

The article never said that the LLQ of 15 ng/mL indicates that a concentration of 15 parts per billion would indicate planting.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

It is relevant to me, but it may not be to you. The point I was making is that I can continue a discussion with anyone, even though I disagree with their opinions and do not respect those opinion, which would not cause me to say that I have no disrespect for the person. For instance, I have no respect for the sentiments expressed by MF. However, I would respect him as a person up and until I met him personally and he disrespected me or that he publicly stated in some fashion that he had no respect for me. I do not believe that you have met that poster personally or that he has done something in your physical presence to say that he disrespected you. I guess what I am saying is that I am able to make a distinction between a person's words and there actions, unless they have said they have no respect for me. The action of typing those words to me implies an intention to mean what they say. I believe that some words or phrases injure more than others and I realize that it is a personal emotion as to the degree one has been harmed. I am not saying that you don't have the right to feel as you do. I am saying that because of the nature of those words they should be used with caution.

“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.” William Anthony.

So despite the names you have called Mark Fuhrman you claim you respect him as a person? If you had the nerve to call him those names to his face I would think he would have shown you some reciprocal respect as a person. Funny

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I do not deny that I responded to your remark that you had no respect for me. I thank you for acknowledging that your insulting remark was made because you disagreed with my opinions or as you say claims on the law and the evidence. You think that opinions are ridiculous, because they do not agree with yours or because they see things differently. You are entitled to your opinion of my opinion and I am entitled to and demand respect.

Respect is usually given to someone who earns it not someone who demands it.

bobaugust

[weezer]

Respect is usually given to someone who earns it not someone who demands it.

bobaugust

:beer::beer:

[martin II]

Respect is usually given to someone who earns it not someone who demands it.

bobaugust

If one does not demand respect , one is not likely to receive it.

[Redmama]

If one does not demand respect , one is not likely to receive it.

I'll go one step further - they will never receive it.

[William Anthony]

The article “Determining EDTA in Blood” was about new methods to detect EDTA in human plasma. No matter how you spin and interpret the numbers in the article it doesn’t change the fact that preserved blood contains EDTA in a concentration of 1000 to 2000 parts per million, not parts per billion.

When you say, “The 6 is what is comparable to to Ballard's 7-8 nL of EDTA preserved blood.” I assume the “6” you are referring to is (~6 fmol injected). That was part of the description of the LLQ of 15 ng/mL achieved using the SRM-CE/MS method, not the comparable detection limit of 10 ng/sample in the GC/MS/MS method developed by Ballard and colleagues.

The article never said that the LLQ of 15 ng/mL detected blood that was preserved with EDTA in a concentration 10 to the 5th lower than the typical concentration, it said, “The LLQ of our method, at 15 ng/mL, (the detection limit) is a factor of (10 to the 5th) lower than the typical concentration found in EDTA-preserved blood (4.5 mM or 1.3 X 106 ng/mL).”

The article never said that the LLQ of 15 ng/mL indicates that a concentration of 15 parts per billion would indicate planting.

bobaugust

I could and might go into a lengthy explanation as to what the article said but instead I will remind you that the article explained that there were two detections they discovered, one being 7.3ng/mL and the other 15ng/mL "of EDTA preserved blood". I will only say that you :read::read::read:carefully. so that you do not continue to post falsely.

[tv]

If one does not demand respect , one is not likely to receive it.

Not true. Do you think all of the demands for respect from one poster to another has worked? Do you think that poster is now respected by the person he demands it from?

[William Anthony]

“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.” William Anthony.

So despite the names you have called Mark Fuhrman you claim you respect him as a person? If you had the nerve to call him those names to his face I would think he would have shown you some reciprocal respect as a person. Funny

bobaugust

I thought that I had explained that I was giving him his proper accolades as supported by the evidence and his actions on the witness stand. I would only remind you that MF is not protected by the badge, the color of authority, a gun or the overused police baton. I think he is smart enough to adjust his behavior accordingly when he meets people face to face. I was always told that going to war is like going to court, you never know how you are going to come out and that you have to bring behind to get some. I would say that if you ever meet face to face some of the people you have disrespected and made derogatory remarks about on this forum, you might want to pack a lunch.

[William Anthony]

Respect is usually given to someone who earns it not someone who demands it.

bobaugust

You fall under a rather common misconception, imho. All people are deserving of respect and it is not earned it is lost. I feel that a little historical connection must be made in order for you to fully appreciate the ideology of America. There was a time when Blacks and Women were not given the respect due them, which necessitated several amendments to the Constitution. In fact, an infamous opinion of a Chief Justice said that at the time of the creation of the Constitution, a Black had no rights that a White was duty bound to respect. The Preamble gave a partial list of unalienable rights, which I propose respect as a human being was a part thereof. The right to be respected as a human being and to receive equal rights came through the demands of women and Blacks.

It is with this backdrop that I now correct what you have claimed as to my feelings about MF. Coming from an ancestry of people, who were dedicated to demand the respect as human implied by the Constitution, I would exercise extraordinary caution in saying that I have no respect for another human. With this in mind, I remind you that I have said that I despise MF's conduct and statements but have never said that I have no respect for him. In fact, I respect a person, who has the courage to speak his feelings, rather they be controversial or not and the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees them that right within certain limitations. Despite any feelings I might have as to your conduct and statements, I still have some respect for you, as I do MF, simply because you are both human.

[William Anthony]

I think that all those, who are laboring under the ideology that respect should not be demanded or that it will not be received if demanded, should read my above post. This is not to say that the law can regulate human emotions but it is to say that the law provides redress when those human emotions violate the guarantees of Constitution. I think we all respect the value of a dollar. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

Not true. Do you think all of the demands for respect from one poster to another has worked? Do you think that poster is now respected by the person he demands it from?

Some posters are more rational, civil, sensitive and raised differently from others. It is the demand not the fulfillment of the demand that is an auxiliary for change. While it may not come today, it is likely to come in the future. Enter BO.

[tv]

Some posters are more rational, civil, sensitive and raised differently from others. It is the demand not the fulfillment of the demand that is an auxiliary for change. While it may not come today, it is likely to come in the future. Enter BO.I've been disrepected on this forum and I try to refrain from whining and demanding respect because it gets tedious for everyone else that has to read it. As for BO, I wouldn't be so sure...that's far from a done deal. I watched him on O'Reilly and I found it strange that he would dissolve into giggles when he couldn't come up with an answer.

[William Anthony]

I've been disrepected on this forum and I try to refrain from whining and demanding respect because it gets tedious for everyone else that has to read it. As for BO, I wouldn't be so sure...that's far from a done deal. I watched him on O'Reilly and I found it strange that he would dissolve into giggles when he couldn't come up with an answer.

The degree that you demand respect might be the result of a different understanding of the importance of respect based on a difference in how you view the historical struggle for it. The thought that others my whine plays no part in my demand to be respected as a human being and I am sure that many saw Blacks and women as whiners and complainers. I was not making a prediction as to the result of the election. I was saying that a change has been made in that for the first time in the history of America you have a Black running for President, with the chance of a Black woman being America's First Lady. I did not add Sara because I was speaking as a Black and the historical respective of my demand for respect. However, from those women, who demanded equal rights, we now see the effects of their demands.

[tv]

The degree that you demand respect might be the result of a different understanding of the importance of respect based on a difference in how you view the historical struggle for it. The thought that others my whine plays no part in my demand to be respected as a human being and I am sure that many saw Blacks and women as whiners and complainers. I was not making a prediction as to the result of the election. I was saying that a change has been made in that for the first time in the history of America you have a Black running for President, with the chance of a Black woman being America's First Lady. I did not add Sara because I was speaking as a Black and the historical respective of my demand for respect. However, from those women, who demanded equal rights, we now see the effects of their demands.

You're the person I'm referring to as a whiner. Why do you have to turn everything into "historical struggle"? Can't we just discuss the case without you reminding us of the fact that you're obsessed with your race and every slight toward you, imagined or real, you blame on other's reaction to your skin color? Seriously, William, it's old already.

[William Anthony]

You're the person I'm referring to as a whiner. Why do you have to turn everything into "historical struggle"? Can't we just discuss the case without you reminding us of the fact that you're obsessed with your race and every slight toward you, imagined or real, you blame on other's reaction to your skin color? Seriously, William, it's old already.

Please, refrain from a rush to judgment. I cannot ignore history and what brought me to where I am today. I have not blamed anyone for saying they have no respect for me on the basis of my skin color. I have clearly explained what prompted the response, imho, which was the poster's displeasure with me for disagreeing with his false statements about the issues in the criminal trial, inter alia. There was some seemingly anger directed to me, because I said I demanded to be expect and I chose to explain the reason why I demanded to be respected in the historical context of what respect and the value of demanding to be respected meant to me. I realize that there are obvious reasons or, if you will, ascribed reasons that others cannot appreciate my demand and was simply trying to explain why I demanded respect. With all due respect, if there are those, who do not wish me to explain my demand, then they should not be commenting on my demand, or trying to minimize my feelings, because they do not share the same perspective.

[tv]

Please, refrain from a rush to judgment. I cannot ignore history and what brought me to where I am today. I have not blamed anyone for saying they have no respect for me on the basis of my skin color. I have clearly explained what prompted the response, imho, which was the poster's displeasure with me for disagreeing with his false statements about the issues in the criminal trial, inter alia. There was some seemingly anger directed to me, because I said I demanded to be expect and I chose to explain the reason why I demanded to be respected in the historical context of what respect and the value of demanding to be respected meant to me. I realize that there are obvious reasons or, if you will, ascribed reasons that others cannot appreciate my demand and was simply trying to explain why I demanded respect. With all due respect, if there are those, who do not wish me to explain my demand, then they should not be commenting on my demand.
You're so full of yourself. My problem with your demands for respect is that it derails the discussion and takes us too far off-topic. There's no reason you can't PM bobaugust with your complaints and spare the rest of us. I should have known before I commented that I would have to read your tales of woe regarding being black. What was I thinking?

[William Anthony]

You're so full of yourself. My problem with your demands for respect is that it derails the discussion and takes us too far off-topic. There's no reason you can't PM bobaugust with your complaints and spare the rest of us. I should have known before I commented that I would have to read your tales of woe regarding being black. What was I thinking?

You are asking the wrong person about what you were thinking. I really don't know who can answer that , although there have been times when bobaugust seemed to be clairvoyant but I think he may not even be able to determine what you are thinking. I have not seen you ask bobaugust why he did not pm me with his statement of having no respect for me as opposed to publicly posting it. As usual, you misunderstand. My story is not a tale of woe at being Black. It is an expression of pride and an expression of triumph in the face of adversity due to a demand to be respected. I think that I will not try to speak to your feelings out of a recognition that I am not White nor a female and a respect for what you feel due to not being such.

[tv]

You are asking the wrong person about what you were thinking. I really don't know who can answer that , although there have been times when bobaugust seemed to be clairvoyant but I think he may not even be able to determine what you are thinking. I have not seen you ask bobaugust why he did not pm me with his statement of having no respect for me as opposed to publicly posting it. As usual, you misunderstand. My story is not a tale of woe at being Black. It is an expression of pride and an expression of triumph in the face of adversity due to a demand to be respected. I think that I will not try to speak to your feelings out of a recognition that I am not White nor a female and a respect for what you feel due to not being such.

It was a rhetorical question as you well know. We're never going to agree on the issue of respect so I've said what I wanted to say and am now finished.

I don't feel comfortable staying off topic so you can now have the thread back to launch once again into your erroneous mathematical calculations. Enjoy. :)

[William Anthony]

It was a rhetorical question as you well know. We're never going to agree on the issue of respect so I've said what I wanted to say and am now finished.

I don't feel comfortable staying off topic so you can now have the thread back to launch once again into your erroneous mathematical calculations. Enjoy. :)

Prove them wrong! Saying they are wrong is not proof and does not make them wrong. I am not going to let you inflame me, which is why I asked for proof. ;):cool:If you thought it was off topic, you should not have responded. I understand that, if some are unable to from an intelligent argument, they can say off topic instead of no mas.:)

[Redmama]

I think that all those, who are laboring under the ideology that respect should not be demanded or that it will not be received if demanded, should read my above post. This is not to say that the law can regulate human emotions but it is to say that the law provides redress when those human emotions violate the guarantees of Constitution. I think we all respect the value of a dollar. ;):cool:

Just like everything else, including opinions, everyone has one. The few times in my life that I haved worked with someone that I felt I needed to demand anything from, I might have somewhat acheived my goal in the end, but I can tell you that it was not comfortable nor did it feel like much of an achievement. I believe that is why the word "command" is much better suited when it comes to respect. Demanding someone's respect gives me the visual of a person screaming and slamming their hand on a table until they get what they want and that is exactly how it feels to me - I usually just ignore them or if in a professional situation, do only what I have to do. I can also say that those relationships only hurt the one that starts it because I find myself only doing what I have to do and in the long run, making their life more difficult than it has to be. Pretty child like and petty, I know, but true. Luckily, I don't have many people in my life like that.

[tv]

Prove them wrong! Saying they are wrong is not proof and does not make them wrong. I am not going to let you inflame me, which is why I asked for proof. ;):cool:If you thought it was off topic, you should not have responded. I understand that, if some are unable to from an intelligent argument, they can say off topic instead of no mas.:)
I don't really care what opinion you have of my intelligence but why did you say "some" when you meant "you"? Please, don't be timid.

I don't get involved in the EDTA discussion because I don't have the patience of bobaugust. Simple as that.

[tv]

Just like everything else, including opinions, everyone has one. The few times in my life that I haved worked with someone that I felt I needed to demand anything from, I might have somewhat acheived my goal in the end, but I can tell you that it was not comfortable nor did it feel like much of an achievement. I believe that is why the word "command" is much better suited when it comes to respect. Demanding someone's respect gives me the visual of a person screaming and slamming their hand on a table until they get what they want and that is exactly how it feels to me - I usually just ignore them or if in a professional situation, do only what I have to do. I can also say that those relationships only hurt the one that starts it because I find myself only doing what I have to do and in the long run, making their life more difficult than it has to be. Pretty child like and petty, I know, but true. Luckily, I don't have many people in my life like that.I completely agree with you when it comes to commanding respect as opposed to demanding it. It's very difficult to show respect when it's not felt in the heart.

[William Anthony]

I don't really care what opinion you have of my intelligence but why did you say "some" when you meant "you"? Please, don't be timid.

I don't get involved in the EDTA discussion because I don't have the patience of bobaugust. Simple as that.

With all due respect, Your patience seems to be selectively wearing thin. You called my math wrong and I asked for proof. It has nothing to do with your wanting to get involved in the discussion. It has to do with you supporting your claim. I am well versed enough in the English language to be able to select the pronoun I choose to use.

[William Anthony]

Just like everything else, including opinions, everyone has one. The few times in my life that I haved worked with someone that I felt I needed to demand anything from, I might have somewhat acheived my goal in the end, but I can tell you that it was not comfortable nor did it feel like much of an achievement. I believe that is why the word "command" is much better suited when it comes to respect. Demanding someone's respect gives me the visual of a person screaming and slamming their hand on a table until they get what they want and that is exactly how it feels to me - I usually just ignore them or if in a professional situation, do only what I have to do. I can also say that those relationships only hurt the one that starts it because I find myself only doing what I have to do and in the long run, making their life more difficult than it has to be. Pretty child like and petty, I know, but true. Luckily, I don't have many people in my life like that.

Demand for respect to me conjures up images of men, women and children being beaten with batons, murdered, lynched, arrested and having water hoses turned onthem for peaceful demonstrations or for attempting peacefully to ascertain equal rights. It was their demands that commanded the attention of the United States Government. Unlike your example, it was not those that were being disrespected, it was those doing the disrespect that made life difficult.

[William Anthony]

I completely agree with you when it comes to commanding respect as opposed to demanding it. It's very difficult to show respect when it's not felt in the heart.

I see that you are still willing to respond to some posts that you consider off topic.

[tv]

With all due respect, Your patience seems to be selectively wearing thin. You called my math wrong and I asked for proof. It has nothing to do with your wanting to get involved in the discussion. It has to do with you supporting your claim. I am well versed enough in the English language to be able to select the pronoun I choose to use.My patience with you wore thin long ago. It's my opinion that your math is wrong. I'm not required to provide proof in order to express an opinion.

[martin II]

Just like everything else, including opinions, everyone has one. The few times in my life that I haved worked with someone that I felt I needed to demand anything from, I might have somewhat acheived my goal in the end, but I can tell you that it was not comfortable nor did it feel like much of an achievement. I believe that is why the word "command" is much better suited when it comes to respect. Demanding someone's respect gives me the visual of a person screaming and slamming their hand on a table until they get what they want and that is exactly how it feels to me - I usually just ignore them or if in a professional situation, do only what I have to do. I can also say that those relationships only hurt the one that starts it because I find myself only doing what I have to do and in the long run, making their life more difficult than it has to be. Pretty child like and petty, I know, but true. Luckily, I don't have many people in my life like that.


I think that respect can be demanded by words and actions and not necessraly by banging on a table or yelling.

[William Anthony]

My patience with you wore thin long ago. It's my opinion that your math is wrong. I'm not required to provide proof in order to express an opinion.

This was your original post.

"I don't feel comfortable staying off topic so you can now have the thread back to launch once again into your erroneous mathematical calculations. Enjoy. "

When asked for proof of your claim, you now want to alter it to an opinion. I think you can respect the fact that I am demonstrating the patience of Job when it comes to your posts (and that was the possessive pronoun I intended to use).;):cool:

[tv]

This was your original post.

"I don't feel comfortable staying off topic so you can now have the thread back to launch once again into your erroneous mathematical calculations. Enjoy. "

When asked for proof of your claim, you now want to alter it to an opinion. I think you can respect the fact that I am demonstrating the patience of Job when it comes to your posts (and that was the possessive pronoun I intended to use).;):cool:I'm not getting involved in the EDTA discussion. The End.

[bobaugust]

I could and might go into a lengthy explanation as to what the article said but instead I will remind you that the article explained that there were two detections they discovered, one being 7.3ng/mL and the other 15ng/mL "of EDTA preserved blood". I will only say that you :read::read::read:carefully. so that you do not continue to post falsely.

The article never said a detection limit of15ng/mL “of EDTA preserved blood. It said, “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).”

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I'm not getting involved in the EDTA discussion. The End.

Then I respectfully request that you refrain from making false accusations about my post, unless you can prove what you claim. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.;):cool:

[tv]

Then I respectfully request that you refrain from making false accusations about my post, unless you can prove what you claim. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.;):cool:

Sure. :biggrin:

[William Anthony]

The article never said a detection limit of15ng/mL “of EDTA preserved blood. It said, “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).”

bobaugust

This is the relevant part of what the article 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."

Do you see the word, and? Do you understand and to mean also?

Do you see that the and is also the LLQ which we have previously agreed is 15ng/mL? Do you see that the LLQ is expressed as a fracition? Do you see the word injected? Do you understand that EDTA is not injected into human blood, unless for test purposes? Do you see the words, this LLQ? Do you see the letters LLQ used to signify anything other than the 15ng/mL to signify any other concentration in this or any preceding section? Do you see the words, corresponds to planting of EDTA preserved blood?

[martin II]

I completely agree with you when it comes to commanding respect as opposed to demanding it. It's very difficult to show respect when it's not felt in the heart.

I think that many are required to show respect to say their boss even when it is not heart felt and they often times do so. imo:cool:

[Redmama]

I think that respect can be demanded by words and actions and not necessraly by banging on a table or yelling.

Yeah, it sure can, I'm just being honest about how it makes ME feel when someone demands something from me - no matter how many words can be strung together poetically, I still know when someone is pushing their own agenda. They get back from me whatever they are asking for - verbally or non-verbally.

[weezer]

I think that many are required to show respect to say their boss even when it is not heart felt and they often times do so. imo:cool:

no one is 'required' to show respect to anyone they don't feel has earned it. imo

[William Anthony]

Yeah, it sure can, I'm just being honest about how it makes ME feel when someone demands something from me - no matter how many words can be strung together poetically, I still know when someone is pushing their own agenda. They get back from me whatever they are asking for - verbally or non-verbally.

There should be no reason for someone to have to demand respect.

[William Anthony]

So, if we meet strangers, it is not required to respect them, because they have not earned our respect. I cannot take that stance, because I would disrespect myself.

[bobaugust]

This is the relevant part of what the article 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."

Do you see the word, and? Do you understand and to mean also?

Do you see that the and is also the LLQ which we have previously agreed is 15ng/mL? Do you see that the LLQ is expressed as a fracition? Do you see the word injected? Do you understand that EDTA is not injected into human blood, unless for test purposes? Do you see the words, this LLQ? Do you see the letters LLQ used to signify anything other than the 15ng/mL to signify any other concentration in this or any preceding section? Do you see the words, corresponds to planting of EDTA preserved blood?

The article 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).”

7.3 ng/mL and a lower level of quantitation (LLQ) of 15 ng/mL (~6 fmol injected) are the detection limits of this method.

“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.”

Do you see the word “If”?

“This hypothetical scenario illustrates the excellent sensitivity and potential forensic usefulness of the method.”

Do you see the words “This hypothetical scenario”?

What does EDTA injected into human blood for test purposes have to do with the hypothetical scenario?

We can discuss what this article says over and over but the bottom line is that it takes between 1000 and 2000 parts per million of EDTA to preserve blood. And this article doesn’t say anything to the contrary.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The article 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).”

7.3 ng/mL and a lower level of quantitation (LLQ) of 15 ng/mL (~6 fmol injected) are the detection limits of this method.

“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.”

Do you see the word “If”?

“This hypothetical scenario illustrates the excellent sensitivity and potential forensic usefulness of the method.”

Do you see the words “This hypothetical scenario”?

What does EDTA injected into human blood for test purposes have to do with the hypothetical scenario?

We can discuss what this article says over and over but the bottom line is that it takes between 1000 and 2000 parts per million of EDTA to preserve blood. And this article doesn’t say anything to the contrary.

bobaugust

The article also said that the method was valid and could be used in courts. Yes, it was a hypothetical because they did not have the samples that were used in the Simpson trial. The results that they obtained was that the 7.3ng/mL was in unpreserved human blood and the 15ng/mL was in EDTA preserved blood, meaning that the EDTA, in that concentration was injected into the blood stream, "planting" and it did not get there though the normal process of eating food and excreting or having the EDTA absorbed after eating. I thought you would be able to understand that. Sorry, If I was wrong. Using their detection limits we see that the concentration of EDTA in blood that was not preserved would be in the range of 7.3-14.99999 parts per billion. That is what the article said.

[weezer]

it seems some folks confuse 'respect' with 'manners'

2. manners,

b. ways of behaving with reference to polite standards; social comportment: That child has good manners.

3. a person's outward bearing; way of speaking to and treating others: She has a charming manner.

b. ways of behaving with reference to polite standards; social comportment: That child has good manners.

3. a person's outward bearing; way of speaking to and treating others: She has a charming manner.

[bobaugust]

The article also said that the method was valid and could be used in courts. Yes, it was a hypothetical because they did not have the samples that were used in the Simpson trial. The results that they obtained was that the 7.3ng/mL was in unpreserved human blood and the 15ng/mL was in EDTA preserved blood, meaning that the EDTA, in that concentration was injected into the blood stream, "planting" and it did not get there though the normal process of eating food and excreting or having the EDTA absorbed after eating. I thought you would be able to understand that. Sorry, If I was wrong. Using their detection limits we see that the concentration of EDTA in blood that was not preserved would be in the range of 7.3-14.99999 parts per billion. That is what the article said.

I’m not sure I agree with your conclusion that the concentration of EDTA in plasma was in the range of 7.3 to 15 parts per million, but tell me please what makes you think that the 15ng/mL is preserved blood? As far as I can see both detection limits were based on the same extract,

“The complete SRM-CE/MS procedure uses 100 µL of plasma, to which is added 50 ng of (13C4)EDTA internal standard, brought to pH 9-10 with ammonium hydroxide, and complexed using nickel nitrate. The sample is diluted 1:45 with 0.05% formic acid (pH 3) and then extracted using strong anion-exchange solid-phase extraction media. The sample is eluted, evaporated, and reconstituted in 30 µL of water. The extract is injected for 0.1 min at 950 mbar inlet pressure onto a 50 µm X 60 cm amine-coated capillary.

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).”

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I think that a poster has inadvertently proven my point. There is no doubt in my mind that one should be careful to display the best manners when they entertain a stranger, because they may be entertaining an angel unaware. There is no doubt in my mind that showing good manners is a part of having respect for another. Therefore, the logical argument is that, if you show respect to a stranger, respect is given not earned. A few weeks ago, I spoke of the power of words. Having a modest degree of reverence and respect for God and his word, I wish that all would respect his word, even if they do not respect the messenger.

[William Anthony]

I’m not sure I agree with your conclusion that the concentration of EDTA in plasma was in the range of 7.3 to 15 parts per million, but tell me please what makes you think that the 15ng/mL is preserved blood? As far as I can see both detection limits were based on the same extract,

“The complete SRM-CE/MS procedure uses 100 µL of plasma, to which is added 50 ng of (13C4)EDTA internal standard, brought to pH 9-10 with ammonium hydroxide, and complexed using nickel nitrate. The sample is diluted 1:45 with 0.05% formic acid (pH 3) and then extracted using strong anion-exchange solid-phase extraction media. The sample is eluted, evaporated, and reconstituted in 30 µL of water. The extract is injected for 0.1 min at 950 mbar inlet pressure onto a 50 µm X 60 cm amine-coated capillary.

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).”

bobaugust

I think your spell checker is acting out, again. Let's put everything in context.

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

"There was evidence of some EDTA, at levels much lower than in EDTA-preserved blood. The questions "How much EDTA is there?" and "Are the detected levels consistent with 'normal' levels or those that would result from tainted blood collected in EDTA anticoagulant blood tubes?" arose immediately. "

"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. "

"and the familiar lavender-stoppered blood collection tubes contain enough EDTA to give a final concentration of ~ 4.5 mM."

"To further minimize the possibility of interference,(your spell checker seemed to omit) we developed an automated anion-exchange solid-phase extraction procedure. The complete SRM-CE/MS procedure uses 100 µL of plasma, to which is added 50 ng of (13C4)EDTA internal standard, brought to pH 9-10 with ammonium hydroxide, and complexed using nickel nitrate. The sample is diluted 1:45 with 0.05% formic acid (pH 3) and then extracted using strong anion-exchange solid-phase extraction media. The sample is eluted, evaporated, and reconstituted in 30 µL of water. The extract is injected for 0.1 min at 950 mbar inlet pressure onto a 50 µm X 60 cm amine-coated capillary. The separation is performed using a CE running buffer of 30 mM ammonium formate at pH 3 (adjusted with formic acid) and -30 kV with 50-mbar inlet pressure throughout the run. A homemade self-aligning liquid junction CE/MS interface is used with a makeup liquid of 5 mM ammonium formate in 95% methanol at 10µL/min (22, 23). A triple-quadrupole mass spectrometer is used in the negative-ion mode with SRM of the transitions m/z 347-329 for Ni-EDTA and m/z 351-333 for the internal standard Ni-(13C4)EDTA. The complete method and validation are described in this issue in reference 24." (all of which your spell checker seemed to delete).

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).

This additional selectivity can be put to use in the selected reaction monitoring (SRM) mode by monitoring only the specified transition m/z 347 fragmenting to 329. Further selectivity is achieved via the initial CE separation, which gives a characteristic migration time for Ni-EDTA. It is highly unlikely that a chemical compound other than Ni-EDTA would result in this characteristic transition at the specified migration time under the described experimental conditions.

I saved the best for last.

To illustrate this point, blank and Ni-EDTA-spiked plasma samples were simply diluted with water, filtered, and analyzed by CE with UV detection and CE with SRM detection. The blank plasma in Figure 4a and the 1-µM Ni-EDTA-spiked plasma in Figure 4b are indistinguishable by CE/UV because of the excessive chemical background detected at 200 nm. In contrast, when analyzed by SRM-CE/MS, the same blank plasma sample is free of all matrix peaks (Figure 4c); whereas the Ni-EDTA-spiked plasma displays only the targeted Ni-EDTA peak (Figure 4d). This example clearly shows the advantage of using tandem MS for this type of targeted analysis.

I think it is clear, since the last paragraph of my quotes comes before your post, quoting the article, that your spell checker is putting you in peril. It is obvious that there was more than one sample used, one with blank EDTA and one with Ni-EDTA. It also becomes clear that the extract was taken out to minimize interference, which you spell checker seemingly took out (pun intended). It is also clear, since it was not stated that the 7.3 concentration did not refer to EDTA preserved blood and the 15 concentration did, since the report said of EDTA preserved blood.

[bobaugust]

I think your spell checker is acting out, again. Let's put everything in context.

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

"There was evidence of some EDTA, at levels much lower than in EDTA-preserved blood. The questions "How much EDTA is there?" and "Are the detected levels consistent with 'normal' levels or those that would result from tainted blood collected in EDTA anticoagulant blood tubes?" arose immediately. "

"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. "

"and the familiar lavender-stoppered blood collection tubes contain enough EDTA to give a final concentration of ~ 4.5 mM."

"To further minimize the possibility of interference,(your spell checker seemed to omit) we developed an automated anion-exchange solid-phase extraction procedure. The complete SRM-CE/MS procedure uses 100 µL of plasma, to which is added 50 ng of (13C4)EDTA internal standard, brought to pH 9-10 with ammonium hydroxide, and complexed using nickel nitrate. The sample is diluted 1:45 with 0.05% formic acid (pH 3) and then extracted using strong anion-exchange solid-phase extraction media. The sample is eluted, evaporated, and reconstituted in 30 µL of water. The extract is injected for 0.1 min at 950 mbar inlet pressure onto a 50 µm X 60 cm amine-coated capillary. The separation is performed using a CE running buffer of 30 mM ammonium formate at pH 3 (adjusted with formic acid) and -30 kV with 50-mbar inlet pressure throughout the run. A homemade self-aligning liquid junction CE/MS interface is used with a makeup liquid of 5 mM ammonium formate in 95% methanol at 10µL/min (22, 23). A triple-quadrupole mass spectrometer is used in the negative-ion mode with SRM of the transitions m/z 347-329 for Ni-EDTA and m/z 351-333 for the internal standard Ni-(13C4)EDTA. The complete method and validation are described in this issue in reference 24." (all of which your spell checker seemed to delete).

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).

This additional selectivity can be put to use in the selected reaction monitoring (SRM) mode by monitoring only the specified transition m/z 347 fragmenting to 329. Further selectivity is achieved via the initial CE separation, which gives a characteristic migration time for Ni-EDTA. It is highly unlikely that a chemical compound other than Ni-EDTA would result in this characteristic transition at the specified migration time under the described experimental conditions.

I saved the best for last.

To illustrate this point, blank and Ni-EDTA-spiked plasma samples were simply diluted with water, filtered, and analyzed by CE with UV detection and CE with SRM detection. The blank plasma in Figure 4a and the 1-µM Ni-EDTA-spiked plasma in Figure 4b are indistinguishable by CE/UV because of the excessive chemical background detected at 200 nm. In contrast, when analyzed by SRM-CE/MS, the same blank plasma sample is free of all matrix peaks (Figure 4c); whereas the Ni-EDTA-spiked plasma displays only the targeted Ni-EDTA peak (Figure 4d). This example clearly shows the advantage of using tandem MS for this type of targeted analysis.

I think it is clear, since the last paragraph of my quotes comes before your post, quoting the article, that your spell checker is putting you in peril. It is obvious that there was more than one sample used, one with blank EDTA and one with Ni-EDTA. It also becomes clear that the extract was taken out to minimize interference, which you spell checker seemingly took out (pun intended). It is also clear, since it was not stated that the 7.3 concentration did not refer to EDTA preserved blood and the 15 concentration did, since the report said of EDTA preserved blood.

Enough with the spell checker comments. Nothing you quoted in this article says that EDTA preserved blood is in a concentration other than 1300 parts per million.

Of course there was evidence of EDTA at levels MUCH lower than in EDTA-preserved blood in the Simpson case. That evidence was the 2 parts per million trace amounts of EDTA indicated in the third test results in the evidence stains and Martz’s own non-preserved blood. That was evidence of a contamination not evidence of preserved blood.

The article never said either of the two detection limits had anything to do with preserved blood. The LLQ of 15 ng/mL was the greater of the two detection limits and was used in a hypothetical scenario to determine if blood was planted.

bobaugust

[limakey]

Enough with the spell checker comments. Nothing you quoted in this article says that EDTA preserved blood is in a concentration other than 1300 parts per million.

Of course there was evidence of EDTA at levels MUCH lower than in EDTA-preserved blood in the Simpson case. That evidence was the 2 parts per million trace amounts of EDTA indicated in the third test results in the evidence stains and Martz’s own non-preserved blood. That was evidence of a contamination not evidence of preserved blood.

The article never said either of the two detection limits had anything to do with preserved blood. The LLQ of 15 ng/mL was the greater of the two detection limits and was used in a hypothetical scenario to determine if blood was planted.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Here is what I don't get. It was Civil Trial Dr. Lee who said that EDTA was an unstable compound, correct? That it is apparently very difficult to determine what factors or other compounds could affect it's concentration.

Well how does Dr. Lee know that the contamination that was said to be in the machine, did not break down the levels of EDTA? Isn't only fair to consider that the EDTA levels were high, but this contamination lowered the concentration?

It appears to me, that both Martz and Dr. Lee are saying that the contamination produced the false positive of EDTA, how could they know that for sure? How do they know that the contamination compound had no affect on the level of contamination?

Again, IMO, it seems like Dr. Lee was the perfect witness, his testimony could never be proved or disapproved. Again, IMO.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Here is what I don't get. It was Civil Trial Dr. Lee who said that EDTA was an unstable compound, correct? That it is apparently very difficult to determine what factors or other compounds could affect it's concentration.

Well how does Dr. Lee know that the contamination that was said to be in the machine, did not break down the levels of EDTA? Isn't only fair to consider that the EDTA levels were high, but this contamination lowered the concentration?

It appears to me, that both Martz and Dr. Lee are saying that the contamination produced the false positive of EDTA, how could they know that for sure? How do they know that the contamination compound had no affect on the level of contamination?

Again, IMO, it seems like Dr. Lee was the perfect witness, his testimony could never be proved or disapproved. Again, IMO.

The small trace amount of EDTA showed up only in the third test results. In the first two tests Martz conducted only on the evidence stains there was no indication of any EDTA in the two stains. Martz ran three samples in the third test, the two evidence samples and his own non-preserved blood. The test results indicated the same trace amount in all three samples. The fact that Martz’s own non-preserved blood showed the same trace amount as the in the evidence stains is another reason that supports carryover contamination. Dr. Lee did testify that EDTA is an unstable compound and not likely to degrade under normal circumstances.

January 16, 1997 Dr. Terry Lee
Q. So for both of the two evidence samples, socks and back gate, tested by Agent Martz, he got only a trace signal from the evidence sample and some mountainous signal from the known sample?
A. That's correct.
Q. And once again, Doctor, is it your opinion -- what is your opinion as to whether these little trace signals could have come from a purple-top test tube?
A. In my opinion, they could not have come from a purple-top test tube.
Q. Now, did Agent Martz also perform these same tests on his own blood?
A. He did.
Q. And what results did he obtain when he did that test?
A. He got essentially equivalent results with his own blood as far as the trace level of EDTA that were detected in his analyses.
Q. So when Agent Martz took out his own blood and tested it in the machine, he got this same little signal from his own blood?
A. That's correct.
Q. And from a scientific point of view, Dr. Lee, could you tell us what the significance of that is?
A. The significance, from a scientific point of view, is that since the signal and response are the same, that the likely source of that signal was possibly the same.

*

Q. Dr. Rieders also tried to explain the difference between the small signal from the evidence sample and the large signal from the known sample by saying that it was possible that the EDTA in the evidence sample had somehow degraded before these tests were run. Is there any scientific literature that supports Dr. Rieders' opinion that EDTA could degrade so significantly?
A. None that I'm aware of.
MR. BAKER: Objection.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Do you believe that Dr. Rieders is correct or incorrect in that regard?
A. I believe he's incorrect.
Q. Why is that, sir?
A. EDTA is a very unstable compound; it's not likely to degrade under normal circumstances. And these evidence samples were -- came from different places and were treated differently; yet they all show the same levels. And so it's difficult to imagine the degradation that would be common to all the samples.
Q. And if Dr. Rieders was correct in his degradation theory, how would that explain the results that Agent Martz got in his own blood?
A. It wouldn't.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Enough with the spell checker comments. Nothing you quoted in this article says that EDTA preserved blood is in a concentration other than 1300 parts per million.

Of course there was evidence of EDTA at levels MUCH lower than in EDTA-preserved blood in the Simpson case. That evidence was the 2 parts per million trace amounts of EDTA indicated in the third test results in the evidence stains and Martz’s own non-preserved blood. That was evidence of a contamination not evidence of preserved blood.

The article never said either of the two detection limits had anything to do with preserved blood. The LLQ of 15 ng/mL was the greater of the two detection limits and was used in a hypothetical scenario to determine if blood was planted.

bobaugust

What part of this (pun intended) don't you understand, "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."?

The article clearly states that the concentration in blood was in the 15ng/mL or 15 part per billion range.

You do not have any authority which I am duty bound to respect as to telling me what comments I can and cannot make. I was just concerned about your spell checker imitating your old one.;):cool: Perhaps, if your spell checker was not so hyperactive, iif it is, you would see what the article said.

[tv]

What part of this (pun intended) don't you understand, "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."?

The article clearly states that the concentration in blood was in the 15ng/mL or 15 part per billion range.

You do not have any authority which I am duty bound to respect as to telling me what comments I can and cannot make. I was just concerned about your spell checker imitating your old one.;):cool:

Apparently, you feel you have authority that others don't have. You had no problem telling me yesterday what responses I can't make to your posts. This is a good time to tell you that I still think your math is wrong. :)

[William Anthony]

Apparently, you feel you have authority that others don't have. You had no problem telling me yesterday what responses I can't make to your posts. This is a good time to tell you that I still think your math is wrong. :)

WTH?

"Then I respectfully request that you refrain from making false accusations about my post, unless you can prove what you claim. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation." My post. You are entitled to think what you want but when you make a claim about my post, as you did yesterday, I am entitled to ask you to prove it. My response to bobaugust was within the rules, as he blamed his old spell checker and his posts have not changed in regard to ommissions. Your post to me was of quite a different nature. wink cool

[tv]

WTH?

"Then I respectfully request that you refrain from making false accusations about my post, unless you can prove what you claim. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation." My post. You are entitled to think what you want but when you make a claim about my post, as you did yesterday, I am entitled to ask you to prove it. My response to bobaugust was within the rules, as he blamed his old spell checker and his posts have not changed in regard to ommissions. Your post to me was of quite a different nature. wink coolWhatever, William. You always get so indignant when you're called out for not practicing what you preach. :tongue:

[William Anthony]

Whatever, William. You always get so indignant when you're called out for not practicing what you preach. :tongue:

If you consider being indignant as being factual, then so be it. ;):cool:

[Redmama]

I think that many are required to show respect to say their boss even when it is not heart felt and they often times do so. imo:cool:

No - not required - in my life I call that faking it.

[William Anthony]

No - not required - in my life I call that faking it.

I call it conforming to the values that society has determined are acceptable modes of behavior. It's alright to think it, just not say it. :)

[weezer]

No - not required - in my life I call that faking it.

LOL -- guilty!

some confuse manners with respect.

everybody should have manners -- no one should 'demand' respect.

imo

[martin II]

No - not required - in my life I call that faking it.

Well i guess there must be many people telling their bosses what they think negatively about him/her to their faces.

[William Anthony]

History shows us that respect was not given until it was demanded. Women would still not be able to sue their husband for domestic violence in some states as it was condoned. I guess some would consider those women wrong and pray their husband never took them to one of those states.

[William Anthony]

Some need to look up the definition of respect so that their posts would be truly informational, imho.

[William Anthony]

Well i guess there must be many people telling their bosses what they think negatively about him/her to their faces.

Is that the cause in the rise in unemployment? :)

[Redmama]

I call it conforming to the values that society has determined are acceptable modes of behavior. It's alright to think it, just not say it. :)

Yep! At least we are left with something.

In my current position, I know more than my boss does. I have NO interest in her job so she only hurts herself because I would help more than I do. I have enough personal work ethic to keep things running smoothly - but it doesn't have to be this way...know what I mean? Her loss...

[weezer]

Well i guess there must be many people telling their bosses what they think negatively about him/her to their faces.

most of the people I know and work with have the 'good manners' not to. guess it must be different where you are.

[William Anthony]

Yep! At least we are left with something.

In my current position, I know more than my boss does. I have NO interest in her job so she only hurts herself because I would help more than I do. I have enough personal work ethic to keep things running smoothly - but it doesn't have to be this way...know what I mean? Her loss...

A very interesting post. There are more ways of looking at things than one. I am not judging or trying to or want you to get offended. Some might say that money influenced your honesty, in that you rather stay employed as opposed to becoming unemployed and having to seek another job. How much does money influence our ethical choices? :)

[William Anthony]

"4. respectrespect - a courteous expression (by word or deed) of esteem or regard; "his deference to her wishes was very flattering"; "be sure to give my respects to the dean"
deference
civility, politeness - the act of showing regard for others"

[Redmama]

A very interesting post. There are more ways of looking at things than one. I am not judging or trying to or want you to get offended. Some might say that money influenced your honesty, in that you rather stay employed as opposed to becoming unemployed and having to seek another job. How much does money influence our ethical choices? :)


I'm really not easily offended. Let me try to explain my situation. I have been here a long time (remember I am older than dirt). My organization is very high stress. The expectations are just unbelievable from the executives, but complaining about it wouldn't change anything. Probably not even my employment - they'd shake their heads tell me they understand and we would go on. It is just the way this area is. That, and some of them don't have a life I don't think...they just sit around coming up with more stuff they want done.

In my position, I am the "doer" as I call it. I get my hands in and actually do the work. This is what I have always enjoyed doing. I have no interest in being the boss handing out the work. I also have no interest in having people report to me. I've been asked - but I'm just not interested. I am literally the coordinator for dozens of projects and people - everyone comes to me for everything...oh yeah then I do my regular job too. I love the interaction with people - it is what keeps me sane. I am known as the one that can talk anyone into anything (only good things I swear) because I have the respect of so many people. I am very proud of that. It doesn't mean it doesn't occasionally get to me - that's one of the reasons I come here - just to get away for a bit.

I do agree that money affects our ethical choices, but I also believe in picking my battles. I'm not sitting around holding in my feelings all of the time - I am actually about as honest as they get. Sometimes when my boss asks me a question I ask her if she is sure she wants to know the truth...it is somewhat of a joke but it is true - when it comes to the people around me, they are important and I pull no punches. If I felt that I was not standing up for myself just in order to keep my job, believe me I'd be right there. But as I said, I pick my battles - if/when I decide to stand up and put my job in jeopardy my children’s education would flash before my eyes. I would have to REALLY give that some thought. So yes, money could effect my choices but while I was standing in the unemployment line, those who fired me wouldn't give me a second thought. As far as my boss goes, she is a nice enough person, just very new and completely freaked out. My issue with her is that she doesn't try hard enough and will throw people under the bus sometimes in order to save herself.

The only time in my 25 plus years that I thought it was important enough it actually quit, it involved my health. It was about a year ago and I was so stressed my head wasn't thinking straight. I called and resigned...my boss at the time told me to think about it over the weekend...by Sunday I was in the hospital...surrounded by rubber if you get my meaning. Three months later I was back in my job. I thank my old boss all the time for not listening to me.

Like I tell my boss - watch what you ask...you'll get an earful. Sorry for being so long-winded!

[William Anthony]

I'm really not easily offended. Let me try to explain my situation. I have been here a long time (remember I am older than dirt). My organization is very high stress. The expectations are just unbelievable from the executives, but complaining about it wouldn't change anything. Probably not even my employment - they'd shake their heads tell me they understand and we would go on. It is just the way this area is. That, and some of them don't have a life I don't think...they just sit around coming up with more stuff they want done.

In my position, I am the "doer" as I call it. I get my hands in and actually do the work. This is what I have always enjoyed doing. I have no interest in being the boss handing out the work. I also have no interest in having people report to me. I've been asked - but I'm just not interested. I am literally the coordinator for dozens of projects and people - everyone comes to me for everything...oh yeah then I do my regular job too. I love the interaction with people - it is what keeps me sane. I am known as the one that can talk anyone into anything (only good things I swear) because I have the respect of so many people. I am very proud of that. It doesn't mean it doesn't occasionally get to me - that's one of the reasons I come here - just to get away for a bit.

I do agree that money affects our ethical choices, but I also believe in picking my battles. I'm not sitting around holding in my feelings all of the time - I am actually about as honest as they get. Sometimes when my boss asks me a question I ask her if she is sure she wants to know the truth...it is somewhat of a joke but it is true - when it comes to the people around me, they are important and I pull no punches. If I felt that I was not standing up for myself just in order to keep my job, believe me I'd be right there. But as I said, I pick my battles - if/when I decide to stand up and put my job in jeopardy my children’s education would flash before my eyes. I would have to REALLY give that some thought. So yes, money could effect my choices but while I was standing in the unemployment line, those who fired me wouldn't give me a second thought. As far as my boss goes, she is a nice enough person, just very new and completely freaked out. My issue with her is that she doesn't try hard enough and will throw people under the bus sometimes in order to save herself.

The only time in my 25 plus years that I thought it was important enough it actually quit, it involved my health. It was about a year ago and I was so stressed my head wasn't thinking straight. I called and resigned...my boss at the time told me to think about it over the weekend...by Sunday I was in the hospital...surrounded by rubber if you get my meaning. Three months later I was back in my job. I thank my old boss all the time for not listening to me.

Like I tell my boss - watch what you ask...you'll get an earful. Sorry for being so long-winded!

I wasn't asking you to explain yourself but I am not unhappy that you did. I enjoy learning about people. I was not making any value judgment about you. I was considering another way to look at what you said-its just the lawyer in me wanting to come out again. :)

I have been trained to do this. You should try reading some case decisions. They seem to start at point A go to point Z and go back to point A by a completely different route. I am called upon to make logic out of their route. For instance, in a case I recently read a person was denied the right to register to vote because of his color (no need for anyone to think I am injecting race in this) and asked the Supreme Court to find the statute unconstitutional. The Justice, who wrote the decision, did not offer an opinion as to the Constitutionality of the law, but then assumed that it was invalid and stated that it would make no since to register the man, because the statute was invalid, if his claim was true, and doing so would not serve any valid purpose. When the professor asked me what I thought of the decision. I said it was the most learned piece of BS I had read.

I am reading now on the role of law in shaping ethics. I was not trying to question you or say anything negative about you and I want to make that perfectly clear. It is just from reading cases like this that I have learned to look at things in a larger sense and sometimes ask questions that offer another explanation for things in order to one day become a Justice.:)

[Redmama]

I wasn't asking you to explain yourself but I am not unhappy that you did. I enjoy learning about people. I was not making any value judgment about you. I was considering another way to look at what you said-its just the lawyer in me wanting to come out again. :)

I have been trained to do this. You should try reading some case decisions. They seem to start at point A go to point Z and go back to point A by a completely different route. I am called upon to make logic out of their route. For instance, in a case I recently read a person was denied the right to register to vote because of his color (no need for anyone to think I am injecting race in this) and asked the Supreme Court to find the statute unconstitutional. The Justice, who wrote the decision, did not offer an opinion as to the Constitutionality of the law, but then assumed that it was invalid and stated that it would make no since to register the man, because the statute was invalid, if his claim was true, and doing so would not serve any valid purpose. When the professor asked me what I thought of the decision. I said it was the most learned piece of BS I had read.

I am reading now on the role of law in shaping ethics. I was not trying to question you or say anything negative about you and I want to make that perfectly clear. It is just from reading cases like this that I have learned to look at things in a larger sense and sometimes ask questions that offer another explanation for things in order to one day become a Justice.:)

I guess you stating that "some might say" that money...not sure of the rest of the exact quote, made me feel like I should explain myself. Hey we both learned something - it is all good.

[William Anthony]

I guess you stating that "some might say" that money...not sure of the rest of the exact quote, made me feel like I should explain myself. Hey we both learned something - it is all good.

I think I may be good at this Justice position. I read a case some time ago where a judge asked the jury to answer some questions and he used the words have and had, asking did the plaintiff have to do something and the jury wrote back they were confused. The judge then said that what he meant when he said have was whether or not the plaintiff had to do what he said he had to do, assuming that he had to do what he said he had to do (that's the shortened version). I think I am good at not making myself clear.:) The jury was deadlocked.:)

[Redmama]

I think I may be good at this Justice position. I read a case some time ago where a judge asked the jury to answer some questions and he used the words have and had, asking did the plaintiff have to do something and the jury wrote back they were confused. The judge then said that what he meant when he said have was whether or not the plaintiff had to do what he said he had to do, assuming that he had to do what he said he had to do (that's the shortened version). I think I am good at not making myself clear.:) The jury was deadlocked.:)

Exactly - isn't that the point of being a lawyer? Making people talk? But, remember I do it all the time anyway!

[Kate Sachel]

There is very interesting conversation going on about respect and how one achieves it. I really cannot say what is correct and incorrect as a whole because different scenarios require different actions.

I myself have never commanded nor demanded respect. I generally achieve it by treating people with respect and courtesy, and by believing that in general there is always something good that another human being has to offer even if I must dig quite deeply to find it.

That is all I can add to this particular discussion, but I do find the different opinions to be very interesting. I apologize for remaining off topic also, and hope that my interjection does not offend.

Kate

[Redmama]

There is very interesting conversation going on about respect and how one achieves it. I really cannot say what is correct and incorrect as a whole because different scenarios require different actions.

I myself have never commanded nor demanded respect. I generally achieve it by treating people with respect and courtesy, and by believing that in general there is always something good that another human being has to offer even if I must dig quite deeply to find it.

That is all I can add to this particular discussion, but I do find the different opinions to be very interesting. I apologize for remaining off topic also, and hope that my interjection does not offend.

Kate

Thanks Kate - I think we are on the same page...my page is just longer...hee hee!

[Kate Sachel]

Thanks Kate - I think we are on the same page...my page is just longer...hee hee!

I enjoy your posts, no matter the length.

Kate

[Redmama]

I enjoy your posts, no matter the length.

Kate

Thanks - the same to you. It took yours to make me realize I was even off topic. Also, you made me think maybe I don't look too hard at whether or not someone is respecting me - it seems if you think too hard, you might see things that aren't even there.

[bobaugust]

What part of this (pun intended) don't you understand, "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."?

The article clearly states that the concentration in blood was in the 15ng/mL or 15 part per billion range.

You do not have any authority which I am duty bound to respect as to telling me what comments I can and cannot make. I was just concerned about your spell checker imitating your old one.;):cool: Perhaps, if your spell checker was not so hyperactive, iif it is, you would see what the article said.

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. This hypothetical scenario illustrates the excellent sensitivity and potential forensic usefulness of the method.”

The hypothetical scenario doesn’t say anything as to what the concentration of EDTA is in EDTA-preserved blood, it illustrates the excellent sensitivity of the new method by showing how small a volume of EDTA-preserved blood the new method is capable of detecting EDTA in. A volume so small that it would be difficult to manipulate.

I don’t need any authority to tell you something. The problem here is not my old or new spell checker; it’s again your inability to understand what the article says.

bobaugust

[limakey]

Mr. August,

Again, Martz did the wrong test for EDTA. His results are useless. Dr. Cotton and Dr. Lee did an artful job to trying to lend Martz's results with the credibility and it apparently worked on you. However, garbage in--garbage out.

According to your posts, they have positively pointed out the could not possibly point out. They testified about generalities with out getting specific and it worked.

Again, why no mention of what the contamination was? Why no follow up to prove that Martz was in fact wrong?

Cotton's and Lee's testimony is laughable. And I have no clue what the different color test tube tops mean---I did not see any tests conducted on blood that was stored in purple test top tube vs the red test tube top.

Martz was not an expert. He never should have accepted the assignment and said he was in fact an expert. However, perhaps he was an expert on doing such a horrible job and muddle the results and use up all the sample stains, ensuring no one could run the tests.

I noticed that you totally backed off your comments about the defense running tests as well as realizing what a fool Clark made out of you with her comments. That is the oldest trick in the DA's book, make the defense responsible for running their own tests. Why should they when the tests that were run proved what they have been saying all along?

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Again, Martz did the wrong test for EDTA. His results are useless. Dr. Cotton and Dr. Lee did an artful job to trying to lend Martz's results with the credibility and it apparently worked on you. However, garbage in--garbage out.

According to your posts, they have positively pointed out the could not possibly point out. They testified about generalities with out getting specific and it worked.

Again, why no mention of what the contamination was? Why no follow up to prove that Martz was in fact wrong?

Cotton's and Lee's testimony is laughable. And I have no clue what the different color test tube tops mean---I did not see any tests conducted on blood that was stored in purple test top tube vs the red test tube top.

Martz was not an expert. He never should have accepted the assignment and said he was in fact an expert. However, perhaps he was an expert on doing such a horrible job and muddle the results and use up all the sample stains, ensuring no one could run the tests.

I noticed that you totally backed off your comments about the defense running tests as well as realizing what a fool Clark made out of you with her comments. That is the oldest trick in the DA's book, make the defense responsible for running their own tests. Why should they when the tests that were run proved what they have been saying all along?

You can think anything you want about Martz but it doesn’t change the fact that in 1995 Martz was conducting state of the art tests for EDTA that no one else had conducted. Nor does it change the fact that based on the results from all three tests Martz conducted he was able to determine that the neither the gate blood nor the sock blood came from the reference samples. When it came to EDTA Martz was an expert at that time.

The defense never ran any tests on any of the evidence stains for EDTA. Dr. Riders, the defense expert, simply gave his opinion based on Martz’s test results. Dr. Lee had far more knowledge and experience with the testing equipment and the kind of tests that Martz conducted than Dr. Rieder’s had. After reviewing all of Martz’s work, results, and testimony as well as Dr. Rider’s testimony Dr. Lee was able to provide a reasonable, logical explanation for the cause of the small trace amounts of EDTA only indicated in the third test results; an artifact in the instrument that most likely caused a carryover contamination. FBI chemist also reviewed Martz’s work and results and independently came to the same conclusion as Dr. Lee did; a carryover contamination.

Dr. Cotton didn’t conduct any testing on EDTA. She was a DNA expert and when she compared the degradation of Nicole’s blood found on Simpson sock to Nicole’s autopsy sample she found that Nicole’s autopsy blood was more degraded than her blood found on the sock. That fact made it impossible for Nicole’s blood on Simpson’s sock to have come from her autopsy sample as the defense claimed, proving their claim false.

A crime scene photograph taken the morning after the murders and entered into evidence in the criminal trial when enlarged clearly showed one of Simpson’s blood stains on the rear gate at Bundy. That photograph supported the testimony of the seven witnesses who testified to seeing blood on the rear gate that morning and proved the defense claim false that that blood was planted from Simpson’s reference sample.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

There is very interesting conversation going on about respect and how one achieves it. I really cannot say what is correct and incorrect as a whole because different scenarios require different actions.

I myself have never commanded nor demanded respect. I generally achieve it by treating people with respect and courtesy, and by believing that in general there is always something good that another human being has to offer even if I must dig quite deeply to find it.

That is all I can add to this particular discussion, but I do find the different opinions to be very interesting. I apologize for remaining off topic also, and hope that my interjection does not offend.

Kate

I think there should not be a need to demand respect. I do not think that there should be a need to achieve respect. I think it should be given automatically and can only be lost through disrespecting others.

[William Anthony]

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. This hypothetical scenario illustrates the excellent sensitivity and potential forensic usefulness of the method.”

The hypothetical scenario doesn’t say anything as to what the concentration of EDTA is in EDTA-preserved blood, it illustrates the excellent sensitivity of the new method by showing how small a volume of EDTA-preserved blood the new method is capable of detecting EDTA in. A volume so small that it would be difficult to manipulate.

I don’t need any authority to tell you something. The problem here is not my old or new spell checker; it’s again your inability to understand what the article says.

bobaugust

Yes, the LLQ corresponds to planting of EDTA preserved blood, which we know the LLQ is 15 parts per billion. How do we know that the article wasn't saying that 1-3 nL corresponds to planting? First because that makes no sense and second because you do not see a comma after LLO or planting. The concentration that indicates planting of EDTA was the 15 parts per billion. The sample was 1-3nL.

Perhaps, I did not make myself clear enough. You don't have the authority to tell me when anything is enough. Is your infamous spell checker becoming annoyed?;):cool:

[William Anthony]

Thanks - the same to you. It took yours to make me realize I was even off topic. Also, you made me think maybe I don't look too hard at whether or not someone is respecting me - it seems if you think too hard, you might see things that aren't even there.

One does not have to look too hard when another says he has no respect for that person.:)

[William Anthony]

I think there should not be a need to demand respect. I do not think that there should be a need to achieve respect. I think it should be given automatically and can only be lost through disrespecting others.

Correction-I think it should be given automatically and can be lost through disrespecting others.

[bobaugust]

Yes, the LLQ corresponds to planting of EDTA preserved blood, which we know the LLQ is 15 parts per billion. How do we know that the article wasn't saying that 1-3 nL corresponds to planting? First because that makes no sense and second because you do not see a comma after LLO or planting. The concentration that indicates planting of EDTA was the 15 parts per billion. The sample was 1-3nL.

Perhaps, I did not make myself clear enough. You don't have the authority to tell me when anything is enough. Is your infamous spell checker becoming annoyed?;):cool:

I didn’t say that 1-3 nL of EDTA-preserved blood corresponds to planting. I said the LLQ of 15 ng/mL doesn’t say anything about the concentration of EDTA in preserved blood. The hypothetical scenario was used to demonstrate how the CE/MS method could be used for adequate detection levels for quantitation of trace-level concentrations.

bobaugust

[Kate Sachel]

I think there should not be a need to demand respect. I do not think that there should be a need to achieve respect. I think it should be given automatically and can only be lost through disrespecting others.

Regardless of your ideals the fact of the matter is that not everyone agrees with you and therefore makes respect something that must be achieved or earned with certain individuals.

I automatically give respect, as you claim you do. I do not automatically always recieve it in return.

Kate

[martin II]

I think it is necessary to automatically give respect to the position of ones boss. I also believe that 'SPEAK YOUR MIND' sessions are a necessary tool for bosses and workers. This is where respect developes.imo

I see no reason why i should not respect new contacts without them having to prove themselves.

[weezer]

I think it is necessary to automatically give respect to the position of ones boss. I also believe that 'SPEAK YOUR MIND' sessions are a necessary tool for bosses and workers. This is where respect developes.imo

I see no reason why i should not respect new contacts without them having to prove themselves.

I agree with your first sentence (thump -- sound of me falling out of my chair! :D). BUT, then the person in that position commands respect by word and action.

[William Anthony]

I didn’t say that 1-3 nL of EDTA-preserved blood corresponds to planting. I said the LLQ of 15 ng/mL doesn’t say anything about the concentration of EDTA in preserved blood. The hypothetical scenario was used to demonstrate how the CE/MS method could be used for adequate detection levels for quantitation of trace-level concentrations.

bobaugust

So, you think the hypothetical was something that they threw in there that came from out of nowhere. There was research to support the hypothetical based on the detection level of concentrations they were able to detect. What do you think the trace-level concentrations pertained to-contaminated spell checkers?;):cool:

[William Anthony]

Regardless of your ideals the fact of the matter is that not everyone agrees with you and therefore makes respect something that must be achieved or earned with certain individuals.

I automatically give respect, as you claim you do. I do not automatically always recieve it in return.

Kate

If all people agreed, there would be no need for discussions. It is the very art of persuasion that I am attempting to hone.

I am glad that you agree respect should automatically be given. If I might, there is a difference, however slight, imho, from disrespecting someone and saying that you have no respect for that person. To me the latter is the most egregious, because every human deserves some degree of respect, imho, unless their conduct is so horrific, as to surpass all boundaries of human decency, such as child molesters, rapists and murderers.

[Kate Sachel]

If all people agreed, there would be no need for discussions. It is the very art of persuasion that I am attempting to hone.

I am glad that you agree respect should automatically be given. If I might, there is a difference, however slight, imho, from disrespecting someone and saying that you have no respect for that person. To me the latter is the most egregious, because every human deserves some degree of respect, imho, unless their conduct is so horrific, as to surpass all boundaries of human decency, such as child molesters, rapists and murderers.

Your final thoughts bring up an interesting point. Within our system it appears that even those individuals who have murdered, raped, ect. are considered to be deserving of some degree of respect while serving their time in the prison system.

Kate

[martin II]

I agree with your first sentence (thump -- sound of me falling out of my chair! :D). BUT, then the person in that position commands respect by word and action.

Sometimes and with some people respect is witheld from those with different opinions without cause.imo

[Redmama]

Sometimes and with some people respect is witheld from those with different opinions without cause.imo

I don't believe anything happens without cause. You may not understand or agree with the cause, but it is there.

[martin II]

I don't believe anything happens without cause. You may not understand or agree with the cause, but it is there.

hhmmmm

The different opinion is the cause is what i meant.

[bobaugust]

So, you think the hypothetical was something that they threw in there that came from out of nowhere. There was research to support the hypothetical based on the detection level of concentrations they were able to detect. What do you think the trace-level concentrations pertained to-contaminated spell checkers?;):cool:

The article was about a new method developed to detect EDTA. “This hypothetical scenario illustrates the excellent sensitivity and potential forensic usefulness of the method.” The only thing the article said regarding the concentration of EDTA in EDTA-preserved blood is that EDTA is present at about 4.5 mM (~1300 ppm), and that very concentration sample is typical and easily detected by electrospray LC/MS/MS.

The article in it’s conclusion said,

“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 10 (to the fifth) 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.”

bobaugust

[limakey]

You can think anything you want about Martz but it doesn’t change the fact that in 1995 Martz was conducting state of the art tests for EDTA that no one else had conducted. Nor does it change the fact that based on the results from all three tests Martz conducted he was able to determine that the neither the gate blood nor the sock blood came from the reference samples. When it came to EDTA Martz was an expert at that time.

The defense never ran any tests on any of the evidence stains for EDTA. Dr. Riders, the defense expert, simply gave his opinion based on Martz’s test results. Dr. Lee had far more knowledge and experience with the testing equipment and the kind of tests that Martz conducted than Dr. Rieder’s had. After reviewing all of Martz’s work, results, and testimony as well as Dr. Rider’s testimony Dr. Lee was able to provide a reasonable, logical explanation for the cause of the small trace amounts of EDTA only indicated in the third test results; an artifact in the instrument that most likely caused a carryover contamination. FBI chemist also reviewed Martz’s work and results and independently came to the same conclusion as Dr. Lee did; a carryover contamination.

Dr. Cotton didn’t conduct any testing on EDTA. She was a DNA expert and when she compared the degradation of Nicole’s blood found on Simpson sock to Nicole’s autopsy sample she found that Nicole’s autopsy blood was more degraded than her blood found on the sock. That fact made it impossible for Nicole’s blood on Simpson’s sock to have come from her autopsy sample as the defense claimed, proving their claim false.

A crime scene photograph taken the morning after the murders and entered into evidence in the criminal trial when enlarged clearly showed one of Simpson’s blood stains on the rear gate at Bundy. That photograph supported the testimony of the seven witnesses who testified to seeing blood on the rear gate that morning and proved the defense claim false that that blood was planted from Simpson’s reference sample.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

You are dead wrong about Martz being an expert on this issue. In fact, it was other FBI agents who brought this very issue to their superiors. I remember reading the report that was filed regarding Martz's testimony. He was not expert.

If Martz was an expert, then he would have known that he should always ensure his equipment is clean. He should not take credit for developing a method to test for a certain compound when he did not. He misrepresented his creditials---I could live with that, if he would have consulted other experts on this subject.

If the DA's had confidence in his testimony, they would have called him.

The only facts that matter is that Martz was not an expert, he did not the test he needed to run.

Another fact, the defense was not allowed to run any tests for EDTA on the two stains. Judge Ito made a ruling on it.

It must be fact that the tests Martz ran did use up the stain---which is why he conducted his own test on his blood. Which is why Dr. Lee did not run any tests on them. However, if there was enough of the sample left and Dr. Lee didn't conduct the test--then it must be he did not want to risk proving the the blood was indeed planted.

No, you have no proof of when that picture of the was taken on the back gate. In fact, wasn't it Goldberg's book who said that it the picture was found much later?

I do not care how many police officers testifed about seeing the blood drops on that back gate. You do not have a logical explaination why they were able to see this tiny drop of blood when they missed a bloody fingerprint on the door latch that led to the ally. What they didn't see the footprints that were leading to that gate?

You also have no proof of their character nor their honor. Simply wearing a badge and taking oath does not mean a police officer has their own definition of character, truth and justice.

Dr. Cotton's did not testify about the EDTA, however, that was an issue. However, her testimony makes no sense---the blood on the sock had more DNA then her autospy sample? First, when did she conduct tests on the socks? Was it after the criminal trial?

Also, according to your crack team, the blood on the socks should have been much more degraded then her sample---why? Because they were nuked in a hot truck for over seven hours. How can the broken AC unit only affect certain stains and not all of them?

Did Dr. Lee or Dr. Cotton testify to how and when the blood got on the socks? No, they didn't because they could not. Did either of the refute the testimony of the expert on why the blood was pressed on to the sock rather then splashed on?

If Dr. Lee had much more experience then Dr. Reiders, which unless he stated working with EDTA since 1954, then he would have know right off the bat that Martz was a liar and never should have conducted any tests. He would not have attempted to validate results when he knew that Martz did the wrong tests and didn't have the common sense to make sure that the equipment was clean.

Dr. Lee was used in the same exact manner that Dr. L was used in the criminal trial. He was there to testify that his employee missed so much and did such a terrible job that he was not allowed to testify. Dr. Lee gave the same message regarding Martz.

[limakey]

Mr. August,

While I am sure you and William truly enjoy posting about the amount of EDTA found or whatever. However, that still does not explain why the socks were lost and the Dr. H. Lee was only given pictures of them.

It does not explain why 12 other items were tested for blood which were items that I don't even remember being collected but stopped at Item 13, the socks.

It does not explain why no one saw blood on the socks until weeks later. For you to say that was because the right equipment was not used is simply unacceptable--these people were experts on this. That excuse just doesn't make any sense because the defense experts didn't see blood on them either.

Do you notice a common theme here? Blood was not seen on the socks because the right equipment wasn't used. The right equipment was not used on the EDTA issue. The blood the back gate was not collected because Fung looked for it but couldn't find it. Every single piece of evidence has two sides to it and the defense gave the more reasonable explainations.

The detective who didn't see blood in the Bronco---she wasn't looking for it? Well apparently she must have shared the same water bottle with Fuhrman, the CSI team. IMO.

[martin II]

Mr. August,

While I am sure you and William truly enjoy posting about the amount of EDTA found or whatever. However, that still does not explain why the socks were lost and the Dr. H. Lee was only given pictures of them.

It does not explain why 12 other items were tested for blood which were items that I don't even remember being collected but stopped at Item 13, the socks.

It does not explain why no one saw blood on the socks until weeks later. For you to say that was because the right equipment was not used is simply unacceptable--these people were experts on this. That excuse just doesn't make any sense because the defense experts didn't see blood on them either.

Do you notice a common theme here? Blood was not seen on the socks because the right equipment wasn't used. The right equipment was not used on the EDTA issue. The blood the back gate was not collected because Fung looked for it but couldn't find it. Every single piece of evidence has two sides to it and the defense gave the more reasonable explainations.

The detective who didn't see blood in the Bronco---she wasn't looking for it? Well apparently she must have shared the same water bottle with Fuhrman, the CSI team. IMO.


Limakey
We also know that after the criminal trial D.O.J. investigated the FBI Lab and specifically Martz and found that he had testified above his qualifications and that he had testified in a manner not acceptable to the FBI.
Martz was demoted from his posiiton as lab supervisor and assigned to another unit.

Martz was asked to test samples to prove the prosecutions claims.He then decided to use a test method less likely to get the results required and ended uup testing his own blood in some kind of hair brain method. When he got the results he understood that he could not explain what he had done so he just deleted all of his own methods.
The prosecution then decided not to call him to show what they had origionally asked him to show.
what a fool. imo

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

You are dead wrong about Martz being an expert on this issue. In fact, it was other FBI agents who brought this very issue to their superiors. I remember reading the report that was filed regarding Martz's testimony. He was not expert.

If Martz was an expert, then he would have known that he should always ensure his equipment is clean. He should not take credit for developing a method to test for a certain compound when he did not. He misrepresented his creditials---I could live with that, if he would have consulted other experts on this subject.


The only facts that matter is that Martz was not an expert, he did not the test he needed to run.

It must be fact that the tests Martz ran did use up the stain---which is why he conducted his own test on his blood. Which is why Dr. Lee did not run any tests on them. However, if there was enough of the sample left and Dr. Lee didn't conduct the test--then it must be he did not want to risk proving the the blood was indeed planted.

No, you have no proof of when that picture of the was taken on the back gate. In fact, wasn't it Goldberg's book who said that it the picture was found much later?

I do not care how many police officers testifed about seeing the blood drops on that back gate. You do not have a logical explaination why they were able to see this tiny drop of blood when they missed a bloody fingerprint on the door latch that led to the ally. What they didn't see the footprints that were leading to that gate?


Dr. Cotton's did not testify about the EDTA, however, that was an issue. However, her testimony makes no sense---the blood on the sock had more DNA then her autospy sample? First, when did she conduct tests on the socks? Was it after the criminal trial?

Also, according to your crack team, the blood on the socks should have been much more degraded then her sample---why? Because they were nuked in a hot truck for over seven hours. How can the broken AC unit only affect certain stains and not all of them?

Limakey, you’ve made many incorrect comments. At the time of the Simpson criminal trial Martz had more experience with identifying EDTA in forensic samples than anyone else. Martz was unaware that the mistake he made conducting the third test that caused the carryover contamination was a not an uncommon problem that many other scientists had experienced using that type of instrument.

You are wrong about Martz using up the evidence samples.

July 25, 1995
MR. BLASIER: And these are things that you can no longer do because your data is gone, correct?
MR. MARTZ: Well, you can't do it on those data. You could always rerun the same samples or similar samples. There is bloodstain left in this particular case. If someone wanted to analyze that stain, they could certainly analyze it.

*

MR. BLASIER: Would you allow as how an expert with a great deal more experience than you might differ from your opinion?
MS. CLARK: Objection, vague. Experience in what?
MR. MARTZ: Experience in what?
MR. BLASIER: EDTA, mass spec, degrees in chemistry, toxicology, pharmacology?
MR. MARTZ: I don't think anyone probably in the world has more experience with identifying EDTA in forensic samples than I do.
MR. BLASIER: No further questions.

You say I have no proof when the picture was taken of the rear gate. Of course there is proof. The crime scene photographs that were taken the morning after the murders were entered into evidence in the criminal trial and the defense had their own copies of them. One of those photographs when enlarged clearly showed one of the blood stains on the bottom of the rear gate. The defense tried to argue that prosecutors didn’t give them the blown up version but the defense had the same photograph for months. Judge Ito examined the photograph and made a ruling.

April 3 , 1995
I DON'T NOTICE ANYTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THE MANNER IN WHICH THIS HAS BEEN BLOWN UP. IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE DISTORTED IN ANY WAY, AND I'LL OVERRULE THE OBJECTION.

The enlarged June 13 crime scene photograph was entered into evidence as (PEO'S 166 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

On April 3, 1995 Dennis Fung compared the blood stain shown on the bottom of the rear gate in the June 13 photograph with the a photograph of the blood stain on the bottom of the rear gate that was collected on July 3 and testified they appeared to be in the same configuration and same location.

The police officers who testified to seeing blood on the rear gate testified were shown the blood by a flash light shining on different parts of the rear gate. The testimony was that there was blood on at the bottom, on the latch, and at the top of the rear gate.

Riske and Terrazas, the first officers to arrive at Bundy first saw the blood.
Terrazas showed it to Riske.
Riske showed it to his supervisor Rossi.
Riske showed it to Fuhrman and Phillips.
Phillips showed it to Lange.
Phillips showed it to Vannatter


Dr. Cotton testified in the civil trial that when she compared the degradation of Nicole’s blood on Simpson’s sock to the degradation of Nicole’s autopsy sample, the autopsy sample was more degraded.

MONDAY, JANUARY 27, 1997 MR. LAMBERT

Remember Robin Cotton comes -- and she testified a long time ago. I hope you all remember. She -- she told that you she did DNA tests on this same blood from the back spot – the very same spot that Dr. Rieders was doing his testimony about EDTA. And what did she tell you?

This is her Autorad -- remember, she talked to you about auto radiographs, about when she did the RFLP tests. This one right here, item 13, that's the socks -- that's the Autorad for the socks.

This one right here, right here, is Nicole. And what she told you is that's the blood from Nicole's reference vial. And she also told you that this blood right here that's in the socks, this DNA in the socks that's not degraded; it's in really good shape. And she told you why.

She said if that blood was splashed onto those socks while Mr. Simpson was committing the murders, and about 30 minutes or so later, he took off the socks and left them on that rug in his bedroom, where they air-dried overnight, that is a perfect condition for preserving the DNA in those socks.

That's just as if a criminalist had taken a swatch right after Nicole had been slashed and put it to air-dry. That's exactly the circumstances that she described to us.

And as a consequence, that DNA in the socks, it's not degraded. Then she said, let's take a look at the DNA out of the reference vial. See that dark shadow? She said that's degradation. See this? This is all degradation.

So she said the blood out of the reference vial is pretty degraded. And she told us why. That reference vial was taken 24 hours after Nicole was murdered. It had been sitting in her dead body until the autopsy was done. And she explained that blood degrades under those conditions, not separately.

So here you have degraded blood in the reference vial, no degraded blood in the socks. That's what tells Robin Cotton, says therefore, the blood on the socks couldn't have come out of the reference vial.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Of all of the scientist available to do the EDTA testing, Martz was the worse
selection the prosecution could have made. imo

[limakey]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;9125260]MR. MARTZ: I don't think anyone probably in the world has more experience with identifying EDTA in forensic samples than I do.

Mr. August,

If you talk the talk of an expert, you better be able to walk the walk. Martz clearing could not. If Martz's was such an expert, he would never have allowed the eqiupment to be dirty. He would not have destroyed some of his results. OK, lets just say that there was enough of the stain to be tested by the defense--why would do another test when the DA's own witness found what they were looking for? Especially since the DOJ is suppose to be a neutral agency.

According Martz's testimony, he knew something was wrong right away with the samples that contained EDTA. So why didn't he do another test to see if his results were in fact accurate?

If all of these police officer's saw the blood on the back gate that night, explain how they missed the bloody fingerprint?

[limakey]

Of all of the scientist available to do the EDTA testing, Martz was the worse
selection the prosecution could have made. imo

Martin,

I could not disagree with you more about the DA's choosing Martz's. There is no doubt in my mind that the DA's shopped for an expert who was known to slant his testimony and they clearly did not an expert conducting the tests.

If they wanted a expert to test the stains, then they would have been looking for one. It appears to me that the DA's did know that Martz's results did show that EDTA was in the stains, doesn't it only make sense they would have called in another expert to support their claim that the blood was not planted? Or have another expert testify on their rebuttal case--point out that Martz's was not an expert, an expert never would have used dirty equipment.

IMO, this was another brilliant move by the DA's. I don't think NG's or G's realize just how brilliant the DA's used the "Dumb and Dumber" defense of their own witnesses and experts.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;9125260]MR. MARTZ: I don't think anyone probably in the world has more experience with identifying EDTA in forensic samples than I do.

Mr. August,

If you talk the talk of an expert, you better be able to walk the walk. Martz clearing could not. If Martz's was such an expert, he would never have allowed the eqiupment to be dirty. He would not have destroyed some of his results. OK, lets just say that there was enough of the stain to be tested by the defense--why would do another test when the DA's own witness found what they were looking for? Especially since the DOJ is suppose to be a neutral agency.

According Martz's testimony, he knew something was wrong right away with the samples that contained EDTA. So why didn't he do another test to see if his results were in fact accurate?

If all of these police officer's saw the blood on the back gate that night, explain how they missed the bloody fingerprint?

Well the DOJ examined all of Martz testimony after the trial and decided that he had testified above his expertise. He was then demoted from his position in the FBI lab. That speaks for itself.imo

[weezer]

[QUOTE=limakey;9125669]

Well the DOJ examined all of Martz testimony after the trial and decided that he had testified above his expertise. He was then demoted from his position in the FBI lab. That speaks for itself.imo

and NONE of the evidence was proved by ANY agency to have been planted. That speaks for itself. imo

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

If you talk the talk of an expert, you better be able to walk the walk. Martz clearing could not. If Martz's was such an expert, he would never have allowed the eqiupment to be dirty. He would not have destroyed some of his results. OK, lets just say that there was enough of the stain to be tested by the defense--why would do another test when the DA's own witness found what they were looking for? Especially since the DOJ is suppose to be a neutral agency.

According Martz's testimony, he knew something was wrong right away with the samples that contained EDTA. So why didn't he do another test to see if his results were in fact accurate?

If all of these police officer's saw the blood on the back gate that night, explain how they missed the bloody fingerprint?

Limakey, there was no reason for Martz to conduct further testing. The results of the first two tests he conducted on the two evidence stains indicated no EDTA at all in those two stains. Because the third test results indicated that the small amount of what could be EDTA in Martz’s own non-preserved blood and the two evidence samples was so small compared to the amount of EDTA in the preserved blood reference samples it was clear that the evidence stains did not come from the reference samples. Martz was not even sure the small trace amount was even EDTA because of the lack of the full daughter spectrum. One of the possibilities Martz considered was that it may have been from an artifact in the instrument.

All the detectives were shown the blood on the rear gate by someone pointing it out with a flashlight. There was blood on the bottom of the gate, on the latch and on the top of the gate; no one took the time then to look at the blood closely. Mark Fuhrman wrote in his book that later when he was inside Nicole’s house writing his notes his partner Brad Roberts arrived. Fuhrman took Roberts on a tour of the crime scene and when they got to the rear gate they carefully scanned it with their flashlights and that’s when they saw the bloody fingerprint on the brass deadbolt knob.

bobaugust

[Redmama]

hhmmmm

The different opinion is the cause is what i meant.

I do not disrespect people because they have a different opinion. It is what makes life interesting, in my opinion. Maybe those that are disagreed with feel that they are not respected, but I don't think that is how it works. Everyone tries very hard to make their point, and sometimes that makes them/me become frustrated, but that is not the same as being disrespectful.

Some of the comments on this board make me pause, but what I am really interested in is if they really feel that way or just want to be right or are just blind to the obvious. At the same time, I know that at times I am blind in the same way.

I have no disrespect for you, but some of the things you say really make absolutely no sense to me. That is only because we all have our own thoughts and feelings. I love my husband but he still has different opinions and says things that make me think "huh?" I still respect and love him...I just disagree with him - and that is okay. And...sometimes I have to admit he is right - that is what makes relationships work and makes them interesting and fun in my opinion.

[martin II]

Why did Martz use a test method that is generally accepted to be less likely to give him the results he was seeking.
Why would he use a machine that was dirty.Why not clean the machine before using it.imo

[martin II]

I do not disrespect people because they have a different opinion. It is what makes life interesting, in my opinion. Maybe those that are disagreed with feel that they are not respected, but I don't think that is how it works. Everyone tries very hard to make their point, and sometimes that makes them/me become frustrated, but that is not the same as being disrespectful.

Some of the comments on this board make me pause, but what I am really interested in is if they really feel that way or just want to be right or are just blind to the obvious. At the same time, I know that at times I am blind in the same way.

I have no disrespect for you, but some of the things you say really make absolutely no sense to me. That is only because we all have our own thoughts and feelings. I love my husband but he still has different opinions and says things that make me think "huh?" I still respect and love him...I just disagree with him - and that is okay. And...sometimes I have to admit he is right - that is what makes relationships work and makes them interesting and fun in my opinion.

What ever.:cool:

[limakey]

Limakey, there was no reason for Martz to conduct further testing. The results of the first two tests he conducted on the two evidence stains indicated no EDTA at all in those two stains. Because the third test results indicated that the small amount of what could be EDTA in Martz’s own non-preserved blood and the two evidence samples was so small compared to the amount of EDTA in the preserved blood reference samples it was clear that the evidence stains did not come from the reference samples. Martz was not even sure the small trace amount was even EDTA because of the lack of the full daughter spectrum. One of the possibilities Martz considered was that it may have been from an artifact in the instrument.

All the detectives were shown the blood on the rear gate by someone pointing it out with a flashlight. There was blood on the bottom of the gate, on the latch and on the top of the gate; no one took the time then to look at the blood closely. Mark Fuhrman wrote in his book that later when he was inside Nicole’s house writing his notes his partner Brad Roberts arrived. Fuhrman took Roberts on a tour of the crime scene and when they got to the rear gate they carefully scanned it with their flashlights and that’s when they saw the bloody fingerprint on the brass deadbolt knob.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

The DOJ made their ruling on Martz's expertise and his testimony in the criminal trial. If I remember correctly, that was not the first or the last time his work was investigated. If Martz was an expert, then he would not have to have run a second test, let alone a third test. If as he claims, the third test was a false positive, then it was up to him to conduct another test to prove it. He didn't it.

I do not care what Martz's results were on his own non preserved blood. Why use his non perserved blood when he still had samples to work with? However, if he was so bent on proving the contamination theory, why not run two tests on his own blood? One preserved and one not perserved?

As for the bloody fingerprint, if that fingerprint was in fact there, then as Fuhrman wrote in his book, the case was over. However, he only talks about being the "glove man". Lets see, what is more damning evidence, a bloody fingerprint or a glove behind a wall? Call me crazy, but I am going with the bloody fingerprint.

Call me crazy but the footprints were leading out the back gate, the killer was bleeding, he obviously left a glove behind, so no one looks at the gate where it would be obvious the person would have had to open the door?

Now if that fingerprint was there and it was seen by others, besides Fuhrman and Roberts, then what could be the reason that this never came out in the trial?

What about the blood on Nicole's back? What about the blood by the coins?
What about the blood on the car keys? Seems to me that the LAPD knew what and what not to test or knew a way to hide the results of any test they didn't like. IMO.

And when did Brad Roberts testify? When did Brad Roberts go to bat for Fuhrman?

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

The DOJ made their ruling on Martz's expertise and his testimony in the criminal trial. If I remember correctly, that was not the first or the last time his work was investigated. If Martz was an expert, then he would not have to have run a second test, let alone a third test. If as he claims, the third test was a false positive, then it was up to him to conduct another test to prove it. He didn't it.

I do not care what Martz's results were on his own non preserved blood. Why use his non perserved blood when he still had samples to work with? However, if he was so bent on proving the contamination theory, why not run two tests on his own blood? One preserved and one not perserved?

As for the bloody fingerprint, if that fingerprint was in fact there, then as Fuhrman wrote in his book, the case was over. However, he only talks about being the "glove man". Lets see, what is more damning evidence, a bloody fingerprint or a glove behind a wall? Call me crazy, but I am going with the bloody fingerprint.

Call me crazy but the footprints were leading out the back gate, the killer was bleeding, he obviously left a glove behind, so no one looks at the gate where it would be obvious the person would have had to open the door?

Now if that fingerprint was there and it was seen by others, besides Fuhrman and Roberts, then what could be the reason that this never came out in the trial?

What about the blood on Nicole's back? What about the blood by the coins?
What about the blood on the car keys? Seems to me that the LAPD knew what and what not to test or knew a way to hide the results of any test they didn't like. IMO.

And when did Brad Roberts testify? When did Brad Roberts go to bat for Fuhrman?

Limakey, Martz did test his own preserved blood as well as Nicole and Simpson’s reference samples in the third test. That was what caused the problem. Martz first ran the preserved blood samples through the instruments and then ran the evidence samples and his own non-preserved blood through to obtain a comparison but unbeknownst to him that was what most likely caused the contamination. Dr. Lee explained.

January 16, 1997
Q. As a scientist, Dr. Lee, what is the most likely explanation for this very small trace that is shown in the evidence sample here in this one test that Agent Martz did?
A. These results are consistent with a carryover from -- in the instruments. In other words, if you first analyze on the instrument samples which contain a large quantity of EDTA and then you subsequently come in with the samples that don't have any, it's not uncommon to pick up trace levels from various parts of the instruments that have been contaminated with the EDTA and then subsequently alluded off when you did the other analyses.
Q. And is that a common problem with the LCESMSMS instruments?
A. It's a common problem with those instruments, yes.
Q. Is it something that you yourself have experienced?
A. Many times.
Q. And is it something that other people that do mass spectrometry have experienced as well?
A. Yes.
Q. And if people are very experienced in doing mass spectrometry, is it something that they are aware of is a problem with the instruments?
A Yes.

The evidence is that Simpson did walk out the rear gate but if he was being careful he wouldn’t have left his fingerprints on the rear gate. Gilbert Aquilar, the LAPD fingerprint specialist testified there were no identifiable fingerprints on the rear gate. The coroner washed the blood off Nicole’s back. There is no evidence that any blood tests were hidden. Brad Roberts never testified.

bobaugust

[Redmama]

What ever.:cool:

Exactly what I expected:shrug:

[Kate Sachel]

I do not disrespect people because they have a different opinion. It is what makes life interesting, in my opinion. Maybe those that are disagreed with feel that they are not respected, but I don't think that is how it works. Everyone tries very hard to make their point, and sometimes that makes them/me become frustrated, but that is not the same as being disrespectful.

Some of the comments on this board make me pause, but what I am really interested in is if they really feel that way or just want to be right or are just blind to the obvious. At the same time, I know that at times I am blind in the same way.

I have no disrespect for you, but some of the things you say really make absolutely no sense to me. That is only because we all have our own thoughts and feelings. I love my husband but he still has different opinions and says things that make me think "huh?" I still respect and love him...I just disagree with him - and that is okay. And...sometimes I have to admit he is right - that is what makes relationships work and makes them interesting and fun in my opinion.

It certainly is true that differing opinions makes life interesting; I love exploring the minds of individuals whose thought process differs from my own because I have found that, even if you do not agree with that individual, there are always things that you can learn.

Please don't take to heart those whose response to a posting such as this is a one-worder like "whatever" because it simply shows how little value they place in others who don't hold the same thought process as themselves, and it is those individuals that ultimately lose out in the end.

Again, I enjoy your postings and look forward to more.

Kate

[Redmama]

It certainly is true that differing opinions makes life interesting; I love exploring the minds of individuals whose thought process differs from my own because I have found that, even if you do not agree with that individual, there are always things that you can learn.

Please don't take to heart those whose response to a posting such as this is a one-worder like "whatever" because it simply shows how little value they place in others who don't hold the same thought process as themselves, and it is those individuals that ultimately lose out in the end.

Again, I enjoy your postings and look forward to more.

Kate

Thank you Kate. It was actually your posts, after I spent so long lurking, that gave me the confidence to post myself. I kept thinking - that's what I would have said!

Redmama

[limakey]

Limakey, Martz did test his own preserved blood as well as Nicole and Simpson’s reference samples in the third test. That was what caused the problem. Martz first ran the preserved blood samples through the instruments and then ran the evidence samples and his own non-preserved blood through to obtain a comparison but unbeknownst to him that was what most likely caused the contamination. Dr. Lee explained.

January 16, 1997
Q. As a scientist, Dr. Lee, what is the most likely explanation for this very small trace that is shown in the evidence sample here in this one test that Agent Martz did?
A. These results are consistent with a carryover from -- in the instruments. In other words, if you first analyze on the instrument samples which contain a large quantity of EDTA and then you subsequently come in with the samples that don't have any, it's not uncommon to pick up trace levels from various parts of the instruments that have been contaminated with the EDTA and then subsequently alluded off when you did the other analyses.
Q. And is that a common problem with the LCESMSMS instruments?
A. It's a common problem with those instruments, yes.
Q. Is it something that you yourself have experienced?
A. Many times.
Q. And is it something that other people that do mass spectrometry have experienced as well?
A. Yes.
Q. And if people are very experienced in doing mass spectrometry, is it something that they are aware of is a problem with the instruments?
A Yes.

The evidence is that Simpson did walk out the rear gate but if he was being careful he wouldn’t have left his fingerprints on the rear gate. Gilbert Aquilar, the LAPD fingerprint specialist testified there were no identifiable fingerprints on the rear gate. The coroner washed the blood off Nicole’s back. There is no evidence that any blood tests were hidden. Brad Roberts never testified.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Dr. Lee, again is only giving his opinion on tests that he did not run. Dr. Lee also used the term "uncommon" what exactly does that mean? If dirty instruments cause false positives, then they should cause false positives on every single tests run. If dirt in the instruments caused the false positive, then why didn't this dirt effect the second test? Dr. Lee was not forbidden to talk to Martz about the tests, I find that very, very odd.

I also find it odd that Dr. Lee was not called by the DA's to refute or at least clear up Martz's testimony.

As for the blood drops on Nicole's back, again, according to Lange, I think it was Lange, he told the CSI team to collect that blood as evidence. It was washed off. Again, sounds like the same excuse that was given for alot of the evidence.

You are right, Brad Robert's never testified, never called to back up Fuhrman's testimony after he had to plead the fifth. We all know that the DA's knew that Fuhrman had issues and his credibility was going to be a big problem for them. So why not call Roberts? According to Fuhrman, he and Roberts saw the socks in the bedroom. Why not just use him for that testimony?

[weezer]

Mr. August,

Dr. Lee, again is only giving his opinion on tests that he did not run. Dr. Lee also used the term "uncommon" what exactly does that mean? If dirty instruments cause false positives, then they should cause false positives on every single tests run. If dirt in the instruments caused the false positive, then why didn't this dirt effect the second test? Dr. Lee was not forbidden to talk to Martz about the tests, I find that very, very odd.

I also find it odd that Dr. Lee was not called by the DA's to refute or at least clear up Martz's testimony.

As for the blood drops on Nicole's back, again, according to Lange, I think it was Lange, he told the CSI team to collect that blood as evidence. It was washed off. Again, sounds like the same excuse that was given for alot of the evidence.

You are right, Brad Robert's never testified, never called to back up Fuhrman's testimony after he had to plead the fifth. We all know that the DA's knew that Fuhrman had issues and his credibility was going to be a big problem for them. So why not call Roberts? According to Fuhrman, he and Roberts saw the socks in the bedroom. Why not just use him for that testimony?

girl you are wearing us out! where in the world did you get the notion that there was 'dirt' in the instruments? and why would Robert's testify as to whether or not Fuhrman had used the 'n' word? there was no problem with the socks -- they were videoed and collected from the bedroom. please link us to Lange testifying that he instructed anyone to collect the blood on Nicole's back.

[limakey]

girl you are wearing us out! where in the world did you get the notion that there was 'dirt' in the instruments? and why would Robert's testify as to whether or not Fuhrman had used the 'n' word? there was no problem with the socks -- they were videoed and collected from the bedroom. please link us to Lange testifying that he instructed anyone to collect the blood on Nicole's back.


FBG,

What else do you call contamination inside instruments? Perhaps I should have used the word, "contamination" but I just shortened it to dirt.

There were major problems with the socks. First, they looked totally out place. Second, it makes no sense if Simpson was the killer he would not have gotten rid of the socks with the shoes and the other items that I am sure someone is still looking for. Third, the line up the items tested for blood.
The fact that both defense and state experts did not see any blood on them. Fourth, they were "lost" when Dr. Leed wanted to examine them. Fifth, the defense had two witnesses who testifed why it more likely the blood on the socks was planted. Last but no least, Gary Sims could not testify about how and when the blood got on the socks.

Don't know if Lange testified to this in court or if it was in his book. Either way, there were blood drops on Nicole's back and the only source of this blood could have been the killer or Ron Goldman's.

I made no mention of Robert's testifying about Fuhrman's use of the n-word. I questioned why he wasn't use in the trial to testify about things that Fuhrman said he saw. I questioned why when Fuhrman went down in flames, he wasn't used to rebut the defense's claims against Fuhrman.

[bobaugust]

FBG,

What else do you call contamination inside instruments? Perhaps I should have used the word, "contamination" but I just shortened it to dirt.

There were major problems with the socks. First, they looked totally out place. Second, it makes no sense if Simpson was the killer he would not have gotten rid of the socks with the shoes and the other items that I am sure someone is still looking for. Third, the line up the items tested for blood.
The fact that both defense and state experts did not see any blood on them. Fourth, they were "lost" when Dr. Leed wanted to examine them. Fifth, the defense had two witnesses who testifed why it more likely the blood on the socks was planted. Last but no least, Gary Sims could not testify about how and when the blood got on the socks.

Don't know if Lange testified to this in court or if it was in his book. Either way, there were blood drops on Nicole's back and the only source of this blood could have been the killer or Ron Goldman's.

I made no mention of Robert's testifying about Fuhrman's use of the n-word. I questioned why he wasn't use in the trial to testify about things that Fuhrman said he saw. I questioned why when Fuhrman went down in flames, he wasn't used to rebut the defense's claims against Fuhrman.

Limakey, did you not read Dr. Lee’s explanation as to how the contamination could have occurred? There wasn’t any EDTA in the instruments until Martz ran the tests.

There were no major problems with the socks, just some people who can’t accept reasonable logical explanations. Simpson may have intended to wear those socks after he showered and changed clothes but the limousine had already been waiting for him when got back from Bundy so he simply didn’t take the time to put them back on so he went to Chicago without wearing any socks. The fact that no could see the dark colored stains on the dark colored socks under normal lighting means that Simpson didn’t see the blood on them either. Besides he was so high on adrenaline he never even realized or saw he was dripping blood everywhere he went after the murders; never seeing his blood drops that were splattered all over the inside of his Bronco, or on his driveway or on his foyer floor.

I never heard where the socks were lost, post that testimony please. Simpson’s blood most likely got on his socks when he took them off and they either came in contact with his cut finger or blood dripped on them from the cut. Based on Dr. Cotton’s testimony that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock had virtually little or no degradation would be consistent with her fresh blood splashing on Simpson’s socks sometime when he killed her.

The blood drops on Nicole’s back could have been Simpson blood that dripped from his cut finger or it could have been Ron or Nicole’s blood that dripped from the knife. Neither the prosecution nor the defense called Brad Roberts to testify about possible evidence that was never collected.

bobaugust

[martin II]

FBG,

What else do you call contamination inside instruments? Perhaps I should have used the word, "contamination" but I just shortened it to dirt.

There were major problems with the socks. First, they looked totally out place. Second, it makes no sense if Simpson was the killer he would not have gotten rid of the socks with the shoes and the other items that I am sure someone is still looking for. Third, the line up the items tested for blood.
The fact that both defense and state experts did not see any blood on them. Fourth, they were "lost" when Dr. Leed wanted to examine them. Fifth, the defense had two witnesses who testifed why it more likely the blood on the socks was planted. Last but no least, Gary Sims could not testify about how and when the blood got on the socks.

Don't know if Lange testified to this in court or if it was in his book. Either way, there were blood drops on Nicole's back and the only source of this blood could have been the killer or Ron Goldman's.

I made no mention of Robert's testifying about Fuhrman's use of the n-word. I questioned why he wasn't use in the trial to testify about things that Fuhrman said he saw. I questioned why when Fuhrman went down in flames, he wasn't used to rebut the defense's claims against Fuhrman.

I think it was marttz that said the machine was DIRTY. He could have cleaned the maching and ran the test again. Instead he said the resuilts he got was because the machine was dirty.

[martin II]

girl you are wearing us out! where in the world did you get the notion that there was 'dirt' in the instruments? and why would Robert's testify as to whether or not Fuhrman had used the 'n' word? there was no problem with the socks -- they were videoed and collected from the bedroom. please link us to Lange testifying that he instructed anyone to collect the blood on Nicole's back.

I think it was Roberts that found some/most of the evidence so he should have testified like furhman

[bobaugust]

I think it was marttz that said the machine was DIRTY. He could have cleaned the maching and ran the test again. Instead he said the resuilts he got was because the machine was dirty.

martin II, I never read that. Post the testimony where Martz said the machine was dirty, please. Include the date.

bobaugust.

[tv]

I think it was Roberts that found some/most of the evidence so he should have testified like furhman
I agree with you. In fact, Brad Roberts found a bloody fingerprint on the light switch in the maid's bathroom.

[William Anthony]

Your final thoughts bring up an interesting point. Within our system it appears that even those individuals who have murdered, raped, ect. are considered to be deserving of some degree of respect while serving their time in the prison system.

Kate

I was speaking from my personal point of view and not from what the law or a self-proclaimed civilized society thinks they deserve.

[William Anthony]

The article was about a new method developed to detect EDTA. “This hypothetical scenario illustrates the excellent sensitivity and potential forensic usefulness of the method.” The only thing the article said regarding the concentration of EDTA in EDTA-preserved blood is that EDTA is present at about 4.5 mM (~1300 ppm), and that very concentration sample is typical and easily detected by electrospray LC/MS/MS.

The article in it’s conclusion said,

“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 10 (to the fifth) 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.”

bobaugust

I grow tired of you seeming not to comprehend what the article said. I have repeatedly posted what the 15ng/mL (LLQ) pertained to, which was as the article said EDTA preserved blood, i.e. planting. I think the posters here can read with comprehension, even though some, or one, would not act as though they can.

[bobaugust]

I grow tired of you seeming not to comprehend what the article said. I have repeatedly posted what the 15ng/mL (LLQ) pertained to, which was as the article said EDTA preserved blood, i.e. planting. I think the posters here can read with comprehension, even though some, or one, would not act as though they can.

And I’m growing tired of your false argument and false claim that parts per billion or one to 2 parts per million of EDTA can preserve blood. The article Determining EDTA used a hypothetical scenario to demonstrate how CE/MS methods could detect levels for quantitation of trace-level concentrations. It did not say, suggest, infer, or imply that concentrations of EDTA in parts per billion or one to 2 parts per million could preserve blood. The fact is that the concentration of EDTA in lavender topped test tubes ranges between 1000 to 2000 parts per million and that there are only trace levels in a “normal person.”

bobaugust

[Kate Sachel]

Thank you Kate. It was actually your posts, after I spent so long lurking, that gave me the confidence to post myself. I kept thinking - that's what I would have said!

Redmama

Your words are very kind, and I appreciate them very much. Thank you.

Kate

[limakey]

Limakey, did you not read Dr. Lee’s explanation as to how the contamination could have occurred? There wasn’t any EDTA in the instruments until Martz ran the tests.

There were no major problems with the socks, just some people who can’t accept reasonable logical explanations. Simpson may have intended to wear those socks after he showered and changed clothes but the limousine had already been waiting for him when got back from Bundy so he simply didn’t take the time to put them back on so he went to Chicago without wearing any socks. The fact that no could see the dark colored stains on the dark colored socks under normal lighting means that Simpson didn’t see the blood on them either. Besides he was so high on adrenaline he never even realized or saw he was dripping blood everywhere he went after the murders; never seeing his blood drops that were splattered all over the inside of his Bronco, or on his driveway or on his foyer floor.

I never heard where the socks were lost, post that testimony please. Simpson’s blood most likely got on his socks when he took them off and they either came in contact with his cut finger or blood dripped on them from the cut. Based on Dr. Cotton’s testimony that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock had virtually little or no degradation would be consistent with her fresh blood splashing on Simpson’s socks sometime when he killed her.

The blood drops on Nicole’s back could have been Simpson blood that dripped from his cut finger or it could have been Ron or Nicole’s blood that dripped from the knife. Neither the prosecution nor the defense called Brad Roberts to testify about possible evidence that was never collected.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

What is logical about the state's experts not using the proper equipment to test for blood that may not been seen by the naked eye?

What is logical about all these experts not seeing blood on the socks in normal lighting, but the jurors seeing the blood on the socks in the courtroom?

What is logical about Clark not pushing for tests to run on the socks?

The blood drops on Nicole's back could only have come from the killer, they could have been Simpson's but that is not proof that it was his blood.

Read Dr. Lee's testimony about the treatment he received when he wanted to see the socks.

Neither Dr. Lee, Dr. Sims or Dr. Cotton could not testify when or how the blood got on the socks.

Mr. August, it makes no sense that Simpson would discard the shoes because of the blood on them and not do the same with the socks. It makes no sense that Simpson would be stupid enough to throw the murders clothes in the wash to try to get get rid of the blood, yet he didn't toss the socks in with them?

At least two defense experts testifed why the blood was not splashed on the socks.

I don't know if the defense even knew about Roberts, however, the DA's did. There were reasons why Roberts wasn't called to the stand. Why would the defense call Roberts---they already knew other detectives lied for him, so what was one more?

If Simpson was in such state that he did not realize the was bleeding then how did he not bleed jumping over the fence?

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

What is logical about the state's experts not using the proper equipment to test for blood that may not been seen by the naked eye?

What is logical about all these experts not seeing blood on the socks in normal lighting, but the jurors seeing the blood on the socks in the courtroom?

What is logical about Clark not pushing for tests to run on the socks?

The blood drops on Nicole's back could only have come from the killer, they could have been Simpson's but that is not proof that it was his blood.

Read Dr. Lee's testimony about the treatment he received when he wanted to see the socks.

Neither Dr. Lee, Dr. Sims or Dr. Cotton could not testify when or how the blood got on the socks.

Mr. August, it makes no sense that Simpson would discard the shoes because of the blood on them and not do the same with the socks. It makes no sense that Simpson would be stupid enough to throw the murders clothes in the wash to try to get get rid of the blood, yet he didn't toss the socks in with them?

At least two defense experts testifed why the blood was not splashed on the socks.

I don't know if the defense even knew about Roberts, however, the DA's did. There were reasons why Roberts wasn't called to the stand. Why would the defense call Roberts---they already knew other detectives lied for him, so what was one more?

If Simpson was in such state that he did not realize the was bleeding then how did he not bleed jumping over the fence?

Limakey, the proper equipment was used to test for blood. It is completely logical that small blood stains on dark colored socks could not be seen under normal lighting. The criminal trial jurors did not see the blood on the socks, they saw the holes in the socks where the blood had been cut from, and the around the holes they saw the remains of the liquid that was applied to the socks to collect the blood. There were tests performed on the socks.

I read Dr. Lee’s testimony and I don’t recall anything about the socks being lost. You made the claim; it’s up to you to support it.

It makes sense to me that if Simpson didn’t see any blood on his socks then there was no reason for him to put them in his washing machine with his sweat suit. He may have intended to wear them after he showered or he simply didn’t take the time to put them in his hamper before rushing downstairs to load the limousine.

No one could testify exactly how Simpson and Nicole’s blood got on his socks. But it’s seems reasonable to me that Simpson’s blood was transferred to his sock from his cut finger when he took his socks off And since we now know that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock was fresh blood it must have splattered on Simpson’s sock when when Simpson was at Bundy.

Roberts wasn’t called because he couldn’t testify to anything more than the other detectives who were called to testify. The prosecution had to make choices as to what detectives testified, and they didn’t choose Roberts.

Simpson either didn’t drip any blood when he entered his estate or he may have dripped blood some where it could not be easily seen. No blood was seen on any natural surface except for the plant leaves near Ron’s body. It would have been almost impossible to find small blood drops in the overgrown area on the Salinger’s property without an extensive search, and that was never done. Or as Simpson’s doctor, Dr. Huizenga explained, the cut across his knuckle would form a temporary clot, and with movement reopen, bleed, and then temporary clot again. This would continue until the cut was cared for.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

And I’m growing tired of your false argument and false claim that parts per billion or one to 2 parts per million of EDTA can preserve blood. The article Determining EDTA used a hypothetical scenario to demonstrate how CE/MS methods could detect levels for quantitation of trace-level concentrations. It did not say, suggest, infer, or imply that concentrations of EDTA in parts per billion or one to 2 parts per million could preserve blood. The fact is that the concentration of EDTA in lavender topped test tubes ranges between 1000 to 2000 parts per million and that there are only trace levels in a “normal person.”

bobaugust

Anticipation and preparation. ;):cool: Did you forget that the article said that the new method could detect levels of EDTA that were 10 to the fifth times lower than the typical concentration found in EDTA preserved blood and that the 15 parts per billion indicated planting of (and I will leave out the obliter dictum so that you will not get confused) of EDTA preserved blood? We can see that 2000/2 is only ten to the third lower. The fact is that Martz did not measure the quantity (size) of the stain he cut and therefore he was only speaking to the concentration he found. Of course, he claimed to have been careful and did a visual observation when he did the cutting but this is the testimony of a dead man. I have reasonable doubt that a dead man could testify live and in person and on camera. Don't you? ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=



It makes sense to me that if Simpson didn’t see any blood on his socks then there was no reason for him to put them in his washing machine with his sweat suit. He may have intended to wear them after he showered or he simply didn’t take the time to put them in his hamper before rushing downstairs to load the limousine.

No one could testify exactly how Simpson and Nicole’s blood got on his socks. But it’s seems reasonable to me that Simpson’s blood was transferred to his sock from his cut finger when he took his socks off And since we now know that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock was fresh blood it must have splattered on Simpson’s sock when when Simpson was at Bundy.


bobaugust[/QUOTE]

I think you may have a career in writing works of fiction and you may simply need to do a compilation of your posts. ;):cool:

[bobaugust]

Anticipation and preparation. ;):cool: Did you forget that the article said that the new method could detect levels of EDTA that were 10 to the fifth times lower than the typical concentration found in EDTA preserved blood and that the 15 parts per billion indicated planting of (and I will leave out the obliter dictum so that you will not get confused) of EDTA preserved blood? We can see that 2000/2 is only ten to the third lower. The fact is that Martz did not measure the quantity (size) of the stain he cut and therefore he was only speaking to the concentration he found. Of course, he claimed to have been careful and did a visual observation when he did the cutting but this is the testimony of a dead man. I have reasonable doubt that a dead man could testify live and in person and on camera. Don't you? ;):cool:

I repeat, the article Determining EDTA used a hypothetical scenario to demonstrate how CE/MS methods could detect levels for quantitation of trace-level concentrations. It did not say, suggest, infer, or imply that concentrations of EDTA in parts per billion or one to 2 parts per million could preserve blood.

I’ve been told by a very reliable source that, "collected blood in a lavender capped tube ranges between 1000 and 2000 ppm and there are only trace levels in a ‘normal person’."
Jack Henion, Ph.D.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I think you may have a career in writing works of fiction and you may simply need to do a compilation of your posts. ;):cool:

Thank you. My response to Limakey was simply some reasonable logical speculation of what could have happened based on the known evidence in this case.

bobaugust

[martin II]

I think you may have a career in writing works of fiction and you may simply need to do a compilation of your posts. ;):cool:

HAHAHA

I AGREE:cool:

[William Anthony]

I repeat, the article Determining EDTA used a hypothetical scenario to demonstrate how CE/MS methods could detect levels for quantitation of trace-level concentrations. It did not say, suggest, infer, or imply that concentrations of EDTA in parts per billion or one to 2 parts per million could preserve blood.

I’ve been told by a very reliable source that, "collected blood in a lavender capped tube ranges between 1000 and 2000 ppm and there are only trace levels in a ‘normal person’."
Jack Henion, Ph.D.

bobaugust

I will not disagree with a Ph.D. Personally, I think he is correct and that trace amount, "If not planted", would be in the part per billion range, as shown by the research. I haven't disagreed that EDTA in the 1300 part per billion range is the typical concentration found or that it is the amount found in a lavendar top tube. The reseachers were forced to use a hypothetical since Martz never specified the amount of the stains he used. However, he was able to detect the concentration of EDTA in those stains and he allegedly came up with a concentration in the 2 part per million range, which according to the new research would indicate planting based on the LLQ or the concentration of 15ng/mL or, if you will, 15 parts per billion. Thank you for agreeing.

[William Anthony]

Thank you. My response to Limakey was simply some reasonable logical speculation of what could have happened based on the known evidence in this case.

bobaugust

I don't think your post is quite accurate, since you have been shown to make several mistakes about facts and evidence and, to your credit, admitted to a few of your mistakes about the evidence. I have no problem with you writing a work of fiction taken from your posts about what you think the evidence and facts were so long as you label it fiction. ;):cool:

[bobaugust]

I will not disagree with a Ph.D. Personally, I think he is correct and that trace amount, "If not planted", would be in the part per billion range, as shown by the research. I haven't disagreed that EDTA in the 1300 part per billion range is the typical concentration found or that it is the amount found in a lavendar top tube. The reseachers were forced to use a hypothetical since Martz never specified the amount of the stains he used. However, he was able to detect the concentration of EDTA in those stains and he allegedly came up with a concentration in the 2 part per million range, which according to the new research would indicate planting based on the LLQ or the concentration of 15ng/mL or, if you will, 15 parts per billion. Thank you for agreeing.

Martz had a clear comparison between the trace signal of what could be EDTA in the third test results on the evidence stains and the mountainous signal from the reference samples. Based on that difference and the fact that in the first two tests he performed no EDTA was indicated in either of the evidence stains, he concluded that the evidence stains did not come from the reference samples. A conclusion that was later proved correct by photographic and degradation evidence.

You’re wrong, 2 parts per million of EDTA does not indicate planting. You’re confusing what was said in a hypothetical scenario to demonstrate how CE/MS methods could detect levels for quantitation of trace-level concentrations in an amount of blood so small that it would be physically difficult to manipulate, with the reality of the evidence stains that Martz tested.

The article Determining EDTA in Blood never said, suggested, inferred, or implied that EDTA preserved blood has a concentration of 2 parts per million. Perhaps you didn’t notice that the opinion I posted was from Jack Henion, the author of that article.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I don't think your post is quite accurate, since you have been shown to make several mistakes about facts and evidence and, to your credit, admitted to a few of your mistakes about the evidence. I have no problem with you writing a work of fiction taken from your posts about what you think the evidence and facts were so long as you label it fiction. ;):cool:

My post was based on the known evidence in response to Limakey’s opinion that was based on incorrect information. If you think something I said was not accurate then post it.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Martz had a clear comparison between the trace signal of what could be EDTA in the third test results on the evidence stains and the mountainous signal from the reference samples. Based on that difference and the fact that in the first two tests he performed no EDTA was indicated in either of the evidence stains, he concluded that the evidence stains did not come from the reference samples. A conclusion that was later proved correct by photographic and degradation evidence.

You’re wrong, 2 parts per million of EDTA does not indicate planting. You’re confusing what was said in a hypothetical scenario to demonstrate how CE/MS methods could detect levels for quantitation of trace-level concentrations in an amount of blood so small that it would be physically difficult to manipulate, with the reality of the evidence stains that Martz tested.

The article Determining EDTA in Blood never said, suggested, inferred, or implied that EDTA preserved blood has a concentration of 2 parts per million. Perhaps you didn’t notice that the opinion I posted was from Jack Henion, the author of that article.

bobaugust

I see now that you are disagreeing with the so-called expert upon which you previously relied, Terry Lee. Terry Lee testified that there should have been no detectable amount of EDTA in upreserved human blood. The reason he said that was because the science had not reached a detection level lower than the parts per million range. How can you prove something right that was wrong from the outset? ;)

With all due respect, you are now saying that the article was wrong and you are right. The article clearly said that 15ng/mL or 15 parts per billion corresponds to planting of EDTA preserved blood. You are also incorrectly assigning a size to the stains Martz allegedly tested, when his testimony or, if you will, evidence was that he did not calculate the size swatches of the stains he tested. The reality of the evidence was that we do not know the size of the swatches Martz allegedly tested and cannot say that the size of the stains were too small to have been manipulated. :)

I am well aware of the author of your post and I agree with what he said. I disagree with the meaning you assign to trace amount as well as I disagree with you assertion that your posts and speculations come from all the known evidence. I think it would be more appropriate, if you stated that your opinions come from your understanding of what you believe all the known evidence is or, if you will, desired it to be. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

My post was based on the known evidence in response to Limakey’s opinion that was based on incorrect information. If you think something I said was not accurate then post it.

bobaugust

I have no desire to further embarrass you. You have admitted to posting information that was directly in opposition to the evidence. Considering the basis for your posts, enough has been said about your numerous false posts
(see the last paragraph of my above response). You can not say something is right when it is wrong from the outset. ;):cool:

[weezer]

My post was based on the known evidence in response to Limakey’s opinion that was based on incorrect information. If you think something I said was not accurate then post it.

bobaugust

LOL -- he can't! the poster continues to embarrass himself with his dogged misinformation/inaccurate/eroneous postings.

[William Anthony]

When I have been wrong and it has been pointed out, I respond to the poster, stating that I stand corrected. I do not place other posters in the ridiculous position of attempting to defend the indefensible-nor do I qualify my wrongness. There are oh so many, who claim my posts to be wrong or inaccurate, but offer no proof to support their claims. It reminds me of the criminal case in which the prosecution claimed Simpson was guilty without offering sufficient evidence to prove his guilt, because they thought by saying it it was a enough to persuade the impartial triers of fact.;):cool:

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;9126755

in an amount of blood so small that it would be physically difficult to manipulate, with the reality of the evidence stains that Martz tested.

bobaugust[/QUOTE]

Here is Martz's testimony about the amount of blood and the size of the swatches he testified to testing. I do not know how your reality squares with his testimony as to whether or not the stain would have been physically difficult to manipulate and I ask you to note that the article never said physical manipulation was impossible.

"MR. MARTZ: No. The only thing I was concerned about is whether or not the bloodstain was larger than the material that was collected, because I was using my technique by the size of the bloodstain and--

MR. BLASIER: Did it come to you--

MR. MARTZ: Can I continue answering the question?

MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. MARTZ: And I wanted to be satisfied that the bloodstain was at least as large as that cotton swab. And by asking, I was able to determine that the bloodstain was larger than the cotton swab itself and that was my main concern.

MR. BLASIER: By asking?

MR. MARTZ: Yes. I had asked how large the bloodstain was and I was told that it was larger than the cotton swab.

MR. BLASIER: How large what bloodstain was?

MR. MARTZ: On the gate.

MR. BLASIER: Did you ever ask how much of that bloodstain had been removed and put on whatever you got it on?

MR. MARTZ: No.

MR. BLASIER: Now, did you get it on a swab or on a swatch?

MR. MARTZ: It was a very small swatch.

MR. BLASIER: Did you ever ask how many other swatches had been made from that blood drop?

MR. MARTZ: No, I did not. I didn't feel it was necessary. When I looked at that blood swatch I could see that it was thoroughly saturated with blood and that was my concern.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have a spectrophotometer in your lab?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Is that an acceptable means of determining how much you might have of blood in a solution?

MR. MARTZ: Well, it is an acceptable means I think of determining how much hemoglobin is present and from that you could possibly calculate how much blood was present.

MR. BLASIER: Did you use any method at all, other than just looking at it, to try and tell how much blood was in this swatch?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: What?

MR. MARTZ: I did a visual examination also of the extract after I extracted the blood with the water and I got a very intense red color, which indicated to me that it was concentrated blood, and also I did a testing to prove that it was--or to indicate that it was blood.

MR. BLASIER: Did the testing that you did, does that establish quantity at all?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I think it does somewhat. I mean, I could visually see the blood on the swatch and I could visually see the color of the extract that I performed.

MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, is it your testimony that you can tell with any precision how much blood is in a solution by looking at it?

MR. MARTZ: For this particular case, I think that it is, because EDTA in preserved blood is at least a thousand parts per million. If it is present in humans, at a part per million, which we have now established, that is a thousand-fold difference and I don't believe that any technique that I could have used could have been off by a thousand percent. I mean, I didn't need to be that accurate in order to determine whether or not the bloodstains were from preserved blood or from non-preserved blood. I was very, very careful in the sizes that I cut and I always made sure that I took more sample from the questioned samples than the control samples. That is why I very carefully looked at the color as I extracted and I was convinced that I had at least as much blood on the control areas as I did on the questioned areas or as on the--I had at least as much on the questioned areas as I did on the control areas. I was very, very careful in this analysis.

MR. BLASIER: Did I understand you to say that you weren't concerned with the quantity of blood that you got on the swatch?

MR. MARTZ: I was concerned with the quantity. I wanted to make sure that I had at least as much blood on the questioned areas as I did on the control areas and I was convinced that I did. I was concerned, but even if there was a mistake of one, two, fifty, a hundred percent, I mean, I would still be able to answer the question whether it was from preserved blood or non-preserved blood. I was concerned. Yes, I was concerned.

MR. BLASIER: Did you perform any tests, other than just looking at it, that was designed to find out how much blood was in the swatch that you started with?

MR. MARTZ: I did a presumptive test on the blood and I got similar colors which would indicate I had similar concentrations of blood.

MR. BLASIER: What presumptive test did you use?

MR. MARTZ: I used the phenolphthalein.

MR. BLASIER: Is that considered a quantitative test for blood?

MR. MARTZ: I mean not necessarily, but you do have a color reaction just like you have a color of blood. And everything I did, I did to make sure that I had at least as much blood on the questioned areas as I did on the control areas."