Issues In The Criminal Trial

[William Anthony]

Here is what the article said about the size where it would be less 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"

Here is a link to help you calculate what the article was saying.

http://www.convertworld.com/en/volume/%C2%B5l.html

[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:

No, I do not disagree with Dr. Terry Lee when he testified “there’s no detectable levels of EDTA in a normal human being’s blood” since at the time he was correct.

No, I do not think the article was wrong. Your claim that a concentration of EDTA in parts per billion or 2 parts per million can preserve blood is wrong. The hypothetical scenario in the article demonstrated how the CE/MS methods could detect levels for quantitation of trace-level concentrations in an amount of blood so small (1-3 nL) that it would be physically difficult to manipulate and had nothing to do with the amount of blood in the evidence stains Martz used to test for EDTA.

bobaugust

[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:

My speculation is based on the known facts and evidence in this case, not your speculation and not your embarrassingly false claims.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Here is what the article said about the size where it would be less 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"

Here is a link to help you calculate what the article was saying.

http://www.convertworld.com/en/volume/%C2%B5l.html

The article said in this hypothetical scenario that 1-3 nL of EDTA-preserved blood would be difficult to manipulate. That’s because the volume of 1-3 nL is a trace contamination, an extremely small amount of blood as indicated on the metric conversion chart you posted a link to, and has nothing to do the amount of blood in the evidence stains Martz tested.

Your claim that a concentration of EDTA in parts per billion or 2 parts per million can preserve blood is false.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

No, I do not disagree with Dr. Terry Lee when he testified “there’s no detectable levels of EDTA in a normal human being’s blood” since at the time he was correct.

No, I do not think the article was wrong. Your claim that a concentration of EDTA in parts per billion or 2 parts per million can preserve blood is wrong. The hypothetical scenario in the article demonstrated how the CE/MS methods could detect levels for quantitation of trace-level concentrations in an amount of blood so small (1-3 nL) that it would be physically difficult to manipulate and had nothing to do with the amount of blood in the evidence stains Martz used to test for EDTA.

bobaugust

Thank you. Terry Lee based his testimony on what the detection level of the machine was that Martz used. There should not have been any detectable levels of EDTA, despite the signal variations. The article clearly stated what the 15ng/mL or 15 parts per billion indicated, which was planting of EDTA preserved blood. It had everything to do with the amount of blood in the evidence stains Martz tested. Did you forget the lead into the article? What specific amount of blood in the evidence stain did Martz test? Wink cool. Anticipation and preparation. wink cool.

[William Anthony]

My speculation is based on the known facts and evidence in this case, not your speculation and not your embarrassingly false claims.

bobaugust

How can you say that your posts are based on the known evidence, when your posts contradict the evidence and the claims? wink cool. You continue to embarrass yourself, because all any poster needs to do is to read the first post after your return from your hiatus and how staunchly you defended your subsequent false posts that I have proven wrong. I guess it is your right to embarrass yourself and I will allow to so do and help you fulfill that right. wink cool.

[William Anthony]

The article said in this hypothetical scenario that 1-3 nL of EDTA-preserved blood would be difficult to manipulate. That’s because the volume of 1-3 nL is a trace contamination, an extremely small amount of blood as indicated on the metric conversion chart you posted a link to, and has nothing to do the amount of blood in the evidence stains Martz tested.

Your claim that a concentration of EDTA in parts per billion or 2 parts per million can preserve blood is false.

bobaugust

What was the specific size of the stain that Martz tested? wink cool.

[limakey]

Mr. August,

The arguement that Simpson deposited his blood on the socks when he was taking them off makes no sense. First, how could he have missed the cut on his hand and even if he did, how did he only manage to drip it on the socks and no where else in his room or bathroom?

The fact that the shoes never have been found is also an issue. According to you, he got rid of the shoes because he knew that he blood on them. Does it really make sense that Simpson knew he had to get rid of the shoes but just tossed the blood sweats into a washing machine?

Does it make sense that he would only feel that he had to get rid of the shoes and knife? Does it make sense that he would not get rid of the sweat suit because Kato already saw him wearing it?

I will say that your point that Simpson may have dripped blood on them is reasonable. However, what is not reasonable is that no expert from either side saw blood on them and they were never tested for blood until weeks later. And from what I remember, it was never clearly explained someone had the brilliant idea to test until weeks later.

Again, you ignore the obvious, everyone knows that blood on dark items are hard to see. However, everyone also knows that science enables us to test for blood that is not visiable to the naked eye.

One more issue, Fuhrman claimed that he saw the socks first, Clark told him to forget about see them---why?

[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

Since we are both growing tired, let me put an end to this discussion. The simple fact that the concentration is a fraction or ratio, if you will. That ratio would not change, irrespective of the size of the stain, i.e., if you find a ratio of 15ng/mL in a mL or in a uL (did not feel like copying and pasting the symbol) it would show planting of EDTA preserved blood. The size of the stain only pertained to the difficulty of manipulation. I thought you would have realized this earlier and I would not have to simplify this for you. Since the new research indicated that 15ng/mL or 15 parts per billion was EDTA preserved blood, common sense tells us that any ratio of concentration above that or 2 parts per million is EDTA preserved blood. ;):cool:

[bobaugust]

Thank you. Terry Lee based his testimony on what the detection level of the machine was that Martz used. There should not have been any detectable levels of EDTA, despite the signal variations. The article clearly stated what the 15ng/mL or 15 parts per billion indicated, which was planting of EDTA preserved blood. It had everything to do with the amount of blood in the evidence stains Martz tested. Did you forget the lead into the article? What specific amount of blood in the evidence stain did Martz test? Wink cool. Anticipation and preparation. wink cool.

You’re welcome. I agree there should not have been any detectable levels of EDTA in the evidence samples or Martz’s own non-preserved blood since the first tests Martz on those evidence samples indicated no EDTA present at all. That fact and the fact that the EDTA that was indicated in the third test was a trace amount 1000 times less than the concentration of EDTA in the reference samples made it very clear that the blood in the evidence samples did not come from Simpson and Nicole’s reference samples. Later photographic and degradation evidence proved Martz’s conclusion correct.

As to your question, you posted the answer in Martz’s testimony.

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.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

How can you say that your posts are based on the known evidence, when your posts contradict the evidence and the claims? wink cool. You continue to embarrass yourself, because all any poster needs to do is to read the first post after your return from your hiatus and how staunchly you defended your subsequent false posts that I have proven wrong. I guess it is your right to embarrass yourself and I will allow to so do and help you fulfill that right. wink cool.

Any poster who is familiar with the evidence in this case knows that the blood evidence tells us that Simpson was cut and bleeding when he returned to Rockingham from Bundy the night of the murders. Any poster who is familiar with the evidence in this case knows that degradation testing proved that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock was fresh blood when it splashed or splattered on Simpson’s sock.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

What was the specific size of the stain that Martz tested? wink cool.

It sure wasn’t the extremely small trace concentration used in the hypothetical scenario in the article Determining EDTA in Blood.

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..
.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Since we are both growing tired, let me put an end to this discussion. The simple fact that the concentration is a fraction or ratio, if you will. That ratio would not change, irrespective of the size of the stain, i.e., if you find a ratio of 15ng/mL in a mL or in a uL (did not feel like copying and pasting the symbol) it would show planting of EDTA preserved blood. The size of the stain only pertained to the difficulty of manipulation. I thought you would have realized this earlier and I would not have to simplify this for you. Since the new research indicated that 15ng/mL or 15 parts per billion was EDTA preserved blood, common sense tells us that any ratio of concentration above that or 2 parts per million is EDTA preserved blood. ;):cool:

The hypothetical was used to demonstrate how CE/MS methods could detect levels for quantitation of trace-level concentrations in a volume so small that it would be physically difficult to manipulate.

Concentrations of EDTA in parts per billion or 2 parts per million can not preserve blood.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

The arguement that Simpson deposited his blood on the socks when he was taking them off makes no sense. First, how could he have missed the cut on his hand and even if he did, how did he only manage to drip it on the socks and no where else in his room or bathroom?

The fact that the shoes never have been found is also an issue. According to you, he got rid of the shoes because he knew that he blood on them. Does it really make sense that Simpson knew he had to get rid of the shoes but just tossed the blood sweats into a washing machine?

Does it make sense that he would only feel that he had to get rid of the shoes and knife? Does it make sense that he would not get rid of the sweat suit because Kato already saw him wearing it?

I will say that your point that Simpson may have dripped blood on them is reasonable. However, what is not reasonable is that no expert from either side saw blood on them and they were never tested for blood until weeks later. And from what I remember, it was never clearly explained someone had the brilliant idea to test until weeks later.

Again, you ignore the obvious, everyone knows that blood on dark items are hard to see. However, everyone also knows that science enables us to test for blood that is not visiable to the naked eye.

One more issue, Fuhrman claimed that he saw the socks first, Clark told him to forget about see them---why?

Limakey, it’s not hard to understand how Simpson’s cut finger could have come in contact with his socks when he pulled them off. What doesn’t make any sense is the unsupported speculation that someone would later plant Simpson’s blood on his own socks.

Simpson could have easily packed the knife and his shoes in the garment bag he carried downstairs and gave to Allan Park to load into the limousine. He could have disposed of them sometime after arriving in Chicago.

It makes sense that Simpson was not thinking very clearly after committing the murders but he got lucky. When the police didn’t collect the freshly washed sweat suit he disposed of it.

Yes it was explained that in the initial inventory of the evidence the socks were looked at and marked to be inspected for blood. Since no one saw the small dark blood stains on the dark colored socks they were not given a high priority over other more obvious blood evidence. When the socks were eventually looked at under high intensity lighting the stains were seen.

I don’t recall anything about Clark telling Fuhrman to forget about seeing the socks. What is your source for this? If it was in Clark or Fuhrman’s book, post the page number please.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

You’re welcome. I agree there should not have been any detectable levels of EDTA in the evidence samples or Martz’s own non-preserved blood since the first tests Martz on those evidence samples indicated no EDTA present at all. That fact and the fact that the EDTA that was indicated in the third test was a trace amount 1000 times less than the concentration of EDTA in the reference samples made it very clear that the blood in the evidence samples did not come from Simpson and Nicole’s reference samples. Later photographic and degradation evidence proved Martz’s conclusion correct.

As to your question, you posted the answer in Martz’s testimony.

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.

bobaugust

I will address your redundant first paragraph in another post. This does not answer my question, which did not deal with Martz's alleged concern. The question was the specific amount of blood that Martz tested since you claimed that the reality was that Martz would have difficulty manipulating his sample.

[William Anthony]

Any poster who is familiar with the evidence in this case knows that the blood evidence tells us that Simpson was cut and bleeding when he returned to Rockingham from Bundy the night of the murders. Any poster who is familiar with the evidence in this case knows that degradation testing proved that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock was fresh blood when it splashed or splattered on Simpson’s sock.

bobaugust

Your claim was that you post from the known evidence. Your first post after your return from what some have called your hiatus contained three claims that were directly contradicted by the evidence. You have since posted many false posts, imho, which are not supported by evidence of information, just your false claims, imho.

[William Anthony]

It sure wasn’t the extremely small trace concentration used in the hypothetical scenario in the article Determining EDTA in Blood.

bobaugust

Exactly, it was more, which would have made it more easy to manipulate.

[William Anthony]

The hypothetical was used to demonstrate how CE/MS methods could detect levels for quantitation of trace-level concentrations in a volume so small that it would be physically difficult to manipulate.

Concentrations of EDTA in parts per billion or 2 parts per million can not preserve blood.

bobaugust

You may call it quantitation but a simpler word is concentration, which is expressed in parts per billion. There were two quantitations or concentrations detected-7.3ng/mL or 7.3 parts per million of EDTA unpreserved blood and 15 parts per million of EDTA preserved blood. I supplied you with a link so that you could calculate the size of the stain in reference to what the article said.

Here are two quotes from the research article that may help you place things in their proper context.

"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. "

"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."

They developed a valid method "FOR DETERMINING EDTA IN HUMAN BLOOD" and this is what they concluded "IF THIS METHOD WAS USED TO DETERMINE WHETHER A FORENSIC BLOOD STAIN HAD BEEN "PLANTED", THIS LLQ (we know the LLQ was 15 parts per million by the article) CORRESPONDS TO "PLANTING" 1-3 NL OF EDTA-PRESERVED BLOOD.";):cool:

[tv]

Limakey, it’s not hard to understand how Simpson’s cut finger could have come in contact with his socks when he pulled them off. What doesn’t make any sense is the unsupported speculation that someone would later plant Simpson’s blood on his own socks.

Simpson could have easily packed the knife and his shoes in the garment bag he carried downstairs and gave to Allan Park to load into the limousine. He could have disposed of them sometime after arriving in Chicago.

It makes sense that Simpson was not thinking very clearly after committing the murders but he got lucky. When the police didn’t collect the freshly washed sweat suit he disposed of it.

Yes it was explained that in the initial inventory of the evidence the socks were looked at and marked to be inspected for blood. Since no one saw the small dark blood stains on the dark colored socks they were not given a high priority over other more obvious blood evidence. When the socks were eventually looked at under high intensity lighting the stains were seen.

I don’t recall anything about Clark telling Fuhrman to forget about seeing the socks. What is your source for this? If it was in Clark or Fuhrman’s book, post the page number please.

bobaugustI'd also be interested in reading the source of this claim. l

[William Anthony]

Limakey, it’s not hard to understand how Simpson’s cut finger could have come in contact with his socks when he pulled them off. What doesn’t make any sense is the unsupported speculation that someone would later plant Simpson’s blood on his own socks.

Simpson could have easily packed the knife and his shoes in the garment bag he carried downstairs and gave to Allan Park to load into the limousine. He could have disposed of them sometime after arriving in Chicago.

It makes sense that Simpson was not thinking very clearly after committing the murders but he got lucky. When the police didn’t collect the freshly washed sweat suit he disposed of it.

Yes it was explained that in the initial inventory of the evidence the socks were looked at and marked to be inspected for blood. Since no one saw the small dark blood stains on the dark colored socks they were not given a high priority over other more obvious blood evidence. When the socks were eventually looked at under high intensity lighting the stains were seen.

I don’t recall anything about Clark telling Fuhrman to forget about seeing the socks. What is your source for this? If it was in Clark or Fuhrman’s book, post the page number please.

bobaugust

What is arduous to digest is the magical properties of the socks and the uncanny ability of the gate stain to retain so much of its DNA content, although being unprotected from the forces of man and nature.

[William Anthony]

You may call it quantitation but a simpler word is concentration, which is expressed in parts per billion. There were two quantitations or concentrations detected-7.3ng/mL or 7.3 parts per million of EDTA unpreserved blood and 15 parts per million of EDTA preserved blood. I supplied you with a link so that you could calculate the size of the stain in reference to what the article said.

Here are two quotes from the research article that may help you place things in their proper context.

"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. "

"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."

They developed a valid method "FOR DETERMINING EDTA IN HUMAN BLOOD" and this is what they concluded "IF THIS METHOD WAS USED TO DETERMINE WHETHER A FORENSIC BLOOD STAIN HAD BEEN "PLANTED", THIS LLQ (we know the LLQ was 15 parts per million by the article) CORRESPONDS TO "PLANTING" 1-3 NL OF EDTA-PRESERVED BLOOD.";):cool:

I don't think I would make a good economist. Correction-(we know the LLQ was 15 parts per billion by the article)

[bobaugust]

I will address your redundant first paragraph in another post. This does not answer my question, which did not deal with Martz's alleged concern. The question was the specific amount of blood that Martz tested since you claimed that the reality was that Martz would have difficulty manipulating his sample.

I didn’t say anything about Martz manipulating his samples; I said you were confusing what was said in the hypothetical scenario with the reality of the evidence stains that Martz tested.

July 36, 1995
MR. BLASIER: How much blood is there in a drop, how many microliters?
MR. MARTZ: Oh, I don't know. I don't--I don't do a lot of volumes with blood. All I know is I used ten microliters and five microliters and created some stains.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Your claim was that you post from the known evidence. Your first post after your return from what some have called your hiatus contained three claims that were directly contradicted by the evidence. You have since posted many false posts, imho, which are not supported by evidence of information, just your false claims, imho.

If you know of any facts and evidence that you think I am mistaken about regarding Simpson’s blood found at Bundy and Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock feel free to post it an offer your own speculation.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Exactly, it was more, which would have made it more easy to manipulate.

The article referred to an extremely small trace concentration, 1-3 nL, that would be physically difficult to manipulate for planting. Martz was not planting blood.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You may call it quantitation but a simpler word is concentration, which is expressed in parts per billion. There were two quantitations or concentrations detected-7.3ng/mL or 7.3 parts per million of EDTA unpreserved blood and 15 parts per million of EDTA preserved blood. I supplied you with a link so that you could calculate the size of the stain in reference to what the article said.

Here are two quotes from the research article that may help you place things in their proper context.

"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. "

"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."

They developed a valid method "FOR DETERMINING EDTA IN HUMAN BLOOD" and this is what they concluded "IF THIS METHOD WAS USED TO DETERMINE WHETHER A FORENSIC BLOOD STAIN HAD BEEN "PLANTED", THIS LLQ (we know the LLQ was 15 parts per million by the article) CORRESPONDS TO "PLANTING" 1-3 NL OF EDTA-PRESERVED BLOOD.";):cool:

I see you caught your mistake regarding parts per million and parts per billion. 7.3 ng/mL and the LLQ of 15 ng/mL are detection limits that can apply to both unpreserved and preserved blood.

The article did not conclude whether a forensic blood stain had been planted. In the hypothetical scenario the volume of 1-3 nL of preserved blood was not an actual sample of blood it was only a corresponding amount used to demonstrate the capability of the CE/MS methods to detect levels for quantitation in extremely small trace level concentrations.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

What is arduous to digest is the magical properties of the socks and the uncanny ability of the gate stain to retain so much of its DNA content, although being unprotected from the forces of man and nature.

There was nothing magical about the socks or the gate blood. The difference in surfaces between the porous cement walkway and the painted metal gate accounted for the difference in degradation of Simpson’s blood drops found at Bundy.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I didn’t say anything about Martz manipulating his samples; I said you were confusing what was said in the hypothetical scenario with the reality of the evidence stains that Martz tested.

July 36, 1995
MR. BLASIER: How much blood is there in a drop, how many microliters?
MR. MARTZ: Oh, I don't know. I don't--I don't do a lot of volumes with blood. All I know is I used ten microliters and five microliters and created some stains.

bobaugust

Not quite true. You said that the reality was it would be difficult for Martz to have manipulated his sample, which prompted me to ask you the specific size of the stains Martz tested. According to this post, Martz did not know. I ask how you could not and remind you that the article said difficult and not impossible. You often make statements about the reality of the evidence when the evidence contradicts your claim of reality, imho. ;):cool:The more germane question was what was the original volume of blood in the stains.

[William Anthony]

I see you caught your mistake regarding parts per million and parts per billion. 7.3 ng/mL and the LLQ of 15 ng/mL are detection limits that can apply to both unpreserved and preserved blood.

The article did not conclude whether a forensic blood stain had been planted. In the hypothetical scenario the volume of 1-3 nL of preserved blood was not an actual sample of blood it was only a corresponding amount used to demonstrate the capability of the CE/MS methods to detect levels for quantitation in extremely small trace level concentrations.

bobaugust

You have previously relied on the author of this article. I am sure that the author was capable of saying that both detection limits related to EDTA preserved blood or unpreserved blood. The reality is that he only included the pharse of EDTA preserved blood in relationship to the 15 part per billion detection limit.

The article showed the concentration, 15 parts per billion, that would correspond to planting.

[William Anthony]

I see you caught your mistake regarding parts per million and parts per billion. 7.3 ng/mL and the LLQ of 15 ng/mL are detection limits that can apply to both unpreserved and preserved blood.

The article did not conclude whether a forensic blood stain had been planted. In the hypothetical scenario the volume of 1-3 nL of preserved blood was not an actual sample of blood it was only a corresponding amount used to demonstrate the capability of the CE/MS methods to detect levels for quantitation in extremely small trace level concentrations.

bobaugust

Yes, I caught my typo before you did. Does that infuriate you?

You seem to think the author you quoted created an incoherent article. I think you just do not want to take the statements in context because they differ with your view of reality.

[bobaugust]

Not quite true. You said that the reality was it would be difficult for Martz to have manipulated his sample, which prompted me to ask you the specific size of the stains Martz tested. According to this post, Martz did not know. I ask how you could not and remind you that the article said difficult and not impossible. You often make statements about the reality of the evidence when the evidence contradicts your claim of reality, imho. ;):cool:The more germane question was what was the original volume of blood in the stains.

Not quite true. This is what I responded to you in post #6628

“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.”

You then responded in post #6630

“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.”

You’re the one William who is implying that Martz manipulated the stains, not me. As I said, the article referred to an extremely small trace concentration, 1-3 nL, which would be physically difficult to manipulate for planting. Martz was not planting blood. The question is not what the volume of blood is in the stains the question is did the evidence stains come from the reference samples and Martz’s answer was clearly no. Martz’s opinion was later proven to be correct by photographic and degradation evidence.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You have previously relied on the author of this article. I am sure that the author was capable of saying that both detection limits related to EDTA preserved blood or unpreserved blood. The reality is that he only included the pharse of EDTA preserved blood in relationship to the 15 part per billion detection limit.

The article showed the concentration, 15 parts per billion, that would correspond to planting.

The reality is that your argument that the LLQ of 15 ng/mL in the CE/MS method somehow means that preserved blood contains a concentration of EDTA in parts per billion is wrong. The article used a hypothetical scenario, not real blood samples, to demonstrate how small of a trace contamination the CE/MS methods could detect and quantify. The article never said that preserved blood contains a concentration of EDTA in parts per billion or 2 parts per million.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Yes, I caught my typo before you did. Does that infuriate you?

You seem to think the author you quoted created an incoherent article. I think you just do not want to take the statements in context because they differ with your view of reality.

No it didn’t infuriate me; that’s funny. All it did was cause me to change my response correcting your mistake.

The author created a very coherent article that you William, once again put another of your false interpretations on to try and support your false claims that a concentration of EDTA in parts per billion or 2 parts per million can preserve blood. All because you just can’t admit that no blood was ever planted in the Simpson case.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Not quite true. This is what I responded to you in post #6628

“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.”

You then responded in post #6630

“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.”

You’re the one William who is implying that Martz manipulated the stains, not me. As I said, the article referred to an extremely small trace concentration, 1-3 nL, which would be physically difficult to manipulate for planting. Martz was not planting blood. The question is not what the volume of blood is in the stains the question is did the evidence stains come from the reference samples and Martz’s answer was clearly no. Martz’s opinion was later proven to be correct by photographic and degradation evidence.

bobaugust

WTH?

You claimed the that it would be "physically difficult to manipulate, with the reality of the evidence stains that Martz tested.” I then asked you the specific size of the stains that Martz tested in order for you to support your view of reality. I think you may have dreamed that reality and it also proves your claim that you post on the known evidence wrong, since Martz did not know the specific size.

We all know that Martz' conclusions were wrong as to how much unpreserved blood was in humans and the fact that "we have established it was in the parts per million." Falsus in onus, Falsus in omnibus. I am posting from the known evidence in the form of Terry Lee's testimony, "If not planted, Martz' results become problematic." Dig? ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

The reality is that your argument that the LLQ of 15 ng/mL in the CE/MS method somehow means that preserved blood contains a concentration of EDTA in parts per billion is wrong. The article used a hypothetical scenario, not real blood samples, to demonstrate how small of a trace contamination the CE/MS methods could detect and quantify. The article never said that preserved blood contains a concentration of EDTA in parts per billion or 2 parts per million.

bobaugust

WTH?

The article used a hypothetical to explain what detection limits they had found and the implications derived from those findings. The article was clear that EDTA in the concentration of 15ng/mL or 15 parts per billion was EDTA preserved blood and that could be found in a sample the size of 6 fmol injected. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

No it didn’t infuriate me; that’s funny. All it did was cause me to change my response correcting your mistake.

The author created a very coherent article that you William, once again put another of your false interpretations on to try and support your false claims that a concentration of EDTA in parts per billion or 2 parts per million can preserve blood. All because you just can’t admit that no blood was ever planted in the Simpson case.

bobaugust

I am now sure that you do not understand my argument. I have shown by new information and the testimony of Terry Lee that a reasonable inference can be drawn and by the magical properties of the socks, that disappeared and reappeared that a reasonable inference can be drawn that there was planting and, consequently, there was reasonable doubt. I was not present with anyone involved in the case and neither were you, although one would think you were from your posts, because it seems you know the size of stains that Martz did not know when he tested them and you claim to know the facts, as opposed to having formed an opinion as to what the evidence causes you to believe are the facts. I understand since you are often wrong about the evidence your claim to know the facts is frequently as wrong. ;):cool:

[bobaugust]

WTH?

You claimed the that it would be "physically difficult to manipulate, with the reality of the evidence stains that Martz tested.” I then asked you the specific size of the stains that Martz tested in order for you to support your view of reality. I think you may have dreamed that reality and it also proves your claim that you post on the known evidence wrong, since Martz did not know the specific size.

We all know that Martz' conclusions were wrong as to how much unpreserved blood was in humans and the fact that "we have established it was in the parts per million." Falsus in onus, Falsus in omnibus. I am posting from the known evidence in the form of Terry Lee's testimony, "If not planted, Martz' results become problematic." Dig? ;):cool:

WTH to you to, funny, do you not understand that the blood stains in the hypothetical scenario were not real and that the evidence stains that Martz tested were?

Martz testified that he intentionally used more of the evidence samples then the known reference samples. Did you not see where I posted Martz’s testimony where he said how much blood he used for the evidence stains? Here it is again.

July 36, 1995
MR. BLASIER: How much blood is there in a drop, how many microliters?
MR. MARTZ: Oh, I don't know. I don't--I don't do a lot of volumes with blood. All I know is I used ten microliters and five microliters and created some stains.

Dr. Lee’s notes said, "If detectable levels of EDTA are found in the stains, but significantly lower than the levels from blood in the tube, then interpretation becomes problematic." Dr. Lee’s interpretation was that the trace contamination of EDTA that was indicated in the third test results were consistent with a carryover in the instruments.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

WTH?

The article used a hypothetical to explain what detection limits they had found and the implications derived from those findings. The article was clear that EDTA in the concentration of 15ng/mL or 15 parts per billion was EDTA preserved blood and that could be found in a sample the size of 6 fmol injected. ;):cool:

Another WTH to you too, your interpretation is wrong. The article never said that preserved blood contains a concentration of 15 parts per billion of EDTA The hypothetical scenario was used to demonstrate how small a trace contamination the method could quantify.

“7.3 ng/mL can be a detection limit from a gallon of blood or a drop of blood. The LLQ is the limit we can quantify down to and the detection limit is the limit of detection; e.g. the lowest level we can detect but not quantify.” Jack Henion

The fact is according to Jack Henion that preserved blood would contain 1000 to 2000 parts per million of EDTA no matter how small a volume it is.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I am now sure that you do not understand my argument. I have shown by new information and the testimony of Terry Lee that a reasonable inference can be drawn and by the magical properties of the socks, that disappeared and reappeared that a reasonable inference can be drawn that there was planting and, consequently, there was reasonable doubt. I was not present with anyone involved in the case and neither were you, although one would think you were from your posts, because it seems you know the size of stains that Martz did not know when he tested them and you claim to know the facts, as opposed to having formed an opinion as to what the evidence causes you to believe are the facts. I understand since you are often wrong about the evidence your claim to know the facts is frequently as wrong. ;):cool:

I’m not sure you know what you are arguing. There was no reasonable doubt about the socks only some people who refuse to believe the testimony of Willie Ford who testified that he waited until Fung completed his work in Simpson’s bedroom before taking his video of the bedroom. In the civil trial Dr. Cotton testified about degradation testing that conclusively proved Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock could not have come from her autopsy sample. That fact destroyed the defense sock blood planting theory. I’ve already posted Martz’s testimony as to how much blood he used to create the stains.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

WTH to you to, funny, do you not understand that the blood stains in the hypothetical scenario were not real and that the evidence stains that Martz tested were?

Martz testified that he intentionally used more of the evidence samples then the known reference samples. Did you not see where I posted Martz’s testimony where he said how much blood he used for the evidence stains? Here it is again.

July 36, 1995
MR. BLASIER: How much blood is there in a drop, how many microliters?
MR. MARTZ: Oh, I don't know. I don't--I don't do a lot of volumes with blood. All I know is I used ten microliters and five microliters and created some stains.

Dr. Lee’s notes said, "If detectable levels of EDTA are found in the stains, but significantly lower than the levels from blood in the tube, then interpretation becomes problematic." Dr. Lee’s interpretation was that the trace contamination of EDTA that was indicated in the third test results were consistent with a carryover in the instruments.

bobaugust

With all due respect, your use of the WTH seems childish to me at best. Yes, the hypothetical was used to explain what the new detection limits meant.

I saw what you posted of Martz' testimony and my question to you as to the specific size of the samples he tested remains the same. What don't you understand about Martz' answer, "Oh, I don't know." or which stain was five or ten microliters.

Terry Lee began his notes, which he testified about, with the assumption that the stains were not planted to reach his ghost theory. The obvious and most important aspect of his notes is that the most obvious answer was they were planted, because any other interpretation was problematic and a "convincing argument" had to be made that they were not. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

Another WTH to you too, your interpretation is wrong. The article never said that preserved blood contains a concentration of 15 parts per billion of EDTA The hypothetical scenario was used to demonstrate how small a trace contamination the method could quantify.

“7.3 ng/mL can be a detection limit from a gallon of blood or a drop of blood. The LLQ is the limit we can quantify down to and the detection limit is the limit of detection; e.g. the lowest level we can detect but not quantify.” Jack Henion

The fact is according to Jack Henion that preserved blood would contain 1000 to 2000 parts per million of EDTA no matter how small a volume it is.

bobaugust

This is what I have been telling you the detectable concentration remains the same regardless of the size, unless the size is lower than a mL. The 15ng/mL or 15 parts per billion detection limit corresponds to planting of EDTA preserved blood.

Provide links to your quote and show where the Dr. said that it takes 1000 to 2000 parts per million to preserve blood and not that EDTA is "present at 1300 parts per billion in EDTA preserved blood and that is the "typical Concentration." I will provide a please to my request, because of the way I was raised.

[William Anthony]

I’m not sure you know what you are arguing. There was no reasonable doubt about the socks only some people who refuse to believe the testimony of Willie Ford who testified that he waited until Fung completed his work in Simpson’s bedroom before taking his video of the bedroom. In the civil trial Dr. Cotton testified about degradation testing that conclusively proved Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock could not have come from her autopsy sample. That fact destroyed the defense sock blood planting theory. I’ve already posted Martz’s testimony as to how much blood he used to create the stains.

bobaugust

MY question was not how much blood Martz used to create the stains. It was how much blood was in each stain he created.

We all know that the memory of humans is not as trustworthy as the memory of the technology used when there has been a foundation laid, as it was in the trial that the technology on the cam corder was accurate. This is why when DF was faced with the fact that the video did not show the socks at a time when they should have been there he attempted to change his time of collection. Reasonable doubt. ;):cool: The latter testimony in the civil trial only showed evidence that it was someone's expert opinion that it did not come from the autopsy sample and did not rule out any other source.

[William Anthony]

This is what I have been telling you the detectable concentration remains the same regardless of the size, unless the size is lower than a mL. The 15ng/mL or 15 parts per billion detection limit corresponds to planting of EDTA preserved blood.

Provide links to your quote and show where the Dr. said that it takes 1000 to 2000 parts per million to preserve blood and not that EDTA is "present at 1300 parts per billion in EDTA preserved blood and that is the "typical Concentration." I will provide a please to my request, because of the way I was raised.

Correction-is "present" at 1300 parts per million in EDTA preserved blood

[bobaugust]

With all due respect, your use of the WTH seems childish to me at best. Yes, the hypothetical was used to explain what the new detection limits meant.

I saw what you posted of Martz' testimony and my question to you as to the specific size of the samples he tested remains the same. What don't you understand about Martz' answer, "Oh, I don't know." or which stain was five or ten microliters.

Terry Lee began his notes, which he testified about, with the assumption that the stains were not planted to reach his ghost theory. The obvious and most important aspect of his notes is that the most obvious answer was they were planted, because any other interpretation was problematic and a "convincing argument" had to be made that they were not. ;):cool:

The point is that Martz used enough evidence blood to make a comparison to the reference samples and it was clear based on that comparison that neither the gate blood nor the sock blood came from those reference samples. The fact is that photographic evidence and degradation evidence later proved Martz’s opinion correct.

Dr. Lee came to the same conclusion that Martz did based on the results of all the tests Martz ran that the evidence stains could not have come from the reference samples. The notes Dr. Lee wrote to organize his thoughts had nothing to do with the evidence that he based his opinion on.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

This is what I have been telling you the detectable concentration remains the same regardless of the size, unless the size is lower than a mL. The 15ng/mL or 15 parts per billion detection limit corresponds to planting of EDTA preserved blood.

Provide links to your quote and show where the Dr. said that it takes 1000 to 2000 parts per million to preserve blood and not that EDTA is "present at 1300 parts per billion in EDTA preserved blood and that is the "typical Concentration." I will provide a please to my request, because of the way I was raised.

You’re wrong. The article said, “this LLQ corresponds to "planting" 1-3 nL of EDTA-preserved blood” It did not say that 1-3 nL of EDTA-preserved blood contains a concentration of EDTA in parts per billion. When I asked Jack Henion about this hypothetical scenario if the LLQ of 15 ng/mL means there are 15 parts per billion in preserved blood he responded,

“You are making the subject more difficult than it is by equating trace analysis to nano volumetric transfers. The latter are not the outcome of such trace analyses. 7.3 ng/mL can be a detection limit from a gallon of blood or a drop of blood. The LLQ is the limit we can quantify down to and the detection limit is the limit of detection; e.g. the lowest level we can detect but not quantify.”

The LLQ of 15 ng/mL corresponds to the volume of EDTA-preserved blood it can quantify, 1-3 nL. The concentration of EDTA the LLQ would quantify in preserved blood no matter how small the volume is would be between 1000 and 2000 parts per million. If it quantified a concentration of EDTA of 15 parts per billion then it wouldn’t be preserved blood.

One of the first questions I asked Jack Henion was regarding how much EDTA was in preserved blood and how much EDTA might be found in a normal person’s body. I sited both Martz and Dr. Rieders testimony. Jack Henion responded,

“I believe the numbers you cite are in the ball park; e.g. EDTA in collected blood in a lavender capped tube ranges between 1000 and 2000 ppm and there are only trace levels in a ‘normal person’. EDTA is rapidly eliminated in humans even though it is in a number of common foods. To say there is no EDTA in a normal person is probably naïve. Modern techniques are much more sensitive than even ten years ago and usually such common contaminants can be detected with appropriate analytical skills and techniques.”

I asked Jack Henion, If small quantities of preserved blood are found will they still contain the same concentration of 1000 to 2000 parts per million of EDTA no matter how small the volume of blood is? He responded,

“Yes, of course.”

What is your source of information that “the detectable concentration remains the same regardless of the size, unless the size is lower than a mL?”

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

MY question was not how much blood Martz used to create the stains. It was how much blood was in each stain he created.

We all know that the memory of humans is not as trustworthy as the memory of the technology used when there has been a foundation laid, as it was in the trial that the technology on the cam corder was accurate. This is why when DF was faced with the fact that the video did not show the socks at a time when they should have been there he attempted to change his time of collection. Reasonable doubt. ;):cool: The latter testimony in the civil trial only showed evidence that it was someone's expert opinion that it did not come from the autopsy sample and did not rule out any other source.

Martz’s testimony I posted tells us how much blood he used to create the stains.

The time on the video camera Ford used was not correct and Fung never recorded the time he collected the socks. The problem was with the testimony regarding estimated times. The testimony of Willie Ford clearly answers the question as to why the socks were not in Simpson’s bedroom when he video taped the bedroom. Ford testified he waited until Fung had completed his work in the bedroom before he video taped the room. Those were his instructions and that is what he testified he did.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The point is that Martz used enough evidence blood to make a comparison to the reference samples and it was clear based on that comparison that neither the gate blood nor the sock blood came from those reference samples. The fact is that photographic evidence and degradation evidence later proved Martz’s opinion correct.

Dr. Lee came to the same conclusion that Martz did based on the results of all the tests Martz ran that the evidence stains could not have come from the reference samples. The notes Dr. Lee wrote to organize his thoughts had nothing to do with the evidence that he based his opinion on.

bobaugust

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, the point is your claim that the reality of the evidence is that Martz could not have manipulated such a small stain and your claim that you post on the known evidence, when in fact Martz did not know the size of the stain and only knew that he allegedly used either five or ten to microliters to create the stains. The planting, if there was any, would have come prior to the time that Martz got the socks and, any dilution of the concentration of EDTA would have occcurred after Martz acquired the socks, based on the erroneous results he got as to the amount of EDTA in his blood, imho. I do not doubt that Lee's notes reflect the process of his thought organization, with the first thought reflecting the most obvious explanation for the erroneous results, "If not planted" and his creative solution to the "problematic" evidence of planting, as to how to form a "convincing argument" that there was no planting. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

Martz’s testimony I posted tells us how much blood he used to create the stains.

The time on the video camera Ford used was not correct and Fung never recorded the time he collected the socks. The problem was with the testimony regarding estimated times. The testimony of Willie Ford clearly answers the question as to why the socks were not in Simpson’s bedroom when he video taped the bedroom. Ford testified he waited until Fung had completed his work in the bedroom before he video taped the room. Those were his instructions and that is what he testified he did.

bobaugust

There was an agreement as to the time on the camcorder and Martz recorded the times that he collected base on his time and order of the collection of other items of evidence. He then tried to change his testimony, after it was shown on the camcorder that the socks were not there when they were supposed to be. Perhaps, DF was looking for some socks to place there and had another video taken after Mr. Ford had videoed the room with the socks missing. Common sense tells us that Mr. Ford videoed other things after videoing the room and could not tell what DF or anyone else, who did not appear in the subsequent videos were doing after he videoed the room.
Reasonable doubt. ;):cool: Let's not forget it is who the jury found credible. ;):cool:

[tv]

Mr. August,

The arguement that Simpson deposited his blood on the socks when he was taking them off makes no sense. First, how could he have missed the cut on his hand and even if he did, how did he only manage to drip it on the socks and no where else in his room or bathroom?

The fact that the shoes never have been found is also an issue. According to you, he got rid of the shoes because he knew that he blood on them. Does it really make sense that Simpson knew he had to get rid of the shoes but just tossed the blood sweats into a washing machine?

Does it make sense that he would only feel that he had to get rid of the shoes and knife? Does it make sense that he would not get rid of the sweat suit because Kato already saw him wearing it?

I will say that your point that Simpson may have dripped blood on them is reasonable. However, what is not reasonable is that no expert from either side saw blood on them and they were never tested for blood until weeks later. And from what I remember, it was never clearly explained someone had the brilliant idea to test until weeks later.

Again, you ignore the obvious, everyone knows that blood on dark items are hard to see. However, everyone also knows that science enables us to test for blood that is not visiable to the naked eye.

One more issue, Fuhrman claimed that he saw the socks first, Clark told him to forget about see them---why?

limakey, I'm still waiting for you to post the source for your claim that Clark told Fuhrman to forget about seeing the socks. Why would she do that and then include the socks as evidence?

The defense blood expert, Herbert MacDonell, testified it would be difficult to see the blood on the socks under normal lighting. Dr. Henry Lee testified that he couldn't tell if there were any blood stains on the socks when observing a photograph of the socks. Do you find it unreasonable that it's possible that because there was no visible blood that the testing of these items wasn't considered top priority and that's why it wasn't done until weeks later?

I'm not surprised that the things he did to dispose of the murder clothes are inconsistent. I'm sure he was in an agitated state of mind afterwards and coupled with rushing around to make it to the airport it's reasonable to think he was very erratic and unorganized. Plus, washing a pair of Bruno Magli's would have been inexplicable but washing a pair of sweats would have seemed normal if someone inquired. If the presence of the sweats is so innocent why did they disappear?

[tv]

There was an agreement as to the time on the camcorder and Martz recorded the times that he collected base on his time and order of the collection of other items of evidence. He then tried to change his testimony, after it was shown on the camcorder that the socks were not there when they were supposed to be. Perhaps, DF was looking for some socks to place there and had another video taken after Mr. Ford had videoed the room with the socks missing. Common sense tells us that Mr. Ford videoed other things after videoing the room and could not tell what DF or anyone else, who did not appear in the subsequent videos were doing after he videoed the room.
Reasonable doubt. ;):cool: Let's not forget it is who the jury found credible. ;):cool:

You're kidding, right?

[William Anthony]

You’re wrong. The article said, “this LLQ corresponds to "planting" 1-3 nL of EDTA-preserved blood” It did not say that 1-3 nL of EDTA-preserved blood contains a concentration of EDTA in parts per billion. When I asked Jack Henion about this hypothetical scenario if the LLQ of 15 ng/mL means there are 15 parts per billion in preserved blood he responded,

“You are making the subject more difficult than it is by equating trace analysis to nano volumetric transfers. The latter are not the outcome of such trace analyses. 7.3 ng/mL can be a detection limit from a gallon of blood or a drop of blood. The LLQ is the limit we can quantify down to and the detection limit is the limit of detection; e.g. the lowest level we can detect but not quantify.”

The LLQ of 15 ng/mL corresponds to the volume of EDTA-preserved blood it can quantify, 1-3 nL. The concentration of EDTA the LLQ would quantify in preserved blood no matter how small the volume is would be between 1000 and 2000 parts per million. If it quantified a concentration of EDTA of 15 parts per billion then it wouldn’t be preserved blood.

One of the first questions I asked Jack Henion was regarding how much EDTA was in preserved blood and how much EDTA might be found in a normal person’s body. I sited both Martz and Dr. Rieders testimony. Jack Henion responded,

“I believe the numbers you cite are in the ball park; e.g. EDTA in collected blood in a lavender capped tube ranges between 1000 and 2000 ppm and there are only trace levels in a ‘normal person’. EDTA is rapidly eliminated in humans even though it is in a number of common foods. To say there is no EDTA in a normal person is probably naïve. Modern techniques are much more sensitive than even ten years ago and usually such common contaminants can be detected with appropriate analytical skills and techniques.”

I asked Jack Henion, If small quantities of preserved blood are found will they still contain the same concentration of 1000 to 2000 parts per million of EDTA no matter how small the volume of blood is? He responded,

“Yes, of course.”

What is your source of information that “the detectable concentration remains the same regardless of the size, unless the size is lower than a mL?”

bobaugust

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO YOUR ALLEGED QUOTE OF THE DR. the article was clear and stated that they were able to detect a concentration of EDTA, which was 10 to the 5th times lower than the typical concentration in EDTA preserved blood (1300 parts per million). I do not know how you worded your alleged question to the Dr. but I do know what the article said. If you want to do the math 1.3 x10 to the 3rd/10 to the 5th, would give you 1.3x10 to the minus second or 1.3/1/100 or 130 times as much, which is roughly what I said when I said the amount of EDTA was 133.33 times as much. I do not believe the Dr. would would deny his own research. If there is a difference in the concentration of EDTA in plasma and whole blood, (which there may be) then that may be an explanation but the article said EDTA preserved blood, not plasma.

The source of my information is common sense, since the detection limit of the new science referenced in that article was mL. Anything sample smaller than a mL would not yield a detectable concentration. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

You're kidding, right?

Why would I kid? That was the evidence. The perhaps is a reasonable inference drawn from the evidence. Remember, the socks found on the carpet in the bedroom was only collected, "because they looked out of place". :)

[William Anthony]

I took a good look at your prior post and the questions you asked, which had nothing to do with how much EDTA it took to preserve blood but the concentration of EDTA in a sample of EDTA preserved blood taken from a test tube. I also could not help but notice that this particular portion was not in quotation marks.

The LLQ of 15 ng/mL corresponds to the volume of EDTA-preserved blood it can quantify, 1-3 nL. The concentration of EDTA the LLQ would quantify in preserved blood no matter how small the volume is would be between 1000 and 2000 parts per million. If it quantified a concentration of EDTA of 15 parts per billion then it wouldn’t be preserved blood.

This paragraph contradicts the purpose for the article and the finding. The article would have simply concluded that Martz was right and that there would be EDTA in the parts per million range in unpreserved blood. However, we know from the link that I supplied that 1ng/mL is 15 parts per Billion, which means 15 nanograms EDTA per mililiter of blood, which means 15 parts EDTA per billion parts of blood. That is why it would remain the same. You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you can't fool all the people all of the time. ;):cool:

[bobaugust]

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, the point is your claim that the reality of the evidence is that Martz could not have manipulated such a small stain and your claim that you post on the known evidence, when in fact Martz did not know the size of the stain and only knew that he allegedly used either five or ten to microliters to create the stains. The planting, if there was any, would have come prior to the time that Martz got the socks and, any dilution of the concentration of EDTA would have occcurred after Martz acquired the socks, based on the erroneous results he got as to the amount of EDTA in his blood, imho. I do not doubt that Lee's notes reflect the process of his thought organization, with the first thought reflecting the most obvious explanation for the erroneous results, "If not planted" and his creative solution to the "problematic" evidence of planting, as to how to form a "convincing argument" that there was no planting. ;):cool:

You’re wrong. I never said anything about Martz manipulating a stain. I’ve posted that you were confusing what was said in a hypothetical scenario about a hypothetical blood stain with the reality of the real blood stains that Martz tested. You’re the one who referred to manipulating stains based on your lack of knowledge of the swatches Martz tested, not me.

There is no evidence of tampering with blood or planting blood by anyone in the Simpson case. Photographic evidence and degradation evidence proved both the defense gate blood planting theory and the defense sock blood planting theory to be false.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

There was an agreement as to the time on the camcorder and Martz recorded the times that he collected base on his time and order of the collection of other items of evidence. He then tried to change his testimony, after it was shown on the camcorder that the socks were not there when they were supposed to be. Perhaps, DF was looking for some socks to place there and had another video taken after Mr. Ford had videoed the room with the socks missing. Common sense tells us that Mr. Ford videoed other things after videoing the room and could not tell what DF or anyone else, who did not appear in the subsequent videos were doing after he videoed the room.
Reasonable doubt. ;):cool: Let's not forget it is who the jury found credible. ;):cool:

You’re imagined scenario doesn’t make any sense. The socks were first seen on Simpson’s rug when the house was declared a crime scene. Later in the afternoon crime scene photographs were taken of the socks before they were collected. After Fung had completed his work in Simpson’s bathroom and bedroom including the collecting of the socks Ford took the video. Ford’s testimony was very clear that he waited for Fung to finish working in the bedroom before taking the video. That’s why the socks were not shown in the video. The time on the video camera was incorrect and the times Fung estimated were incorrect.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO YOUR ALLEGED QUOTE OF THE DR. the article was clear and stated that they were able to detect a concentration of EDTA, which was 10 to the 5th times lower than the typical concentration in EDTA preserved blood (1300 parts per million). I do not know how you worded your alleged question to the Dr. but I do know what the article said. If you want to do the math 1.3 x10 to the 3rd/10 to the 5th, would give you 1.3x10 to the minus second or 1.3/1/100 or 130 times as much, which is roughly what I said when I said the amount of EDTA was 133.33 times as much. I do not believe the Dr. would would deny his own research. If there is a difference in the concentration of EDTA in plasma and whole blood, (which there may be) then that may be an explanation but the article said EDTA preserved blood, not plasma.

The source of my information is common sense, since the detection limit of the new science referenced in that article was mL. Anything sample smaller than a mL would not yield a detectable concentration. ;):cool:

That’s right the article said the typical concentration of EDTA in preserved blood is 1300 parts per million. That doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be somewhat less or somewhat more. Martz testified that it was between 1000 and 2000 parts per million. Dr Rider’s testified It was 2000 parts per million. I referenced both of those amounts when I asked Jack Henion how much EDTA was in preserved blood and he agreed that 1000 to 2000 parts per million was in the ball park. Jack Henion was not denying what he wrote in the article.

I have no confidence in any math you conduct since you have previously used math to come up with outright false conclusions.

You’re wrong again.The article never said, “they were able to detect a concentration of EDTA, which was 10 to the 5th times lower than the typical concentration in EDTA preserved blood (1300 parts per million).”

The article said, “The LLQ of our method, at 15 ng/mL, 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 was comparing the LLQ of the CE/MS method to the typical concentration of EDTA. It did not quantify the concentration of EDTA in the hypothetical scenario since it referred to preserved blood, and preserved blood is typically 1300 parts per million.

If preserved blood contains parts per billion or 2 parts per million as you have claimed, tell us William how could any of these new methods determine if a forensic blood stain was planted preserved blood by quantifying the concentration of EDTA?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I took a good look at your prior post and the questions you asked, which had nothing to do with how much EDTA it took to preserve blood but the concentration of EDTA in a sample of EDTA preserved blood taken from a test tube. I also could not help but notice that this particular portion was not in quotation marks.

The LLQ of 15 ng/mL corresponds to the volume of EDTA-preserved blood it can quantify, 1-3 nL. The concentration of EDTA the LLQ would quantify in preserved blood no matter how small the volume is would be between 1000 and 2000 parts per million. If it quantified a concentration of EDTA of 15 parts per billion then it wouldn’t be preserved blood.

This paragraph contradicts the purpose for the article and the finding. The article would have simply concluded that Martz was right and that there would be EDTA in the parts per million range in unpreserved blood. However, we know from the link that I supplied that 1ng/mL is 15 parts per Billion, which means 15 nanograms EDTA per mililiter of blood, which means 15 parts EDTA per billion parts of blood. That is why it would remain the same. You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you can't fool all the people all of the time. ;):cool:

The paragraph I wrote does not contradict the purpose of article “Determining EDTA in Blood” or the finding. And it does not mean that Martz was right when he though human blood may contain 1 to 2 parts per million of EDTA. What it means is exactly what Martz suspected, what the FBI chemists later believed, and what Dr Lee opined that the small trace amount of EDTA indicated in the third test results was the result of a carryover contamination.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

You’re wrong. I never said anything about Martz manipulating a stain. I’ve posted that you were confusing what was said in a hypothetical scenario about a hypothetical blood stain with the reality of the real blood stains that Martz tested. You’re the one who referred to manipulating stains based on your lack of knowledge of the swatches Martz tested, not me.

There is no evidence of tampering with blood or planting blood by anyone in the Simpson case. Photographic evidence and degradation evidence proved both the defense gate blood planting theory and the defense sock blood planting theory to be false.

bobaugust

I posted your exact statement. You talked about the difficulty in manipulation with the reality of the stain Martz tested but yet you have not been able to tell me the reality of the specific size of the stain Martz tested, which contradicts your claim to post on the known evidence. To the rest of your post, I say blah, blah, blah. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

You’re imagined scenario doesn’t make any sense. The socks were first seen on Simpson’s rug when the house was declared a crime scene. Later in the afternoon crime scene photographs were taken of the socks before they were collected. After Fung had completed his work in Simpson’s bathroom and bedroom including the collecting of the socks Ford took the video. Ford’s testimony was very clear that he waited for Fung to finish working in the bedroom before taking the video. That’s why the socks were not shown in the video. The time on the video camera was incorrect and the times Fung estimated were incorrect.

bobaugust

The only thing that is correct is that the magical socks were not there when they were supposed to be. To the remainder of you post, I say blah, blah, blah. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

That’s right the article said the typical concentration of EDTA in preserved blood is 1300 parts per million. That doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be somewhat less or somewhat more. Martz testified that it was between 1000 and 2000 parts per million. Dr Rider’s testified It was 2000 parts per million. I referenced both of those amounts when I asked Jack Henion how much EDTA was in preserved blood and he agreed that 1000 to 2000 parts per million was in the ball park. Jack Henion was not denying what he wrote in the article.

I have no confidence in any math you conduct since you have previously used math to come up with outright false conclusions.

You’re wrong again.The article never said, “they were able to detect a concentration of EDTA, which was 10 to the 5th times lower than the typical concentration in EDTA preserved blood (1300 parts per million).”

The article said, “The LLQ of our method, at 15 ng/mL, 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 was comparing the LLQ of the CE/MS method to the typical concentration of EDTA. It did not quantify the concentration of EDTA in the hypothetical scenario since it referred to preserved blood, and preserved blood is typically 1300 parts per million.

If preserved blood contains parts per billion or 2 parts per million as you have claimed, tell us William how could any of these new methods determine if a forensic blood stain was planted preserved blood by quantifying the concentration of EDTA?

bobaugust

I am sure the Dr. would not deny what he wrote but your distortion attempted to make it seem as though he denied it. I do not dispute what the article said as to the typical concentration, since blood is typically drawn in test tubes containing EDTA. The question is how much EDTA does it take to preserve blood which the article clearly answered, 15 parts per billion.

My learned friend it is said that math is a universal language. I don't know if those from outer space comprehend it, although they should because it is claimed to be universal.;):cool: Do they?

Read the entire article and you will see that the figures they use was given in a previous portion of the article as 1300 parts per million. WTH?You have quoted it but say the article did not say, "“The LLQ of our method, at 15 ng/mL, is a factor of 10(to the 5th) lower than the typical concentration found in EDTA-preserved blood".

The article said that 15 parts per billion corresponds to planting of EDTA preserved blood and used the hypothetical as an example. The Dr. told you, according to you, that it would be the same whether or not the sample was a gallon or a drop.

This is where Martz' results became problematic. The new science was able to detect a concentration of EDTA preserved blood in the 15 parts per billion range. Ergo anything higher would be preserved blood. Did you not understand the purpose of the research? ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

The paragraph I wrote does not contradict the purpose of article “Determining EDTA in Blood” or the finding. And it does not mean that Martz was right when he though human blood may contain 1 to 2 parts per million of EDTA. What it means is exactly what Martz suspected, what the FBI chemists later believed, and what Dr Lee opined that the small trace amount of EDTA indicated in the third test results was the result of a carryover contamination.

bobaugust

Thank you for admitting you wrote the paragraph. It really did not make sense to me from my reading of the article and that is why I noticed it was not in quotation marks. When I noticed it did not make sense with my understanding of the article was when I realized you probably wrote it. ;):cool:

[bobaugust]

I posted your exact statement. You talked about the difficulty in manipulation with the reality of the stain Martz tested but yet you have not been able to tell me the reality of the specific size of the stain Martz tested, which contradicts your claim to post on the known evidence. To the rest of your post, I say blah, blah, blah. ;):cool:

I was addressing your false claim that 2 parts per million of EDTA indicates planting. The 2 parts per million of possible EDTA indicated in the third test results is proof that the evidence blood did not come from the reference samples. Other wise the results would have indicated a concentration 1000 times larger regardless of the size swatch Martz used.

This will be the third time I’ve posted my statement and I stand by what I said. Here it is again,

10/1/08 #6664
“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.”

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The only thing that is correct is that the magical socks were not there when they were supposed to be. To the remainder of you post, I say blah, blah, blah. ;):cool:

Wrong, the socks were seen on the rug near Simpson’s bed earlier that day. They remained there and were photographed there later in the afternoon. They remained there until they were collected by Dennis Fung. Willie Ford testified he intentionally waited until Dennis Fung finished working in Simpson’s bathroom and bedroom and when Fung left the bedroom that’s when Ford entered and took his video tape of the room. The socks were not shown in the video because they had been already collected by Dennis Fung.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I am sure the Dr. would not deny what he wrote but your distortion attempted to make it seem as though he denied it. I do not dispute what the article said as to the typical concentration, since blood is typically drawn in test tubes containing EDTA. The question is how much EDTA does it take to preserve blood which the article clearly answered, 15 parts per billion.

My learned friend it is said that math is a universal language. I don't know if those from outer space comprehend it, although they should because it is claimed to be universal.;):cool: Do they?

Read the entire article and you will see that the figures they use was given in a previous portion of the article as 1300 parts per million. WTH?You have quoted it but say the article did not say, "“The LLQ of our method, at 15 ng/mL, is a factor of 10(to the 5th) lower than the typical concentration found in EDTA-preserved blood".

The article said that 15 parts per billion corresponds to planting of EDTA preserved blood and used the hypothetical as an example. The Dr. told you, according to you, that it would be the same whether or not the sample was a gallon or a drop.

This is where Martz' results became problematic. The new science was able to detect a concentration of EDTA preserved blood in the 15 parts per billion range. Ergo anything higher would be preserved blood. Did you not understand the purpose of the research? ;):cool:

I quoted what the article said not what you falsely interpreted it to say.

Evidently you are still having a problem understanding that the LLQ of 15 ng/mL corresponds to 1-3 nL of EDTA-preserved blood. That means 1-3 nL is the smallest amount of preserved blood the method can quantify. The article did not say it quantified it.

If as you claim that the LLQ quantified a concentration of EDTA in the 1-3 nL sample as 15 parts per billion or 2 parts per million then the blood stains would not be preserved blood. That’s why your argument is flawed and wrong and you ignored my question because you have no reasonable, logical answer. The fact is that it takes 1000 to 2000 parts per million to preserve blood. Not parts per billion that might be found in a normal person, and not 2 parts per million that was found in a trace contamination.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Thank you for admitting you wrote the paragraph. It really did not make sense to me from my reading of the article and that is why I noticed it was not in quotation marks. When I noticed it did not make sense with my understanding of the article was when I realized you probably wrote it. ;):cool:

Your argument that blood can be preserved with parts per billion or 2 parts per million is flawed, outright wrong, and false. Your argument that the LLQ of 15 ng/mL quantified a concentration of EDTA in the hypothetical amount of 1-3 nL EDTA-preserved blood as 15 parts per billion is outright wrong and false.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I was addressing your false claim that 2 parts per million of EDTA indicates planting. The 2 parts per million of possible EDTA indicated in the third test results is proof that the evidence blood did not come from the reference samples. Other wise the results would have indicated a concentration 1000 times larger regardless of the size swatch Martz used.

This will be the third time I’ve posted my statement and I stand by what I said. Here it is again,

10/1/08 #6664
“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.”

bobaugust

You do understand content, don't you? This is your sentence, "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.” Support your reality is what I asked or admit that you dreamed it up. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

Wrong, the socks were seen on the rug near Simpson’s bed earlier that day. They remained there and were photographed there later in the afternoon. They remained there until they were collected by Dennis Fung. Willie Ford testified he intentionally waited until Dennis Fung finished working in Simpson’s bathroom and bedroom and when Fung left the bedroom that’s when Ford entered and took his video tape of the room. The socks were not shown in the video because they had been already collected by Dennis Fung.

bobaugust

They were not in the video when they were supposed to be there. To the remainder of your post, I say blah, blah, blah. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

I quoted what the article said not what you falsely interpreted it to say.

Evidently you are still having a problem understanding that the LLQ of 15 ng/mL corresponds to 1-3 nL of EDTA-preserved blood. That means 1-3 nL is the smallest amount of preserved blood the method can quantify. The article did not say it quantified it.

If as you claim that the LLQ quantified a concentration of EDTA in the 1-3 nL sample as 15 parts per billion or 2 parts per million then the blood stains would not be preserved blood. That’s why your argument is flawed and wrong and you ignored my question because you have no reasonable, logical answer. The fact is that it takes 1000 to 2000 parts per million to preserve blood. Not parts per billion that might be found in a normal person, and not 2 parts per million that was found in a trace contamination.

bobaugust

WTH?. The article said the LLQ was in the concentration of 15ng/mL (the detection limit) and I supplied the link, showing that a ng/mL is a part per billion. The concentration determines whether or not the stain was from EDTA preserved blood, which is what the Dr. told you. It does not matter the size of the stain, only the concentration.

[William Anthony]

Your argument that blood can be preserved with parts per billion or 2 parts per million is flawed, outright wrong, and false. Your argument that the LLQ of 15 ng/mL quantified a concentration of EDTA in the hypothetical amount of 1-3 nL EDTA-preserved blood as 15 parts per billion is outright wrong and false.

bobaugust

I realize you want it to be, :). I want you to act more civilly, respectfully, post truthfully and state things in your opinion. I am old enough for my wants to hurt. How about you? ;):cool:

[bobaugust]

You do understand content, don't you? This is your sentence, "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.” Support your reality is what I asked or admit that you dreamed it up. ;):cool:

It seems you argue just to argue. The point is that the hypothetical scenario used a hypothetical blood stain. Roger Martz used enough real blood to get a clear comparison between the small trace amount of EDTA in 1 to 2 parts per million indicated in the third test results in the evidence stains and the concentration of EDTA in the reference samples that were 1000 times more. That comparison proved that the evidence stains did not come from the reference samples.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

They were not in the video when they were supposed to be there. To the remainder of your post, I say blah, blah, blah. ;):cool:

Willie Ford testified why the socks were not in the video he shot. They were not missing and they were where they were supposed to be having been collected by Dennis Fung before Ford video taped Simpson’s bedroom.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

WTH?. The article said the LLQ was in the concentration of 15ng/mL (the detection limit) and I supplied the link, showing that a ng/mL is a part per billion. The concentration determines whether or not the stain was from EDTA preserved blood, which is what the Dr. told you. It does not matter the size of the stain, only the concentration.

I agree the concentration of EDTA determines if the blood is preserved blood. Preserved blood contains a concentration of EDTA of 1000 to 2000 parts per million no matter how small the volume is. Blood that contains a concentration of EDTA in parts per billion or 2 parts per million is not preserved blood.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I realize you want it to be, :). I want you to act more civilly, respectfully, post truthfully and state things in your opinion. I am old enough for my wants to hurt. How about you? ;):cool:

I would say I’m considerably older than you and my post was not just my opinion it is a fact. For you William who seemingly understands that EDTA may be found in a normal person in parts per billion and then turn around and argue that a concentration of EDTA in parts per billion can preserve blood I find extraordinarily disingenuous.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

It seems you argue just to argue. The point is that the hypothetical scenario used a hypothetical blood stain. Roger Martz used enough real blood to get a clear comparison between the small trace amount of EDTA in 1 to 2 parts per million indicated in the third test results in the evidence stains and the concentration of EDTA in the reference samples that were 1000 times more. That comparison proved that the evidence stains did not come from the reference samples.

bobaugust

I do not wish to argue for the sake of argument. I simply asked you to support your claim by posting the reality of what Martz tested based on the evidence, as that is the manner in which you claim to post. I understand that the scenario was a hypothetical used to explain how the detection limits applied and that the 15 parts per billion was used to explain planting of EDTA. That would mean that the 2 parts per million that Martz found would be roughly 100 times the amount in the 15 parts per million used to explain that there was planting of EDTA. It seems that you cannot support your claim of reality based on the evidence as to the specific sizes of the stains Martz tested so you continue to argue, rather than saying your reality is askew.

[William Anthony]

Willie Ford testified why the socks were not in the video he shot. They were not missing and they were where they were supposed to be having been collected by Dennis Fung before Ford video taped Simpson’s bedroom.

bobaugust

Yes, that was the claim but the use of technology proved that wrong-much the same as it proved Martz wrong. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

I agree the concentration of EDTA determines if the blood is preserved blood. Preserved blood contains a concentration of EDTA of 1000 to 2000 parts per million no matter how small the volume is. Blood that contains a concentration of EDTA in parts per billion or 2 parts per million is not preserved blood.

bobaugust

I think it pains you to admit what the article said and why the new method was created. However, adjusting to pain and handling it appropriately is a sign of maturity, realizing that were are all more wrong than we are right and accepting that. I do not want to give you a lecture on maturity but just want to point that out to you.;):cool:

[William Anthony]

I would say I’m considerably older than you and my post was not just my opinion it is a fact. For you William who seemingly understands that EDTA may be found in a normal person in parts per billion and then turn around and argue that a concentration of EDTA in parts per billion can preserve blood I find extraordinarily disingenuous.

bobaugust

I certainly will not debate your claim to antiquity, :). I admire your tenacity in your beliefs but equally dislike your claim to know the facts. Let's explore your premise. You believe that the amount of EDTA needed to preserve blood is in the parts per million but do not believe that Martz' results in the parts per million was enough to preserve blood. You allow that to support you claim to know the facts, but deny what an article written after scientific researchers showed that 15 parts per million was the concentration found in EDTA preserved blood and won't allow me the premise that anything higher than that concentration would be preserved blood. Do you really want to talk about being extraordinarily disingenuous? You got to know when to fold them and walk away. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

I certainly will not debate your claim to antiquity, :). I admire your tenacity in your beliefs but equally dislike your claim to know the facts. Let's explore your premise. You believe that the amount of EDTA needed to preserve blood is in the parts per million but do not believe that Martz' results in the parts per million was enough to preserve blood. You allow that to support you claim to know the facts, but deny what an article written after scientific researchers showed that 15 parts per million was the concentration found in EDTA preserved blood and won't allow me the premise that anything higher than that concentration would be preserved blood. Do you really want to talk about being extraordinarily disingenuous? You got to know when to fold them and walk away. ;):cool:

Oops, I did it again. Correction- but deny what an article written after scientific researchers showed that 15 parts per billion

[bobaugust]

I do not wish to argue for the sake of argument. I simply asked you to support your claim by posting the reality of what Martz tested based on the evidence, as that is the manner in which you claim to post. I understand that the scenario was a hypothetical used to explain how the detection limits applied and that the 15 parts per billion was used to explain planting of EDTA. That would mean that the 2 parts per million that Martz found would be roughly 100 times the amount in the 15 parts per million used to explain that there was planting of EDTA. It seems that you cannot support your claim of reality based on the evidence as to the specific sizes of the stains Martz tested so you continue to argue, rather than saying your reality is askew.

Your argument is flawed and wrong. The LLQ of 15 ng/mL doesn’t only quantify parts per billion. The LLQ of 15 ng/mL is the limit that can be quantified down to and corresponds to 1-3 nL of EDTA-preserved blood. That means the smallest volume of EDTA-preserved blood the LLQ is capable of quantifying is 1-3 nL, a volume so small that it would be physically difficult to manipulate. The LLQ of 15 ng/mL is not the outcome of trace analyses.

The hypothetical did not have to say what the concentration of EDTA is in 1-3nL because the premise was it was EDTA-preserved blood. And EDTA-preserved blood contains a concentration of 1000 to 2000 parts per million.

Your interpretation that a concentration of EDTA in parts per billion can preserve blood is outright wrong since parts per billion are what would be found in a normal person. You mock Martz for incorrectly thinking 1 to 2 parts per million could be found in a person yet you now incorrectly claim normal people are walking around while their blood preserves.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Yes, that was the claim but the use of technology proved that wrong-much the same as it proved Martz wrong. ;):cool:

Nothing proved Willie Ford wrong. Willie Ford’s testimony proved that the estimated times were wrong.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I think it pains you to admit what the article said and why the new method was created. However, adjusting to pain and handling it appropriately is a sign of maturity, realizing that were are all more wrong than we are right and accepting that. I do not want to give you a lecture on maturity but just want to point that out to you.;):cool:

Since you agree that preserved blood contains a concentration of EDTA in 1000 to 2000 parts per million no matter how small the volume of blood is, And you agree that EDTA can be found in a normal person in parts per billion, then why do you argue that parts per billion can preserve blood? Do you think normal people walk around with their blood preserving?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I certainly will not debate your claim to antiquity, :). I admire your tenacity in your beliefs but equally dislike your claim to know the facts. Let's explore your premise. You believe that the amount of EDTA needed to preserve blood is in the parts per million but do not believe that Martz' results in the parts per million was enough to preserve blood. You allow that to support you claim to know the facts, but deny what an article written after scientific researchers showed that 15 parts per million was the concentration found in EDTA preserved blood and won't allow me the premise that anything higher than that concentration would be preserved blood. Do you really want to talk about being extraordinarily disingenuous? You got to know when to fold them and walk away. ;):cool:

Your argument is flawed and wrong and you’re making this subject more difficult than it is. The LLQ is the limit that can be quantified; it is not the outcome of trace analyses. The LLQ doesn’t mean that it only quantifies parts per billion. In the hypothetical the LLQ corresponds to 1-3 nL of EDTA-preserved blood meaning that is the smallest volume of EDTA-preserved blood it can quantify just as the smaller detection limit of 7.3 ng/mL can be a detection limit for a gallon of blood or a drop of blood.

The hypothetical was not about how much EDTA can be found in EDTA-preserved blood. The premise in the hypothetical was that 1-3 nL was EDTA-preserved blood and EDTA preserved blood contains a concentration of EDTA in 1000 to 2000 parts per million.

Here are the facts,
EDTA can be found in a normal person in parts per billion
The trace amount of EDTA Martz found was 1 to 2 parts per million. An amount 1000 times more than what can be found in a normal person.
The amount of EDTA in preserved blood is 1000 to 2000 parts per million. An amount 1000 times more than the trace amount Martz found.

Your claim that parts per billion or 2 parts per million can preserve blood is outright wrong William. Either support your claim or admit you are wrong and we can move on.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Your argument is flawed and wrong. The LLQ of 15 ng/mL doesn’t only quantify parts per billion. The LLQ of 15 ng/mL is the limit that can be quantified down to and corresponds to 1-3 nL of EDTA-preserved blood. That means the smallest volume of EDTA-preserved blood the LLQ is capable of quantifying is 1-3 nL, a volume so small that it would be physically difficult to manipulate. The LLQ of 15 ng/mL is not the outcome of trace analyses.

The hypothetical did not have to say what the concentration of EDTA is in 1-3nL because the premise was it was EDTA-preserved blood. And EDTA-preserved blood contains a concentration of 1000 to 2000 parts per million.

Your interpretation that a concentration of EDTA in parts per billion can preserve blood is outright wrong since parts per billion are what would be found in a normal person. You mock Martz for incorrectly thinking 1 to 2 parts per million could be found in a person yet you now incorrectly claim normal people are walking around while their blood preserves.

bobaugust

In your haste to be right, you forget what the article said was its purpose, which was to determine how much EDTA was in blood. The detection limits were spoken of in fractions or parts, if you will, to show the concentration of the EDTA. The article was not to determine the size of stains. It was to show how much EDTA was in preserved and unpreserved human blood. That is why the article spoke of concentration and EDTA being present in a typical concentration and they were able to detect a concentration in blood preserved with EDTA that was 10 to the 5th times lower than the typical concentration.

As to your last paragraph, that is a restatement of you and Martz erroneous conclusions. That is why I refer to him as the dead expert and why I say that anything above 15 parts per billion is preserved blood. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

Nothing proved Willie Ford wrong. Willie Ford’s testimony proved that the estimated times were wrong.

bobaugust

WTH It proves DF wrong and the socks magical. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

Since you agree that preserved blood contains a concentration of EDTA in 1000 to 2000 parts per million no matter how small the volume of blood is, And you agree that EDTA can be found in a normal person in parts per billion, then why do you argue that parts per billion can preserve blood? Do you think normal people walk around with their blood preserving?

bobaugust

I know how you hate math but try to follow me on this one. The article said 15/1,000,000,000 was EDTA preserved blood. Let's do the ratio to convert to parts per million, 15/109=x/106=15106/109=15/1000 or .015 parts per million. Therefore anything over .o15 parts per million containing EDTA, if you would like to express it that way, would be preserved blood. Ergo, anyone with 1 or 2 parts per million for any sustained period of time would be dead. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

Your argument is flawed and wrong and you’re making this subject more difficult than it is. The LLQ is the limit that can be quantified; it is not the outcome of trace analyses. The LLQ doesn’t mean that it only quantifies parts per billion. In the hypothetical the LLQ corresponds to 1-3 nL of EDTA-preserved blood meaning that is the smallest volume of EDTA-preserved blood it can quantify just as the smaller detection limit of 7.3 ng/mL can be a detection limit for a gallon of blood or a drop of blood.

The hypothetical was not about how much EDTA can be found in EDTA-preserved blood. The premise in the hypothetical was that 1-3 nL was EDTA-preserved blood and EDTA preserved blood contains a concentration of EDTA in 1000 to 2000 parts per million.

Here are the facts,
EDTA can be found in a normal person in parts per billion
The trace amount of EDTA Martz found was 1 to 2 parts per million. An amount 1000 times more than what can be found in a normal person.
The amount of EDTA in preserved blood is 1000 to 2000 parts per million. An amount 1000 times more than the trace amount Martz found.

Your claim that parts per billion or 2 parts per million can preserve blood is outright wrong William. Either support your claim or admit you are wrong and we can move on.

bobaugust

I have supported my claim with the article and the math. You my allegedly learned friend have never pointed to any statement, except your own, that says it takes 1000 t0 2000 parts per million of EDTA to preserve blood. Being present in and being the typical concentration is not the same as saying that something, as the article did (15ng/mL) corresponds to planting of EDTA preserved blood. I have prove what Terry Lee knew, what Dr. knew, what the article proved and shown mathematically that Martz was wrong in his understanding of what the EPA told him and that you are wrong in your understanding of what you allege Dr. H. told you. We can move on so that you do not further embarrass yourself. ;):cool:

[tv]

Why would I kid? That was the evidence. The perhaps is a reasonable inference drawn from the evidence. Remember, the socks found on the carpet in the bedroom was only collected, "because they looked out of place". :)

I could post a huge WTH but I'll refrain. That was NOT the evidence. I know you have the intelligence to know better but it concerns me that there are some who will believe your misreprentation of the facts. Your guy was found not guilty so why do you feel the need to stretch the truth?

[William Anthony]

I could post a huge WTH but I'll refrain. That was NOT the evidence. I know you have the intelligence to know better but it concerns me that there are some who will believe your misreprentation of the facts. Your guy was found not guilty so why do you feel the need to stretch the truth?

I had to go back and find my post. Here it is.

There was an agreement as to the time on the camcorder and Martz recorded the times that he collected base on his time and order of the collection of other items of evidence. He then tried to change his testimony, after it was shown on the camcorder that the socks were not there when they were supposed to be. Perhaps, DF was looking for some socks to place there and had another video taken after Mr. Ford had videoed the room with the socks missing. Common sense tells us that Mr. Ford videoed other things after videoing the room and could not tell what DF or anyone else, who did not appear in the subsequent videos were doing after he videoed the room.
Reasonable doubt. Let's not forget it is who the jury found credible.

I don't know how you think I stretched the truth and I have no guy that was found not guilty. I believe there was reasonable doubt. Do you know who made the song, "I Like the Girls".

[William Anthony]

July 19th

"MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to this VHS--this--was it you say RCA? What kind of camera was it?

MR. FORD: RCA.

MR. COCHRAN: RCA, VHS camcorder, looking through the viewfinder, you saw like a time on that viewfinder, didn't you?

MR. FORD: There is a time on that.

MR. COCHRAN: Right.

MR. FORD: But this particular day, I wasn't paying attention to it.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. There was a time. But you found out at some time afterwards, that the time that was on that viewfinder was one hour behind the actual time; isn't that right?

MR. FORD: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: So if the time showed 3 o'clock on the viewfinder, it was actually 4:00 clock; is that right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And that was because of--it hadn't been changed because of daylight savings time?

MR. FORD: Right.

MR. COCHRAN: All right, sir. So you--if we were to look at a video of this, we will see a time, and we have to add one hour to that; isn't that right?

MR. FORD: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. To get the correct time. All right. Yes?"

[William Anthony]

April 17th

"MR. GOLDBERG: And can you tell us whether you collected those between the collection of item 12 and item 14 by looking at your crime scene identification checklist?

MR. FUNG: It was collected within that time frame. I don't know if it was collected in-between those two times though.

MR. GOLDBERG: What are the two time frames? What is the time frame for 12?

MR. FUNG: The time frame is 4:30.

MR. GOLDBERG: And that was the stain in the foyer?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what is the time for 14?

MR. FUNG: The time frame for 14 is 4:40.

MR. GOLDBERG: And that was the stain in the master bathroom?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, on cross-examination, you said that the socks appeared out of place. What did you mean by that?

MR. FUNG: It looked like they didn't belong there.

MR. GOLDBERG: Were there any shoes there or other clothing or pants as if someone had undressed all of their clothing in that area?

MR. FUNG: Not in that area, no.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did that cause you to believe that it was out of place?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And did you phenolphtalein the socks?

MR. FUNG: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you do any close visual examination of the socks when you picked them up?

MR. FUNG: No. Not a close one.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, just--I just want to make sure I understood your testimony. Do you know whether you collected--whether you collected 13 in between 12 and 14?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FUNG: Oh, I can answer? I'm sorry.

THE COURT: You can answer.

MR. FUNG: I--I know it was in that time frame, but I don't specifically recall or can I tell from the notes if they were.

MR. GOLDBERG: For sure?

MR. FUNG: For sure.

MR. GOLDBERG: But it was in that general time frame?

MR. FUNG: Yes."

[William Anthony]

April

"MR. SCHECK: Now, you testified yesterday--you were asked: "Did do you any close visual examination of the socks when you picked them up?" And you answered: "No, not a close one." Do you recall that?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, you have a specific recollection that you did not look very carefully at those socks?

MR. FUNG: I did not look at those socks for blood because they were dark and--I mean, a specific--

MR. SCHECK: May I--

MR. FUNG: --laboratory type analysis was not done at that scene for the presence of blood.

MR. SCHECK: My question to you is a simple one, sir. Do you have in your mind a specific recollection that you did not perform a careful visual examination of those socks?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, you went there looking for--on Rockingham on the afternoon of June 13th you were looking for bloody clothes?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And the socks you say were out of place?

MR. FUNG: Yes, they were.

MR. SCHECK: And you were concerned, were you not, that they might have been socks worn by the assailant? That was the Prosecution's theory?

MR. FUNG: That was a possibility--

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I object to that. I didn't think we would get into the People's theory.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FUNG: That was a possibility.

MR. SCHECK: And do you think, sir, that it would be very helpful to the Prosecution's position for you to remember a careful, visual examination of the socks?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I object to that. May we approach?

THE COURT: Speculation. Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Now, you were asked some questions on redirect examination about the timing of your collection of the sock?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And you were asked by MR. GOLDBERG: "Question: Now, when you were at the Rockingham location you saw a pair of socks in the master bedroom? "Answer: Yes. "Question: And can you tell us whether you collected those between the collection of item 12 and item 14 by looking at your crime scene identification checklist? "Answer: It was collected within that time frame. I don't know if it was collected in between those two times, though. "Question: What are the two time frames? What is the time frame for 12? "Answer: The time frame is 4:30. "Question: And that was the stain in the foyer? "Answer: Yes.

"Question: And what time is it--what is the time for 14? "Answer: The time for 14 is 4:40. "Question: And that was the stain in the master bathroom? "Answer: Yes." And then a little later Mr. Goldberg came back to you and he asked you: "Question: Now, just--I just want to make sure I understand your testimony. "Do you know whether you collected--whether you collected 13"--that is the socks, right?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: --"In between 12 and 14? "Answer: I--I know it was in that time frame, but I don't specifically recall, nor can I tell from my notes if it were. "Question: For sure? "Answer: For sure. "Question: But it was in that general time frame? "Answer: Yes." Do you remember being asked those questions and giving those answers?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, have you--that was different, was it not, than your testimony on direct and cross-examination?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: On direct examination--

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, perhaps counsel can give me page and line.

THE COURT: Page and line.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: I have the transcript but I don't have the page.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: Maybe Mr. Blasier can do a word search.

MR. SCHECK: That is exactly it. These computers, you print them out and sometimes you don't get the exact page.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Is there something else we can move on to?

MR. SCHECK: No, I think actually--21575, line 9.

MR. GOLDBERG: Hold on a second.

(Brief pause.)

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

THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg?

MR. GOLDBERG: Line 18 through?

MR. SCHECK: I think 24. Question by Mr. Goldberg. "All right. Now, after collecting item no. 12, did you go upstairs in the location? "Answer: Yes, I did. "Question: Do you recall what was the next item of evidence you collected? "Answer: The next item was a pair of socks in the master bedroom." MR. SCHECK: Were you asked those questions and did you give those answers on direct?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, on cross-examination, 22302.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, which line? Which line?

MR. SCHECK: Starting at 22302 at page--at line 4. May I proceed?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, may I have a moment.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Line 4 through line 26?

MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. GOLDBERG: That's fine.

MR. SCHECK: "Question: And then the next item was a red stain from the foyer area inside Rockingham, correct? "Answer: Yes. "Question: And that one was collected at 4:30? "Answer: Yes. "And/or thereabouts--"Question: Or thereabouts? "And the next item you collected were the socks? "Answer: Yes. "But there is no time indicated for that? "Answer: That's correct. "And the next item after you--after that you indicated was a red stain that was found in the master bathroom? "Answer: Yes. "And that time is at 4:40? "Answer: Yes. "So I believe it was your testimony on direct examination that you collected the socks sometime between 4:30 and 4:40? "Answer: About then, yes."

MR. SCHECK: Were you asked those questions and did you give those answers?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, Mr. Fung, hasn't it come to your attention that there is a video that was taken on the afternoon of June 13th of the interior of Rockingham by a photographer from SID, yes?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to time. Motion to strike.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: Have you been informed that on that video there is a shot of the master bedroom?

MR. FUNG: Yes."

[William Anthony]

I could post a huge WTH but I'll refrain. That was NOT the evidence. I know you have the intelligence to know better but it concerns me that there are some who will believe your misreprentation of the facts. Your guy was found not guilty so why do you feel the need to stretch the truth?

Allow me a little humor? The only things that was elongated, stretched and dressed up was the testimony of DF about those dress socks he allegedly wore with a sweat suit. :biggrin:

[tv]

I don't know how you think I stretched the truth and I have no guy that was found not guilty. I believe there was reasonable doubt. Do you know who made the song, "I Like the Girls".

You fabricated the theory that Dennis Fung tampered with the socks.

You might try googling that song.

[tv]

Allow me a little humor? The only things that was elongated, stretched and dressed up was the testimony of DF about those dress socks he allegedly wore with a sweat suit. :biggrin:

Of course he wore dress socks...athletic socks would hardly be appropriate with Bruno Maglis.

[weezer]

Of course he wore dress socks...athletic socks would hardly be appropriate with Bruno Maglis.

LOL -- this is the same guy that walked out of jail in a silk suit and NO socks! LOL -- the same guy who walked through the airport wearing a fanny pack! LOL

[tv]

LOL -- this is the same guy that walked out of jail in a silk suit and NO socks! LOL -- the same guy who walked through the airport wearing a fanny pack! LOL

And let's not forget the visor...yep, we're supposed to believe he cares what he wears in the dark when he's murdering two people!

[weezer]

And let's not forget the visor...yep, we're supposed to believe he cares what he wears in the dark when he's murdering two people!

hey -- I'm going to go see if I can dig up a picture of what he wore for the vegas caper! I hadn't checked to see what the fashion plate chose for the armed robbery. you don't suppose it was a black sweat suit with a fanny pack do you? :biggrin:

[tv]

hey -- I'm going to go see if I can dig up a picture of what he wore for the vegas caper! I hadn't checked to see what the fashion plate chose for the armed robbery. you don't suppose it was a black sweat suit with a fanny pack do you? :biggrin:

I wouldn't be the least surprised! I think at least on of his co-conspirators was wearing shorts but I could be wrong about that.

[limakey]

limakey, I'm still waiting for you to post the source for your claim that Clark told Fuhrman to forget about seeing the socks. Why would she do that and then include the socks as evidence?

The defense blood expert, Herbert MacDonell, testified it would be difficult to see the blood on the socks under normal lighting. Dr. Henry Lee testified that he couldn't tell if there were any blood stains on the socks when observing a photograph of the socks. Do you find it unreasonable that it's possible that because there was no visible blood that the testing of these items wasn't considered top priority and that's why it wasn't done until weeks later?

I'm not surprised that the things he did to dispose of the murder clothes are inconsistent. I'm sure he was in an agitated state of mind afterwards and coupled with rushing around to make it to the airport it's reasonable to think he was very erratic and unorganized. Plus, washing a pair of Bruno Magli's would have been inexplicable but washing a pair of sweats would have seemed normal if someone inquired. If the presence of the sweats is so innocent why did they disappear?

TV,

MF was on Larry King Live and that is when he spoke of the socks, it was the interview that I believe his partner was on it with him. I don't remember if he said the same thing in his book. She knew the glove was going to be a tough issue in regards to MF's credibility, why risk the value of the socks by associating them with MF.

No one testified about the sweats in the washer. Fung had them in his hands, and a picture was taken. However, Fung was never asked what those items were. The only testimony about a sweat suit came from Kato, who was never sure it was sweat suit and his description did not match what Fung was holding.

Why weren't the socks a priority? They were found inside the house, Fung collected them because they looked out place and concluded that he should collect them because they are evidence.

It simply is an unacceptable excuse that the state's experts did not use the technology that they had available. Their education and their experience in this career field makes it impossible to believe that they did not know that blood can be seen or found even when it is not visiable to the naked eye.

hy did Dr. Lee only get photographs of them? I do not think Dr. Baden or Dr. Wolf were allowed to actually pick up the socks or examine them with any type of equipment. If I am wrong about this, I am pretty sure Mr. August will correct me on this.

And TV, isn't it fair to say that crucial blood evidence kept on being found later rather then sooner? The blood on the back gate, two weeks, the blood on the socks two months later, Ron's blood in the Bronco two months. How many times can this happen not viewed as a serious problem with the evidence?

How many times can witnesses say they did not see blood where blood was later found and the excuse is they didn't use the right equipment or they weren't looking for it?

[limakey]

Limakey, it’s not hard to understand how Simpson’s cut finger could have come in contact with his socks when he pulled them off. What doesn’t make any sense is the unsupported speculation that someone would later plant Simpson’s blood on his own socks.

Simpson could have easily packed the knife and his shoes in the garment bag he carried downstairs and gave to Allan Park to load into the limousine. He could have disposed of them sometime after arriving in Chicago.

It makes sense that Simpson was not thinking very clearly after committing the murders but he got lucky. When the police didn’t collect the freshly washed sweat suit he disposed of it.

Yes it was explained that in the initial inventory of the evidence the socks were looked at and marked to be inspected for blood. Since no one saw the small dark blood stains on the dark colored socks they were not given a high priority over other more obvious blood evidence. When the socks were eventually looked at under high intensity lighting the stains were seen.

I don’t recall anything about Clark telling Fuhrman to forget about seeing the socks. What is your source for this? If it was in Clark or Fuhrman’s book, post the page number please.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

What other items of clothing that were taken from Simpson's home and inspect for blood? What was the "line up" as what the dates that each of these items were tested for blood?

Your statement about it making sense that Simpson was not thinking clearly after the murders but got lucky, is not supported by the evidence. There was no evidence or testimony in regards to the garments found inside the washing machine. No one knows,except may be Fung what they were.

The LAPD knew Simpson's timeline that night, including when he got to hotel in Chicago to the time he entered his suite. They knew he had no time to dispose of these items since they were never found and extensive searches were made at LAX and in Chicago.

Those socks should have been focus--they were found inside his home.

[William Anthony]

You fabricated the theory that Dennis Fung tampered with the socks.

You might try googling that song.

Did you not see the word perhaps? I drew a reasonable inference from the evidence. I understand that it is different from your opinion and I could say that you fabricated he did not.

[William Anthony]

Of course he wore dress socks...athletic socks would hardly be appropriate with Bruno Maglis.

BMs and dress socks would not be appropriate with a sweat suit, imho. I still do not understand how you say I stretched the truth.

[bobaugust]

In your haste to be right, you forget what the article said was its purpose, which was to determine how much EDTA was in blood. The detection limits were spoken of in fractions or parts, if you will, to show the concentration of the EDTA. The article was not to determine the size of stains. It was to show how much EDTA was in preserved and unpreserved human blood. That is why the article spoke of concentration and EDTA being present in a typical concentration and they were able to detect a concentration in blood preserved with EDTA that was 10 to the 5th times lower than the typical concentration.

As to your last paragraph, that is a restatement of you and Martz erroneous conclusions. That is why I refer to him as the dead expert and why I say that anything above 15 parts per billion is preserved blood. ;):cool:

The purpose of the article was to explain the new methods that were developed to determine EDTA in human blood. What you are confused about is the hypothetical scenario used in the article to demonstrate the capabilities of the SRM-CE/MS method to determine if a forensic blood stain had been planted.

The hypothetical never said there were parts per billion in EDTA-preserved blood. The article said at the beginning and again at the end that the concentration of EDTA in preserved blood is 1300 parts per million. It never said preserved blood contains a concentration of EDTA in parts per billion or in 2 parts per million.

The LLQ of 15 ng/mL is the limit that the new method can quantify down to. The article never said what amount of EDTA the LLQ quantified in that hypothetical because the premise of hypothetical was that the 1-3 nL of blood was already known to be EDTA-preserved blood containing an amount of 1300 parts per million of EDTA. When the article said this LLQ corresponds to “planting” 1-3 nL of EDTA preserved blood it means that is the smallest volume of EDTA-preserved blood the LLQ can quantify.

The article never said that the LLQ was able to detect a concentration in blood preserved with EDTA that was 10 to the 5th times lower than the typical concentration. It said the “The LLQ of our method, at 15 ng/mL, is a factor of 10 to the 5th lower than the typical concentration found in EDTA-preserved blood” meaning that the LLQ is capable of quantifying an amount of 15 parts per billion in any concentration and that is a factor of 10 to the 5th lower than the typical concentration of 1300 parts per million found in EDTA-preserved blood.

The only way any method could determine if a forensic blood stain was preserved blood is by quantifying the amount of EDTA in that blood. If the amount of EDTA is between 1000 and 2000 parts per million, then it is preserved blood. If the amount of EDTA is 15 parts per billion or 2 parts per million it is not preserved blood.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

WTH It proves DF wrong and the socks magical. ;):cool:

Ford’s testimony showed that Fung’s estimated times were not correct and that the socks had already been collected when he videotaped Simpson’s bedroom.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I know how you hate math but try to follow me on this one. The article said 15/1,000,000,000 was EDTA preserved blood. Let's do the ratio to convert to parts per million, 15/109=x/106=15106/109=15/1000 or .015 parts per million. Therefore anything over .o15 parts per million containing EDTA, if you would like to express it that way, would be preserved blood. Ergo, anyone with 1 or 2 parts per million for any sustained period of time would be dead. ;):cool:

Dr. Rieders never said that Martz would be dead if his blood contained EDTA in 2 parts per million.

July 24, 1995
MS. CLARK: Nevertheless, doctor, you found what you would call EDTA in the parts per million (1 to 2 parts per million) in Agent Martz' unpreserved blood, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: No. Incorrect. Absolutely untrue. I didn't find anything. He presented data which showed that when he analyzed a sample of his un-EDTA blood, that in the process, he ended up with a result that showed the presence of EDTA on the instrument. It doesn't prove that he had it in his blood, but what it does show, if he had it in his blood, he'd be an extraordinarily amazing, unusual person at that level.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I have supported my claim with the article and the math. You my allegedly learned friend have never pointed to any statement, except your own, that says it takes 1000 t0 2000 parts per million of EDTA to preserve blood. Being present in and being the typical concentration is not the same as saying that something, as the article did (15ng/mL) corresponds to planting of EDTA preserved blood. I have prove what Terry Lee knew, what Dr. knew, what the article proved and shown mathematically that Martz was wrong in his understanding of what the EPA told him and that you are wrong in your understanding of what you allege Dr. H. told you. We can move on so that you do not further embarrass yourself. ;):cool:

MR. BLASIER: What is the concentration of EDTA in a purple-topped tube?
MR. MARTZ: Somewhere between a thousand and 2000 parts per million.

DR. RIEDERS: I beg your pardon. It's 2,000 parts per million. Two milligrams per mil
is 2,000 parts per million, the same that was--that's--or more so than you find in an
EDTA tube. That is blood that won't coagulate.

Determining EDTA in Blood,
“EDTA is present at about 4.5 mM (~1300 ppm) in EDTA-preserved blood”

Jack Henion the author of “Determining EDTA in Blood” said “I believe the numbers you cite are in the ball park; e.g. EDTA in collected blood in a lavender capped tube ranges between 1000 to 2000 ppm.”

The only thing you have supported you claim with is your opinon. And your opinion is irrational, illogical, and wrong.

bobaugust

[tv]

TV,

MF was on Larry King Live and that is when he spoke of the socks, it was the interview that I believe his partner was on it with him. I don't remember if he said the same thing in his book. She knew the glove was going to be a tough issue in regards to MF's credibility, why risk the value of the socks by associating them with MF.

No one testified about the sweats in the washer. Fung had them in his hands, and a picture was taken. However, Fung was never asked what those items were. The only testimony about a sweat suit came from Kato, who was never sure it was sweat suit and his description did not match what Fung was holding.

Why weren't the socks a priority? They were found inside the house, Fung collected them because they looked out place and concluded that he should collect them because they are evidence.

It simply is an unacceptable excuse that the state's experts did not use the technology that they had available. Their education and their experience in this career field makes it impossible to believe that they did not know that blood can be seen or found even when it is not visiable to the naked eye.

hy did Dr. Lee only get photographs of them? I do not think Dr. Baden or Dr. Wolf were allowed to actually pick up the socks or examine them with any type of equipment. If I am wrong about this, I am pretty sure Mr. August will correct me on this.

And TV, isn't it fair to say that crucial blood evidence kept on being found later rather then sooner? The blood on the back gate, two weeks, the blood on the socks two months later, Ron's blood in the Bronco two months. How many times can this happen not viewed as a serious problem with the evidence?

How many times can witnesses say they did not see blood where blood was later found and the excuse is they didn't use the right equipment or they weren't looking for it?

They did use the available technology and the blood was found. Your excuses for OJ Simpson depend solely on police misconduct which I will remind you Judge Ito said had no basis in fact. Sorry.

[William Anthony]

The purpose of the article was to explain the new methods that were developed to determine EDTA in human blood. What you are confused about is the hypothetical scenario used in the article to demonstrate the capabilities of the SRM-CE/MS method to determine if a forensic blood stain had been planted.

The hypothetical never said there were parts per billion in EDTA-preserved blood. The article said at the beginning and again at the end that the concentration of EDTA in preserved blood is 1300 parts per million. It never said preserved blood contains a concentration of EDTA in parts per billion or in 2 parts per million.

The LLQ of 15 ng/mL is the limit that the new method can quantify down to. The article never said what amount of EDTA the LLQ quantified in that hypothetical because the premise of hypothetical was that the 1-3 nL of blood was already known to be EDTA-preserved blood containing an amount of 1300 parts per million of EDTA. When the article said this LLQ corresponds to “planting” 1-3 nL of EDTA preserved blood it means that is the smallest volume of EDTA-preserved blood the LLQ can quantify.

The article never said that the LLQ was able to detect a concentration in blood preserved with EDTA that was 10 to the 5th times lower than the typical concentration. It said the “The LLQ of our method, at 15 ng/mL, is a factor of 10 to the 5th lower than the typical concentration found in EDTA-preserved blood” meaning that the LLQ is capable of quantifying an amount of 15 parts per billion in any concentration and that is a factor of 10 to the 5th lower than the typical concentration of 1300 parts per million found in EDTA-preserved blood.

The only way any method could determine if a forensic blood stain was preserved blood is by quantifying the amount of EDTA in that blood. If the amount of EDTA is between 1000 and 2000 parts per million, then it is preserved blood. If the amount of EDTA is 15 parts per billion or 2 parts per million it is not preserved blood.

bobaugust

Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky? Will it go around in circles? WTH?

Take a look at what you said.

"The purpose of the article was to explain the new methods that were developed to determine EDTA in human blood." I will point out later what your spell checker left out. IIRC, correctly it said how much EDTA was in human blood.

"The article said at the beginning and again at the end that the concentration of EDTA in preserved blood is 1300 parts per million." I have asked you to provide a quote from the article saying that, as opposed to saying EDTA was present in that concentration or that was the typical concentration. Do not allow your spell checker to add anything, since the link to the article is on page 161 of this thread.

"The article never said what amount of EDTA the LLQ quantified in that hypothetical because the premise of hypothetical was that the 1-3 nL of blood was already known to be EDTA-preserved blood containing an amount of 1300 parts per million of EDTA." Do not let your spell checker add anything and show where the article said, "the premise of hypothetical was that the 1-3 nL of blood was already known to be EDTA-preserved blood containing an amount of 1300 parts per million of EDTA."

"When the article said this LLQ corresponds to “planting” 1-3 nL of EDTA preserved blood it means that is the smallest volume of EDTA-preserved blood the LLQ can quantify." The article was not taking about volume since nl is a volume of blood. It was talking about a concentration of EDTA, 15ng(s), in an mL of blood. Which is why it said it was ten to the fifth lower than the "typical concentration" of EDTA preserved blood.

I have supported what the article said, with common sense, math and quotes from the article. Your last entire paragraph is contradicted by all of the above, which is why you, imho, tried to make it appear Dr. H. said something that contradicted the reason for the research. Let's look at the flaw in your reasoning. If there was only 1000 to 2000 parts per million in EDTA preserved blood, there would have been no need for the research and the article would have simply stated that based on their research that was confirmed. Instead the article tried to explain that the new method discovered a detection limit of 15 parts per billion that corresponded to EDTA preserved blood. The article would have said that we were able to compare smaller samples and the samples yielded concentrations equivalent to the typical concentration and not "ten to the fifth times lower than the typical concentration."

[tv]

BMs and dress socks would not be appropriate with a sweat suit, imho. I still do not understand how you say I stretched the truth.Yes, I realize that BMs and dress socks would not go with a sweat suit. It was a joke, you know, ha ha. He obviously made a fashion faux pas in addition to the other unacceptable things he did that night.

There is no evidence to support your speculation that Dennis Fung tampered with the socks. That's called stretching the truth or fabricating.

[William Anthony]

Yes, I realize that BMs and dress socks would not go with a sweat suit. It was a joke, you know, ha ha. He obviously made a fashion faux pas in addition to the other unacceptable things he did that night.

There is no evidence to support your speculation that Dennis Fung tampered with the socks. That's called stretching the truth or fabricating.

Oh, if it was a joke, then I understand. You think he wore that outfit to McDonalds and while he chipped golf balls in his driveway before going in to await the limo driver? :)

I have posted the evidence to support my reasonable inference. I think DF realized his mistake when he attempted to change his testimony. He realized it was broken and tried to fix it, imho. He should have stuck to evidence collection. Maybe not since he wasn't good at that either.:)

[tv]

Oh, if it was a joke, then I understand. You think he wore that outfit to McDonalds and while he chipped golf balls in his driveway before going in to await the limo driver? :)

I have posted the evidence to support my reasonable inference. I think DF realized his mistake when he attempted to change his testimony. He realized it was broken and tried to fix it, imho. He should have stuck to evidence collection. Maybe not since he wasn't good at that either.:)I'm going to let the subject of Dennis Fung and the socks go because I think you're dead wrong.

I do not believe he wore Bruno Magli's and dress socks to McDonalds. I think he changed his shoes and socks because he wanted to be dressed in dark clothing. He didn't chip golf balls before he left for the airport. It was dark, remember? Besides, wasn't he walking Chachi, taking a nap and taking a shower and running around getting ready and retrieving his cell phone accessories?

[William Anthony]

I'm going to let the subject of Dennis Fung and the socks go because I think you're dead wrong.

I do not believe he wore Bruno Magli's and dress socks to McDonalds. I think he changed his shoes and socks because he wanted to be dressed in dark clothing. He didn't chip golf balls before he left for the airport. It was dark, remember? Besides, wasn't he walking Chachi, taking a nap and taking a shower and running around getting ready and retrieving his cell phone accessories?

I see. You think my inference is wrong and not that I stretched the truth about the evidence.

I don't think there was any evidence presented to show that he did not do any of these things. Perhaps, you have drawn a reasonable inference that he did not do those things. I think there was evidence that he did take a shower or Park thought he did and let's not forget the blood trail leading from Rockingham through the front door and no one seeing him go to the Rockingham gate after he came down and started loading the limo.

[William Anthony]

From the article.

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.

The lead prosecutor, Marcia Clark, tried her best to present this scientific evidence. But how do you convince a jury of citizens that knows little about analytical chemistry that the EDTA came not from a lavender-stoppered tube but from a bleeding O.J. Simpson? Although it may not have been the only weak point in the prosecution's case, it certainly was a factor in the trial's outcome. Because of this criminal case, determining EDTA in human blood has become a topic of renewed interest.

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

I think bobaugust must learn to read things in context as scientist are not always the best authors.

[tv]

I see. You think my inference is wrong and not that I stretched the truth about the evidence.

I don't think there was any evidence presented to show that he did not do any of these things. Perhaps, you have drawn a reasonable inference that he did not do those things. I think there was evidence that he did take a shower or Park thought he did and let's not forget the blood trail leading from Rockingham through the front door and no one seeing him go to the Rockingham gate after he came down and started loading the limo.

There is also no evidence to show that little green men didn't land in his front yard that night but I don't think they did.

I'm sure he did take a shower. I imagine he badly needed one after his Bundy adventure.

[William Anthony]

MR. BLASIER: What is the concentration of EDTA in a purple-topped tube?
MR. MARTZ: Somewhere between a thousand and 2000 parts per million.

DR. RIEDERS: I beg your pardon. It's 2,000 parts per million. Two milligrams per mil
is 2,000 parts per million, the same that was--that's--or more so than you find in an
EDTA tube. That is blood that won't coagulate.

Determining EDTA in Blood,
“EDTA is present at about 4.5 mM (~1300 ppm) in EDTA-preserved blood”

Jack Henion the author of “Determining EDTA in Blood” said “I believe the numbers you cite are in the ball park; e.g. EDTA in collected blood in a lavender capped tube ranges between 1000 to 2000 ppm.”

The only thing you have supported you claim with is your opinon. And your opinion is irrational, illogical, and wrong.

bobaugust

With All Due Respect, the subject is not how much EDTA is in a lavender top tube. The subject is whether or not the results Martz obtained were consistent with planting, which the reserach has now established (pun intended) it was. I am sure that you realize that the concentration of EDTA can be diluted. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

There is also no evidence to show that little green men didn't land in his front yard that night but I don't think they did.

I'm sure he did take a shower. I imagine he badly needed one after his Bundy adventure.

To say that little green men landed in his yard would be to stretch the truth, imho.:)

To say that he was at Bundy on the night of the murders without sufficient evidence stretches the truth, imho.

[William Anthony]

Dr. Rieders never said that Martz would be dead if his blood contained EDTA in 2 parts per million.

July 24, 1995
MS. CLARK: Nevertheless, doctor, you found what you would call EDTA in the parts per million (1 to 2 parts per million) in Agent Martz' unpreserved blood, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: No. Incorrect. Absolutely untrue. I didn't find anything. He presented data which showed that when he analyzed a sample of his un-EDTA blood, that in the process, he ended up with a result that showed the presence of EDTA on the instrument. It doesn't prove that he had it in his blood, but what it does show, if he had it in his blood, he'd be an extraordinarily amazing, unusual person at that level.

bobaugust

WTH?

Did you see me make mention of Dr. R. in the quote to which you responded?

Here it is.

"I know how you hate math but try to follow me on this one. The article said 15/1,000,000,000 was EDTA preserved blood. Let's do the ratio to convert to parts per million, 15/109=x/106=15106/109=15/1000 or .015 parts per million. Therefore anything over .o15 parts per million containing EDTA, if you would like to express it that way, would be preserved blood. Ergo, anyone with 1 or 2 parts per million for any sustained period of time would be dead."

[tv]

To say that little green men landed in his yard would be to stretch the truth, imho.:)

To say that he was at Bundy on the night of the murders without sufficient evidence stretches the truth, imho.
His blood was at Bundy. That's not only sufficient -- it's overwhelming.

[tv]

To say that little green men landed in his yard would be to stretch the truth, imho.:) *snip*

I don't think you have proof that they didn't.

[William Anthony]

I don't think you have proof that they didn't.

An improper allocation of the burden of proof. :)

[William Anthony]

His blood was at Bundy. That's not only sufficient -- it's overwhelming.

There is no dispute that he had been at Bundy. The question is where is the proof that he was there on the night of the murders.

[William Anthony]

bobaugust,

You know nothing about me or what I have gone through, except for some tidbits I chose to share. The same can be said about my knowledge of you. I think that, if you did, you will understand how difficult it is for me to say this but I am going to try to forgive you and ask God for the strength to allow me to do so.

[martin II]

There is also no evidence to show that little green men didn't land in his front yard that night but I don't think they did.

I'm sure he did take a shower. I imagine he badly needed one after his Bundy adventure.

I think he did take a shower but not to wash off blood as there was no blood found in the shower pipes by anyone.imo

[martin II]

His blood was at Bundy. That's not only sufficient -- it's overwhelming.

The blood samples collected by Mazzola could not be verified by her as the same ones she was shown in court. So the results were not be accepted without serious question.

[tv]

There is no dispute that he had been at Bundy. The question is where is the proof that he was there on the night of the murders.Let me clarify even though you know what I meant. OJ Simpson was present at Bundy that night during the murders and left his blood at the scene as he was murdering Ron and Nicole.

[William Anthony]

Let me clarify even though you know what I meant. OJ Simpson was present at Bundy that night during the murders and left his blood at the scene as he was murdering Ron and Nicole.

It was not you that need to clarify but me. I was not clear in that I meant the evidence showing he was there on the night of the murders. I did not find credible the testimony that the blood appeared fresh. I know that, if I had seen a blood drop several hours or days after it had been deposited, I would not have been able to tell when it was left but I do not have the trained eyes of a criminalist, who did not see the gate. I did not intent to make light of your point but I ask you to remember that I always speak in the context of whether or not there was reasonable doubt.

[bobaugust]

Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky? Will it go around in circles? WTH?

Take a look at what you said.

"The purpose of the article was to explain the new methods that were developed to determine EDTA in human blood." I will point out later what your spell checker left out. IIRC, correctly it said how much EDTA was in human blood.

"The article said at the beginning and again at the end that the concentration of EDTA in preserved blood is 1300 parts per million." I have asked you to provide a quote from the article saying that, as opposed to saying EDTA was present in that concentration or that was the typical concentration. Do not allow your spell checker to add anything, since the link to the article is on page 161 of this thread.

"The article never said what amount of EDTA the LLQ quantified in that hypothetical because the premise of hypothetical was that the 1-3 nL of blood was already known to be EDTA-preserved blood containing an amount of 1300 parts per million of EDTA." Do not let your spell checker add anything and show where the article said, "the premise of hypothetical was that the 1-3 nL of blood was already known to be EDTA-preserved blood containing an amount of 1300 parts per million of EDTA."

"When the article said this LLQ corresponds to “planting” 1-3 nL of EDTA preserved blood it means that is the smallest volume of EDTA-preserved blood the LLQ can quantify." The article was not taking about volume since nl is a volume of blood. It was talking about a concentration of EDTA, 15ng(s), in an mL of blood. Which is why it said it was ten to the fifth lower than the "typical concentration" of EDTA preserved blood.

I have supported what the article said, with common sense, math and quotes from the article. Your last entire paragraph is contradicted by all of the above, which is why you, imho, tried to make it appear Dr. H. said something that contradicted the reason for the research. Let's look at the flaw in your reasoning. If there was only 1000 to 2000 parts per million in EDTA preserved blood, there would have been no need for the research and the article would have simply stated that based on their research that was confirmed. Instead the article tried to explain that the new method discovered a detection limit of 15 parts per billion that corresponded to EDTA preserved blood. The article would have said that we were able to compare smaller samples and the samples yielded concentrations equivalent to the typical concentration and not "ten to the fifth times lower than the typical concentration."

The name of the article explained what the article was about.
Determining EDTA in Blood
A murder trial sheds light on the need for a better analytical method

When ever you revert back to talking about my spell checker William, it’s it a sure sign that you know you are wrong but can’t admit it so you resort to ridiculing. Funny.

The article provided a clear statement as to the amount of EDTA it takes to preserved blood when it said, “Certainly, the volume of the blood stain could have been estimated. EDTA is present at about 4.5 mM (~1300 ppm) in EDTA-preserved blood, which would be a very concentrated sample and easily detected by electrospray LC/MS/MS.”

The premise in the hypothetical was that 1-3 nL was EDTA-preserved blood was made clear when it said, “this LLQ corresponds to "planting" 1-3 nL of EDTA-preserved blood.”

The article never said the concentration of EDTA in preserved blood is parts per billion. It said, “The LLQ of our method, at 15 ng/mL, (the limit the LLQ was capable of quantifying down to) is a factor of 10 to the 5th lower than the typical concentration found in EDTA-preserved blood.”

You have not supported your claim with anything except you opinion. You have never quoted or posted one single statement from any source that blood can be preserved with a concentration of EDTA in parts per billion or 2 parts per million. The purpose for developing new methods was not to quantify EDTA in preserved blood since the typical amount of EDTA to preserve blood is 1300 ppm, The purpose was to develop new methods with lower detection limits to detect and quantify EDTA in a normal human.

“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.”

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

From the article.

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.

The lead prosecutor, Marcia Clark, tried her best to present this scientific evidence. But how do you convince a jury of citizens that knows little about analytical chemistry that the EDTA came not from a lavender-stoppered tube but from a bleeding O.J. Simpson? Although it may not have been the only weak point in the prosecution's case, it certainly was a factor in the trial's outcome. Because of this criminal case, determining EDTA in human blood has become a topic of renewed interest.

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

I think bobaugust must learn to read things in context as scientist are not always the best authors.

You read only what you want to read and your claim that blood can be preserved with a concentration of EDTA in parts per billion or 2 parts per million is false, supported by nothing but your opinion. And as we have seen many times before you opinion is not very credible.

“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."

I repeat, It became apparent that a definitive and valid method for determining EDTA in human blood was needed. Not preserved blood since the amount of EDTA that it takes to preserve blood is known to be typically 1300 ppm.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

WTH It proves DF wrong and the socks magical. ;):cool:

The socks weren’t magical, there are just some people who can’t seem to tell the difference between estimated times and direct testimony from a witness who testified how he intentionally waited for Dennis Fung to finish his work before he videotaped the bedroom. That’s why the socks were not shown in the video. Ford testified he was not there to video tape evidence and the fact is that he never video taped any evidence that was collected. Ford testified the reason the video tape was made was to show what was in the house after the LAPD finished their investigation.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

With All Due Respect, the subject is not how much EDTA is in a lavender top tube. The subject is whether or not the results Martz obtained were consistent with planting, which the reserach has now established (pun intended) it was. I am sure that you realize that the concentration of EDTA can be diluted. ;):cool:

The subject is did the evidence stains come from the EDTA-preserved blood reference samples? And the answer is very clear. No they did not. Not only proven by the test results of the three different tests Martz conducted but later by photographic evidence and degradation evidence.

The fact is EDTA is present at about 1300 ppm in EDTA-preserved blood, not in parts per billion or 2 parts per million. Martz explained how he removed enough EDTA from the samples to analyze.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

WTH?

Did you see me make mention of Dr. R. in the quote to which you responded?

Here it is.

"I know how you hate math but try to follow me on this one. The article said 15/1,000,000,000 was EDTA preserved blood. Let's do the ratio to convert to parts per million, 15/109=x/106=15106/109=15/1000 or .015 parts per million. Therefore anything over .o15 parts per million containing EDTA, if you would like to express it that way, would be preserved blood. Ergo, anyone with 1 or 2 parts per million for any sustained period of time would be dead."

I don’t agree with your conclusion and evidently neither did Dr. Rieders since he never said Martz would be dead if he had 1 to 2 parts per million in his blood. But I do agree the trace amount of 1 to2 parts per million was not in anyone’s blood when that blood was in their body. And the trace amount of 1 to 2 parts per million did not come from the reference samples that contained a concentration of EDTA 1000 times more. The reasonable logical explanation is that the trace amount was the result of an artifact. “That artifact is most likely the result of carryover from previous analyses in that instrument.”

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The name of the article explained what the article was about.
Determining EDTA in Blood
A murder trial sheds light on the need for a better analytical method

When ever you revert back to talking about my spell checker William, it’s it a sure sign that you know you are wrong but can’t admit it so you resort to ridiculing. Funny.

The article provided a clear statement as to the amount of EDTA it takes to preserved blood when it said, “Certainly, the volume of the blood stain could have been estimated. EDTA is present at about 4.5 mM (~1300 ppm) in EDTA-preserved blood, which would be a very concentrated sample and easily detected by electrospray LC/MS/MS.”

The premise in the hypothetical was that 1-3 nL was EDTA-preserved blood was made clear when it said, “this LLQ corresponds to "planting" 1-3 nL of EDTA-preserved blood.”

The article never said the concentration of EDTA in preserved blood is parts per billion. It said, “The LLQ of our method, at 15 ng/mL, (the limit the LLQ was capable of quantifying down to) is a factor of 10 to the 5th lower than the typical concentration found in EDTA-preserved blood.”

You have not supported your claim with anything except you opinion. You have never quoted or posted one single statement from any source that blood can be preserved with a concentration of EDTA in parts per billion or 2 parts per million. The purpose for developing new methods was not to quantify EDTA in preserved blood since the typical amount of EDTA to preserve blood is 1300 ppm, The purpose was to develop new methods with lower detection limits to detect and quantify EDTA in a normal human.

“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.”

bobaugust

I revert to your spell checker to make sure it did not again change things or delete things, if you will. The questions that the researchers were answering were listed and the first one said "How much" EDTA was in blood.

Yes, the article only said it was present in that concentration in blood. I ask you to support your claim that the article said it takes 1300 parts per million to preserve blood.

The article said that 15ng/mL was the LLQ and I provided the link showing that an ng/mL was a part per billion.

Everyone who reads our posts knows that I have supported my opinion and how I have done so. Just as they know you have failed to support you statements.

Your last sentence indicates why they used the hypothetical. They were saying the limits associated with the tests they conducted as to the concentration and that there are lower levels in unpreserved human blood.

[William Anthony]

You read only what you want to read and your claim that blood can be preserved with a concentration of EDTA in parts per billion or 2 parts per million is false, supported by nothing but your opinion. And as we have seen many times before you opinion is not very credible.

“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."

I repeat, It became apparent that a definitive and valid method for determining EDTA in human blood was needed. Not preserved blood since the amount of EDTA that it takes to preserve blood is known to be typically 1300 ppm.

bobaugust

The whole question was whether the amount Martz found would have preserved blood. It was more than could have been found in unpreserved human blood. Even the plaintiff's expert agreed to that. So, your last sentence makes no sense, unless you are now disagreeing with the expert upon which you relied.

[William Anthony]

The subject is did the evidence stains come from the EDTA-preserved blood reference samples? And the answer is very clear. No they did not. Not only proven by the test results of the three different tests Martz conducted but later by photographic evidence and degradation evidence.

The fact is EDTA is present at about 1300 ppm in EDTA-preserved blood, not in parts per billion or 2 parts per million. Martz explained how he removed enough EDTA from the samples to analyze.

bobaugust

The question is whether there was evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the stains on the socks were not planted.

[William Anthony]

The socks weren’t magical, there are just some people who can’t seem to tell the difference between estimated times and direct testimony from a witness who testified how he intentionally waited for Dennis Fung to finish his work before he videotaped the bedroom. That’s why the socks were not shown in the video. Ford testified he was not there to video tape evidence and the fact is that he never video taped any evidence that was collected. Ford testified the reason the video tape was made was to show what was in the house after the LAPD finished their investigation.

bobaugust

The facts are that DF tried to change his testimony when the time on the camcorder showed that the socks should have been there and were not. Those same socks were Martz got the ridiculous results he did.

[William Anthony]

I don’t agree with your conclusion and evidently neither did Dr. Rieders since he never said Martz would be dead if he had 1 to 2 parts per million in his blood. But I do agree the trace amount of 1 to2 parts per million was not in anyone’s blood when that blood was in their body. And the trace amount of 1 to 2 parts per million did not come from the reference samples that contained a concentration of EDTA 1000 times more. The reasonable logical explanation is that the trace amount was the result of an artifact. “That artifact is most likely the result of carryover from previous analyses in that instrument.”

bobaugust

If not planted.

[William Anthony]

The facts are that DF tried to change his testimony when the time on the camcorder showed that the socks should have been there and were not. Those same socks were Martz got the ridiculous results he did.

Correction and addition-Those same socks where Martz got the ridiculous results he did.

Addition

"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.
Q. And so if, for example, Richard Fox were on the stand yesterday
and testified that there can be EDTA levels in human blood, that's
incorrect?
A. That's incorrect.
Q. And we know presently, of course, that EDTA is not in human blood
to the level that was found by Roger Martz in his experiments done
on the blood samples from both the back gate and the socks, true?
A. I'm sorry. That was a long question. I lost part of it. Could you
repeat that, please.
Q. I get these notes -- I have I got an I.
Q. that's about ground level, so I have to rephrase and think back
of what I was asking you. But -- But basically, in terms of EDTA,
the EDTA that Roger Martz found in his test from the samples of the
back gate and the socks would not be in a normal person's blood; you
would agree with that?
A. I would agree that he could not find -- he would not detect any
EDTA in a normal person's blood, that's true.
Q. If his test results were in fact accurate, if EDTA was in both
the samples from the back gate and the socks, they had to have been
planted, if your theory is incorrect; you would agree with that?
A. I would say there is another possibility -- there may be another
possibility, a possibility that I haven't thought of.
Q. Well, you had a lot of time, haven't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And your possibility, sir -- you have absolutely no facts
to substantiate that there was any cross-over effect or ghosting
effect on this machine, true?
A. That's not a statement of the facts. There's evidence in the data
that would support that conclusion."

[bobaugust]

I revert to your spell checker to make sure it did not again change things or delete things, if you will. The questions that the researchers were answering were listed and the first one said "How much" EDTA was in blood.

Yes, the article only said it was present in that concentration in blood. I ask you to support your claim that the article said it takes 1300 parts per million to preserve blood.

The article said that 15ng/mL was the LLQ and I provided the link showing that an ng/mL was a part per billion.

Everyone who reads our posts knows that I have supported my opinion and how I have done so. Just as they know you have failed to support you statements.

Your last sentence indicates why they used the hypothetical. They were saying the limits associated with the tests they conducted as to the concentration and that there are lower levels in unpreserved human blood.

The question “How much EDTA is there?” was regarding the Simpson case.

The article said that “EDTA is present at about 4.5 mM (~1300 ppm) in EDTA-preserved blood” and that’s a typical concentration, not parts per billion and not 2 parts per million.

I do not dispute the fact that ng/mL means parts per billion. As Jack Henion explained the LLQ of 15 ng/mL means that 15 parts per billion is the limit that it quantify down to. But that certainly doesn’t mean it only quantifies 15 parts per billion. If the LLQ was to quantify the concentration of EDTA in a typical concentration of EDTA-preserved blood it would quantify the amount of 1300 parts per million.

Everyone knows that the only thing you support your claim with that blood can be preserved with a concentration of EDTA in parts per billion and 2 parts per million are your incorrect interpretations. You have never posted anything by anyone else to support your claim, only your opinion.

On the other hand I have supported the fact that preserved blood contains a concentration of EDTA in 1000 to 2000 parts per million. I’ve posted the testimony from Roger Martz and Dr. Rieders, as well as quoting what the article Determining EDTA in Blood said, as well as what Jack Henion, the author of the article said.

My last sentence from the conclusion of the article was regarding EDTA in human plasma. It had nothing to do with the hypothetical scenario as to how the CE/MS method could be used to determine if a forensic blood stain had been planted. If your claim is correct, which it is not, then no method could ever determine if a forensic blood stain was planted by quantifying the concentration of EDTA in the stain.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The whole question was whether the amount Martz found would have preserved blood. It was more than could have been found in unpreserved human blood. Even the plaintiff's expert agreed to that. So, your last sentence makes no sense, unless you are now disagreeing with the expert upon which you relied.

The question in the Simpson case was did the evidence stains come from the reference samples, and that answer was clearly no. There was no question if one to 2 parts per million of EDTA could preserve blood because it can’t.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The question is whether there was evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the stains on the socks were not planted.

Witness testimony, Martz’s test results, photographic evidence, and degradation evidence all proved that neither the gate blood nor the sock blood were planted from preserved blood reference samples.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The facts are that DF tried to change his testimony when the time on the camcorder showed that the socks should have been there and were not. Those same socks were Martz got the ridiculous results he did.

The fact is that Dennis Fung never recorded and did not know exactly when he finished working in Simpson’s bedroom. Willie Ford tells us the reason why the socks were not shown in the video tape.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

If not planted.

Witness testimony, Martz’s test results, photographic evidence, and degradation evidence all proved that neither the gate blood nor the sock blood were planted from preserved blood reference samples.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Correction and addition-Those same socks where Martz got the ridiculous results he did.

Addition

"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.
Q. And so if, for example, Richard Fox were on the stand yesterday
and testified that there can be EDTA levels in human blood, that's
incorrect?
A. That's incorrect.
Q. And we know presently, of course, that EDTA is not in human blood
to the level that was found by Roger Martz in his experiments done
on the blood samples from both the back gate and the socks, true?
A. I'm sorry. That was a long question. I lost part of it. Could you
repeat that, please.
Q. I get these notes -- I have I got an I.
Q. that's about ground level, so I have to rephrase and think back
of what I was asking you. But -- But basically, in terms of EDTA,
the EDTA that Roger Martz found in his test from the samples of the
back gate and the socks would not be in a normal person's blood; you
would agree with that?
A. I would agree that he could not find -- he would not detect any
EDTA in a normal person's blood, that's true.
Q. If his test results were in fact accurate, if EDTA was in both
the samples from the back gate and the socks, they had to have been
planted, if your theory is incorrect; you would agree with that?
A. I would say there is another possibility -- there may be another
possibility, a possibility that I haven't thought of.
Q. Well, you had a lot of time, haven't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And your possibility, sir -- you have absolutely no facts
to substantiate that there was any cross-over effect or ghosting
effect on this machine, true?
A. That's not a statement of the facts. There's evidence in the data
that would support that conclusion."

In regards to your bold type excerpts Dr. Lee was correct. There was no method that could detect parts per billion of EDTA at the time Martz conducted his tests or even when Dr. Lee testified. When Dr. Lee said “That’s not a statement of the facts” Dr. Lee was contradicting Baker’s claim that Dr. Lee didn’t have any facts to substantiate his opinion and then Dr. Lee said there is evidence in the data that would support that (Dr. Lee’s) conclusion.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The question “How much EDTA is there?” was regarding the Simpson case.

The article said that “EDTA is present at about 4.5 mM (~1300 ppm) in EDTA-preserved blood” and that’s a typical concentration, not parts per billion and not 2 parts per million.

I do not dispute the fact that ng/mL means parts per billion. As Jack Henion explained the LLQ of 15 ng/mL means that 15 parts per billion is the limit that it quantify down to. But that certainly doesn’t mean it only quantifies 15 parts per billion. If the LLQ was to quantify the concentration of EDTA in a typical concentration of EDTA-preserved blood it would quantify the amount of 1300 parts per million.

Everyone knows that the only thing you support your claim with that blood can be preserved with a concentration of EDTA in parts per billion and 2 parts per million are your incorrect interpretations. You have never posted anything by anyone else to support your claim, only your opinion.

On the other hand I have supported the fact that preserved blood contains a concentration of EDTA in 1000 to 2000 parts per million. I’ve posted the testimony from Roger Martz and Dr. Rieders, as well as quoting what the article Determining EDTA in Blood said, as well as what Jack Henion, the author of the article said.

My last sentence from the conclusion of the article was regarding EDTA in human plasma. It had nothing to do with the hypothetical scenario as to how the CE/MS method could be used to determine if a forensic blood stain had been planted. If your claim is correct, which it is not, then no method could ever determine if a forensic blood stain was planted by quantifying the concentration of EDTA in the stain.

bobaugust

Of course Martz' testimony caused the inquiry into how much EDTA is in preserved and unpreserved blood and how can it be differentiated, which is why and only common sense the research focused on concentration.

The questions were "how much" EDTA is there in unpreserved blood and "how much" EDTA corresponds to planting, which the article answered.

Since I am attempting to forgive you, I will not mention your spell checker. You are mixing what the Dr. allegedly told you and your personal opinion of what you believe to be true. However, lets look at your quote of what the Dr. told you. Allegedly, he said to you that 15ng/mL or 15 parts per billion, which is the LLQ or concentration, if you will, that corresponded to planting of EDTA pereserved blood, would be the same whether it was a gallon or drop (irrespective of the volume/size) of the sample/stain being tested.

Your last paragraph tells me that you neither understand the article or my position. If your last paragraph is true, then the researchers wasted valuable time to detect a concentration 10 to the 5th times lower than the typical concentration found in EDTA preserved blood. They found this lower concentration in order to answer the question posed by Martz results. The 7.3ng/mL or 7.3 parts per billion concentration represented unpreserved blood, while the 15 parts per million represented blood preserved with EDTA. I reiterate the article could have stated that the concentration of EDTA in preserved blood was the same as was found in the typical concentration, which it did not. The article stated it found an LLQ that was "10 to the 5 times lower than the typical concentration. "

[William Anthony]

The question in the Simpson case was did the evidence stains come from the reference samples, and that answer was clearly no. There was no question if one to 2 parts per million of EDTA could preserve blood because it can’t.

bobaugust

The questions in the Simpson case were whether or not the stain on the socks had been planted and did Martz' results indicate planting, which is why the defense called him and why the prosecution did not. I think you know that EDTA can be diluted and Martz had five days to test/manipulate the stains.

[William Anthony]

Witness testimony, Martz’s test results, photographic evidence, and degradation evidence all proved that neither the gate blood nor the sock blood were planted from preserved blood reference samples.

bobaugust

You are now talking credibility as opposed to science, math and common sense. I think the jury verdict reflects what they found more credible. Reasonable doubt.

[William Anthony]

The fact is that Dennis Fung never recorded and did not know exactly when he finished working in Simpson’s bedroom. Willie Ford tells us the reason why the socks were not shown in the video tape.

bobaugust

The facts are that DF attempted to change his story after he saw the video and those magical socks had disappeared.

[William Anthony]

Witness testimony, Martz’s test results, photographic evidence, and degradation evidence all proved that neither the gate blood nor the sock blood were planted from preserved blood reference samples.

bobaugust

See my previous responses.

[William Anthony]

In regards to your bold type excerpts Dr. Lee was correct. There was no method that could detect parts per billion of EDTA at the time Martz conducted his tests or even when Dr. Lee testified. When Dr. Lee said “That’s not a statement of the facts” Dr. Lee was contradicting Baker’s claim that Dr. Lee didn’t have any facts to substantiate his opinion and then Dr. Lee said there is evidence in the data that would support that (Dr. Lee’s) conclusion.

bobaugust

I read Lee's testimony differently, because he was an expert, and I think he may have testified previously. In any event, we know that evidence is not fact. The facts are derived from the evidence, which I think Lee understood, which is why he was saying that his statement should not be taken as fact but there was evidence upon which he based that "statement".
I am sure, since you rely so heavily on Lee, that you would agree he was intelligent enough to differentiate a question from a statement.

[William Anthony]

Of course Martz' testimony caused the inquiry into how much EDTA is in preserved and unpreserved blood and how can it be differentiated, which is why and only common sense the research focused on concentration.

The questions were "how much" EDTA is there in unpreserved blood and "how much" EDTA corresponds to planting, which the article answered.

Since I am attempting to forgive you, I will not mention your spell checker. You are mixing what the Dr. allegedly told you and your personal opinion of what you believe to be true. However, lets look at your quote of what the Dr. told you. Allegedly, he said to you that 15ng/mL or 15 parts per billion, which is the LLQ or concentration, if you will, that corresponded to planting of EDTA pereserved blood, would be the same whether it was a gallon or drop (irrespective of the volume/size) of the sample/stain being tested.

Your last paragraph tells me that you neither understand the article or my position. If your last paragraph is true, then the researchers wasted valuable time to detect a concentration 10 to the 5th times lower than the typical concentration found in EDTA preserved blood. They found this lower concentration in order to answer the question posed by Martz results. The 7.3ng/mL or 7.3 parts per billion concentration represented unpreserved blood, while the 15 parts per million represented blood preserved with EDTA. I reiterate the article could have stated that the concentration of EDTA in preserved blood was the same as was found in the typical concentration, which it did not. The article stated it found an LLQ that was "10 to the 5 times lower than the typical concentration. "

Correction-while the 15 parts per billion represented blood preserved with EDTA.

I guess speaking of such large amounts and thinking of dollars makes me nervous.:)

[bobaugust]

Of course Martz' testimony caused the inquiry into how much EDTA is in preserved and unpreserved blood and how can it be differentiated, which is why and only common sense the research focused on concentration.

The questions were "how much" EDTA is there in unpreserved blood and "how much" EDTA corresponds to planting, which the article answered.

Since I am attempting to forgive you, I will not mention your spell checker. You are mixing what the Dr. allegedly told you and your personal opinion of what you believe to be true. However, lets look at your quote of what the Dr. told you. Allegedly, he said to you that 15ng/mL or 15 parts per billion, which is the LLQ or concentration, if you will, that corresponded to planting of EDTA pereserved blood, would be the same whether it was a gallon or drop (irrespective of the volume/size) of the sample/stain being tested.

Your last paragraph tells me that you neither understand the article or my position. If your last paragraph is true, then the researchers wasted valuable time to detect a concentration 10 to the 5th times lower than the typical concentration found in EDTA preserved blood. They found this lower concentration in order to answer the question posed by Martz results. The 7.3ng/mL or 7.3 parts per billion concentration represented unpreserved blood, while the 15 parts per million represented blood preserved with EDTA. I reiterate the article could have stated that the concentration of EDTA in preserved blood was the same as was found in the typical concentration, which it did not. The article stated it found an LLQ that was "10 to the 5 times lower than the typical concentration. "

The article was not about how much EDTA is in preserved blood as it clearly said that EDTA is present at about 1300 ppm in EDTA-preserved blood. The article was about a new method developed for determining EDTA in human blood. You also can’t seem to understand what Jack Henion explained about the detection and quantifying limits of the new method and their designations. The fact that detection and quantifying limits are designated by mg/mL means that is the smallest limit it can detect and quantify, it doesn’t mean the LLQ quantified 15 ppm of EDTA in preserved blood.

This is what Jack Henion said,
“You are making the subject more difficult than it is by equating trace analysis to nano volumetric transfers. The latter are not the outcome of such trace analyses. 7.3 ng/mL can be a detection limit from a gallon of blood or a drop of blood. The LLQ is the limit we can quantify down to and the detection limit is the limit of detection; e.g. the lowest level we can detect but not quantify.”

Using a hypothetical scenario the article said, “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.”

The article did not say that the LLQ quantified 15 ppb of EDTA in 1-3 nL of EDTA-preserved blood, it said that the LLQ corresponds to, meaning that 1-3 nL would be the smallest volume of EDTA-preserved blood the LLQ could quantify.

When the article said, “The LLQ of our method, at 15 ng/mL, is a factor of 10 the 5th lower than the typical concentration found in EDTA-preserved blood (4.5 mM or 1.3 X 106 ng/mL).” they weren’t saying anything about the amount of EDTA in preserved blood other than it contained EDTA in a concentration of 1300 ppm. They were simply comparing the limit of the LLQ, 15 ng/mL to the typical concentration of EDTA-preserved blood after saying how they “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.”

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The questions in the Simpson case were whether or not the stain on the socks had been planted and did Martz' results indicate planting, which is why the defense called him and why the prosecution did not. I think you know that EDTA can be diluted and Martz had five days to test/manipulate the stains.

The question in the Simpson case was whether Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock and Simpson’s blood found on the rear gate at Bundy came from their preserved blood reference samples. That was what the defense claimed. I don’t recall anything about EDTA being diluted since Martz used a method to extract the EDTA from the samples that contained the trace contamination. I don’t know where you got 5 days from but the fact is that based on the results of the three different tests Martz conducted he was able to clearly conclude that neither the sock blood or the gate blood came from the reference samples. Witness testimony, photographic evidence, and degradation evidence proved his conclusion correct.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You are now talking credibility as opposed to science, math and common sense. I think the jury verdict reflects what they found more credible. Reasonable doubt.

I don’t believe the criminal trial jury actually understood or took the time to understand any of this evidence. Science, math, and common sense support the fact that the sock and gate blood were not planted.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The facts are that DF attempted to change his story after he saw the video and those magical socks had disappeared.

There were no magical socks and no disappearance. What you are arguing is an irrational, illogical theory based on some mistaken time estimates while ignoring the witness who told us why the socks were not in the bedroom when he videotaped it.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I read Lee's testimony differently, because he was an expert, and I think he may have testified previously. In any event, we know that evidence is not fact. The facts are derived from the evidence, which I think Lee understood, which is why he was saying that his statement should not be taken as fact but there was evidence upon which he based that "statement".
I am sure, since you rely so heavily on Lee, that you would agree he was intelligent enough to differentiate a question from a statement.

Baker’s question was not true and Dr. Lee corrected him.

Q. Okay. And your possibility, sir -- you have absolutely no facts to substantiate that there was any cross-over effect or ghosting effect on this machine, true?
A. That's not a statement of the facts. There's evidence in the data that would support that conclusion."

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The question in the Simpson case was whether Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock and Simpson’s blood found on the rear gate at Bundy came from their preserved blood reference samples. That was what the defense claimed. I don’t recall anything about EDTA being diluted since Martz used a method to extract the EDTA from the samples that contained the trace contamination. I don’t know where you got 5 days from but the fact is that based on the results of the three different tests Martz conducted he was able to clearly conclude that neither the sock blood or the gate blood came from the reference samples. Witness testimony, photographic evidence, and degradation evidence proved his conclusion correct.

bobaugust

Certainly, you are aware that EDTA can be diluted, correct? Allow me to say it this way, when you start with an amount of a substance and dilute it, you would get a lesser concentration of that substance. Martz was crossed on why he would test his own blood, which he said had somewhat coagulated, when there was no evidence that any of the stains collected had coagulated. His premise was that he wanted to prove that EDTA was a stable compound. Common sense has told us that, because it is used to preserve blood and they have found a typical concentration in preserved blood. However, let's set that aside for a moment.

Here is his testimony.

"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?"

The answer to the last question was, "correct".

Now, let's put this in context with the other evidence of the socks not being there when they were supposed to be there, Martz' erroneous conclusions on what the EPA representative told him and his testimony that "we have established that EDTA is present in unpreserved human blood in the part per million range, which the expert on which you rely contradicted, allegedly testing something he was not asked to test (stability), the new research contradicting his results and showing his results indicated planting (since you have included testimony from the civil trial) and the implausible theory made in order to create "a convincing argument of Martz' "problematic" results, "if not planted", and give credit to your assumed statement of proofs, to which I do not agree, to show that there was reasonable doubt. The one thing we know for sure that Martz was creative in creating new things and, and, therefore, based on his misunderstanding of what the EPA allegedly told him, a reasonable inference can be drawn that he was testing/manipulating, for five days, evidence in order to reach the wrong result and conclusion that he had established that EDTA was present in unpreserved human blood in the part per million range.

[William Anthony]

I don’t believe the criminal trial jury actually understood or took the time to understand any of this evidence. Science, math, and common sense support the fact that the sock and gate blood were not planted.

bobaugust

It is irrelevant whether the jury understood the science and the math, since they were the ones to give credibility and weight to the evidence and it was the prosecution's burden to make understandable the evidence they produced in order to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, we now know that science, math and common sense tells us that the stains on the sock and gate could have been planted. They had the common sense to see that the socks were not there when they were alleged to be and that DF attempted to change his testimony.

[William Anthony]

There were no magical socks and no disappearance. What you are arguing is an irrational, illogical theory based on some mistaken time estimates while ignoring the witness who told us why the socks were not in the bedroom when he videotaped it.

bobaugust

The witness could only tell us what he thought happened. However, the video and the attempt by DF to change his testimony can be seen as producing evidence of reasonable doubt as to what actually happened, imho.

[William Anthony]

Baker’s question was not true and Dr. Lee corrected him.

Q. Okay. And your possibility, sir -- you have absolutely no facts to substantiate that there was any cross-over effect or ghosting effect on this machine, true?
A. That's not a statement of the facts. There's evidence in the data that would support that conclusion."

bobaugust

So, you are now saying that the witness on which you so heavily rely did not know the difference between a question and a statement or was not intelligent enough to say that your question is not a true statement of the facts. The prelude to the question was about Lee's testimony, attempting to make a "convincing argument" about Martz' "problematic" results "if not planted". That is why I think he was saying that his conclusion was not a statement of fact but a possibility based on the alleged evidence, because he did not believe the FBI would lie. We now know that they will based on subsequent investigations and revelations by ex-agents.

[bobaugust]

Certainly, you are aware that EDTA can be diluted, correct? Allow me to say it this way, when you start with an amount of a substance and dilute it, you would get a lesser concentration of that substance. Martz was crossed on why he would test his own blood, which he said had somewhat coagulated, when there was no evidence that any of the stains collected had coagulated. His premise was that he wanted to prove that EDTA was a stable compound. Common sense has told us that, because it is used to preserve blood and they have found a typical concentration in preserved blood. However, let's set that aside for a moment.

Here is his testimony.

"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?"

The answer to the last question was, "correct".

Now, let's put this in context with the other evidence of the socks not being there when they were supposed to be there, Martz' erroneous conclusions on what the EPA representative told him and his testimony that "we have established that EDTA is present in unpreserved human blood in the part per million range, which the expert on which you rely contradicted, allegedly testing something he was not asked to test (stability), the new research contradicting his results and showing his results indicated planting (since you have included testimony from the civil trial) and the implausible theory made in order to create "a convincing argument of Martz' "problematic" results, "if not planted", and give credit to your assumed statement of proofs, to which I do not agree, to show that there was reasonable doubt. The one thing we know for sure that Martz was creative in creating new things and, and, therefore, based on his misunderstanding of what the EPA allegedly told him, a reasonable inference can be drawn that he was testing/manipulating, for five days, evidence in order to reach the wrong result and conclusion that he had established that EDTA was present in unpreserved human blood in the part per million range.

In the test results from the first two tests Martz conducted there was no indication of any EDTA in the two evidence stains. It wasn’t until after the third test that the test results indicated a small trace amount of EDTA. Martz testified that he wasn’t even sure it was EDTA since the test results only showed indications of the 160 ion, not the full daughter spectrum. That’s why he said he was not able to identify EDTA in the stains.

Martz’s testing had nothing to do with your irrational, illogical claim that the socks were missing. Martz’s test results had nothing to do with the EPA later telling Martz that the EPA study should have said 1000 ppm, Martz’s test results had nothing to do with what Dr. Lee’s said a year and half later. There is no evidence that Martz was testing or manipulating for five days and despite the fact that Martz believed EDTA may be in a person in parts per million doesn’t change the fact that the trace contamination indicated in the third test results at one to 2 parts per million is 1000 times less than the concentration of EDTA in the reference samples.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

It is irrelevant whether the jury understood the science and the math, since they were the ones to give credibility and weight to the evidence and it was the prosecution's burden to make understandable the evidence they produced in order to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, we now know that science, math and common sense tells us that the stains on the sock and gate could have been planted. They had the common sense to see that the socks were not there when they were alleged to be and that DF attempted to change his testimony.

I disagree. There was no evidence that the sock stain or the gate stains were planted, only speculation. There was no science, or math to support that speculation. Dennis Fung didn’t record and didn’t really remember the exact time he collected the socks. Common sense tells us that the explanation as to why the socks were not shown in the video tape by the person who took that video tape is what actually happened, not Dennis Fung’s attempts to estimate times.

The argument that the socks were missing and then reappeared doesn’t make any sense and is meaningless to the defense theory since their theory was that blood from reference samples was planted on the socks sometime later after the socks were collected.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The witness could only tell us what he thought happened. However, the video and the attempt by DF to change his testimony can be seen as producing evidence of reasonable doubt as to what actually happened, imho.

Dennis Fung’s attempt at estimating times doesn’t change the reality of why the socks were not shown in the video tape.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

So, you are now saying that the witness on which you so heavily rely did not know the difference between a question and a statement or was not intelligent enough to say that your question is not a true statement of the facts. The prelude to the question was about Lee's testimony, attempting to make a "convincing argument" about Martz' "problematic" results "if not planted". That is why I think he was saying that his conclusion was not a statement of fact but a possibility based on the alleged evidence, because he did not believe the FBI would lie. We now know that they will based on subsequent investigations and revelations by ex-agents.

What ever Dr. Lee thought his answer contradicted what Baker was suggesting.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

In the test results from the first two tests Martz conducted there was no indication of any EDTA in the two evidence stains. It wasn’t until after the third test that the test results indicated a small trace amount of EDTA. Martz testified that he wasn’t even sure it was EDTA since the test results only showed indications of the 160 ion, not the full daughter spectrum. That’s why he said he was not able to identify EDTA in the stains.

Martz’s testing had nothing to do with your irrational, illogical claim that the socks were missing. Martz’s test results had nothing to do with the EPA later telling Martz that the EPA study should have said 1000 ppm, Martz’s test results had nothing to do with what Dr. Lee’s said a year and half later. There is no evidence that Martz was testing or manipulating for five days and despite the fact that Martz believed EDTA may be in a person in parts per million doesn’t change the fact that the trace contamination indicated in the third test results at one to 2 parts per million is 1000 times less than the concentration of EDTA in the reference samples.

bobaugust

Now, let's explore what the difference was in the tests Martz performed.

"MR. BLASIER: What was the difference in the method that you used from the 22nd to the 28th?

MR. MARTZ: The one did not involve mass spectrometry. I was able to use a compound which is not very friendly to the electrospray.

MR. BLASIER: Now, so the first step that you tried on February--February 22nd is where you tested for the first time under the method that we have been talking about, the sock and the gate stains; is that correct?

MR. MARTZ: Well, not necessarily. I mean, the 19th I did a method of electrospray mass spectrometry.

MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry, go ahead.

MR. MARTZ: That test we have failed to mention so far.

MR. BLASIER: Let's mention it. What method was that?

MR. MARTZ: It was the same thing. It was electrospray mass spectrometry using LC.

MR. BLASIER: That is using what is called the negative ion mode; is that correct?

MR. MARTZ: That is correct, which is more selective than the positive ion mode.

MR. BLASIER: Did you find that that was much less sensitive than the positive ion mode?

MR. MARTZ: It was less sensitive.

MR. BLASIER: About how many orders of magnitude?

MR. MARTZ: It was approximately ten, ten times less sensitive."

Yes, but Dr. R. identified the EDTA from Martz results. This is the flaw in Martz' testimony-at one point he said he could not identify EDTA but in another part claime "We have established EDTA is present in human blood at the part per million range." Sort of like an onion, leaves a foul odor on your breath.

You seem to want to separate and become negatively aggressive. Is that because you failed to consider all the evidence, regarding the socks and the gate stain? There is evidence allowing a reasonable inference and, if I might add without incurring your anger, plenty of it. The 1000 times less is a hundred and thirty three and a third times more than the 15 parts per million found in EDTA preserved blood that corresponds to planting, which the new research "established".

[William Anthony]

I disagree. There was no evidence that the sock stain or the gate stains were planted, only speculation. There was no science, or math to support that speculation. Dennis Fung didn’t record and didn’t really remember the exact time he collected the socks. Common sense tells us that the explanation as to why the socks were not shown in the video tape by the person who took that video tape is what actually happened, not Dennis Fung’s attempts to estimate times.

The argument that the socks were missing and then reappeared doesn’t make any sense and is meaningless to the defense theory since their theory was that blood from reference samples was planted on the socks sometime later after the socks were collected.

bobaugust

IIRC, it was you that claimed we could base our opinions on the new evidence or information, which you now seem to want to limit. I have listed the evidence to contradict your hypothesis as to the claim that DF only estimated the times, and see no reason to repeat it.

The magical socks mean very much to the theory of planting.

[William Anthony]

Dennis Fung’s attempt at estimating times doesn’t change the reality of why the socks were not shown in the video tape.

bobaugust

Are you aware of the theory of existentialism and how it relates to reality?

[William Anthony]

What ever Dr. Lee thought his answer contradicted what Baker was suggesting.

bobaugust

Lee was simply saying that he could not say as a fact that there was a ghost in the machine only that was a possibility, which he said "most likely" and "if not planted".

[limakey]

Mr. August,

Where is the science and the math that proves, beyond a shadow of the doubt these items?

That the sole cause of the degradation of the blood drops at Bundy was they were cooked inside the CSI truck?

That the sole cause of the blood on the socks could have only come from Simpson when he was taking them off?

That the sole cause of the EDTA found was from a contamination inside the equipment?

The lists goes on and on.....

Don't forget, not even the state's own witness could testify on how and when the blood got on the socks.

[bobaugust]

Now, let's explore what the difference was in the tests Martz performed.

"MR. BLASIER: What was the difference in the method that you used from the 22nd to the 28th?

MR. MARTZ: The one did not involve mass spectrometry. I was able to use a compound which is not very friendly to the electrospray.

MR. BLASIER: Now, so the first step that you tried on February--February 22nd is where you tested for the first time under the method that we have been talking about, the sock and the gate stains; is that correct?

MR. MARTZ: Well, not necessarily. I mean, the 19th I did a method of electrospray mass spectrometry.

MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry, go ahead.

MR. MARTZ: That test we have failed to mention so far.

MR. BLASIER: Let's mention it. What method was that?

MR. MARTZ: It was the same thing. It was electrospray mass spectrometry using LC.

MR. BLASIER: That is using what is called the negative ion mode; is that correct?

MR. MARTZ: That is correct, which is more selective than the positive ion mode.

MR. BLASIER: Did you find that that was much less sensitive than the positive ion mode?

MR. MARTZ: It was less sensitive.

MR. BLASIER: About how many orders of magnitude?

MR. MARTZ: It was approximately ten, ten times less sensitive."

Yes, but Dr. R. identified the EDTA from Martz results. This is the flaw in Martz' testimony-at one point he said he could not identify EDTA but in another part claime "We have established EDTA is present in human blood at the part per million range." Sort of like an onion, leaves a foul odor on your breath.

You seem to want to separate and become negatively aggressive. Is that because you failed to consider all the evidence, regarding the socks and the gate stain? There is evidence allowing a reasonable inference and, if I might add without incurring your anger, plenty of it. The 1000 times less is a hundred and thirty three and a third times more than the 15 parts per million found in EDTA preserved blood that corresponds to planting, which the new research "established".

No one except you William has ever said, suggested, inferred, or claimed that preserved blood contains a concentration of EDTA in 15 parts per billion or as you now say 15 parts per million. Your claim is outright false and based only on your inability to understand that the hypothetical scenario in the article Determining EDTA in Blood never said that the LLQ quantified a concentration of EDTA in 15 parts per million of in 1-3 nL of EDTA-preserved blood.

I made this perfectly clear to you in my post #6784

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

IIRC, it was you that claimed we could base our opinions on the new evidence or information, which you now seem to want to limit. I have listed the evidence to contradict your hypothesis as to the claim that DF only estimated the times, and see no reason to repeat it.

The magical socks mean very much to the theory of planting.

Tell us William what does your fantasy that the socks were missing before they were collected have to do with the defense theory that Nicole’s blood was planted on Simpson’s socks from her autopsy sample after the socks had been collected?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Are you aware of the theory of existentialism and how it relates to reality?

Not enough to discuss it on this thread. What I do know is that Ford testified that he intentionally waited until Dennis Fung left Simpson’s bedroom after finishing his work before Ford entered and videotaped the bedroom. The socks were not shown in the video because Fung had already collected them.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Lee was simply saying that he could not say as a fact that there was a ghost in the machine only that was a possibility, which he said "most likely" and "if not planted".

Dr. Lee never testified about a ghost in the machine, those are only your ridiculous words. Dr. Lee testified that the results of that third test are consistent with a carryover in the instrument.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Where is the science and the math that proves, beyond a shadow of the doubt these items?

That the sole cause of the degradation of the blood drops at Bundy was they were cooked inside the CSI truck?

That the sole cause of the blood on the socks could have only come from Simpson when he was taking them off?

That the sole cause of the EDTA found was from a contamination inside the equipment?

The lists goes on and on.....

Don't forget, not even the state's own witness could testify on how and when the blood got on the socks.

Limakey, what makes you think that the degradation of the collected blood was due entirely from being in the crime lab van?

It sounds reasonable to me that Simpson left his blood on his socks when he took them off.

We know that the results of the first two tests Martz conducted there was no indication of any EDTA in the two evidence stains. We know that the small trace contamination of EDTA that the third test results indicated was too large to have been in human blood, 1000 times more. We also know that trace amount of EDTA did come from the reference samples since the reference samples contained a concentration of EDTA 1000 times more. So where did the trace amount come from? Martz suspected it might have been from an artifact in the instrument. Dr. Terry Lee believed it was from an artifact in the instrument most likely a carryover contamination. “FBI chemists now believe that the EDTA detected may have been injection carryover in the LC/MS/MS) instrumentation because a water blank instead of a matrix blank had been run before the sample.”

If you have another reasonable explanation please offer it.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Mr. August,

Where is the science and the math that proves, beyond a shadow of the doubt these items?

That the sole cause of the degradation of the blood drops at Bundy was they were cooked inside the CSI truck?

That the sole cause of the blood on the socks could have only come from Simpson when he was taking them off?

That the sole cause of the EDTA found was from a contamination inside the equipment?

The lists goes on and on.....

Don't forget, not even the state's own witness could testify on how and when the blood got on the socks.

He is an existentialist, imho.

[William Anthony]

No one except you William has ever said, suggested, inferred, or claimed that preserved blood contains a concentration of EDTA in 15 parts per billion or as you now say 15 parts per million. Your claim is outright false and based only on your inability to understand that the hypothetical scenario in the article Determining EDTA in Blood never said that the LLQ quantified a concentration of EDTA in 15 parts per million of in 1-3 nL of EDTA-preserved blood.

I made this perfectly clear to you in my post #6784

bobaugust

The 15 pats per million was a mistake. It was 15 parts per billion. :read::read:the article.

[William Anthony]

Tell us William what does your fantasy that the socks were missing before they were collected have to do with the defense theory that Nicole’s blood was planted on Simpson’s socks from her autopsy sample after the socks had been collected?

bobaugust

The missing socks explains what was happening to them and why Martz obtained the results he did and then had to manipulate/test them and came up with the results he did based on his erroneous interpretation of what the EPA representative told him.

[William Anthony]

Dr. Lee never testified about a ghost in the machine, those are only your ridiculous words. Dr. Lee testified that the results of that third test are consistent with a carryover in the instrument.

bobaugust

I will not apologize for being creative or using words that highlight the ridiculousness of what Lee thought was a "convincing argument".

[William Anthony]

bobaugust,

We have ridden this horse to death. It is obvious to me that you will not accept for whatever reason, what the article said and to continue to debate this issue with you is a waste of my time and energy, because I usually end up discussing, imho, your many errenous and redundant statements. Here are the relevant bottom lines from the article.

"We have been able to demonstrate that typical human plasma samples do contain detectable EDTA, but at levels that are lower than the LLQ reported in this work. The LLQ of our method, at 15 ng/mL, is a factor of 105 lower than the typical concentration found in EDTA-preserved blood (4.5 mM or 1.3 X 106 ng/mL). 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. "

As you see the article was concenrned with "blood-evidence tampering" and that it detected a 15 part per billion LLQ which corresponded to planting and was 10 to the 5th times lower than the typical concentration of EDTA preserved blood (1300 parts per million). With this I end what I consider a useless discussion. The verdict is in-reasonable doubt. Yesterday, I had the privilege of being involved with intelligent, civil and respectful discussions. I did not see the words illogical, ridiculous, false, or accusatory words used and then it dawned on me you were not posting on those discussions.

[bobaugust]

The 15 pats per million was a mistake. It was 15 parts per billion. :read::read:the article.

Your claim that preserved blood contains a concentration of EDTA in 15 parts per billion is untrue based only on your mistaken interpretation of what you interpret the article said. Neither the article or any other source of information ever said the concentration of EDTA in EDTA-preserved blood is anything other than 1000 to 2000 parts per million.


bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The missing socks explains what was happening to them and why Martz obtained the results he did and then had to manipulate/test them and came up with the results he did based on his erroneous interpretation of what the EPA representative told him.

The socks were not missing. Martz’s test results had nothing to do with the collection of Simpson’s socks. Martz didn’t manipulate the tests to come up with his results. Martz’s test results had nothing to do with what the EPA later told him.

You can’t even answer a simple question because your argument is nothing but pure nonsense.

The defense theory that Nicole’s blood was planted on Simpson’s sock from Nicole’s autopsy sample sometime after the socks were collected was proven false. Degradation comparisons proved it was impossible for Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock to have come from her autopsy sample.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I will not apologize for being creative or using words that highlight the ridiculousness of what Lee thought was a "convincing argument".

Dr. Lee gave a reasonable, logical, rational explanation for why the third test results indicated a small trace amount of EDTA in the two evidence stains and in Martz’s own non-preserved blood. An explanation that FBI chemists also believed caused the small trace contamination.

I’m curious William, since you say you believe in ghosts, do you also believe in creationism or intelligent design?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

bobaugust,

We have ridden this horse to death. It is obvious to me that you will not accept for whatever reason, what the article said and to continue to debate this issue with you is a waste of my time and energy, because I usually end up discussing, imho, your many errenous and redundant statements. Here are the relevant bottom lines from the article.

"We have been able to demonstrate that typical human plasma samples do contain detectable EDTA, but at levels that are lower than the LLQ reported in this work. The LLQ of our method, at 15 ng/mL, is a factor of 105 lower than the typical concentration found in EDTA-preserved blood (4.5 mM or 1.3 X 106 ng/mL). 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. "

As you see the article was concenrned with "blood-evidence tampering" and that it detected a 15 part per billion LLQ which corresponded to planting and was 10 to the 5th times lower than the typical concentration of EDTA preserved blood (1300 parts per million). With this I end what I consider a useless discussion. The verdict is in-reasonable doubt. Yesterday, I had the privilege of being involved with intelligent, civil and respectful discussions. I did not see the words illogical, ridiculous, false, or accusatory words used and then it dawned on me you were not posting on those discussions.

What is obvious is that you have made many mistaken interpretations about what the article said and no matter how many times it is brought to your attention that your conclusions based only on those incorrect interpretations are untrue you refuse to admit you are mistaken.

The article used a hypothetical scenario to demonstrate how the LLQ of the SRM-CE/MS method corresponds to a volume of EDTA-preserved blood so small, 1-3 nL, that it would be physically difficult to manipulate. It then spoke about how another method, the GC/MS/MS, demonstrated a comparable detection limit of 10 ng/sample, which corresponds to ~7 or 8 nL of EDTA-preserved blood. These comparisons were made to show how small a volume of EDTA-preserved blood these methods could detect; it was not about the concentration of EDTA in EDTA-preserved blood.

The article made it very clear that the concentration of EDTA in EDTA-preserved blood is about 1300 parts per million. It also made it very clear that EDTA may be found in a normal person in the amount of parts per billion.

Our discussions have been primarily about claims you have made that are untrue. The words that you don’t like were only used to describe your claims after you rejected reasonable explanations. I do read the other threads and if I find that I can contribute something to those discussions then I will respond.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

What is obvious is that you have made many mistaken interpretations about what the article said and no matter how many times it is brought to your attention that your conclusions based only on those incorrect interpretations are untrue you refuse to admit you are mistaken.

The article used a hypothetical scenario to demonstrate how the LLQ of the SRM-CE/MS method corresponds to a volume of EDTA-preserved blood so small, 1-3 nL, that it would be physically difficult to manipulate. It then spoke about how another method, the GC/MS/MS, demonstrated a comparable detection limit of 10 ng/sample, which corresponds to ~7 or 8 nL of EDTA-preserved blood. These comparisons were made to show how small a volume of EDTA-preserved blood these methods could detect; it was not about the concentration of EDTA in EDTA-preserved blood.

The article made it very clear that the concentration of EDTA in EDTA-preserved blood is about 1300 parts per million. It also made it very clear that EDTA may be found in a normal person in the amount of parts per billion.

Our discussions have been primarily about claims you have made that are untrue. The words that you don’t like were only used to describe your claims after you rejected reasonable explanations. I do read the other threads and if I find that I can contribute something to those discussions then I will respond.

bobaugust

If it means that I must sacrifice to keep the other threads, civil. cordial and respectful for the most part, then feel free to continue, imho, your erroneous, derogatory and inaccurate posts on this thread.

[William Anthony]

Dr. Lee gave a reasonable, logical, rational explanation for why the third test results indicated a small trace amount of EDTA in the two evidence stains and in Martz’s own non-preserved blood. An explanation that FBI chemists also believed caused the small trace contamination.

I’m curious William, since you say you believe in ghosts, do you also believe in creationism or intelligent design?

bobaugust

In the beginning there was God and the Word was with God.

[William Anthony]

Your claim that preserved blood contains a concentration of EDTA in 15 parts per billion is untrue based only on your mistaken interpretation of what you interpret the article said. Neither the article or any other source of information ever said the concentration of EDTA in EDTA-preserved blood is anything other than 1000 to 2000 parts per million.


bobaugust

Blah, blah, blah.

[William Anthony]

The socks were not missing. Martz’s test results had nothing to do with the collection of Simpson’s socks. Martz didn’t manipulate the tests to come up with his results. Martz’s test results had nothing to do with what the EPA later told him.

You can’t even answer a simple question because your argument is nothing but pure nonsense.

The defense theory that Nicole’s blood was planted on Simpson’s sock from Nicole’s autopsy sample sometime after the socks were collected was proven false. Degradation comparisons proved it was impossible for Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock to have come from her autopsy sample.

bobaugust

Blah, blah, blah.

[bobaugust]

If it means that I must sacrifice to keep the other threads, civil. cordial and respectful for the most part, then feel free to continue, imho, your erroneous, derogatory and inaccurate posts on this thread.

I don’t know what you think you’re sacrificing but based on the many incorrect interpretations and untrue claims you’ve made your opinions have very little credibility.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

In the beginning there was God and the Word was with God.

I guess my question was too tough for you to answer or you’re just not capable of answering a simple question with a simple answer. If you’re not comfortable answering my question just say so.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I don’t know what you think you’re sacrificing but based on the many incorrect interpretations and untrue claims you’ve made your opinions have very little credibility.

bobaugust

Oh, those arrows sting or are they mosquitoe bites?;):cool:

[William Anthony]

I guess my question was too tough for you to answer or you’re just not capable of answering a simple question with a simple answer. If you’re not comfortable answering my question just say so.

bobaugust

Perhaps, it is just like the article-you just don't understand what you read. ;):cool:

[bobaugust]

Oh, those arrows sting or are they mosquitoe bites?;):cool:

The truth can sometimes hurt.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Perhaps, it is just like the article-you just don't understand what you read. ;):cool:

I understand what I read but I asked you a specific question to which your answer was not very clear. Let me ask it this way. Which of these do you believe in, creationism, intelligent design, or evolution? If you don’t feel comfortable answering this question then just say so.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The truth can sometimes hurt.

bobaugust

I guess that's why your words are just pesky. ;):cool:

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;9129332]I understand what I read but I asked you a specific question to which your answer was not very clear. Let me ask it this way. Which of these do you believe in, creationism, intelligent design, or evolution? If you don’t feel comfortable answering this question then just say so.

bobaugust[/QUOTE

God said let there be light and there was light. Come out of the cave-join Plato and me on our mission. It's so slow that I must go.

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;9129332]I understand what I read but I asked you a specific question to which your answer was not very clear. Let me ask it this way. Which of these do you believe in, creationism, intelligent design, or evolution? If you don’t feel comfortable answering this question then just say so.

bobaugust[/QUOTE

God said let there be light and there was light. Come out of the cave-join Plato and me on our mission. It's so slow that I must go.

Evidently you haven’t the courage of your beliefs to answer my question.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

God said let there be light and there was light. Come out of the cave-join Plato and me on our mission. It's so slow that I must go.

Evidently you haven’t the courage of your beliefs to answer my question.

bobaugust

[limakey]

Limakey, what makes you think that the degradation of the collected blood was due entirely from being in the crime lab van?

It sounds reasonable to me that Simpson left his blood on his socks when he took them off.

We know that the results of the first two tests Martz conducted there was no indication of any EDTA in the two evidence stains. We know that the small trace contamination of EDTA that the third test results indicated was too large to have been in human blood, 1000 times more. We also know that trace amount of EDTA did come from the reference samples since the reference samples contained a concentration of EDTA 1000 times more. So where did the trace amount come from? Martz suspected it might have been from an artifact in the instrument. Dr. Terry Lee believed it was from an artifact in the instrument most likely a carryover contamination. “FBI chemists now believe that the EDTA detected may have been injection carryover in the LC/MS/MS) instrumentation because a water blank instead of a matrix blank had been run before the sample.”

If you have another reasonable explanation please offer it.

bobaugust


Mr. August,

The DA's tried to say that the low count of DNA found in the drops at Bundy was because they cooked inside the truck. That was the reason they gave when the DNA counts were not only signficantly different but also why the blood drop found on the gate was so high.

I am sure it sounds reasonable to you that Simipson got blood on the socks when he took them but that is not the only way it could have happened.

In regards to Martz, simple, the DA's never called him as their witness. He was sent a letter by the DA's to refute the claims of the defense. They did not call him. He said he was an expert in this field, yet he was not. Or he was an expert and knew what tests to do that would taint the results. At the very least, make his testimony so muddy that nobody would ever truly know the results.

What was the artifact that skewed the results? Again, it was only their opinon in regards to the artifact. Did they say it was 90% or was it more like 50-50. 50% chance that it was an artifact and 50% it was planted? Where is the math on this?

In regards to the socks---what is the big deal about when they were collected and why they weren't on the video tape? This would not have mattered if the state's expert used their own common sense.

One last thought, how do we know that the socks were not checked with the proper lighting or equipment that will detective blood that is not visable to the naked eye? Perhaps that is why the socks were not big deal--until weeks later. IMO.

[limakey]

The missing socks explains what was happening to them and why Martz obtained the results he did and then had to manipulate/test them and came up with the results he did based on his erroneous interpretation of what the EPA representative told him.


William,

Here is a thought, maybe Martz did understand the interperpetation of what the EPA rep told him---and that is when he knew he had to do something to cast doubt on this results.

IMO, Martz's testimony is just like that of the Nurse's---the DA's job was to at leat give the impression that neither man really knew what they were doing. Like Goldberg's book says, the nurse didn't know how much blood he drew so he could work with that.

Also, doesn't it only make sense that the DA's would have shopped for a EDTA expert? Why pick an agent who does not have a clean past?

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

The DA's tried to say that the low count of DNA found in the drops at Bundy was because they cooked inside the truck. That was the reason they gave when the DNA counts were not only signficantly different but also why the blood drop found on the gate was so high.

I am sure it sounds reasonable to you that Simipson got blood on the socks when he took them but that is not the only way it could have happened.

In regards to Martz, simple, the DA's never called him as their witness. He was sent a letter by the DA's to refute the claims of the defense. They did not call him. He said he was an expert in this field, yet he was not. Or he was an expert and knew what tests to do that would taint the results. At the very least, make his testimony so muddy that nobody would ever truly know the results.

What was the artifact that skewed the results? Again, it was only their opinon in regards to the artifact. Did they say it was 90% or was it more like 50-50. 50% chance that it was an artifact and 50% it was planted? Where is the math on this?

In regards to the socks---what is the big deal about when they were collected and why they weren't on the video tape? This would not have mattered if the state's expert used their own common sense.

One last thought, how do we know that the socks were not checked with the proper lighting or equipment that will detective blood that is not visable to the naked eye? Perhaps that is why the socks were not big deal--until weeks later. IMO.

Limakey, I agree that the blood evidence sitting in the back of the van with no air conditioning contributed to the degradation but it wasn’t the only thing that caused it The different surfaces the blood drops were found on also accounted for the difference in degrading. A porous cement walkway compared to the painted metal rear gate.

Yes it does sound reasonable to me that Simpson transferred his blood to his socks when he took he socks off. What other way do you find reasonable?

Martz was an expert in testing for EDTA at that time, he just didn’t have as much experience using the LCESMSMS instruments as Dr. Lee and other research scientist did in the years following the criminal trial. And evidently neither did Dr. Rieders the defense expert. But Martz was clear about one thing, because the trace amount of EDTA that was indicated in the third test results was 1000 times smaller than the concentration of EDTA in the reference samples that meant the evidence stains could not have come from the reference samples. Martz suspected it was contamination from an artifact in the instrument and later Dr. Lee explained that after reviewing Martz’s work that is exactly what he believed happened. FBI chemists later came to the same conclusion.

I posted this for you before but here it is again,
January 16, 1996 Dr. Terry Lee

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 argument that the socks were not there when the bedroom was videotaped doesn’t make any sense. The defense used a tactic of pointing out every little bookkeeping error they could find and they found a discrepancy between the time Fung estimated when he collected the socks, something that he never recorded nor was he obligated to record, and the time the video camera showed the video of Simpson’s bedroom was taken. It turned out that the time of day on the video camera was over an hour off and Fung’s time estimates were just not correct. Ford testified that he intentionally waited until Fung had completed his work and left the bedroom before he took the video tape. That’s why the socks were not shown in the video. But that had nothing to do with the defense theory that Nicole’s blood was planted on the socks from Nicole’s autopsy sample sometime later after the socks were collected. That theory was proved false when degradation comparisons proved that it was impossible for Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock to have come from her autopsy sample. Her blood was fresh blood when it splattered or splashed on Simpson’s sock.

The socks were inventoried along with the other evidence and no visible blood was seen on them, so they were marked to have a search for blood later conducted. There was a huge amount of evidence in this case and the socks had a low priority so they sat until Greg Matheson got to them three months later and when he used high intensity lighting to examine them he saw the dark stains on the dark colored socks.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

William,

Here is a thought, maybe Martz did understand the interperpetation of what the EPA rep told him---and that is when he knew he had to do something to cast doubt on this results.

IMO, Martz's testimony is just like that of the Nurse's---the DA's job was to at leat give the impression that neither man really knew what they were doing. Like Goldberg's book says, the nurse didn't know how much blood he drew so he could work with that.

Also, doesn't it only make sense that the DA's would have shopped for a EDTA expert? Why pick an agent who does not have a clean past?

Limakey, I’m sorry but I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. William argues what he imagined what the EPA told Martz when in fact Martz testified what they told him. Martz testified that “In talking to EPA, they claim that it's a thousand parts per million is what it's supposed to be. So I did some further research, and it ended up that was solely based on some studies to determine how much EDTA was needed to preserve blood. It had absolutely nothing at all what to do with the amount that would be expected in a person or could be toxic to a person.”

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

William,

Here is a thought, maybe Martz did understand the interperpetation of what the EPA rep told him---and that is when he knew he had to do something to cast doubt on this results.

IMO, Martz's testimony is just like that of the Nurse's---the DA's job was to at leat give the impression that neither man really knew what they were doing. Like Goldberg's book says, the nurse didn't know how much blood he drew so he could work with that.

Also, doesn't it only make sense that the DA's would have shopped for a EDTA expert? Why pick an agent who does not have a clean past?

That is what the blanks in his testimony represent to me. I think he realized it as he was testifying. He then tried to change what he eventually understood but his results were already in evidence (too late). I thought that someone would realize what I was saying. Thank you.

[William Anthony]

Evidently you haven’t the courage of your beliefs to answer my question.

bobaugust

That seems to be your problem, imho. You are not able to understand unless something is said to specifically and you have a problem adding ten and ten, imho. The Bible says that before one Word shall fail, heaven and earth shall pass away.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9129339]

Evidently you haven’t the courage of your beliefs to answer my question.

bobaugust

:read::read::read::read:

[bobaugust]

That seems to be your problem, imho. You are not able to understand unless something is said to specifically and you have a problem adding ten and ten, imho. The Bible says that before one Word shall fail, heaven and earth shall pass away.

Here we go again; all you do is argue just to argue. This has nothing to do with me William; it has to do with you and your inability or refusal to give a clear answer to a simple question.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Here we go again; all you do is argue just to argue. This has nothing to do with me William; it has to do with you and your inability or refusal to give a clear answer to a simple question.

bobaugust

Its like Dr. H. told you don't make it harder than it is. Maybe, that is why you can't understand? ;):cool:

[bobaugust]

Its like Dr. H. told you don't make it harder than it is. Maybe, that is why you can't understand? ;):cool:

What I assume from your responses is that you do believe in creationism or intelligent design and not in evolution and you’re too embarrassed to admit it, or you’re deliberately trying to be ambiguous.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

What I assume from your responses is that you do believe in creationism or intelligent design and not in evolution and you’re too embarrassed to admit it, or you’re deliberately trying to be ambiguous.

bobaugust

Eureka, I think you have got it! I am never too embarrassed to admit my belief in and love for God. I am embarrassed to admit that I have not fully devoted my life to him and that I don't always do his will.

[bobaugust]

Eureka, I think you have got it! I am never too embarrassed to admit my belief in and love for God. I am embarrassed to admit that I have not fully devoted my life to him and that I don't always do his will.

I see, you are not too embarrassed to admit to your belief in and love for God you’re just too embarrassed to admit that you do not believe in evolution. Thank you that clears up a lot questions I’ve had about you saying what you find to be reasonable.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I see, you are not too embarrassed to admit to your belief in and love for God you’re just too embarrassed to admit that you do not believe in evolution. Thank you that clears up a lot questions I’ve had about you saying what you find to be reasonable.

bobaugust

No, you don't understand me at all. If you want to believe that your ancestors were apes or a one-celled organism, then you have that right, rather than to believe that God in his infinite wisdom made man in his own image and chose the region of the Earth known as Africa to be mankind's birthplace. However, not one word of the Bible has failed but scientific theories do. ;):cool:

[bobaugust]

No, you don't understand me at all. If you want to believe that your ancestors were apes or a one-celled organism, then you have that right, rather than to believe that God in his infinite wisdom made man in his own image and chose the region of the Earth known as Africa to be mankind's birthplace. However, not one word of the Bible has failed but scientific theories do. ;):cool:

No, I now perfectly understand you and why you think the way you do, Thank you.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

No, I now perfectly understand you and why you think the way you do, Thank you.

bobaugust

You are welcome and I have long ago understood the reasons you think the way you do. ;):cool:

[WarmNCozy]

gene -- National Geographic I think 2007 or maybe 2006 stated this to be a fact! To believe in God and Evolution are one and the same! Just because the Bible of those primitive people who put it down in writing to explain their existence does not put into question the existence of God. 7 days to them was 7 days -- to us it was 7 million, 50 million, whatever. Our evolution has given us much more scientific knowledge than the writings of the bible. But with our knowledge, we still believe in God! And how he chose to create us was up to him, not us! I think we are still evolving with his Grace!

[William Anthony]

gene -- National Geographic I think 2007 or maybe 2006 stated this to be a fact! To believe in God and Evolution are one and the same! Just because the Bible of those primitive people who put it down in writing to explain their existence does not put into question the existence of God. 7 days to them was 7 days -- to us it was 7 million, 50 million, whatever. Our evolution has given us much more scientific knowledge than the writings of the bible. But with our knowledge, we still believe in God! And how he chose to create us was up to him, not us! I think we are still evolving with his Grace!

The Bible says one day with God is like a thousand years. To them that have ears, let them hear.

[weezer]

Defining mitochondrial ancestors
"Let's get back to "Eve." The ancestor referred to in the 1987 Nature article can be more precisely stated as "the most recent common ancestor through matrilineal descent of all humans living today." In other words, she is the most recent person from whom everyone now living on Earth has inherited his or her mtDNA. This certainly does not mean that she is the ancestral mother of all who came after her; during her time and even before her time there were many women and men who contributed to the nuclear genes we now carry. (To see how this can be, check out Tracing Ancestry.) It also does not mean that the mtDNA originated with this "Eve"; she and her contemporaries also had their own "most recent common ancestor though matrilineal descent," a woman who lived even further into the past who passed on her mtDNA to everyone living during "Eve's" time. (We get our mtDNA from that same, older ancestor. She's just not, to us, the most recent common ancestor.)

So what about all of the mtDNA of the other women who lived during "Eve's" time? What happened to it? Simply this: Somewhere between now and then, they had female descendants who had only sons (or no children). When this happened, the passing on of their mtDNA halted."

[limakey]

Mr. August,

You are stating expert's opinons as the absolute and only truth and that is just not right. Did Martz say that he was 90% sure the EDTA was from contamination? Dr. Lee did not do his own tests. He should have conducted his own tests and compared them to Martz's. Martz said he was an expert, he was not and he was called out by the FBI on this.

IMO, it is not reasonable to believe that Simpson himself desposited his blood on the socks when taking them off. The blood did bleed through to three sides, the defense had a solid witness on regarding to blood being splashed vs "pressed" on. The DA's only had the response that Nicole reached up and grabbed his ankle. There is no other blood in Simpson's room, if he was still dripping blood, why none on the rug? The bed?

However, even giving your theory, that is not the only way this could have happened.

[William Anthony]

Eve is the oldest known human being known to have lived. King Solomon said, I am comely, I am Black." When God was seen in the burning bush, He was depicted as having hair like wool, eyes the color of fire, and feet of bronze. Scientific theory cannot debunk truth, no mater how hard it tries. In the end, it only serves to prove that truth. The truth is that Eve is the oldest known human. I keep hearing footsteps in the dark.

[William Anthony]

Mr. August,

You are stating expert's opinons as the absolute and only truth and that is just not right. Did Martz say that he was 90% sure the EDTA was from contamination? Dr. Lee did not do his own tests. He should have conducted his own tests and compared them to Martz's. Martz said he was an expert, he was not and he was called out by the FBI on this.

IMO, it is not reasonable to believe that Simpson himself desposited his blood on the socks when taking them off. The blood did bleed through to three sides, the defense had a solid witness on regarding to blood being splashed vs "pressed" on. The DA's only had the response that Nicole reached up and grabbed his ankle. There is no other blood in Simpson's room, if he was still dripping blood, why none on the rug? The bed?

However, even giving your theory, that is not the only way this could have happened.

You have a solid grasp of the concept of reasonable doubt and other things, imho.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

You are stating expert's opinons as the absolute and only truth and that is just not right. Did Martz say that he was 90% sure the EDTA was from contamination? Dr. Lee did not do his own tests. He should have conducted his own tests and compared them to Martz's. Martz said he was an expert, he was not and he was called out by the FBI on this.

IMO, it is not reasonable to believe that Simpson himself desposited his blood on the socks when taking them off. The blood did bleed through to three sides, the defense had a solid witness on regarding to blood being splashed vs "pressed" on. The DA's only had the response that Nicole reached up and grabbed his ankle. There is no other blood in Simpson's room, if he was still dripping blood, why none on the rug? The bed?

However, even giving your theory, that is not the only way this could have happened.

Limakey, I’ve never said that Martz’s opinions were the absolute truth, what I said was the explanation for the small contamination that was indicated in the third test results in the two evidence stains and Martz’s own non-preserved blood is a reasonable, rational, logical explanation for how that contamination occurred. What is a fact is that based on the first two tests Martz conducted there was no indication of any EDTA in the two evidence stains and Martz easily concluded that the two evidence stains did not come from the preserved blood reference samples. Based on the fact that a small contamination of EDTA indicated in the third test results was 1000 times smaller than the concentration of EDTA in the preserved blood reference samples did not change Martz’s conclusion.

Photographic evidence and degradation evidence later proved Martz’s conclusions correct.

The evidence is that Simpson was cut and bleeding the night of the murders. The fact is that he left his blood at Bundy, in his Bronco, on his driveway, and on his foyer floor, so what makes you think it would be unusual that he also left his blood on his sock? Simpson most likely became aware of cut on his finger sometime after he entered his house and was rushing to get ready for his trip to Chicago, but it wasn’t until he returned from Chicago and was interviewed by the police that he realized he dripped blood everywhere he went after the murders. If you think you have a more reasonable explanation for Simpson’s blood found on his sock then the simple explanation that he transferred it to his sock when he took his sock off then by all means let’s hear it and what you use to support it.

In the criminal trial Hank Goldberg questioned Dr. Henry Lee regarding the microscopic stains on Simpson’s sock and Dr. Lee agreed there was a more logical, rational explanation for how blood got from one side of the sock to the other.

The Prosecution Responds, Hank Goldberg
"The defense contended that no one was wearing the socks when Nicole's blood was splashed on them.

This theory had been expounded by Dr. Herbert MacDonell. He had testified that Nicole's bloodstain had penetrated one side of Simpson's sock and had transferred to the other side. The defense theorized that this could not have happened if someone had been wearing the socks at the time because blood cannot go through someone's ankle. They claimed that the idea that no one was wearing the socks when the blood was deposited on them supported their planting theory. The implication was that someone deposited Nicole's blood while the socks were lying flat on a table. Interestingly the stain that would have traveled through the wearer's ankle was only a microscopic speck.

I easily dispatched this issue with Dr. Lee. I asked him whether the microscopic stain could have been caused if the socks were inside out and the toe of the sock was touching the ankle. I knew from photographs that this was, indeed, how the socks were recovered. However the defense only provided Dr. Lee with second generation photographs. From his photographs of the socks, he would not been able to see that the socks were recovered in this condition. I asked Dr. Lee whether this could account for the questioned microscopic stain.

"I cannot rule out," he replied. (emphasis added)
"The scenario that I just gave you?" I asked.
"Yes," he replied.

After Dr. Lee admitted that my scenario could account for the questioned stain, I produced my photograph. It clearly showed that the scenario I outlined to Dr. Lee was, in fact, what had happened. The socks were collected inside out, with the toe touching the ankle, showing how blood got from one side of the sock to the other.

I also elicited evidence from the forensic science literature that a single drop of blood on nylon material could take from seventy five minutes to nine hours to dry. The socks were nylon. Therefore, the blood could also have transferred from one side to the other after Simpson returned to Rockingham and took his socks off.

In short, Dr Lee's testimony showed logical, rational explanations for how blood got from one side of the sock to the other."

bobaugust

[WarmNCozy]

This case was so long, so technical, so complicated. It was 13 years ago and although I watched and read everything I could,when I could as I work, the jury didn't have that luxury. They had to sit in that box day after day, taking notes, being as objective as possible as a human being can be, every piece of evidence and transcripts put under a magnifying glass, deliberating, deliberating, deliberating!

They found OJ NOT GUILTY!

[martin II]

This case was so long, so technical, so complicated. It was 13 years ago and although I watched and read everything I could,when I could as I work, the jury didn't have that luxury. They had to sit in that box day after day, taking notes, being as objective as possible as a human being can be, every piece of evidence and transcripts put under a magnifying glass, deliberating, deliberating, deliberating!

They found OJ NOT GUILTY!

That jury stated that they sat in that trial for 9 mo and it was not necessary for them to deliberate another 9 mon to understand what they already knew and that was the prosecution failed to prove their case.

[weezer]

That jury stated that they sat in that trial for 9 mo and it was not necessary for them to deliberate another 9 mon to understand what they already knew and that was the prosecution failed to prove their case.

then they didn't follow the rules of the court -- they were NOT to deliberate -- they were NOT to come to ANY conclusion until they had heard ALL of the evidence and the case was given to them for deliberation. but since they did not consider the violence between orenthal and Nicole leading up to this, since they could/did not consider the DNA evidence, and since they had their own agenda, the trial became their verdict on LE and had nothing to do with murder. imo

[WarmNCozy]

then they didn't follow the rules of the court -- they were NOT to deliberate -- they were NOT to come to ANY conclusion until they had heard ALL of the evidence and the case was given to them for deliberation. but since they did not consider the violence between orenthal and Nicole leading up to this, since they could/did not consider the DNA evidence, and since they had their own agenda, the trial became their verdict on LE and had nothing to do with murder. imo

He pleaded "NO CONTEST" to the abuse of Nicole! He had a temper and took it out on her! Why didn't she just leave? Maybe she liked being the wife of OJ Simpson that she dropped the charges to send him to jail!

[weezer]

He pleaded "NO CONTEST" to the abuse of Nicole! He had a temper and took it out on her! Why didn't she just leave? Maybe she liked being the wife of OJ Simpson that she dropped the charges to send him to jail!

wow -- I guess she could have but fought to live instead. I understand that some people don't.

BTW -- she didn't 'drop' the charges.

[martin II]

then they didn't follow the rules of the court -- they were NOT to deliberate -- they were NOT to come to ANY conclusion until they had heard ALL of the evidence and the case was given to them for deliberation. but since they did not consider the violence between orenthal and Nicole leading up to this, since they could/did not consider the DNA evidence, and since they had their own agenda, the trial became their verdict on LE and had nothing to do with murder. imo

No juror stated that they deliberated until after the jurge gave them the law and official deliberaitons started.

[martin II]

wow -- I guess she could have but fought to live instead. I understand that some people don't.

BTW -- she didn't 'drop' the charges.


I am not sure nicole ever wanted to leave oj.

At the divoice what did she do, moved a few blocks from him.

[weezer]

I am not sure nicole ever wanted to leave oj.

At the divoice what did she do, moved a few blocks from him.

she divorced him -- fini

[martin II]

she divorced him -- fini

I think she divoiced him for the financial support he gave her.It did not seem that she wanted to 'GET AWAY' from him as she only moved a few blocks as i have already stated. Seems like she wanted to get a big cash haul and still be close enough to still be involved. Like eating her cake and still having it.
imo

[weezer]

I think she divoiced him for the financial support he gave her.It did not seem that she wanted to 'GET AWAY' from him as she only moved a few blocks as i have already stated. Seems like she wanted to get a big cash haul and still be close enough to still be involved. Like eating her cake and still having it.
imo

I think she divorced him because he was a batterer. In fact, that's what her diary and pictures say. Maybe someone else can explain to you why a person 'can't' leave their abuser. The facts are: Nicole divorced orenthal and at the time of her death, she told friends and family that she was afraid of him. During this same time period, Nicole had found a place far away from her abuser -- maybe that was one of the pieces to his deciding to murder her.

[William Anthony]

Any jury is free to dismiss any evidence that they feel is not important to their deliberations and since he was not on trial for spousal abuse they may well have shown their sophistication and understanding of the law, if they did not consider that evidence or thought it was irrelevant. It seems to me that the evidence supports a conclusion that they took their oath to heart and held the prosecution to its burden of proof.

[William Anthony]

bobaugust,

Since you have asked me a question totally unrelated to the case, might I ask you one related to the case? There have been many cases in which we believe the guilty have been acquitted, what is it about this particular case that has caused you to devote so much of your time to showing Simpson guilty?

[William Anthony]

bobaugust,

Since you have asked me a question totally unrelated to the case, might I ask you one related to the case? There have been many cases in which we believe the guilty have been acquitted, what is it about this particular case that has caused you to devote so much of your time to showing Simpson guilty?

[William Anthony]

Just as the jury in the armed robbery trial was able to dismiss the testimony of the witnesses from their deliberations, so was the criminal jury able to dismiss the evidence of spousal abuse from their deliberations. While the criminal jury may have been on fimer ground for the exclusion due to the weak, imho, causual connection, it seems that the sufficiency of the collaborative evidence of the tapes in the armed robbery trial may become a germane issue to the verdict.

[William Anthony]

bobaugust,

I saw you lurking, to coin the word of others. What is wrong? Are you too embarrassed to answer the question?

[bobaugust]

bobaugust,

Since you have asked me a question totally unrelated to the case, might I ask you one related to the case? There have been many cases in which we believe the guilty have been acquitted, what is it about this particular case that has caused you to devote so much of your time to showing Simpson guilty?

I’ll give you the courtesy of an answer even though you never do the same for me. I and many of my friends watched the preliminary and the criminal trial on TV. We all started watching not believing Simpson was involved in these murders. We created many scenarios as to how someone else killed both Ron and Nicole, but as we learned more and more of the evidence every one of our scenarios failed. Eventually we were all convinced by the evidence that Simpson was the killer.

After the criminal trial we believed that there were many unanswered questions and we came to believed Simpson had an accomplice after the murders to help him dispose of his clothing, his shoes, and possibly the murder weapon. While watching one of the many TV magazine shows regarding the Simpson case I saw a retired police officer speculate about an unknown witness based on Allan Park’s testimony that he saw two cars parked on Simpson’s driveway when Park arrived at Rockingham. I then put together an unknown accomplice theory using that testimony as well as the testimony regarding the fact that Simpson didn’t set his house alarm when he left for the airport and it wasn’t set until about twenty minutes later after he called Kaelin and gave him the code to set the alarm, as well as Allan Park’s testimony seeing an unknown car parked outside to the right of the Rockingham gate when he left for the airport. I speculated that some unknown person was in Simpson’s house when Simpson returned from Bundy and left during that twenty minute window possibly taking incriminating evidence with him. I put my web site on the net in February 1997 after the civil trial verdict and featured the Unknown Accomplice Theory.

I then started reading all the transcripts and the many books that were being published by the key players in this case. When I read Petrocelli’s book I learned of the lies Arnelle Simpson told under oath and Petrocelli’s theory regarding the freshly washed clothing found in Simpson’s washing machine. I realized Allan Park was simply mistaken about seeing two cars parked in the driveway and that Arnelle Simpson may very well have been the unknown accomplice. I took the Unknown Accomplice Theory off my web site and replaced it with Petrocelli’s Accomplice theory as well as Arnelle Simpson’s Lies.

As more and more people came across my web site I received many emails offering their opinions about the case. That’s how I first spoke with Dick Wagner as well as other authors of other theories which led me to the newsgroup where the Simpson case was being discussed daily by pro-j’s and no-j’s and then to other discussion groups including this one.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I’ll give you the courtesy of an answer even though you never do the same for me. I and many of my friends watched the preliminary and the criminal trial on TV. We all started watching not believing Simpson was involved in these murders. We created many scenarios as to how someone else killed both Ron and Nicole, but as we learned more and more of the evidence every one of our scenarios failed. Eventually we were all convinced by the evidence that Simpson was the killer.

After the criminal trial we believed that there were many unanswered questions and we came to believed Simpson had an accomplice after the murders to help him dispose of his clothing, his shoes, and possibly the murder weapon. While watching one of the many TV magazine shows regarding the Simpson case I saw a retired police officer speculate about an unknown witness based on Allan Park’s testimony that he saw two cars parked on Simpson’s driveway when Park arrived at Rockingham. I then put together an unknown accomplice theory using that testimony as well as the testimony regarding the fact that Simpson didn’t set his house alarm when he left for the airport and it wasn’t set until about twenty minutes later after he called Kaelin and gave him the code to set the alarm, as well as Allan Park’s testimony seeing an unknown car parked outside to the right of the Rockingham gate when he left for the airport. I speculated that some unknown person was in Simpson’s house when Simpson returned from Bundy and left during that twenty minute window possibly taking incriminating evidence with him. I put my web site on the net in February 1997 after the civil trial verdict and featured the Unknown Accomplice Theory.

I then started reading all the transcripts and the many books that were being published by the key players in this case. When I read Petrocelli’s book I learned of the lies Arnelle Simpson told under oath and Petrocelli’s theory regarding the freshly washed clothing found in Simpson’s washing machine. I realized Allan Park was simply mistaken about seeing two cars parked in the driveway and that Arnelle Simpson may very well have been the unknown accomplice. I took the Unknown Accomplice Theory off my web site and replaced it with Petrocelli’s Accomplice theory as well as Arnelle Simpson’s Lies.

As more and more people came across my web site I received many emails offering their opinions about the case. That’s how I first spoke with Dick Wagner as well as other authors of other theories which led me to the newsgroup where the Simpson case was being discussed daily by pro-j’s and no-j’s and then to other discussion groups including this one.

bobaugust

I beg to differ in that I have answered mostly all your questions. Perhaps, not in the manner that you liked. I chose not to answer one question that I thought was personal, which was not the question on creation. It must have taken you some time to provide this, which I think is a non-answer. Nevertheless, I respect the time you devoted to it. You have given me a history of your interest in the case, but you have not answered the question as to what it is about this particular case that has caused you to devote so much of your time in trying to prove Simpson guilty. In short what intrigues you so much about this particular case, given that others have been acquitted that many think guilty and you have not devoted so much time to those cases. What I am asking is for the specifics about why and what caused you to become so devoted to this case. I will answer for myself. I first became interested, because of Simpson's fame. I then followed when I saw JC immediately take command of the court room and be so respected. I listened to the arguments and the evidence and I have always been passionate about equality and the law. It was then that I decided to follow the case and saw the law as a way for me to make a change in society and in some way serve the better good. I know that the mention of JC infuriates some, but I saw him as a highly skilled attorney giving his client the best defense possible and, in so doing brought issues that were spoken about in some neighborhoods in quiet talks and unheard or not acted upon screams in others to the forefront.

[limakey]

I think she divoiced him for the financial support he gave her.It did not seem that she wanted to 'GET AWAY' from him as she only moved a few blocks as i have already stated. Seems like she wanted to get a big cash haul and still be close enough to still be involved. Like eating her cake and still having it.
imo

Martin,

OJ divorced Nicole, if I remember correctly. She wanted a separation and OJ told her if she wants a separation, then he will file for divorce.

[tv]

Martin,

OJ divorced Nicole, if I remember correctly. She wanted a separation and OJ told her if she wants a separation, then he will file for divorce.
limakey, you are mistaken. Nicole filed for divorce on February 25, 1992 citing an "abusive relationship" and the divorce was granted on October 15, 1992.

[bobaugust]

I beg to differ in that I have answered mostly all your questions. Perhaps, not in the manner that you liked. I chose not to answer one question that I thought was personal, which was not the question on creation. It must have taken you some time to provide this, which I think is a non-answer. Nevertheless, I respect the time you devoted to it. You have given me a history of your interest in the case, but you have not answered the question as to what it is about this particular case that has caused you to devote so much of your time in trying to prove Simpson guilty. In short what intrigues you so much about this particular case, given that others have been acquitted that many think guilty and you have not devoted so much time to those cases. What I am asking is for the specifics about why and what caused you to become so devoted to this case. I will answer for myself. I first became interested, because of Simpson's fame. I then followed when I saw JC immediately take command of the court room and be so respected. I listened to the arguments and the evidence and I have always been passionate about equality and the law. It was then that I decided to follow the case and saw the law as a way for me to make a change in society and in some way serve the better good. I know that the mention of JC infuriates some, but I saw him as a highly skilled attorney giving his client the best defense possible and, in so doing brought issues that were spoken about in some neighborhoods in quiet talks and unheard or not acted upon screams in others to the forefront.

Unlike the question I asked you that could have been easily answered with a one word answer, the question you asked me needed more of an explanation. And yes there have been many questions I’ve asked you during our discussions that you simply ignored.

My previous answer was to your question, “what is it about this particular case that has caused you to devote so much of your time?” As to showing Simpson guilty, most of the time I’ve spent discussing this case has been to correct all the false and misinformation that was being posted on discussion groups regarding the evidence and the testimony in this case.

The Simpson case was unique in that it was televised from the preliminary hearing through the criminal trial. The defense attorneys as well as the prosecutors and Judge Ito all played to the cameras. Cochran was just better at performing than all the others.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Unlike the question I asked you that could have been easily answered with a one word answer, the question you asked me needed more of an explanation. And yes there have been many questions I’ve asked you during our discussions that you simply ignored.

My previous answer was to your question, “what is it about this particular case that has caused you to devote so much of your time?” As to showing Simpson guilty, most of the time I’ve spent discussing this case has been to correct all the false and misinformation that was being posted on discussion groups regarding the evidence and the testimony in this case.

The Simpson case was unique in that it was televised from the preliminary hearing through the criminal trial. The defense attorneys as well as the prosecutors and Judge Ito all played to the cameras. Cochran was just better at performing than all the others.

bobaugust

I am not trying to be argumentative. The question is what is it about this particular case, not why you devoted your time. What is it that made you want to correct what you call false and misinformation? There had to be something about this case that caused you to want to correct the above mentioned. What was it? Be honest. I remember the trial of a cross dresser, who, IIRC, was related to the Dupont's and murdered and decapitated his neighbor but was set free, which was televised. The case involved homosexuality, which only tangentially interested me, if they do not receive equal rights. The Simpson trial brought inequality to the forefront, which interests me highly, which is why I joined this board after seeing the derogatory remarks made about the jury verdict and the jurors. Was it your interest in equality, that caused you to devote your time? If it was an interest in justice, there are several cases to which you could have devoted your time, such as the cases of the wrongly convicted of murder and corrected the false and misinformation about those cases. There are several famous people or people who became famous after their murder trials. What is it about this particular trial that makes you want to devote so much of your life to showing him guilty-not why you wanted to correct false and misinformation but what is it about this particular trial that made you want to correct false and misinformation and have not done so for others. It will not upset me, if you answer honestly and completely.

[Redmama]

I am not sure nicole ever wanted to leave oj.

At the divoice what did she do, moved a few blocks from him.

Unless you were her, you don't know what she wanted to do. Nobody does. I went through this...maybe in a less way - I can tell you I never had bruises like I've seen pictures of her, but I was pushed around enough to make it stupid to stay. But then, I would go back - our daughter was small - things don't seem as bad when you are away from living it. I wanted my baby to grow up with both her parents and my ex was SO sweet when I wasn't living with him. It took me 4 times leaving - over a 5 year period - I kept believing things would change...even wrote letters saying how I wanted things to work out - my letters would go back in time - to how things were at first. My relationship was a bit physical (not that there is such a thing), but mostly just a control issue (I wasn't even to touch the thermostat) -as SOON as I would return, I would understand very quickly why I left. This was 20 years ago. I still have dreams that I go back again - the same feelings are there - really strong - saying to myself how stupid I am to go back again - I usually feel that same feeling for more than a day - I have a literal panic attack in my sleep...just thinking oh gosh why did I do this...AGAIN...geesh how stupid could I be...but then I open my eyes and see my current husband laying next to me and thank the Lord that it was just a dream.

No one wants to leave when you have a great lifestyle - and I had moments when I wrote or said stupid things about working things out. But it is just a moment and had absolutely nothing to do what I knew in my heart I had to do.

I also moved relatively close to where he lived everytime, until the last time when I moved 900 miles away. Best thing I ever did in my life, but looking into my daughters eyes and worrying if I was doing the right thing ate me alive for a very long time. On a positive note, except for a few issues, my ex and I have learned over time to put first things first and have raised an absolutely beautiful daughter - because it happened when she is 5 - and she is now 21 - she even laughs about not being able to imagine me and her Father together - she knows how different we are and loves us both.

Sorry for the novel here, I just think it is wrong to expect that we can read the minds of others. Nicole was a battered woman that none of us know why she did what she did...or didn't do.

[bobaugust]

I am not trying to be argumentative. The question is what is it about this particular case, not why you devoted your time. What is it that made you want to correct what you call false and misinformation? There had to be something about this case that caused you to want to correct the above mentioned. What was it? Be honest. I remember the trial of a cross dresser, who, IIRC, was related to the Dupont's and murdered and decapitated his neighbor but was set free, which was televised. The case involved homosexuality, which only tangentially interested me, if they do not receive equal rights. The Simpson trial brought inequality to the forefront, which interests me highly, which is why I joined this board after seeing the derogatory remarks made about the jury verdict and the jurors. Was it your interest in equality, that caused you to devote your time? If it was an interest in justice, there are several cases to which you could have devoted your time, such as the cases of the wrongly convicted of murder and corrected the false and misinformation about those cases. There are several famous people or people who became famous after their murder trials. What is it about this particular trial that makes you want to devote so much of your life to showing him guilty-not why you wanted to correct false and misinformation but what is it about this particular trial that made you want to correct false and misinformation and have not done so for others. It will not upset me, if you answer honestly and completely.

You say the Simpson case brought inequality to the forefront? What inequality? It seems to me that the Simpson case showed that a wealthy black man could get away with murder the same as a wealthy white man could. I already explained how and what led me to discussions about this case. My original motivation was to see how my accomplice theory would be received but after reading Petrocelli’s book and learning about the new evidence in the civil trial and Simpson’s many lies it was as obvious the majority of arguments being made in the many emails I received arguing Simpson’s innocence were based on false and misinformation, so I responded by correcting them. In the many discussion groups I was led to the same uninformed arguments were being made.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

You say the Simpson case brought inequality to the forefront? What inequality? It seems to me that the Simpson case showed that a wealthy black man could get away with murder the same as a wealthy white man could. I already explained how and what led me to discussions about this case. My original motivation was to see how my accomplice theory would be received but after reading Petrocelli’s book and learning about the new evidence in the civil trial and Simpson’s many lies it was as obvious the majority of arguments being made in the many emails I received arguing Simpson’s innocence were based on false and misinformation, so I responded by correcting them. In the many discussion groups I was led to the same uninformed arguments were being made.

bobaugust

You are not quite correct. Many poor Whites got away with murdering Blacks, and many Blacks were wrongly convicted of murdering Whites but that is not the specific inequality I was speaking of. I was speaking of the attitude of the authorities to both Blacks and Whites in certain neighborhoods, their arrests and treatment by the judicial system. The practice of gender discrimination was brought to the forefront. The concept of social stratification and the inequality and resulting stereotypes of class structure were brought to the forefront. To see those inequalities being dealt with and the chance to improve upon them is why I watched along with the other reasons previously mentioned. I understand why you took the actions you did after deciding to post an accomplice theory, which technically is an accessory theory. However, let's dispense with technicalities. The question is not why you did what you did but rather what was it about this particular case that caused you to come up with an accessory theory. It is obvious that you felt him guilty. Since you realize that rich Whites have gotten away with murder, why have you not devoted time to correcting false and misinformation or coming up with theories of how they might have gotten away with their crimes as you have done with this particular case. I don't believe you knew Simpson any better than you knew those rich White men. So, what things specifically motivated you to become so involved in this particular case?

[Redmama]

You are not quite correct. Many poor Whites got away with murdering Blacks, and many Blacks were wrongly convicted of murdering Whites but that is not the specific inequality I was speaking of. I was speaking of the attitude of the authorities to both Blacks and Whites in certain neighborhoods, their arrests and treatment by the judicial system. The practice of gender discrimination was brought to the forefront. The concept of social stratification and the inequality and resulting stereotypes of class structure were brought to the forefront. To see those inequalities being dealt with and the chance to improve upon them is why I watched along with the other reasons previously mentioned. I understand why you took the actions you did after deciding to post an accomplice theory, which technically is an accessory theory. However, let's dispense with technicalities. The question is not why you did what you did but rather what was it about this particular case that caused you to come up with an accessory theory. It is obvious that you felt him guilty. Since you realize that rich Whites have gotten away with murder, why have you not devoted time to correcting false and misinformation or coming up with theories of how they might have gotten away with their crimes as you have done with this particular case. I don't believe you knew Simpson any better than you knew those rich White men. So, what things specifically motivated you to become so involved in this particular case?

I am really interested in why you are so interested why bobaugust is interested in this trial. It seems he answered your question, but you continue to ask. Everyone has their own reason - in my case the reason changes - I think it is a positive - we all get to share our thoughts and we all get to learn a little something new. Whether someone has a reason, other than what is believed by others to be there reason, is a personal decision on their part on whether to share that or not.

[bobaugust]

You are not quite correct. Many poor Whites got away with murdering Blacks, and many Blacks were wrongly convicted of murdering Whites but that is not the specific inequality I was speaking of. I was speaking of the attitude of the authorities to both Blacks and Whites in certain neighborhoods, their arrests and treatment by the judicial system. The practice of gender discrimination was brought to the forefront. The concept of social stratification and the inequality and resulting stereotypes of class structure were brought to the forefront. To see those inequalities being dealt with and the chance to improve upon them is why I watched along with the other reasons previously mentioned. I understand why you took the actions you did after deciding to post an accomplice theory, which technically is an accessory theory. However, let's dispense with technicalities. The question is not why you did what you did but rather what was it about this particular case that caused you to come up with an accessory theory. It is obvious that you felt him guilty. Since you realize that rich Whites have gotten away with murder, why have you not devoted time to correcting false and misinformation or coming up with theories of how they might have gotten away with their crimes as you have done with this particular case. I don't believe you knew Simpson any better than you knew those rich White men. So, what things specifically motivated you to become so involved in this particular case?

The fact that Cochran tired to sway the jurors by using arguments regarding police attitudes in the black neighborhoods of LA was in my opinion completely irrelevant to the way OJ Simpson lived and was treated by LE before the murders. Simpson may have originally been from their neighborhood but he left it far behind him years before living a life that the African American jurors in the criminal trial had nothing in common with except for their race.

I’ve answered your question by explaining to you my original motivation and why I continue to discuss this particular case. If you feel my answer isn’t what you’re looking for so be it.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I am really interested in why you are so interested why bobaugust is interested in this trial. It seems he answered your question, but you continue to ask. Everyone has their own reason - in my case the reason changes - I think it is a positive - we all get to share our thoughts and we all get to learn a little something new. Whether someone has a reason, other than what is believed by others to be there reason, is a personal decision on their part on whether to share that or not.

You are quite right and it is just the lawyer in me. I saw nothing wrong with providing the answer to the question he asked me, even if he did not understand my answer until later. He has the choice not to answer the question or not. He posted that I was embarrassed to answer. If he is too embarrassed to answer, then he could have so stated or, if he did not want to answer honestly, or, if he did not understand the question, he could have so stated. Thank you for reminding me. The jury is able to see that an answer is unresponsive. I do tend to beat a dead horse to death. That's just the lawyer in me striving to come out and I apologize for rephrasing. How are you?

[William Anthony]

The fact that Cochran tired to sway the jurors by using arguments regarding police attitudes in the black neighborhoods of LA was in my opinion completely irrelevant to the way OJ Simpson lived and was treated by LE before the murders. Simpson may have originally been from their neighborhood but he left it far behind him years before living a life that the African American jurors in the criminal trial had nothing in common with except for their race.

I’ve answered your question by explaining to you my original motivation and why I continue to discuss this particular case. If you feel my answer isn’t what you’re looking for so be it.

bobaugust

I see that you really do not understand what the evidence was and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. The jurors are not asked to leave their common sense or experiences at home. The concept of police corruption and planting of evidence are things that are fairly common in some neighborhoods. The concept of falsifying documents and presenting perjured testimony and tainted evidence are common experiences in some neighborhoods. I appreciate your feelings on what Black Americans, not African Americans, do not have in common, even though I find your perspective somewhat suspect. What we do have in common is germane and what we have in come with Caucasian Americans is what is germane to drawing reasonable inferences as it relates to this case.

[William Anthony]

bobaugust,

After reading my first sentence in the above post, I realized that it could be taken wrong. What I intended to say is that it is clear to me that you may not have considered how others from certain neighborhoods may have viewed the evidence and drew inferences therefrom, which they thought were reasonable.

[William Anthony]

The fact that Cochran tired to sway the jurors by using arguments regarding police attitudes in the black neighborhoods of LA was in my opinion completely irrelevant to the way OJ Simpson lived and was treated by LE before the murders. Simpson may have originally been from their neighborhood but he left it far behind him years before living a life that the African American jurors in the criminal trial had nothing in common with except for their race.

I’ve answered your question by explaining to you my original motivation and why I continue to discuss this particular case. If you feel my answer isn’t what you’re looking for so be it.

bobaugust

I agree that the way LE treated Simpson before the murders is irrelevant. What is relevant is what they did doing the investigation. Do you remember a line from a song called the "Back stabbers"-"they smile in your face, all the time trying to take your place."? Some and even you have posted, implying that there was something wrong with Simpson's chosen lifestyle and that Blacks should for some reason feel hostility toward him for that choice. Without trying to be judgmental, it appears that those, who make that comment are some how hostile toward his choice. What I am getting at is that same sentiment may have been shared by police, be they Black or White, who smiled in his face waiting for the opportunity stab him in his back.

[Redmama]

You are quite right and it is just the lawyer in me. I saw nothing wrong with providing the answer to the question he asked me, even if he did not understand my answer until later. He has the choice not to answer the question or not. He posted that I was embarrassed to answer. If he is too embarrassed to answer, then he could have so stated or, if he did not want to answer honestly, or, if he did not understand the question, he could have so stated. Thank you for reminding me. The jury is able to see that an answer is unresponsive. I do tend to beat a dead horse to death. That's just the lawyer in me striving to come out and I apologize for rephrasing. How are you?

Doing alright - life is busy as usual - I've looked in a few times - but just wasn't really interested in some of the back and forth going on. I have my moments when it is worth it, but I'm not much on confrontation and I knew the way I was feeling wasn't the right time to respond to some of what I was reading - that's just the way I am. I pick my battles and try to choose them wisely. Alot of my job is being the person that works to make several groups well together - Although I'm very successful at it, sometimes coming here feels too much like work - if you know what I mean. I feel like I need to find that little smiley guy that is beating his head against a wall!

But I do appreciate you asking!

[limakey]

The fact that Cochran tired to sway the jurors by using arguments regarding police attitudes in the black neighborhoods of LA was in my opinion completely irrelevant to the way OJ Simpson lived and was treated by LE before the murders. Simpson may have originally been from their neighborhood but he left it far behind him years before living a life that the African American jurors in the criminal trial had nothing in common with except for their race.

I’ve answered your question by explaining to you my original motivation and why I continue to discuss this particular case. If you feel my answer isn’t what you’re looking for so be it.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

First and foremost, the LAPD had two excellent chances to redeem themselves in regards to the Simpson relationship. After the 1989 incident, a call out went out and any police officer who responded to a call at the Simpson home was asked to come forward and give a statement, only one officer did. What made it worse for the LAPD, this officer wrote why he could recall the incident in such clarity.

From the letter Simpson wrote to Nicole, he was told and he understood that if he ever laid a hand on Nicole again, he was going to jail. The LAPD made it clear to Simpson, if there was a next time, he was going to jail.

Simpson, like many other celebrities do get treated differently by the police, however, since none of them came forward accept Fuhrman, we have no idea what the calls were about. It has just been assumed that phyical abuse took place.

Like it not, Simpson lived a different life then a majority of Americans--period. He was a tremendous athlete. He has one record that will never, ever be broken. He was the first athlete, who made the transistion from famous jock to the sports booth, to acting and being a pitchman. (Sorry, the only other famous athlete that I can remember doing a commerical was Joe Namath--and I think he shaved his legs or someting.)

Not every LAPD or LE member is a football fan. I truly believe that many sport fans, regardless of the sport have a hard time understanding how millions can be made by playing a game. How a jock who didn't even get his degree can go on to make millions more in endorsements, etc.

Why is it only OJ Simpson who is accused of leaving his roots behind because he became a millionaire? Why isn't that same accusation made against famous white people who came from nothing and worked very hard to become wealthy? It is a double standard. I remember one talking head, Nancy Grace. She loved talking about how Simpson left his 'hood. However, she also talked about how poor her family was---yet she now makes millions, why aren't people accusing her of the same thing?

Simpson was on trial for murder, why was he also on trial for his success? For his living in an exclusive neighbor hood? Why was his actions in regards to civil rights put on trial?

How do you know that he nothing in common with the blacks on the jury? Do you know their life stories?

Marcia Clark was hoping that the black female jurors hated Simpson for leaving a black wife for a white one, shouldn't that have been irrelevant as well?

[William Anthony]

Doing alright - life is busy as usual - I've looked in a few times - but just wasn't really interested in some of the back and forth going on. I have my moments when it is worth it, but I'm not much on confrontation and I knew the way I was feeling wasn't the right time to respond to some of what I was reading - that's just the way I am. I pick my battles and try to choose them wisely. Alot of my job is being the person that works to make several groups well together - Although I'm very successful at it, sometimes coming here feels too much like work - if you know what I mean. I feel like I need to find that little smiley guy that is beating his head against a wall!

But I do appreciate you asking!

I am glad to hear that you are doing alright. Do you find in your work that open and honest communications with a tolerance of other people views is a aid in resolving conflict? Believe me, I was not trying to start conflict with him, as we have spend endless hours discussing a research article. I was truly interested in finding out why this particular case caused him to act in the way he did so that I could apply it in a larger context. I was extremely interested in the trial for the reason I have given, which caused me to further my education. I had placed the trial on the back burner. I did not start a blog or website showing why he was acquitted and it was only after, quite by chance, finding this board and reading some of the type of remarks that were being made that I decided I might find some open and honest discussion that may assist in changing some people's negative perception of the criminal jury, as to what they were called upon to do. I realize that no good deed goes unpunished, :).