Random Discussions On The Case

[William Anthony]

The one thing that is missing bobaugust is that the gloves did not fit Simpson's hands and the blankety blank MF could have handled all the evidence at the murder scene and transfered the trace onto the glove when he planted them, imho. This would still allow him to claim that Simpson had some complicity in the murders. This would allow him to write his fiction in a book, to attempt to correct the fiction he told from the stand.

On review, I could only find this one that I had not addressed. I ask you to note this and I will place in bold the qualifier, "he one thing that is missing bobaugust is that the gloves did not fit Simpson's hands and the blankety blank MF could have handled all the evidence at the murder scene and transfered the trace onto the glove when he planted them, imho. "

I will accept an apology even though I do not expect to get one.

[GreenIce]

*********************************************
Henry Lee and Dennis Fung had different methods of drying the bindles (or swatches or whatever it was that made some transfer stains).
Henry Lee had a method that dried them more completely than Mr. Fung's method. After the trial some people reproduced Mr. Fungs testing, and got similar results. Some of the swatches/bindles left transfer stains, some didn't. The prosecution tried to show that there were several innocent explanations for "something wrong". Part of the problem was that the jury was uneducated, not very smart and distrusted the police. This was one of the high points of the trial for the defense, and yet it seemed to many that it was an innocent mistake that didn't reduce the reliability of the evidence. Henry Lee had a way of talking which implied the evidence is close to being worthless, and yet he never said it was. I distrust this kind of talk. I think Mr. Lee also tried to make the evidence seem more complicated than it was in an effort to confuse the jury.

As for Mazzola’s mistakes on not initialing things, I think this is the sort of absent mindedness that everyone is guilty of at times. Initialing is an error check, but the fact that it wasn’t done shouldn’t invalidate the evidence, at most it should reduce the credibility by a small amount. If someone was falsifing evidence the would have been more careful than usual. It would probably easy to fake someone else's initials. If someone was falsifying evidence they would have been more careful than usual. It would probably easy to fake someone else's initials

fgump2,

The swatches were brought back to the lab about 7:30 p.m. that night. They were put into test tubes to dry. The next time these swatches were handled was by AM when she put them in the bindles and initaled them. They had over 10 hours to dry.

The DA's had no simple or innocent explaintions. That was their problem. If all seven swatches were put out to dry at the same time, then all of them should have had the wet transfers.

However, don't forget on at least one swatch, the wet transfer did not match the same pattern. It is like the "original" swatch was sand paper and the wet transfer had the pattern of sand paper. However, Gary Simpson noticed that the transfer did not match the same pattern he was examining.

What didn't the jury understand? Did they not understand that the key blood evidence was not collected until days, weeks and months later? That was the testimony.

How much of education do you need to understand that at least two people, one who was a LAPD detective, didn't see the blood on the Bronco? There are many more of these types of examples.

When did the DA introduce the expert or experts who after leaving the swatches out to dry for over 10 hours came up with similar results? When did the DA's call an expert to testify that the broken AC unit in the truck was the only explaination for the low DNA count in some of the drops found at Bundy? And if these blood drops had a low DNA count because of the broken AC unit, then why weren't all the samples degraded?

Dr. Lee would never say that evidence was planted, it is not his job to explain all the errors of evidence--it is his job to review the evidence and give his opinon.

The defense did not want to make the evidence seem more complicated then it was---they didn't have to. It was the DA's who dragged the trial and tried to confuse the jury--heck, they ever tried to confuse the court with their changing evidence numbers. Like the test tube being number 17 one time and the same vial being 18 another.

How much of an education do you need to know that the four lead detectives lied in this case on matters that just didn't warrant them.

IMO, if you were on that jury, if any G on this board was on the jury except for maybe 1 or 2, and listened to the evidence and followed judge's instructions, you would have had no choice but to vote not guilty. It was the legal verdict possible. You don't need an education to have common sense.

Often, I have read comments about the "uneducated" jury. I have always laughed about this because in our education system, we are taught not to just accept what is told as true. Do your own thinking, come up with your conclusion. Stand up and fight for your opinon.

I don't care what education you had, it was not going to explain the problems of evidence in this case. Also remember, their were many other issues besides DNA in this case. IMO.

[GreenIce]

I do not particularly care whether or not you are done; you wanted to begin this discussion and cannot answer the most simple question I have put to you, which is if you can make up your mind on whether I am blaming the Brown's or providing a free pass.

Who, by the way, other than possibly martin, has blamed Nicole or the Browns for any beatings? Regardless of whether her family let her down and turned a blind eye only OJ Simpson is to blame for what he has done. I'd like to see those postings because apparently I missed them.

Answer me another simple question since this post was directed to me; when did I say that there were other 911 phone calls? Or perhaps that is too difficult for you to answer as well?

Many things make my blood boil as well; one of them is people who have an unsightly manner of turning another individual's post into what they personally want it to be in an effort to be insulting and to inject nonsense where it doesn't belong.

Kate

Kate,

How about those Yankees? Nice weather we are having--I hope.

I stand by posts and I am not going there.

[GreenIce]

************************************************** *****
I am not in favor of abolishing cross examination. I must admit that I have't studied much about the area where the gloves were found. I don't think that MF would have planted the gloves there, and then testifiy that he was the only one who had been back there during the available time period.

fgump,

You have to remember that the LAPD and the DA's thought they would have found the bloody clothes, the murder weapon and the shoes. IMO, had they found those items, the glove never would have been introduced into the trial of OJ Simpson.

MF testified that he did not see any evidence of anyone back there but then again he wasn't looking for any. That makes no sense and is not consistent on why he went back there in the first place. Mark Fuhrman is a very smart man. He knew all the "tricks" to include leaking sound bytes to the media.
Like he said in the tapes, "If I go down, the glove goes down and the case goes bye-bye--and Clark knows it."

MF simply was not afraid to get caught. He also knows that accusations can be made against him and everybody "knows" he did it, but there was nothing they could do if they all stuck to the same story.

While I believe it is morely like then not MF did, I am not ruling out that someone else could have planted the glove and not a member of the LAPD.

[GreenIce]

Martin and William,

I made this post a few days ago but I don't know if you have replied.

Shouldn't OJ Simpson have failed that lie detector test? Shouldn't that "failed" lie detector test point toward his innocence?

[William Anthony]

Martin and William,

I made this post a few days ago but I don't know if you have replied.

Shouldn't OJ Simpson have failed that lie detector test? Shouldn't that "failed" lie detector test point toward his innocence?

I really don't know. I understand that it would have been a stressful time for anyone, guilty or innocent. I really don't know enough about lie detectors to form an opinion one way or the other.

[tv]

Martin and William,

I made this post a few days ago but I don't know if you have replied.

Shouldn't OJ Simpson have failed that lie detector test? Shouldn't that "failed" lie detector test point toward his innocence?GreenIce, I haven't been able to find any information about the length of time necessary between an event and someone being polygraphed about it. Do you have a link?

[tv]

fgump2,

The swatches were brought back to the lab about 7:30 p.m. that night. They were put into test tubes to dry. The next time these swatches were handled was by AM when she put them in the bindles and initaled them. They had over 10 hours to dry.

The DA's had no simple or innocent explaintions. That was their problem. If all seven swatches were put out to dry at the same time, then all of them should have had the wet transfers.

However, don't forget on at least one swatch, the wet transfer did not match the same pattern. It is like the "original" swatch was sand paper and the wet transfer had the pattern of sand paper. However, Gary Simpson noticed that the transfer did not match the same pattern he was examining.


How much of education do you need to understand that at least two people, one who was a LAPD detective, didn't see the blood on the Bronco? There are many more of these types of examples.

When did the DA introduce the expert or experts who after leaving the swatches out to dry for over 10 hours came up with similar results? When did the DA's call an expert to testify that the broken AC unit in the truck was the only explaination for the low DNA count in some of the drops found at Bundy? And if these blood drops had a low DNA count because of the broken AC unit, then why weren't all the samples degraded?

Dr. Lee would never say that evidence was planted, it is not his job to explain all the errors of evidence--it is his job to review the evidence and give his opinon.

The defense did not want to make the evidence seem more complicated then it was---they didn't have to. It was the DA's who dragged the trial and tried to confuse the jury--heck, they ever tried to confuse the court with their changing evidence numbers. Like the test tube being number 17 one time and the same vial being 18 another.

How much of an education do you need to know that the four lead detectives lied in this case on matters that just didn't warrant them.

IMO, if you were on that jury, if any G on this board was on the jury except for maybe 1 or 2, and listened to the evidence and followed judge's instructions, you would have had no choice but to vote not guilty. It was the legal verdict possible. You don't need an education to have common sense.

Often, I have read comments about the "uneducated" jury. I have always laughed about this because in our education system, we are taught not to just accept what is told as true. Do your own thinking, come up with your conclusion. Stand up and fight for your opinon.

I don't care what education you had, it was not going to explain the problems of evidence in this case. Also remember, their were many other issues besides DNA in this case. IMO.

For starters, here's just one example of how one member of the jury didn't understand that OJ Simpson's blood was on the Rockingham glove. She did her own thinking and came up to her own conclusions. Evidence, smevidence...she did it her way. I can provide more examples if you'd like.


From juror Carrie Bess:

"Had the cut on [on OJ's hand]been as bad as they say it should have been, some of his blood should have been on the Rockingham glove somewhere, but none of his blood was on it...I would say if his finger was cut and he was handling these things -- if he was wearing them -- his blood should be on one of those gloves. And his blood wasn't on either one of those gloves."

The remainder of the things you listed in your post are mostly misrepresentations of the truth with no basis in fact. I'm really too tired to go over it all. You have a knack for taking something from this case and in a few sentences making it nearly unrecognizable. I think it must be a gift.

[tv]

He did not testify to that. He testify that he investigated and found no evidence of anyone being back there. In other words, the prosecution failed to provide evidence that anyone had been back there before MF's admission. You do have an unidentifed Caucasian hair found in the glove.

The proof is the glove that matched the one at Bundy which had the DNA of Orenthal James Simpson, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

[tv]

TV,

Again, not true. When the news leak came out about the LAPD source who leaked the results of DNA tests on the socks---before the socks were even sent out was--Judge Ito made the ruling because the defense could not prove that the "source" was the person who did the planting, he threw it out.

The same with Judge Fujisaki, the defense had to name names, times, when, where, how and why. Judge Fujisaki also had an advantage over Ito, he said it didn't matter how it was collected, who collected, when, it was collected, the only thing that counted were the final results.

However, he did allow the defense to present evidence that the glove may have been planted---he doubted it, but there must have been something for him to allow it. But then again, since he was not going to allow any of Fuhrman's legal issues that really didn't matter. However, one Juror, Deena Mullin, on the Late, Late, Late Show with Tom Synder (who is since passed away) she did say that she thought Fuhrman did plant the glove, but she could not speculate on how he did it and the bottom line was she didn't care because Simpson's blood was found on it.

Why Clark and Darden trashed Judge Ito, I'll never know--he was their best friend more times then not.
Yes, true. You're once again confusing evidence with theory and speculation. Please post where there was actual evidence of planting. How was it planted? Who planted it? When was it planted? Under what circumstances? Where are the witnesses?

[tv]

Surely, you aren't suggesting that, because this is a public recreational forum, you are allowed to make false accusations against me.
If I had any idea what you're talking about I might respond to this. Please try to remember if you've been accused of anything on this forum recently it wasn't by me.

[tv]

The germane part of the discussion on evidence of planting, began with post 4816, IIRC. However, this will place the conversation in context and not what posters claim I have said but what I actually said.



I ask that it be noted that I did not say there was planting but evidence of planting.
There was no evidence of planting. What evidence of planting are you talking about?

[William Anthony]

The proof is the glove that matched the one at Bundy which had the DNA of Orenthal James Simpson, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

You mean the gloves that did not fit Simpson's hands. The question is how and when the glove got behind Kato's quarters. I wonder why Martz did not test the glove for the amount of EDTA in those stains. The question is how and when the stains got on the glove.

[William Anthony]

If I had any idea what you're talking about I might respond to this. Please try to remember if you've been accused of anything on this forum recently it wasn't by me.

Not true. You were one of the two that claimed I said MF planted the glove.

[William Anthony]

There was no evidence of planting. What evidence of planting are you talking about?

Asked and answered in part. That should be enough to start with.

[GreenIce]

For starters, here's just one example of how one member of the jury didn't understand that OJ Simpson's blood was on the Rockingham glove. She did her own thinking and came up to her own conclusions. Evidence, smevidence...she did it her way. I can provide more examples if you'd like.


From juror Carrie Bess:

"Had the cut on [on OJ's hand]been as bad as they say it should have been, some of his blood should have been on the Rockingham glove somewhere, but none of his blood was on it...I would say if his finger was cut and he was handling these things -- if he was wearing them -- his blood should be on one of those gloves. And his blood wasn't on either one of those gloves."

The remainder of the things you listed in your post are mostly misrepresentations of the truth with no basis in fact. I'm really too tired to go over it all. You have a knack for taking something from this case and in a few sentences making it nearly unrecognizable. I think it must be a gift.

TV,

I deeply resent the tone of your post. I have not misrepresented any thing. There is no need to do that. A tiny, tiny drop of Simpson's blood was found on one glove. From the amount and the location of that blood spot, it was more consistent with Collin Y's testimony about spilling some blood when he opened the test tube. I think this probably was the only truly innocent mistake in this case on the surface--however, his handling of evidence and his job performance appears to be sub par with the responsibilities of the job.

Bottom line, did Collin Y say he did spill the blood? Did he actually volunteer this information while on the stand? He just remembered that he did spill some blood there is no evidence to support that he would have known where all of the drops would have landed. The fact that he did change his gloves or whatever, it is too late. Since you can't prove that did not happen and I can't prove that it did happen that way, the point goes to Simpson because Collin Y admitted he spilled some blood when he opened it. Besides, how much of education do you think Collin got when told that it is never a good idea to do what he did? Open a test tube of blood while he have the evidence close by.


It is a fact the AC unit on the truck was broke.

It is a fact that the Fung and AM left the swatches out to dry for over night.

It is a fact that there were wet transfers and it is a fact that different materials that were used at least for one swatch. What is your explaination for that--and before you trash the defense expert--it was Dr. Gary Sims, the DA's expert. The same one who said that he couldn't understand how anybody missed the blood on the socks.

It is a fact that at least two people testified in the trial that they did not see blood on the console of the Bronco and one of them was an LAPD detective.

You owe me an apology. I based my opinons and my interpetation of the evidence on fact.

[William Anthony]

Yes, true. You're once again confusing evidence with theory and speculation. Please post where there was actual evidence of planting. How was it planted? Who planted it? When was it planted? Under what circumstances? Where are the witnesses?

I think you are confusing the poster with the prosecution. Where is the reliable evidence that Simpson committed murder? Where is the murder weapon? How did it disappear? Where are the shoes? Why did the gloves not fit? Why did the only blood found at Rockingham that shows he bleed on his property not found behind Kato's quarters but shows entry onto his property through the Rockingham gate and into his estate? Why did the prosecution have a dead expert testifying? Why were the socks not on Ford's video when the were supposed to be? Why did the blood on the socks indicate that Ms. NBS was dead when the blood was placed on the socks? Why was the prosecution's time line askew? Where are the witnesses that saw Simpson leave his property and return? Why did Matheson testify falsely as to how type AB blood degrades? Why were Mazzola's initials not on the envelopes?
Why did Vannatter take Simpson's blood to Rockingham? Why did the prosecution make that staged and rehearsed exparte video? These are just a few of the questions I have based on the evidence or lack thereof and not a statement of fact that LE or the prosecution did anything untoward, so that no one will claim I said something I haven't.

[weezer]

Nothing in this post says MFplanted the glove, only that a reasonable inference can be drawn that he did. I still have two to place in context.

in·fer·ence
Pronunciation: \ˈin-f(ə-)rən(t)s, -fərn(t)s\
Function:noun
Date:1594

1: the act or process of inferring: as a: the act of passing from one proposition, statement, or judgment considered as true to another whose truth is believed to follow from that of the former b: the act of passing from statistical sample data to generalizations (as of the value of population parameters) usually with calculated degrees of certainty 2: something that is inferred ; especially : a proposition arrived at by inference3: the premises and conclusion of a process of inferring

[weezer]

On review, I could only find this one that I had not addressed. I ask you to note this and I will place in bold the qualifier, "he one thing that is missing bobaugust is that the gloves did not fit Simpson's hands and the blankety blank MF could have handled all the evidence at the murder scene and transfered the trace onto the glove when he planted them, imho. "

I will accept an apology even though I do not expect to get one.

LOL -- at least have the (fill in your word)to stand up for what you believe.

And no -- if I were you, I wouldn't be expecting an apology.

[martin II]

Yes, true. You're once again confusing evidence with theory and speculation. Please post where there was actual evidence of planting. How was it planted? Who planted it? When was it planted? Under what circumstances? Where are the witnesses?

The best place for the blood to have been planted was in that lab where all the blood was brought.

[William Anthony]

http://aliciamattgs.tripod.com/module7factsvsinferences.html

[William Anthony]

I have always stood up for what I believed, even if it meant personal anguish and the gumption to fight for what I believed. I believe one should know what they say and say what they know.:)

[martin II]

You mean the gloves that did not fit Simpson's hands. The question is how and when the glove got behind Kato's quarters. I wonder why Martz did not test the glove for the amount of EDTA in those stains. The question is how and when the stains got on the glove.

There is no proof that the blood found on the ground was the blood that was tested or sent out for testing.

[William Anthony]

There is no proof that the blood found on the ground was the blood that was tested or sent out for testing.

I understand. Perhaps, after the prosecution read Martz's report they wanted to stay away from the EDTA testing issue.

[weezer]

The Goldilocks Factor
So there is a terrible inconsistency in this planting theory: if the source of ploanted blood is the high-quality stuff from the EDTA tube prepared by Nurse Thano Peratis and turned over to Detective Vannatter, why is the blood in Item 47 so seriously degraded? Perhaps the person planting the blood purposely did something to encourage degradation. Maybe he heated the swatches or rubbed them in dirt. But why would someone go to the trouble of planting useful evidence and then engage in activity to destroy that very evidence? And how could the blood on those planted swatches be manipulated in such a way as to closely match the degradation of the other blood drop samples from Bundy? The DNA content of the other swatches can't be discerned by simply looking at them, so how does a conspirator know how degraded they are? Assuming he had this information, the evidence planter-and-degrader then has to walk a fine line in his efforts to destroy some of his evidence. Too few insults to the planted swatch and it will stand out from all the others because of its high DNA content, signaling that it has been planted. Too many insults to the planted swatch and all the DNA will be destroyed and the planting will be for naught. As one commentator observed, "The postulated mistreatment has to be done in Goldilocks fashion, this is, juuuust right!"

O.J. Unmasked By M. L. Rantala

[martin II]

Nothing in this post says MFplanted the glove, only that a reasonable inference can be drawn that he did. I still have two to place in context.

It seems to me that you may be the target of an attempt to have a long argument about nothing.imo Those post are becoming more and more agreesive directed at you.imo

[William Anthony]

There is no proof that the blood found on the ground was the blood that was tested or sent out for testing.

Ah, the stain on the gate, collected three weeks later, showed less degradation than most of the other stains, and the EDTA in the gate and sock stains would have killed anyone with the exception of the wannabe superman :) and party goer, Martz.

[William Anthony]

It seems to me that you may be the target of an attempt to have a long argument about nothing.imo Those post are becoming more and more agreesive directed at you.imo

Ah, the devil is in the details. I have nothing to fear but fear itself. I am reminded of Plato's famous allegory. To quote a famous or infamous Texan, "Bring it on".

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

How about those Yankees? Nice weather we are having--I hope.

I stand by posts and I am not going there.

I'm laughing at this point. You won't answer to things that you have accused another individual of doing; and yet you have the audacity to advise other posters that they owe you an apology.

You and I go far back on this forum; I used to hold you in high regard because you were both passionate and forthright. How sad that you've now been reduced to an unwillingness to answer to the accusations you put forth.

I'm not a Yankees fan, baseball does not do it for me. I will, however, gloat that I took first place in my picks for the championship game in the men's college basketball Final Four.

Kate

[martin II]

There was no evidence of planting. What evidence of planting are you talking about?

You think furhman a seasoned detective would plant the glove and leave evidence that he did?

[William Anthony]

I'm laughing at this point. You won't answer to things that you have accused another individual of doing; and yet you have the audacity to advise other posters that they owe you an apology.

You and I go far back on this forum; I used to hold you in high regard because you were both passionate and forthright. How sad that you've now been reduced to an unwillingness to answer to the accusations you put forth.

I'm not a Yankees fan, baseball does not do it for me. I will, however, gloat that I took first place in my picks for the championship game in the men's college basketball Final Four.

Kate

Good Morning,

I rooted for the underdog but, alas, North Carolina showed out.

[William Anthony]

You think furhman a seasoned detective would plant the glove and leave evidence that he did?

We must include testimony in our definition of evidence and thanks to the brilliant Bailey he exposed that MF did leave evidence, imho.

[weezer]

It Doesn't Add Up
Henry Lee testified that there were four wet transfer stains which appeared to come from three swatches - one swatch probably left two stians. If wetness if the proof of planting, then were only of the seven swatches in that bindle planted? This is too bizarre to even contemplate. Someone smart eough to plant evidence knows that everything in a single bindle needs to be the same stuff. Not jus the same level of degradation in the DNA but, by the way, the same DNA itself. Yet the wet-means-planted theory can only account for three planted swatches out of seven.

O.J. Unmasked By M. L. Rantala

[William Anthony]

One inference of planting is too much for me to convict an accused but that does not mean that others see it my way.

[William Anthony]

You think furhman a seasoned detective would plant the glove and leave evidence that he did?

Good Morning,

Least I be accused of sexism.:) Good Morning to all.

[weezer]

Planting Pointless Evidence?
Henry Lee's 'something wrong' response was invoked by Simpson defenders repeatedly until the end of the trial. Commentators would use this testimony to suggest that there was something seriously wrong with the prosecution case. Almost completely ignored was the fact that Henry Lee's examination of the evidence bindles also revealed that there were wet transfer stains on the bindle for Item 42. The defense never elicited this testimony. Item 42 was blood from the pool around Nicole's body, later identified as her own blood. . . .

Dr. Lee admitted under cross-examination that the transfer stains on the bindle for Item 47 did not soak through to the outside of the bindle. This suggest that rather than being wet, the swatches were merely damp. . .

The innocent explanation -- incomplete drying -- has the advantage of being simple and explaining the wet transfers on both Item 47 and Item 42. The evidence-planting explanation for wet transfer is an incomplete theory. If wet transfer is significant for 47, what is the significance for Item 42 (Nicole's own blood around her dead body)? The planting explanation considers wet transfer significant only when it helps the defense and otherwise ignores it completely.

O.J. Unmasked By M. L. Rantala

[William Anthony]

Ah, the brilliance and magnificence of the defense in carrying their burden of persuasion. The prosecution failed miserably to carry their burden as evidenced by the not guilty verdict.

[martin II]

GreenIce, I haven't been able to find any information about the length of time necessary between an event and someone being polygraphed about it. Do you have a link?

When i have time i will try to find the article i read about there should be time between a event and the test. i don't remember if a time was given but it did say some time should have passed.

[martin II]

Rantala a blood expert

hahaha

[William Anthony]

While this may be called hardly an impartial opinion, it explains how the evidence can be viewed.

http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~jweiss/laws131/unit3/simpson.htm

[weezer]

While this may be called hardly an impartial opinion, it explains how the evidence can be viewed.

http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~jweiss/laws131/unit3/simpson.htm

LOL -- this pretty much sums it up:

PROVING THE CASE: THE SCIENCE OF DNA: DNA EVIDENCE IN THE O.J. SIMPSON TRIAL, 67 U. Colo. L. Rev. 827

William C. Thompson, Professor, Department of Criminology, Law & Society, University of California, Irvine, California

The author was a member of O.J. Simpson's defense team.

[William Anthony]

While this may be called hardly an impartial opinion, it explains how the evidence can be viewed.

[weezer]

While this may be called hardly an impartial opinion, it explains how the evidence can be viewed.

just wondering -- did you really think that a member of the defense team was going to write something different? LOL

[William Anthony]

I allow the same bias in books written by members of the prosecution and by Petrocelli.

[tv]

Not true. You were one of the two that claimed I said MF planted the glove.
You have said it. Why are you having such a hard time admitting it? I don't think he's going to sue you or anything.

[tv]

You mean the gloves that did not fit Simpson's hands. The question is how and when the glove got behind Kato's quarters. I wonder why Martz did not test the glove for the amount of EDTA in those stains. The question is how and when the stains got on the glove.Question all you like but where is any proof that anyone other than the three people who's DNA was on the glove had any contact with the glove when the blood was deposited. Anything concrete, any hard fact. :shrug:

[tv]

Asked and answered in part. That should be enough to start with.
I'm waiting for you to post anything factual that shows that the glove was planted.

[William Anthony]

You have said it. Why are you having such a hard time admitting it? I don't think he's going to sue you or anything.

I joined this forum on 8-01-2006. A poster, who I believe is one of your friends, did a search and was unable to come up with anything stating I said, as a fact, that MF planted the glove. You are welcome to do your own search. I wonder why MF didn't follow through with his defamation suit.

[William Anthony]

Question all you like but where is any proof that anyone other than the three people who's DNA was on the glove had any contact with the glove when the blood was deposited. Anything concrete, any hard fact. :shrug:

Do you still not understand the difference between evidence of and proof?

[William Anthony]

I'm waiting for you to post anything factual that shows that the glove was planted.

See response to post above.

[weezer]

I joined this forum on 8-01-2006. A poster, who I believe is one of your friends, did a search and was unable to come up with anything stating I said, as a fact, that MF planted the glove. You are welcome to do your own search. I wonder why MF didn't follow through with his defamation suit.

her friend, a poster, got tired of cut and pasting. I think 'a poster' published enough for everyone to make a 'reasonable inference' as to what you meant.

if you believe what you said, wonder why Fuhrman isn't in prison for planting evidence or any of the other crap you accuse him of? oh that's right. there isn't any proof that any of that happened. in fact, didn't numerous investigations prove that it DIDN'T happen?

[weezer]

Do you still not understand the difference between evidence of and proof?

I don't know about tvdinner but I would settle for either one -- evidence and/or proof.

[William Anthony]

I have never accused MF of planting evidence in this case. I think that everyone for the defense was happy after the verdict and didn't want to pursue the allegations made against MF and it would have been an embarrassment for LE and the prosecution to prove they relied on someone like MF. I remind you of the link from the justice department in which they stated they weren't saying that MF did nothing wrong, only that the statute of limitations had expired on those crimes.

[William Anthony]

I see no need to continue posting most of the damaging evidence of planting.

[William Anthony]

Thank you for understanding the reasonable inference I drew from the evidence of planting.

[weezer]

I have never accused MF of planting evidence in this case. I think that everyone for the defense was happy after the verdict and didn't want to pursue the allegations made against MF and it would have been an embarrassment for LE and the prosecution to prove they relied on someone like MF. I remind you of the link from the justice department in which they stated they weren't saying that MF did nothing wrong, only that the statute of limitations had expired on those crimes.

yep -- the defense was busy after the trial: a couple of them had to go pay their sanctions for lying and cheating; one of them had to show up for his disbarrment hearing; one of them had to write the book confessing he believed orenthal committed the murders; one of them had to make things right with his wife, mistress, and -- until then hidden -- illegitimate child.

there was nothing for the statute of limitations to expire on -- if there had been, I'm positive it would have been all over the news. Hell, I bet even the good reverends jackson and sharpton would have shown up for that!

[weezer]

I see no need to continue posting most of the damaging evidence of planting.

:chicken::chicken::chicken::chicken:

[weezer]

Thank you for understanding the reasonable inference I drew from the evidence of planting.

;) :chicken::chicken::chicken::chicken:

[tv]

TV,

I deeply resent the tone of your post. I have not misrepresented any thing. There is no need to do that. A tiny, tiny drop of Simpson's blood was found on one glove. From the amount and the location of that blood spot, it was more consistent with Collin Y's testimony about spilling some blood when he opened the test tube. I think this probably was the only truly innocent mistake in this case on the surface--however, his handling of evidence and his job performance appears to be sub par with the responsibilities of the job.

Bottom line, did Collin Y say he did spill the blood? Did he actually volunteer this information while on the stand? He just remembered that he did spill some blood there is no evidence to support that he would have known where all of the drops would have landed. The fact that he did change his gloves or whatever, it is too late. Since you can't prove that did not happen and I can't prove that it did happen that way, the point goes to Simpson because Collin Y admitted he spilled some blood when he opened it. Besides, how much of education do you think Collin got when told that it is never a good idea to do what he did? Open a test tube of blood while he have the evidence close by.


It is a fact the AC unit on the truck was broke.

It is a fact that the Fung and AM left the swatches out to dry for over night.

It is a fact that there were wet transfers and it is a fact that different materials that were used at least for one swatch. What is your explaination for that--and before you trash the defense expert--it was Dr. Gary Sims, the DA's expert. The same one who said that he couldn't understand how anybody missed the blood on the socks.

It is a fact that at least two people testified in the trial that they did not see blood on the console of the Bronco and one of them was an LAPD detective.

You owe me an apology. I based my opinons and my interpetation of the evidence on fact.

Simpson's blood was found in three places on the Rockingham glove: inside - by wrist notch, outside - near wrist notch and in the stitching at the wrist notch. How did Colin Yamauchi manage to spill blood INSIDE the glove? The truth is that when he opened the vial and a tiny amount of blood got on the chemwipe he was using the evidence was ten to fifteen feet away. It takes a vivid imagination to believe the blood flew across the room and on to items of evidence. This is the first time I've read or heard that the defense in either case claimed that Colin Yamauchi could have spilled blood on the glove when he opened the vial.

How do you explain why Nicole's blood on the sock had a higher DNA count than her reference sample -- meaning it was fresh when it was splashed onto the sock? It's impossible for degraded blood to become fresh again.

All crime scene and Rockingham blood samples were collected BEFORE Simspon returned from Chicago. There was none of his blood available to scatter around. Even though the blood on the gate wasn't collected until weeks later we know it was there the night of the murders. It was seen by numerous LE and even OJ Simpson's neice.

If Colin Yamuchi is so 'sub par' I'm surprised he still has a job. Last I heard he was still working for the LAPD and testified in the Phil Spector case. You know, the one where Dr. Henry Lee was discredited and accused of manipulating evidence.

[William Anthony]

:shrug:, :shrug:, :shrug: and :shrug:.

[tv]

I don't know about tvdinner but I would settle for either one -- evidence and/or proof.
weeaer, at this point I would welcome even a tiny shred of evidence, proof or fact.

[William Anthony]

A rather interesting and fortuitous moment during the cross of Dr. Terry Lee and, despite the fact the juror say they were alright, the judge called a recess.

"Q. (BY MR. BAKER) "If detectable levels of EDTA are found in the
stains, but significantly lower than the levels from blood in the
tube, then interpretation becomes problematic." What you meant by
that, sir, it becomes a problem to determine the EDT
A. Isn't that true, sir?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative.
A. No.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Let's go down to the next one. You say, if not
planted -- can you read that for us -- convincing argument must be
found why EDTA is present at that level.
A. Yes. You want me to read it?
Q. Yes, because I have trouble reading your writing.
A. So do I.
Q. I can understand that.
A. "If not planted, convincing argument must be found for why the
EDTA is present at these levels.
Q. Now, read the next one.
A. I can't even finish that one.
Q. I'm sorry.
A. I think it's -- I don't know that word.
Q. You were attempting to find convincing argument as to why the
EDTA --
A. Oh, I think I can do it now. One would be direct contamination
from either the environment or contamination from the lab during the
sample analysis.
Q. So you were attempting to find convincing argument to explain
away the EDTA found by Rodger Martz, and you understood that to be
your -- your -- your goal; correct, sir?
A. No, that wasn't my goal. My goal was to understand why the trace
levels that were observed in that particular analysis were there.
Q. Well, now, so you came up with this ghosting or carry-over effect
from the equipment, correct? That's your theory of why these levels
of EDTA were found by Rodger Martz?
A. Another most reasonable explanation, yes.
Q. You have no information whatsoever about how Rodger Martz runs
his lab, correct?
A. Direct information, no.
Q. And from a the available data, you can't determine what the
matrix used to dissolve the sample. You can't determine the quantity
and you can't determine the volume equilibrium was done before the
next analysis, can you?
A. There was statements in the materials that I reviewed with --
with regard to the matrix, with -- with -- with regard to rough
estimations about the quantity. I have no information at all with
regard to the exact procedures with respect to the chromatography
and the sample injection procedures.
Q. You would agree it's sheer speculation --
MR. BAKER: You can take that down.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) -- it's sheer speculation on your part as to
whether or not there was any ghosting or cross-over effect; true?
A. No. My opinion is based upon evidence.
Q. Well, your opinion --
A. The data that's present there tells me something.
MR. PETROCELLI: Need a break, Your Honor for the juror?
(Juror is coughing.)
THE COURT: Do you want to take a recess?
JUROR: I'm okay.
THE COURT: All right. You -- All right. Let's a take a ten-minute
recess.
(Recess.)"

[William Anthony]

weeaer, at this point I would welcome even a tiny shred of evidence, proof or fact.

Asked and answered and evidence defined, something wrong?:)

[tv]

I think you are confusing the poster with the prosecution. Where is the reliable evidence that Simpson committed murder? Where is the murder weapon? How did it disappear? Where are the shoes? Why did the gloves not fit? Why did the only blood found at Rockingham that shows he bleed on his property not found behind Kato's quarters but shows entry onto his property through the Rockingham gate and into his estate? Why did the prosecution have a dead expert testifying? Why were the socks not on Ford's video when the were supposed to be? Why did the blood on the socks indicate that Ms. NBS was dead when the blood was placed on the socks? Why was the prosecution's time line askew? Where are the witnesses that saw Simpson leave his property and return? Why did Matheson testify falsely as to how type AB blood degrades? Why were Mazzola's initials not on the envelopes?
Why did Vannatter take Simpson's blood to Rockingham? Why did the prosecution make that staged and rehearsed exparte video? These are just a few of the questions I have based on the evidence or lack thereof and not a statement of fact that LE or the prosecution did anything untoward, so that no one will claim I said something I haven't.

I guess everyone in prison for murder where a weapon hasn't been found should be released. All you have here are theories. Give me something solid --since you don't like the word evidence -- give me a fact.

[weezer]

Asked and answered and evidence defined, something wrong?:)

yep -- something wrong when a trowel mark in concrete is testified to being a footprint too.

[William Anthony]

I guess everyone in prison for murder where a weapon hasn't been found should be released. All you have here are theories. Give me something solid --since you don't like the word evidence -- give me a fact.

Quite untrue, it appears that you don't like the word evidence and, especially when used in conjunction with the word of.:)

[weezer]

I guess everyone in prison for murder where a weapon hasn't been found should be released. All you have here are theories. Give me something solid --since you don't like the word evidence -- give me a fact.

he can't. william, martin, and greenice want the rest of the world to prove their negative because they can't prove their accusations and allegations.

[William Anthony]

I guess everyone in prison for murder where a weapon hasn't been found should be released. All you have here are theories. Give me something solid --since you don't like the word evidence -- give me a fact.

I don't know what there may have been evidence of that was used to convict those in prison when no murder weapon was found.

[tv]

Quite untrue, it appears that you don't like the word evidence and, especially when used in conjunction with the word of.:)I think you don't like the words fact and proof because you certainly haven't provided any. Notice I can use the smiley also. :)

[William Anthony]

I think you don't like the words fact and proof because you certainly haven't provided any. Notice I can use the smiley also. :)

That is because I said evidence of.:)

[William Anthony]

My response to the rude and offensive post is, :seeya:, :seeya:, :seeya: and :seeya:.

[tv]

TV,

I deeply resent the tone of your post. I have not misrepresented any thing. There is no need to do that. A tiny, tiny drop of Simpson's blood was found on one glove. From the amount and the location of that blood spot, it was more consistent with Collin Y's testimony about spilling some blood when he opened the test tube. I think this probably was the only truly innocent mistake in this case on the surface--however, his handling of evidence and his job performance appears to be sub par with the responsibilities of the job.

Bottom line, did Collin Y say he did spill the blood? Did he actually volunteer this information while on the stand? He just remembered that he did spill some blood there is no evidence to support that he would have known where all of the drops would have landed. The fact that he did change his gloves or whatever, it is too late. Since you can't prove that did not happen and I can't prove that it did happen that way, the point goes to Simpson because Collin Y admitted he spilled some blood when he opened it. Besides, how much of education do you think Collin got when told that it is never a good idea to do what he did? Open a test tube of blood while he have the evidence close by.


It is a fact the AC unit on the truck was broke.

It is a fact that the Fung and AM left the swatches out to dry for over night.

It is a fact that there were wet transfers and it is a fact that different materials that were used at least for one swatch. What is your explaination for that--and before you trash the defense expert--it was Dr. Gary Sims, the DA's expert. The same one who said that he couldn't understand how anybody missed the blood on the socks.

It is a fact that at least two people testified in the trial that they did not see blood on the console of the Bronco and one of them was an LAPD detective.

You owe me an apology. I based my opinons and my interpetation of the evidence on fact.

GreenIce, are you going to address why Carrie Bess did not know that Simpson's blood was on the Rockingham glove? It was talked about numerous times in the criminal trial. How could she come to a decision about the case without knowing this basic fact?

I expect you'll leave this unanswered as you do many of the claims you make.

[weezer]

Quite untrue, it appears that you don't like the word evidence and, especially when used in conjunction with the word of.:)

gosh -- I don't remember seeing/reading anyone on this board that doesn't love, love, love the word 'evidence.' That's why we're all waiting for your show of evidence/proof that any of the crap the criminal defense threw against wall to see what would stick did actually happen. you know. proof. that which you believe there was evidence 'of' -- not theory, not speculation -- proof.

[tv]

he can't. william, martin, and greenice want the rest of the world to prove their negative because they can't prove their accusations and allegations. sad, sad, little people.

I think it was William that said you can't prove a negative. I hope he doesn't ask me to comb through all of his past posts to prove it. :tongue:

[weezer]

I think it was William that said you can't prove a negative. I hope he doesn't ask me to comb through all of his past posts to prove it. :tongue:

I thought it was our esteemed fellow poster bobaugust.

[martin II]

weeaer, at this point I would welcome even a tiny shred of evidence, proof or fact.

Not guilty
evidence of faulty case.like swiss cheese.

[William Anthony]

I think it was William that said you can't prove a negative. I hope he doesn't ask me to comb through all of his past posts to prove it. :tongue:

Wrong again. I do apologize as you said you think.

[William Anthony]

A negative times a negative equals a positive.:)

[martin II]

GreenIce, are you going to address why Carrie Bess did not know that Simpson's blood was on the Rockingham glove? It was talked about numerous times in the criminal trial. How could she come to a decision about the case without knowing this basic fact?

I expect you'll leave this unanswered as you do many of the claims you make.


whats up with your constant attacks on GI. It seems quite childish to me.

[William Anthony]

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Negative+(disambiguation)

You see, I am aware that a negative can be proven. I have also shared with the esteemed bobaugust and others similarly inclined the meaning of a negative pregnant.

http://www.answers.com/topic/negative-pregnant

This is in way a means to deter anyone's reliance on bobaugust or to deter the degree to which he is regarded. If one is mistaken when the say something, no matter how many times they say it will make it right (a Williamism). :)

[William Anthony]

I guess, if you could not prove a negative, then all an accused needs to do is plead not guilty and that would be the end of the story.;)

[weezer]

I guess, if you could not prove a negative, then all an accused needs to do is plead not guilty and that would be the end of the story.;)

only for some -- the rest of us require proof/evidence. you know. that stuff that the criminal defense couldn't produce to prove that any of the stuff they threw against the wall to see what would stick actually happened.

[weezer]

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Negative+(disambiguation)

You see, I am aware that a negative can be proven. I have also shared with the esteemed bobaugust and others similarly inclined the meaning of a negative pregnant.

http://www.answers.com/topic/negative-pregnant

This is in way a means to deter anyone's reliance on bobaugust or to deter the degree to which he is regarded. If one is mistaken when the say something, no matter how many times they say it will make it right (a Williamism). :)

Phrase not found in the Dictionary and Encyclopedia. Did you mean:
Negative (disambiguation)

You may also try the words separately:
Negative disambiguation

other than that, I'm all impressed with your learnin' :)

[William Anthony]

Ah, I see there is some disagreement with the statement attributed to the one considered to be the esteemed bobaugust. I think that is the basis of a trial when one asserts a negative to a charge, it becomes the burden of the party making the accusation to disprove the negative, or prove the issues in controversy, if you will.;)

[weezer]

Ah, I see there is some disagreement with the statement attributed to the one considered to be the esteemed bobaugust. I think that is the basis of a trial when one asserts a negative to a charge, it becomes the burden of the party making the accusation to disprove the negative, or prove the issues in controversy, if you will.;)

uh -- no. you're making the baseless, insupportable accusations -- YOU need to provide proof/evidence. :rolleyes:

[weezer]

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Negative+(disambiguation)

You see, I am aware that a negative can be proven. I have also shared with the esteemed bobaugust and others similarly inclined the meaning of a negative pregnant.

http://www.answers.com/topic/negative-pregnant

This is in way a means to deter anyone's reliance on bobaugust or to deter the degree to which he is regarded. If one is mistaken when the say something, no matter how many times they say it will make it right (a Williamism). :)

ROFLMAO: ". . .no matter how many times they say it will make it right (a Williamism).

[William Anthony]

Ah, when you supply someone with a link and they read it, they sometimes do not want to accept it. Plato's famous allegory comes to mind.

[martin II]

Ah, I see there is some disagreement with the statement attributed to the one considered to be the esteemed bobaugust. I think that is the basis of a trial when one asserts a negative to a charge, it becomes the burden of the party making the accusation to disprove the negative, or prove the issues in controversy, if you will.;)

Although another poster has informed aLL that the defence has no obligation to prove anything, Weezer in her 5084 post is still claiming that the defence did not prove something. hahaha

[William Anthony]

Yes, the assertion that you can't prove a negative is not correct no matter how many times it is said or by whom (a Williamism).

[weezer]

pathetic! :shrug:

[William Anthony]

Ah, no matter how many times it is said and despite any proof that I made an accusation even with research, it is still being said that I made an accusation. No matter how many times it is said or by whom, when a statement is wrong it remains wrong (a Williamism).

[William Anthony]

A typical negative pregnant, although not in a pleading.

A. "If not planted, convincing argument must be found for why the
EDTA is present at these levels.

Translation-a convincing argument must be made that the evidence was not planted because the EDTA present at these levels, explains it was planted.

[martin II]

he can't. william, martin, and greenice want the rest of the world to prove their negative because they can't prove their accusations and allegations. sad, sad, little people.

More name calling by you.

[tv]

whats up with your constant attacks on GI. It seems quite childish to me.What's childish to me is someone's attempt to make things up to bolster their argument. It's a waste of time.

[tv]

Yes, the assertion that you can't prove a negative is not correct no matter how many times it is said or by whom (a Williamism).
You've said it yourself.

[William Anthony]

You've said it yourself.

I don't think you are correct but I realize your reluctance to support some of your claims, so I will just reiterate, placing in bold the relevant portion, "Yes, the assertion that you can't prove a negative is not correct no matter how many times it is said or by whom (a Williamism)."

[tv]

I joined this forum on 8-01-2006. A poster, who I believe is one of your friends, did a search and was unable to come up with anything stating I said, as a fact, that MF planted the glove. You are welcome to do your own search. I wonder why MF didn't follow through with his defamation suit.
I'll accept your admission there is no fact in existence that proves or even indicates that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove. As for the defamation suit -- I'll guess you'll have to ask him.

[William Anthony]

More name calling by you.

True dat.

[tv]

I don't think you are correct but I realize your reluctance to support some of your claims, so I will just reiterate, placing in bold the relevant portion, "Yes, the assertion that you can't prove a negative is not correct no matter how many times it is said or by whom (a Williamism)."
I'm not reluctant. It's just not important enough to me to search through your posts. It seems like you spend an inordinate amount of time in denial.

[William Anthony]

I'll accept your admission there is no fact in existence that proves or even indicates that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove. As for the defamation suit -- I'll guess you'll have to ask him.

I will reiterate that there is evidence of planting by MF. The defamation thing was just a thought I had. :)

[William Anthony]

I'm not reluctant. It's just not important enough to me to search through your posts. It seems like you spend an inordinate amount of time in denial.

If the false accusations would stop, then there would be no need for me to spend any time in denial.

[William Anthony]

I'm not reluctant. It's just not important enough to me to search through your posts. It seems like you spend an inordinate amount of time in denial.

I see it is not important enough to you whether you make a false accusation or not, correct? I am not accusing, just wanting a clarification.

[tv]

Not guilty
evidence of faulty case.like swiss cheese.
Liable in the civil trial. Good, solid case and a pathetic display by the defendant, OJ Simpson, on the stand.

[tv]

I see it is not important enough to you whether you make a false accusation or not, correct? I am not accusing, just wanting a clarification.If you say you didn't say it, fine. It doesn't matter that much to me.

[William Anthony]

If you say you didn't say it, fine. It doesn't matter that much to me.

Then why accuse me?

[tv]

Then why accuse me?I didn't accuse you of anything. I said you made a statement. You attributed me with saying my husband is my cook when in fact weezer said it. Did you consider that an accusation? You're wound a little too tight today.

[martin II]

What's childish to me is someone's attempt to make things up to bolster their argument. It's a waste of time.


you and your pals have been overly agressive in your relentless nonsense attacks om GI. In the past these kind of attacks by a specific G has caused good smart posters to flee. We do need more posters.

[tv]

I will reiterate that there is evidence of planting by MF. The defamation thing was just a thought I had. :)
What evidence?

[tv]

you and your pals have been overly agressive in your relentless nonsense attacks om GI. In the past these kind of attacks by a specific G has caused good smart posters to flee. We do need more posters.

Any poster needs to back up his/her claims and not make things up. That's all I've ever asked and that's the standard I've been held to since I've been posting on this forum. It applies to everyone.

[William Anthony]

I didn't accuse you of anything. I said you made a statement. You attributed me with saying my husband is my cook when in fact weezer said it. Did you consider that an accusation? You're wound a little too tight today.

Yes, you accused me of making the statement and to place everything in context, I asked was it you that made the statement and did not accuse you of making the statement, IIRC. When you first made the accusation you said you thought I made the statement and I apologized to you for saying you were wrong, because you had only said you thought. You then came back and said I did make the statement. You have yet to say that I did not make the statement that MF planted evidence as I did when I apologized for not reading thoroughly your original remark. One of is definitely wound to tight, today.

[tv]

you and your pals have been overly agressive in your relentless nonsense attacks om GI. In the past these kind of attacks by a specific G has caused good smart posters to flee. We do need more posters.
The NG's have run off more good posters than I can remember. I'd been happy to start naming the ones I can remember. I bet my list is longer than yours.

[William Anthony]

What evidence?

Asked, answered and supplied, although not all of it yet.

[tv]

Yes, you accused me of making the statement and to place everything in context, I asked was it you that made the statement and did not accuse you of making the statement, IIRC. When you first made the accusation you said you thought I made the statement and I apologized to you for saying you were wrong, because you had only said you thought. You then came back and said I did make the statement. You have yet to say that I did not make the statement that MF planted evidence as I did when I apologized for not reading thoroughly your original remark. One of is definitely wound to tight, today.

Good heavens, William, let it go for crying out loud!

[tv]

Asked, answered and supplied, although not all of it yet.

I've seen nothing that points to Mark Fuhrman or anyone else as having planted evidence in this case.

[William Anthony]

Good heavens, William, let it go for crying out loud!

Just setting the record straight. Let's discuss the cases.

[William Anthony]

I've seen nothing that points to Mark Fuhrman or anyone else as having planted evidence in this case.

My Fair Lady,

Can I call you that?:) I have never claimed that you saw evidence pointing to MF as an evidence planter.:) I have told you that I did and drew a reasonable inference from that evidence and supplied some of the evidence I relied on.

[tv]

My Fair Lady,

Can I call you that?:) I have never claimed that you saw evidence pointing to MF as an evidence planter.:) I have told you that I did and drew a reasonable inference from that evidence and supplied some of the evidence I relied on.I'll take it as a compliment if that's how you intend it. I'm glad to see you unwinding a little. Stress is very bad for anyone.

What do you offer to show that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove? That he was alone back there? It's reasonable to believe that whoever dropped the glove was alone and since the glove contained the blood of OJ Simpson and the other two contributors of DNA on the glove are dead it makes sense to me that he dropped the glove -- not Det. Fuhrman. Fourteen LE officers were at the scene at Bundy before Det. Fuhrman and not one of them have said they saw two gloves.

[William Anthony]

I'll take it as a compliment if that's how you intend it. I'm glad to see you unwinding a little. Stress is very bad for anyone.

What do you offer to show that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove? That he was alone back there? It's reasonable to believe that whoever dropped the glove was alone and since the glove contained the blood of OJ Simpson and the other two contributors of DNA on the glove are dead it makes sense to me that he dropped the glove -- not Det. Fuhrman. Fourteen LE officers were at the scene at Bundy before Det. Fuhrman and not one of them have said they saw two gloves.

Yes, that's how I meant it and I wasn't stressed but thanks for showing concern and I mean that.

MF was back there alone. He saw no evidence of anyone being back there when he went there. He said he saw "them" when specifically asked about seeing one glove at Bundy. I know that you may not agree but the brotherhood of the fraternal order of police exists and there is documentation of the blue was of silence's existence. I am not saying that any or all of the 14 officers saw two gloves at Bundy. I am saying that the inference drawn from the evidence, MF's testimony-slip, non slip of the tongue, allows me to draw the inference that he did. You then have for some unknown reason have MF being sent back to Bundy to make a visual comparison of the gloves, when it was obvious that the Rockingham glove could have been collected and taken to Bundy as any other item of evidence was. MF said he could not understand why he was sent back to Bundy possibly risking cross contamination. Whatever the reason it was more than making a visual comparison, imho, and an inference I draw from those circumstances. There is the evidence that MF hated interracial couples and would harass and fabricate evidence on them or, if you will, targeted them. You have a blood trail at Rockingham, which is inconsistent with Simpson being behind Kato's quarters. You have the testimony of Kato and Park, neither of whom saw Simpson in the area near the south pathway. This is some of the evidence and it gives us a good place to start, as I know when we discuss the tapes there will be areas of disagreement.

[weezer]

Asked, answered and supplied, although not all of it yet.

nope --

it's been asked but it hasn't been answered -- much less supplied.

[Kate Sachel]

Any poster needs to back up his/her claims and not make things up. That's all I've ever asked and that's the standard I've been held to since I've been posting on this forum. It applies to everyone.

I agree. If someone is going to accuse me of making statements that I did not make then I expect that they will answer to that; especially when that same individual drones on regarding other individuals offensive tones, or demands apologies from other individuals that they somehow feel entitled to despite the fact that they are guilty of the very same conduct that they find ever so offensive.

At least I am able to stand corrected when shown to be incorrect.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I seem to hear the humming of a distant train, singing a sad refrain.

[martin II]

I'll take it as a compliment if that's how you intend it. I'm glad to see you unwinding a little. Stress is very bad for anyone.

What do you offer to show that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove? That he was alone back there? It's reasonable to believe that whoever dropped the glove was alone and since the glove contained the blood of OJ Simpson and the other two contributors of DNA on the glove are dead it makes sense to me that he dropped the glove -- not Det. Fuhrman. Fourteen LE officers were at the scene at Bundy before Det. Fuhrman and not one of them have said they saw two gloves.

I think you are wrong on that.only 6 officers were allowed inside the crime scene.The othere were controlling media traffic and knocking on doors in the neighborhood. If a cop saw any other cop pick up a glove at Bundy there is no way that he would just come forward and report it.

imo

[tv]

I think you are wrong on that.only 6 officers were allowed inside the crime scene.The othere were controlling media traffic and knocking on doors in the neighborhood. If a cop saw any other cop pick up a glove at Bundy there is no way that he would just come forward and report it.

imo

Do you have any concrete proof that a cop saw another cop pick up a second glove at Bundy? An eyewitness? Someone that saw a second glove? Anything?

[weezer]

I think you are wrong on that.only 6 officers were allowed inside the crime scene.The othere were controlling media traffic and knocking on doors in the neighborhood. If a cop saw any other cop pick up a glove at Bundy there is no way that he would just come forward and report it.

imo

oh for Pete's sake martin. you could not really believe that a detective -- in a crowded murder scene -- whipped out a plastic bag from his sock -- put a bloody glove in it -- put the bag and glove back in his sock and went looking for someone to blame it on. he didn't know who because he, of course, didn't know who was or wasn't in town, didn't know who did or didn't have an alibi -----------

pathetic

[weezer]

Do you have any concrete proof that a cop saw another cop pick up a second glove at Bundy? An eyewitness? Someone that saw a second glove? Anything?

they honestly don't believe they need proof -- just their little fertile imaginations in overdrive.

[martin II]

Yes, that's how I meant it and I wasn't stressed but thanks for showing concern and I mean that.

MF was back there alone. He saw no evidence of anyone being back there when he went there. He said he saw "them" when specifically asked about seeing one glove at Bundy. I know that you may not agree but the brotherhood of the fraternal order of police exists and there is documentation of the blue was of silence's existence. I am not saying that any or all of the 14 officers saw two gloves at Bundy. I am saying that the inference drawn from the evidence, MF's testimony-slip, non slip of the tongue, allows me to draw the inference that he did. You then have for some unknown reason have MF being sent back to Bundy to make a visual comparison of the gloves, when it was obvious that the Rockingham glove could have been collected and taken to Bundy as any other item of evidence was. MF said he could not understand why he was sent back to Bundy possibly risking cross contamination. Whatever the reason it was more than making a visual comparison, imho, and an inference I draw from those circumstances. There is the evidence that MF hated interracial couples and would harass and fabricate evidence on them or, if you will, targeted them. You have a blood trail at Rockingham, which is inconsistent with Simpson being behind Kato's quarters. You have the testimony of Kato and Park, neither of whom saw Simpson in the area near the south pathway. This is some of the evidence and it gives us a good place to start, as I know when we discuss the tapes there will be areas of disagreement.

If Simpson had been in the south walkway when Kato heard the noise he would have run right into Kato when Kato entered the walkway.That didn't happen because simpson was placing the two duffle bags at the door that he had just brought downstairs when Kato entered the walkway.

[William Anthony]

Do you have any concrete proof that a cop saw another cop pick up a second glove at Bundy? An eyewitness? Someone that saw a second glove? Anything?

Tvdinner,

I think that we have started on a discourse that could be fruitful. Therefore, I suggest that in order to keep the discussion civil, we acknowledge that any inferences drawn from the evidence is neither right nor wrong. On this issue, I draw my inference from MF's testimony on seeing them. We have that evidence from which to draw inferences either one way or the other.

[tv]

Yes, that's how I meant it and I wasn't stressed but thanks for showing concern and I mean that.

MF was back there alone. He saw no evidence of anyone being back there when he went there. He said he saw "them" when specifically asked about seeing one glove at Bundy. I know that you may not agree but the brotherhood of the fraternal order of police exists and there is documentation of the blue was of silence's existence. I am not saying that any or all of the 14 officers saw two gloves at Bundy. I am saying that the inference drawn from the evidence, MF's testimony-slip, non slip of the tongue, allows me to draw the inference that he did. You then have for some unknown reason have MF being sent back to Bundy to make a visual comparison of the gloves, when it was obvious that the Rockingham glove could have been collected and taken to Bundy as any other item of evidence was. MF said he could not understand why he was sent back to Bundy possibly risking cross contamination. Whatever the reason it was more than making a visual comparison, imho, and an inference I draw from those circumstances. There is the evidence that MF hated interracial couples and would harass and fabricate evidence on them or, if you will, targeted them. You have a blood trail at Rockingham, which is inconsistent with Simpson being behind Kato's quarters. You have the testimony of Kato and Park, neither of whom saw Simpson in the area near the south pathway. This is some of the evidence and it gives us a good place to start, as I know when we discuss the tapes there will be areas of disagreement.

Det. Fuhrman was referring to the cap and glove when he said 'them'.

I don't know if Det. Fuhrman actually hated interracial couples but if he did it doesn't mean he planted evidence. I hate snakes but I've never harmed one.

Do you think blood innocently deposited at Rockingham would be distributed in a different way if it had been deposited by a murderer returning from the scene of the crime?

This is all the same old stuff with no substance.

[William Anthony]

I seem to hear the humming of a distant train, singing a sad refrain.

[weezer]

Tvdinner,

I think that we have started on a discourse that could be fruitful. Therefore, I suggest that in order to keep the discussion civil, we acknowledge that any inferences drawn from the evidence is neither right nor wrong. On this issue, I draw my inference from MF's testimony on seeing them. We have that evidence from which to draw inferences either one way or the other.

Fuhrman wasn't talking about the glove when he said 'them' -- I think you're imagination is working overtime again

[William Anthony]

Det. Fuhrman was referring to the cap and glove when he said 'them'.

I don't know if Det. Fuhrman actually hated interracial couples but if he did it doesn't mean he planted evidence. I hate snakes but I've never harmed one.

Do you think blood innocently deposited at Rockingham would be distributed in a different way if it had been deposited by a murderer returning from the scene of the crime?

This is all the same old stuff with no substance.

That is one way to intepret MF's testimony about them and I interpret it another.

The testimony/evidence, which was not refuted and acquiesced by the prosecution was that he was. We have MF admitting, be it truthful or not that he harmed interracial couples and fabricated a reason to stop them. I can't dismiss that testimony as I have experienced that in my lifetime.

I need clarification on you third paragraph.

I view it differently as I think it is very substantive.

[William Anthony]

I seem to hear the humming of a distant train, singing a sad refrain.

[tv]

Tvdinner,

I think that we have started on a discourse that could be fruitful. Therefore, I suggest that in order to keep the discussion civil, we acknowledge that any inferences drawn from the evidence is neither right nor wrong. On this issue, I draw my inference from MF's testimony on seeing them. We have that evidence from which to draw inferences either one way or the other.

You're free to draw whatever inferences you want. I prefer to make my judgements based on hard evidence. Eyewitness testimony is proof that there was only one glove at Bundy.

[martin II]

A bloody glove in his yard would implicate oj simpson regadless of where he was. A comminity where police do very little patrolling and abuse of citizens would have very little understanding of the abuse they do to citizens in other
poor communities. Anyone that ignores the presence of the blue wall of silence is just being silly.

[tv]

I seem to hear the humming of a distant train, singing a sad refrain.They have over the counter medication for that. It's usually caused by too much wax build-up. Just trying to be helpful.

[William Anthony]

You're free to draw whatever inferences you want. I prefer to make my judgements based on hard evidence. Eyewitness testimony is proof that there was only one glove at Bundy.

MF's testimony is evidence that he saw two gloves at Bundy, imho, and there is no need to become harsh in our comments. You could be right, just as I could.

[William Anthony]

They have over the counter medication for that. It's usually caused by too much wax build-up. Just trying to be helpful.

I appreciate the help but it is not necessary as I am capable of toning it out.

[weezer]

A bloody glove in his yard would implicate oj simpson regadless of where he was. A comminity where police do very little patrolling and abuse of citizens would have very little understanding of the abuse they do to citizens in other
poor communities. Anyone that ignores the presence of the blue wall of silence is just being silly.

oh my! the ex-husband who spent 17 years abusing, threatening, stalking Nicole, who left his blood, hair, fiber, hat, glove and size 12 pigeon toed BM footprints at the murder scene didn't do it -- LE did.

what LE did or did not do in other communities is moot in this case since there was and has never been any proof that the crap the criminal defense threw against the wall to see what would stick ever happened. none. nada.

[tv]

That is one way to intepret MF's testimony about them and I interpret it another.

The testimony/evidence, which was not refuted and acquiesced by the prosecution was that he was. We have MF admitting, be it truthful or not that he harmed interracial couples and fabricated a reason to stop them. I can't dismiss that testimony as I have experienced that in my lifetime.

I need clarification on you third paragraph.

I view it differently as I think it is very substantive.Clarification: You think he deposited the blood after retrieving his cell phone, or cell phone accessories I should say, from the Bronco. There has been a lot of discussion about lack of blood on the white carpet etc. If he actually did cut his hand in the way he said he did why is there no blood on the carpet and in the other places his supporters say it should? What would be the difference in the pattern of blood if he cut his hand murdering or on the cell phone or cell phone accessories?

[martin II]

You're free to draw whatever inferences you want. I prefer to make my judgements based on hard evidence. Eyewitness testimony is proof that there was only one glove at Bundy.


In her direct testimony Mazzola gave eye witness personal testimony that she, as she claimed she always did, initial the envelopes containing the blood.Allthought she later testified that she did not know why her initials were now not on the envelopes you are prepared to ignore that this means that someone switched the blood envelopes.

[tv]

I appreciate the help but it is not necessary as I am capable of toning it out.I thought if it bothered you enough to mention it on the board you might need a little help.

[tv]

In her direct testimony Mazzola gave eye witness personal testimony that she, as she claimed she always did, initial the envelopes containing the blood.Allthought she later testified that she did not know why her initials were now not on the envelopes you are prepared to ignore that this means that someone switched the blood envelopes.

I think if anyone had bothered to switch the blood samples they would have been devious enough to think of adding initials to the envelopes. It's my opinion that she thought she initialed them but didn't. Remember, paper will lay still for anything to be written on it.

[tv]

MF's testimony is evidence that he saw two gloves at Bundy, imho, and there is no need to become harsh in our comments. You could be right, just as I could.Det. Fuhrman testified that he was talking about the hat and glove not two gloves.

[William Anthony]

Clarification: You think he deposited the blood after retrieving his cell phone, or cell phone accessories I should say, from the Bronco. There has been a lot of discussion about lack of blood on the white carpet etc. If he actually did cut his hand in the way he said he did why is there no blood on the carpet and in the other places his supporters say it should? What would be the difference in the pattern of blood if he cut his hand murdering or on the cell phone or cell phone accessories?

The Rockingham blood trail is consistent with him retrieving his cell phone or accessories from the Bronco and inconsistent with him being behind Kato's quarters, which allows me to draw the inference he wasn't back there. The Rockingham blood trail is consistent with him innocently cutting his hand finger in the manner of retrieving items from the Bronco.

[tv]

A bloody glove in his yard would implicate oj simpson regadless of where he was. A comminity where police do very little patrolling and abuse of citizens would have very little understanding of the abuse they do to citizens in other
poor communities. Anyone that ignores the presence of the blue wall of silence is just being silly.

You cannot provide one shred of proof that there was a police conspiracy in this case. Just because you have examples of it happening elsewhere means nothing. OJ Simpson had been coddled by LE for years and there is no reason to think it changed on the night of June 13, 1994.

[William Anthony]

Det. Fuhrman testified that he was talking about the hat and glove not two gloves.

I do not want to say anything that will stop the conversation but Bailey showed him that he had not been asked about the glove in two pages of testimony and that he had been specifically asked about seeing one glove. I will adhere to falsus in onus, falsus in omnibus and draw a inference that he did see two gloves at Bundy and you can believe he only saw one with neither of us being right or wrong.

[tv]

The Rockingham blood trail is consistent with him retrieving his cell phone or accessories from the Bronco and inconsistent with him being behind Kato's quarters, which allows me to draw the inference he wasn't back there. The Rockingham blood trail is consistent with him innocently cutting his hand finger in the manner of retrieving items from the Bronco.

His blood was found on the glove behind the bungalow and the glove also contained the blood of the victims. That's proof that he was back there. Hard, solid evidence -- you have none to show someone else put the glove there.

[William Anthony]

I thought if it bothered you enough to mention it on the board you might need a little help.

Let me put your mind at ease, although I realize that you are a nurse but I can self medicate and take care of that little annoyance.

[martin II]

Clarification: You think he deposited the blood after retrieving his cell phone, or cell phone accessories I should say, from the Bronco. There has been a lot of discussion about lack of blood on the white carpet etc. If he actually did cut his hand in the way he said he did why is there no blood on the carpet and in the other places his supporters say it should? What would be the difference in the pattern of blood if he cut his hand murdering or on the cell phone or cell phone accessories?

It is believed that he cut a gash on his finger while killing ron when there was no cutr on the glove they said well he cut the gash after ron pulled the glove off.But there was not enough blood at bundy to indicate that a finger was cut that way.When there was little blood at rockingham some said he put his finger in his mouth.No blood on the white carpet from the bleeding finger but blood on the glove on the white carpet.

All one had to do the plant the glove was to walk to the gate and just toss it to where it was found. It did not require one to walk down the walkway.

[tv]

I do not want to say anything that will stop the conversation but Bailey showed him that he had not been asked about the glove in two pages of testimony and that he had been specifically asked about seeing one glove. I will adhere to falsus in onus, falsus in omnibus and draw a inference that he did see two gloves at Bundy and you can believe he only saw one with neither of us being right or wrong.

Mark Fuhrman testified that he saw one glove and one hat. That is the testimony.

[William Anthony]

His blood was found on the glove behind the bungalow and the glove also contained the blood of the victims. That's proof that he was back there. Hard, solid evidence -- you have none to show someone else put the glove there.

The question is how the blood got on the glove. However, we are now discussing the evidence from which inferences can be drawn as to how the glove got back there and I will be willing to discuss with you how the evidence got on the glove once we have finished this discussion.

[martin II]

Mark Fuhrman testified that he saw one glove and one hat. That is the testimony.

Didn't he first described it as a ski mask?

[William Anthony]

Mark Fuhrman testified that he saw one glove and one hat. That is the testimony.

As you are aware, I have previously supplied the testimony. You see it one way and I see it another and neither of us is right or wrong.

[tv]

It is believed that he cut a gash on his finger while killing ron when there was no cutr on the glove they said well he cut the gash after ron pulled the glove off.But there was not enough blood at bundy to indicate that a finger was cut that way.When there was little blood at rockingham some said he put his finger in his mouth.No blood on the white carpet from the bleeding finger but blood on the glove on the white carpet.

All one had to do the plant the glove was to walk to the gate and just toss it to where it was found. It did not require one to walk down the walkway.

This is the first I've heard that there was a glove on the white carpet. Sure someone could have tossed the glove there or a traveling squirrel could have carried it from Bundy to Rockingham. You can't just throw that out there with no proof to back it up.

[martin II]

His blood was found on the glove behind the bungalow and the glove also contained the blood of the victims. That's proof that he was back there. Hard, solid evidence -- you have none to show someone else put the glove there.


What you don't know is whoes blood was on that glove when it was found and i bet you cannot prove whoes it was before the glove got to that house of contamination and manipulation.

[martin II]

This is the first I've heard that there was a glove on the white carpet. Sure someone could have tossed the glove there or a traveling squirrel could have carried it from Bundy to Rockingham. You can't just throw that out there with no proof to back it up.

correction
blood on the sock.

[GreenIce]

I'm laughing at this point. You won't answer to things that you have accused another individual of doing; and yet you have the audacity to advise other posters that they owe you an apology.

You and I go far back on this forum; I used to hold you in high regard because you were both passionate and forthright. How sad that you've now been reduced to an unwillingness to answer to the accusations you put forth.

I'm not a Yankees fan, baseball does not do it for me. I will, however, gloat that I took first place in my picks for the championship game in the men's college basketball Final Four.

Kate

Kate,

I am only a Yankee fan when they beat the Boston Red Sox. As for the basketball final four, how did you do in the final game?

[tv]

What you don't know is whoes blood was on that glove when it was found and i bet you cannot prove whoes it was before the glove got to that house of contamination and manipulation.


You have no proof that there was any contamination or manipulation.
The blood of OJ Simpson, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman was on the Rockingham glove.

I think I'm starting to catch William's ear condition.

[tv]

I agree. If someone is going to accuse me of making statements that I did not make then I expect that they will answer to that; especially when that same individual drones on regarding other individuals offensive tones, or demands apologies from other individuals that they somehow feel entitled to despite the fact that they are guilty of the very same conduct that they find ever so offensive.

At least I am able to stand corrected when shown to be incorrect.

Kate

Thank you, Kate. :)

[William Anthony]

You have no proof that there was any contamination or manipulation.
The blood of OJ Simpson, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman was on the Rockingham glove.

I think I'm starting to catch William's ear condition.

My Fair Lady,

While I am kind enough to share with a lady, I am gentleman enough to not share with her my afflictions.:):)

[tv]

If Simpson had been in the south walkway when Kato heard the noise he would have run right into Kato when Kato entered the walkway.That didn't happen because simpson was placing the two duffle bags at the door that he had just brought downstairs when Kato entered the walkway.

Not true. Kato didn't investigate the noise as soon as he heard it.

[tv]

My Fair Lady,

While I am kind enough to share with a lady, I am gentleman enough to not share with her my afflictions.:):)

I suppose I can thank you for that.

[William Anthony]

Not true. Kato didn't investigate the noise as soon as he heard it.

Ah, but Park allegedly saw someone he thought could have been Simpson simultaneously to seeing Kato.

[William Anthony]

I suppose I can thank you for that.

Thank yous are easier to come by than apologies around here. :)

[tv]

Let me put your mind at ease, although I realize that you are a nurse but I can self medicate and take care of that little annoyance.
Good. :)

[tv]

Ah, but Park allegedly saw someone he thought could have been Simpson simultaneously to seeing Kato.What does that have to do with being behind the bungalow the same time as Kato was on the south path? Kato never fully explored the south path and Simpson could have been anywhere. No proof.

[tv]

oh for Pete's sake martin. you could not really believe that a detective -- in a crowded murder scene -- whipped out a plastic bag from his sock -- put a bloody glove in it -- put the bag and glove back in his sock and went looking for someone to blame it on. he didn't know who because he, of course, didn't know who was or wasn't in town, didn't know who did or didn't have an alibi -----------

pathetic

I think he really does believe this. If he doesn't then he has to consider that OJ Simpson is a double-murderer and that's not acceptable to him. I'm still looking for proof of planting and manipulation of items of evidence.

[martin II]

Not true. Kato didn't investigate the noise as soon as he heard it.

It took kato about 2-3-4 minutes to get to the garage. if oj had come from there he would have met oj at the garage or at the front door.He didn't because oj was either finishing his shower or putting on his black robe preparing to bring the two bags down stairs to the porch.

[martin II]

What does that have to do with being behind the bungalow the same time as Kato was on the south path? Kato never fully explored the south path and Simpson could have been anywhere. No proof.

Kato went to the first gate.oj could not have been the path then because park said he saw oj going into the door.

[tv]

It took kato about 2-3-4 minutes to get to the garage. if oj had come from there he would have met oj at the garage or at the front door.He didn't because oj was either finishing his shower or putting on his black robe preparing to bring the two bags down stairs to the porch.

Or chipping golf balls, retrieving his cell phone, retrieving his cell phone accessories, walking Chachi or sleeping. Question -- why didn't Kato run into whoever or whatever made the noise when he went to investigate?

[William Anthony]

What does that have to do with being behind the bungalow the same time as Kato was on the south path. Kato never fully explored the south path and Simpson could have been anywhere. No proof.

Park never saw the figure he thought was Simpson on the driveway. Therefore, Kato and Simpson would have undoubtedly passed each other in order for Kato to get where Park saw him still standing after Kato returned from his first cursory search and Park saw him. Therefore, a reasonable inference can be drawn that MF investigated and saw no evidence of anyone being behind Kato's quarters, because no one had been behind there prior to MF.

[martin II]

I suppose I can thank you for that.

There was no proof that oj was in the path or jumped the fence.three detectives said no one jumped the fence, yet you ignore this and say oj jumped the fence,where is your proof that he did?

[tv]

Park never saw the figure he thought was Simpson on the driveway. Therefore, Kato and Simpson would have undoubtedly passed each other in order for Kato to get where Park saw him still standing after Kato returned from his first cursory search and Park saw him. Therefore, a reasonable inference can be drawn that MF investigated and saw no evidence of anyone being behind Kato's quarters, because no one had been behind there prior to MF.
I'm not going over all this again. You think Det. Furhman is a liar and evidence manipulator and then you think he wouldn't be smart enough to mash down the leaves and brush to make it look like someone had been behind the bungalow? What kind of sense does that make? There is no proof, no evidence, no facts that place anyone behind the bungalow when the glove was placed there except OJ Simpson.

[tv]

There was no proof that oj was in the path or jumped the fence.three detectives said no one jumped the fence, yet you ignore this and say oj jumped the fence,where is your proof that he did?

I've said before that I don't care if he jumped the fence or flew back there on a flying donkey. The glove with his blood and the blood of the victims place him back there.

[GreenIce]

Simpson's blood was found in three places on the Rockingham glove: inside - by wrist notch, outside - near wrist notch and in the stitching at the wrist notch. How did Colin Yamauchi manage to spill blood INSIDE the glove? The truth is that when he opened the vial and a tiny amount of blood got on the chemwipe he was using the evidence was ten to fifteen feet away. It takes a vivid imagination to believe the blood flew across the room and on to items of evidence. This is the first time I've read or heard that the defense in either case claimed that Colin Yamauchi could have spilled blood on the glove when he opened the vial.

How do you explain why Nicole's blood on the sock had a higher DNA count than her reference sample -- meaning it was fresh when it was splashed onto the sock? It's impossible for degraded blood to become fresh again.

All crime scene and Rockingham blood samples were collected BEFORE Simspon returned from Chicago. There was none of his blood available to scatter around. Even though the blood on the gate wasn't collected until weeks later we know it was there the night of the murders. It was seen by numerous LE and even OJ Simpson's neice.

If Colin Yamuchi is so 'sub par' I'm surprised he still has a job. Last I heard he was still working for the LAPD and testified in the Phil Spector case. You know, the one where Dr. Henry Lee was discredited and accused of manipulating evidence.

TV,

There was no evidence that the blood on the sock was splashed on. In fact, the DA's conceded the point that it was "pressed" on. They alternative theory was that it was Nicole who reached up, went under the pant leg and grabbed him. The Bundy crime scene was blood bath, what are the chances that the only blood that was doing the splashing was Nicole's? What did Ron's blood decide to sit this dance out?

The DA's own witness, Dr. Gary Sims could not say when or how the blood got on the sock. He did say that he did not know how any one could have missed it.

Experts from both sides look at the sock, they saw no blood. The LAPD crime lab "lost the socks" when Dr. Lee wanted to look at them. That is a major problem right there. Don't even attempt to give any excuses for why they did not use the proper equipment. In Shapiro's book he gives the evidence item numbers. I think the socks were #13. What they got tired after testing the scarf and shirt for blood and decided to skip the socks until August? The socks were the most important evidence in this case, they were found inside the home. I will give someone credit, this person realized how the socks were being treated, knew no blood was visiable on them, probably even used the right equipment to confirm it. Too bad the highest ranking person in the lab, didn't think to use the right equipment or maybe she was waiting for someone else outside her office to do it?

You know for a fact that Fung and Mozzola did not inventory all the samples they collected. You know for a fact that different sizes of swatches were used. You know for a fact that any thing that AM or DF, according to their own testimony was done from memory and or by the seat of their pants. Granted, I think both of them were very upset to be put in the positon they were but at least they took some hits for the home team. So tell me how do you look at seven blood swatches and know where you collected them from? How do you know that all the swatches did not come from the same blood sample? Thats right, you don't know.

Do you mind explaining to me why Rockingham was made the primary crime scene and why Fung and Mozzola were told to report to Rockingham and not Bundy. I could be wrong but I think the blood drops at Bundy were a tad more important then the one's at Rockingham. And how do you explain Fung looking for the blood on the back gate and not finding it?

Why didn't the DA's ever ask Dr. Lee if he saw the blood drops when he was taking photographs at Bundy? Why didn't they ask Dr. Baden if he saw them? If the DA's had any confidence in this evidence, they would have asked these two men. I may be wrong but I think Simpson's niece must have made herself unavailable to testify.

Here is another question on the socks and EDTA. Why did Marcia Clark cross Dr. Reiders? Why didn't the highly rated Rocke Harmon or Woody Clarke handle his cross---thats right, I think they would not cross him because they believed he was correct, that there was EDTA in the samples and it was consistent with it coming from a reference vial. Maybe that is why Clark spent more time on a case that happend a few years back and I think it was a red color test tube---and why didn't the DA's call Roger Martz? They sent him a letter, asking him to refute the defense's claim about EDTA. What he didn't write them back--So Clark got mad and wouldn't invite him to the trial?

You are asking for proof of planting, we ll actual proof would only be if it was filmed and narrated. As William says, you can only state the true facts about the evidence and it is up the jury to decide.

I would hope that after the Simpson trial, every single employee got a wake up call and realized that while it is rare, there will be a defendant one day who has the resources to open wide the doors of their labs that have been closed for so long.

BTW, what about the allele question---why were alleles found, consistent with Simpson's, in Ron's and Nicole's blood when they were typed. I am pretty sure that Ron's and Nicole's blood for typing came from their vials. The same ones that Vanatter had for over 24 hours, I think it was. What is it with this detective and his fetish for carrying reference samples around with him. I know every one needs a hobby but this guy is a tad frightening, IMO.

[William Anthony]

I'm not going over all this again. You think Det. Furhman is a liar and evidence manipulator and then you think he wouldn't be smart enough to mash down the leaves and brush to make it look like someone had been behind the bungalow? What kind of sense does that make? There is no proof, no evidence, no facts that place anyone behind the bungalow when the glove was placed there except OJ Simpson.

I have not said that MF was the brightest crayon in the box and I think Bailey proved he wasn't. One correction, to your post, I know that MF is a liar/convicted perjurer, if you will. A lot of talk has been made about Simpson being in a rush. However, MF would have also been in a rush, if another LE member had missed him and gone to see where he went. In other words, MF did not have time to mash leaves and brush, if he was the evidence planter, which is an inference that can be drawn from the evidence and the inference can be drawn that Bailey exposed MF's mistakes.

[martin II]

Or chipping golf balls, retrieving his cell phone, retrieving his cell phone accessories, walking Chachi or sleeping. Question -- why didn't Kato run into whoever or whatever made the noise when he went to investigate?

NO
Chipping golf balls earlier, resting, short nap on his bed, toilet, shower, bathrob,bringing bags down, moving golf bag to bench,going back into house
turning lights on answering buzzer.

Whoever was back there simply left when Park was driving back and forth and oj and kato were in the yard.

[martin II]

I've said before that I don't care if he jumped the fence or flew back there on a flying donkey. The glove with his blood and the blood of the victims place him back there.

OJS blood was drawn at about 2-3 pm on 6/13. Fung finished Evidence collecting at 7 pm on 6/13.Plenty time for placing ojs blood wherever they wanted it to be in that lab.

[martin II]

Well if most or some of the lab techs were married to lapd cops,lab planting of samples would not be that difficult.

[martin II]

i remember a case in San Francisco where lab tech had lied and given false test results in 500 cases.All the cases were reviewed and overturned. In some cases they didn't even do the test.Just gave false results againse the defendants.

[martin II]

TV,

There was no evidence that the blood on the sock was splashed on. In fact, the DA's conceded the point that it was "pressed" on. They alternative theory was that it was Nicole who reached up, went under the pant leg and grabbed him. The Bundy crime scene was blood bath, what are the chances that the only blood that was doing the splashing was Nicole's? What did Ron's blood decide to sit this dance out?

The DA's own witness, Dr. Gary Sims could not say when or how the blood got on the sock. He did say that he did not know how any one could have missed it.

Experts from both sides look at the sock, they saw no blood. The LAPD crime lab "lost the socks" when Dr. Lee wanted to look at them. That is a major problem right there. Don't even attempt to give any excuses for why they did not use the proper equipment. In Shapiro's book he gives the evidence item numbers. I think the socks were #13. What they got tired after testing the scarf and shirt for blood and decided to skip the socks until August? The socks were the most important evidence in this case, they were found inside the home. I will give someone credit, this person realized how the socks were being treated, knew no blood was visiable on them, probably even used the right equipment to confirm it. Too bad the highest ranking person in the lab, didn't think to use the right equipment or maybe she was waiting for someone else outside her office to do it?

You know for a fact that Fung and Mozzola did not inventory all the samples they collected. You know for a fact that different sizes of swatches were used. You know for a fact that any thing that AM or DF, according to their own testimony was done from memory and or by the seat of their pants. Granted, I think both of them were very upset to be put in the positon they were but at least they took some hits for the home team. So tell me how do you look at seven blood swatches and know where you collected them from? How do you know that all the swatches did not come from the same blood sample? Thats right, you don't know.

Do you mind explaining to me why Rockingham was made the primary crime scene and why Fung and Mozzola were told to report to Rockingham and not Bundy. I could be wrong but I think the blood drops at Bundy were a tad more important then the one's at Rockingham. And how do you explain Fung looking for the blood on the back gate and not finding it?

Why didn't the DA's ever ask Dr. Lee if he saw the blood drops when he was taking photographs at Bundy? Why didn't they ask Dr. Baden if he saw them? If the DA's had any confidence in this evidence, they would have asked these two men. I may be wrong but I think Simpson's niece must have made herself unavailable to testify.

Here is another question on the socks and EDTA. Why did Marcia Clark cross Dr. Reiders? Why didn't the highly rated Rocke Harmon or Woody Clarke handle his cross---thats right, I think they would not cross him because they believed he was correct, that there was EDTA in the samples and it was consistent with it coming from a reference vial. Maybe that is why Clark spent more time on a case that happend a few years back and I think it was a red color test tube---and why didn't the DA's call Roger Martz? They sent him a letter, asking him to refute the defense's claim about EDTA. What he didn't write them back--So Clark got mad and wouldn't invite him to the trial?

You are asking for proof of planting, we ll actual proof would only be if it was filmed and narrated. As William says, you can only state the true facts about the evidence and it is up the jury to decide.

I would hope that after the Simpson trial, every single employee got a wake up call and realized that while it is rare, there will be a defendant one day who has the resources to open wide the doors of their labs that have been closed for so long.

BTW, what about the allele question---why were alleles found, consistent with Simpson's, in Ron's and Nicole's blood when they were typed. I am pretty sure that Ron's and Nicole's blood for typing came from their vials. The same ones that Vanatter had for over 24 hours, I think it was. What is it with this detective and his fetish for carrying reference samples around with him. I know every one needs a hobby but this guy is a tad frightening, IMO.

Vanhatter also collected some sneakers from ojs house and took them home.

[martin II]

When Kato was resting and enjoying his chronic and his conversation, it was 10:45 and he said he heard some noise on his wall.

[bobaugust]

Park never saw the figure he thought was Simpson on the driveway. Therefore, Kato and Simpson would have undoubtedly passed each other in order for Kato to get where Park saw him still standing after Kato returned from his first cursory search and Park saw him. Therefore, a reasonable inference can be drawn that MF investigated and saw no evidence of anyone being behind Kato's quarters, because no one had been behind there prior to MF.

William, if Park first saw Kaelin and then Simpson enter his house when Kaelin opened the gate for Park after Kaelin returned from his first trip to the south path, as you have mistakenly speculated, then Kaelin and Simpson would have both been on the driveway at the same time. If, as you mistakenly speculate, Kaelin was standing (for about two minutes) near the gate control box when Simpson entered his house, Kaelin would have also been a position to see Simpson. That’s not what either Park or Kaelin testified happened.

The fact is that Park testified he first saw Kaelin come from the back of the house down the Ashford side path with a flashlight. (That was to Park’s left not to his right on the other side of the driveway where the gate control box was.) Park testified that when Kaelin got to the where the Ashford side path met the driveway and stopped Park saw Simpson walk up and enter his front house. Park was in a position to see both Kaelin and Simpson but neither Kaelin nor Simpson could see each other. The first time Kaelin said he saw Simpson after the noises, was when Simpson came downstairs dressed to leave for the airport.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

William, if Park first saw Kaelin and then Simpson enter his house when Kaelin opened the gate for Park after Kaelin returned from his first trip to the south path, as you have mistakenly speculated, then Kaelin and Simpson would have both been on the driveway at the same time. If, as you mistakenly speculate, Kaelin was standing (for about two minutes) near the gate control box when Simpson entered his house, Kaelin would have also been a position to see Simpson. That’s not what either Park or Kaelin testified happened.

The fact is that Park testified he first saw Kaelin come from the back of the house down the Ashford side path with a flashlight. (That was to Park’s left not to his right on the other side of the driveway where the gate control box was.) Park testified that when Kaelin got to the where the Ashford side path met the driveway and stopped Park saw Simpson walk up and enter his front house. Park was in a position to see both Kaelin and Simpson but neither Kaelin nor Simpson could see each other. The first time Kaelin said he saw Simpson after the noises, was when Simpson came downstairs dressed to leave for the airport.

bobaugust

We have discussed this previously and my inferences are different from yours. There is no need for us to rehash this as it is not important to me, whose inference is right or wrong. You see you are assuming that the figure Park saw was Simpson coming from somewhere near the driveway as opposed to walking into the entrance way, meaning that Simpson was in the house walked out and placed something near the driveway, turned and walked inside, which is when Park saw him. Your assumption is not supported by the Park's testimony.

A: YES. I SAW A FIGURE COME DOWN -- WELL, NOT COME DOWN, BUT I SAW A FIGURE COME INTO THE ENTRANCEWAY OF THE HOUSE JUST ABOUT WHERE THE -- WHERE THE DRIVEWAY STARTS.

Another point before I finish the discussion. I didn't speculate. I went by the testimony. Park said Kato was "still standing". Kato said he let the limo in after returning from completion of his first cursory search. Therefore, since Park was not on the phone but for 30 seconds after first seeing Kato, waited another thirty seconds, went to the gate and buzzed the intercom, which Simpson answered immediately and Kato let him in within twenty to thirty seconds, giving Kato twenty to thirty seconds to walk to the gate, then Kato was only "still standing" for a minute. As I have previously said , it is not important to me which of our inferences is right or wrong only that they are supported by the evidence. Therefore, I am finished with this part of our discussion.

[martin II]

What does that have to do with being behind the bungalow the same time as Kato was on the south path? Kato never fully explored the south path and Simpson could have been anywhere. No proof.

Park could not have seen kato STILL STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK as he said he saw him. Kato was in the pathway.

[weezer]

I do not want to say anything that will stop the conversation but Bailey showed him that he had not been asked about the glove in two pages of testimony and that he had been specifically asked about seeing one glove. I will adhere to falsus in onus, falsus in omnibus and draw a inference that he did see two gloves at Bundy and you can believe he only saw one with neither of us being right or wrong.

bailey was made to admit in open court that he lied about talking 'marine to marine' with a witness who got on national television and absolutely stated he had never spoken to bailey -- much less 'marine to marine.' I guess you're using your 'selective' button on deciding whose word could be trusted. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

I seem to hear the humming of a distant train, singing a sad refrain.

[weezer]

TV,

There was no evidence that the blood on the sock was splashed on. The next suspicious factor was the blood-splatter pattern on the socks themselves. Reasonable Doubts By Alan M. Dershowitz

In fact, the DA's conceded the point that it was "pressed" on. They alternative theory was that it was Nicole who reached up, went under the pant leg and grabbed him.

The Bundy crime scene was blood bath, what are the chances that the only blood that was doing the splashing was Nicole's? What did Ron's blood decide to sit this dance out?

The DA's own witness, Dr. Gary Sims could not say when or how the blood got on the sock. He did say that he did not know how any one could have missed it.

Sims also offered important testimony about the location of the blood found on the socks. Sims testified that blood consistent with Nicole Simpson's was found near the ankle area. The prosecution believes that if someone is wearing pants and shoes and walking through blood, the splatter would hit the area of the sock that is exposed -- the ankle. In addition, blood consistent with Simpson's was found in the toe area. The prosecution believes the blood got there when Simpson took off the sock with his cut, bleeding finger.

Experts from both sides look at the sock, they saw no blood. The LAPD crime lab "lost the socks" when Dr. Lee wanted to look at them. Please post a link to support this statement.

That is a major problem right there. Don't even attempt to give any excuses for why they did not use the proper equipment. In Shapiro's book he gives the evidence item numbers. I think the socks were #13. What they got tired after testing the scarf and shirt for blood and decided to skip the socks until August? The socks were the most important evidence in this case, they were found inside the home. I will give someone credit, this person realized how the socks were being treated, knew no blood was visiable on them, probably even used the right equipment to confirm it. Too bad the highest ranking person in the lab, didn't think to use the right equipment or maybe she was waiting for someone else outside her office to do it? Expert testimony was that Nicole's blood not preserved blood. I've always thought that more important was the fibers found on the socks.

You know for a fact that Fung and Mozzola did not inventory all the samples they collected. You know for a fact that different sizes of swatches were used. You know for a fact that any thing that AM or DF, according to their own testimony was done from memory and or by the seat of their pants. Granted, I think both of them were very upset to be put in the positon they were but at least they took some hits for the home team. So tell me how do you look at seven blood swatches and know where you collected them from? How do you know that all the swatches did not come from the same blood sample? Thats right, you don't know. This hasbeen explained quite clearly. What isn't clear is why you would believe someone would plant 4 out of 7 blood samples?

Do you mind explaining to me why Rockingham was made the primary crime scene and why Fung and Mozzola were told to report to Rockingham and not Bundy. I could be wrong but I think the blood drops at Bundy were a tad more important then the one's at Rockingham. And how do you explain Fung looking for the blood on the back gate and not finding it? Fung never looked for blood on the backgate. In fact, he testified that he didn't recall Lange telling him to collect the blood from the backgate.

Why didn't the DA's ever ask Dr. Lee if he saw the blood drops when he was taking photographs at Bundy? Why didn't they ask Dr. Baden if he saw them? If the DA's had any confidence in this evidence, they would have asked these two men. I may be wrong but I think Simpson's niece must have made herself unavailable to testify.
What makes you think they weren't asked?

Here is another question on the socks and EDTA. Why did Marcia Clark cross Dr. Reiders? Why didn't the highly rated Rocke Harmon or Woody Clarke handle his cross---thats right, I think they would not cross him because they believed he was correct, that there was EDTA in the samples and it was consistent with it coming from a reference vial.Maybe that is why Clark spent more time on a case that happend a few years back and I think it was a red color test tube--- I don't even know how anyone could answer this! Good Lord!

and why didn't the DA's call Roger Martz? They sent him a letter, asking him to refute the defense's claim about EDTA. What he didn't write them back--So Clark got mad and wouldn't invite him to the trial? July 25, 1995 (85k zip) -- F.B.I scientist Roger Martz testified

You are asking for proof of planting, we ll actual proof would only be if it was filmed and narrated. As William says, you can only state the true facts about the evidence and it is up the jury to decide.

I would hope that after the Simpson trial, every single employee got a wake up call and realized that while it is rare, there will be a defendant one day who has the resources to open wide the doors of their labs that have been closed for so long.

BTW, what about the allele question---why were alleles found, consistent with Simpson's, in Ron's and Nicole's blood when they were typed. I am pretty sure that Ron's and Nicole's blood for typing came from their vials. The same ones that Vanatter had for over 24 hours, I think it was. Uh - no!What is it with this detective and his fetish for carrying reference samples around with him. I know every one needs a hobby but this guy is a tad frightening, IMO.

Whew!

[weezer]

I seem to hear the humming of a distant train, singing a sad refrain.

you know, the light that you see at the end of the tunnel just might be that train! ;)

[martin II]

The prosecution wrote martz a letter asking him to debunk some defence claims on EDTA

After his work was done and the prosecution reviewed it the prosecution refused to call him as their witness
Martz was a defence witness on 7/25 7/26

The prosecution knew his study did not support their claims.

I Simms could not explain how the blood got on the socks how would one expect to get a sensible answer from Clarke.

The blood got on the socks when someone in the lab put it there.

[GreenIce]

I have not said that MF was the brightest crayon in the box and I think Bailey proved he wasn't. One correction, to your post, I know that MF is a liar/convicted perjurer, if you will. A lot of talk has been made about Simpson being in a rush. However, MF would have also been in a rush, if another LE member had missed him and gone to see where he went. In other words, MF did not have time to mash leaves and brush, if he was the evidence planter, which is an inference that can be drawn from the evidence and the inference can be drawn that Bailey exposed MF's mistakes.

William,

I have to totally disagree with you about Mark Fuhrman not beng the "brightest crayon". In fact, I would not be surprised to learn that he had a very, very high IQ. IMO, MF, because of his experience and what he has learned, he knew that no judge was going to toss the glove. He knew that Vanatter and Lange had to let him lead this dance and he enjoyed every single dance step. The most telling of intelligence was bragging about the glove. It seems to me that MF did make one mistake but one that is very common, it was his arrogance and again, IMO, he belived the murder weapon, the clothes and the shoes would either be linked to Simpson or they would be found.

I do believe that MF's "them" was a reference to the glove and a hat, but I do believe that hat was was a ski mask and not a watch cap. He got close enough to the "hate" to know what type is was. There was at least one other cap that was found just like inside the home. IMO, I believe it was a ski mask, which lost its way as did so many other pieces of evidence--either real or imagined.

There is not doubt in my mind that the gloves and the hat were left behind on purpose. Who ever did this, IMO, would have made sure that the second glove would have not have been left in the same area as the other one. As you know, I believe who ever killed them wanted the trail to lead to Rockingham.

Mark Fuhrman had no fear of getting caught, he knew how the trial was playing out in the media. He knew the outrage people felt over the defense's defense. He had no worries. He knew that in order to 100 percent prove planting, someone was going to have come forward, someone in the LAPD and as we know, there is the blue wall of silence.

Mark Fuhrman also knew to what lengths the LAPD and the DA's office was going to go for him. They settled the Britton case to make sure this could not hang over him. He was very, very smart. And judging from the G's posts, their unwavering support of him is proof of this. IMO.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, are you going to address why Carrie Bess did not know that Simpson's blood was on the Rockingham glove? It was talked about numerous times in the criminal trial. How could she come to a decision about the case without knowing this basic fact?

I expect you'll leave this unanswered as you do many of the claims you make.

TV,

Miss Bess may have got this wrong. Perhaps she did not the correct words to describe this--perhaps she felt there should have been more blood on the glove, I don't know, I don't know what her notes said. However, the jurors are human as well and I am sure they missed some points that were made by both sides.

However, Simpson's blood being on that glove is the only fact surrounding the glove. There is a question of how and when it got back there. There is the testimony of Collin Y, who could not prove that the spillage of the blood could not have possibly landed on the glove.

Also, if Miss Bess did miss this, there is no proof that the 11 other jurors didn't miss this. IMO, I think it is very possible that the jurors believed the glove was planted and once they believed this, it didn't matter what was found on it. If you question how the glove got back, once you know the person who found this glove has had his credibility shattered by his own words, what ever was found on the glove didn't matter. There is also the question of when the tests came back--when was confirmed that it was Simpson's blood?

I believe there were dog hairs found on this glove--so how did they get there? What about the undentified hair found the glove? There were alot more questions about the glove then who's DNA was found on it.

No trial is based on one "fact". IMO.

[GreenIce]

Vanhatter also collected some sneakers from ojs house and took them home.

Martin,

It was Lange who took the sneakers home--it was Vanatter who took the reference vials of Simpson, Nicole and Ron. This guy real has some weird collection habits, if you aske me!

[martin II]

William,

I have to totally disagree with you about Mark Fuhrman not beng the "brightest crayon". In fact, I would not be surprised to learn that he had a very, very high IQ. IMO, MF, because of his experience and what he has learned, he knew that no judge was going to toss the glove. He knew that Vanatter and Lange had to let him lead this dance and he enjoyed every single dance step. The most telling of intelligence was bragging about the glove. It seems to me that MF did make one mistake but one that is very common, it was his arrogance and again, IMO, he belived the murder weapon, the clothes and the shoes would either be linked to Simpson or they would be found.

I do believe that MF's "them" was a reference to the glove and a hat, but I do believe that hat was was a ski mask and not a watch cap. He got close enough to the "hate" to know what type is was. There was at least one other cap that was found just like inside the home. IMO, I believe it was a ski mask, which lost its way as did so many other pieces of evidence--either real or imagined.

There is not doubt in my mind that the gloves and the hat were left behind on purpose. Who ever did this, IMO, would have made sure that the second glove would have not have been left in the same area as the other one. As you know, I believe who ever killed them wanted the trail to lead to Rockingham.

Mark Fuhrman had no fear of getting caught, he knew how the trial was playing out in the media. He knew the outrage people felt over the defense's defense. He had no worries. He knew that in order to 100 percent prove planting, someone was going to have come forward, someone in the LAPD and as we know, there is the blue wall of silence.

Mark Fuhrman also knew to what lengths the LAPD and the DA's office was going to go for him. They settled the Britton case to make sure this could not hang over him. He was very, very smart. And judging from the G's posts, their unwavering support of him is proof of this. IMO.


You are correct about the Britton case. When the DA realized Furhman had this case hanging over him they went to the city and convinced them to settle the case.All of a sudden the city paid Britton $100,000 to settle the case just as the oj case was about to start. We got your back mark is what that said. Furhman then took the stand and embarrassed the whole lapd.

[martin II]

Martin,

It was Lange who took the sneakers home--it was Vanatter who took the reference vials of Simpson, Nicole and Ron. This guy real has some weird collection habits, if you aske me!

Vanhatter also had a bad habit of lying when asking for search warrants and what was required to make a simple notification.

[GreenIce]

William, if Park first saw Kaelin and then Simpson enter his house when Kaelin opened the gate for Park after Kaelin returned from his first trip to the south path, as you have mistakenly speculated, then Kaelin and Simpson would have both been on the driveway at the same time. If, as you mistakenly speculate, Kaelin was standing (for about two minutes) near the gate control box when Simpson entered his house, Kaelin would have also been a position to see Simpson. That’s not what either Park or Kaelin testified happened.

The fact is that Park testified he first saw Kaelin come from the back of the house down the Ashford side path with a flashlight. (That was to Park’s left not to his right on the other side of the driveway where the gate control box was.) Park testified that when Kaelin got to the where the Ashford side path met the driveway and stopped Park saw Simpson walk up and enter his front house. Park was in a position to see both Kaelin and Simpson but neither Kaelin nor Simpson could see each other. The first time Kaelin said he saw Simpson after the noises, was when Simpson came downstairs dressed to leave for the airport.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

What does it matter who saw who first? Does it change the evidence? The problem with this arguement is that makes no sense from the get go.

If Mr. Simpson is the killer, he went to Nicole's kill her. He had the weapon, dark clothes, gloves and rare shoes. Which clearly indicates that he planned this. Why would he ensure that the only entrance to house, after the murders was the front door? Why would be shut off all the lights off to give the impression that no was home?

There is a blood trail leading from the Bronco right up to the front door. Why only use the front door? He knew the limo driver was there. This makes no sense, IMO.




There is a blood trail from the Bronco, up the driveway, and right into front door.

[GreenIce]

Wiliam and Martin,

Just another thought on this case. Did Park testify that when he saw the AA, that he was holding or carrying something?

Another thought, he was wearing dark clothes--which had pockets. Why not just stick the glove in his pocket or under this clothes--why even go by that alley and by the room of the only one his estate?

[tv]

TV,

Miss Bess may have got this wrong. Perhaps she did not the correct words to describe this--perhaps she felt there should have been more blood on the glove, I don't know, I don't know what her notes said. However, the jurors are human as well and I am sure they missed some points that were made by both sides.

However, Simpson's blood being on that glove is the only fact surrounding the glove. There is a question of how and when it got back there. There is the testimony of Collin Y, who could not prove that the spillage of the blood could not have possibly landed on the glove.

Also, if Miss Bess did miss this, there is no proof that the 11 other jurors didn't miss this. IMO, I think it is very possible that the jurors believed the glove was planted and once they believed this, it didn't matter what was found on it. If you question how the glove got back, once you know the person who found this glove has had his credibility shattered by his own words, what ever was found on the glove didn't matter. There is also the question of when the tests came back--when was confirmed that it was Simpson's blood?

I believe there were dog hairs found on this glove--so how did they get there? What about the undentified hair found the glove? There were alot more questions about the glove then who's DNA was found on it.

No trial is based on one "fact". IMO.

The presence of OJ Simpson's blood on the Rockingham glove was an important part of the prosecution's case. There is no way Carrie Bess or any juror could have not known this unless she wasn't paying attention or already had her mind made up. If what you say is true -- once they made up their minds they stopped listening to the evidence then justice wasn't done in this trial. You say you don't know what her notes said. I posted a direct quote from her regarding the Rockingham glove.

OJ Simpson has been caught in numerous lies and yet you believe every word that he says including his nonsensical explanations for his activities while Park waited for him. I don't know if there were dog hairs on the glove but what if there was? Any dog owner knows dog hairs get on everything. Nicole had a dog. OJ Simpson's DNA and the DNA of the victims was found on the Rockingham glove which matched the one at the crime scene, the same style and size of gloves he was known to wear. These are facts. Please let me know when you have any evidence, proof or facts that show Det. Fuhrman planted the glove behind the bungalow. Anything at all.

[fgump2]

fgump2,

The swatches were brought back to the lab about 7:30 p.m. that night. They were put into test tubes to dry. The next time these swatches were handled was by AM when she put them in the bindles and initaled them. They had over 10 hours to dry.

The DA's had no simple or innocent explaintions. That was their problem. If all seven swatches were put out to dry at the same time, then all of them should have had the wet transfers.

However, don't forget on at least one swatch, the wet transfer did not match the same pattern. It is like the "original" swatch was sand paper and the wet transfer had the pattern of sand paper. However, Gary Simpson noticed that the transfer did not match the same pattern he was examining.

What didn't the jury understand? Did they not understand that the key blood evidence was not collected until days, weeks and months later? That was the testimony.

How much of education do you need to understand that at least two people, one who was a LAPD detective, didn't see the blood on the Bronco? There are many more of these types of examples.

When did the DA introduce the expert or experts who after leaving the swatches out to dry for over 10 hours came up with similar results? When did the DA's call an expert to testify that the broken AC unit in the truck was the only explaination for the low DNA count in some of the drops found at Bundy? And if these blood drops had a low DNA count because of the broken AC unit, then why weren't all the samples degraded?

Dr. Lee would never say that evidence was planted, it is not his job to explain all the errors of evidence--it is his job to review the evidence and give his opinon.

The defense did not want to make the evidence seem more complicated then it was---they didn't have to. It was the DA's who dragged the trial and tried to confuse the jury--heck, they ever tried to confuse the court with their changing evidence numbers. Like the test tube being number 17 one time and the same vial being 18 another.

How much of an education do you need to know that the four lead detectives lied in this case on matters that just didn't warrant them.

IMO, if you were on that jury, if any G on this board was on the jury except for maybe 1 or 2, and listened to the evidence and followed judge's instructions, you would have had no choice but to vote not guilty. It was the legal verdict possible. You don't need an education to have common sense.

Often, I have read comments about the "uneducated" jury. I have always laughed about this because in our education system, we are taught not to just accept what is told as true. Do your own thinking, come up with your conclusion. Stand up and fight for your opinon.

I don't care what education you had, it was not going to explain the problems of evidence in this case. Also remember, their were many other issues besides DNA in this case. IMO.

**************************************
I think the DAs did have logical explanations. Just not accepted by a lot of people.

I have read the LAPD and Henry Lee used different methods of drying swatches. Henry Lee put the swatches in test tubes and had the test tubes vertical, LAPD had them horizontal. I believe I read somewhere that D Fung put had some of the test tubes and swatches close together which means that some of them got more wind current than others. Even if he didn't keep things close together, it is easy to think that wind currents could have hit some swatches more than others. If some swatches were stuck deeper in a test tube than others that also could account for differing drying rates. It may also be true that some of the swatches had more water (damp rather than wet) than others. It might also be true that some swatches were pressed against the envelopes or bindles or whatever they are.

I also read that after the trial some criminologist tried to repeat the testing using LAPD techniques and they got the same results.

As for the swatch not matching the swatch pattern. I doubt that there has been any serious research on smears made by swatches. WA likes to complain about junk science. It might be interesting to find out if any university in the country has criminology courses which cover smears made by putting swatches in bindles or envelopes. The subject probably never came up till 1995.

As for not seeing blood in the bronco, small blood stains would be easy to miss. I have sometimes had trouble finding stains on clothing or other places (walls, carpets, car seats) even when I know about where it is. It is easy to not notice things. One of the first things they teach people in elementary criminology courses is that most people are not good at noticing and remembering things. To make this point these classes often show people a short video and then ask them to answer questions about what they saw. Almost everyone makes mistakes.

As for the type of people in the jury. First of all, John Douglas, the former FBI man who has written books about crime was quite critical of the jury, and he wasn't the only one. One of the jurors had this to say about the DNA."I didn't understand the DNA stuff at all; to me it was a waste of time". Another juror, he foreman (forewoman) said she thought the blood that was identified as OJS could have come from Mazzola, because they had the same blood type. The juror who had the best educational background (in the opinion of the prosecution) said afterwards that the person who impressed her most was Henry Lee "because she liked the way he smiled at the jury". If you, Greenice, are happy about spending 20M and 9 months and then having people like that decide things, I have to disagree. I realize that DNA wasn't the only factor, but it was an important part, and if the forewoman/foreman couldn't understand much about DNA she probably misunderstood a lot of other things as well.

As for the drops of blood having different levels of DNA, I suspect this happens a lot. Do you know enough to claim otherwise? Differing levels of DNA were probably caused mainly by the type of surface they landed on. Different places probably had different types of bacteria, different types of dirt. To state the obvious, the crime scene was not a spic and span clean biology lab.

You seem to make a lot of unwarranted claims in your posts. In another post you wrote that you were sure that the person who committed the crime deliberately left the glove(s 1 or 2?) and hat there. I don't think you have any facts to base that on.s.

[tv]

TV,

There was no evidence that the blood on the sock was splashed on. In fact, the DA's conceded the point that it was "pressed" on. They alternative theory was that it was Nicole who reached up, went under the pant leg and grabbed him. The Bundy crime scene was blood bath, what are the chances that the only blood that was doing the splashing was Nicole's? What did Ron's blood decide to sit this dance out?

The DA's own witness, Dr. Gary Sims could not say when or how the blood got on the sock. He did say that he did not know how any one could have missed it.

Experts from both sides look at the sock, they saw no blood. The LAPD crime lab "lost the socks" when Dr. Lee wanted to look at them. That is a major problem right there. Don't even attempt to give any excuses for why they did not use the proper equipment. In Shapiro's book he gives the evidence item numbers. I think the socks were #13. What they got tired after testing the scarf and shirt for blood and decided to skip the socks until August? The socks were the most important evidence in this case, they were found inside the home. I will give someone credit, this person realized how the socks were being treated, knew no blood was visiable on them, probably even used the right equipment to confirm it. Too bad the highest ranking person in the lab, didn't think to use the right equipment or maybe she was waiting for someone else outside her office to do it?

You know for a fact that Fung and Mozzola did not inventory all the samples they collected. You know for a fact that different sizes of swatches were used. You know for a fact that any thing that AM or DF, according to their own testimony was done from memory and or by the seat of their pants. Granted, I think both of them were very upset to be put in the positon they were but at least they took some hits for the home team. So tell me how do you look at seven blood swatches and know where you collected them from? How do you know that all the swatches did not come from the same blood sample? Thats right, you don't know.

Do you mind explaining to me why Rockingham was made the primary crime scene and why Fung and Mozzola were told to report to Rockingham and not Bundy. I could be wrong but I think the blood drops at Bundy were a tad more important then the one's at Rockingham. And how do you explain Fung looking for the blood on the back gate and not finding it?

Why didn't the DA's ever ask Dr. Lee if he saw the blood drops when he was taking photographs at Bundy? Why didn't they ask Dr. Baden if he saw them? If the DA's had any confidence in this evidence, they would have asked these two men. I may be wrong but I think Simpson's niece must have made herself unavailable to testify.

Here is another question on the socks and EDTA. Why did Marcia Clark cross Dr. Reiders? Why didn't the highly rated Rocke Harmon or Woody Clarke handle his cross---thats right, I think they would not cross him because they believed he was correct, that there was EDTA in the samples and it was consistent with it coming from a reference vial. Maybe that is why Clark spent more time on a case that happend a few years back and I think it was a red color test tube---and why didn't the DA's call Roger Martz? They sent him a letter, asking him to refute the defense's claim about EDTA. What he didn't write them back--So Clark got mad and wouldn't invite him to the trial?

You are asking for proof of planting, we ll actual proof would only be if it was filmed and narrated. As William says, you can only state the true facts about the evidence and it is up the jury to decide.

I would hope that after the Simpson trial, every single employee got a wake up call and realized that while it is rare, there will be a defendant one day who has the resources to open wide the doors of their labs that have been closed for so long.

BTW, what about the allele question---why were alleles found, consistent with Simpson's, in Ron's and Nicole's blood when they were typed. I am pretty sure that Ron's and Nicole's blood for typing came from their vials. The same ones that Vanatter had for over 24 hours, I think it was. What is it with this detective and his fetish for carrying reference samples around with him. I know every one needs a hobby but this guy is a tad frightening, IMO.

Weezer has already answered your questions about the alleles. As for Vannatter you're safe. He retired to a farm in Indiana so there's no need for you to be frightened. I realize you're sensitive about having your errors pointed out but Vannatter never carried around reference samples from Ron and Nicole. Their blood would have been removed in the morgue and handled by the ME's office. He did have OJ Simpson's blood in a vial but he didn't keep it for 24 hours. More like a few hours. I really don't know where you get this information but it's wrong.

What difference does it make who cross-examined Dr. Reiders? How can you find anything sinister in that?

[tv]

Weezer has already answered your questions about the alleles. As for Vannatter you're safe. He retired to a farm in Indiana so there's no need for you to be frightened. I realize you're sensitive about having your errors pointed out but Vannatter never carried around reference samples from Ron and Nicole. Their blood would have been removed in the morgue and handled by the ME's office. He did have OJ Simpson's blood in a vial but he didn't keep it for 24 hours. More like a few hours. I really don't know where you get this information but it's wrong.

What difference does it make who cross-examined Dr. Reiders? How can you find anything sinister in that?

GreenIce, I made a mistake in my post which I'm going to correct. Vannatter did deliver the blood samples of Ron and Nicole to the serology lab from the ME's office which is a 5 minute drive. He did not carry the blood samples around for 24 hours. See how easy it is to admit you're wrong?

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, I made a mistake in my post which I'm going to correct. Vannatter did deliver the blood samples of Ron and Nicole to the serology lab from the ME's office which is a 5 minute drive. He did not carry the blood samples around for 24 hours. See how easy it is to admit you're wrong?

TV Dinner,

What are the dates and times on the certificates?

I will re-check the book.

[GreenIce]

Weezer has already answered your questions about the alleles. As for Vannatter you're safe. He retired to a farm in Indiana so there's no need for you to be frightened. I realize you're sensitive about having your errors pointed out but Vannatter never carried around reference samples from Ron and Nicole. Their blood would have been removed in the morgue and handled by the ME's office. He did have OJ Simpson's blood in a vial but he didn't keep it for 24 hours. More like a few hours. I really don't know where you get this information but it's wrong.

What difference does it make who cross-examined Dr. Reiders? How can you find anything sinister in that?

TV,

When do you start question the DA's case? When do you start putting it all together? Was Marcia an expert in DNA as well as EDTA? Harmon believed that the results were true and that EDTA was present and the chances of it coming from a reference sample were much higher then he was comfortable. You know what he said during the trial, you know that he said the defense had a great April but they were afraid of May because the tide was turning against them and that is when he launched into his EDTA challenge.

[bobaugust]

We have discussed this previously and my inferences are different from yours. There is no need for us to rehash this as it is not important to me, whose inference is right or wrong. You see you are assuming that the figure Park saw was Simpson coming from somewhere near the driveway as opposed to walking into the entrance way, meaning that Simpson was in the house walked out and placed something near the driveway, turned and walked inside, which is when Park saw him. Your assumption is not supported by the Park's testimony.

A: YES. I SAW A FIGURE COME DOWN -- WELL, NOT COME DOWN, BUT I SAW A FIGURE COME INTO THE ENTRANCEWAY OF THE HOUSE JUST ABOUT WHERE THE -- WHERE THE DRIVEWAY STARTS.

Another point before I finish the discussion. I didn't speculate. I went by the testimony. Park said Kato was "still standing". Kato said he let the limo in after returning from completion of his first cursory search. Therefore, since Park was not on the phone but for 30 seconds after first seeing Kato, waited another thirty seconds, went to the gate and buzzed the intercom, which Simpson answered immediately and Kato let him in within twenty to thirty seconds, giving Kato twenty to thirty seconds to walk to the gate, then Kato was only "still standing" for a minute. As I have previously said , it is not important to me which of our inferences is right or wrong only that they are supported by the evidence. Therefore, I am finished with this part of our discussion.

William, Park never said he first saw Simpson come from the house to the driveway, he said he saw Simpson come from the driveway and go to the front entrance.

March 22, 1995 Allan Park

Q AND THIS SIX-FOOT 200-POUND AFRICAN AMERICAN PERSON IN ALL DARK CLOTHING, WAS THIS PERSON MOVING QUICKLY OR SLOWLY?
A NOT QUICKLY, NOT SLOWLY, A GOOD PACE WALK IT SEEMED TO BE.
Q AND MOVING IN WHAT DIRECTION, SIR?
A INTO THE HOUSE OR TOWARD THE HOUSE.

Q AND WHEN YOU SAW THAT PERSON, DID THAT PERSON WALK INTO THE ENTRANCE?
A YES.

Park said that Kaelin was still standing on the Ashford side path (the sidewalk) near the driveway after Simpson went into the house.

Q AFTER THAT SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON WENT INTO THE HOUSE, DID YOU HAPPEN TO NOTICE WHERE MR. KAELIN WAS?
A FROM WHAT I REMEMBERED, HE WAS STILL STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK.
Q DID HE ACKNOWLEDGE YOU IN ANY WAY AFTER THAT PERSON WENT INTO THE HOUSE?
A FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, HE KIND OF GAVE ME A HAND GESTURE TO LET ME KNOW HE WAS THERE.


Park estimated it was about two minutes after he saw Simpson enter his house and Kaelin standing on the side path before Kaelin opened the gate. Park never looked at a clock and he was unaware that after he saw Kaelin standing on the sidewalk that Kaelin had continued on to the south path and returned before he opened the gate. Kaelin said that on that first trip he walked south on the driveway to the garage area made a left at the corner of the garage and walked in on that south pathway only a short distance before turning around and returning to the driveway and then going to the gate control box. The time it took Kaelin to make that short trip and return may very well have been only about two or three minutes.

If you look at the colored diagram that both Martin and I have posted the link to you would see for yourself how short a trip that was. Park was not really that far off with his estimation of about two minutes from the time he saw Simpson enter the house to when Kaelin opened the gate for him.

http://www.wagnerandson.com/images/2rockham.jpg

bobaugust

[GreenIce]

**************************************
I think the DAs did have logical explanations. Just not accepted by a lot of people.

I have read the LAPD and Henry Lee used different methods of drying swatches. Henry Lee put the swatches in test tubes and had the test tubes vertical, LAPD had them horizontal. I believe I read somewhere that D Fung put had some of the test tubes and swatches close together which means that some of them got more wind current than others. Even if he didn't keep things close together, it is easy to think that wind currents could have hit some swatches more than others. If some swatches were stuck deeper in a test tube than others that also could account for differing drying rates. It may also be true that some of the swatches had more water (damp rather than wet) than others. It might also be true that some swatches were pressed against the envelopes or bindles or whatever they are.

I also read that after the trial some criminologist tried to repeat the testing using LAPD techniques and they got the same results.

As for the swatch not matching the swatch pattern. I doubt that there has been any serious research on smears made by swatches. WA likes to complain about junk science. It might be interesting to find out if any university in the country has criminology courses which cover smears made by putting swatches in bindles or envelopes. The subject probably never came up till 1995.

As for not seeing blood in the bronco, small blood stains would be easy to miss. I have sometimes had trouble finding stains on clothing or other places (walls, carpets, car seats) even when I know about where it is. It is easy to not notice things. One of the first things they teach people in elementary criminology courses is that most people are not good at noticing and remembering things. To make this point these classes often show people a short video and then ask them to answer questions about what they saw. Almost everyone makes mistakes.

As for the type of people in the jury. First of all, John Douglas, the former FBI man who has written books about crime was quite critical of the jury, and he wasn't the only one. One of the jurors had this to say about the DNA."I didn't understand the DNA stuff at all; to me it was a waste of time". Another juror, he foreman (forewoman) said she thought the blood that was identified as OJS could have come from Mazzola, because they had the same blood type. The juror who had the best educational background (in the opinion of the prosecution) said afterwards that the person who impressed her most was Henry Lee "because she liked the way he smiled at the jury". If you, Greenice, are happy about spending 20M and 9 months and then having people like that decide things, I have to disagree. I realize that DNA wasn't the only factor, but it was an important part, and if the forewoman/foreman couldn't understand much about DNA she probably misunderstood a lot of other things as well.

As for the drops of blood having different levels of DNA, I suspect this happens a lot. Do you know enough to claim otherwise? Differing levels of DNA were probably caused mainly by the type of surface they landed on. Different places probably had different types of bacteria, different types of dirt. To state the obvious, the crime scene was not a spic and span clean biology lab.

You seem to make a lot of unwarranted claims in your posts. In another post you wrote that you were sure that the person who committed the crime deliberately left the glove(s 1 or 2?) and hat there. I don't think you have any facts to base that on.s.

fgump2,

I really enjoy reading your posts as well as most of the other G's. I believe they are sincere and your questions are earnest. I believe you when you said you read something and that is where you have based your opinons.

However, the DA's case was about six months and the defense's case was about 3 months. Why didn't the DA's bring these experiments to light during the trial? They had a rebuttal phase, which at that time they could have called their witness to explain how these wet transfers could have happened.
They didn't.

Why would anyone want to be a member of a CSI team? Why would anyone want to be police officer? Or be a "lab" rat in the legal system? These people are trained to be observant, they are trained to not only look and test for blood in the obvious places but also not so obvious places. Why did Dennis Fung collect the socks, even after examining them for blood? He didn't see any but he still took them why? Didn't he say they looked out of place in this spotless bedroom? It is obvious from his testimony he thought it was very possible those socks were worn during the commission of the murders. He believed that Simpson may have committed the murdres and he wore these socks while he was doing it. For them not to be throughly examined makes no sense. Not to use simple equipment to find traces of blood is just plain unacceptable.

As for the blood not being seen in the Bronco, again, if that blood was always there, then it would have been seen by the detective who investigated the break ins of the Bronco. Her is excuse for not see them is a tad lame. To say that she was looking for blood and this is why she did not see it makes no sense. She there to investigate a break in, so what exactly would she be looking for? The Bronco is not that big, IMO, for her to have missed it, IMO.

When did the DA's introduce into evidence that the AC was the problem with the low level DNA counts in certain samples? Is the broken AC unit the only cause of this?

IMO, the fact the truck was used with a broken AC unit leads me to believe that it was not a big deal and that the AC unit would not affect the evidence. If it was a big deal, then why would it be used in the first place? Are we to believe they only had one truck designed for this type of storage?

If the DA's had innocent explainations and had proof of this, then why didn't they introduce them to refute the defense's claim?

I don't ever remember reading or hearing about one of the jurors thinking it was Mazzola's blood.

[GreenIce]

The presence of OJ Simpson's blood on the Rockingham glove was an important part of the prosecution's case. There is no way Carrie Bess or any juror could have not known this unless she wasn't paying attention or already had her mind made up. If what you say is true -- once they made up their minds they stopped listening to the evidence then justice wasn't done in this trial. You say you don't know what her notes said. I posted a direct quote from her regarding the Rockingham glove.

OJ Simpson has been caught in numerous lies and yet you believe every word that he says including his nonsensical explanations for his activities while Park waited for him. I don't know if there were dog hairs on the glove but what if there was? Any dog owner knows dog hairs get on everything. Nicole had a dog. OJ Simpson's DNA and the DNA of the victims was found on the Rockingham glove which matched the one at the crime scene, the same style and size of gloves he was known to wear. These are facts. Please let me know when you have any evidence, proof or facts that show Det. Fuhrman planted the glove behind the bungalow. Anything at all.

TV,

I know fgump2 and you have always posted in favor of the CSI team and you both have basically said that these people are human, they make careless mistakes, etc.

Why are you holding the jurors' to higher level of responsibility regarding the evidence then you are the people's who job it is to collect the evidence? Why are expecting perfection from 12 ordinary people when you do not expect it from the state?

The glove was not the only problem for the DA's. If it was, then perhaps things would have turned out differently.

I have always posted that I believed the glove was planted but that does not mean that MF was the only one who would have motive or opportunity to do so. I do not believe that the glove had to be planted by a member of the LAPD or any other state agency.

I have also always posted that if the noises Kato heard had anything to do with the murders, he was meant to hear them.

If Simpson is the killer, he goes back to Rockingham, why would he use his front door as an entrance? Why would he take the glove back behind the wall and not just stuff it in his pocket? Or conceal it under his clothes? Do you really believe that the only piece of evidence he was worried about was the glove?

[GreenIce]

**************************************
I think the DAs did have logical explanations. Just not accepted by a lot of people.


You seem to make a lot of unwarranted claims in your posts. In another post you wrote that you were sure that the person who committed the crime deliberately left the glove(s 1 or 2?) and hat there. I don't think you have any facts to base that on.s.


fgump2,

I have only posted my beliefs on the evidence. I believe there is evidence to suggest that the gloves and the hat were left behind and it is very possible the killers wanted to lead the cops to Bundy. Don't forget, not all killers are idiots and the value of their work can only be rewarded by not getting caught. What is the point to hire someone to kill someone when this person has a habit of being sloppy and getting caught?

It is a fact that Nicole's body could be seen from the street. It is a fact that a woman did call a police station asking about two bodies on Bundy. It is a fact there was another woman at Bundy who was asked to call the police after the dog walkers were led to the bodies.

It is a fact that there is no evidence to even suggest that the killer(s) were in a hurry to leave. It is a fact that the area was not that big and killer would have known what they were looking for--as in one hat and one glove.

It is a fact that Sydney Simpson heard her mother crying and fighting that night. However, we don't know if this was the same person or how many phone calls there were.

Who ever killed them, IMO, wanted the bodies to be found before Simpson was his way to the airport. It was not in Simpson's best interest to even leave the dog alive let alone leave Nicole's body where it could have easily been scene.

It was not in Simpson's benefit to leave the door wide open going into the condo.

Again, these are my opinons and they are based what I think the evidence suggests.

[martin II]

**************************************
I think the DAs did have logical explanations. Just not accepted by a lot of people. The only explination that the prosecution gave for Mazzolas problem was for her to say "I don't know why my initials are not there now" if you have any other explanation please post it here.

I have read the LAPD and Henry Lee used different methods of drying swatches. Henry Lee put the swatches in test tubes and had the test tubes vertical, LAPD had them horizontal. II believe we dissagree on this as i believe the lab put the swatrches on flat paper and left them to dry laid out on a table.A gain you can help me by posting testimony that the lab put the ssamples in test tubes horizontal. believe I read somewhere that D Fung put had some of the test tubes and swatches close together which means that some of them got more wind current than others. Even if he didn't keep things close together, it is easy to think that wind currents could have hit some swatches more than others. If some swatches were stuck deeper in a test tube than others that also could account for differing drying rates. It may also be true that some of the swatches had more water (damp rather than wet) than others. It might also be true that some swatches were pressed against the envelopes or bindles or whatever they are.

I also read that after the trial some criminologist tried to repeat the testing using LAPD techniques and they got the same results. Are you saying that a new test got wet transfers after the samples had dried.I am not aware of thie either so a likn to this would help.

As for the swatch not matching the swatch pattern. I doubt that there has been any serious research on smears made by swatches. WA likes to complain about junk science. It might be interesting to find out if any university in the country has criminology courses which cover smears made by putting swatches in bindles or envelopes. The subject probably never came up till 1995.

As for not seeing blood in the bronco, small blood stains would be easy to miss. I have sometimes had trouble finding stains on clothing or other places (walls, carpets, car seats) even when I know about where it is. It is easy to not notice things. One of the first things they teach people in elementary criminology courses is that most people are not good at noticing and remembering things. To make this point these classes often show people a short video and then ask them to answer questions about what they saw. Almost everyone makes mistakes. Fung was qualified as the head crinminalist no excuxe for him to miss the samples

As for the type of people in the jury. First of all, John Douglas, the former FBI man who has written books about crime was quite critical of the jury, and he wasn't the only one. One of the jurors had this to say about the DNA."I didn't understand the DNA stuff at all; to me it was a waste of time". Another juror, he foreman (forewoman) said she thought the blood that was identified as OJS could have come from Mazzola, because they had the same blood type. The juror who had the best educational background (in the opinion of the prosecution) said afterwards that the person who impressed her most was Henry Lee "because she liked the way he smiled at the jury". If you, Greenice, are happy about spending 20M and 9 months and then having people like that decide things, I have to disagree. I realize that DNA wasn't the only factor, but it was an important part, and if the forewoman/foreman couldn't understand much about DNA she probably misunderstood a lot of other things as well.I have posted the jury deliberation comments maby you should go back and read it.

As for the drops of blood having different levels of DNA, I suspect this happens a lot. Do you know enough to claim otherwise? Differing levels of DNA were probably caused mainly by the type of surface they landed on. Different places probably had different types of bacteria, different types of dirt. To state the obvious, the crime scene was not a spic and span clean biology lab.

You seem to make a lot of unwarranted claims in your posts. In another post you wrote that you were sure that the person who committed the crime deliberately left the glove(s 1 or 2?) and hat there. I don't think you have any facts to base that on.s.

I f you read wagners experiment of the dropping of the glove on top of that eugenia sp plant you may change your mind about how the hat and glove was able to get under that plant by simple dropping.

Above you have made several comments about what you think happend and how the lab operated but you state it as fact but with no link to back up the claims.This makes it difficult for others to verify your claim.

[GreenIce]

Martin and William,

Okay guys, spill it! What is the big deal about who saw who first and where they saw them? I am baffled by this because it doesn't change any of the evidence, does it?

Perhaps it is a test to see how observant Park was? I really don't get it.

[William Anthony]

William, Park never said he first saw Simpson come from the house to the driveway, he said he saw Simpson come from the driveway and go to the front entrance.

March 22, 1995 Allan Park

Q AND THIS SIX-FOOT 200-POUND AFRICAN AMERICAN PERSON IN ALL DARK CLOTHING, WAS THIS PERSON MOVING QUICKLY OR SLOWLY?
A NOT QUICKLY, NOT SLOWLY, A GOOD PACE WALK IT SEEMED TO BE.
Q AND MOVING IN WHAT DIRECTION, SIR?
A INTO THE HOUSE OR TOWARD THE HOUSE.

Q AND WHEN YOU SAW THAT PERSON, DID THAT PERSON WALK INTO THE ENTRANCE?
A YES.

Park said that Kaelin was still standing on the Ashford side path (the sidewalk) near the driveway after Simpson went into the house.

Q AFTER THAT SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON WENT INTO THE HOUSE, DID YOU HAPPEN TO NOTICE WHERE MR. KAELIN WAS?
A FROM WHAT I REMEMBERED, HE WAS STILL STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK.
Q DID HE ACKNOWLEDGE YOU IN ANY WAY AFTER THAT PERSON WENT INTO THE HOUSE?
A FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, HE KIND OF GAVE ME A HAND GESTURE TO LET ME KNOW HE WAS THERE.


Park estimated it was about two minutes after he saw Simpson enter his house and Kaelin standing on the side path before Kaelin opened the gate. Park never looked at a clock and he was unaware that after he saw Kaelin standing on the sidewalk that Kaelin had continued on to the south path and returned before he opened the gate. Kaelin said that on that first trip he walked south on the driveway to the garage area made a left at the corner of the garage and walked in on that south pathway only a short distance before turning around and returning to the driveway and then going to the gate control box. The time it took Kaelin to make that short trip and return may very well have been only about two or three minutes.

If you look at the colored diagram that both Martin and I have posted the link to you would see for yourself how short a trip that was. Park was not really that far off with his estimation of about two minutes from the time he saw Simpson enter the house to when Kaelin opened the gate for him.

http://www.wagnerandson.com/images/2rockham.jpg

bobaugust

You may assume that Kato was not still standing in order to make your inference work but I will go by the testimony and the time, which means that Kato was standing still for about fifty seconds to a minute, before going to let the limo in. I don't have to speculate about how much time it took Kato to do his first cursory search as Park said Kato was still standing in the same spot. I have told you that I am not interested in discussing this issue any longer, as it does not matter whose inference is right or wrong, only that they are supported by the evidence. You want to make your inference right in order to prove Simpson the murderer, whereas I am interested in whether or not there was reasonable doubt.

[William Anthony]

Martin and William,

Okay guys, spill it! What is the big deal about who saw who first and where they saw them? I am baffled by this because it doesn't change any of the evidence, does it?

Perhaps it is a test to see how observant Park was? I really don't get it.

It all has to do with the time for the sound of the thumps. Bobaugust has to make the time that Kato first saw Park as the time that Kato first saw Park in order to make that time ten fifty four. However, by my reading of the testimony Kato had waited two to three minutes after hearing the tumps to begin his search at which time Kato saw the limo, finished his first cursory search, and walked back to open the gate for the limo where he stood momentarily, expecting the limo to be buzzed in and this is the time that Park saw Simpson. If Simpson had entered the property as the prosecution had suggested, then Kato would have seen Simpson. If you read the civil trial testimony, you will see that Petrocelli, IIRC, tried to suggest to Kato that he had seen Simpson when he was doing his first cursory search and also, that Kato tried to change the time of his hearing the thumps from the criminal trial testimony of ten forty to ten forty five to ten forty to ten fifty. Petrocelli realized as does bobaugust that, unless the ten fifty four time works, Simpson would have been seen by Kato, making his return from Bundy, if that were true. The most obvious reading of the testimony is that Simpson came out of his home place something near the entrance way and went back in. Park saw Simpson on his return trip into his home from which he had come out and Park saw Kato at nearly the same time as Kato finished his first cursory search. Petrocelli and bobaugust realize what the magnificent one said, if it does not fit...

[William Anthony]

I seem to hear the humming of a distant train, singing a sad refrain.

[martin II]

Weezer has already answered your questions about the alleles. As for Vannatter you're safe. He retired to a farm in Indiana so there's no need for you to be frightened. I realize you're sensitive about having your errors pointed out but Vannatter never carried around reference samples from Ron and Nicole. Their blood would have been removed in the morgue and handled by the ME's office. He did have OJ Simpson's blood in a vial but he didn't keep it for 24 hours. More like a few hours. I really don't know where you get this information but it's wrong.

What difference does it make who cross-examined Dr. Reiders? How can you find anything sinister in that?

I believe that RH knew Martz results were faulty. He was the senior EDTA expert and maby was not prepared to testify in a way clarke required based on his opinion of martz experiments. Realizin this Clarke decided she would give it a try.It still did not work out as she had hoped as Martrz made a fool of himself on the stand. Since it was the prosecution that asked Martz to do the experiments why didn't they call him as their expert?

[martin II]

Martin and William,

Okay guys, spill it! What is the big deal about who saw who first and where they saw them? I am baffled by this because it doesn't change any of the evidence, does it?

Perhaps it is a test to see how observant Park was? I really don't get it.

It is my beliefe that Kato walked out of his room directly past the front door of ojs house and the coach lights over the door were no on.

Immediately after he passed the front door oj came down from upstairs and dropped the two duffle bags, moved the golf bag to the benches and walked back into his house and this is the time Park said he saw the AA go into the front door.

That at that time oj went back into the house he turned the coach lights
over the door on.

Thatr Kato then completed his search in the path and walked back pass the front door and the lights were on because oj had just turned them on.
That Kato then walked to the Ashford gate and opened it for the limo.
that when Park drove up to the front door he got out and saw thw two bags that oj had put there a few minutes earlier.

William has done a great job of pinpointing the time that Kato heard the noise as 10;40 10:45

The problem with parks testimony is that he had a habit of getting info from the media and prompting that he learned after 6/12 and transposing that info into his testimony as he did from the pictures he saw of two cars after 6/12 that he claimed he saw on 6/12.

[martin II]

GreenIce, I made a mistake in my post which I'm going to correct. Vannatter did deliver the blood samples of Ron and Nicole to the serology lab from the ME's office which is a 5 minute drive. He did not carry the blood samples around for 24 hours. See how easy it is to admit you're wrong?

I though SID was across the street from Parker center
Since ojs blood was drawn at Parker center by a nurse that worked there. and since Fung said he had NEVER had anyone bring blood samples to him at a crime scene ,i don't understand why the nurse had to give Vanhatter ojs blood samples and not give it directly to SID where all samples were to be logged in.I don't understand why when the nurse gave Vanhatter oj blood samples why he did not go directly to SID and have them logged in as evidence.

I really don't understand why Vanhatter traveled around with the samples on his person and brought them to a crime scene.He had 30 or more years as seasoned detective on the force.It does not calibrate as something he should have done and it was against protocol.

I think Vanhatter arrived at Rockingham at about 2-3 pm and Fung did not finish collecting all the samples until just before 7pm. So ojs blood samples were at rockingham/bundy before Fung was finished collecting blood evidence.

[William Anthony]

William,

I have to totally disagree with you about Mark Fuhrman not beng the "brightest crayon". In fact, I would not be surprised to learn that he had a very, very high IQ. IMO, MF, because of his experience and what he has learned, he knew that no judge was going to toss the glove. He knew that Vanatter and Lange had to let him lead this dance and he enjoyed every single dance step. The most telling of intelligence was bragging about the glove. It seems to me that MF did make one mistake but one that is very common, it was his arrogance and again, IMO, he belived the murder weapon, the clothes and the shoes would either be linked to Simpson or they would be found.

I do believe that MF's "them" was a reference to the glove and a hat, but I do believe that hat was was a ski mask and not a watch cap. He got close enough to the "hate" to know what type is was. There was at least one other cap that was found just like inside the home. IMO, I believe it was a ski mask, which lost its way as did so many other pieces of evidence--either real or imagined.

There is not doubt in my mind that the gloves and the hat were left behind on purpose. Who ever did this, IMO, would have made sure that the second glove would have not have been left in the same area as the other one. As you know, I believe who ever killed them wanted the trail to lead to Rockingham.

Mark Fuhrman had no fear of getting caught, he knew how the trial was playing out in the media. He knew the outrage people felt over the defense's defense. He had no worries. He knew that in order to 100 percent prove planting, someone was going to have come forward, someone in the LAPD and as we know, there is the blue wall of silence.

Mark Fuhrman also knew to what lengths the LAPD and the DA's office was going to go for him. They settled the Britton case to make sure this could not hang over him. He was very, very smart. And judging from the G's posts, their unwavering support of him is proof of this. IMO.

Intelligence must be mixed with mother wit for someone to be smart, imho. I am saying that one can have book smarts and nothing more or vice versa. A truly intelligent person knows that we are all human and the color of one skin makes no difference and does not go about making the type of statements as those attributed to MF by the evidence. If you meant to say that he was experienced in certain areas as to how to do certain things, then I agree based on the evidence.

I have read the testimony and I remember the look on MF's face when the brilliant Bailey brought up the word them. I respect your view of the testimony but MF didn't know whether his tongue slipped or not by my reading of the testimony, which reinforces my inference.

I agree with most of you third paragraph, except for MF being very, very smart and you can fool all the people some of the time.:)

I agree with most of your fourth paragraph, except for MF being very, very, smart.

[Jayme K]

The Rockingham blood trail is consistent with him retrieving his cell phone or accessories from the Bronco and inconsistent with him being behind Kato's quarters, which allows me to draw the inference he wasn't back there. The Rockingham blood trail is consistent with him innocently cutting his hand finger in the manner of retrieving items from the Bronco.

Those cuts were big William! At least the one on the middle finger. I can buy the idea of somebody getting a small cut - one small cut! - reaching into a bag or into a car to get something but he had too many cuts and at least one was far too big to have come from that. Unless of course he cut himself on the knife he used to butcher two people that was laying in his Bronco next to the cell phone stuff he was trying to dig out.

[William Anthony]

**************************************
I think the DAs did have logical explanations. Just not accepted by a lot of people.



Perhaps, I may be wrong in trying to ascertain what you are saying. However, an argument must be more than just logical it must be supported by both reason and emotion in order to be persuasive or, if you will, accepted by the listener. Therefore, an audience is free to reject a most logical argument, if it does not adhere to their reasoning and their experiences. The task of explaining what is logical in order to have persuade an audience to accept it requires more that being logical. The task requires acquiring the audience's trust in order to have them believe you view is probable, coherent, cohesive and correct. This is all just my opinion.

[William Anthony]

Those cuts were big William! At least the one on the middle finger. I can buy the idea of somebody getting a small cut - one small cut! - reaching into a bag or into a car to get something but he had too many cuts and at least one was far too big to have come from that. Unless of course he cut himself on the knife he used to butcher two people that was laying in his Bronco next to the cell phone stuff he was trying to dig out.

Good Morning Lady,

I can see where a person would think those cuts were big. However, I have cut my fingers on different objects and bled quite a bit from a cut that was on the lines of my fingers. If you are speaking about the large cut, alone. Then he explained how that was done in that he cut it in Chicago and blood was found there. IIRC, there was testimony that the large cut was consistent with a cut coming from a glass as it was jagged. However, all that aside, the blood in the Rockingham driveway is inconsistent with Simpson having entered his property from behind Kato's quarters.

[Jayme K]

William,

I have to totally disagree with you about Mark Fuhrman not beng the "brightest crayon". In fact, I would not be surprised to learn that he had a very, very high IQ. IMO, MF, because of his experience and what he has learned, he knew that no judge was going to toss the glove. He knew that Vanatter and Lange had to let him lead this dance and he enjoyed every single dance step. The most telling of intelligence was bragging about the glove. It seems to me that MF did make one mistake but one that is very common, it was his arrogance and again, IMO, he belived the murder weapon, the clothes and the shoes would either be linked to Simpson or they would be found.

I do believe that MF's "them" was a reference to the glove and a hat, but I do believe that hat was was a ski mask and not a watch cap. He got close enough to the "hate" to know what type is was. There was at least one other cap that was found just like inside the home. IMO, I believe it was a ski mask, which lost its way as did so many other pieces of evidence--either real or imagined.

There is not doubt in my mind that the gloves and the hat were left behind on purpose. Who ever did this, IMO, would have made sure that the second glove would have not have been left in the same area as the other one. As you know, I believe who ever killed them wanted the trail to lead to Rockingham.

Mark Fuhrman had no fear of getting caught, he knew how the trial was playing out in the media. He knew the outrage people felt over the defense's defense. He had no worries. He knew that in order to 100 percent prove planting, someone was going to have come forward, someone in the LAPD and as we know, there is the blue wall of silence.

Mark Fuhrman also knew to what lengths the LAPD and the DA's office was going to go for him. They settled the Britton case to make sure this could not hang over him. He was very, very smart. And judging from the G's posts, their unwavering support of him is proof of this. IMO.

Mark Fuhrman's an idiot. But you know what you need to do dear - other then start backing up the things you say - you need to stop lumping people all together like you did in your last sentence. Cause guess what? My name's Jayme and I'm a seperate person with a seperate brain and -believe or not- real thoughts of my own!:eek: Imagine that!

[William Anthony]

Mark Fuhrman's an idiot.

Careful, you might be called upon to back that statement up.:) However, my opinion agrees with that statement. You see, there are things upon which we can agree.:)

[martin II]

**************************************
I think the DAs did have logical explanations. Just not accepted by a lot of people.

I have read the LAPD and Henry Lee used different methods of drying swatches. Henry Lee put the swatches in test tubes and had the test tubes vertical, LAPD had them horizontal. I believe I read somewhere that D Fung put had some of the test tubes and swatches close together which means that some of them got more wind current than others. Even if he didn't keep things close together, it is easy to think that wind currents could have hit some swatches more than others. If some swatches were stuck deeper in a test tube than others that also could account for differing drying rates. It may also be true that some of the swatches had more water (damp rather than wet) than others. It might also be true that some swatches were pressed against the envelopes or bindles or whatever they are.

I also read that after the trial some criminologist tried to repeat the testing using LAPD techniques and they got the same results. What blood samples did 'SOME CRIMINOLOGIST" use to retest the samples.?

As for the swatch not matching the swatch pattern. I doubt that there has been any serious research on smears made by swatches. WA likes to complain about junk science. It might be interesting to find out if any university in the country has criminology courses which cover smears made by putting swatches in bindles or envelopes. The subject probably never came up till 1995.

As for not seeing blood in the bronco, small blood stains would be easy to miss. I have sometimes had trouble finding stains on clothing or other places (walls, carpets, car seats) even when I know about where it is. It is easy to not notice things. One of the first things they teach people in elementary criminology courses is that most people are not good at noticing and remembering things. To make this point these classes often show people a short video and then ask them to answer questions about what they saw. Almost everyone makes mistakes.

As for the type of people in the jury. First of all, John Douglas, the former FBI man who has written books about crime was quite critical of the jury, and he wasn't the only one. One of the jurors had this to say about the DNA."I didn't understand the DNA stuff at all; to me it was a waste of time". Another juror, he foreman (forewoman) said she thought the blood that was identified as OJS could have come from Mazzola, because they had the same blood type. The juror who had the best educational background (in the opinion of the prosecution) said afterwards that the person who impressed her most was Henry Lee "because she liked the way he smiled at the jury". If you, Greenice, are happy about spending 20M and 9 months and then having people like that decide things, I have to disagree. I realize that DNA wasn't the only factor, but it was an important part, and if the forewoman/foreman couldn't understand much about DNA she probably misunderstood a lot of other things as well.

As for the drops of blood having different levels of DNA, I suspect this happens a lot. Do you know enough to claim otherwise? Differing levels of DNA were probably caused mainly by the type of surface they landed on. Different places probably had different types of bacteria, different types of dirt. To state the obvious, the crime scene was not a spic and span clean biology lab.

You seem to make a lot of unwarranted claims in your posts. In another post you wrote that you were sure that the person who committed the crime deliberately left the glove(s 1 or 2?) and hat there. I don't think you have any facts to base that on.s.


where did you get this info from?

[Jayme K]

Good Morning Lady,

I can see where a person would think those cuts were big. However, I have cut my fingers on different objects and bled quite a bit from a cut that was on the lines of my fingers. If you are speaking about the large cut, alone. Then he explained how that was done in that he cut it in Chicago and blood was found there. IIRC, there was testimony that the large cut was consistent with a cut coming from a glass as it was jagged. However, all that aside, the blood in the Rockingham driveway is inconsistent with Simpson having entered his property from behind Kato's quarters.

He didn't get that cut in Chicago.

LOL ... please don't call me lady! Makes me feel old, never mind the fact that I curse like a truck driver and probably even more than a truck driver ... I was always told ladies don't do that ...lol

I thought the testimony about that cut was different but I'm the last one to talk until I can reread it. I get alot of stuff wrong when I try to talk on the fly.

[William Anthony]

where did you get this info from?

It was pulled from out of a cap.:) Just joking everyone as I do believe frgump2 offers some valid points for discussion.

[Jayme K]

Careful, you might be called upon to back that statement up.:) However, my opinion agrees with that statement. You see, there are things upon which we can agree.:)

Well he is. He's a piece of sh*t that thought he was untouchable and he got called on it. That's what happens when your too arrogant for your own good - things catch up with you ... and that's what I believe finally happened to good 'ol Orenthal too.

[William Anthony]

He didn't get that cut in Chicago.

LOL ... please don't call me lady! Makes me feel old, never mind the fact that I curse like a truck driver and probably even more than a truck driver ... I was always told ladies don't do that ...lol

I thought the testimony about that cut was different but I'm the last one to talk until I can reread it. I get alot of stuff wrong when I try to talk on the fly.

The evidence suggests he got the cut in Chicago.

Ladies can cuss but they have the unique ability to make it sound pleasurable. :) If you only knew some of the names ladies have called me and some of them were well deserved as I did provoke their ire.:)

I will await you rereading of the testimony.

[William Anthony]

Well he is. He's a piece of sh*t that thought he was untouchable and he got called on it. That's what happens when your too arrogant for your own good - things catch up with you ... and that's what I believe finally happened to good 'ol Orenthal too.

I do believe that MF and Simpson suffered from an over abundance of arrogance. However, I will await the appeal to decide whether Simpson's caught up with him. Since MF did not contest his conviction it is safe to say that his caught up with him, imho.

[Jayme K]

I do believe that MF and Simpson suffered from an over abundance of arrogance. However, I will await the appeal to decide whether Simpson's caught up with him. Since MF did not contest his conviction it is safe to say that his caught up with him, imho.

It's not the fact that he's behind bars right now that makes me say that it caught up with him. His image - and that all it was is image - got destroyed. And you know who destroyed it? He did. I read his stupid suicide note where he said he couldn't handle people pointing at him and saying stuff and how he didn't want his kids to have to deal with that. And then what'd he go and do? Kept on being stupid after the trials were over with alot of disgusting behaviors and embarassing moments ... really O.J.? You didn't think that'd continue to make people point and say stuff and you didn't think that'd make your kids have to put up with more crap? Good grief!

Here's one of the most offending things - if 1989 was really the only time he beat Nicole - why not just say it? Just admit that you got out of control that night and did a terrible thing but that you paid your dues afterwards and made it right with yourself and your wife and that you never did it again. Instead - instead! - he looks at the picture of her totally beaten face and says he didn't even so much as SLAP her that night. Tries to say alot of redness came from PICKING AT HER FACE. That's insulting!

I see what he did regarding that to be the exact same thing as what Fuhrman did about the N word.

[martin II]

TV,

I know fgump2 and you have always posted in favor of the CSI team and you both have basically said that these people are human, they make careless mistakes, etc.

Why are you holding the jurors' to higher level of responsibility regarding the evidence then you are the people's who job it is to collect the evidence? Why are expecting perfection from 12 ordinary people when you do not expect it from the state?

The glove was not the only problem for the DA's. If it was, then perhaps things would have turned out differently.

I have always posted that I believed the glove was planted but that does not mean that MF was the only one who would have motive or opportunity to do so. I do not believe that the glove had to be planted by a member of the LAPD or any other state agency.

I have also always posted that if the noises Kato heard had anything to do with the murders, he was meant to hear them.

If Simpson is the killer, he goes back to Rockingham, why would he use his front door as an entrance? Why would he take the glove back behind the wall and not just stuff it in his pocket? Or conceal it under his clothes? Do you really believe that the only piece of evidence he was worried about was the glove?

OJ had many options to enter his property
From the east side of his property
From the rocklingham gate
From the same wall furhman jumped over.
From the hedges that ran from rockingham to the garage

Why would he go to the s walkway where it was impossible to get through and try to jump a fence.
i am sure he knew his property.
He also could have entered the house by the laundry roon door in the s walkway undedected or seen by park.

it makes no sense at all because oj was in his house when kato heard the noise.

[martin II]

**************************************
I think the DAs did have logical explanations. Just not accepted by a lot of people.

I have read the LAPD and Henry Lee used different methods of drying swatches. Henry Lee put the swatches in test tubes and had the test tubes vertical, LAPD had them horizontal. I believe I read somewhere that D Fung put had some of the test tubes and swatches close together which means that some of them got more wind current than others. Even if he didn't keep things close together, it is easy to think that wind currents could have hit some swatches more than others. If some swatches were stuck deeper in a test tube than others that also could account for differing drying rates. It may also be true that some of the swatches had more water (damp rather than wet) than others. It might also be true that some swatches were pressed against the envelopes or bindles or whatever they are.

I also read that after the trial some criminologist tried to repeat the testing using LAPD techniques and they got the same results.

As for the swatch not matching the swatch pattern. I doubt that there has been any serious research on smears made by swatches. WA likes to complain about junk science. It might be interesting to find out if any university in the country has criminology courses which cover smears made by putting swatches in bindles or envelopes. The subject probably never came up till 1995.

As for not seeing blood in the bronco, small blood stains would be easy to miss. I have sometimes had trouble finding stains on clothing or other places (walls, carpets, car seats) even when I know about where it is. It is easy to not notice things. One of the first things they teach people in elementary criminology courses is that most people are not good at noticing and remembering things. To make this point these classes often show people a short video and then ask them to answer questions about what they saw. Almost everyone makes mistakes.

As for the type of people in the jury. First of all, John Douglas, the former FBI man who has written books about crime was quite critical of the jury, and he wasn't the only one. One of the jurors had this to say about the DNA."I didn't understand the DNA stuff at all; to me it was a waste of time". Another juror, he foreman (forewoman) said she thought the blood that was identified as OJS could have come from Mazzola, because they had the same blood type. The juror who had the best educational background (in the opinion of the prosecution) said afterwards that the person who impressed her most was Henry Lee "because she liked the way he smiled at the jury". If you, Greenice, are happy about spending 20M and 9 months and then having people like that decide things, I have to disagree. I realize that DNA wasn't the only factor, but it was an important part, and if the forewoman/foreman couldn't understand much about DNA she probably misunderstood a lot of other things as well.

As for the drops of blood having different levels of DNA, I suspect this happens a lot. Do you know enough to claim otherwise? Differing levels of DNA were probably caused mainly by the type of surface they landed on. Different places probably had different types of bacteria, different types of dirt. To state the obvious, the crime scene was not a spic and span clean biology lab.

You seem to make a lot of unwarranted claims in your posts. In another post you wrote that you were sure that the person who committed the crime deliberately left the glove(s 1 or 2?) and hat there. I don't think you have any facts to base that on.s.

fung was educated and trained in his field and was hired as the lead
criminologist in the lapd lab operations and you think he was pronged to make all kinds of MISTAKES in doing his job of simply collecting some blood samples off the ground.How complicated could that be.

[William Anthony]

It's not the fact that he's behind bars right now that makes me say that it caught up with him. His image - and that all it was is image - got destroyed. And you know who destroyed it? He did. I read his stupid suicide note where he said he couldn't handle people pointing at him and saying stuff and how he didn't want his kids to have to deal with that. And then what'd he go and do? Kept on being stupid after the trials were over with alot of disgusting behaviors and embarassing moments ... really O.J.? You didn't think that'd continue to make people point and say stuff and you didn't think that'd make your kids have to put up with more crap? Good grief!

Here's one of the most offending things - if 1989 was really the only time he beat Nicole - why not just say it? Just admit that you got out of control that night and did a terrible thing but that you paid your dues afterwards and made it right with yourself and your wife and that you never did it again. Instead - instead! - he looks at the picture of her totally beaten face and says he didn't even so much as SLAP her that night. Tries to say alot of redness came from PICKING AT HER FACE. That's insulting!

I see what he did regarding that to be the exact same thing as what Fuhrman did about the N word.

I have previously said that Simpson was stupid and that I believe him to be guilty of spousal abuse or an abuser, if you will. There is no doubt that he did a lot of stupid things, which I found above the level of stupidity. However, I questioned whether he was so stupid or was he trying to cover for someone. I have not formed a conclusion on that. What I am saying is that I question whether his stupid and offensive actions and remarks were by design in order to subvert attention to himself. I agree that he did nothing to improve his public image but I believe that was ruined in a large part by the court of public opinion's reaction to the criminal murder verdict.

Your last sentence I cannot disagree with, as you said that is how you see it from your perspective as a lady. I can only speak from a perspective as a Black male. From those different perspectives, I can say that I find the actions of a racist corrupt LE member and the actions of a spousal abuser as vile and reprehensible.

[martin II]

The evidence suggests he got the cut in Chicago.

Ladies can cuss but they have the unique ability to make it sound pleasurable. :) If you only knew some of the names ladies have called me and some of them were well deserved as I did provoke their ire.:)

I will await you rereading of the testimony.

The doctor that examined the cut on ojs hands testified that the cut was jagged as one would get from a broken piece of glass and not smooth as if it had been cut by a knife.So the testimony is that the cut was made in Chicago.

[tv]

TV Dinner,

What are the dates and times on the certificates?

I will re-check the book.

If you're talking about the death certificates I have no idea.

[tv]

The doctor that examined the cut on ojs hands testified that the cut was jagged as one would get from a broken piece of glass and not smooth as if it had been cut by a knife.So the testimony is that the cut was made in Chicago.
No, OJ Simpson's explanation is that he cut it in Chicago. Who testified that he cut it in Chicago?

[William Anthony]

I have not had a chance to review all the testimony to find the evidence that Simpson cut his hand in Chicago but I will keep looking. In the mean time I found this.

MR. COCHRAN: -- AT THE END OF THE DAY YESTERDAY. ALL I ASKED -- THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER OR NOT -- SHE BRINGS OUT, YOUR HONOR, THIS LAWYER, THIS LAWYER SHOULD NOT BE HEARD. SCREAMING DOESN'T MAKE SHRILLNESS. WHEN COUNSEL STANDS UP HERE AND SAYS SHE'S NEVER HEARD ANY DIFFERENT RULING, THAT'S MORE LIES. I DON'T WANT TO RESPOND TO THAT, BUT -- YOUR HONOR, ON REDIRECT EXAMINATION, SHE BROUGHT IN THE FACT THAT THIS MAN HAD A CUT FINGER. ALL I'M ASKING IS WHETHER OR NOT IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, TALKING TO HIM, DID HE GIVE YOU AN EXPLANATION. THAT IS NOT HEARSAY. HE GAVE YOU AN EXPLANATION, THAT IS NOT HEARSAY. I DIDN'T ASK WHAT HE SAID. IT'S NOT HEARSAY. AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOUR HONOR INDICATED YOU WERE GOING TO CHECK BACK WITH YOUR NOTES AND SEE WHERE SHE OPENS THE DOOR WITH REGARD TO THE CUT FINGER AND THEN HE GIVES AN EXPLANATION HOW HE GOT THE CUT FINGER. AND, JUDGE, FURTHER, AS AN OFFER OF PROOF, THEY INVESTIGATED IN CHICAGO AND THEY FOUND GLASS IN A FACE BASIN OR WHATEVER CONTEXT SHATTERED WITH BLOOD, YOUR HONOR, WITH A TOWEL THEREON. THAT'S TOTALLY UNFAIR. WE HAVE A CUT FINGER IN THIS CASE AND I CAN'T BRING THAT OUT FROM THIS INVESTIGATOR, SIR?

[William Anthony]

No, OJ Simpson's explanation is that he cut it in Chicago. Who testified that he cut it in Chicago?

Good Morning, Ms. Tvdinner

Where is the knife with Simpson's blood on it and where is the testimony that he cut his finger on said knife on the night of June 12th, 1994?

[William Anthony]

July 20th

"MR. COCHRAN: Did you--you've seen photographs of those items, have you?

DET. LUPER: I did. Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And you've seen the items themselves, haven't you?

DET. LUPER: I have not seen the items at all other than the photographs.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, in looking at the photographs, you saw there was some red substance on the towels; did you not?

MR. DARDEN: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, now, with regards to these items that were picked up in Chicago, tell us what else you picked up in Chicago at that time regarding to this case? Well, strike that. Let me ask you this. You picked up towels?

DET. LUPER: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: You picked up a broken glass?

DET. LUPER: That's correct, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Picked up some bedding?

DET. LUPER: That's correct, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And there have been photographs taken of those various items, have there?

DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And have you--these items are all kept in a box now somewhere at SID or LAPD?

DET. LUPER: I believe so, yes, sir."

[tv]

TV,

I know fgump2 and you have always posted in favor of the CSI team and you both have basically said that these people are human, they make careless mistakes, etc.

Why are you holding the jurors' to higher level of responsibility regarding the evidence then you are the people's who job it is to collect the evidence? Why are expecting perfection from 12 ordinary people when you do not expect it from the state?

The glove was not the only problem for the DA's. If it was, then perhaps things would have turned out differently.

I have always posted that I believed the glove was planted but that does not mean that MF was the only one who would have motive or opportunity to do so. I do not believe that the glove had to be planted by a member of the LAPD or any other state agency.

I have also always posted that if the noises Kato heard had anything to do with the murders, he was meant to hear them.

If Simpson is the killer, he goes back to Rockingham, why would he use his front door as an entrance? Why would he take the glove back behind the wall and not just stuff it in his pocket? Or conceal it under his clothes? Do you really believe that the only piece of evidence he was worried about was the glove?

I'm not holding jurors to a higher level of responsibility. The criminolists are human and made human errors but Carrie Bess sat in the that court room for nine months while the prosecution constantly hammered the facts home about the Rockingham glove. It's inexcusable that she could have not know that OJ Simpson's blood was on the glove. I actually think you're right and once they decided Det. Fuhrman was a racist they ceased to listen to any of the testimony presented by the prosecution. I can't believe anyone thinks that's justice.

GreenIce, as usual you've bombarded me with questions. All those minute details don't really matter. No one knows except OJ Simpson what his exact movements were that night but we have a fairly good idea of the sequence of important events. You seem to think he was behind the bungalow just to hide the glove...no, he was using the south pathway to sneak back to the house. I could ask you a million questions too. Why didn't the glove planter leave the glove in the house or near the Bronco? Why would they plant blood later where no blood had been seen before? Why does OJ Simpson have so many different explanations for what he was doing during the murders? Why did Simpson lie about Paula Barbieri and the call he made to her at 10:03 from his cell phone? Is it possible that he didn't want to admit being in his car at 10:03? Why wouldn't he have called Paula from his house if he wasn't in the Bronco? Why was his car parked at such an old angle with a piece of wood lying near it? Why did he lie and say Chachi would run off if the gate was left open? Why did the defense show the jury only four of the five pieces of luggage OJ Simpson had the night of the murders -- what happened to the fifth piece? What happened to the sweat suit in the washer? If it was in there for inncoent reasons why had it disappeared when they went back to collect it? Why wasn't OJ Simpson concerned that an intruder might be on the property when Kato told him about the thumps? Why was he so unconcerned that he even forgot to set the alarm? Why wouldn't he allow Park or Kato to touch the knapsack sitting by the Bentley? Why did LE find Nicole's stolen keys in OJ Simpson's possession? Why did Simpson lie about owning Bruno Magli's when it's obvious he was seen in pulbic and photographed wearing them? Why didn't he ask how Nicole died when he was notified? Why hadn't he seen his young children 24 hours after their mother had been killed?


I have more if you're interested. :)

[tv]

Good Morning, Ms. Tvdinner

Where is the knife with Simpson's blood on it and where is the testimony that he cut his finger on said knife on the night of June 12th, 1994?

Nothing unusual about not finding the knife or a defendant not testifying that he cut his finger on said knife. Al Cowlings said the knife sleeps with the fishes.

[William Anthony]

Nothing unusual about not finding the knife or a defendant not testifying that he cut his finger on said knife. Al Cowlings said the knife sleeps with the fishes.

I am not talking about statistics on frequency. I am asking where is the evidence that the prosecution was required to provide, having espoused the theory that Simpson cut his hand with a knife while murdering two people.

[William Anthony]

March 20th, IIRC

"Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU HAVE INFORMATION THAT HE HAD CUT HIMSELF WITH A PIECE OF CUT GLASS?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, CALLS FOR HEARSAY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU HAVE INFORMATION FROM POLICE DEPARTMENTS IN CHICAGO?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: DID HE HAVE INFORMATION FROM? NO, OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES.

THE COURT: THAT QUESTION YOU CAN ANSWER.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AND DID THAT INFORMATION INCLUDE A THOROUGH SEARCH OF THE ROOM MR. SIMPSON WAS IN BEFORE HE HAD LEFT?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR HEARSAY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE IN THAT TERRITORY NOW. SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU HAVE ANY REFERENCE WHATSOEVER ABOUT THE CAUSE OF THE INJURY?

MR. DARDEN: SAME OBJECTION.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AT THE TIME YOU WERE EXAMINING MR. SIMPSON?

THE COURT: OVERRULED. YES OR NO?

THE WITNESS: I -- COULD YOU ASK THAT AGAIN, PLEASE? DID I HAVE ANY REFERENCE?

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: YES.

A: I HAD INFORMATION, YES.

Q: AND DID THAT INFORMATION CAUSE YOU TO CONSIDER THAT THE INJURY MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY BEING CUT WITH A PIECE OF GLASS?

MR. DARDEN: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AT NO TIME DID YOU MAKE ANY DETERMINATION WITH ANY SCIENTIFIC EXPERT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE WAS ANY GLASS IN THAT WOUND, DID YOU?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: SINCE THE TIME THAT YOU HAVE BECOME A POLICE OFFICER 26 YEARS AGO, I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THERE HAVE BEEN DRASTIC CHANGES IN SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES?

A: YEAH. THERE HAS BEEN CHANGES, YES.

Q: WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THEM AS DRASTIC?

A: PROBABLY, YES.

Q: I MEAN, YOU HAVE GONE FROM A TIME OF USING 3-BY-5 CARDS TO COMPUTERS; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOUR EDUCATION TOOK PLACE AT THE ACADEMY MORE THAN 25 YEARS AGO, YOUR INITIAL EDUCATION; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: MY INITIAL EDUCATION, YES.

Q: AND THEN YOU GOT FURTHER EDUCATION BY SOMETHING CALLED HOMICIDE SCHOOL?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: WHEN WAS THAT?

A: PROBABLY TWENTY YEARS AGO.

Q: AND I WOULD TAKE IT THAT THINGS THAT YOU LEARNED IN HOMICIDE SCHOOL TODAY MAY BE VERY, VERY -- IN HOMICIDE SCHOOL TWENTY YEARS AGO ARE IN FACT OUT OF DATE TODAY?

A: SOME OF THE THINGS, YES.

Q: AND THERE HAVE BEEN THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN CHANGED SINCE HOMICIDE SCHOOL THAT YOU NEVER EVEN CONSIDERED AT THAT TIME?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: BEEN ADVANCEMENTS THAT WERE NEVER DISCUSSED IN HOMICIDE SCHOOL TWENTY YEARS AGO THAT ARE ROUTINE PROCEDURES TODAY?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

Q: AND DID YOU TAKE CONTINUED EDUCATION COURSES TO KEEP UP WITH THE CHANGE IN SCIENTIFIC TECHNOLOGY?

A: WELL, I THINK THAT IS A CONTINUING EDUCATION ON A DAILY BASIS WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

Q: DID YOU UNDERSTAND MY QUESTION, SIR?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: COULD YOU ANSWER IT, PLEASE?

A: CONTINUING EDUCATION?

Q: COURSES.

A: NO.

Q: HAVE YOU TAUGHT ANYTHING IN THE AREA OF POLICE SCIENCE OR POLICE INVESTIGATION OR INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES?

A: WHERE?

Q: ANYWHERE?

A: AT THE POLICE ACADEMY OCCASIONALLY AND AT TRAINING DAYS, YES.

Q: AND WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU TAUGHT AT THE POLICE ACADEMY AND WHAT SUBJECT DID YOU TEACH?

A: PROBABLY TEN YEARS AGO AND IT WAS OFFICER-INVOLVED SHOOTINGS.

Q: AND PRIOR TO THAT WHEN DID YOU TEACH BEFORE THAT AT THE POLICE ACADEMY AND WHAT SUBJECT DID YOU TEACH?

A: WELL, I USED TO TEACH QUARTERLY OFFICER-INVOLVED SHOOTINGS AT THE POLICE ACADEMY AND AT TRAINING DAYS FOR DIFFERENT DIVISIONS.

Q: HAVE YOU TAUGHT ANY OTHER SUBJECT?

A: NO.

Q: HAVE YOU READ ANY BOOKS ON CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION IN THE LAST TEN YEARS?

A: NO. "

[tv]

I am not talking about statistics on frequency. I am asking where is the evidence that the prosecution was required to provide, having espoused the theory that Simpson cut his hand with a knife while murdering two people.

The prosecution wasn't required to produce the murder weapon.

[tv]

March 20th, IIRC

"Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU HAVE INFORMATION THAT HE HAD CUT HIMSELF WITH A PIECE OF CUT GLASS?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, CALLS FOR HEARSAY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU HAVE INFORMATION FROM POLICE DEPARTMENTS IN CHICAGO?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: DID HE HAVE INFORMATION FROM? NO, OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES.

THE COURT: THAT QUESTION YOU CAN ANSWER.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AND DID THAT INFORMATION INCLUDE A THOROUGH SEARCH OF THE ROOM MR. SIMPSON WAS IN BEFORE HE HAD LEFT?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR HEARSAY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE IN THAT TERRITORY NOW. SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU HAVE ANY REFERENCE WHATSOEVER ABOUT THE CAUSE OF THE INJURY?

MR. DARDEN: SAME OBJECTION.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AT THE TIME YOU WERE EXAMINING MR. SIMPSON?

THE COURT: OVERRULED. YES OR NO?

THE WITNESS: I -- COULD YOU ASK THAT AGAIN, PLEASE? DID I HAVE ANY REFERENCE?

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: YES.

A: I HAD INFORMATION, YES.

Q: AND DID THAT INFORMATION CAUSE YOU TO CONSIDER THAT THE INJURY MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY BEING CUT WITH A PIECE OF GLASS?

MR. DARDEN: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AT NO TIME DID YOU MAKE ANY DETERMINATION WITH ANY SCIENTIFIC EXPERT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE WAS ANY GLASS IN THAT WOUND, DID YOU?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: SINCE THE TIME THAT YOU HAVE BECOME A POLICE OFFICER 26 YEARS AGO, I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THERE HAVE BEEN DRASTIC CHANGES IN SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES?

A: YEAH. THERE HAS BEEN CHANGES, YES.

Q: WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THEM AS DRASTIC?

A: PROBABLY, YES.

Q: I MEAN, YOU HAVE GONE FROM A TIME OF USING 3-BY-5 CARDS TO COMPUTERS; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOUR EDUCATION TOOK PLACE AT THE ACADEMY MORE THAN 25 YEARS AGO, YOUR INITIAL EDUCATION; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: MY INITIAL EDUCATION, YES.

Q: AND THEN YOU GOT FURTHER EDUCATION BY SOMETHING CALLED HOMICIDE SCHOOL?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: WHEN WAS THAT?

A: PROBABLY TWENTY YEARS AGO.

Q: AND I WOULD TAKE IT THAT THINGS THAT YOU LEARNED IN HOMICIDE SCHOOL TODAY MAY BE VERY, VERY -- IN HOMICIDE SCHOOL TWENTY YEARS AGO ARE IN FACT OUT OF DATE TODAY?

A: SOME OF THE THINGS, YES.

Q: AND THERE HAVE BEEN THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN CHANGED SINCE HOMICIDE SCHOOL THAT YOU NEVER EVEN CONSIDERED AT THAT TIME?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: BEEN ADVANCEMENTS THAT WERE NEVER DISCUSSED IN HOMICIDE SCHOOL TWENTY YEARS AGO THAT ARE ROUTINE PROCEDURES TODAY?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

Q: AND DID YOU TAKE CONTINUED EDUCATION COURSES TO KEEP UP WITH THE CHANGE IN SCIENTIFIC TECHNOLOGY?

A: WELL, I THINK THAT IS A CONTINUING EDUCATION ON A DAILY BASIS WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

Q: DID YOU UNDERSTAND MY QUESTION, SIR?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: COULD YOU ANSWER IT, PLEASE?

A: CONTINUING EDUCATION?

Q: COURSES.

A: NO.

Q: HAVE YOU TAUGHT ANYTHING IN THE AREA OF POLICE SCIENCE OR POLICE INVESTIGATION OR INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES?

A: WHERE?

Q: ANYWHERE?

A: AT THE POLICE ACADEMY OCCASIONALLY AND AT TRAINING DAYS, YES.

Q: AND WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU TAUGHT AT THE POLICE ACADEMY AND WHAT SUBJECT DID YOU TEACH?

A: PROBABLY TEN YEARS AGO AND IT WAS OFFICER-INVOLVED SHOOTINGS.

Q: AND PRIOR TO THAT WHEN DID YOU TEACH BEFORE THAT AT THE POLICE ACADEMY AND WHAT SUBJECT DID YOU TEACH?

A: WELL, I USED TO TEACH QUARTERLY OFFICER-INVOLVED SHOOTINGS AT THE POLICE ACADEMY AND AT TRAINING DAYS FOR DIFFERENT DIVISIONS.

Q: HAVE YOU TAUGHT ANY OTHER SUBJECT?

A: NO.

Q: HAVE YOU READ ANY BOOKS ON CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION IN THE LAST TEN YEARS?

A: NO. "

Who was the witness?

[William Anthony]

Going back to the evidence of planting and relying on the testimony of Martz and Dr. Terry Lee and my opinion that one inference of planting is enough to find reasonable doubt, I will say that the evidence allows for two opposing inferences to be drawn; one suggesting planting and one suggesting a ghost in the machinery. I think that likewise there is evidence allowing opposing inferences on the planting of the Rockingham glove.

[William Anthony]

Who was the witness?

IIRC, Vannatter.

[tv]

**************************************
I think the DAs did have logical explanations. Just not accepted by a lot of people.

I have read the LAPD and Henry Lee used different methods of drying swatches. Henry Lee put the swatches in test tubes and had the test tubes vertical, LAPD had them horizontal. I believe I read somewhere that D Fung put had some of the test tubes and swatches close together which means that some of them got more wind current than others. Even if he didn't keep things close together, it is easy to think that wind currents could have hit some swatches more than others. If some swatches were stuck deeper in a test tube than others that also could account for differing drying rates. It may also be true that some of the swatches had more water (damp rather than wet) than others. It might also be true that some swatches were pressed against the envelopes or bindles or whatever they are.

I also read that after the trial some criminologist tried to repeat the testing using LAPD techniques and they got the same results.

As for the swatch not matching the swatch pattern. I doubt that there has been any serious research on smears made by swatches. WA likes to complain about junk science. It might be interesting to find out if any university in the country has criminology courses which cover smears made by putting swatches in bindles or envelopes. The subject probably never came up till 1995.

As for not seeing blood in the bronco, small blood stains would be easy to miss. I have sometimes had trouble finding stains on clothing or other places (walls, carpets, car seats) even when I know about where it is. It is easy to not notice things. One of the first things they teach people in elementary criminology courses is that most people are not good at noticing and remembering things. To make this point these classes often show people a short video and then ask them to answer questions about what they saw. Almost everyone makes mistakes.

As for the type of people in the jury. First of all, John Douglas, the former FBI man who has written books about crime was quite critical of the jury, and he wasn't the only one. One of the jurors had this to say about the DNA."I didn't understand the DNA stuff at all; to me it was a waste of time". Another juror, he foreman (forewoman) said she thought the blood that was identified as OJS could have come from Mazzola, because they had the same blood type. The juror who had the best educational background (in the opinion of the prosecution) said afterwards that the person who impressed her most was Henry Lee "because she liked the way he smiled at the jury". If you, Greenice, are happy about spending 20M and 9 months and then having people like that decide things, I have to disagree. I realize that DNA wasn't the only factor, but it was an important part, and if the forewoman/foreman couldn't understand much about DNA she probably misunderstood a lot of other things as well.

As for the drops of blood having different levels of DNA, I suspect this happens a lot. Do you know enough to claim otherwise? Differing levels of DNA were probably caused mainly by the type of surface they landed on. Different places probably had different types of bacteria, different types of dirt. To state the obvious, the crime scene was not a spic and span clean biology lab.

You seem to make a lot of unwarranted claims in your posts. In another post you wrote that you were sure that the person who committed the crime deliberately left the glove(s 1 or 2?) and hat there. I don't think you have any facts to base that on.s.

Thanks for putting some of these things into perspective especially your assessment of the jury. I'd say it's right on. :)

[tv]

IIRC, Vannatter.

Okay, so what's your point?

[martin II]

No, OJ Simpson's explanation is that he cut it in Chicago. Who testified that he cut it in Chicago?

the evidence that he cut it in chicago was found and testified to in court

[William Anthony]

The prosecution wasn't required to produce the murder weapon.

I haven't said they were required to produce the murder weapon but I am saying that the prosecution promulgated a theory that Simpson cut his hand during a struggle on a knife and the prosecution failed miserably, imho, to provide any evidence to substantiate that part of their theory and there was evidence directly contradicting that evidence.

[William Anthony]

Okay, so what's your point?

See Martin's response in post 5250, :).