Random Discussions On The Case

[tv]

the evidence that he cut it in chicago was found and testified to in court
Who actually witnessed him cutting his hand in Chicago?

[tv]

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

See my response 5253.

[martin II]

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.

AC said no such thing.

[tv]

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.
The defense promised to provide proof that LE framed OJ Simpson but it didn't happen.

[tv]

AC said no such thing.According to Jennier Peace he did. She actually knew him and was a part of his life -- she would know more about what things AC Cowlings said than you would.

[martin II]

Who actually witnessed him cutting his hand in Chicago?

no one but the evidence that he did was found in his hotel room by chicago le
and testified in court to such.unless you believe chicago le created the evidence for some reason.

[martin II]

According to Jennier Peace he did. She actually knew him and was a part of his life -- she would know more about what things AC Cowlings said than you would.

Ac dumped j peace and she was not pleased.She told a lot of lies on ac but ac never said what you clain he said.that is for suire.

[tv]

no one but the evidence that he did was found in his hotel room by chicago le
and testified in court to such.unless you believe chicago le created the evidence for some reason.

I think the 'evidence' found in the hotel room that made it appear as if he had cut his hand was planted -- by OJ Simpson. There was blood on the sheet on the bed and glass in the sink but no blood in the sink. The toiletries on the sink were undisturbed. Sorry, sounds like a staged scene to me.

[tv]

Ac dumped j peace and she was not pleased.She told a lot of lies on ac but ac never said what you clain he said.that is for suire.
Uh-oh, more girlfriend bashing. The only thing that makes me doubt the story is that I don't think AC will ever tell that he knows that OJ Simpson killed Ron and Nicole.

[William Anthony]

Who actually witnessed him cutting his hand in Chicago?

Who actually witnessed Simpson cutting his hand with a knife in a struggle and provided such testimony?

[William Anthony]

The defense promised to provide proof that LE framed OJ Simpson but it didn't happen.

I think the defense promised to provide evidence, which they did, imho.

[tv]

Who actually witnessed Simpson cutting his hand with a knife in a struggle and provided such testimony?No one. The victims were killed with a knife and a glove matching the one at the crime scene was found on his property with Simpson's, Ron's and Nicole's DNA.

[martin II]

According to Jennier Peace he did. She actually knew him and was a part of his life -- she would know more about what things AC Cowlings said than you would.

j peace was a stripper and a side girl of AC
He dumped her and she did not like it.She then reached out for 15 minutes of fame by making up that lie and others.AC never said he told her any such thing.

[William Anthony]

I think the 'evidence' found in the hotel room that made it appear as if he had cut his hand was planted -- by OJ Simpson. There was blood on the sheet on the bed and glass in the sink but no blood in the sink. The toiletries on the sink were undisturbed. Sorry, sounds like a staged scene to me.

That is one inference and another is that he did cut his hand on the glass in the Chicago hotel room.

[tv]

I think the defense promised to provide evidence, which they did, imho.Defense evidence = Wild theories and speculation.

[tv]

That is one inference and another is that he did cut his hand on the glass in the Chicago hotel room.Nah..he did it butchering Ron and Nicole.

[William Anthony]

No one.

Thanks. We are in the midst of discussing those other things you mentioned.

[martin II]

Who actually witnessed Simpson cutting his hand with a knife in a struggle and provided such testimony?

tv i would like for you to give a answer to that also.

[William Anthony]

Nah..he did it butchering Ron and Nicole.

The verdict indicates that the prosecution failed to provide evidence of a caliber sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson murdered anyone.

[William Anthony]

Defense evidence = Wild theories and speculation.

Defense evidence=reasons why the prosecution's theories are unsupported by the evidence.

[tv]

tv i would like for you to give a answer to that also.

No one. The victims were killed with a knife and a glove matching the one at the crime scene was found on his property with Simpson's, Ron's and Nicole's DNA.

[tv]

Defense evidence=reasons why the prosecution's theories are unsupported by the evidence.

The defense did very poorly in the civil trial. OJ Simpson lost that one.

[William Anthony]

The defense did very poorly in the civil trial. OJ Simpson lost that one.

Ah, you mean that socio-political production, imho. However, that case did not involve proof beyond a reasonable doubt, only the considerably lesser standard of preponderance of the evidence in a wrongful death and survival actions.

[tv]

Ah, you mean that socio-political production, imho. However, that case did not involve proof beyond a reasonable doubt, only the considerably lesser standard of preponderance of the evidence in a wrongful death and survival actions.The only thing required was preponderance of the evidence but not everyone is happy with only rising to the level of expectations. Some people are driven to perform with excellence and produce results beyond reproach. That's exactly what Petrocelli and associates did. They proved the case against OJ Simpson far beyond a reasonable doubt. Petrocelli annihilated Simpson on the stand.

[William Anthony]

If we have satisfied our sufficiency of discussion related to the issue of whether or not the Rockingham glove was planted, perhaps, we can discuss the issue of whether or not the sock and gate stains were planted and this would be a good point to start the discussion on the evidence of.

"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.)"

[martin II]

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.

nothing wrong with oj being in a hotel room alone when he cut his finger on a glass and leaving the evidence of such for chicago le to find.

[tv]

If we have satisfied our sufficiency of discussion related to the issue of whether or not the Rockingham glove was planted, perhaps, we can discuss the issue of whether or not the sock and gate stains were planted and this would be a good point to start the discussion on the evidence of.

"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.)"

Not sure what point you're trying to make. Can you give me a hint? :confused:

[tv]

nothing wrong with oj being in a hotel room alone when he cut his finger on a glass and leaving the evidence of such for chicago le to find.
Oh, I'm sure he left the glass there for LE to find. The thing is that he forgot to leave blood in the sink -- someting wrong. ;)

[William Anthony]

The only thing required was preponderance of the evidence but not everyone is happy with only rising to the level of expectations. Some people are driven to perform with excellence and produce results beyond reproach. That's exactly what Petrocelli and associates did. They proved the case against OJ Simpson far beyond a reasonable doubt. Petrocelli annihilated Simpson on the stand.

The only thing that Petrocelli produced, which exceed expectations, was the degree to which he became a braggart, imho. I think that any lay person could have gotten a favorable verdict in that socio-political production, imho, and then enhanced their acumen with overly exaggerated claims of egotism when much of their favorable verdict was aided by the ruling of the court which operated as an auxiliary of the plaintiffs, imho.

[tv]

The only thing that Petrocelli produced, which exceed expectations, was the degree to which he became a braggart, imho. I think that any lay person could have gotten a favorable verdict in that socio-political production, imho, and then enhanced their acumen with overly exaggerated claims of egotism when much of their favorable verdict was aided by the ruling of the court which operated as an auxiliary of the plaintiffs, imho.

Oh yes, when you can't argue the facts start with the character assassinations. :chicken:

[William Anthony]

Not sure what point you're trying to make. Can you give me a hint? :confused:

What is it that you don't understand? I supplied the translation of the negative pregnant in Dr. Lee's testimony, which by the way is from the, imho, socio-political production.

[William Anthony]

Oh yes, when you can't argue the facts start with the character assassinations. :chicken:

I am not assainating his character but I did express an opinion of him, the socio-political production and the role of the court. You are allowed to say that Petrocelli was near perfect. Can I be allowed to express my opinion?

[martin II]

The defense did very poorly in the civil trial. OJ Simpson lost that one.

The judge made sure oj lost the civil trial exactly when it started. it really did not matter because it was only about money.Fred has not been paid so who really lost.

[tv]

I am not assainating his character but I did express an opinion of him, the socio-political production and the role of the court. You are allowed to say that Petrocelli was near perfect. Can I be allowed to express my opinion?
I've never said he was near perfect.

[tv]

The judge made sure oj lost the civil trial exactly when it started. it really did not matter because it was only about money.Fred has not been paid so who really lost.
martin, that's very unfair. You wouldn't like it if I said Judge Ito made sure that OJ Simpson was acquitted in the criminal trial.

[martin II]

Oh yes, when you can't argue the facts start with the character assassinations. :chicken:

It was only about money and makingh sure the majority community got what they wanted.

[martin II]

martin, that's very unfair. You wouldn't like it if I said Judge Ito made sure that OJ Simpson was acquitted in the criminal trial.

That judge cut the legs out from the defence arguments from the jump.So they really had no chance.That was a very easy case for petrocilli. He did not have to show any skills to win.

[tv]

It was only about money and makingh sure the majority community got what they wanted.That's kind of what I thought about the criminal trial.

[William Anthony]

Clarification

"Q. That's a poor question. I apologize. The levels that he found in
his blood is inconsistent with life, correct?
A. If you're saying that it would be impossible for him to have
found EDTA levels at those levels in his own blood, that is true,
but he didn't know that at the time.
Q. He was alive; he knew that, didn't he?
A. Yes. But he didn't know it was impossible for him to have EDTA
levels that high in his own blood; he did not know that.
Q. You talked to him about that?
A. No. There's no way I could have known. Nobody knew it at that
point.
Q. Now, it is common knowledge in the scientific industry that there
are no detectable levels of EDTA in a normal human being's blood,
correct?
A. In the past year there have been two labs that have designed
tests to prove that point, and they have determined that there's no
detectable levels of EDTA in anybody's blood.
Q. And so if, for example, Richard Fox were on the stand yesterday
and testified that there can be EDTA levels in human blood, that's
incorrect?
A. That's incorrect.
Q. And we know presently, of course, that EDTA is not in human blood
to the level that was found by Roger Martz in his experiments done
on the blood samples from both the back gate and the socks, true?
A. I'm sorry. That was a long question. I lost part of it. Could you
repeat that, please.
Q. I get these notes -- I have I got an I.
Q. that's about ground level, so I have to rephrase and think back
of what I was asking you. But -- But basically, in terms of EDTA,
the EDTA that Roger Martz found in his test from the samples of the
back gate and the socks would not be in a normal person's blood; you
would agree with that?
A. I would agree that he could not find -- he would not detect any
EDTA in a normal person's blood, that's true.
Q. If his test results were in fact accurate, if EDTA was in both
the samples from the back gate and the socks, they had to have been
planted, if your theory is incorrect; you would agree with that?
A. I would say there is another possibility -- there may be another
possibility, a possibility that I haven't thought of."

[tv]

That judge cut the legs out from the defence arguments from the jump.So they really had no chance.That was a very easy case for petrocilli. He did not have to show any skills to win.
Petrocelli worked very hard on the civil case and did a great job. If you would actually read any of the testimony you'd know that. Oh yeah, the judge cut the legs out from the defense when he wouldn't allow the nonsense that was allowed in the criminal trial. He made them try OJ Simpson instead of LE, the LAPD lab and Mark Fuhrman. HaHaHa

[martin II]

I've never said he was near perfect.

He was far from perfect and he proved this in the ENRON case where he got his client convicted.

[tv]

Clarification

"Q. That's a poor question. I apologize. The levels that he found in
his blood is inconsistent with life, correct?
A. If you're saying that it would be impossible for him to have
found EDTA levels at those levels in his own blood, that is true,
but he didn't know that at the time.
Q. He was alive; he knew that, didn't he?
A. Yes. But he didn't know it was impossible for him to have EDTA
levels that high in his own blood; he did not know that.
Q. You talked to him about that?
A. No. There's no way I could have known. Nobody knew it at that
point.
Q. Now, it is common knowledge in the scientific industry that there
are no detectable levels of EDTA in a normal human being's blood,
correct?
A. In the past year there have been two labs that have designed
tests to prove that point, and they have determined that there's no
detectable levels of EDTA in anybody's blood.
Q. And so if, for example, Richard Fox were on the stand yesterday
and testified that there can be EDTA levels in human blood, that's
incorrect?
A. That's incorrect.
Q. And we know presently, of course, that EDTA is not in human blood
to the level that was found by Roger Martz in his experiments done
on the blood samples from both the back gate and the socks, true?
A. I'm sorry. That was a long question. I lost part of it. Could you
repeat that, please.
Q. I get these notes -- I have I got an I.
Q. that's about ground level, so I have to rephrase and think back
of what I was asking you. But -- But basically, in terms of EDTA,
the EDTA that Roger Martz found in his test from the samples of the
back gate and the socks would not be in a normal person's blood; you
would agree with that?
A. I would agree that he could not find -- he would not detect any
EDTA in a normal person's blood, that's true.
Q. If his test results were in fact accurate, if EDTA was in both
the samples from the back gate and the socks, they had to have been
planted, if your theory is incorrect; you would agree with that?
A. I would say there is another possibility -- there may be another
possibility, a possibility that I haven't thought of."
I don't discuss Martz or EDTA -- I'm still having nightmares from the argument between you and bobaugust.

[William Anthony]

I've never said he was near perfect.

I stand corrected as this is what you actually said.

Some people are driven to perform with excellence and produce results beyond reproach. That's exactly what Petrocelli and associates did.

[tv]

He was far from perfect and he proved this in the ENRON case where he got his client convicted.This forum is for the discussion of OJ Simpson's trials, not Daniel Petrocelli's other cases.

[William Anthony]

I don't discuss Martz or EDTA -- I'm still having nightmares from the argument between you and bobaugust.

My Fair Lady,

So am I.:)

[tv]

I stand corrected as this is what you actually said.

Thank you. I don't see the word perfect anywhere in that statement.

[tv]

My Fair Lady,

So am I.:)

I'm sure you are...and perhaps bob as well.

[martin II]

That's kind of what I thought about the criminal trial.

no judgement was issued in the criminal trial and the majority dissagreed with the verdict.

[William Anthony]

This forum is for the discussion of OJ Simpson's trials, not Daniel Petrocelli's other cases.

Now, when did you decide that it was off limits to discuss things about trial participants that weren't introduced during the trials?:)

[William Anthony]

Thank you. I don't see the word perfect anywhere in that statement.

Yes, as you see, I am not above going back doing research and admitting when someone hasn't said something.

[tv]

Now, when did you decide that it was off limits to discuss things about trial participants that weren't introduced during the trials?:)
martin can discuss Daniel Petrocelli if he wants but I don't know anything about him other than his work in OJ Simpson's civil trial and it doesn't really interest me. If you two are interested please discuss away!

[martin II]

This forum is for the discussion of OJ Simpson's trials, not Daniel Petrocelli's other cases.

You posted that he was such a great lawyer.i posted that he was not and gave a example as to why i hold that opinion.

[tv]

Yes, as you see, I am not above going back doing research and admitting when someone hasn't said something.

You only had to go back a couple of posts. I didn't want to search the entire forum.

[William Anthony]

I'm sure you are...and perhaps bob as well.

IMHO, anyone would could devote so much of their energy to trying to prove Simpson guilty of murder, despite the verdict, would be prone to having nightmares. :)

[William Anthony]

You only had to go back a couple of posts. I didn't want to search the entire forum.

Why My Fair Lady,

I was only saying what I am willing to do.

[William Anthony]

martin can discuss Daniel Petrocelli if he wants but I don't know anything about him other than his work in OJ Simpson's civil trial and it doesn't really interest me. If you two are interested please discuss away!

He didn't interest me in the civil case and hasn't since. However, you made a statement including his prowess and I stated my opinion in that regard, as some have done about the magnificent one.:)

[martin II]

martin can discuss Daniel Petrocelli if he wants but I don't know anything about him other than his work in OJ Simpson's civil trial and it doesn't really interest me. If you two are interested please discuss away!

Petricelli lost the biggest case of his little career by putting forth a defence
that no one believed.His client was found guilty on all charges.He got the case by appearing on many tv programs bragging about how he won the civil case.

[martin II]

martin can discuss Daniel Petrocelli if he wants but I don't know anything about him other than his work in OJ Simpson's civil trial and it doesn't really interest me. If you two are interested please discuss away!

There is really not that much to discuss about Petro. He won a case that was handed to him free of effort and then lost the biggest case in his life.

[weezer]

Petricelli lost the biggest case of his little career by putting forth a defence
that no one believed.His client was found guilty on all charges.He got the case by appearing on many tv programs bragging about how he won the civil case.

boy you must think baker and son and yale really, really suck! :eek:

[martin II]

Oh, I'm sure he left the glass there for LE to find. The thing is that he forgot to leave blood in the sink -- someting wrong. ;)

in the sink in my bathroom when i spill something in the bowl and turn the hot or cold water on, the liquid in the bowl goes down the drain and the bowl is left clean. Does your bowl act like that?

[weezer]

no judgement was issued in the criminal trial and the majority dissagreed with the verdict.

:beer::beer::beer:

[martin II]

boy you must think baker and son and yale really, really suck! :eek:

nope both were very good lawyers. very good and they did very good for oj but the 900 lb gorilla that biased judge handcuffed them so as to make impossible for them to make argumentrs to the jury.
Based on the jury comments posted by william petro just barely won that case although it was handed to him without him having to show skill.
He was the joke of the legal profession when got his client convicted after being paid such a hugh amount of money. some called him a flim flammer after they reviewed his performance.

[weezer]

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

Vannatter: How did you get the injury on your hand?

Simpson: I don't know. The first time, when I was in Chicago and all, but at the house I was just running around.

Vannatter: How did you do it in Chicago?

Simpson: I broke a glass. One of you guys had just called me, and I was in the bathroom, and I just kind of went bonkers for a little bit.

Lange: Is that how you cut it?

Simpson: Mmm, it was cut before, but I think I just opened it again, I'm not sure.

Lange: Do you recall bleeding at all in your truck, in the Bronco?

Simpson: I recall bleeding at my house and then I went to the Bronco. The last thing I did before I left, when I was rushing, was went and got my phone out of the Bronco.

------------------------

The hotel that Simpson stayed in Chicago was secured and police discovered a broken glass left in the sink – no blood was found on or near the glass although blood was found on the sheets and towels.

[martin II]

boy you must think baker and son and yale really, really suck! :eek:

William i am getting the feeling that the name calling is about to start so i wll check back later. Be careful..

[weezer]

nope both were very good lawyers. very good and they did very good for oj but the 900 lb gorilla that biased judge handcuffed them so as to make impossible for them to make argumentrs to the jury.
Based on the jury comments posted by william petro just barely won that case although it was handed to him without him having to show skill.
He was the joke of the legal profession when got his client convicted after being paid such a hugh amount of money. some called him a flim flammer after they reviewed his performance.

careful martin -- you could suffocate from all that hatred.

you do know that the defense was given the okay to show any and all of the "LE did it" and/or "coloumbian drug lords did it" that they wanted -- the only stipulation was that they had to also present concrete evidence/proof that it occurred, could have logically occurred. oh wait. you don't suppose that's why they didn't use it do you? ;)

[martin II]

That's kind of what I thought about the criminal trial.

i though you thought that the jury was ignorant,uneducasted and biased.you can correct me if that is not correct.

[weezer]

That judge cut the legs out from the defence arguments from the jump.So they really had no chance.That was a very easy case for petrocilli. He did not have to show any skills to win.

Daniel Petrocelli is a graduate of University of California, Los Angeles with a degree in economics (he began as a music major but switched to economics after two years), and then moved on to the Southwestern University School of Law in Los Angeles where he received his juris doctor in 1980. He graduated first in his class from Southwestern and was also editor-in-chief of the Southwestern Law Review.

Petrocelli first gained national media exposure in 1997 when he represented Fred Goldman, the father of murder victim Ron Goldman, in a wrongful death civil suit against O.J. Simpson. Petrocelli successfully argued the case, in spite of Simpson's 1995 acquittal in the related 1994 criminal murder case, and a jury awarded the Goldman family $8.5 million dollars in damages. His book about the case, Triumph of Justice: The Final Judgment on the Simpson Saga (1998), written with co-author Peter Knobler, became a national bestseller.[1]

Petrocelli also served as an attorney for Don Henley and Glenn Frey in the lawsuit filed against them by former Eagles band member Don Felder.

In 2001, Petrocelli took on the legendary Bert Fields in Los Angeles Superior Court in the celebrated case of Stephen Slesinger Inc. v The Walt Disney Company, which remains active and is the longest-running case in that court's history (it was filed in 1991).[citation needed] Petrocelli won a dismissal of the case after Fields had won a $200 million preliminary judgment but was forced to recuse himself. The case concerns the merchandising royalties paid by Disney to the heirs of Stephen Slesinger, a branding pioneer who obtained merchandising rights from Pooh author A.A. Milne in 1929. The clash between the two famous attorneys was covered in depth by Joe Shea of The American Reporter, an online daily newspaper that now offers an archive of 28 articles about the case with an extensive discussion of Petrocelli's role.

Petrocelli's next high-profile client was former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling, whom Petrocelli has represented since 2004, who was tried on charges of fraud and insider trading in 2006. Even though he had never handled a criminal case before, Petrocelli became Skilling's lead defense counsel. Despite his defense, for which Skilling still owes a reported $30 million, a jury found Skilling guilty of nineteen out of the twenty-eight counts against him, including one count of conspiracy, one count of insider trading (although he was acquitted of the other nine counts of this particular charge), five counts of making false statements to auditors, and twelve counts of securities fraud. For these crimes, Skilling was sentenced to serve over 24 years in federal prison.

[fgump2]

Clarification

"Q. That's a poor question. I apologize. The levels that he found in
his blood is inconsistent with life, correct?
A. If you're saying that it would be impossible for him to have
found EDTA levels at those levels in his own blood, that is true,
but he didn't know that at the time.
Q. He was alive; he knew that, didn't he?
A. Yes. But he didn't know it was impossible for him to have EDTA
levels that high in his own blood; he did not know that.
Q. You talked to him about that?
A. No. There's no way I could have known. Nobody knew it at that
point.
Q. Now, it is common knowledge in the scientific industry that there
are no detectable levels of EDTA in a normal human being's blood,
correct?
A. In the past year there have been two labs that have designed
tests to prove that point, and they have determined that there's no
detectable levels of EDTA in anybody's blood.
Q. And so if, for example, Richard Fox were on the stand yesterday
and testified that there can be EDTA levels in human blood, that's
incorrect?
A. That's incorrect.
Q. And we know presently, of course, that EDTA is not in human blood
to the level that was found by Roger Martz in his experiments done
on the blood samples from both the back gate and the socks, true?
A. I'm sorry. That was a long question. I lost part of it. Could you
repeat that, please.
Q. I get these notes -- I have I got an I.
Q. that's about ground level, so I have to rephrase and think back
of what I was asking you. But -- But basically, in terms of EDTA,
the EDTA that Roger Martz found in his test from the samples of the
back gate and the socks would not be in a normal person's blood; you
would agree with that?
A. I would agree that he could not find -- he would not detect any
EDTA in a normal person's blood, that's true.
Q. If his test results were in fact accurate, if EDTA was in both
the samples from the back gate and the socks, they had to have been
planted, if your theory is incorrect; you would agree with that?
A. I would say there is another possibility -- there may be another
possibility, a possibility that I haven't thought of."
*********************************************
This puts the planting theory in a good light; but I am not yet convinced. If this evidence, testimony is as strong as it looks here, why didn't they sue the LAPD? Even if they lost in court, they might win in public opinion. It is in the public interest to make the police be as honest as possible. It is also in the public interest to reduce the anger and distrust that the Simpson case stirred up.

I can think of two theories why neither OJS nor JC wanted to get into this:
The first is that they didn’t believe that the blood was planted.
The other theory is that they were afraid they would loose, and not make any money on it. .I find it easy to think that both JC and OJS were more concerned with their own wallets than with the public interest in making the police honest and accountable, and also little about reducing public anger and distrust that the case stirred up and displayed.

Johnnie Cochran had a good back ground for cases against the police. He used to work for the police dept investigating complaints against policemen (he investigated M Fuhrman), and also sued different police depts., usually on race discrimination and brutality. If he had sued the LAPD and made them look bad, it would have been good publicity for both Simpson and JC even if they didn't win any money. If they did sue, I don't think the LAPD could defend themselves by trying to show that OJS was guilty. In other words if they could prove that any blood was planted, not even a signed confession from OJS could get the LAPD off the hook; and JC and OJS wouldn't have to prove who planted it.

It seems to be a common opinion that one's own ethnic groups will be fair to other ethnic groups, but the reverse won't be true. WA and Martin II both seem to believe this in terms of their comments about the juries of the 1995 criminal trial and the 1996 civil trial.

[weezer]

The only thing that Petrocelli produced, which exceed expectations, was the degree to which he became a braggart, imho. I think that any lay person could have gotten a favorable verdict in that socio-political production, imho, and then enhanced their acumen with overly exaggerated claims of egotism when much of their favorable verdict was aided by the ruling of the court which operated as an auxiliary of the plaintiffs, imho.

LOL -- Drove a Rolls-Royce with vanity plate "JC JR." -- guess who?

[martin II]

*********************************************
This puts the planting theory in a good light; but I am not yet convinced. If this evidence, testimony is as strong as it looks here, why didn't they sue the LAPD? Even if they lost in court, they might win in public opinion. It is in the public interest to make the police be as honest as possible. It is also in the public interest to reduce the anger and distrust that the Simpson case stirred up.

I can think of two theories why neither OJS nor JC wanted to get into this:
The first is that they didn’t believe that the blood was planted.
The other theory is that they were afraid they would loose, and not make any money on it. .I find it easy to think that both JC and OJS were more concerned with their own wallets than with the public interest in making the police honest and accountable, and also little about reducing public anger and distrust that the case stirred up and displayed.

Johnnie Cochran had a good back ground for cases against the police. He used to work for the police dept investigating complaints against policemen (he investigated M Fuhrman), and also sued different police depts., usually on race discrimination and brutality. If he had sued the LAPD and made them look bad, it would have been good publicity for both Simpson and JC even if they didn't win any money. If they did sue, I don't think the LAPD could defend themselves by trying to show that OJS was guilty. In other words if they could prove that any blood was planted, not even a signed confession from OJS could get the LAPD off the hook; and JC and OJS wouldn't have to prove who planted it.

It seems to be a common opinion that one's own ethnic groups will be fair to other ethnic groups, but the reverse won't be true. WA and Martin II both seem to believe this in terms of their comments about the juries of the 1995 criminal trial and the 1996 civil trial.

in a criminal trial the defence objective it to create reasonable doubt in the prosecutions claims.The objective is not to file civil suits based on creating reasonable doubt. I would think you would know this.

Your last paragraph does not interest me.

[martin II]

*********************************************
This puts the planting theory in a good light; but I am not yet convinced. If this evidence, testimony is as strong as it looks here, why didn't they sue the LAPD? Even if they lost in court, they might win in public opinion. It is in the public interest to make the police be as honest as possible. It is also in the public interest to reduce the anger and distrust that the Simpson case stirred up.

I can think of two theories why neither OJS nor JC wanted to get into this:
The first is that they didn’t believe that the blood was planted.
The other theory is that they were afraid they would loose, and not make any money on it. .I find it easy to think that both JC and OJS were more concerned with their own wallets than with the public interest in making the police honest and accountable, and also little about reducing public anger and distrust that the case stirred up and displayed.

Johnnie Cochran had a good back ground for cases against the police. He used to work for the police dept investigating complaints against policemen (he investigated M Fuhrman), and also sued different police depts., usually on race discrimination and brutality. If he had sued the LAPD and made them look bad, it would have been good publicity for both Simpson and JC even if they didn't win any money. If they did sue, I don't think the LAPD could defend themselves by trying to show that OJS was guilty. In other words if they could prove that any blood was planted, not even a signed confession from OJS could get the LAPD off the hook; and JC and OJS wouldn't have to prove who planted it.

It seems to be a common opinion that one's own ethnic groups will be fair to other ethnic groups, but the reverse won't be true. WA and Martin II both seem to believe this in terms of their comments about the juries of the 1995 criminal trial and the 1996 civil trial.


what ethnic group does Martin belong to.If you know.

[martin II]

Talk about Petrocelli.

Skillings argued that Petrocelli, after receiving all that money

"used incorrect legal theory" in Skillings,his, defence

So after Petrocelli lost the case the client,Skillings told the court Petrocelli did not know what he was doing when he tried to defend him.

So it sounds like petrocelli told the judge that his client broke the law. And the client was pissed.

-------------

"A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans denied Skilling's request to overturn his convictions. Skilling argued his conviction was invalid because of what his lawyers argued were incorrect legal theory, faulty jury instructions, a biased jury and prosecutorial misconduct, including accusations of witness intimidation and withholding evidence."

-----------------------

"But when Skilling attorney Daniel Petrocelli argued his appeal before the 5th Circuit in April, he characterized his client as a loyal employee who at times might have bent the rules, but only for the company's benefit".

"Petrocelli argued that while Skilling might not have done his job appropriately, he did not commit a crime".

[weezer]

Talk about Petrocelli.

Skillings argued that Petrocelli, after receiving all that money

"used incorrect legal theory" in Skillings,his, defence

So after Petrocelli lost the case the client,Skillings told the court Petrocelli did not know what he was doing when he tried to defend him.

So it sounds like petrocelli told the judge that his client broke the law. And the client was pissed.

-------------

"A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans denied Skilling's request to overturn his convictions. Skilling argued his conviction was invalid because of what his lawyers argued were incorrect legal theory, faulty jury instructions, a biased jury and prosecutorial misconduct, including accusations of witness intimidation and withholding evidence."

-----------------------

"But when Skilling attorney Daniel Petrocelli argued his appeal before the 5th Circuit in April, he characterized his client as a loyal employee who at times might have bent the rules, but only for the company's benefit".

"Petrocelli argued that while Skilling might not have done his job appropriately, he did not commit a crime".

obviously you didn't own any Enron stock! ;) :D

[martin II]

*********************************************
This puts the planting theory in a good light; but I am not yet convinced. If this evidence, testimony is as strong as it looks here, why didn't they sue the LAPD? Even if they lost in court, they might win in public opinion. It is in the public interest to make the police be as honest as possible. It is also in the public interest to reduce the anger and distrust that the Simpson case stirred up.

I can think of two theories why neither OJS nor JC wanted to get into this:
The first is that they didn’t believe that the blood was planted.
The other theory is that they were afraid they would loose, and not make any money on it. .I find it easy to think that both JC and OJS were more concerned with their own wallets than with the public interest in making the police honest and accountable, and also little about reducing public anger and distrust that the case stirred up and displayed.

Johnnie Cochran had a good back ground for cases against the police. He used to work for the police dept investigating complaints against policemen (he investigated M Fuhrman), and also sued different police depts., usually on race discrimination and brutality. If he had sued the LAPD and made them look bad, it would have been good publicity for both Simpson and JC even if they didn't win any money. If they did sue, I don't think the LAPD could defend themselves by trying to show that OJS was guilty. In other words if they could prove that any blood was planted, not even a signed confession from OJS could get the LAPD off the hook; and JC and OJS wouldn't have to prove who planted it.

It seems to be a common opinion that one's own ethnic groups will be fair to other ethnic groups, but the reverse won't be true. WA and Martin II both seem to believe this in terms of their comments about the juries of the 1995 criminal trial and the 1996 civil trial.

would you mind explaining what you mean by your last paragraph?

[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.

I understand why you don’t want to discuss this since you have almost everything backwards

Park did not say he saw Simpson come from the house to the driveway, he said he saw Simpson walk from the driveway into the front entrance.

Park did not say that Kaelin was near the gate control box on the right side of the driveway when Park first saw him. Park said Kaelin was on the Ashford side path where it met the driveway to the left of the Ashford gate.

The Ashford side path is the side walk that Park told Clark Kaelin was still standing on when Park saw Simpson enter his house.

Your speculation doesn’t create reasonable doubt since it is not only contradicted by what Park testified to but it is contradicted by the layout of the Rockingham estate. If you ever decide to look at the diagram of the layout of the Rockingham estate you would understand this.

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

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

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...

I don’t have to make anything happen, I understand what Park said. I understand what Park said is supported by the layout of the Rockingham estate. I understand that Park’s telephone records document the actual time Park first saw Kaelin that night when Kaelin came from the back of the house down the Ashford side path, and the first time Park saw Simpson that night when Simpson walked from his driveway to the front entrance of his house enter the door, and lights come on downstairs in the house.

You evidently also understand that what Park testified to is consistent with Simpson having made the noises on Kaelin’s back wall, something that you will never admit, so you made up an unrealistic version of events by arguing that Kaelin’s guesses are actual times and that Park had to be mistaken as to where Kaelin was when Park first saw him. Kaelin never looked at a clock and there was never any claim ever made by any of Simpson’s attorneys that Park was mistaken about this. You are the one who is mistaken William. Your speculation is backwards and wrong.

bobaugust

[weezer]

would you mind explaining what you mean by your last paragraph?

"Today, 02:58 PM
martin II
Criime Library Supreme Member Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 13,156

Your last paragraph does not interest me."

:confused:

[tv]

i though you thought that the jury was ignorant,uneducasted and biased.you can correct me if that is not correct.

I think you should go back and read what I've written about the jury before you go spouting off.

[GreenIce]

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

TV,

Page 497 American Tragedy, says Vanatter signed out the reference samples of Ron and Nicole on one day and it was never signed back in until the next day.

Parts of Siglar's deposition was read into evidence. He clearly states that the EDTA Reference vials, used for typing were signed out Vanatter on one day. The then goes back and forth like a ping pong ball on weather this is common. One minute it is rare, then it isn't so rare then it happens once in a while but he has never done it befor and I think he testified that he only saw it happened on other time a few years ago.

So, I think that leads the question of why alleles consistent with Simpson's were found in the blood typing of Ron and Nicole.

Another thing I learned from reading this---Vanatter went Dr. Golden first to get these reference samples. I wonder why, you would think if he did this all time he would know not to go to the coroner. But I could be wrong.

[William Anthony]

This puts the planting theory in a good light; but I am not yet convinced. If this evidence, testimony is as strong as it looks here, why didn't they sue the LAPD? Even if they lost in court, they might win in public opinion. It is in the public interest to make the police be as honest as possible. It is also in the public interest to reduce the anger and distrust that the Simpson case stirred up.

Have you heard of governmental immunity? If there were criminal charges to be brought, it would have to have been done by the state. The trial did start some investigations and, IIRC, some corrective measures were implemented, although I will admit I did not follow that issue.

[William Anthony]

I can think of two theories why neither OJS nor JC wanted to get into this:
The first is that they didn’t believe that the blood was planted.
The other theory is that they were afraid they would loose, and not make any money on it. .I find it easy to think that both JC and OJS were more concerned with their own wallets than with the public interest in making the police honest and accountable, and also little about reducing public anger and distrust that the case stirred up and displayed

You must not have paid attention to the magnificent one's closing.

[William Anthony]

The magnificent one was a criminal defense lawyer at that time. Criminal charges are brought by the state.

[William Anthony]

It seems to be a common opinion that one's own ethnic groups will be fair to other ethnic groups, but the reverse won't be true. WA and Martin II both seem to believe this in terms of their comments about the juries of the 1995 criminal trial and the 1996 civil trial.
Reply With Quote

I now extend to you the same offer I extended to others, which is to post one negative thing I said about the civil jury, other than based on the comments attributed to them by some posters, that I did not think they fully understood what they were called upon to decide.

[GreenIce]

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.

Jayme,

What State expert testified about the cuts on Simpson's hands? What did he testify to about the amount of blood that may have been generated from the various cuts?

If you think about it, the DA's would have been better off saying that Simpson was cut before he left for Bundy that night. The pattern of the blood drops to his front door is just unbelievable to me. Just like him going behind the wall but that is another post.

There were several witnesses who saw Simpson's hands that night, one person was looking at them for a championship ring. No one saw any blood on his hands or any cuts. The airplane seats were checked, the inside of the limo was checked, but I don't know if the Bentley was checked.

Any way, according to the G theory, he has already been able to "act" normal, he goes all the way to Chicago without anyone one seeing this huge cut on his knuckle---so if he was able to geth through all of that why the breaking glass alibi? If Simpson is the killer and he knew he was wounded and that he left his blood behind, he is not going to break a glass and "trace over a knife wound". He is not going to break a glass with the hope it will somehow fly and trace the knife wound by it self. No he is going to punch the piss out of the hardest object and can find, turn those big hams of his into raw hamburger and then let the cops figure it out.

Now the police suspected Simpson when they called him Chicago, they suspected that he was bleeding as he left the scene. Mr. Simpson's reaction to being "caught" would perhaps motivate him to I don't know, maybe get rid of some evidence or play the game of smash the glass until it looks like a shard of glass cut my finger then the knife at Bundy. Why weren't the Chicago police officers right outside Simpson's door as he was being told or why didn't the police knock on his door and wait for the LAPD to call him to tell him about Nicole?

I am pretty sure they had police officers who are trained to observe behavior when being told that a loved one was murdered. I could be wrong, but I don't think. IMO any way.

[William Anthony]

I understand why you don’t want to discuss this since you have almost everything backwards

Park did not say he saw Simpson come from the house to the driveway, he said he saw Simpson walk from the driveway into the front entrance.

Park did not say that Kaelin was near the gate control box on the right side of the driveway when Park first saw him. Park said Kaelin was on the Ashford side path where it met the driveway to the left of the Ashford gate.

The Ashford side path is the side walk that Park told Clark Kaelin was still standing on when Park saw Simpson enter his house.

Your speculation doesn’t create reasonable doubt since it is not only contradicted by what Park testified to but it is contradicted by the layout of the Rockingham estate. If you ever decide to look at the diagram of the layout of the Rockingham estate you would understand this.

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

bobaugust

You are obviously confused and I would say very from this post.

[GreenIce]

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,

I am interested--I will answer them in as timely manner as I can, my boy has a game tonight and I would rather lose a limb then miss it.

Compare the amount of time Miss Bess sat in the courtroom to Fung and Mozzola's time in the classroom? I believe Miss Bess worked in the Post Office? I really don't remember. However, I don't think she was trained as a criminalist.

If you find it to be that Miss Bess not knowing that Simpson's blood was on the glove is inexcusable then can't the same be said about the Crime Lab not using the proper equipment to the blood on the socks to be just as inexcuseable?

As I said before, Miss Bess may have missed this but if she did, she wouldn't have been the only person in the courtroom who was looking for a dull pencil to stick into eye because there is no way to jazz up DNA testimony. However, how hard the DA's hit it that his blood was on the glove? Did they say it over and over again? Every single chance they did they hammer it home or did they not because they could not over come why such a small amount of blood was found on the glove, that they believed that the defense's arguement would balance their's? The jurors knew what Fuhrman was and you know what, it probably did not shock them that he was a racist. I am sure they have met many "MF" over the years. Some hide it better, some don't care to hide it all---but "MF" did not shock those jurors.
From what I have read, Vanatter had more credibility issues then Fuhrman did. In all honestly, what about the teacher who manages to fail all her students? Is it the student's fault or the teacher's? What about the teacher who only has one kid fail? Clark and Darden "failed" their students, the jurors. If they did not understand something or they missed something so crucial, your issue is with them, not with the jurors, IMO.

[tv]

TV,

Page 497 American Tragedy, says Vanatter signed out the reference samples of Ron and Nicole on one day and it was never signed back in until the next day.

Parts of Siglar's deposition was read into evidence. He clearly states that the EDTA Reference vials, used for typing were signed out Vanatter on one day. The then goes back and forth like a ping pong ball on weather this is common. One minute it is rare, then it isn't so rare then it happens once in a while but he has never done it befor and I think he testified that he only saw it happened on other time a few years ago.

So, I think that leads the question of why alleles consistent with Simpson's were found in the blood typing of Ron and Nicole.

Another thing I learned from reading this---Vanatter went Dr. Golden first to get these reference samples. I wonder why, you would think if he did this all time he would know not to go to the coroner. But I could be wrong.

page 126 - 126 of EVIDENCE DISMISSED by Tom Lange, Philip Vannatter

"It is unusual for a lead detective to pick up the blood at the coroner's office and personally transport it to the police crime lab. However, LAPD policy provides the investigating officer with the power to control the evidence in his or her case."

"Because of the intense pressue to complete the blood evidence testing, the intense media interest in this case, aand the fact that the police have a prime suspect, as well as his statement, photographs of his cut finger, and a vial of his blood, Vannatter who believes that his has a "smoking gun" case, decides to expedite matters. Instead of waiting for someone from the SID to pick up the blood whenever he or she gets around to it, Vannatter is handling the chore personally."

"...Vannatter arrives at Piper Tech, signing in about five minutes after leaving the coroner's office. "

Once again, weezer has already answered your question about the alleles.

[William Anthony]

I don’t have to make anything happen, I understand what Park said. I understand what Park said is supported by the layout of the Rockingham estate. I understand that Park’s telephone records document the actual time Park first saw Kaelin that night when Kaelin came from the back of the house down the Ashford side path, and the first time Park saw Simpson that night when Simpson walked from his driveway to the front entrance of his house enter the door, and lights come on downstairs in the house.

You evidently also understand that what Park testified to is consistent with Simpson having made the noises on Kaelin’s back wall, something that you will never admit, so you made up an unrealistic version of events by arguing that Kaelin’s guesses are actual times and that Park had to be mistaken as to where Kaelin was when Park first saw him. Kaelin never looked at a clock and there was never any claim ever made by any of Simpson’s attorneys that Park was mistaken about this. You are the one who is mistaken William. Your speculation is backwards and wrong.

bobaugust

I have posted Park's testimony and it is quite clear that Park said Kato was still standing. Let me also correct something in your post that is inaccurate about what I said. I have never said that Kato's estimates are actual times, so I extend to you that same offer to go back and post where I said that. However, you on the other hand have claimed that Park's estimates were reliable because they involved seconds rather than minutes and when I used those seconds to contradict you assumptions you then wanted to intimate that Park's estimates weren't that reliable. I reiterate it is not important to me whether your inferences are right or wrong. You have to call mine wrong even when they are supported by the testimony for some reason, which I believe both you and I know what those reasons are.

[GreenIce]

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.

Jayme,

Sit down, I agree part of your post. For the life me, I never could figure out why Simpson just didn't say that he was so drunk that he doesn't remember if he actually hit her or not. That he doesn't believe he did but looking the pictures he must have. I think if I was his lawyers are would have approached him with this. However, from the moment that incident happened, I believe his story has been consistent. It had never changed in all the years from when it happened right through the civil trial. He had to know that was what people wanted to hear, he had to know that perhaps but saying he honestly doesn't remember would have helped him.

Yet, the longer I thought about it, had he changed it, Petrocelli would have mocked him about changing his story after all these years. Don't forget, that there has to be a written transcript of his plea. There has to be a written statement from Nicole on this incident. I don't think they have ever been released.

When Mr. Simpson said that about her face being red, I think he also made the comment that had he hit in the face or punched her in the face, her face would have looked a lot different. I agree with him.

[tv]

TV,

I am interested--I will answer them in as timely manner as I can, my boy has a game tonight and I would rather lose a limb then miss it.

Compare the amount of time Miss Bess sat in the courtroom to Fung and Mozzola's time in the classroom? I believe Miss Bess worked in the Post Office? I really don't remember. However, I don't think she was trained as a criminalist.

If you find it to be that Miss Bess not knowing that Simpson's blood was on the glove is inexcusable then can't the same be said about the Crime Lab not using the proper equipment to the blood on the socks to be just as inexcuseable?

As I said before, Miss Bess may have missed this but if she did, she wouldn't have been the only person in the courtroom who was looking for a dull pencil to stick into eye because there is no way to jazz up DNA testimony. However, how hard the DA's hit it that his blood was on the glove? Did they say it over and over again? Every single chance they did they hammer it home or did they not because they could not over come why such a small amount of blood was found on the glove, that they believed that the defense's arguement would balance their's? The jurors knew what Fuhrman was and you know what, it probably did not shock them that he was a racist. I am sure they have met many "MF" over the years. Some hide it better, some don't care to hide it all---but "MF" did not shock those jurors.
From what I have read, Vanatter had more credibility issues then Fuhrman did. In all honestly, what about the teacher who manages to fail all her students? Is it the student's fault or the teacher's? What about the teacher who only has one kid fail? Clark and Darden "failed" their students, the jurors. If they did not understand something or they missed something so crucial, your issue is with them, not with the jurors, IMO.Why do you keep comparing Carrie Bess and the other jurors to Fung and Mazzola? It's like comparing apples and rocks. If you don't believe me that the blood on the Rockingham glove was a recurring theme in the trial I'll be glad to post more about it. You need only let me know. How about when foreman Armanda Cooley said "Did you know that Mazzola had the same type of blood, the same aliels [sic], that OJ had? What about the people who were close to the scene who might have had the same type, too?" HUH????

[GreenIce]

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

TV,

First, they did think they produce an exact copy of the murder weapon. We all know what happened to that.

The timeline they gave Simpson to get rid of the weapon, it should have been found, along with the shoes and the bloody clothes. They insisted he acted alone through all phases. According to their own theory and the evidence they presented, it should have been found.

However, I will give you this, I think they were more surprised then anybody when it wasn't.

[GreenIce]

According to Jennier Peace he did. She actually knew him and was a part of his life -- she would know more about what things AC Cowlings said than you would.

TV,

AC Cowlings was arrested for the Bronco Chase. A Grand Jury was convened to see if they could prove any criminal involvement of AC. They brought no charges. And I have no doubt that AC was looked at very closely to see if he did get rid the evidence. I don't recall Jennifer Peace ever being called into testify. If she was speaking the truth, then the DA's did nothing with it.

[William Anthony]

Vannatter-March 21st,

"Q: AND AFTER YOU TOOK THAT BLOOD VIAL, WHAT TYPE OF SECURITY DID YOU USE FOR THAT BLOOD VIAL?

A: I PLACED IT IN A MANILA ENVELOPE, MAINTAINED CONTROL OF IT AND HAND-DELIVERED IT TO THE CRIMINALIST.

Q: WHERE WAS THE CRIMINALIST?

A: AT ROCKINGHAM.

Q: HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT?

A: BECAUSE I KNEW THAT THE SEARCH WARRANT -- THE EXECUTION OF THE SEARCH WARRANT HAD STARTED AT APPROXIMATELY -- AFTER -- AFTER 12:00 NOON AND I KNEW THAT THERE WERE STILL OFFICERS AT THE LOCATION, AND I BELIEVE THAT HE WAS AT THE LOCATION ALSO.

Q: YOU BELIEVED, BUT YOU DIDN'T KNOW?

A: WELL, I DIDN'T KNOW FOR CERTAIN.

Q: YOU DIDN'T CALL HIM AND SAY, "ARE YOU AT THE LOCATION? I'VE GOT SOME BLOOD TO BRING TO YOU"?

A: NO, I DIDN'T TALK TO HIM ON THE PHONE.

Q: YOU DIDN'T CALL ANYBODY THERE IN CHARGE TO SEE WHERE THE CRIMINALIST WAS?

A: NO.

Q: AND THERE WERE MANY AREAS WHERE A CRIMINALIST COULD BE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: WELL, I KNEW HE WAS EITHER -- EITHER AT BUNDY OR ROCKINGHAM, YES.

Q: SO YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHICH ONE OF THE TWO?

A: WELL, I ASSUMED ROCKINGHAM BECAUSE I KNEW THE SEARCH WARRANT HAD STARTED AFTER 12:00 NOON.

Q: ALL RIGHT. I WANT TO SHOW YOU A MAP OF THE AREAS WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT AND ASK YOU IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY --

THE COURT: MR. HARRIS, CAN WE GET A SLIGHTLY TIGHTER FOCUS ON THAT, A LITTLE --

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: CAN YOU IDENTIFY WHERE PARKER CENTER IS? DO YOU SEE THAT?

A: YES. I SEE THE NOTATION THERE, YES.

Q: AND IT IS APPROXIMATELY YOU SAY A LITTLE OVER A MILE TO PIPER TECH?

A: I BELIEVE IT IS APPROXIMATELY A MILE, YES.

Q: A MILE. AND THOSE ARE TWO AREAS WHERE YOU HAVE TOLD US THE BLOOD COULD BE BOOKED?

A: YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: WHERE DID YOU GO WHEN YOU LEFT PARKER CENTER?

A: STRAIGHT TO ROCKINGHAM.

Q: WHAT ROUTE DID YOU TAKE?

A: SANTA MONICA FREEWAY TO THE SAN DIEGO FREEWAY.

Q: YOU WERE DRIVING?

A: WE WERE BOTH DRIVING. WE TOOK OUR CARS, TOOK OUR OWN CARS.

Q: WHERE WAS THIS BLOOD VIAL?

A: WITH ME IN MY VEHICLE.

Q: WHERE?

A: IN A MANILA ENVELOPE ON THE FRONT SEAT OF MY CAR.

Q: DID YOU HAVE ANY ICE OR REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT WITH YOU?

A: NO. I KNEW THERE WAS PRESERVATIVE IN THE VIAL WHEN THE BLOOD WAS DRAWN.

Q: HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT? DID YOU TEST IT?

A: NO, BUT I KNOW THAT VIALS THAT ARE USED BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR BLOOD SAMPLES CONTAIN PRESERVATIVE.

Q: SUPPOSED TO CONTAIN PRESERVATIVE?

A: WELL, I THINK -- OKAY, IF YOU WANT TO SAY SUPPOSED TO. IT IS MY INFORMATION THEY CONTAIN PRESERVATIVES IN THE VIALS.

Q: YOU HAVEN'T TESTED THAT AND YOU HAVE NO INDEPENDENT KNOWLEDGE OF ANY PRESERVATIVE BEING IN THERE, DO YOU?

A: NO, SIR. I HAVEN'T TESTED IT, NO.

Q: NOW, YOU JUST HAVE THIS BLOOD IN YOUR CAR. WASN'T THERE A RISK OF SOMETHING HAPPENING TO THE BLOOD IN TRANSPORTING IT THAT DISTANCE?

A: NO. THE RISK WAS ME NOT KEEPING CONTROL OF THE BLOOD, THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE BLOOD, TO GIVE IT TO THE CRIMINALIST. THAT WAS THE RISK.

Q: I TAKE THAT IT IF YOU WALKED IT FROM WHERE YOU WERE IN PARKER CENTER RIGHT UP TO THE EVIDENCE ROOM THERE WOULD BE MUCH LESS RISK?

A: WELL, AT THAT POINT THE PAPERWORK COULDN'T HAVE BEEN COMPLETED --

Q: MY QUESTION WAS RISK, SIR. I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU.

A: I'M TRYING TO EXPLAIN IT. THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A GREATER RISK. THE PAPERWORK COULDN'T HAVE BEEN COMPLETED. THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO ACTUAL PHYSICAL CONTROL OVER THE ITEM.

Q: SO YOU ARE TELLING US THAT AT PARKER CENTER THAT YOU COULD NOT HAVE TAKEN THAT ITEM AND BOOKED IT IMMEDIATELY?

A: NO, I COULD HAVE DONE THAT. I MADE THE DECISION TO HAND CARRY IT TO THE CRIMINALIST WHO WAS PROCESSING ALL THE OTHER -- ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE.

Q: DID YOU RUN A RISK OF DROPPING IT IN CASE YOU SLIPPED ON THE WAY IN AND OUT OF YOUR CAR?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION TO THIS LINE OF QUESTION AS IRRELEVANT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I GUESS THAT WAS A POSSIBILITY, BUT THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU RUN A RISK OF, GOD FORBID, BEING IN AN ACCIDENT?

A: THANK GOD I WASN'T.

Q: THAT WAS A RISK THAT YOU CHOSE TO RUN?

A: THAT IS A RISK, SIR, EVERY TIME I GO OUT IN THE STREETS.

Q: BUT THAT WOULDN'T BE A RISK TO CARRY IT DOWN AND BOOK IT AT PARKER CENTER, WOULD IT?

A: NO.

Q: YOU LEFT, YOU SAY, AT THE LATEST, AT 3:30 FROM PARKER CENTER?

A: NO. I DIDN'T SAY THAT. I THINK IT WAS -- I THINK IT WAS AROUND FOUR O'CLOCK THAT I LEFT PARKER CENTER.

Q: WELL, YOU GOT THE BLOOD AT 3:30?

A: YEAH. I DIDN'T LEAVE IMMEDIATELY FROM THERE.

Q: WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER YOU GOT THE BLOOD?

A: I WENT BACK UP TO MY OFFICE.

Q: FOR WHAT?

A: TO START ASSEMBLING SOME OF THE -- SOME OF THE INFORMATION I HAD AND -- AND TO ORGANIZE MYSELF AND THEN TO GO OUT TO ROCKINGHAM.

Q: AND HOW DID YOU ASSEMBLE THIS INFORMATION? DID YOU TAKE NOTES?

A: I WAS JUST -- IT HAD BEEN A LONG DAY. I MAY HAVE EVEN HAD A CUP OF COFFEE WHEN HE WENT UP THERE, I DON'T RECALL, BUT THAT IS A POSSIBILITY.

Q: AND YOU DIDN'T KEEP ANY RECORDS OF WHAT YOU DID?

A: NO, SIR, I DIDN'T.

Q: AND THE BLOOD WAS WITH YOU?

A: YES.

Q: WHERE WAS THE BLOOD? IN YOUR JACKET?

A: NO. I WENT TO MY DESK AND I HAD IT IN A MANILA ENVELOPE ON MY DESK.

Q: DID YOU LEAVE ANY RECORD -- WAS LANGE WITH YOU?

A: LANGE WAS WITH ME, YES.

Q: AND WERE YOU TALKING WITH LANGE?

A: I'M SURE I WAS, YEAH. I TALK WITH HIM ALL THE TIME.

Q: ARE YOU SURE LANGE WENT UP TO YOUR OFFICE WITH YOU?

A: YEAH, I'M SURE.

Q: NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT?

A: LANGE WAS WITH ME AFTER TWELVE O'CLOCK MOST OF THE EVENING UNTIL ABOUT SEVEN O'CLOCK.

Q: AND DID LANGE HAVE COFFEE WITH YOU IN YOUR OFFICE?

A: I DON'T KNOW.

Q: WHERE DID YOU GET YOUR COFFEE FROM?

A: FROM A COFFEE MACHINE IN THE OFFICE. I SAID I MAY HAVE. I'M NOT POSITIVE I DID. I MAY HAVE HAD A CUP OF COFFEE.

Q: AND YOU MAY NOT HAVE HAD THAT?

A: YEAH, THAT'S TRUE, SURE.

Q: AND YOU MAY HAVE SPENT A HALF HOUR THERE AND YOU MAY NOT HAVE?

A: I THINK I WAS THERE ABOUT A HALF AN HOUR BEFORE I LEFT.

Q: DO YOU HAVE ANY RECORD TO INDICATE THAT?

A: NO, SIR, I DON'T.

Q: DID YOU KEEP ANYTHING YOU DID AFTER YOU GOT THE BLOOD? DID YOU MAKE A NOTATION, "I'VE GOT THE BLOOD NOW, HERE IS WHAT I'M DOING WITH IT"?

A: NO.

Q: YOU LEFT AT FOUR O'CLOCK?

A: APPROXIMATELY, YES.

Q: HOW LONG DID IT TAKE YOU TO GET FROM PARKER CENTER TO ROCKINGHAM AT FOUR O'CLOCK?

A: AS I RECALL, THE TRAFFIC WAS PRETTY HEAVY. I THINK IT TOOK AN HOUR, MAYBE A LITTLE OVER AN HOUR.

Q: AND HOW DID YOU GO?

A: I BELIEVE I TOLD YOU THE SANTA MONICA FREEWAY TO THE SAN DIEGO FREEWAY TO SUNSET BOULEVARD.

Q: AND THEN SUNSET BOULEVARD TO ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES.

Q: THAT TOOK YOU ABOUT AN HOUR?

A: I THINK SO, YEAH, APPROXIMATELY.

Q: DID YOU LOG IN WHAT TIME YOU ARRIVED AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS LOGGED ON THE LOG WHEN I GOT THERE, YES.

Q: I'M SAYING DID YOU LOG IN?

A: I BELIEVE THE LOGGING OFFICER LOGGED ME IN, YES.

Q: WHAT TIME DID HE LOG YOU IN AT?

A: I THINK AT APPROXIMATELY 5:20, AS I RECALL.

Q: SO WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN FIVE O'CLOCK AND 5:20 WHEN YOU GOT THERE BEFORE YOU LOGGED IN?

A: WELL, IT IS TOUGH TO ACCOUNT FOR A MINUTE BY MINUTE ACCOUNTING. I DROVE STRAIGHT TO ROCKINGHAM, CHECKED IN AND IMMEDIATELY GAVE THE BLOOD TO THE CRIMINALIST WHO HAD FINISHED HIS WORK AND WAS LEAVING.

Q: YOU DIDN'T GO TO BUNDY FIRST?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHERE THE CRIMINALIST WAS OR EVEN IF HE WAS AT ROCKINGHAM, DID YOU?

A: I ASSUMED HE WAS AT ROCKINGHAM. HE WAS AT ROCKINGHAM, AS A MATTER OF FACT.

Q: ISN'T IT TRUE THAT THE ONLY ACCOUNTING FOR TIME THAT IS REPORTED IS THE TIME THE BLOOD WAS DRAWN WHICH YOU SAY IS 3:30 AND THE TIME THAT YOU LOGGED IN AT ROCKINGHAM, WHICH IS 5:20, ALMOST TWO HOURS?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES. "

[martin II]

I understand why you don’t want to discuss this since you have almost everything backwards

Park did not say he saw Simpson come from the house to the driveway, he said he saw Simpson walk from the driveway into the front entrance.

Park did not say that Kaelin was near the gate control box on the right side of the driveway when Park first saw him. Park said Kaelin was on the Ashford side path where it met the driveway to the left of the Ashford gate.

The Ashford side path is the side walk that Park told Clark Kaelin was still standing on when Park saw Simpson enter his house.

Your speculation doesn’t create reasonable doubt since it is not only contradicted by what Park testified to but it is contradicted by the layout of the Rockingham estate. If you ever decide to look at the diagram of the layout of the Rockingham estate you would understand this.

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

bobaugust


Park said Kato was STILL STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK when he saw him.

[tv]

TV,

First, they did think they produce an exact copy of the murder weapon. We all know what happened to that.

The timeline they gave Simpson to get rid of the weapon, it should have been found, along with the shoes and the bloody clothes. They insisted he acted alone through all phases. According to their own theory and the evidence they presented, it should have been found.

However, I will give you this, I think they were more surprised then anybody when it wasn't.

I didn't get that feeling at all from the prosecution but I believe in OJ Simpson's guilt for many reasons -- not all of which was presented in the criminal trial. I don't think he acted completely alone. This is all just my own opinion but I think AC helped him after the fact.

[weezer]

Case No. BA097211
PEOPLE'S RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM
OF LAW AND REQUEST FOR
HEARING ON
PROSECUTORIAL
MISCONDUCT

DATE: 4-13-95
TIME: 4:30 PM
LOCATION: DEPT. 103

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE ABOVE ENTITLED COURT, the People respectfully submit the following response to Defendant's Memorandum:

INTRODUCTION
Defendant's Memorandum of Law and Request for Hearing on Prosecutorial Misconduct is another attempt to circumvent the Court's order of February 8, 1995 and to preclude the jury from learning that the Defense has consumed parts of evidence items 47, 50, and 78 in its own testing. The Court has already ruled that the trier of fact is entitled to learn this information. This response will demonstrate that, in order to rewrite history on this issue, the defense has embarked on a new mission in this case - it has launched yet another vicious personal attack on a Prosecutor in an obvious and desperate attempt to thwart the search for the truth in this case.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. On October 27, 1994 Defense expert Larry Ragle obtained items 47/334, 50/335, and 78/336 from the Los Angeles Police Department pursuant to court order.

2. On January 5, 1995, Dr. F. Rieders of the National Medical Services was contacted by Lennard Hankhaus of the Los Angeles Police Department Scientific Investigations Division about the feasibility of testing for the presence of EDTA in bloodstains. Dr. Rieders expressed an interest in doing research into this type of testing to Mr. Hankhaus. At no time during this conversation did Dr. Rieders mention that he had been retained by the defense in this case.

3. On February 3, 1995 the Prosecution requested the return of those items or their empty packaging for the first time in a letter to Mr. Shapiro. That initial request was ignored and Prosecution letters dated Feb. 7 and Feb. 10 reiterated the request.

4. The Court's order dated February 8, 1995 permitted the Prosecution to advise the jury that the Defense consumed or altered items in testing, if the defense consumed or altered any items in testing. During subsequent in camera discussions, the Court ruled that the same provision would apply to the items provided to the defense in October 1994.

5. In February 1995 FBI-Special Agent Roger Martz advised the Prosecution that a scientist from the National Medical Services told Martz that the National Medical Services (NMS) had been asked by the defense to perform tests for the presence of EDTA but had decided not to perform those tests. The conversation between Martz and the NMS scientist occurred during the annual meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. The subject of EDTA testing had just been injected into these proceedings because it was triggered by the Defense request to ship hundreds of items of the Prosecution's evidence to Albany for examination. The Prosecution responded that they intended to perform testing for the presence/absence of EDTA on certain bloodstains. This was a topic of great interest to many scientists and was freely and openly discussed at this meeting.

Prior to this conversation, Martz and NMS scientist were acquainted with each other. At this point, the Prosecution had been unaware that NMS had had any involvement in this case, other than the preliminary discussions between Rieders and Hankhaus in early January.

6. On March 10, 1995, Defense expert Larry Ragle returned items 47/334, 50/335, and 78/336 to the Los Angeles Police Department.

7. Portions of 47/334, 50/335, and 78/336 were consumed during testing by the defense, as was noted when those items were returned by the Defense.

8. Upon their return, those items all bore names, initials, and dates which were not on them when they were provided to the defense. The new dates were all subsequent to October 27, the date which the defense obtained these items. (It is common practice for responsible, ethical criminalists to date and initial items when they are opened and examined, regardless of whom they are employed by. For example, all of the other items which have been examined by defense experts in their numerous examinations of Prosecution evidence have been initialed by defense experts when packages or containers were opened. This forensic science practice ensures the integrity of the evidence by allowing either side to reconstruct the chain of custody of the evidence.) (note 1) Photographs of items 47, 50, and 78 are included with this response.

[weezer]

9. Among the notations on the packaging for these items are ``National Medical Services'', ``C.W.S.'' and ``K.D. Ballard.''

10. Mr. Harmon called Dr. Rieders to discuss the subject Rieders had earlier discussed with Hankhaus, the possibility of testing bloodstains for the presence/absence of EDTA. Mr. Harmon advised Dr. Rieders that the Prosecution had conducted its own EDTA tests and discussed the construct of those tests. Dr. Rieders was invited to review the Prosecution's tests with Roger Martz, the FBI scientist with whom Dr. Rieders was already acquainted. In an unsolicited comment, Dr. Rieders advised Harmon that Rieder's lab had elected not to perform the tests for EDTA on evidence related to this case. Mr. Harmon advised Dr. Rieders that he was already aware of that fact through the NMS scientist's comment to Martz at the American Academy meeting.

11. A literature search revealed that a Kevin D. Ballard at Baylor had published in the area of mass spectroscopy, the most likely method of testing for EDTA. Mr. Harmon called that Dr. Ballard and left a message on his voice mail. Harmon identified himself and the reason he was calling. Mr. Harmon also asked for a copy of his CV and advised Ballard that he would be happy to have Ballard review the tests for EDTA which Roger Martz had conducted. Dr. Ballard did not return the phone call. Mr. Harmon called again and left his name with the person who answered the phone. No response was ever received to either of the two calls.

12. Mr. Harmon called Dr. Rieders again and asked him if he knew a Dr. Kevin Ballard at Baylor. Dr. Rieders said that he was familiar with Dr. Ballard and that Dr. Ballard's lab had the capability to do testing for the presence/absence of EDTA in bloodstains.

13. Soon thereafter the proposed stipulations were filed.

[weezer]

ARGUMENT

Defendant raises two legal issues in an attempt to continue its escalating personal attacks on Prosecution members in this case. The first issue is whether or not the Prosecution is entitled to discover the results of defense testing when the defense does not intend to present those test results. The line of cases cited by defendant indeed supports the proposition that the defense is not required to provide such test results in discovery when there is not intention to present those results in the trial.

However, these cases have no application to the situation before the Court because nothing has been sought or provided in discovery. The Court ordered the defense to return whatever remained of items 47, 50, and 78 to the Prosecution. This was not a discovery request. This was the Prosecution's evidence to begin with. The Prosecution was entitled to have whatever remained in order to establish the chain of custody of these items. If further testing of these items was desired or feasible, the Prosecution was entitled to pursue that avenue as well. When those items were examined, it was easy to determine where the samples had been. In fact, it had already been made known to the Prosecution in February that NMS did not perform any tests on these samples. Because there are the names of only two labs listed on those items, if the first lab did not perform any tests, then the second lab must have.

Defendant's Memorandum suggests that they may have sent these items to other labs and not documented those movements. If this is the case, then it is even clearer than before that they shopped those items around. If the defense did so without maintaining the chain of custody of these items, the Prosecution may eventually seek sanctions against the defense for compromising the evidence by failing to maintain the chain of custody of this important evidence.

The second legal issue raised by the defense concerns an allegation that the Prosecution has obtained privileged information in the form of some confidential communication. The Prosecution is not privy to any communications between the defendant and his counsel. The Prosecution already knew that National Medical Services did not perform any tests on these items before they were returned on March 10, 1995, and before any phone conversation between Mr. Harmon and Dr. Rieders. The Prosecution is presently unaware what the results of any of the tests performed by the defense are, although the fact that neither of these witnesses have been added to the defense witness list strongly suggest what those results are.

When the items were returned to LAPD, pursuant to the Court's order, it was abundantly clear where those items had been. This information is not privileged, it was obtained lawfully pursuant to the Court's order.

The defense does not deny the truth of any of the information contained in either of the Proposed Stipulations. In light of Mr. Scheck's extensive cross-examination of Dennis Fung, it is understandable that they seek to suppress the fact that they performed any tests on evidence in this case, when in fact they have. Instead, they have launched yet another vicious personal attack against a Prosecution member and seek this Court's assistance in thwarting the search for the truth in this case by deterring individual prosecutors. (note 2) Nothing improper has been done.

The People respectfully request the Court to put an end to these vicious, baseless attacks which are now occurring at an increasingly alarming rate by denying the request for any further proceedings on this issue.


DATED: April 11, 1995

Respectfully submitted,
GIL GARCETTI,
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
BY
ROCKNE P. HARMON
Deputy District Attorney
Alameda County

NOTES

1. Defendant's memorandum suggests that it may be appropriate for a forensic scientist to deviate from this practice. Not only would failure to properly document an examination deviate from the norm of standard scientific practice, it would also compromise the integrity of the evidence by breaking the chain of custody of the evidence.

2. It is to be expected for some members of the defense team to launch into bitter personal attacks against all associated with the Prosecution. The very same tactics were used by Messrs. Scheck and Neufeld in United States v. Yee when they failed to keep critical DNA evidence from being admitted in one of the early landmark cases. After all defendants were convicted and sentenced to lengthy prison terms, they filed a motion for a new trial in which they resorted to many of the same vicious tactics which have begun in this case. For some bizarre reason they even included Mr. Harmon in their motion although he had not been actively involved in that case.

[William Anthony]

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

[William Anthony]

http://walraven.org/simpson/ojmot46.html

[martin II]

I

I now extend to you the same offer I extended to others, which is to post one negative thing I said about the civil jury, other than based on the comments attributed to them by some posters, that I did not think they fully understood what they were called upon to decide.

I doubt you will get any response from this poster. just accusations. No backed by facts.

[tv]

TV,

AC Cowlings was arrested for the Bronco Chase. A Grand Jury was convened to see if they could prove any criminal involvement of AC. They brought no charges. And I have no doubt that AC was looked at very closely to see if he did get rid the evidence. I don't recall Jennifer Peace ever being called into testify. If she was speaking the truth, then the DA's did nothing with it.

Jennifer Peace testified in front of the grand jury and said that AC told her the knife "sleeps with the fishes". She wasn't used in the criminal trial because like Jill Shively she sold her story which the defense felt discredited her.

[GreenIce]

*********************************************
This puts the planting theory in a good light; but I am not yet convinced. If this evidence, testimony is as strong as it looks here, why didn't they sue the LAPD? Even if they lost in court, they might win in public opinion. It is in the public interest to make the police be as honest as possible. It is also in the public interest to reduce the anger and distrust that the Simpson case stirred up.

I can think of two theories why neither OJS nor JC wanted to get into this:
The first is that they didn’t believe that the blood was planted.
The other theory is that they were afraid they would loose, and not make any money on it. .I find it easy to think that both JC and OJS were more concerned with their own wallets than with the public interest in making the police honest and accountable, and also little about reducing public anger and distrust that the case stirred up and displayed.

Johnnie Cochran had a good back ground for cases against the police. He used to work for the police dept investigating complaints against policemen (he investigated M Fuhrman), and also sued different police depts., usually on race discrimination and brutality. If he had sued the LAPD and made them look bad, it would have been good publicity for both Simpson and JC even if they didn't win any money. If they did sue, I don't think the LAPD could defend themselves by trying to show that OJS was guilty. In other words if they could prove that any blood was planted, not even a signed confession from OJS could get the LAPD off the hook; and JC and OJS wouldn't have to prove who planted it.

It seems to be a common opinion that one's own ethnic groups will be fair to other ethnic groups, but the reverse won't be true. WA and Martin II both seem to believe this in terms of their comments about the juries of the 1995 criminal trial and the 1996 civil trial.

fgump2,

It appears to me that in order to prove beyond a shadow of the doubt that planting did take place, the following must happen:

The Planter must do in front of at least one human witness. If there is not a human witness, then it must happen in front of a video camera.

The Planter's witness or witnesses who watched him do this, would come forward and tell that they saw the Planter plant the evidence. Which in all fairness, kind of defeats the purpose of having a witness if you know they are going to rat you out.

Now, once it has been established that the evidence was planted and by who, then it must be proven why it was planted. Apparently people need to know the motive so it will all make sense.

Once you have motive, the witness, now you have prove when it was done. Apparently it makes a difference if the planting was done during the day or the night or maybe lunch time, who knows?

The defense presented many reasons that were not only fair but reasonable on why the evidence was not to be trusted. Every piece of evidence had two sides of it, the defense presented their's and the DA's presented their's.

With me so far?

Why did the defense present testimony that the blood on the back gate was planted? It was not seen by Fung, who was looking for it. It was collected weeks later, after it was wash down and the DNA count was very high. There were pictures used that were said to have been taken on the morning of the murders and there was no blood spot on the pictures that were presented to Fung.

I think each of these reasons are quite logical and produce logical questions and the DA's had to produce logical explainations and proof of why it couldn't have been planted. The DA's used the same "defense", their people sucked and not only did they suck, but they were "dumb and dumber" and they were tired. Marcia Clark almost ended up in jail for personally vouching for the evidence. He let her get away with this for awhile before he threatened her with jail, however, that was the only "defense" she had. The only offer of proof she had was to say, "please believe me" and when that didn't work, she said "Because I say so!"

You have mentioned experiments that were done after the trial, but what good did they do then? Do you really believe that someone was able to reproduce drying times over 10 hours? How thick were the swatches? How staurated were they? There was an experiment that was done by the defense, they put blood on two gloves, put one in a baggie and one was just left out. The glove in the baggy was still moist and the one left out was dry. The glove at Rockingham should have been dried. It wasn't.

The defense expert did an experiment on the shrinkage of the gloves, his eperiment proved that the gloves could not have shrunk as the DA's tried to claim it was. However, the DA's gave another possible reason for the shrinkage, it was the freezing and unfreezing the glove. Are we to believe that none of the lab people didn't know this could affect the glove? It could be a shrinkage factor? If that is the case, then didn't do it right when they measured the glove when it was booked into evidence? Wouldn't measuring the glove after the freezing and unfreezing shown how much it shrunk?

Every piece of evidence was matched by the DA's. They defense used science and the DA's used prayers. IMO.

[GreenIce]

I didn't get that feeling at all from the prosecution but I believe in OJ Simpson's guilt for many reasons -- not all of which was presented in the criminal trial. I don't think he acted completely alone. This is all just my own opinion but I think AC helped him after the fact.

TV,

As you know, I do not believe he committed the murders. But if he did, he did not act alone and I believe there were at least two killers at Bundy. Like you, I have my reasons and they do stem from "evidence" that was not presented at trial.

I don't think AC was the person because I don't believe AC would get involved with anything like that. Also, he was looked at this very closely and I think it was in Darden's book where he says that it would have been impossible for him to be an accomplice. I think he was at a party or something. A G might have his book, I lost mine in a move and haven't replaced all of them.

You didn't think they were shocked when the brown envelope was introduced in the prelim hearing?

[GreenIce]

Why do you keep comparing Carrie Bess and the other jurors to Fung and Mazzola? It's like comparing apples and rocks. If you don't believe me that the blood on the Rockingham glove was a recurring theme in the trial I'll be glad to post more about it. You need only let me know. How about when foreman Armanda Cooley said "Did you know that Mazzola had the same type of blood, the same aliels [sic], that OJ had? What about the people who were close to the scene who might have had the same type, too?" HUH????

TV,

Answer me this, how did they know about AM's alleles? I am sure the defense would not have had this information. I would only serve the DA's to tell this to the jury so I am having a hard time getting your point?

Be back later, son got a hockey game. I love watching him play!

[William Anthony]

March 21st

"Q: REGARDING THE GLOVE THAT YOU SAW, WHERE IN YOUR REPORTS REGARDING ROCKINGHAM DID YOU SHOW THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: IT IS IN THE SEARCH WARRANT AND IT IS ALSO IN THE FOLLOW-UP REPORT.

Q: IT IS IN THE -- I SAID WHERE IN YOUR NOTES ARE THEY SHOWN?

A: THERE ARE NO NOTES.

Q: WHERE IN DETECTIVE LANGE'S NOTES IS IT SHOWN THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: I -- I -- I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS IN LANGE'S NOTES.

Q: WHERE IN DETECTIVE PHILLIPS' NOTES IS IT SHOWN THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE HE HAS ANY NOTES.

Q: WHERE IN DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S NOTES IS IT SHOWN THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND IN ROCKINGHAM?

A: IT IS NOT, SIR.

Q: WHERE IN THE MASTER NOTE-TAKER'S NOTES IS IT SHOWN THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: IT IS IN THE CRIMINALIST'S NOTES THAT HE RECOVERED THE PIECE OF EVIDENCE AND THOSE WERE TAKEN AT MY DIRECTION.

Q: WHEN WAS THAT?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: WHEN WERE THOSE NOTES TAKEN?

A: THE MORNING OF THE 13TH.

Q: AT YOUR DIRECTION?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

Q: DO YOU HAVE THOSE NOTES?

A: NO, SIR, I DON'T. THOSE ARE CRIMINALIST WORK PRODUCT.

Q: A CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD IS REQUIRED TO BE KEPT IN ALL CASES OF HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION, IS IT NOT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: WHERE IN THE CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD DOES IT INDICATE THAT ANY OF THE FOUR OFFICERS THERE RECOVERED A GLOVE?

A: IT DOESN'T. "

[tv]

TV,

As you know, I do not believe he committed the murders. But if he did, he did not act alone and I believe there were at least two killers at Bundy. Like you, I have my reasons and they do stem from "evidence" that was not presented at trial.

I don't think AC was the person because I don't believe AC would get involved with anything like that. Also, he was looked at this very closely and I think it was in Darden's book where he says that it would have been impossible for him to be an accomplice. I think he was at a party or something. A G might have his book, I lost mine in a move and haven't replaced all of them.

You didn't think they were shocked when the brown envelope was introduced in the prelim hearing?

GreenIce, I don't think anyone else but Simpson was involved in the actual murders. I think AC (and possibly someone else but definitely AC) helped out after the fact. I don't think AC condoned the murders or would have participated but due to the past that he and OJ Simpson had he helped him out of loyalty.

[William Anthony]

GreenIce, I don't think anyone else but Simpson was involved in the actual murders. I think AC (and possibly someone else but definitely AC) helped out after the fact. I don't think AC condoned the murders or would have participated but due to the past that he and OJ Simpson had he helped him out of loyalty.

I am almost ready to acknowledge you as an expert on loyalty.:)

[martin II]

Why do you keep comparing Carrie Bess and the other jurors to Fung and Mazzola? It's like comparing apples and rocks. If you don't believe me that the blood on the Rockingham glove was a recurring theme in the trial I'll be glad to post more about it. You need only let me know. How about when foreman Armanda Cooley said "Did you know that Mazzola had the same type of blood, the same aliels [sic], that OJ had? What about the people who were close to the scene who might have had the same type, too?" HUH????

The prosecution spent so much time on dna that even the media complained that they were nuts.Many lawyer talking heads complained that no one knew what they were talking about.They did this because they thought they could beat the jury over the head with this long and complicated science and the jury would not focus on the basic charges that they had serious problems proving. The white juror said she did not believe the dna.Plain and simple.

It was the prosecutions faut that they made this mombo jumbo their whole case.

[tv]

TV,

Answer me this, how did they know about AM's alleles? I am sure the defense would not have had this information. I would only serve the DA's to tell this to the jury so I am having a hard time getting your point?

Be back later, son got a hockey game. I love watching him play!

Mazzola's genotypes were introduced into evidence to exclude her as a possible contributor to the stain on the Bronco steering wheel. It was revealed in court that Mazzola and Simpson share no common alleles so Ms Cooley was wrong -- those jurors should have put on their listening ears! :read:

[tv]

The prosecution spent so much time on dna that even the media complained that they were nuts.Many lawyer talking heads complained that no one knew what they were talking about.They did this because they thought they could beat the jury over the head with this long and complicated science and the jury would not focus on the basic charges that they had serious problems proving. The white juror said she did not believe the dna.Plain and simple.

It was the prosecutions faut that they made this mombo jumbo their whole case.

You don't have to have a thorough understanding of the science of DNA to understand that OJ Simpson's blood was on the Rockingham glove. IMO they tuned it all out because they'd already made up their mind.

I thought they made domestic violence their whole case -- was it DNA or DV?

[martin II]

Jennifer Peace testified in front of the grand jury and said that AC told her the knife "sleeps with the fishes". She wasn't used in the criminal trial because like Jill Shively she sold her story which the defense felt discredited her.

The prosecution made no effort to look for where the fishes were because they knew JP could not be believed.

[tv]

TV,

As you know, I do not believe he committed the murders. But if he did, he did not act alone and I believe there were at least two killers at Bundy. Like you, I have my reasons and they do stem from "evidence" that was not presented at trial.

I don't think AC was the person because I don't believe AC would get involved with anything like that. Also, he was looked at this very closely and I think it was in Darden's book where he says that it would have been impossible for him to be an accomplice. I think he was at a party or something. A G might have his book, I lost mine in a move and haven't replaced all of them.

You didn't think they were shocked when the brown envelope was introduced in the prelim hearing?Why would they be?

[tv]

The prosecution made no effort to look for where the fishes were because they knew JP could not be believed.
Nope, it was because she sold her story.

[tv]

The prosecution made no effort to look for where the fishes were because they knew JP could not be believed.There's a lot of water in California and off the coast of California. Where were they supposed to start?

[tv]

I am almost ready to acknowledge you as an expert on loyalty.:)
William, I hope this isn't a snide remark on your part. :punch: I always show loyalty until stabbed in the back.

[William Anthony]

William, I hope this isn't a snide remark on your part. :punch: I always show loyalty until stabbed in the back.

Oh, don't be so quick as to take things the wrong way. You may be wound a little too tightly, today.:) What may feel like a stabbing in actuality may not have even been a pin prick.

[William Anthony]

Vannatter allegedly felt that the Rockingham glove was so important an alleged find that he sent MF back to Bundy to make a visual comparison, yet there were no notes by any of the detectives, including MF noting the alleged find.:shrug: My nose tells me that something was wrong at Rockingham in regard to the alleged find of that glove.

[GreenIce]

Nope, it was because she sold her story.

TV,

I think if is fair to day that "checkbook" journalism has been around a few years before the Simpson trial. It is a sad reality but the DA's did knowing use one witness that also sold his story. I agree that selling one's story is not a good idea before you testify in any hearing let alone in a trial. However, if a person sells their story, if they are telling the truth, then what changes about it? JS said she was an eyewitness to Simpson leaving the scene. Did selling her story make her say it was Simpson?

IMO, that is not the reason why the DA's cut JS loose. It had nothing to do with her selling of the story but it was public relations coup on her part to say that was the reason why. Don't forget, there was another car involved and we don't know what he said about it.

I am sure the DA's were paying attention how Jennifer P's was playing to the grand jury. By the time she took the stand, they probably already knew that AC had an alibi so it rendered her testimony useless to them. However, if the DA's believed, then after Simpson was aquitted, why not go after AC for being an accomplice?

While I believe AC is a loyal friend, I do not believe he would have anything to do with this and I believe Simpson knew this. I am how many friends can you turn to help you get rid the evidence? He and Kardashian ripped I think one or two bags of Simpson's looking for blood--if he was an accomplice, why do it?

[GreenIce]

Why do you keep comparing Carrie Bess and the other jurors to Fung and Mazzola? It's like comparing apples and rocks. If you don't believe me that the blood on the Rockingham glove was a recurring theme in the trial I'll be glad to post more about it. You need only let me know. How about when foreman Armanda Cooley said "Did you know that Mazzola had the same type of blood, the same aliels [sic], that OJ had? What about the people who were close to the scene who might have had the same type, too?" HUH????

TV,

No, it is not comparing apples and rocks. It is comparing apples to apples and rocks to rocks. You feel very strongly, and correctly so, that it is a juror's job to listen to the evidence, both sides of the evidence and come up with a decision on the evidence. Miss Bess not knowing that Simpson's blood was found on the glove is no more "careless" then that of the LAPD, The Coroner and the CSI team.

The issue of the glove was always how and when did it get back there. If any juror missed this, then that is the DA's failure, not Miss Bess'. Never in the course of the trial did the DA's enter any type of theory of how the glove got back there. They never produced any evidence of this.

The judge gave the jurors instructions. If they find that one witness lied on the stand, they have a choice to totally dismiss all of their testimony. The key word here is choice.

Doesn't the same instruction apply to the evidence? If you believe that evidence is planted, as in the glove, then don't they have the right to dismiss all other other questionable evidence? If the jurors believed that MF planted the glove, then it doesn't matter what they found on it.

Another thing about the glove, Simpson had no reason to go behind Kato's wall to enter his property. He owned the Rockingham estate, I am pretty sure that he is allowed to walk on his own driveway. He had no reason to do this. IMO.

[GreenIce]

Why would they be?

TV,

The DA's used a witness they knew sold his story. They used him because Simpson bought a knife from him. Vanatter and Lange went to the same store, asked the guy which knife it was and they took one of them. The detectives then took the knife to the coroner and asked him if this knife could be a murder weapon. I think the coroner did agree that the knife could have been used.

The DA's thought they knew what type of knife was used and they had a eye witness to the sale. Pretty impressive, until the said knife was inside a brown package being waved in the court room by the judge. The DA's never attemped to introduce any murder weapon theory. Only that it was a single edge blade.

They had no link between Simpson and the murder weapon. The DA's had to be devasted about this. They no longer had that evidence.

[GreenIce]

Mazzola's genotypes were introduced into evidence to exclude her as a possible contributor to the stain on the Bronco steering wheel. It was revealed in court that Mazzola and Simpson share no common alleles so Ms Cooley was wrong -- those jurors should have put on their listening ears! :read:

TV,

What is the source regarding this? If it was a book, may I please have the title? I am not doubting that you read it, I just would like to know which book this came from.

[GreenIce]

Oh, don't be so quick as to take things the wrong way. You may be wound a little too tightly, today.:) What may feel like a stabbing in actuality may not have even been a pin prick.

William,

This never made any sense to me at all, unless they wanted MF aways from Rockingham.

[William Anthony]

William,

This never made any sense to me at all, unless they wanted MF aways from Rockingham.

Good Morning GreenICe,

Did the team your son is on win? It seems that they were awfully concerned about the glove MF claimed to have found but not enough to make notes on it, even bloody glove MF did not make notes of his alleged find. One inference that can be drawn from that testimony is that they were concerned that bloody glove MF had not found the glove as he alleged.

[William Anthony]

March 21st-Vannatter

"Q: WHAT ABOUT USING ANY OF THE FACILITIES WITHIN THE CRIME SCENE, TURNING WATER ON OR OFF?

A: THAT SHOULD NOT BE DONE.

Q: PUTTING OUT CANDLES?

A: NOTHING SHOULD BE DISTURBED UNTIL THE INVESTIGATION IS COMPLETED.

Q: DID YOU DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF THOSE THINGS WERE DONE IN THIS CASE?

A: I FOUND OUT LATER THAT THE TELEPHONE WAS USED, YES.

Q: AND THAT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN DONE. THAT'S A VIOLATION OF --

A: IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN DONE.

Q: -- THE MORE BASIC RULES OF CRIME INVESTIGATION; IS IT NOT?

A: HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE, THE HOUSE DID NOT APPEAR OR WAS NOT RELATED TO THE CRIME SCENE. THERE WAS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT THE SUSPECT HAD EVER ENTERED OR ANYTHING HAD EVER OCCURRED IN THAT RESIDENCE.

Q: SO YOUR OPINION TODAY IS, THE SUSPECT IN THIS CASE HAS NEVER ENTERED THE BUNDY RESIDENCE?

A: OH, NO, I DIDN'T SAY THAT AT ALL. IT DIDN'T APPEAR THAT ANY ASPECT OF THE CRIME HAD OCCURRED WITHIN THE RESIDENCE ITSELF.

Q: WHEN YOU START INVESTIGATING A CRIME SCENE, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO FIND, DO YOU.

A: ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Q: THEREFORE, EVERYTHING IS POTENTIAL EVIDENCE, ISN'T IT?

A: YES.

Q: AND PROPER PROCEDURE WOULD DICTATE FOLLOWING PROPER RULES; WOULD IT NOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND IF THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE SOME VALUE, WHAT'S THE RULE THAT YOU ADHERE TO?

A: IT WOULD BE PROTECTED, COLLECTED AND BOOKED. "

This testimony conflicts with those who have opined that not everything that has potential value as evidence should have been collected. I thought it was the responsibility of the lead detectives to say what items are to be collected and not leave it to the discretion of the criminalist and overseeing the collection as opposed to being in another place drinking coffee and deciding what should be done with a vial of the defendant's blood, if that was part of the detectives' conversation.

[William Anthony]

April 5th-DF

It seems that Lang did not believe MF's report of his visual observation of the glove and was ready to risk contaminating one of the crime scenes. Why would Lang want the Rockingham glove taken out of the bag and brought into the Bundy crime scene, which, according to DF, he refused to do?

"Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, WHEN DETECTIVE LANGE REQUESTED THAT YOU BRING THE GLOVE INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE TO SHOW IT TO HIM, YOU HAD CONCERNS THAT THERE WAS A TERRIBLE DANGER OF CROSS-CONTAMINATION?

A: I KNEW THERE WAS A DANGER FOR CROSS-CONTAMINATION, YES.

Q: AND YOU KNEW WHEN HE MADE THAT REQUEST OF YOU THAT THAT REQUEST WAS A BASIC VIOLATION OF SOUND CRIME SCENE PROCEDURES?

A: I KNEW THAT I WOULD HAVE TO BE CAREFUL IN -- WITH THE GLOVE WHEN I BROUGHT IT TO HIM, YES.

Q: WELL, WHEN HE MADE THAT REQUEST TO YOU, DIDN'T YOU SAY TO YOURSELF, IT IS FOOLISH TO EVEN TAKE A CHANCE IN BRINGING THAT GLOVE INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE?

A: HE FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR -- AT THAT POINT FOR HIS INVESTIGATION.

Q: WELL, BUT YOU THOUGHT WHEN HE MADE THAT REQUEST TO YOU THAT IT WASN'T A SENSIBLE REQUEST?

A: AGAIN, AS I HAVE STATED BEFORE, I KNEW I WOULD HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WITH THE EVIDENCE.

Q: NO. MY QUESTION TO YOU IS A SIMPLE ONE, SIR. WHEN HE MADE THAT REQUEST TO YOU, YOU KNEW IT WAS NOT A SENSIBLE REQUEST?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, AT THIS TIME THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU THINK AT THE MOMENT THAT HE MADE THAT REQUEST TO YOU IT WAS CREATING A RISK OF UNNECESSARY -- AN UNNECESSARY RISK OF CONTAMINATION?

MR. GOLDBERG: SAME OBJECTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I KNEW THERE WAS A RISK, BUT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO HIM AT THAT TIME TO FURTHER HIS INVESTIGATION.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, WHEN HE MADE THAT REQUEST TO YOU DIDN'T YOU BELIEVE IT WAS AN UNNECESSARY RISK TO TAKE, THAT HE COULD HAVE JUST COME BACK RIGHT TO THE TRUCK AND SEE IT?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THIS HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, WERE YOU IN ANY WAY FEARFUL OF QUESTIONING DETECTIVE LANGE'S JUDGMENT WHEN HE ASKED YOU TO BRING THAT ROCKINGHAM GLOVE RIGHT INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE?

A: I WAS NOT FEARFUL OF HIM, NO.

Q: WERE YOU IN ANY WAY INTIMIDATED BY HIM?

A: NO.

Q: WERE YOU IN ANY WAY RELUCTANT TO QUESTION HIS JUDGMENT EVEN THOUGH YOU BELIEVED IT WAS NOT -- IT WAS A DANGEROUS REQUEST?

A: I DID HAVE SOME CONCERN AND I TOOK WHAT I FELT WAS -- I DREW A LINE WHERE I WOULD NOT TAKE THE BAG OR TAKE THE GLOVE OUT OF THE BAG FOR HIM.

Q: WELL, AT THE MOMENT HE MADE THE REQUEST TO YOU, YOU ARE NOW TELLING US THAT YOU HAD CONCERNS?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE IT IS THE SAME --

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU SAY YOU HAD CONCERNS AT THE MOMENT HE MADE THE REQUEST TO YOU?

MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. IT HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU EXPRESS ANY CONCERNS TO DETECTIVE LANGE AT THE MOMENT THAT HE ASKED YOU TO GO TO THE CRIME SCENE TRUCK AND BRING THE GLOVE INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE?

MR. GOLDBERG: SAME OBJECTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. DIFFERENT QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: I'M NOT SURE IF I DID; I MAY HAVE.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU MAY HAVE?

A: I DON'T KNOW IF I DID.

Q: NOW, YOU BROUGHT THE GLOVE -- HOW DID YOU GET WITH THE -- THAT BAG THAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR HAND, THAT IS THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE?

A: THE GLOVE WAS IN THAT BAG, YES.

Q: WELL, HOW DID YOU COME -- NOT JUST TO TAKE THE GLOVE FROM THE TRUCK TO THE AREA OF -- OF IN FRONT OF THE STEPS, BUT ALL THE WAY IN BACK, ALL THE WAY INTO THAT CAGED-IN AREA? HOW DID THAT COME ABOUT?

A: I DON'T EXACT -- I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT ROUTE THAT I TOOK. I PROBABLY CAME IN THROUGH THE SAME WAY I CAME IN OR EXITED. "

[martin II]

TV,

No, it is not comparing apples and rocks. It is comparing apples to apples and rocks to rocks. You feel very strongly, and correctly so, that it is a juror's job to listen to the evidence, both sides of the evidence and come up with a decision on the evidence. Miss Bess not knowing that Simpson's blood was found on the glove is no more "careless" then that of the LAPD, The Coroner and the CSI team.

The issue of the glove was always how and when did it get back there. If any juror missed this, then that is the DA's failure, not Miss Bess'. Never in the course of the trial did the DA's enter any type of theory of how the glove got back there. They never produced any evidence of this.

The judge gave the jurors instructions. If they find that one witness lied on the stand, they have a choice to totally dismiss all of their testimony. The key word here is choice.

Doesn't the same instruction apply to the evidence? If you believe that evidence is planted, as in the glove, then don't they have the right to dismiss all other other questionable evidence? If the jurors believed that MF planted the glove, then it doesn't matter what they found on it.

Another thing about the glove, Simpson had no reason to go behind Kato's wall to enter his property. He owned the Rockingham estate, I am pretty sure that he is allowed to walk on his own driveway. He had no reason to do this. IMO.


GI

You have made great points that GS have ignored. If the jury believed that the glove was planted by someone that would mean that someone in control of the evidence was trying to wrongly implicate Simpson to get a conviction.
That would mean that someone or some people had wrongly manipulated blood evidence for the same purpose. One juror said she did not trust the DNA.Another said the glove could have been planted.With these doubts in their minds and other factors it is no surprise that the verdict was what it was.

If oj was inside his rockingham gate why would he then go to the pathway.
For what. Ih he was trying to evade the eye of Park he would have just walked to the garage ,then by the kitchen nook and into his front door.

martin II

[martin II]

You don't have to have a thorough understanding of the science of DNA to understand that OJ Simpson's blood was on the Rockingham glove. IMO they tuned it all out because they'd already made up their mind.

I thought they made domestic violence their whole case -- was it DNA or DV?

If it is not necessary to have a through understanding of DNA then why have you bashed the jury members for saying they did not understand dna.
Why did the prosecution spend so much time on DNA if they felt it was not necessary to have a through understanding.Who were they talking to the jury or the media.

[martin II]

GreenIce, I don't think anyone else but Simpson was involved in the actual murders. I think AC (and possibly someone else but definitely AC) helped out after the fact. I don't think AC condoned the murders or would have participated but due to the past that he and OJ Simpson had he helped him out of loyalty.

AC accounted for his time on 6/12 so why would you believe he had covered for oj. When and how?Darden went after him and came up with a zero.

[bobaugust]

You are obviously confused and I would say very from this post.

No I’m not confused at all, you’re the one who evidently not only can’t understand what Park and Kaelin actually testified to, you evidently don’t even know what the Rockingham estate looks like.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I have posted Park's testimony and it is quite clear that Park said Kato was still standing. Let me also correct something in your post that is inaccurate about what I said. I have never said that Kato's estimates are actual times, so I extend to you that same offer to go back and post where I said that. However, you on the other hand have claimed that Park's estimates were reliable because they involved seconds rather than minutes and when I used those seconds to contradict you assumptions you then wanted to intimate that Park's estimates weren't that reliable. I reiterate it is not important to me whether your inferences are right or wrong. You have to call mine wrong even when they are supported by the testimony for some reason, which I believe both you and I know what those reasons are.

I agree that when Park was asked by Clark after he saw Simpson go into the house did he notice where Kaelin was and Park said from what he remembered Kaelin was still standing on the sidewalk. What you can’t seem to grasp William, is where the sidewalk is. The sidewalk is the Ashford side path; the path that Park had just seen Kaelin come down on from the back of the house with a flashlight and stop where the path meets the driveway.

Your speculation that Kaelin was on the other side of the driveway near the gate control box is wrong. There was no sidewalk there, If you ever bother to actually look at the diagram of the Rockingham estate you would see how ridiculous your claim is.

Park estimated it was about two minutes from the time he saw Simpson enter his house to when Kaelin opened the gate and let him onto the estate. Park only estimated that time; he never looked at clock to see how much time actually past.

You claim Park first saw Kaelin and then Simpson enter his house when Kaelin was at the gate control box. That means Kaelin waited another two minutes just standing there while Park finished his telephone conversation, waited some more time to be let in and then got out the limo and went to the intercom, had a conversation with Simpson, and then went back to the limo and waited some more time before Kaelin opened the gate.

Kaelin never said any such thing. Kaelin said that on his first trip to the south path he only went a short distance behind the garage before returning to the driveway. Kaelin said the limo was still there “and I though maybe I should let this guy in, so I went to the gate control box, there is a button, pressed and it opens up.”

Q OKAY. SO YOU WALKED DOWN THE DRIVEWAY AROUND THE GARAGE TO THE SOUTH PATHWAY, CAME BACK OUT, WALKED BACK UP THE DRIVEWAY AND THE LIMO DRIVER -- THE LIMOUSINE WAS STILL OUTSIDE THE ASHFORD GATE?
A YES.
Q WHEN YOU SAID YOU WENT TO THE GATE CONTROL BOX, YOU POINTED TO AN AREA ON PEOPLE'S 66. IS THAT WHERE IT IS INDICATED BY THAT TREE?
A YES.
Q AND THEN DID THE GATE OPEN?
A YES, IT DID.

Your speculation William is not supported by any testimony; it is contradicted by the testimony of both Park and Kaelin as well as the layout of the Rockingham estate.

bobaugust

[martin II]

TV,

Page 497 American Tragedy, says Vanatter signed out the reference samples of Ron and Nicole on one day and it was never signed back in until the next day.

Parts of Siglar's deposition was read into evidence. He clearly states that the EDTA Reference vials, used for typing were signed out Vanatter on one day. The then goes back and forth like a ping pong ball on weather this is common. One minute it is rare, then it isn't so rare then it happens once in a while but he has never done it befor and I think he testified that he only saw it happened on other time a few years ago.

So, I think that leads the question of why alleles consistent with Simpson's were found in the blood typing of Ron and Nicole.

Another thing I learned from reading this---Vanatter went Dr. Golden first to get these reference samples. I wonder why, you would think if he did this all time he would know not to go to the coroner. But I could be wrong.

I see no reason for Vanhatter to be handeling the blood viles. Did the lab personell not know where the coronors office was.

[martin II]

Jayme,

What State expert testified about the cuts on Simpson's hands? What did he testify to about the amount of blood that may have been generated from the various cuts?

If you think about it, the DA's would have been better off saying that Simpson was cut before he left for Bundy that night. The pattern of the blood drops to his front door is just unbelievable to me. Just like him going behind the wall but that is another post.

There were several witnesses who saw Simpson's hands that night, one person was looking at them for a championship ring. No one saw any blood on his hands or any cuts. The airplane seats were checked, the inside of the limo was checked, but I don't know if the Bentley was checked.

Any way, according to the G theory, he has already been able to "act" normal, he goes all the way to Chicago without anyone one seeing this huge cut on his knuckle---so if he was able to geth through all of that why the breaking glass alibi? If Simpson is the killer and he knew he was wounded and that he left his blood behind, he is not going to break a glass and "trace over a knife wound". He is not going to break a glass with the hope it will somehow fly and trace the knife wound by it self. No he is going to punch the piss out of the hardest object and can find, turn those big hams of his into raw hamburger and then let the cops figure it out.

Now the police suspected Simpson when they called him Chicago, they suspected that he was bleeding as he left the scene. Mr. Simpson's reaction to being "caught" would perhaps motivate him to I don't know, maybe get rid of some evidence or play the game of smash the glass until it looks like a shard of glass cut my finger then the knife at Bundy. Why weren't the Chicago police officers right outside Simpson's door as he was being told or why didn't the police knock on his door and wait for the LAPD to call him to tell him about Nicole?

I am pretty sure they had police officers who are trained to observe behavior when being told that a loved one was murdered. I could be wrong, but I don't think. IMO any way.

The sky caps stood next to oj at the airport. Talked to him and he gave autographs.No one saw a cut finger. The plane captain sat next to oj talked to him and oj gave him a autograph and testified that he saw no cut finger.
So i don't understand where anyone got this BIG CUT on ojs finger stuff from.

I do know that there were various false media reports about the cut so that may be the source but the trial testimony shot that nonsense down.

[William Anthony]

I agree that when Park was asked by Clark after he saw Simpson go into the house did he notice where Kaelin was and Park said from what he remembered Kaelin was still standing on the sidewalk. What you can’t seem to grasp William, is where the sidewalk is. The sidewalk is the Ashford side path; the path that Park had just seen Kaelin come down on from the back of the house with a flashlight and stop where the path meets the driveway.

Your speculation that Kaelin was on the other side of the driveway near the gate control box is wrong. There was no sidewalk there, If you ever bother to actually look at the diagram of the Rockingham estate you would see how ridiculous your claim is.

Park estimated it was about two minutes from the time he saw Simpson enter his house to when Kaelin opened the gate and let him onto the estate. Park only estimated that time; he never looked at clock to see how much time actually past.

You claim Park first saw Kaelin and then Simpson enter his house when Kaelin was at the gate control box. That means Kaelin waited another two minutes just standing there while Park finished his telephone conversation, waited some more time to be let in and then got out the limo and went to the intercom, had a conversation with Simpson, and then went back to the limo and waited some more time before Kaelin opened the gate.

Kaelin never said any such thing. Kaelin said that on his first trip to the south path he only went a short distance behind the garage before returning to the driveway. Kaelin said the limo was still there “and I though maybe I should let this guy in, so I went to the gate control box, there is a button, pressed and it opens up.”

Q OKAY. SO YOU WALKED DOWN THE DRIVEWAY AROUND THE GARAGE TO THE SOUTH PATHWAY, CAME BACK OUT, WALKED BACK UP THE DRIVEWAY AND THE LIMO DRIVER -- THE LIMOUSINE WAS STILL OUTSIDE THE ASHFORD GATE?
A YES.
Q WHEN YOU SAID YOU WENT TO THE GATE CONTROL BOX, YOU POINTED TO AN AREA ON PEOPLE'S 66. IS THAT WHERE IT IS INDICATED BY THAT TREE?
A YES.
Q AND THEN DID THE GATE OPEN?
A YES, IT DID.

Your speculation William is not supported by any testimony; it is contradicted by the testimony of both Park and Kaelin as well as the layout of the Rockingham estate.

bobaugust

I thought that you were confused and now you have supplied the post that proves it, to paraphrase judge J. Glass. I extend to you another offer to post where I said Kato was "at the gate box when Simpson entered the house". In fact, I was the first person, IIRC, to post the testimony about the place Park testified he saw Kato still standing, that testimony which you have quoted above.

Nothing changes the fact that you intimated Park's estimate of seconds was more reliable than Kato's estimates as to minutes.

The only thing that is not supported by the testimonies is your speculation as to what you think I said (your assumption) as opposed to what I actually said.

[William Anthony]

No I’m not confused at all, you’re the one who evidently not only can’t understand what Park and Kaelin actually testified to, you evidently don’t even know what the Rockingham estate looks like.

bobaugust

See response to post #5386.

[martin II]

April 5th-DF

It seems that Lang did not believe MF's report of his visual observation of the glove and was ready to risk contaminating one of the crime scenes. Why would Lang want the Rockingham glove taken out of the bag and brought into the Bundy crime scene, which, according to DF, he refused to do?

"Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, WHEN DETECTIVE LANGE REQUESTED THAT YOU BRING THE GLOVE INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE TO SHOW IT TO HIM, YOU HAD CONCERNS THAT THERE WAS A TERRIBLE DANGER OF CROSS-CONTAMINATION?

A: I KNEW THERE WAS A DANGER FOR CROSS-CONTAMINATION, YES.

Q: AND YOU KNEW WHEN HE MADE THAT REQUEST OF YOU THAT THAT REQUEST WAS A BASIC VIOLATION OF SOUND CRIME SCENE PROCEDURES?

A: I KNEW THAT I WOULD HAVE TO BE CAREFUL IN -- WITH THE GLOVE WHEN I BROUGHT IT TO HIM, YES.

Q: WELL, WHEN HE MADE THAT REQUEST TO YOU, DIDN'T YOU SAY TO YOURSELF, IT IS FOOLISH TO EVEN TAKE A CHANCE IN BRINGING THAT GLOVE INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE?

A: HE FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR -- AT THAT POINT FOR HIS INVESTIGATION.

Q: WELL, BUT YOU THOUGHT WHEN HE MADE THAT REQUEST TO YOU THAT IT WASN'T A SENSIBLE REQUEST?

A: AGAIN, AS I HAVE STATED BEFORE, I KNEW I WOULD HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WITH THE EVIDENCE.

Q: NO. MY QUESTION TO YOU IS A SIMPLE ONE, SIR. WHEN HE MADE THAT REQUEST TO YOU, YOU KNEW IT WAS NOT A SENSIBLE REQUEST?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, AT THIS TIME THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU THINK AT THE MOMENT THAT HE MADE THAT REQUEST TO YOU IT WAS CREATING A RISK OF UNNECESSARY -- AN UNNECESSARY RISK OF CONTAMINATION?

MR. GOLDBERG: SAME OBJECTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I KNEW THERE WAS A RISK, BUT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO HIM AT THAT TIME TO FURTHER HIS INVESTIGATION.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, WHEN HE MADE THAT REQUEST TO YOU DIDN'T YOU BELIEVE IT WAS AN UNNECESSARY RISK TO TAKE, THAT HE COULD HAVE JUST COME BACK RIGHT TO THE TRUCK AND SEE IT?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THIS HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, WERE YOU IN ANY WAY FEARFUL OF QUESTIONING DETECTIVE LANGE'S JUDGMENT WHEN HE ASKED YOU TO BRING THAT ROCKINGHAM GLOVE RIGHT INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE?

A: I WAS NOT FEARFUL OF HIM, NO.

Q: WERE YOU IN ANY WAY INTIMIDATED BY HIM?

A: NO.

Q: WERE YOU IN ANY WAY RELUCTANT TO QUESTION HIS JUDGMENT EVEN THOUGH YOU BELIEVED IT WAS NOT -- IT WAS A DANGEROUS REQUEST?

A: I DID HAVE SOME CONCERN AND I TOOK WHAT I FELT WAS -- I DREW A LINE WHERE I WOULD NOT TAKE THE BAG OR TAKE THE GLOVE OUT OF THE BAG FOR HIM.

Q: WELL, AT THE MOMENT HE MADE THE REQUEST TO YOU, YOU ARE NOW TELLING US THAT YOU HAD CONCERNS?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE IT IS THE SAME --

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU SAY YOU HAD CONCERNS AT THE MOMENT HE MADE THE REQUEST TO YOU?

MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. IT HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU EXPRESS ANY CONCERNS TO DETECTIVE LANGE AT THE MOMENT THAT HE ASKED YOU TO GO TO THE CRIME SCENE TRUCK AND BRING THE GLOVE INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE?

MR. GOLDBERG: SAME OBJECTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. DIFFERENT QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: I'M NOT SURE IF I DID; I MAY HAVE.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU MAY HAVE?

A: I DON'T KNOW IF I DID.

Q: NOW, YOU BROUGHT THE GLOVE -- HOW DID YOU GET WITH THE -- THAT BAG THAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR HAND, THAT IS THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE?

A: THE GLOVE WAS IN THAT BAG, YES.

Q: WELL, HOW DID YOU COME -- NOT JUST TO TAKE THE GLOVE FROM THE TRUCK TO THE AREA OF -- OF IN FRONT OF THE STEPS, BUT ALL THE WAY IN BACK, ALL THE WAY INTO THAT CAGED-IN AREA? HOW DID THAT COME ABOUT?

A: I DON'T EXACT -- I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT ROUTE THAT I TOOK. I PROBABLY CAME IN THROUGH THE SAME WAY I CAME IN OR EXITED. "

Earlier didn't vanhatter/lang ask furhman to come to bundy to make a visual comparison of the rockingham glove.

[William Anthony]

I see no reason for Vanhatter to be handeling the blood viles. Did the lab personell not know where the coronors office was.

"Come on Tom, I have Simpson's blood vial. Let's have our stress reliever, coffee, and decide what we are going to do with it and, by the way don't make any notes about MF allegedly finding the glove.":)

[William Anthony]

Earlier didn't vanhatter/lang ask furhman to come to bundy to make a visual comparison of the rockingham glove.

Yes, for some reason Lang did not appear to trust MF's reporting, or for some reason Vannatter decided not to tell his partner of MF's report and I am sure he would say he forgot.

[martin II]

I agree that when Park was asked by Clark after he saw Simpson go into the house did he notice where Kaelin was and Park said from what he remembered Kaelin was still standing on the sidewalk. What you can’t seem to grasp William, is where the sidewalk is. The sidewalk is the Ashford side path; the path that Park had just seen Kaelin come down on from the back of the house with a flashlight and stop where the path meets the driveway.

Your speculation that Kaelin was on the other side of the driveway near the gate control box is wrong. There was no sidewalk there, If you ever bother to actually look at the diagram of the Rockingham estate you would see how ridiculous your claim is.

Park estimated it was about two minutes from the time he saw Simpson enter his house to when Kaelin opened the gate and let him onto the estate. Park only estimated that time; he never looked at clock to see how much time actually past.

You claim Park first saw Kaelin and then Simpson enter his house when Kaelin was at the gate control box. That means Kaelin waited another two minutes just standing there while Park finished his telephone conversation, waited some more time to be let in and then got out the limo and went to the intercom, had a conversation with Simpson, and then went back to the limo and waited some more time before Kaelin opened the gate.

Kaelin never said any such thing. Kaelin said that on his first trip to the south path he only went a short distance behind the garage before returning to the driveway. Kaelin said the limo was still there “and I though maybe I should let this guy in, so I went to the gate control box, there is a button, pressed and it opens up.”

Q OKAY. SO YOU WALKED DOWN THE DRIVEWAY AROUND THE GARAGE TO THE SOUTH PATHWAY, CAME BACK OUT, WALKED BACK UP THE DRIVEWAY AND THE LIMO DRIVER -- THE LIMOUSINE WAS STILL OUTSIDE THE ASHFORD GATE?
A YES.
Q WHEN YOU SAID YOU WENT TO THE GATE CONTROL BOX, YOU POINTED TO AN AREA ON PEOPLE'S 66. IS THAT WHERE IT IS INDICATED BY THAT TREE?
A YES.
Q AND THEN DID THE GATE OPEN?
A YES, IT DID.

Your speculation William is not supported by any testimony; it is contradicted by the testimony of both Park and Kaelin as well as the layout of the Rockingham estate.

bobaugust

Park
'HE WAS STILL STANDING ON THE SIDWAWALK.

Still= continued to. did not move
Standing= on feet erect
on= top of
Sidewalk= concrete.

[William Anthony]

I am accepting apologies, today.:)

[William Anthony]

Bobaugust,

Allow me to save you from engaging in an infertile endeavor, if you will. I never said, "Kato was at the gate box when Simpson entered the house".

[martin II]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnnie_Cochran

[martin II]

Yes, for some reason Lang did not appear to trust MF's reporting, or for some reason Vannatter decided not to tell his partner of MF's report and I am sure he would say he forgot.

It may be that Vanhatter and Lang knowing furhmans history thought they should keep a sharp eagles eye on him.Next thing they knew he may say he had found a dead body at rockingham.

[martin II]

Cap experiment

Agapanthus and Cap

Among the evidence items in the Simpson trial a knit cap and a glove were found beneath the leaves of an agapanthus plant at Nicole's gate, and the prosecution speculated that they came to be in that place because the objects were lost by Simpson in his knife attack against Goldman there. If so, then these dislodged items apparently fell through the leaves of the plant and onto the ground beneath, where they were found. It had been my belief that those items, particularly the cap, would not naturally fall through such leaves, and therefore the reason for them to have been found where they were was because they were deliberately planted by a person that wanted to blame Simpson for the crime.



http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/cap.htm

[GreenIce]

GI

You have made great points that GS have ignored. If the jury believed that the glove was planted by someone that would mean that someone in control of the evidence was trying to wrongly implicate Simpson to get a conviction.
That would mean that someone or some people had wrongly manipulated blood evidence for the same purpose. One juror said she did not trust the DNA.Another said the glove could have been planted.With these doubts in their minds and other factors it is no surprise that the verdict was what it was.

If oj was inside his rockingham gate why would he then go to the pathway.
For what. Ih he was trying to evade the eye of Park he would have just walked to the garage ,then by the kitchen nook and into his front door.

martin II

Martin,

IMO, the blood trial from the Bronco to the front door and inside his home is proof of one or two things. He is telling the truth about the cuts on his hand before or after the murdrers he entered his him home using the front gates and the front door.

If as some G's suggest that he went over to kill Nicole, he had already had concealed the weapon as he walking to the crime scene. It makes no sense that he showed no fear of anyone seeing him carring a weapon to kill somebody but suddenly was scared that the limo driver would see him with it.

And, as it has been reported, Simpson did have another way on to his property that would not have risked anyone seeing him enter it. Again, IMO, if the noises Kato heard had anything to do with the murders, he was meant to hear them. He was meant to be startled by them and he was meant to give an approximate time of when he heard them. IMO, of course!

[GreenIce]

It may be that Vanhatter and Lang knowing furhmans history thought they should keep a sharp eagles eye on him.Next thing they knew he may say he had found a dead body at rockingham.

Martin,

You bring up a very good point. It appears to me that the DA's have always maintained that MF could not have picked up any evidence or planted any evidence because he was never alone. When I first realized this I kept thinking why are the DA's trying to force this issue? Why did it appear that several cops "knew" to watch MF and make sure he didn't do any thing?

Then I realized that there was the issue of Fuhrman's sport coat, when he had on vs. when the took it off. If I read the bit of testimony for F. Spangler, it appears to me that the DA's did not want him to testify about this. That was just my feeling on it.

Also, Lange and Vanatter had to address another important issue in their book. It was said over and over again that they did not know MF and they met him for the first time that night. However, in their book, I am pretty sure they say they knew "of" him. So what did they know of him? I can't imagine that neither of then knew about the Britton case. MF was a cancer in their case and IMO, they knew the moment they saw the glove behind the wall.

[tv]

TV,

What is the source regarding this? If it was a book, may I please have the title? I am not doubting that you read it, I just would like to know which book this came from.

No problem. :)

OJ Unmasked, The Trial, The Truth, and The Media by ML Rantala

[tv]

I see no reason for Vanhatter to be handeling the blood viles. Did the lab personell not know where the coronors office was.

martin, I posted Vannatter's explanation for why he transported the blood vials which also cleared up the misconception that he had the vials for 24 hours. It was five minutes.

[tv]

TV,

I think if is fair to day that "checkbook" journalism has been around a few years before the Simpson trial. It is a sad reality but the DA's did knowing use one witness that also sold his story. I agree that selling one's story is not a good idea before you testify in any hearing let alone in a trial. However, if a person sells their story, if they are telling the truth, then what changes about it? JS said she was an eyewitness to Simpson leaving the scene. Did selling her story make her say it was Simpson?

IMO, that is not the reason why the DA's cut JS loose. It had nothing to do with her selling of the story but it was public relations coup on her part to say that was the reason why. Don't forget, there was another car involved and we don't know what he said about it.

I am sure the DA's were paying attention how Jennifer P's was playing to the grand jury. By the time she took the stand, they probably already knew that AC had an alibi so it rendered her testimony useless to them. However, if the DA's believed, then after Simpson was aquitted, why not go after AC for being an accomplice?

While I believe AC is a loyal friend, I do not believe he would have anything to do with this and I believe Simpson knew this. I am how many friends can you turn to help you get rid the evidence? He and Kardashian ripped I think one or two bags of Simpson's looking for blood--if he was an accomplice, why do it?

GreenIce, I disagree with Clarke not putting Jennifer Peace and Jill Shively on the stand. While selling their stories may be a little unsavory I don't think it affects the story itself.

As for AC being an accessory after the fact that's my own personal opinion. I have no evidence or proof to back it up -- it's just a strong feeling I have. Remember when martin completely dismissed the idea that AC would tell Jennifer Peace such a thing? It's because martin understands what I understand -- AC and OJ were so tight they would never betray one another under any circumstance.

[tv]

If it is not necessary to have a through understanding of DNA then why have you bashed the jury members for saying they did not understand dna.
Why did the prosecution spend so much time on DNA if they felt it was not necessary to have a through understanding.Who were they talking to the jury or the media.

martin, I'm not bashing the jury when I say that at least one of them, Carrie Bess, didn't know that OJ Simpson's blood was found on the Rockingham glove. Those are her own words. I stand by my statement that you don't have to have a thorough understand of DNA to know that OJ Simpson's blood was found on the glove at Rockingham. It was brought up numerous times at the trial and the defense did not dispute that fact.

[tv]

The prosecution spent so much time on dna that even the media complained that they were nuts.Many lawyer talking heads complained that no one knew what they were talking about.They did this because they thought they could beat the jury over the head with this long and complicated science and the jury would not focus on the basic charges that they had serious problems proving. The white juror said she did not believe the dna.Plain and simple.

It was the prosecutions faut that they made this mombo jumbo their whole case.

I agree that the prosecution (and the defense) spent too much time on the explanation of DNA and how it works. Daniel Petrocelli learned from this mistake and didn't do it in the civil trial.

[tv]

AC accounted for his time on 6/12 so why would you believe he had covered for oj. When and how?Darden went after him and came up with a zero.
It's just my personal feeling. I have no proof to back it up.

[martin II]

martin, I posted Vannatter's explanation for why he transported the blood vials which also cleared up the misconception that he had the vials for 24 hours. It was five minutes.

I don't believe his explinatation

Ojs blood samples was drawn on 6/13 at about 1-2 pm.
Parker center was across the street or very close toSID.
SID is where all blood evidence collected by everyone is logged in and given a ID number.

All of fungs collections ended up at SID to get the control ID number.

So it makes no sense for Vanhatter to carry fresh blood to a crime scene at Rockingham when he should have given it directly to SID across the street.

Fung said NO ONE had ever brought blood to him at a crime scene because of risk of contamination.He did not understand why Vanhatter did this.

Vanhatter gave Fung ojs sample blood at about 4-5 pm on 6/13.
Fung did not finish collecting blood and other stuff at Rockingham and Bundy
until 7pm.

So the issue is Vanhatter had brought ojs blood to the crime scene before Fung had completed his colleciton activities.

This makes ojs blood available for planting.imo

[tv]

I don't believe his explinatation

Ojs blood samples was drawn on 6/13 at about 1-2 pm.
Parker center was across the street or very close toSID.
SID is where all blood evidence collected by everyone is logged in and given a ID number.

All of fungs collections ended up at SID to get the control ID number.

So it makes no sense for Vanhatter to carry fresh blood to a crime scene at Rockingham when he should have given it directly to SID across the street.

Fung said NO ONE had ever brought blood to him at a crime scene because of risk of contamination.He did not understand why Vanhatter did this.

Vanhatter gave Fung ojs sample blood at about 4-5 pm on 6/13.
Fung did not finish collecting blood and other stuff at Rockingham and Bundy
until 7pm.

So the issue is Vanhatter had brought ojs blood to the crime scene before Fung had completed his colleciton activities.

This makes ojs blood available for planting.imo
You're free to not believe him. I choose to believe him and have seen no proof of planting. I have a question for you. I don't remember your exact words but you said in one post that Vannatter and Lange didn't trust Mark Fuhrman yet they all three would have had to be involved in any conspiracy. Why would three people that don't trust each other become involved in a cover-up and planting?

[martin II]

martin, I'm not bashing the jury when I say that at least one of them, Carrie Bess, didn't know that OJ Simpson's blood was found on the Rockingham glove. Those are her own words. I stand by my statement that you don't have to have a thorough understand of DNA to know that OJ Simpson's blood was found on the glove at Rockingham. It was brought up numerous times at the trial and the defense did not dispute that fact.

After sitting through testimony for 9 mo it is not unusual that a juror would miss something. I think i would have missed something.
Some jurors can have different opinions on some issues and some jurors put different weight to the same issues like the two jurors thought the glove fit.
But in deliberations they are asked to think about ALL they have heard, weigh all of it and come to a common sense decision about the total case.

A juror may think the prosecution may have won point a but lost all the other points.
If i had been on the jury and saw what Vanhatter did with ojs blood,and the problem Mazzola and CY had and furhman, it would have been very easy for me to have a negatrive opinion about all the blood evidence and DNA because my common sense would be telling me something is wrong here.

I think you have more faith in police labs than i do.imo

[William Anthony]

You're free to not believe him. I choose to believe him and have seen no proof of planting. I have a question for you. I don't remember your exact words but you said in one post that Vannatter and Lange didn't trust Mark Fuhrman yet they all three would have had to be involved in any conspiracy. Why would three people that don't trust each other become involved in a cover-up and planting?

I couldn't help but notice that you now only say you have no proof of planting and not that you see no evidence of planting. Another G has said that he sees strong evidence of planting as it regards the sock and the gate stain. However, he, like you, wants proof. Kate has agreed with me that the defense is not obligated to prove anything, unless they assert an affirmative defense. I think that MF was the only LE member not trusted by the others and his alleged finding of the Rockingham glove put his fellow officers in an uncomfortable position. They could not deny that MF found the glove where he said he did but, judging from their testimonies, I drew the reasonable inference that they had their suspicions.

[William Anthony]

After sitting through testimony for 9 mo it is not unusual that a juror would miss something. I think i would have missed something.
Some jurors can have different opinions on some issues and some jurors put different weight to the same issues like the two jurors thought the glove fit.
But in deliberations they are asked to think about ALL they have heard, weigh all of it and come to a common sense decision about the total case.

A juror may think the prosecution may have won point a but lost all the other points.
If i had been on the jury and saw what Vanhatter did with ojs blood,and the problem Mazzola and CY had and furhman, it would have been very easy for me to have a negatrive opinion about all the blood evidence and DNA because my common sense would be telling me something is wrong here.

I think you have more faith in police labs than i do.imo

I think that any evidence supporting an inference that something untoward had happened and, especially strong evidence of something untoward happening with the evidence, is enough for me not to convict and accused, thereby depriving him/her of their liberty.

[tv]

After sitting through testimony for 9 mo it is not unusual that a juror would miss something. I think i would have missed something.
Some jurors can have different opinions on some issues and some jurors put different weight to the same issues like the two jurors thought the glove fit.
But in deliberations they are asked to think about ALL they have heard, weigh all of it and come to a common sense decision about the total case.

A juror may think the prosecution may have won point a but lost all the other points.
If i had been on the jury and saw what Vanhatter did with ojs blood,and the problem Mazzola and CY had and furhman, it would have been very easy for me to have a negatrive opinion about all the blood evidence and DNA because my common sense would be telling me something is wrong here.

I think you have more faith in police labs than i do.imomartin, you're taking the focus off the fact that Carrie Bess sat through nine months of testimony and didn't know that OJ Simpson's blood was on the Rockingham glove. That has nothing to do with the police lab. The defense didn't dispute that Simpson's blood was on the glove. I wonder if she and possibly other jurors missed this what else did they miss? That four hour deliberation is starting to make sense.

[tv]

I couldn't help but notice that you now only say you have no proof of planting and not that you see no evidence of planting. Another G has said that he sees strong evidence of planting as it regards the sock and the gate stain. However, he, like you, wants proof. Kate has agreed with me that the defense is not obligated to prove anything, unless they assert an affirmative defense. I think that MF was the only LE member not trusted by the others and his alleged finding of the Rockingham glove put his fellow officers in an uncomfortable position. They could not deny that MF found the glove where he said he did but, judging from their testimonies, I drew the reasonable inference that they had their suspicions.
Clarification: I've seen no evidence, proof or facts offered that would indicate planting occured in this case. You do a lot of inferring based on your own bias against LE.

[martin II]

You're free to not believe him. I choose to believe him and have seen no proof of planting. I have a question for you. I don't remember your exact words but you said in one post that Vannatter and Lange didn't trust Mark Fuhrman yet they all three would have had to be involved in any conspiracy. Why would three people that don't trust each other become involved in a cover-up and planting?

Those were not my words but it does not matter

I don't think these three did something togeather. i believe one did and the other two or one may have done something to keep the actions of the doer from the light of day. From the beginning i don't think there was a lot of respect or love for furhman by V and L
I think V & L were more on the conservative side and did not like furhman and his HOT DOG activities or way of doing things.

[tv]

Those were not my words but it does not matter

I don't think these three did something togeather. i believe one did and the other two or one may have done something to keep the actions of the doer from the light of day. From the beginning i don't think there was a lot of respect or love for furhman by V and L
I think V & L were more on the conservative side and did not like furhman and his HOT DOG activities or way of doing things.
I don't think Vannatter and Lange had ever met Fuhrman before that night. It's so funny to me that you think Vannatter is capable of planting Simpson's blood but you defend him for not liking Mark Fuhrman. Either Vannatter is an honorable cop or he's not. Which is it?

[martin II]

martin, you're taking the focus off the fact that Carrie Bess sat through nine months of testimony and didn't know that OJ Simpson's blood was on the Rockingham glove. That has nothing to do with the police lab. The defense didn't dispute that Simpson's blood was on the glove. I wonder if she and possibly other jurors missed this what else did they miss? That four hour deliberation is starting to make sense.

Not true

i said after 9mo it is possible that a juror missed something. if she is quoted correctly then she missed something.
i don't believe any juror in any case remembers every word spoken by witnesses but what the can do is listen to each witness and decide if she/he believes the testimony and remember that.

But ojs blood being on the glove means that he put it there or someone else did.Now if she had concernes as to why vanhatter carried ojs blood around in his pocket it is possible for her to believe that vanhatter caused ojs blood to be on the glove.

[William Anthony]

Clarification: I've seen no evidence, proof or facts offered that would indicate planting occured in this case. You do a lot of inferring based on your own bias against LE.

My inferring is based on the evidence and, at least, one G openly admits that there is strong evidence of planting. However, this is from the link I previously supplied by one of the dream team members, Thompson.

"On the glove, the allele matching Simpson was found in samples from the wrist notch, in an area where Yamauchi wrote his initials, and nowhere else."

Of course, there could be an inference drawn that Simpson lost the glove during the struggle and the blood dripping from his cut finger, which would have had to have been cut after dropping the glove, dropped onto the wrist notch of the glove. Another inference is that the blood got in that wrist area notch by some other method. Why were no other alleles consistent with Simpson found on the other areas of that glove?

[William Anthony]

I don't think Vannatter and Lange had ever met Fuhrman before that night. It's so funny to me that you think Vannatter is capable of planting Simpson's blood but you defend him for not liking Mark Fuhrman. Either Vannatter is an honorable cop or he's not. Which is it?

Politics and LE associations make strange bedfellows.

[martin II]

I don't think Vannatter and Lange had ever met Fuhrman before that night. It's so funny to me that you think Vannatter is capable of planting Simpson's blood but you defend him for not liking Mark Fuhrman. Either Vannatter is an honorable cop or he's not. Which is it?

Furhmans reputation was known in lapd.As the lead detective Vanhatter would check on the people working with him.All he had to do was ask the commander or others.

[tv]

My inferring is based on the evidence and, at least, one G openly admits that there is strong evidence of planting. However, this is from the link I previously supplied by one of the dream team members, Thompson.

"On the glove, the allele matching Simpson was found in samples from the wrist notch, in an area where Yamauchi wrote his initials, and nowhere else."

Of course, there could be an inference drawn that Simpson lost the glove during the struggle and the blood dripping from his cut finger, which would have had to have been cut after dropping the glove, dropped onto the wrist notch of the glove. Another inference is that the blood got in that wrist area notch by some other method. Why were no other alleles consistent with Simpson found on the other areas of that glove?OJ Simpson's DNA was found on three areas of the Rockingham glove. That is a fact in this case.

[tv]

Furhmans reputation was known in lapd.As the lead detective Vanhatter would check on the people working with him.All he had to do was ask the commander or others.

Let me see if I have this right: Vannatter planted the blood on the Rockingham glove but he would have disapproved of Mark Fuhrman and his 'hotdog' ways?

[tv]

Politics and LE associations make strange bedfellows.I would have preferred a straight answer.

[martin II]

I don't think Vannatter and Lange had ever met Fuhrman before that night. It's so funny to me that you think Vannatter is capable of planting Simpson's blood but you defend him for not liking Mark Fuhrman. Either Vannatter is an honorable cop or he's not. Which is it?

Vanhatter is a seasoned detective that has handeled many cases and yes he would do something wrong.And he would know how to do it without leaving a trace.

[tv]

Not true

i said after 9mo it is possible that a juror missed something. if she is quoted correctly then she missed something.
i don't believe any juror in any case remembers every word spoken by witnesses but what the can do is listen to each witness and decide if she/he believes the testimony and remember that.

But ojs blood being on the glove means that he put it there or someone else did.Now if she had concernes as to why vanhatter carried ojs blood around in his pocket it is possible for her to believe that vanhatter caused ojs blood to be on the glove.
I don't expect Ms Bess or anyone else to remember all the details presented in the trial. We are all very familiar with the case and we don't remember every detail but this was a major part of the case. It leads me to wonder what else she missed. Also, as I said before the forewoman of the jury, Armanda Cooley, thought that Mazzola and Simpson had the same alleles. Not true. They seem to have better memories and ability to absorb information when it comes to what the defense threw out there to explain their theories.

[William Anthony]

OJ Simpson's DNA was found on three areas of the Rockingham glove. That is a fact in this case.

Blood was allegedly found on the Rockingham glove that was alleged to be consistent with that of Simpson. However, I was thinking my post and Thompson's reference was to the Bundy glove. I will be glad to go back and show you, if necessary.

[William Anthony]

I would have preferred a straight answer.

Quite clever. Would you prefer I said politics and LE associations make strange bed sharers?

[martin II]

Let me see if I have this right: Vannatter planted the blood on the Rockingham glove but he would have disapproved of Mark Fuhrman and his 'hotdog' ways?

I am not sure V actually did the deed but for sure he had ojs blood when he should not have had it and was therefore in a position to pass it to someone that did.Remember the dectives had access to the lab.

[tv]

I am not sure V actually did the deed but for sure he had ojs blood when he should not have had it and was therefore in a position to pass it to someone that did.Remember the dectives had access to the lab.
Your conspiracy theory is expanding again. Who do you think he handed it off to? Why would he take the blood vial to Rockingham if his goal was to get it to the lab? Why not take it directly to the lab? If he didn't give it to Fung at Rockingham what did he do with it?

[tv]

Quite clever. Would you prefer I said politics and LE associations make strange bed sharers?I hadn't thought of it that way but it might be the politically correct way to say it. I was thinking more along the lines of a simple yes or no.

[tv]

Blood was allegedly found on the Rockingham glove that was alleged to be consistent with that of Simpson. However, I was thinking my post and Thompson's reference was to the Bundy glove. I will be glad to go back and show you, if necessary.
I'm always willing to learn new information. I wasn't aware that any of OJ Simpson's DNA was found on the Bundy glove. Perhaps, like Ms. Bess, I missed it. Please tell me more.

[martin II]

I don't expect Ms Bess or anyone else to remember all the details presented in the trial. We are all very familiar with the case and we don't remember every detail but this was a major part of the case. It leads me to wonder what else she missed. Also, as I said before the forewoman of the jury, Armanda Cooley, thought that Mazzola and Simpson had the same alleles. Not true. They seem to have better memories and ability to absorb information when it comes to what the defense threw out there to explain their theories.

Look

v had oj blood
Furhamn the racist found the glove and the brown spot on the bronco.
Mazzola had big problems as did CY
There were wet blood transfers
OJ was in his house when Kato heard the noise.
The glove did not fit
etc
If the jury knew this and they did,then the glove did not matter.

[martin II]

I'm always willing to learn new information. I wasn't aware that any of OJ Simpson's DNA was found on the Bundy glove. Perhaps, like Ms. Bess, I missed it. Please tell me more.

how and when did ms Bess say what you say she said.

[tv]

Look

v had oj blood
Furhamn the racist found the glove and the brown spot on the bronco.
Mazzola had big problems as did CY
There were wet blood transfers
OJ was in his house when Kato heard the noise.
The glove did not fit
etc
If the jury knew this and they did,then the glove did not matter.

All the evidence and testimony matters. Would you be so quick to dismiss the glove if the blood on it had belonged to someone other than OJ Simpson?

[martin II]

Your conspiracy theory is expanding again. Who do you think he handed it off to? Why would he take the blood vial to Rockingham if his goal was to get it to the lab? Why not take it directly to the lab? If he didn't give it to Fung at Rockingham what did he do with it?

He could have taken the missing blood from the vile during his coffe break and passed it on to someone.
His goal should have been to get it to SID directly and pronto.

[tv]

how and when did ms Bess say what you say she said.

Madam Foreman: A Rush to Judgement? by Armanda Cooley, Carrie Bess, Martha Rubin-Jackson and Willie Craven, published January 1996.

[martin II]

All the evidence and testimony matters. Would you be so quick to dismiss the glove if the blood on it had belonged to someone other than OJ Simpson?


IF all of the other things above had happened yes
A frame is a frame.

[tv]

He could have taken the missing blood from the vile during his coffe break and passed it on to someone.
His goal should have been to get it to SID directly and pronto.If that's all you can come up with I'll stick to my belief that he did nothing wrong.

[martin II]

Madam Foreman: A Rush to Judgement? by Armanda Cooley, Carrie Bess, Martha Rubin-Jackson and Willie Craven, published January 1996.

Well you know how it is with these quick books to the market.Many times people are misquoted in those books by publishers.

[tv]

IF all of the other things above had happened yes
A frame is a frame.martin, you're missing the point that Ms. Bess didn't just miss the testimony about the glove -- she was convinced that OJ Simpson's blood wasn't on it. She thought it was important enough to mention in their book. She just had it all wrong. I'm sure the other three authors of the book felt the same way as I'm sure they all signed off on the contents.

[martin II]

If that's all you can come up with I'll stick to my belief that he did nothing wrong.

We are talking about possibilities right.

[tv]

Well you know how it is with these quick books to the market.Many times people are misquoted in those books by publishers.Her name is on the book as an author. She was not misquoted by the publisher. Enough excuses.

[tv]

We are talking about possibilities right.I was hoping you had something to back it up other than hatred and mistrust of LE. If not, then I'll consider it speculation and you can consider it a possibility.

[William Anthony]

I'm always willing to learn new information. I wasn't aware that any of OJ Simpson's DNA was found on the Bundy glove. Perhaps, like Ms. Bess, I missed it. Please tell me more.

Upon further review, it appears it was the Rockingham glove.

[martin II]

martin, you're missing the point that Ms. Bess didn't just miss the testimony about the glove -- she was convinced that OJ Simpson's blood wasn't on it. She thought it was important enough to mention in their book. She just had it all wrong. I'm sure the other three authors of the book felt the same way as I'm sure they all signed off on the contents.

I would think they talked to the ghost writer, he wrote the book and passed it on to the agent and the agent passed it on to the puiblisher and gave them their checks.

[William Anthony]

I was hoping you had something to back it up other than hatred and mistrust of LE. If not, then I'll consider it speculation and you can consider it a possibility.

It seems your bias toward LE will not allow you to consider all the evidence but I remind you of who had the burden of proof of producing such evidence that it can be relied upon beyond a reasonable doubt that the person accused should be convicted.

[tv]

Upon further review, it appears it was the Rockingham glove.Darn! I was hoping that information had come to light to inject new blood (pun intended) into the case.

[tv]

It seems your bias toward LE will not allow you to consider all the evidence but I remind you of who had the burden of proof of producing such evidence that it can be relied upon beyond a reasonable doubt that the person accused should be convicted.What evidence am I not considering?

[William Anthony]

What evidence am I not considering?

I would like to take this opportunity to remind you that the prosecution's case was purely circumstantial, meaning that a person must draw inferences. However, when the evidence is such that an inference can be drawn that Simpson was not guilty, as with the evidence that another G see's as strong evidence of (circumstantial, allowing an inference) planting, You claim not to see it.:)

[William Anthony]

Darn! I was hoping that information had come to light to inject new blood (pun intended) into the case.

IMHO, LE did enough of that. If they had done anymore injecting of blood, Peratis' sample of Simpson's blood would have been empty,imho.

[tv]

I would think they talked to the ghost writer, he wrote the book and passed it on to the agent and the agent passed it on to the puiblisher and gave them their checks.I see, we're blaming the ghostwriter again. The book cover says 'as told to Tom Byrnes'. A ghostwriter doesn't make up what goes into a book. They take a story and put it into a readable form with proper sentence structure etc. In other words they make it readable. I looked at the list of authors again and other jurors are listed. The belief about the Rockingham glove having no blood belonging to OJ Simpson is even worse than I thought.

[martin II]

What evidence am I not considering?

I am surprised that a LADY as sharp as you would be so trusting of a group such as the lapd. Do think the u.s justice department took over that department because it was well run efficent and a shining example of how police departments should be run or was it because they found it was a corrupt police organization to its core?

[tv]

IMHO, LE did enough of that. If they had done anymore injecting of blood, Peratis' sample of Simpson's blood would have been empty,imho.If OJ Simpson were innocent there would be something to point in that direction. The only way he can be innocent is if LE conspired to frame him and there is no proof of that.

[tv]

I am surprised that a LADY as sharp as you would be so trusting of a group such as the lapd. Do think the u.s justice department took over that department because it was well run efficent and a shining example of how police departments should be run or was it because they found it was a corrupt police organization to its core?

martin, show me one shred of proof of planting in this case.

[tv]

I would like to take this opportunity to remind you that the prosecution's case was purely circumstantial, meaning that a person must draw inferences. However, when the evidence is such that an inference can be drawn that Simpson was not guilty, as with the evidence that another G see's as strong evidence of (circumstantial, allowing an inference) planting, You claim not to see it.:)

The defendant's blood was found at the crime scene near the bodies, at and in his home, in his car and on the Rockingham glove. The blood of the victims was found in his vehicle, home and the Rockingham glove. The limo driver was unable to get an answer at the gate, Kato heard mysterous noises behind his room and OJ Simpson told conflicting stories about his activities at the time of the murders and how his finger got cut. Strong evidence. You'll have to take up the other G's belief with him/her. I speak for myself.

[martin II]

I see, we're blaming the ghostwriter again. The book cover says 'as told to Tom Byrnes'. A ghostwriter doesn't make up what goes into a book. They take a story and put it into a readable form with proper sentence structure etc. In other words they make it readable. I looked at the list of authors again and other jurors are listed. The belief about the Rockingham glove having no blood belonging to OJ Simpson is even worse than I thought.

When the glove demo was scheduled some jury members maby said to themselves THIS IS THE MOMENT OF TRUTH. NOW WE WILL SEE IF HE HAD THAT GLOVE ON.

Then they saw the glove didn't fit.And they saw the prosecution scrambling to find a reason as to why they did not fit.Then Rubin made a fool of himself.
Well, if the glove did not fit then it was not oj that wore the glove at Bundy on 6/12 so all of this other crap about blood here and there is nonsense.imo

[tv]

When the glove demo was scheduled some jury members maby said to themselves THIS IS THE MOMENT OF TRUTH. NOW WE WILL SEE IF HE HAD THAT GLOVE ON.

Then they saw the glove didn't fit.And they saw the prosecution scrambling to find a reason as to why they did not fit.Then Rubin made a fool of himself.
Well, if the glove did not fit then it was not oj that wore the glove at Bundy on 6/12 so all of this other crap about blood here and there is nonsense.imo

OJ Simpson did some bad acting to make the glove not fit. It was stupid for the prosecution to put a piece of evidence in a murder defendant's control and have him decide if it fit or not. You might has well let the fox loose in the hen house.

One thing that sticks in my mind. Simpson didn't have any problem picking up and handling the glove that the killer was wearing when he killed the mother of his children. Coldhearted.

[martin II]

The defendant's blood was found at the crime scene near the bodies, at and in his home, in his car and on the Rockingham glove. The blood of the victims was found in his vehicle, home and the Rockingham glove. The limo driver was unable to get an answer at the gateAfter the nap oj was on the toilet and taking a shower he could not hear the buzzer phone, Kato heard mysterous noises behind his room and OJ Simpson told conflicting stories about his activities at the time of the murders and how his finger got cut. Strong evidence. You'll have to take up the other G's belief with him/her. I speak for myself. after he and Kato returned he chipped some balls, went back inside took a nap.used the toilet.took a shower put on a robe,took the two bags down stairs went back upstairs finished dressing and came out refreshed and ready to go.
Sounds reasonable to me. i don't know why park was ringing that buzzer every second.

[William Anthony]

If OJ Simpson were innocent there would be something to point in that direction. The only way he can be innocent is if LE conspired to frame him and there is no proof of that.

You don't seem to understand and that is not my point. I have spoken of the fact that it was a circumstantial case and inferences that can be drawn from all the evidence not saying which inference is right or wrong and the burden of proof and who had the onus of that burden. I have done so for a reason as some have called the jurors ignorant, uneducated and racially biased. I have done so to show that, even if they were as described, based on the jury instruction on which inferences they were duty bound to accept, there was sufficient reason to find reasonable doubt.

[tv]

after he and Kato returned he chipped some balls, went back inside took a nap.used the toilet.took a shower put on a robe,took the two bags down stairs went back upstairs finished dressing and came out refreshed and ready to go.
Sounds reasonable to me. i don't know why park was ringing that buzzer every second.
Used the toilet? Wow, you really do have inside information. :biggrin:

[William Anthony]

OJ Simpson did some bad acting to make the glove not fit. It was stupid for the prosecution to put a piece of evidence in a murder defendant's control and have him decide if it fit or not. You might has well let the fox loose in the hen house.

One thing that sticks in my mind. Simpson didn't have any problem picking up and handling the glove that the killer was wearing when he killed the mother of his children. Coldhearted.

Was it just as cold hearted for Darden to ask him to handle those gloves?

[tv]

You don't seem to understand and that is not my point. I have spoken of the fact that it was a circumstantial case and inferences that can be drawn from all the evidence not saying which inference is right or wrong and the burden of proof and who had the onus of that burden. I have done so for a reason as some have called the jurors ignorant, uneducated and racially biased. I have done so to show that, even if they were as described, based on the jury instruction on which inferences they were duty bound to accept, there was sufficient reason to find reasonable doubt.I reasonably doubt that the majority of the jurors were paying attention to any testimony that was negative to OJ Simpson.

[martin II]

OJ Simpson did some bad acting to make the glove not fit. It was stupid for the prosecution to put a piece of evidence in a murder defendant's control and have him decide if it fit or not. You might has well let the fox loose in the hen house.

One thing that sticks in my mind. Simpson didn't have any problem picking up and handling the glove that the killer was wearing when he killed the mother of his children. Coldhearted.

We really don't know if nicole actually gave a glove to oj. she could have given both pairs to friends.And we don't even know what size or color gloves she purchased.

[William Anthony]

The defendant's blood was found at the crime scene near the bodies, at and in his home, in his car and on the Rockingham glove. The blood of the victims was found in his vehicle, home and the Rockingham glove. The limo driver was unable to get an answer at the gate, Kato heard mysterous noises behind his room and OJ Simpson told conflicting stories about his activities at the time of the murders and how his finger got cut. Strong evidence. You'll have to take up the other G's belief with him/her. I speak for myself.

Where is the evidence of when Simpson's blood got to the crime scene? Where is the evidence of how the blood got "in" the Bronco. We have discussed Park's and Kato's testimonies and what it means as to where Simpson could have come from as well as the time of the thumps and why the prosecution nor the plaintiffs used Ms. Shively. However strong the evidence is for your view, there is equally strong evidence for an opposing view. I think the other G keeps an open mind and heart.

[William Anthony]

I reasonably doubt that the majority of the jurors were paying attention to any testimony that was negative to OJ Simpson.

I reasonably doubt that most of the Gs, who cannot accept the verdict, consider anything other than race as an explanation for the verdict.

[martin II]

I reasonably doubt that the majority of the jurors were paying attention to any testimony that was negative to OJ Simpson.

Thats unfair to the jury. the la da has a 98% conviction rate using jurors just like those in this case.Black women convict black men daily in courts like that one in la. They would have convicted oj in a heart beat if the prosecution had been able to tell/show them that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[martin II]

Used the toilet? Wow, you really do have inside information. :biggrin:

civil trial petro asking the questions. see even you missed something.

[tv]

We really don't know if nicole actually gave a glove to oj. she could have given both pairs to friends.And we don't even know what size or color gloves she purchased.
He's been photographed wearing the same style of gloves.

[tv]

civil trial petro asking the questions. see even you missed something.
Then I'll stand corrected.

[tv]

Thats unfair to the jury. the la da has a 98% conviction rate using jurors just like those in this case.Black women convict black men daily in courts like that one in la. They would have convicted oj in a heart beat if the prosecution had been able to tell/show them that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The jurors didn't know that OJ Simpson's blood was found on the Rockingham glove. They also thought that Mazzola and OJ Simpson had the same alleles. These are major boo-boos. I'm not talking about other cases and other juries. I'm talking about this one. Maybe if they had known that the blood of OJS was on the Rockingham glove it would have created reasonable doubt of his innocence. For them to not understand the major components of the evidence is unfair to the people of the state of CA.

[tv]

I reasonably doubt that most of the Gs, who cannot accept the verdict, consider anything other than race as an explanation for the verdict.
I've been talking to you and martin on and off for a few hours. Please point out where I've mentioned race.

[tv]

Where is the evidence of when Simpson's blood got to the crime scene? Where is the evidence of how the blood got "in" the Bronco. We have discussed Park's and Kato's testimonies and what it means as to where Simpson could have come from as well as the time of the thumps and why the prosecution nor the plaintiffs used Ms. Shively. However strong the evidence is for your view, there is equally strong evidence for an opposing view. I think the other G keeps an open mind and heart.Then maybe you should limit your conversation to the other G, whoever that is. :seeya:

[tv]

We really don't know if nicole actually gave a glove to oj. she could have given both pairs to friends.And we don't even know what size or color gloves she purchased.
Maybe he purchased the gloves himself. Maybe he got them as a gift from someone else other than Nicole. What isn't in question is that he was photographed wearing that style of gloves before the murders.

[William Anthony]

I've been talking to you and martin on and off for a few hours. Please point out where I've mentioned race.

Please, point to where I said you mentioned race?

[tv]

Was it just as cold hearted for Darden to ask him to handle those gloves?
Stupid but not coldhearted.

[William Anthony]

Then maybe you should limit your conversation to the other G, whoever that is. :seeya:

I thought you had an open mind and heart. I apologize if I am wrong.:seeya:

[tv]

Please, point to where I said you mentioned race?Twist, twist, twist.

[William Anthony]

Stupid but not coldhearted.

I saw it as both.

[martin II]

I've been talking to you and martin on and off for a few hours. Please point out where I've mentioned race.

Well today you have not tossed race into the conversation by calling the jury racist or calling the salute guy a black power racist. So thanks for that,.

[William Anthony]

Twist, twist, twist.

There is no need for me to twist. I don't know why you felt I said you. Care to explain?

[tv]

I thought you had an open mind and heart. I apologize if I am wrong.:seeya:

No need to apologize. You've thrown up the color barrier so it's time for me to find something else to do with my time for a litte while. Have a lovely evening.

[tv]

There is no need for me to twist. I don't know why you felt I said you. Care to explain?Not really.

[William Anthony]

No need to apologize. You've thrown up the color barrier so it's time for me to find something else to do with my time for a litte while. Have a lovely evening.

I didn't invent or throw any barrier up but I understand when I ask you to support things you say that you are a busy person and don't have the time. :)

[William Anthony]

Not really.

Par.

[tv]

Well today you have not tossed race into the conversation by calling the jury racist or calling the salute guy a black power racist. So thanks for that,.
I don't think I've ever called the jury or Lionel Cryor racist. If I have I don't recall. You have a lovely evening also, martin. :)

[martin II]

Maybe he purchased the gloves himself. Maybe he got them as a gift from someone else other than Nicole. What isn't in question is that he was photographed wearing that style of gloves before the murders.

Screw the pictures.
Regardless of what Rubin said Aris was not the only glove that used a whipstitch and i don't now how that could be seen if oj was standing on a football machine.

You do know that a graphic artist could put you head on williams body and i would say it was you.

[martin II]

I don't think I've ever called the jury or Lionel Cryor racist. If I have I don't recall. You have a lovely evening also, martin. :)

Well come to think of it i may have you mixed up with the poster that does it frequently. I apologize.

[William Anthony]

Ms. Tvdinner,

I also did not mean to imply that it was a frequent response of yours and I do not want to call you out on that issue as I do like and appreciate the civility and cordiality between us when posting. Suffice it to say that I did research and found one, at which point I stopped looking. I will say that it was not made in the offensive manner as some who have accused the jury and it was phrased in a manner of you could think of only one reason why the jury would be biased.
With that said, I am willing to drop the issue.

[William Anthony]

You do know that a graphic artist could put you head on williams body and i would say it was you.

That would be something.:)

[martin II]

*********************************************
This puts the planting theory in a good light; but I am not yet convinced. If this evidence, testimony is as strong as it looks here, why didn't they sue the LAPD? Even if they lost in court, they might win in public opinion. It is in the public interest to make the police be as honest as possible. It is also in the public interest to reduce the anger and distrust that the Simpson case stirred up.

I can think of two theories why neither OJS nor JC wanted to get into this:
The first is that they didn’t believe that the blood was planted.
The other theory is that they were afraid they would loose, and not make any money on it. .I find it easy to think that both JC and OJS were more concerned with their own wallets than with the public interest in making the police honest and accountable, and also little about reducing public anger and distrust that the case stirred up and displayed.

Johnnie Cochran had a good back ground for cases against the police. He used to work for the police dept investigating complaints against policemen (he investigated M Fuhrman)Do you have a link to this claim?, and also sued different police depts., usually on race discrimination and brutality. If he had sued the LAPD and made them look bad, it would have been good publicity for both Simpson and JC even if they didn't win any money. If they did sue, I don't think the LAPD could defend themselves by trying to show that OJS was guilty. In other words if they could prove that any blood was planted, not even a signed confession from OJS could get the LAPD off the hook; and JC and OJS wouldn't have to prove who planted it. The defence does not have to prove anything in a criminal trial so why continue to ask that they do?

It seems to be a common opinion that one's own ethnic groups will be fair to other ethnic groups, but the reverse won't be true. WA and Martin II both seem to believe this in terms of their comments about the juries of the 1995 criminal trial and the 1996 civil trial.


Try not to forget the requested link

[GreenIce]

martin, I posted Vannatter's explanation for why he transported the blood vials which also cleared up the misconception that he had the vials for 24 hours. It was five minutes.

TV,

Siglar's testimony did not include when it was signed in. I do know that he made sure he wrote it down that VA took it. I haven't found any documentation when it was signed in.

[GreenIce]

Martin and William,

What is missing in the bronco, at Bundy? Have you noticed that there is no cast off testimony? What did Simpson do with the knife in the Bronco? How only swipe but nothing about a knife?

[William Anthony]

Martin and William,

What is missing in the bronco, at Bundy? Have you noticed that there is no cast off testimony? What did Simpson do with the knife in the Bronco? How only swipe but nothing about a knife?

That is a valid point and one I had not heretofore thought of. Were there any spots of blood alleged to have been consistent with the victims found in the Bronco that were not part of a mixture?

[martin II]

Martin and William,

What is missing in the bronco, at Bundy? Have you noticed that there is no cast off testimony? What did Simpson do with the knife in the Bronco? How only swipe but nothing about a knife?

Good question

Some may say oj tucked the knife behind his ear so his hands were free for the wheel.:shrug:

[ChunkyRed]

I feel sorry for his children who constantly have to endure their father acting like a complete fool in front of the entire world. :hat:

[tv]

I didn't invent or throw any barrier up but I understand when I ask you to support things you say that you are a busy person and don't have the time. :)

I wasn't busy and never stated that I was. I didn't want to talk to you any longer because I'm not interested in talking about race.

[tv]

Ms. Tvdinner,

I also did not mean to imply that it was a frequent response of yours and I do not want to call you out on that issue as I do like and appreciate the civility and cordiality between us when posting. Suffice it to say that I did research and found one, at which point I stopped looking. I will say that it was not made in the offensive manner as some who have accused the jury and it was phrased in a manner of you could think of only one reason why the jury would be biased.
With that said, I am willing to drop the issue.

Did I actually use the word racist in this post that you found?

[GreenIce]

I see, we're blaming the ghostwriter again. The book cover says 'as told to Tom Byrnes'. A ghostwriter doesn't make up what goes into a book. They take a story and put it into a readable form with proper sentence structure etc. In other words they make it readable. I looked at the list of authors again and other jurors are listed. The belief about the Rockingham glove having no blood belonging to OJ Simpson is even worse than I thought.

TV,

I have the jurors' book. I haven't come across it yet, but I am still looking.
Did you read Faye Resnick's depo from the civil trial? When there are errors in a book, most often the "author" will blame the write or the publisher. Yes, they do make it "readable" but that does mean they give an accurate description.

For example, a few days ago I made a post about Nicole punching the maid and decking her. Kate posted that she didn't punch the maid, she slapped the maid and the maid fell down. Kate and I both describing an act of violence on Nicole's part. Which one sounds better? Which one presents the better "picture"?

I only remember one person blaming their co-author, ghost writer, or publisher.

[GreenIce]

The jurors didn't know that OJ Simpson's blood was found on the Rockingham glove. They also thought that Mazzola and OJ Simpson had the same alleles. These are major boo-boos. I'm not talking about other cases and other juries. I'm talking about this one. Maybe if they had known that the blood of OJS was on the Rockingham glove it would have created reasonable doubt of his innocence. For them to not understand the major components of the evidence is unfair to the people of the state of CA.

TV,

The problem is, you are focusing on one piece of evidence as well as only focusing what was found the glove. To view this piece of evidence and what was found on it, you have to look at all the facts surrounding it.

First off, you start off with on juror saying she didn't know Simpson's blood was on the glove and now it is all of them? Which is it, one or all of them?

If you can say that the jurors were unfair to the people of CA, then what do you day about the people who gather and collected the evidence? What do say about Mark Fuhrman? Surely Fuhrman is the perfect example of a person who was unfair to the people of CA?

I think it is very fair this jury not to show that much "respect" for the evidence in this case because the LAPD, the crime lab, the DA's did not demonstrate any type of respect for their jobs, they showed no respect for guildelines and rules that were enacted to take major league guessing out of what evidence can prove and what it can't prove.

You and I think fgump have often described the "mistakes" in this case as careless--what exactly does careless mean? They knew how to do it but took short cuts? And if they did just take short cuts, then that means they didn't understand that everything they did, to collecting it, processing it, putting initials on bindles, whatever, was going to matter?

If the state's witnesses didn't care how they performed their jobs, is a jury supposed to make this right? So we want our juries to convict even if they believed evidence was planted? Do we want our juries to have to determine what is a "serious" lie and what is an "okay" lie from our state, goverment witnesses?

I tried to find it, but I don't remember the state saying why Simpson's blood could not have gotten there because of Collin Y's mistake. However, IMO, I don't think Scheck would have brought this up if his conclusions would have been impossible to believe. IMO.

[GreenIce]

That is a valid point and one I had not heretofore thought of. Were there any spots of blood alleged to have been consistent with the victims found in the Bronco that were not part of a mixture?

William and Martin,

I could never understand the smear on the console. I just can't imagine how it got there by just being thrown into the Bronco--to me it look lie it was swiped. And then I started thinking, well where did he put the knife? Did he have a bag with him but he if had a bag with him for knife, what about the glove?

Also, you guys going back with Mr. August about who saw who first. IMO, if Simpson is the killer, he would have not have worried about the driver seeing him. He is black man, wearing dark clothes on his own property, what did he have to fear? IMO.

[GreenIce]

OJ Simpson did some bad acting to make the glove not fit. It was stupid for the prosecution to put a piece of evidence in a murder defendant's control and have him decide if it fit or not. You might has well let the fox loose in the hen house.

One thing that sticks in my mind. Simpson didn't have any problem picking up and handling the glove that the killer was wearing when he killed the mother of his children. Coldhearted.

TV,

The DA's could have taken control of that demonstration even before Simpson was getting ready to try on the gloves, in fact, it should have been done even before the trial started. They should have been prepared for Simpson to try on the gloves, they should have been prepared to tell the jury, before Simpson tried on the gloves that the latex gloves would make it more difficult to put on the gloves, but it would not affect the fit. Or while the latex are very thin, it may have a slight impact on the fit.

Simpson was order by the court to put the gloves, it is not like he had a choice in the matter. Any emotion of even appearing not to want to try on the gloves would have not been to his benefit, regardless of the reason. Simpson could not show any fear on trying them on and he did not. IMO.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, I disagree with Clarke not putting Jennifer Peace and Jill Shively on the stand. While selling their stories may be a little unsavory I don't think it affects the story itself.

As for AC being an accessory after the fact that's my own personal opinion. I have no evidence or proof to back it up -- it's just a strong feeling I have. Remember when martin completely dismissed the idea that AC would tell Jennifer Peace such a thing? It's because martin understands what I understand -- AC and OJ were so tight they would never betray one another under any circumstance.

TV,

Here is a thought on AC, lets say you are correct, AC was an accomplice. Do you think he would have gotten involved in the Bronco Chase?

[fgump2]

TV,

The problem is, you are focusing on one piece of evidence as well as only focusing what was found the glove. To view this piece of evidence and what was found on it, you have to look at all the facts surrounding it.

First off, you start off with on juror saying she didn't know Simpson's blood was on the glove and now it is all of them? Which is it, one or all of them?

If you can say that the jurors were unfair to the people of CA, then what do you day about the people who gather and collected the evidence? What do say about Mark Fuhrman? Surely Fuhrman is the perfect example of a person who was unfair to the people of CA?

I think it is very fair this jury not to show that much "respect" for the evidence in this case because the LAPD, the crime lab, the DA's did not demonstrate any type of respect for their jobs, they showed no respect for guildelines and rules that were enacted to take major league guessing out of what evidence can prove and what it can't prove.

You and I think fgump have often described the "mistakes" in this case as careless--what exactly does careless mean? They knew how to do it but took short cuts? And if they did just take short cuts, then that means they didn't understand that everything they did, to collecting it, processing it, putting initials on bindles, whatever, was going to matter?

If the state's witnesses didn't care how they performed their jobs, is a jury supposed to make this right? So we want our juries to convict even if they believed evidence was planted? Do we want our juries to have to determine what is a "serious" lie and what is an "okay" lie from our state, goverment witnesses?

I tried to find it, but I don't remember the state saying why Simpson's blood could not have gotten there because of Collin Y's mistake. However, IMO, I don't think Scheck would have brought this up if his conclusions would have been impossible to believe. IMO.
************************************************** *******
I don't think it is fair to say that because the LAPD made some mistakes that they didn't care about their work. Mistakes are more common than you seem to realize. Everyone makes them. For example, back in the days when people filled out tax forms with pencils, the IRS and most accountants would say that almost all income tax forms, including those filled out by accountants have some mistakes. This doesn't mean that the people don't care about their income tax forms; it just means that people are usually careless.
I once read a newspaper columnist who wrote that he has never written a column about the importance of good writing skills because it is just to easy to make a mistake and then get ridiculed for it. This is true even if the writer gets several other people to check it out.

Another example of this is that before the days of word processors (this dates me) I heard several teachers say the first edition of a text book always has quite a few errors, and the second and third are much better. But after about 3 or 4 (or some fairly small number) editions, they quit trying to correct errors. The reason is that they think that they will correct some mistakes, but insert new mistakes in the process. This isn't because the text book companies don't care about their books, it is just the people are careless animals. Word processing has improved this.

Writers will often get others to check their work out because they realize they make mistakes and that most people can spot other people’s mistakes better than they ca spot their mistakes.

In the field of both computer software and automobiles, it is generally recognized that no mater how much run testing they do, the initial product quite often will have serious errors. This is why people often say it isn't a good idea to buy a new product when it first comes out. Regardless of how many problems a new product has, it is not fair to conclude that the designers and builders didn't care.

Initialing an envelope is usually an error check. If people could be counted on to never make mistakes, it wouldn't be necessary. I can understand the person's supervisor criticizing Mazzola for this, but not introducing this to the jury.

Also Scheck misquoted Henry Lee to the advantage of the defense at least twice. I think this was deliberate.

To get back to Henry Lee's bs in the civil trial disposition, he again mentioned the 'something wrong ' problem, but as in the criminal trial he made no attempt to say that this reduces the credibility of the work.

I don't understand how you can rip Mazzola for forgetting to initialing an envelope, and the ignore Henry Lee's more serious mistakes, not being able to remember what he wrote in a book about processing hairs, and not being able to tell foot prints in blood from footprints in the cement.

[tv]

Screw the pictures.
Regardless of what Rubin said Aris was not the only glove that used a whipstitch and i don't now how that could be seen if oj was standing on a football machine.

You do know that a graphic artist could put you head on williams body and i would say it was you.

I choose not to screw the pictures. All the pictures presented in the civil trial were authenticated by an expert. That's called evidence which proves that OJ Simpson had the same style of gloves in his possession before the murders.

[tv]

TV,

Here is a thought on AC, lets say you are correct, AC was an accomplice. Do you think he would have gotten involved in the Bronco Chase?He did so I must.