Random Discussions On The Case

[tv]

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.
I've already said the demonstration was a stupid idea on the part of the prosecution. He manipulated the evidence to benefit him and I would expect nothing less from someone trial for murder.

[tv]

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'm focusing on this one piece of evidence because I think it's among the most damning of all the evidence and I was shocked to find out that some of the jurors didn't seem to be aware of it. As far as how many jurors signed off on the book -- right now I don't recall but since you have the book you can check that. I believe it was at least five. There's a difference is not respecting the evidence and completely enying it exists.

I don't understand why just because you believe the LAPD and Mark Fuhrman did something wrong in this case it excuses the jury of being cognizant of the most important facts of the case.

[tv]

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:
Welcome to the board, ChunkyRed. :)

[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.

You may have been the first person to post Park’s testimony that after Park saw Simpson enter his house Park said from what he remembered Kaelin was “still standing on the sidewalk,” but what you still can’t seem to admit William, is were the sidewalk is.

It’s very obvious that you do understand that Park first saw Kaelin when Kaelin came from the back of the house with a flashlight two to three minutes after he heard the noises on his back wall on his way to make his first investigation of the south path. And when Park said that after first seeing Kaelin that almost simultaneously he saw Simpson for the first time that night walk up from the driveway to the front entrance and enter his house, it’s very obvious that you understand the implication of what that meant. Park’s testimony is completely consistent with Simpson coming from the south path.

But that implication is something it seems you are just not capable of admitting to, so you created your own imaginary scenario claiming Park must have been mistaken; an imaginary scenario that doesn’t make any sense and is contradicted by both Park and Kaelin’s testimony.

Park was not mistaken, you are William. Your additional claim that what you imagined somehow raises “reasonable doubt” to you even though what you imagined could not have happened clearly shows how far you will go to maintain your denial of what both Park and Kaelin said happened that night.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Let us take the spirit of this special day and let it reflect in our posts by forgiving all those we feel that have transgressed against us.

[William Anthony]

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.

I understand. I have something else to speak to you about but want to do it in a pm, if agreeabel. It is about another of your posts.

[William Anthony]

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

"...they would be biased in his favor is skin color."

[William Anthony]

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.

I have always questioned that smear.

Bobaugust realizes the import of what I am saying and therefore he continues even though I have posted Park's exact words and he admits that Kato did not let the limo in until after Kato finished his first search at which time Park first saw who the prosecution alleges is Simpson. Park's, Kato's testimonies and the phone records prove that Park couldn't have seen Kato come from behind the house as Park testified, because Park testified Kato was still standing and then let the limo in. The figure Park saw, if it was Simpson, means that Simpson could only have come from inside the house and was retuning after dropping off some bags when Park saw Simpson. Let me correct those statements and say those are inferences that can be drawn from the evidence.

[martin II]

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.

Did you happen to save the pictures?

[William Anthony]

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:

Welcome aboard,

May you find your stay long and rewarding.

[William Anthony]

There's a difference is not respecting the evidence and completely enying it exists.

True dat.

[martin II]

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.


The defence did their homework the night before the demo as it was Shaperio or Bailey that tried on a pair or compared Shaperio's hands to oj. This told them that the glove would not fit in advance.

Ito ordered oj to use latex gloves as he said it was regular procedure to do so. it was not the defence that caused the use of the latex. i don't think that latex against cashmere lining would make that much differance but the prosecution needed some excuse and they tried to use this.

[William Anthony]

It’s very obvious that you do understand that Park first saw Kaelin when Kaelin came from the back of the house with a flashlight two to three minutes after he heard the noises on his back wall on his way to make his first investigation of the south path. And when Park said that after first seeing Kaelin that almost simultaneously he saw Simpson for the first time that night walk up from the driveway to the front entrance and enter his house, it’s very obvious that you understand the implication of what that meant. Park’s testimony is completely consistent with Simpson coming from the south path.

You see that is not the testimony but you can draw that inference from that testimony and I can draw an inference from what the testimony was and both of us could be right. I had previously asked you to show me the testimony where Park said he saw Simpson come down the driveway but you did not. So allow me to post this.

Park-March 28th

"A: YES.

Q: AND AFTER YOU SAW THAT THERE WERE NO LIGHTS, WAS IT AFTER THAT POINT THAT YOU SAW THIS WHITE MALE?

A: YES, IT WAS.

Q: AND THAT PERSON THAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING, HAVE YOU SINCE LEARNED WHAT HIS NAME IS?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT IS HIS NAME?

A: KATO.

Q: CAN YOU SHOW US ON THE DIAGRAM, DIRECT THE POINTER TO WHERE YOU SAW HIM ON THE SIDE YARD?

A: RIGHT THERE WHERE THE ARROW WAS WHERE THE PATH -- WHERE THE PATH COMES OUT FROM BEHIND THE HOUSE. HE CAME OUT TO JUST ABOUT THE DRIVEWAY, RIGHT THERE, (INDICATING).

Q: WAS HE ON THE DRIVEWAY OR WAS HE ON THE GRASS?

A: NO, HE WAS OFF A COUPLE FEET.

Q: OKAY. TELL THE POINTER WHERE TO GO.

A: JUST RIGHT -- RIGHT THERE, (INDICATING).

Q: OKAY. WAS HE ON THE GRASS OR ON THE PATH?

A: I COULDN'T SEE.

Q: YOU COULDN'T TELL?

A: NO.

Q: SO IS THAT THE GENERAL LOCATION WHERE HE WAS?

A: YES.

Q: COULD YOU TELL WHAT KIND OF FLASHLIGHT HE HAD?

A: AT THAT TIME, NO.

Q: WHAT WAS HE DOING WHEN YOU SAW HIM?

A: HE WAS JUST STANDING THERE, FROM WHAT I OBSERVED.

Q: OKAY. COULD YOU TELL WHERE HE WAS LOOKING OR WHAT HE WAS DOING?

A: HE LOOKED AT ME AND THEN HE JUST -- HE STARTED TO LOOK, YOU KNOW, IN THE AREA OF THE ROCKINGHAM DRIVEWAY.

Q: NOW, WHEN HE WAS LOOKING AT YOU, WHERE WERE YOU?

A: I WAS INSIDE THE CAR ON THE PHONE.

Q: TALKING TO YOUR BOSS?

A: YES.

Q: HOW LONG -- NOW, AT THE SAME TIME THAT YOU SAW KATO KAELIN IN THE SIDE YARD, DID YOU SEE ANYTHING ELSE?

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

Q: CAN YOU SHOW US ON THIS DIAGRAM WHERE YOU FIRST SAW THAT PERSON?

A: UMM, JUST IF YOU GO WHERE THE CIRCLE IS, GO STRAIGHT BACK -- NO, THE OTHER WAY, A LITTLE BIT FARTHER. IT WAS ABOUT THERE, (INDICATING), AROUND THAT AREA.

Q: OKAY. ROUGHLY THAT AREA?

A: YEAH. "

[martin II]

I'm focusing on this one piece of evidence because I think it's among the most damning of all the evidence and I was shocked to find out that some of the jurors didn't seem to be aware of it. As far as how many jurors signed off on the book -- right now I don't recall but since you have the book you can check that. I believe it was at least five. There's a difference is not respecting the evidence and completely enying it exists.

I don't understand why just because you believe the LAPD and Mark Fuhrman did something wrong in this case it excuses the jury of being cognizant of the most important facts of the case.

You think C Bess did fact checking on what the ghost writer wrote.You think any of the signers did fact checking.The fact that she missed one piece of information had nothing to do with their review of the whole case and giving the verdict.
Faye complained many times in her deposition that the publisher made errors of fact in her book yet you say this does not happen.
Was it C Bess that missed that issue or some of the jurors.

[William Anthony]

But that implication is something it seems you are just not capable of admitting to, so you created your own imaginary scenario claiming Park must have been mistaken; an imaginary scenario that doesn’t make any sense and is contradicted by both Park and Kaelin’s testimony.

The only thing that is contradicted by the evidence is that Park could have seen Kato come from behind the north pathway. The evidence is in his testimony and Kato's because Park said Kato was standing. However, Kato testified when he left his quarters to go do his first cursory search he did not stop (I don't know if it was in deposition or the civil trial testimony). The testimonies indicates that Kato saw the limo, Park did not see Kato then, Kato did his first cursory search and returned, which is when Park saw kato, which suggests that Park had a failed memory or a suggested one. Of course, these are inferences I draw from the testimonies/evidence.

[William Anthony]

Park was not mistaken, you are William. Your additional claim that what you imagined somehow raises “reasonable doubt” to you even though what you imagined could not have happened clearly shows how far you will go to maintain your denial of what both Park and Kaelin said happened that night.

See all of the previous posts.

[martin II]

He did so I must.

We know Darden went after AC trying to nail him but AC accountred for all of his time and Darden dropped the issue. So why do you still believe ac was involved?

[William Anthony]

You may have been the first person to post Park’s testimony that after Park saw Simpson enter his house Park said from what he remembered Kaelin was “still standing on the sidewalk,” but what you still can’t seem to admit William, is were the sidewalk is.

What you feign not to understand is that it is when Park saw Kato standing and still standing in the area near the north parkway that is important, because it allows an inference that Park was mistaken as to where he saw Kato come from and that suggests that his memory was either the result of a suggestion or a mistake.

[martin II]

************************************************** *******
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.What does computers have to do with Fung doing his job correctly.Fung was educated in his work and was the supervisor. All he had to do was properly collect samples mark them for id package them properly and deliver them to the lab.There were procedures to do this .All he had to do was follow the procedures he was trained in.

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. [B]Initializing the envelopes was done to identify who collected the sample. remember Fung said he collected all the samples but had to back off when asked what did Mazzola collect. She initialed the envelopes as a regular procedure on her part it was not her fault that the samples presented in court did not have them.She was left out to dry on that issue./B]

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.

One has nothing to do with the other.

[tv]

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

Thank you, martin. :)

[tv]

"...they would be biased in his favor is skin color."That doesn't even make any sense and that's a far cry from using the word racist. You can PM me but if I've made a mistake in a post I'll gladly take my reprimand openly.

[tv]

Did you happen to save the pictures?I'm sure they're available on the internet somewhere.

[tv]

You think C Bess did fact checking on what the ghost writer wrote.You think any of the signers did fact checking.The fact that she missed one piece of information had nothing to do with their review of the whole case and giving the verdict.
Faye complained many times in her deposition that the publisher made errors of fact in her book yet you say this does not happen.
Was it C Bess that missed that issue or some of the jurors.Okay, if you want to believe that it wasn't a mistake on the part of Ms. Bess. Maybe we should do this with all the books we quote. If we don't like what they say we'll just assume the ghostwriter or publisher got it wrong.

[tv]

We know Darden went after AC trying to nail him but AC accountred for all of his time and Darden dropped the issue. So why do you still believe ac was involved?It's just a feeling I have. I think if OJ Simpson would turn to anyone for help it would be AC, someone he could trust without question.

[William Anthony]

That doesn't even make any sense and that's a far cry from using the word racist. You can PM me but if I've made a mistake in a post I'll gladly take my reprimand openly.

I do this in a spirit of not trying to destroy the civility and cordiality we are trying to establish and I honestly admit that your post was not as insulting or offensive as some made about the jury.

Originally Posted by Redmama View Post
So if all blacks and all whites think the above are guilty, including OJ - and the difference is how blacks feel about OJ - shouldn't that be looked at?

I think so. The only reason I can think of that they would be biased in his favor is skin color.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/racist

The other thing involves a comment you made regarding trust and pms, which I do believe you can find easily as I did and it does not concern everyone on this board. It is of a personal nature and the only way I can say this tactfully is to say to remember the recent posts about people who live in glass houses.

[tv]

I do this in a spirit of not trying to destroy the civility and cordiality we are trying to establish and I honestly admit that your post was not as insulting or offensive as some made about the jury.





http://www.thefreedictionary.com/racist

The other thing involves a comment you made regarding trust and pms, which I do believe you can find easily as I did and it does not concern everyone on this board. It is of a personal nature and the only way I can say this tactfully is to say to remember the recent posts about people who live in glass houses.

William, if you have something to say just PM me. I can see this might get lengthy and tedious for those not involved. The comment I made about blacks and whites and the difference in opinion as to OJ Simpson's guilt was not a racist remark and not intended to offend anyone. My point has always been that it's not surprising to me that whites think he's guilty -- it's surprising to me that blacks think he's not. If that offends anyone I certainly don't know why.

[martin II]

TV

I didn't find and pictures but i did find this.
We don;t know what size or color gloves Nicole baught
----------------------

The state contends that Nicole Brown Simpson bought her husband two pairs of Aris gloves -- color and size unspecified by the sales slip -- in December 1990.

Some of the pictures showed Simpson wearing brown gloves, similar to those that are critical to the case. Other pictures showed him wearing black gloves. Clark said the black gloves showed "a very short and tight fit," which was important in judging how Simpson wore his gloves.

But on cross-examination, Rubin conceded that he could not say the gloves from the videotapes were the same as those retrieved from South Bundy Drive and North Rockingham Avenue. Defense attorney Robert Blasier also suggested that Rubin was prejudiced against Simpson. He produced a letter from the witness to prosecutors saying, "Maybe I can make it to the victory party."Rubin the Aris glove expert said he cannot say the gloves in the video are the same as the ones collected at Bundy and Rockingham.

This does not look like confirmation to me.Rubin was suppose to know the glove better than anyone.

PS

Scully was only a photographer NOT A GLOVE EXPERT and was not in a position to confirm nothing about the make of glove.

[martin II]

It's just a feeling I have. I think if OJ Simpson would turn to anyone for help it would be AC, someone he could trust without question.

AC is ojs friend but he would never have to risk jail to remain his friend and i don't think it is fair to just accuse him of something the prosecution tried to prove and couldn't

[William Anthony]

William, if you have something to say just PM me. I can see this might get lengthy and tedious for those not involved. The comment I made about blacks and whites and the difference in opinion as to OJ Simpson's guilt was not a racist remark and not intended to offend anyone. My point has always been that it's not surprising to me that whites think he's guilty -- it's surprising to me that blacks think he's not. If that offends anyone I certainly don't know why.

I think the comments proceeding that were in regard to the jury, although I am not sure. I can understand what you intended and thanks for clarifying. I have said that I did not find your post as offensive as some others. I think that it is somewhat offensive to a race, be it Black or White, although there may be some truth in it, to say that skin color is the determinative factor of a jury verdict. In the Simpson criminal case, although race may have and probably did play a part in the trial and ultimate decision, there was reasonable doubt, imho.

[William Anthony]

Bobaugust,

Kato deposition testimony-February 14th,

"Q: Okay. Now go back to the point in time when you came out initially, and you were coming around the pathway to go investigate, and you saw the limousine for the first time. Okay?

A: Okay.

Q: Did you see who was in the limousine?

A: I didn't see.

Q: Did you see that it was a limousine as opposed to a different kind of car?

A: No. I knew it was a limousine.

Q: You could tell?

A: Yes.

Q: Could you tell what color it was?

A: Yes. White.

Q: White.

A: White limousine.

Q: And was the limousine facing--Which direction was the limousine facing?

A: The headlights were facing south, and it was right up against the gate,

Q: Do you know if the parking lights were on or the headlights were on or neither?

A: I think it was dark. It didn't have lights on.

Q: But you saw it was facing in the direction of the house. Right?

A: Yes, it was facing in the direction of the house.

Q: Now, when you saw that car there, having just heard the sounds, were you concerned about what that car was doing there?

A: No. I figured the car was for the airport, and I figured--kind of in my head thought it was kinda late, car's still there, that O.J. must be there. So I thought-that everything was under control, because I never--my phone doesn't let people in and doesn't ring to my room, so I thought everything was kind of under control. And then when I came back from the garage, I went, huh, why is the car still out there, so I went out and I opened the thing.

Q: Now, when you saw that limousine, did you stop and pause for a minute?

A: I don't think so. I think I continued --I think I might have looked at it and just continued on my walk. ""

You see the only time he was standing or still standing was after he finished his first cursory search, which was when Park first saw him, as evidence by the testimonies, allowing for such an inference. Given this testimony and Park's that he almost simultaneously saw Simpson going back into his property, the inference can be drawn that Simpson and Kato would have bumped into each other, if Simpson was returning from Bundy as you want to make the sound of the thumps at 10:54. However, the testimonies allow the inference that Simpson came from inside his home, placed the bags near the entrance, Kato was blocking Park's view as Kato was still standing and that Park did see the figure, who some claim was Simpson, as he was going back into the house after placing the bags outside.

[William Anthony]

Bobaugust,

What else allows an inference that Kato stopped, stood and was still standing and that was after Kato had completed his first cursory search when park first saw Kato.

Kato's deposition-February 14th,

"Q: Now, when you came back from your aborted attempt to investigate a second time and returned to the limousine, is that when you first saw Mr. Simpson?

A: Say it again.

Q: When you came back from investigating the second time and returned directly--

A: Yes.

Q: --to the limousine, is that when you first saw Mr. Simpson?

A: Best of my recollection, it is."

[tv]

TV

I didn't find and pictures but i did find this.
We don;t know what size or color gloves Nicole baught
----------------------

The state contends that Nicole Brown Simpson bought her husband two pairs of Aris gloves -- color and size unspecified by the sales slip -- in December 1990.

Some of the pictures showed Simpson wearing brown gloves, similar to those that are critical to the case. Other pictures showed him wearing black gloves. Clark said the black gloves showed "a very short and tight fit," which was important in judging how Simpson wore his gloves.

But on cross-examination, Rubin conceded that he could not say the gloves from the videotapes were the same as those retrieved from South Bundy Drive and North Rockingham Avenue. Defense attorney Robert Blasier also suggested that Rubin was prejudiced against Simpson. He produced a letter from the witness to prosecutors saying, "Maybe I can make it to the victory party."Rubin the Aris glove expert said he cannot say the gloves in the video are the same as the ones collected at Bundy and Rockingham.

This does not look like confirmation to me.Rubin was suppose to know the glove better than anyone.

At the civil trial OJ Simpson was not going to be premitted to use latex gloves when trying on the murder gloves. Not surprisingly the defense never asked to have him try them on.

This is part of Richard Rubin's testimony at the civil trial after a long list of photographers had testified about the photos they took that were presented in court:

"Q. Looking at that photo, are you able to observe any of the specific
characteristics we're speaking of?

A. Just the Brossar stitching at the top of the gloves, where it goes
around -- around the top.

Q. Okay.

And based on those, I believe you referred to them as "unique
details;" is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you able to reach a conclusion as to the manufacture, make, and
model and style of that glove?

A. Both -- that is the most unique detail to style 70263, so I would
say this is a style 70263.

Q. I'm sorry. What is the most unique?

A. The Brossar stitching.

Q. Okay.

And excluding color, can you tell me how that glove compares to the
two gloves there in front of you, the 129 and 204, the right-hand and
left-hand gloves?

A. They're the same.

[William Anthony]

And excluding color, can you tell me how that glove compares to the
two gloves there in front of you, the 129 and 204, the right-hand and
left-hand gloves?

A. [B]They're the same

:shrug: Translation-they are not the same but we can make them the same if we exclude their color.

[martin II]

At the civil trial OJ Simpson was not going to be premitted to use latex gloves when trying on the murder gloves. Not surprisingly the defense never asked to have him try them on.

This is part of Richard Rubin's testimony at the civil trial after a long list of photographers had testified about the photos they took that were presented in court:

"Q. Looking at that photo, are you able to observe any of the specific
characteristics we're speaking of?

A. Just the Brossar stitching at the top of the gloves, where it goes
around -- around the top.

Q. Okay.

And based on those, I believe you referred to them as "unique
details;" is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you able to reach a conclusion as to the manufacture, make, and
model and style of that glove?

A. Both -- that is the most unique detail to style 70263, so I would
say this is a style 70263.

Q. I'm sorry. What is the most unique?

A. The Brossar stitching.

Q. Okay.

And excluding color, can you tell me how that glove compares to the
two gloves there in front of you, the 129 and 204, the right-hand and
left-hand gloves?

A. They're the same.

Singer sewing machine company made and sold that Brossar , whip stitch machine long before Aris decided to use it.So Aris was not the only company that made gloves with it.

[martin II]

At the civil trial OJ Simpson was not going to be premitted to use latex gloves when trying on the murder gloves. Not surprisingly the defense never asked to have him try them on.

This is part of Richard Rubin's testimony at the civil trial after a long list of photographers had testified about the photos they took that were presented in court:

"Q. Looking at that photo, are you able to observe any of the specific
characteristics we're speaking of?

A. Just the Brossar stitching at the top of the gloves, where it goes
around -- around the top.

Q. Okay.

And based on those, I believe you referred to them as "unique
details;" is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you able to reach a conclusion as to the manufacture, make, and
model and style of that glove?

A. Both -- that is the most unique detail to style 70263, so I would
say this is a style 70263.

Q. I'm sorry. What is the most unique?

A. The Brossar stitching.

Q. Okay.

And excluding color, can you tell me how that glove compares to the
two gloves there in front of you, the 129 and 204, the right-hand and
left-hand gloves?

A. They're the same.

Well Rubin testified again and said he could not say they were the same and that he could not tell the color from looking at the pictures.

How can he say they are the same if he cannot say they are the same color.

[martin II]

Cochran comments


When asked later why the gloves failed to fit his client, Johnnie Cochran said, " I don't think he could "act" the size of his hands. He would be a great actor if he could "act" his hands larger."



"You will always remember those gloves," he said "when Darden asked him to try them on and they didn't fitNo matter what they do, they can't make them fit. The prosecution would do anything to contort and distort the fact, he reminded the jury as he repeated his theme, " If it doesn't fit, you must acquit."

[GreenIce]

************************************************** *******
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.

fgump2,

It is very interesting your argument about mistakes. Didn't Cochran and Scheck use your example to question the evidence? Didn't they basically say that the LAPD used a "covered wagon" approach to the science in this case? There is no excuse for the LAPD not to use modern day equipment when they had it during this trial. There is just none.

I don't understand your constant compairson between Dr. Lee and the CSI team. Did Dr. Lee's comments about how many hairs that can be taken, in any, shape for form change or alter the evidence in this case? Did Dr. Lee ever say that it was positive about that one shoe print? There were other patterns he mentioned and in fact, Hank Goldberg try to get him to say that a couple of the prints could have come from the cops walking in blood. And the footprints--he have his opinon.

Dr. Lee only used the photographs that he was sent--they came from the LAPD and they weren't first generation. If the DA's lost the socks when he wanted to see them in person, do you really think they are going to send him anything useful?

Now, getting back to "harmless" mistakes. The careless you mistakes you talk about aren't careless or meaningless because they did alter the results of the testing. Perfect example, the defense arguments that some of the blood drops at Bundy were old, how were they able to make that argument in front of a jury? It was the low DNA count and the low DNA count was not "uniformed". The DA's countered said that because the AC unit was broken in the truck, this accounted for the "mistake". Well, no it doesn't because it opens the door to why would any moron going to a blood crime scene, knowing what their job entailed would take a truck that had a broken AC unit or fridge? If you were collecting the evidence, wouldn't you have realized fairly early on that you had a major problem--that all the evidence you were collecting was being cooked, destroying valuable evidence?

MF, knew that his racism was coming into the trial, he knew about those tapes he made with LHM. He lied about it and to be honest, so did Ron Philips and/or a few other cops. He was forbidden not to talk to the author, did he listen? Did he follow this direct order? Nope!!!!! See MF follows only the rules he makes up, IMO. And lets be honest, how other cops, family and friends knew about LHM? Don't you think he would be flattered that she asked him to work with her? Don't you think that he would have mentioned it?

What about MF's grudge against Chris Darden that had nothing to do with the Simpson case? What about MF having a grudge against Darden period? He should not have based his cooperation on his like or dislike of Darden. Both were acting like little boys who were playing a ball game and one of them got pissed and took their ball home. Is that professionalism to you?

If you are fair, which I do believe it is your intent, look at each piece of evidence and look at the "mistakes" made with it, then add up the impact those "mistakes" had on the evidence--mainly, did they alter results? Did this mistake open up a door to more questions and how did the DA's counter this? You have to look at all of it, not just some of it.

[martin II]

At the civil trial OJ Simpson was not going to be premitted to use latex gloves when trying on the murder gloves. Not surprisingly the defense never asked to have him try them on.

This is part of Richard Rubin's testimony at the civil trial after a long list of photographers had testified about the photos they took that were presented in court:

"Q. Looking at that photo, are you able to observe any of the specific
characteristics we're speaking of?

A. Just the Brossar stitching at the top of the gloves, where it goes
around -- around the top.

Q. Okay.

And based on those, I believe you referred to them as "unique
details;" is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you able to reach a conclusion as to the manufacture, make, and
model and style of that glove?

A. Both -- that is the most unique detail to style 70263, so I would
say this is a style 70263.

Q. I'm sorry. What is the most unique?

A. The Brossar stitching.

Q. Okay.

And excluding color, can you tell me how that glove compares to the
two gloves there in front of you, the 129 and 204, the right-hand and
left-hand gloves?

A. They're the same.

TV
Can Rubin say they are the same if he also says i cannot say they are the same color.Can he say they are the same but i cannot say they are the same size.Can he say they are the same but one has a slit and one does not have a slit.

William posted the continuation of the post you posted so it is clear that he could not say they are the same.

[GreenIce]

fgump2,

I don't believe AM forgot to put her initials on the bindles and I don't think any NG believes she did.

What else did Dr. Lee say about "something wrong" and which piece of evidence was it? Wasn't it that Dr. Lee said that the wet transfers indicated something was wrong but he could not nor would not say how this happened? Only that swatches were supposed to be dried when put into the bindles and the wet transfers prove the swatches were wet when they were put into the bindles.

Also, don't you think Mozzoloa, initial fiend that she is, would have noticed that the swatches were still wet when she put them in there? While I highly doubt that she forgot to do this, I do have consider this, however, how could she not know the swatches were still wet?

[martin II]

If nicole actually purchased black gloves and oj had on brown gloves, what does that tell us?

[GreenIce]

I've already said the demonstration was a stupid idea on the part of the prosecution. He manipulated the evidence to benefit him and I would expect nothing less from someone trial for murder.

TV,

You don't understand it do you? The fact the insides of the glove were ripped apart, the fact that latex gloves had to be worn, the fact that there could have been slight shrinkage played out perfectly for the DA's. The only person who was surprised that the gloves did not fit was Chris Darden.

While I believe Darden pouted better then a two year old, he had every right to ask Simpson to try them on. However, would he have done it if he knew the insides of the gloves was ripped apart? That the latex glove would alter the fit of the gloves so much that it would make them appear to be to small?

I have often wonder why Clark didn't forbid Darden to do the demo. She could have stopped him and she didn't. Perhaps she knew or was hoping that some of the jurors would feel that he was acting---she was right, however, there were other jurors who were convinced they did not fit.

Another brilliant move by Clark, IMO. And I mean it was shrewd and it worked, IMO.

[martin II]

************************************************** *******
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.

You seem to have great problems with what Dr Lee did and did not do based on what you think he should have done.

It was not Dr Lees job to testify to help the defence prove their case.
"Something wrong" was him identifying a problem with the wet transfers.Once he identified the problem it was up to others to explain how this problem impacted the evidence.

Mazzola did not forget to Initial the envelopes. When she could not see her initials on the envelopes in court, she was asked why they were not there and she responded 'I DON'T KNOW"

Computer user manuals has very little to do with collecting crime scene evidence.imo

[martin II]

TV,

You don't understand it do you? The fact the insides of the glove were ripped apart, the fact that latex gloves had to be worn, the fact that there could have been slight shrinkage played out perfectly for the DA's. The only person who was surprised that the gloves did not fit was Chris Darden.

While I believe Darden pouted better then a two year old, he had every right to ask Simpson to try them on. However, would he have done it if he knew the insides of the gloves was ripped apart? That the latex glove would alter the fit of the gloves so much that it would make them appear to be to small?

I have often wonder why Clark didn't forbid Darden to do the demo. She could have stopped him and she didn't. Perhaps she knew or was hoping that some of the jurors would feel that he was acting---she was right, however, there were other jurors who were convinced they did not fit.

Another brilliant move by Clark, IMO. And I mean it was shrewd and it worked, IMO.

I think finding the sock long after the trial had started was a emergency act to hold togeather a case that Clarke knew was falling apart under a relentless assualt by the dream team.

I think the glove demo was done for the same reason. On big issues Clarke usually took the lead. but on this BIG ISSUE she allowed Darden to step out front.Well when the glove demo failed it was Darden that was blamed for the demo and some clained he lost the case as a result.

Clarke seemed not to be willing to take the chance on the glove demo and attatch her name to it. She allowed Darden to take the hit.
imo

[GreenIce]

TV,

You are correct. Miss Bess does say that Simpson's blood was not on either glove. However, she also feels that if the cut was as big as the DA's said it was and was bleeding as much as they said it was, then how can it be that his blood was not found on either glove? How is it he would only manage to bleed on one glove but not the other?

Another point you fail to mention, something that I never knew about the glove. Vanatter said that Fuhrman told him about the noise that Kato heard and was going to check it out.

Fuhrman insisted that he did not tell VA about what Kato said to him. So who is lying? And what does it mean if VA is lying and what does it mean if MF is lying?

In their book they are clearly angry at the "mistakes" that were made in the case. In fact, they question how many times did these mistakes happen when the defendant did not have the money to question them.

I also stand by previous post, if any juror did not know that Simpson's blood was found on it, then that is the mistake of the DA's. They should have pounded this home some many times they should have been able to hear it in their sleep, just like Judge Ito's instructions.

One of the jurors, would mouth the words of Judge Ito every time he gave these instructions, apparently Judge Ito noticed this and glared at the juror and the juror interpeted the look as "stop it!"

The problems with DA's had with the gloves far outweighed what was found on the glove. As soon as Collin Y testified, this was another nail in the glove's coffin, IMO. Clark had to walk a fine line when talking about that glove, she had no proof how it got back and she was basing her theory on a witness she clearly hated and on a noise he said he heard. Making him a hostile witness was her worst mistake. If he was covering for Simpson, then he would never have given her a time that she could "use". He would have said that he explore the source and noise and realized it was nothing, etc. She tried to have it both ways with him and it back fired. She even asked if he was Simpson's friend and he said he was but that he was here to tell the truth and that was what he was going to do. According to most G's, his truth if the "proof" of the glove. IMO.

[weezer]

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.

I think that what the NG's don't comprehend is that there is grave concern the jury got deliberated for four hours yet came away from the trial saying things like were said in the interviews and books about their understanding of the evidence. I can't imagine what they got deliberated about -- because it certainly couldn't have been clearing up issues with the evidence. :shrug:

[weezer]

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.

hmmm -- looks like they had the same problem orenthal did doesn't it. :rolleyes:

[GreenIce]

I think finding the sock long after the trial had started was a emergency act to hold togeather a case that Clarke knew was falling apart under a relentless assualt by the dream team.

I think the glove demo was done for the same reason. On big issues Clarke usually took the lead. but on this BIG ISSUE she allowed Darden to step out front.Well when the glove demo failed it was Darden that was blamed for the demo and some clained he lost the case as a result.

Clarke seemed not to be willing to take the chance on the glove demo and attatch her name to it. She allowed Darden to take the hit.
imo

Martin,

I could not agree with you more. Clark was brilliant in this area. I remember one lawyer, Larry Posner, I think his name was. He said that Clark should have titled her book, ABC---Anybody But Clark.

As you know, I feel MF was the number 1 scape goat, Fung was number 2, Dumb and Dumber were #3 and Darden was number 4.

She knows she should have forbidden Darden to do this and she could have. She allowed this and she knew what she was doing--you got to give it to her, IMO.

[tv]

AC is ojs friend but he would never have to risk jail to remain his friend and i don't think it is fair to just accuse him of something the prosecution tried to prove and couldn't

You're in no position to chastise anyone for accusing with no proof to back it up.

[tv]

hmmm -- looks like they had the same problem orenthal did doesn't it. :rolleyes:

Hey, maybe the ghostwriters and publishers of NG books are in on the vast conspiracy!

[weezer]

You're in no position to chastise anyone for accusing with no proof to back it up.

ac spent a lot of time after the murders going around 'meeting' with Nicole's friends and asking a bunch of questions. ever wonder why ac wouldn't testify as to what was said during the bronco ride? you don't suppose it was because he was willing to help orenthal run do you?

[martin II]

You're in no position to chastise anyone for accusing with no proof to back it up.

Did you say ac assisted oj in some way in the cover up?

[weezer]

or maybe ac wasn't willing to 'rat out' his buddy and say that orenthal confessed. :eek:

[weezer]

Hey, maybe the ghostwriters and publishers of NG books are in on the vast conspiracy!

looks like it. heck even the ghostwriter from his rookie book would have been in on it according to orenthal's civil trial testimony that stuff written in that book wasn't what he said.

[tv]

looks like it. heck even the ghostwriter from his rookie book would have been in on it according to orenthal's civil trial testimony that stuff written in that book wasn't what he said.

I forgot about that -- those pesky ghostwriters!

[tv]

Did you say ac assisted oj in some way in the cover up?
No, I said it's my personal opinion that he assisted him after the murders and that I don't have any proof to back it up. Since this is the third or fourth time I've repeated this why are you asking?

[tv]

I think that what the NG's don't comprehend is that there is grave concern the jury got deliberated for four hours yet came away from the trial saying things like were said in the interviews and books about their understanding of the evidence. I can't imagine what they got deliberated about -- because it certainly couldn't have been clearing up issues with the evidence. :shrug:
They said Mark Fuhrman didn't come into their decision and neither did the DNA. We know they wrongly thought Mazzola and Simpson had the same alleles and that there was none of OJ Simpson's blood on the Rockingham glove. The only thing we know for sure that got deliberated was lunch!

[weezer]

They said Mark Fuhrman didn't come into their decision and neither did the DNA. We know they wrongly thought Mazzola and Simpson had the same alleles and that there was none of OJ Simpson's blood on the Rockingham glove. The only thing I know for sure that got deliberated was lunch!

don't forget at least three thought the gloves fit. I think you're right about the lunch -- :eek:

[tv]

ac spent a lot of time after the murders going around 'meeting' with Nicole's friends and asking a bunch of questions. ever wonder why ac wouldn't testify as to what was said during the bronco ride? you don't suppose it was because he was willing to help orenthal run do you?
oh, that's right -- he took the fifth. According to the standards that the NGs apply to Det. Fuhrman it means he had something to hide. :eek:

[tv]

And excluding color, can you tell me how that glove compares to the
two gloves there in front of you, the 129 and 204, the right-hand and
left-hand gloves?

A. [B]They're the same

:shrug: Translation-they are not the same but we can make them the same if we exclude their color.There were numerous photos and photographers that testified. I only posted an excerpt of Richard Rubin's testimony. There is more but I'm sure you're not interested in doing some independent research because it might not support your position. So be it.

[tv]

Cochran comments


When asked later why the gloves failed to fit his client, Johnnie Cochran said, " I don't think he could "act" the size of his hands. He would be a great actor if he could "act" his hands larger."



"You will always remember those gloves," he said "when Darden asked him to try them on and they didn't fitNo matter what they do, they can't make them fit. The prosecution would do anything to contort and distort the fact, he reminded the jury as he repeated his theme, " If it doesn't fit, you must acquit."He could have put on the gloves at the civil trial without the latex gloves and he chose not to. He knew they would fit without the latex gloves under them.

[tv]

TV,

You don't understand it do you? The fact the insides of the glove were ripped apart, the fact that latex gloves had to be worn, the fact that there could have been slight shrinkage played out perfectly for the DA's. The only person who was surprised that the gloves did not fit was Chris Darden.

While I believe Darden pouted better then a two year old, he had every right to ask Simpson to try them on. However, would he have done it if he knew the insides of the gloves was ripped apart? That the latex glove would alter the fit of the gloves so much that it would make them appear to be to small?

I have often wonder why Clark didn't forbid Darden to do the demo. She could have stopped him and she didn't. Perhaps she knew or was hoping that some of the jurors would feel that he was acting---she was right, however, there were other jurors who were convinced they did not fit.

Another brilliant move by Clark, IMO. And I mean it was shrewd and it worked, IMO.

I understand your condescending tone perfectly. What I don't understand is why you take every piece of evidence and testimony in this trial and warp it into something unrecognizable and then say I don't understand it. The gloves would have fit him without the latex gloves. He mugged and grimaced his way through putting them on. The prosecution was wrong to ask for the demonstration without setting conditions for how the gloves would be tried on. It was beyond stupid.

[tv]

If nicole actually purchased black gloves and oj had on brown gloves, what does that tell us?I'm not going to discuss this until you read the testimony. So, let me know when you've read the testimony of the other Bloomingdale's employee.

[William Anthony]

There were numerous photos and photographers that testified. I only posted an excerpt of Richard Rubin's testimony. There is more but I'm sure you're not interested in doing some independent research because it might not support your position. So be it.

I thought I had proven that I had no aversion to research but in case I haven't this is from Brenda Vermich on June 15th.

"MR. DARDEN: Now, does the sales receipt indicate the size of the glove?

MS. VEMICH: No, it does not.

MR. DARDEN: Does it indicate the color of the glove?

MS. VEMICH: No, it does not.

MR. DARDEN: Is there way for you to tell us that the two gloves I showed you here in court were purchased during the transaction shown here in People's 372-A?

MS. VEMICH: No."

It has been said that a picture is worth a thousand words but in this case, calling Rubin to testify about gloves that he couldn't say were the gloves in evidence and which by the way didn't fit, imho, and there was no way of telling what size or color of gloves were originally purchased was a waste of words and film, imho.

[William Anthony]

I understand your condescending tone perfectly. What I don't understand is why you take every piece of evidence and testimony in this trial and warp it into something unrecognizable and then say I don't understand it. The gloves would have fit him without the latex gloves. He mugged and grimaced his way through putting them on. The prosecution was wrong to ask for the demonstration without setting conditions for how the gloves would be tried on. It was beyond stupid.

Please provide a link to your claim-"The gloves would have fit him without the latex gloves." I see that your statement implies that you agree the gloves did not fit.

[weezer]

"The gloves were dark brown leather, cashmere lined, size extra large. Manufactured by Aris Gloves, a subsidiary of Consolidated Food Corporation, the Isotoner Lights brand, style number 70263, were part of a small batch of only 300 pairs that had been sold exclusively by Bloomingdale's Department Store on 3rd Avenue in New York between 1989 and 1992. The store sold 240 pairs and returned the rest to the manufacturer. On December 20th, 1990, Nicole Brown Simpson had purchased two pairs of these gloves for $110. The gloves had a distinctive stitching and V pattern in the palm and were very identifiable. The prosecution assembled press photographs and videotapes of O.J.Simpson wearing this type of leather gloves during football game telecasts in 1993 and 1994."

[weezer]

"The prosecution team had arranged a trial run earlier in the day using Detective Phil Vannatter to try on a pair of identical gloves. His hands and fingers were as long and thick as Simpson's, and the gloves slid on easily. Rather than wait for the defense to beat him to it, Darden made the decision to have a demonstration with Simpson trying on the gloves.

Simpson trying on the glove
Cochran, however, insisted that his client wear latex gloves and he would attempt to slip the brown leather gloves on over these. ."

[tv]

TV,

You are correct. Miss Bess does say that Simpson's blood was not on either glove. However, she also feels that if the cut was as big as the DA's said it was and was bleeding as much as they said it was, then how can it be that his blood was not found on either glove? How is it he would only manage to bleed on one glove but not the other?

Another point you fail to mention, something that I never knew about the glove. Vanatter said that Fuhrman told him about the noise that Kato heard and was going to check it out.

Fuhrman insisted that he did not tell VA about what Kato said to him. So who is lying? And what does it mean if VA is lying and what does it mean if MF is lying?

In their book they are clearly angry at the "mistakes" that were made in the case. In fact, they question how many times did these mistakes happen when the defendant did not have the money to question them.

I also stand by previous post, if any juror did not know that Simpson's blood was found on it, then that is the mistake of the DA's. They should have pounded this home some many times they should have been able to hear it in their sleep, just like Judge Ito's instructions.

One of the jurors, would mouth the words of Judge Ito every time he gave these instructions, apparently Judge Ito noticed this and glared at the juror and the juror interpeted the look as "stop it!"

The problems with DA's had with the gloves far outweighed what was found on the glove. As soon as Collin Y testified, this was another nail in the glove's coffin, IMO. Clark had to walk a fine line when talking about that glove, she had no proof how it got back and she was basing her theory on a witness she clearly hated and on a noise he said he heard. Making him a hostile witness was her worst mistake. If he was covering for Simpson, then he would never have given her a time that she could "use". He would have said that he explore the source and noise and realized it was nothing, etc. She tried to have it both ways with him and it back fired. She even asked if he was Simpson's friend and he said he was but that he was here to tell the truth and that was what he was going to do. According to most G's, his truth if the "proof" of the glove. IMO.

The prosecution hammered the fact that OJ Simpson's blood was on the Rockingham glove every chance they got. The jurors obviously weren't paying attention. I'm not going to address Kato and Marci Clarke in this post. I'm tired of you taking one subject and changing it into something else which makes it impossible to carry on a linear discussion with you. Can you possibly address the serious concerns of the jury getting evidence wrong without holding up something the prosecution did as a comparison?

[weezer]

Interestingly enough, at least two of the jury who acquitted Simpson, were not that impressed with his performance that day.

Juror #98, Carrie Bess, a postal worker, later stated, "Those gloves fit. He wasn't putting them on right... I do believe the gloves fit. I have no doubt about that. The glove demo didn't impress me at all. Not one iota."

Marsh Rubin-Jackson, #984, also a postal worker, agreed. "Sure, you know they fit they would have fit anybody," she said.

[martin II]

I'm not going to discuss this until you read the testimony. So, let me know when you've read the testimony of the other Bloomingdale's employee.

tv
it was just an example of the problem.not actual.

[tv]

"The prosecution team had arranged a trial run earlier in the day using Detective Phil Vannatter to try on a pair of identical gloves. His hands and fingers were as long and thick as Simpson's, and the gloves slid on easily. Rather than wait for the defense to beat him to it, Darden made the decision to have a demonstration with Simpson trying on the gloves.

Simpson trying on the glove
Cochran, however, insisted that his client wear latex gloves and he would attempt to slip the brown leather gloves on over these. ."

I'm not surprised that even Cochran knew the gloves would fit...why else insist on the latex gloves?

[William Anthony]

Same style is not the same as saying they are the same gloves, especially when the color of size can't be determined by the receipt.

[martin II]

I thought I had proven that I had no aversion to research but in case I haven't this is from Brenda Vermich on June 15th.

"MR. DARDEN: Now, does the sales receipt indicate the size of the glove?

MS. VEMICH: No, it does not.

MR. DARDEN: Does it indicate the color of the glove?

MS. VEMICH: No, it does not.

MR. DARDEN: Is there way for you to tell us that the two gloves I showed you here in court were purchased during the transaction shown here in People's 372-A?

MS. VEMICH: No."

It has been said that a picture is worth a thousand words but in this case, calling Rubin to testify about gloves that he couldn't say were the gloves in evidence and which by the way didn't fit, imho, and there was no way of telling what size or color of gloves were originally purchased was a waste of words and film, imho.

so the sales manager cannot tell if the gloves shown her are the ones nicols was supposed to have purchased

What now.

[William Anthony]

I'm not surprised that even Cochran knew the gloves would fit...why else insist on the latex gloves?

I have requested a link to your statement "The gloves would have fit him without the latex gloves."

[William Anthony]

so the sales manager cannot tell if the gloves shown her are the ones nicols was supposed to have purchased

What now.

Speculation.

[martin II]

I'm not surprised that even Cochran knew the gloves would fit...why else insist on the latex gloves?

tv

cochran did not insist on the latex gloves.Ito ordered it because of the court procedure.

[tv]

Please provide a link to your claim-"The gloves would have fit him without the latex gloves." I see that your statement implies that you agree the gloves did not fit.Don't start twisting. The gloves would have slid on easily without the latex gloves. I wear latex gloves a lot and they don't allow for anything to slid easily. They did fit but the latex made it easy for him to grimace his way through the demonstration. Is that enough of a clarification for you?

[weezer]

SNIPPED*** ". . .We don;t know what size or color gloves Nicole baught . . ."

Inside the courtroom Tuesday, Bloomingdale's employee Brenda Vemich testified that a receipt shows Ms. Simpson bought two pairs of extra-large Aris Leather Light gloves on Dec. 18, 1990, at the New York store -- the same kind of gloves found during the murder investigation.
http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/11-96/11-07-96/b11wn094.htm

Prosecution witness Brenda Vemich, a glove buyer for Bloomingdale's department store in New York City, identified the expensive brand and size—extra large—of the bloody gloves.
http://law.jrank.org/pages/3663/O-J-Simpson-Trials-1995-1996-97-Gloves-Shoe-Prints.html

Buyer of men's gloves for Bloomingdale's Department Store in 1990. Thursday, June 15: Told the court Nicole Brown bought two pair of Aris Leather Lights in extra-large - the type of glove found at the crime scene and at O.J. Simpson's estate.
http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/players/S-Z/index.html

[GreenIce]

William, if you have something to say just PM me. I can see this might get lengthy and tedious for those not involved. The comment I made about blacks and whites and the difference in opinion as to OJ Simpson's guilt was not a racist remark and not intended to offend anyone. My point has always been that it's not surprising to me that whites think he's guilty -- it's surprising to me that blacks think he's not. If that offends anyone I certainly don't know why.

TV,

I do not believe your intent it to offend anyone. However, in your opinon, why do a majority of blacks feel he is not guilty and why do a majority of white people believe he is?

Look at the Rodney King trial. Did those jurors base their verdict on the color of the defendants' skin? Did they not listen to all the evidence, watch all the evidence and didn't they come up with a verdict that appears to be on its face value, the wrong one?

Were these jurors education questioned? Were they accused of a race based verdict?

I am not black and I believe Simpson is not guilty, in fact, I believe he is innocent and I truly do not understand, how anybody, regardless of race, gender or whatever could not see that something was wrong the evidence. How they can overlook the obvious patterns of evidence problems. How they accept every mistake as one that was not done on purpose and for that reason alone, the jury should have accepted it as the DA's said it should be.

Bottom line, G's have no defense for the patterns in this case. The only reply the DA's could use is that their experts "sucked". They had a rogue DA who insisted on going a glove demonstration when he was told not to. That while Fuhrman never should have been allowed on the police force and he is a liar, believe her because she wouldn't lie.

Don't forget, Clark treated Fuhrman with so much respect and compassion and yet went after any civilian witness who did say what she wanted them to say. I understand why she would do this, but by treating him like a hero in the beginning of her case and them denouncing him to the point that "we wish no person like MF was on our planet" pretty much sealed the fate of her case.

She loved him when they "married" and she hated him when she "divorced" him. Their marriage didn't last long did it?

[tv]

tv

cochran did not insist on the latex gloves.Ito ordered it because of the court procedure.

Do you have a link to the court procedure that covered this?

[martin II]

He could have put on the gloves at the civil trial without the latex gloves and he chose not to. He knew they would fit without the latex gloves under them.

He had tried the gloves on once and there was the video.
How many bites of the apple do you want.

[GreenIce]

Don't start twisting. The gloves would have slid on easily without the latex gloves. I wear latex gloves a lot and they don't allow for anything to slid easily. They did fit but the latex made it easy for him to grimace his way through the demonstration. Is that enough of a clarification for you?

TV,

Simpson tried on the gloves without the latex. Latex gloves would not hamper the fit in any way shape or form. It might make it just a tad longer to put them but they would not hamper the fit. You forget, the DA's could have had him try them on again, with out the latex gloves.

The jurors in their book say that the inside linining of the glove had been tore apart and apparently the lining was not put back in correctly---if this is true, then how come Darden didn't know this?

[William Anthony]

Don't start twisting. The gloves would have slid on easily without the latex gloves. I wear latex gloves a lot and they don't allow for anything to slid easily. They did fit but the latex made it easy for him to grimace his way through the demonstration. Is that enough of a clarification for you?

So, you have no link to support your claim. However, let's look at what Rubin, the alleged glove expert said.

June 15th,

MR. DARDEN: Now, would you expect that the fact that he's wearing latex gloves here today inhibit--would that inhibit his ability to extend his hand through the glove?

MR. RUBIN: I personally have never put on latex gloves and tried on gloves. So I really couldn't say. But I would say that appears to be a factor because--

MR. COCHRAN: He's answered the question, your Honor.

MR. RUBIN: When he showed--

THE COURT: All right. That's fine.

[martin II]

Do you have a link to the court procedure that covered this?

see the discussion and order by ito just before the demo

[William Anthony]

You will see that according to Rubin his gloves fit with latex underneath.

"MR. DARDEN: Yesterday I asked you whether or not wearing latex gloves might impede someone's ability to place a pair of leather gloves on their hands. Do you recall that question?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I do.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you said you had never tried to place latex gloves on or didn't place gloves on top of the latex gloves?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. But you did that last night; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: And you tried on a pair of gloves?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Yes?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: That was after you put the latex gloves on?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And the pair of gloves that you tried on, were they your own gloves?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this. I wasn't present. I would like to approach, if the Court please.

THE COURT: Overruled. Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you.

MR. DARDEN: The gloves that you placed on on top of the latex gloves last night, were they your own gloves?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, they were.

MR. DARDEN: And what effect, if any, did the latex gloves on your hand have in terms of your ability to place your own gloves on?

MR. COCHRAN: Before he answers that, your Honor, I would like to object.

THE COURT: Noted.

MR. COCHRAN: Discovery.

THE COURT: Noted. Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.

MR. RUBIN: I had more difficulty in getting the personal gloves onto my hand with the latex glove on my hand than I normally would."

[weezer]

". . .The gloves appeared not to fit, but the jurors said they weren't convinced.

"Those gloves fit," Bess wrote. "He wasn't putting them on right."

"Sure," added Rubin-Jackson, "you know, they fit. ... I must have had an expression on my face because as he stood there, it was like he was talking to me, and he went, 'They don't fit.' They would have fit anybody." . . .

[tv]

You will see that according to Rubin his gloves fit with latex underneath.

"MR. DARDEN: Yesterday I asked you whether or not wearing latex gloves might impede someone's ability to place a pair of leather gloves on their hands. Do you recall that question?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I do.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you said you had never tried to place latex gloves on or didn't place gloves on top of the latex gloves?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. But you did that last night; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: And you tried on a pair of gloves?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Yes?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: That was after you put the latex gloves on?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And the pair of gloves that you tried on, were they your own gloves?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this. I wasn't present. I would like to approach, if the Court please.

THE COURT: Overruled. Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you.

MR. DARDEN: The gloves that you placed on on top of the latex gloves last night, were they your own gloves?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, they were.

MR. DARDEN: And what effect, if any, did the latex gloves on your hand have in terms of your ability to place your own gloves on?

MR. COCHRAN: Before he answers that, your Honor, I would like to object.

THE COURT: Noted.

MR. COCHRAN: Discovery.

THE COURT: Noted. Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.

MR. RUBIN: I had more difficulty in getting the personal gloves onto my hand with the latex glove on my hand than I normally would."

Thank you for validating my position.

[tv]

TV,

Simpson tried on the gloves without the latex. Latex gloves would not hamper the fit in any way shape or form. It might make it just a tad longer to put them but they would not hamper the fit. You forget, the DA's could have had him try them on again, with out the latex gloves.

The jurors in their book say that the inside linining of the glove had been tore apart and apparently the lining was not put back in correctly---if this is true, then how come Darden didn't know this?

GreenIce, Simpson did not try on the gloves without the latex in either trial. Please do not tell me what latex will and and will not hamper. When I'm at work I change gloves 25 or more times a shift and spend a lot of time with them on. They hamper everything. I don't think the defense was under any obligation to provide a second demonstration. I don't know why Darden didn't know the lining was not in properly if that was the case. How or why would I know this?

[martin II]

I thought I had proven that I had no aversion to research but in case I haven't this is from Brenda Vermich on June 15th.

"MR. DARDEN: Now, does the sales receipt indicate the size of the glove?

MS. VEMICH: No, it does not.

MR. DARDEN: Does it indicate the color of the glove?

MS. VEMICH: No, it does not.

MR. DARDEN: Is there way for you to tell us that the two gloves I showed you here in court were purchased during the transaction shown here in People's 372-A?

MS. VEMICH: No."

It has been said that a picture is worth a thousand words but in this case, calling Rubin to testify about gloves that he couldn't say were the gloves in evidence and which by the way didn't fit, imho, and there was no way of telling what size or color of gloves were originally purchased was a waste of words and film, imho.

William if i read the testimony correctly it seems that Big Chief Dumbell asked a question that he did not have the answer to.

[martin II]

GreenIce, Simpson did not try on the gloves without the latex in either trial. Please do not tell me what latex will and and will not hamper. When I'm at work I change gloves 25 or more times a shift and spend a lot of time with them on. They hamper everything. I don't think the defense was under any obligation to provide a second demonstration. I don't know why Darden didn't know the lining was not in properly if that was the case. How or why would I know this?

tv'
what i read is that Darden was bragging that he would make oj try on the gloves to Bailey(private conversation) Baliey the sly old fox, told Darden he did not have the balls to try it. So in a Mano to Mano exchange Darden took him on.Kinda like F*** you BAILEY And Darden without considering what he was about to do commited himself to the demo and ran smack dab into a buzz saw.This was a instance that showed his inexpernence and Clarke allowed him to do it. imo

[weezer]

tv'
what i read is that Darden was bragging that he would make oj try on the gloves to Bailey(private conversation) Baliey the sly old fox, told Darden he did not have the balls to try it. So in a Mano to Mano exchange Darden took him on.Kinda like F*** you BAILEY And Darden without considering what he was about to do commited himself to the demo and ran smack dab into a buzz saw.This was a instance that showed his inexpernence and Clarke allowed him to do it. imo

LOL -- some more of flee's 'mano to mano' talk! :D

[William Anthony]

Thank you for validating my position.

Your position was that the gloves would not fit with latex. Rubin's position was that his gloves did fit but he had more difficulty getting them on. In any event, I do not know why Ito allowed the testimony, as we do not know what brand, make, model and size gloves Rubin wore or whether the latex gloves he used were consistent in size and density to those used in court but that is another issue.

[tv]

tv'
what i read is that Darden was bragging that he would make oj try on the gloves to Bailey(private conversation) Baliey the sly old fox, told Darden he did not have the balls to try it. So in a Mano to Mano exchange Darden took him on.Kinda like F*** you BAILEY And Darden without considering what he was about to do commited himself to the demo and ran smack dab into a buzz saw.This was a instance that showed his inexpernence and Clarke allowed him to do it. imo

martin, I totally agree with you. Darden was wrong. It was dumb. Marcia Clarke should have known better.

[martin II]

GreenIce, Simpson did not try on the gloves without the latex in either trial. Please do not tell me what latex will and and will not hamper. When I'm at work I change gloves 25 or more times a shift and spend a lot of time with them on. They hamper everything. I don't think the defense was under any obligation to provide a second demonstration. I don't know why Darden didn't know the lining was not in properly if that was the case. How or why would I know this?

tyv
i think she said latex would not hamper the FIT once he got them on if he could have But he couldn't.
There were media reports of the glove purchase that conflicted with actual sales manager testinmony.I will look at the sames managers actual testimony.

[William Anthony]

William if i read the testimony correctly it seems that Big Chief Dumbell asked a question that he did not have the answer to.

There is a term used by lawyers, calling stealing the adversary's thunder. I think Darden tried this in this instance as he knew the defense would bring it out. He simply acknowledged the weakness of his evidence or lack thereof, if you will, imho.

[William Anthony]

martin, I totally agree with you. Darden was wrong. It was dumb. Marcia Clarke should have known better.

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

[William Anthony]

For those that devoutly practice Christianity, God is Holiest and He should be observed for that fact each and every day, imho.

[weezer]

"KING: Did you take a high risk there, Johnnie, and kind of a -- Bailey forced that, didn't he?

COCHRAN: Well, I think Bailey tried to force it. He tried to goad Chris into that, and I think that Chris probably also knew that we would -- we were going to try it on if he didn't do it.

KING: You know what, Johnnie...

COCHRAN: I don't think it fit.

KING: ... you said the last time that Chris got a bad wrap for this.

COCHRAN: Well, I think so in many particulars. I think that he was somewhat goaded on into this, but I think also we would have done it. We did not believe it fit, though. You know, and as I said, I'm probably as objective about this as he is. And, again, this is not exactly like a lie detector tests, but defending upon your view of the case, you know, to us the gloves don't fit. And if it doesn't fit, you must acquit. And that became very clear and a mantra for our part of the case."

[martin II]

martin, I totally agree with you. Darden was wrong. It was dumb. Marcia Clarke should have known better.

You are correct.
The glove demo was a emergency call from Darden to the demo to help save the case and he sat it on fire.

[William Anthony]

You are correct.
The glove demo was a emergency call from Darden to the demo to help save the case and he sat it on fire.

Burn baby burn.:)

[tv]

You are correct.
The glove demo was a emergency call from Darden to the demo to help save the case and he sat it on fire.
The prosecution wasn't doing poorly and the glove demonstration was unnecessary. As weezer posted, Chris Darden was goaded into it by the defense and he fell for it. I think if the prosecution had let the defense do the demonstration the results would have had less of a negative impact on their case. If I had been Chris Darden I would have strenously objected to the latex gloves being used.

[weezer]

The prosecution wasn't doing poorly and the glove demonstration was unnecessary. As weezer posted, Chris Darden was goaded into it by the defense and he fell for it. I think if the prosecution had let the defense do the demonstration the results would have had less of a negative impact on their case. If I had been Chris Darden I would have strenously objected to the latex gloves being used.

tv, IIRC, there was a big discussion in front of the bench about the gloves being biohazardous. I'm looking now to see who -- if anyone-- wanted them declared that or if that was the normal ruling of the courts.

[William Anthony]

The prosecution wasn't doing poorly

True dat. They were failing.

[tv]

tv, IIRC, there was a big discussion in front of the bench about the gloves being biohazardous. I'm looking now to see who -- if anyone-- wanted them declared that or if that was the normal ruling of the courts.
They may be true -- I was never sure of the reason for the latex gloves. I know that Richard Rubin put them on his bare hands in the civil trial and that Judge Fugisaki said there would be no latex gloves if they repeated the glove demonstration. Thanks for looking for that -- I'm really interested in how it all came about.

[William Anthony]

June 15th

"MR. COCHRAN: Are these the same gloves? What's the offer of proof, your Honor?

THE COURT: All right. The Court has examined these particular gloves. They have a label on them that purports to say, "Aris leather lights, cashmere lined" and has the size "Extra large." The Court has examined the right-hand glove. It has a similar label indicating, "Aris, 100% cashmere consider lined, size extra large, made in Philippines." I think there's a sufficient offer of proof that these appear to be similar gloves. I'll overrule the objection.

MR. COCHRAN: The other question is, if he does that, is the Court going to allow them to have the Defendant try these gloves on?

THE COURT: I'm sorry?

MR. COCHRAN: Are you going to allow them to have the Defendant try these gloves on?

THE COURT: I think it would be more appropriate for him to try the other gloves on.

MR. COCHRAN: That was exactly my point. So--

THE COURT: I mean the real gloves that were found.

MS. CLARK: The only problem is, he has to wear latex gloves underneath because they're a bile hazard and they're going to alter the fit.

THE COURT: We'll take that up when we get there."

[William Anthony]

June 15th

"MR. DARDEN: Mr. Rubin, you said that eight percent of the gloves sold of the extra large, brown in color, Aris leather lights would be?

MR. RUBIN: Eight percent of the actual brown. Out of the 12 pair per prepack, one pair would be extra large.

MR. DARDEN: And so how many in 1990 then brown extra larges were sold?

MR. RUBIN: 300 totally available and possibly sold 200 to 240 depending upon the conditions.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Your Honor, at this time, the People would ask that Mr. Simpson step forward and try on the glove recovered at Bundy as well as the glove recovered at Rockingham.

THE COURT: All right. Do you want to do that?

MR. COCHRAN: No objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. He can do that seated there. All right. And I think so the jury can see, I'll ask Mr. Simpson to stand. All right. Mr. Darden, which glove do you have?

MR. DARDEN: This is the Bundy glove, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DARDEN: And after Mr. Simpson tries on the gloves, I would ask that he be required to step back over to the jury and again show him his bare hands.

THE COURT: Well, we'll get to that in a second. All right. The record should reflect that, as is our practice with these gloves, Mr. Simpson will have a pair of latex gloves on while doing this.'

[tv]

June 15th

"MR. COCHRAN: Are these the same gloves? What's the offer of proof, your Honor?

THE COURT: All right. The Court has examined these particular gloves. They have a label on them that purports to say, "Aris leather lights, cashmere lined" and has the size "Extra large." The Court has examined the right-hand glove. It has a similar label indicating, "Aris, 100% cashmere consider lined, size extra large, made in Philippines." I think there's a sufficient offer of proof that these appear to be similar gloves. I'll overrule the objection.

MR. COCHRAN: The other question is, if he does that, is the Court going to allow them to have the Defendant try these gloves on?

THE COURT: I'm sorry?

MR. COCHRAN: Are you going to allow them to have the Defendant try these gloves on?

THE COURT: I think it would be more appropriate for him to try the other gloves on.

MR. COCHRAN: That was exactly my point. So--

THE COURT: I mean the real gloves that were found.

MS. CLARK: The only problem is, he has to wear latex gloves underneath because they're a bile hazard and they're going to alter the fit.

THE COURT: We'll take that up when we get there."

That shoots down the theory that Judge Ito showed favoritism toward the prosecution. He's the one that insisted OJ Simpson try on the murder gloves even though he knew the latex would alter the fit.

[tv]

June 15th

"MR. DARDEN: Mr. Rubin, you said that eight percent of the gloves sold of the extra large, brown in color, Aris leather lights would be?

MR. RUBIN: Eight percent of the actual brown. Out of the 12 pair per prepack, one pair would be extra large.

MR. DARDEN: And so how many in 1990 then brown extra larges were sold?

MR. RUBIN: 300 totally available and possibly sold 200 to 240 depending upon the conditions.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Your Honor, at this time, the People would ask that Mr. Simpson step forward and try on the glove recovered at Bundy as well as the glove recovered at Rockingham.

THE COURT: All right. Do you want to do that?

MR. COCHRAN: No objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. He can do that seated there. All right. And I think so the jury can see, I'll ask Mr. Simpson to stand. All right. Mr. Darden, which glove do you have?

MR. DARDEN: This is the Bundy glove, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DARDEN: And after Mr. Simpson tries on the gloves, I would ask that he be required to step back over to the jury and again show him his bare hands.

THE COURT: Well, we'll get to that in a second. All right. The record should reflect that, as is our practice with these gloves, Mr. Simpson will have a pair of latex gloves on while doing this.'Practice with what gloves? All gloves that are entered into evidence in a case or just those gloves? I'm a little confused by exactly what he meant.

[William Anthony]

Practice with what gloves? All gloves that are entered into evidence in a case or just those gloves? I'm a little confused by exactly what he meant.

Practice meaning custom or habit or routine or observance.

[martin II]

The prosecution wasn't doing poorly and the glove demonstration was unnecessary. As weezer posted, Chris Darden was goaded into it by the defense and he fell for it. I think if the prosecution had let the defense do the demonstration the results would have had less of a negative impact on their case. If I had been Chris Darden I would have strenously objected to the latex gloves being used.

All court evidence was required to be handeled with Latex gloves by court order.Chris knew this or should have known this.If not he could have cancelled the demo. He didn't because he had the idea that it would work
and it didn't. I bet he did not eat his dinner that evening.
There was another story that floated around that a good friend told chris not to take the case as he did not want to go against Cochran As Cochran was the man. It was reported that Chris responded that Chchran was not the man i am the man.

[tv]

Practice meaning custom or habit or routine or observance.Okay, did he mean procedure with these particular gloves? How many times had they been tried on that they need a procedure even before the glove demonstration? You'll have to excuse me if I'm a little rattled but I've just been highly insulted on this board by one of your pals. On the outside chance that you're concerned, I'm starting to feel a litte better now.

[weezer]

All court evidence was required to be handeled with Latex gloves by court order.Chris knew this or should have known this.If not he could have cancelled the demo. He didn't because he had the idea that it would work
and it didn't. I bet he did not eat his dinner that evening.
There was another story that floated around that a good friend told chris not to take the case as he did not want to go against Cochran As Cochran was the man. It was reported that Chris responded that Chchran was not the man i am the man.

Darden wrote in his book that his own family (father I believe) told him not to take the case because of the reprecussions to him from the Black community.

[William Anthony]

Practice with what gloves? All gloves that are entered into evidence in a case or just those gloves? I'm a little confused by exactly what he meant.

I apologize as I read your post wrongly. I don't know if that pertained to all gloves entered into evidence but it pertained to the gloves allegedly found by LE in that case. (I thought I was good at multitasking, smile).

[tv]

I apologize as I read your post wrongly. I don't know if that pertained to all gloves entered into evidence but it pertained to the gloves allegedly found by LE in that case. (I thought I was good at multitasking, smile).

Just so you know, I caught the 'allegedly'. ;)

[William Anthony]

Okay, did he mean procedure with these particular gloves? How many times had they been tried on that they need a procedure even before the glove demonstration? You'll have to excuse me if I'm a little rattled but I've just been highly insulted on this board by one of your pals. On the outside chance that you're concerned, I'm starting to feel a litte better now.

I am concerned about all posters on this board. It is not a good feeling when one feels insulted. Don't ask me why but a thought came to me today as I was watching a movie-there are many ways to love but only one way to hate, therefore, there are more ways to love than hate (a Williamism, :)).

[tv]

I am concerned about all posters on this board. It is not a good feeling when one feels insulted. Don't ask me why but a thought came to me today as I was watching a movie-there are many ways to love but only one way to hate, therefore, there are more ways to love than hate (a Williamism, :)).
As I've said before -- I hate no one. Have you considered publishing a book of Williamisms? If so, I'd avoid using a ghostwriter. I hear they lie. :)

[William Anthony]

As I've said before -- I hate no one. Have you considered publishing a book of Williamisms? If so, I'd avoid using a ghostwriter. I hear they lie. :)

I wrote a novel once it was titled the Million Dollar Hustle. My then girlfriend wanted to read it and I gave it to her. Unfortunately, she gave it to her father to read and to try to get published. That was a mistake. I got drafted and he discovered the plot within the plot. When I returned from the service, the manuscript had mysteriously been lost.:)

[martin II]

Practice with what gloves? All gloves that are entered into evidence in a case or just those gloves? I'm a little confused by exactly what he meant.

It is simple'As is the practrice in that cort simpson will put on latex gloves before he tries on the evidence gloves. Or it is ordered that oj put on latex gloves before he tries on the evidence gloves.All gloves tried in that court room will be done with latex gloves.

[tv]

I wrote a novel once it was titled the Million Dollar Hustle. My then girlfriend wanted to read it and I gave it to her. Unfortunately, she gave it to her father to read and to try to get published. That was a mistake. I got drafted and he discovered the plot within the plot. When I returned from the service, the manuscript had mysteriously been lost.:)

How tragic. You'll have to recreate it and be more discriminating in who you let see it before publication.

[William Anthony]

How tragic. You'll have to recreate it and be more discriminating in who you let see it before publication.

I don't think it was tragic at all. As we partake of the journey of life, we choose the roads that we shall travel and those roads lead us to an end as opposed to a destination, as destination implies a design, whereas an end implies the inevitable outcome of the roads we have chosen and to stay on one road displays a reluctance to change as we travel (a Williamism).

[tv]

It is simple'As is the practrice in that cort simpson will put on latex gloves before he tries on the evidence gloves. Or it is ordered that oj put on latex gloves before he tries on the evidence gloves.All gloves tried in that court room will be done with latex gloves.Thanks, martin. You've covered all possibilities.

[tv]

I don't think it was tragic at all. As we partake of the journey of life, we choose the roads that we shall travel and those roads lead us to an end as opposed to a destination, as destination implies a design, whereas an end implies the inevitable outcome of the roads we have chosen and to stay on one road displays a reluctance to change as we travel (a Williamism). Okay, how about it was unfortunate?

[martin II]

Thanks, martin. You've covered all possibilities.

The instruction to the prosecution would be never ask a question or do a demo if you don't know what the results will be.
or you win some and you loose some.

[weezer]

I'm trying to find the rules on multiple nics on the board but have had no luck. Anyone out there that can direct me?

[martin II]

Okay, how about it was unfortunate?

or another boo boo larger than the last one.

[tv]

The instruction to the prosecution would be never ask a question or do a demo if you don't know what the results will be.
or you win some and you loose some.

They should have taken into consideration that OJ Simpson was going to take advantage of having control of the evidence and use it to his benefit. If I was on trial for double-murder I would have done the same thing.

[William Anthony]

Okay, how about it was unfortunate?

Perhaps, and maybe I wouldn't have been able to look the man in the glass straight in the eye had it gone the other way.

[tv]

or another boo boo larger than the last one.

Uh-oh, did William make an even bigger boo-boo than that one?

[tv]

Perhaps, and maybe I wouldn't have been able to look the man in the glass straight in the eye had it gone the other way.
I'm glad it worked out for you.

[William Anthony]

Uh-oh, did William make an even bigger boo-boo than that one?

William does not make boo-boos. Children cry over spilled milk and make boo-boos, which sounds like the prosecution to me.

[tv]

I'm trying to find the rules on multiple nics on the board but have had no luck. Anyone out there that can direct me?

I think (but not sure) that O2S posted somewhere that DW is working on updating forum rules. I don't know if they're posted on the board yet.

[William Anthony]

I'm glad it worked out for you.

Thanks. It doesn't matter if one likes where they are as long as they like who they are (a Williamism).

[William Anthony]

I think (but not sure) that O2S posted somewhere that DW is working on updating forum rules. I don't know if they're posted on the board yet.

If at first you don't succeed, stop trying, unless you develop a different method (a Williamism).

[weezer]

I think (but not sure) that O2S posted somewhere that DW is working on updating forum rules. I don't know if they're posted on the board yet.

thank you tv. every link I followed took me to InSession TOS and even they weren't working. I'll email the moderator and ask.

[tv]

William does not make boo-boos. Children cry over spilled milk and make boo-boos, which sounds like the prosecution to me.martin said William made a boo-boo. Don't blame me. :shrug:

[weezer]

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.

you raise some excellent points. :beer:

[William Anthony]

martin said William made a boo-boo. Don't blame me. :shrug:

I wasn't blaming you but I was explaining how I saw the comment. William makes mistakes and blunders. :)

[weezer]

If at first you don't succeed, stop trying, unless you develop a different method (a Williamism).

as insightful as all your little williamism's are, maybe you really should save them for that book. ;)

[tv]

thank you tv. every link I followed took me to InSession TOS and even they weren't working. I'll email the moderator and ask.Excellent idea.

[fgump2]

One has nothing to do with the other.
*******************************
Maybe the logic I used wasn’t the best. I will try another angle to show that carelessness was very unlikely to have been a significant fact in terms of the blood evidence against Simpson. The primary items of blood evidence were the presence of OJS blood at the crime scene, and the presence of victim blood in the bronco. I will try to show that it is virtually impossible that carelessness could be a factor in producing the evidence that implicates Orenthal Simpson.

First of all one of the strongest pieces of evidence against OJS was that five drops of blood at the crime scene turned out to match OJS. Initially the police thought that probably dripped from a cut on the killer’s left hand. They also knew that it might also have dripped from the killer’s knife, and might even have been left there before the killings.
All five of these drops matched up with OJS. I believe there was no other no other DNA present. This eliminates the possibility that the blood was dripped from the killer’s weapon. It doesn’t eliminate the possibility that OJS dripped the blood earlier, or that the blood was planted. I think we can disregard the possibility that carelessness was a factor. If it was one drop, I would guess that carelessness could have done it, although that would be most unlikely. You would have to assume that bacteria ate original blood, or that the original blood was somehow lost and accidentally replaced by OJS blood. That seems very unlikely to me for even one drop. For five drops, I think it is a virtual impossibility.
A few months before the trial William Thompson, one of the Simpson defense lawyers, wrote a paper which said that if carelessness (mainly contamination) influenced the results, it should show up in terms of creating implausible results.
There was a lot of blood evidence collected from three locations, Bundy, Rockingham, and the Bronco. Cross contamination is one form of carelessness, but not the only kind.
All of the blood evidence holds together too well for carelessness to have been much of a factor. It would be like a monkey or a hail storm pounding on a computer key board and coming creating a sentence that says “it is obvious that Orenthal Simpson is a murderer”. I realize that a hail storm, a monkey, or a rodent could type this; I just think it is highly unlikely.

Part of the point if the blood evidence is complicated, and seems to hold together logically, then carelessness was probably not a factor in creating these results.

I believe I have shown here that that carelessness was probably not a factor in creating the evidence against Simpson. I realize this doesn’t lay to rest the possibility that OJS could have bled there before the killings or that the blood might have been planted. I think we can arrive at the truth faster if we agree that carelessness was very unlikely to be a factor in causing the evidence to implicate Orenthal Simpson. I consider carelessness of Fung or Mazzola to be a red herring in this case. We should also discount the possibility that any problems in the LAPD crime lab influenced on the results.

This means that we should ignore the fact that D Fung had trouble remembering which work he did, and which work she did. The odd thing about this is that if they had a bad work relationship, he would probably remember theses things better. We should also ignore the initialing or non initialing of pieces of paper.

[tv]

I wasn't blaming you but I was explaining how I saw the comment. William makes mistakes and blunders. :)

:beer:

[William Anthony]

First of all one of the strongest pieces of evidence against OJS was that five drops of blood at the crime scene turned out to match OJS. Initially the police thought that probably dripped from a cut on the killer’s left hand. They also knew that it might also have dripped from the killer’s knife, and might even have been left there before the killings.

Excellent post-reasonable doubt.

[William Anthony]

:beer:


Ah, but not as many as many many others.

[William Anthony]

All five of these drops matched up with OJS. I believe there was no other no other DNA present. This eliminates the possibility that the blood was dripped from the killer’s weapon. It doesn’t eliminate the possibility that OJS dripped the blood earlier, or that the blood was planted. I think we can disregard the possibility that carelessness was a factor. If it was one drop, I would guess that carelessness could have done it, although that would be most unlikely. You would have to assume that bacteria ate original blood, or that the original blood was somehow lost and accidentally replaced by OJS blood. That seems very unlikely to me for even one drop. For five drops, I think it is a virtual impossibility.

You seem to forget the blood that wasn't collected and the type B blood that could not have been from the victims or Simpson-reasonable doubt.

[William Anthony]

There was a lot of blood evidence collected from three locations, Bundy, Rockingham, and the Bronco. Cross contamination is one form of carelessness, but not the only kind.
All of the blood evidence holds together too well for carelessness to have been much of a factor. It would be like a monkey or a hail storm pounding on a computer key board and coming creating a sentence that says “it is obvious that Orenthal Simpson is a murderer”. I realize that a hail storm, a monkey, or a rodent could type this; I just think it is highly unlikely.

You seem to forget the missing blood and the EDTA in the gate and the sock stain and the inconsistent blood trail from the Rockingham gate to the front door and no evidence to place anyone behind Kato's quarters before MF. This sentence bears repetition, "Cross contamination is one form of carelessness, but not the only kind." A defendant should not be convicted on the carelessness of LE-reasonable doubt.

[weezer]

SNIPPED*** ". . I realize this doesn’t lay to rest the possibility that OJS could have bled there before the killings . . ."

IIRC, orenthal testified that he hadn't been to Nicole's in weeks and that the last time he was there, he had not been on the sidewalk, and that he did not remember bleeding at Nicole's. I also think it's relevent to the discussion to remember that Nicole had lived at Bundy for a very short length of time.

[William Anthony]

Part of the point if the blood evidence is complicated, and seems to hold together logically, then carelessness was probably not a factor in creating these results.

What about the parts that don't-reasonable doubt.

[weezer]

or wishful thinking? :eek:

[William Anthony]

I believe I have shown here that that carelessness was probably not a factor in creating the evidence against Simpson. I realize this doesn’t lay to rest the possibility that OJS could have bled there before the killings or that the blood might have been planted. I think we can arrive at the truth faster if we agree that carelessness was very unlikely to be a factor in causing the evidence to implicate Orenthal Simpson. I consider carelessness of Fung or Mazzola to be a red herring in this case. We should also discount the possibility that any problems in the LAPD crime lab influenced on the results.

You seem to forget the missing blood and the EDTA in the gate and the sock stain and the inconsistent blood trail from the Rockingham gate to the front door and no evidence to place anyone behind Kato's quarters before MF. This sentence bears repetition, "Cross contamination is one form of carelessness, but not the only kind." A defendant should not be convicted on the carelessness of LE-reasonable doubt.

[William Anthony]

This means that we should ignore the fact that D Fung had trouble remembering which work he did, and which work she did. The odd thing about this is that if they had a bad work relationship, he would probably remember theses things better. We should also ignore the initialing or non initialing of pieces of paper.

The prosecution made that request and it failed.

[weezer]

Q. And prior to the evening of
12 June 12, 1994, you didn't bleed at Bundy at any of
13 those locations, correct?
14 A. Not to my knowledge, no.
15 Q. You don't recall bleeding at Bundy at any
16 of those spots where blood was found prior to the
17 evening of June 12, correct?
18 A. Other than the backyard possibly. Not to
19 my knowledge.

[martin II]

Uh-oh, did William make an even bigger boo-boo than that one?

Darden made the boo boo i am referring to. or you can call it a goose egg.

[William Anthony]

Darden made the boo boo i am referring to. or you can call it a goose egg.

The goose egg was the number that voted for guilty, right?

[martin II]

*******************************
Maybe the logic I used wasn’t the best. I will try another angle to show that carelessness was very unlikely to have been a significant fact in terms of the blood evidence against Simpson. The primary items of blood evidence were the presence of OJS blood at the crime scene, and the presence of victim blood in the bronco. I will try to show that it is virtually impossible that carelessness could be a factor in producing the evidence that implicates Orenthal Simpson.

First of all one of the strongest pieces of evidence against OJS was that five drops of blood at the crime scene turned out to match OJS. Initially the police thought that probably dripped from a cut on the killer’s left hand. They also knew that it might also have dripped from the killer’s knife, and might even have been left there before the killings.
All five of these drops matched up with OJS. I believe there was no other no other DNA present. This eliminates the possibility that the blood was dripped from the killer’s weapon. It doesn’t eliminate the possibility that OJS dripped the blood earlier, or that the blood was planted. I think we can disregard the possibility that carelessness was a factor. If it was one drop, I would guess that carelessness could have done it, although that would be most unlikely. You would have to assume that bacteria ate original blood, or that the original blood was somehow lost and accidentally replaced by OJS blood. That seems very unlikely to me for even one drop. For five drops, I think it is a virtual impossibility.
A few months before the trial William Thompson, one of the Simpson defense lawyers, wrote a paper which said that if carelessness (mainly contamination) influenced the results, it should show up in terms of creating implausible results.
There was a lot of blood evidence collected from three locations, Bundy, Rockingham, and the Bronco. Cross contamination is one form of carelessness, but not the only kind.
All of the blood evidence holds together too well for carelessness to have been much of a factor. It would be like a monkey or a hail storm pounding on a computer key board and coming creating a sentence that says “it is obvious that Orenthal Simpson is a murderer”. I realize that a hail storm, a monkey, or a rodent could type this; I just think it is highly unlikely.

Part of the point if the blood evidence is complicated, and seems to hold together logically, then carelessness was probably not a factor in creating these results.

I believe I have shown here that that carelessness was probably not a factor in creating the evidence against Simpson. I realize this doesn’t lay to rest the possibility that OJS could have bled there before the killings or that the blood might have been planted. I think we can arrive at the truth faster if we agree that carelessness was very unlikely to be a factor in causing the evidence to implicate Orenthal Simpson. I consider carelessness of Fung or Mazzola to be a red herring in this case. We should also discount the possibility that any problems in the LAPD crime lab influenced on the resultsEXACTLTY WHY?.

This means that we should ignore the fact that D Fung had trouble remembering which work he did, Fung was working alongside Mazzola, if he was collecting all the evidence then what did he think she was doing.and which work she did. The odd thing about this is that if they had a bad work relationship, he would probably remember theses things better. We should also ignore the initialing or non initialing of pieces of paper.

This logic comes from where?

[fgump2]

fgump2,

I don't believe AM forgot to put her initials on the bindles and I don't think any NG believes she did.

What else did Dr. Lee say about "something wrong" and which piece of evidence was it? Wasn't it that Dr. Lee said that the wet transfers indicated something was wrong but he could not nor would not say how this happened? Only that swatches were supposed to be dried when put into the bindles and the wet transfers prove the swatches were wet when they were put into the bindles.

Also, don't you think Mozzoloa, initial fiend that she is, would have noticed that the swatches were still wet when she put them in there? While I highly doubt that she forgot to do this, I do have consider this, however, how could she not know the swatches were still wet?
***********************************
Henry Lee testified about the problems with the swatches, once in the criminal trial, once for the civil trial (disposition). He never said that the this made the evidence less reliable. If he thought it did, he should have said so. If he thought it didn't he should not have brought it up. There are several ways this could influence the validity of the blood evidence. One of the most important aspects is, does this mean it might be planted? does this mean an honest mistake which reduces the credibility of the evidence? If the answerto both of these questions is no, then the whole testimony was a waste of time. If either of these possibilities was true, then why not say it out loud? Even we answer affirmatively to either of these questions, there are more points to consider.
Does this mean all the evidence has reduced credibility, or just the swatches in that bindle/envelope? Also by how much do we reduce the credibility of the results. I don't think he should have given a percentage (there is 60% possibility that this drop of blood is what the prosecution says it is). But still, the jury needed some interpetation as did the press.

I thought that Henry Lee was being dishonest and guilty of pergury. I think he wanted the jury to disregard the blood evidence without his asking them to.

Another thing he did that bothered me as that in the criminal trial at about the time he testified he told the press that he was a leading expert on about four or five or more fields of criminology, something like: "fingerprint experts think of me as one of the world's leading experts on finger prints, blood DNA people think of me as one the world's leading experts on that field", and so on with several more fields. I thought this was narscistic. I have had bad experience with people like that. I also thought it was unlikely that a person in an administrative position could keep up with the technical aspects of 5 or so subfields of criminology.

After the trial I read an interview in which he was asked about the footprints in blood which turned out to be trowel marks in the cement. Henry Lee ignored the question and talked about something else. The reporter asked the question a second time and this time Henry became angry and said something like "I should never have become involved with the Simpson case, it has damaged my reputation". I give him credit for being honest enough to admit that he cared more about his reputation than with giving valid testimony.
When he got some kind of legal sanction for removing evidence from the
Phil Spector case, Henry came through with and almost identical remark, that he felt bad that his reputation had been damaged. Poor Henry.

I think that Henry Lee has done some good work, but being a celebrity brought out the worst in him.

To take another slam at Henry, in his disposition for the civil trial, he claimed he had no more connection with Mr Simpson, and he was an independent expert. While he told Petrocelli this, Barry Scheck was sitting there giving him legal advice. At the time Barry Scheck was still working for OJS. Does anyone really think Henry would pick Scheck as a lawyer if he wasn't still allied with Simpson? Suppose Petrocelli asked Henry about his opinion about Schecks work in the criminal trial? Does anyone think that Scheck would give unbiased advice on what sort of things Henry should say?

[fgump2]

This logic comes from where?

THe point is that the blood evidence is so complicated and holds together in such a logical manner, that it is highly implausible that OJS was innocent, and that carelessness could have made him seem guilty. Even if we assume reduced credibility of each spot or drop of blood, it is very unlikely that carelessness could have produced the overall results.

If there were only a few spots of blood, the possibility of carelessness being a factor would have to be more seriously considered.

[William Anthony]

***********************************
Henry Lee testified about the problems with the swatches, once in the criminal trial, once for the civil trial (disposition). He never said that the this made the evidence less reliable. If he thought it did, he should have said so. If he thought it didn't he should not have brought it up. There are several ways this could influence the validity of the blood evidence. One of the most important aspects is, does this mean it might be planted? does this mean an honest mistake which reduces the credibility of the evidence? If the answerto both of these questions is no, then the whole testimony was a waste of time. If either of these possibilities was true, then why not say it out loud? Even we answer affirmatively to either of these questions, there are more points to consider.
Does this mean all the evidence has reduced credibility, or just the swatches in that bindle/envelope? Also by how much do we reduce the credibility of the results. I don't think he should have given a percentage (there is 60% possibility that this drop of blood is what the prosecution says it is). But still, the jury needed some interpetation as did the press.

I thought that Henry Lee was being dishonest and guilty of pergury. I think he wanted the jury to disregard the blood evidence without his asking them to.

Another thing he did that bothered me as that in the criminal trial at about the time he testified he told the press that he was a leading expert on about four or five or more fields of criminology, something like: "fingerprint experts think of me as one of the world's leading experts on finger prints, blood DNA people think of me as one the world's leading experts on that field", and so on with several more fields. I thought this was narscistic. I have had bad experience with people like that. I also thought it was unlikely that a person in an administrative position could keep up with the technical aspects of 5 or so subfields of criminology.

After the trial I read an interview in which he was asked about the footprints in blood which turned out to be trowel marks in the cement. Henry Lee ignored the question and talked about something else. The reporter asked the question a second time and this time Henry became angry and said something like "I should never have become involved with the Simpson case, it has damaged my reputation". I give him credit for being honest enough to admit that he cared more about his reputation than with giving valid testimony.
When he got some kind of legal sanction for removing evidence from the
Phil Spector case, Henry came through with and almost identical remark, that he felt bad that his reputation had been damaged. Poor Henry.

I think that Henry Lee has done some good work, but being a celebrity brought out the worst in him.

To take another slam at Henry, in his disposition for the civil trial, he claimed he had no more connection with Mr Simpson, and he was an independent expert. While he told Petrocelli this, Barry Scheck was sitting there giving him legal advice. At the time Barry Scheck was still working for OJS. Does anyone really think Henry would pick Scheck as a lawyer if he wasn't still allied with Simpson? Suppose Petrocelli asked Henry about his opinion about Schecks work in the criminal trial? Does anyone think that Scheck would give unbiased advice on what sort of things Henry should say?

I thought I was verbose. However, with that said,:) I will only like to remind you that the prosecution has the onus of the burden of proof in a criminal trial as does the plaintiff in a civil one, albeit a discrimination case where there is a shifting burden and I am not sure in a civil case, if the plaintiff alleges a superceeding cause. Your posts seems to distort the burden.

[weezer]

What i suggest is that you read Lees bio and current employment.Then compare it to yours since you know what he should have done. Then post about him.

martin, there is absolutely no reason to treat another poster like this. nothing fgump posted warrants your attack. :punch:

[martin II]

THe point is that the blood evidence is so complicated and holds together in such a logical manner, that it is highly implausible that OJS was innocent, and that carelessness could have made him seem guilty. Even if we assume reduced credibility of each spot or drop of blood, it is very unlikely that carelessness could have produced the overall results.

If there were only a few spots of blood, the possibility of carelessness being a factor would have to be more seriously considered.

Well if you eliminate all the problems the prosecution had with blood evidence
as simple "ACCEPTED MISTAKES" then you would be forced to take the position you have taken.

[fgump2]

You seem to forget the missing blood and the EDTA in the gate and the sock stain and the inconsistent blood trail from the Rockingham gate to the front door and no evidence to place anyone behind Kato's quarters before MF. This sentence bears repetition, "Cross contamination is one form of carelessness, but not the only kind." A defendant should not be convicted on the carelessness of LE-reasonable doubt.

**************************************************
I wasn't trying to cover every aspect of a nine month trial in one posting. The missing blood was probably the result of a police nurse who had poor memory because of medical problems. I think the nurse had both congestive heart failure (weak heart) and perhaps cancer when he answered the original question about how much blood he took.

The inconsistent blood trail is hardly worth talking about. He could have been holding his hand to his side, some people get a stitch in their side when they are tired, or he may have held it to his side to keep the blood from dripping. He may have had a bag in his right hand with the knife and remaining glove, and if he switched the bag to his left hand for some reason, to vault over a wall or something, that could have stopped the bleeding. That is the blood would have soaked into the bag.

I am willing to admit that we should study all the possibilities before saying a person is guilty, and study even harder before convicting them. I believe the evidence holds together in a logical manner.

[William Anthony]

THe point is that the blood evidence is so complicated and holds together in such a logical manner, that it is highly implausible that OJS was innocent, and that carelessness could have made him seem guilty. Even if we assume reduced credibility of each spot or drop of blood, it is very unlikely that carelessness could have produced the overall results.

If there were only a few spots of blood, the possibility of carelessness being a factor would have to be more seriously considered.

How many spots do you think there were? What about those spots and evidence that don't hold consistently with the prosecution's theory? What do you suggest we do with those?

[martin II]

I thought I was verbose. However, with that said,:) I will only like to remind you that the prosecution has the onus of the burden of proof in a criminal trial as does the plaintiff in a civil one, albeit a discrimination case where there is a shifting burden and I am not sure in a civil case, if the plaintiff alleges a superceeding cause. Your posts seems to distort the burden.

I have posted many times who has the burden of proving claims in a criminal trial.But it seems that some still for some reason require the defense to prove something.Dr Lee had no responsibility to prove anything.

[William Anthony]

**************************************************
I wasn't trying to cover every aspect of a nine month trial in one posting. The missing blood was probably the result of a police nurse who had poor memory because of medical problems. I think the nurse had both congestive heart failure (weak heart) and perhaps cancer when he answered the original question about how much blood he took.

The inconsistent blood trail is hardly worth talking about. He could have been holding his hand to his side, some people get a stitch in their side when they are tired, or he may have held it to his side to keep the blood from dripping. He may have had a bag in his right hand with the knife and remaining glove, and if he switched the bag to his left hand for some reason, to vault over a wall or something, that could have stopped the bleeding. That is the blood would have soaked into the bag.

I am willing to admit that we should study all the possibilities before saying a person is guilty, and study even harder before convicting them. I believe the evidence holds together in a logical manner.

I wasn't trying to cover everything that leads to reasonable doubt, only on those things you mentioned. I think it was clearer in his memory when he gave the original testimony as opposed to nearly a year later as that is how I believe most people's memories operate.

The blood trail is consistent with Simpson's statements that he cut his hand reaching into the Bronco to get his cell phone or accessories and inconsistent with someone coming from the scene of bloody murders with a cut hand/finger dripping blood from that Scene to a gate and in his vehicle and somehow miraculously there is no evidence of him being in the location where a bloody glove is found.

I believe that there is evidence of both guilt and non guilt. Given the jury instruction, the jury reached the right verdict.

[William Anthony]

I have posted many times who has the burden of proving claims in a criminal trial.But it seems that some still for some reason require the defense to prove something.Dr Lee had no responsibility to prove anything.

I know and then there are the questions as to why the defense or their witnesses didn't do something. The obvious answer is they thought they had a strong reasonable doubt case, imho.

[martin II]

**************************************************
I wasn't trying to cover every aspect of a nine month trial in one posting. The missing blood was probably the result of a police nurse who had poor memory because of medical problems. I think the nurse had both congestive heart failure (weak heart) and perhaps cancer when he answered the original question about how much blood he took.

The inconsistent blood trail is hardly worth talking about. He could have been holding his hand to his side, some people get a stitch in their side when they are tired, or he may have held it to his side to keep the blood from dripping. He may have had a bag in his right hand with the knife and remaining glove, and if he switched the bag to his left hand for some reason, to vault over a wall or something, that could have stopped the bleeding. That is the blood would have soaked into the bag.

I am willing to admit that we should study all the possibilities before saying a person is guilty, and study even harder before convicting them. I believe the evidence holds together in a logical manner.

There was no wall in the south path.You can check that. There was no evidence that oj simpson was in the south path.So i conclude that he did not do any of the things you suggest that he did.

[martin II]

**************************************************
I wasn't trying to cover every aspect of a nine month trial in one posting. The missing blood was probably the result of a police nurse who had poor memory because of medical problems. I think the nurse had both congestive heart failure (weak heart) and perhaps cancer when he answered the original question about how much blood he took.

The inconsistent blood trail is hardly worth talking about. He could have been holding his hand to his side, some people get a stitch in their side when they are tired, or he may have held it to his side to keep the blood from dripping. He may have had a bag in his right hand with the knife and remaining glove, and if he switched the bag to his left hand for some reason, to vault over a wall or something, that could have stopped the bleeding. That is the blood would have soaked into the bag.

I am willing to admit that we should study all the possibilities before saying a person is guilty, and study even harder before convicting them. I believe the evidence holds together in a logical manner.

Peratis was working full time and there is no evidence that he was not able to do his job as he had in the past. When it was discovered that ojs blood was missing that was was several months later and the prosecuiton went
to his home and made the video where he changed the anmount of blood he drew.The prosecution did not care about his cancer when they went to his home to make the video.They needed him to say what they needed him to say to try to account for the missing blood.imo

[martin II]

martin said William made a boo-boo. Don't blame me. :shrug:

Are you sure martin said that about william

[weezer]

Peratis was working full time and there is no evidence that he was not able to do his job as he had in the past. When it was discovered that ojs blood was missing that was was several months later and the prosecuiton went
to his home and made the video where he changed the anmount of blood he drew.The prosecution did not care about his cancer when they went to his home to make the video.They needed him to say what they needed him to say to try to account for the missing blood.imo

ahh yes -- the grand world wide conspiracy to frame a guilty man. LOL

[martin II]

I know and then there are the questions as to why the defense or their witnesses didn't do something. The obvious answer is they thought they had a strong reasonable doubt case, imho.

Well what we relearned today was:
The glove sales manager/buyer could not tell what size the glove was or what color it was from the sales receipt.
Rubin could not tell what color the glove in the picture was.
Ito ordered oj to put on the latex gloves.
The glove didn't fit. But we already knew that.
C Bess missed something.

[William Anthony]

Peratis was working full time and there is no evidence that he was not able to do his job as he had in the past. When it was discovered that ojs blood was missing that was was several months later and the prosecuiton went
to his home and made the video where he changed the anmount of blood he drew.The prosecution did not care about his cancer when they went to his home to make the video.They needed him to say what they needed him to say to try to account for the missing blood.imo

That staged rehearsed exparte video with a witness that had been allegedly deemed unavailable to testify was close to first place and may have even tied for first in desperation with the glove demo, imho.

[tv]

Are you sure martin said that about william

Get William to explain it to you.

[GreenIce]

Thank you for validating my position.

TV,

The problem with Rubin's statement that the latex gloves made it harder to put the gloves on, he said nothing about how they impacted the fit of the gloves.

[GreenIce]

TV,

The problem with Rubin's statement that the latex gloves made it harder to put the gloves on, he said nothing about how they impacted the fit of the gloves.

Robert Shapiro and Johnnie Cochran tried the gloves on before Simpson. They knew they wouldn't fit. I believe the DA's used Phil Vanatter's hands as their "gage".

After that day in court, I think it was DA Lewis and Judge Ito in the courtroom and the defense asked if Simpson could try the gloves on with out the latex. Permission was granted and he did try them on with the same results.

However, the point is, those gloves should have been prepared for this demonstration. The DA's claimed these were his gloves and that he wore them when he killed Ron and Nicole. They should have had full confidence in this demonstration.

Even while Clark was telling Darden not to do this, she should have told him that he needs to tell the jury before the demo what impact the latex gloves would have on the fit. He also should have the percentage of shrinkage and this too would affect the fit. Had Darden told the jury these things, he would have taken all the "control" away from Simpson.

However, I will be honest, I never thought the fit of the gloves really mattered. First off all, everybody that was in the courtroom, to include the jurors had different feelings about the glove demonstration, some said they clearly didn't fit, others said they did fit. What I think the demonstration did do is to give pause how did these gloves come off of the hands? Were they pulled off during the struggle, were they taken off and dropped?

[GreenIce]

*******************************
Maybe the logic I used wasn’t the best. I will try another angle to show that carelessness was very unlikely to have been a significant fact in terms of the blood evidence against Simpson. The primary items of blood evidence were the presence of OJS blood at the crime scene, and the presence of victim blood in the bronco. I will try to show that it is virtually impossible that carelessness could be a factor in producing the evidence that implicates Orenthal Simpson.

First of all one of the strongest pieces of evidence against OJS was that five drops of blood at the crime scene turned out to match OJS. Initially the police thought that probably dripped from a cut on the killer’s left hand. They also knew that it might also have dripped from the killer’s knife, and might even have been left there before the killings.
All five of these drops matched up with OJS. I believe there was no other no other DNA present. This eliminates the possibility that the blood was dripped from the killer’s weapon. It doesn’t eliminate the possibility that OJS dripped the blood earlier, or that the blood was planted. I think we can disregard the possibility that carelessness was a factor. If it was one drop, I would guess that carelessness could have done it, although that would be most unlikely. You would have to assume that bacteria ate original blood, or that the original blood was somehow lost and accidentally replaced by OJS blood. That seems very unlikely to me for even one drop. For five drops, I think it is a virtual impossibility.
A few months before the trial William Thompson, one of the Simpson defense lawyers, wrote a paper which said that if carelessness (mainly contamination) influenced the results, it should show up in terms of creating implausible results.
There was a lot of blood evidence collected from three locations, Bundy, Rockingham, and the Bronco. Cross contamination is one form of carelessness, but not the only kind.
All of the blood evidence holds together too well for carelessness to have been much of a factor. It would be like a monkey or a hail storm pounding on a computer key board and coming creating a sentence that says “it is obvious that Orenthal Simpson is a murderer”. I realize that a hail storm, a monkey, or a rodent could type this; I just think it is highly unlikely.

Part of the point if the blood evidence is complicated, and seems to hold together logically, then carelessness was probably not a factor in creating these results.

I believe I have shown here that that carelessness was probably not a factor in creating the evidence against Simpson. I realize this doesn’t lay to rest the possibility that OJS could have bled there before the killings or that the blood might have been planted. I think we can arrive at the truth faster if we agree that carelessness was very unlikely to be a factor in causing the evidence to implicate Orenthal Simpson. I consider carelessness of Fung or Mazzola to be a red herring in this case. We should also discount the possibility that any problems in the LAPD crime lab influenced on the results.

This means that we should ignore the fact that D Fung had trouble remembering which work he did, and which work she did. The odd thing about this is that if they had a bad work relationship, he would probably remember theses things better. We should also ignore the initialing or non initialing of pieces of paper.

fgump2,

"Carlessness" was the glue the DA's and the LAPD used to keep their case together. They claimed it was carelessness that caused the DNA to be degraded on the blood drops. They sited carelessness because Fung looked for the blood on the back date and did not see it. They used carelessness because blood was not found on the sock week later.

In all fairness, all the "primary" blood evidence had the same problem, it was not seen or collected until much later. How many times can this happen in one case? I agree that because of the "carelessness", this made the blood evidence more complicated--but it was complicated by "carlessness" and that carlessness is why the blood evidence could not be trusted.

I don't know if you saw the prelim hearing but the nurse was getting a tad upset with Shapiro every time he asked how much blood he drew. He was adament on how much blood he drew. He gave himself a very narrow amount on how much he could be off. It wasn't until opening statements when he realized his "mistake".

However, once the nurse turned the reference sample over to VA, he is no longer accountable for the amount in it. Also, didn't Mathison, the other female lab person and Collin Y write down how much blood they used for their tests? If the nurse wrote the wrong amount down, don't you think they would have caught it long before the trial started?

[fgump2]

You seem to forget the missing blood and the EDTA in the gate and the sock stain and the inconsistent blood trail from the Rockingham gate to the front door and no evidence to place anyone behind Kato's quarters before MF. This sentence bears repetition, "Cross contamination is one form of carelessness, but not the only kind." A defendant should not be convicted on the carelessness of LE-reasonable doubt.
************************************************** *******
I don't think that EDTA was a factor, even though I wrote that your quote was impressive. It didn't get into the civil trial, and if evidence came up afterwards, it should have been evidence to ask for a rematch (or whatever they call a second civil trial). Also in the civil trial Terry Lee testified that the EDTA evidence didn't indicate planting and the defense didn't get anyone to refute him. Was the quote that you (WA) got before or after the civil trial testimony? It also occurred to me that if the LAPD lab used EDTA as a preservative, they may have been careless about using it. So maybe carelessness was a factor.

The type B blood weakens the blood evidence, but I think it doesn't weaken it very much. Henry Lee never mentioned it. He was a blood expert with a PHD in biochemistry. If the EDTA or the type B blood under a fingrnail was a big problem why didn't Henry Lee bring it up? I haven't studied the details about the blood under the fingernail. Maybe there was a second killer. V Bugliosi wrote that there are almost always loose ends in a trial, evidence that doesn't seem to match.

I don't see why anyone would take the inconsistent blood trail to be a problem. OJS could have held his hand to his side without even being conscious of why he was doing it. This is a problem where it would be nice to get an independent mind on it.

Another point that Martin brings up is the location of the left had glove at Bundy. I think he wrote that the glove was in an improbably location. The problem with this is that the prosecution said they thought it was dropped in the fight between Ron Goldman and OJS. With two men desperately struggling the glove could have bounced off of someone's knee or foot. I think it would be very hard to guess what could or couldn't happen with two men fighting with that level of intensity.

[GreenIce]

I understand your condescending tone perfectly. What I don't understand is why you take every piece of evidence and testimony in this trial and warp it into something unrecognizable and then say I don't understand it. The gloves would have fit him without the latex gloves. He mugged and grimaced his way through putting them on. The prosecution was wrong to ask for the demonstration without setting conditions for how the gloves would be tried on. It was beyond stupid.

TV,

I did not mean to be condescending. What I meant was that Clark could have stopped this demonstration and I believe she knew it would be a diaster because she had to know they were not going to fit. Like Martin posted and I agree, Clark had away of letting other people take the fall for the loss of this case.

Remember, after the trial Clark and Darden were heros. They were the underdogs that came up short. However, it didn't take long for the same people who hailed them as heros to rip both of them to shreds in their books.

The only person I can remember who said he screwed up was Darden. He did blame himself for the glove demonstration. However, my point is that Clark let Darden do this and because she let him do this, she turned him into another one of her scapegoats.

What are the purpose of latex gloves? Why do surgeons, doctors and other medical personal wear them? Why do crime lab people wear them? What is the purpose of wearing them? Why are they made so thin? Why are they made of latex?

If you answer all these questions honestly, IMO, you know the latex gloves would not alter the fit. IMO.

When a doctor puts on latex gloves, how much do his hands grow? How large can latex gloves make a person's hands?

[tv]

Well what we relearned today was:
The glove sales manager/buyer could not tell what size the glove was or what color it was from the sales receipt.
Rubin could not tell what color the glove in the picture was.
Ito ordered oj to put on the latex gloves.
The glove didn't fit. But we already knew that.
C Bess missed something.


The glove sales manager/buyer could not tell what size the glove was or what color it was from the sales receipt.
Buyer of men's gloves for Bloomingdale's Department Store in 1990. Thursday, June 15: Told the court Nicole Brown bought two pair of Aris Leather Lights in extra-large - the type of glove found at the crime scene and at O.J. Simpson's estate.
http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/players/S-Z/index.html

Rubin could not tell what color the glove in the picture was.
Testimony of Richard Rubin in civil trial -- November 6, 1996

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Now, looking at that glove, both on the screen and
the enlargement before you, are you able to observe any of the
specific characteristics we've been discussing before?

A. I can see the Brossar stitching on the photo.

I really can't see it on this screen, but I can see the blind hem and
the points in both places.

MR. KELLY: Get that in, Steve.

(Mr. Foster adjusts TV screen.)

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Is that better, Mr. Rubin?

A. It is.

Q. Looking at the photograph, enlargements from the view, are you able
to --

A. I'd like to stick to the photo, please.

Q. Okay.

What specific characteristics are you able to observe?

A. The Brossar stitching on the top of the forefinger at the top, and
the three point, and the blind hem.

And also the characteristics of the light leather shows -- up here,
where you can see the wrinkles, you can see that it's very thin.

Q. And what color of manufacture is that glove, by the way?

A. It's a brown shade.

Q. That's a brown.

Ito ordered oj to put on the latex gloves.
:shrug:

The glove didn't fit. But we already knew that.
". . .The gloves appeared not to fit, but the jurors said they weren't convinced.

"Those gloves fit," Bess wrote. "He wasn't putting them on right."

"Sure," added Rubin-Jackson, "you know, they fit. ... I must have had an expression on my face because as he stood there, it was like he was talking to me, and he went, 'They don't fit.' They would have fit anybody." . . .

C Bess missed something.
Carrie Bess missed the elephant sitting in the middle of the room.

[William Anthony]

Get William to explain it to you.

You made the claim, my fair lady.

[William Anthony]

************************************************** *******
I don't think that EDTA was a factor, even though I wrote that your quote was impressive. It didn't get into the civil trial, and if evidence came up afterwards, it should have been evidence to ask for a rematch (or whatever they call a second civil trial). Also in the civil trial Terry Lee testified that the EDTA evidence didn't indicate planting and the defense didn't get anyone to refute him. Was the quote that you (WA) got before or after the civil trial testimony? It also occurred to me that if the LAPD lab used EDTA as a preservative, they may have been careless about using it. So maybe carelessness was a factor.



I am flabbergasted by your entire quote. Apparently, you did not follow either trial. EDTA was a factor or there would have been no testimony about it. It was a factor in the criminal trial and remained a factor in the civil trial. Dr. Terry Lee was called upon to attempt to rehabilitate Martz's testimony from the criminal trial in the civil trial. The defense destroyed Dr. Lee by the cross in the civil trial when they brought out his statements in the letter that, if not planted, a convincing argument must be made to explain Martz's results and the testimony that it was impossible to find EDTA in the levels Martz claimed to have found in the non preserved blood of a human being. Everything seems to be carelessness or possible carelessness to you. That was the prosecution's case, we won't you to believe we were careless but all of our carelessness we want you to excuse, forget our burden of proof, because we believe Simpson did it. even though our carelessness doesn't allow us to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

[William Anthony]

The type B blood weakens the blood evidence, but I think it doesn't weaken it very much. Henry Lee never mentioned it. He was a blood expert with a PHD in biochemistry. If the EDTA or the type B blood under a fingrnail was a big problem why didn't Henry Lee bring it up? I haven't studied the details about the blood under the fingernail. Maybe there was a second killer. V Bugliosi wrote that there are almost always loose ends in a trial, evidence that doesn't seem to match.

I hope you realize that the prosecution's theory was that Simpson and Simpson alone was the sole murderer, which your statement,"Maybe there was a second killer ", speaks volumes to the concept of reasonable doubt. The defense tore Matheson apart on the type B blood evidence and there was no need for Dr. Henry Lee to mention it. The magnificent one made magnificent progress with the phrase that if it does not fit, you must acquit, which is what, imho, V Bugliosi left off when he wrote that "there are almost always loose ends in a trial, evidence that doesn't seem to match."

[William Anthony]

I don't see why anyone would take the inconsistent blood trail to be a problem. OJS could have held his hand to his side without even being conscious of why he was doing it. This is a problem where it would be nice to get an independent mind on it.

The independent evidence is that the blood trial is inconsistent with the prosecution's theory and directly contradicts it. If it does not fit, you must acquit.

[William Anthony]

Another point that Martin brings up is the location of the left had glove at Bundy. I think he wrote that the glove was in an improbably location. The problem with this is that the prosecution said they thought it was dropped in the fight between Ron Goldman and OJS. With two men desperately struggling the glove could have bounced off of someone's knee or foot. I think it would be very hard to guess what could or couldn't happen with two men fighting with that level of intensity.

Look at the picture of that glove and you will see that it appears to be neatly arranged, which contradicts the prosecution's theory, imho. If it does not fit, you must acquit. I firmly believe the gloves were made of leather and not rubber.:)

[William Anthony]

GreenIce and Martin,

There have been several posts made about a grand conspiracy, which I don't think any of us have said. Those that made those particular statements seemed to have bought into the prosecution's argument. I ask you to consider a portion of Ron Shipp's testimony in which he said that he did not want to be the one to bring Simpson down and Carl Douglass responded that he wouldn't be. Let's look at what Shipp was saying, my testimony will bring down Simpson. Careers and fame were made on what was termed "The Trial of the Century". What greater fame could there have been for someone than to provide the testimony that convicted Simpson of murder? This could help us understand the seeming willingness for prosecution witnesses to slant their testimonies. There was no similar motive for the defense witnesses, as they have suffered the slings and errors for helping who most of America think guilty of murder to get acquitted. There may have been other motivations for the defense witnesses but I don't believe a desire for infamy was one.

[martin II]

************************************************** *******
I don't think that EDTA was a factor, even though I wrote that your quote was impressive. It didn't get into the civil trial, and if evidence came up afterwards, it should have been evidence to ask for a rematch (or whatever they call a second civil trial). Also in the civil trial Terry Lee testified that the EDTA evidence didn't indicate planting and the defense didn't get anyone to refute him. Was the quote that you (WA) got before or after the civil trial testimony? It also occurred to me that if the LAPD lab used EDTA as a preservative, they may have been careless about using it. So maybe carelessness was a factor.

The type B blood weakens the blood evidence, but I think it doesn't weaken it very much. Henry Lee never mentioned it. He was a blood expert with a PHD in biochemistry. If the EDTA or the type B blood under a fingrnail was a big problem why didn't Henry Lee bring it up? I haven't studied the details about the blood under the fingernail. Maybe there was a second killer. V Bugliosi wrote that there are almost always loose ends in a trial, evidence that doesn't seem to match.

I don't see why anyone would take the inconsistent blood trail to be a problem. OJS could have held his hand to his side without even being conscious of why he was doing it. This is a problem where it would be nice to get an independent mind on it.

Another point that Martin brings up is the location of the left had glove at Bundy.MARTIN DID NOT POST ABOUT THE GLOVE AT BUNDY I think he wrote that the glove was in an improbably location. The problem with this is that the prosecution said they thought it was dropped in the fight between Ron Goldman and OJS. With two men desperately struggling the glove could have bounced off of someone's knee or foot. I think it would be very hard to guess what could or couldn't happen with two men fighting with that level of intensity.

Dr Reiders proved that Martz and Lee were wrong.You have to read the testimony to understand this.

[martin II]

The glove sales manager/buyer could not tell what size the glove was or what color it was from the sales receipt.
Buyer of men's gloves for Bloomingdale's Department Store in 1990. Thursday, June 15: Told the court Nicole Brown bought two pair of Aris Leather Lights in extra-large - the type of glove found at the crime scene and at O.J. Simpson's estate.
http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/players/S-Z/index.html[/B]

Rubin could not tell what color the glove in the picture was.
Testimony of Richard Rubin in civil trial -- November 6, 1996

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Now, looking at that glove, both on the screen and
the enlargement before you, are you able to observe any of the
specific characteristics we've been discussing before?

A. I can see the Brossar stitching on the photo.

I really can't see it on this screen, but I can see the blind hem and
the points in both places.

MR. KELLY: Get that in, Steve.

(Mr. Foster adjusts TV screen.)

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Is that better, Mr. Rubin?

A. It is.

Q. Looking at the photograph, enlargements from the view, are you able
to --

A. I'd like to stick to the photo, please.

Q. Okay.

What specific characteristics are you able to observe?

A. The Brossar stitching on the top of the forefinger at the top, and
the three point, and the blind hem.

And also the characteristics of the light leather shows -- up here,
where you can see the wrinkles, you can see that it's very thin.

Q. And what color of manufacture is that glove, by the way?

A. It's a brown shade.

Q. That's a brown.

Ito ordered oj to put on the latex gloves.
:shrug:

The glove didn't fit. But we already knew that.
". . .The gloves appeared not to fit, but the jurors said they weren't convinced.

"Those gloves fit," Bess wrote. "He wasn't putting them on right."

"Sure," added Rubin-Jackson, "you know, they fit. ... I must have had an expression on my face because as he stood there, it was like he was talking to me, and he went, 'They don't fit.' They would have fit anybody." . . .

C Bess missed something.
Carrie Bess missed the elephant sitting in the middle of the room.

The sales managers direct testimont contridicts the cnn story.i believe the sales manager.

i have rubins state where he said he could not tell what color the glove was. i will have to find it.

Aris was not the only company that made that type glove.

pictures were enhanced

two jurors thought the glove fit and 10 thought that they did not fit.

[martin II]

TV,

I did not mean to be condescending. What I meant was that Clark could have stopped this demonstration and I believe she knew it would be a diaster because she had to know they were not going to fit. Like Martin posted and I agree, Clark had away of letting other people take the fall for the loss of this case.

Remember, after the trial Clark and Darden were heros. They were the underdogs that came up short. However, it didn't take long for the same people who hailed them as heros to rip both of them to shreds in their books.

The only person I can remember who said he screwed up was Darden. He did blame himself for the glove demonstration. However, my point is that Clark let Darden do this and because she let him do this, she turned him into another one of her scapegoats.

What are the purpose of latex gloves? Why do surgeons, doctors and other medical personal wear them? Why do crime lab people wear them? What is the purpose of wearing them? Why are they made so thin? Why are they made of latex?

If you answer all these questions honestly, IMO, you know the latex gloves would not alter the fit. IMO.

When a doctor puts on latex gloves, how much do his hands grow? How large can latex gloves make a person's hands?


Remember Darden was the one that was fired by the DAS office after the trial.

No latex gloves have ever made a persons hands grow to a size larger than they would be without latex.

[bobaugust]

You see that is not the testimony but you can draw that inference from that testimony and I can draw an inference from what the testimony was and both of us could be right. I had previously asked you to show me the testimony where Park said he saw Simpson come down the driveway but you did not. So allow me to post this.

Park-March 28th


Q: HOW LONG -- NOW, AT THE SAME TIME THAT YOU SAW KATO KAELIN IN THE SIDE YARD, DID YOU SEE ANYTHING ELSE?

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

Q: CAN YOU SHOW US ON THIS DIAGRAM WHERE YOU FIRST SAW THAT PERSON?

A: UMM, JUST IF YOU GO WHERE THE CIRCLE IS, GO STRAIGHT BACK -- NO, THE OTHER WAY, A LITTLE BIT FARTHER. IT WAS ABOUT THERE, (INDICATING), AROUND THAT AREA.

Q: OKAY. ROUGHLY THAT AREA?

A: YEAH. "

William, do you see the words, “WELL, NOT COME DOWN, “ Park was saying he first saw Simpson when Simpson came into the light of the front entrance where the driveway starts. Park never said he saw Simpson go from the house to the driveway.

Park was asked specifically about this in the preliminary hearing and even marked where he first saw Simpson. In the civil trial Park said it clearer.

July 5, 1994 Allan Park

Q Okay. Did you see something else after you saw that white male on the Ashford side path?
A Almost simultaneously as I saw him, I saw somebody cross the driveway and go into the house from this area, came out.
Q Can you please put an 'X' where you first saw that person?
THE COURT: I think you already have an 'X' on the diagram. Maybe you should make that an 'X' sub 1 or sub 2.
THE WITNESS: You want me to circle the 'X'?
BY MS. CLARK:
Q Was that person a male or female?
A I couldn't tell.
Q Can you describe the person?
A Six foot, 200 pounds.
Q Black or white?
A Black.
Q What were they wearing?
A Just seemed to be dark clothes.
Q Why don't you put 'P' for person where you put that 'X' before.
MS. CLARK: For the record, the witness has done so.


November 20, 1996 Allan Park

Q. In this last 30 seconds with your telephone call with Dale, when you first saw this blond-haired person, did you then see anything, or anyone else come in this area over here?
A. Yes. I saw somebody come from the driveway area into the house, or go into the house.
Q. And can you tell us what the person looked like that you saw go from the driveway area into the house?
A. Six foot, 200 pounds, and all black clothing.
Q. When you say all black clothing, what do you mean by that?
A. Well, dark pants, dark top,
Q. Now, if you can sort of put yourself back at that moment in time when you're seeing this person in all dark clothing, you're on the phone with Dale St. John, still?
A. Yes.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The only thing that is contradicted by the evidence is that Park could have seen Kato come from behind the north pathway. The evidence is in his testimony and Kato's because Park said Kato was standing. However, Kato testified when he left his quarters to go do his first cursory search he did not stop (I don't know if it was in deposition or the civil trial testimony). The testimonies indicates that Kato saw the limo, Park did not see Kato then, Kato did his first cursory search and returned, which is when Park saw kato, which suggests that Park had a failed memory or a suggested one. Of course, these are inferences I draw from the testimonies/evidence.

William, you’ve posted Park’s testimony when Park was asked if he noticed where Kaelin was when Simpson entered his house and Park said he remembered Kaelin still standing on the sidewalk. Whether or not Kaelin just paused or stopped for a couple of seconds is only a minor discrepancy between two witness’s recollection and doesn’t change where Park said Kaelin was; “ON THE SIDEWALK.”

The Ashford sidewalk is a continuation of the only sidewalk on the Rockingham estate. It starts at the back of the house at the tennis court, goes past the pool and down the Ashford side of the house ending at the driveway. There is no other sidewalk on the Rockingham estate except for the south walkway that runs behind the garage to the end of the guest house.

Everything Park said about seeing Kaelin come from the back of the house on that sidewalk with a flashlight is completely consistent with what Kaelin said he did after leaving his room to investigate the noises. Park’s testimony as to where he first saw Kaelin and then almost simultaneously saw Simpson walk into the entranceway of the house where the driveway starts, enter the front door and lights come on downstairs, is completely consistent with the layout of the Rockingham estate.

If you actually take the time to look at the colored diagram of the Rockingham estate you will see these locations, some even identified with letters, and clearly see that your imagined scenario could not have happened the way you imagine it happened. Park was not mistaken about seeing Kaelin on the Ashford sidewalk William; you’re the one who is mistaken. Your reasoning is flawed and your conclusion is wrong.

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

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The magnificent one's closing.

"You know, as I told you, it so stretches the credulity to believe that so neatly placed were this knit hat and this glove, were there two gloves at some point when he says I saw them. Why would you see them? There weren't two gloves. And you know it is so unusual because everything else is spread all out. This was a vicious fight. There is a beeper over here and there is keys over there, but these items are right there, right where he could point at them. It is too, too pat. So you can ask yourself those questions when you go back into that jury room. "

[martin II]

Robert Shapiro and Johnnie Cochran tried the gloves on before Simpson. They knew they wouldn't fit. I believe the DA's used Phil Vanatter's hands as their "gage".

After that day in court, I think it was DA Lewis and Judge Ito in the courtroom and the defense asked if Simpson could try the gloves on with out the latex. Permission was granted and he did try them on with the same results.

However, the point is, those gloves should have been prepared for this demonstration. The DA's claimed these were his gloves and that he wore them when he killed Ron and Nicole. They should have had full confidence in this demonstration.

Even while Clark was telling Darden not to do this, she should have told him that he needs to tell the jury before the demo what impact the latex gloves would have on the fit. He also should have the percentage of shrinkage and this too would affect the fit. Had Darden told the jury these things, he would have taken all the "control" away from Simpson.

However, I will be honest, I never thought the fit of the gloves really mattered. First off all, everybody that was in the courtroom, to include the jurors had different feelings about the glove demonstration, some said they clearly didn't fit, others said they did fit. What I think the demonstration did do is to give pause how did these gloves come off of the hands? Were they pulled off during the struggle, were they taken off and dropped?

you have made some excellant points about the glove.

Rubin bragged about how his tight, fine, thin leather gloves were made to fit.
He said Skin Tight.

The prosecution believed that the glove came of easilly in the fight.Although
the killers closed fist would have been at Rons right ear away from Rons ability to grabe it.

In order for the gloves to have come off they would have had to be on the hand with a loose fit.Not skin tight.

If the glove had a loose fit them why is it that they did not fit easily.

[William Anthony]

William, do you see the words, “WELL, NOT COME DOWN, “ Park was saying he first saw Simpson when Simpson came into the light of the front entrance where the driveway starts. Park never said he saw Simpson go from the house to the driveway.

Park was asked specifically about this in the preliminary hearing and even marked where he first saw Simpson. In the civil trial Park said it clearer.

July 5, 1994 Allan Park

Q Okay. Did you see something else after you saw that white male on the Ashford side path?
A Almost simultaneously as I saw him, I saw somebody cross the driveway and go into the house from this area, came out.
Q Can you please put an 'X' where you first saw that person?
THE COURT: I think you already have an 'X' on the diagram. Maybe you should make that an 'X' sub 1 or sub 2.
THE WITNESS: You want me to circle the 'X'?
BY MS. CLARK:
Q Was that person a male or female?
A I couldn't tell.
Q Can you describe the person?
A Six foot, 200 pounds.
Q Black or white?
A Black.
Q What were they wearing?
A Just seemed to be dark clothes.
Q Why don't you put 'P' for person where you put that 'X' before.
MS. CLARK: For the record, the witness has done so.


November 20, 1996 Allan Park

Q. In this last 30 seconds with your telephone call with Dale, when you first saw this blond-haired person, did you then see anything, or anyone else come in this area over here?
A. Yes. I saw somebody come from the driveway area into the house, or go into the house.
Q. And can you tell us what the person looked like that you saw go from the driveway area into the house?
A. Six foot, 200 pounds, and all black clothing.
Q. When you say all black clothing, what do you mean by that?
A. Well, dark pants, dark top,
Q. Now, if you can sort of put yourself back at that moment in time when you're seeing this person in all dark clothing, you're on the phone with Dale St. John, still?
A. Yes.

bobaugust

Why would I not see the testimony since I posted it and brought it to your attention to show your speculation or assumption was not supported by the testimony? Your statement was.

he saw Simpson for the first time that night walk up from the driveway to the front entrance and enter his house,

Park's testimony, WELL, NOT COME DOWN, BUT I SAW A FIGURE COME INTO THE ENTRANCEWAY OF THE HOUSE....Q: WAS MR. KAELIN EVER ON THE DRIVEWAY AT THE SAME TIME AS THE SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON THAT WENT INTO THE HOUSE?

A: NOT THAT I REMEMBER, NO.

[martin II]

************************************************** *******
I don't think that EDTA was a factor, even though I wrote that your quote was impressive. It didn't get into the civil trial, and if evidence came up afterwards, it should have been evidence to ask for a rematch (or whatever they call a second civil trial). Also in the civil trial Terry Lee testified that the EDTA evidence didn't indicate planting and the defense didn't get anyone to refute him. Was the quote that you (WA) got before or after the civil trial testimony? It also occurred to me that if the LAPD lab used EDTA as a preservative, they may have been careless about using it. So maybe carelessness was a factor.

The type B blood weakens the blood evidence, but I think it doesn't weaken it very much. Henry Lee never mentioned it. He was a blood expert with a PHD in biochemistry. If the EDTA or the type B blood under a fingrnail was a big problem why didn't Henry Lee bring it up? I haven't studied the details about the blood under the fingernail. Maybe there was a second killer. V Bugliosi wrote that there are almost always loose ends in a trial, evidence that doesn't seem to match.

I don't see why anyone would take the inconsistent blood trail to be a problem. OJS could have held his hand to his side without even being conscious of why he was doing it. This is a problem where it would be nice to get an independent mind on it.

Another point that Martin brings up is the location of the left had glove at Bundy. I think he wrote that the glove was in an improbably location. The problem with this is that the prosecution said they thought it was dropped in the fight between Ron Goldman and OJS. With two men desperately struggling the glove could have bounced off of someone's knee or foot. I think it would be very hard to guess what could or couldn't happen with two men fighting with that level of intensity.
Martin posted about the cap under the plant.

Did you read the link to Wagners cap dropping experiement? If you dismiss it can you tell me why?

[William Anthony]

William, you’ve posted Park’s testimony when Park was asked if he noticed where Kaelin was when Simpson entered his house and Park said he remembered Kaelin still standing on the sidewalk. Whether or not Kaelin just paused or stopped for a couple of seconds is only a minor discrepancy between two witness’s recollection and doesn’t change where Park said Kaelin was; “ON THE SIDEWALK.”

bobaugust

Park's actual testimony as to where Kato was.

Q: WAS HE ON THE DRIVEWAY OR WAS HE ON THE GRASS?

A: NO, HE WAS OFF A COUPLE FEET.

Q: OKAY. TELL THE POINTER WHERE TO GO.

A: JUST RIGHT -- RIGHT THERE, (INDICATING).

Q: OKAY. WAS HE ON THE GRASS OR ON THE PATH?

A: I COULDN'T SEE.

Q: YOU COULDN'T TELL?

A: NO.

Q: SO IS THAT THE GENERAL LOCATION WHERE HE WAS?

A: YES.

[William Anthony]

the ashford sidewalk is a continuation of the only sidewalk on the rockingham estate. It starts at the back of the house at the tennis court, goes past the pool and down the ashford side of the house ending at the driveway. There is no other sidewalk on the rockingham estate except for the south walkway that runs behind the garage to the end of the guest house.

Bobaugust

q: Okay. Was he on the grass or on the path?

A: I couldn't see.

Q: You couldn't tell?

A: No.

[William Anthony]

Everything Park said about seeing Kaelin come from the back of the house on that sidewalk with a flashlight is completely consistent with what Kaelin said he did after leaving his room to investigate the noises. Park’s testimony as to where he first saw Kaelin and then almost simultaneously saw Simpson walk into the entranceway of the house where the driveway starts, enter the front door and lights come on downstairs, is completely consistent with the layout of the Rockingham estate.

bobaugust

Yes, but it is inconsistent with Park saying he saw Kato standing and still standing as Kato testified he did not stop when he exited his quarters on his way to do his first cursory search and is inconsistent with Kato's testimony as to Kato finishing his first cursory search, which you admit was when Kato buzzed the limo in and the only time Kato could have been standing or still standing as testified to by Park.

[martin II]

The glove sales manager/buyer could not tell what size the glove was or what color it was from the sales receipt.
Buyer of men's gloves for Bloomingdale's Department Store in 1990. Thursday, June 15: Told the court Nicole Brown bought two pair of Aris Leather Lights in extra-large - the type of glove found at the crime scene and at O.J. Simpson's estate.
http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/players/S-Z/index.html

Rubin could not tell what color the glove in the picture was.
Testimony of Richard Rubin in civil trial -- November 6, 1996

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Now, looking at that glove, both on the screen and
the enlargement before you, are you able to observe any of the
specific characteristics we've been discussing before?

A. I can see the Brossar stitching on the photo.

I really can't see it on this screen, but I can see the blind hem and
the points in both places.

MR. KELLY: Get that in, Steve.

(Mr. Foster adjusts TV screen.)

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Is that better, Mr. Rubin?

A. It is.

Q. Looking at the photograph, enlargements from the view, are you able
to --

A. I'd like to stick to the photo, please.

Q. Okay.

What specific characteristics are you able to observe?

A. The Brossar stitching on the top of the forefinger at the top, and
the three point, and the blind hem.

And also the characteristics of the light leather shows -- up here,
where you can see the wrinkles, you can see that it's very thin.

Q. And what color of manufacture is that glove, by the way?

A. It's a brown shade.

Q. That's a brown.

Ito ordered oj to put on the latex gloves.
:shrug:

The glove didn't fit. But we already knew that.
". . .The gloves appeared not to fit, but the jurors said they weren't convinced.

"Those gloves fit," Bess wrote. "He wasn't putting them on right."

"Sure," added Rubin-Jackson, "you know, they fit. ... I must have had an expression on my face because as he stood there, it was like he was talking to me, and he went, 'They don't fit.' They would have fit anybody." . . .

C Bess missed something.
Carrie Bess missed the elephant sitting in the middle of the room.


The prosetion didn't think the glove was the elephant in the room.

They advertized that they had the big proof proof comming and everyone waited to hear the new science.
They then spent months talking about DNA all the way down to molecules sp
and they didn't pay attention to the work B Schack was doing and that everyone in the court room was sleep.Even the tv on camera people were sleep. Someone should have yelled ENOUGH ALREADY.

[William Anthony]

http://www.wagnerandson.com/images/2rockham.jpg[/url]

bobaugust

I have not said that Park was wrong about seeing Kato on or near the Ashford sidewalk. I am saying it was either suggested to him that he saw Kato come from behind the house or he was wrong. At the time Park saw Kato standing or still standing, Kato had finished his first cursory search and walked to that point, which is where Park first saw him. That is consistent with Park waiting thirty seconds after he claimed to have seen Simpson go into the house, going to the Ashford gate and buzzing and having Simpson answer immediately and twenty to thirty seconds thereafter, after seeing Kato still standing, being buzzed in by Kato. It defies common sense to have Kato walk to the south walkway, do a cursory search, walk back to the Ashford walkway area, contemplate letting the limo in, seeing he was not buzzed in and walk to the gate box, all within thirty seconds, which is how long he waited to buzz again after seeing Kato and who he claimed was Simpson, because Park said Kato was still standing in that area. Kato shared the name with a dog not superman.

[martin II]

Fgump2

I don't understand why you say the blood drops are not important.
the drops led from the bronco to the front door.

The prosecution ignores this and says oj went around the Salingers property and jumped the fence.No blood trial was found any place the prosecution said he was.
Square this for me if you can.

[martin II]

The magnificent one's closing.

"You know, as I told you, it so stretches the credulity to believe that so neatly placed were this knit hat and this glove, were there two gloves at some point when he says I saw them. Why would you see them? There weren't two gloves. And you know it is so unusual because everything else is spread all out. This was a vicious fight. There is a beeper over here and there is keys over there, but these items are right there, right where he could point at them. It is too, too pat. So you can ask yourself those questions when you go back into that jury room. "

the prosdecution lost the jury in the closing.they focused on dv and the defence walked the jury through all the testimony.

And Clarke insulted the jury by telling them something like "BELIEVE IT BECAUSE I SAY IT IS TRUE"

I think the jury may have said to themselves. NO, YOU MUST PROVE IT AND YOU HAVEN'T.

[martin II]

I have not said that Park was wrong about seeing Kato on or near the Ashford sidewalk. I am saying it was either suggested to him that he saw Kato come from behind the house or he was wrong. At the time Park saw Kato standing or still standing, Kato had finished his first cursory search and walked to that point, which is where Park first saw him. That is consistent with Park waiting thirty seconds after he claimed to have seen Simpson go into the house, going to the Ashford gate and buzzing and having Simpson answer immediately and twenty to thirty seconds thereafter, after seeing Kato still standing, being buzzed in by Kato. It defies common sense to have Kato walk to the south walkway, do a cursory search, walk back to the Ashford walkway area, contemplate letting the limo in, seeing he was not buzzed in and walk to the gate box, all within thirty seconds, which is how long he waited to buzz again after seeing Kato and who he claimed was Simpson, because Park said Kato was still standing in that area. Kato shared the name with a dog not superman.

WILLIAM
Bob has always took the position that Wagner was nut.
I have noticed him posting links to wagner frequently lately.

[tv]

You made the claim, my fair lady.
This is so insignificant it really doesn't matter.

[martin II]

************************************************** *******
I don't think that EDTA was a factor, even though I wrote that your quote was impressive. It didn't get into the civil trial, and if evidence came up afterwards, it should have been evidence to ask for a rematch (or whatever they call a second civil trial). Also in the civil trial Terry Lee testified that the EDTA evidence didn't indicate planting and the defense didn't get anyone to refute him.Absolutely not true Dr Reiders did just that. Was the quote that you (WA) got before or after the civil trial testimony? It also occurred to me that if the LAPD lab used EDTA as a preservative, they may have been careless about using it. So maybe carelessness was a factor. Do you know what EDTA IS?

The type B blood weakens the blood evidence, but I think it doesn't weaken it very much. Henry Lee never mentioned it. He was a blood expert with a PHD in biochemistry. If the EDTA or the type B blood under a fingrnail was a big problem why didn't Henry Lee bring it up? THE DEFENCE DID AND PROVED THE PROSECUTIONS CLAIM COULDF NOT BE BELIEVED,..I haven't studied the details about the blood under the fingernail. Maybe there was a second killer. V Bugliosi wrote that there are almost always loose ends in a trial, evidence that doesn't seem to match.

I don't see why anyone would take the inconsistent blood trail to be a problem. OJS could have held his hand to his side without even being conscious of why he was doing it. This is a problem where it would be nice to get an independent mind on it.

Another point that Martin brings up is the location of the left had glove at Bundy. I think he wrote that the glove was in an improbably location. The problem with this is that the prosecution said they thought it was dropped in the fight between Ron Goldman and OJS. With two men desperately struggling the glove could have bounced off of someone's knee or foot. I think it would be very hard to guess what could or couldn't happen with two men fighting with that level of intensity.

Once again the defence did not have to prove anything.

[martin II]

The glove sales manager/buyer could not tell what size the glove was or what color it was from the sales receipt.
Buyer of men's gloves for Bloomingdale's Department Store in 1990. Thursday, June 15: Told the court Nicole Brown bought two pair of Aris Leather Lights in extra-large - the type of glove found at the crime scene and at O.J. Simpson's estate.
http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/players/S-Z/index.html

Rubin could not tell what color the glove in the picture was.
Testimony of Richard Rubin in civil trial -- November 6, 1996

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Now, looking at that glove, both on the screen and
the enlargement before you, are you able to observe any of the
specific characteristics we've been discussing before?

A. I can see the Brossar stitching on the photo.

I really can't see it on this screen, but I can see the blind hem and
the points in both places.

MR. KELLY: Get that in, Steve.

(Mr. Foster adjusts TV screen.)

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Is that better, Mr. Rubin?

A. It is.

Q. Looking at the photograph, enlargements from the view, are you able
to --

A. I'd like to stick to the photo, please.

Q. Okay.

What specific characteristics are you able to observe?

A. The Brossar stitching on the top of the forefinger at the top, and
the three point, and the blind hem.

And also the characteristics of the light leather shows -- up here,
where you can see the wrinkles, you can see that it's very thin.

Q. And what color of manufacture is that glove, by the way?

A. It's a brown shade.

Q. That's a brown.

Ito ordered oj to put on the latex gloves.
:shrug:

The glove didn't fit. But we already knew that.
". . .The gloves appeared not to fit, but the jurors said they weren't convinced.

"Those gloves fit," Bess wrote. "He wasn't putting them on right."

"Sure," added Rubin-Jackson, "you know, they fit. ... I must have had an expression on my face because as he stood there, it was like he was talking to me, and he went, 'They don't fit.' They would have fit anybody." . . .

C Bess missed something.
Carrie Bess missed the elephant sitting in the middle of the room.



"MR. DARDEN: Now, does the sales receipt indicate the size of the glove?

MS. VEMICH: No, it does not.

MR. DARDEN: Does it indicate the color of the glove?

MS. VEMICH: No, it does not.

MR. DARDEN: Is there way for you to tell us that the two gloves I showed you here in court were purchased during the transaction shown here in People's 372-A?

MS. VEMICH: No."

It has been said that a picture is worth a thousand words but in this case, calling Rubin to testify about gloves that he couldn't say were the gloves in evidence and which by the way didn't fit, imho, and there was no way of telling what size or color of gloves were originally purchased was a waste of words and film, imho.
__________________

[martin II]

Look at the picture of that glove and you will see that it appears to be neatly arranged, which contradicts the prosecution's theory, imho. If it does not fit, you must acquit. I firmly believe the gloves were made of leather and not rubber.:)

Wagners experiement with the glove and cap falling on the plant gives reasonable doubt thet they fell as found.
The cap and glove was placed next to each other so they both would be found.

[martin II]

*******************************
Maybe the logic I used wasn’t the best. I will try another angle to show that carelessness was very unlikely to have been a significant fact in terms of the blood evidence against Simpson. The primary items of blood evidence were the presence of OJS blood at the crime scene, and the presence of victim blood in the bronco. I will try to show that it is virtually impossible that carelessness could be a factor in producing the evidence that implicates Orenthal Simpson.

First of all one of the strongest pieces of evidence against OJS was that five drops of blood at the crime scene turned out to match OJS. Initially the police thought that probably dripped from a cut on the killer’s left hand. They also knew that it might also have dripped from the killer’s knife, and might even have been left there before the killings.
All five of these drops matched up with OJS. I believe there was no other no other DNA present. This eliminates the possibility that the blood was dripped from the killer’s weapon. It doesn’t eliminate the possibility that OJS dripped the blood earlier, or that the blood was planted. I think we can disregard the possibility that carelessness was a factor. If it was one drop, I would guess that carelessness could have done it, although that would be most unlikely. You would have to assume that bacteria ate original blood, or that the original blood was somehow lost and accidentally replaced by OJS blood. That seems very unlikely to me for even one drop. For five drops, I think it is a virtual impossibility.
A few months before the trial William Thompson, one of the Simpson defense lawyers, wrote a paper which said that if carelessness (mainly contamination) influenced the results, it should show up in terms of creating implausible results.
There was a lot of blood evidence collected from three locations, Bundy, Rockingham, and the Bronco. Cross contamination is one form of carelessness, but not the only kind.
All of the blood evidence holds together too well for carelessness to have been much of a factor. It would be like a monkey or a hail storm pounding on a computer key board and coming creating a sentence that says “it is obvious that Orenthal Simpson is a murderer”. I realize that a hail storm, a monkey, or a rodent could type this; I just think it is highly unlikely.

Part of the point if the blood evidence is complicated, and seems to hold together logically, then carelessness was probably not a factor in creating these results.

I believe I have shown here that that carelessness was probably not a factor in creating the evidence against Simpson. I realize this doesn’t lay to rest the possibility that OJS could have bled there before the killings or that the blood might have been planted. I think we can arrive at the truth faster if we agree that carelessness was very unlikely to be a factor in causing the evidence to implicate Orenthal Simpson. I consider carelessness of Fung or Mazzola to be a red herring in this case. We should also discount the possibility that any problems in the LAPD crime lab influenced on the results.

This means that we should ignore the fact that D Fung had trouble remembering which work he did, and which work she did. The odd thing about this is that if they had a bad work relationship, he would probably remember theses things better. We should also ignore the initialing or non initialing of pieces of paper.


It seems you have switched from simple mistakes to calling it carelessness.

It does not matter what name you give it,it still means evidence problems presented by the prosecution.

Seems like you are saying that the jury should have some allowances for the prosecution when the evidence does not make sense or line up as the prosecution claims. Exactly what do you believe the jury should think in these instances.

[martin II]

"As we are now learning, Robert Shapiro tied on the gloves prior to Simpson and realized they would never fit his client. In the Civil Depositions, we are learning that, while the gloves were labled XL, extra-large, Simpson generally wears XXL and only in certain select golf gloves, will a L or XL fit his hands. Only gloves that are unlined and designed to stretch will fit his enormous hands."

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1472/summary.html

[William Anthony]

Wagners experiement with the glove and cap falling on the plant gives reasonable doubt thet they fell as found.
The cap and glove was placed next to each other so they both would be found.

They certainly didn't act like rubber balls and bounce. :)

[William Anthony]

This is so insignificant it really doesn't matter.

Lighthearted banter, lighthearted banter, remember?:)

[William Anthony]

Fgump2

I don't understand why you say the blood drops are not important.
the drops led from the bronco to the front door.

The prosecution ignores this and says oj went around the Salingers property and jumped the fence.No blood trial was found any place the prosecution said he was.
Square this for me if you can.

I do. Anything that points toward non guilt is unimportant to some.:)

[William Anthony]

Bobaugust,

Can I ask you why you did not post this testimony from Park's July 5th testimony?

Q The person that you saw walk into the house
04 after which you saw the lights go on, could you tell
05 where they came from, whether it was Rockingham or the
06 garage area?
07 A I couldn't tell what direction he was coming
08 from. I could tell you what direction he was walking.
09 Q Yeah. He was walking towards the front door?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Okay. Can you -- but you couldn't tell where
12 he was coming from?
13 A No.
14 MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, I'm going to object to
15 the form of the question.
16 The witness has testified he couldn't tell
17 whether it was a male or female, and now Ms. Clark is
18 saying "You couldn't tell where he was coming from."
19 THE COURT: Sustained. Assumes a fact not in
20 evidence at this point.
21 MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you.
22 BY MS. CLARK:
23 Q You couldn't tell where that person was coming
24 from?
25 A Correct.
26 Q After you had the conversation with
27 Mr. Simpson, what happened next?
28 A I got back in the car and waited for the gate
0031
01 to be opened, which still took another 30 seconds or so.
02 Q Did you see where the male white was at that
03 point?
04 A He stood there pretty much the whole time.

Is it because it confirms what I have said that Kato was still standing and that was after Kato finished his first cursory search and contradicts your assumption/speculation?

[martin II]

I do. Anything that points toward non guilt is unimportant to some.:)

Its like lets just duck tape the mouth of Dr Lee and the rest of the defence less they ahow us oj was not guilty. then we can just say what we want without fact and say guilty and we can pat each other on thf back.

[tv]

I do. Anything that points toward non guilt is unimportant to some.:)
Anything that points toward guilt is unimportant to some. :)

[tv]

Its like lets just duck tape the mouth of Dr Lee and the rest of the defence less they ahow us oj was not guilty. then we can just say what we want without fact and say guilty and we can pat each other on thf back.You're being a little dramatic today, martin.

[tv]

Lighthearted banter, lighthearted banter, remember?:)

Of course.

[tv]

Wagners experiement with the glove and cap falling on the plant gives reasonable doubt thet they fell as found.
The cap and glove was placed next to each other so they both would be found.

There's no way to know if they were placed the way they were found. Anything could have happened in a violent struggle and for all we know the killer pulled them off after the victims were dead and dropped them there.

[tv]

I hope you realize that the prosecution's theory was that Simpson and Simpson alone was the sole murderer, which your statement,"Maybe there was a second killer ", speaks volumes to the concept of reasonable doubt. The defense tore Matheson apart on the type B blood evidence and there was no need for Dr. Henry Lee to mention it. The magnificent one made magnificent progress with the phrase that if it does not fit, you must acquit, which is what, imho, V Bugliosi left off when he wrote that "there are almost always loose ends in a trial, evidence that doesn't seem to match."

Cross-examination of Dr. Henry Lee -- August 28, 1995

Q. Dr. Lee are there many occasions where you said as a forensic scientist where you look at a case or a piece of evidence and you just don't have all the answers?

A. That's correct.

Q. And there's nothing surprising about that, is there?

A. Nothing surprising.

[William Anthony]

Cross-examination of Dr. Henry Lee -- August 28, 1995

Q. Dr. Lee are there many occasions where you said as a forensic scientist where you look at a case or a piece of evidence and you just don't have all the answers?

A. That's correct.

Q. And there's nothing surprising about that, is there?

A. Nothing surprising.

Objection, irrelevant and immaterial as the witness is speaking as a junk craftsman and not a prosecutor.

[William Anthony]

Anything that points toward guilt is unimportant to some. :)

You may be right but, in this case, there was reasonable doubt.

[William Anthony]

There's no way to know if they were placed the way they were found. Anything could have happened in a violent struggle and for all we know the killer pulled them off after the victims were dead and dropped them there.

If there is no way to know if they were placed there, as shown by the evidence, as you correctly surmise and your common sense tells you there is something wrong with the picture, you have reasonable doubt, especially when an admitted evidence planter/fabricator/manipulator admits to having touched the evidence and a picture is shown of a dark three dimensional object similar to the glove is seen on a white blanket, which LE injected into the crime scene.

[weezer]

If there is no way to know if they were placed there, as shown by the evidence, as you correctly surmise and your common sense tells you there is something wrong with the picture, you have reasonable doubt, especially when an admitted evidence planter/fabricator/manipulator admits to having touched the evidence and a picture is shown of a dark three dimensional object similar to the glove is seen on a white blanket, which LE injected into the crime scene.

william, Fuhrman was found guilty for lying about using the n-word. He was not convicted of anything else. For you to continue to refer to him as an admitted blah, blah, blah is not only wrong, it is dishonest. You have forwarded your argument that orenthal isn't a murderer because he was not convicted. same holds true for Fuhrman.

[martin II]

You're being a little dramatic today, martin.

I got that from a poster that trashes everything that leads to not guilty and adds stuff that convinces him/her that oj was guilty.

[weezer]

You're being a little dramatic today, martin.

drama mama. :)

[tv]

Objection, irrelevant and immaterial as the witness is speaking as a junk craftsman and not a prosecutor.When Dr. Lee is saying something you like then he's Dr. Lee. When he isn't, he's a junk craftsman. Shall we throw out all his testimony then? What he's talking about speaks to the fact that not every detail can be explained but that it doesn't mean anything.

IMO, if the dead could speak or OJ Simpson would tell us we'd have all the answers to all the little details.

[tv]

drama mama. :)
I bet William loved this -- he loves rhymes. :)

[tv]

I got that from a poster that trashes everything that leads to not guilty and adds stuff that convinces him/her that oj was guilty.
Who does that? :eek:

[martin II]

When Dr. Lee is saying something you like then he's Dr. Lee. When he isn't, he's a junk craftsman. Shall we throw out all his testimony then? What he's talking about speaks to the fact that not every detail can be explained but that it doesn't mean anything.

IMO, if the dead could speak or OJ Simpson would tell us we'd have all the answers to all the little details.

I think furhman has more answers in this case than anyone which is why he took the 5th. He evaded other issues by doing so.

[weezer]

ahh yes -- the boggey man -- part of the grand conspiracy to frame a guilty man.

[martin II]

Who does that? :eek:

you read the post just like i do.

[William Anthony]

When Dr. Lee is saying something you like he's Dr. Lee. When he isn't, he's a junk craftsman. Shall we throw out all his testimony then? What he's talking about speaks to the fact that not every detail can be explained but that it doesn't mean anything.

IMO, if the dead could speak or OJ Simpson would tell us we'd have all the answers to all the little details.

I used the phrase junk craftsman in regard to you post calling him a forensic scientist, since there seems to be agreement by some posters and others that some of the forensic sciences aren't sciences in the sense that we have come to know them. I am not asking you or anyone else to throw out anything and I reiterate that his obligations, whether one considers them a science or not, is not the same as that of the prosecution. Junk craftsman Dr. Lee is able to offer opinion and is not required to proof anything, whereas the prosecution is required to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Their respective roles were in a different posture.

I thought you were of the opinion that Simpson had spoken. I apologize if I was wrong in my thoughts.:)

[William Anthony]

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

[martin II]

When Dr. Lee is saying something you like then he's Dr. Lee. When he isn't, he's a junk craftsman. Shall we throw out all his testimony then? What he's talking about speaks to the fact that not every detail can be explained but that it doesn't mean anything.

IMO, if the dead could speak or OJ Simpson would tell us we'd have all the answers to all the little details.

you got to admit that Dr Lee was the smartist person in his field at that trial.

[tv]

I think furhman has more answers in this case than anyone which is why he took the 5th. He evaded other issues by doing so.

If you want to use that as a yardstick for measurement then we can say AC Cowlings invoked the 5th amendment so he wouldn't reveal his involvement in the murders. I'm sure he evaded several issues by doing so.

I think William would agree that taking the fifth amendment is our protection under the law against self-incrimination.

[weezer]

I would think that if you're going to hold yourself out to be honorable, then you probably should be or you wind up with people thinking about you like many, many now think of henry lee -- joke, opinion for sale, etc.

[tv]

you got to admit that Dr Lee was the smartist person in his field at that trial.I'd have to look over the witness list one more time to say that but I think Dr. Lee is extremely smart, just not perfect.

[tv]

I seem to hear the humming of a distant train, singing a sad refrain. William loves this.
Are you saying you love trains or are you saying you love sad music? :)

[tv]

I would think that if you're going to hold yourself out to be honorable, then you probably should be or you wind up with people thinking about you like many, many now think of henry lee -- joke, opinion for sale, etc.
Let's not forget the fingernail in the Spector trial.

[tv]

I used the phrase junk craftsman in regard to you post calling him a forensic scientist, since there seems to be agreement by some posters and others that some of the forensic sciences aren't sciences in the sense that we have come to know them. I am not asking you or anyone else to throw out anything and I reiterate that his obligations, whether one considers them a science or not, is not the same as that of the prosecution. Junk craftsman Dr. Lee is able to offer opinion and is not required to proof anything, whereas the prosecution is required to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Their respective roles were in a different posture.

I thought you were of the opinion that Simpson had spoken. I apologize if I was wrong in my thoughts.:)He has spoken, but unfortunately, he left out all those pesky little details.

[martin II]

If you want to use that as a yardstick for measurement then we can say AC Cowlings invoked the 5th amendment so he wouldn't reveal his involvement in the murders. I'm sure he evaded several issues by doing so.

I think William would agree that taking the fifth amendment is our protection under the law against self-incrimination.

The problem with that is Darden looked under all rocks to burn AC and found nothuing. All we know about furhman is he was at bundy drove to rockingham illegally entered ojs property talked to Kato and there is no record of what he did at rockingham.No record of him doing what he claimed he did. Found the glove. He was like a free floater.

[William Anthony]

If you want to use that as a yardstick for measurement then we can say AC Cowlings invoked the 5th amendment so he wouldn't reveal his involvement in the murders. I'm sure he evaded several issues by doing so.

I think William would agree that taking the fifth amendment is our protection under the law against self-incrimination.

Have you not said that you think AC acted as an accessory to the murders? I think from that we can presume that you think his taking of the 5th somehow incriminated him. I guess the same would apply to MF under your standards.

However, yes after doing some research and seeing that California law considers that perjury is not a light offense, then MF had the right to invoke the 5th, since it protects a witness in any crime for self-incrimination as it holds to an infamous crime.

[weezer]

unlike ac -- who spent years being orenthal's step-n-fetchit, who was running around making sure everyone was taken care of after the bodies were found, driving orenthal around to find a spot to commit suicide, putting Nicole's friends through the 3rd degree to find out what they knew. . . .

and then not being man enough to stand up and tell the truth.

[William Anthony]

He has spoken, but unfortunately, he left out all those pesky little details.

So, he hasn't spoken what you want him to say. Do you believe in the First Amendment?

[martin II]

I'd have to look over the witness list one more time to say that but I think Dr. Lee is extremely smart, just not perfect.

God didn't make anyone perfect but he seemed to have Lee extra brains in the area of blood evidence. With a backup guy like Schack , that is a winner
as Darden and Clarke found out.

[William Anthony]

Are you saying you love trains or are you saying you love sad music? :)

Just the rhyme because it is very appropriate in certain situations.:)

[tv]

Have you not said that you think AC acted as an accessory to the murders? I think from that we can presume that you think his taking of the 5th somehow incriminated him. I guess the same would apply to MF under your standards.

However, yes after doing some research and seeing that California law considers that perjury is not a light offense, then MF had the right to invoke the 5th, since it protects a witness in any crime for self-incrimination as it holds to an infamous crime.AC taking the fifth doesn't enter in to my opinion that he helped OJ Simpson after the murders. I would think the same thing even if he hadn't taken the fifth. Even though it's my belief that AC helped a murderer I haven't called him any degrading names. I don't have a problem with you thinking that Mark Fuhrman is all the things you think he is but I wish you'd just admit it's your personal opinion with no evidece to back it up as I do with AC Cowlings.

[tv]

God didn't make anyone perfect but he seemed to have Lee extra brains in the area of blood evidence. With a backup guy like Schack , that is a winner
as Darden and Clarke found out.

The jurors thought Dr. Lee was the most impressive witness of the trial. They said he had a warm smile.

[tv]

So, he hasn't spoken what you want him to say. Do you believe in the First Amendment?
Don't ask me silly questions. :rolleyes:

[tv]

So, he hasn't spoken what you want him to say. Do you believe in the First Amendment?Being a naturally nosy person I have a lot of questions for him.

[martin II]

If you want to use that as a yardstick for measurement then we can say AC Cowlings invoked the 5th amendment so he wouldn't reveal his involvement in the murders. I'm sure he evaded several issues by doing so.

I think William would agree that taking the fifth amendment is our protection under the law against self-incrimination.

I think that AC took the 5th so as not to open a can of worms that could have put a negative personal light on oj and nicole.He loved nicole and i don't
think he would have covered for anyone that had murdered her.
Remember AC had worked for the mob guy that had some owership in that mazzoula resturant where ron worked and he was a drug distributor from there and around Brentwood.

[William Anthony]

AC taking the fifth doesn't enter in to my opinion that he helped OJ Simpson after the murders. I would think the same thing even if he hadn't taken the fifth. Even though it's my belief that AC helped a murderer I haven't called him any degrading names. I don't have a problem with you thinking that Mark Fuhrman is all the things you think he is but I wish you'd just admit it's your personal opinion with no evidece to back it up as I do with AC Cowlings.

I haven't called MF anything that is not supported by the evidence or what he has admitted to.

[martin II]

The jurors thought Dr. Lee was the most impressive witness of the trial. They said he had a warm smile.

Prosecution, defence jury and witnesses know they should not appear to be what Clarke appeared to be.

[William Anthony]

Don't ask me silly questions. :rolleyes:

That wasn't a silly question, My Fair Lady. The First Amendment allows someone to say what they want to say so long as they don't use language designed to incite or cause harm, IIRC.