Random Discussions On The Case

[martin II]

Pursuant to your request,

"MR. SCHECK: NOW, ON THIS DOCUMENT, YOU CAN READ ALONG IF IT HELPS, WITH YOUR COPY, IF YOU WANT, IT REFERS TO ITEM 17, "ONE PAIR OF TENNIS SHOES, REEBOK, RECEIVED IN SEROLOGY BY D. FUNG FROM DETECTIVE LANGE," CORRECT?

MR. FUNG: YES.

MR. SCHECK: UP IN THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND CORNER JUST WHERE "D. FUNG" IS THERE IS A DATE, "6/14/94"?

MR. FUNG: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. SCHECK: AND BELOW THAT IS WRITTEN "ITEM 18, BLOOD SAMPLE IN TUBE FROM SIMPSON."

MR. FUNG: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. SCHECK: AT SOME TIME AFTER JUNE 15TH DID ANYBODY EVER QUESTION YOU ABOUT HOW THE BLOOD VIAL HAD BEEN LABELED 18 IN MR. YAMAUCHI'S REPORTS BUT YOU PUT IT IN YOUR PROPERTY REPORT AS 17?

MR. FUNG: BEING QUESTIONED ABOUT IT, YES.

MR. SCHECK: AND THEN AFTER WRITING THAT NOTATION YOU DECIDED TO ERASE IT?

MR. FUNG: I DID ERASE IT FROM WHAT IS HERE, YES. "

Would you call that doctoring a report?

Ojs blood was collected on 6/13 before the sneakers so how did the sneakers have a lower number 17 than the blood 18.

[martin II]

Are you saying that you think Allan Park's mother actually asked him to lie?

I don't know that she did but i think she was more involved in his participation in the trial more than than just telling him it is always best to just tell the truth.There were media reports stating that she did prompt him. I feel confident that Clarke prepared him in a way that he would know what she needed from him as she did with JS.
It is unusual for a witnesses mother to sit at the witness table when her son is testifying at trial.Look at the Pictures of him testifying about the bags when they were brought into court .she is right there not too many feet away from him.imo

[William Anthony]

Ojs blood was collected on 6/13 before the sneakers so how did the sneakers have a lower number 17 than the blood 18.

I have asked Ms. Tvdinner if she considered DF's conduct as doctoring a document/report.

[William Anthony]

MR. SCHECK: AND ASSUMING THAT BLANKET HAD HAIRS AND FIBERS AND OTHER TRACE EVIDENCE ON IT, THAT COULD BE A SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION OF ANYTHING THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND ON MR. GOLDMAN'S CLOTHING?
MR. FUNG: I BELIEVE THE CORONER'S PERSONNEL HAD PLACED A SHEET AND A PLASTIC SHEET OVER THE BLANKET BEFORE PLACINGHIM ON IT.
MR. SCHECK: ASSUMING THE BLANKET WAS COVERED WITH HAIRS AND FIBERS AND IT WAS PLACED IN THEMIDDLE OF THE CRIME SCENE AND HAIRS AND FIBERS FROM THE BLANKET WERE SPREAD OUT FROM THE CRIME SCENE AND ASSUMINGFURTHER THAT THE GLOVE OR THE HAT WAS DRAGGED INTO THAT AREA WHEN MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS MOVED, THEY COULD HAVEBECOME CONTAMINATED WITH HAIRS AND FIBERS FROM THE BLANKET?
MR. FUNG: POSSIBLY.
MR. SCHECK: IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO KNOW IF THAT BLANKET CONTAINED FIBERS THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENTWITH MR. SIMPSON'S BRONCO?
MR. FUNG: POSSIBLY, YES.
MR. SCHECK: BUT THAT BLANKET WAS LEFT AT THE CRIME SCENE AND NEVER PICKED UP FOR FUTURE ANALYSIS?
MR. FUNG: THAT'S CORRECT.
MR. SCHECK: THAT WAS A MISTAKE, WASN'T IT?
MR. FUNG: IT COULD BE CONSIDERED ONE.

Ms. Tvdinner,

Do you consider the failure to collect the blanket and analyze it as a mistake?

[weezer]

wonder why the defense had to attack the Prosecution and LE rather than just present the results from their own testing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[weezer]

MR. SCHECK: AND ASSUMING THAT BLANKET HAD HAIRS AND FIBERS AND OTHER TRACE EVIDENCE ON IT, THAT COULD BE A SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION OF ANYTHING THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND ON MR. GOLDMAN'S CLOTHING?
MR. FUNG: I BELIEVE THE CORONER'S PERSONNEL HAD PLACED A SHEET AND A PLASTIC SHEET OVER THE BLANKET BEFORE PLACINGHIM ON IT.
MR. SCHECK: ASSUMING THE BLANKET WAS COVERED WITH HAIRS AND FIBERS AND IT WAS PLACED IN THEMIDDLE OF THE CRIME SCENE AND HAIRS AND FIBERS FROM THE BLANKET WERE SPREAD OUT FROM THE CRIME SCENE AND ASSUMINGFURTHER THAT THE GLOVE OR THE HAT WAS DRAGGED INTO THAT AREA WHEN MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS MOVED, THEY COULD HAVEBECOME CONTAMINATED WITH HAIRS AND FIBERS FROM THE BLANKET?
MR. FUNG: POSSIBLY.
MR. SCHECK: IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO KNOW IF THAT BLANKET CONTAINED FIBERS THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENTWITH MR. SIMPSON'S BRONCO?
MR. FUNG: POSSIBLY, YES.
MR. SCHECK: BUT THAT BLANKET WAS LEFT AT THE CRIME SCENE AND NEVER PICKED UP FOR FUTURE ANALYSIS?
MR. FUNG: THAT'S CORRECT.
MR. SCHECK: THAT WAS A MISTAKE, WASN'T IT?
MR. FUNG: IT COULD BE CONSIDERED ONE.

Ms. Tvdinner,

Do you consider the failure to collect the blanket and analyze it as a mistake?

orenthal was gone by the time the blanket was put over the body -- and whether or not the blanket contained additional fibers would never hold up in court since it had in fact come out of Nicole's home. The important thing to remember is that the same fibers were on both victims and orenthal.

[tv]

I have asked Ms. Tvdinner if she considered DF's conduct as doctoring a document/report. The word 'doctoring' implies an intention to deceive so the answer is no.

[tv]

orenthal was gone by the time the blanket was put over the body -- and whether or not the blanket contained additional fibers would never hold up in court since it had in fact come out of Nicole's home. The important thing to remember is that the same fibers were on both victims and orenthal.I totally agree. The blanket was actually a non-issue.

[William Anthony]

I totally agree. The blanket was actually a non-issue.

Then you disagree with DF, correct?

[tv]

I don't know that she did but i think she was more involved in his participation in the trial more than than just telling him it is always best to just tell the truth.There were media reports stating that she did prompt him. I feel confident that Clarke prepared him in a way that he would know what she needed from him as she did with JS.
It is unusual for a witnesses mother to sit at the witness table when her son is testifying at trial.Look at the Pictures of him testifying about the bags when they were brought into court .she is right there not too many feet away from him.imo
I don't think you can say that the presence of Park's mother means that he was told to lie. martin, the conspiracy theory has to end somewhere. I'm starting to worry that it's going to spread all the way to my front door...it's like a contagious disease. :eek:

Anyone who testifies in a trial is prepared. All the defense witnesses were prepared by the lawyers or they should have been. There's a difference between preparation and brainwashing.

[William Anthony]

"MR. NEUFELD: Hasn't the SID unit of the L.A. Police Department instructed you to make a determination, when you get to the crime scene, as to whether it has been altered?

MR. GOLDBERG: It is vague and overbroad as to "Determination."

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: Other than knowing who arrived, I don't see how we can determine if the scene itself had been altered.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, do you think that one thing you might be able to do is simply ask a detective whether or not he or she has done anything to alter the scene?

MS. MAZZOLA: It is possible.

MR. NEUFELD: What did they teach you at the SID mini academy what you are supposed to do to answer this important question "Has the scene been altered? If so by whom and how?"? What did they teach you to do to answer that question?

MS. MAZZOLA: Just get an idea of who had been there.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, once you get an idea of who had been there, Miss Mazzola, don't you have to ask the people what they did so you can make a determination in your own mind as to whether or not they did in fact alter it?

MS. MAZZOLA: (No audible response.)

MR. NEUFELD: Didn't they teach you that?

MS. MAZZOLA: Ask them what? When the first officers arrived on the scene, they are looking at the victims. They were not going to remember exactly where they stepped. I don't know what you are asking.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, did they teach you at the SID mini academy that you are to ask the detectives whether or not they moved any articles of evidence, for starters? Did they teach you that?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: They didn't teach you that? Did they teach you to ask the officers who were there or detectives who were there whether they walked into a critical area where there may be shoeprints? Did they teach you that?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe they went into depth in that--with that question.

MR. NEUFELD: Did they teach you to ask detectives whether they brought any foreign matter into the crime scene, such as a blanket?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Did they teach you that?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: So correct me if I am mistaken, Miss Mazzola. Is it your testimony that you received absolutely no training on how to answer that question, that is, "Has the scene been altered? If so, by whom and how?"? Is that a fair statement, that you really didn't receive any training on how to answer those questions at a crime scene?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes."

[tv]

Then you disagree with DF, correct?
Dennis Fung said 'it could be a problem' meaning potentially. You've read enough of Dennis Fung's testimony and watched enough of it during the trial to know that he was a little wishy-washy and was easily led during questioning. For the record, I don't agree with every word spoken by prosecution witnesses. Please give me a little credit for having a mind of my own.

[William Anthony]

The word 'doctoring' implies an intention to deceive so the answer is no.

So, I see that in your mind erasing something from a document is not an attempt to deceive someone that it was originally on the document, correct?

[William Anthony]

Dennis Fung said 'it could be a problem' meaning potentially. You've read enough of Dennis Fung's testimony and watched enough of it during the trial to know that he was a little wishy-washy and was easily led during questioning. For the record, I don't agree with every word spoken by prosecution witnesses. Please give me a little credit for having a mind of my own.

Not quite true. DF said it could be "considered" to be a problem, not a potential problem or that it could be a problem. That vehicle in the search for truth.

[tv]

So, I see that in your mind erasing something from a document is not an attempt to deceive someone that it was originally on the document, correct? Not always. It depends on what the person's intentions are.

[tv]

Not quite true. DF said it could be "considered" to be a problem, not a potential problem or that it could be a problem. That vehicle in the search for truth.Why do you give his word so much weight when you think he's in on the vast conpiracy? Which is it -- is he a buffoon or a clever conspirator?

[tv]

Pursuant to your request,

"MR. SCHECK: NOW, ON THIS DOCUMENT, YOU CAN READ ALONG IF IT HELPS, WITH YOUR COPY, IF YOU WANT, IT REFERS TO ITEM 17, "ONE PAIR OF TENNIS SHOES, REEBOK, RECEIVED IN SEROLOGY BY D. FUNG FROM DETECTIVE LANGE," CORRECT?

MR. FUNG: YES.

MR. SCHECK: UP IN THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND CORNER JUST WHERE "D. FUNG" IS THERE IS A DATE, "6/14/94"?

MR. FUNG: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. SCHECK: AND BELOW THAT IS WRITTEN "ITEM 18, BLOOD SAMPLE IN TUBE FROM SIMPSON."

MR. FUNG: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. SCHECK: AT SOME TIME AFTER JUNE 15TH DID ANYBODY EVER QUESTION YOU ABOUT HOW THE BLOOD VIAL HAD BEEN LABELED 18 IN MR. YAMAUCHI'S REPORTS BUT YOU PUT IT IN YOUR PROPERTY REPORT AS 17?

MR. FUNG: BEING QUESTIONED ABOUT IT, YES.

MR. SCHECK: AND THEN AFTER WRITING THAT NOTATION YOU DECIDED TO ERASE IT?

MR. FUNG: I DID ERASE IT FROM WHAT IS HERE, YES. "

Would you call that doctoring a report?

He was correcting a mistake in numbering. No deceit intended.

[martin II]

I don't think you can say that the presence of Park's mother means that he was told to lie. martin, the conspiracy theory has to end somewhere. I'm starting to worry that it's going to spread all the way to my front door...it's like a contagious disease. :eek:

Anyone who testifies in a trial is prepared. All the defense witnesses were prepared by the lawyers or they should have been. There's a difference between preparation and brainwashing.

You think it was usual for a relative to sit at the witness table when her son is testifying.If so do you have any example of such in this trial.
i did not say she told him to lie.
i am saying he was over prepared and did transforming which is why he gave conflicting testimonies at various times.It does not mean that he decided to lie.He was confused.

[William Anthony]

Why do you give his word so much weight when you think he's in on the vast conpiracy? Which is it -- is he a buffoon or a clever conspirator?

I have called him neither other than someone who is not above making false statements or falsifying documents if it serves his purpose, such as his claim to have collected most of the evidence (remember the discussions about lying to one's boss).

[William Anthony]

He was correcting a mistake in numbering. No deceit intended.

That's if you believe it was a mistake. Why not let it stand and explain the mistake on examination? Isn't that the truthful way to do things?

[tv]

It's just one of those things that happened on both sides of the case. Just like I don't think there's anything sinister about Simpson saying Kato didn't turn off the jets in the jacuzzi and Kato saying he did. I think Kato probably did leave them on and didn't remember or was afraid to admit it. I don't buy the theory that someone sneaked onto the property and turned them on. It's just one of those things.

[William Anthony]

We were not taught to ask whether LE alters crime scenes.:)

[martin II]

He was correcting a mistake in numbering. No deceit intended.

Remember Fuung also had misplaced a original page from his cellection papers
and this had passed until the defence caught it and he went to his office and found the original to replace the zerox copy someone had made.Something close to that. The sneakers were collected after oj blood so how did they get a lower than the blood.How does that work.

[William Anthony]

It's just one of those things that happened on both sides of the case. Just like I don't think there's anything sinister about Simpson saying Kato didn't turn off the jets in the jacuzzi and Kato saying he did. I think Kato probably did leave them on and didn't remember or was afraid to admit it. I don't buy the theory that someone sneaked onto the property and turned them on. It's just one of those things.

This pertains to what?

[tv]

That's if you believe it was a mistake. Why not let it stand and explain the mistake on examination? Isn't that the truthful way to do things?I agree but sometimes we do things without thinking. It's a hard and fast rule in nursing that you never 'scribble out' or obliterate anything you write. If you have to correct an error you draw a line through it and writer 'error' and intial it. There have been a few times that I haven't been thinking and done that every thing. No evil intent even though I was breaking a rule.

[tv]

This pertains to what?
To Dennis Fung changing the numbers. Try to keep up, William. :)

[martin II]

It's just one of those things that happened on both sides of the case. Just like I don't think there's anything sinister about Simpson saying Kato didn't turn off the jets in the jacuzzi and Kato saying he did. I think Kato probably did leave them on and didn't remember or was afraid to admit it. I don't buy the theory that someone sneaked onto the property and turned them on. It's just one of those things.

who turned the jets off. oj or kato

[tv]

Remember Fuung also had misplaced a original page from his cellection papers
and this had passed until the defence caught it and he went to his office and found the original to replace the zerox copy someone had made.Something close to that. The sneakers were collected after oj blood so how did they get a lower than the blood.How does that work.martin, please tell me you're not talking about the holes not lining up in the xeroxed papers. Good heavens.

[tv]

who turned the jets off. oj or katoI think OJ did when he found them turned on then he went to Kato and chewed him out.

[weezer]

Remember Fuung also had misplaced a original page from his cellection papers
and this had passed until the defence caught it and he went to his office and found the original to replace the zerox copy someone had made.Something close to that. The sneakers were collected after oj blood so how did they get a lower than the blood.How does that work.

LOL -- you mean the blank page -- :eek:

[tv]

I have called him neither other than someone who is not above making false statements or falsifying documents if it serves his purpose, such as his claim to have collected most of the evidence (remember the discussions about lying to one's boss).I disagree with your assessment of Dennis Fung but he did look foolish shaking hands with the prosecution. I don't think he understood they were laughing at him.

[William Anthony]

To Dennis Fung changing the numbers. Try to keep up, William. :)

DF changing numbers equates to not turning the jets off on a jacuzzi or saying that someone did? You just said it-DF changed the numbers.

[tv]

LOL -- you mean the blank page -- :eek:...and the prosecution gets accused of acting desperate! :tongue:

[William Anthony]

I agree but sometimes we do things without thinking. It's a hard and fast rule in nursing that you never 'scribble out' or obliterate anything you write. If you have to correct an error you draw a line through it and writer 'error' and intial it. There have been a few times that I haven't been thinking and done that every thing. No evil intent even though I was breaking a rule.

I hope you agree that a defendant should not be convicted on documents that have been altered whether intentional or not and that in this instance we can only infer intent.

[tv]

DF changing numbers equates to not turning the jets off on a jacuzzi or saying that someone did? You just said it-DF changed the numbers.

Okay, William, the almost dead horse is begging for mercy. Enough already. I've already told you what he did wasn't with the intention to deceive. I don't expect you to agree.

[William Anthony]

I disagree with your assessment of Dennis Fung but he did look foolish shaking hands with the prosecution. I don't think he understood they were laughing at him.

Being socially challenged does not mean that a person lacks the requisite skills to hold down a job or is not loyal to their employer.

[tv]

I hope you agree that a defendant should not be convicted on documents that have been altered whether intentional or not and that in this instance we can only infer intent.This might be a good time to remind you that OJ Simpson was found not guilty in the criminal trial.

[William Anthony]

Okay, William, the almost dead horse is begging for mercy. Enough already. I've already told you what he did wasn't with the intention to deceive. I don't expect you to agree.

I number an item with questionable significance 17 and you number it 18, indicating it wasn't received until the next day and I erase my number. I have deceived but may have not duped. :)

[William Anthony]

This might be a good time to remind you that OJ Simpson was found not guilty in the criminal trial.

Based upon reasonable doubt and not for other reasons, imho.

[tv]

Based upon reasonable doubt and not for other reasons, imho.In your opinion. I mean, in your humble opinion.

[martin II]

I have called him neither other than someone who is not above making false statements or falsifying documents if it serves his purpose, such as his claim to have collected most of the evidence (remember the discussions about lying to one's boss).

Fung lied in that instance as if he collected all the evidence then what was Mazzola doing when she was working next to him??

[tv]

I number an item with questionable significance 17 and you number it 18, indicating it wasn't received until the next day and I erase my number. I have deceived but may have not duped. :)
Deceived is too strong of a word.

[weezer]

Deceived is too strong of a word.

some posters would have us believe they don't need erasers! ;)

[weezer]

Fung lied in that instance as if he collected all the evidence then what was Mazzola doing when she was working next to him??

hmmmm -- signing up participants for the world wide grand conspiracy? :eek:

[martin II]

I disagree with your assessment of Dennis Fung but he did look foolish shaking hands with the prosecution. I don't think he understood they were laughing at him.

you mean the defence.

I think Fung may have been saying screw these *******s,prosecution, for putting me in these bad situations. Or i congratulate you on the fine job you are doing.hahaha

[William Anthony]

Deceived is too strong of a word.

You're right the defense caught DF. I should have said attempt to deceive. :)

[martin II]

MR. SCHECK: AND ASSUMING THAT BLANKET HAD HAIRS AND FIBERS AND OTHER TRACE EVIDENCE ON IT, THAT COULD BE A SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION OF ANYTHING THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND ON MR. GOLDMAN'S CLOTHING?
MR. FUNG: I BELIEVE THE CORONER'S PERSONNEL HAD PLACED A SHEET AND A PLASTIC SHEET OVER THE BLANKET BEFORE PLACINGHIM ON IT.
MR. SCHECK: ASSUMING THE BLANKET WAS COVERED WITH HAIRS AND FIBERS AND IT WAS PLACED IN THEMIDDLE OF THE CRIME SCENE AND HAIRS AND FIBERS FROM THE BLANKET WERE SPREAD OUT FROM THE CRIME SCENE AND ASSUMINGFURTHER THAT THE GLOVE OR THE HAT WAS DRAGGED INTO THAT AREA WHEN MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS MOVED, THEY COULD HAVEBECOME CONTAMINATED WITH HAIRS AND FIBERS FROM THE BLANKET?
MR. FUNG: POSSIBLY.
MR. SCHECK: IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO KNOW IF THAT BLANKET CONTAINED FIBERS THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENTWITH MR. SIMPSON'S BRONCO?
MR. FUNG: POSSIBLY, YES.
MR. SCHECK: BUT THAT BLANKET WAS LEFT AT THE CRIME SCENE AND NEVER PICKED UP FOR FUTURE ANALYSIS?
MR. FUNG: THAT'S CORRECT.
MR. SCHECK: THAT WAS A MISTAKE, WASN'T IT?
MR. FUNG: IT COULD BE CONSIDERED ONE.

Ms. Tvdinner,

Do you consider the failure to collect the blanket and analyze it as a mistake?

The blanket came from inside Nicoles house.Maby from her bed.So these idiots
took a blanket from the house that obviously had been used by someone at some time and brought it right into the crime scene and placed other evidence on top of it.

I don't think there was any type quality control specilist assigned to the lapd crime scene.Some time they just acted as if they had not training for the job.

[weezer]

The blanket came from inside Nicoles house.Maby from her bed.So these idiots
took a blanket from the house that obviously had been used by someone at some time and brought it right into the crime scene and placed other evidence on top of it.

I don't think there was any type quality control specilist assigned to the lapd crime scene.Some time they just acted as if they had not training for the job.

so you believe the blanket did what?

[William Anthony]

In your opinion. I mean, in your humble opinion.

In my honest opinion.

[martin II]

Deceived is too strong of a word.

How about confused on purpose.

[martin II]

TV and GI
I thought i may was well say this.
I do appreciate the civil and lady like manner which the two of you have posted and discussed the issues.

[weezer]

The blanket came from inside Nicoles house.Maby from her bed.So these idiots
took a blanket from the house that obviously had been used by someone at some time and brought it right into the crime scene and placed other evidence on top of it.

I don't think there was any type quality control specilist assigned to the lapd crime scene.Some time they just acted as if they had not training for the job.

even I know the blanket came from a hall closet inside Nicole's condo. In fact, I've never even heard anyone insinuate that it came from Nicole's bed. hmmmm -- wonder why someone would feel the need to misrepresent that fact? ;)

[William Anthony]

This so totally begs the question - can we go back to calling martin and William "boys" without hearing them rant about how disparaging and disrespectful it is as long as we go on ahead and include a disclaimer that we mean no disrespect?

Good Morning,


Good to see you posting more. It is one thing for the persons affected by the remarks to say that they find the words offensive and we all are aware of the negative implications attached to calling a Black man a boy, as if he was somehow that White person's servant, and to say it was not meant with disrespect but continue to use the term and quite another to say that you find it offensive when someone else uses a term in reference to a person's parent which has no history of a negative implication. I once told my mommy that she was treating me like a child, when I was a grown man. She responded that I would always be her child, just as Park will always be his mommy's child as will all posters on this board. It is one thing to use a word that has negative implications and another to try to invent one.

[weezer]

Good Morning,


Good to see you posting more. It is one thing for the persons affected by the remarks to say that they find the words offensive and we all are aware of the negative implications attached to calling a Black man a boy, as if he was somehow that White person's servant, and to say it was not meant with disrespect but continue to use the term and quite another to say that you find it offensive when someone else uses a term in reference to a person's parent which has not history of a negative implication. I once told my mommy that she was treating me like a child, when I was a grown man. She responded that I would always be her child, just as Park will always be his mommy's child as will all posters on this board. It is one thing to use a word that has negative implications and another to try to invent one.

I can only say some would certainly not be expecting to have their mommies sit beside them on that side of the courtroom/table.

[weezer]

this is for earlier discussions regarding orenthal's drug use:

SUMMARY
FBI witness statements and surveillance and search-warrant records state O.J. Simpson:

Used cocaine and was supplied with the illegal drug Ecstasy.

Allowed an Ecstasy dealer to stay at his guest home and drive his children to school.

Celebrated the victory in his 2001 road-rage trial by entertaining girlfriends with 2 1/2 grams of cocaine.

Had four bags of "suspected" marijuana, drug pipes, and cocaine residue in his home during a Dec. 4 search.

[William Anthony]

Mr. Scheck: Mr. Fung, isn't it true that you went out on july 6th to look at the bronco simply to refresh your memory for court?

Mr. Fung: I went there specifically to look at the driver door sill and perform a presumptive test on it.

Mr. Scheck: Did you tell anyone on august 8th that you visited the vehicle on july 6th to refresh your memory for court?

Mr. Fung: I don't recall saying that.*****

mr. Scheck: And is your testimony, sir, with respect to red stains in the bronco that you've given to this jury in any way motivated by a desire to cover for detective fuhrman?

Mr. Fung: No.*****

[weezer]

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

[William Anthony]

"mr. Scheck: Have you watched any of the testimony of the trial of prior witnesses?

Mr. Fung: Yes, i have.

Mr. Scheck: Did you make--did you form any opinion in your mind as to what kinds of attacks were being made on the credibility of detective fuhrman?

Mr. Fung: Seemed to me that his overall credibility was being questioned.

*****
mr. Scheck: Have you previously testified that you went out to inspect the bronco the morning of your testimony of the preliminary hearing which was july 6th?
Mr. Fung: Yes.
Mr. Scheck: were you informed by miss clark that a detective had testified to seeing red stains on the door sill of the bronco?
Mr. Fung: She had told me that a detective had told her that stains were visible from the outside of the bronco. *****"

[weezer]

so if he was willing to join the grand conspiracy and plant/fake/hide evidence, why do you suppose he didn't just lie about this?

[William Anthony]

"mr. Scheck: Maybe we could turn now to the evidence that you collected at rockingham for a minute.you indicated that there were a number of red blood drops; is that correct, that you observed?
Mr. Fung: Yes.
Mr. Scheck: now, in terms of these red stains that you found, would you agree that the pattern of red stains thatyou found was leading from the residence to the bronco or the bronco to the front door of the residence?
Mr. Fung: Yes. "

[weezer]

more on orenthal's drug use discussion:

Article published May 12, 2002
Drug probe spotlights the secret life of O.J.
By MICHAEL D. SALLAH BLADE NATIONAL AFFAIRS WRITER

O.J. Simpson greets a fan as he and his children arrive in Freeport, Grand Bahama, in May, 1997. Mr. Simpson won custody of his two children in a 1996 ruling a year after he was found not guilty of killing their mother, Nicole Brown Simpson. In 1998 he fought a court battle with the parents of Nicole Brown Simpson, who wanted custody of their grandchildren.

MIAMI - Bloodied by a custody battle and stripped of his wealth, O.J. Simpson left his native California two years ago with his children to seek refuge on the forgiving shores of South Florida.

The single parent vowed he just wanted to be a doting father, play golf, and live quietly in an unpretentious home amidst the cookie-cutter neighborhoods of suburban Miami.

But since his arrival, his life has been anything but tranquil.

The 54-year-old former football great has been living a self-indulgent lifestyle of cocaine binges, strip club rendezvous, and late-night visits to the home of a Miami dealer to buy illegal drugs, defendants in a drug case have told the FBI.

So close has been Mr. Simpson to the Miami drug scene that a dealer in an international narcotics ring stayed in Mr. Simpson's guest home - and drove the Simpson children to and from school at the same time he was orchestrating drug transactions, according to the statements in confidential FBI documents obtained by The Blade.

The admitted dealer, Andrew Anderson, 34, allegedly was supplying the former athlete and his girlfriends with the illegal drug Ecstasy - a hallucinogenic substance that's popular in many Miami Beach clubs.

Throughout his first two years in Florida - as Mr. Simpson was trying to restore his image through hospital visits and media interviews - he was indulging in cocaine and Ecstasy, records state.

Shortly after his acquittal in his now famous road rage case on Oct. 24, he visited the home of drug dealer Zenaida Galvez, 36, to buy cocaine to celebrate with girlfriends, the dealer told the FBI this year.

"Simpson stated that he knew he was going to win," her statement says.

Informed of The Blade's story, Mr. Simpson said the allegations aren't true. "I live a simple lifestyle," he told the Associated Press yesterday. "I raise my kids. I play golf. I don't do drugs, and no drug dealer has ever stayed in my house."

The public has become familiar with Mr. Simpson's sometimes topsy-turvy life in South Florida, including public spats with former girlfriend Christie Prody.

But now, for the first time, the FBI records reflect events, places, and in some cases, times in which the onetime actor is alleged to have taken part in drug parties.

Though he was never the target of a narcotics probe - and has not been charged - federal agents stumbled across his name in the course of investigating an international Ecstasy ring, FBI records show.

More than 200 pages of documents covering a period of late 1999 to November, 2001 - including transcripts of FBI wire taps - were reviewed by The Blade. About a dozen of those records relate to Mr. Simpson.

The reports - including FBI agents' records of witness statements and surveillance of his ranch-style home - paint a vastly different picture of the man who moved to the Miami suburb of Kendall to keep a low profile and be a soccer dad.

His lawyer, Yale Galanter, said on Friday his client was not involved in drugs, nor did he ever allow a dealer to live at his home, located 15 miles southwest of Miami. "There is no link between them."

To be sure, the allegations against Mr. Simpson are coming largely from three key members of a drug ring that imported hundreds of thousands of Ecstasy pills from Holland.

The three suspects, Anderson, Galvez, and John Thorburn, 32, have pleaded guilty to their roles in the case that led to the high-profile search of Mr. Simpson's beige, Spanish ranch-style home on Dec. 4.

Though agents said they did not find Ecstasy in the home, police inventory records show that four bags of suspected marijuana, cocaine residue, two drug pipes, and a can with marijuana residue were turned up by agents.

During a six-hour search, agents seized several pieces of satellite-dish equipment from the home.

Part of the FBI investigation touched on the illegal sale of counterfeit dish cards that allow viewers to steal signals, but agents did not say whether they found those cards in the Simpson home.

Seven years after he was acquitted in the killing of former wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman - the so-called trial of the century - Mr. Simpson is under the scrutiny of law enforcement again.

The U.S. attorney's office in Miami refuses to comment. "We just don't confirm investigations," said Barry Sabin, the chief assistant U.S. attorney in Miami.

Most of the defendants in the drug ring - a total of nine - have pleaded guilty to drug conspiracy charges and will be sentenced on May 20 and June 4 by U.S. District Judge Paul Huck. One suspect is believed to be in Brazil.

One former defendant, Toledo developer Mark Nowakowski, was acquitted by a federal jury in Miami on March 14 - with people on both sides of the case now saying there's no evidence the developer was selling drugs.

But ironically, it was his cell phone - used by a friend - that helped lead authorities to O.J. Simpson, according to federal wire-tap records.

Initially, the Hall of Fame running back was not part of the federal investigation into Ecstasy.

In fact, when the Drug Enforcement Administration and FBI began their probe in 1999 - now known as Operation X - Mr. Simpson was still living in California.

But several months after the former athlete bought his home in the Miami suburb in September, 2000, FBI agents heard his name in telephone wiretaps, according to interviews and records.

By February, 2001, plainclothes investigators were watching his 4,343-square-foot home, and later, eavesdropping on cell phone conversations between Mr. Simpson and Anderson.

In several instances, the 6-foot-2-inch former actor was seen with Anderson at the Simpson home, and making trips to the popular South Beach.

Mr. Simpson's lawyer says his client is being depicted as a drug user by people who don't even know him. He said Mr. Simpson barely knew Anderson, and it was only because his client went to a massage parlor owned by the drug dealer.

Mr. Simpson is just trying to raise his children, Sydney, 16, and Justin, 13, without the distractions that he experienced in California.

"It's as normal as life could possibly be for someone with the name O.J. Simpson," says the Fort Lauderdale attorney.

[weezer]

orenthal's drug connection continued:

"Football hero and the Ohio developer

Orenthal James Simpson never met developer Mark Nowakowski, court testimony shows. The men come from vastly different backgrounds.

The 44-year-old Mr. Nowakowski was building custom homes in northwest Ohio when Mr. Simpson was standing trial with a dream team of lawyers.

But a call from the developer's cell phone on Feb. 24, 2001 - combined with other events - would thrust both men into the middle of one of Florida's most publicized Ecstasy investigations.

According to FBI records, Mr. Nowakowski, who was spending the winter in South Beach, was sleeping on a chaise lounge when an acquaintance used the developer's cell phone to call a local drug dealer, John Thorburn.

The reason: to buy the club drug Ecstasy - a substance that carries similar criminal penalties as cocaine.

Unbeknownst to the people on both ends of the phone call, federal agents were listening on a wiretap.

During the conversation, Thorburn said he'd get the drugs, and then called his supplier: Andrew Anderson.

Thorburn needed more Ecstasy for his customers.

"OK, well, listen here, you ... bring the package for me, you know," said Thorburn to his supplier.

"Oh, Lord, that's in my car," Anderson answered.

"Where's your car? Down south?" asked Thorburn.

"Yeah," answered Anderson. "Over at O.J.'s house."

Within an hour, task force agent Antonio Marciante and four others were secretly watching Mr. Simpson's home. Parked in his driveway was Anderson's car.

Later, Thorburn called Anderson again to see if he had the drugs, but Anderson said he had not yet retrieved them from his car in O.J. Simpson's driveway, records state. He said he was actually walking along Ocean Drive in Miami Beach with Mr. Simpson and his son, Justin, then 12.

During the phone call, Anderson commented that women were walking up to Mr. Simpson to get his picture while complimenting his son on how "beautiful" he looked to them.

Later that evening, drug task force agents noted that Mr. Simpson drove into his driveway in his black Lincoln Navigator with Anderson inside.

Anderson climbed into his car and left.

Builder Mark Nowakowski, left, found himself tied into a South Florida drug investigation when an acquaintance used his cell phone. His lawyer is Jeffrey C. Zilba."

[William Anthony]

"MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, you said, and I quote, that "Some boxes don't apply to the criminalist at the scene." Let's start with the box that says "Collected by," Miss Mazzola. Is it your testimony that the box where they are asking you to write down who it is who collected each item doesn't apply to the criminalist at the scene? Yes or no?

MS. MAZZOLA: As of June 13th I was informed we were working as a team. The box was not necessary to be filled out.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, the first time you were told that was August 23rd, that you didn't have to fill out all these boxes; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: No, it was June 13th.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, isn't it relevant to know who collected the item of evidence for purposes of establishing a chain of custody? Were you taught that?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not to really establish the chain of custody.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, were you taught anything about chain of custody in your training?

MR. GOLDBERG: This is overbroad.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And were you taught that the first thing one has to do in establishing a chain of custody is establish who the person is who actually collects the item of evidence?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes a fact not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: Weren't you taught that?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe so.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, let's go on to the i.d. Markings. There is a column on here that says "I.d. Mark"; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And the mark stands for identification markings; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, weren't you taught that what this column is for is for you to know what markings you put on a particular item of evidence so it can be identified at a later time as being a particular item that you collected? Weren't you taught that?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Were you ever taught anything with respect to the purpose of the column on your field note report that says "I.D. mark"?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember."

[weezer]

there was nothing in unchecked boxes on forms or blankets over bodies that could change someone else's DNA into orenthal james simpson and vice versa. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

"MR. MARTZ: For this particular case, I think that it is, because EDTA in preserved blood is at least a thousand parts per million. If it is present in humans, at a part per million, which we have now established, that is a thousand-fold difference and I don't believe that any technique that I could have used could have been off by a thousand percent. I mean, I didn't need to be that accurate in order to determine whether or not the bloodstains were from preserved blood or from non-preserved blood. I was very, very careful in the sizes that I cut and I always made sure that I took more sample from the questioned samples than the control samples. That is why I very carefully looked at the color as I extracted and I was convinced that I had at least as much blood on the control areas as I did on the questioned areas or as on the--I had at least as much on the questioned areas as I did on the control areas. I was very, very careful in this analysis."

Nothing was further from the truth.

[martin II]

"MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, you said, and I quote, that "Some boxes don't apply to the criminalist at the scene." Let's start with the box that says "Collected by," Miss Mazzola. Is it your testimony that the box where they are asking you to write down who it is who collected each item doesn't apply to the criminalist at the scene? Yes or no?

MS. MAZZOLA: As of June 13th I was informed we were working as a team. The box was not necessary to be filled out.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, the first time you were told that was August 23rd, that you didn't have to fill out all these boxes; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: No, it was June 13th.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, isn't it relevant to know who collected the item of evidence for purposes of establishing a chain of custody? Were you taught that?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not to really establish the chain of custody.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, were you taught anything about chain of custody in your training?

MR. GOLDBERG: This is overbroad.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And were you taught that the first thing one has to do in establishing a chain of custody is establish who the person is who actually collects the item of evidence?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes a fact not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: Weren't you taught that?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe so.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, let's go on to the i.d. Markings. There is a column on here that says "I.d. Mark"; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And the mark stands for identification markings; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, weren't you taught that what this column is for is for you to know what markings you put on a particular item of evidence so it can be identified at a later time as being a particular item that you collected? Weren't you taught that?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Were you ever taught anything with respect to the purpose of the column on your field note report that says "I.D. mark"?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember."


She could not remember if she was ever thought how to fill out that form.

[William Anthony]

She could not remember if she was ever thought how to fill out that form.

Seems she would claim anything whether believable or not.

[martin II]

Seems she would claim anything whether believable or not.

Well when confronted with the envelops absent her initials that she applied to them she just took a deep breath and said I DON'T KNOW.
She must have known that was unbelievable but what could she say.Someone
has pulled the rug out from under without notice.imo

[weezer]

did any of the envelopes contain preserved blood?

[William Anthony]

Well when confronted with the envelops absent her initials that she applied to them she just took a deep breath and said I DON'T KNOW.
She must have known that was unbelievable but what could she say.Someone
has pulled the rug out from under without notice.imo

She must not have known too much based on her statements.:)

[William Anthony]

Can we discuss the case? It seems the moderator has made the decision.

[martin II]

Can we discuss the case? It seems the moderator has made the decision.

Maby laspd found her in front of Parker center on 6/11. She slep there overnight and they mistakenly put a coat on her and she ended up in that truck with Fung headed to Rockingham.

[GreenIce]

GI

I have said that Park was not a bad guy. That he didn't just lie on purpose.

I do believe that he had a habit of transfering information he learned after 6/12 from media and other sources to his testimony.It was obvious when he was presented with a picture of two cars in the driveway.
I also believe Clark over prepared him for his testimony.
Park was questioned about the two cars. He stood his ground.Clarke tried to question him in a way to let him know he was wrong and he still said two cars.I call this a case of him being hard headed.

I might give my son advice but i would not ask him to say anything but the truth.My adbvice would be TELL THE THUTH.This way he would not get tangeled up trying to say something else.

Martin,

I do believe that Park Saw it the way he saw it and when Shapiro taped him, that was it. He wasn't going to let himself be questioned by them anymore.

[martin II]

Bobagust,

It is that anal retentive thing of mine and I do apologize to the board. However, I hope this clears up your confusion.:)

June 21st, Park's GJ testimony (I left some off due to length)

"3 Q. YOU RECOGNIZED THAT PERSON WHO ANSWERED THE
4 BELL AS MR. SIMPSON?
5 A. YES, I DID.
6 Q. WHAT DID HE SAY?
7 A. HE SAID, "SORRY. I OVERSLEPT AND I JUST GOT
8 OUT OF THE SHOWER. I WILL BE DOWN IN A MINUTE."
9 Q. NOW, DO YOU SEE THE HEDGE THAT'S SHOWN IN -B,
10 PHOTOGRAPH -B?
11 A. YES, I DO.
12 Q. UNLESS YOU ARE IN FRONT OF THE GATE, IS YOUR
13 VIEW OF THE HOUSE PRETTY MUCH BLOCKED?
14 A. YES, IT IS.
15 Q. PHOTOGRAPH -A, IS THAT THE ASHFORD SIDE GATE
16 THAT YOU WAITED AT WHEN YOU FIRST GOT THERE?
17 A. YES, IT IS.
18 Q. CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE MALE WHITE FOR US A LITTLE
19 BIT BETTER.
20 GIVE US A A FURTHER DESCRIPTION OF THE MALE
21 WHITE YOU SPOKE TO.
22 A. LIKE I SAID, HE WAS 5 FOOT 10, 160 POUNDS,
23 BLOND HAIR, SHOULDER-LENGTH, BLUE JEANS, T-SHIRT.
24 THAT'S ABOUT ALL I NOTICED.
25 Q. WAS HE CARRYING ANYTHING?
26 A. HE HAD A FLASHLIGHT.
27 Q. AFTER YOU HAD THE CONVERSATION WITH
28 MR. SIMPSON, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

261

1 A. THE MALE WHITE PAUSED FOR ANOTHER MINUTE AS HE
2 WAS STILL STANDING IN THE SAME POSITION AS WHERE HE WAS.
3 AT THAT TIME, HE PROCEEDED TO COME OVER AND
4 OPEN THE GATE FOR ME."

Well Park admits that that hedge blocked his vew of the house unless he was
standing in front of the gate.

This is what the jury meant when they said Park could not see what he said he saw.
Thanks william

[William Anthony]

Maby laspd found her in front of Parker center on 6/11. She slep there overnight and they mistakenly put a coat on her and she ended up in that truck with Fung headed to Rockingham.

I wonder if she was required to take a test or a practicum or just show up for work.

[martin II]

Martin,

I do believe that Park Saw it the way he saw it and when Shapiro taped him, that was it. He wasn't going to let himself be questioned by them anymore.

Didn't Park tell Shiperio on that tape that when oj came out to go to the airport he,oj, was wearing a black overcoat.

[martin II]

I wonder if she was required to take a test or a practicum or just show up for work.

It seems that way since she said they told her very little on the issues in question.

[William Anthony]

Didn't Park tell Shiperio on that tape that when oj came out to go to the airport he,oj, was wearing a black overcoat.

Yes, I think Park said that in the GJ. It was obvious that the hard working young man was under stress, trying to remember all those details.

[tv]

you mean the defence.

I think Fung may have been saying screw these *******s,prosecution, for putting me in these bad situations. Or i congratulate you on the fine job you are doing.hahaha
You're right, I meant defense. :tongue: I don't think he realized how badly he'd been used by the defense. Also, I think Fung is just a nice guy -- a little clueless about the true nature of people but still a nice guy.

[martin II]

Yes, I think Park said that in the GJ. It was obvious that the hard working young man was under stress, trying to remember all those details.

I think he should have told his mama and clarke ENOUGH ALREADY. I am going to tell the truth as i remember it.This way he would not have been as confused as he obviously was by what they put in his head.

[GreenIce]

She could not remember if she was ever thought how to fill out that form.

Martin,

You know, it really galls me because it had to be obvious to her and Fung that something wasn't right here. And Goldberg's "Overboard" objections, are you kidding me? IMO, it is obvious that both DF and AM were prepared to make themselves look like they were incompetent. I still believe DF and AM had more of an attitude with the DA's then with the defense lawyers.

I also wonder if any of the lead detectives knew that AM was still in training. I am still baffled why they went to Rockingham, then to Bundy, then back to Rockingham to help on the search warrant and then back to the lab. Wouldn't only make sense they have more people on Fung's team?

[tv]

TV and GI
I thought i may was well say this.
I do appreciate the civil and lady like manner which the two of you have posted and discussed the issues.

martin, I appreciate your comment but please don't put me in the same category with our resident nut. Accusing another poster of being on her knees in front of the prosecution and worshiping them as God is far from ladylike.

[GreenIce]

martin, I appreciate your comment but please don't put me in the same category with our resident nut. Accusing another poster of being on her knees in front of the prosecution and worshiping them as God is far from ladylike.

TV,

I am sorry about that post, I actually thought I deleted it and I do apologize.
My emotions got the better of me and I did go back and I thought I deleted it. Again, I am sorry.

[William Anthony]

TV,

I am sorry about that post, I actually thought I deleted it and I do apologize.
My emotions got the better of me and I did go back and I thought I deleted it. Again, I am sorry.

Spoken like a lady.

[GreenIce]

Didn't Park tell Shiperio on that tape that when oj came out to go to the airport he,oj, was wearing a black overcoat.

Martin,

I will have to go back and look it. The only thing I remember is that Park did not know he was being taped by Shapiro and after that, Park refused to meet with the defense again. I think F.Lee Baily even took his mother up in airplane and tried to explain to her that her son was mistaken but basically she said her son saw what he saw and that was it.

[tv]

TV,

I am sorry about that post, I actually thought I deleted it and I do apologize.
My emotions got the better of me and I did go back and I thought I deleted it. Again, I am sorry.

DW deleted it for me. She also deleted my reply to you in which I asked you to never post to me again. While some on this board think you're a lady you're actually a nut with no control over what venom you spew when someone can't be bent to your point of view. Your warped facts and outright lies about the case are hard enough to take but your personal attack on me showed your true colors. You should remember this is a message board discussing a murder case and try to exert some self-control. Your apology is too little too late. :seeya:

[martin II]

You're right, I meant defense. :tongue: I don't think he realized how badly he'd been used by the defense. Also, I think Fung is just a nice guy -- a little clueless about the true nature of people but still a nice guy.


I agree but it was Vanhatter that put Fung in a bad situation when he brought ojs blood to him at Rockingham and when Lang made him bring that glove to him at Bundy and asked him to take it out of the bag.

[William Anthony]

I agree but it was Vanhatter that put Fung in a bad situation when he brought ojs blood to him at Rockingham and when Lang made him bring that glove to him at Bundy and asked him to take it out of the bag.

I think it was DF's desire to please people.

[GreenIce]

DW deleted it for me. She also deleted my reply to you in which I asked you to never post to me again. While some on this board think you're a lady you're actually a nut with no control over what venom you spew when someone can't be bent to your point of view. Your warped facts and outright lies about the case are hard enough to take but your personal attack on me showed your true colors. You should remember this is a message board discussing a murder case and try to exert some self-control. Your apology is too little too late. :seeya:

TV,

As I have raised my son to remember, no matter how sincere you are when you tell someone you are sorry, that does not mean the person has the ability to accept it. Or the capbillity to remember when they acted in a similar fashion and tried to apologize and it wasn't accepted.

I am not any of those things you called me but if it makes you feel better then rock on.

[martin II]

martin, I appreciate your comment but please don't put me in the same category with our resident nut. Accusing another poster of being on her knees in front of the prosecution and worshiping them as God is far from ladylike.

I have no idea as to what this is about.
But from time to time we all have made comments that we regreted.

[tv]

I agree but it was Vanhatter that put Fung in a bad situation when he brought ojs blood to him at Rockingham and when Lang made him bring that glove to him at Bundy and asked him to take it out of the bag.

He was very easily led on the witness stand and the type of person that is eager to please. You say on the one hand that he was put in a bad position by Vannatter and Lange and on the other hand he was a conpirator. I really want to know which you think it is?

[martin II]

I think it was DF's desire to please people.

And i think the detectives knew this.

[GreenIce]

I think it was DF's desire to please people.

William and Martin,

IMO, it look to me like Dennis Fung was so angry at the DA's and the LAPD. I read a bit of his civil trial testimony, where he was trying to explain only how far he would go in regards to the glove and Vanatter. At one point he used the terms, "I drew the line" and had something to do with taking the glove out of the evidence bag? I don't remember.

In Goldberg's book he said he knew that Dennis Fung was not going to be a good witness for the state. And when I read this, I was thinking if you knew this early on, then why didn't you go over the video tapes and why didn't you prepare him for Barry Scheck's questions? IMO, I think Fung was angry that the DA's literally left him holding the bag.

I also wonder if Fung did request a different or more people to help him. He had to know just by seeing the press that this was not going to be the "average" case. IMO.

[William Anthony]

He was very easily led on the witness stand and the type of person that is eager to please. You say on the one hand that he was put in a bad position by Vannatter and Lange and on the other hand he was a conpirator. I really want to know which you think it is?

Being aligned with the first can make you the second (a Williamism).

[William Anthony]

William and Martin,

IMO, it look to me like Dennis Fung was so angry at the DA's and the LAPD. I read a bit of his civil trial testimony, where he was trying to explain only how far he would go in regards to the glove and Vanatter. At one point he used the terms, "I drew the line" and had something to do with taking the glove out of the evidence bag? I don't remember.

In Goldberg's book he said he knew that Dennis Fung was not going to be a good witness for the state. And when I read this, I was thinking if you knew this early on, then why didn't you go over the video tapes and why didn't you prepare him for Barry Scheck's questions? IMO, I think Fung was angry that the DA's literally left him holding the bag.

I also wonder if Fung did request a different or more people to help him. He had to know just by seeing the press that this was not going to be the "average" case. IMO.

I don't know about the bag but he tried to claim the envelope.:)

[GreenIce]

I have no idea as to what this is about.
But from time to time we all have made comments that we regreted.

Martin,

It is about me and please just leave it be. It is not worth it. I said I was sorry and she is under no obligation to accept it and she has made that clear. Out of respect for her, I will put her on ignore. It really is the only polite way out of this.

[tv]

TV,

As I have raised my son to remember, no matter how sincere you are when you tell someone you are sorry, that does not mean the person has the ability to accept it. Or the capbillity to remember when they acted in a similar fashion and tried to apologize and it wasn't accepted.

I am not any of those things you called me but if it makes you feel better then rock on.

You are every one of the things I said about you, and more, but I don't post everything I'm thinking. It's called maturity and discretion. See, you're showing your true colors again -- you turn nasty as soon as your apology isn't accepted. Suddenly, I don't have the ABILITY to accept your apology. Or the CAPABILITY to recall when I've done the same thing. News flash for you -- I've never made a post like that. If you really believe I've ever posted anything like that on this board please feel free to put it up here for everyone to see. Do I think you're sincere...no, I don't. You're just sorry you got caught and called on it.

[tv]

I have no idea as to what this is about.
But from time to time we all have made comments that we regreted.

Sure you do. It's about her saying I was on my knees in front of the prosecution worshipping them as God.

[martin II]

He was very easily led on the witness stand and the type of person that is eager to please. You say on the one hand that he was put in a bad position by Vannatter and Lange and on the other hand he was a conpirator. I really want to know which you think it is?

Fung was in the middle of it all. I don't know exactly what he may have done.
But i think he could be bullied by the detectives on this case. Experienced old heads.

[GreenIce]

I don't know about the bag but he tried to claim the envelope.:)

William,

I was more interested in Gary Siglar's testimony. However, as I scanned it, it seemed like he had Vanatter may have had words about this. No doubt about that Fung did make bad lies as did Mozzola but I do think they knew they were lying and they weren't happy about it.

If you think about it, the DA's left Scheck and Neufeld kick the stuffing out of them. I mean how could the defense know that Mozzola took a 20 minute cat nap---I think at Nicole's?

There is more to this and I believe Fung shook the Defense's hands was his way of flipping the finger at Clark and the DA's. He looked angry to me.

[William Anthony]

William,

I was more interested in Gary Siglar's testimony. However, as I scanned it, it seemed like he had Vanatter may have had words about this. No doubt about that Fung did make bad lies as did Mozzola but I do think they knew they were lying and they weren't happy about it.

If you think about it, the DA's left Scheck and Neufeld kick the stuffing out of them. I mean how could the defense know that Mozzola took a 20 minute cat nap---I think at Nicole's?

There is more to this and I believe Fung shook the Defense's hands was his way of flipping the finger at Clark and the DA's. He looked angry to me.

I will read Siglar's testimony and respond to you on that. I don't know if DF was angry or not but the F in his name could have stood for foolish when the dream team finished with him, imho.

[martin II]

Sure you do. It's about her saying I was on my knees in front of the prosecution worshipping them as God.

Nope i never read/saw the post you say was deleted. i was outside.

At first glance your words sound kinda funny but i can see where you would not be pleased.
But you have said stuff that you were not asked to apologize for that you regretted.

So you should consider the apology if you like.Tomorrow it may not be such a big deal.

[GreenIce]

I will read Siglar's testimony and respond to you on that. I don't know if DF was angry or not but the F in his name could have stood for foolish when the dream team finished with him, imho.

William,

I know I have recommended other books to you but Vanatter's and Lange's book is another good one. IMO, it confirms that all the agencies we think should be working together really don't. It actually states that the blood on the back gate was seen by the team but were told not to collect it. They said it was investigated but the results have never been published.

I really believe he was angry and not at the defense. He knew what he was doing and what message he was sending when he shook hands. My first impression was he knew the defense only did their job and that they had a lot of ammo.

You know, I just thought of this, I wonder if DF or AM considered doing a book? Wouldn't you really love to know what they thought?

[William Anthony]

William,

I know I have recommended other books to you but Vanatter's and Lange's book is another good one. IMO, it confirms that all the agencies we think should be working together really don't. It actually states that the blood on the back gate was seen by the team but were told not to collect it. They said it was investigated but the results have never been published.

I really believe he was angry and not at the defense. He knew what he was doing and what message he was sending when he shook hands. My first impression was he knew the defense only did their job and that they had a lot of ammo.

You know, I just thought of this, I wonder if DF or AM considered doing a book? Wouldn't you really love to know what they thought?

I think if DF and AM collaborated on a book they could call it the comedy of errors.

[GreenIce]

I agree but it was Vanhatter that put Fung in a bad situation when he brought ojs blood to him at Rockingham and when Lang made him bring that glove to him at Bundy and asked him to take it out of the bag.

Martin,

That was Lange, not Vanatter? I just scanned it.

But didn't Fung have another problem about the glove in the civil trial?

[GreenIce]

I think if DF and AM collaborated on a book they could call it the comedy of errors.

William,

I don't think so. Perhaps they could list the number of threats they received, but I don't think that would be funny. Have you ever heard of Stephen Singular? Do your remember AM being grilled about a meeting she had Michelle Kestler?

[weezer]

I think if DF and AM collaborated on a book they could call it the comedy of errors.

they could name it "if I DID IT". oh wait -- that one's already taken isn't it? hmmmm

[William Anthony]

William,

I don't think so. Perhaps they could list the number of threats they received, but I don't think that would be funny. Have you ever heard of Stephen Singular? Do your remember AM being grilled about a meeting she had Michelle Kestler?

No, on Siglar. I vaguely remember some questions about the meeting.

[martin II]

William,

I don't think so. Perhaps they could list the number of threats they received, but I don't think that would be funny. Have you ever heard of Stephen Singular? Do your remember AM being grilled about a meeting she had Michelle Kestler?

i did not know there were threats against them.

[martin II]

I think if DF and AM collaborated on a book they could call it the comedy of errors.

i think they would have lost all their notes by now and AM may not remember
who Fung was.

[martin II]

tv

do you think a book by df and am would do well.

[fgump2]

You're right, I meant defense. :tongue: I don't think he realized how badly he'd been used by the defense. Also, I think Fung is just a nice guy -- a little clueless about the true nature of people but still a nice guy.
************************************************** *******
I have read in some places, maybe on this board, that the fact that Fung was willing to shake hands with defense people showed that he must have been lying. What about the defense people including Siimpson, why was he willing to shake hands with a man who had helped put him in jail, turned his life upside down, and allowed the 'real killer to get away'?

[fgump2]

I studied the transcrips on the EDTA, and on the blood under the fingernails. I no longer think that the defense proved there was EDTA on the socks or the gate. I also think the fingernail blood was Nicoles as the prosecution states. I also found testimony from the sock was less degraded than the reference sampe with EDTA. This means that it is a virtual certainty that the blood was not planted. This testimony was from Nov 14 (1995 I think). Testimony:
Q. And let me ask you a hypothetical about that: Assume that the socks,
evidence item number 13, that this sample was found on, were worn by the killer when he killed Nicole Brown Simpson, and that the blood from Nicole Brown Simpson was splashed onto those socks, fresh out of her body. And that a half hour later, or thereabouts, the killer took off the socks, left them on a clean area rug where they dried overnight; air dried overnight. Could that explain the relative lack of degradation of that evidence sample?
A. Yes, it could.
Q. Why could it?
A. From -- both from experience from making samples in the laboratory, and
particularly looking at a lot of case work, when samples are very fresh and
dried immediately, they do not degrade. We also know -- also know from a lot of experiment, not just in my laboratory but many others, that drying a sample in a dry clean environment does preserve the sample very well.
If you have a sample that's in an unclean environment or a lot of heat or a lot
of humidity, that's not as good.

Now, comparing that to the reference sample for Nicole Brown, which we also see on your Autorad, what's the state of degradation of that reference sample as tested by you?
A. The reference sample for Nicole Brown is substantially degraded. The dark
background that you see behind the bands, and all the way down (witness
indicates), this dark smear that you see behind the bands, following all the
way down the lane is typical evidence of degradation.
Now, it's not so degraded that you can't obtain an RFLP pattern, but that's
what a degraded -- a sample that has a moderate amount of degradation looks like.
Q. And if this reference sample was taken during an autopsy of Nicole Brown
Simpson that was performed more than 24 hours after her death, could that
explain that relative state of degradation?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, can you compare the differences in the degradation between Nicole Brown reference sample in item number 13, the socks?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it a discernable difference in degradation?
A. Yes.
Q. In your opinion, Dr. Cotton, is it likely that the blood you tested on item
number 13, the socks, came from that reference sample that you also tested?
A. No, it's not likely.

[GreenIce]

************************************************** *******
I have read in some places, maybe on this board, that the fact that Fung was willing to shake hands with defense people showed that he must have been lying. What about the defense people including Siimpson, why was he willing to shake hands with a man who had helped put him in jail, turned his life upside down, and allowed the 'real killer to get away'?

fgump2,

Like any thing else in this case, people can see the same thing but look at it differently. Perhaps Simpson felt that DF was only doing his job. Just like Dennis Fung may have felt that Barry Scheck was only doing his.

[fgump2]

You could help me to understand your post if you would make your positions clearer.

You post long list of issues attacking oj, Dr Lee and the defence, You make some serious claims about wrong doing and lies told by the defence and now you post about various oj drug use. Some times you make a effort.At least i think so,to clean up your accusations by dropping a line 'i have no proof'
So my question is if you have no proof to these accusations why post them as fact? You have made many accussation that you say you have no proof.

If you have no proof then you may consider adding IMO TO YOUR POST
This way there would be no possibility that some could take your accusation as fact. I am sure you would not want post false information for others to consider.

You may have noticed that when posters post facts they give links to prove their claims.That is a rule of the threads.
Thanks in advance.

martin II
************************
My posting was probably too wordy, and not very relevant. The most relevant part was the story of the bag of jewelry/dope than came from AC Cowling. I didn't post a link, but I showed you where to look. The other stuff, that constipation of the mind combined with diarrhea of the mouth being a possible symptom of drug problems, is one I don't have a link to, but I know I have read it. I put that in partly because I thought the description was funny, and fits Orenthal Simpson. I could probably look it up, but since other posters have posted information about OJS and drugs, why bother?

I am also sure that quick anger, with symptoms like bulging veins on the neck, can be a symptom of drug abuse, especially stimulants, but there are lots of people with quick anger who don't have a drug problem.

[GreenIce]

i did not know there were threats against them.

Martin,

When I made that post, I gave the wrong impression, I did not mean he received physical threats but perhaps to his career. If Dennis Fung knew some one played with the evidence, then he knew just how far they were going to go to convict Simpson. IMO, Fung may very well have thought if they will do this to a rich and famous man, what will they do to me.

I think we are forgetting something, not every single DA thought Simpson was guilty or at least the evidence was just too good to be true. I suspect many of them would not be vocal about it. It is very possible Fung did not believe that Simpson was guilty or felt he should not be convicted if any of the evidence was planted. The police have a blue wall of silence, perhaps there is a lab coat wall of silence.

[GreenIce]

************************
My posting was probably too wordy, and not very relevant. The most relevant part was the story of the bag of jewelry/dope than came from AC Cowling. I didn't post a link, but I showed you where to look. The other stuff, that constipation of the mind combined with diarrhea of the mouth being a possible symptom of drug problems, is one I don't have a link to, but I know I have read it. I put that in partly because I thought the description was funny, and fits Orenthal Simpson. I could probably look it up, but since other posters have posted information about OJS and drugs, why bother?

I am also sure that quick anger, with symptoms like bulging veins on the neck, can be a symptom of drug abuse, especially stimulants, but there are lots of people with quick anger who don't have a drug problem.

fgump2,

What would be your reasons for thinking that bag could have been drugs? The reason why I am asking is because I can understand the stashing of the jewerly but I don't understand why he would do that with drugs?

Actually, I don't remember why he did take the jewerly and stash it. Do you know what he did this?

[GreenIce]

I studied the transcrips on the EDTA, and on the blood under the fingernails. I no longer think that the defense proved there was EDTA on the socks or the gate. I also think the fingernail blood was Nicoles as the prosecution states. I also found testimony from the sock was less degraded than the reference sampe with EDTA. This means that it is a virtual certainty that the blood was not planted. This testimony was from Nov 14 (1995 I think). Testimony:
Q. And let me ask you a hypothetical about that: Assume that the socks,
evidence item number 13, that this sample was found on, were worn by the killer when he killed Nicole Brown Simpson, and that the blood from Nicole Brown Simpson was splashed onto those socks, fresh out of her body. And that a half hour later, or thereabouts, the killer took off the socks, left them on a clean area rug where they dried overnight; air dried overnight. Could that explain the relative lack of degradation of that evidence sample?
A. Yes, it could.
Q. Why could it?
A. From -- both from experience from making samples in the laboratory, and
particularly looking at a lot of case work, when samples are very fresh and
dried immediately, they do not degrade. We also know -- also know from a lot of experiment, not just in my laboratory but many others, that drying a sample in a dry clean environment does preserve the sample very well.
If you have a sample that's in an unclean environment or a lot of heat or a lot
of humidity, that's not as good.

Now, comparing that to the reference sample for Nicole Brown, which we also see on your Autorad, what's the state of degradation of that reference sample as tested by you?
A. The reference sample for Nicole Brown is substantially degraded. The dark
background that you see behind the bands, and all the way down (witness
indicates), this dark smear that you see behind the bands, following all the
way down the lane is typical evidence of degradation.
Now, it's not so degraded that you can't obtain an RFLP pattern, but that's
what a degraded -- a sample that has a moderate amount of degradation looks like.
Q. And if this reference sample was taken during an autopsy of Nicole Brown
Simpson that was performed more than 24 hours after her death, could that
explain that relative state of degradation?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, can you compare the differences in the degradation between Nicole Brown reference sample in item number 13, the socks?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it a discernable difference in degradation?
A. Yes.
Q. In your opinion, Dr. Cotton, is it likely that the blood you tested on item
number 13, the socks, came from that reference sample that you also tested?
A. No, it's not likely.

fump2,

If Ron and/or Nicole's blood was planted, it did not have to come from their reference sample. If this is the case, then Dr. Cotton's testimony doesn't matter.

Did OJ's and Nicole's blood on the sock test "positive" for EDTA? Was the stain a mixture of the two?

One last thing, from the opening statements, the DA's knew that the defense was going to say that blood was planted and they knew which items. Where was Dr. Cotton on this issue during the criminal trial? Where was Dr. T. Lee? I would have thought they would have brought in other witnesses to try to defuse this. IMO.

[GreenIce]

tv

do you think a book by df and am would do well.

Martin,

No, I don't think it would do very well. They could not go after the defense and they would have to tell the truth. It would get ugly very quickly for them.

However, many people did write books, according to them, to get their story out. Lange and VA were getting ready to retire, we know MF's career was over in LE. Clark and Darden knew they would never try another case for the DA's office and not because they lost the case. The DA's and the LAPD had each other by the throats, DF and AM did not have that going for them, IMO. They were still very young and their careers were on the rise. They never would have been allowed to continue their career that they wrote a book, IMO.

[GreenIce]

No, on Siglar. I vaguely remember some questions about the meeting.

William,

Stephen Singluar wrote "Legacy of Deception" about the LAPD. He had an inside source that told him that all the blood in this case should be viewed as tainted. He did make a contact within the LAPD lab, but I don't want to spoil the rest of it.

[tv]

From pg. 247 of Evidence Dismissed --

'Because of his presence at Parker Center, Lange, as the lead detective, was not available to conduct his usual walk-through of the crime scene - in which he makes sure that everything that needed to be done has been done. By the time Lange left Parker Center at 4:30 P.M., the South Bundy crime scene had already been broken down forty-five minutes earlier at 3:45 P.M. Unknown to Lange, one task he had assigned was left undone: the collection of the blood on the rear gate."

There was an allegation that a supervisior from the crime lab instructed Fung not to collect the blood so it would look like the department was understaffed and needed a bigger budget. This allegation was never proven and Fung never said that's what happened. Just so we're clear that Lange did instruct Fung to collect the blood on the rear gate.

[tv]

tv

do you think a book by df and am would do well.

I think it may have had some success after the trial but not now. I don't think they have anything to say except what it felt like to be crucified during the trial and how that affected their lives and careers.

[bobaugust]

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.

The only place Park saw the figure was when the figure walked into the house and had no idea where the figure was coming from, up the driveway, from the driveway, over the river through the woods or grandmama's house.

William, if you look at the diagram of the Rockingham estate you will understand that Park saw Simpson come FROM the driveway into the front entrance of the house.

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

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

See response to 5949. Park did not testify that he ever saw Kato at or near the gate box. Park testified where he saw Kato standing or still standing. Kato finished his first cursory search back out and walked up the driveway to where Park first saw him. Ms. Clark understood, as Kato never said he crossed the driveway, which I understand but you seem not to. After walking to the location where Park saw him still standing is when Kato went to the gate box.

That’s right, Park saw Kaelin “still standing’ on the Ashford path (the sidewalk) after coming from the back of the house. Not on the other side of the driveway near the gate control box where Kaelin said he went to after returning from his first partial trip to the south path. Kaelin never returned to the Ashford path that night until he went back to his room after Simpson left for the airport.

Park had been at the Ashford gate for twenty minutes without ever seeing or getting a response from anyone. His concern was that nobody was there, that’s why he called his boss. While talking to Dale, Park’s concern was alleviated when he first saw Kaelin come from the back of the house on the Ashford path with a flashlight and then saw Simpson walk up and enter his house. He told Dale somebody’s here. While Park was finishing his conversation with Dale he evidently wasn’t looking or paying any attention to what Kaelin did and he didn’t see Kaelin cross the driveway and continue on to the garage and the south path. After Park hung up the phone he waited for someone to open the gate for him but no one did, so he got out of the limo and went back to the intercom and rang it again for the fourth time and this time Simpson answered, They had a conversation and Park went back to the limo and waited some more. Finally he saw Kaelin go to the gate control box and open the gate for him.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I have supplied Ms. Clark's follow up question to Kato, clarifying the issue of where he walked. She did not say that he crossed the driveway and walked to the gate box and Kato responded that she was correct. you seem not to see that Ms. Clark clarified the place Kato actually walked to. See response to posts 5945, 5949, 5965 and all my other responses on this issue.

I don’t know what testimony you think you posted but your comments clearly show you do not understand what Kaelin said or what Clark summarized regarding what Kaelin did when he returned from his first investigation. Evidently you are still unaware of what the Rockingham estate looks like.

March 22, Kaelin

Q WHERE DID YOU GO THEN?
A I WENT BACK OUT.
Q OKAY.
A AND THE LIMO WAS STILL THERE AND I THOUGHT MAYBE I SHOULD LET THIS GUY IN, SO I WENT TO THE GATE CONTROL BOX, THERE IS A BUTTON, PRESSED AND IT OPENS UP.

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

LOOK AT THE DIAGRAM OF THE ROCKINGHAM LAYOUT
http://www.wagnerandson.com/images/2rockham.jpg

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Bobaugust,

Just one last question on this issue, how can you believe Park was mistaken about part of his testimony and correct about another, unless you are selectively choosing those parts that fit your conclusions? Alright, now I am done with the issue and any other posts you have on that issue consider this my standard response, see all my previous posts on this issue.

I’ll answer your question; let’s see if you will answer mine.

I understand that a guess by a witness as to what time an event happened or how much time past without that witness ever looking at a clock or the time estimate being supported by some other evidence is not reliable and in no way changes where a witness testifies someone was when they saw them. The only reliable time estimates in this case are time estimates supported by telephone records.

My question, why do you refuse to look at the diagram of the Rockingham estate?

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

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I’ll answer your question; let’s see if you will answer mine.

I understand that a guess by a witness as to what time an event happened or how much time past without that witness ever looking at a clock or the time estimate being supported by some other evidence is not reliable and in no way changes where a witness testifies someone was when they saw them. The only reliable time estimates in this case are time estimates supported by telephone records.

My question, why do you refuse to look at the diagram of the Rockingham estate?

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

bobaugust

:seeya: :seeya: :seeya: :)

[William Anthony]

I don’t know what testimony you think you posted but your comments clearly show you do not understand what Kaelin said or what Clark summarized regarding what Kaelin did when he returned from his first investigation. Evidently you are still unaware of what the Rockingham estate looks like.

March 22, Kaelin

Q WHERE DID YOU GO THEN?
A I WENT BACK OUT.
Q OKAY.
A AND THE LIMO WAS STILL THERE AND I THOUGHT MAYBE I SHOULD LET THIS GUY IN, SO I WENT TO THE GATE CONTROL BOX, THERE IS A BUTTON, PRESSED AND IT OPENS UP.

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

LOOK AT THE DIAGRAM OF THE ROCKINGHAM LAYOUT
http://www.wagnerandson.com/images/2rockham.jpg

bobaugust

:seeya: :seeya:

[William Anthony]

That’s right, Park saw Kaelin “still standing’ on the Ashford path (the sidewalk) after coming from the back of the house. Not on the other side of the driveway near the gate control box where Kaelin said he went to after returning from his first partial trip to the south path. Kaelin never returned to the Ashford path that night until he went back to his room after Simpson left for the airport.

Park had been at the Ashford gate for twenty minutes without ever seeing or getting a response from anyone. His concern was that nobody was there, that’s why he called his boss. While talking to Dale, Park’s concern was alleviated when he first saw Kaelin come from the back of the house on the Ashford path with a flashlight and then saw Simpson walk up and enter his house. He told Dale somebody’s here. While Park was finishing his conversation with Dale he evidently wasn’t looking or paying any attention to what Kaelin did and he didn’t see Kaelin cross the driveway and continue on to the garage and the south path. After Park hung up the phone he waited for someone to open the gate for him but no one did, so he got out of the limo and went back to the intercom and rang it again for the fourth time and this time Simpson answered, They had a conversation and Park went back to the limo and waited some more. Finally he saw Kaelin go to the gate control box and open the gate for him.

bobaugust

:seeya:

[William Anthony]

William, if you look at the diagram of the Rockingham estate you will understand that Park saw Simpson come FROM the driveway into the front entrance of the house.

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

bobaugust

:seeya: :)

[martin II]

From pg. 247 of Evidence Dismissed --

'Because of his presence at Parker Center, Lange, as the lead detective, was not available to conduct his usual walk-through of the crime scene - in which he makes sure that everything that needed to be done has been done. By the time Lange left Parker Center at 4:30 P.M., the South Bundy crime scene had already been broken down forty-five minutes earlier at 3:45 P.M. Unknown to Lange, one task he had assigned was left undone: the collection of the blood on the rear gate."

There was an allegation that a supervisior from the crime lab instructed Fung not to collect the blood so it would look like the department was understaffed and needed a bigger budget. This allegation was never proven and Fung never said that's what happened. Just so we're clear that Lange did instruct Fung to collect the blood on the rear gate.


who was it that asked fung to bring the glove to bundy and what time was it.

[martin II]

I studied the transcrips on the EDTA, and on the blood under the fingernails. I no longer think that the defense proved there was EDTA on the socks or the gate. I also think the fingernail blood was Nicoles as the prosecution states. I also found testimony from the sock was less degraded than the reference sampe with EDTA. This means that it is a virtual certainty that the blood was not planted. This testimony was from Nov 14 (1995 I think). Testimony:
Q. And let me ask you a hypothetical about that: Assume that the socks,
evidence item number 13, that this sample was found on, were worn by the killer when he killed Nicole Brown Simpson, and that the blood from Nicole Brown Simpson was splashed onto those socks, fresh out of her body. And that a half hour later, or thereabouts, the killer took off the socks, left them on a clean area rug where they dried overnight; air dried overnight. Could that explain the relative lack of degradation of that evidence sample?
A. Yes, it could.
Q. Why could it?
A. From -- both from experience from making samples in the laboratory, and
particularly looking at a lot of case work, when samples are very fresh and
dried immediately, they do not degrade. We also know -- also know from a lot of experiment, not just in my laboratory but many others, that drying a sample in a dry clean environment does preserve the sample very well.
If you have a sample that's in an unclean environment or a lot of heat or a lot
of humidity, that's not as good.

Now, comparing that to the reference sample for Nicole Brown, which we also see on your Autorad, what's the state of degradation of that reference sample as tested by you?
A. The reference sample for Nicole Brown is substantially degraded. The dark
background that you see behind the bands, and all the way down (witness
indicates), this dark smear that you see behind the bands, following all the
way down the lane is typical evidence of degradation.
Now, it's not so degraded that you can't obtain an RFLP pattern, but that's
what a degraded -- a sample that has a moderate amount of degradation looks like.
Q. And if this reference sample was taken during an autopsy of Nicole Brown
Simpson that was performed more than 24 hours after her death, could that
explain that relative state of degradation?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, can you compare the differences in the degradation between Nicole Brown reference sample in item number 13, the socks?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it a discernable difference in degradation?
A. Yes.
Q. In your opinion, Dr. Cotton, is it likely that the blood you tested on item
number 13, the socks, came from that reference sample that you also tested?
A. No, it's not likely.

There was no splash or splatter on the sock.So the above is meaningless. imo

[martin II]

I studied the transcrips on the EDTA, and on the blood under the fingernails. I no longer think that the defense proved there was EDTA on the socks or the gate. I also think the fingernail blood was Nicoles as the prosecution states. I also found testimony from the sock was less degraded than the reference sampe with EDTA. This means that it is a virtual certainty that the blood was not planted. This testimony was from Nov 14 (1995 I think). Testimony:
Q. And let me ask you a hypothetical about that: Assume that the socks,
evidence item number 13, that this sample was found on, were worn by the killer when he killed Nicole Brown Simpson, and that the blood from Nicole Brown Simpson was splashed onto those socks, fresh out of her body. And that a half hour later, or thereabouts, the killer took off the socks, left them on a clean area rug where they dried overnight; air dried overnight. Could that explain the relative lack of degradation of that evidence sample?
A. Yes, it could.
Q. Why could it?
A. From -- both from experience from making samples in the laboratory, and
particularly looking at a lot of case work, when samples are very fresh and
dried immediately, they do not degrade. We also know -- also know from a lot of experiment, not just in my laboratory but many others, that drying a sample in a dry clean environment does preserve the sample very well.
If you have a sample that's in an unclean environment or a lot of heat or a lot
of humidity, that's not as good.

Now, comparing that to the reference sample for Nicole Brown, which we also see on your Autorad, what's the state of degradation of that reference sample as tested by you?
A. The reference sample for Nicole Brown is substantially degraded. The dark
background that you see behind the bands, and all the way down (witness
indicates), this dark smear that you see behind the bands, following all the
way down the lane is typical evidence of degradation.
Now, it's not so degraded that you can't obtain an RFLP pattern, but that's
what a degraded -- a sample that has a moderate amount of degradation looks like.
Q. And if this reference sample was taken during an autopsy of Nicole Brown
Simpson that was performed more than 24 hours after her death, could that
explain that relative state of degradation?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, can you compare the differences in the degradation between Nicole Brown reference sample in item number 13, the socks?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it a discernable difference in degradation?
A. Yes.
Q. In your opinion, Dr. Cotton, is it likely that the blood you tested on item
number 13, the socks, came from that reference sample that you also tested?
A. No, it's not likely.
i suggest you read Dr Reiders testimony.

[martin II]

I studied the transcrips on the EDTA, and on the blood under the fingernails. I no longer think that the defense proved there was EDTA on the socks or the gate. I also think the fingernail blood was Nicoles as the prosecution states. I also found testimony from the sock was less degraded than the reference sampe with EDTA. This means that it is a virtual certainty that the blood was not planted. This testimony was from Nov 14 (1995 I think). Testimony:
Q. And let me ask you a hypothetical about that: Assume that the socks,
evidence item number 13, that this sample was found on, were worn by the killer when he killed Nicole Brown Simpson, and that the blood from Nicole Brown Simpson was splashed onto those socks, fresh out of her body. And that a half hour later, or thereabouts, the killer took off the socks, left them on a clean area rug where they dried overnight; air dried overnight. Could that explain the relative lack of degradation of that evidence sample?
A. Yes, it could.
Q. Why could it?
A. From -- both from experience from making samples in the laboratory, and
particularly looking at a lot of case work, when samples are very fresh and
dried immediately, they do not degrade. We also know -- also know from a lot of experiment, not just in my laboratory but many others, that drying a sample in a dry clean environment does preserve the sample very well.
If you have a sample that's in an unclean environment or a lot of heat or a lot
of humidity, that's not as good.

Now, comparing that to the reference sample for Nicole Brown, which we also see on your Autorad, what's the state of degradation of that reference sample as tested by you?
A. The reference sample for Nicole Brown is substantially degraded. The dark
background that you see behind the bands, and all the way down (witness
indicates), this dark smear that you see behind the bands, following all the
way down the lane is typical evidence of degradation.
Now, it's not so degraded that you can't obtain an RFLP pattern, but that's
what a degraded -- a sample that has a moderate amount of degradation looks like.
Q. And if this reference sample was taken during an autopsy of Nicole Brown
Simpson that was performed more than 24 hours after her death, could that
explain that relative state of degradation?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, can you compare the differences in the degradation between Nicole Brown reference sample in item number 13, the socks?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it a discernable difference in degradation?
A. Yes.
Q. In your opinion, Dr. Cotton, is it likely that the blood you tested on item
number 13, the socks, came from that reference sample that you also tested?
A. No, it's not likely.

where did you get the idea that the bag was full of drugs?

[GreenIce]

who was it that asked fung to bring the glove to bundy and what time was it.

Martin,

First off, Lange was not needed at Parker Center after he interviewed Simpson. He has no excuse not to done his final walk through. He knew the crime scene at Bundy was more critical then at Rockingham.

Remember that plastic toy heart the kept in his desk for almost a year or so? I have always believed he took that on purpose so he could claim he did see the these blood drops. By taking that toy, he was able to be very vague in his responses other then, "I saw it, I gave directives, they were not followed".

However, Fung did look at the back gate and he couldn't find them. What I don't get is how Lange missed the bloody fingerprint on the gate. I never knew Riske testified he saw it as well.

Since learning that the detectives are trained in blood collection and can turn it into the lab, I have to question if these stains were in fact taken and tested but never turned in. According to documentation, isn't there an issue when the blood evidence was finally booked? Wasn't it on the 16th?

Lange also gave the directive to cover Nicole's body. I am sorry but he knew what he was doing and it had nothing to do with respect for Nicole or her family. While I don't think he planted anything, I do believe his behavior is consistent of him looking the other way--not wanting to know what really happened during evidence collection.

There was also blood on Nicole's back and I think on her leg that was believed to have come from the killer, how was it that he told CR to make sure to get a sample of these but she did not?

It appears to me that while Lange was in charge of the Bundy crime scene he got no more respect then a parent does when they tell their kids what to do.

It is not evidence nor does it have any bearing that the gloves has to be a match set. The evidence would not change if these were two different gloves. It makes no sense that this was done. The more and more I think about it, I do believe Fung knew something was going on and that he came to beleive that evidence was planted but could do nothing about it.

Or, Fung could have known what we have learned. You can present evidence of tampering, but when it comes right down to it, you need a name, a witness to this, the time and the motive. Fung and Mozzola knew something was wrong but what could they do?

[GreenIce]

Martin,

The more I read Jill Schively's testimony the more convinced that either she is totally lying or she did see what she saw but it was not OJ Simpson.

Her description of "dance" between the Bronco and the Nissan not only adds more time to the timeline but made it almost impossible to believe that the police did not actively look for this driver. IMO, the Nissan driver sunk her story and/or sunk Clark's case.

She said the Bronco was speeding away with no lights on, why would he do that? He was in no hurry to leave Bundy? Why draw more attention to your Car by leaving the lights off. It would have been much harder to be recognized if he left the lights on.

Also, how could she, identify Simpson's voice by his screaming. I have never heard him screaming during his line of work. Most play by play or color commentators for the game conduct low impact type of interviews. Yes, they do have to talk over the roar of a crowd but screaming? An screaming in anger?

I think it might be possible that some of her story is true but it points away from Simpson.

Another thing, did he only pass two cars that night on the way to Bundy, did anyone else notice a white bronco?

[martin II]

Martin,

First off, Lange was not needed at Parker Center after he interviewed Simpson. He has no excuse not to done his final walk through. He knew the crime scene at Bundy was more critical then at Rockingham.

Remember that plastic toy heart the kept in his desk for almost a year or so? I have always believed he took that on purpose so he could claim he did see the these blood drops. By taking that toy, he was able to be very vague in his responses other then, "I saw it, I gave directives, they were not followed".

However, Fung did look at the back gate and he couldn't find them. What I don't get is how Lange missed the bloody fingerprint on the gate. I never knew Riske testified he saw it as well.

Since learning that the detectives are trained in blood collection and can turn it into the lab, I have to question if these stains were in fact taken and tested but never turned in. According to documentation, isn't there an issue when the blood evidence was finally booked? Wasn't it on the 16th?

Lange also gave the directive to cover Nicole's body. I am sorry but he knew what he was doing and it had nothing to do with respect for Nicole or her family. While I don't think he planted anything, I do believe his behavior is consistent of him looking the other way--not wanting to know what really happened during evidence collection.

There was also blood on Nicole's back and I think on her leg that was believed to have come from the killer, how was it that he told CR to make sure to get a sample of these but she did not?

It appears to me that while Lange was in charge of the Bundy crime scene he got no more respect then a parent does when they tell their kids what to do.

It is not evidence nor does it have any bearing that the gloves has to be a match set. The evidence would not change if these were two different gloves. It makes no sense that this was done. The more and more I think about it, I do believe Fung knew something was going on and that he came to beleive that evidence was planted but could do nothing about it.

Or, Fung could have known what we have learned. You can present evidence of tampering, but when it comes right down to it, you need a name, a witness to this, the time and the motive. Fung and Mozzola knew something was wrong but what could they do?

Here is what i see about furhman comming to bundy to id the glove and fung being directed to bring the glove to bundy for id ourposes.

If all of the evidence is collected and turned in to sid and then the lab it is the lab that is suppose to identify each piece of evidence by test.So why did the glove have to be identified in the field by these two detectives.It makes no sense.

[martin II]

Martin,

The more I read Jill Schively's testimony the more convinced that either she is totally lying or she did see what she saw but it was not OJ Simpson.

Her description of "dance" between the Bronco and the Nissan not only adds more time to the timeline but made it almost impossible to believe that the police did not actively look for this driver. IMO, the Nissan driver sunk her story and/or sunk Clark's case.

She said the Bronco was speeding away with no lights on, why would he do that? He was in no hurry to leave Bundy? Why draw more attention to your Car by leaving the lights off. It would have been much harder to be recognized if he left the lights on.

Also, how could she, identify Simpson's voice by his screaming. I have never heard him screaming during his line of work. Most play by play or color commentators for the game conduct low impact type of interviews. Yes, they do have to talk over the roar of a crowd but screaming? An screaming in anger?

I think it might be possible that some of her story is true but it points away from Simpson.

Another thing, did he only pass two cars that night on the way to Bundy, did anyone else notice a white bronco?


The other issue is wagner reports that js said she left home at 10:45
so she had to travel for some minutes to get to the intersection.the intersection was no more than a minute from bundy if oj was speeding as she claims.there were no skid marks or any evidence found that the bronco acted as she clains
Her EX boyfriend told clarke that she was a frequent plaintiff in bogus civil casses and a lot of stuff about other issues she had.

[martin II]

From pg. 247 of Evidence Dismissed --

'Because of his presence at Parker Center, Lange, as the lead detective, was not available to conduct his usual walk-through of the crime scene - in which he makes sure that everything that needed to be done has been done. By the time Lange left Parker Center at 4:30 P.M., the South Bundy crime scene had already been broken down forty-five minutes earlier at 3:45 P.M. Unknown to Lange, one task he had assigned was left undone: the collection of the blood on the rear gate."

There was an allegation that a supervisior from the crime lab instructed Fung not to collect the blood so it would look like the department was understaffed and needed a bigger budget. This allegation was never proven and Fung never said that's what happened. Just so we're clear that Lange did instruct Fung to collect the blood on the rear gate.

Fung finished his collection at a little after six at Bundy and arrived at the lab at 7pm.So i am not sure the Bundy crime scene was broken down at 3.45pm.imo

[martin II]

William,

I was more interested in Gary Siglar's testimony. However, as I scanned it, it seemed like he had Vanatter may have had words about this. No doubt about that Fung did make bad lies as did Mozzola but I do think they knew they were lying and they weren't happy about it.

If you think about it, the DA's left Scheck and Neufeld kick the stuffing out of them. I mean how could the defense know that Mozzola took a 20 minute cat nap---I think at Nicole's?

There is more to this and I believe Fung shook the Defense's hands was his way of flipping the finger at Clark and the DA's. He looked angry to me.
Remember Mazola at the exact moment Vanhatter gave fung the blood envelope said she was sitting on a sofa and at the second vanhatter gave fung the envelope she blinked her eyes and did not see the transfer so she could not testify to it.
Now i wonder if the jury baught into that lie.

[Jayme K]

Martin,

Lange also gave the directive to cover Nicole's body. I am sorry but he knew what he was doing and it had nothing to do with respect for Nicole or her family. While I don't think he planted anything, I do believe his behavior is consistent of him looking the other way--not wanting to know what really happened during evidence collection.

Or, Fung could have known what we have learned. You can present evidence of tampering, but when it comes right down to it, you need a name, a witness to this, the time and the motive. Fung and Mozzola knew something was wrong but what could they do?

Wowsers, it's rare for me to not know what to say but this threw me.

Lange knew what he was doing and it had nothing to do with respect? How exactly do you know that?? Covering a body that's going to really soon be viewed by tons of people as news crews invade the scene is consistent with not wanting to know what happened during evidence collection? Oh MY GOD, that's gotta be one of the most god awful things I've heard so far.

[martin II]

The jury sat through all the colleciton in the field problems Fung saying he collected all the samples, Mazzola saying she collected some.Vanhatter carrying the blood around on his person. The missing blood and Peratris making that late night video.The activiey aroung bringing the glove from rockingham to bundy.Furhman,CY spilling blood,Mazzola initials dissapearing
The mixtures of the blood.The blood under Nicoiles fingernails.The EDTA.The sock being lost. No blood seen on the sock after three examinaitons.How the blood was placed on the sock.Matrz failure as to EDTA expert.No shoes No knife. no sewat suite to compare to the fibers. Kato hearing the noise at 10:45.Oj comming down to place two duffle bags on his porch. Kato seeing no light and lights after Oj returned to the house.The confusing and changing testimony of Park and KATO. After the jury visit to Rocnkingham they realized Park could not see what he said he saw.
There was no way they could jusy ignore all of this and say proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

There was only one verdict they could have come to and that was NOT proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

[martin II]

This was not the first crime scene that a coronor felt a need to cover a body.
I am sure he must have had a plastic sheet in his wagon to cover the body.

At any rate they made pictures of the bodies and made them public anyway.

[martin II]

I studied the transcrips on the EDTA, and on the blood under the fingernails. I no longer think that the defense proved there was EDTA on the socks or the gate. I also think the fingernail blood was Nicoles as the prosecution states. I also found testimony from the sock was less degraded than the reference sampe with EDTA. This means that it is a virtual certainty that the blood was not planted. This testimony was from Nov 14 (1995 I think). Testimony:
Q. And let me ask you a hypothetical about that: Assume that the socks,
evidence item number 13, that this sample was found on, were worn by the killer when he killed Nicole Brown Simpson, and that the blood from Nicole Brown Simpson was splashed onto those socks, fresh out of her body. And that a half hour later, or thereabouts, the killer took off the socks, left them on a clean area rug where they dried overnight; air dried overnight. Could that explain the relative lack of degradation of that evidence sample?
A. Yes, it could.
Q. Why could it?
A. From -- both from experience from making samples in the laboratory, and
particularly looking at a lot of case work, when samples are very fresh and
dried immediately, they do not degrade. We also know -- also know from a lot of experiment, not just in my laboratory but many others, that drying a sample in a dry clean environment does preserve the sample very well.
If you have a sample that's in an unclean environment or a lot of heat or a lot
of humidity, that's not as good.

Now, comparing that to the reference sample for Nicole Brown, which we also see on your Autorad, what's the state of degradation of that reference sample as tested by you?
A. The reference sample for Nicole Brown is substantially degraded. The dark
background that you see behind the bands, and all the way down (witness
indicates), this dark smear that you see behind the bands, following all the
way down the lane is typical evidence of degradation.
Now, it's not so degraded that you can't obtain an RFLP pattern, but that's
what a degraded -- a sample that has a moderate amount of degradation looks like.
Q. And if this reference sample was taken during an autopsy of Nicole Brown
Simpson that was performed more than 24 hours after her death, could that
explain that relative state of degradation?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, can you compare the differences in the degradation between Nicole Brown reference sample in item number 13, the socks?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it a discernable difference in degradation?
A. Yes.
Q. In your opinion, Dr. Cotton, is it likely that the blood you tested on item
number 13, the socks, came from that reference sample that you also tested?
A. No, it's not likely.

Regardless of some claims made here can you point to any instance that oj Simpson was arrested and tried for posession of drugs? I have not been able to find one but you may do better reasearch them me.

[William Anthony]

I studied the transcrips on the EDTA, and on the blood under the fingernails. I no longer think that the defense proved there was EDTA on the socks or the gate. I also think the fingernail blood was Nicoles as the prosecution states. I also found testimony from the sock was less degraded than the reference sampe with EDTA. This means that it is a virtual certainty that the blood was not planted. This testimony was from Nov 14 (1995 I think). Testimony:
Q. And let me ask you a hypothetical about that: Assume that the socks,
evidence item number 13, that this sample was found on, were worn by the killer when he killed Nicole Brown Simpson, and that the blood from Nicole Brown Simpson was splashed onto those socks, fresh out of her body. And that a half hour later, or thereabouts, the killer took off the socks, left them on a clean area rug where they dried overnight; air dried overnight. Could that explain the relative lack of degradation of that evidence sample?
A. Yes, it could.
Q. Why could it?
A. From -- both from experience from making samples in the laboratory, and
particularly looking at a lot of case work, when samples are very fresh and
dried immediately, they do not degrade. We also know -- also know from a lot of experiment, not just in my laboratory but many others, that drying a sample in a dry clean environment does preserve the sample very well.
If you have a sample that's in an unclean environment or a lot of heat or a lot
of humidity, that's not as good.

Now, comparing that to the reference sample for Nicole Brown, which we also see on your Autorad, what's the state of degradation of that reference sample as tested by you?
A. The reference sample for Nicole Brown is substantially degraded. The dark
background that you see behind the bands, and all the way down (witness
indicates), this dark smear that you see behind the bands, following all the
way down the lane is typical evidence of degradation.
Now, it's not so degraded that you can't obtain an RFLP pattern, but that's
what a degraded -- a sample that has a moderate amount of degradation looks like.
Q. And if this reference sample was taken during an autopsy of Nicole Brown
Simpson that was performed more than 24 hours after her death, could that
explain that relative state of degradation?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, can you compare the differences in the degradation between Nicole Brown reference sample in item number 13, the socks?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it a discernable difference in degradation?
A. Yes.
Q. In your opinion, Dr. Cotton, is it likely that the blood you tested on item
number 13, the socks, came from that reference sample that you also tested?
A. No, it's not likely.

I rely on the amount of the EDTA to draw the inference of planting and I acknowledge your point but it means reasonable doubt, imho.

[tv]

Fung finished his collection at a little after six at Bundy and arrived at the lab at 7pm.So i am not sure the Bundy crime scene was broken down at 3.45pm.imo
This is what was in Lange and Vannatter's book. The point I was making is that Lange told Fung to collect the blood on the rear gate.

[martin II]

I studied the transcrips on the EDTA, and on the blood under the fingernails. I no longer think that the defense proved there was EDTA on the socks or the gate.If you studied the transcripts on the EDTA did you read Dr Reiders testimony. Did you realize that if Martz got the results he said he got , he would have have been DEAD. Can you explain this?? I also think the fingernail blood was Nicoles as the prosecution states. I also found testimony from the sock was less degraded than the reference sampe with EDTA. This means that it is a virtual certainty that the blood was not planted. This testimony was from Nov 14 (1995 I think). Testimony:
Q. And let me ask you a hypothetical about that: Assume that the socks,
evidence item number 13, that this sample was found on, were worn by the killer when he killed Nicole Brown Simpson, and that the blood from Nicole Brown Simpson was splashed onto those socks, fresh out of her body.There was no evidence of any splash or blood splatter on the sock.so the hypotical is not valid. And that a half hour later, or thereabouts, the killer took off the socks, left them on a clean area rug where they dried overnight; air dried overnight. Could that explain the relative lack of degradation of that evidence sample?
A. Yes, it could.
Q. Why could it?
A. From -- both from experience from making samples in the laboratory, and
particularly looking at a lot of case work, when samples are very fresh and
dried immediately, they do not degrade. We also know -- also know from a lot of experiment, not just in my laboratory but many others, that drying a sample in a dry clean environment does preserve the sample very well.
If you have a sample that's in an unclean environment or a lot of heat or a lot
of humidity, that's not as good.

Now, comparing that to the reference sample for Nicole Brown, which we also see on your Autorad, what's the state of degradation of that reference sample as tested by you?
A. The reference sample for Nicole Brown is substantially degraded. The dark
background that you see behind the bands, and all the way down (witness
indicates), this dark smear that you see behind the bands, following all the
way down the lane is typical evidence of degradation.
Now, it's not so degraded that you can't obtain an RFLP pattern, but that's
what a degraded -- a sample that has a moderate amount of degradation looks like.
Q. And if this reference sample was taken during an autopsy of Nicole Brown
Simpson that was performed more than 24 hours after her death, could that
explain that relative state of degradation?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, can you compare the differences in the degradation between Nicole Brown reference sample in item number 13, the socks?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it a discernable difference in degradation?
A. Yes.
Q. In your opinion, Dr. Cotton, is it likely that the blood you tested on item
number 13, the socks, came from that reference sample that you also tested?
A. No, it's not likely.

I would suggest that you read Dr Reiders testinmony and remember Dr Lee blamed Martz bad results on a ghost in the machine.

[weezer]

I would suggest that you read Dr Reiders testinmony and remember Dr Lee blamed Martz bad results on a ghost in the machine.

At the time the testing was done for EDTA, the process was in its infancy -- no one knew what to expect. I think the bigger question is why Reiders didn't testify about his own test results?

[martin II]

This is what was in Lange and Vannatter's book. The point I was making is that Lange told Fung to collect the blood on the rear gate.

Remember Vanhatter gave the enveolpe to fung at some time close to 3:30 or so at Rockingham.If Lang was at Parker center as your book referance says
when the Bundy crime scene was closed at 3:45 Which Detective closed the Bundy crime scene down at that time.

[tv]

Wowsers, it's rare for me to not know what to say but this threw me.

Lange knew what he was doing and it had nothing to do with respect? How exactly do you know that?? Covering a body that's going to really soon be viewed by tons of people as news crews invade the scene is consistent with not wanting to know what happened during evidence collection? Oh MY GOD, that's gotta be one of the most god awful things I've heard so far.

Didn't you know? She's a mind reader and an expert on human behavior. It really is awful.

[tv]

Remember Vanhatter gave the enveolpe to fung at some time close to 3:30 or so at Rockingham.If Lang was at Parker center as your book referance says
when the Bundy crime scene was closed at 3:45 Which Detective closed the Bundy crime scene down at that time.
martin, you don't have to believe my reference. The book says the crime scene was broken down at 3:45. If I find a time that clarifies what happened I'll post it.

[martin II]

Martin,

First off, Lange was not needed at Parker Center after he interviewed Simpson. He has no excuse not to done his final walk through. He knew the crime scene at Bundy was more critical then at Rockingham.

Remember that plastic toy heart the kept in his desk for almost a year or so? I have always believed he took that on purpose so he could claim he did see the these blood drops. By taking that toy, he was able to be very vague in his responses other then, "I saw it, I gave directives, they were not followed".

However, Fung did look at the back gate and he couldn't find them. What I don't get is how Lange missed the bloody fingerprint on the gate. I never knew Riske testified he saw it as well.

Since learning that the detectives are trained in blood collection and can turn it into the lab, I have to question if these stains were in fact taken and tested but never turned in. According to documentation, isn't there an issue when the blood evidence was finally booked? Wasn't it on the 16th?

Lange also gave the directive to cover Nicole's body. I am sorry but he knew what he was doing and it had nothing to do with respect for Nicole or her family. While I don't think he planted anything, I do believe his behavior is consistent of him looking the other way--not wanting to know what really happened during evidence collection.

There was also blood on Nicole's back and I think on her leg that was believed to have come from the killer, how was it that he told CR to make sure to get a sample of these but she did not?

It appears to me that while Lange was in charge of the Bundy crime scene he got no more respect then a parent does when they tell their kids what to do.

It is not evidence nor does it have any bearing that the gloves has to be a match set. The evidence would not change if these were two different gloves. It makes no sense that this was done. The more and more I think about it, I do believe Fung knew something was going on and that he came to beleive that evidence was planted but could do nothing about it.

Or, Fung could have known what we have learned. You can present evidence of tampering, but when it comes right down to it, you need a name, a witness to this, the time and the motive. Fung and Mozzola knew something was wrong but what could they do?

Fung and Mazolla could do nothing. Both had to protect their jobs and neither wwere prepared to face what the Blue Wall of Sclience would do to them and their careers. So they just took some hits for the prosecution and hoped that they could give slick answeres or play dumb to evade some larger problem.

In looking for where the manipulations of the blood samples took place i still look at the lapd lab as that is where all the blood was kept and that is where the people that would know what to do it worked.imo

[martin II]

martin, you don't have to believe my reference. The book says the crime scene was broken down at 3:45. If I find a time that clarifies what happened I'll post it.

tv
i am only posting times that i remember what happened at Bundy and Rockingham. It seems that there is some conflict as to what the book says
and what fung testified to as to what time he finished collectiong.It has nothing to do with you personally.

[Jayme K]

Didn't you know? She's a mind reader and an expert on human behavior. It really is awful.

No kidding- I think the thought process is a little twisted there.

[tv]

tv
i am only posting times that i remember what happened at Bundy and Rockingham. It seems that there is some conflict as to what the book says
and what fung testified to as to what time he finished collectiong.It has nothing to do with you personally.

I didn't take it personally. I'm going to look further later today when I have more time. I'll let you know what I find out.

[tv]

At the time the testing was done for EDTA, the process was in its infancy -- no one knew what to expect. I think the bigger question is why Reiders didn't testify about his own test results?

Good question. Does anyone know the answer?

[fgump2]

There was no splash or splatter on the sock.So the above is meaningless. imo
*********************************************
the key thing here is DNA, not splashing. The use of the word splash was probably an innocent mistake. Robin Cotton was looking at the blood on a slide or something similar, I don't think she saw the sock, or even a piece of the sock.

I give the pro defense people credit for closelyl examining every thing the prosecution people say and trying to find every slip up. I think the blood was put there by direct contact, an rub, which is an odd way to plant bood. I would have thought an eye dropper would be better (for planting).

It is also odd to get some of Nicoles blood before the autopsy and keep it around for months and then plant it on the sock. I think that most cops don't keep things with them that are good for taking and preserving blood

The prosecution suggested it could have gotten there by nicoles hand. I think OJS could have gotten it on his shoe, and then the shoe brushed on the sock.

As for why the sweat pants didn't keep the blood off the sock. He could have pulled the sweat pants up to scratch himslef before the killings. I am pretty sure it is common to see people with sweat pant pulled up about halfway to their knees. Sometimes the person isn't aware of it.

You may be correct in criticizing me for not providing links. But what about your own claims? I think you posted that the only excuse for not taking notes is if the people not taking notes are dishonest or up to no good. Do you have a link for that claim? Ever heard of laziness? Or being in a hurry? Bugliosi wrote that detectives are poor note takers. I think that in any organization most people don't take good notes.

I notice that both Martin and Greenice are quick to make unpleasant assumptions about other people's motives. For example, not just that Fung or Mazzola were wrong, but they were lying.

As for the bag (previous posting) having drugs rather than jewelry. I don't think that OJS would have been concerned with the cops stealing his wife's jewelry. I find it easy to think that OJS might have been worried that his wifte would complain about his drug taking and show them the drugs. I also don't think he would have stashed jewelry in a neighbor's garbage can; he would have taken it in his car; but what is plausible to one person is implausible to another. I probably shouldn't have made that posting.

[fgump2]

The defense claimed that type B blood under Nicole's fingernails showed that either their was a second killer or cross contamination. I read some testimony about this from 1995, Nov 13, with Robin Cotton, and it indicates to me that it was probably Nicole's blood, even thought it is unusual for AB blood to decay into looking like type B blood. The testimony said it can happen.

I think that fingernails ar a place that unusual dirt or at least subtance might collect. This would make the result unpredictable. We should remember that molecular biology, biochemistry, and testing for EDTA are technologies or crafts that are complicated and young

First of all the point is made (I think on the Nov 13 testimony) that usually blood under fingernails is the usually is from the person with the fingernails. Secondly their was blood of type B under the fingernails of both hands, but nowhere else. This would make the cross contamination theory less likely. It is hard to prove that there was no cross contamination, but it looks to me like there was no evidence of it under the fingernails or anywhere else.

The most important reasons for thinking it was Nicole's blood is that all the DNA that they could detect was from Nicole, or at least consistent with her with odds that it would be very unlikelyto come from someone else. Perhaps not hundreds of millions to one, but still very unlikely.

The defense made the point that it would be expected that Nicole's DNA would be under her fingernails even if the blood wasn't hers. That is true, but the Nov 13 testimony said that if the second person's blood (the REAL killer) was as much as 5% as common as the total DNA, the tests should have found it. I think that if there was enough blood to see on both hands, the tests should have shown a second person's DNA if there was a second person. In other words there should have been more DNA from the blood than from Nicole's fingers. I find it implausible that there should have been 20 times as much DNA from Nicole's skin as from the visible blood.

[William Anthony]

I would recommend reading the testimony of How a BA degrades and item #42.

[weezer]

Matheson also testified about the blood found under Nicole Simpson's fingernails at the crime scene. The defense contends the blood does not match either of the victims or Simpson, but a fourth person who is the real killer. But the prosecution argues, and Matheson testified, that the blood under the nails does not match Nicole Simpson's blood type because the blood already had started to degrade by the time it was tested. Degraded blood can give a false or misleading test result. Matheson said that because Nicole Simpson's hand was found resting in the blood and because damp blood degrades quickly, there's a "very high likelihood" that the blood under her fingernails was hers.

[William Anthony]

:seeya:, :seeya:, :seeya:, :seeya:

[weezer]

"The defense argued that tests done on the blood under Nicole's fingernails provided evidence of a killer who was not O.J. Simpson. Nicole's fingernail scrapings were tested using both conventional serology and PCR tests. The PCR result matched Simpson. The defense said that the EAP test revealed the blood of the real killer. Both Nicole and Simpson have EAP type BA. The blood under her fingernails had an EAP type B.

Since Nicole's hands were resting in a pool of her own blood when her body was found, it seems incontrovertible that at least some of the blood under her fingernails was her own. The prosecution introduced evidence that the EAP maer can degrade and when a type which is BA degrades, the A degrades firt, leaving only the B. This claim is supported by the fact that PCR testing is much more sensitive than EAO testing. If there were two types of blood under Nicole's nails - her own and the killer's - then the PCR test would have identified them both. But the PCT tests only revealed Nicole's own blood.

Further evidence that the EAP test was measuring Nicole's own degraded blood comes from another crime scene sample. Blood on the back gate was identified as O.J. Simpson's. The defense conceded this, arguing that it was planted by police. But this back gate blood, similarly, had an EAP result of B, even though Simpson like Nicole is a type BA. Since there was no dispute that the back gate blood was Simpson's, then this is further evidence that degradation can explain EAP readings which on first blush seem inconsistent."

O.J. Unmasked By M. L. Rantala

[weezer]

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

[martin II]

*********************************************
the key thing here is DNA, not splashing. The use of the word splash was probably an innocent mistake. Robin Cotton was looking at the blood on a slide or something similar, I don't think she saw the sock, or even a piece of the sock.

I give the pro defense people credit for closelyl examining every thing the prosecution people say and trying to find every slip up. I think the blood was put there by direct contact, an rub, which is an odd way to plant bood. I would have thought an eye dropper would be better (for planting).

It is also odd to get some of Nicoles blood before the autopsy and keep it around for months and then plant it on the sock. I think that most cops don't keep things with them that are good for taking and preserving blood

The prosecution suggested it could have gotten there by nicoles hand. I think OJS could have gotten it on his shoe, and then the shoe brushed on the sock.

As for why the sweat pants didn't keep the blood off the sock. He could have pulled the sweat pants up to scratch himslef before the killings.WELL how about the killer just rolled up his pant leg to make is easier for the blod to get on his sock. I am pretty sure it is common to see people with sweat pant pulled up about halfway to their knees. Sometimes the person isn't aware of it.

You may be correct in criticizing me for not providing links. But what about your own claims? I think you posted that the only excuse for not taking notes is if the people not taking notes are dishonest or up to no good. Do you have a link for that claim?Vanhatter and the other detectives testifined that they did not take notes. SEE VANHATTERS TESTIMONY. Ever heard of laziness? Or being in a hurry? Bugliosi wrote that detectives are poor note takers. I think that in any organization most people don't take good notes.

I notice that both Martin and Greenice are quick to make unpleasant assumptions about other people's motives. For example, not just that Fung or Mazzola were wrong, but they were lying.Mazzolas testimony shows that she lied.

As for the bag (previous posting) having drugs rather than jewelry. I don't think that OJS would have been concerned with the cops stealing his wife's jewelry. I find it easy to think that OJS might have been worried that his wifte would complain about his drug taking and show them the drugs. I also don't think he would have stashed jewelry in a neighbor's garbage can; he would have taken it in his car; but what is plausible to one person is implausible to another. I probably shouldn't have made that posting.

There was no blood splashing or blood splatter on the socks.There is no evidence that the killer rolled up his pant leg and did not know it.

[fgump2]

I would recommend reading the testimony of How a BA degrades and item #42.
************************************************** ********

Can you explain why they couldn't find any DNA of anyone else beside Nicole with the type B? The fact of the matter is that improbable things happen all the time. In this situation the explanation has to be a little unusual. The most likely one is that it was Nicole's blood.
There are a lot of bacteria and other microscopic life in the outdoors in any city that are not well understood. To say that none of these could turn Type BA into type B is a big stretch. The transcripts I read said it was fairly unusual for BA to degrade to B, it didn't say it was either impossible, or even extremely unusual.

It seems to me, from another posting, that there were two locations in the crime scene where type BA blood decayed to type B. It would be interesting to see if this could happen with EDTA in it.

In any case the defense came up with more improbable things than the prosecution did. For example, the story of how OJS got cuts on the left hand. OJS is right handed. His right hand was uninjured that day/night. So it seems quite unlikely that he would get that pattern of cuts on his hands. That is to say, most of the cuts on the back of his left hand, and (I think)none on his right hand. That strikes me as more unlikely than type BA blood decaying to type B, or a glove landing in an unusual manner.

OJS also said he had a cut on his left hand before he got to Chicago. Ordinarily if a right handed person has a fresh cut on their left hand, they use the left hand less, which would mean that they would be even less likely to cut up the left hand.

[William Anthony]

The defense claimed that type B blood under Nicole's fingernails showed that either their was a second killer or cross contamination. I read some testimony about this from 1995, Nov 13, with Robin Cotton, and it indicates to me that it was probably Nicole's blood, even thought it is unusual for AB blood to decay into looking like type B blood. The testimony said it can happen.

I think that fingernails ar a place that unusual dirt or at least subtance might collect. This would make the result unpredictable. We should remember that molecular biology, biochemistry, and testing for EDTA are technologies or crafts that are complicated and young

First of all the point is made (I think on the Nov 13 testimony) that usually blood under fingernails is the usually is from the person with the fingernails. Secondly their was blood of type B under the fingernails of both hands, but nowhere else. This would make the cross contamination theory less likely. It is hard to prove that there was no cross contamination, but it looks to me like there was no evidence of it under the fingernails or anywhere else.

The most important reasons for thinking it was Nicole's blood is that all the DNA that they could detect was from Nicole, or at least consistent with her with odds that it would be very unlikelyto come from someone else. Perhaps not hundreds of millions to one, but still very unlikely.

The defense made the point that it would be expected that Nicole's DNA would be under her fingernails even if the blood wasn't hers. That is true, but the Nov 13 testimony said that if the second person's blood (the REAL killer) was as much as 5% as common as the total DNA, the tests should have found it. I think that if there was enough blood to see on both hands, the tests should have shown a second person's DNA if there was a second person. In other words there should have been more DNA from the blood than from Nicole's fingers. I find it implausible that there should have been 20 times as much DNA from Nicole's skin as from the visible blood.

"MR. BLASIER: So under this scientific literature, if this BA was a degraded--I'm sorry--if your B under the fingernails was a degraded BA, it wouldn't look like the results you got, would it?

MR. MATHESON: If my sample or the samples that I analyzed were under those conditions in those studies and run in the same way, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Can you cite me to a single scientific article that states that the degradation route taken by a BA when it degrades would ever get you to the point where you're going to have a b-1 and a b-2 without the a-1?

MR. MATHESON: And we're talking specifically about articles at this point?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. MATHESON: No, I can not.

MR. BLASIER: I think you said also--

MR. BLASIER: You can turn that off now.

MR. BLASIER: Now, none of those articles that we--that we've talked about--the reason cited in those articles for doing these studies is to find out how a BA degrades, correct? That was one of the purposes of all of these articles?

MR. MATHESON: Well, it's known that it does degrade. So, yes, the purpose of those articles potentially among other things, because they include other bits of information, is to determine one of the ways that B or an EAP will degrade.

MR. BLASIER: And all of those articles talk about, you could misinterpret a BA or b--I'm sorry--you could misinterpret a BA for a B if you made a reading based on just that b-1 band at the end, correct?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct."

[martin II]

"MR. BLASIER: So under this scientific literature, if this BA was a degraded--I'm sorry--if your B under the fingernails was a degraded BA, it wouldn't look like the results you got, would it?

MR. MATHESON: If my sample or the samples that I analyzed were under those conditions in those studies and run in the same way, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Can you cite me to a single scientific article that states that the degradation route taken by a BA when it degrades would ever get you to the point where you're going to have a b-1 and a b-2 without the a-1?

MR. MATHESON: And we're talking specifically about articles at this point?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. MATHESON: No, I can not.

MR. BLASIER: I think you said also--

MR. BLASIER: You can turn that off now.

MR. BLASIER: Now, none of those articles that we--that we've talked about--the reason cited in those articles for doing these studies is to find out how a BA degrades, correct? That was one of the purposes of all of these articles?

MR. MATHESON: Well, it's known that it does degrade. So, yes, the purpose of those articles potentially among other things, because they include other bits of information, is to determine one of the ways that B or an EAP will degrade.

MR. BLASIER: And all of those articles talk about, you could misinterpret a BA or b--I'm sorry--you could misinterpret a BA for a B if you made a reading based on just that b-1 band at the end, correct?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct."

Thanks for posting the facts.

[William Anthony]

Thanks for posting the facts.

"MR. BLASIER: And do you agree that those highlighted paragraphs are two paragraphs from the code of ethics from the California association of criminalists?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.

MR. BLASIER: And you are a member of that organization?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I am.

MR. BLASIER: And you consider yourself to be bound by those ethics?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I'm wondering if we should print out a copy of that last demo I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I object to that because there was no foundation for a scientist looking at something that's covered up like that.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: Could we have slide f, please?

THE COURT: Let's proceed with a little alacrity.

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, would you agree that the code of ethics of your organization that you are a member of provide that: "The criminalist will be alert to recognize the significance of a test result as it may relate to the investigative aspects of a case. In this--" I'm sorry. I got it backwards. Let me read the other one. Would you agree that one of those provisions provides that: "Where test results are capable of being interpreted to the advantage of either side of a case, the criminalist will not choose that interpretation favoring the side which he is employed merely as a means of justifying his employment"? Do you agree that that's one of the provisions of your code of ethics?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.

MR. BLASIER: Could we see the next slide, please?

MR. BLASIER: Do you also agree that one of the provisions of your code of ethics is that: "The criminalist will be alert to recognize the significance of a test result as it may relate to the investigative aspects of a case. In this respect, however--in this respect, he will, however, scrupulously avoid confusing scientific fact with investigative theory in his interpretations"? Do you agree that that's one of the provisions of your code of ethics?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.

MR. BLASIER: And do you agree that there is no scientific support for your testimony that a BA can degrade to the point where you have two B bands remaining?

MR. MATHESON: No, I do not."

"THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: One question.

FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, in the Grunbaum article that you testified to where there's reference to one example of a BA degrading and being mistyped as a b, do you have any idea how many bands that degraded BA had?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation, asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Not exactly, no.

MR. BLASIER: You can't tell whether there were two bands at the end or one band, can you?

MR. MATHESON: Not unless the term "patterns" makes reference to that, but not specifically, no.

MR. BLASIER: Have you ever called Dr. Grunbaum or Mr. Zajac and ask them?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation, your Honor.

THE COURT: That's three. That's three.

MR. BLASIER: No further questions."

[weezer]

SNIPPED*** ". . MR. BLASIER: And do you agree that there is no scientific support for your testimony that a BA can degrade to the point where you have two B bands remaining?

MR. MATHESON: No, I do not."."

:shrug:

[martin II]

FGUMP2
If you have the time please read post# 6169 #6170
Martin II

[William Anthony]

"MR. BLASIER: And would it be fair to infer from that that of the approximately 1500 times you've done this test, roughly half of them would come back EAP B?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And have you testified in Court before about EAP results that have come back as a B?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have.

MR. BLASIER: And of course, in these approximately 750 cases, I assume you've written reports that have said, "I tested it. Looks like an EAP B to me," correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: In all of those reports, do you write down, "you know, it could be a BA"?

MR. MATHESON: Not in all those reports, no. I do include that disclaimer when the EAP is a source of elimination or exclusion in a sample.

MR. BLASIER: Have you testified in Court where an EAP B happens to be the type of the suspect and also the evidence you've tested, that it's an EAP type B without giving that disclaimer?

MR. MATHESON: Like I just mentioned, I will put that it's a B unless it's an exclusion of some type.

MR. BLASIER: Can I take that as a yes, you have so testified in cases that an EAP B result is a B when it incriminates a Defendant without saying that it could have been a BA?

MR. MATHESON: Yes."

[William Anthony]

"MR. BLASIER: Now, as I understand your argument that this B that you found is something other than a B is based on two things; one, scientific literature?

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, would you--

MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry?

THE COURT: Would you rephrase that question, please, when you start out, "your argument that".

MR. BLASIER: You testified yesterday that one of the reasons you're here to say that a b--that this B might have been a BA is because of the scientific literature, correct?

MR. MATHESON: That's one of the things, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And one of the other things is that--that you're using--that you testified to is that because sample 42 has the same findings or similar findings as 85 and since 42 appears to have come from the victim, then, therefore, the fingernail--the blood under the fingernails may have come from the victim as well. Have I got that right?

MR. MATHESON: No. I believe the other reason that I use is personal experience in both this case and other cases.

MR. BLASIER: Did you not use the example of 42 as well?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, but I don't think that was your question on this particular instance.

MR. BLASIER: Had you ever written any papers or published anything on EAP systems?

MR. MATHESON: No, I have not.

MR. BLASIER: Have you ever kept track of your research or your case work on EAP systems where you have this phenomenon developed when you have a B that might be something other than a B?

MR. MATHESON: No, I have not.

MR. BLASIER: So is it fair to say that your personal experience is based on anecdotal information?

MR. GOLDBERG: It's argumentative as to "anecdotal."

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: It's based on experiences I've had in casework."

[William Anthony]

"MR. BLASIER: So under this scientific literature, if this BA was a degraded--I'm sorry--if your B under the fingernails was a degraded BA, it wouldn't look like the results you got, would it?

MR. MATHESON: If my sample or the samples that I analyzed were under those conditions in those studies and run in the same way, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Can you cite me to a single scientific article that states that the degradation route taken by a BA when it degrades would ever get you to the point where you're going to have a b-1 and a b-2 without the a-1?

MR. MATHESON: And we're talking specifically about articles at this point?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. MATHESON: No, I can not."

[William Anthony]

"MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And I want to ask you some questions about your report as to the results on those items. Can you see the paragraph that says 84-A and b?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.

MR. GOLDBERG: And does that relate your findings with respect to the fingernail scrapings underneath the fingernails on 84-A and b?

MR. MATHESON: It's a narrative explanation of the results, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And can you tell us what you wrote there as depicted on this particular report, if you can read it off the screen?

MR. MATHESON: Yes. It says: "Item no. 84-A and 84-B could not have come from Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman or O.J. Simpson. However, Nicole Brown Simpson cannot be excluded as a source of the stain if the EAP type B observed on the items were degraded from a type BA."

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. So would it be a fair reading of the report if someone were to say that this categorically excluded Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman or O.J. Simpson of being a donor of the material underneath the fingernail?

MR. MATHESON: Well, categorically excludes two of them. It does not absolutely exclude Nicole Simpson or Nicole Brown.

MR. GOLDBERG: What about Nicole Brown? Okay. Now, when you wrote that second sentence, that Nicole Brown could not be excluded as a possible donor, why did you write that?

MR. MATHESON: The reason that it's in there is first off, there's two markers that were identified in those items, the PGM subtype and the EAP. Used the PGM subtype to eliminate the other two parties involved. That left Nicole Brown. And then this issue knowing that a BA can be degraded into a B, I wanted to include that in there so that there was no confusion as to an absolute statement of exclusion on her part.

MR. GOLDBERG: That's fine."

[bobaugust]

May 4. 1995

MR. GOLDBERG: What was your opinion, your bottom line opinion, when you considered all of the facts of this case as you are aware of them, including the photographs of where the victim's body was, the pool of blood, item no. 42, and the other tests that you did? What was your opinion as to the fingernail scrapings?

MR. MATHESON: Well, the result does not change. I did see a B, but in considering absolutely everything, I would have to say that it is a likelihood that the blood that was found under the fingernails were in fact from Ms. Brown and had degraded. But again, I cannot totally eliminate the possibility that it is a b.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, did anything that was brought up during cross-examination cause you to change that opinion or reevaluate that opinion?

MR. MATHESON: No, it did not.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

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

MR. FUNG: Yes.

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

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

MR. FUNG: Yes.

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

MR. FUNG: Yes.

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

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: On direct examination--

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

THE COURT: Page and line.

(Brief pause.)

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

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

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

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

(Brief pause.)

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

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

MR. GOLDBERG: Hold on a second.

(Brief pause.)

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

THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg?

MR. GOLDBERG: Line 18 through?

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

MR. FUNG: Yes.

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

(Brief pause.)

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

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

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

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Line 4 through line 26?

MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. GOLDBERG: That's fine.

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

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

MR. FUNG: Yes."

[martin II]

*********************************************
the key thing here is DNA, not splashing. The use of the word splash was probably an innocent mistake. Robin Cotton was looking at the blood on a slide or something similar, I don't think she saw the sock, or even a piece of the sock.

I give the pro defense people credit for closelyl examining every thing the prosecution people say and trying to find every slip up. I think the blood was put there by direct contact, an rub, which is an odd way to plant bood. I would have thought an eye dropper would be better (for planting).

It is also odd to get some of Nicoles blood before the autopsy and keep it around for months and then plant it on the sock. I think that most cops don't keep things with them that are good for taking and preserving blood

The prosecution suggested it could have gotten there by nicoles hand. I think OJS could have gotten it on his shoe, and then the shoe brushed on the sock.

As for why the sweat pants didn't keep the blood off the sock. He could have pulled the sweat pants up to scratch himslef before the killings. I am pretty sure it is common to see people with sweat pant pulled up about halfway to their knees. Sometimes the person isn't aware of it.

You may be correct in criticizing me for not providing links. But what about your own claims? I think you posted that the only excuse for not taking notes is if the people not taking notes are dishonest or up to no good. Do you have a link for that claim? Ever heard of laziness? Or being in a hurry? Bugliosi wrote that detectives are poor note takers. I think that in any organization most people don't take good notes.

I notice that both Martin and Greenice are quick to make unpleasant assumptions about other people's motives. For example, not just that Fung or Mazzola were wrong, but they were lying.

As for the bag (previous posting) having drugs rather than jewelry. I don't think that OJS would have been concerned with the cops stealing his wife's jewelry. I find it easy to think that OJS might have been worried that his wifte would complain about his drug taking and show them the drugs. I also don't think he would have stashed jewelry in a neighbor's garbage can; he would have taken it in his car; but what is plausible to one person is implausible to another. I probably shouldn't have made that posting.

Earlier you mentioned something about how le/lab handeled the EDTA
can you explain how EDTA is handeled? How it is used.

[William Anthony]

May 4. 1995

MR. GOLDBERG: What was your opinion, your bottom line opinion, when you considered all of the facts of this case as you are aware of them, including the photographs of where the victim's body was, the pool of blood, item no. 42, and the other tests that you did? What was your opinion as to the fingernail scrapings?

MR. MATHESON: Well, the result does not change. I did see a B, but in considering absolutely everything, I would have to say that it is a likelihood that the blood that was found under the fingernails were in fact from Ms. Brown and had degraded. But again, I cannot totally eliminate the possibility that it is a b.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, did anything that was brought up during cross-examination cause you to change that opinion or reevaluate that opinion?

MR. MATHESON: No, it did not.

bobaugust

"I would have to say that it is a likelihood that the blood that was found under the fingernails were in fact from Ms. Brown and had degraded. But again, I cannot totally eliminate the possibility that it is a b."

Likelihood and possibility are the stuff of preponderance of the evidence and not beyond a reasonable doubt. Where is the testimony that states to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty?

[fgump2]

MR. BLASIER: Can you cite me to a single scientific article that states that the degradation route taken by a BA when it degrades would ever get you to the point where you're going to have a b-1 and a b-2 without the a-1?

MR. MATHESON: And we're talking specifically about articles at this point?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. MATHESON: No, I can not.

Thanks for posting the facts.
**************************************************
The defense looked OK here, but I think if we do some serious thinking here we will conclude that the prosecution is correct, and the defense wrong.
I continue to think that the blood types of BA decayed to blood type B. First of all I don’t think it is logical to assume that because there have been no scientific papers on type BA blood decaying to type B blood, that this means we can safely assume that such a decay process is impossible. The study of what happens to complex molecules is both very complicated and a new discipline. There is new stuff being learned all the time. There is a lot of research going on mainly because we know so little.
I find it odd that WA should write that forensic science is a junk science, and also imply that because there have been no papers saying that type BA blood can decay to type B blood, that this means we can assume that this decay is impossible.
Forensic biochemistry is more unpredictable than biochemistry indoors in a college lab. In a college lab we can control and reproduce the conditions we want to test. This isn’t possible in the world outside of the lab, whether it is in agriculture or crime. This doesn’t mean that agriculture biochemistry or forensic biochemistry is a junk science, as WA has written. It means that it is more unpredictable. For example, a few years ago some agriculture scientists were sure they could plant genetically modified (GM) plants at a farm, and keep the GM plants from escaping into the wild. This has been proven to be wrong, and the last I head the scientists didn’t know how this happened. This is but one instance in which a situation outside of a laboratory is unpredictable.
The fact of the matter is that we have minor scientific puzzle here. We have a crime scene with blood evidence. We think at least 3 people were involved, Nicole, Orenthal, and Ron. None of these people had type B blood. We have 3 locations where there is type B blood, both of Nicole’s hands, and the famous spot on the gate. So we wonder, was there a fourth person? If there was then we should ask why didn’t the fourth person’s DNA show up? As Fbw wrote, what about the famous gate stain? Does anybody think that was a mixture of OJS and another person’s blood and the other person’s DNA somehow got eaten by bacteria” I suppose another possibility is that there were two unknown people, one with DNA much like Orenthal (except type B blood) and anther person with DNA like Nicole except with blood type B. I think it is much more logical to assume that there were three instances of type BA blood decaying to type B blood..

[martin II]

By the time Fung returned to Rockingham and with le all over ojs house,there was nothing that would have prevented someone from removing a pair of socks from ojs clothes closet and placing them on his bedroon floor waiting fungs return.
Shoe prints had been found but no shoes in the search in and around ojs house.This would lead one to think about socks.

Fung said the socks LOOKED out of place but the leather strap in the middle of the bed did not.

[martin II]

MR. BLASIER: Can you cite me to a single scientific article that states that the degradation route taken by a BA when it degrades would ever get you to the point where you're going to have a b-1 and a b-2 without the a-1?

MR. MATHESON: And we're talking specifically about articles at this point?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. MATHESON: No, I can not.


**************************************************
The defense looked OK here, but I think if we do some serious thinking here we will conclude that the prosecution is correct, and the defense wrong.
I continue to think that the blood types of BA decayed to blood type B. First of all I don’t think it is logical to assume that because there have been no scientific papers on type BA blood decaying to type B blood, that this means we can safely assume that such a decay process is impossible. The study of what happens to complex molecules is both very complicated and a new discipline. There is new stuff being learned all the time. There is a lot of research going on mainly because we know so little.
I find it odd that WA should write that forensic science is a junk science, and also imply that because there have been no papers saying that type BA blood can decay to type B blood, that this means we can assume that this decay is impossible. I think that in this area of study we rely on what we know, what has been tested and what info has been puiblished and accepted. to allow for a endless string of guess of what may be possible is folly.
Forensic biochemistry is more unpredictable than biochemistry indoors in a college lab. In a college lab we can control and reproduce the conditions we want to test. This isn’t possible in the world outside of the lab, whether it is in agriculture or crime. This doesn’t mean that agriculture biochemistry or forensic biochemistry is a junk science, as WA has written. It means that it is more unpredictable. For example, a few years ago some agriculture scientists were sure they could plant genetically modified (GM) plants at a farm, and keep the GM plants from escaping into the wild. This has been proven to be wrong, and the last I head the scientists didn’t know how this happened. This is but one instance in which a situation outside of a laboratory is unpredictable.Very bad example imo
The fact of the matter is that we have minor scientific puzzle here. We have a crime scene with blood evidence. We think at least 3 people were involved, Nicole, Orenthal, and Ron. None of these people had type B blood. We have 3 locations where there is type B blood, both of Nicole’s hands, and the famous spot on the gate. So we wonder, was there a fourth person? If there was then we should ask why didn’t the fourth person’s DNA show up? As Fbw wrote, what about the famous gate stain? Does anybody think that was a mixture of OJS and another person’s blood and the other person’s DNA somehow got eaten by bacteria” I suppose another possibility is that there were two unknown people, one with DNA much like Orenthal (except type B blood) and anther person with DNA like Nicole except with blood type B. I think it is much more logical to assume that there were three instances of type BA blood decaying to type B blood..

My head is beginning to spin a little.

[William Anthony]

MR. BLASIER: Can you cite me to a single scientific article that states that the degradation route taken by a BA when it degrades would ever get you to the point where you're going to have a b-1 and a b-2 without the a-1?

MR. MATHESON: And we're talking specifically about articles at this point?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. MATHESON: No, I can not.


**************************************************
The defense looked OK here, but I think if we do some serious thinking here we will conclude that the prosecution is correct, and the defense wrong.
I continue to think that the blood types of BA decayed to blood type B. First of all I don’t think it is logical to assume that because there have been no scientific papers on type BA blood decaying to type B blood, that this means we can safely assume that such a decay process is impossible. The study of what happens to complex molecules is both very complicated and a new discipline. There is new stuff being learned all the time. There is a lot of research going on mainly because we know so little.
I find it odd that WA should write that forensic science is a junk science, and also imply that because there have been no papers saying that type BA blood can decay to type B blood, that this means we can assume that this decay is impossible.
Forensic biochemistry is more unpredictable than biochemistry indoors in a college lab. In a college lab we can control and reproduce the conditions we want to test. This isn’t possible in the world outside of the lab, whether it is in agriculture or crime. This doesn’t mean that agriculture biochemistry or forensic biochemistry is a junk science, as WA has written. It means that it is more unpredictable. For example, a few years ago some agriculture scientists were sure they could plant genetically modified (GM) plants at a farm, and keep the GM plants from escaping into the wild. This has been proven to be wrong, and the last I head the scientists didn’t know how this happened. This is but one instance in which a situation outside of a laboratory is unpredictable.
The fact of the matter is that we have minor scientific puzzle here. We have a crime scene with blood evidence. We think at least 3 people were involved, Nicole, Orenthal, and Ron. None of these people had type B blood. We have 3 locations where there is type B blood, both of Nicole’s hands, and the famous spot on the gate. So we wonder, was there a fourth person? If there was then we should ask why didn’t the fourth person’s DNA show up? As Fbw wrote, what about the famous gate stain? Does anybody think that was a mixture of OJS and another person’s blood and the other person’s DNA somehow got eaten by bacteria” I suppose another possibility is that there were two unknown people, one with DNA much like Orenthal (except type B blood) and anther person with DNA like Nicole except with blood type B. I think it is much more logical to assume that there were three instances of type BA blood decaying to type B blood..

I refer to forensic science as junk science not because I call it that but because others in the field do. I have never written that the underlying sciences were not valid sciences but that the interpretation of the results was subjective as opposed to objective and I rely on those in the field as to those criteria. I am simply showing the testimony that the jury heard and I am not espousing a point of view other than from hearing that testimony there was reasonable doubt. The only thing I am saying is that there is evidence of another person being there by the type B blood. Can I exclude that evidence as a fact, no and neither could Matheson. Can I talk of likelihood and probability, yes. Likelihood and probability are the stuff for a preponderance of the evidence standard and not beyond a reasonable doubt.

[martin II]

Martin,

The more I read Jill Schively's testimony the more convinced that either she is totally lying or she did see what she saw but it was not OJ Simpson.

Her description of "dance" between the Bronco and the Nissan not only adds more time to the timeline but made it almost impossible to believe that the police did not actively look for this driver. IMO, the Nissan driver sunk her story and/or sunk Clark's case.

She said the Bronco was speeding away with no lights on, why would he do that? He was in no hurry to leave Bundy? Why draw more attention to your Car by leaving the lights off. It would have been much harder to be recognized if he left the lights on.

Also, how could she, identify Simpson's voice by his screaming. I have never heard him screaming during his line of work. Most play by play or color commentators for the game conduct low impact type of interviews. Yes, they do have to talk over the roar of a crowd but screaming? An screaming in anger?

I think it might be possible that some of her story is true but it points away from Simpson.

Another thing, did he only pass two cars that night on the way to Bundy, did anyone else notice a white bronco?


If lang gave instructions for the stain on the back gate to be collected on 6/13 and it was not collected and the whole outside of the house was washed down with water hose on 6/17 By Lou Browns friend how is it that this same stain was still on the gate several weeks later when it was finally collected.The stain was on Iron and exposed to sun rain etc.
What caused Fung to go back weeks later looking for that stain.

[weezer]

"Well, who is John Gerdes? Remember, he told you he works for a DNA Lab in Denver that does medical but not forensic DNA. He admitted that he had himself never used the DQ Alpha test, which is one of the critical tests that we talked about throughout this trial. He never uses it.

He admitted he never uses D1S80 tests; another one of the tests we talked about throughout this trial. He doesn't use it. He admitted he's never collected evidence at a crime scene. He's never tested -- collected at a crime scene. He's not a member of any of the forensic science organizations that people who do this sort of thing are.

But that's who they call. Though they could have called a real forensic DNA expert."

[tv]

If lang gave instructions for the stain on the back gate to be collected on 6/13 and it was not collected and the whole outside of the house was washed down with water hose on 6/17 By Lou Browns friend how is it that this same stain was still on the gate several weeks later when it was finally collected.The stain was on Iron and exposed to sun rain etc.
What caused Fung to go back weeks later looking for that stain.

On July 3, Bill Hodgman was at Bundy and saw the blood on the back gate. He said something to Lange who said he had seen that on June 13 and told Fung to collect it. Hodgman and Lange contacted Fung who said he didn't remember that assignment. The blood was collected later that day.

[martin II]

Martin,

The more I read Jill Schively's testimony the more convinced that either she is totally lying or she did see what she saw but it was not OJ Simpson.

Her description of "dance" between the Bronco and the Nissan not only adds more time to the timeline but made it almost impossible to believe that the police did not actively look for this driver. IMO, the Nissan driver sunk her story and/or sunk Clark's case.

She said the Bronco was speeding away with no lights on, why would he do that? He was in no hurry to leave Bundy? Why draw more attention to your Car by leaving the lights off. It would have been much harder to be recognized if he left the lights on.

Also, how could she, identify Simpson's voice by his screaming. I have never heard him screaming during his line of work. Most play by play or color commentators for the game conduct low impact type of interviews. Yes, they do have to talk over the roar of a crowd but screaming? An screaming in anger?

I think it might be possible that some of her story is true but it points away from Simpson.

Another thing, did he only pass two cars that night on the way to Bundy, did anyone else notice a white bronco?


le put out calls to the public for anyone at that intersection or on the route to come forward.It does not seem that anyone came or it was not made public if they did.It seems that a Nissan would not have been that difficult for le to find if they tried. I do remember reading that white Broncos was

[tv]

"Well, who is John Gerdes? Remember, he told you he works for a DNA Lab in Denver that does medical but not forensic DNA. He admitted that he had himself never used the DQ Alpha test, which is one of the critical tests that we talked about throughout this trial. He never uses it.

He admitted he never uses D1S80 tests; another one of the tests we talked about throughout this trial. He doesn't use it. He admitted he's never collected evidence at a crime scene. He's never tested -- collected at a crime scene. He's not a member of any of the forensic science organizations that people who do this sort of thing are.

But that's who they call. Though they could have called a real forensic DNA expert."

They just called whoever they could get to agree with them or was willing to trash LE and lab. Gerdes fit this bill requirement perfectly. Remember the photo 'expert' that the civil trial defense called? I'm surprised the guy had time for the trial in between giving his JFK assassination tours. LOL.

[tv]

le put out calls to the public for anyone at that intersection or on the route to come forward.It does not seem that anyone came or it was not made public if they did.It seems that a Nissan would not have been that difficult for le to find if they tried. I do remember reading that white Broncos was

It has happened in other cases. The mystery car in the Princess Diana crash has never been found as far as I know.

[martin II]

On July 3, Bill Hodgman was at Bundy and saw the blood on the back gate. He said something to Lange who said he had seen that on June 13 and told Fung to collect it. Hodgman and Lange contacted Fung who said he didn't remember that assignment. The blood was collected later that day.

Thanks

Hodgman was a regular DA lawyer.Why would he be at Bundy in July after the property had been washed down.What caused him to be there then? He had no evidence collection duties.

[William Anthony]

They just called whoever they could get to agree with them or was willing to trash LE and lab. Gerdes fit this bill requirement perfectly. Remember the photo 'expert' that the civil trial defense called? I'm surprised the guy had time for the trial in between giving his JFK assassination tours. LOL.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/11/us/simpson-trial-shows-need-for-proper-use-of-forensic-science-experts-say.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=2

[martin II]

It has happened in other cases. The mystery car in the Princess Diana crash has never been found as far as I know.

a blue nissan would not be too difficult to find at the brentwood DMV

Thousand of cars pass in that tunnel in paris per hour.not so in brentwood.

[weezer]

Dr. Henry Lee (taped deposition)

Dr. Lee said he never meant to suggest that police planted evidence to frame O.J. Simpson; said when he said "there's something wrong," he meant the quality of police lab procedures.

[martin II]

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/11/us/simpson-trial-shows-need-for-proper-use-of-forensic-science-experts-say.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=2

Very good article

TV
Gerdis was well respected in his field of study and for the work he did in evaluating various labs.The LAPD lab was not the only lab he had evaluated and reported on.So to imply that he was just some nut the defence hired to testify is not correct. I will look and find his credentials for you.

[tv]

Very good article

TV
Gerdis was well respected in his field of study and for the work he did in evaluating various labs.The LAPD lab was not the only lab he had evaluated and reported on.So to imply that he was just some nut the defence hired to testify is not correct. I will look and find his credentials for you.
If you find him credible don't forget that he said all the lab results were valid results.

[tv]

a blue nissan would not be too difficult to find at the brentwood DMV

Thousand of cars pass in that tunnel in paris per hour.not so in brentwood.

martin, did Jill Shivley say if it was a CA plate?

[tv]

Thanks

Hodgman was a regular DA lawyer.Why would he be at Bundy in July after the property had been washed down.What caused him to be there then? He had no evidence collection duties.

Maybe he wanted to see the crime scene since he was going to be helping try the case. I don't see anything strange about him being there. I would be willing to bet that the defense lawyers visited the crime scene before trial.

[tv]

Dr. Henry Lee (taped deposition)

Dr. Lee said he never meant to suggest that police planted evidence to frame O.J. Simpson; said when he said "there's something wrong," he meant the quality of police lab procedures.

I read something about that the other day. It appears that his comment was taken completely out of context and used as a mantra by the defense.

[fgump2]

"I would have to say that it is a likelihood that the blood that was found under the fingernails were in fact from Ms. Brown and had degraded. But again, I cannot totally eliminate the possibility that it is a b."

Likelihood and possibility are the stuff of preponderance of the evidence and not beyond a reasonable doubt. Where is the testimony that states to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty?
************************************************** ****
First of all, the fact that there is an outside possibility that there was a fourth person there doesn't mean that OJS was innocent, that he wasn't there.

Secondly l think it is pretty far fetched to assume that the evidence shows there was a fourth person there with type B blood. To assume that the Type B blood indicators show that, I think there are two possibilities.

(1) The possibility that there were microranisms that ate up all the DNA of the fourth person, and all of the BA blood indicators from OJS and Nicole. For example on both of Nicoles hands there was a mixture of Nicoles blood and the fourth person. This would mean the DNA of two people, and also blood indicators for tye BA, and type B. Then we assume that the bacteria (or whatever) ate the REAL KILLER'S DNA, and also ate Nicole's BA blood type indicators. This left type B blood indicators and Nicole's DNA. This is possible but highly unlikely.

(2) The possibility that there were two additional people (the REAL KILLERS). Both of these people had blood type B, and one of them had DNA so similar to Nicole that cell mark got them confused, and the other one had DNA so similar to Orenthal that Cellmark got these confused also. This also seems extremely improbable.

There may be other possibilities, or a combination of these two possibilities. One explanation for Nicole's hands, another for the blood on the gate.

I give the defense credit for doing a good job of implying that because the prosecution and Cellmark couldn't point to a specific paper saying that this type of blood type decay (type BA to type B) that this means it is either impossibile or highly unlikely. But that isn't good science. I don't think a person has to know much about biochemistry to understand that. Lack of papers saying that something is possible isn't the same as the presence of papers saying that it isn't possible. I hope this doesn't make anybody's head spin.

I think a reasonable biochemist (which I am not) would conclude there is no evidence that a person with blood type B who took place in the crime.

If we are to consider the possibility that OJS's blood may have gotten there before the crime, then we should consider that the type B blood under Nicole's finger nails may have gotten there before the crime. Not likely, but sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[martin II]

TV

Los Angeles is not some backwater city in america.They have one of the largest police departments in the country. Yet the lapd lab was not accredited.DrGerdis evaluated labs for standards of collection, testing,packaging, storage and other handeling of blood evidence.This is how he was able to conclude that the lapd lab had no procedures that would perevent contamination and other errors in processing blood.

Although few labs worked according to standards there were standards that had been developed and these standards are what was used to evaluate the lapd lab as well as other labs and what later became a vital part of the national standards used now. I think he was well qualified to do the work that he did.

[martin II]

************************************************** ****
First of all, the fact that there is an outside possibility that there was a fourth person there doesn't mean that OJS was innocent, that he wasn't there.

Secondly l think it is pretty far fetched to assume that the evidence shows there was a fourth person there with type B blood. To assume that the Type B blood indicators show that, I think there are two possibilities.

(1) The possibility that there were microranisms that ate up all the DNA of the fourth person, and all of the BA blood indicators from OJS and Nicole. For example on both of Nicoles hands there was a mixture of Nicoles blood and the fourth person. This would mean the DNA of two people, and also blood indicators for tye BA, and type B. Then we assume that the bacteria (or whatever) ate the REAL KILLER'S DNA, and also ate Nicole's BA blood type indicators. This left type B blood indicators and Nicole's DNA. This is possible but highly unlikely.

(2) The possibility that there were two additional people (the REAL KILLERS). Both of these people had blood type B, and one of them had DNA so similar to Nicole that cell mark got them confused, and the other one had DNA so similar to Orenthal that Cellmark got these confused also. This also seems extremely improbable.

There may be other possibilities, or a combination of these two possibilities. One explanation for Nicole's hands, another for the blood on the gate.

I give the defense credit for doing a good job of implying that because the prosecution and Cellmark couldn't point to a specific paper saying that this type of blood type decay (type BA to type B) that this means it is either impossibile or highly unlikely. But that isn't good science. I don't think a person has to know much about biochemistry to understand that. Lack of papers saying that something is possible isn't the same as the presence of papers saying that it isn't possible. I hope this doesn't make anybody's head spin.

I think a reasonable biochemist (which I am not) would conclude there is no evidence that a person with blood type B who took place in the crime.

If we are to consider the possibility that OJS's blood may have gotten there before the crime, then we should consider that the type B blood under Nicole's finger nails may have gotten there before the crime. Not likely, but sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

From your postings i had assumed that you were a biochemist. Sorry about that.

[tv]

TV

Los Angeles is not some backwater city in america.They have one of the largest police departments in the country. Yet the lapd lab was not accredited.DrGerdis evaluated labs for standards of collection, testing,packaging, storage and other handeling of blood evidence.This is how he was able to conclude that the lapd lab had no procedures that would perevent contamination and other errors in processing blood.

Although few labs worked according to standards there were standards that had been developed and these standards are what was used to evaluate the lapd lab as well as other labs and what later became a vital part of the national standards used now. I think he was well qualified to do the work that he did.

Okay, I'll go along with that. He's a credible witness with impressive credentials so I believe him when he says all the results were valid results.

[martin II]

martin, did Jill Shivley say if it was a CA plate?

I have no idea if that was addressed or if she spoke on it.But the problem in her story still remains that she said she left home at 10:45 by her clock. I don't think the interseciton was across the street for her house. But i am sure you remember that 10:45 was the time Heidstra says he saw the Bronco at Dorothy and Bundy.

[tv]

I have no idea if that was addressed or if she spoke on it.But the problem in her story still remains that she said she left home at 10:45 by her clock. I don't think the interseciton was across the street for her house. But i am sure you remember that 10:45 was the time Heidstra says he saw the Bronco at Dorothy and Bundy.My point is that the Nissan could have been from anywhere in the country. It could have been some sight seeing yahoos from a backwater town in West Virginia. For example, I mean. :)

[martin II]

Okay, I'll go along with that. He's a credible witness with impressive credentials so I believe him when he says all the results were valid results.

Is that what he said or meant/ Did he examine all the phases of all the evidence collection and the specific blood testing etc in the lab?

[GreenIce]

Wowsers, it's rare for me to not know what to say but this threw me.

Lange knew what he was doing and it had nothing to do with respect? How exactly do you know that?? Covering a body that's going to really soon be viewed by tons of people as news crews invade the scene is consistent with not wanting to know what happened during evidence collection? Oh MY GOD, that's gotta be one of the most god awful things I've heard so far.

Jayme,

One of the things that I learned from this trial is how both sides use the media. Robert Riske did not use his radio but Nicole's phone to call for help. If this rookie cop knew the media would be all over this and took measures just to delay this, then how could Lange not know?

I believe it was Phillips who called the ME's office and said they were breaking procedure and told them this was going to be high profile case. Again, this is another example of the LAPD knowing the media was going to be all over this.

Detective Lange had no right to cover Nicole's body. While he may truly wanted to do this, his first obligation was to be a lead detective, it was not to Nicole or her family.

Any evidence found at Rockingham was not going to help determine or narrow the time of death--however, it could have been narrowed significantly. There were too many "clocks" at Bundy, they were too experienced not to know this.

It also makes no sense that Ron Phillips would make this request to the ME's office, he was not the lead detective in this case or was he in charge of the Bundy crime scene, Lange was. So did Phillips make this phone call on his own or was he asked to do it?

What I find strange is the ME never asked him on who's authority he was acting upon. Know this has been a very explosive issue between the LAPD and ME office and the person who agreed to it, never went to their supervisor to get permission to delay them coming to the scene.

[fgump2]

TV

Los Angeles is not some backwater city in america.They have one of the largest police departments in the country. Yet the lapd lab was not accredited.DrGerdis evaluated labs for standards of collection, testing,packaging, storage and other handeling of blood evidence.This is how he was able to conclude that the lapd lab had no procedures that would perevent contamination and other errors in processing blood.

Although few labs worked according to standards there were standards that had been developed and these standards are what was used to evaluate the lapd lab as well as other labs and what later became a vital part of the national standards used now. I think he was well qualified to do the work that he did.
************************************************** ********
Gerdis had a good knowledge of biochemistry, but not of criminology. I don't accept him partly because he made generalizations like 'cesspool of contamination', and then couldn't or didn't back it up. I read a lot of the testimony, and I felt disrespect for him. I think he was hired gun who came into bad mouth the LAPD lab, and couldn't back it with examples.

[martin II]

My point is that the Nissan could have been from anywhere in the country. It could have been some sight seeing yahoos from a backwater town in West Virginia. For example, I mean. :)

Thats true but my guess would be at 10:40 pm in a residential community it would be from around Breentwood or maby LA.

[GreenIce]

I have no idea if that was addressed or if she spoke on it.But the problem in her story still remains that she said she left home at 10:45 by her clock. I don't think the interseciton was across the street for her house. But i am sure you remember that 10:45 was the time Heidstra says he saw the Bronco at Dorothy and Bundy.

Martin,

TV did ask a great question--was she ever asked about this? When JS first saw the "car dance" she did not know who it was, wouldn't she think she would have looked for one? I mean she protrayed her self as being very observant, was able to describe both drivers, details about he Bronco, but no plate?


Also, what about the other driver? If some guy was screaming at me to get out of the way and behaving like a lunatic, I would be looking for a license plate number and report this.

[martin II]

************************************************** ********
Gerdis had a good knowledge of biochemistry, but not of criminology. I don't accept him partly because he made generalizations like 'cesspool of contamination', and then couldn't or didn't back it up. I read a lot of the testimony, and I felt disrespect for him. I think he was hired gun who came into bad mouth the LAPD lab, and couldn't back it with examples.

Well he was well respected by his peers and was employed by a large American university.Since the lapd lab was not accredited by any organization
i think 'cesspool of contamination" was a proper description.

[martin II]

Martin,

TV did ask a great question--was she ever asked about this? When JS first saw the "car dance" she did not know who it was, wouldn't she think she would have looked for one? I mean she protrayed her self as being very observant, was able to describe both drivers, details about he Bronco, but no plate?


Also, what about the other driver? If some guy was screaming at me to get out of the way and behaving like a lunatic, I would be looking for a license plate number and report this.

If i had been the nissan driver that had this experience and then saw tv reports of a murder a few blocks away, and then found out who was involved as js did i would have called the cops.

[GreenIce]

************************************************** ********
Gerdis had a good knowledge of biochemistry, but not of criminology. I don't accept him partly because he made generalizations like 'cesspool of contamination', and then couldn't or didn't back it up. I read a lot of the testimony, and I felt disrespect for him. I think he was hired gun who came into bad mouth the LAPD lab, and couldn't back it with examples.

fgump,

Here is the problem, Dr. Gerdes did perform an "audit" on the LAPD crime lab about year before the murders. He filed his report and from what I got from his testimony not much changed. The excuse given for why these changes were not made was lack of funding---which may the absolute truth.

One more point, the type of audit Gerdes performed is mandatory. It is not like the LAPD Crime lab could have told him "no" you can't inspect us.

As you know, DNA testing has not been around all that long befor the Simpson trial. For years, the courts would not accept this type of testing. In order for states to accept this, then certain rules must be followed or contamination can take place. The people who came up with these types of tests had to prove to the courts that the results can be introduced as evidence. Perfect example, how many people are told before they go in for a medical test they can't eat after a certain time. Why are they told this? If they eat before the test it can affect the results.

[GreenIce]

If i had been the nissan driver that had this experience and then saw tv reports of a murder a few blocks away, and then found out who was involved as js did i would have called the cops.

Martin,

This driver may have called the cops and this phone call was buried. If he confirmed any part of JS's testimony, then again Clark's case is toast.

[GreenIce]

"I would have to say that it is a likelihood that the blood that was found under the fingernails were in fact from Ms. Brown and had degraded. But again, I cannot totally eliminate the possibility that it is a b."

Likelihood and possibility are the stuff of preponderance of the evidence and not beyond a reasonable doubt. Where is the testimony that states to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty?

William,

There were five blood drops that could not be identified, it was not Nicole's, Ron's or Simpson. I wonder what that blood type was.

[tv]

Is that what he said or meant/ Did he examine all the phases of all the evidence collection and the specific blood testing etc in the lab?Yep, that's what he said. If you want I can post the testimony but would I lie to you? :tongue:

[tv]

If i had been the nissan driver that had this experience and then saw tv reports of a murder a few blocks away, and then found out who was involved as js did i would have called the cops.

Unfortunately, we'll never know. :shrug:

[GreenIce]

Martin,

Do you know if Nicole's jeep door was left open? Also, wasn't her gargae door open? Was the light on inside the jeep or the garage? This could be very interesting!

[GreenIce]

Martin,

The reason I think it is important to know of the garage door was open is because if it was open, then Simpson would have left using it. This way he did not risk being "heard" when he opened the gate as well as give a few more minutes as well not having to worry about leaving fingerprints behind.

[tv]

martin, here you go. :)

December 12, 1996

Q. Now, Dr. Gerdes, I'd like to make sure that the jury is clear on what you are saying and what you're not saying here today.

First, you're not opining that the RFLP test results obtained by Cellmark and the Department of Justice were in any way the result of contamination, are you, Doctor?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Beyond the scope. Nothing offered by my RFLP results.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. On the RFLP -- there's only one RFLP that I would suspect might be cross-contamination. That's item 52, which is a Bundy blood drop. All of the rest are valid results.

Q. Valid results. And the RFLP test, you concur, is a well recognized, high quality test, isn't it?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Yes.

Q. All right. So all those test results are good test results that the jury can rely upon?

A. In my opinion, that's true.

Q. Now, in regard to the PCR test, you're not saying that the PCR test results in this case were the result of contamination; only that they -- it's possible that they could have been; isn't that right?

A. There's a significant risk that they could have been, yes.

Q. And it varies, of course, from PCR result to PCR result, how high that risk might be, in your opinion; isn't that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And in terms of actual evidence of contamination, the only items that you pointed to during your direct examination were item 31, item 52, and the reference samples; isn't that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And other than those items, there is no other evidence of contamination in any of the test results that you looked at in this case?

A. There's no direct evidence of that.

[martin II]

martin, here you go. :)

December 12, 1996

Q. Now, Dr. Gerdes, I'd like to make sure that the jury is clear on what you are saying and what you're not saying here today.

First, you're not opining that the RFLP test results obtained by Cellmark and the Department of Justice were in any way the result of contamination, are you, Doctor?The dna labs only tested what they were given.They said they had no knowledge of where the samples blood given them came from.

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Beyond the scope. Nothing offered by my RFLP results.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. On the RFLP -- there's only one RFLP that I would suspect might be cross-contamination. That's item 52, which is a Bundy blood drop. All of the rest are valid results.Again he is saying the dna test procedures were valid

Q. Valid results. And the RFLP test, you concur, is a well recognized, high quality test, isn't it?I think he is talking about the quality of that type test.

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Yes.

Q. All right. So all those test results are good test results that the jury can rely upon?

A. In my opinion, that's true.

Q. Now, in regard to the PCR test, you're not saying that the PCR test results in this case were the result of contamination; only that they -- it's possible that they could have been; isn't that right?Could have been is not to a medical certainty.

A. There's a significant risk that they could have been, yes.Significant risk that they could be.

Q. And it varies, of course, from PCR result to PCR result, how high that risk might be, in your opinion; isn't that right?

A. Yes.Risk can be different from tesat to test.

Q. And in terms of actual evidence of contamination, the only items that you pointed to during your direct examination were item 31, item 52, and the reference samples; isn't that right?Two that he felt were contiminated in his opinion.

A. That's correct.

Q. And other than those items, there is no other evidence of contamination in any of the test results that you looked at in this case?

A. There's no direct evidence of that.NO direct but possible indirect.

The issues is as it has always been.
There is nothing wrong with how the dna test procedures of cellmark and DOJ
were done. But they only tested what they received and both did the test properly.
The question has always been that many believe that blood samples were manipulated and changed in the lapd lab. EXAMPLE: since the samples Mazzola was given at cross examination did not appear to be the ones she collected and initialed in the lab. the samples given to the dna labs is questionable at best.

[martin II]

Martin,

Do you know if Nicole's jeep door was left open? Also, wasn't her gargae door open? Was the light on inside the jeep or the garage? This could be very interesting!

It is interesting if her garage door was open because she was in the house for the night.
I think the garage door was open not sure.I don't know why it would have been open.There was something about the jeep door but i don't remember.
Wagner said something about GUS made some noise or something with her garage to get her to come see what the noise was about.
If someone opened the garage door she would have heard the noise i think.

[martin II]

Unfortunately, we'll never know. :shrug:

It is just another hole in JS story.

[martin II]

Yep, that's what he said. If you want I can post the testimony but would I lie to you? :tongue:

I know you did not lie and did not say you did.

[martin II]

William,

There were five blood drops that could not be identified, it was not Nicole's, Ron's or Simpson. I wonder what that blood type was.

Well those drops belonged to someone. wonder who. That sounds like proof of another person bleeding at Bundy.

[martin II]

Martin,

This driver may have called the cops and this phone call was buried. If he confirmed any part of JS's testimony, then again Clark's case is toast.

If clarke did not want the Nissan driver to be known not was toast. Maby his story was differant than js.

[William Anthony]

************************************************** ****
First of all, the fact that there is an outside possibility that there was a fourth person there doesn't mean that OJS was innocent, that he wasn't there.

Secondly l think it is pretty far fetched to assume that the evidence shows there was a fourth person there with type B blood. To assume that the Type B blood indicators show that, I think there are two possibilities.

(1) The possibility that there were microranisms that ate up all the DNA of the fourth person, and all of the BA blood indicators from OJS and Nicole. For example on both of Nicoles hands there was a mixture of Nicoles blood and the fourth person. This would mean the DNA of two people, and also blood indicators for tye BA, and type B. Then we assume that the bacteria (or whatever) ate the REAL KILLER'S DNA, and also ate Nicole's BA blood type indicators. This left type B blood indicators and Nicole's DNA. This is possible but highly unlikely.

(2) The possibility that there were two additional people (the REAL KILLERS). Both of these people had blood type B, and one of them had DNA so similar to Nicole that cell mark got them confused, and the other one had DNA so similar to Orenthal that Cellmark got these confused also. This also seems extremely improbable.

There may be other possibilities, or a combination of these two possibilities. One explanation for Nicole's hands, another for the blood on the gate.

I give the defense credit for doing a good job of implying that because the prosecution and Cellmark couldn't point to a specific paper saying that this type of blood type decay (type BA to type B) that this means it is either impossibile or highly unlikely. But that isn't good science. I don't think a person has to know much about biochemistry to understand that. Lack of papers saying that something is possible isn't the same as the presence of papers saying that it isn't possible. I hope this doesn't make anybody's head spin.

I think a reasonable biochemist (which I am not) would conclude there is no evidence that a person with blood type B who took place in the crime.

If we are to consider the possibility that OJS's blood may have gotten there before the crime, then we should consider that the type B blood under Nicole's finger nails may have gotten there before the crime. Not likely, but sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

The prosecution's theory which they were required to prove was that Simpson and Simpson alone committed the murders. You can look at the evidence and say that you don't find reasonable doubt based on your feelings about the evidence. However, I think the prosecution stated they were working on a basis of exclusion, meaning that they were looking for evidence that excluded Simpson. I would say that Matheson provided such evidence but wanted to make that evidence an inclusion. As far as the evidence of blood being under Ms. NBS's fingernails for a long time, I think I would give her more credit in the area of her personal hygiene than you do and believe she had good hand washing techniques. There are several ways to look at the evidence and to form different conclusions, which means reasonable doubt to me.


MR. MATHESON: Yes. It says: "Item no. 84-A and 84-B could not have come from Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman or O.J. Simpson. However, Nicole Brown Simpson cannot be excluded as a source of the stain if the EAP type B observed on the items were degraded from a type BA."

[martin II]

The prosecution's theory which they were required to prove was that Simpson and Simpson alone committed the murders. You can look at the evidence and say that you don't find reasonable doubt based on your feelings about the evidence. However, I think the prosecution stated they were working on a basis of exclusion, meaning that they were looking for evidence that excluded Simpson. I would say that Matheson provided such evidence but wanted to make that evidence an inclusion. As far as the evidence of blood being under Ms. NBS's fingernails for a long time, I think I would give her more credit in the area of her personal hygiene than you do and believe she had good hand washing techniques. There are several ways to look at the evidence and to form different conclusions, which means reasonable doubt to me.


MR. MATHESON: Yes. It says: "Item no. 84-A and 84-B could not have come from Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman or O.J. Simpson. However, Nicole Brown Simpson cannot be excluded as a source of the stain if the EAP type B observed on the items were degraded from a type BA."

I think that if a person commences a "investigation" with a already locked in opinion of guilty then the end results will be locked in guilty. The "investigation" then turns out to be just a reading of the information. not a "investigation" in the true sense.

[martin II]

Martin,

Do you know if Nicole's jeep door was left open? Also, wasn't her gargae door open? Was the light on inside the jeep or the garage? This could be very interesting!


This is what i remember

The jeep door was open and next to the jeep some small change was found on the ground and that piece of jewelry that Lang kept.
This seems to be a issue that was never fully explored or explained.

[martin II]

************************************************** ****
First of all, the fact that there is an outside possibility that there was a fourth person there doesn't mean that OJS was innocent, that he wasn't there.

Secondly l think it is pretty far fetched to assume that the evidence shows there was a fourth person there with type B blood. To assume that the Type B blood indicators show that, I think there are two possibilities.

(1) The possibility that there were microranisms that ate up all the DNA of the fourth person, and all of the BA blood indicators from OJS and Nicole. For example on both of Nicoles hands there was a mixture of Nicoles blood and the fourth person. This would mean the DNA of two people, and also blood indicators for tye BA, and type B. Then we assume that the bacteria (or whatever) ate the REAL KILLER'S DNA, and also ate Nicole's BA blood type indicators. This left type B blood indicators and Nicole's DNA. This is possible but highly unlikely.

(2) The possibility that there were two additional people (the REAL KILLERS). Both of these people had blood type B, and one of them had DNA so similar to Nicole that cell mark got them confused, and the other one had DNA so similar to Orenthal that Cellmark got these confused also. This also seems extremely improbable. OJ and his son had the same blood type but different DNA. Explain what you mean by simular DNA.

There may be other possibilities, or a combination of these two possibilities. One explanation for Nicole's hands, another for the blood on the gate.

I give the defense credit for doing a good job of implying that because the prosecution and Cellmark couldn't point to a specific paper saying that this type of blood type decay (type BA to type B) that this means it is either impossibile or highly unlikely. But that isn't good science. I don't think a person has to know much about biochemistry to understand that. Lack of papers saying that something is possible isn't the same as the presence of papers saying that it isn't possible. I hope this doesn't make anybody's head spin.

I think a reasonable biochemist (which I am not) would conclude there is no evidence that a person with blood type B who took place in the crime.

If we are to consider the possibility that OJS's blood may have gotten there before the crime, then we should consider that the type B blood under Nicole's finger nails may have gotten there before the crime. Not likely, but sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

My head is still spinning.hahaha

[GreenIce]

This is what i remember

The jeep door was open and next to the jeep some small change was found on the ground and that piece of jewelry that Lang kept.
This seems to be a issue that was never fully explored or explained.

Martin,

My theory is that Lange either took that toy from the Bundy Crime scene or he took it before it before it could be booked. He had to show some proof that he was back there and that he did see those blood drops on the back gate. What better way then to have a the toy?

Also, it has been posted many times and written many times that the detectives are not responsible to collect every "foreign" object and book into evidence.

But here is where this explaination fails. How or why would a kid's toy be collected by a sheet a paper by Nicole's head with a possible footprint not be collected? Why did Lange take and keep that toy?

In their book, I guess there was confusion over what was written in regards to the coins, how many they were and what they were. For some reason this developed into an important matter. I am going to have to re-read this.

[GreenIce]

It is interesting if her garage door was open because she was in the house for the night.
I think the garage door was open not sure.I don't know why it would have been open.There was something about the jeep door but i don't remember.
Wagner said something about GUS made some noise or something with her garage to get her to come see what the noise was about.
If someone opened the garage door she would have heard the noise i think.

Martin,

From what I have been reading, Nicole would leave the garage door open when she was expecting company. It makes sense that she would do this for Ron. Also, there is the rumour that the garage door opener was stolen.

However, that loses it juice because if Simpson had keys to Nicole's house, why risk using the garage door opener and make so much noise?

I believe the garage door was opened by Nicole but the killers deliberately left it open, as well as the door to Nicole's condo and the jeep door. It appears to me that the killers were doing the best they could to have those bodies discovered before Simpson left LA.

That is the only thing that makes sense, IMO. When you at that phone call into the mix, the witness who appears to have refused to call the police, it just seems that everything was done to have the bodies found much sooner.

Please note, it also appears that the person who made that phone call, only called once, after Simpson left LA, she stopped calling? I also wonder if this woman called more then one police station. A reporter calling the wrong police station makes no sense as well as her even calling them in the first place. This was career making story, so she is going to ask the cops if it is true and just believe them when they said no?

None of this makes sense---unless it was planned for the bodies to be found very quickly.

[William Anthony]

My head is still spinning.hahaha

More spin.

"MR. SCHECK: Mr. Fung, were you asked these questions and did you give these answers? "Question: Now, Mr. Fung, isn't it your responsibility to investigate whether evidence at the crime scene has been moved or altered from its original position? "Answer: I--in some respects, it is my responsibility, yes. "Question: All right. And are you supposed to make inquiries of people at the scene as to whether or not evidence has been moved or altered? "Answer: Yes." Were you asked that question--those questions and did you give that answer on cross-examination?

MR. FUNG: Yes, I did.

MR. SCHECK: But when Mr. Goldberg asked you questions on redirect yesterday, you said that it is not your job to interview witnesses for purposes of determining what the crime scene was like when they arrived. You said that was the detective's job.

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FUNG: That's what I stated.

MR. SCHECK: Well, Mr. Fung, is this a change in your testimony now, your position on redirect?

MR. FUNG: Mr. Goldberg asked about witnesses which is different from the question that you asked.

MR. SCHECK: Let me read again from line 12. "Question: Are you supposed to make inquiries of people at the scene as to whether or not evidence has been moved or altered? "Answer: Yes." You make a distinction in your mind between witnesses and people?

MR. FUNG: Witnesses would not include the investigating officer which would--or the detective in my mind.

MR. SCHECK: Would it include the representatives from the Coroner's office?

MR. GOLDBERG: I think it's vague as to what he's referring to, just "It."

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FUNG: I really haven't given it that much thought.

MR. SCHECK: Would it include the people from SID print division?

MR. FUNG: I wouldn't consider them witnesses, no.

MR. SCHECK: Would it include the photographers from SID?

MR. FUNG: I wouldn't consider them witnesses either.

MR. SCHECK: Well, other than the detectives, the photographers from SID, the Coroner's representative and the print people, the representatives from the print unit at SID, was there anyone else at the scene who could have been a witness?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation. It's irrelevant.

THE COURT: As phrased.

MR. SCHECK: To your knowledge, was there any other person that could have been a witness other than the detectives, the representatives from SID and the photographers?

MR. GOLDBERG: It calls for speculation and it's irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MR. FUNG: There are a lot of people at the scene, but not in the scene who could be considered witnesses.

MR. SCHECK: Well, the people--the other people you're talking about were being kept away by that yellow crime scene tape?

MR. FUNG: And officers.

MR. SCHECK: In terms of figuring out whether--what the crime scene was like before you arrived, weren't the only people you could possibly interview as witnesses those officials who were allowed inside the yellow tape?

MR. FUNG: I don't consider detectives and people working in the police department as witnesses.

MR. SCHECK: Mr. Fung, this distinction you're making between people and witnesses, isn't it just an effort by you to avoid admitting that on redirect examination, you said exactly the opposite of what you said on cross-examination?

MR. GOLDBERG: Wait. That misstates the testimony. It's argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. Sustained."

According to DF, he was under no obligation to ask witnesses/people since he did not know who a witness was going to be but I would think a witness, in this circumstance, would be any person with knowledge of whether or not the crime scene had or had not been altered. Let's not forget AM's testimony that she had not been trained to determine if the crime scene had been altered. It sounds like don't ask, don't tell to me.

[weezer]

my question remains: why did the defense not present the results of the testing they did? :shrug:

[martin II]

More spin.

"MR. SCHECK: Mr. Fung, were you asked these questions and did you give these answers? "Question: Now, Mr. Fung, isn't it your responsibility to investigate whether evidence at the crime scene has been moved or altered from its original position? "Answer: I--in some respects, it is my responsibility, yes. "Question: All right. And are you supposed to make inquiries of people at the scene as to whether or not evidence has been moved or altered? "Answer: Yes." Were you asked that question--those questions and did you give that answer on cross-examination?

MR. FUNG: Yes, I did.

MR. SCHECK: But when Mr. Goldberg asked you questions on redirect yesterday, you said that it is not your job to interview witnesses for purposes of determining what the crime scene was like when they arrived. You said that was the detective's job.

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FUNG: That's what I stated.

MR. SCHECK: Well, Mr. Fung, is this a change in your testimony now, your position on redirect?

MR. FUNG: Mr. Goldberg asked about witnesses which is different from the question that you asked.

MR. SCHECK: Let me read again from line 12. "Question: Are you supposed to make inquiries of people at the scene as to whether or not evidence has been moved or altered? "Answer: Yes." You make a distinction in your mind between witnesses and people?

MR. FUNG: Witnesses would not include the investigating officer which would--or the detective in my mind.

MR. SCHECK: Would it include the representatives from the Coroner's office?

MR. GOLDBERG: I think it's vague as to what he's referring to, just "It."

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FUNG: I really haven't given it that much thought.

MR. SCHECK: Would it include the people from SID print division?

MR. FUNG: I wouldn't consider them witnesses, no.

MR. SCHECK: Would it include the photographers from SID?

MR. FUNG: I wouldn't consider them witnesses either.

MR. SCHECK: Well, other than the detectives, the photographers from SID, the Coroner's representative and the print people, the representatives from the print unit at SID, was there anyone else at the scene who could have been a witness?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation. It's irrelevant.

THE COURT: As phrased.

MR. SCHECK: To your knowledge, was there any other person that could have been a witness other than the detectives, the representatives from SID and the photographers?

MR. GOLDBERG: It calls for speculation and it's irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MR. FUNG: There are a lot of people at the scene, but not in the scene who could be considered witnesses.

MR. SCHECK: Well, the people--the other people you're talking about were being kept away by that yellow crime scene tape?

MR. FUNG: And officers.

MR. SCHECK: In terms of figuring out whether--what the crime scene was like before you arrived, weren't the only people you could possibly interview as witnesses those officials who were allowed inside the yellow tape?

MR. FUNG: I don't consider detectives and people working in the police department as witnesses.

MR. SCHECK: Mr. Fung, this distinction you're making between people and witnesses, isn't it just an effort by you to avoid admitting that on redirect examination, you said exactly the opposite of what you said on cross-examination?

MR. GOLDBERG: Wait. That misstates the testimony. It's argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. Sustained."

According to DF, he was under no obligation to ask witnesses/people since he did not know who a witness was going to be but I would think a witness, in this circumstance, would be any person with knowledge of whether or not the crime scene had or had not been altered. Let's not forget AM's testimony that she had not been trained to determine if the crime scene had been altered. It sounds like don't ask, don't tell to me.


It looks kinda silly for Fung the leader of the collection effort to try to evade such a simple question that requires such a obvious answer. The jury would have a right to ask themselves why is he being evasive.These little events can add up to a overall distrust of him when the jury looks at his total performance.imo

[William Anthony]

It looks kinda silly for Fung the leader of the collection effort to try to evade such a simple question that requires such a obvious answer. The jury would have a right to ask themselves why is he being evasive.These little events can add up to a overall distrust of him when the jury looks at his total performance.imo

I agree and the manner in which the Bundy scene was altered was not a minor issue, imho.

[William Anthony]

"MR. SCHECK: Now, when you got to the crime scene and you saw Mr. Goldman's body removed, didn't you think that might have altered the crime scene?

MR. FUNG: The--that is changing the crime scene, yes.

MR. SCHECK: Well, Mr. Goldman's body was removed from the caged-in dirt area and dragged across the location where the envelope, glove and hat was?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Were you concerned that when Mr. Goldman's body was removed, it could have been dragged across the area where the glove, the hat and the envelope were found?

MR. GOLDBERG: Beyond the scope of my redirect.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FUNG: I was not in the immediate area when Mr. Goldman's body was moved.

MR. SCHECK: Well, when you say "Immediate," you were standing in the bushes near the walkway area, weren't you?

MR. FUNG: I don't believe so.

MR. SCHECK: Well, do you recall a videotape of you stepping over the body holding what you've told us was the Rockingham glove with your bare hand and a bag?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Well, are you telling us that you were not in the area when Mr. Goldman's body was removed from the caged-in area and put in front of the steps on the walkway?

MR. FUNG: That was after he had been moved.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Well, you knew his body was in the dirt, caged-in area?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay, speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And you knew that it had been removed to the front of the steps?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And did that cause you any concern that the removal of his body from the caged-in area to the front of the steps might have caused the glove, the hat and the envelope to have been moved--

MR. GOLDBERG: It's irrelevant as to his concern.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.

MR. FUNG: It did not occur to me at that time.

MR. SCHECK: Did you ever bother to ask anyone about it?

MR. GOLDBERG: This is beyond the scope, your Honor. We went into it extensively.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FUNG: Did I ask anybody about it? I don't recall asking anybody about it.

MR. SCHECK: Did you ever compare your measurements of where various objects were with the measurements taken by Detective Lange?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence. Beyond the scope of this witness' knowledge.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FUNG: I have never compared my measurements with Detective Lange's measurements.

MR. SCHECK: Now, you have testified after looking at the videotapes and the still photography and reconstruction that the Bundy glove was ever in a third position on the blanket?

MR. FUNG: Could you repeat that?

MR. SCHECK: Sure. Do you remember during cross-examination we talked about position 1, position 2 and position 3?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And position 3 was that object on the videotape which you're saying is not the glove, right?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. If the glove--if that were the glove, that would be a third position?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: You do concede however from looking at still photographs that the glove had been moved from a position where it was originally photographed when Detective Fuhrman was pointing at it to a second position when you directed the photographer to photograph it--

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. So you concede there are at least two positions for the glove?

MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FUNG: There are two positions that I know of."

[martin II]

The prosecution's theory which they were required to prove was that Simpson and Simpson alone committed the murders. You can look at the evidence and say that you don't find reasonable doubt based on your feelings about the evidence. However, I think the prosecution stated they were working on a basis of exclusion, meaning that they were looking for evidence that excluded Simpson. I would say that Matheson provided such evidence but wanted to make that evidence an inclusion. As far as the evidence of blood being under Ms. NBS's fingernails for a long time, I think I would give her more credit in the area of her personal hygiene than you do and believe she had good hand washing techniques. There are several ways to look at the evidence and to form different conclusions, which means reasonable doubt to me.


MR. MATHESON: Yes. It says: "Item no. 84-A and 84-B could not have come from Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman or O.J. Simpson. However, Nicole Brown Simpson cannot be excluded as a source of the stain if the EAP type B observed on the items were degraded from a type BA."


I will add something to this that has been discussed before but seems to have been ignored or missed by some.

In a criminal trial the defence is not required to do any testing or present any results of any test they may have done. The defence is not required to PROVE ANYTHING. There are some instances when the defence on cross of a prosecution witness can create reasonable doubt or prove that the prosecutions witness testimony cannot be believed so at that point it is not necessary for the defence to present anything as the objective has been met.imo

[martin II]

I agree and the manner in which the Bundy scene was altered was not a minor issue, imho.

So what reason did fung give for the glove being moved three times?
if he gave one.if not them did the person that moved the glove say why.

[martin II]

"MR. SCHECK: Now, when you got to the crime scene and you saw Mr. Goldman's body removed, didn't you think that might have altered the crime scene?

MR. FUNG: The--that is changing the crime scene, yes.

MR. SCHECK: Well, Mr. Goldman's body was removed from the caged-in dirt area and dragged across the location where the envelope, glove and hat was?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Were you concerned that when Mr. Goldman's body was removed, it could have been dragged across the area where the glove, the hat and the envelope were found?

MR. GOLDBERG: Beyond the scope of my redirect.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FUNG: I was not in the immediate area when Mr. Goldman's body was moved.

MR. SCHECK: Well, when you say "Immediate," you were standing in the bushes near the walkway area, weren't you?

MR. FUNG: I don't believe so.

MR. SCHECK: Well, do you recall a videotape of you stepping over the body holding what you've told us was the Rockingham glove with your bare hand and a bag?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Well, are you telling us that you were not in the area when Mr. Goldman's body was removed from the caged-in area and put in front of the steps on the walkway?

MR. FUNG: That was after he had been moved.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Well, you knew his body was in the dirt, caged-in area?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay, speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And you knew that it had been removed to the front of the steps?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And did that cause you any concern that the removal of his body from the caged-in area to the front of the steps might have caused the glove, the hat and the envelope to have been moved--

MR. GOLDBERG: It's irrelevant as to his concern.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.

MR. FUNG: It did not occur to me at that time.

MR. SCHECK: Did you ever bother to ask anyone about it?

MR. GOLDBERG: This is beyond the scope, your Honor. We went into it extensively.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FUNG: Did I ask anybody about it? I don't recall asking anybody about it.

MR. SCHECK: Did you ever compare your measurements of where various objects were with the measurements taken by Detective Lange?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence. Beyond the scope of this witness' knowledge.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FUNG: I have never compared my measurements with Detective Lange's measurements.

MR. SCHECK: Now, you have testified after looking at the videotapes and the still photography and reconstruction that the Bundy glove was ever in a third position on the blanket?

MR. FUNG: Could you repeat that?

MR. SCHECK: Sure. Do you remember during cross-examination we talked about position 1, position 2 and position 3?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And position 3 was that object on the videotape which you're saying is not the glove, right?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. If the glove--if that were the glove, that would be a third position?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: You do concede however from looking at still photographs that the glove had been moved from a position where it was originally photographed when Detective Fuhrman was pointing at it to a second position when you directed the photographer to photograph it--

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. So you concede there are at least two positions for the glove?

MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FUNG: There are two positions that I know of."

Fung says he was in the immediate area of the body,then says he was not.then was shown a video showing him stepping over the body and has to admit that he was in the immediate area.So was this a lie or a mistake.

[William Anthony]

I will add something to this that has been discussed before but seems to have been ignored or missed by some.

In a criminal trial the defence is not required to do any testing or present any results of any test they may have done. The defence is not required to PROVE ANYTHING. There are some instances when the defence on cross of a prosecution witness can create reasonable doubt or prove that the prosecutions witness testimony cannot be believed so at that point it is not necessary for the defence to present anything as the objective has been met.imo

IMHO, you are correct but the requirement to disclose results of an expert's testing may very from state to state. After doing a quick a cursory search from some of the testimony, it seems that California law permits discovery of an expert's notes and reports. If Dr. Lee made no notes or reports on his testing, then, imho, after a cursory search, they were not discoverable.

[weezer]

I will add something to this that has been discussed before but seems to have been ignored or missed by some.

In a criminal trial the defence is not required to do any testing or present any results of any test they may have done. The defence is not required to PROVE ANYTHING. There are some instances when the defence on cross of a prosecution witness can create reasonable doubt or prove that the prosecutions witness testimony cannot be believed so at that point it is not necessary for the defence to present anything as the objective has been met.imo

I think everyone understands that martin. But, we do know that the defense did extensive testing -- to the point that they 'used up and/or altered' some of the evidence -- so the question remains why they didn't just use the results from their own testing to prove the planting or columbian drug lord or contamination theory? why set out to destroy careers and reputations if they had the answers they needed from their testing?

[martin II]

Originally Posted by martin II
I will add something to this that has been discussed before but seems to have been ignored or missed by some.

In a criminal trial the defence is not required to do any testing or present any results of any test they may have done. The defence is not required to PROVE ANYTHING. There are some instances when the defence on cross of a prosecution witness can create reasonable doubt or prove that the prosecutions witness testimony cannot be believed so at that point it is not necessary for the defence to present anything as the objective has been met.imo

[weezer]

Originally Posted by martin II
I will add something to this that has been discussed before but seems to have been ignored or missed by some.

In a criminal trial the defence is not required to do any testing or present any results of any test they may have done. The defence is not required to PROVE ANYTHING. There are some instances when the defence on cross of a prosecution witness can create reasonable doubt or prove that the prosecutions witness testimony cannot be believed so at that point it is not necessary for the defence to present anything as the objective has been met.imo

so your answer is you don't care what the truth is. okay.

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by martin II
I will add something to this that has been discussed before but seems to have been ignored or missed by some.

In a criminal trial the defence is not required to do any testing or present any results of any test they may have done. The defence is not required to PROVE ANYTHING. There are some instances when the defence on cross of a prosecution witness can create reasonable doubt or prove that the prosecutions witness testimony cannot be believed so at that point it is not necessary for the defence to present anything as the objective has been met.imo

Martin,

As Cotton acknowledged, once a stain has been contaminated or an improper mixture formed and a test is done on that, no further testing is going to yield different results-garbage in, garbage out. I think the defense was attentive to how the evidence was collected, handled, stored, packaged and the procedures used to test the evidence rather than the results of the testing. I don't think any amount of testing answer the question as to how and when items of evidence got where they were allegedly found and how and when items of evidence got on those items.

[weezer]

that's my point. why rely on the contaminated, bad testing done by the prosecution. why not release the results of their own testing?

[tv]

that's my point. why rely on the contaminated, bad testing done by the prosecution. why not release the results of their own testing?

Since no one else is jumping up and down to give the obvious answer to this question I'll give it a try -- it's because the defense results implicated OJ Simpson just as the prosecution results did but the prosecution results could be attacked by using the excuse of poor handling and contamination. Am I close?

[martin II]

Since no one else is jumping up and down to give the obvious answer to this question I'll give it a try -- it's because the defense results implicated OJ Simpson just as the prosecution results did but the prosecution results could be attacked by using the excuse of poor handling and contamination. Am I close?

TV
In order for your conclusions to be based in fact, Reiders would have had to make any test results he may have had public in court.After he proved that Martz was dead and a copy testified in his place and after the cross of the copy and his destruction, there was no need for the defence to do anything but pat each other on the back and offer some flowers to the prosecution.
imo
fini

[tv]

TV
In order for your conclusions to be based in fact, Reiders would have had to make any test results he may have had public in court.After he proved that Martz was dead and a copy testified in his place and after the cross of the copy and his destruction, there was no need for the defence to do anything but pat each other on the back and offer some flowers to the prosecution.
imo
fini

If they had test results that pointed to someone other than OJ Simpson they should have released them. Do they have evidence that someone that could be involved is running around free? I guess their goal was only to free their client -- who killed Ron and Nicole wasn't important to them.

[William Anthony]

I have done a quick word search for tests in Dr. Lee's testimony and found nothing but some presumptive tests he did for blood on certain items.

[martin II]

Since no one else is jumping up and down to give the obvious answer to this question I'll give it a try -- it's because the defense results implicated OJ Simpson just as the prosecution results did but the prosecution results could be attacked by using the excuse of poor handling and contamination. Am I close?

About as close as a pot of pig ears are to being a t-bone steak.hahaha

[fgump2]

Martin,

As Cotton acknowledged, once a stain has been contaminated or an improper mixture formed and a test is done on that, no further testing is going to yield different results-garbage in, garbage out. I think the defense was attentive to how the evidence was collected, handled, stored, packaged and the procedures used to test the evidence rather than the results of the testing. I don't think any amount of testing answer the question as to how and when items of evidence got where they were allegedly found and how and when items of evidence got on those items.

****************************
Can you name anyone who has posted very often on this board who doesn't realize that? One thing I have posted about before is the disrespect I feel for people like Henry Lee and Gerdes who make vague generalities and then don't back them up with specifics.

It is also reasonable to wonder, if there were so many mistakes in the evidence, at every bend in the river, why does it hold together so well? Would cross contamination and sloppy handling put OJS blood at the scene of the crime, victim blood in the bronco and as far as I know, nobody else's blood anywhere? I think that there was a small amount of an unknown persno's blood in the bronco, but that could have been there before the crime, could have been put there at the factory. I think there were over 100 blood samples tested. If the evidence process was anywhere near as bad as the defense implied there should have been DNA from 20 or more unidentified people, with perhaps a little DNA from people who were either dead or in prison.

I think that some of the dream team supporters should explain, if the LAP lab and police work were so bad, why were Cochran, Gerdes, Henry Lee, and Scheck unable or unwilling to find an example of a criminal investigation where the police dept blew it down the toilet? Maybe they did and I just didn't hear about it. I can think of two reasons: they don't care about justice, or the LAPD was better than they say it is, although still far from perfect.

I think that is a situaton in which the police dept deserves a C or a C-, not an A, but the critics are saying it deserves and F.
I think the police dept could change for the better. One possible improvement would be to no longer rely on spoken communication and memory for communication between detectives and criminologists. Get it in writing or a voice recording.

I agree with Fbw statement about reputations being damaged unnecessarily. The way people dumped over Fung, Mazzola, and others didn't seem right. I have a habit of feeling sympathy for people who are dumped on a lot. I also have trouble who are so quick to assign bad motives to people who assign bad motives to those they disagree with. Martin and Greenice have both gone way too far on this, and WA isn't far behind. I feel sympathy for anyone who is being jumped on a lot whether is is Mark Fuhrman or Michael Vick. In both cases I have to wonder, is the critics motive that the don't like racism or dog fighting, or they just like to pick on people.

The idea of holding people up to ridicule because they couldn't remember what they did several months before also makes a bad impression on me. Most people have trouble remembering what they did several day ago. If the LAPD was really that bad the dream team wouldn't have had to rely on phrases like 'cesspool of contamination',or Heny Lee's 'something wrong'. Assuming that everyone's time estimate from Katp K and Jill S to everyone else is another thing I feel contempt for. A ten year old should be able to see that is a waste of time.