Random Discussions On The Case

[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.
************************************************** ********
Which stains were contaminated?

[tv]

About as close as a pot of pig ears are to being a t-bone steak.hahaha

Tell me where I'm wrong. Why didn't the defense reveal the results of their tests?

[martin II]

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.

TV
i am not sure but it seems you are mixing the defence with the prosecution in terms of responsibilities.
The defence as is alwasy the case, objective is to create reasonable doubt for their client with the jury.After Martz proved that he was dead, case/issue over.imo

[William Anthony]

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.

"MS. CLARK: Now, doctor, as you've indicated, you are interpreting Agent Martz' work; is that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: His results, yes. His results, yes.

MS. CLARK: You did not do any testing yourself; isn't that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: None whatever."

[martin II]

Tell me where I'm wrong. Why didn't the defense reveal the results of their tests?

if they did test
see above post.

[tv]

TV
i am not sure but it seems you are mixing the defence with the prosecution in terms of responsibilities.
The defence as is alwasy the case, objective is to create reasonable doubt for their client with the jury.After Martz proved that he was dead, case/issue over.imo

Everyone understands the defense has no duty to prove anything but for the sake of justice and human decency if they had evidence pointing to someone else they should have released it.

[tv]

"MS. CLARK: Now, doctor, as you've indicated, you are interpreting Agent Martz' work; is that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: His results, yes. His results, yes.

MS. CLARK: You did not do any testing yourself; isn't that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: None whatever."

Please see post #6242.

[William Anthony]

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.

"bad motives to those they disagree with. Martin and Greenice have both gone way too far on this, and WA isn't far behind.":)

[tv]

if they did test
see above post.

Please see post #6259.

[martin II]

"MS. CLARK: Now, doctor, as you've indicated, you are interpreting Agent Martz' work; is that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: His results, yes. His results, yes.

MS. CLARK: You did not do any testing yourself; isn't that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: None whatever."

tv

It seems that someone was sent on a wild goose chase but it does not really matter.:cool:

[tv]

"bad motives to those they disagree with. Martin and Greenice have both gone way too far on this, and WA isn't far behind.":)

Example: Lange having an ulterior motive when he had the blanket put over Nicole.

[martin II]

Please see post #6259.

see post #6262

[William Anthony]

Please see post #6242.

Please see post #6250 & 6256.:seeya:

[tv]

tv

It seems that someone was sent on a wild goose chase but it does not really matter.:cool:

I don't know what wild goose chase you're referring to.

[William Anthony]

Example: Lange having an ulterior motive when he had the blanket put over Nicole.

I do not know who accused him of an ulterior motive but I do think it was improper crime scene procedure.

[tv]

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.

Maybe it wasn't Dr. Lee.

[William Anthony]

************************************************** ********
Which stains were contaminated?

Who said they were? Cotton acknowledge that, if another lab tested stains that had been previously contaminated and got a result, then the results would be the same, which only makes the results the same not that the stain correctly displayed the contributors, in the sense that they weren't contaminated.

[William Anthony]

Maybe it wasn't Dr. Lee.

To my knowledge, the defense presented three experts.

[tv]

I do not know who accused him of an ulterior motive but I do think it was improper crime scene procedure.

This was posted by GreenIce -- irresponsible with nothing to back it up. Perfect example of what fgump2 is saying.


"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."

[martin II]

Example: Lange having an ulterior motive when he had the blanket put over Nicole.

Bad decision because he invited contamination.

[tv]

Bad decision because he invited contamination.

martin, there's a difference between a bad decision and doing it to ruin the investigation.

[William Anthony]

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

The defense was not prosecuting LE, the state would have to do that. In the four point Grade Scale a C=2 points and a C-=1.49 or below. I guess that makes a C and a C- less than 50%, which is said the lower standard, preponderance of the evidence, requires 51% and beyond a reasonable doubt about 95%.

[William Anthony]

This was posted by GreenIce -- irresponsible with nothing to back it up. Perfect example of what fgump2 is saying.


"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."

I will defer to her to clarify her remarks.

[weezer]

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.

[martin II]

This was posted by GreenIce -- irresponsible with nothing to back it up. Perfect example of what fgump2 is saying.


"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."

langs responsibility was to secure the crime scene not to please family members at the expense of the crime scene. i think you would agree.imo

Have we resolved the Reiders test or no test situation and why the defence did not present test that were not done?

[weezer]

this the same guy posting this that thought a sign taped to a fence was really awful for the children to see? :rolleyes:

[martin II]

I don't know what wild goose chase you're referring to.

Did you say Reiders did edta test?
-----------------

"MS. CLARK: Now, doctor, as you've indicated, you are interpreting Agent Martz' work; is that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: His results, yes. His results, yes.

MS. CLARK: You did not do any testing yourself; isn't that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: None whatever."

tv

Do you believe Clarke and Reiders or something else.

[tv]

I will defer to her to clarify her remarks.

Defer to her all you like but I'm not interested in reading whatever she posts to twist what she said into something acceptable. Her remarks speak for themselves and are a perfect illustration of what fgump2 was saying.

[weezer]

that's right -- reiders had never, ever, at any time, done any forensic testing. he was another 'expert' with a for sale sign on his testimony.

[tv]

Did you say Reiders did edta test?
-----------------

"MS. CLARK: Now, doctor, as you've indicated, you are interpreting Agent Martz' work; is that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: His results, yes. His results, yes.

MS. CLARK: You did not do any testing yourself; isn't that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: None whatever."

tv

Your point? :shrug:

[tv]

langs responsibility was to secure the crime scene not to please family members at the expense of the crime scene. i think you would agree.imo

Have we resolved the Reiders test or no test situation and why the defence did not present test that were not done?

Okay, let me ask you straight up. Do you think when Lange had Nicole covered with the blanket it was a bad decision or do you think he had the body covered up so he could "look the other way"?

[William Anthony]

Did you say Reiders did edta test?
-----------------

"MS. CLARK: Now, doctor, as you've indicated, you are interpreting Agent Martz' work; is that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: His results, yes. His results, yes.

MS. CLARK: You did not do any testing yourself; isn't that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: None whatever."

tv

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:bhoAlfh9va4J:www.wghlaw.com/documents/Expert%2520Witness160907.doc+no+party+is+obligated +to+disclose+results+of+testing+by+an+expert+not+c alled+as+a+witness&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

3) Privilege

The rules with respect to what materials compiled and prepared by the expert must be made available to opposing counsel have become much clearer in recent years and favour extremely broad disclosure. Nevertheless, a definitive statement of the rules at the appellate level is still needed.

Given the trend in recent case law and the influence of the requirements of independence and objectivity, counsel would be well advised to approach all communications with experts on the assumption that they will be disclosed, in substance if not through documentary disclosure, if the expert is called to testify.

[martin II]

Your point? :shrug:

tv
either you or someone, i think some onelse, else said Reiders did edta test and did not maske the results avilable in court.The testimony proves that he did no test. So that was the start of the wild goose chase asking why Reiders didf not present his EDTA test. How am i doing.:cool:

[tv]

tv
either you or someone, i think some onelse, else said Reiders did edta test and did not maske the results avilable in court.The testimony proves that he did no test. So that was the start of the wild goose chase asking why Reiders didf not present his EDTA test. How am i doing.:cool:

Who did the testing for the defense which left the evidence altered or used up?

[martin II]

Okay, let me ask you straight up. Do you think when Lange had Nicole covered with the blanket it was a bad decision or do you think he had the body covered up so he could "look the other way"?

Maby both considering his other actions.

[martin II]

Who did the testing for the defense which left the evidence altered or used up?

Clarke stated that it was not Reiders.Ask her..

[William Anthony]

tv
either you or someone, i think some onelse, else said Reiders did edta test and did not maske the results avilable in court.The testimony proves that he did no test. So that was the start of the wild goose chase asking why Reiders didf not present his EDTA test. How am i doing.:cool:

Rangle was not called to testify and, according to my understanding, the defense did not have to disclose any results of his or others who were not called to testify or who did not provide such results in notes or reports.

[tv]

Maby both considering his other actions.

I'm disappointed in this response but it's okay. I'm used to weeding through baseless accusations leveled at the LAPD that gets in the way of the truth.

[martin II]

I'm disappointed in this response but it's okay. I'm used to weeding through baseless accusations leveled at the LAPD that gets in the way of the truth.

lang said he told fung to collect the back gate spot. Fung did not remember being told to do so by lang.the spot was not collected at that time.Before the site was broken down, lang obviously did not check with fung to see if the spot was collected. Lang is free of the issue and fung is at fault.

[martin II]

I'm disappointed in this response but it's okay. I'm used to weeding through baseless accusations leveled at the LAPD that gets in the way of the truth.

the truth is lang was good at walking between the rain drops.

[martin II]

Who did the testing for the defense which left the evidence altered or used up?

Clarke said it was NOT reiders as was claimed claimed by someone. So do you still believe reiders did test or not????????

[weezer]

Clarke said it was NOT reiders as was claimed claimed by someone. So do you still believe reiders did test or not????????

who said reiders did any testing?

[martin II]

I'm disappointed in this response but it's okay. I'm used to weeding through baseless accusations leveled at the LAPD that gets in the way of the truth.

tv
now do you agree that Reiders did not do any testing??????????

[William Anthony]

http://www.capitaldefenseweekly.com/blog/?cat=15

[weezer]

tv
now do you agree that Reiders did not do any testing??????????

who said reiders did testing?

[William Anthony]

It seems that the prosecution had a long history of misplacing/hiding/concealing/tampering with evidence, dating back to the time when judge Ito was an assistant prosecutor.

[William Anthony]

It seems that prosecutorial misconduct may be widespread and its longevity is longer than I realized. I am no saying that there was misconduct in the Simpson case, only that a reasonable inference can be drawn that there was.

http://www.capdefnet.org/htm_library/innocence1.htm

[fgump2]

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
************************************************** ******** You are correct, but I don't think anyone is ignoring that. OJS was making about a million a year or so on public relations at the time of his arrest. If his defense team could have proved he was probably innocent, he could probably still make money on pr. As of now his name is mud and his public relations value is zero.
I read about an incident in a restaurant after the acquittal in which OJS was eating with a male friend and a woman came up and yelled murderer, and another woman came up and spit at him. It is easy to say that these two were acting in bad taste. It is also true that if the dream team had showed evidence that OJS on trial instead of putting the LAPD on trial, that this sort of thing would be a lot less likely to happen.
It would make sense for a person of average wealth to beat a murder rap by raising reasonable doubt instead of proving innocence. That usually saves money. When a rich man who made money by PR, and who loves the limelight does this; people are going to do more than question his motives; they are going to think he is guilty. OJS has an easily recognized face, and the National Enquirer and other similar parts of the press regularly report on him. His present status brings him a lot of discomfort.

[martin II]

http://www.capitaldefenseweekly.com/blog/?cat=15

That is what they tried to do to oj. not the death panalty but long jail time,

[GreenIce]

tv
now do you agree that Reiders did not do any testing??????????

Martin,

In reading the books that I have, the defense asked the court for their own samples to test. They knew they would never get the samples but they knew the Judge would order an inventory of the blood samples to determine if there was enough to give the defense. As we know, samples are destroyed during some testing. Judge Ito ordered this and I believe the results were delivered to the court on June 29. There was no blood on the socks, no Goldmans blood in the Bronco and I can't remember anything else.

The defense were not going to challanged DNA only that how it was collected and processed and stored. Scheck came right out and said that the tests that had to be run, if they got them, would be too expensive, would take too long and it would be leaked. I remember reading that Lee was able to get some samples to test but the defense was warned if they destroyed any of the samples, Judge Ito was not going to be happy.

Also, the FBI is supposed to be a "neutral" agency, they are not there for one side or the other (I know, I know.....) so the defense using their expert and his results was awesome. IMO, if a defense ran their own tests and they were completely different, I still think I would look at theirs with more care then I would the FBI's. At least back then I would have!!!!

[GreenIce]

Maby both considering his other actions.

Martin,

Didn't you always question why the toy was in Lange's desk for a year? Why did you question this?

[GreenIce]

************************************************** ******** You are correct, but I don't think anyone is ignoring that. OJS was making about a million a year or so on public relations at the time of his arrest. If his defense team could have proved he was probably innocent, he could probably still make money on pr. As of now his name is mud and his public relations value is zero.
I read about an incident in a restaurant after the acquittal in which OJS was eating with a male friend and a woman came up and yelled murderer, and another woman came up and spit at him. It is easy to say that these two were acting in bad taste. It is also true that if the dream team had showed evidence that OJS on trial instead of putting the LAPD on trial, that this sort of thing would be a lot less likely to happen.
It would make sense for a person of average wealth to beat a murder rap by raising reasonable doubt instead of proving innocence. That usually saves money. When a rich man who made money by PR, and who loves the limelight does this; people are going to do more than question his motives; they are going to think he is guilty. OJS has an easily recognized face, and the National Enquirer and other similar parts of the press regularly report on him. His present status brings him a lot of discomfort.

fgump2,

Our whole legal process is based on the burden of proof. I think that is why ours is the best system in the world, not perfect mind you, but the best. If the defense "proves" their client's innocence, then the burden of proof has been taken away from the state and put on the defense.

If I was a defense lawyer, I would be very careful on what asked for because I would not want the burden to switch to my client. IMO. Even though wealthy people have much more money then the average defendant but not even their money can match that of the state. Again, IMO.

One more thing, every single police department, crime lab or expert goes on "trial" in every single case. Any witness stepping into the box knows what is going to happen and knows that the lawyers are only during their jobs. They are looking for any chink in the amour. In this case, IMO, the LAPD and the crime lab people gave the defense every single chink possible, the defense didn't have to look very hard to find them. IMO.

[fgump2]

fgump2,

What was Detective Lange's first responsibilty? Was it to show respect to Nicole and her family or was it to secure a crime scene and ensure that he as the lead detective on this case and at the Bundy crime that his work was completed? He is far to experienced not have known how important his final walk at Bundy was.

He is downright lying about covering Nicole's body out of respect. As I posted before, I gave examples how from the minute Officer Riske saw that picture of Simpon on the wall, he knew the media was going to all over.

There were no time of death clocks at Rockingham, that was not the primary crime scene, yet it was treat as one. I don't understand that. Lange gave persmission to have Nicole lay there at least two more hours the necessary, so forgive me if I don't his motives.

You keep on talking about ignoring their mistakes, but how do you ignore Lange collecting a toy into evidence and not ensuring that his directives were not followed? If Lange would have gone in the next day and ask to see all the evidence that was collected and then realized that none of his orders were followed, then that might work for me. But not two weeks later. When it comes to respecting Nicole and Ron in this case, the only true respect they can show the victims' families is if they all held a press conference and told the truth, petty inhouse fighting took over. We were more interesting in winning professional pissing constests then were locking up this case.

You have made several comments about Dr. Lee and all the focus is on a much older generation of a photo and the comments he made it about it being a possible footprint. The trowel in the cement was only in once place, how could that account for the pattern on Ron's jeans and the envelope with the eye glasses. Then to come to find out another photo with a piece a paper showing a very similiar pattern is never collected, but Tom Lange has a kid's toy in his desk?

You have made comments about people not like taking notes, I totally agree with you but guess what, it was their job. Not to take notes, which I think both Lange and VA testified that they had never done it before, is just unacceptable. If they hated writing them that much then I am pretty sure he could have called in uniform or jr. detective to take notes while he is walking through the crime scene. Very few trials happen as quickly as the Simpson trial. To say that it is unfair to ask people to remember what they said or did from the state agency is just wrong. It is their job. They know it going into it, they are trained and they know that every single time they get in the witnesses box, at one lawyer is going to pounce on every single thing that was done, that wasn't done, that should have been done.

Here is the thing about Lange and Fung and drops on the back gate. First, if Simpson was the killer, he never would have used the back gate, he would have used the open door to the condo and left through the garage. He would not have to worry about gates and blood. Second, which is it, Lange told Fung to collect the drops on the back gate and Fung didn't do it, or did Lange tell him to collect the blood on back gate and Fung couldn't find them?

And how do you explain both Lange and Fung missing the bloody fingerprint on the back gate? Lange did not need Fung to collect the samples, Lange should have done it. He didn't, claims he told Fung to do it, how do we know who is telling the truth---because they both can't be.

Also, Lange told either Fung or the ME person to get the blood pattern off of Nicole's legs and back, again, no one hears him? Again, someone hears him and is telling him to piss off underneath their breath? Again, Lange opts not to take the sample himself?

Lange and Vanatter wanted to be present at the autospy. They did not the bodies touched until they were there. I get that, but why didn't Lange ask about the blood drops on Nicole's back and legs?

Fgump2, I have asked this question before and I don't remember a G ever answering it. What if you were the defendant's chair? Would you just chalk it up to innocent mistakes or would you be outraged at the state's performance? Would you tell your lawyer not to go after them because they had a rough night and they don't like to take notes? What if it was your son in that chair? Would you be just as forgiving then as you are now?

The thing is, we don't know how many people who have gone to jail for crimes they didnt' commit because they did not have the resources to fund a defense. What I make in one year wouldn't even cover my lawyer's retainer let alone any tests or a team of experts.

Dr. Gerdes was mandated to inspect the LAPD crime lab, he did what he was told to do. Are just baffled this his reports, his notes were just too good?
************************************************** ******
I won't try to answer most of your points, I don't either remember all the details of the crime scene, and am not going to try to memorize or study all of them.
V Bugliosi wrote that detectives are notoriously poor note takers. Maybe this is an area that not just the LAPD but others as well could improve on. I think that in most organizations there is too much information inside peoples heads that should be in writing somewhere, computers or paper. This isn't just the LAPD.

One bug on my mind, not just on this case, is that many people seem unaware of the fact that almost everyone is constantly making mistakes. All of us; with a possible exception of few autistic people I suppose. All too many people go through life noticing the mistakes of others around them, especially of those they don't like, and ignoring their own mistakes they then think something like "these boobs around me are constantly making mistakes, why can't they be like me and hardly ever make mistakes?". I think children should be taught that we all make mistakes, but we are much better at spotting other people's mistakes than our own; and we are all especially good at noticing the mistakes of people we don't like.
One thing I disagree with Bugliosi on is the subject of people making mistakes. He listed a lot of mistakes he regularly sees people make, and chalked it up to a general level of incompetence in this country. I think other countries aren't much different.
One problem with hammering away at the mistakes the police made is that the more evidence there is, the more mistakes the police will make. One thing I did agree with Henry Lee is that he once wrote, before the OJS trial, that regardless of how many mistakes the police make, their may still be enough evidence to convict. I don't think that subjecting the police to a lot of insults is going to improve their performance.
How I would think if I were in the defendents chair is something I don't know. I have never been there. I would imagine that I would be filled with anger and fear. Are you suggesting that the defendents chair is a good position to accurately observe the legal system?
Do you think that LAPD carelessness made the victims blood show up in the Bronco and OJS blood show up at the crime scene? Suppose you were one of the detectives who first concluded that the killer was probably OJS, and he probably had a cut on his left hand. When you saw him come back with a cut on his left hand, what would you then think?

[GreenIce]

You didn't expect me to write about DNA, did you? There is, after all, a fine line between being obsessed and being downright nuts. After the dramatic high of Dr. Werner Spitz, the O.J. civil trial needed a breather, and Douglas Deedrick's hair-and-fiber testimony, followed by two days of three DNA witnesses, were just what the doctor ordered.
Deedrick's appearance was a disappointment only because it failed to deliver new evidence. During the criminal trial, the prosecution tried to introduce the FBI hair-and-fiber expert's testimony about how rarely fibers found on the knit cap occur in the carpets of Ford Broncos. Implicit suggestion: O.J. owns a Bronco. O.J.-like hairs are on the cap, too. Hence--you do the math. The defense objected on the grounds that Deedrick's report on the subject was delivered to them at the last minute, and Judge Ito agreed to preclude carpet-fiber-rarity testimony. So this time, the hype went, we'd hear about the rarity.
Except for one thing: No evidence has been introduced that there was a Ford Bronco at the crime scene. Robert ("Could have been a Jeep, could have been a Blazer") Heidstra eyewitnessed some white sports-utility vehicle on Dorothy Street, half a block south of 375 South Bundy, and that's it. Without a Bronco at the crime, the defense argued, figures about the rarity of Bronco carpet fibers are irrelevant. Judge Fujisaki agreed, and so Deedrick's testimony, as well as that of Robin Cotton of Cellmark and Renee Montgomery and Gary Sims of the California Department of Justice, was an edited-for-brevity rerun of Trial 1.

Martin and William,

I got this from Harry Shearer, I know the "Spinal Tap" guy but he made 36 dispatches from the civil trial. He called OJ by the Sea. I remember the fibers being a bust in the civil trial as well. Well, now we know why.

[William Anthony]

************************************************** ******
I won't try to answer most of your points, I don't either remember all the details of the crime scene, and am not going to try to memorize or study all of them.
V Bugliosi wrote that detectives are notoriously poor note takers. Maybe this is an area that not just the LAPD but others as well could improve on. I think that in most organizations there is too much information inside peoples heads that should be in writing somewhere, computers or paper. This isn't just the LAPD.

One bug on my mind, not just on this case, is that many people seem unaware of the fact that almost everyone is constantly making mistakes. All of us; with a possible exception of few autistic people I suppose. All too many people go through life noticing the mistakes of others around them, especially of those they don't like, and ignoring their own mistakes they then think something like "these boobs around me are constantly making mistakes, why can't they be like me and hardly ever make mistakes?". I think children should be taught that we all make mistakes, but we are much better at spotting other people's mistakes than our own; and we are all especially good at noticing the mistakes of people we don't like.
One thing I disagree with Bugliosi on is the subject of people making mistakes. He listed a lot of mistakes he regularly sees people make, and chalked it up to a general level of incompetence in this country. I think other countries aren't much different.
One problem with hammering away at the mistakes the police made is that the more evidence there is, the more mistakes the police will make. One thing I did agree with Henry Lee is that he once wrote, before the OJS trial, that regardless of how many mistakes the police make, their may still be enough evidence to convict. I don't think that subjecting the police to a lot of insults is going to improve their performance.
How I would think if I were in the defendents chair is something I don't know. I have never been there. I would imagine that I would be filled with anger and fear. Are you suggesting that the defendents chair is a good position to accurately observe the legal system?
Do you think that LAPD carelessness made the victims blood show up in the Bronco and OJS blood show up at the crime scene? Suppose you were one of the detectives who first concluded that the killer was probably OJS, and he probably had a cut on his left hand. When you saw him come back with a cut on his left hand, what would you then think?

"Do you think that LAPD carelessness made the victims blood show up in the Bronco and OJS blood show up at the crime scene?"

[GreenIce]

************************************************** ******
I won't try to answer most of your points, I don't either remember all the details of the crime scene, and am not going to try to memorize or study all of them.
V Bugliosi wrote that detectives are notoriously poor note takers. Maybe this is an area that not just the LAPD but others as well could improve on. I think that in most organizations there is too much information inside peoples heads that should be in writing somewhere, computers or paper. This isn't just the LAPD.

One bug on my mind, not just on this case, is that many people seem unaware of the fact that almost everyone is constantly making mistakes. All of us; with a possible exception of few autistic people I suppose. All too many people go through life noticing the mistakes of others around them, especially of those they don't like, and ignoring their own mistakes they then think something like "these boobs around me are constantly making mistakes, why can't they be like me and hardly ever make mistakes?". I think children should be taught that we all make mistakes, but we are much better at spotting other people's mistakes than our own; and we are all especially good at noticing the mistakes of people we don't like.
One thing I disagree with Bugliosi on is the subject of people making mistakes. He listed a lot of mistakes he regularly sees people make, and chalked it up to a general level of incompetence in this country. I think other countries aren't much different.
One problem with hammering away at the mistakes the police made is that the more evidence there is, the more mistakes the police will make. One thing I did agree with Henry Lee is that he once wrote, before the OJS trial, that regardless of how many mistakes the police make, their may still be enough evidence to convict. I don't think that subjecting the police to a lot of insults is going to improve their performance.
How I would think if I were in the defendents chair is something I don't know. I have never been there. I would imagine that I would be filled with anger and fear. Are you suggesting that the defendents chair is a good position to accurately observe the legal system?
Do you think that LAPD carelessness made the victims blood show up in the Bronco and OJS blood show up at the crime scene? Suppose you were one of the detectives who first concluded that the killer was probably OJS, and he probably had a cut on his left hand. When you saw him come back with a cut on his left hand, what would you then think?

fgump2,

The problem with your "careless mistakes" theory is that while the mistakes may be careless, the fall out from them is real. In our system, the state nor their agencies have the benefit of the doubt, that goes to the defendant. They know this. Another problem is the word careless, what does that mean to you? They just didn't feel like doing it how they were trained? They didn't understand the magnitude of the mistake? They have making the "same mistake" years and didn't realize the harm they were causing?

I don't think you can compare a crime lab expert or medical surgeon's "careless mistake" to say that of an adminstrator. Heck, when I make a mistake back in the old days, all I need was White Out to cover it or I could stay late and do it again and again until I got it right. These people don't have that option. Their career fields are based on not only them doing their jobs by the book but also everybody else in the chain doing their job.

I do believe that the only fair way to look at this case or any other murder case is to but yourself in the defendant chair and keep the same evidence. It is only natural that we feel for the victims and their families and we want someone to pay for their heartbreak. We know their lives will never be the same again and not matter what the verdict is, their loved ones are never coming back. It takes courage to put yourself in the defendant's chair because most of us would be accurate to say that we would never do anything to put ourselves in that position. However, that does not mean that would never be accused of doing it.

As you know, Martin and I feel differently about Mr. Goldman. I respect Mr. Goldman's pursuit of the civil judgement because I truly believe had Ron been in the defendant's chair and either was aquitted or convicted, he would still protest his son's innocence with the same vigor. He would not stop until this last breath listing the reasons why is son is innocent and why the evidence can't be trusted. He would have gone after Fuhrman for his remarks about Jews that we proably have never seen before in modern times. I believe he even would have used Hitler's name in there as well when it came to Fuhrman.

We do teach our children that we all make mistakes, but do we teach them that all mistakes are equal? Do we teach them that there are mistakes you make that you just can't fix?

Do we teach our children that when we make major league mistakes it is very rare that you can make these "mistakes" right. But when you do get that chance, you better step up and "fix it". I think there were several people in the state's case, namely Fuhrman, who had many chances to make his "mistakes" right but chose not to. IMO.

[William Anthony]

************************************************** ******** You are correct, but I don't think anyone is ignoring that. OJS was making about a million a year or so on public relations at the time of his arrest. If his defense team could have proved he was probably innocent, he could probably still make money on pr. As of now his name is mud and his public relations value is zero.
I read about an incident in a restaurant after the acquittal in which OJS was eating with a male friend and a woman came up and yelled murderer, and another woman came up and spit at him. It is easy to say that these two were acting in bad taste. It is also true that if the dream team had showed evidence that OJS on trial instead of putting the LAPD on trial, that this sort of thing would be a lot less likely to happen.
It would make sense for a person of average wealth to beat a murder rap by raising reasonable doubt instead of proving innocence. That usually saves money. When a rich man who made money by PR, and who loves the limelight does this; people are going to do more than question his motives; they are going to think he is guilty. OJS has an easily recognized face, and the National Enquirer and other similar parts of the press regularly report on him. His present status brings him a lot of discomfort.

Those in the court of public opinion that disagreed with the verdict sure did all they could to ruin his reputation, with his assistance.

[GreenIce]

Bad decision because he invited contamination.

Martin,

The point is, Lange played the media while blaming them. Wasn't his excuse that he did it because of all the media present? He was under complete control of when the bodies could have been moved. In fact, he left her there two longer then normal.

IMO, I don't think he did anything for the benefit of Nicole's family. He did it to cover up a crime scene that was already a mess. I think he and VA knew that they were in trouble. Fuhrman was just the tip of the ice berg. IMO.

[GreenIce]

fgump,

One more thing about careless mistakes, what these mistakes were not made but a concentrated effort was made to give that very strong impression? It seems to me that some G's feel AM was simply mistaken, she didn't write her initials on the bindles. But from Martin has posted, it appears to me that she is not convinced she made this mistake.

I believe many people would rather think of the problems of evidence in this case as "mistakes" then truly consider the alternative. If AM did write her initals on the bindles, then right there and then, someone tampered with the evidence. IMO.

Dennis Fung took the stain from the console on the Bronco only to be ordered to go and what does he find, another stain in the exact same place. How can he defend himself against this?

[weezer]

anyone else hearing the theme from twilight zone? :eek:

[GreenIce]

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

fgump2,

The DA's said they were going to put Dr. Golden on the stand they wanted to question him to make sure the jury that knew that his career is racked with these types of performances. That easy and simple mistakes have been made by him for years and years. I think Judge Ito limited them to this case. I think that was one of the reason why they did not call him. They wanted some of testimony but not a lot of it.

Mark Fuhrman's records, how could the judge keep out the Britton case from the Simpson trial? He was already involved in one trial, being accused of planting evidence, it was a hung jury and rather then go through another case, the City of LA paid $100,000.00 to a career criminal. That wasn't even for the bullets they took out of him.

Marcia Clark tried to pound Dr. Reiders on a mistake he made in a case years ago and Judge Ito asked her to try the the Simpson case.

We all know for a fact that police misconduct has happened in LA before. However, it appears to me that OJ Simpson was so special that no one would ever dare to this--in this case. Anybody else, sure but not him. Not very comforting is it?

There is also the common misbelief that contamination will cause the blood sample to change into someone else's, that is in correct. IMO.

[William Anthony]

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:d4eORXs-qGAJ:www.ccfaj.org/documents/reports/problems/official/OFFICIAL%2520REPORT%2520ON%2520FORENSIC%2520SCIENC E%2520EVIDENCE.pdf+reports+of+contamination+of+DNA +samples+in+Los+Angeles+crime+lab&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[tv]

anyone else hearing the theme from twilight zone? :eek:

As soon as I read the last few posts I started hearing it. I hardly recognize this case anymore after the way some people are taking liberty with the truth. Lange put the blanket on Nicole because he already knew the crime scene was a mess??? LOL!!!! :biggrin:

[GreenIce]

William and Martin,

I have learned a few things from the set of dispatches that Harry Shearer wrote. According to him, Fung testifies that Lange did not draw his attention the drops on the back gate nor did he see them, despite being at the Bundy crime scene for 4 hours.

Another one, the nurse. The nurse said that he was called by a friend and was told of the defense's missng blood comments during the opening statements. He said that after he learned he made a mistake, he went to correct it.

However, how did he learn he made a mistake? Who told him about this mistake? He testified twice to how much blood he drew but then backs off and says the was wrong? The he goes on to say that blood is never measured. Well if it is never measured, then how come he knew how much he drew for the two hearings?

[William Anthony]

William and Martin,

I have learned a few things from the set of dispatches that Harry Shearer wrote. According to him, Fung testifies that Lange did not draw his attention the drops on the back gate nor did he see them, despite being at the Bundy crime scene for 4 hours.

Another one, the nurse. The nurse said that he was called by a friend and was told of the defense's missng blood comments during the opening statements. He said that after he learned he made a mistake, he went to correct it.

However, how did he learn he made a mistake? Who told him about this mistake? He testified twice to how much blood he drew but then backs off and says the was wrong? The he goes on to say that blood is never measured. Well if it is never measured, then how come he knew how much he drew for the two hearings?

That staged exparte rehearsed video in which a nurse, who is seriously ill and too ill to testify, has an improved memory but his memory is so faulty during the creating of this despicable piece of evidence, remembers he forgot to do something. Other than a production of desperation, the video was at best sad.

[William Anthony]

"MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, the RFLP, DQ-Alpha tests, D1S80 tests that were performed by your laboratory, those tests in and of themselves cannot tell when blood or DNA from blood was deposited on any particular item?

MR. SIMS: That's correct."

[martin II]

fgump,

One more thing about careless mistakes, what these mistakes were not made but a concentrated effort was made to give that very strong impression? It seems to me that some G's feel AM was simply mistaken, she didn't write her initials on the bindles. But from Martin has posted, it appears to me that she is not convinced she made this mistake.

I believe many people would rather think of the problems of evidence in this case as "mistakes" then truly consider the alternative. If AM did write her initals on the bindles, then right there and then, someone tampered with the evidence. IMO.

Dennis Fung took the stain from the console on the Bronco only to be ordered to go and what does he find, another stain in the exact same place. How can he defend himself against this?


If Mazzola had stuck to her original testimony she would have been declared a hostile witness and would have been attacked.She would have been on the lbas and the DAS S*** list and maby lost her job. So she reallly had no choice but to say what she said at first "I DON'T KNOW" when she realized how silly that answer was she then took all the blame and said 'I MUST NOT HAVE PUT MY INITIALS" or something close.

She must have thought she was correct in her first testrinmony as when she was told by some da perason about the problem she went to a section of the lab that she was not authorized to be and looked for the envelopes to prove to herself that she was right. She said she did not know exactly where the samples were in this section but as she walked in she just happened to see the envelopes on a persons table and looked at them and to her surprise there was no initials.

If i were hell bent on accepting all the lab problems as simple mistakes i would accept her last statement but if i were looking at her testimony for what it was i would conclude that the envelopes had been changed without her knowledge and that the blood inside was not the blood collected at the crime scene and therefore the DNA results could not be trusted.imo

[martin II]

fgump2,

The problem with your "careless mistakes" theory is that while the mistakes may be careless, the fall out from them is real. In our system, the state nor their agencies have the benefit of the doubt, that goes to the defendant. They know this. Another problem is the word careless, what does that mean to you? They just didn't feel like doing it how they were trained? They didn't understand the magnitude of the mistake? They have making the "same mistake" years and didn't realize the harm they were causing?

I don't think you can compare a crime lab expert or medical surgeon's "careless mistake" to say that of an adminstrator. Heck, when I make a mistake back in the old days, all I need was White Out to cover it or I could stay late and do it again and again until I got it right. These people don't have that option. Their career fields are based on not only them doing their jobs by the book but also everybody else in the chain doing their job.

I do believe that the only fair way to look at this case or any other murder case is to but yourself in the defendant chair and keep the same evidence. It is only natural that we feel for the victims and their families and we want someone to pay for their heartbreak. We know their lives will never be the same again and not matter what the verdict is, their loved ones are never coming back. It takes courage to put yourself in the defendant's chair because most of us would be accurate to say that we would never do anything to put ourselves in that position. However, that does not mean that would never be accused of doing it.

As you know, Martin and I feel differently about Mr. Goldman. I respect Mr. Goldman's pursuit of the civil judgement because I truly believe had Ron been in the defendant's chair and either was aquitted or convicted, he would still protest his son's innocence with the same vigor. He would not stop until this last breath listing the reasons why is son is innocent and why the evidence can't be trusted. He would have gone after Fuhrman for his remarks about Jews that we proably have never seen before in modern times. I believe he even would have used Hitler's name in there as well when it came to Fuhrman.

We do teach our children that we all make mistakes, but do we teach them that all mistakes are equal? Do we teach them that there are mistakes you make that you just can't fix?

Do we teach our children that when we make major league mistakes it is very rare that you can make these "mistakes" right. But when you do get that chance, you better step up and "fix it". I think there were several people in the state's case, namely Fuhrman, who had many chances to make his "mistakes" right but chose not to. IMO.


FGUMP2

obviously you are not aware of the following:

The u.s. justice department took over control of the entire LAPD for missmanagement. This was not because of some NGS . This was because they determined that the department need to be straighted out.So what you may call minor mistakes by some was considered major infractiosn of management by the u.s. justice department of lapd.

[martin II]

************************************************** ******** You are correct, but I don't think anyone is ignoring that. OJS was making about a million a year or so on public relations at the time of his arrest. If his defense team could have proved he was probably innocent, he could probably still make money on pr. As of now his name is mud and his public relations value is zero.
I read about an incident in a restaurant after the acquittal in which OJS was eating with a male friend and a woman came up and yelled murderer, and another woman came up and spit at him. It is easy to say that these two were acting in bad taste. It is also true that if the dream team had showed evidence that OJS on trial instead of putting the LAPD on trial, that this sort of thing would be a lot less likely to happen.
It would make sense for a person of average wealth to beat a murder rap by raising reasonable doubt instead of proving innocence. That usually saves money. When a rich man who made money by PR, and who loves the limelight does this; people are going to do more than question his motives; they are going to think he is guilty. OJS has an easily recognized face, and the National Enquirer and other similar parts of the press regularly report on him. His present status brings him a lot of discomfort.

A verdict of innocence is not a option in a criminal trial.So i am not sure what you mean defence proving oj innocence.

[William Anthony]

A verdict of innocence is not a option in a criminal trial.So i am not sure what you mean defence proving oj innocence.

I would ordinarily agree but since the presumption is innocent until proven guilty, then Simpson is presumed to be innocent, although I agree that not guilty does not mean that he is innocent, only that the prosecution failed to successfully rebut his presumption of innocence. I guess on second thought I do agree.

[William Anthony]

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/slobogin_testilying.htm

[martin II]

****************************
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.Are you suggesting that Ford Motor Company was selling new cars with blood in the interior??les 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. [B]Do you believe your many negative comments directed at Cochran Scheck Lee could be damaging to them if there was someone that believed what you claim?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.

Is it that you are against everyone being dumped on or just some?

[martin II]

I would ordinarily agree but since the presumption is innocent until proven guilty, then Simpson is presumed to be innocent, although I agree that not guilty does not mean that he is innocent, only that the prosecution failed to successfully rebut his presumption of innocence. I guess on second thought I do agree.

I think a lot of average citizens hear the not guilty verdict and in their mind say he is innocent. imo

[martin II]

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/slobogin_testilying.htm

Very good article. it explains Vanhatters lies and the reason why furhman took the 5th.

[martin II]

************************************************** ******
I won't try to answer most of your points, I don't either remember all the details of the crime scene, and am not going to try to memorize or study all of them.
V Bugliosi wrote that detectives are notoriously poor note takers. Maybe this is an area that not just the LAPD but others as well could improve on. I think that in most organizations there is too much information inside peoples heads that should be in writing somewhere, computers or paper. This isn't just the LAPD.

One bug on my mind, not just on this case, is that many people seem unaware of the fact that almost everyone is constantly making mistakes. All of us; with a possible exception of few autistic people I suppose. All too many people go through life noticing the mistakes of others around them, especially of those they don't like, and ignoring their own mistakes they then think something like "these boobs around me are constantly making mistakes, why can't they be like me and hardly ever make mistakes?". I think children should be taught that we all make mistakes, but we are much better at spotting other people's mistakes than our own; and we are all especially good at noticing the mistakes of people we don't like.
One thing I disagree with Bugliosi on is the subject of people making mistakes. He listed a lot of mistakes he regularly sees people make, and chalked it up to a general level of incompetence in this country. I think other countries aren't much different.
One problem with hammering away at the mistakes the police made is that the more evidence there is, the more mistakes the police will make. One thing I did agree with Henry Lee is that he once wrote, before the OJS trial, that regardless of how many mistakes the police make, their may still be enough evidence to convict. I don't think that subjecting the police to a lot of insults is going to improve their performance.
How I would think if I were in the defendents chair is something I don't know. I have never been there. I would imagine that I would be filled with anger and fear. Are you suggesting that the defendents chair is a good position to accurately observe the legal system?
Do you think that LAPD carelessness made the victims blood show up in the Bronco and OJS blood show up at the crime scene? Suppose you were one of the detectives who first concluded that the killer was probably OJS, and he probably had a cut on his left hand. When you saw him come back with a cut on his left hand, what would you then think?

Fgump2
Do you believe Vanhatter lied to the judge to get the search warrant of ojs property?

[martin II]

Martin,

Didn't you always question why the toy was in Lange's desk for a year? Why did you question this?

As a results of langs actions with the toy, we will never know who it belonged to or it it meant something in the case.He is suppose to turn in ALL evidence.Not keep some in his desk drawer.

[martin II]

fgump2,

What was Detective Lange's first responsibilty? Was it to show respect to Nicole and her family or was it to secure a crime scene and ensure that he as the lead detective on this case and at the Bundy crime that his work was completed? He is far to experienced not have known how important his final walk at Bundy was.

He is downright lying about covering Nicole's body out of respect. As I posted before, I gave examples how from the minute Officer Riske saw that picture of Simpon on the wall, he knew the media was going to all over.

There were no time of death clocks at Rockingham, that was not the primary crime scene, yet it was treat as one. I don't understand that. Lange gave persmission to have Nicole lay there at least two more hours the necessary, so forgive me if I don't his motives.

You keep on talking about ignoring their mistakes, but how do you ignore Lange collecting a toy into evidence and not ensuring that his directives were not followed? If Lange would have gone in the next day and ask to see all the evidence that was collected and then realized that none of his orders were followed, then that might work for me. But not two weeks later. When it comes to respecting Nicole and Ron in this case, the only true respect they can show the victims' families is if they all held a press conference and told the truth, petty inhouse fighting took over. We were more interesting in winning professional pissing constests then were locking up this case.

You have made several comments about Dr. Lee and all the focus is on a much older generation of a photo and the comments he made it about it being a possible footprint. The trowel in the cement was only in once place, how could that account for the pattern on Ron's jeans and the envelope with the eye glasses. Then to come to find out another photo with a piece a paper showing a very similiar pattern is never collected, but Tom Lange has a kid's toy in his desk?

You have made comments about people not like taking notes, I totally agree with you but guess what, it was their job. Not to take notes, which I think both Lange and VA testified that they had never done it before, is just unacceptable. If they hated writing them that much then I am pretty sure he could have called in uniform or jr. detective to take notes while he is walking through the crime scene. Very few trials happen as quickly as the Simpson trial. To say that it is unfair to ask people to remember what they said or did from the state agency is just wrong. It is their job. They know it going into it, they are trained and they know that every single time they get in the witnesses box, at one lawyer is going to pounce on every single thing that was done, that wasn't done, that should have been done.

Here is the thing about Lange and Fung and drops on the back gate. First, if Simpson was the killer, he never would have used the back gate, he would have used the open door to the condo and left through the garage. He would not have to worry about gates and blood. Second, which is it, Lange told Fung to collect the drops on the back gate and Fung didn't do it, or did Lange tell him to collect the blood on back gate and Fung couldn't find them?

And how do you explain both Lange and Fung missing the bloody fingerprint on the back gate? Lange did not need Fung to collect the samples, Lange should have done it. He didn't, claims he told Fung to do it, how do we know who is telling the truth---because they both can't be.

Also, Lange told either Fung or the ME person to get the blood pattern off of Nicole's legs and back, again, no one hears him? Again, someone hears him and is telling him to piss off underneath their breath? Again, Lange opts not to take the sample himself?

Lange and Vanatter wanted to be present at the autospy. They did not the bodies touched until they were there. I get that, but why didn't Lange ask about the blood drops on Nicole's back and legs?

Fgump2, I have asked this question before and I don't remember a G ever answering it. What if you were the defendant's chair? Would you just chalk it up to innocent mistakes or would you be outraged at the state's performance? Would you tell your lawyer not to go after them because they had a rough night and they don't like to take notes? What if it was your son in that chair? Would you be just as forgiving then as you are now?

The thing is, we don't know how many people who have gone to jail for crimes they didnt' commit because they did not have the resources to fund a defense. What I make in one year wouldn't even cover my lawyer's retainer let alone any tests or a team of experts.

Dr. Gerdes was mandated to inspect the LAPD crime lab, he did what he was told to do. Are just baffled this his reports, his notes were just too good?

I would like to add that after the defence demolished so much of the procecutions claims and some prosecutions witnesses were caught in so many lies,I am surprised to see FGUMP2 believes the evidence 'Held togeather so well" i don't believe the prosecution believes that it did.

[martin II]

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/slobogin_testilying.htm

I think that some in the public was not pleased that Oj was able to pull out the millions of dollars to hire the defence team he hired. They had been told that the prosecution had a slam dunk case against him and they expected that case to be over pronto and oj in jail.It was also some what of a surprise that most of all the lawyers were well qualified white lawyers.Where i am when it was announced that Barry Scheck would join the team many lawyers commented that the prosecution was in a bit of trouble.

Many expected oj to just roll over and take him punishment that they thought he deserved. He didn't imo

[tv]

I would like to add that after the defence demolished so much of the procecutions claims and some prosecutions witnesses were caught in so many lies,I am surprised to see FGUMP2 believes the evidence 'Held togeather so well" i don't believe the prosecution believes that it did.

You can believe the defense demolished the prosecution's case but the truth is that this the majority of people in this country and most people in the world that are aware of the case think OJ Simpson killed Ron and Nicole. Most people realize that the defense threw out wild theories to give the jury the excuse they were looking for to acquit. To quote Alan Dershowitz:

"...Barry Scheck gave them the intellectual and the moral permission to vote their heart. They wanted to vote acquittal. Barry showed them how to; Johnnie told them why to..."

Right out of the horse's mouth. :)

[tv]

I think that some in the public was not pleased that Oj was able to pull out the millions of dollars to hire the defence team he hired. They had been told that the prosecution had a slam dunk case against him and they expected that case to be over pronto and oj in jail.It was also some what of a surprise that most of all the lawyers were well qualified white lawyers.Where i am when it was announced that Barry Scheck would join the team many lawyers commented that the prosecution was in a bit of trouble.

Many expected oj to just roll over and take him punishment that they thought he deserved. He didn't imo

I'm happy that OJ Simpson was able to afford a defense. Who are these people that were surprised that most of his defense lawyers were white? I never expected OJS to roll over and take his punishment but I also didn't expect his defense to be a prosecution of the LAPD. Justice was not done -- Nicole and Ron are lying cold in their graves while their murderer goes unpunished for the crime. It doesn't matter how much you throw out the term 'reasonable doubt' it doesn't make it right. Ron and Nicole had no chance to put on a defense to save their lives like their murderer did. The entire thing -- from the slaughter of two human beings to the slimey defense team to Kardashian looking at OJS in amazement that he was acquitted -- was obscene.

[William Anthony]

I'm happy that OJ Simpson was able to afford a defense. Who are these people that were surprised that most of his defense lawyers were white? I never expected OJS to roll over and take his punishment but I also didn't expect his defense to be a prosecution of the LAPD. Justice was not done -- Nicole and Ron are lying cold in their graves while their murderer goes unpunished for the crime. It doesn't matter how much you throw out the term 'reasonable doubt' it doesn't make it right. Ron and Nicole had no chance to put on a defense to save their lives like their murderer did. The entire thing -- from the slaughter of two human beings to the slimey defense team to Kardashian looking at OJS in amazement that he was acquitted -- was obscene.

Justice in its purest legal sense was done. A trial was held both sides put on their evidence and a verdict was rendered. I wonder how the families of those thought, who had loved ones wrongly convicted and incarcerated, by a system that did not work. The American system of justice as we know it worked, whether we like the outcome or not-a person was not convicted based on mistakes, errors, carelessness or theories of the prosecution, which were not supported by reliable evidence, imho. The fact that most did not like or did not agree with the verdict, as with the fact that most may have agreed and like the verdict of those wrongly convicted, does not mean the system failed or worked. Justice was served whether or not the outcome of that justice was correct or incorrect and, if it was incorrect, remember who had the burden of proof.

[martin II]

I'm happy that OJ Simpson was able to afford a defense. Who are these people that were surprised that most of his defense lawyers were white? I never expected OJS to roll over and take his punishment but I also didn't expect his defense to be a prosecution of the LAPD. Justice was not done -- Nicole and Ron are lying cold in their graves while their murderer goes unpunished for the crime. It doesn't matter how much you throw out the term 'reasonable doubt' it doesn't make it right. Ron and Nicole had no chance to put on a defense to save their lives like their murderer did. The entire thing -- from the slaughter of two human beings to the slimey defense team to Kardashian looking at OJS in amazement that he was acquitted -- was obscene.

TV

The battle in a trial is between the prosecution/le and the defence.
When the prosecution makes their claims the defense BY LAW is required to do everything in their powers to win the case for their client. If the defence does not actively attack the prosecution and le claims,Then who do you think they should attack.They are required to attack each and every piece of evidence and the prosecutions/Le activity in presenting this evidence.They take an oath to do so as defence lawyers.

There have been some cases where some lazy defence lawyers have represented clients that were convicted and the client then request a new trial base on insufficent or bad legal representation.

The purpose of cross examination is to give the defence a chance to attack the prosecution witnesses testimony in a effort to show that it was not to be believed.That is also the law.

In every criminal trial the prosecution and le are on trial because there is no other way to attack the claims they have made against the defendant.

Some say it was wrong to put le and prosecutors on trial.I don't think it was more like putting them on trial as it was the defence lawyers doing what they are paid to do, Show the jury that what they,prosecutors claim is not true or cannot be believed.

The fact that two people were killed has nothing to do with what the defence is required to do. The defences position is that yes two people were killed and that is regreatable but the facts are that the defendant that you have on trial is not the killer. Nothing else matters. Imo

ps Question;
If by some chance your son or other relative was the defendant in a murder trial, would you not want them to do what ojs defence did for him. If the prosecution had performed as clarke and Darden performed and other problems came to light as they did in the oj case,would you tell your defence not to attack every thing they claimed or would you tell your sons/relative defence to take it easy because two people were killed?imo

[martin II]

Justice in its purest legal sense was done. A trial was held both sides put on their evidence and a verdict was rendered. I wonder how the families of those thought, who had loved ones wrongly convicted and incarcerated, by a system that did not work. The American system of justice as we know it worked, whether we like the outcome or not-a person was not convicted based on mistakes, errors, carelessness or theories of the prosecution, which were not supported by reliable evidence, imho. The fact that most did not like or did not agree with the verdict, as with the fact that most may have agreed and like the verdict of those wrongly convicted, does not mean the system failed or worked. Justice was served whether or not the outcome of that justice was correct or incorrect and, if it was incorrect, remember who had the burden of proof.

The LA DAS office has a conviction rate at about 98%. i think that 95% were poor people that could not afford to pay for a defence to fight the corrupt, planting and manipulatiing lies of prosecution witnesses and the lies of some lapd officers.That was one reason why the u.s. Justice took over management of the entire lapd.imo

[martin II]

You can believe the defense demolished the prosecution's case but the truth is that this the majority of people in this country and most people in the world that are aware of the case think OJ Simpson killed Ron and Nicole. Most people realize that the defense threw out wild theories to give the jury the excuse they were looking for to acquit. To quote Alan Dershowitz:

"...Barry Scheck gave them the intellectual and the moral permission to vote their heart. They wanted to vote acquittal. Barry showed them how to; Johnnie told them why to..."

Right out of the horse's mouth. :)

When i have traveled to Africa and South America i have found that most of those people agreed with the verdict. I think you will find that Europe was kinda split on the verdict .So i am not sure who you are talking about when you say the majority of people in the world think he killed them.

Barry showed the jury that the prosecutions DNA evidence could not be believed.Cochran showed the jury why what the le and prosecution did was wrong and that the had the wrong defendant on trial.

[martin II]

I'm happy that OJ Simpson was able to afford a defense. Who are these people that were surprised that most of his defense lawyers were white? I never expected OJS to roll over and take his punishment but I also didn't expect his defense to be a prosecution of the LAPD. Justice was not done -- Nicole and Ron are lying cold in their graves while their murderer goes unpunished for the crime. It doesn't matter how much you throw out the term 'reasonable doubt' it doesn't make it right. Ron and Nicole had no chance to put on a defense to save their lives like their murderer did. The entire thing -- from the slaughter of two human beings to the slimey defense team to Kardashian looking at OJS in amazement that he was acquitted -- was obscene.

tv
I have often wondered why some try to make a issues out of RK face at the verdict.I never saw anything different in his face at the verdict and if i had there is no way you,me or anyone else could tell what he was thinking.
I think many many people were surprised by the verdict.Many Many expected a guilty verdict. I think many of them had a look of surprise on their faces as well. I bet Darden and Clarke had a look of surprise on their faces also.imo

[martin II]

I think the phrase "Defence put the prosecution/le on trial" was just another idea put forth by some media for those that did not like the idea of le and the prosecutuion being shown for what they were. Something far less than a credible, capable,truthful, professional group of people.

[fgump2]

FGUMP2

obviously you are not aware of the following:

The u.s. justice department took over control of the entire LAPD for missmanagement. This was not because of some NGS . This was because they determined that the department need to be straighted out.So what you may call minor mistakes by some was considered major infractiosn of management by the u.s. justice department of lapd.
************************************************** ***
I don't think I ever thought I was in a position to evaluate the overall performance of the LAPD. I don' think I posted this as though I thought I could. I never meant to write that anything goes for the LAPD or brain surgeons or anyone else.
The most I meant to post was that all people make mistakes, and that a lot of the mistakes the defense talked about were a too trivial. What I mean is this, what we should be concerned with is the final results of the evidence the LAPD produced, not the types of evaluations the LAPD employees deserved. For example:
- asking people what they did several months earlier and then showing that the answer was wrong using a video. To me this would be only meaningfull if the defense had proved that this somehow weakened or invalidated the final results.
- complaining that Mazzola put her hand to her nose while picking up blood samples from the ground. Thisi was a mistake, and I could see criticizing her for it, but I thought I understood the situation well enough to think that if this had caused problems it would have shown up in the final results, the results of the blood evidence that she was processinng at the time. Grilling Mazzola about the fact that she didn't initial some envelope or something. Here agan we should be evalulating the final result, not Mazzola. To assume, as some do that this means that the evidence was tampered with is unjustified. I agree that the defense did a good job of getting Fung and Mazzola flustered and confused on the witness stand, but this doens't invalidate the overall evidence.

Does anyone think that if the LAPD people had better memories and Mazzola had initialed things better that then the defense, and such people as Martin, WA and Greenice would trust it more.

- Scheck asking D. Fung questions that were designed to get him rattled. For eample:
Are you saying you don't recall becaue you think that's going to be of
some assistance to the prosecuter's case?
Scheck also asked Fung if he did certian thigs because he was afraid
of Lange, Vannatter and also his boss.
Scheck did suceed in getting Fung rattled. Aggressive quesitoning is a common procedure in the courtroom, and many lawyers try to witnesses raattled. I thought when I read this, that if FUng had really done something legally wrong, thely would have shown the evidence, and not just got him rattled. If i had been a jury member I would have assumed that meant that Fung hadn't done anything deliberately wrong and the defense was getting desperate. If the defense had really thought that the evidence was tampered with they probably would have followed up with some more investigation of the people involved, Fung, Lange, Vannetter and Kestler. I don't think they ever did. I don't like to see names dragged in the mud on the basis of no evidence.
I think a lot of this is throwing mud against the wall and hoping sme of it sticks.
I think it is reasonable to ask: Is there any mistake so trivial that the defense wouldn't try to make a issure out of it?
Another thing I didn't like about Mr. Gerdes's phrase 'cesspool of contamination' is that if you insult people, you get less cooperaton out of them. Civil service rules make it hard to fire people, so if the lab's performance is to be improved, a lot of the improvement will hae to come from the current workers. I think you can criticize people and get a good level of cooperation with them, but if you use terms like Gerdes did, that doesn't work very well.

[fgump2]

Fgump2
Do you believe Vanhatter lied to the judge to get the search warrant of ojs property?
*******************************************
That was one of a lot of things I never studied very much. I think Bugliosi said that some of the detectives got confused between thinking OJS was a supsect and the suspect.

I disagreed with a lot of criticism the LAPD got on the original visit to the Simpson house and the immediate results of it. For one thing a lot of people thought it was suspcious that so many cops went. I have seen a lot of cops (4 or more patrol cars) show up where only one cop is needed, and it is exciting to go to where a celebrity lives.

[fgump2]

Who said they were? Cotton acknowledge that, if another lab tested stains that had been previously contaminated and got a result, then the results would be the same, which only makes the results the same not that the stain correctly displayed the contributors, in the sense that they weren't contaminated.
************************************************** ******
You were the one who brought up contamination in post 6245:
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

If you didn't think a stain was contaminated, why bring it up. If you do think a stain was contaminatead, which stain and why?

I have the feeling that the pro defense people like to play a shell game. When the subject of gathering evidence comes up they say, the best place to tampr with evidence is in the lab. When the lab work is discussed they say 'garbage in, garbage out'. The phrase 'garbage in garbage out' annoyed me, but I would agree it is true, but means something only if the garbage in part is true.

[fgump2]

It seems that prosecutorial misconduct may be widespread and its longevity is longer than I realized. I am no saying that there was misconduct in the Simpson case, only that a reasonable inference can be drawn that there was.

http://www.capdefnet.org/htm_library/innocence1.htm
************************************************** ******
************************************************** ******
I disagree about the Simpson case, but if you want one where there may be more evidence of a person unjustly treated, try the 2009 April I issue of Reason Magazine. The main story has these headlines on the cover:
Forensics Fraud? Experts say this video shows a doctor manufacturing evidence. So why is a man still on death row? I think this magazine is available at many libraries. There may be a way I could scan and send it to people on this board.

I don't know how accurate the article is, but since the man on death row isn't a celebrity or rich, so it is understandable that it hasn't attracted much interest, and probably won't. I couldn't imagine any of the dream team people wasting their time on this.

I think there should be a thread for the Blue wall of silence. How real is it? How reliable is it? In terms of situations, and police departments, where is it strongest, and where is it weakest? Of course the same questions could be asked about the white coat wall of silence. In both cases, there is no answer that will satisfy everyone.

I think the blue wall of silence is real, but not very reliable. Not even close to being reliable enough for someone like Fuhrman to be able to count on it to protect him. I wanted to create a thread on the blue wall of silence, but don't know how to start one. Maybe I don't have the privilege.

[fgump2]

If Mazzola had stuck to her original testimony she would have been declared a hostile witness and would have been attacked.She would have been on the lbas and the DAS S*** list and maby lost her job. So she reallly had no choice but to say what she said at first "I DON'T KNOW" when she realized how silly that answer was she then took all the blame and said 'I MUST NOT HAVE PUT MY INITIALS" or something close.

She must have thought she was correct in her first testrinmony as when she was told by some da perason about the problem she went to a section of the lab that she was not authorized to be and looked for the envelopes to prove to herself that she was right. She said she did not know exactly where the samples were in this section but as she walked in she just happened to see the envelopes on a persons table and looked at them and to her surprise there was no initials.

If i were hell bent on accepting all the lab problems as simple mistakes i would accept her last statement but if i were looking at her testimony for what it was i would conclude that the envelopes had been changed without her knowledge and that the blood inside was not the blood collected at the crime scene and therefore the DNA results could not be trusted.imo
************************************************** ***
I think if a person was tampering with evidence the would be more careful than usual, not less. I have had the exerperience of feeling sure I did something, and then finding out I was wrong. I think the defense did good job of getting witnesses rattled. For example accusing Fung of tampering with evidence because he was afraid of detectives and of his boss. I think that WA criticized Fung for having a deer in the headlight look, but if we look at the improper questions the defense asked, we can see why/

[martin II]

When Nicol was found she had a bloth of blood on her back and legs.The coroner brought the body to his office.I assume it remained as it was found until the autopsy was started. Now. Vanhatter,Lang, Dr Golden and some assistants were present. Nicoles body was on a table with the blood blothes
on her back. Who gave the directive to wash all the blood off of her back without taking samples of the blood before the autopsy started AND WHY.

Was the defence rep allowed to be present at the autopsy.

After the autopsy Dr L his boss, and Golden were at odds over the results.Dr L ,who by the way, worked for Dr Bowden SP In NY,stated that Dr Golden had made some 30 mistakes during the Autopsy, Golden thought that two knifes could have been used. Dr L then gave some kind of list of historical mistakes Golden had made and this allowed him Dr L that did not do the autopsy to testify about the Golden Findings in court and give his opinions of what Goldens results meant.

If Golden was such a mistake prong person,why was he assigned to do the autopsy in the first place.Was he the only one that was not on lunch break or something.
What does all of this nonsense do to the credibility of the report itself.imo

Don't forget someone tossed Nicoles stomach contents in the garbage i guess.imo

[martin II]

************************************************** ***
I think if a person was tampering with evidence the would be more careful than usual, not less. I have had the exerperience of feeling sure I did something, and then finding out I was wrong. I think the defense did good job of getting witnesses rattled. For example accusing Fung of tampering with evidence because he was afraid of detectives and of his boss. I think that WA criticized Fung for having a deer in the headlight look, but if we look at the improper questions the defense asked, we can see why/

Exactly what is a improper question for the defense to ask a witness on cross examination?

[tv]

tv
I have often wondered why some try to make a issues out of RK face at the verdict.I never saw anything different in his face at the verdict and if i had there is no way you,me or anyone else could tell what he was thinking.
I think many many people were surprised by the verdict.Many Many expected a guilty verdict. I think many of them had a look of surprise on their faces as well. I bet Darden and Clarke had a look of surprise on their faces also.imo

You seem to know what others are thinking at different times in your postings and GreenIce has formed an entire fantasy world based on what she thinks the players in this case were thinking. Kardashian's expression has been the subject of much speculation. It's always been my feeling (pure speculation as I don't pretend to be a mind reader) that Kardashian stood by OJS out of loyalty thinking that after he was convicted he could distance himself from him. IMO, he looked stunned that he was acquitted. I think I heard after that he thought he was guilty. Not sure.

[tv]

When i have traveled to Africa and South America i have found that most of those people agreed with the verdict. I think you will find that Europe was kinda split on the verdict .So i am not sure who you are talking about when you say the majority of people in the world think he killed them.

Barry showed the jury that the prosecutions DNA evidence could not be believed.Cochran showed the jury why what the le and prosecution did was wrong and that the had the wrong defendant on trial.martin, you actually discussed the case with people in other countires? I can't imagine visiting Europe, Africa or South America and even giving OJS a thought.

[tv]

Justice in its purest legal sense was done. A trial was held both sides put on their evidence and a verdict was rendered. I wonder how the families of those thought, who had loved ones wrongly convicted and incarcerated, by a system that did not work. The American system of justice as we know it worked, whether we like the outcome or not-a person was not convicted based on mistakes, errors, carelessness or theories of the prosecution, which were not supported by reliable evidence, imho. The fact that most did not like or did not agree with the verdict, as with the fact that most may have agreed and like the verdict of those wrongly convicted, does not mean the system failed or worked. Justice was served whether or not the outcome of that justice was correct or incorrect and, if it was incorrect, remember who had the burden of proof.

Justice was not done. Ron and Nicole are dead and OJS still roams the earth.

[martin II]

************************************************** ******
************************************************** ******
I disagree about the Simpson case, but if you want one where there may be more evidence of a person unjustly treated, try the 2009 April I issue of Reason Magazine. The main story has these headlines on the cover:
Forensics Fraud? Experts say this video shows a doctor manufacturing evidence. So why is a man still on death row? I think this magazine is available at many libraries. There may be a way I could scan and send it to people on this board.

I don't know how accurate the article is, but since the man on death row isn't a celebrity or rich, so it is understandable that it hasn't attracted much interest, and probably won't. I couldn't imagine any of the dream team people wasting their time on this.

I think there should be a thread for the Blue wall of silence. How real is it? How reliable is it? In terms of situations, and police departments, where is it strongest, and where is it weakest? Of course the same questions could be asked about the white coat wall of silence. In both cases, there is no answer that will satisfy everyone.

I think the blue wall of silence is real, but not very reliable. Not even close to being reliable enough for someone like Fuhrman to be able to count on it to protect him. I wanted to create a thread on the blue wall of silence, but don't know how to start one. Maybe I don't have the privilege.

NO one has at this time.

[tv]

TV

The battle in a trial is between the prosecution/le and the defence.
When the prosecution makes their claims the defense BY LAW is required to do everything in their powers to win the case for their client. If the defence does not actively attack the prosecution and le claims,Then who do you think they should attack.They are required to attack each and every piece of evidence and the prosecutions/Le activity in presenting this evidence.They take an oath to do so as defence lawyers.

There have been some cases where some lazy defence lawyers have represented clients that were convicted and the client then request a new trial base on insufficent or bad legal representation.

The purpose of cross examination is to give the defence a chance to attack the prosecution witnesses testimony in a effort to show that it was not to be believed.That is also the law.

In every criminal trial the prosecution and le are on trial because there is no other way to attack the claims they have made against the defendant.

Some say it was wrong to put le and prosecutors on trial.I don't think it was more like putting them on trial as it was the defence lawyers doing what they are paid to do, Show the jury that what they,prosecutors claim is not true or cannot be believed.

The fact that two people were killed has nothing to do with what the defence is required to do. The defences position is that yes two people were killed and that is regreatable but the facts are that the defendant that you have on trial is not the killer. Nothing else matters. Imo

ps Question;
If by some chance your son or other relative was the defendant in a murder trial, would you not want them to do what ojs defence did for him. If the prosecution had performed as clarke and Darden performed and other problems came to light as they did in the oj case,would you tell your defence not to attack every thing they claimed or would you tell your sons/relative defence to take it easy because two people were killed?imo

I would want the case tried on the merits of the actual evidence. As much as I wouldn't want to see my son in jail I've raised my children to accept responsibilty for their actions. A cold-blooded murderer belongs in jail whether it's my son or someone else. We're not talking about self-defense here. We're talking about a brutal slaughter.

[tv]

I think the phrase "Defence put the prosecution/le on trial" was just another idea put forth by some media for those that did not like the idea of le and the prosecutuion being shown for what they were. Something far less than a credible, capable,truthful, professional group of people.
And OJS is credible and truthful? LOL.

[weezer]

************************************************** ******
************************************************** ******
I disagree about the Simpson case, but if you want one where there may be more evidence of a person unjustly treated, try the 2009 April I issue of Reason Magazine. The main story has these headlines on the cover:
Forensics Fraud? Experts say this video shows a doctor manufacturing evidence. So why is a man still on death row? I think this magazine is available at many libraries. There may be a way I could scan and send it to people on this board.

I don't know how accurate the article is, but since the man on death row isn't a celebrity or rich, so it is understandable that it hasn't attracted much interest, and probably won't. I couldn't imagine any of the dream team people wasting their time on this.

I think there should be a thread for the Blue wall of silence. How real is it? How reliable is it? In terms of situations, and police departments, where is it strongest, and where is it weakest? Of course the same questions could be asked about the white coat wall of silence. In both cases, there is no answer that will satisfy everyone.

I think the blue wall of silence is real, but not very reliable. Not even close to being reliable enough for someone like Fuhrman to be able to count on it to protect him. I wanted to create a thread on the blue wall of silence, but don't know how to start one. Maybe I don't have the privilege.

fgump, to create a new thread all you need to do is PM the moderator, Deepwater, and ask that the thread be started. We have been limited in the past because of bad behavior so don't be offended if she doesn't agree. :)

[weezer]

And OJS is credible and truthful? LOL.

don't you love how the majority of America believing orenthal was and is guilty of a double murder has been twisted and spun so that now we have posters saying orenthal was not only credible, he was truthful? Good Lord!

[weezer]

I would want the case tried on the merits of the actual evidence. As much as I wouldn't want to see my son in jail I've raised my children to accept responsibilty for their actions. A cold-blooded murderer belongs in jail whether it's my son or someone else. We're not talking about self-defense here. We're talking about a brutal slaughter.

the sad part of the game played by the criminal defense is that NGs fail to comprehend that the argument was never made over evidence -- it was always about LAPD/LE. A good debate with credible evidence is how justice should be served -- not, now we get to pay back.

[martin II]

martin, you actually discussed the case with people in other countires? I can't imagine visiting Europe, Africa or South America and even giving OJS a thought.

I find that people in other countries discuss current news just as we do in America. Cnn is a very popular news outlet in other countries especially Africa just as it is here.So it is not like our interest are only shared by us.The oj case was carried by almost every news network in every country i have worked in just like the 911 event was. You do now that the case was carried on world wide tv right and foreigners are always eager to discuss american events.imo

[martin II]

I would want the case tried on the merits of the actual evidence. As much as I wouldn't want to see my son in jail I've raised my children to accept responsibilty for their actions. A cold-blooded murderer belongs in jail whether it's my son or someone else. We're not talking about self-defense here. We're talking about a brutal slaughter.

TV

I think the actual evidence is how it was collected,who collected it, did they act in a proper fashion or did they lie about how they got the evidence.

I am not sure you got my question.Would you ask your sons lawyer to not do everything in their powers to create reasonable doubt including a serious attack on the prosecution and le or would you ask them to consider that two fine people were murdered and so something less?

[weezer]

the actual evidence is the actual evidence -- nothing could and/or did change someone else's DNA into orenthal's and vice versa.

at the time of her death, Nicole was afraid of only one human on earth: orenthal james simpson. Ron Goldman was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[weezer]

". . . What's their evidence?

Once again, they called one witness, John Gerdes. He's the only witness they called in the DNA part of the case. He's their whole case on contamination.

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 ofthe 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. . . ."

[martin II]

tv
How the items were collected and by who is evidence.
What was collected is evidence.
The actions and motivations of the Da and LE is evidence.
The validity of the blood is evidence.
Actually everything that was done and everyting that was found is evidence.
The defense had a legal responsibility to attack every action and item involved in the case.
So i am not sure what you mean "try the case on the evidence" that is what they did.

The defense lawyers attacked all of this evidence in their areas of expertise,Schack on DNA etc.

[weezer]

". . .Do you remember during the testimony of Robin Cotton and Dr. Simms, they talked about Dr. Edward Blake?

Well, who is Dr. Edward Blake?

They told you he's a forensic DNA expert, has his own lab that does DNA testing.

He was working for Mr. Simpson during the pretrial and criminal trial, working for Mr. Simpson during the pretrial and trial stages in the criminal trial.

He was present, actually, with Gary Simms when Simms did all of his RFLP and PCR DNA testing. Blake was looking over his shoulder to make sure it was done.

He knows all about this stuff.

Why didn't they call him to testify?

It's because he doesn't have anything good to say for their side. He knows that these are good tests. . ."

[weezer]

". . .How about Dr. Henry Lee? We've been told he's the world's leading criminalist, right? A big expert.

Why didn't they use Dr. Lee on DNA?

He does DNA in his lab.

Well, what has Dr. Lee said on DNA? . . ."


". . .(Mr. Lambert read from a portion of the transcript of the civil trial testimony of Dr. Henry Lee, questioned by Mr. Lambert.)

Q. And likewise, Dr. Lee, you're not here to contest that -- you don't challenge the blood findings -- the DNA blood findings of the California Department of Justice when they purport to identify certain blood as being consistent with certain people's blood?

A. You're correct. I'm not challenging those."


". . .MR. LAMBERT: So, Dr. Lee, isn't challenging the DNA test results. Dr. Blake isn't here. . ."

[weezer]

". . .Instead we see Dr. Gerdes. He's not even a forensic scientist, doesn't even do these kinds of tests.

Why do they call him?

Well, Dr. Gerdes told you why they called him. He had this little sideline. What he does is he testifies for criminal defendants, always on the defense side, always for criminal defendants, and he always says the same thing; he says don't trust the DNA, it might be contaminated. He says it might be contaminated.

That's what they paid him $40,000 to say. There's a risk of contamination. That's all he said.

When you listen to his testimony he didn't say there was actually any contamination. He said that there was a risk of contamination.

Well, remember what Mr. Blasier told you during his argument about witnesses that come in and say things could be?

Let's put Mr. Blasier's argument.

(Transcript displayed on Elmo.)
Here's what Mr. Blasier said when he wastalking about experts.

He said that it's not very helpful when experts say that something is possible or could have happened, it gives you almost no information at all, not very precise work.

That's what Mr. Blasier said during his argument about experts. And their expert, Mr. Gerdes, he didn't say could be, he said there's a risk. . ."

[martin II]

The prosecution presented the DNA test results in a attrempt to link Oj to the murders.They called Dr Cotton because she did the test.

The defense then assigned Barry Scheck to attack all aspects of the DNA results.As it should have been.Other lawyers attacked the collection,testing.storage and packaging of other evidence as it should have been. So it was the prosecution that needed to call EXperts to explain their claims.It was the defense responsibility to use the dream team lawyers to attack these experts opinions. As it should have been and as it was done.

[weezer]

". . .Mr. Lambert noted that Mr. Gerdes had never collected or processed evidence from a crime scene. Mr. Gerdes also conceded under cross-examnation that he had appeared in court 35 times, always for the defense, and had always concluded that the DNA results were unreliable. . ."

[weezer]

". . .Now, in some ways, the Simpson case is a bit misunderstood. I will tell you, having wound up in the end giving the closing argument in the case with Johnny Cochran, that the O.J. Simpson trial, as far as I'm concerned, is about one of the worst things that happened to the criminal justice system in America, in terms of cameras in the courtroom, which I oppose, unless the defendant consents to it, and maybe even the prosecutor consents to it. I think it's potentially a terrible problem. It did terrible things for the way we cover criminal justice stories; it created this unbelievable ratings machine, where cable and over-the-air news media suddenly realized that if you cover a story that has sex, celebrities, and murder trials, which have always been interesting to people, you can get ratings, and if you get ratings all day all the time, it completely skews the news coverage. It became the most publicized trial in the history of our country, probably the planet. There were a lot of bad things about it, and what it said about our country, in terms of race, in terms of the way we cover criminal justice.

Oddly enough, though, in terms of the forensic science, there was a silver lining, because we never attacked the validity of DNA technology, because it is a valid technology, it's a revolutionary technology. The problem in the O.J. Simpson case is the way that the evidence was collected. They were using nineteenth-century evidence collection techniques for twenty-first century technology, which had more than the potential, but the reality of producing contaminated results. So in the end, the collection and handling of the evidence was the way that we attacked what was produced in the Simpson case. . ."
Scheck interview: http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people3/Scheck/scheck-con3.html

[weezer]

looks like just about everyone can mess up --

". . .O.J. Simpson's Former Lawyer Settles Legal Malpractice Lawsuit
Remember O.J.’s trial in 1994? Do you also remember his lawyers? He hired several of the best, including Johnny Cochran (now deceased), F. Lee Bailey, and Barry Scheck. Unfortunately, legal malpractice is not limited to bad lawyers. Even excellent lawyers sometimes make mistakes. Lee Long served six years after a New York jury convicted him of rape. Mr. Long maintained his innocence and was ultimately freed as a result of the work of the Queens Legal Aid Society. Long retained Barry Scheck, O.J. Simpson’s former lawyer, and Scheck’s firm to represent him in a wrongful imprisonment suit against the state of New York. Scheck filed suit in 2002; however, the trial court dismissed the case claiming the suit was filed too late. Two different appellate courts affirmed the dismissal. Lee then sued his attorney Scheck for legal malpractice. Attorney Scheck, co-founder of a legal clinic that pioneered the use of DNA technology to help free innocent prisoners, agreed to pay $900,000 to a man wrongly convicted of rape. Ironic, isn’t it? hp. . ."

http://www.poppelawfirm.com/blog/oj-simpsons-former-lawyer-settles-legal-malpractice-lawsuit.cfm

[weezer]

wasn't he the guy that was sooooooooo adamant about sloppy work?

". . .Ex-Inmate’s Malpractice Suit Is Settled With Noted Lawyers
By WILLIAM K. RASHBAUM
Published: November 21, 2006

Barry C. Scheck and Peter J. Neufeld, founders of a legal clinic that pioneered the use of DNA technology to help free innocent prisoners, have agreed to pay $900,000 to a man wrongly convicted of rape who sued them for malpractice, lawyers on both sides of the case said yesterday.

The man, Lee Long, had sued Mr. Scheck; Mr. Neufeld; another lawyer, Nick Joel Brustin; and the law firm of Cochran, Scheck & Neufeld, charging that they missed a deadline for filing his wrongful-imprisonment claim in state court after his rape conviction had been overturned. . ."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/nyregion/21settle.html

[martin II]

Some still do not understand.The defense was not required to have evidence.
Their job was to look at what the prosecution presented as their evidence and convience the jury that it could not be believed and that is what they did.





How the items were collected and by who is evidence.
What was collected is evidence.
The actions and motivations of the Da and LE is evidence.
The validity of the blood is evidence.
Actually everything that was done and everyting that was found is evidence.
The defense had a legal responsibility to attack every action and item involved in the case.
So i am not sure what you mean "try the case on the evidence" that is what they did.

The defense lawyers attacked all of this evidence in their areas of expertise,Schack on DNA etc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by martin II; Yesterday at 10:49 PM.

[weezer]

the evidence is the evidence. not criticism of labs and people that were never substantiated -- not even by the defense's own testing.

anybody that followed both trials and still purports to believe that orenthal james simpson isn't guilty of double murder must certainly have their own agenda. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

Some still do not understand.The defense was not required to have evidence.
Their job was to look at what the prosecution presented as their evidence and convience the jury that it could not be believed and that is what they did.





How the items were collected and by who is evidence.
What was collected is evidence.
The actions and motivations of the Da and LE is evidence.
The validity of the blood is evidence.
Actually everything that was done and everyting that was found is evidence.
The defense had a legal responsibility to attack every action and item involved in the case.
So i am not sure what you mean "try the case on the evidence" that is what they did.

The defense lawyers attacked all of this evidence in their areas of expertise,Schack on DNA etc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by martin II; Yesterday at 10:49 PM.

Once the people responsible for collecting, storage, handling, packaging, maintaining custody, processing and testing the evidence have compromised the evidence through evidence of contamination, then any other lab that tested that evidence would arrive at the same improper results-garbage in, garbage out. Not only is Simpson not guilty of murder, he cannot be charged, tried and found guilty of murder, despite what others think.

[weezer]

August 4, 1995 (61k zip) -- Defense DNA expert John Gerdes conceded that Simpson's blood samples were not contaminated during a critical stage in evidence gathering.

". . .When you listen to his testimony he didn't say there was actually any contamination. He said that there was a risk of contamination. . ."

[martin II]

oj was accused,tried and found not guilty in a American court. The representives of LA citizens found that he was not guilty. So
fini.

[William Anthony]

http://books.google.com/books?id=cdKi_rBZqrYC&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=dr.+gerdes+says+LAPD+lab+is+a+cesspool+of+conta mination&source=bl&ots=wAP5njQVy3&sig=C2rLlFWwxk2LfP6feDDRzMnWnPw&hl=en&ei=83XqSbmTKomEtweVgc3GBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6

Reasonable doubt.

[weezer]

Mr. Lambert read from a portion of the transcript of the civil trial testimony of Dr. John Gerdes, questioned by Mr. Lambert.)

Now, Dr. Gerdes, I'd like to make sure that the jury is clear on what you're 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?

And then he said:
(Mr. Lambert read from a portion of the transcript of the civil trial testimony of Dr. John Gerdes, questioned by Mr. Lambert.)

On RFLP, there's only one RFLP I might suspect might be cross-contamination, that's Item 52 which is a Bundy blood drop. All the other -- all the rest are valid results.

And I said:

(Mr. Lambert read from a portion of the transcript of the civil trial testimony of Dr. John Gerdes, questioned by Mr. Lambert.)

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

A. Yes. Well recognized, high quality test.

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

A. In my opinion, that's true.


MR. LAMBERT: That's their expert.

[William Anthony]

oj was accused,tried and found not guilty in a American court. The representives of LA citizens found that he was not guilty. So
fini.

Garbage in, garbage out-reasonable doubt (oops, that rhymes).

[weezer]

Garbage in, garbage out-reasonable doubt (oops, that rhymes).

for both trials william?

[martin II]

Once the people responsible for collecting, storage, handling, packaging, maintaining custody, processing and testing the evidence have compromised the evidence through evidence of contamination, then any other lab that tested that evidence would arrive at the same improper results-garbage in, garbage out. Not only is Simpson not guilty of murder, he cannot be charged, tried and found guilty of murder, despite what others think.

The prosecution charged and tried oj. The citizens of LA through their representives told the world that they did not prove their claimes and that oj should go home.Many in the world rejoiced over the verdict of not guilty.

[martin II]

Garbage in, garbage out-reasonable doubt (oops, that rhymes).

Lies told, lies exposed.

[martin II]

The prosecution usually calls on the citizens experts to support and help their case against other citizens.The FBI always testifies for the prosecution.

[tv]

wasn't he the guy that was sooooooooo adamant about sloppy work?

". . .Ex-Inmate’s Malpractice Suit Is Settled With Noted Lawyers
By WILLIAM K. RASHBAUM
Published: November 21, 2006

Barry C. Scheck and Peter J. Neufeld, founders of a legal clinic that pioneered the use of DNA technology to help free innocent prisoners, have agreed to pay $900,000 to a man wrongly convicted of rape who sued them for malpractice, lawyers on both sides of the case said yesterday.

The man, Lee Long, had sued Mr. Scheck; Mr. Neufeld; another lawyer, Nick Joel Brustin; and the law firm of Cochran, Scheck & Neufeld, charging that they missed a deadline for filing his wrongful-imprisonment claim in state court after his rape conviction had been overturned. . ."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/nyregion/21settle.html

You mean Scheck and Neufeld made a CARELESS MISTAKE? Here's a thought -- maybe it wasn't careless. Maybe they were deliberating trying to keep the guy from going forward with his lawsuit.
I smell a conpiracy. :eek:

[weezer]

You mean Scheck and Neufeld made a CARELESS MISTAKE? Here's a thought -- maybe it wasn't careless. Maybe they were deliberating trying to keep the guy from going forward with his lawsuit.
I smell a conpiracy. :eek:

OMG - I hadn't thought of that! Of course it had to be because we know from orenthal's trial that scheck was above making mistakes and/or doing sloppy work! :tongue:

[tv]

TV

I think the actual evidence is how it was collected,who collected it, did they act in a proper fashion or did they lie about how they got the evidence.

I am not sure you got my question.Would you ask your sons lawyer to not do everything in their powers to create reasonable doubt including a serious attack on the prosecution and le or would you ask them to consider that two fine people were murdered and so something less?
martin, the defense had no arugument against the blood and fiber evidence so they prosecuted the LAPD. Johnnie Cochran used the juries mistrust of LE to win a conviction because he knew his audience. Not one shred of proof exists to back up the defense theory of contamination and planting. It didn't matter if any of it was true or not as long as the idea was planted in the minds of a jury already biased against LE. I understood your question about my son but my answer hasn't changed.

[weezer]

The prosecution charged and tried oj. The citizens of LA through their representives told the world that they did not prove their claimes and that oj should go home.Many in the world rejoiced over the verdict of not guilty.

and many, many did not. :tongue:

[weezer]

Lies told, lies exposed.

agreed but the criminal jury let orenthal walk anyway. :mad:

[tv]

OMG - I hadn't thought of that! Of course it had to be because we know from orenthal's trial that scheck was above making mistakes and/or doing sloppy work! :tongue:
The more I think about it the more convinced I am. I don't have any proof that Scheck and Neufeld conspired against the guy but what else could it be? They've been partners for a long time so you know they're going to cover for each other. Filing a lawsuit by the deadline is basic and there's no way two seasoned lawyers could make a mistake like that. I wonder how many others they've done this to? No doubt the secretaries and paralegals in their law firm are involved...wonder how far this wall of silence goes?

[tv]

agreed but the criminal jury let orenthal walk anyway. :mad:
Not only did he walk but he was sent on his way with a special 'greeting'.

[weezer]

The more I think about it the more convinced I am. I don't have any proof that Scheck and Neufeld conspired against the guy but what else could it be? They've been partners for a long time so you know they're going to cover for each other. Filing a lawsuit by the deadline is basic and there's no way two seasoned lawyers could make a mistake like that. I wonder how many others they've done this to? No doubt the secretaries and paralegals in their law firm are involved...wonder how far this wall of silence goes?

oh my -- there's no telling. I'm sure it must start the moment they 'decide' which cases they'll take. :eek:

[tv]

oh my -- there's no telling. I'm sure it must start the moment they 'decide' which cases they'll take. :eek:

I don't think Scheck is to be trusted anymore. After this incident how can you trust anything he does?

[weezer]

Lies told, lies exposed.

". . .But what does the actual evidence in the case show?
Well, we talked to Mr. Gerdes, when he was on the stand, about that -- excuse me, Dr. Gerdes, and you remember that he said that in order for this evidence to be affected by contamination, a couple of things, he admitted, had to have happened.

No. 1, he admitted that all of the contamination, if it ever occurred, had to occur before Colin Yamauchi did those first tests on June 14.

And it's just like the point I made yesterday about the reason for that, which is that once Colin took -- did those DNA tests and got test results showing DNA consistent with Mr. Simpson's DNA, that fixed the whole situation. Thereafter, everybody else that did tests and got exactly the same results were just doing repetitive tests validating the initial test results. So if there's any contamination
theories, it had to take place before.

And the second thing he admitted is what contamination does if you ever have it. It doesn't change one person's DNA to another, it simply mixes DNA's together. . ."

[tv]

For all the arguing that the NG's do about contamination the fact is that even the defense expert testified that all the results incriminating OJ Simpson were valid results.

[GreenIce]

************************************************** ***
I think if a person was tampering with evidence the would be more careful than usual, not less. I have had the exerperience of feeling sure I did something, and then finding out I was wrong. I think the defense did good job of getting witnesses rattled. For example accusing Fung of tampering with evidence because he was afraid of detectives and of his boss. I think that WA criticized Fung for having a deer in the headlight look, but if we look at the improper questions the defense asked, we can see why/

fgump2,

Cant you name on DA witness in this case, that truly showed any respect for the consequences of getting caught? I think that everyone working in the criminal justice system knows that most crimes, regardless of the type, do not have eyewitnesses to such events. You are making the wrong assumption that each and every cop that has ever tampered and planted evidence has done so in front of an eye witnesses. Cops know exactly what Judge Ito and Judge Fujisaki said in some of their rulings. If the defense can't name the person who did it, can't provide the time when this person did it and the motive why this person did it, then it didn't happen. Andrea Mozzola and Dennis Fung knew something was going on but they also knew that they could only make accusations if they did not see it done.

What do you think Fung and Mozzola's boss said to them about their job performances? Do you think they got your "pep talk" regarding everybody makes mistakes, not big deal, you think you screwed up, just look that the lead detectives in this case, those bozos didn't even write any notes...and
Dennis and Andrea, its gets so much better, the only cop who wrote copious notes and they were priceless in terms of details, the bozos never even read them until days and days later!!!! Do worry, no worries, your mistakes weren't as bad as some others!

The problem is fgump2, good and honest citizens want to believe that our police, our judges and our DA's always, always wear the "White Hat". And in the course of a trial if their "White Hat" turns a little a gray, thats okay because we all know that getting a conviction is so hard when everybody on the state's side tells the truth, if they like, tweak or blink, it is all done in the interest of justice. Their "tweaks and blinds" are not in the best interest of justices. Our laws are written for a reason and they are bound to them tighter then the average citizens because of the oath they took. They have no excuses. It is we the people who give the cops the power they have and we have given so much power, they are no longer afraid of the laws that they have sworn to uphold.

I am not saying that all cops are bad. In fact, I have a two close, close family members who have joined the PD's of large cities. I am proud of them and I recognize the true and honest zeal they have for this calling. Will they have the same look in their eyes a year from now? Two years from now? I don't know but if they do not have it, it will because of the very side they joined. Nothing can take the zeal and the belief out of a cop's eye quicker then a fellow corrupt cop, DA or judge.

You also forget, the DA's were suppose to prep both DF and AM. They were thrilled with these two. They were ticked pinked because they knew of the slaughter that was to happen. But as much as they were thrilled by their impending doom at the hands of the defense, their delight could not be matched by the happy goosestepping of the LAPD. It would not surprise me that Fung and Mazzola's testimony is a featured film in some cops homes. They watch it like it was comedy and enjoying two young people getting hammered for their misdeeds.

The defense didn't rattle either one of them, the LAPD, crime lab and the DA's did that. By the time the defense got them, they were pretty much zombies when it came to their testimony. And DF, shook the defense's hand. He never did that before in a case did he?

[GreenIce]

As a results of langs actions with the toy, we will never know who it belonged to or it it meant something in the case.He is suppose to turn in ALL evidence.Not keep some in his desk drawer.

Martin,

Do you know where those other blood drops were found, the one's that could not be identified?

[GreenIce]

I find that people in other countries discuss current news just as we do in America. Cnn is a very popular news outlet in other countries especially Africa just as it is here.So it is not like our interest are only shared by us.The oj case was carried by almost every news network in every country i have worked in just like the 911 event was. You do now that the case was carried on world wide tv right and foreigners are always eager to discuss american events.imo

Martin,

Didn't the BBC or some English company did a documentary on the Simpson case and concluded that it it happened in England, the case never would have gone to trial against Simpson?

[martin II]

Martin,

Do you know where those other blood drops were found, the one's that could not be identified?

GI

I am not sure but would think they would have been right at the area where the bodies were found or in the walkway leading to the back gate at Bundy.
William knows.

[martin II]

Martin,

Didn't the BBC or some English company did a documentary on the Simpson case and concluded that it it happened in England, the case never would have gone to trial against Simpson?

That is a possibility but i did read that the case would have never been that long in a British court.

[tv]

fgump2,

Cant you name on DA witness in this case, that truly showed any respect for the consequences of getting caught? I think that everyone working in the criminal justice system knows that most crimes, regardless of the type, do not have eyewitnesses to such events. You are making the wrong assumption that each and every cop that has ever tampered and planted evidence has done so in front of an eye witnesses. Cops know exactly what Judge Ito and Judge Fujisaki said in some of their rulings. If the defense can't name the person who did it, can't provide the time when this person did it and the motive why this person did it, then it didn't happen. Andrea Mozzola and Dennis Fung knew something was going on but they also knew that they could only make accusations if they did not see it done.

What do you think Fung and Mozzola's boss said to them about their job performances? Do you think they got your "pep talk" regarding everybody makes mistakes, not big deal, you think you screwed up, just look that the lead detectives in this case, those bozos didn't even write any notes...and
Dennis and Andrea, its gets so much better, the only cop who wrote copious notes and they were priceless in terms of details, the bozos never even read them until days and days later!!!! Do worry, no worries, your mistakes weren't as bad as some others!

The problem is fgump2, good and honest citizens want to believe that our police, our judges and our DA's always, always wear the "White Hat". And in the course of a trial if their "White Hat" turns a little a gray, thats okay because we all know that getting a conviction is so hard when everybody on the state's side tells the truth, if they like, tweak or blink, it is all done in the interest of justice. Their "tweaks and blinds" are not in the best interest of justices. Our laws are written for a reason and they are bound to them tighter then the average citizens because of the oath they took. They have no excuses. It is we the people who give the cops the power they have and we have given so much power, they are no longer afraid of the laws that they have sworn to uphold.

I am not saying that all cops are bad. In fact, I have a two close, close family members who have joined the PD's of large cities. I am proud of them and I recognize the true and honest zeal they have for this calling. Will they have the same look in their eyes a year from now? Two years from now? I don't know but if they do not have it, it will because of the very side they joined. Nothing can take the zeal and the belief out of a cop's eye quicker then a fellow corrupt cop, DA or judge.

You also forget, the DA's were suppose to prep both DF and AM. They were thrilled with these two. They were ticked pinked because they knew of the slaughter that was to happen. But as much as they were thrilled by their impending doom at the hands of the defense, their delight could not be matched by the happy goosestepping of the LAPD. It would not surprise me that Fung and Mazzola's testimony is a featured film in some cops homes. They watch it like it was comedy and enjoying two young people getting hammered for their misdeeds.

The defense didn't rattle either one of them, the LAPD, crime lab and the DA's did that. By the time the defense got them, they were pretty much zombies when it came to their testimony. And DF, shook the defense's hand. He never did that before in a case did he?

For the love of heaven, is there anyone that can make sense of these comments?

[martin II]

fgump2,

Cant you name on DA witness in this case, that truly showed any respect for the consequences of getting caught? I think that everyone working in the criminal justice system knows that most crimes, regardless of the type, do not have eyewitnesses to such events. You are making the wrong assumption that each and every cop that has ever tampered and planted evidence has done so in front of an eye witnesses. Cops know exactly what Judge Ito and Judge Fujisaki said in some of their rulings. If the defense can't name the person who did it, can't provide the time when this person did it and the motive why this person did it, then it didn't happen. Andrea Mozzola and Dennis Fung knew something was going on but they also knew that they could only make accusations if they did not see it done.

What do you think Fung and Mozzola's boss said to them about their job performances? Do you think they got your "pep talk" regarding everybody makes mistakes, not big deal, you think you screwed up, just look that the lead detectives in this case, those bozos didn't even write any notes...and
Dennis and Andrea, its gets so much better, the only cop who wrote copious notes and they were priceless in terms of details, the bozos never even read them until days and days later!!!! Do worry, no worries, your mistakes weren't as bad as some others!

The problem is fgump2, good and honest citizens want to believe that our police, our judges and our DA's always, always wear the "White Hat". And in the course of a trial if their "White Hat" turns a little a gray, thats okay because we all know that getting a conviction is so hard when everybody on the state's side tells the truth, if they like, tweak or blink, it is all done in the interest of justice. Their "tweaks and blinds" are not in the best interest of justices. Our laws are written for a reason and they are bound to them tighter then the average citizens because of the oath they took. They have no excuses. It is we the people who give the cops the power they have and we have given so much power, they are no longer afraid of the laws that they have sworn to uphold.

I am not saying that all cops are bad. In fact, I have a two close, close family members who have joined the PD's of large cities. I am proud of them and I recognize the true and honest zeal they have for this calling. Will they have the same look in their eyes a year from now? Two years from now? I don't know but if they do not have it, it will because of the very side they joined. Nothing can take the zeal and the belief out of a cop's eye quicker then a fellow corrupt cop, DA or judge.

You also forget, the DA's were suppose to prep both DF and AM. They were thrilled with these two. They were ticked pinked because they knew of the slaughter that was to happen. But as much as they were thrilled by their impending doom at the hands of the defense, their delight could not be matched by the happy goosestepping of the LAPD. It would not surprise me that Fung and Mazzola's testimony is a featured film in some cops homes. They watch it like it was comedy and enjoying two young people getting hammered for their misdeeds.

The defense didn't rattle either one of them, the LAPD, crime lab and the DA's did that. By the time the defense got them, they were pretty much zombies when it came to their testimony. And DF, shook the defense's hand. He never did that before in a case did he?


GI
Thanks for this post. It addresses some important issues.

[martin II]

For the love of heaven, is there anyone that can make sense of these comments?

They make good sense to me.

[GreenIce]

fgump2,

I have really been thinking about your comments on careless mistakes and I have posted back about what does careless really mean. You have given some examples that I would say are truly careless mistakes.

However, what I have forgotten and maybe you have too, is that there are "safety catches" that are included in certain procedures that do seriously cut down the chances of "careless" mistakes. The most basic example that I can think of is patients arms or legs being marked to make sure the surgeon knows which one he needs to work on.

There are safety catches installed in collecting and processing evidence. One, there is the checklist that has the questions and the procedures written for them, these forms and procedures have been written for a reason.
The biggest "mistake" that Fung and Mazzola made was not doing an inventory of the samples they collected, re-numbering them later. As bad as that was, they were supposed to either photograph the samples they took or do a diagram of them, just "in case". It seems to me that every safety catch that was built into the system was completely ignored.

Even if you do say these were two people who just picked the wrong career and they caused no harm, how do you explain the blood on the socks? Why didn't the chief of the crime lab use the proper equipment to see blood on the socks? We have been told that there was a block on the form about blood not being "obvious" on the evidence. What what is the next block, did you use the light that was created for being able to see blood that is not visiable to the naked eye?

DF and AM's "mistakes" might have been looked at differently if the same pattern didn't happen over and over again. Personally, I think they were scapegoats and the was done to them was done to Dr. Golden as well. IMO, you may be right that some of their mistakes were nothing more then simple ones but when AM did not concede that she made some of the mistakes, like the initials, then you have to consider that tampering did take place. IMO.

[martin II]

For all the arguing that the NG's do about contamination the fact is that even the defense expert testified that all the results incriminating OJ Simpson were valid results.

The DNA labs took the samples given to them and did their normal DNA test.That is what the defense experts were referring to.
They had no way of knowing whether the samples Mazzola initialed first,
contained the same blood as the samples that did not have her initials and that was the problem.

[GreenIce]

The DNA labs took the samples given to them and did their normal DNA test.That is what the defense experts were referring to.
They had no way of knowing whether the samples Mazzola initialed first,
contained the same blood as the samples that did not have her initials and that was the problem.

Martin,

I find it amusing that people will suggest that the defense was trying prove that the evidence that was planted was not Simpson's, Nicole's or Ron's blood. I think who ever planted the evidence was brazen but not a moron.

Oh, in Joe Bosco's book, it says that there was only one drop of Simpson's blood found on the Rockingham glove and was inside the indent of the wrist. He went on to say that while the defense did provided a plauseable explaination for this, there is no explaination for Collin Y's opening the reference samples while he had the actual evidence so close at hand. From what I got out of it, why did Collin Y have the glove with the reference sample? Was he just going to be able to look at the blood on the glove and know who's blood was who's?

My question would be did he inspect the glove, did he document the glove on where the blood stains were? I would also love to know if pictures were taken of the this blood on the glove, the one drop, before any crime lab person touched it. I got a funny feeling, any pictures of this glove before Collin Y has been lost. IMO.

[tv]

The DNA labs took the samples given to them and did their normal DNA test.That is what the defense experts were referring to.
They had no way of knowing whether the samples Mazzola initialed first,
contained the same blood as the samples that did not have her initials and that was the problem.
The problem was that OJ Simpson would have gone to prison on the evidence so the defense had to dream up all kinds of planting and contamination theories to present to the jury which was already biased against LE. Maybe the real reason they were called the dream team is because of all the wild theories they dreamed up.

[GreenIce]

GI

I am not sure but would think they would have been right at the area where the bodies were found or in the walkway leading to the back gate at Bundy.
William knows.

I'm thinking maybe around the garage door, maybe where that toy was found. I'll see if I can find it.

[martin II]

I don't think Scheck is to be trusted anymore. After this incident how can you trust anything he does?

They are two of the most respected and successful lawyers in the specific field of work. Ask the 200 or more people they have freed.You cannot change that.hahaha

[martin II]

I'm thinking maybe around the garage door, maybe where that toy was found. I'll see if I can find it.

Now, i think you may be correct.

[tv]

They make good sense to me.You honestly believe that the prosecution wanted Fung and Mazzola to do poorly on the stand? For what purpose??

[martin II]

The problem was that OJ Simpson would have gone to prison on the evidence so the defense had to dream up all kinds of planting and contamination theories to present to the jury which was already biased against LE. Maybe the real reason they were called the dream team is because of all the wild theories they dreamed up.

When Oj demoted Shaperio and Cochran took over and the remainder of the team was in place, It was the media that marveled at the talent of the group
and created the name dream team.

[tv]

They are two of the most respected and successful lawyers in the specific field of work. Ask the 200 or more people they have freed.You cannot change that.hahaha
Looks to me like he made a serious error. A $900,000 error. Either he did it for some reason or it was a careless mistake. Wonder which it was?

[tv]

When Oj demoted Shaperio and Cochran took over and the remainder of the team was in place, It was the media that marveled at the talent of the group
and created the name dream team.I'm sure you're right but not everyone believes everything the media puts out there.

[martin II]

You honestly believe that the prosecution wanted Fung and Mazzola to do poorly on the stand? For what purpose??


I am talking about what the detectives did to DF.

That is not what i said. I think the prosecution knew they had problems from some the le BS. I think someone had to be the ones that took the hit that they knew the defense was bringing.AM and DF was in the middle of all blood evidence and other stuff so by their positions they took the hits.
Example: Whatever Vanhatter was doing with that blood did not have to involve DF. Yet he broke protocol/procedures and got DF involved by bringing
ojs blood samples to him at a active crime scene. If he had not involved DF by delivering the blood to SID where he should have taken it,DF would not have had to be in the defense attacks on Vanhatter giving him the blood.
If Lang had not ordered DF to bring that bloody glove to him at Bundy there would not have been any questions by defense on what happened when he did bring the glove.

As far as the DA is concerned someone had to be the fall guy for all of the detectives screw ups.AM and DF were the ones with the least experience
and the least knowledge and experience on the witness stand.Their testimonies and all of the problems therein did go a long way of deflecting
attention off of the ones responsible for the problems.But they did create many themselves.

[martin II]

I'm sure you're right but not everyone believes everything the media puts out there.

Many legal experts did comment on how unusual it was for a defendant to have such a experienced and successful group of lawyers on one team.It would be a dream for most.

[martin II]

I'm sure you're right but not everyone believes everything the media puts out there.

Remember 85% of whites thought oj was guilty based on what the media put out there before the trial started.

[tv]

I am talking about what the detectives did to DF.

That is not what i said. I think the prosecution knew they had problems from some the le BS. I think someone had to be the ones that took the hit that they knew the defense was bringing.AM and DF was in the middle of all blood evidence and other stuff so by their positions they took the hits.
Example: Whatever Vanhatter was doing with that blood did not have to involve DF. Yet he broke protocol/procedures and got DF involved by bringing
ojs blood samples to him at a active crime scene. If he had not involved DF by delivering the blood to SID where he should have taken it,DF would not have had to be in the defense attacks on Vanhatter giving him the blood.
If Lang had not ordered DF to bring that bloody glove to him at Bundy there would not have been any questions by defense on what happened when he did bring the glove.

As far as the DA is concerned someone had to be the fall guy for all of the detectives screw ups.AM and DF were the ones with the least experience
and the least knowledge and experience on the witness stand.Their testimonies and all of the problems therein did go a long way of deflecting
attention off of the ones responsible for the problems.But they did create many themselves.
You said it made sense that the prosecution was 'ticked pinked' and thrilled about the upcoming 'slaughter' of Fung and Mazzola. I'm starting to feel like I'm in the twilight zone again so I think I'll call it a night.

[tv]

Remember 85% of whites thought oj was guilty based on what the media put out there before the trial started.What's your point? I'd say at least that many think Robert Blake, Drew Peterson, Scott Peterson, Phil Spector and Casey Anthony, just to name a few, are guilty too.

[martin II]

The problem was that OJ Simpson would have gone to prison on the evidence so the defense had to dream up all kinds of planting and contamination theories to present to the jury which was already biased against LE. Maybe the real reason they were called the dream team is because of all the wild theories they dreamed up.

Look
The jury just listened to what the prosecuiton claimed and what the defense did to show that the claims had not been proven.It is not mopre difficult than that. I think it is unfair to bash 12 average citizens that gave up 9 months of their lives for some chump change to serve their community just because some did not get the verdict they thought they would get.imo

[martin II]

What's your point? I'd say at least that many think Robert Blake, Drew Peterson, Scott Peterson, Phil Spector and Casey Anthony, just to name a few, are guilty too.

But not before the trials.You already know that most Americans get their news from media sound bites or The late night show.

[tv]

Look
The jury just listened to what the prosecuiton claimed and what the defense did to show that the claims had not been proven.It is not mopre difficult than that. I think it is unfair to bash 12 average citizens that gave up 9 months of their lives for some chump change to serve their community just because some did not get the verdict they thought they would get.imo

I'm not bashing them. You're the one that's always saying they have a different view of LE because of their past experience and the area they live in. That biases them against LE. Johnnie Cochran used that to his advantage by making up allegations against the LAPD.

[tv]

But not before the trials.You already know that most Americans get their news from media sound bites or The late night show.Sure they did. Casey Anthony hasn't gone to trial and most people thinks she's guilty. Drew Peterson hasn't even been arrested and people think he killed his wife. Even OJ Simpson said he thought Scott Peterson was guilty before the trial.

[martin II]

You said it made sense that the prosecution was 'ticked pinked' and thrilled about the upcoming 'slaughter' of Fung and Mazzola. I'm starting to feel like I'm in the twilight zone again so I think I'll call it a night.


I said GI post made sense to me and i have not changed that opinion.

[martin II]

Sure they did. Casey Anthony hasn't gone to trial and most people thinks she's guilty. Drew Peterson hasn't even been arrested and people think he killed his wife. Even OJ Simpson said he thought Scott Peterson was guilty before the trial.

media sound bites again

[martin II]

I'm not bashing them. You're the one that's always saying they have a different view of LE because of their past experience and the area they live in. That biases them against LE. Johnnie Cochran used that to his advantage by making up allegations against the LAPD.

Having experience with LE abuse in ones comminity does not mean that bias is present.It means that these people are not unaware of how some le lie and manipulate evidence. There are some people in some communities that believe le never lie on the stand and don't abuse citizens as strange as that may sound.

[GreenIce]

I said GI post made sense to me and i have not changed that opinion.

Martin,

Thank you for your support. Have you ever noticed that when a case is over turned and the person convicted is then exhonrated, the DA's who prosecuted the case always give the same response---I didn't convict them, a jury convicted them. They say they are not responsible for the detective work because they are not cops. They are not reponsibile for the lab's conduct or results. That their job is to take what is given to them by the cops and crime lab, along with other witnesses and they present it to the jury and if that jury convicts an innocent person, then it is not their fault.

This is why I believe the DA's were thrilled with DF and AM. They were just a couple of more people to use in their "blame game". How many times have we heard DA's say they are not responsible for the witnesses or the evidence they get in cases?

IMO, Clark was setting the stage when she denounced MF, the LAPD and the lab people in her closing arguments. She was begging the jury to convict on evidence that, though flawed, they could believe her because she wouldn't lie to them about it. That she had an obligation not to present evidence that was flawed. Well, every piece of evidence they did present was deeply flawed. Flawed to such an extreme, that she could not have know that something was horribly wrong the evidence.

The other thing that really bothers me is that she showed no real interest about how the glove got behind the wall. Are we to believe that she did not ask this question, a million times and a million times she knew that there was no evidence of this? She did not have to introduce the glove, so why didn't she just take the glove out of the case? She does that, she gets takes Fuhrman out of her case, she takes away all the questions about how the glove got back there.

I know that people who believe that MF planted the glove did it because he wanted in on this case and I don't fault anyone for believing this, but Clark did not have to take the chance.

She denounced JS for lying about selling her story. She did not have to denounce MF while not using the glove. She could have just as easily said that the glove was put there but it was not by Simpson jumping over the fence. That how it got there wasn't by someone being back there that night.

Had she done that, while I still think she would have lost case, she might have gained some credibility about the glove. I can't image that the jury, any jury would have have accepted the glove because there was no proof of anyone dropping it. A loud noise is a loud noise. A loud noise perhaps can make a picture move and shake the ground but it can't mend broken vegitation, it can't hide blood, it can't make the glove debris free nor would it prevent the glove from drying. IMO.

Because Clark used the glove, she shed doubt on the other evidence. It is almost like, okay, the glove has problems, it was found outside, etc., now defense team, explain the blood on the sock. Explain the blood on the back gate.

There is no doubt in my mind that glove really hurt her case.

It appears to me that Lange and VA had problems with the glove too. Why couldn't they have told Clark to leave it alone? That it was just suspicious or too good to be true so lets not take a chance.

As we know, Kato testified about the noises he heard and where he thought they were coming from. Well, isn't or can't noise be distorted as where it was coming from? Kind of like a fire struck, you can hear them but you don't always know for sure where it is coming from, until you see the flashing light.

It appears to me that at least the defense was trying to figure out how the picture moved by pushing up against the wall, but why wasn't any one trying to reproduce the noise? And the picture, did Kato ever put the picture back to where it was or Simpson's sister who moved into the room after Kato left?

Also, to the best of my knowledge, no one including MF ever took Kato behind the way and asked him to "pin point" where he thought the noise came from. Don't you think someone would have asked him to do this? If he heard 3 distinctive thumps, then were are the wall were they?

[GreenIce]

I'm not bashing them. You're the one that's always saying they have a different view of LE because of their past experience and the area they live in. That biases them against LE. Johnnie Cochran used that to his advantage by making up allegations against the LAPD.

Martin,

TV is wrong, it was the LAPD and the DA's who used very true allegations about the LAPD to their advantage. It was not the other way around. IMO.

[GreenIce]

Remember 85% of whites thought oj was guilty based on what the media put out there before the trial started.

Martin,

You know, I don't believe that figure. First off, we don't know many white people thought he was guilty but the DA's didn't prove their case. Or they did not trust the evidence.

And who took these polls and who were the people who conducted them?

[martin II]

Martin,

Thank you for your support. Have you ever noticed that when a case is over turned and the person convicted is then exhonrated, the DA's who prosecuted the case always give the same response---I didn't convict them, a jury convicted them. They say they are not responsible for the detective work because they are not cops. They are not reponsibile for the lab's conduct or results. That their job is to take what is given to them by the cops and crime lab, along with other witnesses and they present it to the jury and if that jury convicts an innocent person, then it is not their fault.

This is why I believe the DA's were thrilled with DF and AM. They were just a couple of more people to use in their "blame game". How many times have we heard DA's say they are not responsible for the witnesses or the evidence they get in cases?

IMO, Clark was setting the stage when she denounced MF, the LAPD and the lab people in her closing arguments. She was begging the jury to convict on evidence that, though flawed, they could believe her because she wouldn't lie to them about it. That she had an obligation not to present evidence that was flawed. Well, every piece of evidence they did present was deeply flawed. Flawed to such an extreme, that she could not have know that something was horribly wrong the evidence.

The other thing that really bothers me is that she showed no real interest about how the glove got behind the wall. Are we to believe that she did not ask this question, a million times and a million times she knew that there was no evidence of this? She did not have to introduce the glove, so why didn't she just take the glove out of the case? She does that, she gets takes Fuhrman out of her case, she takes away all the questions about how the glove got back there.

I know that people who believe that MF planted the glove did it because he wanted in on this case and I don't fault anyone for believing this, but Clark did not have to take the chance.

She denounced JS for lying about selling her story. She did not have to denounce MF while not using the glove. She could have just as easily said that the glove was put there but it was not by Simpson jumping over the fence. That how it got there wasn't by someone being back there that night.

Had she done that, while I still think she would have lost case, she might have gained some credibility about the glove. I can't image that the jury, any jury would have have accepted the glove because there was no proof of anyone dropping it. A loud noise is a loud noise. A loud noise perhaps can make a picture move and shake the ground but it can't mend broken vegitation, it can't hide blood, it can't make the glove debris free nor would it prevent the glove from drying. IMO.

Because Clark used the glove, she shed doubt on the other evidence. It is almost like, okay, the glove has problems, it was found outside, etc., now defense team, explain the blood on the sock. Explain the blood on the back gate.

There is no doubt in my mind that glove really hurt her case.

It appears to me that Lange and VA had problems with the glove too. Why couldn't they have told Clark to leave it alone? That it was just suspicious or too good to be true so lets not take a chance.

As we know, Kato testified about the noises he heard and where he thought they were coming from. Well, isn't or can't noise be distorted as where it was coming from? Kind of like a fire struck, you can hear them but you don't always know for sure where it is coming from, until you see the flashing light.

It appears to me that at least the defense was trying to figure out how the picture moved by pushing up against the wall, but why wasn't any one trying to reproduce the noise? And the picture, did Kato ever put the picture back to where it was or Simpson's sister who moved into the room after Kato left?

Also, to the best of my knowledge, no one including MF ever took Kato behind the way and asked him to "pin point" where he thought the noise came from. Don't you think someone would have asked him to do this? If he heard 3 distinctive thumps, then were are the wall were they?

I had never thought about that option for her but i think she could have dodged a lot of quesitons that she got on that issue.

It seems that Vanhatter and the two other cops did try to tell her to leave the s walkway glove alone as it was Vanhatter that testified that he saw no evidence that anyone jumped the fence there same for the other two detectives that investigated that area. I had wondered why Vanhatter would take a position against what Clarke took.

This may actually point to something Cochran said from the beginning.'RUSH TO JUDGEMENT" I believe the prosecution moved to charge oj before they had all of their ducks lined up in order.There was no rush or there should have been no rush.Oj was going no place and neither were the court room.

The prosecution played a lot to the media leaking a lot of stuff against oj to build public opinion for their case.

When Fuhrman "found" the gove she immediately said ok oj dropped it there.

On 6/13 while at Rockingham if she did not go to the s walkway to view the conditions of the growth she should have.There is no excuse for her not to
instruct Vanhatter to do a investigation on the possibilities or bring in a hedge expert to ask if there was evidence of anyone jumping the fence and going through the growth.She didn't and she lost the opportunity to prove someone did or someonf didn't. she just thought her idea made sense to her so thats it.
She seemed to completely ignore the blood drops from the bronco going directly to oj front door which Vanhatter stuck to.

Le walked from the Bronco to the salingers yard down that walkway to the start of the growth.No evidence that anyone made that trip yet oj was suppose to be bleeding all over the place.

However i think Furhman may have given her troulbe if she dropped the glove as that was one of the issues that he thought inbedded him into the case in his reach for fame and to be the heavy in the case. I believe that would motivate him to go to the media about the glove.

I am not sure if Kato testified about the 10:45 time before the defense found Heidstra but that was another problem for her.

When le first interviewed neighbors they found P Fujenvis sp and Stein who testified that they heard the dog starting at about 10:10. Clarke initially said the murders took place at 10:20. So did the dog start barking 10 minutes before the murders? if oj was the killer, where was he from 10:22 until he was supose to have arrived at his front door.If oj was the killer and he left Bundy at 10:22 how did JS se him when she said she did.

When the defense found Heidstra, his testimony blew Clarks 10:20 murder time right out of the waters and she kinda backed off of it.But the jury had already heard her claims of 10:20

I am not sure if G.G. approved of clarks master plan or not but if he did he shares some responsibility for these errors in judgement. imo

[William Anthony]

It seems to me that the obvious is being overlooked in regard to Scheck and Neufeld as it pertains to the settlement agreement. They were made to pay for any negligence, carelessness, human error, mistakes, or intentional wrongdoing on their part, just as the prosecution and LE in the Simpson murder trial were. I would say the system works.

[William Anthony]

Martin,

TV is wrong, it was the LAPD and the DA's who used very true allegations about the LAPD to their advantage. It was not the other way around. IMO.

The defense did not collect, handle, store, process the evidence, nor did they call the witnesses for the prosecution. The defense did not create anything but they did expose the numerous flaws in the prosecution's case.

[William Anthony]

Martin,

Thank you for your support. Have you ever noticed that when a case is over turned and the person convicted is then exhonrated, the DA's who prosecuted the case always give the same response---I didn't convict them, a jury convicted them. They say they are not responsible for the detective work because they are not cops. They are not reponsibile for the lab's conduct or results. That their job is to take what is given to them by the cops and crime lab, along with other witnesses and they present it to the jury and if that jury convicts an innocent person, then it is not their fault.

This is why I believe the DA's were thrilled with DF and AM. They were just a couple of more people to use in their "blame game". How many times have we heard DA's say they are not responsible for the witnesses or the evidence they get in cases?

IMO, Clark was setting the stage when she denounced MF, the LAPD and the lab people in her closing arguments. She was begging the jury to convict on evidence that, though flawed, they could believe her because she wouldn't lie to them about it. That she had an obligation not to present evidence that was flawed. Well, every piece of evidence they did present was deeply flawed. Flawed to such an extreme, that she could not have know that something was horribly wrong the evidence.

The other thing that really bothers me is that she showed no real interest about how the glove got behind the wall. Are we to believe that she did not ask this question, a million times and a million times she knew that there was no evidence of this? She did not have to introduce the glove, so why didn't she just take the glove out of the case? She does that, she gets takes Fuhrman out of her case, she takes away all the questions about how the glove got back there.

I know that people who believe that MF planted the glove did it because he wanted in on this case and I don't fault anyone for believing this, but Clark did not have to take the chance.

She denounced JS for lying about selling her story. She did not have to denounce MF while not using the glove. She could have just as easily said that the glove was put there but it was not by Simpson jumping over the fence. That how it got there wasn't by someone being back there that night.

Had she done that, while I still think she would have lost case, she might have gained some credibility about the glove. I can't image that the jury, any jury would have have accepted the glove because there was no proof of anyone dropping it. A loud noise is a loud noise. A loud noise perhaps can make a picture move and shake the ground but it can't mend broken vegitation, it can't hide blood, it can't make the glove debris free nor would it prevent the glove from drying. IMO.

Because Clark used the glove, she shed doubt on the other evidence. It is almost like, okay, the glove has problems, it was found outside, etc., now defense team, explain the blood on the sock. Explain the blood on the back gate.

There is no doubt in my mind that glove really hurt her case.

It appears to me that Lange and VA had problems with the glove too. Why couldn't they have told Clark to leave it alone? That it was just suspicious or too good to be true so lets not take a chance.

As we know, Kato testified about the noises he heard and where he thought they were coming from. Well, isn't or can't noise be distorted as where it was coming from? Kind of like a fire struck, you can hear them but you don't always know for sure where it is coming from, until you see the flashing light.

It appears to me that at least the defense was trying to figure out how the picture moved by pushing up against the wall, but why wasn't any one trying to reproduce the noise? And the picture, did Kato ever put the picture back to where it was or Simpson's sister who moved into the room after Kato left?

Also, to the best of my knowledge, no one including MF ever took Kato behind the way and asked him to "pin point" where he thought the noise came from. Don't you think someone would have asked him to do this? If he heard 3 distinctive thumps, then were are the wall were they?

The prosecution did the best with what they had or, if you will, did not have.

[William Anthony]

I'm not bashing them. You're the one that's always saying they have a different view of LE because of their past experience and the area they live in. That biases them against LE. Johnnie Cochran used that to his advantage by making up allegations against the LAPD.

Not made up but exposed, imho.

[martin II]

I'm not bashing them. You're the one that's always saying they have a different view of LE because of their past experience and the area they live in. That biases them against LE. Johnnie Cochran used that to his advantage by making up allegations against the LAPD.

I may not have been clear in my response to you in responding to your above post.

I never said "that Biases them against LE"
What i have said is people that live in communities where there is LE abuse of citizens are expected to be able to recognize police misconduct since they are the ones that have seen it or read about it in their communities. People that live in communites where there is little or no le abuse would be more likely to believe it does not take place.

People that live in comunities where le officers have been caught giving false testimony in cases are more likely to understand that some le do lie on the stand. People that live in communities that do not hear about le giving false testimony may not believe it happens and would be more accepting to le testimony.

This by no means mean that people from the first community develope unfair biases that they bring into the court room as jurors.

I remember some jury members in discussing their deliberations said that racism by furhman did not play a role in their decision.imo

[William Anthony]

GI

I am not sure but would think they would have been right at the area where the bodies were found or in the walkway leading to the back gate at Bundy.
William knows.

That is my understanding as it was said that it was a norm that every drop of evidence would not be collected but how do you know before hand what the evidence will show would be my question, so that you can selectively decide what to collect and what not to.

[martin II]

The defense did not collect, handle, store, process the evidence, nor did they call the witnesses for the prosecution. The defense did not create anything but they did expose the numerous flaws in the prosecution's case.

Which is why i am surprised as to why some continue to ask why the defense didn't present THEIR evidence.

[William Anthony]

Which is why i am surprised as to why some continue to ask why the defense didn't present THEIR evidence.

Correction to my earlier post about the uncollected blood drops and I found this related to I would guess the Rockingham drops.

"MR. NEUFELD: Now, you said that the reason a, b and c were uncollected is because you were only interested in collecting what you termed representative stains; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, at Bundy, ma'am, every drop along that walkway was collected, wasn't it?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: You didn't leave out any drops simply because you deemed them representative, did you?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Or I'm sorry, because you didn't deem them relevant, did you?

MR. GOLDBERG: It is vague as to which drops.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. At Bundy there were five drops, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52 that you observed on June 13th, right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And you collected them all?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: There were no other drops along that same walkway that you didn't--that you saw but didn't collect; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And I believe you said on direct examination that you would collect the first few stains and then the last few stains and it wouldn't be necessary to collect the middle stains as long as they went in the same direction; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, do you know what direction those drops were going in when you collected them on June 13th?

MS. MAZZOLA: There really were not any drops that were way out of line. They were following more or less a pathway.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, on June 13th did you know whether or not these drops indicated that the person was walking from the Bronco to the house or from the house to the Bronco?

MS. MAZZOLA: I personally did not, no."

[martin II]

That is my understanding as it was said that it was a norm that every drop of evidence would not be collected but how do you know before hand what the evidence will show would be my question, so that you can selectively decide what to collect and what not to.

Some may need this to be broken down to a simple form.

Say there are 10 blood drops on about 10 sq feet of space.Does the collector
pick every odd samples in a row,or the first five,the last five or does he use some randon method. Does he have a visual method which tells him that all of the blood is from one person?
I guess in DF case he may have had reason not to waste time collecting all the samples at Bundy as he knew that he had a truck full of collected samples that were just cooking away in plastic bags in that truck with no aircondition.

[William Anthony]

Which is why i am surprised as to why some continue to ask why the defense didn't present THEIR evidence.

They did present their evidence through the magnificent examinations of the witnesses.

[William Anthony]

Some may need this to be broken down to a simple form.

Say there are 10 blood drops on about 10 sq feet of space.Does the collector
pick every odd samples in a row,or the first five,the last five or does he use some randon method. Does he have a visual method which tells him that all of the blood is from one person?
I guess in DF case he may have had reason not to waste time collecting all the samples at Bundy as he knew that he had a truck full of collected samples that were just cooking away in plastic bags in that truck with no aircondition.

Well, we know what training or lack thereof they received, according to their testimonies. I think DF may have received more than AM and I wonder if MAW played any part in that.

[martin II]

Correction to my earlier post about the uncollected blood drops and I found this related to I would guess the Rockingham drops.

"MR. NEUFELD: Now, you said that the reason a, b and c were uncollected is because you were only interested in collecting what you termed representative stains; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, at Bundy, ma'am, every drop along that walkway was collected, wasn't it?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: You didn't leave out any drops simply because you deemed them representative, did you?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Or I'm sorry, because you didn't deem them relevant, did you?

MR. GOLDBERG: It is vague as to which drops.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. At Bundy there were five drops, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52 that you observed on June 13th, right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And you collected them all?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: There were no other drops along that same walkway that you didn't--that you saw but didn't collect; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And I believe you said on direct examination that you would collect the first few stains and then the last few stains and it wouldn't be necessary to collect the middle stains as long as they went in the same direction; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, do you know what direction those drops were going in when you collected them on June 13th?

MS. MAZZOLA: There really were not any drops that were way out of line. They were following more or less a pathway.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, on June 13th did you know whether or not these drops indicated that the person was walking from the Bronco to the house or from the house to the Bronco?

MS. MAZZOLA: I personally did not, no."


There must have been days during the trial that Mazzola could have kicked herself for not calling in sick on 6/13.

[martin II]

Well, we know what training or lack thereof they received, according to their testimonies. I think DF may have received more than AM and I wonder if MAW played any part in that.

Well it was their objective to keep women in their place. If Furhman had not been so intent on talking about his actual experiences as a lapd detective we may have heard more about MAW the subject he was asked to talk about.

[martin II]

Martin,

You know, I don't believe that figure. First off, we don't know many white people thought he was guilty but the DA's didn't prove their case. Or they did not trust the evidence.

And who took these polls and who were the people who conducted them?

The poll i referred to was by cnn.

[William Anthony]

There must have been days during the trial that Mazzola could have kicked herself for not calling in sick on 6/13.

I found this interesting.

"Q: NOW, WHEN COLLIN YAMAUCHI COLLECTED HIS EVIDENCE EARLIER IN THE MORNING OF THE 14TH, DO YOU RECALL WHETHER HE WAS GIVEN A NUMBER AS TO THE -- THE REFERENCE SAMPLE OF THE DEFENDANT'S BLOOD?

A: I DON'T RECALL.

MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION, VAGUE, COMPOUND.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T RECALL.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: ALL RIGHT. NOW, AT SOME POINT DID YOU DECIDE TO REASSIGN NUMBERS TO THESE -- TO THE TUBE?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHY DID YOU MAKE THAT DECISION?

A: I WANTED TO KEEP THE ITEMS IN A CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER AND REDUCE LESS PAPERWORK FOR MYSELF.

Q: OKAY. NOW, WHY WOULD IT REDUCE LESS -- WHY WOULD IT REDUCE THE PAPERWORK?

A: WITH THE -- IF THE BLOOD HAD REMAINED ITEM NO. 18, I WOULD HAVE HAD TO CREATE THREE ADDITIONAL PROPERTY REPORT FACE SHEETS.

Q: OKAY. NOW, THE PAIR OF SNEAKERS ON THE PREVIOUS DOCUMENT WE SAW WAS LABELED ITEM 17; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: WHICH DID YOU RECEIVE -- AND THE BLOOD 18?

A: YES.

Q: WHICH DID YOU RECEIVE FIRST, THE BLOOD OR THE PAIR OF SNEAKERS?

A: I RECEIVED THE PAIR -- I RECEIVED THE BLOOD VIAL FIRST."

[martin II]

Correction to my earlier post about the uncollected blood drops and I found this related to I would guess the Rockingham drops.

"MR. NEUFELD: Now, you said that the reason a, b and c were uncollected is because you were only interested in collecting what you termed representative stains; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, at Bundy, ma'am, every drop along that walkway was collected, wasn't it?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: You didn't leave out any drops simply because you deemed them representative, did you?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Or I'm sorry, because you didn't deem them relevant, did you?

MR. GOLDBERG: It is vague as to which drops.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. At Bundy there were five drops, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52 that you observed on June 13th, right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And you collected them all?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: There were no other drops along that same walkway that you didn't--that you saw but didn't collect; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And I believe you said on direct examination that you would collect the first few stains and then the last few stains and it wouldn't be necessary to collect the middle stains as long as they went in the same direction; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, do you know what direction those drops were going in when you collected them on June 13th?

MS. MAZZOLA: There really were not any drops that were way out of line. They were following more or less a pathway.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, on June 13th did you know whether or not these drops indicated that the person was walking from the Bronco to the house or from the house to the Bronco?

MS. MAZZOLA: I personally did not, no."

William that was a very good question Neufeld asked Mazzola.No one knew if the drops started at the house to the Bronco or the Bronco to the house.

[William Anthony]

Well it was their objective to keep women in their place. If Furhman had not been so intent on talking about his actual experiences as a lapd detective we may have heard more about MAW the subject he was asked to talk about.

What I am having a problem with is figuring out how such a pure bred LE member and gentleman as MF could have imagined the vile, reprehensible, despicable and racist things he said on the tapes.:shrug:

[William Anthony]

William that was a very good question Neufeld asked Mazzola.No one knew if the drops started at the house to the Bronco or the Bronco to the house.

They knew they weren't behind Kato's quarters. :)

[martin II]

I found this interesting.

"Q: NOW, WHEN COLLIN YAMAUCHI COLLECTED HIS EVIDENCE EARLIER IN THE MORNING OF THE 14TH, DO YOU RECALL WHETHER HE WAS GIVEN A NUMBER AS TO THE -- THE REFERENCE SAMPLE OF THE DEFENDANT'S BLOOD?

A: I DON'T RECALL.

MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION, VAGUE, COMPOUND.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T RECALL.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: ALL RIGHT. NOW, AT SOME POINT DID YOU DECIDE TO REASSIGN NUMBERS TO THESE -- TO THE TUBE?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHY DID YOU MAKE THAT DECISION?

A: I WANTED TO KEEP THE ITEMS IN A CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER AND REDUCE LESS PAPERWORK FOR MYSELF.

Q: OKAY. NOW, WHY WOULD IT REDUCE LESS -- WHY WOULD IT REDUCE THE PAPERWORK?

A: WITH THE -- IF THE BLOOD HAD REMAINED ITEM NO. 18, I WOULD HAVE HAD TO CREATE THREE ADDITIONAL PROPERTY REPORT FACE SHEETS.

Q: OKAY. NOW, THE PAIR OF SNEAKERS ON THE PREVIOUS DOCUMENT WE SAW WAS LABELED ITEM 17; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: WHICH DID YOU RECEIVE -- AND THE BLOOD 18?

A: YES.

Q: WHICH DID YOU RECEIVE FIRST, THE BLOOD OR THE PAIR OF SNEAKERS?

A: I RECEIVED THE PAIR -- I RECEIVED THE BLOOD VIAL FIRST."


That is the question i asked a few pages back. It seemed the sneakers had a earlier number than the blood although the blood was collected before the sneakers according to fungs testimony.
Why all this mix up with putting a number down as the items were collected.It really makes no sense that this could not be done accurately.It is such a simple task.

[William Anthony]

That is the question i asked a few pages back. It seemed the sneakers had a earlier number than the blood although the blood was collected before the sneakers according to fungs testimony.
Why all this mix up with putting a number down as the items were collected.It really makes no sense that this could not be done accurately.It is such a simple task.

Why would Collin Y independently decide that the sneakers were received before Simpson's reference sample?

[William Anthony]

I will have to go back and see if Ms. Bell's letter predated the playing of the tapes.

[William Anthony]

MR. BAILEY: What, if anything, did you do after seeing Mr. Fuhrman testifying in the Simpson case?

MS. BELL: I called the news show that I first saw him on. That was the first thing that I did. I wasn't sure what to do, and I just know that I felt afraid again. I felt that same feeling that I felt in that Marine recruiting center when I saw him on television, and I thought that someone should know and I didn't know what to do. So I called the news company and I told some young person on the phone that--what they just showed was true, there is something about this man that is--

MR. DARDEN: Objection, this is hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAILEY: Don't tell us what you said.

MS. BELL: Okay.

MR. BAILEY: Can you identify the news program and why called that program?

MS. BELL: It was channel 9 and I called because I saw him.

MR. BAILEY: Now, Miss Bell, when you say you saw him on the channel, do you mean on the witness stand in court or being interviewed outside of court?

MS. BELL: On the witness stand, but I'm not certain if there is--if he was saying anything. I think that the news broadcaster was speaking over the film of him.

MR. BAILEY: And what did you understand his role was, if any, in the case at that point?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAILEY: What caused you to call the news media? Why did you think that was important, channel 9?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. BELL: I just really didn't know what to do and I thought that someone should know that it was--something is wrong with this person and something was said, and I was vacuuming kind of and cleaning at the time, and I didn't hear exactly what was said, but something about a racial issue, so I thought that people should know that this person has a problem.

MR. BAILEY: Without going into what was said, did you contact anyone at channel 9?

MS. BELL: Only this young man who answered the phone.

MR. BAILEY: Did you have a conversation with him?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Did you ever have any further contact with anyone at channel 9?

MS. BELL: A reporter later on.

MR. BAILEY: A when did that occur?

MS. BELL: Much later on. Umm, I was walking out from my office where I work and he kind of tracked me down in his news van.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Now, at some point did you write a letter to Mr. Cochran?

MS. BELL: Yes, I did.

MR. BAILEY: And do you know whether or not that letter has been displayed to this jury earlier in the case?

MS. BELL: It has been displayed?

MR. BAILEY: I'm simply asking you if you know that is true or don't?

MS. BELL: You know, I'm not really sure. I don't think so.

MR. BAILEY: Have you seen the letter recently?

MS. BELL: I just saw it this morning.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Why did you write Mr. Cochran a letter?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. BELL: Well, I thought that--I didn't want someone to be tried without all the information and I thought that there might be some reason that they need to know that Mark Fuhrman said these things to me.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Without saying what was said, were you acting on the advice of anyone or on your own initiative when you wrote the letter?

MS. BELL: No, on my own initiative.

MR. BAILEY: This letter was written at about what date, as you best recall?

MS. BELL: July 18, I believe or July 19.

[martin II]

What I am having a problem with is figuring out how such a pure bred LE member and gentleman as MF could have imagined the vile, reprehensible, despicable and racist things he said on the tapes.:shrug:

I have asked this question before and never got a answer.
What good clean protect and serve detective that had a positive healthy image of himself would allow himself to utter such vile stuff even for a play.

Lets say the play was a hit and made the best movie list in la.What would the good cops think about his words describing what cops in LA do at work.
I think they would be pissed to no end with him for giving the public this kind of image of cops.

[William Anthony]

The tapes had not been played publicly before August 15th.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cas48.htm

[William Anthony]

I have asked this question before and never got a answer.
What good clean protect and serve detective that had a positive healthy image of himself would allow himself to utter such vile stuff even for a play.

Lets say the play was a hit and made the best movie list in la.What would the good cops think about his words describing what cops in LA do at work.
I think they would be pissed to no end with him for giving the public this kind of image of cops.

It would seem that Mr. pure bred MF had a demonic alter ego.:shrug: How did Ms. Bell know that the tapes would expose what MF was capable of saying, if she was not clairvoyant?

[William Anthony]

I have asked this question before and never got a answer.
What good clean protect and serve detective that had a positive healthy image of himself would allow himself to utter such vile stuff even for a play.

Lets say the play was a hit and made the best movie list in la.What would the good cops think about his words describing what cops in LA do at work.
I think they would be pissed to no end with him for giving the public this kind of image of cops.

More importantly to me, is MF admitted to what he was capable of doing. :) I haven't gotten an answer, from any G, as to what anyone thinks he could have meant when he said, if I go down, the case goes down,

[martin II]

Why would Collin Y independently decide that the sneakers were received before Simpson's reference sample?

Well. Maby he had plans to do what he did and wanted the record to show that he did not have the blood samples at that time.imo

[martin II]

It would seem that Mr. pure bred MF had a demonic alter ego.:shrug: How did Ms. Bell know that the tapes would expose what MF was capable of saying, if she was not clairvoyant?

Didn't he speak this crap on his first by chance meeting with her,a total stranger.

Didn't she say she felt like crying when he spoke of his racism.Or she thought she as going to cry after listening to him.

I think the filthy racist words he spoke to her flashed back into her memory when she heards his name.Obviously Ms Bell was not use to this kind of talk
from anyone in her work or friendship circles.Good for her.

[William Anthony]

Didn't he speak this crap on his first by chance meeting with her,a total stranger.

Didn't she say she felt like crying when he spoke of his racism.Or she thought she as going to cry after listening to him.

I think the filthy racist words he spoke to her flashed back into her memory when she heards his name.Obviously Ms Bell was not use to this kind of talk
from anyone in her work or friendship circles.Good for her.

I know she said she was afraid of him and, imho, she had good judgment.

[tv]

More importantly to me, is MF admitted to what he was capable of doing. :) I haven't gotten an answer, from any G, as to what anyone thinks he could have meant when he said, if I go down, the case goes down,

Yes, a G has answered this before. He was bragging to impress a woman -- something men have been doing forever.

[martin II]

I know she said she was afraid of him and, imho, she had good judgment.

She may not have been able to get the vision of him doing his racist thing out of her mind even today.I think he came to her apertment to see a friend of hers after the first encounter and sat in her living room talking the same racist stuff and this caused her to leave the room.When he and his partner came back a few days later she saw him comming to the building from a window and she yelled to him not to come to her apartment anymore.
A side note when Furhman and his partner were having these personal encounters with these women they were on duty.

There have been some that offered the idea that the only time Furhman had used racist talk was on the play tapes and that was for a play so no harm done.
They must be willing to ingore the talk he did to Ms Bell and her friend and to the military guy.

[tv]

I know she said she was afraid of him and, imho, she had good judgment.

If you think his 'filthy, racist' words made her cry then you don't realize what a good actress she is.

[tv]

It would seem that Mr. pure bred MF had a demonic alter ego.:shrug: How did Ms. Bell know that the tapes would expose what MF was capable of saying, if she was not clairvoyant?

Mark Fuhrman is demonic? The real demon is the one that butchered the mother of his children and her friend. People that have witnessed OJS in violent incidents have even said he gets an animalistic look when he's angry.

[tv]

What I am having a problem with is figuring out how such a pure bred LE member and gentleman as MF could have imagined the vile, reprehensible, despicable and racist things he said on the tapes.:shrug:You must not be much of a fiction reader.

[tv]

media sound bites again
But they're white and most white people think they're guilty. How do you explain that?

[tv]

Having experience with LE abuse in ones comminity does not mean that bias is present.It means that these people are not unaware of how some le lie and manipulate evidence. There are some people in some communities that believe le never lie on the stand and don't abuse citizens as strange as that may sound.
Come on, martin. :rolleyes:

[tv]

Martin,

TV is wrong, it was the LAPD and the DA's who used very true allegations about the LAPD to their advantage. It was not the other way around. IMO.

I thought you had me on ignore. :D

[tv]

I may not have been clear in my response to you in responding to your above post.

I never said "that Biases them against LE"
What i have said is people that live in communities where there is LE abuse of citizens are expected to be able to recognize police misconduct since they are the ones that have seen it or read about it in their communities. People that live in communites where there is little or no le abuse would be more likely to believe it does not take place.

People that live in comunities where le officers have been caught giving false testimony in cases are more likely to understand that some le do lie on the stand. People that live in communities that do not hear about le giving false testimony may not believe it happens and would be more accepting to le testimony.

This by no means mean that people from the first community develope unfair biases that they bring into the court room as jurors.

I remember some jury members in discussing their deliberations said that racism by furhman did not play a role in their decision.imoIf people have been unfairly treated that's going to naturally bias them against whoever they feel mistreated them. Johnnie Cochran used their distrust of LE to the advantage of his case. No other way you can spin it.

[tv]

What I am having a problem with is figuring out how such a pure bred LE member and gentleman as MF could have imagined the vile, reprehensible, despicable and racist things he said on the tapes.:shrug:What does this mean?

[GreenIce]

The prosecution did the best with what they had or, if you will, did not have.

William,

I agree with you, however, isn't it fair to say they knew what they "had" long before opening statements and it appears they did nothing to really help the witnesses that they knew the defense was going to really zero in on?

Clark knew what was coming, she did nothing to protect certain witnesses and either it was because she wanted victory at any cost or she was told to win at any cost.

[William Anthony]

Yes, a G has answered this before. He was bragging to impress a woman -- something men have been doing forever.

Perhaps, my inquiry was poorly phrased. Why would he say if he goes down? What we he have to go down about?

[William Anthony]

She may not have been able to get the vision of him doing his racist thing out of her mind even today.I think he came to her apertment to see a friend of hers after the first encounter and sat in her living room talking the same racist stuff and this caused her to leave the room.When he and his partner came back a few days later she saw him comming to the building from a window and she yelled to him not to come to her apartment anymore.
A side note when Furhman and his partner were having these personal encounters with these women they were on duty.

There have been some that offered the idea that the only time Furhman had used racist talk was on the play tapes and that was for a play so no harm done.
They must be willing to ingore the talk he did to Ms Bell and her friend and to the military guy.

I think you are referring to Ms. Sanger.

[William Anthony]

If you think his 'filthy, racist' words made her cry then you don't realize what a good actress she is.

Oh, I don't think that she was acting at all. There are people who find those types of vile, reprehensible, despicable, demonic remarks to be gut wrenching.

[William Anthony]

You must not be much of a fiction reader.

No, I am not but most fiction has a basis in real life experiences.

[tv]

Perhaps, my inquiry was poorly phrased. Why would he say if he goes down? What we he have to go down about?
Beats me. In his book, Det. Fuhrman says that Darden told him to remember that he hadn'd said the N word in the last ten years so it would seem to me that Mr. Darden knew something about what was coming for Det. Fuhrman in the court room.

[William Anthony]

What does this mean?

It has been opined that MF was an excellent detective, so I am asking how one, who was raised to uphold his sworn oath and raised to be a gentleman, could have uttered, which seemed to flow so easily from his tongue, imho, those types of remarks about all races and women, other than White Anglo-Saxon males.

[tv]

No, I am not but most fiction has a basis in real life experiences.

So you think people that write crime novels or mysteries have had these things happen in real life? You think the author of the Harry Potter books can fly and do magic? Okay, William. :)

[William Anthony]

Beats me. In his book, Det. Fuhrman says that Darden told him to remember that he hadn'd said the N word in the last ten years so it would seem to me that Mr. Darden knew something about what was coming for Det. Fuhrman in the court room.

So, if MF knew, then why not admit it, unless those utterances were in connection to some untoward activity he engaged in as a LE member?

[tv]

It has been opined that MF was an excellent detective, so I am asking how one, who was raised to uphold his sworn oath and raised to be a gentleman, could have uttered, which seemed to flow so easily from his tongue, imho, those types of remarks about all races and women, other than White Anglo-Saxon males.I'm asking specifically about the term you used -- pure bred. That's a common term when talking about horses or dogs not people. Curious choice of words.

[tv]

So, if MF knew, then why not admit it, unless those utterances were in connection to some untoward activity he engaged in as a LE member?I agree he should have admitted it but my feeling is that he was thinking more in terms of his own life and not a fictional screen play. How did Chris Darden know what was going to be asked?

[William Anthony]

So you think people that write crime novels or mysteries have had these things happen in real life? You think the author of the Harry Potter books can fly and do magic? Okay, William. :)

I think that the author of Harry Potter knows what children like and the authors of crime novels or mysteries have had some life experiences to draw upon in which the truly good ones are able to convey realistic human characters.

[William Anthony]

I agree he should have admitted it but my feeling is that he was thinking more in terms of his own life and not a fictional screen play. How did Chris Darden know what was going to be asked?

I don't think he would have gone down if he said he used the N word and it implied something far more sinister as Darden knew of Ms. Bell's, Ms. Sanger's and Mr. Hodge's potential testimony but had not yet heard those damaging tapes.

[tv]

Oh, I don't think that she was acting at all. There are people who find those types of vile, reprehensible, despicable, demonic remarks to be gut wrenching. If she were a black woman that had suffered prejudices associated with being a minority I could see her having that emotion. She was being dramatic. I see you've added demonic to your repertoire of words used to describe Mark Fuhrman. Please tell me it's going to be temporary.

[tv]

I don't think he would have gone down if he said he used the N word and it implied something far more sinister as Darden knew of Ms. Bell's, Ms. Sanger's and Mr. Hodge's potential testimony but had not yet heard those damaging tapes.
I guess we'll never know, will we? There are some posters on this forum that can spin a whole fantasy around this information but I prefer to just post the facts.

[William Anthony]

I'm asking specifically about the term you used -- pure bred. That's a common term when talking about horses or dogs not people. Curious choice of words.

I don't think it is so curious as people of nobility were often referred to as pure bred and there seem to be some here that want to attach that nobility to MF.

[William Anthony]

I guess we'll never know, will we?

Yes, we do know. Look at the date of the letter, discovery and the date the prosecution got a hold of the tapes.:)

[tv]

I think that the author of Harry Potter knows what children like and the authors of crime novels or mysteries have had some life experiences to draw upon in which the truly good ones are able to convey realistic human characters.If you want to believe that all novels are based on real experiences you need to read more fiction. That's why it's called fiction. As in not real.

[tv]

Yes, we do know. Look at the date of the letter, discovery and the date the prosecution got a hold of the tapes.:)She's lying IMO.

[William Anthony]

If she were a black woman that had suffered prejudices associated with being a minority I could see her having that emotion. She was being dramatic. I see you've added demonic to your repertoire of words used to describe Mark Fuhrman. Please tell me it's going to be temporary.

Are you saying that a White woman is incapable of feeling the pain of those Black women that were discriminated against? Are you saying that Whites who saw the dogs being turned lose on the freedom marchers and police beating children were incapable of tears? Are you saying that you do not feel that the words spoken by MF on the tapes were not demonic?

[tv]

I don't think it is so curious as people of nobility were often referred to as pure bred and there seem to be some here that want to attach that nobility to MF.I've not attached nobility to Det. Fuhrman. I think you've attached it to Johnnie Cochran -- the one you call magnificent.

[William Anthony]

She's lying IMO.

She would have to have been clairvoyant to be able to say MF said some of the things he said to her that were the same as those on the tapes. What reason do you feel she had for lying against MF?

[tv]

Are you saying that a White woman is incapable of feeling the pain of those Black women that were discriminated against? Are you saying that Whites who saw the dogs being turned lose on the freedom marchers and police beating children were incapable of tears? Are you saying that you do not feel that the words spoken by MF on the tapes were not demonic?

Please show me where Ms. Bell ever experienced any of those things. By the way, are you sure you know the meaning of the word demonic?

[William Anthony]

I've not attached nobility to Det. Fuhrman. I think you've attached it to Johnnie Cochran -- the one you call magnificent.

I did not say you did, as I said some, although you are becoming dangerously close, imho. Yes, there was a nobility about the magnificence of the magnificent one's courtroom skills, imho.

[GreenIce]

I had never thought about that option for her but i think she could have dodged a lot of quesitons that she got on that issue.

It seems that Vanhatter and the two other cops did try to tell her to leave the s walkway glove alone as it was Vanhatter that testified that he saw no evidence that anyone jumped the fence there same for the other two detectives that investigated that area. I had wondered why Vanhatter would take a position against what Clarke took.

This may actually point to something Cochran said from the beginning.'RUSH TO JUDGEMENT" I believe the prosecution moved to charge oj before they had all of their ducks lined up in order.There was no rush or there should have been no rush.Oj was going no place and neither were the court room.

The prosecution played a lot to the media leaking a lot of stuff against oj to build public opinion for their case.

When Fuhrman "found" the gove she immediately said ok oj dropped it there.

On 6/13 while at Rockingham if she did not go to the s walkway to view the conditions of the growth she should have.There is no excuse for her not to
instruct Vanhatter to do a investigation on the possibilities or bring in a hedge expert to ask if there was evidence of anyone jumping the fence and going through the growth.She didn't and she lost the opportunity to prove someone did or someonf didn't. she just thought her idea made sense to her so thats it.
She seemed to completely ignore the blood drops from the bronco going directly to oj front door which Vanhatter stuck to.

Le walked from the Bronco to the salingers yard down that walkway to the start of the growth.No evidence that anyone made that trip yet oj was suppose to be bleeding all over the place.

However i think Furhman may have given her troulbe if she dropped the glove as that was one of the issues that he thought inbedded him into the case in his reach for fame and to be the heavy in the case. I believe that would motivate him to go to the media about the glove.

I am not sure if Kato testified about the 10:45 time before the defense found Heidstra but that was another problem for her.

When le first interviewed neighbors they found P Fujenvis sp and Stein who testified that they heard the dog starting at about 10:10. Clarke initially said the murders took place at 10:20. So did the dog start barking 10 minutes before the murders? if oj was the killer, where was he from 10:22 until he was supose to have arrived at his front door.If oj was the killer and he left Bundy at 10:22 how did JS se him when she said she did.

When the defense found Heidstra, his testimony blew Clarks 10:20 murder time right out of the waters and she kinda backed off of it.But the jury had already heard her claims of 10:20

I am not sure if G.G. approved of clarks master plan or not but if he did he shares some responsibility for these errors in judgement. imo

Martin,

In reality, the DA's found Mr. Heidstra, they even wrote him a letter saying how important his testimony was going to be. When they turned over his statement to the police, they had his address and phone number blocked out. It was then the defense PI's had to find him.

Clark and VA&L went after each other in their books. However, there are a lot of clues in both books that IMO, point to the obvious problems of evidence later.

VA&L say that Clark was pushy, she wanted the results of the tests right away on the glove. In fact, Michelle Kestler was complaining about this. I guess this went for a few days. My point is, why not focus on the socks? Why didn't Clark or the two detectives care about the socks? The socks were found inside the home, shouldn't they have been the focus this early on?

As for the blood drops at Bundy. If they went to Rockingham to just tell Simpson about the murders, then why did MF even bother with the Bronco? He says that the Bronco was park "funny" but what does really mean? If I remember correctly, MF just walked away from the other three to check out this funny parked Bronco, didn't any of them ask him where he was going and what was he doing? IMO, Fuhrman knew who's Bronco it was before they the 4 of them left for Rockingham.

Also, did anyone ever testify that Simpson never parked his Bronco "funny". Did he always parked his Bronco picture perfect but this was the first time he didn't?

According to Joe Bosco's book, he says that Rosa Lopez did see the Bronco that night and it was already parked, "funny". It that is what I got out of it. The time she saw it really was not the importance of her testimony, IMO.

MF was the only source of the early leaks. I think within hours, the story was that the glove was dropped as a result of Simpson running into the AC unit. Clark used MF's description of what he said happened in her closing arguments but never had to that belief during the trial.

I find it interesting that the DA's focused the Rockingham timeline much more then they did on the time of death. They had ample "clocks" to narrow this down, yet the focus was on what Kato heard? When the dog started to bark and then wail?

I would think a rape kit, melting ice cream, candles burning, a bath tub full of water would have been much more important and reliable then a dog barking.
IMO, I think this evidence was in fact considered by the DA's and realized that it placed the time of death much later.

Simpson knew the layout of the house. He knew he could have left through the condo and by pass, what, 3 gates? The dog walker hears a gate slam, why would Simpson now be bent on making noises that would draw attention to himself?

[William Anthony]

Please show me where Ms. Bell ever experienced any of those things. By the way, are you sure you know the meaning of the word demonic?

Are you saying that Ms. Bell never owned a television, which admittedly she did? Are you saying that she never watched programs that showed the dogs and beatings that were directed toward Black children freedom marchers?

[William Anthony]

If you want to believe that all novels are based on real experiences you need to read more fiction. That's why it's called fiction. As in not real.

That's not what I said. :)

[GreenIce]

Yes, a G has answered this before. He was bragging to impress a woman -- something men have been doing forever.

TV,

Tell me, after listening to the tapes and hearing from K. Bell and Natalie Singer, did it impress you as being verbal foreplay? Would you be impressed if he spoke that way in front of you?

And yes, I did have you on ignore however, I thought that as your buddy and your pal, that I owed it to you to point out your misguided thinking on this case. You don't have thank me on the boards---just keep those checks coming!

[William Anthony]

http://healtheland.wordpress.com/2007/04/20/demon-of-the-day-racism/

I simply said that MF' words were demonic, smile.

[tv]

She would have to have been clairvoyant to be able to say MF said some of the things he said to her that were the same as those on the tapes. What reason do you feel she had for lying against MF?I think a lot of people wanted in on the trial for their own reasons. Let's say she was telling the truth -- it had been ten years since she supposedly heard those words from Mark Fuhrman in 1985 and it had been seven years since he said the N word on the McKinney tapes. Judge Ito was wrong to allow any of it in.

[tv]

TV,

Tell me, after listening to the tapes and hearing from K. Bell and Natalie Singer, did it impress you as being verbal foreplay? Would you be impressed if he spoke that way in front of you?

And yes, I did have you on ignore however, I thought that as your buddy and your pal, that I owed it to you to point out your misguided thinking on this case. You don't have thank me on the boards---just keep those checks coming!

Please don't point out anything to me. When I read your posts I frequently feel like I'm entering an alternate dimension. You're just way out there, girl! Verbal foreplay?? Exaggerate much?

[William Anthony]

I think a lot of people wanted in on the trial for their own reasons. Let's say she was telling the truth -- it had been ten years since she supposedly heard those words from Mark Fuhrman in 1985 and it had been seven years since he said the N word on the McKinney tapes. Judge Ito was wrong to allow any of it in.

I have given the reason and it was quite astute of the Brilliant Bailey, who made the argument, IIRC, that the tapes were permissible as a witness' credibility is always at issue. Perhaps, if MF had admitted he spoke the vile, reprehensible, despicable and demonic words, the tapes would not have been admissible.

[tv]

That's not what I said. :)Are we parsing words again, William?

[tv]

I have given the reason and it was quite astute of the Brilliant Bailey, who made the argument, IIRC, that the tapes were permissible as a witness' credibility is always at issue. Perhaps, if MF had admitted he spoke the vile, reprehensible, despicable and demonic words, the tapes would not have been admissible.I've already assigned the word brilliant to Mr. Bugliosi. You'll have to pick another one for Bailey. :)

[William Anthony]

Are we parsing words again, William?

No, I just want to be correctly acknowledged.

[tv]

Are you saying that Ms. Bell never owned a television, which admittedly she did? Are you saying that she never watched programs that showed the dogs and beatings that were directed toward Black children freedom marchers?
Not going there today. :)

[William Anthony]

I've already assigned the word brilliant to Mr. Bugliosi. You'll have to pick another one for Bailey. :)

I called Bailey brilliant long before you mentioned Bugliosi as being brilliant but I do not claim ownership of the adjective.

[William Anthony]

Not going there today. :)

You indicated that she was not capable of having those feelings, or was lying about them, so I understand you reason for not wanting to go there.:)