View Full Version : Random Discussions On The Case
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 11:54 AM
A reasonable inference is that there would have been blood on the knife if Mr. RG was killed first and there would have been blood on the hair of Ms. NBS, if the scenario is that Simpson killed Mr. RG first. Reasonable doubt and a sophisticated jury comes to mind.
A reasonable inference is that there would have been blood on the knife if Mr. RG was killed first and there would have been blood on the hair of Ms. NBS, if the scenario is that Simpson killed Mr. RG first. Reasonable doubt and a sophisticated jury comes to mind.
You may infer if that's what you prefer. I'm more interested in actual testimony that the killer was left handed.
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 11:57 AM
Correction: #9740. No, I don't think the killer combed Nicole's hair.
Then based on the jury instruction and the "endless number of possibilities" to explain how that one hair got on the right hand glove, the jury had no choice but to find reasonable doubt on that issues, IMHO. Don't you agree?
Then based on the jury instruction and the "endless number of possibilities" to explain how that one hair got on the right hand glove, the jury had no choice but to find reasonable doubt on that issues, IMHO. Don't you agree?
I don't know if the jury considered the hair on the glove so I really can't answer that.
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 11:59 AM
You may infer if that's what you prefer. I'm more interested in actual testimony that the killer was left handed.
There is no need to become testy. See my post #9741 and your original post was testimony that the killer 'could have been left handed".
Kate Sachel
06-09-2009, 12:00 PM
I think it is the majority opinion that the gloves did not fit. I think that things that do not fit come off more quickly than when they are attempted to be forced on.
What polls or specific information are you using in your belief that it is the majority opinion?
I disagree with your last statement. The ring that I wear that used to belong to my mother goes on far more easily than it comes off.
Kate
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 12:01 PM
I don't know if the jury considered the hair on the glove so I really can't answer that.
Let's observe equality and make the presumption that the jury considered the hair since we did, and try to answer that question, okay?
Let's observe equality and make the presumption that the jury considered the hair since we did, and try to answer that question, okay?
I really can't do that unless I know if they considered it.
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 12:04 PM
What polls or specific information are you using in your belief that it is the majority opinion?
I disagree with your last statement. The ring that I wear that used to belong to my mother goes on far more easily than it comes off.
Kate
I am not referring to any polls but I think that the majority agree that the gloves do not fit.
I was speaking in generalities and was not considering rings or things left on for long times on appendages, because my fingers swell and my rings are harder to come off. However, if I have articles of clothing half on, such as socks, they slip off easily when I am walking.
weezer
06-09-2009, 12:05 PM
What polls or specific information are you using in your belief that it is the majority opinion?
I disagree with your last statement. The ring that I wear that used to belong to my mother goes on far more easily than it comes off.
Kate
I guess the poster has never pulled off a pair of pants that were last year's size! LOL
Kate Sachel
06-09-2009, 12:06 PM
A poster posted this opinion but i agree that it is not accurate or possible.
The nature of the wounds suggested that if the assailant were using the right hand, the attacker would have been face to face with Ms. Simpson. If using the left hand, the attack would have come from behind. . ."
__________________
I believe that it's possible but that it is not accurate. The bloody footprint on her back suggests to me that OJ placed a foot on her back, pulled her up and slashed her throat.
Kate
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 12:07 PM
I really can't do that unless I know if they considered it.
Well, then allow me to rephrase the question? Based on the jury instruction in the trial and your statement as to the endless possibilities as to how hair could have gotten on that glove, do you not think that a jury obligated to uphold their oath to follow the instructions would have found reasonable doubt on that issue?
Kate Sachel
06-09-2009, 12:09 PM
I am not referring to any polls but I think that the majority agree that the gloves do not fit.
I was speaking in generalities and was not considering rings or things left on for long times on appendages, because my fingers swell and my rings are harder to come off. However, if I have articles of clothing half on, such as socks, they slip off easily when I am walking.
I see.
Do you struggle to put your feet in your socks?
Kate
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 12:11 PM
I know that if clothes are not put on the places they should be, like around the waist and not the thighs, or not tied on they will slip of.
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 12:13 PM
I see.
Do you struggle to put your feet in your socks?
Kate
No, sometimes I grab a pair put on to let the dogs out, if they signal to me that they are in a hurry. If I grab socks belonging to someone else and they fit only partially but are almost on and I go to let the dogs out, they will slip off, usually on the basement floor at that. :)
Kate Sachel
06-09-2009, 12:16 PM
No, sometimes I grab a pair put on to let the dogs out, if they signal to me that they are in a hurry. If I grab socks belonging to someone else and they fit only partially but are almost on and I go to let the dogs out, they will slip off, usually on the basement floor at that. :)
That made me laugh. And because I am a dog lover I now must know what kind of dogs you have.
Kate
Well, then allow me to rephrase the question? Based on the jury instruction in the trial and your statement as to the endless possibilities as to how hair could have gotten on that glove, do you not think that a jury obligated to uphold their oath to follow the instructions would have found reasonable doubt on that issue?
I definitely think the jury is obligated to uphold their oath.
There is no need to become testy. See my post #9741 and your original post was testimony that the killer 'could have been left handed".
Truly, William, I'm not testy. I'm surprised you feel that I am.
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 12:19 PM
That made me laugh. And because I am a dog lover I now must know what kind of dogs you have.
Kate
Three Pitt Bulls.
Did you see the trial testimony about the left handed killer or, if you will, killer using the left hand?
I can find no testimony that the killer was left handed.
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 12:21 PM
I definitely think the jury is obligated to uphold their oath.
Ah yes, and, if they upheld their oath based on your statement that the possibilities were endless, then there was reasonable doubt on that issue, IMHO.
Kate Sachel
06-09-2009, 12:24 PM
Three Pitt Bulls.
Aren't you frightened that they'll ravage you in your sleep? My Shiba Inu would be cowering in the presence of your canines.
Kate
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 12:25 PM
I can find no testimony that the killer was left handed.
Your original post 9726
Do you have a link to testimony that the killer could have been left handed? I've looked but am unable to find it.
I supplied that and now you try to change your request.:)
Ah yes, and, if they upheld their oath based on your statement that the possibilities were endless, then there was reasonable doubt on that issue, IMHO.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I'm still looking for testimony that the killer could have been, or was, left handed.
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 12:27 PM
Aren't you frightened that they'll ravage you in your sleep? My Shiba Inu would be cowering in the presence of your canines.
Kate
They show no signs of aggressiveness toward me or children, although I watch them carefully. They are very jealous of each other and show plenty affection. I sometimes wonder if they are going to lick me and others that I bring in the home to death.
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 12:31 PM
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I'm still looking for testimony that the killer could have been, or was, left handed.
I told you were to look but I am not opposed to assisting you in your search, so here it is.
MR. KELBERG: All right. How about a left-handed situation?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Left-handed situation, it would have to be--the perpetrator would have to be more on the left side like this, in this manner, being the back of the victim, or the perpetrator could also be on the side, on his side facing the--I mean the victim could be on--the victim's side could be facing the perpetrator's knife in this manner, but little more, the victim being turning so that he could have back to front, left to right direction (demonstrating)."
I told you were to look but I am not opposed to assisting you in your search, so here it is.
MR. KELBERG: All right. How about a left-handed situation?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Left-handed situation, it would have to be--the perpetrator would have to be more on the left side like this, in this manner, being the back of the victim, or the perpetrator could also be on the side, on his side facing the--I mean the victim could be on--the victim's side could be facing the perpetrator's knife in this manner, but little more, the victim being turning so that he could have back to front, left to right direction (demonstrating)."
Thank you.
MR. KELBERG: And doctor, given how you appear in this exhibit, is it your opinion that the perpetrator of that stab/incise wound used his or her right hand to inflict that injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And is it your opinion that the perpetrator used his or her left hand to pull the hair of Nicole Brown Simpson and thus reflect the neck in a hyperextended fashion as shown in this photograph?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 12:54 PM
Thank you.
MR. KELBERG: And doctor, given how you appear in this exhibit, is it your opinion that the perpetrator of that stab/incise wound used his or her right hand to inflict that injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And is it your opinion that the perpetrator used his or her left hand to pull the hair of Nicole Brown Simpson and thus reflect the neck in a hyperextended fashion as shown in this photograph?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
That is his opinion, which is contradicted by the hair evidence, IMHO.
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 01:00 PM
Thank you.
MR. KELBERG: And doctor, given how you appear in this exhibit, is it your opinion that the perpetrator of that stab/incise wound used his or her right hand to inflict that injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And is it your opinion that the perpetrator used his or her left hand to pull the hair of Nicole Brown Simpson and thus reflect the neck in a hyperextended fashion as shown in this photograph?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
"MR. SHAPIRO: Are you certain as to whether the assailant--as to whether there was one or more assailants regarding Nicole Brown Simpson?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I'm not certain.
MR. SHAPIRO: Are you certain as to whether the assailant or assailants were right or left-handed?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I've already opined on that, I think.
MR. SHAPIRO: I'm asking you are you certain?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I'm not certain."
MR. SHAPIRO: And again, that is because you weren't there and there are no eyewitnesses to this; isn't that correct?
"Can you tell us how many ways a right-handed person can hold a knife as an expert?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I think the best way is to demonstrate it.
MR. SHAPIRO: So the answer--would you give us an answer or you cannot tell us?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I can tell you if you have the knife, if you can give it to me, a weapon, and I can show you one of the ways I think it can be held, but to make it useful as an object, you can hold it in certain ways, but in certain other positions it won't be useful as to the function of that weapon.
MR. SHAPIRO: So I understand you, and I don't want to belabor this point, you can't articulate how many ways a right-handed person can hold a knife?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I think for somebody to understand it will be difficult. Unless you give a demonstration in certain types of situations, that is the best way to do it.
MR. SHAPIRO: Well, let's assume we have reasonably intelligent people listening. Can you verbalize how many ways a right-handed person can hold a knife? If you can't, just say you can't.
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I said I could, but I said it will be better demonstrated.
MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. You can. What is the answer? How many ways can a right-handed person hold a knife?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: You can hold it with the blunt edge facing you, the sharp edge facing you, depending on where you hold the handle. There are only two parts of the knife, the blade and the handle. You are going to hold it in the handle portion, and if it is a single-edge knife, the one sharp edge is going to face you when you hold it in one manner. If you will rotate the knife, the blunt edge is going to face you and hopefully you won't hold it in the blade portion so then it won't serve the function. And if it is a double edge knife, it doesn't matter how you hold it, because both edges are available for causing the function you want it to perform.
MR. SHAPIRO: So your answer is for a single-edge knife you can hold it in two positions?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: And for a double-edged knife you can hold it in one position?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: For a right-handed person?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Would your answer be the same for left-handed person?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Can people hold knives in different angles?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: They could.
MR. SHAPIRO: Would there be an infinite number of angles that somebody could hold a knife?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes."
That is his opinion, which is contradicted by the hair evidence, IMHO.
His testimony was that the killer was right handed. There was no testimony that the killer was left handed.
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 01:08 PM
His testimony was that the killer was right handed. There was no testimony that the killer was left handed.
His testimony was that it was his opinion that the killer was right handed, "is it your opinion that the perpetrator of that stab/incise wound used his or her right hand to inflict that injury?" He never testified that the killer was right handed and I posted the testimony where he could not say what hand the killer was or used. I posted the testimony to answer your request as to testimony saying the killer could have been left handed. I guess you are the female counterpart of another poster, who shall out of respect for you, shall remain nameless. Lighthearted banter, lighthearted banter.:)
His testimony was that it was his opinion that the killer was right handed, "is it your opinion that the perpetrator of that stab/incise wound used his or her right hand to inflict that injury?" He never testified that the killer was right handed and I posted the testimony where he could not say what hand the killer was or used. I posted the testimony to answer your request as to testimony saying the killer could have been left handed. I guess you are the female counterpart of another poster, who shall out of respect for you, shall remain nameless. Lighthearted banter, lighthearted banter.:)
It was Dr. Lakshmanan's experienced and learned opinion. I've looked to see if the defense put on another expert to say the killer was left handed but, again, I'm not finding it.
martin II
06-09-2009, 01:14 PM
A reasonable inference is that there would have been blood on the knife if Mr. RG was killed first and there would have been blood on the hair of Ms. NBS, if the scenario is that Simpson killed Mr. RG first. Reasonable doubt and a sophisticated jury comes to mind.
nicole was killed first.
weezer
06-09-2009, 01:24 PM
Nicole was down first
martin II
06-09-2009, 01:43 PM
His testimony was that the killer was right handed. There was no testimony that the killer was left handed.
noper
he onluy said it was his opinion that the killer could be righ handed. he did not even do the autopsy. Why was there no hairs on the left glove.
noper
he onluy said it was his opinion that the killer could be righ handed. he did not even do the autopsy. Why was there no hairs on the left glove.
Any expert that testifies is giving his opinion. That includes Dr. Lee and all the rest.
martin II
06-09-2009, 01:51 PM
His testimony was that the killer was right handed. There was no testimony that the killer was left handed.
tv
this what he said.
MR. SHAPIRO: Are you certain as to whether the assailant or assailants were right or left-handed?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I've already opined on that, I think.
MR. SHAPIRO: I'm asking you are you certain?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I'm not certain."
he was not certain.
tv
this what he said.
MR. SHAPIRO: Are you certain as to whether the assailant or assailants were right or left-handed?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I've already opined on that, I think.
MR. SHAPIRO: I'm asking you are you certain?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: I'm not certain."
he was not certain.
It was his opinion based on his experience in the field. If the defense put on a witness to offer testimony that the killer was left handed I haven't been able to find it.
martin II
06-09-2009, 01:55 PM
Any expert that testifies is giving his opinion. That includes Dr. Lee and all the rest.
Not absolutely true as some testify to a medical certainty.This guy said he was not certain of which hand left or right.
He worked for Dr BADEN in the NY coronors office.
Not absolutely true as some testify to a medical certainty.This guy said he was not certain of which hand left or right.
He worked for Dr BADEN in the NY coronors office.
To a degree of medical certainty.
martin II
06-09-2009, 02:00 PM
We lnow that the killer was not face to face with nicole but we don't know why the left hand that was supposed to have pulled her hair/head back had no hair on it. That is the problem with the right hand killer.
martin II
06-09-2009, 02:01 PM
To a degree of medical certainty.
Correct and he did not do that because he was not certain.
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 02:02 PM
It was Dr. Lakshmanan's experienced and learned opinion. I've looked to see if the defense put on another expert to say the killer was left handed but, again, I'm not finding it.
The defense need not put on an expert when the testimony that the killer could have been left-handed was elicited on direct. The defense elicited the fact that the expert was not certain or in other words did not know who held the knife in what manner in which hand, in short, the expert knew nothing.
martin II
06-09-2009, 02:06 PM
Nicole was either hit on the head by the killer or she fell and hit her head on a step. the killer was cutting her neck when ron appeared and yelled.Ron was then attacked and killed by one or two killers.imo
The defense need not put on an expert when the testimony that the killer could have been left-handed was elicited on direct. The defense elicited the fact that the expert was not certain or in other words did not know who held the knife in what manner in which hand, in short, the expert knew nothing.
There was no testimony in the trial that the killer was left handed. There is plenty of testimony to discuss in this trial without following red herrings.
martin II
06-09-2009, 02:11 PM
DR. LAKSHMANAN seemed to be inclined to support the DAS position which is why he testified on the autopsy findings and not the doctor that actually did the autposy.i have not been able to understand why this switch was made.
martin II
06-09-2009, 02:13 PM
There was no testimony in the trial that the killer was left handed. There is plenty of testimony to discuss in this trial without following red herrings.
no testimony that the killer was right handed as no one was certain.just opinion.
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 02:14 PM
There was no testimony in the trial that the killer was left handed. There is plenty of testimony to discuss in this trial without following red herrings.
Please, post the testimony in the trial where it was said that the killer was right handed?
martin II
06-09-2009, 02:17 PM
There was no testimony in the trial that the killer was left handed. There is plenty of testimony to discuss in this trial without following red herrings.
Why no hair on the left hand glove?
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 02:17 PM
There was no testimony in the trial that the killer was left handed. There is plenty of testimony to discuss in this trial without following red herrings.
Here we go again. You say something, "where is the testimony that the killer could have been left-handed." I posted the testimony answering your request and you change it to there was no testimony that the killer was left handed and then do not want to discuss your statements, all of which sound reminiscent of another subject you make statements about and then do not want to discuss.:)
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 02:20 PM
DR. LAKSHMANAN seemed to be inclined to support the DAS position which is why he testified on the autopsy findings and not the doctor that actually did the autposy.i have not been able to understand why this switch was made.
Martin,
Have you realized that when some Gs are trapped by the evidence they call it red herrings and do not wish to discuss it anymore.:)
weezer
06-09-2009, 02:28 PM
tvdinner, have you noticed how some NG's, when trapped by evidence and testimony, want to throw crap against the wall that they can never substantiate except with 'wasn't asked' or 'reasonable doubt'?
the expert's opinion was that the murderer was right-handed. when asked on cross if he was 'certain', and since the doctor did not witness the killing, the answer of course had to be 'no.'
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 02:28 PM
There was no testimony in the trial that the killer was left handed. There is plenty of testimony to discuss in this trial without following red herrings.
Your latest interest in sticking to the testimony is interesting.
Your post interested me so I went back and read that page --
"So the man wearing those shoes on the night of June 12th had not worn them extensively before that, and might have had them as long as 3 1/2 years. This could suggest that the owner never really cared for the shoes, making them a perfect choice for murder because he knew he might have to throw them away. The gloves may have been similarly selected for the same reason: they were getting old (the right-hand glove was very worn) and didn't fit very well so the killer didn't mind that he'd have to get rid of them forever after the crime."
What part of the trial testimony was this from?
fgump2
06-09-2009, 02:32 PM
The forcibly removed hair of Ms. NBS found on the right handed Rockingham glove does not fit the scenario of Ms. NBS being killed by a right handed murderer, since the theory is that the murderer pulled her head back and cut her throat, nor did the gloves the prosecution claimed were the murder weapons fit Simpson's hands.
I think you are making too much out of the hair on the right glove. As fbgweezer wrote, the left glove could have been removed by the time SImpson pulled the hair back. As for the lack of blood on the hair, I think that is possible to pull a hair out and cut a persn without getting blood on the hair. It would be hard to do an experiment on this. Who would volunteer to be the one to take Nicole's spot?
Another possibility is that, as I think Kate wrote, a right handed person could have pulled the hair back with his right hand and cut with his left. Simpson had arthritis on at least one of his hands, Cochran said he couldn't shuffle cards, so his choice of which hand to pull hair would be hard to predict.
I don't think the defense brought this up in the criminal trial, so if it is am important point does this mean that Cochran wasn't so magnificent after all? And what about Henry Lee, was overlooking this another of his blunders? I mean if the one of the world's best criminologist and one of the world's best defense lawyers overlooked it, how could it be an important point? And that leaves out the brilliant Bailey; especially if he was sobor when he thought about this point.
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 02:32 PM
Martin,
What does apples, making a statement/request to have something shown by the evidence, and when one does that the poster changes the discussion to oranges, by saying something different to the original request/statement, and then when confronted with the changes expresses a desire not to want to discuss fruit have to do with another poster, who makes an observation of this and wants to discuss fish trying to relate it to the fruit conversation?:):shrug:
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 02:39 PM
I think you are making too much out of the hair on the right glove. As fbgweezer wrote, the left glove could have been removed by the time SImpson pulled the hair back. As for the lack of blood on the hair, I think that is possible to pull a hair out and cut a persn without getting blood on the hair. It would be hard to do an experiment on this. Who would volunteer to be the one to take Nicole's spot?
Another possibility is that, as I think Kate wrote, a right handed person could have pulled the hair back with his right hand and cut with his left. Simpson had arthritis on at least one of his hands, Cochran said he couldn't shuffle cards, so his choice of which hand to pull hair would be hard to predict. THE FACT THAT YOU THINK MY POINT IS IMPORTANT INDICATES REASONABLE DOUBT TO ME.
I don't think the defense brought this up in the criminal trial, so if it is am important point does this mean that Cochran wasn't so magnificent after all? DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF CROSS EXAMINATION And what about Henry Lee, was overlooking this another of his blunders? I mean if the one of the world's best criminologist and one of the world's best defense lawyers overlooked it, how could it be an important point? And that leaves out the brilliant Bailey; especially if he was sobor when he thought about this point.
I would suspect you made a typo and meant sober. Was it not you that brought up the subject of the hair on the glove and did you not think it important enough to bring up?
fgump2
06-09-2009, 02:50 PM
I would suspect you made a typo and meant sober. Was it not you that brought up the subject of the hair on the glove and did you not think it important enough to bring up?
Yes, I did mean sober. I notice you don't write about spelling mistakes in posting you agree with.
I did bring up the fact that I thought there was a Nicole hair on the right glove but none on the left. I don't think we can conclude much from that.
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 02:55 PM
Yes, I did mean sober. I notice you don't write about spelling mistakes in posting you agree with.
I did bring up the fact that I thought there was a Nicole hair on the right glove but none on the left. I don't think we can conclude much from that.
I just wanted to make sure whether you meant sober or somber or something entirely different as it related to the brilliant Bailey.
I thought you initiated the conversation about the hair and, if you did not think that we can conclude (I agree) much from that, then why did you bring it up, other than it allows us to draw inferences. Because so many inferences have been drawn, I think it is safe to say there is reasonable doubt on the issue of whether or not there was one right handed killer and one left handed killer. Thanks.
Here we go again. You say something, "where is the testimony that the killer could have been left-handed." I posted the testimony answering your request and you change it to there was no testimony that the killer was left handed and then do not want to discuss your statements, all of which sound reminiscent of another subject you make statements about and then do not want to discuss.:)
The testimony was elicted from Dr. Lakshamanan regarding a left handed killer by being asked a hypothetical question. It was the Dr.'s opinion that the killer was right handed, the cut on Nicole was from left to right and and the right hand glove was more worn than the left. These things show the killer to be right handed.
martin II
06-09-2009, 04:57 PM
Thank you.
MR. KELBERG: And doctor, given how you appear in this exhibit, is it your opinion that the perpetrator of that stab/incise wound used his or her right hand to inflict that injury?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And is it your opinion that the perpetrator used his or her left hand to pull the hair of Nicole Brown Simpson and thus reflect the neck in a hyperextended fashion as shown in this photograph?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.
Where is the hair on the left hanf glove that pulled the hair?
Where is the hair on the left hanf glove that pulled the hair?
Absence of hair on the left hand glove only proves no hair clung to the glove during the killing. It proves nothing else.
martin II
06-09-2009, 05:04 PM
Martin,
Have you realized that when some Gs are trapped by the evidence they call it red herrings and do not wish to discuss it anymore.:)
yes
two most of the time.
martin II
06-09-2009, 05:07 PM
The testimony was elicted from Dr. Lakshamanan regarding a left handed killer by being asked a hypothetical question. It was the Dr.'s opinion that the killer was right handed, the cut on Nicole was from left to right and and the right hand glove was more worn than the left. These things show the killer to be right handed.
Do you mean the glove became more worn during the fight?
tvdinner, have you noticed how some NG's, when trapped by evidence and testimony, want to throw crap against the wall that they can never substantiate except with 'wasn't asked' or 'reasonable doubt'?
the expert's opinion was that the murderer was right-handed. when asked on cross if he was 'certain', and since the doctor did not witness the killing, the answer of course had to be 'no.'
I've also noticed that if at some point one of us has to leave the board to take care of real life obligations we are accused of avoiding the discussion.
Of course, he had to say he couldn't be absolutely certain as he didn't personally witness it. I think a better question would have been "Was Nicole killed by someone using their right hand?"
Do you mean the glove became more worn during the fight?
Uh, no...
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 05:09 PM
The testimony was elicted from Dr. Lakshamanan regarding a left handed killer by being asked a hypothetical question. It was the Dr.'s opinion that the killer was right handed, the cut on Nicole was from left to right and and the right hand glove was more worn than the left. These things show the killer to be right handed.
It was not a hypothetical question. It was a question, explaining how the killer could have inflicted such a wound and be left-handed. Please, post the testimony where the glove was more worn. The things you post only allow an inference as does the testimony I posted. Therefore, reasonable doubt looms large.
martin II
06-09-2009, 05:09 PM
Absence of hair on the left hand glove only proves no hair clung to the glove during the killing. It proves nothing else.
very unlikely considering the force required to snap the head back.
Yes, I did mean sober. I notice you don't write about spelling mistakes in posting you agree with.
I did bring up the fact that I thought there was a Nicole hair on the right glove but none on the left. I don't think we can conclude much from that.
Absolutely agree. The absence of hair on the Bundy glove is of no significance.
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 05:11 PM
Absence of hair on the left hand glove only proves no hair clung to the glove during the killing. It proves nothing else.
It allows the reasonable and logical inference that the hair did not come in contact with the glove or, if what you say is true, then Simpson's hair on the gloves proves nothing.
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 05:13 PM
I've also noticed that if at some point one of us has to leave the board to take care of real life obligations we are accused of avoiding the discussion.
Of course, he had to say he couldn't be absolutely certain as he didn't personally witness it. I think a better question would have been "Was Nicole killed by someone using their right hand?"
Leaving the board to take care of things is not the same as saying you do not want to discuss something or that there is enough testimony to discuss other than red herrings after you have posted a quote you found interesting that was not testimony but a red herring. :)
It was not a hypothetical question. It was a question, explaining how the killer could have inflicted such a wound and be left-handed. Please, post the testimony where the glove was more worn. The things you post only allow an inference as does the testimony I posted. Therefore, reasonable doubt looms large.I've already posted testimony that the right hand glove was more worn.
martin II
06-09-2009, 05:14 PM
I've also noticed that if at some point one of us has to leave the board to take care of real life obligations we are accused of avoiding the discussion.
Of course, he had to say he couldn't be absolutely certain as he didn't personally witness it. I think a better question would have been "Was Nicole killed by someone using their right hand?"
When the DA tells the jury that the killer pulled nicoles head back and cut her with the right hand and then they are told no hair was on the left glove and then the DAS expert says he is not cetain if the killer was right or left hand they have reasonable doubt.
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 05:14 PM
Absolutely agree. The absence of hair on the Bundy glove is of no significance.
Of course it is of no significance to those predisposed to find Simpson guilty.
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 05:15 PM
I've already posted testimony that the right hand glove was more worn.
I did not see it. What was the post number?
Post #9661 --
MR. COCHRAN: And those gloves we have been talking about, the two gloves, item no. 9, LAPD number, and I think item no. 77, those gloves are--especially one of them is used. It has some--it's worn in the palm area, isn't it?
MR. RUBIN: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: There's like a hole or something in that palm area; isn't that correct?
MR. RUBIN: It appears that way.
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 05:21 PM
I've already posted testimony that the right hand glove was more worn.
This is what I found.
There are two reasons for thinking the killer was right handed. First of all the autopsy report said the killer was probably right handed. Secondly the right hand glove was more worn than the left hand glove, which also indicates a right handed person. I don't have a link that says the right hand glove was more worn, but the book by Rantala says this ch 5, page 52.
Your post interested me so I went back and read that page --
"So the man wearing those shoes on the night of June 12th had not worn them extensively before that, and might have had them as long as 3 1/2 years. This could suggest that the owner never really cared for the shoes, making them a perfect choice for murder because he knew he might have to throw them away. The gloves may have been similarly selected for the same reason: they were getting old (the right-hand glove was very worn) and didn't fit very well so the killer didn't mind that he'd have to get rid of them forever after the crime."
This is the post that you found interesting. If you posted testimony that says the glove was more worn, please post it or refer me to the post number?
Leaving the board to take care of things is not the same as saying you do not want to discuss something or that there is enough testimony to discuss other than red herrings after you have posted a quote you found interesting that was not testimony but a red herring. :)
Please quote me correctly. I didn't say I didn't want to discuss the hair on the glove.
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 05:22 PM
Post #9661 --
MR. COCHRAN: And those gloves we have been talking about, the two gloves, item no. 9, LAPD number, and I think item no. 77, those gloves are--especially one of them is used. It has some--it's worn in the palm area, isn't it?
MR. RUBIN: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: There's like a hole or something in that palm area; isn't that correct?
MR. RUBIN: It appears that way.
Where does that say right hand glove?
This is what I found.
This is the post that you found interesting. If you posted testimony that says the glove was more worn, please post it or refer me to the post number?
Post #9825 and #9661
Where does that say right hand glove?
That's the evidence number of the right hand glove.
Post #9669 --
MR. DARDEN: Let me hand you item 9, the Rockingham glove. And this is People's 164-A, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. That is the right hand glove. Mr. Darden.
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 05:28 PM
Post #9669 --
MR. DARDEN: Let me hand you item 9, the Rockingham glove. And this is People's 164-A, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. That is the right hand glove. Mr. Darden.
Where does it say that item number 9 is more worn than item number 77?
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 05:31 PM
"MR. COCHRAN: Now, are you--as an expert, do you know--assume hypothetically these gloves were purchased in 1989 or in 1990, and let's assume they were worn during the winter, during that time, rain and snow. You can't tell this jury how much those gloves shrunk during that period of time, can you?
MR. RUBIN: I cannot.
MR. COCHRAN: You have no way of knowing that, do you?
MR. RUBIN: I have no way of knowing how much liquid or rain or snow or whatever, you know, elements went onto the product and actually how they were dried.
MR. COCHRAN: So you have no way of knowing that?
MR. RUBIN: I do not.
MR. COCHRAN: It would be rank speculation again if you told us that, wouldn't it?
MR. RUBIN: I wouldn't speculate on something like this.
MR. COCHRAN: You wouldn't do that, would you?
MR. RUBIN: No, I would not.
MR. COCHRAN: And those gloves we have been talking about, the two gloves, item no. 9, LAPD number, and I think item no. 77, those gloves are--especially one of them is used. It has some--it's worn in the palm area, isn't it?
MR. RUBIN: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: There's like a hole or something in that palm area; isn't that correct?
MR. RUBIN: It appears that way.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And so that indicates to you those gloves have been used over a period of time; isn't that correct?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, it does.
MR. COCHRAN: And so you can't tell us anything about the history of those gloves from `89, `90, `91, `92, `93, `94, whatever, can you?
MR. RUBIN: No, I cannot.
Where does it say that item number 9 is more worn than item number 77?
That the wearer of the gloves was right handed.
"MR. COCHRAN: Now, are you--as an expert, do you know--assume hypothetically these gloves were purchased in 1989 or in 1990, and let's assume they were worn during the winter, during that time, rain and snow. You can't tell this jury how much those gloves shrunk during that period of time, can you?
MR. RUBIN: I cannot.
MR. COCHRAN: You have no way of knowing that, do you?
MR. RUBIN: I have no way of knowing how much liquid or rain or snow or whatever, you know, elements went onto the product and actually how they were dried.
MR. COCHRAN: So you have no way of knowing that?
MR. RUBIN: I do not.
MR. COCHRAN: It would be rank speculation again if you told us that, wouldn't it?
MR. RUBIN: I wouldn't speculate on something like this.
MR. COCHRAN: You wouldn't do that, would you?
MR. RUBIN: No, I would not.
MR. COCHRAN: And those gloves we have been talking about, the two gloves, item no. 9, LAPD number, and I think item no. 77, those gloves are--especially one of them is used. It has some--it's worn in the palm area, isn't it?
MR. RUBIN: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: There's like a hole or something in that palm area; isn't that correct?
MR. RUBIN: It appears that way.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And so that indicates to you those gloves have been used over a period of time; isn't that correct?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, it does.
MR. COCHRAN: And so you can't tell us anything about the history of those gloves from `89, `90, `91, `92, `93, `94, whatever, can you?
MR. RUBIN: No, I cannot.
okay...:shrug:
Your latest interest in sticking to the testimony is interesting.
Your post interested me so I went back and read that page --
"So the man wearing those shoes on the night of June 12th had not worn them extensively before that, and might have had them as long as 3 1/2 years. This could suggest that the owner never really cared for the shoes, making them a perfect choice for murder because he knew he might have to throw them away. The gloves may have been similarly selected for the same reason: they were getting old (the right-hand glove was very worn) and didn't fit very well so the killer didn't mind that he'd have to get rid of them forever after the crime."
What part of the trial testimony was this from?
I posted this in response to fg2's post that he read it in Rantala's book and I've posted the testimony twice. I'm not going to indulge in your games so please stop asking me questions that were covered yesterday.
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 05:47 PM
Please quote me correctly. I didn't say I didn't want to discuss the hair on the glove.
This is what you posted in response to this post.
Originally Posted by William Anthony View Post
The defense need not put on an expert when the testimony that the killer could have been left-handed was elicited on direct. The defense elicited the fact that the expert was not certain or in other words did not know who held the knife in what manner in which hand, in short, the expert knew nothing.
There was no testimony in the trial that the killer was left handed. There is plenty of testimony to discuss in this trial without following red herrings. tvdinner
You then relied on a poster posting an excerpt from a book, not testimony, to say that the right hand glove was more worn and I did not say that you said you did not want to discuss the hair on the glove but the important thing was that there was evidence by the hair on the glove that allowed an inference the killer was left-handed, which you called a red herring and did not want to discuss.
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 05:51 PM
I posted this in response to fg2's post that he read it in Rantala's book and I've posted the testimony twice. I'm not going to indulge in your games so please stop asking me questions that were covered yesterday.
I am not asking you to post something from a book, since you say there is enough testimony for us to discuss and I have not seen any testimony, saying the right hand glove was more worn or that evidence item number 9 was more worn that evidence item number 77, so I respectfully ask you to post that testimony to support your claim that you can conclude from that testimony the killer was right handed, since you do not follow red herrings or shall we say quotes from works of fiction.
This is what you posted in response to this post.
You then relied on a poster posting an excerpt from a book, not testimony, to say that the right hand glove was more worn and I did not say that you said you did not want to discuss the hair on the glove but the important thing was that there was evidence by the hair on the glove that allowed an inference the killer was left-handed, which you called a red herring and did not want to discuss.
You make too many conclusions of which you know nothing. I've read Rantala's excellent book several times. Fg2's reference to it reminded me of the section on the glove and I went back to reread. Rantala's statements are backed up by testimony. I'm not going to spend any more time defending the testimony of record and resposting it. You are starting to wander close to personal attack and that doesn't interest me.
I am not asking you to post something from a book, since you say there is enough testimony for us to discuss and I have not seen any testimony, saying the right hand glove was more worn or that evidence item number 9 was more worn that evidence item number 77, so I respectfully ask you to post that testimony to support your claim that you can conclude from that testimony the killer was right handed, since you do not follow red herrings or shall we say quotes from works of fiction.
I've posted it twice. I'm not posting it again. You're becoming nasty and snide. Not interested. :seeya:
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 05:53 PM
That the wearer of the gloves was right handed.
Where is that testimony (that the killer was right handed and that item number 99 was more worn than item number 77)? What about that Ms. Tvdinner, what about that?:)
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 05:56 PM
You make too many conclusions of which you know nothing. I've read Rantala's excellent book several times. Fg2's reference to it reminded me of the section on the glove and I went back to reread. Rantala's statements are backed up by testimony. I'm not going to spend any more time defending the testimony of record and resposting it. You are starting to wander close to personal attack and that doesn't interest me.
If it's backed up by testimony, you should be able to post it. I am not making a personal attack and please do not call it that as you made a statement that I asked you to support.
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 06:01 PM
I've posted it twice. I'm not posting it again. You're becoming nasty and snide. Not interested. :seeya:
Is that your way of saying that there is no testimony, which says the right hand glove was more worn or that item number 9 was more worn than item number 77? I am not becoming nasty, snide, disrespectful or making a personal attack. I think you are becoming disrespectful by saying so instead of saying that you inferred from the another poster's post and your reading of the testimony that the right hand glove was more worn, although the testimony does not say which glove appeared more worn, or, does not say it in the portions of the testimony you posted. If you are just looking to start an argument of feel that you can no longer be civil, then the best thing is for you to say :seeya:, IMHO.
weezer
06-09-2009, 07:51 PM
MR. DARDEN: Let me hand you item 9, the Rockingham glove. And this is People's 164-A, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. That is the right hand glove. Mr. Darden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MR. COCHRAN: And those gloves we have been talking about, the two gloves, item no. 9, LAPD number, and I think item no. 77, those gloves are--especially one of them is used. It has some--it's worn in the palm area, isn't it?
MR. RUBIN: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: There's like a hole or something in that palm area; isn't that correct?
MR. RUBIN: It appears that way.
martin II
06-09-2009, 08:03 PM
I've posted it twice. I'm not posting it again. You're becoming nasty and snide. Not interested. :seeya:
thats not true.Are trying to play the victim again. gees.
martin II
06-09-2009, 08:09 PM
You make too many conclusions of which you know nothing. I've read Rantala's excellent book several times. Fg2's reference to it reminded me of the section on the glove and I went back to reread. Rantala's statements are backed up by testimony. I'm not going to spend any more time defending the testimony of record and resposting it. You are starting to wander close to personal attack and that doesn't interest me.
Did Rantala testify? if not ,it is just another bias book.
weezer
06-09-2009, 08:11 PM
to draw a reasonable inference:
1. Receipt showing Nicole bought 2 pair Aris gloves (extra large)
2. Pictures of orenthal wearing gloves identified as Aris gloves (same model/design)
3. Aris gloves (extra large) with orenthal's and both victims' blood/hair/fiber found at murder scene and orenthal's home.
4. Jurors statement that the gloves fit.
:rolleyes:
thats not true.Are trying to play the victim again. gees.
I'm truly bewildered. I've twice posted testimony as to the evidence number of the right handed glove and the testimony that it was more worn than the left handed glove. I don't know what else I can do to satisfy your request but I'm starting to feel bullied.
Did Rantala testify? if not ,it is just another bias book.
Rantala did not testify but the information in her book is backed up by trial testimony.
MR. DARDEN: Let me hand you item 9, the Rockingham glove. And this is People's 164-A, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. That is the right hand glove. Mr. Darden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MR. COCHRAN: And those gloves we have been talking about, the two gloves, item no. 9, LAPD number, and I think item no. 77, those gloves are--especially one of them is used. It has some--it's worn in the palm area, isn't it?
MR. RUBIN: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: There's like a hole or something in that palm area; isn't that correct?
MR. RUBIN: It appears that way.
Thanks, weezer. That will now make three times that the testimony regarding the right hand glove being more worn than the left hand glove has been posted.
If it's backed up by testimony, you should be able to post it. I am not making a personal attack and please do not call it that as you made a statement that I asked you to support.
It has now been supported three times. That should be sufficient.
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 09:32 PM
I'm truly bewildered. I've twice posted testimony as to the evidence number of the right handed glove and the testimony that it was more worn than the left handed glove. I don't know what else I can do to satisfy your request but I'm starting to feel bullied.
Let me see if I can help you out of your state of bewilderment and your false claim of bullying, although your tactic of making false accusations isn't working, since no one is bullying you and your friend have failed to support your claim. Here is the difference.
"MR. DARDEN: Let me hand you item 9, the Rockingham glove. And this is People's 164-A, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. That is the right hand glove. Mr. Darden."
I am sure you see the singular of glove. Now, let's look at what you posted.
MR. COCHRAN: And those gloves we have been talking about, the two gloves, item no. 9, LAPD number, and I think item no. 77, those gloves are--especially one of them is used. It has some--it's worn in the palm area, isn't it?
MR. RUBIN: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: There's like a hole or something in that palm area; isn't that correct?
MR. RUBIN: It appears that way.
I reiterate my respectful request for the testimony that states your claim that the testimony states the right hand glove, evidence item number 9, was more worn than the left hand glove, evidence item number 77.
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 09:33 PM
Rantala did not testify but the information in her book is backed up by trial testimony.
That is the testimony I am asking you to post. :)
weezer
06-09-2009, 09:36 PM
Let me see if I can help you out of your state of bewilderment and your false claim of bullying, although your tactic of making false accusations isn't working, since no one is bullying you and your friend have failed to support your claim. Here is the difference.
"MR. DARDEN: Let me hand you item 9, the Rockingham glove. And this is People's 164-A, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. That is the right hand glove. Mr. Darden."
I am sure you see the singular of glove. Now, let's look at what you posted.
I reiterate my respectful request for the testimony that states your claim that the testimony states the right hand glove, evidence item number 9, was more worn than the left hand glove, evidence item number 77.
the statement seems very clear to most of us -- do you have something that shows that it was not the righthand glove that was more worn and had the small hole in it?
weezer
06-09-2009, 09:39 PM
TOS:
Harass, threaten, mob or cause distress or discomfort upon another TruTV message board participant, user or other individual entity;
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 09:44 PM
Thanks for the TOS reminder as I think it is harassing to constantly make false accusations against posters and I find it distressing and un-comforting when it is done to me. I think it is baiting and inflammatory to make statements as facts and not support them and that is against the rules. I think it is disrespectful to not respond to a poster's request but say that you have and then when it is pointed out that you have not to make false accusations against a poster.
weezer
06-09-2009, 09:48 PM
Thanks for the TOS reminder as I think it is harassing to constantly make false accusations against posters and I find it distressing and un-comforting when it is done to me. I think it is baiting and inflammatory to make statements as facts and not support them and that is against the rules. I think it is disrespectful to not respond to a poster's request but say that you have and then when it is pointed out that you have not to make false accusations against a poster.
you were responded to multiple times -- testimony was posted -- you just choose not to acknowledge it. I posted the TOS because you and martin tag team and harrass anyone posting on here that does not agree with your fantasies and unbelievable theories.
Now, the testimony has been posted and interpreted to be the righthand glove that was more worn than the left. You dispute that so how about YOU post something to back up your claim. Yeah -- I thought not.
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 09:49 PM
I was not the one who made the claim that there was testimony saying that the right hand glove was more worn than the left, nor did I make any claim that there was testimony that the right hand glove was not more worn than the left. Posters show something say let me show you a glove. Who is that who? Then go to some other testimony when the magnificent one asks about gloves and says one of them has a hole in it, without identifying which glove has the hole and posters use this to try to support their claim that someone testified that the right hand glove was more worn than the left and when a poster tries to point this out to them he is falsely accused and then asked to support a position on something he has never said. :)
weezer
06-09-2009, 09:51 PM
I was not the one who made the claim that there was testimony saying that the right hand glove was more worn than the left, nor did I make any claim that there was testimony that the right hand glove was not more worn than the left. Posters show something say let me show you a glove. Who is that who? Then go to some other testimony when the magnificent one asks about gloves and says one of them has a hole in it, without identifying which glove has the hole and posters use this to try to support their claim that someone testified that the right hand glove was more worn than the left and when a poster tries to point this out to them he is falsely accused and then asked to support a position on something he has never said. :)
testimony has been posted -- your problem if you are unable to comprehend and/or accept it. sorry.
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 09:54 PM
There is no need for you to say that we tag team anyone. We did not make the poster make the statement and, because we both ask that the poster support her claim, as the rules require, that is not a tag team but poster interested in truthful postings. However, the poster did not post that the testimony could be interpreted to mean that the right hand glove was more worn (an inference drawn). The poster posted that there was testimony that the right hand glove was more worn than the left. I simply do not recall that testimony and of yet haven't seen it posted. :)
weezer
06-09-2009, 09:57 PM
There is no need for you to say that we tag team anyone. We did not make the poster make the statement and, because we both ask that the poster support her claim, as the rules require, that is not a tag team but poster interested in truthful postings. However, the poster did not post that the testimony could be interpreted to mean that the right hand glove was more worn (an inference drawn). The poster posted that there was testimony that the right hand glove was more worn than the left. I simply do not recall that testimony and of yet haven't seen it posted. :)
we understand the testimony to be about the righthand glove and we've both posted it. to continue to demand a link to something that was posted multiple times is harrassing. when the demands are done in tandem with another poster, it's tagging.
William Anthony
06-09-2009, 10:02 PM
I would agree if the testimony proved what the poster claimed it proves but when it is pointed out that it does not and the poster still refuses to post testimony to support her claim, then it is not a tag team or harassment but a request for the poster to respect the rules, as I understand them, which is to provide a source to support your claim when a subject isn't common knowledge.
On another issue I found this which has nothing to do with which glove was more worn, and no one has denied that item number 9 is the right hand glove, only that the right hand glove has been identified as the most worn and simply posting the respectfully requested testimony saying this would put an end to the discussion. Here is what I found.
"MR. DARDEN: Have you noticed that there is a common manner which gloves are placed on the hand?
MR. COCHRAN: I object to that, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. I think it is a matter of common sense. Let's not waste the jury's time with this.
MR. DARDEN: In any event, Mr. Rubin, I ask that you take a look at the gloves recovered at Bundy and Rockingham and place them on your hand and give us an indication as to what size you believe the gloves now are?
MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. DARDEN: Let me hand you item 9, the Rockingham glove. And this is People's 164-A, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. That is the right hand glove. Mr. Darden."
GreenIce
06-09-2009, 11:31 PM
One of the most important facts about the gloves is that there were at least several pictures of Mr. SImpson wearing glvoes of that type. These pictures were taken when Simpson was working as a TV announcer. I think there were pictures of him wearing both black and brown gloves of that type. So he could get his hands in size extra large gloves of that type. Those pictures are more important than the sales slip. Just one of the many coincidences we have to believe if we are to think that Mr. Simpson was innocent. I think the police found a pair of black gloves like the murder gloves; but his brown pair seem to have disappeared - unless we assume that that pair were the gloves used in the murder.
fgump2,
Nicole gave two pairs of the same gloves to Tom McCollum. He gave one black and one brown glove to the DA's and the defense. Those may very well be the gloves that Nicole bought.
The pictures are what they are, they only prove that he wore a pair of gloves. Without the tag inside the glove, without the color, size and model number of the gloves on the receipt, there is no way to confirm or prove one way or the other about the gloves. There is more then one size of extra large gloves. In fact, the DA's were burned by this. Apparently, there was a debate between the DA's about having him try on the gloves, apparently they used Phil Vanatter's hands and they felt his hands were the same size as Simpson's. However, while both men may have large hands, that does not mean they could wear the same size of extra large. For example, the width of the glove. Don't forget, Simpson need wider gloves to make sure the heating device he wore during the winter months would fit inside the glove. Were his fingers the same length as Vanatter's? Did one man have long slender fingers vs long 'fat" fingers? There are many other parts to this debate.
I think it is also significant to mention that a active member of the Aris company was not called to testify. When Brenda V, tried to confirm the tag information with this company, she never got a reply.
There were also gloves taken from Simpson's home, these were not used either. Again, with out the size, color and model number, it is impossible to determine what type of gloves Simpson was wearing. I know the Rubin cited the stictch as unique, but were they the only glove company that used that stitch in making their gloves? Does "exclusive" mean no other glove company can use that stitch?
GreenIce
06-09-2009, 11:36 PM
Wrong, there is no evidence that contradicts Park’s testimony that the first person he saw that night was a white male come from behind the house down the pathway with a flashlight. None of Simpson’s attorneys ever disputed that part of Park’s testimony. Just because you created a fantasy that you want to believe raises doubts to you does not mean your doubts are credible.
bobaugust
Mr. August,
Didn't Park insist that he saw a car that was not there that night? That he was positive he saw it? Now, in all fairness, if Park insisted that he saw the white male before the African-American, how can the defense dispute Park's claim? How can they prove that Park was mistaken on this issue? It is not like the lights, where it could be proved what he could have seen from his vantage point.
And again, IMO, the real issue is what he should have heard as well as what he should have saw when he backed out the estate. IMO.
GreenIce
06-09-2009, 11:50 PM
GreenIce, I’m not going to quote everything Clark wrote about how uncooperative she believed Kaelin was. If you read her book you evidently didn’t understand what she wrote about this.
The proof that someone was behind Kaelin’s room was Kaelin’s testimony that if it wasn’t an earthquake then someone was back there as well as the fact that the glove was found right behind the wall of his room. It wasn’t an earthquake.
I don’t believe Clark was lying about the blood drops she just came to the wrong conclusion. All of the blood drops that were seen were on metal, cement, plastic, or fabric. No blood drops were ever found on any natural surface except for the leaves of the plants near the victims.
There is no evidence that the glove was in a plastic bag. That was only imaginary speculation. The blood and fiber evidence found on the killer’s right hand glove points only to Simpson as handling that glove, not to anyone else.
There was no other path that Simpson could have used after parking his Bronco on Rockingham.
bobaugust
Mr. August,
I read Clark's book and I know what she said about Kato. However, she provided no proof that Kato was slanting his testimony toward the defense. If he was, you and William would not be engaging in the "Great Debate" regarding Park Kato. He would have changed his description of the thumps or given a different time.
Clark making Kato a hostile witness was just a ploy on her part, she got what she wanted from him regarding the time of the noise but that was it. He would not say what she wanted him to say. She may very well felt that he knew more then what he was telling but she needed to prove it and failed.
Clark had ample opportunties to give a clearer description of the thumps, however Clark elected not to do that. She did not ever have Kato go behind the wall and to point out where he actually heard the thumps. Point his finger at the picture on the wall does not mean that was the exact same place. Kato's fist banging on the witness stand did not even come close to a person crashing into a wall.
You have spoken several times about wires, etc., however, you have provided no proof that these wires could support a man of 200 pounds nor have you provided any proof that a 200 pound person could have been the source of the noise as well as the thumps that Kato heard. If your explaination is true, then the DA's should have had no problem proofing this.
However, they elected not to address this issue until her closing. However, she never has him climbing over the fence and running out of the alley. She has him running into the alley, crashing into an A/C unit and then dropping the glove. It was her job to prove how the glove got back there, thus having to prove how Simpson got back there.
There was an area through a neighbor's yard and tennis court on to his property. He had no reason to risk being seen or heard.
fgump2
06-09-2009, 11:51 PM
Where is the hair on the left hanf glove that pulled the hair?
I don't know. I don't think the prosecution is required to dot all the 'i's or cross all the 't's. I tink that most criminologists and other experts wouldn't pay much attention to the hair on the gloves. I don't think the prosecution never claimed the killelr was wearing a glove on the left hand at the time he cut Nicolose's throat.
There was a bloody footprint on Nicole's back. If that footprint was parallel to Nicole's back, it should be possible to use that information along with the neck cut information to detirmine which hand did the cutting.
The coroners seem to think they can tell in which direction the cut was made. This, along with the footprint, should detirmine pretty accurately which hand did the cutting and which hand held the hair. If the footprint was at right angles to the back, then it would be harder to detirmine which hand did the cutting.
I think that Nicole's neck was probably cut more on one side than on the other. That along with the direction of the cut would provide information about how she was cut. For example i
I am puzzled that people who have so much faith Cochran, Lee, and Bailey are bringing up points that they never brought up.
To try to figure out how the hair got on the right hand glove would be difficult and not prove much.
I would agree if the testimony proved what the poster claimed it proves but when it is pointed out that it does not and the poster still refuses to post testimony to support her claim, then it is not a tag team or harassment but a request for the poster to respect the rules, as I understand them, which is to provide a source to support your claim when a subject isn't common knowledge.
On another issue I found this which has nothing to do with which glove was more worn, and no one has denied that item number 9 is the right hand glove, only that the right hand glove has been identified as the most worn and simply posting the respectfully requested testimony saying this would put an end to the discussion. Here is what I found.
"MR. DARDEN: Have you noticed that there is a common manner which gloves are placed on the hand?
MR. COCHRAN: I object to that, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. I think it is a matter of common sense. Let's not waste the jury's time with this.
MR. DARDEN: In any event, Mr. Rubin, I ask that you take a look at the gloves recovered at Bundy and Rockingham and place them on your hand and give us an indication as to what size you believe the gloves now are?
MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. DARDEN: Let me hand you item 9, the Rockingham glove. And this is People's 164-A, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. That is the right hand glove. Mr. Darden."
This was posted multiple times.
bobaugust
06-10-2009, 03:32 AM
There was one bent wire not wires as bob says and that one bent wire could have been bent by the gradner or by the photographer thay stood on the fence to take pictures of the glove or it caoulkd have been bent at installation.
The top of that chain link fence consisted of sets of wires that were twisted together with sharp ends pointing up. The photo taken from the Simpson video tape shows some wires were bent inwards towards the back wall of Kaelin’s room consistent with someone putting their shoe, and then their weight, on the top of the fence to jump from the Salinger’s property to Simpson’s property.
Post the information that supports your comment that a gardener or any photographer ever stood on that fence and bent the wires towards the back wall of Kaelin’s room.
bobaugust
bobaugust
06-10-2009, 03:34 AM
The blood drops indicate that when oj drove the bronco from his driveway to rockingham he walked in thsat gate to his house.even vanhatter testified that oj walked from thr bronco to his front door.So there was another path and he took it.
The evidence is that if Simpson had entered his estate by opening the Rockingham gate the blood drops would not be on the cement in the middle of the gate since the gate opened from one side. Unless you think Simpson just stood in the middle of the driveway and waited for the gate to completely open before entering. Is that what you think he did?
bobaugust
bobaugust
06-10-2009, 03:35 AM
It seems that quite a few understood that Park was mistaken and, hence, the need to change his testimony. I did not create a fantasy but simply reviewed all the testimony, some of which you ignore or call minor irrelevant discrepancies to support your conclusion. However, if they were minor irrelevant discrepancies the lawyers would not have tried to change or have Park change his testimony.:)
I see no change in Park’s testimony other than correcting his mistaken pre criminal trial testimony from saying while waiting to be let in the estate he thought Kaelin continued to stand on the pathway to not paying any attention to Kaelin.
Of course you created a fantasy when you claim that when Kaelin came out from behind the garage, on his first trip to investigate the noises, he went back to the Ashford path and stood there for a minute to two minutes before he went to the gate control box. When in fact every time Kaelin was asked what he did when he came out from behind the garage he never said he did anything like what you fantasize he did.
bobaugust
bobaugust
06-10-2009, 03:35 AM
Contrary to your assertion, Mr. Baker trapped Park in his testimony and ridiculed him by making fun of the preposterous assertion that, after a two and half year period, he remembered looking at the dashboard for a minute. He trapped Park, because Park said in response to Petro's question that he saw Kato walk up the driveway but Baker made him admit that he did not see Kato walk in any direction.:) Park said in response to Mr. Baker's question was that the next time he saw Kato, Kato was at the gate box.
Park said that he wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin until he saw him go to the gate control box. Baker didn’t trap Park he just reaffirmed that Park didn’t see what Kaelin did. IIRC Baker never said anything about this in his closing argument.
bobaugust
bobaugust
06-10-2009, 03:36 AM
I took umbrage with Petro's claim, which you quoted, that it was conclusively proven that the blood on the socks could not have been planted.
I said that it was conclusively proved that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock could not have come from her reference sample. And I have said that fact conclusively proved the defense sock blood planting theory to be false.
bobaugust
bobaugust
06-10-2009, 03:36 AM
I see that you have not addressed the fact that in Park's prior testimony, he stated he went to the intercom but in the socio political production he sat in the car and looked at the dashboard. Park was obviously not an adept liar, or, should I say, adept human error and mistake maker. :)
Park testified that when he finished his telephone call with Dale and he wasn’t paying any attention to what Kaelin did. Park said after waiting and no one let him in he got out of the limo and went to the intercom and spoke with Simpson. Park said he then waited some more before he finally saw Kaelin come up the driveway, go to the gate control box, and open the gate.
Park testified that when he wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin he never saw what Kaelin did.
What I said is not identical to what you said. I said that Lange did not say he saw or didn’t see blood in the Bronco because he was never asked that question. I was incorrect he was asked that question and his answer was that he didn’t look inside the front of the Bronco so he did not say he saw or didn’t see blood in the Bronco.
You have fantasized that when Kaelin came out from behind the garage on his first trip to investigate the noises that he went back to the Ashford path and stood there for a minute to two minutes before he went to the gate control box. You argue that because no one ever asked Kaelin if he did what you fantasize he did that somehow means to you that’s evidence that he actually did what you fantasize he did.
Your argument is completely ridiculous and you know it My comment regarding Lange never being asked if he did or didn’t see something and your argument that Kaelin actually did something he never said he did because no one ever asked him if he did it are not remotely the same.
bobaugust
bobaugust
06-10-2009, 03:37 AM
Mr. August,
Didn't Park insist that he saw a car that was not there that night? That he was positive he saw it? Now, in all fairness, if Park insisted that he saw the white male before the African-American, how can the defense dispute Park's claim? How can they prove that Park was mistaken on this issue? It is not like the lights, where it could be proved what he could have seen from his vantage point.
And again, IMO, the real issue is what he should have heard as well as what he should have saw when he backed out the estate. IMO.
GreenIce, Yes Park thought there were two cars parked on the Rockingham driveway although he could never describe the second car he thought was parked behind the Bentley.
The defense could have disputed Park’s testimony if he had told the police something different but that was exactly what he first told the police. Park consistently testify to that fact and Kaelin corroborated it when he testified that was exactly what he did when he left his room to investigate the noises he had just heard.
Park never backed his limo out of the estate.
bobaugust
bobaugust
06-10-2009, 03:37 AM
Mr. August,
I read Clark's book and I know what she said about Kato. However, she provided no proof that Kato was slanting his testimony toward the defense. If he was, you and William would not be engaging in the "Great Debate" regarding Park Kato. He would have changed his description of the thumps or given a different time.
Clark making Kato a hostile witness was just a ploy on her part, she got what she wanted from him regarding the time of the noise but that was it. He would not say what she wanted him to say. She may very well felt that he knew more then what he was telling but she needed to prove it and failed.
Clark had ample opportunties to give a clearer description of the thumps, however Clark elected not to do that. She did not ever have Kato go behind the wall and to point out where he actually heard the thumps. Point his finger at the picture on the wall does not mean that was the exact same place. Kato's fist banging on the witness stand did not even come close to a person crashing into a wall.
You have spoken several times about wires, etc., however, you have provided no proof that these wires could support a man of 200 pounds nor have you provided any proof that a 200 pound person could have been the source of the noise as well as the thumps that Kato heard. If your explaination is true, then the DA's should have had no problem proofing this.
However, they elected not to address this issue until her closing. However, she never has him climbing over the fence and running out of the alley. She has him running into the alley, crashing into an A/C unit and then dropping the glove. It was her job to prove how the glove got back there, thus having to prove how Simpson got back there.
There was an area through a neighbor's yard and tennis court on to his property. He had no reason to risk being seen or heard.
GreenIce, Clark knew nothing about the bent wires at the time of the criminal trial.
I have explained to you before that the path you are referring to was on Simpson’s neighbor’s property behind Simpson’s property. Simpson could not have used that path unless he had parked his Bronco on Bristol Ave, walked across that property to the backyard and jumped a wooden fence to enter the back of his property.
bobaugust
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 05:57 AM
This was posted multiple times.
I realize that and I have asked you multiple times where is the testimony you claim that says item number 9 is more worn than the left hand glove.:)
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 06:07 AM
I see no change in Park’s testimony other than correcting his mistaken pre criminal trial testimony from saying while waiting to be let in the estate he thought Kaelin continued to stand on the pathway to not paying any attention to Kaelin.
Of course you created a fantasy when you claim that when Kaelin came out from behind the garage, on his first trip to investigate the noises, he went back to the Ashford path and stood there for a minute to two minutes before he went to the gate control box. When in fact every time Kaelin was asked what he did when he came out from behind the garage he never said he did anything like what you fantasize he did.
bobaugust
How do you know which testimony was mistaken and why would you think that Park's memory worked differently than everyone else, when he admitted the events were fresher in his mind when he first gave testimony, as opposed to two and half years later, IIRC. You say corrected and I say changed and Park admitted that Petro and others molded his testimony.
Yes, and like you said of Lang that he never testified to seeing blood in the Bronco, because he was never asked, kato never testified to stopping and standing, because he was never asked but when Park was asked he told us that he saw Kato stop and stand. Kato was asked and denied stopping before completing his first cursory search. So, you see I do not need to fantasize, just review ALL the testimony.
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 06:14 AM
Park said that he wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin until he saw him go to the gate control box. Baker didn’t trap Park he just reaffirmed that Park didn’t see what Kaelin did. IIRC Baker never said anything about this in his closing argument.
bobaugust
Whether you see it or not or as you like to say comprehend it or not, Mr. Baker trapped Park, when Park testified on direct that he saw Kato walk up the driveway to the gate control box and then Mr. Baker got him to say that he did not see Kato until he was at the gate control box and he never saw Kato walk in any direction. Whether Baker said anything about it in his closing is irrelevant, immaterial and superfluous to the issue of what the testimony was. As I have said not all people need to have everything spelled out for them. Park said he was looking at the dashboard and forgot that he previously testified that he had gotten out of the car and walked to the intercom and after speaking to Simpson kato opened the gate for him in twenty to thirty seconds.
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 06:26 AM
I said that it was conclusively proved that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock could not have come from her reference sample. And I have said that fact conclusively proved the defense sock blood planting theory to be false.
bobaugust
Why do I constantly have to remind you or what you said?
You’re entitled to your opinion but I agree with someone who actually understood what Dr. Cotton said. Petrocelli wrote,
“Dr. Cotton explained that when blood is drawn for testing by labs, it is preserved with the chemical EDTA, which stops the DNA in the blood from degrading. (Degradation is simply the breaking down of a chemical into its component parts over time.) But when she compared the degradation levels of Nicole's autopsy vial, Dr. Cotton found the autopsy vial contained the more degraded blood. The blood on the sock was fresher and richer in DNA content than the blood in the vial. Once blood has degraded, it is impossible to raise its DNA count; you can't pony it back up. Under the conspiracy theory, the blood used to plant on the sock came from Nicole's autopsy vial, but that blood had a lower DNA count than the blood on the sock. Nicole's blood was fresher when it spurted out and splashed onto Simpson's sock as he was killing her than two days later when the coroner collected it. This completely destroyed the notion of any planting; it’s impossible for degraded blood to become fresh again. Nicole's blood on the sock could not have been planted.”
bobaugust
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 06:40 AM
Park testified that when he finished his telephone call with Dale and he wasn’t paying any attention to what Kaelin did. Park said after waiting and no one let him in he got out of the limo and went to the intercom and spoke with Simpson. Park said he then waited some more (TWENTY TO THIRTY SECONDS) before he finally saw Kaelin come up the driveway, go to the gate control box, and open the gate (ON CROSS HE SAID THE NEXT TIME HE SAW KATO KATO WAS AT THE GATE CONTROL BOX AND HE HAD NOT SEEN KATO WALK IN ANY DIRECTION).
Park testified that when he wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin he never saw what Kaelin did. 9 (Why are you forgetting the cross?)
What I said is not identical to what you said. I said that Lange did not say he saw or didn’t see blood in the Bronco because he was never asked that question. I was incorrect he was asked that question (Yes, I corrected you) and his answer was that he didn’t look inside the front of the Bronco so he did not say he saw or didn’t see blood in the Bronco. (Nothing in this changes your original position that Lang did not testify to seeing blood in the Bronco, because he was never asked, just as Kato was never asked did he stop or stand before going to open the gate.
You have fantasized that when Kaelin came out from behind the garage on his first trip to investigate the noises that he went back to the Ashford path and stood there for a minute to two minutes before he went to the gate control box. You argue that because no one ever asked Kaelin if he did what you fantasize he did that somehow means to you that’s evidence that he actually did what you fantasize he did.
Your argument is completely ridiculous and you know it My comment regarding Lange never being asked if he did or didn’t see something and your argument that Kaelin actually did something he never said he did because no one ever asked him if he did it are not remotely the same. (MY ARGUMENT, IS THAT PARK WAS ASKED AND SAID WHAT HE SAW KATO DO AND KATO DID NOT CONTRADICT THAT BECAUSE HE WAS NOT ASKED WHETHER HE STOOD OR STOPPED. I THOUGHT YOU UNDERSTOOD MY ARGUMENT.
bobaugust
If you go back and extrapolate from Park's ever changing testimony, he waited thirty seconds before hanging up with his boss after seeing someone believed to be Simpson enter his home and thirty seconds before going to the intercom, one minute. He then testified to seeing Kato "at the gate control box in a minute, as he looked up from the dashboard he had been watching for that minute. THIS MEANS THAT HE SAW KATO AT THE GATE CONTROL BOX BEFORE GOING TO THE INTERCOM AND THEN WHY WOULD HE GO TO THE INTERCOM OR HE FORGOT HIS PREVIOUS TESTIMONY DURING THE COACHING, WHICH I THINK IS THE MOST LOGICAL. :)
GreenIce
06-10-2009, 06:44 AM
I said that it was conclusively proved that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock could not have come from her reference sample. And I have said that fact conclusively proved the defense sock blood planting theory to be false.
bobaugust
Mr. August,
No you have not conclusively proved that Nicole's blood on the sock could not have have come from her reference sample. Gary Sims, an expert in this field testified that he could not testify to how and when the blood got on the sock.
Marcia Clark wrote in her book that Dr. Baden could not be sure if there was blood on the sock because he was not allowed to use the high intensity lighting she said was needed.
Bottom line, VA had, at one time or another, had all three reference samples. VA has been caught and exposed as a liar on several key issues, to include his lie about how and who he got Ron and Nicole's reference sample done. VA has training in blood collecting evidence, had access to the lab.
Dr. Cotton's testimony in the civil trial means nothing---it was the criminal trial that matter and he job was to determine who's DNA it was, not where it came from, as from a reference sample or from another "jar" of blood that VA and Lange helped Dr. Golden collect.
You have been asked for the degree of medical certainity on this issue, you have provided none. You have been asked regarding other experts, would they, who also worked on this case would concur with Dr. Cotton's opininon.
Dr. Cotton never testified how and when the blood got on the sock, it was her opinon that it did not come from the reference sample, but again, if this was the case, where was she during the criminal trial?
The DA's spent millions and millions and millions of dollars on the criminal trial, they could not prove how and when the blood got on the socks.
Petrocelli asking Dr. Cotton to make a finding on this issue speaks volumes, he should have picked an actual expert, not a left over witness who was clearly in the DA's camp who was embarrased by her own testimony when it came to her company. She had axe to grind. IMO.
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 07:02 AM
Mr. August,
I read Clark's book and I know what she said about Kato. However, she provided no proof that Kato was slanting his testimony toward the defense. If he was, you and William would not be engaging in the "Great Debate" regarding Park Kato. He would have changed his description of the thumps or given a different time.
Clark making Kato a hostile witness was just a ploy on her part, she got what she wanted from him regarding the time of the noise but that was it. He would not say what she wanted him to say. She may very well felt that he knew more then what he was telling but she needed to prove it and failed.
Clark had ample opportunties to give a clearer description of the thumps, however Clark elected not to do that. She did not ever have Kato go behind the wall and to point out where he actually heard the thumps. Point his finger at the picture on the wall does not mean that was the exact same place. Kato's fist banging on the witness stand did not even come close to a person crashing into a wall.
You have spoken several times about wires, etc., however, you have provided no proof that these wires could support a man of 200 pounds nor have you provided any proof that a 200 pound person could have been the source of the noise as well as the thumps that Kato heard. If your explaination is true, then the DA's should have had no problem proofing this.
However, they elected not to address this issue until her closing. However, she never has him climbing over the fence and running out of the alley. She has him running into the alley, crashing into an A/C unit and then dropping the glove. It was her job to prove how the glove got back there, thus having to prove how Simpson got back there.
There was an area through a neighbor's yard and tennis court on to his property. He had no reason to risk being seen or heard.
GreenIce,
Not a Great Debate a never ending debate. :)
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 07:06 AM
I don't know. I don't think the prosecution is required to dot all the 'i's or cross all the 't's. I tink that most criminologists and other experts wouldn't pay much attention to the hair on the gloves. I don't think the prosecution never claimed the killelr was wearing a glove on the left hand at the time he cut Nicolose's throat.
There was a bloody footprint on Nicole's back. If that footprint was parallel to Nicole's back, it should be possible to use that information along with the neck cut information to detirmine which hand did the cutting.
The coroners seem to think they can tell in which direction the cut was made. This, along with the footprint, should detirmine pretty accurately which hand did the cutting and which hand held the hair. If the footprint was at right angles to the back, then it would be harder to detirmine which hand did the cutting.
I think that Nicole's neck was probably cut more on one side than on the other. That along with the direction of the cut would provide information about how she was cut. For example i
I am puzzled that people who have so much faith Cochran, Lee, and Bailey are bringing up points that they never brought up.
To try to figure out how the hair got on the right hand glove would be difficult and not prove much.
I respect a person's talents but try not to be jealous of them and look for something in them that can improve my abilities. The fact that some think that I may see some things they did not is a form of flattery. Thank you. However, my faith is not in man but in God.
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 07:21 AM
IIRC, there was another piece of misinformation posted in regard to what was on the receipt, which pertained to the gloves. Let me try to correct that information.
"MR. COCHRAN: --did you ever have occasion to talk to the customer who the 70268 style was for?
MR. RUBIN: Not the customer. The sales agent.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. You talked to the sales agent at some point?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And was that person in Europe?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And now, with regard then--you've seen prior to your testifying here the Bloomingdales receipt; is that correct?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And you--in looking at that, you never anyplace in that receipt saw the number 70263, did you?
MR. RUBIN: No, I did not. "
Kate Sachel
06-10-2009, 08:08 AM
Mr. August,
No you have not conclusively proved that Nicole's blood on the sock could not have have come from her reference sample. Gary Sims, an expert in this field testified that he could not testify to how and when the blood got on the sock.
Marcia Clark wrote in her book that Dr. Baden could not be sure if there was blood on the sock because he was not allowed to use the high intensity lighting she said was needed.
Bottom line, VA had, at one time or another, had all three reference samples. VA has been caught and exposed as a liar on several key issues, to include his lie about how and who he got Ron and Nicole's reference sample done. VA has training in blood collecting evidence, had access to the lab.
Dr. Cotton's testimony in the civil trial means nothing---it was the criminal trial that matter and he job was to determine who's DNA it was, not where it came from, as from a reference sample or from another "jar" of blood that VA and Lange helped Dr. Golden collect.
You have been asked for the degree of medical certainity on this issue, you have provided none. You have been asked regarding other experts, would they, who also worked on this case would concur with Dr. Cotton's opininon.
Dr. Cotton never testified how and when the blood got on the sock, it was her opinon that it did not come from the reference sample, but again, if this was the case, where was she during the criminal trial?
The DA's spent millions and millions and millions of dollars on the criminal trial, they could not prove how and when the blood got on the socks.
Petrocelli asking Dr. Cotton to make a finding on this issue speaks volumes, he should have picked an actual expert, not a left over witness who was clearly in the DA's camp who was embarrased by her own testimony when it came to her company. She had axe to grind. IMO.
In the interest of clearing the record, Marcia Clark did not say in her book that Dr. Baden was "not allowed" to use the high intensity lighting needed. She simply said that he admitted that he did not use the high intensity light needed.
Kate
martin II
06-10-2009, 09:07 AM
IIRC, there was another piece of misinformation posted in regard to what was on the receipt, which pertained to the gloves. Let me try to correct that information.
"MR. COCHRAN: --did you ever have occasion to talk to the customer who the 70268 style was for?
MR. RUBIN: Not the customer. The sales agent.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. You talked to the sales agent at some point?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And was that person in Europe?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And now, with regard then--you've seen prior to your testifying here the Bloomingdales receipt; is that correct?
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And you--in looking at that, you never anyplace in that receipt saw the number 70263, did you?
MR. RUBIN: No, I did not. "
no model number no color no size.
there is no way to know what kjind of glove nicole purchased.no one posting here knows either.
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 09:15 AM
no model number no color no size.
there is no way to know what kjind of glove nicole purchased.no one posting here knows either.
As I recall a poster said that there was the handwritten number on the receipt as 70263, which arguably could be mistaken for 70628. However, Rubin did not see that number. Yes, there does not seem to be anything, including the fit, to tie those gloves to Simpson's hands, IMHO.
martin II
06-10-2009, 09:31 AM
FACTS
There is no proof of the color, size or style number of the gloves nicole baught. There is no proof that nicole gave any glove to oj. there is proof that she gave gloves to a friend as a gift. there was no size tag in the court gloves to prove the size so there is no proof of the identify of the glove that the DA claimed oj wore.the gloves in the pictures could be any pair of browm gloves.
martin II
06-10-2009, 09:37 AM
As I recall a poster said that there was the handwritten number on the receipt as 70263, which arguably could be mistaken for 70628. However, Rubin did not see that number. Yes, there does not seem to be anything, including the fit, to tie those gloves to Simpson's hands, IMHO.
The loop stitch machine was made by Singer Sewing machine company and was sold to many glove companies so i don't believe Rubin when he says his china contractor was the only company in the world that owned and used that machine in making gloves.imo
weezer
06-10-2009, 09:42 AM
Glove evidence: (1) left glove found at Bundy and right glove found at Simpson residence are Aris Light gloves, size XL, (2) Nicole Brown bought pair of Aris Light XL gloves in 1990 at Bloomingdale's, (3) Simpson wore Aris Light gloves from 1990 to June, 1994.
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 09:43 AM
FACTS
There is no proof of the color, size or style number of the gloves nicole baught. There is no proof that nicole gave any glove to oj. there is proof that she gave gloves to a friend as a gift. there was no size tag in the court gloves to prove the size so there is no proof of the identify of the glove that the DA claimed oj wore.the gloves in the pictures could be any pair of browm gloves.
Sounds pretty much like the prosecution's entire case-nothing from nothing leaves nothing. :)
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 09:44 AM
FACTS
There is no proof of the color, size or style number of the gloves nicole baught. There is no proof that nicole gave any glove to oj. there is proof that she gave gloves to a friend as a gift. there was no size tag in the court gloves to prove the size so there is no proof of the identify of the glove that the DA claimed oj wore.the gloves in the pictures could be any pair of browm gloves.
The gloves they claim were his did not fit.
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 09:49 AM
Sims, Gary
Senior criminalist, California Dept. of Justice laboratory in Berkeley. Called by prosecution for August 22nd hearing to explain DNA rule on how to further divide and test remaining samples. Tuesday, May 16: Testified blood from right hand glove found on Simpson's estate matched Goldman's blood. Said another spot appears to be mixed with blood from Nicole Simpson. Wednesday, May 17: Testified three blood stains on Bronco center console were consistent with genetic patterns of Simpson, Goldman and Nicole. Nicole DNA pattern found in Bronco carpet stain. Stains on Bundy crime scene gate match Simpson blood but neither victim. Blood on two socks at Simpson home consistent with his blood. Blood on one sock also matches that of Nicole Simpson. Thursday, May 18: Testified that the odds were 1 in 240,000 that blood found near the bodies at the crime scene could have come from a black person other than O.J. Simpson. Sweat, spit or dandruff from technicians couldn't contaminate blood samples. Prosecutors mocked defense arguments by asking Sims if DNA could "fly." Friday, May 19: Sims testified that socks found in O.J. Simpson's bedroom were "crinkled and puckered" from blood stains. He said that the only evidence of Simpson's DNA was found on "cutouts" taken by the LAPD. Sims denied that he was part of an evidence-tampering conspiracy. Monday, May 22: Sims answered confusing questions about different levels of DNA found in bloodstains at the crime scene. Said he didn't know how Simpson's blood contaminated drops found at the crime scene, but also said those drops had been tested again to answer lab questions about traces of Ron Goldman's DNA. Sims testified that he cleans his tools with fire to avoid contamination. Wed. May 31: Sims showed the jurors Simpson's socks under a microscope. He testified there was more DNA found on the back gate two weeks after the murders than was found the day after. Thurs. June 1st: Sims said he was not suprised the blood found on Nicole Simpson's back gate was so well- preserved. Testified he never received cut-outs from the bloody glove found at Simpson's estate. Tues. June 20: Sims said Simpson's DNA matched blood found on the rear gate of the murder scene, a sock on his bedroom floor, and carpet in his Ford Bronco.
weezer
06-10-2009, 09:51 AM
since there is "no proof of the color, size or style number of the gloves nicole baught" how does one draw the conclusion that the gloves given to her friend were the gloves she purchased on the receipt?
"The gloves were dark brown leather, cashmere lined, size extra large. Manufactured by Aris Gloves, a subsidiary of Consolidated Food Corporation, the Isotoner Lights brand, style number 70263, were part of a small batch of only 300 pairs that had been sold exclusively by Bloomingdale's Department Store on 3rd Avenue in New York between 1989 and 1992. The store sold 240 pairs and returned the rest to the manufacturer. On December 20th, 1990, Nicole Brown Simpson had purchased two pairs of these gloves for $110. The gloves had a distinctive stitching and V pattern in the palm and were very identifiable. The prosecution assembled press photographs and videotapes of O.J.Simpson wearing this type of leather gloves during football game telecasts in 1993 and 1994."
"Juror #98, Carrie Bess, a postal worker, later stated, "Those gloves fit. He wasn't putting them on right... I do believe the gloves fit. I have no doubt about that. The glove demo didn't impress me at all. Not one iota."
Marsh Rubin-Jackson, #984, also a postal worker, agreed. "Sure, you know they fit they would have fit anybody," she said."
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 09:57 AM
How many times do we have to point out 2/12 or 1/6, which means 10/12 or 5/6 probably agreed that they did not fit?:)
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 09:58 AM
"MR. SCHECK: These RFLP results do not address any issues of cross-contamination with respect to the Bundy blood drops, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52?
MR. HARMON: Objection. That is vague, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: No, these results relate to these samples.
MR. SCHECK: All right. They don't relate to any problems of cross-contamination that occurred in the evidence processing room on June 14th when Collin Yamauchi examined the Rockingham glove?
MR. HARMON: Objection, it is beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Overruled. You can generalize this.
MR. SCHECK: I only have two or three more questions, just to show what it doesn't concern.
MR. HARMON: It also misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: The question again, please?
MR. SCHECK: The question is these RFLP results don't do anything--don't address the issues of cross-contamination that have been raised by dr. Gerdes concerning Collin Yamauchi's handling of the Rockingham glove in the evidence processing room on the morning of June 14th, right?
MR. SIMS: I'm trying to recall what issues dr. Gerdes specifically raised about those, because I don't recall seeing any issue with those particular samples.
MR. SCHECK: Well, you don't recall his testimony about that? Is that what you are telling us?
MR. SIMS: I don't recall the detail of his testimony about those particular samples.
MR. SCHECK: You don't recall his testimony about Mr. Yamauchi--
THE COURT: Counsel, counsel.
MR. SCHECK: All right.
MR. SCHECK: You don't recall it? Is that your testimony?
MR. SIMS: I said I don't recall all the details. When you start talking about issues, you are putting a plural on it and you are implying there is some--
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Sims, even if you don't recall all the details of what dr. Gerdes said, you don't believe that these RFLP results on 303, 304 and 305 have anything to do with it?
MR. HARMON: Objection, that is argumentative.
THE COURT: It is.
MR. SCHECK: Do you believe they have anything to do with it?
MR. SIMS: Well--
MR. SCHECK: Do they address those concerns about cross-contamination?
MR. SIMS: I think in the narrow sense of your question, no, the answer is no, they don't address that.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you."
Even Dershowitz knew the gloves belonged to Simpson.
Speaking before the judge the day after Simpson tried on the murderer's gloves in front of the jury, Dershowitz said:
"If the prosecution had a second opportunity, if they could do what we did when were [sic] kids we called a do-over, obviously they would try this case rather differently. I doubt that we would see OJ Simpson being asked to try on his gloves..."
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 10:11 AM
Even Dershowitz knew the gloves belonged to Simpson.
Speaking before the judge the day after Simpson tried on the murderer's gloves in front of the jury, Dershowitz said:
"If the prosecution had a second opportunity, if they could do what we did when were [sic] kids we called a do-over, obviously they would try this case rather differently. I doubt that we would see OJ Simpson being asked to try on his gloves..."
AD suffered from what far too many humans suffer from not wanting to admit that their conclusions are wrong.
weezer
06-10-2009, 10:13 AM
"Defense Witness Acknowledges Dna Taken By Lab
By Michael Fleeman
AP
LOS ANGELES - O.J. Simpson's DNA expert reluctantly acknowledged today that critical blood samples couldn't have been contaminated at one stage in processing because they were handled by an outside lab rather than police technicians.
John Gerdes, a Denver microbiologist, conceded under cross-examination that a police technician didn't remove the DNA from some samples taken from blood found near the bodies of Simpson's ex-wife and her friend. Instead, Cellmark Diagnostics and the state Department of Justice extracted the DNA.
Those samples contained Simpson's genetic blueprint.
"Dr. Gerdes, isn't it true that what you described . . . about what might have happened to those samples that went to Cellmark and DOJ - as far as DNA extraction cross-contamination - could not have happened?" asked prosecutor George "Woody" Clarke.
"I wouldn't state it, if you restrict it to only the extraction stages," Gerdes said.
"You described the extraction stage as one of those stages at which cross-contamination can occur, correct?" the prosecutor asked.
"Correct," Gerdes said.
"That could not have happened with the Cellmark and DOJ samples, correct?" the prosecutor asked.
"Not at the extraction stage," Gerdes said.
Repeated objections
Gerdes repeatedly tried to interject that police could have contaminated the samples before their DNA was extracted, such as when criminalists soaked up blood on swatches at the crime scene.
Clarke objected to those answers as nonresponsive, and the judge ordered the jury to disregard Gerdes' statements.
During cross-examination yesterday, the prosecution suggested that Gerdes liked DNA testing for sick people but hated it for criminal suspects.
The prosecution suggested to jurors that the defense's most effective expert witness was a hired gun, that he was underqualified and practically made fun of his stint at a pineapple company.
But until today's concession, Gerdes had stood firm about his testimony, never flinching under the long, detailed questioning from Clarke. Gerdes insisted that a form of DNA testing called PCR works well in medical cases, but still has too many bugs for it to link people like Simpson to murder."
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 10:22 AM
"MR. SCHECK: So would it be fair to say from your findings in the period of May through July of 1994 that the contamination in the controls was occurring during the sample handling and extraction phase of that process?
DR. GERDES: That's correct.
MR. CLARKE: I'm sorry, objection. No foundation, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
(Brief pause.)"
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 10:24 AM
"MR. SCHECK: Let me get back to it this way. In terms of the--in your review of the LAPD laboratory strips in terms of contamination, what is the significance of the degree of contamination you found in the extraction control versus the amplification control?
MR. CLARKE: Objection. Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. GERDES: The significance is that it indicates that the area at which contamination is occurring in this laboratory is an early area, most likely in the DNA extraction or sample handling."
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 10:27 AM
"MR. CLARKE: You described yesterday that in your opinion evidence at the Los Angeles Police Department was brought back following amplification into the same area that it started out in prior to or at the time of extraction, correct?
MR. SCHECK: Objection, misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Sustained. He just said "Area."
MR. CLARKE: You testified yesterday that following amplification of DNA, amplified DNA, that is, was brought back to the Los Angeles Police Department in the same area, correct?
MR. SCHECK: Objection, again. Misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. GERDES: I stated that it was brought back to that same location. It is not specifically the same room, but it is the same location.
MR. CLARKE: Okay. So it is not brought back to the same room; isn't that correct?
DR. GERDES: That's correct."
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 10:30 AM
"DR. GERDES: I don't believe so because there is another aspect that we didn't really specifically go into because I didn't want to go into a lot of detail, but at that amplification room at Piper or at Parker, excuse me, that is where they autoclave all their solutions and it is maybe five feet from the area where the amplification room is from--just across a very small little hallway.
MR. CLARKE: Objection, move to strike, your Honor, nonresponsive.
THE COURT: Sustained. Ask the question again.
MR. CLARKE: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. CLARKE: Yesterday you described these materials as being brought back to the same area at Piper Tech, correct?
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. CLARKE: Today you have conceded that in fact those areas, that is, the extraction room and the product gel electrophoresis room, are not the same area, correct?
DR. GERDES: They are not the same room.
MR. CLARKE: Well, they are not the same area, are they?
DR. GERDES: I guess not."
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 10:33 AM
"DR. GERDES: The main factor you have to keep in mind is to separate them both in time and space. If you are going to be handling them within a fairly close time, it would be advisable to handle the lower concentration specimen before the larger, so in that case, yes.
MR. CLARKE: In other words, it would be better to extract DNA from evidence samples first because of their potential for having low DNA amounts and then reference samples later because they have higher DNA amounts, correct?
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. CLARKE: What order was that done in by the Los Angeles Police Department in this case?
DR. GERDES: As far as the handling, the reference sample was handled first. As far as the extraction, it was in the opposite order where the reference sample was handled last.
MR. CLARKE: Dr. Gerdes, isn't it true that Collin Yamauchi extracted the evidence first before the known samples in this case?
DR. GERDES: As far as the extraction, yes. As far as the handling, no.
MR. CLARKE: As far as the extraction of DNA by Collin Yamauchi in the serology room that you have described by photograph, he extracted the lower DNA amount samples first, didn't he?
DR. GERDES: Yes, he did.
MR. CLARKE: He extracted high DNA samples last, didn't he?
DR. GERDES: Yes, he did."
weezer
06-10-2009, 10:35 AM
MR. SCHECK: As part of your analysis of the RFLP results have you considered and evaluated the sample handling procedures with respect to, for example, the Rockingham glove?
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, what is your view with respect to whether or not cross-contamination could have accounted for the RFLP results consistent with Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson on the Rockingham glove.
MR. CLARKE: Objection, no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. GERDES: In that particular case there is an adequate amount of DNA; it could not have been explained by cross-contamination.
weezer
06-10-2009, 10:43 AM
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, let me ask you with respect to the RFLP results obtained by the Department of Justice and Cellmark on the sock, particularly the cut-out section, 13-A, in terms of your review of the laboratory notes and how those samples were handled and the RFLP test results, do you believe cross-contamination could account for the RFLP results obtained on the sock?
DR. GERDES: No. There is adequate amount of DNA. Cross-contamination could not have accounted for that particular RFLP.
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 11:03 AM
"MR. SCHECK: As part of your analysis of the RFLP results have you considered and evaluated the sample handling procedures with respect to, for example, the Rockingham glove?
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, what is your view with respect to whether or not cross-contamination could have accounted for the RFLP results consistent with Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson on the Rockingham glove.
MR. CLARKE: Objection, no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. GERDES: In that particular case there is an adequate amount of DNA; it could not have been explained by cross-contamination.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, let me ask you with respect to the RFLP results obtained by the Department of Justice and Cellmark on the sock, particularly the cut-out section, 13-A, in terms of your review of the laboratory notes and how those samples were handled and the RFLP test results, do you believe cross-contamination could account for the RFLP results obtained on the sock?
DR. GERDES: No. There is adequate amount of DNA. Cross-contamination could not have accounted for that particular RFLP.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, do you know how the--how blood got on that sock?
DR. GERDES: No, I don't.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Do you believe that cross-contamination--have you reviewed the RFLP result on the item--LAPD item 117, a bloodstain collected from the back gate at Bundy on July 3rd?
DR. GERDES: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. In terms of the way that sample was handled, what samples it was handled with in terms of reference tubes and other matters and amounts of DNA, is there anything that leads you to believe that cross-contamination could account for that RFLP result?
DR. GERDES: On the back gate?
MR. SCHECK: Yes.
DR. GERDES: No. There is an adequate amount of DNA.
MR. SCHECK: Have you--so you are distinguishing between those results and the RFLP result on item no. 52?
DR. GERDES: Yes. Item 52 has significantly less DNA. It has only 25 nanograms of DNA and that certainly could have occurred, especially in the manner in which these samples were handled. That particular item could have occurred due to cross-contamination."
I think that, if one understands the testimony and the fact that it was Scheck that brought out that some items were not "cross contaminated" does not mean that they were not originally planted.
weezer
06-10-2009, 11:08 AM
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?
Dr. John Gerdes: 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.
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 11:10 AM
Valid results or not
"MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, do you know how the--how blood got on that sock?
DR. GERDES: No, I don't."
weezer
06-10-2009, 11:11 AM
MR. LAMBERT: That's their expert. Now, let's take a look at what their expert said about the blood on the back gate.
MR. LAMBERT: You will agree that this nine-probe RFLP match on the rear gate is something that the jury can rely upon as a valid DNA result, correct?
DR. JOHN GERDES: Yes, I do.
MR. LAMBERT: And a nine-probe match, that's an extremely important match?
DR. JOHN GERDES: It's a significant match.
MR. LAMBERT: Very significant -- very significant in identifying Mr. Simpson as the person who left the blood there; isn't that true?
DR. JOHN GERDES: Yes.
weezer
06-10-2009, 11:19 AM
Now, let's talk a little bit about this contamination argument you heard both Mr. Blasier and Mr. Baker talk about.
That's another one of their inventions.
They sit down, we're not going to sell this planting theory, the blood drops were seen by the police the moment they arrived at the crime scene. They were collected, the blood drops at Bundy and at Rockingham, before Mr. Simpson gave his reference blood. It couldn't have been planted.
So they say we're going to have to come up with something else. Let's say they're contaminated. Let's make that argument. Let's say they're all contaminated. They're worthless.
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 of the critical tests that we talked about throughout this trial. He never uses it. He admitted he never uses D1S80 tests; another one of the tests we talked about throughout this trial. He doesn't use it. He admitted he's never collected evidence at a crime scene. He's never tested -- collected at a crime scene. He's not a member of any of the forensic science organizations
that people who do this sort of thing are.
But that's who they call. Though they could have called a real forensic DNA expert. 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.
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 11:20 AM
"Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) When you talk about the reliability of RFLP results, are you making any statements whatsoever with respect to the source of the blood, that produced the spot, that produced RFLP results?
A. No.
MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Beyond the scope, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled."
weezer
06-10-2009, 11:20 AM
Valid results or not
"MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, do you know how the--how blood got on that sock?
DR. GERDES: No, I don't."
I doubt even orenthal knows how he got the blood on his socks. :shrug:
weezer
06-10-2009, 11:24 AM
". . .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. So that if you have a swatch, an evidentiary swatch collected at a crime scene, and it has person A's blood on it, and it then gets contaminated with person B's blood, you can have a mixture of two persons, A and B. When you do the dot test they both show up. They can show there's contamination. That's the most common kind of contamination that shows up. . ."
weezer
06-10-2009, 11:27 AM
". . .Here, of course, when Colin Yamauchi did all of these tests, all of the test results showed a single contributor to the evidence. All those Bundy blood drops, one person, only one person; Mr. Simpson. So how could that be contamination?
We say to Gerdes -- we say the only way it could happen is, first, all of the swatches, the real DNA, degraded in all the swatches, and then there was contamination. He admitted that's extremely improbable, even though you can still find the contamination. Remember, when they collect each of those evidence swatches, they also collect a control, a substrate control. So by every stain they first pick up a little control, and that control stays with the evidence all the way through the process, and it gets tested with the evidence all the way through the process.
So if any contamination takes place, the control gets contaminated, too. And they test each one of those controls using the PCR system, which Dr. Gerdes admitted can test down to the level of a few molecules. All you'd have to get if you're contaminated is a few molecules of DNA on the control swatch and it would show up and everybody would know there was contamination. . ."
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 11:29 AM
"Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) In fact, the stain that Mr. Lambert asked you about with what -- with the five-probe patch for Nicole Brown Simpson, that had over 13 hundred nanograms from it, didn't it?
A. Yes. There's a lot of DNA in that.
Q. And that's more DNA than in all of these other stains combined, isn't it?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Now, the back gate, 117, when you testified about the reliability of those RFLP results. You weren't saying anything about the source of the blood that came off the back gate, were you?
A. You can't say that. All you can say is the result that you get.
Q. And the results that were obtained -- in fact, there was large amount of DNA in 117, as well?
A. Yes, there was.
Q. Far more than all of the Bundy stains put together, right?
A. That's true.
Q. And would you agree that the stain on the sock, and the stain from 117, are both consistent with blood coming from a reference tube, it could have?
A. In terms of the amounts, yes; that's in that range.
Q. Now, let's talk about the Bronco, quickly.
You testified, did you not, that stains 30 and 31 -- that the original tests that were done in June were not reliable because the controls showed extraneous alleles, correct?
A. That's correct.
MR. P. BAKER: Looking at board 293.
(Defendants' Exhibit 293 displayed on the Elmo screen.)
Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) When stains 30 and 31 were processed, there was such a small amount of DNA, they couldn't do RFLP testing on it, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And it was only after two months later, in August, did they go back and find, lo and behold, a lot more DNA, correct?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Beyond the scope; leading; argumentative.
THE COURT: I'll sustain that part.
Q. BY MR. BLASIER: In 303, 304, 305, which were collected on August 29, there is a lot more DNA than there was in the original stains, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Much higher quality, too, right?
A. I believe so, yes.
Q. And it was from the console, 303, 304, 305?
A. Yes, from the same area.
Q. Now, about the Rockingham glove --
MR. P. BAKER: That is board 320.
MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry?
MR. P. BAKER: 320.
(Defendants' Exhibit 320 displayed on the Elmo screen.)
Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, your testimony about the RFLP results only related to DNA consistent with the victims, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. The only DNA found on the Rockingham glove consistent with Mr. Simpson were extremely small amounts of DNA in the wrist area, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And these gloves -- this glove was handled right after Mr. Yamauchi opened Mr. Simpson's reference vial, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And Mr. Yamauchi testified at the criminal trial that he didn't remember changing his gloves between opening the reference vial and processing that glove. Do you recall that.
MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Calls for hearsay, what he testified to -- somebody else testified to at the criminal trial.
THE COURT: You can rephrase that.
I'll sustain the objection.
You may ask him if that was a factor that he considered.
Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Was it a factor that you considered in deciding that Mr. Simpson's -- or blood consistent with Mr. Simpson on the Rockingham glove came from possible cross-contamination, the packet that Collin Yamauchi testified in the criminal trial, he didn't know whether he changed his gloves?
A. Yes.
Q. And the areas it, the wrist areas where those stains were found, were areas that were handled by Mr. Yamauchi with his hands, right after opening Mr. Simpson's reference blood, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you're aware of the testimony? You relied on the testimony of Mr. Yamauchi that the blood came out of that reference tube, onto his gloves, and his chemwipes, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you gave some testimony with respect to cross-contamination happening sometimes. You'll see evidence of more than one person as evidence of contamination incident, that's what you saw on 30 and 31, correct?
A. Correct."
weezer
06-10-2009, 11:32 AM
MR. LAMBERT: This is one of the things I went through with Dr. Gerdes. This shows us the tests done by Colin Yamauchi on June 14 and June 15. He tested 23 samples the first day, 19 -- why don't you put it at the bottom, Steve -- total of 42 samples. 18 of them were evidence samples, 21 of them were controls, 21 were running through the system just to make sure there was no contamination. That's the whole purpose of those controls.
And what did Dr. Gerdes tell us about those? All of the controls were clean. No contamination. Zero evidence of contamination.
And he admitted that if there was contamination, it should have shown up in the controls, it should have been mixtures. None of that happened.
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 11:38 AM
I will not rely on argument, at this point, but testimony, :).
"Q. You testified that those controls were clean. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you take a substrate control as demonstrated by Andrea Mazzola in their video of how to do it right, you should have some dirt on the substrate controls. Shouldn't you?
A. That would be -- I mean yes. You should.
Q. And these controls were almost -- were clean in the sense that there was no evidence of any dirt on them; isn't that true?
A. That's what's been recorded. I haven't actually seen them myself, the actual swatches.
Q. What's "dry labbing"? What does that term mean?
A. Well, dry-labbing, means that you -- say you do an experiment and you don't -- you just fake the results.
Q. Incidentally, you're aware of testimony by Andrea Mazzola from August of 1994, that she put her initials on all the bindles that she prepared prior to the time these evidence items from Bundy and Rockingham went to Mr. Yamauchi?
MR. LAMBERT: Beyond the scope, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Yes. I'm aware of that testimony.
Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And you're aware that her initials don't show up on any of those bindles?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you're aware that she testified that according to the procedure used by the LAPD lab, the swatches that went into the bindles were dry at the time they went in there, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you're aware that one of the Bundy drops, 47, the bindle that was later examined by Mr. Yamauchi, has a wet blood transfer stain -- several of them, actually?
A. I'm aware.
MR. LAMBERT: Beyond the scope. Irrelevant. Has nothing to do with this witness's testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled."
:), :)
weezer
06-10-2009, 11:54 AM
I will not rely on argument, at this point, but testimony, :).
"Q. You testified that those controls were clean. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q.And when you take a substrate control as demonstrated by Andrea Mazzola in their video of how to do it right, you should have some dirt on the substrate controls. Shouldn't you?
A. That would be -- I mean yes. You should.
Q. And these controls were almost -- were clean in the sense that there was no evidence of any dirt on them; isn't that true?
A. That's what's been recorded. I haven't actually seen them myself, the actual swatches.
Q. What's "dry labbing"? What does that term mean?
A. Well, dry-labbing, means that you -- say you do an experiment and you don't -- you just fake the results.
link please that 'dry-labbing' occurred in this case
:), :)
woulda, coulda, shoulda -- :0 ;)
weezer
06-10-2009, 11:57 AM
Dr. Henry Lee, questioned by Mr. Medvene.)
Q. Now, do you know Gary Simms?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know him to be a competent, reputable scientist?
A. Oh, yes, excellent scientist.
weezer
06-10-2009, 12:11 PM
MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, I want to back up to a couple of items, before we resume, where we ended yesterday. I believe in describing your evidence processing and how you open things, did you carefully note any names, initials, any descriptive terms that were on specific items when you received them and opened them for the first time?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I did. I photographed those and I also wrote down what the information on the envelopes and bindles was.
MR. HARMON: So you have photos of the items which show all the descriptive names and dates and initials?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And you also noted them in your lengthy notes?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.
MR. HARMON: If you would, I would like you to refer to your notes, if you need to, to remember the exact descriptions concerning item 47, which was one of the drops from the Bundy walkway.
MR. SIMS: Yes. That was one of the early items that we looked at, yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And when you first opened and examined and noted the descriptions that were on both the coin envelopes and the bindles, what was on them?
MR. SIMS: On item no. 47, that was a sealed envelope. The seal had the name "c. Yamauchi, G8880 8/11/94," and then on the front of the envelope was "94-0817"--I'm sorry, "94-0817431," the initials "C.Y." and then "G8880."
MR. HARMON: Anything else?
MR. SIMS: There was also then--for that particular item there was--it was circled with a "b" and then "item no. 47".
MR. HARMON: Anything else written on either the coin envelope or the bindle?
MR. SIMS: No. I believe that is all--on the coin envelope that would be it. Now, when you actually get to the bindle--
MR. HARMON: Right. Would you--
MR. SIMS: --which is inside the sealed envelope--
MR. HARMON: Sure. Would you describe what writing you saw on the bindle.
MR. SIMS: Yes. This is now on the bindle which is inside the coin envelope for item no. 47. It said, "to DOJ, 8/11/94 C.Y. G8880" and on the back of the bindle it said the sign for number, the symbol for number "112," which is 112 and it looked like the initials "D.F." and then "C.Y. G8880."
MR. HARMON: Is that it?
MR. SIMS: That's it, and then I put my own initials, case number and date on the bindle.
MR. HARMON: What did you put on them?
MR. SIMS: I put on--the bindles and the coin envelopes would have my case number, which is DNA-0040-94, the date that I received it or the date that I actually examined it in the case of the bindle, and then also my itials "G.A.S."
weezer
06-10-2009, 12:12 PM
MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't we shift to item 50, one of the other Bundy walk drops and the same questions. What writing did you see on the coin envelope and the bindle?
MR. SIMS: Yes. Again there was a sealed envelope. On the seal it said "c. Yamauchi, G8880, SID, 8/11/94." on the front envelope "94-0817431 C.Y. G8880," and then for this--now, this is item no. 50, it said--there was an "e" with a circle around it, "item no. 50."
MR. HARMON: Okay. And you also took a picture of that item?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.
MR. HARMON: And you wrote--did you write the same things on item 50 that you wrote on 47?
MR. SIMS: Yes. I would write our case number, our initials and our date. The only difference would be that I also put our DNA item numbers that are different for those two items on those.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Those--the correlation between the LAPD item numbers and your DNA lab numbers are reflected in your chain of custody records?
MR. SIMS: Yes. Yes, they are.
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 12:12 PM
Those would haves, could haves and should haves are based on the testimony of an expert with training and he is talking about a specific method used and what you would expect to find, which is different from a poster looking at the evidence and then saying something may have, could have, entirely possible and perceptions, when the evidence goes against their conclusion. :)
"Q. And you're aware that she testified that according to the procedure used by the LAPD lab, the swatches that went into the bindles were dry at the time they went in there, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you're aware that one of the Bundy drops, 47, the bindle that was later examined by Mr. Yamauchi, has a wet blood transfer stain -- several of them, actually?
A. I'm aware."
:)
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 12:14 PM
An excellent scientist who provided evidence of nothing, as I saw his testimony. :)
weezer
06-10-2009, 12:18 PM
Those would haves, could haves and should haves are based on the testimony of an expert with training and he is talking about a specific method used and what you would expect to find, which is different from a poster looking at the evidence and then saying something may have, could have, entirely possible and perceptions, when the evidence goes against their conclusion. :)
"Q. And you're aware that she testified that according to the procedure used by the LAPD lab, the swatches that went into the bindles were dry at the time they went in there, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you're aware that one of the Bundy drops, 47, the bindle that was later examined by Mr. Yamauchi, has a wet blood transfer stain -- several of them, actually?
A. I'm aware."
:)
I was under the impression that 'woulda, coulda, shoulda' was not acceptable to you as evidence. :shrug:
BTW -- who is testifying?
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 12:19 PM
From the evidence a reasonable inference can be drawn that the evidence got on the socks through planting.
weezer
06-10-2009, 12:21 PM
From the evidence a reasonable inference can be drawn that the evidence got on the socks through planting.
orenthal's or nicole's?
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 12:23 PM
Did not a poster make a post about Dr. Gerdes testifying about clean substrate controls? Couldas, wouldas and shouldas, are not what I would look for in regard to a poster trying to make inferences from the testimony/evidence, such as a witnesses may have or could have, which is entirely different from an expert testifying to what a person would expect to find, such as evidence that someone was behind a quarters after leaving a bloody crime scene. :)
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 12:28 PM
Have we not spend endless hours of discussion as to whether or not Ms. NBS's blood was planted on the socks?
weezer
06-10-2009, 12:28 PM
Did not a poster make a post about Dr. Gerdes testifying about clean substrate controls? Couldas, wouldas and shouldas, are not what I would look for in regard to a poster trying to make inferences from the testimony/evidence, such as a witnesses may have or could have, which is entirely different from an expert testifying to what a person would expect to find, such as evidence that someone was behind a quarters after leaving a bloody crime scene. :)
Well, who is John Gerdes? Remember, he told you he works for a DNA Lab in Denver that does medical but not forensic DNA. He admitted that he had himself never used the DQ Alpha test, which is one of the critical tests that we talked about throughout this trial. He never uses it. He admitted he never uses D1S80 tests; another one of the tests we talked about throughout this trial. He doesn't use it. He admitted he's never collected evidence at a crime scene. He's never tested -- collected at a crime scene. He's not a member of any of the forensic science organizations
that people who do this sort of thing are.
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 12:33 PM
"MR. GOLDBERG: Do you recall any stains now, from your independent recollection, that Mr. Fung physically participated in swatching on the trail?
MS. MAZZOLA: Item 112, he picked up a little more blood off of that item than I had picked up, and there was one other item farther down the trail that he picked up. I can't remember which one now.
MR. GOLDBERG: When you said item no. 112, were you looking at the photograph--
MS. MAZZOLA: The photograph, right.
MR. GOLDBERG: That has item no. 47?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And does the call-out line depict the general area where that was located?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes."
Where are her initials from the prior posts about the envelope?
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 12:35 PM
Dr. Gerdes was qualified as an expert and the argument should have been made in front of the judge that he wasn't qualified, which I believe it probably was and, now a desperate attempt to argue he was not qualified to the jury. :)
weezer
06-10-2009, 12:37 PM
Have we not spend endless hours of discussion as to whether or not Ms. NBS's blood was planted on the socks?
"Of course, during the civil trial, this theory was disproved, because when Nicole's blood from the sock was compared to Nicole's blood from the test-tube. The blood in the test-tube was more deteriorated than that of the sock, and since the blood in the test-tube was preserved with EDTA, there was no way that the blood had come from the same samples (August 1)."
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 12:38 PM
"MR. GOLDBERG: The offer of proof is, she said that she selected all the stains at Bundy, and it's a little bit ambiguous in relationship to what she said here.
MR. NEUFELD: It's not ambiguous. It contradicts it.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. At this point, the objection is overruled.
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. Proceed.
MR. GOLDBERG: Actually, I'll start on 734, line 27 through 735, line 26.
MR. GOLDBERG: Are you ready counsel? Do you have that?
MR. NEUFELD: What line? I am sorry.
MR. GOLDBERG: 27.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERG: "Question: And which--I am sorry. At Bundy again, were there certain stains that you collected and other stains that were collected by Mr. Fung? "Answer: Yes. "Question: And which bloodstains were collected by Mr. Fung? "Answer: I believe he collected the red stains that were near the shoeprints that were made on the walkway. "Question: Would you please look at your notes and tell me which numbers those are? "Question: And when you say that, you say he collected the actual foot shoeprints where he collected alleged drops that were near the shoeprints? "Answer: He, if I remember correctly, took swatchings of the red stains that were constituting the footprint itself. "Question: Can you tell us which ones those were, please? "Answer: Property items 55 and 56. "Question: And that is it? "Answer: Yes. "Question: All other bloodstains at the Bundy crime scene were collected by you, ma'am? "Answer: Yes." Do you recall that testimony?
MS. MAZZOLA: Somewhat.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And since testifying at this hearing, was there an occasion when you and Dennis Fung went over the crime scene identification checklist again to try to make notations as to who physically collected which items?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection as to hearsay.
THE COURT: Excuse me. Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And have you since had an occasion to think about yourself what happened at the scene and who did what?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you in fact do, other than on stain 55 and 56, the shoeprints, most of the physical swatching on the other stains?
MS. MAZZOLA: Most of the physical swatching, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And since then, have you come up with the two recollections that you testified to on stain 47 and the item with the berry?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes."
weezer
06-10-2009, 12:39 PM
Dr. Gerdes was qualified as an expert and the argument should have been made in front of the judge that he wasn't qualified, which I believe it probably was and, now a desperate attempt to argue he was not qualified to the jury. :)
he was a paid defense 'expert' who had no forensic experience and simply testified that there was a 'risk' of contamination -- he did not and could not testify that there was contamination. :shrug:
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 12:40 PM
The amount of EDTA found in the sock stain was a thousand times what should have been found or, expected to have been found, if you will. :)
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 12:41 PM
I have posted his testimony and it is what it is. :)
weezer
06-10-2009, 12:42 PM
"MR. GOLDBERG: The offer of proof is, she said that she selected all the stains at Bundy, and it's a little bit ambiguous in relationship to what she said here.
MR. NEUFELD: It's not ambiguous. It contradicts it.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. At this point, the objection is overruled.
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. Proceed.
MR. GOLDBERG: Actually, I'll start on 734, line 27 through 735, line 26.
MR. GOLDBERG: Are you ready counsel? Do you have that?
MR. NEUFELD: What line? I am sorry.
MR. GOLDBERG: 27.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERG: "Question: And which--I am sorry. At Bundy again, were there certain stains that you collected and other stains that were collected by Mr. Fung? "Answer: Yes. "Question: And which bloodstains were collected by Mr. Fung? "Answer: I believe he collected the red stains that were near the shoeprints that were made on the walkway. "Question: Would you please look at your notes and tell me which numbers those are? "Question: And when you say that, you say he collected the actual foot shoeprints where he collected alleged drops that were near the shoeprints? "Answer: He, if I remember correctly, took swatchings of the red stains that were constituting the footprint itself. "Question: Can you tell us which ones those were, please? "Answer: Property items 55 and 56. "Question: And that is it? "Answer: Yes. "Question: All other bloodstains at the Bundy crime scene were collected by you, ma'am? "Answer: Yes." Do you recall that testimony?
MS. MAZZOLA: Somewhat.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And since testifying at this hearing, was there an occasion when you and Dennis Fung went over the crime scene identification checklist again to try to make notations as to who physically collected which items?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection as to hearsay.
THE COURT: Excuse me. Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And have you since had an occasion to think about yourself what happened at the scene and who did what?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you in fact do, other than on stain 55 and 56, the shoeprints, most of the physical swatching on the other stains?
MS. MAZZOLA: Most of the physical swatching, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And since then, have you come up with the two recollections that you testified to on stain 47 and the item with the berry?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes."
:shrug:
weezer
06-10-2009, 12:43 PM
The amount of EDTA found in the sock stain was a thousand times what should have been found or, expected to have been found, if you will. :)
"Of course, during the civil trial, this theory was disproved, because when Nicole's blood from the sock was compared to Nicole's blood from the test-tube. The blood in the test-tube was more deteriorated than that of the sock, and since the blood in the test-tube was preserved with EDTA, there was no way that the blood had come from the same samples (August 1)."
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 12:45 PM
"MR. NEUFELD: Now, let me show you the other LAPD evidence summary board which is 177-C. Do you remember the drops along the pathway at Bundy?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: That would be items 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Let me double-check on that.
(Brief pause.)
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you personally collected item 47, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Let's see. 47 was--
MR. NEUFELD: One moment.
(Brief pause.)
MR. NEUFELD: Isn't that correct, ma'am, you personally collected item 47?
MS. MAZZOLA: I did. Mr. Fung managed to get a little more blood off of that one spot, but I collected the majority of it.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, what--can I see what you are looking at now to refresh your recollection?
MS. MAZZOLA: I'm just looking at this, because this is the one that was at the corner of the house, the first drop on the trail.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. Miss Mazzola, in the note that you are looking at right now to refresh your recollection, did you discuss with Dennis Fung, sometime after you testified on August 23rd, which items you personally collected? Was there a discussion?
MS. MAZZOLA: There was a discussion, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And he also told you his recollection as to which items he thought he personally participated in collecting; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And after that discussion you made certain entries in your field notes next to each one of the items, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And the entries you made would reflect whether it was an item that you personally collected alone or whether it was one that you collected with Mr. Fung or whether it was an item that Mr. Fung collected; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Those entries at the time were meant to reflect that, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And is that the only discussion you've had with Dennis Fung about who collected what in this case?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, based on your independent recollection, was there another meeting besides this one meeting with him that you have already testified to that occurred after August 23rd?
MS. MAZZOLA: I had seen Mr. Fung since then. I don't remember exactly what we talked about.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, did you talk about--excuse me. Did you talk about who collected what in this case on those other occasions?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember.
MR. NEUFELD: But you do recall one specific meeting where that was the main subject discussed?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: That was at a meeting you had with him shortly after you testified or sometime after you testified on August 23rd; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And as a result of that meeting you made certain entries you said on your field notes, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And for some of the items that were collected you made entries indicating that items collected by both Fung and Mazzola, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And when it was an item that you believe was collected by both Fung and Mazzola, would you write in the column that said "By f/m," f for Fung and m for Mazzola?
MS. MAZZOLA: (No audible response.)
MR. NEUFELD: Would you do that?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it a fact, ma'am, with respect to item 47, even after the meeting you had with Dennis Fung, you indicated that 47 was collected only by Mazzola?
MS. MAZZOLA: At the time I thought that was correct, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. And you thought that was correct when you testified on August 23rd also, didn't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes."
Where are her initials?:)
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 12:46 PM
Nothing says that the blood on the socks was not planted and we have had that discussion and the testimony on Cotton's cross just recently. :)
weezer
06-10-2009, 12:48 PM
Q. And lastly, Doctor, is it true the reason material such as this was put in a treatise that you were involved with was to get across to the forensic science students to be careful because it's hard to figure out how long something's going to take to dry even in the laboratory?
A. That's one point. Another point is to let the student know when they collect the evidence, preserve the evidence, to be very careful, make sure it's dry. If it's wet, you should document it's wet.
Q. Well, in terms of what was wrong, what you're saying is that there were—if they were completely dry, there was a wet transfer?
A. Transfer.
Q. And there shouldn't be?
A. Shouldn't be.
Q. That's all you're talking about?
A. Yeah, that's all I'm talking about.
weezer
06-10-2009, 12:49 PM
Nothing says that the blood on the socks was not planted and we have had that discussion and the testimony on Cotton's cross just recently. :)
"Of course, during the civil trial, this theory was disproved, because when Nicole's blood from the sock was compared to Nicole's blood from the test-tube. The blood in the test-tube was more deteriorated than that of the sock, and since the blood in the test-tube was preserved with EDTA, there was no way that the blood had come from the same samples (August 1)."
weezer
06-10-2009, 12:56 PM
FYI: I've been posting testimony of Dr. Henry Lee
Q. You're aware, are you not, that Mr. Sims also found the transfer and reported it in writing?
A. In his notes. He did not report that in his laboratory report.
Q. He reported it in his notes, did he not?
A. No. He documented in his note. That's one thing. You report it in your writing, like my report—laboratory report. I noticed wet transfer, that's in report. Report it in writing.
Q. Where did he report it?
A. He did not report. He document in his notes. I don't—I did not watch his testimony. If he testifies, say I observe this wet transfer, then he report in his testimony. I did not read his laboratory report. In other words—I assume he issued a lab report. If he said, Item 47, I found wet transfer, that's called report in writing.
Q. To the best of your knowledge—
A. Somebody can say, well, I observed, but I kept in my mind. You still say somebody observed. Do you see what I mean?
Q. Isn't it true that, to the best of your knowledge, Mr. Sims wrote down—
A. Document in his note.
Q. -- that he documented in his notes—
A. Yes.
Q. -- the transfer, and those notes were turned over to Mr.
Simpson's counsel?
A. I guess so.
Q. You know that, don't you, Doctor?
A. Yeah, I guess so. Turned to which one...
Q. He has so many. But to one of them?
A. One of them.
Q. Okay.
A. Too many of them.
Q. And you do know that?
A. I know that. Of course I know that. I read the notes. This morning, you show me the note again. Yesterday, Mr. Baker showed me the note. Of course I know the note.
Q. All right. Isn't it true also, to your knowledge, that there
were—there was another bindle, I believe, bindle 42 --
A. Yes.
Q. -- where there was a wet transfer?
A. Yeah. 42 also a wet transfer. 42 much easier to explain because the pattern perfect match.
Q. Let me step back for a minute.
A. Yes.
Q. On 42 where there was a wet transfer—
A. Yes.
Q. -- this is something that, and I—right, it should not have occurred if the swatches were completely dried when they were taken from the test tube and put in the bindle?
A. Right.
Q. But—and the way—strike that. The ordinary procedure is to transfer the swatches once they're dry?
A. Yes.
Q. So here, once again, there's someone apparently thinking the swatches are dry when they weren't because they have the transfer in bindle 42?
A. Yes.
Q. And bindle 42, to the best of your knowledge, when it was analyzed, was Nicole Brown's blood?
A. I guess so.
Q. And there is no question that—strike that. There is no reason that you would know of why somebody would try to plant Nicole Brown's blood on a particular swatch since she was the victim of this murder; isn't that right?
A. How do I know. There are so many people, so many things happen. This is not a fair question to ask me.
Q. But—
A. In the past we have had some law enforcement officers plant evidence for no reason.
Q. But you have no scientific evidence to support any statement that in this case a law enforcement officer—
A. No.
Q. -- planted any evidence?
A. By all means, no, I have no independent knowledge. I only report scientific fact.
Q. All right.
A. I see the wet transfer and didn't matter whatever way you cut it, something wrong, either in that document or that drawing, they just did not meet the standard.
Q. What you're saying—and I think we're done—
A. Yes.
Q. -- is that, by all means, you're not saying you have any
scientific fact to show that any LA police officer planted or did anything, cheating, with any evidence?
A. I did not testify.
Q. All right. So that statement is correct?
A. Correct.
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 01:01 PM
Originally Posted by William Anthony View Post
Nothing says that the blood on the socks was not planted and we have had that discussion and the testimony on Cotton's cross just recently. :)
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 01:09 PM
"Q. And there is no question that—strike that. There is no reason that you would know of why somebody would try to plant Nicole Brown's blood on a particular swatch since she was the victim of this murder; isn't that right?
A. How do I know. There are so many people, so many things happen. This is not a fair question to ask me.
Q. But—
A. In the past we have had some law enforcement officers plant evidence for no reason.
Q. But you have no scientific evidence to support any statement that in this case a law enforcement officer—
A. No.
Q. -- planted any evidence?
A. By all means, no, I have no independent knowledge. I only report scientific fact.
Q. All right.
A. I see the wet transfer and didn't matter whatever way you cut it, something wrong, either in that document or that drawing, they just did not meet the standard.
Q. What you're saying—and I think we're done—
A. Yes.
Q. -- is that, by all means, you're not saying you have any
scientific fact to show that any LA police officer planted or did anything, cheating, with any evidence?
A. I did not testify.
Q. All right. So that statement is correct?
A. Correct. "
He can only offer an opinion and not testify to a fact but his opinion is that something is wrong and, if we read all the evidence, a reasonable inference can be drawn that the evidence was planted. :)
martin II
06-10-2009, 03:35 PM
Those would haves, could haves and should haves are based on the testimony of an expert with training and he is talking about a specific method used and what you would expect to find, which is different from a poster looking at the evidence and then saying something may have, could have, entirely possible and perceptions, when the evidence goes against their conclusion. :)
"Q. And you're aware that she testified that according to the procedure used by the LAPD lab, the swatches that went into the bindles were dry at the time they went in there, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you're aware that one of the Bundy drops, 47, the bindle that was later examined by Mr. Yamauchi, has a wet blood transfer stain -- several of them, actually?
A. I'm aware."
:)
So the sample were dry when they went into the bindles according to the testimony of "SHE" . but after CY handeled them they were wet.How is that.
Sounds like a switch to me.imo
martin II
06-10-2009, 03:59 PM
The prosecution offered several ways they thought the blood got on the socks. G Simms the prosectuions expert testified that he did not know how the blood got on the socks.
martin II
06-10-2009, 04:14 PM
If you go back and extrapolate from Park's ever changing testimony, he waited thirty seconds before hanging up with his boss after seeing someone believed to be Simpson enter his home and thirty seconds before going to the intercom, one minute. He then testified to seeing Kato "at the gate control box in a minute, as he looked up from the dashboard he had been watching for that minute. THIS MEANS THAT HE SAW KATO AT THE GATE CONTROL BOX BEFORE GOING TO THE INTERCOM AND THEN WHY WOULD HE GO TO THE INTERCOM OR HE FORGOT HIS PREVIOUS TESTIMONY DURING THE COACHING, WHICH I THINK IS THE MOST LOGICAL. :)
I have always thought that it was unatural for clarke to be looking at the front door nonstop with ever looking away. now we find that he looked at the dashboard for a whole minute.planty of time for Kato to run past his sight and oj to walk out and in the front door.
If park saw kato at the control box why did he buzze oj again. When one tries to testify to something someone told him to say which was not the truth they always get caught saying something that makes no sense. or telling lies. this happened with park more than once which may be why the jury didn't believe some of his testimony.
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 04:20 PM
I have always thought that it was unatural for clarke to be looking at the front door nonstop with ever looking away. now we find that he looked at the dashboard for a whole minute.planty of time for Kato to run past his sight and oj to walk out and in the front door.
I wish someone would have asked him what was his fixation with the dashboard.:)
fgump2
06-10-2009, 04:55 PM
So the sample were dry when they went into the bindles according to the testimony of "SHE" . but after CY handeled them they were wet.How is that.
Sounds like a switch to me.imo
I think this argument is a waste of time. I don't know much about criminology, but I have done a fair amount of painting, and I know that paint that looks dry can still smear a bit. When paint or blood or anything else stops looking shiny, people assume it is dry, but it may still be damp enough to smear.
Unless the LAPD used a reliable scientific test to find out if the swatches were dry, I think there would have been some water present.
I think the prosecution also argued that the stuff was frozen and then thawed out which may have contributed to transfer stains.
Fung and Henry Lee used different ways of drying the swaths (pieces of cotton I think). Fung packed his closer together, so that some samples dried slower than others.
Henry Lee said, or implied that there should have been the same number of transfer stains for each swatch, that is all should have transfer stains, or none should have transfer stains. I disagree for several reasons:
(1)The drying techniques that Fung used meant that different swatches got different amount of air flowing over them while drlying. This would be like one part of a room being near an open window and getting more air flow than anothr part of the room.
(2) The swatches probably were not equally wet at the start of the drying period.
(3) some swatches were probably pressed against other things, pieces of paper or the bindles or whatever more than others. It would be unreasonable to think that each swatch was pressed with the same pessure against the bindle or envelope in the same manner for the same length of time.
Mr. Lee didn't seem to think that the mere fact of the smears was a problem; he was concerned with the fact that some swatches had smears and ohers didn't.
I know some that I have slammed Henry Lee too much for some people's taste, but I think the man just lacked integrity on this case. To cite only two facts:
First of all his memory problems with collecting hair samples from Mr. Simpson. He said the prosecution would need only 2 or 3 (or some small number) from Simpson, his book said about 10 times that amount. This was in Goldberg's book among other places.
Secondly Lee stated that there were crime scene footprints that the prosecution ignored. After the FBI guy refuted this and made Mr. Lee look bad, Mr. Lee refused to talk about it. And yet people are still arguing about the footprints.
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 05:04 PM
I think this argument is a waste of time. I don't know much about criminology, but I have done a fair amount of painting, and I know that paint that looks dry can still smear a bit. When paint or blood or anything else stops looking shiny, people assume it is dry, but it may still be damp enough to smear.
Unless the LAPD used a reliable scientific test to find out if the swatches were dry, I think there would have been some water present.
I think the prosecution also argued that the stuff was frozen and then thawed out which may have contributed to transfer stains.
Fung and Henry Lee used different ways of drying the swaths (pieces of cotton I think). Fung packed his closer together, so that some samples dried slower than others.
Henry Lee said, or implied that there should have been the same number of transfer stains for each swatch, that is all should have transfer stains, or none should have transfer stains. I disagree for several reasons:
(1)The drying techniques that Fung used meant that different swatches got different amount of air flowing over them while drlying. This would be like one part of a room being near an open window and getting more air flow than anothr part of the room.
(2) The swatches probably were not equally wet at the start of the drying period.
(3) some swatches were probably pressed against other things, pieces of paper or the bindles or whatever more than others. It would be unreasonable to think that each swatch was pressed with the same pessure against the bindle or envelope in the same manner for the same length of time.
Mr. Lee didn't seem to think that the mere fact of the smears was a problem; he was concerned with the fact that some swatches had smears and ohers didn't.
I know some that I have slammed Henry Lee too much for some people's taste, but I think the man just lacked integrity on this case. To cite only two facts:
First of all his memory problems with collecting hair samples from Mr. Simpson. He said the prosecution would need only 2 or 3 (or some small number) from Simpson, his book said about 10 times that amount. This was in Goldberg's book among other places.
Secondly Lee stated that there were crime scene footprints that the prosecution ignored. After the FBI guy refuted this and made Mr. Lee look bad, Mr. Lee refused to talk about it. And yet people are still arguing about the footprints.
"Q. And you're aware that she testified that according to the procedure used by the LAPD lab, the swatches that went into the bindles were dry at the time they went in there, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you're aware that one of the Bundy drops, 47, the bindle that was later examined by Mr. Yamauchi, has a wet blood transfer stain -- several of them, actually?
A. I'm aware."
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 05:18 PM
"MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, are you familiar with the drying process that Mr. Fung uses to dry wet swatches?
MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, I understand how it works.
MR. HARMON: And based on your familiarity with his drying process, what is the significance of seeing those things in the tubes that morning?
MR. SCHECK: Objection, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, Mr. Fung tends to dry his swatches in test-tubes, and that would have been the stage at which this would have taken place.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And then what about the two that were in the bindles already, 12 and 14?
MR. YAMAUCHI: Those would--
MR. SCHECK: I think--did he say tubes? I'm sorry. Did you mean--
THE COURT: Rephrase the question.
MR. HARMON: You have described no. 12, the substrate, the stain and substrate control, and 14, the stain and substrate control, as having been in bindles. What is the significance of that?
MR. YAMAUCHI: Okay. Then I would assume he took the tubes.
MR. SCHECK: Excuse me. Motion to strike what he assumes.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HARMON: What is the significance of the fact that they are already in bindles?
MR. SCHECK: Objection, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: "Significance" doesn't. What point in the process is this?
MR. YAMAUCHI: They would have been dried and placed into the bindles.
MR. SCHECK: Motion to strike as to what would have happened.
THE COURT: Overruled."
fgump2
06-10-2009, 05:24 PM
Mr. August,
I read Clark's book and I know what she said about Kato. However, she provided no proof that Kato was slanting his testimony toward the defense. If he was, you and William would not be engaging in the "Great Debate" regarding Park Kato. He would have changed his description of the thumps or given a different time.
Clark making Kato a hostile witness was just a ploy on her part, she got what she wanted from him regarding the time of the noise but that was it. He would not say what she wanted him to say. She may very well felt that he knew more then what he was telling but she needed to prove it and failed.
I read an interesting article on face reading by Malcom Gladwell about face reading. The articlethat includes a part about Kato's testimony that indicates he was a hostile witness, and M. Clark was justified. The article quotes Gladwell and a psychologist name Paul Ekman:
Ekman slipped a tape taken from the O.J. Simpson trial into the VCR. It was of Kato Kaelin, Simpson's shaggy-haired house guest, being examined by Marcia Clark, one of the prosecutors in the case. Kaelin sits in the witness box, with his trademark vacant look. Clark asks a hostile question. Kaelin leans forward and answers softly. "Did you see that?" Ekman asked me. I saw nothing, just Kato being Kato-- harmless and passive. Ekman stopped the tape, rewound it, and played it back in slow motion. On the screen, Kaelin moved forward to answer the question, and in that fraction of a second his face was utterly transformed... " Ekman stopped the tape and played it again, peering at the screen. "You know, he looks like a snarling dog."
Since I don't know what Clark was asking, I can't give it much interpetation, but it does seem like hostility. I realize that different people can spin this different ways; especially if they had the full context of this testimony. Kato later wrote a book in which he made Simpson look rather bad; although I didn't read the book. I think Kato hoped Simpson could get him in the movie business, and the murders derailed that. If Calrk really mistreated Kato, it is odd he didn't mention that in his book. I think he was angry because he saw his movie career going down the tube.
I also think that Greenice has a record of reading things into others motives that aren't there. For example, Greenice wrote that during the bronco chase SImpson probably felt guilty about not doing more to protect Nicole. I see no evidence of that. Simpson had nothing nice to say about her, and tried to shift the blame for the relationship problems on to her, he wrote in his farewell note: ‘I have felt like a battered husband… I took the heat New Year’s 1989 because that was what I was supposed to do. I did not plead no contest for any other reason but to protect our privacy”. In other words whatever problems there were in the relationship were Nicole’s fault, not his.
martin II
06-10-2009, 05:30 PM
fgump2,
Nicole gave two pairs of the same gloves to Tom McCollum. He gave one black and one brown glove to the DA's and the defense. Those may very well be the gloves that Nicole bought.
The pictures are what they are, they only prove that he wore a pair of gloves. Without the tag inside the glove, without the color, size and model number of the gloves on the receipt, there is no way to confirm or prove one way or the other about the gloves. There is more then one size of extra large gloves. In fact, the DA's were burned by this. Apparently, there was a debate between the DA's about having him try on the gloves, apparently they used Phil Vanatter's hands and they felt his hands were the same size as Simpson's. However, while both men may have large hands, that does not mean they could wear the same size of extra large. For example, the width of the glove. Don't forget, Simpson need wider gloves to make sure the heating device he wore during the winter months would fit inside the glove. Were his fingers the same length as Vanatter's? Did one man have long slender fingers vs long 'fat" fingers? There are many other parts to this debate.
I think it is also significant to mention that a active member of the Aris company was not called to testify. When Brenda V, tried to confirm the tag information with this company, she never got a reply.
There were also gloves taken from Simpson's home, these were not used either. Again, with out the size, color and model number, it is impossible to determine what type of gloves Simpson was wearing. I know the Rubin cited the stictch as unique, but were they the only glove company that used that stitch in making their gloves? Does "exclusive" mean no other glove company can use that stitch?
if mccollum had two pair of gloves given him by nicole,where did the murder gloves come from. did nicole purchase three sets of gloves?i don't think so.
fgump2
06-10-2009, 05:34 PM
"Q. And you're aware that she testified that according to the procedure used by the LAPD lab, the swatches that went into the bindles were dry at the time they went in there, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you're aware that one of the Bundy drops, 47, the bindle that was later examined by Mr. Yamauchi, has a wet blood transfer stain -- several of them, actually?
A. I'm aware."
An important question I don't know the answer to is this: Did the LAPD have a scientific test to see if the swatches were dry, or were they just looking at it? If they had a scientific test, then it could be checked for reliability. If it was just looking at it, then the whole thing is just a waste of time. Not even a red herring, just a red minnow.
martin II
06-10-2009, 05:40 PM
I read an interesting article on face reading by Malcom Gladwell about face reading. The articlethat includes a part about Kato's testimony that indicates he was a hostile witness, and M. Clark was justified. The article quotes Gladwell and a psychologist name Paul Ekman:
Ekman slipped a tape taken from the O.J. Simpson trial into the VCR. It was of Kato Kaelin, Simpson's shaggy-haired house guest, being examined by Marcia Clark, one of the prosecutors in the case. Kaelin sits in the witness box, with his trademark vacant look. Clark asks a hostile question. Kaelin leans forward and answers softly. "Did you see that?" Ekman asked me. I saw nothing, just Kato being Kato-- harmless and passive. Ekman stopped the tape, rewound it, and played it back in slow motion. On the screen, Kaelin moved forward to answer the question, and in that fraction of a second his face was utterly transformed... " Ekman stopped the tape and played it again, peering at the screen. "You know, he looks like a snarling dog."
Since I don't know what Clark was asking, I can't give it much interpetation, but it does seem like hostility. I realize that different people can spin this different ways; especially if they had the full context of this testimony. Kato later wrote a book in which he made Simpson look rather bad; although I didn't read the book. I think Kato hoped Simpson could get him in the movie business, and the murders derailed that. If Calrk really mistreated Kato, it is odd he didn't mention that in his book. I think he was angry because he saw his movie career going down the tube.
I also think that Greenice has a record of reading things into others motives that aren't there. For example, Greenice wrote that during the bronco chase SImpson probably felt guilty about not doing more to protect Nicole. I see no evidence of that. Simpson had nothing nice to say about her, and tried to shift the blame for the relationship problems on to her, he wrote in his farewell note: ‘I have felt like a battered husband… I took the heat New Year’s 1989 because that was what I was supposed to do. I did not plead no contest for any other reason but to protect our privacy”. In other words whatever problems there were in the relationship were Nicole’s fault, not his.
you may not remember but Nicoles letter to oj has been published here. in her letter she explained and took responsibility for the problems in their relationship.this was when she was asking him to allow her to come back to rockingham.He refused. In other words Nicole took responsibility for some of their problems. You seem to be very selective in what you post.Always negative against oj without links to prove your claims.imo
martin II
06-10-2009, 05:45 PM
An important question I don't know the answer to is this: Did the LAPD have a scientific test to see if the swatches were dry, or were they just looking at it? If they had a scientific test, then it could be checked for reliability. If it was just looking at it, then the whole thing is just a waste of time. Not even a red herring, just a red minnow.
The standard procedure used by lapd to dry those samples were used on all samples to by dried.It was standard protocol.NO reason to believe those samples had not dried as all the others had.The tech testified they were dry.what else does one need.imo
fgump2
06-10-2009, 05:46 PM
fgump2,
Nicole gave two pairs of the same gloves to Tom McCollum. He gave one black and one brown glove to the DA's and the defense. Those may very well be the gloves that Nicole bought.
The pictures are what they are, they only prove that he wore a pair of gloves. Without the tag inside the glove, without the color, size and model number of the gloves on the receipt, there is no way to confirm or prove one way or the other about the gloves. There is more then one size of extra large gloves. In fact, the DA's were burned by this. Apparently, there was a debate between the DA's about having him try on the gloves, apparently they used Phil Vanatter's hands and they felt his hands were the same size as Simpson's. However, while both men may have large hands, that does not mean they could wear the same size of extra large. For example, the width of the glove. Don't forget, Simpson need wider gloves to make sure the heating device he wore during the winter months would fit inside the glove. Were his fingers the same length as Vanatter's? Did one man have long slender fingers vs long 'fat" fingers? There are many other parts to this debate.
I think it is also significant to mention that a active member of the Aris company was not called to testify. When Brenda V, tried to confirm the tag information with this company, she never got a reply.
There were also gloves taken from Simpson's home, these were not used either. Again, with out the size, color and model number, it is impossible to determine what type of gloves Simpson was wearing. I know the Rubin cited the stictch as unique, but were they the only glove company that used that stitch in making their gloves? Does "exclusive" mean no other glove company can use that stitch?
I would like to know more about the pictures of Simpson wearing gloves that were taken at different times. I thought that there were some pictures of him that were gloves that were similar enough to the murder gloves that they might have been the same type of glove, same model number for example. I realize you are raising a question about whether another company could have made a glove close enough that it would be hard to distinguish it. DO you know where to find any such photos? I think at least one was made at a game Simpson was broadcasting.
martin II
06-10-2009, 05:49 PM
I wish someone would have asked him what was his fixation with the dashboard.:)
preparing another cigarette?
weezer
06-10-2009, 06:22 PM
preparing another cigarette?
haha -- good one. hey, maybe his boss told him to have one ready for orenthal since on the night he butchered two human beings, ONLY orenthal had drugs in his system. :tongue:
martin II
06-10-2009, 06:57 PM
I would like to know more about the pictures of Simpson wearing gloves that were taken at different times. I thought that there were some pictures of him that were gloves that were similar enough to the murder gloves that they might have been the same type of glove, same model number for example. I realize you are raising a question about whether another company could have made a glove close enough that it would be hard to distinguish it. DO you know where to find any such photos? I think at least one was made at a game Simpson was broadcasting.
there was no way to tell the model number or size of the gloves in that picture and since Rubin said he could not tell the color of the picture gloves, we don't know what type gloves oj had on in those pictures.
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 06:58 PM
An important question I don't know the answer to is this: Did the LAPD have a scientific test to see if the swatches were dry, or were they just looking at it? If they had a scientific test, then it could be checked for reliability. If it was just looking at it, then the whole thing is just a waste of time. Not even a red herring, just a red minnow.
I would like to ask you for whom you think Collin Yamauchi worked? You had a prosecution witness testifying that the stains were wet. I don't think that is a herring or a minnow but it did make a whale of a difference.
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 07:01 PM
The standard procedure used by lapd to dry those samples were used on all samples to by dried.It was standard protocol.NO reason to believe those samples had not dried as all the others had.The tech testified they were dry.what else does one need.imo
If someone that believes Simpson is the murderer he/she can ignore the testimony or minimize it to fit that belief, then all efforts will be made to do so and even say who is mistaken and about what, IMHO.:)
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 07:03 PM
How many of us consider alcohol a drug?
weezer
06-10-2009, 07:45 PM
How many of us consider alcohol a drug?
orenthal was drinking and doing drugs?!! :-0
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 07:45 PM
An important question I don't know the answer to is this: Did the LAPD have a scientific test to see if the swatches were dry, or were they just looking at it? If they had a scientific test, then it could be checked for reliability. If it was just looking at it, then the whole thing is just a waste of time. Not even a red herring, just a red minnow.
Would your opinion hold true for those who saw blood and said it appeared to be fresh blood?
martin II
06-10-2009, 07:46 PM
most informed posters know the differance between TRACES OF MARIJUANA and HARD DRUGE.obviously one poster does not. hahaha
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 07:48 PM
Simpson went to McDonald's but Ms. NBS went to dinner at the Mezzuluna (sp).
They don't serve alcohol at McDonald's that I know of. How about the Mezzaluna? I think alcohol is a drug.
weezer
06-10-2009, 07:50 PM
there was no way to tell the model number or size of the gloves in that picture and since Rubin said he could not tell the color of the picture gloves, we don't know what type gloves oj had on in those pictures.
". . .Richard Rubin, a former vice-president of the company that manufactured the gloves, said he was 100-per-cent certain that the photographs showed Mr Simpson wearing exactly the same model of glove as one found at the murder scene and another, matching glove, found on the night of the murder, spattered with blood, at Mr Simpson's estate. . ."
weezer
06-10-2009, 07:53 PM
Simpson went to McDonald's but Ms. NBS went to dinner at the Mezzuluna (sp).
They don't serve alcohol at McDonald's that I know of. How about the Mezzaluna? I think alcohol is a drug.
Federal Classification
Alcohol is a legal purchased product for adults.
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 08:00 PM
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/333/7562/275
weezer
06-10-2009, 08:03 PM
Federal Classification
Alcohol is a legal purchased product for adults. -- Nicole: small amount possibly from the two glasses of wine she had with her dinner.
Marijuana is the most commonly abused illicit drug in the United States -- orenthal: ??? possibly from his toke after butchering two human beings.
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 08:05 PM
http://www.my420clinic.com/id5.html
weezer
06-10-2009, 08:06 PM
most informed posters know the differance between TRACES OF MARIJUANA and HARD DRUGE.obviously one poster does not. hahaha
I'm not embarrassed to admit that I'm not 'up' on the 'DRUGE' thing as obviously you are. hahahaha
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 08:14 PM
"Marijuana is the most commonly abused 'illicit' drug in the United States..."
weezer
06-10-2009, 08:20 PM
"Marijuana is the most commonly abused 'illicit' drug in the United States..."
not only did orenthal have it in his system, it was illegal!!! :eek:
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 08:24 PM
I think we know that now it is not appropriate to say that Simpson was the only one found with drugs in his system.
weezer
06-10-2009, 08:28 PM
I think we know that now it is not appropriate to say that Simpson was the only one found with drugs in his system.
because YOU wish to consider alcohol a drug? lol
uh - no.
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 08:28 PM
"Cannabis can provide relief for many conditions including insomnia, asthma, fibromyalgia, digestive disorders, depression, chronic pain, arthritis, migraines, cancer, AIDS, appetite disorders, anxiety, IBS, glaucoma, menstrual cramping, persistent muscle spasms, seizures, severe nausea, or any other chronic or persistent medical symptom that either substantially limits the ability of the person to conduct one or more major life activities, or if not alleviated, may cause serious harm to the patient's safety, physical or mental health. "
It is not illicit in California if prescribed. :)
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 08:30 PM
I think everyone knows that alcohol is a drug, except maybe those that abuse it, and they may realize it when the obtain sobriety. I think that to fail to recognize it as a drug and a disease does a disrespect to those that have been addicted to it and shows a rather callous attitude, IMHO.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_alcoholism_a_disease_or_a_learned_behavior
martin II
06-10-2009, 08:31 PM
not only did orenthal have it in his system, it was illegal!!! :eek:
With traces of marijuana in his blood oj was like 50,000 or more others in la.
or a couple million in the us. so what.
weezer
06-10-2009, 08:34 PM
"Cannabis can provide relief for many conditions including insomnia, asthma, fibromyalgia, digestive disorders, depression, chronic pain, arthritis, migraines, cancer, AIDS, appetite disorders, anxiety, IBS, glaucoma, menstrual cramping, persistent muscle spasms, seizures, severe nausea, or any other chronic or persistent medical symptom that either substantially limits the ability of the person to conduct one or more major life activities, or if not alleviated, may cause serious harm to the patient's safety, physical or mental health. "
It is not illicit in California if prescribed. :)
this is a silly argument that I am choosing to end.
FACTS
on the night orenthal james simpson butchered two human beings, he had drugs in his system. on the night Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown were murdered by orenthal james simpson, they had no drugs in their systems.
psst: link please to orenthal's prescription for his illegal drug.
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 08:36 PM
A poster has claimed that Ms. NBS had drugs in her system but now wishes to backtrack by not wanting to recognize alcohol as a drug. :)
I think we know that now it is not appropriate to say that Simpson was the only one found with drugs in his system.
OJ Simpson was the only found to have ILLICIT drugs in his system. Haha -- that sounds even worse.
weezer
06-10-2009, 08:37 PM
With traces of marijuana in his blood oj was like 50,000 or more others in la.
or a couple million in the us. so what.
there isn't a 'so what' -- just simply stated the fact that on the night orenthal james simpson butchered two human beings, he had drugs in his system. on the night that Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown were murdered by orenthal james simpson, they did not have drugs in their system.
50,000 huh? wow -- you must move in a whole different circle then I do. :eek:
martin II
06-10-2009, 08:37 PM
Alcohol is a drug regardless of the fact that one uninformed person thinks it is not.Drug rehab experts believe it is more addictive and more difficult to kick than heron.
usually it is the alcoholics that refuse to believe alcohol is a drug until to go to AA and get educated.
weezer
06-10-2009, 08:39 PM
A poster has claimed that Ms. NBS had drugs in her system but now wishes to backtrack by not wanting to recognize alcohol as a drug. :)
you're quite wrong -- I'm not backtracking at all. I'm simply calling BS to your silly post. :punch:
weezer
06-10-2009, 08:41 PM
Alcohol is a drug regardless of the fact that one uninformed person thinks it is not.Drug rehab experts believe it is more addictive and more difficult to kick than heron.
are you now telling me that not only was orenthal taking an illegal drug on the night he butchered two human beings, but that he was on 'heron'?
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 08:43 PM
Ms. NBS had legalized drugs in her system, which were not used to treat a medical condition and Simpson had drugs that had been legalized, according to California law, for some with his medical conditions in his system. Which sounds worse?
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 08:44 PM
IMHO, There is no need to become rude and offensive when one corrects a poster's inaccurate statements.
weezer
06-10-2009, 08:48 PM
Ms. NBS had legalized drugs in her system, which were not used to treat a medical condition and Simpson had drugs that had been legalized, according to California law, for some with his medical conditions in his system. Which sounds worse?
I'm guessing Nicole felt like she needed a drink after dealing with her abuser and I'll give orenthal the same -- he evidently needed that toke after butchering two human beings.
still waiting on the link to orenthal's prescription for his illegal drug. . . .
Ms. NBS had legalized drugs in her system, which were not used to treat a medical condition and Simpson had drugs that had been legalized, according to California law, for some with his medical conditions in his system. Which sounds worse?
What sounds worse is for you to put forth the erroneous assertion that OJ Simpson was approved for medical marijuana. Oh my goodness, the laughs on this board never cease!
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 08:52 PM
What sounds worse is for you to put forth the erroneous assertion that OJ Simpson was approved for medical marijuana? Oh my goodness, the laughs on this board never cease!
You are right about the erroneous assertions on this board never ceasing, so in that vein, I respectfully request you to post my erroneous assertion that Simpson was approved for medical marijuana or respectfully apologize.
William Anthony
06-10-2009, 08:53 PM
We can all guess but the evidence is that they both had drugs in their system. :)
martin II
06-10-2009, 08:53 PM
if nicole was drinking wine at that resturant she was taking a drug.Depending on how many glasses she had she could have been DUI when she drove the children home.
You are right about the erroneous assertions on this board never ceasing, so in that vein, I respectfully request you to post my erroneous assertion that Simpson was approved for medical marijuana or respectfully apologize. I respectfully hope you're not holding your breath.
martin II
06-10-2009, 08:58 PM
What sounds worse is for you to put forth the erroneous assertion that OJ Simpson was approved for medical marijuana. Oh my goodness, the laughs on this board never cease!
who said oj was approved for medical marijuana??
weezer
06-10-2009, 08:58 PM
We can all guess but the evidence is that they both had drugs in their system. :)
looks like time to end your silly assertions -- please post a link to a government site that defines alcohol as an illegal drug.
martin II
06-10-2009, 09:01 PM
I respectfully hope you're not holding your breath.
you may have jumped the gun as they say.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.