Random Discussions On The Case

[GreenIce]

yes he made a date with Grethen Stockdale and she testified for the defence. he had dated her before and she had attended parties at his house.so he had a date when he returned but could not keep it.

Martin,

Paula was very upset and hurt about the letter Simpson wrote. Can you imagine how upset she was during Kato's and Gretchen's testimony? I can't say that I blame her but she had to be even more outraged.

Not only did Simpson make it clear he was not going to give into her demands regarding his children and Nicole, but he was actually using her own words to set himself free of her.

IMO, Simpson seems like the type of guy who likes to have a "steady" girlfriend but also likes to a couple steady "mistresses" as well. I would love to know how many plates Ron Shipp ran for Nicole. In the trial he testified that he did it for Simpson but in Shelia Weller's book, he says he did it for Nicole. He gives a few example's Nicole's behavior toward her help or former help that give a clear indication that Nicole had a mean and vicious side to her that had nothing to do with Simpson, IMO.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

It matters why the photograph was taken and you know that. It proves that Dennis Fung was never told about the blood drops on the back gate, it proves that no detective or police officer pointed out these blood drops to Fung or the photographer. Rokhar was there to take pictures of the evidence, he was there to take picture of exits of the crime scene and he was there to take photos of the bodies. He took pictures of evidence that clearly was evidence but was never collected, such as the piece of paper by Nicole's head.

The photgrapher was given a tour of the crime scene and never once was the back gate ever mentioned in regards to evidence--which if MF is telling the truth, a bloody fingerprint was left on the back gate.

I believe he was told to take pictures of the coins and these coins were in the back of condo---yet never directed to the back gate.

Close ups of the drops on the back gate taken 3 weeks later does not prove they were there the morning of the murders.

You must also consider that not only was there no pictures taken of the back gate for this evidence, no pictures were taken of the wisps of blood that MF said he saw---he watched the photographer take on picture of the blood drop on the outside of the Bronco but never directed him to the wisps of blood he says he found on the outside of the Bronco--wisps later Fung found on the inside of the Bronco.

Simpson’s defense was provided with first generation copies of all the crime photographs taken in this case. One of those photographs taken at Bundy the morning of June 13 was a perspective shot taken from about fifteen feet away that showed the bottom half of the rear gate. When that photograph was examined with a magnifying glass it clearly showed one of the blood stains on the rear gate.

The prosecution enlarged that photograph and entered it into evidence in the criminal trial where it was then compared to photographs taken three weeks later after blood stains were seen on the rear gate and before they were collected. Dennis Fung testified that the blood stain shown in both the June 13 photograph and the July 3 photograph was in the same configuration and location on the rear gate. That blood stain was found to be Simpson’s blood.

No one directed the photographer on June 13 to specifically photograph the rear gate and the criminalists never collected any blood from the rear gate on June 13. That doesn’t change the fact that a June 13 crime scene photograph proved the defense gate blood planting theory false.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Martin,

Bottom line, everything Vanatter did not only with Simpson reference sample but lying about how he got Ron's and Nicole's reference reeks of corrupt and contaminated evidence. How did Simpson's blood get into Ron and Nicole's reference samples?

Not only did have the reference samples but he also had access to the lab. I do not think he would involved anybody else. He knows he was covered. Hell, looked how he covered MF. However, IMO, it is clear, VA never trusted MF and again, IMO, both Lange and Vanatter boil with rage over MF. I think they are more pissed off at him them Simpson.

However, they made the choice to cover for him and they invited the heat down on themselves. It really was Lange and VA's party, IMO.

GreenIce, Simpson’s blood never got into Ron and Nicole’s reference samples. Vannatter never carried any reference blood sample in his pocket.

bobaugust

[martin II]

It may have been a mistake, but it wouldn't have caused any problems unless someone dropped the tube of blood and spilled it. If this had happened there would have been more missing blood than the defense ever claimed.

fgmp2

how does a detective with 25 years experience not know where blood is supopose to be deposited. no mistake.

As posted previously there are 24 drops in a cc of blood. So more than 24 drops could be made from the missing blood.

[tv]

OJ Simpson beat Nicole for years -- witnessed and testified to by various people...in the end he brutally murdered her but Nicole had a mean and vicious side to her?? :eek:

[martin II]

Martin,

Paula was very upset and hurt about the letter Simpson wrote. Can you imagine how upset she was during Kato's and Gretchen's testimony? I can't say that I blame her but she had to be even more outraged.

Not only did Simpson make it clear he was not going to give into her demands regarding his children and Nicole, but he was actually using her own words to set himself free of her.

IMO, Simpson seems like the type of guy who likes to have a "steady" girlfriend but also likes to a couple steady "mistresses" as well. I would love to know how many plates Ron Shipp ran for Nicole. In the trial he testified that he did it for Simpson but in Shelia Weller's book, he says he did it for Nicole. He gives a few example's Nicole's behavior toward her help or former help that give a clear indication that Nicole had a mean and vicious side to her that had nothing to do with Simpson, IMO.

Nicole thought that she should get what she wanted when she wanted it.This includes the irs affair and oj When she wanted or needed him.

She got pissed with michael because michael would not give her the key to ojs private office. She thought that nicole should tell her about any woman oj may have been talking to. When michael refused nicole slapped her face.
Nicole was pissed with kato for moving to ojs house.What did she do. she taught bthe kids to make some kind of sign saying kato was a bum or grifter and showed it to him.After the divoice and she was not living at rockingham she demanded that when she came to rockingham that kato and michael be keep out of her sight.

When oj refused her irs request she tossed a hissy fit, called her friends and tried to make his refusal proof that he did not care about his kids.She totall ignored the fact that previously oj had advised her against the bundy transaction and that it was her decisions that caused her to be in irs trouble.

She was a good mother to the kids but she also had another side to her.oj did state that he did get tired of nicole bring him her personal problems for him to fix.

[martin II]

Martin,

Paula was very upset and hurt about the letter Simpson wrote. Can you imagine how upset she was during Kato's and Gretchen's testimony? I can't say that I blame her but she had to be even more outraged.

Not only did Simpson make it clear he was not going to give into her demands regarding his children and Nicole, but he was actually using her own words to set himself free of her.

IMO, Simpson seems like the type of guy who likes to have a "steady" girlfriend but also likes to a couple steady "mistresses" as well. I would love to know how many plates Ron Shipp ran for Nicole. In the trial he testified that he did it for Simpson but in Shelia Weller's book, he says he did it for Nicole. He gives a few example's Nicole's behavior toward her help or former help that give a clear indication that Nicole had a mean and vicious side to her that had nothing to do with Simpson, IMO.

As a judge to some of those beauty contest that he worked i bet some of those contestants kept him as busy as they keep other men in positions to help their careers.:cool:

[martin II]

OJ Simpson beat Nicole for years -- witnessed and testified to by various people...in the end he brutally murdered her but Nicole had a mean and vicious side to her?? :eek:

Not really.

[weezer]

Nicole thought that she should get what she wanted when she wanted it.This includes the irs affair and oj When she wanted or needed him.

She got pissed with michael because michael would not give her the key to ojs private office. She thought that nicole should tell her about any woman oj may have been talking to. When michael refused nicole slapped her face.
Nicole was pissed with kato for moving to ojs house.What did she do. she taught bthe kids to make some kind of sign saying kato was a bum or grifter and showed it to him.After the divoice and she was not living at rockingham she demanded that when she came to rockingham that kato and michael be keep out of her sight.

When oj refused her irs request she tossed a hissy fit, called her friends and tried to make his refusal proof that he did not care about his kids.She totall ignored the fact that previously oj had advised her against the bundy transaction and that it was her decisions that caused her to be in irs trouble.

She was a good mother to the kids but she also had another side to her.oj did state that he did get tired of nicole bring him her personal problems for him to fix.

O.J.'s Suicide Note

"To Whom It May Concern:

First, everyone understand. I have nothing to do with Nicole's murder. I loved her; always have and always will. If we had a problem, it's because I loved her so much."

[martin II]

You might have reported us but at least you haven't been able to say we called you a racist. That nasty little slur is yours alone. I would take DW's suggestion and put you on ignore but the last time I did it you were immature enough to ask martin to quote you so I would see it.

Keep posting your make believe facts and theories, keep misquoting books and testimony -- we're starting to enjoy the entertainment -- but keep in mind whether we challenge your claims or not, we know better. :punch:

tv

please keep me out of your fuss.
thanks.

[martin II]

I think many people maintain LOVE for their ex.Love as respect and as a person or as the mother of the kids. It is not the same love when they were togeather.There are different types of love.it seems that not all understand this.i have a type of love for my ex and would be very sad if she was killed or died but would never live with her again.

[martin II]

When I talk about his cheating I'm talking about during their marriage.

tv

if oj had women when they were married i bet the number of women doubled when he was divoiced.Greta Stcckdale testified.and she was a knockout.

[tv]

As a judge to some of those beauty contest that he worked i bet some of those contestants kept him as busy as they keep other men in positions to help their careers.:cool:

Good grief -- this was a nasty thing to say.

[martin II]

You stuck your nose in our fuss when you quoted GI calling me names a while back when I had her on ignore. If you don't want in it then stay out of it and stop enabling her nasty ways. You can also stop downing weezer in your posts to me -- I've had enough of that.

i don't want to get zapped by dw for not following her directves so i will not respond to this post.

[tv]

tv

if oj had women when they were married i bet the number of women doubled when he was divoiced.Greta Stcckdale testified.and she was a knockout.

Doesn't look like he had any luck hanging on to them until he hooked up with Prody...you know what they say about birds of a feather.

[martin II]

Good grief -- this was a nasty thing to say.

it is a fact of life for that kind of business.There are groupies almost every where.

[tv]

i don't want to get zapped by dw for not following her directves so i will not respond to this post.

No response necessary.

[tv]

it is a fact of life for that kind of business.There are groupies almost every where.

You're judging these women without even knowing them but if you feel comfortable with it -- :shrug:

[martin II]

Doesn't look like he had any luck hanging on to them until he hooked up with Prody...you know what they say about birds of a feather.

i guess as far as ojs personal life is concerned you can only speak about what you have heard. Not who he has seen.

[tv]

i guess as far as ojs personal life is concerned you can only speak about what you have heard. Not who he has seen.

But you know about the personal lives of beauty contestants? Okay.

[martin II]

Martin,

No, I don't think I know. I assumed he was on the phone with Simpson when MF found the glove. I always thought that VA and Lange along with Arnelle were all together at that time.

I never really thought about it before.

on another board a poster claimed that he was in front of the breakfast nook as a look out for furhamn.i wondered if this was true or possible.

[martin II]

But you know about the personal lives of beauty contestants? Okay.

no. just the reputation of some of these events in past reports.

[tv]

Looks like Dr. Fischman thought Nicole rejected Simpson. This is civil trial testimony from December 4, 1996.

Q. (BY MR. BREWER) I'm going to ask, Dr. Fischman, if you could look at the answer, where it says "The Witness." And just for the moment, read that to yourself and see if that refreshes your recollection. And I'll reask the question.

(Pause for witness to read transcript.)

A. I said that I believe -- it says, "maybe he felt like he was being ignored."

I think that accurately reflects my memory of that, yes.

Q. And so that refreshes your recollection, that in discussions with Mr. Simpson, that it was your sense based upon those discussions, that he felt as though he was being ignored by Nicole, true?

A. To the best of my recollection.

Q. Okay.

And in your discussions with Mr. Simpson during that same time frame, you felt that -- strike that -- he indicated to you that he was frustrated, true?

A. Yes.

Q. He indicated to you he was confused, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And he also indicated to you that he felt Nicole was rejecting him, true?

A. I don't recall him using that word, but I'm -- I'm certain he felt that, yeah.

Q. Okay.

And you -- when you say you're certain he felt that, that's based upon your recollection as you sit here today of conversations you had with O.J. Simpson in the three-month period before Nicole's death, true?

A. It's reflective of the combination of statements and conversations we had during that time period, yes.

Q. Okay.

[William Anthony]

No procedures or policies were violated by Vannatter taking the blood vial to Fung.

Just something that, IIRC, had never previously been done.

[William Anthony]

Did he reverse himself?

Did you read the closings?

[William Anthony]

William,

I remember Judge Ito's ruling and I remember thinking at the time, why did he make that ruling because he allowed the defense to present the glove as being planted.

However, when I read the ruling, it is clear that Judge Ito, IMO, gave himself a lot of wiggle room. It appears to me that "framing" meant that MF would have had to do it knowing that Simpson was innocent. There was not one action by MF or the other lead detectives that stated that Simpson was innocent or was not involved in the crime.

Judge Ito's ruling also doesn't say that the glove was not planted, just that there was no eye witness to support that MF did plant the glove. While I believe MF did do it, I do think between his testimony and Kato's, if MF is telling the truth about the gates, that someone placed that glove there after Simpson left for the airport.

IMO.

MF was there after Simpson left for the airport.

[William Anthony]

Vannatter gave a reasonable explanation for his actions. He wasn't in violation of any policy, procedure or law.

Talk about a leap in logic and Simpson was not convicted of murder.

[martin II]

Looks like Dr. Fischman thought Nicole rejected Simpson. This is civil trial testimony from December 4, 1996.

Q. (BY MR. BREWER) I'm going to ask, Dr. Fischman, if you could look at the answer, where it says "The Witness." And just for the moment, read that to yourself and see if that refreshes your recollection. And I'll reask the question.

(Pause for witness to read transcript.)

A. I said that I believe -- it says, "maybe he felt like he was being ignored."

I think that accurately reflects my memory of that, yes.

Q. And so that refreshes your recollection, that in discussions with Mr. Simpson, that it was your sense based upon those discussions, that he felt as though he was being ignored by Nicole, true?

A. To the best of my recollection.

Q. Okay.

And in your discussions with Mr. Simpson during that same time frame, you felt that -- strike that -- he indicated to you that he was frustrated, true?

A. Yes.

Q. He indicated to you he was confused, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And he also indicated to you that he felt Nicole was rejecting him, true?

A. I don't recall him using that word, but I'm -- I'm certain he felt that, yeah.

Q. Okay.

And you -- when you say you're certain he felt that, that's based upon your recollection as you sit here today of conversations you had with O.J. Simpson in the three-month period before Nicole's death, true?

A. It's reflective of the combination of statements and conversations we had during that time period, yes.

Q. Okay.

Nicoles actions were confusing to oj and her friends.. today she was begging him to take her back two days later she was saying she wanted her freedom. A week later she was asking him to take her out for dinner. another week or two she was at his house in his bed. Oj did feel she was ignoring him as she was giving him trouble about him seeing his kids. or just being a spolied brat.

This in no way changed CR testimony that oj told him many times that he was finished with nicole. That she was just too much of a problem for him to deal with.That CR saw that oj was very happy with his decision to move away from nicole and that oj was concencrating on Paula and arranging his life without Nicole. Nicole was busy seeing other men and hanging out at the bars with faye. So at that time she had moved on also until she found herself in situations where she need ojs support for her screw ups.Which brings me again to the irs issue. OJS rejection of her request was as storng a signal as he could send to her that he was finished with her and that she would received no more free support from him and had to take responsibility for her own blunders as he had a new woman Paula.

[martin II]

tv

if you know vanhatter did not break any rules by carrying blood around in his pocket and then to a crime scene can you post the rules about bringing blood into a active crime scene?

[tv]

tv

if you know vanhatter did not break any rules by carrying blood around in his pocket and then to a crime scene can you post the rules about bringing blood into a active crime scene?

You're the one that says it was in violation of a procedure so you're the one that has the responsibility to post the procedure or policy.

[martin II]

Vanhatter recerived ojs blood at Parker center,Police headquarters from the nurse in a syringe or vials. SID is the place at Parker center where all samples
are taken to be logged in as evidence. Vanhatter could simply have given ojs blood samples to SID to be logged in and assigned a dn number.
instead he puts ojs blood samples in his pocket, drove around someplace in his car and eventually went to the Rockingham crime scene where he approached D fUNG and handed him a envelope that he said contained ojs blood samples. D F was surprised that vanhatter or any other cop would bring him blood samples to a active crime scene where he was collecting blood samples from the ground. Fung testified that in all his time at lapod lab no cop had ever done this.Since Vanhatter was the lead detective Fung was forced to accept the samples. Contamination 101 says the rule is never bring evidence from outside a crime scene to a actiuve crime scene.

Then later in the trial when the lab report of the amount of blood they received was different from the amount of blood the nurse said he drew from oj. the defence asked the question why did the lab receive less blood than the nurse said he drew from oj.
After the nurse drew the blood vanhatter had the samples until he gave them to fung at rockingham.imo

[martin II]

You're the one that says it was in violation of a procedure so you're the one that has the responsibility to post the procedure or policy.

i don't think so. you said no rules were broken. i just asked you to prove that claim.i assume you had read the rules unless you were just stating what you think with no proof.Which could be the case if you don't have the rules.

[tv]

i don't think so. you said no rules were broken. i just asked you to prove that claim.i assume you had read the rules unless you were just stating what you think with no proof.Which could be the case if you don't have the rules.

Either prove your claim or I'm moving on -- this is a waste of time.

[martin II]

Either prove your claim or I'm moving on -- this is a waste of time.

tv
look at it this way.

Fung said that in all his time at lapd no one had ever brought him blood samples to a active crime scene.Contamination was the issuie for him.
According to testimony of the doctor, national collection standard dictate that crime scene collection standards 101 does not allow blood samples from outside a crime scene be brought into a active crime scene.Again contamination is the issue.

If you believe vanhatter did not break and rules or standards by bringing ojs fresh blood to the rockingham crime scene then keep on believing it.imo

[tv]

tv
look at it this way.

Fung said that in all his time at lapd no one had ever brought him blood samples to a active crime scene.Contamination was the issuie for him.
According to testimony of the doctor, national collection standard dictate that crime scene collection standards 101 does not allow blood samples from outside a crime scene be brought into a active crime scene.Again contamination is the issue.

If you believe vanhatter did not break and rules or standards by bringing ojs fresh blood to the rockingham crime scene then keep on believing it.imo

Okay. :)

[martin II]

IF vanhatter had given ojs blood samples to SID it would look like he did something like planting with the missing blood.

[GreenIce]

Simpson’s defense was provided with first generation copies of all the crime photographs taken in this case. One of those photographs taken at Bundy the morning of June 13 was a perspective shot taken from about fifteen feet away that showed the bottom half of the rear gate. When that photograph was examined with a magnifying glass it clearly showed one of the blood stains on the rear gate.

The prosecution enlarged that photograph and entered it into evidence in the criminal trial where it was then compared to photographs taken three weeks later after blood stains were seen on the rear gate and before they were collected. Dennis Fung testified that the blood stain shown in both the June 13 photograph and the July 3 photograph was in the same configuration and location on the rear gate. That blood stain was found to be Simpson’s blood.

No one directed the photographer on June 13 to specifically photograph the rear gate and the criminalists never collected any blood from the rear gate on June 13. That doesn’t change the fact that a June 13 crime scene photograph proved the defense gate blood planting theory false.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

No it doesn't. Since didn't at least two police officers testify regarding the same photograph and got it wrong?

[martin II]

so now the question is did some of the samples found at rockingham come from the oj blood vials vanhatter had? like the blood found on the right hand glove?

[GreenIce]

i don't think so. you said no rules were broken. i just asked you to prove that claim.i assume you had read the rules unless you were just stating what you think with no proof.Which could be the case if you don't have the rules.

Martin,

IMO, the big picture is being missed on this issue. It is obvious that Phil Vanatter was very media savvy. The only rule he broke appears to be common sense, but did he really even break that rule? He knew the media was crawling all over the place, he knew that he would gain the support of the media and the first thing they would use to defend him would be their presence. He, put himself in this situation and he knew what he was doing. IMO. He is the who opened up this can of worms and he knew why he was doing it. He knew he had to counter MF. Think about the descrepancies in the testimony. Does MF have any other descrepancy with the other detectives?

To me his doing this masks his taking Nicole's and Ron's reference sample and lying about how he got it and alles consistent with Simpson's being found in their reference sample according to Dr. Thompson---I had a link to his paper and I believe I also did cut and paste that paragraph about this.

I remember in one interview Alan D., did after the criminal trial, he said the defense never even knew that Vanatter also carried Ron and Nicole's blood as well.

I never knew that detectives of their rank not can help collect blood samples, etc., at crime scenes but also have access to the lab. As far as I am concerned. The means it only took one person to tamper with the evidence.

Again, IMO.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, Simpson’s blood never got into Ron and Nicole’s reference samples. Vannatter never carried any reference blood sample in his pocket.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Dr. Thompson, who was on the Simpson defense team did a paper on the case, that I have linked as well as quoted from the paragraph regarding this information.

You lost about Vannater carrying blood samples in his pocket--are you talking about Ron and Nicole's? I thought he did carry Simpson's blood in his shirt pocket. I don't know how he carried Ron and Nicole's reference samples but I do know their book is not the same description of Gary Siglar's and it appears from Mr. Siglar's civil trial deposition, he was lied to by Vanatter.

[GreenIce]

so now the question is did some of the samples found at rockingham come from the oj blood vials vanhatter had? like the blood found on the right hand glove?

Martin,

I don't think Vanatter did anything at Rockingham other then to set the stage. I think Simpson's blood on the Rockingham glove is probably the only true mistake that was made. Since VA carried all three reference samples and had access to the lab and the evidence was left out in the open, it can't be discounted that he did not do a little spiking inside the lab or when he had access to the evidence.

The think Ron and Nicole's blood found inside the glove might also have been accident. If it wasn't, then it had to be put their on purpose, IMO.

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, the big picture is being missed on this issue. It is obvious that Phil Vanatter was very media savvy. The only rule he broke appears to be common sense, but did he really even break that rule? He knew the media was crawling all over the place, he knew that he would gain the support of the media and the first thing they would use to defend him would be their presence. He, put himself in this situation and he knew what he was doing. IMO. He is the who opened up this can of worms and he knew why he was doing it. He knew he had to counter MF. Think about the descrepancies in the testimony. Does MF have any other descrepancy with the other detectives?

To me his doing this masks his taking Nicole's and Ron's reference sample and lying about how he got it and alles consistent with Simpson's being found in their reference sample according to Dr. Thompson---I had a link to his paper and I believe I also did cut and paste that paragraph about this.

I remember in one interview Alan D., did after the criminal trial, he said the defense never even knew that Vanatter also carried Ron and Nicole's blood as well.

I never knew that detectives of their rank not can help collect blood samples, etc., at crime scenes but also have access to the lab. As far as I am concerned. The means it only took one person to tamper with the evidence.

Again, IMO.

its true that detectives were trained to collect blood and that they had the codes to the lab door. i don't know if all detectives had access to the lab but i believe the lead detectives did. because of his long history as a detective i believe vanhatter was well versed in how to manipulate evidence without leaving a trace. Some talk about it would take a whole department to frame a defendant trying to make it seem impossible but i agree it would only take one or at most two to frame a person.imo

[martin II]

IF vanhatter had given ojs blood samples to SID it would look like he did something like planting with the missing blood.

correction
it would not look like

[GreenIce]

nicole made bad decisions with the money oj gave her at divoice. no one is to blame but her.Why do you belive that oj could not be happy without nicole.
especially since paula had taken her place.Paula was a beautiful smart woman that had a career
why wouldn:t oj take her over nicole.gees.

Martin,

I have disagree with you on this post. No woman was ever going to replace Nicole in OJ's heart any more then any man was ever going to replace OJ in Nicole's heart.

Paula tried very hard to ignore this but in the end, she knew that OJ and Nicole would always have a bond that ran even deeper then their children. Can't most of remember our first true love many, many years later?

[GreenIce]

its true that detectives were trained to collect blood and that they had the codes to the lab door. i don't know if all detectives had access to the lab but i believe the lead detectives did. because of his long history as a detective i believe vanhatter was well versed in how to manipulate evidence without leaving a trace. Some talk about it would take a whole department to frame a defendant trying to make it seem impossible but i agree it would only take one or at most two to frame a person.imo

Martin,

If I reading the rules right, all the evidence in the case is the LE's department. They have to wait to process the evidence and get the results before they can file their case. Once they file their case, then it becomes the DA's case. So keeping this in mind, VA knew just how evidence challenged his case was. Also keeping this in mind, since it was their case and they did not use any blood evidence from Rockingham in the grand jury or the prelim hearing, how did it escape Lange and VA's attention that those blood drops were not collected? Also, MF says something interesting in his book about the bloody fingerprint, he claims that VA and Lange said it was fingerprint in rust (where have we heard about rust before in this case?), well how did they make that call and how does a fresh fingeprint get in rust? If they saw the fingerprint, then how did they miss the drops of blood on the gate? IMO, I think Lange and Vanatter saw dark drops of something, decided it wasn't blood and moved on. When evidence wasn't found, I think they jumped on this. Since there was no close ups of the drops, who was going to argue with it?

While Mr. August maintains the photo is proof the planting theory is false, the photo is not capable of doing EDTA or DNA tests, as far as I know any way.

[martin II]

Anyone know where i can find proof that nicole gave some gloves to oj.i mean the gloves that did not match the ones she is supposed to have purchased and the ones found at bundy and rockingham.

A pair OF $55.00 gloves seems a little cheap azz for a christmas gift from nicole to oj.:shrug:

[GreenIce]

Anyone know where i can find proof that nicole gave some gloves to oj.i mean the gloves that did not match the ones she is supposed to have purchased and the ones found at bundy and rockingham.

A pair OF $55.00 gloves seems a little cheap azz for a christmas gift from nicole to oj.:shrug:

Martin,

Nicole gave Tom McCallum two pairs of gloves for Christmas around 1990. The gave a brown and black glove to the DA's and the other one's to the defense. I think this was in American Tragedy.

Mr. McCallum did not want to believe Simpson did this and later did believe that he did do it. I think he was the mayor of Brentwood at the time.

I am still trying to figure out how the gloves at the crime scene were ever identified. If I am reading the testimony right, there were tags in the gloves and I think Brenda Vermaich said that the information was imprinted underneath the lining. However, if that was the case, then shouldn't those gloves have been identified right down to the lot number and store they came from?

Also, if I am reading the testimony correctly, those gloves never would have fit Simpson on the night of the murders. They they were weather worn and they shrank from the moisture, then wouldn't they have been too small in the first place?

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

No it doesn't. Since didn't at least two police officers testify regarding the same photograph and got it wrong?

I know of no police officer ever testifying to anything regarding the crime scene photograph that when enlarged showed a blood stain on the rear gate. Support your claim please with names or testimony.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Martin,

I have disagree with you on this post. No woman was ever going to replace Nicole in OJ's heart any more then any man was ever going to replace OJ in Nicole's heart.

Paula tried very hard to ignore this but in the end, she knew that OJ and Nicole would always have a bond that ran even deeper then their children. Can't most of remember our first true love many, many years later?

When i say oj was finished with nicole it does not mean that he had lost all love for her.I think he did still have love for her but not the kind that would cause him to still want her as his woman. He could have come to the realization that as a couple it had run its course.In this respect i fully understand his comment that he loved her too much.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Dr. Thompson, who was on the Simpson defense team did a paper on the case, that I have linked as well as quoted from the paragraph regarding this information.

You lost about Vannater carrying blood samples in his pocket--are you talking about Ron and Nicole's? I thought he did carry Simpson's blood in his shirt pocket. I don't know how he carried Ron and Nicole's reference samples but I do know their book is not the same description of Gary Siglar's and it appears from Mr. Siglar's civil trial deposition, he was lied to by Vanatter.

I have never seen any evidence that Simpson’s blood contaminated Nicole or Ron’s reference samples. Please post the link or the message number where you say you posted this.

I know of no evidence that supports the claim that Vannatter carried any blood reference sample in his pocket. When Vannatter delivered Simpson’s blood sample to Fung at Rockingham it was contained inside and evidence envelope. Television cameras recorded Vannatter when he arrived at Rockingham with the evidence envelope containing Simpson’s blood sample and recorded when Vannatter handed it over to Fung.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Martin,

Nicole gave Tom McCallum two pairs of gloves for Christmas around 1990. The gave a brown and black glove to the DA's and the other one's to the defense. I think this was in American Tragedy.

Mr. McCallum did not want to believe Simpson did this and later did believe that he did do it. I think he was the mayor of Brentwood at the time.

I am still trying to figure out how the gloves at the crime scene were ever identified. If I am reading the testimony right, there were tags in the gloves and I think Brenda Vermaich said that the information was imprinted underneath the lining. However, if that was the case, then shouldn't those gloves have been identified right down to the lot number and store they came from?

Also, if I am reading the testimony correctly, those gloves never would have fit Simpson on the night of the murders. They they were weather worn and they shrank from the moisture, then wouldn't they have been too small in the first place?

Are you sure of your first paragraph. nicole only purchased two pair of gloves.
if she gave two pair to the mayor, why did the prosecution think the murder gloves came from nicole?

Thats the problem with the prosecutions glove expert testimony and i am sure the jury caught this contradiction.

Ruboin said his gloves shrunk 10-20 % from oj wearing them in the rain and snow over the years and this is why they did not fit at the demo. well i agree if they had shrunk this much how did oj get them on on 6/12. 20% is almost a quarter of the origional glove size. a hugh amount.at this rate of shrinkage the gloves would have been a medium/latge.

[GreenIce]

I have never seen any evidence that Simpson’s blood contaminated Nicole or Ron’s reference samples. Please post the link or the message number where you say you posted this.

I know of no evidence that supports the claim that Vannatter carried any blood reference sample in his pocket. When Vannatter delivered Simpson’s blood sample to Fung at Rockingham it was contained inside and evidence envelope. Television cameras recorded Vannatter when he arrived at Rockingham with the evidence envelope containing Simpson’s blood sample and recorded when Vannatter handed it over to Fung.

bobaugust

Mr. August:

Thompson, William C. (1996). "DNA Evidence in the O.J. Simpson Trial." University of Colorado Law Review, 67(4), 827-.

You will have to find the post and the link. My son has a game and I have to leave. But it is on the board. Yes, the reference sample was contained inside an envelope, and envelope that was not sealed.

[GreenIce]

Are you sure of your first paragraph. nicole only purchased two pair of gloves.
if she gave two pair to the mayor, why did the prosecution think the murder gloves came from nicole?

Thats the problem with the prosecutions glove expert testimony and i am sure the jury caught this contradiction.

Ruboin said his gloves shrunk 10-20 % from oj wearing them in the rain and snow over the years and this is why they did not fit at the demo. well i agree if they had shrunk this much how did oj get them on on 6/12. 20% is almost a quarter of the origional glove size. a hugh amount.at this rate of shrinkage the gloves would have been a medium/latge.

Martin,

My son has a game, I try to get back to this tonight.

[martin II]

Martin,

Nicole gave Tom McCallum two pairs of gloves for Christmas around 1990. The gave a brown and black glove to the DA's and the other one's to the defense. I think this was in American Tragedy.

Mr. McCallum did not want to believe Simpson did this and later did believe that he did do it. I think he was the mayor of Brentwood at the time.

I am still trying to figure out how the gloves at the crime scene were ever identified. If I am reading the testimony right, there were tags in the gloves and I think Brenda Vermaich said that the information was imprinted underneath the lining. However, if that was the case, then shouldn't those gloves have been identified right down to the lot number and store they came from?

Also, if I am reading the testimony correctly, those gloves never would have fit Simpson on the night of the murders. They they were weather worn and they shrank from the moisture, then wouldn't they have been too small in the first place?

The cutters id # and the lot # number was porinted on the underside of the leather under the linning.

There was no other glove id on the gloves in evidence. The glove expert tried to get the court to accept his visual of the gloves as a aris glove and he also claimed to know the size based on his visual inspection.but that was not proof of size.

[martin II]

Martin,

My son has a game, I try to get back to this tonight.

hope his team wins

[socaldiva]

*snip*

A pair OF $55.00 gloves seems a little cheap azz for a christmas gift from nicole to oj.:shrug:

How ugly of you to bash a murdered woman for what you think is a substandard gift :no::punch:

[martin II]

I have never seen any evidence that Simpson’s blood contaminated Nicole or Ron’s reference samples. Please post the link or the message number where you say you posted this.

I know of no evidence that supports the claim that Vannatter carried any blood reference sample in his pocket. When Vannatter delivered Simpson’s blood sample to Fung at Rockingham it was contained inside and evidence envelope. Television cameras recorded Vannatter when he arrived at Rockingham with the evidence envelope containing Simpson’s blood sample and recorded when Vannatter handed it over to Fung.

bobaugust

vamhatter received the blood in the syringe and he put it into a vial or the nurse put ojs blood in the vials and vanhatter had the vials as he rode around la until he arrived at rockingham and hands fung a envelope. Whats in the envelope that fung received at that time only vanhatter knows. i think in his testimony fung origionally said he did not remember vanhatter handing him a envelope until Schak showed the video of him taking a enverlope from vanhatter and asked him WHAT ABOUT THAT MR FUNG.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August:

Thompson, William C. (1996). "DNA Evidence in the O.J. Simpson Trial." University of Colorado Law Review, 67(4), 827-.

You will have to find the post and the link. My son has a game and I have to leave. But it is on the board. Yes, the reference sample was contained inside an envelope, and envelope that was not sealed.

GreenIce, you made the claim, it’s your responsibility to support it. If you posted the link to something that you think supports your claim in a previous message then please repost the link or post the message number and thread name so I can see what you are talking about.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

vamhatter received the blood in the syringe and he put it into a vial or the nurse put ojs blood in the vials and vanhatter had the vials as he rode around la until he arrived at rockingham and hands fung a envelope. Whats in the envelope that fung received at that time only vanhatter knows. i think in his testimony fung origionally said he did not remember vanhatter handing him a envelope until Schak showed the video of him taking a enverlope from vanhatter and asked him WHAT ABOUT THAT MR FUNG.

Martin II, you are incorrect. Peratis drew Simpson’s blood into a syringe and then put the blood into a purple top tube that Vannatter had put Simpson’s name and date on. Peratis shook the vile up and then gave it to Vannatter who put it in an evidence envelope that had a affidavit on it that Peratis signed.

On Monday April 17, 1995 on redirect the prosecution showed an unedited KABC news videotape taken on June 13. Not only did that video destroy Scheck’s false allegations of when Fung received the blood sample by documenting the time that Vannatter arrived at Rockingham as 5:17 and handing the evidence envelope containing Simpson’s blood sample to Fung as 5:19 but it also documented the time of 5:42 showing Fung and Mazzola leaving the residence. Mazzola was carrying a black trash bag. As she passed the camera, one could see a square outline, the approximate dimensions of the evidence envelope as the wind caught the plastic bag.

bobaugust

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, you made the claim, it’s your responsibility to support it. If you posted the link to something that you think supports your claim in a previous message then please repost the link or post the message number and thread name so I can see what you are talking about.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

I have linked it on this board, I have also quoted it. I have given you the author as well as the title of the paper. My responsibility is done.

It is up to you to look for it.

[GreenIce]

hope his team wins

Martin,

His team did win. Still working on the Tom McCollum Gloves.

[martin II]

Martin II, you are incorrect. Peratis drew Simpson’s blood into a syringe and then put the blood into a purple top tube that Vannatter had put Simpson’s name and date on. Peratis shook the vile up and then gave it to Vannatter who put it in an evidence envelope that had a affidavit on it that Peratis signed.

On Monday April 17, 1995 on redirect the prosecution showed an unedited KABC news videotape taken on June 13. Not only did that video destroy Scheck’s false allegations of when Fung received the blood sample by documenting the time that Vannatter arrived at Rockingham as 5:17 and handing the evidence envelope containing Simpson’s blood sample to Fung as 5:19 but it also documented the time of 5:42 showing Fung and Mazzola leaving the residence. Mazzola was carrying a black trash bag. As she passed the camera, one could see a square outline, the approximate dimensions of the evidence envelope as the wind caught the plastic bag.

bobaugust


ok i never knew about the affidavit on it that Peratis signed.

If paretas took the time to sign the affidavit why didn't he just make a note on how much blood he drew. that is the problem. His failure to do this in this case is what caused the problem.
i don't know how you saw through the black plastic bag to know what was in it.i don't believe this.

[tv]

ok i never knew about the affidavit on it that Peratis signed.

If paretas took the time to sign the affidavit why didn't he just make a note on how much blood he drew. that is the problem. His failure to do this in this case is what caused the problem.
i don't know how you saw through the black plastic bag to know what was in it.i don't believe this.

martin, you've been told by people that draw blood and Peratis has also said himself that the exact amount of blood drawn is not recorded and he'd never before been asked how much blood he drew. There was no failure on his part.

[tv]

How ugly of you to bash a murdered woman for what you think is a substandard gift :no::punch:

I doubt if that was the only gift that Nicole gave her husband that Christmas but even if it was it's the thought behind the gift that's important. At least that's what I was taught.

[martin II]

martin, you've been told by people that draw blood and Peratis has also said himself that the exact amount of blood drawn is not recorded and he'd never before been asked how much blood he drew. There was no failure on his part.

tv


i don't know what you mean i have been told by people that draw blood.

This was a major case that involved a persons freedom. everyone had a responsibility to be accountable for their actions.People that draw blood in a hospital for regular blood test do not have the responsibility of a le nurse drawing blood as evidence in a murder trial. There is a big differance.

It would have taken the nurse one second to look at the calibration on the syringe to tell him exactly how much blood he drew and note it on the vial or the affidavit. Blood drawn xx cc is all it would take. Additionally vanhatter was in the room when the blood was taken. A experienced detective. He should have told the nurse to note the amount. For the nurse to say he didn't care or forgot is just another example of sloppyness on his part or he did not note the amount on purpose.
The nurse was a trained professional there is no excuse for his failure and it was a failure because he made no mention of how much blood he drew.

[martin II]

martin, you've been told by people that draw blood and Peratis has also said himself that the exact amount of blood drawn is not recorded and he'd never before been asked how much blood he drew. There was no failure on his part.

You may not have noticed but the prosecution wished the nurse had recorded the amount of blood when drawn because they had to run to his house in the middle of the night to get him on tape trying to guess how much blood he drew months earlier.If he had noted the amount of blood he drew when he drew, it this night run would not have been necessary.

[tv]

You may not have noticed but the prosecution wished the nurse had recorded the amount of blood when drawn because they had to run to his house in the middle of the night to get him on tape trying to guess how much blood he drew months earlier.If he had noted the amount of blood he drew when he drew, it this night run would not have been necessary.

Their wishes don't mean that he violated any procedure.

[tv]

tv


i don't know what you mean i have been told by people that draw blood.

This was a major case that involved a persons freedom. everyone had a responsibility to be accountable for their actions.People that draw blood in a hospital for regular blood test do not have the responsibility of a le nurse drawing blood as evidence in a murder trial. There is a big differance.

It would have taken the nurse one second to look at the calibration on the syringe to tell him exactly how much blood he drew and note it on the vial or the affidavit. Blood drawn xx cc is all it would take. Additionally vanhatter was in the room when the blood was taken. A experienced detective. He should have told the nurse to note the amount. For the nurse to say he didn't care or forgot is just another example of sloppyness on his part or he did not note the amount on purpose.
The nurse was a trained professional there is no excuse for his failure and it was a failure because he made no mention of how much blood he drew.

If you have a link to the procedure/policy that states he was required to record the amount of blood drawn please post it. If not, I'll assume that there was no such policy or procedure.

[martin II]

tv

another issue is that ojs blood samples had to be enough for several prosecution and defence test.If the nurse didn't care how much blood he should draw how would he know how much would be required for all of the test.Supose they had run out, what then.Go back to oj and ask for more?

[tv]

tv

another issue is that ojs blood samples had to be enough for several prosecution and defence test.If the nurse didn't care how much blood he should draw how would he know how much would be required for all of the test.Supose they had run out, what then.Go back to oj and ask for more?

I thought you said the defense didn't do any testing? The nurse asked if it was enough and was told it was. Besides, according to you, a few drops goes a long way.

[martin II]

If you have a link to the procedure/policy that states he was required to record the amount of blood drawn please post it. If not, I'll assume that there was no such policy or procedure.

You are the one that says there was no procedure for activities by le.if there were none i think there should have been.i doubt it was the intention of lapd
to just allow people to do what ever they wanted to do without any guidelines or procedures.

i have given my reasoning for the nurse to know how much blood he drew.
The prosecution has stated how careful they were in handeling evidence in this case.The nurse didn't seem to care.

[tv]

You are the one that says there was no procedure for activities by le.if there were none i think there should have been.i doubt it was the intention of lapd
to just allow people to do what ever they wanted to do without any guidelines or procedures.

i have given my reasoning for the nurse to know how much blood he drew.
The prosecution has stated how careful they were in handeling evidence in this case.The nurse didn't seem to care.

I've never said there are no official procedures for the LAPD. In fact, my point is that there is ALWAYS a policy and procedure manual. I was asking for you to post the policy or procedure that was violated. We've been over this numerous times -- I'm moving on.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

I have linked it on this board, I have also quoted it. I have given you the author as well as the title of the paper. My responsibility is done.

It is up to you to look for it.

GreenIce, as far as I know there was never any evidence in this case that Nicole and Ron’s reference sample blood were contaminated with Simpson’s blood. I have found nothing in my search using the information you provided that supports your claim. Saying you previously posted something and saying what you think it said is not supporting what you claim.

I also see that you haven’t answer my question as to when and what two police officers you claim testified about the crime scene photograph showing blood on the rear gate at Bundy.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

ok i never knew about the affidavit on it that Peratis signed.

If paretas took the time to sign the affidavit why didn't he just make a note on how much blood he drew. that is the problem. His failure to do this in this case is what caused the problem.
i don't know how you saw through the black plastic bag to know what was in it.i don't believe this.

No, the problem is not Peratis, the problem is all the incorrect information you continually post on this discussion group, Martin. Peratis did nothing wrong. Even if Peratis had noted the exact amount of blood he drew from Simpson it would not have prevented Simpson’s defense from making false claims that blood was planted since they had no other explanation for why the blood evidence in this case pointed to Simpson as the killer.

bobaugust

[martin II]

I thought you said the defense didn't do any testing? The nurse asked if it was enough and was told it was. Besides, according to you, a few drops goes a long way.

I never told you the defence did not do any testing.

[martin II]

I've never said there are no official procedures for the LAPD. In fact, my point is that there is ALWAYS a policy and procedure manual. I was asking for you to post the policy or procedure that was violated. We've been over this numerous times -- I'm moving on.

if you believe that a nurse should not be concerned about how much blood he drew as evidence in a murder trial it is ok with me. i believe most health care professionals and well run police labs would dissagree with you.

[martin II]

I've never said there are no official procedures for the LAPD. In fact, my point is that there is ALWAYS a policy and procedure manual. I was asking for you to post the policy or procedure that was violated. We've been over this numerous times -- I'm moving on.

tv
look if you know that there was always a policy and procedure manual covering drawing evidence blood.Just post it to back your claim that there was.If you don't want to post it ok. If you don't know thats ok too.
i have posted what it think the nurse should have done. if he had done that then there would not have been the late nigh run months later by the prosecution trying to find out how much he drew.imo

When it was discovered that blood was missing , how much he drew became a issue.

[martin II]

No, the problem is not Peratis, the problem is all the incorrect information you continually post on this discussion group, Martin. Peratis did nothing wrong. Even if Peratis had noted the exact amount of blood he drew from Simpson it would not have prevented Simpson’s defense from making false claims that blood was planted since they had no other explanation for why the blood evidence in this case pointed to Simpson as the killer.

bobaugust

IF the nurse had noted the correct amount of blood he drew from oj there would not have any question of the missing blood. I don't like the tone of your post. so no need to respond.
see you later.

[tv]

I never told you the defence did not do any testing.

Okay, maybe I'm mistaken.

[tv]

tv
look if you know that there was always a policy and procedure manual covering drawing evidence blood.Just post it to back your claim that there was.If you don't want to post it ok. If you don't know thats ok too.
i have posted what it think the nurse should have done. if he had done that then there would not have been the late nigh run months later by the prosecution trying to find out how much he drew.imo

When it was discovered that blood was missing , how much he drew became a issue.

martin, police departments and health care organizations are among the entities that have written policies and procedures usually in some sort of policy and procedure manual. What you think he should have done and whether or not he violated procedure are two different things. If you know of an official procedure he violated please post it.

[tv]

if you believe that a nurse should not be concerned about how much blood he drew as evidence in a murder trial it is ok with me. i believe most health care professionals and well run police labs would dissagree with you.

Then let them disagree. This subject is never going to be resolved on this board. :shrug:

[GreenIce]

No, the problem is not Peratis, the problem is all the incorrect information you continually post on this discussion group, Martin. Peratis did nothing wrong. Even if Peratis had noted the exact amount of blood he drew from Simpson it would not have prevented Simpson’s defense from making false claims that blood was planted since they had no other explanation for why the blood evidence in this case pointed to Simpson as the killer.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

IMO, that is not a fair assesment of the situation. First or foremost, it is standard operating procedures for SID's departments to draw blood from people during the course of an investigation. The nurse has been drawing blood for over 24 years. He testified in two hearings on how much blood he drew. In fact, he got a tad testy when Shaipro kept on asking him how blood he drew. He answered the question, several times and gave the same answers.

Once the nurse signed off of the reference sample, he was not responsible for the amount in it. He handed it off to Vanatter and then it became his responsibility until it was booked into evidence. Barry Sheck discovered the missing blood because of the amount that was drawn minus what Mathesison and the others wrote down on how much they used.

In the civil trial Matheison testified that he also underestimated the amount? Rather interesting coincidence don't you think? The defense presented legimate questions and the DA's had no "defense" for these questions. It was the same pattern of problems over and over again.

The nurse was not responsible for the chain of custody or maintaining the records for that vial. And he gave three different versions of the amounts, the last one being he doesn't know how much he drew so that sinks your theory right there. IMO.

[GreenIce]

I never told you the defence did not do any testing.

Martin,

Gerry Uleman's book explains the games that were played regarding the defense getting samples of the blood to test. I have no problem that the DA's should have enough to conduct their tests. That is, IMO, only fair. The defense's main reason for asking for these samples was to force the DA's into inventorying all the blood samples they had. Which as we know, was a brilliant move on the defense's part and should have been a kick in the pants to the DA's that their case was in trouble, long before July 3, 2004, IMO.

The DA's were in total control of the samples and the defense was at their mercy. There were alot of issues involved.

In American Tragedy, the defense also was concerned about the price of the tests as well as the results being leaked. Because the DA's blood evidence blew up in the DA's own case, the defense never had any reason to do their own testing.

In Jeff Toobin's book, he says something interesting, that the LAPD embarrassed the DA's office by sending the samples to Cellmark and not the Cal DOJ. Yet, wasn't it protrayed that the DA's insisted on this because they wanted an independant lab to do the work?

Either way, does any one really believe that except for the EDTA tests, that the results were not already known? Does anyone really believe that the SID department would send someone's else blood to the labs and say it was Simpson's? Or someone else's?

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, as far as I know there was never any evidence in this case that Nicole and Ron’s reference sample blood were contaminated with Simpson’s blood. I have found nothing in my search using the information you provided that supports your claim. Saying you previously posted something and saying what you think it said is not supporting what you claim.

I also see that you haven’t answer my question as to when and what two police officers you claim testified about the crime scene photograph showing blood on the rear gate at Bundy.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

I believe there is evidence to support Dr. Thompson's paper. It is your choice to make of it what you will.

I do not know the name of the officers but I will read the testimony. I am not sure if that was the "great berry debate". I will look into this weekend. Sometimes reading the testimony in this case can be mind numbing to the point I would rather stick dull pencils in my eyes rather read any more of it!:)

[martin II]

Then let them disagree. This subject is never going to be resolved on this board. :shrug:

Actually before the oj trial there was no or very few labs that operated based on any national standards. This came after the oj trial and maby because of all the blunders uncovered in the oj trial. Now most operate under national standards created by industry professionals.
There was testimony that the lapd lab was one of the worse offenders of professional lab standards.imo

[tv]

Actually before the oj trial there was no or very few labs that operated based on any national standards. This came after the oj trial and maby because of all the blunders uncovered in the oj trial. Now most operate under national standards created by industry professionals.
There was testimony that the lapd lab was one of the worse offenders of professional lab standards.imo

This is all very informative but it doesn't have anything to do with Peratis writing down the amount of blood he drew.

[GreenIce]

ok i never knew about the affidavit on it that Peratis signed.

If paretas took the time to sign the affidavit why didn't he just make a note on how much blood he drew. that is the problem. His failure to do this in this case is what caused the problem.
i don't know how you saw through the black plastic bag to know what was in it.i don't believe this.

Martin,

I don't know if Mr. August knows this but if the affidavit that he is referring to is the certification that is placed on the vial by the nurse, then there was a problem with this, the date was wrong and no one could explain why. I don't remember if the nurse was ever asked about this and I would have to ask what else information is on this certificate, like how much blood is in the refernece sample?

It makes no sense to me that there is no rule that the nurse must write down how much blood he drew or some way to measure it. Again, IMO.

[fgump2]

fgump2,

From the books that I have read, that were written in Nicole's "favor", they have all been consistent except for Faye's, that the Simpsons mutally decided it wasn't working and decided to go their separate ways. Is it really so unusal that both of them were not upset and angry that that after 17 years, they still couldn't make a go of it? Is it really suprising that Nicole, at that point in her life was confused on what she really wanted and opted to choose a lifestyle that she felt she missed out on because she was for all intents and purposes married since she was 18?

For some reason, it seems many people believe that break ups and divorces bring out the best in people when, IMO, they can bring out the worst in people. Divorce is not a walk in the park, for many people, regardless how bad a marriage may have been, still feel like a failure when it falls apart. When you add children to it, it makes even worse, again, IMO. I believe in divorce but I hate it with all my being because I have seen the open wounds divorce leaves and will remain open for the rest of that person's or child's life.

It regards to Nicole telling people that Simpson was going to kill her, well we don't know the context of the conversation. However, we do know, these friends had no problem still accepting the benefits of being Simpson's friend. Heck, Kato went and lived in his guest house. When a person says that they think someone will kill them, that is usually serious regardless of the context. I don't think that all these people continued being Simpson's friend. Everyone thinks Kato was a flake. He later wrote that he thought Simpson did kill her. Kris Jenner said Nicole was afraid of him, I don't think Kris J. benefited from Orenthal's friendship, nor did therapist Susan Forward. Even if some of these people were friends of Simpson, what they say matters. People have been convicted on the basis of witnesses who have serious moral flaws. Another point is that people lie and exagerate, especially about something upsetting such as divorce. Unless a person knew Nicole really well, they may have thought there was a good possibility that she was being irrational.

For these friends to come out now and saw all these things, I have to wonder why they waited until after Nicole's death to come forward. I have to wonder why Nicole never told the many therapists she was seeing that she was afraid for her life. What did you expect Kris Jenner or Susan Forward to do? I think in the past I think you criticized therapist Susan Forward for revealing that Nicole was afraid of Orenthal, and she (Susan F) thought these fears were justified. Susan Forward was criticized by a professional board for going public, and I think she almost got her license suspended. So are you criticizing other therapists for not breaking state eithics or rules. You think they should go public about confidential information? SHould the rules of confidentiality of therapy sessions be changed?

The IRS pissed Nicole off, however, who was Nicole really, really mad at, Simpson for sending the letter or herself for allowing herself to be put in that position? Probably both, but Orenthal for certain.

That IRS letter was the best thing that happened to Nicole, it motivated her to do something about a situation that was going to blow up in her face and she had no one to blame but herself. IMO.

Another point I disagree with you in the past is that I wrote that Scheck had in court accused Fung of consciously engaging in a conspiracy to frame Simpson. You said he didn't. I quote from Rantala's book, page 142 of Scheck questioning Fung:"Mr. Fung are you having some trouble keeping this story straight about getting the blood vial..." Ito rebuked Scheck for asking this question.
Scheck then asked:"And when you saw these [video] tapes you realized you had been caught in a lie, didn't you?".
I think that was shabby behavior on the part of Scheck. I also think it is shabby behavior on the part of admirers of the Simpson defense team who want to high light all of the prosecutions mistakes, and ignore the defenses ethical lapses. I haven't heard of anyone calling Scheck magnificent, but Scheck was an important part of the defense.
I realize that the prosecution is held to a higher level of performance than the defense, but people who want the justice system to function in a just manner should be willing to criticize ethical lapses on both sides.

[GreenIce]

Martin,

I think there is a misconception about the gloves. People want to say that Nicole bought the gloves and gave them to Simpson for a Christmas present. However, the murder gloves were protrayed has gloves Simpson wore during his duties as a broadcaster, that they were "work gloves". I don't think Nicole would have bought Simpson work gloves. The gloves he wore were wide enough to stick hand warmers in them. I would think if these were the same gloves, there would have been some sign of wear and tear of the hand warmer device. Again, IMO.

I would also love to see pictures of all the NBC broadcasters and it would be interesting to see Simpson's records regarding glove purchases.

[GreenIce]

Another point I disagree with you in the past is that I wrote that Scheck had in court accused Fung of consciously engaging in a conspiracy to frame Simpson. You said he didn't. I quote from Rantala's book, page 142 of Scheck questioning Fung:"Mr. Fung are you having some trouble keeping this story straight about getting the blood vial..." Ito rebuked Scheck for asking this question.
Scheck then asked:"And when you saw these [video] tapes you realized you had been caught in a lie, didn't you?".
I think that was shabby behavior on the part of Scheck. I also think it is shabby behavior on the part of admirers of the Simpson defense team who want to high light all of the prosecutions mistakes, and ignore the defenses ethical lapses. I haven't heard of anyone calling Scheck magnificent, but Scheck was an important part of the defense.
I realize that the prosecution is held to a higher level of performance than the defense, but people who want the justice system to function in a just manner should be willing to criticize ethical lapses on both sides.


Fgump2,

By law, if a therapist is told by their patient that they are in fear for their life, they have to make a written report and give it to the police as well as the patient. They also have to do a report and give it to the police as well as the client even if the therapist feels the client's life is in danager and the client doesn't think so.

By law, if a therapist is told by his client of this threats to kill someone and believes all the signs there that the client is going to kill, it has to be reported and the person has to be warned. None of this was ever done. Nicole never told a therapist or a shrink that she was afraid for her life. She may have been afraid of the money reprisials or fear that she would not be able to take care of her children in the lifestyle they have grown accustomed to but that does not mean she was afraid for her life.

Dr. Forward was suspended for this and you leave out the reason why Nicole stopped seeing her. Dr's who do a majority of divorce cases have the same reputation as divorce lawyers.

Speaking of divorce, Nicole stated over again that it only happened once. Dr. Forward had laws to go by, she broke them and she paid the price and it wasn't for Nicole or for other women, IMO, it was to sell her book.

Dennis Fung was in a horrible posistion. He knew Scheck was only doing his job. You may believe what you want about what Scheck's intent was but I get just the opposite. He wanted to make sure the jury knew the defense did not think he tampered with any evidence or that he was lying about seeing or not seeing certain evidence.

What you don't answer is why Fung's boss and the DA's did nothing to protect him or AM. Why Clark did nothing but trash and bash them in her case and closing arguements. She did as much damage to them as she did MF in closing arguments. Barry did a great a job with Fung, Clark totally destroyed the man. Barry did his job but the DA's did not. They knew what was coming.

When you can explain the state's ethics regarding MF and sub par job performances, then we can have a fair and interesting debate on this issue. IMO.

[martin II]

Mr. August,

IMO, that is not a fair assesment of the situation. First or foremost, it is standard operating procedures for SID's departments to draw blood from people during the course of an investigation. The nurse has been drawing blood for over 24 years. He testified in two hearings on how much blood he drew. In fact, he got a tad testy when Shaipro kept on asking him how blood he drew. He answered the question, several times and gave the same answers.

Once the nurse signed off of the reference sample, he was not responsible for the amount in it. He handed it off to Vanatter and then it became his responsibility until it was booked into evidence. Barry Sheck discovered the missing blood because of the amount that was drawn minus what Mathesison and the others wrote down on how much they used.

In the civil trial Matheison testified that he also underestimated the amount? Rather interesting coincidence don't you think? The defense presented legimate questions and the DA's had no "defense" for these questions. It was the same pattern of problems over and over again.

The nurse was not responsible for the chain of custody or maintaining the records for that vial. And he gave three different versions of the amounts, the last one being he doesn't know how much he drew so that sinks your theory right there. IMO.

Since the nurse could never figure how much blood he drew the amount missing could very well be more than what we think.

[martin II]

Another point I disagree with you in the past is that I wrote that Scheck had in court accused Fung of consciously engaging in a conspiracy to frame Simpson. You said he didn't. I quote from Rantala's book, page 142 of Scheck questioning Fung:"Mr. Fung are you having some trouble keeping this story straight about getting the blood vial..." Ito rebuked Scheck for asking this question.
Scheck then asked:"And when you saw these [video] tapes you realized you had been caught in a lie, didn't you?".
I think that was shabby behavior on the part of Scheck. I also think it is shabby behavior on the part of admirers of the Simpson defense team who want to high light all of the prosecutions mistakes, and ignore the defenses ethical lapses. I haven't heard of anyone calling Scheck magnificent, but Scheck was an important part of the defense.
I realize that the prosecution is held to a higher level of performance than the defense, but people who want the justice system to function in a just manner should be willing to criticize ethical lapses on both sides.

What you call ethical lapses i call good agressive defence work. B Scheck was a very respected lawyer before the oj trial by his peers. He left the oj trial with his reputation in place and many congradulations for his superior work in that case. So i don't understand your constant post trying to defame him.imo

[martin II]

This is all very informative but it doesn't have anything to do with Peratis writing down the amount of blood he drew.

if there were standards on this issue obviously the nurse ignored them.

I see no logical reason why the nurse did not note the amount of blood he drew.If you believe this is not a problem so be it.

[martin II]

Martin,

I think there is a misconception about the gloves. People want to say that Nicole bought the gloves and gave them to Simpson for a Christmas present. However, the murder gloves were protrayed has gloves Simpson wore during his duties as a broadcaster, that they were "work gloves". I don't think Nicole would have bought Simpson work gloves. The gloves he wore were wide enough to stick hand warmers in them. I would think if these were the same gloves, there would have been some sign of wear and tear of the hand warmer device. Again, IMO.

I would also love to see pictures of all the NBC broadcasters and it would be interesting to see Simpson's records regarding glove purchases.

The real glove problem is there is not one piece of evidence that nicole gave the gloves she purchased to oj.
people just make things up out of apple juice as long as they can try to present it as evidence against oj. As a matter of fact there was a report that she gave the gloves to a friend of ojs for christmas.

[martin II]

This is all very informative but it doesn't have anything to do with Peratis writing down the amount of blood he drew.

The nurse knew from his long work history for lapd knew there were no requirements at that cesspool and he could do whatever came to mind because he knew that normal practice meant that no one really cared or checked what he did at that place.

[martin II]

B Schack caused the prosecution more problems than they could handle or more than they expected. Maby they thought DNA was above everyones head but his superior work proved them wrong. He showed the jury exactly why the prosecutions DNA could not be trusted.

Fung did not have any problem with Schack or any other defence lawyer as shown by his williness to show friendship when after testifying he walked to the defence table asnd shook hands with the defence lawyers. So i don't understamd fgmp2s problem with Scheck or any other defence lawyer as far as Fung was concerned.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

IMO, that is not a fair assesment of the situation. First or foremost, it is standard operating procedures for SID's departments to draw blood from people during the course of an investigation. The nurse has been drawing blood for over 24 years. He testified in two hearings on how much blood he drew. In fact, he got a tad testy when Shaipro kept on asking him how blood he drew. He answered the question, several times and gave the same answers.

Once the nurse signed off of the reference sample, he was not responsible for the amount in it. He handed it off to Vanatter and then it became his responsibility until it was booked into evidence. Barry Sheck discovered the missing blood because of the amount that was drawn minus what Mathesison and the others wrote down on how much they used.

In the civil trial Matheison testified that he also underestimated the amount? Rather interesting coincidence don't you think? The defense presented legimate questions and the DA's had no "defense" for these questions. It was the same pattern of problems over and over again.

The nurse was not responsible for the chain of custody or maintaining the records for that vial. And he gave three different versions of the amounts, the last one being he doesn't know how much he drew so that sinks your theory right there. IMO.

GreenIce, the nurse did nothing wrong except for testifying to something he didn’t really know. Peratis consistently testified that he only estimated the amount of blood he drew from Simpson. The fact that when Peratis contradicted his prior estimates in his video taped testimony means none of his estimates can be trusted. The bottom line is that Peratis didn’t know how much blood he drew from Simpson so the defense theory had no credibility. The fact is that no blood stain in this case was ever found to have come from preserved blood in a purple top vial that all the reference blood were contained in.

The Prosecution Responds,
"Here I (Peratis) am being cross examined by Robert Shapiro. I mean. I thought he's a modern day Clarence Darrow. And it was just a stupid answer. Eight milliliters is what we assume we normally draw. But we never measure it. There's no reason to. In all my years, no one has ever told me that I didn't draw enough blood."

Peratis continued, "A vacutainer is supposed to draw eight milliliters." He explained that a vacutainer is a device that utilizes a blood vial with a vacuum seal that, when injected into a person's arm sucks the blood into the vial.

Goldberg asked, "Did you use a vacutainer?"
"No. With big people, like O.J. - who has big arms - I have found that it's easier to use a syringe. I used a syringe on O.J. and at a certain point the needle hit the wall of the vein and the blood stopped. I could have turned the syringe to get the blood to continue to flow, but if I did that, there would be the slightest danger that I could damage the wall. So I looked at the syringe, and it looked like enough,. So I stopped."

"When you looked at the syringe, did you look at the calibrations?"

"No. They were on the other side. I just looked at the syringe, and it looked like enough. And that was it. Bing, bang, boom."

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

I believe there is evidence to support Dr. Thompson's paper. It is your choice to make of it what you will.

I do not know the name of the officers but I will read the testimony. I am not sure if that was the "great berry debate". I will look into this weekend. Sometimes reading the testimony in this case can be mind numbing to the point I would rather stick dull pencils in my eyes rather read any more of it!:)

GreenIce, I have no idea what this Dr, Thompson wrote but as far as I know there was no evidence in this case that Ron and Nicole’s reference samples were contaminated with Simpson’s blood. If you think there was, post it please.

You can read all the testimony you want but I doubt if you will find what you think you remember since no police officer gave any testimony regarding the crime scene photograph that showed a blood stain on the bottom of the rear gate. That photograph supports the testimony of the seven police officers who did testify you seeing blood on the rear gate the morning of June 13 as well as proving the defense gate blood planting theory to be false.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Martin,

I don't know if Mr. August knows this but if the affidavit that he is referring to is the certification that is placed on the vial by the nurse, then there was a problem with this, the date was wrong and no one could explain why. I don't remember if the nurse was ever asked about this and I would have to ask what else information is on this certificate, like how much blood is in the refernece sample?

It makes no sense to me that there is no rule that the nurse must write down how much blood he drew or some way to measure it. Again, IMO.

GreenIce, evidently you also don’t know about the affidavit I was referring to. It may not make any sense to you why there was no specific rule that the amount of blood drawn be written down, but evidently the LAPD never encountered the situation where someone actually tried to make the claim that preserved blood was planted at a crime scene. I’m not sure if they have even added that rule after the Simpson case. Besides the fact that even knowing the exact amount drawn would not have prevented false claims to be made regarding planting since the amounts of blood used for testing were only estimated amounts. The defense preserved blood theories made no sense and were all proven to be false.

July 7, 1994 Peratis

Q Do you know what Detective Vannatter did with that blood sample?
A I don't know. I -- I have an idea what is supposed to be done with it, but I don't know what he did with it.
Q Did you see what he did with it?
A Well, he put it in an envelope.
Q What kind of envelope did he put it in?
A A gray envelope that has an affidavit on it that I sign.
Q A gray envelope?
A Yes.
Q And it had an affidavit?
A Yes.
Q What did the affidavit say?
A Oh, it refers to the fact that we -- I drew the blood on such and such a date and I handed it to detective Vannatter.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Peratis excuse about ojs arm is pure nonsense. There is no excuse for him not looking at the calibration to know how much blood he drew as evidence in a murder trial. The fact that no one had ever told him to note the amount of blood drawn only means that he had been getting away with it for all those years.

[Hipcheck]

Fgump2,

By law, if a therapist is told by their patient that they are in fear for their life, they have to make a written report and give it to the police as well as the patient. They also have to do a report and give it to the police as well as the client even if the therapist feels the client's life is in danager and the client doesn't think so.

By law, if a therapist is told by his client of this threats to kill someone and believes all the signs there that the client is going to kill, it has to be reported and the person has to be warned. None of this was ever done. Nicole never told a therapist or a shrink that she was afraid for her life. She may have been afraid of the money reprisials or fear that she would not be able to take care of her children in the lifestyle they have grown accustomed to but that does not mean she was afraid for her life.

Dr. Forward was suspended for this and you leave out the reason why Nicole stopped seeing her. Dr's who do a majority of divorce cases have the same reputation as divorce lawyers.

Speaking of divorce, Nicole stated over again that it only happened once. Dr. Forward had laws to go by, she broke them and she paid the price and it wasn't for Nicole or for other women, IMO, it was to sell her book.

Dennis Fung was in a horrible posistion. He knew Scheck was only doing his job. You may believe what you want about what Scheck's intent was but I get just the opposite. He wanted to make sure the jury knew the defense did not think he tampered with any evidence or that he was lying about seeing or not seeing certain evidence.

What you don't answer is why Fung's boss and the DA's did nothing to protect him or AM. Why Clark did nothing but trash and bash them in her case and closing arguements. She did as much damage to them as she did MF in closing arguments. Barry did a great a job with Fung, Clark totally destroyed the man. Barry did his job but the DA's did not. They knew what was coming.

When you can explain the state's ethics regarding MF and sub par job performances, then we can have a fair and interesting debate on this issue. IMO.

Please post a link where a therapist is required by law to notifiy the police about information told to them by a client. I don't believe that to be true at all except for maybe child abuse.

I'll be waiting but then again I doubt you will post what I asked for.

[tv]

Peratis excuse about ojs arm is pure nonsense. There is no excuse for him not looking at the calibration to know how much blood he drew as evidence in a murder trial. The fact that no one had ever told him to note the amount of blood drawn only means that he had been getting away with it for all those years.

In order for him to be 'getting away with it' for all those years he would have had to be doing something wrong which he wasn't. You're being stubborn on this subject for some reason that I can't understand but if it furthers your claim that OJ Simpson was framed so be it.

[tv]

Since the nurse could never figure how much blood he drew the amount missing could very well be more than what we think.

How about no missing blood at all?

[tv]

Actually before the oj trial there was no or very few labs that operated based on any national standards. This came after the oj trial and maby because of all the blunders uncovered in the oj trial. Now most operate under national standards created by industry professionals.
There was testimony that the lapd lab was one of the worse offenders of professional lab standards.imo

I suppose that means that Ron and Nicole weren't slaughtered in vain -- their murders led to national standards for laboratories. What a comfort that must be to their families. Maybe there's also a new policy for blood handling by detectives. Who knows what else OJ Simpson's murderous rage has done to benefit society? Gee, he's practically a humanitarian.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, the nurse did nothing wrong except for testifying to something he didn’t really know. Peratis consistently testified that he only estimated the amount of blood he drew from Simpson. The fact that when Peratis contradicted his prior estimates in his video taped testimony means none of his estimates can be trusted. The bottom line is that Peratis didn’t know how much blood he drew from Simpson so the defense theory had no credibility. The fact is that no blood stain in this case was ever found to have come from preserved blood in a purple top vial that all the reference blood were contained in.

The Prosecution Responds,
"Here I (Peratis) am being cross examined by Robert Shapiro. I mean. I thought he's a modern day Clarence Darrow. And it was just a stupid answer. Eight milliliters is what we assume we normally draw. But we never measure it. There's no reason to. In all my years, no one has ever told me that I didn't draw enough blood."

Peratis continued, "A vacutainer is supposed to draw eight milliliters." He explained that a vacutainer is a device that utilizes a blood vial with a vacuum seal that, when injected into a person's arm sucks the blood into the vial.

Goldberg asked, "Did you use a vacutainer?"
"No. With big people, like O.J. - who has big arms - I have found that it's easier to use a syringe. I used a syringe on O.J. and at a certain point the needle hit the wall of the vein and the blood stopped. I could have turned the syringe to get the blood to continue to flow, but if I did that, there would be the slightest danger that I could damage the wall. So I looked at the syringe, and it looked like enough,. So I stopped."

"When you looked at the syringe, did you look at the calibrations?"

"No. They were on the other side. I just looked at the syringe, and it looked like enough. And that was it. Bing, bang, boom."

bobaugust

Mr. August,

The nurses's answers on the stand during the prelim hearing were definite with little margin either way. He stated it over and over again. He was asked this question several times and he performance on the stand was of a professional who had done this for years and he knows how much blood is needed.

His answers to questions later mean nothing because of the pressure he was put under, he was put under so much pressure that at the end, he didn't even know what to believe, only that if he stood strong on his answers, he was added another nail to the coffin of the DA's case.

No one ever accused him of doing something wrong. It doesn't matter if he was ever asked if he drew enough blood before, he shouldn't have to have been asked that, his training would have provided the answers.

It is your opinon regarding EDTA. The one fact that you overlook is that the DA's specifically wrote to Roger Martz to discredit the defense's claims and he could not do it. His performance on the stand was horrific and he discredited himself. He was reprimanded for destroying his records and he claimed he was an expert when he was not. The defense had an expert and his testimony is crediable, Roger Martz's is not. In fact, Marcia Clark never challenged him the Simpson case, she spent all her time on another case, so much time that Judge Ito told her try to the Simpson case. Also, where was Rockne Harmon and Woode Clark with this witness? Harmon wouldn't take him because he knew EDTA was found in the stains and we all know how he felt about that.

You logic that nurse now claims he doesn't know how much he drew discredit your claims that blood was not planted and spilled. If he drew his orgininal amount, then blood is missing and the case is over. His testimony at the first two hearings is the truth.

How hard do you think it would take someone to add so much pressure to a man who is sick with heart problems and the only thing he wants to do is to retire.

And, again, you forget, it wasn't up to him to be responsible for the contents of the vial once he drew it. His first answers stand. Also, why didn't the DA's call him? They were not going to call him to the stand, it was Goldberg who came up with the video tape and it was legal. However, it helped the defense much, much more then it did the DA's. IMO.

[GreenIce]

Since the nurse could never figure how much blood he drew the amount missing could very well be more than what we think.

Martin,

Good Point!

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, evidently you also don’t know about the affidavit I was referring to. It may not make any sense to you why there was no specific rule that the amount of blood drawn be written down, but evidently the LAPD never encountered the situation where someone actually tried to make the claim that preserved blood was planted at a crime scene. I’m not sure if they have even added that rule after the Simpson case. Besides the fact that even knowing the exact amount drawn would not have prevented false claims to be made regarding planting since the amounts of blood used for testing were only estimated amounts. The defense preserved blood theories made no sense and were all proven to be false.

July 7, 1994 Peratis

Q Do you know what Detective Vannatter did with that blood sample?
A I don't know. I -- I have an idea what is supposed to be done with it, but I don't know what he did with it.
Q Did you see what he did with it?
A Well, he put it in an envelope.
Q What kind of envelope did he put it in?
A A gray envelope that has an affidavit on it that I sign.
Q A gray envelope?
A Yes.
Q And it had an affidavit?
A Yes.
Q What did the affidavit say?
A Oh, it refers to the fact that we -- I drew the blood on such and such a date and I handed it to detective Vannatter.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

The this affidavit had the wrong date on it. So who wrote the wrong date on it?

[GreenIce]

Mr. August:

Dr. Gerdes also found startling evidence of cross-contamination in the DNA test results of the Simpson case itself: it appeared that the reference vials containing the blood of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were contaminated with the DNA of O.J. Simpson! Extra alleles consistent with O.J. Simpson's appeared when the victims' blood was typed both at the LAPD laboratory and at two other laboratories to which the same vials were later sent.

http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~jweiss/laws131/unit3/simpson.htm

[GreenIce]

William and Martin,

There is one thing I don't understand about the time of death. Because crucial evidence was thrown out and the detectives' delay of calling the ME, the DA's story was that the murders happened between 9:00 p.m. and 12:00 p.m. In reading Killing Time, this window is based on when the victims were last seen alive. But that doesn't make sense to me because after 2 trials, Nicole and Ron were said to be alive at 10:30 p.m.

And if we stay with this window, then aren't they throwing into doubt the telephone records, Nicole's last conversation with her mother and with the Mezzulana? And what about the "hey, hey, hey", if that was Ron, then he was alive at 10:40 p.m.

Shouldn't this evidence narrow the time of death to about an hour and a half?

Also, in Killing Time, it says that Sydney did tell the police what she heard and that she also heard the "hey, hey, hey". If that is in her statement, then wouldn't she and and maybe Justin the most likely witnesses to have seen her last?

It also seems just too much of a stretch that Nicole's stomach contents would be thrown out but Ron's weren't. And while it was known what Nicole had ate at the Mezzaluna, there must be a reason why stomach contents are kept for their evidence.

[GreenIce]

fgump2,

What do you truly expect from a defense lawyer? It seems your acceptance of sub par performances from the DA's, LAPD and their SID department does not match what you expect from defense lawyers.

Both sides had ethic violations, both sides had fines. How can say one is worse then the other? You also forget how much the DA's were saved from themselves by Judge Ito. They were given the benefit of the doubt time and time again.

IMO, you don't seem that it when it came to the evidence in this case, the DA's were afraid of it and this was obvious. The defense was not afraid of the evidence, IMO.

[fgump2]

Fgump2,

By law, if a therapist is told by their patient that they are in fear for their life, they have to make a written report and give it to the police as well as the patient. They also have to do a report and give it to the police as well as the client even if the therapist feels the client's life is in danager and the client doesn't think so.

You raised the point about why her therapist(s) didn't do anything. Does this mean you have a list of therapists she saw and when she saw them, and also a time line of when Nicole said she was afraid Orenthal would kill her? Dr. Ameli said said that Nicole talked about her fears in therapy sessions. But I have my doubts about her credibility. Deciding whether someone's death or violence fears are rational is not an easy thing to do. Your remarks about Susan Forward's motives are out of line unless you have evidence. I am not saying her motives were pure, just that you aren't in a position to know her motives were financial.

By law, if a therapist is told by his client of this threats to kill someone and believes all the signs there that the client is going to kill, it has to be reported and the person has to be warned. None of this was ever done. Nicole never told a therapist or a shrink that she was afraid for her life. She may have been afraid of the money reprisials or fear that she would not be able to take care of her children in the lifestyle they have grown accustomed to but that does not mean she was afraid for her life.

Dr. Forward was suspended for this and you leave out the reason why Nicole stopped seeing her. Dr's who do a majority of divorce cases have the same reputation as divorce lawyers.

Speaking of divorce, Nicole stated over again that it only happened once. Dr. Forward had laws to go by, she broke them and she paid the price and it wasn't for Nicole or for other women, IMO, it was to sell her book.

Dennis Fung was in a horrible posistion. He knew Scheck was only doing his job. You may believe what you want about what Scheck's intent was but I get just the opposite. He wanted to make sure the jury knew the defense did not think he tampered with any evidence or that he was lying about seeing or not seeing certain evidence.

What you don't answer is why Fung's boss and the DA's did nothing to protect him or AM. Why Clark did nothing but trash and bash them in her case and closing arguements. At least one pro prosecution writer wrote that Fung should have been fired for incompetence. I don't pass judgement on that; but that isn't the same as tampering with evidence or participating in a frame up. I am not about to answer any questions about why Fung's boss or Marcia Clark did what they did. She did as much damage to them as she did MF in closing arguments. Barry did a great a job with Fung, Clark totally destroyed the man. Barry did his job but the DA's did not. They knew what was coming.

When you can explain the state's ethics regarding MF and sub par job performances, then we can have a fair and interesting debate on this issue. IMO.
Scheck made very specific charges against Fung. He accused Fung of deliberately breaking the law to frame Simpson. He never showed a shred of evidence for that. This is not "just doing his job". This is strange to say that the purpose of Scheck's accusations were to show that Fung was innocent of tampering with evidence. This is sort of like writing that because SImpson flunked a lie detector test we should think that is evidence he is innocent.

How either criminologists or police (Fuhrman) are evaluated is something I never gave much thought to. Making accusations with no evidence is a simpler situation. I think it is wrong. I don't know much about law, but I agree with Ito that Schecks accusations were out of line.
Fung was a prosecution witness, not a defense witness (I think), that meant the defense could only question him on things the prosecution brought up. That excludes questions about tampering with the evidence.

I have not intention of explaining the motives of a bunch of people I have never met - Fungs boss, Marcia Clark etc.

Johnnie Cochran worked for the police dept in internal affairs, investigating unethical behavior of cops. He once investigated Fuhrman, and recommended no prosecution. He would have been in a position to write something about unethical behavior among cops. I don't know if he ever wrote anything.

[GreenIce]

Scheck made very specific charges against Fung. He accused Fung of deliberately breaking the law to frame Simpson. He never showed a shred of evidence for that. This is not "just doing his job". This is strange to say that the purpose of Scheck's accusations were to show that Fung was innocent of tampering with evidence. This is sort of like writing that because SImpson flunked a lie detector test we should think that is evidence he is innocent.

How either criminologists or police (Fuhrman) are evaluated is something I never gave much thought to. Making accusations with no evidence is a simpler situation. I think it is wrong. I don't know much about law, but I agree with Ito that Schecks accusations were out of line.
Fung was a prosecution witness, not a defense witness (I think), that meant the defense could only question him on things the prosecution brought up. That excludes questions about tampering with the evidence.

I have not intention of explaining the motives of a bunch of people I have never met - Fungs boss, Marcia Clark etc.

Johnnie Cochran worked for the police dept in internal affairs, investigating unethical behavior of cops. He once investigated Fuhrman, and recommended no prosecution. He would have been in a position to write something about unethical behavior among cops. I don't know if he ever wrote anything.

Fgump2,

Nicole did see other therapists as did OJ Simpson. No report was written where one threatened the other's life or that the other was in fear of their life. Bottom line---don't you think if one of these therapists had this information, they would have testified in the trial?

Barry Sheck asked Fung if he tampered with evidence and Fung said no. Exactly what specific acts of tampering did Sheck accuse him off? Putting blood on the socks? On the Rockingham Glove? On the back gate? What specific acts was he accused of?

What about Clark going after the defense timeline witnesses? Were these people trained to be professional witnesses? Bottom line, Fung was trained for this job. He is an experienced criminalist as well as an experienced witness. He had 10 years on the job. Sheck did his job. However, his perceived abrasive manner was fully justified with professional witnesses, however, the DA's abrasive manner was not justified for civilian witnesses who just happened to be walking home on a blind date, or happened to have the horrific experience of meeting Mark Fuhman or happened to be poor imigrants who just happened to hear voices that conflicted with their timeline.

What about Rock Harmon? His style was abrasive and I found it to be a tad insulting but IMO, he adapted his style to the witness he cross examing.

And again, Dennis Fung went to the defense and shook their hands. Fung was angry on the stand but, IMO, he wasn't mad at the defense. He was the fall guy and he knew it.

Don't you think he heard what was being said about him by the DA's, just like Vanatter and Lange knew they were being called, "Dumb and Dumber" by the DA's?

How was Sheck suppose to cross examine Fung?

[GreenIce]

fgump2,

Why do you have doubts about Dr. Ameli? She was the one witness who, IMO, could have been the witness who provided the trigger for the murders that night. Her phone conversation with Nicole alone that night would have been enough. Why does she have less credibility then Dr. Forward?

Why would Dr. Ameli lie and Dr. Forward wouldn't?

The Goldmans' and the Browns' opinons on why Dr. Ameli should not be a witness makes no sense at all and no matter what they believed they would have known, does not mean that they would have known.

In fact, I don't remember why Ron and Nicole and I think Grant Crammer were seeing Dr. Ameli. She also works with drug abuse patients. I wonder if she ever saw Faye Resnick?

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

The nurses's answers on the stand during the prelim hearing were definite with little margin either way. He stated it over and over again. He was asked this question several times and he performance on the stand was of a professional who had done this for years and he knows how much blood is needed.

His answers to questions later mean nothing because of the pressure he was put under, he was put under so much pressure that at the end, he didn't even know what to believe, only that if he stood strong on his answers, he was added another nail to the coffin of the DA's case.

No one ever accused him of doing something wrong. It doesn't matter if he was ever asked if he drew enough blood before, he shouldn't have to have been asked that, his training would have provided the answers.

It is your opinon regarding EDTA. The one fact that you overlook is that the DA's specifically wrote to Roger Martz to discredit the defense's claims and he could not do it. His performance on the stand was horrific and he discredited himself. He was reprimanded for destroying his records and he claimed he was an expert when he was not. The defense had an expert and his testimony is crediable, Roger Martz's is not. In fact, Marcia Clark never challenged him the Simpson case, she spent all her time on another case, so much time that Judge Ito told her try to the Simpson case. Also, where was Rockne Harmon and Woode Clark with this witness? Harmon wouldn't take him because he knew EDTA was found in the stains and we all know how he felt about that.

You logic that nurse now claims he doesn't know how much he drew discredit your claims that blood was not planted and spilled. If he drew his orgininal amount, then blood is missing and the case is over. His testimony at the first two hearings is the truth.

How hard do you think it would take someone to add so much pressure to a man who is sick with heart problems and the only thing he wants to do is to retire.

And, again, you forget, it wasn't up to him to be responsible for the contents of the vial once he drew it. His first answers stand. Also, why didn't the DA's call him? They were not going to call him to the stand, it was Goldberg who came up with the video tape and it was legal. However, it helped the defense much, much more then it did the DA's. IMO.

Peratis did nothing wrong by not noting the exact amount of blood he drew from Simpson. Every claim by the defense that preserved blood was planted was proven false. The only blood that was missing from Simpson’s reference sample was blood that was used for testing or the small aerosol of blood that was released on chem wipes and Yamauchi’s gloves when he opened the vacutainer tube. Yamauchi then disposed of the chem wipes and his gloves before continuing.

Peratis’s first answers do not stand according to the California Evidence Code. Hank Goldberg explained this in his book.

The Prosecution Responds,
“By mid July well into the defense case, the defense informed us that they wanted to call Peratis. However I learned that Thano was at home recuperating from heart surgery. His doctor would not let him testify. That made him legally unavailable as a witness.

One afternoon, I discussed the issue with Marcia and Brian Kelberg in Marcia's office. This was at around the time the defense was presenting EDTA evidence. After I explained the situation, I said, "This isn't a problem. Since Thano is legally not available, the defense will be able to introduce his prior testimony from the preliminary hearing. All we need to do is go out and re-interview Thano about what happened. We can then introduce this interview as an inconsistent statement to impeach Thano's preliminary testimony.
"Are you sure?" Marcia asked.
"Positive, " I answered.”This issue has come up with me before."
Brian said, "I don't know that we can do that. Let's look." Brian took a copy of the Evidence Code from Marcia's bookcase and quickly turned to section 1202, entitled "Credibility of Hearsay Declarant." This is the code section that tells lawyers what they can do to attack the credibility of a witness who is not present in court but whose prior testimony is read to the jury from the transcript.

After reading the code section, Brian said, "Hank is right. This means that if we re-interview Thano and he says things which contradict what he previously testified to during the preliminary hearing, it's admissible.
Marcia seemed distracted, "I'm not following."
"Okay," I said. "Thano previously testified at the prelim that he drew approximately eight milliliters. Right? But he made an inconsistent statement to me. He told me he drew approximately 6.5 milliliters. So if the defense puts in the prior testimony about drawing eight milliliters, we get to put in the contradictory statement that he only drew 6.5 milliliters."
"Right, right,” Marcia said,
Brian added, "But it's only admissible to prove that his prior testimony about drawing eight milliliters should be distrusted."
"But that would be good for us," I added. "Because we aren't asking the jury to believe that Thano really did draw only 6.5 milliliters. The real point is that this guy doesn't know how much he drew because he didn't measure it and he never does."
We agreed that I would go to Thano's home to re-interview him with a defense investigator and that I would video tape the interview."

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

The this affidavit had the wrong date on it. So who wrote the wrong date on it?

Post the testimony where someone claimed that the affidavit on the evidence envelope that contained Simpson’s blood sample had the wrong date on it, please.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August:

Dr. Gerdes also found startling evidence of cross-contamination in the DNA test results of the Simpson case itself: it appeared that the reference vials containing the blood of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were contaminated with the DNA of O.J. Simpson! Extra alleles consistent with O.J. Simpson's appeared when the victims' blood was typed both at the LAPD laboratory and at two other laboratories to which the same vials were later sent.

http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~jweiss/laws131/unit3/simpson.htm

The article you posted a link to is filled with incorrect and misinformation regarding the evidence in this case.

Dr. Gerdes did testify to seeing possible contamination by looking at photographs of dot-blots which he admitted was not the same as actually looking at a strip live. He testified there may have been a cross contamination of Simpson’s blood into Nicole or Ron’s blood and then typed by the two laboratories that LAPD sent their specimens to or another explanation is that there were possibly contaminants and artifacts.

Nothing Gerdes found changed the DNA of Simpson’s, Nicole’s, or Ron’s blood or affected any other blood evidence in this case.

bobaugust

[GreenIce]

The article you posted a link to is filled with incorrect and misinformation regarding the evidence in this case.

Dr. Gerdes did testify to seeing possible contamination by looking at photographs of dot-blots which he admitted was not the same as actually looking at a strip live. He testified there may have been a cross contamination of Simpson’s blood into Nicole or Ron’s blood and then typed by the two laboratories that LAPD sent their specimens to or another explanation is that there were possibly contaminants and artifacts.

Nothing Gerdes found changed the DNA of Simpson’s, Nicole’s, or Ron’s blood or affected any other blood evidence in this case.

bobaugust


Mr. August,

The please provide proof that the article is filled with misinformation and incorrect information on this case. You prove his paper, submitted and published is full of lies.

But your doctorate up against his and explain this. The fact that VA had all three reference samples before any thing was sent out to be tested says it all. You can't prove he or someone else didn't spike or plant any evidence.

How could any of these labs disapprove spiking did not take place?

[GreenIce]

Post the testimony where someone claimed that the affidavit on the evidence envelope that contained Simpson’s blood sample had the wrong date on it, please.

bobaugust

Mr. Gerald Uelman's book, "Lessons from the Trial".

[GreenIce]

Peratis did nothing wrong by not noting the exact amount of blood he drew from Simpson. Every claim by the defense that preserved blood was planted was proven false. The only blood that was missing from Simpson’s reference sample was blood that was used for testing or the small aerosol of blood that was released on chem wipes and Yamauchi’s gloves when he opened the vacutainer tube. Yamauchi then disposed of the chem wipes and his gloves before continuing.

Peratis’s first answers do not stand according to the California Evidence Code. Hank Goldberg explained this in his book.

The Prosecution Responds,
“By mid July well into the defense case, the defense informed us that they wanted to call Peratis. However I learned that Thano was at home recuperating from heart surgery. His doctor would not let him testify. That made him legally unavailable as a witness.

One afternoon, I discussed the issue with Marcia and Brian Kelberg in Marcia's office. This was at around the time the defense was presenting EDTA evidence. After I explained the situation, I said, "This isn't a problem. Since Thano is legally not available, the defense will be able to introduce his prior testimony from the preliminary hearing. All we need to do is go out and re-interview Thano about what happened. We can then introduce this interview as an inconsistent statement to impeach Thano's preliminary testimony.
"Are you sure?" Marcia asked.
"Positive, " I answered.”This issue has come up with me before."
Brian said, "I don't know that we can do that. Let's look." Brian took a copy of the Evidence Code from Marcia's bookcase and quickly turned to section 1202, entitled "Credibility of Hearsay Declarant." This is the code section that tells lawyers what they can do to attack the credibility of a witness who is not present in court but whose prior testimony is read to the jury from the transcript.

After reading the code section, Brian said, "Hank is right. This means that if we re-interview Thano and he says things which contradict what he previously testified to during the preliminary hearing, it's admissible.
Marcia seemed distracted, "I'm not following."
"Okay," I said. "Thano previously testified at the prelim that he drew approximately eight milliliters. Right? But he made an inconsistent statement to me. He told me he drew approximately 6.5 milliliters. So if the defense puts in the prior testimony about drawing eight milliliters, we get to put in the contradictory statement that he only drew 6.5 milliliters."
"Right, right,” Marcia said,
Brian added, "But it's only admissible to prove that his prior testimony about drawing eight milliliters should be distrusted."
"But that would be good for us," I added. "Because we aren't asking the jury to believe that Thano really did draw only 6.5 milliliters. The real point is that this guy doesn't know how much he drew because he didn't measure it and he never does."
We agreed that I would go to Thano's home to re-interview him with a defense investigator and that I would video tape the interview."

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Then why did the nurse testify to how much he drew in the first place? Where were his co-workers and his boss to testify they are allowed to draw as much blood as they want and there are no SOP's that dictate a standard amount.

Your argument is not making any sense. You can't claim that he doesn't know how much blood and drew and then say all the planting of evidence was proven false.

There is a lot more evidence to infer that tampering and planting had taken place then not. What you claim to be proof is not. IMO.

[GreenIce]

fgump2,

In regards to Dennis Fung being accused of planting evidence, when did Dennis Fung have Ron and Nicole's reference sample in his possession? When did Sheck accuse him of planting blood on the socks and on the back gate?

You made a very true statement about accusations, however, you need to apply this statement to the state's witnesses, not me. Did Andrea Mozzola ever say that she did not put her initials on the envelopes?

Did Dennis and Andrea testify they were wrong about the swatches being dry before they were packaged?

[tv]

Scheck made very specific charges against Fung. He accused Fung of deliberately breaking the law to frame Simpson. He never showed a shred of evidence for that. This is not "just doing his job". This is strange to say that the purpose of Scheck's accusations were to show that Fung was innocent of tampering with evidence. This is sort of like writing that because SImpson flunked a lie detector test we should think that is evidence he is innocent.

How either criminologists or police (Fuhrman) are evaluated is something I never gave much thought to. Making accusations with no evidence is a simpler situation. I think it is wrong. I don't know much about law, but I agree with Ito that Schecks accusations were out of line.
Fung was a prosecution witness, not a defense witness (I think), that meant the defense could only question him on things the prosecution brought up. That excludes questions about tampering with the evidence.

I have not intention of explaining the motives of a bunch of people I have never met - Fungs boss, Marcia Clark etc.

Johnnie Cochran worked for the police dept in internal affairs, investigating unethical behavior of cops. He once investigated Fuhrman, and recommended no prosecution. He would have been in a position to write something about unethical behavior among cops. I don't know if he ever wrote anything.

You are right, fg2. Scheck accused Fung of pouring blood out of Simpson's blood vial and also of assisting Colin Yamauchi in doing so. Barry Scheck was trying to show the jury that Fung was innocent of evidence tampering?? :eek: On the contrary, Scheck would have hung the title of evidence planter on his own mother in order to make OJ Simpson look like the victim of a police conspiracy. Just like the theory that Simpson failed the lie detector because he's innocent -- turning a negative into a positive -- it's an old ploy. ;)

[martin II]

I suppose that means that Ron and Nicole weren't slaughtered in vain -- their murders led to national standards for laboratories. What a comfort that must be to their families. Maybe there's also a new policy for blood handling by detectives. Who knows what else OJ Simpson's murderous rage has done to benefit society? Gee, he's practically a humanitarian.

We agree there was no reason for nicole and ron being killed but that is not the subject at hand. The subject is lab standards to prevent the blunders commited in the oj trial.

[martin II]

Scheck made very specific charges against Fung. He accused Fung of deliberately breaking the law to frame Simpson. He never showed a shred of evidence for that. This is not "just doing his job". This is strange to say that the purpose of Scheck's accusations were to show that Fung was innocent of tampering with evidence. This is sort of like writing that because SImpson flunked a lie detector test we should think that is evidence he is innocent.

How either criminologists or police (Fuhrman) are evaluated is something I never gave much thought to. Making accusations with no evidence is a simpler situation. I think it is wrong. I don't know much about law, but I agree with Ito that Schecks accusations were out of line.
Fung was a prosecution witness, not a defense witness (I think), that meant the defense could only question him on things the prosecution brought up. That excludes questions about tampering with the evidence.

I have not intention of explaining the motives of a bunch of people I have never met - Fungs boss, Marcia Clark etc.

Johnnie Cochran worked for the police dept in internal affairs, investigating unethical behavior of cops. He once investigated Fuhrman, and recommended no prosecution. He would have been in a position to write something about unethical behavior among cops. I don't know if he ever wrote anything.

When fung testified to how he collected evidence the defence was allowed to question him on how he did collect evidence and ask him hard questions on the subject. nothing wrong with that at all.

[martin II]

In order for him to be 'getting away with it' for all those years he would have had to be doing something wrong which he wasn't. You're being stubborn on this subject for some reason that I can't understand but if it furthers your claim that OJ Simpson was framed so be it.

i have not read the new national standards but i would be willing to bet it includes nurses noting blood amounts drawn and cops not carrying blood around.

[martin II]

You are right, fg2. Scheck accused Fung of pouring blood out of Simpson's blood vial and also of assisting Colin Yamauchi in doing so. Barry Scheck was trying to show the jury that Fung was innocent of evidence tampering?? :eek: On the contrary, Scheck would have hung the title of evidence planter on his own mother in order to make OJ Simpson look like the victim of a police conspiracy. Just like the theory that Simpson failed the lie detector because he's innocent -- turning a negative into a positive -- it's an old ploy. ;)

i dissagree

By law a defence lawyer is reqiuired to do everything in his power,leagally to get his client off.So what law did Schack break when he questioned Fung?

[weezer]

this is such nonsense. two courts of law ruled that there was no evidence that anyone was guilty of planting evidence.

[weezer]

just want to clarify the misinformation given on the board regarding the gloves.

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.

[weezer]

more on the gloves: MOTION IN LIMINE OP PLAINTIFF FREDRIC GOLDMAN TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT OR QUESTIONING REGARDING THE GLOVE FOUND AT DEFENDANT ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON'S ROCKINGHAM ESTATE BEING PLANTED

". . .A leather glove found at defendant Orenthal James Simpson's Rockingham estate a few hours after the bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were found at Nicole's home on Bundy Drive matched a glove found at the Bundy crime scene. The "Rockingham glove" contained the blood of Simpson, Nicole, and Ron, hair from Ron and Nicole, fibers from Ron's pants and shirt, and fibers from Simpson's Bronco. By this motion, Goldman asks this Court to enter an order precluding Simpson from presenting argument and questioning witnesses at trial to support his speculative contention that this glove was "planted," i.e., left where it was found by someone other than Simpson.

As set forth in the Planting Motion, Simpson will have the burden of proof in this case to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that each particular item of evidence was planted. Evid. Code 606, 660, 664. As also discussed in the Planting Motion, Simpson may not question witnesses or present argument regarding his planting theory unless he can present both "substantial evidence" that the particular item of evidence was planted and "direct or circumstantial evidence linking" a particular person to the planting of the evidence; evidence showing merely that a third person had a "motive or opportunity" to commit the act is not sufficient. People v. Ponce, 44 Cal. App. 4th 1380, 1389-90 (1996); People v. Kaurish, 52 Cal. 3d 648, 685 (1990). . ."

[weezer]

OJ judge rules that bloody glove can stay as evidence

MICHAEL FLEEMAN Associated Press

Friday, 8 September 1995
"Los Angeles - The judge in the OJ Simpson murder case rejected an attempt by the defence to throw out a bloody glove and other evidence gathered without a warrant at the estate of the former American-football star.

Judge Lance Ito said Detective Mark Fuhrman's explanation for entering the estate without a search warrant could be trusted and that his evidence was supported by other witnesses. The ruling came a day after Mr Fuhrman - who has been criticised for making racist remarks - refused to answer a question about whether he had planted evidence. He cited the Fifth Amendment, which permits people to refuse to make self-incriminating comments.

Judge Ito ruled that taped interviews containing Mr Fuhrman's racist remarks did not mean an earlier decision allowing evidence found on Mr Simpson's property a day after the murders should be reversed.

In the wake of the judge's decision one of Mr Simpson's prominent lawyers said the defence had no plans to call Mr Simpson to the witness stand. "I didn't see what was left to be gained,'' said F Lee Bailey, "when you have the chief witness, a law enforcement officer, refusing to testify because he might incriminate himself."

[martin II]

Scheck made very specific charges against Fung. He accused Fung of deliberately breaking the law to frame Simpson. He never showed a shred of evidence for that. This is not "just doing his job". This is strange to say that the purpose of Scheck's accusations were to show that Fung was innocent of tampering with evidence. This is sort of like writing that because SImpson flunked a lie detector test we should think that is evidence he is innocent.

How either criminologists or police (Fuhrman) are evaluated is something I never gave much thought to. Making accusations with no evidence is a simpler situation. I think it is wrong. I don't know much about law, but I agree with Ito that Schecks accusations were out of line.
Fung was a prosecution witness, not a defense witness (I think), that meant the defense could only question him on things the prosecution brought up. That excludes questions about tampering with the evidence.

I have not intention of explaining the motives of a bunch of people I have never met - Fungs boss, Marcia Clark etc.

Johnnie Cochran worked for the police dept in internal affairs, investigating unethical behavior of cops. He once investigated Fuhrman, and recommended no prosecution. He would have been in a position to write something about unethical behavior among cops. I don't know if he ever wrote anything.

Clarke accused oj of jumping the fence hitting a air conditioner dropping a glove and running out of the walkway.
she had not one piece of evidencve that he did any of this.

[weezer]

THE GLOVES

50. A bloody glove matching the one at the murder scene is found behind OJ's house near the air-conditioning unit, where Kato hears three thumps.

51. The glove at the murder scene and the glove at OJ's home are extra large: OJ's size. And they are a matching right and left glove.

52. Both gloves are identical to the type Nicole bought for Simpson at Bloomingdales in December of 1990, one of only two hundred pairs like them sold through out the whole country that year.

53. Photos and videos of OJ show him wearing the gloves that match the ones found at his home and the murder scene.

[tv]

i dissagree

By law a defence lawyer is reqiuired to do everything in his power,leagally to get his client off.So what law did Schack break when he questioned Fung?

I didn't say he broke any law. I was clarifying the claim of another poster that said Scheck didn't accuse Fung of tampering with evidence.

[martin II]

The testimony was there was no size or color noted on the sales receipt of nicole from bloomingdales regardless of what has been posted.

[tv]

Clarke accused oj of jumping the fence hitting a air conditioner dropping a glove and running out of the walkway.
she had not one piece of evidencve that he did any of this.

Why is it okay to throw out planting theories with 'not one piece of evidence' and ruin the careers of hard working and honest LE officers but you quibble about how the Bundy Butcher got behind his house. Once again, the evidence is contained on the glove -- OJ Simpson's blood, Nicole Brown's blood, Ron Goldman's blood and hair and fibers.

[martin II]

in order for clarks claim that oj dropped a glove in the walkway to hold up she had to prove he was there. she never did. all she offered was he must have been there and that was not enough.imo

[martin II]

Why is it okay to throw out planting theories with 'not one piece of evidence' and ruin the careers of hard working and honest LE officers but you quibble about how the Bundy Butcher got behind his house. Once again, the evidence is contained on the glove -- OJ Simpson's blood, Nicole Brown's blood, Ron Goldman's blood and hair and fibers.

i don't know who the bundy butcher is.you want people to believe oj was in the walkway because clarke says he was without proof. .you don't need the proof on this as you need the proof on other issues.haha

[tv]

in order for clarks claim that oj dropped a glove in the walkway to hold up she had to prove he was there. she never did. all she offered was he must have been there and that was not enough.imo

Complete nonsense.

[tv]

i don't know who the bundy butcher is.you want people to believe oj was in the walkway because clarke says he was without proof. .you don't need the proof on this as you need the proof on other issues.haha

The Bundy Butcher, the Butcher of Brentwood, Orenthal James Simpson -- all one and the same. haha :D

The proof is on the Rockingham glove, OJ Simpson's blood mixed with the blood of Ron and Nicole.

[martin II]

I didn't say he broke any law. I was clarifying the claim of another poster that said Scheck didn't accuse Fung of tampering with evidence.

this is not a important issue for me and i am not sure who you are talking about but i don't require a answer.

[tv]

this is not a important issue for me and i am not sure who you are talking about but i don't require a answer.

Then don't post to me if it doesn't interest you. You're the one that accused me of saying Scheck was breaking some law. From now on when you don't require an answer tell me that up front. It'll save a lot of my time.

[martin II]

The Bundy Butcher, the Butcher of Brentwood, Orenthal James Simpson -- all one and the same. haha :D

The proof is on the Rockingham glove, OJ Simpson's blood mixed with the blood of Ron and Nicole.

planted,placed there by someone other than oj

[tv]

planted,placed there by someone other than oj

You don't have any proof. None.

[martin II]

Then don't post to me if it doesn't interest you. You're the one that accused me of saying Scheck was breaking some law. From now on when you don't require an answer tell me that up front. It'll save a lot of my time.

i never accused you of saying Scheck was breaking the law. i posted about defence responsibility for another poster that did not seem to understand the defence responsibility.if i posted it directly to you i apologize

[tv]

i never accused you of saying Scheck was breaking the law. i posted about defence responsibility for another poster that did not seem to understand the defence responsibility.if i posted it directly to you i apologize

Okay, then.

[martin II]

You don't have any proof. None.

we know oj did not drope the glove there because he was in his house so the glove walked there with the assistance of someone.

[tv]

we know oj did not drope the glove there because he was in his house so the glove walked there with the assistance of someone.

Not one person still living saw OJ Simpson from the time he got back from McDonald's with Kato until Park saw him go into the house unless you want to count Jill Shivley. Unless you were a fly on the wall and saw him there you don't have any proof he was in the house.

[weezer]

planted,placed there by someone other than oj

OJ judge rules that bloody glove can stay as evidence

MICHAEL FLEEMAN Associated Press

Friday, 8 September 1995
"Los Angeles - The judge in the OJ Simpson murder case rejected an attempt by the defence to throw out a bloody glove and other evidence gathered without a warrant at the estate of the former American-football star.

Judge Lance Ito said Detective Mark Fuhrman's explanation for entering the estate without a search warrant could be trusted and that his evidence was supported by other witnesses. The ruling came a day after Mr Fuhrman - who has been criticised for making racist remarks - refused to answer a question about whether he had planted evidence. He cited the Fifth Amendment, which permits people to refuse to make self-incriminating comments.

Judge Ito ruled that taped interviews containing Mr Fuhrman's racist remarks did not mean an earlier decision allowing evidence found on Mr Simpson's property a day after the murders should be reversed.

In the wake of the judge's decision one of Mr Simpson's prominent lawyers said the defence had no plans to call Mr Simpson to the witness stand. "I didn't see what was left to be gained,'' said F Lee Bailey, "when you have the chief witness, a law enforcement officer, refusing to testify because he might incriminate himself."

[weezer]

we know oj did not drope the glove there because he was in his house so the glove walked there with the assistance of someone.

By Thomas L. Jones

"It is conceivable that the leather gloves were the Rosetta stone of the Simpson murder trial. One was discovered at each of the two crime scenes. Of all the physical evidence that had been gathered and catalogued that day, the gloves were, perhaps, the most tangible. There was also a terrible irony in the fact that they may have been purchased by a woman as a gift for her husband, who then used them in the commission of her murder.

They were unique articles of apparel and the prosecution had linked together an imposing evidence chain connecting them to the defendant.

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.

On April 3rd, the prosecution produced evidence that the glove found behind the bungalow on Simpson's Rockingham estate had a mixture of blood from Nicole, Goldman and Simpson. . ."

[weezer]

". . .As for the gloves, Ms. Clark and her colleagues contend that given what Mr. Rubin called their "quite rare" configuration of characteristics, they are almost as distinctive as the fingerprints on the hands inside them. Mr. Rubin said that only 300 pairs of the gloves were manufactured in 1990, 200 to 240 of which were sold, all at Bloomingdale's.

It was at Bloomingdale's flagship store in Manhattan that Nicole Brown Simpson bought her husband two pairs of $55 Aris gloves, color and size unspecified by the sales slip, in December 1990. . . .And once again, jurors were regaled with important evidence provided unwittingly by a central player in the case. This time, however, the exhibits were not Mr. Fuhrman's conversations with a screenwriter, but tapes and photographs taken during Mr. Simpson's long tenure as a sports commentator. . . . videos and photographs -- particularly from a Bengals-Oilers game played two weeks after Mrs. Simpson made her purchases, and a New York Giants-Indianapolis Colts game played seven months before the murders -- showed more than an ebullient Mr. Simpson, his coats, mufflers and umbrellas color-coordinated, consorting with the players and coaches of the National Football League. . .As Mr. Simpson schmoozed, he exposed different facets of different hands. With each frame, Mr. Rubin identified the distinctive features of model number 70263, all designed to justify their high price. There was the intricate "Brasser" stitching -- 22 to 24 stitches per inch -- made by Singer sewing machines long out of production, which only a few craftsmen can operate; a palm vent; a blind hem by the wrist; decorative "silking" on their back made by a particular configuration of needles. . ."

[martin II]

Not one person still living saw OJ Simpson from the time he got back from McDonald's with Kato until Park saw him go into the house unless you want to count Jill Shivley. Unless you were a fly on the wall and saw him there you don't have any proof he was in the house.

if a person goes into his house and no one is home it is not expected that he would be seen by any one.

[William Anthony]

Mr. August,

Dr. Thompson, who was on the Simpson defense team did a paper on the case, that I have linked as well as quoted from the paragraph regarding this information.

You lost about Vannater carrying blood samples in his pocket--are you talking about Ron and Nicole's? I thought he did carry Simpson's blood in his shirt pocket. I don't know how he carried Ron and Nicole's reference samples but I do know their book is not the same description of Gary Siglar's and it appears from Mr. Siglar's civil trial deposition, he was lied to by Vanatter.

The thing is that there seem to be no valid reason for taking Simpson's blood vial to the crime scene or, if you will, the prosecution and LE created reasonable doubt.

[William Anthony]

I have never seen any evidence that Simpson’s blood contaminated Nicole or Ron’s reference samples. Please post the link or the message number where you say you posted this.

I know of no evidence that supports the claim that Vannatter carried any blood reference sample in his pocket. When Vannatter delivered Simpson’s blood sample to Fung at Rockingham it was contained inside and evidence envelope. Television cameras recorded Vannatter when he arrived at Rockingham with the evidence envelope containing Simpson’s blood sample and recorded when Vannatter handed it over to Fung.

bobaugust

Which cameras recorded how much was drawn and what Vanatter did with the vial from the time it was handed to him until he gave it to DF?

[William Anthony]

Martin II, you are incorrect. Peratis drew Simpson’s blood into a syringe and then put the blood into a purple top tube that Vannatter had put Simpson’s name and date on. Peratis shook the vile up and then gave it to Vannatter who put it in an evidence envelope that had a affidavit on it that Peratis signed.

On Monday April 17, 1995 on redirect the prosecution showed an unedited KABC news videotape taken on June 13. Not only did that video destroy Scheck’s false allegations of when Fung received the blood sample by documenting the time that Vannatter arrived at Rockingham as 5:17 and handing the evidence envelope containing Simpson’s blood sample to Fung as 5:19 but it also documented the time of 5:42 showing Fung and Mazzola leaving the residence. Mazzola was carrying a black trash bag. As she passed the camera, one could see a square outline, the approximate dimensions of the evidence envelope as the wind caught the plastic bag.

bobaugust

So, no one knows what Mazzola had in the bag?

[William Anthony]

martin, you've been told by people that draw blood and Peratis has also said himself that the exact amount of blood drawn is not recorded and he'd never before been asked how much blood he drew. There was no failure on his part.

How many of those drew blood that is to be used in criminal cases and do not record the amount drawn?

[William Anthony]

No, the problem is not Peratis, the problem is all the incorrect information you continually post on this discussion group, Martin. Peratis did nothing wrong. Even if Peratis had noted the exact amount of blood he drew from Simpson it would not have prevented Simpson’s defense from making false claims that blood was planted since they had no other explanation for why the blood evidence in this case pointed to Simpson as the killer.

bobaugust

The prosecution can not build a case on ifs, as evidenced by the verdict.

[William Anthony]

Another point I disagree with you in the past is that I wrote that Scheck had in court accused Fung of consciously engaging in a conspiracy to frame Simpson. You said he didn't. I quote from Rantala's book, page 142 of Scheck questioning Fung:"Mr. Fung are you having some trouble keeping this story straight about getting the blood vial..." Ito rebuked Scheck for asking this question.
Scheck then asked:"And when you saw these [video] tapes you realized you had been caught in a lie, didn't you?".
I think that was shabby behavior on the part of Scheck. I also think it is shabby behavior on the part of admirers of the Simpson defense team who want to high light all of the prosecutions mistakes, and ignore the defenses ethical lapses. I haven't heard of anyone calling Scheck magnificent, but Scheck was an important part of the defense.
I realize that the prosecution is held to a higher level of performance than the defense, but people who want the justice system to function in a just manner should be willing to criticize ethical lapses on both sides.

Lawyers often run the risk of being rebuked if they think the point the wish to emphasize is strong enough, as with Darden asking LHM about an affair she may have had with MF.

[William Anthony]

GreenIce, the nurse did nothing wrong except for testifying to something he didn’t really know. Peratis consistently testified that he only estimated the amount of blood he drew from Simpson. The fact that when Peratis contradicted his prior estimates in his video taped testimony means none of his estimates can be trusted. The bottom line is that Peratis didn’t know how much blood he drew from Simpson so the defense theory had no credibility. The fact is that no blood stain in this case was ever found to have come from preserved blood in a purple top vial that all the reference blood were contained in.

The Prosecution Responds,
"Here I (Peratis) am being cross examined by Robert Shapiro. I mean. I thought he's a modern day Clarence Darrow. And it was just a stupid answer. Eight milliliters is what we assume we normally draw. But we never measure it. There's no reason to. In all my years, no one has ever told me that I didn't draw enough blood."

Peratis continued, "A vacutainer is supposed to draw eight milliliters." He explained that a vacutainer is a device that utilizes a blood vial with a vacuum seal that, when injected into a person's arm sucks the blood into the vial.

Goldberg asked, "Did you use a vacutainer?"
"No. With big people, like O.J. - who has big arms - I have found that it's easier to use a syringe. I used a syringe on O.J. and at a certain point the needle hit the wall of the vein and the blood stopped. I could have turned the syringe to get the blood to continue to flow, but if I did that, there would be the slightest danger that I could damage the wall. So I looked at the syringe, and it looked like enough,. So I stopped."

"When you looked at the syringe, did you look at the calibrations?"

"No. They were on the other side. I just looked at the syringe, and it looked like enough. And that was it. Bing, bang, boom."

bobaugust

"GreenIce, the nurse did nothing wrong except for testifying to something he didn’t really know." Enough Said.

[William Anthony]

Mr. August,

The nurses's answers on the stand during the prelim hearing were definite with little margin either way. He stated it over and over again. He was asked this question several times and he performance on the stand was of a professional who had done this for years and he knows how much blood is needed.

His answers to questions later mean nothing because of the pressure he was put under, he was put under so much pressure that at the end, he didn't even know what to believe, only that if he stood strong on his answers, he was added another nail to the coffin of the DA's case.

No one ever accused him of doing something wrong. It doesn't matter if he was ever asked if he drew enough blood before, he shouldn't have to have been asked that, his training would have provided the answers.

It is your opinon regarding EDTA. The one fact that you overlook is that the DA's specifically wrote to Roger Martz to discredit the defense's claims and he could not do it. His performance on the stand was horrific and he discredited himself. He was reprimanded for destroying his records and he claimed he was an expert when he was not. The defense had an expert and his testimony is crediable, Roger Martz's is not. In fact, Marcia Clark never challenged him the Simpson case, she spent all her time on another case, so much time that Judge Ito told her try to the Simpson case. Also, where was Rockne Harmon and Woode Clark with this witness? Harmon wouldn't take him because he knew EDTA was found in the stains and we all know how he felt about that.

You logic that nurse now claims he doesn't know how much he drew discredit your claims that blood was not planted and spilled. If he drew his orgininal amount, then blood is missing and the case is over. His testimony at the first two hearings is the truth.

How hard do you think it would take someone to add so much pressure to a man who is sick with heart problems and the only thing he wants to do is to retire.

And, again, you forget, it wasn't up to him to be responsible for the contents of the vial once he drew it. His first answers stand. Also, why didn't the DA's call him? They were not going to call him to the stand, it was Goldberg who came up with the video tape and it was legal. However, it helped the defense much, much more then it did the DA's. IMO.

I totally agree with you last paragraph.

[William Anthony]

William and Martin,

There is one thing I don't understand about the time of death. Because crucial evidence was thrown out and the detectives' delay of calling the ME, the DA's story was that the murders happened between 9:00 p.m. and 12:00 p.m. In reading Killing Time, this window is based on when the victims were last seen alive. But that doesn't make sense to me because after 2 trials, Nicole and Ron were said to be alive at 10:30 p.m.

And if we stay with this window, then aren't they throwing into doubt the telephone records, Nicole's last conversation with her mother and with the Mezzulana? And what about the "hey, hey, hey", if that was Ron, then he was alive at 10:40 p.m.

Shouldn't this evidence narrow the time of death to about an hour and a half?

Also, in Killing Time, it says that Sydney did tell the police what she heard and that she also heard the "hey, hey, hey". If that is in her statement, then wouldn't she and and maybe Justin the most likely witnesses to have seen her last?

It also seems just too much of a stretch that Nicole's stomach contents would be thrown out but Ron's weren't. And while it was known what Nicole had ate at the Mezzaluna, there must be a reason why stomach contents are kept for their evidence.

I do believe the stomach contents could be used to narrow the time of death.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Then why did the nurse testify to how much he drew in the first place? Where were his co-workers and his boss to testify they are allowed to draw as much blood as they want and there are no SOP's that dictate a standard amount.

Your argument is not making any sense. You can't claim that he doesn't know how much blood and drew and then say all the planting of evidence was proven false.

There is a lot more evidence to infer that tampering and planting had taken place then not. What you claim to be proof is not. IMO.

GreenIce, because there is no reliable documentation of how much blood was actually taken from Simpson or exactly how much of that blood was used for testing then any claim that preserved blood was missing can not be trusted. Seven police officer’s testimony and a crime scene photograph showing one of the blood stains on the rear gate the morning after the murders proved the defense gate blood planting theory false. Degradation testing on Nicole’s blood from Simpson’s sock found that blood could not have come from her reference sample proved the defense sock blood planting false. EDTA tests conducted on Simpson’s blood found on the rear gate and Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock found that neither of those stains came from preserved blood.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Ah, the rulings from the socio political production.

[William Anthony]

GreenIce, because there is no reliable documentation of how much blood was actually taken from Simpson or exactly how much of that blood was used for testing then any claim that preserved blood was missing can not be trusted. Seven police officer’s testimony and a crime scene photograph showing one of the blood stains on the rear gate the morning after the murders proved the defense gate blood planting theory false. Degradation testing on Nicole’s blood from Simpson’s sock found that blood could not have come from her reference sample proved the defense sock blood planting false. EDTA tests conducted on Simpson’s blood found on the rear gate and Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock found that neither of those stains came from preserved blood.

bobaugust

Let's not be misleading-the only thing that may have been proven in regard to the stains is that they did not come from a test tube with a purple/lavender top and new testing showed that they could not have come from unpreserved human blood.

[martin II]

Lawyers often run the risk of being rebuked if they think the point the wish to emphasize is strong enough, as with Darden asking LHM about an affair she may have had with MF.

CR said darden wanted to go to fist with him because darden did not like his testimony in favor of oj. Heidstra accused darden of simular tatics when darden came to his house.i guess darden saw himself as the prosecution muscle against defence witnesses.

[martin II]

gi
the 9pm time was crap.
faye called nicole at 9 and taslked to her for 30 min.oj called at 9 and talked to her daughter.nicole talked to the resturant and JB. The Doctor came and picked up his daughter.All of this calling did not happen at the same time.
So nicole was alive some time after 9pm.
What was the process that caused Golden to toss her stomach contents out.

[martin II]

Ah, the rulings from the socio political production.

Or the money trial

[martin II]

Another point I disagree with you in the past is that I wrote that Scheck had in court accused Fung of consciously engaging in a conspiracy to frame Simpson. You said he didn't. I quote from Rantala's book, page 142 of Scheck questioning Fung:"Mr. Fung are you having some trouble keeping this story straight about getting the blood vial..." Ito rebuked Scheck for asking this question.
Scheck then asked:"And when you saw these [video] tapes you realized you had been caught in a lie, didn't you?".
I think that was shabby behavior on the part of Scheck. I also think it is shabby behavior on the part of admirers of the Simpson defense team who want to high light all of the prosecutions mistakes, and ignore the defenses ethical lapses. I haven't heard of anyone calling Scheck magnificent, but Scheck was an important part of the defense.
I realize that the prosecution is held to a higher level of performance than the defense, but people who want the justice system to function in a just manner should be willing to criticize ethical lapses on both sides.


Scheck was magnificent in all his work in the trial.He controlled the DNA conversation.

[martin II]

GreenIce, because there is no reliable documentation of how much blood was actually taken from Simpson or exactly how much of that blood was used for testing then any claim that preserved blood was missing can not be trusted. Seven police officer’s testimony and a crime scene photograph showing one of the blood stains on the rear gate the morning after the murders proved the defense gate blood planting theory false. Degradation testing on Nicole’s blood from Simpson’s sock found that blood could not have come from her reference sample proved the defense sock blood planting false. EDTA tests conducted on Simpson’s blood found on the rear gate and Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock found that neither of those stains came from preserved blood.

bobaugust

GI

Since the nurse or vanhatter did not note the amount of blood that was drawn it is easy to believe that this was done on purpose so that blood could be taken and used for planting and there would be no record of what the origional amout was. This makes it impossible to know blood was missing if the origional amount is not known. This is a old trick that a old cop like vanhatter would know how to impliment.
The problem occured when the nurse testified the first time how much he drew.

[martin II]

So, no one knows what Mazzola had in the bag?

Think about it.

AM has a black plastic GLADE bag and bob is at home looking at tv and he saw what was inside the bag. Saw straight through the black plastic.Or he wants us to believe he did.hahahaha:cool:

[martin II]

Scheck made very specific charges against Fung. He accused Fung of deliberately breaking the law to frame Simpson. He never showed a shred of evidence for that. This is not "just doing his job". This is strange to say that the purpose of Scheck's accusations were to show that Fung was innocent of tampering with evidence. This is sort of like writing that because SImpson flunked a lie detector test we should think that is evidence he is innocent.

How either criminologists or police (Fuhrman) are evaluated is something I never gave much thought to. Making accusations with no evidence is a simpler situation. I think it is wrong. I don't know much about law, but I agree with Ito that Schecks accusations were out of line.
Fung was a prosecution witness, not a defense witness (I think), that meant the defense could only question him on things the prosecution brought up. That excludes questions about tampering with the evidence.

I have not intention of explaining the motives of a bunch of people I have never met - Fungs boss, Marcia Clark etc.

Johnnie Cochran worked for the police dept in internal affairs, investigating unethical behavior of cops. He once investigated Fuhrman, and recommended no prosecution. He would have been in a position to write something about unethical behavior among cops. I don't know if he ever wrote anything.


"I have not intention of explaining the motives of a bunch of people I have never met - Fungs boss, Marcia Clark etc."

If your above statement is true then how can you try to explain the motives
of Cochran, Schack, F L Bailey or any defence lawyer and even oj.You never met either of them. imo

[martin II]

How many of those drew blood that is to be used in criminal cases and do not record the amount drawn?

Thats my point. This was not some nurse drawing blood for a hospital CBC test, This was blood drawn for evidence in a murder trial.

[tv]

How many of those drew blood that is to be used in criminal cases and do not record the amount drawn?

If you have information that it was protocol in 1994 please post it.

[tv]

gi
the 9pm time was crap.
faye called nicole at 9 and taslked to her for 30 min.oj called at 9 and talked to her daughter.nicole talked to the resturant and JB. The Doctor came and picked up his daughter.All of this calling did not happen at the same time.
So nicole was alive some time after 9pm.
What was the process that caused Golden to toss her stomach contents out.

If you would read the testimony you would know that Golden didn't save the stomach contents because it wasn't indicated on the paperwork that it should be saved.

[tv]

GI

Since the nurse or vanhatter did not note the amount of blood that was drawn it is easy to believe that this was done on purpose so that blood could be taken and used for planting and there would be no record of what the origional amout was. This makes it impossible to know blood was missing if the origional amount is not known. This is a old trick that a old cop like vanhatter would know how to impliment.
The problem occured when the nurse testified the first time how much he drew.

I'm glad you finally came out and admitted that you think the nurse was in on the grand conspiracy.

[tv]

I do believe the stomach contents could be used to narrow the time of death.

The stomach contents of both victims were detailed in the autopsy report.

[GreenIce]

GI

Since the nurse or vanhatter did not note the amount of blood that was drawn it is easy to believe that this was done on purpose so that blood could be taken and used for planting and there would be no record of what the origional amout was. This makes it impossible to know blood was missing if the origional amount is not known. This is a old trick that a old cop like vanhatter would know how to impliment.
The problem occured when the nurse testified the first time how much he drew.

Martin,

Did the DA's ever put any witness on regarding how much blood is drawn in murder cases? How many other nurses testified to the amount of blood they draw? Also, didn't Mathison and Collin and the other criminalists write down much blood they used to conduct tests? Isn't that how the defense realized blood was missing?

I agree with you, VA would have made sure it was not written down or would have replaced the certificate. I don't remember if the certificate was ever entered into evidence or even what else is on that form.

Also, what did the criminalists testify about the amount of the blood that is usually drawn?

It seems odd to me that the DA's protect their blood evidence meaner and nastier then lion protects her cubs, yet they have no idea how much of a reference sample they have to conduct their tests?

No matter how much the G's want to deny it, the nurse testified with authority and was adament on how much blood he drew. He had reason to lie to the grand jury and in the prelim hearing.

Also, the DA's knew early on this was going to be an issue. They knew all about the magic blood of the gate, the bronco and the socks. They never did their own investigation on this? Maybe the DA's were stunned by this but at least one detective, IMO was not.

[GreenIce]

Let's not be misleading-the only thing that may have been proven in regard to the stains is that they did not come from a test tube with a purple/lavender top and new testing showed that they could not have come from unpreserved human blood.

William,

Thank you. Perhaps the color of the test tube top also plays a role in the magic of blood. Perhaps blood kept in different vials gets rather shy if they don't like the color of their test tube stop or maybe it throws a temper tantrum? I don't like the color of test tube top so I am going to go home!

[martin II]

This singer sewing machine was sold all over Africa and South America underveloped countries where labor was cheap and many companies made gloves and other items with this stitch.Singer made thousands of these machines.It is not possible that the Aris contractor in china only made this glove for Aris.Rubin does not know what he is talking about.

[martin II]

Martin,

Did the DA's ever put any witness on regarding how much blood is drawn in murder cases? How many other nurses testified to the amount of blood they draw? Also, didn't Mathison and Collin and the other criminalists write down much blood they used to conduct tests? Isn't that how the defense realized blood was missing?

I agree with you, VA would have made sure it was not written down or would have replaced the certificate. I don't remember if the certificate was ever entered into evidence or even what else is on that form.

Also, what did the criminalists testify about the amount of the blood that is usually drawn?

It seems odd to me that the DA's protect their blood evidence meaner and nastier then lion protects her cubs, yet they have no idea how much of a reference sample they have to conduct their tests?

No matter how much the G's want to deny it, the nurse testified with authority and was adament on how much blood he drew. He had reason to lie to the grand jury and in the prelim hearing.

Also, the DA's knew early on this was going to be an issue. They knew all about the magic blood of the gate, the bronco and the socks. They never did their own investigation on this? Maybe the DA's were stunned by this but at least one detective, IMO was not.


I think the lab techs do write down how much blood they used for their test.

[martin II]

The stomach contents of both victims were detailed in the autopsy report.

But if the defence had wanted to evaluate nicoles contents to try to set the time of death, they was no contents to available.Golden said nicoles stomach contained unchewed pasta.Or mostly unchewed pasta.

[martin II]

All evidence collected by crimalist and detectives is identified,described, location where it was collected and given a id number and logged in at sid.

So why is it that ojs blood collected by the nurse was not treated in the same way.

[martin II]

I'm glad you finally came out and admitted that you think the nurse was in on the grand conspiracy.

tv
i never thought or claimed there was a grand conspiracy. Grand conspiracy is never required to do a simple manipuilation of evidence.
i think the nurse did what vanhatter told him to do.

[martin II]

If you would read the testimony you would know that Golden didn't save the stomach contents because it wasn't indicated on the paperwork that it should be saved.

Really

What was different about the need to save Ron and not Nicoles? The issue was trying to determine time of death of both and have the evidence to prove it.

[martin II]

If you have information that it was protocol in 1994 please post it.

Thats not the question.is that correct?

[martin II]

When Mathison and Collin took ojs blood sample vial out they realized that the amount of blood in the vial was less blood than the nurse said he drew from oj. This is what caused the missing blood issue.

[weezer]

Lawyers Debate Sharing of Simpson Evidence; Defense Demands `Equal Access'; Prosecution Seeks Completion of Its Genetic Testing First
The Washington Post | July 26, 1994| Tamara Jones | .

Agreeing that a few scant drops of blood provide "critical evidence" in the double murder trial of O.J. Simpson, the judge heard prosecutors and defense attorneys argue fiercely today over how the precious samples should be shared.

Judge Lance A. Ito ordered both sides to produce experts to testify Friday before deciding how to divide the spots of blood for genetic testing that could determine whether the former football star was at the crime scene.

Defense attorney Robert L. Shapiro demanded "equal access to all evidence," including blood found at Simpson's estate and at the luxury ...

[weezer]

GIL GARCETTI
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
BY: MARCIA A. CLARK
CHRISTOPHER DARDEN
ROCKNE P. HARMON
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
Criminal Courts Building
210 West Temple Street, Room 18-402
Los Angeles, California 90012
(213) 974-3782

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiff,
v.
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON,
aka O.J. SIMPSON,
Defendant.

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

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

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

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Portions of 47/334, 50/335, and 78/336 were consumed during testing by the defense, as was noted when those items were returned by the Defense.
8. Upon their return, those items all bore names, initials, and dates which were not on them when they were provided to the defense. The new dates were all subsequent to October 27, the date which the defense obtained these items. (It is common practice for responsible, ethical criminalists to date and initial items when they are opened and examined, regardless of whom they are employed by. For example, all of the other items which have been examined by defense experts in their numerous examinations of Prosecution evidence have been initialed by defense experts when packages or containers were opened. This forensic science practice ensures the integrity of the evidence by allowing either side to reconstruct the chain of custody of the evidence.) (note 1) Photographs of items 47, 50, and 78 are included with this response.

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

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

[weezer]

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

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

13. Soon thereafter the proposed stipulations were filed.

ARGUMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


DATED: April 11, 1995

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

NOTES

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

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

[fgump2]

"I have not intention of explaining the motives of a bunch of people I have never met - Fungs boss, Marcia Clark etc."

If your above statement is true then how can you try to explain the motives
of Cochran, Schack, F L Bailey or any defence lawyer and even oj.You never met either of them. imo
A logical question I think. We all pass judgement on other people's motives at times; but most of the time we just observe behavior, and make no attempt to understand the motives. If I see a person driving recklessly, I may get angry, but I usually don't analyze their motives.
For me to pass judgement on the Marcia Clark's motives on the way she did her work in the 1995 Simpson trial is too much for me. I am not a lawyer, and I choose not to evaluate her motives there. The same with Fung's boss, or how the LAPD dealt with the charges against Mark Fuhrman.

Considering how much has been written about Mark Fuhrman's behavior, people should be looking into the way he was dealt with, but I don't have the background for this. I think many of Fuhrman's critics are the sort of people
who would rather curse the darkness than light a candle. After Fuhrman retired and moved to Idaho people were still writing and talking about his career as a LAPD cop.

I think I judged Cochran's motives in several cases. One was in breaking the discovery law 17 times in his opening speech. I think that was deliberate. I don't think he was that careless, but if he was you should either stop calling him magnificent, or quit complaining about careless mistakes by the LAPD or LAPD labs. Another point where I crticized his motives was in making eye contact with Kim GOldman during his summation speech, and when the verdict was read. That served no useful purpose, and was just mean. I say this without claiming to be a mind reader. Also he said SImpson was obviously guilty before he joined the team, and expressed doubts about Simpson's guilt during the trial. So I consider him to be a hired gun more interested in money and fame than in justice. Since he had doubts about Simpson's innocence, I thought it would have been the nice if he had expressed sympathy for the Browns and Goldmans, but he never did.

Even dogs and probably cats will pass judgement on other people's motives. For example dogs will become angry if they think you are blocking their paths. Before they learn to talk babies will pass judgement on other people's motives, but that isn't the same as me analyzing the motives of Marcia Clark or Fung's boss.
I don't recall what I wrote about F.L. Bailey, but others have slammed him also.

[fgump2]

fgump2,

Why do you have doubts about Dr. Ameli? She was the one witness who, IMO, could have been the witness who provided the trigger for the murders that night. Her phone conversation with Nicole alone that night would have been enough. Why does she have less credibility then Dr. Forward?

Why would Dr. Ameli lie and Dr. Forward wouldn't?

The Goldmans' and the Browns' opinons on why Dr. Ameli should not be a witness makes no sense at all and no matter what they believed they would have known, does not mean that they would have known.

In fact, I don't remember why Ron and Nicole and I think Grant Crammer were seeing Dr. Ameli. She also works with drug abuse patients. I wonder if she ever saw Faye Resnick?

I doubt Dr. Ameli because there was no paper trail connecting her with either Nicole or Ron. It is still possible that she was telling the truth. Petrocelli believed her. Her testimony was useful to the prosecution. I have no agenda against her, just doubts.

I know that some prosecution figures have been accused of being quite rude; Darden for example. I neither defend nor explain that. Darden and Scheck are living in different states and may never share a courtroom again. Misbehavior of one doesn't justify misbehavior of the other; but courtroom misbehavior is easier to document.

As for the the different timeline that some witnesses gave, if you do much reading on forensic memory you will find that human memory is often inaccurate. Memory of time of day or night should be taken with a grain of salt. I thought that all the time estimates were close enough to present no problems for the prosecution.

[fgump2]

All evidence collected by crimalist and detectives is identified,described, location where it was collected and given a id number and logged in at sid.

So why is it that ojs blood collected by the nurse was not treated in the same way.

The police gave their reasons for that. I don't remember if it was Lange or Vannatter.
Some writers have pointed out that if the detective in question wanted to do something with the blood to frame Simpson he could have done this, stepped in to an office, his car, or a restroom, and transfered some blood to a different container. I don't understand why taking it to Rockingham made it easier to tamper with the evidence.

The same is true for the much talked about fact that Mazzoli was sure she had initialed an envelope and the initials weren't there. Most people have felt sure the did something when they didn't. Maybe she accidently initialed another envelope or piece of paper. Either Mazzoli forgot to initial the envelope, or the person doing the tampering forgot to put Mazzoli's initials there. This is evidence of carelessness, not tampering.

[fgump2]

Fgump2,

Nicole did see other therapists as did OJ Simpson. No report was written where one threatened the other's life or that the other was in fear of their life. Bottom line---don't you think if one of these therapists had this information, they would have testified in the trial?

Barry Sheck asked Fung if he tampered with evidence and Fung said no. Exactly what specific acts of tampering did Sheck accuse him off? Putting blood on the socks? On the Rockingham Glove? On the back gate? What specific acts was he accused of? Scheck accused Fung:"You realized you had been caught in a lie, didn't you Mr. Fung?". This was about recieving blood from the detective. This is on page 142 of Rantala's book, about the middle of the page.

What about Clark going after the defense timeline witnesses? Were these people trained to be professional witnesses? Bottom line, Fung was trained for this job. He is an experienced criminalist as well as an experienced witness. He had 10 years on the job. Sheck did his job. However, his perceived abrasive manner was fully justified with professional witnesses, however, the DA's abrasive manner was not justified for civilian witnesses who just happened to be walking home on a blind date, or happened to have the horrific experience of meeting Mark Fuhman or happened to be poor imigrants who just happened to hear voices that conflicted with their timeline. Being abrasive is a valid questioning technique. Accusing someone of telling lies ("you realized you had been caught in a lie") isn't (unless there is evidence of a lie). I write here as a non lawyer. As far as timeline problems with witnesses, they should have gotten a forensic memory expert to shoot down the timeline problems.

What about Rock Harmon? His style was abrasive and I found it to be a tad insulting but IMO, he adapted his style to the witness he cross examing. Did he accuse anyone of telling a lie, and then produce no evidence to back it up?

And again, Dennis Fung went to the defense and shook their hands. Fung was angry on the stand but, IMO, he wasn't mad at the defense. He was the fall guy and he knew it. Fung was rattled. I think he said he shook hands afterwards because it was awkward not to, they were blocking his way. I don't think his shaking hands validates Scheck's questioning. Also if the defense people thought he was an active participant in framing Simpson, it was odd that they should shake hands with him..

Don't you think he heard what was being said about him by the DA's, just like Vanatter and Lange knew they were being called, "Dumb and Dumber" by the DA's? I am not defending the DA's. Few people thought the DA's were heros. Many people thought the defense people were heros.
How was Sheck suppose to cross examine Fung?
For one thing, to not make accusations for which there was no evidence. As I wrote before Scheck said "You realized you had been caught in a lie, didn't you". This is wrong unless he had evidence for that. Accusing someone of breaking the law is a serious business. Ever heard of slander laws? I thought Fung should have sued Scheck for slander. THere are no laws against abrasiveness or insults, there are laws against slander.

[GreenIce]

A logical question I think. We all pass judgement on other people's motives at times; but most of the time we just observe behavior, and make no attempt to understand the motives. If I see a person driving recklessly, I may get angry, but I usually don't analyze their motives.
For me to pass judgement on the Marcia Clark's motives on the way she did her work in the 1995 Simpson trial is too much for me. I am not a lawyer, and I choose not to evaluate her motives there. The same with Fung's boss, or how the LAPD dealt with the charges against Mark Fuhrman.

Considering how much has been written about Mark Fuhrman's behavior, people should be looking into the way he was dealt with, but I don't have the background for this. I think many of Fuhrman's critics are the sort of people
who would rather curse the darkness than light a candle. After Fuhrman retired and moved to Idaho people were still writing and talking about his career as a LAPD cop.

I think I judged Cochran's motives in several cases. One was in breaking the discovery law 17 times in his opening speech. I think that was deliberate. I don't think he was that careless, but if he was you should either stop calling him magnificent, or quit complaining about careless mistakes by the LAPD or LAPD labs. Another point where I crticized his motives was in making eye contact with Kim GOldman during his summation speech, and when the verdict was read. That served no useful purpose, and was just mean. I say this without claiming to be a mind reader. Also he said SImpson was obviously guilty before he joined the team, and expressed doubts about Simpson's guilt during the trial. So I consider him to be a hired gun more interested in money and fame than in justice. Since he had doubts about Simpson's innocence, I thought it would have been the nice if he had expressed sympathy for the Browns and Goldmans, but he never did.

Even dogs and probably cats will pass judgement on other people's motives. For example dogs will become angry if they think you are blocking their paths. Before they learn to talk babies will pass judgement on other people's motives, but that isn't the same as me analyzing the motives of Marcia Clark or Fung's boss.
I don't recall what I wrote about F.L. Bailey, but others have slammed him also.

Fgump2,

When Johnnie Cochran looked at Goldman his closing arguements, what exactly was he saying?

Mr. Cochran came into the case after Nicole was already buried. Robert Shapiro attended the wake and the funneral. You have idea if Johnnie Cochran ever extended to attempted to extend his sorrow over Nicole's death to the Browns.

You also don't know even if the Browns or the Goldmans' could tolerated even hearing anyone's sorrow over their loss let alone it coming from Johnnie Cochran or other members of the defense team. If you read the Goldmans' book, you will understand exactly what I am talking about. Parents handle their childrens' death differently, have different respondsibility, have different forms of loss. For example, the Browns had the best part of Nicole, Sydney and Justin. The Goldmans don't have that. Some people find comfort in their religion, others turn away from it. Some people believe that despite the horror of their loss, the thought of their child in heaven brings them some peace, others are so mad at God that they can't even go there. I have no problem with your thoughts or opinons, you made observations, that is what we all do here---but sometimes you have do have to look at the other and consider that perhaps someone has made a point you never considered.

You do focus on Johnnie Cochran's discovery violations, however, what about the DA's? What is a discovery violation in reality? A lawyer trying to surpress evidence or to delay evidence coming into the trial until the last minute? Pulling surprise witnesses that the other side doesn't know about? What is discovery violation to you?

Whatever Johnnie Cochran or any other legal talking head said before the trial started really means nothing. At that time, there was so much misinformtation leaking out of the LAPD, how could anyone not think he was guilty? Johnnie Cochran had no idea that blood was not found on the back gate until three weeks later. He had not idea that Ron Goldman's blood was not found in the Bronco until August. He had no idea that there was no blood on the socks, then later there was going to be a leak from an LAPD officer that not only Simpson's blood was found on the sock but also Nicole's.

He had no way of knowing that the murder weapon was not a military entrenching tool, that Simpson did not pack his hand ice on the way to Chicago. That bloody clothes said to be found in Chicago were never found.

You need to remember the insanity that had surrounded that case from the get go. And bottom line, the ex is always the prime suspect, especially one who had a dv incident in the past. It is so surprising that lawyers who deal with these types of murders would not think he was guilty when first hearing about it? I believed he was guilty, especially when I heard he left for Chicago that night.

[GreenIce]

For one thing, to not make accusations for which there was no evidence. As I wrote before Scheck said "You realized you had been caught in a lie, didn't you". This is wrong unless he had evidence for that. Accusing someone of breaking the law is a serious business. Ever heard of slander laws? I thought Fung should have sued Scheck for slander. THere are no laws against abrasiveness or insults, there are laws against slander.

fgump2,

Dennis Fung was impeached time and time again. His own words, his own reports, his own words were called into question and he did not have that many answers. Scheck just didn't pull these questions out of the air. He studied the tapes, he studied the reports, he studied the testimony. He did his job. Fung knew what was coming and IMO, he took a few a hits for the home team.

You posted before that some people felt Fung should have been fired, well why wasn't he? The reason why Fung was allowed to take so much heat is because that is what the SID and the DA's needed him to do this. However, he wouldn't go all out for them, he did draw the line at certain issues.

I have never heard Dennis give an interview about his testimony. I have never heard that he said he was confused and that is why he shook the defense hands. I have other people say what he said or give their interpetation of his actions but then again, one DA believes that Dennis Fung believes OJ Simpson is innocent. He wanted to use that in the trial against the defense but the other DA's would not hear of it.

Have you ever considered that Fung may believe Simpson is innocent or knows that evidence was tampered with and planted but he knows he can't go public with it? Do you think every member of the LAPD belives Simpson is guilty and/or the investigation was above board and clean as a whistle? Do you think ever DA in CA things the verdict was wrong in the case?


MF tried to sue Shapiro--he wanted the Jew's pool and Toobin (don't think he said anything about Toobin's ethnic background) for slander. He didn't get far did he?

[GreenIce]

For one thing, to not make accusations for which there was no evidence. As I wrote before Scheck said "You realized you had been caught in a lie, didn't you". This is wrong unless he had evidence for that. Accusing someone of breaking the law is a serious business. Ever heard of slander laws? I thought Fung should have sued Scheck for slander. THere are no laws against abrasiveness or insults, there are laws against slander.

fgump2,

What is the evidence regarding when the blood was handed over and to whom? Was the transfer of blood sample recorded on video tape? Did you see Vanatter hand the vial over to Fung or Mozzola?

[GreenIce]

Which cameras recorded how much was drawn and what Vanatter did with the vial from the time it was handed to him until he gave it to DF?

William,

Isn't the hand off time to whom and when based on Vanatter's word? Was the actual handoff filmed? I am getting confused. I thought that was the problem.

[martin II]

A logical question I think. We all pass judgement on other people's motives at times; but most of the time we just observe behavior, and make no attempt to understand the motives. If I see a person driving recklessly, I may get angry, but I usually don't analyze their motives.
For me to pass judgement on the Marcia Clark's motives on the way she did her work in the 1995 Simpson trial is too much for me. I am not a lawyer, and I choose not to evaluate her motives there. The same with Fung's boss, or how the LAPD dealt with the charges against Mark Fuhrman.

Considering how much has been written about Mark Fuhrman's behavior, people should be looking into the way he was dealt with, but I don't have the background for this. I think many of Fuhrman's critics are the sort of people
who would rather curse the darkness than light a candle. After Fuhrman retired and moved to Idaho people were still writing and talking about his career as a LAPD cop.

I think I judged Cochran's motives in several cases. One was in breaking the discovery law 17 times in his opening speech. I think that was deliberate. I don't think he was that careless, but if he was you should either stop calling him magnificent, or quit complaining about careless mistakes by the LAPD or LAPD labs. Another point where I crticized his motives was in making eye contact with Kim GOldman during his summation speech, and when the verdict was read. That served no useful purpose, and was just mean. I say this without claiming to be a mind reader. Also he said SImpson was obviously guilty before he joined the team, and expressed doubts about Simpson's guilt during the trial. So I consider him to be a hired gun more interested in money and fame than in justice. Since he had doubts about Simpson's innocence, I thought it would have been the nice if he had expressed sympathy for the Browns and Goldmans, but he never did.

Even dogs and probably cats will pass judgement on other people's motives. For example dogs will become angry if they think you are blocking their paths. Before they learn to talk babies will pass judgement on other people's motives, but that isn't the same as me analyzing the motives of Marcia Clark or Fung's boss.
I don't recall what I wrote about F.L. Bailey, but others have slammed him also.

I think your response indicates that you are cherry picking to support your original statement,You judge some and not others.

One can always create excuses for the side one supports but that does not
change the facts of the blunders made.

[weezer]

I think your response indicates that you are cherry picking to support your original statement,You judge some and not others.

One can always create excuses for the side one supports but that does not
change the facts of the blunders made.

and the blunders do not change the evidence; i.e., orenthal's DNA into someone else's and/or someone else's DNA into orenthal's.

[martin II]

The police gave their reasons for that. I don't remember if it was Lange or Vannatter.
Some writers have pointed out that if the detective in question wanted to do something with the blood to frame Simpson he could have done this, stepped in to an office, his car, or a restroom, and transfered some blood to a different container. I don't understand why taking it to Rockingham made it easier to tamper with the evidence.

The same is true for the much talked about fact that Mazzoli was sure she had initialed an envelope and the initials weren't there. Most people have felt sure the did something when they didn't. Maybe she accidently initialed another envelope or piece of paper. Either Mazzoli forgot to initial the envelope, or the person doing the tampering forgot to put Mazzoli's initials there. This is evidence of carelessness, not tampering.

What you say vanhatter could have done is what many believe is what he did.

The person that changed the envelopes forgot or didn't notice AM initials.That is how the scheme was discovered.

[martin II]

:shrug:The police gave their reasons for that. I don't remember if it was Lange or Vannatter.
Some writers have pointed out that if the detective in question wanted to do something with the blood to frame Simpson he could have done this, stepped in to an office, his car, or a restroom, and transfered some blood to a different container. I don't understand why taking it to Rockingham made it easier to tamper with the evidence.

The same is true for the much talked about fact that Mazzoli was sure she had initialed an envelope and the initials weren't there. Most people have felt sure the did something when they didn't. Maybe she accidently initialed another envelope or piece of paper. Either Mazzoli forgot to initial the envelope, or the person doing the tampering forgot to put Mazzoli's initials there. This is evidence of carelessness, not tampering.

Vanhatter was at SID where he could have given the blood and received the DN number . He rode around with ojs blood viales and then brought the blood
to a crime scene. he had plenty of time to put some blood in a new viale.
I believe he did this because the lab discovered that some blood was missing from ojs blood viale.

[martin II]

For one thing, to not make accusations for which there was no evidence. As I wrote before Scheck said "You realized you had been caught in a lie, didn't you". This is wrong unless he had evidence for that. Accusing someone of breaking the law is a serious business. Ever heard of slander laws? I thought Fung should have sued Scheck for slander. THere are no laws against abrasiveness or insults, there are laws against slander.

You may not understand what is required to prove slander in a court of law.

[tv]

Testimony of Dennis Fung being cross-examined by Scheck, April 11, 1995

Q: AND AT SOME POINT THAT MORNING, BEFORE YOU LEFT TO GO SEARCH THE BRONCO AT THE PRINT SHED, YOU POURED OFF SOME BLOOD FROM MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD VIAL?

A: NO.

Q: WELL, DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN POURING OFF SOME BLOOD FROM MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD VIAL WITH MR. YAMAUCHI?

A: NO.

[tv]

Q: By mr. Scheck: Do you believe, mr. Fung, in accordance with the custom and practice of your laboratory, that detectives have 24 hours to book blood?

Mr. Goldberg: No foundation, your honor.

The court: Overruled.

The witness: I have read that in the manual.

Q: By mr. Scheck: In the manual?

A: You showed it to me this morning, didn't you, something like that? No?

Q: What manual?

A: The lapd manual.

Q: You think in the lapd manual there is provision that says detectives have 24 hours to book blood?

A: I may be mistaken. There was something to that effect of booking as soon as possible or 24 hours or something like that.

Q: Well, is booking as soon as possible the same as 24 hours, as far as you are concerned?

Mr. Goldberg: Argumentative.

The court: Sustained.

Q: By mr. Scheck: Did detective lange ever tell you that detectives have 24 hours to book blood?

Mr. Goldberg: Calls for hearsay and irrelevant.

The witness: No.

The court: Overruled.

Q: By mr. Scheck: Detective vannatter?

A: No.

Q: If you received blood on the morning of june 14th at sid for the first time, in your judgment would that have been improper?

Mr. Goldberg: No foundation.

The court: Sustained.

Q: By mr. Scheck: As far as you understood the guidelines of the los angeles police department, would it have been improper for either detective lange or vannatter to have gotten the blood from mr. Simpson on june 13th, kept it in their possession and then delivered it to you in the morning on june 14th?

Mr. Goldberg: Calls for speculation and no foundation.

The court: Sustained.

Mr. Scheck: Your honor, i am trying to --

the court: I understand what you are trying to do, but the foundation is not there.

Mr. Scheck: All right.

Q: Let me ask you a hypothetical question. Let us assume that you received the blood that had been drawn from mr. Simpson on june 13th on the morning of june 14th. Are you with me?

A: Yes.

Q: If that had occurred, in your judgment would that have been improper on the part of the detectives?

Mr. Goldberg: Improper hypothetical; no foundation, calls for an opinion.

The court: Sustained.

Mr. Scheck: May i have a moment?

The court: Certainly. The problem here is foundation, counsel.

(discussion held off the record between defense counsel.)

q: By mr. Scheck: In terms of the custom and practice of your laboratory and its workings with detectives, would it have been improper if either of these detectives had kept the blood drawn from mr. Simpson on june 13th overnight in their personal possession and then delivered it to you the next morning on june 14th?

Mr. Goldberg: Improper hypothetical, calls for an opinion, no foundation.

The court: Overruled.

The witness: That would depend on how the blood was stored in there while it was in their custody.

Q: By mr. Scheck: You mean if they put it in their refrigerator at home, then in terms of your understanding of custom and practice, that would have been okay?

Mr. Goldberg: There is still no foundation.

The court: Overruled.

The witness: According to how i understand it, yes. I wouldn't recommend it.

Q: By mr. Scheck: Why wouldn't you recommend it?

A: Putting blood in your own refrigerator, i just wouldn't recommend it.

[weezer]

I think your response indicates that you are cherry picking to support your original statement,You judge some and not others.

One can always create excuses for the side one supports but that does not
change the facts of the blunders made.

LOL -- that's the pot calling the kettle black!

[martin II]

The police gave their reasons for that. I don't remember if it was Lange or Vannatter.
Some writers have pointed out that if the detective in question wanted to do something with the blood to frame Simpson he could have done this, stepped in to an office, his car, or a restroom, and transfered some blood to a different container. I don't understand why taking it to Rockingham made it easier to tamper with the evidence.

The same is true for the much talked about fact that Mazzoli was sure she had initialed an envelope and the initials weren't there. Most people have felt sure the did something when they didn't. Maybe she accidently initialed another envelope or piece of paper. Either Mazzoli forgot to initial the envelope, or the person doing the tampering forgot to put Mazzoli's initials there. This is evidence of carelessness, not tampering.

Mazzola testified that it was her practice to initial all of her sample envelopes that she prepared. There is no reason to believe she initialed all the others and Thought she initialed ojs.The fact that she went through the lab looking for the envelopes to prove her point indicates that she knew what she had done. The best answer she could give is the one she gave 'I DON'T KNOW'
That was because she had no idea that the envelopes had been switched.
If so it is evidence of tampering with evidence.

[William Anthony]

Think about it.

AM has a black plastic GLADE bag and bob is at home looking at tv and he saw what was inside the bag. Saw straight through the black plastic.Or he wants us to believe he did.hahahaha:cool:

The powers of any clairvoyant are impressive if not deceptive.:)

[weezer]

Mazzola testified that it was her practice to initial all of her sample envelopes that she prepared. There is no reason to believe she initialed all the others and Thought she initialed ojs.The fact that she went through the lab looking for the envelopes to prove her point indicates that she knew what she had done. The best answer she could give is the one she gave 'I DON'T KNOW'
That was because she had no idea that the envelopes had been switched.
If so it is evidence of tampering with evidence.

sooooo -- she lied about everything BUT this? LOL

[weezer]

The powers of any clairvoyant are impressive if not deceptive.:)

I was just happy someone knew what a 'GLADE' bag is! hahahahaha

[martin II]

For one thing, to not make accusations for which there was no evidence. As I wrote before Scheck said "You realized you had been caught in a lie, didn't you". This is wrong unless he had evidence for that. Accusing someone of breaking the law is a serious business. Ever heard of slander laws? I thought Fung should have sued Scheck for slander. THere are no laws against abrasiveness or insults, there are laws against slander.

You seem to be interested in the unfairness of people making claims that they are not able to prove.

As i pointed out before Clarke made the claim that oj jumped the fence dropped the glove,bumped into the air conditioner and ran out to his house.
When the defence offered testimony that none of this happened she kinda backed off of her claim.That was a unproved accusation. You think she was wrong for making a accusation she could not prove?

[William Anthony]

"I have not intention of explaining the motives of a bunch of people I have never met - Fungs boss, Marcia Clark etc."

If your above statement is true then how can you try to explain the motives
of Cochran, Schack, F L Bailey or any defence lawyer and even oj.You never met either of them. imo

Are you aware of the case in Colorado about a wreck involving a female alleged to be DUI and a police officer, which has led to the arrest of 4 police officers and an evidence technician, who doctored a tape, all of whom were trying to protect their fellow officer?

[weezer]

You seem to be interested in the unfairness of people making claims that they are not able to prove.

As i pointed out before Clarke made the claim that oj jumped the fence dropped the glove,bumped into the air conditioner and ran out to his house.
When the defence offered testimony that none of this happened she kinda backed off of her claim.That was a unproved accusation. You think she was wrong for making a accusation she could not prove?

there was a very small minority that didn't believe she proved it. . . .

[weezer]

Are you aware of the case in Colorado about a wreck involving a female alleged to be DUI and a police officer, which has led to the arrest of 4 police officers and an evidence technician, who doctored a tape, all of whom were trying to protect their fellow officer?

and there was evidence to prove that case BUT there is none in the orenthal james simpson case.

[William Anthony]

If you have information that it was protocol in 1994 please post it.

I simply asked a question.

[William Anthony]

Some believe Simpson was able to destroy evidence. Can we not allow LE the same ability? Besides there was ample evidence that allowed a reasonable inference to be drawn that LE did something untoward and the Colorado case may provide evidence of the frequency of LE corruption when protecting a fellow member of the fraternal brotherhood.

[weezer]

tv, would you please post judge ito's ruling on planting of evidence.

[William Anthony]

William,

Thank you. Perhaps the color of the test tube top also plays a role in the magic of blood. Perhaps blood kept in different vials gets rather shy if they don't like the color of their test tube stop or maybe it throws a temper tantrum? I don't like the color of test tube top so I am going to go home!

Another thing that makes no sense to me is why Martz allegedly waited 5 days to test his blood. There were no samples that were tested after 5 days and the gate stain was not collected until three weeks later. EDTA can be diluted.:)

[martin II]

fgmp2

If the nurse first said he drew 8cc of ojs blood,gave it to vanhatter,vanhatter carried it around for a while and gave it to Fung and fung gave it to the lab and when the lab looked at the viales and realized there was less blood than what the nurse said he drew (8cc) what do you think happened to the missing blood?

[William Anthony]

William,

Isn't the hand off time to whom and when based on Vanatter's word? Was the actual handoff filmed? I am getting confused. I thought that was the problem.

The problem in my mind is what he did with the vial before giving it to DF and why?

[martin II]

Another thing that makes no sense to me is why Martz allegedly waited 5 days to test his blood. There were no samples that were tested after 5 days and the gate stain was not collected until three weeks later. EDTA can be diluted.:)

Maby he was trying to figure out what he could do to help the prosecutions claims and was having problems.We do not know what or how much blood was in the envelope vanhatter gave fung.

AM was sitting on a sofa in the room where vanhatter was supposed to have handed fung the envelope. when asked if she saw the hand off she said no.That at the moment of the hand off she had batted her eyes and did not see the hand off.I guess she figured she was not going to be a part
of that.

[martin II]

The problem in my mind is what he did with the vial before giving it to DF and why?

i believe he took some of ojs blood out to be put other places and on other items.

[William Anthony]

Maby he was trying to figure out what he could do to help the prosecutions claims and was having problems.

"If not planted, a convincing argument must be made to explain the results."

[William Anthony]

i believe he took some of ojs blood out to be put other places and on other items.

That is a reasonable inference, IMHO.

[Hipcheck]

fgmp2

If the nurse first said he drew 8cc of ojs blood,gave it to vanhatter,vanhatter carried it around for a while and gave it to Fung and fung gave it to the lab and when the lab looked at the viales and realized there was less blood than what the nurse said he drew (8cc) what do you think happened to the missing blood?

The nurse never said the vital contained exactly 8cc of blood. He gave an estimate and said it was around 8cc's of blood and he was pretty close off at 1.5cc's which is about a quarter of a teaspoon.

[weezer]

Another thing that makes no sense to me is why Martz allegedly waited 5 days to test his blood. There were no samples that were tested after 5 days and the gate stain was not collected until three weeks later. EDTA can be diluted.:)

and I've never understood why after fighting the courts to get their 'fair share' of biological evidence and obviously doing tests -- why the defense didn't just use their own results to prove orenthal's innocence and LE planting?

[martin II]

The nurse never said the vital contained exactly 8cc of blood. He gave an estimate and said it was around 8cc's of blood and he was pretty close off at 1.5cc's which is about a quarter of a teaspoon.


Correct he first gave a estimate of about 8 cc, later he said he did not know and at the night video he said a amount that would account for the missing blood.
A conversion chart that has been posted here shows that 1 cc equals 24 drops.

ps
the nurse never said what a vial contained. he said he drew about 8 cc with the syringe he used. If
he had just looked at the calibration on the syringe tube he would have known exactly how much he drew.

[bobaugust]

Let's not be misleading-the only thing that may have been proven in regard to the stains is that they did not come from a test tube with a purple/lavender top and new testing showed that they could not have come from unpreserved human blood.

Photographic and degradation evidence proved the defense gate and sock blood planting theories false since the defense claimed that Simpson’s blood on the rear gate was planted from his purple top reference sample and Nicole’s blood on Simpson’s sock was planted from her purple top reference sample. EDTA testing on the evidence stains showed that neither of those stains came from either Simpson’s or Nicole’s purple top reference samples.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Think about it.

AM has a black plastic GLADE bag and bob is at home looking at tv and he saw what was inside the bag. Saw straight through the black plastic.Or he wants us to believe he did.hahahaha:cool:

April 17, 1995 Dennis Fung

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, we are at 17:19:40.
MR. GOLDBERG: In these frames can you still see the item in your hand?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what are those items, Mr. Fung?
MR. FUNG: The items appear to be an envelope and a plastic bag.
MR. GOLDBERG: And the plastic bag, which plastic bag is that?
MR. FUNG: That is the plastic bag that Miss Mazzola carried out to the crime scene truck on the second trip.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.
MR. FUNG: And the envelope is--the envelope is the envelope which contained the blood vial given to me by Detective Vannatter.
*
MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe we can just stop for one moment. We are at 17:42:52:22.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is that correct, Mr. Fung?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And this is a shot of what happening?
MR. FUNG: This is a shot of criminalist Mazzola and myself leaving the Rockingham address.
*
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And when you looked at the scene of Andrea Mazzola taking the plastic bag out of the location, was there anything that you collected between five o'clock and when you left with Andrea Mazzola that could have accounted for the heft in that bag, other than the envelope?
MR. FUNG: Possibly, but it is most likely that the envelope was in that bag.
*
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you collect anything between five o'clock and the time that Miss Mazzola and yourself left with the plastic bag that was the same approximate size and dimension of the analyzed envelope, 163?
MR. FUNG: Was there anything--
MR. GOLDBERG: The one in front of you?
MR. FUNG: Was there anything else that we collected that was this size?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
MR. FUNG: Is that what you are asking?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
MR. FUNG: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you have any other envelopes that were that size?
MR. FUNG: No.
*
MR. GOLDBERG: So sir, based upon your independent recollection and also viewing the videotapes, is the first event that occurred with respect to the vial Detective Vannatter arriving with what appears to be the analyzed evidence envelope?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you then see a shot of yourself in the foyer area holding two items?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And those two items were again?
MR. FUNG: The two items were an envelope that is consistent with the gray envelope in People's--
MR. GOLDBERG: 163-H?
MR. FUNG: --163-H and a plastic bag.
MR. GOLDBERG: And that was in fact the envelope that you received from Detective Vannatter?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And the plastic bag was the one that eventually Miss Mazzola is carrying?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And then the third item in the sequence of events is Andrea Mazzola carrying the black plastic bag out of the location?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you putting it into the crime scene truck?
MR. FUNG: Yes.

bobaugust

[tv]

tv, would you please post judge ito's ruling on planting of evidence.

Of course... :)


"...there must be some evidence in the record from which counsel might argue, however reasonably or unreasonably, that Fuhrman moved a glove from the Bundy crime scene to the defendant's Rockingham residence for the purpose of placing blame for two brutal murders upon the defendant...This assertion [that Fuhrman planted the glove] is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support."

[tv]

Judge Fujisaki --

"The fact remains that the evidence was collected, examined, and the evidence cannot be attacked because of the collection procedures unless that attack establishes some defect, incompetency, or lack of foundation in the chain of evidence..."

[martin II]

Judge Fujisaki --

"The fact remains that the evidence was collected, examined, and the evidence cannot be attacked because of the collection procedures unless that attack establishes some defect, incompetency, or lack of foundation in the chain of evidence..."

Was the defence allowed to attack the collection by offering some evidence
at that time or was it not allowed because no evidence had already been in the record?

[tv]

Was the defence allowed to attack the collection by offering some evidence
at that time or was it not allowed because no evidence had already been in the record?It was allowed and they presented it. It just didn't work this time.

From TRIUMPH OF JUSTICE by Daniel Petrocelli -- PAGE 565 --

"If evidence was planted, how was it planted? Who planted it? When was it planted? Under what circumstances? Where are the witnesses? Perhaps in the criminal trial, simply raising such questions was sufficient to get Simpson off. Not here. Their story went nowhere. What did it prove? Nothing. They had no answers, because there were none."

[Hipcheck]

A conversion chart that has been posted here shows that 1 cc equals 24 drops.


How many drops of blood = 1cc?

The crime scenes found 30 blood stains which belonged to O.J. Simpson which is way more than 1 1/2 cc's.

[GreenIce]

The problem in my mind is what he did with the vial before giving it to DF and why?

William,

I agree with you. I think VA did what he was going to do before he said he gave the blood to Dennis Fung. VA has been protrayed as being dumb and lazy and I don't think that is fair. I think he is a very savvy detective who knows how this game is played--even in high profile cases.

I posted to Martin before that I believe, knowing the ton of bricks that were going to fall on him, did what he did on purpose. He wanted the focus and the questions directed at him, he, IMO, "attached" himself to Fuhrman and was going to do everything he could to make sure this case didn't fall apart.

He wanted the negative attention--he wanted the focus to be on him and doing what he did, was, IMO, briliant on his part. Keep the focus on how dumb and lazy he is, then you don't look to closely at the reality. Look at Fgump who has given these type of excuses for the whole LAPD and the SID and other state witnesses. Look and play like an idiot, then you will be called one. It worked for him, IMO. But he is anything but, again, IMO.

[GreenIce]

How many drops of blood = 1cc?

The crime scenes found 30 blood stains which belonged to O.J. Simpson which is way more than 1 1/2 cc's.

Hipcheck,

Simpson did say he was bleeding at his house. However, because Fung and Mozzola never counted or labeled each stain or how many other swatches they made from one from stain, it is a guessing game. Which is the problem. Because of the record keeping, wet transfers and other stains, you can't be sure what stain has come from where.

[GreenIce]

What you say vanhatter could have done is what many believe is what he did.

The person that changed the envelopes forgot or didn't notice AM initials.That is how the scheme was discovered.

Martin,

IMO, who ever tampered with the envelopes would not take the chance of forgering AM's - because that is just more proof for the defense but also, by not doing this, this person was allowing AM to be pressured about her work and really work on her until she didn't know what she did or didn't do. Again, doing this to AM kept right in line with the plan for Dennis Fung.

Both of these young people were set up by their own department and allowed the DA's call to open season on them, IMO. Please note, Michelle Kestler was never called by the DA's in their case in chief--not even to defend her people.

IMO, it seems that many people who believe that any person would do this would have to do it in front of witnesses or tell someone they did it. I think the people who really don't want to get caught, who have real no ego or don't do this stuff to get a "high", keep their mouths shut and make sure they are not caught. IMO.

[martin II]

How many drops of blood = 1cc?

The crime scenes found 30 blood stains which belonged to O.J. Simpson which is way more than 1 1/2 cc's.

How many stains found on the ground do you know were the same stains sent out for testing by le?

i don't think anyone has suggested that every blood drop was planted. just those on critical pieces of items found and maby on some items in the lab.

[GreenIce]

How many stains found on the ground do you know were the same stains sent out for testing by le?

i don't think anyone has suggested that every blood drop was planted. just those on critical pieces of items found and maby on some items in the lab.

Martin,

I agree with you. But I do believe alot of the blood that was dripped from Simpson's Bronco to his front door was later attempted to be passed off coming from some where else.

Another reason why I don't think Vanatter planted any thing at Rockingham is because he could not figure out how the glove got there. To go back and later put blood drops there, not knowing what caused the thumps or how the glove got back there, would have been a disaster. But making sure a small mixture of Simpson's and Nicole's and Ron's blood was found, well that is a possibility, IMO.

[martin II]

William,

I agree with you. I think VA did what he was going to do before he said he gave the blood to Dennis Fung. VA has been protrayed as being dumb and lazy and I don't think that is fair. I think he is a very savvy detective who knows how this game is played--even in high profile cases.

I posted to Martin before that I believe, knowing the ton of bricks that were going to fall on him, did what he did on purpose. He wanted the focus and the questions directed at him, he, IMO, "attached" himself to Fuhrman and was going to do everything he could to make sure this case didn't fall apart.

He wanted the negative attention--he wanted the focus to be on him and doing what he did, was, IMO, briliant on his part. Keep the focus on how dumb and lazy he is, then you don't look to closely at the reality. Look at Fgump who has given these type of excuses for the whole LAPD and the SID and other state witnesses. Look and play like an idiot, then you will be called one. It worked for him, IMO. But he is anything but, again, IMO.


I have always thought that he was the most savy of all of the detectives and if anyone of them knew how to manipulate stuff without leaving a trace it was Vanhatter.

[martin II]

Martin,

I agree with you. But I do believe alot of the blood that was dripped from Simpson's Bronco to his front door was later attempted to be passed off coming from some where else.

Another reason why I don't think Vanatter planted any thing at Rockingham is because he could not figure out how the glove got there. To go back and later put blood drops there, not knowing what caused the thumps or how the glove got back there, would have been a disaster. But making sure a small mixture of Simpson's and Nicole's and Ron's blood was found, well that is a possibility, IMO.

Remember vanhatter must have pissed clarke off when he testified that no one jumped the fence and walked in the walkway as clarke claimed.

[tv]

EVIDENCE DISMISSED, page 202

"Lange and Vannatter, having been present at Simpson's home when Fuhrman found the glove on the morning after the murders, simply laugh off the thought that Fuhrman had planted evidence. The reasons are quite simple: Fuhrman had been the seventeenth police officer listed on the crime scene sign-in log, nearly two hours after the first officers arrived. During the interim, other officers had established a secure perimeter while viewing the existing evidence on and around the two bodies. They only saw a left-hand glove. Not one of them saw a right-hand glove.

Fuhrman -- who was not permitted to touch any evidence until a police criminalist arrived -- would have had to enter the secured perimeter, see a glove that sixteen other police officers never saw, remove it without being seen by anyone, conceal it, and then plant it where Kato Kaelin had heard the noise against his back wall -- not knowing whether another suspect would turn up in the interim. In short, Fuhrman simply did not have the opportunity -- let alone a motive and means -- to plant the right-hand glove at North Rockingham."

[martin II]

EVIDENCE DISMISSED, page 202

"Lange and Vannatter, having been present at Simpson's home when Fuhrman found the glove on the morning after the murders, simply laugh off the thought that Fuhrman had planted evidence. The reasons are quite simple: Fuhrman had been the seventeenth police officer listed on the crime scene sign-in log, nearly two hours after the first officers arrived. During the interim, other officers had established a secure perimeter while viewing the existing evidence on and around the two bodies. They only saw a left-hand glove. Not one of them saw a right-hand glove.

Fuhrman -- who was not permitted to touch any evidence until a police criminalist arrived -- would have had to enter the secured perimeter, see a glove that sixteen other police officers never saw, remove it without being seen by anyone, conceal it, and then plant it where Kato Kaelin had heard the noise against his back wall -- not knowing whether another suspect would turn up in the interim. In short, Fuhrman simply did not have the opportunity -- let alone a motive and means -- to plant the right-hand glove at North Rockingham."

This sounds like something Petro would say.

[tv]

This sounds like something Petro would say.

EVIDENCE DISMISSED was written by Lange and Vannatter.

[martin II]

EVIDENCE DISMISSED was written by Lange and Vannatter.

WELL maby vanhatter did it.

[tv]

WELL maby vanhatter did it.

Mark Fuhrman signed in at the Bundy crime scene at 2:10 AM, Vannatter signed in at 4:05 AM, Lange at 4:25 AM.

[GreenIce]

Remember vanhatter must have pissed clarke off when he testified that no one jumped the fence and walked in the walkway as clarke claimed.

Martin,

I don't remember Marcia ever claiming that. In her closing, she has him walking into the ally. I don't believe Clark would have challenged VA and the other detectives on this. Don't forget Clark did have doubts about Mark Fuhrman, she did send investigators to his home town in WA in Nov 1994.

Also, none of the detectives ever testified they saw any evidence of anyone being in the ally. Clark wasn't stupid and that is why VA did what he did with the vial, IMO.

[Hipcheck]

Remember vanhatter must have pissed clarke off when he testified that no one jumped the fence and walked in the walkway as clarke claimed.

Where in Vannatters's testimony does he testify that no one jumped the fence?

[GreenIce]

Where in Vannatters's testimony does he testify that no one jumped the fence?

Hipcheck,

No detective testified about anyone jumping the fence and neither did the SID team. Clark never attempted to explain during her case in chief how Simpson got back there. In her closing arguments, she has him walking into the ally, walking into the AC unit and bouncing off of that into the wall.

Kato testified that both gates leading into the ally were closed when he checked out the thumps. One of the gates was broke and had to be lifted up to be moved.

Fuhrman has the second date leading into the ally to be open and has the person walking into the ally as well. If he testified about the first being gate being broken and having to move it, I don't remember it.

Only Dr. Lee was asked about the possibility of someone going over the fence and Dr. Lee said that it could not have been done unless the person jumped like a helicopter, straight up and straight down. The DA's never challenged this testimony.

[GreenIce]

Martin,

A few things.

You asked a question about where was Phillips while MF was out find the glove?

In Joe Boscoe's book he says that when MF found the glove, Phillips was on the phone with Simpson, Lange was talking to Arnelle and Vanatter was just standing there.

Also, in his book, he says what Vanatter did with the blood sample is against LAPD's written rule and procedures. Also, didn't Dennis get asked about this manual and it was brought into the courtroom by Barry Sheck?

Also, he says that there is no evidence to prove when Vanatter gave the reference sample to SID. That we only have their word it was done. He goes on to say that from the Police chief down, they all said what he did was against procedure as well as precedent.

He brings up the point if his not bringing the reference sample to Fung would have messed up his numbering system, then this should have happened many times in the past. Plus, how times did Fung renumber the evidence? Or the evidence was renumbered?

Mark Fuhrman was the first or second detective on the scene. Riske testified about his training regarding crime scenes. All other cops who were at Bundy before the detectives were not to do any "detecting"--it is not in their job description. They were there for traffic control as well as crime scene security. ---- This was not in Bosco's book.

I am trying to find his comments on the logs kept by the LAPD. These logs, all the logs maintained by the LAPD on this case are suspect. At least one of them was "lost" after the defense asked for it many, many times.

Also, he says another envelope was found at the crime scene and that there were fingerprints on the outside and the inside of the envelope that contained the glasses. He said these fingerprints were identifiable but remained unidentified. The fingerprints were in blood as well.

And that did not peak any on'e interest? That didn't indicate at least one more person?

His book brings up a lot of interesting points. He has worked Dr. Lee in the past while writing another book.

[tv]

Since the unidentified prints on the envelope could easily have been from being handled during the manufacturing/packaging process or being handled at the restaurant by unknown persons before Karen Crawford put the glasses in it I can see why it didn't pique anyone's interest. That is, if it's true that all these fingerprints were even on the envelope.

To quote Dr. Lee --

Q. Dr. Lee, are there many occasions where you said as a forensic scientist where you look at a case or a piece of evidence and you just dont have all the answers?

A. That's correct.

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

A. Nothing surprising.

[martin II]

Hipcheck,

No detective testified about anyone jumping the fence and neither did the SID team. Clark never attempted to explain during her case in chief how Simpson got back there. In her closing arguments, she has him walking into the ally, walking into the AC unit and bouncing off of that into the wall.

Kato testified that both gates leading into the ally were closed when he checked out the thumps. One of the gates was broke and had to be lifted up to be moved.

Fuhrman has the second date leading into the ally to be open and has the person walking into the ally as well. If he testified about the first being gate being broken and having to move it, I don't remember it.

Only Dr. Lee was asked about the possibility of someone going over the fence and Dr. Lee said that it could not have been done unless the person jumped like a helicopter, straight up and straight down. The DA's never challenged this testimony.

i think vanmhatter and two detectives did testify about no one going over the fence. i have posted it and will look for it again

[martin II]

Martin,

A few things.

You asked a question about where was Phillips while MF was out find the glove?

In Joe Boscoe's book he says that when MF found the glove, Phillips was on the phone with Simpson, Lange was talking to Arnelle and Vanatter was just standing there.

Also, in his book, he says what Vanatter did with the blood sample is against LAPD's written rule and procedures. Also, didn't Dennis get asked about this manual and it was brought into the courtroom by Barry Sheck?

Also, he says that there is no evidence to prove when Vanatter gave the reference sample to SID. That we only have their word it was done. He goes on to say that from the Police chief down, they all said what he did was against procedure as well as precedent.

He brings up the point if his not bringing the reference sample to Fung would have messed up his numbering system, then this should have happened many times in the past. Plus, how times did Fung renumber the evidence? Or the evidence was renumbered?

Mark Fuhrman was the first or second detective on the scene. Riske testified about his training regarding crime scenes. All other cops who were at Bundy before the detectives were not to do any "detecting"--it is not in their job description. They were there for traffic control as well as crime scene security. ---- This was not in Bosco's book.

I am trying to find his comments on the logs kept by the LAPD. These logs, all the logs maintained by the LAPD on this case are suspect. At least one of them was "lost" after the defense asked for it many, many times.

Also, he says another envelope was found at the crime scene and that there were fingerprints on the outside and the inside of the envelope that contained the glasses. He said these fingerprints were identifiable but remained unidentified. The fingerprints were in blood as well.

And that did not peak any on'e interest? That didn't indicate at least one more person?

His book brings up a lot of interesting points. He has worked Dr. Lee in the past while writing another book.

i always thought there would be a manual covering handeling of blood and that vanhatter did not follow it.