Random Discussions On The Case

[tv]

You expected Deedrick to testify to a "medical certainty" on fibers?

LOL -- very observant, socal. :)

[tv]

Some posters have questioned how Ron and Nicole's blood got into the fingers of the Rockingham glove. I think this testimony by Doug Deedrick in the civil trial is interesting. How did fibers from the cashmere lining of the glove get on Ron Goldman's shirt and the Bundy cap? At least one of the gloves had to have been pulled off by Ron in the struggle.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, the cashmere fiber you found, did you
examine any fibers from any items on 2169 to see whether or not the
cashmere fiber you identified as being on Ronald Goldman's shirt and
the Bundy hat was also on any other item at the crime scene?

A. Well, they were the linings from the gloves. The linings from both the
Rockingham glove and the Bundy glove had cashmere fibers inside. And these
question fibers matched up with the linings of the gloves.

[William Anthony]

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?

Because the defense had nothing to prove.

[William Anthony]

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

The problem is contained in which reasonable inferences may be drawn and the jury instruction on reasonable doubt. I know that EDTA can be diluted, which is why I said "WHAT MAY HAVE BEEN PROVEN." The notion that something may have been proven lends credibility to reasonable doubt.

[William Anthony]

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."

Braggadocio.

[William Anthony]

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."

I wonder how many scientistS looked through telescopes before one found the new planet?

[William Anthony]

oj still had the glove on as he went down the walk at bundy which left an abbreviated blood trail. When he removed and dropped the glove from his cut hand at rockingham, the blood drops increased.

wth?

[William Anthony]

No one ever testified that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove behind Kato's room but that doesn't stop you from claiming it. Dr. Lee did say that presumptive tests for blood on the cable and the air conditioner were positive.

Reasonable inferences.

[William Anthony]

I guess we'll never know for sure.

Enough said.

[William Anthony]

Evidence

DNA showed that blood found at the scene of Brown's murder was O.J. Simpson's. The odds it could have come from anyone but Simpson were about one in 170 million.[17]

DNA analysis of blood found on a pair of Simpson's socks found in his bedroom identified it as Nicole Brown's. The blood had DNA characteristics matched by approximately only one in 9.7 billion, with odds rising to one out of 21 billion when compiling results of testing done at the two separate DNA laboratories.[9][17] Each sock had about 20 stains of blood.[9]

DNA analysis of the blood found in, on, and near Simpson's Bronco revealed traces of Simpson's, Brown's, and Goldman's blood.[18]

DNA analysis of bloody socks found in Simpson's bedroom proved this was Brown's blood. The blood made a similar pattern on both sides of the socks. Defense medical expert Dr. Henry Lee of the Connecticut State Police Forensic Science Laboratory testified that the only way such a pattern could appear was if Simpson had a "hole" in his ankle, or a drop of blood was placed on the sock while it was not being worn. Lee testified the collection procedure of the socks could have caused contamination.[19]

Hair consistent with Simpson's was found on Goldman's shirt.[18]

Several coins were found along with fresh blood drops behind Nicole's condo, in the area where the cars were parked.

DNA analysis of blood on the left-hand glove, found outside Brown's home, was proven to be a mixture of Simpson's, Brown's, and Goldman's. Although the glove was soaked in blood, there were no blood drops leading up to, or away from the glove. No other blood was found in the area of the glove except on the glove.[18]

The gloves contained particles of hair consistent with Goldman's hair and a cap contained carpet fibers consistent with fibers from Simpson's Bronco.[5]

A knit cap at the crime scene contained hairs consistent with Simpson's.[5] Dark blue cotton fibers were found on Goldman, and the prosecution presented a witness who said Simpson wore a similarly-colored sweat suit that night.[5]

The left-hand glove found at Nicole Brown's home and the right-hand glove found at Simpson's home proved to be a match.[20]

LA Police Detective Phillip Vanatter could not explain why he kept the eight CCs taken as a sample of O.J. Simpson's blood for hours before recording it as evidence, and why he had it at Simpson's house when evidence was being collected, as corroborated by TV news footage.

The LA County District Attorney's Office and the Medical Examiner's Office could not explain why 1.5 CCs of blood were missing from the original eight CCs taken from Simpson and placed into evidence.[21]

Officers found arrest records indicating that Simpson was charged with the beating of his wife Nicole Brown. Photos of Brown's bruised and battered face from that attack were shown.

Much of the incriminating evidence: bloody glove, bloody socks, blood in and on the Bronco, was discovered by Los Angeles Police Detective Mark Fuhrman. He was later charged with perjury for falsely claiming during the trial that he had not used the word "******" within ten years of the trial. During the trial he pleaded the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination to avoid further questioning after his integrity was challenged on this point.[21]

The bloody footprints were identified by FBI shoe expert William Bodziak as having been made by a pair of extremely rare Bruno Magli shoes, of which it has been reported that only 299 pairs were sold in the US.[5] The large size 12 (305 mm) prints matched Simpson's shoe size.[5] In the criminal trial, Simpson defense attorneys had said the prosecution had no proof Simpson had ever bought such shoes,[5] however then free-lance photographer Harry Scull claimed to have found a photograph he had taken of Simpson in 1993 that appeared to show him wearing a pair of the shoes at a public event, which was later published in the National Enquirer. Simpson's defense team claimed the photograph was doctored, although other pre-1994 photos appearing to show Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes were since discovered and published.[22]

Evidence collected by LAPD criminologist Dennis Fung came under criticism. He admitted to "having missed a few drops of blood on a fence near the bodies," but on the stand he said that he "returned several weeks afterwards to collect them."[21]

Fung admitted that he had not used rubber gloves when collecting some of the evidence.[21]

LA Police Detective Phillip Vanatter testified that he saw photographs of press personnel leaning on Simpson's Bronco before evidence was collected.[21]

Much of the incriminating evidence: bloody glove, bloody socks, blood in and on the Bronco, was discovered by Los Angeles Police Detective Mark Fuhrman. He was later charged with perjury for falsely claiming during the trial that he had not used the word "******" within ten years of the trial. During the trial he pleaded the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination to avoid further questioning after his integrity was challenged on this point.[21]

[William Anthony]

I didn't mention the race of any juror. Don't put words in my mouth. Deepwater's admonition is still at the top of the forum.

"...and the jury would have stepped right into line and not considered her testimony so it's just as well." What line were your referencing, which the jury would have stepped right into line with and what makes you think that?

[William Anthony]

Simpson could very well have put the two bags on his front porch before he left Rockingham to go to Bundy.

bobaugust

"...could very well have", enough said.

[William Anthony]

The evidence in this case is that Park first saw Simpson that night when Simpson came from his driveway into the front entrance of his house after returning from Bundy. Your comments are based on Simpson’s unsubstantiated civil trial testimony and unsubstantiated estimated times by Kato Kaelin who testified he never looked at a clock.

bobaugust

"The evidence in this case is that Park first saw Simpson that night when Simpson came from his driveway into the front entrance of his house after returning from Bundy." Proof that this is the only way the evidence in this case can be interpreted?

[William Anthony]

mr. August,

your post makes no sense because if simpson did as you suggested, then he was trying to give the appearance that he was still home and therefore, would have made sure that he left other "signs" he was inside the house.

You also forget that he did not know that he was going to have a new driver. Dale st. John let himself inside the gates and started to load simpson's luggage and clubs.

So you now what us to believe that simpson, knowing all of this was going to use his front door as his only entrance into the house at rockingham?

There is no way that park could not have seen the bronco when he left for the airport. You also forget that park insisted he saw another car in the driveway when there was not another car in the driverway accept for simpson's bentley.

Bottom line, park's recollection is a total wash because of this. Imo.

ita.

[William Anthony]

An interesting point on the shoes is that I have seen numerous argument that the shoes were never sold to OJ Simpson by the manager at Bloomingdale's. However, OJ by his own admission owned countless pairs of shoes that he did not purchase himself.

That being said, I don't believe that a manager's denial of selling said shoes to OJ Simpson is the end all of this topic.

Kate

That seems a most obvious comment, :).

[William Anthony]

Coached by his mother? Oh LOL! You write fan letters to your boy Simpson in the pen don't you?

I think we have agreed that the proper terminology when addressing an adult male, other than in the south, is man, not boy, although that is your moniker.

[William Anthony]

I guess he never heard 'don't do the crime if you can't do the time'. ;) Seriously, it won't suprise me if he gets out.

Robert Blake did but there does not seem to be an equal amount of outrage.

[William Anthony]

hmmm -- I've stepped out of a pool onto concrete and had a perfect impression of my foot.

We are aware of what your feet look like, :). Lighthearted banter.

[William Anthony]

The evidence in this case is that Park first saw Simpson that night come from the driveway into the front entrance of the house, enter his front door and lights come on downstairs in the house. There is no evidence that Simpson was in his house or that his Bronco was parked on Rockingham for at least a half an hour before that when Park first arrived at Rockingham.

There is no evidence that Park first saw Simpson returning from putting luggage outside. The evidence is that Park saw both Kaelin and Simpson at the same time, about two to three minutes after Kaelin heard the noises on his back wall. The evidence is that Simpson was coming from behind his house after making those noises when he returned from Bundy.

Kaelin never said he didn’t see the porch lights (front entrance) on when he went past the front of the house on his first trip to behind the garage. If you think he said that then post it please. Be sure and include the date.

I’m not calling you gullible, I’m calling you wrong.

bobaugust

I suggest that you reread your last post on age 344.

[tv]

I wonder how many scientistS looked through telescopes before one found the new planet?

Is this a test?

[tv]

Robert Blake did but there does not seem to be an equal amount of outrage.

Robert Blake, telescopes...you do know this is the OJ Simpson forum?

[tv]

Enough said.

Actually, it's not enough said. You cut off part of my sentence. What I posted was "I guess we'll never know for sure but I'm of the opinion it was blood." I was responding to martin's post about Dr. Lee's presumptive tests for blood on the air conditioner and cable wire. Nice try.

[tv]

I think we have agreed that the proper terminology when addressing an adult male, other than in the south, is man, not boy, although that is your moniker.

William, FYI -- since you've been on medical leave from the board DW started a 'race in the case' thread for comments like this one.

http://boards.library.trutv.com/showthread.php?t=294328

[tv]

Braggadocio.

Riiight. :rolleyes:

[tv]

Reasonable inferences.

Just as I reasonably believe that OJ Simpson is the only person with means, motive and opportunity to drop the glove behind Kato's room.

[tv]

"...and the jury would have stepped right into line and not considered her testimony so it's just as well." What line were your referencing, which the jury would have stepped right into line with and what makes you think that?

If you would read my post #13630 you wouldn't have to ask these questions. I would appreciate it if you would either use my whole post or indicated that you've snipped it. You're being very misleading which could cause unnecessary confusion --

It wouldn't have mattered if she had put her on. The defense would have trashed her reputation and the jury would have stepped right into line and not considered her testimony so it's just as well.

[tv]

Robert Blake did but there does not seem to be an equal amount of outrage.

Robert Blake's case just doesn't spark the same interest. We've been all through the possible reasons as I recall.

I'm outraged at the case of the millionaire, Robert Durst, who admitted killing and then hacking up his friend but was acquitted. I'm outraged at the case of Karla Homolka who helped her husband rape and murder several young women, including her own sister, but only served 12 years. I'm outraged at the case of the 49 year old woman who was only convicted of three misdemeanor counts for taunting a teenage girl on myspace which led to the girl's suicide...I could go on and on...

[fgump2]

"Something wrong" told the jury that it was possible that someone was manipulating blood samples in the lab.That was very big.

If that is what he meant, why didn't he say that? He had plenty of opportunity in both the criminal trial and the civil trial to lay cards on the table, and he was evasive: "All I can say is, something wrong here, this should not be". If I went to a doctor for a medical diagnosis, and all the doctor would tell me was that, I would complain to the state medical board.

It sounded to me as though he wanted the jury to reject the evidence and distrust the LAPD without actually saying that.

If there was enough evidence for either you or the jury to conclude that there was evidence tampering, then why didn't Lee come to that conclusion? Or if he did, then why didn't he say that?

[fgump2]

Fgump2,

Michelle Kestler was using a book co-authored by Dr. Lee. 4 hairs were found with roots on it and these four hairs may have been able to produce DNA results. The defense asked to have these samples split and that is when the issue came out about them only needing one hair. Dr. Lee is correct. However, Michelle Kestler said that they could not share any of these samples because she did not know how "strong" the samples were and if they could even get a DNA result because of the age of the hair.

Dr. Lee's book also contained, which Michelle Kestler did use on how many hairs were needed for compairsons and that these samples should be taken from different sections of the head--apparently there are 5 sections.

In regards to the pattern Dr. Lee saw, he said they could be and if they were, it was not from a Bruno Magli shoe. The cement was not the only place this patterns was.

Dr. Lee gave his opinons about how he was treated, how the evidence was collected and stored. He did not trash Bodizak.

You may be partly correct about the hair disagreement. I don't have all the facts. But if Lee and or Kestler wanted to do a DNA comparison, they didn't need a hair with DNA. Blood dna would do just as well, they already had the blood.
You were incorrect in writing previously that hair can only be used to get the race. Hair without DNA can be compared for similarity, but as far as I know they don't have statistics to go with it. In other words they say 'the hair is consistent with Orenthal Simpson/Mark Fuhrman or whoever". They criminologists talk as though the indication is a strong one, but as far as I know they never give a statistical basis to the similarity. Things may have changed in recent years.

Lee didn't trash Bodziak, but he didn't respond to Bodziaks criticism either. I regard the question of whether Henry Lee confused recent prints in blood with old marks in the cement as an important issue. Many people have a high opinion of Lee, others have a high opinion of the FBI. If either screwed up badly, then the public has a right to know.
If this criticism is true, then we should consider Lee to be a fraud; for making the mistake and for not owning up to it.
Lee should have talked about his findings with the LAPD before testifying. Maybe he did, I don't know. But if he thought the LAPD was interpeting the evidence incorrecty, he had an moral (and maybe legal) obligation to pass this information or interpetation along to the police. Most of us know that every day counts in investigagint crimes. The colder the trail, the more chance the criminal will get away.

I notice you didn't respond to my point that Henry Lee was telling the world that he was an independent expert on the Simpson case, and while he was saying this he was receiving legal advice from Barry Scheck who was working for Simpson. That tells us all we need to know about Lee's integrity.

[martin II]

If you would read my post #13630 you wouldn't have to ask these questions. I would appreciate it if you would either use my whole post or indicated that you've snipped it. You're being very misleading which could cause unnecessary confusion --

It wouldn't have mattered if she had put her on. The defense would have trashed her reputation and the jury would have stepped right into line and not considered her testimony so it's just as well.

I think the jury like others would have been very concerned about the conflicts in her testimony.

[martin II]

Could you clarify what this means? :confused:

Although Lee was well known and greatly respected by those in his field, the trial introduced him to many more and those that followed the trial realized how informed he was in his field.

[martin II]

The size of his hands doesn't have anything to do with whether or not cuts on them were seen by the people he encounter before and after his trip to Chicago.

The problem for the prosecution is that none of those that saw him saw any cuts.

I think it is important that they did recognize the size of his hands as it goes to support that his hands were too big to fit the gloves when he tried them on. Their testimony is very relevant on the glove fitting issue.

On the other hand if the size of his hands caught their attention as being very large it is reasonable to think that they would have seen cuts if there had been any. They didn't

[martin II]

Do you have a link to that testimony?

See Dr.Lee testimony criminal trial.

[martin II]

If i remember correctly the prosecution tried to hire Lee as their witness but the defence had already hired him.

[martin II]

Just as I reasonably believe that OJ Simpson is the only person with means, motive and opportunity to drop the glove behind Kato's room.

The detectives had all three plus possesion of the glove.

[tv]

The detectives had all three plus possesion of the glove.

The detectives never had possession of the glove.

[tv]

See Dr.Lee testimony criminal trial.

You're the one making the claim. I've looked but have been unable to find testimony from Dr. Lee that the lab tampered with or wrongly manipulated the evidence. If you don't have a link I'll just dismiss your claim.

[tv]

The problem for the prosecution is that none of those that saw him saw any cuts.

I think it is important that they did recognize the size of his hands as it goes to support that his hands were too big to fit the gloves when he tried them on. Their testimony is very relevant on the glove fitting issue.

On the other hand if the size of his hands caught their attention as being very large it is reasonable to think that they would have seen cuts if there had been any. They didn't

I see that as a problem for the defense. I'm not sure why you keep emphasizing the size of OJ Simpson's hands. It has nothing to do with the cuts that were present but not seen after the time he agrees he had cuts.

[tv]

Although Lee was well known and greatly respected by those in his field, the trial introduced him to many more and those that followed the trial realized how informed he was in his field.

None of that increased his credentials -- his qualifications didn't change because he met new people. Too bad for him that in more recent trials his credibility has come under serious doubt. In fact, many people lost faith in him when he misidentified trowel marks as a shoeprint in the Simpson trial.

[tv]

I think the jury like others would have been very concerned about the conflicts in her testimony.

I don't think they would have considered her testimony in their less than three hour deliberations. They claim they didn't consider DNA evidence or Mark Fuhrman. Why would they give Jill Shively and her story the time of day?

[fgump2]

The problem for the prosecution is that none of those that saw him saw any cuts.

I think it is important that they did recognize the size of his hands as it goes to support that his hands were too big to fit the gloves when he tried them on. Their testimony is very relevant on the glove fitting issue.

On the other hand if the size of his hands caught their attention as being very large it is reasonable to think that they would have seen cuts if there had been any. They didn't
I thought I would quote from an article from Scientific American on vision which supports the idea that most people don't remember very much about what they see.
The article came to this conclusion:"Our brain is constantly trying to construct meaningful narratives from what we see. Things that do not quite fit the script or that are not relevant to a particular task occupying our interest are wiped wholesale from consciousness".

I think this explains why none of the people remember the cuts or bandages. The people might have been thinking about his ring(not there I guess) or how big his hands were or if there was any evidence of arthritis.

It may also be that the cuts were more visibile from some angles than others and Simpson could turn his hand to hide the cuts or bandages.

Supporting this is an experiment in which about 6 people pass a basketball around. Members of the audience is asked to count the number of times the basketball was passed back and forth. While this is going on a person in a gorrila suit walks through the group of people on stage, and beats it's chest and waves it arms, trys to attract attention to itself. About half the people didn't notice the gorrilla. Now I realize that the NG (pro Simpson people) can point out that none of the people (5 ? 10?) saw a bandage. Maybe so, but a gorrilla waving it's arms around is more unusual than a bandage. Of course that depends on where you live. Most of us regard gorrillas as more unusual than bandages.

This article was called "how blind are we?" in Scientific American Reports special edition on Perception. I didn't read the whole article - yet. This supports what memory experts and criminologists have been saying for years - that people observe and remember less accurately than they think.

This includes not just the people Simpson saw on his way to Chicago, but also police nurses drawing blood, and limo drivers picking people up. I don't think it was fair to ignore the limo driver's testimony because it was probaby wrong on some points, although I admit I haven't read very closely the postings on this subject.

Also, Martin, if you are concerned with prosecution witnesses who testify with an agenda, you should be concerned with defense witnesses who do the same. The doctor who compared Simpson's suffering to the biblical character Job was pretty bad, but probably not as bad as Henry Lee.

[GreenIce]

If that is what he meant, why didn't he say that? He had plenty of opportunity in both the criminal trial and the civil trial to lay cards on the table, and he was evasive: "All I can say is, something wrong here, this should not be". If I went to a doctor for a medical diagnosis, and all the doctor would tell me was that, I would complain to the state medical board.

It sounded to me as though he wanted the jury to reject the evidence and distrust the LAPD without actually saying that.

If there was enough evidence for either you or the jury to conclude that there was evidence tampering, then why didn't Lee come to that conclusion? Or if he did, then why didn't he say that?

fgump2,

If you read Dr. Lee's testimony, he explained what he meant by something was wrong and he did lay his cards on the table, he said something was wrong----he would not go as far to say that the wet transfers proved tampering--only that the swatches should have been dry when put into the bindles and obviously, these swatches were not. He also said there were 7 swatches involved, only 4 of them had wet transfers, as he stated, something was wrong.

[GreenIce]

I thought I would quote from an article from Scientific American on vision which supports the idea that most people don't remember very much about what they see.
The article came to this conclusion:"Our brain is constantly trying to construct meaningful narratives from what we see. Things that do not quite fit the script or that are not relevant to a particular task occupying our interest are wiped wholesale from consciousness".

I think this explains why none of the people remember the cuts or bandages. The people might have been thinking about his ring(not there I guess) or how big his hands were or if there was any evidence of arthritis.

It may also be that the cuts were more visibile from some angles than others and Simpson could turn his hand to hide the cuts or bandages.

Supporting this is an experiment in which about 6 people pass a basketball around. Members of the audience is asked to count the number of times the basketball was passed back and forth. While this is going on a person in a gorrila suit walks through the group of people on stage, and beats it's chest and waves it arms, trys to attract attention to itself. About half the people didn't notice the gorrilla. Now I realize that the NG (pro Simpson people) can point out that none of the people (5 ? 10?) saw a bandage. Maybe so, but a gorrilla waving it's arms around is more unusual than a bandage. Of course that depends on where you live. Most of us regard gorrillas as more unusual than bandages.

This article was called "how blind are we?" in Scientific American Reports special edition on Perception. I didn't read the whole article - yet. This supports what memory experts and criminologists have been saying for years - that people observe and remember less accurately than they think.

This includes not just the people Simpson saw on his way to Chicago, but also police nurses drawing blood, and limo drivers picking people up. I don't think it was fair to ignore the limo driver's testimony because it was probaby wrong on some points, although I admit I haven't read very closely the postings on this subject.

Also, Martin, if you are concerned with prosecution witnesses who testify with an agenda, you should be concerned with defense witnesses who do the same. The doctor who compared Simpson's suffering to the biblical character Job was pretty bad, but probably not as bad as Henry Lee.

Fgump2,

The LAPD and the DA's insisted that the blood came from one injury on his middle finger. Where the injury was would have made it impossible for anyone to have missed it who was looking at his hands and people were looking at his hands. He was signing autographs, he did nothing to shy away from people who approached him, he did not hesitate to greet people and shake their hands. He did nothing to hide his hand.

The majority of state expert witnesses, are supposed to be neutral witnesses. They should testify to their findings and their opinons, they should not be advocates for the state's case. The three FBI witnesses, Martz, Deedrick and Bodizak testimony clearly proves they were advocates for the state of CA.

William Bodizak and Doug Deedrick worked together on the Simpson case after they received Dr. Lee's report. Bodizak watched 95% of Dr. Lee's testimony, why? If you read their testimony, then you know they use "probably" a lot but offer no real proof of their opinons.

[GreenIce]

Because the defense had nothing to prove.

William,

I completely agree with your response. However, I would like to add something to this, why would the defense run tests when the state's own tests confirmed their claim, such as EDTA being present? The difference in the DNA "count" of the blood drops?

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9210730]You may be partly correct about the hair disagreement. I don't have all the facts. But if Lee and or Kestler wanted to do a DNA comparison, they didn't need a hair with DNA. Blood dna would do just as well, they already had the blood.


fgump2,

I think you are missing the point. It was the state's theory the hat was Simpson and was worn by Simpson during the murders. Getting a DNA sample from the hair they said was Simpson's would have been powerful evidence.

Remember, there was other hair found inside the cap and the only thing they could say about it was that it came from a black person or a white person. Without DNA, you have nothing but "could be". IMO.

[martin II]

The detectives never had possession of the glove.

Mark Furhman did at rockingham and others did at Bundy. Have you forgotten?

[martin II]

I thought I would quote from an article from Scientific American on vision which supports the idea that most people don't remember very much about what they see.
The article came to this conclusion:"Our brain is constantly trying to construct meaningful narratives from what we see. Things that do not quite fit the script or that are not relevant to a particular task occupying our interest are wiped wholesale from consciousness".

I think this explains why none of the people remember the cuts or bandages. The people might have been thinking about his ring(not there I guess) or how big his hands were or if there was any evidence of arthritis.

It may also be that the cuts were more visibile from some angles than others and Simpson could turn his hand to hide the cuts or bandages.

Supporting this is an experiment in which about 6 people pass a basketball around. Members of the audience is asked to count the number of times the basketball was passed back and forth. While this is going on a person in a gorrila suit walks through the group of people on stage, and beats it's chest and waves it arms, trys to attract attention to itself. About half the people didn't notice the gorrilla. Now I realize that the NG (pro Simpson people) can point out that none of the people (5 ? 10?) saw a bandage. Maybe so, but a gorrilla waving it's arms around is more unusual than a bandage. Of course that depends on where you live. Most of us regard gorrillas as more unusual than bandages.

This article was called "how blind are we?" in Scientific American Reports special edition on Perception. I didn't read the whole article - yet. This supports what memory experts and criminologists have been saying for years - that people observe and remember less accurately than they think.

This includes not just the people Simpson saw on his way to Chicago, but also police nurses drawing blood, and limo drivers picking people up. I don't think it was fair to ignore the limo driver's testimony because it was probaby wrong on some points, although I admit I haven't read very closely the postings on this subject.

Also, Martin, if you are concerned with prosecution witnesses who testify with an agenda, you should be concerned with defense witnesses who do the same. The doctor who compared Simpson's suffering to the biblical character Job was pretty bad, but probably not as bad as Henry Lee.


FGUMP2
iF you believe all memory is bad then can we say Parks memory of seeing oj go into the house was wrong. That the color of the clothes Kato said oj wore was wrong.That Fungs memory of Vanhatter giving him the blood samples is wrong.?

If people were looking at ojs hand to discover that were very large.it is reasonable to believe they did look at his hand in more than a casual way and would have seen the cuts especially if they were looking at his fingers for a ring. It think it wouls be very easy to see a white bandage against ojs black skin.No one saw any cuts.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9210730]You may be partly correct about the hair disagreement. I don't have all the facts. But if Lee and or Kestler wanted to do a DNA comparison, they didn't need a hair with DNA. Blood dna would do just as well, they already had the blood.


fgump2,

I think you are missing the point. It was the state's theory the hat was Simpson and was worn by Simpson during the murders. Getting a DNA sample from the hair they said was Simpson's would have been powerful evidence.

Remember, there was other hair found inside the cap and the only thing they could say about it was that it came from a black person or a white person. Without DNA, you have nothing but "could be". IMO.


As Baily pointed out Deedrick could only give guesses on the hair. He never gave proof beyond a doubt on any of them.He never said these are the SAME hairs as ojs.

[martin II]

Because the defense had nothing to prove.

Obviously some don't understand the CJS law. The defence is not required to prove anything so i don't understand why they continue to ask why the defence didn't prove something.

[martin II]

fgump2,

If you read Dr. Lee's testimony, he explained what he meant by something was wrong and he did lay his cards on the table, he said something was wrong----he would not go as far to say that the wet transfers proved tampering--only that the swatches should have been dry when put into the bindles and obviously, these swatches were not. He also said there were 7 swatches involved, only 4 of them had wet transfers, as he stated, something was wrong.


That is the way Lee testifies.HE pointed out the problem.Clearly.He left it to the jury to understand what "something wrong" meant to them and others.
i had no problem understand his find.

[martin II]

I don't think they would have considered her testimony in their less than three hour deliberations. They claim they didn't consider DNA evidence or Mark Fuhrman. Why would they give Jill Shively and her story the time of day?

You still seem to believe the jury is required to go over ALL testimony in deliberations.THEY ARE NOT. They are required to discuss ALL questions jury member have on witnesses/evidence. They did just that.

Many juries give verdicts after voting immediately at the commencement of deliberations if they are in agreement.

[martin II]

None of that increased his credentials -- his qualifications didn't change because he met new people. Too bad for him that in more recent trials his credibility has come under serious doubt. In fact, many people lost faith in him when he misidentified trowel marks as a shoeprint in the Simpson trial.

Can you name a person that is more qualified or more sort after than Dr Lee.
Or one in higher regard than him by people in his field?

[martin II]

I don't think they would have considered her testimony in their less than three hour deliberations. They claim they didn't consider DNA evidence or Mark Fuhrman. Why would they give Jill Shively and her story the time of day?

You continue to indicate to me you are not informed on the issue of what is required of a jury in deliberations or you see them as a easy target for your anger at their most informed verdict. i am not sure which it is. i strongly belive your continuing attack on them is not fair or called for.It is the prosecution that faild to prove their case.

[martin II]

William, FYI -- since you've been on medical leave from the board DW started a 'race in the case' thread for comments like this one.

http://boards.library.trutv.com/showthread.php?t=294328

maby your post should have been directed to the poster that used the word Boy to describe a grown black man.

[tv]

Mark Furhman did at rockingham and others did at Bundy. Have you forgotten?

The gloves were discovered at both crimes scenes but it's not true that the detectives 'possessed' the gloves. They were left where they were found and collected by the criminalist.

[tv]

maby your post should have been directed to the poster that used the word Boy to describe a grown black man.

If you have a problem with The Boys please take it up with him. I was informing William of something he may not have been aware of because he's been absent from the board.

[tv]

You continue to indicate to me you are not informed on the issue of what is required of a jury in deliberations or you see them as a easy target for your anger at their most informed verdict. i am not sure which it is. i strongly belive your continuing attack on them is not fair or called for.It is the prosecution that faild to prove their case.

Attack? The jurors are the ones that said they didn't consider those things. If you believe my opinion that they wouldn't have taken Jill Shively's testimony into account is out of line please report it to Deepwater. This is a discussion forum for the OJ Simpson trials -- do you really believe the jury is off limits?

[tv]

Can you name a person that is more qualified or more sort after than Dr Lee.
Or one in higher regard than him by people in his field?

I can name people that haven't had their testimony and ethics called into question. You don't seem to understand that he's not as highly regarded as he used to be.

[tv]

The problem for the prosecution is that none of those that saw him saw any cuts.

I think it is important that they did recognize the size of his hands as it goes to support that his hands were too big to fit the gloves when he tried them on. Their testimony is very relevant on the glove fitting issue.

On the other hand if the size of his hands caught their attention as being very large it is reasonable to think that they would have seen cuts if there had been any. They didn't

It's easier to see cuts on large hands? Interesting theory but I don't think it's true. Jason's testimony that he didn't see cuts on his father's hands was a problem for the defense not the plaintiffs. That was his civil trial testimony and OJ Simpson lost that case.

[tv]

You still seem to believe the jury is required to go over ALL testimony in deliberations.THEY ARE NOT. They are required to discuss ALL questions jury member have on witnesses/evidence. They did just that.

Many juries give verdicts after voting immediately at the commencement of deliberations if they are in agreement.

You're really touchy about the jury -- why is that?

[tv]

FGUMP2
iF you believe all memory is bad then can we say Parks memory of seeing oj go into the house was wrong. That the color of the clothes Kato said oj wore was wrong.That Fungs memory of Vanhatter giving him the blood samples is wrong.?

If people were looking at ojs hand to discover that were very large.it is reasonable to believe they did look at his hand in more than a casual way and would have seen the cuts especially if they were looking at his fingers for a ring. It think it wouls be very easy to see a white bandage against ojs black skin.No one saw any cuts.

There's no reason to think he was using a bandage. If he was trying to disguise the fact that his hand was injured a bandage is the last thing he would have used.

[GreenIce]

You still seem to believe the jury is required to go over ALL testimony in deliberations.THEY ARE NOT. They are required to discuss ALL questions jury member have on witnesses/evidence. They did just that.

Many juries give verdicts after voting immediately at the commencement of deliberations if they are in agreement.

Martin,

How long did it take you figure out that the 4 lead detectives in this case lied over issues they did not have to lie about--unless they were covering up?

How did it take the defense and the DA's own witnesses to confirm that they did not how and/or when the blood got on socks and the back gate?

Who would truly believe that who ever tampered with the evidence, would have used someone's else's blood?

The length of the jury's deliberations sent a clear message, if you can't trust the messengers, then you can't trust the message.

I think the best statement made by Johnnie Cochran in his closing was if they are lying at the beginning of the case, they they are lying to the end of the case. I know those weren't his exact words, but you know what I mean.

[GreenIce]

That is the way Lee testifies.HE pointed out the problem.Clearly.He left it to the jury to understand what "something wrong" meant to them and others.
i had no problem understand his find.

Martin,

What I find troubling is all the evidence Dr. Lee found that was apparently lost or never collected.

In reading Bosco's and American Tragedy, it is clear there was more then one imprint that may have been a shoe imprint. It is also clear that the defense were sent not very clear pictures of the walk way. When they got Dr. Lee's report, they sent out another photographer to get clearer pictures and then passed them on to the defense.

Neither Sheck or Dr. Lee could be positive that they were looking at the same tiles. Another deliberate move by the DA's. Talk about lack of ethics!

Sheck and Dr. Lee knew about the trowel marks but because this same imprint pattern was found other places, they included it in his testimony. Never does Dr. Lee say this was shoe imprint. He always said it could be, he made it clear to the jury when he said, "I can not come in here to tell you that is a shoe print".

Also, during his testimony, he does address Bodizak's findings and handles it much class and dignity. Which Bodizak has none of.

Have you noticed that not one representative of shoe factory or a Bruno Magli rep took the stand?

[weezer]

fgump2,

If you read Dr. Lee's testimony, he explained what he meant by something was wrong and he did lay his cards on the table, he said something was wrong----he would not go as far to say that the wet transfers proved tampering--only that the swatches should have been dry when put into the bindles and obviously, these swatches were not. He also said there were 7 swatches involved, only 4 of them had wet transfers, as he stated, something was wrong.

lee went on to testify that he did not suspect the lab of any wrongdoing but rather the 'something wrong' was in reference to the lab's procedures in processing wet swatches.

[William Anthony]

Is this a test?

Yes, as to the relevance of your prior post, as to what one may have seen as opposed to others, who viewed the same scene.

[William Anthony]

Robert Blake, telescopes...you do know this is the OJ Simpson forum?

In a nation dedicated to equality or that is the premise.

[William Anthony]

Actually, it's not enough said. You cut off part of my sentence. What I posted was "I guess we'll never know for sure but I'm of the opinion it was blood." I was responding to martin's post about Dr. Lee's presumptive tests for blood on the air conditioner and cable wire. Nice try.

It is enough that you admit that, like the rest of us, you will never know and your opinion that it was blood is necessary for you to surmise that Simpson was a murderer, whereas the sophisticated jury only could form their opinion of not guilty based on the evidence it heard.

[William Anthony]

William, FYI -- since you've been on medical leave from the board DW started a 'race in the case' thread for comments like this one.

http://boards.library.trutv.com/showthread.php?t=294328

I was unaware of the thread. Do you know if The Boys is aware of it?

[William Anthony]

Just as I reasonably believe that OJ Simpson is the only person with means, motive and opportunity to drop the glove behind Kato's room.

As with MF. I know you are aware of the jury instruction.

[William Anthony]

If you would read my post #13630 you wouldn't have to ask these questions. I would appreciate it if you would either use my whole post or indicated that you've snipped it. You're being very misleading which could cause unnecessary confusion --

It wouldn't have mattered if she had put her on. The defense would have trashed her reputation and the jury would have stepped right into line and not considered her testimony so it's just as well.

I had the benefit of reading your latter post in which you asserted that the jury would have fallen in line with the magnificent one, which is why I asked what line and why you believe the jury would have believed the magnificent one if he trashed her reputation. If you are saying that the magnificent one was more credible than the prosecution, I agree.

[William Anthony]

Robert Blake's case just doesn't spark the same interest. We've been all through the possible reasons as I recall.

I'm outraged at the case of the millionaire, Robert Durst, who admitted killing and then hacking up his friend but was acquitted. I'm outraged at the case of Karla Homolka who helped her husband rape and murder several young women, including her own sister, but only served 12 years. I'm outraged at the case of the 49 year old woman who was only convicted of three misdemeanor counts for taunting a teenage girl on myspace which led to the girl's suicide...I could go on and on...

Then start a forum for them, or is your interest held by Simpson.

[William Anthony]

If that is what he meant, why didn't he say that? He had plenty of opportunity in both the criminal trial and the civil trial to lay cards on the table, and he was evasive: "All I can say is, something wrong here, this should not be". If I went to a doctor for a medical diagnosis, and all the doctor would tell me was that, I would complain to the state medical board.

It sounded to me as though he wanted the jury to reject the evidence and distrust the LAPD without actually saying that.

If there was enough evidence for either you or the jury to conclude that there was evidence tampering, then why didn't Lee come to that conclusion? Or if he did, then why didn't he say that?

Reasonable inference and burden of proof.:)

[William Anthony]

William,

I completely agree with your response. However, I would like to add something to this, why would the defense run tests when the state's own tests confirmed their claim, such as EDTA being present? The difference in the DNA "count" of the blood drops?

I see that you understand and don't confuse the burden of proof, IMHO.

[martin II]

I was unaware of the thread. Do you know if The Boys is aware of it?

I wondered if she had seen the post by the person that called a grown black man boy. I thought it should have been of concern. But with no response i guess it was not.

[martin II]

I can name people that haven't had their testimony and ethics called into question. You don't seem to understand that he's not as highly regarded as he used to be.

I think that a poll of his peers would prove otherwise.It is my opinion that he is still the most sort after EXPERT in his field and i think that is the measure of his importance not what some non professionals outsiders believe.

Lee identified the problem of the wet samples. He would not give his personal opinion on what it meant unless he was asked this question directly.
More experts should take this approach rather being a obvious supporter of the prosecutions position like Martz and Deedrick to name just two.

[martin II]

You're the one making the claim. I've looked but have been unable to find testimony from Dr. Lee that the lab tampered with or wrongly manipulated the evidence. If you don't have a link I'll just dismiss your claim.

Dr LEE found and indetified a major problem with the wet samples.The lab knew the samples were wet when they should have been but they remained quiet.
"something " was a bell telling all something wrong had happened with the samples. Reasonable people were able to figure out what had happened and i believer the jury did.

[martin II]

tv
in case you didn't know.

BIOGRAPHY OF DR. HENRY C. LEE
Dr. Henry C. Lee is one of the world’s foremost forensic scientists. Dr. Lee’s
work has made him a landmark in modern-day forensic sciences. He has been a
prominent player in many of the most challenging cases of the last 40 years. Dr. Lee has
worked with law enforcement agencies in helping to solve more than 6000 cases. In
recent years, his travels have taken him to England, Bosnia, China, Brunei, and other
locations around the world.
Dr. Lee’s testimony figured prominently in the O. J. Simpson trial, and in
convictions of the “Woodchipper” murderer as well as hundreds of other murder cases.
Dr. Lee has assisted local and state police in their investigations of other famous crimes,
such as the murder of Jon Benet Ramsey in Boulder, Colorado, the 1993 suicide of White
House Counsel Vincent Foster, and the reinvestigation of the Kennedy assassination.
Dr. Lee is currently the Chief Emeritus for the Scientific Services and was the
Commissioner of Public Safety for the State of Connecticut for over two years and has
served as that state’s Chief Criminalist from 1979 to 2000. Dr. Lee was the driving force
in establishing a modern State Police Forensic Science Laboratory in Connecticut.
In 1975, Dr. Lee joined the University of New Haven, where he created the
school’s Forensic Sciences program. He has also taught as a professor at more than a
dozen universities, law schools, and medical schools. Though challenged with the
demands on his time, Dr. Lee still lectures throughout the country and world to police,
Universities and civic organizations. Dr. Lee has authored hundreds of articles in
professional journals and has co-authored more than 25 textbooks, covering the areas,
such as; DNA, Fingerprints, Trace Evidence, Crime Scene Investigation and Crime scene
reconstruction.
Dr. Lee has been the recipient of numerous medals and awards, including the
1996 Medal of Justice from the Justice Foundation, and the 1998 Lifetime Achievement
Award from the Science and Engineer Association. He has also been the recipient of the
Distinguished Criminalist Award from the American Academy of Forensic Sciences; the
J. Donero Award from the International Association of Identification, and in 1992 was
elected a distinguished Fellow of the AAFS.
Dr. Lee was born in China and grew up in Taiwan. Dr. Lee first worked for the
Taipei Police Department, attaining the rank of Captain. With his wife, Margaret, Dr.
Lee came to the United States in 1965, and he earned his B.S. in Forensic Science from
John Jay College in 1972. Dr. Lee continued his studies in biochemistry at NYU where
he earned his Masters Degree in 1974 and Ph.D. in 1975. He has also received special
training from the FBI Academy, ATF, RCMP, and other organizations. He is a recipient
of five honorary Doctorate Degrees from Universities in recognition of his contributions
to Law and Science. Dr. And Mrs. Lee have been married for 39 years and have two
grown children, a daughter, Sherry, and a son, Stanley.

[fgump2]

Fgump2,

The LAPD and the DA's insisted that the blood came from one injury on his middle finger. Where the injury was would have made it impossible for anyone to have missed it who was looking at his hands and people were looking at his hands. He was signing autographs, he did nothing to shy away from people who approached him, he did not hesitate to greet people and shake their hands. He did nothing to hide his hand. He shook hands with his right hand, not his left. As for doing nothing to hide his hand, he did nothing they remembered. It would be interesting to know how long these various witnesses found out they were relevant witnesses and how long before hey were questioned. My guess is that some of them didn't know till Tuesday (more than 24 hours after the trip from LA to Chicago).

The majority of state expert witnesses, are supposed to be neutral witnesses. They should testify to their findings and their opinons, they should not be advocates for the state's case. The three FBI witnesses, Martz, Deedrick and Bodizak testimony clearly proves they were advocates for the state of CA.

William Bodizak and Doug Deedrick worked together on the Simpson case after they received Dr. Lee's report. Bodizak watched 95% of Dr. Lee's testimony, why? A lot of American's watched it for no reason other than curiosity, do you see anything sinister about that? If a truck driver in Canada watched Lee's testimony is that sinister? I think that a lot of people would watch a part of the trial at which they testified, they would particularly interested in the parts of the trial that related their testimony.If you read their testimony, then you know they use "probably" a lot but offer no real proof of their opinons.

I don't think that Bodziak or Deedrick did anything wrong. I didn't fully understand Martz's testimony or the EDTA controversy; but I don't think Martz did anything wrong either.
I didn't go over the testimony of Deedrick or Bodziak with a metaphorical comb or magnifying glass, nor do I claim to be an expert on legal testimony or the specialties of Bodziak or Deedrick. I am not about to try to decide if they used the word "probably" in a misleading manner. I like to think that FBI people, or other experts, are interested in getting guilty people convicted, and innocent people freed.

In another place you wrote that Henry Lee had a lot of class, and Bodziak had none. I disagree. For one thing I think Henry Lee testified about the possible footprints (marks in the cement) without consulting with either Bodziak or Fung. That doesn't show good judgement. I think that if Henry Lee thought that the prosecution was misinterpeting or overlooking evidence, he had a moral obligation to talk to the prosecution about it; I don't think he did. This is one of the parts of the trial that I have some unresolved curiosity about.

As for Henry Lee having much class, I think he showed a lack of class in his behavior after the trial. He was questioned about the footprints in cement (one footprint, several trowel marks), he at first declined to answer the question, and talked about something else. When the interviewer asked a second time, he became angry and said "I should not have become involved with this case, it has damaged my reputation". I don't have a link to this.
He didn't say a word about whether his testinony was incorrect. The case continues to be a source of controversy and bitterness. I think that he had an obligation to clear up his testimony and ideas about the footprint evidence in the case.

He got some kind of official rebuke from the judge in the Blake case for throwing away a piece of evidence. Two witnesses thought it might have been a fingernail. Afterwards he came up with the same comment about "this has damaged my reputation". Not a word about the how this affected the murder trial, or the testimony against him. This is your idea of class?

Henry Lee clained he was picking up a cotton swab. This is barely possible, but it seems most unusual to mistake a fingernail for a cotton swab, and if he was picking up a cotton swab, the usual thing would be to put it in a container. I thought at the time of Lee's testimony in the 1995 criminal trial, that his pereformance was a disgrace, that he wasn't being honest, and I wasn't surprised when others came to the same conclusion.

[martin II]

William
i found this FROM Dr Lees web page.


The Winner's Attitude

The winner is always part of the answer; the loser is always part of the problem.
The winner always has a program; the loser always has an excuse.
The winner says, "Let me do it for you;" the loser says, "That's not my job."
The winner sees an answer for every problem; the loser sees a problem for every answer.
The winner sees a green near every sand trap; the loser sees two or three sand traps near every green.
The winner says, "It may be difficult, but it is possible;" the loser says, "It may be possible, but it's too difficult."

[martin II]

http://www.drhenrylee.com/about/

For those that are critical of Dr Lee, i suggest they compare his training and experience with any prosecution witness training and experience.

[martin II]

I don't think that Bodziak or Deedrick did anything wrong. I didn't fully understand Martz's testimony or the EDTA controversy; but I don't think Martz did anything wrong either.
I didn't go over the testimony of Deedrick or Bodziak with a metaphorical comb or magnifying glass, nor do I claim to be an expert on legal testimony or the specialties of Bodziak or Deedrick. I am not about to try to decide if they used the word "probably" in a misleading manner. I like to think that FBI people, or other experts, are interested in getting guilty people convicted, and innocent people freed.

In another place you wrote that Henry Lee had a lot of class, and Bodziak had none. I disagree. For one thing I think Henry Lee testified about the possible footprints (marks in the cement) without consulting with either Bodziak or Fung. That doesn't show good judgement. I think that if Henry Lee thought that the prosecution was misinterpeting or overlooking evidence, he had a moral obligation to talk to the prosecution about it; I don't think he did. This is one of the parts of the trial that I have some unresolved curiosity about.

As for Henry Lee having much class, I think he showed a lack of class in his behavior after the trial. He was questioned about the footprints in cement (one footprint, several trowel marks), he at first declined to answer the question, and talked about something else. When the interviewer asked a second time, he became angry and said "I should not have become involved with this case, it has damaged my reputation". I don't have a link to this.
He didn't say a word about whether his testinony was incorrect. The case continues to be a source of controversy and bitterness. I think that he had an obligation to clear up his testimony and ideas about the footprint evidence in the case.

He got some kind of official rebuke from the judge in the Blake case for throwing away a piece of evidence. Two witnesses thought it might have been a fingernail. Afterwards he came up with the same comment about "this has damaged my reputation". Not a word about the how this affected the murder trial, or the testimony against him. This is your idea of class?

Henry Lee clained he was picking up a cotton swab. This is barely possible, but it seems most unusual to mistake a fingernail for a cotton swab, and if he was picking up a cotton swab, the usual thing would be to put it in a container. I thought at the time of Lee's testimony in the 1995 criminal trial, that his pereformance was a disgrace, that he wasn't being honest, and I wasn't surprised when others came to the same conclusion.


Dr Lee worked for the defence.why do you think he should have consulted Deedrick or fung on anything.

I think you anger at Lee is so strong and misguided that no amount of facts will help you have a better understand of him or his testimony.

Again Lee has no responsibility to answer nonsense questions put to him by reporters seeking to make a name for himself and i think that reasonable people would not see his refusal as you obviously do.

I think that many that were involved in this case were surprised at the media frenzy of reporters camping out at their homes 24/7 to get a story and had second thoughts about being involved in the case for this reason.

[martin II]

Reasonable inference and burden of proof.:)

William i am very pleased to see you posting again.:cool::beer::beer::beer:

[martin II]

I don't think that Bodziak or Deedrick did anything wrong. I didn't fully understand Martz's testimony or the EDTA controversy; but I don't think Martz did anything wrong either.
I didn't go over the testimony of Deedrick or Bodziak with a metaphorical comb or magnifying glass, nor do I claim to be an expert on legal testimony or the specialties of Bodziak or Deedrick. I am not about to try to decide if they used the word "probably" in a misleading manner. I like to think that FBI people, or other experts, are interested in getting guilty people convicted, and innocent people freed.

In another place you wrote that Henry Lee had a lot of class, and Bodziak had none. I disagree. For one thing I think Henry Lee testified about the possible footprints (marks in the cement) without consulting with either Bodziak or Fung. That doesn't show good judgement. I think that if Henry Lee thought that the prosecution was misinterpeting or overlooking evidence, he had a moral obligation to talk to the prosecution about it; I don't think he did. This is one of the parts of the trial that I have some unresolved curiosity about.

As for Henry Lee having much class, I think he showed a lack of class in his behavior after the trial. He was questioned about the footprints in cement (one footprint, several trowel marks), he at first declined to answer the question, and talked about something else. When the interviewer asked a second time, he became angry and said "I should not have become involved with this case, it has damaged my reputation". I don't have a link to this.
He didn't say a word about whether his testinony was incorrect. The case continues to be a source of controversy and bitterness. I think that he had an obligation to clear up his testimony and ideas about the footprint evidence in the case.

He got some kind of official rebuke from the judge in the Blake case for throwing away a piece of evidence. Two witnesses thought it might have been a fingernail. Afterwards he came up with the same comment about "this has damaged my reputation". Not a word about the how this affected the murder trial, or the testimony against him. This is your idea of class?

Henry Lee clained he was picking up a cotton swab. This is barely possible, but it seems most unusual to mistake a fingernail for a cotton swab, and if he was picking up a cotton swab, the usual thing would be to put it in a container. I thought at the time of Lee's testimony in the 1995 criminal trial, that his pereformance was a disgrace, that he wasn't being honest, and I wasn't surprised when others came to the same conclusion.

If the pilot handed oj his book and oj reached to get it how do you think the pilot would not have seen white bandages on ojs hand if they were there.
How did oj hide his hand if he was signing a authgraph.His hands were not in his pockets. gee

[fgump2]

William
i found this FROM Dr Lees web page.


The Winner's Attitude

The winner is always part of the answer; the loser is always part of the problem.
The winner always has a program; the loser always has an excuse.
The winner says, "Let me do it for you;" the loser says, "That's not my job."
The winner sees an answer for every problem; the loser sees a problem for every answer.
The winner sees a green near every sand trap; the loser sees two or three sand traps near every green.
The winner says, "It may be difficult, but it is possible;" the loser says, "It may be possible, but it's too difficult."

Most of us humans do a lot of winning and losing. Everyone loses a lot. Remember the astronaut Lisa Nowak? How about Nixon? Bernie Maddoff (or whatever his name was)? Almost all of us are in the proactive and positive moods that these sayings describe, and most of us spend some time in the dumps which these sayings credit to losers.

[fgump2]

If the pilot handed oj his book and oj reached to get it how do you think the pilot would not have seen white bandages on ojs hand if they were there.
How did oj hide his hand if he was signing a authgraph.His hands were not in his pockets. gee

The cuts were on his left hand. He signed autographs with his right hand. It might be interesting to cut someone's hands up like that and see how hard it is to bandage it up and disguise the cuts.

I think the testimony from people who didn't see the cuts helped the 1995 defense, but I don't regard these witnesses as conclusive.

[martin II]

The cuts were on his left hand. He signed autographs with his right hand. It might be interesting to cut someone's hands up like that and see how hard it is to bandage it up and disguise the cuts.

I think the testimony from people who didn't see the cuts helped the 1995 defense, but I don't regard these witnesses as conclusive.

If ojs Left hand was 'CUT UP LIKE THAT" why did the six peoiple that were within a few feet talking to him,receiving autographs and tips NEVER saw a bandage or cut.The only reason is that there were no cuts.

Also two people were looking closely at his hands which caused them to notice how very large they were.Thissupports the defence claim that the gloves Darden gave him to try were much too small for ojs very large hands.

[martin II]

The cuts were on his left hand. He signed autographs with his right hand. It might be interesting to cut someone's hands up like that and see how hard it is to bandage it up and disguise the cuts.

I think the testimony from people who didn't see the cuts helped the 1995 defense, but I don't regard these witnesses as conclusive.

you think the 6 witnesses lied.
Deedrick was one witness and you believe him although he never said his hair samples were the same as ojs.6 people said they definately did did not see any cuts and you believe their testimony is not conclusive that there were no cuts.How many witnesses do you need 50?

[martin II]

Most of us humans do a lot of winning and losing. Everyone loses a lot. Remember the astronaut Lisa Nowak? How about Nixon? Bernie Maddoff (or whatever his name was)? Almost all of us are in the proactive and positive moods that these sayings describe, and most of us spend some time in the dumps which these sayings credit to losers.

I think you may have missed the point.
It is about the different attitudes of winners and loosers. I thought they fit the attitudes of the loosers in the oj case.

[fgump2]

you think the 6 witnesses lied.
Deedrick was one witness and you believe him although he never said his hair samples were the same as ojs.6 people said they definately did did not see any cuts and you believe their testimony is not conclusive that there were no cuts.How many witnesses do you need 50?

I thought I made it clear that I thought the 6 witnesses were mistaken; probably not dishonest. I quoted article on vision to show that it was an easy mistake to make.
As I wrote before, the 6 witnesses help Simpson, but I think they are far from conclusive. Simpson himself told the police that he cut his hand in LA at about the same time Nicole was killed, and later reopened the cut in Chicago.This was in his statement to the police the day after the murder.

[weezer]

you think the 6 witnesses lied.
Deedrick was one witness and you believe him although he never said his hair samples were the same as ojs.6 people said they definately did did not see any cuts and you believe their testimony is not conclusive that there were no cuts.How many witnesses do you need 50?

nobody lied martin -- you are just wrong about what the testimony was. none of the witnesses could testify that orenthal DIDN'T have a cut on the left middle finger.

[tv]

Then start a forum for them, or is your interest held by Simpson.

I don't like your tone. It's none of your business if this is the only forum I post on, if I post on a hundred forums or who does or does not hold my interest.

[tv]

If the pilot handed oj his book and oj reached to get it how do you think the pilot would not have seen white bandages on ojs hand if they were there.
How did oj hide his hand if he was signing a authgraph.His hands were not in his pockets. gee

You keep assuming his finger would have been bandaged. :shrug:

[fgump2]

Dr Lee worked for the defence.why do you think he should have consulted Deedrick or fung on anything. Because this was a murder trial. If the LAPD was trying to convict the wrong man, or even misinterpreting the evidence, then showing the LAPD what they were doing wrong would help catch the guilty party. The sooner the police start following the correct trail, the better the chance of catching the guilty party

I think you anger at Lee is so strong and misguided that no amount of facts will help you have a better understand of him or his testimony. Most Americans, incluiding me, over reacted to the 1995 trial. I think Martin II over reacted also. I was quite angry at Henry Lee during the 1995 trial and afterwards. I still have a low opinion of him; but my anger has cooled.

Again Lee has no responsibility to answer nonsense questions put to him by reporters seeking to make a name for himself and i think that reasonable people would not see his refusal as you obviously do. A disagreement with the FBI's leading expert on footprints is not a nonsense situation.

I think that many that were involved in this case were surprised at the media frenzy of reporters camping out at their homes 24/7 to get a story and had second thoughts about being involved in the case for this reason.

I don’t regard the questions about phantom footprints (in the blood or in the cement?) as foolish. The case continues to be a national sore point, not just on this crime board. Before the trial most people would have had a lot of faith in both the FBI and in a famous criminologist (Lee was famous within his field, but probably not to the general public). It is important to decide who screwed up here, the FBI or Henry Lee. The fact that Henry Lee received and official rebuke or sanction in the Blake trial raises is another reason to distrust the man. Who a country’s heroes are is important. Henry Lee is a hero to some, a villain to others. The same could be said about V. Bugliosi, who slammed Henry Lee. This matters to me. Justice is important to me. The controversy about Henry Lee (and Bugliosi) involves how we view the process of Justice. If Henry Lee died tomorrow, his reputation, good and bad, would still matter.

If Bodziak’s criticism was invalid, then either he lied or was incompetent. That matters to me. He was the FBI expert on both footprints and on shoes. He was on some kind of international board of criminologist and was their leading footprint and shoe expert. I write ‘was’ because he may be retired now. If he lied or was incompetent, that matters to me. It would surprise me to see him disgraced, but I don’t understand how anyone who cares about justice can say it doesn’t matter.

Settling the controversy about Henry Lee wouldn’t end the disagreements about the 1995 Simpson trial, but it would reduce it.

All of us like to rely on experts whenever we can. This is unavoidable. One problem with this is that experts with outstanding credentials sometimes make dishonest mistakes that are hard to understand. To try to divide the world into easy categories like winners and losers is misleading. Remember the famous South Korean biologist who disgraced himself several years ago by faking some experiments?
Several decades ago (probably in the 1960’s) a Harvard biologist was kicked off the faculty and disgraced because he falsified an experiment. Several years later it was discovered that the work he was doing was quite important, and he is now recognized as making and important contribution. He falsified the experiment as an attempt to support his theory which turned out to be correct. So this man was both a winner and a loser. He deserved out trust at times and our distrust at other times. This shows that a person can be an outstanding expert, and a fraud at the same time.

I think the desire to be famous often brings out the worst in a lot of people; and this includes Henry Lee. He had a chance to get 15 minutes of fame and he wanted a day or two of fame.

[tv]

Dr LEE found and indetified a major problem with the wet samples.The lab knew the samples were wet when they should have been but they remained quiet.
"something " was a bell telling all something wrong had happened with the samples. Reasonable people were able to figure out what had happened and i believer the jury did.

Lee did exactly what the defense did -- dangled possibilities with no details and no factual evidence to back it up.

[tv]

I think that a poll of his peers would prove otherwise.It is my opinion that he is still the most sort after EXPERT in his field and i think that is the measure of his importance not what some non professionals outsiders believe.

Lee identified the problem of the wet samples. He would not give his personal opinion on what it meant unless he was asked this question directly.
More experts should take this approach rather being a obvious supporter of the prosecutions position like Martz and Deedrick to name just two.

I don't care if you place Dr. Lee on a pedestal but I'm under no requirement to agree with your opinion of him.

[tv]

tv
in case you didn't know.

BIOGRAPHY OF DR. HENRY C. LEE
*snipped*



martin, I'm very familiar with Dr. Henry Lee and his background. I used to be an admirer of his work but starting with the OJS trial there has been too much funny business connected with him. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

[tv]

I was unaware of the thread. Do you know if The Boys is aware of it?

I have no idea. My suggestion is that you ask him.

[GreenIce]

I don't think that Bodziak or Deedrick did anything wrong. I didn't fully understand Martz's testimony or the EDTA controversy; but I don't think Martz did anything wrong either.
I didn't go over the testimony of Deedrick or Bodziak with a metaphorical comb or magnifying glass, nor do I claim to be an expert on legal testimony or the specialties of Bodziak or Deedrick. I am not about to try to decide if they used the word "probably" in a misleading manner. I like to think that FBI people, or other experts, are interested in getting guilty people convicted, and innocent people freed.

In another place you wrote that Henry Lee had a lot of class, and Bodziak had none. I disagree. For one thing I think Henry Lee testified about the possible footprints (marks in the cement) without consulting with either Bodziak or Fung. That doesn't show good judgement. I think that if Henry Lee thought that the prosecution was misinterpeting or overlooking evidence, he had a moral obligation to talk to the prosecution about it; I don't think he did. This is one of the parts of the trial that I have some unresolved curiosity about.

As for Henry Lee having much class, I think he showed a lack of class in his behavior after the trial. He was questioned about the footprints in cement (one footprint, several trowel marks), he at first declined to answer the question, and talked about something else. When the interviewer asked a second time, he became angry and said "I should not have become involved with this case, it has damaged my reputation". I don't have a link to this.
He didn't say a word about whether his testinony was incorrect. The case continues to be a source of controversy and bitterness. I think that he had an obligation to clear up his testimony and ideas about the footprint evidence in the case.

He got some kind of official rebuke from the judge in the Blake case for throwing away a piece of evidence. Two witnesses thought it might have been a fingernail. Afterwards he came up with the same comment about "this has damaged my reputation". Not a word about the how this affected the murder trial, or the testimony against him. This is your idea of class?

Henry Lee clained he was picking up a cotton swab. This is barely possible, but it seems most unusual to mistake a fingernail for a cotton swab, and if he was picking up a cotton swab, the usual thing would be to put it in a container. I thought at the time of Lee's testimony in the 1995 criminal trial, that his pereformance was a disgrace, that he wasn't being honest, and I wasn't surprised when others came to the same conclusion.

Fgump2,

For someone who often claims you don't know something, you sure have no problem posting you "know" about Dr. Lee's testimony. Just like with the 1 hair example. It was proven to you that you misunderstood what this was about, yet you continue to post that you don't trust him. You don't trust him because you haven't taken the time to research what exactly he said from the stand and what he wrote in his own books. You can't have it both ways.

All FBI experts and witnesses are supposed to be neutral, they were not in the Simpson case. Bodizak and Deedrick were not neutral witnesses and they said a lot of nothing. Bodizak and Deedrick, like Martz were asked to refute the defense's claims---how is that being neutral witnesses?

You also refuse to understand that the imprint that Dr. Lee testified about appeared in more then one place and one more then one item. He has made it clear why he wishes he didn't get involved in the Simpson trial. However, he has never, ever, waivered on this testimony and his findings. He was never an advocate for the defense. He reported his findings and that was all.

[GreenIce]

I thought I made it clear that I thought the 6 witnesses were mistaken; probably not dishonest. I quoted article on vision to show that it was an easy mistake to make.
As I wrote before, the 6 witnesses help Simpson, but I think they are far from conclusive. Simpson himself told the police that he cut his hand in LA at about the same time Nicole was killed, and later reopened the cut in Chicago.This was in his statement to the police the day after the murder.

fgump2,

And we have made it clear that witnesses did look at his hands and they were in the perfect positions to see them. One witness was looking for a ring.

Simpson never said that the cut on his middle finger was the one he reopened. He was asked about cuts and stuff on his hands and when the tape recorder went on, Simpson was talking about these other cuts.

Vanatter and Lange were also in the position to have the wound evaluated at that time, in regards to how fresh it was, what could have caused it. The defense produced two witnesses who said the cut on this middle finger is consistent with Simpson back handing a glass after learning of Nicole's death.

The also had a witness who testified about the cut that Simpson said he did at Rockingham was consistent with Simpson's statement.

The LAPD, that is Lange and Vanatter again made the mistake of saying that the only wound that Simpson suffered was the one on his middle finger. They never took other photos of his hands, they did not ask him to remove his shirt or anything else to see if he had any other wounds or bruises that were consistent with him being a struggle and jumping fences.

[martin II]

I don’t regard the questions about phantom footprints (in the blood or in the cement?) as foolish. The case continues to be a national sore point, not just on this crime board. Before the trial most people would have had a lot of faith in both the FBI and in a famous criminologist (Lee was famous within his field, but probably not to the general public). It is important to decide who screwed up here, the FBI or Henry Lee. The fact that Henry Lee received and official rebuke or sanction in the Blake trial raises is another reason to distrust the man. Who a country’s heroes are is important. Henry Lee is a hero to some, a villain to others. The same could be said about V. Bugliosi, who slammed Henry Lee. This matters to me. Justice is important to me. The controversy about Henry Lee (and Bugliosi) involves how we view the process of Justice. If Henry Lee died tomorrow, his reputation, good and bad, would still matter.

If Bodziak’s criticism was invalid, then either he lied or was incompetent. That matters to me. He was the FBI expert on both footprints and on shoes. He was on some kind of international board of criminologist and was their leading footprint and shoe expert. I write ‘was’ because he may be retired now. If he lied or was incompetent, that matters to me. It would surprise me to see him disgraced, but I don’t understand how anyone who cares about justice can say it doesn’t matter.

Settling the controversy about Henry Lee wouldn’t end the disagreements about the 1995 Simpson trial, but it would reduce it.

All of us like to rely on experts whenever we can. This is unavoidable. One problem with this is that experts with outstanding credentials sometimes make dishonest mistakes that are hard to understand. To try to divide the world into easy categories like winners and losers is misleading. Remember the famous South Korean biologist who disgraced himself several years ago by faking some experiments?
Several decades ago (probably in the 1960’s) a Harvard biologist was kicked off the faculty and disgraced because he falsified an experiment. Several years later it was discovered that the work he was doing was quite important, and he is now recognized as making and important contribution. He falsified the experiment as an attempt to support his theory which turned out to be correct. So this man was both a winner and a loser. He deserved out trust at times and our distrust at other times. This shows that a person can be an outstanding expert, and a fraud at the same time.

I think the desire to be famous often brings out the worst in a lot of people; and this includes Henry Lee. He had a chance to get 15 minutes of fame and he wanted a day or two of fame.

Dr Lee explained his comment about the print. If you read his comment in a negative way thats ok. As we all have different opinions of what most experts said. Since Deedrick never used the word SAME AS in all of his testimony i took that to mean he was not sure about his results.

[weezer]

". . .At his news conference, Dr. Lee praised the work of the F.B.I. crime laboratory and its personnel, whom he described as "excellent scientists with high integrity." "Personally, I have nothing but good to say about F.B.I. laboratory," he said. . ."

[GreenIce]

Dr Lee explained his comment about the print. If you read his comment in a negative way thats ok. As we all have different opinions of what most experts said. Since Deedrick never used the word SAME AS in all of his testimony i took that to mean he was not sure about his results.

Martin,

IMO, Lee did explain his comments. He also took the high road in saying that everybody had a right to their own opinon about the evidence.

My problem with Deedrick, Bodizak and Martz is that they are suppose to be neutral witnesses and they were anything but.

Deedrick and Bodizak played a perfect game of "evidence ping-pong" when it came other imprints. However, what matters most is that it shouldn't have mattered to them, what dog did they have in this fight?

[martin II]

Fgump2,

For someone who often claims you don't know something, you sure have no problem posting you "know" about Dr. Lee's testimony. Just like with the 1 hair example. It was proven to you that you misunderstood what this was about, yet you continue to post that you don't trust him. You don't trust him because you haven't taken the time to research what exactly he said from the stand and what he wrote in his own books. You can't have it both ways.

All FBI experts and witnesses are supposed to be neutral, they were not in the Simpson case. Bodizak and Deedrick were not neutral witnesses and they said a lot of nothing. Bodizak and Deedrick, like Martz were asked to refute the defense's claims---how is that being neutral witnesses?

You also refuse to understand that the imprint that Dr. Lee testified about appeared in more then one place and one more then one item. He has made it clear why he wishes he didn't get involved in the Simpson trial. However, he has never, ever, waivered on this testimony and his findings. He was never an advocate for the defense. He reported his findings and that was all.

GI
I AGREE

Fgunp2 frequently says i have not read THAT (LEE'S) testimony BUT I KNOW LEE was not honest in his testimony. I cannot figure how that thinking can be accepted as something other than grossly faulty.

It's like NOT KNOWING the details of the AM situation but don't believe anything wrong was done.

Lees testimony on that issue has been posted many times yet the attacks on
him on the issue are daily from a poster that says he did not read Lees testimony or the circumstances around the issue. Go figure what that means.

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, Lee did explain his comments. He also took the high road in saying that everybody had a right to their own opinon about the evidence.

My problem with Deedrick, Bodizak and Martz is that they are suppose to be neutral witnesses and they were anything but.

Deedrick and Bodizak played a perfect game of "evidence ping-pong" when it came other imprints. However, what matters most is that it shouldn't have mattered to them, what dog did they have in this fight?

The FBI is law enforcement. When they testify for the prosecution they try to put people in jail. They say they are neutral but in reality they are not.
There are too many occasions when the FBI has been caught testifying wrongly.

[GreenIce]

Dr LEE found and indetified a major problem with the wet samples.The lab knew the samples were wet when they should have been but they remained quiet.
"something " was a bell telling all something wrong had happened with the samples. Reasonable people were able to figure out what had happened and i believer the jury did.

Martin,

I agree with your post but I do think it is fair to point out that had Fung and Mozzola gone to their supervisors about this, they would have been told they needed to name names and did they see this person do it.

Don't forget, they have seen their supervisor in action and if Stephen Singular's book is accurate, they both knew that a supervisor told an employee to do something that the employee didn't think was right but did it anyway because they were told to do it.

Mozzola knows she put her initials on those bindles and she knows that they were not there and she had no explaination for that. She knew what was at stake. IMO.

[GreenIce]

The FBI is law enforcement. When they testify for the prosecution they try to put people in jail. They say they are neutral but in reality they are not.
There are too many occasions when the FBI has been caught testifying wrongly.

Martin,

A great book on this subject is "Tainted Evidence". It has a chapter on the Simpson case.

Remember the other FBI agent who wanted to testify about Martz and Ito said he could not? It seems to me that is what hurts the FBI. They don't live up to their image and it appears to me, they have no interest to either.

[martin II]

". . .at his news conference, dr. Lee praised the work of the f.b.i. Crime laboratory and its personnel, whom he described as "excellent scientists with high integrity." "personally, i have nothing but good to say about f.b.i. Laboratory," he said. . ."


good
.

[tv]

Someone please tell me how in the name of common sense could an imprint made in the pavement YEARS before the murders have shown up in 'more than one place and on more than one item'? Good grief!!!

[martin II]

The DOJ investigation of the FBI lab and the forced changes and reorganization that took place. Martz was demoted for testifying above his expertise and other things and removed from his position in the lab After the oj case. And don't forget Whitehurst sp and how he exposed that lab.

[weezer]

Well you must not be aware of the DOJ investigation of the FBI lab and the forced changes and reorganization that took place. Martz was demoted for testifying above his expertise and other things and removed from his position in the lab After the oj case. And don't forget Whitehurst sp and how he exposed that lab.

hey, you're the one that is proclaiming lee to be above reproach -- I simply quoted him.

[martin II]

Someone please tell me how in the name of common sense could an imprint made in the pavement YEARS before the murders have shown up in 'more than one place and on more than one item'? Good grief!!!

i suggest the same way the tile worker made the first one.

[tv]

i suggest the same way the tile worker made the first one.

What 'items' was the imprint found on?

[GreenIce]

i suggest the same way the tile worker made the first one.

Martin,

Another important aspect to this are the pictures that the defense was given vs Dr. Lee's pictures. What I didn't know is that a couple of tests could have been performed to say sure if one of the imprints was in fact an imprint or just the trowel marks. However, Dr. Lee could not perform these tests because of the damager it could have done to this evidence. I think that is the reason he gave.

This is in his testimony.

Also, what is also interesting on some of those imprints, Hank Goldberg try to suggest that they could have been from the cops or other personnel that had walked through the scene.

[fgump2]

Dr Lee explained his comment about the print. If you read his comment in a negative way thats ok. As we all have different opinions of what most experts said. Since Deedrick never used the word SAME AS in all of his testimony i took that to mean he was not sure about his results.
I took it to mean that it isn't possible to identify with certainty the person a hair came from with the mathematical certainty that is possible with blood - unless the hair has root DNA on it. With no root DNA the experts usually say 'is consistent with' but don't give numerical odds. (1 in 10M or whatever).

[martin II]

I took it to mean that it isn't possible to identify with certainty the person a hair came from with the mathematical certainty that is possible with blood - unless the hair has root DNA on it. With no root DNA the experts usually say 'is consistent with' but don't give numerical odds. (1 in 10M or whatever).

Dr Lees testimony on the issue is listed in court testimony There you can find exaxctly what his comments were on that issue rather than guess.. Or you can read GI post explaining his words.
Actually the prosecution said that foot print was made by a worker
at the cement company that cast the cement block that looked like individual tiles with grout lines.There were also a trowel mark made by the worker.

It seems that if you are going to constantly attack him on this that you would at least read the testimony to confirm that what you think is actually true. How can anyone take your attacks seriously when you also say you have not read his testimony. The other issue is when you are asked to give links for your strong claims you ignore the request which is against the TO rules of the thread.imo

[fgump2]

Fgump2,

For someone who often claims you don't know something, you sure have no problem posting you "know" about Dr. Lee's testimony. Just like with the 1 hair example. It was proven to you that you misunderstood what this was about, yet you continue to post that you don't trust him. You don't trust him because you haven't taken the time to research what exactly he said from the stand and what he wrote in his own books. You can't have it both ways.

I may have misunderstood the hair issue. Just remember we are all amatuers here. I still think I am right about the hair issue. If we are comparing hair dna, the proper issue would be to compare the hair (root) dna from the hat to the DNA from Simpson's blood. To get hairs from Simpson to compare to the hair on the hat, the criminologist would need about 20 or more hairs.

All FBI experts and witnesses are supposed to be neutral, they were not in the Simpson case. Bodizak and Deedrick were not neutral witnesses and they said a lot of nothing. Bodizak and Deedrick, like Martz were asked to refute the defense's claims---how is that being neutral witnesses? If they have some knowledge to clearify the issues, some valid information to tell the jury, I think they should do so. Henry Lee and Barry Scheck worked for weeks on the wording of 'Something wrong here' (complete with the grammar error, I guess), This is neutral. And what about the defense doctor (Huizenga) who said that Simpson's suffering was perhaps greater than Job's. This is being objective?. I am not a legal expert, but I thought that the prosecution brought in witnesses to convict the accused, and the defense brought them into prevent a conviction.
You also refuse to understand that the imprint that Dr. Lee testified about appeared in more then one place and one more then one item. He has made it clear why he wishes he didn't get involved in the Simpson trial. Yes I know, he felt bad that his reputation was damaged.However, he has never, ever, waivered on this testimony and his findings. He was never an advocate for the defense. He reported his findings and that was all.

I don't claim to understand everything about the situation. That is true. I understand that the Bodziak said that Henry Lee thought that imprints in the cement were crime scene marks (probably footprints) in blood. I undestand that Henry Lee became angry and refused to answer questions about it.

To me, Henry Lee was an advocate for the defense. He was not telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. In the criminal trial he said the struggle could have taken up to 20 minutes, and he gave no estimate for the shortest reasonable time it could have taken, except for saying "it was not a short time". This should bother people; the shortest possible reasonable time was obviously more important than the longest possible reasonable time.

In the civil trial he admitted that the struggle could reasonably taken more than a minute. Before he said that he tried to get by on "I know definitely not going to be one second". I think the whole testimony, criminal plus civil, was perjury on this issue. I don't need to be an expert on law or criminology to say this was perjury.

I didn't see anything improper about the testimony of either Bodziak or Deedrick. As for saying a lot of nothing, I think that applies to Henry Lee more than the two FBI people. To quote Petrocelli on Lee: "Just as expected he did not say " and therefore you cannot trust any of this evidence... but he had the uncanny ability to create that impression". I don't think he said anything in a concise manner in the trial.

Henry Lee talked about some of the mistakes the LAPD people made, and that was valid. I thought I understood the situation well enough to realize that his criticism was at least partly valid, they probably did make a lot of mistakes, but their mistakes didn't invalidate the results. To me it sounded like "the LAPD criminologists aren't up to the standards of my criminologists back in Conn.". As the civil judge said Fujiski said:"This not a malpractice suit against the LAPD".
Lee described some mistakes that the LAPD people made, and used video to show it, but as some writers replied that these mistakes could not have unfairly implicated Simpson. For example the defense showed that Mazzoli put her hand to her nose when she shouldn't have, and touched her hand to the ground when she shouldn't have. I thought this was a waste of time. I don't think that these mistakes could have caused Simpson's blood to show up at the crime scene, or Goldman's blood to show up in the Bronco. I am pretty sure these mistake were filmed when Mazzoli was picking up blood samples at the crime scene. Unless Mazzoli had Orenthal Simpson blood on her nose, I don't think her touching her hand to her nose should come up. There is a difference between mistakes that might have invalidated the results and mistakes that could not have.

[tv]

I took it to mean that it isn't possible to identify with certainty the person a hair came from with the mathematical certainty that is possible with blood - unless the hair has root DNA on it. With no root DNA the experts usually say 'is consistent with' but don't give numerical odds. (1 in 10M or whatever).

This article agrees with you --

It is recognized that hair comparisons do not constitute a basis for absolute personal identification. Whereas hairs cannot be positively identified as originating from a particular individual, it is unusual to find different people having the same hair characteristics. This is based on evidentiary samples received in casework and on proficiency tests prepared in the laboratory.

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/jan2004/research/2004_01_research01b.htm

[fgump2]

Dr Lees testimony on the issue is listed in court testimony There you can find exaxctly what his comments were on that issue rather than guess.. Or you can read GI post explaining his words.
Actually the prosecution said that foot print was made by a worker
at the cement company that cast the cement block that looked like individual tiles with grout lines.There were also a trowel mark made by the worker.

It seems that if you are going to constantly attack him on this that you would at least read the testimony to confirm that what you think is actually true. How can anyone take your attacks seriously when you also say you have not read his testimony. The other issue is when you are asked to give links for your strong claims you ignore the request which is against the TO rules of the thread.imo

I read Lee's testimony. I don't have links to the time when he refused to reply to the charges that he got marks in the cement confused with marks in the blood. I wish I did. Bodziak criticized him for other things as well.

[martin II]

I took it to mean that it isn't possible to identify with certainty the person a hair came from with the mathematical certainty that is possible with blood - unless the hair has root DNA on it. With no root DNA the experts usually say 'is consistent with' but don't give numerical odds. (1 in 10M or whatever).

The prosecution needs to prove Deedricks clains beyond a reasonable doubt.

Not with guess work. The jury was waiting on him to say same as oj at some time.You are not suggesting Same is not a possibility.
Bottom line he never gave the jury proof which may be why they may not have consider his testimony.If he looked at two hairs they were either the same or something else other than the same. You cannot expect a jury to convict on that.

[martin II]

I read Lee's testimony. I don't have links to the time when he refused to reply to the charges that he got marks in the cement confused with marks in the blood. I wish I did. Bodziak criticized him for other things as well.

if you read his testimony then you saw exactly what and how he sait it.

[martin II]

This article agrees with you --

It is recognized that hair comparisons do not constitute a basis for absolute personal identification. Whereas hairs cannot be positively identified as originating from a particular individual, it is unusual to find different people having the same hair characteristics. This is based on evidentiary samples received in casework and on proficiency tests prepared in the laboratory.

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/jan2004/research/2004_01_research01b.htm

OJ had hair like millions of other AA men. There are so many things that are unusal and people cannot be sent to jail based on that.

[tv]

OJ had hair like millions of other AA men. There are so many things that are unusal and people cannot be sent to jail based on that.

You have yet to understand that it's the totality of the evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ Simpson killed Ron and Nicole.

[GreenIce]

I don't claim to understand everything about the situation. That is true. I understand that the Bodziak said that Henry Lee thought that imprints in the cement were crime scene marks (probably footprints) in blood. I undestand that Henry Lee became angry and refused to answer questions about it.

To me, Henry Lee was an advocate for the defense. He was not telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. In the criminal trial he said the struggle could have taken up to 20 minutes, and he gave no estimate for the shortest reasonable time it could have taken, except for saying "it was not a short time". This should bother people; the shortest possible reasonable time was obviously more important than the longest possible reasonable time.

In the civil trial he admitted that the struggle could reasonably taken more than a minute. Before he said that he tried to get by on "I know definitely not going to be one second". I think the whole testimony, criminal plus civil, was perjury on this issue. I don't need to be an expert on law or criminology to say this was perjury.

I didn't see anything improper about the testimony of either Bodziak or Deedrick. As for saying a lot of nothing, I think that applies to Henry Lee more than the two FBI people. To quote Petrocelli on Lee: "Just as expected he did not say " and therefore you cannot trust any of this evidence... but he had the uncanny ability to create that impression". I don't think he said anything in a concise manner in the trial.

Henry Lee talked about some of the mistakes the LAPD people made, and that was valid. I thought I understood the situation well enough to realize that his criticism was at least partly valid, they probably did make a lot of mistakes, but their mistakes didn't invalidate the results. To me it sounded like "the LAPD criminologists aren't up to the standards of my criminologists back in Conn.". As the civil judge said Fujiski said:"This not a malpractice suit against the LAPD".
Lee described some mistakes that the LAPD people made, and used video to show it, but as some writers replied that these mistakes could not have unfairly implicated Simpson. For example the defense showed that Mazzoli put her hand to her nose when she shouldn't have, and touched her hand to the ground when she shouldn't have. I thought this was a waste of time. I don't think that these mistakes could have caused Simpson's blood to show up at the crime scene, or Goldman's blood to show up in the Bronco. I am pretty sure these mistake were filmed when Mazzoli was picking up blood samples at the crime scene. Unless Mazzoli had Orenthal Simpson blood on her nose, I don't think her touching her hand to her nose should come up. There is a difference between mistakes that might have invalidated the results and mistakes that could not have.

fgump2,

Dr. Lee never gave a time regarding the struggle. All he said that it was his opinon that it was not a short struggle and he explained why he felt it was not a short a struggle.

Dr. Lee did not committ perjury. He talked and talked and walked the walk regarding his testimony. Something a few of the state's witnesses could not do in this area.

You need to read his testimony before you blast off your perjury claims.

In regards to Dr. H who, made that remark about Job. First, that comment did not go over well with the defense. However, you do not know Dr. H and he may be a devout Christian and that maybe just his way of saying things. However, his comments about Job have nothing to do with his findings and opinons on this case.

If you want to trash Dr. H for this comment, perhaps you should find out if you were in the exact same situation Mr. Simpson and your defense called him to the stand, that he would not have said the exact same thing about what you were going through.

The defense obviously wanted Dr. Lee to say that his findings proved that evidence was tampered with in regards to the wet transfer. He refused. He explained, in court, what he meant by something was wrong. And something was wrong.

Again, he never gave a time about how long the struggle took and he explained it.

[GreenIce]

I read Lee's testimony. I don't have links to the time when he refused to reply to the charges that he got marks in the cement confused with marks in the blood. I wish I did. Bodziak criticized him for other things as well.

fgump2,

What about Vanatter's remarks that have been made public about his carrying the blood to Rockingham. He made it clear that he was no longer going to answer that question and that testimony speaks for itself?

Bodziak did have some harsh comments about Dr. Lee, however, to bad he couldn't back them up. Read his rebuttal testimony and not just when the DA's are walking him through it. Read his cross and you will see that he was not a neutral witness and his testimony, along with Deedrick's testimony was very, very misleading.

Also, you fail to realize that Dr. Lee did address the trowel marks issue, he did explain the situation regarding the pictures and more importantly, he never said that they were shoe prints. He said they were imprints that could be shoe prints but he could not say they were.

You also need to read his testimony where he also saw the similar imprints. You want to focus on one instance when there was more then one.

[GreenIce]

The prosecution needs to prove Deedricks clains beyond a reasonable doubt.

Not with guess work. The jury was waiting on him to say same as oj at some time.You are not suggesting Same is not a possibility.
Bottom line he never gave the jury proof which may be why they may not have consider his testimony.If he looked at two hairs they were either the same or something else other than the same. You cannot expect a jury to convict on that.

Martin,

Bottom line, Deedrick's testimony boils down to this, he believes the fibers came from the same cloth and that the hat found had several hairs in it, some were consistent with an African-American. That was it. He could go no further, no matter how he tried, his testimony means nothing, especially with regards to the fibers.

[William Anthony]

I don't like your tone. It's none of your business if this is the only forum I post on, if I post on a hundred forums or who does or does not hold my interest.

Nothing in my tone, unless you read something into it. I was just wondering why you hadn't shown as much outrage at those layers and the juries in the other cases you mentioned.

[William Anthony]

I have no idea. My suggestion is that you ask him.

I thought you would have been compelled to remind him.:)

[William Anthony]

You know what line, William -- the line of crap that Johnnie Cochran spoon fed the jury.

The burden of proof requires the element of the burden of persuasion.

[martin II]

You have yet to understand that it's the totality of the evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ Simpson killed Ron and Nicole.


Some people still believe the world is flat.

12 dedicated LA citizens gave 9 mo of their time to work and make sure justic was served. When they finished the judge thanked them for their service.Only the loosers were unhappy and still caint deal with it.

[martin II]

fgump2,

What about Vanatter's remarks that have been made public about his carrying the blood to Rockingham. He made it clear that he was no longer going to answer that question and that testimony speaks for itself?

Bodziak did have some harsh comments about Dr. Lee, however, to bad he couldn't back them up. Read his rebuttal testimony and not just when the DA's are walking him through it. Read his cross and you will see that he was not a neutral witness and his testimony, along with Deedrick's testimony was very, very misleading.

Also, you fail to realize that Dr. Lee did address the trowel marks issue, he did explain the situation regarding the pictures and more importantly, he never said that they were shoe prints. He said they were imprints that could be shoe prints but he could not say they were.

You also need to read his testimony where he also saw the similar imprints. You want to focus on one instance when there was more then one.


GI

Thanks for providing these comments to those that are misinformed about Lees testimony.

[martin II]

If you can provide a bio of any expert that testified in the trial that is better than Dr LEES please do so.

[martin II]

Martin,

Bottom line, Deedrick's testimony boils down to this, he believes the fibers came from the same cloth and that the hat found had several hairs in it, some were consistent with an African-American. That was it. He could go no further, no matter how he tried, his testimony means nothing, especially with regards to the fibers.

Well we all know that Deedrick did not have a fiber source to compare the other fibers too. No sweat suite was ever presented in court.
He never identified who the white person was that left the white hairs.We Don't know who left the blode hair on the bronco steering wheel either.Noty sure but i think there was a blood drop on a glove that was not from oj.ron or nicole.

[martin II]

Martin,

Bottom line, Deedrick's testimony boils down to this, he believes the fibers came from the same cloth and that the hat found had several hairs in it, some were consistent with an African-American. That was it. He could go no further, no matter how he tried, his testimony means nothing, especially with regards to the fibers.

Deedrick had the nerve to attack Dr Lee.Thats funny.

[tv]

Nothing in my tone, unless you read something into it. I was just wondering why you hadn't shown as much outrage at those layers and the juries in the other cases you mentioned.

You don't know that I haven't but it's really not your concern either way.

[tv]

Deedrick had the nerve to attack Dr Lee.Thats funny.

What's funny is that you don't realize that Deedrick's reputation is intact and Dr. Lee's is not.

[tv]

"Judge Larry Fidler in the Phil spector trial said he was convinced Dr. Henry Lee removed the evidence, but he stopped short of holding him in contempt."

Nice. Really nice. So he's an expert; that's great except for the fact that no amount of expertise does any good when the guy lies and hides evidence.

:beer:

[tv]

Some people still believe the world is flat.

12 dedicated LA citizens gave 9 mo of their time to work and make sure justic was served. When they finished the judge thanked them for their service.Only the loosers were unhappy and still caint deal with it.

martin, come on, no one in the civilized world believes the world is flat. :no:

You're right -- the judge thanked the jury and told them to pack their bags but, oops! They'd already done that before they went into deliberations. :tongue:

[tv]

Well we all know that Deedrick did not have a fiber source to compare the other fibers too. No sweat suite was ever presented in court.
He never identified who the white person was that left the white hairs.We Don't know who left the blode hair on the bronco steering wheel either.Noty sure but i think there was a blood drop on a glove that was not from oj.ron or nicole.

You're wrong but you'd know that if you'd read the testimony regarding the DNA evidence.

[martin II]

What 'items' was the imprint found on?

Although the Bundy walkway looked like individual tiles they were not. They were large blocks of cement with tile impressions.Several square feet in size.
The worker that made these concrete blocks stepped on it and made a shoe print.It had some parrelle lines on it. There was 1-2 other items that had simular lines. I think a corner of the envelope had these lines.But some said these lines was from Rons jeans.
Lee said the shoe prints looked like a print that could have been made in blood but he did not confirm this as fact.The prosecution took this and ran with it to say he made a mistake which he did.After he had damaged the prosecution with his other testimony they need to try to show he made a mistake.He cleared this up but refused to continue to answer questions from some reporters camping out at his home/office.I think Lee was looking at pictures when he made the comment.

[martin II]

You're wrong but you'd know that if you'd read the testimony regarding the DNA evidence.

I have read quite a bit but maby i need to read more.But i did say i was not sure.

[martin II]

martin, come on, no one in the civilized world believes the world is flat. :no:

You're right -- the judge thanked the jury and told them to pack their bags but, oops! They'd already done that before they went into deliberations. :tongue:

Look
After both sides did their closing arguments why do you think the jury did not know the case was finished and the jurge would give them the case that day or the next.
If i had been there for 9 mo i would have had my bags packed also.

[tv]

I have read quite a bit but maby i need to read more.But i did say i was not sure.

Then maybe you shouldn't criticize other posters for not being sure...just an observation.

[tv]

Look
After both sides did their closing arguments why do you think the jury did not know the case was finished and the jurge would give them the case that day or the next.
If i had been there for 9 mo i would have had my bags packed also.

I have no doubt your bags would have been packed before deliberations.

[martin II]

What's funny is that you don't realize that Deedrick's reputation is intact and Dr. Lee's is not.

Dr Lees reputation is larger than it was before ojs trial.It was always larger than Dougs.He is still in great demand by prosecutors and defence lawyers.That you cannot deny.Unless you just wan to.
I am waiting on the bio of the people that testified that was more qualified than LEE:cool:

[martin II]

martin, come on, no one in the civilized world believes the world is flat. :no:

You're right -- the judge thanked the jury and told them to pack their bags but, oops! They'd already done that before they went into deliberations. :tongue:

Deedrick seemed to be talking to people that believe it is.

[tv]

Dr Lees reputation is larger than it was before ojs trial.It was always larger than Dougs.He is still in great demand by prosecutors and defence lawyers.That you cannot deny.Unless you just wan to.
I am waiting on the bio of the people that testified that was more qualified than LEE:cool:

Oh yes, he might be a part of the Casey Anthony defense. Now there's a case that will fit his style perfectly! If you don't realize that Dr. Lee's 'large' reputation has suffered then you don't get out enough.

If you want the bio of anyone else that testified I suggest an internet search on your part.

[tv]

Look
After both sides did their closing arguments why do you think the jury did not know the case was finished and the jurge would give them the case that day or the next.
If i had been there for 9 mo i would have had my bags packed also.

I knew they packed them before deliberations but are you saying they packed their bags before they were given the case? :eek:

[tv]

I thought you would have been compelled to remind him.:)

Your problem with The Boys is your problem. :shrug:

[The Boys]

Oh yes, he might be a part of the Casey Anthony defense. Now there's a case that will fit his style perfectly! If you don't realize that Dr. Lee's 'large' reputation has suffered then you don't get out enough.

If you want the bio of anyone else that testified I suggest an internet search on your part.

Love how he always only wants something when he thinks it does him some good - cause here's the thing, if you're going strictly off of bios and reputation then martin would end up having to admit that Vincent Bugliosi is considered one of the greatest prosecutors in history. But all martin does is slam the guy, so I guess the bio doesn't really count does it?

[tv]

Although the Bundy walkway looked like individual tiles they were not. They were large blocks of cement with tile impressions.Several square feet in size.
The worker that made these concrete blocks stepped on it and made a shoe print.It had some parrelle lines on it. There was 1-2 other items that had simular lines. I think a corner of the envelope had these lines.But some said these lines was from Rons jeans.
Lee said the shoe prints looked like a print that could have been made in blood but he did not confirm this as fact.The prosecution took this and ran with it to say he made a mistake which he did.After he had damaged the prosecution with his other testimony they need to try to show he made a mistake.He cleared this up but refused to continue to answer questions from some reporters camping out at his home/office.I think Lee was looking at pictures when he made the comment.

Looks like a lot of excuses for Dr. Lee's screw-ups to me.

[tv]

Love how he always only wants something when he thinks it does him some good - cause here's the thing, if you're going strictly off of bios and reputation then martin would end up having to admit that Vincent Bugliosi is considered one of the greatest prosecutors in history. But all martin does is slam the guy, so I guess the bio doesn't really count does it?

I have to agree. Not only that but he hasn't read a word that Bugliosi wrote about the case so he's uninformed on the subject.

[The Boys]

I have to agree. Not only that but he hasn't read a word that Bugliosi wrote about the case so he's uninformed on the subject.

Why read when another poster tells you what to say?:eek:

[tv]

Why read when another poster tells you what to say?:eek:

I have to give you another beer on that one. :beer:

[martin II]

I knew they packed them before deliberations but are you saying they packed their bags before they were given the case? :eek:

no i said what i would maby have done.
You brought up the issue when they packed their bags. i have no idea when they poacked them and find it is not really a important issue when they packed them.
i am saying that after closing they knew they would get the case very soon.

Actually i have no reliable information that they even packed their bags before they finished deliberations. This sound like some gossip.
Did they jury tell you or a friend that they did?

[martin II]

I have to agree. Not only that but he hasn't read a word that Bugliosi wrote about the case so he's uninformed on the subject.

I try not to spend money on trash.
I evaluated VB based on what YOU said was in his book and what was reported in the media that the prosecution said about him.

[tv]

no i said what i would maby have done.
You brought up the issue when they packed their bags. i have no idea when they poacked them and find it is not really a important issue when they packed them.
i am saying that after closing they knew they would get the case very soon.

Actually i have no reliable information that they even packed their bags before they finished deliberations. This sound like some gossip.
Did they jury tell you or a friend that they did?

The jury did tell me in a way. It was in the book written by Armanda Cooley, Carrie Bess and Marsha Rubin-Jackson -- Madam Foreman: A Rush to Judgement?

[tv]

I try not to spend money on trash.
I evaluated VB based on what YOU said was in his book and what was reported in the media that the prosecution said about him.

So you don't like the prosecution unless they disagree with Mr. Bugliosi? You're so funny, martin. :biggrin:

[martin II]

I have to agree. Not only that but he hasn't read a word that Bugliosi wrote about the case so he's uninformed on the subject.

VB did not testify in the case because the prosecution didn't believe he knew the evidence and had no standing. they also rejected his offer of advice which caused him to slam them in that book.

[martin II]

So you don't like the prosecution unless they disagree with Mr. Bugliosi? You're so funny, martin. :biggrin:

Those are your words.

[martin II]

The jury did tell me in a way. It was in the book written by Armanda Cooley, Carrie Bess and Marsha Rubin-Jackson -- Madam Foreman: A Rush to Judgement?

They knew they were going home at some point soon so why not pack their bags.

[tv]

VB did not testify in the case because the prosecution didn't believe he knew the evidence and had no standing. they also rejected his offer of advice which caused him to slam them in that book.

Even mentioning that Vincent Bugliosi didn't testify in the case is ridiculous. As for them rejecting his offer of advice...when did he offer them advice? You really need to stop listening to whoever is filling your mind with falsehoods and do your own research.

[martin II]

The jury did tell me in a way. It was in the book written by Armanda Cooley, Carrie Bess and Marsha Rubin-Jackson -- Madam Foreman: A Rush to Judgement?

"A rush to judgement" came from Cochran so since they used his comment i take it that the entire book is about how the prosecution rushed to judgement when they accused oj of murder and couldn't prove it.
From some of your post i was beginning to believe the entire contents was about the glove.hahaha:cool:

[tv]

"A rush to judgement" came from Cochran so since they used his comment i take it that the entire book is about how the prosecution rushed to judgement when they accused oj of murder and couldn't prove it.
From some of your post i was beginning to believe the entire contents was about the glove.hahaha:cool:

No, the entire book is about their excuses for why they rushed to judgement. You'd know that if you'd read it.

[martin II]

They should have realized that a nine month trial might not have a verdict for weeks. Judge Ito must not have expected them to pack before they got deliberated because he told them AFTER the verdict to go pack. Their packing indicates to me that it was a rush to judgement -- less than three hours.

I don't know why but you still seem to believe the a jury has some set time to deliberate before giving a verdict. There is no reason that they should have thought that they would not have a verdict in any set time. They knew that by law they could give a verdict at any time in deliberations after no juror had any questions on any witness or evidence. Jurors that had questions asked them and all jurors discussed them to the satisfaction of all.
They all decided that they wanted to take a vote. it was not guilty.

After this vote, it seems that you think they should have put the vote aside,
read all the trial testimony and made sure they deliberayed for a week to satisfy you.
I have posted a jurors comments about what they did in deliberations but obviously that is not enough. You wanted them to deliberate for some weeks hoping the results would be different. hahaha

The results would have been the same because the prosecution did not prove their case. imo.

This is not the first time a jury came to a verdict in less than days/weeks. There was a murder case in Texas where the jury convicted the defendant in one hour of deliberations.

[Hipcheck]

Martin,

Bottom line, Deedrick's testimony boils down to this, he believes the fibers came from the same cloth and that the hat found had several hairs in it, some were consistent with an African-American. That was it. He could go no further, no matter how he tried, his testimony means nothing, especially with regards to the fibers.

Deedric testified that the fibers found at the murder scene were consistant with fibers from O.J. Simpson's carpet in his Ford Bronco.

Deedrick also testified that hairs found on the knit cap and on Ron Goldman's bloody shirt share the same microscopic characteristics as hair belonging to O.J. Simpson.

You add that O.J.'s blood was found at the murder scenes.

A size 12 bloody shoe Bruno Magli shoe print was found at the murder scene and a bloody Bruno Magli shoe print found in O.J.'s Ford Bronco and we had photos of O.J. wearing the same type of shoes.

And we have O.J. taking a polygraph test and flunking that test very badly.

And there is much more evidence that I didn't list.

All of this tells most people that O.J. murdered Nicole and Ron.

[martin II]

No, the entire book is about their excuses for why they rushed to judgement. You'd know that if you'd read it.

I only read books that i think have something important to say.
These jury members told me all i needed to know about them when they voted not guilty.I give them credit for being able to see through all the smoke and mirrors and false testimony by prosecutions witnesses.I also give them credit for ignoring Clarke when she told them to believe her because she says so. i guess she thought the jury worked for her.

[martin II]

Deedric testified that the fibers found at the murder scene were consistant with fibers from O.J. Simpson's carpet in his Ford Bronco.

Deedrick also testified that hairs found on the knit cap and on Ron Goldman's bloody shirt share the same microscopic characteristics as hair belonging to O.J. Simpson.

You add that O.J.'s blood was found at the murder scenes.

A size 12 bloody shoe Bruno Magli shoe print was found at the murder scene and a bloody Bruno Magli shoe print found in O.J.'s Ford Bronco and we had photos of O.J. wearing the same type of shoes.

And we have O.J. taking a polygraph test and flunking that test very badly.

And there is much more evidence that I didn't list.

All of this tells most people that O.J. murdered Nicole and Ron.


And we have testimnony by Park that proves that oj was in his house when
the murders happened. Therefore he was not in the s walkway at 10:45 and was not at Bundy and Dorothy AT 10:45. And not at Bundy at 10:40 ORM 10:20 as Clarke claimed.End of story.

[martin II]

Deedric testified that the fibers found at the murder scene were consistant with fibers from O.J. Simpson's carpet in his Ford Bronco.Do you have a link to prove this?

Deedrick also testified that hairs found on the knit cap and on Ron Goldman's bloody shirt share the same microscopic characteristics as hair belonging to O.J. Simpson.

You add that O.J.'s blood was found at the murder scenes.

A size 12 bloody shoe Bruno Magli shoe print was found at the murder scene and a bloody Bruno Magli shoe print found in O.J.'s Ford Bronco and we had photos of O.J. wearing the same type of shoes.There was never any size 12 BM shoe presented in court.

And we have O.J. taking a polygraph test and flunking that test very badly.GOSSIP

And there is much more evidence that I didn't list.

All of this tells most people that O.J. murdered Nicole and Ron.


It didn't tell the jury that in case you missed it.

[martin II]

No, the entire book is about their excuses for why they rushed to judgement. You'd know that if you'd read it.

More than likely they would dissagree with you but i am sure they are pleased
that you purchased the book. I think they put that stuff in the book about the glove so you would buy it.:cool:

[martin II]

Even mentioning that Vincent Bugliosi didn't testify in the case is ridiculous. As for them rejecting his offer of advice...when did he offer them advice? You really need to stop listening to whoever is filling your mind with falsehoods and do your own research.

I thought you or someone else that loves him posted that he was pissed because the prosecution rejected him as a advisor to them.Maby it was GG that made that comment.

[Hipcheck]

And we have testimnony by Park that proves that oj was in his house when
the murders happened. Therefore he was not in the s walkway at 10:45 and was not at Bundy and Dorothy AT 10:45. And not at Bundy at 10:40 ORM 10:20 as Clarke claimed.End of story.

Total B.S.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[tv]

I don't know why but you still seem to believe the a jury has some set time to deliberate before giving a verdict. There is no reason that they should have thought that they would not have a verdict in any set time. They knew that by law they could give a verdict at any time in deliberations after no juror had any questions on any witness or evidence. Jurors that had questions asked them and all jurors discussed them to the satisfaction of all.
They all decided that they wanted to take a vote. it was not guilty.

After this vote, it seems that you think they should have put the vote aside,
read all the trial testimony and made sure they deliberayed for a week to satisfy you.
I have posted a jurors comments about what they did in deliberations but obviously that is not enough. You wanted them to deliberate for some weeks hoping the results would be different. hahaha

The results would have been the same because the prosecution did not prove their case. imo.

This is not the first time a jury came to a verdict in less than days/weeks. There was a murder case in Texas where the jury convicted the defendant in one hour of deliberations.

You've cited this case before and you said the trial itself was only a couple of days. That's the difference.

[tv]

And we have testimnony by Park that proves that oj was in his house when
the murders happened. Therefore he was not in the s walkway at 10:45 and was not at Bundy and Dorothy AT 10:45. And not at Bundy at 10:40 ORM 10:20 as Clarke claimed.End of story.

http://bestsmileys.com/lol/5.gifThanks, I love a good laugh!!

[tv]

I thought you or someone else that loves him posted that he was pissed because the prosecution rejected him as a advisor to them.Maby it was GG that made that comment.

I couldn't love him anymore than you love OJ Simpson but it wasn't me.

[tv]

More than likely they would dissagree with you but i am sure they are pleased
that you purchased the book. I think they put that stuff in the book about the glove so you would buy it.:cool:

I got it off ebay for 1 cent. They didn't have to tell me that the glove fit -- I already knew that.

[martin II]

I got it off ebay for 1 cent. They didn't have to tell me that the glove fit -- I already knew that.

TV
The oj jury deliberation time was not unique at all. Here are a few that did not deliberated one day.Maby you should write a letter of dissagreement to them haha

Georgia man convicted on terror-related charges updated Wed, August 12, 2009

A jury convicted a 23-year-old Georgia man on terrorism-related charges Wednesday after deliberating for about five hours, prosecutors said.

Man convicted in child's videotaped sexual assault updated Tue, March 3, 2009

After deliberating for more than four hours, a jury convicted a Nevada man of 22 counts Tuesday for videotaping himself sexually assaulting a toddler, CNN affiliates report.

Wife, closeted lover guilty of husband's murder updated Fri, September 29, 2006

A jury took less than two hours Thursday to convict a woman and the lover she was hiding in her closet of first-degree murder for beating and strangling her husband.



Guilty on all 3 counts in child's murder updated Fri, November 18, 2005

It took five hours of deliberation Thursday for a jury to return guilty verdicts on murder, kidnapping and sexual battery charges for Joseph Smith in the February 2004 abduction and slaying of 11-year-old Carlie Brucia.

Amusement park manager found guilty of reckless homicide updated Thu, May 19, 2005

A jury took less than an hour Monday to convict a former amusement park manager of reckless homicide for a woman's fatal fall from a pendulum-like ride, The Hawk, in March 2004.

Ex-Klansman's fate in jury's hands updated Wed, May 22, 2002

The jury in the Bobby Frank Cherry trial retired for the evening early Tuesday night, just a few hours after being given the case of the former Ku Klux Klansman accused of murder in a 1963 church bombing that killed four black schoolgirls.

[tv]

It didn't tell the jury that in case you missed it.

Sure it did but they didn't care. Jury nullification.

[martin II]

I got it off ebay for 1 cent. They didn't have to tell me that the glove fit -- I already knew that.

Your mind told your eyes something they did not see. maby.

[tv]

TV
The oj jury deliberation time was not unique at all. Here are a few that did not deliberated one day.Maby you should write a letter of dissagreement to them haha

Georgia man convicted on terror-related charges updated Wed, August 12, 2009

A jury convicted a 23-year-old Georgia man on terrorism-related charges Wednesday after deliberating for about five hours, prosecutors said. Two more hours than the OJ jury.

Man convicted in child's videotaped sexual assault updated Tue, March 3, 2009

After deliberating for more than four hours, a jury convicted a Nevada man of 22 counts Tuesday for videotaping himself sexually assaulting a toddler, CNN affiliates report. This crime was on tape and they still deliberated longer than the OJ jury.

Wife, closeted lover guilty of husband's murder updated Fri, September 29, 2006

A jury took less than two hours Thursday to convict a woman and the lover she was hiding in her closet of first-degree murder for beating and strangling her husband.

Guilty on all 3 counts in child's murder updated Fri, November 18, 2005

It took five hours of deliberation Thursday for a jury to return guilty verdicts on murder, kidnapping and sexual battery charges for Joseph Smith in the February 2004 abduction and slaying of 11-year-old Carlie Brucia. Her kidnapping was caught on a security camera and they still deliberated over two hours longer than the OJ jury.

Amusement park manager found guilty of reckless homicide updated Thu, May 19, 2005

A jury took less than an hour Monday to convict a former amusement park manager of reckless homicide for a woman's fatal fall from a pendulum-like ride, The Hawk, in March 2004.

Ex-Klansman's fate in jury's hands updated Wed, May 22, 2002

The jury in the Bobby Frank Cherry trial retired for the evening early Tuesday night, just a few hours after being given the case of the former Ku Klux Klansman accused of murder in a 1963 church bombing that killed four black schoolgirls. This doesn't say they had a verdict. It says they retired for the evening.

Nine months, numerous witnesses, a staggering amount of evidence and all they could do was ask for a read back of Park's testimony which they didn't even finish hearing. Absolutely inexcusable.

[martin II]

I got it off ebay for 1 cent. They didn't have to tell me that the glove fit -- I already knew that.

I think that is the price for furhmans books also.

[tv]

Your mind told your eyes something they did not see. maby.

I don't know what this means but they said it was obvious the glove fit -- they said it would have fit anybody.

[tv]

I think that is the price for furhmans books also.

LOL, when in doubt slam Fuhrman! :D

[The Boys]

LOL, when in doubt slam Fuhrman! :D

:beer:

[martin II]

Nine months, numerous witnesses, a staggering amount of evidence and all they could do was ask for a read back of Park's testimony which they didn't even finish hearing. Absolutely inexcusable.

tv
look the jury sat and listened to the witnesses for 9 mo. they knew which testimnony they believed and what was not believable. They tossed this testimony around in their minds during the trial.
When they started deliberations they asked people that had questions on the validity of the testimony to discuss it.They did. There is no way they could continue to ask questions and discuss the case when everyone said i have no m ore questions . we should vote. Obviously park was central to the case as he was supposed to have seen oj at the front door.
They wanted to discuss Park because some had questions about his truthfulness or correctness.

This was important because they zeroed in on a issue that could turn the trial. If Park was not truthful about what he testified to then according to the judges instructions they could toss ALL of his testimony.

They remembered what they had seen during the field trip to ojs house and they stood at the ashford gate and looked at the front door of ojs house to see if park could see through all the trees and bushed that covered the door from his position at the ashford gate. After the readback all came to the conclusion that park was not truthful in his testimony about what he saw.
So if park did not see what he said he saw he lied. That was a major issue.
They knew oj brought the two bags down indicating he was in his house. Katos testimony about the lights supported this.

So if oj was in his house all the other blood and gloves BS was the work of someone else.Not guilty.

[tv]

tv
look the jury sat and listened to the witnesses for 9 mo. they knew which testimnony they believed and what was not believable. They tossed this testimony around in their minds during the trial.
When they started deliberations they asked people that had questions on the validity of the testimony to discuss it.They did. There is no way they could continue to ask questions and discuss the case when everyone said i have no m ore questions . we should vote. Obviously park was central to the case as he was supposed to have seen oj at the front door.
They wanted to discuss Park because some had questions about his truthfulness or correctness.

This was important because they zeroed in on a issue that could turn the trial. If Park was not truthful about what he testified to then according to the judges instructions they could toss ALL of his testimony.

They remembered what they had seen during the field trip to ojs house and they stood at the ashford gate and looked at the front door of ojs house to see if park could see through all the trees and bushed that covered the door from his position at the ashford gate. After the readback all came to the conclusion that park was not truthful in his testimony about what he saw.
So if park did not see what he said he saw he lied. That was a major issue.
They knew oj brought the two bags down indicating he was in his house. Katos testimony about the lights supported this.

So if oj was in his house all the other blood and gloves BS was the work of someone else.Not guilty.

None of this stuff was the reason they gave for the not guilty verdict. In fact some of them said they thought Park was truthful. Add in the comment by Carrie Bess and it tells me that guilty/not guilty was never the issue for them.

[martin II]

LOL, when in doubt slam Fuhrman! :D

when you said their book cost .01 cent were you slamming them.
Furhmans book may be two for .01

[martin II]

None of this stuff was the reason they gave for the not guilty verdict. In fact some of them said they thought Park was truthful. Add in the comment by Carrie Bess and it tells me that guilty/not guilty was never the issue for them.

See how easy it is for one to make stuff up.

[tv]

when you said their book cost .01 cent were you slamming them.
Furhmans book may be two for .01

I was not slamming them. I really paid one cent for the book. I see you're unfamiliar with buying used books on ebay.

[tv]

See how easy it is for one to make stuff up.

:confused: Who are you saying is making stuff up? Yourself?

[martin II]

None of this stuff was the reason they gave for the not guilty verdict. In fact some of them said they thought Park was truthful. Add in the comment by Carrie Bess and it tells me that guilty/not guilty was never the issue for them.

They may have thought he was a trurhful person but they all agreed that they did not believe him. They didn't believe His testimony when they had the readback.They caught him

[martin II]

:confused: Who are you saying is making stuff up? Yourself?

Your eyes.

[tv]

They may have thought he was a trurhful person bhut they all agreed that they dud nit believe him. They didn't believe His testimony when they had the readback.They caught him

They didn't even finish listening to the read back. They started deliberating at 9:16 AM. They asked for the read back shortly before 12 noon. Ito said they would start the read back at 1:00 in the courtroom. They went to lunch and then to the court room for the read back. After 75 minutes of the read back Ito called a break. The jury chose not to finish listening to the read back after the break and rendered a verdict at 2:28 PM. If you count in bathroom breaks, voting and paperwork that's considerably less than three hours.

[tv]

Your eyes.

Oh, I get it. Who are you going to believe -- OJ Simpson or your lying eyes? :punch:

[martin II]

Oh, I get it. Who are you going to believe -- OJ Simpson or your lying eyes? :punch:

Actually i believe the jury 100%

[tv]

Actually i believe the jury 100%

The jury didn't testify.

[martin II]

They didn't even finish listening to the read back. They started deliberating at 9:16 AM. They asked for the read back shortly before 12 noon. Ito said they would start the read back at 1:00 in the courtroom. They went to lunch and then to the court room for the read back. After 75 minutes of the read back Ito called a break. The jury chose not to finish listening to the read back after the break and rendered a verdict at 2:28 PM. If you count in bathroom breaks, voting and paperwork that's considerably less than three hours.

Obviously they heard enough. They only needed to hear what he said he saw.once that knew that was not possible they decided that they should take a vote and they did.What you are ignoring is that all the members said lets vote.

[tv]

Obviously they heard enough. They only needed to hear what he said he saw.once that knew that was not possible they decided that they should take a vote and they did.What you are ignoring is that all the members said lets vote.

They should have had the final vote at 9:17 because they already knew what the verdict was going to be. All they did was waste the court's time with the Park read back while their clothes got more wrinkled in those suitcases.

[socaldiva]

The jury didn't testify.

Isn't it amazing that Cochran, Sharpiro, Jason, Kato & many, many others who knew Simpson intimately doubted his innocense, yet there are some posters here that KNOW he is innocent? Mind boggling.

[martin II]

The jury didn't testify.

I believe their verdict and that they were all honorable citizens that brought la justice.

[martin II]

They should have had the final vote at 9:17 because they already knew what the verdict was going to be. All they did was waste the court's time with the Park read back while their clothes got more wrinkled in those suitcases.

Did they have pretty dresses or just some old scrubby cheap stuff?

[tv]

Isn't it amazing that Cochran, Sharpiro, Jason, Kato & many, many others who knew Simpson intimately doubted his innocense, yet there are some posters here that KNOW he is innocent? Mind boggling.

My mind is boggled every day reading this message board. I always think nothing can surprise me and then what do you know -- something else is posted that blows my mind.

[tv]

Did they have pretty dresses or just some old scrubby cheap stuff?

You're the mindreader so why are you asking me?

[martin II]

Looks like a lot of excuses for Dr. Lee's screw-ups to me.

tv

The info in my post came from testimony of DEEDRICK. I see you have not read his testimony either otherwise you would know that.
Actually i don't blame for not reading it as it was all lost efforts to help the prosecution.
This guy could not even say two hairs were the same.So he just said could be or simular etc.

[GreenIce]

Although the Bundy walkway looked like individual tiles they were not. They were large blocks of cement with tile impressions.Several square feet in size.
The worker that made these concrete blocks stepped on it and made a shoe print.It had some parrelle lines on it. There was 1-2 other items that had simular lines. I think a corner of the envelope had these lines.But some said these lines was from Rons jeans.
Lee said the shoe prints looked like a print that could have been made in blood but he did not confirm this as fact.The prosecution took this and ran with it to say he made a mistake which he did.After he had damaged the prosecution with his other testimony they need to try to show he made a mistake.He cleared this up but refused to continue to answer questions from some reporters camping out at his home/office.I think Lee was looking at pictures when he made the comment.

Martin,

There was more then one imprint on the walkway---Joe Bosco's book. Also, it was the envelope with the glasses, another envelope and piece of paper at Bundy. Also Ron's jeans. Funny, the second envelope, so clearly visiable in the pictures and the other piece of paper were not collected. Imagine that?!!!

What is interesting is how Goldberg describes how he bested Dr. Lee in his book. Bottom line, the DA's played games with the crime scene photos. When Dr. Lee took his own photos and handed in his reports, that is when they contacted Bodizak and Bodizak did the token gesture of sending it to Deedrick.

IMO, the three FBI witnesses that took the stand in the criminal trial did an awesome job for the defense.

Don't forget, these patterns were missed by their experts. What really gets me is how come Bodizak and Deedrick didn't use the evidence to run their test imprints. Deedrick had no experience doing these in blood. Bodizak said a whole bunch of nothing.

[martin II]

tv
TMZ just announced that R Blake will be on some tv show tonight.He is singing.He was convicted i thought. Is he out on bail????

[GreenIce]

tv
TMZ just announced that R Blake will be on some tv show tonight.He is singing.He was convicted i thought. Is he out on bail????

Martin,

He was aquitted in the criminal trial and lost the civil trial.

[GreenIce]

no i said what i would maby have done.
You brought up the issue when they packed their bags. i have no idea when they poacked them and find it is not really a important issue when they packed them.
i am saying that after closing they knew they would get the case very soon.

Actually i have no reliable information that they even packed their bags before they finished deliberations. This sound like some gossip.
Did they jury tell you or a friend that they did?

Martin,

I remember in an interview that the jurors were told they would have to pack up their stuff every morning before they left for court and I think their luggage was loaded on the bus as well. As soon as they rendered their verdict, they were going to be driven to a certain point and their family members or friends was to meet them there.

I remember this because Stone Phillips asked a juror about packing up their bags. What really bothers me is that the jurors came back with their verdict and they had to wait almost 24 hours before it was read----guess they had to unpack a bit.

[martin II]

Martin,

There was more then one imprint on the walkway---Joe Bosco's book. Also, it was the envelope with the glasses, another envelope and piece of paper at Bundy. Also Ron's jeans. Funny, the second envelope, so clearly visiable in the pictures and the other piece of paper were not collected. Imagine that?!!!

What is interesting is how Goldberg describes how he bested Dr. Lee in his book. Bottom line, the DA's played games with the crime scene photos. When Dr. Lee took his own photos and handed in his reports, that is when they contacted Bodizak and Bodizak did the token gesture of sending it to Deedrick.

IMO, the three FBI witnesses that took the stand in the criminal trial did an awesome job for the defense.

Don't forget, these patterns were missed by their experts. What really gets me is how come Bodizak and Deedrick didn't use the evidence to run their test imprints. Deedrick had no experience doing these in blood. Bodizak said a whole bunch of nothing.

Bodizak was the guy that brought a size 9 bm shoe in court and tried to get the jury to believe they were size 12 that made the prints.

[martin II]

Martin,

He was aquitted in the criminal trial and lost the civil trial.

Thanks
I didn't follow his case. I am not sure but i think it may be "Dancing with the stars."

[GreenIce]

I don't know why but you still seem to believe the a jury has some set time to deliberate before giving a verdict. There is no reason that they should have thought that they would not have a verdict in any set time. They knew that by law they could give a verdict at any time in deliberations after no juror had any questions on any witness or evidence. Jurors that had questions asked them and all jurors discussed them to the satisfaction of all.
They all decided that they wanted to take a vote. it was not guilty.

After this vote, it seems that you think they should have put the vote aside,
read all the trial testimony and made sure they deliberayed for a week to satisfy you.
I have posted a jurors comments about what they did in deliberations but obviously that is not enough. You wanted them to deliberate for some weeks hoping the results would be different. hahaha

The results would have been the same because the prosecution did not prove their case. imo.

This is not the first time a jury came to a verdict in less than days/weeks. There was a murder case in Texas where the jury convicted the defendant in one hour of deliberations.

Martin,

Apparently G's would have needed several weeks to figure out the judge's instructions were. Any one who has read his instructions know that the only legal verdict they could have come back with was a not guilty verdict.

The jury had no trust for the state's case and it wasn't just Mark Fuhrman. In fact, it was Phil Vanatter who had the most credibility problems. Everyone knew what MF, so there was no point in discussing him. And since there was no explaination on how the glove got behind the wall, it didn't take long to figure out they had to give that to the defense. The blood on the back gate, the blood on the sock and the blood in the Bronco, again had to go to the defense.

What really bothers me is that the jurors should not be blamed for the length of deliberations, the LAPD should be blamed for it.

[GreenIce]

Deedric testified that the fibers found at the murder scene were consistant with fibers from O.J. Simpson's carpet in his Ford Bronco.

Deedrick also testified that hairs found on the knit cap and on Ron Goldman's bloody shirt share the same microscopic characteristics as hair belonging to O.J. Simpson.

You add that O.J.'s blood was found at the murder scenes.

A size 12 bloody shoe Bruno Magli shoe print was found at the murder scene and a bloody Bruno Magli shoe print found in O.J.'s Ford Bronco and we had photos of O.J. wearing the same type of shoes.

And we have O.J. taking a polygraph test and flunking that test very badly.

And there is much more evidence that I didn't list.

All of this tells most people that O.J. murdered Nicole and Ron.

Hipcheck,

How many other SUV carpets had similar carpet fibers that were consistent to the Ford Bronco?

Deedrick testified the hair was consistent coming from an African-American, period.

The question is when and how did the blood get on the back gate? The drops of blood were too degraded to have an accurate DNA reading.

You are wrong regarding the footprint in the Bronco.

The pictures were available for the criminal trial, they opted not to use them. Taking them to England to get them validated means nothing. Also, the person sold them first. Everybody knows that pictures can be faked and fool even the best experts.

According to the guidlelines and procedures for polographs, he should have failed it and he did.

You are batting a whomping zero. Try again!

[martin II]

Martin,

I remember in an interview that the jurors were told they would have to pack up their stuff every morning before they left for court and I think their luggage was loaded on the bus as well. As soon as they rendered their verdict, they were going to be driven to a certain point and their family members or friends was to meet them there.

I remember this because Stone Phillips asked a juror about packing up their bags. What really bothers me is that the jurors came back with their verdict and they had to wait almost 24 hours before it was read----guess they had to unpack a bit.

GI
Thanks for clearing that up.

People just heard they packed their bags without knowing the details.
I do remember they had to wait 24 hours after they decided on a verdict.

ITO witheld the verdict for some reason.Maby he gave the Browns time to get to court.

[martin II]

Hipcheck,

How many other SUV carpets had similar carpet fibers that were consistent to the Ford Bronco?

Deedrick testified the hair was consistent coming from an African-American, period.

The question is when and how did the blood get on the back gate? The drops of blood were too degraded to have an accurate DNA reading.

You are wrong regarding the footprint in the Bronco.

The pictures were available for the criminal trial, they opted not to use them. Taking them to England to get them validated means nothing. Also, the person sold them first. Everybody knows that pictures can be faked and fool even the best experts.

According to the guidlelines and procedures for polographs, he should have failed it and he did.

You are batting a whomping zero. Try again!
hipcheck has posted these untruths over and over again and he/she ignores request for links as required so i have decided to just ignore these post as they are not true.imo

[GreenIce]

GI
Thanks for clearing that up.

People just heard they packed their bags without knowing the details.
I do remember they had to wait 24 hours after they decided on a verdict.

ITO witheld the verdict for some reason.Maby he gave the Browns time to get to court.

Martin,

That is what many people do in regards to this case. They hear something and swear it is true or they only read the direct and not the cross.

I think Ito was waiting for the lead lawyers to get in town and I think he wanted to make sure that there was enough security for the reading of the verdict. I don't know if Ito knew what the verdict was before it was read in court---I mean the day they handed it in.

[martin II]

martin,

apparently g's would have needed several weeks to figure out the judge's instructions were. Any one who has read his instructions know that the only legal verdict they could have come back with was a not guilty verdict.

The jury had no trust for the state's case and it wasn't just mark fuhrman. In fact, it was phil vanatter who had the most credibility problems. Everyone knew what mf, so there was no point in discussing him. And since there was no explaination on how the glove got behind the wall, it didn't take long to figure out they had to give that to the defense. The blood on the back gate, the blood on the sock and the blood in the bronco, again had to go to the defense.

What really bothers me is that the jurors should not be blamed for the length of deliberations, the lapd should be blamed for it.

bingo

[GreenIce]

hipcheck has posted these untruths over and over again and he/she ignores request for links as required so i have decided to just ignore these post as they are not true.imo

Martin,

Point taken:)

[martin II]

Martin,

That is what many people do in regards to this case. They hear something and swear it is true or they only read the direct and not the cross.

I think Ito was waiting for the lead lawyers to get in town and I think he wanted to make sure that there was enough security for the reading of the verdict. I don't know if Ito knew what the verdict was before it was read in court---I mean the day they handed it in.

ITO may or may not have known but it was a good idea to beef up the security.
You are correct on the point that some read the direct testimony and ignore the cross AND the side bars.So they go off with half the testimony. It was in the cross that many prosecution witnesses were caught in lies.
We learned about AM switching of samples in her cross.

[tv]

GI
Thanks for clearing that up.

People just heard they packed their bags without knowing the details.
I do remember they had to wait 24 hours after they decided on a verdict.

ITO witheld the verdict for some reason.Maby he gave the Browns time to get to court.

Judge Ito told the jurors AFTER the verdict to pack their bags. If you have a link to them being told to pack their bags please post it. Otherwise, this is a bunch of BS.

Judge Ito AFTER the jurors entered a verdict --

"All right. Thank you very much. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are missing, as you can tell, several of the attorneys. Predominantly we are missing Miss Clark and Mr. Cochran. And I indicated to the attorneys that I would give them a reasonable opportunity to be here for the announcement of the verdict and I have indicated to them that I will accept the verdict from you tomorrow morning at ten o'clock. That will give you the opportunity to pack up and take care of those things over back home, as you've called it..."

'Back home' was what they called the hotel. I bet they were very disappointed that they had to spend another night 'back home' in spite of their hasty verdict. Where do you get they had to wait 24 hours before deciding a verdict?

[tv]

tv
TMZ just announced that R Blake will be on some tv show tonight.He is singing.He was convicted i thought. Is he out on bail????

He was acquited, martin. Just like OJ Simpson. Guilty but not convicted.

[tv]

Here's the big mystery solved about why they waited to read the verdict--

All right. Thank you very much. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are missing, as you can tell, several of the attorneys. Predominantly we are missing Miss Clark and Mr. Cochran. And I indicated to the attorneys that I would give them a reasonable opportunity to be here for the announcement of the verdict and I have indicated to them that I will accept the verdict from you tomorrow morning at ten o'clock.

[tv]

tv

The info in my post came from testimony of DEEDRICK. I see you have not read his testimony either otherwise you would know that.
Actually i don't blame for not reading it as it was all lost efforts to help the prosecution.
This guy could not even say two hairs were the same.So he just said could be or simular etc.

I've read it and Dr. Lee screwed up. Deedrick's testimony doesn't change that.

[Hipcheck]

Hipcheck,

How many other SUV carpets had similar carpet fibers that were consistent to the Ford Bronco?

Deedrick testified the hair was consistent coming from an African-American, period.

The question is when and how did the blood get on the back gate? The drops of blood were too degraded to have an accurate DNA reading.

You are wrong regarding the footprint in the Bronco.

The pictures were available for the criminal trial, they opted not to use them. Taking them to England to get them validated means nothing. Also, the person sold them first. Everybody knows that pictures can be faked and fool even the best experts.

According to the guidlelines and procedures for polographs, he should have failed it and he did.

You are batting a whomping zero. Try again!

The fibers found at the murder scenes were consistant with fibers from the carpeting of O.J. Simspn's Ford Bronco.

Deedrick testified that the hairs found on the knit cap and Ron Goldman's blood shirt share the same microscopic characteristics as O.J. Simpson hairs.

So who has a Ford Bronco just like O.J. and has the same type of hair as his who owned Bruno Magli shoes and Aris Light gloves.

And there was testimony that the bloody shoe print found in O.J.'s Ford Bronco came from a Bruno Magli shoe. That is a fact.

[William Anthony]

"Judge Larry Fidler in the Phil spector trial said he was convinced Dr. Henry Lee removed the evidence, but he stopped short of holding him in contempt."

Nice. Really nice. So he's an expert; that's great except for the fact that no amount of expertise does any good when the guy lies and hides evidence.

One may feel the same toward Martz.

[William Anthony]

Why read when another poster tells you what to say?:eek:

Enough has been posted for me to know that VB did not understand the magnificent one's magnificence.

[GreenIce]

ITO may or may not have known but it was a good idea to beef up the security.
You are correct on the point that some read the direct testimony and ignore the cross AND the side bars.So they go off with half the testimony. It was in the cross that many prosecution witnesses were caught in lies.
We learned about AM switching of samples in her cross.

Martin,

Do you believe it was AM who actually switched the samples?

[GreenIce]

tv
look the jury sat and listened to the witnesses for 9 mo. they knew which testimnony they believed and what was not believable. They tossed this testimony around in their minds during the trial.
When they started deliberations they asked people that had questions on the validity of the testimony to discuss it.They did. There is no way they could continue to ask questions and discuss the case when everyone said i have no m ore questions . we should vote. Obviously park was central to the case as he was supposed to have seen oj at the front door.
They wanted to discuss Park because some had questions about his truthfulness or correctness.

This was important because they zeroed in on a issue that could turn the trial. If Park was not truthful about what he testified to then according to the judges instructions they could toss ALL of his testimony.

They remembered what they had seen during the field trip to ojs house and they stood at the ashford gate and looked at the front door of ojs house to see if park could see through all the trees and bushed that covered the door from his position at the ashford gate. After the readback all came to the conclusion that park was not truthful in his testimony about what he saw.
So if park did not see what he said he saw he lied. That was a major issue.
They knew oj brought the two bags down indicating he was in his house. Katos testimony about the lights supported this.

So if oj was in his house all the other blood and gloves BS was the work of someone else.Not guilty.

Martin,

I have disagree with you about Park. I think the jurors did believe that he was telling the truth but realized he was mistaken on some key issues. IMO, there is a difference between making a mistake and telling a lie.

IMO, a person can truly believe they are telling the truth when trying to recall events but be mistaken. Again, IMO.

I think it was apparent that Park was "coached" by his mother and according to Bosco, this was very evident in the trial. IMO, I think they wanted the read back in regards to the timeline.

[tv]

Enough has been posted for me to know that VB did not understand the magnificent one's magnificence.

I believe the word he used to describe Johnnie Cochran's abilities was 'mediocre'.

[socaldiva]

I believe the word he used to describe Johnnie Cochran's abilities was 'mediocre'.

I'd say that's an apt description of Cochran as a lawyer. Gotta love VB! I think he was a brilliant lawyer, unlike the snake charmers Simpson called upon.

[martin II]

Judge Ito told the jurors AFTER the verdict to pack their bags. If you have a link to them being told to pack their bags please post it. Otherwise, this is a bunch of BS.

Judge Ito AFTER the jurors entered a verdict --

"All right. Thank you very much. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are missing, as you can tell, several of the attorneys. Predominantly we are missing Miss Clark and Mr. Cochran. And I indicated to the attorneys that I would give them a reasonable opportunity to be here for the announcement of the verdict and I have indicated to them that I will accept the verdict from you tomorrow morning at ten o'clock. That will give you the opportunity to pack up and take care of those things over back home, as you've called it..."

'Back home' was what they called the hotel. I bet they were very disappointed that they had to spend another night 'back home' in spite of their hasty verdict. Where do you get they had to wait 24 hours before deciding a verdict?

TV

You are the poster that first said when the jury packed their bags not me, you should post the link to show where you got this info from.

The 24 hours wait was the time ito waited to read the verdict not for them to give the verdict.no one said that as far as i know

[martin II]

I believe the word he used to describe Johnnie Cochran's abilities was 'mediocre'.

That fits VB
A old angry has been living on a conviction of 40 years ago.

[martin II]

He was acquited, martin. Just like OJ Simpson. Guilty but not convicted.

The obvious question then is was his jury uneducated, ignorant and biased and how long did they deliberate?

[martin II]

I believe the word he used to describe Johnnie Cochran's abilities was 'mediocre'.

Shows what a fool he is. the world has moved on from guys like VB.

[martin II]

Here's the big mystery solved about why they waited to read the verdict--

All right. Thank you very much. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are missing, as you can tell, several of the attorneys. Predominantly we are missing Miss Clark and Mr. Cochran. And I indicated to the attorneys that I would give them a reasonable opportunity to be here for the announcement of the verdict and I have indicated to them that I will accept the verdict from you tomorrow morning at ten o'clock.

I thought he was waiting on someone i just didn't know who.

[martin II]

Judge Ito told the jurors AFTER the verdict to pack their bags. If you have a link to them being told to pack their bags please post it. Otherwise, this is a bunch of BS.

Judge Ito AFTER the jurors entered a verdict --

"All right. Thank you very much. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are missing, as you can tell, several of the attorneys. Predominantly we are missing Miss Clark and Mr. Cochran. And I indicated to the attorneys that I would give them a reasonable opportunity to be here for the announcement of the verdict and I have indicated to them that I will accept the verdict from you tomorrow morning at ten o'clock. That will give you the opportunity to pack up and take care of those things over back home, as you've called it..."

'Back home' was what they called the hotel. I bet they were very disappointed that they had to spend another night 'back home' in spite of their hasty verdict. Where do you get they had to wait 24 hours before deciding a verdict?

who said whats in your last para.

[martin II]

Martin,

Do you believe it was AM who actually switched the samples?

no
someone else with access to the lab and those samples.but one never can know.

[GreenIce]

TV

You are the poster that first said when the jury packed their bags not me, you should post the link to show where you got this info from.

The 24 hours wait was the time ito waited to read the verdict not for them to give the verdict.no one said that as far as i know

Martin,

I don't think it was Judge Ito who told them to pack up. I would the deputies that were in charge would have told them to. People forget how much money the state had to pay for these employees. I am sure that figured into the equation as well as providing security for them. Once their verdict was in, under normal circumstances, why should they have had to go back and pack up? It makes no sense they were not prepared for a verdict.

IMO, it is just beyond some people's grasp is that the jury totally rejected the state's case based on their own witnesses. Any case is built on the credibility of LE and the SID departments. When those witnesses totally tank and give unbelieveable testimony, there really isn't much to deliberate.

IMO, finding the key blood evidence weeks and months later is just too suspicious to be overlooked.

[GreenIce]

no
someone else with access to the lab and those samples.but one never can know.

Martin,

Two books reference a lab worker who wanted to come forward but were afraid for their career and their job. In one book, Singular's, says that a new employee was asked to take out some of Simpson's blood and put it on swatches and these would be sent to Cellmark. The employee didn't feel comfortable about doing this and said something to another employee.

Singular's book explains it better. IMO, the way the DA's didn't protect Fung and Mozzola, they were more then happy to let Fung and Mozzola go down in flames. What really bother me is that Clark says she looked at Fung's paperwork---yet she didn't say anything to him regarding his paperwork not being completed or whatever?

Also in Vanatter and Lange's book, they say that a lab person said that the blood on the back was seen but the SID people were told not to collect it. This was investigated but the results have never been made public. Talk about something that should have been made public!

[GreenIce]

I thought he was waiting on someone i just didn't know who.

Martin,

I just thought of something. The jury was sequestered for over 9 months. I think they went to their new home in January. I would think their rooms were searched on a regular basis as well as having a lot more luggage leaving.
I would assume all their luggage would have had to have been searched before they were released by the court.

It only makes sense that the jurors were told to prepare for departure before they entered the jury room. The jurors had no way of knowing that they would all come to a verdict so quickly. It is obvious to me that they all knew they could only render one legal verdict. I have no problem with them being packed and ready to go. IMO, had they convicted Simpson, these very same people who said they did not deliberate would be singing a different tune.

IMO, a guilty or not guily verdict would have been rendered in the same amount of time. Again, IMO.

[martin II]

I don't understand why anyone would be bent all out of shape about when the jury packed their bags.

But we already have proof that some just love attacking the jury. loosers do that.

Only a couple of people seemed to have made it a lifetime work to attack the jury.

[martin II]

The fibers found at the murder scenes were consistant with fibers from the carpeting of O.J. Simspn's Ford Bronco.

Deedrick testified that the hairs found on the knit cap and Ron Goldman's blood shirt share the same microscopic characteristics as O.J. Simpson hairs.

So who has a Ford Bronco just like O.J. and has the same type of hair as his who owned Bruno Magli shoes and Aris Light gloves.

And there was testimony that the bloody shoe print found in O.J.'s Ford Bronco came from a Bruno Magli shoe. That is a fact.

please give a link to your claims.

i think you need to read the rules abour posting at the top of the thread.
They apply to you also,

[martin II]

Here's the big mystery solved about why they waited to read the verdict--

All right. Thank you very much. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are missing, as you can tell, several of the attorneys. Predominantly we are missing Miss Clark and Mr. Cochran. And I indicated to the attorneys that I would give them a reasonable opportunity to be here for the announcement of the verdict and I have indicated to them that I will accept the verdict from you tomorrow morning at ten o'clock.

This is what has been posted already. not by the names but the exact same thing.

[martin II]

You're the mindreader so why are you asking me?

You talked about clothes being wrinkeled i thought you would know.

[martin II]

Judge Ito told the jurors AFTER the verdict to pack their bags. If you have a link to them being told to pack their bags please post it. Otherwise, this is a bunch of BS.

Judge Ito AFTER the jurors entered a verdict --

"All right. Thank you very much. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are missing, as you can tell, several of the attorneys. Predominantly we are missing Miss Clark and Mr. Cochran. And I indicated to the attorneys that I would give them a reasonable opportunity to be here for the announcement of the verdict and I have indicated to them that I will accept the verdict from you tomorrow morning at ten o'clock. That will give you the opportunity to pack up and take care of those things over back home, as you've called it..."

'Back home' was what they called the hotel. I bet they were very disappointed that they had to spend another night 'back home' in spite of their hasty verdict. Where do you get they had to wait 24 hours before deciding a verdict?

This is all a non important issue. it proves nothing.

[tv]

TV

You are the poster that first said when the jury packed their bags not me, you should post the link to show where you got this info from.

The 24 hours wait was the time ito waited to read the verdict not for them to give the verdict.no one said that as far as i know

I gave the link -- it's in the juror's book Madam Foreman: A Rush to Judgement? You can also read it in Jeffrey Toobin's book The Run of His Life, The People v. OJ Simpson.

They didn't wait 24 hours to read the verdict. The jury announced they had a verdict at 2:28 PM and the verdict was scheduled to be announced the next day at 10:00 AM.

[tv]

This is all a non important issue. it proves nothing.

It proves that Judge Ito had no reason to think they'd already packed their bags.

[tv]

You talked about clothes being wrinkeled i thought you would know.

It was a joke. Sorry that you don't seem to get humor.

[tv]

This is what has been posted already. not by the names but the exact same thing.

I posted it for two different reasons. One, to show Ito told them to pack their bags AFTER the verdict was reached and two, to show why there was a delay in reading the verdict.

[tv]

The obvious question then is was his jury uneducated, ignorant and biased and how long did they deliberate?

I'm sure there's a Robert Blake forum somewhere for you to discuss his case. This is the OJ Simpson forum.

[tv]

I don't understand why anyone would be bent all out of shape about when the jury packed their bags.

But we already have proof that some just love attacking the jury. loosers do that.

Only a couple of people seemed to have made it a lifetime work to attack the jury.

It shows they'd already made their decision before going into deliberations.

[weezer]

That fits VB
A old angry has been living on a conviction of 40 years ago.

I think the key word here is 'living' -- :eek: