Random Discussions On The Case

[William Anthony]

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200301/kennedy-skakel

Contrary to what has been posted, it seems that it was someone other than MF, who was instrumental in having Skakel arrested and tried.

"The First Suspects

The writer Dominick Dunne, a driving force behind Michael Skakel's prosecution, continually accused the Skakel family of using its power and Kennedy connections to intimidate the Greenwich police "to protect one of their own." In 1991 Dunne wrote in Vanity Fair, "It is thought in the community and elsewhere that Kennedy influence was brought to bear." In 1996 he told a UPI reporter, "The [Skakel] family is so powerful that since the first night the police have never been able to question family members." In 2000 Dunne said on CNN, "The Skakels were able to hold off the police all these years ... If this was a family of lesser stature, that simply would not have happened."

[Its just me]

I'm making this post to avoid another problem...I continue to have requests on this public message board that Hotwater upholds. Hope things run smooth today...I'm out and about and OJ won't be on my mind. :seeya:

[tv]

William has closed the issue. there is no opening or reason to continue to argue your bogus 'FINAL DECISION/ORDER as it was not final.

William doesn't have the authority or the right to close any issue on this board.

[tv]

so this was the criminal defense closing argument? okay

I've seen no actual ruling, either. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place?

[martin II]

William doesn't have the authority or the right to close any issue on this board.

I was speaking of the proof that ito changed his opinion and MF did take the stand on his own and was asked the planting question just proving that he changed his prior opinion.

unless you can give proof that this did not happen or want to argue just to be arguing.

[weezer]

I am not one to go to the moderator but, at this point, this is becoming redundant. The argument must be tailored to what the evidence is in the case and based on the impeaching testimonies of the three witnesses, Singer, McKinney and Hodge and the fact that MF was unavailable by taking the 5th, Ito allowed the defense to argue, meaning it was relevant based on the evidence, that MF planted evidence. I have posted the ruling and explained it, even though you don't seem to want to accept it. If his ruling was final as you want to believe, then the defense wouldn't have been able to argue before the jury that MF planted the evidence or ask the question, which the judge overruled the prosecution's objection. Do you remember that?

where in the closing argument is it said that Furhman planted evidence?

[weezer]

so using your logic that the criminal defense closing is the truth, then I guess this is too:

MR. DARDEN: . . .The evidence is there. You just have to find your way through the smoke. . .You just have to find your way through the smoke. You heard from Scheck yesterday. You heard him talk about our science. They have to attack our science because all the science points to O.J. Simpson, to this Defendant. It all points to him as the killer. They have to attack that science. Not only does common sense dictate that he is guilty, but we have proven him guilty to a scientific certainty. . . You heard all of that--all the speaking and the fiery rhetoric and the quotes from proverbs and the like. You heard all of that yesterday, all of that fiery rhetoric. . .We want you to focus on the evidence. . .now they want you to become impassioned, to be upset, and then they want you to make quantum leaps in logic and in judgment. . .They want to you say Fuhrman is a racist, he planted the glove. You can't get from point a to point B if you just sit down and use your common sense. If you are logical, if you are reasonable, you can't do that. . .

[Hotwater]

William has closed the issue. there is no opening or reason to continue to argue your bogus 'FINAL DECISION/ORDER as it was not final.


It's not yours or William's place to tell the others an issue is closed.


HW

[Kayleighjo]

I love the way you put fini at the end of something but I am the one thanking Hotwater. Pay close attention to Ms. Lewis' argument,

"MS. LEWIS: Oh, absolutely not, your Honor. Please, the court can see this is collateral evidence. It does not and never had to allow cross-examination on this evidence at all. The Defense in their new proffer is talking about misconduct things. They recognize it apparently because they left it out. They even leave out the "N" word stuff.

I mean, the court has heard all this stuff. The court has heard the context in which it was played. The court--and in fact, if Detective Fuhrman gets up here and takes the 5th, the court--I think the state of the law would be, the court cannot consider him having taken the 5th in terms of deciding the earlier ruling because the jury is not allowed to hear that somebody took the 5th. And I'm sure the same law would apply, that the court could not consider that fact because you would be impinging on his right against self-incrimination. It gets unduly complicated, your Honor, and it's not necessary. The record is complete. I know you as a very thorough--meticulously thorough Judge, but I'm telling your Honor, as a meticulous and thorough attorney, this record is complete on this issue."

The defense was specifically talking about a new offer of proof on MF's misconduct/planting and judge Ito allowed them to ask did he plant evidence and argue that he did to the jury. Those are the actual facts due to his ruling.

So let me get this straight. Fuhrman was asked outside the presence of the jury if he had planted evidence and then he took the 5th ... and then even though the jury was not allowed to hear why he took the 5th, Ito allowed the defense to argue to the jury that Fuhrman did plant evidence?

How the heck does that work?

[weezer]

So let me get this straight. Fuhrman was asked outside the presence of the jury if he had planted evidence and then he took the 5th ... and then even though the jury was not allowed to hear why he took the 5th, Ito allowed the defense to argue to the jury that Fuhrman did plant evidence?

How the heck does that work?

it's my understanding that each side gets to argue THEIR interpretation/theory/inference drawn of the evidence. The difference here is that william wishes to use the closing argument as fact that ito overruled his own ruling when, in fact, it did not.

[Hotwater]

By the way, I miss the party thread ....... it really tempered alot of things and gave us a break from the very passionate debates.


I opened the thread.

HW

[Hotwater]

I don't want to see anymore remarks, posts or youtube links posted here regarding the KFC incident and MF. If I see it posted you can expect a vacation.

HW

[Kayleighjo]

I opened the thread.

HW

You rock ... thanks a ton for that!

[Its just me]

so using your logic that the criminal defense closing is the truth, then I guess this is too:

MR. DARDEN: . . .The evidence is there. You just have to find your way through the smoke. . .You just have to find your way through the smoke. You heard from Scheck yesterday. You heard him talk about our science. They have to attack our science because all the science points to O.J. Simpson, to this Defendant. It all points to him as the killer. They have to attack that science. Not only does common sense dictate that he is guilty, but we have proven him guilty to a scientific certainty. . . You heard all of that--all the speaking and the fiery rhetoric and the quotes from proverbs and the like. You heard all of that yesterday, all of that fiery rhetoric. . .We want you to focus on the evidence. . .now they want you to become impassioned, to be upset, and then they want you to make quantum leaps in logic and in judgment. . .They want to you say Fuhrman is a racist, he planted the glove. You can't get from point a to point B if you just sit down and use your common sense. If you are logical, if you are reasonable, you can't do that. . .

I believe with all my being Darden spoke the truth...especially what I underlined. My Bold are very wise words coming from Darden. IMO. The jury failed to use common sense, reason and/or logic. Was it on purpose or was it not there for them to use. :shrug:

[weezer]

I believe with all my being Darden spoke the truth...especially what I underlined. My Bold are very wise words coming from Darden. IMO. The jury failed to use common sense, reason and/or logic. Was it on purpose or was it not there for them to use. :shrug:

I don't know if you've read the prosecution closing arguments but it's a good read. Many of the points tauted by the NG's are answered with fact.

http://walraven.org/simpson/sep29.html

[martin II]

can you provide a link to the 'argument' where the jury heard evidence of planting?

The original argument was after ito made his first ruling about planting which you believe was final, did he change his mind after hearing the testimony of singer, hodge and bell, the answer is yes. Ito instructed MF lawyer to make him available to take the stand. Mf took the stand, he was asked a question about planting.He refused to answer and took the 5th.

MF could not have taken the stand unless ito had changed his mind on the original comments he made and ordered MF to take the stand and be asked the planting question. That seems quite simple. imo

[weezer]

The original argument was after ito made his first ruling about planting which you believe was final, did he change his mind after hearing the testimony of singer, hodge and bell, the answer is yes. Ito instructed MF lawyer to make him available to take the stand. Mf took the stand, he was asked a question about planting.He refused to answer and took the 5th.

MF could not have taken the stand unless ito had changed his mind on the original comments he made and ordered MF to take the stand and be asked the planting question. That seems quite simple. imo

there was never an issue over whether or not Fuhrman planted evidence -- the issue was over use of the 'n-woord' only. in their bid to AGAIN manipulate the court and jury, the criminal defense asked (and was allowed to ask by a judge who should have recused himself) other questions. that in no way implies anything other than the defense asked questions that had nothing to do with the simpson murder case. Ito's final ruling stands and has never been superceded by another ruling.

[martin II]

It's not yours or William's place to tell the others an issue is closed.


HW

It was not my intent to tell others not to post.

[martin II]

there was never an issue over whether or not Fuhrman planted evidence -- the issue was over use of the 'n-woord' only. in their bid to AGAIN manipulate the court and jury, the criminal defense asked (and was allowed to ask by a judge who should have recused himself) other questions. that in no way implies anything other than the defense asked questions that had nothing to do with the simpson murder case. Ito's final ruling stands and has never been superceded by another ruling.

IF your firtst line is true,why did ITO allow MF to be asked if he planted.

Singer ,hodge and bells testimony was to impeach MF. To show Furhman was not truthful in his testimony. not just to show he used the n word. truthfulness was the issue. I think this was in bold in williams post.(lewis)

you would agree that MF truthfulness had something to do with the simpson case.he testified in it.

[weezer]

IF your firtst line is true,why did ITO allow MF to be asked if he planted.

Singer ,hodge and bells testimony was to impeach MF. To show Furhman was not truthful in his testimony. not just to show he used the n word. truthfulness was the issue. I think this was in bold in williams post.(lewis)

martin, the issue was whether or not Fuhrman lied about using the 'n-word' -- not about planting. there was never any evidence of planting -- only the defense theory. read what Fuhrman's perjury charge is -- it has nothing to do with planting.

in closing arguments, each side is allowed to try to sway the jury. in darden's and clark's closing statements, they answer each and every theory/allegation/misrepresentation made by the criminal defense to show that what the criminal defense claimed wasn't and couldn't be true. even down to whether or not dr lee found blood on the air conditioner (this is the one I knew you'd be most interested in). . .

[martin II]

it's my understanding that each side gets to argue THEIR interpretation/theory/inference drawn of the evidence. The difference here is that william wishes to use the closing argument as fact that ito overruled his own ruling when, in fact, it did not.

Simple question

How did MF get on the stand to be asked the planting question without ito approval?

[martin II]

martin, the issue was whether or not Fuhrman lied about using the 'n-word' -- not about planting. there was never any evidence of planting -- only the defense theory. read what Fuhrman's perjury charge is -- it has nothing to do with planting.

in closing arguments, each side is allowed to try to sway the jury. in darden's and clark's closing statements, they answer each and every theory/allegation/misrepresentation made by the criminal defense to show that what the criminal defense claimed wasn't and couldn't be true. even down to whether or not dr lee found blood on the air conditioner (this is the one I knew you'd be most interested in). . .

If i remember LEWIS said 'IT IS NOT ABOUT THE N WORD' see court discussion in williams post.

[weezer]

If i remember LEWIS said 'IT IS NOT ABOUT THE N WORD' see court discussion in williams post.

ito's first ruling on Fuhrman:

RACIAL EPITHETS: From the court's examination of the first five examples proffered by the defense, it appears that further examination and comparison would prove less than fruitful.

INCIDENTS OF MISCONDUCT: From the court's examination of the first five examples of incidents of misconduct proffered by the defense, it appears that further examination and comparison would prove less than fruitful.

REJECTION OF PROFFER: The proffer is incoherent. It will not be further considered by this court in its current form.

[weezer]

Ito's Final Decision on the Fuhrman Tapes
Date: 31 August 1995

A key part of the defense case is the allegation that Fuhrman, motivated by hatred of blacks/ African Americans and interracial couples, transported a bloody leather glove from the Bundy crime scene to the defendant's Rockingham residence for the purpose of placing the blame upon the defendant for the savage murders of Ronald L. Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson.

The defense proffers include 41 examples of Fuhrman using the particular racial epithet in question and 18 examples of misconduct argued to be relevant on the issue of Fuhrman's credibility and willingness to fabricate. The defense also offers 2 comments made by Fuhrman in late July of 1994 which are argued to be relevant to Fuhrman's attitude towards testifying as a witness. See Evidence Code Section 780 (j). Interestingly, the proffers do not address what evidence supports the allegation that the Rockingham glove was moved. (3) The court therefore has 61 incidents to evaluate.

[martin II]

So let me get this straight. Fuhrman was asked outside the presence of the jury if he had planted evidence and then he took the 5th ... and then even though the jury was not allowed to hear why he took the 5th, Ito allowed the defense to argue to the jury that Fuhrman did plant evidence?

How the heck does that work?

both sides can argue in closing to the jury

[martin II]

ito's first ruling on Fuhrman:

RACIAL EPITHETS: From the court's examination of the first five examples proffered by the defense, it appears that further examination and comparison would prove less than fruitful.

INCIDENTS OF MISCONDUCT: From the court's examination of the first five examples of incidents of misconduct proffered by the defense, it appears that further examination and comparison would prove less than fruitful.

REJECTION OF PROFFER: The proffer is incoherent. It will not be further considered by this court in its current form.

you switched the focus or tried

how did furhman take the stand and be asked a planting question without itos approval

[Kayleighjo]

both sides can argue in closing to the jury

I guess what I'm asking is, outside of closing arguments, was the defense allowed to argue that to the jury?

[weezer]

you switched the focus or tried

how did furhman take the stand and be asked a planting question without itos approval

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1995

"THE COURT: Mr. Cochran, we're not revisiting that at this point. The point is, at some point in time, it becomes cumulative. So you will have--in the record, after Bell, Terry and McKinny, you will have three witnesses that may determine--that you can reasonably argue from that Detective Fuhrman is, A, a liar and, B, a racist. . "

[weezer]

I guess what I'm asking is, outside of closing arguments, was the defense allowed to argue that to the jury?

the defense argued their 'theory' as to police misconduct, shoddy evidence gathering and handling, and distrust of LE. Without anything to support their arguments, the criminal defense was allowed to claim everything from drug lords to LE as the murderers/framers.

[martin II]

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1995

"THE COURT: Mr. Cochran, we're not revisiting that at this point. The point is, at some point in time, it becomes cumulative. So you will have--in the record, after Bell, Terry and McKinny, you will have three witnesses that may determine--that you can reasonably argue from that Detective Fuhrman is, A, a liar and, B, a racist. . "

MY simple question remains unanswered by you.

[martin II]

I guess what I'm asking is, outside of closing arguments, was the defense allowed to argue that to the jury?

The question is not if they were allowed to argue. ITO first said planting was not a issue and prevented mf from being forced to be questioned about planting. ITO changed his mind after truthfulness became a issue by singer,hodge and balls terstimony impeached mf about being truthful. not only about the n word.
ito changed his mind from his first decision and put MF on the stand. otherwise mf would not be back on the stand. he was asked about planting and hee took the 5th. if he had not he would have asked more detail questions about planting and other stuff. he evade other questions about his actions in the case by taking the 5th

[Hotwater]

Anyone else interested in taking a vacation? I suggest all of you get back on topic and discuss the OJ case in a civil manner or I'll close the entire thread for a few days so all of you are forced to take a break.

I do not appreciate receiving messages "demanding" I do this or that and asking when will the two faced monitoring of this board be stopped.

I volunteer my time to make sure you guys stay on topic and discuss this case in a civil manner. If you can't do that then I will be forced to advise Deepwater that maybe it's time to shut the entire discussion down, for good.

This will be my last post on this matter, next time I will lock the thread. It's up to each and every one of you to do your part - keep it civil and play nice.

If you have issue with someone posting here you need to take it to PM. It doesn't belong on the board.

HW

[Hipcheck]

I don't believe Mark Fuhrman should have ever been charged with perjury and I think most legal experts would agree with me.

In order to be charged with perjury the testimony must be material to the case and Mark Fuhrman using the "N" word wasn't material to the case.

Mark Fuhrman has said the reason he plead guilty was because he couldn't afford the lawyer fees to defend this case.

Many have wondered why Mark had gotten such a plead deal where he was fined either $200 or $300 plus probation. The reason was the prosecution knew if they went to trial that they could never get a convicition. They knew the best they could do is a hung jury.

[tv]

I don't believe Mark Fuhrman should have ever been charged with perjury and I think most legal experts would agree with me.

In order to be charged with perjury the testimony must be material to the case and Mark Fuhrman using the "N" word wasn't material to the case.

Mark Fuhrman has said the reason he plead guilty was because he couldn't afford the lawyer fees to defend this case.

Many have wondered why Mark had gotten such a plead deal where he was fined either $200 or $300 plus probation. The reason was the prosecution knew if they went to trial that they could never get a convicition. They knew the best they could do is a hung jury.

I agree with you. Mark Fuhrman should never have been prosecuted for a non-material matter. Whether or not we like or approve of his language while he and LHM were making the tapes for the screen play it didn't have anything to do with OJ Simpson's innocence or guilt in the murders. I know the policeman's association (can't remember the exact name of it) that provides a legal defense for cops wouldn't help him. Imo, they should have after he'd been paying dues his whole career.

I agree with a lot of what Vincent Bugliosi says in his book about the prosecution even though I think he's much harder on them than what I would be -- not that I would know even a little bit of what he knows about being a prosecutor. I think the prosecution was blindsided by the jury and their unwillingness to consider all the evidence and, as posted earlier, to take the evidence from point A to point B. If they'd done that and still come up with a not-guilty verdict I'd be much less critical of them.

[weezer]

I agree with you. Mark Fuhrman should never have been prosecuted for a non-material matter. Whether or not we like or approve of his language while he and LHM were making the tapes for the screen play it didn't have anything to do with OJ Simpson's innocence or guilt in the murders. I know the policeman's association (can't remember the exact name of it) that provides a legal defense for cops wouldn't help him. Imo, they should have after he'd been paying dues his whole career.

I agree with a lot of what Vincent Bugliosi says in his book about the prosecution even though I think he's much harder on them than what I would be -- not that I would know even a little bit of what he knows about being a prosecutor. I think the prosecution was blindsided by the jury and their unwillingness to consider all the evidence and, as posted earlier, to take the evidence from point A to point B. If they'd done that and still come up with a not-guilty verdict I'd be much less critical of them.

that's always confused me as to the timeframe. anything about abuse were too distant from the murder but Fuhrman's taking part in the screenplay wasn't even though they all happened in the same time period. :shrug::confused:

[tv]

that's always confused me as to the timeframe. anything about abuse were too distant from the murder but Fuhrman's taking part in the screenplay wasn't even though they all happened in the same time period. :shrug::confused:

Exactly. If abuse doesn't relate to murder how can racial epithets relate to planting?

[weezer]

Exactly. If abuse doesn't relate to murder how can racial epithets relate to planting?

did you get a chance to read the prosecution closing? I'd forgotten how strong the evidence against orenthal actually was. ;)

[tv]

did you get a chance to read the prosecution closing? I'd forgotten how strong the evidence against orenthal actually was. ;)

I'm reading it now. What I've read so far is a good reminder of what they really had on him.

ETA: One thing I noticed right away is that Chris Darden's opinion is the same as V. Bugliosi -- the defense didn't have a firm grasp on what reasonable doubt really means.

[martin II]

I agree with you. Mark Fuhrman should never have been prosecuted for a non-material matter. Whether or not we like or approve of his language while he and LHM were making the tapes for the screen play it didn't have anything to do with OJ Simpson's innocence or guilt in the murders. I know the policeman's association (can't remember the exact name of it) that provides a legal defense for cops wouldn't help him. Imo, they should have after he'd been paying dues his whole career.

I agree with a lot of what Vincent Bugliosi says in his book about the prosecution even though I think he's much harder on them than what I would be -- not that I would know even a little bit of what he knows about being a prosecutor. I think the prosecution was blindsided by the jury and their unwillingness to consider all the evidence and, as posted earlier, to take the evidence from point A to point B. If they'd done that and still come up with a not-guilty verdict I'd be much less critical of them.


The jury considered all the evidence and testimony during 9 months of the trial. I think it is unfair for you to make the accusation that they didn't simply because you dissagree with the verdict.Getting from point A to B meant consideriung the untruths by some detectives and testimony of people like Martz,Rubin AM,G Sims and others. Their testimony could not be ignored. I guess Darden expected the jury to ignore those plus his glove demo. The judges instructions dictated how the jury could treat the testimony of some of these witnesses.

Legal experts have said the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. There has been general agreement that how the prosecution handeled their case was the reason for the verdict.

The prosecution did not have a strong cass to begin with. imo

[martin II]

that's always confused me as to the timeframe. anything about abuse were too distant from the murder but Fuhrman's taking part in the screenplay wasn't even though they all happened in the same time period. :shrug::confused:

The 10- year time to MF was just time to him time to remember. Furhman was asked that question to show his feelings against minortities. when he lied it was used to show as a cop sworn to tell the truth he did lie.

Only a very small group of people believe that all the stuff MF said on that tape was not what he said and did his work as a LAPD officer. It just does not pass the truth test. imo

[martin II]

Exactly. If abuse doesn't relate to murder how can racial epithets relate to planting?

MF'S R***** and lies led the jury to believe the glove could have been planted.IMO

[weezer]

I'm reading it now. What I've read so far is a good reminder of what they really had on him.

ETA: One thing I noticed right away is that Chris Darden's opinion is the same as V. Bugliosi -- the defense didn't have a firm grasp on what reasonable doubt really means.

exactly! I thought darden's description of the criminal defense rhetoric was right on target. and for the life of me, I do not understand how anyone could ignore the evidence of orenthal's guilt in butchering two human beings in order to 'send a message to the police.' sad. very, very sad.

[martin II]

I agree with you. Mark Fuhrman should never have been prosecuted for a non-material matter. Whether or not we like or approve of his language while he and LHM were making the tapes for the screen play it didn't have anything to do with OJ Simpson's innocence or guilt in the murders. I know the policeman's association (can't remember the exact name of it) that provides a legal defense for cops wouldn't help him. Imo, they should have after he'd been paying dues his whole career.

I agree with a lot of what Vincent Bugliosi says in his book about the prosecution even though I think he's much harder on them than what I would be -- not that I would know even a little bit of what he knows about being a prosecutor. I think the prosecution was blindsided by the jury and their unwillingness to consider all the evidence and, as posted earlier, to take the evidence from point A to point B. If they'd done that and still come up with a not-guilty verdict I'd be much less critical of them.

As stated MF had a special place of trust. He misused it.

Are you blamming the prosecution for upholding the law on that issue.

[tv]

The jury considered all the evidence and testimony during 9 months of the trial. I think it is unfair for you to make the accusation that they didn't simply because you dissagree with the verdict.Getting from point A to B meant consideriung the untruths by some detectives and testimony of people like Martz,Rubin AM,G Sims and others. Their testimony could not be ignored. I guess Darden expected the jury to ignore those plus his glove demo. The judges instructions dictated how the jury could treat the testimony of some of these witnesses.

Legal experts have said the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. There has been general agreement that how the prosecution handeled their case was the reason for the verdict.

The prosecution did not have a strong cass to begin with. imo

It's not because I disagree with the verdict. You say the testimony couldn't be ignored but we've discussed many times the fact that the jury wasn't aware of some of the most important evidence in this case. Legal experts have also said the prosecution did prove their case. You make it sound like there are no legal experts that believe the verdict should have been guilty. The gloves fit Simpson -- at least two of the jurors, that we know of, thought this. They ignored it. The prosecution had a very strong case. When you have the victim's blood mixed with the suspect's blood on a piece of evidence it doesn't get any stronger than that.

[tv]

As stated MF had a special place of trust. He misused it.

Are you blamming the prosecution for upholding the law on that issue.

I don't know what you're asking. :shrug:

[tv]

exactly! I thought darden's description of the criminal defense rhetoric was right on target. and for the life of me, I do not understand how anyone could ignore the evidence of orenthal's guilt in butchering two human beings in order to 'send a message to the police.' sad. very, very sad.

Honestly, I don't get it either. It's obvious that's what happened. They didn't consider much of the evidence against him, they said Det. Fuhrman wasn't a consideration and said they didn't factor in the DNA evidence. That doesn't leave much.

[martin II]

I don't know what you're asking. :shrug:

MF should not have been brought up on perjury charges?

[martin II]

Honestly, I don't get it either. It's obvious that's what happened. They didn't consider much of the evidence against him, they said Det. Fuhrman wasn't a consideration and said they didn't factor in the DNA evidence. That doesn't leave much.

One juror made the DNA comment. It is not fair to say THEY as that indicates you mean all 12.

[tv]

MF should not have been brought up on perjury charges?

No, because his lie wasn't about a material matter in the case.

[tv]

One juror made the DNA comment. It is not fair to say THEY as that indicates you mean all 12.

The jurors said in their book that their deliberations weren't based on the DNA evidence. I'm just telling you what they said.

[martin II]

Honestly, I don't get it either. It's obvious that's what happened. They didn't consider much of the evidence against him, they said Det. Fuhrman wasn't a consideration and said they didn't factor in the DNA evidence. That doesn't leave much.

TV
Take Martz and Rubin as examples.

They testified to support the prosecutions claims. On cross by the defense their testimony was shown to be not believable or not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. What would you expect the jury to think about their testimony.

There was no reason to consider Furhman. He lied to them in court and showed he was a R*****. (motive to plant) The judges instructions allowed them to ignore all of his testimony. one juror said the DNA was 'SHAKEY" It was the collection of blood, the handeling of the blood and vannatters carrying ojs blood around in his pocket that caused the DBA results to be "Shakey" or not believable.
The actual DNA test was done only based on what was given that lab.What was given and where it came from was the issue. imo

[martin II]

The jurors said in their book that their deliberations weren't based on the DNA evidence. I'm just telling you what they said.

All the jurors did not participate in the book. i thought you said it was two that wrote the book.
I don't think you can use a book written by two jurors that included 2-3 comments to prove the prosecutions case.imo

[Its just me]

I don't know if you've read the prosecution closing arguments but it's a good read. Many of the points tauted by the NG's are answered with fact.

http://walraven.org/simpson/sep29.html

Thank You for this link. I've just finished reading and it took me a while. Clark and Darden pointed out many many things with instructions where the jury could read the testimony for these facts. It's all laid out...sadly the jury didn’t review much....they didn't have the time in the short time they deliberated. Fact.

[tv]

All the jurors did not participate in the book. i thought you said it was two that wrote the book.
I don't think you can use a book written by two jurors that included 2-3 comments to prove the prosecutions case.imoThis is what is on Amazon as far as authors. I would quote them directly about the DNA but my copy is still loaned out. IIRC, Armanda Cooley sounded like she was speaking for the jury in general with regard to the DNA. I could be wrong about that but I can't check it right now. Tom Byrnes and Mike Walker weren't on the jury as I'm sure you know.

Madam Foreman : A Rush to Judgement? (Hardcover)

~ Armanda Cooley (Author), Carrie Bess (Author), Marsha Rubin-Jackson (Author), Willie Cravin (Author), Tracy Hampton (Author), Jeanette Harris (Author), Tracy Kennedy (Author), Michael Knox (Author), Tom Byrnes (Author), Mike Walker (Author)

[martin II]

This is what is on Amazon as far as authors. I would quote them directly about the DNA but my copy is still loaned out. IIRC, Armanda Cooley sounded like she was speaking for the jury in general with regard to the DNA. I could be wrong about that but I can't check it right now. Tom Byrnes and Mike Walker weren't on the jury as I'm sure you know.

Madam Foreman : A Rush to Judgement? (Hardcover)

~ Armanda Cooley (Author), Carrie Bess (Author), Marsha Rubin-Jackson (Author), Willie Cravin (Author), Tracy Hampton (Author), Jeanette Harris (Author), Tracy Kennedy (Author), Michael Knox (Author), Tom Byrnes (Author), Mike Walker (Author)

This is what i found

Madam Foreman: A Rush to Judgement (Hardcover)
~ Carrie Bess, Marsh Rubin-Jackson Armanda Cooley (Author)
No customer reviews yet. Be the first.

Jennet harris was kicked off for accusations against the jurors

[martin II]

Armanda Cooley is the person from her door steps when asked about abuse said "This trial was not about abuse. If you want a trial about abuse you have to go to another court"

ONE MORE TIME.
All jurors don't have to agree on every issue.They are human and can see some issues differently. The import issue was when they discussed what was important to all and had answered all the question of all jurors on testimony amd evidence they decided they needed to take a vote. They voted and found they had a verdict. If no juror had no questions there was nothing else to discuss. There is NO RULE requiring the jury to read all the trial transcripts.
There is no rule requiring the jury to deliberate a set number of hours/minutes. There is a rule that once a verdict is reached, the jury must immediately report it to the judge. imo

[tv]

This is what i found

Madam Foreman: A Rush to Judgement (Hardcover)
~ Carrie Bess, Marsh Rubin-Jackson Armanda Cooley (Author)
No customer reviews yet. Be the first.

Jennet harris was kicked off for accusations against the jurors

Your information is incomplete. All those listed contributed to the book even Jeanette Harris.

[tv]

Armanda Cooley is the person from her door steps when asked about abuse said "This trial was not about abuse. If you want a trial about abuse you have to go to another court"

ONE MORE TIME.
All jurors don't have to agree on every issue.They are human and can see some issues differently. The import issue was when they discussed what was important to all and had answered all the question of all jurors on testimony amd evidence they decided they needed to take a vote. They voted and found they had a verdict. If no juror had no questions there was nothing else to discuss. There is NO RULE requiring the jury to read all the trial transcripts.
There is no rule requiring the jury to deliberate a set number of hours/minutes. There is a rule that once a verdict is reached, the jury must immediately report it to the judge. imoI believe that comment was made by Brenda Moran but it doesn't matter. Maybe Ms. Cooley said it too.

I've never claimed there was a rule about deliberation time but just because there's no rule doesn't mean it was morally right. IMO, it was a disgraceful amount of time to deliberate a case that lasted nine months.

[martin II]

Your information is incomplete. All those listed contributed to the book even Jeanette Harris.

i just copied it from Amzon. i don't have the book

[martin II]

I believe that comment was made by Brenda Moran but it doesn't matter. Maybe Ms. Cooley said it too.

I've never claimed there was a rule about deliberation time but just because there's no rule doesn't mean it was morally right. IMO, it was a disgraceful amount of time to deliberate a case that lasted nine months.

Last night i read where a jury deliberated 30 minutes on a teen murder case. one where they deliberated 5 hours and one where they deliberated 6 hours.

There is no set MORAL time. The jury leader opens the floor to questions about testimony.Each juors ask their questions and they are discussed.After there are no more questions they are required to decide if they want to take a vote. If they decide yes then they vote. They found that all twelve voted not guilty and they reported the vote to the judge.
The last question was about Parks testimony.Some jury members have said he could not have seen what he testified he saw. After discussing him they voted.

It is always a problem when one person attempts to judge others based on what that persons morality is. It never works. imo

[weezer]

The jury foreman, Armanda Cooley, wrote:

". . .I did not find DNA too complicated to grasp. . .These spots that you filed, 48, 49, 50, 51, and 52 (sic). I wanted to see this. . .Going through those autorads and those aliels (sic) and how they talk about degrading and how much blood it takes. I see us not being so naive on those points. . .We reviewed the autorads, and there were no problems in any of that information, we understood it thoroughly. . .We know about aliels (sic), gels, we know all of that. A lot of us felt we could now earn a medical degree."

But when Madam Foreman muses further, the immense level of misunderstanding becomes clear. Cooley asked: "Did you know that Mazzola had the same type of blood, the same aliels (sic), that O.J. had? What about the people who were close to the scene who might have had the same type, too?". . .

At the end of the book, several journalists, lawyers, and journalist-lawyers asked the jurors some questions. Geraldo Rivera asked them, "How can you explain away O.J.'s blood at the murder scene, found hours before his blood sample was taken?"

Madam Foreman, Armanda Cooley, replied, "We can't explain it away. I don't think anybody has really tried to explain it away. Me, personally, I have not tried to explain it away at all. That was not one of the issues and that was definitely not the reasonable doubt we based our decision on."

O.J. unmasked: the trial, the truth, and the media; M.L. Rantala

[martin II]

The jury foreman, Armanda Cooley, wrote:

". . .I did not find DNA too complicated to grasp. . .These spots that you filed, 48, 49, 50, 51, and 52 (sic). I wanted to see this. . .Going through those autorads and those aliels (sic) and how they talk about degrading and how much blood it takes. I see us not being so naive on those points. . .We reviewed the autorads, and there were no problems in any of that information, we understood it thoroughly. . .We know about aliels (sic), gels, we know all of that. A lot of us felt we could now earn a medical degree."

But when Madam Foreman muses further, the immense level of misunderstanding becomes clear. Cooley asked: "Did you know that Mazzola had the same type of blood, the same aliels (sic), that O.J. had? What about the people who were close to the scene who might have had the same type, too?". . .

At the end of the book, several journalists, lawyers, and journalist-lawyers asked the jurors some questions. Geraldo Rivera asked them, "How can you explain away O.J.'s blood at the murder scene, found hours before his blood sample was taken?"

Madam Foreman, Armanda Cooley, replied, "We can't explain it away. I don't think anybody has really tried to explain it away. Me, personally, I have not tried to explain it away at all. That was not one of the issues and that was definitely not the reasonable doubt we based our decision on."

O.J. unmasked: the trial, the truth, and the media; M.L. Rantala

Geraldo can be really silly. He does not know whoes blood was found on the ground.

[Its just me]

The jury foreman, Armanda Cooley, wrote:

". . .I did not find DNA too complicated to grasp. . .These spots that you filed, 48, 49, 50, 51, and 52 (sic). I wanted to see this. . .Going through those autorads and those aliels (sic) and how they talk about degrading and how much blood it takes. I see us not being so naive on those points. . .We reviewed the autorads, and there were no problems in any of that information, we understood it thoroughly. . .We know about aliels (sic), gels, we know all of that. A lot of us felt we could now earn a medical degree."

But when Madam Foreman muses further, the immense level of misunderstanding becomes clear. Cooley asked: "Did you know that Mazzola had the same type of blood, the same aliels (sic), that O.J. had? What about the people who were close to the scene who might have had the same type, too?". . .

At the end of the book, several journalists, lawyers, and journalist-lawyers asked the jurors some questions. Geraldo Rivera asked them, "How can you explain away O.J.'s blood at the murder scene, found hours before his blood sample was taken?"

Madam Foreman, Armanda Cooley, replied, "We can't explain it away. I don't think anybody has really tried to explain it away. Me, personally, I have not tried to explain it away at all. That was not one of the issues and that was definitely not the reasonable doubt we based our decision on."

O.J. unmasked: the trial, the truth, and the media; M.L. Rantala

LOL....I guess in their mind it just didn't exist. WTH did they focus on. Cooley sure didnt deny the blood sample belonged to OJ or it was collected long before Simpson's blood sample was taken....Why? because it's the truth. (ETA: and was proven in court) IMO there were more evidence that places OJ Simpson at the bloody crime scene that "can't" be explained away. The actual evidence is clear. Why was OJ there.....because he murdered 2 people and imo no theatrical performance should have been able to have explained that away....but it did.

[tv]

Geraldo can be really silly. He does not know whoes blood was found on the ground.

Now it's Geraldo's fault for asking a silly question? In case you missed it the testimony is that it was OJ Simpson's blood on the ground at Bundy and Rockingham in addition to the blood of the victims.

[weezer]

Now it's Geraldo's fault for asking a silly question? In case you missed it the testimony is that it was OJ Simpson's blood on the ground at Bundy and Rockingham in addition to the blood of the victims.

when all else fails -- blame it on the boogey man. :eek:

[tv]

Last night i read where a jury deliberated 30 minutes on a teen murder case. one where they deliberated 5 hours and one where they deliberated 6 hours.

There is no set MORAL time. The jury leader opens the floor to questions about testimony.Each juors ask their questions and they are discussed.After there are no more questions they are required to decide if they want to take a vote. If they decide yes then they vote. They found that all twelve voted not guilty and they reported the vote to the judge.
The last question was about Parks testimony.Some jury members have said he could not have seen what he testified he saw. After discussing him they voted.

It is always a problem when one person attempts to judge others based on what that persons morality is. It never works. imo

I'm judging the length of time they deliberated and it hasn't caused any problem for me. They didn't even finish listening to the read back of Park's testimony.

[tv]

when all else fails -- blame it on the boogey man. :eek:

Geraldo's question was a good one -- it's the answer that was silly.

[Its just me]

Now it's Geraldo's fault for asking a silly question? In case you missed it the testimony is that it was OJ Simpson's blood on the ground at Bundy and Rockingham in addition to the blood of the victims.

I'm not a Geraldo fan but he is not stupid. He followed the Simpson case and knew exactly what the "evidence" was and knew it proved OJ was at Bundy and was in the Bronco afterwards. By Geraldo's question he wanted to know why the evidence was "not" considered...and the NG verdict proves it couldn't have been.

[Kayleighjo]

Frankly if we're going to talk about how Fuhrman as a cop had a bigger responsibility to tell the truth we should be fair and talk about others in the case. F. Lee Bailey as an attorney has legal and moral set of ethics he's supposed to uphold but we know he was disbarred. Lance Ito as a judge definitely also has a high responsibility but i found this article where he was criticized in 2008 by the California Supreme Court for wrong doings as a prosecutor in a murder case which, by the way, that murder conviction has been overturned.

"Judge Lance Ito, who presided over the murder trial of O.J. Simpson, was criticized Monday in a California Supreme Court opinion for actions he took while he was a prosecutor.

The court overturned a death sentence for inmate Adam Miranda in the murder of Gary Black because of failures by Ito and two other prosecutors. The court determined that the prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence in a second killing used against Miranda in the penalty phase of his trial"

http://www.abajournal.com/news/judge_lance_ito_criticized_in_opinion_overturning_ murder_conviction/

[tv]

Frankly if we're going to talk about how Fuhrman as a cop had a bigger responsibility to tell the truth we should be fair and talk about others in the case. F. Lee Bailey as an attorney has legal and moral set of ethics he's supposed to uphold but we know he was disbarred. Lance Ito as a judge definitely also has a high responsibility but i found this article where he was criticized in 2008 by the California Supreme Court for wrong doings as a prosecutor in a murder case which, by the way, that murder conviction has been overturned.

"Judge Lance Ito, who presided over the murder trial of O.J. Simpson, was criticized Monday in a California Supreme Court opinion for actions he took while he was a prosecutor.

The court overturned a death sentence for inmate Adam Miranda in the murder of Gary Black because of failures by Ito and two other prosecutors. The court determined that the prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence in a second killing used against Miranda in the penalty phase of his trial"

http://www.abajournal.com/news/judge_lance_ito_criticized_in_opinion_overturning_ murder_conviction/
Interesting information. How could he have not known the defense was unaware of something as important as that letter? I found some of his actions in the Simpson case to be questionable. He was much too lax about keeping control in the court room. In the prosecution's closing he allowed a ridiculous amount of objections from the prosecution. Even though he overruled them it interrupted the flow of the closing -- not that I'm sure it would have made any diffence in the way the jury perceived Darden and Clark's words but it was just another example of the defense using slippery tactics that he permitted. The issue with his wife and Mark Fuhrman was another thing -- he should have recused himself but his wife claimed to barely remember Mark Fuhrman. Anything to keep him in the trial and basking in his celebrity status.

[Its just me]

I'm judging the length of time they deliberated and it hasn't caused any problem for me. They didn't even finish listening to the read back of Park's testimony.

And Park was a very important witness. No one in their right mind can logically add him to any so called conspircy theory. I don't know if it came out in the criminal trial or not but in the civil trial Park testifies that he got to Rockingham early and goes into detail what transpired after he arrived and could not get an answer when he buzzed the house. He was unsure if he was at the right house so he circles the block and drives on Rockingham....Park testifies the Bronco was Not there and tells how he was sure it was not there. Park saw the address sign on Rockingham that let him know he was at the right address. IIRC that is what I read in the opening statement. Parks actual testimony can show what he testified about but I haven't got there yet.
The Bronco was found parked close to the address sign. I don't believe for a minute Parks didn't see something as big as the Bronco and I certainly don't believe he lied.

[tv]

The jury foreman, Armanda Cooley, wrote:

". . .I did not find DNA too complicated to grasp. . .These spots that you filed, 48, 49, 50, 51, and 52 (sic). I wanted to see this. . .Going through those autorads and those aliels (sic) and how they talk about degrading and how much blood it takes. I see us not being so naive on those points. . .We reviewed the autorads, and there were no problems in any of that information, we understood it thoroughly. . .We know about aliels (sic), gels, we know all of that. A lot of us felt we could now earn a medical degree."

But when Madam Foreman muses further, the immense level of misunderstanding becomes clear. Cooley asked: "Did you know that Mazzola had the same type of blood, the same aliels (sic), that O.J. had? What about the people who were close to the scene who might have had the same type, too?". . .

At the end of the book, several journalists, lawyers, and journalist-lawyers asked the jurors some questions. Geraldo Rivera asked them, "How can you explain away O.J.'s blood at the murder scene, found hours before his blood sample was taken?"

Madam Foreman, Armanda Cooley, replied, "We can't explain it away. I don't think anybody has really tried to explain it away. Me, personally, I have not tried to explain it away at all. That was not one of the issues and that was definitely not the reasonable doubt we based our decision on."

O.J. unmasked: the trial, the truth, and the media; M.L. Rantala
Those statements mean to me that she was speaking for the rest of the jury when she said "WE can't explain it away" and "I don't think ANYBODY has really tried to explain it away".

[tv]

And Park was a very important witness. No one in their right mind can logically add him to any so called conspircy theory. I don't know if it came out in the criminal trial or not but in the civil trial Park testifies that he got to Rockingham early and goes into detail what transpired after he arrived and could not get an answer when he buzzed the house. He was unsure if he was at the right house so he circles the block and drives on Rockingham....Park testifies the Bronco was Not there and tells how he was sure it was not there. Park saw the address sign on Rockingham that let him know he was at the right address. IIRC that is what I read in the opening statement. Parks actual testimony can show what he testified about but I haven't got there yet.
The Bronco was found parked close to the address sign. I don't believe for a minute Parks didn't see something as big as the Bronco and I certainly don't believe he lied.

Park had absolutely no reason to lie. He was like so many others in this case -- he got thrown under the bus when he was only trying to do his job. He saw OJ Simpson returning from his killing spree and he is the one person that destroys Simpson's alibi.

[weezer]

Park had absolutely no reason to lie. He was like so many others in this case -- he got thrown under the bus when he was only trying to do his job. He saw OJ Simpson returning from his killing spree and he is the one person that destroys Simpson's alibi.

when you can't fault the evidence, you fault the messenger.

[weezer]

herein lies part of the problem:

". . .We may chuckle over the authors' response to Kato Kaelin (``He must be a drug dealer because he looked like he was high and he had that confused look about him while on the stand,'' writes Cooley) and wonder about their refusal to see Simpson's spousal abuse of Nicole as adequate motivation for the killing (they insist the evidence they reviewed was too limited -- ``one incident with three little episodes . . . it wasn't until we got out that we heard about all these other incidents,'' says Cooley''). . ."

[tv]

herein lies part of the problem:

". . .We may chuckle over the authors' response to Kato Kaelin (``He must be a drug dealer because he looked like he was high and he had that confused look about him while on the stand,'' writes Cooley) and wonder about their refusal to see Simpson's spousal abuse of Nicole as adequate motivation for the killing (they insist the evidence they reviewed was too limited -- ``one incident with three little episodes . . . it wasn't until we got out that we heard about all these other incidents,'' says Cooley''). . ."

They made a judgement about Kato Kaelin and Mark Fuhrman (the skinhead with hair comment) which demonstrates their willingness to make up their minds before the witnesses even open their mouths. The truth is that Kato was something of a health nut and didn't drink or use drugs.

[weezer]

They made a judgement about Kato Kaelin and Mark Fuhrman (the skinhead with hair comment) which demonstrates their willingness to make up their minds before the witnesses even open their mouths. The truth is that Kato was something of a health nut and didn't drink or use drugs.

I also noticed that but I thought what was really glaring was the statement about the abuse: one incident with three little episodes Good Gawd!

[Its just me]

I also noticed that but I thought what was really glaring was the statement about the abuse: one incident with three little episodes Good Gawd!

I know...I call it people with blinded eyes. Some lack the ability to see and some don't want to see. Nicole was no stranger to OJ's abuse....there is evidence that proves it.

[tv]

I also noticed that but I thought what was really glaring was the statement about the abuse: one incident with three little episodes Good Gawd! Sure, what's one little episode of beating the daylights out of your wife and making her fear for her life? Or two? Or three?

[weezer]

I know...I call it people with blinded eyes. Some lack the ability to see and some don't want to see. Nicole was no stranger to OJ's abuse....there is evidence that proves it.

but the really awful part is this jury understood there was abuse and was willing to accept it -- :mad:

[tv]

but the really awful part is this jury understood there was abuse and was willing to accept it -- :mad:

In reading the juror's book I remember having the impression that the Goldman's grief made more of an impression on them than the grief of Nicole's family. One of the jurors talked about hearing Kim Goldman scream when she heard the verdict. They didn't say so but I didn't feel much sympathy for Nicole in the book which might not be true -- but that's what I got from it. Carrie Bess was extremely nervous about what the reaction was going to be to the verdict. I don't think they were confident in their verdict but they weren't about to convict OJ Simpson.

[weezer]

In reading the juror's book I remember having the impression that the Goldman's grief made more of an impression on them than the grief of Nicole's family. One of the jurors talked about hearing Kim Goldman scream when she heard the verdict. They didn't say so but I didn't feel much sympathy for Nicole in the book which might not be true -- but that's what I got from it. Carrie Bess was extremely nervous about what the reaction was going to be to the verdict. I don't think they were confident in their verdict but they weren't about to convict OJ Simpson.

I agree, I don't believe there was sympathy for Nicole. but the criminal defense jury consultant called that one from the start. it's always good to know your audience.

[weezer]

On the lighter side - I googled for news on orenthal and this was one of the responses:

"OJ Simpson Photos | Who is OJ Simpson dating? Girlfriend, Wife"

I fully expected to see a picture of orenthal with another inmate. . . .:biggrin::tongue::eek:

[William Anthony]

nope -- I actually read the criminal defense closing. closing arguments are used to sway the jury to your 'theory, inference, etc.' so the prosecution says orenthal murdered Ron and Nicole and the criminal defense says evidence was planted. you believe the prosecution did not have sufficient evidence to support their claim and I believe the criminal defense had 'no' evidence to support theirs.

I'd still like to see a 'ruling' by ito on the subject of evidence being planted that is different than what I posted.


It makes no difference what I believe as to what the prosecution or the defense did or presented in the way of evidence, as my opinion is just that an opinion, which cannot change the fact that the jury, who heard the evidence about the criminal charge of murder, spoke and let the world know that the prosecution failed to meet its legal burden of proof.

[William Anthony]

William doesn't have the authority or the right to close any issue on this board.

I have never claimed that I did.

[tv]

I agree, I don't believe there was sympathy for Nicole. but the criminal defense jury consultant called that one from the start. it's always good to know your audience.

The jury consultant couldn't convincer Marcia Clark. I think she was having a hard time believing that women wouldn't sympathize with another woman being the victim of beatings by her husband but Clark definitely called it wrong.

[tv]

On the lighter side - I googled for news on orenthal and this was one of the responses:

"OJ Simpson Photos | Who is OJ Simpson dating? Girlfriend, Wife"

I fully expected to see a picture of orenthal with another inmate. . . .:biggrin::tongue::eek:

I'm to the point where nothing I read about OJ Simpson surprises me any longer. I still think it's possible he'll find a way to get out...via the legal system I mean. :)

[William Anthony]

So let me get this straight. Fuhrman was asked outside the presence of the jury if he had planted evidence and then he took the 5th ... and then even though the jury was not allowed to hear why he took the 5th, Ito allowed the defense to argue to the jury that Fuhrman did plant evidence?

How the heck does that work?

Excellent question as judge Ito stated his concern over the prejudice that would inure to Simpson by MF taking the 5th and therefore had to rule in a way to preserve the fairness. I think that had MF testified further the excerpts would have come in and as MF would have had the opportunity on redirect to be rehabilitated or to deny the testimonies of Singer, Hodge and McKinney. Thus, Ito allowed the instruction in regard to MF's unavailability and credibility and allowed the defense to argue the evidence before the jury, which they heard that was not refuted when MF decided to plead the 5th. This is my understanding of what transpired.

I have posted the transcript where the question was allowed to stand, despite the prosecution's objection and the defense's closing argument in regard to evidence planting. However, Let's take a look at what is not quoted in the alleged final ruling to show that it was in fact not final.

"While the current state of the record does not indicate evidence that would reach the minimal threshold necessary to find inquiry into the planting of evidence theory relevant, and the court so finds, the defense has not yet tested its case. The court will therefore analyze each incident, assuming arguendo, the minimal threshold of relevance is later met."

Ito struck a balancing act between Simpson's and MF's rights and he ruled that the question could be asked and based on the non answer the defense could argue the planting based on the non refuted testimonies.

[William Anthony]

I believe with all my being Darden spoke the truth...especially what I underlined. My Bold are very wise words coming from Darden. IMO. The jury failed to use common sense, reason and/or logic. Was it on purpose or was it not there for them to use. :shrug:

I think the jury used commons sense and their verdict said Darden was as mistaken as he was about the gloves fitting.

[William Anthony]

there was never an issue over whether or not Fuhrman planted evidence -- the issue was over use of the 'n-woord' only. in their bid to AGAIN manipulate the court and jury, the criminal defense asked (and was allowed to ask by a judge who should have recused himself) other questions. that in no way implies anything other than the defense asked questions that had nothing to do with the simpson murder case. Ito's final ruling stands and has never been superceded by another ruling.

You seem to want to dispute the lawyers, especially Ms. Lewis, who said it was a ruling. I think all the lawyers knew it was a ruling and even MF's lawyer referred to Ito's prior ruling of August 31st.

[William Anthony]

Ito's Final Decision on the Fuhrman Tapes
Date: 31 August 1995

A key part of the defense case is the allegation that Fuhrman, motivated by hatred of blacks/ African Americans and interracial couples, transported a bloody leather glove from the Bundy crime scene to the defendant's Rockingham residence for the purpose of placing the blame upon the defendant for the savage murders of Ronald L. Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson.

The defense proffers include 41 examples of Fuhrman using the particular racial epithet in question and 18 examples of misconduct argued to be relevant on the issue of Fuhrman's credibility and willingness to fabricate. The defense also offers 2 comments made by Fuhrman in late July of 1994 which are argued to be relevant to Fuhrman's attitude towards testifying as a witness. See Evidence Code Section 780 (j). Interestingly, the proffers do not address what evidence supports the allegation that the Rockingham glove was moved. (3) The court therefore has 61 incidents to evaluate.

This is what the defense was allowed to say on September 28th,

"So that what then it says we must do is you have the authority, you may reject the whole testimony, you can then wipe out everything that Fuhrman told you, including the glove and all the things that he recovered with the glove. That is why they are so worried. That is why when people say Fuhrman is not central, they are wearing blinds. They have lost their objectivity. They don't understand what they are talking about. It is embarrassing for learned people to say that, but they are entitled to their opinions, but we are going to speak the truth. In a courtroom you are supposed to speak the truth. A witness who walks through those doors, who raises his or her hand, swears to tell the truth. You've heard lie after lie after lie that has been exposed and when a witness lies in a material part of his testimony, you can wipe out all of his testimony as a judge of the facts. That is your decision again. Nobody can tell you about that. Lest you feel that a greater probability of truth lies in something else, they said wipe it out. This applies not only to Fuhrman, it applies to Vannatter and then you see what trouble their case is in, because they lied to get in there to do these things when Vannatter carries that blood. They can't explain to you why he did that, because they were setting this man up, and that glove, anybody among you think that glove was just sitting there, just placed there, moist and sticky after six and a half hours? The testimony is it will be dried in three or four hours, according to MacDonell. We are not naive. You understand there is no blood on anything else. There is no blood trail. There is no hair and fiber. And you get the ridiculous explanation that Mr. Simpson was running into air conditioners on his own province."

[William Anthony]

I guess what I'm asking is, outside of closing arguments, was the defense allowed to argue that to the jury?

The only time any party can argue is in motions or in closing. I think that Bailey came close with his question about the plastic baggies when he was questioning MF.

[William Anthony]

MY simple question remains unanswered by you.

September 1 came before September 6 and judge Ito had not heard the full testimonies of Ms. Bell, Singer, McKinney and Mr. Hodge.

[William Anthony]

I don't believe Mark Fuhrman should have ever been charged with perjury and I think most legal experts would agree with me.

In order to be charged with perjury the testimony must be material to the case and Mark Fuhrman using the "N" word wasn't material to the case.

Mark Fuhrman has said the reason he plead guilty was because he couldn't afford the lawyer fees to defend this case.

Many have wondered why Mark had gotten such a plead deal where he was fined either $200 or $300 plus probation. The reason was the prosecution knew if they went to trial that they could never get a convicition. They knew the best they could do is a hung jury.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion but the fact is that a judge found it material and convicted MF of perjury, as materiality is certainly an element of the charge of perjury.

[William Anthony]

Exactly. If abuse doesn't relate to murder how can racial epithets relate to planting?

The racial epithets were to show motive and the other evidence provided means and opportunity, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

"q: We saw -- well, did you see detective lange at any time that day with some rubber gloves on?

A: I did not, no.

Q: All right. Continue.

A: You would have rulers, tape measures, any necessary reports, plastic bags, envelopes, writing utensils, grease pencils, rulers, compass.

Q: Plastic bags in varying sizes perhaps?

A: Yes.

*
*
The defense closing, September 28th,

"...because they were setting this man up, and that glove, anybody among you think that glove was just sitting there, just placed there, moist and sticky after six and a half hours? The testimony is it will be dried in three or four hours, according to MacDonell. We are not naive. "

[William Anthony]

Who was seen possibly wearing sweat pants? The answer is Kato.

"A: I SAW DETECTIVE PHILLIPS LOOK TOWARDS THE DOOR AND HE WENT UP TO IT, AND I THINK ABOUT AT THE SAME TIME HE WAS ABOUT TO KNOCK, I COULD TELL IT WAS A GLASS PANE DOOR AND THERE WAS WOOD LOUVERS ON THE INSIDE AND SOME OF THEM WERE OPEN. DETECTIVE PHILLIPS COULD -- HE SAW SOMETHING, HE TURNED BACK AND SAID, "THERE'S A GUY ON THE BED," OR, "THERE'S SOMEONE LYING ON THE BED," SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND HE KNOCKED ON THE DOOR AND SHORTLY THEREAFTER, SOMEONE CAME TO THE DOOR.

Q: OKAY. CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE PERSON THAT CAME TO THE DOOR?

A: MALE WHITE, 5/9, 5/10, LONG BROWN HAIR. HE LOOKED LIKE HE WAS JUST WOKEN UP. HE HAD -- HE MIGHT HAVE HAD SWEATPANTS ON OR SOME TYPE OF PAJAMA, T-SHIRT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, COULD YOU KEEP YOUR VOICE UP, PLEASE?

THE WITNESS: SORRY. "

[William Anthony]

""Generally speaking, the confrontation clause guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way and to whatever extent the Defense might wish. The cross-examination of the witnesses always subject to the trial court's broad discretion to impose a reasonable limits to prevent interrogation based on concerns, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues"--and that would have happened here--"Or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant." So the courts have wide discretion. There's also People versus Cooper who--also cites Davis versus Alaska, which is one of the Defense attorneys' favorite cases it seems--to repeat:

"That the confrontation clause guarantees opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way and to whatever extent the Defense might wish." Most courts, in particular, municipal courts hearing these motions to suppress along with their preliminary hearings day in and day out are not interested in letting the Defense go far afield into the netherland in cross-examining witnesses. They want to hear evidence that directly pertains to that witness' testimony and that is relevant and directly relevant to that witness' testimony. So by all indications, this particular magistrate would not have even allowed cross-examination on this issue, let alone have been affected by it.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. I'm sorry. Miss Lewis, do you want to address one other issue, the request at this point to recall--based upon this newly discovered evidence, what you concede the tapes are newly discovered since this discovery occurred subsequent to the preliminary hearing and the original 1538.5 motion, what is your position on at least the Prosecution--excuse me--the Defense ability to recall Detective Fuhrman as a witness to confront him with some of these things?

MS. LEWIS: Your Honor, the Defense has no such right. This is high--as I just argued and pointed out to this court, this is highly collateral evidence. Their right was to present to this court the newly discovered evidence. They've done that. This court has read all of the transcripts, I'm sure listened to all of the tapes. Well, I know it's listened to all the tapes, made a detailed lengthy ruling with regard to the 60 whatever proffers. So this court has heard and has taken in that evidence. It's in the record, it's there, and the Defense has no right, and in fact it would be inappropriate I believe for this court to get into any kind of factual determination, which it would be doing if it heard--attempted to hear testimony from Detective Fuhrman. May I have just a moment, your Honor?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. LEWIS: As Miss Clark points out, the statute does not allow for--it does not say that they have the right to confront and cross-examine any witness with regard to this newly discovered evidence. And this is a situation where it's clear, your Honor, the magistrate below would not have allowed, as much as I can read her mind--but, you know, having worked in these muni courts for many years--and this court knows what it's like in muni courts with the number of felonies prosecuted by this office and the number of witnesses that are called daily and 10 to 15 prelims a day. That's not unusual downtown. I mean not only as a legal matter, but in terms of the exercise of these magistrates' discretion, it's very easy to predict that she would have not--because no magistrate below in municipal court in this building or in any other building probably in L.A. county would allow the kind of cross-examination the Defense seeks to bring on at this point for this court to hear. But I--I didn't mean to get sidetracked. No, they do not have a right to recall Detective Fuhrman to confront him with this and it would be inappropriate to do so.

The court has the information that it needs, having heard the transcripts and listened to the tapes, to determine if indeed that was even admitted by the magistrate below, which I submit it wouldn't have been, that would have had the legal effect of affecting her prior ruling and causing her to grant the motion; and it simply could not have had that effect when you're talking about two police officers testifying where that evidence affects only one. And the bishop court holds that the Defense has a heightened burden of it affecting both officers' testimony.

THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Uelmen."

[William Anthony]

September 6th,

"MR. UELMEN: The--the issue before your Honor, however, is not what effect would this evidence have on the magistrate. And that's the whole point of the Ramsey decision. Where additional evidence is presented, the findings of the magistrate, to the extent they are affected by additional evidence, are not binding on the superior court. As the Ramsey court put it, this allows the superior court to exercise its independent judgment on issues on which additional evidence is introduced. So we're not in the position of trying to go back and recreate how Judge Kennedy-Powell would have reacted if she had had the opportunity of hearing the Fuhrman tapes in deciding whether she should believe Detective Fuhrman's account of what happened on the morning of June 13th. To the extent that this is newly discovered evidence, the question is, what finding does your Honor make about the credibility of Detective Fuhrman with respect to the events that took place on the morning of June the 13th. And to that extent, the bishop case relied on by the Prosecution is inapposite. They're saying, you must challenge the credibility of both officers. But that occurs in a context where the two officers corroborate each other, where you have two officers testifying to the same thing. Of course, just attacking the credibility of one officer isn't going to undercut the factual finding. But with respect to each of the factual issues we have identified, the discovery of the speck on the door of the Bronco, the investigative activity in terms of searching for evidence that took place in the room of Kato Kaelin, the searching activity that took place behind the house after Detective Fuhrman decided to follow up on what Kaelin told him, every one of these were judgments or discoveries made by Detective Fuhrman without any corroboration. He was by himself, he was alone and his credibility stands alone with respect to each of those issues. We're not asking to relitigate everything here. Of course, we're not seeking a hearing de novo on the search made pursuant to the warrant, only to the extent that if the evidence found in the warrantless search supplies the probable cause for the issuance of the warrant, then of course the evidence discovered pursuant to the warrant would also have to be suppressed. But what we're talking about here is a warrantless entry to premises. We are talking about the credibility of the decisions and the judgments made by Detective Mark Fuhrman acting alone and we are asking what confidence can you have in his credibility with respect to that action that he took knowing what you now know from the Fuhrman tapes. And the Fuhrman tapes, your Honor is in a very good position to make a judgment about whether he was just impressing a screenwriter. We believe the tapes clearly demonstrate he was expressing his own attitudes, he was expressing his own opinions, he was describing his own practices, and those are certainly relevant areas to cross-examine him on before we make a determination of his credibility. And that's an opportunity that was deprived to the Defendant because this evidence was not available at the time Detective Fuhrman was confronted in the municipal court. And bear in mind that when Detective Mark Fuhrman testified in the municipal court, he was there to impress a Judge, just as counsel suggests he was there to impress Miss McKinny. And the issue that we have to address is whether that was a false impression, whether the conclusions that we draw with respect to the credibility of this witness, of this key witness on this issue of the suppression of the evidence can be trusted in light of this newly discovered evidence."

[tv]

Who was seen possibly wearing sweat pants? The answer is Kato.

"A: I SAW DETECTIVE PHILLIPS LOOK TOWARDS THE DOOR AND HE WENT UP TO IT, AND I THINK ABOUT AT THE SAME TIME HE WAS ABOUT TO KNOCK, I COULD TELL IT WAS A GLASS PANE DOOR AND THERE WAS WOOD LOUVERS ON THE INSIDE AND SOME OF THEM WERE OPEN. DETECTIVE PHILLIPS COULD -- HE SAW SOMETHING, HE TURNED BACK AND SAID, "THERE'S A GUY ON THE BED," OR, "THERE'S SOMEONE LYING ON THE BED," SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND HE KNOCKED ON THE DOOR AND SHORTLY THEREAFTER, SOMEONE CAME TO THE DOOR.

Q: OKAY. CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE PERSON THAT CAME TO THE DOOR?

A: MALE WHITE, 5/9, 5/10, LONG BROWN HAIR. HE LOOKED LIKE HE WAS JUST WOKEN UP. HE HAD -- HE MIGHT HAVE HAD SWEATPANTS ON OR SOME TYPE OF PAJAMA, T-SHIRT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, COULD YOU KEEP YOUR VOICE UP, PLEASE?

THE WITNESS: SORRY. "

What is your goal in pointing out that Kato might have been wearing sweat pants? The sweats we're concerned with were in the washer not on Kato's body. Is this one of those futile attempts to cast suspicion on anyone as long as it's not OJ Simpson?

[William Anthony]

What is your goal in pointing out that Kato might have been wearing sweat pants? The sweats we're concerned with were in the washer not on Kato's body. Is this one of those desperate attempts to cast suspicion on anyone as long as it's not OJ Simpson?

Certainly not. What I was doing is considering all the evidence, without having to speculate, as with the speculation as to a phone call made to Ms. Arnelle asking her to wash a sweatsuit and the attempted explanations as to why no evidence existed of that speculated phone call and the testimony of the maid that Simpson did not own a dark colored pair of sweatpants, in connection to who could have owned the sweatpants alleged to have been in the washing machine. I just consider all the evidence.

[tv]

Certainly not. What I was doing is considering all the evidence, without having to speculate, as with the speculation as to a phone call made to Ms. Arnelle asking her to wash a sweatsuit and the attempted explanations as to why no evidence existed and the testimony of the maid that Simpson did not own a dark colored pair of sweatpants, in connection to who could have owned the sweatpants alleged to have been in the washing machine. I just consider all the evidence.

I believe the maid said she'd never seen a dark colored pair of sweat pants -- I'm sure she has no way of knowing if he was actually in possession of a pair of sweats just that she'd never seen them. Speaking of considering all the evidence let's not forget that Simpson was photographed and videoed wearing dark sweat pants only a few weeks before the murders and the wardrobe person says he never returned them to her or her staff. Much stronger evidence than Kato MIGHT have been wearing sweat pants.

[martin II]

"q: We saw -- well, did you see detective lange at any time that day with some rubber gloves on?

A: I did not, no.

Q: All right. Continue.

A: You would have rulers, tape measures, any necessary reports, plastic bags, envelopes, writing utensils, grease pencils, rulers, compass.

Q: Plastic bags in varying sizes perhaps?

A: Yes.

*
*
The defense closing, September 28th,

"...because they were setting this man up, and that glove, anybody among you think that glove was just sitting there, just placed there, moist and sticky after six and a half hours? The testimony is it will be dried in three or four hours, according to MacDonell. We are not naive. "

kato played basketball so he would own sweats. He was typing a letter in the back office on 6/12. all he had to do is walk through that door to be in the main house right near the laundry room. imo

[William Anthony]

I believe the maid said she'd never seen a dark colored pair of sweat pants -- I'm sure she has no way of knowing if he was actually in possession of a pair of sweats just that she'd never seen them. Speaking of considering all the evidence let's not forget that Simpson was photographed and videoed wearing dark sweat pants only a few weeks before the murders and the wardrobe person says he never returned them to her or her staff. Much stronger evidence than Kato MIGHT have been wearing sweat pants.

I think that we must consider everything fairly and not just consider those with which we agree as that could get us into situations that could be avoided, if things are considered and implemented fairly. With that concept in mind we are talking about the events of June 13th, 1994, not a few weeks before. The maid washed Simpson's clothes and would have known about the sweatpants if any existed in Simpson's mansion. Many have credited MF's detective abilities, which I find amusing, and are you now saying that MF's ability to detect what he saw someone wearing is questionable or do you thing there was some reason why MF quickly dismissed Kato as a suspect?

[William Anthony]

kato played basketball so he would own sweats. He was typing a letter in the back office on 6/12. all he had to do is walk through that door to be in the main house right near the laundry room. imo

I don't know whether or not Kato was employed at the time but I would think he probably owned more than one pair of sweatpants. I think there was a post about MF playing basketball.

[martin II]

I believe the maid said she'd never seen a dark colored pair of sweat pants -- I'm sure she has no way of knowing if he was actually in possession of a pair of sweats just that she'd never seen them. Speaking of considering all the evidence let's not forget that Simpson was photographed and videoed wearing dark sweat pants only a few weeks before the murders and the wardrobe person says he never returned them to her or her staff. Much stronger evidence than Kato MIGHT have been wearing sweat pants.

What i an thinking is one of that crew asked oj for the sweats and he gave them to that person. With a closet full of clothes many given him by the multiple dozens by Reebok and jeans companies,why would oj want one pair of cheap sweats that were not DKNY the kind he told the lady he wanted.
DKNY sent some sweats but the wrong size and they were sent back. imo

[William Anthony]

What i an thinking is one of that crew asked oj for the sweats and he gave them to that person. With a closet full of clothes many given him by the multiple dozens by Reebok and jeans companies,why would oj want one pair of cheap sweats that were not DKNY the kind he told the lady he wanted.
DKNY sent some sweats but the wrong size and they were sent back. imo

If I were a celebrity, a pair of sweatpants I wore would mean more to someone else than they would me and, if I was not affluent or a celebrity, a pair of sweatpants I wore would mean more to me than someone else, meaning the non celebrity would have more of a reason to hold on to and wash the sweat pants, IMHO.

[tv]

kato played basketball so he would own sweats. He was typing a letter in the back office on 6/12. all he had to do is walk through that door to be in the main house right near the laundry room. imo

You think the sweats belong to Kato? He had no reason to lie about them being his and what reason would he have for mixing his sweats with Arnelle's underwear. Do you think he also used her laundry basket?

[tv]

I think that we must consider everything fairly and not just consider those with which we agree as that could get us into situations that could be avoided, if things are considered and implemented fairly. With that concept in mind we are talking about the events of June 13th, 1994, not a few weeks before. The maid washed Simpson's clothes and would have known about the sweatpants if any existed in Simpson's mansion. Many have credited MF's detective abilities, which I find amusing, and are you now saying that MF's ability to detect what he saw someone wearing is questionable or do you thing there was some reason why MF quickly dismissed Kato as a suspect?

I see you are once again dragging Mark Fuhrman into the discussion where I will eventually be asked to explain my motives concerning him. Not going to do that today.

If you think that Simpson couldn't have held on to the sweats that he's wearing in the video when there is testimony that points to him keeping them then I don't know what to tell you. For all we know he may have never worn them at home therefore they would have never made it into the laundry and the maid wouldn't have seen them.

[tv]

If I were a celebrity, a pair of sweatpants I wore would mean more to someone else than they would me and, if I was not affluent or a celebrity, a pair of sweatpants I wore would mean more to me than someone else, meaning the non celebrity would have more of a reason to hold on to and wash the sweat pants, IMHO.

For heaven's sake, this makes absolutely no sense.

[tv]

What i an thinking is one of that crew asked oj for the sweats and he gave them to that person. With a closet full of clothes many given him by the multiple dozens by Reebok and jeans companies,why would oj want one pair of cheap sweats that were not DKNY the kind he told the lady he wanted.
DKNY sent some sweats but the wrong size and they were sent back. imo

Who knows? Like William said we have to consider all the evidence and the evidence is that he didn't return the sweats.

[William Anthony]

You think the sweats belong to Kato? He had no reason to lie about them being his and what reason would he have for mixing his sweats with Arnelle's underwear. Do you think he also used her laundry basket?

I think there has been some posts, indicating that Simpson wore the panties but, unfortunately, due to some nic alterations, the posts may not be able to be pulled up. However, my point is that fairness would require that, if that sort of speculation is provided to Simpson, then Kato should be the recipient of the same type, IMHO. :)

[tv]

I don't know whether or not Kato was employed at the time but I would think he probably owned more than one pair of sweatpants. I think there was a post about MF playing basketball.

What does Mark Fuhrman playing basketball have to do with anything?

[tv]

I think there has been some posts, indicating that Simpson wore the panties but, unfortunately, due to some nic alterations, the posts may not be able to be pulled up. However, my point is that fairness would require that, if that sort of speculation is provided to Simpson, then Kato should be the recipient of the same type, IMHO. :)
You can still pull them all even with the nic alterations.

[William Anthony]

I see you are once again dragging Mark Fuhrman into the discussion where I will eventually be asked to explain my motives concerning him. Not going to do that today.

If you think that Simpson couldn't have held on to the sweats that he's wearing in the video when there is testimony that points to him keeping them then I don't know what to tell you. For all we know he may have never worn them at home therefore they would have never made it into the laundry and the maid wouldn't have seen them.

I am not dragging MF into the discussion, it was his testimony and I was simply considering things that were said about MF. I don't see any evidence that Simpson held on to the sweats, only that he did not give them to the person who gave them to him. For all we know he may have thrown them away, which is another example of how the prosecution failed miserably, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

For heaven's sake, this makes absolutely no sense.

Now, we know the claims about items belonging to a celebrity and some of them coming from the celebrity's trash. I took the opportunity to explain and there was no need, IMHO, for the comment in that context. Let's be civil so the forum is not closed.

[William Anthony]

What does Mark Fuhrman playing basketball have to do with anything?

MF was there on the 13th and he may have worn sweats to play basketball. He may have known Kato from the hoop court, although I would not let those things enter into my deliberate thought processes as there was no evidence of such but I provided it for those who might like to speculate.

[tv]

I am not dragging MF into the discussion, it was his testimony and I was simply considering things that were said about MF. I don't see any evidence that Simpson held on to the sweats, only that he did not give them to the person who gave them to him. For all we know he may have thrown them away, which is another example of how the prosecution failed miserably, IMHO.

I have no doubt he did throw them away -- after he wore them when he murdered Ron and Nicole and they'd been washed. LE didn't understand the significance of the sweats they found in the washer and failed to collect them. A lucky break for OJ Simpson.

[tv]

Now, we know the claims about items belonging to a celebrity and some of them coming from the celebrity's trash. I took the opportunity to explain and there was no need, IMHO, for the comment in that context. Let's be civil so the forum is not closed.

I'm being civil. If you don't think I am please go to the moderator with it. I said your post made no sense to me because it doesn't. I can see you're trying your best to pick an argument but I'm not interested. Bye. :seeya:

[William Anthony]

I have no doubt he did throw them away -- after he wore them when he murdered Ron and Nicole and they'd been washed. LE didn't understand the significance of the sweats they found in the washer and failed to collect them. A lucky break for OJ Simpson.

I know that you have no doubt as you are not bound by the oaths the jurors took and swore to uphold and the instructions they received as to how to honor their oath. The jury required evidence that tended to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilty to reach their conclusions either that the defendant was or was not guilty.

[William Anthony]

I'm being civil. If you don't think I am please go to the moderator with it. I said your post made no sense to me because it doesn't. I can see you're trying your best to pick an argument but I'm not interested. Bye. :seeya:

:seeya:, :seeya:, :seeya:.

[weezer]

You think the sweats belong to Kato? He had no reason to lie about them being his and what reason would he have for mixing his sweats with Arnelle's underwear. Do you think he also used her laundry basket?

I read somewhere that the sweats belonged to arnelle. . .;)

[tv]

I read somewhere that the sweats belonged to arnelle. . .;)

We know the underwear and the basket belonged to her...

[William Anthony]

"MR. DARDEN: Okay. Inside and on the top?

MS. GUARIN: Okay.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. There's a pair of panties in there; is that right?

MS. GUARIN: That basket that on the top of the laundry--

MR. DARDEN: Yes.

MS. GUARIN: --that belongs to Arnelle.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

MS. GUARIN: Maybe Arnelle did some laundry before--after I left because that basket belong to her. So maybe that's her clothes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. That basket wasn't there when you left?

MS. GUARIN: No."

[martin II]

:seeya:, :seeya:, :seeya:.

Why would oj keep a $29.00 swear suit? hahaha

[tv]

Why would oj keep a $29.00 swear suit? hahaha

Why would he have a rusty washing machine and a broken gate?

[tv]

"MR. DARDEN: Okay. Inside and on the top?

MS. GUARIN: Okay.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. There's a pair of panties in there; is that right?

MS. GUARIN: That basket that on the top of the laundry--

MR. DARDEN: Yes.

MS. GUARIN: --that belongs to Arnelle.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

MS. GUARIN: Maybe Arnelle did some laundry before--after I left because that basket belong to her. So maybe that's her clothes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. That basket wasn't there when you left?

MS. GUARIN: No."

Arnelle said she hadn't been in the house. Maybe we have a magical laundry basket and soiled laundry?

[William Anthony]

Arnelle said she hadn't been in the house. Maybe we have a magical laundry basket and soiled laundry?

That would fit well with the rest of the prosecution's magical evidence, which is what I said a while ago about the magical sweatsuit. We don't have it but it was there believe us and it was as we say it was even though we don't have it.

[martin II]

"MR. DARDEN: Okay. Inside and on the top?

MS. GUARIN: Okay.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. There's a pair of panties in there; is that right?

MS. GUARIN: That basket that on the top of the laundry--

MR. DARDEN: Yes.

MS. GUARIN: --that belongs to Arnelle.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

MS. GUARIN: Maybe Arnelle did some laundry before--after I left because that basket belong to her. So maybe that's her clothes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. That basket wasn't there when you left?

MS. GUARIN: No."

That basket that on the top of the laundry-- Does she mean basket on top of the machine? The basket could not be in the maching on top of laundry.
Does she mean undies in the basket sitting on top of the machine?

[William Anthony]

Why would oj keep a $29.00 swear suit? hahaha

The maid never saw one.

[William Anthony]

That basket that on the top of the laundry-- Does she mean basket on top of the machine? The basket could not be in the maching on top of laundry.
Does she mean undies in the basket sitting on top of the machine?

This is the problem with transcripts and the skill of the attorney asking the question as the record is unclear. However, the jury may remember to what the question and answer referred.

[martin II]

Why would he have a rusty washing machine and a broken gate?

i think most washing machines that are not new would have rusk on the pipes.

The gate was in a area never used by anyone in the house nothing strange by it not being fixed.

[martin II]

Arnelle said she hadn't been in the house. Maybe we have a magical laundry basket and soiled laundry?

IF you know the laundry was solied then you must be saying the items in the machine had never been washed. This means the sweats you believe were the murder clother would be dripping with blood.

[martin II]

This is the problem with transcripts and the skill of the attorney asking the question as the record is unclear. However, the jury may remember to what the question and answer referred.

Darden seem not to understand his questions did not get a clear response. Hearing the response he should have asked better questions but maby he was not paying attention.
That testimony does not mean much unless i am missing it. Unless she was saying the only clothes she saw was undies not sweats.

[William Anthony]

Darden seem not to understand his questions did not get a clear response. Hearing the response he should have asked better questions but maby he was not paying attention.
That testimony does not mean much unless i am missing it. Unless she was saying the only clothes she saw was nudies not sweats.

That is why I used the term attorney instead of lawyer, which even lawyers sometimes ask poorly worded questions and accept unclear answers but I think Darden did this far too often. I am not sure as to whether the prosecution argued what has been alleged on this message board and, if they did not, it could have been, because the record was not clear and they did not make it clear as they did not consider it an important part. However, a learned lawyer would have made the record clear as to exactly what clothing items could have been seen on the video in the washing machine, IMHO.

[martin II]

That is why I used the term attorney instead of lawyer, which even lawyers sometimes ask poorly worded questions and accept unclear answers but I think Darden did this far too often. I am not sure as to whether the prosecution argued what has been alleged on this message board and, if they did not, it could have been, because the record was not clear and they did not make it clear as they did not consider it an important part. However, a learned lawyer would have made the record clear as to exactly what clothing items could have been seen on the video in the washing machine, IMHO.

I can't see how the whole sweats washing maching issue impacted the jury one bit. Another made up weak piece of nothing by the prosecution. I really don't think the prosecution saw it as important either.

[weezer]

Arnelle said she hadn't been in the house. Maybe we have a magical laundry basket and soiled laundry?

so she said she hadn't been in the house and I can't find anything where she claims the lingerie and/or the laundry basket. hmmmm

[martin II]

IF It is true that oj entered his house wearing murder sweats, why would he put them in his washer knowing le would be at his house as soon as the bodies were found. IF the above was true why wouldn't he just take the sweats off inside his house,put them in the LV BAG and take them with him. It makes no sense that he would leave them in his house.

The answer is he didn't put any sweats in the washing machine. It is just that simple.imo

[martin II]

so she said she hadn't been in the house and I can't find anything where she claims the lingerie and/or the laundry basket. hmmmm

Who asked her about these items?

What was GG saying. In the video she saw undies in a basket on top of the machine????

[William Anthony]

I can't see how the whole sweats washing maching issue impacted the jury one bit. Another made up weak piece of nothing by the prosecution. I really don't think the prosecution saw it as important either.

Another very astute observation on your part, IMHO. A sweatsuit that was not produced or testified to being bloody or wet could have no impact on the jury as there was no evidence produced to impact them. There is only speculation, in which the jury wasn't allowed to engage. The evidence is that Kato possibly wore sweatpants on the night of June 12th an the AM hours of June 13th, and that is iffy, just as it is iffy as to what Simpson wore when Kato last saw him on June 12th. We will say that there was a sweatsuit in the washing machine, even if we have to place one in there, but, if we can't place Simpson in one, then it can disappear. :);):cool:

[martin II]

Another very astute observation on your part, IMHO. A sweatsuit that was not produced or testified to being bloody or wet could have no impact on the jury as there was no evidence produced to impact them. There is only speculation, in which the jury wasn't allowed to engage. The evidence is that Kato possibly wore sweatpants on the night of June 12th an the AM hours of June 13th, and that is iffy, just as it is iffy as to what Simpson wore when Kato last saw him on June 12th. We will say that there was a sweatsuit in the washing machine, even if we have to place one in there, but, if we can't place Simpson in one, then it can disappear. :);):cool:

It may be that people here paid more attention to the sweat suit issue than the defense and prosecution. imo

[William Anthony]

It may be that people here paid more attention to the sweat suit issue than the defense and prosecution. imo

A couple of things about the sweatsuit that are typical of the prosecution, IMHO. They were looking for blood in all the wrong places and not collecting the alleged evidence.

[martin II]

A couple of things about the sweatsuit that are typical of the prosecution, IMHO. They were looking for blood in all the wrong places and not collecting the alleged evidence.

That is either the fault of bad le work or a prosecution trying to get a conviction based on speculation. The prosecution was missing many main ingredients of a solid murder case. Witnesses that saw accused at murder scene, no weapon, no murder clothes. accurate time line.No proof that accused was not in his house.So they offered many speculations based on
blood handeled by the lapd lab that was at best suspect.imo

The sweats is a good example of this speculation.LE says they found some sweats in a washer. Examined them,foung no blood. left them in the washer. Media reports said le took the sweats and tested them.weeks later le goes back to ojs house saying they were looking for the sweat.This allowed the DA to offer speculation that oj did something with the sweats although media reports say they collected the sweats. The da never questioned fung about collecting the sweats. imo

[William Anthony]

That is either the fault of bad le work or a prosecution trying to get a conviction based on speculation. The prosecution was missing many main ingredients of a solid murder case. Witnesses that saw accused at murder scene, no weapon, no murder clothes. accurate time line.No proof that accused was not in his house.So they offered many speculations based on
blood handeled by the lapd lab that was at best suspect.imo

The sweats is a good example of this speculation.LE says they found some sweats in a washer. Examined them,foung no blood. left them in the washer. Media reports said le took the sweats and tested them.weeks later le goes back to ojs house saying they were looking for the sweat.This allowed the DA to offer speculation that oj did something with the sweats although media reports say they collected the sweats. The da never questioned fung about collecting the sweats. imo

The prosecution claimed to have had a strong circumstantial evidence case but, IMHO, they forgot to bring the evidence.

[Hipcheck]

The prosecution claimed to have had a strong circumstantial evidence case but, IMHO, they forgot to bring the evidence.

The prosecution had a very strong case with the blood evidence pointing to only one person who could have committed these murders and that person is none other than O.J. Simpson.

[Its just me]

The prosecution had a very strong case with the blood evidence pointing to only one person who could have committed these murders and that person is none other than O.J. Simpson.

I totally agree.

[weezer]

The prosecution had a very strong case with the blood evidence pointing to only one person who could have committed these murders and that person is none other than O.J. Simpson.

:beer::beer::beer:

[martin II]

vannatter carrying ojs blood evidence around in his pocket, The switch of AM bendels, Martz showing EDTA on the sock and the missed gate sample and matherson, spilling ojs blood in the lab made the blood evidence suspect or not believable at best. imo

[One2Snoop]

Off topic

WarmNCozy

http://boards.library.trutv.com/showthread.php?t=295502

[martin II]

The prosecution claimed to have had a strong circumstantial evidence case but, IMHO, they forgot to bring the evidence.

Maby they should have been more honest with fred and the media by saying we have ideas but evidence is not that strong but we can try speculations to get a conviction. We do it frquently when the defence lawyer is weak. imo.

[martin II]

Off topic

WarmNCozy

http://boards.libra
ry.trutv.com/showthread.php?t=295502

Very sad news. She was such a great person.

RIP WarmNCozy.:rose::rose::rose:

[William Anthony]

Off topic

WarmNCozy

http://boards.library.trutv.com/showthread.php?t=295502

She was especially nice and her life wracked with hardships that she endured. May peace and comfort with no more sorrow be hers. My heat is sadden to learn of her departure. :rose:, :rose:, :rose:

[William Anthony]

The prosecution had a very strong case with the blood evidence pointing to only one person who could have committed these murders and that person is none other than O.J. Simpson.

The idea is not who the blood pointed to but whether the time and manner the blood was deposited could be trusted and relied. This is what is required to produce proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

[martin II]

The idea is not who the blood pointed to but whether the time and manner the blood was deposited could be trusted and relied. This is what is required to produce proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

In this case the question is what happened to the missing blood after vannatter received it until it was accounted for by THAT lab.imo

[martin II]

The idea is not who the blood pointed to but whether the time and manner the blood was deposited could be trusted and relied. This is what is required to produce proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Acutally the blood did no pointing.

[William Anthony]

Acutally the blood did no pointing.

Correct, the DNA experts' testimonies pointed to Simpson and that like the other evidence was subject to the tests of reliability and trustworthiness.

[Kate Sachel]

Off topic

WarmNCozy

http://boards.library.trutv.com/showthread.php?t=295502

My heart is heavy this morning with this news.

May she finally have the peace that had eluded her for so long.

God Bless - Kate

[bobaugust]

vannatter carrying ojs blood evidence around in his pocket, The switch of AM bendels, Martz showing EDTA on the sock and the missed gate sample and matherson, spilling ojs blood in the lab made the blood evidence suspect or not believable at best. imo

You continue to post false information. Vannatter never carried any blood sample in his pocket. There was no evidence that any bindle was switched. The small trace amount of EDTA Martz found in the third test results was contamination. Neither Matheson nor anyone else spilled blood in the lab.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

"Q. Let me read to you what you read of Mr. Martz's testimony in the
criminal trial at 38641, lines 1 through 5.
Q. By the way, is the method that you used, any of the methods that
you used, quantitative methods?
A. I did not specifically use these methods to quantitate the amount
of EDT
A. That's what his testimony was, was it not, sir?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. Now, you in coming and arriving at your opinions, are not
saying that wasn't EDTA; you're saying that the amount -- the
quantity is too little; and hence, you don't believe it came from a
purple-top test tube, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. So you are using quantities, where Mr. Martz, in his tests,
determined -- or attempted not to quantify anything; correct?
A. The --
Q. Well, can you answer that?
A. It's a matter of semantics.
Q. Can you answer that question, sir?
A. Yes. Could you ask it again?
Q. You are attempting to use quantity to -- in arriving at your
opinion that -- that this EDTA that was found in the samples from
both the back gate and the socks, was not EDTA from a purple-top
test tube; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And you are fully aware that Rodger Martz does not use
quantity to make any determination relative to EDTA, nor was he
asked to; correct?
A. By the strict definition of quantitative analysis, he was not
doing that.
Q. Can you answer my question, sir? He was not using --
A. I can answer. I can tell you, as an expert, that I could draw no
conclusions whatsoever unless he had some measure of the amount of
material present.
Q. Now --
A. He has to know the limits of the sensitivity, the limits of his
detection, limits -- all these things he has to know, or his
analysis means absolutely nothing.
Q. And you're aware that he testified that the levels of EDTA or --
strike that -- what he found on the 206 and 207 was consistent with
EDTA on the back gate and the socks, correct?
A. No.
Q. Maybe we'll get that in a minute.
MR. BAKER: You want to put that up?
MR. P. BAKER: This is next in order.
THE CLERK: 2405.
MR. P. BAKER: Dr. Lee's notes.
(The instrument herein referred to as Dr. Terry Lee's notes was
marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit No. 2405.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you said in your notes --
MR. BAKER: Go down to outcome No. 3.
MR. P. BAKER:
(Adjusts Elmo.)
MR. BAKER: Back it off, please.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) "If detectable levels of EDTA are found in the
stains, but significantly lower than the levels from blood in the
tube, then interpretation becomes problematic." What you meant by
that, sir, it becomes a problem to determine the EDT
A. Isn't that true, sir?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative.
A. No.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Let's go down to the next one. You say, if not
planted -- can you read that for us -- convincing argument must be
found why EDTA is present at that level.
A. Yes. You want me to read it?
Q. Yes, because I have trouble reading your writing.
A. So do I.
Q. I can understand that.
A. "If not planted, convincing argument must be found for why the
EDTA is present at these levels.
Q. Now, read the next one.
A. I can't even finish that one.
Q. I'm sorry.
A. I think it's -- I don't know that word.
Q. You were attempting to find convincing argument as to why the
EDTA --
A. Oh, I think I can do it now. One would be direct contamination
from either the environment or contamination from the lab during the
sample analysis.
Q. So you were attempting to find convincing argument to explain
away the EDTA found by Rodger Martz, and you understood that to be
your -- your -- your goal; correct, sir?
A. No, that wasn't my goal. My goal was to understand why the trace
levels that were observed in that particular analysis were there.
Q. Well, now, so you came up with this ghosting or carry-over effect
from the equipment, correct? That's your theory of why these levels
of EDTA were found by Rodger Martz?
A. Another most reasonable explanation, yes."

The other reasonable explanation and the first one, because he says, "If not planted, would be planted.

[martin II]

"Q. Let me read to you what you read of Mr. Martz's testimony in the
criminal trial at 38641, lines 1 through 5.
Q. By the way, is the method that you used, any of the methods that
you used, quantitative methods?
A. I did not specifically use these methods to quantitate the amount
of EDT
A. That's what his testimony was, was it not, sir?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. Now, you in coming and arriving at your opinions, are not
saying that wasn't EDTA; you're saying that the amount -- the
quantity is too little; and hence, you don't believe it came from a
purple-top test tube, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. So you are using quantities, where Mr. Martz, in his tests,
determined -- or attempted not to quantify anything; correct?
A. The --
Q. Well, can you answer that?
A. It's a matter of semantics.
Q. Can you answer that question, sir?
A. Yes. Could you ask it again?
Q. You are attempting to use quantity to -- in arriving at your
opinion that -- that this EDTA that was found in the samples from
both the back gate and the socks, was not EDTA from a purple-top
test tube; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And you are fully aware that Rodger Martz does not use
quantity to make any determination relative to EDTA, nor was he
asked to; correct?
A. By the strict definition of quantitative analysis, he was not
doing that.
Q. Can you answer my question, sir? He was not using --
A. I can answer. I can tell you, as an expert, that I could draw no
conclusions whatsoever unless he had some measure of the amount of
material present.
Q. Now --
A. He has to know the limits of the sensitivity, the limits of his
detection, limits -- all these things he has to know, or his
analysis means absolutely nothing.
Q. And you're aware that he testified that the levels of EDTA or --
strike that -- what he found on the 206 and 207 was consistent with
EDTA on the back gate and the socks, correct?
A. No.
Q. Maybe we'll get that in a minute.
MR. BAKER: You want to put that up?
MR. P. BAKER: This is next in order.
THE CLERK: 2405.
MR. P. BAKER: Dr. Lee's notes.
(The instrument herein referred to as Dr. Terry Lee's notes was
marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit No. 2405.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you said in your notes --
MR. BAKER: Go down to outcome No. 3.
MR. P. BAKER:
(Adjusts Elmo.)
MR. BAKER: Back it off, please.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) "If detectable levels of EDTA are found in the
stains, but significantly lower than the levels from blood in the
tube, then interpretation becomes problematic." What you meant by
that, sir, it becomes a problem to determine the EDT
A. Isn't that true, sir?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative.
A. No.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Let's go down to the next one. You say, if not
planted -- can you read that for us -- convincing argument must be
found why EDTA is present at that level.
A. Yes. You want me to read it?
Q. Yes, because I have trouble reading your writing.
A. So do I.
Q. I can understand that.
A. "If not planted, convincing argument must be found for why the
EDTA is present at these levels.
Q. Now, read the next one.
A. I can't even finish that one.
Q. I'm sorry.
A. I think it's -- I don't know that word.
Q. You were attempting to find convincing argument as to why the
EDTA --
A. Oh, I think I can do it now. One would be direct contamination
from either the environment or contamination from the lab during the
sample analysis.
Q. So you were attempting to find convincing argument to explain
away the EDTA found by Rodger Martz, and you understood that to be
your -- your -- your goal; correct, sir?
A. No, that wasn't my goal. My goal was to understand why the trace
levels that were observed in that particular analysis were there.
Q. Well, now, so you came up with this ghosting or carry-over effect
from the equipment, correct? That's your theory of why these levels
of EDTA were found by Rodger Martz?
A. Another most reasonable explanation, yes."

The other reasonable explanation and the first one, because he says, "If not planted, would be planted.

There was no reason to explain the EDTA so the witness just told the jury a ghost was responsible and expected the jury to believe that. imo

[William Anthony]

There was no reason to explain the EDTA so the witness just told the jury a ghost was responsible and expected the jury to believe that. imo

Since, T. Lee did not testify until the socio political production, I wonder what, if, any jury instruction was given that jury in regard to two or more reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence as it pertains to liability?

[tv]

There was no reason to explain the EDTA so the witness just told the jury a ghost was responsible and expected the jury to believe that. imo

The witness never said a ghost was responsible. He said it was ghosting which is a carry-over effect. Big difference.

[tv]

Since, T. Lee did not testify until the socio political production, I wonder what, if, any jury instruction was given that jury in regard to two or more reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence as it pertains to liability?

I don't know but I'm sure the jury instructions are in the civil trial transcripts just like they are for the gross miscarriage of justice proceedings in which OJ Simpson was wrongfully acquitted of double murder.

[William Anthony]

I don't know but I'm sure the jury instructions are in the civil trial transcripts just like they are for the gross miscarriage of justice proceedings in which OJ Simpson was wrongfully acquitted of double murder.

I would ask you to give your definition of the word "justice", so I can understand of what you speak as being a gross miscarriage. To have found Simpson guilty on the lack of evidence and the questionable trustworthiness and reliability of the evidence produced by the prosecution, would have been a miscarriage of justice, IMHO.

http://members.fortunecity.com/schreck/ARTICLE5.HTML

[William Anthony]

January 17th,

"Now, we did
some of this in voir dire. I wasn't permitted to get involved in
this area in opening statements. I certainly want to make it very,
very clear to the jury in closing argument that this is not the
criminal case, we're dealing with different burdens of proof, and
that the criminal case has no application whatsoever to this case.
And many of the jurors were absolutely confused about this. And this
case is, in some sense, virtually unprecedented in the sense that we
have this civil case following a criminal acquittal. And I think
that given the tenor of Mr. Baker's examination of witnesses, and
the theme that I know we're going to hear in argument, this kind of
instruction is necessary. It simply states the law. There's nothing
argumentative about any of this, especially if you remove those
paragraphs or those sentences that I described.
THE COURT: You ready to submit it?
MR. PETROCELLI: Yes.
MR. BAKER: Just one more thing, Your Honor. For him to say in here
that there is a material difference in the burden of proof, then we
have to instruct this jury on what is the difference. I think we
have to instruct on the issue of the beyond a reasonable doubt
standard. They can determine for themselves whether or not it's
materially different, whether it's not materially different. I don't
think it's appropriate to put before a jury, No. 1. And No. 2, the
assertion that this case is sui generis is preposterous. This
happens -- has happened in my career more than once, that you try a
civil case after a criminal acquittal.
THE COURT: Not --
MR. PETROCELLI: Not with this publicity, as we saw in jury
selection.
MR. BAKER: The publicity --
THE COURT: Excuse me. I don't need cross argument. If you just state
your argument to perfect your record, then submit it, I'll rule and
go on."

[tv]

I would ask you to give your definition of the word "justice", so I can understand of what you speak as being a gross miscarriage. To have found Simpson guilty on the lack of evidence and the questionable trustworthiness and reliability of the evidence produced by the prosecution, would have been a miscarriage of justice, IMHO.

http://members.fortunecity.com/schreck/ARTICLE5.HTML

I was characterizing the trial in my own words and opinion instead of respectfully referring to it as merely the criminal trial. Since you insist on disrepectfully referring to a fair legal proceeding, the civil trial, as a socio-political production because you don't like the verdict I decided to take the same liberty. There was nothing wrong with the evidence and it wasn't 'produced' by the prosecution. It was the blood and fiber evidence left by the defendant and the victims as well as the timeline, defendant's lies and phony alibi. The defense in both trials relied on fantasy, wild speculation and finger pointing at everything and everyone except OJ Simpson. Unfortunately for the defendant this jury wasn't blinded by celebrity or the defense's willingness to do or say anything, no matter how shady, to exonerate their client. They also had the benefit of watching OJ Simpson's lies fall apart under oath on the witness stand. Far from being a 'socio-political production' it was more like a work of art.

As for the definition of justice -- there are numerous online dictionaries that will give you what you want to know.

[tv]

January 17th,

"Now, we did
some of this in voir dire. I wasn't permitted to get involved in
this area in opening statements. I certainly want to make it very,
very clear to the jury in closing argument that this is not the
criminal case, we're dealing with different burdens of proof, and
that the criminal case has no application whatsoever to this case.
And many of the jurors were absolutely confused about this. And this
case is, in some sense, virtually unprecedented in the sense that we
have this civil case following a criminal acquittal. And I think
that given the tenor of Mr. Baker's examination of witnesses, and
the theme that I know we're going to hear in argument, this kind of
instruction is necessary. It simply states the law. There's nothing
argumentative about any of this, especially if you remove those
paragraphs or those sentences that I described.
THE COURT: You ready to submit it?
MR. PETROCELLI: Yes.
MR. BAKER: Just one more thing, Your Honor. For him to say in here
that there is a material difference in the burden of proof, then we
have to instruct this jury on what is the difference. I think we
have to instruct on the issue of the beyond a reasonable doubt
standard. They can determine for themselves whether or not it's
materially different, whether it's not materially different. I don't
think it's appropriate to put before a jury, No. 1. And No. 2, the
assertion that this case is sui generis is preposterous. This
happens -- has happened in my career more than once, that you try a
civil case after a criminal acquittal.
THE COURT: Not --
MR. PETROCELLI: Not with this publicity, as we saw in jury
selection.
MR. BAKER: The publicity --
THE COURT: Excuse me. I don't need cross argument. If you just state
your argument to perfect your record, then submit it, I'll rule and
go on."

There was pre-trial publicity -- so what? It was rampant in the criminal trial not to mention the information carried in during the conjugal and family visits.

[martin II]

The witness never said a ghost was responsible. He said it was ghosting which is a carry-over effect. Big difference.

i think it was ghosting in the machine. or ghost in the machine. That is a bs answer if i ever heard one.
A answer when there is no logical one.

[tv]

i think it was ghosting in the machine. or ghost in the machine.

Which is a term for a carry over effect.

[martin II]

The witness never said a ghost was responsible. He said it was ghosting which is a carry-over effect. Big difference.

Then are you suggesting Martz used a ditry machine to do his experiements and he did not realize this until his findings were attacked in court on the stand?
But i am not sure you agree that the results were caused by ghosting.

[tv]

Then are you suggesting Martz used a ditry machine to do his experiements and he did not realize this until his findings were attacked in court on the stand?
But i am not sure you agree that the results were caused by ghosting.

I'm clarifying what is meant by ghosting because you keep saying that the witness said it was caused by a ghost. Did Martz say it was ghosting or was it only Terry Lee in the civil trial?

[martin II]

Which is a term for a carry over effect.

I understand the term. see my last post.

[martin II]

I'm clarifying what is meant by ghosting because you keep saying that the witness said it was caused by a ghost. Did Martz say it was ghosting or was it only Terry Lee in the civil trial?

Civil trial lawyers saught a reason for the results of the edta, Lee did not have one as other reasons had been ruled out Lee said well it must have been because of ghosting.It is my belief that lee was the only one that brought up ghosting and that was in the civil trial.
Ps
Lee had no proof of the condition of the machine Martz used. How could he know if there was carry over or not.

[tv]

Civil trial lawyers saught a reason for the results of the edta, Lee did not have one as other reasons had been ruled out Lee said well it must have been because of ghosting.It is my belief that lee was the only one that brought up ghosting and that was in the civil trial.
Ps
Lee had mo proof of the condition of the machine Martz used. How could he know if there was carry over or not.

From some posts made by some posters it gave me the impression that Martz said that the results were caused by ghosting. I couldn't find that in his testimony so that's why I asked. I thought maybe I'd missed it.

[tv]

Reiders...maintained that he definitely saw EDTA in the test results. In describing just how much EDTA he saw, he asserted to Marcia Clark:

Q. So the amount of EDTA found on the evidence stains on the gate and the sock were in parts per million; is that right?

A. Yes. Because you cannot detect anything that is less than parts per million in any of the samples that he prepared or tested. His [Martz's] detection limit is in the parts per million.

By stating that he detected EDTA at the detection limit of the machine, Reiders was admitting that if he did see EDTA, he saw it in only parts per million -- single digit parts per million. But EDTA from a purple-top tube is in two-thousand parts per million, two thousand times higher than the level Reider's saw. So Reiders not only failed to find the required third ion, he also failed to detect EDTA in quantities anywhere near the level of preserved blood.

OJ Unmasked The Trial, The Truth, and the Media -- ML Rantala

[martin II]

From some posts made by some posters it gave me the impression that Martz said that the results were caused by ghosting. I couldn't find that in his testimony so that's why I asked. I thought maybe I'd missed it.

Lee was trying to give reasons that Martz did not give.Lee tried to focus attention to the amount of EDTA when martz never used quantity in his experiments. With no reasonable excuse for the EDTA found Lee just tossed in the idea of ghosting to get off the hook so to speak.
That was a lame excuse as he had no info on the condition of marts maching
prior to the test and Marts made no comment about ghosting. That was a creation of Lee. imo

This was a central issue as to whether the blood on the sock and gate was planted.The presence of EDTA would indicate planting. So i guess the jury didn't care if EDTA was found in the sock/gate or not.

[tv]

Lee was trying to give reasons that Martz did not give.Lee tried to focus attention to the amount of EDTA when martz never used quantity in his experiments. With no reasonable excuse for the EDTA found Lee just tossed in the idea of ghosting to get off the hook so to speak.
That was a lame excuse as he had no info on the condition of marts maching
prior to the test and Marts made no comment about ghosting. That was a creation of Lee. imo

I didn't think Martz made a comment about ghosting. Thanks for confirming that for me.

[martin II]

I didn't think Martz made a comment about ghosting. Thanks for confirming that for me.

i can check Martz testimony for it but i think he did not speak of that. I remember it first comming from LEE. Since you did not find it in Martz testimony we can assume it came from Lee.

[tv]

i can check Martz testimony for it but i think he did not speak of that. I remember it first comming from LEE. Since you did not find it in Martz testimony we can assume it came from Lee.

Okay, I'm willing to assume that at this point.

[martin II]

Reiders...maintained that he definitely saw EDTA in the test results. In describing just how much EDTA he saw, he asserted to Marcia Clark:

Q. So the amount of EDTA found on the evidence stains on the gate and the sock were in parts per million; is that right?

A. Yes. Because you cannot detect anything that is less than parts per million in any of the samples that he prepared or tested. His [Martz's] detection limit is in the parts per million.

By stating that he detected EDTA at the detection limit of the machine, Reiders was admitting that if he did see EDTA, he saw it in only parts per million -- single digit parts per million. But EDTA from a purple-top tube is in two-thousand parts per million, two thousand times higher than the level Reider's saw. So Reiders not only failed to find the required third ion, he also failed to detect EDTA in quantities anywhere near the level of preserved blood.

OJ Unmasked The Trial, The Truth, and the Media -- ML Rantala

I think it is more informative to read the Martz/Reiders testimony direct rather than what Rantala said the testimony was. His views are well known. we have their testimony direct not filtered by someone.imo.

[martin II]

Okay, I'm willing to assume that at this point.

At the bottom of lees testimony posted by william Lee is accused of being the one that came up with ghosting as a means to explain the EDTA found .

[tv]

I think it is more informative to read the Martz/Reiders testimony direct rather than what Rantala said the testimony was. His views are well known. we have their testimony direct not filtered by someone.imo.

Please explain to me why every time I post something from a book you criticize me for doing so? I can think of one poster that references a book almost everytime she posts and doesn't supply the name of the book or direct quotes from it. ML Rantala's book is considered one of the best books about the trial and the forensic evidence. I understand that the only book you've read about the case is OJ Simpson's If I Did It but some of us like to read other opinions and analysis that uses logic, reason and critical thinking skills.

[martin II]

tv

MS. CLARK: All right. Now, you've testified, sir, that the parent ion 293 is one characteristic of the EDTA, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And that there is a daughter ion, 160, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: But that is not the full daughter spectrum that you see there; isn't that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Not here. The full daughter spectrum is all the daughters.

MS. CLARK: And the other daughter, which is not shown on this chart, is 132?

DR. RIEDERS: That's one other daughter.

MS. CLARK: And that other daughter ion, 132, was not present on the gate and the sock stains; isn't that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Oh, no. That's not correct. Remember that Mr. Blasier showed me a chromatogram which included the--all three, the 293, the 160 and I think the 130 or whatever it was, and all three of them were there, although not in high concentrations. They were below the concentration at which the instrument prints out retention time, peak height and number. It is below what is called the reporting limit of the instrument the way it's set.

MS. CLARK: So what you're saying is, although you can't see it, it's really there?

DR. RIEDERS: No, no. I can see it and so can the instrument. It just didn't label it. There's a big difference between that.

MS. CLARK: All right, sir. I want to go back to that chart.

DR. RIEDERS: All right.

[weezer]

Please explain to me why every time I post something from a book you criticize me for doing so? I can think of one poster that references a book almost everytime she posts and doesn't supply the name of the book or direct quotes from it. ML Rantala's book is considered one of the best books about the trial and the forensic evidence. I understand that the only book you've read about the case is OJ Simpson's If I Did It but some of us like to read other opinions and analysis that uses logic, reason and critical thinking skills.

maybe one of the NG's has reider's test results? oh, that's right. he didn't do any testing. the testing done by defense was never revealed/released. hmmmm

[tv]

maybe one of the NG's has reider's test results? oh, that's right. he didn't do any testing. the testing done by defense was never revealed/released. hmmmm

Hmmmm is right. ;)

"The simple fact of the matter is that Reiders had no valid argument to support a claim of the presence of EDTA in either the gate or the sock stains. The necessary 132 ion peak he claimed was present could not be scientifically distinguished from noise. Any errors in quantification by Martz could not possibly be large enough to explain the massively different readings for the reference blood and the evidence samples.

The blood found on the back gate and on the socks did not come from an EDTA purple-top tube. The only reasonable supposition is that this blood was somehow conveyed onto these objects a very short time after it had been flowing in the veins of OJ Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson."

OJ Unmasked: The Trial, the Truth, and the Media -- ML Rantala

[martin II]

Please explain to me why every time I post something from a book you criticize me for doing so? I can think of one poster that references a book almost everytime she posts and doesn't supply the name of the book or direct quotes from it. ML Rantala's book is considered one of the best books about the trial and the forensic evidence. I understand that the only book you've read about the case is OJ Simpson's If I Did It but some of us like to read other opinions and analysis that uses logic, reason and critical thinking skills.

i have not critized you. i believe reading testimony is always more accurate than a book. The book gives opinions of the testimony. testimony is exactly what was said. Thats more accurate.imo

[martin II]

Hmmmm is right. ;)

"The simple fact of the matter is that Reiders had no valid argument to support a claim of the presence of EDTA in either the gate or the sock stains. The necessary 132 ion peak he claimed was present could not be scientifically distinguished from noise. Any errors in quantification by Martz could not possibly be large enough to explain the massively different readings for the reference blood and the evidence samples.

The blood found on the back gate and on the socks did not come from an EDTA purple-top tube. The only reasonable supposition is that this blood was somehow conveyed onto these objects a very short time after it had been flowing in the veins of OJ Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson."

OJ Unmasked: The Trial, the Truth, and the Media -- ML Rantala


Reiders located and pointed out the 132 on the screen. it did not print because of how martz set the machine so it would not print. clarke just did not like it.
i think ito and everyone else saw it also.
remember they were looking at martz work.

[martin II]

tv

The defense asked reiders how could EDTA get into the blood of a person.


DR. RIEDERS: Well, basically, in blood from an individual who had intermuscular or intravenous EDTA or EDTA preparations for one or another either diagnostic or therapeutic purpose--I mentioned it's used for that--within a short time, because within a day or two after such administration, all of the EDTA is out of the body. It's 90 percent in a couple of hours that it leaves the body.

MR. BLASIER: Did you see any indication in the FBI paper work that either Nicole Brown Simpson or OJ Simpson had EDTA injected into their systems on June 12th?

DR. RIEDERS: No

[martin II]

MR. BLASIER: Now, let's assume hypothetically that the stain from the back gate was put there using blood from a reference tube that had EDTA in it and let's assume also hypothetically that the stain in the sock was placed there using blood with EDTA in it. Were you asked to consider the question of how much EDTA you would expect to find if you then tested those bloodstains eight months later?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, I was asked.

MR. BLASIER: Now, is it important, when you are running a sample, if you want to determine how much of something like EDTA is present, that you know how much you start with?

DR. RIEDERS: How much sample you start with?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, of course.

MR. BLASIER: Now, if you had a blood swatch, let's say, from the back gate or a piece of the sock from the sock that appeared to have blood in it, can you tell how much blood is there by just looking at it?

DR. RIEDERS: I can't.

MR. BLASIER: What are the standard procedures used to determine the quantity of blood that might be in a swatch?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, you bring it into a water solution, preferably with a little ammonia, because old stains are hard to get out, and you read that in a spectrophotometer for the hemoglobin content or for the hematin content, which is a fairly selective method, or else for the soret band absorbing proteins as you call them.

That is one way. It is a simple way because you don't do anything to the sample. You can handle it afterward, do anything you want to with it. You just put it in a light spectrophotometer and you get the spectrum and at certain wavelength standards you determine how much hemoglobin, which is really what the blood has most of, or if you are dealing with serum or plasma, how much protein based on the soret band which is also an absorption in the ultraviolet region there is.

MR. BLASIER: Are there any other?

DR. RIEDERS: There are other ways of doing it. I mean, you know more about this probably than I do, because you have been so well-educated in this. You can determine the amount of DNA in it and that tells you how much blood there was, because blood has a fairly known amount of DNA in it. You can also determine other substances in there that are characteristic of blood. For instance, if your background material doesn't have any iron in it, the measurement of iron in a sample like this is a good measure of hemoglobin because most of the iron in blood come from hemoglobin. Again, assuming that this is blood, not serum or plasma. What I usually do is spectrophotometry and/or iron determination and/or copper and zinc, if the--you know, if I have a sample that is diluted blood and I want to know how dilute it is or how much there is, so you can do it, you know.

MR. BLASIER: Is that equipment that you would expect to find in any well-equipped lab?

DR. RIEDERS: I'm sure that is available.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know whether the FBI has that kind of equipment?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, I don't know what their lab has, but if they have got an incident, I'm sure they couldn't do without the others.

MR. BLASIER: Did you see anything in agent Matheson's work papers indicating that he used any method other than just looking at a stain to determine how much blood he started with from the evidence?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, I only saw in his papers here on--he made stain sizes on a--on a cloth and said when I put a drop on I get so much stain and when I put--you know, on another one, I get such an area and the area that I have is--comprises of a fraction of that, which I don't think is a workable way of doing it, unless you do it to exactly the same material, do it many, many times, do averages, standard deviations and other things, so--because what he had wasn't a drop of blood placed on the kind of material he was testing or on anything, for that matter, but in the case of the gate it is something that got wiped off again.

MR. BLASIER: Now, did you evaluate or look at the method that he used to attempt to extract the blood that was in the evidence, the sock stain and the back gate swatch to extract the blood from that?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. I looked at it.

MR. BLASIER: And what was that method, briefly?

DR. RIEDERS: Essentially he took a--he took what he had, you know, what was available, a portion of it, and he put it into 25 microliters of water.

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. This is all hearsay. This witness wasn't present.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Now, let me ask you--

THE COURT: The answer is stricken. The jury is to disregard the answer.

MR. BLASIER: Let me ask you, hypothetically, if you took, let's say, first of all, an old stain that had been on a swatch for eight months and put it in water, plain water, let's say 25 microliters, and let it soak for 45 minutes and centrifuged it, is that an efficient way to remove all of the blood from the stain?

MS. CLARK: Objection, improper hypothetical, no facts this evidence, no foundation, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

DR. RIEDERS: It is a way but you won't get a hundred percent, you will get a relatively low recovery from an old stain. You know, a dried stain where it is dried for all that period of time, is bone dry, it won't all dissolve in the water, much less than all, just a small portion or just a small--

MR. BLASIER: What would be an acceptable technique to remove all of the blood from the evidence item?

DR. RIEDERS: It is--to remove all the blood really what you would have to do is if you could only use water, you could only use water, is to repeat that. You put it in 25 microliters, you let it sit for an hour, you shake it for an hour, you centrifuge it, you take it out, put it in another 25 microliters and every time you run some kind of a non-destructive test to see are you still getting blood out, are you still getting blood out, until you don't see any more coming out, then you are pretty sure you have gotten it all out. You can even change that by using, for instance, dilute ammonia, which is a better solvent for dried blood than plain water, but it, too, you have to establish that this will all come out by doing sequential extractions and mesh in each one the amount of the sample--blood that is in it in one way or another.

MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that if you were testing an old bloodstain to determine how much EDTA was present and you did not extract all of the blood from the stain, you are going to find a smaller amount of EDTA than might actually be there?

MS. CLARK: Objection, that calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: If you don't--

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

[martin II]

MR. BLASIER: If you don't remove all of the blood from the evidence swatch are you going to--and the blood has EDTA in it, are you going to find less EDTA than is in the whole stain?

MS. CLARK: Objection, improper hypothetical and also calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. RIEDERS: Of course. I mean that is very self-evident. If you don't get it all, you have less than if you get it all, whatever it is.

MR. BLASIER: Now, incidentally, are you aware of any other case or any published literature on the issue of determining levels of EDTA in bloodstains in forensic cases?

DR. RIEDERS: No, I am not. I don't think there is anything published. I have asked around. I don't know of anyone who has done it.

MR. BLASIER: Would you say that this is brand new ground in terms of that particular test I told you about?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, sure. For EDTA in a blood swatch of this type, it is--it is brand new ground. EDTA has been determined in blood, but not in a blood swatch in a forensic case, et cetera, et cetera, to any published extent or anyway I know.

MR. BLASIER: Now, the chromatography and the mass spec techniques, those are all techniques that have been around for a long time, haven't they?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. Well, they have--the mass spectrometry and chromatography is fairly old.

MR. BLASIER: Did you see anything in the paperwork that you reviewed indicating that the FBI did any studies to determine the differences between extracting blood from an old stain versus a new stain?

DR. RIEDERS: No, I did not.

MR. BLASIER: By the way, if you have a swatch that is made from a bloodstain, for instance, on a back gate, can you tell from looking at that swatch how much blood is in it?

DR. RIEDERS: I can't, no.

MR. BLASIER: Can that vary from one swatch to the next?

DR. RIEDERS: I'm sure it will, greatly.

MS. CLARK: Objection, that calls for speculation as well.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: Now, in the context of the testing done by the FBI, what is a positive control?

DR. RIEDERS: A positive control in that context, as in other contexts, is one in which the substance at issue has been added in a known quantity and preferably not only in a known quantity but to a known concentration. That means a situation where you know how much sample you have and how much you are adding. That is concentration. If you don't know how much sample you have and you put it on a microgram, then you know you've put one microgram in, but you don't know what the concentration is because you don't know one microgram per what.

MR. BLASIER: Hypothetically, if you had a bloodstain on a metal gate that was not collected, in other words, was out in the outside environment subject to the weather and other environmental factors for a period of from a day to two or three weeks, what effect would those conditions have on the presence of EDTA in the blood?

DR. RIEDERS: Now--

MR. BLASIER: Assuming that the original stain had--

DR. RIEDERS: You put a wet stain on and let it sit there dry and be exposed for a day or more?

MR. BLASIER: With EDTA blood, yes.

DR. RIEDERS: With EDTA blood? There would be some degradation from environment factors. How much should really be determined experimentally, but I'm reasonably sure there would be because it has been done.

MS. CLARK: Objection. No foundation, lack of expertise.

THE COURT: Sustained. The answer is stricken.

MR. BLASIER: Have you reviewed literature on a study that is called the photodegradation of EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And what did that article tell you?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, basically that article tells us that if you have EDTA solution, in this case the EDTA in the German river called the Neckar, N-E-C-K-A-R. And if you sample that with EDTA in it on a sunny day in Germany, that the amount of EDTA that is in that solution is going to break down half--half of it is going to break down in less than ten minutes from the sunshine itself. So that is photodegradation. It is because of the energy of the sun rays interacting with the EDTA in the water. The material that was used for that was iron EDTA--was an iron chelate of EDTA. Degradation of EDTA is described for sludge, it is described in the literature for bacterial degradation, so-called biotic, by living organism, and a biotic, by the presence of oxygen and absence of oxygen, so it is known it degrades. If you take a sample of EDTA in blood and freeze it, it will stay there.

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. This is outside of scope of expertise.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Also, the article is irrelevant.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. BLASIER: If you were trying to determine how much EDTA you would have in an EDTA bloodstain that had been subjected to one day to two or three weeks outside environment on a particular type of metal fence, how would you determine that?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, I have done things like this, and in this case it is obvious, you get a material which is as alike as possible to the metal fence, maybe a piece of the metal fence, and you put ten dots of EDTA blood on it and you put on it ten drops--ten dots of blood in other places, of blood that doesn't have any EDTA in it, that is not in an EDTA tube, but it is normal human blood. Normally it contains virtually no EDTA. Then what you do is you analyze the control or more than one control. That means you take a little bit of an area where there is no blood and you take that and try to know how much you have and analyze it. Then you wash off one of the spots that has EDTA and another spot that doesn't have EDTA, you analyze all three and you repeat that everyday for a week or something like that, for a portion of the time. If it just for a few hours that you are interested in, then you repeat it during a period of several hours. You analyze it and you see whether it is broken down, you know, whether the one that was put there an hour ago has less in it than the one that you took off right away and analyzed or the one that you took--was there for a week. And if during that whole period there is no breakdown, then you say, well, I don't know whether it would break down in eight months like you are--or eight weeks or whatever, but at least I know that during that period it is stable. Usually in a substance, my experience is, that a substance that does break down, within a week you will be able to tell that it does. Then carefully can extrapolate say that in eight months there is going to be nothing there or I think there may be some there, but that becomes somewhat speculative.

MR. BLASIER: Now, is that what you have described as a possible method to determine that, is that part of what should be a validation study on the method?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, that is what I would call a validation of the method for this purpose.

MR. BLASIER: Did you see anything in the paperwork from the FBI indicating that they did any test at all to determine how much EDTA would have been lost under the conditions that we described?

DR. RIEDERS: No, I did not.

[martin II]

TV
It may be that Rantala believed the 132 was not present was because Martz did not look for it. Reiderts found it and showed it to the court.


MR. BLASIER: Now, does that machinery that he has, that the FBI has at their lab, is it capable of also looking at the 132 ion?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Is it capable of scanning that area within a small range?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Did he ever do that?

DR. RIEDERS: He said he did not.

MR. BLASIER: Now, did you hear Miss Clark's questions about whether it's incumbent upon a scientist to do every possible test available to test a hypothesis?

DR. RIEDERS: I remember the question, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Did Agent Martz do every possible test available to try and see whether or not the 132 ion was there?

DR. RIEDERS: No.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you indicated that Agent Martz did one test that provided some information about whether or not EDTA on a metal can might be lost because--by virtue of it being on a metal surface. Remember that?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: What were you talking about? What were you talking about when you referred to that?

DR. RIEDERS: He put some EDTA blood on a metal can surface and also on a control swatch. Then he wiped the surface subsequently, so he had a swatch from the surface and he had a control swatch, and he analyzed both.

MS. CLARK: Objection. No foundation of personal knowledge.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. BLASIER: Did you review Agent Martz' testimony?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Did you read it and look at it on videotape?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Did you hear his discussion about his test results with respect to the amount of EDTA he got off of his metal can versus the cloth swatch?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And what's your understanding of that testimony?

DR. RIEDERS: That he found EDTA in both, there was less in the one from the can than on the control swatch.

MR. BLASIER: And scientifically, what inference can be drawn from that?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, one obvious inference--

MS. CLARK: Objection. Misstates the testimony, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. RIEDERS: One obvious inference is that he got less back than what he put on the can. So suddenly it was broken down by the can, swallowed by the can or otherwise. But the likely thing is destroyed, broken down after.

MR. BLASIER: Would it be fair to characterize Agent Martz' testimony with respect to quantity, that his opinion is that he didn't find enough of whatever it was that he found that it could have come from a purple top tube, that he didn't find as much as he would have expected to find?

DR. RIEDERS: I--in my direct, I already answered that. He had no clue as to how much he started with in his samples. So how could he determine what the concentration was? He could only have prior amounts. If you don't know what the concentration is, you don't know what you're dealing with. Said there was EDTA in the blood. And if it was a tiny, tiny amount, then the concentration was the same in the EDTA tube. He doesn't know what the concentration was.

MR. BLASIER: Did he do any experimentation or anything as a result of you watching his testimony indicating that he tested to find out how much EDTA he would expect to find after eight months under the conditions which these samples were subjected to?

DR. RIEDERS: No.

[martin II]

maybe one of the NG's has reider's test results? oh, that's right. he didn't do any testing. the testing done by defense was never revealed/released. hmmmm

You say the defense didn't do any testing them you say they did not release their testing. Reiders did no testing of martz work. He reviewed marts work.

[Its just me]

no -- what I said was reiders didn't do any testing. . .he 'reviewed' Martz's work. BTW, we know that the defense did take samples of everything the prosecution had for testing but never revealed/released their findings. Ever wonder why? and before you mimic our favorite wannabe, I do know that the defense didn't have to. Just find it very curious that they didn't use their own findings/results to show how the 'bad LE' was out to get poor ole orenthal. :shrug:

Because it couldn't rebut what the prosecution's tests proved….that OJ Simpson was at the murder scene…. so they focused on nonsense and were good enough to sell nonsense to the jury that was willing to buy it.

[William Anthony]

I was characterizing the trial in my own words and opinion instead of respectfully referring to it as merely the criminal trial. Since you insist on disrepectfully referring to a fair legal proceeding, the civil trial, as a socio-political production because you don't like the verdict I decided to take the same liberty. There was nothing wrong with the evidence and it wasn't 'produced' by the prosecution. It was the blood and fiber evidence left by the defendant and the victims as well as the timeline, defendant's lies and phony alibi. The defense in both trials relied on fantasy, wild speculation and finger pointing at everything and everyone except OJ Simpson. Unfortunately for the defendant this jury wasn't blinded by celebrity or the defense's willingness to do or say anything, no matter how shady, to exonerate their client. They also had the benefit of watching OJ Simpson's lies fall apart under oath on the witness stand. Far from being a 'socio-political production' it was more like a work of art.

As for the definition of justice -- there are numerous online dictionaries that will give you what you want to know.

You surely misunderstand, since I have repeatedly said that I have no problem with either verdict based on the evidence presented. I have pointed to the mass of evidence pointing toward innocence and the evidence of the un-trustworthiness and unreliability of the evidence the prosecution produced to point toward guilt. We have discussed everything about the evidence produced, including the lack of dandruff. It may be your poragative to ignore this evidence but it was not the jury's. It is my opinion that the jury considered the evidence, gave it weight and credibility and arrived at the only possible correct verdict, not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It was a work of art the way the defense destroyed the prosecution and the prosecution's alleged evidence.

[William Anthony]

There was pre-trial publicity -- so what? It was rampant in the criminal trial not to mention the information carried in during the conjugal and family visits.

It was Petrocelli that argued the publicity. If you think so what to his argument, then I agree that the publicity should not have mattered and that the civil trial should not have been turned into a socio political production.

[William Anthony]

Reiders...maintained that he definitely saw EDTA in the test results. In describing just how much EDTA he saw, he asserted to Marcia Clark:

Q. So the amount of EDTA found on the evidence stains on the gate and the sock were in parts per million; is that right?

A. Yes. Because you cannot detect anything that is less than parts per million in any of the samples that he prepared or tested. His [Martz's] detection limit is in the parts per million.

By stating that he detected EDTA at the detection limit of the machine, Reiders was admitting that if he did see EDTA, he saw it in only parts per million -- single digit parts per million. But EDTA from a purple-top tube is in two-thousand parts per million, two thousand times higher than the level Reider's saw. So Reiders not only failed to find the required third ion, he also failed to detect EDTA in quantities anywhere near the level of preserved blood.

OJ Unmasked The Trial, The Truth, and the Media -- ML Rantala

Yes, of course Dr. Reiders saw EDTA, which should not have been in the limits detectable by the machine Martz used, which meant that the EDTA was planted. The amount of EDTA that was in non EDTA treated human blood was in the parts per billion range, which was not within the detection limits of the machine Martz used. I have posted the link showing the testing that was done after the Simpson trial to show that the levels found in the amount Martz found indicated planting.

[William Anthony]

Because it couldn't rebut what the prosecution's tests proved….that OJ Simpson was at the murder scene…. so they focused on nonsense and were good enough to sell nonsense to the jury that was willing to buy it.

Simpson admitted to being at Bundy, just not on the night of the murders. The prosecution could not even produce a time line that permitted a reasonable inference to be drawn that he was there. Someone with a size 12 foot was there and walked in the victims blood but the prosecution did not produce one picture of a shoe with blood on it that they could put Simpson's foot in. IMHO, there was nothing to rebut but the defense did with the evidence of poor collection, storing, handling of the evidence and the evidence of contamination and cross contamination.

[martin II]

tv
martz test.


MS. CLARK: Well, doctor, how do you account for the readings that came up from Agent Martz' blood? How do you account for the fact that his blood unpreserved gave the readings that it did consistent with EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, I don't account for it. I think he would have to account for it because I think it's absurd to find that much EDTA in normal blood. Even if--all I can say, it's in the part per million range. It just seems totally absurd to me just like that 2,000 parts per million. You would be dead. I mean, you know, these absurd numbers.

[martin II]

no -- what I said was reiders didn't do any testing. . .he 'reviewed' Martz's work. BTW, we know that the defense did take samples of everything the prosecution had for testing but never revealed/released their findings. Ever wonder why? and before you mimic our favorite wannabe, I do know that the defense didn't have to. Just find it very curious that they didn't use their own findings/results to show how the 'bad LE' was out to get poor ole orenthal. :shrug:

What you find curious is one thing. What the defense did in managing their case was another. They knew best what they needed to do.

[martin II]

Simpson admitted to being at Bundy, just not on the night of the murders. The prosecution could not even produce a time line that permitted a reasonable inference to be drawn that he was there. Someone with a size 12 foot was there and walked in the victims blood but the prosecution did not produce one picture of a shoe with blood on it that they could put Simpson's foot in. IMHO, there was nothing to rebut but the defense did with the evidence of poor collection, storing, handling of the evidence and the evidence of contamination and cross contamination.

Some ignore what the prosecution did not prove. maby because of no understanding of what happened during the trial.So we just hear generic comments of oj was guilty. imo

[weezer]

". . .Instead of defending our client, we prosecuted the police, and that was the best strategy for winning this case. It was a strategy that I had devised 15 years earlier in a book called The Best Defense where I said, "In a case like this, you put the prosecution on trial."

[weezer]

". . .I took a very, very strong view that O.J. Simpson should not testify because I thought that we wanted to keep the focus on the police. . . .We wanted to keep the focus on the misconduct. Once you put a defendant on the witness stand, everything else becomes irrelevant in the trial. All the jury wants to [do is] ... to look the defendant in the eye, and they want to say, "Do I believe what he said, or don't I believe what he said?" That's not the trial we wanted to see conducted. We wanted to see a trial of the prosecutors, of the police, of the labs. We wanted to put the state on trial. . ."

[tv]

Some ignore what the prosecution did not prove. maby because of no understanding of what happened during the trial.So we just hear generic comments of oj was guilty. imo

Generic comments? That's insulting to everyone on this board that has posted IN DETAIL testimony, logic and reasons we disagree with the verdict. I happen to understand everything that went on in the trial -- do you think you have cornered the market on being able to understand legal proceedings?

The prosecution proved their case. The jury was led around by the nose by Johnnie Cochran and his team of liars and cheats. All the defense had to do was point fingers at the LAPD and the jury jumped at the chance to acquit Simpson. They are the ones that had no understanding of what happened during the trial. OJ Simpson's DNA at the crime scene and mixed with the blood of the victims is proof of his guilt. There has never been any proof that the evidence was tampered with or planted. Those are the facts.

[tv]

". . .I took a very, very strong view that O.J. Simpson should not testify because I thought that we wanted to keep the focus on the police. . . .We wanted to keep the focus on the misconduct. Once you put a defendant on the witness stand, everything else becomes irrelevant in the trial. All the jury wants to [do is] ... to look the defendant in the eye, and they want to say, "Do I believe what he said, or don't I believe what he said?" That's not the trial we wanted to see conducted. We wanted to see a trial of the prosecutors, of the police, of the labs. We wanted to put the state on trial. . ."

His money bought him the team of liars and cheats and with the jury holding hands with the defense team it worked.

[tv]

". . .Instead of defending our client, we prosecuted the police, and that was the best strategy for winning this case. It was a strategy that I had devised 15 years earlier in a book called The Best Defense where I said, "In a case like this, you put the prosecution on trial."

Some people refuse to admit that putting the prosecution on trial was only a strategy -- there was no real search for the truth by the defense.

[tv]

What you find curious is one thing. What the defense did in managing their case was another. They knew best what they needed to do.

I agree that they knew what they needed to do. Johnnie Cochran knew his audience and knew they were eager to find any reason, not matter how flimsy, to acquit him. I think Dershowitz said it best.

[tv]

You surely misunderstand, since I have repeatedly said that I have no problem with either verdict based on the evidence presented. I have pointed to the mass of evidence pointing toward innocence and the evidence of the un-trustworthiness and unreliability of the evidence the prosecution produced to point toward guilt. We have discussed everything about the evidence produced, including the lack of dandruff. It may be your poragative to ignore this evidence but it was not the jury's. It is my opinion that the jury considered the evidence, gave it weight and credibility and arrived at the only possible correct verdict, not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It was a work of art the way the defense destroyed the prosecution and the prosecution's alleged evidence.

No, I understand you all too well. There was no 'mass of evidence' pointing toward innocence. There was only a team of defense attorneys willing to sell their souls to get an acquittal. I don't ignore the evidence but the jury proved by their words and deeds that they did. The defense didn't destroy the prosecution -- they easily suckered in the jury which was more than happy to be suckered.

[William Anthony]

". . .Instead of defending our client, we prosecuted the police, and that was the best strategy for winning this case. It was a strategy that I had devised 15 years earlier in a book called The Best Defense where I said, "In a case like this, you put the prosecution on trial."

Just because something is a strategy, should not imply anything negative about it. In fact, the police have been always been placed on trial due to the fact that, as a member of LE, they provide the evidence, along with some others, to attempt to prove the charges brought by the prosecution. Who is this author that wants to take credit for allegedly devising this strategy?

[William Anthony]

Generic comments? That's insulting to everyone on this board that has posted IN DETAIL testimony, logic and reasons we disagree with the verdict. I happen to understand everything that went on in the trial -- do you think you have cornered the market on being able to understand legal proceedings?

The prosecution proved their case. The jury was led around by the nose by Johnnie Cochran and his team of liars and cheats. All the defense had to do was point fingers at the LAPD and the jury jumped at the chance to acquit Simpson. They are the ones that had no understanding of what happened during the trial. OJ Simpson's DNA at the crime scene and mixed with the blood of the victims is proof of his guilt. There has never been any proof that the evidence was tampered with or planted. Those are the facts.

I have been taught and firmly believe that the trier of fact, or, if you will, the ones that determine what the facts are in a jury trial, is the jury. Therefore, the only ones who determined the facts in the Simpson murder trial were the jury. One may disagree with their verdict but, IMHO, until that verdict is changed after an appeal and/or, if necessary, a subsequent trial that verdict and what it represents are the facts.

I understand that some feel the defense are liars and cheats. However, the judge has the function of controlling the courtroom, i.e., making sure that neither side gains an unfair advantage through lying and cheating, albeit that there is a general feeling that the rules are tilted to favor the defendant, which I do believe from my studies is how it should be. I have a much worse feeling about those, who take an oath to serve and protect, but evidence suggests they have violated that oath. I think everyone expects both sides to put on the best case possible but the law requires a stricter code of conduct by the prosecution, which I also believe is as it should be.

I would not claim to know the facts from my training in the law and legal proceedings as I have been taught and, as I have said, that the determination of facts belong to the trier of fact, which in a jury trial, is the jury. This is only my statement on my training in the above area and my understanding of legal principles, the law and legal proceedings and an attempt to express my feeling/opinion on the subject.

[William Anthony]

His money bought him the team of liars and cheats and with the jury holding hands with the defense team it worked.

There can be no doubt that his money paid for the winning team.

[William Anthony]

Some people refuse to admit that putting the prosecution on trial was only a strategy -- there was no real search for the truth by the defense.

I think the search for the truth required them to put LE on trial to include the prosecution. I don't understand. Simpson did not have a team of public defenders, which I am only alluding to the perception of public defenders, not stating that I agree or disagree with that perception.

[martin II]

le collected the evidence and the prosecuyion made the false charges.

If these two are not attacked who does the defense attack.

[martin II]

No, I understand you all too well. There was no 'mass of evidence' pointing toward innocence. There was only a team of defense attorneys willing to sell their souls to get an acquittal. I don't ignore the evidence but the jury proved by their words and deeds that they did. The defense didn't destroy the prosecution -- they easily suckered in the jury which was more than happy to be suckered.

Your comments can be used to describe the civil jury and how petro hoodwinked them in the political trial.

[William Anthony]

le collected the evidence and the prosecuyion made the false charges.

If these two are not attacked who does the defense attack.

The defense should just sit there and be quiet and accept whatever is said and produced by the prosecution and LE as the truth and that constitutes a trial?

[martin II]

Some people refuse to admit that putting the prosecution on trial was only a strategy -- there was no real search for the truth by the defense.

The prosecution put witnesses on the stand. The defense on cross proved to the jury that the testimnony could not be believed.If you call that putting the prosecution on trial ok. But it was the testimony of prosecution witnesses that sunk the case.

Reiders testimony showed the faults of Martz investigations and that there was no reason for the EDTA found but by planting as it certainly did not get into human blood by food taken.imo

[martin II]

The defense should just sit there and be quiet and accept whatever is said and produced by the prosecution and LE as the truth and that constitutes a trial?

Those that believe this must believe the defense was successful in proving the prosecution witnesses such as Martz,Rubin,Am and Vannatter was not believable.
The defense is sworn to attack le and the prosecutions case. Anyone that does not understand that should do some reading on the law.

[martin II]

Reiders...maintained that he definitely saw EDTA in the test results. In describing just how much EDTA he saw, he asserted to Marcia Clark:

Q. So the amount of EDTA found on the evidence stains on the gate and the sock were in parts per million; is that right?

A. Yes. Because you cannot detect anything that is less than parts per million in any of the samples that he prepared or tested. His [Martz's] detection limit is in the parts per million.

By stating that he detected EDTA at the detection limit of the machine, Reiders was admitting that if he did see EDTA, he saw it in only parts per million -- single digit parts per million. But EDTA from a purple-top tube is in two-thousand parts per million, two thousand times higher than the level Reider's saw. So Reiders not only failed to find the required third ion, he also failed to detect EDTA in quantities anywhere near the level of preserved blood.

OJ Unmasked The Trial, The Truth, and the Media -- ML Rantala

Reiders found the third ion and showed it to clark and everyone in the court room. Reiders did not try to find anything. He pointed out what Martz found including the 2,000 parts per million martz said was in his personal blood.

[martin II]

". . .Instead of defending our client, we prosecuted the police, and that was the best strategy for winning this case. It was a strategy that I had devised 15 years earlier in a book called The Best Defense where I said, "In a case like this, you put the prosecution on trial."

Defense lawyers are required by law to do everything in their powers,legally, to attack the prosecutoions case and prove their client was not guilty as charged.

Based on that, i have no idea as to why you make the false charges in your above post. imo

[William Anthony]

Those that believe this must believe the defense was successful in proving the prosecution witnesses such as Martz,Rubin,Am and Vannatter was not believable.
The defense is sworn to attack le and the prosecutions case. Anyone that does not understand that should do some reading on the law.

There is no way to believe some of what came from the mouths of the prosecution's witnesses, IMHO, and those were LE members or so called experts.

[martin II]

Generic comments? That's insulting to everyone on this board that has posted IN DETAIL testimony, logic and reasons we disagree with the verdict. I happen to understand everything that went on in the trial -- do you think you have cornered the market on being able to understand legal proceedings?

The prosecution proved their case. The jury was led around by the nose by Johnnie Cochran and his team of liars and cheats. All the defense had to do was point fingers at the LAPD and the jury jumped at the chance to acquit Simpson. They are the ones that had no understanding of what happened during the trial. OJ Simpson's DNA at the crime scene and mixed with the blood of the victims is proof of his guilt. There has never been any proof that the evidence was tampered with or planted. Those are the facts.

tv

if the defense does not attack the collection to show faulty collection and does not attack the prosecutions witnesses, what do you believe they should do during the trial to prove the prosdecutions witnesses could not be believed. ?

[William Anthony]

Your post calling william a wanna be was uncivil.It is name calling.

Your post indicates that you still believe the defense was required to do testing and make their testing public. Nothing could be further from what they are required to do.
The prosecution asked martz to do some investigations to prove their claims on EDTA. When they realized his report was favorable the refused to call him. The defense called him. They then called Dr Reiders who immediately proved that Martz did not know what he was doing and used his study to show EDTA was on the sock and gate and that it did not come from a human.

Question for you

Why should the defense do the test that martz did.

Why did the prosecution ask martz to do test for them and then did not call him to testify for them.

Martz testimony-July 25th,

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

Nothing could have been further from the truth.

Testimony of T. Lee January 16th,

"Q. that's about ground level, so I have to rephrase and think back
of what I was asking you. But -- But basically, in terms of EDTA,
the EDTA that Roger Martz found in his test from the samples of the
back gate and the socks would not be in a normal person's blood; you
would agree with that?
A. I would agree that he could not find -- he would not detect any
EDTA in a normal person's blood, that's true.
Q. If his test results were in fact accurate, if EDTA was in both
the samples from the back gate and the socks, they had to have been
planted, if your theory is incorrect; you would agree with that?
A. I would say there is another possibility -- there may be another
possibility, a possibility that I haven't thought of.
Q. Well, you had a lot of time, haven't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And your possibility, sir -- you have absolutely no facts
to substantiate that there was any cross-over effect or ghosting
effect on this machine, true?
A. That's not a statement of the facts. There's evidence in the data
that would support that conclusion.
Q. Your argument, as I understand it, is because of the results, you
believe that there is a ghosting or cross-over effect, correct, kind
of a bootstrap approach, isn't it?"

[martin II]

Martz testimony-July 25th,

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

Nothing could have been further from the truth.

Testimony of T. Lee January 16th,

"Q. that's about ground level, so I have to rephrase and think back
of what I was asking you. But -- But basically, in terms of EDTA,
the EDTA that Roger Martz found in his test from the samples of the
back gate and the socks would not be in a normal person's blood; you
would agree with that?
A. I would agree that he could not find -- he would not detect any
EDTA in a normal person's blood, that's true.
Q. If his test results were in fact accurate, if EDTA was in both
the samples from the back gate and the socks, they had to have been
planted, if your theory is incorrect; you would agree with that?
A. I would say there is another possibility -- there may be another
possibility, a possibility that I haven't thought of.
Q. Well, you had a lot of time, haven't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And your possibility, sir -- you have absolutely no facts
to substantiate that there was any cross-over effect or ghosting
effect on this machine, true?
A. That's not a statement of the facts. There's evidence in the data
that would support that conclusion.
Q. Your argument, as I understand it, is because of the results, you
believe that there is a ghosting or cross-over effect, correct, kind
of a bootstrap approach, isn't it?"

That is really comical. He says Martz could not get EDTA from a human then in order to try to save martz beacon he tosses in a ghost in the machine which he says he has not had time to consider.

I am absolutely sure the jury realized that and Martz report was not to be believed. The only conclusion they could come to on this issue was the sock was planted and so was the gate sample.imo

[martin II]

Hmmmm is right. ;)

"The simple fact of the matter is that Reiders had no valid argument to support a claim of the presence of EDTA in either the gate or the sock stains. The necessary 132 ion peak he claimed was present could not be scientifically distinguished from noise. Any errors in quantification by Martz could not possibly be large enough to explain the massively different readings for the reference blood and the evidence samples.

The blood found on the back gate and on the socks did not come from an EDTA purple-top tube. The only reasonable supposition is that this blood was somehow conveyed onto these objects a very short time after it had been flowing in the veins of OJ Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson."

OJ Unmasked: The Trial, the Truth, and the Media -- ML Rantala


According to Reiders Rantala may not understand that martz gould not know how much EDTA was in the small cut sample he had because he did not know
how much blood he started with. Because martz estimated it by sight not by diluting it in water solution as required.

[weezer]

The defense through cross showed the jury that certain prosecution witnesses could not be believed. Martz,Rubin, AM,Vannatter,lang,Phillips,Fung
are examples. Test results were not needed when the defense was winning.

but why chance it? why not just reveal their test results and put all doubt to rest? just seems very strange to me -- you know, kinda like maybe the criminal defense didn't have results to support the innocence of their client. :eek::shrug:

[William Anthony]

That is really comical. He says Martz could not get EDTA from a human then in order to try to save martz beacon he tosses in a ghost in the machine which he says he has not had time to consider.

I am absolutely sure the jury realized that and Martz report was not to be believed. The only conclusion they could come to on this issue was the sock was planted and so was the gate sample.imo

Those are the reasonable inferences I drew after hearing Martz' and Reiders' testimonies.

[William Anthony]

the criminal defense test results had everything to do with LE victims. . .if, as the criminal defense claimed, LE was so corrupt, so inept, so devious as to frame an innocent man, then they had an obligation to expose the corruption. not thru pointing fingers and maybe, coulda, shoulda did this or did that with or without evidence but used the test results from their own testing to prove that what they were saying was the truth -- LE lied, planted, framed. there can be only one reason that the criminal defense didn't release their test results -- and that would be because their results supported LE.

as far as referring to william as a wannabe, so? we have his posts that says he's studying law. frankly, I don't see evidence of any advanced legal studies in his posts. just my opinion of course.

The obligation that the defense undertook was to provide their client the best defense possible. They did not have any obligation to do anything more than to provide evidence from which reasonable inferences could be drawn. It was up to the prosecution to bring charges against LE in regard to corruption. How many times have we heard the expression garbage in garbage out in relation to the collection, handling and evidence storing techniques employed by LE?

I don't know what you would call advanced legal studies but I can say that I have seen and corrected a lot of incorrect posts about the law, due to the training I have had and have had a chance to explain some things to those willing to listen, due to the training I have had. I really do not understand why my desire to share my knowledge upsets you?

[William Anthony]

but why chance it? why not just reveal their test results and put all doubt to rest? just seems very strange to me -- you know, kinda like maybe the criminal defense didn't have results to support the innocence of their client. :eek::shrug:

I hope that this is taken in the spirit it is intended, to share my training. The defense does not have to support their client's innocence and no jury finds the defendant guilty but the defense produces evidence to allow the jury to find that their client, the defendant, is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[GreenIce]

The obligation that the defense undertook was to provide their client the best defense possible. They did not have any obligation to do anything more than to provide evidence from which reasonable inferences could be drawn. It was up to the prosecution to bring charges against LE in regard to corruption. How many times have we heard the expression garbage in garbage out in relation to the collection, handling and evidence storing techniques employed by LE?

I don't know what you would call advanced legal studies but I can say that I have seen and corrected a lot of incorrect posts about the law, due to the training I have had and have had a chance to explain some things to those willing to listen, due to the training I have had. I really do not understand why my desire to share my knowledge upsets you?

William,

The defense asked that two samples be sent out for EDTA testing. Judge Ito ruled that the tests had to be performed by the FBI and some how it got assigned to Roger Martz. When the results came back positive for EDTA, then why would the defense have ask that the same tests be run when the FBI already confirmed EDTA was found in them?

Also, in Gerald Ulmen's book, he talks about this as does American Tragedy, they talk about how Judge Ito did not make the DA's run their tests in a speedy manner and ruled that the defense could only have samples if there was enough left over. Any samples they got or would have gotten, it would have been way to late.

Look at the socks, they were collected in June, blood was found on them in July and I don't think they were sent out for testing until Feb or Mar of 95.

Also, IIRC, Judge Ito ruled that a certain test had to be run for EDTA by the FBI, Roger Martz did not run that test. Right there that proves which side of the fence Mr. Martz was on.

Also, weren't samples sent to Cellmark contaminated? Didn't Dr. Cotton say she didn't know how Simpson's blood markers were showing up in Ron and Nicole's samples? I think that is right.

[weezer]

I hope that this is taken in the spirit it is intended, to share my training. The defense does not have to support their client's innocence and no jury finds the defendant guilty but the defense produces evidence to allow the jury to find that their client, the defendant, is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

trust me -- I take all of your posts exactly as you intend them. ;)

I think the question goes beyond orenthal's criminal defense as you have so many, many times posted. the defense was that LE was corrupt, etc. -- so why not use the criminal test results to put an end once and for all to the corrupt LE? why chance a jury vote? makes no sense. (does that sound familiar?) *wink*wink*

[GreenIce]

The defense through cross showed the jury that certain prosecution witnesses could not be believed. Martz,Rubin, AM,Vannatter,lang,Phillips,Fung
are examples. Test results were not needed when the defense was winning.

Martin,

I don't think the defense ran that many tests. Barry Scheck explained why it was a risk, when the DA's results came out as the defense expected, they didn't have to run any tests.

I don't remember reading any where that the defense ran any tests. I know they did experiments, some were allowed in and some were not, but actual tests, like for EDTA, I don't think they did nor did they have to.

In MC's book, she nails Ito for even considering the defense's request for samples for running their own tests. Ito's ruling made it virtually impossible for the defense to run the tests, mostly due to amount of the sample and the time element.

Also, these tests are very, very expensive.

[GreenIce]

I hope that this is taken in the spirit it is intended, to share my training. The defense does not have to support their client's innocence and no jury finds the defendant guilty but the defense produces evidence to allow the jury to find that their client, the defendant, is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

William,

IMO, when people make comments about the defense not doing something or should have done something to "prove" their client innocent, is really asking that the burden of proof be placed on the defendant rather then the state.

In this case, the defense used the DA's own witnesses and test results to win their case. To suggest that the defense had an obligation to prove their client is innocent, IMO, is very dangerous.

[William Anthony]

trust me -- I take all of your posts exactly as you intend them. ;)

I think the question goes beyond orenthal's criminal defense as you have so many, many times posted. the defense was that LE was corrupt, etc. -- so why not use the criminal test results to put an end once and for all to the corrupt LE? why chance a jury vote? makes no sense. (does that sound familiar?) *wink*wink*

The defense was wise enough to know that they had thoroughly destroyed the alleged mountain of evidence the prosecution claimed to have had and showed by reasonable inference that some LE members were corrupt, with the focus being placed on the twin devils of deception/evil. That is something that I had to learn and thankfully a jury told me, as I did not think, I had nailed down a lying witness. The jury told me afterward that it was clear the witness was lying. (This was a mock trial) It taught me that I did not have to drive home every point and that the jury was intelligent and I had to rely on the jury and my abilities. If I have the good fortune to become a lawyer, I will remember this and hope not to go on and on ad nauseum.

[William Anthony]

William,

IMO, when people make comments about the defense not doing something or should have done something to "prove" their client innocent, is really asking that the burden of proof be placed on the defendant rather then the state.

In this case, the defense used the DA's own witnesses and test results to win their case. To suggest that the defense had an obligation to prove their client is innocent, IMO, is very dangerous.

GreenIce,

I totally agree and to believe that this is what is required of the defense destroys the very principles of our judicial system. A very astute post on your part.

[GreenIce]

According to Reiders Rantala may not understand that martz gould not know how much EDTA was in the small cut sample he had because he did not know
how much blood he started with. Because martz estimated it by sight not by diluting it in water solution as required.

Martin,

The defense had two experts on EDTA. The DA's had one who claimed he was an expert. He was reprimanded for not being an expert.

However, you gave to give him his props, he did not run the test that he knew would give true results. He made up his own and therefore was able to make his testimony as clear as mud.

Ever notice no one talks about that? :)

[William Anthony]

William,

The defense asked that two samples be sent out for EDTA testing. Judge Ito ruled that the tests had to be performed by the FBI and some how it got assigned to Roger Martz. When the results came back positive for EDTA, then why would the defense have ask that the same tests be run when the FBI already confirmed EDTA was found in them?

Also, in Gerald Ulmen's book, he talks about this as does American Tragedy, they talk about how Judge Ito did not make the DA's run their tests in a speedy manner and ruled that the defense could only have samples if there was enough left over. Any samples they got or would have gotten, it would have been way to late.

Look at the socks, they were collected in June, blood was found on them in July and I don't think they were sent out for testing until Feb or Mar of 95.

Also, IIRC, Judge Ito ruled that a certain test had to be run for EDTA by the FBI, Roger Martz did not run that test. Right there that proves which side of the fence Mr. Martz was on.

Also, weren't samples sent to Cellmark contaminated? Didn't Dr. Cotton say she didn't know how Simpson's blood markers were showing up in Ron and Nicole's samples? I think that is right.

GreenIce,

I agree with what you have said and, if this isn't evidence of planting in the eyesight of some, then I think that some do not want to see it.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce,

I agree with what you have said and, if this isn't evidence of planting in the eyesight of some, then I think that some do not want to see it.

William,

I believe the DA's should get the samples and they should be able to run the tests they need. I think it was a brilliant move by the defense to make the DA's inventory their samples. The fact that at least two samples were missing, IMO, is proof that some blood evidence was planted.

When you take into consideration the horrific job of the SID team, there is no way to determine which samples came from where, except the ones where EDTA was found in them.

Funny how the defense called that, huh?

[William Anthony]

William,

I believe the DA's should get the samples and they should be able to run the tests they need. I think it was a brilliant move by the defense to make the DA's inventory their samples. The fact that at least two samples were missing, IMO, is proof that some blood evidence was planted.

When you take into consideration the horrific job of the SID team, there is no way to determine which samples came from where, except the ones where EDTA was found in them.

Funny how the defense called that, huh?

Who better to know that he didn't leave any socks on the floor? The mysterious gate drop appearing weeks later was a give away.

[tv]

Who better to know that he didn't leave any socks on the floor? The mysterious gate drop appearing weeks later was a give away.

The blood was seen on the gate the night of the murders and you know it. You're misstating the evidence.

[GreenIce]

Who better to know that he didn't leave any socks on the floor? The mysterious gate drop appearing weeks later was a give away.

William,

IMO, the fact that MC refused to allow MF and BR to testify about the socks speaks volumes. There is no way she could not have questioned those socks. It made no sense. When MF was talking on the tapes about him being the star witness, did you notice he never says a word about the bloody fingerprints and the socks?

I am surprised that no one made a comment that all the blood that was dripped back there just happened to all land on a fence. I find that very telling as well. I think the fact the DA's and the SID knew they did not have any pictures taken off the back gate that morning really played in their favor.

However, in every battle of the photographs, the DA's got handed their lunch, IMO.

[William Anthony]

The blood was seen on the gate the night of the murders and you know it. You're misstating the evidence.

This is the problem. There was testimony that there blood was seen on the gate on the night of the murders but not exactly which stains and the picture did not show the stain subsequently recovered and tested and found to contain EDTA. It becomes a question of credibility and remember the jury's choice between two reasonable inferences.

[William Anthony]

William,

IMO, the fact that MC refused to allow MF and BR to testify about the socks speaks volumes. There is no way she could not have questioned those socks. It made no sense. When MF was talking on the tapes about him being the star witness, did you notice he never says a word about the bloody fingerprints and the socks?

I am surprised that no one made a comment that all the blood that was dripped back there just happened to all land on a fence. I find that very telling as well. I think the fact the DA's and the SID knew they did not have any pictures taken off the back gate that morning really played in their favor.

However, in every battle of the photographs, the DA's got handed their lunch, IMO.

GreenIce,

MF was the star witness, a fallen star, IMHO.:);):cool:

[tv]

". . .That proffer essentially was arguably favorable to the defendant, it can be assumed that he would plant the glove. This assertion is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support. It fails to support the admissibility of these incidents of alleged misconduct as prior bad acts or evidence of custom and habit. . ."

[GreenIce]

This is the problem. There was testimony that there blood was seen on the gate on the night of the murders but not exactly which stains and the picture did not show the stain subsequently recovered and tested and found to contain EDTA. It becomes a question of credibility and remember the jury's choice between two reasonable inferences.

William,

The problem with the stains on the back gate is that Dennis Fung was not told about them nor was the photographer taken to them to have photos taken.

Tom Lange can testify that he told Fung about them but that does not mean that he did tell him. It is his word against Fung's. So who is telling the truth?

What also is forgotten is that MF claims there was a bloody fingerprint on the door lock of the gate, yet no SID member or photographer was directed to this either.

How could so many have missed this fingerprint? What is interesting is that VA in one of this testimonies prior to the trial testifed about seeing a smudge as well on the lock. Later MF says that VA and Lange claimed this fingerprint was more rust. :)

[tv]

This is the problem. There was testimony that there blood was seen on the gate on the night of the murders but not exactly which stains and the picture did not show the stain subsequently recovered and tested and found to contain EDTA. It becomes a question of credibility and remember the jury's choice between two reasonable inferences.

Oh, yes...the jury's choice...:rolleyes:

[William Anthony]

William,

The problem with the stains on the back gate is that Dennis Fung was not told about them nor was the photographer taken to them to have photos taken.

Tom Lange can testify that he told Fung about them but that does not mean that he did tell him. It is his word against Fung's. So who is telling the truth?

What also is forgotten is that MF claims there was a bloody fingerprint on the door lock of the gate, yet no SID member or photographer was directed to this either.

How could so many have missed this fingerprint? What is interesting is that VA in one of this testimonies prior to the trial testifed about seeing a smudge as well on the lock. Later MF says that VA and Lange claimed this fingerprint was more rust. :)

GreenIce,

It seems that memories were rusty.:):cool:

[William Anthony]

Oh, yes...the jury's choice...:rolleyes:

No,actually it was the court's instruction. The jury had no choice. :);):cool:

[tv]

This is the problem. There was testimony that there blood was seen on the gate on the night of the murders but not exactly which stains and the picture did not show the stain subsequently recovered and tested and found to contain EDTA. It becomes a question of credibility and remember the jury's choice between two reasonable inferences.

Do you have a reasonable explanation on why the defense didn't release their own test results on the evidence? Emphasis on the word reasonable.

[tv]

This is the problem. There was testimony that there blood was seen on the gate on the night of the murders but not exactly which stains and the picture did not show the stain subsequently recovered and tested and found to contain EDTA. It becomes a question of credibility and remember the jury's choice between two reasonable inferences. From the DOJ --

We find no basis to conclude that Martz committed perjury or misled the jury or defense in the Simpson case. Nor do we conclude that Martz improperly erased digital data from his results. We do conclude that because of his lack of preparation, his deficient record-keeping and note-taking practices, and certain aspects of his presentation and demeanor at trial, Martz poorly represented the Laboratory and the FBI in this case.

http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/9704a/07simpso.htm

[William Anthony]

Do you have a reasonable explanation on why the defense didn't release their own test results on the evidence. Emphasis on the word reasonable.

There was no need to.

[tv]

No,actually it was the court's instruction. The jury had no choice. :);):cool:

Sure they did. They could have actually listened to and attempted to understand the evidence and then they could have deliberated for a reasonable time and not engaged in intimidating other jurors. That's just for starters.