The prosecutors CHOSE to bring the trial in the heart of black downtown LA, before a mostly female black jury.

I agree. Two huge mistakes from the get-go.

But, if you think you have an open and shut case -- and it was -- perhaps the prosecution felt safe in doing this. Trying the case in Simi Valley with an all-white jury could lead to riots in LA with blacks believing THAT was the reason OJ was convicted.

Got it. You made your point. I'll ask again, OJ couldn't produce those gloves. Where did they go?

Here are the fact. Marbury vs Madison was usurpation. The courts were NEVER given the power they have under the constitution.

Here is the fact. Marbury has stood as good law for over two centuries. In a court, you will not be permitted to argue otherwise. You are entitled to your opinion. The Court is empowered to order youk not to attempt to argue such a thing, and to hold you in contempt if you try.

It is also a fact that the first chief justice of the supreme court. A founding father. Said jurors have a right to judge the law.

This is John Jay in a unique case. It is the only jury trial ever held at SCOTUS. However, it was not a jury of one's peers, but of specially selected experts in the subject matter of the case. It is an anomaly, not applicable to any other case.

It is also a fact that you can ignore the judges instructions and render any verdict you want to.

Yes, that is correct. However, it is violating one's oath to do so, and if one states his intent to do so, e.g., to other jurors, it is grounds to be kicked off the jury.

When the judge tells you to ignore that evidence. You can also ignore that and nothing the black robe can do about it.

It sure isn't perfect. As they say, you can't unring a bell. A judge's instruction cannot make one forget what one has heard, but that is the cure available. The alternative is to have every trial a party is losing, to have that party relate something inadmissible as evidence, cause a mistrial. A mistrial is other alternative.

I'd have to disagree with that. That is nonsense.

That is whey everyone knows OJ is guilty. Even you.

You are welcome to present the evidence, or even start another thread on the OJ criminal case. I believe it was possible that two people were there, possibly O.J. and another. I know that the criminal prosecution failed to prove its case against O.J.

What you may "know" is not the relevant issue. What did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt?

There were massive failures.

101 PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT PROOVE O.J. SIMPSON MURDERED NICOLE:

http://pages.infinit.net/reparvit/nicole12.html

1. Nicole's pet dog Kato, a ferocious Akita, did not attack the killer, suggesting the murderer was someone who the dog knew, such as OJ.

Reason #1 is typical. Accepted as true, it does not prove much of anything.

Pick one out from the laundry list that you feel is strong, or strongest, and I will take it on.

"Pick one out from the laundry list that you feel is strong, or strongest, and I will take it on."

Well, when you post "101 Reasons" you know there are going to be some lame ones.

But I would say OJ's blood at the crime scene, victim's blood in the Bronco, the gloves with victim's blood, OJ's shoe print at the murder scene, the fact that OJ can't produce the shoes or gloves, hair and fibers matching.

Now, you can argue that each one individually proves nothing. But taken together, there's only one explanation.

You made your point. I'll ask again, OJ couldn't produce those gloves. Where did they go?

Objection, your honor. The burden of proof is on the state to prove the case against my client. He has invoked the 5th Amendment and cannot be compelled to testify.

Blah, blah, blah. There's this and there's that. Technicality here, technicality there.

Correct. Our legal system is a game. The winner plays the game the best. It's a hard game, so if one has a great deal at stake, one hires the best gladiators to fight on one's behalf.

I was in law school at the time and watched quite a bit of the trial. I agree with your assessment. The prosecution really did not put on a persuasive case. They spent oceans of time giving a mini- course on DNA evidence that was excessive.

And when they demanded that OJ Simpson put on the glove, they blew themselves up. Whether it didn't fit because he scrunched up his fingers, or it didn't fit because he was wearing a latex glove to preserve evidence, the bottom line is that it didn't fit, and OJ got to hold up his hand and say "It doesn't fit."

I got to watch it all in real time, except for one day. Except for that day, I also had it all on videotape, long since discarded. However, I have a full transcript.

After watching what happened during the day, watching the fake news at night was like entering the twilight zone.

They quickly brought charges. Simpson quickly invoked a California speedy trial provision. The prosecution was forced to begin months before they had the RFLP DNA results back. They spent months with repetitive and nonsense testimony, just stalling.

The mess started to go south at a pretrial procedure where the autopsy doctor was destroyed. Dr. Golden, who performed the autopsy, testified at a pre-trial procedure, and he was utterly destroyed. He was so bad that when the trial came about, the prosecution kept him off the stand and had the Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Lakshmanan (aka Dr. Lucky) testify about the autopsy. Dr. Lakshmanan was not at the autopsy. He never examined the victims other than by looking at photographs after the bodies had been released.

Prosecutor Brian Kelberg wasted 8 days on direct examination. Defense Counsel Robert Shapiro ripped it to shreds in a few hours. This monumental waste of time was an object lesson in how to lose a sequestered jury. Remember, this jury was sequestered as the trial dragged on and on and on. That was just the prosecution case.

Long before the glove fiasco, who can forget Barry Scheck, time after time, showing pictures demonstrating that the testimony of criminalist Dennis Fung was in error, punctuated with, "What about that, Mr. Fung?"

A likely answer as to why the glove did not fit was that it got wet. Get leather wet and it shrinks. The case was in dire straights by then and the glove stunt was a desperation move.

AS Prosecutor Kelberg made up one ridiculous hypothetical after another, the direct testimony of Dr. Lakshmanan seemed like it would never end.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[11504]

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I want you to assume that there were bloody shoeprints found along the walkway leading from the bodies to the back of the Bundy location and that I want you to assume hypothetically that there will be testimony that those bloody shoeprints are consistent with a person who has a size 12 shoe, and I want you to further assume hypothetically that people who wear size 12 shoes tend to be six feet to six feet four based upon studies conducted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the FBI. Doctor, would that type of evidence, assuming it is true, serve to confirm your opinion that a single killer of a height greater than Mr. Goldman in a swift and violent assault on both of these human beings is the perpetrator?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. May we approach?

THE COURT: No. Overruled.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I already said it could--it could be such a kind of perpetrator.

MR. KELBERG: And Mr. Shapiro asked you would you stake your reputation to a reasonable medical certainty. Remember that question?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would you stake your reputation that based upon the forensic pathology evidence you reviewed, that all of that evidence is in fact consistent with one killer, six foot two, 210 pounds, athletically built with the element of surprise with a 6-inch long single-edged knife killing Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman? Would you risk your reputation, stake your reputation on that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I said that one person could have done all the injuries, yes, I did say that.

MR. KELBERG: And will you stake your reputation that all of the evidence is consistent with that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

To see what horsecrap that was, we can visit what else was brought out.

That was from transcript page 11504. The below excerpts are in chronological order, starting on page 11392.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[11392]

06/14/1995, Cross Examination by Robert Shapiro

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SHAPIRO

MR. SHAPIRO: Good afternoon, Dr. Lakshmanan.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Good afternoon.

MR. SHAPIRO: Dr. Lakshmanan, you've been on the witness stand for approximately eight days?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, sir.

MR. SHAPIRO: And as I understand your testimony, you can tell us with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that both Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were victims of a homicide?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: And you can also tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that both of these victims died as a result of stab wounds?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Sharp force injuries.

MR. SHAPIRO: And you can also tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that both of these individuals bled to death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: You cannot tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty what time they died?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.

MR. SHAPIRO: In fact, all of your expertise lends you to the opinion that a layperson could give, that they were last seen alive at 9:00, that they were found dead at 12:15, and that is the range of death; isn't that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, that's what I opined also, between 9:00 and 12:30.

MR. SHAPIRO: And with all of your training, experience, education, reading all these books, you cannot tell us with a reasonable degree of medical certainty how many people were responsible for the deaths of these two people?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I--I said that one person could have done it with one single-edged knife in my testimony.

MR. SHAPIRO: Can you tell us with a reasonable degree of medical certainty how many people are responsible for these homicides?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Can you tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty how many different weapons were used to accomplish these homicides?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I already opined saying that a single-edged knife could have caused all the injuries, but with reasonable medical certainty, I cannot exclude a second knife.

MR. SHAPIRO: Can you exclude other types of sharp instruments within a reasonable medical certainty?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Could you expand on what you mean by "Other types of sharp instruments" before I--

MR. SHAPIRO: In your range of this vast experience, are there any other types of sharp instruments that you can tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty could or could not have caused these injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I would like you to be specific, what type of sharp instruments because I want to know what type of instrument you are talking about. I don't have experience like you do with these sharp instruments.

MR. SHAPIRO: Are there any sharp instruments that you are aware of that you can tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainly could have caused these injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The main sharp instruments which I think could have caused these injuries is a--could have caused all the injuries was a single-edged knife. I already opined that.

MR. SHAPIRO: Can you tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that a double-edged knife could not have caused most of these injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I said that most--some of the injuries could have been caused by a double-edged knife, but a double-edged knife could not have caused all the injuries.

MR. SHAPIRO: Could two single-edged knives have caused all the injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's a possibility.

MR. SHAPIRO: Could three single-edged knives have caused all the injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Possibility.

MR. SHAPIRO: Could three single-edged knives and a double-edged knife have caused all the injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's also a possibility.

MR. SHAPIRO: Could three single-edged knives and two double-edged knives have caused all the injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is also a possibility.

MR. SHAPIRO: Could three single-edged knives, two double-edged knives and a broken piece of glass have caused all the injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I don't see--there's no evidence of any glass pieces on the bodies which I could see or--and also, the wounds look more like a more sharp instrument like a knife.

MR. SHAPIRO: Are you saying a sharp broken piece of glass could not have caused any of these injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's a possibility in some of the wounds.

MR. SHAPIRO: Could a razor blade have caused some of these injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: On incised wounds, it's a possibility.

MR. SHAPIRO: So after eight days, there's only about four facts that you can tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that can help this jury in reaching an opinion?

MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. SHAPIRO: Isn't it true, doctor, after eight days on the stand, there's only four facts you can testify to within a reasonable degree of medical certainly based on your education, background, experience as to how these two people died?

MR. KELBERG: That's argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence and it's vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I've already discussed the findings. I've discussed my opinion that they were significant stab wounds to both the victims. I opined that the significant wounds on the body were caused by a single-edged knife. I think that's an important opinion which I have given. I have said that some of the other incised wounds could have been caused by a single-edged or double-edged knife which you cannot exclude with medical certainty. So I think I've been very clear that at least in most of the significant stab wounds, there's clear evidence that it was a single-edged knife. But your questions were more general wherein I indicated some of the wounds or most of the wounds, incised wounds, it was difficult to tell what type of weapon it was, wherein the stab wounds--the wounds we see on--some of the significant stab wounds on Miss Simpson and also on Mr. Ron Goldman, it was definitely a single-edged knife; and with reference to some of the incised wounds also, it would favor a single-edged knife rather then a double-edged knife, even though I cannot totally exclude it, especially the neck wound on Miss Simpson, it would favor a single-edged knife because of the bridge of tissue on the left side which I have discussed a few days ago. So I think I have given some direction. I won't say totally, but I think I have clearly established the cause of death in these two decedents. I also think I have given evidence which supports my opinion on the single-edged knife theory. And it seems medically, I can't exclude a doubleedged blade. I think it seems illogical that you have all the significant wounds caused by a single-edged blade, and you bring up the theory of a double-edged blade causing some of the not so significant wounds. So I don't think my eight days of testimony has been wasted. But if that's your position, I can't change it.

MR. SHAPIRO: Well, you came to us because you have expertise above and beyond an average person in a specific field of medicine and science; isn't that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: My question to you was a simple one. Can you tell us with that expertise within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that one single-edged knife caused all the injuries to both victims?

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, excuse me. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. SHAPIRO: That one single-edged knife caused all the injuries to both of the victims.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is my opinion. I said it could have caused--

MR. SHAPIRO: No. My question--I want you to listen to this question very carefully. Can you tell us as a doctor, as a scientist and as the Chief Medical Examiner of one of the largest counties in the United States that within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, you will put your reputation on the line that one single-edged weapon was responsible for all the injuries to both victims in this case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I can't say that.

MR. SHAPIRO: Is Dr. Golden sick?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. He's still working in the Coroner's office.

MR. SHAPIRO: Is he on vacation?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, he's not on vacation. I told you he's working every day in the Coroner's office.

MR. SHAPIRO: When did you find out he was not going to be called as a witness and you were?

MR. KELBERG: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. KELBERG: Compound as well.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SHAPIRO: When did you find out he wasn't going to be called as a witness?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The same time when Mr. Kelberg announced that he's not going to call him as a witness because Monday at 9:30, I thought they were meeting with him because that was the morning I was giving a lecture in Ventura. So that's the same time when you knew--I knew he was not testifying.

MR. SHAPIRO: You would expect, as the person who is in charge of this medical office, that a doctor who performed the autopsy who is not sick, not on vacation, not doing other things that would prevent him from coming to court, would in fact be a witness; would you not?

MR. KELBERG: Objection. Argumentative and irrelevant.

THE COURT: It's argumentative.

MR. SHAPIRO: Is that your practice; that the doctor who does the autopsy, if available, testifies?

MR. KELBERG: Excuse me, your Honor. Objection. It's not within the province of the Coroner's office to determine who testifies and who does not.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Could you repeat the question again?

MR. SHAPIRO: Is it the practice of the Coroner's office that you supervise that the doctor who performed the autopsy, when otherwise available, testifies?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.

MR. SHAPIRO: And what is the reason that you have been told that Dr. Golden is not going to be called to testify?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, the same reason which was outlined here. They felt that I presented evidence in a manner which the jury can understand, and they didn't want to repeat the testimony again. This is my understanding from what was told in court right in front of all of us because I was not aware he was not going to testify until Monday morning when it was announced in court, and that's the truth.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[11404]

MR. SHAPIRO: And when mistakes are made, don't you have a responsibility to do an intensive review immediately to correct those mistakes?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: We did do that.

MR. SHAPIRO: Don't you also have an obligation to somebody who is accused to make sure that asgood a job as is medically possible be done?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: And don't you have an obligation to correct mistakes immediately and look for errors?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: We do that as soon as I ever find out about a mistake and it is a mistake, and I'm the first person to accept it and I always direct my doctors to correct it. And if there's a change of cause of death, we call the family and tell them that. At least all the cases--I'm aware of whenever there's a mistake, as I told this Court and this jury, we have to identify any mistake first to accept it.

MR. SHAPIRO: Have you filed a report in this case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: A report in the sense--what kind of report do you mean?

MR. SHAPIRO: Have you filed any reports in this case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I've not filed any reports except for the knife report I made, which I examined four knives presented to me by LAPD, and the other report which has been put in evidence as this chart, which I played a role in developing.

MR. SHAPIRO: Have you filed any supplemental report to correct all the errors that you have found in this autopsy?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Do you intend to do that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: We could do that, but I thought we already presented the evidence in court. And we can do that.

MR. SHAPIRO: Do you intend to do that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I can and I--

MR. SHAPIRO: The question is, do you intend to?

MR. KELBERG: Excuse me. I don't think the witness finished the answer.

THE COURT: Yes. Finish the answer, doctor.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I don't plan to do it because I was testifying here and the whole proceeding being televised and we have the--my charts which I introduced in evidence. But I could do it.

MR. SHAPIRO: So you don't believe you have an obligation to the victims in this case to file a report that correctly reflects the autopsy in this case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: We have issued an addendum already. I met my obligation correcting the first mistakes we were aware of. These other smaller mistakes we just talked about, for example, in Goldman's, these abrasions, were not described in the addendum, and several other mistakes, we have notissued an addendum as yet. And as I said, it can be done, but--and I'll be happy to do it.

MR. SHAPIRO: Are you going to do it?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: When are you going to do it?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: After the trial, after the testimony is over.

MR. SHAPIRO: You think that's proper, a year later, to file a report after the case is over?

MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor. Irrelevant, argumentative.

THE COURT: It's argumentative. You want to rephrase the question?

MR. SHAPIRO: I'll just go on. Thank you, your Honor.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[11434]

MR. SHAPIRO: Are you certain as to whether the assailant--as to whether there was one or more assailants regarding Nicole Brown Simpson?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I'm not certain.

MR. SHAPIRO: Are you certain as to whether the assailant or assailants were right or left-handed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I've already opined on that, I think.

MR. SHAPIRO: I'm asking you are you certain?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I'm not certain.

MR. SHAPIRO: And again, that is because you weren't there and there are no eyewitnesses to this; isn't that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct, but what I gave was what are the possibilities and based on the wounds. For example, the last wound on Nicole Brown Simpson had to be right-hand person because the wound travels, in my opinion, from left to right and it has to be done from the back based on the blood.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[11504]

06/15/95 Lakshmanan Day Nine, Direct Examination by Kelberg.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would you stake your reputation that based upon the forensic pathology evidence you reviewed, that all of that evidence is in fact consistent with one killer, six foot two, 210 pounds, athletically built with the element of surprise with a 6-inch long single-edged knife killing Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman? Would you risk your reputation, stake your reputation on that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I said that one person could have done all the injuries, yes, I did say that.

MR. KELBERG: And will you stake your reputation that all of the evidence is consistent with that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

16506

MR. SHAPIRO: Can you, as an expert medical examiner to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, tell the height of the assailant or assailants in this case?

DR. BADEN: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Can you, as an expert medical examiner within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, tell the weight of the perpetrator or perpetrators?

DR. BADEN: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Can you, as an expert medical examiner, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, tell the physique of the perpetrator or perpetrators?

DR. BADEN: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Would you say you would have as much chance as determining whether or not somebody had a mustache from observing ashes in a cremation as you could of coming up with whether -- what the size, weight and height was of the perpetrators in this case?

MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor, argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled. I would like to hear the answer to this one.

[16507]

DR. BADEN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Regarding the timing of injuries, can this be based on the appearance of injuries in a photograph?

DR. BADEN: Very dangerous to do it that way.

MR. SHAPIRO: Why?

DR. BADEN: Because part of the--of the timing of injuries, how long an injury has been present, is based on color changes, and that is very dependent on the color film, the speed, the flash and how it is developed. The naked eye direct visualization is very helpful and looking at the tissue under the microscope is the best means of determining how long an injury has been present in general.

MR. SHAPIRO: And so that I understand you correctly, and the jury does, that when we are talking about timing of injuries, we are talking about whether it occurred before death, at the time of death or after death?

DR. BADEN: Okay. That--I was going--how long before death an injury occurs and also the same applies for distinguishing whether--or trying to distinguish whether an injury occurred after death or before death, but that also is very difficult and often impossible.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[16559]

MR. KELBERG: So, doctor, is it your use of the term "Possibility" to relate to doctors who talk in terms of "Consistent with" or "Inconsistent with" when questions are posed?

DR. BADEN: What I said is that the witness, me in the blue chair, Dr. Lakshmanan in the blue chair here, can only answer the questions that the lawyers put to us, and I think we try to answer the questions the best we can. But if all we say is it's possible that it happened by a bushy-haired stranger whose righthanded from behind, yes, but it's also equally consistent with a bald-headed midget from the front who is left-handed. It's all -- it depends on what kind of information I want to give across as an expert, but I don't have control over your questions or Mr. Shapiro's questions.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"Objection, your honor. The burden of proof is on the state to prove the case against my client. He has invoked the 5th Amendment and cannot be compelled to testify."

Correct. OJ cannot be compelled to testify. He could present his shoes and gloves, however.

The prosecution will simply leave it out there that OJ's rare and expensive shoes and gloves, evidence of which was found at a murder scene, cannot be produced by the defendant.

Could a Martian have done this? Could he have used a scalpel? Will you stake your reputation on your answer?

Here is the fact. Marbury has stood as good law for over two centuries.

Except that is isn't a law it is a judicial decision.

It sounds like you think legislating from the bench is a good thing.

You know that is what they did that is why you called it a "law".

If it is good or bad is irrelevant to the fact that it was a usurption of power never ever granted by congress or signed by any President.

I have never read so many hypotheticals in a cross-examination based on zero evidence to the contrary.

I agree with White on this one. It was legal mumbo jumbo meant to trip up dumb people.

Yes, that is correct. However, it is violating one's oath to do so, and if one states his intent to do so, e.g., to other jurors, it is grounds to be kicked off the jury.

I would argue that the prosecutor is the one who "broke their oath" when they acted contrary to the constitution and interfere with the rights of the jury as John Jay made very clear.

This is John Jay in a unique case. It is the only jury trial ever held at SCOTUS. However, it was not a jury of one's peers, but of specially selected experts in the subject matter of the case. It is an anomaly, not applicable to any other case.

I disagree. All we both have is our opinions.

given all of your comments about my intelligence

There is nothing wrong with your intelligence. You're smart. But you are also wrong on things.

if you ever get picked up for a DUI

That will never happen.

It is for the Court to determine the applicable law. The Court instructs the jury on the applicable law. The jury determines the facts, based on the evidence presented.

No, it is for the court to enforce the already existing law in the books; not make them up. In making up laws this judge can be accused of judicial activism. As for the jury determining those facts, let's us hope they are actually receiving those facts and that the prosecution is not intentionally withholding some of those facts. We have seen this happen is many cases.

That's exactly what the jury did. The defense team was very effective. The prosecution was not.

At the time that this OJ Simpson case was going on I was also studying law and do understand the basics about evidence. The defense team was effective because the LAPD botched up the forensics procedure on the blood evidence. In essence the LAPD had much to do with the acquital process. Even Mark Furman was disgusted with how the LAPD handled the investigation and tainting of evidence. They knew something and I believe they deliberately botched it up so as to prevent another Rodney King riot like what we endured in '92.

I probably would have heard the evidence about the hand cuts and the blood evidence and decided he was guilty. I would not have been able to persuade the rest of the jury though.

Except that is isn't a law it is a judicial decision.

It sounds like you think legislating from the bench is a good thing.

You are wrong. We use the Common Law system of law (except for the state of Louisiana). The collection of court rulings is the common law.

A function of the judicial branch is to interpret the laws. That is not legislating.

Again, Marbury has been binding precedent for over two centuries.

No, it is for the court to enforce the already existing law in the books; not make them up. In making up laws this judge can be accused of judicial activism.

Argue your nonsense in court and the judge will order you to stop, sit down, and not repeat the mistake. If you persist, you will be locked up in another room and watch the rest of your proceeding on TV.

Your peculiar notions about the legal system are only good for blog posts.

Just re-reading this testimony gives me a f**king headache. I have never read so many hypotheticals in a cross-examination based on zero evidence to the contrary.

And that is but a teeny excerpt. Dr. Lakshmanan testified for 8 days on direct examination. The trial opening arguments were in January 95 and this is what they were doing months later in June. And the jury was sequestered the whole time.

The LAPD and the forensics lab truly did make a hash of it. Without the forensics, what was there?

Not enough for a conviction. The forensics was a mess. LAPD criminalist Colin Yamauchi essentially conceded he had all the evidence for testing out at once, subjecting everything to cross-contamination.

Some wag may not have been wrong when he suggested the LAPD was caught trying to frame a guilty man. They were caught doing stuff that discredited whatever case they may have had.

A function of the judicial branch is to interpret the laws.

Now you're saying that the jury should judge the law too. Make up your mind!

http://pages.infinit.net/reparvit/nicole12.html

101 PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT PROOVE O.J. SIMPSON MURDERED NICOLE.

5. Witness Jill Shively says she saw OJ driving his speeding Bronco from the Bundy murder scene around the time of the slayings.

That is some real proof there. Jill Shively sold her story to Hard Copy. She was discredited by the prosecution, never called to testify, and never said anything in court. Her story sold to Hard Copy was never evidence before the jury.

(a) OJ's blood at the crime scene,

You mean the blood shown to contain EDTA?

Or do you refer to the initially collected blood samples which were left in a truck all day in the heat, destroying DNA content?

(b) victim's blood in the Bronco,

You mean the blood that was not there, and then significantly later, it was.

(c) the gloves with victim's blood,

Gloves with the victim's blood prove there were gloves with the victim's blood. Gloves that Christopher Darden decided to ask OJ to try on in front of the jury. They didn't fit.

Mark Fuhrman conveniently found one glove at Bundy and went to Rockingham and found the other. He also was forced to plead the fifth, and the lady [McKinny] with the tape that proved him a liar, testified that Fuhrman stated that police planted evidence against black suspects.

(d) OJ's shoe print at the murder scene,

Not in evidence. At the criminal trial, it was only shown that the shoe prints indicated shoes of a size worn by OJ, and millions of others.

(e) the fact that OJ can't produce the shoes or gloves,

The defendant is not required to produce any evidence for the prosecution, and need not say anything. He need not put on a case at all. The jury is instructed it may not draw any negative inference on that basis. It may only consider evidence actually presented in court.

It is impossible for you to know that OJ couldn't produce something.

(f) hair and fibers matching.

They eyeballed hair and they eyeballed fibers. In this case, matching was used to denote consistent with. The found hairs did not include roots and were not testable for DNA.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The blood evidence was a great big bust. Serology cannot provide a definitive match. Yamauchi cross-contaminated everything with a blood-draw sample taken from O.J. Simpson. Barry Scheck absolutely destroyed Dennis Fung and Collin Yamauchi on cross-examination.

One cannot impute much to evidence whose handling and processing is proven to be a scientific disaster.

[7457]

Prosecutor Goldberg questioning expert Matheson.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And I would like to turn to some of the testing that you performed in this case, Mr. Matheson. First of all, when blood evidence is collected from a crime scene and then submitted to the serology laboratory for analysis, what kind of information are you as a serologist looking for to derive from that blood evidence?

MR. MATHESON: Well, first off, we want to know whether in fact it is blood. If that's what we have, if there is blood present, we want to know whether or not that blood is human in origin. And if that is a fact, then we continue on to identify the different genetic markers that might be present or identifiable in a bloodstain or an exemplar blood sample.

MR. GOLDBERG: And are the tests that you perform in serology known as tests of exclusion?

MR. MATHESON: That's a term for it, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what does that mean?

MR. MATHESON: Well, the idea being is, there aren't any tests, particularly in conventional serology that would make a definitive match between a bloodstain and a particular individual. They can merely include somebody. In particular, they can exclude somebody. If you're doing an analysis and you find a marker that is in a stain that is not in a reference sample, then you can say absolutely that that bloodstain could not have come from that individual. It's an exclusion.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[9807]

Prosecutor Harmon and Criminalist Collin Yamauchi

MR. HARMON: When you processed the items that are labeled 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52 in this case, generally were there two bindles in each of those envelopes?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: How many bindles were in each of the coin envelopes?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Two.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And will you please describe your practice with respect to processing or how you process coin envelopes?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, only one coin envelope or set of evidence item would be opened at one time. So in other words, I wouldn't have two coin envelopes open simultaneously.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And why is that?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, that's bad lab practice. You want to eliminate any chance of crosscontamination. So you work on one thing at one time.

Defense Counsel Barry Scheck Cross-Examining Criminalist Collin Yamauchi

[10,000]

MR. SCHECK: And that was being done at the same time as the Bundy blood drops on June 14th?

MR. HARMON: Objection. "Being done at the same time" is vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: That was part of your 23 samples?

MR. YAMAUCHI: It was in that group, yes.

MR. SCHECK: And also within those 23 samples was blood from the reference tube of Mr. Simpson?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, on June 15th, you received specimens, completed PCR amplification and obtained results on 19 different samples?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. On the 15th, counting the controls and everything, 19.

MR. SCHECK: And you did all those in one day, June 15th?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. I got through the hybridization step in that time period.

MR. SCHECK: You received the samples, you cut them, you did PCR extraction and you did typing on the strip so that you could report results by the end of the day on all 19 of those?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, I couldn't report the results till all the other things were in place and everything was looked at and written out. But I would have results available for interpretation.

MR. SCHECK: The evening of June 15th, you called Greg Matheson and gave him results on those 19 samples based on the PCR typing strips?

[10,001]

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. I told him what I got up to that poison.

MR. SCHECK: The only thing that was missing, as far as the way you did this, was the PCR product gel, right?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, was it part of your training to avoid analyzing a large number of samples in a short period of time because that can increase the chance of inadvertent cross-contamination and mix up?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, if you're referring to this case, I didn't do it in a short period of time. I did it in--

MR. SCHECK: Mr. Yamauchi--

MR. YAMAUCHI: --quite a big block of time.

THE COURT: Wait, wait. No. You don't get to cut off the answer.

MR. SCHECK: Move to strike. Nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Overruled. Let him finish the answer.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, because I went way beyond what a normal workday is in order to complete those steps.

MR. SCHECK: Move to strike, not responsive. I asked him about his training, only his training.

THE COURT: You're asking about the short period. Overruled. Proceed. Proceed.

MR. SCHECK: In your training, were you taught to avoid analyzing a large number of samples in a short period of time because that can increase the chance of inadvertent cross-contamination and mix-up?

MR. YAMAUCHI: You know, I don't know in those words if that was ever said to me.

MR. SCHECK: Are you familiar with the amplitype user guide?

THE COURT: Why don't you just ask him if he agrees with that concept.

MR. SCHECK: No. I would like to show him the actual user guide. He said he didn't have anything in his training.

[10,002]

THE COURT: We're talking about common sense things here and we're spending a lot of time on it.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, we are talking about basic points of training. That's correct.

THE COURT: All right. So let's proceed.

MR. SCHECK: We're trying to establish with the witness what a basic point of training is.

THE COURT: Proceed. Proceed.

MR. SCHECK: Did you review in the amplitype user guide--withdrawn. In your training, did you review special precautions that are included in the amplitype user guide?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. I've read through that entire user guide.

MR. SCHECK: And you studied it?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

THE COURT: And you rely upon it.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, that along with another book, which would be our own protocol and procedure manual, and a lot of other journal articles and experience to make up my opinions, if that's what you're asking.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. May I approach the witness?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. HARMON: May I see that section?

THE COURT: Counsel, I assume you have that as well. Proceed.

MR. SCHECK: And you're familiar with the section of the user guide entitled "Special precautions"?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And are familiar with paragraph 14 of the section on "Special precautions"?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

[10,003]

MR. SCHECK: And do you rely on that paragraph?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. I would agree with that.

MR. SCHECK: And does not that paragraph state that you should limit the quantity of samples handled in a single run to a manageable number, approximately 15, "This precaution will reduce the risk of sample mix up and the potential for sample-to-sample contamination"?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. And I think 23 is a reasonably close number to 15.

MR. SCHECK: You do?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, I do.

And then there were the comments of the world renowned Dr. Henry Lee about the mishandled scientific evidence is like finding a cockroach in your spaghetti. Do you look to count how many cockroaches there are, or do you just throw it all out?

[17544 - 17545]

DR. LEE: This examination, it's not a quantitative examination. It's not a laboratory test, the concentration becoming important issue. The best analogy I can give it to you is, if I order--goes to a restaurant, order a dish of spaghetti. While eating the spaghetti, I found one cockroaches. I look at it. I found another cockroaches. It's no sense for me to go through the whole plate of spaghetti, say, there are 13.325 cockroaches. If you found one, it's there. It's a matter of whether or not present or absence. I'm not coming here to tells you exactly how many and what's the distribution or quantitative analysis.

[17620]

DR. LEE: Only opinion I can giving under this circumstance, something wrong.

A function of the judicial branch is to interpret the laws.

Now you're saying that the jury should judge the law too. Make up your mind!

So, you mindlessly believe jurors are members of the judicial branch. Seek treatment.

No, it is for the court to enforce the already existing law in the books;

Dang, your law school taught that the courts are a law enforcement group.

"Dr. Lakshmanan testified for 8 days on direct examination."

In any other trial it would have been no more than 8 hours. If that.

LAPD criminalist Colin Yamauchi essentially conceded he had all the evidence for testing out at once, subjecting everything to cross-contamination.

I see. The DNA crawled from one sample to the other? Maybe it flew through the air?

What exactly did Mr. Yamauchi do to cross-contaminate the samples?

"She was discredited by the prosecution"

Only because she sold her story.

"Because the road was illuminated well, Shively said it was easy to see Simpson at the wheel and that she recognized him from his role in a Naked Gun film. She said that Simpson "glared" at her before she took down his license plate, only getting one letter wrong."

"Because she places the sighting at 10:50 p.m., she's right on target for the suggested murder timeline. But even though detectives questioned her, Shively's decision to take money from Hard Copy undermined her ability to share her eyewitness account in court."

Had I been in the jury room, I would have initially voted to find him guilty. But when the other jurors did not go along (and they would not have gone along), I could have been persuaded that the processes used by the LAPD crime lab were such that the evidence was tainted, and we all know that the cops are not trustworthy (though back then I trusted them a lot more than I do now).

I probably could have been persuaded, after a lot of arguing, that the evidence did not exist to convict him.

This is a non-reciprocal thing: if my ithoughts coming out of the trial were that he was probably not guilty, if I were the lone holdout on the jury I probably would have remained so. In my mind, in a jump ball of uncertainty, I will always skew "Not Guilty". I fear and distrust the authorities too much to ever give them the benefit of the doubt when somebody's life is at stake.

Granted, two people were dead here, but that's just it - they're did. Justice is not served by destroying the third life of an innocent man.

I think OJ was guilty. If I were the lone holdout for guilty on a jury, I could have been persuaded, with patient argument, how the evidence was untrustworthy to establish guilt, and voted not guilty. I could never be persuaded in the opposite direction.

What exactly did Mr. Yamauchi do to cross-contaminate the samples?

Enough to raise reasonable doubt.

It is for the court to enforce the already existing law in the books

I learned that in French law school. The maxim of French law is "Le juge n'est que la bouche qui prononce les mots de la loi" - "The judge is nothing more than the mouth that pronounces the words of the law."

To emphasize that point, the French legislature has two criminal statutes that punish any judge who, in a legal decision, either cites to principles of equity, or who cites judicial precedent. It is a crime for French judges to write a legal decision based upon precedent or upon principles of fairness. They are limited to the laws passed by the legislature and the decrees and ordinances of the government. They must cite the specific loi, decret, or ordonnance upon which their decision is based. French legal decisions (never "opinions") are very short and direct, of the genre "Given Article 7 of the Law of 1938, given the following facts, now therefore it is found that the defendant has violated provision x, y, and z and is sentenced thus ..."

In the Common Law system, of course, equity has been unified with law, and judges have full powers of equity as well as law. Further, the decisions of higher courts on matters are binding upon lower courts, so the Common Law system itself is a source of law for the judges of the Common Law judges. The combination of precedent, the dictum of earlier court decisions, and the appeal to general principles of fairness and equity work together to make American courts very unpredictable places.

In France, what you wrote above is true. But in America and the rest of the Common Law world judges - by the very design of the common law - have equitable power far beyond merely enforcing the laws in the books.

You mean the blood shown to contain EDTA?

Really? Are you sticking with that, despite it being refuted?

OJ and Kato went to McDonalds that evening. French fries contain EDTA preservative, as do other foods. Small amounts of EDTA in human blood are considered normal. That's all that was found, not the larger amounts in a preserved blood sample.

This is the kind of crap the defense used. If there was a one-in-a- billion chance of some other possibility, they focused on it and the jury believed it.

"Or do you refer to the initially collected blood samples which were left in a truck all day in the heat, destroying DNA content?"

"They also claimed that the blood had been severely degraded by being stored in a lab truck, but the prosecution's DNA expert, Harlan Levy, said that the degradation would not have been sufficient to prevent accurate DNA analysis. He also pointed out that control samples were used that would have shown any such contamination, but Scheck suggested that the control samples had been mishandled by the lab ... all five of them---and the jury bought it."

"Mark Fuhrman conveniently found one glove at Bundy and went to Rockingham and found the other."

Are you saying that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove at OJ's house not knowing if OJ had an airtight alibi for that night and that someone else did the crime? A glove that might not be the right size? How did he know OJ owned these kind of gloves?

And where's your proof that Fuhrman planted the glove?

You mean the blood that was not there, and then significantly later, it was.

It wasn't there or it wasn't seen? How did it get there later?

I see. The DNA crawled from one sample to the other? Maybe it flew through the air?

What exactly did Mr. Yamauchi do to cross-contaminate the samples?

You're doing a good job.

LAPD criminalist Colin Yamauchi essentially conceded he had all the evidence for testing out at once, subjecting everything to cross-contamination.

Yep, and what happened to that evidence?

Argue your nonsense in court and the judge will order you to stop, sit down, and not repeat the mistake. If you persist, you will be locked up in another room and watch the rest of your proceeding on TV.

You don't argue with a judge that usurps the law. You have them recused.

I am familiar with the maxims of law.

"Dr. Lakshmanan testified for 8 days on direct examination."

In any other trial it would have been no more than 8 hours. If that

The stalling actions were clearly because the prosecution was not prepared to proceed with the case on the scientific test results which were months away from being ready. Had they not stalled and wasted time, the prosecution would have run out of witnesses they were prepared to present. And so the trial proceeded as the slowest moving train wreck in recorded history — with a sequestered jury.

I see. The DNA crawled from one sample to the other? Maybe it flew through the air?

What exactly did Mr. Yamauchi do to cross-contaminate the samples?

Precisely. Only one sample should be open at a time to prevent airborne contamination. PCR is very sensitive to the slightest contamination. It takes an infinitesimal sample of DNA and copies it tens or hundreds of millions of times.

The specific topic of potential airborne contamination was covered in the cross-examination of Gary Sims. Considering the documented sloppy lab procedures with the evidence, the possibility of cross-contamination with the reference sample was allowed. I such circumstances, when a positive result occurs, it is impossible to rule out cross-contamination as the cause. Such evidence can not provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yamauchi did not follow protocol to ensure against cross-contamination.

I already presented the testimony of Collin Yamauchi.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And will you please describe your practice with respect to processing or how you process coin envelopes?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, only one coin envelope or set of evidence item would be opened at one time. So in other words, I wouldn't have two coin envelopes open simultaneously.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And why is that?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, that's bad lab practice. You want to eliminate any chance of crosscontamination. So you work on one thing at one time.

There is much more detail in the cross-examination of Gary Sims of the California Department of Justice. Yamauchi testified from 5/24 - 5/31. Sims testified on 5/16 - 5/22 and 5/31 - 6/1. My excerpt is taken from 5/18.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

AEROSOL CONTAMINATION - Scheck cross of Sims

[9230]

THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Mr. Sims. All right. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Scheck, you may continue with your cross-examination.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Sims, at the break you were kind enough to review your notes with me concerning those--the 21 samples. Do you recall that?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And you indicated that the maximum number of samples that you processed from the initial cutting of the swatches to the reporting of results in one run was 21 samples, correct?
MR. SIMS: Yes, and that would include the quality control sample, the extraction blank and then substrate controls intervening the stains.
MR. SCHECK: Right. Now, at the break you and I reviewed your notes as to how long--how long it took you to do that procedure with the 21 samples from beginning to end?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And umm, I think you began that on the 8th of September?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Half day?
MR. SIMS: Yes, that is what we figured.
MR. SCHECK: And then September 9th you said it took you all day?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And then September 14th, another half day?
MR. SIMS: Yes.

[9231]

MR. SCHECK: And September 15th, at least a half day, maybe three-quarters of a day?
MR. SIMS: Something like that, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Then September 20th a half day?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: September 21st, a day?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Altogether, between yourself and Miss Montgomery, who participated in the process, how many days did it take you to process those samples from beginning to end?
MR. SIMS: From the point of--of sampling to having a typing result on DQ-Alpha?
MR. SCHECK: Yeah.
MR. SIMS: That was about 7 working days.
MR. SCHECK: 7 working days?
MR. SIMS: Approximately.
MR. SCHECK: Can you imagine being able to process those samples, 21 samples from beginning to end, in one day?
MR. HARMON: Objection, calls for speculation, imagination.
THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.
MR. HARMON: Thank you.
MR. SCHECK: Now, let's turn to--what is this?

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

MR. SCHECK: Umm--

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

[9232]

MR. SCHECK: Now, the--there are other kinds of precautions that one takes in terms of processing samples for purposes of forensic DNA typing, aside from the ones we've previously reviewed, in terms of which kind of samples one would handle at different times and different places?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, let's start first with aerosols.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Now, one kind of aerosol we have already discussed is the kind of spray that can occur when one opens up a tube?
MR. SIMS: Yes. If one has not spun it down, that is a concern because you can get liquid accumulating under the top of the cap.
MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. And this would apply also to one of these lavender-topped tubes that contains reference samples?
MR. SIMS: Well, they are under vacuum, so yes, that is a concern when you open one of those for the first time.
MR. SCHECK: And when you open one of those for the first time, one has to be quite careful about the aerosol of whole blood from the reference tube?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And in pouring that out, let's say, onto one of these paper cards, one has to take great care?
MR. SIMS: Well, one has to be careful about what else is in the laboratory, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, aside from aerosols from liquids, can one have aerosols from dried biological particles?
MR. SIMS: I don't know if they are possibly called aerosols, but you can have, for example, powdered blood, something like that. You have to be concerned about that.
MR. SCHECK: Powdered blood would be small particles of dried blood?
MR. SIMS: Yes.

[9233]

MR. SCHECK: Now, if one were to take a test-tube that contained blood swatches that had dried on the inside of the test-tube--
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: --and then one takes a pipette, holding the test-tube up and scrapes the bloodstains out of the test-tube with the pipette--
THE COURT: Swatches?
MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry?
THE COURT: The swatches.
MR. SCHECK: Swatches?
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Out of the pipette?
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Are you with me?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Could that not cause an aerosol of powdered blood to fall on the surface over which the test-tube was held?
MR. SIMS: Well, in my experience, with that kind of a sample you usually see some flakes. It is not as fine a powder but you see more of like a flake, flaky effect.
MR. SCHECK: You could see a flake, but in terms of the dried swatch, could be an aerosol?
MR. SIMS: Again, I'm not sure that is the right term, but if you are talking about airborne particles, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Airborne particles?
MR. SIMS: Yes.

[9234]

MR. SCHECK: And the pipette itself is a flexible instrument?
MR. SIMS: Now by pipette do you mean one of those that has a disposable tip on it or do you mean like a glass--can you--
MR. SCHECK: Glass.
MR. SIMS: Yes. Well, it is not very flexible; it is glass.
MR. SCHECK: Well, one of those thin plastic ones?
MR. SIMS: Oh, okay, yes, those are flexible.
MR. SCHECK: Right, and he can flick particles?
MR. SIMS: Yes, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Especially when you are pulling out of a tube?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: So that is another kind of aerosol if--using that definition?
MR. SIMS: Yes, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And these are particles of blood?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: From which nanograms of DNA can be extracted?
MR. SIMS: Well, if these are real small specks, I don't think you could get nanograms.
MR. SCHECK: Well--
MR. SIMS: I mean if you--
MR. SCHECK: Again how many?
MR. HARMON: Objection, your Honor, he cut off his answer.

[9235]

THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry. Did you finish, Mr. Sims?
MR. SIMS: I was going to say if you had a large flake, then that would be nanogram quantities, but not the kind of minute specks that I think you are talking about. Those are not nanogram quantities usually.
MR. SCHECK: Well, let's go back to our discussion of specks.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: All right.
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: How small a particle can one get to derive two nanograms of DNA?
MR. SIMS: Well, from that, if it was solid blood, it would be a very small flake, something like that.
MR. SCHECK: Now, let's turn to paper.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: When examining biological specimens, is it not an important precaution, to change paper just in examining each item?
MR. SIMS: I think that is an important precaution, yes.
MR. SCHECK: So just so we know what we are talking about, let's say you were examining a blood swatch on a white piece of--what do they call it in labs? Butcher paper?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: After examining that swatch it would be important to remove the paper from which the swatch came before then examining another swatch on that paper?
MR. SIMS: Yes. In other words, you wouldn't want to put two swatches on the same piece of paper. I would agree with that.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And in terms of--let's go back to our situation with the test-tube being with the dried swatches being scraped out with the pipette.

[9236]

MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: And paper below the test-tube.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Would it not be an important precaution against cross-contamination to change the paper every time you removed a set of swatches? MR. SIMS: I'm having a little trouble conceptualizing what is that swatch then being directed into? I need to get clarification on that.
MR. SCHECK: All right. There is paper--butcher paper covering the table.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Section of a table.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: And then on top of that butcher paper is a rectangular bindle.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: You saw bindles in this case, did you not?
MR. SIMS: I did.
MR. SCHECK: Bindles from the Los Angeles Police Department?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Bindles that contained swatches?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: I ask you to assume that the bindle is on top of the butcher paper.
MR. SIMS: Okay.

[9237]

MR. SCHECK: And that the test-tube with the dried swatches is being--the swatch is being scraped out of that test-tube with the pipette aiming for the bindle surrounded by the paper.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Would it not be sound fundamental laboratory practice to change the paper underlying the bindle every time you moved to a new item?
MR. SIMS: I think I would do that. I don't know if it is absolutely mandatory to do that, because the bindle does act like a new piece of paper if it is big enough, but I think it would be a good idea to put a clean piece of paper underneath each bindle, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Well, the particles or the aerosol may not hit the bindle. MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: And to protect against cross-contamination from those particles, it would be sound practice to change the paper?
MR. HARMON: Objection, asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: Well, I would--I think it would be a good idea to either change the paper or to put like a wipe or something, some kind of tissue over that paper so that you covered that area, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Instruments. Withdrawn. Before I move from--now, in your laboratory is it not part of your protocol that not only--that the paper underlying an item that you just examined, right, should be changed every time you examine another item of evidence?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I would do that.
MR. SCHECK: Isn't that part of your protocol?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And when you are cutting or sampling an item you would change the paper for each different item?
MR. SIMS: Yes, yes.

[9238]

MR. SCHECK: That would apply to a blood swatch?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: That would apply to cuttings from a glove?
MR. SIMS: Well, now between each cutting? Is that what you are saying?
MR. SCHECK: (Nods head up and down.)
MR. SIMS: I believe that is what I did in this particular case, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, instruments. There are various kind of instruments that are used to manipulate biological evidence in a crime lab?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Tweezers?
MR. SIMS: Yes or forceps is what we call them in the scientific world.
MR. SCHECK: Forceps?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And is it important to make sure that you clean all instruments that are used in manipulating biological specimens?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Gloves. Is it part of your protocol to change gloves every time you handle a different item of biological evidence?
MR. SIMS: I don't believe I change my gloves after every item. Umm, what I do sometimes would be usually to wash my gloves, and certainly if I had any indication at all that I may have something on my gloves, I would discard them right away and after, for example, I have been working around the laboratory and handling doors and things like that, I would change my gloves also, but I don't believe I would change my gloves necessarily between each separate item.
MR. SCHECK: Did you change your gloves between each swatch that you handled in this case?

[9239]

MR. SIMS: I don't believe so. No, I don't think so.
MR. SCHECK: Would you agree that not changing gloves--well, let's start this way: In handling a wet swatch would you change your gloves between handling each swatch?
MR. HARMON: Objection. "handling" is vague, your Honor.
THE COURT: Rephrase.
MR. SCHECK: All right.
THE COURT: What part of the process are we talking about?
MR. SCHECK: In removing a swatch, wet swatch from a plastic bag, would it be sound practice to change gloves between handling each set of wet swatches?
MR. HARMON: Objection. "removing" is vague, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: Well, I think if you mean by the scenario we talked about earlier where you are sticking the tube up in there--
MR. SCHECK: Yeah.
MR. SIMS: --I think if there was any danger that you would have blood getting onto that tube and then you touched that tube, for example, that would be a good idea to change your gloves, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. And in the process we talked about where you are scraping the swatches out of the test-tubes onto the bindle and paper, between each set of evidence items would you change your gloves?
MR. SIMS: Well, now there--as you are explaining it, you are sort of--you know, you are creating a situation where it is coming down onto your gloves. I'm not sure that the criminalist might have the--the material out in front of him or her so that they are really not having the particle come down onto the gloves. Do you understand what I'm saying?
MR. SCHECK: Well, if--are you--would you, as a precautionary practice, describing--looking at the process we are talking about, scraping the swatches out of the tube--
MR. SIMS: Okay.

[9240]

MR. SCHECK: --dried swatches out of the tube, would you change your gloves between handling each of those items?
MR. SIMS: No, I don't--I don't think so, because I think one could reach into that tube and dislodge that sample in such a way that then one wouldn't get powder onto the gloves. I don't--I don't know that I have ever done that procedure, so it is hard for me to evaluate it on my own experience, but I think at least one might wash one's gloves after each item. That would probably be a good idea.
MR. SCHECK: So your testimony then is you would either change your gloves or wash your gloves between each of these items?
MR. SIMS: I think that would be a good idea, but again, it depends on how exactly that manipulation is performed.
MR. SCHECK: Maybe I asked you this question--let's make sure I asked you this question: Did you either change your gloves or wash your gloves between handling each swatch in this case?
MR. HARMON: Objection, compound.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: All right. You testified a second ago that you didn't necessarily change your gloves between each item?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Would you, between handling each of the swatch items in this case, have either changed your gloves or washed your gloves? MR. SIMS: Yes, I believe that is correct.
MR. SCHECK: All right. So you were either using a new set of gloves when you handled each separate item or you were using a set of gloves that you had washed?
MR. SIMS: Yes. I was trying to save the taxpayers a little money by washing them.
MR. SCHECK: Okay.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. SCHECK: Now, would you agree that with respect to--well, actually--can we move to I? In viewing

[9241]

each of these different factors in terms of cross-contamination, okay--
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: --starting to the right hand of that white line, right?
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: --the first one we were talking about, degraded samples.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Right. And we agreed that in handling degraded samples, that is, the fact that samples are degraded creates a risk of cross-contamination in and of itself?
MR. SIMS: Yes. There is greater risk with those samples.
MR. SCHECK: And handling a reference sample, I am now looking at the test-tube plus one, all right?
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: --reference sample in the same area during the same period, either by pouring off sample from the--popping up the top of the tube, pouring it onto a card and in the same area during the same period, one is handling evidence samples, that kind of situation can increase of risk of crosscontamination?
MR. HARMON: Objection. "period" is vague, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And handling samples from a suspect and a victim at the same time can create a risk of cross-contamination of sample?
MR. SIMS: Can we clarify a little bit about suspect and victim? I think we had a had a little--
MR. SCHECK: You recall that discussion that is represented by that logo, without reviewing it all?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I think we talked about that.

[9242]

MR. SCHECK: And then we talked about samples represented by that scale of samples with high DNA concentration and low DNA concentration?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And then we talked about samples from different crime scenes?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And we talked about handling many samples at the same time?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, with respect to all those different contamination factors to the right of the line, those represent in a sense situations that can raise the level of risk in terms of making an inadvertent transfer of cross-contamination?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, looking to the factors on the left-hand side--
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: --if you combine the creation of an aerosol--
THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. This witness has never adopted your characterization of aerosol. Airborne particles perhaps; not aerosol.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you.
MR. SCHECK: Airborne articles represented by the clip art of fireworks?

MR. SIMS: I like that.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you. All right. Talking about airborne particles, all right?
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Combining that with any of these other situations to the right of the line, that is a--sort of a mechanism of transfer that would increase the risk of cross-contamination?

[9243]

MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And the paper, you recall our discussion about not changing paper?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: If you combine not changing paper with each of those situations, that is a mechanism of transfer that can increase the risk of cross-contamination?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And with respect to the bunsen burner representing the cleaning of instruments, if one does not adequately clean instruments, that can be a mechanism of transfer that facilitates crosscontamination, raises the level of risk in the other situations to the right of that white line?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And with respect to gloves, gloves, either not changing gloves or washing gloves--
MR. SIMS: Right.
MR. SCHECK: --okay, between samples, combined with any of those other factors to the right of the line, can become a mechanism of transfer for cross-contamination?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you.

Jill Shively told prosecutors she had not spoken to anyone but her mother about what she allegedly had seen. She testified at the Grand Jury. Then the interview, which she did before her Grand Jury appearance, became public. Jill Shively admitted she misled prosecutors under questioning by Marcia Clark.

"I must ask you to completely disregard the statements given and the testimony given by Jill Shively in this case," Clark told grand jurors. "I cannot allow her to be part of this case now that she has proven to be untruthful as to any aspect of her statement."

Only because she sold her story.

Oh, nonsense. She LIED to the prosecutors about it. She testified to the Grand Jury and was recalled because of her lie. Her pitiful attempt at an excuse is laughable. They would not even use this liar at the civil trial. Proven liars are not credible witnesses.

Marcia Clark addressed the jury:

I MUST NOW ASK YOU TO COMPLETELY

1 DISREGARD THE STATEMENTS GIVEN AND THE TESTIMONY GIVEN BY
2 JILL SHIVELY IN THIS CASE.
3 ALTHOUGH HER FAILURE TO TRUTHFULLY ANSWER A
4 QUESTION POSED TO HER DURING AN INTERVIEW CANNOT SUBJECT
5 HER TO PERJURY CHARGES GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE SUSPECT DOES
6 NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY PRESENT TO CROSS-EXAMINE HER AT THIS
7 PROCEEDING AND THAT AT THIS POINT IN TIME WE HAVE NO WAY TO
8 INDEPENDENTLY CORROBORATE HER TESTIMONY, I CANNOT ALLOW HER
9 TO BE PART OF THIS CASE AT THIS TIME NOW THAT SHE HAS
10 PROVEN TO BE UNTRUTHFUL AS TO ANY ASPECT OF HER STATEMENT.
11 PLEASE COMPLETELY DISREGARD THE TESTIMONY OF
12 JILL SHIVELY.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Please enjoy the testimony of this discredited liar.

[21322]

JILL SHIVELY,
18 RECALLED AS A WITNESS BEFORE THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY GRAND
19 JURY, HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY DULY SWORN, RESUMED THE STAND
20 AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:
21
22 E X A M I N A T I O N (RESUMED)
23 BY MS. CLARK:
24 Q. MISS SHIVELY, YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY APPEARED AND
25 TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS GRAND JURY ON JUNE 21, WHICH WAS
26 TUESDAY OF THIS WEEK.
27 A. THAT'S CORRECT.
28 Q. NOW, CONCERNING THE MATTER BEFORE -- THE MATTER

413

1 TO WHICH YOU TESTIFIED ON JUNE 21, DID YOU FIRST CONTACT
2 THE POLICE CONCERNING YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THESE EVENTS ON
3 JUNE 14?
4 A. YES, I DID.
5 Q. AND YOU WERE INTERVIEWED BY THE POLICE ON THE
6 FOLLOWING DAY, JUNE THE 15TH?
7 A. I THINK, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, I WAS
8 INTERVIEWED RIGHT AWAY.
9 I THINK IT WAS THE NEXT DAY.
10 Q. AND THEN YOU WERE SUBPOENAED TO APPEAR BEFORE
11 THIS GRAND JURY ON SATURDAY, JUNE 18?
12 A. THAT'S CORRECT.
13 Q. AND THEN YOU HAD AN INTERVIEW -- YOU WERE
14 INTERVIEWED BY A TELEVISION NEWS PROGRAM CALLED "HARD COPY"
15 CONCERNING THIS SUBJECT MATTER TO WHICH YOU LATER TESTIFIED
16 BEFORE THIS GRAND JURY AND DURING WHICH YOU SHOWED YOUR
17 SUBPOENA ON CAMERA?
18 A. THAT'S CORRECT; I DID.

[21323]

19 Q. AND THAT INTERVIEW WAS CONDUCTED ON MONDAY,
20 JUNE THE 20TH, ON THE AFTERNOON OF THAT DAY?
21 A. YES, IT WAS.
22 Q. AND YOU WERE PROMISED PAYMENT BY "HARD COPY"
23 FOR THAT INTERVIEW OF $5,000.
24 IS THAT RIGHT?
25 A. THAT IS CORRECT.
26 Q. ON THE NIGHT AFTER YOUR INTERVIEW -- THAT IS,
27 YOU WERE INTERVIEWED BY "HARD COPY" ON MONDAY AFTERNOON,
28 JUNE 20.

414

1 FOLLOWING THAT INTERVIEW, YOU CONTACTED A
2 DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WITH WHOM YOU WERE ACQUAINTED --
3 NOT MYSELF OR MR. CONN -- AND YOU INDICATED TO HIM THAT YOU
4 WERE CONCERNED AND NERVOUS ABOUT ALL THE MEDIA CONTACTS
5 MADE TO YOU.
6 A. THAT'S CORRECT.
7 Q. ON TUESDAY MORNING, JUNE 21, THE MORNING OF
8 YOUR TESTIMONY WHEN YOU APPEARED TO TESTIFY BEFORE THIS
9 GRAND JURY, YOU MET WITH MYSELF AND MR. CONN FOR THE VERY
10 FIRST TIME.
11 IS THAT CORRECT?
12 A. THAT'S TRUE.
13 Q. PRIOR TO THAT MORNING, WE HAD HAD NEITHER PHONE
14 CONTACT OR ANY CONTACT AT ALL.
15 IS THAT CORRECT?
16 A. THAT'S TRUE.
17 Q. AND JUST BEFORE YOU TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS GRAND
18 JURY ON JUNE 21, MR. CONN AND MYSELF INTERVIEWED YOU IN THE
19 CONFERENCE ROOM NEAR TO THIS JURY ROOM.
20 IS THAT CORRECT?
21 A. THAT'S TRUE.
22 Q. DURING THE COURSE OF THAT INTERVIEW, YOU WERE
23 ASKED BY MR. CONN WHETHER YOU HAD DISCUSSED THE SUBJECT
24 MATTER OF YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN THIS CASE OR THE STATEMENT
25 THAT YOU HAD GIVEN TO THE POLICE WITH ANYONE ELSE.
26 A. THAT'S TRUE.
27 Q. AND YOU TOLD HIM AT THAT TIME, YOU TOLD MYSELF,
28 ALSO, THAT YOU HAD ONLY SPOKEN TO YOUR MOTHER?

415

1 A. THAT'S TRUE. 2 Q. ON JUNE 22, WHICH WAS THE DAY AFTER YOUR
3 INTERVIEW WITH "HARD COPY" -- EXCUSE ME -- ON JUNE 22, THE
4 DAY AFTER YOUR INTERVIEW WITH "HARD COPY" WAS HEARD ON

[21324]

5 T.V., WE HAD YOU BROUGHT BACK TO THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT
6 ATTORNEY FOR AN INTERVIEW WITH US.
7 IS THAT CORRECT?
8 A. THAT'S TRUE.
9 Q. IT WAS ON THE EVENING OF YOUR TESTIMONY BEFORE
10 THIS GRAND JURY TUESDAY, THAT WAS JUNE 21, THAT THE "HARD
11 COPY" INTERVIEW WITH YOU CONCERNING YOUR TESTIMONY BEFORE
12 THIS JURY WAS AIRED.
13 IS THAT CORRECT?
14 A. THAT'S TRUE.
15 Q. THE VERY NEXT DAY, JUNE 22, YOU WERE BROUGHT
16 INTO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND YOU SPOKE WITH
17 MYSELF AND MR. CONN.
18 IS THAT CORRECT?
19 A. THAT'S TRUE.
20 Q. AND WHEN MR. CONN ASKED YOU WHY YOU HAD TOLD US
21 THAT YOU HAD ONLY SPOKEN TO YOUR MOTHER ABOUT THE SUBJECT
22 MATTER OF YOUR TESTIMONY WHEN, IN FACT, YOU HAD ALSO SPOKEN
23 TO AT LEAST "HARD COPY," YOU REPLIED THAT YOU DIDN'T
24 REALIZE THAT HE MEANT ANYONE OTHER THAN FAMILY AND FRIENDS.
25 IS THAT CORRECT?
26 A. I -- THAT'S CORRECT; THAT'S WHAT I SAID.
27 AND I AM -- I WAS NERVOUS AND HADN'T SLEPT ALL
28 WEEK AND WASN'T REALLY THINKING.

416

1 I WASN'T TRYING TO HIDE ANYTHING BECAUSE I KNEW
2 IT WAS BEING AIRED THE NEXT DAY AND I ASSUMED I WOULD BE
3 INVOLVED IN THE TRIAL, SO I WASN'T DOING ANYTHING TO BREAK
4 THE TRUST.
5 I REALLY DIDN'T THINK IT WAS WRONG. I'M SORRY
6 NOW. BUT I WASN'T TRYING TO HIDE ANYTHING. I HADN'T SLEPT
7 ALL WEEK AND I WAS NERVOUS.
8 I DON'T KNOW. I -- I DID TALK TO THEM AND, YOU
9 KNOW, I KNEW IT WOULD BE AIRED THE NEXT DAY SO I COULDN'T
10 HIDE IT FROM YOU.
11 Q. BUT IT IS A FACT WHEN YOU WERE INTERVIEWED BY
12 MYSELF AND MR. CONN ON THE MORNING OF YOUR TESTIMONY THAT
13 YOU INDICATED YOU HAD ONLY SPOKEN TO YOUR MOTHER ABOUT THE
14 EVENTS OF THE NIGHT OF JUNE 12, 1994.
15 IS THAT CORRECT?
16 A. THAT IS TRUE.
17 AND I MISINTERPRETED THE QUESTION, BECAUSE ALL
18 THE TIME PEOPLE WOULD ASK YOU, "WHO DID YOU SPEAK TO
19 FIRST?" AND THAT'S WHO I HAD SPOKEN TO FIRST.
20 I DON'T REMEMBER MUCH. I WAS NERVOUS ABOUT

[21325]

21 GOING BEFORE THE GRAND JURY AND THAT'S ALL I REMEMBER.
22 Q. IN ANY CASE, MS. SHIVELY, WHEN MR. CONN ASKED
23 YOU WHO YOU HAD SPOKEN TO ABOUT THIS CASE, ABOUT YOUR
24 INVOLVEMENT IN IT, YOU DID NOT TELL US THAT YOU HAD GIVEN
25 AN INTERVIEWED ALREADY AT THAT POINT TO "HARD COPY."
26 IS THAT CORRECT?
27 A. THAT'S TRUE; I DID NOT.
28 Q. AND IN THE COURSE OF OUR DISCUSSION, OUR

417

1 INTERVIEW WITH YOU WOULD FOLLOWING THE AIRING OF THE "HARD
2 COPY" BROADCAST, THAT IS THE FOLLOWING MORNING AFTER THAT
3 BROADCAST WAS AIRED --
4 A. RIGHT.
5 Q. -- YOU FURTHER INDICATED TO US THAT YOU HAD
6 ALSO SPOKEN TO A COUPLE OF YOUR FRIENDS AND CO-WORKERS
7 ABOUT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF YOUR TESTIMONY BEFORE WE SPOKE
8 TO YOU FOR THE FIRST TIME ON TUESDAY, JUNE THE 21ST.
9 ISN'T THAT TRUE?
10 A. RIGHT.
11 Q. AND YOU ALSO INDICATED TO US THAT AFTER YOU
12 RECEIVED YOUR GRAND JURY SUBPOENA ON MONDAY WHEN YOU WENT
13 TO WORK, YOU PUT IT ON YOUR BOSS' DESK, WHERE IT WAS IN
14 FULL VIEW OF YOUR FELLOW CO-WORKERS.
15 ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
16 A. THAT'S TRUE.
17 Q. AND YOU HAD SPOKEN TO THOSE FRIENDS AND
18 CO-WORKERS AND DISPLAYED YOUR GRAND JURY SUBPOENA AND GIVEN
19 AN INTERVIEW TO "HARD COPY" BEFORE YOU EVER SAW MYSELF OR
20 MR. CONN ON JUNE THE 21ST, 1994?
21 A. RIGHT; THAT'S TRUE.
22 I TALKED TO HIM ON MONDAY, ON THE MONDAY, THE
23 20TH.
24 Q. AND YOU SPOKE TO US FOR THE FIRST TIME ON
25 JUNE 21?
26 A. THAT'S CORRECT; RIGHT.
27 MS. CLARK: I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
28 THE FOREPERSON: IF ANY MEMBERS OF THE GRAND JURY

418

1 HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE WRITE THEM ON A PIECE OF PAPER.
2 THEY WILL BE PICKED UP BY THE
3 SERGEANT-AT-ARMS.
4
5 (SHORT PAUSE.)
6

[21326]

7 MR. WHITE: THERE WILL BE NO QUESTIONS.
8 THE FOREPERSON: THERE WILL BE NO QUESTIONS.
9 THANK YOU.
10 MISS SHIVELY, YOU WILL RECALL THAT YOU HAVE
11 PREVIOUSLY BEEN ADMONISHED REGARDING THE SECRECY OF THESE
12 PROCEEDINGS AND MUST HEED THAT ADMONISHMENT.
13 THE WITNESS: OKAY.
14 THE FOREPERSON: THANK YOU.
15 YOU ARE EXCUSED.
16 THE WITNESS: THANK YOU.
17
18 (THE WITNESS EXITS THE GRAND
19 JURY HEARING ROOM.)
20
21 MS. CLARK: MADAME FOREMAN, IF I MAY ADDRESS THE
22 GRAND JURY BRIEFLY AT THIS TIME.
23 THE COURT: YOU MAY DO SO.
24 MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.
25 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THIS JURY, BECAUSE IT
26 IS OUR DUTY AS PROSECUTORS TO PRESENT ONLY THAT EVIDENCE IN
27 WHICH WE ARE 110 PERCENT CONFIDENT AS TO ITS TRUTHFULNESS
28 AND RELIABILITY, I I MUST NOW ASK YOU TO COMPLETELY

1 DISREGARD THE STATEMENTS GIVEN AND THE TESTIMONY GIVEN BY
2 JILL SHIVELY IN THIS CASE.
3 ALTHOUGH HER FAILURE TO TRUTHFULLY ANSWER A
4 QUESTION POSED TO HER DURING AN INTERVIEW CANNOT SUBJECT
5 HER TO PERJURY CHARGES GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE SUSPECT DOES
6 NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY PRESENT TO CROSS-EXAMINE HER AT THIS
7 PROCEEDING AND THAT AT THIS POINT IN TIME WE HAVE NO WAY TO
8 INDEPENDENTLY CORROBORATE HER TESTIMONY, I CANNOT ALLOW HER
9 TO BE PART OF THIS CASE AT THIS TIME NOW THAT SHE HAS
10 PROVEN TO BE UNTRUTHFUL AS TO ANY ASPECT OF HER STATEMENT.
11 PLEASE COMPLETELY DISREGARD THE TESTIMONY OF
12 JILL SHIVELY. YOU MUST NOT ALLOW IT TO BE ANY PART OF YOUR
13 CONSIDERATIONS OR DELIBERATIONS IN THIS MATTER.
14 IF ANY OF YOU FEEL THAT YOU CANNOT DO SO, I
15 ASK YOU NOW, PLEASE, IN FAIRNESS AND IN JUSTICE, EXCUSE
16 YOURSELF FROM ANY FURTHER INVOLVEMENT IN THIS CASE.
17 MADAME FOREMAN, I NOTICE THAT NO ONE HAS
18 EXCUSED THEMSELVES.
19 THE FOREPERSON: THANK YOU.
20 MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.
21 THE FOREPERSON: YOU MAY PROCEED.
22 MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I think OJ was guilty.

I don't think he was innocent, but I do not think the criminal prosecution succeeded in proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. At times the LAPD witnesses sounded like a liar's convention.