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.

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

I am going with the evidence adduced at trial, not fictional nonsense.

Some of the samples were scientifically proven to have been contaminated with EDTA. When your pronouncement that such was refuted is accompanied by the identity of the witness at trial who performed this imaginary magic feat, I will take it seriously.

Small amounts of EDTA in human blood are considered normal.

You are hallucinating.

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

Dr. Fredrich Rieders, Defense EDTA expert 7/24, 8/14

Rieders determined there was EDTA in the samples from the back gate and on the socks. For that matter, so did FBI Agent Martz (not a ph.d.).

Far from refuting Reiders, Marcia Clark gat her ass handed to her by Reiders, and worked herself up to this:

SIDEBAR

[16762]

THE COURT: All right. We are over at the side bar. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. I regrettably have asked to approach because I feel that the People's right to a fair trial is being abrogated by the Court's clear bias in the manner in which it has handled the cross-examination of Dr. Rieders. I have attempted to confine my questioning to the relevant portions upon which the Court has ruled there has been relevance concerning the Sconce case. The Court has indicated by its tone and its demeanor and its ruling its disapproval of my every question, practically, in the area, and has told the jury, in direct contravention to its own finding, that the Sconce matter is relevant, "Let's get back to this case," and has basically signaled to the jury, if not with tone and with action and with rulings, its disapproval of my behavior. I do not see what I have done that has been inappropriate. I have attempted to abide by all of the Court's rulings. I asked to approach when I wanted to elicit something that has been previously ruled on. And the jury can only think that the Court has signaled its position on the presence of EDTA on the blood on the sock and the gate and the Court has based its determination--has made a determination that it was indeed present and that my questioning is inappropriate and ineffective. And on behalf of the People I would ask that the Court make some indication to the jury that it is not intending to signal any position on the issue, because at this point I think the signals have been very clear and very loud and I think that the People's right to a fair trial has been damaged.

MR. COCHRAN: May I respond just briefly?

THE COURT: No. Mr. Blasier is handling this.

MR. COCHRAN: I'm sorry.

[16763]

MR. BLASIER: The Court gave Miss Clark many, many signals. We spent most of the cross on this, the Sconce case. It wasn't like she wasn't allowed to go into it. She has been going into matters that are far collateral to this case and the Court sustained many objections. And I don't think the Court's comment was inappropriate at all and I think it would be complete inappropriate to go back and say I didn't mean what I said. So I would object to any such correcting instruction or statement by the Court.

MS. CLARK: Let me just indicate--

THE COURT: The issue as to the Sconce case was that Dr. Rieders did testing that somebody else disagreed with. It goes to his competence. That has been established and that was established ad infinitum ad nauseam to a degree that was unwarranted and there were attempts to bring in hearsay documents that clearly there was no foundation for and to bring in opinions of other people regarding Dr. Rieders' performance on the Sconce case. I allowed you to establish the foundation that somebody else disagrees with Dr. Rieders' finding in the Sconce case. That is all that is relevant here.

MS. CLARK: Well, okay. It is my position that there were other issues regarding the witness' credibility that were highly germane. The Court disagreed, I understand, but I have never seen a lawyer for the Defense treated in the manner in which this Court has treated me throughout this cross-examination.

THE COURT: Well, look at Mr. Neufeld some time when I get impatient with him for the same reason, that the cross-examination is ridiculously long. I will note your objection, but I think it is not well taken.

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

Defense Counsel Blasier Redirect of Dr. Frederic Reiders

[16798]

MR. BLASIER: Now, I want to ask you a couple of questions about the differences between what Agent Martz has testified to and what you have testified to with respect to whether or not this is EDTA that's on the gate and the sock. Do you have that in mind?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Is it accurate that both of you agreed that the retention time that he got is consistent with EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: That the presence of the parent ion, the 293 parent ion that he found is consistent with the presence of EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: The presence of the 160 daughter ion that he found, would you agree, is consistent with the presence of EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And he agreed with that; did he not?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that the only difference between your opinion and his opinion is based on his inability to find the other piece, the other daughter ion, the 132 daughter ion?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Leading.

[16799]

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. BLASIER: Is it your understanding--what's your understanding with respect to Agent Martz' unwillingness to declare that what he saw was EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: That he performed one analysis where he scanned widely between 130 and 293 across the spectrum for both daughter ions, and he claimed that in that, he didn't see anything, didn't see the 132 daughter ion, that there was nothing there because the computer didn't print out any numbers.

MR. BLASIER: Now, this machinery that he has--

MS. CLARK: Objection. That misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: The machinery that he has--do you recall that we were talking before about the analogy of a television camera that's set up to focus on you and maybe scan back and forth, but not deviate very much from where you're sitting? Remember that analogy?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And that's the analogy that relates to looking for the 160 daughter ion, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Looking either at the 160 daughter ion or scanning across and seeing what it appears in that scan.

MR. BLASIER: And when Agent Martz did that scan of the 160 ion, the small range, 158 to 162, he found the 160 daughter ion, didn't he?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

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?

[16799]

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.

[16800]

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.

MR. BLASIER: Is that something that if you were trying to do every possible test to test a hypothesis, that he should have done?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, I would think so, at least partly. I mean, for a period of time. Not necessarily eight months.

MR. BLASIER: Now, if Agent Martz were testing the hypothesis as to whether food or other substances can create levels of EDTA in the blood equivalent to the amount found on the gate and the sock, what

[16801]

would be the proper way to test that hypothesis? What would one proper way be?

DR. RIEDERS: To test 10 or 20 random blood samples from normal people or as many as you can conveniently. It's a simple test, so you can test a lot. It's a standard procedure.

MR. BLASIER: Do you feel that him testing his own blood after placing it in a red top tube for a period of time is an adequate test to determine how much EDTA he might have had in his blood originally?

DR. RIEDERS: Not without adequate quality control such as testing red top tubes, if you put things in them, whether there's any EDTA in the stopper or in the lining, in the silicone lining, which wouldn't be too unusual. You know, without that, it's not a very good way of getting an answer. Besides that, if you put blood in a red top tube, you can't test blood. You blood serum or plasma.

MR. BLASIER: Why is that?

DR. RIEDERS: Because it clots.

MR. BLASIER: How long does it take to clot?

DR. RIEDERS: Five to seven minutes.

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

Defense Counsel Blasier Redirect of Dr. Frederic Reiders

[16804]

MR. BLASIER: Doctor, after being cross-examined and hearing Agent Martz' testimony, do you stand by your opinion that what was found on the back gate and the sock to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty was EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Do you stand by your opinion that the probable source for that EDTA was a purple top tube?

MS. CLARK: Objection. That misstates, conclusion.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. RIEDERS: Probably, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know of any other possible source for that amount of EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, theoretically.

MR. BLASIER: Any other source that you would expect to find in someone's human blood?

DR. RIEDERS: If they've been treated with intravenous calcium EDTA within the last eight hours for lead poisoning, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Other than that?

DR. RIEDERS: Or for other forms of treatment, diagnostic or treatment with disodium calcium EDTA.

MR. BLASIER: How about after just a normal diet?

DR. RIEDERS: No way.

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

And from the more recent case of Steven Avery:

Despite its ubiquitous presence, metabolism studies have shown that little, if any, EDTA should be present in human blood. In 1954, a metabolism study using laco-labeled calcium-EDTA given intravenously showed that EDTA was detectable in the plasma but not in the blood cells (7). On average, 95% of an oral dose was recovered in the urine and feces within three days of administration with no EDTA detected in the plasma, and the remaining 5% was detected in the urine within 18h. More recent metabolism studies using the NaFe(III)-EDTA complex report that it dissociates during digestion and confirm that only about 5% of the EDTA is absorbed and excreted in urine (8).

Determining EDTA in Blood, A murder trial sheds light on the need for a better analytical method, Robin L. Sheppard, Jack Henion, Cornell University. Analytical Chemistry, August 1, 1997, 69, 477A-480A, Exhibit 437, 05 CF 381, Date 03-05-00, in the Steven Avery proceeding. The Steven Avery case was the subject of the NETFLIX series, Making a Murderer. Taken from page 2 of 6 of the Report used as a trial exhibit.

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

You keep forgetting the defense need prove nothing.

The prosecution proved that the gloves in evidence did not fit O.J. Simpson. You can make all manner of conjecture, but the prosecution still proved the gloves did not fit.

Amazingly, Fuhrman went to Rockingham and found that glove.

[Defense Counsel Gerald Uelman]

[18311]

Well, your Honor, this is the same Mark Fuhrman who in his conversations with Laura McKinny--and I am now quoting from tape no. 3 at page 3--makes the following comments:

"Fuhrman: Well, I really love being a policeman. "McKinny: Why do you love being a policeman?

"Fuhrman: When I can be a policeman. It's like my partner now. He's so hung upon the rules and stuff. I get pissed sometimes and go, `you just don't even fuck'in understand. This job is not rules. This is a feeling. Fuck the rules. We'll make them up later.'"

Well, there are rules about what kind of search activity a police officer can engage in without a search warrant. The activity of Detective Fuhrman on the morning of June 13th raises serious questions about whether he followed those rules, and the attitude exhibited inthis exchange that is on tape in the McKinny tapes certainly raises a question that should be asked about Detective Fuhrman's understanding of the rules and limits on the kind of activity that he could engage in.

The next issue relates to the role of Detective Fuhrman in the investigation of this case after he is takenoff of the case at approximately 2:30 in the morning. Your Honor will recall that almost three hours after he is removed from the case, it is Detective Fuhrman who leads the other detectives from Bundy to the Rockingham residence of the Defendant. It is Detective Fuhrman who finds the speck on the Bronco. It is Detective Fuhrman who then leads the detectives over the wall into the premises and it is Detective Fuhrman who ultimately finds the glove. And with respect to all of this investigative activity, there are no notes, there are no logs, there are no reports. His testimony is: "I stopped making any record of what I was doing as soon as I was taken off the case at approximately 2:30 in the morning." Perfect setup. No way to double-check any of his activity in terms of what happened after he was relieved from the case. And, your Honor, this is the same Detective Fuhrman who in his exchange with Miss McKinny--and this is on the tape 6--6A. I'm reading from page 3 to page 4.

"This is embarrassing." This is Detective Fuhrman speaking.

"Then you go to court and I'm the only one who knows how to testify. You have five officers on the case, and I'm the only one there that knows how to testify. "The D.A. goes, `yeah, but you were the fourth car. But would you testify?' "'yeah.' "'but you did see--' "I saw it. Don't worry about it. Yeah, I saw him do that. Yeah, I saw him do that. Yeah, yeah. Okay. Goodbye.' "Why do I have to do everything? That's what it is coming down to. I have to fight the guy, I have to catch the guy, I have to keep the guy's mouth shut at the station because they're not going to do it for a female. I just can walk by and say, `shut up or I'm going to kick your face in.'"

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

Items had been searched and not blood was found or reported. Mark Fuhrman arrived to save the day and he remarkably found all you could want. Ask Fuhrman how he did that hours after he was removed from the case and stopped taking notes. Nah, forget it, he took the Fifth.

[18328]

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. UELMEN

MR. UELMEN: Detective Fuhrman, was the testimony that you gave at the preliminary hearing in this case completely truthful?

DET. FUHRMAN: I wish to assert my 5th amendment privilege.

MR. UELMEN: Have you ever falsified a police report?

DET. FUHRMAN: I wish to assert my 5th amendment privilege.

[...]

MR. UELMEN: Detective Fuhrman, did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case?

DET. FUHRMAN: I assert my 5th amendment privilege.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

Yep, and what happened to that evidence?

It was ignored by the jury as unreliable.

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.

No, they didn't teach me this. They taught me that the job of the judge is to conduct our courts in an impartial manner and to enforce existing law already in our books

So your law school taught you that

[145] "It is for the court to enforce the already existing law in the books

but

[159], No, they didn't teach me this. They taught me that the job of the judge is to conduct our courts in an impartial manner and to enforce existing law already in our books.

If the court enforces existing law, what do the law enforcement agencies do? That would be the gun toting members of the Executive Branch.

If the court enforces existing law, what do the law enforcement agencies do?

The same damn thing.

Mark Fuhrman was at the crime scene and saw the mountain of evidence -- bloody shoeprints, the glove, a watch cap, and a trail of blood drops. Then a matching bloody glove and more blood drops at OJ's house.

Now you're saying Mark Fuhrman didn't think that was enough evidence, so he later planted microscopic traces of EDTA-contaminated blood in the Bronco -- knowing that he could be sentenced to death if he were caught. You say this despite the fact that you have no proof other than the fact that he pled the 5th.

Justice is not served by destroying the third life of an innocent man. I think OJ was guilty.

You can't have it both ways. Though you do try.

You can't have it both ways. Though you do try.

In truth, you can't have it your way.

You have this massive fetish for the "Rule of Law", but you do not seem to comprehend that what rule IS is determined by judges and lawyers and politicians, not you.

"but you do not seem to comprehend what that rule IS is determined by judges and lawyers and politics, not you."

The law is written by the people through their elected representatives. The law is then interpreted and applied by the judicial system. That is called the Rule of Law.

When exceptions to the law are carved out for certain individuals or certain circumstances, we no longer have the Rule of Law. We have the Rule of Man.

The law is written by the people through their elected representatives. The law is then interpreted and applied by the judicial system. That is called the Rule of Law.

When exceptions to the law are carved out for certain individuals or certain circumstances, we no longer have the Rule of Law. We have the Rule of Man.

That's nice.

If the court enforces existing law, what do the law enforcement agencies do?

The same damn thing.

What do the courts enforce the law with, a charm offensive?

The Federal Judicial Branch has, as its law enforcement branch, the United States Marshal's Service (USMS). They track down fugitives, transport prisoners, protect officers of the court, and babysit the Witness Protection Program, and serve federal warrants. Covering the entire UInited States, the Marshal's Service is but a small fraction the size of the NYPD, with about one tenth the manpower, and about a quarter of the budget.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marshals_Service

The United States Marshals Service (USMS) is a federal law enforcement agency within the U.S. Department of Justice (see 28 U.S.C. § 561). It is the oldest American federal law enforcement agency, which was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789 during the presidency of George Washington. The Marshals Service is attached to the Judicial branch of government, and is the enforcement arm of the federal courts. It is the primary agency for fugitive operations, responsible for prisoner transport, the protection of officers of the court, and for the effective operation of the judiciary. The Marshals Service operates the Witness Protection Program, and serves federal level arrest warrants.

https://www.usmarshals.gov/duties/factsheets/facts.pdf

Facts and Figures

2017 Personnel

• 94 U.S. marshals, one for each federal court district
• 3,709 deputy U.S. marshals and criminal investigators
• 1,435 administrative employees and detention enforcement officers
• 5,238 total employees
• 94 districts, 218 sub-offices, three foreign field offices

Budget FY 2016 enacted:
$1.23 billion (salaries and expenses)

For comparison with a real law enforcement group, try the NYPD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Police_Department

The NYPD's current authorized uniformed strength is 34,450. There are also approximately 4,500 Auxiliary Police Officers, 5,000 School Safety Agents, 2,300 Traffic Enforcement Agents, and 370 Traffic Enforcement Supervisors currently employed by the department.

[...]

Employees: 49,526 (2013)
Annual budget: $4.8 billion

[nc 141] LAPD criminalist Colin Yamauchi essentially conceded he had all the evidence for testing out at once, subjecting everything to cross-contamination.

[goldilucky #157] Yep, and what happened to that evidence?

[nc #168] It was ignored by the jury as unreliable.

[goldilucky] I'm disappointed to hear that. Either that or it was never presented to the jury at all.

As most people who watched the trial, the evidence was presented live before the jury and the entire world.

Government officials employees and employees enjoy a presumption regularity in the performance of their duties. However, this is a rebuttable presumption. Once Barry Sheck demonstrated for the whole world to see, that the LAPD Crime Lab was a cesspool of contamination, the presumption of regularity was lost.

The fact that the defense proved that the blood evidence came and went in a ghostly fashion also contributed to establish complete disbelief in the credibility of the LAPD witnesses.

[misterwhite #120] But I would say OJ's blood at the crime scene, victim's blood in the Bronco....

The Bronco blood evidence is an example of evidence that appeared in a ghostly fashion, as was brought out by Barry Scheck in cross-examination of LAPD criminalist Dennis Fung.

[6812]

MR. SCHECK: And there was a blood spot that you saw on July 3rd that was labeled 116?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And you did not see that on the photograph, the blown-up photograph that was taken on June 13th?

MR. GOLDBERG: This is beyond the scope, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FUNG: I did not see it.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And you cannot tell us from your own personal knowledge how 116 got there on July 3rd?

MR. FUNG: Not from my personal knowledge, no.

Fung found that spot on July 3rd. When confronted by a photograph of the Bronco taken on June 13th, Fung encountered difficulty explaining why the blood spot was not seen in the photograph taken weeks earlier.

At the time of the OJ trial, California law stated that anyone who fabricated evidence in a death penalty case could be sentenced to death themselves. Mark Fuhrman, as a detective, certainly knew this.

The same applied to perjury. Fuhrman was proved to be a perjurer in front of the jury.

Mark Fuhrman was at the crime scene and saw the mountain of evidence -- bloody shoeprints, the glove, a watch cap, and a trail of blood drops. Then a matching bloody glove and more blood drops at OJ's house.

And you know all this how? You heard a proven liar claim it?

Now you're saying Mark Fuhrman didn't think that was enough evidence, so he later planted microscopic traces of EDTA-contaminated blood in the Bronco -- knowing that he could be sentenced to death if he were caught. You say this despite the fact that you have no proof other than the fact that he pled the 5th.

There you go again. Please link to where I claimed Mark Fuhrman planted blood on the Bronco, or anywhere else? Why do you think Fuhrman may have planted blood on a blood-soaked glove? When did Fuhrman do this? What blood do you believe Fuhrman used to plant blood on the blood-soaked glove?

As your inventive observation of "microscopic traces of EDTA," recalling the testimony of now discredited FBI Agent Roger Martz, Barry Scheck observed, "The EDTA was the linchpin, the best proof we had of tampering with evidence." He added, "There was enough EDTA, in parts per million, to kill a person."

As for discrediting FBI Agent Martz, see USDOJ/OIG FBI Labs Report, Executive Summary, by Michael R. Bromwich, Inspector General, April 1997.

Under Finding and Recommendations Concerning Individuals,

CTU Chief Roger Martz should not hold a supervisory position in the Laboratory, and the FBI should assess whether he should continue to serve as a Laboratory examiner.

Under E. Testimony by Agent Martz in the O.J. Simpson Case (Part Three, Section F)

That testimony ill served the FBI because it conveyed a lack of preparation, an inadequate level of training in toxicological issues, and deficient knowledge about other scientific matters that should be within the expertise of a chief of a unit handling chemical and toxicological analyses in the Laboratory.

Under Under VI. Findings and Recommendations Concerning Individuals (Part Five)

4) Late in our investigation, Whitehurst wrote a letter to the OIG expressing concerns about testimony given by CTU Chief Roger Martz in Florida v. George Trepal, a case that resulted in the conviction and death sentence of Trepal for having added the poison thallium nitrate to bottles of Coca-Cola. We found that Martz could have properly opined that certain samples were consistent with thallium nitrate having been added to them. Martz, however, did not limit his conclusions that way, but instead offered an opinion stronger than his analytical results would support. He also failed to conduct certain tests that were appropriate under the circumstances, failed to document adequately his work, and testified inaccurately on various points. Martz's work in this case was seriously deficient.

Under VI. Findings and Recommendations Concerning Individuals (Part Five)

CTU Chief Roger Martz lacks the judgment and credibility to perform in a supervisory role within the Laboratory. If Martz continues to work as an examiner, we suggest that he be supervised by a scientist qualified to review his work substantively and that he be counseled on the appropriate manner for testifying about forensic work. We further recommended that another qualified examiner review any analytical work by Martz that is to be used as a basis for future testimony.

In short, the EDTA testimony of Dr. Rieders was not refuted. The testimony of Dr. Rieders so destroyed the credibility of Agent Martz that it embarrassed the FBI. The whole of the atrociously bad FBI lab was under attack, and Agent Martz had made a public spectacle of it on a world stage. The FBI circled the wagons as best they could to defend their lab, but there was only so much they could do for Martz.

The Defense discovered that Detective Mark Fuhrman was interviewed for a screen play and that these interviews were taped. The tapes reveal that Fuhrman made numerous racial slurs and that he may have engaged in police misconduct. This bolsters the Defense's claim that Fuhrman is a racist and that he may have planted evidence. Whether these would be played before the jury became a hotly contested issue.

Judge Ito: All right. We are in chambers with counsel for both sides. What is up? Miss Clark?

Ms. Clark: Yeah. It would appear, based on my review of stuff that I have seen so far, and Johnnie has corroborated that he agrees he has been shown that, back in `85, on the `85 tapes I think it is, and also `87, Mark Fuhrman discusses Lieutenant York.

Judge Ito: Uh-huh.

Ms. Clark: And their run-ins at West L.A. and he makes derogatory comments. Of course I have to tell you, Judge, this is a book about men against women, that is the whole thing, so he tees off on women through the whole thing. I mean--

Mr. Cochran: Just a minute. That is basically true, but he doesn't like blacks or Mexicans or Jews.

Ms. Clark: Or whites either, or Jews.

Mr. Cochran: He hates women. He hates everybody basically except white Anglo-Saxon men who are police officers.

Ms. Clark: Yeah, and even them not necessarily.

Mr. Cochran: Unless they are cowards.

Mr. Scheck: Or pukes.

Mr. Cochran: Or pukes.

Ms. Clark: So I mean--

Judge Ito: We call them squints in the D.A.'s office, but that is okay.

Mr. Cochran: Judge, this will be--

Ms. Clark: Is this going to be sealed, Judge?

Judge Ito: No. I have to tell you no.

Mr. Cochran: Careful.

Ms. Clark: Motion to strike all of the above.

-- August 14, 1995

"Fuhrman was proved to be a perjurer in front of the jury."

On an unrelated matter where he was asked to recall 10 years of conversations. Who's on trial here?

"Barry Scheck observed, "The EDTA was the linchpin ...There was enough EDTA, in parts per million, to kill a person."

Not in any of the blood found at the crime scene. I have no idea what he's referring to.

but you do not seem to comprehend that what rule IS is determined by judges and lawyers and politicians, not you.

The law is determined by the words of the laws passed.

Sometimes the judges are honest. Other times they exercise tyranny through color of law.

"There you go again. Please link to where I claimed Mark Fuhrman planted blood on the Bronco, or anywhere else? Why do you think Fuhrman may have planted blood on a blood-soaked glove?"

Happy to. What else could you possibly have meant when you posted:

"Items had been searched and not blood was found or reported. Mark Fuhrman arrived to save the day and he remarkably found all you could want."

[misterwhite #180] On an unrelated matter where he was asked to recall 10 years of conversations. Who's on trial here?

Mark Fuhrman's credibility was on trial. The credibility of every witness is always on trial.

- - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - -

"Barry Scheck observed, "The EDTA was the linchpin ...There was enough EDTA, in parts per million, to kill a person."

[misterwhite #180] Not in any of the blood found at the crime scene. I have no idea what he's referring to.

It is abundantly obvious that Scheck is referring explicitly to the blood found at the crime scene which was proven by the scientific evidence to have been laced with EDTA. Get the full context below.

The prosecution scientific evidence on EDTA came from the now discredited FBI agent Roger Martz. The Martz testimony was destroyed at trial. His testimony was an embarrassment to the FBI.

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/fbi-lab-taint-aid-simpson-case-article-1.763389

FBI LAB TAINT MAY AID SIMPSON'S CASE

BY Juan Gonzalez
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Monday, February 3, 1997, 12:00 AM

SANTA MONICA Last week, as the jury in O.

J. Simpson's civil trial began deliberations, a decision with a curious connection to the case was being made 2,700 miles away in Washington. Four senior employes at the FBI's world-renowned forensic laboratory were suspended after a Justice Department investigation revealed that evidence in numerous major criminal cases had been badly mishandled. Among the four was Roger Martz, chief of the FBI's chemistry unit, who is accused, according to published reports, of slipshod work in two of the highest-profile criminal cases of our time the World Trade Center and Oklahoma City bombings. In southern California it would be especially difficult not to notice that Roger Martz' name was all over those stories about the FBI shakeup, even though few mentioned his critical connection to Simpson's criminal trial.

[...]

But before that, the area that the jury had seemed to be examining the most in its deliberations defense allegations that blood evidence was planted is precisely the area in which Martz played a crucial role in the criminal trial. It was Martz, if you recall, who was asked by prosecutors to "refute the possibility" that blood found on the socks in Simpson's house and on the back gate outside Nicole Brown Simpson's Bundy Drive condo contained EDTA, a preservative. Signs of EDTA would prove that someone had planted that blood after the murders. Martz, indeed, said he found chemical traces of what looked like EDTA, and he was questioned at the first trial by defense attorney Robert Blasier: Blasier: "When you found what you did find, whether it is EDTA or something that just looked like EDTA, did you advise the prosecution of what you found?

"Martz: "I had prepared a report, yes.

"Blasier: "Did they ever ask you to find what that might be, other than EDTA?

"Martz: "No, I mean, it was not necessary because I had clearly answered the question, the fact that it did not come from preservative.

"Martz said he had tested some of his own blood and found similar residues, and argued that EDTA, as a food preservative, can be found in all blood. But under relentless questioning from Blasier, Martz admitted he had not read the FBI's own procedures for validating the presence of EDTA and that he had erased from the FBI computer the raw data on which he based his findings. "The EDTA was the linchpin, the best proof we had of tampering with evidence," said Barry Scheck, recalling Martz' testimony. "There was enough EDTA, in parts per million, to kill a person.

"After Martz took the stand, another FBI lab chemist, Frederick Whitehurst, the main whistleblower in the current crime laboratory scandal, offered to testify that his colleague Martz had violated normal procedures in Simpson's and other cases. But Judge Lance Ito refused to allow Whitehurst to appear. So questionable had Martz' methods become among his colleagues that during the investigation of the second World Trade Center bombing conspiracy, Whitehurst and another FBI agent, Steven Burmeister, mixed common manure and urine and submitted it as evidence taken from a suspect's home. Martz later identified the phony mixture as an explosive. No wonder, then, that Baker, Simpson's lead civil trial attorney, spent considerable time in his closing argument blasting Martz. He knew the head of the FBI's chemistry unit was in trouble. This is what Baker told the jurors: "So Rogert Martz . . . does a test. And he finds EDTA on both samples. . . . This is obviously absolutely devastating to the prosecution. It refutes what the prosecution says. "So what does the FBI do? Roger Martz said, 'I tested my own blood, it came out with essentially the same reading.

'But, contrary to FBI procedures, he erases his computer run so nobody can come back and look, and at the same time that he that he says that, the time he says that, no one knows that EDTA is undetectable in the human blood. Those tests haven't been devised yet.

"Where was Roger Martz? Baker asked the jurors. Why wasn't he testifying? A FEW DAYS later, in the front-page accounts of the FBI laboratory scandal, we found out exactly where Martz was somewhere in limbo after being suspended. The first evidence the civil jury reviewed were exhibits concerning the blood that the once-unassailable FBI lab had insisted was not planted.

USDOJ/OIG FBI Labs Report, Executive Summary, by Michael R. Bromwich, Inspector General, April 1997.

Under Finding and Recommendations Concerning Individuals,

CTU Chief Roger Martz should not hold a supervisory position in the Laboratory, and the FBI should assess whether he should continue to serve as a Laboratory examiner.

Under E. Testimony by Agent Martz in the O.J. Simpson Case (Part Three, Section F)

That testimony ill served the FBI because it conveyed a lack of preparation, an inadequate level of training in toxicological issues, and deficient knowledge about other scientific matters that should be within the expertise of a chief of a unit handling chemical and toxicological analyses in the Laboratory.

Under Under VI. Findings and Recommendations Concerning Individuals (Part Five)

4) Late in our investigation, Whitehurst wrote a letter to the OIG expressing concerns about testimony given by CTU Chief Roger Martz in Florida v. George Trepal, a case that resulted in the conviction and death sentence of Trepal for having added the poison thallium nitrate to bottles of Coca-Cola. We found that Martz could have properly opined that certain samples were consistent with thallium nitrate having been added to them. Martz, however, did not limit his conclusions that way, but instead offered an opinion stronger than his analytical results would support. He also failed to conduct certain tests that were appropriate under the circumstances, failed to document adequately his work, and testified inaccurately on various points. Martz's work in this case was seriously deficient.

Under VI. Findings and Recommendations Concerning Individuals (Part Five)

CTU Chief Roger Martz lacks the judgment and credibility to perform in a supervisory role within the Laboratory. If Martz continues to work as an examiner, we suggest that he be supervised by a scientist qualified to review his work substantively and that he be counseled on the appropriate manner for testifying about forensic work. We further recommended that another qualified examiner review any analytical work by Martz that is to be used as a basis for future testimony.

"There you go again. Please link to where I claimed Mark Fuhrman planted blood on the Bronco, or anywhere else? Why do you think Fuhrman may have planted blood on a blood-soaked glove?"

Happy to. What else could you possibly have meant when you posted:

"Items had been searched and not blood was found or reported. Mark Fuhrman arrived to save the day and he remarkably found all you could want."

You have a remarkable sense of humor and demonstrate a certain talent for ripping a comment out of context. Of course, my comment explicitly referred to "victims blood in the Bronco."

[misterwhite #120]

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.

[nc #144]

(b) victim's blood in the Bronco,

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

[misterwhite #155] It wasn't there or it wasn't seen? How did it get there later?

[nc #167] Items had been searched and not (sic - no) blood was found or reported.

[nc #178, re a Bronco stain]

MR. SCHECK: 166-a. Show you this photograph, 166-a.

MR. SCHECK: Mr. Fung, where is drop 116 that you saw on July 3rd?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I'll object. He's already gone into this.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FUNG: It does not appear in the picture. However, it may be on the curved area behind it. It just doesn't appear in the picture though.

MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. And it may be that it got there sometime between June 13th and July 3rd.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: You can't tell us from your own personal knowledge?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, makes--motion to strike.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: No further questions.

[nc #178, re the rear gate blood spot]

MR. SCHECK: And there was a blood spot that you saw on July 3rd that was labeled 116?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And you did not see that on the photograph, the blown-up photograph that was taken on June 13th?

MR. GOLDBERG: This is beyond the scope, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FUNG: I did not see it.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And you cannot tell us from your own personal knowledge how 116 got there on July 3rd?

MR. FUNG: Not from my personal knowledge, no.

Fuhrman was not alleged to have planted blood on the gloves, by me or the OJ defense. The gloves were soaked in an abundance of blood.

Fuhrman is photographed at Bundy, at night, pointing to the blood-soaked Bundy glove. That is before his trip to Rockingham, his jumping over the fence, and his lonesome self "finding" the matching blood-soaked glove at OJ's place. Or, alternatively, putting one of the blood-soaked gloves in a bag at Bundy and transporting it to Rockingham, and jumping the fence with it, and "finding" it.

To believe the testimony, when Fuhrman jumped the fence to gain warrantless entry to the OJ residence, OJ was not a suspect. They just had an urgent need to notify OJ of what had happened to his ex-wife. OJ was on a flight to Chicago, so he did not answer the intercom. Had Fuhrman jumped the fence considering OJ a suspect, or to conduct a search, it would have been an illegal warrantless search. Thus, the fairy tale. Cause to search the house could be provided by some sort of evidence, say a blood-soaked glove, or a blood stain observed on the Bronco.

Hilariously, there was testimony that the cops feared the killer might still be in the house. Then they were busted on the witness stand for fibbing about how they gained entry to the house. They claimed they gained entry through the rear entrance.

[13334]

MR. COCHRAN: So you returned home and was anyone at home when you returned home after 12:30 on now June 13, 1994?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

[13335]

MR. COCHRAN: And who was home?
MS. SIMPSON: Kato.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Anybody else that you are aware was there?
MS. SIMPSON: No.
THE COURT: I think we know who she is talking about, but since we have two Katos here--
MS. SIMPSON: I'm sorry, Kato Kaelin.
MR. COCHRAN: Kato the human being?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Kato Kaelin. All right. When you returned home, where did you go at that point, if you recall?
MS. SIMPSON: To my room.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. That is Arnelle's room; is that correct?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Then do you know about--did you at some point go to sleep?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Do you know what time approximately you went to bed, went to sleep?
MS. SIMPSON: It had to have been around one o'clock. Between 1:00 and 1:30.
MR. COCHRAN: When you returned home did you notice anything unusual at all about the residence?
MS. SIMPSON: No.
MR. COCHRAN: Now, if you went to bed and went to sleep about 1:00, 1:30 or thereabouts, did there come a time that you were awakened on the morning hours of June 13, 1994?

[13336]

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Describe for the Court and jury the circumstances that you were awakened, ma'am, if you recall.
MS. SIMPSON: Umm, I was awakened around between 5:00 and 5:30 by two gentlemen knocking at my door.
MR. COCHRAN: And these gentlemen knocking at your door, what did they say, if you recall?
MS. SIMPSON: They just--they were knocking on my door and they said that they had been outside ringing the bell and that they needed to speak with somebody who lived at the house.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. I presume, having been in bed, you were attired in your pajamas or whatever?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you get up at that point?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And then tell us what happened at that point.
MS. SIMPSON: Umm, they had told me that they needed to get in touch with my father and if I knew where he was.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. What did you say in response to that?
MS. SIMPSON: I said that, umm, he wasn't home but I didn't know where he was but I knew how to get in touch with him.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Then what happened after that?
MS. SIMPSON: Umm, we left out of my room and I went to--to go to get my phone book to get in touch with somebody who would know where my dad was.
MR. COCHRAN: When you say you went to get your phone book, I presume you didn't have your phone book with you at that point?
MS. SIMPSON: No, it wasn't.

[13337]

MR. COCHRAN: With the Court's permission, did you go to some location to get your phone book?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: You were talking to two men, were you?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: These two people, were they Los Angeles Police Department detectives?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Do you know their names now?
MS. SIMPSON: I believe Phillips and Lange.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Can you describe the person you think is Lange for us?
MS. SIMPSON: Lange would be the salt and pepper, he has more hair on him, and I think Phillips is the one with the mustache and the bald head.
MR. COCHRAN: You may have them reversed. There was one with a bald head?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Let's call him Lange.
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Phillips, describe him again.
MS. SIMPSON: Salt and pepper hair, older, bigger build.
MR. COCHRAN: Let's for the time being call him Phillips?
MS. SIMPSON: I switched.
MR. COCHRAN: Did you have occasion then--would you step down and I want you to show the jury and the Court the route that you took as you sought to get this number so you could try to find your father. You could step all the way down if you want.

[13338]

MS. SIMPSON: (Witness complies.) You want me to do what?
MR. COCHRAN: The question is can you look at this diagram and draw with the pointer the route that you took as you went to get your book to get the number to call--locate your dad?
MS. SIMPSON: Okay. Out of here, (Indicating), this way.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Your Honor, she is leaving, your Honor, the area marked "Arnelle's room" and she walks west to an area with some stairs. She goes up the stairs and proceeds past the pool.
MR. COCHRAN: Is that right?
MS. SIMPSON: Uh-huh.
MR. COCHRAN: She went around the north side of the house to an area marked "Driveway" again on People's 66.
MR. COCHRAN: And you went to an area marked "Entrance." Now, is that the entrance to the Rockingham residence?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And what did you do when you got to that entrance, ma'am?
MS. SIMPSON: I went over here to the kitchen, through the kitchen to the phone here and then walked through here, (Indicating), to get to my car.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Let's back up for a moment. When you went to--got to the front door of the residence there, did you have to do anything before you got inside that residence?
MS. SIMPSON: I had to turn the alarm off.
MR. COCHRAN: There was an alarm on?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And you turned the alarm off; is that correct?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: When you walked that route that you just described for the Court and the jury, was

[13339]

anyone accompanying you at that point?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Who was?
MS. SIMPSON: The two detectives.
MR. COCHRAN: The two people we described earlier?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Lange and Phillips?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: You walked around and took the alarm off before you went inside?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Let me ask you specifically did you ever at any time walk from your residence here marked "Arnelle's room" and go through some door here at the back of the house?
MS. SIMPSON: No.
MR. COCHRAN: When the alarm is on is that possible?
MS. SIMPSON: No.
MR. COCHRAN: Can't go in that way; is that right?
MS. SIMPSON: No.
MR. COCHRAN: The alarm key pad is where?
MS. SIMPSON: In the front of the house.
MR. COCHRAN: So you went around to the front of the house and turned off that alarm and then these two detectives came in behind you; is that correct?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

As was pointed out at trial, the blood-soaked glove had been "found" shortly after the warrantless entry by jumping the fence purely for the purposes of notifying OJ Simpson of what had happened to his ex-wife. After "discovering" the matching blood-soaked glove at Rockingham, surely, this was no longer just purely a matter of notification. Surely they must have considered that a vicious, evil, blood-soaked killer could be in the house, dangerous, lurking, ready to pounce. So they woke up Arnelle Simpson at the guest area, she went to the main house and opened the front entrance, turned off the alarm, and they let the young lady lead them about the house.

Lange and Vanatter were known as Dumb & Dumber. Add Phillips, and it filled out the cast for the sequel, Dumb & Dumberer. As Mark Fuhrman observed, he was the only one with a brain who knew how to testify.

Fuhrman was at Kato Kaelin's room. Over by the patio area, by the pool, was Vanatter.

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.

[misterwhite #149]

"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."

ALL DISCREDITED BULLSHIT, AND ALL WRONG.

- - - - - - - - - -

[misterwhite #120] the fact that OJ can't produce the shoes or gloves

Both videos show that the gloves did not fit O.J. Simpson, showing the disastrous glove demonstration from the trial.

The second video further brings up an interesting possibility. There was evidence that Nicole Simpson bought two pairs of Aris Isotoner Light XL gloves at Bloomingdales in NYC. There was no evidence showing that they were given to O.J. This video interestingly offers an argument that the gloves belonged to Ron Goldman. They were certainly not needed to keep hands warm, they were light and could function well as driving gloves. Ron Goldman drove Nicole's Ferrari.

- - - - - - - - - -

O.J. and the Gloves : The Truth About What Really Happened

- - - - - - - - - -

An interesting theory. The bloody gloves were a gift from Nicole to Ron Goldman.

IS O.J. INNOCENT? THE MISSING EVIDENCE

The argument is that the gloves did not fit O.J. because they were not his gloves, they were Ron Goldman's. Compares Goldman's defensive hand wounds on his hands and the knife punctures on the gloves.

"Please remember, if the gloves were worn by the killer they wouldn't have had any defensive wounds on them. The killer wasn't blocking any knives."

It is an interesting theory, significantly more interesting than the theory that if people only say enough times that the gloves really did fit, everyone can just ignore the video that shows they did not fit.

It was a simple and effective closing argument.

"Ron Goldman drove Nicole's Ferrari."

Not that night. Ron Goldman drove his girlfriend's car.

But say he did drive Nicole's Ferrari. He wasn't killed in the car. So why would he still be wearing those gloves when he walked up to her condo?

Did Ron Goldman wear extra-large gloves? By the way, Nicole purchased those gloves three years before she even met Ron Goldman.

There was a picture of OJ wearing gloves. Lo and behold, they were the same model as gloves found at the murder scene and behind his house, glove expert Richard Rubin testified.

Lastly, if those were Ron Goldman's gloves, how did one of them end up behind OJ's house covered in OJ's blood and the blood of both victims?

"To believe the testimony, when Fuhrman jumped the fence to gain warrantless entry to the OJ residence, OJ was not a suspect. They just had an urgent need to notify OJ of what had happened to his ex-wife."

No. His ex-wife had been brutally murdered and the police were concerned that OJ could be next. They thought his life was in danger and went there to warn him. The police were justified in doing what they did because of exigent circumstances.

"Of course, my comment explicitly referred to "victims blood in the Bronco."

Yes. But you also said the all-inclusive, "Mark Fuhrman arrived to save the day and he remarkably found all you could want."

Now you're saying you meant, "Mark Fuhrman arrived to save the day and he remarkably found all you could want excluding the Bronco"? Nice try.

"Or, alternatively, putting one of the blood-soaked gloves in a bag at Bundy and transporting it to Rockingham, and jumping the fence with it, and "finding" it."

And your proof that happened is what? None. OJ could have been out of town all week and had an airtight alibi. Fuhrman didn't know OJ's schedule. Fuhrman didn't know OJ's glove size. And how did OJ's blood get on the glove? Plus, planting evidence in a murder case would make Fuhrman subject to the death penalty.

Come on.