Big Rapids, MI — As constitutional rights are steadily eroded in the U.S. through the burgeoning police/surveillance state, one case in Michigan provides an example of just how dire the situation has gotten. Keith Woods, a resident of Mecosta County, was charged and recently convicted for the “crime” of standing on a public sidewalk and handing out fliers about juror rights.
Woods was exercising his First Amendment rights and raising awareness about something the courts deliberately fail to tell jurors when beginning a trial – jury nullification, or the right to vote one’s conscience. For this, Woods – a father of eight and former pastor – was charged with jury tampering, after an initial felony charge of obstructing justice was dropped following public outcry.
Even with the reduced charge, the case has very troubling implications for free speech rights. The county prosecutor, seemingly furious that a citizen would dare inform the public on jury nullification, said Woods’ pamphlet “is designed to benefit a criminal defendant.”
The prosecutor then seemed to contradict himself in a statement, saying, “Once again the pamphlet by itself, fine, people have views on what the law should be, that’s fine. It’s the manner by which this pamphlet was handed out.”
Woods, who testified in his own defense, stated under oath that he did not ask anyone walking into the courthouse if they were a juror, remained on the public sidewalk and never blocked any area. He decided to hand out the pamphlets at a Nov. 24, 2015 trial of an Amish man accused of draining a wetland on his property in violation of Dept. of Environment Quality rules.
Woods’ pamphlet did not contain anything specific to the case or any Michigan court, according to defense attorney David Kallman. But this innocuous behavior, which should be viewed as a public service, drew the attention of a judge who became “very concerned” when he saw the pamphlets being carried by some of the jury pool.
“I THOUGHT THIS WAS GOING TO TRASH MY JURY TRIAL, BASICALLY,” TESTIFIED JUDGE [PETER] JAKLEVIC. “IT JUST DIDN’T SOUND RIGHT.”
JACKLEVIC ENDED UP SENDING THAT JURY POOL HOME ON NOV. 24, 2015 WHEN YODER TOOK A PLEA.
JAKLEVIC CONTINUED TO TESTIFY THAT HE STEPPED INTO THE HALLWAY WITH MECOSTA COUNTY PROSECUTOR BRIAN THIEDE WHEN DET. ERLANDSON AND A DEPUTY BROUGHT WOOD INTO THE COURTHOUSE THAT DAY. MECOSTA COUNTY DEPUTY JEFF ROBERTS TESTIFIED HE “ASKED WOOD TO COME INSIDE BECAUSE THE JUDGE WANTED TO TALK WITH HIM,” THEN THREATENED TO CALL A CITY COP IF WOOD DID NOT COME INSIDE.
WOOD TESTIFIED JUDGE JAKLEVIC NEVER SPOKE TO HIM THAT DAY, OR HIM ANY QUESTIONS, BEFORE ORDERING HIS ARREST. HE TELLS FOX 17 HE HAD CONCERNS HIS CASE WAS TRIED IN MECOSTA COUNTY WHERE ALL OF THIS HAPPENED, INVOLVING SEVERAL COURT OFFICIALS INCLUDING THE JUDGE.”
To recap, this judge said “it just didn’t sound right” that people were carrying information pamphlets on their rights as jurors, and he possibly lied on the stand to justify the fact that he had Woods arrested for doing nothing wrong. What’s more, Woods was brought to trial in the same court where all of this transpired and county officials had literally teamed up to violate his rights in the first place.
“So our taxpayer dollars are paying their salary, and they were the actors in this case to arrest me, to imprison me, and all that,” said Woods. “I did have a very great concern that they were the ones trying the case, because they work together day in and day out.”
Defense attorney Kallman notes that during Woods’ trial, they were prohibited from arguing several points to the jury.
“And of course, the First Amendment issues are critical: that we believe our client had the absolute First Amendment right to hand out these brochures right here on this sidewalk,” said Kallman. “That’s part of the problem of where we feel we were handcuffed quite a bit.”
When asked how he felt about his First Amendment rights, Woods replied, “Oh, I don’t feel like I have them.”
We had briefs about the First Amendment, free speech. It was very clear today, I know the jury doesn’t hear that, but it was very clear that the government did not meet their burden to restrict my free speech on that public sidewalk that day. It was very clear.”
#157: goldilucky To: nolu chan (#141)
Yep, and what happened to that evidence?
goldilucky posted on 2017-06-08 19:46:07 Reply Private Reply
#158: goldilucky To: nolu chan (#139)
You don't argue with a judge that usurps the law. You have them recused.
goldilucky posted on 2017-06-08 19:47:12 Reply Private Reply
#159: goldilucky To: nolu chan (#146)
goldilucky posted on 2017-06-08 19:50:18 Reply Private Reply
#160: goldilucky To: Vicomte13 (#152)
I am familiar with the maxims of law.
goldilucky posted on 2017-06-08 19:55:56 Reply Private Reply
#161: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#147)
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.
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-09 01:49:46 Reply Private Reply
#162: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#148)
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.
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
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-09 01:53:02 Reply Private Reply
#163: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#149)
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."
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:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-09 01:54:35 Reply Private Reply
#164: nolu chan To: Vicomte13 (#150)
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.
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-09 01:57:49 Reply Private Reply
#165: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#153)
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.
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
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Defense Counsel Blasier Redirect of Dr. Frederic Reiders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Defense Counsel Blasier Redirect of Dr. Frederic Reiders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
And from the more recent case of Steven Avery:
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.
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-09 02:01:16 Reply Private Reply
#166: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#154)
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]
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-09 02:03:55 Reply Private Reply
#167: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#155)
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.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-09 02:38:56 Reply Private Reply
#168: nolu chan To: goldilucky (#157)
It was ignored by the jury as unreliable.
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-09 02:40:47 Reply Private Reply
#169: nolu chan To: goldilucky (#159)
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.
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-09 02:52:29 Reply Private Reply
#170: goldilucky To: nolu chan (#169)
The same damn thing.
goldilucky posted on 2017-06-09 08:56:38 Reply Private Reply
#171: goldilucky To: nolu chan (#168)
goldilucky posted on 2017-06-09 08:59:54 Reply Private Reply
#172: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#167)
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.
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-09 09:55:51 Reply Private Reply
#173: misterwhite To: Vicomte13 (#150)
You can't have it both ways. Though you do try.
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-09 09:58:40 Reply Private Reply
#174: Vicomte13 To: misterwhite (#173)
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.
Vicomte13 posted on 2017-06-09 10:02:20 Reply Private Reply
#175: misterwhite To: Vicomte13 (#174)
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.
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-09 10:07:26 Reply Private Reply
#176: Vicomte13 To: misterwhite (#175)
That's nice.
Vicomte13 posted on 2017-06-09 10:16:24 Reply Private Reply
#177: nolu chan To: goldilucky (#170)
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
https://www.usmarshals.gov/duties/factsheets/facts.pdf
For comparison with a real law enforcement group, try the NYPD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Police_Department
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-10 23:36:46 Reply Private Reply
#178: nolu chan To: goldilucky (#171)
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.
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.
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.
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-10 23:38:09 Reply Private Reply
#179: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#172)
The same applied to perjury. Fuhrman was proved to be a perjurer in front of the jury.
And you know all this how? You heard a proven liar claim it?
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,
Under E. Testimony by Agent Martz in the O.J. Simpson Case (Part Three, Section F)
Under Under VI. Findings and Recommendations Concerning Individuals (Part Five)
Under VI. Findings and Recommendations Concerning Individuals (Part Five)
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.
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-10 23:39:19 Reply Private Reply
#180: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#179)
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.
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-11 09:14:52 Reply Private Reply
#181: A K A Stone To: Vicomte13 (#174)
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.
A K A Stone posted on 2017-06-11 09:25:12 Reply Private Reply
#182: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#179)
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 posted on 2017-06-11 09:31:47 Reply Private Reply
#183: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#180)
Mark Fuhrman's credibility was on trial. The credibility of every witness is always on trial.
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
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
USDOJ/OIG FBI Labs Report, Executive Summary, by Michael R. Bromwich, Inspector General, April 1997.
Under Finding and Recommendations Concerning Individuals,
Under E. Testimony by Agent Martz in the O.J. Simpson Case (Part Three, Section F)
Under Under VI. Findings and Recommendations Concerning Individuals (Part Five)
Under VI. Findings and Recommendations Concerning Individuals (Part Five)
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-11 19:15:32 Reply Private Reply
#184: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#182)
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."
[nc #178, re a Bronco stain]
[nc #178, re the rear gate blood spot]
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.
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.
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-11 19:22:39 Reply Private Reply
#185: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#149)
[misterwhite #149]
ALL DISCREDITED BULLSHIT, AND ALL WRONG.
- - - - - - - - - -
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-11 19:23:40 Reply Private Reply
#186: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#120)
[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.
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-11 19:26:20 Reply Private Reply
#187: Vicomte13 To: nolu chan (#186)
It was a simple and effective closing argument.
Vicomte13 posted on 2017-06-12 06:42:12 Reply Private Reply
#188: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#186)
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?
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-12 11:17:41 Reply Private Reply
#189: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#184)
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.
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-12 11:35:24 Reply Private Reply
#190: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#188)
Nobody claimed that Goldman drove Nicole's Ferrari on an unexpected visit to Nicole's house that night. Presumably, Nicole had the Ferrari parked somewhere.
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-13 02:58:04 Reply Private Reply
#191: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#188)
Gee, you're not very romantic, are you? Perhaps because Nicole gave him the gloves as a gift, and the waiter with the girlfriend who let him drive her Ferrari wanted to show her how much he appreciated her. Perhaps she gave him more than gloves and he was hopeful she would give him some that night.
Officer Robert Riske
Because everyone turns off the lights, and lights candles, when getting ready to take a bath, while waiting for Ron Goldman to arrive.
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-13 02:59:02 Reply Private Reply
#192: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#188)
There is no evidence that he did, or did not. A lack of evidence is not evidence. There is clear evidence that the gloves did not fit O.J. Simpson. They may have fit Ron Goldman.
Do not forget that you claim the prosecution at the criminal trial produced evidence at the criminal trial that justified a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The complete burden of proof was on the prosecution, not O.J. Simpson. To prove your claim wrong, one need only show cause for reasonable doubt.
There is more than a reasonable doubt that the gloves did not fit O.J. Simpson.
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-13 03:00:04 Reply Private Reply
#193: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#188)
[11519]
- - - - - - - - - -
The gloves used paper thin leather. They would not keep hands warm in New York or Chicago in winter. It looks like she was Christmas shopping in New York.
What difference does it make when Nicole bought two sets of those gloves? O.J. could not wear them, they did not fit. Someone who drives a Ferrari can ignore the bother of returning something to Bloomingdale's in Manhattan. Moreover, it was never established that the gloves in evidence were purchased in the known transaction from December 1990.
The receipt for the gloves bought in December 1990 show style 70268 (not 70263), no size, no color, Ms. Vemich testified she did not know if style 70268 had ever been sold in the United States, and, when asked directly, "Is there [any] way for you to tell us that the two gloves I showed you here in court were purchased during the transaction shown here in People's 372-A?," Ms. Vemich answered, "No."
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-13 03:06:08 Reply Private Reply
#194: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#188)
Lo and behold, your claim is imaginary. There was no such testimony by Richard Rubin at the criminal trial. His actual testimony was given on 15 and 16 June 1995. Nice try, though.
Also, Lo and behold, in case you forgot, Johnnie Cochran put on the evidence gloves during the examination of Richard Rubin. Before the defense goaded Christopher Darden into the evidence blunder of the century, Cochran had tested them for how they fit his size hand. At the time, with a glove on, Johnnie Cochran observed, "it seems too small for me." All he had to do was compare his own hand size to O.J.'s hand size, and he could know in advance how Darden's disaster would turn out.
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-13 03:09:35 Reply Private Reply
#195: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#188)
For purposes of your question, it matters not who wore the gloves that did not fit O.J. Simpson. It could have been O.J., Ron Goldman, or any other person.
Only one person had his picture taken at Bundy pointing at that glove before the notification party proceeded over to Rockingham. That would be Det. Mark Fuhrman. Somebody transported the blood-soaked glove from Bundy to Rockingham. Suspect number one is Mark Fuhrman. The wet glove had very little debris, indicating that it was placed rather than dropped.
Also, there was a persistent and horrible problem with the timeline that the prosecution was never able to resolve.
If O.J. damn near cut off Nicole's head, and tussled with and killed Ron Goldman, he would have been covered with blood. If he just jumped in the Bronco at Bundy, to return to Rockingham, the Bronco would have been laden with blood. And when did he have the time to shower and get rid of the blood, and leave no evidence of blood in the plumbing?
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-13 03:10:51 Reply Private Reply
#196: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#189)
This nonsense fails when it is understood that they woke up Arnelle Simpson, she opened the front door, she proceeded to the alarm and shut it off, and she led them about the house. The police did not lead, they did not go in with weapons drawn — they followed the little lady. The police did not proceed at all as if they suspected a killer might have been present in the house.
Besides, the police explicitly stated they made entry to notify O.J. Simpson.
They were lacking probable cause evidence to search. Fuhrman jumped the fence and "found" the bloody glove, effectively declaring "Let the games begin!"
Your creative fiction about exigent circumstances and thinking O.J. was in danger flies in the face of what they said and what they did.
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-13 03:12:08 Reply Private Reply
#197: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#189)
Fuhrman allegedly planted the glove. Planting of blood in the Bronco was allegedly done by persons unknown, after June 13th. Fuhrman was removed from the case before he ever went to Rockingham in the early morning of the 13th.
They did not really establish that the tiny spot Fuhrman found on the Bronco was human blood, or even blood, much less the blood of anyone in particular.
[nc] #179. To: misterwhite (#172)
There is blood found on the Bronco, photographed on July 3rd that does not appear on a photo taken on June 13th. That is strong evidence someone planted blood on and in the Bronco after June 13th.
Why the hell would Fuhrman plant blood on the glove? It was dripping with the stuff. Whose blood do you think he planted? O.J.'s? On June 13th? Where did Fuhrman supposedly get that? O.J. had taken a flight to Chicago.
Fuhrman "found" the glove with lots of blood. There was a tiny spot on the door that looked like blood but was not verified as blood. Vanatter signed a false affidavit that human blood had been found in obtaining a search warrant for the premises. In reality, Vanatter order Fung to perform a phenophthalein test on the spot on the Bronco door. This is a presumptive test. Even when positive, it is only a presumptive test for blood. A negative test strongly indicates the absence of blood. A positive test does not prove the presence of blood, and gives no indication whatever that the blood is human blood. And the phenolphthalein test forever destroyed the spot evidence for DNA testing.
- - - - - - - - - -
Marcia Clark:
Actually, no, he had not even established that anything was blood.
- - - - - - - - - -
Defense Counsel Gerald Uelman, January 13, 1995
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
Detective Phillip Vanatter, one half of Dumb and Dumber:
Dumber, of Dumb and Dumber, DESTROYED the spot on the door as evidence of anything more than blood by ordering a phenolphthalein test. After that, it could only be conjectured as human blood. A DNA test was out of the question.
That is the evidence used to justify a search warrant with a false affidavit claiming human blood had been found.
And, somewhat amazingly, except for it being the LAPD, criminalist Dennis Fung performed that destructive phenolphthalein test.
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-13 03:19:53 Reply Private Reply
#198: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#197)
So you admit it was blood, but you're saying it was a false affidavit because it wasn't proven to be human blood. Meaning what? An animal drove the car?
There's a huge difference between doubt and reasonable doubt that you're missing here. The instruction to the jury is reasonable doubt. That's also my instruction to you.
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-13 08:47:24 Reply Private Reply
#199: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#190)
You said, "This video interestingly offers an argument that the gloves belonged to Ron Goldman ... they were light and could function well as driving gloves ... gloves ... Ron Goldman drove Nicole's Ferrari".
If the gloves belonged to Ron Goldman and as proof you say he could have used them as driving gloves when he drove Nicole's Ferrari, aren't you saying he drove the Ferrari that night? Why bring up the Ferrari if Ron Goldman didn't drive it (wearing those driving gloves) that night?
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-13 08:57:23 Reply Private Reply
#200: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#191)
Perhaps? Is that a new legal term?
So he wears them all the time? The temperature that night was in the mid-70's. He would look foolish wearing those gloves, gift or not.
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-13 09:02:43 Reply Private Reply
#201: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#192)
Well, if those were Ron Goldman's gloves, wouldn't that be important? If he had small hands and a drawer full of small gloves, couldn't we exclude him as the owner of extra-large gloves?
Yet, amazingly, you don't care.
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-13 09:06:40 Reply Private Reply
#202: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#193)
They were cashmere-lined, fine for cool weather. Oh, here they are:
Did Nicole give them to OJ with the intent that he wear them in Chicago or New York in winter? No? Then why bring it up? You got a picture of Ron Goldman wearing those gloves?
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-13 09:21:49 Reply Private Reply
#203: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#194)
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-13 09:33:57 Reply Private Reply
#204: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#195)
Suspect number only is OJ.
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-13 09:44:43 Reply Private Reply
#205: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#198)
I did not admit it was blood, and the prosecution failed to produce evidence that it was blood.
A presumptive test was performed. No result from a presumptive test proves the presence of blood, any more than a presumptive test for marijuana proves the presence of marijuana.
With a presumptive test, a negative result indicates an absence of the amount of the substance tested for in the quantity sufficient to trigger a positive result.
With a presumptive test, a positive result indicates a likelihood that the substance tested for is present. I provides probable cause to perform a definitive lab test. If the definitive lab test is not performed, or is not positive, there is insufficient evidence to establish that the substance tested for is present.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kastle%E2%80%93Meyer_test
There was a tiny red spot, not proven to be blood. The false affidavit claimed the verified presence of human blood, something the test is incapable of verifying.
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-15 04:31:28 Reply Private Reply
#206: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#199)
Obviously not.
[nc #190] Nobody claimed that Goldman drove Nicole's Ferrari on an unexpected visit to Nicole's house that night. Presumably, Nicole had the Ferrari parked somewhere.
The claim that Nicole let Ron Goldman is on the youtube video at 9:12. The text there reads,
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-07-03/news/mn-11580_1_ronald-goldman/4
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-oj-anniv-goldman-story.html
From the ever reliable reddit,
https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/2n1329/til_ronald_goldman_didnt_even_know_nicole_brown/
If waiter Ron Goldman got to drive her fast Ferrari (plate L84AD8), and hot rich chick Nicole had given him driving gloves, he could have worn those gloves to drive his own car to her house for a nighttime rendezvous, where she awaited in spandex with the tub full and hot, the bathroom lights off, and the candles on.
Ron Goldman was working at Mezzaluna. Nicole called the restaurant about glasses left behind. Ron Goldman punched out and drove to Nicole's. Unless Nicole left the Ferrari with Ron at Mezzaluna, he drove something else. Duh.
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-15 04:33:30 Reply Private Reply