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.

[Youtube at #186] "Ron Goldman drove Nicole's Ferrari."

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

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.

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?

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

A: JUST EAST OF THE MASTER BEDROOM, THERE'S LIKE A BALCONY THAT OVERLOOKS THE LIVING ROOM AND THERE'S SOME WORKOUT EQUIPMENT IN THERE.
Q: AND WAS THAT LIT?
A: I BELIEVE THE LIGHT WAS ON IN THERE, YES.
Q: AND THE BATHROOM, IN WHAT CONDITION WAS THE BATHROOM NEAR THE MASTER BEDROOM?
A: THE LIGHTS WERE OFF, BUT THERE WERE CANDLES LIT. THE TUB WAS FULL OF WATER.
Q: LIKE SOMEONE WAS GETTING READY TO TAKE A BATH?
A: YES, MA'AM.

Because everyone turns off the lights, and lights candles, when getting ready to take a bath, while waiting for Ron Goldman to arrive.

Did Ron Goldman wear extra-large gloves?

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.

By the way, Nicole purchased those gloves three years before she even met Ron Goldman.

[11519]

MR. DARDEN: And what was the selling price on December 18, 1990, if you know?
MS. VEMICH: They were $55.00, but during December 18th they were marked down at thirty percent off.
MR. DARDEN: Could you describe style no. 70263, the Aris Isotoner leather light glove?
MS. VEMICH: Yes. This particular glove has many characteristics that are very distinctive to this type of glove. One of the first characteristics is the leather. The leather is extremely lightweight, almost paper thin, and that was one characteristic. The second was the stitching. The stitching of this glove was called a Brossier stitch which is a very refined whip stitch.

- - - - - - - - - -

[11553]

MR. DARDEN: Miss Vemich, what was it about those gloves that made them sell?
MR. COCHRAN: Just a moment. That calls for speculation, I suppose.
THE COURT: I think she is an expert.
MS. VEMICH: These gloves were extremely lightweight. The reason they sold, from my experience in waiting on customers, is that they were almost like a second skin. Umm, you could pick up a penny or a needle practically with them and they were very--again they are very, very thin, and many people like that about these gloves and that is why they were called leather light and that is why we marked them leather lights and it was a big seller. It was a big part of my business.

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."

[11528]

MR. DARDEN: And to the right of the "2" we see the number "$77.00"?
MS. VEMICH: Yes. That is the retail for the two pair of gloves.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. And to the right of the "$77.00" we see the no. "30"; is that correct?
MS. VEMICH: Yes. And that is thirty percent off.
MR. DARDEN: So that means in the two pairs of gloves were purchased for thirty percent off at $77.00?
MS. VEMICH: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Can you tell us what the regular price of the gloves was?
MS. VEMICH: The regular price of gloves of this style is $55.00.

[...]

[11529]

MR. DARDEN: How many different types of Aris gloves did you sell at $55.00 during December?
MS. VEMICH: There was only one Aris glove that I sold at $55.00.
MR. DARDEN: Was style number was that?
MS. VEMICH: 70263.
MR. DARDEN: And which glove the style number is 70263?
MS. VEMICH: Aris leather light glove.
MR. DARDEN: So the gloves I showed you in court today then fit the descriptions given on this sales receipt?
MS. VEMICH: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Now, the style number on the sales receipt indicates 70268; is that correct?
MS. VEMICH: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Did Bloomingdales ever sell an Aris glove style no. 70268?

[11530]

MS. VEMICH: No, they did not.
MR. DARDEN: To borrow a phrase, is that a mistake?
MS. VEMICH: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Does that mistake--strike that. The mistake is that the "8" should have been a "3"?
MS. VEMICH: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, misleading.
THE COURT: Sustained. The answer is stricken. Rephrase the question.
MR. DARDEN: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. DARDEN: What is the mistake?
MS. VEMICH: The last digit should be a "3," not an "8." MR. DARDEN: Has Bloomingdales ever purchased Aris glove style no. 70268?
MS. VEMICH: No.
MR. DARDEN: Do you know whether or not Aris style no. 70268 has ever been sold in the United States?
MS. VEMICH: Not that I--I don't know. MR. DARDEN: May I have one moment, your Honor? THE COURT: Certainly. (Brief pause.) MR. DARDEN: Now, does the sales receipt indicate the size of the glove? MS. VEMICH: No, it does not. MR. DARDEN: Does it indicate the color of the glove?

[11531]

MS. VEMICH: No, it does not. MR. DARDEN: Is there 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: No.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

[526]

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: P-43.
MS. CLARK: THIS IS INSIDE THE HOUSE. THIS IS RIGHT INSIDE THE FRONT DOOR IN THE FOYER AREA. THERE WERE A SERIES OF THREE BLOOD DROPS HERE CLOSE UP.
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: P-44.
MS. CLARK: YOU CAN SEE THEM HERE. I'M CIRCLING THEM. HAVING SEEN ALL OF THIS, THE DETECTIVE THEN REALIZED THAT THIS WAS NOT JUST AN OCCASION TO MAKE NOTIFICATION, THAT IN FACT THEY HAD UNCOVERED EVIDENCE THAT INDICATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD COMMITTED THESE MURDERS. THEY SECURED THE HOME AND PREPARED TO CONDUCT A SEARCH.

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.

"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.

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)

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?

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.

[524]

MS. CLARK: THE CASE WAS ASSIGNED TO THE ROBBERY/HOMICIDE DIVISION, DETECTIVES PHILIP VANNATTER AND TOM LANGE, THE INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ASSIGNED TO HANDLE THE CASE. THEY ARRIVED AT THE SCENE JUST AFTER 4:00 A.M. AND THEN VIEWED THE CRIME SCENE AND THE EVIDENCE AS I HAVE JUST DESCRIBED IT TO YOU. THEY FOUND THE SAME THINGS THAT OFFICER RISKI FOUND. GIVEN THE FACT THAT THERE WERE TWO YOUNG CHILDREN BEING HELD AT THE STATION PENDING SOME ADULT WHO COULD TAKE CHARGE OF THEM, THEY DETERMINED THAT THEY WOULD GO AND MAKE NOTIFICATION TO THE DEFENDANT. THEY THEN PROCEEDED TO THE DEFENDANT'S HOUSE. NOW, THEY GOT TO THE DEFENDANT'S HOUSE AT APPROXIMATELY 5:00 A.M. AT THAT TIME THEY STARTED TO RING THE ASHFORD GATE AND THEY BUZZED AND THEY BUZZED, BUT THEY GOT NO ANSWER. NOW AT THAT POINT THEY COULD SEE THERE WERE LIGHTS ON IN THE HOUSE, THERE WERE CARS IN THE DRIVEWAY, BUT NO ONE WAS ANSWERING. THEY EVENTUALLY GOT THE DEFENDANT'S HOME PHONE NUMBER, CALLED IT REPEATEDLY, BUT AGAIN THEY GOT NO ANSWER. THEN THE DETECTIVE SAW THE WHITE FORD BRONCO PARKED AT THE ROCKINGHAM GATE.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: P-30.

MS. CLARK: THIS IS THE POSITION IN WHICH THE BRONCO WAS FOUND JUST TO THE NORTH OF THE ROCKINGHAM GATE AND THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT HERE. THIS AREA HERE IS THE ROCKINGHAM GATE ENTRANCE TO THE DEFENDANT'S HOME. THIS IS THE LOCATION THAT ALLAN PARK DROVE BY EARLIER THAT NIGHT AT 10:39 AND SAW THAT THERE WAS NO BRONCO THERE AT THAT TIME.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: P-31.

MS. CLARK: THE DETECTIVE NOTICED THAT THERE WAS A SMALL SPOT OF BLOOD NEAR THE DRIVER'S HANDLE OF THAT DOOR. THE CRIMINALIST IS POINTING TO IT HERE. THAT IS DENNIS FUNG.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: P-32.

MS. CLARK: THAT IS A CLOSE-UP. YOU CAN SEE HOW SMALL THAT SPOT OF BLOOD IS.

- - - - - - - - - -

Marcia Clark:

[526]

CRIMINALIST DENNIS FUNG ARRIVED AT ROCKINGHAM AT ABOUT 7:00 A.M. WHERE HE BEGAN TO TEST ALL OF THE BLOOD DROPS THEY HAD FOUND. HE TESTED THE BRONCO AND THEN HE TESTED THE DROPS ON THE DRIVEWAY, DETERMINED THAT THE DROPS ON THE DRIVEWAY WERE INDEED BLOOD, THEN HE WENT TO TEST THE GLOVE AND FOUND THAT IT, TOO, CONTAINED BLOOD.

Actually, no, he had not even established that anything was blood.

- - - - - - - - - -

Defense Counsel Gerald Uelman, January 13, 1995

[332]

SOMEHOW, THE PROSECUTION SUGGESTS THE THEORY OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN PLANTING A GLOVE, IF INDEED THAT'S GOING TO BE A THEORY PRESENTED BY THE DEFENSE IN THIS CASE, IS ANALOGOUS TO SUGGESTING THAT SOME THIRD PARTY COMMITTED THE CRIME AND THAT THE ONLY EXPLANATION FOR SUCH CONDUCT BY A POLICE OFFICER WOULD BE THAT HE WAS TRYING TO FRAME AN INNOCENT PERSON. AND THE DIFFICULTY WITH THAT ATTEMPTED ANALOGY IS THAT ONCE AGAIN, IT MAKES SOME VERY FAR-OUT ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHAT MIGHT MOTIVATE AN OFFICER TO ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY PLANT EVIDENCE. AND WE SUGGESTED IN OUR PAPERS THAT THERE MAY BE A NUMBER OF PLAUSIBLE MOTIVATIONS FOR A DETECTIVE SUCH AS FUHRMAN TO WANT TO DISTURB THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. FIRST, THAT HE MAY HAVE BEEN ANGRY THAT HE HAD BEEN KICKED OFF THE CASE. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS NOT JUST A TAGALONG POLICE OFFICER IN THESE PROCEEDINGS. HE WAS IN CHARGE OF THIS INVESTIGATION. HE WAS THE FIRST DETECTIVE, HOMICIDE DETECTIVE TO ARRIVE AT THE BUNDY SCENE AND TAKE CHARGE OF THE INVESTIGATION; AND VERY SHORTLY THEREAFTER, HE WAS TOLD HE WAS OFF THE CASE. HE WAS BEING REASSIGNED. SECONDLY, THERE MAY HAVE BEEN

[333]

MOTIVATION TO WANT TO APPEAR SOMEHOW AS THE HERO THAT SOLVED THE CASE. I MEAN, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS THE DETECTIVE WHO CLAIMS HE SAW THE BLOOD SPOT ON THE BRONCO, HE WENT OVER THE WALL AND THEN HE QUESTIONED KATO KAELIN AND THEN HE FOUND THE KEY PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT BROKE THE CASE. THAT'S QUITE A ROLE FOR A DETECTIVE TO PLAY WHO HAS BEEN PULLED OFF THE CASE AND REASSIGNED. AND THIRDLY, HE MAY HAVE BEEN MOTIVATED SIMPLY BY WANTING TO PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE SO THAT A SEARCH WARRANT COULD BE OBTAINED TO GO INTO THE HOUSE AND LOOK FOR OTHER EVIDENCE.

- - - - - - - - - -

THE CLERK: PLEASE HAVE A SEAT ON THE WITNESS STAND AND STATE AND SPELL YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAMES FOR THE RECORD.
THE WITNESS: MY NAME IS DENNIS FUNG, D-E-N-N-I-S F-U-N-G.
THE COURT: MR. GOLDBERG.
MR. GOLDBERG: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GOLDBERG:
Q: GOOD MORNING, MR. FUNG. WHAT IS YOUR OCCUPATION AND YOUR ASSIGNMENT?
A: I AM A CRIMINALIST EMPLOYED BY THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT. I'M ASSIGNED TO THE FIREARMS ANALYSIS UNIT OF THE SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION DIVISION.
Q: AND THAT'S FOR THE LAPD?
A: YES.
Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WERE YOU SO EMPLOYED ON JUNE THE 13TH OF 1994?
A: YES, I WAS.
Q: SIR, ON JUNE THE 13TH OF 1994, WERE YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR COLLECTING CERTAIN EVIDENCE AT 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM AND 875 BUNDY IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES?
A: YES.
Q: AND LATER ON JUNE THE 14TH, WERE YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR COLLECTING CERTAIN EVIDENCE IN A BRONCO THAT HAD BEEN IMPOUNDED FROM THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION?
A: YES.

- - - - - - - - - -

[373]

MS. CLARK: THE PHENO TEST IS A DIFFERENT STORY. THAT HAS BEEN ADMISSIBLE FROM I CAN'T TELL HOW MANY YEARS AGO. IT IS LIMITED IN TERMS OF ITS VALUE OF WHAT BOTH SIDES CAN ARGUE. IT INDICATES THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD. THAT IS ALL IT DOES. WE ARE NOT SAYING IT DOES ANY MORE THAN THAT. AND THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT COUNSEL IS COMPLAINING OF ARE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PINK COLOR ON THE PHENO STICK THAT INDICATES THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD IN TWO AREAS -- THREE AREAS ACTUALLY IN THE DEFENDANT'S BATHROOM.

- - - - - - - - - -

[4736]

THE COURT: TO REBOLSTER DETECTIVE VANNATTER'S TESTIMONY. DO YOU ALSO THINK THAT THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE PROOF OF THE SUBSTANTIVE FACTS ARE THAT IN DISPUTE, THE FACT THAT THIS WAS AN UNANTICIPATED TRIP TO CHICAGO AND THAT AT THE TIME THAT THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT WAS WRITTEN NO TEST HAD BEEN COMPLETED WITH REGARDS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS HUMAN BLOOD? MY RECOLLECTION OF OUR DISCUSSIONS AT THE 1538 IS THAT IT WAS ONLY A PRESUMPTIVE TEST FOR BLOOD.

MS. CLARK: CORRECT.

THE COURT: AND NOT A DETERMINATION THAT IT WAS HUMAN BLOOD.

MS. CLARK: THAT'S CORRECT. WHAT WE WILL BE REQUIRED TO DO AT THAT POINT IS TO EXPLAIN, THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND OTHER WITNESSES, PRECISELY WHAT BROUGHT HIM TO THOSE -- BROUGHT HIM TO THE POINT WHERE HE MADE THOSE STATEMENTS IN THE AFFIDAVIT. WITH RESPECT TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS HUMAN BLOOD ON THE DOOR OF THE BRONCO, THE PEOPLE CONCEDE IT WAS A PRESUMPTIVE TEST FOR BLOOD AND YET IT WAS A LOGICAL CONCLUSION THAT THE BLOOD PLACED ON THE DOOR HANDLE OF A CAR WOULD BE BY A HUMAN BEING, AS WE HAVE STATED BEFORE. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY ANIMALS KNOW HOW TO DRIVE CARS OR COULD REACH THE DOOR HANDLE OF A BRONCO, AND I DON'T THINK THE DEFENSE IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO ARGUE ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY WITH RESPECT TO THAT.

- - - - - - - - - -

Detective Phillip Vanatter, one half of Dumb and Dumber:

[4750]

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AND YOU ORDERED DETECTIVE -- YOU ORDERED CRIMINALIST FUNG TO DO A PHENOTHALINE TEST ON THAT SMALL BLOOD DROP ON THE BRONCO; IS THAT CORRECT?

[4751]

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU REALIZE AT THAT TIME THAT BY DOING THE TEST YOU WOULD PERMANENTLY DESTROY THAT EVIDENCE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT DNA ANALYSIS?

A: NO, I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT.

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.

"That is the evidence used to justify a search warrant with a false affidavit claiming human blood had been found."

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.

"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."

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?

"Perhaps because Nicole gave him the gloves as a gift"

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.

"There is no evidence that he did, or did not."

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.

The gloves used paper thin leather. They would not keep hands warm in New York or Chicago in winter.

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?

"There was no such testimony by Richard Rubin at the criminal trial."

Somebody transported the blood-soaked glove from Bundy to Rockingham. Suspect number one is Mark Fuhrman.

Suspect number only is OJ.

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?

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

The Kastle–Meyer test is a presumptive blood test, first described in 1903, in which the chemical indicator phenolphthalein is used to detect the possible presence of hemoglobin.

[...]

Limitations

While the Kastle–Meyer test has been reported as being able to detect blood dilutions down to 1:107, there are a number of important limitations to the test. Chemical oxidants such as copper and nickel salts will cause the Kastle–Meyer reagent to turn pink before the addition of the hydrogen peroxide, thus it is vitally important to add the reagent first, then wait a few seconds, then add the hydrogen peroxide.

The Kastle–Meyer test has the same reaction with human blood as it does with any other hemoglobin-based blood, so a confirmatory test such as the Ouchterlony Test must be performed to definitively conclude from which species the blood originated.

Color catalytic tests are very sensitive, but not specific. The positive color test alone should not be interpreted as positive proof of blood. A negative result is generally proof of the absence of detectable quantities of heme, however a false negative can be generated in the presence of a reducing agent.

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.

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?

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,

"According to family and friends, Ron Goldman was a great kid that liked to live in the fast lane and also liked driving fast cars. Ron had driven Nicole's fast Ferrari."

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-07-03/news/mn-11580_1_ronald-goldman/4

Outside the coffee bar Simpson and the guys exchanged tidbits--plans for the day, her children, their acting auditions. Goldman appeared no closer to her than the rest of them--except that he got an occasional chance to drive her white convertible Ferrari.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-oj-anniv-goldman-story.html

Goldman, 25, also had an increasingly close relationship with 35-year-old Nicole Brown Simpson, whom he had exercised with, accompanied to dance clubs and often met for coffee and dinner during the past month and a half.

He told others that he was just friends with Simpson. But he boasted of her stunning good looks and talked about the special kick it gave him to see heads turn when the two of them pulled up in her white Ferrari in front of The Gate, a fashionable West Hollywood dance club, with him behind the wheel.

From the ever reliable reddit,

https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/2n1329/til_ronald_goldman_didnt_even_know_nicole_brown/

Simpson had complained bitterly to anyone who would listen about Niclole allowing Goldman to drive around town in her (OJ -purchased) Ferrari. More to the point, "I left my glasses at table x" (at Mezzaluna, Brentwood's cocaine central) was code for bring me x grams of blow," which Goldman was in the process of doing when he was murdered.

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.

Perhaps? Is that a new legal term?

No. It is an old term used to respond to really stupid questions.

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.

The young waiter who liked styling in a Ferrari with the hot chick, and a hard on, wouldn't worry too much about the gloves looking foolish. He may have worn them frequently during the six weeks or so he was styling with Nicole, thinking with his little head.

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.

If you have such imaginary evidence that was presented to the jury in the criminal trial, present it.

You did not care enough to watch the trial or read the transcript. You have falsely claimed nonsense about the pictures of the gloves and the testimony, as documented in my responses to #202 and #203.

Your chosen expert said the stretch leather gloves in M thru XL would get on O.J's hand.

[11590]

MR. RUBIN: I would venture to say that almost every glove that was manufactured by Aris Philippines from size medium to extra large would get on his hand. Some might be tight, some might be loose, but they would get on his hand.

#202. To: nolu chan (#193)

The gloves used paper thin leather. They would not keep hands warm in New York or Chicago in winter.

They were cashmere-lined, fine for cool weather. Oh, here they are:

https://i2.wp.com/altereddimensions.net/main/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/image-42.png

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 9:21:49 ET

I do not have a picture of Ron Goldman wearing those gloves. You do not have a picture of O. J. Simpson verified as wearing those gloves.

There is no evidence that either of the two evidence gloves have been verified as purchased by Nicole Simpson, or given to O.J. Simpson.

There is no picture of O.J. Simpson wearing gloves that obviously did not fit, except for Darden's demonstration disaster of the century.

You present a picture of O. J. Simpson wearing a pair of BLACK gloves, as O.J. wearing those gloves. Text associated with the image: "Newscast video frame showing OJ wearing black gloves just like (sic - the evidence gloves were brown) those found at the murder scene and behind Kato's cabin." Maybe this is why your source is called Altered Dimensions.

The left-hand glove found at Nicole’s home and the right-hand glove found at OJ’s home prove to be a match. They also prove to be Simpson’s size (despite Simpson’s theatrics in court, pretending that the glove did not fit). Even though Simpson claimed under oath that he did not own a pair of Aris Isotoner gloves, several media pictures emerged showing Simpson wearing these exact gloves.

The gloves were not Aris Isotoner gloves.

[11607]

MR. COCHRAN: All right. One last question. With regard to Aris--the Aris--and Mr. Darden kept saying Isotoner. Did you tell us yesterday it wasn't Isotoner, these are Aris lights?

MR. RUBIN: Isotoner was a different product line than leather gloves. These are Aris leather light gloves.

I understand how hard it is for wingnut news to get the details right, but when all else fails, read the transcript.

And Altered Dimensions seems to think that a picture of O. J. Simpson wearing BLACK gloves, gloves they identify as Aris Isotoner gloves, definitely depict O. J. Simpson wearing the same exact gloves as the BROWN Aris Leather Light gloves in evidence.

- - - - - - - - - -

Oh, here they are:

https://i2.wp.com/altereddimensions.net/main/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/image-42.png

The image link is shown above.

Oh, there they ain't.

http://altereddimensions.net/2012/oj-simpson-murders

The image appears in the article at Altered Dimensions at the link above.

The image has the embedded text, "O. J. wearing the same type of gloves."

[18774]

MR. BLASIER: You're indicating unequivocally that in your opinion, from those pictures that you had last July, it was an Aris glove, correct?

MR. RUBIN: That's not the case. What I meant by that statement categorically was that I did not see any features in any one of those photos that would indicate that it would be any other style that I had knowledge of. That's what I meant by that statement.

The gloves depicted in the image are BLACK. The gloves in evidence are BROWN.

The expert could not unequivocally say the gloves in the pictures were Aris gloves at all. He could not rule out that they were Aris gloves. He also could not rule out that is was a different glove from a different manufacturer.

[misterwhite #188] "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."

[nolu chan #194] "Lo and behold, your claim is imaginary. There was no such testimony by Richard Rubin at the criminal trial."

[misterwhite #203, youtube]

Do you see the three needlepoints you described earlier

Yes

Transcript:

[18757]

MR. DARDEN: While you are here, let me direct your attention to the photographs taken by Michael Romano. There are two photographs to the right of the board depicting the Defendant wearing black gloves; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. DARDEN: Also on frame 30706, your Honor.

[18758]

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Do you see the three needlepoints that you described earlier?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: In both photographs?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I do.

- - - - - - - - - -

[misterwhite #203, youtube]

Are all the characteristics that you've observed in the brown gloves worn by the defendant consistent with style 72063

Objection asked and answered

Overruled

Yes

Recall consistent with as Prosecution Counsel Kelberg herniated himself raising a hypothetical to Dr. Lakschmanan

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

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

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

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

- - - - - - - - - -

And recall that nothing burger was fried to a crisp by Robert Shapiro and Dr. Baden:

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

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I can't say that.

- - - - - - - - - -

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

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

Consistent with does not state something as fact. It states something is a possibility.

Now that it is clear that your claim is bullcrap, we can explore in more depth what Richard Rubin actually said. Like Dr. Unlucky, Richard Rubin did not escape cross-examination.

[18773]

MR. BLASIER: Did you indicate in your letter on all eight photos none of the detail that can be seen indicates that the gloves could be a style other than 70263?

MR. RUBIN: I did.

[18774]

MR. BLASIER: You're indicating unequivocally that in your opinion, from those pictures that you had last July, it was an Aris glove, correct?

MR. RUBIN: That's not the case. What I meant by that statement categorically was that I did not see any features in any one of those photos that would indicate that it would be any other style that I had knowledge of. That's what I meant by that statement.

MR. BLASIER: Remember us asking you yesterday what you meant by that statement?

MR. RUBIN: Yes. That's exactly what I said.

MR. BLASIER: And you didn't indicate to us that what you meant by that was that it was your opinion back then that from those pictures, you could make an identification that those are Aris 70263?

MR. RUBIN: I felt I could, but in context, I wanted to see more detail.

MR. BLASIER: All right. Did you tell us yesterday that you had decided that what you meant by this sentence in here, that you decided back then that your expert opinion was that those were the same style glove?

MR. RUBIN: I was not a hundred percent sure at that point in time.

MR. BLASIER: Did you tell us yesterday that that's what you meant by that sentence?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor. This is vague.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. BLASIER: Did you tell us yesterday that what you meant by that sentence is what it says, that you could--that in your opinion, these were the Aris style gloves?

MR. DARDEN: Misstates the testimony.

MR. RUBIN: What I meant--

THE COURT: Excuse me. Overruled.

MR. RUBIN: What I meant by that statement categorically was that the features that I could see in the pictures, not one feature would lead me to a non 70263 Aris light style. That's what I meant by the statement.

[18775]

MR. BLASIER: By the statement you made yesterday to us?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

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

[18772]

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER

MR. BLASIER: Good afternoon, Mr. Rubin.

MR. RUBIN: Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Rubin, have you tried to be completely impartial in this case?

MR. RUBIN: Absolutely.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you haven't been currying favor with one side or the other?

MR. RUBIN: Absolutely not.

MR. BLASIER: You don't have any agenda here for one side or the other?

MR. RUBIN: I do not.

MR. BLASIER: You haven't tried to shade your opinion in any way to favor one side or the other?

MR. RUBIN: Absolutely not.

[...]

[18775]

MR. BLASIER: Now, when you wrote that letter to the Prosecution back on July 6th, did you include as part of that letter--

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: --"If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me at anytime. Please thank everyone for their hospitality during my visit. Maybe I can make it to the victory party," exclamation point, exclamation point?

MR. RUBIN: Correct.

MR. BLASIER: Now, was this party being planned before the Defense started?

MR. RUBIN: This statement was made in jest, no differently than on the first day that I testified here, as I walked out, I wished Mr. Simpson and the crowd the best of luck. It meant nothing.

MR. BLASIER: Had the victory party been planned before the Defense started?

MR. RUBIN: Absolutely not.

MR. BLASIER: Were you expecting an invitation to it?

MR. RUBIN: No. I was never expecting an invitation.

MR. BLASIER: Do you consider yourself a member of the Prosecution team at that point?

MR. RUBIN: No, I do not.

MR. BLASIER: Also, did you indicate in that letter in a P.S., "At your convenience, could you obtain business cards from all the members of your staff as I want to make one, only one piece for my office as memorabilia of my experience. Please include Mr. Hodgman and Miss Clark"?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I did.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you were planning to construct some sort of memorabilia for your office for your

[18776]

customers to see?

MR. RUBIN: I have probably 300 envelopes that have been sent to me around the country regarding this testimony. Most of them I haven't even opened yet, and I was planning on actually taking one article, putting some business cards in it and framing it and putting it in my office as a remembrance of my experience. That's all it was.

MR. BLASIER: Cards from the Prosecution?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

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

Recall that rare, distinctive brossier stitch? Mr. Rubin investigated that.

[18762]

MR. BLASIER: Now, you made some effort to try and find out what other manufacturers in the world might have used Brossier stitching and produced gloves without stitching, correct?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I did.

MR. BLASIER: And how many different companies did you check with?

MR. RUBIN: I only checked with two.

MR. BLASIER: There are a lot more companies than that in the world, aren't there?

MR. RUBIN: In the world? Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, did you ever check with any glove companies in Europe or Italy?

MR. RUBIN: No, I did not.

MR. BLASIER: In Europe?

MR. RUBIN: No, I did not.

MR. BLASIER: Other glove companies other than the two that you've told us about?

MR. RUBIN: No, I did not.

MR. BLASIER: And what are those two companies?

MR. RUBIN: Fownes gloves, F-O-W-N-E-S, and Mr. Zuckerware's company, grand-o gloves.

MR. BLASIER: And Grand-O does produce a glove with Brossier stitching, doesn't it?

MR. RUBIN: They told me that they had produced a glove with Brossier stitching a couple of years ago in small quantity.

MR. BLASIER: And they had it in stock?

MR. RUBIN: They didn't mention that to me.

[18783]

MR. BLASIER: Okay. So the two companies--the only two companies that you checked with, one of them does this stitch, correct?

MR. RUBIN: One out of two.

Somebody transported the blood-soaked glove from Bundy to Rockingham. Suspect number one is Mark Fuhrman.

Suspect number only is OJ.

Preliminary Hearing, MARK FUHRMAN, Cross-examination by Defense Attorney Gerald Uelman, July 5, 1994.

07 Q All right.
08 And from that vantage point, you first
09 observed the glove that you told us about?
10 A Not first, no.
11 Q When did you first observe it?
12 A We had flashlights. We were looking at the
13 female victim. We looked at the male victim.
14 I noticed the glove when I walked around to
15 the -- after I exited the residence the first time and
16 walked around to the side -- or the north side, north
17 perimeter of 875 Bundy.
18 There's an iron fence and through that iron
19 fence you can get very close to the male victim. And
20 looking there I could see them down at his feet.

The gloves. On July 5, 1995, Mark Fuhrman recollected first seeing them, plural, down at the feet of the male victim, Ron Goldman.

O.J. Trial, March 13, 1995, FUHRMAN cross-examination by F. Lee Bailey

[4236]

Q: WELL, LOOK, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THAT TESTIMONY, ISN'T THERE, THE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE VIEW THROUGH THE FENCE?

A: NO, THERE ISN'T.

Q: THERE IS A PROBLEM THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION, ISN'T THERE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: NO.

Q: WHEN DISCUSSING THIS EVENT IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND TALKING ABOUT THE

[4237]

GLOVE, YOUR TONGUE SLIPPED AND YOU SAID "THEM," DIDN'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU HAVE EXAMINED THAT IN THE TRANSCRIPT, HAVEN'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU KNOW IT HAS BEEN PLAYED ON VIDEO TO THE JURY? THE WORD "THEM" IS CLEAR?

A: YES.

Q: THAT IS A SLIP OF THE TONGUE?

A: NO.

Them is a problem.

Preliminary Hearing, MARK FUHRMAN, Cross-examination by Defense Attorney Gerald Uelman, July 5, 1994.

Q CAN YOU TELL US WHAT IS SHOWN IN PHOTOGRAPH 'B'

A IN PHOTOGRAPH B, THE SMALL RED STAIN HERE IS THE STAIN THAT I SAW I BELIEVED WAS BLOOD. AND THIS IS RIGHT ABOVE THE DRIVER'S SIDE DOOR HANDLE

Q AND WHAT ELSE DID YOU SEE?

A AT THAT TIME THERE WAS -- I INSPECTED THE DOOR MORE CLOSELY. I GOT DOWN ON THE GROUND AND LOOKED AT THE DOORJAMB AREA, WHICH WOULD BE IN PHOTO

A. THIS AREA, THE SEAM OF THE LOWER DOOR WHERE IT OPENS

Q WHERE THE DOOR MEETS THE FLOOR OF THE DRIVER'S SIDE OF THE CAR?

A YES

Q WHAT DID YOU SEE THERE?

A I SAW FOUR -- THREE OR FOUR LITTLE LINES, RED-STAINED LINES, THAT LOOKED LIKE A BRUSH MARK WHICH ALSO LOOKED LIKE BLOOD. THEY WERE VERY SMALL, ABOUT A QUARTER OF AN INCH LONG

- - - - - - - - - -

Barry Scheck closing,

[19953]

Now, we know from what was said to Dr. Baden that in the course of getting things together on leaving, Mr. Simpson sustained a cut going into the Bronco, retrieving materials on his way out packing, and that it is the position of the Defense, that the bloodstains that you see and--well, briefly, why don't we take out that board and I will come back to it. This is the Prosecution's bloodstain pattern and the Bronco board, if you will recall it. Now, there are bloodstain patterns in the handle, instrument panel, console, of course, and then these are other items, that is, the footprint area and on top of the windowsill, okay? The windowsill is somewhere around here, (Indicating), that are consistent, everybody agrees, with a cut to the left hand of somebody getting into the car sitting down looking for something, consistent with our theory, consistent arguably with their theory. But then when you start looking at the rest of the bloodstain patterns, you have to start asking which interpretation is reasonable?

Now, the first point that has to be made--take this down for a second--is that of course initial deposits would be made by Mr. Simpson that evening and then somebody else was in that Bronco. Now, we know someone else was in that Bronco, and that has been, I submit to you, demonstrated by the evidence. Let's take a look at this picture. Mr. Cochran has already reviewed with you the testimony of Mark Fuhrman at the preliminary hearing, and you heard it on videotape, where he said he saw the--found blood in the Bronco, a bit of a Freudian slip, but I submit to you one of the most significant moments has to do with the testimony of Dennis Fung and the blood--bloodstain patterns on the doorsill of the Bronco. You recall that Detective Fuhrman testified at the preliminary hearing at this trial that he observed four brush mark bloodstain patterns on the doorsill of the Bronco that he could observe when the door was closed. When

[19954]

Mr. Fung came in, he circled these pictures, and if you will recall his testimony, the bottom circle closest to the door, that is only one stain. He said that that stain could be observed when the door was closed, but the other three stains that are represented by those other two circles could only be seen when the door was opened. Could only be seen when the door was open. From their own witnesses, evidence, he was in the Bronco and it only makes sense that he would go in that Bronco. And how much credibility do you really put in this man's testimony? But here is evidence that he was in there.

Do you know what other evidence there is? There is one of the most interesting facts, and it is hard scientific evidence that supports our position with respect to the bloodstain pattern in the Bronco, the steering wheel. You recall that the typing on the steering wheel was 1.1, 1.2, a genotype consistent with O.J. Simpson, and 4. Who is the contributor of the 4 allele? That was an issue, and much was made of it, on the--in the case, was it not? Lots of crossexamination, lots of highlighting of that 4 allele in the steering wheel. And the Prosecution well knew that it was the contention of the Defense that Mr. Fuhrman and/or other officers had been in the Bronco.

Doesn't take much to get a blood sample or you just take a swab and the testimony is you run it through somebody's mouth, you can do a quick DQ-Alpha test. What is Mark Fuhrman's genotype? We know that Andrea Mazzola and Dennis Fung, just like you do eliminations, they--their genotypes were taken so we would know what they were. They are not consistent with the 4. None of them has the 4. They are eliminated. Why wasn't Mark Fuhrman eliminated? Why didn't they take exemplars from the police on this? Why? But I think that a fair inference consistent with innocence, which you are under oath obliged to take.

You must consider that Mr. Fuhrman was in the Bronco and the evidence is that a picture, 4:30, around 4:30 in the evening [sic - morning], he is pointing at that glove at Bundy, walking through a pool of blood. Now comes into that Bronco, the vicinity of that Bronco, the area of 5:00 in the morning, right, initially, then go out and does his circuitous little trip where he finds the glove and is alone for fifteen minutes around 5:15.

Now, there is very interesting testimony from Dennis Fung at page 21438 of the transcript about the ground and he is talking here about Fuhrman and he is talking about an arriving--excuse me--Vannatter, he is talking about arriving--arriving initially at the Rockingham location and he talks about how he was shown a red stain on the driver's door of the vehicle and a blood trail and:

"Question: Okay. Did you notice anything about the temperature at that time or the weather?

"Answer: It was fairly cool.

What about the lawns? Did you notice anything that looked like it could have been dew on the lawns?

"Answer: I did notice there was some, that the grass was wet.

"Question: All right."

So Fung tells us that the grass is wet, but we know that there is no dew. We introduced into evidence under 1280 the weather, and when it was introduced--and you can take this back into the jury room. You can examine the areas that are highlighted in purple. The only thing to--that doesn't really make much of a difference to be tricky about this.

Professor MacDonell explained all of this, that when you look at the time listing over here, it is standard time, so anytime you see a time you have to add an hour, but when you look at the temperature and the dew point, you are going to see that the temperature was always many degrees above the dew point, so in other words, when you look through this you will see there is no dew, but the grass was wet.

And you were at that location and you noticed the sprinkler heads and the sprinkler system and right in that area, that grass area where the Bronco was parked, there was six sprinkler heads. The grass, a fair inference, was watered regularly at that location. The grass was wet. That is the fact. Now, if you have, as Agent Bodziak indicated, blood that is caked on the inside of your shoe, even if loafers like Mr. Fuhrman in the inside heel area in your shoe, and then you walk through a wet area and then you step onto the carpet, you are going to get the same kind of pattern that was testified to for the Prosecution side in terms of the fibers going into the shoes and getting out blood that would be consistent with the genotype of Nicole Brown

[19955]

Simpson that is found on the carpet of the Bronco. Then we have the issue of the bloodstain pattern on the console. Now, let me be precise, because when Mr. Cochran was showing you about the seven/tenths of a drop of blood, I just want to make sure that I saw some--even the Prosecutors with a quizzical look--but that happened, I think you will recall, at the very end of the trial, and that was the testimony of Gary Sims.

You will recall that he came back, he was testifying about the RFLP tests and the combining of all the stains, and I asked him a series of questions about combining all the stains, that is, the collection on June 14th from the console of 30 and 31, then the August 26th sample, 303, 304, 305. And we talked about the amount of DNA that you would get, you know, with one drop containing 1000 nanograms of high molecular-weight DNA, and then when he looked at the amount of DNA when you combined all the samples, he said that wasn't over a hundred, and:

"Question: So that is one/tenth of one drop of blood?"

That is what it is. A hundred nanograms. One/tenth of one drop of blood. He said--qualified he said:

"Answer: Well, you have to remember with a drop of blood, for example, if you were testing liquid blood, that is not the same as extracting DNA out of a stain's worth of one drop of blood, so there is--you are not quite talking apples--you are somewhat talking apples and oranges there, but in terms of the ballpark you are talking about, you know, maybe getting three/quarters of that DNA out, so you can figure it from that."

Then I asked him a question trying to make it English:

"All right. "So what you are basically saying to us is maybe if you are just dealing with a pristine drop of blood you wouldn't get a thousand nanograms you would get 750?

"Something like that.

"Is that what you just said in English.

"Answer: Yes, that is what I said.

"Okay.

"If we were to--and I mean no disrespect for that, just summarizing it. "And so if you've got about a hundred nanograms of DNA and 750 nanograms in a drop of blood, can you give me that fraction quickly?

"That would be, what, about a seventh?

"Answer: Something like that."

Okay. So in other words, make it very, very simple-hand science, when you combine the amount of DNA and you give them all favorable inferences, Gary Sims, their own witness, says, when you look at the smears of blood on the console, it is seven/tenths of a drop. And how could that be you are saying? Let's say it is a drop or two. How could that be?

Well, that is because as Dr. Lee explained, that when you have a blood drop and you smear it over a non-absorbent surface, it smears, so it looks--small amount of blood can make a big smear.

And of course Mr. Goldman's contribution to that seven/tenths of a drop of blood is at the most thirty, forty percent. That is very, very, very little. And so then you have to ask yourself does this make any sense? How could so little--even if we assume, you know, how could so little be there? How could so little be there?

You know, Miss Clark was trying to say, well, this is how the blood got there. We know the Rockingham glove had a lot of blood, mostly from Mr. Goldman, some from Nicole Brown Simpson, and that was somehow placed on the side of the console, so that is why we get the little amount of Goldman's DNA that is on the console. That is their theory.

Well, that is consistent with Mr. Fuhrman placing the glove in there. It is consistent with even Mr. Fuhrman having handled the glove and getting blood on his sleeve and just searching around the area for one of the other police officers and just getting a small smear of it with his sleeve on the console. That is consistent with this evidence.

And you know what isn't consistent with this evidence? Think about it. What are they really saying? If Mr. Simpson had committed these murders and he grabbed the glove, as they are saying, with his open left hand, all right, and placed it on the side, well, then in getting into the car why aren't there mixtures on the window, right, on the window, on all those other drops? Everything else, all those other bloodstains. There is no trace of--of blood from either of the victims. There is no mixtures. Wouldn't there be other blood on the hand? And

[19956]

of course their theory before you, this is extraordinary, is that he is wearing these clothes that we've just been through the evidence of struggle. If there is blood on pants, it is going to be on the seat. If there is blood from the struggle with Goldman, it should be there. We know there is no hair. There is no trace. There is no fibers from clothing. There is no berries, there is nothing in that Bronco that would be consistent with somebody that had committed a violent double homicide that had been in a life and death struggle with Mr. Goldman. It doesn't make one bit of sense if you look at the bloodstain pattern in the Bronco. You have to have a reasonable doubt about that.

And haven't we shown you by credible, fair and reasonable evidence that this Detective Fuhrman would have gone in that car? And by his own testimony and exposed lies from the Prosecution's own witnesses, there is evidence he was there. Those--those stains on the doorsill give you the lie, don't they? He was in that car and probably more than one of them was in that car.

Now, with respect to the credibility of the evidence, very briefly, and I know you are--you followed this, we have to make a distinction. You know, in our opening statement Miss Clark actually said to you that all she was going to talk about in her opening statement with respect to the Bronco were the stains that were collected on June 14th. She didn't even indicate they were going to offer you anything from--after August 26th, because they know how terribly this was handled and that no jury could really accept the integrity of the evidence after this car was abandoned. But could we bring up the board, please?

On 13--I think it is 1351; the DNA board with the--

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. SCHECK: Very briefly, you will recall this, and we made a distinction here. We have to look at the samples that were collected on June 14th and the samples that were collected on August 26th, as Dr. Gerdes suggested to you. If you look at the June 14th DNA evidence, okay, with sample 30 and 31, nothing in 30. 31 they are calling this faint 1.3 allele, where the 1.3 is showing up in the controls. And you will remember the whole business about development length and the notion of controls failing. This is it. From June 14th this is it with respect to DNA from Mr. Goldman and the Bronco. That is it.

And as Dr. Gerdes indicated to you, that is not credible scientific evidence. Of course they are offering you evidence that was collected on August 26th after this vehicle was literally abandoned, after the no special care hold had been taken off it, after there was a theft.

Now, Mr. Meraz, he wasn't the world's most credible witness on the issue of the theft, but I really think that is besides the point. No. 1, he is stealing, he is inside that car. What is going on? He didn't see blood.

But you don't have to accept Meraz. What about Detective Mulldorfer who is investigating this? She doesn't see blood.

And then there is Mr. Blasini. He doesn't see blood on the console.

And we know that there is all kind of people allowed into this vehicle, and probably more disturbing than anything else is Detective Mulldorfer indicated the rules are violated and there is no record kept of any authorized police personnel, of any police personnel going in and out of there. They could just go in and out and no records were kept and nobody would know period. And all of a sudden what we have on August 26th, when the car is finally brought in, and Miss Clark said it was--she must have misspoke when she tried to imply that the inspection of the Bronco was at the request of the Defense. Those are not the facts. The facts are that they brought it in, they allowed two Defense people to observe and then Michele Kestler looks in the vehicle and there is a photographer that was brought down from life magazine at the behest of the police commissioner to witness this grand examination of the Bronco, and low and behold, they find as much

[11957]

blood on the console on August 26th as there was on June 14th. And then when they do the DNA testing patterns, they find out only Mr.--traces of Mr. Goldman's blood, but Nicole Brown Simpson's blood in those same areas. That is awfully odd. So the integrity of the evidence again is in question here in terms of what you can accept beyond a reasonable doubt, but even if you are willing to look aside from that, and I don't really think that one can in fairness, I think that the Defense version of how the blood got there and the bloodstain pattern in the Bronco is far more plausible than the Prosecution's version. It just doesn't fit.

There would be mixtures on all those stains, according to their own theory. There should be more blood in the Bronco, given what occurred in this case. The bloodstain patterns don't make sense, do they? They really don't. Nor does the hair and fiber in that Bronco.

Johnnie Cochran closing argument,

[19961]

In case there was any question about what we had said earlier. Mr. Scheck has covered the brush mark on the door, but what I would like for you to do is look back at your notes, because Fuhrman said that regarding these brush marks, he said he saw these marks on that door while the door of the Bronco was closed, remember? The reason why this has become so important was he was trying to say he hadn't gotten inside. Then we called Larry Ragle who said you couldn't see the ones at the top unless the door was opened. And then Fuhrman also had said that he told Fung about these brush marks. If you look at Fung's testimony, I think you will find that Fung never says that he heard that from Fuhrman. And so you know, with regard to Fuhrman, I could have gone on and on and on about lies, but that would be counterproductive after a while because

[19962]

you know who he is now. There is one other point I wanted to share with you about Fuhrman before we take our leave of him, is that there was a question--some questions, and counsel, at 18906, about opportunity for Detective Fuhrman and here was a series of quick questions: "When you arrived at the scene this night were you wearing a coat, a jacket of some sort?

"When I first arrived at the scene, yes. "Can you describe it? "Answer: A blue blazer. "All right. And you were wearing the trousers and shirt that we see you in with your weapon in picture pointing at the lefthanded glove? "Yes, tan slacks. "Okay. "Now, at some point did you walk back to your vehicle and take off your blazer and hang it to lay in the vehicle somewhere? "Yes, sir. "Okay.

"Can you tell the court and jury about what time of day that happened, bearing in mind that you arrived at about 2:10, that is A.M.? "It would be after I was relieved from the case." Now, he is relieved a short time after he gets there. He is relieved about three o'clock, isn't he, before three o'clock? "All right. That would be close to three o'clock? "Yes, sir. "Question: And that is when you walked back to the vehicle and left the jacket and stood waiting for your relief? "Yes, sir." Now, I don't believe hardly anything he says except that it is true that in this photograph taken at 4:30 or before sunrise, the one you saw where he is pointing at the glove, he doesn't have a jacket on. So he had a jacket, went to that car by himself. There is many things in that car. This man had ample opportunity to get up to that scene.

You know, as I told you, it so stretches the credulity to believe that so neatly placed were this knit hat and his glove, were there two gloves at some point when he says I saw them. Why would you see them? There weren't two gloves. And you know it is so unusual because everything else is spread all out. This was a vicious fight. There is a beeper over here and there is keys over there, but these items are right there, right where he could point at them. It is too, too pat. So you can ask yourself those questions when you go back into that jury room. Now, in this case I discussed with you Miss Juanita Moore, a lady that I called to the stand, and I think I misspoke myself. I think I mentioned to you--I think I may have said she said that Mr. Simpson did not have dandruff, and if I did say that, I got that wrong. She said Mr. Simpson would get dandruff I think in the off season, in the string and summer when he was here, as opposed to when he was in New York.

And I wanted to make sure. In looking at the transcript over the lunch hour I noted Miss Clark seemed to be amazed when Mr. Scheck said that Kelly Mulldorfer said that she didn't see blood on that Bronco, so to save her some time I'm going to read you the transcript. Kelly Mulldorfer at 38268, lines 26 through line 9, I think on 38269.

"Question: And when you looked at the console do you remember seeing any blood there?

"Answer: No, I don't have any specific recollection."

That is the lady, the investigator who was looking at this.

And so now we come to some jury instructions which I think have some real relevance as we conclude this case, hopefully. We have already talked about a witness willfully false. We talked an awful lot and you know now a lot about circumstantial evidence, and I dare say you know the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. We want to talk further about--and you know what happens where the proved circumstances are equally consistent, one of which points to innocence and the other which points to guilt. Where they are both reasonable, you must adopt that which points to innocence. You understand that. You understand about circumstantial evidence. So enough about this. And we have displayed this and we have talked about how this works and how it inures to the benefit of the Defendant because there is this burden of proof. But there is another instruction which I want to talk to you about now and this is one that--where the Prosecutors keep wanting to change things around and ask what we proved and what we didn't do.

This is what the law is:

"The Prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crimes." There is no doubt about it among any of us, is it. "The Defendant is not required to prove him or herself innocent or to prove that another person committed the crime charged."

So now if that is what the law is and the judge gave you that, why did Mr. Darden ask the question, who did this? Who committed this crime? Why would he ask you that when the judge just said the Defendant doesn't have to show anything, when we know in this case in a rush to judgment they didn't look at anybody else. That is a question he should be asking these detectives, not us. We are the ones who had to depend on experts who wanted to help out and they wouldn't accept this. How can he ask us that question? How can he ask us that question in good faith? The answer is you go ask your detectives. That is the answer.

Now, you ask another question. He said, well, where was O.J. Simpson? And he says, well, you know, how does he account for his whereabouts after ten o'clock? Well, let me just talk a minute about that. He asked that question. Let me answer it for you and for him. Some of you in your former life probably lived alone. If you lived alone, if something happened between ten o'clock and six o'clock in the morning, it is real difficult, if you live alone, to prove where you were if nobody lives there with you. Isn't that true? Is that common sense? Mr. Simpson lived alone. We have done more than that. We can I think establish where he was. He was at home. That Bronco was outside. He was packing and getting ready and rushing around at the last minute and coming outside to that Bronco, getting his phone, getting the paraphernalia for that phone. That is what he was doing. He was packing, he was getting the golf bags and golf bag out of his car that was seated out there. He was getting golf shoes and whatever goes with golf if you are a golfer. That is what he is doing, getting the little knapsack out that has golf balls in it and bring another bag down, all of which were ready when Park and Kato were out there and he comes down with the other bag carrying it. That is what he was doing, Mr. Darden. That is where he was.

It is your speculation he is on the side of his house running into an air conditioner. That didn't happen. That is unreasonable. Nobody here believes it. It is not going to help save their case. They are speculating again, speculating, speculating, and it is not going to work.

And so that brings me to this other instruction. It is called alibi. You remember during voir dire I asked you about this. I said that you won't place a bad connotation on the term "Alibi," because that is what the law calls it, alibi. And it says as follows:

"That evidence has been received for the purpose of showing that the Defendant was not present at the time and place of the commission of the alleged crime for which he is here on trial. If after a consideration of all the evidence you have a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was present at the time the crime was committed, you must find him not guilty."

Can I repeat that last part for you? "If after a consideration of all the evidence you have a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was present at the time the crime was committed." It doesn't say you might find him not guilty, you might think about it. It says: "You must find him not guilty."

And so you know when you talk about this whole concept of reasonable doubt, and we will talk a little more about that, it is how you feel inside about this evidence. It is how you feel inside about these messengers and their message. It is when you have that queasy feeling, you can't trust this evidence. Barry Scheck described it, well, as a cancer. He talked about one cockroach. You don't need to see any more because you know if you see there is a lot of them around. All you need is one and that is going to make you go the other way.

Q: WHEN DISCUSSING THIS EVENT IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND TALKING ABOUT THE GLOVE, YOUR TONGUE SLIPPED AND YOU SAID "THEM," DIDN'T YOU?

A: YES.

Slip of the tongue. As he testified. Other officers were there before Fuhrman and saw only one glove.

All the rest of your screed is speculation, innuendo, and conspiracy theory. No evidence. No proof. 90% of this should have not been allowed in front of the jury. Save it for closing arguments.

The expert could not unequivocally say the gloves in the pictures were Aris gloves at all.

No. He said he saw no features that would indicate they were not Aris gloves. Read the transcript.

"MR. COCHRAN: All right. One last question. With regard to Aris--the Aris--and Mr. Darden kept saying Isotoner. Did you tell us yesterday it wasn't Isotoner, these are Aris lights?

MR. RUBIN: Isotoner was a different product line than leather gloves. These are Aris leather light gloves

The company started in Europe as Aris Glove Company -- a maker of fine leather gloves. They moved to the US and created a new glove they called isotoner. It became so popular that Aris adopted it and changed the name of the company to Aris Isotoner, Inc.

All the gloves they make are called Aris Isotoner gloves. They have many styles of gloves. One of them is Aris Isotoner leather lights -- sometimes referred to simply as Aris leather lights.