[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.

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

I noticed the glove.

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?

The miscellaneous pictures of O.J. Simpson wearing some unidentified brand(s) and model(s) of gloves were taken in New York, Chicago, Buffalo, and Cincinnati, all of which get freezing ass cold.

The receipt from Bloomingdale's indicates Nicole bought two set of gloves on December 18th, in the winter, a week before Christmas.

O.J. Simpson lived at Bristol Plaza, 210 E 65th St, in Manhattan. Bloomingdale's was at 59th St.

For what purpose do you contend O.J. packed gloves and carried them to Los Angeles?

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.

Your opinion is noted. You were not the judge. I am discussing evidence and testimony that was actually admitted. Evidence or testimony that is not presented at the trial, or is rejected by the judge, is not to be discussed in closing argument.

The gloves. On July 5, 1994, Mark Fuhrman recollected first seeing them, plural, down at the feet of the male victim, Ron Goldman. This was testimonial evidence adduced at the Preliminary Hearing.

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.

- - - - - - - - - -

The problem is this is not the only self-incriminating, alleged "slip of the tongue" by Mark Fuhrman. He couldn't help himself. Sometimes he had trouble keeping his lies and truith straight.

Mark Fuhrman swore, under oath, that he saw four (4) lines that looked like blood on the Bronco. Also sworn to was that neither Fuhrman, nor anyone else, entered the Bronco while at Rockingham. The official story is that the Bronco was towed to the print shed and opened the following day, at the print shed, with a slim jim.

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.

For convenience, I quoted that from the closing argument of Barry Scheck. However, if you prefer to see it from the transcript of Dennis Fung on direct and cross-examination I can humor you with the testimony.

Fung on Direct-examination by Prosecutor Goldberg.

[6709]

MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you. Can we see that? Thanks. Let's just see--can we just see one that's a--that's a view of the whole photograph first?

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Sir, what does this depict?

MR. FUNG: This depicts the same area. It's the running board of the front driver door of the Bronco.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And now can we zoom in on the running board area? Maybe just go back a little bit. Okay. That's fine.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Fung, can you see any of the stains depicted there that you were referring to that you saw on the 14th?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And this photograph that we're looking at now, is this one that you caused to be taken on the 14th?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe using the telestrator, we can mark--well, first of all, how many stains do you see?

MR. FUNG: There are, depending on how you count stains, one, two, three, four.

[6710]

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Let's see if we can mark all four of them.

MR. FUNG: Okay. Up and to your left. Right there. There's two of them there (Indicating).

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, let's just have one marked with the two or let's circle the two of those. Now, sir, when the door is closed, if you know, is it possible to see those two?

MR. FUNG: I don't believe it's possible to see those when the door's closed.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now let's mark the next stain.

MR. FUNG: From that circle there, if you go in a 7 o'clock direction, there's a small blip right there and it's to the left of that (Indicating). Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: So these would be three of the four stains that you're referring to?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what about the one that we've just marked that's below the two stains? Is it possible to see that when the door's closed?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now let's go to the third--the fourth stain.

MR. FUNG: The fourth area is back towards the right and down and there's a smear that's fairly elongated along that ridge. That's the general area (Indicating).

Fung on cross-examination by Defense Attorney Barry Scheck:

[6801]

MR. SCHECK: Now, after the weekend and looking at photographs, you're now prepared to say that 197-b shows four red stains that you saw on the morning of June 14th?

MR. FUNG: Those are areas that were present that I--well, I don't specifically remember these stains, but I do remember stains present on the vehicle at--in that--in those locations approximately and these are consistent with those areas.

MR. SCHECK: Well, you're telling us that you have an independent recollection of seeing four stains on June 14th?

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony, your Honor.

MR. FUNG: No, that's not what I'm saying.

MR. SCHECK: You're not saying that?

MR. FUNG: I'm not saying that.

MR. SCHECK: All right. So basically what you are telling us is that you looked at this photograph and you're now reconstructing the fact that those must be four red stains?

MR. FUNG: I knew that I--I remember seeing stains on this door sill that day, and looking at the photograph, I'm identifying these as possible red stains.

MR. SCHECK: Now, three of the items that you've circled here can only be seen if the door is open?

MR. FUNG: The two--the very top one and the one to the right, that's correct.

MR. SCHECK: So to see these items, someone would have to open the door of the car?

MR. FUNG: To see those, yes.

So, did Mark Fuhrman have another slip of the tongue when recalling and describing the four spots he observed? Or, as the defense claimed, did he prove that the prosecution contained a lie about when the Bronco was first entered?

Fuhrman talked about spots that were there, but which could only be seen with the door open.

After how many lies does Fuhrman cease to suffer from slips of the tongue?

After how many lies does he lose all credibility?

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.

Really. What transcript did you read?

The tortured phrasing was, "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."

He could not unequivocally identify the photo gloves as Aris, or anything else. He saw features that were not unique to Aris. He does not claim to have knowledge of every brand of glove, and he worked for only one brand.

In his tortured way, he admitted he could not unequivocally say the photo gloves were Aris gloves, and he admitted that he saw nothing to unequivocally identify them as any other brand. He saw non-unique features that did not identify any brand.

[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.

Asked directly if he was saying unequivocally that the glove in the pictures was an Aris glove, Richard Rubin testified, "That's not the case."

He could not unquivocally identify the glove in the pictures as an Aris glove.

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.

What is your source for this line of crap?

"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 name was Aris Isotoner. The Aris Leather Lights were not marketed under the Aris Isotoner brand. As Mr. Rubin testified, "Isotoner was a different product line than leather 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.

Read it again, Isotoner was a different product line than leather gloves.

Direct examination by Prosecutor Christopher Darden,

[11564]

MR. DARDEN: And is this an Aris Isotoner glove?

MR. RUBIN: It's actually an Aris leather glove. It's not an Isotoner glove.

[11589]

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Let the record reflect that all the jurors have withdrawn from the courtroom. Mr. Rubin is still on the witness stand. Mr. Darden, proceed.

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, I have here in my hand what appears to be a pair of leather gloves. There is a tag attached. The tag reads, "Aris leathers by Isotoner, extra large, cashmere lined," selling price of $55 by Bloomingdales. May they be marked 372-C?

THE COURT: 372-C.

(Peo's 372-C for id = leather gloves)

Richard Rubin (402), called as a witness by the People, pursuant to evidence code section 402, having previously been sworn, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION (402) BY MR. DARDEN

MR. DARDEN: Before I hand these gloves to the witness--showing you the gloves that have been marked 372-C, are those Aris Isotoner gloves?

MR. RUBIN: They're Aris gloves, but these are not Aris lights gloves that were like the ones we're talking about from 1982 until 1990.

https://www.isotoner.com/aboutus

In the early 1970s, Aris created a glove unlike any other made from a nylon/spandex fabric with leather trim. Recognizing the glove's unique 4-way stretch and massaging properties, Aris named the glove isotoner by combining the words "isometric" and "toning." The isotoner glove was a major success with a name so recognizable that Aris adopted it and became ARIS isotoner, Inc. Following the success of isotoner women's gloves, isotoner men's gloves and slippers quickly followed.

After the company corporate name change, the gloves made of nylon/spandex with leather trim were marketed as Aris Isotoner. The line of gloves made out of leather, without the nylon/spandex fabric, were marketed as Aris Leather gloves.

Your fiction was spun out of whole cloth from your creative mind. However, even if you could actually show that the testimony of glove expert Richard Rubin was in error, both on direct and cross examination, it was unchallenged at the criminal trial and was the only professional expert opinion available to the jury.

I will remind you again, and as many times as necessary, that your claim Marcia Clark and company produced 10x more evidence than needed to sustain a conviction at the criminal trial.

I understand that your search for such evidence has entered the state of desperation, and desperation calls for desperate measures. It is obvious, at this point, that you neither watched the testimony, read a transcript, or know what was actually placed in evidence.

I noticed the glove.

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.

And, as covered above, Fuhrman's attesting of seeing blood spots on the Bronco that could only be seen with the door open is another problem. I don't want to cover that one yet again, so let's move on to the problem of the photo of Fuhrman pointing at the glove?

Was this photograph taken before Fuhrman went to Bundy and found the second glove.

Fuhrman denied any such thing as follows:

[4006]

Q: OKAY. AND IS THAT -- WHO'S THAT MAN IN THE PHOTOGRAPH THERE POINTING TO THE BUSH?

A: THAT'S ME.

[...]

A: THE FOREMOST IN THE PICTURE IS A GLOVE AND ABOVE IT APPEARS TO BE A DARK BLUE KNIT CAP.

Q: NOW, WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU SAW THOSE TWO ITEMS IN PARTICULAR THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO DETECT WHAT THEY WERE?

A: FROM THAT LANDING, OFFICER RISKE SHINED HIS LIGHT ON THOSE ONCE AGAIN SHOWING SEVERAL OBJECTS THAT HE HAD PREVIOUSLY SEEN.

- - - - - - - - - -

[4045]

Q: THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT WE SHOWED YOU YESTERDAY OF YOU POINTING TO THE ITEMS UNDERNEATH THAT BUSH, WHEN WAS THAT TAKEN, SIR?

A: I BELIEVE THAT WAS SOMEWHERE AROUND 7:00 OR 7:15 THAT MORNING.

Q: AT THAT POINT, SIR, HAD YOU ALREADY BEEN TO ROCKINGHAM AND COME BACK TO BUNDY?

A: YES, MA'AM.

- - - - - - - - - -

So, the photo was taken around 7:00 or 7:15 in the morning, in the daylight, after Fuhrman returned to Bundy, or Fuhrman was a lying sack of shit. Well, we know Fuhrman was a lying sack of shit, let's see the evidence that proved that to the jury again.

Rolf D. Rokahr, called as a witness by the Defendant, was sworn and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: Raise your right hand, please. You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

MR. ROKAHR: I do.

THE CLERK: Please have a seat on the witness stand and state and spell your first and last names for the record.

MR. ROKAHR: My last name is Rokahr, R-O-K-A-H-R, first name is Rolf, R-O-L-F, middle initial D.

THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. NEUFELD

MR. NEUFELD: Good afternoon, Mr. Rokahr.

MR. ROKAHR: Good afternoon, Mr. Neufeld.

MR. NEUFELD: Mr. Rokahr, would you please tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what you do for a living.

[18140]

MR. ROKAHR: I'm a photographer for the city of Los Angeles assigned to the police department.

MR. NEUFELD: And how long have you been working as a photographer for the Los Angeles Police Department?

MR. ROKAHR: As a civilian employee, almost 10 years. It's nine years and two months, and I've worked as a reserve officer since 1980 or `81 up until `86. I'm still working as a reserve officer.

- - - - - - - - - -

[18147]

MR. NEUFELD: All right. When you met up with Mark Fuhrman at about 4:10 in the morning, what did Mark Fuhrman do with you, sir?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the witness' testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled. What happened? Mr. Rokahr, what happened when you met up with Detective Fuhrman?

MR. ROKAHR: Detective Fuhrman asked me to come around I believe it's Dorothy Street to the back of the house to show me what we have as far as a crime scene is concerned and as far as evidence is concerned.

[18148]

MR. NEUFELD: And at that time when he took you through, did he ask you to take a few pictures of something in particular?

MR. ROKAHR: By the time we arrived to the actual crime scene, he first of all pointed out--the bodies were obvious--where there is some evidence, and he asked me to photograph it.

MR. NEUFELD: Now--I'm sorry.

MR. ROKAHR: Yeah. And he--I asked him to actually point out where the evidence is because it was rather dark in the green foliage there.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, sir, if, as you indicated yesterday during the interview, that you first encountered Mark Fuhrman at 4:10 A.M., how long did it take you to walk with Mark Fuhrman to the location where these items of evidence were in the green foliage approximately?

MR. ROKAHR: I really don't want to narrow myself down on that because I'm not sure.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, I'm not asking you for a specific--whether it's four minutes or seven minutes, sir. I'm just asking you, would it be fair to say, for instance, that it's less than 15 minutes from the time that Mr. Fuhrman encountered you and the time you got to those items of evidence which are in the green foliage?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: Would that be a fair estimate of time?

MR. ROKAHR: Could be 15 minutes, could be 20 minutes, 30. I'm not sure.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Would it be a fair estimate that it was something between 15 minutes and 30 minutes?

MR. ROKAHR: I think it's a fair estimate.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. So, sir, if, as you told me yesterday, that it was approximately 4:10 in the morning when you encountered Mr. Fuhrman at 875 Bundy at the time that he was having you take pictures of items of evidence that were in and about the green foliage, would that be sometime between 4:25 in the morning and 4:40 in the morning based on your estimate, sir?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Argumentative.

[18149]

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. ROKAHR: I would say it's fair.

[...]

MR. NEUFELD: And did you at that moment take pictures of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove and the hat?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, I did.

MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, was one of the reasons that you asked Detective Fuhrman to point to the item is because it was nighttime and thus, the glove was difficult to see?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry. What was your answer, sir?

[18149]

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

- - - - - - - - - -

[18155]

MR. NEUFELD: And the camera you used that night at Bundy, did it have a counter?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.

MR. NEUFELD: And could you please tell the ladies and gentleman of the jury how that works.

MR. ROKAHR: When we arrive at a crime scene, there is a data back on the back of my camera and I can set, as far as the counter is concerned, six numbers, 000000. From then on, it will count up every shot that is taken. It adds a number, a digit to it.

MR. NEUFELD: So, in other words, the first one will be 000001?

MR. ROKAHR: That would be my slate in the photograph.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, in this particular instance, can you by looking in your book tell us what the numbers were in sequence of the two photographs you took of Detective Mark Fuhrman pointing at the glove?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, I could.

MR. NEUFELD: Would you please do so.

MR. ROKAHR: That would be 34 and 35.

MR. NEUFELD: That means that those are the 34th and 35th pictures that you took at Bundy that night?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

- - - - - - - - - -

[18156]

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, what I want you to do is look at photographs 36, in other words, the one immediately after 35, where Fuhrman is pointing at the glove, all the way through 43. Do you see those?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, isn't it a fact, sir, that when you took those photographs, the first eight photographs after Fuhrman is pointing at the glove, that as to those eight photographs, you were not having any detective instruct you as to what to shoot, but you were simply relying on your own professional judgment? Isn't that a fact?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, I would say it's a fact because of the--the sequence in these photographs, which is the way I shoot.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Thank you. Now, you said earlier to the jury that you were using Kodak color print film asa 200; is that correct?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And how many exposures are there in each roll that you use, sir?

MR. ROKAHR: 36 exposures.

MR. NEUFELD: Is that your standard practice?

MR. ROKAHR: That is what I prefer.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And on this night, when you were at Bundy shooting, you were using rolls of 36?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

- - - - - - - - - -

[18159]

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So, sir, to the best of your recollection--I'm sorry. To the best of your recollection, would this contact sheet, except for the fact that the actual negatives are slightly larger when they're printed there than they would be on a routine contact sheet, do they represent the first roll of film you shot that night at Bundy?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.

MR. NEUFELD: And the first 33 frames on that roll, those would be those overall shots you talked about that you took between approximately, oh, 3:25 and say 3:55 in the morning?

MR. ROKAHR: Whatever the time was, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And the last two shots that appear on there, those would be the two shots that you took sometime between 4:20 and 4:35 in the morning; is that correct?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, didn't you--didn't you say just before the break that the time that the photographs were taken of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove, given the times that you gave for the other events

- - - - - - - - - -

[18162]

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And by the way, all the other photographs on that first roll, 1 through 33, those were all shot at nighttime; isn't that correct?

MR. ROKAHR: They were shot what?

MR. NEUFELD: At nighttime.

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.

MR. NEUFELD: And as to 34, the 34th picture, do you see that on the screen?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.

MR. NEUFELD: Is that Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove?

MR. ROKAHR: That is Detective Fuhrman.

MR. NEUFELD: And in 35, is that also Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove?

MR. ROKAHR: That is also Detective Fuhrman.

MR. NEUFELD: And those were the last two pictures you took on that first roll of film during the night at Bundy on June 13th--in the early morning hours of June 13th, 1994?

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: At night?

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: That's what he--your Honor, at this time, I have no further questions. I would like to pose--I would like to pass this to the jury so they can at least look at it.

- - - - - - - - - -

[18170]

MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, you mentioned on cross-examination that you may not be, you know, absolutely certain as to what time a particular photograph or precisely what time a particular photograph was taken. But would you agree, sir, that there's a difference between a photograph taken a half hour, an hour before sunrise and a photograph taken an hour and a half after the sun comes up?

MR. DARDEN: Objection.

MR. NEUFELD: You know, in terms of light in the air?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Light in the air?

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry. In terms of how light it is, that there is an obvious difference between a photograph taken an hour to an hour and a half before the sun rises and a photograph taken an hour to an hour and a half after the sun rises?

MR. ROKAHR: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, there's a difference.

MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, if the sun raised that morning at 5:41 A.M., you would be able to tell the difference without being precise whether that photograph was a nighttime shot, shot perhaps an hour, hour and a half before sunrise and one shot an hour and a half after sunrise, wouldn't you?

MR. ROKAHR: I would like to think so.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you. Nothing further.

THE COURT: Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: Nothing further. I'm sorry.

After how many lies does Fuhrman cease to suffer from slips of the tongue?

After how many lies does he lose all credibility?

When he said "gloves" he admitted it was a slip of the tongue. Let it go, 'cause I sure am.

"What is your source for this line of crap?"

Wiki. Same as yours.

"Read it again, Isotoner was a different product line than leather gloves."

Yes. But made by the same company -- Aris Isotoner, Inc.

"After the company corporate name change, the gloves made of nylon/spandex with leather trim were marketed as Aris Isotoner. The line of gloves made out of leather, without the nylon/spandex fabric, were marketed as Aris Leather gloves."

Yes. But all made by the same company, Aris Isotoner, Inc.

Me: Do you drive a GM car?
You: No, I drive a Chevy.
Me: But Chevy is just one product line of GM.
You: I drive a Chevy. That's different.

I can't have a discussion with you. You're on a different planet.

"He could not unquivocally identify the glove in the pictures as an Aris glove."

He didn't see anything to make him think it wasn't an Aris glove. Potayto, potahto.

He said "I noticed the glove". The glove. One glove.

When he said "gloves" he admitted it was a slip of the tongue. Let it go, 'cause I sure am.

Your mission impossible, which you chose to accept, was to prove that the O.J. Simpson jury had sufficient evidence before it to return a verdict of guilty.

I quoted the evidence adduced at the criminal trial, which you may read for the first time, or ignore for however many times.

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.

"What is your source for this line of crap?"

Wiki. Same as yours.

"Read it again, Isotoner was a different product line than leather gloves."

Yes. But made by the same company -- Aris Isotoner, Inc.

"After the company corporate name change, the gloves made of nylon/spandex with leather trim were marketed as Aris Isotoner. The line of gloves made out of leather, without the nylon/spandex fabric, were marketed as Aris Leather gloves."

Yes. But all made by the same company, Aris Isotoner, Inc.

No, my source was not Wiki. That was your unlinked source whose content you mischaracterized. I linked to it and showed what it actually said.

I will remind you again, your mission impossible, which you chose to accept, was to prove that the O.J. Simpson jury had sufficient evidence before it to return a verdict of guilty.

The only matter that could justify any finding by the jury is evidence adduced at trial. You provided mischaracterized nonsense from Wiki and I provided testimonial evidence adduced at the trial, from a transcript of said testimony.

The gloves were not Aris Isotoner gloves. The only expert testimony adduced at the trial was that the gloves were not Isotoner gloves. The Aris expert so testified on both Direct and Cross. You are invited to produce conflicting testimony, adduced at the trial. In the presence of this affirmative evidence, and in the absence of your conflicting opinion based on your creative interpretation of a Wiki article, the jury in the O.J. criminal trial had to accept the only evidence it had -- it was not an isotoner glove.

[11564]

MR. DARDEN: And is this an Aris Isotoner glove?

MR. RUBIN: It's actually an Aris leather glove. It's not an Isotoner glove.

He identified a brossier stitch which he admitted was also found on non-Aris gloves. He identified three lines on the back which he admitted were found on non-Aris gloves. He identified a vent which he admitted is found on non-Aris gloves. He observed nothing unique to a specific manufacturer.

In terms of cars, he was unable to unequivocally identify a car as a GM product. It could have been a Ford or a Chrysler or a Honda or a Toyota. He observed it had a fender which also appears on cars of other manufacture. He observed it had a windshield which also appears on cars of other manufacture. He observed it had doors which also appears on cars of other manufacture. He observed nothing inconsistent with it being a Chevy, or Ford, or Toyota. He observed no unique identifying feature. He observed nothing inconsistent with it being a Chevy, just as he observed nothing inconsistent with it being a Ford, Chrysler, Honda, or Toyota.

After he failed to identify the manufacturer, you want to conclude that he observed nothing inconsistent with a Chevy Corvette which has a fender, a windshield and doors, and declare that you have proof that it was a Chevy Corvette.

- - - - - - - - - -

[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.

A receipt was entered in evidence but the prosecution was not able to show that the gloves indicated by the receipt included the gloves in evidence.

[11531]

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.

The evidence presented at the criminal trial presented proof that O.J. Simpson sometimes wore gloves when it was cold. The prosecution was unable to show proof that O.J. Simpson either owned or wore an Aris Leather Light, Brown, XL gloves.

The expert testimony affirmatively testified that the evidence gloves were not Isotoner gloves. He testified that he could not unequivocally identify any of the photographed gloves as Aris brand, or style 70263.

Almost all the photographed gloves were black, like the pair in your irrelevant picture at #202 where you stated, "Oh, here they are:" Of course, the evidence gloves were brown.

"He could not unquivocally identify the glove in the pictures as an Aris glove."

He didn't see anything to make him think it wasn't an Aris glove. Potayto, potahto.

I will remind you again, your mission impossible, which you chose to accept, was to prove that the O.J. Simpson jury had sufficient evidence before it to return a verdict of guilty.

The only matter that could justify any finding by the jury is evidence adduced at trial. I provided testimonial evidence adduced at the trial, from a transcript of said testimony.

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.

- - - - - - - - - -

[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.

Asked directly if he was saying unequivocally that the glove in the pictures was an Aris glove, Richard Rubin testified, "That's not the case."

He could not unquivocally identify the glove in the pictures as an Aris glove.

He admitted that he was not familiar with all styles of gloves by all manufacturers in the world. He worked for one manufacturer, and one only.

- - - - - - - - - -

The glove expert testified that he could not unequivocally identify the photographed gloves were Aris brand gloves, much less specifically style 70263.

He identified features on Aris gloves that are also present on other brands of gloves.

He identified a brossier stitch which he was forced to admit was also found on non-Aris gloves. He identified three lines on the back which he admitted were found on non-Aris gloves. He identified a vent which he admitted is found on non-Aris gloves. He identified no feature unique to Aris brand gloves.

He didn't see anything to make him think it wasn't an Aris glove.

And he did not see anything to make him certain it was an Aris glove.

Proving, he saw a glove in a photograph which he could not positively identify.

"was to prove that the O.J. Simpson jury had sufficient evidence before it to return a verdict of guilty."

No. They had to present evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. You're trying to set a new standard where if the prosecution can cause any doubt whatsoever the evidence should be ignored.

He identified a brossier stitch which he was forced to admit was also found on non-Aris gloves. He identified three lines on the back which he admitted were found on non-Aris gloves. He identified a vent which he admitted is found on non-Aris gloves. He identified no feature unique to Aris brand gloves.

He admitted that or you assumed that? Because I can't find anything in the transcript to back up your claim. You're ignoring all the other glove evidence presented to the jury which, when taken together with Rubin's testimony, is consistent and damning.

He identified a brossier stitch which he was forced to admit was also found on non-Aris gloves. He identified three lines on the back which he admitted were found on non-Aris gloves. He identified a vent which he admitted is found on non-Aris gloves. He identified no feature unique to Aris brand gloves.

He admitted that or you assumed that? Because I can't find anything in the transcript to back up your claim. You're ignoring all the other glove evidence presented to the jury which, when taken together with Rubin's testimony, is consistent and damning.

He affirmatively testified to it as fact. I am sorry you can't find it in the transcript. You have not presented a whisper of the phantom "other glove evidence presented to the jury which, taken together with Rubin's testimony, is consistent and damning." You have not even identified what it is about.

And next time give me a warning when you are going to say you read the transcript. My keyboard and my side thingees thank you.

On direct, Rubin was asked if the brossier stitch is unique to the Aris glove. He said "Very."

And he testified that "[t]he palm vent is the least unique characteristic of the specific style in question."

On cross, it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the brossier stitch was not unique to the Aris glove.

He testified that silking, the three stripes on the back, is very common.

[18744]

MR. DARDEN: The Brossier stitching is unique to the glove?

MR. RUBIN: Very.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. How about the vent, the palm vent?

MR. RUBIN: The palm vent is the least unique characteristic of the specific style in question.

- - - - - - - - - -

Zero for effort. Rubin testified that he checked with two companies to see if they might have used Brossier stitching and produced gloves without stitching (blind seam). The second one said yes, and he stopped looking.

[18782]

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. Rubin contacted two companies to inquire if they used a brossier stitch. The second company, half of the total, affirmed it used the brossier stitch in gloves. Mr. Rubin's search ended at that point. He admits there could be hundreds of glove manufacturers in Europe, and he expresses that he has no idea how many use a brossier stitch. He admits he has actually seen the stitch on Italian gloves.

The brossier stitch was not unique to Aris 70263.

[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.

MR. BLASIER: Now, if--do you have any idea how many other glove manufacturers there are in the world?

MR. RUBIN: I have no idea.

MR. BLASIER: If--would you agree that there's over a hundred other glove manufacturers in various parts in the world that--go ahead.

MR. RUBIN: If you define glove manufacturers as anybody who is manufacturing quantity and distributing it on their own, a person who has six employees in a small shop technically is a glove manufacturer. So I'd say in places like Italy, Hungary and certain other eastern European countries, there could be hundreds of manufacturers. They would relatively be quite small as far as production.

MR. BLASIER: How many of those have a Brossier machine?

MR. RUBIN: I have no idea.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you know that--you've seen this stitch on an Italian glove some years ago, didn't you?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I did.

MR. BLASIER: From a small company?

MR. RUBIN: I don't know what company it was from.

MR. BLASIER: Have you made any effort to contact singer to find out other machines there are throughout the world?

MR. RUBIN: No, I have not.

MR. BLASIER: Are there any other machines that can make a stitch that looks like this stitch?

MR. RUBIN: This stitch is a very fine whip stitch, and the machine that I'm familiar with, it does make a stitch that's similar. That's the Ozan sewing machine. The one I'm thinking of is made by a company called treasure.

[18784]

MR. BLASIER: And can that make a stitch that looks like this?

MR. RUBIN: Similar, but not the same.

MR. BLASIER: Different in what way?

MR. RUBIN: The Ozan sewing machine normally runs at about 10 to 12 stitches per minute. The Brossier sewing machine runs at twice that, and the difference is in the bite. When it's a whip stitch, most of those whip stitch type machines in the bite, you get a high, low effect on the Ozan stitching machine and you get a larger seam than you would on a continuous seam and fine seam on the Brossier. But to a layman, the stitch is--stitches would appear to be somewhat similar.

MR. BLASIER: Can the Ozan machine do a 22-inch--22 stitch per inch stitch?

MR. RUBIN: I'm not a technician. I'm not sure if it's capable of making a stitch that tight or not. I've never seen Aris production or some other production with Ozan do more than 12 stitches an inch on the Ozan machine.

MR. BLASIER: Did you make any effort - incidentally, Ozan machines are fairly common, aren't they?

MR. RUBIN: Within Aris, the largest amount of gloves that were out on the marketplace were Ozan.

MR. BLASIER: Other companies have Ozan stitching machines, don't they?

MR. RUBIN: I believe they do.

MR. BLASIER: It's a common machine, isn't it?

MR. RUBIN: It's a common machine, readily available.

MR. BLASIER: Are you familiar with the Bonis Golden series never-stop machines?

MR. RUBIN: I've heard the term Bonis, but I'm not familiar with the machine.

MR. BLASIER: Let me show you a flyer for that machine.

MR. DARDEN: Objection. He's not familiar with it.

THE COURT: I'm sorry?

[18785]

MR. DARDEN: Objection. What he's relying on, he's not familiar with.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Can I see the flyer then?

(Brief pause.)

MR. DARDEN: It's dated 1995. Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: Would you take a look at that, tell me if you're familiar with that machine?

MR. DARDEN: 352, your Honor. No authentication.

THE COURT: Overruled. The question is, is he familiar with the machine.

MR. RUBIN: Since I never really looked at the numbers on the machines that were at Aris Philippines for style--I've seen similar machines to this with the wheel. I'm very familiar with that. It's very common.

But I don't know for a fact that it was a Bonis BG12 machine.

MR. BLASIER: All right. So the machines you've seen, they can do 25 stitches an inch, can't they?

MR. RUBIN: I've never seen them do 25 stitches to the inch.

MR. BLASIER: Can they do 25 stitches an inch?

MR. RUBIN: I could not state that to this court if I had not done it myself. I've never--

MR. BLASIER: Can that machine do 25 stitches an inch?

MR. RUBIN: According to the flyer, this will--

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

- - - - - - - - - -

Silking, the three stripes on the back, is very common. Rubin made no effort to find out what other machines might make a stitch as fine as the brossier stitch made by Aris.

[18786]

MR. BLASIER: So I take it then other than calling two companies and asking them specifically about the Brossier machine, you made no effort to find out what kind of other machines might make a stitch that fine?

MR. RUBIN: I have not.

MR. BLASIER: Now, the two companies that you contacted, did you just ask them about the Brossier stitching?

MR. RUBIN: Well, in regard to Fownes, I asked them if they had any of the equipment. They told me no, and that was pretty much the end of the conversation. And I do have friends that work there. So we may have discussed other things that I'm not aware of. In regard to my conversation with Mr. Zuckerware, a technician within their company was in the room and mentioned the style number or the--

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Nonresponsive.

THE COURT: All right. Ask your next question.

MR. RUBIN: You know, I don't remember what I spoke with them about.

THE COURT: Hold on.

MR. BLASIER: You didn't ask anybody about the three lines, the silking on the back, did you, in terms of how other people may or may not use that?

MR. RUBIN: I did not discuss anything other than the Brossier.

MR. BLASIER: So you've made no effort to find out how common or rare the silking is, and that's the three points on the back?

MR. RUBIN: I think I earlier stated that it's very common.

No. They had to present evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. You're trying to set a new standard where if the prosecution can cause any doubt whatsoever the evidence should be ignored.

The defense did not have to prove anything, not even reasonable doubt.

The prosecution had the sole responsibility to provide proof of each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

If there is any reasonable competing explanation to any claim of fact based on circumstantial evidence, the claim pointing to innocence must be adopted.

In your attempts to prove that the prosecution met its burden, your attempts have:

• failed to show that the gloves purchased by Nicole Simpson were ever given to, or worn by, O.J. Simpson.

• produced a picture of O.J. Simpson wearing black gloves and claimed they were the gloves.

• Failed to overcome the testimony of glove expert Richard Rubin that he could not unequivocally identify any glove being worn by O.J. Simpson in a photograph as an Aris brand glove.

• Failed to overcome the testimony of Bloomindale's expert that the Nicole Simpson receipt does not show that the two gloves in evidence at the court were purchased during that transaction.

There is a good reason you cannot prove, on the basis of the evidence in the criminal trial, that the evidence gloves belonged to, and were worn by, O.J. Simpson. The prosecution never proved it in court. The criminal prosecution never proved that O.J. Simpson ever owned or wore Bruno Magli shoes either.

I will attempt to demonstrate that the defense presented the more believable theory of how the one glove got to Rockingham, as shown by the actual evidence at trial. The prosecution theory has a serious problem with science.

And I wish to note that Det. Fuhrman planting the glove at Rockingham is consistent with O.J. Simpson and/or one or more others having committed the murders. The Rockingham glove could not be ignored, but it presented a problem for the prosecution. Admitting Det. Fuhrman planted it would taint all the evidence in the case.

Lead Detective Phillip Vanatter's testimony is incredible, as in it defies all rational belief. According to Det. Vanatter, two paragraphs are the totality of notes he took about the activities of the 12th and 13th of June.

[4697]

BY MR. SHAPIRO:

Q: DETECTIVE VANNATTER, OVER THE NOON HOUR YOU WERE REQUESTED TO FIND YOUR NOTES OF THE ACTIVITIES THAT TOOK PLACE AT BUNDY AND ROCKINGHAM ON THE 12TH THROUGH THE 13TH OF JUNE. HAVE YOU BEEN ABLE TO LOCATE THOSE NOTES?

A: I DIDN'T REALIZE I WAS SUPPOSED TO DO THAT, BUT AS FAR AS ACTUAL PHYSICAL NOTES, THERE AREN'T ANY OTHER THAN THE PARTIAL STATEMENT I WAS GOING ON, KATO KAELIN.

Q: AND THAT CONSISTS OF TWO PARAGRAPHS?

A: APPROXIMATELY, YEAH.

Q: AND THAT IS THE EXTENT OF WHAT WAS -- WHAT TOOK PLACE AS FAR AS RECORDING INFORMATION BY YOU?

A: I DIRECTED OTHER INFORMATION BE RECORDED, BUT YES, THAT IS TRUE.

Lead Detective Phillip Vanatter admitted the information he included in his sworn statement to obtain a search warrant was false.

[4757]

Q: AND IN FILLING OUT A SEARCH WARRANT YOU INDICATED TO A MAGISTRATE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT YOU WERE TOLD THAT O.J. SIMPSON HAD LEFT ON AN UNEXPECTED MIGHT TO CHICAGO, DID YOU NOT?

A: I DIDN'T SAY I WAS TOLD THAT.

Q: YOU REPORTED --

A: I DID WRITE THAT IN THE SEARCH WARRANT, YES.

Q: AND YOU SIGNED THAT UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY?

A: YES. THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.

Q: AND THAT WASN'T TRUE, WAS IT?

A: I FIND -- I FOUND OUT LATER THAT THAT INFORMATION WAS INCORRECT. THAT WAS BASED ON ARNELLE SIMPSON'S RESPONSE THAT MORNING, AS WELL AS KATO KAELIN TELLING ME THAT HE HAD RECEIVED A PHONE CALL AFTER SIMPSON HAD LEFT THE RESIDENCE TELLING HIM TO ALARM THE HOUSE, THAT HE WAS GOING TO CHICAGO ON A

[4758]

BUSINESS TRIP FOR HERTZ.

Q: YOU FILLED OUT THE AFFIDAVIT FOR THE SEARCH WARRANT AT WHAT TIME, SIR?

A: I STARTED THAT APPROXIMATELY 7:45 IN THE MORNING.

Q: AND WHAT TIME DID YOU PRESENT IT TO A MAGISTRATE, SIR?

A: IT WAS SIGNED AT 10:45.

Q: AND THE MAGISTRATE ASKED YOU TO MAKE SOME HAND CORRECTIONS IN THERE, DID SHE NOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND ISN'T IT TRUE, SIR, THAT AT SIX O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING YOUR HANDWRITTEN NOTES INDICATE THAT IN YOUR INTERVIEW WITH KATO KAELIN THAT HE TOLD YOU THAT O.J. SIMPSON HAD LEFT ON A FLIGHT FOR CHICAGO FOR HERTZ?

A: YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND DID YOU ALSO INDICATE, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, SIR, THAT YOU OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE HUMAN BLOOD, WHICH WAS LATER CONFIRMED BY A CRIMINALIST TO BE HUMAN BLOOD?

A: YES, I SAID THAT.

Q: AND ISN'T IT TRUE AT THE TIME THAT THAT WAS NOT A TEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS HUMAN BLOOD?

A: THAT IS TRUE. I MISSTATED THAT I GUESS BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE. I BELIEVED IT WAS HUMAN BLOOD AND I THINK NOW -- I THINK STILL IT IS HUMAN BLOOD. I THINK IT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE HUMAN BLOOD.

Q: YOU ALSO SAID, SIR, DID YOU NOT, YOU OBSERVED BLOOD ON THE CONSOLE OF THE BRONCO AND BLOOD INSIDE THE DOOR PANELING OF THE BRONCO, DID YOU NOT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: DID YOU INCLUDE THAT INFORMATION IN YOUR SEARCH WARRANT?

A: NO.

Q: WHY NOT?

[4759]

A: I JUST -- THAT WAS A QUICK ATTEMPT TO GET A SEARCH WARRANT TO MOVE THE INVESTIGATION ALONG. I DIDN'T -- I MISSED SOME THINGS IN IT THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN IT.

Q: DID YOU MAKE ANY NOTES IN THAT IN ANY REPORTS THAT WERE FILED IN THIS CASE?

A: NO, SIR, I DIDN'T.

Q: REGARDING THE GLOVE THAT YOU SAW, WHERE IN YOUR REPORTS REGARDING ROCKINGHAM DID YOU SHOW THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: IT IS IN THE SEARCH WARRANT AND IT IS ALSO IN THE FOLLOW-UP REPORT.

Q: IT IS IN THE -- I SAID WHERE IN YOUR NOTES ARE THEY SHOWN?

A: THERE ARE NO NOTES.

Q: WHERE IN DETECTIVE LANGE'S NOTES IS IT SHOWN THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: I -- I -- I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS IN LANGE'S NOTES.

Q: WHERE IN DETECTIVE PHILLIPS' NOTES IS IT SHOWN THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE HE HAS ANY NOTES.

Q: WHERE IN DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S NOTES IS IT SHOWN THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND IN ROCKINGHAM?

A: IT IS NOT, SIR.

Q: WHERE IN THE MASTER NOTE-TAKER'S NOTES IS IT SHOWN THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: IT IS IN THE CRIMINALIST'S NOTES THAT HE RECOVERED THE PIECE OF EVIDENCE AND THOSE WERE TAKEN AT MY DIRECTION.

Q: WHEN WAS THAT?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: WHEN WERE THOSE NOTES TAKEN?

[4760]

A: THE MORNING OF THE 13TH.

Q: AT YOUR DIRECTION?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

Q: DO YOU HAVE THOSE NOTES?

A: NO, SIR, I DON'T. THOSE ARE CRIMINALIST WORK PRODUCT.

Q: A CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD IS REQUIRED TO BE KEPT IN ALL CASES OF HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION, IS IT NOT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: WHERE IN THE CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD DOES IT INDICATE THAT ANY OF THE FOUR OFFICERS THERE RECOVERED A GLOVE?

A: IT DOESN'T.

How Criminalist Fung was caught on videotape, Rockingham glove in hand, stepping over Ron Goldman's body.

[6758]

MR. SCHECK: Well, do you recall a videotape of you stepping over the body holding what you've told us was the Rockingham glove with your bare hand and a bag?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

The unexplained movement of the Bundy glove between photographs.

[6759]

MR. SCHECK: You do concede however from looking at still photographs that the glove had been moved from a position where it was originally photographed when Detective Fuhrman was pointing at it to a second position when you directed the photographer to photograph it--

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FUNG: Yes.

Detective Mark Fuhrman at the Preliminary Hearing, July 5, 1994, the year before the O.J. Trial, which I offer only for the purpose of showing that the prosecution was stuck with this story. At 0054:

03 Q When you saw that glove, did it have some
04 significance to you?
05 A Yes. It looked very similar to the glove
06 that I observed on Bundy hours before.
07 Q And based on that observation, sir, what did
08 you do?
09 A I looked at it a little closer. I noted that
10 it did not match the terrain.
11 As you can see, there's a lot of dirt and
12 leaves. This glove was not dirty in the least. It
13 looked a little sticky and moist. Two fingers were
14 stuck to the glove. It looked like it was stuck there
15 with some type of a liquid.
16 I didn't touch it. I went past the air
17 conditioning duct that you can see in photo 'A', and as
18 soon as I went past that air conditioning duct, looking
19 for the person that might have dropped this glove,
20 thinking that they were farther down the walkway, I ran
21 into spider webs immediately.

Det. Fuhrman went past the air conditioning duct looking for the killer who had nearly severed the head of Nicole Simpson. Did he call for backup or draw his weapon. Nahhh.

At the criminal trial, Detective Mark Fuhrman observed the Rockingham glove was moist and sticky; it had a glean or glisten to it.

[4141]

Q: OKAY. AND SO DO THESE -- ARE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS -- ARE ANY OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS THE ONES THAT WERE TAKEN AT YOUR DIRECTION WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHER AT

[4142]

ROCKINGHAM? AND WHEN I SAY "THESE," I'M REFERRING TO PEOPLE'S 116?

A: I'M NOT SURE -- I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAD ANY NUMBERS AT THAT TIME.

Q: UH-HUH. AND PHOTOGRAPH E, WHERE THERE IS NO NUMBER THEN, MIGHT THAT BE ONE OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN AT YOUR DIRECTION BY MR. ROKAHR?

A: YES.

[...]

Q: AFTER HE TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS, WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: WE RETURNED TO THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE.

Q: OKAY. NOW, WHEN YOU POINTED THE GLOVE OUT TO MR. ROKAHR FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS, DID YOU POINT OUT ASPECTS OF THE GLOVE THAT YOU WANTED HIM TO TAKE NOTE OF IN PHOTOGRAPHS?

A: NO. I BELIEVE I JUST WANTED PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE GLOVE. I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANYTHING WE COULD DEPICT THAT WE WOULD NEED PHOTOS OF FROM ANY ANGLE.

Q: YOU DESCRIBED EARLIER THAT THE -- THAT YOU NOTICED IT TO BE -- THE GLOVE TO BE MOIST AND STICKY. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: THAT IS THE WAY IT APPEARED, YES.

Q: DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER ANY FINGERS WERE STUCK TOGETHER?

A: I DO RECALL THAT THERE WAS ONE FINGER THAT WAS STUCK TO ONE PART OF THE GLOVE.

Detective Mark Fuhrman

[4284]

Q: WHAT DID YOU SAY?

A: I SAID, "IT LOOKS LIKE IT COULD BE SIMILAR TO THE ONE ON BUNDY."

Q: YOU HAVE TOLD US A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU NOTICED ABOUT THE GLOVE WAS THAT IT WAS MOIST AND STICKY, CORRECT?

A: YES, YES.

Q: AND DID YOU POINT THAT OUT TO DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, THAT NOT ONLY DID IT LOOK LIKE THE GLOVE FROM BUNDY, BUT THAT IT APPEARED TO HAVE A SUBSTANCE ON IT MAKING IT STICKY WHICH COULD WELL HAVE BEEN BLOOD?

A: I'M NOT SURE IF I DID OR IF I DIDN'T.

Q: BUT IT HAD BEEN THROUGH YOUR MIND, HADN'T IT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE STICKY PART I TAKE IT YOU OBSERVED WHEN YOU TOOK THAT LITTLE TINY FLASHLIGHT OF YOURS AND SHINED IT ON THE GLOVE AND SAW SOMETHING OF A SHINY NATURE, AS OPPOSED TO A CAKED OR DRY SURFACE?

A: IT APPEARED THAT IT HAD SOMEWHAT OF A GLEAN OR A GLISTEN TO IT.

Photographer Rokahr established that Detective Fuhrman's timeline was skewed by several hours.

[4045]

Q: THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT WE SHOWED YOU YESTERDAY OF YOU POINTING TO THE ITEMS UNDERNEATH THAT BUSH, WHEN WAS THAT TAKEN, SIR?

A: I BELIEVE THAT WAS SOMEWHERE AROUND 7:00 OR 7:15 THAT MORNING.

Q: AT THAT POINT, SIR, HAD YOU ALREADY BEEN TO ROCKINGHAM AND COME BACK TO BUNDY?

A: YES, MA'AM.

As I documented at #220, photographer Rolf Rokahr established that he took the photograph at night, at an approximate time between 4:25 and 4:40 a.m., before Detective Fuhrman left Bundy for Rockingham.

The defense theory of how one glove got to Rockingham is that Detective Fuhrman found two gloves at Bundy, put one in a plastic bag, and transported that glove to Rockingham. The prosecution theory is that O.J. Simpson was wearing both gloves at Bundy, lost one at Bundy, and dropped the other one at Rockingham.

Under the defense theory, the Rockingham glove was not there until after Detective Mark Fuhrman placed the glove after interviewing Kato Kaelin and hearing about the three thumps. Under this theory, the glove was planted sometime after 6:00 a.m on April 13.

Under the prosecution theory, the Rockingham glove must have been dropped before O.J. left with Alan Park, the limo driver. That was around 11 p.m. More specifically, it ties to the three thumps heard by Kato Kaelin around 10:40 to 10:45 p.m. on April 12.

There is a conundrum which must be addressed by the prosecution. It is rather like the cooking time of regular grits in My Cousin Vinny. Do the laws of science not apply at the Rockingham address?

According to the prosecution theory, the glove was out in the warm summer air of Los Angeles in June for a period of over seven (7) hours. And yet, the Rockingham glove was moist and sticky, and had a glean or glisten to it.

What prevented the blood from drying for seven hours?

The defense theory posits that the glove was in a plastic bag, in Det. Fuhrman's pocket, for seven hours and esposed to the air for minutes.

The prosecution theory is.... what?... blood does not dry at the Rockingham address?

The prosecution had the sole responsibility to provide proof of each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

No they didn't. If there was reasonable doubt about a specific piece of evidence or testimony, that specific piece of evidence or testimony could be disregarded.

"failed to show that the gloves purchased by Nicole Simpson were ever given to, or worn by, O.J. Simpson."

Well, let's see:

-- She was married to OJ when she bought the gloves.
-- The gloves she purchased were a size XL. (OJ wore a size XL.)
-- They were of a fine leather, cashmere-lined, and expensive. Something a celebrity like OJ would wear.
-- OJ was pictured wearing gloves that sure did look like the ones she purchased.
-- One glove, identical to the glove she purchased, was found at the crime scene.
-- The matching glove was found at OJ's house.
-- The original gloves Nicole purchased were never produced at trial as a defense exhibit.

Now, based on the totality of that evidence, isn't it reasonable to assume those gloves were given to, and worn, by OJ?

Oh, sure. It IS possible that Nicole bought those gloves for some unknown boyfriend ... who also wore a size XL. And that the real killer coincidentally wore a size XL and shopped at the same store Nicole did and had a taste for rare expensive gloves to wear to a murder. And that the glove at OJ's house was planted by someone who knew that OJ wore a size XL and didn't have an alibi. And that OJ threw away the gloves given to him by Nicole.

Yes. I will grant you that all of this is possible. But which scenario is reasonable?

"And yet, the Rockingham glove was moist and sticky, and had a glean or glisten to it."

No. He testified that it looked moist and sticky.

"12 leaves. This glove was not dirty in the least. It
13 looked a little sticky and moist."

An air conditioner removes heat and humidity from a house and blows it outside. I would imagine it was pretty humid under the air conditioner where the glove was found -- slowing the drying process.

You have not presented a whisper of the phantom "other glove evidence presented to the jury which, taken together with Rubin's testimony, is consistent and damning."

That can be found in my post #231.

The prosecution had the sole responsibility to provide proof of each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

No they didn't. If there was reasonable doubt about a specific piece of evidence or testimony, that specific piece of evidence or testimony could be disregarded.

Read it again. Your response is nonsense.

The prosecution had the sole responsibility to provide proof of each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

You can't prove any element of the crime by disregarding evidence, physical or testimonial. You can only prove something by bringing forth physical or testimonial evidence.

The prosecution must prove each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. As Judge Ito instructed the jury, "EACH FACT WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO COMPLETE A SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT."

If the prosecution fails to provide proof of any element, it fails to prove the accused committed the crime. In such case, the jury is instructed, it must return a verdict of not guilty.

From Judge Ito's instructions to the jury:

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY:

IT IS MY DUTY TO INSTRUCT YOU ON THE LAW THAT APPLIES TO THIS CASE. THE LAW REQUIRES THAT I READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS TO YOU. YOU WILL HAVE THESE INSTRUCTIONS IN WRITTEN FORM IN THE JURY ROOM TO REFER TO DURING YOUR DELIBERATIONS.

YOU MUST BASE YOUR DECISION ON THE FACTS AND THE LAW.

YOU HAVE TWO DUTIES TO PERFORM. FIRST, YOU MUST DETERMINE THE FACTS FROM THE EVIDENCE RECEIVED IN THE TRIAL AND NOT FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE. A "FACT" IS SOMETHING PROVED DIRECTLY OR CIRCUMSTANTIALLY BY THE EVIDENCE OR BY STIPULATION. A STIPULATION IS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ATTORNEYS REGARDING THE FACTS.

SECOND, YOU MUST APPLY THE LAW THAT I STATE TO YOU TO THE FACTS AS YOU DETERMINE THEM AND IN THIS WAY ARRIVE AT YOUR VERDICT AND ANY FINDING YOU ARE INSTRUCTED TO INCLUDE WITH YOUR VERDICT.

YOU MUST ACCEPT AND FOLLOW THE LAW AS I STATE IT TO YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU AGREE WITH THE LAW. IF ANYTHING CONCERNING THE LAW SAID BY THE ATTORNEYS IN THEIR ARGUMENTS OR AT ANY OTHER TIME DURING THE TRIAL CONFLICT WITH MY INSTRUCTIONS ON THE LAW, YOU MUST FOLLOW MY INSTRUCTIONS.

[...]

EVIDENCE CONSISTS OF THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES, WRITINGS, MATERIAL OBJECTS OR ANYTHING PRESENTED TO THE SENSES AND OFFERED TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF A FACT.

EVIDENCE IS EITHER DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL. DIRECT EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE THAT DIRECTLY PROVES A FACT WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF AN INFERENCE. IT'S EVIDENCE, WHICH BY ITSELF, IF FOUND TO BE TRUE, ESTABLISHES THAT FACT.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE, IF FOUND TO BE TRUE, PROVES A FACT FROM WHICH AN INFERENCE OF EXISTENCE OF ANOTHER FACT MAY BE DRAWN. AN INFERENCE IS A DEDUCTION OF FACT THAT MAY LOGICALLY AND REASONABLY BE DRAWN FROM ANOTHER FACT OR GROUP OF FACTS ESTABLISHED BY THE EVIDENCE.

IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT FACTS BE PROVED BY DIRECT EVIDENCE. THEY MAY BE PROVED ALSO BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OR BY A COMBINATION OF DIRECT EVIDENCE AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

BOTH DIRECT EVIDENCE AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ARE ACCEPTABLE AS A MEANS OF PROOF. NEITHER IS ENTITLED TO ANY GREATER WEIGHT THAN THE OTHER.

HOWEVER, A FINDING OF GUILT AS TO ANY CRIME MAY NOT BE BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE UNLESS THE PROVED CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT ONLY, ONE, CONSISTENT WITH THE THEORY THAT THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME, BUT, TWO, CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH ANY OTHER RATIONAL CONCLUSION.

FURTHER, EACH FACT WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO COMPLETE A SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. IN OTHER WORDS, BEFORE AN INFERENCE ESSENTIAL TO ESTABLISH GUILT MAY BE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, EACH FACT OR CIRCUMSTANCE UPON WHICH SUCH INFERENCE NECESSARILY RESTS MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

ALSO, IF THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS TO ANY PARTICULAR COUNT IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF TWO REASONABLE INTERPRETATIONS, ONE OF WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT AND THE OTHER TO HIS INNOCENCE, YOU MUST ADOPT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S INNOCENCE AND REJECT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO HIS GUILT.

IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, ONE INTERPRETATION OF SUCH EVIDENCE APPEARS TO YOU TO BE REASONABLE AND THE OTHER INTERPRETATION TO BE UNREASONABLE, YOU MUST ACCEPT THE REASONABLE INTERPRETATION AND REJECT THE UNREASONABLE.

[...]

YOU MUST NOT BE INFLUENCED BY PITY FOR A DEFENDANT OR BY PREJUDICE AGAINST HIM. YOU MUST NOT BE BIASED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN ARRESTED FOR THIS OFFENSE, CHARGED WITH A CRIME OR BROUGHT TO TRIAL. NONE OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IS EVIDENCE OF GUILT AND YOU MUST NOT INFER OR ASSUME FROM ANY OR ALL OF THEM THAT HE IS MORE LIKELY TO BE GUILTY THAN INNOCENT.

YOU MUST NOT BE INFLUENCED BY MERE SENTIMENT, CONJECTURE, SYMPATHY, PASSION, PREJUDICE, PUBLIC OPINION OR PUBLIC FEELING. BOTH THE PROSECUTION AND THE DEFENDANT HAVE A RIGHT TO EXPECT THAT YOU WILL CONSCIENTIOUSLY CONSIDER AND WEIGH THE EVIDENCE, APPLY THE LAW AND REACH A JUST VERDICT REGARDLESS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

YOU MUST DECIDE THIS CASE SOLELY UPON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED HERE IN THE COURTROOM.

Your mission impossible, which you chose to accept, was to prove that the O.J. Simpson jury had sufficient evidence before it to return a verdict of guilty.

Well, let's see:

-- She was married to OJ when she bought the gloves.
-- The gloves she purchased were a size XL. (OJ wore a size XL.)
-- They were of a fine leather, cashmere-lined, and expensive. Something a celebrity like OJ would wear.
-- OJ was pictured wearing gloves that sure did look like the ones she purchased.
-- One glove, identical to the glove she purchased, was found at the crime scene.
-- The matching glove was found at OJ's house.
-- The original gloves Nicole purchased were never produced at trial as a defense exhibit.

Now, based on the totality of that evidence, isn't it reasonable to assume those gloves were given to, and worn, by OJ?

Of course, you do not cite any evidence before the jury in the criminal trial. Your laundry list is not evidence, and is directly contradicted by actual evidence adduced at the trial.

-- She was married to OJ when she bought the gloves.

There is no evidence adduced at the criminal trial that Nicole bought the gloves. It was impossible for the prosecution to establish when the gloves in evidence were purchased, or by whom.

Bloomingdale's expert Brenda Vemich testified that there was no way for her to tell that the gloves in evidence were purchased during the Bloomingdale's transaction for which a receipt was found. There was no evidence before the jury as to when, of even if, Nicole Simpson bought the gloves in evidence.

You are entitled to your opinion about the evidence adduced at the criminal trial. You are not entitled to your own imaginary evidence.

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?

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.

- - - - - - - - - -

-- The gloves she purchased were a size XL. (OJ wore a size XL.)

There is a receipt for the purchase of gloves. There is no evidence whether they were black or brown, or what size they were, and there is expert testimony that it was impossible to tell that the gloves in evidence were purchased during the Bloomingdale's transaction for which a receipt was found. You assume to have determined, of your own expertise, what the Bloomingdale's expert could not.

-- They were of a fine leather, cashmere-lined, and expensive. Something a celebrity like OJ would wear.

It is vague as to what they refers to. It could refer to the gloves on the Blomingdale's receipt, or it could refer to the gloves in evidence.

The prosecution at the criminal trial was unable to establish they were one and the same, and their expert witness testified that it was impossible to tell that the gloves in evidence were purchased during the Bloomingdale's transaction for which a receipt was found.

Neither the receipt gloves, nor the evidence gloves, were ever proven to have been owned or worn by O.J. Simpson.

OJ was pictured wearing gloves that sure did look like the ones she purchased.

Proving nothing. Not even the Aris expert could identify any of the gloves in the photographs as Aris gloves. Most of the gloves in the photographs were black, and the evidence gloves were brown.

-- One glove, identical to the glove she purchased, was found at the crime scene.

There was no such evidence was produced at trial. The two pairs of gloves purchased by Nicole Simpson could have been black, as established by the expert testimony.

The expert testimony was that the receipt did not indicate the size or color of the gloves purchased, and there was no way to tell that the gloves in evidence were purchased during the Bloomingdale's transaction for which a receipt was found.

-- The matching glove was found at OJ's house.

The glove found at Rockingham matched the glove found at Bundy.

Neither evidence glove was shown to match whatever gloves of unknown size and color were purchased at Bloomingdale's.

Neither evidence glove was shown to have been owned or worn by O.J. Simpson.

-- The original gloves Nicole purchased were never produced at trial as a defense exhibit.

Irrelevant.

The gloves purchased by Nicole were never established as being any particular size or color, and the Bloomingdale's expert testified there was no way to tell that the gloves in evidence were purchased during the Bloomingdale's transaction for which a receipt was found.

It was not established at trial that O.J. Simpson ever owned or wore the gloves in evidence.

The defense is not required to put on any case whatever. When the prosecution rests, the defense can simply say, "The defense rests."

Any failure to produce evidence falls directly on the prosecution. There is no obligation for the defense to do anything but show up. The defense can stand mute and offer no evidence and no testimony and no negative inference can be drawn from that. It's that dreaded Fifth Amendment thingee at work.

Now, based on the totality of that evidence, isn't it reasonable to assume those gloves were given to, and worn, by OJ?

Based on your presentation of a fantastical laundry list, it is reasonable to assume that you either do not know what evidence is, or have none to offer and don't care.

It is reasonable to believe O.J. owned the gloves. It is reasonable to believe it has not been proven who owned the gloves.

It is unreasonable for a juror to assume guilt of a crime based on an unproved assumption.

Oh, sure. It IS possible that Nicole bought those gloves for some unknown boyfriend ... who also wore a size XL.

As Judge Ito instructed the jury:

IF THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS TO ANY PARTICULAR COUNT IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF TWO REASONABLE INTERPRETATIONS, ONE OF WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT AND THE OTHER TO HIS INNOCENCE, YOU MUST ADOPT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S INNOCENCE AND REJECT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO HIS GUILT.

The size, color, and date of purchase of the purchased gloves is unknown.

And that the real killer coincidentally wore a size XL and shopped at the same store Nicole did and had a taste for rare expensive gloves to wear to a murder.

A pair of XL gloves were used by the killer. There was no evidence brought forth that they were purchased in Bloomingdale's in NYC. No evidence was brought forth that they were bought by Nicole Simpson, or when they were bought. There was no evidence brought forth that they were owned or worn by O.J. Simpson.

And that the glove at OJ's house was planted by someone who knew that OJ wore a size XL and didn't have an alibi.

There was no need for Det. Fuhrman to know that O.J. wore an XL glove.

There was no need for Det. Fuhrman to know that O.J. didn't have an alibi.

It only required for Det. Fuhrman to assume that O.J. Simpson was the killer, and for Det. Fuhrman to be motivated to create probable cause to search his residence. If it turned out that O.J. Simpson was in Chicago gladhanding for Hertz, that does not incriminate Det. Fuhrman. It would just mean only Det. Fuihrman would know how the glove got there. If Fuhrman had not "found" the glove, but had waited for someone else, perhaps Vanatter, to find the glove, would that mean Det. Vanatter planted it, because O.J. had an alibi?

The evidence for planting is the blood evidence in the Bronco seen with xray vision, and the testimony of Det. Fuhrman.

At the criminal trial, Detective Mark Fuhrman observed the Rockingham glove was moist and sticky; it had a glean or glisten to it.

And Det. Fuhrman's false testimony about the time of the photograph depicting him pointing to the Bundy glove.

That was the evidence before the jury. A reasonable theory for why the glove was moist and sticky, and appeared to have a glean or glisten to it, is that it was in a plastic bag being carried around by Det. Fuhrman, rather than in the open air on a warm June night and morning in Los Angeles.

This theory is consistent with O.J. Simpson, or anyone else, leaving two gloves at Bundy.

The theory that it was O.J. Simpson who transported the glove in the Bronco is inconsistent with the blood in the Bronco. There was not enough of it.

[4141]

Q: OKAY. AND SO DO THESE -- ARE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS -- ARE ANY OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS THE ONES THAT WERE TAKEN AT YOUR DIRECTION WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHER AT

[4142]

ROCKINGHAM? AND WHEN I SAY "THESE," I'M REFERRING TO PEOPLE'S 116?

A: I'M NOT SURE -- I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAD ANY NUMBERS AT THAT TIME.

Q: UH-HUH. AND PHOTOGRAPH E, WHERE THERE IS NO NUMBER THEN, MIGHT THAT BE ONE OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN AT YOUR DIRECTION BY MR. ROKAHR?

A: YES.

[...]

Q: AFTER HE TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS, WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: WE RETURNED TO THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE.

Q: OKAY. NOW, WHEN YOU POINTED THE GLOVE OUT TO MR. ROKAHR FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS, DID YOU POINT OUT ASPECTS OF THE GLOVE THAT YOU WANTED HIM TO TAKE NOTE OF IN PHOTOGRAPHS?

A: NO. I BELIEVE I JUST WANTED PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE GLOVE. I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANYTHING WE COULD DEPICT THAT WE WOULD NEED PHOTOS OF FROM ANY ANGLE.

Q: YOU DESCRIBED EARLIER THAT THE -- THAT YOU NOTICED IT TO BE -- THE GLOVE TO BE MOIST AND STICKY. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: THAT IS THE WAY IT APPEARED, YES.

Q: DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER ANY FINGERS WERE STUCK TOGETHER?

A: I DO RECALL THAT THERE WAS ONE FINGER THAT WAS STUCK TO ONE PART OF THE GLOVE.

Detective Mark Fuhrman

[4284]

Q: WHAT DID YOU SAY?

A: I SAID, "IT LOOKS LIKE IT COULD BE SIMILAR TO THE ONE ON BUNDY."

Q: YOU HAVE TOLD US A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU NOTICED ABOUT THE GLOVE WAS THAT IT WAS MOIST AND STICKY, CORRECT?

A: YES, YES.

Q: AND DID YOU POINT THAT OUT TO DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, THAT NOT ONLY DID IT LOOK LIKE THE GLOVE FROM BUNDY, BUT THAT IT APPEARED TO HAVE A SUBSTANCE ON IT MAKING IT STICKY WHICH COULD WELL HAVE BEEN BLOOD?

A: I'M NOT SURE IF I DID OR IF I DIDN'T.

Q: BUT IT HAD BEEN THROUGH YOUR MIND, HADN'T IT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE STICKY PART I TAKE IT YOU OBSERVED WHEN YOU TOOK THAT LITTLE TINY FLASHLIGHT OF YOURS AND SHINED IT ON THE GLOVE AND SAW SOMETHING OF A SHINY NATURE, AS OPPOSED TO A CAKED OR DRY SURFACE?

A: IT APPEARED THAT IT HAD SOMEWHAT OF A GLEAN OR A GLISTEN TO IT.

- - - - - - - - - -

And that OJ threw away the gloves given to him by Nicole.

There is no evidence that O.J. threw away any gloves given to him by Nicole. It is pure speculation. There is no evidence of record that O.J. Simpson either owned or threw away any Aris glove, or any other glove. Regarding the gloves purchased by Nicole, there is no evidence of record that either or both were either brown or any other color, and there is no evidence of the size. There is nothing in any theory of the case that requires that O.J. threw away gloves.

Yes. I will grant you that all of this is possible. But which scenario is reasonable?

According to the prosecution timeline, the gloves would have had to be out in the open air for over seven (7) hours without drying out. That is unreasonable.

According to the prosecution timeline, O.J. had to nearly sever the head of Nicole, engage in a struggle with Ron Goldman and knife him to death, and several minutes later arrive at Rockingham in the Bronco, jump the fence, drop the Rockingham glove, and shortly after 11 p.m. leave to catch a scheduled flight to Chicago.

This theory is not reasonable. The killer cut both carotid arteries of Nicole from the front. He had to sustain a shower of blood. Then the killer had to sustain more blood from Ron Goldman, almost immediately hop in the Bronco, and not leave the Bronco a mess of blood stains.

The prosecution ran into severe problems with their timeline trying to show that it was possible for O.J. Simpson, as the killer, to have arrived at Bundy at 10:40 or 10:45 as the prosecution argued throughout the trial. The defense had destroyed that timeline with ear- and eye-witness testimony. Marcia Clark argued in closing that the thumps occurred at 10:52 p.m.

That was a valiant effort to salvage a destroyed timeline. It is unreasonable in terms of how O.J. Simpson cleaned up. It eliminates any possibility that he cleaned up at all at Rockingham. He certainly did not clean up in the Bronco. The killer had to be a bloody mess at Bundy. He cleaned up before leaving Bundy and left no evidence of doing so anywhere? The prosecution offers no explanation for where the blood on the killer disappeared to, if it was O.J. Simpson.

The killer was covered in an ocean of blood. Could he have gone anywhere at the Bundy residence without leaving a trail of blood? Where and when did he do the cleanup before getting in the Bronco.

A parade of defense witnesses testified about being at or near the Bundy residence after 10:15. Francesca Harmon was there at 10:20 and saw and heard nothing. Ellen Aaronson and Dan Mandel left Mezzaluna and walked directly past the walkway at Nicole's Bundy residence at about 10:25. They saw no blood, they heard no barking dogs. A photo by police photographer Rolf Rokahr showing what could have been seen had the murders already occurred. Nicole's body was in plain view. Also, blood flowed down the walkway, Bloody paw prints went southbound on Bundy. Denise Pilnak lived across the street. A guest, Judy Telander left Pilnak's house at about 10:24 and Pilnak that it was very quiet. Pilnak said she called her mother as soon as she went back inside. Her phone records placed the call at 10:25. She said the quiet continued for at least another 10 minutes, or until about 10:35 p.m. Robert Heidstra was out walking his dogs. Just like Denise Pilnak, he recall the barking starting at 10:35 p.m. While in the alleyway, east of 875 South Bundy, he hears a voice yell, "Hey, hey, hey," and then heard a gate slam. He then, about 10:40 or 10:45, he saw a white vehicle he described as a van or a jeep.

The prosecution knew of, but did not call these witnesses.

Kato Kaelin had testified the thumps were at about 10:40 to 10:45. By the time the defense got done with the timeline, the prosecution needed to perform emergency emergency resuscitation their timeline. The killer could not leave Bundy and thump on Kato's wall at the same time. Det. Vanatter did a test drive to measure the time needed to get from Nicole's to O.J.'s place. It was six (6) minutes.

If the murders happened at 10:35, and the struggle took about five (5) minutes, the killer left around 10:40 or later, agreeing with the 10:40 to 10:45 sighting of a white van or jeep. If the killer was O.J., and he jumped in the Bronco as a bloody mess, he would barely make it within the timeline. However, he is left with no time to clean up, he is a bloody mess in the Bronco, he is a blody mess at Rockingham, and he is a bloody mess on the way to Chicago. Remember that they checked the drains at Rockingham for blood. None was found.

The first mention of 10:52 was in the testimony of limo driver Allan Park on January 24, 1995.

IN THE MEANTIME, JUST BEFORE KATO CAME OUT ONTO THE SIDE YARD, ALLAN PARK WAS STANDING AT THE ASHFORD GATE RINGING THE BUZZER, STILL GETTING NO ANSWER. FINALLY HE HEARD THE CAR PHONE RINGING INSIDE HIS CAR AND IT WAS 10:52. HE HAD STILL RECEIVED NO ANSWER TO THE BUZZING AT THE ASHFORD GATE, GOT BACK INTO THE CAR AND SPOKE TO HIS BOSS, TELLING HIS BOSS "I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS HOME. WHAT SHALL I DO?" HIS BOSS TOLD HIM TO WAIT A LITTLE LONGER. AND WHEN HE HAD BEEN SPEAKING TO HIS BOSS FOR THREE MINUTES HE SAW KATO COMING OUT THE SIDE YARD WITH HIS LITTLE FLASHLIGHT. ALMOST SIMULTANEOUSLY SEEING KATO IN THE SIDE YARD, HE SAW A PERSON SIX FOOT TALL, 200 POUNDS, WEARING ALL DARK CLOTHING, AFRICAN AMERICAN, WALK QUICKLY UP THE DRIVEWAY AND INTO [T]HE FRONT DOOR ENTRANCE. IMMEDIATELY AS THAT PERSON ENTERED THE HOUSE THE DOWNSTAIRS LIGHTS WENT ON.

Allan Park heard his phone ring at 10:52. That is fixed by phone records. He testifies that aftger he talked to his boss for three (3) minutes, he saw Kato with his flashlight. Arithmetic suggests that time was 10:55. Nearly at the same time, but after seeing Kato, Allan Park noticed a man, presumably O.J. Simpson proceed up the walkway and enter the house. That would be about 10:55 or 10:56.

In Marcia Clark's closing argument, based on this, she placed the thumps at 10:52 and the sighting of Kato Kaelin at 10:54, and the sighting of O.J. Simpson at 10:54. With Marcia Clark, 10:52 plus :03, plus a little more is 10:54. The timeline had to be adjusted later to make it physically possible for O.J. to get there. And it had to be adjusted earlier than the Allan Park testimony and phone records would indicate, to make it physically possible for O.J. to bring out all his bags and get in the limo and be on his way shortly after 11:00.

So, right after thumps, Kato comes out with his flashlight. At the same time, presumably O.J. is observed walking up the driveway and entering the front door. Where is the trail of blood? When did he have an opportunity to get rid of all the blood and leave no trace of doing so? And how did he take the drive in the Bronco and leave only seven-tenths (7/10) of one drop of blood on the console? There was a speck of something that may have been blood outside near the door handle.

Was O.J. chipping golfballs before he walked up and entered the house?

Or did he kill two people at Bundy, nearly beheading one of them from the front while cutting both carotid arteries, then almost immediately jump in the Bronco which was mistaken for a van or a jeep, rush to Rockingham, jump the fence because opening the gate would have been too easy for his arthritic self, bang on Kato's wall, and then walk up to the house, and depart minutes later, without leaving a massive trail of blood?

The prosecution theory of the case, and it's timeline, are broken. It's a dog that just won't hunt. The emergency repair, adjusting the time of the thumps to 10:52 in closing argument, really does not work.

[Marcia Clark, Opening Statement, January 25, 1995]

THINK I CAN GUARANTEE THAT. WITH RESPECT TO THE TIMING, THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH, 1994, THE DEFENDANT HAD AN HOUR AND 10 MINUTES OF TIME IN WHICH HIS WHEREABOUTS ARE UNACCOUNTED FOR. AND WE WILL SHOW THAT IT WAS DURING THAT HOUR AND 10 MINUTES THAT THE MURDERS WERE COMMITTED. AND SO THE EVIDENCE WILL PROVE THAT KATO LAST SAW THE DEFENDANT ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH AT 9:35 AT THE LATEST, HE DID NOT SEE THE DEFENDANT AGAIN UNTIL 10 -- EXCUSE ME -- AFTER 11:00 O'CLOCK. IN BETWEEN THOSE TWO TIMES, AT 10:15, A DOG IS HEARD BARKING THAT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW WAS NICOLE'S DOG, WHICH FIXES THE TIME AT WHICH THE MURDER OCCURRED. AT 10:45, KATO HEARD THUMPS ON HIS WALL. AND SHORTLY AFTER 11:00, HE SAW THE DEFENDANT. AN HOUR AND 10 MINUTES DURING WHICH THE MURDER OCCURRED -- MURDERS OCCURRED IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT'S WHEREABOUTS ARE UNACCOUNTED FOR. I'LL COME BACK TO THAT POINT.

[Marcia Clark Closing Argument, 26 Sep 1995]

Now, let go back to Kato for a moment. Let's--concerning those thumps and when they happened. Kato said that he hung up from his call with Rachel pretty quickly after he heard the thumping. He estimated for you two to three minutes. Now, with Allan's cell phone call bill we can be very, very precise when that was. He indicated that he went out to investigate the noises, hung up with Rachel, went out to investigate two to three minutes after he heard the thumping. Allan told you he saw Kato and the Defendant at--I'm saying he is the Defendant. He said the man that looked like the Defendant. You understand I'm talking about what we know based on all of the evidence, that it was him. 10:54 he saw Kato approximately, because it was at the same time he saw the Defendant. And he hung up thirty seconds after seeing him walk in the house and after seeing Kato on the side yard, so at 10:54 Kato was out in the side yard. Hearing the thumping noises two to three minutes before, that means that he heard the thumping on his wall at 10:51 to 10:52. So what we have, about two minutes after the thumping, the Defendant was walking up--was walking into his house from the driveway and Kato out in the side yard. In other words, we have the thumping, and Kato walking out and the Defendant walking around at the same time and the thumping happened very shortly, what is it, within half an hour of the murders. And the Defense would have you believe, ladies and gentlemen, that the Defendant's appearance on the driveway just two minutes after the thumping on Kato's wall is a coincidence and the Defense would have you believe that the thumping and the appearance of that glove, the Defendant's glove, were unrelated events. And the thumps themselves, just think about that. Regardless of where or how they happened, just the fact that they happened shortly after the murders at the Defendant's house and just before the Defendant walked up his driveway in dark clothing, like the dark blue or black sweat outfit that Kato described, you just put those facts together and you realize what has happened. The Defendant came back from Bundy in a hurry. Ron Goldman upset his plans and things took a little longer than anticipated. He ran back behind the house, that dark narrow south pathway--you all saw it. You were there in daytime. But imagine how dark it is at night--that dark, narrow south pathway thinking he could get rid of the glove, the knife, in that dirt area in the back. You recall back behind the guest houses there is a dirt area, just all dirt, not very well tended, but he was in a hurry. He was moving quickly down a dark narrow pathway overhung with trees, strewn with leaves, and in his haste he ran right into that air conditioner that was hanging over that south pathway and running into that air conditioner caused him to fall against the wall, making the wall of Kato's room shake. You recall that air conditioner. It was hanging low. You had to stoop to get down under it. And if you are in a hurry and you are not looking where you are going in that dark, narrow pathway, you can see how it can easily happen how someone in a hurry can do that. And it was just as simple as that. Simple common sense tells you that the thumping, the glove and the Defendant's appearance on the driveway almost immediately thereafter are all part of one set of events, all connected in time and space. You don't need science to tell you that; you just need reason and logic.

[Johnnie Cochran, Closing argument, September 27, 1995)

I said earlier that Mr. Darden did a good job in his argument, but one thing he tended to trip over and stumble over was when he started to talk about our case. He doesn't know our case like we know our case. It was interesting, wasn't it, because first he stood up and started talking about the time line being at 10:15. Then he said, well, they didn't prove anything, but, "Golly, well, it may have been as late as 10:30." That's interesting, isn't it? Never heard that before. You look back and see what Miss Clark promised you a year ago. 10:15. 10:15 was all they talked about, and they were going to use, because of the incompetence of this investigation, the wail of a dog. So that's what we've been relegated to in this case because of this very, very important investigation.

But having said the Defense doesn't have to prove anything in this case, we did in fact. So Mr. Darden can talk all he wanted to about his theories about motive. They're just that, his speculative theories about motive. But when it came down to the end, he wasn't talking about motive, was he? He was trying to talk about our time line. Why would he do that? Let's talk about why he would. Because the Defense in this case called many witnesses who corroborated each other and who shattered the Prosecution's time line. Now, these are witnesses to a person who were known by the Prosecution, but discarded by the Prosecution. Why? Because they didn't fit their tortured, narrow window of opportunity. So when you invisualize for me that jig-saw puzzle where they want to reduce this case down to a jig-saw puzzle, the part that deals with opportunity is the time line. And we're going to start off with that because in a search for truth, let's look for the truth. Not some contorted, twisted truth, but the real truth, the facts that you heard during the course of this particular case. We think after you look at this time line for the Defense, you will agree with our earlier analysis. This is a case about a rush to judgment, a case where there's been obsession to win at all costs, and in the words of Dr. Henry Lee, something is wrong with the Prosecution's case.

"And yet, the Rockingham glove was moist and sticky, and had a glean or glisten to it."

No. He testified that it looked moist and sticky.

"12 leaves. This glove was not dirty in the least. It
13 looked a little sticky and moist."

Your mission impossible, which you chose to accept, was to prove that the O.J. Simpson jury had sufficient evidence before it to return a verdict of guilty.

You are quoting testimony from the 1994 Preliminary Hearing, explicitly flagged as such by me, and not testimony from the trial.

Detective Mark Fuhrman at the Preliminary Hearing, July 5, 1994, the year before the O.J. Trial, which I offer only for the purpose of showing that the prosecution was stuck with this story. At 0054:

03 Q When you saw that glove, did it have some
04 significance to you?
05 A Yes. It looked very similar to the glove
06 that I observed on Bundy hours before.
07 Q And based on that observation, sir, what did
08 you do?
09 A I looked at it a little closer. I noted that
10 it did not match the terrain.
11 As you can see, there's a lot of dirt and
12 leaves. This glove was not dirty in the least. It
13 looked a little sticky and moist. Two fingers were
14 stuck to the glove. It looked like it was stuck there
15 with some type of a liquid.

I know you like all the "evidence" that was never evidence at the criminal trial, but none of that could have been considered by the jury at the criminal trial. There was a reason that I flagged this and emphasized this as being from the 1994 Preliminary Hearing the year before the trial. It was not evidence before the jury at the criminal trial. In the testimony at the criminal trial, Det. Fuhrman was asked about his testimony at the 1994 Preliminary Hearing. I provided the relevant excerpt from his 1994 Preliminary Hearing just to show why the prosecution at the criminal trial could not ignore the topic or claim the glove was dry.

You may not like what Det. Fuhrman testified to at the criminal trial, but I provided it and flagged it as the testimony from the 1995 criminal trial.

At the criminal trial, Detective Mark Fuhrman observed the Rockingham glove was moist and sticky; it had a glean or glisten to it.

[4141]

Q: OKAY. AND SO DO THESE -- ARE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS -- ARE ANY OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS THE ONES THAT WERE TAKEN AT YOUR DIRECTION WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHER AT

[4142]

ROCKINGHAM? AND WHEN I SAY "THESE," I'M REFERRING TO PEOPLE'S 116?

A: I'M NOT SURE -- I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAD ANY NUMBERS AT THAT TIME.

Q: UH-HUH. AND PHOTOGRAPH E, WHERE THERE IS NO NUMBER THEN, MIGHT THAT BE ONE OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN AT YOUR DIRECTION BY MR. ROKAHR?

A: YES.

[...]

Q: AFTER HE TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS, WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: WE RETURNED TO THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE.

Q: OKAY. NOW, WHEN YOU POINTED THE GLOVE OUT TO MR. ROKAHR FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS, DID YOU POINT OUT ASPECTS OF THE GLOVE THAT YOU WANTED HIM TO TAKE NOTE OF IN PHOTOGRAPHS?

A: NO. I BELIEVE I JUST WANTED PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE GLOVE. I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANYTHING WE COULD DEPICT THAT WE WOULD NEED PHOTOS OF FROM ANY ANGLE.

Q: YOU DESCRIBED EARLIER THAT THE -- THAT YOU NOTICED IT TO BE -- THE GLOVE TO BE MOIST AND STICKY. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: THAT IS THE WAY IT APPEARED, YES.

Q: DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER ANY FINGERS WERE STUCK TOGETHER?

A: I DO RECALL THAT THERE WAS ONE FINGER THAT WAS STUCK TO ONE PART OF THE GLOVE.

Detective Mark Fuhrman

[4284]

Q: WHAT DID YOU SAY?

A: I SAID, "IT LOOKS LIKE IT COULD BE SIMILAR TO THE ONE ON BUNDY."

Q: YOU HAVE TOLD US A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU NOTICED ABOUT THE GLOVE WAS THAT IT WAS MOIST AND STICKY, CORRECT?

A: YES, YES.

Q: AND DID YOU POINT THAT OUT TO DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, THAT NOT ONLY DID IT LOOK LIKE THE GLOVE FROM BUNDY, BUT THAT IT APPEARED TO HAVE A SUBSTANCE ON IT MAKING IT STICKY WHICH COULD WELL HAVE BEEN BLOOD?

A: I'M NOT SURE IF I DID OR IF I DIDN'T.

Q: BUT IT HAD BEEN THROUGH YOUR MIND, HADN'T IT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE STICKY PART I TAKE IT YOU OBSERVED WHEN YOU TOOK THAT LITTLE TINY FLASHLIGHT OF YOURS AND SHINED IT ON THE GLOVE AND SAW SOMETHING OF A SHINY NATURE, AS OPPOSED TO A CAKED OR DRY SURFACE?

A: IT APPEARED THAT IT HAD SOMEWHAT OF A GLEAN OR A GLISTEN TO IT.

You are now back at square one. FROM THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE JURY AT THE CRIMINAL TRIAL, how do you explain how the glove sat outside in the warm Los Angeles summer air in June for over seven (7) hours, without drying out, and was moist and sticky with somewhat of a glean or a glisten to it?

An air conditioner removes heat and humidity from a house and blows it outside. I would imagine it was pretty humid under the air conditioner where the glove was found -- slowing the drying process.

Where, in your reading of the transcripts, did you find the expert testimonial evidence to support this statement? Or any expert or non-expert trial evidence that the air conditioner slowed the drying process?

There is no such testimonial evidence, therefore this is nothing. The jury could not reach a verdict of guilty based on the ruminations of misterwhite or anyone else who did not appear in court and testify. For this flyer, you would need to have an expert witness.

Judge Ito,

EVIDENCE CONSISTS OF THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES, WRITINGS, MATERIAL OBJECTS OR ANYTHING PRESENTED TO THE SENSES AND OFFERED TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF A FACT.

EVIDENCE IS EITHER DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL. DIRECT EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE THAT DIRECTLY PROVES A FACT WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF AN INFERENCE. IT'S EVIDENCE, WHICH BY ITSELF, IF FOUND TO BE TRUE, ESTABLISHES THAT FACT.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE, IF FOUND TO BE TRUE, PROVES A FACT FROM WHICH AN INFERENCE OF EXISTENCE OF ANOTHER FACT MAY BE DRAWN. AN INFERENCE IS A DEDUCTION OF FACT THAT MAY LOGICALLY AND REASONABLY BE DRAWN FROM ANOTHER FACT OR GROUP OF FACTS ESTABLISHED BY THE EVIDENCE.

[...]

YOU MUST DECIDE THIS CASE SOLELY UPON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED HERE IN THE COURTROOM.

Your mission impossible, which you chose to accept, was to prove that the O.J. Simpson jury had sufficient evidence before it to return a verdict of guilty. You are arguing the affirmative on that proposition, supposedly.

Judge Ito, instruction to the jury,

HOWEVER, A FINDING OF GUILT AS TO ANY CRIME MAY NOT BE BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE UNLESS THE PROVED CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT ONLY, ONE, CONSISTENT WITH THE THEORY THAT THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME, BUT, TWO, CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH ANY OTHER RATIONAL CONCLUSION.

FURTHER, EACH FACT WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO COMPLETE A SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. IN OTHER WORDS, BEFORE AN INFERENCE ESSENTIAL TO ESTABLISH GUILT MAY BE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, EACH FACT OR CIRCUMSTANCE UPON WHICH SUCH INFERENCE NECESSARILY RESTS MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

ALSO, IF THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS TO ANY PARTICULAR COUNT IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF TWO REASONABLE INTERPRETATIONS, ONE OF WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT AND THE OTHER TO HIS INNOCENCE, YOU MUST ADOPT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S INNOCENCE AND REJECT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO HIS GUILT.

Only the prosecution is tasked with presenting evidence. With circumstantial evidence, any rational explanation by the defense that leads to innocence must be accepted by the jury.

You have not presented a whisper of the phantom "other glove evidence presented to the jury which, taken together with Rubin's testimony, is consistent and damning."

That can be found in my post #231.

You provided zero evidence at your #231. Not even a whisper of a phantom hint of evidence. You produced your laundry list of crap which I have clearly demonstrated, point by point, with transcription evidence, was directly contrary to the evidence adduced at the criminal trial.

Judge Ito explained what was evidence for the criminal trial jury:

YOU MUST DECIDE ALL QUESTIONS OF FACT IN THIS CASE FROM THE EVIDENCE RECEIVED IN THIS TRIAL AND NOT FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE.

[...]

EVIDENCE CONSISTS OF THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES, WRITINGS, MATERIAL OBJECTS OR ANYTHING PRESENTED TO THE SENSES AND OFFERED TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF A FACT.

EVIDENCE IS EITHER DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL. DIRECT EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE THAT DIRECTLY PROVES A FACT WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF AN INFERENCE. IT'S EVIDENCE, WHICH BY ITSELF, IF FOUND TO BE TRUE, ESTABLISHES THAT FACT.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE, IF FOUND TO BE TRUE, PROVES A FACT FROM WHICH AN INFERENCE OF EXISTENCE OF ANOTHER FACT MAY BE DRAWN. AN INFERENCE IS A DEDUCTION OF FACT THAT MAY LOGICALLY AND REASONABLY BE DRAWN FROM ANOTHER FACT OR GROUP OF FACTS ESTABLISHED BY THE EVIDENCE.

This crap is not evidence:

Well, let's see:

-- She was married to OJ when she bought the gloves.
-- The gloves she purchased were a size XL. (OJ wore a size XL.)
-- They were of a fine leather, cashmere-lined, and expensive. Something a celebrity like OJ would wear.
-- OJ was pictured wearing gloves that sure did look like the ones she purchased.
-- One glove, identical to the glove she purchased, was found at the crime scene.
-- The matching glove was found at OJ's house.
-- The original gloves Nicole purchased were never produced at trial as a defense exhibit.

Now, based on the totality of that evidence, isn't it reasonable to assume those gloves were given to, and worn, by OJ?

This is evidence:

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?

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.

The criminal trial failed to show that the purchased gloves were XL or any other size, that they were brown or any other color, that they were the same as the gloves in evidence, or that O.J. Simpson ever owned or wore them.

The criminal trial failed to show that the purchased gloves were XL or any other size, that they were brown or any other color, that they were the same as the gloves in evidence, or that O.J. Simpson ever owned or wore them.

Nicole was married to OJ at the time she bought those gloves. Subsequent to that, OJ was pictured wearing gloves that looked identical to the gloves his wife purchased.

A glove, identical to the one Nicole purchased, was found at the crime scene, and it's mate was found on OJ's property. OJ never produced, as evidence for the defense, the gloves he was wearing in the photos -- - -- -- despite the fact that it would have absolutely destroyed the prosecution's case.

Now, you take all those facts together -- which I've really watered down -- and you tell me they don't point to OJ? As I said to you before, you think that all these little pickaninny doubts you've collected amount to reasonable doubt? Pfffft!

and was moist and sticky with somewhat of a glean or a glisten to it?

I believe he testified three times that it appeared moist and sticky. How could he possibly know it was moist and sticky unless he touched it? Which he didn't. Let it go. I am.

"Where, in your reading of the transcripts, did you find the expert testimonial evidence to support this statement? Or any expert or non-expert trial evidence that the air conditioner slowed the drying process?"

Where, in your reading of the transcripts, did you find the expert testimonial evidence to support your statement that the glove would have dried out in 7 hours and would no longer appear to be moist and sticky?