Big Rapids, MI — As constitutional rights are steadily eroded in the U.S. through the burgeoning police/surveillance state, one case in Michigan provides an example of just how dire the situation has gotten. Keith Woods, a resident of Mecosta County, was charged and recently convicted for the “crime” of standing on a public sidewalk and handing out fliers about juror rights.
Woods was exercising his First Amendment rights and raising awareness about something the courts deliberately fail to tell jurors when beginning a trial – jury nullification, or the right to vote one’s conscience. For this, Woods – a father of eight and former pastor – was charged with jury tampering, after an initial felony charge of obstructing justice was dropped following public outcry.
Even with the reduced charge, the case has very troubling implications for free speech rights. The county prosecutor, seemingly furious that a citizen would dare inform the public on jury nullification, said Woods’ pamphlet “is designed to benefit a criminal defendant.”
The prosecutor then seemed to contradict himself in a statement, saying, “Once again the pamphlet by itself, fine, people have views on what the law should be, that’s fine. It’s the manner by which this pamphlet was handed out.”
Woods, who testified in his own defense, stated under oath that he did not ask anyone walking into the courthouse if they were a juror, remained on the public sidewalk and never blocked any area. He decided to hand out the pamphlets at a Nov. 24, 2015 trial of an Amish man accused of draining a wetland on his property in violation of Dept. of Environment Quality rules.
Woods’ pamphlet did not contain anything specific to the case or any Michigan court, according to defense attorney David Kallman. But this innocuous behavior, which should be viewed as a public service, drew the attention of a judge who became “very concerned” when he saw the pamphlets being carried by some of the jury pool.
“I THOUGHT THIS WAS GOING TO TRASH MY JURY TRIAL, BASICALLY,” TESTIFIED JUDGE [PETER] JAKLEVIC. “IT JUST DIDN’T SOUND RIGHT.”
JACKLEVIC ENDED UP SENDING THAT JURY POOL HOME ON NOV. 24, 2015 WHEN YODER TOOK A PLEA.
JAKLEVIC CONTINUED TO TESTIFY THAT HE STEPPED INTO THE HALLWAY WITH MECOSTA COUNTY PROSECUTOR BRIAN THIEDE WHEN DET. ERLANDSON AND A DEPUTY BROUGHT WOOD INTO THE COURTHOUSE THAT DAY. MECOSTA COUNTY DEPUTY JEFF ROBERTS TESTIFIED HE “ASKED WOOD TO COME INSIDE BECAUSE THE JUDGE WANTED TO TALK WITH HIM,” THEN THREATENED TO CALL A CITY COP IF WOOD DID NOT COME INSIDE.
WOOD TESTIFIED JUDGE JAKLEVIC NEVER SPOKE TO HIM THAT DAY, OR HIM ANY QUESTIONS, BEFORE ORDERING HIS ARREST. HE TELLS FOX 17 HE HAD CONCERNS HIS CASE WAS TRIED IN MECOSTA COUNTY WHERE ALL OF THIS HAPPENED, INVOLVING SEVERAL COURT OFFICIALS INCLUDING THE JUDGE.”
To recap, this judge said “it just didn’t sound right” that people were carrying information pamphlets on their rights as jurors, and he possibly lied on the stand to justify the fact that he had Woods arrested for doing nothing wrong. What’s more, Woods was brought to trial in the same court where all of this transpired and county officials had literally teamed up to violate his rights in the first place.
“So our taxpayer dollars are paying their salary, and they were the actors in this case to arrest me, to imprison me, and all that,” said Woods. “I did have a very great concern that they were the ones trying the case, because they work together day in and day out.”
Defense attorney Kallman notes that during Woods’ trial, they were prohibited from arguing several points to the jury.
“And of course, the First Amendment issues are critical: that we believe our client had the absolute First Amendment right to hand out these brochures right here on this sidewalk,” said Kallman. “That’s part of the problem of where we feel we were handcuffed quite a bit.”
When asked how he felt about his First Amendment rights, Woods replied, “Oh, I don’t feel like I have them.”
We had briefs about the First Amendment, free speech. It was very clear today, I know the jury doesn’t hear that, but it was very clear that the government did not meet their burden to restrict my free speech on that public sidewalk that day. It was very clear.”
#224: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#221)
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
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-18 20:22:03 Reply Private Reply
#225: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#222)
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.
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.
- - - - - - - - - -
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.
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.
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-18 20:24:20 Reply Private Reply
#226: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#223)
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.
- - - - - - - - - -
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.
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.
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-18 20:25:11 Reply Private Reply
#227: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#226)
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.
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-19 09:12:07 Reply Private Reply
#228: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#227)
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.
- - - - - - - - - -
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.
- - - - - - - - - -
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.
- - - - - - - - - -
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.
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-19 23:20:04 Reply Private Reply
#229: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#227)
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:
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.
Lead Detective Phillip Vanatter admitted the information he included in his sworn statement to obtain a search warrant was false.
How Criminalist Fung was caught on videotape, Rockingham glove in hand, stepping over Ron Goldman's body.
The unexplained movement of the Bundy glove between photographs.
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:
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.
Detective Mark Fuhrman
Photographer Rokahr established that Detective Fuhrman's timeline was skewed by several hours.
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?
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-19 23:23:01 Reply Private Reply
#230: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#229)
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.
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-20 09:37:45 Reply Private Reply
#231: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#229)
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?
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-20 10:03:50 Reply Private Reply
#232: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#229)
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.
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-20 10:15:11 Reply Private Reply
#233: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#228)
That can be found in my post #231.
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-20 10:26:56 Reply Private Reply
#234: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#230)
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:
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-20 21:44:56 Reply Private Reply
#235: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#231)
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.
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.
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.
- - - - - - - - - -
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
As Judge Ito instructed the jury:
The size, color, and date of purchase of the purchased gloves is unknown.
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.
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.
Detective Mark Fuhrman
- - - - - - - - - -
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.
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.
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]
[Marcia Clark Closing Argument, 26 Sep 1995]
[Johnnie Cochran, Closing argument, September 27, 1995)
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-20 22:01:34 Reply Private Reply
#236: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#232)
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.
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.
Detective Mark Fuhrman
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?
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,
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,
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.
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-20 22:06:33 Reply Private Reply
#237: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#233)
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:
This crap is not evidence:
This is evidence:
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.
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-20 22:09:17 Reply Private Reply
#238: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#237)
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!
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-21 10:31:18 Reply Private Reply
#239: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#236)
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?
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-21 10:52:46 Reply Private Reply
#240: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#238)
Provide your source of knowledge of when the gloves worn by the killer were purchased?
The expert testimony, as I quoted, stated that it was impossible to say if the gloves in evidence were the gloves of the Bloomingdale's receipt.
Your claim of a photograph with O.J. wearing gloves that appear identical to the gloves in evidence is without foundation. The Aris glove expert stated he could not positively identify any glove in the photographs as an Aris glove.
What say you about the glove found in a chest of drawers in O.J.'s bedroom at Rockingham on 13 April 1995? What was he doing with a size Large glove?
- - - - - - - - - -
The expert testimony, which I quoted to you from a transcript, proves that your repeated attempts to claim the Bloomingdale's transaction involved the gloves of the killer, the gloves in evidence, is without foundation.
O.J. was under no obligation to produce evidence. The jury could not consider your negative inference as it would require a violation of the 5th Amendment of the Constitution.
What is very obvious is that you are unable to cite evidence produced at the trial to support your empty claims.
You have repeatedly served up empty claims and have demonstrated an inability to cite actual evidence at trial to back up said claims.
Evidence, real or imaginary, which points toward someone is decidedly not proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, of guilt.
[nolu chan #94] The evidence was not presented to sustain a conviction.
[misterwhite #97] They had 10X more than they needed.
Why do you not have 10x more evidence than you need?
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-23 06:18:02 Reply Private Reply
#241: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#239)
I believe that what you believe was not in evidence before the jury at the criminal trial. The actual testimony at the trial was evidence before the jury for them to consider.
Actually, you are making believe you are responding to my #236 wherein I quoted the testimony verbatim from a transcript.
On March 13, 1995:
On Direct, questions by Marcia Clark
On March 14, 1995:
On Cross, questions by Barry Scheck.
Det. Vanatter, 16 March 1995
Direct, questions by Christopher Darden,
Boldface added to text to indicate the point Christopher Darden was attemptig to make.
- - - - - - - - - -
Are you claiming he was a bumbling amateur?
Dr. Henry Lee, Questions by Hank Goldberg, 28 August 1995
- - - - - - - - - -
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 have made no attempt to show where any such proof was offered to the jury.
It is reasonable that something that dries "very rapidly" does not remain wet for seven (7) hours in the weather conditions that prevailed in Los Angeles on that night and early morning. It is sheer desperation to claim that the air conditioner for the guest house being used by Kato Kaelin significantly changed the atmospheric conditions outdoors on Simpson's estate. The prosecution did not attempt to make that particular argument, so the jury was deprived of its levity and could not consider it.
FBI Agent Bodziak, question by F. Lee Bailey, 19 June 1995
Prof. Herbert MacDonell, 31 July 1995
Dr. Henry Lee, Questions by Barry Scheck, 28 August 1995,
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-23 06:24:26 Reply Private Reply
#242: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#241)
Did anyone testify that the glove was bone dry at the scene? Did anyone testify that it was moist at the scene? Besides you, of course.
There's no evidence Fuhrman or anyone else planted that glove. None. Pure, desperate speculation. Fuhrman was a cop for 20 years. Don't you think he knew how long it takes for blood to dry?
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-23 10:40:30 Reply Private Reply
#243: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#240)
I was trying to be as generous as possible. I refrained from saying the gloves were identical.
"The expert testimony, as I quoted, stated that it was impossible to say if the gloves in evidence were the gloves of the Bloomingdale's receipt."
Again, in an attempt to be generous, I refrained from saying the gloves were the ones purchased at Bloomindales. Simply that they appeared to be the same. My point was that, taken together, it's clear these are all the same gloves.
"What say you about the glove found in a chest of drawers in O.J.'s bedroom at Rockingham on 13 April 1995? What was he doing with a size Large glove?"
Different brand. Different fit. You'd better hope that's the case because if OJ did indeed wear a size Large, then why didn't the Extra Large fit him at the trial? Was OJ faking it?
"O.J. was under no obligation to produce evidence."
True. But why wouldn't he in this case? It would have essentially destroyed the prosecutions case.
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-23 10:54:02 Reply Private Reply
#244: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#242)
Det. Fuhrman testified:
And Det. Vanatter testified:
And Dr. Henry Lee testified,
And, you try to maintain that does not mean the Rockingham glove was moist or sticky.
With the Bloomingdale's glove, based on expert testimony that it was impossible to say that the glove was black or brown, L or XL or any other size, with no evidence that O.J. Simpson ever owned or wore the Bloomingdals glove, you affirmatively conclude that Nicole Simpson was married to O.J. Simpson at the time it was bought.
You conclude that the photographs show O.J. wearing the killer's gloves where the expert testimony concluded that it was not possible to conclude that it was the same brand as the killer's glove, much less the same exact glove.
It is like Alice in Wonderland, the testimonial evidence means exactly what you want it to mean, neither more nor less.
I did not testify. I quote actual testimony and you post personal opinions.
Det. Fuhrman testified that it was moist and sticky.
And Det. Vanatter testified:
And Dr. Henry Lee testified,
And, you try to maintain that does not mean the Rockingham glove was moist or sticky.
There is affirmative evidence that it and the Bundy glove were a pair. There was affirmative evidence that they contained blood from the Bundy victims. There is evidence that someone transported the glove from Rockingham to Bundy after the murders. There is a lack of evidence that Simpson transported the glove. Such theory is especially troublesome to the prosecution timeline(s). The theory that Fuhrman transported the glove is reasonable. Any reasonable explanation leading to innocence must be adopted over a competing theory leading to guilt.
It is not proof by a preponderance of the evidence, it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that is required.
Fuhrman was a corrupt, racist cop. After F. Lee Bailey got done with him, he pleaded the 5th Amendment and was useless as a detective and left the LAPD.
He was notoriously exposed as a corrupt detective who lied on the witness stand in a murder trial.
Det. Fuhrman was not Einstein, he was a high school dropout with a GED.
Dr. Henry Lee is an internationally renowned expert. Dryness on blood evidence is determined by looking at the evidence, not touching it. Fuhrman looked at the glove.
Fuhrman testified,
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-23 23:04:24 Reply Private Reply
#245: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#243)
The gloves did not appear to be identical. That is not the testimony. The appearance was consistent with the evidence gloves, based on the observance with certain features, features that were also consistent with other gloves.
The result was that the expert testified that he could not state unequivocally that the photographed gloves were the same brand, Aris, as the killer's gloves in evidence. He testified that he could not even swear that they were the same brand.
The Bloomingdale's expert testified that it was impossible to tell, from the receipt, whether the gloves involved in that transaction were the gloves in evidence.
Just because something appears like something else is not proof that it is something else. You and the prosecution have presented insufficient evidence to justify a finding that the photographed gloves are, in fact, beyond a reasonable doubt, the killer's gloves in evidence. Appear to be is not a substitute for is.
In your argument about the Rockingham gloves, you attempt to maintain that Fuhrman testified:
And Vanatter testified:
And Dr. Henry Lee testified,
And, you try to maintain that does not mean the Rockingham glove was moist or sticky.
With the Bloomingdale's glove, based on expert testimony that it was impossible to say that the glove was black or brown, L or XL or any other size, you afformatively conclude that Nicole Simpson was married to O.J. Simpson at the time it was bought.
You conclude that the photographs show O.J. wearing the killer's gloves where the expert testimony concluded that it was not possible to conclude that it was the same brand as the killer's glove, much less the same exact glove.
It is like Alice in Wonderland, the testimonial evidence means exactly what you want it to mean, neither more nor less.
There is no testimony to affirmatively establish that these were a different brand or fit. Before Det. Luper left the scene, he replaced the glove in O.J.'s chest of drawers.
- - - - - - - - - -
Det. Luper's non-expert testimony about it being an Aris brand glove was, "I don't think so." That expresses uncertainty and will not support your assertion that it was a different brand. It is not proof that it either was or wasn't an Aris glove.
That glove was never in evidence. Det. Luper testified that after he discovered he had left it on the downstairs table, he took it upstairs and put it back where he found it. The only reason the people found out about that glove is that Det. Luper, after keeping the video in his desk for three or four months, allegedly took it to Parker Center and left it in a filing cabinet in the O.J. Simpson war room. In the last week of February 1995, Luper was informed he might have to testify about the search warrant. In March, Luper alleged went to Parker Center and found the tape. Alternatively, Det. Luper may have been informed of his need to testify and removed the tape from his desk, taken it to Parker Center, put it in a filing cabinet, and declared it found. He did not tell anybody about the existence of the tape until March 22 or 23, 1995.
- - - - - - - - - -
I do not have to hope anything. As you observe, the gloves in the Darden evidence demonstration fail of the century did not fit. Seeing this, the jury did acquit.
Because pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, Simpson had no duty to volunteer evidence, and it is forbidden to draw any negative inference for any such failure to volunteer evidence. A lawyer who argued your "point" would be subject to sanctions by the court.
The jury cannot support a verdict of guilt by a claim that Simpson, based on a unsupportable claim that Simpson had such evidence, and did not volunteer it. The defendant need not product either testimonial or physical evidence.
The prosecution had the sole responsibility to produce evidence proving Simpson's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Whether you believe Simpson did the crime, or whether you perceive real or imaginary evidence that was not presented to the jury is not the topic of dicsussion. It is whether the prosecution produced sufficient evidence for the jury to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and reach a verdict of guilty. You said, at #97, "[t]hey had 10x more than they needed." If the jury had it, you seem to be having trouble finding it, substituting your personal beliefs for evidence not actually presented, frequently in direct conflict with evidence actually presented.
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-23 23:09:05 Reply Private Reply
#246: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#245)
Are you setting a new prosecutorial standard? The government doesn't have to prove "is". They only have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
I summarized the glove evidence in my post #231. Add it all up and it's reasonable to conclude these are all the same gloves. To conclude anything else, you'd have to unreasonably speculate that evidence was planted (no proof), that DNA flies through the air, and all the other evidence is bogus.
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-24 11:34:18 Reply Private Reply
#247: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#245)
I'm not saying the jury would vote "guilty" just because OJ didn't produce the evidence he had. Give me a fucking break.
I'm saying that OJ was on trial for first degree murder and the inculpatory evidence was pointed right at him as being the murderer. While it's true that Simpson had no duty to volunteer evidence, why wouldn't he submit exculpatory evidence which would set him free?
The answer is ... he had no such evidence. His gloves were the prosecution's exhibit. THAT'S why. You know it. I know it. Everyone knew it.
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-24 11:51:59 Reply Private Reply
#248: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#244)
No. I claimed no such thing. I don't know if the blood on the glove was moist or dry. All I know is that Fuhrman testified that it appeared moist. That's it.
Your turn. Do you have any testimony from any expert witness who said the blood on that glove was moist? Dry? Or are you simply making shit up?
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-24 12:00:50 Reply Private Reply
#249: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#245)
But if OJ wore a size Large as you claim, an Extra Large should easily fit, right? Yet OJ struggled and struggled to get them on. How do you explain that?
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-24 12:03:38 Reply Private Reply
#250: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#246)
To submit a claim to the jury that A is the same as, or identical to B, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that A is the same as, or identical to B. Showing that they look alike is not enough.
Experts who examined the receipt could not tell if the purchased gloves were brown or black, or what size they were.
Experts who examined the photographs of OJ wearing gloves could not determine if any of the gloves in the pictures were from the same manufacturer as the evidence gloves.
The only glove found at OJ's was not thoought to be a match in manufacturer or size and was simply put back where it was, in OJ's chest of drawers.
The expert testimony was unable to find sufficient evidence to declare any match other than the Bundy and Rockingham gloves being a pair. That was the evidence before the jury. Deal with it.
You neither quoted nor identified any testimonial evidence at your #231.
What part of your laundry list do you claim is a quote of testimony given at the trial?
For example, on your laundry list you claim "The gloves she purchased were a size XL. (OJ wore a size XL.)" The Bloomingdale's expert testified that the receipt did not identify either the color or size of the glove purchased. The only glove found at OJ's house was testified to as being a size L. There was no testimony as to what glove OJ wore. There was expert testimony as to what size should give him a proper fit. These were stretch gloves. There was testimony that the XL gloves would fit a hand from M to XL.
As another example, you laundry list says, "The original gloves Nicole purchased were never produced at trial as a defense exhibit. Had the prosecution argued that point, they would have been slapped with sanctions for violating the constitutional rights of O.J. Simpson.
This was not evidence, it was your imaginary wish list.
There was plenty of evidence that evidence was planted. The most notorious examples involved the socks and the rear gate blood stain at Bundy. With the socks, each of which had four (4) surfaces, for illistration purposes referred to as left outside, left inside, right inside, right outside. The clear expert testimony indicated that stain indicated a compression transfer, not a smear or spatter. The mode of transfer was a compression transfer where the pressure forced the blood from one inside surface to the other inside surface. The expert testimony concluded that it was impossible for a foot to have been in the sock at the time of transfer. And the expert testimony was that there was detectable EDTA in the blood, and that it was present in sufficient quantity that a person exhibiting such level would be dead.
The famous Bundy blood stain on the rear gate was photographed and collected on July 3, 1995. The gate was also inspected and photographed on June 13, 1995.
The blood stain on the rear gate is memorable for the cross-examination utter destruction of criminalist Dennis Fung by Barry Scheck.
The stain photographed and collected on July 3rd was not collected on June 13th. It did not appear on a photograph of the gate taken on June 13th. Mr. Fung testified he could not see it on a blown up photograph taken on June 13th. Fung testified he did not know how it got there on July 3rd.
As for seeing any the blood stain on the rear gate on June 13th, Andrea Mazzola testified, "I honestly don't even remember a rear gate."
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
This is like much of the most incriminating blood evidence, so called. It was collected weeks or months after the crime. After previous inspection with the blood stain not being observed, al of a sudden it inexplicably appears in a ghostly fashion.
Tainting Evidence, Inside the Scandals at the FBI Crime Lab, by John F. Kelly and Phillip K. Wearne, Chap 7: O. J. Simpson: Dirty Hands, Bad Blood, 1998, pg. 260.
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-25 02:43:53 Reply Private Reply
#251: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#247)
Arm, leg, or neck?
You keep making this unconstitutional argument to spuriously "support" you position that the jury had 10x the evidence required to return a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I keep repeating that such an argument is unconstitutional and would draw sanctions against any attorney who attempted it.
Nobody tried this brain fart, not even in closing arguments.
You keep talking about "the evidence" but failing to identify, specifically, what this evidence is.
You ignore the evidence that the physical blood evidence collected on June 13th was placed in plastic bags and stored in an uncooled vehicle with an operating refrigerator for over 7 hours.
You ignore the evidence that blood evidence was degraded, contaminated, and/or planted.
You ignore the evidence that unseen evidence magically appeared weeks or months later.
You ignore the evidence that the LAPD testimony resembled a meeting of a liar's convention. Fuhrman wound up having to take the 5th. Fung was repeatedly shown video directly contradicting his testimony. Yamauchi was similarly destroyed. Vanatter and Luper were embarrassing. Mazzola's claimed memory was worse than Hillary; her mind was in a blender.
You assume facts not in evidence. The one glove found at his house was not an Aris glove. The testimony at trial of the Bloomingdale's expert established that nobody could, from the receipt in evidence, identify the size or color of the gloves purchased, and it was not possible to say the gloves in evidence were part of that transaction. It was also impossible to show that OJ had ever owned or worn the gloves in evidence. The prosecution failed to establish that the Bloomingdale's gloves had any evidentiary value.
Because he had lawyers who were not idiots.
OJ providing two pair of Aris gloves would prove nothing other than that he owned and, presumably, wore Aris gloves. Just as there was no way for the prosecution to show that the evidence gloves were the Bloomingdale's gloves, there would have been no way for OJ to prove another two pairs of gloves were the Bloomingdale's gloves.
The prosecution could argue that they knew what you claim to know, because they failed to produce enough evidence to establish a good faith basis to make such a claim.
You Chinese?
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-25 02:45:22 Reply Private Reply
#252: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#248)
That's strange. The following were verbatim quotes from a transcript. Dr. Lee testified that the way to determine if blood is wet or dry is to look at it. Det. Vanatter not only observed the qualities of wet blood, he observed the absence of what he stated were the qualities of dried blood.
Det. Fuhrman testified:
And Det. Vanatter testified:
And Dr. Henry Lee testified,
And, you try to maintain that does not mean the Rockingham glove was moist or sticky.
How did Simpson jump the fence with kneemonia?
- - - - - - - - - -
Just what do you infer from Vanatter's testimony that it looked like blood and it didn't appear to be dried blood, where it would be flaky and falling off???
It not only looked wet, it lacked the properties of blood that is dried.
Det. Vanatter testified:
It appeared to be blood.
It was not flaky and falling off as one would expect of dried blood.
It appeared that it was moist.
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-25 02:50:25 Reply Private Reply
#253: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#249)
I did not claim that OJ wore anything.
I quoted the verbatim transcript of testimony that the only glove found at OJ's residence was believed to be a non-Aris brand, and size large, and not size extra large.
Maybe OJ didn't wear that glove but kept it as a reminder that Nicole did not know his glove size. I do not know and don't care.
Like the prosecution, I do not explain it.
The important fact is that the killer's glove demonstrably did not fit O.J. Simpson.
Whether is was mislabeling or manufacturer's defect, the evidence gloves did not fit. If they do not fit, you must acquit.
Or you must come up with a very good, believeable explanation, something the prosecution failed to do.
Your mission impossible, which you chose to accept, was to show that the O.J. Simpson jury had sufficient evidence before it to return a verdict of guilty.
In contrast, the mission I chose to accept, was to show that the prosecution failed to place sufficient evidence before the jury to justify their returning a verdict of guilty. I am not trying to prove OJ as innocent. I am showing the prosecution was an abysmal mess and failed to provide evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
When they got done, there was a better case to convict the LAPD witnesses of serial perjury than to convict Simpson of murder.
The socks at Rockingham led to one of the funniest lawyer fails between a prosecution attorney and Judge Ito. The witness was Det. Bert Luper.
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-25 02:54:06 Reply Private Reply
#254: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#253)
Yeah. Right. That sounds reasonable.
So the defense is more than willing to present glove evidence -- even though you insist they didn't have to. Fine. Then why not produce the Aris gloves while they're at it?
Hmmmmm?
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-25 11:21:16 Reply Private Reply
#255: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#252)
He testified in generalities, not that glove. I think an even better way to determine if blood is wet or dry is to touch it with a sterile swab. Anyone do that with the glove? No?
I guess they all just hovered around the glove laying on the ground saying, "It appears shiny. No, it appears wet. To me it appears sticky. Nah. It appears moist."
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-25 11:30:36 Reply Private Reply
#256: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#252)
Not well. He staggered into the air conditioner when he landed, dropping a bloody glove he was wearing during the double murder.
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-25 11:37:30 Reply Private Reply
#257: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#251)
So you're suggesting that real killer's blood was "collected and stored in an uncooled vehicle with an operating refrigerator for over 7 hours and that it degraded and became contaminated" and turned into the blood of OJ, Nicole, and Ron Goldman in the process.
Yeah. That sounds reasonable.
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-25 11:51:22 Reply Private Reply
#258: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#250)
Moot point. That wasn't my intent. I'm simply looking at the evidence from a jury's point of view, stripping away all the nit-picky arguments and using common sense.
I presented seven points that you can't dispute, and drawing a conclusion based on those seven points.
Sure. You can isolate them and pick them apart by saying "That doesn't mean anything. You can't prove that." But when you put it all together in addition to other evidence -- the shoes, blood everywhere, the watch cap, the cut finger, the motive, the means, and the opportunity -- it all points to only one person. OJ.
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-25 12:07:48 Reply Private Reply
#259: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#254)
[misterwite #247 to nolu chan #252]
In #252 I responded to your question by stating that OJ did not provide gloves to the prosecution "because he had lawyers who were not idiots."
You attempt to misstate this as "So the defense is more than willing to present glove evidence -- even though you insist they didn't have to."
The prosecution did not unconstitutionally demand that the defense produce more gloves. The defense did not volunteer to produce more gloves, and did not provide more gloves. That was because the very excellent defense lawyers were not idiots.
[nolu chan #251]
Advice to a defendant is like advice to a military nube -- keep your mouth shut, your bowels open, and never volunteer. The was no advantage to be gained by O.J. in providing any gloves, despite your absurd argument to the contrary.
Further, it is unconstitutional to draw any negative inference in relation to O.J. not volunteering evidence you assume to have been in his possession.
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-27 04:01:39 Reply Private Reply
#260: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#255)
- - - - - - - - - -
There you go thinking again.
It appears that your testimony is that you have never worked or been trained in law enforcement or in the proper method of evidence collection.
That is pretty much the dumbest idea that I have seen. If you have an expert source to back you up on touch the evidence with a swab to see if it is wet, please present it.
http://www.terriwoodlawoffice.com/pdfdocs/Forensics_Blood_Stains.pdf
If a criminalist must test an item to know if it is wet or dry, he should have some other job. The criminologist acted properly in not sucking the liquid out of the stain. To the extent possible, the technician collecting the evidence should preserve it for the serologist or lab for testing.
http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/blood.html
Dennis Fung,
- - - - - - - - - -
Which glove? Do you speak of the Rockingham glove? Do you indicate that you do not know whether someone touched the glove with a sterile swab at the scene, or do you indicate that nobody touched the glove with a sterile swab at the scene?
Are you claiming something, or are you just throwing out nonsense questions firmly answered by testimonial evidence? Why do you not know the answer to your question?
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-27 04:02:39 Reply Private Reply
#261: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#256)
OJ lived there. He knew where the air conditioner was, and he knew where the gate was, and he knew how to open the gate. Considering his kneemonia, it would have been easier to just open the gate.
In any case, like the rest of your "proof," what is lacking is the proof.
What witness saw OJ climb a fence, walk into an air conditioner, or drop a glove? This was a prosecution theory which you offer as evidence.
The theory gave the prosecution timeline problems they were never able to overcome. You have been unable to address the timeline. Your ignoring the need for timeline does not make the problem go away.
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-27 04:03:58 Reply Private Reply
#262: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#257)
My actual statement at #251, before passing through your mistranslation, was:
So, you are suffering from hallucinations from all that blue crystal.
There was an argument at one point (30 Jan. 1995) that blood had deteriorated from one type into another. That was by Marcia Clark:
The testimonial evidence showed that the blood evidence collected on June 13th was placed in plastic bags and left in a truck which had a refrigerator that did not work properly.
http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/evidenc3.html
Emphasis in original.
When the blood evidence is kept in plastic bags, in the heat, for seven hours, it degrades markedly and becomes useless for DNA testing.
The most popular DNA test results did not come from the evidence collected, degraded, contaminated, or otherwise made useless. It came from evidence planted and collected weeks or months later, and contained EDTA.
As with the amazing socks, there was the amazing Bundy rear gate stain, and the Bronco stains. And the statistics were proven to be bogus.
Tainting Evidence, Inside the Scandals at the FBI Crime Lab, by John F. Kelly and Phillip K. Wearne, Chap 7: O. J. Simpson: Dirty Hands, Bad Blood, 1998, pg. 262-63.
Tainting Evidence, Inside the Scandals at the FBI Crime Lab, by John F. Kelly and Phillip K. Wearne, Chap 7: O. J. Simpson: Dirty Hands, Bad Blood, 1998, pg. 259.
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-27 04:05:37 Reply Private Reply
#263: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#258)
Your intent, in the abvsence of evidence, was to baffle and bullshit.
Your laundry list was not evidence before the jury. It you really believe it was, identify the witness and the date.
Your "view" of the evidence was not presented to the jury.
The views of talking heads on the evening news were not presented to the jury.
What was presented to the jury was the actual testimony. You vseem so unfamiliar with that testimony that you are unable to produce such evidence by witness and date to support your fantastic claims.
As your personal arguments were never presented to the jury, they do absolutely nothing to present a case that the jury had 10x, or even 1x, the evidence presented to justify the jury returning a verdict of guilty.
You presented your laundry list at #120.
I answered your ridiculous #120 at my #144
As for hair and fiber "matching" try to keep up with the science. That was relegated to the ash heap of junk science. You seem unaware and are still citing that crap as proof of something besides FBI lab corruption.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/04/fbi_s_flawed_forensics_expert_testimony_hair_analysis_bite_marks_fingerprints.html
https://californiainnocenceproject.org/issues-we-face/dna-forensic-analysis/
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/11/opinion/junk-science-junk-evidence.html
In short, the FBI lab had been outed for using bullshit as evidence for a few decades.
It appears you want to make believe that my #144 did not respond to your tall tales and junk science.
- - - - - - - - - -
When you put together multiple pieces of crap, the result is a pile of crap.
The glaring fact remains that you are either incapable, or unwilling, to discuss the actual evidence presented to the jury.
Your generalities, conclusions, and fantasies were not presented to, or considered by, the jury.
Matter that was not presented to the jury is irrelevant to the question at hand of whether the jury in the criminal trial had enough evidence presented to it to justify a verdict of guilty.
When it comes to actual evidence, you run faster than Usain Bolt.
When was the Rockingham socks collected, and who collected them?
What the hell was proven at the criminal trial about any shoes? No evidence was produced that O.J. ever owned or wore Bruno Magli shoes.
Johnnie Cochran wore the knit cap during closing arguments. As he pointed out, it was not a disguise. He was still just Johnnie Cochran in a knit cap.
Blood everywhere all was mishaldled by the LAPD criminalists, and it was all cross-contaminated at the LAPD crime lab.
It al points to the conclusion that all the blood evidence collected on June 13th could be thrown in the garbage.
When it comes to actual evidence, you run faster than Usain Bolt.
When was the Rockingham socks collected, and who collected them?
Who collected the Bundy blood drops?
Was Andrea Mazzola a trainee or the Officer in Charge?
Did Fung admit that he handled evidence with his bare hands?
Did Mazzola handle evidence with her bare hands?
Did Mazzola work unsupervised?
Was a proper chain of evidence maintained?
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-27 04:11:05 Reply Private Reply
#264: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#259)
The prosecution claimed that Nicole purchased two pairs of Aris gloves and gave them to OJ. The prosecution further claimed that one pair was used in the murder.
If OJ presented both pairs of gloves that he was given, well, that blows up the prosecution's case, does it not? Yet he didn't.
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-27 09:03:14 Reply Private Reply
#265: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#259)
But it's OK for the jury to draw a negative inference about Mark Fuhrman. Or an inference that blood was planted -- with no proof. Or an inference that blood DNA degraded and turned into OJ's blood.
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-27 09:06:59 Reply Private Reply
#266: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#260)
How do you think the blood evidence was collected from the crime scene? Answer: With a sterile swab.
"Do you indicate that you do not know whether someone touched the glove with a sterile swab at the scene, or do you indicate that nobody touched the glove with a sterile swab at the scene?"
It appears as though no one at the scene touched the glove with a sterile swab to see if the blood was wet or dry. But you claim it was indeed wet, simply because it appeared wet. And because it fits your conspiracy theory.
But without sworn testimony, you don't know for a fact that it was wet.
Funny. I make an assumption or draw a conclusion and you howl with protest. Yet when you do so I'm supposed to accept it as the Gospel truth.
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-27 09:17:21 Reply Private Reply
#267: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#262)
The blood was tested. It was useful. The DNA matched OJ, Nicole, and Ron Goldman.
You're suggesting that the "real" killers blood was collected from the crime scene, degraded in the heat, and turned into OJ's blood.
You're ridiculous.
"The most popular DNA test results did not come from the evidence collected, degraded, contaminated, or otherwise made useless. It came from evidence planted and collected weeks or months later, and contained EDTA."
Ah. You're back to the planted evidence with zero proof. Plus any any EDTA found was trace amounts, found in everyone's blood. You got nothing.
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-27 09:25:21 Reply Private Reply
#268: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#144)
Correct. But that testimony did not say (much less prove) the gloves Nicole purchased were NOT an Extra Large. Or that she DIDN'T give them to OJ. Or that the gloves OJ wore in the pictures and video were NOT Aris. Or that the gloves found at the crime scenes were NOT OJ's. Or that evidence WAS planted by Fuhrman or others. Or that the blood WAS cross-contaminated. Or that the watch cap was NOT OJ's. Or that the shoeprints were NOT made by OJ's "ugly- ass" shoes.
Your "actual" testimony said nothing. Proved nothing. All that testimony did, and all it was intended to do, was cause doubt. The defense hoped it would rise to the level of reasonable doubt. To me, it didn't.
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-27 11:40:20 Reply Private Reply
#269: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#264)
The prosecution claimed, and the prosecution expert witness testified that the prosecution evidence was insufficient to verify the claim.
A prosecution claim is not a fact without supporting evidence.
No. I would rather have a drunk lawyer from night court than you.
It was impossible for the prosecution to prove that the gloves in evidence were part of the Bloomingdale's transaction. The prosecution was unable to prove that OJ Simpson ever owned or wore Aris Leather Light brown XL gloves. Further, the prosecution was unable to prove that O.J. Simpson ever owned or wore any Aris brand glove, of any size or color.
Had OJ possessed and produced two more pairs of Aris Leather Light gloves, they could not be proven to be part of the Bloomingdale's transaction. He may have owned six pairs, or none at all. That was for the prosecution to prove. They did not.
Had O.J. Simpson possessed and produced two more pairs of Aris Leather Light gloves, the prosecution could use them to establish that O.J. Simpson owned and wore Aris Leather Light gloves. If he produced a pair in brown, XL, the prosecution could establish that he owned and wore Aris Leather Light goves in brown, XL.
The prosecution could argue that he owned more than two pairs of Aris Leather Light gloves, and more than one pair in brown, XL.
There is a significant downside for O.J. Simpson. There is no upside. Contary to your ridiculous assertion, O.J. Simpson producing Aris Leather Light gloves for the prosecution would not have blown up the prosecution case.
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-28 03:48:05 Reply Private Reply
#270: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#265)
Try to find the right Amendment.
Mark Fuhrman testified on Direct. On Cross, he took the 5th Amendment and refused to answer questions.
Amendment Six of the Constitution guarantees the right of an accused to be confronted with witnesses against him. He has the constitutional right to cross-examine that witness. Once a piece of trash like Fuhrman testifies for the prosecution and then refuses to answer questions by the defense, the jury may disregard anything and everything stated by the witness. The Defense did not move to strike the Fuhrman testimony. He crashed and burned. The Defense moved for a jury instruction regarding Fuhrman's inavailability for further cross-examination, and they got one that stated, His unavailability for further testimony both on cross-examination--excuse me--on cross-examination is a factor which you may consider in evaluating his credibility as a witness.
From the closing instructions of Judge Ito:
Fuhrman took the 5th amendment out of sight of the jury. The jury was informed that Fuhrman became unavailable for further cross-examination and that this could be considered in evaluating his credibility. Judge Ito on Fuhrman taking the 5 Amendment:
Put down the blue crystal, or show where anyone claimed or inferred that blood DNA degraded and turned into OJ's blood.
In fact, this is the first time I have seen someone claim that DNA degrades and turns into blood. Have you also learned how to degrade lead into gold?
There was a deterioration argument offered by Marcia Clark for the prosecution. Perhaps you find the prosecution argument absurd. Or maybe it just extremely confused you into babbling about DNA morphing into somebody's blood. Ms. Clark was talking blood types, A, B, AB and O, and it seems to have overwhelmed you.
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-28 03:52:06 Reply Private Reply
#271: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#266)
Put down the blue crystal and present the testimony where anyone touched evidence with a swab to see if it was wet. After this imaginary test, did the anonymous tester get a result? Who testified to this test and result, and on what date.
Did somebody touch the Rockingham glove with a sterile swab? It is really a yes or no question. Either you know the answer or you don't.
Just above you stated, "How do you think the blood evidence was collected from the crime scene? Answer: With a sterile swab." Are you now saying blood evidence was not collected from the Rockingham glove? Try to keep your fantasy story straight.
Either evidence is collected with a sterile swab as you state, or it is not. Either someone touched the Rockingham glove with a sterile glove or not.
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-28 03:53:21 Reply Private Reply
#272: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#267)
There you go again.
What blood, collected on what date, with what test, yielded what result, pursuant to what witness?
Was this part of the magic evidence that was collected after June 1995, and which tested positive for EDTA?
Put down the blue crystal, or show where anyone claimed or inferred that blood degraded and turned into OJ's blood.
As Dr. Rieders testified, in the amount found, the person would be dead. That was the expert testimony at trial. It was found in an amount where blood would not clot.
Your repeated mantra does not change the actual evidence. You look the other way for Agent Martz who allegedly tested his own blood and reported the same level of EDTA as was found on the evidence blood with EDTA.
Dr. Rieders testified that normal is a maximum of 4 ppb. Martz found EDTA in ppm. The sensitivity of the Martz test started at ppm. Had Martz' reported test results for his circulating blood have been correct, he would have been dead. It was all very embarrassing for the FBI and its crime lab. Agent Martz made no notes and prepared no report regarding testing of his own blood. Martz erased all his raw data and explained, "We only have so much computer space." He fared very poorly in the ensuing IG investigation. Agent Martz was relieved of his duties.
From the FBI IG Report,
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-28 03:58:55 Reply Private Reply
#273: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#268)
All the things that the testimonial evidence at trial did not prove do not amount to proof of anything.
My actual testimony is non-existent. I did not testify at the O.J. trial.
Presumably, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses was intended to prove the prosecution case. It did not. The prosecution took up the vast majority of the time. The defense was not required to prove anything.
The prosecution case went from January 31 to July 6.
The defense case went from July 10 to September 19.
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-28 04:00:39 Reply Private Reply