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.”
#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
#274: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#263)
[nolu chan #263]
C * R * I * C * K * E * T * S
C * R * I * C * K * E * T * S
When was the Rockingham socks collected, and who collected them?
Was it this time or that time, this one or that one?
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-28 04:03:27 Reply Private Reply
#275: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#269)
I see. But a defense claim that Fuhrman was a racist and planted evidence can stand with no evidence whatsover.
"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."
Oh, really? Remember when the prosecution suggested that the murder weapon was a 15-inch knife with a retractable blade that Simpson purchased at a downtown Los Angeles shop? Hmmmm?
Well, during the preliminary hearing, "Simpson’s defense team produced that knife in an envelope that became known as the “mystery envelope.” Remember that? "Forensic tests later showed that the knife had no scratches or bloodstains to suggest that it had been used in a double murder."
So, the defense produced the knife as exculpatory evidence but not the gloves? Why, pray tell?
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-28 09:07:11 Reply Private Reply
#276: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#273)
Meaning the amount of EDTA in the blood evidence was normal -- NOT consistent wirh blood stored in a vial.
By the way, Rieders stated under oath that he couldn’t tell how much EDTA was in the blood nor did he test the actual evidence.
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-28 09:28:16 Reply Private Reply
#277: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#271)
I have no idea. Which means neither of us know if the blood was wet, dry or something inbetween. We have testimony saying it looked wet. You erred by assuming it was wet.
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-28 09:36:19 Reply Private Reply
#278: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#270)
If a person takes the 5th, are we allowed to draw any inference from that action? You know, like assuming they're "a piece of trash"?
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-28 09:42:33 Reply Private Reply
#279: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#275)
Your mission impossible is to show that the jury at the criminal trial had sufficient evidence before it to justify returning a verdict of guilty.
The quotes from your unlinked, unidentified source (Mercury News, March 4, 2016), refer to a knife that was never in evidence at the criminal trial. It is irrelevant to the present discussion.
Unlike the evidence gloves, evidence indicated that O.J. had purchased, owned, and possessed the particular knife.
The prosecution at the criminal trial did not produce that knife. The defense at the criminal trial did not produce that knife. It had nothing to do with the criminal trial.
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-29 03:13:28 Reply Private Reply
#280: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#276)
The purported Martz test result proved that Martz test was in error, or he was walking about with blood that would not clot.
Martz, with a degree in biology, was under investigation stemming from internal complaints about his bogus tests and unscientific testimony in the field of toxicology and explosives.
Martz testified that he tested matter from an evidence sock and the test responded like the substance was EDTA and the test result was consistent with the presence of EDTA.
As we previously learned from Dr. Frederic Rieders, the Martz test only detected threshold levels of parts per million, a fatal dose for circulating blood in a human.
Roger Martz, direct examination by defense counsel Robert Blasier,
Rieders testified that EDTA was normally present in human blood in parts per billion, not exceeding 4 ppb. Martz' test found EDTA and had a threshold sensitivity of parts per million. Stop making shit up.
Rieders testified that maximum blood level was 4 parts per billion, citing to the EPA and the Foreman and Trujillo studies.
EDTA in blood levels in parts per million would be fatal.
Martz being alive was an indication that his purported test was more of his horsecrap. The USDOJ/OIG Special Report found, "Martz's rough notes in this case confirmed the absence of any notes or reports of these examinations. Additionally, Martz failed to number and initial his notes, identify the case number in some notes, or set forth his procedures for some of his testing. We find the foregoing record-keeping practices to be unacceptable."
With the publication of the USDOJ/OIG Special Report, Martz' empire of incompetence and corruption fell apart.
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
Roger Martz testified that he did not know how much EDTA was normally present in blood.
- - - - - - - - - -
USDOJ/OIG Special Report
The FBI Laboratory: An Investigation into Laboratory Practices and Alleged Misconduct in Explosives-Related and Other Cases (April 1997)
The USDOJ/OIG Special Report found that non-chemist Roger Martz demonstrated an inadequate level of training in toxicological issues, and deficient knowledge about other scientific matters that should be within the expertise of a chief of a unit handling chemical and toxicological analyses in the Laboratory. That is polite science-speak for he did not know what he was talking about, and Dr. Frederic Rieders embarassingly depantsed him on national television.
The USDOJ/OIG Special Report found that non-chemist Roger Martz maintained insufficient documentation, and that CTU Chief Roger Martz should not hold a supervisory position in the Laboratory, and the FBI should assess whether he should continue to serve as a Laboratory examiner, he should be supervised by a scientist qualified to review his work, he be counseled on the appropriate matter for testifying about forensic work, and another qualified examiner review any analytical work by Martz to be used as a basis for future testimony.
- - - - - - - - - -
The cited CTU Chief was Roger Martz.
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
Testifying to matters beyond their expertise is science-speak for trying to baffle the jury with bullshit.
- - - - - - - - - -
Martz was relegated to being one of the deplorables.
- - - - - - - - - -
Re the O.J. case:
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-29 03:18:58 Reply Private Reply
#281: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#277)
Why do you have no idea? Under what circumstances does someone touch the evidence with a wet sterile swab? Let me help a clueless brother out regarding the Rockingham glove.
I assumed nothing. Dr. Henry Lee testified that the way to determine if blood is dry is to look at it, only amateur touches, he does not do that. You claimed that you would poke it with a swab to see if it was wet. You assume wrong.
I cited and quoted the testimony of witnesses who looked at the glove and observed indicia that it was moist or sticky, and observed as missing, indicia that it was dry.
Testimony indicates the glove was touched with a wet swab.
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-29 03:30:15 Reply Private Reply
#282: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#278)
Det. Fuhrman did not take the fifth amendment in the presence of the jury so they could draw no inference whatever from what they did not know.
The jury could draw a negative inference from the unavailability of Fuhrman as a witness, pursuant to the explicit instructions of the Court.
The jury could adopt an informed opinion that Fuhrman was a liar, a perjurer, and a genocidal racist from the testimony of Det. Fuhrman, the testimony of Laura Hart McKinny, the taped statements of Fuhrman proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Fuhrman had lied to the jury, and the instruction of the Court that Fuhrman would no longer be available as a witness.
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-29 03:31:18 Reply Private Reply
#283: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#281)
It was?!? Well, according to you that's a dumb idea, isn't it? After all, you DID say:
"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."
If the condition of the glove (ie., if it's wet or dry) was significant, then why wasn't that checked out at the scene?
Cop #1: Hey. That glove appears moist and wet and sticky.
Cop #2: You're right. It looks shiny, too.
Cop #1: But wait a minute. I'm a detective and I know that blood should be dried by now.
Cop #2: Yeah. I'm a detective, too. That's why they send us to investigate murders.
Cop #1: Well, this is significant. Maybe we should have forensics test the blood.
Cop #2: Nah. We'll just say it "looked" wet.
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-29 10:28:08 Reply Private Reply
#284: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#280)
You going to bring up that shit? You want me to do the same with your Dr. Reiders -- who has a history of being wrong?
"purported Martz test result proved that Martz test was in error, or he was walking about with blood that would not clot."
Something was wrong. Martz was smart enough to realize something was wrong and took the extraordinary step to test his own blood to prove something was wrong.
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-29 10:36:01 Reply Private Reply
#285: misterwhite To: nolu chan (#279)
But it WAS produced by the defense. The gloves were not. Why not?
Well, we know why not. The gloves were already people's exhibit.
misterwhite posted on 2017-06-29 10:40:17 Reply Private Reply
#286: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#285)
The knife was not produced at the criminal trial by anybody. It provided zero evidence for the jury to consider. Remember, you are supposedly working feverishly to find the evidence that the prosecution produced which the criminal jury could have relied upon to return a verdict of guilty.
Bullshitting about extraneous material that was never part of the criminal trial just doesn't get it. Try harder.
If either you or the prosecution could have proved that, you would have evidence instead of bullshit.
The prosecution failed in its efforts to show that O.J. Simpson had ever bought, owned, or wore an Aris glove, black, brown, XL or any other size.
The prosecution produced a receipt for gloves purchased by Nicole Brown Simpson. Experts could not verify that the purchased gloves were the same gloves as the evidence gloves. There was no evidence provided that showed that O.J. Simpson ever owned or wore the purchased gloves, or what the size and color of the purchased gloves were.
Results from your magic 8 ball are not considered evidence.
If the prosecution wanted to established that O.J. Simpson wore the evidence gloves, all they had to do was prove it. They failed to do so.
The blatantly obvious reason you do not argue with evidence is that you do not have any, and you do not have any because the prosecution did not have any.
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-29 18:08:44 Reply Private Reply
#287: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#284)
You are welcome to try. The shit I brought up was quoted from a Department of Justice Special Report.
It is rather humorous watching you herniate yourself trying to rehabilitate the testimony of Martz in your rather obvious incorrect impression that he was a prosecution witness.
Let me disabuse you of that notion. Martz and his report were so bad for the prosecution that even though they retained his services, the prosecution never called upon Martz to testify at the criminal trial. It was the defense who forced Martz to take the stand during the defense case. Note that defense counsel Blasier questioned Martz on Direct, not Cross.
It was the prosecution who ran away from Martz, and it was the defence who put him on the stand after Rieders had testified.
The DoJ Special Report found Martz to be incompetent. In purporting to test his own blood, destroying all evidence of said test, and submitting an impossible result, something was indeed wrong. The DoJ found his record keeping, or lack thereof, unacceptable. The DoJ found Martz had an inadequate level of training in toxological issues and toxilogical analyses in the laboratory. Thje DoJ recommended that another qualified examiner review any analytical work by Martz to be used as a basis for future testimony. With specific reference to the O.J. case, the DoJ found, Martz was surprisingly unprepared for his testimony, and that Martz poorly represented the Laboratory and the FBI in this case.
Martz attempted to maintain that nobody knows how much EDTA was normally present in human blood. He allegedly tested his own blood, destroyed all evidence of said test, and claimed his blood test to the same amount of EDTA as evidence blood. His minor problem was that his test had a threshold of detection of EDTA in parts per million, and this ill-prepared and incompetent toxicologist with his degree in biology was mistaken in his belief that a level in parts per million was normal. The competent toxicological expert set the record straight that the normal level of EDTA in humans was 4 parts per billion, citing an EPA study and a Foreman and Trujillo study. Further, the toxicology expert Dr. Rieders testified that "a 2,000 parts per million EDTA in blood, the blood won't clot. People will bleed to death all over the place. It's absurd." That effectively dispatched a Marcia Clark brainfart.
Martz was not all that swift, as the DoJ Report documented. Something was wrong. Martz proved that he would and did submit a false report.
Indeed, Scheck and Neufeld had launched an attack against the FBI lab in general, in a series of cases. The outcome was that the science and research underpinning the FBI's DNA typing methodology was flawed, and the FBI tried, but failed, to prevent the release of data to prove it. FBI hair and fiber analysis was relegated to junk science. The FBI DNA standards were cleaned up. Hundreds of cases were shown to have been tainted by bogus evidence.
Dr. Rieders submitted an EPA report that cited a level of 2 mg/ml. Dr. Rieders' professional expertise allowed him to recognize the typo of mg for ng, the only thing scientifically reasonable. Agent Martz did not catch the typo, and his lack of expertise let him proceed as though it made sense. Agent Martz went on to dry lab a test of his own blood for which he claimed a result consistent with the typo, an impossible result for someone still living.
As for your desire to bring up cases regarding Rieders, that was attempted at trial. Judge Ito considered the argument out of the presence of the jury and disallowed the proposed argument to continue. I will save you the bother of looking for it. Enjoy your nothing burger.
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-29 18:11:41 Reply Private Reply
#288: nolu chan To: misterwhite (#283)
You claimed you would touch the glove with a swab to see if it was wet. Are you really idiot enough to touch a glove with a wet swab to see if the glove is wet?
You claimed "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." And, you rhetorically ask and answer, "How do you think the blood evidence was collected from the crime scene? Answer: With a sterile swab."
The wet swab was not used for evidence collection, it was used in a phenolphthalein test allegedly performed by you know who. It was not allegedly using a wet swab to see if the glove was wet. Using a wet swab would rather defeat the purpose of testing to see if the glove was wet. Brilliant minds, such as your own, may disagree.
Of course, this clown got caught in so many lies that it is difficult to give credence to anything he said.
Perhaps it was because the geniuses in charge were called Dumb and Dumber. But Dumb observed that the indicia of the glove being moist and sticky were there, and the indicia of the glove being dry were absent.
While you are at it, why did they not collect the blood drops off the back of Nicole Brown Simpson's body? You never know, there may have been some of the killer's blood. I would have given it serious consideration as evidence to be preserved.
Why did the autopsy doctor throw out the stomach contents? It made determining the time of death more difficult, with the prosecution resorting to attaching the time of death to a barking dog.
As for the Crime Scene Identification Check List at Rockingham:
The crime scene identification check list identifies Andrea Mazzola as the Officer-in-Charge.
Blood evidence is collected on swatches, not swabs or Q-tips. When all else fails, read the testimony. It tells you explicitly how the blood evidence is collected, and the procedures for recording the place and time collected. The criminalists first west to Rockingham, upon leaving Rockingham went to Bundy, and later returned to Rockingham. It was on the return visit to Rockingham that the magic sock was collected.
First the basics of evidence collection and documentation, and then I will proceed to the actual collection of the magic sock. This is foundational to discussing who collected the magic sock and when. Your magic 8-ball does not apply.
nolu chan posted on 2017-06-29 18:15:01 Reply Private Reply