But if OJ wore a size Large as you claim,

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.

MR. DARDEN: Now, the glove that you removed from the Defendant's chest, was that an Aris glove?

DET. LUPER: I don't believe so. It may have been, but I'm not too sure.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. But it was a size large glove, wasn't it?

DET. LUPER: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Not an extra large, but a large, correct?

DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir.

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.

an Extra Large should easily fit, right? Yet OJ struggled and struggled to get them on. How do you explain that?

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.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU DID NOT SEE HER BEING BRIEFED BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AT ALL?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: WHO GAVE HER THIS WALK-THROUGH?

A: I DID.

Q: AND WHAT TIME DID THE WALK-THROUGH START, IF YOU RECALL?

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. THIS IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS HEARING.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. IT IS PROBABLY THE MOST RELEVANT QUESTION I'VE HEARD SO FAR THIS MORNING.

MS. LEWIS: OH.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

MS. LEWIS: THE RELEVANCE JUST OCCURRED TO ME.

THE COURT: THERE IS A DISCOVERY SANCTIONS ISSUE I THINK.

Maybe OJ didn't wear that glove but kept it as a reminder that Nicole did not know his glove size.

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?

"Dr. Lee testified that the way to determine if blood is wet or dry is to look at it."

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."

How did Simpson jump the fence with kneemonia?

Not well. He staggered into the air conditioner when he landed, dropping a bloody glove he was wearing during the double murder.

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.

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.

"What part of your laundry list do you claim is a quote of testimony given at the trial?"

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.

[misterwite #247 to nolu chan #252]

[misterwhite 254] 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?

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]

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.

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 #252] "Dr. Lee testified that the way to determine if blood is wet or dry is to look at it."

- - - - - - - - - -

[misterwhite #255] 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.

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

Items such as damp bloodstained clothing should be allowed to airdry at room temp away from direct sunlight; then the items should be packaged separately an[d] loosely in paper bags.

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

Wet Bloodstains

If the item is small and transportable, then package it in a paper bag (or plastic bag to prevent contamination of other objects). Bring it to a secured location, take it out of the bag and allow the evidence and the bag to thoroughly air dry. Repackage in the original paper bag or, if necessary, a new paper bag. If a new paper bag is used, then the air dried original container should be packaged with the item of evidence.

Advantages: Requires a minimal amount of interaction with the bloodstains by the investigator; allows the serologist to make the decisions involved in collecting the samples.

Disadvantages: More work for the serologist; bulky items use more storage space.

Dennis Fung,

A. It is best to not manipulate the evidence and to leave it in as much an undisturbed condition as possible so that it can later be analyzed in a proper setting, back at the laboratory.

By manipulating the evidence out at the scene, valuable trace evidence could be lost; so what we try to do is just leave it as undisturbed as possible by packaging it and bringing it back to the lab.

Q. You try to do as little testing as you can of items in order to preserve them?

A. Yes.

Q. And only if it is absolutely necessary do you test them at the scene?

A. Yes.

- - - - - - - - - -

Anyone do that with the glove? No?

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?

How did Simpson jump the fence with kneemonia?

Not well. He staggered into the air conditioner when he landed, dropping a bloody glove he was wearing during the double murder.

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.

So you're suggesting that real killer's blood was "collected and stored in an uncooled vehicle with [sic - without] 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.

My actual statement at #251, before passing through your mistranslation, was:

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.

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:

MS. CLARK: THE PART THAT I HAVE DRAWN, YOUR HONOR, THE BRACKET AROUND, THAT IS THE ITEM IN ISSUE. "ITEM 84-A" IS THAT "84-B AND 118-A COULD NOT HAVE COME FROM NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, RONALD GOLDMAN OR O.J. SIMPSON; HOWEVER, NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON CANNOT BE EXCLUDED AS A SOURCE OF THE STAIN IN THE EAP. TYPE B OBSERVED ON THE ITEMS WERE DEGRADED FROM A TYPE B A."

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.

Blood and Body Fluids

[...]

Dried blood and body fluid stains should be collected in the following manner: If the stained object can be transported back to the crime lab, then package it in a paper bag or envelope and send it to the lab; if the object cannot be transported, then either use fingerprint tape and lift it like a fingerprint and place the tape on a lift back; scrape the stain into a paper packet and package it in a paper envelope; or absorb the stain onto 1/2" long threads moistened with distilled water. The threads must be air dried before permanently packaging. For transportation purposes and to prevent cross contamination, the threads may be placed into a plastic container for no more than two hours. Once in a secure location, the threads must be removed from the plastic and allowed to air dry. They may then be repackaged into a paper packet and placed in a paper envelope. Wet blood and body fluid stains should be collected in the following manner: all items should be packaged separately to prevent cross contamination, if the item can be transported to the crime lab, then package it in a paper bag (or plastic bag if the transportation time is under two hours), bring it to a secure place and allow it to thoroughly air dry, then repackage it in a paper bag. If the item cannot be transported back to the lab, then absorb the stain onto a small (1"x1") square of pre-cleaned 100% cotton sheeting. Package it in paper (or plastic if the transportation time is less than two hours), bring it to a secure place and allow it to thoroughly air dry; then repackage it in a paper envelope. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD WET OR MOIST ITEMS REMAIN IN PLASTIC OR PAPER CONTAINERS FOR MORE THAN TWO HOURS. Victim and suspect's known whole blood samples will have to be collected in yellow, red, or purple top "Vacutainers." Contact the lab to which the samples will be submitted for specific information.

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.

By the time Roger Martz made it to the witness stand, the final blow to the DNA evidence had already been delivered. On June 22, the prosecution brought one of the key protagonists in the DNA numbers war to the stand. Dr. Bruce Weir, a professor of statistics and genetics at North Carolina University, was a key “pro-admissibility,” anticeiling man, who advocated and used the FBI’s method. Putting Weir in front of the jury allowed the whole issue of statistics to be aired. Worse still for the prosecution, the O. J. Simpson case now became the first trial in which a serious debate took place about the probabilities of matches in samples involving mixtures of blood, a new twist that multiplied the disagreements between the two sides in the numbers war.

The mixed blood samples from inside O. J. Simpson’s Bronco, particularly those containing Ron Goldman’s blood, were among the most incriminating evidence against Simpson. But there was a problem. In the PCR test being used by the prosecution, one of the alleles found in Ron Goldman’s blood tended to mask one of the alleles found in O. J. Simpson’s blood when the two were mixed. “You can infer that this allele, the 1.2, is there when dealing with blood from a single person but not when it’s mixed,” explains Bill Thompson. “Weir assumed it was, something he admitted in court.”

Peter Neufeld was merciless in cross-examination. “The numbers on that board are biased against Mr. Simpson, isn’t that correct?” he insisted. “As it turns out, it looks that way, yes,” Weir replied. It illustrated the difficulty of a statistician dealing with figures derived from molecular genetics. A recalculation by Weir reduced a 1 in 3,900 probability that a stain on the Bronco's steering wheel contained a mixture of Ron Goldman’s and O. J. Simpson's blood to a 1 in 1,600 chance. It was another turning point in the trial. It the results had been proven wrong once, were they worth considering at all?

With cross-examinations like those of Fung, Yamauchi, and Weir, Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld, and Bob Blasier had, among them, virtually demolished the prosecution’s forensic case before calling a single witness of their own. The prosecution wound up with key elements of the defense’s case unrebutted. The missing blood, the sock, the famous glove that did not fit— all served to make the defense’s theory of contamination and framing at least possible. Many of the prosecution witnesses had undone themselves, a combination of sloppiness, overconfidence, and brinkmanship brought on perhaps by the sheer quantity of evidence they had against O. J. Simpson. But in the end it was forensic science’s DNA typing that was put on trial and found wanting.

The witness who did most of the job for the defense was Dr. John Gerdes, a microbiologist from Denver. Gerdes looked the part of a scientist; solid and bespectacled, he was a medical lab director inclined to apply the standards of the rigorous government regulation of the Clinical Laboratories Inspection Act to forensic labs. As such he was the perfect candidate to set about a thorough study of the LAPD lab. He was also the perfect candidate to impress the jury. His solid image was reinforced by a dramatic style of delivery.

Reviewing test materials covering fifteen months of examinations from May 1993 to August 1994, Gerdes concluded that the LAPD lab had a contamination problem that was “persistent and substantial . . . month after month.” He rammed home his point by saying a responsible oversight agency “would shut the lab down.”

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.

Although Yamauchi insisted he had changed his gloves, the fact that he had not recalled the blood spill in preliminary testimony left plenty of room for doubt. By reconstructing each step of his tests, Scheck was able to show that the quantity of DNA consistent with that in O. J. Simpson’s blood in the swatches collected from the crime scene declined in the order in which Yamauchi handled them. Tracking contamination through the evidence? And the leather glove found at Nicole's condominium which Yamauchi had handled first and cut small rectangular samples from: might it not have been contaminated from the stains on the reference tube? It was an intriguing prospect. The DNA allele matching Simpson’s was only found in samples from the wrist leather where Yamauchi had written his initials to signal who had made the sample cuts.

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.

"What part of your laundry list do you claim is a quote of testimony given at the trial?"

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.

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.

I presented seven points that you can't dispute, and drawing a conclusion based on those seven points.

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.

#120. To: nolu chan (#119)

"Pick one out from the laundry list that you feel is strong, or strongest, and I will take it on."

Well, when you post "101 Reasons" you know there are going to be some lame ones.

But I would say OJ's blood at the crime scene, victim's blood in the Bronco, the gloves with victim's blood, OJ's shoe print at the murder scene, the fact that OJ can't produce the shoes or gloves, hair and fibers matching.

Now, you can argue that each one individually proves nothing. But taken together, there's only one explanation.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-07   14:23:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply

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

The Washington Post published a story so horrifying this weekend that it would stop your breath: “The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.”

What went wrong? The Post continues: “Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far.” The shameful, horrifying errors were uncovered in a massive, three-year review by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Innocence Project. Following revelations published in recent years, the two groups are helping the government with the country’s largest ever post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.

Chillingly, as the Post continues, “the cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death.” Of these defendants, 14 have already been executed or died in prison.

The massive review raises questions about the veracity of not just expert hair testimony, but also the bite-mark and other forensic testimony offered as objective, scientific evidence to jurors who, not unreasonably, believed that scientists in white coats knew what they were talking about. As Peter Neufeld, co-founder of the Innocence Project, put it, “The FBI’s three-decade use of microscopic hair analysis to incriminate defendants was a complete disaster.”

https://californiainnocenceproject.org/issues-we-face/dna-forensic-analysis/

Experts were, for the most part, comparing two pictures of hairs and determining whether they looked sufficiently similar to the extent they may have come from the same source. As such, the subjective nature of the science, combined with the fact that there is no statistical approach to distinguishing characteristics between individuals, left plenty of room for error.

The New View

In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences published a report (Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward [“NAS Report”]) that noted there is no scientifically accepted statistics about the frequency of particular characteristics of hair distributed within the population. The NAS Report went on to cite an FBI study in which 80 hair comparisons were thought to be “associated,” but using Mitochondrial DNA testing showed that 9 of the comparisons (12.5%) were actually from different sources.

The NAS Report concluded that, because of advances in DNA testing, microscopic hair analysis can be useful in determining which hairs to test, but should not be relied upon otherwise. Similarly, macroscopic hair comparisons can be helpful in determining whether different hairs have similar color, length, and size, but should not be used in identifying an individual suspect.

STR (root) v. Mitochondrial (shaft)

Today, scientists can use Short Tandem Repeat (STR) DNA testing so long as the hair sample contains a root. In crime scene investigations, it is often the case that hairs forcefully pulled from a person’s head contain a root. Typically, however, hairs are shed without a root. A hair without a root requires mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) testing. MtDNA testing is limited due to the fact that all siblings from the same mother have identical mtDNA. Regardless, the use of DNA testing on hairs is far superior to the subjective guess work used by experts in microscopic hair comparisons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/11/opinion/junk-science-junk-evidence.html

Conventional hair analysis, based on looking at one strand of hair under a microscope and comparing it to another, is subjective junk science.

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.

#144. To: misterwhite (#120)

(a) OJ's blood at the crime scene,

You mean the blood shown to contain EDTA?

Or do you refer to the initially collected blood samples which were left in a truck all day in the heat, destroying DNA content?

(b) victim's blood in the Bronco,

You mean the blood that was not there, and then significantly later, it was.

(c) the gloves with victim's blood,

Gloves with the victim's blood prove there were gloves with the victim's blood. Gloves that Christopher Darden decided to ask OJ to try on in front of the jury. They didn't fit.

Mark Fuhrman conveniently found one glove at Bundy and went to Rockingham and found the other. He also was forced to plead the fifth, and the lady [McKinny] with the tape that proved him a liar, testified that Fuhrman stated that police planted evidence against black suspects.

(d) OJ's shoe print at the murder scene,

Not in evidence. At the criminal trial, it was only shown that the shoe prints indicated shoes of a size worn by OJ, and millions of others.

(e) the fact that OJ can't produce the shoes or gloves,

The defendant is not required to produce any evidence for the prosecution, and need not say anything. He need not put on a case at all. The jury is instructed it may not draw any negative inference on that basis. It may only consider evidence actually presented in court.

It is impossible for you to know that OJ couldn't produce something.

(f) hair and fibers matching.

They eyeballed hair and they eyeballed fibers. In this case, matching was used to denote consistent with. The found hairs did not include roots and were not testable for DNA.

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

The blood evidence was a great big bust. Serology cannot provide a definitive match. Yamauchi cross-contaminated everything with a blood-draw sample taken from O.J. Simpson. Barry Scheck absolutely destroyed Dennis Fung and Collin Yamauchi on cross-examination.

One cannot impute much to evidence whose handling and processing is proven to be a scientific disaster.

[7457]

Prosecutor Goldberg questioning expert Matheson.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And I would like to turn to some of the testing that you performed in this case, Mr. Matheson. First of all, when blood evidence is collected from a crime scene and then submitted to the serology laboratory for analysis, what kind of information are you as a serologist looking for to derive from that blood evidence?

MR. MATHESON: Well, first off, we want to know whether in fact it is blood. If that's what we have, if there is blood present, we want to know whether or not that blood is human in origin. And if that is a fact, then we continue on to identify the different genetic markers that might be present or identifiable in a bloodstain or an exemplar blood sample.

MR. GOLDBERG: And are the tests that you perform in serology known as tests of exclusion?

MR. MATHESON: That's a term for it, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what does that mean?

MR. MATHESON: Well, the idea being is, there aren't any tests, particularly in conventional serology that would make a definitive match between a bloodstain and a particular individual. They can merely include somebody. In particular, they can exclude somebody. If you're doing an analysis and you find a marker that is in a stain that is not in a reference sample, then you can say absolutely that that bloodstain could not have come from that individual. It's an exclusion.

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

[9807]

Prosecutor Harmon and Criminalist Collin Yamauchi

MR. HARMON: When you processed the items that are labeled 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52 in this case, generally were there two bindles in each of those envelopes?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: How many bindles were in each of the coin envelopes?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Two.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And will you please describe your practice with respect to processing or how you process coin envelopes?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, only one coin envelope or set of evidence item would be opened at one time. So in other words, I wouldn't have two coin envelopes open simultaneously.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And why is that?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, that's bad lab practice. You want to eliminate any chance of crosscontamination. So you work on one thing at one time.

Defense Counsel Barry Scheck Cross-Examining Criminalist Collin Yamauchi

[10,000]

MR. SCHECK: And that was being done at the same time as the Bundy blood drops on June 14th?

MR. HARMON: Objection. "Being done at the same time" is vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: That was part of your 23 samples?

MR. YAMAUCHI: It was in that group, yes.

MR. SCHECK: And also within those 23 samples was blood from the reference tube of Mr. Simpson?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, on June 15th, you received specimens, completed PCR amplification and obtained results on 19 different samples?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. On the 15th, counting the controls and everything, 19.

MR. SCHECK: And you did all those in one day, June 15th?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. I got through the hybridization step in that time period.

MR. SCHECK: You received the samples, you cut them, you did PCR extraction and you did typing on the strip so that you could report results by the end of the day on all 19 of those?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, I couldn't report the results till all the other things were in place and everything was looked at and written out. But I would have results available for interpretation.

MR. SCHECK: The evening of June 15th, you called Greg Matheson and gave him results on those 19 samples based on the PCR typing strips?

[10,001]

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. I told him what I got up to that poison.

MR. SCHECK: The only thing that was missing, as far as the way you did this, was the PCR product gel, right?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, was it part of your training to avoid analyzing a large number of samples in a short period of time because that can increase the chance of inadvertent cross-contamination and mix up?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, if you're referring to this case, I didn't do it in a short period of time. I did it in--

MR. SCHECK: Mr. Yamauchi--

MR. YAMAUCHI: --quite a big block of time.

THE COURT: Wait, wait. No. You don't get to cut off the answer.

MR. SCHECK: Move to strike. Nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Overruled. Let him finish the answer.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, because I went way beyond what a normal workday is in order to complete those steps.

MR. SCHECK: Move to strike, not responsive. I asked him about his training, only his training.

THE COURT: You're asking about the short period. Overruled. Proceed. Proceed.

MR. SCHECK: In your training, were you taught to avoid analyzing a large number of samples in a short period of time because that can increase the chance of inadvertent cross-contamination and mix-up?

MR. YAMAUCHI: You know, I don't know in those words if that was ever said to me.

MR. SCHECK: Are you familiar with the amplitype user guide?

THE COURT: Why don't you just ask him if he agrees with that concept.

MR. SCHECK: No. I would like to show him the actual user guide. He said he didn't have anything in his training.

[10,002]

THE COURT: We're talking about common sense things here and we're spending a lot of time on it.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, we are talking about basic points of training. That's correct.

THE COURT: All right. So let's proceed.

MR. SCHECK: We're trying to establish with the witness what a basic point of training is.

THE COURT: Proceed. Proceed.

MR. SCHECK: Did you review in the amplitype user guide--withdrawn. In your training, did you review special precautions that are included in the amplitype user guide?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. I've read through that entire user guide.

MR. SCHECK: And you studied it?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

THE COURT: And you rely upon it.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, that along with another book, which would be our own protocol and procedure manual, and a lot of other journal articles and experience to make up my opinions, if that's what you're asking.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. May I approach the witness?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. HARMON: May I see that section?

THE COURT: Counsel, I assume you have that as well. Proceed.

MR. SCHECK: And you're familiar with the section of the user guide entitled "Special precautions"?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And are familiar with paragraph 14 of the section on "Special precautions"?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

[10,003]

MR. SCHECK: And do you rely on that paragraph?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. I would agree with that.

MR. SCHECK: And does not that paragraph state that you should limit the quantity of samples handled in a single run to a manageable number, approximately 15, "This precaution will reduce the risk of sample mix up and the potential for sample-to-sample contamination"?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. And I think 23 is a reasonably close number to 15.

MR. SCHECK: You do?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, I do.

And then there were the comments of the world renowned Dr. Henry Lee about the mishandled scientific evidence is like finding a cockroach in your spaghetti. Do you look to count how many cockroaches there are, or do you just throw it all out?

[17544 - 17545]

DR. LEE: This examination, it's not a quantitative examination. It's not a laboratory test, the concentration becoming important issue. The best analogy I can give it to you is, if I order--goes to a restaurant, order a dish of spaghetti. While eating the spaghetti, I found one cockroaches. I look at it. I found another cockroaches. It's no sense for me to go through the whole plate of spaghetti, say, there are 13.325 cockroaches. If you found one, it's there. It's a matter of whether or not present or absence. I'm not coming here to tells you exactly how many and what's the distribution or quantitative analysis.

[17620]

DR. LEE: Only opinion I can giving under this circumstance, something wrong.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-08   3:59:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

---

- - - - - - - - - -

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.

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?

"OJ providing two pair of Aris gloves would prove nothing other than that he owned and, presumably, wore Aris gloves."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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 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.

What was presented to the jury was the actual testimony.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

A Defendant in a criminal trial has a constitutional right not to be compelled to testify. You must not draw any inference from the fact that a Defendant does not testify. Further, you must neither discuss this matter nor permit it to enter into your deliberations in any way.

In deciding whether or not to testify, the Defendant may choose to rely upon the state of the evidence and upon the failure, if any, of the Prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every essential element of the crime charged against him. No lack of testimony on the Defendant's part will make up for a failure of proof by the Prosecution so as to support a finding against him on any such essential element.

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:

Therefore, the court will instruct the jury as possible--excuse me--as follows: Detective Mark Fuhrman is not available for further testimony as a witness in this case. 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. Now, having found that Detective Fuhrman is unavailable as a witness under evidence code section 240, the court then has reexamined its ruling with regards to the five excerpts which are now offered as statements against penal interest, and the court having evaluated those, finds that the court's previous ruling was appropriate and the objections will be sustained. All right. Are you ready to proceed?

Or an inference that blood DNA degraded and turned into OJ's blood.

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.

MS. CLARK: THE PART THAT I HAVE DRAWN, YOUR HONOR, THE BRACKET AROUND, THAT IS THE ITEM IN ISSUE. "ITEM 84-A" IS THAT "84-B AND 118-A COULD NOT HAVE COME FROM NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, RONALD GOLDMAN OR O.J. SIMPSON; HOWEVER, NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON CANNOT BE EXCLUDED AS A SOURCE OF THE STAIN IN THE EAP. TYPE B OBSERVED ON THE ITEMS WERE DEGRADED FROM A TYPE B A."

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.

How do you think the blood evidence was collected from the crime scene? Answer: With a sterile swab.

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.

"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.

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.

"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 blood was tested. It was useful. The DNA matched OJ, Nicole, and Ron Goldman.

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?

You're suggesting that the "real" killers blood was collected from the crime scene, degraded in the heat, and turned into OJ's blood.

Put down the blue crystal, or show where anyone claimed or inferred that blood degraded and turned into OJ's blood.

"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.

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.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: Dr. Rieders, good afternoon.

DR. RIEDERS: Good afternoon.

MS. CLARK: Now, you've just testified, sir, that according to you, your reading of an EPA report, that normally you will find no more than two or four parts per billion EDTA in a normal person's blood. Is that what you just said, sir?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. That normal is no more than four parts per billion. Right.

MS. CLARK: Okay. No more than. In other words, you're saying that the maximum amount of EDTA that you will find in a normal person's blood is no more than four parts per billion, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: That's what the EPA says and I accept that. I have nothing better.

MS. CLARK: And that's based on the report that you had; is that correct, sir?

DR. RIEDERS: It's an EPA publication, the ONTADS, which is one of their publications.

MS. CLARK: Now, if what that--strike that. In the evidence stain, sir, you said you found EDTA in the levels of parts per million, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: I didn't find it. Mr. Martz did and I agreed that they are in the parts per million based on his analysis.

MS. CLARK: So the amount of EDTA found in the evidence stains on the gate and the sock were in parts per million; is that right?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. Because you cannot detect anything that is less than parts per million in any of the samples that he prepared or tested. His detection limit is in the parts per million.

MS. CLARK: The answer is yes. The amount that was found in the gate and the sock were in parts per million, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And the amount that should be found, the maximum amount that could be found in a person, a normal healthy person's blood is in parts per billion, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, according to the best available information.

MS. CLARK: And if that information is incorrect and the actual information is in parts per million, then the amount found in the gate and the sock are a normal person's maximum allowable amount; wouldn't that be true, sir?

DR. RIEDERS: If the best information is it's parts per billion, then yes.

MS. CLARK: I have a report to show you, sir.

[...]

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. I see the problem.

MS. CLARK: Yes, you see the problem, sir. Is that what you said?

DR. RIEDERS: No. I see the paragraph.

MS. CLARK: Oh, I see. And what does it say here?

MR. BLASIER: Objection to the comments by counsel.

THE COURT: Sustained. Jury is to disregard. Miss Clark.

DR. RIEDERS: I said clearly "Paragraph."

MS. CLARK: I'm sorry?

DR. RIEDERS: I said clearly "Paragraph," not "Problem."

MS. CLARK: "Paragraph." Tell the jury what this means in terms of amount, sir? "EDTA should not exceed two milligrams per milliliter of blood." What does that translate to in terms of either parts per million or parts per billion?

DR. RIEDERS: What that is, it should not be less than 2,000 parts per million. That's the same amount that you find in EDTA in blood. At two parts at million--at 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.

[...]

From the FBI IG Report,

E. Testimony by Agent Martz in the O.J. Simpson Case (Part Three, Section F)

[...]

We did not criticize Martz for the substance of the analytical work performed by him and the FSRU chemists, but rather for his deficient record-keeping and note-taking and for the manner in which Martz testified. That testimony ill served the FBI because it conveyed a lack of preparation, an inadequate level of training in toxicological issues, and deficient knowledge about other scientific matters that should be within the expertise of a chief of a unit handling chemical and toxicological analyses in the Laboratory.

What was presented to the jury was the actual testimony.

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.

All the things that the testimonial evidence at trial did not prove do not amount to proof of anything.

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.

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 #263]

C * R * I * C * K * E * T * S

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?

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?

A prosecution claim is not a fact without supporting evidence.

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?

"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."

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.

Did somebody touch the Rockingham glove with a sterile swab? It is really a yes or no question.

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.

On Cross, he took the 5th Amendment and refused to answer questions.

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"?

A prosecution claim is not a fact without supporting evidence.

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?

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.

"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."

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.

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,

MR. BLASIER: And you actually had the sock itself?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I did.

MR. BLASIER: And when you got the sock was the green area indicated on the chart already cut out?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, it was.

MR. BLASIER: And you then took a cutting from the edge area of the stain?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you were also sent A--another swatch inside a little aliquot tube, were you not?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: That is what you call Q207?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

[...]

MR. BLASIER: I would like to put Q207 on the elmo.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, that is a picture of what was sent to you, Q207?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And you now know that that came from the stain area that had been cut out of the sock?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Once you found out what that was, did you ever request to have it sent back so that you could run tests, positive ion tests on that?

MR. MARTZ: No.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Could we have 1257-R.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, is the chart that is now on the screen an accurate depiction of the two tests that you ran on Q206, the stain from the--the cutting from the edge of the stain?

MR. MARTZ: Two of the tests that I ran, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And do you agree that the peaks demonstrated on the chart were peaks that you found in your testing?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Now, would you agree that you detected the presence of the 293 parent ion which is the parent ion for EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: Umm, I detected the 160 ion which came from the parent ion of 293.

MR. BLASIER: Well, isn't it true that the machine is set so that it only let's through the 293 parent ion?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: So is it accurate to say that you can conclude from that chart that you have found both the 293 parent ion and the 160 daughter ion?

MR. MARTZ: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: All right. Now, Agent Martz, would you agree that the pattern that you got on the sock, Q206, is consistent with the presence of EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: Umm, it certainly warrants further testing. It responded like EDTA responded, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Is it consistent with the presence of EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

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.

MS. CLARK: Now, you've just testified, sir, that according to you, your reading of an EPA report, that normally you will find no more than two or four parts per billion EDTA in a normal person's blood. Is that what you just said, sir?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. That normal is no more than four parts per billion. Right.

MS. CLARK: Okay. No more than. In other words, you're saying that the maximum amount of EDTA that you will find in a normal person's blood is no more than four parts per billion, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: That's what the EPA says and I accept that. I have nothing better.

[...]

MS. CLARK: "Paragraph." Tell the jury what this means in terms of amount, sir? "EDTA should not exceed two milligrams per milliliter of blood." What does that translate to in terms of either parts per million or parts per billion?

DR. RIEDERS: What that is, it should not be less than 2,000 parts per million. That's the same amount that you find in EDTA in blood. At two parts at million--at 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.

- - - - - - - - - -

MS. CLARK: Now, do you know whether these forms of EDTA were ever tested for the purpose of determining what the maximum tolerance would be in a normal healthy person?

DR. RIEDERS: You mean in food? Is that it? When you say maximum tolerance, how? Intravenous or in food or what? Vast difference.

MS. CLARK: No, sir. I asked you whether there was any testing that you know of that determined whether any of the forms of EDTA that we have just talked about, those four--

DR. RIEDERS: Right.

MS. CLARK: --was ever done to see what the normal level would be in an average healthy person?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. The study of Foreman and Trujillo dealt with normal healthy persons.

MS. CLARK: Objection, nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Overruled, overruled.

DR. RIEDERS: And in this they determined what the level in their blood was, which was in the low parts per billion below their detection levels.

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we need to take a comfort break for the jurors. We will take ten minutes.

- - - - - - - - - -

Roger Martz testified that he did not know how much EDTA was normally present in blood.

MR. BLASIER: Now, would you agree that under those circumstances that we have described that is consistent with the literature, that the amount of EDTA that you might expect to find in a person's blood after they ate something with EDTA in it is likely to be very, very small, in the range of parts per billion?

MR. MARTZ: Well, I think if you take everything into account it would be difficult to say that. I mean, you are looking at one study in 1954 and it mentions at the end of that that there its some conflicting data based on iron and yttrium being eliminated very quickly from the body when it is ingested, when EDTA is ingested, and that paper only mentions one of the salts that the FDA permits to be used in the food. There is two other salts. So relying totally on one paper in 1954 with a lot of other conflicting information and information that is not available, I--to be perfectly honest with you, I don't believe that anyone knows exactly how much EDTA is present.

- - - - - - - - - -

USDOJ/OIG Special Report

The FBI Laboratory: An Investigation into Laboratory Practices and Alleged Misconduct in Explosives-Related and Other Cases (April 1997)

E. Testimony by Agent Martz in the O.J. Simpson Case (Part Three, Section F)

[...]

We did not criticize Martz for the substance of the analytical work performed by him and the FSRU chemists, but rather for his deficient record-keeping and note-taking and for the manner in which Martz testified. That testimony ill served the FBI because it conveyed a lack of preparation, an inadequate level of training in toxicological issues, and deficient knowledge about other scientific matters that should be within the expertise of a chief of a unit handling chemical and toxicological analyses in the Laboratory.

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.

- - - - - - - - - -

Insufficient Documentation of Test Results by the examiner who had performed work on hundreds of cases, including Psinakis and the UNABOM investigation, and by the CTU Chief.

The cited CTU Chief was Roger Martz.

- - - - - - - - - -

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.

- - - - - - - - - -

CTU Chief Martz was derelict in his technical review and misleading memorandum in 1989. The 1992 review largely failed as an effort to ascertain fully the true extent of the deficiencies in Rudolph's files. Had Laboratory managers performed responsibly, the Rudolph matter might have been appropriately resolved much earlier than 1995. Instead, the Rudolph problem continued to fester.

- - - - - - - - - -

4) Late in our investigation, Whitehurst wrote a letter to the OIG expressing concerns about testimony given by CTU Chief Roger Martz in Florida v. George Trepal, a case that resulted in the conviction and death sentence of Trepal for having added the poison thallium nitrate to bottles of Coca-Cola. We found that Martz could have properly opined that certain samples were consistent with thallium nitrate having been added to them. Martz, however, did not limit his conclusions that way, but instead offered an opinion stronger than his analytical results would support. He also failed to conduct certain tests that were appropriate under the circumstances, failed to document adequately his work, and testified inaccurately on various points. Martz's work in this case was seriously deficient.

- - - - - - - - - -

CTU Chief Roger Martz lacks the judgment and credibility to perform in a supervisory role within the Laboratory. If Martz continues to work as an examiner, we suggest that he be supervised by a scientist qualified to review his work substantively and that he be counseled on the appropriate manner for testifying about forensic work. We further recommended that another qualified examiner review any analytical work by Martz that is to be used as a basis for future testimony.

- - - - - - - - - -

Ninth, the FBI should develop a uniform program for training examiners with respect to court testimony and monitoring such testimony. We found the problem of examiners testifying to matters beyond their expertise or in ways that were unprofessional in Hahn's testimony in the Avianca case, Williams'testimony in the World Trade Center case, and Martz' testimony in Trepal and Simpson.

Testifying to matters beyond their expertise is science-speak for trying to baffle the jury with bullshit.

Laboratory management failed to assure that concerns about Rudolph's casework were thoroughly investigated in 1989. First, neither Butler in his initial review nor Martz in his subsequent review addressed the concern raised by AUSA Burch that Rudolph in Psinakis had erroneously relied on information from a field agent instead of conducting sufficient confirmatory tests to identify PETN. On a related point, as part of the 1989 reviews of Rudolph's work, Laboratory management failed to obtain and review a transcript of Rudolph's trial testimony in Psinakis. In light of the prosecutor's complaints, the transcript should have been reviewed.

- - - - - - - - - -

We also find fault in the way Nimmich and Martz handled the follow-up review. Given Butler's findings, the Laboratory should have reviewed Rudolph's work to determine whether sufficient analyses were done to support the stated conclusions. Although Nimmich might reasonably have expected Martz, as an experienced examiner and unit chief, to understand the need for a thorough technical review, in retrospect Nimmich should have taken steps, preferably through written instructions, to assure that Martz understood this to be his task. It also would have been desirable for Martz to have clearly stated the object and methodology of his review in his memorandum.

Whatever he understood Nimmich's instructions to be, Martz stated the conclusions of his review in a misleading way. He observed that analyses had been performed that were sufficient, yet he told the OIG that he did not review the sufficiency of Rudolph's work to support the stated conclusions. Martz's August 16, 1989, memorandum shows that he knew of Butler's August 2, 1989, memorandum, which recommended an in depth review of Rudolph's cases. Martz in his memorandum indicated he conducted a technical review and recommended that there be no further review of Rudolph's cases. As a unit chief, Martz should have recognized that this misleadingly suggested that he had completed an in depth review and concluded that further review was not necessary.

Martz also failed to note in his memorandum that, in his review, he found that notes and other documentation were missing. These findings deserved comment even if Nimmich did not ask Martz to conduct an administrative review of the files. Finally, Martz stated in his August 16, 1989, memorandum that, while other tests could have been performed, no changes would be made in the reporting of the 95 cases reviewed. Martz lacked any basis to make this statement if, as he told the OIG, he did not assess whether the analyses identified in the files were sufficient to support the stated conclusions.

Martz's review of the Psinakis case was inadequate to address the concerns raised by AUSA Burch. Martz commented that LC might be sufficient to identify explosives, depending on other circumstances. This begged the relevant question of whether LC was sufficient in Psinakis, which it clearly was not. Martz also noted that it was not uncommon for defense attorneys to question examiners about tests they knew had not been performed. The proclivities of defense counsel were not pertinent to the issues Martz should have been addressing. Martz's comments about Psinakis inappropriately tended to excuse Rudolph.

Nimmich told the OIG that he understood from Martz's memorandum that Martz had concluded that Rudolph had a sufficient basis for his conclusions in Psinakis. Martz confirmed in his interview with the OIG, however, that he did not review Rudolph's work in Psinakis and did not address AUSA Burch's concerns about the lack of confirmatory techniques. Given these facts, Martz should not have included his comments concerning the Psinakis case in his memorandum, because they misleadingly suggested that he had approved Rudolph's work.

[...]

In sum, the Laboratory's 1989 review of Rudolph was inadequate. The allegations that prompted the review came not from Whitehurst but from an Assistant United States Attorney with first-hand knowledge of the alleged deficiencies. The AUSA not only rendered his own low opinion of Rudolph's work, but repeated the similar view of the district court judge who almost excluded Rudolph's testimony. The AUSA further stated that Rudolph's inadequate work contributed to an acquittal. These were serious charges. That the Laboratory did so little in response to these allegations is deplorable. The Laboratory should have recognized Rudolph's incompetence in 1989 and initiated a complete file review and appropriate disciplinary measures. This was not only required by the proper administration of justice, but it also might have obviated the great time and effort expended in later reviews of Rudolph's files that were still continuing seven years later.

Martz was relegated to being one of the deplorables.

- - - - - - - - - -

Re the O.J. case:

We do conclude that because of his lack of preparation, his deficient record-keeping and note-taking practices, and certain aspects of his presentation and demeanor at trial, Martz poorly represented the Laboratory and the FBI in this case.

- - - - - - - - - -

In July 1995, Simpson's counsel sent a letter to the FBI requesting all digital data underlying the LC/MS and HPLC testing in the case. The FBI Office of General Counsel (OGC) responded by letter that the underlying digital data had not been saved in the computer. The following day, the OGC clarified this remark in a letter stating that the FBI had saved the digital data underlying its validation studies at the FSRU, but not the data underlying forensic testing by Martz.

- - - - - - - - - -

On July 25 and 26, 1995, Martz testified in the Simpson case as a witness called by the defense.

[...]

Martz also answered questions by defense counsel concerning his failure to retain digital data underlying his charts. Martz explained that the raw data is stored on a computer with limited storage space. Martz stated that in this case he printed out the appropriate charts, drew his conclusions, and did not need to look at the data again. Therefore, Martz told us that he permitted the data to be erased.

- - - - - - - - - -

Martz made additional noteworthy statements during his testimony. In particular, when the defense counsel asked whether Martz had decided during a break to become more aggressive in answering questions, Martz responded, I think I decided that I had to be more truthful. I was not telling the whole truth with yes and no answers. . . . I decided that I wanted to tell the whole truth. At another point in the testimony, Martz acknowledged that he had performed analyses using his own blood in May and July 1995, but had not made any notes describing how he conducted the analyses.

- - - - - - - - - -

Although we conclude that Martz did not mislead the court as suggested by Whitehurst, we think this case illustrates the importance of principal examiners reviewing the work performed by other examiners and researchers. Given the importance of this case and the obvious expertise on the defense side, Martz was surprisingly unprepared for his testimony.

- - - - - - - - - -

Although we do not criticize Martz's erasure of the digital data under the circumstances of this case, we are troubled by Martz's other record-keeping practices. Martz testified that he examined his own blood for the presence of EDTA in May and July 1995, but did not make any notes describing how he conducted these analyses. Martz explained at trial that because he examined his own blood in the same way he had examined other samples, he decided not to write down the procedure again. Martz further stated that he did not prepare a report because he considered these runs to be research, not case work. According to Martz, he would not generate a report when he did case-related research if he thought he could readily remember the examination.

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. Martz should have made and retained notes describing his procedures, even if he considered the procedures to be background research and not case work. As a general rule, an examiner should make and retain notes for all work related to any case, but especially work that might be the subject of examination at trial. Further, another examiner should be able to review such notes and have a complete understanding as to all procedures performed in any case. Martz's work in this regard was deficient.

Did somebody touch the Rockingham glove with a sterile swab? It is really a yes or no question.

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.

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.

18 Now, to ascertain whether there was blood on
19 the glove, you did a presumptive test.
20 A Yes.
21 Q You applied a cotton swatch to the glove?
22 A No, a cotton swab.
23 Q Cotton swab?
24 A Like a Q-tip type of thing.
25 Q All right.
26 What portion of the glove did you apply that 27 swab to?
28 A I believe the -- whatever area was facing
0069
01 upwards, I looked for a dark -- darker area than
02 appeared on the rest of the glove and applied the wet
03 swab to that portion and performed the rest of the test.
04 Q Do you recall where that portion was?
05 A No, I don't.

On Cross, he took the 5th Amendment and refused to answer questions.

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"?

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.

"Testimony indicates the glove was touched with a wet swab."

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.

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.

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.

The defense at the criminal trial did not produce that knife.

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.

The defense at the criminal trial did not produce that knife.

But it WAS produced by the defense. The gloves were not. Why not?

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.

The gloves were not. Why not?

Well, we know why not. The gloves were already people's exhibit.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

MS. CLARK: Let me show you another report. Now, the report that you just pulled out from your briefcase, sir, I'm going to cite you to a passage where it says, "Insight to amelioration AML, dredge undissolved solid." That's in your report, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: That's part of their report. That's part of the copy that I gave you.

MS. CLARK: This is the EPA report that you used to base your opinion on that the normal amount of EDTA that you'll find in blood or the maximum allowable amount in a normal healthy person would be in the parts per billion, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: This and the paper by Trujillo and foreman is--foreman is the other author.

MS. CLARK: Now, with respect to this report, sir, on which you just said you based your opinion from the EPA, you read that to allow for the maximum allowable amount in a normal person to be two parts per billion?

DR. RIEDERS: Right.

MS. CLARK: Right. Now, is it possible, sir, that you have a typo here that caused you to conclude there were two parts per billion as the maximum allowable when in fact, it is 1,000 times less, two parts per million as the maximum allowable amount in a normal healthy person?

DR. RIEDERS: It's possible that this is a typo, but this is--a 2,000 parts per million is absurd as I told you. The people would be bleeding to death at that level.

MS. CLARK: In other words, if this is the correct EPA report, you disagree with it?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, obviously. I mean, it's--obviously it's a typo in there because I can't imagine that the EPA would say that it's all right to run around with blood that won't clot.

MS. CLARK: Sir, you earlier just premised your person on the maximum allowable amount for a normal person on the EPA report, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And in your report, it says two mg/ml?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you interpret that to mean two nanograms per milliliter?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes. That's the only one possible.

MS. CLARK: That's the only one possible from an ng as oppose to an mg, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And so you determined that what the EPA was saying was the maximum allowable amount was two parts per billion, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: That they were saying what is consistent with their radioactive study, and that's what they say, yes. Sure. Makes sense.

MS. CLARK: But the radioactive study, sir, was not able to pick up EDTA in the blood, was it?

DR. RIEDERS: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: It gave no lower trace amounts that it was able to detect or measure in blood, did it?

DR. RIEDERS: I'm sorry?

MS. CLARK: That report back in the 50's of radioactive EDTA did not state any specific amount for anything detected in blood resembling EDTA; isn't that correct?

DR. RIEDERS: That's not correct.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I object. I thought we weren't going into this. I mean I'm happy to.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: I can't--

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: What was the objection?

THE COURT: Court's previous ruling on this regard, that report. Proceed.

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.

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, JULY 24, 1995 9:16 A.M.

Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)

(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)

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

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the Court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Douglas, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Blasier. The People are represented by Miss Clark and Mr. Kelberg. The jury is not present. Counsel, anything we need to take up before we take up the next witness?

MR. KELBERG: Yes, your Honor. I am down here not as a result of anyone else's efforts, but of my own accord, because I couldn't help on Friday but review the Court's ruling with respect to Mr. MacDonell's testimony and then to review Dr. Rieders' report, my understanding being that Dr. Rieders will be the next witness called by the Defense. And it struck me as ironic, if nothing else, that in the Court's ruling regarding Mr. MacDonell, the Court, on page 2 of its ruling, noted near the end, just before the section dealing with discovery violations, the previous evidence code section 352 objection by the Defense: "The phenolphthalein based presumptive tests for human blood is still well taken for all the reasons previously advanced." And what struck me from that in the Court's order is Dr. Rieders' report concerning his analysis of the test results of Mr. Martz from the FBI because on page 2 in the concluding paragraph of Dr. Rieders' report he says: "Thus the finding of EDTA in a micro blood specimen, such as in the present ones, is consistent with, indicative of and presumptive for the blood having originated from a specimen which has been placed into a usually lavender top blood collection" and handwritten in is "EDTA tube such as is commonly used to draw blood from a living person and keep it from coagulating." What I believe the evidence would show, your Honor, with respect to the analysis by Dr. Rieders, is there can be, among the eleven preliminary organic compounds known in the universe, hundreds perhaps that would give a reading, a pattern, to use a shorthand version, of findings consistent with what Dr. Rieders in his report is only willing to say is a pattern which is consistent with, indicative of and presumptive for EDTA. It seems to me that for all the reasons expressed by the Defense to keep out phenolphthalein testing, because it is misleading, confusing to the jury of the real issues, and so forth, the same applies with respect to Dr. Rieders' testimony, proposed testimony, with respect to the EDTA testing of the two bloodstains. This is not evidence that in fact shows there is EDTA, according to Dr. Rieders' own report. It only reflects that the result is presumptive of EDTA, and we can go into the technicalities about basically the full spectrum that you need to see in order to say I identify EDTA is absent, that it is not a full spectrum, and only what is present can be used to say in the opinion of Dr. Rieders it is indicative of, consistent with, presumptive for. What is good for the goose, your Honor, I submit is good for the gander. Now, why is this important? Because if there is only one other compound in the universe which besides EDTA could give the pattern which is the pattern found in the stains from the gate and the socks and from- -I will get into that, Miss Clark, in just a moment--if there is only one other compound that could give that pattern, then the evidence may have far more probative value than if hundreds of other compounds could provide that result. But we don't know which hundreds could provide it because as the evidence would show, Dr. Rieders, no. 1, has never done this test for EDTA using this equipment. His laboratory does not have this equipment. And the laboratory that he has to go to when he wants to use this kind of equipment does not have electrospray which is in fact the process used by the FBI, but it is the FBI's report and analysis which Dr. Rieders is going to come in here and talk about supposedly. Now, I find it most curious that a man who has never been testing for EDTA using this equipment who doesn't have the equipment in his laboratory and who has to go to a lab to do this kind of laboratory test but can't do it on that equipment because it is not previously the same kind is going to come in here and start talking about is this EDTA or is this not EDTA. And what is important, all he is going to say is about his own admission in his own report is it is presumptive of. Let me give the Court a further understanding of why I think it is so potentially misleading and it is an example from Dr. Rieders' past, recent past. A very wellknown case in the southern California area, the sconce, s-c-o-n-c-e, case, oleander poisoning. The history, a gentleman was found dead in 1985, death attributed to cardiac arrest, a young man, a very overweight man and a man in the funeral business, a competitor of Mr. Sconce's. There was an informant who in about 1990 suggested that Mr. Sconce or that the victim, had been poisoned by oleander poisoning. As a result of which the Ventura County District Attorney's office retained the services of Dr. Rieders to perform an analysis of various substances preserved from autopsy to determine the presence of something called oleandrin which is part and parcel of the oleander plant and is a toxin. Let me read the Court just very briefly Dr. Rieders' testimony at the preliminary hearing in 1990, October 4th, regarding his findings. "In this case three independent tests were done; thin layer chromatography, fluorescent spectrophotometry and radioimmunoassay. These are physiochemically different things. The chances that a substance has all the properties in all three tests in common and is in actuality another substance," and his opinion was that these tests showed it was oleandrin, "From experience are so extremely remote that one then has a very high degree of scientific certainty that if one says that this is oleandrin, in fact it is. A hundred percent, never. For a hundred percent you go to the seminary because that depends on faith. Science is never a hundred percent, it is statistical, and it is reasonably certain that chances are remote. And if you want to go over into the area of, in that area, the hand of all mighty God can make anything happen, so possibilities of course are there, but it is a high degree of reasonable scientific certainty and the operative word is `reasonable' a scientist goes by reason and not by feeling." Well, the Defense attorney for Mr. Sconce didn't think going by feeling was a very good way to go either, so he proposed having additional and more sophisticated tests performed. And guess what? The Prosecution, which included Mr. Giss of our office as a specially designated Prosecutor for Ventura County, agreed to split the $20,000 bill to have the sophisticated testing done using LCMS/MS equipment at Cornell University, incidentally, where Mr. MacDonell, I believe, makes his headquarters, Cornell, New York, and that the testing was to be done to determine the presence or absence of oleandrin and another metabolite product. And guess what? Wasn't there. The testing by Dr. Henion demonstrated that what Mr.--Dr. Rieders was willing to say to reasonable scientific certainty, not to a hundred percent because he is not God, it wasn't there. And guess what happened? A man charged with a potential capital offense saw his case dismissed as a result of Dr. Henion's findings. And guess what further happened, your Honor? Because I'm sure the Court understands that before the Prosecutor is going to dismiss a potential capital murder offense based upon an expert's finding he is going to want to go back to the original expert, Dr. Rieders, and say explain, please, where is Dr. Henion wrong? Tell us. Dr. Rieders--I talked to Mr. Giss in Miss Clark's office on Friday--basically gave a rambling nonresponsive answer, but a newspaper account of the story is succinct and to the point. From the April 4th, 1991 Los Angeles Times. "Henion reported last week that he had found no signs of oleandrin but he said he was still looking for substances created when oleandrin breaks down in the body. After trial recessed, when Henion testified with his results, no evidence of poison. Rieders, reached at his home near Philadelphia, said he could not account for the difference between his finding and Henion's. "In science' Rieders said, quote, `nothing is unquestionable,' unquote. Now, your Honor, I submit that this is exactly why presumptive test results should not be given to this jury under 352, because they are so misleading. They are not probative. Dr. Rieders cannot say what other compounds could produce the findings that the lab reports from Mr. Marks indicate, and to allow Dr. Rieders to give presumptive testing when the Court sustained Defense objections to presumptive testing is not to be fair to both sides in this case using basically the same rule of law applied to the same general aspect of the case. Now, as the Court will recall when I was last here arguing the admissibility of Mr. Simpson's statement on the exercise video, I argued something on the assumption the Court may not accept my position that the statement was admissible. That is, I wanted the tape played to show the physical movement. I make the same statement now that I made then, your Honor, that I believe this motion should be granted, but I also feel it incumbent on myself to raise additional points in the event the Court feels that the motion is not well taken. No. 1, the oleandrin incident is a clear mistake by Dr. Rieders, which using the rationale of the Defense with respect to Dr. Golden--and of course that is really why I'm done here because I have some familiarity with the evidentiary issues on this issue where the issue is the competency of the expert witness--the Court found that these specific examples of mistakes become admissible. And here, unlike Dr. Golden with gunshot wounds versus knife wounds, here we have the very same process taking place. Are we looking at something which is indicative of, consistent with and presumptive for the chemical or are we identifying the chemical in the substance? Big difference. And that is exactly what is at issue here, because I believe--I submit to the Court the evidence will show that in fact this is not EDTA. Agent Martz' unpreserved blood gave the same result as was found on the stains from the glove and from the gate, not a quantitative result, but showing the same pattern, unpreserved. That is a pretty interesting finding with respect to whether we carry EDTA in our systems, if it is EDTA, or whether there is some other compound that gives the same pattern. So no. 1, the issue of does he get cross-examined if he testifies about his mistake, I submit to the Court using parity of reason he gets cross-examined. No. 2, and I mentioned this to Miss Clark is really why I thought it important that I come down and argue this point, because the Court will recall in cross-examining Dr. Golden Mr. Shapiro wanted to cross-examine Dr.-- I'm sorry--cross-examine Dr. Lakshmanan, wanted to cross-examine Dr. Lakshmanan regarding the legal implications from the mistakes in the Gaye Phillips case which Dr. Golden acknowledged making. The Court will recall that area of proposed cross-examination, and I objected to it on, among other grounds, that it is irrelevant and that was because the issue for the mistake went to the competency of Dr. Golden. But I submit to the Court that it is proper cross-examination of Dr. Rieders to show the legal implications from his failure and refusal to acknowledge that he was wrong, because now we are not talking about his competency, we are talking about his bias. Dr. Rieders put his professional standing, his ability to get future business, his ability to retain his position as director of a laboratory, above the liberty rights of Mr. Sconce, rather than acknowledge that Dr. Henion's more sophisticated test proved that in fact there was no oleandrin poisoning. He takes the position in science "Nothing is unquestionable." Goes to bias, the legal ramifications. So I submit to the Court that if Dr. Rieders gets to testify, he gets cross-examined not only about the mistake, but he gets cross-examined regarding his response to that mistake and the legal implications from his failure or refusal to acknowledge it as a mistake because he needed to place his selfish interests above those of Mr. Sconce, the criminally charged Defendant. So again, your Honor, I raise these two points not because I believe our motion to preclude his testimony in its entirety is not well taken; I raise these points because I don't know how the Court is going to rule and I want to give the Court the full picture of what I believe are issues related to Dr. Rieders' proposed testimony.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.

MR. KELBERG: May I have just one moment, your Honor?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: Good morning, your Honor.

THE COURT: Good morning, counsel.

MR. BLASIER: Let me talk about the second issue first. I think it is just absolutely outrageous that Mr. Kelberg would come in and read from a newspaper and argue that there has been some determination that Dr. Rieders made a mistake in the sconce case. If we want to litigate the sconce case, we can, but it is going to take us about a month. The testing that was done by Mr. Henion was done on a five-year old autopsy, a different autopsy, different tissue than the testing done by Dr. Rieders earlier. Dr. Henion in his reports, my understanding, acknowledges that perhaps what Dr. Rieders saw might have been there when he saw it, but because the second autopsy five years later might not show the same thing. The case was dismissed. There were other reasons for its dismissal. We can litigate that from here to Sunday. And it is absolutely ludicrous to say that they should be able to cross-examine him on that kind of a case where there has been no legal determination that any mistake was made. In fact no mistake was made. These are contrary opinions on scientific evidence which happens all the time. And the notion that Mr. Kelberg would come in and raise his voice because a scientist would say he is not certain about something is outrageous. No scientist is going to get up there and tell you he is absolutely positive about anything if he's a real scientist. So I make a motion that they not be allowed to cross-examine on that issue at all. On 352 grounds, certainly, and a lack of showing that there is any legal basis to cross-examine. As to the first issue, on whether this is a presumptive test or not, first of all, Mr. Kelberg has not read Dr. Rieders' report carefully. His report states that the testing done by the FBI does show the presence of EDTA in the bloodstain from the sock and from the gate. There is no language about "Presumptive for" in that part of his report. The second part of the report where he tries to attribute a source as to where this could have come from is where he uses the term "Presumptive" not in the sense of a phenolphthalein test where the phenolphthalein test we know that there are a lot of common-occurring substances that can give the same response as blood and therefore it is only a test that narrows it down somewhat, could have been something else, so they have to do follow-up tests to confirm it. These are not presumptive tests. I find it fascinating that Mr. Kelberg would use Mr. Henion's LCMS/MS test to go prove that Dr. Rieders made a mistake when he is claiming now that LCMS/MS is just a presumptive test. That is the same testing that was done in this case. They might say that there are hundreds of compounds that could give this pattern. They can't name a single one. I asked Agent Martz. He can't name a single one. They have not looked at all eleven million organic compounds. There may be eleven billion in the universe, we don't know. So you can't absolutely say that there isn't something else out there that we have never seen before that might give this same pattern. That doesn't make it a presumptive test. I'm assuming that the Los Angeles District Attorney's office has been prosecuting people for years based on LCMS tests or GC/MS tests which has less information than the tests run by the FBI in this case. Those tests have been used since the seventies to demonstrate that you have a particular substance in your blood, for instance. They are not presumptive tests. There is no case that says they are a presumptive test. They are determinative tests. They can make arguments that maybe there is some other compound out there somewhere, the name of which we do not know, that might give the same result, and Agent Marks will say that and Dr. Rieders will say that also, but they will say the only compound they know that gives everything we see, the right retention time, the right parent ion and the right daughter ion and the right characteristic you must have before something can even be tested, is EDTA. And Dr. Rieders will say in his opinion this is EDTA because it meets every one of those characteristics. On the electrospray issue, electrospray is a process by which you move from the chromatography stage to the mass spec stage. With liquid chromatography you are working with a liquid that has to be converted to a gas before you can do the mass spec part of it. All electrospray does is change the liquid to the gas. It doesn't change the ions. It doesn't change the compound. It doesn't change the measurement system. You still wind up with chromatograms that you look at and you analyze. Saying that this should be determinative of whether an expert testifies is like saying that Julia Childs can't tell you anything about cooking because she doesn't use a Cuisinart. It is one technique that is used as one step in the process. It doesn't change anything. You wind up with a chromatogram that is interpreted just like they all are. So I would submit that this is clearly not a presumptive test, and further, that the Prosecution should not be allowed to cross-examine on the sconce case or any other case that they may not have mentioned, unless they present it beforehand, so that we can litigate that as well.

MR. KELBERG: May I just briefly respond, your Honor?

THE COURT: Briefly.

MR. KELBERG: No. 1, just for consistency, it is Dr. Henion; it is not Mr. Henion. No. 2, it is a more sophisticated test than any of the tests that Dr. Rieders used. No. 3, the evidence is clear Dr. Rieders--in fact, we have his article "A quest for oleandrin in decayed human tissue"--noted his findings showed it wasn't there and he doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Dr. Rieders having been possibly correct in the past with respect to his analysis. If that were the case, this case might still have been prosecuted. We are not inclined to lightly dismiss capital murder cases, your Honor. That is dismissed because of the overpowering and overwhelming and compelling nature of Dr. Henion's results. Last thing is, who is the proponent of this evidence? The people at the left side of counsel table to my left. It is their responsibility to show no other compound. It is not our responsibility to say, oh, gee, you know, there is only one or two others or maybe a couple hundred. It is their responsibility when they are talking about it is presumptive of, and that is really what the conclusion is. The issue for this jury is, hey, where does this stuff come from? If it is EDTA, where does it come from? And that is this issue that the jury is being asked to decide when in fact the expert, the best he is going to say is it is presumptive for. If he is using the language, I didn't put words in his mouth, I didn't put the words in this report; he wrote them. He should have to live by them. I submit for all the reasons previously expressed, your Honor, he should be precluded from testifying. But if the Court feels differently than I on this, that the two areas of inquiry that I have indicated are appropriate, Dr. Henion's--I asked Mr. Hodgman to make sure he is available to clear the air should there be any air need clearing regarding what the test results were and I have every expectation that he would be available.

THE COURT: All right. For the purposes of the record, Mr. Blasier, do we have Dr. Rieders' report marked as an exhibit at this point?

MR. BLASIER: I don't think we do. We provided it to the Court last week.

THE COURT: I think we should have--I think for the purpose of the appellate court I think we need to have a copy here.

MR. BLASIER: I will submit my copy, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. The 352 objection as to Dr. Rieders' testimony regarding his testing for the presence of EDTA, the objection is overruled. I will allow his testimony. The cross-examination as to other testing in other cases done by Dr. Rieders appears to be a fair game for cross-examination. Legal ramifications, however, of scientific testing, appears to the Court to be a 352 problem because there are many explanations as to why things are done legally. It is an apple and oranges argument. So the objection by the Defense as to legal ramifications is sustained. All right. For the purposes of the record we will mark a copy of Dr. Rieders' report as Court's exhibit 18.

(Court's 18 for id = Dr. Rieders' report)

THE COURT: All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.

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."

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.

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?

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:

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, while you were going to the Rockingham location in the truck, was there any conversation with respect to filling out the crime scene identification checklist, the Officer in Charge portion?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, at this time I would like to take a look at People's 161 identification.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Miss Mazzola, is the resolution on your screen good enough so that you can--

MS. MAZZOLA: Not really.

MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe we can just focus in on the area that says "OIC name." Okay. You need to pull the paper a little bit over to the right.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, can you recognize this?

MS. MAZZOLA: Right.

MR. GOLDBERG: And did you--is this your handwriting?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it is.

MR. GOLDBERG: And your name is where it says "Officer in Charge"?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

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.

MR. GOLDBERG: Using this demonstration board, can you describe for us, starting with the first cell on People's 162, the steps that are involved in collecting a stain?

MS. MAZZOLA: May I--

MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe we can see that--can we see that cell?

THE COURT: All right. Miss Mazzola, can you see it on your monitor here?

MS. MAZZOLA: Oh, okay.

THE COURT: Sorry?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. That shows two spots, blood spots, that are numbered.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And is the first phase in this collection stated on the board the numbering and measuring phase?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it is.

MR. GOLDBERG: And is there a documentation aspect to that phase as well?

MS. MAZZOLA: The location, measurements, the photo i.d. Numbers and a brief description are noted on the evidence collection sheet.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And are the items also photographed before they are collected?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, they are.

MR. GOLDBERG: So all of that occurs prior to the physical collection?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, directing your attention to cell no. 2 that says "Dampened swatch," what is involved in this stage of the collection procedure?

MS. MAZZOLA: A small cloth swatch of the approximate size you need is selected with a pair of clean tweezers. A drop of distilled water is put on the swatch. It is then shaken so any excess water is shaken off.

MR. GOLDBERG: And directing your attention now to cell no. 3 that says "Collect substrate control," what is done in this phase of the correction procedure?

MS. MAZZOLA: The cloth swatch is placed on the substrate, the concrete or whatever, as close to the stain as possible, but without getting it in the stain, to get a background control of what the sample is on.

MR. GOLDBERG: What does the term "Substrate" mean?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is just the substance that the item of interest is on.

MR. GOLDBERG: So if the item of interest, for example, instead of being on a walkway, were on a wall, what would be the substrate?

MS. MAZZOLA: The wall would be the substrate.

MR. GOLDBERG: Or if it were on clothing, what would be the substrate?

MS. MAZZOLA: The clothing.

MR. GOLDBERG: What is the purpose of taking this control that is near the stain but not on the stain?

MS. MAZZOLA: Well, it could be used for two factors: One is to provide a background, what the sample was on, so when they go to run tests on the sample, they can see if the background itself would interfere with the tests. The control can also be checked for DNA or other items of interest to see if any contamination took place.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, so this control is basically just a blank swatch that has water on it that is put on the concrete in this example?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: So do you handle this piece of evidence exactly--or this piece of swatch exactly the same way that you would handle a swatch that was actually put on the stain?

MS. MAZZOLA: It is handled the same way.

MR. GOLDBERG: Why is it that you use the identical handling procedures for the substrate control that you would use for a swatch that was actually put on the stain?

MS. MAZZOLA: Because you want them to be as identical as possible. The only difference being one will contain the item of interest; the other won't.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, directing your attention to cell no. 4 on People's 1--excuse me--162 for identification, what phase of the collection procedure is shown here?

MS. MAZZOLA: It looks like the cloth swatch is being placed into a small plastic envelope, small plastic bag. The control is placed in one bag.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And now directing your attention to cell no. 5 that says "Clean tweezers"-- excuse me. I'm sorry. Now, directing your attention to cell no. 5, that says "Clean tweezers" in our demonstration?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. After the control is taken, the tweezers are cleaned with distilled water and a chem wipe, which is like a laboratory Kleenex.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, directing your attention to cell no. 6, which says on our board "Take new swatch, then dampen it," what does this phase of the collection procedure involve?

MS. MAZZOLA: Our swatches are stored in plastic tubes so you have to take a small selection of them out of the tube without handling them and then you can select the correct size that you need, so that is what is being shown.

MR. GOLDBERG: How do you decide which size to take?

MS. MAZZOLA: It depends on the size of the stain. You want to select a size swatch that is small enough that--so when you apply it to the stain you would get it as concentrated as possible.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in this particular photograph it is kind of hard for me to see that there are actually swatches in that little bottle, but is that what you are saying?

MS. MAZZOLA: Right.

MR. GOLDBERG: The swatches come from that bottle?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's right.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, let's take a look at cell no. 7 that says "Collect stain" and "Number card removed" is in parentheses. What are you doing here?

MS. MAZZOLA: That would be the actual collection of the stain.

MR. GOLDBERG: And did you have to dampen the swatch before you--

MS. MAZZOLA: Right, the same as with the control. You dampen the swatch, shake off the excess water, then you apply the swatch to the stain.

MR. GOLDBERG: And finally taking a look at cell no. 8 that says, "Package stain in same envelope with substrate control," what is involved in this procedure?

MS. MAZZOLA: The swatch with the stain is placed in a separate plastic envelope. Both the control and the swatch with the item you are interested in are placed in the same coin envelope with the item number written on the outside.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now when you are--thank you.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you are collecting one of these stains, do you collect one stain at a time?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And I want to ask you some questions about different things that could happen when you are collecting a stain. Do you--do you ever drop the tweezers while you are doing that?

MS. MAZZOLA: That can happen.

MR. GOLDBERG: What happens if you do that?

MS. MAZZOLA: You clean them all over again.

MR. GOLDBERG: When you are taking a swatch that actually has blood on it, do you ever drop that bloody swatch?

MS. MAZZOLA: That has never happened to me.

MR. GOLDBERG: When you are pouring the--maybe pouring is not the right word, but you are taking some of those little swatches out of the container, the little pill bottle--

MS. MAZZOLA: Uh-huh.

MR. GOLDBERG: --do those swatches ever fall?

MS. MAZZOLA: They do occasionally, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: What do you do with those swatches?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't use them.

MR. GOLDBERG: Could you use them as substrate controls?

MS. MAZZOLA: You could.

MR. GOLDBERG: But you do not do that?

MS. MAZZOLA: But I personally don't do that.

MR. GOLDBERG: So you just throw them away?

MS. MAZZOLA: Right.

MR. GOLDBERG: When you are picking up a swatch, do any of the swatches ever stick together?

MS. MAZZOLA: That happens sometimes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. What do you do in that kind of instance?

MS. MAZZOLA: If you are taking either the control or the actual item, you can use both swatches.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But what if you have two swatches stuck together? Do you try to separate them or is it possible that you could apply both of them to the stain at the same time, without knowing it?

MS. MAZZOLA: You can tell if two of them are stuck together. Umm, you separate them and you--you use one swatch at a time, either to pick up the control or to pick up the stain itself.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And what about the labeling of the coin envelopes? Have you ever mislabeled one of those by writing the wrong item number?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. When are they--when are the envelopes labeled in relationship to when the collection takes place? Before--

MS. MAZZOLA: The envelopes were labeled before.

MR. GOLDBERG: So do you put the--if you are collecting stain no. 5, for example--

MS. MAZZOLA: Uh-huh.

MR. GOLDBERG: --in our demonstration, you are going to put that in an envelope that is labeled what?

MS. MAZZOLA: No. 5.

MR. GOLDBERG: And that would be done before you moved on to no. 6?

MS. MAZZOLA: Right.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you were at the Rockingham location did you place your initials on all the coin envelopes as you were collecting them?

MS. MAZZOLA: At the time I thought I did. Looking back I apparently didn't.

MR. GOLDBERG: And do you recall testifying at what we've been referring to or sometimes referred to as a griffin hearing on August 23, I believe, of 1994?

MS. MAZZOLA: I remember testifying at the griffin hearing.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And in that--when you were testifying at that hearing at that time, did you believe that you had put all of your initials or your initials on all of the items that you had collected on the 13th?

MS. MAZZOLA: At that time I believe I had.

MR. GOLDBERG: And did you since learn that you did not?

MS. MAZZOLA: Right.

MR. NEUFELD: Objection. What she assumes is hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Did you since look at photographs of some of the items collected?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And have you learned that you did not?

MS. MAZZOLA: I learned I had not.

MR. GOLDBERG: On the other scenes that you had processed--

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I'm sorry. Move to strike the last answer. It is conclusionary as opposed to testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, on the other stains--excuse me--other scenes that you had collected stains on prior to the 13th, had you initialed on those occasions?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And why wasn't that done here at the scene?

MS. MAZZOLA: I was told that there were only two of us that--

MR. NEUFELD: Objection as to what she was told.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Without telling us what was said, was there a conversation about this?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And after the conversation did--was there some conclusion that was arrived at?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what was the conclusion?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: What is the basis?

MR. NEUFELD: Hearsay again.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: There were only going to be two of us at the scenes collecting evidence. We were working as a team, so it really didn't matter if our initials were on the envelopes since we were working as a team.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, as to the crime scene identification checklist that we talked a little bit about, when you testified at the griffin hearing, what was your understanding of how that checklist was supposed to be used?

MS. MAZZOLA: At the time I thought that everything had to be filled out. The other scenes that I had gone on they had filled out the checklist.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Maybe we can see a portion. I think it is 1107.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Let's just take a look at the last page of the exhibit. It is 1107 for identification.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Fairtlough, what page number is that? They are numbered at the top.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Page 2 of 2.

MR. GOLDBERG: I don't think it has a number. It is the one that has 17, 18 and 19.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. GOLDBERG: Or 18, 17 and 19.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Is this the form that you use out in the field when you are collecting evidence?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: It is a little blurry there.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, prior to testifying at the griffin hearing did you believe that every single box in every single column needed to be filled out?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And as a result of your training and experience after the griffin hearing, did you learn something different?

MS. MAZZOLA: I learned that this is a general guideline for us. Some of the boxes really don't apply to us at the scene.

MR. GOLDBERG: When did you start--when did you learn that?

MS. MAZZOLA: Right after I testified at the griffin hearing.

MR. GOLDBERG: And got back to the laboratory?

MS. MAZZOLA: Right.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. With respect to the time column, have you noticed now, based upon the experience that you have to date, that different criminalists in the Los Angeles Police Department have different practices with respect to how they fill out that column?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And how is that used?

MS. MAZZOLA: Some fill out every single individual time that something is collected. Others put a starting time that they start collecting evidence and an ending time when they stop. Everything that is collected is collected while you are at the scene, so it happens between those two times.

MR. GOLDBERG: And then are there some people that use what I guess you might call an intermediate type usage of that time column and put in some times, as you did on the 13th?

MS. MAZZOLA: Right.

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Sustained. The answer is stricken. Rephrase the question.

MR. GOLDBERG: Are there some people that use an intermediate technique?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, getting back to the collection of the evidence at Rockingham, perhaps we can take a look at People's 120 for identification. It is the board of Rockingham, the outside stains.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to People's 120 for identification, do you recognize what is depicted here?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is not showing up.

MR. GOLDBERG: It is not going to be on the monitor. Maybe you can just step down for a moment and take a look at this.

MS. MAZZOLA: Okay. Yes, I recognize it.

MR. GOLDBERG: And are these photographs that depict various items that you participated in collecting on the 13th at Rockingham?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Yes.

THE COURT: Overruled. May we have a side bar, your Honor?

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you were doing the physical collection on these, do you recall what order they were done in? Were they done in numerical order?

MS. MAZZOLA: For the most part, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And would that mean that you started with the stains that are down towards the gate?

MS. MAZZOLA: The first stain that was collected was on--excuse me--on the door of the Bronco.

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you know who physically collected that?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know who physically collected that.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear.

MS. MAZZOLA: Excuse me. I was the one who collected the one on the Bronco.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the stains that are leading from the Bronco into the driveway area, did you and Dennis Fung physically collect those--

MR. NEUFELD: Objection as to her and Dennis Fung.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, can you tell us, when you first started the collection, can you be more specific as to who was doing what in terms of the physical collection?

MS. MAZZOLA: As I said, I was the one that collected the stain offer the Bronco, and Mr. Fung collected the stain on the street. When we got to the driveway, he did, I believe it was like the first two stains, and I took over from there and was the one who physically collected the rest.

MR. GOLDBERG: With respect to the other stains, do you have a recollection of whether he physically participated in collecting any of those?

MS. MAZZOLA: He was present for some.

MR. GOLDBERG: So at the beginning of the stains he was doing more of the physical collection and then towards the end less?

MS. MAZZOLA: Right.

MR. GOLDBERG: And with respect to the first phase of the collection procedure, the documentation, the numbering and the measuring phase, how did the two of you work together to accomplish that?

MS. MAZZOLA: We worked as a team.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, with respect to the stains at the end of the outdoor area, stain no. 7 and stain no. 8, do you recall where Dennis Fung was around the time that those were collected?

MS. MAZZOLA: At first he was not present, but as I kept working, he came up.

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you recall whether anyone else was present at the time those stains were collected?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: In the immediate area?

MS. MAZZOLA: There was someone in the immediate area.

MR. GOLDBERG: Who was that?

MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Steve Johnson.

MR. GOLDBERG: Who is he?

MS. MAZZOLA: He is the assistant lab director.

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you know where Dennis Fung was at the time that he was not present?

MS. MAZZOLA: No, I don't.

MR. GOLDBERG: Where he went?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: But he went somewhere and at some point came back?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the stains at the Rockingham location, were--was every single last stain collected or were there some that were not collected?

MS. MAZZOLA: There were some that were not collected.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what is your training with respect to the need to collect every stain as opposed to less than all the stains?

MS. MAZZOLA: Well, on a trail you want to get a representative sample, you want to get the first few stains, you want to pick up the last few stains. The ones in between, as long as they appear to be going in the general direction, there is nothing out of the ordinary with them, not every single stain has to be collected.

MR. GOLDBERG: And is that the technique that you and Mr. Fung used with respect to collecting these stains?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right--you can--I want to ask you some questions that you may have to refer to your crime scene identification checklist for, so you may want to return to the stand.

MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.)

THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg, are you going to refer back to this exhibit, People's 120, for a minute.

MR. GOLDBERG: I want to talk about stains, unless logistically we can't do that.

THE COURT: Well, if you are going to be referring to it, proceed.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. With respect to the stains numbered 4 through 6 on our diagram, with the photo i.d. Numbers, 4 through 6, down towards the beginning portion of the driveway, can you tell us the time frame that those stains were collected?

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry, your Honor. The record should reflect that the witness is refreshing her recollection from some notes. May I approach the witness and see?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.

THE COURT: Miss Mazzola, what are you referring to?

MS. MAZZOLA: I'm referring to the crime scene notes.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Proceed.

MS. MAZZOLA: They were collected around nine o'clock, all within a few minutes of each other.

MR. GOLDBERG: And with respect to the stains that are up towards the--close to the entrance area, stain no. 7, stain no. 8, what was the time frame of those stains?

MS. MAZZOLA: Those were approximately ten to fifteen minutes later.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you have some time frames in your crime scene identification checklist to give us?

MS. MAZZOLA: Item 7 was collected approximately 9:10. Item 8, approximately fifteen minutes later.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, when you were at the location, from what you saw of all of the stains, did any of them appear to have been stepped in?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, before--I can take this down now, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Mr. Fairtlough, why don't you swing that around.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Before you left the Rockingham location, did you and Mr. Fung do any--go through any process in terms of double-checking the evidence that you had?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: What was that?

MS. MAZZOLA: We knew what item numbers we collected. We look at each individual item to make sure that we had everything.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And is that a routine thing that you have done on the other crime scenes that you were on before this?

MS. MAZZOLA: At the other crime scenes we make sure that we have everything that we collected.

MR. GOLDBERG: What did you do with the various coin envelopes that you had with the biological evidence of them--in them?

MS. MAZZOLA: They were put in a small paper bag.

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you recall whether they were lying down or standing up?

MS. MAZZOLA: They were standing up.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what was done with the paper bag?

MS. MAZZOLA: The paper bag was put into the back of the crime scene truck.

MR. GOLDBERG: Was the crime scene truck locked?

MS. MAZZOLA: All the time.

MR. GOLDBERG: Approximately what time was it that you left the Rockingham location?

MS. MAZZOLA: It was approximately ten o'clock, somewhere around there.

MR. GOLDBERG: Were you wearing gloves during the collection procedure of the biological evidence at Rockingham?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And do you know whether you were wearing the same pair of gloves the whole time?

MS. MAZZOLA: I probably changed gloves. I don't remember how many times, but--

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor, speculative. She said "I probably," and move to strike the answer.

THE COURT: Strained. Rephrase the question. Excuse me. The jury is to disregard the last answer and question.

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you have a practice at a crime scene to wear the same pair of gloves throughout the entire crime scene?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: What is your practice?

MS. MAZZOLA: I change the gloves when they start getting uncomfortable. If I am done possessing an area and I am moving on to a completely separate area, I will change gloves.

MR. GOLDBERG: By the way, just going back for a second to the blood collection procedure, can you-- do you ever touch the blood with your gloved hands?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: When you are collecting it?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: What about the swatches?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Is that something that has happened to you by accident where you have touched a bloody swatch with your gloved hands?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, what do you do with the gloves that you are wearing at the time that you leave the Rockingham location? Do you keep them on?

MS. MAZZOLA: No. We take a paper bag which we label "Trash" and any trash that we generate, whether it is used gloves, swabs, chem wipes, anything, goes into this bag and we take it with us.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, after you left the Rockingham location where did you go?

MS. MAZZOLA: We went to Bundy.

Dennis Fung, 4 April 1995

In this section Dennis Fung clearly identified Item 13 as the magic socks.

THE COURT: IT'S A GOOD THING THERE'S NO WIND IN THIS PLACE.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: MR. FUNG, I AM DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO WHAT'S BEEN MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 169 AND IS ENTITLED "ROCKINGHAM INTERIOR BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE." DID YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THIS EXHIBIT PRIOR TO THE TIME IT WAS BROUGHT DOWN TO COURT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE CALL OUT NUMBER THAT SAYS 14, WHAT DOES THAT SHOW? WHAT AREA OF THE RESIDENCE DOES THAT SHOW?

A: THAT IS IN THE MASTER BATH -- BATHROOM.

Q: SO THAT WOULD BE DEPICTING THE UPSTAIRS OF THE HOUSE?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT DO THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT ARE ATTACHED TO ITEM 14 SHOW?

A: THE PHOTOGRAPH ON THE RIGHT DEPICTS CRIMINALIST MAZZOLA DISPLAYING THE RESULTS OF A PHENOLPHTALEIN TEST AND THE PHOTOGRAPH ON THE LEFT IS A CLOSE-UP AND YOU CAN SEE THE STAIN HERE (INDICATING).

Q: OKAY. YOU'RE POINTING TO AN AREA THAT'S JUST TO THE RIGHT ON THIS PHOTOGRAPH ABOUT AN INCH AND A HALF OR SO FROM THE CARD?

A: YES.

Q: AND IS THE OTHER PHOTOGRAPH TO THE LEFT SIMPLY A PERSPECTIVE SHOT DEMONSTRATING THE SAME GENERAL THING?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE ITEM CALL OUT NO. 13, WHAT GENERAL AREA IS BEING POINTED TO THERE WITH THAT CALL OUT LINE? A: THAT IS THE MASTER BEDROOM.

Q: WHAT ABOUT THE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS THAT ARE ATTACHED TO THAT CALL OUT LINE? WHAT DO THOSE SHOW?

A: THOSE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS SHOW A PAIR OF DARK COLORED SOCKS ON THE THROW RUG.

Q: THOSE ARE THE SOCKS THAT YOU RECOVERED AND LISTED AS ITEM 13?

A: YES.

Q: AND NOW TO FINALLY DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE CALL OUT LINE THAT SAYS 12, WHAT GENERAL AREA OF THE HOUSE IS THAT POINTING TO?

A: THAT IS -- WELL, THOSE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS DEPICT THE FOYER OF THE HOUSE, WHICH IS THE ENTRANCE, AND THERE ARE THREE LARGE STAINS ON THE FLOOR. THAT IS A -- A CLOSE-UP OF THAT IS SHOWN IN THE RIGHT PICTURE.

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

Dennis Fung, 18 April 1995

In this section Dennis Fung provides testimonial evidence of when the magic socks were collected.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what time was 12 collected, approximately, according to the crime scene identification checklist?

MR. FUNG: According to the checklist, it was collected at 4:30.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And do you recall my asking you on recross whether you were sure about whether 13 was collected before 14?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Are you a hundred percent sure?

MR. FUNG: Not a hundred percent sure, no.

MR. GOLDBERG: Which one do you think was collected first?

MR. FUNG: I think the socks and item 13 were collected first.

MR. GOLDBERG: Before 14?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: But you can't be a hundred percent sure?

MR. FUNG: I'm not a hundred percent sure.

MR. GOLDBERG: When was 14, the item in the bathroom, master bathroom, collected, that stain?

MR. FUNG: That stain was collected around 4:40.

MR. GOLDBERG: So you are saying, I believe, that the socks were collected after 4:30--well, between 4:30 and 4:40, approximately?

MR. FUNG: In that general time frame, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And as far as you are concerned, Mr. Fung, does it make the slightest bit of difference that you can figure out, when they were collected within that general time frame?

MR. FUNG: No, it doesn't make any difference to me.

I'd like to know which hand he used to pick up the socks, and if he was 100% sure he used that hand. And why that particular hand.

When did you say he collected the socks? I couldn't hear you.

I am still waiting for you to identify what evidence, produced at the criminal trial, would have justified a jury verdict of guilty. I the mean time I will keep posting testimonial evidence showing perjury and planting of evidence.

OJ did it. Justice would be one dead OJ.

This is not about whether OJ did it or not. It is about whether the prosecution in the criminal trial produced evidence that would have justified the jury returning a verdict of guilty.

Perjury and planted evidence don't get it. I could not get a straight answer to the question of when the socks were collected, so I am providing the testimony of when they were collected and how the collection was recorded. I have only just started on that. There is more to come.

Did it ever occur to the forensics team that just because the glove didn't fit OJ doesn't rule out that he didn't do it. Did they bother to turn the gloves inside out and dust for prints?

They were cashmere lined.

I'd like to know which hand he used to pick up the socks, and if he was 100% sure he used that hand. And why that particular hand.

You just donot want to engage on when the magic socks were collected.

Dennis Fung, 11 April 1995, Cross examination by Barry Scheck

Note that Fung testifies to the collection of Item 12, downstairs, at 4:30 or thereabouts, recorded as 4:30, before he and Mazzola proceeded upstairs to continue collecting evidence, the first piece of evidence collected upstairs being Item 13, the socks, at an unrecorded time, and then Item 14 recorded at 4:40.

Q: AND THE -- THERE'S A BOX THERE THAT INDICATES TIMES; IS THERE NOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THEN STARTING AT I BELIEVE ITEM 11 -MR. SCHECK: IF WE COULD FOCUS ON THAT, MR. HARRIS, STARTING AT ITEM 11, IF YOU COULD ZERO IN ON THAT, MOVE IT JUST -- THAT'S IT. GREAT.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. ITEM 11 REPRESENTS THE FIRST ITEM THAT WAS COLLECTED WHEN YOU AND MISS MAZZOLA RETURNED TO ROCKINGHAM IN THE AFTERNOON?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU PUT DOWN THAT TIME AS 3:40 OR 1540 HOURS?

A: THAT WAS THE TIME THAT WAS PUT DOWN.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS THAT ACCURATE?

A: THAT'S THE GENERAL TIME FRAME THAT IT WAS COLLECTED.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN THE NEXT ITEM WAS A RED STAIN FROM THE FOYER AREA INSIDE ROCKINGHAM, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT ONE WAS COLLECTED AT 4:30?

A: YES.

Q: AND -

A: OR THEREABOUTS.

Q: OR THEREABOUTS. AND THE NEXT ITEM YOU COLLECTED WERE THE SOCKS?

A: YES.

Q: BUT THERE'S NO TIME INDICATED FOR THAT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND THE NEXT ITEM AFTER THAT YOU INDICATED WAS A RED STAIN THAT WAS FOUND IN THE MASTER BATHROOM?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT TIME IS AT 4:40?

A: YES.

Q: SO I BELIEVE IT WAS YOUR TESTIMONY ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT YOU COLLECTED THE SOCKS SOMETIME BETWEEN 4:30 AND 4:40?

A: ABOUT THEN, YES.

Q: AND THEN BEFORE YOU LEFT THE RESIDENCE, YOU COLLECTED TWO OTHER ITEMS, NUMBERS 15 AND 16, AND THOSE WERE AT 5:00 AND 5:05?

A: THE CHECKLIST STATES 15, 16 WERE COLLECTED AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME.

Q: WELL, WHAT TIMES WERE THOSE LISTED ON THE CHECKLIST? PERHAPS YOU COULD HELP. IT'S A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO SEE.

A: THEY BOTH SAY THE SAME TIME. 5:00 O'CLOCK.

I'd like to know which hand he used to pick up the socks, and if he was 100% sure he used that hand. And why that particular hand.

I will continue to present actual testimonial evidence on the magic socks, and then move on to the magic blood drops on the side of the Bronco.

You have said there is no evidence of planting. I am feeding you the evidence.

Andrea Mazzola, 20 April 2017, Direct examination by Hank Goldberg

Ms. Mazzola testified she and Mr. Fung left Bundy at about 3:30 or 3:15 and returned to Rockingham around 3:30 or so. (Of interest for another time is why the trip took 15 to 30 minutes as the prosecution timeline for the killer puts the time at about 6 minutes.)

In recording a collection time, Andrea Mazzola recalled that she just glanced at her watch for the time.

Andrea Mazzola testified she personally did the physical swatching on Item 12 in the downstairs foyer, and personally recorded the time of collection in her own handwriting.

And,

MS. MAZZOLA: After item 12, item 13 was picked up.

MR. GOLDBERG: And after item no. 13, what was picked up?

MS. MAZZOLA: Item 14.

Ms. Mazzola testified that Item 14 was collected at 1640 (4:40 pm) and the collection time was reflected as such in her notes. It does not appear that Hank Goldberg bother to ask about the collection time of Item 12 on direct, but Peter Neufeld filled in the gap on cross.

As for Ms. Mazzola on cross by Peter Neufeld, she testified about the time of collection of Item 12:

MR. NEUFELD: All right. Well, what time did you actually pick up item no. 12? Did you record that in your notes?

MS. MAZZOLA: Let's see. Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And what time was that?

MS. MAZZOLA: 1630.

MR. NEUFELD: That would be 3:30--3:30. No. 4:30, 4:30 in the afternoon.

MS. MAZZOLA: 4:30.

That is 1630, or 4:30 p.m., prior to proceeding upstairs to continue evidence collection with Item 13, the socks.

I will provide a substantial excerpt of that cross examination shortly.

Ms. Mazzola continued. In this section, Ms. Mazzola provides testimonial evidence of who collected the Rockingham socks, and the time of collection.

For identification purposes, Item #13 was the magic socks.

MR. GOLDBERG: Approximately what time did you leave the Bundy location?

MS. MAZZOLA: Oh, it was approximately 3:15 or so, 3 o'clock, 3:15.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And where did you go after you left?

MS. MAZZOLA: We went back to Rockingham.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you take the crime scene truck?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what would you have done with the gloves that you had been wearing at the Bundy location when you left?

MS. MAZZOLA: They were taken off and put in the trash bag.

MR. GOLDBERG: Before you left, did you do the same evidence inventory procedure that you've described?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And do you have--are you--do you have an independent recollection of exactly where that took place?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not an exact recollection. I have an idea where it took place, but I can't be absolutely positive.

MR. GOLDBERG: Was it outdoors?

MS. MAZZOLA: It was outdoors, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Can you tell us in terms of being towards the front of the Bundy location? By that, I mean the Bundy side or to the rear towards the alley side?

MS. MAZZOLA: It was up front.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. What time did you return to the Rockingham location?

MS. MAZZOLA: Probably around 3:30 or so.

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you have any notes with you that you can use to give us the time that you collected the first item of evidence once you returned to Rockingham in the afternoon?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I do.

MR. GOLDBERG: Can you tell us? Do you have it memorized or do you need something?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't have it memorized.

MR. GOLDBERG: Please tell us what you are referring to to give us that information.

MS. MAZZOLA: Okay. I'm referring to the evidence collection sheet.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I am sorry. I'll object. I would say there has to be a proper foundation laid before she refreshes her recollection. She hasn't done that.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: Okay. This says 1540.

MR. GOLDBERG: So that's 3:40?

MS. MAZZOLA: 3:40.

MR. GOLDBERG: Was the notation as to the time in your handwriting or Mr. Fung's?

MS. MAZZOLA: My handwriting.

MR. GOLDBERG: And when you made that notation, how did you do it? Did you ask someone or look at your watch or what?

MS. MAZZOLA: I think I just glanced at my watch.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And this first item was stain no. 11?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: Which was on which side of the house?

MS. MAZZOLA: It was on the side of the house near the garage, on that end of the house.

MR. GOLDBERG: That little narrow walkway area?

MS. MAZZOLA: Right.

MR. GOLDBERG: And that's outdoors?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's outdoors.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, I would like to direct your attention back to some testimony at the Griffen hearing on page 758. Well, actually 757, line 25 through 758, line 4.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry? What lines?

MR. GOLDBERG: Line 25 and 758 to line 4.

THE COURT: Do you have that, Mr. Neufeld?

MR. NEUFELD: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Proceed.

MR. GOLDBERG: At the Griffen hearing, did you give the following answers to the following questions? "Question: And what time did you get back to Rockingham was it? "Answer: Right around 4 o'clock, somewhere in there. "Question: How do you know it was about 4 o'clock? "Answer: Because of the time that is noted that we collected the sample in the foyer." Do you remember giving that testimony?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So was this testimony that you got back there at 4 o'clock correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: And why did you testify that way?

MS. MAZZOLA: Because I was--just had a chance to glance at the notes as I was testifying.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, I would like to read you another passage that occurred just previously to that on page 757.

MR. GOLDBERG: Counsel, it's lines 12 through 15. 757, 12 through 15.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. GOLDBERG: Just previously to that, did you give the following answer to this question? "Question: So as soon as you got back to Rockingham, the first thing that you did was walk inside and lift item no. 12? "Answer: After it was photographed." Do you recall that?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: So was item no. 12 in fact the first item that you collected?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: So why did you think that item no. 12 was the first thing that you collected and that it was at 4 o'clock?

MS. MAZZOLA: Because as I said, I was just going off of the notes. I didn't have time to go through them and refresh my memory and I looked at the wrong line.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you--didn't you see no. 11 at that time when you were testifying at the Griffen hearing and looking over the crime scene identification checklist?

MS. MAZZOLA: I honestly don't remember.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But based upon the crime scene identification checklist, was item no. 11 in fact the first stain that you collected in the afternoon?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And who did the physical collection on that?

MS. MAZZOLA: I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, did you in fact collect a stain no. 12 in the foyer area of Rockingham?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Perhaps we can see People's 169, which is the interior Rockingham map.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Can you see this, Miss Mazzola? Directing your attention to the photographs on this exhibit that are labeled with photograph numbers--photograph no. 12 and the call out line, do those depict where this item was collected?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it does.

MR. GOLDBERG: And this was the first interior item?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: And who did the physical collection in terms of the swatching of this item?

MS. MAZZOLA: I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: Was Mr. Fung watching you on this item?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, he was.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, after collecting this item from the foyer area, where did you go in the location?

MS. MAZZOLA: We started making our way upstairs looking as we were going for any items of evidence.

MR. GOLDBERG: So you collected downstairs first before going upstairs?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: And when you got upstairs, did you go to the master bedroom area of the house?

MS. MAZZOLA: We did go there.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you see the item that's contained in photographs 13?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: And where were they?

MS. MAZZOLA: They were at the foot of the master bedroom bed.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And did you also see the item that's depicted in the photographs that are labeled 14?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what are you doing in this photograph?

MS. MAZZOLA: That-

MR. GOLDBERG: Photograph that shows you holding a q-tip.

MS. MAZZOLA: That is a simple presumptive test for blood.

MR. GOLDBERG: Is that the phenolphtalein test?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it is.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, if you look closely at that photograph, in the upper right-hand corner, you can see that there is some clothing on the ground. Can you see that? It's right behind the shower door. No. The one that has you doing the presumptive test.

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: The one that has photograph no. 14.

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you recall how that clothing got there?

MS. MAZZOLA: One of the detectives was looking through the clothing.

MR. GOLDBERG: Was that while you and criminalist Fung were in this master bathroom, master bedroom area?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it was.

MR. GOLDBERG: And prior to this detective looking at this item, where was the clothing?

MS. MAZZOLA: The clothing was in a clothes hamper. You can't really see that.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. That's fine. You can resume the witness stand.

MS. MAZZOLA: Thank you.

MR. GOLDBERG: So when the detective took the items out of the hamper, did he ever put them back in the hamper that you saw or did he just leave them on the floor?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if he put them back or not.

MR. GOLDBERG: But he did--but he did take them out and put them on the floor?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. You can take that down.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you know how the towels got on the floor?

MS. MAZZOLA: No, I don't.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, after collecting item no. 12, what was the next item number that you collected, that was collected in your presence?

MS. MAZZOLA: May I check my notes?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.

(Brief pause.)

MS. MAZZOLA: After item 12, item 13 was picked up.

MR. GOLDBERG: And after item no. 13, what was picked up?

MS. MAZZOLA: Item 14.

MR. GOLDBERG: And who physically collected item no. 13?

MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Fung.

MR. GOLDBERG: What time was item no. 14 collected?

MS. MAZZOLA: Approximately 1640.

THE COURT: And the record should reflect that Miss Mazzola is referring to her notes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And were you referring to the crime scene identification checklist?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I was.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, is there a time for 13 on that list or is it just 12 and 14?

MS. MAZZOLA: Just 12 and 14.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I would just like to clarify something before I ask my next question.

THE COURT: Yes. At the sidebar with the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, what do you need to clarify?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I know on 15 and 16, the airline ticket and the baggage claim--

THE COURT: Oh, no, not this again.

MR. GOLDBERG: That's why I wanted to approach, so I can make sure I'm not going to go--we've had testimony there was a 15 and 16 collected at 5 o'clock, but that's it, which from my view, it sort of went beyond the Court's-

MR. SCHECK: What do you want to do? Maybe we won't have any objection. Just tell us what you want to do.

MR. GOLDBERG: I was just going to ask her when 15 and 16 were collected, not ask what they were.

MR. NEUFELD: We have no objection.

THE COURT: Just that one question.

MR. GOLDBERG: I should have brought the transcript up with me, but there's some inconsistent statements she makes regarding when she left the location. She thought it was shortly after 5:00, and it's based on the time of the collection of 15 and 16. There's reference in that transcript to collectively 15 and 16, the airline ticket. My proposal would be simply not to read that, redact that out.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Does the transcript--Hank, does the transcript refer to where it was collected from though?

MR. GOLDBERG: Uh-uh. I don't think it does.

MR. NEUFELD: I mean-

MR. GOLDBERG: If it does, if it refers to anything else-

MR. NEUFELD: No. I'm saying it's fine to bring out the location. In fact, just to take care of it now, if you don't bring it out, we will bring it out later on. Just items were collected in the bathroom and items were collected on the bench outside the front door.

THE COURT: Okay. If they have no objection.

MR. GOLDBERG: I don't know. I mean if it wasn't suppressed, it wasn't suppressed. But if it were suppressed, it's suppressed.

THE COURT: No. What happened was, there was an agreement the People were not going to offer it rather than it being suppressed. But the objection has to be made by the Defense to suppress it or otherwise keep it out. If they have no objection, then I assume we can talk about it.

MR. NEUFELD: It's basically our decision--frankly, the way it was brought out on two separate occasions by the People as part of their direct case created an impression upon the jurors now there's something we're trying to hide rather. So it's only under that kind of pressure that we feel compelled to, you know, simply say where those items were.

THE COURT: Keep your voice down. But it's a tactical decision on your part. So if that's your decision, that's fine with me.

MR. SCHECK: In terms of the location and the item numbers.

THE COURT: Right. Location and item numbers. That's correct. And then you intend on going into time and we're agreed you will just read the part that says item 15 and 16, not what they are, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. May I just have one moment?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: Okay. Done.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: These are the most educational sidebars so far. All right. Thank you, counsel. Proceed.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Thank you. All right. And was there an item no. 15 and an item no. 16 that were collected? And just answer that yes or no.

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what time were those items collected?

MS. MAZZOLA: I thought at approximately 5 o'clock.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And that was according to your crime scene identification checklist?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: May I just have one moment, your Honor?

THE COURT: Certainly.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MR. GOLDBERG: And can you tell us the location of where, using your crime scene identification checklist, these two items were located, just the location?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: First of 15 and then of 16.

MS. MAZZOLA: 15 was collected in a downstairs bathroom trash can, 16 was collected from a bench outside the front door.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, I'd like to show you another tape that we've marked as People's 186 and then I'm going to ask you some questions about it. If you'd take a look at it.

THE COURT: Is this from Rockingham?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah. It's the beta tape from Rockingham.

(At 11:37 A.M., People's exhibit 186, a videotape, was played.)

MR. GOLDBERG: If we could just stop for one second. We're at frame 17:11.

MR. GOLDBERG: So if we assume that this is correct, this would be 5:11?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: And in this scene, what are you and criminalist Fung doing?

MS. MAZZOLA: We are putting items of evidence in the back of the crime scene truck.

MR. GOLDBERG: And would these be the items of evidence that you had collected in the afternoon at Rockingham?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, are you placing anything in addition to the evidence itself in the truck at this time?

MS. MAZZOLA: Our kits.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what are your kits?

MS. MAZZOLA: They are two cases that contain things we need to pick up evidence, package it at the scene.

MR. GOLDBERG: Do those contain all of your packaging materials?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, they do.

MR. GOLDBERG: And in addition to the bags, the brown paper bags that we've seen, what other kinds of packaging materials do you have?

MS. MAZZOLA: Plastics, bags, coin envelopes of varying sizes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So at this point in time, those items are being placed in the rear of the crime scene truck?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: And would this have been after you did the inventory for the afternoon items?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you know where physically that inventory took place?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know for sure, no.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Let's continue.

THE COURT: All right. Just for the record, that's 17:11 actually and 50 seconds because there's a lot in between.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Thank you, your Honor. If you could just stop for another second. So this is 17:11:57:02 that we're looking at.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you just lock the crime scene truck?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: So at this time, where is all of the evidence that was collected from the morning at Rockingham?

MS. MAZZOLA: In the back of the truck.

MR. GOLDBERG: And all of the evidence that was collected at Bundy?

MS. MAZZOLA: In the back of the truck.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what about the evidence that was collected in the afternoon?

MS. MAZZOLA: In the back of the truck.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Let's continue. If we could stop for just a second. I have another-- I have a question.

MR. GOLDBERG: And the crime scene identification checklist that we've been referring to, where is that at this time as you and Mr. Fung are walking away from the-

MS. MAZZOLA: That is also on the back of the truck.

Ms. Mazzola testified she and Mr. Fung left Bundy at about 3:30 or 3:15 and returned to Rockingham around 3:30 or so. (Of interest for another time is why the trip took 15 to 30 minutes as the prosecution timeline for the killer puts the time at about 6 minutes.)

But wait! If they left Bundy at 3:30 and returned to Rockingham at 3:30, it took zero time, right?

Next time make a pont and back it up with specific testimony, not the entire court transcript. If you don't, I will not read it or respond.

Q: SO I BELIEVE IT WAS YOUR TESTIMONY ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT YOU COLLECTED THE SOCKS SOMETIME BETWEEN 4:30 AND 4:40?

OK. I read through all the testimony. The socks were collected between 4:30 and 4:40.

Your point?

Did they bother to turn the gloves inside out and dust for prints?

The gloves were lined with cashmere.

Shapiro admitted he tried the glove on earlier. That could have torn the lining. Darden said, "I think Johnnie (Cochran) tore the lining. There were some additional tears in the lining so that O.J.'s fingers couldn't go all the way up into the glove."

The gloves were lined with cashmere.

Are you telling me that cashmere linen cannot be scanned for DNA?