Did you know that a jury can also convict a defendant if the jury disagrees with the law? Yes they can. The jury has the final word, one way or the other.

Now, how about if you're on trial and I hand out fliers in front of your courtroom informing potential jurors they have the power to convict you even if you didn't violate the letter of the law? You woudn't consider that jury tampering?

Now, how about if you're on trial and I hand out fliers in front of your courtroom informing potential jurors they have the power to convict you even if you didn't violate the letter of the law?

I think Deckard should tell his lawyer not to let you on his jury.     : )

I favor the FIJA and their positions. However, we've seen a number of cases where standing on the sidewalk outside the courthouse (on the same block, on the lawn or sidewalk) has resulted in convictions for jury tampering.

Stand across the street, set up a booth there, hold a demonstration, wave big signs.

Just stay off the block that the courthouse is on unless you're willing to be arrested.

We see some comparable cases for blocking abortion clinic doors and sidewalks. The pro-lifers comply but still manage to protest effectively IMO.

"I favor the FIJA and their positions."

Position. Singular. Release the criminal if you don't like the law.

But I have to give them credit. In their Jurors' Handbook they have a paragraph or two on "nullification convictions" -- convict the defendant despite the law. So at least they acknowledge that's also an option for the jury, though they buried it on page 12 (of 14).

Since a "nullification conviction" is a real option for juries, you have to admit that someone handing out fliers informing potential jurors of this -- even if they're across the street -- would be very disruptive to the legal system we've come to understand.

In my opinion, if you support one form of disruption you have to support the other. Let's have not only an informed jury, but a fully informed jury. Yes? No?

Did you know that a jury can also convict a defendant if the jury disagrees with the law? Yes they can. The jury has the final word, one way or the other.

Uhhh... That's not completely true, actually. Judges have the power to vacate jury convictions, but not jury acquittals. Correct me if I'm wrong.

But I have to give them credit. In their Jurors' Handbook they have a paragraph or two on "nullification convictions" -- convict the defendant despite the law. So at least they acknowledge that's also an option for the jury, though they buried it on page 12 (of 14).

I always considered that and we can all think of instances where it occurred (or should have).

The jury is the most radical and unaccountable of all American institutions, much as it was under the British common law system.

In my opinion, if you support one form of disruption you have to support the other. Let's have not only an informed jury, but a fully informed jury. Yes? No?

Sure. However, a judge in most state and federal cases has considerable discretion to override a jury's intent. As do appeals courts. A jury convicting despite the law will have nowhere near the same impact as a jury exonerating despite the law (and incidentally rendering judgment on the law itself). But then, this is part of the purpose of a jury. It is why we have them, why we don't have instead, as most countries do, a system of courts where only a judge or panel of judges hear the cases and determine the outcomes.

Uhhh... That's not completely true, actually. Judges have the power to vacate jury convictions, but not jury acquittals. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You're right.

I think in at least some states, a judge can set aside a jury's verdict and call a mistrial even after the jury has returned its verdict. I'm pretty certain they can set aside a guilty verdict in some states, not sure if they can set aside an acquittal.

Maybe nolu has a link or two on the topic.

"Uhhh... That's not completely true, actually. Judges have the power to vacate jury convictions, but not jury acquittals."

You're correct. If the judge so chooses. But he may hate the defendant more than the jury. It still doesn't change the fact that the jury can convict despite what the law says.

But think what this would mean. Juries will play it safe and convict knowing that if they are wrong the judge -- who is the expert, after all -- will acquit and correct their "error". The reverse, as you pointed out, isn't true.

"Sure. However, a judge in most state and federal cases has considerable discretion to override a jury's intent. As do appeals courts. A jury convicting despite the law will have nowhere near the same impact as a jury exonerating despite the law (and incidentally rendering judgment on the law itself)."

I agree with all that. All these safeguards are in place for the defendant.

Meaning the jury will be comforted knowing that their guilty verdict will be voided by expert jurists if they made the wrong decision. However, if they make the wrong decision by acquitting, THAT error cannot be corrected by anyone.

So, once the jury knows ALL their options, how do you think they'll vote?

Meaning the jury will be comforted knowing that their guilty verdict will be voided by expert jurists if they made the wrong decision. However, if they make the wrong decision by acquitting, THAT error cannot be corrected by anyone.

I'm not sure. If the judge believes that there was something prejudicial or if he believes someone on the jury was nullifying, he could set aside the verdict and declare a mistrial, avoiding double-jeopardy.

So, once the jury knows ALL their options, how do you think they'll vote?

They'll vote the same in 99.9% of all cases. But a handful of cases would change if FIJA had its way in educating jurors about their options.

"I'm not sure. If the judge believes that there was something prejudicial or if he believes someone on the jury was nullifying, he could set aside the verdict and declare a mistrial, avoiding double-jeopardy."

It would certainly have the appearance of double jeopardy. Even Judge Lance Ito, who had about two dozen valid reasons to do that, held back.

"They'll vote the same in 99.9% of all cases."

You're dreaming. Here's the instruction to the jury:

A) If you vote guilty and you're wrong, don't worry. The judge in this case and possibly higher courts will review your decision and will overturn your verdict if you screwed up. Or,

B) If you vote not guilty and you're wrong, you just let a guilty man go free to commit more crimes. There's no going back. There's no second bite at the apple.

I'll ask again. Once the jury knows ALL their options, how do you think they'll vote?

You're correct. If the judge so chooses. But he may hate the defendant more than the jury. It still doesn't change the fact that the jury can convict despite what the law says.

People have literally been hanged contrary to law. Ultimately, written laws have only as much power as those in control allow, and that cannot be helped.

But jury "nullification" really refers to nullifying laws that someone is accused of violating, not convicting someone who stands falsely accused. And given the civil theory is that it's better for a guilty man to be go free than an innocent man to go to jail. Nullification stands as a final voice of the average people on whether criminal laws passed by representatives are acceptable, and that is simply not a bad thing in my view. Fugitive slave laws falling "victim" to jury nullification being one example.

I see no reason why juries should not openly have nullification power explained to them. While it may result in people truly deserving of punishment going free on occasion, #1) I think that would be extremely rare, and #2) I think the value of giving average people a voice on what laws are acceptable is far more valuable a thing than is the harm in letting a true thug go free, so I thikn the benefit greatly outweighs the (very rare) harm.

I'll ask again. Once the jury knows ALL their options, how do you think they'll vote?

You're presuming the average jury has multiple FIJA types on it or people with a political agenda.

I don't think there are that many people willing to sit on a jury who are going to have those motives and carry through with them. They'll generally follow the judge's instructions.

The average juror is not weighing their options like a lawyer would. I don't really think they want to.

"I see no reason why juries should not openly have nullification power explained to them."

I agree. IF both types of nullification are explained to them:

A) If they think the law is unfair they can vote not guilty.

B) If they think the defendant did not violate the letter of the law but did violate the spirit of the law, they can vote guilty. Or they can vote guilty if they simply don't like him.

Otherwise, they can forget about the jury altogether and have a bench trial.

You're dreaming. Here's the instruction to the jury:

A) If you vote guilty and you're wrong, don't worry. The judge in this case and possibly higher courts will review your decision and will overturn your verdict if you screwed up. Or,

B) If you vote not guilty and you're wrong, you just let a guilty man go free to commit more crimes. There's no going back. There's no second bite at the apple.

You have pessimism down to an art.

There's no reason, practical or theoretical, to tell them their guilty verdict could be overturned. At least I can't think of any. You just tell them to consider facts of the case as well as the applicable law, and render a verdict.

And it is extremely, extremely rare for a judge to set aside a jury conviction, as any judge who would be inclined to do that based on the merits of the case would most likely dismiss the charges before jury deliberations even start. I'm sure that is far, far more common.

"You're presuming the average jury has multiple FIJA types on it or people with a political agenda."

My only point was that if you're going to instruct the jury on nullification acquittal then, to be fair and complete, you should also instruct the jury on nullification conviction.

No matter if the judge does the instruction or if FILA does the instruction, or if some guy on the street handing out flyers does the instruction. That was all I was saying.

I agree. IF both types of nullification are explained to them:

A) If they think the law is unfair they can vote not guilty.

B) If they think the defendant did not violate the letter of the law but did violate the spirit of the law, they can vote guilty. Or they can vote guilty if they simply don't like him.

Given that convictions require unanimous agreement, and given that jurists are initially screened to ensure they have no personal relations with the accused, and given the average person would be willing to judge a stranger fairly, I would be inclined to accept your terms.

"You just tell them to consider facts of the case as well as the applicable law, and render a verdict."

Sure. I'd prefer that.

But this article deals with nullification acquittal whereby the jury is informed that they can void the applicable law if they think it's unfair and find the defendant not guilty.

So, in response to THAT, I'm saying that the jury should also be informed of nullification conviction whereby the jury can find the defendant guilty even if he didn't violate the letter of the law.

I would also tell them at the same time not to worry about the guilty verdict since that verdict could be overturned by the judge or a higher court if it was unreasonable.

"Given that convictions require unanimous agreement, and given that jurists are initially screened to ensure they have no personal relations with the accused, and given the average person would be willing to judge a stranger fairly, I would be inclined to accept your terms."

This would actually be beneficial in cases that are lost because of a technicality. The jury could be instructed that they can examine the technical infraction and make a determination as to how much weight to give it.

Every time the defense yells "objection", the jury does not have to disregard what led up to the objection.

The jury would be allowed give police testimony more weight than others who testify.

This could change everything.

My only point was that if you're going to instruct the jury on nullification acquittal then, to be fair and complete, you should also instruct the jury on nullification conviction.

You're kind of making up that whole "nullification conviction" thing.

The point of a "nullification acquittal" is to exonerate the defendant but also to nullify the underlying law. If juries refuse repeatedly to convict, that law becomes nullified and no prosecutor will bring a case to court because they don't like to lose and usually have plenty of other cases to prosecute that they can win.

A "nullification conviction" in no way can nullify the underlying law. At least, I can't imagine how. Such a conviction would probably be easily overturned on appeal.

But I'm still not going to do that.

The jury would be allowed give police testimony more weight than others who testify.

People already do that.

"You're kind of making up that whole "nullification conviction" thing."

I got it from your FIJA web site. Go to fija.org and click on Juror's Handbook. Page 12:

"When jurors get wind of the appearance that at least some of our most fundamental rules are really just window dressing, what protection will we have against "nullification convictions" by jurors who refuse to release dangerous or despicable villains entitled to acquittals on the basis of seemingly unjust legal technicalities?

"You are trying very hard to get people to say that jury nullification would be a disaster."

My only point was that if you're going to instruct the jury on nullification acquittal then, to be fair and complete, you should also instruct the jury on nullification conviction.

As to whether or not nullifying laws that someone is accused of violating would be a disaster, that depends on the law in question. Put a Muslim on a jury and he may nullify a spousal abuse law. A Christian may nullify a gay rights law.

Jurors are not supposed to write the laws. If the law is bad or unfair, there are ways to handle that outside a jury room.

"If juries refuse repeatedly to convict, that law becomes nullified and no prosecutor will bring a case to court"

Is that the way we change laws in our country? By a relatively small number of people with an agenda?

I think in at least some states, a judge can set aside a jury's verdict and call a mistrial even after the jury has returned its verdict. I'm pretty certain they can set aside a guilty verdict in some states, not sure if they can set aside an acquittal.

Maybe nolu has a link or two on the topic.

The judge can overrule a guilty verdict. He cannot overrule a not guilty verdict after the fact due to jury nullification. As a seperate, and distinct possibility, an acquitted defendant may be retried upon a later finding of a rigged jury. That possibility proceeds in the face of double jeopardy claims on the theory that jeopardy never attached in the trial with the rigged jury.

A judge issuing an acquittal notwithstanding the verdict I believe is most commonly issued when the judge decides he erred in sending the case to the jury as there was insufficient evidence presented to justify a finding of guilty.

If a juror should be found, during a trial (before a verdict) to be engaging in juror nullification (or intending to do so), said juror may be removed from the jury.

Defense counsel may not argue jury nullification.

Criminal Procedure, Fifth Edition, West Publishing, Thomson Reuters (2009), by Wayne R. LaFave, Jerold H. Israel, Nancy J. King, and Orin S. Karr

[footnotes omitted]

[1075]

(f) Jury Nullification. The function of the jury is commonly said to be that of ascertain­ing the facts and then applying the law, as stated by the judge, to those facts. Indeed, it is not at all unusual for a jury in a criminal case to be instructed that it has the “duty” to proceed in such a fashion. But it is nonetheless true that, a jury in a criminal case has the power to acquit even when its findings of fact, if literally applied to the law as stated by the judge, would have resulted in a conviction. This is because a jury verdict of not guilty is not subject to reversal or to review in any manner whatsoever. On occasion, juries will acquit defendants who appear sympathetic, who are charged with violating an unpopular law, who the jurors speculate would otherwise be sentenced too severely, or who haven’t been proven guilty under standards for proof the jurors believe are required despite the judge’s instruction otherwise. Some have argued that this practice, usually referred to as jury nullification, is part of the right to jury trial guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Arguably the language that the Supreme Court has used to describe that right appears to encompass the nullification process. In Duncan v. Louisiana; holding that right applicable to the states, the Court declared that in the view of the framers “[i]f the defen­dant preferred the commonsense judgment of a jury to the more tutored but perhaps less sympathetic reaction of the single judge, he was to have it.” Similarly, in emphasizing the need for juries drawn from a cross-section of the community the Court later asserted: “The purpose of a jury is to guard against the exer­cise of arbitrary power—to make available the commonsense judgment of the community as a hedge against the overzealous or mistaken prosecutor and in preference to the profession­al or perhaps overconditioned or biased re­sponse of a judge."

Rather than treating nullification as an af­firmative right of the accused (or the juror), however, most courts treat the jury’s nullifica­tion power as an inevitable by-product of the finality of verdicts of acquittal. As a result, pre-verdict procedures discouraging nullifica­tion abound. Members of the venire who admit that they will not follow the law may be ex­cused for cause, for example. And in United States v. Thomas, the Second Circuit conclud­ed that a juror’s intent to acquit regardless of the evidence constitutes a basis for the juror’s removal during the deliberations, reasoning, “Nullification is, by definition, a violation of a juror’s oath to apply the law as instructed by the court * * * We categorically reject the idea that, in a society committed to the rule of law, jury nullification is desirable or that courts may permit it to occur when it is within their authority to prevent.”

The prevailing view is also that the Consti­tution does not require that a jury be told

[1076]

specifically that it has the power to disregard the law and acquit. This view is often attrib­uted to Sparf and Hansen v. United States."Two sailors charged with murder asked the judge to instruct the jury on the lesser offense of manslaughter, but the judge refused on the ground that there was no evidence which would support a manslaughter verdict. Rather, he instructed: “In a proper case, a verdict for manslaughter may be rendered, * * * and even in this case you have the physical power to do so; but as one of the tribunals of the country, a jury is expected to be governed by law, and the lawr it should receive from the court.” Holding the jury had not been improp­erly instructed, the Supreme Court reasoned that “if a jury may rightfully disregard the direction of the court in matters of law, and determine for themselves what the law is in the particular case before them, it is difficult to perceive any legal ground upon which a verdict of conviction can be set aside by the court as being against law.”

It is fair to say that Sparf did not settle the jury nullification issue, for the Court did not address the specific question whether jurors should be told they can refuse to enforce the law’s harshness when they conclude that jus­tice so requires. But lower courts have rather consistently ruled that no such instruction should be given, that defense counsel may not make a nullification closing argument, and that “the potential for nullification is no basis for admitting otherwise irrelevant evidence.” When jurors have no responsibility for sen­tencing, for example, a court will typically prohibit them from learning of the sentencing consequences of their verdict through evidence or argument. This ensures that their decision to convict or acquit is based entirely on the evidence of guilt or innocence and not upon their punishment preferences for the defen­dant.

One leading case on the propriety of limiting the information and argument provided to the jury on its power to disregard the law is Unit­ed States v. Dougherty." There the court con­cluded that the “jury system has worked reasonably well overall” without resort to a nullification instruction, “with the jury acting as a ‘safety valve’ for exceptional cases, out being a wildcat or runaway institutution. This is because, the court explained, the jury “gets its understanding as to the arrangements in the legal system” not only from judge’s instructions but also through “the formal communication from the total culture," and the “totality of input generally convey adequately enough the idea of prerogative, of freedom in an occasional case to depart from what the judge says.” The court expressed fear that a nullification instruction would upset the existing balance and produce more hung juries. Finally, the court in Dougherty declared that such an instruction would deprive the individual juror of an important protection he now enjoys and to which he is entitled: that “when he takes action that he knows is right, but also knows is unpopular either in the community at large or in his own particular grouping, that he can fairly put it to friends and neighbors that he was merely following the instructions of the court.” In opposition to the Dougherty position, it has been contended that there is no reason to assume that juries will act in a different and less desirable way if informed about their nullification power, that there are political advantages to be gained by not lying to the jury, and that a nullification instruction would serve to discourage acquittals based on prejudice instead of encouraging them, by setting justice and conscience as the standards for acquittal rather than leaving the jurors to use their own biases as standards.

My only point was that if you're going to instruct the jury on nullification acquittal then, to be fair and complete, you should also instruct the jury on nullification conviction.

Fair? Fair to whom?

Is the idea that every person accused of a crime enter a courtroom with as close as possible to a 50/50 chance of being convicted, and if the odds are only 20%, then some rule changes should be done to make it closer to 50%, because then the trial will be more "fair"?

The entire premise of the US criminal justice system is supposed to be based on the idea that defendants get the benefit of a doubt at every step. Prosecutors have to see enough merit to press charges, grand juries have to affirm there's a criminal case, judges have to agree, defendants are given attorneys if they can't afford one, juries have to be convinced of guilt "beyond reasonable doubt", and even after all that, appellate judges can be called in to give an opinion on whether everything was done right.

Jury nullification would/could/should be just one more test of guilt added to many others that already exist. It's not about being fair or not fair. Nullification serves as a test of the law itself, that it is something that an average cross section of people agree with. And it's not as though a single jury engaging in nullification would cause a law to be repealed throughout an entire land. It would only affect the outcome of a single trial. Only if many juries began to nullify one particular law repeatedly would the law be effectively gutted, and if that were to happen, then it probably means it's a bad law that should be gutted, one example being the Fugitive Slave Act which I understand was frequently nullified on sound moral grounds. And if that's the case, why shouldn't such an unpopular law be gutted?

I don't understand why a judge would even care if a jury engaged in nullification. It's no money out of his pocket. Why would he not simply accept it as one more thing, added to many others, that could happen?

As to whether or not nullifying laws that someone is accused of violating would be a disaster, that depends on the law in question. Put a Muslim on a jury and he may nullify a spousal abuse law. A Christian may nullify a gay rights law.

If only a single juror nullifies while all others affirm guilt then the defendant can be retried, and probably would be in most cases.

Jurors are not supposed to write the laws. If the law is bad or unfair, there are ways to handle that outside a jury room.

Nullification is not writing laws. It's only limiting application of a law or laws against a single defendant or set of defendants. Once the case is over, the nullification has no further legal effect.

The judge can overrule a guilty verdict. He cannot overrule a not guilty verdict after the fact due to jury nullification. As a seperate, and distinct possibility, an acquitted defendant may be retried upon a later finding of a rigged jury.

Hmmm...it almost sounds contradictory. I suppose a nullified jury is not the same as a rigged jury, although I don't really see the difference in the outcome for an individual defendant.

It would seem to allow for nullified outcomes by jurors, just no bribing or conspiring of jurors as a "rigged jury". So now I'm no longer sure what the exact legal definition of a rigged jury is.

Is that the way we change laws in our country? By a relatively small number of people with an agenda?

Don't forget that juries are supposed to be a random cross section of the general public. A Gilligan's Island crew of unrelated people of every walk of life, so if most of them have a shared agenda, it would generally mean that it's also an agenda shared by most of the general public.

But think what this would mean. Juries will play it safe and convict knowing that if they are wrong the judge -- who is the expert, after all

No only statists like you look at judges as authority figures. It is like they are your some of your gods.

I'll ask again. Once the jury knows ALL their options, how do you think they'll vote?

That is an easy one. If they think the guy did something wrong they will convict. If it is one of those stupid laws you support like licensing 10 year olds to mow a lawn, or putting someone in jail for cutting a friend's hair. Then there will be at least one sane person to nullify the stupid laws.

After all the first supreme court justice John Jay said it was the juries job to judge both the law and alleged crime.

Everyone isn't like you thinking we should follow bullshit immoral "laws".

Or they can vote guilty if they simply don't like him.

That explains a lot about you. You are a hater and you just want people you disagree with locked up. No wonder you are wrong so much of the time.

the jury on nullification conviction.

You are a dumb ass friend of tyrants. You don't convict someone be3cause you don't like them. You don't tell jurors that. Comprende asswipe.?

But this article deals with nullification acquittal whereby the jury is informed

They should be informed. People have free speech rights despite assholes like you who hate free speech. Who hate the constitution.

My only point was that if

You have made no valid points. The only point you have made is that if the government had a dick you would happily be sucking on it.

"Fair? Fair to whom?"

To the jurors. To justice. To the rule of law.

The jury has the power to acquit AND the power to convict. How is it fair to instruct the jury that they can ignore the law and acquit, while not telling them they have the power to ignore the law and convict?

"The entire premise of the US criminal justice system is supposed to be based on the idea that defendants get the benefit of a doubt at every step."

That's only one part. Another premise of the US criminal justice system is that the jury will apply the law.

When one jury convicts a defendandant for violating a law and another jury acquits a defendandant for violating the same law based on jury nullification we no longer have the rule of law. We have the rule of man.

"Nullification serves as a test of the law itself"

You don't know that. Jurors are not required to fill out a questionairre describing the reasons the voted the way they did.

As nolu chan pointed out, "... juries will acquit defendants who appear sympathetic, who are charged with violating an unpopular law, who the jurors speculate would otherwise be sentenced too severely, or who haven’t been proven guilty under standards for proof the jurors believe are required despite the judge’s instruction otherwise."

Was OJ acquitted because the law against murder was unfair?

Nullification is not writing laws. It's only limiting application of a law or laws against a single defendant or set of defendants.

It's re-writing the law as it applies to that one individual.

It is undemocratic, unconstitutional and un-American to have one set of rules for some and a different set for others. Are you comfortable with Hillary getting away with violating laws that you and I would go to prison for? Are you comfortable with OJ walking the streets (looking for the real killer)?

A man rapes a 14-year old girl. No doubt. One, two or maybe all of the jurors conclude she "asked for it". They acquit.

You have no problem with that?

You have made no valid points. The only point you have made is that if the government had a dick you would happily be sucking on it.

Thank you. This is how I know I've won the argument.

"Fair? Fair to whom?"

To the jurors. To justice. To the rule of law.

How can anyone rationally argue that having various option on what to consider in a case would violate the rights or otherwise be unfair to a juror?

And how could anyone argue that a society of living, breathing people are bound to dispense fairness to a "rule of law" as though it was a person with rights, when it's the other way around, that the very purpose of the rule of law is to serve and protect society?

Fair to the Rule of Law? Give me a break. The law serves the people. The people do not serve the law.

Another premise of the US criminal justice system is that the jury will apply the law.

That is your whole claim, but this whole debate is about whether jurors should have the option to NOT do this, but acquit if they feel the law is bad, or otherwise should not be applied in a specific case for any reason.

When one jury convicts a defendandant for violating a law and another jury acquits a defendandant for violating the same law based on jury nullification we no longer have the rule of law. We have the rule of man.

No we don't have the rule of man as the verdicts do not change the law itself. Obviously the legal system is not perfect as guilty people go free and innocent people get convicted (and have even been exonerated after execution), so if that is not considered the "rule of man" then the legal system can survive nullification as well.

Nullification is simply one more test of many that serves as a check on the laws themselves in very isolated cases, and it's value to society would greatly outweigh the possibility of harm of errant verdicts in individual cases.

"Nullification serves as a test of the law itself"

You don't know that. Jurors are not required to fill out a questionairre describing the reasons the voted the way they did.

Yes, I do know that. The very definition of Nullification is when jurors judge the law. While nullification couldn't be proven in any individual case, it would be easily apparent if nullification was happening on a large scale involving a specific law, as is reputed to have happened with the Fugitive Slave Act and certainly was in play in the famous William Tell trial.

As nolu chan pointed out, "... juries will acquit defendants who appear sympathetic, who are charged with violating an unpopular law, who the jurors speculate would otherwise be sentenced too severely, or who haven’t been proven guilty under standards for proof the jurors believe are required despite the judge’s instruction otherwise."

Jurors are first and foremost humans, and that is the reason why they are used to render judgments in jury trials. They are chosen because they are human, not in spite of being human.

Was OJ acquitted because the law against murder was unfair?

Like I said, injustice occurs regularly in the legal system in spite of best intentions, and OJ's acquittal certainly was no result of nullification. They just didn't think he did it for whatever reason. Are you afraid that nullification would means murderers would be routinely acquitted? Do you think the average person believes murder should be legal? There's no way that's true.

Are you comfortable with Hillary getting away with violating laws that you and I would go to prison for? Are you comfortable with OJ walking the streets (looking for the real killer)? A man rapes a 14-year old girl. No doubt. One, two or maybe all of the jurors conclude she "asked for it". They acquit.

I have a problem with all those things but none of them have anything to do with jury nullification. I also have a problem with people going to jail for supposed crimes in which there is no victim.

And I have a problem with the Land of the Free having the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world.

"How can anyone rationally argue that having various option on what to consider in a case would violate the rights or otherwise be unfair to a juror?"

Easy. It's not fair to inform the juror of only one option -- nullification acquittal. The juror has another -- nullification conviction -- and he should be informed of that option at the same time.

"... that the very purpose of the rule of law is to serve and protect society?"

I agree. The rule of law is to serve and protect society, not the defendant. How does jury nullification -- which violates the rule of law -- serve society? An otherwise guilty man goes free.

"Nullification is simply one more test of many that serves as a check on the laws themselves in very isolated cases"

Fine. Let's accept that argument. If we are to accept nullification acquittal, then why not nullifiction conviction?

If the law, as written, can be considered unfair by the jury because it is too harsh, can't the law be considered unfair by the jury because it is too lenient?

Why should a jury be forced to release a career criminal because of some loophole or minor technicality?

"I also have a problem with people going to jail for supposed crimes in which there is no victim."

Yeah. I was wondering when you'd get around to disclosing your true intention.

You are so obsessed with our drug laws that it blinds you to all the negative consequences of what you're proposing. Either that or you simply don't care about the negative consequences as long as your precious recreational drugs are legal.

The people don't want legal recreational drugs so you figure you can do an "end around" by using nullification in the courts, hoping to send a message to lawmakers. What a cowardly approach. If the drug laws are bad, repeal them. Don't pervert and corrupt our justice system for this one issue.

And I have a problem with the Land of the Free having the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world.

Disregard the black and Hispanic prisoners and our per capita incarceration rate is no different than any other industrialized nation.

There's nothing wrong with our laws. Our problem is that a disproportionate number of minorities violate them.

Oh, wait! Are you suggesting that we should have a different set of laws for minorities? Was that what you were leading up to?

Easy. It's not fair to inform the juror of only one option -- nullification acquittal. The juror has another -- nullification conviction -- and he should be informed of that option at the same time.

You completely dodged my point. "Fair" to whom? It's not unfair to a jurist to give him any particular set of instructions, regardless of whether it includes or does not include anything about nullification. You are just struggling to invent anything you can against nullification.

How does jury nullification -- which violates the rule of law -- serve society? An otherwise guilty man goes free.

Whether the man is truly guilty or not is determined by the jury. If the jury chooses to acquit due to nullification, then the jury honestly feels that the man was not deserving of a guilty verdict. And if a jury feels that way after all considerations in a trial environment, then who are you as an outsider to tell them they ruled wrongly? If you truly feel that juries should simply rubber stamp popular opinion in a case, then you should probably favor replacing juries with computers.

As for nullification violating the rule of law. I've repeatedly stated it was a final test of criminal law, and a valid one at that, in which case it's no more a violation of law than a presidential veto is of a law passed by Congress, and in fact, far more limited, of course.

Fine. Let's accept that argument. If we are to accept nullification acquittal, then why not nullifiction conviction?

You refer not to what juries can do, as obviously juries are free to do both right now. You are instead referring to instructions given to juries. And the answer is because the benefit of a doubt should always go to the defendant, not the prosecution, and instructing juries that they may convict absent any violation of the law would carve away at that benefit of a doubt. So no, it shouldn't be done for that reason.

If the law, as written, can be considered unfair by the jury because it is too harsh, can't the law be considered unfair by the jury because it is too lenient?

They can, obviously, and may if they feel a true thug would walk free on a mere technicality.

Why should a jury be forced to release a career criminal because of some loophole or minor technicality?

Forced? You're losing this debate with that question. Juries are never forced to rule one way or the other. (The William Tell trial being one exception).

"It's not unfair to a jurist to give him any particular set of instructions, regardless of whether it includes or does not include anything about nullification."

Yes, but you're missing my point. I'm saying IF the jury is informed about nullification acquittal then they should be informed about nullification conviction at the same time. Isn't presenting both sides "fair"?

I'm not in favor of nullification of any kind. I'm merely suggesting that any information or instructions to the jury be complete, balanced, and fair.

The rule of law is to serve and protect society, not the defendant. How does jury nullification -- which violates the rule of law -- serve society?

You are a complete idiot. Go live in mainland China.

"If the jury chooses to acquit due to nullification, then the jury honestly feels that the man was not deserving of a guilty verdict."

He did violate the law, making him a criminal. Even though the jury voted not guilty for other reasons, they still let a criminal go free to roam among the rest of society.

"If you truly feel that juries should simply rubber stamp popular opinion in a case, then you should probably favor replacing juries with computers."

That's a cheap shot. I never said nor implied that. I believe the jury's decision should be guided by the rule of law.

" As for nullification violating the rule of law. I've repeatedly stated it was a final test of criminal law, and a valid one at that"

Fine. Then, as part of the final test of criminal law, also allow for nullification conviction.

You are so obsessed with our drug laws that it blinds you to all the negative consequences of what you're proposing. Either that or you simply don't care about the negative consequences as long as your precious recreational drugs are legal.

Apart from the occasional glass of wine, I don't do drugs. I don't smoke anything either. I'm sure a lot of people posting on this site, perhaps including you, are more into drugs than I am.

The people don't want legal recreational drugs so you figure you can do an "end around" by using nullification in the courts, hoping to send a message to lawmakers. What a cowardly approach. If the drug laws are bad, repeal them. Don't pervert and corrupt our justice system for this one issue.

You want to believe my position is all about drugs. It's not. I do believe the USA is overly bureaucratic (clearly it is) to the point where the founding principles of the country have been long since compromised, and I do see nullification as one means of many to make the USA a better place. I do think marijuana should be legal. I am less sure about what the legal status should be for harder drugs.

I do not think that 535 legislators can reasonably represent the will of 300+ million people. I do favor a massive cut back of federal power, with some of that power restored to local government. I do think that the people of the US would be much better off if it was cut into about 6 smaller countries, so people in California don't have to put up with people from the southeast, and vice versa.

And I see nullification as a way of ensuring that laws passed by a tiny number of representatives meets the approval of the average commoners that have to live under such laws. I think of it as a form of veto power that can be held by the people, in whom all authority rightly rests as per the DoI:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Jury nullification is a means of ensuring that the governed do indeed lend consent regarding specific laws. It's a good and proper thing.

Oh, wait! Are you suggesting that we should have a different set of laws for minorities? Was that what you were leading up to?

You've entered lala land, and it's clear there is little reason to continue further dialog with you on this thread.

"You are instead referring to instructions given to juries."

Exactly. In the rare instance where instructions on nullification are given.

"And the answer is because the benefit of a doubt should always go to the defendant"

Well, that's an answer. Just not the right one. Benefit of a doubt has nothing to do with it. The jury knows he's guilty -- they just don't want to find him guilty. So they find some excuse to vote not guilty.

"Juries are never forced to rule one way or the other."

"Forced" in the sense that the judge instructs the jury to vote based on the law. If the defendant goes free because the search warrant was signed in blue ink -- and the law says it must be signed in black ink -- I think the jury should be allowed to ignore that.

He did violate the law, making him a criminal. Even though the jury voted not guilty for other reasons, they still let a criminal go free to roam among the rest of society.

He's not a criminal if he's found not guilty. Except perhaps in your head.

"You want to believe my position is all about drugs. It's not."

Ah! Then what "victimless crimes" were you referring to?

"He's not a criminal if he's found not guilty. Except perhaps in your head."

Not guilty is a legal term. It does not mean innocent.

"And I see nullification as a way of ensuring that laws passed by a tiny number of representatives meets the approval of the average commoners that have to live under such laws."

Yeah! Like in the 1800's when white juries used nullification to refuse to convict white men of murdering blacks. The good ol' days, right?

Screw the rule of law. We average commoners will convict who WE want to convict.

You are a complete idiot.

Don't call me an idiot when you're the one who can't comprehend what I'm saying.

The jury knows he's guilty -- they just don't want to find him guilty. So they find some excuse to vote not guilty.

-----------

It so happened that the man whose horse had been stolen had always made it a point to get the best of any person with whom he had any dealings. He had never tried to do anything good for anyone other than himself. Consequently, the man whose horse had been stolen didn’t have a single friend in the entire town. The case was tried and presented to the jury.

The US Constitution is designed to ensure individual rights unlike the perspective of YOUR AUTHORITARIAN COLLECTIVE RIGHTS BULLSHIT.

Thank you. Will that be on the test?

Exactly. In the rare instance where instructions on nullification are given.

About the only such instructions given to jurors by judges is that it is illegitimate to nullify any law, that the duty of the jury is to judge the defendant on the charges and evidence and only on the legal grounds explained by the judge.

I can't say I know of any case where any judge ever explained to a jury that they could nullify the law by exonerating a defendant, even if they were guilty. But there have been many cases where judges tried to intimidate juries or mislead them on this count. It's pretty routine for judges to do this, both state and federal.

Nothing makes judges and prosecutors quite as mad as a jury they suspect of nullification.

Maybe a little review of the origins of jury nullification is in order:

I'll ask again. Once the jury knows ALL their options, how do you think they'll vote?

Once the jury knows all their facts, they will vote with their conscience.

But of course that depends on how the prosecution wants to relay those facts to the jury.

If the jury does not have all the facts, because a corrupt prosecution team has opted to withhold pertinent information, then the jury has no options. It becomes a mistrial and possible collusion as well as misapplication of the law.

The only option that is left is for this entire mess to be reviewed under standard review by the appellate courts.

It would seem to allow for nullified outcomes by jurors, just no bribing or conspiring of jurors as a "rigged jury". So now I'm no longer sure what the exact legal definition of a rigged jury is.

Watch this movie. It's an excellent example of how the jury is manipulated by the prosecution and the lawyers involved. It's one of my favorites and explains how the real world works in our courtrooms. And from personal experience I have known of court clerks colluding with opposing counsel teams to have perfectly legitimate cases thrown out by tampering with witnesses and evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_Jury

Usually I prefer documentaries or historical films to novels or based-on-a-real-story type movies.

Eh, it's a movie made from a Grisham novel about a widow suing over her husband dying from smoking. So they made it into an anti-gun movie instead.

No it's a movie that reveals tactics that lawyers and prosecution teams apply to obfuscate of matters in law. Jury nullification has become too broadened in applying court procedure that it should be a chapter all in its own on how to deceive and deprive the jury of facts and other tricks used to keep the jury in check all the while the prosecution is playing them all for suckers.

Usually I prefer documentaries or historical films to novels or based-on-a-real-story type movies.

Then I suggest a reader for you to get keen insight on how courts, judges and lawyers prepare you for the trial process to grooming your client. It's entitled, The First Trial by Steven H. Goldberg

Thank you. This is how I know I've won the argument.

That is why you were mentally incapable of responding to even one post.

Judges have the power to vacate jury convictions, but not jury acquittals. Correct me if I'm wrong.

They have the power to vacate both convictions and acquittals and enter a judgment NOV (non obstante veridictum - notwithstanding the verdict).

The problem is that if they do that to override an acquittal, they are very likely (though not absolutely certain) to be overridden on appeal, so they generally don't do it.

They have the power to vacate both convictions and acquittals

They do not have the power to over rule acquittals. That is ridiculous. That would be double jeopardy.

it's a movie that reveals tactics that lawyers and prosecution teams apply to obfuscate of matters in law. Jury nullification has become too broadened in applying court procedure that it should be a chapter all in its own on how to deceive and deprive the jury of facts and other tricks used to keep the jury in check all the while the prosecution is playing them all for suckers.

Yeah, but I still hate the movie for it's libtard gun grabber theme, and the dopey notion that it's the manufactures fault if you get harmed by their product.

Sue the spoon manufacturer for making Michael Moore a fat slob! /s

www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XO2b-45Wnw

They do not have the power to over rule acquittals. That is ridiculous. That would be double jeopardy.

You're right. This is a civil trial option only. In civil trials judges can overrule a jury finding for the defendant.

I suppose a nullified jury is not the same as a rigged jury, although I don't really see the difference in the outcome for an individual defendant.

They are not the same. In one case the jury has been corrupted, typically by a bribe of some sort. Said juror agrees to render a not guilty verdict regardless of the evidence and the law. The juror in question commits a criminal offense.

A juror practicing jury nullification takes the law from the judge, carefully applies it to the facts, determines the proper verdict, and further determines that rendering a verdict of guilty would result in an injustice. He votes his conscience. No crime is committed.

This does not affirm a right. Should the juror state his intent to vote based on nullification, a judge can properly remove him from the jury at ant point before the verdict is rendered, including during deliberations. His conscience prevents him from carrying out the oath he took, but he is not prosecuted criminally.

You don't know that. Jurors are not required to fill out a questionairre describing the reasons the voted the way they did.

As nolu chan pointed out, "... juries will acquit defendants who appear sympathetic, who are charged with violating an unpopular law, who the jurors speculate would otherwise be sentenced too severely, or who haven’t been proven guilty under standards for proof the jurors believe are required despite the judge’s instruction otherwise."

Jurors will do what jurors do, including when they feel a defendant is guilty according to the letter of the law, but that a verdict of guilty would result in an injustice that they are unable to reconcile with their personal conscience.

The judicial result is that shit happens.

Was OJ acquitted because the law against murder was unfair?

OJ was acquitted because the prosecutiion failed miserably to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that OJ committed the crime. Much prosecution evidence, and many witnesses, were destroyed on the stand.

What happened in the courtroom, and what was reported on the evening news and talk shows, frequently differed greatly.

They [nc- Judges] have the power to vacate both convictions and acquittals and enter a judgment NOV (non obstante veridictum - notwithstanding the verdict).

The Count has a point, albeit presented incompletely. A judge may render a Judgment as a Matter of Law [JMOL], a/k/a/ Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, or judgment non obstante veredicto, or JNOV, in a civil case.

A judge has the power to set aside a guilty verdict by a jury in a criminal court. The judge's decision to set aside a guilty verdict is appealable. This is in Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

For criminal proceedings, see Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

He has no authority to set aside a jury verdict of acquittal in a criminal court which would federally be known as judgment of acquittal.

Rule 29. Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal

(a) Before Submission to the Jury. After the government closes its evidence or after the close of all the evidence, the court on the defendant's motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. The court may on its own consider whether the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. If the court denies a motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the government's evidence, the defendant may offer evidence without having reserved the right to do so.

(b) Reserving Decision. The court may reserve decision on the motion, proceed with the trial (where the motion is made before the close of all the evidence), submit the case to the jury, and decide the motion either before the jury returns a verdict or after it returns a verdict of guilty or is discharged without having returned a verdict. If the court reserves decision, it must decide the motion on the basis of the evidence at the time the ruling was reserved.

(c) After Jury Verdict or Discharge.

(1) Time for a Motion. A defendant may move for a judgment of acquittal, or renew such a motion, within 14 days after a guilty verdict or after the court discharges the jury, whichever is later.

(2) Ruling on the Motion. If the jury has returned a guilty verdict, the court may set aside the verdict and enter an acquittal. If the jury has failed to return a verdict, the court may enter a judgment of acquittal.

(3) No Prior Motion Required. A defendant is not required to move for a judgment of acquittal before the court submits the case to the jury as a prerequisite for making such a motion after jury discharge.

(d) Conditional Ruling on a Motion for a New Trial.

(1) Motion for a New Trial. If the court enters a judgment of acquittal after a guilty verdict, the court must also conditionally determine whether any motion for a new trial should be granted if the judgment of acquittal is later vacated or reversed. The court must specify the reasons for that determination.

(2) Finality. The court's order conditionally granting a motion for a new trial does not affect the finality of the judgment of acquittal.

(3) Appeal.

(A) Grant of a Motion for a New Trial. If the court conditionally grants a motion for a new trial and an appellate court later reverses the judgment of acquittal, the trial court must proceed with the new trial unless the appellate court orders otherwise.

(B) Denial of a Motion for a New Trial. If the court conditionally denies a motion for a new trial, an appellee may assert that the denial was erroneous. If the appellate court later reverses the judgment of acquittal, the trial court must proceed as the appellate court directs.

Notes

(As amended Feb. 28, 1966, eff. July 1, 1966; Pub. L. 99–646, §54(a), Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3607; Apr. 29, 1994, eff. Dec. 1, 1994; Apr. 29, 2002, eff. Dec. 1, 2002; Apr. 25, 2005, eff. Dec. 1, 2005; Mar. 26, 2009, eff. Dec. 1, 2009.)

JMOL, Judgment as a Matter of Law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_notwithstanding_verdict

Judgment notwithstanding the verdict, also called judgment non obstante veredicto, or JNOV, is a type of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) that is sometimes rendered at the conclusion of a jury trial. In U.S. federal civil court cases, the term has been replaced by the renewed judgment as a matter of law, which emphasizes its relationship to the judgment as a matter of law (formerly called a directed verdict).[1] In U.S. federal criminal cases, the term is "judgment of acquittal".[2]

JNOV is the practice in American courts whereby the presiding judge in a civil jury trial may overrule the decision of a jury and reverse or amend their verdict. In literal terms, the judge enters a verdict notwithstanding the jury findings. This intervention, often requested[citation needed] but rarely granted, permits the judge to exercise discretion to avoid extreme and unreasonable jury decisions.[3]

A judge is not allowed to enter a JNOV of "guilty" following a jury acquittal in United States criminal cases; such an action would violate a defendant's Fifth Amendment right not to be placed in double jeopardy and Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury. If the judge grants a motion to set aside judgment after the jury convicts, however, this action may be reversed on appeal by the prosecution.

A JNOV is appropriate only if the judge determines that no reasonable jury could have reached the given verdict. For example, if a party enters no evidence on an essential element of their case, and the jury still finds in their favor, the court may rule that no reasonable jury would have disregarded the lack of evidence on that key point and reform the judgment.

Reversal of a jury's verdict by a judge occurs when the judge believes that there were insufficient facts on which to base the jury's verdict, or that the verdict did not correctly apply the law. This procedure is similar to a situation in which a judge orders a jury to arrive at a particular verdict, called a directed verdict. A judgment notwithstanding the verdict is occasionally made when a jury refuses to follow a judge's instruction to arrive at a certain verdict.[4]

This is a very rare case where a defendant was acquitted in criminal case and later reindicted and convicted for the same crime. It was a bench trial wherein the Chicago gangster bribed the Chicago judge.

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/138/302/473725/

Aleman v Judges of the Circuit Court of Cook County, 138 F3d 302 (7th Cir 1998)

Harry Aleman, Petitioner-appellant, v. the Honorable Judges of the Circuit Court of Cook County,criminal Division, Illinois, Honorable Michael P. Toomin,judge Presiding, Honorable Richard Devine, State's Attorneyof Cook County, Illinois, Ernesto Velasco, Executivedirector, Cook County Department of Corrections,respondents-appellees, 138 F.3d 302 (7th Cir. 1998)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit - 138 F.3d 302 (7th Cir. 1998) Argued Dec. 2, 1997. Decided March 6, 1998

Allan A. Ackerman, Chicago, IL, David I. Bruck (argued), Columbia, SC, for Harry Aleman.

Rita M. Novak, Office of the Attorney General, Chicago, IL, James E. Fitzgerald, John Blakey, Cook County State's Attorney, Chicago, IL, Renee G. Goldfarb (argued), Office of the State's Attorney of Cook County, Criminal Appeals Divison, Chicago, IL, for Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Criminal Division, Michael P. Toomin, Judge, and Ernesto Velasco.

James E. Fitzgerald, John Blakey, Cook County State's Attorney, Chicago, IL, Renee G. Goldfarb (argued), Office of the State's Attorney of Cook County, Criminal Appeals Division, Chicago, IL, for Richard A. Devine.

Before WOOD, Jr., COFFEY, and FLAUM, Circuit Judges.

FLAUM, Circuit Judge.

Harry Aleman successfully bribed a Cook County Circuit Judge to acquit him of a murder charge in a 1977 bench trial. A grand jury returned a second indictment against Aleman on this murder charge in 1993 after evidence of the bribery surfaced. In addition, Aleman was indicted for the first time on a different murder charge. Aleman moved to dismiss both indictments, but the Illinois state courts rejected his arguments. In a lastditch effort to avoid (re)trial, Aleman requested a stay of state court proceedings while a federal district court considered his challenge to the indictments in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The case proceeded to trial after the district court denied this petition and motion to stay, and a Cook County jury convicted him of the Logan murder;1 the trial judge thereafter sentenced Aleman to 100-300 years in prison. Aleman appeals the district court's denial of the petition. His conviction will stand, though, because we affirm the district court's denial of Aleman's petition.

While walking to work on the morning of September 27, 1972, William Logan was shot and killed by Harry Aleman. Three years later, in October 1975, Aleman also shot and killed Anthony Reitinger, allegedly because Reitinger neglected to pay a "street tax"2 on his bookmaking operation to local organized crime figures. A grand jury indicted Aleman for the Logan murder in December 1976, but he was not charged at this time with the Reitinger murder. After numerous substitutions of counsel and judges, the Logan case proceeded to a bench trial before Cook County Circuit Court Judge Frank Wilson, who acquitted Aleman of the Logan murder in May 1977.

Nearly twenty years after the trial, however, two witnesses from the Federal Witness Protection Program were made available to testify that Aleman had murdered both Logan and Reitinger and that he had purchased the Logan acquittal with a $10,000 bribe to Judge Wilson. The first witness, Vincent Rizza, was a former Chicago police officer who ran an illegal bookmaking operation in order to supplement his government salary. Rizza paid a street tax to the local mafia and agreed to report bookmakers who were not making such payments to Aleman; one of the independent bookmakers whom Rizza offered up to Aleman was Anthony Reitinger. This evidence would provide a crucial link between Aleman and Reitinger's unsolved murder.

Rizza also supplied corroboration of Aleman's bribe of Judge Wilson in the Logan murder trial. In the early winter of 1977, after Aleman's indictment but before the trial, Aleman told Rizza that the trial was "all taken care of". Aleman said that he requested a bench trial "because the case was all taken care of" and that this way he was not going to jail. Later, when newspaper accounts began to paint a bleak picture of Aleman's chances of gaining an acquittal, he again told Rizza calmly that the case was "taken care of".

The second federal government informant was Robert Cooley, a former lawyer steeped in corruption who admitted that he frequently bribed judges, prosecutors, clerks, and sheriffs before entering the Federal Witness Protection Program.3 Cooley was a close friend of Judge Wilson and, at the request of some local organized crime figures, pitched the idea of a "fix" to Wilson. Cooley told Wilson that the case against Aleman was weak, that it could be handled very easily, and that an acquittal would be worth $10,000. Wilson agreed to fix the case if Aleman's counsel, Thomas Maloney, a good friend of Wilson's, would withdraw from the case in order to reduce the appearance of impropriety.4 Cooley thereupon paid Wilson $2,500, and the two men agreed that Wilson would receive the remaining $7,500 after the acquittal. Unbeknownst to Wilson, Cooley had also arranged a $10,000 payment to secure the favorable testimony of an eyewitness to the murder. Cooley then met with Aleman and assured him that an acquittal was guaranteed.

The evidence against Aleman, however, was not as flimsy as Cooley had indicated to Judge Wilson. After the second day of trial, Cooley met with Wilson, who was upset at Cooley's misrepresentations and at the prosecutor's allegations that a witness had received $10,000 in exchange for offering false testimony. Amazingly, the issue for Wilson was not whether he would still acquit Aleman, but for how much. Wilson expressed annoyance that a witness was getting the same amount of money as a "full circuit judge"; he said to Cooley that he would "receive all kinds of heat" for the acquittal and requested more bribe money: " [T]hat's all I get is ten thousand dollars? I think I deserve more."

Throughout these meetings, the acquittal itself was never in question. Judge Wilson fulfilled his end of the bargain on May 24, 1977, when he acquitted Aleman in a brisk oral ruling and quickly exited the courtroom. Cooley's contacts in organized crime gave him a $3,000 "commission" for his work and an envelope containing $7,500 for Judge Wilson. Cooley and Wilson dined together at a restaurant soon after the trial, and, in the men's room, Cooley slipped Wilson the promised $7,500 envelope. Wilson expressed concern because the press was "all over" him about the seemingly inexplicable acquittal; he complained to Cooley: "That's all I'm going to get? I don't get any more than that?" Wilson then left the restaurant in frustration.

In addition to this extraordinary informant testimony, other evidence confirmed the bribery. An F.B.I. agent interviewed Judge Wilson at his retirement home in Arizona in November 1989. The agent informed Wilson that Cooley had become a government informant, that Cooley had secretly taped a recent conversation with Wilson in which the two men discussed the $10,000 Aleman bribe, and that the Government was currently investigating allegations that Wilson accepted a bribe to acquit Aleman. Wilson denied the accusations, but he failed to appear in Chicago for a grand jury subpoena concerning the matter on December 6, 1989. A few months later, Judge Wilson walked into the backyard of his home and shot himself to death.

Finally, Monte Katz, a friend of Aleman's in federal prison,5 claimed that Aleman admitted that he murdered William Logan. Katz and Aleman became friends in prison, and, apparently, Aleman often discussed his criminal exploits. Specifically, Aleman told Katz that he "fixed" the Logan trial by paying money to "reach" the judge. Aleman stated that he was not worried about being tried again for the murder because it "was a double jeopardy situation."

The Circuit Court noted that the circumstantial evidence of a bribe was also significant. The record revealed "the rather curious spectacle" of Aleman, who originally deemed Judge Wilson to be a prejudiced judge, within the passage of ten weeks, withdrawing his objection and allowing the case to be assigned to Wilson. In addition, Aleman was released from state custody on bond despite facing the state's most serious criminal charge, and the case proceeded to trial in less than five months from the date of his arraignment. The Circuit Court also took pause from the fact that Aleman's attorney, Frank Whalen, set the case for trial within six weeks of filing his appearance and requested no interim continuances to conduct the "adequate preparation one might reasonably anticipate in a case of this magnitude."

Based on this body of evidence, in December 1993, the Cook County State's Attorney again charged Aleman for the Logan murder and for the first time charged Aleman with the murder of Reitinger. A grand jury returned indictments on both counts. Aleman claimed to the Circuit Court, as he claims to us on appeal, that the Logan indictment violated the Double Jeopardy Clause and that the prejudicial pre-indictment delay on both charges violated his due process rights. After an evidentiary hearing concerning the alleged bribe, the Circuit Court rejected the double jeopardy argument based on the overwhelming factual evidence that Aleman's first trial was a sham. The Court emphasized its certainty that Aleman had bribed Judge Wilson:

Although the court earlier observed that the State's burden was to establish the bribery by a preponderance of the evidence, the court also concurs in the State's appraisal that the evidence presented also meets the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Were this a prosecution for the substantive offense of bribery, the court would have little difficulty in concluding that the People had presented a credible and coherent case against the defendant. The evidence clearly establishes the tendering of money to a public officer to influence him in the performance of his duties.

(Citations omitted). Based on this factual finding, the Circuit Court held that there was no double jeopardy bar to reprosecuting Aleman for the Logan murder because there was never any jeopardy at the first trial. Furthermore, because crucial witnesses were not available at an earlier time, the court denied Aleman's claims of unconstitutional preindictment delay. These rulings were upheld on appeal. See People v. Aleman, 281 Ill.App.3d 991, 217 Ill.Dec. 526, 667 N.E.2d 615 (Ill.App.), review denied, 168 Ill. 2d 600, 219 Ill.Dec. 567, 671 N.E.2d 734 (1996), and cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S. Ct. 986, 136 L. Ed. 2d 868 (1997). The district court below also rejected these contentions in Aleman's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. United States ex rel. Aleman v. Circuit Court of Cook County, 967 F. Supp. 1022 (N.D. Ill. 1997).

Aleman raises three claims on appeal. First, he takes issue with the Circuit Court's factual findings that he bribed Judge Wilson in the Logan trial. Second, he challenges the effect of those factual findings upon his double jeopardy claim. See Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 89 S. Ct. 2056, 23 L. Ed. 2d 707 (1969) (holding that the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause apply to the states). Finally, he urges us to recognize that the pre-indictment delays of twenty-one and eighteen years in the Logan and Reitinger murders, respectively, violated his due process rights. Our collateral review, however, is quite limited. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (1), we can only grant Aleman's petition if one of the Circuit Court's legal rulings was either "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States." Aleman's factual challenge can succeed only if he can show by "clear and convincing evidence" that the Circuit Court's findings are erroneous. See id. § 2254(d) (2). He meets neither of these stringent standards.

Aleman's challenge to the Circuit Court's factual findings can be dismissed in short order. He rightly points out that the common law has always presumed the neutrality of judges. See, e.g., 3 W. BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES (" [T]he law will not suppose a possibility of bias or favour in a judge, who is already sworn to administer impartial justice, and whose authority greatly depends upon that presumption and idea."); see also Del Vecchio v. Illinois Dep't of Corrections, 31 F.3d 1363, 1372-73 (7th Cir. 1994) (applying the common-law presumption), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1037, 115 S. Ct. 1404, 131 L. Ed. 2d 290 (1995). Aleman seems to think that reciting this principle alone can somehow overcome the great weight of evidence showing that he bribed Judge Wilson. However, we have always recognized that the presumption of a judge's neutrality is a rebuttable one. See Del Vecchio, 31 F.3d at 1373; see also Bracy v. Gramley, --- U.S. ----, ----, 117 S. Ct. 1793, 1799, 138 L. Ed. 2d 97 (1997). As in Bracy, the Circuit Court found that the ordinary presumption had been soundly rebutted in this case.

Beyond the presumption argument, Aleman argues that the State's witnesses were unreliable based solely on the length of time between the relevant events and the Circuit Court's evidentiary hearing. He relies on dicta from our decision in Bracy v. Gramley, 81 F.3d 684, 693 (7th Cir. 1996), in which we commented that the petitioner did not show "good cause" for discovery because, in part, there would be a "pall of doubt" over the reliability of any exculpatory witnesses' testimony based on a fourteen-year interval between the events and an evidentiary hearing. Id. The Supreme Court, however, implicitly expressed its disapproval of this statement when overruling the case. See --- U.S. ----, 117 S. Ct. 1793, 138 L. Ed. 2d 97 (1997). Aleman nevertheless tries to spin gold from this frayed strand. He notes that most of the key players in this story are deceased and, of those that are still living, the events occurred so long ago that their testimony is inherently unreliable.

Aleman's position on this point is flawed on many levels. First, the Supreme Court disagreed with our view of Bracy's ability to show good cause based on such testimony. Second, dicta from our Bracy opinion would not have established any sort of general rule that testimony concerning events from over fourteen years ago was presumptively unreliable. Such a rule would have called into question the constitutionality of countless statutes of limitations. Third, and most importantly, any alleged presumption of unreliability would have been rebutted in this case by the Circuit Court's evaluation of the testimony. The Court heard the evidence and concluded that it was reliable "beyond a reasonable doubt". Aleman did not attempt to rebut the State's strong evidence with anything but vacuous and inapposite presumptions. This is a far cry from the "clear and convincing evidence" of factual error that we require before invalidating Circuit Court findings of fact.

Aleman's legal challenge presents a unique and interesting question, but it ultimately fares no better than his factual one. The Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause guarantees that no one shall "be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." Aleman argues that the Double Jeopardy Clause unambiguously bars his reindictment on the Logan murder charge because he faced trial on that murder charge in 1977 and was acquitted by Judge Wilson. In support of his position, he points to a long line of Supreme Court cases reiterating that an acquittal on a charge absolutely bars retrial on that charge. See, e.g., Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 503, 98 S. Ct. 824, 829, 54 L. Ed. 2d 717 (1978) ("The constitutional protection against double jeopardy unequivocally prohibits a second trial following an acquittal.... If the innocence of the accused has been confirmed by a final judgment, the Constitution conclusively presumes that a second trial would be unfair."); Ball v. United States, 163 U.S. 662, 671, 16 S. Ct. 1192, 1195, 41 L. Ed. 300 (1896) ("[I]n this country a verdict of acquittal ... is a bar to a subsequent prosecution for the same offense."). Aleman argues that it is irrelevant how he obtained his acquittal and that there is no room for courts to question those circumstances and lift the double jeopardy bar to reprosecution. See, e.g., Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 11 n. 6, 98 S. Ct. 2141, 2147 n. 6, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1978) ("[W]here the Double Jeopardy Clause is applicable, its sweep is absolute. There are no 'equities' to be balanced, for the Clause has declared a constitutional policy, based on grounds which are not open to judicial examination."); Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.S. 141, 143, 82 S. Ct. 671, 672, 7 L. Ed. 2d 629 (1962) (stating that an acquittal triggers the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause even if "the acquittal was based upon an egregiously erroneous foundation"). Aleman contends that the Circuit Court's decision is contrary to, or an unreasonable application, of this body of the Supreme Court's interpretations of federal law.

The legal conclusion urged by Aleman might not be an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent,6 but the highly deferential standard of collateral review leads us to hold that the contrary interpretation--the one adopted by the Illinois courts in this case--is also not unreasonable. The Illinois courts viewed the authority cited by Aleman as begging the question; the Double Jeopardy Clause may well be absolute when it applies, see Burks, 437 U.S. at 11 n. 6, 98 S. Ct. at 2147 n. 6, but determining if it applies is the real issue in this case. Similarly, the State argues that the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause only extend to a defendant who was once before in jeopardy of conviction on a particular criminal charge; the State contends that, by bribing Judge Wilson, Aleman created a situation in which he was never in jeopardy at his first trial. The first trial, therefore, was a sham and the acquittal there rendered has no effect for double jeopardy purposes. Under this theory, the State was free to re-indict him because he has never been in jeopardy of conviction on the Logan murder charge.

The Circuit Court concluded that Aleman's first trial was a nullity because he was never truly at risk of conviction. The Supreme Court has emphasized that " [j]eopardy denotes risk. In the constitutional sense, jeopardy describes the risk that is traditionally associated with criminal prosecution." Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519, 528, 95 S. Ct. 1779, 1785, 44 L. Ed. 2d 346 (1975); see also United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564, 569, 97 S. Ct. 1349, 1353-54, 51 L. Ed. 2d 642 (1977) ("The protections afforded by the [Double Jeopardy] Clause are implicated only when the accused has actually been placed in jeopardy.") (emphasis added); Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377, 391-92, 95 S. Ct. 1055, 1064-65, 43 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1975) ("Without risk of a determination of guilt, jeopardy does not attach, and neither an appeal nor further prosecution constitutes double jeopardy.... In particular, it has no significance in this context unless jeopardy has once attached and an accused has been subjected to the risk of conviction."); Price v. Georgia, 398 U.S. 323, 331, 90 S. Ct. 1757, 1762, 26 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1970) ("The Double Jeopardy Clause, as we have noted, is cast in terms of the risk or hazard of trial and conviction, not of the ultimate legal consequences of the verdict."). Indeed, the Court has stated that preventing the hazards associated with risking conviction is the raison d'etre of the Double Jeopardy Clause: The underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty.

Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 187-88, 78 S. Ct. 221, 223-24, 2 L. Ed. 2d 199 (1957).

Aleman had to endure none of these risks because he "fixed" his case; the Circuit Court found that Aleman was so sanguine about the certainty of his acquittal that he went so far as to tell Vincent Rizza before the trial that jail was "not an option". Aleman may be correct that some risk of conviction still existed after Judge Wilson agreed to fix the case, but it cannot be said that the risk was the sort "traditionally associated" with an impartial criminal justice system.7 See Breed, 421 U.S. at 528, 95 S. Ct. at 1785. It seems only appropriate that a defendant should not be allowed to escape punishment for murder because he bribed the judge. To allow Aleman to profit from his bribery and escape all punishment for the Logan murder would be a perversion of justice, as well as establish an unseemly and dangerous incentive for criminal defendants. The Illinois courts' holdings, therefore, were not contrary to, or unreasonable applications of, federal law as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

For these reasons, we affirm the district court's rejection of the double jeopardy claims contained in Aleman's petition.

[snip]

Keith Woods, a resident of Mecosta County, was charged and recently convicted for the “crime” of standing on a public sidewalk and handing out fliers about juror rights.

More shitposting by Deckard.

He was doing his deed in front of the courthouse. It matters not that he moved as far as the sidewalk in front of the courthouse. His intent to reach jurors was manifest by this and prior behavior.

http://fox17online.com/2017/06/01/jury-finds-man-guilty-of-jury-tampering-by-passing-out-juror-rights-pamphlets/

BIG RAPIDS, Mich. — A jury of six found Keith Wood guilty within 30 minutes Thursday, convicting him of attempting to influence a jury in Mecosta County.

He was convicted of ATTEMPTING TO INFLUENCE A JURY.

http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2015/title-18/part-i/chapter-73/sec.-1504/

2015 US Code
Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure (Sections 1 - 6005)
Part I - Crimes (Sections 1 - 2725)
Chapter 73 - Obstruction of Justice (Sections 1501 - 1521)
Sec. 1504 - Influencing juror by writing

18 U.S.C. § 1504 (2015)

§1504. Influencing juror by writing

Whoever attempts to influence the action or decision of any grand or petit juror of any court of the United States upon any issue or matter pending before such juror, or before the jury of which he is a member, or pertaining to his duties, by writing or sending to him any written communication, in relation to such issue or matter, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the communication of a request to appear before the grand jury.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 770; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

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

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(4h1vst4md522er2w1vdprirf))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-750-120a

Section 750.120a

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)

Act 328 of 1931

750.120a Willfully attempting to influence juror by intimidation or other improper means; retaliating against person for having performed duties as juror; penalties.

Sec. 120a.

(1) A person who willfully attempts to influence the decision of a juror in any case by argument or persuasion, other than as part of the proceedings in open court in the trial of the case, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or both.

(2) A person who willfully attempts to influence the decision of a juror in any case by intimidation, other than as part of the proceedings in open court in the trial of the case, is guilty of a crime as follows:

(a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both.

(b) If the intimidation is committed in a criminal case for which the maximum term of imprisonment for the violation is more than 10 years, or the violation is punishable by imprisonment for life or any term of years, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than $20,000.00, or both.

(c) If the intimidation involved committing or attempting to commit a crime or a threat to kill or injure any person or to cause property damage, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15 years or a fine of not more than $25,000.00, or both.

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not prohibit any deliberating juror from attempting to influence other members of the same jury by any proper means.

(4) A person who retaliates, attempts to retaliate, or threatens to retaliate against another person for having performed his or her duties as a juror is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than $20,000.00, or both. As used in this subsection, “retaliate” means any of the following:

(a) Committing or attempting to commit a crime against any person.

(b) Threatening to kill or injure any person or threatening to cause property damage.

(5) This section does not prohibit a person from being charged with, convicted of, or punished for any other violation of law including any violation of law arising out of the same transaction as the violation of this section.

(6) The court may order a term of imprisonment imposed for violating subsection (2) or (4) to be served consecutively to a term of imprisonment imposed for any other violation of law including any violation of law arising out of the same transaction as the violation of this section.

History: Add. 1955, Act 88, Eff. Oct. 14, 1955 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 450, Eff. Mar. 28, 2001 ;-- Am. 2003, Act 280, Imd. Eff. Jan. 8, 2004

It matters not that he moved as far as the sidewalk in front of the courthouse.

Piss off spam-bot. It was a PUBLIC SIDEWALK.

Keith Woods, a resident of Mecosta County, was charged and recently convicted for the “crime” of standing on a public sidewalk and handing out fliers about juror rights.

All of his article headlines are like that -- the resident was merely "standing on the sidewalk", or "sitting in his car", or "walking down the street".

Yeah. Right.

"OJ was acquitted because the prosecutiion failed miserably to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that OJ committed the crime."

And all along I thought it was because nine African-American jurors in an LA courtroom refused to convict a famous and and admired black man.

I believed Marcia Clark when she said she convicted murderers with a fraction of the evidence in this case. The OJ trial was the poster child for jury nullification.

This does not affirm a right. Should the juror state his intent to vote based on nullification, a judge can properly remove him from the jury at ant point before the verdict is rendered, including during deliberations. His conscience prevents him from carrying out the oath he took, but he is not prosecuted criminally.

True enough. And good reason why any fully-informed juror should never confirm that was how he voted.

BIG RAPIDS, Mich. — A jury of six found Keith Wood guilty within 30 minutes Thursday, convicting him of attempting to influence a jury in Mecosta County.

He was convicted of ATTEMPTING TO INFLUENCE A JURY.

He was, of his own admission, attempting to influence (educate) jurors with regard to a specific trial that was occurring, potentially both jurors and substitute jurors.

Had he merely been handing out brochures without a specific demonstrable (or confessed) intent to influence a particular jury trial, he would have been fine. If, for instance, he made a habit of handing out pamphlets constantly adjacent to the courthouse (but not on its sidewalk), it would be far harder to prosecute him. But he was trying to influence a specific jury and confessed to it as well as having considerable circumstantial evidence that that was his entire intent.

So, yes, this could be considered tampering but it is a narrow ruling on the law. People can still hand out FIJA literature, just not to try to influence specific juries to produce a particular trial outcome.

§1504. Influencing juror by writing

nolu chan, while you present a federal statute that would be most applicable to a set of jurors to remind them of what their official duties are, it is also the courts obligation to inform those same jurors of their rights. Jurors do have rights. They have a right to question the judge and even the prosecution when there is not sufficient evidence for them to make their votes. If this statute is to apply to jurors then it shall also equally apply to the prosecution team because as you noted in the OJ Simpson acquittal case, we all know how corrupt our courts can be.

Jurors are expected to abide by those laws as the prosecution and lawyers (including judges). Jurors are also a special people in that they are not officers of the courts but are serving in the capacity of those courts in doing official court business.

Piss off spam-bot. It was a PUBLIC SIDEWALK.

He broke the law on a PUBLIC SIDEWALK. That does not change the sentence and it only took 30 minutes for a jury to render a unanimous verdict of guilty.

He moved to the sidewalk this time, thinking it made a difference. His clear intent was to hand out his information in that location because he believed he would reach his target of passing jurors or persons called to jury duty.

The intent to violate the law, and the actual violation, are present in that location. He could always try standing on a soapbox at Speaker's Corner, not near the entrance of a courthouse.

Following your imaginary law earns some poor guy a conviction.

The OJ trial was the poster child for jury nullification.

Curiously, I never get this from people who actually watched the court testimony. The prosecution was a mess.

The evidence was not presented to sustain a conviction. They were so unprepared to go to trial, they diddled about a a few months before presenting evidence that somebody had died.

They screwed up the handling of the blood evidence. For the most part, the state case was dead after Barry Scheck got done destroying the LAPD witnesses.

The jury took four hours to reach a unanimous verdict of acquittal.

Had he merely been handing out brochures without a specific demonstrable (or confessed) intent to influence a particular jury trial, he would have been fine.

As long as his intended target was actual jurors, or persons called for jury duty, he had a problem. His was a failed effort to circumvent the law.

it is also the courts obligation to inform those same jurors of their rights. Jurors do have rights. They have a right to question the judge and even the prosecution when there is not sufficient evidence for them to make their votes.

I wish you the best of luck in arguing your jury nullification to a judge.

It is for the Court to determine the applicable law. The Court instructs the jury on the applicable law. The jury determines the facts, based on the evidence presented.

The evidence was not presented to sustain a conviction.

They had 10X more than they needed.

"For the most part, the state case was dead after Barry Scheck got done destroying the LAPD witnesses."

Pffft! All he did was intentionally confuse the jury. He didn't present anything to cause reasonable doubt.

"The jury took four hours to reach a unanimous verdict of acquittal."

That's the time it took to convince the three non-black jurors.

As long as his intended target was actual jurors, or persons called for jury duty, he had a problem. His was a failed effort to circumvent the law.

That's true.

But can a prosecutor be so certain that he can find a jury who won't nullify a conviction of a FIJA activist?

I'm not sure how often it comes up but the prosecutors have to consider this in deciding to bring a case.

This guy trying to help the Amish with their whole milk customers did target the jurors of that trial and admitted it. And that is probably the only reason they got a conviction on him.

I wish you the best of luck in arguing your jury nullification to a judge.

It is for the Court to determine the applicable law. The Court instructs the jury on the applicable law. The jury determines the facts, based on the evidence presented.

Here are the fact. Marbury vs Madison was usurpation. The courts were NEVER given the power they have under the constitution.

It is also a fact that the first chief justice of the supreme court. A founding father. Said jurors have a right to judge the law.

It is also a fact that you can ignore the judges instructions and render any verdict you want to.

When the judge tells you to ignore that evidence. You can also ignore that and nothing the black robe can do about it.

We have a corrupt judiciary exercising power they were never given by the constitution.

That is why you cannot cite from the constitution the supreme courts authority.

You can only cite the authority they gave themselves. That doesn't make it legitimate. It makes it color of law not real law.

Color of law is a legal term in blacks law dictionary.

You may disagree with me but that is ok.

The evidence was not presented to sustain a conviction.

I'd have to disagree with that. That is nonsense.

That is whey everyone knows OJ is guilty. Even you.

And when they demanded that OJ Simpson put on the glove, they blew themselves up. Whether it didn't fit because he scrunched up his fingers, or it didn't fit because he was wearing a latex glove to preserve evidence, the bottom line is that it didn't fit, and OJ got to hold up his hand and say "It doesn't fit."

They pulled a stunt, and in doing so they violated one of the key rules of presenting a case: never ask a question to which you don't already know the answer.

It was the dramatic high point of their case, when the prosecution stood up and demanded OJ to put on the glove. Everything built up to that, all of the exhausting and overdone lessons on DNA evidence, it was all built up to this staged stunt, wherein OJ would slide on the glove, linking him to everything.

It didn't fit.

And with that, the wings were off the plane and the case was going down like a lawn dart.

Johnny Cochrane understood theater too, repeating over and over in his closing argument the mantra "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit."

That's exactly what the jury did. The defense team was very effective. The prosecution was not.

And when they demanded that OJ Simpson put on the glove, they blew themselves up.

Bullshit only a moron was fooled by OJ opening his hands up and pretending.

It didn't fit.

Bullshit. You are very gullible.

The defense team was very effective. The prosecution was not.

I never thought you stupid. But anyone who thinks OJ is not guilty is capital S STUPID!

"or it didn't fit because he was wearing a latex glove to preserve evidence"

After all that handling, do you think OJ's defense team would ever let that glove be used as evidence in the future? Me neither.

Therefore, the prosecution should have conceded that and told OJ to try it on without the latex glove. What have they got to lose?

The evidence was not presented to sustain a conviction.

101 PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT PROOVE O.J. SIMPSON MURDERED NICOLE:

http://pages.infinit.net/reparvit/nicole12.html

After all that handling, do you think OJ's defense team would ever let that glove be used as evidence in the future? Me neither.

Therefore, the prosecution should have conceded that and told OJ to try it on without the latex glove. What have they got to lose?

Yep. But they didn't. They foolishly staged a grandstanding event, but did not set it up properly, and ran their own case up on the rocks.

And defense counsel seized on the error and pounded it over the prosecution's head.

Our legal system is a game. It has rules. It has well-paid gladiators. It has winners and losers. It amuses me that people get mad at ME because our legal system is crappy.

I never thought you stupid. But anyone who thinks OJ is not guilty is capital S STUPID!

I didn't say what I personally think about his innocence. I merely recounted why the prosecutors lost the case. Apparently that distinction was lost on you. Obviously OJ Simpson is guilty as sin. He won his case in spite of that because the prosecution was weak and the defense team was strong.

Yep. But they didn't. They foolishly staged a grandstanding event, but did not set it up properly, and ran their own case up on the rocks.

51. The glove at the murder scene and the glove at OJ's home are extra large: OJ's size. And they are a matching right and left glove.

52. Both gloves are identical to the type Nicole bought for Simpson at Bloomingdales in December of 1990, one of only two hundred pairs like them sold through out the whole country that year.

53. Photos and videos of OJ show him wearing the gloves that match the ones found at his home and the murder scene.

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

Plus, OJ couldn't produce those gloves. Where did they go? The gloves in evidence were his.

As for trying them on? As a juror I would have looked at the contortions OJ went through to make it look like they didn't fit and concluded they were his. They didn't have to fit.

In retrospect it was a bad move. But only because it gave jurors an excuse to acquit.

Bullshit. You are very gullible.

No, the prosecutors were very stupid. They put themselves in a position where O.J. himself could put on the show he did and torpedo their case, which he did.

I merely recounted what they did, what he did, and how that lost them their case.

If you yourself were on trial for your life, and you could hire Darden or hire me, given all of your comments about my intelligence you'd no doubt hire Darden.

In the bigger picture of things, that would have been for the best, because justice very probably would have been served. Were you to hire me instead, justice would have a much lower probability of being served, because you would have a better chance of getting away with it.

So by all means be sure to hire Dudley Do-right as your defense attorney if you ever get picked up for a DUI. That way you'll be sure to pay society every penny for your crime, as you should, of course. You will also pay Dudley (in advance, no doubt - even Dudley Do-right isn't stupid).

If you want to, you can hire a defense attorney who will make sure justice is served. That's your prerogative.

Most people hire defense attorneys to avoid punishment, whether they are innocent or guilty.

It is always your call as the client.

In retrospect it was a bad move. But only because it gave jurors an excuse to acquit.

In retrospect?

You have a black jury in LA. You don't give them the excuse. You don't give the perp the opportunity to weasel out.

Plus, OJ couldn't produce those gloves. Where did they go? The gloves in evidence were his.

But the LAPD put on cops who perjured themselves, and had a bad chain of evidence.

And the prosecution took six months to present the case, hammered away on domestic violence instead of the DNA evidence, and then had a disaster in the chain of evidence.

The crime occurred in Simi Valley, a white suburb. The prosecutors CHOSE to bring the trial in the heart of black downtown LA, before a mostly female black jury.

They didn't start with their strongest evidence: the DNA, but with weeks of domestic violence evidence. Domestic violence is not probative of murder, particular not before a black jury pool where domestic violence is probably the NORM, but where it hardly ever leads to murder.

The cops broke all sorts of rules, and the prosecution sought to cover it up. Remember: Mark Furhman was later convicted of PERJURY.

Relying on a black inner city jury's faith in the integrity of the police is an error, and putting a dirty cop before them who gets caught in a lie was devastating.

The prosecution blew the case. The defense team played the game brilliantly.

"You don't give them the excuse."

The excuse wasn't given. It was taken by those wanting to acquit.

How did the matching glove get on OJ's property? Why, the racist Mark Fuhrman planted it! Where's the evidence of that? Nowhere. None. Zip.

There's excuse #2. And the list goes on.

"Remember: Mark Furhman was later convicted of PERJURY."

He said on the stand that he had not used a racial epithet in the prior ten years. Turns out he did. THAT'S the perjury charge. Who in the f**k was on trial?

It had nothing to do with the case and doesn't mean he hates blacks -- his minority co-workers supported him. And there was zero evidence he planted or manufactured evidence in the OJ case.

The prosecutors CHOSE to bring the trial in the heart of black downtown LA, before a mostly female black jury.

I agree. Two huge mistakes from the get-go.

But, if you think you have an open and shut case -- and it was -- perhaps the prosecution felt safe in doing this. Trying the case in Simi Valley with an all-white jury could lead to riots in LA with blacks believing THAT was the reason OJ was convicted.

Got it. You made your point. I'll ask again, OJ couldn't produce those gloves. Where did they go?

Here are the fact. Marbury vs Madison was usurpation. The courts were NEVER given the power they have under the constitution.

Here is the fact. Marbury has stood as good law for over two centuries. In a court, you will not be permitted to argue otherwise. You are entitled to your opinion. The Court is empowered to order youk not to attempt to argue such a thing, and to hold you in contempt if you try.

It is also a fact that the first chief justice of the supreme court. A founding father. Said jurors have a right to judge the law.

This is John Jay in a unique case. It is the only jury trial ever held at SCOTUS. However, it was not a jury of one's peers, but of specially selected experts in the subject matter of the case. It is an anomaly, not applicable to any other case.

It is also a fact that you can ignore the judges instructions and render any verdict you want to.

Yes, that is correct. However, it is violating one's oath to do so, and if one states his intent to do so, e.g., to other jurors, it is grounds to be kicked off the jury.

When the judge tells you to ignore that evidence. You can also ignore that and nothing the black robe can do about it.

It sure isn't perfect. As they say, you can't unring a bell. A judge's instruction cannot make one forget what one has heard, but that is the cure available. The alternative is to have every trial a party is losing, to have that party relate something inadmissible as evidence, cause a mistrial. A mistrial is other alternative.

I'd have to disagree with that. That is nonsense.

That is whey everyone knows OJ is guilty. Even you.

You are welcome to present the evidence, or even start another thread on the OJ criminal case. I believe it was possible that two people were there, possibly O.J. and another. I know that the criminal prosecution failed to prove its case against O.J.

What you may "know" is not the relevant issue. What did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt?

There were massive failures.

101 PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT PROOVE O.J. SIMPSON MURDERED NICOLE:

http://pages.infinit.net/reparvit/nicole12.html

1. Nicole's pet dog Kato, a ferocious Akita, did not attack the killer, suggesting the murderer was someone who the dog knew, such as OJ.

Reason #1 is typical. Accepted as true, it does not prove much of anything.

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

"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.

You made your point. I'll ask again, OJ couldn't produce those gloves. Where did they go?

Objection, your honor. The burden of proof is on the state to prove the case against my client. He has invoked the 5th Amendment and cannot be compelled to testify.

Blah, blah, blah. There's this and there's that. Technicality here, technicality there.

Correct. Our legal system is a game. The winner plays the game the best. It's a hard game, so if one has a great deal at stake, one hires the best gladiators to fight on one's behalf.

I was in law school at the time and watched quite a bit of the trial. I agree with your assessment. The prosecution really did not put on a persuasive case. They spent oceans of time giving a mini- course on DNA evidence that was excessive.

And when they demanded that OJ Simpson put on the glove, they blew themselves up. Whether it didn't fit because he scrunched up his fingers, or it didn't fit because he was wearing a latex glove to preserve evidence, the bottom line is that it didn't fit, and OJ got to hold up his hand and say "It doesn't fit."

I got to watch it all in real time, except for one day. Except for that day, I also had it all on videotape, long since discarded. However, I have a full transcript.

After watching what happened during the day, watching the fake news at night was like entering the twilight zone.

They quickly brought charges. Simpson quickly invoked a California speedy trial provision. The prosecution was forced to begin months before they had the RFLP DNA results back. They spent months with repetitive and nonsense testimony, just stalling.

The mess started to go south at a pretrial procedure where the autopsy doctor was destroyed. Dr. Golden, who performed the autopsy, testified at a pre-trial procedure, and he was utterly destroyed. He was so bad that when the trial came about, the prosecution kept him off the stand and had the Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Lakshmanan (aka Dr. Lucky) testify about the autopsy. Dr. Lakshmanan was not at the autopsy. He never examined the victims other than by looking at photographs after the bodies had been released.

Prosecutor Brian Kelberg wasted 8 days on direct examination. Defense Counsel Robert Shapiro ripped it to shreds in a few hours. This monumental waste of time was an object lesson in how to lose a sequestered jury. Remember, this jury was sequestered as the trial dragged on and on and on. That was just the prosecution case.

Long before the glove fiasco, who can forget Barry Scheck, time after time, showing pictures demonstrating that the testimony of criminalist Dennis Fung was in error, punctuated with, "What about that, Mr. Fung?"

A likely answer as to why the glove did not fit was that it got wet. Get leather wet and it shrinks. The case was in dire straights by then and the glove stunt was a desperation move.

AS Prosecutor Kelberg made up one ridiculous hypothetical after another, the direct testimony of Dr. Lakshmanan seemed like it would never end.

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

[11504]

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I want you to assume that there were bloody shoeprints found along the walkway leading from the bodies to the back of the Bundy location and that I want you to assume hypothetically that there will be testimony that those bloody shoeprints are consistent with a person who has a size 12 shoe, and I want you to further assume hypothetically that people who wear size 12 shoes tend to be six feet to six feet four based upon studies conducted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the FBI. Doctor, would that type of evidence, assuming it is true, serve to confirm your opinion that a single killer of a height greater than Mr. Goldman in a swift and violent assault on both of these human beings is the perpetrator?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. May we approach?

THE COURT: No. Overruled.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I already said it could--it could be such a kind of perpetrator.

MR. KELBERG: And Mr. Shapiro asked you would you stake your reputation to a reasonable medical certainty. Remember that question?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

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

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

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

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

To see what horsecrap that was, we can visit what else was brought out.

That was from transcript page 11504. The below excerpts are in chronological order, starting on page 11392.

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

[11392]

06/14/1995, Cross Examination by Robert Shapiro

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SHAPIRO

MR. SHAPIRO: Good afternoon, Dr. Lakshmanan.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Good afternoon.

MR. SHAPIRO: Dr. Lakshmanan, you've been on the witness stand for approximately eight days?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, sir.

MR. SHAPIRO: And as I understand your testimony, you can tell us with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that both Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were victims of a homicide?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: And you can also tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that both of these victims died as a result of stab wounds?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes. Sharp force injuries.

MR. SHAPIRO: And you can also tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that both of these individuals bled to death?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: You cannot tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty what time they died?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.

MR. SHAPIRO: In fact, all of your expertise lends you to the opinion that a layperson could give, that they were last seen alive at 9:00, that they were found dead at 12:15, and that is the range of death; isn't that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, that's what I opined also, between 9:00 and 12:30.

MR. SHAPIRO: And with all of your training, experience, education, reading all these books, you cannot tell us with a reasonable degree of medical certainty how many people were responsible for the deaths of these two people?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I--I said that one person could have done it with one single-edged knife in my testimony.

MR. SHAPIRO: Can you tell us with a reasonable degree of medical certainty how many people are responsible for these homicides?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Can you tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty how many different weapons were used to accomplish these homicides?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I already opined saying that a single-edged knife could have caused all the injuries, but with reasonable medical certainty, I cannot exclude a second knife.

MR. SHAPIRO: Can you exclude other types of sharp instruments within a reasonable medical certainty?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Could you expand on what you mean by "Other types of sharp instruments" before I--

MR. SHAPIRO: In your range of this vast experience, are there any other types of sharp instruments that you can tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty could or could not have caused these injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I would like you to be specific, what type of sharp instruments because I want to know what type of instrument you are talking about. I don't have experience like you do with these sharp instruments.

MR. SHAPIRO: Are there any sharp instruments that you are aware of that you can tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainly could have caused these injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The main sharp instruments which I think could have caused these injuries is a--could have caused all the injuries was a single-edged knife. I already opined that.

MR. SHAPIRO: Can you tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that a double-edged knife could not have caused most of these injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I said that most--some of the injuries could have been caused by a double-edged knife, but a double-edged knife could not have caused all the injuries.

MR. SHAPIRO: Could two single-edged knives have caused all the injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's a possibility.

MR. SHAPIRO: Could three single-edged knives have caused all the injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Possibility.

MR. SHAPIRO: Could three single-edged knives and a double-edged knife have caused all the injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That's also a possibility.

MR. SHAPIRO: Could three single-edged knives and two double-edged knives have caused all the injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is also a possibility.

MR. SHAPIRO: Could three single-edged knives, two double-edged knives and a broken piece of glass have caused all the injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I don't see--there's no evidence of any glass pieces on the bodies which I could see or--and also, the wounds look more like a more sharp instrument like a knife.

MR. SHAPIRO: Are you saying a sharp broken piece of glass could not have caused any of these injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: It's a possibility in some of the wounds.

MR. SHAPIRO: Could a razor blade have caused some of these injuries?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: On incised wounds, it's a possibility.

MR. SHAPIRO: So after eight days, there's only about four facts that you can tell us within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that can help this jury in reaching an opinion?

MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. SHAPIRO: Isn't it true, doctor, after eight days on the stand, there's only four facts you can testify to within a reasonable degree of medical certainly based on your education, background, experience as to how these two people died?

MR. KELBERG: That's argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence and it's vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I've already discussed the findings. I've discussed my opinion that they were significant stab wounds to both the victims. I opined that the significant wounds on the body were caused by a single-edged knife. I think that's an important opinion which I have given. I have said that some of the other incised wounds could have been caused by a single-edged or double-edged knife which you cannot exclude with medical certainty. So I think I've been very clear that at least in most of the significant stab wounds, there's clear evidence that it was a single-edged knife. But your questions were more general wherein I indicated some of the wounds or most of the wounds, incised wounds, it was difficult to tell what type of weapon it was, wherein the stab wounds--the wounds we see on--some of the significant stab wounds on Miss Simpson and also on Mr. Ron Goldman, it was definitely a single-edged knife; and with reference to some of the incised wounds also, it would favor a single-edged knife rather then a double-edged knife, even though I cannot totally exclude it, especially the neck wound on Miss Simpson, it would favor a single-edged knife because of the bridge of tissue on the left side which I have discussed a few days ago. So I think I have given some direction. I won't say totally, but I think I have clearly established the cause of death in these two decedents. I also think I have given evidence which supports my opinion on the single-edged knife theory. And it seems medically, I can't exclude a doubleedged blade. I think it seems illogical that you have all the significant wounds caused by a single-edged blade, and you bring up the theory of a double-edged blade causing some of the not so significant wounds. So I don't think my eight days of testimony has been wasted. But if that's your position, I can't change it.

MR. SHAPIRO: Well, you came to us because you have expertise above and beyond an average person in a specific field of medicine and science; isn't that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: My question to you was a simple one. Can you tell us with that expertise within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that one single-edged knife caused all the injuries to both victims?

MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, excuse me. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. SHAPIRO: That one single-edged knife caused all the injuries to both of the victims.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is my opinion. I said it could have caused--

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

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I can't say that.

MR. SHAPIRO: Is Dr. Golden sick?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No. He's still working in the Coroner's office.

MR. SHAPIRO: Is he on vacation?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No, he's not on vacation. I told you he's working every day in the Coroner's office.

MR. SHAPIRO: When did you find out he was not going to be called as a witness and you were?

MR. KELBERG: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. KELBERG: Compound as well.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SHAPIRO: When did you find out he wasn't going to be called as a witness?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: The same time when Mr. Kelberg announced that he's not going to call him as a witness because Monday at 9:30, I thought they were meeting with him because that was the morning I was giving a lecture in Ventura. So that's the same time when you knew--I knew he was not testifying.

MR. SHAPIRO: You would expect, as the person who is in charge of this medical office, that a doctor who performed the autopsy who is not sick, not on vacation, not doing other things that would prevent him from coming to court, would in fact be a witness; would you not?

MR. KELBERG: Objection. Argumentative and irrelevant.

THE COURT: It's argumentative.

MR. SHAPIRO: Is that your practice; that the doctor who does the autopsy, if available, testifies?

MR. KELBERG: Excuse me, your Honor. Objection. It's not within the province of the Coroner's office to determine who testifies and who does not.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Could you repeat the question again?

MR. SHAPIRO: Is it the practice of the Coroner's office that you supervise that the doctor who performed the autopsy, when otherwise available, testifies?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct.

MR. SHAPIRO: And what is the reason that you have been told that Dr. Golden is not going to be called to testify?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Well, the same reason which was outlined here. They felt that I presented evidence in a manner which the jury can understand, and they didn't want to repeat the testimony again. This is my understanding from what was told in court right in front of all of us because I was not aware he was not going to testify until Monday morning when it was announced in court, and that's the truth.

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

[11404]

MR. SHAPIRO: And when mistakes are made, don't you have a responsibility to do an intensive review immediately to correct those mistakes?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: We did do that.

MR. SHAPIRO: Don't you also have an obligation to somebody who is accused to make sure that asgood a job as is medically possible be done?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: And don't you have an obligation to correct mistakes immediately and look for errors?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: We do that as soon as I ever find out about a mistake and it is a mistake, and I'm the first person to accept it and I always direct my doctors to correct it. And if there's a change of cause of death, we call the family and tell them that. At least all the cases--I'm aware of whenever there's a mistake, as I told this Court and this jury, we have to identify any mistake first to accept it.

MR. SHAPIRO: Have you filed a report in this case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: A report in the sense--what kind of report do you mean?

MR. SHAPIRO: Have you filed any reports in this case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I've not filed any reports except for the knife report I made, which I examined four knives presented to me by LAPD, and the other report which has been put in evidence as this chart, which I played a role in developing.

MR. SHAPIRO: Have you filed any supplemental report to correct all the errors that you have found in this autopsy?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Do you intend to do that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: We could do that, but I thought we already presented the evidence in court. And we can do that.

MR. SHAPIRO: Do you intend to do that?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I can and I--

MR. SHAPIRO: The question is, do you intend to?

MR. KELBERG: Excuse me. I don't think the witness finished the answer.

THE COURT: Yes. Finish the answer, doctor.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I don't plan to do it because I was testifying here and the whole proceeding being televised and we have the--my charts which I introduced in evidence. But I could do it.

MR. SHAPIRO: So you don't believe you have an obligation to the victims in this case to file a report that correctly reflects the autopsy in this case?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: We have issued an addendum already. I met my obligation correcting the first mistakes we were aware of. These other smaller mistakes we just talked about, for example, in Goldman's, these abrasions, were not described in the addendum, and several other mistakes, we have notissued an addendum as yet. And as I said, it can be done, but--and I'll be happy to do it.

MR. SHAPIRO: Are you going to do it?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: When are you going to do it?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: After the trial, after the testimony is over.

MR. SHAPIRO: You think that's proper, a year later, to file a report after the case is over?

MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor. Irrelevant, argumentative.

THE COURT: It's argumentative. You want to rephrase the question?

MR. SHAPIRO: I'll just go on. Thank you, your Honor.

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

[11434]

MR. SHAPIRO: Are you certain as to whether the assailant--as to whether there was one or more assailants regarding Nicole Brown Simpson?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I'm not certain.

MR. SHAPIRO: Are you certain as to whether the assailant or assailants were right or left-handed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I've already opined on that, I think.

MR. SHAPIRO: I'm asking you are you certain?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I'm not certain.

MR. SHAPIRO: And again, that is because you weren't there and there are no eyewitnesses to this; isn't that correct?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: That is correct, but what I gave was what are the possibilities and based on the wounds. For example, the last wound on Nicole Brown Simpson had to be right-hand person because the wound travels, in my opinion, from left to right and it has to be done from the back based on the blood.

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

[11504]

06/15/95 Lakshmanan Day Nine, Direct Examination by Kelberg.

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

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

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

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

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

16506

MR. SHAPIRO: Can you, as an expert medical examiner to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, tell the height of the assailant or assailants in this case?

DR. BADEN: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Can you, as an expert medical examiner within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, tell the weight of the perpetrator or perpetrators?

DR. BADEN: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Can you, as an expert medical examiner, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, tell the physique of the perpetrator or perpetrators?

DR. BADEN: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Would you say you would have as much chance as determining whether or not somebody had a mustache from observing ashes in a cremation as you could of coming up with whether -- what the size, weight and height was of the perpetrators in this case?

MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor, argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled. I would like to hear the answer to this one.

[16507]

DR. BADEN: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Regarding the timing of injuries, can this be based on the appearance of injuries in a photograph?

DR. BADEN: Very dangerous to do it that way.

MR. SHAPIRO: Why?

DR. BADEN: Because part of the--of the timing of injuries, how long an injury has been present, is based on color changes, and that is very dependent on the color film, the speed, the flash and how it is developed. The naked eye direct visualization is very helpful and looking at the tissue under the microscope is the best means of determining how long an injury has been present in general.

MR. SHAPIRO: And so that I understand you correctly, and the jury does, that when we are talking about timing of injuries, we are talking about whether it occurred before death, at the time of death or after death?

DR. BADEN: Okay. That--I was going--how long before death an injury occurs and also the same applies for distinguishing whether--or trying to distinguish whether an injury occurred after death or before death, but that also is very difficult and often impossible.

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

[16559]

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

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

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

"Objection, your honor. The burden of proof is on the state to prove the case against my client. He has invoked the 5th Amendment and cannot be compelled to testify."

Correct. OJ cannot be compelled to testify. He could present his shoes and gloves, however.

The prosecution will simply leave it out there that OJ's rare and expensive shoes and gloves, evidence of which was found at a murder scene, cannot be produced by the defendant.

Could a Martian have done this? Could he have used a scalpel? Will you stake your reputation on your answer?

Here is the fact. Marbury has stood as good law for over two centuries.

Except that is isn't a law it is a judicial decision.

It sounds like you think legislating from the bench is a good thing.

You know that is what they did that is why you called it a "law".

If it is good or bad is irrelevant to the fact that it was a usurption of power never ever granted by congress or signed by any President.

I have never read so many hypotheticals in a cross-examination based on zero evidence to the contrary.

I agree with White on this one. It was legal mumbo jumbo meant to trip up dumb people.

Yes, that is correct. However, it is violating one's oath to do so, and if one states his intent to do so, e.g., to other jurors, it is grounds to be kicked off the jury.

I would argue that the prosecutor is the one who "broke their oath" when they acted contrary to the constitution and interfere with the rights of the jury as John Jay made very clear.

This is John Jay in a unique case. It is the only jury trial ever held at SCOTUS. However, it was not a jury of one's peers, but of specially selected experts in the subject matter of the case. It is an anomaly, not applicable to any other case.

I disagree. All we both have is our opinions.

given all of your comments about my intelligence

There is nothing wrong with your intelligence. You're smart. But you are also wrong on things.

if you ever get picked up for a DUI

That will never happen.

It is for the Court to determine the applicable law. The Court instructs the jury on the applicable law. The jury determines the facts, based on the evidence presented.

No, it is for the court to enforce the already existing law in the books; not make them up. In making up laws this judge can be accused of judicial activism. As for the jury determining those facts, let's us hope they are actually receiving those facts and that the prosecution is not intentionally withholding some of those facts. We have seen this happen is many cases.

That's exactly what the jury did. The defense team was very effective. The prosecution was not.

At the time that this OJ Simpson case was going on I was also studying law and do understand the basics about evidence. The defense team was effective because the LAPD botched up the forensics procedure on the blood evidence. In essence the LAPD had much to do with the acquital process. Even Mark Furman was disgusted with how the LAPD handled the investigation and tainting of evidence. They knew something and I believe they deliberately botched it up so as to prevent another Rodney King riot like what we endured in '92.

I probably would have heard the evidence about the hand cuts and the blood evidence and decided he was guilty. I would not have been able to persuade the rest of the jury though.

Except that is isn't a law it is a judicial decision.

It sounds like you think legislating from the bench is a good thing.

You are wrong. We use the Common Law system of law (except for the state of Louisiana). The collection of court rulings is the common law.

A function of the judicial branch is to interpret the laws. That is not legislating.

Again, Marbury has been binding precedent for over two centuries.

No, it is for the court to enforce the already existing law in the books; not make them up. In making up laws this judge can be accused of judicial activism.

Argue your nonsense in court and the judge will order you to stop, sit down, and not repeat the mistake. If you persist, you will be locked up in another room and watch the rest of your proceeding on TV.

Your peculiar notions about the legal system are only good for blog posts.

Just re-reading this testimony gives me a f**king headache. I have never read so many hypotheticals in a cross-examination based on zero evidence to the contrary.

And that is but a teeny excerpt. Dr. Lakshmanan testified for 8 days on direct examination. The trial opening arguments were in January 95 and this is what they were doing months later in June. And the jury was sequestered the whole time.

The LAPD and the forensics lab truly did make a hash of it. Without the forensics, what was there?

Not enough for a conviction. The forensics was a mess. LAPD criminalist Colin Yamauchi essentially conceded he had all the evidence for testing out at once, subjecting everything to cross-contamination.

Some wag may not have been wrong when he suggested the LAPD was caught trying to frame a guilty man. They were caught doing stuff that discredited whatever case they may have had.

A function of the judicial branch is to interpret the laws.

Now you're saying that the jury should judge the law too. Make up your mind!

http://pages.infinit.net/reparvit/nicole12.html

101 PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT PROOVE O.J. SIMPSON MURDERED NICOLE.

5. Witness Jill Shively says she saw OJ driving his speeding Bronco from the Bundy murder scene around the time of the slayings.

That is some real proof there. Jill Shively sold her story to Hard Copy. She was discredited by the prosecution, never called to testify, and never said anything in court. Her story sold to Hard Copy was never evidence before the jury.

(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.

A function of the judicial branch is to interpret the laws.

Now you're saying that the jury should judge the law too. Make up your mind!

So, you mindlessly believe jurors are members of the judicial branch. Seek treatment.

No, it is for the court to enforce the already existing law in the books;

Dang, your law school taught that the courts are a law enforcement group.

"Dr. Lakshmanan testified for 8 days on direct examination."

In any other trial it would have been no more than 8 hours. If that.

LAPD criminalist Colin Yamauchi essentially conceded he had all the evidence for testing out at once, subjecting everything to cross-contamination.

I see. The DNA crawled from one sample to the other? Maybe it flew through the air?

What exactly did Mr. Yamauchi do to cross-contaminate the samples?

"She was discredited by the prosecution"

Only because she sold her story.

"Because the road was illuminated well, Shively said it was easy to see Simpson at the wheel and that she recognized him from his role in a Naked Gun film. She said that Simpson "glared" at her before she took down his license plate, only getting one letter wrong."

"Because she places the sighting at 10:50 p.m., she's right on target for the suggested murder timeline. But even though detectives questioned her, Shively's decision to take money from Hard Copy undermined her ability to share her eyewitness account in court."

Had I been in the jury room, I would have initially voted to find him guilty. But when the other jurors did not go along (and they would not have gone along), I could have been persuaded that the processes used by the LAPD crime lab were such that the evidence was tainted, and we all know that the cops are not trustworthy (though back then I trusted them a lot more than I do now).

I probably could have been persuaded, after a lot of arguing, that the evidence did not exist to convict him.

This is a non-reciprocal thing: if my ithoughts coming out of the trial were that he was probably not guilty, if I were the lone holdout on the jury I probably would have remained so. In my mind, in a jump ball of uncertainty, I will always skew "Not Guilty". I fear and distrust the authorities too much to ever give them the benefit of the doubt when somebody's life is at stake.

Granted, two people were dead here, but that's just it - they're did. Justice is not served by destroying the third life of an innocent man.

I think OJ was guilty. If I were the lone holdout for guilty on a jury, I could have been persuaded, with patient argument, how the evidence was untrustworthy to establish guilt, and voted not guilty. I could never be persuaded in the opposite direction.

What exactly did Mr. Yamauchi do to cross-contaminate the samples?

Enough to raise reasonable doubt.

It is for the court to enforce the already existing law in the books

I learned that in French law school. The maxim of French law is "Le juge n'est que la bouche qui prononce les mots de la loi" - "The judge is nothing more than the mouth that pronounces the words of the law."

To emphasize that point, the French legislature has two criminal statutes that punish any judge who, in a legal decision, either cites to principles of equity, or who cites judicial precedent. It is a crime for French judges to write a legal decision based upon precedent or upon principles of fairness. They are limited to the laws passed by the legislature and the decrees and ordinances of the government. They must cite the specific loi, decret, or ordonnance upon which their decision is based. French legal decisions (never "opinions") are very short and direct, of the genre "Given Article 7 of the Law of 1938, given the following facts, now therefore it is found that the defendant has violated provision x, y, and z and is sentenced thus ..."

In the Common Law system, of course, equity has been unified with law, and judges have full powers of equity as well as law. Further, the decisions of higher courts on matters are binding upon lower courts, so the Common Law system itself is a source of law for the judges of the Common Law judges. The combination of precedent, the dictum of earlier court decisions, and the appeal to general principles of fairness and equity work together to make American courts very unpredictable places.

In France, what you wrote above is true. But in America and the rest of the Common Law world judges - by the very design of the common law - have equitable power far beyond merely enforcing the laws in the books.

You mean the blood shown to contain EDTA?

Really? Are you sticking with that, despite it being refuted?

OJ and Kato went to McDonalds that evening. French fries contain EDTA preservative, as do other foods. Small amounts of EDTA in human blood are considered normal. That's all that was found, not the larger amounts in a preserved blood sample.

This is the kind of crap the defense used. If there was a one-in-a- billion chance of some other possibility, they focused on it and the jury believed it.

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

"They also claimed that the blood had been severely degraded by being stored in a lab truck, but the prosecution's DNA expert, Harlan Levy, said that the degradation would not have been sufficient to prevent accurate DNA analysis. He also pointed out that control samples were used that would have shown any such contamination, but Scheck suggested that the control samples had been mishandled by the lab ... all five of them---and the jury bought it."

"Mark Fuhrman conveniently found one glove at Bundy and went to Rockingham and found the other."

Are you saying that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove at OJ's house not knowing if OJ had an airtight alibi for that night and that someone else did the crime? A glove that might not be the right size? How did he know OJ owned these kind of gloves?

And where's your proof that Fuhrman planted the glove?

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

It wasn't there or it wasn't seen? How did it get there later?

I see. The DNA crawled from one sample to the other? Maybe it flew through the air?

What exactly did Mr. Yamauchi do to cross-contaminate the samples?

You're doing a good job.

LAPD criminalist Colin Yamauchi essentially conceded he had all the evidence for testing out at once, subjecting everything to cross-contamination.

Yep, and what happened to that evidence?

Argue your nonsense in court and the judge will order you to stop, sit down, and not repeat the mistake. If you persist, you will be locked up in another room and watch the rest of your proceeding on TV.

You don't argue with a judge that usurps the law. You have them recused.

I am familiar with the maxims of law.

"Dr. Lakshmanan testified for 8 days on direct examination."

In any other trial it would have been no more than 8 hours. If that

The stalling actions were clearly because the prosecution was not prepared to proceed with the case on the scientific test results which were months away from being ready. Had they not stalled and wasted time, the prosecution would have run out of witnesses they were prepared to present. And so the trial proceeded as the slowest moving train wreck in recorded history — with a sequestered jury.

I see. The DNA crawled from one sample to the other? Maybe it flew through the air?

What exactly did Mr. Yamauchi do to cross-contaminate the samples?

Precisely. Only one sample should be open at a time to prevent airborne contamination. PCR is very sensitive to the slightest contamination. It takes an infinitesimal sample of DNA and copies it tens or hundreds of millions of times.

The specific topic of potential airborne contamination was covered in the cross-examination of Gary Sims. Considering the documented sloppy lab procedures with the evidence, the possibility of cross-contamination with the reference sample was allowed. I such circumstances, when a positive result occurs, it is impossible to rule out cross-contamination as the cause. Such evidence can not provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yamauchi did not follow protocol to ensure against cross-contamination.

I already presented the testimony of Collin Yamauchi.

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.

There is much more detail in the cross-examination of Gary Sims of the California Department of Justice. Yamauchi testified from 5/24 - 5/31. Sims testified on 5/16 - 5/22 and 5/31 - 6/1. My excerpt is taken from 5/18.

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

AEROSOL CONTAMINATION - Scheck cross of Sims

[9230]

THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Mr. Sims. All right. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Scheck, you may continue with your cross-examination.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Sims, at the break you were kind enough to review your notes with me concerning those--the 21 samples. Do you recall that?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And you indicated that the maximum number of samples that you processed from the initial cutting of the swatches to the reporting of results in one run was 21 samples, correct?
MR. SIMS: Yes, and that would include the quality control sample, the extraction blank and then substrate controls intervening the stains.
MR. SCHECK: Right. Now, at the break you and I reviewed your notes as to how long--how long it took you to do that procedure with the 21 samples from beginning to end?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And umm, I think you began that on the 8th of September?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Half day?
MR. SIMS: Yes, that is what we figured.
MR. SCHECK: And then September 9th you said it took you all day?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And then September 14th, another half day?
MR. SIMS: Yes.

[9231]

MR. SCHECK: And September 15th, at least a half day, maybe three-quarters of a day?
MR. SIMS: Something like that, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Then September 20th a half day?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: September 21st, a day?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Altogether, between yourself and Miss Montgomery, who participated in the process, how many days did it take you to process those samples from beginning to end?
MR. SIMS: From the point of--of sampling to having a typing result on DQ-Alpha?
MR. SCHECK: Yeah.
MR. SIMS: That was about 7 working days.
MR. SCHECK: 7 working days?
MR. SIMS: Approximately.
MR. SCHECK: Can you imagine being able to process those samples, 21 samples from beginning to end, in one day?
MR. HARMON: Objection, calls for speculation, imagination.
THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.
MR. HARMON: Thank you.
MR. SCHECK: Now, let's turn to--what is this?

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

MR. SCHECK: Umm--

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

[9232]

MR. SCHECK: Now, the--there are other kinds of precautions that one takes in terms of processing samples for purposes of forensic DNA typing, aside from the ones we've previously reviewed, in terms of which kind of samples one would handle at different times and different places?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, let's start first with aerosols.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Now, one kind of aerosol we have already discussed is the kind of spray that can occur when one opens up a tube?
MR. SIMS: Yes. If one has not spun it down, that is a concern because you can get liquid accumulating under the top of the cap.
MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. And this would apply also to one of these lavender-topped tubes that contains reference samples?
MR. SIMS: Well, they are under vacuum, so yes, that is a concern when you open one of those for the first time.
MR. SCHECK: And when you open one of those for the first time, one has to be quite careful about the aerosol of whole blood from the reference tube?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And in pouring that out, let's say, onto one of these paper cards, one has to take great care?
MR. SIMS: Well, one has to be careful about what else is in the laboratory, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, aside from aerosols from liquids, can one have aerosols from dried biological particles?
MR. SIMS: I don't know if they are possibly called aerosols, but you can have, for example, powdered blood, something like that. You have to be concerned about that.
MR. SCHECK: Powdered blood would be small particles of dried blood?
MR. SIMS: Yes.

[9233]

MR. SCHECK: Now, if one were to take a test-tube that contained blood swatches that had dried on the inside of the test-tube--
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: --and then one takes a pipette, holding the test-tube up and scrapes the bloodstains out of the test-tube with the pipette--
THE COURT: Swatches?
MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry?
THE COURT: The swatches.
MR. SCHECK: Swatches?
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Out of the pipette?
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Are you with me?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Could that not cause an aerosol of powdered blood to fall on the surface over which the test-tube was held?
MR. SIMS: Well, in my experience, with that kind of a sample you usually see some flakes. It is not as fine a powder but you see more of like a flake, flaky effect.
MR. SCHECK: You could see a flake, but in terms of the dried swatch, could be an aerosol?
MR. SIMS: Again, I'm not sure that is the right term, but if you are talking about airborne particles, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Airborne particles?
MR. SIMS: Yes.

[9234]

MR. SCHECK: And the pipette itself is a flexible instrument?
MR. SIMS: Now by pipette do you mean one of those that has a disposable tip on it or do you mean like a glass--can you--
MR. SCHECK: Glass.
MR. SIMS: Yes. Well, it is not very flexible; it is glass.
MR. SCHECK: Well, one of those thin plastic ones?
MR. SIMS: Oh, okay, yes, those are flexible.
MR. SCHECK: Right, and he can flick particles?
MR. SIMS: Yes, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Especially when you are pulling out of a tube?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: So that is another kind of aerosol if--using that definition?
MR. SIMS: Yes, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And these are particles of blood?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: From which nanograms of DNA can be extracted?
MR. SIMS: Well, if these are real small specks, I don't think you could get nanograms.
MR. SCHECK: Well--
MR. SIMS: I mean if you--
MR. SCHECK: Again how many?
MR. HARMON: Objection, your Honor, he cut off his answer.

[9235]

THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry. Did you finish, Mr. Sims?
MR. SIMS: I was going to say if you had a large flake, then that would be nanogram quantities, but not the kind of minute specks that I think you are talking about. Those are not nanogram quantities usually.
MR. SCHECK: Well, let's go back to our discussion of specks.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: All right.
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: How small a particle can one get to derive two nanograms of DNA?
MR. SIMS: Well, from that, if it was solid blood, it would be a very small flake, something like that.
MR. SCHECK: Now, let's turn to paper.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: When examining biological specimens, is it not an important precaution, to change paper just in examining each item?
MR. SIMS: I think that is an important precaution, yes.
MR. SCHECK: So just so we know what we are talking about, let's say you were examining a blood swatch on a white piece of--what do they call it in labs? Butcher paper?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: After examining that swatch it would be important to remove the paper from which the swatch came before then examining another swatch on that paper?
MR. SIMS: Yes. In other words, you wouldn't want to put two swatches on the same piece of paper. I would agree with that.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And in terms of--let's go back to our situation with the test-tube being with the dried swatches being scraped out with the pipette.

[9236]

MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: And paper below the test-tube.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Would it not be an important precaution against cross-contamination to change the paper every time you removed a set of swatches? MR. SIMS: I'm having a little trouble conceptualizing what is that swatch then being directed into? I need to get clarification on that.
MR. SCHECK: All right. There is paper--butcher paper covering the table.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Section of a table.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: And then on top of that butcher paper is a rectangular bindle.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: You saw bindles in this case, did you not?
MR. SIMS: I did.
MR. SCHECK: Bindles from the Los Angeles Police Department?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Bindles that contained swatches?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: I ask you to assume that the bindle is on top of the butcher paper.
MR. SIMS: Okay.

[9237]

MR. SCHECK: And that the test-tube with the dried swatches is being--the swatch is being scraped out of that test-tube with the pipette aiming for the bindle surrounded by the paper.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Would it not be sound fundamental laboratory practice to change the paper underlying the bindle every time you moved to a new item?
MR. SIMS: I think I would do that. I don't know if it is absolutely mandatory to do that, because the bindle does act like a new piece of paper if it is big enough, but I think it would be a good idea to put a clean piece of paper underneath each bindle, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Well, the particles or the aerosol may not hit the bindle. MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: And to protect against cross-contamination from those particles, it would be sound practice to change the paper?
MR. HARMON: Objection, asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: Well, I would--I think it would be a good idea to either change the paper or to put like a wipe or something, some kind of tissue over that paper so that you covered that area, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Instruments. Withdrawn. Before I move from--now, in your laboratory is it not part of your protocol that not only--that the paper underlying an item that you just examined, right, should be changed every time you examine another item of evidence?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I would do that.
MR. SCHECK: Isn't that part of your protocol?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And when you are cutting or sampling an item you would change the paper for each different item?
MR. SIMS: Yes, yes.

[9238]

MR. SCHECK: That would apply to a blood swatch?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: That would apply to cuttings from a glove?
MR. SIMS: Well, now between each cutting? Is that what you are saying?
MR. SCHECK: (Nods head up and down.)
MR. SIMS: I believe that is what I did in this particular case, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, instruments. There are various kind of instruments that are used to manipulate biological evidence in a crime lab?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Tweezers?
MR. SIMS: Yes or forceps is what we call them in the scientific world.
MR. SCHECK: Forceps?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And is it important to make sure that you clean all instruments that are used in manipulating biological specimens?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Gloves. Is it part of your protocol to change gloves every time you handle a different item of biological evidence?
MR. SIMS: I don't believe I change my gloves after every item. Umm, what I do sometimes would be usually to wash my gloves, and certainly if I had any indication at all that I may have something on my gloves, I would discard them right away and after, for example, I have been working around the laboratory and handling doors and things like that, I would change my gloves also, but I don't believe I would change my gloves necessarily between each separate item.
MR. SCHECK: Did you change your gloves between each swatch that you handled in this case?

[9239]

MR. SIMS: I don't believe so. No, I don't think so.
MR. SCHECK: Would you agree that not changing gloves--well, let's start this way: In handling a wet swatch would you change your gloves between handling each swatch?
MR. HARMON: Objection. "handling" is vague, your Honor.
THE COURT: Rephrase.
MR. SCHECK: All right.
THE COURT: What part of the process are we talking about?
MR. SCHECK: In removing a swatch, wet swatch from a plastic bag, would it be sound practice to change gloves between handling each set of wet swatches?
MR. HARMON: Objection. "removing" is vague, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: Well, I think if you mean by the scenario we talked about earlier where you are sticking the tube up in there--
MR. SCHECK: Yeah.
MR. SIMS: --I think if there was any danger that you would have blood getting onto that tube and then you touched that tube, for example, that would be a good idea to change your gloves, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. And in the process we talked about where you are scraping the swatches out of the test-tubes onto the bindle and paper, between each set of evidence items would you change your gloves?
MR. SIMS: Well, now there--as you are explaining it, you are sort of--you know, you are creating a situation where it is coming down onto your gloves. I'm not sure that the criminalist might have the--the material out in front of him or her so that they are really not having the particle come down onto the gloves. Do you understand what I'm saying?
MR. SCHECK: Well, if--are you--would you, as a precautionary practice, describing--looking at the process we are talking about, scraping the swatches out of the tube--
MR. SIMS: Okay.

[9240]

MR. SCHECK: --dried swatches out of the tube, would you change your gloves between handling each of those items?
MR. SIMS: No, I don't--I don't think so, because I think one could reach into that tube and dislodge that sample in such a way that then one wouldn't get powder onto the gloves. I don't--I don't know that I have ever done that procedure, so it is hard for me to evaluate it on my own experience, but I think at least one might wash one's gloves after each item. That would probably be a good idea.
MR. SCHECK: So your testimony then is you would either change your gloves or wash your gloves between each of these items?
MR. SIMS: I think that would be a good idea, but again, it depends on how exactly that manipulation is performed.
MR. SCHECK: Maybe I asked you this question--let's make sure I asked you this question: Did you either change your gloves or wash your gloves between handling each swatch in this case?
MR. HARMON: Objection, compound.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: All right. You testified a second ago that you didn't necessarily change your gloves between each item?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Would you, between handling each of the swatch items in this case, have either changed your gloves or washed your gloves? MR. SIMS: Yes, I believe that is correct.
MR. SCHECK: All right. So you were either using a new set of gloves when you handled each separate item or you were using a set of gloves that you had washed?
MR. SIMS: Yes. I was trying to save the taxpayers a little money by washing them.
MR. SCHECK: Okay.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. SCHECK: Now, would you agree that with respect to--well, actually--can we move to I? In viewing

[9241]

each of these different factors in terms of cross-contamination, okay--
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: --starting to the right hand of that white line, right?
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: --the first one we were talking about, degraded samples.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Right. And we agreed that in handling degraded samples, that is, the fact that samples are degraded creates a risk of cross-contamination in and of itself?
MR. SIMS: Yes. There is greater risk with those samples.
MR. SCHECK: And handling a reference sample, I am now looking at the test-tube plus one, all right?
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: --reference sample in the same area during the same period, either by pouring off sample from the--popping up the top of the tube, pouring it onto a card and in the same area during the same period, one is handling evidence samples, that kind of situation can increase of risk of crosscontamination?
MR. HARMON: Objection. "period" is vague, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And handling samples from a suspect and a victim at the same time can create a risk of cross-contamination of sample?
MR. SIMS: Can we clarify a little bit about suspect and victim? I think we had a had a little--
MR. SCHECK: You recall that discussion that is represented by that logo, without reviewing it all?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I think we talked about that.

[9242]

MR. SCHECK: And then we talked about samples represented by that scale of samples with high DNA concentration and low DNA concentration?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And then we talked about samples from different crime scenes?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And we talked about handling many samples at the same time?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, with respect to all those different contamination factors to the right of the line, those represent in a sense situations that can raise the level of risk in terms of making an inadvertent transfer of cross-contamination?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, looking to the factors on the left-hand side--
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: --if you combine the creation of an aerosol--
THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. This witness has never adopted your characterization of aerosol. Airborne particles perhaps; not aerosol.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you.
MR. SCHECK: Airborne articles represented by the clip art of fireworks?

MR. SIMS: I like that.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you. All right. Talking about airborne particles, all right?
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Combining that with any of these other situations to the right of the line, that is a--sort of a mechanism of transfer that would increase the risk of cross-contamination?

[9243]

MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And the paper, you recall our discussion about not changing paper?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: If you combine not changing paper with each of those situations, that is a mechanism of transfer that can increase the risk of cross-contamination?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And with respect to the bunsen burner representing the cleaning of instruments, if one does not adequately clean instruments, that can be a mechanism of transfer that facilitates crosscontamination, raises the level of risk in the other situations to the right of that white line?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And with respect to gloves, gloves, either not changing gloves or washing gloves--
MR. SIMS: Right.
MR. SCHECK: --okay, between samples, combined with any of those other factors to the right of the line, can become a mechanism of transfer for cross-contamination?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you.

Jill Shively told prosecutors she had not spoken to anyone but her mother about what she allegedly had seen. She testified at the Grand Jury. Then the interview, which she did before her Grand Jury appearance, became public. Jill Shively admitted she misled prosecutors under questioning by Marcia Clark.

"I must ask you to completely disregard the statements given and the testimony given by Jill Shively in this case," Clark told grand jurors. "I cannot allow her to be part of this case now that she has proven to be untruthful as to any aspect of her statement."

Only because she sold her story.

Oh, nonsense. She LIED to the prosecutors about it. She testified to the Grand Jury and was recalled because of her lie. Her pitiful attempt at an excuse is laughable. They would not even use this liar at the civil trial. Proven liars are not credible witnesses.

Marcia Clark addressed the jury:

I MUST NOW ASK YOU TO COMPLETELY

1 DISREGARD THE STATEMENTS GIVEN AND THE TESTIMONY GIVEN BY
2 JILL SHIVELY IN THIS CASE.
3 ALTHOUGH HER FAILURE TO TRUTHFULLY ANSWER A
4 QUESTION POSED TO HER DURING AN INTERVIEW CANNOT SUBJECT
5 HER TO PERJURY CHARGES GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE SUSPECT DOES
6 NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY PRESENT TO CROSS-EXAMINE HER AT THIS
7 PROCEEDING AND THAT AT THIS POINT IN TIME WE HAVE NO WAY TO
8 INDEPENDENTLY CORROBORATE HER TESTIMONY, I CANNOT ALLOW HER
9 TO BE PART OF THIS CASE AT THIS TIME NOW THAT SHE HAS
10 PROVEN TO BE UNTRUTHFUL AS TO ANY ASPECT OF HER STATEMENT.
11 PLEASE COMPLETELY DISREGARD THE TESTIMONY OF
12 JILL SHIVELY.

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

Please enjoy the testimony of this discredited liar.

[21322]

JILL SHIVELY,
18 RECALLED AS A WITNESS BEFORE THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY GRAND
19 JURY, HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY DULY SWORN, RESUMED THE STAND
20 AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:
21
22 E X A M I N A T I O N (RESUMED)
23 BY MS. CLARK:
24 Q. MISS SHIVELY, YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY APPEARED AND
25 TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS GRAND JURY ON JUNE 21, WHICH WAS
26 TUESDAY OF THIS WEEK.
27 A. THAT'S CORRECT.
28 Q. NOW, CONCERNING THE MATTER BEFORE -- THE MATTER

413

1 TO WHICH YOU TESTIFIED ON JUNE 21, DID YOU FIRST CONTACT
2 THE POLICE CONCERNING YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THESE EVENTS ON
3 JUNE 14?
4 A. YES, I DID.
5 Q. AND YOU WERE INTERVIEWED BY THE POLICE ON THE
6 FOLLOWING DAY, JUNE THE 15TH?
7 A. I THINK, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, I WAS
8 INTERVIEWED RIGHT AWAY.
9 I THINK IT WAS THE NEXT DAY.
10 Q. AND THEN YOU WERE SUBPOENAED TO APPEAR BEFORE
11 THIS GRAND JURY ON SATURDAY, JUNE 18?
12 A. THAT'S CORRECT.
13 Q. AND THEN YOU HAD AN INTERVIEW -- YOU WERE
14 INTERVIEWED BY A TELEVISION NEWS PROGRAM CALLED "HARD COPY"
15 CONCERNING THIS SUBJECT MATTER TO WHICH YOU LATER TESTIFIED
16 BEFORE THIS GRAND JURY AND DURING WHICH YOU SHOWED YOUR
17 SUBPOENA ON CAMERA?
18 A. THAT'S CORRECT; I DID.

[21323]

19 Q. AND THAT INTERVIEW WAS CONDUCTED ON MONDAY,
20 JUNE THE 20TH, ON THE AFTERNOON OF THAT DAY?
21 A. YES, IT WAS.
22 Q. AND YOU WERE PROMISED PAYMENT BY "HARD COPY"
23 FOR THAT INTERVIEW OF $5,000.
24 IS THAT RIGHT?
25 A. THAT IS CORRECT.
26 Q. ON THE NIGHT AFTER YOUR INTERVIEW -- THAT IS,
27 YOU WERE INTERVIEWED BY "HARD COPY" ON MONDAY AFTERNOON,
28 JUNE 20.

414

1 FOLLOWING THAT INTERVIEW, YOU CONTACTED A
2 DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WITH WHOM YOU WERE ACQUAINTED --
3 NOT MYSELF OR MR. CONN -- AND YOU INDICATED TO HIM THAT YOU
4 WERE CONCERNED AND NERVOUS ABOUT ALL THE MEDIA CONTACTS
5 MADE TO YOU.
6 A. THAT'S CORRECT.
7 Q. ON TUESDAY MORNING, JUNE 21, THE MORNING OF
8 YOUR TESTIMONY WHEN YOU APPEARED TO TESTIFY BEFORE THIS
9 GRAND JURY, YOU MET WITH MYSELF AND MR. CONN FOR THE VERY
10 FIRST TIME.
11 IS THAT CORRECT?
12 A. THAT'S TRUE.
13 Q. PRIOR TO THAT MORNING, WE HAD HAD NEITHER PHONE
14 CONTACT OR ANY CONTACT AT ALL.
15 IS THAT CORRECT?
16 A. THAT'S TRUE.
17 Q. AND JUST BEFORE YOU TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS GRAND
18 JURY ON JUNE 21, MR. CONN AND MYSELF INTERVIEWED YOU IN THE
19 CONFERENCE ROOM NEAR TO THIS JURY ROOM.
20 IS THAT CORRECT?
21 A. THAT'S TRUE.
22 Q. DURING THE COURSE OF THAT INTERVIEW, YOU WERE
23 ASKED BY MR. CONN WHETHER YOU HAD DISCUSSED THE SUBJECT
24 MATTER OF YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN THIS CASE OR THE STATEMENT
25 THAT YOU HAD GIVEN TO THE POLICE WITH ANYONE ELSE.
26 A. THAT'S TRUE.
27 Q. AND YOU TOLD HIM AT THAT TIME, YOU TOLD MYSELF,
28 ALSO, THAT YOU HAD ONLY SPOKEN TO YOUR MOTHER?

415

1 A. THAT'S TRUE. 2 Q. ON JUNE 22, WHICH WAS THE DAY AFTER YOUR
3 INTERVIEW WITH "HARD COPY" -- EXCUSE ME -- ON JUNE 22, THE
4 DAY AFTER YOUR INTERVIEW WITH "HARD COPY" WAS HEARD ON

[21324]

5 T.V., WE HAD YOU BROUGHT BACK TO THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT
6 ATTORNEY FOR AN INTERVIEW WITH US.
7 IS THAT CORRECT?
8 A. THAT'S TRUE.
9 Q. IT WAS ON THE EVENING OF YOUR TESTIMONY BEFORE
10 THIS GRAND JURY TUESDAY, THAT WAS JUNE 21, THAT THE "HARD
11 COPY" INTERVIEW WITH YOU CONCERNING YOUR TESTIMONY BEFORE
12 THIS JURY WAS AIRED.
13 IS THAT CORRECT?
14 A. THAT'S TRUE.
15 Q. THE VERY NEXT DAY, JUNE 22, YOU WERE BROUGHT
16 INTO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND YOU SPOKE WITH
17 MYSELF AND MR. CONN.
18 IS THAT CORRECT?
19 A. THAT'S TRUE.
20 Q. AND WHEN MR. CONN ASKED YOU WHY YOU HAD TOLD US
21 THAT YOU HAD ONLY SPOKEN TO YOUR MOTHER ABOUT THE SUBJECT
22 MATTER OF YOUR TESTIMONY WHEN, IN FACT, YOU HAD ALSO SPOKEN
23 TO AT LEAST "HARD COPY," YOU REPLIED THAT YOU DIDN'T
24 REALIZE THAT HE MEANT ANYONE OTHER THAN FAMILY AND FRIENDS.
25 IS THAT CORRECT?
26 A. I -- THAT'S CORRECT; THAT'S WHAT I SAID.
27 AND I AM -- I WAS NERVOUS AND HADN'T SLEPT ALL
28 WEEK AND WASN'T REALLY THINKING.

416

1 I WASN'T TRYING TO HIDE ANYTHING BECAUSE I KNEW
2 IT WAS BEING AIRED THE NEXT DAY AND I ASSUMED I WOULD BE
3 INVOLVED IN THE TRIAL, SO I WASN'T DOING ANYTHING TO BREAK
4 THE TRUST.
5 I REALLY DIDN'T THINK IT WAS WRONG. I'M SORRY
6 NOW. BUT I WASN'T TRYING TO HIDE ANYTHING. I HADN'T SLEPT
7 ALL WEEK AND I WAS NERVOUS.
8 I DON'T KNOW. I -- I DID TALK TO THEM AND, YOU
9 KNOW, I KNEW IT WOULD BE AIRED THE NEXT DAY SO I COULDN'T
10 HIDE IT FROM YOU.
11 Q. BUT IT IS A FACT WHEN YOU WERE INTERVIEWED BY
12 MYSELF AND MR. CONN ON THE MORNING OF YOUR TESTIMONY THAT
13 YOU INDICATED YOU HAD ONLY SPOKEN TO YOUR MOTHER ABOUT THE
14 EVENTS OF THE NIGHT OF JUNE 12, 1994.
15 IS THAT CORRECT?
16 A. THAT IS TRUE.
17 AND I MISINTERPRETED THE QUESTION, BECAUSE ALL
18 THE TIME PEOPLE WOULD ASK YOU, "WHO DID YOU SPEAK TO
19 FIRST?" AND THAT'S WHO I HAD SPOKEN TO FIRST.
20 I DON'T REMEMBER MUCH. I WAS NERVOUS ABOUT

[21325]

21 GOING BEFORE THE GRAND JURY AND THAT'S ALL I REMEMBER.
22 Q. IN ANY CASE, MS. SHIVELY, WHEN MR. CONN ASKED
23 YOU WHO YOU HAD SPOKEN TO ABOUT THIS CASE, ABOUT YOUR
24 INVOLVEMENT IN IT, YOU DID NOT TELL US THAT YOU HAD GIVEN
25 AN INTERVIEWED ALREADY AT THAT POINT TO "HARD COPY."
26 IS THAT CORRECT?
27 A. THAT'S TRUE; I DID NOT.
28 Q. AND IN THE COURSE OF OUR DISCUSSION, OUR

417

1 INTERVIEW WITH YOU WOULD FOLLOWING THE AIRING OF THE "HARD
2 COPY" BROADCAST, THAT IS THE FOLLOWING MORNING AFTER THAT
3 BROADCAST WAS AIRED --
4 A. RIGHT.
5 Q. -- YOU FURTHER INDICATED TO US THAT YOU HAD
6 ALSO SPOKEN TO A COUPLE OF YOUR FRIENDS AND CO-WORKERS
7 ABOUT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF YOUR TESTIMONY BEFORE WE SPOKE
8 TO YOU FOR THE FIRST TIME ON TUESDAY, JUNE THE 21ST.
9 ISN'T THAT TRUE?
10 A. RIGHT.
11 Q. AND YOU ALSO INDICATED TO US THAT AFTER YOU
12 RECEIVED YOUR GRAND JURY SUBPOENA ON MONDAY WHEN YOU WENT
13 TO WORK, YOU PUT IT ON YOUR BOSS' DESK, WHERE IT WAS IN
14 FULL VIEW OF YOUR FELLOW CO-WORKERS.
15 ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
16 A. THAT'S TRUE.
17 Q. AND YOU HAD SPOKEN TO THOSE FRIENDS AND
18 CO-WORKERS AND DISPLAYED YOUR GRAND JURY SUBPOENA AND GIVEN
19 AN INTERVIEW TO "HARD COPY" BEFORE YOU EVER SAW MYSELF OR
20 MR. CONN ON JUNE THE 21ST, 1994?
21 A. RIGHT; THAT'S TRUE.
22 I TALKED TO HIM ON MONDAY, ON THE MONDAY, THE
23 20TH.
24 Q. AND YOU SPOKE TO US FOR THE FIRST TIME ON
25 JUNE 21?
26 A. THAT'S CORRECT; RIGHT.
27 MS. CLARK: I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
28 THE FOREPERSON: IF ANY MEMBERS OF THE GRAND JURY

418

1 HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE WRITE THEM ON A PIECE OF PAPER.
2 THEY WILL BE PICKED UP BY THE
3 SERGEANT-AT-ARMS.
4
5 (SHORT PAUSE.)
6

[21326]

7 MR. WHITE: THERE WILL BE NO QUESTIONS.
8 THE FOREPERSON: THERE WILL BE NO QUESTIONS.
9 THANK YOU.
10 MISS SHIVELY, YOU WILL RECALL THAT YOU HAVE
11 PREVIOUSLY BEEN ADMONISHED REGARDING THE SECRECY OF THESE
12 PROCEEDINGS AND MUST HEED THAT ADMONISHMENT.
13 THE WITNESS: OKAY.
14 THE FOREPERSON: THANK YOU.
15 YOU ARE EXCUSED.
16 THE WITNESS: THANK YOU.
17
18 (THE WITNESS EXITS THE GRAND
19 JURY HEARING ROOM.)
20
21 MS. CLARK: MADAME FOREMAN, IF I MAY ADDRESS THE
22 GRAND JURY BRIEFLY AT THIS TIME.
23 THE COURT: YOU MAY DO SO.
24 MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.
25 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THIS JURY, BECAUSE IT
26 IS OUR DUTY AS PROSECUTORS TO PRESENT ONLY THAT EVIDENCE IN
27 WHICH WE ARE 110 PERCENT CONFIDENT AS TO ITS TRUTHFULNESS
28 AND RELIABILITY, I I MUST NOW ASK YOU TO COMPLETELY

1 DISREGARD THE STATEMENTS GIVEN AND THE TESTIMONY GIVEN BY
2 JILL SHIVELY IN THIS CASE.
3 ALTHOUGH HER FAILURE TO TRUTHFULLY ANSWER A
4 QUESTION POSED TO HER DURING AN INTERVIEW CANNOT SUBJECT
5 HER TO PERJURY CHARGES GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE SUSPECT DOES
6 NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY PRESENT TO CROSS-EXAMINE HER AT THIS
7 PROCEEDING AND THAT AT THIS POINT IN TIME WE HAVE NO WAY TO
8 INDEPENDENTLY CORROBORATE HER TESTIMONY, I CANNOT ALLOW HER
9 TO BE PART OF THIS CASE AT THIS TIME NOW THAT SHE HAS
10 PROVEN TO BE UNTRUTHFUL AS TO ANY ASPECT OF HER STATEMENT.
11 PLEASE COMPLETELY DISREGARD THE TESTIMONY OF
12 JILL SHIVELY. YOU MUST NOT ALLOW IT TO BE ANY PART OF YOUR
13 CONSIDERATIONS OR DELIBERATIONS IN THIS MATTER.
14 IF ANY OF YOU FEEL THAT YOU CANNOT DO SO, I
15 ASK YOU NOW, PLEASE, IN FAIRNESS AND IN JUSTICE, EXCUSE
16 YOURSELF FROM ANY FURTHER INVOLVEMENT IN THIS CASE.
17 MADAME FOREMAN, I NOTICE THAT NO ONE HAS
18 EXCUSED THEMSELVES.
19 THE FOREPERSON: THANK YOU.
20 MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.
21 THE FOREPERSON: YOU MAY PROCEED.
22 MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.

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

I think OJ was guilty.

I don't think he was innocent, but I do not think the criminal prosecution succeeded in proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. At times the LAPD witnesses sounded like a liar's convention.

Really? Are you sticking with that, despite it being refuted?

I am going with the evidence adduced at trial, not fictional nonsense.

Some of the samples were scientifically proven to have been contaminated with EDTA. When your pronouncement that such was refuted is accompanied by the identity of the witness at trial who performed this imaginary magic feat, I will take it seriously.

Small amounts of EDTA in human blood are considered normal.

You are hallucinating.

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

Dr. Fredrich Rieders, Defense EDTA expert 7/24, 8/14

Rieders determined there was EDTA in the samples from the back gate and on the socks. For that matter, so did FBI Agent Martz (not a ph.d.).

Far from refuting Reiders, Marcia Clark gat her ass handed to her by Reiders, and worked herself up to this:

SIDEBAR

[16762]

THE COURT: All right. We are over at the side bar. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. I regrettably have asked to approach because I feel that the People's right to a fair trial is being abrogated by the Court's clear bias in the manner in which it has handled the cross-examination of Dr. Rieders. I have attempted to confine my questioning to the relevant portions upon which the Court has ruled there has been relevance concerning the Sconce case. The Court has indicated by its tone and its demeanor and its ruling its disapproval of my every question, practically, in the area, and has told the jury, in direct contravention to its own finding, that the Sconce matter is relevant, "Let's get back to this case," and has basically signaled to the jury, if not with tone and with action and with rulings, its disapproval of my behavior. I do not see what I have done that has been inappropriate. I have attempted to abide by all of the Court's rulings. I asked to approach when I wanted to elicit something that has been previously ruled on. And the jury can only think that the Court has signaled its position on the presence of EDTA on the blood on the sock and the gate and the Court has based its determination--has made a determination that it was indeed present and that my questioning is inappropriate and ineffective. And on behalf of the People I would ask that the Court make some indication to the jury that it is not intending to signal any position on the issue, because at this point I think the signals have been very clear and very loud and I think that the People's right to a fair trial has been damaged.

MR. COCHRAN: May I respond just briefly?

THE COURT: No. Mr. Blasier is handling this.

MR. COCHRAN: I'm sorry.

[16763]

MR. BLASIER: The Court gave Miss Clark many, many signals. We spent most of the cross on this, the Sconce case. It wasn't like she wasn't allowed to go into it. She has been going into matters that are far collateral to this case and the Court sustained many objections. And I don't think the Court's comment was inappropriate at all and I think it would be complete inappropriate to go back and say I didn't mean what I said. So I would object to any such correcting instruction or statement by the Court.

MS. CLARK: Let me just indicate--

THE COURT: The issue as to the Sconce case was that Dr. Rieders did testing that somebody else disagreed with. It goes to his competence. That has been established and that was established ad infinitum ad nauseam to a degree that was unwarranted and there were attempts to bring in hearsay documents that clearly there was no foundation for and to bring in opinions of other people regarding Dr. Rieders' performance on the Sconce case. I allowed you to establish the foundation that somebody else disagrees with Dr. Rieders' finding in the Sconce case. That is all that is relevant here.

MS. CLARK: Well, okay. It is my position that there were other issues regarding the witness' credibility that were highly germane. The Court disagreed, I understand, but I have never seen a lawyer for the Defense treated in the manner in which this Court has treated me throughout this cross-examination.

THE COURT: Well, look at Mr. Neufeld some time when I get impatient with him for the same reason, that the cross-examination is ridiculously long. I will note your objection, but I think it is not well taken.

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

Defense Counsel Blasier Redirect of Dr. Frederic Reiders

[16798]

MR. BLASIER: Now, I want to ask you a couple of questions about the differences between what Agent Martz has testified to and what you have testified to with respect to whether or not this is EDTA that's on the gate and the sock. Do you have that in mind?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Is it accurate that both of you agreed that the retention time that he got is consistent with EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: That the presence of the parent ion, the 293 parent ion that he found is consistent with the presence of EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: The presence of the 160 daughter ion that he found, would you agree, is consistent with the presence of EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And he agreed with that; did he not?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that the only difference between your opinion and his opinion is based on his inability to find the other piece, the other daughter ion, the 132 daughter ion?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Leading.

[16799]

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. BLASIER: Is it your understanding--what's your understanding with respect to Agent Martz' unwillingness to declare that what he saw was EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: That he performed one analysis where he scanned widely between 130 and 293 across the spectrum for both daughter ions, and he claimed that in that, he didn't see anything, didn't see the 132 daughter ion, that there was nothing there because the computer didn't print out any numbers.

MR. BLASIER: Now, this machinery that he has--

MS. CLARK: Objection. That misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: The machinery that he has--do you recall that we were talking before about the analogy of a television camera that's set up to focus on you and maybe scan back and forth, but not deviate very much from where you're sitting? Remember that analogy?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And that's the analogy that relates to looking for the 160 daughter ion, correct?

DR. RIEDERS: Looking either at the 160 daughter ion or scanning across and seeing what it appears in that scan.

MR. BLASIER: And when Agent Martz did that scan of the 160 ion, the small range, 158 to 162, he found the 160 daughter ion, didn't he?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, does that machinery that he has, that the FBI has at their lab, is it capable of also looking at the 132 ion?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Is it capable of scanning that area within a small range?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Did he ever do that?

[16799]

DR. RIEDERS: He said he did not.

MR. BLASIER: Now, did you hear Miss Clark's questions about whether it's incumbent upon a scientist to do every possible test available to test a hypothesis?

DR. RIEDERS: I remember the question, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Did Agent Martz do every possible test available to try and see whether or not the 132 ion was there?

DR. RIEDERS: No.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you indicated that Agent Martz did one test that provided some information about whether or not EDTA on a metal can might be lost because--by virtue of it being on a metal surface. Remember that?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: What were you talking about? What were you talking about when you referred to that?

DR. RIEDERS: He put some EDTA blood on a metal can surface and also on a control swatch. Then he wiped the surface subsequently, so he had a swatch from the surface and he had a control swatch, and he analyzed both.

MS. CLARK: Objection. No foundation of personal knowledge.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. BLASIER: Did you review Agent Martz' testimony?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Did you read it and look at it on videotape?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Did you hear his discussion about his test results with respect to the amount of EDTA he got off of his metal can versus the cloth swatch?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

[16800]

MR. BLASIER: And what's your understanding of that testimony?

DR. RIEDERS: That he found EDTA in both, there was less in the one from the can than on the control swatch.

MR. BLASIER: And scientifically, what inference can be drawn from that?

DR. RIEDERS: Well, one obvious inference--

MS. CLARK: Objection. Misstates the testimony, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. RIEDERS: One obvious inference is that he got less back than what he put on the can. So suddenly it was broken down by the can, swallowed by the can or otherwise. But the likely thing is destroyed, broken down after.

MR. BLASIER: Would it be fair to characterize Agent Martz' testimony with respect to quantity, that his opinion is that he didn't find enough of whatever it was that he found that it could have come from a purple top tube, that he didn't find as much as he would have expected to find?

DR. RIEDERS: I--in my direct, I already answered that. He had no clue as to how much he started with in his samples. So how could he determine what the concentration was? He could only have prior amounts. If you don't know what the concentration is, you don't know what you're dealing with. Said there was EDTA in the blood. And if it was a tiny, tiny amount, then the concentration was the same in the EDTA tube. He doesn't know what the concentration was.

MR. BLASIER: Did he do any experimentation or anything as a result of you watching his testimony indicating that he tested to find out how much EDTA he would expect to find after eight months under the conditions which these samples were subjected to?

DR. RIEDERS: No.

MR. BLASIER: Is that something that if you were trying to do every possible test to test a hypothesis, that he should have done?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, I would think so, at least partly. I mean, for a period of time. Not necessarily eight months.

MR. BLASIER: Now, if Agent Martz were testing the hypothesis as to whether food or other substances can create levels of EDTA in the blood equivalent to the amount found on the gate and the sock, what

[16801]

would be the proper way to test that hypothesis? What would one proper way be?

DR. RIEDERS: To test 10 or 20 random blood samples from normal people or as many as you can conveniently. It's a simple test, so you can test a lot. It's a standard procedure.

MR. BLASIER: Do you feel that him testing his own blood after placing it in a red top tube for a period of time is an adequate test to determine how much EDTA he might have had in his blood originally?

DR. RIEDERS: Not without adequate quality control such as testing red top tubes, if you put things in them, whether there's any EDTA in the stopper or in the lining, in the silicone lining, which wouldn't be too unusual. You know, without that, it's not a very good way of getting an answer. Besides that, if you put blood in a red top tube, you can't test blood. You blood serum or plasma.

MR. BLASIER: Why is that?

DR. RIEDERS: Because it clots.

MR. BLASIER: How long does it take to clot?

DR. RIEDERS: Five to seven minutes.

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

Defense Counsel Blasier Redirect of Dr. Frederic Reiders

[16804]

MR. BLASIER: Doctor, after being cross-examined and hearing Agent Martz' testimony, do you stand by your opinion that what was found on the back gate and the sock to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty was EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Do you stand by your opinion that the probable source for that EDTA was a purple top tube?

MS. CLARK: Objection. That misstates, conclusion.

THE COURT: Overruled.

DR. RIEDERS: Probably, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know of any other possible source for that amount of EDTA?

DR. RIEDERS: Yes, theoretically.

MR. BLASIER: Any other source that you would expect to find in someone's human blood?

DR. RIEDERS: If they've been treated with intravenous calcium EDTA within the last eight hours for lead poisoning, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Other than that?

DR. RIEDERS: Or for other forms of treatment, diagnostic or treatment with disodium calcium EDTA.

MR. BLASIER: How about after just a normal diet?

DR. RIEDERS: No way.

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

And from the more recent case of Steven Avery:

Despite its ubiquitous presence, metabolism studies have shown that little, if any, EDTA should be present in human blood. In 1954, a metabolism study using laco-labeled calcium-EDTA given intravenously showed that EDTA was detectable in the plasma but not in the blood cells (7). On average, 95% of an oral dose was recovered in the urine and feces within three days of administration with no EDTA detected in the plasma, and the remaining 5% was detected in the urine within 18h. More recent metabolism studies using the NaFe(III)-EDTA complex report that it dissociates during digestion and confirm that only about 5% of the EDTA is absorbed and excreted in urine (8).

Determining EDTA in Blood, A murder trial sheds light on the need for a better analytical method, Robin L. Sheppard, Jack Henion, Cornell University. Analytical Chemistry, August 1, 1997, 69, 477A-480A, Exhibit 437, 05 CF 381, Date 03-05-00, in the Steven Avery proceeding. The Steven Avery case was the subject of the NETFLIX series, Making a Murderer. Taken from page 2 of 6 of the Report used as a trial exhibit.

And where's your proof that Fuhrman planted the glove?

You keep forgetting the defense need prove nothing.

The prosecution proved that the gloves in evidence did not fit O.J. Simpson. You can make all manner of conjecture, but the prosecution still proved the gloves did not fit.

Amazingly, Fuhrman went to Rockingham and found that glove.

[Defense Counsel Gerald Uelman]

[18311]

Well, your Honor, this is the same Mark Fuhrman who in his conversations with Laura McKinny--and I am now quoting from tape no. 3 at page 3--makes the following comments:

"Fuhrman: Well, I really love being a policeman. "McKinny: Why do you love being a policeman?

"Fuhrman: When I can be a policeman. It's like my partner now. He's so hung upon the rules and stuff. I get pissed sometimes and go, `you just don't even fuck'in understand. This job is not rules. This is a feeling. Fuck the rules. We'll make them up later.'"

Well, there are rules about what kind of search activity a police officer can engage in without a search warrant. The activity of Detective Fuhrman on the morning of June 13th raises serious questions about whether he followed those rules, and the attitude exhibited inthis exchange that is on tape in the McKinny tapes certainly raises a question that should be asked about Detective Fuhrman's understanding of the rules and limits on the kind of activity that he could engage in.

The next issue relates to the role of Detective Fuhrman in the investigation of this case after he is takenoff of the case at approximately 2:30 in the morning. Your Honor will recall that almost three hours after he is removed from the case, it is Detective Fuhrman who leads the other detectives from Bundy to the Rockingham residence of the Defendant. It is Detective Fuhrman who finds the speck on the Bronco. It is Detective Fuhrman who then leads the detectives over the wall into the premises and it is Detective Fuhrman who ultimately finds the glove. And with respect to all of this investigative activity, there are no notes, there are no logs, there are no reports. His testimony is: "I stopped making any record of what I was doing as soon as I was taken off the case at approximately 2:30 in the morning." Perfect setup. No way to double-check any of his activity in terms of what happened after he was relieved from the case. And, your Honor, this is the same Detective Fuhrman who in his exchange with Miss McKinny--and this is on the tape 6--6A. I'm reading from page 3 to page 4.

"This is embarrassing." This is Detective Fuhrman speaking.

"Then you go to court and I'm the only one who knows how to testify. You have five officers on the case, and I'm the only one there that knows how to testify. "The D.A. goes, `yeah, but you were the fourth car. But would you testify?' "'yeah.' "'but you did see--' "I saw it. Don't worry about it. Yeah, I saw him do that. Yeah, I saw him do that. Yeah, yeah. Okay. Goodbye.' "Why do I have to do everything? That's what it is coming down to. I have to fight the guy, I have to catch the guy, I have to keep the guy's mouth shut at the station because they're not going to do it for a female. I just can walk by and say, `shut up or I'm going to kick your face in.'"

It wasn't there or it wasn't seen? How did it get there later?

Items had been searched and not blood was found or reported. Mark Fuhrman arrived to save the day and he remarkably found all you could want. Ask Fuhrman how he did that hours after he was removed from the case and stopped taking notes. Nah, forget it, he took the Fifth.

[18328]

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. UELMEN

MR. UELMEN: Detective Fuhrman, was the testimony that you gave at the preliminary hearing in this case completely truthful?

DET. FUHRMAN: I wish to assert my 5th amendment privilege.

MR. UELMEN: Have you ever falsified a police report?

DET. FUHRMAN: I wish to assert my 5th amendment privilege.

[...]

MR. UELMEN: Detective Fuhrman, did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case?

DET. FUHRMAN: I assert my 5th amendment privilege.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

Yep, and what happened to that evidence?

It was ignored by the jury as unreliable.

No, it is for the court to enforce the already existing law in the books;

Dang, your law school taught that the courts are a law enforcement group.

No, they didn't teach me this. They taught me that the job of the judge is to conduct our courts in an impartial manner and to enforce existing law already in our books

So your law school taught you that

[145] "It is for the court to enforce the already existing law in the books

but

[159], No, they didn't teach me this. They taught me that the job of the judge is to conduct our courts in an impartial manner and to enforce existing law already in our books.

If the court enforces existing law, what do the law enforcement agencies do? That would be the gun toting members of the Executive Branch.

If the court enforces existing law, what do the law enforcement agencies do?

The same damn thing.

Mark Fuhrman was at the crime scene and saw the mountain of evidence -- bloody shoeprints, the glove, a watch cap, and a trail of blood drops. Then a matching bloody glove and more blood drops at OJ's house.

Now you're saying Mark Fuhrman didn't think that was enough evidence, so he later planted microscopic traces of EDTA-contaminated blood in the Bronco -- knowing that he could be sentenced to death if he were caught. You say this despite the fact that you have no proof other than the fact that he pled the 5th.

Justice is not served by destroying the third life of an innocent man. I think OJ was guilty.

You can't have it both ways. Though you do try.

You can't have it both ways. Though you do try.

In truth, you can't have it your way.

You have this massive fetish for the "Rule of Law", but you do not seem to comprehend that what rule IS is determined by judges and lawyers and politicians, not you.

"but you do not seem to comprehend what that rule IS is determined by judges and lawyers and politics, not you."

The law is written by the people through their elected representatives. The law is then interpreted and applied by the judicial system. That is called the Rule of Law.

When exceptions to the law are carved out for certain individuals or certain circumstances, we no longer have the Rule of Law. We have the Rule of Man.

The law is written by the people through their elected representatives. The law is then interpreted and applied by the judicial system. That is called the Rule of Law.

When exceptions to the law are carved out for certain individuals or certain circumstances, we no longer have the Rule of Law. We have the Rule of Man.

That's nice.

If the court enforces existing law, what do the law enforcement agencies do?

The same damn thing.

What do the courts enforce the law with, a charm offensive?

The Federal Judicial Branch has, as its law enforcement branch, the United States Marshal's Service (USMS). They track down fugitives, transport prisoners, protect officers of the court, and babysit the Witness Protection Program, and serve federal warrants. Covering the entire UInited States, the Marshal's Service is but a small fraction the size of the NYPD, with about one tenth the manpower, and about a quarter of the budget.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marshals_Service

The United States Marshals Service (USMS) is a federal law enforcement agency within the U.S. Department of Justice (see 28 U.S.C. § 561). It is the oldest American federal law enforcement agency, which was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789 during the presidency of George Washington. The Marshals Service is attached to the Judicial branch of government, and is the enforcement arm of the federal courts. It is the primary agency for fugitive operations, responsible for prisoner transport, the protection of officers of the court, and for the effective operation of the judiciary. The Marshals Service operates the Witness Protection Program, and serves federal level arrest warrants.

https://www.usmarshals.gov/duties/factsheets/facts.pdf

Facts and Figures

2017 Personnel

• 94 U.S. marshals, one for each federal court district
• 3,709 deputy U.S. marshals and criminal investigators
• 1,435 administrative employees and detention enforcement officers
• 5,238 total employees
• 94 districts, 218 sub-offices, three foreign field offices

Budget FY 2016 enacted:
$1.23 billion (salaries and expenses)

For comparison with a real law enforcement group, try the NYPD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Police_Department

The NYPD's current authorized uniformed strength is 34,450. There are also approximately 4,500 Auxiliary Police Officers, 5,000 School Safety Agents, 2,300 Traffic Enforcement Agents, and 370 Traffic Enforcement Supervisors currently employed by the department.

[...]

Employees: 49,526 (2013)
Annual budget: $4.8 billion

[nc 141] LAPD criminalist Colin Yamauchi essentially conceded he had all the evidence for testing out at once, subjecting everything to cross-contamination.

[goldilucky #157] Yep, and what happened to that evidence?

[nc #168] It was ignored by the jury as unreliable.

[goldilucky] I'm disappointed to hear that. Either that or it was never presented to the jury at all.

As most people who watched the trial, the evidence was presented live before the jury and the entire world.

Government officials employees and employees enjoy a presumption regularity in the performance of their duties. However, this is a rebuttable presumption. Once Barry Sheck demonstrated for the whole world to see, that the LAPD Crime Lab was a cesspool of contamination, the presumption of regularity was lost.

The fact that the defense proved that the blood evidence came and went in a ghostly fashion also contributed to establish complete disbelief in the credibility of the LAPD witnesses.

[misterwhite #120] But I would say OJ's blood at the crime scene, victim's blood in the Bronco....

The Bronco blood evidence is an example of evidence that appeared in a ghostly fashion, as was brought out by Barry Scheck in cross-examination of LAPD criminalist Dennis Fung.

[6812]

MR. SCHECK: And there was a blood spot that you saw on July 3rd that was labeled 116?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And you did not see that on the photograph, the blown-up photograph that was taken on June 13th?

MR. GOLDBERG: This is beyond the scope, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FUNG: I did not see it.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And you cannot tell us from your own personal knowledge how 116 got there on July 3rd?

MR. FUNG: Not from my personal knowledge, no.

Fung found that spot on July 3rd. When confronted by a photograph of the Bronco taken on June 13th, Fung encountered difficulty explaining why the blood spot was not seen in the photograph taken weeks earlier.

At the time of the OJ trial, California law stated that anyone who fabricated evidence in a death penalty case could be sentenced to death themselves. Mark Fuhrman, as a detective, certainly knew this.

The same applied to perjury. Fuhrman was proved to be a perjurer in front of the jury.

Mark Fuhrman was at the crime scene and saw the mountain of evidence -- bloody shoeprints, the glove, a watch cap, and a trail of blood drops. Then a matching bloody glove and more blood drops at OJ's house.

And you know all this how? You heard a proven liar claim it?

Now you're saying Mark Fuhrman didn't think that was enough evidence, so he later planted microscopic traces of EDTA-contaminated blood in the Bronco -- knowing that he could be sentenced to death if he were caught. You say this despite the fact that you have no proof other than the fact that he pled the 5th.

There you go again. Please link to where I claimed Mark Fuhrman planted blood on the Bronco, or anywhere else? Why do you think Fuhrman may have planted blood on a blood-soaked glove? When did Fuhrman do this? What blood do you believe Fuhrman used to plant blood on the blood-soaked glove?

As your inventive observation of "microscopic traces of EDTA," recalling the testimony of now discredited FBI Agent Roger Martz, Barry Scheck observed, "The EDTA was the linchpin, the best proof we had of tampering with evidence." He added, "There was enough EDTA, in parts per million, to kill a person."

As for discrediting FBI Agent Martz, see USDOJ/OIG FBI Labs Report, Executive Summary, by Michael R. Bromwich, Inspector General, April 1997.

Under Finding and Recommendations Concerning Individuals,

CTU Chief Roger Martz should not hold a supervisory position in the Laboratory, and the FBI should assess whether he should continue to serve as a Laboratory examiner.

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

That testimony ill served the FBI because it conveyed a lack of preparation, an inadequate level of training in toxicological issues, and deficient knowledge about other scientific matters that should be within the expertise of a chief of a unit handling chemical and toxicological analyses in the Laboratory.

Under Under VI. Findings and Recommendations Concerning Individuals (Part Five)

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

Under VI. Findings and Recommendations Concerning Individuals (Part Five)

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

In short, the EDTA testimony of Dr. Rieders was not refuted. The testimony of Dr. Rieders so destroyed the credibility of Agent Martz that it embarrassed the FBI. The whole of the atrociously bad FBI lab was under attack, and Agent Martz had made a public spectacle of it on a world stage. The FBI circled the wagons as best they could to defend their lab, but there was only so much they could do for Martz.

The Defense discovered that Detective Mark Fuhrman was interviewed for a screen play and that these interviews were taped. The tapes reveal that Fuhrman made numerous racial slurs and that he may have engaged in police misconduct. This bolsters the Defense's claim that Fuhrman is a racist and that he may have planted evidence. Whether these would be played before the jury became a hotly contested issue.

Judge Ito: All right. We are in chambers with counsel for both sides. What is up? Miss Clark?

Ms. Clark: Yeah. It would appear, based on my review of stuff that I have seen so far, and Johnnie has corroborated that he agrees he has been shown that, back in `85, on the `85 tapes I think it is, and also `87, Mark Fuhrman discusses Lieutenant York.

Judge Ito: Uh-huh.

Ms. Clark: And their run-ins at West L.A. and he makes derogatory comments. Of course I have to tell you, Judge, this is a book about men against women, that is the whole thing, so he tees off on women through the whole thing. I mean--

Mr. Cochran: Just a minute. That is basically true, but he doesn't like blacks or Mexicans or Jews.

Ms. Clark: Or whites either, or Jews.

Mr. Cochran: He hates women. He hates everybody basically except white Anglo-Saxon men who are police officers.

Ms. Clark: Yeah, and even them not necessarily.

Mr. Cochran: Unless they are cowards.

Mr. Scheck: Or pukes.

Mr. Cochran: Or pukes.

Ms. Clark: So I mean--

Judge Ito: We call them squints in the D.A.'s office, but that is okay.

Mr. Cochran: Judge, this will be--

Ms. Clark: Is this going to be sealed, Judge?

Judge Ito: No. I have to tell you no.

Mr. Cochran: Careful.

Ms. Clark: Motion to strike all of the above.

-- August 14, 1995

"Fuhrman was proved to be a perjurer in front of the jury."

On an unrelated matter where he was asked to recall 10 years of conversations. Who's on trial here?

"Barry Scheck observed, "The EDTA was the linchpin ...There was enough EDTA, in parts per million, to kill a person."

Not in any of the blood found at the crime scene. I have no idea what he's referring to.

but you do not seem to comprehend that what rule IS is determined by judges and lawyers and politicians, not you.

The law is determined by the words of the laws passed.

Sometimes the judges are honest. Other times they exercise tyranny through color of law.

"There you go again. Please link to where I claimed Mark Fuhrman planted blood on the Bronco, or anywhere else? Why do you think Fuhrman may have planted blood on a blood-soaked glove?"

Happy to. What else could you possibly have meant when you posted:

"Items had been searched and not blood was found or reported. Mark Fuhrman arrived to save the day and he remarkably found all you could want."

[misterwhite #180] On an unrelated matter where he was asked to recall 10 years of conversations. Who's on trial here?

Mark Fuhrman's credibility was on trial. The credibility of every witness is always on trial.

- - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - -

"Barry Scheck observed, "The EDTA was the linchpin ...There was enough EDTA, in parts per million, to kill a person."

[misterwhite #180] Not in any of the blood found at the crime scene. I have no idea what he's referring to.

It is abundantly obvious that Scheck is referring explicitly to the blood found at the crime scene which was proven by the scientific evidence to have been laced with EDTA. Get the full context below.

The prosecution scientific evidence on EDTA came from the now discredited FBI agent Roger Martz. The Martz testimony was destroyed at trial. His testimony was an embarrassment to the FBI.

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/fbi-lab-taint-aid-simpson-case-article-1.763389

FBI LAB TAINT MAY AID SIMPSON'S CASE

BY Juan Gonzalez
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Monday, February 3, 1997, 12:00 AM

SANTA MONICA Last week, as the jury in O.

J. Simpson's civil trial began deliberations, a decision with a curious connection to the case was being made 2,700 miles away in Washington. Four senior employes at the FBI's world-renowned forensic laboratory were suspended after a Justice Department investigation revealed that evidence in numerous major criminal cases had been badly mishandled. Among the four was Roger Martz, chief of the FBI's chemistry unit, who is accused, according to published reports, of slipshod work in two of the highest-profile criminal cases of our time the World Trade Center and Oklahoma City bombings. In southern California it would be especially difficult not to notice that Roger Martz' name was all over those stories about the FBI shakeup, even though few mentioned his critical connection to Simpson's criminal trial.

[...]

But before that, the area that the jury had seemed to be examining the most in its deliberations defense allegations that blood evidence was planted is precisely the area in which Martz played a crucial role in the criminal trial. It was Martz, if you recall, who was asked by prosecutors to "refute the possibility" that blood found on the socks in Simpson's house and on the back gate outside Nicole Brown Simpson's Bundy Drive condo contained EDTA, a preservative. Signs of EDTA would prove that someone had planted that blood after the murders. Martz, indeed, said he found chemical traces of what looked like EDTA, and he was questioned at the first trial by defense attorney Robert Blasier: Blasier: "When you found what you did find, whether it is EDTA or something that just looked like EDTA, did you advise the prosecution of what you found?

"Martz: "I had prepared a report, yes.

"Blasier: "Did they ever ask you to find what that might be, other than EDTA?

"Martz: "No, I mean, it was not necessary because I had clearly answered the question, the fact that it did not come from preservative.

"Martz said he had tested some of his own blood and found similar residues, and argued that EDTA, as a food preservative, can be found in all blood. But under relentless questioning from Blasier, Martz admitted he had not read the FBI's own procedures for validating the presence of EDTA and that he had erased from the FBI computer the raw data on which he based his findings. "The EDTA was the linchpin, the best proof we had of tampering with evidence," said Barry Scheck, recalling Martz' testimony. "There was enough EDTA, in parts per million, to kill a person.

"After Martz took the stand, another FBI lab chemist, Frederick Whitehurst, the main whistleblower in the current crime laboratory scandal, offered to testify that his colleague Martz had violated normal procedures in Simpson's and other cases. But Judge Lance Ito refused to allow Whitehurst to appear. So questionable had Martz' methods become among his colleagues that during the investigation of the second World Trade Center bombing conspiracy, Whitehurst and another FBI agent, Steven Burmeister, mixed common manure and urine and submitted it as evidence taken from a suspect's home. Martz later identified the phony mixture as an explosive. No wonder, then, that Baker, Simpson's lead civil trial attorney, spent considerable time in his closing argument blasting Martz. He knew the head of the FBI's chemistry unit was in trouble. This is what Baker told the jurors: "So Rogert Martz . . . does a test. And he finds EDTA on both samples. . . . This is obviously absolutely devastating to the prosecution. It refutes what the prosecution says. "So what does the FBI do? Roger Martz said, 'I tested my own blood, it came out with essentially the same reading.

'But, contrary to FBI procedures, he erases his computer run so nobody can come back and look, and at the same time that he that he says that, the time he says that, no one knows that EDTA is undetectable in the human blood. Those tests haven't been devised yet.

"Where was Roger Martz? Baker asked the jurors. Why wasn't he testifying? A FEW DAYS later, in the front-page accounts of the FBI laboratory scandal, we found out exactly where Martz was somewhere in limbo after being suspended. The first evidence the civil jury reviewed were exhibits concerning the blood that the once-unassailable FBI lab had insisted was not planted.

USDOJ/OIG FBI Labs Report, Executive Summary, by Michael R. Bromwich, Inspector General, April 1997.

Under Finding and Recommendations Concerning Individuals,

CTU Chief Roger Martz should not hold a supervisory position in the Laboratory, and the FBI should assess whether he should continue to serve as a Laboratory examiner.

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

That testimony ill served the FBI because it conveyed a lack of preparation, an inadequate level of training in toxicological issues, and deficient knowledge about other scientific matters that should be within the expertise of a chief of a unit handling chemical and toxicological analyses in the Laboratory.

Under Under VI. Findings and Recommendations Concerning Individuals (Part Five)

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

Under VI. Findings and Recommendations Concerning Individuals (Part Five)

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

"There you go again. Please link to where I claimed Mark Fuhrman planted blood on the Bronco, or anywhere else? Why do you think Fuhrman may have planted blood on a blood-soaked glove?"

Happy to. What else could you possibly have meant when you posted:

"Items had been searched and not blood was found or reported. Mark Fuhrman arrived to save the day and he remarkably found all you could want."

You have a remarkable sense of humor and demonstrate a certain talent for ripping a comment out of context. Of course, my comment explicitly referred to "victims blood in the Bronco."

[misterwhite #120]

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

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

[nc #144]

(b) victim's blood in the Bronco,

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

[misterwhite #155] It wasn't there or it wasn't seen? How did it get there later?

[nc #167] Items had been searched and not (sic - no) blood was found or reported.

[nc #178, re a Bronco stain]

MR. SCHECK: 166-a. Show you this photograph, 166-a.

MR. SCHECK: Mr. Fung, where is drop 116 that you saw on July 3rd?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I'll object. He's already gone into this.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FUNG: It does not appear in the picture. However, it may be on the curved area behind it. It just doesn't appear in the picture though.

MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. And it may be that it got there sometime between June 13th and July 3rd.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: You can't tell us from your own personal knowledge?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, makes--motion to strike.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: No further questions.

[nc #178, re the rear gate blood spot]

MR. SCHECK: And there was a blood spot that you saw on July 3rd that was labeled 116?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And you did not see that on the photograph, the blown-up photograph that was taken on June 13th?

MR. GOLDBERG: This is beyond the scope, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. FUNG: I did not see it.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And you cannot tell us from your own personal knowledge how 116 got there on July 3rd?

MR. FUNG: Not from my personal knowledge, no.

Fuhrman was not alleged to have planted blood on the gloves, by me or the OJ defense. The gloves were soaked in an abundance of blood.

Fuhrman is photographed at Bundy, at night, pointing to the blood-soaked Bundy glove. That is before his trip to Rockingham, his jumping over the fence, and his lonesome self "finding" the matching blood-soaked glove at OJ's place. Or, alternatively, putting one of the blood-soaked gloves in a bag at Bundy and transporting it to Rockingham, and jumping the fence with it, and "finding" it.

To believe the testimony, when Fuhrman jumped the fence to gain warrantless entry to the OJ residence, OJ was not a suspect. They just had an urgent need to notify OJ of what had happened to his ex-wife. OJ was on a flight to Chicago, so he did not answer the intercom. Had Fuhrman jumped the fence considering OJ a suspect, or to conduct a search, it would have been an illegal warrantless search. Thus, the fairy tale. Cause to search the house could be provided by some sort of evidence, say a blood-soaked glove, or a blood stain observed on the Bronco.

Hilariously, there was testimony that the cops feared the killer might still be in the house. Then they were busted on the witness stand for fibbing about how they gained entry to the house. They claimed they gained entry through the rear entrance.

[13334]

MR. COCHRAN: So you returned home and was anyone at home when you returned home after 12:30 on now June 13, 1994?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

[13335]

MR. COCHRAN: And who was home?
MS. SIMPSON: Kato.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Anybody else that you are aware was there?
MS. SIMPSON: No.
THE COURT: I think we know who she is talking about, but since we have two Katos here--
MS. SIMPSON: I'm sorry, Kato Kaelin.
MR. COCHRAN: Kato the human being?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Kato Kaelin. All right. When you returned home, where did you go at that point, if you recall?
MS. SIMPSON: To my room.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. That is Arnelle's room; is that correct?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Then do you know about--did you at some point go to sleep?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Do you know what time approximately you went to bed, went to sleep?
MS. SIMPSON: It had to have been around one o'clock. Between 1:00 and 1:30.
MR. COCHRAN: When you returned home did you notice anything unusual at all about the residence?
MS. SIMPSON: No.
MR. COCHRAN: Now, if you went to bed and went to sleep about 1:00, 1:30 or thereabouts, did there come a time that you were awakened on the morning hours of June 13, 1994?

[13336]

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Describe for the Court and jury the circumstances that you were awakened, ma'am, if you recall.
MS. SIMPSON: Umm, I was awakened around between 5:00 and 5:30 by two gentlemen knocking at my door.
MR. COCHRAN: And these gentlemen knocking at your door, what did they say, if you recall?
MS. SIMPSON: They just--they were knocking on my door and they said that they had been outside ringing the bell and that they needed to speak with somebody who lived at the house.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. I presume, having been in bed, you were attired in your pajamas or whatever?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you get up at that point?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And then tell us what happened at that point.
MS. SIMPSON: Umm, they had told me that they needed to get in touch with my father and if I knew where he was.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. What did you say in response to that?
MS. SIMPSON: I said that, umm, he wasn't home but I didn't know where he was but I knew how to get in touch with him.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Then what happened after that?
MS. SIMPSON: Umm, we left out of my room and I went to--to go to get my phone book to get in touch with somebody who would know where my dad was.
MR. COCHRAN: When you say you went to get your phone book, I presume you didn't have your phone book with you at that point?
MS. SIMPSON: No, it wasn't.

[13337]

MR. COCHRAN: With the Court's permission, did you go to some location to get your phone book?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: You were talking to two men, were you?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: These two people, were they Los Angeles Police Department detectives?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Do you know their names now?
MS. SIMPSON: I believe Phillips and Lange.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Can you describe the person you think is Lange for us?
MS. SIMPSON: Lange would be the salt and pepper, he has more hair on him, and I think Phillips is the one with the mustache and the bald head.
MR. COCHRAN: You may have them reversed. There was one with a bald head?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Let's call him Lange.
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Phillips, describe him again.
MS. SIMPSON: Salt and pepper hair, older, bigger build.
MR. COCHRAN: Let's for the time being call him Phillips?
MS. SIMPSON: I switched.
MR. COCHRAN: Did you have occasion then--would you step down and I want you to show the jury and the Court the route that you took as you sought to get this number so you could try to find your father. You could step all the way down if you want.

[13338]

MS. SIMPSON: (Witness complies.) You want me to do what?
MR. COCHRAN: The question is can you look at this diagram and draw with the pointer the route that you took as you went to get your book to get the number to call--locate your dad?
MS. SIMPSON: Okay. Out of here, (Indicating), this way.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Your Honor, she is leaving, your Honor, the area marked "Arnelle's room" and she walks west to an area with some stairs. She goes up the stairs and proceeds past the pool.
MR. COCHRAN: Is that right?
MS. SIMPSON: Uh-huh.
MR. COCHRAN: She went around the north side of the house to an area marked "Driveway" again on People's 66.
MR. COCHRAN: And you went to an area marked "Entrance." Now, is that the entrance to the Rockingham residence?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And what did you do when you got to that entrance, ma'am?
MS. SIMPSON: I went over here to the kitchen, through the kitchen to the phone here and then walked through here, (Indicating), to get to my car.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Let's back up for a moment. When you went to--got to the front door of the residence there, did you have to do anything before you got inside that residence?
MS. SIMPSON: I had to turn the alarm off.
MR. COCHRAN: There was an alarm on?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And you turned the alarm off; is that correct?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: When you walked that route that you just described for the Court and the jury, was

[13339]

anyone accompanying you at that point?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Who was?
MS. SIMPSON: The two detectives.
MR. COCHRAN: The two people we described earlier?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Lange and Phillips?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: You walked around and took the alarm off before you went inside?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Let me ask you specifically did you ever at any time walk from your residence here marked "Arnelle's room" and go through some door here at the back of the house?
MS. SIMPSON: No.
MR. COCHRAN: When the alarm is on is that possible?
MS. SIMPSON: No.
MR. COCHRAN: Can't go in that way; is that right?
MS. SIMPSON: No.
MR. COCHRAN: The alarm key pad is where?
MS. SIMPSON: In the front of the house.
MR. COCHRAN: So you went around to the front of the house and turned off that alarm and then these two detectives came in behind you; is that correct?
MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

As was pointed out at trial, the blood-soaked glove had been "found" shortly after the warrantless entry by jumping the fence purely for the purposes of notifying OJ Simpson of what had happened to his ex-wife. After "discovering" the matching blood-soaked glove at Rockingham, surely, this was no longer just purely a matter of notification. Surely they must have considered that a vicious, evil, blood-soaked killer could be in the house, dangerous, lurking, ready to pounce. So they woke up Arnelle Simpson at the guest area, she went to the main house and opened the front entrance, turned off the alarm, and they let the young lady lead them about the house.

Lange and Vanatter were known as Dumb & Dumber. Add Phillips, and it filled out the cast for the sequel, Dumb & Dumberer. As Mark Fuhrman observed, he was the only one with a brain who knew how to testify.

Fuhrman was at Kato Kaelin's room. Over by the patio area, by the pool, was Vanatter.

5. Witness Jill Shively says she saw OJ driving his speeding Bronco from the Bundy murder scene around the time of the slayings.

That is some real proof there. Jill Shively sold her story to Hard Copy. She was discredited by the prosecution, never called to testify, and never said anything in court. Her story sold to Hard Copy was never evidence before the jury.

[misterwhite #149]

"She was discredited by the prosecution"

Only because she sold her story.

"Because the road was illuminated well, Shively said it was easy to see Simpson at the wheel and that she recognized him from his role in a Naked Gun film. She said that Simpson "glared" at her before she took down his license plate, only getting one letter wrong."

"Because she places the sighting at 10:50 p.m., she's right on target for the suggested murder timeline. But even though detectives questioned her, Shively's decision to take money from Hard Copy undermined her ability to share her eyewitness account in court."

ALL DISCREDITED BULLSHIT, AND ALL WRONG.

- - - - - - - - - -

[misterwhite #120] the fact that OJ can't produce the shoes or gloves

Both videos show that the gloves did not fit O.J. Simpson, showing the disastrous glove demonstration from the trial.

The second video further brings up an interesting possibility. There was evidence that Nicole Simpson bought two pairs of Aris Isotoner Light XL gloves at Bloomingdales in NYC. There was no evidence showing that they were given to O.J. This video interestingly offers an argument that the gloves belonged to Ron Goldman. They were certainly not needed to keep hands warm, they were light and could function well as driving gloves. Ron Goldman drove Nicole's Ferrari.

- - - - - - - - - -

O.J. and the Gloves : The Truth About What Really Happened

- - - - - - - - - -

An interesting theory. The bloody gloves were a gift from Nicole to Ron Goldman.

IS O.J. INNOCENT? THE MISSING EVIDENCE

The argument is that the gloves did not fit O.J. because they were not his gloves, they were Ron Goldman's. Compares Goldman's defensive hand wounds on his hands and the knife punctures on the gloves.

"Please remember, if the gloves were worn by the killer they wouldn't have had any defensive wounds on them. The killer wasn't blocking any knives."

It is an interesting theory, significantly more interesting than the theory that if people only say enough times that the gloves really did fit, everyone can just ignore the video that shows they did not fit.

It was a simple and effective closing argument.

"Ron Goldman drove Nicole's Ferrari."

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

But say he did drive Nicole's Ferrari. He wasn't killed in the car. So why would he still be wearing those gloves when he walked up to her condo?

Did Ron Goldman wear extra-large gloves? By the way, Nicole purchased those gloves three years before she even met Ron Goldman.

There was a picture of OJ wearing gloves. Lo and behold, they were the same model as gloves found at the murder scene and behind his house, glove expert Richard Rubin testified.

Lastly, if those were Ron Goldman's gloves, how did one of them end up behind OJ's house covered in OJ's blood and the blood of both victims?

"To believe the testimony, when Fuhrman jumped the fence to gain warrantless entry to the OJ residence, OJ was not a suspect. They just had an urgent need to notify OJ of what had happened to his ex-wife."

No. His ex-wife had been brutally murdered and the police were concerned that OJ could be next. They thought his life was in danger and went there to warn him. The police were justified in doing what they did because of exigent circumstances.

"Of course, my comment explicitly referred to "victims blood in the Bronco."

Yes. But you also said the all-inclusive, "Mark Fuhrman arrived to save the day and he remarkably found all you could want."

Now you're saying you meant, "Mark Fuhrman arrived to save the day and he remarkably found all you could want excluding the Bronco"? Nice try.

"Or, alternatively, putting one of the blood-soaked gloves in a bag at Bundy and transporting it to Rockingham, and jumping the fence with it, and "finding" it."

And your proof that happened is what? None. OJ could have been out of town all week and had an airtight alibi. Fuhrman didn't know OJ's schedule. Fuhrman didn't know OJ's glove size. And how did OJ's blood get on the glove? Plus, planting evidence in a murder case would make Fuhrman subject to the death penalty.

Come on.

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

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

Nobody claimed that Goldman drove Nicole's Ferrari on an unexpected visit to Nicole's house that night. Presumably, Nicole had the Ferrari parked somewhere.

But say he did drive Nicole's Ferrari. He wasn't killed in the car. So why would he still be wearing those gloves when he walked up to her condo?

Gee, you're not very romantic, are you? Perhaps because Nicole gave him the gloves as a gift, and the waiter with the girlfriend who let him drive her Ferrari wanted to show her how much he appreciated her. Perhaps she gave him more than gloves and he was hopeful she would give him some that night.

Officer Robert Riske

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

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

Did Ron Goldman wear extra-large gloves?

There is no evidence that he did, or did not. A lack of evidence is not evidence. There is clear evidence that the gloves did not fit O.J. Simpson. They may have fit Ron Goldman.

Do not forget that you claim the prosecution at the criminal trial produced evidence at the criminal trial that justified a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The complete burden of proof was on the prosecution, not O.J. Simpson. To prove your claim wrong, one need only show cause for reasonable doubt.

There is more than a reasonable doubt that the gloves did not fit O.J. Simpson.

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

[11519]

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

- - - - - - - - - -

[11553]

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

The gloves used paper thin leather. They would not keep hands warm in New York or Chicago in winter. It looks like she was Christmas shopping in New York.

What difference does it make when Nicole bought two sets of those gloves? O.J. could not wear them, they did not fit. Someone who drives a Ferrari can ignore the bother of returning something to Bloomingdale's in Manhattan. Moreover, it was never established that the gloves in evidence were purchased in the known transaction from December 1990.

The receipt for the gloves bought in December 1990 show style 70268 (not 70263), no size, no color, Ms. Vemich testified she did not know if style 70268 had ever been sold in the United States, and, when asked directly, "Is there [any] way for you to tell us that the two gloves I showed you here in court were purchased during the transaction shown here in People's 372-A?," Ms. Vemich answered, "No."

[11528]

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

[...]

[11529]

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

[11530]

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

[11531]

MS. VEMICH: No, it does not. MR. DARDEN: Is there way for you to tell us that the two gloves I showed you here in court were purchased during the transaction shown here in People's 372-A? MS. VEMICH: No.

There was a picture of OJ wearing gloves. Lo and behold, they were the same model as gloves found at the murder scene and behind his house, glove expert Richard Rubin testified.

Lo and behold, your claim is imaginary. There was no such testimony by Richard Rubin at the criminal trial. His actual testimony was given on 15 and 16 June 1995. Nice try, though.

Also, Lo and behold, in case you forgot, Johnnie Cochran put on the evidence gloves during the examination of Richard Rubin. Before the defense goaded Christopher Darden into the evidence blunder of the century, Cochran had tested them for how they fit his size hand. At the time, with a glove on, Johnnie Cochran observed, "it seems too small for me." All he had to do was compare his own hand size to O.J.'s hand size, and he could know in advance how Darden's disaster would turn out.

Lastly, if those were Ron Goldman's gloves, how did one of them end up behind OJ's house covered in OJ's blood and the blood of both victims?

For purposes of your question, it matters not who wore the gloves that did not fit O.J. Simpson. It could have been O.J., Ron Goldman, or any other person.

Only one person had his picture taken at Bundy pointing at that glove before the notification party proceeded over to Rockingham. That would be Det. Mark Fuhrman. Somebody transported the blood-soaked glove from Bundy to Rockingham. Suspect number one is Mark Fuhrman. The wet glove had very little debris, indicating that it was placed rather than dropped.

Also, there was a persistent and horrible problem with the timeline that the prosecution was never able to resolve.

If O.J. damn near cut off Nicole's head, and tussled with and killed Ron Goldman, he would have been covered with blood. If he just jumped in the Bronco at Bundy, to return to Rockingham, the Bronco would have been laden with blood. And when did he have the time to shower and get rid of the blood, and leave no evidence of blood in the plumbing?

His ex-wife had been brutally murdered and the police were concerned that OJ could be next. They thought his life was in danger and went there to warn him. The police were justified in doing what they did because of exigent circumstances.

This nonsense fails when it is understood that they woke up Arnelle Simpson, she opened the front door, she proceeded to the alarm and shut it off, and she led them about the house. The police did not lead, they did not go in with weapons drawn — they followed the little lady. The police did not proceed at all as if they suspected a killer might have been present in the house.

Besides, the police explicitly stated they made entry to notify O.J. Simpson.

[526]

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

They were lacking probable cause evidence to search. Fuhrman jumped the fence and "found" the bloody glove, effectively declaring "Let the games begin!"

Your creative fiction about exigent circumstances and thinking O.J. was in danger flies in the face of what they said and what they did.

"Of course, my comment explicitly referred to "victims blood in the Bronco."

Yes. But you also said the all-inclusive, "Mark Fuhrman arrived to save the day and he remarkably found all you could want."

Now you're saying you meant, "Mark Fuhrman arrived to save the day and he remarkably found all you could want excluding the Bronco"? Nice try.

Fuhrman allegedly planted the glove. Planting of blood in the Bronco was allegedly done by persons unknown, after June 13th. Fuhrman was removed from the case before he ever went to Rockingham in the early morning of the 13th.

They did not really establish that the tiny spot Fuhrman found on the Bronco was human blood, or even blood, much less the blood of anyone in particular.

[nc] #179. To: misterwhite (#172)

Now you're saying Mark Fuhrman didn't think that was enough evidence, so he later planted microscopic traces of EDTA-contaminated blood in the Bronco -- knowing that he could be sentenced to death if he were caught. You say this despite the fact that you have no proof other than the fact that he pled the 5th.

There you go again. Please link to where I claimed Mark Fuhrman planted blood on the Bronco, or anywhere else? Why do you think Fuhrman may have planted blood on a blood-soaked glove? When did Fuhrman do this? What blood do you believe Fuhrman used to plant blood on the blood-soaked glove?

There is blood found on the Bronco, photographed on July 3rd that does not appear on a photo taken on June 13th. That is strong evidence someone planted blood on and in the Bronco after June 13th.

Why the hell would Fuhrman plant blood on the glove? It was dripping with the stuff. Whose blood do you think he planted? O.J.'s? On June 13th? Where did Fuhrman supposedly get that? O.J. had taken a flight to Chicago.

Fuhrman "found" the glove with lots of blood. There was a tiny spot on the door that looked like blood but was not verified as blood. Vanatter signed a false affidavit that human blood had been found in obtaining a search warrant for the premises. In reality, Vanatter order Fung to perform a phenophthalein test on the spot on the Bronco door. This is a presumptive test. Even when positive, it is only a presumptive test for blood. A negative test strongly indicates the absence of blood. A positive test does not prove the presence of blood, and gives no indication whatever that the blood is human blood. And the phenolphthalein test forever destroyed the spot evidence for DNA testing.

[524]

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

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: P-30.

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

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: P-31.

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

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: P-32.

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

- - - - - - - - - -

Marcia Clark:

[526]

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

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

- - - - - - - - - -

Defense Counsel Gerald Uelman, January 13, 1995

[332]

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

[333]

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

- - - - - - - - - -

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

- - - - - - - - - -

[373]

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

- - - - - - - - - -

[4736]

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

MS. CLARK: CORRECT.

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

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

- - - - - - - - - -

Detective Phillip Vanatter, one half of Dumb and Dumber:

[4750]

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

[4751]

A: YES.

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

A: NO, I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT.

Dumber, of Dumb and Dumber, DESTROYED the spot on the door as evidence of anything more than blood by ordering a phenolphthalein test. After that, it could only be conjectured as human blood. A DNA test was out of the question.

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

And, somewhat amazingly, except for it being the LAPD, criminalist Dennis Fung performed that destructive phenolphthalein test.

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

So you admit it was blood, but you're saying it was a false affidavit because it wasn't proven to be human blood. Meaning what? An animal drove the car?

There's a huge difference between doubt and reasonable doubt that you're missing here. The instruction to the jury is reasonable doubt. That's also my instruction to you.

"Nobody claimed that Goldman drove Nicole's Ferrari on an unexpected visit to Nicole's house that night. Presumably, Nicole had the Ferrari parked somewhere."

You said, "This video interestingly offers an argument that the gloves belonged to Ron Goldman ... they were light and could function well as driving gloves ... gloves ... Ron Goldman drove Nicole's Ferrari".

If the gloves belonged to Ron Goldman and as proof you say he could have used them as driving gloves when he drove Nicole's Ferrari, aren't you saying he drove the Ferrari that night? Why bring up the Ferrari if Ron Goldman didn't drive it (wearing those driving gloves) that night?

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

Perhaps? Is that a new legal term?

So he wears them all the time? The temperature that night was in the mid-70's. He would look foolish wearing those gloves, gift or not.

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

Well, if those were Ron Goldman's gloves, wouldn't that be important? If he had small hands and a drawer full of small gloves, couldn't we exclude him as the owner of extra-large gloves?

Yet, amazingly, you don't care.

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

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

Did Nicole give them to OJ with the intent that he wear them in Chicago or New York in winter? No? Then why bring it up? You got a picture of Ron Goldman wearing those gloves?

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

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

Suspect number only is OJ.

So you admit it was blood, but you're saying it was a false affidavit because it wasn't proven to be human blood. Meaning what? An animal drove the car?

I did not admit it was blood, and the prosecution failed to produce evidence that it was blood.

A presumptive test was performed. No result from a presumptive test proves the presence of blood, any more than a presumptive test for marijuana proves the presence of marijuana.

With a presumptive test, a negative result indicates an absence of the amount of the substance tested for in the quantity sufficient to trigger a positive result.

With a presumptive test, a positive result indicates a likelihood that the substance tested for is present. I provides probable cause to perform a definitive lab test. If the definitive lab test is not performed, or is not positive, there is insufficient evidence to establish that the substance tested for is present.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kastle%E2%80%93Meyer_test

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

[...]

Limitations

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

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

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

There was a tiny red spot, not proven to be blood. The false affidavit claimed the verified presence of human blood, something the test is incapable of verifying.

If the gloves belonged to Ron Goldman and as proof you say he could have used them as driving gloves when he drove Nicole's Ferrari, aren't you saying he drove the Ferrari that night? Why bring up the Ferrari if Ron Goldman didn't drive it (wearing those driving gloves) that night?

Obviously not.

[nc #190] Nobody claimed that Goldman drove Nicole's Ferrari on an unexpected visit to Nicole's house that night. Presumably, Nicole had the Ferrari parked somewhere.

The claim that Nicole let Ron Goldman is on the youtube video at 9:12. The text there reads,

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the ever reliable reddit,

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

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

If waiter Ron Goldman got to drive her fast Ferrari (plate L84AD8), and hot rich chick Nicole had given him driving gloves, he could have worn those gloves to drive his own car to her house for a nighttime rendezvous, where she awaited in spandex with the tub full and hot, the bathroom lights off, and the candles on.

Ron Goldman was working at Mezzaluna. Nicole called the restaurant about glasses left behind. Ron Goldman punched out and drove to Nicole's. Unless Nicole left the Ferrari with Ron at Mezzaluna, he drove something else. Duh.

Perhaps? Is that a new legal term?

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

So he wears them all the time? The temperature that night was in the mid-70's. He would look foolish wearing those gloves, gift or not.

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

Well, if those were Ron Goldman's gloves, wouldn't that be important? If he had small hands and a drawer full of small gloves, couldn't we exclude him as the owner of extra-large gloves?

Yet, amazingly, you don't care.

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

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

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

[11590]

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

#202. To: nolu chan (#193)

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

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

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

Did Nicole give them to OJ with the intent that he wear them in Chicago or New York in winter? No? Then why bring it up? You got a picture of Ron Goldman wearing those gloves?

misterwhite posted on 2017-06-13 9:21:49 ET

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

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

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

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

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

The gloves were not Aris Isotoner gloves.

[11607]

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

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

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

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

- - - - - - - - - -

Oh, here they are:

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

The image link is shown above.

Oh, there they ain't.

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

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

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

[18774]

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

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

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

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

[misterwhite #188] "There was a picture of OJ wearing gloves. Lo and behold, they were the same model as gloves found at the murder scene and behind his house, glove expert Richard Rubin testified."

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

[misterwhite #203, youtube]

Do you see the three needlepoints you described earlier

Yes

Transcript:

[18757]

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

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

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

[18758]

THE COURT: Yes.

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

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: In both photographs?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I do.

- - - - - - - - - -

[misterwhite #203, youtube]

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

Objection asked and answered

Overruled

Yes

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

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

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

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

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

- - - - - - - - - -

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

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

DR. LAKSHMANAN: I can't say that.

- - - - - - - - - -

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

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

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

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

[18773]

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

MR. RUBIN: I did.

[18774]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

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

MR. DARDEN: Misstates the testimony.

MR. RUBIN: What I meant--

THE COURT: Excuse me. Overruled.

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

[18775]

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

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

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

[18772]

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER

MR. BLASIER: Good afternoon, Mr. Rubin.

MR. RUBIN: Mr. Blasier.

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

MR. RUBIN: Absolutely.

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

MR. RUBIN: Absolutely not.

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

MR. RUBIN: I do not.

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

MR. RUBIN: Absolutely not.

[...]

[18775]

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

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

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

MR. RUBIN: Correct.

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

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

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

MR. RUBIN: Absolutely not.

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

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

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

MR. RUBIN: No, I do not.

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

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I did.

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

[18776]

customers to see?

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

MR. BLASIER: Cards from the Prosecution?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

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

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

[18762]

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

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I did.

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

MR. RUBIN: I only checked with two.

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

MR. RUBIN: In the world? Yes.

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

MR. RUBIN: No, I did not.

MR. BLASIER: In Europe?

MR. RUBIN: No, I did not.

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

MR. RUBIN: No, I did not.

MR. BLASIER: And what are those two companies?

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

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

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

MR. BLASIER: And they had it in stock?

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

[18783]

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

MR. RUBIN: One out of two.

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

Suspect number only is OJ.

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

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

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

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

[4236]

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

A: NO, THERE ISN'T.

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

A: NO.

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

[4237]

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

A: YES.

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

A: YES.

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

A: YES.

Q: THAT IS A SLIP OF THE TONGUE?

A: NO.

Them is a problem.

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

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

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

Q AND WHAT ELSE DID YOU SEE?

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

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

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

A YES

Q WHAT DID YOU SEE THERE?

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

- - - - - - - - - -

Barry Scheck closing,

[19953]

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

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

[19954]

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Answer: It was fairly cool.

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

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

"Question: All right."

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

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

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

[19955]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Something like that.

"Is that what you just said in English.

"Answer: Yes, that is what I said.

"Okay.

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

"That would be, what, about a seventh?

"Answer: Something like that."

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

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

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

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

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

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

[19956]

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

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

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

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

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

[11957]

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

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

Johnnie Cochran closing argument,

[19961]

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

[19962]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is what the law is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A: YES.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12 A We had flashlights. We were looking at the
13 female victim. We looked at the male victim.
14 I noticed the glove when I walked around

I noticed the glove.

Did Nicole give them to OJ with the intent that he wear them in Chicago or New York in winter? No? Then why bring it up?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[4236]

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

A: NO, THERE ISN'T.

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

A: NO.

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

[4237]

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

A: YES.

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

A: YES.

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

A: YES.

Q: THAT IS A SLIP OF THE TONGUE?

A: NO.

- - - - - - - - - -

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

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

Mr. Fung came in, he circled these pictures, and if you will recall his testimony, the bottom circle closest to the door, that is only one stain. He said that that stain could be observed when the door was closed, but the other three stains that are represented by those other two circles could only be seen when the door was opened. Could only be seen when the door was open.

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

Fung on Direct-examination by Prosecutor Goldberg.

[6709]

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

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

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

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

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

MR. FUNG: Yes.

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

MR. FUNG: Yes.

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

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

[6710]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. FUNG: Yes.

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

MR. FUNG: Yes.

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

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

Fung on cross-examination by Defense Attorney Barry Scheck:

[6801]

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

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

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

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony, your Honor.

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

MR. SCHECK: You're not saying that?

MR. FUNG: I'm not saying that.

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

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

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

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

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

MR. FUNG: To see those, yes.

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

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

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

After how many lies does he lose all credibility?

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

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

Really. What transcript did you read?

The tortured phrasing was, "What I meant by that statement categorically was that I did not see any features in any one of those photos that would indicate that it would be any other style that I had knowledge of."

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

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

[18773]

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

MR. RUBIN: I did.

[18774]

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

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

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

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

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

What is your source for this line of crap?

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

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

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

[11607]

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

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

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

Direct examination by Prosecutor Christopher Darden,

[11564]

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

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

[11589]

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

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

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

THE COURT: 372-C.

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

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

DIRECT EXAMINATION (402) BY MR. DARDEN

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

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

https://www.isotoner.com/aboutus

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

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

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

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

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

I noticed the glove.

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

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

[4236]

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

A: NO, THERE ISN'T.

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

A: NO.

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

[4237]

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

A: YES.

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

A: YES.

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

A: YES.

Q: THAT IS A SLIP OF THE TONGUE?

A: NO.

Them is a problem.

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

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

Fuhrman denied any such thing as follows:

[4006]

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

A: THAT'S ME.

[...]

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

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

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

- - - - - - - - - -

[4045]

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

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

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

A: YES, MA'AM.

- - - - - - - - - -

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

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

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

MR. ROKAHR: I do.

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

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

THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld.

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

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. NEUFELD

MR. NEUFELD: Good afternoon, Mr. Rokahr.

MR. ROKAHR: Good afternoon, Mr. Neufeld.

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

[18140]

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

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

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

- - - - - - - - - -

[18147]

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

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

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

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

[18148]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

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

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

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

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

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

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Argumentative.

[18149]

THE COURT: Overruled.

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

[...]

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

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, I did.

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

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

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

[18149]

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

- - - - - - - - - -

[18155]

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

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.

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

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

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

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

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

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, I could.

MR. NEUFELD: Would you please do so.

MR. ROKAHR: That would be 34 and 35.

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

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

- - - - - - - - - -

[18156]

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

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.

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

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

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

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

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

MR. ROKAHR: 36 exposures.

MR. NEUFELD: Is that your standard practice?

MR. ROKAHR: That is what I prefer.

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

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

- - - - - - - - - -

[18159]

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

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.

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

MR. ROKAHR: Whatever the time was, yes.

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

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

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

- - - - - - - - - -

[18162]

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

MR. ROKAHR: They were shot what?

MR. NEUFELD: At nighttime.

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.

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

MR. ROKAHR: Yes, sir.

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

MR. ROKAHR: That is Detective Fuhrman.

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

MR. ROKAHR: That is also Detective Fuhrman.

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

MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: At night?

THE COURT: Overruled.

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

- - - - - - - - - -

[18170]

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

MR. DARDEN: Objection.

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

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Light in the air?

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

MR. ROKAHR: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

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

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

MR. ROKAHR: I would like to think so.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you. Nothing further.

THE COURT: Mr. Darden.

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

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

After how many lies does he lose all credibility?

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

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

Wiki. Same as yours.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[4236]

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

A: NO, THERE ISN'T.

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

A: NO.

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

[4237]

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

A: YES.

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

A: YES.

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

A: YES.

Q: THAT IS A SLIP OF THE TONGUE?

A: NO.

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

Wiki. Same as yours.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[11564]

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

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

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

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

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

- - - - - - - - - -

[11607]

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

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

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

[11531]

MR. DARDEN: Is there way for you to tell us that the two gloves I showed you here in court were purchased during the transaction shown here in People's 372-A?

MS. VEMICH: No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. DARDEN: Misstates the testimony.

MR. RUBIN: What I meant--

THE COURT: Excuse me. Overruled.

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

[18775]

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

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

- - - - - - - - - -

[18773]

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

MR. RUBIN: I did.

[18774]

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

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

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

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

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

- - - - - - - - - -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[18744]

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

MR. RUBIN: Very.

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

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

- - - - - - - - - -

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

[18782]

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

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I did.

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

MR. RUBIN: I only checked with two.

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

MR. RUBIN: In the world? Yes.

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

MR. RUBIN: No, I did not.

MR. BLASIER: In Europe?

MR. RUBIN: No, I did not.

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

MR. RUBIN: No, I did not.

MR. BLASIER: And what are those two companies?

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

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

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