The O.J. Simpson Chase with CGI animation

A mountain of evidence... and you ignore it all.

A mountain of b.s. tjhat the jury could not ignore.

Again, it is self-evident that you did not watch the trial. Your mountain of b.s. came from where?

I watched bits of the trial. I was in school at the time. The only people who could watch the whole damned thing were the unemployed and unemployable. But it’s asinine to say that people who watched the whole thing agreed with you. They didn’t. Dominick Dunne was there every damned day, and he was of course certain that OJ was guilty as hell. Even Freakin’ Geraldo, who covered it, was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course, in both cases, I’m talking about men who were not sub-85 I.Q,s (the only category who’d be stupid enough to believe OJ’s defense team)

Sorry for piping in, but the last thing I have heard was that Mr. Simpson had been suffering from arthritis in his hands for considerable time before the process, maybe for years.

Two weeks before donning them in the courtroom, he had stopped taking his arthritis medication, so that when the day in court came, his hands were swollen significantly. Thus, the gloves would not fit anymore.

I may be wrong, but that‘s what I have been reading.

I watched bits of the trial.

Like I said. I'm psychic.

Dominick Dunne was there every damned day, and he was of course certain that OJ was guilty as hell. Even Freakin’ Geraldo, who covered it, was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

The entire press corps and the evening talking heads adopted the standard babble about how the testimony of the day was "devastating" for the defense. Watching the trial and the commentary about the trial was two different worlds.

I was in school at the time. The only people who could watch the whole damned thing were the unemployed and unemployable.

Kindergarten, I presume, with your logic. People who were retired, working a night shift, or intelligent enough to set a video recorder had no problem watching the trial. I suspect your main knowledge of the case comes from a Netflix series. I am waiting to hear the burning baby moved you to the core.

I’m talking about men who were not sub-85 I.Q,s (the only category who’d be stupid enough to believe OJ’s defense team)

I hate to break it to you, but I am pretty far removed from the sub-85 I.Q. group. It is you who cannot discuss the evidence intelligently because you have never known what evidence came in at the trial. You can only mutter the mantra Mountain of Evidence. Quantity does not make quality.

You brought up the socks. Perhaps you would like to explain how they seemed to appear and disappear, how blood passed through three sides, from the outer surface of one side to the inner surface of that side, through an ankle, and to the inner surface of the opposite side. And, of course, the EDTA.

September 27, 1995

Cochran closing argument.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, where it says 3:13 P.M., Mr. Willie Ford says--all right. Back it up, please. This is Mr. Willie Ford going up into the bedroom. It's 3:13 where he says it's 4:14 because it hadn't been changed. It's 4:13 P.M. on June 13th, 1994. Okay. Thank you, your Honor. You look at the foot of the bed there where the socks are supposed to be. You'll see no socks in this video. And you'll recall that Mr. Willie Ford testified about this. And I asked him, "Well, where are the socks, Mr. Ford?" "I didn't see any socks." So now, that's interesting, isn't it? At 4:13 on June 13th, 1994, these socks are supposedly recovered, these mysterious socks, these socks that no one sees any blood on until August 4th all of a sudden, these socks that are picked up that Luper says he picks them up because they look out of place. "I don't see any reason to pick them up. I'll just take these socks because they look out of place." The only items that they took out of that place on that date is Lange. Lange takes the Reebok tennis shoes, the ones that he takes home. You remember that. That's all they really take because they don't come back until the 28th before they get that one brown glove. But these socks will be their undoing. It just doesn't fit. None of you can deny there are no socks at the foot of that bed 4:30 P.M. where then are the socks? Where are these socks, this important piece of evidence? Well, let me show you something. This board here was a board used by Dr. Henry Lee. This is interesting. Bear with me for a moment as you look at this.
THE COURT: Is this 1352?
MR. DOUGLAS: 52.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. COCHRAN: In this photograph here, the one on the left, your Honor, if you'll notice, the socks are at the foot of the bed. If you look close at this photograph, you'll see there's no little white card there. You notice how they put these little evidence cards there when they're going to collect something. No little white card on this photograph here. And this is interesting, because you see these straps on the bed. Now, Luper told us when he testified, these straps were like--he called them some kind of luggage straps. And these luggage straps are down at this point, aren't they? See how they're down? No evidence card and the socks are there. We come over to this photograph here. Notice how the strap is now up on the bed? No longer hanging down anymore. It's been moved up. And Luper says that's when he looks under this bed and he sees that photograph. By the way, how wrong can they continue to be? That's no wedding photograph. That's no wedding. That's a photograph they took at some formal event. You look at that photograph and see. That's how they speculate. And most times, they've been wrong. But this is interesting. The strap is now up on the bed. And you look at the socks. Now it's been posed for you. Here is this no. 13 out here with these socks. Now, you look back at that video, and you'll have it. You'll notice that the video has the strap down. So the video is at a time before this card was placed, before the strap is up, before this is about to be collected. Now, isn't that strange, because at 4:13, there are no socks there. Now, how do we tie all this together? Do you remember, Fung and Mazzola have a log. And on their log, they tell when they collected things. They tell us that they collected the blood in the foyer at 4:30, that they then came upstairs, that they collect--here it is as we speak.
MR. DOUGLAS: 1091, your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. COCHRAN: Can you move it over a little bit, Mr. Harris? Now, you see this where they collected things sequentially and they kept this log. And I think that you'll remember the testimony that at 4:30, they collected the blood in the foyer. Remember that? Let me see if I can point that out for you. In the foyer, red stain. And there's testimony--they testified 4:30. 1630 is 4:30. This is--well, this is at least 17 minutes after Mr. Ford is up there with that camera where there are no socks, right? So 1630, right there. They're downstairs. Then they say they go upstairs and they leave this time blank. But at 1640, they go and they look at this little red spot in the bathroom. Remember that? And they say in their testimony that the socks are collected between 1630 and 1640. So let's give them the benefit of the doubt, 1635. How could the socks be there at 4:35 when you just saw they're not there at 4:13? Who's fooling whom here? Setting this man up, and you can see it with your own eyes. You're not naive. Nobody is foolish here. Then they forget about this little strap exercise and they're posing stuff here. They move this off the bed, move this under the bed. They're going to make a big thing about this photograph under the bed. Then they put this number down here and they take these pictures for you later. But they didn't know that we would know or find out about Mr. Ford's video. So they took that video--you know, we talked about this early on. LAPD should always take videos of everything at that crime scene. They don't do that. But they took this video not because they wanted to help Mr. Simpson. If anything was missing or got broken, this was a civil liability video. Remember, they were going around taking photographs of things that might be missing of whatever if there was ever a suit later on.
But they got hoisted by their own petard again because the video has the counter and the number. They will never, ever be able to explain that to you because we've got the testimony in black and white as when they went upstairs and collected them. Those socks from the beginning is going to bring them down. So those are the socks, these socks. No dirt, no soil, no berries, no trace. Nobody sees any blood until August 4th. All these miraculous things start happening, and then--Mr. Scheck will talk more about this. Then we find out it has EDTA in it. Is it planted along with that back gate? How would it be on there? Why didn't they see the blood before that? There's a big fight here. Where is the dirt? Why would Mr. Simpson have on these kind of socks with a sweat outfit? Wait a minute. Now, you don't have to be like from the fashion police to know that. You don't wear those kinds of socks. You wear those kind of socks with a suit. You don't wear those kind of socks with a sweat outfit. Doesn't it make sense to you that those socks were in that hamper from Saturday night when Mr. Simpson went to that formal event? Those kind of socks is what you wear with your tuxedo when he was dressed with those other ladies. They went and took it out of the hamper and staged it there, and you see what happened. Is that not reasonable under these facts? I think you'll agree it is. It's the only reasonable explanation. It's posed there. And the reason for doing this is because they were out of place. But isn't that interesting, in the hamper in which Luper went and they all went, they didn't take anything else? You'd think the police would ask Mr. Simpson, "What were you wearing? In addition to the suit, what were you wearing that night?" They didn't take one thing. Yet we hear all this talk about, I wonder where the clothes went, I wonder where the clothes went. You'd think Mr. Simpson, who told them everything, cooperated with them fully, told them, like he told them about those shoes, what he was wearing. They didn't bother collecting those, did they? No towels, no nothing. She's worried about him taking this quick shower. If he took a shower, there's so much blood, he's covered with blood, why didn't they bring the towels in here? Something is wrong in this case. It just doesn't fit. When it doesn't fit, you must acquit. So the socks-- I could talk about these socks forever, but I'm not going to do that because Mr. Scheck will talk about the forensic aspect of it. But let me just remind you of two quick more things. Dr. Herbert MacDonell came in here and he told you there was no splatter or spatter on these socks. These socks had compression transfer, and he used his hands to show you somebody took those socks and they put something on them and it went all the way through to side 3. Now, with all their experts bringing people back three, four times, they never had anybody to contravene that. How did that get over to side 3? How did it get over there? It wouldn't get there if there was a leg in the sock. Can anybody explain that? Can any of you explain that? Maybe Miss Clark can explain that. Experts can't explain it. Something is wrong. Then finally the EDTA which indicates the anticoagulant from a purple top tube is where that blood is from. The socks, as you know, are something that you want to get emotional about because we've known about these socks for some time. This is to say the least disturbing. It's worse than that though. In my opening statement, I told you about evidence that would be compromised, contaminated and corrupted and I told you something then. I said in this case, there's something even far more sinister. The socks are one example of that. Now, if you want to be fair deciding this case, you've got to deal with these socks. You'll get a chance to see them. Look for the dirt that you expect on them. Look for the spatter that you expect on them. Look and see why it went over to side 3. There's a leg in it. Now, isn't it interesting how you get this blood on this sock with your pants? Your pants have to be almost up. This would take a real contortion to do it. There's no way they could explain it. So let's just leave it where it is and Mr. Scheck will pick up on that. Then we've heard a lot about the so-called blood in the Bronco. Now, I want to tell you, I'm not anything like a scientist. In fact, when my mother and my father wanted me to become a doctor, I didn't because I wasn't that good in science. So I became a lawyer so I could talk. But let me tell you something. Even I know about amounts of blood, especially after this case. They tell you about all this blood in the Bronco. And you remember one of the early witnesses testified the total amount of blood on this console--on this console is .07 of drop of blood. Now, that's supposedly a mixture of Goldman and someone else. Now, this is--I'm going to do a little Henry Lee experiment and I hope that it doesn't cause any--cause you any problems. Now, .07 of a drop--

Sorry for piping in, but the last thing I have heard was that Mr. Simpson had been suffering from arthritis in his hands for considerable time before the process, maybe for years.

A evidentiary problem was that the prosecution was never able to prove that either O.J. or Nicole had ever purchased a pair of Aris Isotoner Light gloves, model No. 70263. The receipt that was found was for a different style number, 70268. The price was also wrong for the 70263.

MR. COCHRAN: 372-B your Honor. This is this famous purchase, December of 1990, wasn't it? The lot number or the style number is 70268. That is what it says. It doesn't say anything about 70263. Two items. It says $77.00. $77.00 is what it says for those two items. It doesn't say anything about $55.00. It says $77.00. And it doesn't say anything about color or size or anything of that nature and it doesn't say anything about any mufflers, but yet you have been treated and told, oh, these had to be Aris light gloves. That looks like a computer-generated receipt. I wonder how if it was incorrectly inputted it didn't spit it out. This transaction apparently went through and whatever was purchased was purchased. The point is it is part of again the weakness of the Prosecution's case in telling you one thing and the record shows something else. You don't have any receipt anywhere when you get back there that says anything about 70268. You don't have one witness who ever says that Nicole Brown ever bought any Aris lights and gave them to O.J. Simpson. There is no such witness because it didn't happen. And the rest of it is speculation and theory on their part. Cynical speculation I might add to try to rush to judgment and win at any cost. Now, you heard during Mr. Darden's effective argument last night a lot of statements. And just before I get to that part, let me say a couple other things about Mr. Rubin that might be appropriate. Remember, Mr. Rubin is an interesting witness. When he was brought back out here this last time he was asked, well, look, how many glove manufacturers are there in the world? He acknowledged there are over 100. Then Bob Blasier asked him a question, well, you know, how many did you check with? Two. He checked with two and then he stopped looking. Remember, he found out that this Brossier stitching can be made on singer sewing machines. Some of you may know more about that than I do, but they stopped making them after a period of time, but he stopped looking after a period of time and never called anybody else. And that is interesting. That is the way the Prosecution witnesses have conducted themselves throughout. Compare that he stopped looking with Agent Martz who finds three of the four things you need to find EDTA on the sock and the back gate. Rather than looking carefully for the characteristic, the fourth one, he stops searching and uses a far less discriminating test. Consider the EAP b found under Nicole Brown Simpson's fingernails where they try to come in and tell you it is a degraded BA and a cross-examination. Again Blasier got Matheson to admit there was no specific support in any of the literature for a BA degraded into a B, and this was by all accounts a double-banded B. The reason they didn't want to pursue that, because she may have scratched somebody with a b type, but they never pursued those things. The second hat at Bundy. The Bundy location inside, when the Defense investigator finds this hat, nobody wanted to collect it. They refused in fact to collect it. When we in this trial, before you, discovered that evidence had been moved at Bundy and that a key piece of evidence, the piece of paper, had disappeared, they didn't do anything to find out about it that we know of. I am concerned about those kind of things. But it is important--and when you look at Rubin--because you put him along with the other Prosecution witnesses and the things that they have had to say. I have told you about the Bloomingdales receipt. I told you about Brenda Vemich who came in. One other thing about Brenda Vemich. That was the day, I won't forget that day probably. She was a pretty tough witness. I was just trying to talk about receipts and things and she was pretty tough. And remember we asked her the question, well, who is the lady, who is the person, who is the salesperson for this? And that lady whose name was Hollings or something like that was in this building. They never called her on that receipt. They didn't have to call her, but we know she was here because Brenda Vemich told us. We also learned something else about these gloves, that even an extra large--there is probably three different sizes, the undersize, the standard and the oversize. And it depends what lot you get. That is what it boils down to, ladies and gentlemen. We know that. That makes sense, doesn't it? And so when you look at everything regarding these gloves--by the way, the lady's name was Olina Phipps, P-H-I-P-P-S. She was in the courthouse and of course was never called by the Prosecution. Shoe he was the actual sales clerk. But I think that the important thing about these gloves that Mr. Rubin was helping us with, in a couple of the pictures of the photographs of the gloves Mr. Simpson obviously had a heat pack on his hands inside the gloves. You could see the heat pack. If you live in cold weather, you know about that. Try though they will about shrinking--and they are going to show you, gee, it is raining out there and doing all those things. Isn't that preposterous? They will do anything to try to contort and distort the facts, try to get away from that tactical mistake showing you the gloves didn't fit. Spent all this time on that and the gloves still don't fit. Rubin can't help you. Rubin is biased. He can't find those gloves because O.J. Simpson has never had those gloves. For them to say otherwise is rank speculation.

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” - Mark Twain.

I’m done. No one with a functioning brain thinks that OJ didn’t do it.

When the cops called OJ and informed him of Nicole’s death. He never asked what happened to her. Not the behavior of an innocent man. Rather, the behavior of a man who already knew what happened to her.

The man was trying to escape to Mexico when it looked like he was going to arrested. He was waving around a gun in the backset of Cowlings’ Bronco. Not the behavior of an innocent man.

Hell, the man eventually admitted how he did it and how it all went down in a televised interview in which with, with a wink and a nod, he would giggle and throw in the word “hypothetically” and laugh.

I’m done. No one with a functioning brain thinks that OJ didn’t do it.

Yes, you are done. you have met someone who watched the trial, has the transcripts, and can recall, locate and quote relevant material to which you can manage no response other than a very feeble harumphhh and meandering muttering.

Moving on, let us look at the fiasco of the criminalist, Dennis Fung, the owlight of the trial.

OJ - FUNG FICTION AND VIDEO

Mr. Fung having a terrible, no good day, April 11, 1995.

How about that, Mr. Fung?

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, CAN YOU SEE THAT ENVELOPE IN THE BAG?
A: YES.
Q: NOW, THE OTHER ITEMS OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU COLLECTED IN THE BUNDY SCENE, WEREN'T THEY PUT INTO COIN ENVELOPES IF THEY WERE BLOOD DROPS?
A: YES.
Q: AND THE PAGER WAS PUT INTO A BAG?
A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q: WHY DON'T YOU TAKE OUT YOUR EVIDENCE COLLECTION SHEET AND READ ALONG WITH ME. THE KEYS WENT INTO A COIN ENVELOPE, CORRECT?
A: YES.
Q: THE PAGER WENT INTO A COIN ENVELOPE?
A: YES.
Q: THAT OBJECT WE SEE YOU AND MISS MAZZOLA HANDLING IT IS NOT THE KEYS OR THE PAGER, IS IT?
A: NO.
Q: IT IS NOT THE GLOVE?
A: NO.
Q: IT IS NOT THE HAT?
A: NO.
Q: IT IS NOT THE RING?
A: NO.
Q: IT IS NOT ANY OF THE RED STAINS THAT YOU RECOVERED AT BUNDY?
A: THAT'S CORRECT.
Q: WELL, LOOKING AT YOUR EVIDENCE CHECKLIST, CAN YOU SUGGEST ONE THING, OTHER THAN THAT ENVELOPE, THAT WE SAW ON THAT VIDEOTAPE?
A: NOTE PAD MAYBE.
Q: A NOTE PAD MAYBE. WHICH NOTE PAD?
A: IT WOULDN'T BE EVIDENCE; IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE USED TO TAKE NOTES.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
THE COURT: FOR THE RECORD, MR. SCHECK, WHAT ARE WE DOING?
MR. SCHECK: WE ARE LOOKING AT IT THREE MORE TIMES.
THE COURT: THIS IS 1082?
MR. SCHECK: 1082.
(DEFENSE EXHIBIT 1082, A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.)
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. SCHECK: AND NOW WE HAVE THE STILL.
(A STILL PHOTOGRAPH WAS DISPLAYED.)
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: LOOKING AT THAT STILL AND HERE IF YOU WANT, WE HAVE A PRINTOUT FROM THE ELMO, ARE YOU TELLING US THAT THAT IS A NOTE PAD AND NOT THE ENVELOPE?
A: I'M SAYING IT COULD BE ANYTHING, BUT IT IS NOT THE ENVELOPE HERE.
Q: WELL, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT IT IS NOT ANY OTHER ITEM OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU COLLECTED AT THE SCENE? COULDN'T BE ANY OTHER ITEM OF EVIDENCE EXCEPT FOR THAT PRESCRIPTION ENVELOPE, RIGHT?
MR. GOLDBERG: WAIT A MINUTE. I WOULD OBJECT.
THE COURT: BASIS?
MR. GOLDBERG: THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IS THERE ANY OTHER ITEM OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU COLLECTED AT BUNDY THAT YOU COULD BE HANDING MISS MAZZOLA?
MR. GOLDBERG: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW WHAT TIME FRAME THIS STILL WAS TAKEN, SO I CAN'T GIVE YOU AN ACCURATE --
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: THAT IS A PICTURE OF MR. JACOBO AND MISS RATCLIFFE?
A: OKAY.
Q: THEY ARE FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE?
MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, NOW COUNSEL IS TESTIFYING. MOTION TO STRIKE.
THE COURT: THAT IS TRUE. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ARE THEY FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE?
A: YES.
Q: AND THEY WERE AT THE SCENE WHEN YOU ARRIVED?
A: YES.
Q: AND THEY LEFT AT ABOUT 11:15, AS I RECALL?
A: RIGHT.
Q: SO IT HAS GOT TO BE BETWEEN THE TIME THAT YOU FIRST ARRIVED AT THE SCENE AND THE TIME THAT THE CORONERS LEFT?
A: YES.
Q: ARE YOU TESTIFYING THAT THAT IS NOT THE ENVELOPE?
MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE. ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, MR. HARRIS ADVISES ME THAT PERHAPS WE COULD PLAY IT ONE MORE TIME IN SLOW MOTION AND HE THINKS HE CAN GET A BETTER STILL.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHY DON'T YOU TRY IT.
(DEFENSE EXHIBIT 1082, A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.)
THE COURT: I THINK WE NEED TO START THE SLOMO SOONER THAN THAT. START AT THE BEGINNING. WELL, WE ARE GOING BACKWARDS AT THIS POINT. HOW ABOUT SOME MORE? NO, BACKWARDS, BACKWARDS, BACKWARDS.
MR. SCHECK: THERE. THERE.
Q: HOW ABOUT THAT, MR. FUNG?
THE COURT: IS THAT A QUESTION, MR. SCHECK?
MR. SCHECK: YES.
Q: HOW ABOUT THAT PICTURE, MR. FUNG, DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION THAT YOU TOOK THE ENVELOPE FROM ANDREA MAZZOLA WITH YOUR BARE HAND?
A: WHEN YOU POINTED OUT THE TIME FRAME, IT MAKES IT EVEN MORE SURE IN MY MIND THAT THAT IS NOT THE ENVELOPE, BECAUSE WE DID NOT START PICKING UP EVIDENCE UNTIL WELL AFTER THE CORONERS WERE GONE.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. HARRIS, DO YOU HAVE THAT FRAME?
MR. HARRIS: YES, YOUR HONOR, I DO.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT WILL BE 1082-A PRINTOUT.
(DEFT'S 1082-A FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ARE YOU SAYING THAT IS A NOTE PAD?
A: I'M SAYING I'M NOT SURE WHAT IT IS, BUT I KNOW IT IS NOT THAT ENVELOPE.
Q: DO YOU SEE WHERE THERE IS A SLIGHT -- THAT OBJECT THAT MISS MAZZOLA HAD IN HER HAND, IT APPEARS TO HAVE A CERTAIN FULLNESS TO IT?
A: I CAN'T TELL FROM THE VIDEO, NO.
Q: YOU CAN'T TELL? YOUR HONOR, WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION, RATHER THAN HAVE THE JURY TOUCH IT, BUT I WOULD ASK THAT THIS BAG THAT CONTAINS THE ENVELOPE BE PASSED THROUGH THE JURY SO THAT THEY CAN LOOK AT IT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. HAND IT TO JUROR NO. 1, PLEASE.
(THE BAG CONTAINING THE GLASSES ENVELOPE WAS PASSED AMONGST THE JURY.)
(BRIEF PAUSE.)
[...]
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A BRIEF RECESS. PLEASE REMEMBER ALL MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU. DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DO NOT ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU WITH REGARD TO THE CASE, DO NOT CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU. WE WILL TAKE A 15- MINUTE RECESS. THANK YOU.
(RECESS.)
[...]
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, A FEW MOMENTS AGO, MR. FUNG, WHEN YOU SAW THE VIDEO OF THE ENVELOPE, YOU SAID THAT IT HAD REFRESHED YOUR RECOLLECTION WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THE FRAME BECAUSE YOU KNEW THAT COULDN'T BE THE ENVELOPE SINCE THE EVIDENCE COLLECTION DID NOT BEGIN UNTIL THE PEOPLE FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE LEFT?
A: THAT'S WHAT I INDICATED, YES.
Q: ALL RIGHT. I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU THIS PIECE OF VIDEOTAPE, MR. FUNG.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MARK THIS AS 1083.
(DEFT'S 1083 FOR ID = VIDEOTAPE)
(AT 10:45 A.M., DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1083, A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.)
Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AND YOU'VE BEEN WATCHING THIS AT THE BREAK, HAVEN'T YOU?
A: YES, I HAVE.
Q: NOW, THIS IS MISS MAZZOLA PUTTING THE HAT IN THE BAG, CORRECT?
A: YES.
Q: AND IF YOU LOOK IN THE BACK OF THE STEPS, THOSE ARE THE PRINT PEOPLE WALKING BACK AND FORTH, THE ONES IN THE WHITE COATS?
A: YES.
Q: AND YOU SEE IN BACK OF HER WHAT LOOKS LIKE THE TAPE MEASURE?
A: I COULDN'T MAKE IT OUT.
Q: SEE IT NOW?
A: YES. COULD BE, YES.
Q: NOW SHE'S PICKING UP THE GLOVE? NOW, YOU REMEMBER THAT MR. JACOBO FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE, HE WAS THE GENTLEMAN IN THE BLUE SUIT, THE BLUE JUMPSUIT?
A: YES.
Q: I WOULD LIKE YOU TO WATCH VERY CAREFULLY THE FRAME, THESE SHOES. SEE THOSE SHOES, SEE THOSE BLUE PANTS?
A: YES.
Q: THAT'S MR. JACOBO, ISN'T IT?
A: APPEARS TO BE, YES.
Q: SO YOU DID BEGIN EVIDENCE COLLECTION BEFORE THE CORONERS LEFT?
A: YES.
Q: SO WHAT YOU SAID BEFORE WASN'T TRUE?
A: IT WAS TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION AT THE TIME.
Q: WELL, WHEN YOU FILLED OUT YOUR EVIDENCE COLLECTION REPORT, MR. FUNG, FOR THE BUNDY SCENE -- I THINK WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE -- THERE'S A BOX THAT HAS TIMES ON IT, RIGHT?
A: YES.
Q: AND YOU DIDN'T FILL OUT ANY TIMES FOR THE COLLECTION OF THESE -- OF THESE PIECES OF EVIDENCE, DID YOU?
A: THEY WERE NOT FILLED IN.
(AT 10:46 A.M., THE PLAYING OF DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1083, THE VIDEOTAPE, CONCLUDED.)

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

[Mr. Fung] WHEN YOU POINTED OUT THE TIME FRAME, IT MAKES IT EVEN MORE SURE IN MY MIND THAT THAT IS NOT THE ENVELOPE, BECAUSE WE DID NOT START PICKING UP EVIDENCE UNTIL WELL AFTER THE CORONERS WERE GONE.

Followed by Barry Scheck showing Dennis Fung a video depicting evidence being picked up while a coroner is in the background of the picture. BUSTED.

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

Moving on,

Evidence collected on the 13th was not booked until the 16th. Fung says that was "very quick."

Fung testifies he only collected a "representative sample" from the Bronco console, not the whole stain.

Protocol was to collect the entire stain. To relieve reader befuddlement on why Fung might give contrary testimony, recall that after the 14 June 1995 stain collection, there were several subsequent visits to the Bronco and the collection of more blood from the original area. If he had swatched the entire blood smear the first time, there should have been no blood there for a 2nd, 3rd or 4th collection.

Jury Foreman Armanda Cooley, Madam Foreman 1995, pg. 111.

I felt that Dennis was too busy trying to be protective of his position. His rank is a Criminalist II, but somewhere along the line I think he missed something. I think that he did not do a professional job in collecting the evidence. The whole thing about putting that evidence in the truck with no refrigerator was ridiculous. Mazzola was young and new on the job. Mazzola was sitting there in the living room and nodded out for twenty minutes or so. If she didn't have anything to do for nearly a half hour, she could have taken the evidence to Parker Center or wherever, and had it booked or refrigerated while Dennis continued to collect or do whatever he had to do. I think what happened is a lot of people just got too caught up in the moment and didn't do their jobs properly. I just thought he was sloppy.

June 18, 1995 testimony of Mr. Fung

MR. SCHECK: Where is it in the rules of your laboratory that there's a doctrine about taking only representative samples?
MR. FUNG: I don't know if it's written anywhere, but that's the way I was trained and that's been the policy handed down and taught to every Criminalist that's worked for the Los Angeles Police Department.
MR. SCHECK: Is there any document that you know of in the crime lab that talks about taking only representative samples?
MR. FUNG: I'm not aware of one."
MR. SCHECK: And in terms of swatching a stain so that you only get a representative sample, is that in any document in the crime lab?
MR. FUNG: I don't know of any document to that effect.
MR. SCHECK: And we're clear on this; you recall testifying that when you swatch stains in the Bronco, you didn't swatch the whole stain. You only swatched a representative sample of the stain?
MR. FUNG: I believe that was for--that wasn't for every stain, but a--one stain in particular that you were talking about.
MR. SCHECK: Stains on the console?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: But as far as you know, the only document in the crime lab that instructs you about swatching for purposes of DNA testing directs the Criminalist to get as much of the stain as possible?
MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FUNG: The collection for conventional serological or conventional serology and DNA collection are essentially the same.
MR. SCHECK: You--do you recall--withdrawn. Haven't you seen a handout that gives directions on how Criminalists should swatch blood evidence?
MR. FUNG: If you could show it to me, I--I may be refreshed, but--
MR. SCHECK: Do you recall you and I went through a form that had about 13 different directions on them?
MR. FUNG: You've shown a lot of things to me over the last eight days.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, on redirect examination, you indicated that you didn't think that you were necessarily covered by the rules in the Los Angeles Police Department manual.
MR. FUNG: I believe I--
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you cite a specific page of the transcript?
MR. SCHECK: Let's do it this way.
MR. SCHECK: Do you believe that you're covered by the rules in the Los Angeles Police Department manual?
MR. GOLDBERG: Overbroad as to rules.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FUNG: Certain aspects of the manual do pertain to the civilians, yes.
MR. SCHECK: The manual as it sets forth rules on the booking and handling of evidence, does that govern you?
THE COURT: Haven't we gone over this already?
MR. SCHECK: Well, he did it on redirect. I'm doing it fast.
THE COURT: Doesn't mean we have to do it again.
MR. SCHECK: Well, I'll do it fast. I just have two or three questions here.
MR. FUNG: The guidelines in the general principles are applicable to us, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Well, there are guidelines and general principles, but you don't feel that you have to follow those rules as written with respect to booking evidence?
MR. FUNG: As long as I'm following the intention of the policy, that's what the manual's for.
MR. SCHECK: And the rules say that you should book biological evidence as soon as possible?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And in this case, you did not book by putting the items into the evidence processing--evidence control unit, the swatches from Bundy where Mr. Simpson's blood sample or the glove or the hat or any of these items, until June 16th?
MR. GOLDBERG: Beyond the scope of the redirect, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FUNG: Booking the--those items of evidence by June 16th was very quick.
MR. SCHECK: You--my question, sir, you did not take them to the ECU and have them stamped and book until June 16th?
MR. FUNG: That is correct.

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

Moving on,

April 3, 1995

The rear gate stain seen on July 3rd could not be seen in the photo from June 13th

Direct Examination by prosecutor Hank Goldberg

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, I would like to ask you about the rear gate stain that you recovered on July the 3rd of 1994.
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, do you know--did you see that stain from your own independent recollection on the 13th?
MR. FUNG: I don't recall seeing it on the 13th.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And is it your--do you--is it your understanding of the People's position that the stain was there on the 13th?
MR. SCHECK: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.

- - - - - - - - - -

April 18, 1995

MR. SCHECK: Now, you were shown a photograph of the rear gate at Bundy?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: That was taken on June 13th.
MR. SCHECK: Do we have that here?
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Let me see if I can find the exhibit number for counsel.
MR. SCHECK: While we are looking for it, let me just ask you some questions.
MR. SCHECK: Do you remember seeing that photograph?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
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.
MR. SCHECK: But you're certain it was not planted there by anybody?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, that calls for speculation. It's argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.

You put some evidence in,
You take some evidence out,
You do the hokey pokey and you move it all about,
Reasonable doubt.

This sort of crap went on for a more than a week of testimony June 4-5, 11-17. It was a slow moving train wreck. In an odd scene, when he was dismissed, Fung went and shook the hands of the defense attorneys and defendant Simpson. Fung was followed by Mazzola.

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

https://www.youtube.com/embed/lQRCN8ke-WM

FUNG FUNG FUNG
By OJ MANIA

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

USA: OJ SIMPSON TRIAL:
AP Archive
Published on Jul 21, 2015

- - - - - - - - - -

I hope you don’t mind if I ask, are you black? If not, you have no excuse for this.

I hope you don’t mind if I ask, are you black? If not, you have no excuse for this.

I do not care what you ask, I will dwell upon the testimony at trial. It was one disaster after another, all documented in the transcript and on video.

You are disgusting. O.J. Simpson being found not guilty was not a matter of race. It was a matter of evidence provided by cringe worthy testimony. As you appear incapable of discussing the testimony due to ignorance thereof, you attempt to make it about race. It is about the actual testimony, not you jumping up and down with some inane rant.

Moving on, let me introduce you to the disastrous testimony of Andrea Mazzola.

Andrea MAZZOLA testimony, 25 April 1995, EXCERPTS

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

MR. NEUFELD: And it is when they took you over to see the Bronco that you first began to fill out the vehicle search checklist; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And notwithstanding, Miss Mazzola, yours and Dennis Fung's testimony that upon arrival at Rockingham that he announced that he would be the officer in charge, that on the vehicle search checklist which you began to fill out--I'm sorry. Withdrawn. Isn't it true, Miss Mazzola, that even though you had been informed in advance of filling out the vehicle search checklist that he would be the officer in charge, that you nonetheless put yourself down as the officer in charge on that vehicle search checklist?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

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

MR. NEUFELD: Yet, ma'am, no one erased your name as the OIC, the officer in charge, on the vehicle search checklist; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: You continued to have that title throughout?
MS. MAZZOLA: Title-
MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to "Title."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, your title on that report was never changed; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

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

MR. NEUFELD: And Miss Mazzola, even at your first two crime scenes, when you were on probation, the supervising criminalist didn't bother to stay with you the entire time; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And even at your first two crime scenes, when you were on probation, there were times when you collected blood stains unassisted by a supervising criminalist?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

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

MR. NEUFELD: Is there a policy and practice of the LAPD that student or trainee—I'm sorry—that probationer criminalists participating in their very first crime scene collection matter should be there in an unsupervised capacity when they are collecting critical evidence?
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant. Also vague as to "Critical evidence."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I do not know what their policy is.

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

MR. NEUFELD: Is there a policy and practice of the LAPD SID unit that new probationers like yourself learn from mistakes when you are collecting critical evidence at a murder crime scene?
MR. GOLDBERG: Vague, argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: When you are trained on how to collect evidence, you don't make mistakes on how to pick it up.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, you are saying that it is impossible for you to make a mistake at a crime scene?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, that misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. NEUFELD: I'm asking her a question.
MS. MAZZOLA: I collect the evidence the way I was trained. That is the only way I know how to do it.

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

MR. NEUFELD: And in contrast to those first couple of crime scenes, Miss Mazzola, where you were present in this case on June 13th of 1994, you were in fact the primary collector of blood stains, as opposed to Dennis Fung; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's right.

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

MR. NEUFELD: To your knowledge, ma'am, does the Los Angeles Police Department publish any guidelines at all as to how to supervise and train a new criminalist at a crime scene?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know.
MR. NEUFELD: You have never heard of any?
MS. MAZZOLA: I have never heard of it.

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

MR. NEUFELD: Well, to your knowledge, Miss Mazzola, is each supervising criminalist free to allow you to do as much or as little as a particular supervising criminalist chooses?
MR. GOLDBERG: It is irrelevant, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know. I'm not a supervising criminalist. I don't know what their guidelines are.

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

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, since you have been at the Los Angeles Police Department are you aware of the L.A. Police Department's crime scene field unit protocol and procedures manual?
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes a fact not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: That they have one.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I am not familiar with that, no.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, has it ever been given to you to look at?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Has anyone ever instructed you to read it?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.

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

MR. NEUFELD: Have you received, during the year and a half that you have been with the Los Angeles Police Department, any manual prepared by SID laying out the various procedures and rules that you are inquired to follow?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Is there any written manual, ma'am, that you rely on when you go out to process evidence at a crime scene?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Is there any book distributed to you to instruct you on how to conduct crime scene investigation?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.

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

MR. NEUFELD: Now, one of the things you have been taught to do, Miss Mazzola, is to fill out and prepare crime scene investigation field notes; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: We have been shown the notes before, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And these crime scene checklists and field notes are a series of reports and forms that you are expected to accurately and completely fill out in connection with crime scene investigations; isn't that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: It is compound, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I was told to fill in the parts that were the most important.
MR. NEUFELD: And were you told, ma'am, to fill out these reports and forms contemporaneously with the activities that you are engaged in?
MS. MAZZOLA: For the most part, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And were you taught, ma'am, in your Los Angeles Police Department-- I think you said you attended the mini academy; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

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

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, isn't it a fact that it was your understanding, when you testified on August 23rd, that you were required to fill out these reports completely and accurately?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe I testified something like that.
MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it a fact, Miss Mazzola, that it was only after you finished testifying on August 23rd and you had testified to this duty to fill—fill these reports out completely, that when you then got back to the—the L.A. Police Department SID lab, that individuals for the first time said, no, no, no, it is not necessary to fill them out completely? Isn't that what happened?
MS. MAZZOLA: As I said before, I had seen other criminalists fill out portions; some fill out the entire form.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, I asked you didn't you believe that up until August 23rd, when you testified in this case, that is, for the first seven or eight months of your employment, that you were required to fill out these reports completely?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Not just to fill out portions, but to fill them out in totality; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

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

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Miss Mazzola, one of the requirements on these forms is to note for each item collected the location it is found; is that right?
MR. GOLDBERG: States facts not in evidence as to "Requirements."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And another item on the form is "Time," the time each item is collected; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And another item that you are--that up until August 23rd you also believed you were required to fill out was "By whom" the item was collected; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And so, ma'am, if as recently as August 23rd you believed you were required to fill out these reports completely, you also operated under that belief when you were present on June 13th and June 14th to participate in the crime scene investigation in Mr. Simpson's case; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

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

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, I ask you again have you ever received a handout from your superiors at the Los Angeles Police Department SID unit instructing you that you are required to keep complete and accurate field notes?
MS. MAZZOLA: That page does not look familiar to me.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Well, separate and apart from actually receiving a handout, at some point at this mini academy did your instructors ever teach you that it was very important, in terms of your professional responsibility, to make accurate and complete field notes?
MS. MAZZOLA: (No audible response.)
MR. NEUFELD: Isn't that something that they taught you?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: And were you taught, Miss Mazzola, that if swatches, for instance, were not properly marked, packaged and identified, they could get mixed up?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And were you taught that if items of evidence were not properly packaged and identified, it made it easier for someone to tamper with those items?
MS. MAZZOLA: That was never brought up.
MR. NEUFELD: You never received any instruction at all, during your entire time at this mini academy, on taking measures to avoid evidence tampering?
MS. MAZZOLA: No one would tamper with the evidence.

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

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, would you agree that at least on June 13th in these notes Dennis Fung did not complete field notes?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I would object. I think this has been covered.
THE COURT: That is a new question. You can answer that question.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, when you got back to the laboratory, either on June 13th or on June 14th, did you tell Dennis Fung that he hadn't kept complete and accurate field notes for June 13th?
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant. Calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I didn't tell Mr. Fung anything like that.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you go to either Miss Kestler, the head of the laboratory, did you go to her and tell her that the person you were working with that day did not comply with the requirement as you believed at that time, that is, to keep complete field notes?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you go to Mr. Matheson, the no. 2 person, and tell him that your teammate had failed to follow the requirement of keeping field notes?
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence, that it was a requirement.
THE COURT: Sustained. Did you tell anybody about this?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.

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

I’ll take your response as a “yes.”

Your responses on this thread have been rather trite and petty, to be honest.

A mountain of evidence... and you ignore it all.

What evidence? The things you referenced from the trial (gloves, shoes, etc) were contradicted by quotes from the witness testimony. If the prosecution had a "mountain of evidence", they did a horrendous job of making their case.

O.J. was not 'proven innocent'; rather, it was that he was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Nothing is stopping you from thinking O.J. committed the murders; as woodpusher himself said further up-thread, "OJ might be guilty, but the prosecution proved almost nothing at the trial."

If you're so upset with the results of that case that you're dismissing woodpusher as a "sucker", a "fool", and "dumber than a box of rocks" for merely quoting and referencing testimony and events from the actual trial, then maybe you should spend your energy complaining about the LAPD's crappy procedures that caused their evidence to be less than worthless for the prosecution.

We don’t live in a perfect world. No police department in the world has perfect procedures. No evidence in the world exists in which anomalies couldn’t be found if you didn’t look hard enough. It’s the job of the intelligent, fair juror to weight the evidence as a reasonable person... not as a race pimp looking for any excuse in the book to acquit the man. A mostly white jury in L.A. would have looked at the same evidence and locked O.J. up for life and thrown away the key... or put him on death row. But with the best money could buy, the so-called “Dream Team” played the race card from the bottom of the deck, as Robert Shapiro latter admitted. And it worked, giving the blacks on the jury the excuse to let a guilty-as-hell man walk free. If Bruno Magli shoe fits, wear it. If you would have acquitted a double-murdering monster because you fell for the distortions of the “Dream Team,” and are a guilty man’s dream juror: a sucker and a chump.

I’ll take your response as a “yes.”

I will take your response as indicative of your IQ and your inability to address actual material taken directly from the trial transcript. In the words of my African forebears, Sláinte.

You have won yet another chance to explain the actual criiminal trial testimony, and what the sequestered jury was supposed to make of it. Recall that the prosecution had the burden of proving Simpson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Simpson bore no burden at all to prove anything.

Continuing with Andrea Mazzola.

- - - - -

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, you said, and I quote, that "Some boxes don't apply to the criminalist at the scene." Let's start with the box that says "Collected by," Miss Mazzola. Is it your testimony that the box where they are asking you to write down who it is who collected each item doesn't apply to the criminalist at the scene? Yes or no?
MS. MAZZOLA: As of June 13th I was informed we were working as a team. The box was not necessary to be filled out.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, the first time you were told that was August 23rd, that you didn't have to fill out all these boxes; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: No, it was June 13th.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, isn't it relevant to know who collected the item of evidence for purposes of establishing a chain of custody? Were you taught that?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not to really establish the chain of custody.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, were you taught anything about chain of custody in your training?
MR. GOLDBERG: This is overbroad.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And were you taught that the first thing one has to do in establishing a chain of custody is establish who the person is who actually collects the item of evidence?
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes a fact not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. NEUFELD: Weren't you taught that?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe so.

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

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, let's go on to the i.d. Markings. There is a column on here that says "I.d. Mark"; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And the mark stands for identification markings; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, weren't you taught that what this column is for is for you to know what markings you put on a particular item of evidence so it can be identified at a later time as being a particular item that you collected? Weren't you taught that?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Were you ever taught anything with respect to the purpose of the column on your field note report that says "I.D. mark"?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember.
MR. NEUFELD: You don't remember being taught that at all?
MS. MAZZOLA: I might have been taught. I don't remember.

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

MR. NEUFELD: And Miss Mazzola, on the crime scene checklist there is a box, a question that says "Has the scene been altered? If so by whom and how?" Isn't there?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: and in fact there is four lines that follow that question; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know the exact number of lines.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, they leave you space so you can answer those questions, don't they?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you would agree, ma'am, that that is a very important question, isn't it?
MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to "Important."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for a conclusion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, isn't it relevant to the overall investigation to know whether a crime scene has been altered?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, ma'am, if a crime scene has been altered it could render subsequent scientific analysis unreliable, couldn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't have the experience to answer that.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, ma'am, for instance, if a blanket, for instance, okay, was used to alter the crime scene and it left trace evidence where there had been none previously, that could render an analysis of certain trace evidence unreliable, couldn't it?
MR. GOLDBERG: Incomplete hypothetical. Calls for a conclusion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: It is possible.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. And that is why the Los Angeles Police Department Scientific Investigation Division has asked you to fill out this question, "Has the scene been altered and if so by whom and how"; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

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

MR. NEUFELD: And ma'am, isn't it fair to say that you cannot assume that no one altered the crime scene before you arrived; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it correct, ma'am, that the reason that they asked you to investigate whether the crime scene had been altered is because they don't want you to assume it hasn't been; isn't that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes a fact not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: We do not investigate who has been in the crime scene area.
MR. NEUFELD: Ma'am, are you required to investigate whether the crime scene has been altered?
MS. MAZZOLA: What do you mean by "Investigate"?
MR. NEUFELD: Are you required to make a determination as to whether the crime scene has been altered?
MS. MAZZOLA: (No audible response.)
MR. NEUFELD: isn't that what SID wants you to do when you get to a crime scene, ma'am?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I would ask that he not badger the witness.
THE COURT: We are close.
MS. MAZZOLA: Was the last question--I'm sorry.
MR. NEUFELD: Hasn't the SID unit of the L.A. Police Department instructed you to make a determination, when you get to the crime scene, as to whether it has been altered?
MR. GOLDBERG: It is vague and overbroad as to "Determination."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Other than knowing who arrived, I don't see how we can determine if the scene itself had been altered.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, do you think that one thing you might be able to do is simply ask a detective whether or not he or she has done anything to alter the scene?
MS. MAZZOLA: It is possible.
MR. NEUFELD: What did they teach you at the SID mini academy what you are supposed to do to answer this important question "Has the scene been altered? If so by whom and how?"? What did they teach you to do to answer that question?
MS. MAZZOLA: Just get an idea of who had been there.

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

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, did they teach you at the SID mini academy that you are to ask the detectives whether or not they moved any articles of evidence, for starters? Did they teach you that?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: They didn't teach you that? Did they teach you to ask the officers who were there or detectives who were there whether they walked into a critical area where there may be shoeprints? Did they teach you that?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe they went into depth in that--with that question.
MR. NEUFELD: Did they teach you to ask detectives whether they brought any foreign matter into the crime scene, such as a blanket?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Did they teach you that?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: So correct me if I am mistaken, Miss Mazzola. Is it your testimony that you received absolutely no training on how to answer that question, that is, "Has the scene been altered? If so, by whom and how?"? Is that a fair statement, that you really didn't receive any training on how to answer those questions at a crime scene?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

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

No police department in the world has perfect procedures.

And no police department gets to creat and alter evidence, get caught, and have their misfesance or malfeasance ignored. Assume Simpson did it, tjhey got caught trying to frame a guilty defendant. But they got caught, and most of the mountain f evidence was reduced to nothing, just as the mountain of evidence against Trump seems to grow smaller every day.

No evidence in the world exists in which anomalies couldn’t be found if you didn’t look hard enough.

When the anomalies are egregious enough, the prosecution fails, even where the defendant is Harvey Weinstein.

The government expert witnesses begin with an assumption that they acted properly and testified truthfully. But when they are caught testifying falsely, proven so beyond any and all doubt with video tape, e.g. Dennis Fung where arry Scheck presented the video and proclaimed over and over, "How about that, Mr. Fung?" Mr. Fung admitted time after time that his prior testimony had been false. Mr. Fung lost any presumption in his favor. Mr. Fuhrman was so nailed in false testimony by F. Lee Bailey that he took the fifth on the stand. Andrea Mazzola admitted she was the primary collector of blood stains as the scene, but she did not even know a manual existed which she was supposed to follow. Thje forms were completed with no indication of who collected what evidence, breaking the chain of custody. They were unable to account for mssing blood from blood sameples taken, or how EDTA appeared in evidence collected after the blood samples were taken. Vanatter, one half of the team the DA.s office called Dumb & Dumber, took blood evidence home, then took it to the O.J. residence, and only then actually went and booked it in. The list goes on and on.

The jurors, black or white, could not ignore the misfeasance or malfeasance of the prosecution. They quickly reached a verdict of not guilty.

It’s the job of the intelligent, fair juror to weight the evidence as a reasonable person... not as a race pimp looking for any excuse in the book to acquit the man. A mostly white jury in L.A. would have looked at the same evidence and locked O.J. up for life and thrown away the key... or put him on death row.

The fair jurors, white and black, saw that the prosecution case was a mess. Only a racist could conclude that the verdict could only have resulted from racism. Such racist cannot confront the actual proceedings at the trial, and explain how the jury was wrong.

But with the best money could buy, the so-called “Dream Team” played the race card from the bottom of the deck, as Robert Shapiro latter admitted.

"Robert Shapiro, a Simpson co-counsel, later said the legal team played the race card "from the bottom of the deck." In his 1996 memoir, "Journey to Justice," Cochran replied: 'If some people insist in comparing a double-murder trial to a card game, then they ought to be honest enough to admit that we played the history and credibility cards.'"

Race had nothing to do with the sheer, utter demolition of the scientific evidence.

And it worked, giving the blacks on the jury the excuse to let a guilty-as-hell man walk free.

A jury of mixed races found unanimously that the prosecution had not proved Simpson was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and, accordingly, retured a v erdict of not guilty.

If Bruno Magli shoe fits, wear it.

You seem to have difficulty accepting that I produced a shoeprint evidence textbook showing that Bruno Magli does not make shoes — not any shoes by any name. The shoeprint at the scene only identfied the sole, not the shoe it was attached to. The book shows that the sole at the scene was manufactured by Silga Gomma, and it was distributed to at least 20 different manufacturers of shoes.

Footwear Impression Evidence, Detection, Recovery and Examination, Second Edition, 2000, CRC Press LLC, by William J. Bodziak

At page 445:

The efforts to connect O.J. Simpson with the actual purchase transaction of the Bruno Magli shoes was never successful.
[...]
It is common for manufacturers to create molds for shoe soles, which have interchangeable name or logo plates. This allows the manufacturer to use the same molds for more than one customer, by using more than one name in the mold. The interchangeable name plates can be any shape, but they are most commonly oval or rectangular. This was the case with the U2887 soles samples. When I received the samples from SILGA, I noticed there was an oval shape in the arch area of the sole where the brand name would appear.

At 445:

These names, located just in front of the raised heel, are held off the ground and do not record in an impression on a hard surface. None of the Bundy impressions revealed any impression from this area of the shoe.

The shoeprints at Bundy could have come from any one of more than 20 companies that used the Silga Gomma U2887 sole. There is no reason why the shoeprints made at Bundy had to be made by shoes sold in the United States. They could have been purchased anywhere and worn or carried into the United States by any feet that fit into them, and they did not have to be branded Bruno Magli. Proving O.J. owned a pair of Bruno Magli shoes, never accomplished at the criminal trial, would not have proved such shoes were at the crime scene. The prosecution could not prove the soles at the scene were ever on O.J. Simpson's feet, or that they were attached to Bruno Magli uppers.

If you would have acquitted a double-murdering monster because you fell for the distortions of the “Dream Team,” and are a guilty man’s dream juror: a sucker and a chump.

William Blackstone, 1769" “the law holds that it is better that 10 guilty persons escape, than that 1 innocent suffer (innocent person be convicted).”

John Adams, 1770: "We find, in the rules laid down by the greatest English Judges, who have been the brightest of mankind; We are to look upon it as more beneficial, that many guilty persons should escape unpunished, than one innocent person should suffer. The reason is, because it’s of more importance to community, that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt should be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in the world, that all of them cannot be punished; and many times they happen in such a manner, that it is not of much consequence to the public, whether they are punished or not. But when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, it is immaterial to me, whether I behave well or ill; for virtue itself, is no security. And if such a sentiment as this, should take place in the mind of the subject, there would be an end to all security what so ever."

Benjamin Franklin, 1785: "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer."

By your reckoning, William Blackstone, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin Franklin were all chumps because of their beliefs.

As the prosecution argued in Simpson, you believe the jury should ignore the defense, and convict based on feelings.

Darden Closing, Simpson and Saving Burning Baby Justice

The end lf Darden's Closing Argument.

So imagine the smoke and imagine a burning house. Imagine that you are standing in front of a burning house, and from inside that burning house you can hear the wail of a baby, a baby's cry, a baby in fear, a baby about to lose its life. And you can hear that baby screaming. You can hear that wail.
Now, that baby, that baby is justice. This is baby justice. Usually justice is a strong woman, but in this case justice is just a baby. And you hear that baby and you hear that wail and you see the smoke, you see the defense.
There is all this smoke in front of you and you feel a sense -- you have a sense of justice and you have a sense of what the law requires and you have a strong commitment to justice and to the law and you want to do the right thing while justice is about to perish, justice is about to be lost, baby justice is about to be lost.
And so you start to wade through that smoke trying to get to that baby. You have got to save that baby, you have to save baby justice, and you happen to run into smoke, find your way through the smoke, and if you happen to run into a couple of defense attorneys along the way, just ask them to politely step aside and let you find your way through the smoke, because the smoke isn't over, okay? The smoke is going to get heavier because they are about to talk to you.
Let's use your common sense. Wade through the evidence. Get down to the bottom line.
And please do the right thing.
It has been a honor to appear before you and we will wait for your verdict.

And so, you wade through the smoke looking for baby justice and the mountain of evidence. But you do not find the mountain of evidence, and you do not find baby justice. You find the defense attorneys and you are instructed to ignore them and save baby justice from the burning house.

That is the very conclusion of Darden's Closing Argument. Ignore the defense and save baby justice from the burning building.

They should have had John Belushi stand up and the end and say, "Who's with me?" Who was not moved to ignore the defense and save baby justice?

Justice was about to perish because many months earlier, the showboating prosecution decided to charge Simpson before it had evidence. Simpson invoked his right to a speedy trial. The prosecution had to meet its obligation to proceed to trial. It was the early days of DNA evidence. The prosecution was still receiving DNA text results six months into the trial. They dragged the trial out almost long enough to make a baby. And while the prosecution was very obviously wasting months dithering, waiting for DNA evidence to arrive, the jury was sequestered. Witnesses for the prosecution took from January 31 to July 7, 1995. Defense witnesses took from July 10, to September 7, 1995.

The jury only needed 4 hours of deliberations to reach a unanimous decision that requisite evidence simply was not there.

“The jury only needed 4 hours of deliberations to reach a unanimous decision that requisite evidence simply was not there.”

Two white jurors voted “guilty” on their first ballot. They were intimidated and folded. You get a mostly white jury in Santa Monica instead of a sorry collection of race-hustled suckers... and the Juice would have died in prison. May the double murderer rot in hell.

Two white jurors voted “guilty” on their first ballot. They were intimidated and folded.

Considering the state of the testimony, and your complete inability to confront it, it seems difficult to believe it took two hours for anyone to reach the conclusion that the prosecution was an utter failure. What took four hours was to proceduraly ensure they did all they had to do, and to complete the paperwork.

Unlike you, the actual jury had to follow the judge's instructions.

The case was lost on the scientific evidence which was not racist. The prosecution witnesses were eviscerated on the science. After that, there was no way to escape reasonable doubt.

Throwing collected evidence into a bag with OJ's reference sample overnight can cross-contaminate it.

Leaving blood samples in plastic bags overnight can degrade the samples so an RFLP DNA test is impossible.

Jurors Marsha Rubin-Jackson, Carrie Bess, and Armanda Cooley seemed to have understood the problem with degraded blood samples, even if you refuse to do so.

"I had no doubt in my mind that that wasn’t O.J.’s blood, the blood drops," says Marsha. "But by them being so degraded they could have been there before. Prior to the murders. He visited that place often. See, the first blood they found was the blood that was on the gate, two, three days later, or two weeks later. Samples 47, 48, 49, 50, 52 were all degraded, it could have been there prior to the murders."
Carrie says, "Well, like I stated, the blood by the shoe print are the drops that they talked about. I didn’t have a problem with it being the same type as O.J.'s. but the only thing I had a problem with was that it was so degraded you couldn’t read some of it. Most of it you couldn’t read. The part that they really read, which I think were samples 50 and 52 coming out the back gate, was the only drops that they really, really could say was O.J.’s and the one that was on the fence that had EDTA in it. And I really can’t speak out for that because they never tested to see what the kids’ blood drops were. They never compared anybody eise's blood."
Armanda interrupts: "Excuse me. But there was testimony from the fingerprint man, there were a lot of fingerprints there that they never did find out who they belonged to."
"There was so much degradation in that blood that they could never really pinpoint it to say this is the type it was." says Carrie, "And when they got to the autorads, to say these are his drops, they still had a problem, saying that some of it was so weak that they couldn’t even say so. On that point, I can’t say one way or the other."

The blood evidence collected on June 13th was too degraded to identify with RFLP testing. The collected blood evidence was left in a hot, unrefridgerated truck all day, improperly stored in plastic bags.

The blood samples that could be RFLP tested were collected weeks or months after the murders. Blood that had been exposed to the weather for several weeks or more had a remarkably strong and testable amount of DNA. It also had a testable amount of EDTA in parts per million, a fatal dose if in the circulating blood of a human.

The prosecution presented manufactured evidence to the jury and got caught. The blood from June 13th might have proved O.J. guilty, but due to mishandling it was too degraded for an RFLP test, and suffered from cross contamination.

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 despite his availability, 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.

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 double-edged 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 as good 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 not issued 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 who's 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.

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

This is just sad. It’s pathetic to be so brainwashed on the basis of a race hustle. Consider counseling.

if you recall, simpson wore plastic gloves....exam type gloves....try wearing those and getting a leather glove on easily...

This is just sad. It’s pathetic to be so brainwashed on the basis of a race hustle.

Given that your reaction to just how badly the LAPD and the prosecution fumbled the OJ case (as well as your seeming apathy to the foundational legal principles of this nation) is to simply say 'I would still vote guilty', I hope you never serve on a jury. You're clearly not capable of doing it well.

simpson wore plastic gloves....exam type gloves....try wearing those and getting a leather glove on easily...

That was on June 15, 1995 near the end of direct testimony which began in January and ended on July 7. By then the prosecution was desperate and tried a Hail Mary, and hoped for the best. It was a prosecution demonstration and it backfired spectacularly. It was the prosecution that made him try on the gloves, leading to him saying "They don't fit." Demonstrably, they did not fit. There was no evidence at trial that O.J. or Nicole had ever purchased or owned a pair of Aris Isotoner Light gloves style number 72063 such as the gloves in evidence. There was a receipt that showed Nicole had purchased two pairs of gloves of a different style number.