ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags murder cases , O.J. Simpson

Reply
Old 22nd October 2017, 02:17 PM   #81
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
A few points in reply:

One, EDTA is never found in human blood in an amount even close the amount of EDTA that was found in the sock blood and in the back-gate blood. This is a myth that the prosecution floated out of desperation. When a real, expert toxicologist was asked about it, he called the idea "absurd" (Frederic Rieders at the criminal trial). The Discovery Channel documentary The Case of O.J. Simpson confirmed this fact by an on-camera experiment.

[...]
There was no EDTA found in the blood sample on the sock or the gate. The signal was less than the limit of detection. Furthermore, EDTA is everywhere - from detergents to canned clams.
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 02:28 PM   #82
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I am hearing some troubling things about the test to detect EDTA, in the context of the Avery case.

In the Avery case there were only smears of blood and the source of Avery's blood that the alleged fabricators had access to was an EDTA vacutainer, so the theory that detecting EDTA would determine whether the blood found was planted is at least sound. The reports I hear about the testing are troubling though.

What I don't know about the Simpson case is how much blood is alleged to have been planted, how the alleged fabricators were supposed to have been able to get hold of it, and whether EDTA would even have been involved. You're only going to get about 7 ml in the average vacutainer. Fuller and better particulars required.
What about the test concerns you?

The OJ defense alleged that a little more than a milliliter of blood could not be accounted for - which is a weak argument as far as I'm concerned. Small amounts of sample are lost every time an aliquot is taken. The lab used an automatic pipetter with disposable tips. They took several aliquots, changing the tips with each aliquot. Blood is viscous. It sticks to the pipetter tips, which end up in the biohazard disposal container

The defense tried to step the analyst through every step and every aliquot in a process that seemed to go on for an hour. IIRC Judge Lance Ito stepped-in and stopped that line of hectoring questioning.
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 02:46 PM   #83
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,495
In Godsey's recent book Blind Injustice, he says this, in relation to the Avery case.



I don't know how accurate this is, because while I use EDTA blood all the time, I don't actually know anything about methodologies for testing for the presence of EDTA in forensically-collected blood samples. If this still about developing a method from scratch specifically for a court case is correct, I'd be worried. Shades of the "wife's brain on the shirt" shenanigans in the Lundy case.

I also want to know the alleged source of the allegedly planted blood. Was there any reason to believe EDTA was involved in the first place? At least with the Avery case there was a known source for the allegedly-planted blood and it definitely had EDTA in it.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 22nd October 2017 at 02:59 PM.
Rolfe is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 02:51 PM   #84
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,091
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
Personally, I think Amanda Knox masterminded the whole thing.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 03:28 PM   #85
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
In Godsey's recent book Blind Injustice, he says this, in relation to the Avery case.

http://www.vetpath.co.uk/jref/EDTA.JPG

I don't know how accurate this is, because while I use EDTA blood all the time, I don't actually know anything about methodologies for testing for the presence of EDTA in forensically-collected blood samples. If this still about developing a method from scratch specifically for a court case is correct, I'd be worried. Shades of the "wife's brain on the shirt" shenanigans in the Lundy case.

I also want to know the alleged source of the allegedly planted blood. Was there any reason to believe EDTA was involved in the first place? At least with the Avery case there was a known source for the allegedly-planted blood and it definitely had EDTA in it.
Since the FBI is not forthcoming, there's not really much I can say about it. I don't like working with imperious organizations like the FBI anyway. They think they are above reproach. At certain administrative levels, the FDA is like that too. If you can talk to the scientists directly, you can make headway.

By the same token, I was extremely reluctant to talk to the press too. They'd misquote, quote out of context, and generally cast issues in the most damning light. CBS's 60 minutes contacted me some years back about some contemporary controversy. I recommended them to another lab that was closer to New York City.
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2017, 11:54 PM   #86
Ampulla of Vater
Master Poster
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 2,982
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
So...how much EDTA was found in the sock blood? Or the back gate blood?

<snip>

As for the back gate blood, this is something I see a lot in conspiracy theory posts. I see people going to a lot of effort to refute evidence that just doesn't matter very much. Having refuted it, or at least believing they have refuted it, they then declare that the case falls apart.

It seems like you are doing a bit of that here. As best I can tell, the back gate blood is pretty insignificant to the case. It proves that OJ was bleeding on his own property. Well, so what? He was home. He cut his hand. There's blood. It has virtually no evidentiary value. It certainly doesn't prove he killed Ron and Nicole, it doesn't even really add anything of significance to the case. Ok. If it was planted, it would cast doubt on all the other evidence as well, but, as with the socks, I'm not going to just take some author's word for it. How much EDTA was found in it, or is there some other reason to belive it was planted?

ETA: Forgot to mention the important point that makes me skeptical of things like planting back gate blood. In order for it to be planted, you would have to have cops go out of their way to plant something that wasn't incriminating. Every time you plant evidence, you're taking a big chance that you could be caught. That could result in your case being thrown out, and you going to jail, possibly for a long time. Why plant something that won't even solidify your case? If there's evidence that it was planted, then I guess we have to follow the evidence, but just out front I have to wonder about it,, just because lots of people say things that are not consistent with the "planted" theory and, just as importantly to me, it isn't worth planting.
Wasn't the blood on the back gate at Nicole's house? IIRC, it was not at Simpson's house but at Nicole's. It was Simpson's blood at the crime scene and it was not collected at the same time as the other samples, so it was not left in the heat like the rest of it was alleged to have been. It was not collected by Fung, if I am remembering correctly.
Ampulla of Vater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 02:41 AM   #87
bobtaftfan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 381
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
That blood did not contain EDTA. I'm a chemist with 35 years experience in ion chromatography (which was presented as evidence of EDTA), and I have testified in legal cases several times. No EDTA. Full stop.
Wrong. You might want to read forensic toxicologist Dr. Fredric Rieders' testimony. The prosecution did not deny that the blood contained EDTA (their own expert said it did too); instead, they floated two explanations to try to account for it: regarding the sock-blood EDTA, they said that the EDTA came from laundry soap; regarding the back-gate blood, they said human blood naturally contains a similar amount of EDTA. The defense shredded both of these explanations. More on this can be found in Professor William Thompson's article "DNA Evidence in the O.J. Simpson Trial" (Thompson is a professor of criminology at UC Irvine):

http://miketgriffith.com/files/thomp...cleextract.pdf

You really should watch the Discovery Channel documentary The Case of O.J. Simpson. They cover this issue in great detail to show that human blood will never contain anything close to the amount of EDTA that was found in the back-gate blood. And, by the way, the documentary includes a segment with prosecutor Bill Hodgman where he concedes that the back-gate blood did contain EDTA and says, to closely paraphrase, "I can't explain it right now, but I have to believe that there is an explanation." Yes, Bill, there is an explanation: the back-gate blood came O.J.'s blood vial, which is why that blood's DNA concentrations were vastly stronger than those in the blood collected the day after the murders--the opposite should have been the case.

To answer another reply, the only side who alleged morphing of any kind was the prosecution: They claimed that the blood found under Nicole's fingernails morphed into a different blood type! (Yeah, because the blood type did not match O.J.'s blood type, and they could not stand for that.)

The defense never alleged that one set of DNA morphed into another set of DNA. They said that the degraded Bundy blood was contaminated with fresh DNA in the lab. The Discovery Channel documentary explains and shows how mis-collected and mishandled blood can become degraded to the point that no DNA can be identified in it. This was established completely at the trial. That's why some of the blood stains yielded no DNA results--they were too degraded. The documentary also shows how easy it would have been to cross-contaminate the degraded blood with DNA from blood from O.J.'s blood vial--that degraded blood would then give you a DNA result of the DNA from the test-tube blood. This, in turns, takes us back to the disappearance of Mazzola's initials from the evidence bindles and the wet transfers on the Bundy swatches.
__________________
Mike Griffith. Real Issues Home Page.

Last edited by bobtaftfan; 23rd October 2017 at 03:53 AM.
bobtaftfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 04:15 AM   #88
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,986
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
Wasn't the blood on the back gate at Nicole's house? IIRC, it was not at Simpson's house but at Nicole's. It was Simpson's blood at the crime scene and it was not collected at the same time as the other samples, so it was not left in the heat like the rest of it was alleged to have been. It was not collected by Fung, if I am remembering correctly.
Oh. That would be much more significant.

As an aside, I happened to watch a documentary (not a very good one) on Jack the Ripper last night, and they did some DNA testing on the back of a stamp from one of the "Ripper letters" sent over 100 years ago. After Richard III was dug up out of a car park a few years back, they confirmed his identity through DNA testing.

But a few hours in a hot car would destroy the stuff? Seems weird.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 07:31 AM   #89
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,403
If OJ's blood was planted, then where did it really come from?
I Am The Scum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 07:40 AM   #90
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
 
The Greater Fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scottsdale, AZ, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way
Posts: 3,558
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
If OJ's blood was planted, then where did it really come from?
From OJ, duh
__________________
- "Who is the Greater Fool? The fool? Or the one arguing with the Fool?" [Various; Uknown]
- "The only way to win is not to play." [Tsig quoting 'War Games']
The Greater Fool is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 07:43 AM   #91
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 16,595
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
You legal maggots make me want to puke. OJ obviously massacred two people. He was found not guilty by a racist nullifying jury with no brains.
So we agree, vehemently.

At least as to the underlined.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

Last edited by Dr. Keith; 23rd October 2017 at 07:47 AM.
Dr. Keith is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 08:03 AM   #92
Monza
Alta Viro
 
Monza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,049
Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
If O.J. did it, why didn't he have any cuts or bruises on his face, neck, shoulders, and arms when the police interviewed him the day after the murders?

Why did none of the many witnesses who saw O.J. on the flight to Chicago and at the Chicago airport see any cuts on O.J.'s hands? Why did none of them see any bruises or scratches on his face, neck, or arms?

O.J. did have a large cut on his hand when the police interviewed him. As to why the people on the plane didn't see it? Well, they didn't see it. That's not so unusual. But the cut was there. This is not in dispute. O.J. himself said it was there, that he didn't know how he cut it, but he was bleeding in his house and in his Bronco before he left on the flight to Chicago.
Monza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 08:06 AM   #93
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,566
One thing that I remember strongly suggesting that evidence planting wasn't going on and that OJ had killed those two people was...

Initial investigators at Nicole's house saw that the killer had walked away (leaving bloody shoeprints) and while doing so had also dripped blood from the left side of their body. They photographed this and collected samples. But it was days later that they learned that OJ had a fresh cut on a finger of his left hand.

I thought that the hypothesis of planting this evidence was absurd as it suggested more than just planting, but rather in addition to that the planters had psychic ability. They somehow knew OJ had a cut on his left side before they knew that he had any injury.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 08:08 AM   #94
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,566
Originally Posted by Monza View Post
O.J. himself said it was there, that he didn't know how he cut it, but he was bleeding in his house and in his Bronco before he left on the flight to Chicago.
I thought he said that he cut it on a broken drinking glass in his bathroom sink.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 08:27 AM   #95
Dumb All Over
A Little Ugly on the Side
 
Dumb All Over's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: They call it the Earth (which is a dumb kinda name)
Posts: 5,503
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
But it was days later that they learned that OJ had a fresh cut on a finger of his left hand.
I don't think this is the case. OJ flew back to L.A. the very next day, the 13th, and met with detectives for several hours at which time the cut on his finger was documented. The cut wasn't discovered days later. It was discovered less than twenty-four hours later. Still, the blood droplets to the left of the footprints leading away from the scene were collected before OJ's return and before his initial interview with LAPD. At the time the droplets were collected and documented, no one knew OJ had a deep cut on the middle finger of his left hand.

Ergo-
Quote:
I thought that the hypothesis of planting this evidence was absurd as it suggested more than just planting, but rather in addition to that the planters had psychic ability. They somehow knew OJ had a cut on his left side before they knew that he had any injury.
__________________
The Three Word Story Pledge of Allegiance- "I Hereby swear upon Engelbert's grave that I will gallop, not stride run, not walk posting three words on Shemp's honor, honoring: bananas, dwarfs, clarinets, [the 7th naughty forum word], haggis, Batman, nuns, wombats until such time as I'm sober. Or dead."
"Some people have a way with words, other people...Um...Oh...Uh, not have way." -Steve Martin
Dumb All Over is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 08:33 AM   #96
Monza
Alta Viro
 
Monza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,049
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
I thought he said that he cut it on a broken drinking glass in his bathroom sink.
Yes. But he also said that this opened a previous wound. I found the part of the interview...


VA: How did you get the injury on your hand?

OJ: I don't know. The first time, when I was in Chicago and all, but at the house I was just running around.

VA: How did you do it in Chicago?

OJ: I broke a glass. One of you guys had just called me, and I was in the bathroom, and I just kind of went bonkers for a little bit.

TL: Is that how you cut it?

OJ: Mmm, it was cut before, but I think I just opened it again, I'm not sure.

TL: Do you recall bleeding at all in your truck, in the Bronco?

OJ: I recall bleeding at my house and then I went to the Bronco. The last thing I did before I left, when I was rushing, was went and got my phone out of the Bronco.
Monza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 08:54 AM   #97
Dumb All Over
A Little Ugly on the Side
 
Dumb All Over's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: They call it the Earth (which is a dumb kinda name)
Posts: 5,503
Originally Posted by Monza View Post
Yes. But he also said that this opened a previous wound. I found the part of the interview...


VA: How did you get the injury on your hand?

OJ: I don't know. The first time, when I was in Chicago and all, but at the house I was just running around.

VA: How did you do it in Chicago?

OJ: I broke a glass. One of you guys had just called me, and I was in the bathroom, and I just kind of went bonkers for a little bit.

TL: Is that how you cut it?

OJ: Mmm, it was cut before, but I think I just opened it again, I'm not sure.

TL: Do you recall bleeding at all in your truck, in the Bronco?

OJ: I recall bleeding at my house and then I went to the Bronco. The last thing I did before I left, when I was rushing, was went and got my phone out of the Bronco.
Isn't that interesting? The finger was bleeding in the house before he left for Chicago. And then in Chicago, a broken glass just happened to re-open the cut in exactly the very same place on his finger. The broken glass did not create a new wound. It entered his finger in exactly the same location, at exactly the same angle and orientation as a cut from the previous evening. Two separate incidents; one wound.
__________________
The Three Word Story Pledge of Allegiance- "I Hereby swear upon Engelbert's grave that I will gallop, not stride run, not walk posting three words on Shemp's honor, honoring: bananas, dwarfs, clarinets, [the 7th naughty forum word], haggis, Batman, nuns, wombats until such time as I'm sober. Or dead."
"Some people have a way with words, other people...Um...Oh...Uh, not have way." -Steve Martin
Dumb All Over is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2017, 02:52 PM   #98
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
Wrong. You might want to read forensic toxicologist Dr. Fredric Rieders' testimony. The prosecution did not deny that the blood contained EDTA (their own expert said it did too); instead, they floated two explanations to try to account for it: regarding the sock-blood EDTA, they said that the EDTA came from laundry soap; regarding the back-gate blood, they said human blood naturally contains a similar amount of EDTA. The defense shredded both of these explanations. More on this can be found in Professor William Thompson's article "DNA Evidence in the O.J. Simpson Trial" (Thompson is a professor of criminology at UC Irvine):

[...]
I watched the testimony live on CourtTV. That's how I saw the ion chromatograms purporting to show EDTA. That put me at odds with Rieder's testimony. Scientists often disagree.

Nobody has ever accused the OJ prosecution of competence.

My informed opinion is that any evidence of EDTA in blood samples found in OJ's sock and on the gate is dubious and doubtful.
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 01:20 PM   #99
bobtaftfan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 381
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
If OJ's blood was planted, then where did it really come from?
The planted blood came from the 1.5 cc's of blood that was found to be missing from OJ's blood vial. Keep in mind that it was disclosed at the civil trial that not only did Detective Vannatter carry around OJ's blood vial for hours, in all violation of standard procedure, but he also carried around Nicole and Goldman's blood vials for hours. Also keep in mind that none--not one drop--of the blood evidence was booked into evidence until four days after the murders.

Not all the alleged OJ blood was planted: some of it was degraded blood from an undetermined source that was contaminated with OJ's DNA from his blood vial in the LAPD crime lab. A whistleblower in the LAPD crime lab reported that she was ordered to dab blood from OJ's vial onto a clean evidence swatch (best-selling investigative journalist Stephen Singular interviewed the whistleblower, and another highly placed source in the LAPD confirmed to Singular that blood was being planted).

This is why the unmarked evidence bindles are so important. This is also why the wet transfers on the Bundy evidence swatches are so important. These are clear indications that the blood was tampered with after it was collected.

If you want a reasonably short but scholarly overview of the evidence of planting and tampering, see Professor William Thompson's article "DNA Evidence in the O.J. Simpson Trial":

http://miketgriffith.com/files/thompsonarticle.pdf
__________________
Mike Griffith. Real Issues Home Page.

Last edited by bobtaftfan; 24th October 2017 at 01:21 PM.
bobtaftfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 01:38 PM   #100
Ampulla of Vater
Master Poster
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 2,982
Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
The planted blood came from the 1.5 cc's of blood that was found to be missing from OJ's blood vial. Keep in mind that it was disclosed at the civil trial that not only did Detective Vannatter carry around OJ's blood vial for hours, in all violation of standard procedure, but he also carried around Nicole and Goldman's blood vials for hours. Also keep in mind that none--not one drop--of the blood evidence was booked into evidence until four days after the murders.

Not all the alleged OJ blood was planted: some of it was degraded blood from an undetermined source that was contaminated with OJ's DNA from his blood vial in the LAPD crime lab. A whistleblower in the LAPD crime lab reported that she was ordered to dab blood from OJ's vial onto a clean evidence swatch (best-selling investigative journalist Stephen Singular interviewed the whistleblower, and another highly placed source in the LAPD confirmed to Singular that blood was being planted).

This is why the unmarked evidence bindles are so important. This is also why the wet transfers on the Bundy evidence swatches are so important. These are clear indications that the blood was tampered with after it was collected.

If you want a reasonably short but scholarly overview of the evidence of planting and tampering, see Professor William Thompson's article "DNA Evidence in the O.J. Simpson Trial":

http://miketgriffith.com/files/thompsonarticle.pdf
There's nothing in there from a whistleblower stating she planted blood.
Ampulla of Vater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th October 2017, 02:12 AM   #101
bobtaftfan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 381
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
I thought he said that he cut it on a broken drinking glass in his bathroom sink.
This is explained in the links I've provided in previous replies. OJ said he suffered a small cut when he went to get his portable phone from his Bronco that night and that he didn't notice he'd been cut until he noticed he'd bled a little bit on his kitchen counter. This cut was so small that nobody who saw him at LAX, on the flight to Chicago, or at the Chicago airport noticed it, even though some of those witnesses got very good looks at his hands.

In his Chicago hotel room, when the police called and notified him of Nicole's death, he smashed a glass in anger/shock after he heard the terrible news and suffered two cuts on two of his fingers from the glass. Chicago police confirmed that they found shattered glass in his hotel room with blood on it and also found blood on a towel or sheet. It was also documented that OJ went downstairs right afterward to the reception desk to get a bandaid. One of the glass cuts reopened and enlarged the small cut he had suffered the night before in his Bronco. Keep in mind that the portable phone mount in his Bronco had sharp edges, as the defense documented at trial.

If you read the transcript of his police interview, which he did the day after the murders, you quickly see why the prosecution chose not to enter it into evidence at the trial. Among other things, you see that OJ was assuming, logically enough, that the murders were done with guns, and so he told the detectives that they could check his guns. You also see that he was assuming that the murders occurred inside Nicole's house, another logical assumption, and so he stressed to the detectives that he had not been inside Nicole's house for weeks.

You can read more about the cuts and related issues in:

Joseph Bosco and 10 Myths About the O.J. Simpson Case
http://miketgriffith.com/files/boscoandojmyths.pdf

Where Did "All that Blood" Come From? Problems with the Blood Evidence Against O.J. Simpson
http://miketgriffith.com/files/bloodorigin.htm
__________________
Mike Griffith. Real Issues Home Page.

Last edited by bobtaftfan; 25th October 2017 at 02:15 AM.
bobtaftfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2017, 03:17 AM   #102
bobtaftfan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 381
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
Wasn't the blood on the back gate at Nicole's house? IIRC, it was not at Simpson's house but at Nicole's. It was Simpson's blood at the crime scene and it was not collected at the same time as the other samples, so it was not left in the heat like the rest of it was alleged to have been. It was not collected by Fung, if I am remembering correctly.
First off, we need to remember that we know for a fact that the back-gate blood was planted because we have a June 13 photo of that part of Nicole's back gate, and that photo clearly shows there was no blood where the LAPD belatedly--three weeks later--claimed they found blood. Even Fung admitted under cross-examination that the photo shows no blood where the LAPD said there was blood. Remember Scheck's famous exchange with Fung? "Where is it, Mr. Fung?" He admitted that he could not see it in the photo, and the photo was an enlargement of the spot where the blood was supposedly found. So we know that that blood was not on the back gate when the LAPD combed the crime scene on June 13.

According to the LAPD, that blood was left exposed to the elements on Nicole's back gate for three weeks. So we're supposed to believe that after sitting exposed, on metal no less, for three weeks in mid-June and early July weather in Southern California, the back-gate blood somehow had vastly, vastly higher concentrations of DNA than the blood that was collected the day after the murders. Perhaps the Tooth Fairy sprinkled magical dust on the blood stain to keep it so amazingly fresh.

Neither Fung nor Mazzola made any record of seeing blood on the back gate. Nor did any detective claim to have seen blood on that part of the back gate. Every blood stain found on June 13 at Bundy was photographed and documented, but no photo and no record was made of the back-gate blood. Fung and Mazzola's own locational numbering system for the blood stains they found on June 13 proves that neither of them saw any blood on that part of the back gate that day. They didn't see it because it had not been planted yet.

Chris Darden claims in his book In Contempt that the blood was visible in other photos of the back gate, but he fails to inform the reader that all of those photos were all taken three weeks later, on July 3, when the LAPD claimed they found the blood stain.

Here is another good article on the evidence that the back-gate blood was planted:

http://web2.airmail.net/marjo/tamper.htm
__________________
Mike Griffith. Real Issues Home Page.

Last edited by bobtaftfan; 26th October 2017 at 03:27 AM.
bobtaftfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2017, 04:25 AM   #103
Random
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,947
Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
If you read the transcript of his police interview, which he did the day after the murders, you quickly see why the prosecution chose not to enter it into evidence at the trial. Among other things, you see that OJ was assuming, logically enough, that the murders were done with guns, and so he told the detectives that they could check his guns. You also see that he was assuming that the murders occurred inside Nicole's house, another logical assumption, and so he stressed to the detectives that he had not been inside Nicole's house for weeks.
Actually, the guns bit makes sense when you remember that he didn't ask how his wife died in the phone call with police while he was in Chicago. He deliberately doesn't ask the question so he can fool the police officers with his "I've got lots of guns line", and make them think what you are implying here. It was a clumsy effort to deflect suspicion, since it left officers wondering why he didn't ask during the phone call. If you look at it as a guilty man trying to throw off the police by deliberately sounding ignorant about the details of the murder, then his lack of questions in the earlier phonecall is explained.

He also doesn't explain the cut on his hand really, saying he cut it reaching for a cell phone, but didn't notice the cut? He just sort of wandered around with a significant cut on his hand dripping blood on the night that his ex-wife was murdered. "I bleed all the time.", as he put it.

There are plenty of competent lawyers who could have gotten Simpson the chair with his police interview alone, but the prosecution in this case was appallingly bad. They assumed that Simpson would take the stand and they could crush him with it by introducing it to impeach his testimony. When he didn't take the stand, that was that. They also left out the slow speed chase materials which made him look guilty as sin, as they didn't want the jury to be "sympathetic" to him. To say nothing of the whole "Hey, let's let the defendant in a murder trial try to put on the gloves the murderer was wearing and see if they fit" thing (they had shrunk after being soaked in human blood, and Simpson was later able to put on a pair of gloves of identical make and size without difficulty, but no one remembers that).
__________________
"...Am I actually watching Big Bird argue with the Egyptian God of the Dead? Is PBS sending some kind of weird religious message here?"
Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2017, 10:08 PM   #104
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,845
Quote:
He also doesn't explain the cut on his hand really, saying he cut it reaching for a cell phone, but didn't notice the cut? He just sort of wandered around with a significant cut on his hand dripping blood on the night that his ex-wife was murdered. "I bleed all the time.", as he put it.
Actually, that part doesn't surprise me. I get cuts and scratches all the time that bleed, and I don't even notice. Sometimes other people point it out to me, but other times I don't notice 'til I see I've ruined my clothes.
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499

“She would be half a planet away, floating in a turquoise sea, dancing by moonlight to flamenco guitar.” ~ Janet Fitch

The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One
DragonLady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2017, 12:56 PM   #105
bobtaftfan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 381
We also need to keep in mind that not only was none of the blood evidence booked into evidence until four days after the murders, but, in violation of all standard procedure and common sense, no one even recorded how many blood swatches were collected. Of course, doing this makes it very easy to create new swatches or to tamper with existing ones and then discard the original or another original.

Remember that we have the recording of the call from the crime scene with the coroner's assistant where the policeman alerts the assistant that they're not following procedure and asks for his cooperation. This is on tape.

There is also the fact that the coroner was kept away from the crime scene for nearly 11 hours after the murders, and the two criminalists did not arrive until several hours after the detectives had been on the scene. So there was lots and lots and lots of opportunity to plants evidence, discard evidence, move items, etc., etc.

And if your answer is that at least one of the police officers would have blown the whistle, remember that all 21 police officers on the scene swore up and down that the picture of Fuhrman pointing at the Bundy glove was taken after 7:00 AM, since of course it would have looked suspicious for Fuhrman to have been singling out the glove before he'd even gone to OJ's house. But, that was proven to be a lie. The defense gained access to the photographer's negatives, which showed that the picture was taken at around 4:40 AM, before Fuhrman had supposedly been to OJ's house!. So if all 21 officers would lie to try to cover Fuhrman's tracks regarding the photo, why wouldn't they have lied about other illegal or suspicious actions? Heard of the Rodney King case? Rampart scandal?
__________________
Mike Griffith. Real Issues Home Page.

Last edited by bobtaftfan; 27th October 2017 at 01:43 PM.
bobtaftfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2017, 03:56 AM   #106
bobtaftfan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 381
Before I comment on DragonLady's sensible reply, let me reply to the claim that OJ did not ask how his wife died when Detective Phillips notified him of his wife's death. This is another debunked myth that keeps popping up. Actually, OJ did ask how his wife died, as Phillips admitted under cross-examination at the trial. After OJ paused to absorb the shock of the news, he replied, "What do you mean, she's been killed?" Phillips would not give him any details. We also have testimony from witnesses on his flight back to LA that he was calling his daughter and his lawyer to try to find out what had happened.

Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
Actually, that part doesn't surprise me. I get cuts and scratches all the time that bleed, and I don't even notice. Sometimes other people point it out to me, but other times I don't notice 'til I see I've ruined my clothes.
I think many people have had the same experience. I certainly have. I can't count how many times I've cut my hand or fingers, and sometimes I have not noticed it right away. It happens to many people, if not most people.

Also, keep in mind that the blood trail from the Bronco supported OJ's story: He said he nicked his finger in the Bronco and then walked back into his house, and that's exactly the route that the blood drops on his driveway followed. They went from his Bronco, through the gate, and straight up the driveway to his front door.

But the prosecution claimed that after OJ exited his Bronco, he walked around a very different route: They said that after he left his Bronco, he walked toward his back fence, climbed the fence at a point near Kato Kaelin's AC unit, somehow slammed into the AC unit, and then walked along the narrow pathway by the fence and emerged at the far side of his garage. Not one drop of blood was found along this alleged route.

And it is worth repeating that the cut he suffered in his Bronco was so small that none of the witnesses who saw him at the airport and on the flight noticed it. He signed autographs for some of them, and one of them looked at his hands to see if OJ was wearing a championship ring.

It is also worth repeating that Chicago police found blood on broken glass and on a sheet/towel in OJ's hotel room, and that the defense verified that OJ went downstairs after he smashed the glass to get a bandaid from the hotel's front desk.
__________________
Mike Griffith. Real Issues Home Page.

Last edited by bobtaftfan; 28th October 2017 at 05:06 AM.
bobtaftfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2017, 05:54 AM   #107
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,566
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
Actually, that part doesn't surprise me. I get cuts and scratches all the time that bleed, and I don't even notice. Sometimes other people point it out to me, but other times I don't notice 'til I see I've ruined my clothes.
Have you ever cut your finger with a knife while you were slashing and stabbing two people to death?
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2017, 06:18 AM   #108
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,063
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Have you ever cut your finger with a knife while you were slashing and stabbing two people to death?
I haven't. What does it feel like?
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2017, 08:05 AM   #109
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 11,355
This thread came to my attention via the other OJ thread. (How in the hell did Nova Land remember this one?) Anyway, my son, who's opinion I repspect and for good reason, has promoted the notion that OJ's son was the perp. I didn't buy it for a second, but maybe I was hasty.

Add: Doh, I bet Nova Land found this thread via tags, what with him being a tagger.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.

Last edited by varwoche; 28th October 2017 at 08:20 AM.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2017, 10:49 AM   #110
bobtaftfan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 381
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Have you ever cut your finger with a knife while you were slashing and stabbing two people to death?
How about you explain how you would cut yourself with your own knife while stabbing two people, and while wearing gloves (gloves that fit you so tightly that you had to pull and tug them very hard to put them on)? After all, that was the prosecution's theory. How would that work? (While you're at it, how about explaining why there was no cut on the alleged left murder glove at the location corresponding to the cut on OJ's left middle finger?)

The only blood found under either victim's nails was found under Nicole's nails, and that blood was a different blood type than OJ's blood (LINK). So the prosecution came up with the laughable theory that the blood found under Nicole's nails magically morphed from Nicole's blood type to a type that did not match OJ's or Goldman's blood type. Scheck destroyed this nonsense at the criminal trial (LINK), and Blasier refuted it at the civil trial (LINK).

John Jones' explanation for the blood missing from OJ's blood vial doesn't work and was refuted at the trial (1.5 cc's were missing). The prosecution knew that trying to explain the missing blood as merely being the result of the blood vial being opened several times would not work, which is why they got the nurse to make a rehearsed, belated, and unsworn statement that he had misread the vial when he drew the blood and that he had only drawn 6.5 cc's. We know from post-trial comments from the jury that they did not buy the nurse's convenient, belated change of story. Peratis had drawn blood hundreds of times and twice testified that he drew 7.9 to 8.1 cc's of blood (for a thorough discussion on this issue, see Scheck's discussion in his closing argument).
__________________
Mike Griffith. Real Issues Home Page.

Last edited by bobtaftfan; 28th October 2017 at 11:10 AM.
bobtaftfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2017, 11:22 AM   #111
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,566
Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
How about you explain how you would cut yourself with your own knife while stabbing two people, and while wearing gloves that were so tight you had to pull them on? After all, that was the prosecution's theory. How would that work? (While you're at it, how about explaining why there was no cut on the alleged left murder glove at the location corresponding to the cut on OJ's left middle finger?)
Those gloves would shrink and stiffen after being soaked in blood and then dried. An explanation for no cut in the glove would be that the glove wasn't on his hand when he cut it at Nicole's house. His own blood was dripping on her sidewalk. Maybe he cut himself while killing Nicole or maybe Ron. Maybe it happened while handling the knife at her house but not in the act of killing either of them.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2017, 12:15 PM   #112
fuelair
Suspended
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 57,679
I am pretty sure OJ is guilty - and on the jury I would have so voted. Why is the knox silliness being discussed here? I ask because the Italian police/medical/forensic people and courts FUBARed it beyond all belief and all normally possible stupidity. Keystone Kops show on their part!!!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2017, 12:17 PM   #113
fuelair
Suspended
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 57,679
For those who have to know - or really want to, The Keystone Cops:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Cops
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2017, 12:31 PM   #114
fuelair
Suspended
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 57,679
I have no proof of it but am pretty sure it was OJ. Too much *********** up by the police and possibly the DA's office - as well as a publicity hound judge.
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2017, 03:47 PM   #115
Ampulla of Vater
Master Poster
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 2,982
Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
How about you explain how you would cut yourself with your own knife while stabbing two people, and while wearing gloves (gloves that fit you so tightly that you had to pull and tug them very hard to put them on)? After all, that was the prosecution's theory. How would that work? (While you're at it, how about explaining why there was no cut on the alleged left murder glove at the location corresponding to the cut on OJ's left middle finger?)

The only blood found under either victim's nails was found under Nicole's nails, and that blood was a different blood type than OJ's blood (LINK). So the prosecution came up with the laughable theory that the blood found under Nicole's nails magically morphed from Nicole's blood type to a type that did not match OJ's or Goldman's blood type. Scheck destroyed this nonsense at the criminal trial (LINK), and Blasier refuted it at the civil trial (LINK).

John Jones' explanation for the blood missing from OJ's blood vial doesn't work and was refuted at the trial (1.5 cc's were missing). The prosecution knew that trying to explain the missing blood as merely being the result of the blood vial being opened several times would not work, which is why they got the nurse to make a rehearsed, belated, and unsworn statement that he had misread the vial when he drew the blood and that he had only drawn 6.5 cc's. We know from post-trial comments from the jury that they did not buy the nurse's convenient, belated change of story. Peratis had drawn blood hundreds of times and twice testified that he drew 7.9 to 8.1 cc's of blood (for a thorough discussion on this issue, see Scheck's discussion in his closing argument).
For the record, opening arguments and closing arguments are not evidence. Link to testimony, but the opinions of attorneys who are being paid to have those opinions is simply not factual evidence.
Ampulla of Vater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2017, 04:26 AM   #116
bobtaftfan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 381
Replies to Parcher and Ampula:

Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Those gloves would shrink and stiffen after being soaked in blood and then dried. An explanation for no cut in the glove would be that the glove wasn't on his hand when he cut it at Nicole's house. His own blood was dripping on her sidewalk. Maybe he cut himself while killing Nicole or maybe Ron. Maybe it happened while handling the knife at her house but not in the act of killing either of them.
I'm sorry, but you have again repeated a myth that was debunked at the criminal trial. The shrinkage of the glove would have been minimal. They have established this in tests as well.

And if OJ made the half-inch cut on his left middle finger by handling the knife before, during, or immediately after the murders, why didn't any of the witnesses who saw his hands at LAX, on the flight to Chicago, or at the Chicago airport see it? How could they have missed it? Why didn't the blood trail from the Bronco follow the route that the prosecution claimed OJ walked after he exited the Bronco? Why was there not a speck of blood along the route that the prosecution claimed OJ took after exiting the Bronco?

I hope you realize that according to the prosecution's theory, OJ killed both and Ron and Nicole in no more than 60 seconds. That means he inflicted 20 stab wounds in no more than 60 seconds. Think about that.

Also think about the fact that according the prosecution, Goldman never once struck his alleged lone attacker. They said he hit the nearby tree or the fence with all his punches! So, pray tell, how would he have pulled off both of the attacker's gloves?!

The prosecution and the defense both knew that Goldman had punched something many times very hard because of the condition of his knuckles in the autopsy photos. But the prosecution could not admit that a single one of his punches landed on his attacker. Why? Because OJ had no bruises or scratches on his face, neck, arms, or head when he was interviewed by the police the day after the murders and when he underwent a full upper-body exam a couple days later.

It's interesting to note that in the LAPD's initial leaks to the press, "police sources" claimed that OJ had scratches "all over" his upper body and that Goldman had put up "a fierce fight." But, oops, once the police found out that the defense had had a doctor conduct a filmed full upper-body exam on Simpson three days after the murders, the prosecution had to switch gears and claim that Goldman never struck his attacker(s) and that the struggle lasted no more than 60 seconds.

Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
For the record, opening arguments and closing arguments are not evidence. Link to testimony, but the opinions of attorneys who are being paid to have those opinions is simply not factual evidence.
Scheck's and Blasier's closing arguments cited evidence and testimony and were based on evidence and testimony. If you'll read the prosecution's "rebuttal" argument in the criminal trial, you'll notice that they simply ignored most of Scheck's arguments and evidence, and the plaintiffs barely laid a glove on Blasier's closing argument in their rebuttal argument.
__________________
Mike Griffith. Real Issues Home Page.

Last edited by bobtaftfan; 29th October 2017 at 05:31 AM.
bobtaftfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2017, 05:36 AM   #117
Random
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,947
Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
...And if OJ made the half-inch cut on his left middle finger by handling the knife before, during, or immediately after the murders, why didn't any of the witnesses who saw his hands at LAX, on the flight to Chicago, or at the Chicago airport see it? How could they have missed it?...
Just wanted to address this real quick.

1.) People at LAX would not have known to examine his hands.
2.) Simpson would not have been trying to draw attention to the cut.
3.) It doesn't matter that no one at LAX noticed the cut on his hand. We know that Simpson got the cut on his hand before he went to the airport because he said so in his testimony to the police.
__________________
"...Am I actually watching Big Bird argue with the Egyptian God of the Dead? Is PBS sending some kind of weird religious message here?"
Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2017, 05:51 AM   #118
bobtaftfan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 381
William Dear has developed some interesting evidence on some points, but on other points I think he is far off base. Dear's evidence on Jason Simpson does show one thing very clearly: that the LAPD rushed to judgment so quickly on OJ as the only suspect that they failed to realize that they were overlooking an obvious suspect, a suspect who had a history of rage disorder, a history of attacking people with knives, and a questionable alibi for the time frame of the murders.

This being said, Dear seems to have a poor handle on the forensic evidence, especially the blood evidence, and he seems too willing to believe far-fetched stories from questionable people, such as the basket-case guy who claimed he saw OJ and Jason in Nicole's back alley on the night of the murders. Yes, the guy passed a polygraph test, but he appeared to be in some kind of a hypnotic trance while taking the test. I don't believe a word of the guy says.
__________________
Mike Griffith. Real Issues Home Page.
bobtaftfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2017, 05:57 AM   #119
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,323
OJ is irrelevant and it has already been proved
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th October 2017, 10:45 AM   #120
Ampulla of Vater
Master Poster
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 2,982
Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
William Dear has developed some interesting evidence on some points, but on other points I think he is far off base. Dear's evidence on Jason Simpson does show one thing very clearly: that the LAPD rushed to judgment so quickly on OJ as the only suspect that they failed to realize that they were overlooking an obvious suspect, a suspect who had a history of rage disorder, a history of attacking people with knives, and a questionable alibi for the time frame of the murders.

This being said, Dear seems to have a poor handle on the forensic evidence, especially the blood evidence, and he seems too willing to believe far-fetched stories from questionable people, such as the basket-case guy who claimed he saw OJ and Jason in Nicole's back alley on the night of the murders. Yes, the guy passed a polygraph test, but he appeared to be in some kind of a hypnotic trance while taking the test. I don't believe a word of the guy says.
Tony Ortega takes Dear to task in this article.
Ampulla of Vater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:33 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.