Free Republic

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 Withdrawn.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.

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

Putin lives rent free in MeganC's tiny brain.

So, signs of life were detected.

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

- - - - - - - - - -

Turkey is threatening action against Israel. As a NATO “ally”, we’d be obligated to help Turkey if Israel were to (rightly) retaliate.

That just isn't so. It is rather a misunderstanding of NATO Articles 5 and 6. There would be no NATO obligation if Turkey initiates an aggression toward Israel. There would be no NATO obligation if the Israeli action did not occur on NATO territory. Nothing requires a military response. My source is NATO itself.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm

Collective Defence and Article 5

NATO
Last updated 04 Jul 2023 11:47

[Excerpt]

A cornerstone of the Alliance

Article 5

In 1949, the primary aim of the North Atlantic Treaty – NATO’s founding treaty – was to create a pact of mutual assistance to counter the risk that the Soviet Union would seek to extend its control of Eastern Europe to other parts of the continent.

Every participating country agreed that this form of solidarity was at the heart of the Treaty, effectively making Article 5 on collective defence a key component of the Alliance.

Article 5 provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked.

Article 5

“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”

This article is complemented by Article 6, which stipulates:

Article 6¹

“For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

• With the invocation of Article 5, Allies can provide any form of assistance they deem necessary to respond to a situation. This is an individual obligation on each Ally and each Ally is responsible for determining what it deems necessary in the particular circumstances.

  This assistance is taken forward in concert with other Allies. It is not necessarily military and depends on the material resources of each country. It is therefore left to the judgment of each individual member country to determine how it will contribute. Each country will consult with the other members, bearing in mind that the ultimate aim is to “to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area”.

  At the drafting of Article 5 in the late 1940s, there was consensus on the principle of mutual assistance, but fundamental disagreement on the modalities of implementing this commitment. The European participants wanted to ensure that the United States would automatically come to their assistance should one of the signatories come under attack; the United States did not want to make such a pledge and obtained that this be reflected in the wording of Article 5.

Scotus cannot just step in. They can only decide cases or controversies presented to them and usually only on appeal from a lower court. Scotus is barred from just offering an advisory opinion.

They should be ejected immediately.

Would you rather have them as an ally or fight them? Turkey is not less than the third strongest military power in NATO.

https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php

Israel is not a concern of NATO. If Israel tries to (1) exterminate the Gaza population, or (2) expel them from the land, or (3) to simply take all of Gaza, then Turkey or another Muslim nation may get involved. Until recently, it seemed #2 was not possible because nobody would take the Palestinians, but the unlikely candidate seems to be the United States.

If Turkey is stupid enough to attack Israel, NATO has no obligation to assist them.

If Turkey attacks Israel, it would be Israel seeking help.

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.

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--

Jews are not Slavs, and vice versa. Sorry, be she is not Ruzzian.

If a Russian born Jew is not a Russian, is an American born Jew not an American?

the link is from a high-placed, Kremlin insider

A high placed Kremlin insider named Kremlin Tobacco - the most reliable source since Dicky Dunn - it must be true.

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?

You should have watched the trial. It would have been a great help to knowing what you are talking about. I have yet to meet a person who actually watched the trial and thought the jury got it wrong. OJ might be guilty, but the prosecution proved almost nothing at the trial.

O.J. owned the damned gloves.

And they did not fit. Nobody made Darden make a fool of himself, but he just had to go there.

Nobody made them put Furhman on the stand, but F. Lee Bailey reduced him to taking the 5th Amendment on the stand.

O.J. owned the damned shoes.

And nobody can prove the shoes were at the crime scene. There were over 20 different manufacturers that used the same sole.

He wasn’t home when the limo driver arrived to pick him up. Where was he?

You mean you do not know? That sure is some evidence.

Kato Kaelin heard him running behind the guest house after he came back from the crime scene.

That is the worst make-belioeve evidence fairy tale I have heard. Kaelin heard a noise. He did not see anything. He did not know if it was a person who made the noise. He definitely could not identify any person who made the noise. It is just your vivid imagination that Kaelin heard a person returning fromm the crime scene.

The man cut his hand at the crime scene, and failed the lie detector.

What man cut his hand at the crime scene? Who testified to that? You identify the witness and time of the testimony and I will provide the testimony from the transcript.

Nobody testified about a lie detector. Lie detector results are not admissible as evidence in court because they are not reliable.

O.J. was a violent bum who for years beat the crap out of Nicole who predicted that he would kill her and get away with it.

If only there was proof that he killed Nicole, you would be dwelling on that and not this.

There was no conspiracy to “frame him” by planting blood at the scene or by doing anything else.

They were caught red-handed with EDTA in the blood samples, and it did njot get there by itself. They were caught red-handed with tampered with bindles. Dr. Henry Lee showed tampered bindles beyond a reasonable doubt.

As I said, you should have watched the trial. Then you mjight actually know what happened at the trial.

I notice you made no attempt to rebut the evidence I presented about the shoeprints from the textbook. Nor do you make any effort whatever to explain the EDTA that was found in the blood samples.

And let us not forget the blood stan on the socks. It went right through the ankle area from one side to the other. A miracle if there were a foot in the sock.

Unless you’re just trolling, what can I say? There’s a sucker born every minute, and sadly that’s you.

You could always say you did not watch the trial. That would be a good start. The jury decided whether the prosecutor proved O.J. Simpson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The verdict was 12-0 in the negative. It is not a question of whether he could have done it. When a piece of evidence has more than one reasonable interpretation, one or more tending toward innocence, that one tending toward innocence must be adopted by the jury.

What can I say? You didn't watch the trial but you know all about it. Well, except for the actual evidence part. That you got from TV talking heads or a movie or maybe a losing prosecutor's book. The prosecution was a disaster. Who can ever forget saving the burning baby?

The DNA evidence does nothing for you?

Less than nothing. The blood evidence incriminated the investigators. Barry Scheck absolutely destroyed the blood as evidence, and proved that the samples were mshandled and contained EDTA. The blood collected off a gate weeks after the crime exibited far stronger DNA than the samples collected on the day of the crime and allowed to sit all day in a non-air-conditioned van.

Recall testimony of Dr. Reiders and Dr. Henry Lee, and the cross examination of criminalist Dennis Fung by Barry Scheck. The scientific evidence was dead and buried before Johnny Cochran did anything. The autopsy doctor was so bad at the preliminary hearing that he was not called to testify at the criminal trial.

The photos of him wearing the Bruno Magli loafers that left the blood stains at the scene do nothing for you?

Again, meaningless. Not even evidence in the criminal trial. There was photographic evidence that O.J. Simpson wore a pair of Bruno Magli shoes. There was no evidence to establish that a pair of Bruno Magli shoes were at the crime scene. Bruno Magli was a designer, not a manufacturer. The Bruno Magli uppers were made by a company called 4C and the soles were manufactured by a company called Sigma Gomma. Sigma Gomma sold the U2887 sole to at least 20 different companies that manufactured 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. One of the molds, shown in Figure 15.10 with the oval slug bearing the name Bruno Magli resting on it, depicts how those slugs are changed. The sole samples I received shared three different names. One of these, of course, was the Bruno Magli name. The other soles contained either the name LORD, or the Italian words, ANTICA CUOIERIA. ANTICA CUOIERIA is not a brand name, but when translated mean something like “maker of fine footwear”.

At 445-456:

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. This meant that, based upon the information provided by the crime scene impressions, the soles (and shoes) could not be limited to only those bearing the Bruno Magli name, but could have been made by shoes having the LORD name, if any of the LORD shoes had been sold in the U.S.

SILGA, once again, was very cooperative in providing the names of the shoe companies who purchased the soles manufactured with the LORD name. Although the total sales of the LORD soles was relatively small, it was still necessary to contact approximately 20 shoe companies who had made shoes with those soles, to determine if they had exported any of the LORD shoes to the U.S.

The shoeprints at Bundy could have come from any one of more than 20 companies not named Bruno Magli that used the Silga Gomma sole. There is no reason why the shoeprints made at Bundy had to be made by shoes sold only in the United States or Puerto Rico. They could have been purchased anywhere and worn or carried into the United States by any feet that fit into them.

At the O.J. criminal trial:

There was one other name that they did have that went into this area, I can never remember how to spell it, but it is a-n-t-i-c-a, and I believe the last name is c-o-u-r-i-c-i-a or c-a, and it basically means tradition of fine shoe making in Italian, I'm told, and it was only for the display shoes, they had never sold a shoe with that name on it.

Correcting the spelling, Bodziak claimed "ANTICA CUOIERIA is not a brand name, but when translated means something like 'maker of fine footwear'."

Here the precise scientific translation, after years of pondering it, is "something like 'maker of fine footwear'." Surely, an expert can do better than that.

It is not something like maker of fine footwear either.

ANTICA is not too difficult. Aside from its relationship to antique, in context it could translate to "time honored" or "old fashioned."

CUOIERIA translates as a leather goods shop. Antica Cuoieria may be translated as time honored leather goods shop, or perhaps, Ye Olde Leather Goods Shoppe.

As to ANTICA CUOIERIA not being a brand name, let me help that brother out,

https://anticacuoieria.it/

Contrary to this FBI expert, Antica Cuoieria is a very prominent high end Italian shoe shop with locations in Florence and Milan.

https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g187895-d8376013-Reviews-Antica_Cuoieria-Florence_Tuscany.html

"We're a family Business carrying our own brand, Canto de' Ricci, together with other brands like Antica Cuoieria."

https://www.yoox.com/us/men/shoes/shoponline/antica%20cuoieria_d

Shop the Antica Cuoeira brand.

ANTICA CUOIERIA is a classic shoe brand in Italy.

“Right now we have, you know, young black kids growing up in the Bronx who don’t even know what the word ‘computer’ is,”

She should have explained what a computer is before doing all that virtual teaching during covid.

Tell that to Russia. Somehow I don’t think they’ll see it that way.

Invoking Article 5 requires the consent of all the members. It has happened once in history, right after 9/11. Russia's diplomatic response has been to specific nations, not to NATO.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm

Collective defence and Article 5

Last updated: 04 Jul. 2023 11:47

[excerpts]

Invocation of Article 5

The 9/11 terrorist attacks

The United States was the object of brutal terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001. The Alliance's 1999 Strategic Concept had already identified terrorism as one of the risks affecting NATO’s security. The Alliance’s response to 9/11, however, saw NATO engage actively in the fight against terrorism, launch its first operations outside the Euro-Atlantic area and begin a far-reaching transformation of its capabilities. Moreover, it led NATO to invoke Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty for the very first time in its history.

[...]

Enhanced collective defence measures

Although NATO Allies have only invoked Article 5 once, they have coordinated collective defence measures on several occasions.

On the request of Türkiye, on three occasions, NATO has put collective defence measures in place:

• in 1991 with the deployment of Patriot missiles during the Gulf War,
• in 2003 with the agreement on a package of defensive measures and conduct of Operation Display Deterrence during the crisis in Iraq, and
• in 2012 in response to the situation in Syria with the deployment of Patriot missiles.

Because when Putin started making moves on Crimea... Same way he did with Georgia, the Ukrainians should have just welcomed being a Soviet State again?

Hell no! The whole nation should have committed seppuku and died an honorable death. Or perhaps a great victory by emulating Masada. Better to be dead than red.

But they had an absolute right to state their intent to join NATO and bring military bases to the border of Russia. It's not like the United States has the Monroe Doctrine prohibiting any European nation from establishing any military base in North, Central, or South America.

I would say "no."

I would also say "no." But Lincoln was a salesman and that is how he went about salesmanship. I find it useful to know what he said, even if it was pure crap.

So, NATO has declared war on Russia.

No, there is no evidence of a required NATO consensus. This is not a NATO action, but an independent action by several NATO members.

Does it say it was a fake, ginned up drama to create a political win for the Republicans?

No, not for the Republicans. For the abolitionists, who may or may not have been Republicans. Dr. Chaffee was a Know Nothing.

After the fact, people propose theories to shoehorn the observed facts into their ideology.

Is that what Abe Lincoln did?

Etheldred Scott was never the property of John Sanford of New York. He had been the property of Dr. John Emerson until the doctor died. Then he became the property of Irene Emerson, his widow. When Irene remarried to abolitionist Congressman Calvin Chaffee of Massachusetts, the law of femes covert applied. A married woman could not own personal property. In marriage, the property went to the husband. And so, Congressman Chaffee became a slave owner.

John Sanford spent the trial in an insane asylum. He died shortly before the Scotus decision finding it had no jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the case. The Chaffee ownership became public knowledge as it splashed across the newspapers and Chaffee executed a quitclaim deed in favor of Taylor Blow in Missouri. There is a very public record that Chaffee dispossesed himself of Dred Scott.

While the proceedings were ongoing for years, Scott was loaned out by the Sheriff and the earnings were kept in escrow. Those earnings were claimed by Irene Emerson Chaffee, confirmed by another court record.

This embarrassment was brought up to some laughter in the Lincoln-Douglass debates. Sixth Debate, October 13, 1858. By then, even Honest Abe had to concede it was a made up moot case, with no actual case or controversy.

[DOUGLAS - CW 3:260]

I have since asked him who the Democratic owners of Dred Scott were, but he could not tell, and why? Because there were no such Democratic owners in existence. Dred Scott at the time was owned by the Rev. Dr. Chaffee, an Abolition member of Congress, of Springfield, Massachusetts, in right of his wife. He was owned by one of Lincoln's friends, and not by Democrats at all; (immense cheers, "give it to him,'' &c.) his case was conducted in court by Abolition lawyers, so that both the prosecution and the defense were in the hands of the Abolition political friends of Mr. Lincoln. (Renewed cheering.)

[LINCOLN - CW 6:282-283]

I have asked Judge Douglas' attention to certain matters of fact tending to prove the charge of a conspiracy to nationalize slavery, and he says he convinces me that this is all untrue because Buchanan was not in the country at that time, and because the Dred Scott case had not then got into the Supreme Court; and he says that I say the Democratic owners of Dred Scott got up the case. I never did say that. [Applause.] I defy Judge Douglas to show that I ever said so for I never uttered it. [One of Mr. Douglas' reporters gesticulated affirmatively at Mr. Lincoln.] I don't care if your hireling does say I did, I tell you myself that I never said the "Democratic'' owners of Dred Scott got up the case. [Tremendous enthusiasm.] I have never pretended to know whether Dred Scott's owners were Democrats or Abolitionists, or Free Soilers or Border Ruffians. I have said that there is evidence about the case tending to show that it was a made up case, for the purpose of getting that decision. I have said that that evidence was very strong in the fact that when Dred Scott was declared to be a slave, the owner of him made him free, showing that he had had the case tried and the question settled for such use as could be made of that decision; he cared nothing about the property thus declared to be his by that decision. [Enthusiastic applause.] But my time is out and I can say no more.