San Francisco Chronicle critiques “O.J. is Guilty, But Not of Murder – The Overlooked Suspect”

[c***@nym.hush.com]

The documentary was shown at the Roxy Theatre in San Francisco the second
week of March, 2008.

Here is a critique of the documentary from a San Francisco Chronicle film
editor.


The measure of this movie's success is that it can take something you
thought you knew all about and make you wonder. We all know Simpson did it,
don't we? The case is open and shut right? Well, maybe not. By
meticulously piling evidence on top of evidence, "The Overlooked Suspect:
O.J. Is Guilty, But Not of Murder" makes a convincing case for another
interpretation.

It's worth noting that "The Overlooked Suspect" was not made by a crank.
William C. Dear is a respected private investigator who, over a 35-year
career, has solved many high-profile cases. He first approached the Simpson
case assuming, like everyone else, that Simpson did it. But his
investigation soon took him in another direction.

Just offhand, ask yourself this: If Simpson practically decapitated his
ex-wife, how come he had only a microscopic trace of blood in his car and on
the white rug in his house. And if O.J. got into a brutal fight with Ron
Goldman, a strapping young man whose hands were found blistered from
punching his assailant, why did middle-aged Simpson not have a scratch on
him?

But this movie goes beyond making the case for why Simpson might not have
done it. It makes a full case for another suspect's guilt, a suspect that
the police, according to Dear, barely investigated. It's a suspect that
Simpson might have had an interest in protecting.

As a work of filmmaking, "The Overlooked Suspect" has its flaws. Its
biggest is that most of the key witnesses Dear talked to refused to appear
on camera.

However, having seen the documentary, I find it hard to imagine anyone
coming away from it believing that the police investigation was thorough and
conclusive. Rather it seems the L.A.P.D. had its suspect and looked no
further. If "The Overlooked Suspect" doesn't completely solve, beyond a
doubt, the Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman murders, it demonstrates that the
police haven't done so, either.

At the very least, "The Overlooked Suspect" is a convincing call for
reopening the case.

[Captain Conservative Ph.d]

OJ is still looking for the real murderer. Isn't he?

[suzee]

Post by Captain Conservative Ph.d
OJ is still looking for the real murderer. Isn't he?

That's what he says....

[Christopher Helms]

Post by suzee

Post by Captain Conservative Ph.d
OJ is still looking for the real murderer. Isn't he?

That's what he says....

He is searching for the real killer and he seems determined to leave
no Florida golf course unchecked.

[The Starmaker]

Post by suzee

Post by Captain Conservative Ph.d
OJ is still looking for the real murderer. Isn't he?

That's what he says....

I heard that that guy who is on trial for wiretapping for Bert Fields, that private
bada bing detective Pellicano might be the one who did it, ...I'm not sure...rumor maybe,
but I heard he was in the area when it happen...anything is possible. I mean, I don't know
what happen, I wasn't there..but he's in jail and O.J. is not.

[Captain Conservative Ph.d]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by suzee

Post by Captain Conservative Ph.d
OJ is still looking for the real murderer. Isn't he?

That's what he says....

I heard that that guy who is on trial for wiretapping for Bert Fields, that private
bada bing detective Pellicano might be the one who did it, ...I'm not sure...rumor maybe,
but I heard he was in the area when it happen...anything is possible. I mean, I don't know
what happen, I wasn't there..but he's in jail and O.J. is not.

Every cop in West LA knew that OJ liked to beat on his wife and white
girlfriends. It was a matter of time.

[The Starmaker]

Post by Captain Conservative Ph.d

Post by The Starmaker

Post by suzee

Post by Captain Conservative Ph.d
OJ is still looking for the real murderer. Isn't he?

That's what he says....

I heard that that guy who is on trial for wiretapping for Bert Fields, that private
bada bing detective Pellicano might be the one who did it, ...I'm not sure...rumor maybe,
but I heard he was in the area when it happen...anything is possible. I mean, I don't know
what happen, I wasn't there..but he's in jail and O.J. is not.

Every cop in West LA knew that OJ liked to beat on his wife and white
girlfriends. It was a matter of time.

There is a big difference between beating up your wife or girlfried, and killing her.


When you beat up your wife or girlfriend, it's just discipline. You're teaching her how to
have self-control. Too many women are running around out-of-control...

In fact, I've never met a woman who didn't need a slap ot two on the kisser...

If you have a wife at home and you see her get out of control, SLAP HER!



The Starmaker

[Captain Conservative Ph.d]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Captain Conservative Ph.d

Post by The Starmaker

Post by suzee

Post by Captain Conservative Ph.d
OJ is still looking for the real murderer. Isn't he?

That's what he says....

I heard that that guy who is on trial for wiretapping for Bert Fields, that private
bada bing detective Pellicano might be the one who did it, ...I'm not sure...rumor maybe,
but I heard he was in the area when it happen...anything is possible. I mean, I don't know
what happen, I wasn't there..but he's in jail and O.J. is not.

Every cop in West LA knew that OJ liked to beat on his wife and white
girlfriends. It was a matter of time.

There is a big difference between beating up your wife or girlfried, and killing her.
When you beat up your wife or girlfriend, it's just discipline. You're teaching her how to
have self-control. Too many women are running around out-of-control...
In fact, I've never met a woman who didn't need a slap ot two on the kisser...
If you have a wife at home and you see her get out of control, SLAP HER!
The Starmaker

Yeah, maybe you're right, Nicole needed a lot of "physical warnings" to
shape up.

[The Starmaker]

Post by Captain Conservative Ph.d

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Captain Conservative Ph.d

Post by The Starmaker

Post by suzee

Post by Captain Conservative Ph.d
OJ is still looking for the real murderer. Isn't he?

That's what he says....

I heard that that guy who is on trial for wiretapping for Bert Fields, that private
bada bing detective Pellicano might be the one who did it, ...I'm not sure...rumor maybe,
but I heard he was in the area when it happen...anything is possible. I mean, I don't know
what happen, I wasn't there..but he's in jail and O.J. is not.

Every cop in West LA knew that OJ liked to beat on his wife and white
girlfriends. It was a matter of time.

There is a big difference between beating up your wife or girlfried, and killing her.
When you beat up your wife or girlfriend, it's just discipline. You're teaching her how to
have self-control. Too many women are running around out-of-control...
In fact, I've never met a woman who didn't need a slap ot two on the kisser...
If you have a wife at home and you see her get out of control, SLAP HER!
The Starmaker

Yeah, maybe you're right, Nicole needed a lot of "physical warnings" to
shape up.

Exactly, she was asking for it! Who does she thinks she is that she can go around town in O.J's car
with some other guy in it?

And how stupid can that white guy be? Everybody knows you don't mess with a girl who's got a BLACK boyfriend!!!!

He's Dead because he was STUPID!!!! And she's dead because, Hell...What was she doing with a Black guy anyway???

[Begay]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Captain Conservative Ph.d

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Captain Conservative Ph.d

Post by The Starmaker

Post by suzee

Post by Captain Conservative Ph.d
OJ is still looking for the real murderer. Isn't he?

That's what he says....

I heard that that guy who is on trial for wiretapping for Bert
Fields, that private bada bing detective Pellicano might be the
one who did it, ...I'm not sure...rumor maybe, but I heard he was
in the area when it happen...anything is possible. I mean, I
don't know what happen, I wasn't there..but he's in jail and O.J.
is not.

Every cop in West LA knew that OJ liked to beat on his wife and
white girlfriends. It was a matter of time.

There is a big difference between beating up your wife or
girlfried, and killing her.
When you beat up your wife or girlfriend, it's just discipline.
You're teaching her how to have self-control. Too many women are
running around out-of-control...
In fact, I've never met a woman who didn't need a slap ot two on the kisser...
If you have a wife at home and you see her get out of control, SLAP HER!
The Starmaker

Yeah, maybe you're right, Nicole needed a lot of "physical warnings"
to shape up.

Exactly, she was asking for it! Who does she thinks she is that she
can go around town in O.J's car with some other guy in it?
And how stupid can that white guy be? Everybody knows you don't mess
with a girl who's got a BLACK boyfriend!!!!

Of course not. All of the whigger cunts have one or more venereal
diseases, and genital warts wherever their switch hitting black
boyfriends were poking them.

Over half of them black boys is fucking his male cousins or male friends
up the ass anyway. AIDS is nature's way of telling them that they
shouldn't do that, but the filthy animals are too stupid to learn until
it's too late.

Post by The Starmaker
He's Dead because he was STUPID!!!! And she's dead because,
Hell...What was she doing with a Black guy anyway???

She was ugly and stupid, but she was good at sucking dick. She
practiced on a lot of surfers. Black boys are good at sucking shit
covered dicks too.

[Agent Smith]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Captain Conservative Ph.d

Post by The Starmaker

Post by Captain Conservative Ph.d

Post by The Starmaker

Post by suzee

Post by Captain Conservative Ph.d
OJ is still looking for the real murderer. Isn't he?

That's what he says....

I heard that that guy who is on trial for wiretapping for Bert
Fields, that private bada bing detective Pellicano might be the
one who did it, ...I'm not sure...rumor maybe, but I heard he was
in the area when it happen...anything is possible. I mean, I
don't know what happen, I wasn't there..but he's in jail and O.J.
is not.

Every cop in West LA knew that OJ liked to beat on his wife and
white girlfriends. It was a matter of time.

There is a big difference between beating up your wife or
girlfried, and killing her.
When you beat up your wife or girlfriend, it's just discipline.
You're teaching her how to have self-control. Too many women are
running around out-of-control...
In fact, I've never met a woman who didn't need a slap ot two on the kisser...
If you have a wife at home and you see her get out of control, SLAP HER!
The Starmaker

Yeah, maybe you're right, Nicole needed a lot of "physical warnings"
to shape up.

Exactly, she was asking for it! Who does she thinks she is that she
can go around town in O.J's car with some other guy in it?
And how stupid can that white guy be? Everybody knows you don't mess
with a girl who's got a BLACK boyfriend!!!!
He's Dead because he was STUPID!!!! And she's dead because,
Hell...What was she doing with a Black guy anyway???

I like how you started your thread bysaying that he didn't do it because
he only hit her, and then concluded with she's dead because her
boyfriend was black. You make a fine art out of putting your foot in
your mouth.

[Agent Smith]

Post by The Starmaker

Post by suzee

Post by Captain Conservative Ph.d
OJ is still looking for the real murderer. Isn't he?

That's what he says....

I heard that that guy who is on trial for wiretapping for Bert Fields,
that private bada bing detective Pellicano might be the one who did
it, ...I'm not sure...rumor maybe, but I heard he was in the area when
it happen...anything is possible. I mean, I don't know what happen, I
wasn't there..but he's in jail and O.J. is not.

Why should OJ want to protect that guy, as the article says?

[Larry Bud]

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
ask yourself this: If Simpson practically decapitated his
ex-wife, how come he had only a microscopic trace of blood in his car and on
the white rug in his house.

There wasn't microscopic traces of blood. There was real blood that
was collected from the vehicle.

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
And if O.J. got into a brutal fight with Ron
Goldman, a strapping young man whose hands were found blistered from
punching his assailant, why did middle-aged Simpson not have a scratch on
him?

He did have wounds on himself. That why his blood was found at the
scene. IIRC, he claimed that he broke a glass.

So I guess if you start with faulty premises, you come to faulty
conclusions!

[Don't Taze Me, Bro!]

Post by Larry Bud

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
ask yourself this: If Simpson practically decapitated his
ex-wife, how come he had only a microscopic trace of blood in his car and on
the white rug in his house.

There wasn't microscopic traces of blood. There was real blood that
was collected from the vehicle.

The blood collected was droplets. Not smudges. They were microscopic.
Furthermore... blood was transfered from the crime scene to the O.J. Simpson
compound, and taken out of the car. That was proven in court.

I am not saying OJ was not guilty. Just that there is a lot of sh_t that
does not make sense. I.E. Having your entire home cleaned by the maid, yet
just happening to leave bloody socks in the middle of the floor.

Post by Larry Bud
He did have wounds on himself. That why his blood was found at the
scene. IIRC, he claimed that he broke a glass.

O.J.'s blood was never found at the crime scene. He claimed the cut on his
hand was from rushing out of a Chicago hotel room... Because the prosecution
did not question the cut on his hand, the defense was unable to present a
maid who found blood on a broken glass in his hotel room.

Post by Larry Bud
So I guess if you start with faulty premises, you come to faulty
conclusions!

[Talkin Horse]

Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!
O.J.'s blood was never found at the crime scene. He claimed the cut on his
hand was from rushing out of a Chicago hotel room... Because the
prosecution did not question the cut on his hand, the defense was unable
to present a maid who found blood on a broken glass in his hotel room.

For the record, Simpson's blood was found on the walkway and gate at
Nicole's condo.

However, police have been faulted for failing to investigate reports of a
one-armed man seen fleeing the murder scene.

[c***@tic.org]

Post by Talkin Horse

Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!
O.J.'s blood was never found at the crime scene. He claimed the cut on his
hand was from rushing out of a Chicago hotel room... Because the
prosecution did not question the cut on his hand, the defense was unable
to present a maid who found blood on a broken glass in his hotel room.

For the record, Simpson's blood was found on the walkway and gate at
Nicole's condo.
However, police have been faulted for failing to investigate reports of a
one-armed man seen fleeing the murder scene.

Right, O.J.'s blood WAS found at the crime scene, BUT, it was proven in
court that blood had astronomical amounts of EDTA in it.

I'm sure a one-armed man was more that a match for Ron Goldman who, was
trained in the martial arts and had bruises on all the knuckles of both of
his {Ron's] hands...NOT!

[Bill Reid]

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 23:41:25 -0700, "Talkin Horse"

Post by Talkin Horse

Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!
O.J.'s blood was never found at the crime scene. He claimed the cut on his
hand was from rushing out of a Chicago hotel room...

He also said he had a lot of cuts on his hands because he played
golf...that's right, golf, the bloodiest game on Earth...

Post by Talkin Horse

Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!
Because the
prosecution did not question the cut on his hand,

What an idiot. The prosecution couldn't question him because he
refused to testify under the Fifth Admendment, just like Mark Fuhrman.

Post by Talkin Horse

Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!
the defense was unable
to present a maid who found blood on a broken glass in his hotel room.

They showed pictures of his hands at the criminal trial. If they
wanted to call a witness that could explain those cuts, I think they
could have (I presume but don't remember if they ever asked the judge
to do so, and there probably was never any such "maid" in the first
place).

Post by Talkin Horse
For the record, Simpson's blood was found on the walkway and gate at
Nicole's condo.

Right, O.J.'s blood WAS found at the crime scene, BUT, it was proven in
court that blood had astronomical amounts of EDTA in it.

Man, these latter-day OJ supporters are...well, just as wacky and
uninformed as the OJ supporters from a decade ago.

It was NEVER "proven" in ANY court that the undegraded fresh
blood on the gate (which matched Simpson to the odds of several
hundred million to one) had ANY EDTA in it, let alone "astronomical
amounts". That blood was NEVER tested specifically for EDTA
by ANYBODY, which is strange, because the defense planted
a bunch of stories in the media that evidence had been "planted"
by the cops, and they were going to "prove" it at the trial, but
then they never asserted it as a defense, and never bothered
to test the blood themselves.

It's REALLY strange, because if they had found "astronomical
amounts" of EDTA in the blood that would constitute proof beyond
ANY doubt that the LAPD planted the blood to frame OJ, and
would have led to Johnnie Cochran's biggest case by far against
the LAPD in his several decades of suing the LAPD for racial
harrassment. And yet, Johnny NEVER bothered to test the
blood...any thoughts as to WHY? (Be aware that several
members of OJ's defense team have openly expressed doubt
as to his "innocence", and Johnny Cochran himself said he
"didn't know" if OJ was guilty or not.)

---
William Ernest Reid

[c***@tic.org]

Post by Bill Reid

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 23:41:25 -0700, "Talkin Horse"

Post by Talkin Horse

Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!
O.J.'s blood was never found at the crime scene. He claimed the cut on

his

Post by Talkin Horse

Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!
hand was from rushing out of a Chicago hotel room...

He also said he had a lot of cuts on his hands because he played
golf...that's right, golf, the bloodiest game on Earth...

Post by Talkin Horse

Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!
Because the
prosecution did not question the cut on his hand,

What an idiot. The prosecution couldn't question him because he
refused to testify under the Fifth Admendment, just like Mark Fuhrman.

Post by Talkin Horse

Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!
the defense was unable
to present a maid who found blood on a broken glass in his hotel room.

They showed pictures of his hands at the criminal trial. If they
wanted to call a witness that could explain those cuts, I think they
could have (I presume but don't remember if they ever asked the judge
to do so, and there probably was never any such "maid" in the first
place).

Post by Talkin Horse
For the record, Simpson's blood was found on the walkway and gate at
Nicole's condo.

Right, O.J.'s blood WAS found at the crime scene, BUT, it was proven in
court that blood had astronomical amounts of EDTA in it.

Man, these latter-day OJ supporters are...well, just as wacky and
uninformed as the OJ supporters from a decade ago.

Wacky & uninformed. Me??? O.J. supporter? Maybe/maybe not. However, I
like to have my facts straight.

Post by Bill Reid
It was NEVER "proven" in ANY court that the undegraded fresh
blood on the gate (which matched Simpson to the odds of several
hundred million to one) had ANY EDTA in it, let alone "astronomical
amounts". That blood was NEVER tested specifically for EDTA
by ANYBODY, which is strange, because the defense planted
a bunch of stories in the media that evidence had been "planted"
by the cops, and they were going to "prove" it at the trial, but
then they never asserted it as a defense, and never bothered
to test the blood themselves.

Sorry to have taken so long to reply. Had to research this before
commenting.

Sure it was. This is Dr. Henry Lee area of expertise. Dr. Lee was the one
who said there was EDTA in the blood on the back gate. Same for the blood
on the walkway. Moreover, Dr. Lee said [that] blood was discovered several
days after the murders. WTF was that all about? All those forensic folks
swarming the crime scene and they happen to discover blood on the back gate
about a week after the morders? Sounds fishy to me.

Post by Bill Reid
It's REALLY strange, because if they had found "astronomical
amounts" of EDTA in the blood that would constitute proof beyond
ANY doubt that the LAPD planted the blood to frame OJ, and
would have led to Johnnie Cochran's biggest case by far against
the LAPD in his several decades of suing the LAPD for racial
harrassment. And yet, Johnny NEVER bothered to test the
blood...any thoughts as to WHY? (Be aware that several
members of OJ's defense team have openly expressed doubt
as to his "innocence", and Johnny Cochran himself said he
"didn't know" if OJ was guilty or not.)

By astronmical I mean it had the same consentration of EDTA in blood you
normally find in a vial of blood taken to perserve such blood. Not the
small amount of EDTA that is naturally found.

Post by Bill Reid
---
William Ernest Reid

[Bill Reid]

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 23:08:44 GMT, "Bill Reid"

Post by Bill Reid

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 23:41:25 -0700, "Talkin Horse"

Post by Talkin Horse

Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!
O.J.'s blood was never found at the crime scene. He claimed the cut on

his

Post by Talkin Horse

Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!
hand was from rushing out of a Chicago hotel room...

He also said he had a lot of cuts on his hands because he played
golf...that's right, golf, the bloodiest game on Earth...

Post by Talkin Horse

Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!
Because the
prosecution did not question the cut on his hand,

What an idiot. The prosecution couldn't question him because he
refused to testify under the Fifth Admendment, just like Mark Fuhrman.

Post by Talkin Horse

Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!
the defense was unable
to present a maid who found blood on a broken glass in his hotel room.

They showed pictures of his hands at the criminal trial. If they
wanted to call a witness that could explain those cuts, I think they
could have (I presume but don't remember if they ever asked the judge
to do so, and there probably was never any such "maid" in the first
place).

Post by Talkin Horse
For the record, Simpson's blood was found on the walkway and gate at
Nicole's condo.

Right, O.J.'s blood WAS found at the crime scene, BUT, it was proven in
court that blood had astronomical amounts of EDTA in it.

Man, these latter-day OJ supporters are...well, just as wacky and
uninformed as the OJ supporters from a decade ago.

Wacky & uninformed. Me??? O.J. supporter? Maybe/maybe not. However, I
like to have my facts straight.

That's why I straightened out your messed-up facts. I'm waiting for
a giant "THANK YOU"...

Post by Bill Reid
It was NEVER "proven" in ANY court that the undegraded fresh
blood on the gate (which matched Simpson to the odds of several
hundred million to one) had ANY EDTA in it, let alone "astronomical
amounts". That blood was NEVER tested specifically for EDTA
by ANYBODY, which is strange, because the defense planted
a bunch of stories in the media that evidence had been "planted"
by the cops, and they were going to "prove" it at the trial, but
then they never asserted it as a defense, and never bothered
to test the blood themselves.

Sorry to have taken so long to reply.

Oh believe me, it was worth the wait...

Had to research this before
commenting.

Where did you "research" this? Show your links!!!

Sure it was. This is Dr. Henry Lee area of expertise.

Wrong. Henry Lee is a wacky quack that has his own laughable
methods of physical evidence examination ("brod spratter"). He
typically testifies for the prosecution, but for OJ, and a tremendous
amount of money and publicity, he "testified" for the defense. He
was such a thin-skinned egomaniac that he held a press conference
immediately after being cross-examined claiming that the DEFENSE
twisted his words and made him look like a fool who thought OJ was
innocent...but making him look like a fool doesn't take a
"dream team"...

Dr. Lee was the one
who said there was EDTA in the blood on the back gate.

Wrong. You don't know squat about the case, like all "Pro-Js".

NOBODY testified that there was ANY EDTA in the blood on
the back gate. However, if you are a sufficiently weak-minded
fool who slavishly followed the defense team media "leaks"
prior to the trial, you probably still believe OJ couldn't have
done it because he was in Chicago at the time...

Same for the blood
on the walkway.

WRONG!!! The blood on the walkway was severely degraded by
bacterial contamination, and as such was never even considered
to have possibly come from a blood vial containing HUGE amounts
of EDTA, a PRESERVATIVE THAT SPECIFICALLY IS USED TO
KILL BACTERIA AND PREVENT DEGRADATION OF BLOOD
SAMPLES.

However, the degradation could make case for "reasonable doubt",
since it could only match to OJ by odds of a few hundred/thousand
to one, and you could question why blood collected the day
after a murder would be so degraded (Barry Scheck, of the defense
team, pound for pound the most genuinely effective lawyer in
that courtroom, did a MASTERFUL job in showing that the
cops mishandled and miscollected the blood evidence in the
case, leading VERY debateably to a "reasonable" conclusion of
"reasonable doubt" about SOME of the blood evidence).

Moreover, Dr. Lee said [that] blood was discovered several
days after the murders.

Possibly it was his testimony, or probably not, but there WAS a
"discrepancy" in terms of the "appearance" of the blood on the back
gate. Problem is, the only logical places the blood could have come
from were from the murderer, OJ, or from a police evidence vial, and
an FBI chemist CALLED BY THE DEFENSE testified beyond any
REASONABLE doubt that it did NOT come from a police evidence
vial...CASE CLOSED!!!

WTF was that all about?

Much ado about nothing? See above...and below...

All those forensic folks
swarming the crime scene and they happen to discover blood on the back gate
about a week after the morders? Sounds fishy to me.

Problem is, Barry Scheck did such a great job proving what a
bunch of incompetent fools the LAPD were, he unintentionally
provided the explanation for why those "Keystone Kops" couldn't
find their own ass for a week even with both hands...

Post by Bill Reid
It's REALLY strange, because if they had found "astronomical
amounts" of EDTA in the blood that would constitute proof beyond
ANY doubt that the LAPD planted the blood to frame OJ, and
would have led to Johnnie Cochran's biggest case by far against
the LAPD in his several decades of suing the LAPD for racial
harrassment. And yet, Johnny NEVER bothered to test the
blood...any thoughts as to WHY? (Be aware that several
members of OJ's defense team have openly expressed doubt
as to his "innocence", and Johnny Cochran himself said he
"didn't know" if OJ was guilty or not.)

By astronmical I mean it had the same consentration of EDTA in blood you
normally find in a vial of blood taken to perserve such blood.

I know exactly what you meant. They never found it in ANY amount.
Read the above carefully, have somebody explain it to you if you can't
figure it out...oh hell, I'll just kind of repeat it: JOHNNY COCHRAN,
WHO SPENT HIS ENTIRE ADULT LIFE SUING THE LAPD FOR
RACIAL HARRASSMENT, NEVER BOTHERED TO TEST THE
BLOOD FOR THE PRESERVATIVE EDTA, WHICH WOULD HAVE
PROVEN BEYOND ANY DOUBT THAT THE LAPD FRAMED OJ
SIMPSON, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN THE KEY PIECE OF
EVIDENCE IN THE MOST MONUMENTAL CIVIL RIGHTS CASE
IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Get it? Johnny never tested the blood because he KNEW it
wasn't planted, and that's why he NEVER even spoke a single
word about filing a racial harrassment suit on behalf of OJ
Simpson after the criminal trial, BECAUSE HE KNEW THE
LAPD DID NOT "FRAME" OJ, BECAUSE THERE WASN'T A
ANY EVIDENCE TO THAT EFFECT THAT COULD SUSTAIN
THE VERY LOW BURDEN OF PROOF IN A CIVIL TRIAL.

It's also why he never asserted it as an "affirmative defense"
in the criminal trial, because he knew he couldn't prove it to
the "clear and convincing" standard for those kinds of defenses.
Instead, he planted the idea in the media, and idiots like you
are STILL parrotting it as if it actually was "proven" in the
criminal trial, WHEN IT WAS NEVER ACTUALLY EVEN
RAISED AS AN ISSUE BY THE DEFENSE.

Not the
small amount of EDTA that is naturally found.

There is no easily detectable level of EDTA in human blood,
because a detectable level would be enough to seriously
sicken a person. EDTA IS widely used as a food preservative
in very common foodstuffs everybody eats, but in VERY minute
quantities...oddly enough, this WAS testified to in the criminal
trial, so you've managed to get EVERY single fact wrong...GREAT
WORK!!!

---
William Ernest Reid

[Talkin Horse]

It's also worth mentioning that the blood evidence was only a small portion
of the case against Simpson. The pieces of evidence and testimony were so
numerous and unrelated to each other as to preclude any comprehensive
fakery, and they all reinforced Simpson's guilt.

But this has all been much-hashed over.

[Bill Reid]

Post by Talkin Horse
It's also worth mentioning that the blood evidence was only a small portion
of the case against Simpson. The pieces of evidence and testimony were so
numerous and unrelated to each other as to preclude any comprehensive
fakery, and they all reinforced Simpson's guilt.

Well, the blood evidence was more than just a SMALL portion of
the case, and a lot of the other evidence could be considered merely
coincidental in nature. Could you convict a man of murder based
strictly on coincidental evidence without a SHRED of physical or
eyewitness evidence?

Oh wait, yes you could...Scott Peterson, spending the rest of
his life in prison because he just happened by coincidence go
fishing in roughly the same area where his wife's body was found,
and exhibited some signs of guilt such as apparently attempting
to flee police custody. But NO OTHER EVIDENCE AT ALL,
DESPITE AN EXHAUSTIVE POLICE ATTEMPT TO FIND IT.

Where are all the great amateur detectives poking holes in
THAT prosecution case?

Post by Talkin Horse
But this has all been much-hashed over.

Yeah, but sometimes it's fun to go down memory lane, and
realize that nothing ever changes. These high-profile cases
are largely tried in the media, by dolts without a life who claim
they know the "facts" but really only have a mongoloid's
perception of what the talking heads have told them to "think".

As I've said, Barry Scheck cast "reasonable doubt" over
a lot of the VERY important blood evidence, but he failed
to negate ALL of it, and taken with all the other evidence
proven beyond a reasonable doubt, leads to a LOGICAL
conclusion that OJ was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

But I can't entirely blame the jury for not reaching that
conclusion, because it was an out-of-control "show trial"
presided over by the egomaniacal fool Ito, and the
prosecution was completely, totally, and absolutely
inept and effectively managed to bury their compelling
case through sheer stupidity...and a kind of resigned
loser attitude, since they knew they had already lost
the case in the media-poisoned jury selection and idiotic
Ito pre-trial rulings.

The whole "EDTA" thing was a classic example. Ito
actually allowed the DEFENSE to call an FBI chemist
who tested the blood to determine if it came from a
police evidence vial, which would have massive
quantities of EDTA in it, and who concluded that
it COULD NOT HAVE COME FROM A POLICE
EVIDENCE VIAL, and allowed the testimony
EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENSE NEVER RAISED
THE ISSUE OF POLICE PLANTING EVIDENCE
AT TRIAL.

What kind of judge allows a lawyer to call a
witness to testify about an issue that isn't even
part of the trial, and furthermore will testify
AGAINST the lawyer's non-existent issue?

Insanity...but fun, even though a couple people
got killed and the murderer walked free, I just wish
I had been unemployed at the time so I could have
watched the whole zoo every day...

---
William Ernest Reid

[Unique]

Post by Talkin Horse
It's also worth mentioning that the blood evidence was only a small
portion of the case against Simpson. The pieces of evidence and
testimony were so numerous and unrelated to each other as to preclude
any comprehensive fakery, and they all reinforced Simpson's guilt.
But this has all been much-hashed over.

The cops tried to frame a guilty man. OJ wasn't convicted because of
their evidence planting and tampering.

Blacks have been railroaded many times because of this kind of police
work and that's why so many were happy to see OJ get off.

[charley]

Post by Unique

Post by Talkin Horse
It's also worth mentioning that the blood evidence was only a small
portion of the case against Simpson. The pieces of evidence and
testimony were so numerous and unrelated to each other as to preclude
any comprehensive fakery, and they all reinforced Simpson's guilt.
But this has all been much-hashed over.

The cops tried to frame a guilty man. OJ wasn't convicted because of
their evidence planting and tampering.
Blacks have been railroaded many times because of this kind of police
work and that's why so many were happy to see OJ get off.
--
DVDs for sale:http://unique-dvd.com
165 Banned Cartoons, The Unknown War, Centennial Miniseries,
Holocaust, Pearl, Amerika, Space, George Washington, Anzacs,
Marco Polo, Rich Man Poor Man, Peter the Great, Noble House,
and more...

honestly whites too have been railroaded. there was an article in our
local paper, a white guy who was fingered for a crime he didnt do .
DNA evidence required the judge to let him go.

[c***@nym.hush.com]

Post by Bill Reid

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 23:08:44 GMT, "Bill Reid"

Post by Bill Reid

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 23:41:25 -0700, "Talkin Horse"

Post by Talkin Horse

Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!
O.J.'s blood was never found at the crime scene. He claimed the cut

on

Post by Bill Reid
his

Post by Talkin Horse

Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!
hand was from rushing out of a Chicago hotel room...

He also said he had a lot of cuts on his hands because he played
golf...that's right, golf, the bloodiest game on Earth...

Post by Talkin Horse

Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!
Because the
prosecution did not question the cut on his hand,

What an idiot. The prosecution couldn't question him because he
refused to testify under the Fifth Admendment, just like Mark Fuhrman.

Post by Talkin Horse

Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!
the defense was unable
to present a maid who found blood on a broken glass in his hotel

room.

Post by Bill Reid
They showed pictures of his hands at the criminal trial. If they
wanted to call a witness that could explain those cuts, I think they
could have (I presume but don't remember if they ever asked the judge
to do so, and there probably was never any such "maid" in the first
place).

Post by Talkin Horse
For the record, Simpson's blood was found on the walkway and gate at
Nicole's condo.

Right, O.J.'s blood WAS found at the crime scene, BUT, it was proven in
court that blood had astronomical amounts of EDTA in it.

Man, these latter-day OJ supporters are...well, just as wacky and
uninformed as the OJ supporters from a decade ago.

Wacky & uninformed. Me??? O.J. supporter? Maybe/maybe not. However, I
like to have my facts straight.

That's why I straightened out your messed-up facts. I'm waiting for
a giant "THANK YOU"...

Post by Bill Reid
It was NEVER "proven" in ANY court that the undegraded fresh
blood on the gate (which matched Simpson to the odds of several
hundred million to one) had ANY EDTA in it, let alone "astronomical
amounts". That blood was NEVER tested specifically for EDTA
by ANYBODY, which is strange, because the defense planted
a bunch of stories in the media that evidence had been "planted"
by the cops, and they were going to "prove" it at the trial, but
then they never asserted it as a defense, and never bothered
to test the blood themselves.

Sorry to have taken so long to reply.

Oh believe me, it was worth the wait...

Had to research this before
commenting.

Where did you "research" this? Show your links!!!

Sure it was. This is Dr. Henry Lee area of expertise.

Wrong. Henry Lee is a wacky quack that has his own laughable
methods of physical evidence examination ("brod spratter"). He
typically testifies for the prosecution, but for OJ, and a tremendous
amount of money and publicity, he "testified" for the defense. He
was such a thin-skinned egomaniac that he held a press conference
immediately after being cross-examined claiming that the DEFENSE
twisted his words and made him look like a fool who thought OJ was
innocent...but making him look like a fool doesn't take a
"dream team"...

Dr. Lee was the one
who said there was EDTA in the blood on the back gate.

Wrong. You don't know squat about the case, like all "Pro-Js".
NOBODY testified that there was ANY EDTA in the blood on
the back gate. However, if you are a sufficiently weak-minded
fool who slavishly followed the defense team media "leaks"
prior to the trial, you probably still believe OJ couldn't have
done it because he was in Chicago at the time...

Same for the blood
on the walkway.

WRONG!!! The blood on the walkway was severely degraded by
bacterial contamination, and as such was never even considered
to have possibly come from a blood vial containing HUGE amounts
of EDTA, a PRESERVATIVE THAT SPECIFICALLY IS USED TO
KILL BACTERIA AND PREVENT DEGRADATION OF BLOOD
SAMPLES.
However, the degradation could make case for "reasonable doubt",
since it could only match to OJ by odds of a few hundred/thousand
to one, and you could question why blood collected the day
after a murder would be so degraded (Barry Scheck, of the defense
team, pound for pound the most genuinely effective lawyer in
that courtroom, did a MASTERFUL job in showing that the
cops mishandled and miscollected the blood evidence in the
case, leading VERY debateably to a "reasonable" conclusion of
"reasonable doubt" about SOME of the blood evidence).

Moreover, Dr. Lee said [that] blood was discovered several
days after the murders.

Possibly it was his testimony, or probably not, but there WAS a
"discrepancy" in terms of the "appearance" of the blood on the back
gate. Problem is, the only logical places the blood could have come
from were from the murderer, OJ, or from a police evidence vial, and
an FBI chemist CALLED BY THE DEFENSE testified beyond any
REASONABLE doubt that it did NOT come from a police evidence
vial...CASE CLOSED!!!

WTF was that all about?

Much ado about nothing? See above...and below...

All those forensic folks
swarming the crime scene and they happen to discover blood on the back

gate

about a week after the morders? Sounds fishy to me.

Problem is, Barry Scheck did such a great job proving what a
bunch of incompetent fools the LAPD were, he unintentionally
provided the explanation for why those "Keystone Kops" couldn't
find their own ass for a week even with both hands...

Post by Bill Reid
It's REALLY strange, because if they had found "astronomical
amounts" of EDTA in the blood that would constitute proof beyond
ANY doubt that the LAPD planted the blood to frame OJ, and
would have led to Johnnie Cochran's biggest case by far against
the LAPD in his several decades of suing the LAPD for racial
harrassment. And yet, Johnny NEVER bothered to test the
blood...any thoughts as to WHY? (Be aware that several
members of OJ's defense team have openly expressed doubt
as to his "innocence", and Johnny Cochran himself said he
"didn't know" if OJ was guilty or not.)

By astronmical I mean it had the same consentration of EDTA in blood you
normally find in a vial of blood taken to perserve such blood.

I know exactly what you meant. They never found it in ANY amount.
Read the above carefully, have somebody explain it to you if you can't
figure it out...oh hell, I'll just kind of repeat it: JOHNNY COCHRAN,
WHO SPENT HIS ENTIRE ADULT LIFE SUING THE LAPD FOR
RACIAL HARRASSMENT, NEVER BOTHERED TO TEST THE
BLOOD FOR THE PRESERVATIVE EDTA, WHICH WOULD HAVE
PROVEN BEYOND ANY DOUBT THAT THE LAPD FRAMED OJ
SIMPSON, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN THE KEY PIECE OF
EVIDENCE IN THE MOST MONUMENTAL CIVIL RIGHTS CASE
IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Get it? Johnny never tested the blood because he KNEW it
wasn't planted, and that's why he NEVER even spoke a single
word about filing a racial harrassment suit on behalf of OJ
Simpson after the criminal trial, BECAUSE HE KNEW THE
LAPD DID NOT "FRAME" OJ, BECAUSE THERE WASN'T A
ANY EVIDENCE TO THAT EFFECT THAT COULD SUSTAIN
THE VERY LOW BURDEN OF PROOF IN A CIVIL TRIAL.
It's also why he never asserted it as an "affirmative defense"
in the criminal trial, because he knew he couldn't prove it to
the "clear and convincing" standard for those kinds of defenses.
Instead, he planted the idea in the media, and idiots like you
are STILL parrotting it as if it actually was "proven" in the
criminal trial, WHEN IT WAS NEVER ACTUALLY EVEN
RAISED AS AN ISSUE BY THE DEFENSE.

Not the
small amount of EDTA that is naturally found.

There is no easily detectable level of EDTA in human blood,
because a detectable level would be enough to seriously
sicken a person. EDTA IS widely used as a food preservative
in very common foodstuffs everybody eats, but in VERY minute
quantities...oddly enough, this WAS testified to in the criminal
trial, so you've managed to get EVERY single fact wrong...GREAT
WORK!!!
---
William Ernest Reid

Oh *%)!, my bad... Dr. Henry Lee did say there was EDTA in the blood found
on the socks. He just didn't say it at the trial. Also, Dr. Fredric
Rieders, Professor Pharmacology & Toxicology, Jefferson Medical College in
Pennsylvania also said it.

Dr. Lee was referring to another investigation that was launched by a
private investigator.

Dr. Lee commenting on the blood on the socks found on the bedroom floor of
O.J.'s Rockingham residence:

Dr. Lee: 'We have some blood stains, Nicole's blood, the theory is when O.J.
at the scene Nicole tried to grab his ankle and that's how the blood was
transferred. However, it you wear socks [and] somebody grab your ankle, you
should find both sides outside and inside have blood if you have sufficient
blood or you just find outside have blood.'

Note: The sock found had blood on the outside of one side of the sock, and
on the two inside surfaces but there was no blood found on the other outside
surface [of the sock].

Dr. Lee: 'If somebody have a foot inside [of the sock] how the blood got
transferred from here to that side [the inside of one surface to the inside
of the other surface] without leaving anything is kind of a very interesting
issue that never got resolved.'

Dr. Lee: 'Dr. Rieder examine what a regional? data he noticed have EDTA.
Subsequently many other experts in the field they all agree with him.'

Dr. Rieders: 'A reference sample was taken from another portion of that sock
[the socks found on the floor of O.J.'s bedroom] that was negative...so it
wasn't contamination from the sock itself but it was in the blood that has
fallen on there in my opinion. And that the blood that had fallen on there
[the sock] was not blood that had dripped from somebody on there but it
came from a container that had the preservative EDTA in it.'

Taken from the documentary: 'O.J. Is Guilty, But Not Of Murder - The
Overlooked Suspect'

PS. Anybody want to comment on DNA of your first born son having simuliar
matching DNA markers as you...their father?

[Bill Reid]

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 05:59:15 GMT, "Bill Reid"

Post by Bill Reid

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 23:08:44 GMT, "Bill Reid"

Post by Bill Reid

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 23:41:25 -0700, "Talkin Horse"

Post by Talkin Horse

Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!
O.J.'s blood was never found at the crime scene. He claimed the cut

on

Post by Bill Reid
his

Post by Talkin Horse

Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!
hand was from rushing out of a Chicago hotel room...

He also said he had a lot of cuts on his hands because he played
golf...that's right, golf, the bloodiest game on Earth...

Post by Talkin Horse

Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!
Because the
prosecution did not question the cut on his hand,

What an idiot. The prosecution couldn't question him because he
refused to testify under the Fifth Admendment, just like Mark Fuhrman.

Post by Talkin Horse

Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!
the defense was unable
to present a maid who found blood on a broken glass in his hotel

room.

Post by Bill Reid
They showed pictures of his hands at the criminal trial. If they
wanted to call a witness that could explain those cuts, I think they
could have (I presume but don't remember if they ever asked the judge
to do so, and there probably was never any such "maid" in the first
place).

Post by Talkin Horse
For the record, Simpson's blood was found on the walkway and gate at
Nicole's condo.

Right, O.J.'s blood WAS found at the crime scene, BUT, it was proven in
court that blood had astronomical amounts of EDTA in it.

Man, these latter-day OJ supporters are...well, just as wacky and
uninformed as the OJ supporters from a decade ago.

Wacky & uninformed. Me??? O.J. supporter? Maybe/maybe not. However, I
like to have my facts straight.

That's why I straightened out your messed-up facts. I'm waiting for
a giant "THANK YOU"...

Post by Bill Reid
It was NEVER "proven" in ANY court that the undegraded fresh
blood on the gate (which matched Simpson to the odds of several
hundred million to one) had ANY EDTA in it, let alone "astronomical
amounts". That blood was NEVER tested specifically for EDTA
by ANYBODY, which is strange, because the defense planted
a bunch of stories in the media that evidence had been "planted"
by the cops, and they were going to "prove" it at the trial, but
then they never asserted it as a defense, and never bothered
to test the blood themselves.

Sorry to have taken so long to reply.

Oh believe me, it was worth the wait...

Had to research this before
commenting.

Where did you "research" this? Show your links!!!

Sure it was. This is Dr. Henry Lee area of expertise.

Wrong. Henry Lee is a wacky quack that has his own laughable
methods of physical evidence examination ("brod spratter"). He
typically testifies for the prosecution, but for OJ, and a tremendous
amount of money and publicity, he "testified" for the defense. He
was such a thin-skinned egomaniac that he held a press conference
immediately after being cross-examined claiming that the DEFENSE
twisted his words and made him look like a fool who thought OJ was
innocent...but making him look like a fool doesn't take a
"dream team"...

Dr. Lee was the one
who said there was EDTA in the blood on the back gate.

Wrong. You don't know squat about the case, like all "Pro-Js".
NOBODY testified that there was ANY EDTA in the blood on
the back gate. However, if you are a sufficiently weak-minded
fool who slavishly followed the defense team media "leaks"
prior to the trial, you probably still believe OJ couldn't have
done it because he was in Chicago at the time...

Same for the blood
on the walkway.

WRONG!!! The blood on the walkway was severely degraded by
bacterial contamination, and as such was never even considered
to have possibly come from a blood vial containing HUGE amounts
of EDTA, a PRESERVATIVE THAT SPECIFICALLY IS USED TO
KILL BACTERIA AND PREVENT DEGRADATION OF BLOOD
SAMPLES.
However, the degradation could make case for "reasonable doubt",
since it could only match to OJ by odds of a few hundred/thousand
to one, and you could question why blood collected the day
after a murder would be so degraded (Barry Scheck, of the defense
team, pound for pound the most genuinely effective lawyer in
that courtroom, did a MASTERFUL job in showing that the
cops mishandled and miscollected the blood evidence in the
case, leading VERY debateably to a "reasonable" conclusion of
"reasonable doubt" about SOME of the blood evidence).

Moreover, Dr. Lee said [that] blood was discovered several
days after the murders.

Possibly it was his testimony, or probably not, but there WAS a
"discrepancy" in terms of the "appearance" of the blood on the back
gate. Problem is, the only logical places the blood could have come
from were from the murderer, OJ, or from a police evidence vial, and
an FBI chemist CALLED BY THE DEFENSE testified beyond any
REASONABLE doubt that it did NOT come from a police evidence
vial...CASE CLOSED!!!

WTF was that all about?

Much ado about nothing? See above...and below...

All those forensic folks
swarming the crime scene and they happen to discover blood on the back

gate

about a week after the morders? Sounds fishy to me.

Problem is, Barry Scheck did such a great job proving what a
bunch of incompetent fools the LAPD were, he unintentionally
provided the explanation for why those "Keystone Kops" couldn't
find their own ass for a week even with both hands...

Post by Bill Reid
It's REALLY strange, because if they had found "astronomical
amounts" of EDTA in the blood that would constitute proof beyond
ANY doubt that the LAPD planted the blood to frame OJ, and
would have led to Johnnie Cochran's biggest case by far against
the LAPD in his several decades of suing the LAPD for racial
harrassment. And yet, Johnny NEVER bothered to test the
blood...any thoughts as to WHY? (Be aware that several
members of OJ's defense team have openly expressed doubt
as to his "innocence", and Johnny Cochran himself said he
"didn't know" if OJ was guilty or not.)

By astronmical I mean it had the same consentration of EDTA in blood you
normally find in a vial of blood taken to perserve such blood.

I know exactly what you meant. They never found it in ANY amount.
Read the above carefully, have somebody explain it to you if you can't
figure it out...oh hell, I'll just kind of repeat it: JOHNNY COCHRAN,
WHO SPENT HIS ENTIRE ADULT LIFE SUING THE LAPD FOR
RACIAL HARRASSMENT, NEVER BOTHERED TO TEST THE
BLOOD FOR THE PRESERVATIVE EDTA, WHICH WOULD HAVE
PROVEN BEYOND ANY DOUBT THAT THE LAPD FRAMED OJ
SIMPSON, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN THE KEY PIECE OF
EVIDENCE IN THE MOST MONUMENTAL CIVIL RIGHTS CASE
IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Get it? Johnny never tested the blood because he KNEW it
wasn't planted, and that's why he NEVER even spoke a single
word about filing a racial harrassment suit on behalf of OJ
Simpson after the criminal trial, BECAUSE HE KNEW THE
LAPD DID NOT "FRAME" OJ, BECAUSE THERE WASN'T A
ANY EVIDENCE TO THAT EFFECT THAT COULD SUSTAIN
THE VERY LOW BURDEN OF PROOF IN A CIVIL TRIAL.
It's also why he never asserted it as an "affirmative defense"
in the criminal trial, because he knew he couldn't prove it to
the "clear and convincing" standard for those kinds of defenses.
Instead, he planted the idea in the media, and idiots like you
are STILL parrotting it as if it actually was "proven" in the
criminal trial, WHEN IT WAS NEVER ACTUALLY EVEN
RAISED AS AN ISSUE BY THE DEFENSE.

Not the
small amount of EDTA that is naturally found.

There is no easily detectable level of EDTA in human blood,
because a detectable level would be enough to seriously
sicken a person. EDTA IS widely used as a food preservative
in very common foodstuffs everybody eats, but in VERY minute
quantities...oddly enough, this WAS testified to in the criminal
trial, so you've managed to get EVERY single fact wrong...GREAT
WORK!!!

Oh *%)!, my bad... Dr. Henry Lee did say there was EDTA in the blood found
on the socks. He just didn't say it at the trial. Also, Dr. Fredric
Rieders, Professor Pharmacology & Toxicology, Jefferson Medical College in
Pennsylvania also said it.

Man, are you messed-up on your "facts"...

This "Dr. Fredric Rieders" was the geriatric old fake that the defense
called to "rebut" their own witness, the FBI chemist who concluded that
the blood did NOT come from a police evidence vial. READ MY POSTS
YOU FOOL, I WENT OVER ALL OF THESE ISSUES, AND THIS
ISSUE IN PARTICULAR IS IN THE POST YOU ARE RESPONDING
TO.

Rieders NEVER tested the blood himself, but rather concluded
that the FBI should have done further testing to isolate the cause
of spectrograph readings that would be consistent with MINISCULE
amounts of EDTA. He acknowledged under x-exam that those readings
could have been caused by any number other compounds or even
just "noise in the machine before it was calibrated" since they
appeared inconsistently in the tests. He then rambled on nonsensically
about EDTA in a German river being degraded by sunlight, but AGAIN,
he NEVER actually tested the blood himself or concluded that the
blood MUST have come from a police evidence vial, his only
un-/self-contradicted testimony was his criticism of the thoroughness
of the FBI chemist in actually isolating EDTA specifically and the
actual amount.

Dr. Lee was referring to another investigation that was launched by a
private investigator.

Why have all of these idiots not just tested the blood themselves,
especially if they are so critical of how the FBI did it?

Dr. Lee commenting on the blood on the socks found on the bedroom floor of
Dr. Lee: 'We have some blood stains, Nicole's blood, the theory is when O.J.
at the scene Nicole tried to grab his ankle and that's how the blood was
transferred. However, it you wear socks [and] somebody grab your ankle, you
should find both sides outside and inside have blood if you have sufficient
blood or you just find outside have blood.'

All "Dr." Henry Lee testimony boils down to "brod spratter". If the
DEFENSE (in all cases but OJ) has the temerity to present an alternate
theory as to exactly how somebody was bludgeoned, shot, or stabbed to
death, he steps in for the PROSECUTION and claims "that not consistent
with brod spratter".

Note: The sock found had blood on the outside of one side of the sock, and
on the two inside surfaces but there was no blood found on the other outside
surface [of the sock].

For OJ, he branched out and speculated about blood transfer patterns
during the murder and evidence collection and declared some "brod tlansfer
pattelns not consistent"...

Dr. Lee: 'If somebody have a foot inside [of the sock] how the blood got
transferred from here to that side [the inside of one surface to the inside
of the other surface] without leaving anything is kind of a very interesting
issue that never got resolved.'

Fascinating..."brod tlansfer pattelns not consistent"...

Dr. Lee: 'Dr. Rieder examine what a regional? data he noticed have EDTA.
Subsequently many other experts in the field they all agree with him.'

Again, NOBODY ever tested any of the blood evidence specifically
for the amount of EDTA in the evidence, but rather relied on speculating
about the competency of the FBI chemist who concluded the evidence
did NOT come from a police evidence vial...

Dr. Rieders: 'A reference sample was taken from another portion of that sock
[the socks found on the floor of O.J.'s bedroom] that was negative...so it
wasn't contamination from the sock itself but it was in the blood that has
fallen on there in my opinion. And that the blood that had fallen on there
[the sock] was not blood that had dripped from somebody on there but it
came from a container that had the preservative EDTA in it.'

Great, if this quote is the result of an actual scientific test by Dr.
Rieders (or anybody else for that matter), why didn't Johnny Cochran
sue the LAPD for racially-based falsification of evidence, false
imprisonment, fraudulent prosecution, et. al., beyond any
doubt?

I'VE ALREADY TOLD YOU WHY; READ MY POSTS.

Taken from the documentary: 'O.J. Is Guilty, But Not Of Murder - The
Overlooked Suspect'

Obviously this documentary just has a bunch of selectively-edited
testimony from the criminal trial, NOT any new testing that was done
for your imaginary "private investigation". Everything you posted
was just edited crap that Rieders and Lee testified to at the criminal
trial.

From the "New York Times", 7/25/1995, in a story about that day's
criminal trial testimony:

...

The witness, Dr. Fredric Rieders, a forensic toxicologist, said tests
performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation revealed a chemical
preservative and anti-coagulant placed in test tubes, in blood retrieved
from a sock found in Mr. Simpson's bedroom and from the rear gate of Nicole
Brown Simpson's condominium at 875 South Bundy Drive, where she and Ronald
L. Goldman were killed on June 12.

DNA tests have shown that the blood on the gate, which the police failed to
retrieve for several weeks, matched Mr. Simpson's. The blood on the sock is
even more potentially incriminating, for it matched Mrs. Simpson's.

...

---end of copyrighted excerpt

Get it? Rieders NEVER performed ANY tests on the blood himself,
but rather disputed the conclusion of the FBI chemist who actually
conducted the tests, based on his "evaluation" of the spectrograph
charts prepared BY THE FBI. He claimed the FBI was "incompetent"
in performing the tests, and this might very well be true, since a couple
years later the whole FBI forensics lab was the subject of a stinging
investigation that declared they had performed THOUSANDS of
tests incompetently.

Now, here's the problem: how can you accept the DATA from an
"incompetent" forensic chemist while simultaneously deriding the
methods the chemist used, and his conclusions?

WHY NOT JUST PERFORM THE TESTS YOURSELF AND
CLEAR UP ALL THE CONFUSION?

PS. Anybody want to comment on DNA of your first born son having simuliar
matching DNA markers as you...their father?

I think that OJ's son had an airtight alibi for the time of the murders;
wasn't he at work with dozens of witnesses? I will admit that it is
something that I considered fleetingly years ago, but realized it just
wouldn't fly as a possible alternate "theory" for many reasons...if THAT'S
the theory of this "new" documentary, it's even lamer than it sounded
at first, which was pretty damned lame...

---
William Ernest Reid

[c***@nym.hush.com]

On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 21:40:05 GMT, "Bill Reid" <***@happyhealthy.net>
wrote:


Man, it is easy to conclude from your post that it appears you don't like
anybody.

Post by Bill Reid

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 05:59:15 GMT, "Bill Reid"

Post by Bill Reid

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 23:08:44 GMT, "Bill Reid"

Post by Bill Reid

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 23:41:25 -0700, "Talkin Horse"

Post by Talkin Horse

Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!
O.J.'s blood was never found at the crime scene. He claimed the

cut

Post by Bill Reid
on

Post by Bill Reid
his

Post by Talkin Horse

Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!
hand was from rushing out of a Chicago hotel room...

He also said he had a lot of cuts on his hands because he played
golf...that's right, golf, the bloodiest game on Earth...

Post by Talkin Horse

Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!
Because the
prosecution did not question the cut on his hand,

What an idiot. The prosecution couldn't question him because he
refused to testify under the Fifth Admendment, just like Mark Fuhrman.

Post by Talkin Horse

Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!
the defense was unable
to present a maid who found blood on a broken glass in his hotel

room.

Post by Bill Reid
They showed pictures of his hands at the criminal trial. If they
wanted to call a witness that could explain those cuts, I think they
could have (I presume but don't remember if they ever asked the judge
to do so, and there probably was never any such "maid" in the first
place).

Post by Talkin Horse
For the record, Simpson's blood was found on the walkway and gate

at

Post by Bill Reid

Post by Bill Reid

Post by Talkin Horse
Nicole's condo.

Right, O.J.'s blood WAS found at the crime scene, BUT, it was proven

in

Post by Bill Reid

Post by Bill Reid

court that blood had astronomical amounts of EDTA in it.

Man, these latter-day OJ supporters are...well, just as wacky and
uninformed as the OJ supporters from a decade ago.

Wacky & uninformed. Me??? O.J. supporter? Maybe/maybe not. However,

I

Post by Bill Reid

like to have my facts straight.

That's why I straightened out your messed-up facts. I'm waiting for
a giant "THANK YOU"...

Post by Bill Reid
It was NEVER "proven" in ANY court that the undegraded fresh
blood on the gate (which matched Simpson to the odds of several
hundred million to one) had ANY EDTA in it, let alone "astronomical
amounts". That blood was NEVER tested specifically for EDTA
by ANYBODY, which is strange, because the defense planted
a bunch of stories in the media that evidence had been "planted"
by the cops, and they were going to "prove" it at the trial, but
then they never asserted it as a defense, and never bothered
to test the blood themselves.

Sorry to have taken so long to reply.

Oh believe me, it was worth the wait...

Had to research this before
commenting.

Where did you "research" this? Show your links!!!

Sure it was. This is Dr. Henry Lee area of expertise.

Wrong. Henry Lee is a wacky quack that has his own laughable
methods of physical evidence examination ("brod spratter"). He
typically testifies for the prosecution, but for OJ, and a tremendous
amount of money and publicity, he "testified" for the defense. He
was such a thin-skinned egomaniac that he held a press conference
immediately after being cross-examined claiming that the DEFENSE
twisted his words and made him look like a fool who thought OJ was
innocent...but making him look like a fool doesn't take a
"dream team"...

Dr. Lee was the one
who said there was EDTA in the blood on the back gate.

Wrong. You don't know squat about the case, like all "Pro-Js".
NOBODY testified that there was ANY EDTA in the blood on
the back gate. However, if you are a sufficiently weak-minded
fool who slavishly followed the defense team media "leaks"
prior to the trial, you probably still believe OJ couldn't have
done it because he was in Chicago at the time...

Same for the blood
on the walkway.

WRONG!!! The blood on the walkway was severely degraded by
bacterial contamination, and as such was never even considered
to have possibly come from a blood vial containing HUGE amounts
of EDTA, a PRESERVATIVE THAT SPECIFICALLY IS USED TO
KILL BACTERIA AND PREVENT DEGRADATION OF BLOOD
SAMPLES.
However, the degradation could make case for "reasonable doubt",
since it could only match to OJ by odds of a few hundred/thousand
to one, and you could question why blood collected the day
after a murder would be so degraded (Barry Scheck, of the defense
team, pound for pound the most genuinely effective lawyer in
that courtroom, did a MASTERFUL job in showing that the
cops mishandled and miscollected the blood evidence in the
case, leading VERY debateably to a "reasonable" conclusion of
"reasonable doubt" about SOME of the blood evidence).

Moreover, Dr. Lee said [that] blood was discovered several
days after the murders.

Possibly it was his testimony, or probably not, but there WAS a
"discrepancy" in terms of the "appearance" of the blood on the back
gate. Problem is, the only logical places the blood could have come
from were from the murderer, OJ, or from a police evidence vial, and
an FBI chemist CALLED BY THE DEFENSE testified beyond any
REASONABLE doubt that it did NOT come from a police evidence
vial...CASE CLOSED!!!

WTF was that all about?

Much ado about nothing? See above...and below...

All those forensic folks
swarming the crime scene and they happen to discover blood on the back

gate

about a week after the morders? Sounds fishy to me.

Problem is, Barry Scheck did such a great job proving what a
bunch of incompetent fools the LAPD were, he unintentionally
provided the explanation for why those "Keystone Kops" couldn't
find their own ass for a week even with both hands...

Post by Bill Reid
It's REALLY strange, because if they had found "astronomical
amounts" of EDTA in the blood that would constitute proof beyond
ANY doubt that the LAPD planted the blood to frame OJ, and
would have led to Johnnie Cochran's biggest case by far against
the LAPD in his several decades of suing the LAPD for racial
harrassment. And yet, Johnny NEVER bothered to test the
blood...any thoughts as to WHY? (Be aware that several
members of OJ's defense team have openly expressed doubt
as to his "innocence", and Johnny Cochran himself said he
"didn't know" if OJ was guilty or not.)

By astronmical I mean it had the same consentration of EDTA in blood

you

Post by Bill Reid

normally find in a vial of blood taken to perserve such blood.

I know exactly what you meant. They never found it in ANY amount.
Read the above carefully, have somebody explain it to you if you can't
figure it out...oh hell, I'll just kind of repeat it: JOHNNY COCHRAN,
WHO SPENT HIS ENTIRE ADULT LIFE SUING THE LAPD FOR
RACIAL HARRASSMENT, NEVER BOTHERED TO TEST THE
BLOOD FOR THE PRESERVATIVE EDTA, WHICH WOULD HAVE
PROVEN BEYOND ANY DOUBT THAT THE LAPD FRAMED OJ
SIMPSON, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN THE KEY PIECE OF
EVIDENCE IN THE MOST MONUMENTAL CIVIL RIGHTS CASE
IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Get it? Johnny never tested the blood because he KNEW it
wasn't planted, and that's why he NEVER even spoke a single
word about filing a racial harrassment suit on behalf of OJ
Simpson after the criminal trial, BECAUSE HE KNEW THE
LAPD DID NOT "FRAME" OJ, BECAUSE THERE WASN'T A
ANY EVIDENCE TO THAT EFFECT THAT COULD SUSTAIN
THE VERY LOW BURDEN OF PROOF IN A CIVIL TRIAL.
It's also why he never asserted it as an "affirmative defense"
in the criminal trial, because he knew he couldn't prove it to
the "clear and convincing" standard for those kinds of defenses.
Instead, he planted the idea in the media, and idiots like you
are STILL parrotting it as if it actually was "proven" in the
criminal trial, WHEN IT WAS NEVER ACTUALLY EVEN
RAISED AS AN ISSUE BY THE DEFENSE.

Not the
small amount of EDTA that is naturally found.

There is no easily detectable level of EDTA in human blood,
because a detectable level would be enough to seriously
sicken a person. EDTA IS widely used as a food preservative
in very common foodstuffs everybody eats, but in VERY minute
quantities...oddly enough, this WAS testified to in the criminal
trial, so you've managed to get EVERY single fact wrong...GREAT
WORK!!!

Oh *%)!, my bad... Dr. Henry Lee did say there was EDTA in the blood found
on the socks. He just didn't say it at the trial. Also, Dr. Fredric
Rieders, Professor Pharmacology & Toxicology, Jefferson Medical College in
Pennsylvania also said it.

Man, are you messed-up on your "facts"...
This "Dr. Fredric Rieders" was the geriatric old fake that the defense
called to "rebut" their own witness, the FBI chemist who concluded that
the blood did NOT come from a police evidence vial. READ MY POSTS
YOU FOOL, I WENT OVER ALL OF THESE ISSUES, AND THIS
ISSUE IN PARTICULAR IS IN THE POST YOU ARE RESPONDING
TO.
Rieders NEVER tested the blood himself, but rather concluded
that the FBI should have done further testing to isolate the cause
of spectrograph readings that would be consistent with MINISCULE
amounts of EDTA. He acknowledged under x-exam that those readings
could have been caused by any number other compounds or even
just "noise in the machine before it was calibrated" since they
appeared inconsistently in the tests. He then rambled on nonsensically
about EDTA in a German river being degraded by sunlight, but AGAIN,
he NEVER actually tested the blood himself or concluded that the
blood MUST have come from a police evidence vial, his only
un-/self-contradicted testimony was his criticism of the thoroughness
of the FBI chemist in actually isolating EDTA specifically and the
actual amount.

Dr. Lee was referring to another investigation that was launched by a
private investigator.

Why have all of these idiots not just tested the blood themselves,
especially if they are so critical of how the FBI did it?

Dr. Lee commenting on the blood on the socks found on the bedroom floor of
Dr. Lee: 'We have some blood stains, Nicole's blood, the theory is when

O.J.

at the scene Nicole tried to grab his ankle and that's how the blood was
transferred. However, it you wear socks [and] somebody grab your ankle,

you

should find both sides outside and inside have blood if you have

sufficient

blood or you just find outside have blood.'

All "Dr." Henry Lee testimony boils down to "brod spratter". If the
DEFENSE (in all cases but OJ) has the temerity to present an alternate
theory as to exactly how somebody was bludgeoned, shot, or stabbed to
death, he steps in for the PROSECUTION and claims "that not consistent
with brod spratter".

Note: The sock found had blood on the outside of one side of the sock, and
on the two inside surfaces but there was no blood found on the other

outside

surface [of the sock].

For OJ, he branched out and speculated about blood transfer patterns
during the murder and evidence collection and declared some "brod tlansfer
pattelns not consistent"...

Dr. Lee: 'If somebody have a foot inside [of the sock] how the blood got
transferred from here to that side [the inside of one surface to the

inside

of the other surface] without leaving anything is kind of a very

interesting

issue that never got resolved.'

Fascinating..."brod tlansfer pattelns not consistent"...

Dr. Lee: 'Dr. Rieder examine what a regional? data he noticed have EDTA.
Subsequently many other experts in the field they all agree with him.'

Again, NOBODY ever tested any of the blood evidence specifically
for the amount of EDTA in the evidence, but rather relied on speculating
about the competency of the FBI chemist who concluded the evidence
did NOT come from a police evidence vial...

Dr. Rieders: 'A reference sample was taken from another portion of that

sock

[the socks found on the floor of O.J.'s bedroom] that was negative...so it
wasn't contamination from the sock itself but it was in the blood that

has

fallen on there in my opinion. And that the blood that had fallen on

there

[the sock] was not blood that had dripped from somebody on there but it
came from a container that had the preservative EDTA in it.'

Great, if this quote is the result of an actual scientific test by Dr.
Rieders (or anybody else for that matter), why didn't Johnny Cochran
sue the LAPD for racially-based falsification of evidence, false
imprisonment, fraudulent prosecution, et. al., beyond any
doubt?
I'VE ALREADY TOLD YOU WHY; READ MY POSTS.

Taken from the documentary: 'O.J. Is Guilty, But Not Of Murder - The
Overlooked Suspect'

Obviously this documentary just has a bunch of selectively-edited
testimony from the criminal trial, NOT any new testing that was done
for your imaginary "private investigation". Everything you posted
was just edited crap that Rieders and Lee testified to at the criminal
trial.

Negative, it was from the documentary. It has new evidence. Why don't you
get it and watch it for yourself?

Post by Bill Reid
From the "New York Times", 7/25/1995, in a story about that day's
...
The witness, Dr. Fredric Rieders, a forensic toxicologist, said tests
performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation revealed a chemical
preservative and anti-coagulant placed in test tubes, in blood retrieved
from a sock found in Mr. Simpson's bedroom and from the rear gate of Nicole
Brown Simpson's condominium at 875 South Bundy Drive, where she and Ronald
L. Goldman were killed on June 12.
DNA tests have shown that the blood on the gate, which the police failed to
retrieve for several weeks, matched Mr. Simpson's. The blood on the sock is
even more potentially incriminating, for it matched Mrs. Simpson's.
...
---end of copyrighted excerpt
Get it? Rieders NEVER performed ANY tests on the blood himself,
but rather disputed the conclusion of the FBI chemist who actually
conducted the tests, based on his "evaluation" of the spectrograph
charts prepared BY THE FBI. He claimed the FBI was "incompetent"
in performing the tests, and this might very well be true, since a couple
years later the whole FBI forensics lab was the subject of a stinging
investigation that declared they had performed THOUSANDS of
tests incompetently.
Now, here's the problem: how can you accept the DATA from an
"incompetent" forensic chemist while simultaneously deriding the
methods the chemist used, and his conclusions?
WHY NOT JUST PERFORM THE TESTS YOURSELF AND
CLEAR UP ALL THE CONFUSION?

PS. Anybody want to comment on DNA of your first born son having simuliar
matching DNA markers as you...their father?

I think that OJ's son had an airtight alibi for the time of the murders;
wasn't he at work with dozens of witnesses? I will admit that it is
something that I considered fleetingly years ago, but realized it just
wouldn't fly as a possible alternate "theory" for many reasons...if THAT'S
the theory of this "new" documentary, it's even lamer than it sounded
at first, which was pretty damned lame...

At the time of the murders, Jason worked at Jackson's Restaurant.

The person who gave LAPD an 'airtight' alibi for Jason was the owner of
'Jackson's restaurant', Alan Ladd Jackson. But, he must have telepathic
powers because he was miles away at a party with the other owners of the
restaurant.

Said another way, 'JASON L. SIMPSON' DID NOT HAVE AN AIRTIGHT ALIBI.

Post by Bill Reid
---
William Ernest Reid

[Bill Reid]

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 21:40:05 GMT, "Bill Reid"
Man, it is easy to conclude from your post that it appears you don't like
anybody.

Well, maybe to a preponderance of evidence, not beyond a reasonable
doubt...

Post by c***@nym.hush.com

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
Taken from the documentary: 'O.J. Is Guilty, But Not Of Murder - The
Overlooked Suspect'

Obviously this documentary just has a bunch of selectively-edited
testimony from the criminal trial, NOT any new testing that was done
for your imaginary "private investigation". Everything you posted
was just edited crap that Rieders and Lee testified to at the criminal
trial.

Negative, it was from the documentary. It has new evidence. Why don't you
get it and watch it for yourself?

You haven't posted any "new" evidence...even if this guy went out and
interviewed Lee and Rieders for the documentary, they're just saying the
same dumb crap they said at the criminal trial.

AGAIN, I'm waiting for this genius Rieders to perform all the tests
he said the FBI didn't perform properly; now THAT would be "new"
evidence (I'm gonna have a long wait, because he died in 2006, so
I'm not sure where they got any interview footage of him).

Post by c***@nym.hush.com

Post by Bill Reid
Get it? Rieders NEVER performed ANY tests on the blood himself,
but rather disputed the conclusion of the FBI chemist who actually
conducted the tests, based on his "evaluation" of the spectrograph
charts prepared BY THE FBI. He claimed the FBI was "incompetent"
in performing the tests, and this might very well be true, since a couple
years later the whole FBI forensics lab was the subject of a stinging
investigation that declared they had performed THOUSANDS of
tests incompetently.
Now, here's the problem: how can you accept the DATA from an
"incompetent" forensic chemist while simultaneously deriding the
methods the chemist used, and his conclusions?
WHY NOT JUST PERFORM THE TESTS YOURSELF AND
CLEAR UP ALL THE CONFUSION?

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
PS. Anybody want to comment on DNA of your first born son having simuliar
matching DNA markers as you...their father?

Since the blood evidence was faked, who cares? I'm getting
JFK assasination conspiracy theory douche chills all over again...

Post by c***@nym.hush.com

Post by Bill Reid
I think that OJ's son had an airtight alibi for the time of the murders;
wasn't he at work with dozens of witnesses? I will admit that it is
something that I considered fleetingly years ago, but realized it just
wouldn't fly as a possible alternate "theory" for many reasons...if THAT'S
the theory of this "new" documentary, it's even lamer than it sounded
at first, which was pretty damned lame...

At the time of the murders, Jason worked at Jackson's Restaurant.
The person who gave LAPD an 'airtight' alibi for Jason was the owner of
'Jackson's restaurant', Alan Ladd Jackson. But, he must have telepathic
powers because he was miles away at a party with the other owners of the
restaurant.
Said another way, 'JASON L. SIMPSON' DID NOT HAVE AN AIRTIGHT ALIBI.

Said another way, by a denizen of planet Earth: he was in a restaurant
surrounded by co-workers and also probably customers, so he probably
has plenty of people other than the guy who paid his salary that night
to testify he was working there...but the conspiracy always just keeps
getting wider doesn't it? Now the busboys are faking evidence...

I'll tell you, after reading his civil trial testimony, I just don't think
the kid had it in him; seemed like an honest, if a LITTLE mixed-up,
guy.

Of course, you probably know this, but apparently the old
civil and criminal trial transcripts site is still up, so you could
bone up on all of this yourself:

http://walraven.org/simpson/

But frankly, I just start getting crazy all over again with the
inane comments by "Judge" Ego, so I can't take too much of
that, but here is taste of the insanity of the whole "defense"
strategy of calling the FBI chemist to "prove" that the blood
was planted by attacking his conclusion that the blood was
NOT planted, rather than testing the blood themselves.

Note carefully that the defense actually argued that the
FBI should have conducted tests to "prove" that the blood
on the gate might not test positive for EDTA because it reacted
with the metal in the gate; so the defense theory was that even
if there was little to no detectable EDTA in the blood, the blood
STILL might have been planted!!! Heads it was planted, tails
it was planted!!!!

MADNESS!!!!!!

----- start of idiotic criminal trial testimony

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: Good afternoon. Agent Martz, first of all, based on all of the
testing that you conducted in this case, did you come to a conclusion as to
whether or not the evidence bloodstains taken from the rear gate and taken
from the socks found in the Defendant's bedroom had blood that came from the
tube with the preservative known as EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I did.

MS. CLARK: And what conclusion was that?

MR. MARTZ: I concluded based on the work that I'd done on the 19th, the 22nd
and the 28th that the bloodstains in question did not come from preserved
blood, they did not come from blood that was preserved with EDTA.

MS. CLARK: Now, you were subpoenaed to testify here by the Defense; is that
correct?

MR. MARTZ: That is correct.

MS. CLARK: You've been asked a series of questions by Mr. Blasier concerning
experiments and whether or not you'd conducted them.

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Is that correct?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, it is.

MS. CLARK: You were asked whether you conducted experiments to determine
whether EDTA will break down if it is in blood that is on a metal surface
such as a rear gate.

MR. MARTZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: You know who Dr. Rieders is, correct?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: You are familiar with the equipment he has in his lab?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I am.

MS. CLARK: Do you know who Dr. Ballard is?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: Is he present here in court today?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, he is.

MS. CLARK: Is he seated right back there at counsel table?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, he is.

MS. CLARK: Is he the gentleman in the long blond hair and the glasses?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, he is.

MS. CLARK: Are you familiar with the equipment that he has, sir?

MR. MARTZ: Some of the equipment that he has, yes.

MS. CLARK: Does he have a liquid chromatograph tandem mass spectrometer?

MR. MARTZ: To my knowledge, he does not have a liquid chromatogram mass
spectrometer.

MS. CLARK: What is it that he has to your knowledge?

MR. MARTZ: I believe that he--

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MARTZ: I believe that he has mass spec, mass spec capabilities.

MS. CLARK: Then the equipment that is possessed by Dr. Rieders and by Dr.
Ballard, is that equipment sufficient to conduct the experiment of
determining whether or not EDTA will break down or degrade when in blood on
metal such as a gate?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, it is.

MS. CLARK: And did Dr. Rieders ever confer with you about any experiments
that he had conducted in that regard?

MR. MARTZ: No, he did not.

MS. CLARK: Or did Dr. Ballard?

MR. MARTZ: No.

MS. CLARK: You were asked whether or not you conducted any experiments to
determine whether the type of paint found on the rear gate at 875 South
Bundy would degrade EDTA in blood if placed on that paint. You remember
that?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I remember.

MS. CLARK: To your knowledge, could Dr. Rieders perform such an experiment?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, he could.

MS. CLARK: Could Dr. Ballard perform such an experiment?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, he could.

MS. CLARK: To your knowledge, have they?

MR. MARTZ: To my knowledge, they have not.

MS. CLARK: You were asked also, sir, about whether or not rust, such as what
may be present on the rear gate at 875 South Bundy, may interact with EDTA
to degrade it if in blood on that surface. Do you recall that question?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: Could Dr. Rieders perform a test to determine whether or not that
substance would degrade EDTA in blood?

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this line of questioning and
ask to approach if necessary.

THE COURT: With the court reporter, please.

...

THE COURT: Thank you. Proceed.

MS. CLARK: Do you remember the last--

THE COURT: Rust.

MS. CLARK: Rust. Thank you.

THE COURT: Never sleeps.

MS. CLARK: You were asked a question as to whether or not you have conducted
any experiment to determine whether or not EDTA on a bloodstain on a rusty
surface will degrade as a result of contact with that rust. Do you recall
that question?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: Can--could Dr. Rieders perform such an experiment, sir, to
determine whether or not EDTA would degrade under those conditions?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, he could.

MS. CLARK: And to your knowledge, has he?

MR. MARTZ: To my knowledge, he has not.

MS. CLARK: You recall you were asked a question as to whether or not you
conducted any testing as to whether or not fertilizer--if EDTA in a
bloodstain was subjected to fertilizer, whether that would break down the
EDTA. Do you recall that question?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: Could Dr. Rieders perform such a test or experiment, sir?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, he could.

MS. CLARK: And to your knowledge, has he?

MR. MARTZ: To my knowledge, he has not.

MS. CLARK: Do you recall questions concerning whether or not high intensity
light focused on the socks might degrade any EDTA that was present in the
bloodstains on that sock? Remember?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: To your knowledge, could Dr. Rieders perform such an examination
or such an experiment to determine whether or not EDTA would degrade under
that condition?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, he could.

MS. CLARK: To your knowledge, has he?

MR. MARTZ: To my knowledge, he has not.

MS. CLARK: You were asked a series of questions concerning whether or not
sudden temperature changes could cause EDTA to degrade in blood. Do you
recall that?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: Could Dr. Rieders perform experiments to determine whether or not
sudden temperature changes would affect or degrade EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, he could.

MS. CLARK: To your knowledge, has he done so?

MR. MARTZ: To my knowledge, he has not.

...

MS. CLARK: Now, if what you want to know is whether or not any EDTA that may
be detected in a stain comes from preserved tube, a preservative EDTA tube
or comes from natural blood that has low levels of EDTA, would it be
important to quantify with precision the amount of EDTA that you would find?

MR. MARTZ: Not in this particular case. The studies that I did and the
studies that were done at Quantico demonstrated very easily that you could
determine between preserved blood and nonpreserved blood. We're talking a
factor of 100 to a thousand times as much EDTA in preserved blood. And as I
mentioned, we don't even know what the amount of EDTA is in human blood. And
as I mentioned also, we don't even know whether in fact EDTA was found in
these particular samples. The only thing I know for sure is, EDTA was
present in the control blood samples that I made from the K67 and K68 blood
samples.

MS. CLARK: Now, you were asked if you had determined whether or not the red
top tube has some EDTA in it just by the virtue of the way it's
manufactured. Do you recall that question?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: Would you be capable of testing the tube to determine that?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, I would.

MS. CLARK: Would Dr. Rieders be capable of testing the tube to determine
that?

MR. MARTZ: Yes, he would.

...

MS. CLARK: All right. You're aware of Dr. Rieders' capability, sir. Could he
test the blood of Nicole brown Simpson that is currently in evidence for
EDTA?

MR. MARTZ: I believe that he could.

MS. CLARK: To your knowledge, has he done so?

MR. MARTZ: To my knowledge, he has not.

MS. CLARK: In fact, as far as you know and as far as you are aware, sir, Dr.
Rieders has done nothing more than take your test results and give his own
interpretation to them. Is that your understanding?

MR. MARTZ: That's my understanding.

MS. CLARK: And he has performed no independent tests on any of the evidence
in this case?

MR. MARTZ: That's my understanding.

----- end of idiotic criminal trial testimony

---
William Ernest Reid

[c***@nym.hush.com]

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 21:40:05 GMT, "Bill Reid"
Man, it is easy to conclude from your post that it appears you don't like
anybody.

Well, maybe to a preponderance of evidence, not beyond a reasonable
doubt...

You sound like a lawyer

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
Taken from the documentary: 'O.J. Is Guilty, But Not Of Murder - The
Overlooked Suspect'

Rieders & Lee went on record with other information about this case.

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com

Post by Bill Reid
Obviously this documentary just has a bunch of selectively-edited
testimony from the criminal trial, NOT any new testing that was done
for your imaginary "private investigation". Everything you posted
was just edited crap that Rieders and Lee testified to at the criminal
trial.

The documentary has this line which rings true:

The search for truth begins with
the doubt of all 'truths' in which
one has previously believed.

Frederich Nietzsche

If you are willing to be open to additonal information/evidence that is one
thing. If your mind is like a steel trap where nothing gets in...nothing
gets out, your not capable of absorbing any additional information that goes
contrary to what you currently believe.

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
Negative, it was from the documentary. It has new evidence. Why don't

you

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
get it and watch it for yourself?

You haven't posted any "new" evidence...even if this guy went out and
interviewed Lee and Rieders for the documentary, they're just saying the
same dumb crap they said at the criminal trial.
AGAIN, I'm waiting for this genius Rieders to perform all the tests
he said the FBI didn't perform properly; now THAT would be "new"
evidence (I'm gonna have a long wait, because he died in 2006, so
I'm not sure where they got any interview footage of him).

Post by c***@nym.hush.com

Post by Bill Reid
Get it? Rieders NEVER performed ANY tests on the blood himself,
but rather disputed the conclusion of the FBI chemist who actually
conducted the tests, based on his "evaluation" of the spectrograph
charts prepared BY THE FBI. He claimed the FBI was "incompetent"
in performing the tests, and this might very well be true, since a couple
years later the whole FBI forensics lab was the subject of a stinging
investigation that declared they had performed THOUSANDS of
tests incompetently.
Now, here's the problem: how can you accept the DATA from an
"incompetent" forensic chemist while simultaneously deriding the
methods the chemist used, and his conclusions?
WHY NOT JUST PERFORM THE TESTS YOURSELF AND
CLEAR UP ALL THE CONFUSION?

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
PS. Anybody want to comment on DNA of your first born son having

simuliar

Post by c***@nym.hush.com

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
matching DNA markers as you...their father?

Since the blood evidence was faked, who cares? I'm getting
JFK assasination conspiracy theory douche chills all over again...

Post by c***@nym.hush.com

Post by Bill Reid
I think that OJ's son had an airtight alibi for the time of the murders;
wasn't he at work with dozens of witnesses? I will admit that it is
something that I considered fleetingly years ago, but realized it just
wouldn't fly as a possible alternate "theory" for many reasons...if

THAT'S

Post by c***@nym.hush.com

Post by Bill Reid
the theory of this "new" documentary, it's even lamer than it sounded
at first, which was pretty damned lame...

At the time of the murders, Jason worked at Jackson's Restaurant.
The person who gave LAPD an 'airtight' alibi for Jason was the owner of
'Jackson's restaurant', Alan Ladd Jackson. But, he must have telepathic
powers because he was miles away at a party with the other owners of the
restaurant.
Said another way, 'JASON L. SIMPSON' DID NOT HAVE AN AIRTIGHT ALIBI.

Said another way, by a denizen of planet Earth: he was in a restaurant
surrounded by co-workers and also probably customers, so he probably
has plenty of people other than the guy who paid his salary that night
to testify he was working there...but the conspiracy always just keeps
getting wider doesn't it? Now the busboys are faking evidence...

Mr. Carlos Ramos (who was a bus boy) said in the documentary that Jason left
the restaurant at 9:30PM. Carlos said he left at about 10:30PM. Carlos
said the Shef usually leaves the restaurant as soon as there are no people
to serve and they clean up their station for the evening.

HTF would you know if Mr. Ramos was faking evidence? Are you pissed off
because it goes against what you believe?

Post by Bill Reid
I'll tell you, after reading his civil trial testimony, I just don't think
the kid had it in him; seemed like an honest, if a LITTLE mixed-up,
guy.

Mixed up doesn't describe it.
Watch the documentary and you will see why.

Post by Bill Reid
Of course, you probably know this, but apparently the old
civil and criminal trial transcripts site is still up, so you could
http://walraven.org/simpson/
But frankly, I just start getting crazy all over again with the
inane comments by "Judge" Ego, so I can't take too much of
that, but here is taste of the insanity of the whole "defense"
strategy of calling the FBI chemist to "prove" that the blood
was planted by attacking his conclusion that the blood was
NOT planted, rather than testing the blood themselves.
Note carefully that the defense actually argued that the
FBI should have conducted tests to "prove" that the blood
on the gate might not test positive for EDTA because it reacted
with the metal in the gate; so the defense theory was that even
if there was little to no detectable EDTA in the blood, the blood
STILL might have been planted!!! Heads it was planted, tails
it was planted!!!!
MADNESS!!!!!!
----- start of idiotic criminal trial testimony deleted
----- end of idiotic criminal trial testimony
---
William Ernest Reid

I'll post the documentary in newsgroups:
alt.binaries.multimedia,alt.binaries.multimedia.documentaries
this evening. The title of the post will be:
O.J. is Guilty, But Not of Murder

Do you have the courage to view it and give your thoughts about it?

We will see.

Remember The search for truth begins with
the doubt of all 'truths' in which
one has previously believed.

Frederich Nietzsche

Perhaps if Mr. William Ernest Reid doesn't have the courage to critique the
documentary, somebody else will.

This are text groups. I'd love to post it here,but don't want to get
flamed.

[Bill Reid]

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 06:42:02 GMT, "Bill Reid"

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 21:40:05 GMT, "Bill Reid"
Man, it is easy to conclude from your post that it appears you don't like
anybody.

Well, maybe to a preponderance of evidence, not beyond a reasonable
doubt...

You sound like a lawyer

I'm just trying to protect my "rights"...

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
Taken from the documentary: 'O.J. Is Guilty, But Not Of Murder - The
Overlooked Suspect'

Rieders & Lee went on record with other information about this case.

What?

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com

Post by Bill Reid
Obviously this documentary just has a bunch of selectively-edited
testimony from the criminal trial, NOT any new testing that was done
for your imaginary "private investigation". Everything you posted
was just edited crap that Rieders and Lee testified to at the criminal
trial.

The search for truth begins with
the doubt of all 'truths' in which
one has previously believed.
Frederich Nietzsche

Did you know Nietzsche died in an insane asylum?

On the other hand, he has a certain point there...I prefer the
saying, "Keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall
out."

If you are willing to be open to additonal information/evidence that is one
thing. If your mind is like a steel trap where nothing gets in...nothing
gets out, your not capable of absorbing any additional information that goes
contrary to what you currently believe.

So far you haven't presented any new information, that's what I keep
complaining about...

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
Negative, it was from the documentary. It has new evidence. Why don't

you

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
get it and watch it for yourself?

Maybe, if things get REALLY slow...

Post by Bill Reid
You haven't posted any "new" evidence...even if this guy went out and
interviewed Lee and Rieders for the documentary, they're just saying the
same dumb crap they said at the criminal trial.
AGAIN, I'm waiting for this genius Rieders to perform all the tests
he said the FBI didn't perform properly; now THAT would be "new"
evidence (I'm gonna have a long wait, because he died in 2006, so
I'm not sure where they got any interview footage of him).

Post by c***@nym.hush.com

Post by Bill Reid
Get it? Rieders NEVER performed ANY tests on the blood himself,
but rather disputed the conclusion of the FBI chemist who actually
conducted the tests, based on his "evaluation" of the spectrograph
charts prepared BY THE FBI. He claimed the FBI was "incompetent"
in performing the tests, and this might very well be true, since a couple
years later the whole FBI forensics lab was the subject of a stinging
investigation that declared they had performed THOUSANDS of
tests incompetently.
Now, here's the problem: how can you accept the DATA from an
"incompetent" forensic chemist while simultaneously deriding the
methods the chemist used, and his conclusions?
WHY NOT JUST PERFORM THE TESTS YOURSELF AND
CLEAR UP ALL THE CONFUSION?

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
PS. Anybody want to comment on DNA of your first born son having

simuliar

Post by c***@nym.hush.com

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
matching DNA markers as you...their father?

Since the blood evidence was faked, who cares? I'm getting
JFK assasination conspiracy theory douche chills all over again...

Post by c***@nym.hush.com

Post by Bill Reid
I think that OJ's son had an airtight alibi for the time of the murders;
wasn't he at work with dozens of witnesses? I will admit that it is
something that I considered fleetingly years ago, but realized it just
wouldn't fly as a possible alternate "theory" for many reasons...if

THAT'S

Post by c***@nym.hush.com

Post by Bill Reid
the theory of this "new" documentary, it's even lamer than it sounded
at first, which was pretty damned lame...

At the time of the murders, Jason worked at Jackson's Restaurant.
The person who gave LAPD an 'airtight' alibi for Jason was the owner of
'Jackson's restaurant', Alan Ladd Jackson. But, he must have telepathic
powers because he was miles away at a party with the other owners of the
restaurant.
Said another way, 'JASON L. SIMPSON' DID NOT HAVE AN AIRTIGHT ALIBI.

Said another way, by a denizen of planet Earth: he was in a restaurant
surrounded by co-workers and also probably customers, so he probably
has plenty of people other than the guy who paid his salary that night
to testify he was working there...but the conspiracy always just keeps
getting wider doesn't it? Now the busboys are faking evidence...

Mr. Carlos Ramos (who was a bus boy) said in the documentary that Jason left
the restaurant at 9:30PM. Carlos said he left at about 10:30PM. Carlos
said the Shef usually leaves the restaurant as soon as there are no people
to serve and they clean up their station for the evening.

OK, so the last person to see him that night was the busboy at
9:30PM? If we find another alibi witness or two at a later time, where
does that leave us?

HTF would you know if Mr. Ramos was faking evidence? Are you pissed off
because it goes against what you believe?

No. I said I always considered the possibility that OJ's son did
the deed, because of several specific pieces of evidence, but vaguely
thought he had an airtight alibi...if he actually didn't, it might be worth
re-evaluating...

Post by Bill Reid
I'll tell you, after reading his civil trial testimony, I just don't think
the kid had it in him; seemed like an honest, if a LITTLE mixed-up,
guy.

Mixed up doesn't describe it.
Watch the documentary and you will see why.

He DID have a certain history of criminal violence. Of course,
there are also some other pieces of evidence (many pieces) that
point more logically to OJ than his son...

Post by Bill Reid
Of course, you probably know this, but apparently the old
civil and criminal trial transcripts site is still up, so you could
http://walraven.org/simpson/

alt.binaries.multimedia,alt.binaries.multimedia.documentaries
O.J. is Guilty, But Not of Murder

Well, that's where it will be then...

Do you have the courage to view it and give your thoughts about it?

I don't have the patience for the download, really, "courage" is not
a factor, I don't actually have a dog in this hunt...

We will see.

Yes, we will...what?

Remember The search for truth begins with
the doubt of all 'truths' in which
one has previously believed.
Frederich Nietzsche

Remember Nietzsche died in an insane asylum.

Perhaps if Mr. William Ernest Reid doesn't have the courage to critique the
documentary, somebody else will.

Your constant references to my lack of "courage" is actually making
me LESS likely to watch the stupid video, not more...

This are text groups. I'd love to post it here,but don't want to get
flamed.

Yeah, don't do that. Also, you're not violating copyrights, are you?
I'm sure the guy who spent a lot of time and effort to put it together
would prefer to be paid for it and not have it stolen...

---
William Ernest Reid

[c***@nym.hush.com]

Post by Bill Reid

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 06:42:02 GMT, "Bill Reid"

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 21:40:05 GMT, "Bill Reid"
Man, it is easy to conclude from your post that it appears you don't

like

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
anybody.

Well, maybe to a preponderance of evidence, not beyond a reasonable
doubt...

You sound like a lawyer

I'm just trying to protect my "rights"...

Lawyers are usually pretty good at protecting their rights.

Post by Bill Reid

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
Taken from the documentary: 'O.J. Is Guilty, But Not Of Murder - The
Overlooked Suspect'

Rieders & Lee went on record with other information about this case.

What?

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com

Post by Bill Reid
Obviously this documentary just has a bunch of selectively-edited
testimony from the criminal trial, NOT any new testing that was done
for your imaginary "private investigation". Everything you posted
was just edited crap that Rieders and Lee testified to at the criminal
trial.

The search for truth begins with
the doubt of all 'truths' in which
one has previously believed.
Frederich Nietzsche

Did you know Nietzsche died in an insane asylum?
On the other hand, he has a certain point there...I prefer the
saying, "Keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall
out."

No, I didn't know that. Pretty tragic if true.

Post by Bill Reid

If you are willing to be open to additonal information/evidence that is

one

thing. If your mind is like a steel trap where nothing gets in...nothing
gets out, your not capable of absorbing any additional information that

goes

contrary to what you currently believe.

So far you haven't presented any new information, that's what I keep
complaining about...

Sure I have --The documentary has the new evidence. If your the type who
has to see it in print, I am not your guy. I can only steer you in the
right direction. You have to test drive the documentary to see if it
'floats your boat' so to speak. I can't tell you about the whole
documentary.

Post by Bill Reid

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
Negative, it was from the documentary. It has new evidence. Why don't

you

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
get it and watch it for yourself?

Maybe, if things get REALLY slow...

That's a cop out.

Post by Bill Reid

Post by Bill Reid
You haven't posted any "new" evidence...even if this guy went out and
interviewed Lee and Rieders for the documentary, they're just saying the
same dumb crap they said at the criminal trial.
AGAIN, I'm waiting for this genius Rieders to perform all the tests
he said the FBI didn't perform properly; now THAT would be "new"
evidence (I'm gonna have a long wait, because he died in 2006, so
I'm not sure where they got any interview footage of him).

Post by c***@nym.hush.com

Post by Bill Reid
Get it? Rieders NEVER performed ANY tests on the blood himself,
but rather disputed the conclusion of the FBI chemist who actually
conducted the tests, based on his "evaluation" of the spectrograph
charts prepared BY THE FBI. He claimed the FBI was "incompetent"
in performing the tests, and this might very well be true, since a

couple

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com

Post by Bill Reid
years later the whole FBI forensics lab was the subject of a stinging
investigation that declared they had performed THOUSANDS of
tests incompetently.
Now, here's the problem: how can you accept the DATA from an
"incompetent" forensic chemist while simultaneously deriding the
methods the chemist used, and his conclusions?
WHY NOT JUST PERFORM THE TESTS YOURSELF AND
CLEAR UP ALL THE CONFUSION?

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
PS. Anybody want to comment on DNA of your first born son having

simuliar

Post by c***@nym.hush.com

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
matching DNA markers as you...their father?

Since the blood evidence was faked, who cares? I'm getting
JFK assasination conspiracy theory douche chills all over again...

Post by c***@nym.hush.com

Post by Bill Reid
I think that OJ's son had an airtight alibi for the time of the

murders;

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com

Post by Bill Reid
wasn't he at work with dozens of witnesses? I will admit that it is
something that I considered fleetingly years ago, but realized it just
wouldn't fly as a possible alternate "theory" for many reasons...if

THAT'S

Post by c***@nym.hush.com

Post by Bill Reid
the theory of this "new" documentary, it's even lamer than it sounded
at first, which was pretty damned lame...

At the time of the murders, Jason worked at Jackson's Restaurant.
The person who gave LAPD an 'airtight' alibi for Jason was the owner of
'Jackson's restaurant', Alan Ladd Jackson. But, he must have

telepathic

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
powers because he was miles away at a party with the other owners of

the

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
restaurant.
Said another way, 'JASON L. SIMPSON' DID NOT HAVE AN AIRTIGHT ALIBI.

Said another way, by a denizen of planet Earth: he was in a restaurant
surrounded by co-workers and also probably customers, so he probably
has plenty of people other than the guy who paid his salary that night
to testify he was working there...but the conspiracy always just keeps
getting wider doesn't it? Now the busboys are faking evidence...

Mr. Carlos Ramos (who was a bus boy) said in the documentary that Jason

left

the restaurant at 9:30PM. Carlos said he left at about 10:30PM. Carlos
said the Shef usually leaves the restaurant as soon as there are no people
to serve and they clean up their station for the evening.

OK, so the last person to see him that night was the busboy at
9:30PM? If we find another alibi witness or two at a later time, where
does that leave us?

Right and wrong. The last person to see Jason at the restaurant was
probably Mr. Ramos. Perhaps others saw Jason leave. Mr. Ramos went on
record as to the time Jason left the restaurant.

However, the NEXT TO LAST person to see Jason that night was Jason's
girlfriend. She had Jason's jeep and came by the restaurant at 9PM to pick
him up. According to Mr. Ramos, they left at about 9:30PM. Jason's
girlfriend was the next to last person to see Jason. Jason said he dropped
his girlfriend off and immediately went home to watch TV.

The last people to see Jason was Nicole & Ron. But they can't talk anymore.

Post by Bill Reid

HTF would you know if Mr. Ramos was faking evidence? Are you pissed off
because it goes against what you believe?

No. I said I always considered the possibility that OJ's son did
the deed, because of several specific pieces of evidence, but vaguely
thought he had an airtight alibi...if he actually didn't, it might be worth
re-evaluating...

Post by Bill Reid
I'll tell you, after reading his civil trial testimony, I just don't

think

Post by Bill Reid
the kid had it in him; seemed like an honest, if a LITTLE mixed-up,
guy.

Mixed up doesn't describe it.
Watch the documentary and you will see why.

He DID have a certain history of criminal violence. Of course,
there are also some other pieces of evidence (many pieces) that
point more logically to OJ than his son...

Your talking outta both sides of your mouth mister. Watch the documentary
and see for yourself.

Post by Bill Reid

Post by Bill Reid
Of course, you probably know this, but apparently the old
civil and criminal trial transcripts site is still up, so you could
http://walraven.org/simpson/

alt.binaries.multimedia,alt.binaries.multimedia.documentaries
O.J. is Guilty, But Not of Murder

Well, that's where it will be then...

Do you have the courage to view it and give your thoughts about it?

I don't have the patience for the download, really, "courage" is not
a factor, I don't actually have a dog in this hunt...

You have the patience to check this newsgroup for my reply all the time. But
you don't have the patience to download the video and watch it? That just
doesn't pass the smell test Mr. Reid. THAT DOG WON'T HUNT!!!!!!!

Post by Bill Reid

We will see.

Yes, we will...what?

Remember The search for truth begins with
the doubt of all 'truths' in which
one has previously believed.
Frederich Nietzsche

Remember Nietzsche died in an insane asylum.

Perhaps if Mr. William Ernest Reid doesn't have the courage to critique

the

documentary, somebody else will.

Your constant references to my lack of "courage" is actually making
me LESS likely to watch the stupid video, not more...

Cop out.

Post by Bill Reid

This are text groups. I'd love to post it here,but don't want to get
flamed.

Yeah, don't do that. Also, you're not violating copyrights, are you?
I'm sure the guy who spent a lot of time and effort to put it together
would prefer to be paid for it and not have it stolen...
---
William Ernest Reid

[Bill Reid]

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 00:45:57 GMT, "Bill Reid"

Post by Bill Reid

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 06:42:02 GMT, "Bill Reid"

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 21:40:05 GMT, "Bill Reid"
Man, it is easy to conclude from your post that it appears you don't

like

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
anybody.

Well, maybe to a preponderance of evidence, not beyond a reasonable
doubt...

You sound like a lawyer

I'm just trying to protect my "rights"...

Lawyers are usually pretty good at protecting their rights.

Lawyers protected the "right" of OJ not to spend the rest of
his life in prison...

Post by Bill Reid

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
Taken from the documentary: 'O.J. Is Guilty, But Not Of Murder - The
Overlooked Suspect'

The search for truth begins with
the doubt of all 'truths' in which
one has previously believed.
Frederich Nietzsche

Did you know Nietzsche died in an insane asylum?
On the other hand, he has a certain point there...I prefer the
saying, "Keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall
out."

No, I didn't know that. Pretty tragic if true.

Oh, it's true, and VERY common knowledge.

Post by Bill Reid
So far you haven't presented any new information, that's what I keep
complaining about...

Sure I have --The documentary has the new evidence. If your the type who
has to see it in print, I am not your guy. I can only steer you in the
right direction. You have to test drive the documentary to see if it
'floats your boat' so to speak. I can't tell you about the whole
documentary.

Did you ever answer my question about copyright violation?

Post by Bill Reid

This are text groups. I'd love to post it here,but don't want to get
flamed.

Yeah, don't do that. Also, you're not violating copyrights, are you?
I'm sure the guy who spent a lot of time and effort to put it together
would prefer to be paid for it and not have it stolen...

As a general rule I don't violate copyrights on the Internet.

Post by Bill Reid

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
Negative, it was from the documentary. It has new evidence. Why don't

you

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
get it and watch it for yourself?

Maybe, if things get REALLY slow...

That's a cop out.

You blame the cops for EVERYTHING!!!

Post by Bill Reid

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
At the time of the murders, Jason worked at Jackson's Restaurant.
The person who gave LAPD an 'airtight' alibi for Jason was the owner of
'Jackson's restaurant', Alan Ladd Jackson. But, he must have

telepathic

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
powers because he was miles away at a party with the other owners of

the

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
restaurant.
Said another way, 'JASON L. SIMPSON' DID NOT HAVE AN AIRTIGHT ALIBI.

Said another way, by a denizen of planet Earth: he was in a restaurant
surrounded by co-workers and also probably customers, so he probably
has plenty of people other than the guy who paid his salary that night
to testify he was working there...but the conspiracy always just keeps
getting wider doesn't it? Now the busboys are faking evidence...

Mr. Carlos Ramos (who was a bus boy) said in the documentary that Jason

left

the restaurant at 9:30PM. Carlos said he left at about 10:30PM.

Carlos

Post by Bill Reid

said the Shef usually leaves the restaurant as soon as there are no people
to serve and they clean up their station for the evening.

OK, so the last person to see him that night was the busboy at
9:30PM? If we find another alibi witness or two at a later time, where
does that leave us?

Right and wrong. The last person to see Jason at the restaurant was
probably Mr. Ramos. Perhaps others saw Jason leave. Mr. Ramos went on
record as to the time Jason left the restaurant.

Actually, we've got a problem, Houston. Apparently Jason punched
out at 10-10:30PM, at least according to his civil trial deposition:

Q: Where -- you were working on the night of June 12?

A: Yes.

Q: When did you leave work?

A: I think -- I think it was around 10:00, 10:30.

Q: Did you punch out?

A: Yeah.

Q: Where did you go?

A: Home, to my apartment.

Q: What time did you get there?

A: I don't remember. It had to be around between 10:30 and 11:00.

---end of civil trial deposition excerpt

Maybe that's why the owner of the restaurant could provide his
alibi, because it was part of his business records...

However, the NEXT TO LAST person to see Jason that night was Jason's
girlfriend. She had Jason's jeep and came by the restaurant at 9PM to pick
him up. According to Mr. Ramos, they left at about 9:30PM. Jason's
girlfriend was the next to last person to see Jason. Jason said he dropped
his girlfriend off and immediately went home to watch TV.

Yup:

Q: When you left the restaurant on the evening of June 12, did you wait for
your girlfriend there at the restaurant?

A: Yeah. She had my car.

Q: So your girlfriend picked you up.

A: In my car, yes.

Q: From the restaurant.

A: Yes.

Q: And drove you where?

A: To her apartment.

Q: And what did you do there?

A: Dropped her off.

Q: And then went to your apartment?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you go into her apartment at all?

A: I don't think so. No, I didn't. I just kissed her in the car, and she
went home.

---end of civil trial deposition excerpt

So does this video have any interviews with her, or anybody other
than the single busboy? That might help a little...but remember, the
guy who REALLY doesn't have an alibi that night, no good explanation
about why he didn't answer his doorbell for almost a half hour until
a person in the shadows entered the house, WAS OJ SIMPSON.

Funny thing about these conspiracy theories...they tend to throw
out all the logical evidence because maybe it didn't happen that way
beyond any and all doubt, no matter how silly, and replace it almost
NO evidence to support the conspiracy...

You like what Nietzsche said, but you might also look up
"Occam's Razor"...

The last people to see Jason was Nicole & Ron. But they can't talk anymore.

Their "brod spratters" speak for themselves...

Post by Bill Reid

HTF would you know if Mr. Ramos was faking evidence? Are you pissed off
because it goes against what you believe?

No. I said I always considered the possibility that OJ's son did
the deed, because of several specific pieces of evidence, but vaguely
thought he had an airtight alibi...if he actually didn't, it might be worth
re-evaluating...

Post by Bill Reid
I'll tell you, after reading his civil trial testimony, I just don't

think

Post by Bill Reid
the kid had it in him; seemed like an honest, if a LITTLE mixed-up,
guy.

Mixed up doesn't describe it.
Watch the documentary and you will see why.

He DID have a certain history of criminal violence. Of course,
there are also some other pieces of evidence (many pieces) that
point more logically to OJ than his son...

Your talking outta both sides of your mouth mister. Watch the documentary
and see for yourself.

Well, if I ever watch it, I'll do it with eyes on both sides of my head...

Of course, we have even MORE problems with the "Jason did
it" theory...I love the way people complain that OJ wasn't more
beat-up after killing two people, but how beat-up WAS Jason?

HUH?!!!?!! Anybody testify on that tape about Jason looking
like HE'D been in a life-and-death struggle? Not that it matters
all that much...

Post by Bill Reid

alt.binaries.multimedia,alt.binaries.multimedia.documentaries
O.J. is Guilty, But Not of Murder

Well, that's where it will be then...

Do you have the courage to view it and give your thoughts about it?

I don't have the patience for the download, really, "courage" is not
a factor, I don't actually have a dog in this hunt...

You have the patience to check this newsgroup for my reply all the time. But
you don't have the patience to download the video and watch it? That just
doesn't pass the smell test Mr. Reid. THAT DOG WON'T HUNT!!!!!!!

What about the copyright thing? That's a little better excuse for my
miserable cowardice in the face of discovering that Jason Simpson is
the REAL killer...

Post by Bill Reid

We will see.

Yes, we will...what?

Remember The search for truth begins with
the doubt of all 'truths' in which
one has previously believed.
Frederich Nietzsche

Remember Nietzsche died in an insane asylum.

Perhaps if Mr. William Ernest Reid doesn't have the courage to critique

the

documentary, somebody else will.

Your constant references to my lack of "courage" is actually making
me LESS likely to watch the stupid video, not more...

Cop out.

AGAIN with the cops!!! "Mark Fuhrman put that there!!!"

---
William Ernest Reid

[c***@nym.hush.com]

Post by Bill Reid

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 00:45:57 GMT, "Bill Reid"

Post by Bill Reid

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 06:42:02 GMT, "Bill Reid"

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 21:40:05 GMT, "Bill Reid"
Man, it is easy to conclude from your post that it appears you don't

like

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
anybody.

Well, maybe to a preponderance of evidence, not beyond a reasonable
doubt...

You sound like a lawyer

I'm just trying to protect my "rights"...

Lawyers are usually pretty good at protecting their rights.

Lawyers protected the "right" of OJ not to spend the rest of
his life in prison...

Post by Bill Reid

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
Taken from the documentary: 'O.J. Is Guilty, But Not Of Murder -

The

Post by Bill Reid

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
Overlooked Suspect'

The search for truth begins with
the doubt of all 'truths' in which
one has previously believed.
Frederich Nietzsche

Did you know Nietzsche died in an insane asylum?
On the other hand, he has a certain point there...I prefer the
saying, "Keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall
out."

No, I didn't know that. Pretty tragic if true.

Oh, it's true, and VERY common knowledge.

Post by Bill Reid
So far you haven't presented any new information, that's what I keep
complaining about...

Sure I have --The documentary has the new evidence. If your the type who
has to see it in print, I am not your guy. I can only steer you in the
right direction. You have to test drive the documentary to see if it
'floats your boat' so to speak. I can't tell you about the whole
documentary.

Did you ever answer my question about copyright violation?

Post by Bill Reid

This are text groups. I'd love to post it here,but don't want to get
flamed.

Yeah, don't do that. Also, you're not violating copyrights, are you?
I'm sure the guy who spent a lot of time and effort to put it together
would prefer to be paid for it and not have it stolen...

As a general rule I don't violate copyrights on the Internet.

Post by Bill Reid

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
Negative, it was from the documentary. It has new evidence. Why

don't

Post by Bill Reid

Post by Bill Reid
you

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
get it and watch it for yourself?

Maybe, if things get REALLY slow...

That's a cop out.

You blame the cops for EVERYTHING!!!

Post by Bill Reid

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
At the time of the murders, Jason worked at Jackson's Restaurant.
The person who gave LAPD an 'airtight' alibi for Jason was the owner

of

Post by Bill Reid

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
'Jackson's restaurant', Alan Ladd Jackson. But, he must have

telepathic

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
powers because he was miles away at a party with the other owners of

the

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
restaurant.
Said another way, 'JASON L. SIMPSON' DID NOT HAVE AN AIRTIGHT ALIBI.

Said another way, by a denizen of planet Earth: he was in a restaurant
surrounded by co-workers and also probably customers, so he probably
has plenty of people other than the guy who paid his salary that night
to testify he was working there...but the conspiracy always just keeps
getting wider doesn't it? Now the busboys are faking evidence...

Mr. Carlos Ramos (who was a bus boy) said in the documentary that Jason

left

the restaurant at 9:30PM. Carlos said he left at about 10:30PM.

Carlos

Post by Bill Reid

said the Shef usually leaves the restaurant as soon as there are no

people

Post by Bill Reid

to serve and they clean up their station for the evening.

OK, so the last person to see him that night was the busboy at
9:30PM? If we find another alibi witness or two at a later time, where
does that leave us?

Right and wrong. The last person to see Jason at the restaurant was
probably Mr. Ramos. Perhaps others saw Jason leave. Mr. Ramos went on
record as to the time Jason left the restaurant.

Actually, we've got a problem, Houston. Apparently Jason punched
Q: Where -- you were working on the night of June 12?
A: Yes.
Q: When did you leave work?
A: I think -- I think it was around 10:00, 10:30.
Q: Did you punch out?
A: Yeah.
Q: Where did you go?
A: Home, to my apartment.
Q: What time did you get there?
A: I don't remember. It had to be around between 10:30 and 11:00.
---end of civil trial deposition excerpt
Maybe that's why the owner of the restaurant could provide his
alibi, because it was part of his business records...

However, the NEXT TO LAST person to see Jason that night was Jason's
girlfriend. She had Jason's jeep and came by the restaurant at 9PM to

pick

him up. According to Mr. Ramos, they left at about 9:30PM. Jason's
girlfriend was the next to last person to see Jason. Jason said he

dropped

his girlfriend off and immediately went home to watch TV.

Q: When you left the restaurant on the evening of June 12, did you wait for
your girlfriend there at the restaurant?
A: Yeah. She had my car.
Q: So your girlfriend picked you up.
A: In my car, yes.
Q: From the restaurant.
A: Yes.
Q: And drove you where?
A: To her apartment.
Q: And what did you do there?
A: Dropped her off.
Q: And then went to your apartment?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you go into her apartment at all?
A: I don't think so. No, I didn't. I just kissed her in the car, and she
went home.
---end of civil trial deposition excerpt
So does this video have any interviews with her, or anybody other
than the single busboy? That might help a little...but remember, the
guy who REALLY doesn't have an alibi that night, no good explanation
about why he didn't answer his doorbell for almost a half hour until
a person in the shadows entered the house, WAS OJ SIMPSON.
Funny thing about these conspiracy theories...they tend to throw
out all the logical evidence because maybe it didn't happen that way
beyond any and all doubt, no matter how silly, and replace it almost
NO evidence to support the conspiracy...
You like what Nietzsche said, but you might also look up
"Occam's Razor"...

The last people to see Jason was Nicole & Ron. But they can't talk

anymore.
Their "brod spratters" speak for themselves...

Post by Bill Reid

HTF would you know if Mr. Ramos was faking evidence? Are you pissed

off

Post by Bill Reid

because it goes against what you believe?

No. I said I always considered the possibility that OJ's son did
the deed, because of several specific pieces of evidence, but vaguely
thought he had an airtight alibi...if he actually didn't, it might be

worth

Post by Bill Reid
re-evaluating...

Post by Bill Reid
I'll tell you, after reading his civil trial testimony, I just don't

think

Post by Bill Reid
the kid had it in him; seemed like an honest, if a LITTLE mixed-up,
guy.

Mixed up doesn't describe it.
Watch the documentary and you will see why.

He DID have a certain history of criminal violence. Of course,
there are also some other pieces of evidence (many pieces) that
point more logically to OJ than his son...

Your talking outta both sides of your mouth mister. Watch the documentary
and see for yourself.

Well, if I ever watch it, I'll do it with eyes on both sides of my head...
Of course, we have even MORE problems with the "Jason did
it" theory...I love the way people complain that OJ wasn't more
beat-up after killing two people, but how beat-up WAS Jason?
HUH?!!!?!! Anybody testify on that tape about Jason looking
like HE'D been in a life-and-death struggle? Not that it matters
all that much...

Post by Bill Reid

alt.binaries.multimedia,alt.binaries.multimedia.documentaries
O.J. is Guilty, But Not of Murder

Well, that's where it will be then...

Do you have the courage to view it and give your thoughts about it?

I don't have the patience for the download, really, "courage" is not
a factor, I don't actually have a dog in this hunt...

You have the patience to check this newsgroup for my reply all the time.

But

you don't have the patience to download the video and watch it? That just
doesn't pass the smell test Mr. Reid. THAT DOG WON'T HUNT!!!!!!!

What about the copyright thing? That's a little better excuse for my
miserable cowardice in the face of discovering that Jason Simpson is
the REAL killer...

Post by Bill Reid

We will see.

Yes, we will...what?

Remember The search for truth begins with
the doubt of all 'truths' in which
one has previously believed.
Frederich Nietzsche

Remember Nietzsche died in an insane asylum.

Perhaps if Mr. William Ernest Reid doesn't have the courage to critique

the

documentary, somebody else will.

Your constant references to my lack of "courage" is actually making
me LESS likely to watch the stupid video, not more...

Cop out.

AGAIN with the cops!!! "Mark Fuhrman put that there!!!"
---
William Ernest Reid

OK Mr. William Ernest Reid, lets cut to the chase. I ordered 4 of these
DVD's and will send one to you if you want one. They are still in their
original wrapper. I hope you will watch it and post your comments to these
newsgroups..

Just send me email to ***@nym.hush.com and provide me with a P.O. Box.
I'll do the rest.

If you decide to take me up on my offer, after sending me private email,
post a message in these newsgroups saying you did send me private email.
That will almost guarantee nobody tries to take advantage of me.

The ball is in your court.

[Bill Reid]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 06:26:43 GMT, "Bill Reid"

Post by Bill Reid

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 00:45:57 GMT, "Bill Reid"

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
Perhaps if Mr. William Ernest Reid doesn't have the courage to critique

the

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
documentary, somebody else will.

Your constant references to my lack of "courage" is actually making
me LESS likely to watch the stupid video, not more...

Cop out.

AGAIN with the cops!!! "Mark Fuhrman put that there!!!"

OK Mr. William Ernest Reid, lets cut to the chase. I ordered 4 of these
DVD's and will send one to you if you want one. They are still in their
original wrapper. I hope you will watch it and post your comments to these
newsgroups..

I don't really want one. I'm not sure what YOUR dog is in this hunt,
are you running a publicity campaign for the video? There might be
better, more traditional methods to get more attention...there was
some attention paid to the OJ case a few months ago because it
was like the 10th anniversary or something, THAT would have been
the time to blanket the media with well-written press releases, a
clip reel, etc.

In any event, I am just about 100% certain this video is "one-sided",
just like all the JFK assassination conspiracy books, and THAT'S a
problem for me. One of the great things about trials is you have TWO
sides, and presumably both sides present their BEST evidence, and
then you can decide which side has the stronger case.

Now I've already seen the case for OJ being guilty (or liable), and
it WAS pretty damn strong, but it might be difficult to compare it
years after-the-fact with the "new case" against Jason...

I'll do the rest.
If you decide to take me up on my offer, after sending me private email,
post a message in these newsgroups saying you did send me private email.
That will almost guarantee nobody tries to take advantage of me.
The ball is in your court.

OK, you'll be the first to know if I decide that "Blockbuster" just won't
do it for me some evening...I really AM not that interested in the whole
thing, I just get "nostalgic" for the good times I spent listening to the
criminal trial on my headphones at work...

I know, "cop" out...sorry...me, I suspect Arnelle even more so,
she actually was IN the house with all the blood that night, and
lied her ass off at the criminal and civil trials, I mean she just lied
about EVERYTHING, even dumb stuff that didn't matter one way
or another, and was clearly a "hot-head" like her dad...

---
William Ernest Reid

[b***@home.com]

Post by c***@nym.hush.com

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 06:26:43 GMT, "Bill Reid"

Post by Bill Reid

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 00:45:57 GMT, "Bill Reid"

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
Perhaps if Mr. William Ernest Reid doesn't have the courage to

critique

Post by Bill Reid

Post by Bill Reid
the

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
documentary, somebody else will.

Your constant references to my lack of "courage" is actually making
me LESS likely to watch the stupid video, not more...

Cop out.

AGAIN with the cops!!! "Mark Fuhrman put that there!!!"

OK Mr. William Ernest Reid, lets cut to the chase. I ordered 4 of these
DVD's and will send one to you if you want one. They are still in their
original wrapper. I hope you will watch it and post your comments to

these

newsgroups..

I don't really want one. I'm not sure what YOUR dog is in this hunt,
are you running a publicity campaign for the video? There might be
better, more traditional methods to get more attention...there was
some attention paid to the OJ case a few months ago because it
was like the 10th anniversary or something, THAT would have been
the time to blanket the media with well-written press releases, a
clip reel, etc.
In any event, I am just about 100% certain this video is "one-sided",
just like all the JFK assassination conspiracy books, and THAT'S a
problem for me. One of the great things about trials is you have TWO
sides, and presumably both sides present their BEST evidence, and
then you can decide which side has the stronger case.
Now I've already seen the case for OJ being guilty (or liable), and
it WAS pretty damn strong, but it might be difficult to compare it
years after-the-fact with the "new case" against Jason...
Box.

I'll do the rest.
If you decide to take me up on my offer, after sending me private email,
post a message in these newsgroups saying you did send me private email.
That will almost guarantee nobody tries to take advantage of me.
The ball is in your court.

OK, you'll be the first to know if I decide that "Blockbuster" just won't
do it for me some evening...I really AM not that interested in the whole
thing, I just get "nostalgic" for the good times I spent listening to the
criminal trial on my headphones at work...
I know, "cop" out...sorry...me, I suspect Arnelle even more so,
she actually was IN the house with all the blood that night, and
lied her ass off at the criminal and civil trials, I mean she just lied
about EVERYTHING, even dumb stuff that didn't matter one way
or another, and was clearly a "hot-head" like her dad...
---
William Ernest Reid

OK, so you dropped the ball. So be it.

I'm just an ordinary guy trying to make a difference. Thats all.

There are three sides to every story: the right side, the wrong side, and
the true side.

Case closed.

[tjab]

Post by c***@tic.org

Post by Bill Reid

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 23:41:25 -0700, "Talkin Horse"

Post by Talkin Horse

Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!
O.J.'s blood was never found at the crime scene. He claimed the cut on

his

Post by Talkin Horse

Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!
hand was from rushing out of a Chicago hotel room...

He also said he had a lot of cuts on his hands because he played
golf...that's right, golf, the bloodiest game on Earth...

Post by Talkin Horse

Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!
Because the
prosecution did not question the cut on his hand,

What an idiot. The prosecution couldn't question him because he
refused to testify under the Fifth Admendment, just like Mark Fuhrman.

Post by Talkin Horse

Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!
the defense was unable
to present a maid who found blood on a broken glass in his hotel room.

They showed pictures of his hands at the criminal trial. If they
wanted to call a witness that could explain those cuts, I think they
could have (I presume but don't remember if they ever asked the judge
to do so, and there probably was never any such "maid" in the first
place).

Post by Talkin Horse
For the record, Simpson's blood was found on the walkway and gate at
Nicole's condo.

Right, O.J.'s blood WAS found at the crime scene, BUT, it was proven in
court that blood had astronomical amounts of EDTA in it.

Man, these latter-day OJ supporters are...well, just as wacky and
uninformed as the OJ supporters from a decade ago.

Wacky & uninformed. Me??? O.J. supporter? Maybe/maybe not. However, I
like to have my facts straight.

Post by Bill Reid
It was NEVER "proven" in ANY court that the undegraded fresh
blood on the gate (which matched Simpson to the odds of several
hundred million to one) had ANY EDTA in it, let alone "astronomical
amounts". That blood was NEVER tested specifically for EDTA
by ANYBODY, which is strange, because the defense planted
a bunch of stories in the media that evidence had been "planted"
by the cops, and they were going to "prove" it at the trial, but
then they never asserted it as a defense, and never bothered
to test the blood themselves.

Sorry to have taken so long to reply. Had to research this before
commenting.
Sure it was. This is Dr. Henry Lee area of expertise. Dr. Lee was the one
who said there was EDTA in the blood on the back gate.

Did you say you researched this? Henry Lee *never* tested for EDTA.

Post by c***@tic.org
Same for the blood
on the walkway. Moreover, Dr. Lee said [that] blood was discovered several
days after the murders. WTF was that all about? All those forensic folks
swarming the crime scene and they happen to discover blood on the back gate
about a week after the morders? Sounds fishy to me.

Post by Bill Reid
It's REALLY strange, because if they had found "astronomical
amounts" of EDTA in the blood that would constitute proof beyond
ANY doubt that the LAPD planted the blood to frame OJ, and
would have led to Johnnie Cochran's biggest case by far against
the LAPD in his several decades of suing the LAPD for racial
harrassment. And yet, Johnny NEVER bothered to test the
blood...any thoughts as to WHY? (Be aware that several
members of OJ's defense team have openly expressed doubt
as to his "innocence", and Johnny Cochran himself said he
"didn't know" if OJ was guilty or not.)

By astronmical I mean it had the same consentration of EDTA in blood you
normally find in a vial of blood taken to perserve such blood.

You are dead wrong. And Henry Lee never made that claim.

Post by c***@tic.org
Not the
small amount of EDTA that is naturally found.

Post by Bill Reid
---
William Ernest Reid

[charley]

Post by Bill Reid

Post by c***@tic.org

Post by Talkin Horse

Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!
O.J.'s blood was never found at the crime scene. He claimed the cut on

his

Post by c***@tic.org

Post by Talkin Horse

Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!
hand was from rushing out of a Chicago hotel room...

He also said he had a lot of cuts on his hands because he played
golf...that's right, golf, the bloodiest game on Earth...

Post by c***@tic.org

Post by Talkin Horse

Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!
Because the
prosecution did not question the cut on his hand,

What an idiot. The prosecution couldn't question him because he
refused to testify under the Fifth Admendment, just like Mark Fuhrman.

Post by c***@tic.org

Post by Talkin Horse

Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!
the defense was unable
to present a maid who found blood on a broken glass in his hotel room.

They showed pictures of his hands at the criminal trial. If they
wanted to call a witness that could explain those cuts, I think they
could have (I presume but don't remember if they ever asked the judge
to do so, and there probably was never any such "maid" in the first
place).

Post by c***@tic.org

Post by Talkin Horse
For the record, Simpson's blood was found on the walkway and gate at
Nicole's condo.

Right, O.J.'s blood WAS found at the crime scene, BUT, it was proven in
court that blood had astronomical amounts of EDTA in it.

Man, these latter-day OJ supporters are...well, just as wacky and
uninformed as the OJ supporters from a decade ago.
It was NEVER "proven" in ANY court that the undegraded fresh
blood on the gate (which matched Simpson to the odds of several
hundred million to one) had ANY EDTA in it, let alone "astronomical
amounts". That blood was NEVER tested specifically for EDTA
by ANYBODY, which is strange, because the defense planted
a bunch of stories in the media that evidence had been "planted"
by the cops, and they were going to "prove" it at the trial, but
then they never asserted it as a defense, and never bothered
to test the blood themselves.
It's REALLY strange, because if they had found "astronomical
amounts" of EDTA in the blood that would constitute proof beyond
ANY doubt that the LAPD planted the blood to frame OJ, and
would have led to Johnnie Cochran's biggest case by far against
the LAPD in his several decades of suing the LAPD for racial
harrassment. And yet, Johnny NEVER bothered to test the
blood...any thoughts as to WHY? (Be aware that several
members of OJ's defense team have openly expressed doubt
as to his "innocence", and Johnny Cochran himself said he
"didn't know" if OJ was guilty or not.)
---
William Ernest Reid

good info. do you believe he did it or that he was their and someone
else did it? I think someone else did it but oj was their when it was
happening. jmho

[Bill Reid]

Post by charley

Post by Bill Reid
It was NEVER "proven" in ANY court that the undegraded fresh
blood on the gate (which matched Simpson to the odds of several
hundred million to one) had ANY EDTA in it, let alone "astronomical
amounts". That blood was NEVER tested specifically for EDTA
by ANYBODY, which is strange, because the defense planted
a bunch of stories in the media that evidence had been "planted"
by the cops, and they were going to "prove" it at the trial, but
then they never asserted it as a defense, and never bothered
to test the blood themselves.
It's REALLY strange, because if they had found "astronomical
amounts" of EDTA in the blood that would constitute proof beyond
ANY doubt that the LAPD planted the blood to frame OJ, and
would have led to Johnnie Cochran's biggest case by far against
the LAPD in his several decades of suing the LAPD for racial
harrassment. And yet, Johnny NEVER bothered to test the
blood...any thoughts as to WHY? (Be aware that several
members of OJ's defense team have openly expressed doubt
as to his "innocence", and Johnny Cochran himself said he
"didn't know" if OJ was guilty or not.)

good info. do you believe he did it or that he was their and someone
else did it? I think someone else did it but oj was their when it was
happening. jmho

Well, if someone else was THERE (note spelling), they left not
a zot of evidence behind, although the criminal defense tried really
hard to imply that evidence of a "second killer" existed, for what
reason I don't know, since THAT wouldn't logically exonerate OJ.

He couldn't have been too close, because then he would have
left his presumably-different shoeprints in the giant pool of blood
around the killing area...maybe he was a hundred yards away
watching with binoculars, but I'm not really sure what that would
really mean about anything, and doesn't explain the DNA matches
to his blood at the scene and the victims blood on the driver's
side of his car etc. etc. etc....

But despite the overwhelming PHYSICAL evidence of his guilt,
and his lack of an alibi and suspicious behavior after the killings,
it was his apparent clumsy attempt to set up his alibi with Kato
Kaelin before the murders that just really brought the whole
mentality of OJ's murderous mind into sharp focus for me.
It was the most idiotic murder scheme in the history of crime,
but even more amazing, HE ACTUALLY MANAGED TO GET
AWAY WITH IT...proving something about something, I guess...

---
William Ernest Reid

[charley]

Post by Bill Reid

Post by charley

Post by Bill Reid
It was NEVER "proven" in ANY court that the undegraded fresh
blood on the gate (which matched Simpson to the odds of several
hundred million to one) had ANY EDTA in it, let alone "astronomical
amounts". That blood was NEVER tested specifically for EDTA
by ANYBODY, which is strange, because the defense planted
a bunch of stories in the media that evidence had been "planted"
by the cops, and they were going to "prove" it at the trial, but
then they never asserted it as a defense, and never bothered
to test the blood themselves.
It's REALLY strange, because if they had found "astronomical
amounts" of EDTA in the blood that would constitute proof beyond
ANY doubt that the LAPD planted the blood to frame OJ, and
would have led to Johnnie Cochran's biggest case by far against
the LAPD in his several decades of suing the LAPD for racial
harrassment. And yet, Johnny NEVER bothered to test the
blood...any thoughts as to WHY? (Be aware that several
members of OJ's defense team have openly expressed doubt
as to his "innocence", and Johnny Cochran himself said he
"didn't know" if OJ was guilty or not.)

good info. do you believe he did it or that he was their and someone
else did it? I think someone else did it but oj was their when it was
happening. jmho

Well, if someone else was THERE (note spelling), they left not
a zot of evidence behind, although the criminal defense tried really
hard to imply that evidence of a "second killer" existed, for what
reason I don't know, since THAT wouldn't logically exonerate OJ.
He couldn't have been too close, because then he would have
left his presumably-different shoeprints in the giant pool of blood
around the killing area...maybe he was a hundred yards away
watching with binoculars, but I'm not really sure what that would
really mean about anything, and doesn't explain the DNA matches
to his blood at the scene and the victims blood on the driver's
side of his car etc. etc. etc....
But despite the overwhelming PHYSICAL evidence of his guilt,
and his lack of an alibi and suspicious behavior after the killings,
it was his apparent clumsy attempt to set up his alibi with Kato
Kaelin before the murders that just really brought the whole
mentality of OJ's murderous mind into sharp focus for me.
It was the most idiotic murder scheme in the history of crime,
but even more amazing, HE ACTUALLY MANAGED TO GET
AWAY WITH IT...proving something about something, I guess...
---
William Ernest Reid

youre very knowledgeable about the case so I bow to your opinion.

[f***@aol.com]

Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!

Post by Larry Bud

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
ask yourself this: If Simpson practically decapitated his
ex-wife, how come he had only a microscopic trace of blood in his car and on
the white rug in his house.

There wasn't microscopic traces of blood. There was real blood that
was collected from the vehicle.

The blood collected was droplets. Not smudges. They were microscopic.
Furthermore... blood was transfered from the crime scene to the O.J. Simpson
compound, and taken out of the car. That was proven in court.
I am not saying OJ was not guilty. Just that there is a lot of sh_t that
does not make sense.

It all makes sense. Try not to cry, liar :0

I.E. Having your entire home cleaned by the maid, yet

Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!
just happening to leave bloody socks in the middle of the floor.

Post by Larry Bud
He did have wounds on himself. That why his blood was found at the
scene. IIRC, he claimed that he broke a glass.

O.J.'s blood was never found at the crime scene. He claimed the cut on his
hand was from rushing out of a Chicago hotel room... Because the prosecution
did not question the cut on his hand, the defense was unable to present a
maid who found blood on a broken glass in his hotel room.

Post by Larry Bud
So I guess if you start with faulty premises, you come to faulty
conclusions!

[Haebius]

Post by Don't Taze Me, Bro!

Post by Larry Bud

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
ask yourself this: If Simpson practically decapitated his
ex-wife, how come he had only a microscopic trace of blood in his car and on
the white rug in his house.

There wasn't microscopic traces of blood. There was real blood that
was collected from the vehicle.

The blood collected was droplets. Not smudges. They were microscopic.
Furthermore... blood was transfered from the crime scene to the O.J.
Simpson compound, and taken out of the car. That was proven in court.
I am not saying OJ was not guilty. Just that there is a lot of sh_t
that does not make sense. I.E. Having your entire home cleaned by the
maid, yet just happening to leave bloody socks in the middle of the
floor.

Post by Larry Bud
He did have wounds on himself. That why his blood was found at the
scene. IIRC, he claimed that he broke a glass.

O.J.'s blood was never found at the crime scene. He claimed the cut on
his hand was from rushing out of a Chicago hotel room... Because the
prosecution did not question the cut on his hand, the defense was
unable to present a maid who found blood on a broken glass in his
hotel room.

OJ is black scum. The sooner he's in jail with the Mexicans the better.

[charley]

Post by Larry Bud

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
ask yourself this: If Simpson practically decapitated his
ex-wife, how come he had only a microscopic trace of blood in his car and on
the white rug in his house.

There wasn't microscopic traces of blood. There was real blood that
was collected from the vehicle.

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
And if O.J. got into a brutal fight with Ron
Goldman, a strapping young man whose hands were found blistered from
punching his assailant, why did middle-aged Simpson not have a scratch on
him?

He did have wounds on himself. That why his blood was found at the
scene. IIRC, he claimed that he broke a glass.
So I guess if you start with faulty premises, you come to faulty
conclusions!

i always believed oj didn't kill those two but he was their and of
course someone else did it. but he was their during the whole
attack. i think he hired someone who could kill like a hitman or
something. but he's just as guilty.

[Lars Wilson]

Here's another suspect. Secret societies that would make BILLIONS on
covering a scandal case like this. There's the YOUTUBE VID pointing to the
"Illuminati" framing OJ:

Post by c***@nym.hush.com
The documentary was shown at the Roxy Theatre in San Francisco the second
week of March, 2008.
Here is a critique of the documentary from a San Francisco Chronicle film
editor.