Vannatter and the Vial

[j***@millburn.org]

From "OJ Unmasked." These are points Rantala makes in her book.
Scheck argued in closing that there was "something wrong. Terribly
wrong" in Vanatter having carried Simpson's vial of blood to Rockingham
where he gave it to Fung, implying that Vannater used the vial to create
evidence against Simpson.
But just where might Vanatter have planted Simpson's blood?
Simpson had told Lange and Vanatter on the afternoon of June 13 that he
had been bleeding at Rockingham: "I recall bleeding at my house and
then I went to the Bronco." Lange: "We found some in you house. Is
that your blood that's there?" Simpson replied, "If it's dripped, it's
what I dripped running around trying to leave." Since Simpson admits
bleeding in the driveway, Bronco, and inside the house, Vannatter had no
need to plant Simpson's blood there. It's there already.
Vanatter had small opportunity to plant blood with the tv cameras and
reporters looking on. Would Vanatter even consider planting blood,
knowing the media would be there in droves?
By the time Vanatter arrived at Rockingham, the Bronco had been impounded.
The defense contended that Simpson's and Nicole's blood found on the
socks was planted days or weeks later, so Vanatter didn't use the vial to
plant blood on the socks. But perhaps V. "wanted" to plant blood on the
socks and just arrived at Rockingham too late. But having already
obtained an admission from Simpson that it was Simpson's blood in and
around Rockingham, adding Simpson's blood to the socks wouldn't make any
difference. And Vanatter didn't have any of Nicole's blood. That wasn't
obtained until after the autopsy.
The glove behind Kato's room had already been collected before Vanatter
arrived with the vial. It was in the evidence truck. Moreover the
defense theory isn't that V. planted blood on the glove, but that
Yamauchi transferred Simpson's blood to the glove in the lab. So
Vannatter planting blood here isn't even consistent with the defense
theory.
If Vanatter took the vial for planting, why not plant some in the alley
behind Kato's room, near where the glove was found, out of the eye of the
watchful media?
Why would he unnecessarily draw attention to his possession of the blood
by carrying the vial around for 3 hours. Had he "really" wanted to plant
Simpson's blood, why not remove a small amount immediately after the
blood was drawn by Peratis, in a private location, then book the vial as
evidence.
Why would Vanatter want to frame Simpson?
Vanatter was aware that Simpson's lawyer was Weitzman, who had engineered
an acquittal in the DeLorean case by arguing that the case against DeL.
Was "created by government agents."
How did Vanatter cover his tracks so thoroughly? The ONLY evidence
linking V. to planting is his vial transportation to Rockingham.

Your analysis is brilliant because it is TRUE!!!
Thank you for this post.

[j***@millburn.org]

It's the Bundy blood that was planted by Vannatter & the victim's blood
at Rockingham that was planted by Fuhrman..

He keeps saying it, let's see if he backs it...

That's hilarious. Vanatter planted OJ's blood OVER the blood the OJ left
there himself, by his own admission (in the 32 minute interview).
Unbelievable. And this guy has a whole web page dedicated to "evidence?"
dan

Exactly. Why plant blood when they already had it from O.J. himself?

[j***@millburn.org]

Officer Riske and a half dozen other officers at the crime scene right
after bodies were discovered pointed out blood on rear gate to detectives
when they arrived. The rear gate blood was missed by Fung but it was
never planted. All blood at Rockingham and Bundy (except the gate sample)
was collected before OJ gave his sample. The only possible blood
planting would have been on the socks and that is really a stretch. With
all of OJ's blood at both scenes, why would they need to plant any more?
Nicole's blood was on those socks. When do you suggest they got her
blood to put on the socks? You want to stretch the believable to make
your point. It just doesn't work out.
Sherry

Absolutely right, Sherry. Very good points you make here. For some reason I cannot fathom, the O.J. supporters never want to look at the timeline. Why? Because it makes their case impossible, and they know it.

[j***@millburn.org]

says...
[snip]

The rear gate blood was missed by Fung but it was
never planted. All blood at Rockingham and Bundy (except the gate sample)
Sherry

It's funny that there was more DNA found in the blood that was collected on
the gate weeks later.
--
Jerry Lazzareschi

I think someone explained that, though, saying that the blood on the back gate had been on top of paint, which would degrade the DNA at a slower rate than would the pavement on which most of the blood lay.

[Michael Griffith]

So a detective with years and years of experience violated standard procedure and for the first time in his career carried out a suspect's blood vial for three hours--for no reason? That's the bottom line of what you're saying.

If Vannatter was not doing something wrong, why did he lie about why he didn't book the evidence in the proper way?

And who says Vannatter would have had to plant blood on June 13? Why could he not have removed 1.5 cc's from the blood vial and planted it later, such as on the back gate and on one of the socks?

We must come to grips with the fact that the photo that shows the best view of the back gate on June 13 does *not* show the blood stain that magically appeared there three weeks later. "Where is it, Mr. Fung?" It was not there because it had not been planted yet. That's why, when that blood was tested, it was found to contain vastly higher DNA concentrations than the blood that was collected on June 13, even though it had supposedly sat exposed to the elements, on metal, for three weeks. That blood was also found to contain a high concentration of EDTA.

Mike Griffith
http://sites.google.com/site/theojsimpsoncase