|
|
-We know that on June 13th when Mr. Fung went to collect the sock--not yet--he saw it on the throw rug--notyet--and he did not see blood. He did not see soil on the carpet. He did not see any trace evidence around, not onthe stairwell, not on the carpet leading into the bedroom, not anywhere. There is supposedly a stain, an ankle stain,on these socks, this was cut out, about an inch and a half.-More DNA in that than anything in this case. Wouldn't that, if it were there, have left a transfer, some speck,something, if they are in a struggle? You have children; I have children. Did you ever see them go out to play indirt like that closed-in area at Bundy, get into some kind of ruckus. Socks come back, they are filthy. It would haveto be here if there is anything on them at all. Nothing. Nothing there.
-Now Mr. Fung is looking for blood. These socks are the only clothing they take. It is logical as a criminalist, as headmitted on cross-examination, that he would be looking at the ankle area, the one they would look to first,because that would be the most likely exposed. He sees nothing. He is running around trying to do testing ofanything that looks like blood. No test of the socks.
Then on June 22nd Dr. Baden and Dr. Wolf were permitted to go to the crime lab and Michele Kestler shows themthe socks. They see nothing.
-Now, we get to June 29th. This is very interesting. On June 29th the Defense wanted access to sample, split them,and the criminalists, Matheson, Kestler, the head of the laboratory and Yamauchi, are going through all theevidence in about a five or six-hour period, right there they are going through all the evidence to make anassessment of what kind of testing could be performed, of what kind of biological material or blood would be on anyof these pieces evidence to see from testing, RFLP testing, how they could be divided. They also--Mr. Yamauchisaid they were literally measuring the size of the swatches and making assessments and making examinations.What piece of evidence at that point is more important to these people than the socks found in Mr. Simpson'sbedroom? Wouldn't you look at that?
-And they testified that they took white paper and they put the socks on the white paper and if there is blood, inchand a half on that ankle, you know you saw it every time that we put something down, little specks would come off.Even when Miss Clark during the trial put those gloves on the very first day, the defense actually had it on whitepaper, you know, the plastic gloves and little pieces of trace fell off and we actually pulled those together, put themin a separate exhibit, because these kind of things fall off. If there were that stain on the sock, that big stain on thesock, they would have seen it. Gary Sims told you he was disturbed by it, that a trained criminalist should haveseen it. You use light that is sufficient to look at what you are doing. They are now telling that they didn't havelight. We didn't look at what we were doing. Please.
-Now, what is the summary? The socks, on the report they do on June 29th, dress socks, blood search. Noneobserved. None observed. It is either none observed or none obvious. They have two different phrases, one on thehandwritten report and one on the typewritten report. Okay. Then suddenly on August 4th Mr. Yamauchi can'tremember it was some kind of general inventory, can't--Mr. Matheson might have asked him, he can't rememberwhat the direction was. It wasn't specific to the sock. Somebody said look at--go look at this and then for the firsttime they find the stain on the ankle.
-Now we have evidence of the wet transfer going through surface 1, surface 3 through the little holes in the sock tosurface 3. It is pretty simple. If there is a leg in those socks, you can't have the transfer. Professor MacDonell andDr. Lee came in and they showed you the pictures of the little red balls and I don't think it is even being seriouslycontested that this is evidence of a wet transfer now. They are not contesting it really. Can't get it when the leg is inthe sock. The testimony of the defense experts stood unrefuted during the criminal case. There was no bloodstainexpertthat came in here and said that is not a wet transfer. Dr. Henry Lee, Professor MacDonell. Dr. De forestdidn't show up here. Did not show up and Richard Fox conceded during the civil trial that wet transfer is cosistentwith the defense' theory.
-Now, during the course of cross-examination of Dr. Lee and Professor MacDonell, the Prosecution sent up somehypothetical explanations for this that I'll view with you and each one of them was rejected by Dr. Lee, ProfessorMacDonell, but Dr. Lee in particular, as I recall from the testimony, I think they gave him all of them, as highlyimprobable. Lots of things are possible, but he said these explanations were highly improbable.
-No. 1, the idea that at the time of the killings there could have been a touch with the finger from the victim of MissNicole Brown Simpson on the leg and that it wasn't dry when Mr. Simpson somehow got into that Bronco, cameback to Rockingham, avoided Allan Park, ran down the side, left no bloodstains, hit the air conditioner, hit thestucco fence leaving no trace, somehow came in all with the bloody clothes, went up the stairs, left no trace ofblood, left no trace of soil, left no trace of berries. Got into the house, took off the socks, left them there and then itis still wet. So if it is still wet when he takes off the socks, you get the transfer to surface 3. Well, there is a bigproblem with that. Then you should have seen something on the carpet if that is what happened. It doesn't makesense. It doesn't fit.
- Then the next explanation is on August 4th when Mr. Yamauchi did the pheno test taking the swab and brushingthe stain to see if it were blood, that somehow created wetness that transferred into the third surface. Or--well, Dr.Lee and Dr. MacDonell said that doesn't make sense when you look at the stains because if that brushing hadoccurred you would see a diffusion and you don't see that kind of diffusion and that is not the way you do the testanyhow. Just touching it couldn't cause that kind of transfer through to surface 3. Highly improbable said theleading forensic scientists in America. Sweat.
-Next explanation is going to be sweat. Well, there was a stain from the crime scene, but sweating in the sock andthen the sock is taken off and then somehow by process of sweat it transfers to surface 3. Dr. Lee and Dr.MacDonell said ridiculous, highly improbable you would see that same diffusion as with the pheno test and we don'tsee it. The next explanation. When Mr. Simpson is taking off the socks he coincidentally has a finger that touchessurface 3 opposite the ankle stain, so it is not Nicole Brown Simpson's blood that is on surface 3, it is Mr.Simpson's own blood that he accidentally touched exactly opposite. That is a ridiculous coincidence. That is theother explanation they floated. Then another explanation they tried.
-They showed Dr. Lee the new picture of the sock. Remember how they were folded up? They said, well, maybeblood of Mr. Simpson's, when you fold the sock over, landed on surface 3 coincidentally opposite the stain whenthey were bundled up and that is what created it. Again, rejected as a ridiculous highly probable coincidence. Now,none of these things make sense. The prosecution also said, you know, there is a tiny spatter of Mr.Simpson's--Mr. Simpson's--some blood at the top of the socks of Mr. Simpson. She says, well, there is spatterthere. Well, you know, doctor--Professor MacDonell said this is no spatter. Gary Sims doesn't pretend to be abloodstain expert. Professor MacDonell, Dr. Lee, leading experts in this area. They didn't bring in anybody. It isridiculous to say there is spatter there, and if it is spatter of O.J. Simpson's blood, how does that happen? What?Did he bleed so much that created a puddle and spatter on the top of the sock? Nonsense. The point is everyexplanation that the prosecution desperately trying to come up with is a highly improbable inference. And you knowwhy there is no doubt about it? Because the prosecution got so upset in the opening statement about the socks,about the back gate, so upset that they sent it to the FBI. And Mr. Harmon wrote them a letter saying pleaserefute the Defense theory that somebody tampered with this evidence. Please refute it. Those were the words. Notexactly an objective way of sending it out. Please test this for EDTA. Please refute what the Defense has to say.And Agent Martz never testified in the Prosecution's case. And you know why that is? And that is really all youneed to know, because he couldn't refute it, because it is an inference consistent with innocence that they can'trefute. There is EDTA. How does that happen? There is EDTA there. The sock. No blood on June 13th when it iscollected. No blood on June 22nd when Dr. Lee--Dr. Baden and Dr. Wolf see it.
They looked for blood on June 29th on a lab paper with reasonable light, three people with 25 years of experience,and they don't see it. Most important piece of evidence. Examining it for purposes of court. The wet transfer tosurface 3 unrefuted. And EDTA. Now, think about it. Is this coincidence? All these things with the sock, or is itcorroboration? I say it is corroboration that something is wrong, something is terribly wrong with the mostimportant pieces of evidence in this case. It is a cancer that is infecting the heart of this case. You cannot render averdict beyond a reasonable doubt based on evidence like this. So if we apply 2.01, an essential fact, the socks,Miss Clark said an essential fact, whose interpretation is the most reasonable? And even if you give some of thosecockamamie explanations some credence and you say, well, maybe the defense's is certainly reasonable enoughfor the jury to--then the jury must adopt that, and if you must adopt it, really where does that leave us? Because,you know, there is another instruction that I submit has some relevance here.
| ||||
© 1996, 1997 William Schreck © 1996 Source Interactive Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
