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

[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]

Talkin Horse <drramulec@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:47f0b63a$0$21826$a9266ab1@news.buzzardnews.com...

> 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?

> 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

 

[feloniousmouse@aol.com]

On Mar 28, 4:50 pm, "Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <No1Exis...@Earth71.net>
wrote:
> "Larry Bud" <larrybud2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:eaa56207-3376-4fe7-91e6-674a0b9901e9@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.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
> just happening to leave bloody socks in the middle of the floor.
>
> > 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.
>
>
>
> > So I guess if you start with faulty premises, you come to faulty
> > conclusions!

 

[Unique]

Talkin Horse <drramulec@earthlink.net> wrote in message:
47f0b63a$0$21826$a9266ab1@news.buzzardnews.com,

> 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...

 

[tjab]

In article <ttl0v39bgo5aeapctgfuop6rjgs3pkuj8u@4ax.com>, <cwed@tic.org> wrote:
>On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 23:08:44 GMT, "Bill Reid" <hormelfree@happyhealthy.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>><cwed@tic.org> wrote in message
>>news:i9hsu3188s913ag6fojd04c0k315poi4ks@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 23:41:25 -0700, "Talkin Horse"
>><drramulec@earthlink.net>
>>> wrote:
>>> >"Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <No1Exists1@Earth71.net> wrote in message
>>> >news:8vfHj.145$A87.88@trnddc06...
>>
>>> >> 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...
>>
>>> >> 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.
>>
>>> >>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).
>>
>>> >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.
>
>>
>>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.

>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.
>
>>
>>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.

>Not the
>small amount of EDTA that is naturally found.
>
>>
>>---
>>William Ernest Reid
>>
>>

 

[c_mulholland@nym.hush.com]

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 05:59:15 GMT, "Bill Reid" <hormelfree@happyhealthy.net>
wrote:

>
><cwed@tic.org> wrote in message
>news:ttl0v39bgo5aeapctgfuop6rjgs3pkuj8u@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 23:08:44 GMT, "Bill Reid"
><hormelfree@happyhealthy.net>
>> wrote:
>> ><cwed@tic.org> wrote in message
>> >news:i9hsu3188s913ag6fojd04c0k315poi4ks@4ax.com...
>> >> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 23:41:25 -0700, "Talkin Horse"
>> ><drramulec@earthlink.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >"Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <No1Exists1@Earth71.net> wrote in message
>> >> >news:8vfHj.145$A87.88@trnddc06...
>> >
>> >> >> 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...
>> >
>> >> >> 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.
>> >
>> >> >>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).
>> >
>> >> >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"...
>
>> >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...
>
>> >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]

<c_mulholland@nym.hush.com> wrote in message
news:dvvhv39ur396daoarajb7glkbi3058cfvo@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 05:59:15 GMT, "Bill Reid"
<hormelfree@happyhealthy.net>
> wrote:
> ><cwed@tic.org> wrote in message
> >news:ttl0v39bgo5aeapctgfuop6rjgs3pkuj8u@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 23:08:44 GMT, "Bill Reid"
> ><hormelfree@happyhealthy.net>
> >> wrote:
> >> ><cwed@tic.org> wrote in message
> >> >news:i9hsu3188s913ag6fojd04c0k315poi4ks@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 23:41:25 -0700, "Talkin Horse"
> >> ><drramulec@earthlink.net>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >"Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <No1Exists1@Earth71.net> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:8vfHj.145$A87.88@trnddc06...
> >> >
> >> >> >> 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...
> >> >
> >> >> >> 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.
> >> >
> >> >> >>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).
> >> >
> >> >> >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"...
> >
> >> >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...
> >
> >> >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
> 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.'

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_mulholland@nym.hush.com]

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


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

>
><c_mulholland@nym.hush.com> wrote in message
>news:dvvhv39ur396daoarajb7glkbi3058cfvo@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 05:59:15 GMT, "Bill Reid"
><hormelfree@happyhealthy.net>
>> wrote:
>> ><cwed@tic.org> wrote in message
>> >news:ttl0v39bgo5aeapctgfuop6rjgs3pkuj8u@4ax.com...
>> >> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 23:08:44 GMT, "Bill Reid"
>> ><hormelfree@happyhealthy.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> ><cwed@tic.org> wrote in message
>> >> >news:i9hsu3188s913ag6fojd04c0k315poi4ks@4ax.com...
>> >> >> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 23:41:25 -0700, "Talkin Horse"
>> >> ><drramulec@earthlink.net>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >"Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <No1Exists1@Earth71.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:8vfHj.145$A87.88@trnddc06...
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> 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...
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> 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.
>> >> >
>> >> >> >>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).
>> >> >
>> >> >> >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"...
>> >
>> >> >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...
>> >
>> >> >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
>> 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.'
>
>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?

>
>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...

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.


>
>---
>William Ernest Reid
>
>

 

[Bill Reid]

<c_mulholland@nym.hush.com> wrote in message
news:tgniv3hkh189t52bsj4dm2u5jm7acnneah@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 21:40:05 GMT, "Bill Reid"
<hormelfree@happyhealthy.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> 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...

> ><c_mulholland@nym.hush.com> wrote in message
> >news:dvvhv39ur396daoarajb7glkbi3058cfvo@4ax.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).

> >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?

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

> >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

 

[Haebius]

On 28 Mar 2008, "Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <No1Exists1@Earth71.net> posted
some news:8vfHj.145$A87.88@trnddc06:

>
> "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:eaa56207-3376-4fe7-91e6-674a0b9901e9@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.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.
>
>
>
>
>> 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.

 

[c_mulholland@nym.hush.com]

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 06:42:02 GMT, "Bill Reid" <hormelfree@happyhealthy.net>
wrote:

>
><c_mulholland@nym.hush.com> wrote in message
>news:tgniv3hkh189t52bsj4dm2u5jm7acnneah@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 21:40:05 GMT, "Bill Reid"
><hormelfree@happyhealthy.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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

>
>> ><c_mulholland@nym.hush.com> wrote in message
>> >news:dvvhv39ur396daoarajb7glkbi3058cfvo@4ax.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.

>> >
>> >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.


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

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?

>
>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.
>
>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 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]

<c_mulholland@nym.hush.com> wrote in message
news:qlj404509lo3mq0tsbgsp89rvsafijmai1@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 06:42:02 GMT, "Bill Reid"
<hormelfree@happyhealthy.net>
> wrote:
> ><c_mulholland@nym.hush.com> wrote in message
> >news:tgniv3hkh189t52bsj4dm2u5jm7acnneah@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 21:40:05 GMT, "Bill Reid"
> ><hormelfree@happyhealthy.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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"...

> >> ><c_mulholland@nym.hush.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:dvvhv39ur396daoarajb7glkbi3058cfvo@4ax.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?

> >> >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

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...

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

Maybe, if things get REALLY slow...

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

> >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...

> >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/
> >
> 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

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_mulholland@nym.hush.com]

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 00:45:57 GMT, "Bill Reid" <hormelfree@happyhealthy.net>
wrote:

>
><c_mulholland@nym.hush.com> wrote in message
>news:qlj404509lo3mq0tsbgsp89rvsafijmai1@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 06:42:02 GMT, "Bill Reid"
><hormelfree@happyhealthy.net>
>> wrote:
>> ><c_mulholland@nym.hush.com> wrote in message
>> >news:tgniv3hkh189t52bsj4dm2u5jm7acnneah@4ax.com...
>> >> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 21:40:05 GMT, "Bill Reid"
>> ><hormelfree@happyhealthy.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 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"...

Lawyers are usually pretty good at protecting their rights.

>
>> >> ><c_mulholland@nym.hush.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:dvvhv39ur396daoarajb7glkbi3058cfvo@4ax.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?
>
>> >> >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
>
>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.

>
>> 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.

>
>> >> Negative, it was from the documentary. It has new evidence. Why don't
>> >you
>> >> get it and watch it for yourself?
>
>Maybe, if things get REALLY slow...

That's a cop out.

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

>
>> 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...
>
>> >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...

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

>
>> >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/
>> >
>> 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
>
>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!!!!!!!

>
>> 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.

>
>> 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
>
>