 |
Chapter
28: SLEIGHT OF HAND
"THE OL’ SWITCHAROO." —Setup artist’s assistant in the 1991 movie
Ricochet, switching unguarded medical records of two prisoners to misrepresent
their identities
The order in which some things happen tells you what can and can’t
happen next. Consider, for instance, an allegedly "real time" movie clip where a
man has his shirt ripped off in the beginning and end of a fight but he’s wearing it
in between. Regardless of how strong the evidence is of a torn-off shirt on both ends of
the clip, the part in the middle tells us that the continuity editor screwed up and the
whole sequence is bogus. Likewise Fuhrman’s theory of Goldman arriving on the murder
scene five minutes into O.J.'s attack on Nicole and saying "Hey, hey, hey!"
Ditto for his theory of Simpson's blood trail from Bundy to Rockingham.
Coming into the CTV discussion group, I thought that the question of
whose blood was identified at Bundy as O.J. Simpson’s was just that, a question. All
I knew then was whose blood it wasn’t. I knew that it couldn’t have been
O.J.’s no matter what the test results said, because of the kind of wound that
produced the blood-drops at Rockingham. You can make a small cut (Rockingham) larger by
inserting a sharp object in the slit and going deeper and longer (Chicago). You can’t
go from a deep gash (Bundy and Chicago) to a superficial cut (Rockingham) no way, no how.
Dr. Lee and a bunch of witnesses, starting with Kato Kaelin and Allan
Park, left no doubt that O.J.’s Brentwood wound was little more than a scratch. He
carried luggage in both hands and used both hands to help Park load it in the limo.
Several people noticed his hands, how big they were. No one—not one person other than
O.J.—was even aware of his cut. He had no need to bandage it and made no attempt to
hide it. Ergo, the samples identified as O.J.’s at Bundy were misidentified and the
sample tested had been switched.
That was one of the things that baffled me about all the people,
including OJI’s who accepted the test results as proof that O.J. had left his
blood-drops at Bundy; the character of the drops proved that he could not have. I
didn’t see how anyone could have missed that incontrovertible fact after Dr.
Lee’s testimony. Didn’t get it then; don’t get it now.
All parties concerned agreed that the blood on Bundy identified as
O.J.’s could not have come from a superficial cut. That’s why the prosecution
had to argue, against all evidence to the contrary, that O.J. did not cut himself with
glass in Chicago, either accidentally or intentionally, even though the towel he bled all
over was sent to them by the Chicago police. Only a wound as large as the one he returned
with from Chicago would have been consistent with the Bundy blood-drops. That’s one
of the reasons they didn’t want Dr. Lee on the case in any capacity; one of the
reasons they said, "No thanks," when he offered his services to them. They
didn’t want the truth; they wanted O.J.
Henry Lee put on quite a courtroom clinic in blood analysis. He made it
so clear and simple that anyone could see how and why different degrees of sharp force
injury would leave different kinds of blood patterns. But our education didn’t come
without resistance...
Barry Sheck: Your Honor, at this time I would ask permission to, with a
bottle of red ink and paper, have Dr. Lee demonstrate the different kinds of bloodstain
patterns.
Deputy Prosecutor Hank Goldberg: It’s not relevant, your honor.
Not relevant?
Either the man on trial left a blood trail going from Bundy to
Rockingham or he didn’t. Either he was framed or he wasn’t. The true answers to
both questions were dependent on whether his far-fetched story about two innocent cuts in
the same place, one shallow and one deep, was true or false. What could be more relevant
than a demonstration by the world’s leading authority that would answer the question
definitively?
Was the question answered definitively? Yes, it was...
MR. SCHECK: Now, are some of these bloodstains consistent with vertical
droplets?
DR. LEE: They're all consistent with droplets. It's not a regular
blood-drop. It's a droplet, smaller drops.
MR. SCHECK: So some are bigger, some are smaller?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Would the smaller stains—would any of these be
consistent with what is known as a cast-off pattern?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And so if one had a superficial cut on the side of a finger
and shook it in the fashion that I’m doing—
MR. SCHECK: Let the record reflect that I'm shaking my hand down.
MR. SCHECK: —does that create cast-off pattern?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And would that be consistent with what you found here?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Could the pattern that you found here be consistent with a
superficial cut on the side of the finger?
DR. LEE: It consistent with a small volume of blood.
MR. SCHECK: Is the pattern that you see here consistent with a major
cut?
DR. LEE: No.
To me, the logic of the switched blood samples was as convincing as the
logic of the doctored socks and planted glove. For others it was as unconvincing as the
logic of the doctored socks and planted glove. For still others, the idea of the switch
would come to them by way of another set of facts. But the logic was the same.
Let us begin with another O.J. discussion group item that was picked up
on the internet by Chameleon:
So, Bob—You may want to ask Scheck why he disagrees with you when you claim that
the original swatches and envelopes were "switched" and replaced with
"new" ones. Maybe you know something about the envelopes that Scheck doesn't.
—Mirse
Mirse—Scheck has said there wasn't enough samples to do EDTA testing on the
walkway swatches. He didn't use DNA tests to prove they were switched. He used common
sense. Mazzola said that she initialed the swatches. The swatches that showed up at
Cellmark didn't have her initials. Mazzola said that the blood specimens dried overnight.
But there were transfer stains from the swatch to the inside of the bindle on at least one
(maybe a couple) of the bindles. —Bob
Bob — Why did Dr. Lee find transfer stains on item 42 as well as item 47? Item 42
was the swatch from the blood pool around Nicole's body. If the transfer stains on SOME of
the swatches in item 47 is evidence of switching, what are the transfer stains from item
42 evidence of? —Mirse
Thanks for the help, Mirse. What you’ve got there is pretty good
evidence that the blood-drops identified as O.J.’s on Bundy came from a controlled
source, and someone was dipping into Nicole’s wet blood and O.J.’s wet blood in
the lab at the same time. It might also tell when and where the blood found on O.J.’s
socks was obtained, and why Goldman’s blood was absent. It tells us that we should
not assume an absence of EDTA in the blood identified on Bundy as O.J.’s because his
blood on Rockingham showed no EDTA. "O.J.’s" blood at Bundy was not tested
for EDTA, supposedly because there wasn’t enough to test. Now we know the real
reason. EDTA would have shown that it came from a test tube.
Jasper— It appears there's someone else besides me who feels the swatches were
switched. —Peggy
Trooper173 wrote:
Peggy— You mean somebody besides you and me. I don't think there's any question
about it. I'm pretty sure that Paula, Trille, Pat, Sandra and Maggie agree. Don't know
about Phil or Fresa and haven't heard from Connie or Dianne in months, but I wouldn't be
surprised if one or two of them also think you were right about the switch. If the Bundy
blood-drops could not have dripped from OJ’s finger—which they could not have
since the blood-drops at Rockingham came from a superficial cut—they must have been
switched. The unanswered questions are: when, how and by whom?
WHEN, is anytime after Fung and Mazzola collected their samples at Rockingham to the
time Yamauchi looked at the first test result (two days later).
HOW, could have been a stolen key to the criminalist van or the room in the police
station where the amplification machine was kept without a guard [Editor’s note:
We have no reason to believe that a lock, in this case, can be considered a barrier to
unauthorized entry. On the contrary, where it would have been necessary for the killer to
enter Nicole’s garage and lock Ron Goldman out, her garage door opener is missing.
Where it was necessary to free her dog before the attack and to create the illusion that
O.J. left by the rear gate, the key that unlocked the front and rear gates was missing.
With Rosa Lopez’s mysterious footsteps in the area of O.J.’s garage when he and
Kato went to McDonald’s, there is circumstantial evidence that an unauthorized
duplicate key was used to steal the spare keys to his Bronco. Here, a key is only one way
to have beaten the system]. I think it was Matlock who suggested that it could have
been done while the criminalist on duty went to the john or got distracted by one
detective while another made the switch. They were easily identifiable by case and photo
number. The technician needed only to be distracted a few seconds for the switch to be
made. Also, the more I studied Fuhrman, the more I saw how much he relied on flaws in
procedure to do what he wanted to do. There could very easily have been a flaw we don't
know about in the way blood samples were safeguarded from tampering. More than likely, the
problem was in the lab's failure to take the possibility of sample tampering by the
detectives seriously.
BY WHOM, could have been a lot of people since the samples were not
sealed until the testing at Parker Center, where all the West LA detectives were
stationed, was complete. Mark Fuhrman didn't need any help. He didn't even have to have a
key. As Sandra pointed out, all he had to do was walk in and strike up a conversation.
—Jasper
Trooper— I've always felt that someone was helping to "nudge" the
evidence toward implicating O.J. so as to quickly bring the case to closure. Too much of
the evidence falls apart under close scrutiny. —Phil
Jasper—Here is the original theory I set forth rather simply put and Lion's reply.
This was August 4th.... —Peggy
Bull— Okay. I will give you my answer: I don't know. Now, Bull, jump on that like
a dog on a bone. I don't know. But, since I believe OJ to be innocent of this crime, then
I would have to say that the blood was planted. How did someone get OJ's blood? I don't
know. Who planted the blood? I don't know. If I had the wherewithal I would try to find
out, but I don't have the wherewithal. Who was it on the Court TV group that was a
millionaire? Annryand? I need to go and find that person and see if they want to help me
find out.
We could go this route. The blood collected at Bundy was not OJ's blood, but swatches
were substituted after OJ's blood was taken. I'm really opening myself up for a helluva
lot of fun poking and criticism right now. Why would someone do that? How many people
would it take to do that? When the swatches were sent to Cellmark and the other place it
was OJ's blood because all the switching was done at the LAPD lab. How many people handled
the swatches at the LAPD lab? Who collected the blood at Bundy? Andrea Mazzola. She said
the bindles were marked, then later testified they were not marked. Okay, there you go,
have fun. —Peggy
Peggy— A reasonable theory at last! However, I need to remind you that there are
two (2) swatches for each sample. One is the sample itself, the other is a substrate...the
substrate is tested first to insure no contamination was present on the surface where the
stain was lifted...the substrate swatch has to match the swatch with the actual stain. So
to assume the sample was switched, somehow a sample of the substrate would have to be
duplicated as well. To put a stain (OJ’s blood) on a clean swatch and substitute it
for the "real" sample would not match the control swatch or the substrate
swatch....Peggy, with all due respect it can’t be done! —Lion
Nonsense. Substrates were used to check for inadvertent
contamination of reference blood samples. Therefore, blood samples and substrates had to
be kept in separate coin envelopes and labeled accordingly. Only by leaving the substrate
alone could you "prove" that the blood sample it supposedly came with was not
contaminated. The reference sample on a clean swatch is what is being tested against the
control. If the reference sample was O.J.’s blood collected at Rockingham, it would
match O.J.’s blood in the control taken straight out of his arm. Knowing the source
of the control is what makes it a control. The only thing needed for a match is more of
it. If you know the source of the reference and the control you know in advance that you
will have a match.
Peggy— keep in mind that the defense could not prove there was swatch switching,
now, why do you suppose they could not prove it? Maybe because it didn't happen? They
never even laid out how they thought it might have happened [Editor’s note: Barry
Sheck proved that a lens from Juditha Brown’s glasses was stolen to demonstrate how
any evidence could have been accessed and tampered with]! They did what any defense
attorney would do, that used human error as a reason to plant doubt! Peggy, there was an
evidence list against Simpson mailed recently...Look at it! Look at all that evidence that
was collected! There is no mystery to who the murderer is. We are not looking at 1 or 2
pieces of evidence against him, we are looking at a "mountain of evidence!"
Here's one that really gnaws at me: Blk/blue Fibers found on Simpson's socks; blk/blue
fibers found on Ron Goldman's shirt. How Peggy, how could someone have accomplished that
[Editor’s note: The fibers in question were never tied to any of O.J.’s clothes.
The blk/blue cotton uniform of Officer Riske, who leaned over Goldman and touched him, was
never checked. Once they showed up anywhere, they could have been put anywhere. ]!
Here's another one!
Ron Goldman's shirt—Hair found consistent with defendant [Editor’s note:
The cap had O.J.’s hair in it. Again, once they showed up anywhere, they could have
been put anywhere. ]. Peggy, I expect an across the board denial of ALL the evidence
against Simpson, not just the blood evidence...the Aris Isotoner's that we know he owned,
the Bruno Magli shoes that the defense almost conceded were Simpson’s when they
didn't cross examine the last witness in the civil trial, hair consistent with Simpson's
found on Ron Goldman's shirt, 12 hairs consistent with his found inside and outside the
cap found at the scene...Bronco carpet fibers found at the scene...and on and on! Should I
mention 33 inconsistent statements given by Simpson?
You told Bull you didn't know how all this happened, and you weren't God...well
obviously both are true. We have to rely on law enforcement, the criminalists, the
experts, the forensic scientists, and witness testimony. In order for this to have been a
conspiracy, someone or more than one from each group would have had to have a part in this
enormous conspiracy! Look at the list of evidence, follow it through the channels and tell
me how it was successfully pulled off! It's not just blood evidence Peggy, it's ALL the
evidence...each and every piece of it...all accomplished in less than 24 hours. —Lion
Lion: Whoa! Now, you're really laying it on me. We were talking about switching the
swatches, and now you’ve asked me to explain "all" the evidence against OJ.
I'm just at my starting point. I will take it further. But I've spent damned near 6 months
getting to this starting point. I've thought and thought to myself, why are people so
positive that OJ is the killer? Why do I keep getting the same answers from the OJG's?
DNA, hair, fibers. So, I start with the DNA.
I go to the question always asked, how did OJ's blood get there at Bundy? I go to the
"cast of characters." Garcetti, Clark, Fung, Mazzola, Fuhrman. I look at each
one. I try to put myself there, in their shoes, so to speak. I try to fathom the emotions,
ambition, prestige, center of attention. I come up with the theory on the blood evidence.
I put it forth, rather reluctantly, to the whole group. And I wait.
I get some damn good responses. Some questions I hadn't thoroughly considered. Think
about it some more, wonder some more, put forth my ideas, and wham! Now, I’m hit with
"all" the evidence. Let me get at least a "yes," "no" or
"maybe" on this before I have to go on to the rest. Maybe I’ll get almost
to the end of the road and have someone totally invalidate my thinking. But, at least I
will have gone down that road as far as I can. —Peggy
Among the discussions on August 4, 1997 was one in which Phil Rabne
took Lion, Bull and Bear through a step-by-step exercise in logic to see if O.J. could
have left his blood on Bundy. At each step, the likelihood of that became increasingly
faint until only the OJG’s who saw nothing wrong with the socks or the right-hand
glove could still see it.
Phil— The blood was OJ's. If it did not come from OJ, you must tell me where you
propose it came from. Then you must back that up with something more than, "I
believe" or "I think." When you put your theory forth, we will then look at
the spatter pattern to determine if it fits your scenario better than the commonly
believed scenario that the OJG’s believe. You say shoeprints don't support bending
over. Care to substantiate that? —Bull
Peggy— MOI????? I just call it as I see it Peg. So you say I am cruel because I
expect an answer to the most important question in the entire OJ saga? All I want somebody
to tell me is ....How did OJ's pure blood get to the crime scene and yet he is innocent?
That does not seem too much to ask, does it? Some people say the answer lies in
‘blind faith’, but I don’t think so. Anyway thanks for the complimentary
things you have said about me. —Bull
Bull— It's strange that you just answered to me and not to the group. Maggie
answered you, I have answered you, and Trooper has his theory. I don't know if it covers
the blood-drops [Editor’s note: Yes, it did, and Bull knew it] because I have
not been able to download what he has sent in a readable form. You choose to ridicule
Maggie's theory, you choose not to answer mine, and you choose to insult Trooper. What
else can I say? —Peggy
Peggy— Trooper is able to answer for himself. If he doesn't care for what I wrote,
he can answer me. You are not his keeper. Now....you say OJ's blood was never there. How
can you say that when everybody has conceded it was. Are you God now? Even the defense in
the criminal trial agreed that it was his blood and there was no hanky-panky with that. If
as you state "I think there is logic in what I have put forth" tell me, where is
that logic? Back it up with some statement of fact.
Perhaps you would like to be enlightened on the marked/unmarked swatches? Is that your
question? We will enlighten you if you will just pay attention to the answer and not
ignore it and try to misdirect everybody with your specious complaints about manners.
Speaking of manners, I do believe mine are more genteel than yours and a history of the
recent posts will bear me out, I believe. Since you say I thoroughly covered Maggie and
you, what do you have to say in reply to my defense of your spurious accusations?
—Bull
Bull—Well, good morning. Did you assume that I accepted what you said as true
because of my silence last night? Yes, Trooper can answer for himself, but as you
suggested in an earlier post about Maggie and no OJI coming to her defense, I thought
perhaps it was best to come to Trooper's defense. We are, after all, all our brother's
keepers. If you were told by someone in authority that a tested blood swatch contained
your blood, you would believe that, wouldn't you? Even if you had not been where the
swatch was taken? Sure, blood swatches were taken. They were taken from Bundy and they
were taken from Rockingham. The ones from Rockingham were OJ’s blood. The ones from
Bundy were not. Do I have proof? No. Could I back this up with "facts"? No. Am I
God? No. If you would care to enlighten me on the "marked/unmarked swatches",
please do so. I would dearly love to hear something from you besides sarcasm. And I most
assuredly do not intend to get into an argument with you about manners. As you said
"recent posts" will bear that argument out. Your particular defense of my
"spurious" accusations was, as I recall, "I just call it as I see it,
Peg." —Peggy
Bull— Please understand this before I start; I am not being facetious or
sarcastic. "The blood was OJ’s." Now, the reason you believe the blood was
OJ’s, since you were not there and did not see him bleed, is because the swatches
sent to the labs, one, two or three, however many were sent, had OJ’s blood on them.
Collected from Rockingham, not Bundy. This theory does not involve a wholesale conspiracy,
it involves, probably at the most, three people. DNA is an identifier. It's the strongest
evidence the police can have. It can convict or acquit. I have no problem with that. I do
have a problem with a criminalist testifying that the bindles she collected from Bundy of
the blood evidence were marked, and then further testifying that the bindles were
unmarked. I do have a problem with the prosecution saying they didn't have enough blood
evidence to share with the defense. I do have a problem with the prosecution stonewalling
the defense on the evidence they had collected. I do have a problem with blood evidence
with EDTA (gate and socks). —Peggy
Click Here for Chapter 29
|
for Adobe
PDF version of Chapters 20-28
