From: Jasper
Date: March 29, 2006
Time: 11:42 PM
Susan, … When you say, “splitting hairs,” it means that you disregard the significance of whatever you think someone is saying. Who collected the blood evidence, where it was collected and what happened to it before the test results were presented in court tell you whether or not the samples identified as being the same are indeed the same. That’s not splitting hairs, its separating facts from speculation. It’s O.J.’s only legitimate defense against the claim that he cut himself on Bundy during the act of murdering two people with a knife. ……….. Considering O.J.’s cut finger and dozens of other pieces of information that appeared to fit O.J. as the only possible killer, the odds that he did not cut himself during the commission of the murders were overwhelmingly against him. O.J. could be innocent ONLY if the blood samples identified as his in the lab were either cross contaminated or switched. You can rule out these exculpatory possibilities ONLY if the chain of custody is solid. An unbroken chain of custody is the only thing that holds the photographic evidence, the testimony and the test results together. ……….. Documenting the movement of the evidence from point A (the crime scene) to point Z (the courtroom) is fundamental to the prosecution of any murder suspect. Without knowing who collected it and who had access to it there is no way to know that what went into the collection container is what came out of it. The blood evidence then tells you nothing about the defendant because there is no longer anything except the absence of EDTA to tell you where it came from. All of the incriminating blood evidence contained EDTA. --Jasper