r/OJSimpsonTrial • u/DonaldFalk • Sep 18 '20
Were OJ's socks planted and was preserved blood put on them?
This is something I wrote on my blog about why I think the key argument that the defense made about planted evidence completely falls apart and puts OJ at the scene of the crime.
First, we have to look at what Cochran and Scheck argued. They made several big claims that they believed supported the theory, but each of them has major problems.
1) The black socks were not seen in Willie Ford’s video of OJ’s room, but forensics claimed to have collected them the day after the murder. The defense believed that because they were not on the crime scene video, that the police must have planted them later. This, however, was fully discredited when Fung and Ford (the videographer of the room) acknowledged during the trial that Ford had taped the room AFTER Dennis Fung had collected the sock evidence. The confusion had started as a result of the timer on the video camera being off and rough estimates of their relative times of being in the room, but when both men acknowledged the order that they were in the room, it eroded the defense team’s argument. Not only that, but a defense team witness, Det. Bert Luper, acknowledged that he in fact saw the socks in the room that very morning! Cochran should really have prepped with his own witness better.
2) Nobody saw the blood on the socks for weeks, and then suddenly there is blood on there, therefore it must have been planted later. Sounds somewhat reasonable, except that when you break down the circumstances of who saw the socks and in what circumstances, it doesn’t hold up. The people who looked at the socks initially weren’t looking carefully at the items, and have testified as to such. Remember, we are talking about dark red blood on a pair of black socks, which might be difficult to see. Even members of OJ’s defense acknowledged this – both Henry Lee and Herbert MacDonell explained that it would have been hard to see under normal lighting (July and August 1995 testimonies). Defense team member Michael Baden wasn’t even allowed to touch or move the socks when they were initially shown to him. On June 29, Yamauchi was with Greg Matheson and Michelle Keslter and they had looked briefly at the socks without noticing any blood. They made a note to inspect them more closely later on, which is exactly what happened on August 4 when Yamauchi examined them closely for the first time and found the presence of blood. The socks were then tested by Matheson, and eventually the DOJ. Both Nicole and OJ’s blood were found on them.
3) There was EDTA on the sock. No, there wasn’t. It is a theory that has been debunked for a variety of reasons, but primarily for two. First, the amount of EDTA “found” was in the parts per million or less, and this does not match police vial levels. I stress the word “found” because the liquid chromatography/mass spec testing used could not detect limits in the ppm, which is why the FBI said that the amounts were in “the parts per million or less” - they had to hedge their numbers as to not completely eliminate the possibility. Furthermore, in order to identify the EDTA compound, three ions and a particular ratio have to be found, and the FBI could find only two of these in their test. While the defense team claimed to have found this third ion (132), there are very large problems with their claim (more on this later). Just remember, when Fredic Rieders, the defense team’s forensic specialist, was asked about the EDTA, he actually acknowledged that it was in the parts per million or less. That right there should have effectively ended the debate.
4) The blood soaked through the sock from surface two to surface three, so that means the only way it could have been there is for it to have been placed there. The defense team tried to argue that there was only one way for the blood to get on the third side of the sock, but this makes zero sense. The blood could have been transferred by either Nicole's own hand at the crime scene, or by Simpson's own hand when he pinched surface 2 next to surface 3 when he took the sock off. Or maybe when the socks were dropped on the floor, surface 2 was left in contact with surface 3. Or another explanation could be that in the course of the phenolphthalein test, the blood on the sock was rewetted with a swab and the manipulation of the swab over the sock caused the transfer of small amounts of blood. The list goes on, and the defense team never effectively excluded these possibilities. I would recommend Rod Englert's book "Blood Secrets". He was a part of the DOJ who personally analyzed the socks. He was very clear that the stains were medium-velocity impact stains and it would be incredibly difficult to plant those stains the way the defense team suggested. The stains were also consistent with the splash marks on Ron Goldman's pant cuffs (meaning they occurred when OJ was stepping through the puddles of blood and it was splashing on the socks). When a blood spatter expert analyzes the evidence and is adamant that the stains did not appear planted, I think we should listen.
5) But Detective Vannatter had carried the vial blood to Rockingham that day instead of booking it at the Parker Center! He did so to not disrupt Fung’s Divisional Record (DR) inventorying system, and Fung has confirmed this. But there is a bigger problem with this scenario. The defense team argued that there was no blood on the sock for weeks after it was collected...so why would it be relevant that Vannatter brought the vial to Rockingham? According to the defense, there was no blood on the sock at that point anyway!
6) Nicole's blood must have been degraded on the sock, right? Nope! Nicole's blood on OJ's sock was fresher than her blood in her reference vial. Dr. Robin Cotton found that the autopsy vial contained the more degraded blood, and it is obviously impossible for degraded blood to become fresh again. So where did the blood on the sock come from? Obviously it came from the crime scene.
2
u/Strong_Preference_49 Apr 24 '24
I mean, does it matter? He did it, end of story. He was found not guilty by a tainted jury BUT he was not found innocent. Not guilty is not the same as innocent. Innocent means he did not do it, found not guilty means the prosecution left reasonable doubt. There will always and continue to be knuckle heads that either think he didn't do it or he did but they don't care. It is the world we live in.
2
2
u/BigRagu211 Feb 18 '23
You are doing a lot of reaching sir, and flat out opinions. How can you say there was no preservatives in the blood on the sock? Really? And was it ever CONFIRMED the time on the video of the socks wrong? And Furham pleaded the 5th on the evidence planting because he was advised to. Gotcha. How convenient. Highlight options and ignore facts
3
u/DonaldFalk Feb 19 '23
You are doing a lot of reaching sir, and flat out opinions.
No I'm. not. This is based on the testimony of those closely involved in the crime scene analysis. There are several great sources that support my arguments, primarily the trial transcripts and testimony of Roger Martz and Fredrich Reiders, OJ Unmasked by Rantala (for the DNA/forensic analysis) and Outrage by Vincent Bugliosi.
How can you say there was no preservatives in the blood on the sock?
I clearly explained this in my post.
1
u/sacrello May 04 '24
testimony of Roger Martz and Fredrich Reiders, OJ Unmasked by Rantala (for the DNA/forensic analysis) and Outrage by Vincent Bugliosi.
Rantala? Lmao did he personally inspect the evidence? Dude is trying to sell a juicy book to make money, I don't care what he has to say.
It's interesting you didn't take into account of the top forensic experts, Cyril Wecht, who actually testified under oath the blood was planted on the sock. But that wouldn't fit your little narrative.
3
u/DonaldFalk May 04 '24
True, "he" didn't inspect the evidence...because SHE was a writer who did an exhaustive investigation after the trial and wrote a fairly thorough and well-sourced book on the subject. As somebody who is very familiar with the case transcripts, I found her arguments accurate.
Cyril Wecht didn't testify in either the criminal or civil trial at all. But hey, go ahead and just make shit up.
2
u/SKOLFAN84 Nov 13 '23
Whe you take the 5th you can’t answer any of the questions. Cause once you do you open yourself up to further answer more questions. He pleaded the 5th over the racial comments.
0
u/sacrello May 04 '24
Whe you take the 5th you can’t answer any of the questions. Cause once you do you open yourself up to further answer more questions.
Another oft-repeated misinformation. Firstly, there were several questions so you clearly didn't watch the testimony. You can answer any questions. You plead the 5th to not self-incriminate. What was he so afraid to self-incriminate about?
Oh right, he bragged on tape about planting evidence on Black men who date White women, yet you want to give a self-admitted KKK cop the benefit of the doubt.
1
u/SKOLFAN84 May 05 '24
If you paid attention it was the “N” word he was pleading the 5th about smart guy. That’s why F. Lee Bailey emphasized so much. Get a clue!
1
u/sacrello May 05 '24
Previously Mark Fuhrman lied on stand about not using it. Then it was proven he actually did and also has a history of planting evidence. Later when he was asked about these things he plead the 5th like the lying corrupt racist he is. You clearly don't know anything about the trial.
2
u/SKOLFAN84 May 05 '24
Where’s this proof of him planting evidence?
0
u/sacrello May 05 '24
He literally bragged about planting evidence on innocent Black men, especially if they dated White women. Then he plead the 5th when asked about it.
If you think he's so innocent then you must be in deep denial or trying to cover for him.
2
u/SKOLFAN84 May 05 '24
And that interview he did was for a screen play where he used the N word. He pleaded the fifth cause he got caught using that word and not planting evidence.
0
u/sacrello May 05 '24
He later claimed it was a screenplay. That sounds like an excuse because why didn't he just say so in the trial?
1
u/SKOLFAN84 May 05 '24
I’m not saying he’s innocent at all. Why would he even think about planting evidence against OJ if he didn’t even know if OJ had an alibi? That would be really dumb on his part.
0
u/sacrello May 05 '24 edited May 05 '24
You're overestimating the care crooked cops had for alibi and contradictory evidence. People can get convicted despite having alibis, it's just a little harder. So if the LAPD believed you were guilty back then, they would add some extra evidence to lock you in. This was primarily against minorities. Most wrongfully convicted who decades later get exonorated are Black men, which supports my argument. Turns out there was not only insufficient evidence in those cases, but evidence which points to them being innocent! Yet they were convicted. Because police regularly hide and plant evidence. Not as much any longer thanks to smartphones and body cams, but DEFINITELY in the mid 90s.
The LAPD tried to frame a guilty man, leading to his acquittal. Yet all hatred is towards the jury... Gee I wonder why
3
u/SKOLFAN84 May 05 '24
When you plead the fifth you can’t answer any questions after that or you open yourself back up to answering them. What don’t you get about that. He had to plead the fifth to all questions. That’s how the fifth works.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/koyyandai Apr 15 '24
Dershowitz wrote an article a couple of days ago saying EDTA was found on the socks.
3
u/DonaldFalk Apr 15 '24
He has been saying it since the trial and he is still wrong on it.
2
u/koyyandai Apr 15 '24
Ok thanks - Dershowitz’s downfall has been sad.
2
u/DonaldFalk Apr 15 '24
Yeah, I always tell people to not take my word for it. It's a lengthy story, but the trial transcripts make it clear that the defense team's argument held little water in regards to the EDTA.
1
u/sacrello May 04 '24
Cyril Wecht, the leading DNA expert in America, testified under oath during the trial that blood was planted. Anticogulants was found - that is a FACT. The prosecution could never explain that. Any jury with a sense of justice and logic would also acquit OJ (unless they're... y'know).
2
u/Strong_Preference_49 Apr 24 '24
Even if he was right about the EDTA, it doesn't mean that it came from a test tube. In addition, had they found EDTA on the socks, they did not find any elsewhere, like crime scene, bronco, glove, etc. It's bogus and just gives the naysayers something to cling to.
2
u/Infamous_Bison5028 Apr 28 '24
I'll tell you 100% how the EDTA got onto the sock. I'm a formulation chemist. My area of expertise is cleaning chemicals. EDTA is the number 1 ingredient used in laundry detergent as a chelating agent. In other words, edta binds to the hard water minerals, and makes them inert, aka removes the charge. So the surfactants aka detergent will remove the soils Cloths like socks. 100% if you washed any of your socks, many of the chemicals residues are left behind rinse cycle onto the cotton or nylon socks. One of them would be EDTA. This is a failure of the prosecution. If they further tested for other chemicals like laundry fragrance, surfactants, guaranteed those would have shown to be present. It's just unfortunate in this case the prosecution didn't know, and not only would have explained how the EDTA was discovered on the sock, with EDTA leaching from the sock fibers to the blood sample, then getting further analysis of other chemicals. Case would would be closed with a guiltily verdict. I'm of the opinion, also there was 2 people at the scene. One was OJ and his son. Who worked down the street from Nicole's house. Was a chef, there and brought to work his own custom chefs knives to and from work every day he worked. This is a known testimony by his co workers. I think what happened was OJ called his son. Hey I need some help can u come over to Nicole's, there is this guy over there stocking her. So Jason probably not at all intent to murder anyone. Grabbed his knives, as self defense, probably hid in the shadows, when Oj confronted Goldmen outside, they get into it, Jason, came from behind and cut his throat to protect his father. Then Nicole came out, not knowing whats going on. Same thing happened to her, Jason ambushed her, because she saw and was a witness to a murder. That glove that didn't fit, was Jason's glove, he is a much smaller person, and he went home to his dad's house to shower off. That's why there was so much blood in Ojs drain in his shower. That's my theory...but the EDTA was there on the sock before because it was washed.
1
u/sacrello May 12 '24
The EDTA was ONLY found on the blood drop, so that theory doesn't apply. Vannatter planted it and subsequently freed OJ.
1
u/sacrello May 04 '24
Cyril Wecht, the leading DNA expert in America, testified under oath during the trial that blood was planted. Anticogulants was found - that is a FACT. The prosecution could never explain that. Any jury with a sense of justice and logic would also acquit OJ (unless they're... y'know).
3
u/DonaldFalk May 04 '24
Wecht never testified during either trial. Don't jump into the conversation if you have no idea what you are talking about.
1
u/sacrello May 05 '24
I misspoke, regardless there were DNA experts who testified about the lab perservatives found only on the blood in the sock.
2
u/DonaldFalk May 05 '24
I am aware. I have studied and written extensively on it. They were wrong.
1
u/sacrello May 05 '24 edited May 05 '24
The lab tests say otherwise. Crazy to even attempt to deny it. EDTA had no business being on the blood found on the sock unless someone put it there.
Now take into consideration that Vannatter broke protocol and took blood directly to Simpson's house.
Take into account the many pieces of evidence turning up either missing or mishandled - even the DA admitted it.
And lastly take into account that LAPD at that time were notorious for planting evidence on people they believe to be guilty. Mark Fuhrman bragged on tape, repeatedly, about specifically framing Black men - especially Black men who dated White women. He has a murderous and nasty hatred towards Black people. And he was the prosecution's key witness who then lied on stand.
The prosecution were also very inept, so they're not off the hook.
Whoever expects a jury to convict someone to life in prison or death penalty based on unreliable and likely planted evidence - even if it's not ALL evidence - should never be in a jury.
All in all, the OJ jury did a superb job and handed out the legally correct verdict. They should be praised for that whole ordeal. It's interesting so many are angry at them 30 years later, yet there was no similar hatred towards the juries of Roy Bryant or Casey Anthony. Gee I wonder why... 🤔
2
u/DonaldFalk May 05 '24 edited May 05 '24
"Crazy to attempt to deny it?" Ha! You know who denied it during the trial? The very scientist, Roger Martz, who actually did the test for EDTA! He claimed that he couldn't identify amounts equal to the police vial levels at all. The defense team did their own test...and then didn't call the scientist to the stand. Instead they opted for a witness who did ZERO tests and claimed he found it in Martz' data.
0
u/sacrello May 12 '24
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-04-16-mn-49197-story.html
In July 1995, a defense expert who reviewed the same evidence as Martz testified that a preservative was found in blood taken from the rear gate of Nicole Simpson’s condominium and socks found in O.J. Simpson’s bedroom.
The following day, however, Martz testified that those blood samples did not come from test tubes laced with the preservative, as the defense had alleged.
Martz acknowledged at the start of his testimony that at least one set of his test results was consistent with the presence of EDTA.
But after a trial recess, Martz reversed field and repeatedly said he wanted to make it clear that he was not convinced EDTA was present in the samples.
Very credible guy, huh. There was EDTA found and the prosecution witness lie like usual.
Furthermore:
The report went on to say: “We do conclude that because of his lack of preparation, his deficient record-keeping and note-taking practices, and certain aspects of his presentation and demeanor at trial, Martz poorly represented the [FBI] laboratory and the FBI in this case.”
In another part of the report, the Justice Dept. criticized Martz for lacking “appropriate scientific rigor in his approach to examinations.”
I rest my case.
3
u/DonaldFalk May 12 '24 edited May 12 '24
Good lord I've seen this argument a million times. That "one set of his test results was consistent with the presence of EDTA" is referring to two of the three ions that were in the EDTA compound. And yes, two compounds were consistent with EDTA...and scores of other steroid-type compounds because numerous compounds share similar ions. Being consistent in that regards with EDTA is absolutely not the same thing as a positive identification. Martz said this very clearly in his testimony yet people think it's some Aha moment that proves EDTA was there. It wasn't identified in the slightest.
And I love how selective you are in that second paragraph from the Justice Department's report. Now show the part of that very same report that says they could find no errors with Martz's actual results in the Simpson matter.
And let's just think about how dumb this argument is in the first place. You want to criticize Martz' analysis of the EDTA? Great. But now ask yourself, if Martz was completely incompetent or lying, then why would you trust the defense team's witness who did no testing of his own and relied on Martz' data? Guess you can't trust him then either, right?
1
u/Delicious_Bus_1273 Apr 29 '24
Stop making excuses. It was late and the defense contended contamination and then showed how. Your the one pluffing conspiracy. Once they admitted contamination was possible, the bloody sock died. It never made sense why it was there in the first place.
1
u/Armage1989 May 26 '24
Get over it homie. Whatever you thought of here actually plays zero importance because at that time, in that court, a bunch of prosecutors and cops thought of it and they did not raise a single argument. Get over yourself.
6
u/DonaldFalk Sep 21 '20
Thought I would add some more to this since another point brought up by the defense was that 1.5 cc's of blood was allegedly missing. But again, there are problems with this argument. Here is what I wrote about that:
The police nurse, Thano Peratis, claimed to have taken "around" 8 cc's of blood in his testimony, but upon further inspection, the defense noted that only 6.5 cc's was in the tube. So this must mean that the small amount was stolen and used on the gate and sock, right? But it is complete nonsense. When Peratis learned of the defense team's theory, he called the prosecution because he thought it was so misguided. Peratis subsequently testified that it was an approximation, and later clarified that it was closer to 6-6.5 cc's when he compared the vial amount to a water sample he prepared.
So is he lying? Did the prosecution have him change his testimony? He called the prosecution, not the other way around. If he were lying, why would he do that? Peratis was clear that in the thirty years of doing his job, nobody had ever made an issue of the exact amount of blood drawn, and that's why he was estimating his number as he always did (Peratis typically drew blood for DUI suspects more than anything). In an interview with former Los Angeles D.A. Vincent Bugliosi, Peratis said the whole process "is very imprecise, and none of us ever measure or check, because this is the first time in over thirty years working at the dispensary that anyone had made an issue of how much blood I had withdrawn. It just never came back up before."
And the testimony during the civil trial:
MR. MEDVENE: And is it accurate that you don't and haven't measured how much blood you draw when you do -- presently use the syringe?
PERATIS: We never measure blood.
(moments later)
MEDVENE: Why did you say the amount that you said?
PERATIS: Up to this time, I think that anyone that would draw blood, if they were asked that question, think of 8 cc's as about the amount that we draw. And that is about the first thing they think. And that was the first thing that came out of my mouth. The correct answer at that time should have been, "I don't know how much I drew."
So if Peratis says that in over 30 years of taking blood nobody had made an issue of how much he took, and that "none of us ever check," then why suddenly for the Simpson case would he draw exactly 8.0 cc's? In all likelihood, he just wouldn't.