Marcia Clark is full of ....

Jurors questioned why he would have carried it around for hours rather than booking it and the defense argued it may have been used to plant evidence such as blood drops on Simpson's front walkway.

That was an incredibly stupid argument from the defense and doesn't say much for the jurors' intelligence, either.

The blood drops on Simpson's driveway and in his foyer and been long collected in the morning. Vannater didn't arrive back at Rockingham with the blood vial until the afternoon, so it being used to plant blood there was a literal impossibility.

Not only that, but even if he'd had a time machine to do it, the collected blood would have had the same high levels of EDTA as the blood in the vial, obviously, and there was none. Even the defense didn't try to claim that.

During the case, no one noticed any blood on a pair of socks collected from Simpson's bedroom until two months later at the crime lab. Defense experts suggested blood was smeared on them while they were lying flat not while someone was wearing them.

Well obviously they did notice it during the case, or it wouldn't have been brought into evidence. But it is true they didn't notice it until a month or more after they were booked into evidence. I can understand why they didn't see the blood at Rockingham -- blood on anything black wouldn't be visible to the eye. However later, back at the lab, with the proper equipment and lights, they should have seen it sooner.

There were also many small spots of Nicole's blood on both socks -- blood that had sprayed from her, become airborne, and landed on his socks in the area between where his pants legs covered and where his shoes covered them.

But the transfer stain does bother me.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Another criticism during the trial dealt with a vial of blood taken from Simpson. Police Detective Philip Vannatter drew Simpson's blood at the LAPD on June 13, the day after the killings. But instead of booking it into evidence, Vannatter put the blood vial in his pocket and went to Simpson's home where criminalists were collecting evidence.

Vannatter explained in his book that immediately after taking OJ's blood, he put in in sealed envelope, not in his pocket. He said he drove the blood out to Rockingham because he wanted to put it directly in the custody of the criminologist in charge of collecting evidence in the case. There were no evidence numbers yet from this case because during the time OJ's blood was being drawn, the evidence was still being collected at the crime scenes. If Vannatter did not bring OJ's blood over to the criminologist, he would have had to either lock it in a locker or his desk drawer. Can you imagine the field day the defense would have had with OJ's blood being somewhere in the LAPD, but not yet booked into evidence, and overnight to boot? Can you imagine the stories they would be able to spin with that? Vannatter went immediately to Rockingham and handed off the sealed envelope to Fung, who had just finished processing the crime scene. Vannatter handed off the blood within 3 minutes of arriving at Rockingham according the the police logs. Vannatter took the blood vial to Rockingham, not Bundy where the murders had occurred. If he wanted to sprinkle some of OJ's blood around to frame him for murder, wouldn't it have made much more sense for him to bring the blood to Bundy, where the murders had actually occurred? Also, as someone else had stated, OJ's blood drops at his property did not have high levels of EDTA which would have had to be present in order for them to have come from his test tube of blood. There was EDTA found in very small, minuscule quantities I believe on the socks and on the back gate at Bundy, but that blood also couldn't have been planted from the test tube of OJ's blood because the amount of EDTA would have had to have been thousands of times higher than it was in order for it to have come from that test tube.

During the case, no one noticed any blood on a pair of socks collected from Simpson's bedroom until two months later at the crime lab. Defense experts suggested blood was smeared on them while they were lying flat not while someone was wearing them.

In terms of the socks, the blood wasn't noticed by visual examination because they were dark in color. They weren't noticed until the socks were able to be thoroughly examined. In a case with this much evidence, not everything can be examined on the first day. The smear was thought to maybe occur when OJ took the socks off. Not every little thing during an investigation is going to be explained or known. An investigation is a series of puzzles you are trying to put together from all the evidence/information you have collected. Sometimes you have missing pieces, sometimes you have pieces that don't seem to fit anywhere, sometimes you have pieces that are mysterious and can't be explained, etc. It's the totality of everything put together that paints the picture. Why would someone risk their career, their livelihood to smear blood on one of OJ's socks that already had Nicole's blood drops on them? So really, the defense wanted everybody to believe that everyone from the first cops on the scene, to the criminologists that collected the evidence, to the lab personnel who were running the tests on the evidence were all in on some vast conspiracy to frame OJ for murder? These same people who loved him so much that they looked the other way almost a dozen times when he abused his wife over the years? Wouldn't the easier explanation be that perhaps OJ himself smeared them when he was trying to get them off in the frantic rush he must have been in after the murders? The attorneys in the civil trial put a very good visual together during closing arguments. They had listed all the people that would have to have been lying in order for OJ and his defense team to be telling the truth. They listed 50+ people on their poster board that in some way, shape or form would have had to been in on this vast conspiracy. It was very effective. It shows just how preposterous it is to believe any of the theories of OJ's defense team. Read the book "Triumph to Justice" by Daniel Petrocelli (Fred Goldman's civil attorney). It's a long book, but it's well worth reading it. They put on the case I wish the prosecution would have put on in the criminal trial. The civil trial had a great judge who did not allow cameras in the courtroom, had a gag order in place, and he also did not allow OJ's attorneys to make a mockery of the justice system like they did in the criminal trial.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

OJ's team spent $250,000 to hire a specialist in jury selection from Chicago -- who happens to be female. Paid off.

Prosecution did not have that kind of money in the budget for jury selection.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

[deleted]