[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
T1: [email protected]
Category 3: Category 1
Date: 07 Mar 1999
Time: 21:56:42
Remote Name: dyn1-tnt7-125.detroit.mi.ameritech.net
Kari,
Never thought of that. But the blood at Bundy that was tested for EDTA showed it. O.J.'s blood on the glove tested positive for EDTA, and Nicole's blood on the socks also tested positive. The five blood drops next to the bloody shoeprints were not tested for EDTA, only for O.J.'s DNA.
The blood drops at Rockingham without EDTA actually prove his innocence. When you scale the width of O.J.'s shoulders and the width of the gate, you can see that there is no way he could have dripped that blood from his left hand going into the compound. They had to have been made on the way out in two separate trips. That's what all of the pictures are about in chapter 30 and 31.
The only thing that makes them appear to be incriminating is Mark Fuhrman's theory of a bleeding killer and his partner's statement that the blood drops leading out of his driveway gate were going in. There are no clear, close-up photos of the blood drops at the Rockingham gate showing their direction. Dr. Lee was shown close-ups of the droplets in the foyer and given only 20 minutes to look at everything. That was enough time for him to determine that the blood on the foyer came from a small cut that could not have made the big blood drops on Bundy that were not tested for EDTA.
Of all the experts called to testify in the case, the one most needed for anyone interested in the truth was an expert in scale and proportion. I'm a math model designer at Ford Motor Co. and a former Master Modeler. That means I am an expert in scale and proportion. That means I'm not guessing about whether O.J. was going out or coming in when he left those droplets. He was going out.
Jasper