[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 5/26/03
Time: 11:23:28 PM
Remote Name: 68.74.29.44
Miss Marple,
Any experienced homicide detective will tell you that it is common to have some screw-ups with evidence on a complex murder scene. It is also common to find evidence that makes no sense. It would therefore be surprising to me if everyone involve in the documentation, collection and analysis of the evidence did everything right.
Remember what Dr. Lee said about the moving envelope, the moving coins and the moving glove that the prosecution witnesses swore did not move. He was not impressed with the fact that important evidence got moved around when it shouldn’t have. He was impressed with the fact that so many people lied about it under oath. He said that you don’t want these happen but they happen anyway. Nobody is perfect.
There was an awful lot of blood in the case. I can see how Fung could have missed some of it if the detectives didn’t tell him to collect it or if someone distracted him just as he was about to collect it. I can also see how he would refuse to collect some of it because he could see that it didn’t belong there and he didn’t want to implicate the police in planting it.
The red spot above the door was photographed. Whether it was O.J.’s blood, one of the victims’ blood or steak sauce is another question. They all would have shown up as “positive” in the presumptive test and the sample could have been switched in the lab. It was so tiny that I don’t have a problem with the explanation that it was “used up” in the process of typing it.
The blood spots on Nicole’s back were photographed, so we know that they were also present although we don’t know who they belonged to or how they got there.
We have only Fuhrman’s word and the word of his partner that the bloody fingerprint ever existed. And there is no photographic evidence that the blood on the gate that was collected long after the 13th was present on the 13th. The blood on Juditha's lens that could have been a fingerprint (or a printless finger imprint) was also photogarped but not close-up and the whole lens disappeard.
It seems to me that merely knowing how NORMAL it is for evidence to get overlooked, misplaced or destroyed makes it easy to claim that an item of evidence existed that didn’t exist. The missed blood on Nicole’s back makes Fuhrman's bleeding killer theory and his missing bloody fingerprint on the gate credible.
Think about the scene in Murder in Greenwich where Thomas hits Michael with a golf club as he is about to swing. Yes, it is a sly reference to O.J.’s “angry outburst” on the golf course the morning of the killings (just as the scene with Michel and the chauffeur is a sly reference to O.J. and the chauffeur in Connecticut ). But it is also a metaphor for anything one person can do to another to interrupt his concentration enough to make him “miss the shot.” --Jasper