[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Kari
Date: 2/16/03
Time: 4:49:43 AM
Remote Name: 66.82.9.28
Jasper I agree completely. The testimony by Matheson and Fung during Pretrial Testimony motions and stuff during August made it unbelievable that O.J. Simpson was really going on trial on such fabricated evidence. Greg Mathison speaks about how the computer printout shows him logging in June 14th 1994 at 6:03 A.M. No one logs in until 6:33 A.M. and this is Dennis Fung. Now, I'd swear this is when they realized they were going to have to make the bindles somewhere else and not in the lab. When Dennis Fung walks in Lange, Yamauchi, and Matheson are standing around the Bundy Crime Scene table at least O.J. Simpson's blood vial near the swatches allegedly drying on the table. This one observation should have gotten O.J. Simpson released immediately because there is no badge in for Yamauchi until 9:59 A.M. on June 14th. People just treat this info like I am delusional or something. Lange didn't badge in either. Johnny Cochran got it to come out that Matheson let them both in from the inside. Against the new guidelines, however, the new guidelines are not in place even though the new guidelines are two years old. I bet whatever work they got done that morning explains the wet imprints on the bindles that were the originials. Mazzola's testimony that they threw away the plastic bags after removing the swatches when there was allegedly not enough samples to share for testing was another moment of truth for the Defense that the Prosecution was hiding things. Such little things. The problem with thinking that way about these things is that they show an intent to tamper with evidence which is enough to stop a trial and release the defendent when the blood evidence is basically all they had of any real significance. The scariest thing of all to me is if anyone with this evidence and a great legal team was defending say Will Smith today, he'd be convicted because of all the wailing and angry white males out there who are making sure that people forget that reasonable doubt means if the person can give a better explanation you believe the defendant. It is the law.