Vannatter and the Vial

Joyce Bolton

unread,

Apr 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/8/96

to

From "OJ Unmasked." These are points Rantala makes in her book.

Scheck argued in closing that there was "something wrong. Terribly
wrong" in Vanatter having carried Simpson’s vial of blood to Rockingham
where he gave it to Fung, implying that Vannater used the vial to create
evidence against Simpson.

But just where might Vanatter have planted Simpson’s blood?

Simpson had told Lange and Vanatter on the afternoon of June 13 that he
had been bleeding at Rockingham: "I recall bleeding at my house and
then I went to the Bronco." Lange: "We found some in you house. Is
that your blood that’s there?" Simpson replied, "If it’s dripped, it’s
what I dripped running around trying to leave." Since Simpson admits
bleeding in the driveway, Bronco, and inside the house, Vannatter had no
need to plant Simpson’s blood there. It’s there already.

Vanatter had small opportunity to plant blood with the tv cameras and
reporters looking on. Would Vanatter even consider planting blood,
knowing the media would be there in droves?

By the time Vanatter arrived at Rockingham, the Bronco had been impounded.

The defense contended that Simpson’s and Nicole’s blood found on the
socks was planted days or weeks later, so Vanatter didn’t use the vial to
plant blood on the socks. But perhaps V. "wanted" to plant blood on the
socks and just arrived at Rockingham too late. But having already
obtained an admission from Simpson that it was Simpson’s blood in and
around Rockingham, adding Simpson’s blood to the socks wouldn’t make any
difference. And Vanatter didn’t have any of Nicole’s blood. That wasn’t
obtained until after the autopsy.

The glove behind Kato’s room had already been collected before Vanatter
arrived with the vial. It was in the evidence truck. Moreover the
defense theory isn’t that V. planted blood on the glove, but that
Yamauchi transferred Simpson’s blood to the glove in the lab. So
Vannatter planting blood here isn’t even consistent with the defense
theory.

If Vanatter took the vial for planting, why not plant some in the alley
behind Kato’s room, near where the glove was found, out of the eye of the
watchful media?

Why would he unnecessarily draw attention to his possession of the blood
by carrying the vial around for 3 hours. Had he "really" wanted to plant
Simpson’s blood, why not remove a small amount immediately after the
blood was drawn by Peratis, in a private location, then book the vial as
evidence.

Why would Vanatter want to frame Simpson?

Vanatter was aware that Simpson’s lawyer was Weitzman, who had engineered
an acquittal in the DeLorean case by arguing that the case against DeL.
Was "created by government agents."

How did Vanatter cover his tracks so thoroughly? The ONLY evidence
linking V. to planting is his vial transportation to Rockingham.

Read http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1944

unread,

Apr 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/8/96

to

CTT...@prodigy.com (Joyce Bolton) wrote:
>
> From "OJ Unmasked." These are points Rantala makes in her book.
>

> But just where might Vanatter have planted Simpson’s blood?

At BUNDY.. on the gate after Fung finished collecting and had gone
to Rockingham.

>
> Simpson had told Lange and Vanatter on the afternoon of June 13 that he
> had been bleeding at Rockingham:

YOU'RE looking in the wrong place -- assuming that Fuhrm,an was
correct when he asserted that the killer had been wounded ---

It's the Bundy blood that was planted by Vannatter & the victim's blood
at Rockingham that was planted by Fuhrman..

> Would Vanatter even consider planting blood,
> knowing the media would be there in droves?

Media was in front -- not at rear gate. Rear gate was invisible to
the media...

> The glove behind Kato’s room had already been collected before Vanatter
> arrived with the vial.

So what? a drop of blood picked up from the Bronco when Fuhrman planted
the victim's blood --- that's you argument ---

Petition Garcetti for immunity for Fuhrman and Vannatter angainst
prosecution... If you're so sure you're right.

> Why would Vanatter want to frame Simpson?

Not Frame Simpson... cover his ass because of Fuhrman -- check Vannatter's
rep within the DA's office... he was known for screwing up -- and
this was his last, & only major, case...

> How did Vanatter cover his tracks so thoroughly? The ONLY evidence
> linking V. to planting is his vial transportation to Rockingham.

He didn't. Not Rockingham -- BUNDY first... and the very act of
transporting it rather than booking it broke procedure and proper
handling of evidence reference samples.

http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1944

confused

unread,

Apr 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/9/96

to

"Brain dead" <WLSc...@AOL.com> wrote:

>It's the Bundy blood that was planted by Vannatter & the victim's blood
>at Rockingham that was planted by Fuhrman..

He keeps saying it, let's see if he backs it...

>Media was in front -- not at rear gate. Rear gate was invisible to
>the media...

Why did he have to plant it that day? I mean, he could spirit away a bit,
(there is a question as to how much was missing) and plant it anytime he
wanted to up until it was collected...But you claim it was when the media was
in to greatest concentration...Oh, again with no proof...

>Petition Garcetti for immunity for Fuhrman and Vannatter angainst
>prosecution... If you're so sure you're right.

Take up the bet if you're so sure you are.

>> Why would Vanatter want to frame Simpson?
>
>Not Frame Simpson... cover his ass because of Fuhrman -- check Vannatter's
>rep within the DA's office... he was known for screwing up -- and
>this was his last, & only major, case...

Any chance you want to name a source for this 'rep' within the DA's
office...or is this a source like the one that claims that claims WLSchreck is
prone to lying.
Gosh, I saw him on TV twice since the Simpson murder, talking about other
cases that happened after the Simpson murder. America's most wanted, and I
believe American Journal.

>He didn't. Not Rockingham -- BUNDY first... and the very act of
>transporting it rather than booking it broke procedure and proper
>handling of evidence reference samples.

Managed to get in and out of there without a single reporter making a note of
it. The powers the LAPD have are astounding...

>http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1944
Address left so you will know where to go for more dribble 'backed by
testimony' like this.

Dan

unread,

Apr 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/9/96

to

>"Brain dead" <WLSc...@AOL.com> wrote:
>
>>It's the Bundy blood that was planted by Vannatter & the victim's blood
>>at Rockingham that was planted by Fuhrman..
>He keeps saying it, let's see if he backs it...

That's hilarious. Vanatter planted OJ's blood OVER the blood the OJ left
there himself, by his own admission (in the 32 minute interview).
Unbelievable. And this guy has a whole web page dedicated to "evidence?"

dan

Read http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1944

unread,

Apr 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/9/96

to

mo...@mmw-gbg.net (confused) wrote:
"I'm a Brain dead spider eater from Maui"

<WLSc...@AOL.com> wrote:

> >He didn't. Not Rockingham -- BUNDY first... and the very act of
> >transporting it rather than booking it broke procedure and proper
> >handling of evidence reference samples.
> Managed to get in and out of there without a single reporter making a note of
> it. The powers the LAPD have are astounding...

Confused must always prove why he is confused -- Vannatter was
photographed on his return to Bundy... But there were NO
photographers in rear... where the blood magically appears...

Will the pro-pros accept the challenge,
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1944/garcetti.html
or tuck their racist fuhrman protecting tails between their
legs and resume spouting profanity... and illogical assertion
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1944

>
> >http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1944

Sherry McDonald

unread,

Apr 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/9/96

to

Officer Riske and a half dozen other officers at the crime scene right
after bodies were discovered pointed out blood on rear gate to detectives
when they arrived. The rear gate blood was missed by Fung but it was
never planted. All blood at Rockingham and Bundy (except the gate sample)
was collected before OJ gave his sample. The only possible blood
planting would have been on the socks and that is really a stretch. With
all of OJ's blood at both scenes, why would they need to plant any more?
Nicole's blood was on those socks. When do you suggest they got her
blood to put on the socks? You want to stretch the believable to make
your point. It just doesn't work out.

Sherry

confused

unread,

Apr 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/9/96

to

<WLSc...@AOL.com> wrote:

>mo...@mmw-gbg.net (confused) wrote:
> "I'm a Brain dead spider eater from Maui"

No, I didn't write that about you, I had no idea you were from Maui (I did
mention the brain dead part).

><WLSc...@AOL.com> wrote:

>Confused must always prove why he is confused -- Vannatter was
>photographed on his return to Bundy... But there were NO
> photographers in rear... where the blood magically appears...

And who testified to this? And on what day? You 'claim' to be such an expert
on the testimony, can you at least give who and when?

>Will the pro-pros accept the challenge,

Will ScHRECK accept the challenge? Password for password.
or tuck his racist Murderer loving tail between his
legs and resume spouting profanity... and illogical assertion at
>http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1944

doug haire

unread,

Apr 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/10/96

to

Read http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1944 (WLSc...@AOL.com) wrote:

: CTT...@prodigy.com (Joyce Bolton) wrote:
: >
: > From "OJ Unmasked." These are points Rantala makes in her book.
: >
: > But just where might Vanatter have planted Simpson’s blood?
:
: At BUNDY.. on the gate after Fung finished collecting and had gone
: to Rockingham.

Where's your proof that Vannatter went to Bundy after he got the blood
sample from Simpson?

What about the blood that was already on the gate, as testified to by
Riske and others?

: > Simpson had told Lange and Vanatter on the afternoon of June 13 that he

: > had been bleeding at Rockingham:
:
: YOU'RE looking in the wrong place -- assuming that Fuhrm,an was
: correct when he asserted that the killer had been wounded ---

:
: It's the Bundy blood that was planted by Vannatter & the victim's blood

: at Rockingham that was planted by Fuhrman..

Except you have no evidence or testimony to show that Vannatter went to
Bundy with the blood sample.

: > Would Vanatter even consider planting blood,

: > knowing the media would be there in droves?

:
: Media was in front -- not at rear gate. Rear gate was invisible to
: the media...

But Vannatter was not seen at Bundy after the blood was drawn.

: > The glove behind Kato’s room had already been collected before Vanatter

: > arrived with the vial.
:
: So what? a drop of blood picked up from the Bronco when Fuhrman planted
: the victim's blood --- that's you argument ---

Why leave a small (dime-sized) spot of bllod on the outside of the Bronco
rather than a smear? Why not leave the glove inside the Bronco on the
floor, visible from the window? Why not drop the glove inside the
Rockingham gate?

Why not try making some sense?

: Petition Garcetti for immunity for Fuhrman and Vannatter angainst

: prosecution... If you're so sure you're right.

I assume you have already sent letters to Garcetti about this since it
would also help prove your theory?

: > Why would Vanatter want to frame Simpson?

:
: Not Frame Simpson... cover his ass because of Fuhrman -- check Vannatter's
: rep within the DA's office... he was known for screwing up -- and
: this was his last, & only major, case...

Why did Vannatter need to cover his own ass? Up to then, he had done
nothing wrong whatsoever. He had no need to risk his retirement and his
freedom (maybe his life!) tampering with evidence in a capital crime.

: > How did Vanatter cover his tracks so thoroughly? The ONLY evidence

: > linking V. to planting is his vial transportation to Rockingham.

:
: He didn't. Not Rockingham -- BUNDY first... and the very act of

: transporting it rather than booking it broke procedure and proper
: handling of evidence reference samples.

But you cannot place him at Bundy after the blood was taken from Simpson.

And where's the phone record of Kato's call to Rachel that you claim exists?

And why do you not reply to my posts?

Linda and Cliff Griffith

unread,

Apr 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/10/96

to

In <316a25ed...@news.aloha.com> mo...@mmw-gbg.net (confused)
writes:

>
>"Brain dead" <WLSc...@AOL.com> wrote:
>>He didn't. Not Rockingham -- BUNDY first... and the very act of
>>transporting it rather than booking it broke procedure and proper
>>handling of evidence reference samples.

Somehow, these attributions look wrong.

But Schreck---I think you're the only one who heard that Vannater took
the blood vial to Bundy. I think it was "Rockingham-only" all along.

Linda

Greg Goss

unread,

Apr 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/10/96

to

"Read http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1944" <WLSc...@AOL.com>

>It's the Bundy blood that was planted by Vannatter & the victim's blood
>at Rockingham that was planted by Fuhrman..
>

>> Would Vanatter even consider planting blood,
>> knowing the media would be there in droves?
>
>Media was in front -- not at rear gate. Rear gate was invisible to
>the media...

I've seen three different video clips from helicopters. Tell me again
where he works so as to be invisible to news choppers.

>> The glove behind Kato’s room had already been collected before Vanatter
>> arrived with the vial.
>
>So what? a drop of blood picked up from the Bronco when Fuhrman planted
>the victim's blood --- that's you argument ---
>

>Petition Garcetti for immunity for Fuhrman and Vannatter angainst
>prosecution... If you're so sure you're right.

If Fuhrman framed someone, why do you want him to go free? Do *YOU*
want to be responsible for the burning of LA? Planting evidence in a
capital case would be an extremely important crime, if true. And you
want to offer him immunity just to prove a point. OJ is already free,
with sixth amentment protection against further charges. If you set
Fuhrman free, too, what would his testimony accomplish?

>> How did Vanatter cover his tracks so thoroughly? The ONLY evidence
>> linking V. to planting is his vial transportation to Rockingham.
>
>

>He didn't. Not Rockingham -- BUNDY first... and the very act of
>transporting it rather than booking it broke procedure and proper
>handling of evidence reference samples.

How did he cover his tracks at Bundy? Is there any evidence of his
arrival at Bundy with a vial?

Cheryl McGonegal

unread,

Apr 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/11/96

to

wede...@sure.net (Dan) wrote:

>>"Brain dead" <WLSc...@AOL.com> wrote:
>>
>>>It's the Bundy blood that was planted by Vannatter & the victim's blood
>>>at Rockingham that was planted by Fuhrman..

>>He keeps saying it, let's see if he backs it...

>That's hilarious. Vanatter planted OJ's blood OVER the blood the OJ left
>there himself, by his own admission (in the 32 minute interview).
>Unbelievable. And this guy has a whole web page dedicated to "evidence?"

>dan

Yes --- it's scary, isn't it? Poor unsuspecting people might actually

read the darn thing and, like a bad habit learned early, never be able
to recover their senses well enough to discern fact from fiction. I
honestly believe that to be the case with several of the OJ supporters
here. Cheryl

READ http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1944

unread,

Apr 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/11/96

to

c...@fcol.com (Cheryl McGonegal) wrote:
>
> wede...@sure.net (Dan) wrote:
>
>
> >>"Brain dead" <WLSc...@AOL.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>It's the Bundy blood that was planted by Vannatter & the victim's blood
> >>>at Rockingham that was planted by Fuhrman..
> >>He keeps saying it, let's see if he backs it...
>
>
> >That's hilarious. Vanatter planted OJ's blood OVER the blood the OJ left
> >there himself,

you and marcia seem to think alike -- both use circular logic..
Vannatter planted blood where there was none. the photo of the gate
taken on the 13th established no blood at that location --
this does not deal with the blood at the latch -- which was NOT
intrduced, nor was the apparent fingerprint also mentioned by the
officers quoted here in a feeble effort to estabish that this location
and that were seen.

http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1944

Joyce Bolton

unread,

Apr 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/11/96

to

>Read http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1944 (WLSc...@AOL.com)
wrote:

unread,

Apr 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/13/96

to

In article <4kj5q4$i...@cloner2.ix.netcom.com>, kril...@ix.netcom.co says...

[snip]

>Vannatter was "not" breaking procedure by transporting the evidence to
>Rockingham to give to the criminalist. On Grodin, Lange said he had
>often used that procedure.

I don't think he was breaking procedure but in the *trial* he said he'd
*never* transported blood like that in 30 years...why do you think they call
Vanatter and Lange "dumb and dumber?"

--
Jerry Lazzareschi
10301...@compuserve.com

Jerry Lazzareschi

unread,

Apr 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/13/96

to

In article <316be97c...@news.nando.net>, tsu...@nando.net says...

[snip]

>Vannatter and Lange didn't break procedure. That's because detectives
>CAN'T book evidence; the criminalists do that. Therefore, Vannatter
>could either leave the vial lying around until the criminalist could get
>it, or he could transport it to the criminalist, ensuring chain of
>custody.

You are *so* wrong!!!...He could've booked that blood into evidence...<sheesh>

--
Jerry Lazzareschi
10301...@compuserve.com

aka Ritch ©

unread,

Apr 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/13/96

to

On 13 Apr 1996 20:20:05 GMT, jerr...@deltanet.com (Jerry Lazzareschi)
wrote:

>[snip]

>--
>Jerry Lazzareschi
>10301...@compuserve.com

I know that this may come as a surprise..but VanAtter wanted the
criminalist in charge to book the blood...and thus insure the chain of
custody for the evidence...Contrary to popular belief the blood was
never in his "pocket" as you have seen discussed here. It was in a
sealed vial in a plastic "zippy" inside a sealed 9 X 12
envelope...much to large to go in his pocket. The envelope was carried
in his hands (not hidden from view, or from the cameras) ...If he had
had it in his pocket the defense would never have know that it was at
the Rockingham estate...and he never went to Bundy (the crime scene)
with this blood!

This is "unrefuted (©WLS)"!

Bassman...aka Ritch ©

David McDuffee

unread,

Apr 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/14/96

to

In article <4kp29l$i...@news02.deltanet.com>,

Jerry Lazzareschi <jerr...@deltanet.com> wrote:
>The real question is *why* would he drive the blood across
>town and put it in the back of a hot truck, so it could stay there alnight and
>be removed the next day?

The real answer is that detectives do not book evidence; criminalists
book evidence. That's why the detectives did not collect the glove and
hat at Bundy, but secured the scene and waited for the criminalists to
do their job. When Simpson's blood sample was collected, the criminalists
were at Rockingham collecting evidence there. Vannatter maintained chain
of custody by carrying the blood to the criminalist, who booked it along
with the other evidence collected that day.

None of the evidence spent the night in the evidence van; it was locked
in the evidence room at Piper Tech overnight.

--
David McDuffee
mcdu...@netcom.com

Terry Hallinan

unread,

Apr 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/14/96

to

jerr...@deltanet.com (Jerry Lazzareschi) wrote:

>In article <4kc2th$q...@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com>, CTT...@prodigy.com says...

>[snip]

>>By the time Vanatter arrived at Rockingham, the Bronco had been impounded.

>Vanatter was at Rockingham early in the morning, I'm not sure when the Bronco

>was impounded...The real question is *why* would he drive the blood across

>town and put it in the back of a hot truck, so it could stay there alnight and
>be removed the next day?

>Maybe he just wanted to be the one that arrived at the crimscene saying, "hey

>everybody I've got OJ Simpsons' blood."

Pro-j's really have trouble with time (among other things). Vannatter
carried the blood to Rockingham rather than stopping at a lab to drop
it off. Fung was, of course, the person who was in charge of
gathering evidence and was a logical person to receive the blood.
Most of the evidence had been gathered before OJ even arrived.

Humor is just not your thing, Jerry. Neither are facts.
Best, Terry

"Positive - Being wrong at the top of one's lungs"
-The Devil's Dictionary

Terry Hallinan

unread,

Stephen

Terry Hallinan

unread,

Apr 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/14/96

to

dou...@aa.net (Oceansize) rants and raves:

>The envelope was not sealed. It is supposed to be. The envelope was
>an old one that Vannatter also found laying around the area where the
>blood was extracted. Why didn't Vannatter get a new envelope and sign
>it along with Peratis (sp??), which is part of the departments chain
>of custody? Why use an old envelope?

Why not? This is really funny. It is funny the nonsense that can be
dredged up by the fantasy-prone. I don't know that what dounut says
is true but he could be right for once. So what? The purpose of
procedure is mostly to prevent attack. And procedure will never, never
be followed completely. As with taxes one would have to spend all his
time reading the book and would have no time to do anything else. No
one I know even pretends that the blood is not that of OJ collected as
said.

>It also is department procedure- and i don't remember the exact
>wording- to book the evidence "immediately".

Of course donout has trouble with holes in reasoning. Vannatter is a
detective and does not book evidence immediately, or at all. Dennis
Fung was the criminalist who does such things.

>He could have driven it and booked it at some "center" which was
>located one mile away. This would not have broken
>the chain of custody and would have complied with the wording
>"immediately". Let's just say Vannatter wanted to keep that blood in
>his possession for some "unknown" reason.

Besides taking it to the criminalist who does such things as book
evidence, maybe donout thinks Vannatter was sucking EDTA out of the
blood so he could plant it at Bundy beforehand. Or maybe donout
thinks Vannatter is a vampire. Makes as much sense as anything else
he says.

>jah love---

>Stephen

David McDuffee

unread,

Apr 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/14/96

to

In article <4kc7n9$q...@news.internetmci.com>,

Read http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1944 <WLSc...@AOL.com> wrote:

>the very act of
>transporting it rather than booking it broke procedure and proper
>handling of evidence reference samples.

Not so. Detectives don't book evidence; criminalists book evidence.
Vannatter maintained chain of custody by delivering the blood to the
criminalist (Fung), who booked it the next morning.

Since the Bundy blood trail had been collected before Simpson even
arrived in Los Angeles, it is obvious that the Bundy blood trail did
not come from the reference vial which Vannatter carried to Rockingham.
And since the Bundy blood trail matched Simpson's blood when tested
using conventional serology, PCR DNA testing, and RFLP DNA testing, it
is just as obvious that the blood trail came from Simpson.

But when it comes to the intelligence of Butcher Boosters, only thing I
can say is, something wrong.

--
David McDuffee
mcdu...@netcom.com

unread,

Apr 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/15/96

to

jerr...@deltanet.com (Jerry Lazzareschi) wrote:

This in the previous post from Lazzareschi:

>Vannatter. It's interesting because Vannater said he KNEW this was
>>going to be the trial of the century, so he wanted to make sure that the
>>evidence was handled properly; that is, the chain of custody NOT be
>>compromised. That's one reason he took the blood over there himself.
>>I guess he was "hoist with his own petard!"

>If he knew that if was going to be the trial of the century then why would he
>compromise the evidence by carrying it around for 3 hours then putting it in
>the back of a hot truck allnight???...When he could've taken the blood 3-5
>minutes away and *not* lost the chain of custody and put it in a refrigerator?

And he claims he's unbiased and jumps on someone for being supposedly
misinformed when this whole last quote is pure bullshit.
Apparently he doesn't know that it's not the detectives but the
criminalists that book evidence and the blood vial was NOT stored in a
hot truck all night.
Where the hell do these people come from anyway?

The more I read postings from "average" people like this, the more I'm
convinced in our need for professional jurors.
******************************************************************
There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didnt
take that as an invitation to walk all over you. - Calvin & Hobbes

READ http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1944

unread,

Apr 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/15/96

to

McDummy has no idea of testimony and reality --
if he did, he'd know that the criminalists in LA appear at very few
crime scenes. The Detectives do the criminalists work at most scenes
and for that reason, Fuhrman & Phillips carried a forensics collection
kit in their car. It WAS IN THE TESTIMONY... not that McDummy & Co
care about minor things like that.

http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1944

READ http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1944

unread,

Apr 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/15/96

to

ku...@lightlink.com (Kurtz) wrote:
>
> jerr...@deltanet.com (Jerry Lazzareschi) wrote:
>

> >In article <3170747...@news.aloha.com>, mo...@mmw-gbg.net says...
> >

> Apparently he doesn't know that it's not the detectives but the
> criminalists that book evidence and the blood vial was NOT stored in a
> hot truck all night.
> Where the hell do these people come from anyway?

A much smarter and knowledgable pool than you emerged from.
The detectives DO BOOK evidence -- and it was testified to at
The Trial.
They also at as criminalists -- also testified to.

Vannatter was specifically asked if he could have booked it --
he gave a yes buried in a song & dance.

Vannatter also had a reputation as a screwup... part of the team
of Dumb & Dumber...

>
> The more I read postings from "average" people like this, the more I'm
> convinced in our need for professional jurors.

We know you'll never qualify -- maybe that's why you advocate professionals
you want to be sure youy can duck your civic duty...

> ******************************************************************
> There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didnt
> take that as an invitation to walk all over you. - Calvin & Hobbes

Stay with your comic strip characters -- probably well above your IQ
but you can look at the pictures.

http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1944

David McDuffee

unread,

Apr 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/15/96

to

In article <4ksn5m$d...@news02.deltanet.com>,

Jerry Lazzareschi <jerr...@deltanet.com> wrote:
>In article <mcduffeeD...@netcom.com>, mcdu...@netcom.com says...
>
>[snip]
>
>>The real answer is that detectives do not book evidence; criminalists
>>book evidence. That's why the detectives did not collect the glove and
>
>d00d...this statement is so wrong!

w0w, is that one of those paradoxes, like the one Sp0ck used to blow
that android's mind, "Everything I say is a lie"?

If you really meant to convey that "The previous statement is so wrong!"
perhaps you can furnish the proof - which item was it that any detective
booked in this case? I can't think of one. Remember the shoes that Butch
lied about wearing the night before? The detective who collected those
shoes didn't book them, did he? He carried them to the criminalist who
booked them about the same time he booked the blood vial, didn't he?

Detectives don't book evidence. Criminalists book evidence. That's why
Vannatter carried the blood vial to the criminalist at Rockingham.

And for those who insist on the sinister version, that Vannatter
actually stopped by the back gate at Bundy and planted evidence, tell me -
why is it that he didn't mention to Fung that he'd neglected to collect
the bloodstains on the back gate? Why was it almost three weeks before
anyone recalled that blood had been left on the back gate? Why was it
that this "discovery" was not made by Vannatter, but by Lange, when he
happened to stop by and see what he testified he'd seen prior to Simpson's
return on June 13th?

Five different detectives, none of them Vannatter, testified that they
observed the blood on the back gate, prior to Simpson's return from
Chicago. This isn't code of silence stuff - that would elicit testimony
like "I didn't notice the back gate." If that blood (which, by the way,
was photographed on June 13th, again before Simpson provided his reference
sample) was planted, then all five of these officers have perjured
themselves for no reason. I say "for no reason" because there were five
drops of blood collected in addition to the stains on the back gate. All
five tested consistent with Simpson, using a variety of tests (conventional
serology, PCR DNA, RFLP DNA). There was no need to plant evidence on the
afternoon of June 13th, and no need to lie about having seen it later.

People say that the planting was because they needed to strengthen a weak
case. On June 13th, none of the blood which had been collected at the
crime scene had even been tested. If the blood trail hadn't been Simpson's,
how would anyone explain how the killer's blood changed to someone else's
just as he reached the gate, then changed back again when he entered the
alley? On June 13th, when the planting is alleged to have taken place,
no one knew whether the case would be weak or not, or whether Simpson
would turn out to be the most likely suspect. The Real Killer or Killers
(tm) could have been talking to a priest who would convince them to
surrender and confess. To say that Vannatter would have thought it wise
to manufacture evidence so early in the investigation is ridiculous.
Later in the investigation, when the testing showed that Simpson's
blood was in each of the five drops leading to the back alley, it was
unnecessary.

What do you suppose Vannatter was thinking? "Let's see, they have already
collected five drops of blood which logically belong to the real killer.
I better put some of Simpson's blood on the gate, just in case." What
scenario would have made this necessary, or even advisable? D00D?

--
David McDuffee
mcdu...@netcom.com

doug haire

unread,

Apr 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/15/96

to

Jerry Lazzareschi (jerr...@deltanet.com) wrote:
: In article <31703d83...@news.nando.net>, tsu...@nando.net says...
:
: [snip]
:
: >If you think a detective can book evidence, then tell me, what's the
: >point of having criminalists?
:
: Somebody please inform this misinformed person that a detective can and does
: book evidence...<sheesh>

Apparently, in Los Angeles (maybe throughout California), that job is
done by criminalists. Other states/cities may have different guidelines.
I believe this came out early in the trial, apparently you didn't see that.

Joyce Bolton

unread,

Apr 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/15/96

to

In <4kqg22$l...@Holly.aa.net> dou...@aa.net (Oceansize) writes:
>
>Bas...@snowhill.com (aka Ritch Š) wrote endlessly that:

>>I know that this may come as a surprise..but VanAtter wanted the
>>criminalist in charge to book the blood...and thus insure the chain
of
>>custody for the evidence...Contrary to popular belief the blood was

>>never in his "pocket" as you have seen discussed here. It was in a
>>sealed vial in a plastic "zippy" inside a sealed 9 X 12
>>envelope...much to large to go in his pocket. The envelope was
carried
>>in his hands (not hidden from view, or from the cameras) ...If he had
>>had it in his pocket the defense would never have know that it was at
>>the Rockingham estate...and he never went to Bundy (the crime scene)
>>with this blood!
>

>The envelope was not sealed. It is supposed to be. The envelope was
>an old one that Vannatter also found laying around the area where the
>blood was extracted. Why didn't Vannatter get a new envelope and sign
>it along with Peratis (sp??), which is part of the departments chain

>of custody? Why use an old envelope? It also is department

>procedure- and i don't remember the exact wording- to book the

>evidence "immediately". He could have driven it and booked it at some

>"center" which was located one mile away. This would not have broken
>the chain of custody and would have complied with the wording
>"immediately". Let's just say Vannatter wanted to keep that blood in
>his possession for some "unknown" reason.
>
>

>jah love---
>
>Stephen
>
Vannatter carrying the blood vial to Rockingham isn't an issue unless
there's some evidence that he actually planted blood. The defense
raised this issue simply to raise some "unreasonable" doubt in the
minds of the jurors. This reminds me of the defense making such an
issue of Lange taking Simpson's shoes home overnight, when nothing
regarding the shoes was admitted into evidence.

confused

unread,

Apr 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/15/96

to

jerr...@deltanet.com (Jerry Lazzareschi) wrote:

>In article <3170170e...@news.snowhill.com>, Bas...@snowhill.com says...
>
>[snip]
>

>>I know that this may come as a surprise..but VanAtter wanted the
>>criminalist in charge to book the blood...and thus insure the chain of
>>custody for the evidence...Contrary to popular belief the blood was
>

>This is total BS and you know it...he could've went 3-5 minutes away and
>booked the blood into evidence and maintain the chain of custody...He could've
>went right down the hall and booked it also...

He could have also waited until Fung returned to give it to him. All are
proper, WHAT IS YOUR POINT? Because he chose to use this as an excuse to go
back out to R'Ham, he must have planted evidence? Can there be no innocent
action on the part of the police officers? If not, you have assumed the police
guilty from the begining. Apply the same standard to Simpson and see where you
end up. In fact, if you do bother to apply this standard to both, there will
be no question in your mind that Simpson is guilty, but it is still 'the cops
MIGHT have tampered with evidence' on the other side.

confused

unread,

Apr 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/15/96

to

jerr...@deltanet.com (Jerry Lazzareschi) wrote:

>In article <mcduffeeD...@netcom.com>, mcdu...@netcom.com says...

>>The real answer is that detectives do not book evidence; criminalists
>>book evidence. That's why the detectives did not collect the glove and

>d00d...this statement is so wrong!

You claim it, so show it! Post from the testimony that it was against regs.
Post from the LAPD operations manual. Post any reference to physical evidence
that was booked by the detectives. Any will back your point and show McDuffee
wrong..

Jim Tims

unread,

Apr 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/16/96

to

hall...@borg.com (Terry Hallinan) >

>Pro-j's really have trouble with time (among other things). Vannatter
>carried the blood to Rockingham rather than stopping at a lab to drop
>it off. Fung was, of course, the person who was in charge of
>gathering evidence and was a logical person to receive the blood.

I got the impression at the time that it was part of the special treatment
for OJ, the attempt to do things extra, extra correct, to make sure there
were no errors in a high profile case. NOTHING was going to go wrong with
that blood sample! 8^) It was going *directly* to Fung, so there would be
no question about it at all. This turned out to be an extremely bad idea.
The best laid plans of mice and men...

--
jim tims
"And if you're a miner, when you're too tired and old and sick and stupid
to do your job properly, you have to go, whereas just the opposite applies
with the judges." Beyond the Fringe

READ http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1944

unread,

Apr 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/16/96

to

jft...@borg.com (Jim Tims) wrote:
>
> hall...@borg.com (Terry Hallinan) >

>
> were no errors in a high profile case. NOTHING was going to go wrong with
> that blood sample! 8^) It was going *directly* to Fung, so there would be
> no question about it at all.

> --
> jim tims

Love it... NOTHING... wrong... :-)
Fung gets the blood and leaves it in the plastic bag overnight...
no refrigeration, log notation, booking...

love it... that's exactly the way prosecution likes evidence handled...

:-)

Vannatter could have had it logged in and booked...

http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1944

confused

unread,

Apr 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/16/96

to

jerr...@deltanet.com (Jerry Lazzareschi) wrote:

>In article <31703d83...@news.nando.net>, tsu...@nando.net says...
>
>[snip]
>
>>If you think a detective can book evidence, then tell me, what's the
>>point of having criminalists?
>
>Somebody please inform this misinformed person that a detective can and does
>book evidence...<sheesh>

What you say 'may' be true, but according to -
Sgt. David Rossi 2/14/95 - 2/15/95
Q WHAT DOES THE CRIMINALIST DO AT A CRIME SCENE?
A COLLECT AND BOOK, PREPARE EVIDENCE. HE'S IN A CRIME SCENE UNDER
THE DIRECTION OF AN INVESTIGATING OFFICER OR ON HIS OWN DIRECTION
AS HE GOES ALONG THE CRIME SCENE.

But this doesn't state that a detective 'can't' book evidence, but it does
suggest it. Else, "what's the point of having criminalists?"

confused

unread,

Apr 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/16/96

to

<WLSc...@AOL.com> wrote:

>McDummy has no idea of testimony and reality --

If McDuffee had contributed to this part of the thread you might not appear so

ScHRUPID...

>if he did, he'd know that the criminalists in LA appear at very few
>crime scenes. The Detectives do the criminalists work at most scenes
>and for that reason, Fuhrman & Phillips carried a forensics collection
>kit in their car. It WAS IN THE TESTIMONY...

Was it? Where? I looked- I did find this from DETECTIVE PHILLIPS

Q FOR INSTANCE, IF YOU WANTED GLOVES TO SANITIZE THE COLLECTION OF
EVIDENCE, WOULD YOU HAVE THAT IN WEST LOS ANGELES?
A WE HAVE GLOVES IN THE TRUNKS OF OUR HOMICIDE VEHICLES.
Q AND WOULD THEY HAVE THAT ALSO DOWNTOWN AT ROBBERY-HOMICIDE?
A I WOULD HAVE NO IDEA. I'VE NEVER WORKED THERE.
Q BUT YOU WOULD EXPECT THEY WOULD HAVE GLOVES, WOULD YOU NOT, IF
YOU HAVE IT AND THEY HAVE MORE RESOURCES?
A I WOULD ASSUME THOSE ROBBERY-HOMICIDE DETECTIVES HAVE GLOVES TOO.
Q WHAT ABOUT BOOTIES TO WEAR OVER ONE'S SHOES? DO YOU HAVE THOSE?
A NO, SIR.
Q YOU DON'T CARRY THOSE AT ALL?
A NO.

Gloves do not make a "forensics collection kit" (No booties). Now, I've
posted you are wrong, I've included the testimony, POST any testimony you want
to PROVE ME WRONG. Let's prove whom is trying to confuse whom...

>not that <snips>
ScHRECUPID

>& Co care about minor things like that.

MS. Clark made a statement about Cochran that seems to apply to you ScHRECK:

MS. CLARK: THIS IS THE SAME THING THAT MR. COCHRAN'S BEEN DOING
THROUGHOUT THIS TRIAL. THIS IS ANOTHER DISTORTION. THIS IS ANOTHER
DECEPTION BECAUSE WHAT HE IS TRYING TO SHOW THIS JURY IS THAT THERE WAS
SOME NEFARIOUS, SINISTER AGENCY AT WORK HERE IN MOVING THE EVIDENCE. IN
FACT, THAT IS TOTALLY FALSE.
WHAT YOU CAN TELL IF YOU LOOK IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS WHERE HE CLAIMS
EVIDENCE WAS MOVED IS THAT THERE WERE PHOTO NUMBER TAGS AND THE
BODIES HAD BEEN REMOVED. AS MR. COCHRAN HAS ELICITED IN CROSS-
EXAMINATION HIMSELF, IT IS A VERY TIGHT SPACE. AND WHEN MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY
HAD TO BE MOVED, IT IS NATURAL THAT SOME OF THE EVIDENCE AROUND THE BODY
WHICH WAS CLOSELY LOCATED TO THE BODY LIKE THE GLOVE, WHICH WE CAN TELL
IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS WHERE -- MATTER OF FACT, CAN YOU PULL THAT UP, PLEASE?
THE PHOTOGRAPH IN WHICH BEFORE MR. GOLDMAN HAS BEEN MOVED, YOU
CAN SEE THAT THE TOE OF HIS BOOT IS RIGHT NEAR THE GLOVE. AS YOU CAN SEE
IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, YOUR HONOR, WHERE THE NUMBER TAG APPEARS, THE BOOT
IS NO LONGER THERE AND THAT'S BECAUSE THE BODIES HAVE BEEN REMOVED. IN
THE MOVEMENT OF THE BODIES, OBVIOUSLY SOME EVIDENCE WAS DISTURBED AND
THAT'S WHY THEY TAKE THE PHOTOGRAPHS BEFORE AND AFTER.
AND MR. COCHRAN IS DELIBERATELY TRYING TO MISLEAD AND CONFUSE THIS
JURY AND CAUSE PREJUDICE IN THE MINDS OF THIS JURY BY NOT LETTING THEM
KNOW THAT WHAT HAS ACTUALLY TRANSPIRED HERE IS THAT THE BODIES WERE
REMOVED IN BETWEEN THE TIME THE FIRST AND THE SECOND PHOTOGRAPHS
WERE TAKEN.

doug haire

unread,

Apr 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/16/96

to

Jerry Lazzareschi (jerr...@deltanet.com) wrote:
: In article <31703a90...@news.nando.net>, tsu...@nando.net says...
:
: [snip]
:
: >Vannatter. It's interesting because Vannater said he KNEW this was

: >going to be the trial of the century, so he wanted to make sure that the
: >evidence was handled properly; that is, the chain of custody NOT be
: >compromised. That's one reason he took the blood over there himself.
: >I guess he was "hoist with his own petard!"
:
: If he knew that if was going to be the trial of the century then why would he
: compromise the evidence by carrying it around for 3 hours then putting it in
: the back of a hot truck allnight???...When he could've taken the blood 3-5

: minutes away and *not* lost the chain of custody and put it in a refrigerator?

3 things:

Vannatter did not put the Simpson blood sample in the back of the truck,
Fung did.

The blood sample did not stay in the truck overnight, it stayed in an
air-conditioned evidence room.

There's no need to put blood with a preservative in it into a refrigerator.

doug haire

unread,

Apr 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/16/96

to

Jerry Lazzareschi (jerr...@deltanet.com) wrote:
: In article <3170747...@news.aloha.com>, mo...@mmw-gbg.net says...

:
: [snip]
:
: >And, let me guess, it had to be planted? Rather than the completely stupid
: >possibility that the previous samples were collected by a rookie. A rookie
: >that may not have done the best job possible.
:
: Incorrecto, they didn't take blood from the gate that day you misinformed
: person!!!...I don't have anything to lose in this matter, that's why I'm
: unbiased unlike many of you out there and *all* of the prosecution and their
: co-hords.

You misunderstood Mo-o's post. You had claimed that the blood evidence
taken from the back gate showed better DNA than blood collected 2 1/2
weeks earlier (the walkway blood). His response was that the blood from
the gate was probably *not* collected by a rookie (Mazzola) but by
someone who did a more professional job of it. Mazzola, when she
collected the walkway drops, placed the evidence samples into plastic
bags, sealed them, and stored them in that hot truck. That had the effect
of speeding up the deterioration of the DNA on those samples.

This was all explained at the trial. Did you see any of the trial? Have
you considered reading the transcripts?

confused

unread,

Apr 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/16/96

to

mo...@mmw-gbg.net (confused) wrote:

> <WLSc...@AOL.com> wrote:
>>The Detectives do the criminalists work at most scenes
>>and for that reason, Fuhrman & Phillips carried a forensics collection
>>kit in their car. It WAS IN THE TESTIMONY...

Was it? Where? I looked- I did find this from DETECTIVE LANGE-
<Still, no mention of a "forensics collection kit" but now you have an out,
they do mention a Homicide kit. We all know they aren't the same, but then we
all know "indite" isn't the same as "indict" either.>

mar 7 lange
Q ALL RIGHT.
CAN YOU TELL US OR DESCRIBE FOR US THE EQUIPMENT THAT IS KEPT IN
YOUR VEHICLE WHEN YOU GO OUT TO THE SCENE OF A HOMICIDE, SUCH AS
PLASTIC BAGS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE? CAN YOU DESCRIBE THAT
FOR US?
A I DO HAVE SOME PLASTIC BAGS, ENVELOPES, DISPOSABLE RUBBER GLOVES.
I BELIEVE WE HAVE AN AIDS KIT.
Q WHAT IS THAT?
A AIDS KIT FOR THE RECOVERY OF SYRINGES.
Q ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE YOU CAN RECALL?
A NOTEBOOKS, PENCILS, FLASHLIGHTS, RULES, MEASURING DEVICES,
MEASURING TAPE.
Q NOW, YOU HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS WITH MISS RATCLIFFE, THE
CORONER'S INVESTIGATOR, ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13, 1994; IS THAT
CORRECT?

and from Mar 9
Q AND WHAT WERE YOU TOLD IN THAT CALL?
A I WAS TOLD BY MY SUPERVISOR, THE HOMICIDE COORDINATOR, DETECTIVE
RON PHILLIPS, THAT WE HAD A DOUBLE HOMICIDE AND IT WAS AT 875
SOUTH BUNDY AND THAT I WOULD MEET HIM AT THE STATION AND WE
WOULD GET A VEHICLE WITH A HOMICIDE KIT AND GO OUT TO THE SCENE
FROM THERE.

and from Mar 13
Q NOW, MAY WE LEARN WHAT A HOMICIDE KIT CONSISTS OF? I ASSUME
YOU'VE BEEN THROUGH THEM MORE THAN ONCE.
A FROM THE BEGINNING?
Q YES.
A IN THE BOTTOM OF THE HOMICIDE KIT, YOU HAVE USUALLY COVERALLS,
PLIERS, ROPES, GLOVES, SOMETIMES --
Q WHAT KIND OF GLOVES?
A -- HIGH-POWERED FLASHLIGHTS.
Q WHAT KIND OF GLOVES, DETECTIVE?
A YOU COULD HAVE LIKE WORK GLOVES THAT YOU WOULD USE TO MAYBE CLIMB
DOWN A ROPE IF YOU WERE GOING INTO A RAVINE OR SOME
INACCESSIBLE AREA YOU HAVE TO GET DOWN TO A SCENE.
Q DO YOU ALSO HAVE RUBBER GLOVES?
A YES, SIR.
Q WE SAW --
WELL, DID YOU SEE DETECTIVE LANGE AT ANY TIME THAT DAY WITH SOME
RUBBER GLOVES ON?
A I DID NOT, NO.
Q ALL RIGHT. CONTINUE.
A YOU WOULD HAVE RULERS, TAPE MEASURES, ANY NECESSARY REPORTS,
PLASTIC BAGS, ENVELOPES, WRITING UTENSILS, GREASE PENCILS,
RULERS, COMPASS.
Q PLASTIC BAGS IN VARYING SIZES PERHAPS?
A YES.
Q INTENDED FOR THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE SHOULD ANY BE FOUND?
A YES.
Q ANYTHING ELSE OF SIGNIFICANCE OF A STANDARD LAPD HOMICIDE KIT?
A THERE'S QUITE A -- THERE'S QUITE A FEW ITEMS, BUT I'M SURE I'VE
LEAVING OUT SEVERAL, BUT --
Q BUT THESE ARE ALL TOOLS THAT MIGHT BE USED AT THE SCENE OF A GIVEN
HOMICIDE?
A YES.

Patrick Holley

unread,

Apr 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/16/96

to

Mike Dunnagan (tsu...@nando.net) wrote:
: "Read http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1944" <WLSc...@AOL.com>
: wrote:

: >> How did Vanatter cover his tracks so thoroughly? The ONLY evidence
: >> linking V. to planting is his vial transportation to Rockingham.
: >
: >
: >He didn't. Not Rockingham -- BUNDY first... and the very act of

: >transporting it rather than booking it broke procedure and proper
: >handling of evidence reference samples.

: Cite, verbatim, the procedure you are so thoroughly convinced that he
: broke.

: You can't, because you are just mouthing off what the million dollar
: bullshitters have said in their effort to create reasonable doubt.

: Vannatter and Lange didn't break procedure. That's because detectives
: CAN'T book evidence;

Detectives can book evidence. Vannatter said he needed a booking number
from Fung.

:the criminalists do that. Therefore, Vannatter
: could either leave the vial lying around until the criminalist could get
: it,

Wrong.

:or he could transport it to the criminalist,

Who claimed he gave it to Mazzolla and left it out all night.

:ensuring chain of
: custody.

Who shattered the chain of custody.

Patrick Holley

unread,

Apr 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/16/96

to

Mike Dunnagan (tsu...@nando.net) wrote:
: jerr...@deltanet.com (Jerry Lazzareschi) wrote:

: >In article <4kj5q4$i...@cloner2.ix.netcom.com>, kril...@ix.netcom.co says...
: >
: >[snip]
: >
: >>Vannatter was "not" breaking procedure by transporting the evidence to
: >>Rockingham to give to the criminalist. On Grodin, Lange said he had
: >>often used that procedure.
: >
: >I don't think he was breaking procedure but in the *trial* he said he'd

: >*never* transported blood like that in 30 years...why do you think they call
: >Vanatter and Lange "dumb and dumber?"

: Each crime scene is different and because of that, the circumstances
: surrounding evidence collection is not always the same. IOW, each crime
: scene dictates procedure. Lange said in his many years of detective
: work, he HAD transported EVIDENCE.

The evidence in question is biologic which clearly stated that
it needed to be refridgerated.

:He couldn't remember specifics, but
: that's probably because there was no reason to. What he was doing was
: NOT out of the ordinary.

Nonsense. it was extremely out of the ordinary.

: Vannatter said he had never had to do that, but that doesn't mean he
: broke any department policy. The defense skillfully confused the
: jurors by making it sound as if a heinous crime had been committed by

: Vannatter. It's interesting because Vannater said he KNEW this was
: going to be the trial of the century, so he wanted to make sure that the
: evidence was handled properly; that is, the chain of custody NOT be
: compromised. That's one reason he took the blood over there himself.
: I guess he was "hoist with his own petard!"

Vannatter also said that Oj wasn't a suspect. You buy that lie too,
don't you.

Patrick Holley

unread,

Apr 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/16/96

to

Mike Dunnagan (tsu...@nando.net) wrote:
: jerr...@deltanet.com (Jerry Lazzareschi) wrote:

: >In article <316be97c...@news.nando.net>, tsu...@nando.net says...
: >
: >[snip]
: >

: >>Vannatter and Lange didn't break procedure. That's because detectives

: >>CAN'T book evidence; the criminalists do that. Therefore, Vannatter

: >>could either leave the vial lying around until the criminalist could get

: >>it, or he could transport it to the criminalist, ensuring chain of
: >>custody.
: >
: >You are *so* wrong!!!...He could've booked that blood into evidence...<sheesh>

: Not BLOOD evidence. BTW, this is according to Vannatter and Lange.

: If you think a detective can book evidence, then tell me, what's the
: point of having criminalists?

Criminalists are trained (at least supposed to) scientifically handle
evidence. They are supposed to be professionals in order to collect evidence
in the least disturbing manner.
In other words.. They put the evidence in the little baggies so the
detectives can look at it.

Terry Hallinan

unread,

Apr 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/16/96

to

jho...@galaxy.galstar.com (Patrick Holley) wrote:

>Criminalists are trained (at least supposed to) scientifically handle
>evidence. They are supposed to be professionals in order to collect evidence
>in the least disturbing manner.
>In other words.. They put the evidence in the little baggies so the
>detectives can look at it.

At which time they determine things like DNA content so that they can
know how much evidence they need to plant.

Only Holley could write like this - a true classic.

Best, Terry

"Positive - Being wrong at the top of one's lungs"
-The Devil's Dictionary

Jerry

unread,

Apr 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/16/96

to

In article <31723031....@nntp.lightlink.com>, ku...@lightlink.com
says...

[snip]

>And he claims he's unbiased and jumps on someone for being supposedly
>misinformed when this whole last quote is pure bullshit.

>Apparently he doesn't know that it's not the detectives but the
>criminalists that book evidence and the blood vial was NOT stored in a
>hot truck all night.

I believe you're wrong on this matter...anyway if it wasn't in the hot truck
alnight, it was in there for many hours...if you knew what you were talking
about you would know that he could've booked the evidence you moron!

>Where the hell do these people come from anyway?

I've often wondered myself, where people like you come from!

>The more I read postings from "average" people like this, the more I'm
>convinced in our need for professional jurors.

Another misconception about the trial, we don't need professional jurors, we
need judges that are accountable for their decisions.

--
Jerry Lazzareschi
10301...@compuserve.com

Kurtz

unread,

Apr 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/16/96

to

"READ http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1944" <WLSc...@AOL.com>
wrote:

>
>
>ku...@lightlink.com (Kurtz) wrote:
>>
>> jerr...@deltanet.com (Jerry Lazzareschi) wrote:
>>

>> >In article <3170747...@news.aloha.com>, mo...@mmw-gbg.net says...

>> >
>
>> Apparently he doesn't know that it's not the detectives but the
>> criminalists that book evidence and the blood vial was NOT stored in a
>> hot truck all night.

>> Where the hell do these people come from anyway?
>

>A much smarter and knowledgable pool than you emerged from.
>The detectives DO BOOK evidence -- and it was testified to at
> The Trial.
>They also at as criminalists -- also testified to.
>
>Vannatter was specifically asked if he could have booked it --
>he gave a yes buried in a song & dance.
>
>Vannatter also had a reputation as a screwup... part of the team
>of Dumb & Dumber...
>
>
>>

>> The more I read postings from "average" people like this, the more I'm
>> convinced in our need for professional jurors.
>

>We know you'll never qualify -- maybe that's why you advocate professionals
>you want to be sure youy can duck your civic duty...
>
>> ******************************************************************
>> There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didnt
>> take that as an invitation to walk all over you. - Calvin & Hobbes
>
>
>Stay with your comic strip characters -- probably well above your IQ
>but you can look at the pictures.
>
>http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1944

hahaha, Schreek. If I make a mistake at least I'll own up to it.
It's very possible that they could have booked it but their normal
procedure was to let the criminalists do it and Vannatter delivered it
to Fung for just that purpose.

What gets me is people like you and this Lazzareschi now who like to
claim you're unbiased yet you also love to throw out names like moron
and criticize everyone else but yourself.
You're a proven liar on this group, Schreek, you've been caught
doctoring testimony almost from the very first time you posted here.
You're a joke. When are you going to admit you misspelled the word
Indict? When are you going to own up to anything, Schreek?

I admit to my own biases. I don't think I'd make a very good juror
and I admit it. At least I'm honest enough to do that and honest
enough to admit my mistakes. When will you, Schreek?

Even Jon Beaver who I disagree with all the time has said he wishes
you'd just own up to your stupid mistake of spelling and get on with
it. Instead you're like your buddy Furhman. You compound it by lying
ever more.
Talk about dumb and dumber.

By the Way, there's much more insight and educational value in Calvin
and Hobbes then in anything you've ever written. That's obvious to
anyone who's read the comic strip and then seen your web page.

Cheryl McGonegal

unread,

Apr 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/16/96

to

ku...@lightlink.com (Kurtz) wrote:

>jerr...@deltanet.com (Jerry Lazzareschi) wrote:

>>In article <3170747...@news.aloha.com>, mo...@mmw-gbg.net says...
>>

>>[snip]
>>
>>>And, let me guess, it had to be planted? Rather than the completely stupid
>>>possibility that the previous samples were collected by a rookie. A rookie
>>>that may not have done the best job possible.
>>
>>Incorrecto, they didn't take blood from the gate that day you misinformed
>>person!!!...I don't have anything to lose in this matter, that's why I'm
>>unbiased unlike many of you out there and *all* of the prosecution and their
>>co-hords.
>>

>>--
>>Jerry Lazzareschi
>>10301...@compuserve.com
>>

>This in the previous post from Lazzareschi:

>>Vannatter. It's interesting because Vannater said he KNEW this was

>>>going to be the trial of the century, so he wanted to make sure that the
>>>evidence was handled properly; that is, the chain of custody NOT be
>>>compromised. That's one reason he took the blood over there himself.
>>>I guess he was "hoist with his own petard!"

>>If he knew that if was going to be the trial of the century then why would he

>>compromise the evidence by carrying it around for 3 hours then putting it in
>>the back of a hot truck allnight???...When he could've taken the blood 3-5
>>minutes away and *not* lost the chain of custody and put it in a refrigerator?

>And he claims he's unbiased and jumps on someone for being supposedly

>misinformed when this whole last quote is pure bullshit.

>Apparently he doesn't know that it's not the detectives but the
>criminalists that book evidence and the blood vial was NOT stored in a
>hot truck all night.
>Where the hell do these people come from anyway?

Cat Man's Web Page??? ;-D Cheryl

>The more I read postings from "average" people like this, the more I'm
>convinced in our need for professional jurors.

doug haire

unread,

Apr 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/16/96

to

DON'T READ http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1944 (WLSc...@AOL.com) wrote:
:
: McDummy has no idea of testimony and reality --

: if he did, he'd know that the criminalists in LA appear at very few
: crime scenes. The Detectives do the criminalists work at most scenes

: and for that reason, Fuhrman & Phillips carried a forensics collection

: kit in their car. It WAS IN THE TESTIMONY... not that McDummy & Co

: care about minor things like that.

Post that testimony here. Please.

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Read the actual testimony, not Schreck's edited/modified/out_of_context |
| garbage. The actual testimony, with an index to the witnesses, can be |
| found on Jack Walraven's home page at www.islandnet.com. Don't let |
| someone with an agenda tell you what to believe, make up your own mind |
| by getting *all* the information. |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

doug haire

unread,

Apr 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/16/96

to

Jerry (jerr...@deltanet.com) wrote:
: In article <31723031....@nntp.lightlink.com>, ku...@lightlink.com
: says...
:
: [snip]
:
: >And he claims he's unbiased and jumps on someone for being supposedly

: >misinformed when this whole last quote is pure bullshit.
: >Apparently he doesn't know that it's not the detectives but the
: >criminalists that book evidence and the blood vial was NOT stored in a
: >hot truck all night.

:
: I believe you're wrong on this matter...anyway if it wasn't in the hot truck

: alnight, it was in there for many hours...if you knew what you were talking
: about you would know that he could've booked the evidence you moron!

No, it was in the truck no more than 1 hour maximum. Fung and Mazzola
left almost immediately after Vannatter gave them the blood sample.
Not that this matters since the blood vial contained a preservative!!!

And, yes, Vannatter readily admitted he could have taken the blood sample
to Piper Tech and turned it over to the lab. But read his testimony and
find out why he didn't.

: >Where the hell do these people come from anyway?
:
: I've often wondered myself, where people like you come from!

I just love intelligent and witty comebacks like this...

: >The more I read postings from "average" people like this, the more I'm

: >convinced in our need for professional jurors.

:
: Another misconception about the trial, we don't need professional jurors, we

: need judges that are accountable for their decisions.

Judges are accountable. That's what the appeals courts are all about.

Kristen VanAllen

unread,

Apr 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/16/96

to

snip

If that blood (which, by the way,
>was photographed on June 13th, again before Simpson provided his reference
>sample) was planted, then all five of these officers have perjured
>themselves for no reason.

unread,

Apr 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/17/96

to

In article <317345de...@news.aloha.com>, mo...@mmw-gbg.net says...

[snip]

>What you say 'may' be true, but according to -
>Sgt. David Rossi 2/14/95 - 2/15/95
> Q WHAT DOES THE CRIMINALIST DO AT A CRIME SCENE?
> A COLLECT AND BOOK, PREPARE EVIDENCE. HE'S IN A CRIME SCENE UNDER
> THE DIRECTION OF AN INVESTIGATING OFFICER OR ON HIS OWN DIRECTION
> AS HE GOES ALONG THE CRIME SCENE.
>
>But this doesn't state that a detective 'can't' book evidence, but it does

>suggest it. Else, "what's the point of having criminalists?"

Vanatter wasn't at the crimescene and had *no* reason to go there to deliver
the blood...End of story!

--
Jerry Lazzareschi
10301...@compuserve.com

Terry Hallinan

unread,

Apr 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/17/96

to

dha...@gate.net (doug haire) wrote:

>No, it was in the truck no more than 1 hour maximum. Fung and Mazzola
>left almost immediately after Vannatter gave them the blood sample.
>Not that this matters since the blood vial contained a preservative!!!

No it didn't. There are some gnats you can't kill with a
sledgehammer:

DR. RIEDERS: Calcium disodium EDTA is used for a lot of things,
included
treating lead poisons.
MS. CLARK: As well as a food preservative?
DR. RIEDERS: It is not a preservative in that it ties up metal
and keeps
the color of food. In fact, it doesn't keep it from rotting.
MS. CLARK: Are you aware that it is also used as a food
preservative?
Did you know that?
DR. RIEDERS: It doesn't work as a preservative. Preservative
means
prevents bacterial degeneration. It doesn't do that the. It is not an
anti-bacterial compound.
MS. CLARK: If I were to show you, sir, an article--excuse me. A
page out
of the Merck index indicating that calcium disodium was in fact used
as a food
preservative along with the purpose of treating lead poisoning, would
you
change your opinion, sir?
DR. RIEDERS: Of course not. It is a preservative of color and
flavor,
but not of food as edible food. The food preservative is something
which keeps
food edible and this won't do it. It will be bacterially degraded just
as if
you didn't have it in there.
MS. CLARK: All right. Then it is your testimony that although
it may not
preserve food, it is a color retentive product?
DR. RIEDERS: In some cases.
MS. CLARK: For food?
DR. RIEDERS: Look, what it does is it ties up the metals that
oxidize
color and flavor. It inactivates them. That is its purpose in food.
MS. CLARK: All right. Then it is used in food, though, is it
not?
DR. RIEDERS: Yes, it is. Sure.

Then again the FDA lists EDTA as a preservative. And there is this:

MR. BLASIER: Now, could you tell us what is EDTA?
MR. MARTZ: EDTA is a preservative, in this particular case,
used to preserve blood. It has many other properties...

In reality EDTA keeps your food looking fine while it is rotting.

But some causes are truly hopeless. Just like trying to tell Alan
Dershowitz the trace quantities of EDTA proved no blood was planted.

Terry Hallinan

unread,

Apr 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/17/96

to

Ken Rose <kr...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:

-

>Fact: OJ did it. Fact: evidence was planted:

Batting .500 is damn good for a baseball player but lousy when you are
posting. There is absolutely no evidence of planting. There is
evidence - besides common sense which as Mark Twain noted is very rare
- that no planting occurred. The concentrations of EDTA in the two
tested blood stains were inconsistent with those of the reference
tubes. But when you are fantasizing, what the hell.

> Fact: when both of these are true,
>acquittal is a must! Have a nifty day.

Terry Hallinan

unread,

Apr 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/17/96

to

jerr...@deltanet.com (Jerry) wrote:

>Vanatter wasn't at the crimescene and had *no* reason to go there to deliver
>the blood...End of story!

You are absolutely right, Jerry. That is why he went to Rockingham to
deliver the blood.

Congratulations. Now that you got something right once I bet you can
do it again. Sometime.

confused

unread,

Apr 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/17/96

to

jerr...@deltanet.com (Jerry) wrote:

>In article <317345de...@news.aloha.com>, mo...@mmw-gbg.net says...
>
>[snip]
>
>>What you say 'may' be true, but according to -
>>Sgt. David Rossi 2/14/95 - 2/15/95
>> Q WHAT DOES THE CRIMINALIST DO AT A CRIME SCENE?
>> A COLLECT AND BOOK, PREPARE EVIDENCE. HE'S IN A CRIME SCENE UNDER
>> THE DIRECTION OF AN INVESTIGATING OFFICER OR ON HIS OWN DIRECTION
>> AS HE GOES ALONG THE CRIME SCENE.
>>
>>But this doesn't state that a detective 'can't' book evidence, but it does
>>suggest it. Else, "what's the point of having criminalists?"
>

>Vanatter wasn't at the crimescene and had *no* reason to go there to deliver
>the blood...End of story!

Well, he was one of the investigating officers, Fung was the criminalist.
That's where Fung was. If it were wrong, then Vanatter would have been called
to face a review board. Sorry, no board, so his reason to go wasn't against
the rules...as for being the 'proper' thing to do, neither you or I can judge
that. As to being a 'dumb' thing to do, I think we both agree about that.

confused

unread,

Apr 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/17/96

to

doug haire

unread,

Apr 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/17/96

to

Patrick Holley (jho...@galaxy.galstar.com) wrote:
: Mike Dunnagan (tsu...@nando.net) wrote:
: : "Read http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1944" <WLSc...@AOL.com>
: : wrote:
:

: : >> How did Vanatter cover his tracks so thoroughly? The ONLY evidence

: : >> linking V. to planting is his vial transportation to Rockingham.
: : >
: : >
: : >He didn't. Not Rockingham -- BUNDY first... and the very act of
: : >transporting it rather than booking it broke procedure and proper
: : >handling of evidence reference samples.
:
: : Cite, verbatim, the procedure you are so thoroughly convinced that he
: : broke.
:
: : You can't, because you are just mouthing off what the million dollar
: : bullshitters have said in their effort to create reasonable doubt.
:

: : Vannatter and Lange didn't break procedure. That's because detectives

: : CAN'T book evidence;
:
: Detectives can book evidence. Vannatter said he needed a booking number
: from Fung.

Cite the testimony where this is shown.

: :the criminalists do that. Therefore, Vannatter

: : could either leave the vial lying around until the criminalist could get
: : it,

:
: Wrong.
:
: :or he could transport it to the criminalist,

:
: Who claimed he gave it to Mazzolla and left it out all night.
:
: :ensuring chain of
: : custody.
:
: Who shattered the chain of custody.

Garbage. Read the testimony and quit reading Schreck's phony stuff.

doug haire

unread,

Apr 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/17/96

to

Patrick Holley (jho...@galaxy.galstar.com) wrote:
: Mike Dunnagan (tsu...@nando.net) wrote:

: : jerr...@deltanet.com (Jerry Lazzareschi) wrote:
:
: : >In article <4kj5q4$i...@cloner2.ix.netcom.com>, kril...@ix.netcom.co says...

: : >
: : >[snip]
: : >
: : >>Vannatter was "not" breaking procedure by transporting the evidence to
: : >>Rockingham to give to the criminalist. On Grodin, Lange said he had
: : >>often used that procedure.
: : >
: : >I don't think he was breaking procedure but in the *trial* he said he'd
: : >*never* transported blood like that in 30 years...why do you think they call
: : >Vanatter and Lange "dumb and dumber?"
:
: : Each crime scene is different and because of that, the circumstances
: : surrounding evidence collection is not always the same. IOW, each crime
: : scene dictates procedure. Lange said in his many years of detective
: : work, he HAD transported EVIDENCE.
:
: The evidence in question is biologic which clearly stated that
: it needed to be refridgerated.

And the criminalists didn't do that. This has nothing to do with who
collects evidence.

: :He couldn't remember specifics, but

: : that's probably because there was no reason to. What he was doing was
: : NOT out of the ordinary.
:
: Nonsense. it was extremely out of the ordinary.

Not in LA. Try again.

: : Vannatter said he had never had to do that, but that doesn't mean he

: : broke any department policy. The defense skillfully confused the
: : jurors by making it sound as if a heinous crime had been committed by

: : Vannatter. It's interesting because Vannater said he KNEW this was

: : going to be the trial of the century, so he wanted to make sure that the
: : evidence was handled properly; that is, the chain of custody NOT be
: : compromised. That's one reason he took the blood over there himself.
: : I guess he was "hoist with his own petard!"

:
: Vannatter also said that Oj wasn't a suspect. You buy that lie too,
: don't you.

Vannatter said that Simpson was not a suspect at the time that the 4
detectives first went to Rockingham. And he told the truth.

doug haire

unread,

Apr 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/17/96

to

Patrick Holley (jho...@galaxy.galstar.com) wrote:
: Mike Dunnagan (tsu...@nando.net) wrote:
: : jerr...@deltanet.com (Jerry Lazzareschi) wrote:
:

: : >In article <316be97c...@news.nando.net>, tsu...@nando.net says...
: : >
: : >[snip]
: : >

: : >>Vannatter and Lange didn't break procedure. That's because detectives

: : >>CAN'T book evidence; the criminalists do that. Therefore, Vannatter

: : >>could either leave the vial lying around until the criminalist could get

: : >>it, or he could transport it to the criminalist, ensuring chain of

: : >>custody.
: : >
: : >You are *so* wrong!!!...He could've booked that blood into evidence...<sheesh>
:
: : Not BLOOD evidence. BTW, this is according to Vannatter and Lange.
:

: : If you think a detective can book evidence, then tell me, what's the
: : point of having criminalists?
:
: Criminalists are trained (at least supposed to) scientifically handle

: evidence. They are supposed to be professionals in order to collect evidence
: in the least disturbing manner.
: In other words.. They put the evidence in the little baggies so the
: detectives can look at it.

No, the collect the evidence, bring it to the lab, and catalog it. The
lab techs look at it. The detectives read the reports and examine the
evidence after that.

doug haire

unread,

Apr 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/17/96

to

David McDuffee (mcdu...@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <4kun1s$8...@news.internetmci.com>,

Let me play "lawyer" for a moment...

Vannatter clearly states he could have booked the sample but it wouldn't
have been done right and would have resulted in a break in the chain of
custody (not to mention the risk of it being misplaced). Therefore, he
was saying that he couldn't book it *properly*. His primary concern was
maintaining the chain of custody and properly booking the evidence.

Nothing in that testimony says that detectives routinely book evidence.
They do book it if they receive it and have to carry it in (someone hands
them a murder weapon, for instance). Evidence at a scene appears to be
routinely handled by, collected by, and booked by criminalists.

doug haire

unread,

Apr 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/17/96

to

DON'T READ [the URL from Hell] (WLSc...@AOL.com) wrote:
:

: ku...@lightlink.com (Kurtz) wrote:
: >
: > jerr...@deltanet.com (Jerry Lazzareschi) wrote:
: >

: > >In article <3170747...@news.aloha.com>, mo...@mmw-gbg.net says...
: > >
:

: > Apparently he doesn't know that it's not the detectives but the
: > criminalists that book evidence and the blood vial was NOT stored in a
: > hot truck all night.

: > Where the hell do these people come from anyway?
:

: A much smarter and knowledgable pool than you emerged from.

: The detectives DO BOOK evidence -- and it was testified to at
: The Trial.
: They also at as criminalists -- also testified to.
:
: Vannatter was specifically asked if he could have booked it --
: he gave a yes buried in a song & dance.
:

: Vannatter also had a reputation as a screwup... part of the team
: of Dumb & Dumber...

Prove the above statements. Post the testimony that says that detectives
book evidence. Post the testimony where Vannatter said he could have
booked the sample (he didn't, he said he could have taken it to Piper
Tech or to another floor but he couldn't book it). Show the source for
you claim of the reputation for Vannatter and Lange.

No, I will not visit your insipid page.

Where's the phone record for Kato's call to Rachel that you claim exists?
Where's the photo, videos, or testimony that places Vannatter at Bundy
with Simpson's blood sample that you also claim can be proven?

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Read the actual testimony, not Schreck's edited/modified/out_of_context |
| garbage. The actual testimony, with an index to the witnesses, can be |
| found on Jack Walraven's home page at www.islandnet.com. Don't let |
| someone with an agenda tell you what to believe, make up your own mind |
| by getting *all* the information. |

| Read... www.islandnet.com/~walraven/homepage.html |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

doug haire

unread,

Apr 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/17/96

to

DON'T READ The URL from Hell (WLSc...@AOL.com) wrote:
: jft...@borg.com (Jim Tims) wrote:
: >
: > hall...@borg.com (Terry Hallinan) >
: >
: > were no errors in a high profile case. NOTHING was going to go wrong with
: > that blood sample! 8^) It was going *directly* to Fung, so there would be
: > no question about it at all.
: > --
: > jim tims
:
: Love it... NOTHING... wrong... :-)
: Fung gets the blood and leaves it in the plastic bag overnight...
: no refrigeration, log notation, booking...

So what? It still turned out to be Nicole's blood, Goldman's blood, and
(best of all) Simpson's blood. The blood sample from Simpson didn't need
to be refrigerated because it had a preservative and it wasn't put in a
plastic bag.

: Vannatter could have had it logged in and booked...

Nope. Read his testimony.

Ken Rose

unread,

Apr 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/17/96

to

>Fact: that is a stupid statement. If both are true, then murderer and evidence
>planter should share cells. Crimes should be punished, not excused.

Come on now, you can't possibly be that stupid. Guilt should be
determined based on the evidence. If evidence is planted, how can you
convict? Believe it or not, bad cops who frame people are much more of
a danger to this country as a whole than OJ is. One black man gets off,
and the nation's devils go crazy. Don't worry, you can rest at night
knowing that 90percent of crack defendants are black. Fact: you can
possibly be that stupid. Have a nifty day.

Ken Rose
Library Information Technology
Carnegie Mellon University

Ken Rose

unread,

Apr 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/17/96

to

>Batting .500 is damn good for a baseball player but lousy when you are
>posting. There is absolutely no evidence of planting. There is
>evidence - besides common sense which as Mark Twain noted is very rare
>- that no planting occurred. The concentrations of EDTA in the two
>tested blood stains were inconsistent with those of the reference
>tubes. But when you are fantasizing, what the hell.

I would say I'm doing better than that unless you really think those
socks were not planted. I guess it depends on which experts you
believe. EDTA found only in areas of the socks where blood was found.
EDTA in blood on the back gate. As for the glove that Fuhrman (Oh he's
a perjuring, evidence planting racist, but he didn't do it in this case)
planted, is there any doubt that the defense proved motive and
opportunity, or does it really take 15 minutes to search a narrow
pathway? Have a nifty day.

doug haire

unread,

Apr 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/17/96

to

Ken Rose (kr...@andrew.cmu.edu) wrote:
: >Batting .500 is damn good for a baseball player but lousy when you are

Please provide the testimony that says that the socks were tested for
EDTA. As far as I know, only the blood on the sock was tested. As for
whether any EDTA was found, the results were in dispute. Martz, who ran
the tests, said "no". Reiders, who did not run any tests, said "yes" but
conceded that he didn't find all the indicators and didn't mention any
EDTA in his initial letter to the defense attorneys.

As for Fuhrman, where's the proof that he ever plantyed evidence in the
past? His words on the tape? If that's your "proof", you forget that you
are painting him as a liar and there is documented lying right on the
tapes themselves (he tells two *different* stories about one incident).

Facts in this case are quite elusive... aren't they?

Terry Hallinan

unread,

Apr 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/17/96

to

Ken Rose <kr...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:

>>Batting .500 is damn good for a baseball player but lousy when you are
>>posting. There is absolutely no evidence of planting. There is
>>evidence - besides common sense which as Mark Twain noted is very rare
>>- that no planting occurred.

>>The concentrations of EDTA in the two

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>tested blood stains were inconsistent with those of the reference

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>tubes. But when you are fantasizing, what the hell.

^^^^^

>I would say I'm doing better than that unless you really think those
>socks were not planted. I guess it depends on which experts you
>believe. EDTA found only in areas of the socks where blood was found.
>EDTA in blood on the back gate. As for the glove that Fuhrman (Oh he's
>a perjuring, evidence planting racist, but he didn't do it in this case)
>planted, is there any doubt that the defense proved motive and
>opportunity, or does it really take 15 minutes to search a narrow
>pathway? Have a nifty day.

Why did you have to go and do that.? You had one out of two.
I refuse to believe that anyone who writes a sentence is totally
incapable of understanding a declarative sentence. Socks do not eat
Big Macs. Ppeople do. Tthus only people would be expected to have
EDTA . Reference tubes have humongous amounts (I will leave off the
matt which may be a bit difficult for you). The bloodstain on the
sock did not have humongous amounts. Gates do not eat Big Macs....

If you work on this for a while, maybe get a good rest first, and
avoid all those EDTA-laden foods I am sure you will work it all out.
You will then realize the EDTA proved the blood was not planted. And
you will be smarter than any lawyer. You will even be ahead of the
brilliant Harvard professor Dershowitz who has been thinking on this a
long time and just can't get it. But then again he has clearly
demonstrated his problems with statistics to the whole world.

I have faith in your abilities, Ken.

Robe4

unread,

Apr 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/17/96

to

>>it was the first time he'd done something like that in 30 years...I bet
you believe all of what LAPD said!<<

Yep, it was the first time a detective *EVER* had custody of a
suspect's blood. Usually the suspect's blood is carried to the
criminalist by a designated *CHRIPRACTOR* because everyone
knows that Detectives should never handle blood because they
can't resist sprinkling it all around in places where they *ALREADY*
found the suspect's blood HOURS earlier.

This was brilliant thinking on Vannatter's part. "I know, I'll drive the
blood over to R'ham WHERE THERE IS NOPLACE I CAN PLANT
BLOOD because we already collected it all."

Hey Pro-J's -- WHERE at R'ham do you believe Vannatter put OJ's
blood? Let's face it -- NOWHERE -- it doesn't work with your theories.

You need the blood for Simpson's socks a month later -- let's not get
started on that dumb theory -- and you need some for Yamauchi to
spill on the glove from 15 feet across the room -- and you need some
for the swatches that had wet transfers -- another dumb theory.

Let's face it. You don't suspect Vannatter of having done anything at
R'ham with the blood at all. So, let's face it, you would have come up
with a planting theory even *IF* Vannatter had simply booked the blood
at Piper Tech -- because you would have claimed that he put some in
a separate vial to use later on the way down the hall.

And then you would have said, "he had a reckless disregard for the
truth -- he said Simpson was gone unexpectedly when he was told
perhaps by Arnelle that it was an expected trip -- and Vannatter's a
big liar and he shouldn't have been carrying Simpson's blood ANYWHERE!!

Since you don't REALLY believe he did anything with Simpson's blood
at Rockingham THIS IS what you're saying anyway.

So, to make a long story short, Vannatter's bringing the blood to R'ham
means absolutely nothing and you're STILL cooking up bizzarre planting
scenarios. The only constant is your ability to come up with bizzarre
and far-fetched theories.

Have I made myself perfectly clear? <G>

Rob

confused

unread,

Apr 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/18/96

to

hall...@borg.com (Terry Hallinan) wrote:

>jerr...@deltanet.com (Jerry) wrote:
>
>>Vanatter wasn't at the crimescene and had *no* reason to go there to deliver
>>the blood...End of story!
>

>You are absolutely right, Jerry. That is why he went to Rockingham to
>deliver the blood.
>
>Congratulations. Now that you got something right once I bet you can
>do it again. Sometime.

Hey! I like this answer better. Never mind mine.!

Jerry

unread,

Apr 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/18/96

to

In article <4l2aj7$b...@ns2.borg.com>, hall...@borg.com says...

[snip]

>You are absolutely right, Jerry. That is why he went to Rockingham to
>deliver the blood.
>
>Congratulations. Now that you got something right once I bet you can
>do it again. Sometime.

>Best, Terry

No matter what you say about him going to Rockingham, it was a *total* mistake
also it was the first time he'd done something like that in 30 years...I bet

you believe all of what LAPD said!

--
Jerry Lazzareschi
10301...@compuserve.com

confused

unread,

Apr 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/18/96

to

Ken Rose <kr...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:

>>Fact: that is a stupid statement. If both are true, then murderer and evidence
>>planter should share cells. Crimes should be punished, not excused.

>Come on now, you can't possibly be that stupid. Guilt should be
>determined based on the evidence.

Isn't that what I said?

>If evidence is planted, how can you convict?

IF you can show the evidence is planted, then you have evidence OF planting
and a case against those that planted it. That evidence is discarded, in the
original case, and the trial continues with other evidence.

>Believe it or not, bad cops who frame people are much more of
>a danger to this country as a whole than OJ is.

Agreed.

>One black man gets off, and the nation's devils go crazy.

Hummmm, what happened in LA when four white men got off? Were those the
nation's devils?

>Don't worry, you can rest at night knowing that 90percent of crack defendants are black.

Would you mind translating that into english? What does one have to do with
the other? And what percentage of crack users and dealers are black?

>Fact: you can possibly be that stupid.

As you have just shown, anyone can.

> Have a nifty day.
You too.

Jerry

unread,

Apr 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/18/96

to

In article <3173de0e...@news.nando.net>, tsu...@nando.net says...

[snip]

>I stand corrected. So now that we know that detective CAN book
>evidence, does this mean that Vannatter broke any rules?

No, he didn't break any rules!...But you've got to admit, atleast I do, with
all the evidence they had, they should've been overly cautious!!!...Vanfatter
seen a chance to have his name in lights along with alot of other people!

--
Jerry Lazzareschi
10301...@compuserve.com

Jerry

unread,

Apr 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/18/96

to

In article <3173915b...@nntp.lightlink.com>, ku...@lightlink.com says...

[snip]

>What gets me is people like you and this Lazzareschi now who like to
>claim you're unbiased yet you also love to throw out names like moron
>and criticize everyone else but yourself.

I only critcized you when you made a mistake and swore up and down I was
wrong!

--
Jerry Lazzareschi
10301...@compuserve.com

Jerry

unread,

Apr 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/18/96

to

In article <QlQzQ=W00VI8...@andrew.cmu.edu>, kr...@andrew.cmu.edu says...

[snip]

>So in Vannatter's 20+ years on the police force, this is the ONLY time
>he has taken a defendant's blood to a crime scene, and you don't think
>it should be questioned. You would have to be an absolute idiot not to
>think that there is nothing strange about this. It's almost as silly as
>the people who say that Fuhrman is a racist, lying, admitted evidence
>planter, but what makes you think he planted a glove that he found all
>by himself. Oh, there's nothing strange about that. Fact: OJ did it.
>Fact: evidence was planted: Fact: when both of these are true,
>acquittal is a must! Have a nifty day.
>
>Ken Rose

Ken, your absolutely right!!!

--
Jerry Lazzareschi
10301...@compuserve.com

confused

unread,

Apr 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/18/96

to

ro...@aol.com (Robe4) wrote:

>Hey Pro-J's -- WHERE at R'ham do you believe Vannatter put OJ's
>blood? Let's face it -- NOWHERE -- it doesn't work with your theories.

Oh you've missed ScHRECK newest *fact*. Vannatter went first to Bundy
before going to R'ham! While there, the detective planted the blood without
any of the press seeing him, and in the one place that had been photgraphed
earlier without blood!
I SWEAR, this is his theory!

>So, to make a long story short, Vannatter's bringing the blood to R'ham
>means absolutely nothing and you're STILL cooking up bizzarre planting
>scenarios. The only constant is your ability to come up with bizzarre
>and far-fetched theories.

>Have I made myself perfectly clear? <G>

>Rob

Nice to have a pit-bull on our side...Welcome back!
mo-o

confused

unread,

Apr 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/18/96

to

jerr...@deltanet.com (Jerry) wrote:

>In article <QlQzQ=W00VI8...@andrew.cmu.edu>, kr...@andrew.cmu.edu says...
>
>[snip]

>> Fact: OJ did it.
>>Fact: evidence was planted: Fact: when both of these are true,
>>acquittal is a must!

Of the murderer or the evidence planter? Why?

>Have a nifty day.
You too.

>Ken, your absolutely right!!!
And which one do you think should go free?

Terry Hallinan

unread,

Apr 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/18/96

to

jerr...@deltanet.com (Jerry) wrote:

>In article <4l2aj7$b...@ns2.borg.com>, hall...@borg.com says...

>>You are absolutely right, Jerry. That is why he went to Rockingham to
>>deliver the blood.

>>Congratulations. Now that you got something right once I bet you can
>>do it again. Sometime.

>No matter what you say about him going to Rockingham, it was a *total* mistake

No it wasn't. It's just in the imagination of those who will not
reason and have their agenda. If the legendary Dr. Lee can find
footprints of the real killer embedded in cement you don't even need
flying cats from Schreck. Brenda Moran would have agreed with most
anything the defense said in any case.

>also it was the first time he'd done something like that in 30 years...I bet
>you believe all of what LAPD said!

You are 2 for 2, Jerry. Amazing.

doug haire

unread,

Apr 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/18/96

to

Jerry (jerr...@deltanet.com) wrote:
: In article <4l2aj7$b...@ns2.borg.com>, hall...@borg.com says...

:
: [snip]
:
: >You are absolutely right, Jerry. That is why he went to Rockingham to

: >deliver the blood.
: >
: >Congratulations. Now that you got something right once I bet you can
: >do it again. Sometime.

:
: >Best, Terry
:
: No matter what you say about him going to Rockingham, it was a *total* mistake
: also it was the first time he'd done something like that in 30 years...I bet

: you believe all of what LAPD said!

I think you ought to read his testimony... Vannatter didn't say it was
the first time, he said he didn't recall doing it before and admitted it
was unusual.

doug haire

unread,

Apr 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/18/96

to

Ken Rose (kr...@andrew.cmu.edu) wrote:
: >Fact: that is a stupid statement. If both are true, then murderer and evidence
: >planter should share cells. Crimes should be punished, not excused.
:
: Come on now, you can't possibly be that stupid. Guilt should be

: determined based on the evidence. If evidence is planted, how can you
: convict? Believe it or not, bad cops who frame people are much more of
: a danger to this country as a whole than OJ is. One black man gets off,
: and the nation's devils go crazy. Don't worry, you can rest at night
: knowing that 90percent of crack defendants are black. Fact: you can
: possibly be that stupid. Have a nifty day.

That's the ticket! We find a bad cop anywhere and let's free all the
criminals in prisons! Let them all out, it's obvious that it was all
because of a few bad cops. Most could move into your neighborhood, I'm
sure you'd make them feel welcome.

Ken Rose

unread,

Apr 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/18/96

to

>Socks do not eat
>Big Macs. Ppeople do. Tthus only people would be expected to have
>EDTA . Reference tubes have humongous amounts (I will leave off the
>matt which may be a bit difficult for you). The bloodstain on the
>sock did not have humongous amounts. Gates do not eat Big Macs....

However, EDTA is used in many laundry detergents. The presence of EDTA
in only these areas of the socks couple with the lack of EDTA in the
victim's blood found elsewhere suggests evidence planting. As for the
back gate, the fact that the blood taken from there three weeks later
was less degraded than blood collected the day after the murders could
suggest that it was put there some time after the murders. Reasonable
doubt. Have a nifty day, Terry.

Ken Rose

unread,

Apr 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/18/96

to

>Hummmm, what happened in LA when four white men got off? Were those >the
>nation's devils?

Show me the OJ Simpson murder videotape that shows OJ slashing the two
victims, and I'll be just as pissed as certain people are that OJ got
off. Especially if his defense team would have used the, "you're not
seeing what you think you're seeing" defense that the racist cops'
lawyers used.

>>Don't worry, you can rest at night knowing that 90percent of crack
>>defendants are black.

>Would you mind translating that into english? What does one have to do with
>the other? And what percentage of crack users and dealers are black?

HaHa. OK. In other words, if there are people who think the justice
system needs to be fixed just because one black man was set free by a
black jury, they need not worry. Blacks are dispropotionately arrested
for most crimes, and blacks are convicted by blacks all of the time in
urban areas. Are blacks committing more crimes? Maybe. Is this
discrepancy a result of race based targeting? Absolutely. The crack vs
powder cocaine issue is another chapter for another book that we can
discuss someday if you'd like. Let me know, and as always, have a nifty
day.

Red...@shasta.com

unread,

Apr 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/18/96

to

In article <mcduffeeD...@netcom.com> mcdu...@netcom.com (David McDuffee) writes:

>Not so. Detectives don't book evidence; criminalists book evidence.
>Vannatter maintained chain of custody by delivering the blood to the
>criminalist (Fung), who booked it the next morning.

So, we have a situation in which Vannatter is carrying the vial around for 3
hours, and then Fung has it for over 12 hours. Is it customary for LAPD to
officers to retain possession of degradable evidence for 15 + hours?

Terry Hallinan

unread,

Apr 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/18/96

to

Ken Rose <kr...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:

>>Socks do not eat
>>Big Macs. Ppeople do. Tthus only people would be expected to have
>>EDTA . Reference tubes have humongous amounts (I will leave off the
>>matt which may be a bit difficult for you). The bloodstain on the
>>sock did not have humongous amounts. Gates do not eat Big Macs....

>However, EDTA is used in many laundry detergents. The presence of EDTA
>in only these areas of the socks couple with
>the lack of EDTA in the

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>victim's blood found elsewhere suggests evidence planting. As for the

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>back gate, the fact that the blood taken from there three weeks later
>was less degraded than blood collected the day after the murders could
>suggest that it was put there some time after the murders. Reasonable
>doubt. Have a nifty day, Terry.

EDTA was found in all the blood tested including the tester's own
blood. Do you think the EEP (Evil Evidence Planter) planted EDTA in
Martz's blood? The EDTA was at the limits of detection and may not
even have been detected. By the same token you cannot say there was
no EDTA in the socks - only that none was detected. You adamantly
refuse to address the plain fact that most of the EDTA had magically
disappeared if it was taken from the reference tubes. You cannot. It
was not.

You know degradation occurs mostly because of conditions conducive to
bacterial action. The pools of blood had degraded to the point where
they could not even be tested for DNA because of the moisture. Why
keep ignoring the plain facts? Because it doesn't fit your theories?

If you wish to see it helps to open your eyes.

Terry Hallinan

unread,

Apr 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/18/96

to

Ken Rose <kr...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:

>>>Don't worry, you can rest at night knowing that 90percent of crack
>>>defendants are black.
>>Would you mind translating that into english? What does one have to do with
>>the other? And what percentage of crack users and dealers are black?

>HaHa. OK. In other words, if there are people who think the justice
>system needs to be fixed just because one black man was set free by a
>black jury, they need not worry. Blacks are dispropotionately arrested
>for most crimes, and blacks are convicted by blacks all of the time in
>urban areas. Are blacks committing more crimes? Maybe. Is this
>discrepancy a result of race based targeting? Absolutely. The crack vs
>powder cocaine issue is another chapter for another book that we can
>discuss someday if you'd like. Let me know, and as always, have a nifty
>day.

Sure blacks are targeted by the War on Drugs.

So payback is the issue. Rich popular black men are not targeted. It
is precisely the OJ trial that will make it harder for poor blacks.
OJ was acquitted only because he was rich, famous and black - it was
absolutely necessary that he be black so that demagogues could raise
issues that never affected OJ at all. The racism of blacks now
becomes the issue rather than that used against them. Congratulations
on your fine win. It will cost many their freedom, probably some
their lives.

Mako

unread,

Apr 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/18/96

to

dha...@gate.net (doug haire) wrote:

His response to Grodin was similar. Oh, but that the defense's
claims were only given *half* the thought and scrutiny of everyone
and everything else connected with the case!

doug haire

unread,

Apr 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/18/96

to

Red...@shasta.com wrote:

Fung is not an LAPD officer.

Why have you stopped using your name, Carol?