Brian Heiss's videos - Fact vs. Fiction on Youtube

A frequent question I've been asked when discussing the case with people who believe OJ is innocent is this: Have you seen Brian Heiss's Youtube videos on the case?  I have. Brian has put a number of his videos on Youtube, which purport to distinguish fact from fiction, done at times with impressive video editing techniques.  However, I disagree with him very strongly on a number of issues. I would like to comment on those videos, however he has disabled comments for all his videos on the case.  I have also tried to engage with him (respectfully!) on some of his claims on Twitter, but he refuses to discuss the case with me unless I give him my real name (see the exchange below).  As a person who enjoys his privacy, this is not an option.  He is, however, welcome to comment on my blog, as is anybody (I don't care if you give me your real name or not), where I assure a respectful discourse given both parties behave appropriately.

But let me just give such an example of what he has written.  As you can see, he repeats the original defense team claim that the blood under Nicole's fingernail didn't belong to her.  This is false, as I have written about before.  If you read his tweet titled "Correcting the Misinformation Fake Profile Guy is Spreading", then you may notice that he seems to have a limited understanding of how these serology and DNA tests work.     Phrases such as "the initial scrapings came up with EAP B" (no shit, Brian). "And you can't get around that and you can't try to explain it away" (umm, I didn't) are quite frankly, very odd.  

A quick recap: the defense team initially tried to argue that the blood was not Nicole's blood because it had a different enzyme type, but the VERY SAME REPORT that the defense used to make this claim explained that Nicole should not be excluded as a source because enzymes do degrade.  When PCR testing (which is FAR more reliable than the initial serology test used) was done, it was consistent with Nicole.  

Now, one could argue that the EAP enzymes don't degrade as such...which would be a big mistake, because the defense team made the exact same argument when the gate blood had a different enzyme marker and was later positively identified as Simpson's! It was central to their whole planting theory! Of course here, the defense team had no problem with degrading enzymes.  This is how the defense team operated: use ad hoc arguments when it suited them and then cry contamination or evidence-planting when it didn't.

The receipts: