More on Stephen Singular....

Because Singular is a vocal advocate in the belief that Simpson was framed, I will at times respectfully engage with his Twitter and will challenge his ideas. I will post more in-depth looks at those ideas here.  Let's look at a recent post regarding one of his main theories.   I responded, though yet haven't seen a follow-up.  

This is an odd take, so let's break down this tweet.  First, the argument over EDTA in OJ's blood samples is a moot point.  Why Stephen?  The argument is central to the thesis in your book, Legacy of Deception.  If it's moot, why include it at all?  

Does he provide a reason for it being moot?

The FBI was called in to refute this allegation.   True.  Roger Martz was contacted to "refute" this allegation.  This is from the letter he received from Rockne Harmon:

"We would like you to test these items for the presence/absence of EDTA in order to refute the possibility that the stains on the sock, item 13, could have come from Nicole's reference sample, 59 or 72. Similarly, we would like you to test item 117 to refute the possibility that it could have come from Simpson's reference sample, no. 17."

Some have interpreted this as meaning that Martz had an obligation to refute it.  He did not, and explicitly said so in his testimony.  Should the letter perhaps have been worded differently? I think so, but I'm guessing that it was sent like this because the very idea of EDTA being in the samples seemed very unlikely in the first place.  

If they had been able to do that, the prosecution would have called FBI Agent Roger Martz as a witness.  

What? The EDTA argument was the defense team's argument.  Why in the world would the prosecution call a witness to rebut a position that they never advocated for in the first place?  And regardless of who called Martz as a witness, his report prior to taking the stand explained that he did not identify EDTA.  His testimony subsequently supported this as well.  Does the fact that he was subpoenaed by the defense and not the prosecution mean he was lying? How? Martz had already met with Marcia Clark prior to his testimony and explained that there was no EDTA in there, so this makes zero sense.

They couldn't do that because EDTA was in the blood.

They...couldn't call Roger Martz as a witness because EDTA was in the blood?  Well, except, you know...he said the exact opposite and all when actually put on the stand.

Game over.

Indeed Stephen. But maybe not in the way you think it is.