Brian Heiss, the popular video blogger who believes that OJ is innocent, has put up a new video. I have just watched through it and naturally I have my issues with what I believe are misleading statements. Direct quotes from his videos are in green with my responses below.
When Mr. Simpson was examined and photographed by LAPD on June 13th 1994, there were no bruises anywhere on his person.
This is incomplete, however. The LAPD did photograph the cuts on his hands. And Simpson’s personal physician, Robert Huizenga, testified to seeing 3 cuts (in two parts) and 7 abrasions on his hands and arms area on June 15th, less than 72 hours after the murder. I believe that if the assailant were attacking Goldman with a knife, his hands and wrists areas would be precisely the places where wounds would be, not his torso, head or other part of the body. If someone were attacking me, where would I try to stop them from? Probably the hands/wrist area. This would be consistent with Simpson's wounds.
Now, is it possible that because Vannatter and Peratis did not see the abrasions/bruises the day after the crime, that OJ was wounded between then and the time Huizenga analyzed him? Possibly, but I feel like it's probably more likely that Vannatter and Peratis just missed them. After all, how would Simpson have gotten the wounds during that time period? And I suspect bruises are easier to miss than a couple of medium-sized cuts.
...travel home without getting any blood in his Bronco, there was only 1/8th of one drop of blood ever found in Mr. Simpson’s Bronco,
There were no less than 12 blood stains collected and tested from the Bronco, with OJ’s, Ron’s and Nicole’s all positively identified with PCR and RFLP testing. And these were only representative stains; obviously a criminalist does not collect every single stain in a situation like this. There were stains collected from the driver door interior, the instrument panel, the carpet, the steering wheel, and the center console. This is exceptionally incriminating. As for the amounts (1/8 of a blood drop), I am curious about the source on this claim. Heiss has continually noted the minute DNA amounts in nanograms, though there are also problems with this analysis.
and the world’s most renown criminalist agree that the assailants would have been covered in blood.
This is pure speculation, in my opinion. Even Henry Lee, the defense star witness, acknowledged with a "yes" under cross-examination when asked if there is a lot of scientific literature that suggests that “you can’t really say that someone didn’t participate in a crime just because they are not covered in blood even if it is something like a stabbing.”
And Herbert MacDonell, another blood expert for the defense (!), wrote about this in his own paper the Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence: “The complete absence of bloodstains on a defendant or his clothing is frequently assumed by many to be definitive evidence that the defendant did not directly participate in a violent act. This misconception is fostered by those who have insufficient knowledge and experience in bloodstain pattern interpretation or by those who hope that such an opinion would aid in their client’s defense.”
However, there was no blood found in Simpson’s plumbing washing machine drain traps…where did the blood go?
There was a positive result for blood with the phenolphthalein test in the sink and drain and on the lip of the circle of the washbasin in Simpson’s bathroom. Does this not qualify as “plumbing”? In a prior video, Heiss concluded that there was “no blood in pipes in OJ’s bathroom” after mentioning the negative result of the sink trap. Is that supposed to exculpate him? Remember, Simpson's blood was found at the Bundy murder scene, in OJ's Bronco, on a sock in his bedroom, on the Rockingham glove, on the Rockingham trail, in the Rockingham foyer, and in the master bathroom floor (item 14)! But somehow blood not being in a sink trap suggests he wasn't bleeding?
No comments:
Post a Comment