Were OJ's socks planted by the police? A deep look into the defense team's argument.

One of the main arguments that Simpson's defense team made to show that their client was innocent was to suggest that the socks found in Simpson's room, which had his and Nicole's blood on them, were planted by the police.  But is it true?  Absolutely not, and I will demonstrate why.  First, we have to look at what Cochran and Scheck argued. They made several big claims that they believed supported the theory, but each of them has major problems.

1) The black socks were not seen in Willie Ford’s video of OJ’s room. The defense believed that because the socks were not on the video, that the police must have planted them later. This, however, was fully discredited when Fung and Ford acknowledged during the trial that Ford had taped the room AFTER Dennis Fung had collected the sock evidence. The confusion had started as a result of the timer on the video camera being off and rough estimates of their relative times of being in the room, but when both men acknowledged the order that they were in the room, it eroded the defense team’s argument. Not only that, but a defense team witness, Det. Bert Luper, acknowledged that he in fact saw the socks in the room that very morning!

2) Nobody saw the blood on the socks for weeks, and then suddenly there is blood on there, therefore it must have been planted later. Sounds somewhat reasonable, except that when you break down the circumstances of who saw the socks and in what conditions, it just doesn’t hold up. The people who looked at the socks initially weren’t looking carefully at the items, and have testified as to such. Remember, we are talking about dark red blood on a pair of black socks, which might be difficult to see. Even members of OJ’s defense acknowledged this – both Henry Lee and Herbert MacDonell explained that it would have been hard to see under normal lighting (July and August 1995 testimonies). Defense team member Michael Baden wasn’t even allowed to touch or move the socks when they were initially shown to him. On June 29, Yamauchi was with Greg Matheson and Michelle Keslter and they had looked briefly at the socks without noticing any blood. They made a note to inspect them more closely later on, which is exactly what happened on August 4when Yamauchi examined them closely for the first time and found the presence of blood. The socks were then tested by Matheson, and eventually the DOJ. Both Nicole and OJ’s blood were found on them.

3) There was EDTA on the sock. No, there wasn’t. It is a theory that has been debunked for a variety of reasons, but primarily for two. First, the amount of EDTA “found” was in the parts per million or less, and this does not match police vial levels. I stress the word “found” because the liquid chromatography/mass spec testing used could not detect limits in the ppm, which is why the FBI said that the amounts were in “the parts per million or less” - they had to hedge their numbers as to not completely eliminate the possibility. Furthermore, in order to identify the EDTA compound, three ions and a particular ratio have to be found, and the FBI could find only two of these in their test. While the defense team claimed to have found this third ion (132), there are very large problems with their claim (more on this later). Just remember, when Fredic Rieders, the defense team’s forensic specialist, was asked about the EDTA, he actually acknowledged that it was in the parts per million or less. That right there should have effectively ended the debate.

4) The blood soaked through the sock from surface two to surface three, so that means the only way it could have been there is for it to have been placed there. The defense team tried to argue that there was only one way for the blood to get on the third side of the sock, but this just doesn't make sense. The blood could have been transferred by either Nicole's own hand at the crime scene, or by Simpson's own hand when he pinched surface 2 next to surface 3 when he took the sock off. Or maybe when the socks were dropped on the floor, surface 2 was left in contact with surface 3. Or another explanation could be that in the course of the phenolphthalein test, the blood on the sock was rewetted with a swab and the manipulation of the swab over the sock caused the transfer of small amounts of blood. The list goes on, and the defense team never effectively excluded these possibilities. I would recommend Rod Englert's book "Blood Secrets". He was a part of the DOJ who personally analyzed the socks. He was very clear that the stains were medium-velocity impact stains and it would be incredibly difficult to plant those stains the way the defense team suggested. The stains were also consistent with the splash marks on Ron Goldman's pant cuffs (meaning they occurred when OJ was stepping through the puddles of blood and it was splashing on the socks). When a blood spatter expert analyzes the evidence and is adamant that the stains did not appear planted, I think we should listen.

5) But Detective Vannatter had carried the vial blood to Rockingham that day instead of booking it at the Parker Center! He did so to not disrupt Fung’s Divisional Record (DR) inventorying system, and Fung has confirmed this. But there is a bigger problem with this scenario. The defense team argued that there was no blood on the sock for weeks after it was collected...so why would it be relevant that Vannatter brought the vial to Rockingham? According to the defense, there was no blood on the sock at that point anyway!

6) Nicole's blood must have been degraded on the sock, right?  Nope! Nicole's blood on OJ's sock was fresher than her blood in her reference vial.  Dr. Robin Cotton found that the autopsy vial contained the more degraded blood, and it is obviously impossible for degraded blood to become fresh again.  So where did the blood on the sock come from?  Obviously it came from the crime scene.

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.

Problems with Stephen Singular's "Legacy of Deception"

Author Stephen Singular is often cited by those who support the OJ-didn’t-do-it narrative as someone who has proved that the police tampered with evidence. I disagree with him on a number of issues, and believe that his popular book “Legacy of Deception” contains serious mistakes. Singular is very important in his role in pushing the EDTA theory, which I have long thought is an incredibly misguided claim. I was re-reading his book today and something stuck out at me. Singular makes the argument that Martz, who did the only EDTA testing for the trial, at first claimed to have found EDTA and then “changed his mind and said he’d definitely detected no EDTA on the back gate or on the socks.”

But this isn’t what actually happened. Martz never admitted to identifying EDTA early in the trial. What he said was that he had found the 293 parent ion and 160 daughter ion for the compound in his tests. He then said this is consistent with the presence of EDTA, but that it warrants “further testing” and responded like EDTA (note: three different ions were needed for identification with this particular test, not just two). And later in his testimony, Martz clarified:

“When something is consistent with something else, it is not a positive identification.It could be something else. With preliminary tests that you do in the laboratory, there is a lot of chemicals that could be consistent, but in order to identify something, you have to have something unique associated with that chemical before you can positively identify it and that is what a mass spectrum does.”

Of course, Singular did not put this quote in his book. So, is this a semantic flip-flop from Martz’s prior testimony? No, because Martz actually explained the difference to Blasier prior to his testimony (meaning the defense team knew he wasn’t identifying the compound, but was acknowledging that two of the three ions needed were consistent). I have a hard time understanding why Singular would believe that this is “changing his mind.” Because other than the obvious difference between consistency and identification, in late February or early March before his testimony Martz had already provided the prosecution with his report that concluded that he couldn’t identify EDTA! Martz was, for a lack of a better word, “consistent” on this issue from the beginning, and Singular is wrong to suggest the he had reversed his opinion. 

I heard OJ's blood was drawn by the police, but then 1.5 cc's was missing. Is this true? Could it have been used to plant evidence against Simpson?

No. The police nurse, Thano Peratis, claimed to have taken "approximately" 8 cc's of blood in his grand jury testimony, but upon further inspection, the defense noted that only 6.5 cc's was in the tube. So this must mean that the small amount was stolen and used on the gate and sock, right? This was the defense team's argument.

But it is complete nonsense.  When Peratis learned of the defense team's theory, he called the prosecution because he thought it was so ridiculous. Peratis subsequently testified that it was an approximation, and later clarified that it was closer to 6-6.5 cc's when he compared the vial amount to a water sample he prepared. 

So is he lying? Did the prosecution have him change his testimony?  He called the prosecution, not the other way around. If he were lying, why would he do that? There is not one single bit of proof that Peratis was encouraged to change his testimony, though some have suggested this.

Peratis was clear that in the thirty years of doing his job, nobody had ever made an issue of the exact amount of blood drawn, and that's why he was estimating his number as he always did (Peratis typically drew blood for DUI suspects more than anything).  But again, the fact that the EDTA theory has been discredited proves this theory was pointless in in the first place.  

In an interview with former Los Angeles D.A. Vincent Bugliosi, Peratis said the whole process "is very imprecise, and none of us ever measure or check, because this is the first time in over thirty years working at the dispensary that anyone had made an issue of how much blood I had withdrawn.  It just never came back up before."  

And the testimony during the civil trial:

MR. MEDVENE) And is it accurate that you don't and haven't measured how much blood you draw when you do -- presently use the syringe?

PERATIS: We never measure blood.

(moments later)

MEDVENE: Why did you say the amount that you said?

PERATIS:  Up to this time, I think that anyone that would draw blood, if they were asked that question, think of 8 cc's as about the amount that we draw. And that is about the first thing they think. And that was the first thing that came out of my mouth. The correct answer at that time should have been, "I don't know how much I drew."

So if Peratis says that in over 30 years of taking blood nobody had made an issue of how much he took, and that "none of us ever check," then why suddenly for the Simpson case would he draw exactly 8.0 cc's?  In all likelihood, he just wouldn't.  The defense team was reaching.  Hard.

Was EDTA in the sock and gate blood samples as the defense team alleged?

One common talking point for those who believe in the police-planting theory is that EDTA, a blood preservative, was found in the gate and sock samples.  Therefore, they insist, the blood was planted.  But does this argument hold up?

It does not.  EDTA was not found in those samples. It boils down to two testimonies, an FBI agent (Roger Martz) and a defense team DNA specialist (Fredric Rieders). Martz did the original DNA testing (3 different LC-MS tests) on his own blood and the sock and gate samples. He testified to finding "no detectable" (this is important) amounts. Rieders, who did no DNA testing himself but relied on Martz's testing, claimed that he did find EDTA.

This is not just a he-said-she-said argument, though. If you look carefully at the trial testimony, it is clear that Martz is correct on the issue. In order for the compound to be identified, a triple ion ratio needs to be observed among the three identified ions. Martz claimed to have found two ions consistent with the compound (the 293 and the 160 in this case), but the 132 ion could not be identified (note: consistency is not a positive identification, and Martz made this very clear during his testimony).  Rieders claimed to have found the 132 ion, but made no mention of the ion itself or its ratio in his initial report to the court, and when asked to identify it during the trial, he pointed to a small amount of noise on the spectrogram where there should have been a peak signal far greater than what was seen.   Let's be very clear here: Martz did not flip-flop in his testimony as the defense suggested; he was consistent, despite what writers like Stephen Singular and Brian Heiss have argued.  Martz's initial report to the prosecution before he got on the stand also indicated that he found no detectable levels of EDTA, so it makes zero sense that he would change his testimony when on the stand.

As if this wasn't enough, Rieders acknowledged that the EDTA levels found were in the individual parts per million or less. This is a BIG RED FLAG! Had vial levels been used on the sock or gate, they would have been in the thousands of parts per million or more. But what of those parts per million? Doesn't that mean he found some EDTA? No, because LC-MS testing could not identify amounts that small, which is why Martz had hedged his numbers up. To quote the man directly: "I'm not even convinced that what was found in my blood and in the sock and in the gate was EDTA. I was not able to prove that. If it is, it's still in the parts per million at the most." I will continue with this issue in a later claim.

Look at it this way: Martz wasn't doing a comprehensive test to see if EDTA existed at all.  He was doing a test to see if the EDTA matched police-vial levels. And it didn't...in three different tests.  He used his own blood for control and variable samples.  The sock and gate sample EDTA amounts matched his blood samples that were not combined with police EDTA.  That is, the EDTA was identified in the parts per million OR LESS.  Had they been preserved with EDTA, they would have likely been at 2,000 PPM or more.

When this point is brought up, supporters of the theory suggest that Martz had nefariously deleted his data regarding the issue.  This doesn't support the defense team's arguments for two reasons: 

1) Rieders' entire argument rested on Martz's analysis, so if Martz was wrong, then Reiders' argument in  support of EDTA actually existing would also be called into serious question. 

2) The Department of Justice, who investigated these claims, claimed to find no evidence that Martz was misleading or acted improperly in this case (source: https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/oig/fbilab1/07simpso.htm).

Is there additional, convincing testimony from the civil trial?  Yes, take a look at Dr. Terry Lee's testimony.   Lee was the exceptionally qualified chemist who analyzed Dr. Martz's EDTA tests and both testimonies of Reiders and Martz from the criminal trial.  He was adamant: EDTA did not come from those test tubes.  And the subsequent testimony of Brad Popovich (same source link), explains why Dr. Gerdes contamination theory falls short, as well. It's an interesting, though quite technical, explanation.

Anything else? Yes. I believe that it is very relevant that when the defense sent two blood swatches (Items 47 and 50, the Bundy walkway drops) to Dr. Kevin Ballard for EDTA testing, which he apparently conducted according to Rockne Harmon, the defense team never called him to the stand, despite Ballard being in court during this particular testimony.  I think it's very clear what this indicates.

Are there any issues I have with the prosecution regarding the EDTA? Sort of.  In the OJ: Made in America documentary, Marcia Clark suggests that everybody has a little bit of EDTA in their bodies because of the food we eat or the substance being in household products. That may or may not be true, but I find it irrelevant because it is important to remember that Martz's test was not looking for EDTA in such small amounts.  He was looking to see if the amounts matched police vials.  And of course they didn't.

OJ's Cut Finger: What Actually Happened?

 

One of the more contentious issues regarding the case is about the cut on O.J. Simpson's finger.  Some suggest that the cut happened in Chicago after the murder, and since it wasn't recognized by those who ran into Simpson the night of the crime, it must not have been there.  Brian Heiss' Youtube channel, Fact or Fiction, attempts to look closer at the issue to suggest that Simpson was not cut  the night of the murder.

First in the video, the testimonies of Michael Norris and Michael Gladden are shown.  Both met Simpson the night of the murder and did not see any cuts on his hands.  Then the testimony of Howard Bingham (a photographer and acquaintance of OJ's) is shown, in which he also claims that he did not see cuts on OJ's hand.  Stephen Valeries was looking at Simpson's hand for a championship ring and noticed no cuts.  Pilot Wayne Stansfield and Jim Merrill gave similar testimony regarding the lack of marks on his hand.  On its face, this might seem convincing, and the witnesses additionally suggested that Simpson was calm and collected that evening.

But I am not convinced, and for very good reason.  Now I could suggest that these witnesses simply did not see something very small that night that they weren't looking for in the first place, which IS reasonable.  But it's MUCH more than that: it's what Heiss omits in these videos that I believe should definitely be addressed (note: Heiss has disabled all comments on his Fact or Fiction series on Youtube). 

Consider these four reasons as to why Simpson likely had cut and bled prior to leaving for Chicago:

1) SIMPSON ADMITTED IT WAS CUT AND BLEEDING BEFORE GOING TO CHICAGO! On June 13th of 1994 in his interview with Vannatter and Lange, he said that "I recall bleeding at my house, and then I went to the Bronco.  The last thing I did before I left, when I was rushing, was went and got my phone out of the Bronco."   And later in the interview, when referring to the blood, he stated, "When I was leaving, he was saying something to me, an I was rushing to get my phone, and I put a little thing (referring to the Band-Aid) on it, and it stopped."  And then later in the interview, after Lange states, "Okay, so it's last night that you cut it," Simpson replied, "Yeah. Yeah."  Lange: "Somewhere after the recital?"  Simpson: "Somewhere when I was rushing to get out of my house."  

2) HE ALSO TOLD HIS OWN DOCTOR IT WAS CUT BEFORE GOING TO CHICAGO.  During Dr. Michael Baden's testimony during the criminal trial (8/10/95), the following exchange with Mr. Kelberg of his physical examination of Simpson on June 17th of 1994:

MR. KELBERG: And what was his response on the 17th of June with respect to when he received any of the injuries?
DR. BADEN: His response was that he received cuts on his hand on the third finger on the knuckle in Chicago the--the 14th I guess, on June 14th, just before he returned to New York and that he may have cut himself on his fingers before he came to--he got on the airplane while getting his stuff together, but he didn't really know because he cut himself very frequently. He has a lot--and he did have a lot of nicks and bruises that were old and healed up.
MR. KELBERG: Did he say to you, sir, that he received any of those cuts while he was still in Los Angeles on the 12th of June in preparation to go to the airport for a trip to Chicago?
DR. BADEN: Yes. That he had cut himself, wasn't quite sure how he cut himself and noticed he had been bleeding, but didn't know how it came about in his home, someplace in this home on Rockingham before he got onto the airplane going to Chicago.

3) THE WALKWAY BLOOD MATCHED OJ'S DNA.  The blood drops on the Bundy walkway were DNA matches (via PCR and RFLP testing) to OJ Simpson himself.  Where did it come from?  The main suspect had a fresh cut on his finger the very next day. Am I supposed to believe that this is just a coincidence?  As for the defense team claim that these drops were switched out at the lab or the result of contamination, I deal with that below in another section of the blog.

4) THERE WERE MULTIPLE CUTS AND SCRATCHES THE DAY AFTER THE MURDER.  During a medical examination three days after June 12, 1994, another physician for Simpson, Robert Huizenga, said he noted three to four cuts and seven small abrasions on Simpson's hands.  Did all of this come from a broken glass in a Chicago hotel room? Or from Simpson running around his house while getting ready to go to LAX?  I find both scenarios pretty unlikely.


So Simpson has admitted to both his own personal physician and the police shortly after the murder that he had cut his finger before going to Chicago.  Regardless of whether he actually re-opened the cut again in Chicago or cut it for the first time, this is quite damning.  After all, the cut was on his left hand and the Bundy walkway blood drops, which were identified as Simpson's via DNA testing, were on the left side of the bloody shoe prints leaving the crime scene.  Just a bad coincidence for the innocent man?  This is why I find the witness testimony not very compelling.

Reductio Ad Absurdum

I believe that OJ is guilty.  But let's say for argument sake that he is not.  If he were not guilty, then the following must be true:

1) He just so happened to have 3 cuts on his hand the very next day after his wife was murdered (regardless of whether he did it at Rockingham or in Chicago). In addition, his own physician, Robert Huizenga, claimed to have seen 7 abrasions on his hands/arms.

2) It is just a coincidence that the killer wore the same size shoe that Simpson did, and that 31 photographs from two different photographers of him wearing the shoes are totally unrelated (note - we can conclusive demonstrate why the photos were not doctored...this will be covered in a future post).

3) It is just a coincidence that the incredibly busy and world-traveling athlete was at home alone, and not in any other place with an alibi during the time of the murder.

4) It is just a coincidence that when Alan Park rang his doorbell, he didn't answer, nor did Alan see the Bronco when pulling in.  Likewise, there must be an innocent explanation for him failing to answer the limousine driver's buzz for twenty minutes, and for him having conflicting alibis given through both trials.

5)  There must be an innocent explanation for Simpson not allowing anybody to touch one particular piece of his luggage on his way to the airport.

6)  It must be a coincidence that African-American hairs were found in a cap at the murder scene.  It must also be a coincidence that the blood trail leaving Bundy was to the left of the shoes, and Simpson had also coincidentally cut his left hand.

7) It must be a coincidence that the gloves, if taken from the scene and planted by the police, were the exact same model purchased in December of 1990 on Nicole's American Express card.

8)  The reason that the Bundy drops matched OJ was because of contamination from the laboratory (though to be clear, this was never even remotely proven to be true during the trial - it was only suggested by people like Dr. John Gerdes).  The blood taken from Colin Yamauchi's vial was dispersed in the air as an aerosol, and landed on the Bundy bindles, and miraculously the original blood from the scene was never typed.

9)  The reason the blood drops of the victims were found in the Bronco was because of corrupt police officers who planted the evidence...though some of them (such as Fuhrman and Vannatter) had never even met each other before the night of the crime!

10) The reason the gate blood matched Simpson was because it was planted weeks later...despite the fact that at least seven police officers testified during the criminal trial that they had seen the gate blood the morning after the crime.

11) Grand Jury witness Jill Shively (who foolishly sold her story to Hard Copy) was miraculously correct in her identification of Simpson, his vehicle, the license plate, and the approximate time of the crime, the day after the crime...before any of the blood was positively identified or true details of the case were known to the public.  She was just lucky that she didn't say she saw Simpson in his Bentley...or at 9:00 pm.  She nailed the time, the car, and the person - all just a coincidence.

12)  It was just poor decision-making that led Simpson to carry thousands of dollars, a gun, a disguise, and a passport with him when he learned that he would be arrested...and instead of telling anybody who would listen to him that he was being framed, he ran from the cops and gave his lawyer a letter that looked like a suicide note.

13)  It was just bad luck for Simpson that Nicole was physically beaten on New Year's 1989 by him, where she ran out to the responding police officer screaming "He's going to kill me, he's going to kill me."

14)  It just so happens that Fuhrman took the glove from the crime scene to plant it at Rockingham...and not one single officer (of the fourteen who had been there first) had actually seen the glove before Fuhrman did and testified to it.

15)  The reason Nicole's blood was found on Simpson's sock is because it was planted by the police...despite the fact that DOJ spatter expert Rod Englert, who examined the sock itself, was adamant that this did not happen.

Now ask yourself...do you think all of this happened?  Or do you think what really happened is far simpler, and that Simpson killed Ron and Nicole?