Text 6960, 170 rader
Skriven 2008-07-08 20:04:00 av Bob Klahn (1:124/311)
     Kommentar till en text av Richard Webb
Ärende: The Black Experience
============================
BK>>>  Yep. However, I feel the DNA was beyond a reasonable doubt. Esp
BK>>> since all Fong did was raise doubts about the collection, not  about
BK>>> the accuracy of the tests. IOW, he said it was not lab  standard
BK>>> collection, but never said the tests were wrong, or  even seriously
BK>>> might be wrong.

 RW> Iirc and again this is a decade ago, fOng raised questions
 RW> about the collection of the evidence, and chain of custody.
 RW>  TO be unimpeachable evidence the chain of custody of such
 RW>  evidence must be provable.

 Chain of custody applies to a set of guidlines intended to
 insure the evidence was the same taken from the crime scene. I
 do not believe the samples were ever out of the custody of the
 appropriate people, only that they didn't run it straight from
 the crime scene to the lab.

 I would want to know if the blood samples gathered at the scene
 were tested before they got Simpson's blood. If so, then how
 could they fake it? Where else would they get Simpson's blood?

BK>>  I know all that. Again, we are not just talking DNA randomly
BK>> spread, we are talking blood at the scene of the crime. How much
BK>> blood did you leave on your driveway? How much would be likely  to
BK>> be fresh on the day of a murder, and how likely would it be  to be
BK>> close to the scene of the murder?

 RW> Depends on the day.  Depends on what I might have been
 RW> doing in the garage over there, i.e. sharepning lawnmower
 RW> blades, knuckle busting on grandma's car, etc. Had, let us
 RW> say, grandma turned up dead of violent means it might have
 RW> been easy on any given day to say "the grandson did it."

 Simpson didn't live there. He hadn't lived there for quite a
 while. I doubt there would be such blood samples left over from
 when he did live there. The chances of that at the scene of the
 murder would be unreasonably small. IMO.

BK>>>>  Remember, you are not supposed to pre-judge the case, and you  are
BK>>>> supposed to judge based on the facts presented. You are not
BK>>>> required to forget everything you know when you walk into the  jury
BK>>>> room.

 RW>>> This is true, and I still would have had doubts.

 RW> Partly because there was doubt cast on the evidence because
 RW> the chain of custody was possibly broken.  Easy to plant or
 RW> rig evidence when thechain of custody cannot be proved.
 RW> THaT if anything waas fOng's major contribution to the case.

 In order to plant that evidence, they would have had to have
 samples of OJ's blood. Without that, the evidence could not have
 been planted.

BK>>>  If the data are correct, how they got there becomes irrelevant.

 RW> MOst times one would like to assume so.  Another example.
 RW> Beat cop walking his beat, late at night in the big city.
 RW> Cop accosts subject who is known criminal, cops has reason
 RW> to pop off one.  <Ooops> subject is unarmed.  HEy that's
 RW> why I carry this extra pawnshop special firearm.  Handle it
 RW> with my gloves, drop it by the body.

 If the gun was registered to the deceased it would be hard to
 say it was dropped by the cop. DNA can't just be dropped, it had
 to come from OJ.

 ...

 RW>> that piece of paper signed by a judge. IF I'm alone I'm
 RW>> going to ask for your badge number and other data, and I"m
 RW>> gonna phone the authorities to check and see if you truly
 RW>> have such a warrant and if you're the real deal. That's
 RW>> because I can't actually see to read your badge through the
 RW>> door.

BK>>  Yep, and the only real problem is, the dog and if you show the
BK>> gun.

 RW> DOg will be well behaved, gun stays in the closet.  Even if
 RW> I don't ask for the warant if I"M home alone I"m going to
 RW> request your badge number and phone your agency to make
 RW> sure you're who you say you are. OF course a lot depends on
 RW> the situation.  THen when I find out mr. officer is legit I
 RW> might step out on the porch and talk to him/her.

 RW>> Ipso facto, I'm a member of a right-wing militia because I
 RW>> fit the pattern. Anyone making that judgment and coming to
 RW>> that conclusion would be dead wrong.

BK>>  You would not have to be a member of a militia. Just personally
BK>> whacko.

 RW> NOT hardly, just a man who will protect myself when the
 RW> stuff comes down.  I"ll be more than glad to assist my
 RW> neighbors but I'm not going to have the looting and other
 RW> weirdness that might come to pass after the earthquake or
 RW> big storm coming to me.

 That's when you are less likely to have problems. They are more
 likely to come to help you.

 RW> tHe homeland security tell me to be
 RW> afriad of the terrorists wearing funny clothes that might
 RW> gas bomb me.  I"m more worried about the guy up the road
 RW> that might decide my stash of food and other valuables are
 RW> fair game.

 That won't be for an earth quake or storm. That will be
 doomsday.

BK>>  However, this raises the question, why would you require a
BK>>  warrant? Think about it.

 RW> Alright, to be honest, once in awhile on a rare occasion
 RW> I've been known to put something else in my pipe.  IF you

 Ok, that part makes sense.

 RW> were to enter my dining room at this moment you would find
 RW> on the dining room trable a tray containing a package of
 RW> rolling papers.  I roll my own cigarettes. IF the activity
 RW> in the neighborhood's been rather weird and frenetic
 RW> recently I figure cops are going to be knocking on doors
 RW> asking neighbors for info. FIne, give me your badge number

 Rolling cigarettes is not illegal. I've known people to do it
 because it was cheaper and they didn't have much money.

 RW> officer, I"ll phone the station.  IF your badge number and
 RW> name check out, come on in, I"ll even offer you a cold soda
 RW> or a cup of coffee. IF your attitude is arrogant or
 RW> somewhat hostile toward me however I might step out on the
 RW> porch and answer your questions to the best of my knowledge.

 You are raising issues not part of the question. Think of it
 this way. If the police have reason to believe a killer is still
 in the neighborhood they may want to come into your house to
 look for him. He could be there without your knowledge. Or you
 could be lying to the police because he threatened your family.
 Or because he is part of your family.

 In an emergency they may be a bit brusque because they have
 little time and a lot to do and lives at stake.

 RW> IT's my home, and I have a right to that.  YOu want inside
 RW> MR. officer, even to just ask if we witnessed the
 RW> activities earlier that day, you'll treat me with courtesy
 RW> and respect, and allow me to verify your information via
 RW> the telephone, or you *won't* come in. THe fourth amendment

 Which is not unreasonable, and likely excessive on your part. I
 have not known the police to be unreasonable when I dealt with
 them.
 ...

 OTOH, if someone close to you was murdered, the police will
 first look at those close to the victim, simply because they are
 the ones most likely to have done it. Every minute they have to
 spend jumping through hoops to get answers from those who didn't
 do it is one more minute not being spent trying to find the one
 who actually did it.


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Captain Kirk, "Meet my father."       "He's Dad, Jim." ÄÄ McCoy
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)