Text 6977, 124 rader
Skriven 2008-07-15 19:57:00 av Bob Klahn (1:124/311)
     Kommentar till en text av Richard Webb
Ärende: The Black Experience
============================
 ...

 RW>> True enough, but then you've got to document this.  THe
 RW>> question isn't so much as did they as would there have been
 RW>> a possible opportunity to taint the evidence.  Chain of
 RW>> custody removes *any* and all doubt. CHain of custody has
 RW>> broken quite a few prosecutions last few years iirc.

BK>>  If they didn't have a sample of OJ's blood, there was no chance  to
BK>> taint the evidence. As to documenting, just have the cops who
BK>> handled the samples write it up.

 RW> That's it, and iirc what they didn't do.

 So have them do it later. If the police want to fake up the
 evidence, no record of chain of custody is going to stop them.

 RW> IF for example you are manager for a performer and have
 RW> engaged my remote audio truck to record performer's gig
 RW> somewhere at the end of the show when balance is paid a
 RW> hard disk drive with the performance audio is handed over.
 ...

 RW> her to sign a piece of paper which states that she did
 RW> indeed receive hard disk of your client's performance.
 ...
 RW> custody of evidence in criminal cases *must* be extensively
 RW> documented and all the i's dotted and t's crossed. Failure
 RW> to do so can damage a case as thoroughly as can a
 RW> confession obtained under duress, or failure to provide a
 RW> subject the MIranda warnings.  IF you've ever been arrested

 In this case, you give the evidence to the other side, and they
 give you a receipt. The police did not give the evidence to OJ's
 lawyers until well after the material could have been tainted.
 From that point of view "chain of custody" documention would be
 meaningless.

 RW> in the last 30 years you know that when the officer
 RW> arresting you reads you that little card which has the
 RW> patter we all know from TV cop shows so well you must sign
 RW> the card afterword. THIs indicates that you *were* told.

 I have never been arrested, but I was questioned as a potential
 witness, in the Air Force. They Mirandized every single witness
 they talked to.

 RW> IF they video or audiotape your interview chances are good
 RW> the Miranda patter will be repeated.  even though you
 RW> signed the card, the I's are dotted, t's crossed.  YOu were
 RW> properly mirandized.

 Only no one is normally out there videotaping the collection of
 the evidence.

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

 RW>> true, somewhat different, most known criminals would *not*
 RW>> be carrying a registerd firearm, and you can be sure the
 RW>> throwaway the cop is carrying for just this purpose ain't
 RW>> registered anywhere either <g>.

BK>>  Yeah, but DNA is naturally registered to the person it came  from.

 RW> True, but I have the suspect's dna, I got him/her to
 RW> voluntarily give me that little swab from inside the cheek.
 RW> NOw, were I really wanting to not hassle with this and I"m
 RW> an overworked lab rat and I want to lighten my load, just
 RW> use the pointers shown by the dna swab I got and ... YOu
 RW> can guess the rest.

 If that is what they do, chain of custody means nothing, and the
 defense will have their own experts check it anyway.

 RW> AGain I have my doubts that actually happened in this case,
 RW> but that's why we have such provisions as documented proven
 RW> chain of custody, etc. YOu don't follow the rules, even the
 RW> guy you're sure did the dirty deed's gonna walk, because
 RW> you didn't follow the rules.

 Yet it should be necessary to show how the failure to follow the
 rules can change the outcome. If you don't have a search
 warrant, the evidence can still be used if discovery was
 inevitable. Like you have a basement full of pot, and the police
 come in looking for a run away teen. They don't have a search
 warrant, but the 'exigent circumstance' regarding a runaway teen
 justifies the entry, and the pot would have been inevitably
 discovered if they got a search warrant to look for the teen.
 Which they would have if they didn't fear for the teen's safety.

 When Furhman entered OJ's property without a warrant, he claimed
 he did it to protect evidence, IIRC. I would justify the entry
 on the basis that they expected to find OJ's dead body.
 Murder/suicide is common in such cases.

 However, the police do have the right to secure the property
 until a search warrant is obtained. That means forcing you to
 leave and locking it down until the warrant is secured. Finding
 the glove outside would be inevitable just in walking past to
 secure the property.

 RW> Many jurists will tell you
 RW> that the thorny part of all these protections is that every
 RW> now and then they allow the guilty to get off.  O.J. was
 RW> one of those instances.

 As I said, I believe the decisive testimony was Fong saying the
 collection of the evidence was not up to standard, they didn't
 sterilize the instruments between samples. Which means you could
 cross contaminate the samples. The weakness in that arguement is
 at least the preceeding sample had to be OJ's blood for the
 succeeding sample to test out as OJ's blood. Which still leaves
 OJ's blood at the scene of the crime.

 ...

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

... Hi ho it's Kermit the Borg here. Sesame Street will be assimilated.
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)