# OJ Simpson murder nuts - help! **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 7, 2008, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oj-simpson-murder-nuts-help/476111 "2008-12-07T07:52:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![solkoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@solkoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/solkoe)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2008, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oj-simpson-murder-nuts-help/476111/1 "2008-12-07T07:52:58Z")
This is topical since OJ is going to jail for many years but this question relates to his murder trial. My girlfriends insists that he was innocent of the direct murder of Nicole and Ron. She is convinced that evidence was planted. Specifically, she says that OJ’s blood was planted at his residence. Apparently, key forensic scientists testified at his trial that blood samples contained preservative that would not obviously be there if it were fresh blood. While in the court record, this testimony was not emphasized by the press. I am personally convinced that OJ is guilty but am willing to be open minded. If the police planted blood evidence then he deserves to go free. Any experts out there? ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2008, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oj-simpson-murder-nuts-help/476111/2 "2008-12-07T08:01:34Z")
> [@](#): > > I am personally convinced that OJ is guilty but am willing to be open minded. If the police planted blood evidence then he deserves to go free. He did go free. ---
**Author:** ![solkoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@solkoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/solkoe)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2008, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oj-simpson-murder-nuts-help/476111/3 "2008-12-07T08:05:31Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > He did go free. I think the key word is “deserves”. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2008, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oj-simpson-murder-nuts-help/476111/4 "2008-12-07T13:39:45Z")
> [@solkoe](#): > > This is topical since OJ is going to jail for many years but this question relates to his murder trial. My girlfriends insists that he was innocent of the direct murder of Nicole and Ron. She is convinced that evidence was planted. Specifically, she says that OJ’s blood was planted at his residence. Apparently, key forensic scientists testified at his trial that blood samples contained preservative that would not obviously be there if it were fresh blood. While in the court record, this testimony was not emphasized by the press. > I am personally convinced that OJ is guilty but am willing to be open minded. If the police planted blood evidence then he deserves to go free. > Any experts out there? The notion that anyone would want to frame Mr Simpson–one of the most beloved and widely-accepted athletes of all time–is ridiculous. The evidence against him is overwhelming. Read Mr Bugliosi’s book, or just look through Wikipedia’s summary: [Murder trial of O. J. Simpson - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case) Mr Simpson went free because a simple-minded jury unable or unwilling to consider the case objectively wanted him freed regardless of culpability. His lawyers were able to hire experts willing to obfuscate enough to give the jury a superficial excuse to do so. Had he been white he would have easily been convicted absent any DNA evidence at all. ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_Door](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@Bill\_Door](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_Door)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2008, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oj-simpson-murder-nuts-help/476111/5 "2008-12-07T13:43:48Z")
Just cause he was framed, doesn’t mean he was innocent. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2008, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oj-simpson-murder-nuts-help/476111/6 "2008-12-07T14:03:15Z")
> [@Bill\_Door](#): > > Just cause he was framed, doesn’t mean he was innocent. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Agreed. My one-liner about the OJ case is “That’s what you get when you try to frame a guilty man.” ---
**Author:** ![squeekster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/779978/32.png) [@squeekster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeekster)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2008, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oj-simpson-murder-nuts-help/476111/7 "2008-12-07T14:28:08Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Mr Simpson went free because a simple-minded jury unable or unwilling to consider the case objectively wanted him freed regardless of culpability. I really believe OJ committed the murders and got away with it. But at the same time, I can’t help but think that if I had been on the jury, and ONLY heard and saw what they heard and saw, I would have probably come to the same conclusion that they did. After all, the jury never heard all of the arguments that we the TV audience heard, nor did they see half of the alleged evidence that we the TV audience saw. Not to mention, they were subjected to weeks and weeks of DNA evidence. By the time the prosecution finished “explaining” it all, it would have confused Einstein. Put that all together with what they actually saw and heard and how it was presented and it isn’t too hard to figure out why they came to the conclusion they did. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2008, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oj-simpson-murder-nuts-help/476111/8 "2008-12-07T15:41:19Z")
> [@](#): > > … One of the areas that did impress the jury revolved around evidence about EDTA. > > Fredric Reiders, a forensic toxicologist called by the defense, testified that EDTA was found on the sock in Simpson’s bedroom and on a blood spot on the back gate of Nicole’s condominium. According to Simpson’s lawyers, this indicated that the blood had come from the vial of blood taken from their client at the Parker Center. Although EDTA is used to preserve blood in laboratory testing, it is also found naturally in human blood, as well as in chemicals such as laundry detergent and paint. The prosecution pointed out that this easily explained its presence on a painted gate and an article of apparel. > > Dr. Cotton from Cellmark had also testified regarding EDTA used to stop the degradation of blood. When she had checked the autopsy blood taken from Nicole, she had found that it was more degraded than her matching blood found on the sock in the bedroom. Once blood has degraded, it is impossible to raise its DNA count. Under the defense’s conspiracy theory, the blood on the sock had to have come from Nicole’s autopsy vial, but this blood had a lower DNA count than her blood on the sock. In other words, it was fresher when it splashed onto Simpson’s sock as he was killing her, than it was two days later when the coroner collected it. It is impossible for degraded blood to become fresh again, proving that Nicole’s blood on the sock could not have been planted. > > The jury, however, could not get around how EDTA appeared on the sock and the gate, but not in the trail of blood spots that, according to the prosecution, had dripped from Simpson’s injured finger as he left the crime scene. It also wondered how the DNA fingerprinting on the gate blood spot was higher than the other samples, especially when this blood had not been collected until 20 days after the murders. The jury could not figure out why this blood had not degraded after being exposed all those days under sun and rain > > So much of the “mountain of evidence” seemed to loose its credibility, either because the prosecution did a less than stellar job in preparing and presenting it, or because Simpson’s lawyers were smooth enough to re-interpret it in such a way that they kept introducing reasonable doubt into the minds of the panel of jurists. … From [here](http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/index_1.html), chapter 14. Much more here, [Week by Week in the O.J. Simpson Criminal Trial](http://www.courttv.com/casefiles/simpson/criminal/summary/), and if you really want to make your eyes bleed the [trial transcripts](http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/trial/index.html) can be downloaded. Add to this that the nurse that drew the blood samples from OJ, Thano Peratis, remembered the amount of blood he drew was ~8ccs and the vial presented at trial only contained ~6.5 ccs. CMC +fnord! ---
**Author:** ![anson2995](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c77e96/32.png) [@anson2995](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anson2995)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2008, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oj-simpson-murder-nuts-help/476111/9 "2008-12-07T19:00:29Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Mr Simpson went free because a simple-minded jury unable or unwilling to consider the case objectively wanted him freed regardless of culpability. His lawyers were able to hire experts willing to obfuscate enough to give the jury a superficial excuse to do so. Had he been white he would have easily been convicted absent any DNA evidence at all. I think that’s an unfortunate conclusion to draw. After all, there have been similar cases in the same jurisdiction with white celebrities (eg, Robert Blake) that also resulted in acquittal. If anything, there’s a general trend for the LA DA to bungle high profile cases. Maybe the jury was predisposed to find him not guilty, but there were two bigger failures unique to this case. First, the jury was unswayed by the overwhelming physical evidence. Public acceptance of DNA evidence was mush less in 1995 than it is today, and you had the double whammy of a prosecution case that was overly complicated and a defense strategy of oversimplifying. Second, the trial went on forever and the jury was sequestered. Those people just wanted to get the hell out of there. The trial lasted 22 months (!) and the jury deliberated for three hours (!!). Five of the jurors wrote books, and they’ve given lot of interviews, and these are the two factors they all pointed to. Some of them said they thought OJ probably committed the murders, but they felt the police had contaminated or planted evidence. Some of them just clearly didn’t understand (or believe) the underlying science (such as the juror who theorized the DNA evidence might have pointed towards OJ’s son). But I think concluding that jurors just didn’t want to convict a black defendant is missing the real story here. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2008, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oj-simpson-murder-nuts-help/476111/10 "2008-12-07T19:09:01Z")
An incompetent prosecution team does not equal innocence on the part of the accused. It may equal a “not guilty” verdict, however. ---
**Author:** ![Markxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@Markxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Markxxx)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2008, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oj-simpson-murder-nuts-help/476111/11 "2008-12-07T19:30:30Z")
Part of the problem was the site wasn’t sealed. Police have been known to plant evidence because it’s easier when the cops are certain the guy is guilty. The cops were so sure OJ did it that for the first couple of weeks all you heard about was what kind of “deal” OJ would cop. OJ’s trial was moved partly because the state wanted a conviction from a jury that was more black. I recall very early no one could fathom the idea that OJ would get off. Mark Furman singlehandedly killed the case, once he was proved a liar, the case was changed from proving OJ guilty to proving the LA Cops innocent. Race and education played a HUGE factor. OJ’s fame played a factor. If OJ was an ordinary black man, I would bet the same jury would’ve convicted him. The DNA was never directly linked to OJ but rather his family. DNA, as one poster pointed out was knew. I recall one juror being interviewed when questioned said “lots of people have the same blood type.” People didn’t understand and the prosecution wouldn’t talk down to the jury to explain, so the jury wrote it off. Even today I’ve talked to people who have no good concept on DNA works. Or they think it’s like TV. The cops never explored any other possibilty of who did it. This strikes people as arrogance and a set up. Like in JonBenet, many people are convinced the cops spent so much time looking at the parents, the kidnapper got away. We had a similar case in Illinois where the father was convicted and a year later DNA proved him innoent. So the real killer got away with murdering a kid. The district attorney was like “So what?” It’s that arrogance and refusal to admit error even in the face of the fact they screwed up big time which hurts the government. As one juror from the OJ case said “If the LA cops had done their job properly, we would’ve convicted him.” To her they couldn’t be sure because of the police. The thing is IF OJ didn’t do it one thing is for sure, he knows more than he’s letting on. If it was someone else, it’s almost certain someone will knows and will snitch eventually. Very few cases “Of high profile”, such as Lizzie Borden, Jack the Ripper or the Black Dahlia, go forever unsolved. There’s usually a snitch ---
**Author:** ![InterestedObserver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@InterestedObserver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InterestedObserver)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2008, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oj-simpson-murder-nuts-help/476111/12 "2008-12-07T22:06:26Z")
I’m hardly a “nut” wrt this trial, but I followed it fairly closely. Based on everything I’ve seen, including some statements by jurors, it came down to the apparent mishandling of the case by the police. The defense was, as a result of this mishandling, able to instill a resonable doubt in the jury, and under our system, the jury had no option but to find him not guilty. While I am one who believes he did it, had I been on that jury I probably would have returned the same verdict given the sum total of the evidence. ---
**Author:** ![ivylass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/9de053/32.png) [@ivylass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivylass)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2008, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oj-simpson-murder-nuts-help/476111/13 "2008-12-07T22:21:18Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Mr Simpson went free because a simple-minded jury unable or unwilling to consider the case objectively wanted him freed regardless of culpability. What got me was this was a nine-month trial and the jury deliberated for **three hours**. They’d made up their minds long before both sides rested. I’d also heard OJ was told by his attorneys to stop taking his arthritis medicine so his hands would swell and not “fit” the glove. That, plus I heard a talk show host prove to his skeptical call screener that you can make your gloves not fit. He pulled on a pair of gloves, then tried to do it again over surgical gloves. He couldn’t do it. I also heard there was blood evidence of Nicole and Ron found in Simpson’s car, but it was tossed on some technicality. What an amazing crash and burn. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2008, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oj-simpson-murder-nuts-help/476111/14 "2008-12-07T22:25:18Z")
The problem is that no matter how overwhelming the evidence is, it’s always possible to invent an alternative explanation. Thanks to movies and TV, people are constantly exposed to fictional crimes where these highly improbable alternatives are true and people who appear to be clearly guilty are actually innocent. Then all you need is a team of legal experts who are capable of inventing these alternatives and selling them to a jury. Thanks to psychological studies, it’s possible to determine which jurors are susceptible to different kinds of persuasion and bias a jury in your favor and pitch a defense to that jury that you know it’s likely it will believe. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2008, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oj-simpson-murder-nuts-help/476111/15 "2008-12-07T22:35:44Z")
A couple of things I prefer to note: 1. OJ confessed to Rosie Grier in a jailhouse visit, overheard by a guard. The guard wasn’t allowed to testify about this since Grier is an ordained minister and the confession was ruled privileged. 2. In the civil case, the issue of the footprint of the unusual shoes came to the forefront. OJ denied owning such “ugly” shoes, but a set of photographs showing him at a football game wearing them were presented. At least one of the pictures was also printed well before the murders so that the shoe photos were not planted. Note that since this was a civil case, OJ had to testify and he did himself no good at all. I also blame Ito for the failure of the criminal case. He consistently sided with the defense in squashing evidence (e.g., OJ’s previous abuse history) while allowing the defense incredible leeway. The bits of the trial I saw consisted of the defense lawyers asking over and over and over the same questions. The trial should have taken less than a third of the time. When you bend over backwards to give someone a fair trial, you don’t get a fair trial. My take on the outcome of the civil trial: Equality was reached. A rich and famous black person could now buy “justice” as well as a white person. ---
**Author:** ![notfrommensa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f14d63/32.png) [@notfrommensa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/notfrommensa)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oj-simpson-murder-nuts-help/476111/16 "2008-12-08T02:56:54Z")
FTR, I think OJ was guilty of murdering Nicole and Ron Goldman. But one thing has always bugged me about the chain of events: Its been a long time and my memory is fading, but IIRC, they found copious amounts of blood at OJ’s house the day after the murder. Yet OJ was not arrested until several days later. If there was a much blood as they claimed, he should have been arrested right away and without bail. Alledgedly, there was blood in the driveway, the entry way, the bedroom and the bathroom. I don’t care if was a celebrity, he was a cold blooded murderer. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oj-simpson-murder-nuts-help/476111/17 "2008-12-08T03:41:51Z")
I didn’t really follow all of the details of the case, but from what I have heard the claim that OJ was framed never really made sense to me. Specifically: If the theory is that OJ’s blood was planted by corrupt police – how did the police obtain OJ’s blood? Assuming they didn’t have advance knowledge that Nicole and Ron were going to be murdered, it seems they’d have had to (1) find out about the murder, (2) realize that one of the victims was O.J. Simpson’s wife, (3) go get some of OJ’s blood somehow, (4) rush the blood to the scene of the crime to be planted there in time to be found and entered as evidence. As implausible as that scenario seems, what are the alternatives? That none of OJ’s blood was found at the scene of the crime, and it was all inserted into evidence after the fact? How many people would have to lie to cover that up? And that again leaves the question: How did they get OJ’s blood? The other alternative is even more absurd: that the L.A.P.D. somehow orchestrated the murders themselves to frame OJ, after somehow obtaining his blood. Again, where did the blood come from? It makes no sense to me. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oj-simpson-murder-nuts-help/476111/18 "2008-12-08T05:23:56Z")
[Read this](http://www.courttv.com/trials/ojsimpson/weekly/12.html) for a rundown of Scheck’s cross examination of Dennis Fung, the guy in charge of collecting the blood evidence in the case. Basically, Fung had testified that he had received a vial of blood taken from Simpson as evidence and that the sample was delivered to him at Simpson’s residence (where LAPD was investigating) on June 13 (which even Fung admitted wasn’t typical procedure). However, it was revealed by videotape footage that Fung didn’t have the envelope this sample was supposedly in, and the evidence logbook was fudged to hide the fact that the evidence wasn’t actually logged until June 14. The implication was that the LAPD (and specifically Mark Furhman) had gotten a sample of Simpson’s blood and taken the sample to the crime scene, where they proceeded to contaminate various items, including the Bronco, and that Fung had lied about when he got the sample to cover Fuhrman’s ass. Combine all this with the fact that Fung didn’t know a whole lot about DNA evidence, made mistakes in collecting the blood samples (including having a less experienced criminalogist collect the evidence and storing it in plastic bags), and seemed to spend 9 days on the stand stammering and sputtering the whole time (Fung actually hugged and shook the hands of the defense lawyers after he stepped down from the witness stand), and I think the jury came to the conclusion that the LAPD botched the investigation at best, and planted evidence at worst. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oj-simpson-murder-nuts-help/476111/19 "2008-12-08T06:04:20Z")
And it got worse, > [@](#): > > (LAPD criminalist Andrea) Mazzola spent the day under cross-examination, testifying about her role in the collection of blood samples from the Bundy and Rockingham crime scenes. (Defense attorney Peter) Neufeld also questioned her about Dennis Fung’s role in collecting the crucial physical evidence. > > Mazzola said she collected most of the blood from both crime scenes, some of the time without Fung supervising her – a much different story than the one Fung told the grand jury in July. At the time, he said that he collected most of the blood stains. Mazzola supported Fung’s testimony that the two worked as a team. > > Neufeld tried to portray Mazzola as incompetent, using a videotape produced by prosecutors. The tape showed that while demonstrating the collection of evidence, Mazzola rested her hand on dirty pavement; wiped a tweezers with the dirty hand; rested her knees on the dirty pavement; brushed her gloved hand on the dirty knee; and dropped several swabs. > > In another effort to portray her as inept, Neufeld quesioned Mazzola on several points including her use of one cotton swab to test for blood on three different areas of Simpson’s Ford Bronco. Mazzola admitted she had been trained to use separate swabs for different areas but that Fung told her to use one swab on all three areas. … > > … The defense continued to try and portray Mazzola as an inexperienced and incompetent investigator and focused on the vial of blood taken from Simpson on the day after the murders. > > Mazzola acknowledged she never saw the vial of blood at Simpson’s home. Nor, she said, did she even know that she was carrying it out of Simpson’s house in a plastic bag, as criminalist Dennis Fung previously testified she had done. > > Neufeld implied it was too convenient for Mazzola to claim she rested her eyes about the time a detective supposedly handed the vial of blood to Fung. > > “Miss Mazzola,” Neufeld asked, “did you invent this notion that your eyes were closed so that Mr. Fung could testify that he received the vial without you seeing it?” > > Ito sustained an objection and Mazzola didn’t have to answer. > > Neufeld also elicited testimony from Mazzola that she didn’t have an “independent recollection” of picking up a glove and ski cap at the murder scene, actions that were captured on videotape and played in court. > > “Yet, you have an independent recollection that while you were sitting on a couch you closed your eyes? You had that recollection ten months later?” Neufeld asked. > > “Yes,” Mazzola replied. > > Fung and Detective Philip Vannatter have testified that Vannatter delivered the vial to Fung on June 13. Simpson willingly provided a sample of his blood at police headquarters, and Vannatter said he drove it across town to Simpson’s estate, where Fung and Mazzola were collecting evidence. > > The defense contends the blood wasn’t handed over to Fung that day and the delay gave police an opportunity to plant it. … > > … Neufeld began the line of questioning by reminding Mazzola that she testified during a pretrial hearing on August 23, 1994 that she had initialed all the coin envelopes and bindles used to preserve blood samples taken from the crime scenes. Neufeld then asked Mazzola to sift through all the bindles and envelopes takes from Simpson’s Rockingham estate. He asked her to indicate which ones had her initials. She had to admit that none of them did. > > Neufeld then asked when Mazzola found out that her initials were not on the envelopes and bindles. She responded that she noticed it when she just happened to walk past the serology lab and saw the evidence lying on a table. Neufeld questioned whether this was possible since the serology room is quite large, with a long table and criminalists working on several cases at a time. Besides, he pointed out, how could Mazzola just happen to see the envelope and bindles with particular writing on them. And he suggested that Mazzola found out some other way, adding that Mazzola had told the truth at the August pretrial hearing but that Fung - as part of the conspiracy - could have changed the originals and that the envelopes and bindles unsealed in court were not the originals. > > “Did you realize that if the prosecutors could not produce the orignal bindles, that that would be devastating,” Neufeld asked. But Mazzola did not have to answer the question because Judge Lance Ito sustained a prosecution objection that the question was improper. …[RIGHT][CITE](http://www.courttv.com/trials/ojsimpson/weekly/14.html)[/RIGHT] CMC +fnord!