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)
|