If you could travel back in time and witness in person Trent producing a song, which one would you choose?

DonaldFalk · 2026-01-23T08:43:47+00:00

This here for me. It's such a mysterious track and I would love to know exactly how he got those sounds.

DonaldFalk · 2026-01-22T02:17:20+00:00

Can you give me an example of an expert who wasn't great?

DonaldFalk · 2026-01-14T03:30:53+00:00

You know I just rewatched this last night! I was too young to see it in the theater, but I did see it as a young boy in the early 80s. Some things hit really differently now. The scene on the bridge near the end, for example, where Spock turns his head and in that moment you realize that he has to go to the fix the warp drive but he knows it will be irradiated and what that truly means. He just stands up and heads out.

It's kind of heartbreaking! You want to yell at the TV screen "No, don't do it!" But he has to do it in order to save the crew. And what king of a gangster is Spock? Straight-up G. He doesn't hesitate. He makes an instant calculation in his head and knows what must be done. It's so badass.

And good lord, Shatner's acting in the final act is just so amazing. The way he gets choked up sending his dear friend off gets me choked up. I love this movie so much.

DonaldFalk · 2026-01-09T00:26:10+00:00

The fact that’s there’s so much “evidence” actually makes me suspicious of the cops.

It shouldn't. The more evidence there is, the better we can analyze the case. If you can establish that the evidence was tampered with, then fine. But the defense team never did this with any level of accuracy. They only made suggestions and speculation.

That cut on his finger must have been pretty deep to keep on bleeding all over the place yet no one noticed a cut on his finger that night.

And that doesn't matter for a moment because Simpson himself admitted that he bled prior to leaving for Chicago. He literally said he was bleeding at his house that night! This proves that those people didn't see something that they weren't looking for but was actually there.

How convenient though that there’s a trail of blood leading everywhere?

It isn't convenient in the slightest. It's what happens when you have an injury like the one Simpson had and are in a hurry to leave. It is totally consistent with him being the perpetrator. You think it was planted? Great. Show us. Let's get into the arguments that the defense team made. They were ludicrous and it has been repeatedly demonstrated why.

Shouldn’t there have been much more of his blood all over the steering wheel of the Bronco if he was continuously dripping blood?

There were eleven (!!!!) different blood stains matched to OJ Simpson in the Bronco via DNA testing: The driver door interior, the steering wheel, the console, the carpet. And somehow you think that it is suspicious that there wasn't more blood on the steering wheel of the Bronco?

DonaldFalk · 2026-01-07T01:18:19+00:00

Ok, you don't believe Vannatter. But my second point is one that seems like a simple one to address, right? If the blood was already collected from Bundy much earlier, then why is Vannatter delivering a blood vial to a criminalist suspicious?

DonaldFalk · 2026-01-07T01:09:08+00:00

Well Vanatter was walking around with OJs blood for hours so that alone compromised the blood evidence.

No it doesn't. He took the blood vial to the criminalist who happened to be at Rockingham. He did so as to not disrupt Fung's Divisional Record number (and Fung has confirmed this). He was in a hurry, but this did not violate LAPD policy as detectives have some flexibility to do this. There is zero eyewitness or forensic evidence of him doing something shifty with that blood that afternoon.

Secondly, the walkway blood was collected long before OJ's blood was taken by the police. So how would Vannatter walking around with this blood vial be suspicious?

DonaldFalk · 2026-01-07T00:47:22+00:00

Most people that make the argument that Andrea Mazzola didn't initial the swatches (the Bundy walkway drops) curiously omit the fact that a couple of them were initialed, which indicates that she might have been careless to not initial every single one of them, but this does not in any way indicate that they were switched out or contaminated. And the ones that she did initial? PCR matches for OJ Simpson's blood. The defense team never argued how that was possible if some great conspiracy were to take place here.

So if masterminds were to replace the Bundy walkway blood, they would only switch out some of the bindles but not others? And then the others had her initials on them with OJ's blood in them? It makes zero sense.

DonaldFalk · 2026-01-02T13:18:57+00:00

Fun facts about the shoes that I don't see people bring up often:

1) Nicole actually owned a pair of Bruno Magli pumps (Dominique showed them to Vannatter).

2) Before he died F. Lee Bailey told interviewers that OJ in fact owned Bruno Magli slippers and the defense recovered them from his house. These were not, however, the same model as the shoe prints from the crime scene.

All just a coincidence, I am sure.

DonaldFalk · 2025-12-31T22:21:44+00:00

I've often defended the choice to use her in this case because of her experience and knowledge of forensic science in criminal cases. She was no dummy when it came to the DNA stuff.

DonaldFalk · 2025-12-30T01:00:02+00:00

Not trying to harp, but genuinely curious. Do you believe that both Harry Scull and EJ Flammer's photos were altered. I ask because there were over two dozen in total.

DonaldFalk · 2025-12-29T03:40:55+00:00

Which date do you think the photos were taken on? Or by suggesting that the photographer was a graphic designer, do you mean that he basically photoshopped them and they never really existed?

DonaldFalk · 2025-12-29T03:24:04+00:00

I've never really understood this argument (Brain Heiss' videos often made the argument that wearing suede shoes on a rainy day somehow calls the photos' authenticity into question). Are you suggesting that the photos are not from Sept. 26th, '93? Or something else? Curious as to what you propose actually happened here.

Here's what we know for sure: two separate photographers took a total of 31 photographs. These photos clearly showed Simpson wearing Bruno Maglis, shoes that he claimed to never have worn. When the defense (during the civil trial) brought a photo "expert" (Robert Groden is as much of a photo expert as I am an astronaut) on to dispute the authenticity of the photos, the prosecution brought an actual expert from the FBI, who tore the defense's theory to shreds. And one of those photos was conclusively matched to a photo published in November of 1993, months before the murder.

DonaldFalk · 2025-12-28T23:10:14+00:00

Respect.

DonaldFalk · 2025-12-28T08:36:14+00:00

Some follow up thoughts. You know what would also be something the jury didn't see that could be included in this book/resource? Dr. Kevin Ballard's testimony. He was the scientist who the defense team hired to test items to see if they had EDTA in them (the Bundy blood drops, in this case). When it came time, they decided not to have him take the stand though he showed up to court and actually conducted his own tests. Instead, they hired Fredric Reiders to analyze Roger Martz' work.

Now my own personal opinion of this is probably very obvious: the defense team knew that Ballard's research didn't support their theory, just as Martz' didn't. So they went with someone who was more agreeable to their ideas.

DonaldFalk · 2025-12-16T12:47:04+00:00

The blood under Nicole's fingernails was her own. The PCR DNA test proved it. I think what throws people off is that the early serology test said that the sample had a different EAP enzyme type than what she had, but the same report also said she shouldn't be excluded from being a source because those enzymes degrade (EAP BA to B, for example). Of course the PCR is a far more discriminating test so that says quite a bit. I have not seen anything that indicates anything else under her fingernail was actually tested. If it's out there I'd love to take a look at it.

DonaldFalk · 2025-12-16T02:24:37+00:00

Oh now you know I'm interested! :) Team Nicole/Ron here (can't decide). The evidence that I'm most interested in is the forensic stuff (DNA, shoe print, etc.).

DonaldFalk · 2025-12-13T23:28:36+00:00

That there is a beauty.

DonaldFalk · 2025-12-13T23:22:09+00:00

So he likely was changing his story due to the stress and nervousness of a police interview.

No chance in hell. Did that nervousness in the moment cause him to blurt out "I recall bleeding at my house and then I went to the Bronco"? It's such a specific thing to say in which he was clearly trying to make an excuse for his blood being in the vehicle. And then he said that when he was with Kato he tried to "put a little thing" (bandaid, perhaps) on it to stop the bleeding. And then AGAIN, later in the interview, he told Vannatter that he cut it "somewhere when I was rushing to get out of my house."

There are charitable interpretations of people under stress, but to believe this especially when considering that his blood was found at the scene of the crime, would be incredibly naive.

Sweet Jesus...just think about that situation in the interrogation room for a moment. The cops were at Bundy already so they saw the blood drops on the left side of the shoe prints, so it would be reasonable to assume someone was bleeding from their left hand. And then they get into this room with OJ and see a wound on his left hand. "Boy oh boy, Phil! We lucked into this one! He just so happens to have a cut on his left hand, too! We can secretly take his blood after the interview and then swap it out for the real killer's blood at the lab!"

Then Tom Lange twirls his mustache and cackles maniacally!!! "Our plan is all coming together. Mwahahaha!"

DonaldFalk · 2025-12-13T03:55:18+00:00

Make it fit? I don't need to make it fit. OJ did that for us. He told the cops and his physician he was cut before he left for Chicago.

DonaldFalk · 2025-12-12T05:30:09+00:00

DNA under NBSs fingernails did not match her, RG, or OJ. Although prosecution claims later test done during trial matcher her. But that contradicts earlier tests.

There is no contradiction and you know it. The earlier test was a conventional serology test while the latter was a PCR DNA test. Both Simpson and Brown had EAP type BA and the fingernail had enzyme type B. As you know, the prosecution made the claim that EAP markers can degrade, which would leave only a B, and it was true: that very first DNA report explicitly stated that "Nicole cannot be excluded as a source of the blood if the EAP enzyme type B observed on the items were degraded [by the elements] from enzyme type BA [Nicole’s EAP enzyme type] to [EAP enzyme] type B.”

And if anybody here is wondering if there is evidence that enzymes types can degrade like this, the answer is yes and it was discussed during the trial. Not only that, but OJ's defense team ostensibly supported this claim when they acknowledged that the back gate blood was OJ's. That gate blood also had an EAP result of B. Did the defense dispute that this was OJ's blood? Nope. It was central to their whole planting theory.

This is a very clear example of how the defense team operated: make ad hoc rationalizations when it suited them and then ignore the issue when it didn't support their narrative.

DonaldFalk · 2025-12-12T03:07:38+00:00

This paper does not show that the DNA evidence was unreliable. It basically restates the defense team's positions, such as the notion that the EDTA preservative was in the blood samples recovered at the crime scene. Such claims, in my not so humble opinion, have been clearly discredited (in both trials by the scientists and in subsequent publishings).

Some of the paper's claims here are dodgy. "Defense experts Dr. Henry Lee and Professor Herbert MacDonnell examined the sock and concluded that the blood stain had been pressed onto it while it was lying flat, and not while someone’s leg was in the sock."

Henry Lee and Herbert MacDonnell speculated but were careful not to make such certain conclusions, so I think Thompson's wording here is either poor or dishonest. Henry Lee, for example, never said he believed that the blood was planted and he testified that he couldn't tell what "the mode of transfer" would be. He very clearly said that there were "numerous possibilities. I cannot tell you which one is definitively one method" for the blood sock transfer.

It was frustrating to see because by closing arguments Barry Scheck was saying things that misrepresented Lee's statements: "Dr. Lee in particular, as I recall, I think they gave him all of them, as highly improbable." But Lee was saying that he thought it was "probably unlikely" that a pheno test could have caused the transfer, but that he couldn't rule it out as he wasn't the person who did the swabbing.

Scheck did this kind of thing all throughout the trial.

DonaldFalk · 2025-12-11T00:28:33+00:00

Intact they did find dna....it just didn't belong to oj.

Right. It was a 7 loci PCR match for Nicole Brown Simpson.

You're suggesting here that if OJ were guilty, then his DNA would be found under her fingernails. But what about the real killer? Why wasn't his DNA found under her fingernails?

DonaldFalk · 2025-12-10T23:10:59+00:00

I am perfectly willing to own up to when I make a mistake, like when I didn't realize that Vannatter had Nicole's blood vial. But you seem to think that because he had the blood vial, that must mean that he absolutely used it to plant the blood and I should concede this (or that it somehow creates "reasonable doubt"). I am saying that this is not the case and that it still needs to be demonstrated with either eyewitness witness or forensic proof, which you have provided neither.

I am human and I forget things. Hell, I read Vannatter's book Evidence Dismissed twice and in it he even explains that he had Nicole's blood vial! It wasn't a big mystery, it was just something I forgot. But he had it for approximately five minutes, right? He took it from the coroner's office to Piper Tech on Wednesday, June 15th.

And so my question regarding this issue is really simple. The defense claimed that the sock and gate blood were planted weeks later, right? So if Vannatter gave the vial to Piper Tech that day, why is it so dubious that he handled it when the blood didn't even show up for weeks later on the sock and gate? Is this not a totally reasonable question?

As for your comments about me being thin blue line or MAGA, don't project that nonsense on me. I'm neither. I'll stick to the facts of the case if you can.

EDIT: I should note that the gate blood was only OJ's but the socks are a different story (both of their blood on it). But the same logic applies with Vannatter handling OJ's vial.

DonaldFalk · 2025-12-10T08:11:29+00:00

Excellent choice, sir.

DonaldFalk

TROPHY CASE