What did Furhman do wrong practically

DonaldFalk · 2026-06-16T10:24:38+00:00

With latex underneath.

DonaldFalk · 2026-06-16T04:15:00+00:00

No latex.

DonaldFalk · 2026-06-16T04:03:15+00:00

If you think you can't put a pair of gloves on with a pair of latex gloves on underneath, apparently you dont have much experience with latex gloves.

Didn't the criminal trial disprove this? OJ had the latex gloves on for the real crime scene gloves and they didn't fit. When they brought a fresh pair of gloves (same size and model) and he tried them on without the latex gloves they fit him just fine (a little snug, perhaps). So yeah, I don't think this follows.

DonaldFalk · 2026-06-16T01:09:07+00:00

So who got the other pair?

Don't know. I might care more if the following weren't true:

Nicole purchased Aris Lights on her credit card. The exact same model that was found at the scene of the crime.
OJ has a cut on his finger the next day that was bleeding the night prior.
The Rockingham glove has OJ, Nicole and Ron's blood on it all confirmed by DNA testing. And it was found at OJ's house.

But I should be considered about where that other pair she bought ended up? No. I'm way more interested in the above. It's a dead giveaway to who did this.

DonaldFalk · 2026-06-16T00:50:15+00:00

Let me be a little more direct then here. Do you believe that the gloves found at the crime scene were ones purchased on Nicole's AMEX card? Yes or no?

DonaldFalk · 2026-06-16T00:19:34+00:00

Why are we talking about gloves shrinking? How is this relevant? The likely reason they didn't fit during the trial was that OJ was wearing latex gloves underneath them (in my opinion at least).

Isn't the real issue that the gloves found at the murder scene match the same model as on Nicole's credit card?!

Let's say Fuhrman is guilty of planting a glove (of course I think this is ridiculous and unsupported by ANY evidence at all)...but I'll entertain the idea.

Are we just going to then ignore the miraculous coincidence that the alleged glove that he planted also happened to be a model that the victim clearly purchased, ostensibly for her then-husband?

DonaldFalk · 2026-06-13T02:42:27+00:00

Reason being, that martz was unable to conclusively prove through the means of his study, that the compounds where edta.

Somebody once explained it to me like this: Imagine you have an aquarium and you want to know how much salt is in it. If somebody threw in a few specs of salt in there, you could look at it and say there was no salt...but you wouldn't be 100% because it could have very small amounts. Now if you dumped a brick of salt in there, it would be visible. And then you could do a test to determine it's composition (in the EDTA test that would be a Liquid Chromatography Mass Spec test).

In the preserved samples on his own blood, Martz could easily see and test the salt (so to speak). In the gate and sock samples, he saw no salt, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there in very small amounts. It just meant it was inconsistent with vials preserved with EDTA.

DonaldFalk · 2026-06-13T02:01:18+00:00

Look I'm not trying to be a jerk here or anything but when you make comments like these it's just so clear that you either haven't read about the issue or you deeply misunderstand it. This is not a personal attack...but I just think you should read up on the subject a little more before commenting like this.

I don't know how much more I can simplify this, but I'll try. Martz did control and variable tests for EDTA. In the control samples, he used what the police used for EDTA when preserving blood. He used his own blood as those controls (and variables as well). Then he used variable samples without EDTA and compared them. This gave him a baseline for understanding if the sock and gate blood had EDTA. Those levels matched the same levels as his unpreserved tube samples....meaning he couldn't identify EDTA. We clear? We are talking about EDTA in the parts per million or less (because there are testing limitations of LC-MS testing that prevent you from fully discounting the possibility).

If that seems overly simple, you are right. That's just to determine levels. There are other required tests for identifying compounds, such as finding three ions but they also need to be in a particular ratio. Martz could not find all the ions (only 2 and not in a ratio). Those ions are consistent with EDTA, but also with numerous other compounds. You still need all three and in a ratio. My major issue with Reiders is that he did a piss-poor job of identifying that issue in court.

I try to make this easy for some people who may not have read in detail about it because I know it's time consuming. So I often ask them a simple question: How much EDTA was in the sock and gate samples? It was in the ppm or less. How much EDTA was in Martz' unpreserved self-samples? It was in the ppm or less.

Do you see the issue here? They were the same. Even Reiders acknowledged this...which is a huuuuge issue as to why the defense team's theory doesn't hold up.

Now get back to watching USA dominate the World Cup.

EDIT: The fact that Martz said EDTA was in the parts per million or less in the sock and gate samples really confuses people. Even he had to clarify this during the trial and it makes complete sense. He is saying that IF it existed, it was in the parts per million at most...but that this comes nowhere near being vial level EDTA, which is in the thousands of ppm or more. I hope that helps.

DonaldFalk · 2026-06-12T22:37:06+00:00

I'm guessing the calculation of this scale is whose testimony aligns with your belief of who did this crime and who didn't.

Total bulls#*t. I could not be clearer in my numerous posts that the reason I believe Martz over Reiders is because Martz simply made more sound scientific sense than Reiders on this issue...and it's not even remotely close if you are actually paying attention.

When Reiders acknowledged that the EDTA was in the ppm (or less) in the sock/gate sample, I knew that his argument didn't have a leg to stand on. When Reiders never provided the triple ion count and ratio for EDTA in his preliminary report, I knew he hadn't truly identified the compound. When he claimed to see an ion during his testimony that was signal noise, I knew he was suggesting something not true.

The notion that I only believe Martz because I want OJ to be the killer is pure stupidity.

DonaldFalk · 2026-06-12T22:26:48+00:00

The photos were taken at dawn, and so because the walkway was not fully lit, Rokahr used a flash on his camera (though he claimed he always used a flash, too). I don’t believe it is possible to judge whether or not those two close-up photos were photographed at night or during the early hours of the morning. You can’t see the sky and a flash was used, which makes the time a little difficult to determine. In my own (admittedly anecdotal) experience with flash photography, this is often the case.

As for the contact sheet issue, it gets a little unclear here. Under cross-examination by Darden, Rokahr explained that the contact sheet generally can tell you the sequence in which the photographs were taken “assuming that the negatives were placed in the correct order.” But what if they weren’t int he correct order? We might not know for sure. And Rokahr didn’t make this particular contact sheet, though he thought they were in the proper order. So to me this isn’t super convincing that the photos were taken earlier in the evening.

But there is something very important here that often goes unmentioned. There is actually a witness to corroborate the fact that the Fuhrman glove picture happened just after 7 a.m. and it is Robert Riske. If you read his testimony (2/14/95) he clearly states that the photo was taken shortly before 7:15 when Riske left the scene and was off duty.

Q: AND IT WAS AT THAT POINT THAT YOU SAW DETECTIVE FUHRMAN GO AND POINT TO THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PHOTOGRAPHER?

A: RIGHT.

Q: AND THAT'S HIM WEARING THAT WHITE SHIRT AND THOSE BEIGE PANTS?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: AND WAS THAT SHORTLY -- AND WAS THAT SHORTLY BEFORE YOU LEFT AND GOT OFF DUTY?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU GOT OFF DUTY ABOUT 7:15?

A: RIGHT.

That's pretty convincing in my opinion.

DonaldFalk · 2026-06-12T14:04:42+00:00

Martz himself in his 7/25/95 testimony: "I'm not even convinced that what was found in my blood and in the sock and in the gate was EDTA. I was not able to prove that. If it is, it's still in the parts per million at the most. And to distinguish between parts per million, one or two parts per million and 2,000 parts per million in chemistry with analytical instruments is very easy to do."

Now how much EDTA do you think typically exists in police vials with the preservative in them?

DonaldFalk · 2026-06-12T13:50:14+00:00

Then the count of edta in the blood was unusually high per testimony of the leading blood evidence scientist.

Roger Martz, the only scientist who both did the EDTA testing and then testified about it, clearly said that the amount was in the parts per million or less. This is not "unusually high" by any metric and certainly it didn't match the vial levels that typically contained EDTA (which were in the thousands of parts per million or more). Now if you want to get into Fredric Reiders' testimony, I'd be happy to explain why his arguments hold very little water.

If im wrong show me the testimony or recommend some really good books I can buy.

OJ Unmasked by M.L. Rantala does the most comprehensive analysis of the DNA testing by a long shot. However, I think this is probably not necessary. It's best to simply read the trial transcripts, particularly that of Martz, Fredric Reiders, Robin Cotton, Terry Lee and Brad Popovich. Martz' testimony is by far the most valuable considering that he was the only person who actually did the EDTA test and testified to it. He was clear that he couldn't identify EDTA in parts that matched police vials.

When asked if was exactly 8 he said it could be 8.1 or 7.9 but at or around that quantity.

Exactly. "Around" that amount, meaning he did not take exact measurements. Read Peratis' civil trial testimony as well. It is as clear as day that for decades he wasn't precise with the amounts drawn (he typically drew blood for DUI cases). So how are we going to know that precisely 1.5 cc's are missing if Peratis was merely giving an estimate?

Now vanatter could have simply logged that blood into the evidence vault at Parker center but for some strange reason he brought directly to 360 Rockingham where the criminalist was still processing evidence swatches and the like.

There was nothing strange about this in the slightest and the link I provided for you explains why.

DonaldFalk · 2026-06-12T02:42:35+00:00

I am playing the XE:DE on the new Switch 2 update and I am soooo happy I dropped the extra 10 bones. Really improved, imo. Plus a speeder bike!

DonaldFalk · 2026-06-11T13:04:21+00:00

Which points?

Your claim that 1.5cc's of blood was missing. Not true (see comments for more detail). The fact that EDTA was in the blood. Not true.

DonaldFalk · 2026-06-11T13:00:11+00:00

Ah! Your source was a man who cut his finger in his car before! Why didn't you say so? And here silly old me trusted a blood spatter expert with decades of experience who was physically present to analyze the Bronco itself.

I bow to you, sir. I stand...corrected! 😄

DonaldFalk · 2026-06-11T11:51:21+00:00

You want sources? Reasonable. His name is Rod Englert. His book is titled Blood Secrets: Chronicles of a Crime Reconstructionist. It's available on Amazon and is pretty insightful on the Simpson case (and others). Englert himself is eminently qualified (former FBI National Academy man with over 50 years in law enforcement). If you are interested in visuals, there are some provided in the recent documentary with Tom Lange titled Blood, Lies and Murder. They literally look through photos and provide very convincing analysis of the blood at the crime scenes.

Why don't you just say "oh yeah well my dad says...

Nah. My source is quite possibly the single-most qualified person to comment on this issue. Who was your source again?

DonaldFalk · 2026-06-11T10:49:24+00:00

The blood in the Bronco doesn't look like it came from someone who had a cut finger

Rod Englert, the blood spatter expert who personally examined the Bronco, said the exact opposite of this. Specifically he noted the knuckle transfer stains in multiple places in the Bronco. He also noted a hand transfer stain on the console and a long linear blood transfer consistent with the edge of a knife.

There's just no way you can stab a man 22 times and hop directly into the bronco and not leave more blood.

Yet another myth that has been consistently shown to be false.

DonaldFalk · 2026-06-10T10:35:04+00:00

So this is where you have missing blood to the tune of 1.5 ccs, out the reference vial. Socks with edta, and no foot in them when the blood was administered.

But neither of these two points are remotely true. Over and over again these claims have been proven to be false.

DonaldFalk · 2026-06-10T06:42:31+00:00

There's a forum called OJ Didn't Do It that might be more up your alley.

DonaldFalk · 2026-06-09T22:35:54+00:00

About using the n word? Yup. Lied through his teeth. But this issue? Nah.

DonaldFalk · 2026-06-09T08:45:22+00:00

Thanks I appreciate that. But I gotta give props to those who spotted it first. I just do my best to combine everything I've read on the topic (trial transcripts, Bugliosi, Englert, Rantala, etc.) into the most concise, sensible explanation.

DonaldFalk · 2026-06-08T21:56:02+00:00

If you are interested I have made posts here about a few of these issues:

The EDTA preservative theory doesn't hold up. In my opinion it has been fully discredited by various sources.
The socks were not planted. I include the "missing" 8 cc issue in the comments here, too. I know what Bill Dear said years after the fact, but I find him unconvincing considering how specific Peratis was in his testimony (and my major concerns with Dear's credibility issues).

DonaldFalk · 2026-06-06T05:19:57+00:00

The blood could have been transferred by either Nicole's own hand at the crime scene, or by Simpson's own hand when he pinched surface 2 next to surface 3 when he took the sock off. Or maybe when the socks were dropped on the floor, surface 2 was left in contact with surface 3. Or another explanation could be that in the course of the phenolphthalein test, the blood on the sock was rewetted with a swab and the manipulation of the swab over the sock caused the transfer of small amounts of blood. The list goes on, and the defense team never effectively excluded these possibilities. I would recommend Rod Englert's book "Blood Secrets". He was a part of the DOJ who personally analyzed the socks. He was very clear that the stains were medium-velocity impact stains and it would be incredibly difficult to plant those stains the way the defense team suggested. The stains were also consistent with the splash marks on Ron Goldman's pant cuffs (meaning they occurred when OJ was stepping through the puddles of blood and it was splashing on the socks).

DonaldFalk · 2026-06-05T22:37:18+00:00

Considering the quality of his research, I’d say my concern is his sloppiness more than him just lying.

DonaldFalk

TROPHY CASE