Dr. Cotton explained that when blood is drawn for testing by labs, it is preserved with the chemical EDTA, which stops the DNA in the blood from degrading. (Degradation is simply the breaking down of a chemical into its component parts over time.) But when she compared the degradation levels of Nicole's autopsy vial, Dr. Cotton found the autopsy vial contained the more degraded blood. The blood on the sock was fresher and richer in DNA content than the blood in the vial. Once blood has degraded, it is impossible to raise its DNA count; you can't pony it back up. Under the conspiracy theory, the blood used to plant on the sock came from Nicole's autopsy vial, but that blood had a lower DNA count than the blood on the sock. Nicole's blood was fresher when it spurted out and splashed onto Simpson's sock as he was killing her than two days later when the coroner collected it. This completely destroyed the notion of any planting; its impossible for degraded blood to become fresh again. Nicole's blood on the sock could not have been planted. Bob This is such a crock of shit it is not funny. There are many explainations that negate what she is saying. Robin Cotton cannot say anything other than the prosecution line as her income would be threatened  ! How many vials of blood were drawn. When ? In a nutshell who knows what the fuck they did and why ! The prosecution were so scared shitless they did not even have the guts to call the person who performed the autopsies ! They had to get one of their lackeys to put the best spin on it !    Mike Ya got that right, Mike!  Give 'em hell!  

You don't think this discussion has anything to to do with the Simpson case?   The central issue in the case has nothing to do with the case?  No wonder you think everything is meaningless!  <rofl Do you know what it means when you have to prove something to a jury 'beyond a reasonable doubt'? oz, Evidently we are discussing different things. The criminal trial jury did not make their decision _base_d on reasonable doubt. They used excuses to send a message to the LAPD and the white community, as per Cochran's pleas. Jury nullification. There was no reasonable doubt, only unsupported speculations. No, that wasn't the response I was looking for. You obviously don't understand 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. For if you HAD correctly guessed the answer to my point instead of evading it you  might by now see *why* your gratuitous and unfounded slander of the jury is not merely factualy wrong, but fundamentally wrong.  Patricia has already shown you what else such comments  are. Stop. Learn. Think. [Or pay the price of ignorance]. So, here's another hint for you (and for the other folks who ARE paying attention.) It is error and reversible per se to fail to give the jury the   beyond a reasonable doubt (BRD) instruction. It is tolerated error, slightly misleading but mainly just un_object_ionable surplusage helpful to both sides, to add to it a guiding   reasonable doubt instruction   So sez I. For the defense, the reasonable doubt (RD) instruction further commands the jury to be faithful to the BRD instruction and gives a circumstance in which the law commands they MUST render a verdict of acquittal.   For the prosecution the RD instruction further instructs the jury to be  faithful to the BRD instruction and to examine and reflect on such doubts as they may have in light of reason and the evidence. Those who do not understand this, I say they do not yet understand 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. So... What does it  mean to have to prove something to a jury 'beyond a reasonable doubt'?