Quote:
Originally Posted by hemstock
Wasn't too familiar with the case but after watching several documentaries it appears that EDTA was found in some instances of the blood which would mean that somebody planted it there. Wouldn't that be enough of a reasonable doubt to not find him guilty? In Making a Murderer they make a big issue out of this that if the results come back positive for the EDTA in the blood that would mean the cops were definitely trying to frame him and the whole case for the prosecution would collapse. In OJs case if it's positive and then one piece of evidence is tainted then how could you be 100% sure for a guilty verdict?
at least at that time, edta tests could not differentiate between whether the edta came from the blood sample or from paint (such as from the gate).
That sample had been on the gate for 30 days before it was collected.
The real problem with the "planting" argument is that the blood in question was noted by a number of police at the scene on the night of the murders - Fuhrman in particular noted it in his book right after he did his initial walk through.