As noted before - all the benefits of testing NOW belong to plaintiff because there has been so much opportunity for the EDTA to degrade away due to light + moisture.

As of the civil case - as of the date of Rieders/Terry Lee's testimony, there was STILL blood available for testing and it appears plaintiff DID rather hypocritically challenge the defense to test it.

But both prosecution and plaintiff LOST OUT BIG on EDTA - the prosecution because of the verbiage they expended suggesting human blood naturally contains the levels of EDTA found by Martz in the Gate/Sock samples - and although Rieders couldn't COMPLETELy refute them = he did suggest that was HIGHLY UNLIKELY.

But after the criminal trial, average people WERE studied and it was established that unpreserved human blood contains virtually No EDTA.

So the plaintiff argued GHOSTING - they simply conceded what Clark had fought tooth and nail over - that it WAS EDTA that was found in the gate and sock blood. They claimed ghosting - and CAREFULLY ensured that they didn't call Martz - after announcing TWICE that they WERE going to call him.

This is SO HYPOCRITICAl because Martz EXPLICITLY testified that he would run blank solvents between sample runs and verified that he got no signals with the blank.

Therefore, it may be concluded that

[1} The abandonment of "EDTA in unpreserved human blood" theory

{2} Trotting out of a ridiculous "Ghosting" theory [ghosts that ONLY showed up on BLOOD samples and NOT control samples ]

[3] Refusal to call Martz in the civil trial

IMPLY that the EDTA question is NOW SETTLED IN THE EYES OF HISTORY - Dr. Rieders was RIGHT. There WAS EDTA in the gate and sock-blood - There was NOT EDTA in the portions of the sock that had NO blood and parts of the gate with NO blood. [there were TWO anomalous results on the gate - but a MAJORITY of runs tested out as Dr. Rieders testified]

Whether that PROVES planting is something else - IT DEFINITELY STRONGLY SUGGESTS planting.

not a SINGLE purely pro-j book (Bosco, "Killing Time", "Journey to justice" - made it to a paperback edition - but looks like ALL no-j books made it.

Among SEMI-pro-j books Dersh's "Reasonable Doubt" made it - and looks like "American Tragedy" made it too.

Looks like the LOCKSMITH could be a GREAT APPEAL WITNESS - OJ's people could ask him BOTH about the fingerprint and the back-gate blood.

In terms of WHO found what evidence - It seems to that between "Evidence DIsmissed" and 'Murder at Brentwood" and civil testimony of Vannatter and Lange -

It appears from the books by the principals on the prosecutions side, POLICE PERJURY may PROVEN. This should be POWERFUL in the appeal .

Regarding PHOTOGRAPHS, a NYTimes article, June 17, 1997, titled, Making the camera lie, digitally and often". The article quotes Richard Avedon, the famous photographer as saying, "There is no such thing as photographic reality," "you can't believe a photograph." Mr. Avedon has been manipulating his images, not on a computer but by hand, since about 1953.

..."Even photography presumed to be true isn't always...And, in a feat that has become legendary in the industry, Nucleus Imaging, a leading digital retouching company in New York, took Karl Lagerfield's photos of Princess Caroline of Monaco and made a cover for Harper's Bazaar by grafting skin from one frame, hair from another, the face from yet another, and the body from another."

PRETTY INTERESTING STUFF, HUH? Suppose Scull will eventually become a legend in fake-photograph circles? (Or maybe his agent?) Anything is possible in this case.