Doubts in Simpson's wife murder case

One of the important evidences presented by the prosecution in court is the results of blood test and DNA test. Criminal experts agree that the results of blood test and DNA test will not lie, but if the blood is polluted, mishandled, hastily collected or deliberately planted, its credibility will be greatly reduced. In Simpson's case, all these defects exist.

The test results show that all doubts focus on Simpson. Simpson's blood was found in two places at the murder scene; The hair extracted from the scene is the same as Simpson's hair; The blood gloves found by the police at the scene and Simpson's residence are the same pair, and both gloves have the blood of the victim and the defendant; Simpson and the victim's blood, socks and a white mustang in the bedroom on the second floor were found in the alley in front of Simpson's house. In this way, the prosecution's evidence can be called "blood card", and Simpson's alleged murder seems to be an undeniable fact.

However, the defense camp believes that these "blood syndromes" are full of doubts and defects. First of all, the blood on the socks is strange. National defense experts pointed out that the blood on both sides of this sock is exactly the same. According to common sense, if the socks were worn on the feet at that time, it is absolutely impossible for the blood on the left outer side of the socks to soak into the left inner side first, and then flow to the right inner side through the ankle. Only when the blood permeates directly from the left side of the sock to the right side will the blood on both sides be exactly the same. In other words, the blood was probably smeared. During the trial, the prosecution showed several photos of the scene where the blood socks were found, but the time sequence on the photos was contradictory. There were no blood socks in the scene photos taken at 4: 00 pm on the day of the crime, but there were blood socks in the photos taken at 4: 35 pm. Are there any bloody socks on the carpet? Or was it later moved to the carpet by the police? On this issue, the police's answers are inconsistent and inconsistent. In addition, national defense experts found that the blood on socks contains a high concentration of chelating agent (EDTA). The defense lawyer reminded the jury that the police added this chelating agent to Simpson's blood sample on the day of the crime.

Secondly, according to the field investigation report, the tall and strong Goldman had a bloody battle with the murderer. His personal belongings-a bunch of keys, an envelope, a piece of paper and a pager-are scattered in different places, which shows that the fight is very extensive and intense. Goldman's jeans have the shape of blood flowing downwards, which shows that he did not die in a very short time, but still stood up and fought to the death after being injured. He was stabbed more than 30 times and finally died of jugular vein rupture and massive bleeding in the chest and abdomen. According to this inference, the murderer must be covered in blood. However, why only found blood in the white field immediately? What is even more puzzling is why the murderer left a lot of obvious blood on the driveway of the front gate of the fence and the path from the front gate to the door of his house after getting off the bus. Also, suppose Simpson enters the front door of the house in bloody clothes and shoes and goes to the bedroom on the second floor in bloody socks. Why didn't he find any blood on the doorknob, the light switch and the white carpet of the whole house?

Third, according to the blood test report, Simpson's blood was found in two places at the scene. On a path leading from the victim's body to the backyard of the apartment, the police found five drops of the defendant's blood, the same size and complete appearance. However, the defense believes that if Simpson was stabbed in a fight, according to common sense, he should have a lot of bleeding at first, and the blood volume will gradually decrease after a while, so the blood drops will never be uniform in size. In addition, the blood drops should be thrown during the struggle or walking, and fall to the ground in the state of impact. Therefore, the shape of a blood drop cannot be complete. In another place, the police found three bloodstains on the door of the backyard fence of the apartment. However, the prosecution experts found a high concentration of chelating agent (EDTA) again when they examined these bloodstains.

Finally, defense experts accused the criminal laboratory of LAPD of poor equipment, chaotic management, lack of training of inspectors and failure to collect blood on the spot according to normal procedures. Due to improper handling of evidence samples, the test results are doubtful. For example, according to the normal procedure, when collecting blood samples for DNA analysis, we should first dip the blood samples with cotton, air-dry them naturally and put them into the evidence bag. However, before the blood dried, the police inspector put the sample into the evidence bag. On this basis, defense lawyer Xie Ke said rudely: The criminal laboratory of the police station is simply a "polluted cesspit". The second important evidence presented by the prosecution is the black blood gloves that Forman found at the back of Simpson's house. However, this bloody glove is also full of doubts.

First of all, according to Foreman's testimony, when he found blood gloves, the blood on their surfaces was wet. National defense experts believe that this is absolutely impossible. The murder took place around midnight on1June, 994 12, and foreman found gloves at 6 am on1June, 994/3, which lasted more than 7 hours. The defense demonstrated to the jury with a simulation experiment that the blood on the gloves must have been stained for 7 hours under the weather conditions of sunny to cloudy night and outdoor temperature of 20 degrees Celsius. So, why does foreman insist that it is wet? The explanation provided by the defense is that there is only one possibility, that is, after Foreman came to the scene of the murder, he quietly put the gloves stained with wet blood into the police evidence protection bag he carried with him. Then, he tried every means to find an opportunity to enter Simpson's house to forge evidence when others were unprepared, so that the blood was still wet despite the long time span.

Secondly, suppose Simpson is a murderer. When he fled home from the murder scene covered in blood and hid the murder weapon and bloody clothes without a trace, there was no need to reinvent the wheel and sneak to the back of the guest room alone to hide blood gloves. In addition, Simpson knows his backyard and terrain like the back of his hand. According to common sense, he is unlikely to hit the air conditioner and make an earth-shattering sound, and he will ignore it if he loses his blood gloves. From all aspects, the owner who crashed the air conditioner and lost his gloves is obviously a person who is not familiar with the shape of the land and the road in the house. In addition, if the murderer hurried in the dark and groped for something, why didn't he find other blood and suspicious footprints and traces at the scene of blood gloves?

Third, although the police found a left-handed glove and a right-handed glove at the murder scene and Simpson's residence, and the blood of two victims and Simpson was also found on the gloves, there were no cracks and knife marks on the appearance of these two gloves, and Simpson's blood was not found on the gloves. This shows that Simpson's hand wound is probably not directly related to blood gloves and murder.

Finally, in order to prove Simpson was the murderer, the prosecution decided to let him try on gloves stained with blood in front of the jury. In court, Simpson first put on ultra-thin rubber gloves to prevent contamination, and then tried to put on bloody gloves. However, in full view, Simpson struggled for a long time but found it difficult to put on gloves. The defense immediately pointed out that the gloves were too small to belong to Simpson. The prosecution invited glove experts to testify, claiming that gloves might shrink after being stained with blood. But defense experts believe that this is an advanced leather glove that has been pre-shrunk and will not shrink after being stained with blood. The prosecution and the defense argued endlessly, but in the opinion of some jurors, this blood glove was a little too small. In the Simpson trial, the most suspicious person in the defense camp was the prosecution's "star" witness, officer foreman. On the night of the murder, the police officer was not bad. In that case, why did he go to all the trouble to get to the scene at midnight? Why did you volunteer to lead a team to Simpson's house? What is even more puzzling is why he happened to find important evidence such as the blood on the white wild horse, the blood gloves at the back of the guest room and the blood socks in the bedroom on the second floor. Is he a well-connected super detective or a police scum with a lot of bad records?

In this context, Foreman naturally became the focus of defense lawyers' investigation and cross-examination. To this end, the defense has set up a free hotline, hoping that people from all walks of life can provide clues. As a result, the defense learned that the police officer had made many extremely bad racist remarks. For example, according to an eyewitness named katherine bell, during the period from 1985 to 1986, Foreman threatened that if he found a black man and a white woman in the same car on the street, he would sound the siren and order to stop. If there is no reason to stop, he will make it up. He even boasted: I want to see all the "niggers" gather in a pile, burn them or blow them up with bombs. Another witness reported that Forman worshipped Hitler and he collected a large number of SS medals.

However, Forman himself firmly denied the accusation of burning "niggers". Therefore, the defense camp asked Judge Ito for an order to allow lawyers to cross-examine Foreman and ask him if he used the insulting word "nigger" in the past 10 years. The defense tried to use this as a breakthrough to completely discredit foreman's witness qualification. After Simpson's case, people from all walks of life criticized the defense's litigation strategy of playing the "race card" and sharply criticized it. It is worth mentioning that on the controversial issue of "race card", laymen who are "watching the fun" accuse defense lawyers one after another, while experts who are "watching the doorway" accuse the presiding judge.

Some people may wonder whether foreman said the word "nigger" in the past 10 years and whether Simpson was suspected of murder. According to common sense, even if Foreman lied to the "nigger", it can't directly prove that his testimony in the major case of the century is fabricated and forged; Even if the police officer made some racist remarks, it can't prove that he deliberately framed the defendant. This is Simpson's case of the century. Why did you accidentally become the case of officer foreman? During the trial, why did Judge Ito allow the defense to use this defense strategy of playing the "race card" and "reversing the general direction of struggle" regardless of the opposition of the prosecution?

Believe it or not, in the American judicial system, despite the controversy, the defense's "race card" strategy and Judge Ito's ruling are completely legal. Influenced by the tradition of "character evidence" in English common law, the evidence laws and precedents in the United States and California stipulate that if the character of a witness in court is proved to be defective, part of his testimony in court will have no legal effect. Therefore, in the court trial, the lawyers of both the prosecution and the defense will make a big fuss about the personal character of the witness. In addition, after being sworn in by the court, if a witness deliberately lies in part of his testimony, then the jury can regard other testimonies of this witness as lies.

After the judge gave the green light, defense lawyer Lee Bailey came over and asked Furman, "Have you used the word' nigger' in the past 10 years?" Foreman replied, "As far as I can remember, I have never used it." Leave a little room for lying. But can the lawyer be lenient and immediately grasp the ambiguity in the answer and ask, "Do you mean that if you call a nigger, you forget?" This rhetorical question is simply capped! Foreman had to play dumb: "I'm not sure I can answer your question like this." The lawyer pressed: "In other words, I want you to admit that you may have called a black nigger at some point since 1985 or 1986, or you may have forgotten yourself?" Foreman had to bite the bullet and answer, "No, it's impossible." The lawyer struck while the iron was hot: "Would you like to take the oath?" The police officer had to answer, "That's what I mean." The lawyer asked from another angle, "If a witness testifies in court and says that you use the word' nigger' to describe a black man, is that person lying?" Foreman was forced to admit, "Yes, they are lying." In this way, the defense lawyer used puzzling logic and superb questioning skills to force officer foreman to the point of no return.

There are such coincidences in the world. Shortly after the end of the cross-examination, the defense learned from the tip-off phone that a female playwright had interviewed foreman many times during the period of nearly 10 before the murder, and recorded the interview content of 14 hours. After listening to the recording, the defense lawyer found that in the recorded conversation, whenever black people were mentioned, Officer Foreman used the insulting address "nigger" as many as 4 1 time. In addition, in an interview on July 28th, 1994, Foreman boasted: "I am a key witness of the great case of the century. If I don't help the prosecution hold on, they will lose this big lawsuit. Blood gloves decide everything. If there are no gloves, goodbye and stop playing. " He also claimed: "You just don't fucking understand. Policemen don't need rules in their work. It's all about feeling. Fuck the rules, then we will lie enough. " In the recorded conversation, Foreman also openly boasted about the experience of framing innocent people. He said, "I detained people who don't belong to this area. If I have to give a reason, I will say that this person is suspected of theft. " "Our police are not easy to handle. Even if we kill someone, we know what to say. "

The discovery of foreman's tapes was a turning point in this century's trial.

The prosecution argued that the recording of the conversation is only the material of literary creation, and it is inevitable to brag and exaggerate, and it cannot be used as legal evidence at all. However, Judge Ito ruled that the jury could hear part of the recording.

During the cross-examination in court, ullman, the defense lawyer, was full of expression and heavy artillery. "Is your testimony in the preliminary hearing completely true?" "Did you forge the police investigation report?" "Did you plant and falsify evidence in this case?" Faced with these unavoidable legal questions, Foreman actually replied: "I hope to maintain my Fifth Amendment privilege." In other words, he refused to answer the reasonable questions raised by the defense policy about presenting evidence in court by virtue of the suspect's right to silence stipulated by the Supreme Court in the famous 1966 Miranda case. Cochrane, a defense lawyer, pointed out in his concluding remarks that Foreman was "a racist who supported the policy of genocide, a perjury guy, America's worst nightmare and the incarnation of the devil".

In the American judicial system, the credibility of evidence is one of the key factors to win the lawsuit. As the detection organ of criminal cases, the police have the most evidence at the first time. Therefore, American law clearly stipulates that police must testify in court on legal issues such as searching and examining evidence, which is an important link in court trial and procedural justice. Police are different from ordinary witnesses, and the special status of law enforcers determines the necessity for them to question defense lawyers. Even in ordinary traffic violation fines, the police involved are still obliged to appear in court on time and swear the Bible. There is a proverb in western judicial circles: "The police are public servants of the court". Therefore, Foreman's request to remain silent and refuse to answer the defendant's question is absolutely absurd, which is actually equivalent to admitting in disguise that he is suspected of forging evidence and framing the defendant without being pressured. Legally speaking, Foreman's testimony has lost its legal effect. The prosecution will almost certainly fail.

After Simpson's case ended, the Los Angeles District Attorney ruthlessly filed a lawsuit against Officer Foreman. Results He was sentenced to three years' imprisonment for perjury and executed outside prison. In this way, Simpson, who was suspected of murder, was acquitted, while officer foreman, the law enforcer, became a felony because of his life stain.

There is a famous evidence rule in American law: "There can only be one bug in noodles". This is an image metaphor: when anyone finds a bug in his noodle bowl, he will never look for the second one again, but will only throw out the whole bowl of noodles. Similarly, even if LAPD obtained a lot of evidence to prove Simpson's guilt, as long as one of them (socks) was illegally obtained, all the evidence would not be accepted by the court. Therefore, although Clark, the female prosecutor of the prosecution, made a generous speech in her concluding speech, which touched a large audience, she did not touch the jury. After nearly four hours of discussion, they unanimously ruled that the defendant was not guilty.

When it comes to Simpson's case, both blacks and whites admit that if Simpson is a poor man who can't afford a first-class lawyer, he must go to jail. This is called "money makes the mare go", and it is the same truth at all times and in all countries.

However, on reflection, this statement seems a bit unreasonable. The reason is that, in terms of money, the famous boxing champion Tai Sen is much richer than Simpson, who has retired from sports for many years. However, after Tai Sen was prosecuted for alleged rape in 1997, although he hired a group of famous lawyers to appear in court at astronomical prices, he still could not get rid of the fate of being convicted and spent several years firmly in prison.

So, why did Tai Sen fall into the trap of justice, but Simpson escaped? One explanation is that the jury in Tai Sen case is mostly white, while the jury in Simpson case is mostly black. Black people are particularly close to each other, so they will naturally favor black stars.

However, this statement is not completely convincing. Because of the 12 jurors in the Simpson case, although nine are black, eight of them are women. Some experts who study juries believe that this composition is particularly unfavorable to Simpson. According to the statistics and investigation of American scholars on the sociological topic "What kind of black men do black women hate most", there are two kinds of black men who make black women angry most: one is to marry a white girl as a wife immediately after becoming famous and rich, and the other is to easily punch and kick his daughter-in-law. Simpson happened to take both these bad things away. The major case of this century was tried by Lance Ito, a Japanese-American judge whose parents were imprisoned in a concentration camp in Japan during World War II. This judge is knowledgeable and well-informed, and has always been known for his mastery of the law, rigor and impartiality.

There are black lawyers in both camps, Japanese judges preside over the trial, and most of the jury members are black. Once the defendant is convicted, there is no reason for black people to want to make trouble. During the nine-month trial, there were boring blood test evidence that ordinary people could not understand, and there were unexpected progress. The whole trial process of the case is extremely dramatic.

Ignore the common sense of field investigation

After the deceased was found, Bscher, the director of the West Police Branch, decided to send several policemen to Simpson's home, which was about 4 kilometers away, to inform him that his ex-wife was killed but the children were safe, and to let Simpson start taking two frightened children home. At this time, a white policeman named foreman volunteered to lead the team. In a family dispute on 1985, Nicole was beaten by Simpson and called the police. Foreman visited their domestic violence case and knew the exact address of Simpson's house. So, the police chief Waner, who was in charge of investigating the murder, led Foreman and four other detectives to drive to Simpson's house.

Director Boucher's decision made the police's first major mistake, because all the four white policemen who went there had been to the first murder scene with blood everywhere, and their police boots and uniforms were probably accidentally stained with blood. According to the usual practice, Director Boucher sent several policemen who had never been to the first scene to inform Simpson to prevent the blood on the first scene from cross-contamination with the blood on Simpson's house, and was later declared as the second scene by the police. This is the basic knowledge of crime scene investigation. However, the police completely ignored this common sense in the Simpson case.

The police also made many major mistakes in collecting evidence and protecting the scene, ignoring common sense. After the crime, a large number of criminal police and criminal investigation personnel came to the scene quickly, but the forensic doctor arrived late and arrived at the scene 10 hour after the crime, missing the best opportunity to accurately identify the victim's death time. When the forensic doctor dissected the corpse, he did not X-ray the corpse, nor did he collect the fingerprint of Nicole's right hand, nor did he make any medical appraisal on whether Nicole was sexually assaulted before her death, which greatly reduced the clues to solving the case. In order to "protect" the scene, the police officers conveniently took some white sheets from Nick's apartment and carefully covered the body. However, because Simpson and Nick are still separated after divorce, he spent the night in Nick's apartment a few weeks before the incident and often went to the apartment to visit the children. There will inevitably be his hair or dander on the sheets. In this way, the credibility of the DNA evidence presented by the prosecution in court is greatly reduced.

According to the photos of the crime scene, defense experts found seven drops of blood on Nicole's bare shoulder. Judging from the shape and direction of these blood drops, Nicole couldn't have dropped them herself. According to common sense reasoning, these blood drops were probably dropped when someone walked past Nicole's body with blood after she fell to the ground. Therefore, if these blood drops did not come from another victim, Goldman, they must have been dropped by the murderer. In this way, if these blood drops can be proved to be Simpson's, then his suspicion will be doubled. However, when defense experts asked police inspectors to check these blood drops, they were deeply surprised because the police completely ignored the importance of these blood drops. Nicole's body was washed before the autopsy, and these blood drops disappeared forever.

The police are suspected of illegal search.

1994 June 13 At 5 am, four white policemen came to Simpson's house with a wall. They rang the doorbell at the front door for a long time, but no one answered. At this time, Foreman searched around the fence alone and found a white Ford Mustang SUV parked on the road behind the fence. After careful observation, foreman called Captain Warner to come and have a look, saying that tiny blood was found on the handle of the driver's door. Winnat and two other policemen were stunned when they saw the blood. They were worried that the people in the house were in danger, so they decided to enter the house for an emergency search.

In the Simpson case, judging from Foreman's discovery of blood and his long-term failure to open the door, the trespassing behavior of four policemen can barely be regarded as "reasonable belief". But once the police found that Simpson and his family were not in danger after entering the house, they should stop searching. Simpson's house can only be legally searched if they get in touch with the judge and apply for a search warrant. But inexplicably, in the absence of imminent danger and non-emergency situations, officer Foreman couldn't wait to continue searching Simpson's home alone, which led to the second major mistake of the police in this case.

After deciding to enter the house, Foreman volunteered to jump over the fence and open the front door from the inside. Four policemen went straight to the mansion. But no one answered the door after ringing the bell for a long time, so I went around the back of the house and knocked at the door in three rooms. In the first guest room, a sleepy white man came out to open the door. He claims to be Simpson's good friend, and his name is Lin Kai. Lin Kai said that at about 10: 45 in the evening, he heard a loud noise behind the guest room and the paintings on the wall were shaken. He thought it was a slight earthquake and didn't take it to heart. The foreman became suspicious and immediately went to the guest room alone to search. About 18 minutes later, Forman called out to other police officers and said that a black leather glove with blood on the right hand was found in the air-conditioned aisle hanging behind the house, which matched the other glove found at the murder scene. However, no other blood stains, suspicious footprints and traces were found at the scene of blood gloves. The foreman explained that it was probably in the middle of the night. When the lights were dim, the murderer fled to the back of the house, accidentally bumped into the air conditioner and left his gloves in a panic.

After finding the blood gloves, the police found more clues. They found traces of blood drops in the driveway of the front door of the fence and the path from the front door to the door. In this way, the police thought Simpson was suspected of murder, so they declared Simpson's house as the second crime scene of the murder case and formally applied to the judge for a search warrant. In the later search, foreman found a pair of socks stained with blood on the carpet of the bedroom on the second floor, which became one of the important evidences accusing Simpson of murder.

However, foreman searched Simpson's house without a search warrant, which caused serious problems to the police suspected of violating due process of law. According to American law, in some special cases where people's lives are at stake, the police can contact the judge by telephone or other modern means of communication, and the judge can verbally authorize the police to conduct a search after knowing the situation on the spot. The police can only break into houses and search in an emergency when their lives are threatened or criminal evidence may be destroyed. However, this was not the case when the police entered Simpson's house.

During the preliminary hearing, the defense accused four white policemen of being biased and preconceived. Simpson was identified as the main suspect at the beginning of the incident, and then deliberately made an excuse to enter the house and search illegally. In this way, if the judge decides that the police are unconstitutional, the seized blood and blood gloves will become "suppressed evidence" and cannot be presented at the trial. However, the judge ruled that the search was legal after hearing the police's defense. Nevertheless, in the court debate, in the face of fierce pursuit by defense lawyers, Foreman could not account for his life and death. As a veteran with many years of experience in criminal investigation, why do you still search the house alone when you know there is no warrant in a non-emergency situation? The defense suspects that foreman was eager to break into the house and search, probably to forge evidence and frame the defendant.

The police officer returned to the scene with a blood sample.

1June 994 13 noon 12, when Simpson hurried back to Los Angeles from Chicago, the police had sealed off his house. The police officers in charge of the investigation, Werner and Langer, asked him to come to the police headquarters to clarify some doubts, and Simpson casually agreed. At this time, Simpson's personal lawyer asked to accompany him, but Simpson insisted that he had absolutely nothing to do with the murder and did not need a lawyer.

Before cross-examination, Werner read Simpson Miranda warning, reminding him of his right to remain silent and have a lawyer present during cross-examination. However, Simpson agreed to give up his right to silence and talked with two policemen alone for more than half an hour, hoping to provide some clues for the police to solve the case.

Traditionally, if Simpson is a murderer who left bloodstained gloves and socks on the carpet in the back of the guest room and bedroom, I'm afraid he can't deal with experienced Interpol alone without a lawyer, even if the finger wound punctured during the murder has not healed. On the day of the crime, when he was emotional and greatly stimulated, if he was upset, contradictory, full of lies and full of flaws during the cross-examination, his confession would become an important evidence for the prosecutor to accuse him of committing a crime. In American society, the "Miranda advice" that criminal suspects have the right to silence is a household name. If he has ulterior motives, he can refuse to be questioned according to law, or at least ask a lawyer to sit in town during the interrogation. However, Simpson did not do so.

During the trial, Wanart told Simpson that the police found some suspicious blood in his house. Simpson immediately offered his blood sample to clarify the facts. So the police nurse took a blood sample from Simpson. Traditionally, in order to prevent blood samples from coagulation and deterioration, the police added chelating agent (EDTA) to Simpson's blood samples. At this time, Wanat noticed that Simpson's left hand was bandaged and showed signs of swelling. Simpson explained that his finger was broken somehow, and his explanation about the specific time of the fracture was vague and inconsistent. With Simpson's consent, Wanart instructed the photographer to photograph the wound. It is worth mentioning that Simpson is only a suspect at this time. Although the judge has issued a search warrant, he has not formally issued an arrest warrant. If Simpson has a ghost in his heart, he can completely refuse to cooperate with the police, refuse to take blood samples and refuse to take pictures of the wound.

What is even more incredible is that after receiving Simpson's blood sample, special inspector Warner did not immediately send it to the criminal laboratory of the police station one step away, but returned to the murder scene 32 kilometers away with the blood sample. Perhaps no one will believe that there are such ridiculous policemen in the world. On the same day, Wanat walked for three hours at the bloody murder scene, and then dawdled and handed over the blood sample to Dennis Fung, a criminal investigator who was sampling and exploring the scene. During the trial, in the face of the defense lawyer's question, Wanat explained that according to the work regulations, all evidence must be registered and numbered before it can be sent to the criminal laboratory for filing, and Dennis Feng is the police officer in charge of registration and numbering, so he returned to the crime scene with blood samples. However, the defense seized this important doubt and exaggerated it. Defense lawyer Cochrane refuted that Vanatt and Forman were a pair of big liars, which greatly deepened the jury's suspicion that the police were suspected of violating the law and discipline and planting. Wanat returned to the first crime scene with a blood sample, which was the third major mistake of the police in this case. During the trial, the police nurse testified that he took about 7.9 to 8. 1 ml of blood samples from Simpson that day. However, the defense experts found only 6.5 ml of blood samples in the police laboratory. That is to say, in Simpson's blood sample, about 1.4 to 1.6 ml is missing. The defense suspects that Wanart may have returned to the first crime scene with blood samples to falsify evidence.