UCLA law professor Peter Arenella and Loyola...

UCLA law professor Peter Arenella and Loyola University law professor Laurie Levenson offer their take on the Simpson trial. Joining them is Santa Monica defense attorney Gigi Gordon, who will rotate with other experts as the case moves forward. Today’s topic: Missing blood.

PETER ARENELLA

On the prosecution: “Someone needs to tell Hank Goldberg when to stop. If jurors were not persuaded the first three times they heard Matheson’s explanations for why blood under Nicole’s fingernails was her’s and why no significant amount of Simpson’s blood was missing, hearing such accounts for a fourth time would hardly do the trick. But, all things considered, the prosecution should be happy because Matheson’s testimony and character weakened defense efforts to portray members of the LAPD as inept and corrupt.”

On the defense: “Like his counterpart, Robert Blasier did not know when to quit. He already had laid the foundation for the defense’s conspiracy theory in his initial cross of Matheson. Taking him on a second time, to accuse him of unethical behavior was a risky move because Matheson’s straightforward manner belied any suggestion that he would purposely slant his interpretations of test results to favor the prosecution. Blasier’s consolation is the likelihood that none of the jurors were paying attention.”

LAURIE LEVENSON

On the prosecution: “As Goldberg’s blood chart went up, so did Judge Ito’s blood pressure. Goldberg went to great lengths to rebut defense claims that there is blood missing from O.J.’s sample. However, with only estimates on the amount originally drawn and, then, the amounts withdrawn for testing, it’s impossible to know for sure whether any was taken. Later testimony regarding EDTA preservative results should answer that question.”

On the defense: “The conspiracy theory now is in high gear. Blasier’s questions suggested that the defense believes Dennis Fung let detectives sneak into the evidence-processing room, get O.J.’s blood, make new swatches, put O.J.’s blood on other evidence and get out without being detected. Blasier also addressed the defense’s alternative theory that there are floating DNA particles that may have contaminated the blood evidence. The jury will have to decide.”

GIGI GORDON

On the prosecution: “Goldberg ponderously proceeded to refute the theory of the unknown assailant. It took a long time, but the prosecution was not about to let the defense create a reasonable doubt from what the prosecutors claim is but an imaginary speck. Despite Ito’s displeasure, Goldberg managed to give the jury a rational and logical explanation of the method by which some of O.J.’s blood went missing from the vial.”

On the defense: “Blasier unsuccessfully attempted to attack the credibility and integrity of a person who clearly is the most intelligent and articulate prosecution witness so far--and one who was even willing to admit his own fallibility. For those who really wish to believe in the conspiracy theory, he did give them a narrow path to follow, but even they are hanging on by their fingernails.”

Compiled by TIM RUTTEN / Los Angeles Times