2011.01.25 Defense Requests More Time to Submit Expert Reports

New Posts

logicalgirl said:
OMG Nums24 - this is so exciting! Will you be taking pictures? Twenty bucks says you won't walk up to Baez and ask him if he will pose with you for a picture for your friend to take!! LOL - how funny would that be?Ohhh, I can't wait to see if you actually go. Darn why do I live on the west coast of Canada!!!
Click to expand...

LOL..I would bet $20.00 that IF Nums asked for a photo with JB he'd demand some sort of FEE..Hee Hee..I wouldnt put it past him :floorlaugh:

BTW howdy fellow Canuk :seeya:
 
angeldust said:
God Im totally confused regarding that email is JB saying he cant respond until the state responds to something HE hasnt even filed .........my head is spinning
Click to expand...

GE
the defense filed the Frye motions back at the end of last year. Ashton has already responded to 3 of them.
Motion to Exclude Unreliable Evidence (12/30/2010) (Root Growth) (FRYE)
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/6872657...e-Unreliable-Evidence-of-Plant-or-Root-Growth
State of Florida’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Unreliable Evidence (Plant or Root Growth) (02/15/2011)
http://www.wesh.com/pdf/26878633/detail.html
Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant's Motion to Exclude Irrelevant Evidence of Stain in Trunk of Car (12/30/2010) (FRYE)
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26331516/detail.html
Response to Motion to Exclude Evidence of the Stain in the Car Trunk (02/11/2011)
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/71674378/20110210-State-Response-to-Motion-to-Exclude-Trunk-Stain
Motion to Exclude Unreliable Evidence Pursuant to FRYE, Or in the Alternative, Motion in Limine to Exclude (Chloroform) (12/30/2010)
http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/Hi...ads/Motion to Exclude - Chloroform (Frye).pdf
State of Florida’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Unreliable Evidence Pursuant to Frye (Chloroform) (02/15/2011)
http://www.wesh.com/pdf/26878556/detail.html
I guess because the response motion to these three were before the deadline the defense still could not respond to the Frye issues. mo Ashton should be filing the response to the last Frye motion soon since Dr. Furton's deposition was this past Saturday. mo
The motion that is left to respond to is:
Motion to Exclude Unreliable Evidence (12/29/2010) decompositional odor analysis of Anthony's car (FRYE)
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/68137874/20101229-Defense-Motion-to-Exclude-Unreliable-Evidence
Unbelievable that the defense in this case is just delaying the case in their own world, because CJPerry has stated since August of 2010 that he was not going to delay. mo

eta: dang getting old sorry forgot one that Ashton hasn't responded to yet:
Motion to Exclude Unreliable Evidence (12/30/2010) (Post Mortem Banding) (FRYE)
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26331397/detail.html
But imo the defense has no expert about this one. Maybe the defense could use Dr. Logan or maybe even Dr. Eikelenboom, but since neither of them examined the hair or tested the hair I just don't have a clue. mo
 
LyndyLoo said:
LOL..I would bet $20.00 that IF Nums asked for a photo with JB he'd demand some sort of FEE..Hee Hee..I wouldnt put it past him :floorlaugh:

BTW howdy fellow Canuk :seeya:
Click to expand...

Howdy back! At least the exchange rate won't break the bank if I actually need to send her a twenty in American funds - at least for a day or two anyhow! C'mon Nums24, looks like you could clean up here just for one lousy photograph....Lousy being the primary focus here.
 
logicalgirl said:
Just isn't he an expert at Junk Science already? LOL! I would love it if you got a picture of him peeking out from behind a fig tree in the lobby. Him not you! What fun!
Click to expand...

Nums ~
Get yourself one of those little spy cameras to get candid pictures of him.

Then, when he comes into court next time, claiming that his unique chance didn't pan out afterall, you can sell those pics of him to the National Enquirer and clean up ~!!!
And, when he claims he didn't talk to this or that one, SNAAAAAP - get him on candid camera ~!!!
 
Ok, so here's JB's e-mail with my comments in red

Jill:
Can you please ask the Judge the following (Even though he uses the word "ask", note that there's actually no question in the rest of the e-mail.):
We are a bit confused. (Not any big surprise here.)Mr. Ashton just asked me about my objections to Frye. (Frye is not something you object to. ) When I read order from the status hearing. (This is not a complete sentence. Why is there a period?) I understood it to mean that if we were objecting to anything not in our motion that it should be in writing, (This, on the other hand, would have been a perfectly good sentence grammatically if he had put a period here instead of a comma. Contentwise, this is ridiculous, though. In no way can "included but not limited to those objections previously addressed in the motions" be interpreted as: "If you have any other Frye objections make sure you put them in writing.") that was also my understanding as to what was discussed at the status hearing. (Unfortunately for JB, that was not anyone else's understanding, except possibly that of his hearing impaired co-counsel.)I have also discussed the matter with Mr. Mason and he is just as confused if not more. (I.e.: "I am always on the lookout for any opportunity to throw someone under the bus." Our objections are clearly laid out in our motions. (I'm not sure I would use the word "clearly" with regard to any JB motion except in conjunction with the words: "ridiculous", "inept" or "scandalously wrought with errors and misstatements.") If I had any other objections I would raise them after reading the State’s response but they have not filed one yet. (The State has filed numerous responses. It is unsurprising that JB either hasn't read or doesn't remember them.)If the Court is requesting that we do something additional we would like to be heard in chambers to clear up the matter. (I.e.: "Please stop embarassing me in front of thousands of people.") Otherwise I think the logical choice would be to wait until the State files their response, so that we can be even more specific as to the issues to be heard. So, JB thinks he's better at logic than the judge?
Jose Baez

Please, please, please, Judge Perry, hear this motion in open court at a time that is convient for me to watch.
 
shellsbells said:
.. and JB moves ever closer to the end of the hallway at Universal.
Click to expand...

I think I heard this joke before....Is this the one where the lawyer turns around at the end of the hallway and says, "I'm really not a lawyer, I just play one in this case." snickers...That just cracks me up!! Sorry!! I couldn't resist. :floorlaugh:
 
nums24 said:
Yes it is terrible here, we had 3 hour flight delays due to wind/fog, more snow on the way.

JB is not checked into any downtown hotel under his real name, firm name, nor is he at the AAFS Host Hotel yet. I've been trying :banghead:, even media needed to pre-register.
Click to expand...

Did you happen to check under his assistant's name, Michelle Medina? :biggrin:

If Michelle is with him I'm sure it's all above board because he's married. *cough* ... No doubt he did have to bring someone along to tackle & sit on his experts while he begs them to write favorable reports for his client (even though they'd be too late to admit into evidence, lol). moo
 
Just a follow-up... Kathy Reichs's Twitter has been sanitized of any mentions of JB. I just visited today and she recently left New Zealand (thank God she missed the earth quake) and is off to Texas.

I wonder if she got her report in to JB and CM.
 
Was the deadline for the Rodriguez report yesterday, Feb. 21? Wonder if that deadline was met.
 
Horace Finklestein said:
He may call Nums as a witness if he sees her
Click to expand...

Yeah, Nums, DO NOT LET HIM SEE YOU! LOL. You have to do this totally undercover! And don't hide behind the same potted plant he does. That will totally give you away! :floorlaugh:
 
P1569 said:
eta: dang getting old sorry forgot one that Ashton hasn't responded to yet:
Motion to Exclude Unreliable Evidence (12/30/2010) (Post Mortem Banding) (FRYE)
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26331397/detail.html
But imo the defense has no expert about this one. Maybe the defense could use Dr. Logan or maybe even Dr. Eikelenboom, but since neither of them examined the hair or tested the hair I just don't have a clue. mo
Click to expand...

respectfully snipped

Bold mine

Thanks for the great summary

IIRC the hair was sent to Dr Nick Petraco a hair and fibre specialist from NewYork.

But then he was wooshed from the witness list.:waitasec:
 
nums24 said:
Yes it is terrible here, we had 3 hour flight delays due to wind/fog, more snow on the way.

JB is not checked into any downtown hotel under his real name, firm name, nor is he at the AAFS Host Hotel yet. I've been trying :banghead:, even media needed to pre-register.
Click to expand...
You actually called?! That's so funny :floorlaugh: He's probably using his alias, Atticus Finch. Or maybe he's crashing on Andrea's couch.
 
Shear22 said:
Ok, so here's JB's e-mail with my comments in red

Jill:
Can you please ask the Judge the following (Even though he uses the word "ask", note that there's actually no question in the rest of the e-mail.):
We are a bit confused. (Not any big surprise here.)Mr. Ashton just asked me about my objections to Frye. (Frye is not something you object to. ) When I read order from the status hearing. (This is not a complete sentence. Why is there a period?) I understood it to mean that if we were objecting to anything not in our motion that it should be in writing, (This, on the other hand, would have been a perfectly good sentence grammatically if he had put a period here instead of a comma. Contentwise, this is ridiculous, though. In no way can "included but not limited to those objections previously addressed in the motions" be interpreted as: "If you have any other Frye objections make sure you put them in writing.") that was also my understanding as to what was discussed at the status hearing. (Unfortunately for JB, that was not anyone else's understanding, except possibly that of his hearing impaired co-counsel.)I have also discussed the matter with Mr. Mason and he is just as confused if not more. (I.e.: "I am always on the lookout for any opportunity to throw someone under the bus." Our objections are clearly laid out in our motions. (I'm not sure I would use the word "clearly" with regard to any JB motion except in conjunction with the words: "ridiculous", "inept" or "scandalously wrought with errors and misstatements.") If I had any other objections I would raise them after reading the State’s response but they have not filed one yet. (The State has filed numerous responses. It is unsurprising that JB either hasn't read or doesn't remember them.)If the Court is requesting that we do something additional we would like to be heard in chambers to clear up the matter. (I.e.: "Please stop embarassing me in front of thousands of people.") Otherwise I think the logical choice would be to wait until the State files their response, so that we can be even more specific as to the issues to be heard. So, JB thinks he's better at logic than the judge?
Jose Baez

Please, please, please, Judge Perry, hear this motion in open court at a time that is convient for me to watch.
Click to expand...


This was so good....TY, TY, TY!!!:bowdown:

I absolutely love the sentence :laugh: ..."I have also discussed this matter with Mr. Mason and he is just as confused, if not more." :giggle:

I wish I could be a fly on the wall when Mr. Mason reads what JB wrote about him......wonder if he'll do this when he next sees JB :slap:

At least JB's notes and motions aren't complete wastes....they provide us with some much needed comic relief. ha ha ha

:cow:
 
CarolinaMoon said:
My darling husband is asking me why I've been sitting and staring at the "Quick Reply" space for so long! Oh, and my mouth has been agape the entire time.

I watched the hearing when HHJP stated this, I read #5 in his order and understood it perfectly.

For a while now, HHJP and JA have been "educating" Mr. Baez about the difference between scientific opinion and a Frye matter. It it were up to Baez, EVERYTHING would have been a Frye issue.

It is no wonder that HHJP wanted it in writing to be sure Baez understood the difference!

Instead, Baez pleads stupidity? Give me a break!
Click to expand...

I read the Order 3 times to see what could have possibly been confusing, because Judge Perry's Orders are always extremely succinct and clear.

Shear22 said:
What part of "including but not limited to" is so confusing??? :banghead:
Click to expand...

And this is finally what I surmised. :banghead:

I fully expect Judge Perry will ask Baez this question verbatim. I guarantee he is not going to be happy that JB accused him personally of issuing an order that was unclear, when it was perfectly clear. He just keeps endearing himself to HHJP with every motion he files, email he sends and deadline he misses. He is burying himself with this judge.

The phrase "including but not limited to" is used all.the.time in legal documents. It is included in almost every interrogatory question and request for production. So common, that when I begin typing "including" it comes up as a shortcut and I just hit enter to complete the sentence. Baez knows EXACTLY what he meant, as did CM. IF he even read the Order.
 
'Beach said:
I read the Order 3 times to see what could have possibly been confusing, because Judge Perry's Orders are always extremely succinct and clear.



And this is finally what I surmised. :banghead:

I fully expect Judge Perry will ask Baez this question verbatim. I guarantee he is not going to be happy that JB accused him personally of issuing an order that was unclear, when it was perfectly clear. He just keeps endearing himself to HHJP with every motion he files, email he sends and deadline he misses. He is burying himself with this judge.

The phrase "including but not limited to" is used all.the.time in legal documents. It is included in almost every interrogatory question and request for production. So common, that when I begin typing "including" it comes up as a shortcut and I just hit enter to complete the sentence. Baez knows EXACTLY what he meant, as did CM. IF he even read the Order.
Click to expand...

And to add, clearly if you are "confused" by something waiting until after the deadline to express said confusion is "quite frankly" moronic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 183 more.
Total: 4,451 (members: 184, guests: 4,267)

Online statistics

Members online
184
Guests online
4,267
Total visitors
4,451
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
593,156
Messages
17,981,823
Members
229,039
Latest member
Kittypoo
Back
Top