787 users online (88 members and 699 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 125
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orlando
    Posts
    2,097

    2010.12.30 Motion to Exclude Unreliable Evidence (Plant or Root Growth)

    This motion definitely needs some discussion and research. The defense is claiming that Dr. Hall doesn't know what he's talking about, based on answers during his depo.

    http://www.docstoc.com/docs/68726576...or-Root-Growth

    MM
    www.amazon.com/shops/Grand_Media
    http://stores.ebay.com/grand-media-usa36


    "This pretense of ignorance is getting old." - JA

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,285
    That's actually a surprisingly well written and interesting motion for this bunch. Have we seen Dr. Halls actual depositions or reports yet?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    In the sunshine.
    Posts
    9,875
    Is that because his answers given during his deposition were not understood?

    I'll have to read the motion because off the top of my head, my first thought is......he must have failed to give them helpful information.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    In the sunshine.
    Posts
    9,875
    I find it very suspect that some of the Frye references in this motion refer to sex offenders and child abuse within the home environment.

    WTH does that have to do with plant growth?? pg 5 at link listed.


    Very shady. I doubt this possible attempt at slipping in info will go unnoticed.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    11,613
    Quote Originally Posted by faefrost View Post
    That's actually a surprisingly well written and interesting motion for this bunch. Have we seen Dr. Halls actual depositions or reports yet?
    I'm thinking it's the work of what's her name..the one without a TV? Or is she just for medical experts?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orlando
    Posts
    2,097
    Quote Originally Posted by faefrost View Post
    That's actually a surprisingly well written and interesting motion for this bunch. Have we seen Dr. Halls actual depositions or reports yet?
    I thought so too. Must have been written by... someone else.

    We haven't seen Hall's depo for the defense, but I would LOVE to, in order to see what they LEFT OUT of this motion.
    www.amazon.com/shops/Grand_Media
    http://stores.ebay.com/grand-media-usa36


    "This pretense of ignorance is getting old." - JA

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    In the sunshine.
    Posts
    9,875
    Also note that the letter from Jane Bock dated in September CLEARLY indicates it is a REPORT!!!!!!!!!!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,806
    I agree. Did JB and crew do a cut and paste on some of those 20 some motions filed because I felt while reading the beginning of this motion, I had read it last week. I was thinking maybe the title was wrong until I got to the substance of the motion. By the way, did JB take liberty again by stating that Dr Hall didn't examine Caylee's remain site but came to his conclusions by way of photos in this motion. Because the attachment letter says Dr Hall was on site Dec 15, 08.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    6,719
    Huh. Is anyone else besides me nervous about Dr. Hall now? After reading this motion, it seems like he's not going to be a very good expert witness, unless I'm missing something.

    The other thing I noticed is the the defense never says his conclusions are flat out wrong, just that they are unreliable. So does that mean they're right but should be thrown out because of the way they were obtained?

    Someone please reassure me. I am very alarmed after reading this motion, and that never happens when I read a defense motion.

    Oh, and I noticed the dig at LE in there. The motion was pretty darn good until he did that. Sheesh, Baez, do all of your motions have to have whining in them?

  10. #10
    JSR's Avatar
    JSR is offline Maybe all one can do is hope to end up with the right regrets. -Arthur Miller
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Southern CA
    Posts
    6,250
    Yeah JB didn't write this motion.
    Indeed the Irony IS Rich

    Jodi Arias- "Quick on the slime, Slow on the facts"- From Juan's Closing Argument

    "The difference between a stumbling block and stepping stone is the character of the person walking the path."- Travis Victor Alexander


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Rochester-ish, NY
    Posts
    649
    this motion doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. It's put together with things that really don't even apply. I'm not concerned at this point.
    on twitter, my blog, and in life I am a "Floormodel", slightly used by age but still in perfectly good condition and worth having around.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orlando
    Posts
    2,097
    Quote Originally Posted by Aedrys View Post
    Huh. Is anyone else besides me nervous about Dr. Hall now? After reading this motion, it seems like he's not going to be a very good expert witness, unless I'm missing something.

    The other thing I noticed is the the defense never says his conclusions are flat out wrong, just that they are unreliable. So does that mean they're right but should be thrown out because of the way they were obtained?

    Someone please reassure me. I am very alarmed after reading this motion, and that never happens when I read a defense motion.

    Oh, and I noticed the dig at LE in there. The motion was pretty darn good until he did that. Sheesh, Baez, do all of your motions have to have whining in them?
    Just remember, it came from the defense, so it is EXTREMELY slanted.
    And we all know their propensity for leaving VITAL information out of motions.

    Can't WAIT to see the State's response!!

    Yeah, I noticed the major attempt to discredit LE too. Hope Ashton responds to that! heh
    MM
    www.amazon.com/shops/Grand_Media
    http://stores.ebay.com/grand-media-usa36


    "This pretense of ignorance is getting old." - JA

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by Aedrys View Post
    Huh. Is anyone else besides me nervous about Dr. Hall now? After reading this motion, it seems like he's not going to be a very good expert witness, unless I'm missing something.

    The other thing I noticed is the the defense never says his conclusions are flat out wrong, just that they are unreliable. So does that mean they're right but should be thrown out because of the way they were obtained?

    Someone please reassure me. I am very alarmed after reading this motion, and that never happens when I read a defense motion.

    Oh, and I noticed the dig at LE in there. The motion was pretty darn good until he did that. Sheesh, Baez, do all of your motions have to have whining in them?
    After reading that I was a little concerned too. Then I remembered the recent hearing and that JB is not above embellishing or putting his own slant on things. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if some of those quotes that he put in the motion are taken out of context. We shall see...

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    6,719
    Quote Originally Posted by LC446 View Post
    After reading that I was a little concerned too. Then I remembered the recent hearing and that JB is not above embellishing or putting his own slant on things. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if some of those quotes that he put in the motion are taken out of context. We shall see...
    Yeah, for a moment I was like, the hell, why would the state want an expert who didn't base his conclusions on any methodology but his own that he knew since he was 11? But then after a bit I realized this is a defense motion, so they must have left a lot of things out, I'm sure. What they are saying is just not adding up for me. It doesn't sound right even if they finally got someone competent to write their motions now. I think that's what happened. I was momentarily blinded by a really well written motion by the defense. That's dang near apocalypse inducing, you know? My brain couldn't handle it, LOL. The state's response to this will definitely be interesting.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,843
    Well, if this is the Dr. Hall they are referring to:

    http://www.spoke.com/info/pEl2iO9/DavidHall

    then I'm not too worried.

    I will give kudos to the defense, however, for what I considered a well-written motion with actual relevant case law. I could have done without the sniping in it, but I figure baby steps are still steps.

Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Motion In Limine To Exclude Mental Health Experts
    By SoCalSleuth in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 333
    Last Post: 04-27-2011, 08:03 AM
  2. 2011.03.07 Dorothy Sims Docs RE: Chloroform & Plant Growth *Merged*
    By mobius99 in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 03-22-2011, 12:08 PM
  3. Toss the plant growth?
    By suepitzl in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-02-2011, 10:10 PM
  4. Defense Motion to Exclude Canine
    By The World According in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 01-18-2011, 11:36 AM
  5. Replies: 239
    Last Post: 03-12-2010, 03:08 AM

Tags for this Thread