1094 users online (174 members and 920 guests)  



Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    the Plains & Jordan-Hare stadium
    Posts
    17,325

    2011.03.23 - 03.24 Frye Hearing Summary Thread *NO DISCUSSION HERE PLEASE*

    The purpose of this thread is provide succinct daily recaps of courtroom highlights and rulings. It serves as a companion thread to the real time discussion daily hearing threads that always become lengthy.

    A couple of requests and guidelines:

    1. There is to be no discussion, cross-talk or responding to previous posts.
    2. Try to post in subsequent order of the issues addressed in court to be true to the "flow" of the proceedings. It is not necessary that each post addresses EVERY issue; you are free to post about one or two, just try to keep it in order of the proceedings. It might be a good idea to post during the breaks; or maybe a short recap after each issue/witness. If you are one who takes notes and would prefer posting one lengthy summary at the end of the day, that would be fine too. Just recap however it works best for you.
    3. Try to hit the highlights - important testimony elicited from the witness, demeanor of the witness, Judge Perry's comments, rulings, etc.. I realize some opinion is going to be necessary to get your point across, but please try to keep it to a minimum.
    Summary threads have been requested by many members. Those who are working, otherwise busy and are unable to watch the live proceedings appreciate being able to open a thread where they can read "just the facts". Thanks in advance for your participation!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    3,222

    AM hearing Part One

    I like this sticky thread idea and don't want it to go away, so...I hope I get it all right...please correct if wrong, but I'm trying to stick with very basics here. I only watched most of the second part, and am skimming raw video now of morning (also reviewed some of morning's thread)

    • Casey arrives wearing a button-down light pink blouse and her hair back in a bun.
    • JB, CM sit at defense table, other DT lawyers/aides (?) sit behind them.
    • FBI forensics expert Karen Korsberg Lowe is first up, via some sort of electronic transmission, but first some discussions about whether or not all the evidence and related cases have been provided by both sides. Reserved ruling until judge can review disc containing info.
    • We couldn't hear this witness for a long time, so it's difficult to say what she said...we could only hear the people actually present in the courtroom...discussing postmortem hair banding and applicable peer-reviewed journals, etc....historical perspective on the area of post-mortem hair study...discussing which journal (Joypath let us know that the journal they're talking about is highly respected--Journal of Forensic Sciences)
    • Finally we get sound...discussing relevant journal articles and experiment(s) done on hair.
    • Explaining why hair shows postmortem root banding. Discusses another case where a body was in a trunk and moved then put back. Yet another case with four bodies where two of them showed hair decomp.
    • Discuss differences re: scientific validity of peer-reviewed journal information--articles vs. case studies.
    • Whether or not a hair is actively growing or not seems to have an effect re: hair decomp evidence because of the differences in the keratin part of the hair. (Think I got that right )
    • JA asks if it is "generally accepted" that "root banding" is "characteristic of a hair that has been attached to a decomposing body." Answer: Pretty much yes (my paraphrasing).
    • JA asks if we know why this happens (root banding). Answer: No.
    • JA: Does this happen with bodies that are not dead? Sometimes hairs that have came off [a living person] end up in certain types of water or soil which later show some decomp (putrid roots), but this witness hasn't seen root banding in that type of environment, no.
    • Defense objects saying the FBI contacted JB Friday stating "research had been conducted with regard to this" and DT have requested the research, and it indicates that this decomp changes that were not postmortem have been found. "And we need this research in order to cross-examine this witness," and DT believes research contains exculpatory evidence and they don't have the research manuscripts.
      There were two studies, DT states they don't have either one. JA states SA only found out about this on Friday, too ("we found out together), and he says the research actually states that root banding is not found in these other methods. JA says we (SA and DT) had already discussed this and JA thought they'd decided not to have the witness testify to that today as it doesn't go to the specific issues of Frye.
      JA says manuscript hasn't been turned over because it hasn't been peer reviewed yet. JA says he thinks there's some stuff the DT can have if the witness is going to testify to it now, but he doesn't get what the issue is right now.
      DT says they understood there were two research studies and that one was listed on a powerpoint presentation as complete, but they haven't gotten any of it so they don't know if the results show what JA is saying they show. HHJP asks DT, "Okay, what is the subject matter of the manuscript?" She (AF?) says she understands it to show root banding in a non postmortem case. HHJP asks witness about manuscript and does it lead to any exculpatory evidence? Witness paraphrase: The manuscript is only examining hairs from deceased--didn't include live individuals. That study is complete and the paper is in the review process at FBI lab. Second study is still in progress so no manuscript exists yet--that is the one that talks about the hair found in water/soil which showed some evidence of decomp, but not root banding--only putrid roots and other environmental stuff, but not root banding. (I think lots of WSers agreed this witness was great, btw, me included--clear and concise). Witness: "...the information from either of the studies would not change the results from this case...it would not change the fact that the characteristics seen in the hair from this case were consistent with postemortem root banding."
      HHJP to witness: were any of your opinions stated here today influenced by the completed study? Witness: No, sir. HHJP: When will that manuscript be available? Witness: I don't know. DT: Powerpoint said manuscript is in review process, which means manuscript does exist....even if this witness isn't using it, we still want it...we want to know who everyone is in the room where the witness is...witness and some type of supervisor person from lab. JA paraphrase: The studies that ARE available already indicate that postmortem root banding study isn't always found in hairs from decomposing bodies, so the study they're talking about is talking about the timing of this, not the general existence of it.



    Also, excellent post in Today's news has links for key pieces of today's hearing
    (thanks MADJGNLAW ):
    [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6245070&postcount=16"]http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6245070&postcount=16[/ame]

    That's all for part one, folks! My fingers are tired, so we'll have to take a break. Please correct any mistakes, but mind that this is a no discussion thread. Thanks
    Last edited by flourish; 03-23-2011 at 06:57 PM. Reason: spacing issue
    Unless specified otherwise and linked, my posts are simply random thoughts of mine, in no particular order, not directed at any post or poster, including but not limited to the ones directly above mine. My opinion only, yours may vary. IMO. JMO. IMHO. JMHO. MOO. Disclaimer, small print, asterisk, and etc.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    3,222
    (Dorothy Simms is the DT lawyer who I referred to above as (AF?). Sorry)

    ETA: just noticed this was my 666nd post LOL
    Last edited by flourish; 03-23-2011 at 07:39 PM. Reason: see eta
    Unless specified otherwise and linked, my posts are simply random thoughts of mine, in no particular order, not directed at any post or poster, including but not limited to the ones directly above mine. My opinion only, yours may vary. IMO. JMO. IMHO. JMHO. MOO. Disclaimer, small print, asterisk, and etc.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    3,222

    AM hearing Part Two

    (OT LOL to my ^ 666nd instead of 666th, somehow sixth became second in my head)

    Let's see how long I last now:P (Disclaimer: If it's not in " " then it's not a direct quote and is me paraphrasing. If it's in " ," then I did my very honest best to get a straight quote and any mistakes are coincidental and unintentional).

    Wait, gotta do my finger pulling exercises Get my headphones arranged and my shirt smoothed...and off we go:

    • JA continuing about this manuscript, and how the witness isn't discussing that, as requested. I don't know what the objection is, JA says. DT DS wants to approach and does. We can hear it, though, and it sounds like DS is saying but the not the witness uses these studies in teaching her students and HHJP says it doesn't matter and HHJP says if there are so many studies out there whose responsible for getting them here, but first let's talk about whether or not she's using this study for her testimony today. And if she's not, then we look at whether or not this exculpatory or not and I can't tell if I haven't seen it! During cross, DT will have latitude to discuss this study and how it effects her testimony today. The Powerpoint is used to teach, not something she's used to base her opinion on today?

      DS: but we don't know what SA knows about WHAT the study shows! But the FBI called JB because they were concerned that it is relevant and/or exculpatory. JB says it's his call to make whether or not it's exculpatory, not SA's call.
      JA says he still doesn't get what the problem is as he has no issue with DT getting the materials, he just doesn't see what it has to do with today.
      HHJP agrees DT should be able to see evidence and has a point and has the right to find that this is exculpatory evidence.
      JA agrees, but states that the FBI volunteered this evidence.
      HHJP says let's continue with what we're doing now, we'll get you what you need, etc. and we'll mark it as blah blah blah a portion of a composite (?)
    • JA done questioning witness.
    • DS up for cross.
    • DS: You said that banding is less common than "brushlike" (putrid) effect in decomped (I know that's not a word, but I think YKWIM) hair, correct?
      Witness: That's what was referred to in the (somebody's) paper.
      They discuss the confusing issue of the number/lettering stuff in different labs....Q-12 when debris, Q-12.1 later when there was mitochondrial dna tests done. Same thing, different designation when moved on to different tests.
      DS: You haven't ever used hair banding to determine time of death have you?
      Witness: No.
      DS: So the most you can say is that Q-12 or Q-12.1 appear to have characteristics consistent with decomp, yeah?
      Witness: Correct. I added "apparent" to add that there is a possibility that there was something else that caused this...I don't know what could possibly do that, but I can't rule out the possibility that there is something that could.
      DS: Okay, so you got the root portion, not the entire root, yeah?
      Witness: No.
      DS: You had the entire root? Are you sure?
      Witness: It was an andogen hair...there was root material above the root banding and on the rest of the shaft.
      DS: But you didn't have the entire root, did you? You had a root portion?
      JA: objection re: this isn't relevant to Frye
      DS: I need to know if the procedure is new and methodology is correct and conclusions are reached blah blah blah this isn't just a Frye hearing there's also stuff in our motion (!)
      JA: This witness was subject to deposition, why is DT asking this stuff now?


    {OT brief intermission while flourish watches the series finale of Big Love with DH--done & it was good}

    • Objection sustained, HHJP: I thought we were doing a Frye hearing.
      DS: Well, um, her deposition is evidence, isn't it? (JA answers "if you all have submitted it to the court")
      HHJP: reminds DT what a Frye hearing is and that today is a Frye hearing. Trial testimony is subject to objection dealing with relevancy or materiality and the rest of it goes to the weight that some juror or jury may place to her testimony...
      DS: Okay, so (to witness) your testimony was apparent decomposition, NOT that it was postmortem root banding in this hair, yeah?
      (I keep typing "postmodern" heh)
      Witness: "The characteristics present in this hair were consistent with postmortem root banding, which I reported as decomposition."
      DS: Revisits what root banding is...and the blah blah blah...JA objects because this is a Frye hearing and objection sustained AGAIN and HHJP reminds DS AGAIN that we're in a Frye hearing.
      DS: Reviews phases of hair growth and their percentage on the head (I think). Revisits the powerpoint as a teaching tool when teaching postmortem root banding (PMRB now).
      Witness: It's a powerpoint (PP now) I put together for today's hearing.
      DS: In the PP the example that you used for PMRB actually is much closer to the root than the darkened area in Q-12?
      JA: Objection relevance
      HHJP: Response?
      DS: If I'm allowed to cross-exam her...I have to know that her data/research is scientific...
      HHJP: Objection overruled
      Witness: what was the question
      DS: And the PP example shows the darkened portion much more closer to the tip than in Q-12, doesn't it?
      Witness: I haven't directly compared them...this might have been a hair..it's just a photo we use in a PP at school
      DS: silent...
      HHJP: For the edification of the court, is this a PP for teaching or relative to this case?
      DS: It was PP you were using prior to providing it for this, yeah?
      Witness: This particular photo is used at the school on its PP, but this particular PP was prepared for this
      DS: I thought this PP was for school-- that is what we asked for...we wanted to see what you were instructing individuals prior to this case though, yeah? and there might be exculpatory evidence, so [protest to judge]
      JA: I know DS wasn't on the DT when this happened (dig) but I believe this info was provided to DT back a while ago I don't know why we are hearing about this now...There was a lot of stuff asked for and maybe they got it and don't remember, but I don't know for sure.
      HHJP: I just was trying to understand why that PP was prepared and now I know
      DS: But we didn't receive that, so can we add that to the list of stuff we need?
      Witness: May I add something?
      HHJP: Yes
      Witness: The PP that is used at the school...root banding is only mentioned a little in one class so this slide IS what we use at the school...I added the rest for this presentation in this section to show what characteristics show where on the body the hair is from, race, etc...
      DS: So this is all you teach on PMRB? There's no other slides out there that were used prior to your deposition re: hair decomp, yeah?
      Witness: This is what is used in THAT school on this topic
      DS: and there's no other slides on that topic that are used when you are teaching?
      Witness: Right, no other slides, what I gave you is what I gave you
      DS: Am I understanding that you've never testified in a case where you rendered an opinion that a single hair w/apparent decomp characteristics definitely came from a deceased individual?
      Witness: One-I have not testified to this, and Two-I would never say it came from a deceased individual only that it was consistent with root banding or another decomp event and that it was apparent that it came from a deceased person
      JA: objection due to frye hearing guidelines
      HHJP: Let me hear the complete question first..witness wait before you answer
      DS: repeats what was just said and JA objects and says that is what she just said
      HHJP: Overuled
      Witness: that is what the email said and that's what i just testified to
      DS: you also sent an email saying if there are vacuuming I will take them, if I find one hair...
      JA: Objection
      HHJP: Sustained. Let's revisit again what Frye is about (focus, folks!) and I'll cite you case law and read it out loud to you. Get to the point this isn't a deposition this is Frye! (artistic license on the paraphrase there )
      DS: But this motion isn't just a Frye hearing, there are other areas...
      HHJP: Then file a motion so we can hear it you knew what this was...how many times do I have to say it?
      DS: with regard to the procedure and conclusions having to do with apparent decomp, you communicated in an email that the case would be stronger if you had more than one...
      JA: Objection relevance
      HHJP: sustained
      DS: Tries again and JA objects again and HHJP tells him to let her finish the whole question....there were multiple hairs you examined and only one resulted in an opinion of you of apparent decomp
      JA: objection relevance
      HHJP: reply?
      DS: we're looking at a procedure where multiple hairs are examined and only one person saw one hair, that goes to the credibility of the process
      JA: credibility isn't an issue, it's general acceptance
      HHJP: answer, but you're treading
      Witness: yes, a single hair was found with apparent decomp...
      ...
    • When this process occurs in this case you were contacted initially before you were called to look at Q-12, yeah? (??)
      JA: objection relevance
      DS: you don't know what else the hair had been subjected to, yeah?
      JA: objection relevance
      HHJP: sustained
      DS: root banding...no one...well....um...are you aware of a published article that indicates that a single hair using this process to definitively state was from deceased person
      JA: objection she didn't tell us the name of article
      DS: I'm asking if she is aware of any published article...
      HHJP: overuled
      DS: are you aware...
      Witness: no, i'm not aware of any article, but again, it would be consistent or not consistent, not definitive
      DS: PMRB has to be at the root, yeah?
      Witness: There's typically some distance, in the research usually 1/2 millimeter from root to band

      Part Two over. Break time.

    Unless specified otherwise and linked, my posts are simply random thoughts of mine, in no particular order, not directed at any post or poster, including but not limited to the ones directly above mine. My opinion only, yours may vary. IMO. JMO. IMHO. JMHO. MOO. Disclaimer, small print, asterisk, and etc.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    new england
    Posts
    1,601

    Scott Fairgrieve, Ph.D

    Where does one START with this one's testimony? Perhaps by making a statement that I have NO BIAS against ANY category of anthropologists ( some of my best friends are.......)!

    IMHO, Dr. Fairgrieve has "leached outside the quadrant" of anthropology by declaring himself an expert in the full quadrant field of "cadaver" (colloquially spoken for those of us without Ph.Ds) dogs aka canines. He is NOT a "hands on" expert WITH the dogs (but he can provide the bones), he DOES HAVE extensive experience in reading articles & the internet regarding the activities OF the canines. NONE of the information he provided were "referenced back" to peer review journals, point of fact, his favorite statements seemed to be "what I read...." yet did not quote chapter & verse of the studies.

    This was NOT a FRYE hearing, cadaver dogs ARE an acceptable tool utilized by LE so no one had to prove the "infallibility" of the dog.

    From the testimony (http://www.wftv.com/video/27298973/index.html ) of the ACTUAL DOG HANDLER: Sgt.Brewer HAD IT under control at the Anthony homestead (IMHO!), just as in control on the stand and Scott Fairgrieve, Ph.D's BOOK opinions will be interesting to hear during the trial phase!
    “Hic locus est ubi mors gaudet succure vitae”– Giovanni Margagni

    "This is the place where death rejoices to teach those who live."-
    Giovanni Margagni

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    3,222

    AM hearing Part Three

    Please see above for disclaimer

    • DS: when you say "at the root portion do you mean near or adjacent?
      Witness: It's at the root end, not the tip of root, there's a space (~1/2 mm) from tip to band..and I consider that area to be the root end, but it's not at the tip necessarily...
      DS: Can you draw a picture that shows what consitutes the root and what constitutes the shaft on that picture?
      Witness: you asked me this in depo and like I said I don't feel comfortable doing that with a photo...I'd want to look microscopic
      DS: but in order to determine this hair falls in this category (PMRB) we need to know where the root is and where the shaft is and you aren't comfortable saying where that is from a photo
      Witness: Wasn't comfortable doing that on a photocopy of a photograph, correct.
      DS: when you got Q-12 it was in a petri dish, yeah?
      JA: objection relevance (copied and pasted now)
      DS: we have the ability to determine the process by which she got this conclusion
      JA: that's what depositions are for
      HHJP: sustained
      DS: you are aware that there are articles indicating that there is a lack of scientific proof of hair identification
      JA: objection name of article
      DS: well, I'm referring to her (witness's) depo, are you aware of articles that indicate there may be problems with scientific proof of hair comparison
      Witness: There have been articles that have attacked hair comparison, yes.
      DS: starts question, JA objects and HHJP says finish question first...DS repeats...1988 article was first article that refers to apparent decomp (hair) and that was the earliest article, yeah?
      Witness: Yes
      DS: do you remember testifying that this science has been around for 50 years
      Witness: I said hair comparison at FBI since 1930's....DS: but not hair banding...Witness: I was referring to hair comparisons
      DS: asks about some guy's study
      Witness: tells about study (growth phase of hair stuff here again)...changes to root area in hairs depending on environmental changes, etc.
      DS: and this is a darkening (on the hair) yeah?
      Witness: study isn't done yet but so far none have showed root banding but some earlier stages of decomp
      DS: hair banding is a darkening of the hair, yeah?
      Witness: clarifies science stuff but basically yes
      DS: and there are hairs that have that but aren't from deceased people, yeah?
      Witness: no
      DS: but didn't you just say...
      Witness: No, I said early decomp (putrid root) which is not root banding
      DS: (IMO seems to be trying to get witness to say that all darkening is root banding)...okay so putrid root is also used to determine that a hair came from live or dead person yeah?
      Witness (NOW "W"): It's possible, but it's also possible that a root could get that way (putrid) from other environmental factors and that's been shown in studies other than ours
      DS: other research...thesis...blah blah blah...deforest was thesis advisor...talked about in depo...
      JA wants copy of thesis judge says ok...waiting...flipping of pages, JA reading...
      DS: this thesis ...scientific name...research indicated that...(flustered)...flipping of pages...oops, gave you wrong thesis...now this OTHER thesis with a scientific name...root morphology...deforest advisor....(JA getting copy and reading)....
      JA now objecting...is witness familiar w/this thesis?
      DS: okay...her thesis advisor is deforest...are you aware of research that says if you take a hair from alive person...
      JA: objection misstatement of counsel that this isn't published and objection to something else I can't hear--oh counsel's "take" on resarch
      HHJP: okay (i think that's sustained)
      DS: I'll rephrase...are you aware of research wherein the thesis advisor, deforest, exposed hairs from living people to the elements and
      repeat objection sequence above
      HHJP: Mr. Ashton...objection at this time is overruled...do not interrupt witness before question is completed...JA says same question HHJP says I didn't get to hear it yet...
      DS: are you aware...soil and water and banding occurred and those hairs were from living people
      JA: objection
      HHJP: overruled...witness can answer question if they understand it
      W: I haven't read the thesis heard of it some characteristics have been noted similar to the ongoing FBI study....a full PMRB was not found but other early decomp did
      DS: then before you reach an opinion that a hair under a microscope is more consistent with RB rather than exposure to our environment...that's something you'd want to read and see the pictures isn't it?
      W: I've seen some of the pics but from a photocopy of a photograph it's hard to tell what things really look like so it's difficult to say that it could be PMRB...when I say that in a CASE that's due to my experience
      DS: and you say that b/c PMRB characteristics can be caused by soil water enzymes, yeah?
      W: no, not PMRB, but early decomp and putrid root can be mimicked by environmental factors, but not full PMRB
      JA starts to object but DS starts talking again
      DS: you say full PMRB is there a standard to which I can read to determine ...
      JA: objection
      DS: i have to know the processes to know...
      HHJP: overruled
      W: full band in photo you provided band covers whole shaft...other's show spaces..but not on the entire width of hair
      DS: you didn't measure banding in this case, yeah?
      JA: objection relevance
      HHJP: overruled
      W: it spanned the shaft
      it doesn't extend on the entire hair does it?
      W: yes it does...the width...
      DS: no the length...you didn't determine the length of the hair banding...(confusion ensues) JA: objection relevance, HHJP sighing, asking clarifying questions...overruled
      DS: you did not measure the length of the hair which you alleged to have the banded portion, correct?
      W: I did not but the width of the shaft
      DS: and the length of the hair didn't have the band did it?
      W: no, it would only be seen in an area where the hair transitions from soft to hard keratin so it wouldn't be anywhere else on the hair...
      DS: are there measurements in the research of the length ....studies of living people....(???)
      W: Not that I know
      DS: (continues to try to get her to say hair can get this band on living person's hair)....FBI study showed putrification...witness reminds her that putrid root is NOT THE SAME as hair banding....blah blah going around in circles...
      JA: objection relevance
      DS: that's the whole point!
      W: again, to date....it's not a PMRB...it's an area of putrid root where the area is darkened but...I'm not sure what you're asking
      DS: that's my point...the FBI says you can get that in a living person hair
      JA: objection asked and answered
      HHJP: overruled
      DS: it's areas that are DARKENED, aren't there?
      W: either at the very end, which is putrid roots, or portions of the cortext, neither of which are PMRB
      DS: repeating (can we all say putrid root is not postmortem hair banding? got it? good )....
      W: repeating...
      DS: doesn't understand what hair root is...clarifies...so the root shows areas of darkening in some of the FBI hairs, yeah?
      W: yeah
      DS: okay so when you render an opinion that something is consistent w/decomp you wanna make sure you are correct and scientific and there's a paper out there that's got info and it's from the guy you referenced earlier wouldn't you wanna read it?
      W: again, I am familiar with some of it and it doesn't repute my findings
      JA: objection asked and answered....circling again and again...a little snark...because DS paused and JA thought she was done....
      DS: so you won't do this on a photo and you're only seeing photos on this thesis and aren't using it to rule out possible conclusions here
      W: repeats doesn't want to look at photocopies of photos...
      DS: did you try to look at the actual photos?
      W: no
      DS: and you said there's an enzyme no one can pronounce...that hairs exposed to that also show evidence of decomp even though they are from living people, yeah?
      W: yes, according to the article, the enzyme dissolves the material leaving something that may look like earlier decomp but doesn't look like a PMRB
    Unless specified otherwise and linked, my posts are simply random thoughts of mine, in no particular order, not directed at any post or poster, including but not limited to the ones directly above mine. My opinion only, yours may vary. IMO. JMO. IMHO. JMHO. MOO. Disclaimer, small print, asterisk, and etc.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    3,222

    AM hearing Part Four (FBI witness part four)

    DS: and these enzymes are found in food--cheese?
    JA: objection relevance
    DS: the whole point is if she's saying PM was cause of RB and there's other research out there, then it call question into her conclusions b/c there was garbage in this case
    JA: in this case the issue is whether or not the principles are correct...opinion is for trial, not Frye
    DS: I'll rephrase unless you were gonna overrule him
    HHJP: no, you need to bring it in
    DS: ok this process of looking at hair under microscope and saying it's a band consistent with PMRB...same question different words
    JA: objection relevance
    HHJP: sustained
    DS: rephrase same same and cite the articles if you are aware...isn't it more likely to be environmental than PMRB
    W: again, differences in PMRB and early decomp
    DS: your conclusion is PMRB i'm talking process do you know articles that say enzymes can cause darkened area on hair from living person....blah blah....rephrase yet again...enzymes darken hair...is there general acceptance that when you expose hair to the enzymes the hair darkens and it's is not considered to be caused from enzymes but from PMRB (???)
    W: was waiting for objection...could you repeat?
    everyone laughs LOL
    DS: we know there is research that says if you expose a hair to an enzyme it can cause that hair to darken, correct?
    W: yes, exposing a hair to (enzyme) caused rest of the root...(repeats how early decomp and PMRB aren't same thing
    DS: (attempt at word boggle again)...slide referred to hairS but there was really only one hair, yeah?
    JA: objection relevance
    HHJP: it seems you have more significant cross exam yeah?
    DS: yep
    HHJP: let's take a break and get refreshed



    DS: is there a proficiency test re: PMRB
    JA: objection relevance
    HHJP: overruled
    W: no
    DS: you had 2-3 courses during which some discussed PMRB, yeah?
    W: yes and a year long training program under the direct supervision of other examiners and reviewed literature and the reference collection saw thousands of hair and that was just training.
    DS: including hair comparison
    W: yes and also PMRB included of course
    DS: there are no published standards on how to determine whether or not a hair meets listed criteria of PMRB (length, how far exactly from end of root, etc.), yeah?
    W: there are no written standards but if it doesn't go on the whole width of hair I wouldn't consider it PMRB but it's (microscopic) visual not measurements
    DS: and that's your opinion?
    W: backed up by another examiner
    DS: so the error rates...blah blah blah...
    JA: objection relevance
    DS: (arguing)
    HHJP: overruled
    W: i'm not aware of the error rate (for this process)....(repeats basically...)
    DS: and you've had some cases where wrong, yeah?
    JA: objection relevance
    HHJP: sustained
    DS: in this case..there was a conversation with FBI guy...and before he got the hair you talked to him about what to look for...?
    W: he would have been given glass slides and confirmation form indicating I had considered hair to show apparent decomp and comparison to hair from hairbrush
    DS: there's no one else who rendered an opinion that it was consistent with decomp other you and Mr. Shaw, yeah?
    JA: objection relevance
    DS: goes to procedure and process to reach conclusion
    JA: the basis is Frye...
    DS: it is part of Frye...
    HHJP: sustained rephrase
    DS: the FBI trains people for blind verification, yeah?
    W: it's conducted a lot yes
    DS: since you'd already talked to Shaw, it wasn't a blind verification yeah?
    W: nope it was a confirmation
    DS: there's no study as to your personal error rate and this process is there?
    W: no
    DS: your opinion is less strong because you only one hair, yeah?
    JA: objection relevance
    HHJP: sustained
    DS: (arguing)
    HHJP: nope, sustained
    DS: in terms of root banding, you don't know what causes it, do you?
    W: No
    DS: asks about examiner's personal test scores
    JA: objection relevance
    DS: (JA) went into her background...
    HHJP: sustained
    DS: how many cases have you given an opinion where you have reviewed a hair and you thought it was evidenced to PMRB
    JA: objection relevance
    DS: (arguing)
    JA: experience isn't Frye
    HHJP: sustained
    DS: you aren't a hair expert are you?
    W: not from a medical standpoint
    DS: how many other labs engage in analysis of a single hair to determine PMRB?
    W: it could be part of any case...so any lab that looks at human hairs...
    DS: there are groups that exist for scientific analysis of evidence, yeah?
    W: yes
    DS: and there isn't one for root banding is there?
    W: No, it would be part of (some hair committee)
    DS: but they don't tell you what the criteria should be
    W: no they don't, there's no checklist but there's definitions
    DS: ...
    JA: objection asked and answered and compound question
    HHJP: sustained
    DS: part of the hair that was used to reach this was destroyed, yeah?
    JA: objection relevance
    DS: part of the item that she is reviewing is gone
    HHJP: that goes to her opinion, not her methodology..sustained
    DS: in your depo re: FBI studies and PMHB, you didn't say that you and Mr. Shaw were doing research...why not?
    W: study hadn't started
    DS: had you talked about it
    W: no
    DS: and the FBI can do research, have a manuscript that documents it, indicate inadequecies in a field, yet not choose to publish it?
    JA: objection relevance
    DS: does the FBI publish all the of the research it performs?
    W: I have no way of knowing that....in my office we publish but I can't speak for all
    DS: but if research says that environmental can cause hair banding, what happens to all those cases where they said PMHB
    JA: objection relevance and speculation
    HHJP: sustained

    DS: (again asks about hair being destroyed)
    W: it wasn't destroyed
    DS: did you cut it?
    W: I submitted a portion of non-banded area to mitochondrial dna lab
    DS there was a reference to an article...Lintz Lynche? ....re: application of this process...
    W: yes, which article?
    DS: long article name
    W: okay
    DS: you know that one?
    W: yes
    DS: you understand it to say that lab enzymes and other LABORATORY enzyme processes can cause hair banding?
    JA objects needs article (again)
    DS: of course!....(reading, etc.) 2001 article, p. 17...bottom of first paragraph...
    end of part 4
    Unless specified otherwise and linked, my posts are simply random thoughts of mine, in no particular order, not directed at any post or poster, including but not limited to the ones directly above mine. My opinion only, yours may vary. IMO. JMO. IMHO. JMHO. MOO. Disclaimer, small print, asterisk, and etc.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    3,222

    Am hearing Part Five (FBI hair lady)

    DS: (still going on with the enzyme thing)...witness's response keeps getting screwed up due to technical difficulties...
    W: repeating the hair in article's photo does not show a band that is consistent with PMRB but shows early decomp...
    JA: objection
    DS: withdrawn...you had a depo in 2010...everyone has copies...p. 161...asked about the enzymes...nope, p. 160, line 7...witness's copy has different page numbers...DS reading into record witness's depo testimony...I can't hear her...(she wandered away)...(they are getting help form JA and HHJP)...p. 161 line 7...
    JA: objection relevance (I think...hard to hear...HHJP sustained)
    DS: p. 160 (?) line 15...is there anything that could cause this besides to postmortem
    JA: objection asked and answered...HHJP: let her finish
    DS: ...(again on about standards and still not getting witness's opinion of difference between root banding and a dark band caused by something else...IMO)
    JA: objection asked and answered
    HHJP: sustained
    DS: if someone else looks at the dark color, they might call that banding even though it's caused by an enzyme, yeah?
    W: I wouldn't think someone well trained would, no
    DS: how many micrometers from the root was the band...blah blah
    W: I don't know...re-explaining parts of hair...again explaining difference between PMRB and other types of decomp
    JA: objection asked and answered
    HHJP: sustained
    DS: did the articles refer to PMRB re: toddler or where they adults?
    W: don't know
    DS: do you know difference between hair composition on toddlers and adults
    JA: objection
    HHJP: sustained
    DS: in terms of using this process to reach a conclusion that something is consistent with PMRB, you can't tell us the process of finding it consistent with something else... (??)
    W: all I can say is whether or not something is consistent with what is present in PMRB
    DS: but using this technique in the manner which you used it you can't deny that it may be more likely caused by something else?
    JA: objection (?)
    HHJP: sustained
    DS: if you only look at hairs from deceased how can you say hairs from living couldn't have bands?
    JA: objection relevance
    DS: if they are ignoring science that shows...it's not just Frye...
    HHJP: quoting case law...long and I didn't get it...sustained
    DS: (arguing) that's the application and procedure that is a problem and that falls under frye
    HHJP: you didn't ask about procedure
    DS: if you're called that there is a hair with found with a band on it... there isn't a manual on the procedure for collecting only for hair banding, is there?
    W: it would be handled as a hair from any other case
    DS: and there isn't quality assurance re: an outside source observing your conclusions
    JA: objection relevance
    DS: argues it's relevant because it refers to another case
    JA: (can't hear)
    DS: arguing this case talks about quality assurance
    JA: (can't hear)...has nothing to do with it
    DS: I did read it and I would disagree
    HHJP: (can't hear...asks DS something)
    DS: yes, sirt
    HHJP: sustained
    DS: (takes a moment then continues w/ lack of standards re: toddlers vs. adults)
    W: same as I said before...product of training and experience
    DS: FBI wanted someone to be an expert in this case and wanted someone to be an expert to support your fingdings, yeah?
    JA: objection relevance (can't hear it all)
    HHJP: sustained (can't hear)
    DS: did you suggest that an email be sent to look for other experts to support this process?
    JA: objection relevance (can't hear)
    HHJP: (can't hear)
    DS: repeats question
    W: not that I recall...I might have mentioned the sample was preserved and available for defense expert
    DS: so the process of reaching a conclusion re: cause being PMRB has no standards for me to cross on?
    JA: objection relevance
    DS: there's no published criteria on how to analyze root banding with males vs females, yeah?
    JA: objection relevance
    HHJP: overruled
    W: there are no standards for males vs females
    DS: that's all and can I confirm that the rest of the issues in this motion can be heard in another hearing?
    HHJP: you said in your motion that it's about Frye. Can you give me a filed motion that has something besides Frye?
    DS: silent or quiet...
    HHJP: if there's anything in here besides Frye, can you show me?
    DS: can i have a moment?
    HHJP: you may
    DS: thank you...sits down
    JA asks if he can redirect, HHJP says yes
    JA: counsel refers to "error rate" are you familiar with that?
    W: yes
    JA: does that term apply ....doesn't that term apply to error rates in which an instrument might be...it's a measurement error...like if a ruler only goes down to 1/8th of an inch, then the error rate would be 1/8th of an inch, right?
    W: an error rate refers to something reproducible...an expected rate of error, so even in her comparisons, he didn't apply
    JA: b/c hair exam. is an opinion by its very nature
    W: yes
    JA: so no lab in the world has an error rate for how often its experts are wrong, yeah?
    W: no
    DS: objection
    JA: I just don't want "error rate" to be misunderstood
    HHJP: sustained
    JA: purpose was what I said
    HHJP: rephrase
    JA: are you aware of any lab that produces an error rate re: expert opinions
    W: no
    JA: (refers to depo)
    W: reads out loud from summary (from 2001 article) ---postmortem head hair proximal end changes are sufficiently specific for expert to offer an opinion that hair might have come from decomposing scalp tissue. (not a quote)
    JA: is there anything in either of the articles where Lynche (?) opines that this enzyme can produce a banding that is mistakable for PMRB?
    W: No.
    JA: no further questions
    DS: you were asked about error rates and you were of the opinion that they do not apply if someone is giving an opinion, yeah?
    W: I don't think so.
    DS: you can be wrong, right, you can make an error in this process, yeah?
    W: hair comparisons in general don't work w/error rates b/c it's supposed to be a reproducible error...not possible for this type of discipline.
    DS: then you don't know how often you may be wrong, yeah?
    W: (missed part..no sound)....it might be referred for more analysis
    DS: (keeps on re: error rates)
    JA: objection relevance
    DS: he brought up error rate...
    HHJP: overruled
    DS: you have been wrong, right?
    W: there have been cases where mitochondiral dna lab hasn't associated the hair, but they might have shown similar characteristics but came from different individuals
    DS: so if you don't have standard for opinions or individuals then how can you...
    JA: objection relevance
    HHJP: sustained
    witness excused
    Unless specified otherwise and linked, my posts are simply random thoughts of mine, in no particular order, not directed at any post or poster, including but not limited to the ones directly above mine. My opinion only, yours may vary. IMO. JMO. IMHO. JMHO. MOO. Disclaimer, small print, asterisk, and etc.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    3,222

    Yuri

    [I do not know why I took this task on today...I'm overzealous sometimes and it's Spring Break so no teaching this week...let's call it laundry and housework avoidance]

    Aw, Yuri

    JB: July 17, 2008...you're detective on this case...you remember contacting deputy forgey (?) to come out?
    W: yes
    JB: and he was a cadaver dog handler?
    W: yes
    JB: you know distinction between human remains dog and cadaver dog?
    W: I asked Forgey about it
    JB: you talked to him re: car, yeah?
    W: yes
    JB: and it was at OCSO forensics bay, yeah?
    W: yes
    JB: and you had doubt at 1st re: how helpful dog might be, yeah?
    W: no, not doubts, just questions
    JB: was one of your concerns (grr) whether or not dog could ascertain whether or not remains had ever been vehicle?
    W: my question was would his dog alert to a vehicle?
    JB: and he told you he'd "take a shot at it?"
    W: yes
    JB: exact words?
    W: don't know
    JB: remember your depo?
    W: yes
    JB: need a refresher?
    W: sure
    JB: refers to dep...

    Oh funny this is when the crazy guy stands up...wow, his statement was said in a very weak voice! LOL ROTFL

    JB approaches Yuri...tells him page and line...did he inform you he'd "give it a shot?"
    W: that's what I said...not to be taken as his words
    JB: (repeats the "give it a shot" thing ???)
    JB: where are you when forgey arrives?
    W: in the bay...I think, I don't remember
    JB: did he ask it be moved from garage? (forensics garage)
    W: yes
    JB: did you move it?
    W: no personally
    JB: need another refresher?
    W: sure (unruffled IMO )
    JB: ...so Forgey arrives...car is positioned where
    W: outside bay door...don't know how far
    JB: so it wasn't a parking lot?
    W: no it was...remember when you came...lunch...
    JB wants Yuri to step down and draw a diagram...reminds Yuri he's not an artist
    Yuri reminds HIM it's not to scale
    Yuri draws [no pictionary fantasies going on over here...nope!]
    JB: were there any cars in this spot...(gesturing I think)
    Yuri explaining where car is...I'm not typing all of that...
    JB has Yuri put "1" where Forgey began search...
    JB: which doors did he open? did he open the trunk?
    Yuri: don't know, checking report...doesn't indicate
    JB: do you know if he inspected any other cars?
    Yuri: No
    JB: got it in notes?
    Yuri: No
    JB: did you talk about this in your depo?
    Yuri: I don't recall
    JB: refresher?
    Yuri: yes, please
    ...
    JB: and you saw him stop at the trunk area?
    Yuri: yes
    JB: how do you know the dog alerted?
    Yuri: I think it sat.
    they discuss how he knew and what kind of alert blah
    JB: did Forgey give you any other info?
    Yuri: don't recall
    JB: you also had him look at AL's car, yeah?
    Yuri: yes
    JB: (hard to hear b/c Yuri still over by wall chart) ...has JB label the cars on his chart (CMA and AL)...Yuri doesn't remember where exactly Forgey started on AL's and JB has Yuri autograph his drawing with a "joke"
    Yuri sits back down in witness stand.
    JB: before the pontiac search, you had Forgey go to the house, yeah?
    Yuri: I don't remember who asked him to go, but yes...but was on vacation when that happened...discussing if Forgey was deployed where Caylee's remains were found...he wasn't but had been at end of suburban

    No further questions...looks like no cross...hm, seemed kind of abrupt, IMO
    Unless specified otherwise and linked, my posts are simply random thoughts of mine, in no particular order, not directed at any post or poster, including but not limited to the ones directly above mine. My opinion only, yours may vary. IMO. JMO. IMHO. JMHO. MOO. Disclaimer, small print, asterisk, and etc.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    3,222

    CSI Part One Gerardo Bloise

    (I know these are coming late in the day and maybe you would have wanted them earlier while you were at work, but I was still asleep then...anyway, you don't want to watch ALL the raw video tonight, do ya? )

    JB establishes witness was present when Deputy Forgey (sp?) looked at car and witness did a report...you moved car...who asked you to?
    W: Forgey
    JB: how did he conduct his search?
    W: He walked around vehicle with canine
    JB asking this witness to play pictionary...oops, sorry, draw a diagram on big chart paper of where car was in parking lot/driveway
    JB: where did Forgey start search?
    W: shows him on diagram and said Forgey and dog walked around car, then asked CSI to open driver's side door and trunk, which were done simultaneously and dog sniffed around by driver's side door, then stopped and sat down by right rear of car.
    JB: did he ask you to open car door?
    W: yes....later...
    JB: were there any other cars that he searched that day?
    W: that was the only vehicle in the area
    JB: were you present when he did the search re: TL's car?
    W: No
    JB: you weren't working that day?
    W: I wasn't there when he looked at that car
    JB has him sign drawing and sit back down

    JB: did you see Forgey at the A's home?
    W: yes, same day
    JB and CSI establish that Forgey was called b/c of some sand/soil disturbance in the backyard
    W: yes, he did his inspection with his canine and that was it...didn't see the canine alert in backyard...
    JB: oops, back up, another car question...was the dog on a leash?
    W: probably yes...he went by himself
    JB: they asked everyone to leave backyard?
    W: yes
    JB: so only Forgey can testify to that
    W: yes
    JB: were you there when the second canine unit came?
    W: yes didn't see don't remember her name (deputy Brewer)
    JB: was everyone asked to leave backyard when she came?
    W: no one was back there anyway
    JB: was Forgey allowed back there?
    W: I don't remember
    JB: did you know the dogs had alerted in the backyard?
    W: yes, we marked it
    JB: and then these areas were dug up?
    W: not the same day....we removed some areas and checked the ground and then the next day the squad arrived and searched...scene was secured overnight
    JB: next day, CSI came out?
    W: yep, my day off
    JB: did you witness any other deployments by cadaver dogs in this case?
    W: no

    no cross

    witness excused

    ahhh nice and short
    Unless specified otherwise and linked, my posts are simply random thoughts of mine, in no particular order, not directed at any post or poster, including but not limited to the ones directly above mine. My opinion only, yours may vary. IMO. JMO. IMHO. JMHO. MOO. Disclaimer, small print, asterisk, and etc.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    3,222

    CSI Part Two: CSI manager Michael Vincent OSCO Crime Scene Unit

    JB: were you present for cadaver dog re: ICA's car?
    W: yes, me, Melich, Bloise
    JB: you didn't do report b/c Bloise did?
    W: yes
    JB: someone asked for car to be taken out of garage?
    W: yes, Bloise
    Diagram time again...
    JB: were there any other cars in the bay?
    W: no
    JB has him label and clarify front of car location
    JB: where did Forgey start his search?
    W shows on diagram...says he went around the car...may or may not have stopped the first go around...not on a leash...then Forgey asked Bloise to open driver's side door and trunk...then dog went around again...stopped at right rear corner and sat down...not on leash...JB has W label alert on diagram, then backs up...did Forgey tell you he alerted? Yes...(can't hear)
    JB: were you there when AZ's car was deployed cadaver dogs on it?
    W: no
    JB: you weren't there THAT DAY
    W: no
    W signs and sits
    JB: after this, did you go to the A home?
    W: yes
    JB: was Forgey brought in there?
    W: yes
    JB: you see it?
    W: nope everyone left
    JB: so only Forgey could say what happened?
    W: yes
    JB: were you told where dogs alerted?
    W: we were told three spots in backyard...didn't say specific areas b/c he wanted to call in other dog for verification
    JB: on or off leash?
    W: don't know either first or second searches
    JB: was Forgey there when Brewer did her search?
    W: I don't remember, maybe
    JB: then after Brewer's search what happened?
    W: we excavated two of the sites that night and the next one preserved for next day
    JB: find anything?
    W: no
    JB: dogs return next day?
    W: wasn't there, don't know
    JB: you know whether they were?
    W: no

    no cross, witness excused

    [ETA: I'm not done listening to the rest of what I missed today, but I'm done typing for today... ]
    Last edited by flourish; 03-24-2011 at 02:22 AM. Reason: see eta
    Unless specified otherwise and linked, my posts are simply random thoughts of mine, in no particular order, not directed at any post or poster, including but not limited to the ones directly above mine. My opinion only, yours may vary. IMO. JMO. IMHO. JMHO. MOO. Disclaimer, small print, asterisk, and etc.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    3,222
    (AZ=AL above) to AZLawyer who must have been on the brain

    Last edited by flourish; 03-24-2011 at 04:37 AM.
    Unless specified otherwise and linked, my posts are simply random thoughts of mine, in no particular order, not directed at any post or poster, including but not limited to the ones directly above mine. My opinion only, yours may vary. IMO. JMO. IMHO. JMHO. MOO. Disclaimer, small print, asterisk, and etc.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    3,222

    3/24/11 Jason Forgey OCSO K-9 Handler Deputy

    3/24/11 Jason Forgey OCSO K-9 Handler Deputy

    I’ll be more brief today
    Taken from Raw video and DVR’ed Insession

    ICA=Inmate Casey Anthony
    W=Witness
    DT=Defense Team
    SA=State Attorney’s Office Team
    (JB=Jose Baez, JA=John Ashton, and so forth)

    • ICA in dark rose cable-knit V-neck sweater and dark pants; hair in bun, HHJP in black robe, no bun
    • Gerus was German Shephard…worked w/Forgey for ~6 years, including when working on this case
    • Gerus had lots of training (400 hours at OSCO, 2 seminars by authority on cadaver dogs)
    • Gerus was trained in: human remains, decomp…rags soaked in chest cavity of cadavers, placentas, body parts, bones, blood, and pseudoscent
      JB: putricine and cadaverine?
      W: Don’t know—I know it was drown victim pseudoscent and I don’t know which one pseudoscent at seminar)
    • Discussed training log protocols
      JB: why did you keep a log?, etc….who gave you the bright idea to write that stuff down?
      W: It’s general practice to save training logs…it’s just what the unit does, don’t remember who specifically trained me back in 2001
    • There are guidelines within the unit re: what to record in logs
    • Some log items are choices from drop-down computer lists
    • Are there scientific guidelines for dogs? Do you know who SWIGGDOG (sp? Canadian anthro yesterday discussed it)
      W: No
      JB: ever look them up?
      W: No don’t know who they are
    • Gerus was certified after basic full-service police dog service, then specialty school for specialized service
    • Dog not certified yearly, but evaluated quarterly by trainers
    • JB: when you was your dog last evaluated just prior to this case? 2/29/2008—noon—cadaver training—Deputy Ramos was trainer…target was 2 bones in open field and dog found target both times in two searches. It was cold and night, w/S winds from south. No problems noted.
    • JB arguing trainer was really just an observer/witness during the quarterly evaluations.
    • June 2, 2008 was also an evaluation day, and JB is pressing about details actually written in log.
    • No more evaluations logged in 2008.
    • JB: Were 2 evaluations double-blind?
      W: I don’t recall—isn’t in log.
      JB: Wouldn’t it be good note keeping to do so?
      W: Possibly.
      JB: Is it possible you wanna be thorough with these logs? It’s possible you’ll go before judge (duh)
      W: Um, yeah, very possibly.
      JB: are there any indications as to what kind of testing (double or single blind) in the log?
      W: No
      JB: Are there any log evaluations indicate single or double blind testing?
      W: I can look
      JB: ok
      W: 10/06/2007…12/6/2007—no deputy name, but Forgey remembers occasion, as it was not test, it was a training in an other place to test prior to real search.
      JB: Asking about witness’s familiarity and definitions of single and double blind
      W (what do I believe you are talking about?? LOL) then says single is when just the dog doesn’t know, double is when handler and the dog doesn’t know [where something is], but in either case the dog doesn’t know…
      JB: why don’t you specify if it’s single or double-blind testing?
      W: It’s not a box on the form (LOL totally sounds like my dad)….I guess it would just be assumed…
      JB: aren’t you required to do double blind testing when training?
      W: No
      JB: you agree there’s such a thing as handler bias?
      W: I don’t think I’d agree…is there stuff out there? Yes
      JB: you’ve read cadaver manual
      W: yes
      JB: you and dog are a team, yeah
      W: yes
      JB and W: and you work on preventing the handler from cuing the dog as dog reads body language, etc. and wants to please…we talk in commands…one way conversation (verbally, as witness specifies)
      JB: you know the handbook cautions you against cuing the dog…in 2008 you don’t have one single piece of documentary evidence to indicate that your dog was trained double blinded, right?
      W: Within that year, correct
      JB: farthest back is 2007
      W: I can go to 2005
      JB: no indication on any logs that dog was double blinded
    • Witness now going through entire log which looks to be about three years worth of logs…to find any instance of where it specified double or single blind training (seems like JB knows there’s single page in all that which states double or single and we get to wait while poor witness plays find the word on national tv
      W: 7/29/05 is first one I’ve come to [chronologically beginning w/05 I take it]…all finds were unknown to me (Gerus, I believe, good dog), this was my certification, no problems noted.
      JB: so not since ’05?
      W: No, I started at the beginning and that’s first one found
      JB: ok keep going
      W keeps going…11/8/2005…cadaver trng…no trainer written, but it’s the Redmond et al trnrs…we did lots of box searches…31 searches 31 targets 31 finds [can WS all say 31 DAYS ]…witness keeps looking…
      JB: does it “say” they were double blind?
      W: No
      JB: memory?
      W: yes
      JB keep going
      W…same thing 11/9/05 all day…
      JB: memory?
      W: yes
      JB: keep going
      JB: let me ask you this: do you have any memory of putting double blind trng in this dog’s log in 2005 school?
      W: 2006 school
      JB: any not from school?
      W: not that I recall


    End of part one
    Unless specified otherwise and linked, my posts are simply random thoughts of mine, in no particular order, not directed at any post or poster, including but not limited to the ones directly above mine. My opinion only, yours may vary. IMO. JMO. IMHO. JMHO. MOO. Disclaimer, small print, asterisk, and etc.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    3,222

    Part Two Forgey

    3/24/11 Jason Forgey OCSO K-9 Handler Deputy
    Part 2
    Taken from Raw video and DVR’ed Insession

    ICA=Inmate Casey Anthony
    W=Witness
    DT=Defense Team
    SA=State Attorney’s Office Team
    (JB=Jose Baez, JA=John Ashton, and so forth)

    • JB: there’s no documentation in logs that shows you have conducted any double blind testing with the dogs other than the school/memory
      W: there’ve been other witnesses, just not in logs
      JB: it’s fair to say the integrity of these logs are critical then, yeah?
      W not understanding…
      JB: indicates there might have been cues but no one would have known
      W: there were a lot of other people there, they all witnessed it all
      JB: but you haven’t told me who they are…
      W: reminds him of Redmond
      JB: pushing “nothing in logs”
      JB: so you admit a trainer can cue a dog and double blind testing is the only way to prevent that
      W: I don’t think you can prevent it all (at all..not sure)
      JB: the only evidence that your dog was trained on those days is your words?
      W: wait…when…2008?
      JB: besides the two times (evaluations) are there any other times?
      W: No b/c you asked me to stop looking in 2008 and then you had me go back…you’re jumping around
      JB: but you said there’s only those two times
      W: wait you’re jumping around you said ’08…then ’05…
      JB: ok let’s stick to only ’08…start from ’08…besides those two previously mentioned times, the only evidence of that dog’s trainings and results is your word and what you wrote down, yeah?
      W: within 2008, yes
      JB: so answer is yes?
      W: for ‘08
      JB: so the integrity of those is critical in judging reliablility w/dog
      W: clarify “critical”
      JB: we have to rely on you for credibility of dog
      W: It is true and correct and I can fill in blanks
      JB: so is that a “yes?”
      W: to…?
      JB: the only way that we can tell the accuracy and reliability of trng of dog is by you?
      W: and..[other scientist]
      JB: let me break it down again…other than those two occasions, the only way we can accurately look at the reliability of these logs is you, ther’s no one else who can verify them
      W: yes
      JB: so your logs are critical and so are there omissions…you’ve heard the phrase “lying by omission”
      W: I guess
      JB: you know someone can lie by not telling complete truth
      W seems to wait hoping for objections, and JDB does it
      HHJP: relevancy?...relevancy??
      JB: silent
      HHJP: sustained
      JB: you took oath to tell whole truth…whole truth is important
      W: correct
      JB: that is my point
    • JB: let’s start w/your first search in this case. When was it?
      W: search car in forensic bay
      JB: prior to that you talk to Yuri?
      W: yes
      JB: he ask if it’s possible to run search on a car that has no body?
      W: don’t remember
      JB: you recall telling him you’ll “give it a shot?”
      W: don’t recall…told him where how long till I get there, etc.
      JB: do you recall telling him you’ll “give it a shot?”
      W: don’t recall
    • JB: you got there, what did you do?
      W: went to forensics, talked to tech, walked out to bay
      JB: did you instruct anyone to do anything?
      W: yes move vehicle…waited with door closed of bay…moved my own car I think…took out Gerus…and ran search
      JB: on what car?
      W: two cars..there was car next to white car…
      JB: whose car was that?
      W: your client…or their parents…didn’t know who other car belonged to…blue….truck…doesn’t remember off-hand
      JB: please refresh self as needed but tell us what it is
      W: my depo transcript
      W looks at transcript
      JDB asks to help w/page # for witness…is thanked
      JB: refreshed?
      W: yes still looking…says same thing about parking…
      JB wants diagram drawing again, so W goes to draw on big chart paper where everyone’s car was in relation to bay/garage/each other, whatever, labels everything, (UNK=AL’s car, which was unknown to witness etc.)
    • JB has W put mark where he started search…started on one of bumpers, not sure which side…would have to look at notes…started out on UNK car (AL’s)…
      W: says…deployed dog…gave command…(can’t hear) in counter-clock manner around vehicle…labels…it was ICA’s car..
      JB: and you knew it was ICA’s car, yeah?
      W: I didn’t know who she was…knew it was car in question…walked around like this…(gesturing, drawing arrows I can’t see…) (JB said something about direction wind)
      JB: what next?
      W: he started to give alerts around vehicle…had guy on standby to open vehicles...second time around dog started alerting…had guy open driver’s door…dog stuck head in and immediately looked toward back seat…
      JB: are you referring to your bond hearing testimony)…
      W: yes (he’s holding it in his hand)

      [cell phone goes off for w a y too long—HHJP not happy]

      W continues describing search while referring to bond hearing transcript
      JB asks him to stop and instead use it to refresh memory then answer after that
      W reads
      W continues…had tech work ahead of him and had him open trunk…dog put head inside and front paws…made eye contact, got back out of trunk and sat down at right rear tail-light/bumper area (final trained alert)
      JB is final trained alert a scientific term
      W: I don’t know…it’s what he’s trained to do..that’s his alert
      JB: like “that’s your final answer?”
      W: I guess…are you talking about a game show?
      JB: yeah…as opposed to a preliminary alert…there’s no such thing, right?
      W: no…he gave a “final alert.”
      JB: there’s no preliminary alert but there’s a final one?
      JDB objects
      HHJP: sustained
      JB: I’ve noticed you have to refer to your prior testimony to answer
      W: yes so I’m correct
      JB: and that is why it’s important to keep your logs accurate, etc., detailed, etc.
      W: yes
      JB: that goes back to the “whole truth” portion, right (referring to oath grrr)…gives W copy of police report…asks W how long is that report?
      W: not very long, you want word count, sentence, paragraph?
      JB: does it at all indicate there was a blue car there that day?
      W: no
      JB: you’re aware that you’re supposed to have more than one vehicle best practices?
      W: no
      JB: the manual doesn’t say that?
      W: yes in training
      JB: in training only but not real life?
      W: I don’t know if it says that specifically, no
      JB: so the point of having more than one car is so handler won’t alert, yeah?
      W: I don’t know
    • JB: why do they want you to have more than one car
      W: in trng?
      JB: no real life
      W: doesn’t work in real life generally…
      JB: but you say you did it here, yeah?
      JB: so what was the purpose of that…of searching blue car…??
      W: to let dog know he’s working
      JB: not to make sure you didn’t cue dog to other car?
      W: no…look I don’t know exactly why I decided that…this case is different... it’s odd…first time something like this had happened besides a trng scenario…I can’t say for sure why I did it
      JB: so this was your first non training vehicle search?
      W: yes
      JB: and you indicate there was a blue car during that
      W: yes
      JB: but you don’t mention it in report?
      W: yes

    End of Part Two
    Unless specified otherwise and linked, my posts are simply random thoughts of mine, in no particular order, not directed at any post or poster, including but not limited to the ones directly above mine. My opinion only, yours may vary. IMO. JMO. IMHO. JMHO. MOO. Disclaimer, small print, asterisk, and etc.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    3,222

    3/24/11 Jason Forgey OCSO K-9 Handler Deputy Part 3

    3/24/11 Jason Forgey OCSO K-9 Handler Deputy
    Part 3
    Taken from Raw video and DVR’ed Insession

    ICA=Inmate Casey Anthony
    W=Witness
    DT=Defense Team
    SA=State Attorney’s Office Team
    (JB=Jose Baez, JA=John Ashton, and so forth)

    • JB: and blue car isn’t written on other bond hearing thing, yeah?
      W: right
      JB: so you didn’t ever tell anyone else about the blue car, right?
      W: well there people present when I did the search…
      JB: right…are you aware that all of them testified that there was only one car…
      JDB: objection leading
      HHJP: sustained
      JB: Judge, I would say this is an adverse witness and ask court to recognize him as such
      HHJP: JDB?
      JDB: I think he means hostile and I don’t see evidence that W is
      JB: I think the requirement would be that this witness may be called by opposing party and is on their witness list and sould be considered adverse/hostile witness
      HHJP: well you haven’t established him to be [chuckle] hostile, so…the judgment on leading is sustained
      JB: read last question please?
      Court reporter does
      JB: did you watch the news yesterday or watch this case on tv?
      W: no
      JB: so you didn’t see previoius testimony
      W: no
      JB: report says no blue car
      W: right
      JB: bond hearing testimony says no blue car
      JDB: objection asked and answered
      HHJP: sustained
    • JB: did you ever talk about blue car in this case?
      W: Yes, in my deposition
      JB: Judge, I need to ask this for record…when you testified for the Grand Jury, (someone groans warningly and loudly, while JDB objects) JB says, “I can finish the question, judge.”
      HHJP: you can finish question but W do not answer unless I instruct you to and …
      JB: when you testified on GJ, did you tell them about the blue car?
      HHJP: JA? JDB?
      Both object, JDB: that testimony isn’t public record…(flustered)
      HHJP: offers JB free legal advice…advises W not to answer
      JB: I understand judge but just so you know we’ll follow this up with a motion for the court to evaluate that testimony in evaluating this witness’s testimony and that’s the only reason why I asked it (yippee)
      JB takes a moment to consult or grab other papers
    • JB: was this search video’d?
      W: not that I know
      JB: weren’t you trained they should all be videoed?
      W: no
      JB: did you read in the handbook where it says you should?
      W: big requirement between suggestion and rule…it’s a book, not my policy manual or guidelines
      JB: but did you read where it said videos could be entered in trial?
      W: I read the book don’t remember that sentence
      JB shows him book
      W: that’s the procedures for scent line-ups…it’s referring in general…chapter says line-ups…some of it is vehicles, some are about clothing…an array…
      JB says something I can’t hear
      W: that sentence is in there…the exact sentence “the line-up should be [videoed].
      JB: then vehicle line up is a line up
      W: I think of line ups as people…two paragraphs prior to that are re: articles and cars
      JB: is it your understanding that car lineups should be videoed?
      W: no
      JB: did you not video a line up with pizza in one car and a bunch of cars…prior to this case
      W: yes
      JB: why you tape that?
      W: that was actually for a different dog I was training…it was at request of that trainer for that dog to set up that scenario b/c of all the irrationality of that exact scenario [in this case]…so I set up that scenario up for the new dog to run the scenario for them, but the dog didn’t make it that day so I figured since it’s set up already I’ll run it.
      JB: so it was just a grand coincidence
      W: I just said it was all the…hype..
      JB: The MEDIA hype??
      HHJP: M r . B a e z…look at your motion…look at the four corners of your motion for what we’re here for today…while that may be interesting…it might be a possible subject for cross in actual trial, not today… and remember ya’ll only scheduled two days here
      JB: Well, I happen to think it does, and that’s why I’m asking
      HHJP: well, I don’t
      JB: did you complete any other reports in this case?
      W: not that I know
      JB: but you did other searches, yeah?
      W: yes
      JB: where?
      W: A’s backyard
      JB: tell us about it
      W: we went to yard and searched whole thing…got alert in SE corner of yard by play area…
    • JB: just one alert?
      W: that was a final trained alert…he was alerting in that area and gave me the final trained alert in the southeast corner of the yard
      JB: I’m confused did you say he gave you premliminary alerts prior to final?
      W: no like we said no prelim alerts only final, there’s alert and “final alert”
      JB: what is the difference?
      W: you can train a canine to be passive and give you a final alert, or aggressive and give a scratch alert, final trained alert, passive down, retrieve…whatever you train them to is the final trained alert…but whenever you have a behavior change in a dog that’s an alert b/c the dog is telling you he’s onto something…when working to an odor, I can read that he’s giving me an alert…stance, prance, hair, breathing pattern,
      JB tries to pick apart stance, prance, hair, etc.
      W describes changes in dog…puffed up hair, is statuesque… etc…hackles coming up but with different tail appearance
      JB: when he alerted in this case, was it strong alert?
      W: it was an alert
      JB: what next
      W: let dog work…he went to SE corner near play area and gave final trained alert
      JB: then what?
      W: I think that was the final part of entire search, but I’d like to look back at bond hearing… (reads)
      JB: so did you tell somebody?
      W: I took dog out of yard told and detective, which it doesn’t say here, but I told detectives…called Brewer (saw her yesterday I think) b/c I wanted second opinion, second dog…so I could be as thorough as I could be?
      JB: just like you were w/the first search?
      W: well…
      JDB objects unclear
      JB tries to talk and HHJP shushes him (literally)
      HHJP: sustained rephrase
      JB: just like you were w/vehicle search
      W: I was thorough there
      JB: did you call Brewer and ask her to come out then?
      W: no
      JB: why not?
      W: my knowledge of the case had changed since then
      JB: what about your knowledge in the case had made you more able to know if your dog alerts or not?
      W: I don’t know usually anything about the cases before I get there…I just go and do my thing and dog does work…I don’t recall asking if it was involved in missing person, hit and run, whatever,…obviously after I alerted, I was informed more, and we went to house
      JB: but what about your newly gained info makes your dog more or less reliable than before (why did you not get second opinion before then?)
      W: nothing
    • JB: your answer was that you knew more about the case and that’s why you wanted someone else to come in and look.
      W: I wanted to go above and beyond and do the best job I could do.
      JB: was dog off or on leash
      W says he thought off…checks depo…answers that it doesn’t say…JB asks about car search and W says on
      JB: okay, so off minimizes handler bias, yeah?
      W: I don’t believe so
      JB: aren’t you directing the dog more when you have dog on leash?
      W: you’ll refine search pattern yes, but you’re asking me about causing a false alert here…
      JB: just answer
      W: …please repeat question
      JB: repeats --having dog off minimizes bias yeah?
      W: I don’t think so
    • JB: so Brewer comes out, yeah?
      W: yes, I tell her yard and I probed three areas, and gave her time frame and area has been clear and told her what we did in the yard EXCEPT what my dog did in yard
      JB: so what does she do
      W: searches w/her dog
      JB: did dog alert?
      W: yes
      JB: weak or strong?
      W: ask her
      JB: so then detectives secured scene
      W: I don’t know what they did
      JB: are you aware they secured scene?
      W: I don’t know
      JB: they began to search that area for two day
      W: forensics did for one day I think
      JB: did CSI come back next day?
      W: Did I?
      JDB objects
      JB: this has not been asked and answered
      HHJP to witness: you know what they did?
      W: no
      HHJP: that’s that
      JB: were you asked to come back next day?
      W: yes
      JB: did it appear someone had searched
      W: it appeared someone had skimmed the area
      JB: most likely cops or csi?
      W: I’d guess
      JB: did dog deploy again
      W: yes
      JB: did alert?
      W: no
      JB: you call Brewer?
      W: yes
      JB: she alert?
      W: don’t think so
      JB: are you aware if they found any remains or items of forensic value where your dog alerted?
      W: I’m not aware..(something I can’t hear)…
      JB: so that could be a false positive, yeah?
      W: it’s possible
      JB: so yes it could be?
      W: yes
      JB: not just from you but from other dog?
      W: yes
      JB: is it proper to send one dog in when another dog has already searched?
      W: is it common practice? Yes
    • JB: did you note your false positive anywhere?
      W: I wouldn’t say it’s false positive, you are saying that
      JB: what you call it?
      W: what I said earlier (repeated earlier answers)
      JB: and reason you no call false+ is cuz dog could be alerting to blood, yeah?
      W: sure
      JB: someone could have cut their skin there
      W: ?
      JB: like someone could have left a piece of skin threre?
      W: yes
      JB: what else could have happened?
      W: someone could have laid a deceased person on the ground while it was decamping (!!!!!)
      JB: what else?
      W: blood...tissue…body…
      JB: no way for you to tell difference or if false +?
      W: if forensics didn’t recover anything then I would have no way of knowing
      JB: and you didn’t note this poss false +?
      W: you asked me about it at depo and bond hearing and at depo you said I didn’t tell you but I did tell you at the bond hearing
      JB: we’ll get to that..is there any report that shos a poss false + in this case
      W: no
      JB: is there anything that talks about that?
      HHJP: Attorneys Approach PLEASE
      They do and talk for long time…people adjust DT’s laptop screens to the semi-down position…ICA and aide clerk Medina talk…
      End of Part Three
    Unless specified otherwise and linked, my posts are simply random thoughts of mine, in no particular order, not directed at any post or poster, including but not limited to the ones directly above mine. My opinion only, yours may vary. IMO. JMO. IMHO. JMHO. MOO. Disclaimer, small print, asterisk, and etc.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. 2011.04.08 Frye Hearing Summary Thread
    By Chiquita71 in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 86
    Last Post: 04-08-2011, 12:08 PM
  2. 2011.04.01 Frye Hearing (DISCUSSION THREAD) - PM edition
    By beach in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 1230
    Last Post: 04-01-2011, 09:53 PM
  3. 2011.04.01 MOD ONLY: Frye Hearing Summary (READ ONLY)
    By Kentjbkent in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 247
    Last Post: 04-01-2011, 07:31 PM
  4. 2011.04.01 Frye Hearing (DISCUSSION THREAD) - AM edition
    By Kentjbkent in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 1126
    Last Post: 04-01-2011, 04:20 PM
  5. 2011.03.04 Hearing Summary Thread ***NO DISCUSSION HERE PLEASE***
    By beach in forum Media Links/General Discussion/Rules and Stickies
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-04-2011, 07:44 PM