2011.03.29 MOTIONS: Dr. Hall & Karen Lowe "DT Claim Witnesses Unreliable In Case"

MADJGNLAW

Active Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2008
Messages
5,525
Reaction score
-4
Seems the motions thread is getting a bit confusing. Thought I would start one for the motions that were filed today 3/29/2011 that seem to be pretty important. Mod's move as needed TIA :blowkiss:


Motions: Witnesses Unreliable In Casey Case
"Snip" http://www.wftv.com/news/27363154/detail.html
Posted: 6:27 pm EDT March 29, 2011
Updated: 6:37 pm EDT March 29, 2011

ORLANDO, Fla. -- In between hearings, Casey Anthony's defense team is continuing its attack on state experts who examined evidence in the case.


MOTIONS 3/29/2011:
Dr. Hall http://www.wftv.com/pdf/27360747/detail.html
Karen Lowe http://www.wftv.com/pdf/27360813/detail.html


DOCUMENT 3/22/2011: Motion For Additional Witness
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/27361077/detail.html

Casey Anthony's defense wants the FBI expert struck from the witness list and a new hearing on the other expert.
 
Seems the motions thread is getting a bit confusing. Thought I would start one for the motions that were filed today 3/29/2011 that seem to be pretty important. Mod's move as needed TIA :blowkiss:

Well, if anything, I think the fact that the defense has tried (and tried numerous times) to have Dr. Hall's testimony thrown out only goes to show just how damning his testimony truly will be. It shows that Dr. Hall can place Caylee on Suburban shortly after she was last seen alive and that the defense can't find any expert to disagree with Dr. Hall's findings.
 
I could see DT be able to keep the hair out if no body were ever found but they did find Caylee and she was, in fact, deceased. This banding is specific to a deceased person. I got it, time and time and time again as Ms. Simms questioned the witness. Until they find one of those hairs coming from a live person, I think she is pretty credible. It's not as if we are unsure who the hair came from since it was virgin hair, never color treated, so it had to have been from Caylee. jmo
 
Man oh man, the DT is going to go after what ever they can and it's going to get ugly. We really don't hear much out of the Prosecution, and that to me is reassuring. All these motion's are confusing the heck out me. :crazy:

Poor Judge Perry, I hope he takes a long vacation after this trial. I do recall he said that "no other motions for rehearing shall be considered." I am holding on to those written words lol. Enough is Enough. I can't wait for the trial to start, I pray that there are no delays Caylee deserves her Justice already! :justice:



Judge Denies Casey Anthony Motion For New Hearing
"Snip" http://www.wftv.com/news/27325233/detail.html
March 25, 2011
Judge Perry didn't have much to say in his order Friday afternoon, simply denying the motion. However, he did write that "no other motions for rehearing shall be considered."
 
Lord have mercy. They are taking their position of "If ya don't ask, you won't receive" to the extreme, imo. lol
 
I could see DT be able to keep the hair out if no body were ever found but they did find Caylee and she was, in fact, deceased. This banding is specific to a deceased person. I got it, time and time and time again as Ms. Simms questioned the witness. Until they find one of those hairs coming from a live person, I think she is pretty credible. It's not as if we are unsure who the hair came from since it was virgin hair, never color treated, so it had to have been from Caylee. jmo

Not sure if this is the right place to bring this up......but does anyone know if they have been able to match the single hair from the trunk, to the hair found at the dump site? I was reading the autopsy report yesterday and it mentions the hair mass found on the back? Of the skull....this poor little girl........
 
http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2005/2005-25410.html
People v Kogut. New York Other Courts Decisions --- Supreme Court, Nassau County, September 19, 2005

Interesting link. A case where the defendant fought to have expert testimony presented stating re: postmortem hair banding (because he thought the evidence had been planted by LE). The State fought against evidence, stating it was not usually accepted within the scientific community. There was a Frye hearing and end result Defendant and the State could present their expert witnesses.

During the Frye hearing the experts testified that how to identify postmortem hair banding is known and accepted by medical examiner's offices and police labs etc
 
Not sure if this is the right place to bring this up......but does anyone know if they have been able to match the single hair from the trunk, to the hair found at the dump site? I was reading the autopsy report yesterday and it mentions the hair mass found on the back? Of the skull....this poor little girl........

I've always wondered about that too and why the trunk hair couldn't be compared to those ... maybe the hairs from the mat were too degraded? ... :waitasec:
 
http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2005/2005-25410.html
People v Kogut. New York Other Courts Decisions --- Supreme Court, Nassau County, September 19, 2005

Interesting link. A case where the defendant fought to have expert testimony presented stating re: postmortem hair banding (because he thought the evidence had been planted by LE). The State fought against evidence, stating it was not usually accepted within the scientific community. There was a Frye hearing and end result Defendant and the State could present their expert witnesses.

During the Frye hearing the experts testified that how to identify postmortem hair banding is known and accepted by medical examiner's offices and police labs etc
Very interesting ! WESH must not be aware of this because they said this would be the first time hair banding will be used in trial and compared it to Ashton getting DNA evidence into trial for the first time ... (I know, I should know better than to listen to WESH) Clearly, from your link, it's not the first time ...

I'm hoping someone can answer this for me ... why is Mason referring to this motion as a Frye issue? It was a forensic evidentiary motion and was heard as such ...

And why oh why is Mason even filing this BEFORE Judge Perry rules on it ?? Is it because Mason knows that the state's expert testimony was strong and that Judge Perry will most likely rule in favor of it coming in at trial ??? Or to pressure or persuade the judge to rule in favor of the defense ??


So many questions .... I'm so glad we'll get some answers THIS week !!
 
I've always wondered about that too and why the trunk hair couldn't be compared to those ... maybe the hairs from the mat were too degraded? ... :waitasec:

Or maybe they weren't, and the prosecution is just playing a... shall we say, more elevated, level of poker here?

Cards close to the chest and all.

There is a reason the DP got put back on the table after Caylee's remains were located, after all... :waitasec:
 
I don't recall KL having said the following; do any of you? She seemed to have all of the qualifications of an expert as far as I could understand. . .
 

Attachments

  • LoweMotion2.jpg
    LoweMotion2.jpg
    46.9 KB · Views: 83
This new bunch of crap is all we can expect to keep receiving from esteemed expert atty. CM?

:puke:
 
I don't recall KL having said the following; do any of you? She seemed to have all of the qualifications of an expert as far as I could understand. . .

Since I have seen it referenced here before, I will point you in the direction of thehinkymeter.com There is an excellent article there tonight about these motions and Val lays out quite clearly and in bold red letters that Ms. Lowe did NOT say she was not an expert. she made it quite clear what area she was an expert in. CM must have been asleep when that exchange occurred.
 
Valhall has a superbly detailed analysis of todays defense motion up on her blog. Worth a read.

edit: Whoops Mac beat me to it.
 
Really gives a whole new meaning to "going through the motions."

And that is exactly what they are doing, in my never so humble opinion!
 
Since I have seen it referenced here before, I will point you in the direction of thehinkymeter.com There is an excellent article there tonight about these motions and Val lays out quite clearly and in bold red letters that Ms. Lowe did NOT say she was not an expert. she made it quite clear what area she was an expert in. CM must have been asleep when that exchange occurred.

Excellent! Thanks, Mac. I knew this couldn't be right. :tyou:
 
Dear Judge,

The defense team objects to the "bald assertions" made by Ms. Lowe. Given our representation of Ms. Anthony....we have quite frankly had enough "bald assertions" to last a lifetime.

Begrudgingly,

Jose
 
I don't recall KL having said the following; do any of you? She seemed to have all of the qualifications of an expert as far as I could understand. . .



:twocents: IIRC :seeya: the defense query regarding her expertise was inclusive of MEDICAL et al reasons WHY hair demonstrates a change, not if she were deemed or considered a specialist in the recognition of decomposition changes (and ARTIFACTS too!) that CAN occur in hair, post mortem of course! IMHO and brilliantly I may add :innocent: , she DID NOT intend to represent herself as the guru of all things HAIRY ('tho she just might be wild about HARRY........and Harry wild about her!:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:)


Oh yeah, this topic HAS BEEN presented in court BEFORE (gee, didn't the defense gang READ the attachments provided :maddening:) and presented by the "defense consultant" who they have chosen NOT TO UTILIZE regarding presenting his opinion FROM THE STAND under OATH!

I'm not so sure this case will be lead by the "battle" of the experts but rather by the "battle" of semantics or reading comprehension~:banghead::banghead:
 
Let it go... the state doesn't need them anyway.

I am probably one of the most fair people I know.. Hell, I thought Terri Horman was innocent up until a couple months ago.. and in this case, what I keep coming back to and can not get over.... and what "seals the deal" for me that casey is guilty is:
not reporting her daughter missing for 31 days
slumber parties at tony's
shopping and writing amy's checks all over orlando
shaking her @ss at fusion
cindy's 911 call
casey's taped interviews - of all her lies
the SMELL in the car

to me... it doesn't matter how long those plants were growing thru the bones.. the post mortem death band doesn't mean a whole lot... or the cadaver dogs.

anyone with common sense will know better
 
Since I have seen it referenced here before, I will point you in the direction of thehinkymeter.com There is an excellent article there tonight about these motions and Val lays out quite clearly and in bold red letters that Ms. Lowe did NOT say she was not an expert. she made it quite clear what area she was an expert in. CM must have been asleep when that exchange occurred.



Many thanks! a great read :great::great::great:
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
77
Guests online
2,820
Total visitors
2,897

Forum statistics

Threads
590,011
Messages
17,928,944
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top