1147 users online (267 members and 880 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 37 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 544
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    29,161

    The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree? #4

    Please continue here.

    WARNING: The bickering has to STOP. Just STOP. It is not a poster's job to convince another poster to see things their way. So stop trying..... If someone sees something differently, so be it. If you can't respond without bickering or trying to convince them different, than MOVE PAST THE POST. If necessary, use the Ignore feature found on your profile page.

    Think: What am I saying? Am I trying to convince them they are wrong? If so, I better not hit post, cuz if I do, Salem is gonna tell Beach or JMeanerthanheck and I'm gonna get a TO.

    ALSO - please remember that name calling will be removed. If you write a really good post, but then call someone names, the ENTIRE post will be removed. All your HARD WORK down the drain. THINK before hitting the POST BUTTON.

    All TOS apply - attack the post, NOT the poster. Don't bicker. If someone is getting under your skin, USE the IGNORE button.

    As always - if you have questions or problems with moderation or another poster - PM a member of the MOD TEAM. Don't respond in the thread because the responsibility lies with YOU and YOU will be the one that gets the TO.

    Thanks Everybody!

    Salem

    [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145081"]Thread 1[/ame]

    [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145547"]Thread 2[/ame]

    Thread 3
    Last edited by Salem; 08-09-2011 at 01:48 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    43,418
    Everyone please read the opening post. We are considering closing this thread because there have been too many personal attacks.

    Please follow TOS and the rules in the OP.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by thedeviledadvocate View Post
    Color me confused.

    Deals with descriptions.
    Data can be observed but not measured.
    Colors, textures, smells, tastes, appearance, beauty, etc.
    Qualitative → Quality

    Deals with numbers.
    Data which can be measured.
    Length, height, area, volume, weight, speed, time, temperature, humidity, sound levels, cost, members, ages, etc.
    Quantitative → Quantity

    How can any numerical value or LEVEL, be it parts per million, parts per billion, parts per trillion etc. be found when using a QUALITATIVE test?

    Any expert using a qualitative test would be estimating as JA persuaded the Dr. to do as far as the LEVEL or AMOUNT of chloroform based on a qualitative test.

    When Dr. Vass testified that there were shockingly high levels of chloroform found in his qualitative test, that statement in and of itself cannot be true without doing a quantitative to determine the amount or level, and as far as I know, Dr. Vass did not do a quantitative test.

    Please anyone explain to me how a test that deals with descriptions, where data CANNOT be measured, how you determine that there is a high level of anything in that test?
    It's not that simple. It seems like it should be when you think about the words qualitative and quantitative, or quality and quantity. But you have to look at what is happening...what is being tested, how it's tested, etc. It's really complicated, and JB tried to make it very simple to confuse the jury. I think it worked. I know it confused me...so being the big nerd I am, I had to go study.

    The chart we saw during the trial was the chromatographic data. The graph's y-axis is the detector response (current), and the x-axis was the retention time (the time it takes to peak). The retention time can be used to identify what compound it is by comparing it to pure samples, but now the method is improved and a mass spectrometer is used to identify what it is. In a nutshell, here's how it works....

    Okay, so basically there is heat --> ions --> current. Then voltage is applied across the flame and the resulting flow of ions is detected as a current. The number of ions produced, and therefore the resulting current, depends on the flame conditions and the identity of the molecule in question. As a rough estimation, the current is proportional to the number of reduced carbons in the molecule.

    So that's why Dr. Vass said that you could get a rough estimate of the amount by measuring the area in the peak. Because the Y-axis is showing the number of reduced carbons. The more Chloroform (or whatever you are detecting), the higher the peak. The retention time doesn't change. It's your constant. But the peak can change based on the number of reduced carbons in the molecule.

    So, what Vass was saying was that the sample from KC's car had a huge peak, which means there was a significantly larger number of reduced carbons than in the control car samples. Not only that, but it was significantly larger than the number of reduced carbons in decomp samples. IIRC, he actually mentioned that by measuring the area in the peaks, you could get an estimate of the amount, but not an exact number. In order to get an exact number, you would have to calculate using a calibration curve, and that calls for a lot more testing, using different standards.

    KC's car: between 380 million and 400 million area
    Control car: 10,000 area

    I hope this helps. I know it helped me. I had a rough idea of what Vass meant, but after reading about all this, it is crystal clear.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    4,427
    ..thank you for the new thread.

    ..personally-----i do disagree with the verdict ( and not JUST b/c i find her to be guilty of murder ) but b/c also of what the jurors that HAVE spoken, have said.

    ..both juror #3 (jennifer ford) and the jury foreman have SAID that they wished there had been other charges that they could have used to find her guilty of! "not guilty doesn't mean innocent"!

    ( there WERE a ton of "lessers" included ------why on earth didn't they use them ?)

    -----------Good Morning America: " Do you think if the prosecutors had not been seeking the death penalty, it would have affected how you deliberated about this case"?

    JenniferFord: "Absolutely! We were ..uh. I think it was mentioned even a few times, if they charged her with other things, we probably could have convicted her or you know got her a guilty sentence, but not for death, not for first degree. There's not enough to substantiate that. That's a very serious charge".


    ..that alone tells me that at least ONE juror--------jennifer ford--------did NOT understand the instructions.

    ..and had she------she could have been the ONE to hold out for guilty and the outcome would have been different.

    ..they were NOT to factor in the Death Penalty-------while deliberating the GUILT phase---------and yet she did.

    ..both jennifer ford and the jury foreman have publicly lamented------there was no cause of death!

    --------------clearly neither were aware that the state did NOT need to give them one.
    ( had they KNOWN that-----the verdict may have been different.)

    ..i was following "verdict watch" LIVE on wftv----commentary with bill shaeffer and the reporter----we were waiting for the jury to 'buzz'---meaning they were requesting a portion of testimony to be read back, perhaps view a (jail) video, review pictures...ask the judge for clarification on "legal-lingo".....

    ..( all of the thing that were NOT available to them in the jury room----the physical pieces of evidence were in there with them-----except for the sealed cans/carpet--------everything else that they wanted to review they needed to 'buzz' the deputy for-----------and we would have all known if they did.. ).

    ..i find it shocking (!) that 12 people ( who claimed to have barely followed the case before making the jury ) heard ALL of that testimony/saw ALL of the evidence submitted/heard LENGTHY expert detailed forensic /scientific details----------and yet were able to go into that deliberation room after WEEKS, and not ask for ANY of it to refresh (anyones!) memory?

    ..wow! in my next life---------i want THAT total recall!

    ..it's absurd that with a trial this LENGTHY, that the jury was ( or members of the jury were..) arrogant enough to "go it alone"----and not do the RIGHT thing by asking to review----or ask for ANY legal interpretation...

    ( oh wait---who needs to buzz for the judge-----a high school GYM teacher can break this down for them ?? )

    ..rendering a verdict---in a murder case----when they clearly did not fully understand the instructions-----is just seriously wrong.

    ..you end up with--------a wrong verdict.
    Last edited by lauriej; 08-09-2011 at 02:06 AM.
    my opinion...........and i happen to agree with it.....

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    11,071
    I don't think they understood the instructions either and wasn't going to take the time to ask any questions. I think they wanted to go home and that was the bottom line. How could anyone with a half a brain in their head not find her guilty? If those 12 people had really listened to all of the evidence and looked at the whole pic it would have been impossible to have let her walk out of there. I hope they are all proud of theirselves and that they can sleep at night. This trial wasn't just about Casey Anthony. It was about a little girl being murdered by her mom because of problems between mom and grandmaw and because mom didn't want to be tied down by a child but wasn't about to give the little girl to the grandparents. Casey Anthony wanted to party and sleep around and live her life without a child hanging on her coattails. She murdered Caylee. There is no doubt about it. The thing that irks me now that the trial is over and that piece of slime walked is...why doesn't the media just forget about her? She is glorying in all of the attention. The media talks about her day and night. She wants millions to do an interview. Since when does a murderer get paid for murdering a little child. Since when is the murderer paid to do interview like she is someone special. She might be someone special in Baizs and the old man's eyes but that is about it. Oh and Dorothy the female attorney. I would suppose they are supporting Anthony and if so, more power to them if they want to waste their money on that lowlife. The media and other dense people need to stop treating Anthony like she is someone worth millions for an interview and treat her like what she is...a killer. The whole thing makes me sick and it starts with the jurors that had their heads stuck somewhere while the trial was going on. I hope they are all proud of themselves. It is just sickening.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    20,003
    Quote Originally Posted by imagirlgeek View Post
    It's not that simple. It seems like it should be when you think about the words qualitative and quantitative, or quality and quantity. But you have to look at what is happening...what is being tested, how it's tested, etc. It's really complicated, and JB tried to make it very simple to confuse the jury. I think it worked. I know it confused me...so being the big nerd I am, I had to go study.

    The chart we saw during the trial was the chromatographic data. The graph's y-axis is the detector response (current), and the x-axis was the retention time (the time it takes to peak). The retention time can be used to identify what compound it is by comparing it to pure samples, but now the method is improved and a mass spectrometer is used to identify what it is. In a nutshell, here's how it works....

    Okay, so basically there is heat --> ions --> current. Then voltage is applied across the flame and the resulting flow of ions is detected as a current. The number of ions produced, and therefore the resulting current, depends on the flame conditions and the identity of the molecule in question. As a rough estimation, the current is proportional to the number of reduced carbons in the molecule.

    So that's why Dr. Vass said that you could get a rough estimate of the amount by measuring the area in the peak. Because the Y-axis is showing the number of reduced carbons. The more Chloroform (or whatever you are detecting), the higher the peak. The retention time doesn't change. It's your constant. But the peak can change based on the number of reduced carbons in the molecule.

    So, what Vass was saying was that the sample from KC's car had a huge peak, which means there was a significantly larger number of reduced carbons than in the control car samples. Not only that, but it was significantly larger than the number of reduced carbons in decomp samples. IIRC, he actually mentioned that by measuring the area in the peaks, you could get an estimate of the amount, but not an exact number. In order to get an exact number, you would have to calculate using a calibration curve, and that calls for a lot more testing, using different standards.

    KC's car: between 380 million and 400 million area
    Control car: 10,000 area

    I hope this helps. I know it helped me. I had a rough idea of what Vass meant, but after reading about all this, it is crystal clear.
    I'm very impressed...and I do remember him talking about the peak...and I did understand what he was saying. I believe he explained it very well in fact. The jurors, sadly didn't get it...or if they did, they discounted it.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    761
    Quote Originally Posted by imagirlgeek View Post
    It's not that simple. It seems like it should be when you think about the words qualitative and quantitative, or quality and quantity. But you have to look at what is happening...what is being tested, how it's tested, etc. It's really complicated, and JB tried to make it very simple to confuse the jury. I think it worked. I know it confused me...so being the big nerd I am, I had to go study.

    The chart we saw during the trial was the chromatographic data. The graph's y-axis is the detector response (current), and the x-axis was the retention time (the time it takes to peak). The retention time can be used to identify what compound it is by comparing it to pure samples, but now the method is improved and a mass spectrometer is used to identify what it is. In a nutshell, here's how it works....

    Okay, so basically there is heat --> ions --> current. Then voltage is applied across the flame and the resulting flow of ions is detected as a current. The number of ions produced, and therefore the resulting current, depends on the flame conditions and the identity of the molecule in question. As a rough estimation, the current is proportional to the number of reduced carbons in the molecule.

    So that's why Dr. Vass said that you could get a rough estimate of the amount by measuring the area in the peak. Because the Y-axis is showing the number of reduced carbons. The more Chloroform (or whatever you are detecting), the higher the peak. The retention time doesn't change. It's your constant. But the peak can change based on the number of reduced carbons in the molecule.

    So, what Vass was saying was that the sample from KC's car had a huge peak, which means there was a significantly larger number of reduced carbons than in the control car samples. Not only that, but it was significantly larger than the number of reduced carbons in decomp samples. IIRC, he actually mentioned that by measuring the area in the peaks, you could get an estimate of the amount, but not an exact number. In order to get an exact number, you would have to calculate using a calibration curve, and that calls for a lot more testing, using different standards.

    KC's car: between 380 million and 400 million area
    Control car: 10,000 area

    I hope this helps. I know it helped me. I had a rough idea of what Vass meant, but after reading about all this, it is crystal clear.
    Thank you, that does help me to understand how a qualitative report can give an estimated amount.
    The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.-- Gandhi

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,264
    to imagirlgeek....wow! We need more just like you. Wish my brain cells worked like yours. I was very impressed by Dr. Vass, and believe that his testimony should have been proof enough that a body had been decomposing in FCA's car trunk. The DT worked furiously to negate all of the test results from Dr. Vass, and even resorted to ridicule. Snark: You are not a chemist, are you?!! Dr. Vass is brilliant, and knows that a dead body is a smell one doesn't forget. That scientific data went way over JB's ability to comprehend, but he knew all he had to do for the jury was to continue to make many of rude disparaging remarks. Oh, let's not forget: That bag of garbage, empty, devoid of food remants...sure + dmelled like a damn dead body. I can't believe that the DT sold that "theory" to the jury. They ate it up. They were starving for some juicy entertainment after all the technical test results. Of course, JB had them in the palm of his hand from the get-go. Remember his outrageous opening statement of lies. Caylee Marie killed herself...she climbed in the pool and drowned. Lost memories recalled. Yep...sell it to them, BS, garbage and throw in the "P" for good measure. What a farce. Really!!
    IMO
    Last edited by Caligram; 08-09-2011 at 03:33 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    In a van. Down by the river.
    Posts
    293
    Jennifer Ford scares me. She is going to school to be a nurse. One of the skills required to be a nurse and is DRILLED in nursing school is CRITICAL THINKING. Sadly, there was none applied to this case. God save her patients.
    I exercise my first amendment right to share my opinions in every post.

    Brad Conway speaking about the Anthony’s: “They want the truth, but it’s going to be difficult when we get there.”

    George Anthony speaking about his suicide ideations: “Knowing that my granddaughter was gone, knowing where my daughter’s at and what she’s facing for the rest - possibly her life…”

    Cindy Anthony re: baby Caylee: “It wasn’t Casey’s child, it was our child. She belonged to all of us.”

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,264
    Happy missed birthday Caylee Marie Angelbabe....who never lived to see age three. All her tomorrows, all her future years were taken from her. Poor little babe who should have reached the age of six today. Never got to know the thrill of first day of school. Missed out on so many firsts. The verdict did not give you justice, sweet thing. Your grandparents lied to save your mother, and in doing so they failed you. The jury didn't want to think about your sad ending. They failed you too. But we will always think of you singing about sunshine.
    IMHO


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    4,427
    Quote Originally Posted by RR0004 View Post
    I'm very impressed...and I do remember him talking about the peak...and I did understand what he was saying. I believe he explained it very well in fact. The jurors, sadly didn't get it...or if they did, they discounted it.
    ..i would BET that if any of the 17 jurors were asked to recap what dr.vass explained/testified to----- that they wouldn't have a clue.

    .. ( as juror # 3, jennifer ford said------she dismissed the chloroform entirely b/c "she just couldn't get from here to there with that". )

    ..but-----a number of them CAN recall that george was fidgeting, and looked uneasy on the stand.
    Last edited by lauriej; 08-09-2011 at 04:37 AM.
    my opinion...........and i happen to agree with it.....

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    499
    Sometimes I think ONLY those with IQ's of 120 and above should be allowed on juries, IF the jury system stays in tact here. We don't have to do whole WAIS es on them, but there are plenty reliable quick short IQ tests out that can be administered.
    Because a jury of your peers is all well and good but if they have no thinking and reasoning skills and in fact lack basic comprehension skills, is a jury system not one whole ridiculous laughing matter?
    KTCA : Karma Target Casey Anthony.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Volunteer Country
    Posts
    1,273
    If this was an accident..... (I will dig up links if asked)

    Why was JB encouraging Cindy "rosebud" to continue her investigations on other people that may have been involved in Caylee's kidnapping via an email?
    Why did Todd M. declare in court during a hearing that Jesse Grund was "essentially a suspect and the defense team has proof that Caylee's body was placed there after FKC was locked up?
    Why did LKB say on 48 hours that "someone else killed that little girl"?
    Why did the defense try to get evidence introduced at trial that RK used duct tape on one of his wives during a "kidnapping" (no proof and no charges were ever filed for Mr. kronk)?
    Why did JB tell a reporter early on that the best thing that could happen is for Caylee to be returned. This was also when he stated that he was completely convinced of her innocence. So apparently he was convinced of her innocence when he thought Caylee was kidnapped and STILL convinced when she told him it was an accident.

    None of this sounds like defense team thought it was an accident.

    I hope whoever “buys” the death car will make it available for more testing. I don't need anymore proof but some may...
    Last edited by coco puff; 08-09-2011 at 11:11 AM.
    “The fact that Casey Anthony was the last person to have custody of her daughter, failed to report her missing (or dead) for 31 days, consistently lied once confronted, and the child was found dead and hidden, and she failed to tell what actually happened despite repeated opportunities to do so to her family, friends or law enforcement, (even when faced with the death penalty) was sufficient to find her guilty -- not necessarily of premeditated murder, but certainly all lesser charges. The duct tape and other forensic evidence provided additional, but not necessary, evidence. “
    Quote from: Judge H. Lee Sarokin
    Retired in 1996 after 17 years on the federal bench

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    657
    Quote Originally Posted by lauriej View Post
    ..i would BET that if any of the 17 jurors were asked to recap what dr.vass explained/testified to----- that they wouldn't have a clue.
    Maybe a nice big chart on the chloroform levels would have helped the jury. OK, maybe not............
    Frederick The Great - “If my soldiers were to begin to think, not one would remain in the ranks”

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Schu7 View Post
    Maybe a nice big chart on the chloroform levels would have helped the jury. OK, maybe not............
    Especially if they used a cheap paper tablet to draw on, then dropped it once or twice, grinning sheepishly at the jury while picking it up. Aww, isn't he just the cutest thing?

    If they had wanted to understand it they would have asked to hear that testimony again. And again, if necessary. Dr. Vass just didn't have an audience open to considering it. They didn't like him or JA, simple. They weren't good ole boys and the jury resented their brains & edukashun.

    And IMO, there is absolutely no way they deliberated 10 hrs..not even close to that.

Page 1 of 37 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree? #3
    By Salem in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 693
    Last Post: 08-08-2011, 11:29 PM
  2. The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree?
    By Salem in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 1530
    Last Post: 08-01-2011, 10:46 PM
  3. If you agree or disagree with the verdict, let us know why
    By JBean in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 1347
    Last Post: 07-24-2011, 04:14 PM