Page 7 of 66 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 17 57 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 983
  1. #91
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southeast US
    Posts
    2,244
    According to the Florida Frye standard, Vass' chemical composition signature meets the challenge.

    snipped from Florida's Frye Standard

    Frye focuses on whether the science that underlies the proffered expert testimony is generally accepted, and Florida's Frye progeny rely on general acceptance as a proxy for evidentiary reliability such that in Florida “the Frye test is utilized . . . to guarantee the reliability of new or novel scientific evidence.” Brim, supra, at 272; Hadden v. State, 690 So.2d 573 (Fla. 1997).

    Publication in peer-reviewed journals is taken as an indication of that general acceptance. Williams v. State, 710 So.2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Berry v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 709 So.2d 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). This accords well with a discussion of publication as part of the process by which a scientific technique becomes generally accepted. Faigman, Kaye, Saks & Sanders, Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony §1-3.3.4 (West Group 1997).



    snipped from Vass et al forensic report:

    "These samples were sent to us in reference to research we have been performing since 2002 in an attempt to identify the chemical composition signature of human decomposition odor. This research has resulted in several peer reviewed publications (References 4-5)


    Incidentally, Florida's Frye Standard has been criticized as "no standard at all".



  2. The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to Marina2 For This Useful Post:


  3. #92
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Cali
    Posts
    1,667
    I think the single hair with the death ring will be challenged. The defense made it clear early on that they would challenge this scientifically.


  4. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Gma Kat For This Useful Post:


  5. #93
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    52,812
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat13067 View Post
    In the Scott Peterson case the jury not only looked at the boat, but boarded it.
    I think when you actually see the coffin that held the body it makes an impact on the jury.
    OT but remember ,the fact that the jurors boarded the boat was highly controversial and touted as an appellate issue. They should not have been allowed to go on it, only view it. It gets dangerously close to doing their own experiments which is a no no.

    /OT


  6. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to JBean For This Useful Post:


  7. #94
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    In the sunshine.
    Posts
    9,876
    Quote Originally Posted by JBean View Post
    OT but remember ,the fact that the jurors boarded the boat was highly controversial and touted as an appellate issue. They should not have been allowed to go on it, only view it. It gets dangerously close to doing their own experiments which is a no no.

    /OT

    I agree JBean.......I doubt the Prosecution would even entertain a field trip. Unless a juror has experiences the smell of decomp before.....then their nose would be validating only, that a smell is present. However, one that HAS smelled it before and comments based upon that experience would be IMO suitable.

    I think dragging jurors off to a "trunk sniff field trip" would be highly prejudicial.


  8. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to sleutherontheside For This Useful Post:


  9. #95
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    52,812
    Quote Originally Posted by sleutherontheside View Post
    I agree JBean.......I doubt the Prosecution would even entertain a field trip. Unless a juror has experiences the smell of decomp before.....then their nose would be validating only, that a smell is present. However, one that HAS smelled it before and comments based upon that experience would be IMO suitable.

    I think dragging jurors off to a "trunk sniff field trip" would be highly prejudicial.
    I concur.


  10. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to JBean For This Useful Post:


  11. #96
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Between the beach and the river
    Posts
    6,552
    Quote Originally Posted by sleutherontheside View Post
    I agree JBean.......I doubt the Prosecution would even entertain a field trip. Unless a juror has experiences the smell of decomp before.....then their nose would be validating only, that a smell is present. However, one that HAS smelled it before and comments based upon that experience would be IMO suitable.

    I think dragging jurors off to a "trunk sniff field trip" would be highly prejudicial.

    I'm not disagreeing ,because I don't have enough knowledge to,but how would taking them to see and smell the trunk be any different than showing them the duct tape or the clothing Caylee was wearing? I don't understand what makes the trunk more prejudicial than any other evidence.
    Could the prosecution bring in the trunk liner? It probably still reeks.
    Always ,just my opinion





    *****************************************
    We never saw it coming .Please talk to your teen even if you don't think you need to !
    Far more teens commit impulsive suicide without chronic depression
    Miss U James


  12. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to MissJames For This Useful Post:


  13. #97
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,230
    Quote Originally Posted by MissJames View Post
    I'm not disagreeing ,because I don't have enough knowledge to,but how would taking them to see and smell the trunk be any different than showing them the duct tape or the clothing Caylee was wearing? I don't understand what makes the trunk more prejudicial than any other evidence.
    Could the prosecution bring in the trunk liner? It probably still reeks.
    Wow, sounds like a brilliant strategy to me, MissJames!
    The heart of the pure can see, but my eyes have never seen the unicorn . . .


  14. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to ExpectingUnicorns For This Useful Post:


  15. #98
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    7,473
    Quote Originally Posted by sleutherontheside View Post
    I agree JBean.......I doubt the Prosecution would even entertain a field trip. Unless a juror has experiences the smell of decomp before.....then their nose would be validating only, that a smell is present. However, one that HAS smelled it before and comments based upon that experience would be IMO suitable.

    I think dragging jurors off to a "trunk sniff field trip" would be highly prejudicial.
    Yes, but what if the prosecution finds another reason to get the jury near that car. I believe that powerfully awful smell of death strikes a "primitive or instinctual" area in the orbitofrontal cortex and a juror would JUST KNOW it is the smell of a human's death. I don't want to take this thread on an discussion about evolution, but.....
    -----------------
    Consequently, animals (probably likewise human beings) have the olfactory signal mechanism to inform about the critical state of the organism. It regulates animals’ behavior.

    The meaning of repulsive signals (smells) is clear: they limit contacts of seriously ill animals and prevent possible spread of infection
    http://www.innovations-report.com/ht...ort-93397.html
    -------------------
    A specific blend of fatty acids signal death or injury to a variety of animals, providing a warning to others of the species. Oleic or linoleic acids, compounds released by the cells of some animals soon after death, served as a death signal, or 'necromone,' ..........Many of the species aggressively avoided areas treated with this 'smell of death.'
    http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200909185
    -----------------
    Hoping the jurors are taken to view KC's trunk for whatever reason the prosecution can get approved!


  16. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Pensfan For This Useful Post:


  17. #99
    whiteangora's Avatar
    whiteangora is offline I'm on the right track baby. I was "Born This Way"
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    5,751

    Bumping!

    Bringing this forward to help show what evidence D.Sims might be challenging.
    Neighborhood Watch is...
    NOT the Vigilante Police
    http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigati...PowerPoint.pdf






  18. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to whiteangora For This Useful Post:


  19. #100
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,716
    Quote Originally Posted by cecybeans View Post
    I would imagine the air sample tests for one - people seem to be saying the technology has not yet been used in a court case, so they must be rather state-of-the-art.
    In practice, it might be state-of-the-art, but the theory has been used in sobriety tests for years and is acceptable in that.
    I have a constitutional right to my opinion and I am stating it!!!!!


  20. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Gaia713 For This Useful Post:


  21. #101
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    4,721
    I wonder if the SA's will bring this "touch DNA" into evidence or bring it foward in a Frey hearing??? Seems to me Baez is trying to make huge statements by bringing this new technology into this trial...JMHO

    Baez is trying to use this new area of "junk science" as he calls it...I wonder what will come of this if it is something the defense wants to bring into evidence???

    This may hurt or help the defense if "touch DNA" is an accepted method of testing...JMHO

    Justice for Caylee




    WKMG showed Dr. Henry Lee, the well-known criminologist, talking to reporters. DeForest also spotlighted Richard and Selma Schieveld-Eikelenboom, who are specialists in touch DNA.

    That is “DNA left behind by a killer on something they handled with their fingers,” DeForest explained. “Based on the evidence we’ve seen so far, law enforcement has been unable to find any of Casey Anthony’s DNA on the duct tape that had been wrapped around her daughter’s head or any other evidence found in the woods near the toddler’s body.”

    DeForest said it was unclear what the defense experts are looking for, but added, “This is their one big chance to identify any problems with the state’s physical evidence that will be used against Casey Anthony.”

    WESH spotlighted Dr. Lee and the Eikelenbooms. WESH’s Kealing added that prosecutor Jeff Ashton attended but didn’t talk to the press. Defense attorney Mason said the examination would take all day and any follow-ups would require a request to the judge, Kealing reported.
    http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/ent...lic-waits.html


    'Touch DNA' offers hope in solving cold cases
    http://www.policeone.com/police-prod...ng-cold-cases/

    http://www.policemag.com/Channel/Tec...t-a-Touch.aspx
    http://www.policemag.com/Channel/Tec...t-a-Touch.aspx

    SENATOR NOZZOLIO BACKS DA AND STATE POLICE IN USE OF TOUCH DNA TESTING
    http://www.nysenate.gov/press-releas...ch-dna-testing


    Touch DNA and the Masters Case
    http://www.uis.edu/innocenceproject/...dna/index.html


  22. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to LiveLaughLuv For This Useful Post:


  23. #102

    Who will Casey's defense have testify at the Frye hearing?

    It all depends on who Jose calls to the stand as an expert. God help him. This is very interesting to me, the Frye hearing on the Body Farm testing. In the recent status hearing we learned ( I inferred ) that Jose is very excited about his two experts, the Eikelenbooms, that are from outside of the US and their would be testimony about the touch DNA. Perhaps this is the approach the defense will take in the Fry hearing too......they will pull in an expert to try to counter the Body Farm and claim it is junk science. Will he or she be much like the expert they called to the stand who testified to the statistics of gender bias in charging crimes and juries. She was wholly unqualified to opine on THIS case, never having examined the case or even met the defendant. It was hard to watch.

    Let's review Mr. Baez and his hiring choices

    A toddler was "missing". This situation just screamed out for an expert specialized in investigating missing children. Rather than someone with those special qualifications, with a wink, a smile, a misguided very poor understanding of attorney client , agency privilege extending to him and cloudy conversation about compensation, he suedo - hired someone who had his PI license for mere months and this was his first case, Dominic Casey.

    This case required a DP qualified lawyer, he hired Terry Lenamon . Since he did not agree with his learned suggestions they promptly parted ways without a high regard for one another. I assume this based on the various and sundry times the gentleman commented publicly as to his opinion of the case, and not just locally.

    The case had garnered national and international attention, the public opinions were clearly being guided by media released information. He should have known to avoid media interviews and repeat the sentences... I do not comment on cases and we will try this in the courtroom. He decided he needed a PR firm. Alrighty then. Instead of hiring a reputable, experienced, respected firm he hires a Felon who was convicted of shaking down a reporter, Mr. Cabott who informs the press not only does he use a fake name, but that he has three different folks all using the fake name of Todd Black. You just could NOT make that one up!!!!!

    Rather than hire local counsel to help, he brings in Todd Macaluso from another state, who donates money to the defense fund WHILE he is being investigating for fraud and possible theft/misappropriation at best of a clients money!!! WOW.

    In no particular order... he hires Dr. Henry Lee. A year and half later he gets around to having experts look at the evidence in his case. He stands in court and asks for his experts to review it, IN PRIVATE. The judge asked him would he stipulate to (agree) the chain of custody being without reproach. He said no. Judge Perry made the now famous eyebrow lift. This is nuts and bolts evidence that the Orange County Sheriff's Department is going to be required to testify that they maintained the care, custody and control of at all times. Jose asked for them not to be present while his team had at it. On it's own, that would have lasted me well into the weekend. Trying to further his line of reasoning he explained to the judge that there indeed is ONE example in the history of American jurisprudence where this was allowed.
    Guess which case he cited to the judge? Phil Spector's. The very case where his expert, Dr. Lee was found to have taken/secreted/mishandled the fingernail evidence. ( I am not certain of the term used, but it was NOT good). Out of all the experts in our entire country, why would he hire one who has this notoriety attached to him? Once he did hire him, why would he make Dr. Lee's scandal front page news again and bring the impropriety to the judge's attention during an argument for he and others to be in a room with evidence in private? It was career suicide...or something I cannot qualify. I just recall being stunned at my desk. STUNNED. I knew I liked judge Perry already. The result of this was, not only did Judge Perry order that of course the OCSD would be in the room, now the Prosecutor's office would also be in the room and IT WOULD BE VIDEO TAPED.

    Knowing that he had claiming half of the money Casey has from the victim's photos for himself, he hires on a lawyer from Chicago with the knowledge that this trial will be protracted for two to three years and she too will wind up paying to work this case since the money for costs will quickly run out. There are hundreds of lawyers in his own state that would have jumped on this case, so why set yourself up for a situation that is inevitably finite when you need one that is perpetual? I put it that way; because, imo he did not foresee having to declare Casey indigent. Even if he had, since Andrea came on pro bono, pro bono she would have to remain and her travel expenses was not ever going to be paid by the state of Florida. We'll come back to her.

    The very first opportunity he has to call an expert witness in this DEATH PENALTY case, who does he hire? He hired a professor who writes about research, that admittedly has never once familiarized herself with this particular case and whose general information is wholly irrelevant. It was..... so much so, that although she was a surprise witness, Mr. Ashton turned down the judge's offer for a continuance so he could have the normal time to look into her bona fides, etc. and properly prepare to cross examine her. Indeed he made short order of exposing her complete and utter incapacity to opine on anything relevant to THIS CASE with any authority, real or imagined. She left the stand with a what do you want from me look that my grandmother has when I tell her I can show her how she could Skype her relatives in England. You know, the same look we all had watching her, wondering where did they get her, and why. I don't blame her, of course. I blame him.

    Having searched the world over for a Perry Mason, the best he could find was Cheney Mason, Jose Baez announced as he introduced them to his new co counsel. Busy detailing his number of years as a lawyer for us, often, he never bothers to review the file and makes several public statements that are contrary to what the defense in this case has maintained as their mantra for two years now. My personal favorite was on the courthouse steps, the first day Cheney had little brother away at a conference and could enjoy the limelight on himself only. He tells the reporters the exact opposite of what Jose, Andrea and Todd had been screaming from the rooftops. All along they maintained that the body could not have been missed; because, THE AREA WAS DRY, searched repeatedly and little Caylee simply was not there until Casey was jailed. Mr. Mason, focused on belittling Kathi Belich, blurts out in a boast that indeed that is incorrect, not only was it not dry, but it could not have been searched, at all; because, it was ....wait for it....."Impassible", due to the water levels. That was the first, but certainly not the last of the (how shall I put this)...interesting , conflicting things Mr. Mason has brought to the team.

    IMO, it was Mr. Mason's bright idea to ask Judge Strickland to step aside. That judge who has a clear history of NEVER imposing the death penalty and who had been very, VERY patient with the defense. He was far friendlier to their nonsense than who they got in exchange. They took a guy off who likely would not have imposed the death penalty. Even if the jury recommended it, I surmise, he would have changed it to life...based on his record. In his stead, Jose got a man that not only has imposed the death penalty but who has personally gone to one of the executions and will be very, very tough and no nonsense with the defense.
    Be careful what you wish for, and who you hire, Jose.

    Furthermore, under Mr. Mason's wise watch, who does Baez part company with? Andrea, (you know... the one who taught him how to prepare a motion, or at least align the margins ) a woman who very likely could have saved his clients life in the punishment phase. Her persona aside, one cannot discount her success record in appealing to a jury to spare her clients life. She could have had as much if not more success with that endeavor with anyone they could possibly find to pinch hit. What the hell were they thinking? In a case as desperate as this, you put the hubris away, and personal like or dislike aside and you do not let someone as valuable to your efforts as Andrea Lyon go. You just don't. This decision I draw a straight line back to the decision to hire on Cheney. I could tell in the first five seconds of how he was in the hearing when he referred to Mr. Ashton as "Ignorant", that he was going to want to bring in his team, and he would want the others gone, like yesterday, he would want to be in charge.

    Here we are with arguably the case of the century. I do believe Cheney when he says experts are calling them to volunteer. One could not buy the advertising that this case would give them, no question. Knowing THIS JUDGE, with the entire United States of Americas experts to choose from, Jose decides to hire some folks from Finland. How does Charlie Brown sigh? "Good Grief!"

    I am looking forward to the Fry hearing, just to see who the defense will call to the stand.
    I like to review RESULTS. Based on the results of his hiring so far.....I think of Betty Davis telling her friends "Buckle up, we're in for a bumpy ride".


    You just can't make this stuff up!!!!

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUY9h0ZnKZA[/ame]

    Cheney Mason called Mr. Jeff Ashton "Ignorant" in open court. That was our first clue about Mr. Mason.
    four minute mark , Jose "I have paid investigators on this case, but it was very little".
    Mr. George, "Who paid for Ms. Lyon to get her today?"
    Andrea, " I did, I thought I was clear...there is no money, not a dime!"

    Judge Strickland asking about Todd Malcalusco "He contributed seventy thousand dollars, contingent upon him being part of the team?"

    Speaking of Dr. Lee here,five minute mark
    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC0Xtr917ZY[/ame]
    Judge Strickland is explaining to Mason, there are caps for experts to which Cheney replies Dr. Lee told him once he has worked for a crate of oranges.
    Also "We have lots of experts and lawyers volunteering their time to help us, pro bono".

    I am guessing Mr. Mason will have some of these volunteers at the Frye hearing.
    The Frye hearing will depend on who Jose hires to testify.

    MOO ( my opinion only and I certainly do not mean any offense to the professor who testified at the gender bias death penalty motion, I assume she was called up on the fly)




    http://www.wftv.com/news/25001357/detail.html
    note the first line in this article "The new lawyers seem to thrive in the spotlight. One has a book out and another was the subject of an Oscar-winning documentary."
    Last edited by The World According; 10-02-2010 at 11:05 AM.



  24. #103
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    South
    Posts
    3,835
    Quote Originally Posted by notthatsmart View Post
    I have read the Dr Vass report several times. I believe that Le had the samples sent to Dr Vass. Not sure who approved an air sample test. I am not seeing anything in that air sample test that confirms it was human decompostion. There are certainly things that are consistent with human decomp, but also consistent with animal decomp. The human signature compounds were man made compounds and not natural human compounds.

    I do not believe that Sa will bring this air sample into play. Just because Le sends something out to be tested, does not mean that Sa is going to use it. I am sure they were hoping to find something more significant like decomp fluid.

    Asking for Ga grand jury testimony raises a flag for me. He must have changed his story or they misinterpreted him from the start. They need him to say that smell was human decomp. Le did not act like it was the smell of human decomp from the start. They did not secure the car.

    Ja said in the recent motion that there was more discovery at the body farm that has not been released because they have not sent it. I think he may be using that to delay discovery, but I do not think he will use air sample at Frye. Moo
    Respectfully Quoted notthatsmart
    BBM

    My post is responding to what has been put in bold.

    Interview with LE
    July 24, 2008
    George Anthony


    LE: ...our, our dealing with the media okay, is, is, is it is, is driven by the power of dealing with media. It's driven by two things okay? It's driven by uh, the media can help us when we are looking for somebody. We get out and we get that information out there. And if you've noticed every time I've said something to the media you know, we're investigating a missing person. Anybody that has information call. For our purpose okay, that's really all we need. If you have information please call. If you have information please call. Uhm, as far as going on some show and...
    GA: Right
    LE: ...say anything about what happened, neither of us want to do that okay? Now, in Florida we have a very uhm...
    LE: (other) Liberal...
    LE: ...liberal public records law, okay? We have to release certain things okay?
    GA: I understand
    LE: And all the things we can hold back, we hold back. I mean if you noticed a lot of the, a lot of the stuff that came out on, well uh evidence came out with him on the witness stand. We didn't run out in front of the TV cameras and say the car smelled like uh, you know like there's a dead body in it. We have never run out and said that stuff. It happened in court.
    (skip)
    LE: And as a matter of fact I think uh, I can't remember if it was you or if it was Lee that I was talking to about this it's, it's actually I think I was talking to all three of you that night. Maybe it was you two when your wife went into the other room, is that there are things that we have to keep close.
    LE: (other) Right
    LE: Obviously because we're you know, we're investigating what happened. And the last thing I want to do is come to you and tell you something that isn't a hundred percent positive. I couldn't tell you about what I saw, or what I sensed or what I smelled. I couldn't tell you that but I was forced to only because I am on the stand. I 'm being asked direct questions. I have to explain why I believe these things are there. (skip) But unfortunately because of what I do and because of who I am I have to, I have to answer these questions when they are asked of me your know in, in a courtroom setting.
    (end)

    Tuesday, August 12, 2008
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,402098,00.html
    Credit for the link goes to acandyrose.com

    (The link above also has interesting information re: the phone call ICA says she received on July 15th from Caylee, and Cindy Anthony "confirming" that her mother SP also received a phone call "from Caylee.")

    VAN SUSTEREN: Did Casey Anthony's car trunk carry a dead body? Both detectives and Casey's mother, Cindy, say they noticed an odor coming from that trunk that they seemed to be -- that of a decomposing body, is what they said. Well, right now, anthropologists from the University of Tennessee's facility known as "the body farm" are testing air samples from the car's trunk. What can the tests prove?

    Joining us live is forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden. Dr. Baden, can they take an air sample from the trunk and determine whether or not there had been a body decomposing in that truck?

    DR. MICHAEL BADEN, FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST: Yes, because after we die and the bacteria proliferate in our body and start breaking down our muscles and our fat and organs, vapors, gases, are formed with beautiful names like cadaverine (ph) and putrescine (ph) that are a particular structure that are easily picked up in the toxicology lab if they're collected from the area, the air that the body was in. And if there was a dead body in the trunk of the car and they collected the air sample, they should be able to find those chemicals.

    VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Now, this time line begins probably sometime July -- June 15 is Father's Day.

    BADEN: Right.

    VAN SUSTEREN: June 16 is the last day that the grandfather saw that child, and it isn't until July 15 that the police are called. Let's say hypothetically that a body that began decomposing as soon as the 16th...

    BADEN: Right.

    VAN SUSTEREN: ... Were placed in that trunk, if you examined the truck now on August whatever this is, 11, would you still -- would the test still be as effective?

    QUESTION: It would not be as effective now as it was when the cadaver dog alerted to it and the detective and the grandma said they smelled the decomposition. There was also some stains there. See, the air will dissipate over time, whereas the stain that was there would still be there. And if it were decomposition fluid or blood, that can be identified. And that's better than just the odor because you can do DNA on a stain and see if it came from Casey (SIC).

    VAN SUSTEREN: I suppose...

    BADEN: Or the baby.

    VAN SUSTEREN: I supposed that it wouldn't necessarily be that either one would necessarily be conclusive, but it's sort of the combination would certainly be more persuasive than standing alone.

    BADEN: Yes. Yes. And the stain could tell you DNA. The hair -- remember, there was hair there. The hair has DNA.

    VAN SUSTEREN: And can also tell whether someone had been dead or not, the hair.

    BADEN: That's right. The hair can tell you who the daddy is, as well as the baby, and also whether it came from a dead person or a living person.

    ...js...
    John 14:6


  25. The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to Chiquita71 For This Useful Post:


  26. #104
    whiteangora's Avatar
    whiteangora is offline I'm on the right track baby. I was "Born This Way"
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    5,751
    TWA, you have outdone yourself again with post # 102.
    Neighborhood Watch is...
    NOT the Vigilante Police
    http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigati...PowerPoint.pdf






  27. The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to whiteangora For This Useful Post:


  28. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by Chiquita71 View Post
    Respectfully Quoted
    BBM



    VAN SUSTEREN: Did Casey Anthony's car trunk carry a dead body? Both detectives and Casey's mother, Cindy, say they noticed an odor coming from that trunk that they seemed to be -- that of a decomposing body, is what they said. Well, right now, anthropologists from the University of Tennessee's facility known as "the body farm" are testing air samples from the car's trunk. What can the tests prove?

    Joining us live is forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden. Dr. Baden, can they take an air sample from the trunk and determine whether or not there had been a body decomposing in that truck?

    DR. MICHAEL BADEN, FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST: Yes, because after we die and the bacteria proliferate in our body and start breaking down our muscles and our fat and organs, vapors, gases, are formed with beautiful names like cadaverine (ph) and putrescine (ph) that are a particular structure that are easily picked up in the toxicology lab if they're collected from the area, the air that the body was in. And if there was a dead body in the trunk of the car and they collected the air sample, they should be able to find those chemicals.

    VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Now, this time line begins probably sometime July -- June 15 is Father's Day.

    BADEN: Right.

    VAN SUSTEREN: June 16 is the last day that the grandfather saw that child, and it isn't until July 15 that the police are called. Let's say hypothetically that a body that began decomposing as soon as the 16th...

    BADEN: Right.

    VAN SUSTEREN: ... Were placed in that trunk, if you examined the truck now on August whatever this is, 11, would you still -- would the test still be as effective?

    QUESTION: It would not be as effective now as it was when the cadaver dog alerted to it and the detective and the grandma said they smelled the decomposition. There was also some stains there. See, the air will dissipate over time, whereas the stain that was there would still be there. And if it were decomposition fluid or blood, that can be identified. And that's better than just the odor because you can do DNA on a stain and see if it came from Casey (SIC).

    VAN SUSTEREN: I suppose...

    BADEN: Or the baby.

    VAN SUSTEREN: I supposed that it wouldn't necessarily be that either one would necessarily be conclusive, but it's sort of the combination would certainly be more persuasive than standing alone.

    BADEN: Yes. Yes. And the stain could tell you DNA. The hair -- remember, there was hair there. The hair has DNA.

    VAN SUSTEREN: And can also tell whether someone had been dead or not, the hair.

    BADEN: That's right. The hair can tell you who the daddy is, as well as the baby, and also whether it came from a dead person or a living person.

    ...js...
    Respectfully sniped

    How truly deliciously interesting when Dr. Baden opines contrary to the defense team his wife is on. Indeed!


  29. The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to The World According For This Useful Post:


Page 7 of 66 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 17 57 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Digital Forensic Evidence from Ricardo M UPDATED 1-24-09
    By EclecticArtist in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 221
    Last Post: 07-20-2011, 07:05 PM
  2. 2011.04.08 Frye Hearing Thread
    By beach in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 920
    Last Post: 04-08-2011, 02:03 PM
  3. 2011.04.06 Frye Hearing Thread
    By beach in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 1945
    Last Post: 04-06-2011, 05:17 PM
  4. 2011.03.23 Frye Hearing - Afternoon portion
    By Salem in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 1213
    Last Post: 03-24-2011, 06:43 AM
  5. 2011.03.23 Frye Hearing
    By beach in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 889
    Last Post: 03-23-2011, 01:46 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •