2009.03.12 Casey Anthony Motion Hearing

[OneLostGrl]

Originally Posted by jandkmom

I was going back and listening to the hearing today. Did y'all hear the announcement before the hearing about getting rid of gum and turning off the cell phones? I wonder if the gum announcement was for CA?

I was shocked they were allowed to keep it! A lot of courts don't allow gum... and they are pretty strict about it.. the bailiff will send you out into the hall and make you spit it out. If he wants to be a jerk he won't let ya back in the court room.

[scrabble]

Why is JB not wearing his wedding ring?

[sleutherontheside]

Originally Posted by scrabble

Why is JB not wearing his wedding ring?

That's a very good question. I notice he has put on some weight so perhaps it is too tight???

[Chezhire]

Originally Posted by irishbosoxfan

SNIPPED: "... Once the report is generated there is no good reason to keep the notes--because everything from the notes would have been entered into the report

True, and the question os whether or not there is any distinction between the language used in the informal notes and the language used in the official report.

I once saw a wrongful death case (terrible apartment fire) decided based upon the fact that the investigator had kept his notes (standard protocol) and that they were not verbatim what was in his "official report." The subtle language differences (we're talking symantics, folks) allowed the two versions open for interpretation. On the witness stand, since he had no personal recollection of the events/notes themselves, which were taken down 5 years earlier, it left the door open for an attorney in the case to argue that the "official report" was incorrect, else it would have said the exact same thing as the notes, but didn't. Jury was listening INTENSELY.

[Marina2]

Originally Posted by Chezhire

True, and the question os whether or not there is any distinction between the language used in the informal notes and the language used in the official report.

I once saw a wrongful death case (terrible apartment fire) decided based upon the fact that the investigator had kept his notes (standard protocol) and that they were not verbatim what was in his "official report." The subtle language differences (we're talking symantics, folks) allowed the two versions open for interpretation. On the witness stand, since he had no personal recollection of the events/notes themselves, which were taken down 5 years earlier, it left the door open for an attorney in the case to argue that the "official report" was incorrect, else it would have said the exact same thing as the notes, but didn't. Jury was listening INTENSELY.

I found a paper called "A Beginners Primer on the Investigation of Forensic Evidence." Of particular interest in this discussion of bench notes is Part IV. It begins:

"Most often lawyers obtain a copy of the prosecution's crime laboratory report and that's it. Never, never, never again litigate a forensic case without getting all of the laboratory bench notes. Here's what this is all about. One of the most basic requirements for proper scientific procedure is for the technician to thoroughly document every single thing that happens to the evidence. You might not know it, but when a piece of evidence arrives at the lab, a file is opened and a notation is made, then, each and every thing that happens to that piece of evidence is written down in the file as well (or at least should be if proper and accepted scientific practices are followed...hint, hint)."

It goes on to explain the importance of these notes to the defense.
The paper is basically a primer on what a defense attorney should look for when challenging forensic evidence. It was a good read and helps explain where the defense may go in their attack on the forensic evidence. Defense retesting of evidence is discussed in the last paragraph. I found this paragraph particularly interesting.

http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/kruglick/kruglick.html#part-two-section-five

[fortytwo]

Originally Posted by Marina2

I found a paper called "A Beginners Primer on the Investigation of Forensic Evidence."

(snip)

http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/kruglick/kruglick.html#part-two-section-five

Many thanks for sharing this very enlightening document.

I think this is a must read for all of us.

[Muzikman]

Filed into the case file today (9/3/09) was a partial transcript of this hearing. Bumping this thread in case there may be something which would point to the reasons for transcribing and filing this particular part of the hearing.

http://www.filedropper.com/partial03...ringtranscript