2009.03.12 Casey Anthony Motion Hearing

Status
Not open for further replies.
This may be OT...
LKB could be a huge mistake, IMO, for the defense come trial time. As a southerner, I strongly feel that a Florida jury may, ok probably WILL, dislike her. She seems loud, obnoxious and not the least bit dignified. At any rate, I hope she doesn't change a thing !

I said the same exact thing to my hubby after the motions hearing on Thursday!
 
I'm not sure exactly how any of this discredits OCSO or the CSI's. I went back and read the docs again regarding the finding of hair by Dr. Lee. 3 hairs were found in the garbage. The doc states "we" found these hairs. At least one CSI was present with Lee as he took the garbage out of the bag. IMO, that means Lee and whatever CSIs were present with Lee found the hairs. There is no reason for the CSI to lie about this, even assuming this CSI is unethical and would lie about evidence collection. This garbage has been established as coming from TonE's house. TonE verified it in other docs somewhere. Therefore, any hair found could have come from anyone who was ever in TonE's house or even came in contact with TonE from the time that trashbag was put into use until it was tied to be tossed. Also, as much as CBS would like us to believe otherwise, it is not common practice to test every single piece of hair and fiber found. It would take a very long time and cost way too much money to be practical. That takes us to hair #4, found by and credited to Lee in the trunk of the car. The same trunk suspected because of other evidence found in it to have been used to transport Caylee's body. If a CSI were going to lie about who found what hair just to make them look better, this would be the hair to lie about, IMO. Yet, it states very clearly in the document this hair was pointed out by Lee and collected by the CSI. The rest of the hairs found were reported to have been found after Lee left, so I can't help but wonder why Baez is claiming Lee found 17 hairs, because I don't see it, unless they are saying 'hair' for multiple hairs, which IMO doesn't seem to be the case.
Anyway, back to the hair found in the trash. I'm not sure, because I don't have formal training, if that is a big deal or not. I lean towards it isn't, because I don't think they tested everything in the trash for DNA or fingerprints or fibers, either. The reality is these people operate on a limited budget, with limited manhours, this is not their only case, and the line has to be drawn somewhere.
Lanie

It's all show. Smoke and Mirrors with no substance.

- It really doesn't matter what Dr. Henry L claims to have found, that the forensic guys missed. Because HL has been discredited and admonished by the court for playing games with discovered evidence. As soon as he opens his mouth to declare "They missed this exculpatory evidence that I then found!", the SA has free reign to open up the evidence in the Phil Specter case that HL found, hid and destroyed. The victims broken fingernail. HL's actions in that case go beyond the pale of misconduct and start to brush on accesory to murder.

- It also doesn't matter how many other hairs were there or who found them. At this point it really doesn't matter as much if a hair showed decomposition. The decomposition hair was a critical piece of evidence BEFORE THE BODY WAS FOUND. After ward it is simply yet another piece of corraborating evidence that shows the very clear path that poor Caylee's body took before it was discarded as trash. "It Smells Like There's a Dead Body in the Car!" says it all. Everything else found simply re-inforces and backs up that excited utterance.

- They are attacking individual pieces of evidence and those who handled them. But the evidence in this case is not a chain, where breaking a particular link in the chain will call into question the entire chain. It is rather tight web, with seperate independent findings re-inforcing each other. Yes the air test may be new and experimental, but it is re-inforced by the dog hits, which are re-inforced by the detectives statements, which are re-inforced by the tow yard guys testimony, which are re-inforced by George, which are re-inforced by the decomposing hair and the stain, which are re-inforced by the timeline and which are re-inforced by Cindy's excited utterance. juries are not stupid.
 
It drove me nutz yesterday when he (Baez) mispronounced PUPA or PUPAE. He butchered it (POOOOO-PAAA).

It is not pronounced POOO-PAAAA like I made a "poooopa" in my pants!

Heh heh, that does sound funny. :D

What did you think about the CSI? Did he come across to you as articulate and easily understood?
 
Heh heh, that does sound funny. :D

What did you think about the CSI? Did he come across to you as articulate and easily understood?

I found him easier to understand than I do when listening to Dr. Lee. Not as articulate as Dr. Lee, (and I will :slap: myself now for venturing in to anything resembling discrimination,) but truthfully, I did find it easier to understand CSI Bloise' accent than I do following Dr. Lee's.

(No offense intended in regards to accents at all - just answering the question.)
 
Fear not, OLG! Even if by some stretch of the imagination that JB is able to cast doubt on the forensics, the jury will never be able to get past the 31 days and the partying and the tattoo and the bella vida that KC was living. Nor the fact that she has never once shown any kind of real emotion about anyone except herself.

You are right.. I know! I get worried sometimes.. thanks for knocking sense back into me! :blowkiss:
 
This may be OT...
LKB could be a huge mistake, IMO, for the defense come trial time. As a southerner, I strongly feel that a Florida jury may, ok probably WILL, dislike her. She seems loud, obnoxious and not the least bit dignified. At any rate, I hope she doesn't change a thing !


ITA I just can't see this woman playing well pretty much any where. As my Mama would say - "My, that woman is really something."
 
No wedding ring on jb

GOOD CATCH - very interesting, eh?

You're right! JB's wedding ring is missing!

Has anyone found out what is up with JB not sporting his wedding ring today?

This comes up every time there is a hearing. Can anyone find a shot of Baez wearing a wedding ring? Or at least any pix while he's working?

When it came up early on, I went back through all the photo ops up through that day (back in Sept) and couldn't find a single picture of Baez wearing a wedding ring. To this day I've never seen a picture of him wearing one. If I missed it please post a link so there is a reason to keep looking.
 
This comes up every time there is a hearing. Can anyone find a shot of Baez wearing a wedding ring? Or at least any pix while he's working?

When it came up early on, I went back through all the photo ops up through that day (back in Sept) and couldn't find a single picture of Baez wearing a wedding ring. To this day I've never seen a picture of him wearing one. If I missed it please post a link so there is a reason to keep looking.

You're right, I've never seen him wearing one either and for the longest time didn't even think he was ever married! Where was it confirmed he was/is?
 
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? :)
 
You're right, I've never seen him wearing one either and for the longest time didn't even think he was ever married! Where was it confirmed he was/is?


GR confirmed it on his show one time....apparently she is quite a beauty....:snooty:
 
I agree...I'm not seeing it either. If anything, reading through the reports, I see a very thorough investigation going on. IMO this is the only "defense" the defense has...attack, attack, attack. They're just trying to make LE look bad. Same 'ole, same 'ole if you ask me. I'm not saying that LE is infallible, but the scientific evidence is what it is.

Brought this over from the Macaluso thread- He was also present at the hearing- coaching JB? testing the waters on how CSI's will answer or act under questioning?

I think he's there to cast doubt on the methods and procedures of CSI & LE, muddy the waters as much as possible. I think he will review, in court before the jury, every freaking forensic testing procedure with every state expert witness, hoping he can get them to slip up and acknowledge any minute error.

However, I also think this will be a waste of time and effort on the defense's part. Unless he can find some GLARING mistake that will stick with the jurors, they most likely will find this boring beyond endurance, ignore it, and concentrate on the meatier aspects of the case (just human nature- let's face it, the jury will not consist of WSers). Jurors will be only human, and as such, will mostly only connect with information that makes sense to them. There is a BIG difference between showing product liability due to a failure to follow procedures (ie- product was not tested correctly, and therefore dangerous item was put on the market, etc.) and proving evidence in a child's death should be ignored because a techie entered info into his computer system a day late or missed a tiny hair on a tv dinner plate in a garbage bag, found it later, and then tested it, or a lab guy who's done a type of test a thousand times can't articulate the steps he follows quoting word for word from the procedure manual. Jurors will find this tedious at best and ignore it completely, at worst, imo, especially if JB does any of the questioning, as shown by his ridiculous performance in the hearing with the CSI.

Just as the media feeds the most shocking details to the public (Hi, Nancy Grace!) and that's what they remember, the jury will hopefully hone in on the important and more pertinent facts that SA presents- not reported missing by mother AT ALL, reported after 31 days by CA with KC asking for 1 more day, smell of death in car, decomp hair, lies, lies, lies, etc. JMHO
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
127
Guests online
1,523
Total visitors
1,650

Forum statistics

Threads
589,181
Messages
17,915,215
Members
227,746
Latest member
nmdigital
Back
Top