Evidence subject to Frye - *UPDATED* 2011.05.09 (ATTN: ALL ORDERS IN!)

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Labs have been testing bones for xanax for over a decade. If Caylee's bones have traces of xanax in them, this evidence should be heard.

Weren't there coffin flies in her trunk? This evidence says the same thing as air samples....GUILTY!
http://www.wesh.com/news/21532034/detail.html
 
What about the decomp hair and the hair that didn't match KC or Caylee? Can the decomp hair technology be challenged successfully?
 
Patriciao said:
This may have already been asked and answered, so I apologize for posting.

Would Casey's trunk still smell at the time of trial? Could the jury be allowed to smell it? If the odor was still intense I think this would speak volumes to the jury.
Click to expand...
Yes, her car will stink to ages of ages. If you put it near your nose, my human anatomy lab book still stinks after almost 3 decades. I think it would be a great idea to let the jurors examine (smell) that trunk. What horror!
 
The Eunice Burns said:
This may be oversimplifying things but, if they try and quash the air sample results, there are always the dogs, and the statements of GA, CA, LA, SB, and CA's co-workers, who will testify that Cindy arrived at work after picking up the car only to complain about the stench of a dead body in it.
Click to expand...

true on most of your points here, but I don't think the "dog science" would meet Frye standard either LOL (well maybe not Frye standard, as the use of cadaver dogs isn't new or novel, but any scientific standard I mean.) And that's no criticism of the dogs, I love them and appreciate them. But there's a lot more involved in the use of cadaver dogs than the dogs, there are also various layers of human subjectivity and influence involved. Humans choose where the dogs are taken, for instance. Well, I wonder whether the air sample tests will be admitted in the end? I don't think it will matter too much will it, because the tests didn't identify the smell components as definitely human decomposition. The testimony of people who had smelled the car may be just as strong.
 
seagull65 said:
true on most of your points here, but I don't think the "dog science" would meet Frye standard either LOL (well maybe not Frye standard, as the use of cadaver dogs isn't new or novel, but any scientific standard I mean.) And that's no criticism of the dogs, I love them and appreciate them. But there's a lot more involved in the use of cadaver dogs than the dogs, there are also various layers of human subjectivity and influence involved. Humans choose where the dogs are taken, for instance. Well, I wonder whether the air sample tests will be admitted in the end? I don't think it will matter too much will it, because the tests didn't identify the smell components as definitely human decomposition. The testimony of people who had smelled the car may be just as strong.
Click to expand...

Would they be able to question Henry Lee who smelled the trunk of the car and if I remember correctly made some comments about it?
 
treeseeker said:
Not only that, but quashing the air testing IMO opens the door to a jury field trip to the car, which by all accounts still reeks.
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head. A field trip to the car compound would really impact the jury.
 
niaa said:
Oh I so like this idea, please take a field trip to the car. I can just hear the objections now. Maybe the defense will have to agree that the car smells like decomposition to prevent a field trip. oh please let's have a field trip!
Click to expand...

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.
 
After reading about how the Frye Standard is applied, specifically in Florida, I'm wondering if a Frye hearing will even be granted. The use of GC/MS is not new or novel and, imo, generally accepted by the scientific community.

Apparently, it is not the expert's opinion that is the subject of a Frye test. It's the underlying basis for his opinion that is challenged. Since Vass' opinion is based on GC/MS data I don't see how this can thrown out. First, it's not new or novel. Second, even if a Frye hearing is granted, GC/MS will pass the test as it is obviously accepted by the relevant scientific community.

All that's left is to qualify Dr. Vass as an expert in his field. I don't think anyone can dispute that he is an expert in his field. This will leave the jury to decide whether his opinion, i.e. the compounds found with GC/MS indicate a decomposition event, is credible or not.
 
Marina2 said:
After reading about how the Frye Standard is applied, specifically in Florida, I'm wondering if a Frye hearing will even be granted. The use of GC/MS is not new or novel and, imo, generally accepted by the scientific community.

Apparently, it is not the expert's opinion that is the subject of a Frye test. It's the underlying basis for his opinion that is challenged. Since Vass' opinion is based on GC/MS data I don't see how this can thrown out. First, it's not new or novel. Second, even if a Frye hearing is granted, GC/MS will pass the test as it is obviously accepted by the relevant scientific community.

All that's left is to qualify Dr. Vass as an expert in his field. I don't think anyone can dispute that he is an expert in his field. This will leave the jury to decide whether his opinion, i.e. the compounds found with GC/MS indicate a decomposition event, is credible or not.
Click to expand...

The underlying basis for the opinion includes the GC/MS analysis, but also includes the premise that certain air chemicals are markers for human decomposition. I believe that premise will be challenged, and the Body Farm people will have to explain how they came up with the human decomp "air chemical profile." In the end, I think (hope) that the air tests will be admitted, but it is no slam dunk.
 
AZlawyer said:
The underlying basis for the opinion includes the GC/MS analysis, but also includes the premise that certain air chemicals are markers for human decomposition. I believe that premise will be challenged, and the Body Farm people will have to explain how they came up with the human decomp "air chemical profile." In the end, I think (hope) that the air tests will be admitted, but it is no slam dunk.
Click to expand...
Thank you Az. What I was thinking was that the premise that certain air chemicals are markers for human decomposition is Vass' and the other two experts' opinion based on their expertise in this area, thus not subject to a Frye test. It seems to me, that opinion/premise should be challenged by defense experts and the validity/credibility left up to the jury.

At any rate, I think (hope) they will be a able to adequately explain, whether in a Frye hearing or upon cross examination, how they came to their premise or opinion. The GS/MS will survive Frye or may not even be challenged.
 
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".
 
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.
 
Cat13067 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
JBean said:
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
Click to expand...


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.
 
sleutherontheside said:
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.
Click to expand...
I concur.
 
sleutherontheside said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
MissJames said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wow, sounds like a brilliant strategy to me, MissJames!
 
sleutherontheside said:
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.
Click to expand...
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/html/reports/life_sciences/report-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!
 
Bringing this forward to help show what evidence D.Sims might be challenging.
 
cecybeans said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 91 more.
Total: 1,448 (members: 92, guests: 1,356)

Online statistics

Members online
92
Guests online
1,356
Total visitors
1,448
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,793
Messages
17,958,947
Members
228,607
Latest member
wdavewong
Back
Top