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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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/en...nse-objects-experts-examine-public-waits.html


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

http://www.policemag.com/Channel/Technology/Articles/2008/12/Just-a-Touch.aspx
http://www.policemag.com/Channel/Technology/Articles/2008/12/Just-a-Touch.aspx

SENATOR NOZZOLIO BACKS DA AND STATE POLICE IN USE OF TOUCH DNA TESTING
http://www.nysenate.gov/press-relea...cks-da-and-state-police-use-touch-dna-testing


Touch DNA and the Masters Case
http://www.uis.edu/innocenceproject/events/touchdna/index.html
 
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."
 
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...
 
TWA, you have outdone yourself again with post # 102.
 
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!
 
World, what a GREAT analysis of Baez's decision-making track record. Thank you.

Re: Air samples. There is a long, long history of using air samples in the industrial setting. Air samples have long been tested in various types of mines, within steel mills and foundries, and numerous other industrial settings. The focus of this type of testing is for the safety of workers who are exposed to various gasses.

In addition, atmospheric air testing has been used to determine air safety quality for many, many years.

So, "air testing" per se could hardly be challenged. As far as testing for the chemicals present during a decomposition, I would think all such experiments would have been well documented by the scientists doing the tests.

With limited resources, I don't understand why Baez & Co. would even want to bother with this issue. If it was a stand alone issue, maybe. But what with Cindy, George, and the guy at the tow-yard, all of whom said they had prior experience with the smell of death, AND a cadaver dog hit - to me, it doesn't seem worth the time and cost to fight this.

Oh, and speaking of the dogs - seagull, yes, testimony from dog handlers is allowed. It was used in the Lacy Peterson case. I think, as with most all testimony, the jury is allowed to accept or reject the veracity and/or importance of it.
 
World, what a GREAT analysis of Baez's decision-making track record. Thank you.

Re: Air samples. There is a long, long history of using air samples in the industrial setting. Air samples have long been tested in various types of mines, within steel mills and foundries, and numerous other industrial settings. The focus of this type of testing is for the safety of workers who are exposed to various gasses.

In addition, atmospheric air testing has been used to determine air safety quality for many, many years.

So, "air testing" per se could hardly be challenged. As far as testing for the chemicals present during a decomposition, I would think all such experiments would have been well documented by the scientists doing the tests.

With limited resources, I don't understand why Baez & Co. would even want to bother with this issue. If it was a stand alone issue, maybe. But what with Cindy, George, and the guy at the tow-yard, all of whom said they had prior experience with the smell of death, AND a cadaver dog hit - to me, it doesn't seem worth the time and cost to fight this.

Oh, and speaking of the dogs - seagull, yes, testimony from dog handlers is allowed. It was used in the Lacy Peterson case. I think, as with most all testimony, the jury is allowed to accept or reject the veracity and/or importance of it.

Re: the air tests, I don't think the objection will be to air testing generally. I think it will be whether there is sufficient scientific support for the conclusion that a certain combination of air components = decomposing human body. My understanding is that the data used by the Body Farm is based on a fairly limited sample size of decomposing bodies, and a limited number of comparison samples (including decomposing animals). I realize that the Body Farm ran comparison tests on pizza, a dead squirrel, another dead child in a car trunk, a car trunk with no dead bodies, etc., in this case, which is great and very convincing, but doesn't substitute for large-scale tests of a variety of samples (a hundred squirrels, a thousand dead bodies....) by scientists who have no reason to "want" the answer to come out one way or another. The fact that there were so many unexplained differences in the air tests between Casey's trunk and the other car trunk in which a small child had decomposed is bound to be a point of contention.

I agree that the dog handler evidence will come in, as well as the testimony of various witnesses that (1) they have smelled dead bodies before and (2) this smell was the same.
 
I think it's fascinating that the first DNA evidence was introduced by the assistant prosecutor in this case and now they will work to get the air science introduced as evidence for the first time ever. Interesting article in the Sentinel tonight...do you think the defense will be successful in getting it tossed out?

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-casey-anthony-air-science-20101008,0,403550.story

This was discussed before on this thread:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91867"]Frye Hearing - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]
 
I think it's fascinating that the first DNA evidence was introduced by the assistant prosecutor in this case and now they will work to get the air science introduced as evidence for the first time ever. Interesting article in the Sentinel tonight...do you think the defense will be successful in getting it tossed out?

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-casey-anthony-air-science-20101008,0,403550.story

I think it's fascinating too. I have no guess on whether the air tests will be admitted or not but can't wait to see how it plays out.

One thing that bothered me about the Sentinel article was this statement:

Nothing about the advanced testing on Casey Anthony's Pontiac Sunfire provides a conclusive answer about whether her 2-year-old daughter Caylee Marie's lifeless body was in that vehicle.

What? The testing results provided my mind with a conclusive answer. If I was on a jury and presented what we have seen in discovery plus Dr. Vass testifying about it in court, I would believe Caylee was deceased in that trunk.
 
Caylee was in that car! Come on now? This is begetting ridiculous
 
Is the Frye hearing for the air samples scheduled yet? TIA

Absent LKB I wonder who will be arguing for the defense.
 
Is the Frye hearing for the air samples scheduled yet? TIA

Absent LKB I wonder who will be arguing for the defense.

Her inability to cast a doubt on the states experts on this subject may be one of the reasons she left. That's MO and I'm sticking to it. :)
 
Her inability to cast a doubt on the states experts on this subject may be one of the reasons she left. That's MO and I'm sticking to it. :)

But there will be a Frye Hearing right?
IMO LKB would have been the best one to argue the air samples at a Frye Hearing..but now she has withdrawn and we are left with Mason & Baez or perhaps Dorothy Clam Sims or Finnell???
 
Is the Frye hearing for the air samples scheduled yet? TIA

Absent LKB I wonder who will be arguing for the defense.

A monkey wearing a fedora hat? It might make a more convincing and intelligent argument than anyone on the defense team. LKB was their only hope.

I can't imagine a Frye hearing would be scheduled any time soon, considering the defense cannot stick to their scheduled depositions that should have been done 1-2yrs ago.
 
Does anyone else think Mason and Baez are stalling purposely?

It seems HHJP wants to hear this motion A.S.A.P.
Why are the defense stalling? Did someone else other then LKB exit stage left?
Have they run out of experts?
 
Her inability to cast a doubt on the states experts on this subject may be one of the reasons she left. That's MO and I'm sticking to it. :)

If the SA parades in half a dozen people who are very cognizant of the smell of human decomposition and they all testify that was what they smelled in KC's car, wouldn't that be a powerful statement? Much more convincing to me than a collection of chemicals. Get too involved in chemistry and scientific debate and Juries tend to get sleepy...

I have a feeling her departure had little to do with money, she is financially comfortable I am sure, I feel it was more her realization of how inept Baez was/is and she decided she didn't want her name and reputation dragged down with him. JB is not the kind of person who can take advice.
 
But there will be a Frye Hearing right?
IMO LKB would have been the best one to argue the air samples at a Frye Hearing..but now she has withdrawn and we are left with Mason & Baez or perhaps Dorothy Clam Sims or Finnell???

I don't know who they'll get to argue. I don't actually expect the defense to get the motion together to request a Frye hearing by deadline so it might be a moot point.
 
I don't know who they'll get to argue. I don't actually expect the defense to get the motion together to request a Frye hearing by deadline so it might be a moot point.

What is the deadline to have the motion filed?

TIA!
 
Respectfully sniped

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

TWA, what a post. :bowdown::bowdown::bowdown: #102

It speaks volumes that both Baden and Cheney opined from the other side of the fence before signing on to Team Anthony. :deal: :tsktsk: :pinocchio:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
180
Guests online
4,031
Total visitors
4,211

Forum statistics

Threads
591,657
Messages
17,957,057
Members
228,578
Latest member
kupsa
Back
Top