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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kat said:
Thank you for bringing forward that thesis treeseeker. :) I remember seeing it discussed in threads IIRC back in FEB of this year.

I was wondering if the thesis is only a thesis or if the testing of the banding and the conclusions of the results are accepted by the majority of forensic scientists? I remember a lot of discussion about whether or not that test had been presented as evidence in a trial and if so the outcome of that trial.

I'm not worried if it is ruled out. I'm just curious as to if it is still at thesis stage or if it has moved on and that it is accepted in the scientific community?

Have you seen anything? I never could find anything at the time to indicate it had been used at trial but that doesn't mean squat. It could very well be accepted in the scientific community as a standard.

Thank you in advance for any info you might have to share about that test. :)
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell/remember from reading journal extracts (the full reports are kind of pricey for me), post-mortem banding isn't questioned. IIRC, the bands aren't always present, and tend to occur more often when the corpse hair has been exposed to dirt. This isn't a test, really, just an observation under a microscope. There are several, well-documented characterists of post-mortem hair.

Whether or not a post-mortem index can be determined by them is being studied, and not yet definitive (as far as I can tell). This is the subject of the thesis.

The FBI lab tech asked for more than one of Caylee's hairs with the banding before she could say definitively there was indeed a post-mortem band. Collier determined that hair decomposition is largely uniform - all the hairs of a particular corpse will have the same signs (or no signs) of decompostion. So, is the lab tech's request due to influence from the Collier thesis? Don't know.

Collier determined decompositional uniformity by using percentages. For CSI purposes, I wouldn't think this applies. See pg. 25 of the thesis - the subject's hairs aren't actually all uniform. The odds of finding one hair with banding, while the rest show no signs of decomp, are higher but not impossible, if I've interpreted this correctly.

I may not have answered your question, lol. There will be debate about what the hair means, but the fact that some post-mortem hairs have bands is pretty much a given. I don't know why it would trigger a Frye hearing, unless the prosecution intends to show PMI with it.

FWIW, IMO - not a scientist, just a geek
 
impatientredhead said:
The air test is new, and more importantly is new in regards to being used in court as evidence.

I *believe* that I read Florida held these hearings for the first DNA evidence that was submitted as evidence. It was an interesting read.
Click to expand...

Okay... dating myself now. :blushing: lol! I was a legal secretary for the SA's office here in Orlando late 70's and early 80's. The felony division where I worked had several DNA cases challenged with this type of hearing. At that time, the motions I knew about failed to stop the evidence from being introduced. I don't know if any DNA evidence was ruled inadmissible before I worked there but at that time, DNA was a new science. The reason that the motions failed was because even though DNA was new science and not well-known to lay people, it was considered acceptable science by almost all experts at that time. I'm not sure how long air samples being used in this manner has been done or how accepted it is by experts in the field but you can't assume that just because something is new it can't be used in court.
 
treeseeker said:
As far as I can tell/remember from reading journal extracts (the full reports are kind of pricey for me), post-mortem banding isn't questioned. IIRC, the bands aren't always present, and tend to occur more often when the corpse hair has been exposed to dirt. This isn't a test, really, just an observation under a microscope. There are several, well-documented characterists of post-mortem hair.

Whether or not a post-mortem index can be determined by them is being studied, and not yet definitive (as far as I can tell). This is the subject of the thesis.

The FBI lab tech asked for more than one of Caylee's hairs with the banding before she could say definitively there was indeed a post-mortem band. Collier determined that hair decomposition is largely uniform - all the hairs of a particular corpse will have the same signs (or no signs) of decompostion. So, is the lab tech's request due to influence from the Collier thesis? Don't know.

Collier determined decompositional uniformity by using percentages. For CSI purposes, I wouldn't think this applies. See pg. 25 of the thesis - the subject's hairs aren't actually all uniform. The odds of finding one hair with banding, while the rest show no signs of decomp, are higher but not impossible, if I've interpreted this correctly.

I may not have answered your question, lol. There will be debate about what the hair means, but the fact that some post-mortem hairs have bands is pretty much a given. I don't know why it would trigger a Frye hearing, unless the prosecution intends to show PMI with it.

FWIW, IMO - not a scientist, just a geek
Click to expand...

Thank you for responding and your insight treeseeker. Yes you did answer my question and it's exactly what I was looking for as an answer too.

I also want to add that your self professed "geekiness" is exactly what is needed in the discussion about the banding. I understood exactly what you wanted to convey :)
 
is cadaver dog info admissible in court? I'm kind of surprised if it is. As much as I love dogs and think they can definitely be useful in finding things.
 
The defense is going to try to keep the air sample reports out, because they have never been used in Florida, in a trial in this manner. Is that correct?
Why haven't they spent any time on this matter rather than wasting time on oh ........deposing the jail guards who walked Casey down to medical the day the remains were found. The latter is not going to raise any doubt for the jurors, but if they could have it so that no mention of the air sample came in to trial that would be a big win for the defense. I don't get it. Is this some of what they are insisting to the judge no one will turn over to them?
http://www.wesh.com/download/2009/0619/19801995.pdf
 
IMO.........And from personal experience.........it is not who is right or wrong...It is who has the better Attorney. Sad but true.
 
You guys are just AWESOME with the scientific info! I was wondering about if there was going to be a Frye hearing and what a Frye hearing is all about, and you guys did not disappoint with explanations! :)

As for the air tests, ITA with what was said earlier, and I can so hear Ashton saying, "That's fine, your honor, we'll just arrange a field trip to the defendant's car." Casey is cooked either way, IMO.
 
Cross-posting this from a response I made on the entomology thread next door:

Jolynna said:
Here is another case determined by Dr. Haskell's testimony. The article is long, but goes into a lot of detail about what the presence or lack of various corpse-eating insects on and around a body might mean.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/forensics/kevin_neal/29.html
Click to expand...

Jolynna, belated thanks for this link. Found the following very interesting (chapter 23 of the linked story):

"On May 11, 2000, the trial of Kevin Neal began with the jurors taking a trip to the Neal farmhouse and the cemetery where the children were found. Following the jury view, they heard the opening statements of Selvaggio and Assistant Public Defender Marc Tripplett. In his opening, Selvaggio laid out the basis of the State's case."

What if the State starts with a visit to experience the odor in the trunk of the Pontiac, then a quick swing past the Anthony home & the "dump site" just down the road, before anyone says a word? Potential Frye hearing results be danged in that case.

MOO!
 
ynotdivein said:
Cross-posting this from a response I made on the entomology thread next door:



Jolynna, belated thanks for this link. Found the following very interesting (chapter 23 of the linked story):

"On May 11, 2000, the trial of Kevin Neal began with the jurors taking a trip to the Neal farmhouse and the cemetery where the children were found. Following the jury view, they heard the opening statements of Selvaggio and Assistant Public Defender Marc Tripplett. In his opening, Selvaggio laid out the basis of the State's case."

What if the State starts with a visit to experience the odor in the trunk of the Pontiac, then a quick swing past the Anthony home & the "dump site" just down the road, before anyone says a word? Potential Frye hearing results be danged in that case.

MOO!
Click to expand...

That is a Tony the Tiger grrrrrrreat idea! For many years trial consultants and lawyers have talked about how a trial should be structured to take into account primacy and recency effects. In its simplest form (and it really isn't much more complicated than its simplest form), primacy and recency theory predicts people will remember information best that occurs at the beginning and end of communications, and will be more likely to forget what is in the middle.
 
The defense might also try to challenge the digital photo enhancement of the "body-shaped" depression in the trunk. That is still a very new and questionable science. Manipulating digital evidence is tricky!
 
Jomo said:
The defense might also try to challenge the digital photo enhancement of the "body-shaped" depression in the trunk. That is still a very new and questionable science. Manipulating digital evidence is tricky!
Click to expand...
This is a very interesting subject. Digital enhancement of photos have passed the Frye test in Florida. Check out this case where palm prints found on duct tape that were deemed "no value" due to blurring and smudging were digitally enhanced and accepted in evidence after a Frye hearing.

http://www.fdiai.org/articles/Photo%20Finish.pdf

Snipped from article:

"At the end of the Frye Hearing, the judge stated that the prosecution's expert witnesses had demonstrated that the process of digital enhancement does not change the basic image; and that the process of digital-image enhancement of fingerprints is used and accepted throughout the forensic community. On October 21, 2002, the judge ruled that both the evidence and the testimony of the expert witnesses were admissible and that the trial could proceed."
 
Haven't read the whole thread yet (just the first page) but I wanted to jump in and say that air sample analysis IS NOT new. I did my senior seminar on a paper in the Journal of Analytical Chemistry about detecting VOC's in air samples with MS/MS. You can research journal articles (assuming that you're looking in a reputable journal) and will probably find tons of articles on this subject.
 
Jomo said:
The defense might also try to challenge the digital photo enhancement of the "body-shaped" depression in the trunk. That is still a very new and questionable science. Manipulating digital evidence is tricky!
Click to expand...

I doubt the Pros will mention that part during the trial. Sure, the jury will be shown pictures of the trunk, and the stain, but the jury wont be allowed to hear speculation about what 2 or so lab techs thought they saw.

It's the kitties and skulls all over again. Not admissible.
 
seagull65 said:
is cadaver dog info admissible in court? I'm kind of surprised if it is. As much as I love dogs and think they can definitely be useful in finding things.
Click to expand...

I can see the courtroom drama now:

JA: So Fluffy, is it your testimony that you detected decomposition odor at the trunk of Ms. Anthony's car?

Fluffy: Woof

JA: And can you demonstrate for the court exactly how you indicated this to your handler?

Fluffy: (Steps to front of witness box, sits & wags tail) Woof woof woof!

JB: Objection your honor, move to strike as non-responsive!

JS: I'll allow it. Continue, Mr. Prosecutor.

JA: Thank you, your Honor. (turns to Fluffy, gives treat) Good boy!!

JB: (Stands and shouts, red in face) YOUR HONOR!!! He's leading the witness!!!

Fluffy: (Walks to defense attorney, marks defense table, returns to witness box)

JA: Thank you, Fluffy. No further questions.


Or something like that...
 
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
 
DogMom2JoeAndWillie said:
Haven't read the whole thread yet (just the first page) but I wanted to jump in and say that air sample analysis IS NOT new. I did my senior seminar on a paper in the Journal of Analytical Chemistry about detecting VOC's in air samples with MS/MS. You can research journal articles (assuming that you're looking in a reputable journal) and will probably find tons of articles on this subject.
Click to expand...

From what I've heard throughout this case, most talking heads have never tried to say that air sample technology is anything new, but it has not necessarily been used up until now in court to attempt to prove that human decomp was detected and that would indicate a dead body.

I may be wrong, but so far, that's what I've heard on various reports I've seen or read. In fact, even though this is a new/er application for an established technology, I've heard that its reputation for reliability and accuracy in other testing may be what helps it pass any necessary benchmarks for use in this case.
 
This is from an old article don't know if it is accurate:

A prosecutor said that these odor results are admissible in court as forensic evidence, but he cautioned that they are nearly as strong as DNA evidence. DNA tests are not yet back on the hair and stain from Casey Anthony's car, although a source told WESH 2 News that the FBI has completed its review of the DNA evidence.

http://www.wesh.com/news/17314603/detail.html
 
lawlady84 said:
IMO, the body farm is questionable. The evidence of chloroform may be as well.

Let me preface: the best way to prove/disprove admissibility under Frye is to show other cases in your state where the court has ruled similar evidence/experts inadmissible. I have NOT done the caselaw research for FL. So I do not know how this specific evidence is treated in these specific courts. This is just my opinion "in general" based on a random sampling of cases I've seen/read.

My worry is that the body farm is relatively new, and I am not sure how much evidence has been introduced under these standards. If

Also, I COULD BE COMPLETELY WRONG, but based on what I read here and in articles on some of the chemical reports, the concentration of some chemicals weren't statistically sufficient. For each scientific test, there's a certain percentage of a relevant factor that can be attributed to chance- which is called shorthand the "p" value. If the value of a certain chemical exceeds the "p value," you can say it's most likely not due to chance. I am sure someone with a much better grip of science/statistics will give a better explanation of that than me. But that's the gist.
Click to expand...

Haven't finished re-reading thru this thread - apologise if this has been said. The "P" value stands for the "probability of a sampling error". In studies with human subjects, the "p" value should be as close to 0 as possible in order to find the study statistically significant. For example, if a researcher wanted to do a study on how many individuals rolled their toilet paper over the top vs. under. In an effort to introduce "random sampling", the researcher set up the study that every other person they met would be asked the question and the researcher decided to do it in 3 different cities. This would probably be a relatively good way to go about it, except if unbeknownst to the researcher - the local "toilet paper over-rollers cult" were having a convention in one of the very cities the researcher was studying. Representing a higher than normal number in one area vs. another. Therefore, the "data" obtained from the "over-rollers united city" would identify a very high "p" value because of the probability of a sampling error. (ok admittedly, this is a really "crappy" example - and as I keep thinking on it I should probably remove the whole post but I wanted to attempt to explain "p value" in a non-scientific manner)
 
cecybeans said:
From what I've heard throughout this case, most talking heads have never tried to say that air sample technology is anything new, but it has not necessarily been used up until now in court to attempt to prove that human decomp was detected and that would indicate a dead body.

I may be wrong, but so far, that's what I've heard on various reports I've seen or read. In fact, even though this is a new/er application for an established technology, I've heard that its reputation for reliability and accuracy in other testing may be what helps it pass any necessary benchmarks for use in this case.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I'm a chemist, not a lawyer. :)
If I'm understanding correctly, the reliability/accuracy of the air sample testing/analysis is not in question... the question is whether or not this type of information has been used as evidence in a trial (have they "set the precedent")??
 
Minute 6:40 Ms. Lyon mentions this, that there is some evidence the state has may be trying to introduce "new science that has never been introduced anywhere else" [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lGq340sKaI[/ame]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 108 more.
Total: 3,610 (members: 109, guests: 3,501)

Online statistics

Members online
109
Guests online
3,501
Total visitors
3,610
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,284
Messages
17,966,584
Members
228,735
Latest member
dil2288
Back
Top