2011.03.23 - 03.24 Frye Hearing Summary Thread *NO DISCUSSION HERE PLEASE*
- Thread starter beach
- Start date
- Status
flourish
Now With 30% More Emo
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2009
- Messages
- 6,392
- Reaction score
- 6,781
3/24/11 Dr. Arpad Vass, SAs Odor Expert, Part Four
Taken from Raw video
HHJP=His Honorable Judge Perry
ICA=Inmate Casey Anthony
W=Witness
DT=Defense Team
SA=State Attorneys Office Team
(JB=Jose Baez, JA=John Ashton, and so forth EXCEPT for some reason I keep calling Linda Drane-Burdick JDB instead of LDB and expect that continue sometimes but always with my apologies Im not a professional
)
Taken from Raw video
HHJP=His Honorable Judge Perry
ICA=Inmate Casey Anthony
W=Witness
DT=Defense Team
SA=State Attorneys Office Team
(JB=Jose Baez, JA=John Ashton, and so forth EXCEPT for some reason I keep calling Linda Drane-Burdick JDB instead of LDB and expect that continue sometimes but always with my apologies Im not a professional
)- JB: an issue has arose can we approach?
HHJP: no, what?
DS from DT: a camera was showing my laptop
HHJP: I told them not to is there evidence that they did?
They discuss camera showing laptop issues for a while says its not descernable
DS: Im sure theyll be able to see it then asks to approach and he lets her Baez drifts up, too, so JA walks up I think he shows her how to lower laptop screen slightly for angle she shakes her head Baez drifts away DS and JA stay at bench lots of pointing and what-not then theyre back
- JB: your peer-reviewed articles deal w/buried remains, yeah?
W: first one did
JB: part of findings also took into account effects soil has on decomp chemicals, yeah?
W: define effect
JB: does soil effect what chemicals come out?
W: it may or may not
JB: did you indicate any of that any of your papers?
W: we included wind, etc, but we only had only kind of soil out there, so..
JB: and part of your .is it your belief that the soil effects decomp odors?
W: migration of them, yes
JB: and depends on how low or how steep a body is buried effects it?
W: plume cloud or flow or something, yes
JB: this study was done over a period of years, right?
.
W: yes
JB: and it was your opinion that chemicals took about 17 days to reach surface?
W: in the burial, yeah
JB: and the 08 study you had also included surface bodies (yes) and is chloroform detected on surface decomp?
W: let me refer to my papers chloroform according to table one is not a component of surface decomp
JB: so in order for chloroform to be part it has to be buried?
W: no Im talking about oxygen deprivation, burial just happened to be the method of oxygen deprivation in this study.
JB: how do you distinguish between the two
W: oxygen deprivation can occur by wrapping somebody in something removing the air from someplace
JB: how did you come to that determination during this study?
W: b/c any situation where the environment becomes anaerobic, chloroform was detected, no matter how shallow the burial.
JB: youre making a bold statement saying chloroform was only present during anaerobic conditions isnt that right, you didnt
JA: object before Baez is finished and they discuss objection and which kind it is, etc .
HHJP: let him finish question before you object
JB: Ill rephrase this, judge
HHJP: okay
JB: you didnt study different conditions to make that blanket statement only in anaerobic conditions
W: still confused about your term blanket conditions
JB: you made a conclusion that chloroform was not detected on surface condition
W: correct
JB: unless a body is buried you wont get chloroform in decomp and you said no, right?
W: I said any anaerobic conditions would
- JB: and Im saying that in the study you were only dealing with buried remains
and surface remains
let me rephrase
you were dealing with buried bodies or bodies above ground
W: correct, but some bodies above ground were in body bags and such which would affect oxygen
JB: so your conclusions that any decomp as to chloroform is based on body bags and burial
JA objection W hasnt made that statement..
JB: he can answer if he mays
JA: problem is hes asking as if W already made that statement
HHJP: overruled
JB: are you including just body bags and the soil to make the conclusion any
W: we have surface bodies as well with no wrapping, no body bags, and we do case studies of that nature, but for this study that is true
JB: bodies in body bags or soil to say that chloroform did not appear in these two studies
W: for these studies Id say thats correct
JB: and you didnt make the assertion in your paper and this is after years of studying human decomp, correct?
W shakes his head indicating yes and JB says and it is interesting to note
JA objection need citation and its given
JB: p. 390 under discussion
HHJP reminds JB how to offer a citation and he does it
JA: needs lines, etc..and is given
JB: it is interesting to note that many of the compounds found in table 1 are not unique and can be found in many outdoor samples taken virtually anywhere, you make that assertion, dont you doctor? (he was quoting from dr.s paper)
W: absolutely, yes
JB: okay, and after studying for many years its your conclusion that these TOP 30 compounds found in human decomp can be found virtually anywhere
W: As individual components. As a mixthats a different issue.
JB: do you state that in your discussion there or is that sentence complete?
W: the sentence you read is exactly what it is we [humans as we decompose] go from complex matrix down into basic organic and not unique organic compounds
JB: so the conclusion is based on the combination of chemicals, not the individual ones?
W: Yes its that they were all found at the same time
- JB: (reading again) for the most part
human decomp end products are not very unique in chemical world
JA objection he needs to read context of entire paragraph
JB: he can do that on redirect, your honor
HHJP: objection is sustained
JB reads quickly re: maximum compounds test samples were always higher than controls no minimum blah blah blah the rest of that paragraph doesnt detract from your statement does it?
W: no
JB: one of your conclusions is that fluoride is unique to decomp..
W: I didnt say it was unique I said it was present
JB: and you consider that significant
W: yes b/c it was completely unexpected
JB: and in this case you didnt find any fluoride, right?
W: right
JB: and you make the conclusion that b/c another study in another country did not find fluoride then its unique to Americas
W: I wouldnt put it that way, its that fluoride is put into drinking water often in some places and when you decompose that fluoride is released
JB refers to another Dr.s work and they discuss drinking water
- you and I spoke before your depo?
W: yes
JB: and do you recall when I asked you
JA objection improper impeachment (something else) may we approach JB argues hes not impeaching
HHJP: yes
JB: do you cite Schmidtzs (SP?) work as being comparable to yours?
W: I dont think he does longitudinal studies like we do
JB: so no one in the scientific community does what you do?
W: Id say Greek person is
JB: and you compared your paper to his
W: I referenced it, I didnt compare it
JB: he gives full disclosure as to all his chemical compositions, doesnt he?
W: I dont think he gives everything he found, does he? Im not convinced of that, no.
JB: do you know how many of your 30 did he find?
W: 19 I think
JB: and 19 out of 30 is ?
W: well you have to consider the context they had these bodies that had been in the water and they took limited samples so I think under the circumstances it was pretty remarkable
JB: you think its remarkable that bodies under a completely different set of conditions, etc. are comparable to yours?
W: I mean, yeah, its pretty cool isnt it?))
- JB: now, this case, you ran as to the chemicals
you did what was called qualitative analysis, right?
W: yes we didnt look at exact concentration of every compound
Discuss qualitative vs quantitative
JB: in your paper dont you describe is it not a quantitative analysis?
W: relative concentrations we didnt do standards for every compound
JB: didnt you say earlier that its the amount of these chemicals that is relevant to your studies?
W: its very complicated levels depend on what point in time decomp occurs (explains cyclical aspect of decomp)
JB: interrupts, JA objects, W cant remember what he was saying
JB: basis of your paper talks about these compounds over time?
W: the main point of paper is which compounds are present and when are they present .unknown is what is causing these compounds to be liberated
JB: did you in this case establish that a quantitative analysis was not appropriate because the trunk is a free-flowing environment.
W: No, b/c I wanted to make it a comparative asset, b/c we couldnt determine when time of death was, we were just looking for presence or absence
JB: did you talk to Dr. Wise/Weiss re: how trunk has air flowing through it and would be impossible to have real world analysis re: exactly how much chloroform was in trunk of car?
W: I dont recall but its possible sounds like something wed talk about
JB: and you cant sit there as a scientist and give judge Perry any quantity as to what the levels of chloroform were in the trunk of car?
W: no we cannot
- JB: you are also aware there were other items in the trunk of car including a bag of garbage
JA objects, HHJP overrules
JB: a bag of garbage
W: yes
JB: and you never inspected this garbage
W: correct
JB: you never looked at photos?
W: cant remember
JB: did you check ingredients of the items from the garbage that had been left in a hot car for three week?
W: yes they did send me a list of ingredients
JB: they sent you a list of ingredients of each item???
W: I believe so no no no they sent me a list of the items, like coke can...sprite bottle
JB: but you never inspected the ingredients of those items to see if they would contribute to the alleged decomp you say was there
W: well I looked at the list essentially and the majority of these things if I recall were plastics paper if there was a pile of rotting hot dogs in there I might do a control test
JB: but you didnt know what was in there?
W: I know what was on the list
JB: just the list they gave you and nothing more
W: correct
- JB: what you used to come up with these chemicals is the Gas
machine
W: it didnt come up with the compounds it IDs them
JB: but thats the sole instrument you used other than LIBS to determine compounds
W: yes
JB: show defense exhibit I
JA: objection something about showing him in court and they both approach
[HHJP looks irritated and is asking about dates and looking things up MOO]
flourish
Now With 30% More Emo
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2009
- Messages
- 6,392
- Reaction score
- 6,781
3/24/11 Dr. Arpad Vass, SAs Odor Expert, Part Five
Taken from Raw video
HHJP=His Honorable Judge Perry
ICA=Inmate Casey Anthony
W=Witness
DT=Defense Team
SA=State Attorneys Office Team
(JB=Jose Baez, JA=John Ashton, and so forth EXCEPT for some reason I keep calling Linda Drane-Burdick JDB instead of LDB and expect that continue sometimes but always with my apologies Im not a professional )
Taken from Raw video
HHJP=His Honorable Judge Perry
ICA=Inmate Casey Anthony
W=Witness
DT=Defense Team
SA=State Attorneys Office Team
(JB=Jose Baez, JA=John Ashton, and so forth EXCEPT for some reason I keep calling Linda Drane-Burdick JDB instead of LDB and expect that continue sometimes but always with my apologies Im not a professional
)- still at bench
HHJP: okay now Mr. Baez what are you trying to do?...you all can talk from there
this is not a bench conference
- HHJP: this is the stipulation we signed off on we are not to be asking questions about the validity of the G-machine (I forget) and the LIBS
those two instruments as the their ability & their findings
.
Now as to the interpretation of their findings and how they apply--that is being challenged. So the purpose of those notes are for what?
JB: what wer are challenging, judge, were not challenging actual G thing or LIBS, we are challenging validity of interpretations and methodologies Ive told that to JA a hundred times already
JA objects thats not what is in stipulation reads stipulation out loud they are not going to question validity of instruments as to their ability and their findings.
DS walks up
JB asks to approach
HHJP says no
JB: if youre going to limit my cross
HHJP: Im not going to limit your cross! This is something you can do in open court it is not a bench conference Im all ears, folks, Im trying to figure out theres been an objection about notes and I want to know the purpose of the notes.
JB: they are notes about how they actually ran these tests and problems they incurred during these tests
HHJP: then why did you say you werent going to ask about validity
JB: of the actual the instruments, judge! [JA shaking head and waving paper in background] Not the type of instrument not the way they ran these tests and of these conclusions that theyre making.
DS: its my understanding that SA was concerned about having someone come out and talk not about the test themselves but the application.. (something like that)
JA: my stated concern, and the reason for the courts multiple orders was to b/c the motion was so vague and this is the specific stipulation as a condition of the state dropping contempt request and now they are trying to rescind this very clear document that shows that they were not challenging anything but the interpretation and how they are applied to this case. Its Crystal. Clear.
JB will begrudgingly respond (goodness) and only because I feel compelled to I wanted to do this sidebar I agreed to that and I have several emails to Mr. Ashton where I explain to him the methodologies that we challenging about this process which are part of the court file and this and he is correct that this was agreed upon as a condition as part of the resolution of this contempt charge now I dont want to use the words coercion or forcing my hand or anything of the kind (flourish says, uh then dont use those words) but I think if were going to limit cross examination on a specific witness on a critical point when I have explained it time and time again that we were questioning methodologies this stipulation which was spoken in open court and Mr. Ashton said, and I think the court has the transcript that Im still not sure what he means so thats why I want it in writing.
HHJP: please keep your voice at a reasonable level
JB: Im sorry judge
HHJP: We dont have anybody in here that I know of with hearing problems
JB: he just stated in court Im still not sure what he just said and yet that is good enough to be the written portion for the resolution of this issue. Now I dont understand how something that is spoken in open court this is word for word during status conference this whole contempt issue was spun b/c he said he didnt understand and yet the resolution of the matter was good enough to be written into the resolution
- HHJP: I m not concerned w/the contempt issue. The only thing Im concerned about in this stipulation is that you were only going to attack the interpretation of their findings and how they are applied
now explain to me how that goes to attacking the validity of the GCI and the other instrument
JB: it goes to methodologies the interpretations of instrument that is not working properly goes exactly to what the notes are referring to.
HHJP: if you knew that and I take it that you didnt just find out about that yesterday
JB: I knew that and I expressed it numerous times to JA.
HHJP: wait when did you know it did you know it on the date that you executed this document?
JB: yes, but my answer isnt a yes or no answer Id like to explain my answer
HHJP: Ill let you explain your answer after you answer my questions if you knew that, why didnt you place that reservation in this document so all minds would be clear? Because if you didnt do that one might assume you were waiting in ambush. Now you can explain.
JB: There is absolutely no way mr ashton could consider that he was waiting in ambush when numerous communications were clearly laid out in writing and verbal that we were challenging the methodologies these notes were spoken to extensively in the depos and this is no surprise to JA, in fact this is something where an intelligent lawyer foresaw problems with and he took advantage of this situation where he could get something down in writing so he could come down now and say such a thing where better opportunity landed in his lap did he have a contempt charge lying over defense counsels head to basically force his hand to agree to a limited version of a stipulation. We went back in that room judge and we went through numerous, numerous statements and they were never good enough for himits as if he was writing itthen it ultimately came back to something I said in open court, which, and at that time he said he didnt understand what I was saying, but yet he understood when we decided to put it in writing because he knew he could lock it in and thats exactly what happened here.
HHJP: let me make myself abundantly clear, as I tried to do the last time both sides like to loosely use the term contempt. I said at the time it was not contempt never was contempt and I imposed sanctions, not contempt. And the word contempt are words that the state and you utilized and in terms of discovery violations they are basically sanctions but it looks as though yall dont have an agreement or youre trying to rescind an agreement you already entered into, b/c if you knew what you knew back when you did this that you were not going to honor it and you could have simply wrote that down and said that then maybe yall would have come to an agreement or not.
JB: I disagree
HHJP: let me ask you a question what you do you propose to do w/the documents you have
JB: I would like to question this W as to problems running these samples which was brought out in direct and question W about that. The court can measure exactly how this applies to whether
HHJP: but Mr. Baez what you are talking about doing is perfectly doable on dealing with weight and credibility of evidence for the trial fact what does that have to do with the Frye issue? The question is whether or not this is new or novel science is the instrument is good and the end product is bad then that has to do w/issues other than Frye so
JB: may I respond?
HHJP: yes but your co-counsel is trying to talk to you
JB: may we have 5 minute recess?
HHJP: yes you may
- HHJP: Okay, any additional argument?
JA: no
JB: only that I would clearly reiterate that I in no way shape or form entered into an agreement with the intention of rescinding it. For the purposes of moving things along, I will do so
HHJP: you may continue
JB: Dr. Vass, is it generally accepted in the scientific community to use a G-machine to measure and make a determination for human decomp?
W: the instrument doesnt make a determination for human decomp the instrument IDs compounds
JB: question is: is it generally accepted in the scientific community that that is an instrument to measure levels, and specific compounds for human decomp
W: I would say, yes, it can do that
JB: I asked if its generally accepted science
W: I dont understand the question...it sounds like youre asking me can the GCMS be used to ID if something is a human decomp product and that answer is no. but it can ID compounds which can be associated with human decomp
- JB: my question is: is it generally accepted to use a gas (machine) to use to determine chemical compounds of human decomp?
W: yes
JB: can you write down all the labs that engage in such practice?
W: the only ones I know of are FBI and the Greek Dr.s lab
JB: the FBI uses that machine to do that?
W: I dont know if they do but the have capability
JB: so you dont know what they do
W: no I dont work there
JB: can you tell us another lab
W: its used worldwide to every university if they want to apply it to human decomp great but I wouldnt necessarily know about it
- JB: you did three reports for this case, yeah and you have them with you?
W: yes and yes
JB: In 1st report: 54 chemicals IDd within your DB
W: correct
JB: so out of 484 you got 54
W: .yes
JA objection relevance overruled for now
JB: now you state many of them overlap w/gasoline
W: well a certain %, yes
JB: 43, right?
W: yes
JB: and this goes to what the number at that youre using?
W: sorry?
JB: whats the total number of your DB?
W: were in the high 400s now, but you have to understand not all 500 of those are going to apply to decomp chemicals these are just compounds we have detected during decomp events
JB: is it at your last publishing that you have 484?
W: have to look p. 387 says 478
JB: 478 is that the last count?
W: I believe so
JB: so you got what you consider 478 only 43 in this case
W: ok
JB: thats less than 10%?
W: again, the 478 a particular chemical only showed up one time I dont consider that relevant
JB: do you list the ones which are important to have?
W: yes, 2008 paper
JB: the 30?
W: yes
- JB: so your papers arent protocols are they?
W: protocols procedures were used in order to obtain those
JB: in your lab do you have a list or a set determination that if we see these chemicals in a certain location, that is human decomp?
W: thats what the entire 08 paper is about
JB: I mean in your lab do you have any protocols?
W: do you mean do I have them glued to the wall? No
JB: in a filing cabinet?
W: no the protocols are outlined in the papers
JB: so is there a cutoff level of saying okay I see a certain number of these chemicals so now I can say thats human decomp?
- JA objects asks to approach for relevancy objection
HHJP: why cant you
JA: okay (speak in open court) the question implies that this doctor has opined that he has discovered a particular set of chemicals that conclusively determines human decomp and hes never said that so I think its improper b/c he has never said that
JB: (says something hes said the W said) and JA said hes wrong possibly of human origin never said certainty question implies
HHJP overruled I think witness can answer if he understands and were not going down the (something) path
W needs question repeated
Question is basically: so is there a cutoff level of saying okay I see a certain number of these chemicals so now I can say thats human decomp?
W: this list of 30 compounds includes ones which are liberated during human decomp cyclical so some times they appear during some stages, sometimes the dont environmental conditions its complicated I never implied that every one will be present at every moment during decomp cycle
JB: and of these 30 most important, how many did you find in this case
W: I believe 7
JB: which ones?
W: checking report lists stuff I cant spell #s 16, 22, 19, 1, 15, 7, and chloform 12
JB: so out of the 30 you deem most important for human decomp you only found 7
W: well, besides the ones that were also present in gas, so we excluded those: 8, 9, 11, 13
- Status