2011.03.29 MOTIONS: Dr. Hall & Karen Lowe "DT Claim Witnesses Unreliable In Case"

[KenoshaKid]

Not sure if this is the right place to bring this up......but does anyone know if they have been able to match the single hair from the trunk, to the hair found at the dump site? I was reading the autopsy report yesterday and it mentions the hair mass found on the back? Of the skull....this poor little girl........

If I recall correctly, in order to match it to a specific person, the hair has to have the root ball attached (that little hunk of skin that is there when you pull out a hair). I believe that the single hair was missing that, which is why they had to go with mitochondrial DNA, which only matches to the female line and not to a specific individual, which is why they said it had to be from a dead Anthony female. (To which KC replies, in her chipper way: "Well, *I'm* still here! She really is totally clueless)

 

[logicalgirl]

I haven't read this thread yet...and apologize if this has been referenced. There is an amazing in depth critique of this new motion as it relates to Ms. Lowe and her testimony on the hair banding done by Valhall over at The Hinky.

http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2011/0...cerning-states-expert-witness-lowe/#more-6533

Excellent TotallyObsessed! Thank you - I always refer to Val for "just the facts" after expert testimony and I hadn't read this critique of Val's yet - I appreciate you bringing it forward! :rocker:

 

[CarolinaMoon]

Quick note on Frye for hair banding. While the testimony was let in for the NY trial, there has been none for Florida. These go on a state-by-state basis although the legal precedent set in NY can help.

Ashton was the first in the country to successfully argue Frye for DNA evidence. Once he set the precedent, the other states fell into line.

 

[strawberry]

Hopefully the State will file a response today. Fingers crossed!

 

[kaRN]

I think so, yes. Thanks Judge.


I hope he does just deny it and say No Hearing. What a waste of time that would be. PS How does this relate to "There is a reasonable explanation that will all come out at trial"?:waitasec:

I believe he will deny it in one of his no explanation required 2 line rulings. There's no reason to approve it IMO. I also doubt there's a reason to approve the psychiatrists at this point either. Seems to me JB should have called them to testify at the hearing for excluding ICA's statements to LE and not weeks after he lost. You'd think PTSD if real, would be identified on the initial psych evaluations ordered by JS and immediately addressed by a lead attorney advocating for her best interests. Fake PTSD on the otherhand.....:sick:

 

[ohiogirl]

that is really interesting! If one of our resident legal eagles happens to wander through this thread, could you answer a question about this? Since Michael Baden's wife once worked on the defense team, would he still be allowed to testify on this issue for the State or even the defense? Would there be any conflict of interest objections raised?

That's pretty funny, since Michael Baden stated in the Phil Spector trial that he didn't understand what conflict of interest is. Ha!

 

[faefrost]

These motions are kind of funny. See, Sims was all set to ask questions to question the actual evidence rather than the research. It wasn't until the hearing where HHJP kept having to say "this is a Frye hearing" that she realized she had prepared the wrong tactic. So this is their do-over. Ooopsy.

Is that poor FBI woman going to have to suffer DS AGAIN? She might as well bring a tape recording of her first excellent testimony and hit Play when asked a question.

Before they get a new hearing on the hair banding science or evidence they have to convince the judge that they should. That will probably be at Thursday mornings hearing, where he will ask for any oral arguments on the motion, and then flatly deny it for reasons that Valhall so wonderfully laid out.

 

[joypath]

Quote: Originally Posted by faefrost [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6267983#post6267983"]

[/ame]
Expert witnesses are not like other witnesses. Since they are paid professional witnesses they can choose for whom they will or will not give testimony. They have the right to opt to not offer their services to either party. In the case of Dr. Baden he has said numerous times in public that he does not participate in any case involving his wife, for either side, as it creates an unwanted conflict between his career and his personal family life.

Originally Posted by faefrost [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6267983#post6267983"]

[/ame]
Expert witnesses are not like other witnesses. Since they are paid professional witnesses they can choose for whom they will or will not give testimony. They have the right to opt to not offer their services to either party. In the case of Dr. Baden he has said numerous times in public that he does not participate in any case involving his wife, for either side, as it creates an unwanted conflict between his career and his personal family life.

Would that be before or after Spector I?

He's for sale, too. Somebody needed to up the ante, that's all.

:twocents: The BBM section of faefrost's quote is from the epiphany he received AFTER the Spector I trial! (Remember: that's the trial where LKB, J.D. was a co-counsel and MK,M.D. was unable/had difficulty/became befuddled to/in answering the "definition" of CONFLICT as it related to hubby & wife "working" on the same case!). IMHO, :innocent: one of his SMARTEST MOVES, EVER! (Gee, rather like the tradition in medical practice of one NOT operating/treating one's family:rocker :floorlaugh::floorlaugh: But then again, what would I know, I'm "just a woman with an opinion" in the his scientific field:maddening:!

Yeah, it's a direct quote tossed at a colleague.........and TOS prohibits any more personal comment! :floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

(Beyond: that Spector I trial was ........."unique"!

 

[Jomo]

Expert witnesses are not like other witnesses. Since they are paid professional witnesses they can choose for whom they will or will not give testimony. They have the right to opt to not offer their services to either party. In the case of Dr. Baden he has said numerous times in public that he does not participate in any case involving his wife, for either side, as it creates an unwanted conflict between his career and his personal family life.

Didn't those two work together on the Phil Spector Trial?

There was even an article written by a Court TV correspondent about impropriaties.

DA accuses Dr Baden of collusion with Kenney-Baden
By Harriet Ryan
Court TV

LOS ANGELES — A prosecutor accused noted forensic expert Dr. Michael Baden Wednesday of tailoring his testimony in the Phil Spector murder trial to advance the career of his wife, an attorney working for the legendary producer's defense.

 

[ohiogirl]

Yes, they did, and he came off looking like a total buffoon. jmo of course.

 

[faefrost]

Didn't those two work together on the Phil Spector Trial?

There was even an article written by a Court TV correspondent about impropriaties.

As Joypath tactfully reminded me. The Phil Specter trial is where Dr. Baden learned of the stresses and perils of getting involved in the same case as his wife. It is from the problems in that case that he has developed a fairly often stated policy of "not gonna do that anymore". I seem to recall that he was pretty direct about that regarding the Caylee case. But that was back when his wife was still on the defense team. I'm not sure how his personal ethics would stand now. But Baden is also a highly skilled media vermin. he has good instincts for what will bring him good press and publicity and bad. He knows this one is a losing hand and I suspect he won't go anywhere near it unless someone throws alot of $$$ his way.

 

[MADJGNLAW]

:waitasec: The Fry hearing was continued to April 1 & 2nd. How can the defense file these motions regarding Dr.Hall and Lowe if the judge has not ruled on the previous motions? :waitasec: Pretty much what I am getting is that the Mason is saying that Lowe is only testifying to the hair banding in that manner because she works with LE? And that Dr.Hall only has an opinion on root growth? That is not how I understood it during the hearing. Did I miss something? Can the DT even filed these motions if the judge has not ruled on them yet? I am sooo confused. :crazy:

"Snip"
Anthony's defense team filed new motions attacking the reliability of Lowe &
Hall.

Mason, argues that Dr. Hall's "opinion is the result of his personal experience as a result of watching roots grow since he was 10-years-old." In addition, Mason argues, Hall "states that there is no methodology utilized in his determinations and there is no supporting data in coming to his conclusions."




The new motion, argues that Lowe "has both a personal stake in the general acceptance of post-mortem hair banding and is prone to institutional bias based on her employment by law enforcement."
The motion repeated that Lowe reached her conclusions based on her "training and experience."
The new motion says, Lowe should be removed as a witness.


Read More Here: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...ny-trial-new-motions-20110329,0,2945455.story

Experts on both sides will put science on trial
March 27, 2011|By Anthony Colarossi, Orlando Sentinel "Snip"

Chief Judge Belvin Perry is still deciding what scientific evidence will be allowed at the trial, which starts with jury selection on May 9.
Read More Here: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...27_1_casey-anthony-cindy-anthony-caylee-marie

 

[logicalgirl]

:waitasec: The Fry hearing was continued to April 1 & 2nd. How can the defense file these motions regarding Dr.Hall and Lowe if the judge has not ruled on the previous motions? :waitasec: Pretty much what I am getting is that the Mason is saying that Lowe is only testifying to the hair banding in that manner because she works with LE? And that Dr.Hall only has an opinion on root growth? That is not how I understood it during the hearing. Did I miss something? Can the DT even filed these motions if the judge has not ruled on them yet? I am sooo confused. :crazy:

Sounds to me like the DT strongly suspects HHJP is going to rule against them and Mason is hoping to cut him off at the pass and have him reconsider before his final ruling.:floorlaugh:

 

[joypath]

:seeya:faefrost! One day, hopefully SOON, :floorlaugh: I'll "master" the ability to single post a quote! DUH, was NOT re-emphasizing but EMPHASIZING your astute post and aptly demonstrating my "never going to be called as a computer expert" skills!:great:

:twocents: That said, you've caught the "essence", IM(VeryFemale)HO:innocent:, regarding the "current" Michael Baden, M.D. And yes, there is a "subliminal" (HA!) message within my comment but not directed at any posters, for sure!.:waitasec::waitasec::waitasec:

 

[Aedrys]

Ugh...the trial cannot start soon enough! Motions on top of motions on top of motions...I pity the amount of trees that have to die just for the defense team alone!

 

[LancelotLink]

:waitasec: The Fry hearing was continued to April 1 & 2nd. How can the defense file these motions regarding Dr.Hall and Lowe if the judge has not ruled on the previous motions? :waitasec: Pretty much what I am getting is that the Mason is saying that Lowe is only testifying to the hair banding in that manner because she works with LE? And that Dr.Hall only has an opinion on root growth? That is not how I understood it during the hearing. Did I miss something? Can the DT even filed these motions if the judge has not ruled on them yet? I am sooo confused. :crazy:

I am really kerflunkled. Have we even heard Dr. Hall yet?

 

[MADJGNLAW]

I am really kerflunkled. Have we even heard Dr. Hall yet?

Oh Carp, we heard from Dr. Arpad Vass Air Sample Expert Testimony, FBI analyst Karen Korsberg Lowe testified that she found characteristics of apparent decomposition on the hair, Yuri M., and the dog handler right?

This is what has me thrown off so much. I must of missed a few hearings or have them all confused. I apologize if I have confused others as well. :truce:

Thought I'd share:
This was posted back on March 22, 2011, not sure if I can post the link to the article. The motion link was at the article though. So now I am even more confused :banghead:

Read Motion: http://www.wesh.com/pdf/27276629/detail.html
"Snip"

Defense wants a do-over.
The defense filed a Motion To Vacate And In The Alternative Motion For Clarification. They are challenging Judge Perry's ruling concerning the Frye issue concerning Dr. Hall, the State botany witness. It's fifteen pages of argument as to why the judge's decision needs to review his decision.

Judge Perry ruled on two science motions. The defense will be permitted to have the Chloroform motion heard at the Frye Hearings. On the other hand, the Root Growth issue will be left for the experts to argue at trial. We will hear the opinions of Dr. Hall vs. Dr. Bock.

"Snip"

Botanist's opinion http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...nthony-trial-motions-20110322,0,3468691.story

Also made public Tuesday morning was a defense motion dealing with Dr. David Hall, a forensic botanist who authored a report that helps the prosecution estimate how long Caylee's remains were in the woods before they were found.

Chief Judge Belvin Perry ruled last week that Hall will be allowed to give his opinion during the trial.
But in their latest motion, the defense team is asking for a "Frye hearing," referring to the "Frye test," which deals with admitting new scientific evidence in the courtroom and determining whether the evidence has "gained general acceptance."

If Perry doesn't grant a Frye hearing, the defense asks that he clarify the basis of admissibility of Hall's opinion testimony.

 

[LancelotLink]

Oh Carp, we heard from Dr. Arpad Vass Air Sample Expert Testimony, FBI analyst Karen Korsberg Lowe testified that she found characteristics of apparent decomposition on the hair, Yuri M., and the dog handler right?

This is what has me thrown off so much. I must of missed a few hearings or have them all confused. I apologize if I have confused others as well. :truce:

You didn't confuse me, the motion itself took care of that. Thank you for leading me out of the darkness. :blowkiss:

 

[Numbers]

I am really kerflunkled. Have we even heard Dr. Hall yet?

Judge Perry ruled that since Dr Hall was only giving an expert opinion and was not relying on any *new* science, his testimony would not be subject to a Frye hearing.

During the Frye hearing, Ms Sims kept confusing the Frye part of the death-band and the non-Frye part. Frye part: One can determine if a hair comes from a deceased person or a living person. Non-Frye part: Ms Lowe is an expert in characteristics of hair, and therefore hairs exhibiting a death-band.

I think.

But I could be wro........ wwr......... mistaken.

 

[Gnatcatcher]

Not that a Cindy Anthony interview by Nancy Grace has any bearing on the price of beans whatsoever, I just thought I'd throw this old interview piece in here, because it touches on the spin Cindy puts on not only the cadaver dogs, but the hair banding as well. I think it starts around 5:00 but the entire piece is a roller coaster ride, if you care to sit through it.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDoNjSX3lU8&feature=related[/ame]