2011.06.16 TRIAL Day Twenty (Morning Session)
- Thread starter beach
- Start date
- Status
Blue Ridge
Armchair Detective
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2008
- Messages
- 35,478
- Reaction score
- 9,164
Well, Judge P sure doesn't....he just reminded them all that he has no hearing problem.......
Beyond Belief
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 14,496
- Reaction score
- 94
I am so pleased this judge has this case. Fair and balanced,
wenwe4
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 9,499
- Reaction score
- 7,358
JA - FBI lab doesn't conduct paternity tests, didn't conduct paternity test in this case....
let counsel answer for himself.
HHBP what is your reason for.....
JB - 2 very good faith reasons...it was tested if Caylee was potential offspring of LA...and FBI doesn't normally do that but they can and did....for statistical portion must be sent to a 2nd lab.....JA's accusation not true....if in black and white - not a good faith basis....JA it is in this report...
Were you ever asked to do paternity test by the STate or LE to see LA was father of Caylee? refer to notes to be clear...
On 9/12/08 I spoke w/Nick Svage - question about paternity we could run sample and send to lab to run statistical....the lab agreed...doesn't mention LA inthat conversation.....while paternity test run ....but to ask the question LE requested no good faith basis - it is hearsay....what a police officer have suspected @ that point....not good faith basis.
Jb who did you want to
10/8/08 - convo w/Spec. Agent savage - would like us to submit LA and Caylee biological offspring send that to the lab if that confirm........potential father LA - send out to another lab.....in your report based upon STR typing Q=18 Caylee is not offspring of K-9 LA....
JA what is relevance of LE question he had....how is it good faith basis?
JB never asked that question Judge....
JA not the question counsel asked and he darn well knows it! More power to him that is not the question he asked to leave in minds of jury!
hHBP don't know what was in JA or JB mind....you are not ask questions to lead to inferences ...unless you want to call LE officer have something tested you can ge the results....not going to venture to guess to speculate motivation of your question suggestion that....Del Monte Banana company....read it...good faith basis to ask question...another case Broxin.....first dist court of appeals...please read those two cases...for good faith basis for asking questions....if there are other exhibits to line up for afternoon ...recess til 1:30
JA - motion to strike Jb's last question....he will look @ question...he doesn't have a hearing problem the amplification of question objections HHBP doesn't need...he can hear in normal voices.....he will ask court reporter mark last question come back and consider that ...
recess til 1:30
mombomb
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,437
- Reaction score
- -3
DIRECT EXAMINATION OF HEATHER SEUBERT BY JB - continued
The underside of duct tape would have a greater likelyhood of giving DNA results. Just the contact of the tape being placed on a person's face would have biologicals.
She tested the adhesive side. The information generated was inconclusive. There was a peak detected at the D-3. It was 17. Caylee is a 14-15 at D-3. ICA is a 14-15 at the D-3 location also. One marker that does not match excludes that person as a contributor.
In addition to family members, she was given DNA profiles of .....
OBJECTION BY JA as to items not in evidence - JB withdrew the question.
7/24/09 report - first item received was Q-80 (S-269) - pair of shorts from the ME. The shorts were tested for blood and semen and were negative for both.
Q-81 - items of clothing - elastic portion of shirt and letters of a child's shirt. Chemical test for blood was positive, but insufficient to confirm. DNA typing was done and no DNA results were obtained.
Q-82 - blanket. Chemical test for possible presence for blood was positive, but insufficient to confirm. No DNA was obtained. Blanket was also looked at for semen, but was negative.
Q-84 - laundry bag. Chemical test for presence for blood was positive, but insufficient to confirm. DNA typing was attempted, but no results obtained.
Q-103 - blanket. Chemical testing for presence for blood and semen. Positive for blood, negative for semen.
JB asked for moment to confer with JA.
JB - blanket just described is not in evidence and wants to move to strike this on his own and has nothing to do with this. Completely his error.
HHJBP instructs Jury to disregard testimony regarding last blanket.
Q-244 (S-HR) - doll coming from the pontiac sunfire. (Photo on screen of the doll in the crate taken from the Pontiac Sunfire). JB heard asking if they could stipulate it was from the Sunfire. Stipulated that the doll came from the car seat in the back seat passenger side of the car. The item was generally swabbed for blood - negative.
12/16/08 report - (HHJBP asking if it is a long report - it's 11:57, JB saying no). She was given the buchal samples of CA, GA and LA .
Paternity test?
OBJECTION BY JA -
SIDEBAR #6
JURY SENT OUT
JA - FBI lab does not perform paternity test - they were never asked to do so.
HHJBP - JB what is your good faith reason for asking this questions.
JB - it was tested and he did ask the FBI that they don't normally do it, but they can and did. Objections raised by JA not true.
JA to witness - were you ever asked to do a paternity test to determine if LA was the father of CA.
Witness - On 9/12/08 she spoke to Nick Savage and told him they could run the test for statistical analysis and then send out to another lab. this does not mention LA.
JA - That is his objection - LA and GA could be potentially ruled out. Can't ask if LE specifically asked to have this test run - and it's hearsay.
JB to witness - who did you understand they wanted you to compare the paternity test for. 10/8/08 - additional conversation with Savage - He would like them to submit the brother's results if possible parentage is suggested to the outside lab.
Based on STR typing result, Caylee could not be a biological offspring of LA.
JA - relevance? Questions JB's implication. VERY ANGRY.
HHJBP - doesn't know what was in JB or JA's mind. JB - you are not to ask questions that may lead to inference. You could call Savage. That would be a proper question. I would not speculate on your motivation. Delmonte Banana Company case - READ IT. Talks about good faith reason for asking questions. Brokson (sp) v State - PLEASE READ. THAT'S ALL I'M GOING TO SAY.
In recess to 1:30
JA - Motion to Strike the question when the Jury comes back.
HHJBP - I don't have a hearing problem and the amplification of questions and objections, I don't need. I can hear in normal voices.
He'll review last question.
The underside of duct tape would have a greater likelyhood of giving DNA results. Just the contact of the tape being placed on a person's face would have biologicals.
She tested the adhesive side. The information generated was inconclusive. There was a peak detected at the D-3. It was 17. Caylee is a 14-15 at D-3. ICA is a 14-15 at the D-3 location also. One marker that does not match excludes that person as a contributor.
In addition to family members, she was given DNA profiles of .....
OBJECTION BY JA as to items not in evidence - JB withdrew the question.
7/24/09 report - first item received was Q-80 (S-269) - pair of shorts from the ME. The shorts were tested for blood and semen and were negative for both.
Q-81 - items of clothing - elastic portion of shirt and letters of a child's shirt. Chemical test for blood was positive, but insufficient to confirm. DNA typing was done and no DNA results were obtained.
Q-82 - blanket. Chemical test for possible presence for blood was positive, but insufficient to confirm. No DNA was obtained. Blanket was also looked at for semen, but was negative.
Q-84 - laundry bag. Chemical test for presence for blood was positive, but insufficient to confirm. DNA typing was attempted, but no results obtained.
Q-103 - blanket. Chemical testing for presence for blood and semen. Positive for blood, negative for semen.
JB asked for moment to confer with JA.
JB - blanket just described is not in evidence and wants to move to strike this on his own and has nothing to do with this. Completely his error.
HHJBP instructs Jury to disregard testimony regarding last blanket.
Q-244 (S-HR) - doll coming from the pontiac sunfire. (Photo on screen of the doll in the crate taken from the Pontiac Sunfire). JB heard asking if they could stipulate it was from the Sunfire. Stipulated that the doll came from the car seat in the back seat passenger side of the car. The item was generally swabbed for blood - negative.
12/16/08 report - (HHJBP asking if it is a long report - it's 11:57, JB saying no). She was given the buchal samples of CA, GA and LA .
Paternity test?
OBJECTION BY JA -
SIDEBAR #6
JURY SENT OUT
JA - FBI lab does not perform paternity test - they were never asked to do so.
HHJBP - JB what is your good faith reason for asking this questions.
JB - it was tested and he did ask the FBI that they don't normally do it, but they can and did. Objections raised by JA not true.
JA to witness - were you ever asked to do a paternity test to determine if LA was the father of CA.
Witness - On 9/12/08 she spoke to Nick Savage and told him they could run the test for statistical analysis and then send out to another lab. this does not mention LA.
JA - That is his objection - LA and GA could be potentially ruled out. Can't ask if LE specifically asked to have this test run - and it's hearsay.
JB to witness - who did you understand they wanted you to compare the paternity test for. 10/8/08 - additional conversation with Savage - He would like them to submit the brother's results if possible parentage is suggested to the outside lab.
Based on STR typing result, Caylee could not be a biological offspring of LA.
JA - relevance? Questions JB's implication. VERY ANGRY.
HHJBP - doesn't know what was in JB or JA's mind. JB - you are not to ask questions that may lead to inference. You could call Savage. That would be a proper question. I would not speculate on your motivation. Delmonte Banana Company case - READ IT. Talks about good faith reason for asking questions. Brokson (sp) v State - PLEASE READ. THAT'S ALL I'M GOING TO SAY.
In recess to 1:30
JA - Motion to Strike the question when the Jury comes back.
HHJBP - I don't have a hearing problem and the amplification of questions and objections, I don't need. I can hear in normal voices.
He'll review last question.
momtective
Lifetime WS Non-Mod
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2008
- Messages
- 11,995
- Reaction score
- 26
GiantPickle
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2011
- Messages
- 1,617
- Reaction score
- 238
HHJP: I don't have a hearing problem. The amplification of objections/questions - I don't need. I can hear in normal form.
pinkfly
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,804
- Reaction score
- 1,550
Unfortunately this was aimed at JA
TotallyObsessed
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,096
- Reaction score
- 1
This is kind of making me sick today.
I don't like how HHJP is treating JA
I don't like anything about today
I don't like how HHJP is treating JA
I don't like anything about today
Mountain_Kat
Heca Firimar !
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2010
- Messages
- 13,754
- Reaction score
- 42,947
Lunch! Thank the Lord!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It appears that JP gets upset (or offended) by JA's angry tone (which is very understandable to me- JA's anger, that is, given JB's sleaze.) But I think JA's anger really rattles JP. Which I can sort of understand, as he is only human. But it does exasperate me when he cracks down so hard on JA. JMO
- Status