Casey trial evidence breaks legal ground

[LiveLaughLuv]

Casey Prosecutor No Stranger To Courtroom Science
Jeff Ashton Gained First Conviction Based On DNAPOSTED: 4:38 pm EDT March 28, 2011
UPDATED: 5:51 pm EDT March 28, 2011


ORLANDO, Fla. -- Before it became a worldwide law enforcement tool for helping to both convict and free suspects in crimes like rape, DNA got its first courtroom test in Orange County, Fla.

Now the prosecutor who convinced a jury to put their faith in new science is trying to do it again in the case against Casey Anthony.http://www.wesh.com/r/27347743/detail.html

In the Anthony case, Ashton wants evidence such as a hair with the so-called "death band" on it admitted at the trial. The hair could be used to show there was a dead body in Anthony's trunk. If the evidence is used, it would be the first time in a Florida case.

I do hope JA succeeds once again...there's always a first time for everything! JMHO

Justice for Caylee

 

[ScubaTwinn]

To me, the trial evidence that would break legal ground is if they allow the air samples in from the car trunk.

 

[Just Jayla]

Problem with MySpace, from my understanding, is that is was very hacker-friendly..IIRC, this contributed largely to the growth of Facebook, a more secure and private site.
Let's see if the defense team claims someone hacked KC's MySpace...

 

[Caligram]

I think this will stick long-term in some (eventually) finely crafted legal fashion. Unibomber used a newspaper as an outlet for his manifesto, Lee Harvey Oswald passed around anti-Kennedy/commie propaganda fliers...I am guessing the manifesto was used in the Kaczynski case, and I know the fliers are made mention of in the Warren Commission report (though obviously never entered as evidence).
I know these two examples vary a bit from KC's, but they are all three alike in that a jury should be able to consider whether or not these publications indicate a state of mind. A jury should have known what Kaczynski put in writing, that Oswald was treasonous-if one can commit treason, they can commit murder, as they must not show reverence for the high punishment both crimes carry-
Where does the voluntary publication of one's thoughts then come back to violate that very person's rights? It cannot, unless it is legally privileged-which would be impossible when it is posted on MySpace. So, a judge should let a jury determine whether or not that publication is relevant to the crime. Of course, these publicatins cannot stand on their own-all three would have to be paired with other circumstantial evidence to carry any weight. Kacsynski's manifesto is strong, it does not take much more to convict him-But Oswald's propaganda doesn't convict him for me-it's the anti-government propaganda in addition to the fact that he killed a cop right after Kennedy was shot. For KC, the Diary is a healthy piece of evidence, healthy enough that a jury should decide its weight-but not strong enough without 31 days, ZFG stories, etc.

:goodpost: The DT would not like your sound, sensible response ability.