I cant find the link (its really late here in Australia and this baby is kicking like nobodys business) but I definately read somewhere that air samples are not new, just using them to test for decomp - thats the new part. I believe it is a readily accepted test for petrol concentration etc.
Evidence subject to Frye - *UPDATED* 2011.05.09 (ATTN: ALL ORDERS IN!)
- Thread starter JBean
- Start date
- Status
missyjane77
Inactive
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2009
- Messages
- 472
- Reaction score
- 0
Wiki says there are 3 body farms in the US with the oldest one being "opened" at the University of Tennessee in 1981.
Just Jayla
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 3,222
- Reaction score
- 211
I have to admit, I had one or two second thoughts about them state admitting these tests when I first read about them. Remember the jury's reaction to DNA in the OJ case? It was a disaster.
Then the optimist in me thought maybe the tests could work-Nowadays technology is so advanced that things I might have thought improbable in 1994 are now staples of communication and innovation in every household. Maybe there will be a few "geeks" on the jury that can break this sutff down in deliberation!
Just Jayla
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 3,222
- Reaction score
- 211
They will have to rely on one hair, and the tesimony of LE, CA and GA (yikes) as to the smell.
And the state could ask Dr. Lee if he ever found traces of that squirrel.
Oh I so like this idea, please take a field trip to the car. I can just hear the objections now. Maybe the defense will have to agree that the car smells like decomposition to prevent a field trip. oh please let's have a field trip!
whiteangora
I'm on the right track baby. I was "Born This Way"
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,748
- Reaction score
- -3
Just finished reading the article and noticed that it is from the year 2000. Is this Frye hearing still being used in FL? If so, has there been any mention of when the hearing might take place?
MyTinkieGirl
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
- Messages
- 1,673
- Reaction score
- 1,290
Yep....ITA...was just reading a bunch of fire/arson "handbooks" online - verrrry boring - but, they go into collection and analysis of evidence - even said investigators should choose the "correct" samples for best analysis - CARPET and drapes, because they absorb the compounds to be tested for.
And, even though using this method for analysis of decomp isn't "new", per se, apparently not used as evidence yet in a trial....as many of you have said .....there could very well be cases, I just got lazy and stopped looking.
IMO....I DO think the data will get used during trial...simply for the fact it's already being used for a different type if investigation, but a chemical is a chemical and a scent is a scent...GC/MS doesn't really differentiate between WHERE the sample really comes from. It basically tells you what in the stuff you put "into" the machine.
I also think a juror will understand what's going on with the data...IMO, everyone pretty much understands "smells" and that everything has a "different" smell....DNA , to ME, and for me, is more like rocket science to fully comprehend and is on a far more complex level to try to give a good basis for understanding during the short span of a trial.
MyTinkieGirl
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
- Messages
- 1,673
- Reaction score
- 1,290
Hmmm....maybe where JB gets part of his wording for "junk science"?? Maybe his next tactic for trial will be having the defense PI dig up dirt from the past of the chemists doing the data analysis and testing....like maybe they streaked at a toga party freshman year???
http://truthinjustice.org/sonia4.htm
ETA : This is just for info purposes and I'm just trying to get inside that wind tunnel in JB's head.
http://truthinjustice.org/sonia4.htm
ETA : This is just for info purposes and I'm just trying to get inside that wind tunnel in JB's head.
Woe.be.gone
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2008
- Messages
- 13,022
- Reaction score
- 225
What ever happened to common sense?
There are statements on record from GA regarding his thoughts about the smell in the car at the towyard, the towyard guy seconding GA's opinion and CA's 911 call in which she exclaimed what she thought she had smelled.
Does this mean that because these tests have been conducted, the tests negate the power of the above statements that are on tape? So experimental tests were done to see if they can provide scientific proof of what we already know to be true, so what?
It is what it is whether the tests confirm it or not imo.
All of this posturing is rediculous imo.
Come to think of it, the statements from GA and CA regarding the way the Pontiac smelled is the only evidence that keeps me from believing 100 percent that they were not in the know since day one of how Caylee died.
There are statements on record from GA regarding his thoughts about the smell in the car at the towyard, the towyard guy seconding GA's opinion and CA's 911 call in which she exclaimed what she thought she had smelled.
Does this mean that because these tests have been conducted, the tests negate the power of the above statements that are on tape? So experimental tests were done to see if they can provide scientific proof of what we already know to be true, so what?
It is what it is whether the tests confirm it or not imo.
All of this posturing is rediculous imo.
Come to think of it, the statements from GA and CA regarding the way the Pontiac smelled is the only evidence that keeps me from believing 100 percent that they were not in the know since day one of how Caylee died.
FifthEssence
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2008
- Messages
- 2,625
- Reaction score
- 29
You KNOW the Defense is going to call for a FRYE hearing just as they have exercised filing every other motion known to the Florida courts.
We'll get a taste of Linda K-Baden's approach as she argues every piece of evidence that was processed through the labs, both new & more common methods. Of course she will again argue the same come the murder trial for those scientific pieces of evidence the Frye court hearings allow.
Beings Florida continues to use the Frye standards vs the Daubert standard, the court needs to determine one issue - whether the procedure, principle, or discovery upon which the expert testimony is based has gained general acceptance in the field to which it belongs.
When the Defense has exhausted every possible form of deflection and delay, their nightmare arrives...the MURDER TRIAL.
Regarding the science, in favor of the Prosecution, is the huge audience of viewers that watch the many CSI type TV programs. These shows have conditioned the general public over the years to be receptive to some of the newest scientific methods used in forensic studies they may not otherwise be exposed to and will likely be less intimidating as the Defense tries to daze and confuse them.
IMO, the average joe juror will be more accepting of the condemning evidence regardless of how scientific it may be.
Linda K-Baden can put on her best pair of shoes for the show and still the 'Mother of The Year' is going to walk out of the courtroom, led directly to a dressing room where she'll be handed a prison issued stripe outfit complimented with her very own bling bling ankle and wrist bracelets.
31 long DAYS
Justice will be served for Little Caylee.
We'll get a taste of Linda K-Baden's approach as she argues every piece of evidence that was processed through the labs, both new & more common methods. Of course she will again argue the same come the murder trial for those scientific pieces of evidence the Frye court hearings allow.
Beings Florida continues to use the Frye standards vs the Daubert standard, the court needs to determine one issue - whether the procedure, principle, or discovery upon which the expert testimony is based has gained general acceptance in the field to which it belongs.
When the Defense has exhausted every possible form of deflection and delay, their nightmare arrives...the MURDER TRIAL.
Regarding the science, in favor of the Prosecution, is the huge audience of viewers that watch the many CSI type TV programs. These shows have conditioned the general public over the years to be receptive to some of the newest scientific methods used in forensic studies they may not otherwise be exposed to and will likely be less intimidating as the Defense tries to daze and confuse them.
IMO, the average joe juror will be more accepting of the condemning evidence regardless of how scientific it may be.
Linda K-Baden can put on her best pair of shoes for the show and still the 'Mother of The Year' is going to walk out of the courtroom, led directly to a dressing room where she'll be handed a prison issued stripe outfit complimented with her very own bling bling ankle and wrist bracelets.
31 long DAYS
Justice will be served for Little Caylee.
Nore
New Member
Nore
New Member
------------------------
Hi, if people read intro at BodyFarm site they will see you are right.:innocent:
Nore
New Member
-----------
I remember at the S.P. trial Distaso telling the jury to use common sense.
I also agree on CA. and GA...
treeseeker
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2008
- Messages
- 592
- Reaction score
- 1
Dr. Vass himself said the air sampling is suggestive, and could have been the result of other circumstances. So, I don't really understand why the defense would waste resources to exclude it before trial.
It could be that they're actually more concerned about the chloroform. IIRC, it showed up in the air sampling, but was also found by swabbing the spare tire cover. Hard to discount a positive surface swab, or explain its presence.
The chloroform presence seems to be, IMO, critical to the premeditation charge. Not something a person usually keeps handy in a car trunk.
MyTinkieGirl
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
- Messages
- 1,673
- Reaction score
- 1,290
I found this when trying to see how long it would take for a Frye Hearing....and why someone...defense OR prosecution....hasn't requested one yet??
Even though the tests/methodology/analysis of data from The Body Farm IS NOT "pure opinion testimony"....AND, the same "procedures" are used in fire/arson analysis...
http://www.lisamcpherson.org/dandar_01.htm
II. NO NEED FOR A FRYE HEARING.
. . . pure opinion testimony, such as an expert's opinion that a defendant is incompetent, does not have to meet Frye, because this type of testimony is based on the expert's personal experience and training. While cloaked with the credibility of the expert, this testimony is analyzed by the jury as it analyzes any other personal opinion or factual testimony by a witness. Profile testimony, on the other hand, by its nature necessarily relies on some scientific principle or test, which implies an infallibility not found in pure opinion testimony. The jury will naturally assume that the scientific principles underlying the expert's conclusion are valid. Accordingly, this type of testimony must meet the Frye test, designed to ensure that the jury will not be misled by experimental scientific methods which may ultimately prove to be unsound. See Stokes, 548 So.2d at 193-94 ("[A] courtroom is not a laboratory, and as such it is not the place to conduct scientific experiments. If the scientific community considers a procedure or process unreliable for its own purposes, then the procedure must be considered less reliable for courtroom use."). (Emphasis added).
Flanagan v. State, 625 So.2d 827 (Fla., 1993).
I just inserted "such as trunk air sample analysis" for this phrase (although, one could also insert "an experts opinion says the DEFENSE is incompetent" :crazy
.....maybe the prosecution is gonna use the odor evaluation info as an "experts experience" so as not to have the need for a Frye Hearing, since in fact, much of the wording in the Body Farms testing has "could have" come from a dead body...."is consistent" with a decompositional event, etc. I DO believe the experts from The Body Farm will come across as, most importantly, IMO, interesting and fascinating to a jury....as well as, credible experts in this type of analysis with their demeanor and professionalism. Just IMO, of course.
ETA : Disclaimer...LOL...I have no legal training what so ever...only anything gleaned from our esteemed experts on here...so I don't know if the above passage holds for this particular issue.
Even though the tests/methodology/analysis of data from The Body Farm IS NOT "pure opinion testimony"....AND, the same "procedures" are used in fire/arson analysis...
http://www.lisamcpherson.org/dandar_01.htm
II. NO NEED FOR A FRYE HEARING.
. . . pure opinion testimony, such as an expert's opinion that a defendant is incompetent, does not have to meet Frye, because this type of testimony is based on the expert's personal experience and training. While cloaked with the credibility of the expert, this testimony is analyzed by the jury as it analyzes any other personal opinion or factual testimony by a witness. Profile testimony, on the other hand, by its nature necessarily relies on some scientific principle or test, which implies an infallibility not found in pure opinion testimony. The jury will naturally assume that the scientific principles underlying the expert's conclusion are valid. Accordingly, this type of testimony must meet the Frye test, designed to ensure that the jury will not be misled by experimental scientific methods which may ultimately prove to be unsound. See Stokes, 548 So.2d at 193-94 ("[A] courtroom is not a laboratory, and as such it is not the place to conduct scientific experiments. If the scientific community considers a procedure or process unreliable for its own purposes, then the procedure must be considered less reliable for courtroom use."). (Emphasis added).
Flanagan v. State, 625 So.2d 827 (Fla., 1993).
I just inserted "such as trunk air sample analysis" for this phrase (although, one could also insert "an experts opinion says the DEFENSE is incompetent" :crazy
.....maybe the prosecution is gonna use the odor evaluation info as an "experts experience" so as not to have the need for a Frye Hearing, since in fact, much of the wording in the Body Farms testing has "could have" come from a dead body...."is consistent" with a decompositional event, etc. I DO believe the experts from The Body Farm will come across as, most importantly, IMO, interesting and fascinating to a jury....as well as, credible experts in this type of analysis with their demeanor and professionalism. Just IMO, of course. ETA : Disclaimer...LOL...I have no legal training what so ever...only anything gleaned from our esteemed experts on here...so I don't know if the above passage holds for this particular issue.
Kat
Kind words do not cost much
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2008
- Messages
- 17,190
- Reaction score
- 1,010
If this link has been posted already to this thread please ignore. I've tried to read every post.
Here is a legal article about the Frye Standard in Florida.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/daubert/fl.htm
I am not trained in law and I don't really understand every single word at the above link. But this has interested me since I first heard of the Frye Standard and how it could possibly be applied to the evidence in KC's case.
Although the body farm is very well respected I think it's the particular test that the body farm conducted that will be put to the Frye Standard.
I'm trying to remember which tests that made me wonder which would be put to the standard and off hand:
1. The death band on the hair. (Has a standard been set on what the results of this test indicate and has that standard been widely accepted within the scientific community?)
2. Odor analysis of the trunk. (same question applies as above).
There may be others that I just can't recall right now. IMHO it's not the agency that performed the testing that is in question it's the question of if the test is regarded widely as accepted in the science community.
I have thought about it and even if those tests are ruled to be inadmissable according to the Frye Standard in Florida it's not a big deal really. There is an overwhelming amount of other circumstantial evidence that will convict KC.
IMHO this is LKB's doing. The defense team has no other choice than to attack the forensics and attack the investigative procedures that lead to KC's arrest. I think we may have seen her use this tactic before? Get forensics thrown out or obfuscate and convolute the evidence presented to wear down and try to confuse the issues presented to the jury. (I really don't like her much but that's beside the point!).
To be honest I'm not worried about the tests not being admitted because there is an avalanche of circumstantial evidence and a few tests won't make a difference IMHO.
She's going to be convicted. But her dumb @ss should have taken a plead to a lesser a long time ago. She's headed down another long hall with a door at the end but this one will be her place in life...a cell. JMHO.
Here is a legal article about the Frye Standard in Florida.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/daubert/fl.htm
I am not trained in law and I don't really understand every single word at the above link. But this has interested me since I first heard of the Frye Standard and how it could possibly be applied to the evidence in KC's case.
Although the body farm is very well respected I think it's the particular test that the body farm conducted that will be put to the Frye Standard.
I'm trying to remember which tests that made me wonder which would be put to the standard and off hand:
1. The death band on the hair. (Has a standard been set on what the results of this test indicate and has that standard been widely accepted within the scientific community?)
2. Odor analysis of the trunk. (same question applies as above).
There may be others that I just can't recall right now. IMHO it's not the agency that performed the testing that is in question it's the question of if the test is regarded widely as accepted in the science community.
I have thought about it and even if those tests are ruled to be inadmissable according to the Frye Standard in Florida it's not a big deal really. There is an overwhelming amount of other circumstantial evidence that will convict KC.
IMHO this is LKB's doing. The defense team has no other choice than to attack the forensics and attack the investigative procedures that lead to KC's arrest. I think we may have seen her use this tactic before? Get forensics thrown out or obfuscate and convolute the evidence presented to wear down and try to confuse the issues presented to the jury. (I really don't like her much but that's beside the point!).
To be honest I'm not worried about the tests not being admitted because there is an avalanche of circumstantial evidence and a few tests won't make a difference IMHO.
She's going to be convicted. But her dumb @ss should have taken a plead to a lesser a long time ago. She's headed down another long hall with a door at the end but this one will be her place in life...a cell. JMHO.
treeseeker
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2008
- Messages
- 592
- Reaction score
- 1
From what I've read, the post-mortem root band is a well-established observation. There have been quite a few studies and documented observances of banding.
I'm not sure this would be the subject of a Frye hearing, but will probably be intensely argued over at trial.
WSers found a really interesting thesis about post-mortem hair early on:
http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-01242005-145140/unrestricted/Collier_thesis.pdf
I'm not sure this would be the subject of a Frye hearing, but will probably be intensely argued over at trial.
WSers found a really interesting thesis about post-mortem hair early on:
http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-01242005-145140/unrestricted/Collier_thesis.pdf
Tulessa
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2009
- Messages
- 23,016
- Reaction score
- 3,487
There are currently three such facilities in the United States with the farm at Texas State University being the largest.
The original "Body Farm" (started by William Bass) is the University of Tennessee Anthropological Research Facility.
Another facility in the United States is located at Western Carolina University in Cullowhee, North Carolina and is part of the Western Carolina Human Identification Laboratory
Kat
Kind words do not cost much
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2008
- Messages
- 17,190
- Reaction score
- 1,010
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.
- Status