2010.12.30 Motion to Exclude Unreliable Evidence (Plant or Root Growth)

New Posts

That's actually a surprisingly well written and interesting motion for this bunch. Have we seen Dr. Halls actual depositions or reports yet?
 
Is that because his answers given during his deposition were not understood?

I'll have to read the motion because off the top of my head, my first thought is......he must have failed to give them helpful information.
 
I find it very suspect that some of the Frye references in this motion refer to sex offenders and child abuse within the home environment.

WTH does that have to do with plant growth?? pg 5 at link listed.


Very shady. I doubt this possible attempt at slipping in info will go unnoticed.
 
faefrost said:
That's actually a surprisingly well written and interesting motion for this bunch. Have we seen Dr. Halls actual depositions or reports yet?
Click to expand...

I'm thinking it's the work of what's her name..the one without a TV? Or is she just for medical experts?
 
faefrost said:
That's actually a surprisingly well written and interesting motion for this bunch. Have we seen Dr. Halls actual depositions or reports yet?
Click to expand...

I thought so too. Must have been written by... someone else. :innocent:

We haven't seen Hall's depo for the defense, but I would LOVE to, in order to see what they LEFT OUT of this motion. :seeya:
 
Also note that the letter from Jane Bock dated in September CLEARLY indicates it is a REPORT!!!!!!!!!!
 
I agree. Did JB and crew do a cut and paste on some of those 20 some motions filed because I felt while reading the beginning of this motion, I had read it last week. I was thinking maybe the title was wrong until I got to the substance of the motion. By the way, did JB take liberty again by stating that Dr Hall didn't examine Caylee's remain site but came to his conclusions by way of photos in this motion. Because the attachment letter says Dr Hall was on site Dec 15, 08.
 
Huh. Is anyone else besides me nervous about Dr. Hall now? After reading this motion, it seems like he's not going to be a very good expert witness, unless I'm missing something.

The other thing I noticed is the the defense never says his conclusions are flat out wrong, just that they are unreliable. So does that mean they're right but should be thrown out because of the way they were obtained?

Someone please reassure me. I am very alarmed after reading this motion, and that never happens when I read a defense motion.

Oh, and I noticed the dig at LE in there. The motion was pretty darn good until he did that. Sheesh, Baez, do all of your motions have to have whining in them?
 
Yeah JB didn't write this motion.
 
this motion doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. It's put together with things that really don't even apply. I'm not concerned at this point.
 
Aedrys said:
Huh. Is anyone else besides me nervous about Dr. Hall now? After reading this motion, it seems like he's not going to be a very good expert witness, unless I'm missing something.

The other thing I noticed is the the defense never says his conclusions are flat out wrong, just that they are unreliable. So does that mean they're right but should be thrown out because of the way they were obtained?

Someone please reassure me. I am very alarmed after reading this motion, and that never happens when I read a defense motion.

Oh, and I noticed the dig at LE in there. The motion was pretty darn good until he did that. Sheesh, Baez, do all of your motions have to have whining in them?
Click to expand...

Just remember, it came from the defense, so it is EXTREMELY slanted. :)
And we all know their propensity for leaving VITAL information out of motions.

Can't WAIT to see the State's response!! :woohoo:

Yeah, I noticed the major attempt to discredit LE too. Hope Ashton responds to that! heh
MM
 
Aedrys said:
Huh. Is anyone else besides me nervous about Dr. Hall now? After reading this motion, it seems like he's not going to be a very good expert witness, unless I'm missing something.

The other thing I noticed is the the defense never says his conclusions are flat out wrong, just that they are unreliable. So does that mean they're right but should be thrown out because of the way they were obtained?

Someone please reassure me. I am very alarmed after reading this motion, and that never happens when I read a defense motion.

Oh, and I noticed the dig at LE in there. The motion was pretty darn good until he did that. Sheesh, Baez, do all of your motions have to have whining in them?
Click to expand...

After reading that I was a little concerned too. Then I remembered the recent hearing and that JB is not above embellishing or putting his own slant on things. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if some of those quotes that he put in the motion are taken out of context. We shall see...
 
LC446 said:
After reading that I was a little concerned too. Then I remembered the recent hearing and that JB is not above embellishing or putting his own slant on things. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if some of those quotes that he put in the motion are taken out of context. We shall see...
Click to expand...

Yeah, for a moment I was like, the hell, why would the state want an expert who didn't base his conclusions on any methodology but his own that he knew since he was 11? But then after a bit I realized this is a defense motion, so they must have left a lot of things out, I'm sure. What they are saying is just not adding up for me. It doesn't sound right even if they finally got someone competent to write their motions now. I think that's what happened. I was momentarily blinded by a really well written motion by the defense. That's dang near apocalypse inducing, you know? My brain couldn't handle it, LOL. The state's response to this will definitely be interesting.
 
Well, if this is the Dr. Hall they are referring to:

http://www.spoke.com/info/pEl2iO9/DavidHall

then I'm not too worried.

I will give kudos to the defense, however, for what I considered a well-written motion with actual relevant case law. I could have done without the sniping in it, but I figure baby steps are still steps.
 
Lanie said:
Well, if this is the Dr. Hall they are referring to:

http://www.spoke.com/info/pEl2iO9/DavidHall

then I'm not too worried.

I will give kudos to the defense, however, for what I considered a well-written motion with actual relevant case law. I could have done without the sniping in it, but I figure baby steps are still steps.
Click to expand...

From the link (thanks, Lanie! :seeya:)

"David W. Hall, Ph.D., Forensic Botanist David W. Hall, Ph.D., holds a Ph.D. in Systematic Botany from the University of Florida. He has a Master of Science Degree also in Systematic Botany from Georgia Southern University, Bachelor of Science in Biology. He has founded an environmental and forensic consulting firm headquartered in Gainesville, Florida, where he specializes in forensics and plant identification. He is the author of ten published books with several more in preparation, and the author of over 135 articles."
 
logicalgirl said:
So this was what Mr. Ashton was so "hot" about!!
Click to expand...

Indeed it seems to have been a catalyst for the sanctions motion. I can't remember the term JB used....claiming it was not a report.

Not only does she use the term "report" in addressing it to JB but she also uses the term "report" in the first few sentences. One can not call a "report" by any other name unless "report" is left to interpretation by the reader.

KWIM???

I suspect that is where the term "willful" came into play.
 
Muzikman said:
This motion definitely needs some discussion and research. The defense is claiming that Dr. Hall doesn't know what he's talking about, based on answers during his depo. :eek:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/6872657...e-Unreliable-Evidence-of-Plant-or-Root-Growth

MM
Click to expand...

Thanks for starting this thread Muzikman. I just read the title of this motion and had instant heartburn and a headache.

I will be on pins and needles throughout the thread until this motion is heard.

ps: no way jose wrote this!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 172 more.
Total: 3,932 (members: 173, guests: 3,759)

Online statistics

Members online
173
Guests online
3,759
Total visitors
3,932
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,845
Messages
17,959,925
Members
228,622
Latest member
crimedeepdives23
Back
Top