Steely Dan
Former Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2008
- Messages
- 30,558
- Reaction score
- 107
Here's the latest example; http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-casey-anthony-trial-science-hearin20110406,0,6574453.story
Casey Anthony attorney slams air tests as 'guesswork'
By Anthony Colarossi, Orlando Sentinel
4:12 p.m. EDT, April 6, 2011
...Today marks the latest in a series of hearings that have now spread out over several days dealing with scientific evidence that may be used in Anthony's murder trial.
If her attorneys can successfully argue that the science is too new and not reliable enough, they may be able to convince Orange-Osceola Chief Judge Belvin Perry that the evidence is not ready for the courts.
Earlier today, a different attorney for Anthony took aim at the findings of a state expert who said high chloroform levels were present in the trunk of the Sunfire.
Defense attorney Dorothy Clay Sims floated the hypothetical scenario that high chloroform levels came from Caylee Marie's bathing suit....
The funny thing to me is, IMO, the prosecution doesn't need any scientific evidence to back up the charges.
Years ago I remember reading an article by Vincent Bugliosi (The LA DA who convicted Charles Manson) who said that he could have convicted Simpson on his statements to police alone. I couldn't find the exact article but I did find this;
http://www.salon.com/weekly/oj960708.html
The prosecution, Bugliosi charges, was generally too "afraid of its own shadow" to introduce some of the most damaging evidence it had: the taped police interview with Simpson -- in which he admits to cutting his finger on the night of the murders but when asked how, says, "I have no idea, man" -- was never used because Clark and Darden didn't want the jury to hear Simpson denying guilt.
IMO, if the defense wants to attack the validity of the science don't use any of it, or as little as possible. Like Bugliosi said about the OJ case I believe the prosecution can convict her on her statements to police alone. This robs the defense of the ability to attack any scientific evidence experts.
I hope the prosecution doesn't try to over think this case like Darden and Clark did. JMO
Casey Anthony attorney slams air tests as 'guesswork'
By Anthony Colarossi, Orlando Sentinel
4:12 p.m. EDT, April 6, 2011
...Today marks the latest in a series of hearings that have now spread out over several days dealing with scientific evidence that may be used in Anthony's murder trial.
If her attorneys can successfully argue that the science is too new and not reliable enough, they may be able to convince Orange-Osceola Chief Judge Belvin Perry that the evidence is not ready for the courts.
Earlier today, a different attorney for Anthony took aim at the findings of a state expert who said high chloroform levels were present in the trunk of the Sunfire.
Defense attorney Dorothy Clay Sims floated the hypothetical scenario that high chloroform levels came from Caylee Marie's bathing suit....
The funny thing to me is, IMO, the prosecution doesn't need any scientific evidence to back up the charges.
Years ago I remember reading an article by Vincent Bugliosi (The LA DA who convicted Charles Manson) who said that he could have convicted Simpson on his statements to police alone. I couldn't find the exact article but I did find this;
http://www.salon.com/weekly/oj960708.html
The prosecution, Bugliosi charges, was generally too "afraid of its own shadow" to introduce some of the most damaging evidence it had: the taped police interview with Simpson -- in which he admits to cutting his finger on the night of the murders but when asked how, says, "I have no idea, man" -- was never used because Clark and Darden didn't want the jury to hear Simpson denying guilt.
IMO, if the defense wants to attack the validity of the science don't use any of it, or as little as possible. Like Bugliosi said about the OJ case I believe the prosecution can convict her on her statements to police alone. This robs the defense of the ability to attack any scientific evidence experts.
I hope the prosecution doesn't try to over think this case like Darden and Clark did. JMO