okiedokietoo
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 3,398
- Reaction score
- -14
JA: Labrador was designed for use by LE and Military
Dr: yes
Dr: yes
2011.06.21 TRIAL Day Twenty-four (Afternoon Session)
- Thread starter beach
- Start date
New Posts
-
OH OH - Nevaeh Rishardra Valencia Holton, 2, Cleveland, 13 Nov 2012
- Latest: sunflowermomma
- Status
gitana1
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- May 31, 2005
- Messages
- 29,358
- Reaction score
- 229,664
It just keeps getting worse and worse. I really have never seen an attorney dig a bigger hole than this.
My gosh, he is defending his client's LIFE. This is a death penalty case. How can anyone be so arrogant as to assume they can walk into such a case and use it to try out their skills when they completely lack experience. His client's life is on the line and he doesn't seem to care at all.
Most attorneys agonize about their omissions or mistakes. They agonize over any error no matter how small. And yet, I somehow doubt JB loses one moment of sleep over these horrible faux pas. I can't believe it.
My gosh, he is defending his client's LIFE. This is a death penalty case. How can anyone be so arrogant as to assume they can walk into such a case and use it to try out their skills when they completely lack experience. His client's life is on the line and he doesn't seem to care at all.
Most attorneys agonize about their omissions or mistakes. They agonize over any error no matter how small. And yet, I somehow doubt JB loses one moment of sleep over these horrible faux pas. I can't believe it.
mombomb
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,437
- Reaction score
- -3
Break over (4:41) Big yawn by his honor
Jury coming back (4:43)
DIRECT EXAMINATION OF DR. MARCUS WISE BY JB - continued
JB showed the witness a document and asked him about items with an asterisk by them. He wrote that he was trying to purge the water out of the trap and he wanted to explain. The triple-sorbant trap is 3 inches long and is a chemical sponge that soaks things out of the air so that they can be concentrated and then analyzed in the GCMS. It is a two step process - first to pass air over the trap. A little water vapor sticks to the sponge. The second step is to then heat the chemicals, vaporize and then pass to a loop with liquid nitrogen in it. He made the notation just to know it was there. If it was a quantitative analysis he could lose some lighter chemicals. This does not mean that the sample is not good.
Did you have another chemist verify your work?
OBJECTION -
Dr. Vass is aware of what was run here. He has many years of chemistry experience. He is a scientist with significant analytical chemistry experience.
Is Dr. Vass a chemist? He is if you consider on the job training. It is not his title.
He was hired as a Ph.d. chemist and is able to perform in a lot of areas outside of his Ph.d. He did not know when Dr. Vass last took a chemistry class.
They are very close colleagues. He is very talented and very intelligent.
He did not have another chemist verify his results.
Page 76 - Sample froze up again. This sample related to the air sample from the passenger area of the car.
Page 79 - system blank appeared to be clean. That is for the standards.
Regarding #117, the trap froze up at 1:52 into the run. When that happens, ice crystals form and they warm it up just enough for it to melt and air flow to be re-established.
This was not run according to a numbered or lettered protocol.
Page 86 - asterisk related to another error?
OBJECTION - SUSTAINED
This is a standard to determine the retention time.
(I am paying close attention and I am having a very hard time following where JB is going!)
(Everyone they show in the courtroom looks like they are going to fall asleep)
He caught himself in an error on the standards.
Page 87 - this was a continuation of the prior.
Did you change something in the middle of your process? He changed the way it was injected to keep from smelling up his lab.
Page 89 - expected to see it come through the GCMS and that meant it was being held up somewhere. It was something unexpected and wanted to make sure it was corrected.
Page 90 - did you make an adjustment? This is the same standard that smelled bad and he wanted to get it into the machinery as quickly and cleanly as possible. This would not effect the results.
OBJECTION - OVERRULED
You had to make adjustments in the middle of the run? He did that voluntarily to get the run. He did not see it where he expected - it would not go through the inlet because it is heavy and sticky.
Page 93 - he caught himself in an error there on the retention time standard - the same one as before.
Page 94 - he continued to have problems.
Doesn't recall if his instruments broke down at some point.
Did you have issues with GMCS?
OBJECTION - SUSTAINED
Are you aware that your machine broke during testing? He stated it did not break down. The loop at the front end was blocked due to the prior test.
Do you have any quality control standards.
OBJECTION - SUSTAINED[/B]
Quality control in these cases is if the retention time is the same as the authentic standard.
You are the quality control are you not?
OBJECTION - SUSTAINED
He is a primary method of determining if the instrument is functioning properly.
He and Dr. Vass ran the samples. Is he a chemist - he is very qualified. He is not a chemist? It is not his written title.
Composite CK - does this document...
OBJECTION - SUSTAINED
Have you ever issued protocols that suggest that samples should not be collected in areas near volatile compounds for soil samples?
OBJECTION - relevance - SUSTAINED
Is the reason to prevent contamination?
OBJECTION - leading - SUSTAINED
It is to avoid contamination whenever possible.
SIDEBAR #8 (5:07-5:11)
JB asks the Dr. to familiarize himself with the document and identified it as being for the collection of soil samples.
Soil sample protocols?
OBJECTION - relevance - SUSTAINED
Should collection for samples be free of debris?
OBJECTION - SUSTAINED
When running samples, regardless of the sample, do you recommend that the location be free of debris?
It depends on the objective of the analysis.
If you were collecting a carpet sample?
In some cases you have no choice.
Do you recommend that an item be separate?
OBJECTION - asked and answered - SUSTAINED
Could a false positive reading?
OBJECTION - what false positive - SUSTAINED
When running air samples, do you recommend that trash and debris not be part of the sample?
Sometimes you cannot separate the two.
OBJECTION - SUSTAINED - MOVE ON TO ANOTHER AREA
Do you recommend collected samples not be stored at locations with organic chemicals such as gasoline. He said that is always a good thing to do if possible. He believes there was trash found inside the vehicle. He has no idea where the trash was int he car. He did not request any samples at all.
Would a non-stained portion of the carpet have been helpful?
He got a piece of carpet and assumed it was stained, based on what he understood.
He did not request the samples. He was just requested to analyze them.
Junkyard car samples?
OBJECTION - SUSTAINED
He compared it to a carpet sample from another vehicle. He did not know where it came from as he did not collect it.
He is a co-author of the report in this case.
He did not recall where the sample was collected from. He then agreed it was from a junk yard, but he believes it came from Tennessee.
He made an addition to his report. He wanted to add that these chemicals found could also be associated with other types of materials. In a GMCS and you have one peak it doesn't say what the source is.
Air samples taken 6 weeks after carpet samples? That is what he has been told. Would the air six weeks later be significantly different? He has no way of knowing that. Would garage door make a difference? He has no way of knowing how the air would change over a period of time. He could not know what the changes to the air in the trash would be.
JB would like to enter the notes into evidence. JA objected as they contained JB's notes. OBJECTION SUSTAINED.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY JA
He worked with Dr. Vass in some of his research in decomp odor. He has looked at air samples from soil, ambient air, just about any matrix you can think of.
His initial analysis of carpet sample air, was just to run it through the GMSC and the major peak was chloroform. He also saw peaks consistent with gas fumes. Chloroform was greater than the peaks for gas vapors. Gas vapors would not be surprising.
The relative abundance of the chloroform seemed very unusual to him because it is a suspected cancer causing agent and he would not expect to find it in the trunk of a vehicle, but he cannot say where it came from.
He does not want to place a quantitative number on the chloroform, but it was detectible at levels above the baseline of his machine of parts per million.
Concentrated sample had similar results.
When he first saw chloroform it raised a question in his mind because he did not expect to see it there. Then he concentrated the sample and it was still the abundant... He then looked at some material data safety sheets out of his own personal curiosity. He was not able to find anything, but this was not an exhaustive search.
Certain polymers can sometimes trap volatiles.
He could never relate this reading of chloroform back to an earlier time. However, he could say that it would have been greater at a previous time. Based on the analysis, it was clear that the chloroform was associated with the carpet - coming directly from the carpet.
Regarding air blank that was mostly clean - usually an air blank is room air. He does that to check to see what is in his room. No room is completely void of compounds.
Regarding various issues noted in lab notes, this is to make sure he has a record of anything out of the ordinary. This info would be used when establishing a procedure. Nothing occurred that was extraordinary. He did forget to close a couple of valves, but he noticed that and quickly corrected it.
Purpose for control samples was to try to determine in any of those contributed to the trunk carpet. 6 weeks later was the best he could get.
He has worked with Dr. Vass doing studies in chemistry for 12 to 13 years. A national laboratory is a national resource of scientists that interact all the time. Dr. Vass is very eager to continuously learn.
No further questions.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY JB:
Different projects with Dr. Vass? The labradore - hand held sniffer. It is not patented yet. He is also a co-inventor but not really a beneficiary. All scientists are required to report any inventions. Most patents end up assigned to the company and his gain would be minimal.
Did you bill the work you did in this case to the Labradore project? He did not know for sure. He works on multiple projects. It is likely and fits within the scope of that project.
As a research scientist, he writes proposals to create technology. These are funded research projects. It is a job requirement to generate funds.
If technology is validated in court....
OBJECTION - SUSTAINED
Labradore was an instrument he designed the electronics for. It is very different from the GMCS and in a very broad sense puts out the readings found in decomp. No one will buy it because they heard about it in a court.
How many times has the Labradore been promoted in the media? It was not used in this case at all. It did not even exist until about a year after they ran the samples in this case.
One of the carpet samples from the junk yard had a small amount of chloroform in it - just a little bit above the baseline. He did not do a quantitative analysis.
Research on possible explanation for chloroform? He looked at some material data sheets of common products that might be found in the back of a vehicle. He doesn't recall how long he spent.
He cannot say where any chemical came from.
He doesn't know where chloroform would come from. He did not see anything that chloroform in it.
No further questions.
RE-CROSS BY JA:
Labradore was designed for LE and the military. If used by them, no royalties would be paid at all.
Witness is excused.
Jury coming back (4:43)
DIRECT EXAMINATION OF DR. MARCUS WISE BY JB - continued
JB showed the witness a document and asked him about items with an asterisk by them. He wrote that he was trying to purge the water out of the trap and he wanted to explain. The triple-sorbant trap is 3 inches long and is a chemical sponge that soaks things out of the air so that they can be concentrated and then analyzed in the GCMS. It is a two step process - first to pass air over the trap. A little water vapor sticks to the sponge. The second step is to then heat the chemicals, vaporize and then pass to a loop with liquid nitrogen in it. He made the notation just to know it was there. If it was a quantitative analysis he could lose some lighter chemicals. This does not mean that the sample is not good.
Did you have another chemist verify your work?
OBJECTION -
Dr. Vass is aware of what was run here. He has many years of chemistry experience. He is a scientist with significant analytical chemistry experience.
Is Dr. Vass a chemist? He is if you consider on the job training. It is not his title.
He was hired as a Ph.d. chemist and is able to perform in a lot of areas outside of his Ph.d. He did not know when Dr. Vass last took a chemistry class.
They are very close colleagues. He is very talented and very intelligent.
He did not have another chemist verify his results.
Page 76 - Sample froze up again. This sample related to the air sample from the passenger area of the car.
Page 79 - system blank appeared to be clean. That is for the standards.
Regarding #117, the trap froze up at 1:52 into the run. When that happens, ice crystals form and they warm it up just enough for it to melt and air flow to be re-established.
This was not run according to a numbered or lettered protocol.
Page 86 - asterisk related to another error?
OBJECTION - SUSTAINED
This is a standard to determine the retention time.
(I am paying close attention and I am having a very hard time following where JB is going!)
(Everyone they show in the courtroom looks like they are going to fall asleep)
He caught himself in an error on the standards.
Page 87 - this was a continuation of the prior.
Did you change something in the middle of your process? He changed the way it was injected to keep from smelling up his lab.
Page 89 - expected to see it come through the GCMS and that meant it was being held up somewhere. It was something unexpected and wanted to make sure it was corrected.
Page 90 - did you make an adjustment? This is the same standard that smelled bad and he wanted to get it into the machinery as quickly and cleanly as possible. This would not effect the results.
OBJECTION - OVERRULED
You had to make adjustments in the middle of the run? He did that voluntarily to get the run. He did not see it where he expected - it would not go through the inlet because it is heavy and sticky.
Page 93 - he caught himself in an error there on the retention time standard - the same one as before.
Page 94 - he continued to have problems.
Doesn't recall if his instruments broke down at some point.
Did you have issues with GMCS?
OBJECTION - SUSTAINED
Are you aware that your machine broke during testing? He stated it did not break down. The loop at the front end was blocked due to the prior test.
Do you have any quality control standards.
OBJECTION - SUSTAINED[/B]
Quality control in these cases is if the retention time is the same as the authentic standard.
You are the quality control are you not?
OBJECTION - SUSTAINED
He is a primary method of determining if the instrument is functioning properly.
He and Dr. Vass ran the samples. Is he a chemist - he is very qualified. He is not a chemist? It is not his written title.
Composite CK - does this document...
OBJECTION - SUSTAINED
Have you ever issued protocols that suggest that samples should not be collected in areas near volatile compounds for soil samples?
OBJECTION - relevance - SUSTAINED
Is the reason to prevent contamination?
OBJECTION - leading - SUSTAINED
It is to avoid contamination whenever possible.
SIDEBAR #8 (5:07-5:11)
JB asks the Dr. to familiarize himself with the document and identified it as being for the collection of soil samples.
Soil sample protocols?
OBJECTION - relevance - SUSTAINED
Should collection for samples be free of debris?
OBJECTION - SUSTAINED
When running samples, regardless of the sample, do you recommend that the location be free of debris?
It depends on the objective of the analysis.
If you were collecting a carpet sample?
In some cases you have no choice.
Do you recommend that an item be separate?
OBJECTION - asked and answered - SUSTAINED
Could a false positive reading?
OBJECTION - what false positive - SUSTAINED
When running air samples, do you recommend that trash and debris not be part of the sample?
Sometimes you cannot separate the two.
OBJECTION - SUSTAINED - MOVE ON TO ANOTHER AREA
Do you recommend collected samples not be stored at locations with organic chemicals such as gasoline. He said that is always a good thing to do if possible. He believes there was trash found inside the vehicle. He has no idea where the trash was int he car. He did not request any samples at all.
Would a non-stained portion of the carpet have been helpful?
He got a piece of carpet and assumed it was stained, based on what he understood.
He did not request the samples. He was just requested to analyze them.
Junkyard car samples?
OBJECTION - SUSTAINED
He compared it to a carpet sample from another vehicle. He did not know where it came from as he did not collect it.
He is a co-author of the report in this case.
He did not recall where the sample was collected from. He then agreed it was from a junk yard, but he believes it came from Tennessee.
He made an addition to his report. He wanted to add that these chemicals found could also be associated with other types of materials. In a GMCS and you have one peak it doesn't say what the source is.
Air samples taken 6 weeks after carpet samples? That is what he has been told. Would the air six weeks later be significantly different? He has no way of knowing that. Would garage door make a difference? He has no way of knowing how the air would change over a period of time. He could not know what the changes to the air in the trash would be.
JB would like to enter the notes into evidence. JA objected as they contained JB's notes. OBJECTION SUSTAINED.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY JA
He worked with Dr. Vass in some of his research in decomp odor. He has looked at air samples from soil, ambient air, just about any matrix you can think of.
His initial analysis of carpet sample air, was just to run it through the GMSC and the major peak was chloroform. He also saw peaks consistent with gas fumes. Chloroform was greater than the peaks for gas vapors. Gas vapors would not be surprising.
The relative abundance of the chloroform seemed very unusual to him because it is a suspected cancer causing agent and he would not expect to find it in the trunk of a vehicle, but he cannot say where it came from.
He does not want to place a quantitative number on the chloroform, but it was detectible at levels above the baseline of his machine of parts per million.
Concentrated sample had similar results.
When he first saw chloroform it raised a question in his mind because he did not expect to see it there. Then he concentrated the sample and it was still the abundant... He then looked at some material data safety sheets out of his own personal curiosity. He was not able to find anything, but this was not an exhaustive search.
Certain polymers can sometimes trap volatiles.
He could never relate this reading of chloroform back to an earlier time. However, he could say that it would have been greater at a previous time. Based on the analysis, it was clear that the chloroform was associated with the carpet - coming directly from the carpet.
Regarding air blank that was mostly clean - usually an air blank is room air. He does that to check to see what is in his room. No room is completely void of compounds.
Regarding various issues noted in lab notes, this is to make sure he has a record of anything out of the ordinary. This info would be used when establishing a procedure. Nothing occurred that was extraordinary. He did forget to close a couple of valves, but he noticed that and quickly corrected it.
Purpose for control samples was to try to determine in any of those contributed to the trunk carpet. 6 weeks later was the best he could get.
He has worked with Dr. Vass doing studies in chemistry for 12 to 13 years. A national laboratory is a national resource of scientists that interact all the time. Dr. Vass is very eager to continuously learn.
No further questions.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY JB:
Different projects with Dr. Vass? The labradore - hand held sniffer. It is not patented yet. He is also a co-inventor but not really a beneficiary. All scientists are required to report any inventions. Most patents end up assigned to the company and his gain would be minimal.
Did you bill the work you did in this case to the Labradore project? He did not know for sure. He works on multiple projects. It is likely and fits within the scope of that project.
As a research scientist, he writes proposals to create technology. These are funded research projects. It is a job requirement to generate funds.
If technology is validated in court....
OBJECTION - SUSTAINED
Labradore was an instrument he designed the electronics for. It is very different from the GMCS and in a very broad sense puts out the readings found in decomp. No one will buy it because they heard about it in a court.
How many times has the Labradore been promoted in the media? It was not used in this case at all. It did not even exist until about a year after they ran the samples in this case.
One of the carpet samples from the junk yard had a small amount of chloroform in it - just a little bit above the baseline. He did not do a quantitative analysis.
Research on possible explanation for chloroform? He looked at some material data sheets of common products that might be found in the back of a vehicle. He doesn't recall how long he spent.
He cannot say where any chemical came from.
He doesn't know where chloroform would come from. He did not see anything that chloroform in it.
No further questions.
RE-CROSS BY JA:
Labradore was designed for LE and the military. If used by them, no royalties would be paid at all.
Witness is excused.
TotallyObsessed
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,096
- Reaction score
- 1
Oh Dear Gawd...I am getting giddy....! I just hooted out loud here at work
AND Ashton envy as well :innocent:
pinkfly
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,804
- Reaction score
- 1,550
Thanks Tulessa
Do you think that this is a good thing or a bad thing?
She said on news that she will just tell the truth but I am thinking she has changed a couple of times.
sleutherontheside
Retired WS Staff
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2009
- Messages
- 9,874
- Reaction score
- -2
IS JB trying to increase trending of the words chemist and google today?
Bullwinkle
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2010
- Messages
- 681
- Reaction score
- -17
MamaXanax‎ RT @fismom: #caseyanthony Twitter - seconds ago
"Casey is writing "can I go back to my cell now?" on her note pad."
ABCAshleigh‎ #caseyanthony Twitter - 1 minute ago
"Witness long and drawn out. I just saw jurors looking up here to balcony as several people walking out. Very empty here."
"Casey is writing "can I go back to my cell now?" on her note pad."
ABCAshleigh‎ #caseyanthony Twitter - 1 minute ago
"Witness long and drawn out. I just saw jurors looking up here to balcony as several people walking out. Very empty here."
liltexans
Retired WS Staff
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 13,451
- Reaction score
- 25,893
Baez: "Did you find any of that in your Googling?" Wise seems to be getting annoyed.
by oscaseyanthony via twitter at 4:50 PM
Wise says Labrador was designed primarily to be used by law enforcement and military. #CaseyAnthony -jfell
by cfnews13casey via twitter at 4:50 PM
by oscaseyanthony via twitter at 4:50 PM
Wise says Labrador was designed primarily to be used by law enforcement and military. #CaseyAnthony -jfell
by cfnews13casey via twitter at 4:50 PM
NavySubMom
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2010
- Messages
- 1,389
- Reaction score
- 31
OMG, JB JUST CANNOT let this witness go, I hope he BURIES himself RIGHT NOW!!!
Mountain_Kat
Heca Firimar !
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2010
- Messages
- 13,754
- Reaction score
- 42,947
HHJP: (frustrated) Ask. Your. Question.
mysticrose
The key to change... is to let go of fear
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2009
- Messages
- 8,436
- Reaction score
- 132
Wow I feel like I was just in the middle of an arm wrestling match!
greycoupon
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2011
- Messages
- 893
- Reaction score
- 183
He also told him the diabetic fellow who testified on Friday would be up for 30 minutes. He has a different time gauge.
wundermommy76
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2011
- Messages
- 47
- Reaction score
- 0
Wouldn't it be because if you are calling a specific witness it is because you know what the witness is going to testify to and because it helps to support the theory you are trying to put forward???
Beyond Belief
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 14,496
- Reaction score
- 93
JB didn't excuse witness, good grief, more, still beating the labrador royalties.
okiedokietoo
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 3,398
- Reaction score
- -14
JB getting too snippy with HJBP--------------------------------
JB: as an inventor you would get 15% royalty
JB: as an inventor you would get 15% royalty
Kat
Kind words do not cost much
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2008
- Messages
- 17,190
- Reaction score
- 1,007
witness excused. I want to go ahead and say thank you to the transcribers because I am going to have to go back and reread this long testimony.
Baez told JP "I didn't excuse the witness"
(JP did) and JP snippy with Baez there for a second.
Baez told JP "I didn't excuse the witness"
(JP did) and JP snippy with Baez there for a second.
- Status