2010.11.29 Hearing: RE: Defense Won't Have Hair Expert @ Trial

[LiveLaughLuv]

I think what bothered me the most was JB doing mini push-ups on the podium. He is way too hyper. Also during a closeup, his face appeared to be dangerously red. He's liable to have a stroke if he does not calm down. jmo

It's those darn Red Bulls...is he trying for a heart attack! That would surely get him out of defending the indefenseable...JMHO

Justice for Caylee

 

[ynotdivein]

Bumping this from AZ re: Petraco kerfluffle.

I don't JB was complaining about the State referencing a prior court decision; I think he was complaining about the State relying directly on the evidence (deposition transcript?) that was submitted to that other court. Essentially, the state was trying to introduce witness testimony through a deposition transcript taken in another case? If that's what was happening, I would have made the same objection.

I didn't watch the hearing, only followed along on the thread, so I hope I got that right.

 

[USARDOG]

It DOES appear that all the defense efforts are being put into the penalty phase. It looks like they know that a guilty verdict is likely, so all their efforts will be going towards mitigating the death penalty.

Bold by me.
Which they could have avoided way back when by just taking a plea, but JB and ICA were so sure they could pull on over on a jury. Heck, if not for the duct tape ICA could have said Caylee drowned in the pool, and she was scared of C and G and so made up the stupid nanny story, and she likely would have gotten off way, way lite.

 

[ynotdivein]

Bumping okie from the Media sticky:

This is the case the State was referring to:

Quote:The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff,
v
John Kogut, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Nassau County, September 19, 2005

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york...005-25410.html

re: Petraco and "postmortem hair banding"

 

[USARDOG]

The defense can easily explain Caylee's hair being in the trunk, but they can not easily explain away a hair from Caylee's dead body being in the trunk. As you say, their only option is to attack the science regarding the deathband, but how are they going to do that with no expert testifying? They can't. This is huge. If they have no defense to Caylee being dead in her mother's car trunk, they have no defense period, IMO.

I feel like I'm missing something important when it comes to this hair. How can the defense not refute the hair shows decomposition and expect to prove KC is not guilty? What am I missing?

Perhaps the defense intends to attack the evidence at the open and close by saying, "We will demonstrate that the hair did not come from a diseased Caylee." And "we have clearly shown that the hair in question was NOT from a diseased body." Just hoping some juror thinks they must have slept through it.

 

[lowens1975]

Bold by me.
Which they could have avoided way back when by just taking a plea, but JB and ICA were so sure they could pull on over on a jury. Heck, if not for the duct tape ICA could have said Caylee drowned in the pool, and she was scared of C and G and so made up the stupid nanny story, and she likely would have gotten off way, way lite.

This was probably their way of thinking before HHJP made the decision to let her statements to family and LE in as evidence. If Caylee did drown accidentally, and she made up the story of the imagi-nanny for her parents benefit, she should have stuck telling them that story instead of trying to convince LE and everyone else it was true too.

 

[Softail]

Perhaps the defense intends to attack the evidence at the open and close by saying, "We will demonstrate that the hair did not come from a diseased Caylee." And "we have clearly shown that the hair in question was NOT from a diseased body." Just hoping some juror thinks they must have slept through it.

Did you mean a deceased Caylee/body? :waitasec:
I hope you did, otherwise I'm not sure what disease they would be referring to. :waitasec:

 

[coco puff]

Even if the science is not fool proof, what are the odds that:

there was a decaying odor coming from the car
dogs detected scent of human decomposition
many people commented on the scent being "like a dead body"
there was a stain that wasn't there before but now is and looks like a toddler laying on one side
the car was abandoned by the owner
scientific instruments confirm decompositional componients in the "air" of the trunk
there was a hair that had marking indicating it came from a dead body

and and and..... alas, we find that the owner of the car is the mother of a dead little girl

This would all be more important if Caylee was not found... but she WAS! So this is just the sprinkles on the nuts in the big bowl of icecream I like to call KC's conviction.

 

[sleutherontheside]

Did anyone else catch the flub when JB said (after looooooooooooooooooooooong conference with Mason) that they would be willing to engage in quid pro quo?

Did it not take him like 2-3 times to get it out right?

Question....did he even understand the suggestion by Mason? Perhaps he should do an "ananlysis" of the word and then a power point presentation on a "softner" sheet.

Spelling errors credited to the person that created the presentation. We KNOW it wasn't JB.

 

[Softail]

Did anyone else catch the flub when JB said (after looooooooooooooooooooooong conference with Mason) that they would be willing to engage in quid pro quo?

Did it not take him like 2-3 times to get it out right?

Question....did he even understand the suggestion by Mason? Perhaps he should do an "ananlysis" of the word and then a power point presentation on a "softner" sheet.

Spelling errors credited to the person that created the presentation. We KNOW it wasn't JB.

Did you catch this one? "State failed to meet it's burden". :lol:
I guess that one IS spelled correctly. :lol:
I'm a little surprised he didn't put "meat". :lol:

 

[Nore]

I think what bothered me the most was JB doing mini push-ups on the podium. He is way too hyper. Also during a closeup, his face appeared to be dangerously red. He's liable to have a stroke if he does not calm down. jmo

-----------------
LambChop, I said the same thing about Red Bull.
Those drinks in large amounts can cause heart attacks also.
I knew he was hopped up on something.He'd better watch it.
:seeya:

 

[Amil]

Did you catch this one? "State failed to meet it's burden". :lol:
I guess that one IS spelled correctly. :lol:
I'm a little surprised he didn't put "meat". :lol:

If the DT doesn't know the difference between it's and its, how can a jury trust them to know the difference between any of the science at all? Basic English!! It's Greek to them!!haha

 

[Amil]

Dr. Vass who's been doing decomp experiments for over 20 years is no expert but Logan who just began this process is???

Befuddled of course since it is the defenses job to create doubt, but seriously....how does one attorney say that one expert is more of an expert than the states expert but the defenses expert doesn't have the experice Dr. Vass does...how hypocritical is that! I'd be embarassed, humiliated and mortified to try and pass my nonexpert off as an expert and the true expert as no expert at all...:maddening:

I believe His Honor has already made up his decision in regards to the chloroform, the hair with the PMDB on the hair and the K9....which is why he asked the defense what their objection would be if Dr. Petraco was given a subpeona to testify...I just fell out of my seat when Baez said, it would be considered hearsay! His Honor almost laughed himself out of his seat, hearsay? This is case law...:floorlaugh: Me thinks those red bulls Baez is drinking is over stimulating his brain power, for he can't give a credible reasonable excuse..JMHO

Justice for Caylee

And everyone nearly fell out of their seats when he was asked by Judge Perry what his objections would be and he ran over to CM to ask him "what would our objection be again?"

 

[Chiquita71]

http://www.wftv.com/video/27455780/index.html

Nicholas Petraco(on the subject of)

HH: I need some clarification, Mr. Baez. The name of the witness that testified in the preceding in New York...
JB: Nick Petraco
HH: Okay, and ah did the state attempt to call that witness?
JA: No sir, he was under contract with the defense, we did not even attempt it.
HH: Okay but let me ask you this question, did you attempt to call him for the purposes of his opinion in that particular case?
JA: We did not.
HH: Okay, and why not?
JA: Because he is an employee of the defendant in this case.
HH: Mr. Baez if the State served him with a subpoena, called him to elicit testimony about what he testified to in the New york proceeding what would be the defense's position?
JB: (long pause)
CM: (yells from desk) Don't like it!
HH: I know you don't like it, what would be your position?
JB: If I may have a moment...
HH: You may.
JB: (confers with CM-whispering) We would be willing to engage in a quid pro quo (?) in that situation and...
HH: That doesn't answer my question...
JB: (laughs)
HH: The question is simply this, if the state of Florida attempted to call this Dr. to elicit from him his testimony and opinions rendered in that case, what would be the basis of your objection?
JB: Our, our obj, we would object and our objection would be ability to cross examine. We have a Crawford issue Judge.
HH: No, no, no. If they would call him as a witness which would mean he would be subject to cross examination by you, so you wouldn't have a Crawford issue. If they would call him to testify, to elicit his opinion in that proceeding where he would be subject to cross examination, would you object and if you objected what would be the basis of your objection?
JB: (long pause) Our basis would be that everything he testified to at that hearing would be hearsay.
HH: How would it be hearsay if he's subject to cross examination and he's testifying ah, to...
JB: Because he's not testifying...
HH: Mr. Mason wants to talk to you.
JA: I don't object if Mr. Mason wants to respond to this as well.
HH: Let's just one at a time folks.
CM: The objection we had no (?) of what went on in New York, no opportunity(?). He can come here to testify and if he's called here to testify he can be impeached by either side. (?)
HH: It is my understanding that he testified about this ah, root banding type thing.
JA: Yes sir, his testimony in the New York case was as to the general acceptance of this post mortem root banding uhm...
HH: That's been generally accepted in the scientific community.
JA: Correct that was the (?)of that testimony and Judge I, if, I gave it to you just so you would know it was a thorough hearing and to know the background, if the court is concerned it creates some kind of...
HH: No, I just want answers to my questions. So I can do a proper analysis of this, I need to check something. If they attempted to call him to testify to the general acceptance of this science would you be objecting? And I guess the logical step would be that he is a retained expert that you have utilized and you object based upon either work product or-no, work product
CM: We're we're...(???)
HH: He's testifying about the theory, the general acceptance of this method in the scientific community. That's what he's testifying to, that's what they have represented that he's testifying about. (pause)
CM: He did not testify, period about...
HH: I, I, I know that but what I'm saying is if they layed a subpoena on him or he voluntarily agreed to testify concerning this would there be an objection by the defense? (long pause)
CM You know there's two(?)to that...
HH: I know there are a lot of swords to it...
CM: I don't know. (???)(pause)
HH: The court can take judicial notice of rulings by other courts. The thorny issue for me in what I have to research is ah, even though you can take judicial notice of a judicial(?) and one of the mistakes I made at the time, that I had to reconsider was, if that record contains hearsay then there's a problem or a potential problem. Because you can load a box car through that opening. The other issue I have to consider is if you object because of privilege whether or not that cues any Crawford problems that you would have ah, not being able to cross examine him on that theory. So I have to go through that analysis and I was trying to figure out what you would do ah because I still have to get around Crawford ah, ah...
JA: If I may offer a thought, one of the issues in general acceptance is what the scientific community says about this particular concept. Which is why peer reviewed journal articles would be admissible (?)hearsay and I would submit that the fact that someone is testifying somewhere that this is generally accepted is simply proof of his opinion. Yeah, but quite frankly Judge...
HH: ...but, but that, go on...
JA: I don't consider it all that important whether the transcripts are entered or not, if that is going to bog this hearing down then its just not that big a deal. I think there's a difference between um, a hearing where someone is talking in general about the hair banding vs. what the defense has offered which is specific statements about the case, that's apples and oranges. But...
HH: It's a two step process I can just look at the New York ruling along and then I can look at the testimony as contained besides that and that's the analysis, I was trying to go through-because ah...
JB: Judge...
HH: ...hearsay is hearsay.
JA: I think in terms of the general scientific community's acceptance of a concept, then you know its sort of like proving the statement was made not proving the truth of it. In other words proving that scientific (???)
JB: You have two different issues here Judge. That is one uh, the issue of what was the, were the specific facts in that case particularly in the sample size. That's a huge issue in this case, because were taking about one specific hair and only one hair. There were multiple hairs found in the trunk but only one of those hairs showed this apparent decomposition and that's what we're talking about. We're not talking about post mortum root banding, we keep throwing that phrase around but the report and the testimony (Karen Lowe) is that it is consistent with apparent decomposition. Now that may be a completely different set of facts then what occurred in the New York case, which ah, my recollection of the facts is that it did not consist of one single of hair and then you have the second additional issue that we have and, and it is certainly a clever move...is using a little elbow ah hitting you with the elbow by saying, "Well, this is somebody that was contacted and hired by the defense in this case, so therefore you should also consider that...a bit of a bolster..."
HH: I don't care who they were hired by Mr. Baez.
JB: I understand that but I think its still an issue we can't ignore the pink elephant in the room. We can't say ah, I'm going to look at this just as a person who's testifying, I'm not going to look at the surrounding facts around it, that's what I think ah is an issue.
HH: I don't see pink elephants. (pause)
JA: (?) Based on what council just said is the Frye objection being withdrawn? Council just said we're not arguing the general acceptance of root banding and I just want to make sure I'm arguing...
HH: I, I don't think he, said that...
JA: I didn't think he did, that's why...
HH: I know it came out that way, but I don't think...
JA: ...um and the motion doesn't reference if its one hair, doesn't really argue significance beyond Frye uhm...
HH: There are some issues I will decide whether or not its acceptable, the question of how much weight ah, sometimes you forget I am not to try a fact and whether it was one hair or two thousand hairs that may be a question for the trial fact to weigh in.
JB: I would disagree and tell you the reason that the sample size is important is because goes to the analysis and the methods of the analysis, ah I correctly(?)Miss Lowe.
HH: But the counter balance to that Mr. Baez is suppose you have one expert to say that one hair, a half a hair is enough and you have another expert that says it is not enough. Both of them will give their reasons why they feel that way. Ah, and it is that not a question for the trial fact? Particularly when, if they all agree on the methodology the question is whether or not the sample is sufficient. That's like some arguments that folks used to make with their analysis of blood alcohol levels with GCI and old breathalyzer-the gas chromatagraph.
JB: Well, I would say that there is a clear distinction between competing scientific theories vs. what's generally accepted.
HH: Okay.
(end)

It took me all day to do this-so I am probably far behind, I got interrupted or it would not have taken so long. I was interested in this exchange at the hearing. I still do not completely understand what was going on-but now I will post this, read the thread and see what folks have to say.

:websleuther:

 

[ynotdivein]

http://www.wftv.com/video/27455780/index.html

Nicholas Petraco(on the subject of)

HH: I don't see pink elephants. (pause)
JA: (?) Based on what council just said is the Frye objection being withdrawn? Council just said we're not arguing the general acceptance of root banding and I just want to make sure I'm arguing...
HH: I, I don't think he, said that...
JA: I didn't think he did, that's why...
HH: I know it came out that way, but I don't think...
JA: ...um and the motion doesn't reference if its one hair, doesn't really argue significance beyond Frye uhm...
HH: There are some issues I will decide whether or not its acceptable, the question of how much weight ah, sometimes you forget I am not to try a fact and whether it was one hair or two thousand hairs that may be a question for the trial fact to weigh in.
JB: I would disagree and tell you the reason that the sample size is important is because goes to the analysis and the methods of the analysis, ah I correctly(?)Miss Lowe.
HH: But the counter balance to that Mr. Baez is suppose you have one expert to say that one hair, a half a hair is enough and you have another expert that says it is not enough. Both of them will give their reasons why they feel that way. Ah, and it is that not a question for the trial fact? Particularly when, if they all agree on the methodology the question is whether or not the sample is sufficient. That's like some arguments that folks used to make with their analysis of blood alcohol levels with GCI and old breathalyzer-the gas chromatagraph.
JB: Well, I would say that there is a clear distinction between competing scientific theories vs. what's generally accepted.
HH: Okay.
(end)

It took me all day to do this-so I am probably far behind, I got interrupted or it would not have taken so long. I was interested in this exchange at the hearing. I still do not completely understand what was going on-but now I will post this, read the thread and see what folks have to say.

:websleuther:

Italicized and purple by me... wow, that one really zipped by me yesterday. It sounds like both JA and HH were protecting JB from the possibility that his own words opened the door to--well, to closing the door as to hair banding being a Frye issue. Zoinks.

Chiquita, thank you for your attention to detail and your patience in re-listening to & transcribing these hearings.

 

[Truthwillsetufree]

http://www.wftv.com/video/27455780/index.html

Nicholas Petraco(on the subject of)

HH: I need some clarification, Mr. Baez. The name of the witness that testified in the preceding in New York...
JB: Nick Petraco
HH: Okay, and ah did the state attempt to call that witness?
JA: No sir, he was under contract with the defense, we did not even attempt it.
HH: Okay but let me ask you this question, did you attempt to call him for the purposes of his opinion in that particular case?
JA: We did not.
HH: Okay, and why not?
JA: Because he is an employee of the defendant in this case.
HH: Mr. Baez if the State served him with a subpoena, called him to elicit testimony about what he testified to in the New york proceeding what would be the defense's position?
JB: (long pause)
CM: (yells from desk) Don't like it!
HH: I know you don't like it, what would be your position?
JB: If I may have a moment...
HH: You may.
JB: (confers with CM-whispering) We would be willing to engage in a quid pro quo (?) in that situation and...
HH: That doesn't answer my question...
JB: (laughs)
HH: The question is simply this, if the state of Florida attempted to call this Dr. to elicit from him his testimony and opinions rendered in that case, what would be the basis of your objection?
JB: Our, our obj, we would object and our objection would be ability to cross examine. We have a Crawford issue Judge.
HH: No, no, no. If they would call him as a witness which would mean he would be subject to cross examination by you, so you wouldn't have a Crawford issue. If they would call him to testify, to elicit his opinion in that proceeding where he would be subject to cross examination, would you object and if you objected what would be the basis of your objection?
JB: (long pause) Our basis would be that everything he testified to at that hearing would be hearsay.
HH: How would it be hearsay if he's subject to cross examination and he's testifying ah, to...
JB: Because he's not testifying...
HH: Mr. Mason wants to talk to you.
JA: I don't object if Mr. Mason wants to respond to this as well.
HH: Let's just one at a time folks.
CM: The objection we had no (?) of what went on in New York, no opportunity(?). He can come here to testify and if he's called here to testify he can be impeached by either side. (?)
HH: It is my understanding that he testified about this ah, root banding type thing.
JA: Yes sir, his testimony in the New York case was as to the general acceptance of this post mortem root banding uhm...
HH: That's been generally accepted in the scientific community.
JA: Correct that was the (?)of that testimony and Judge I, if, I gave it to you just so you would know it was a thorough hearing and to know the background, if the court is concerned it creates some kind of...
HH: No, I just want answers to my questions. So I can do a proper analysis of this, I need to check something. If they attempted to call him to testify to the general acceptance of this science would you be objecting? And I guess the logical step would be that he is a retained expert that you have utilized and you object based upon either work product or-no, work product
CM: We're we're...(???)
HH: He's testifying about the theory, the general acceptance of this method in the scientific community. That's what he's testifying to, that's what they have represented that he's testifying about. (pause)
CM: He did not testify, period about...
HH: I, I, I know that but what I'm saying is if they layed a subpoena on him or he voluntarily agreed to testify concerning this would there be an objection by the defense? (long pause)
CM You know there's two(?)to that...
HH: I know there are a lot of swords to it...
CM: I don't know. (???)(pause)
HH: The court can take judicial notice of rulings by other courts. The thorny issue for me in what I have to research is ah, even though you can take judicial notice of a judicial(?) and one of the mistakes I made at the time, that I had to reconsider was, if that record contains hearsay then there's a problem or a potential problem. Because you can load a box car through that opening. The other issue I have to consider is if you object because of privilege whether or not that cues any Crawford problems that you would have ah, not being able to cross examine him on that theory. So I have to go through that analysis and I was trying to figure out what you would do ah because I still have to get around Crawford ah, ah...
JA: If I may offer a thought, one of the issues in general acceptance is what the scientific community says about this particular concept. Which is why peer reviewed journal articles would be admissible (?)hearsay and I would submit that the fact that someone is testifying somewhere that this is generally accepted is simply proof of his opinion. Yeah, but quite frankly Judge...
HH: ...but, but that, go on...
JA: I don't consider it all that important whether the transcripts are entered or not, if that is going to bog this hearing down then its just not that big a deal. I think there's a difference between um, a hearing where someone is talking in general about the hair banding vs. what the defense has offered which is specific statements about the case, that's apples and oranges. But...
HH: It's a two step process I can just look at the New York ruling along and then I can look at the testimony as contained besides that and that's the analysis, I was trying to go through-because ah...
JB: Judge...
HH: ...hearsay is hearsay.
JA: I think in terms of the general scientific community's acceptance of a concept, then you know its sort of like proving the statement was made not proving the truth of it. In other words proving that scientific (???)
JB: You have two different issues here Judge. That is one uh, the issue of what was the, were the specific facts in that case particularly in the sample size. That's a huge issue in this case, because were taking about one specific hair and only one hair. There were multiple hairs found in the trunk but only one of those hairs showed this apparent decomposition and that's what we're talking about. We're not talking about post mortum root banding, we keep throwing that phrase around but the report and the testimony (Karen Lowe) is that it is consistent with apparent decomposition. Now that may be a completely different set of facts then what occurred in the New York case, which ah, my recollection of the facts is that it did not consist of one single of hair and then you have the second additional issue that we have and, and it is certainly a clever move...is using a little elbow ah hitting you with the elbow by saying, "Well, this is somebody that was contacted and hired by the defense in this case, so therefore you should also consider that...a bit of a bolster..."
HH: I don't care who they were hired by Mr. Baez.
JB: I understand that but I think its still an issue we can't ignore the pink elephant in the room. We can't say ah, I'm going to look at this just as a person who's testifying, I'm not going to look at the surrounding facts around it, that's what I think ah is an issue.
HH: I don't see pink elephants. (pause)
JA: (?) Based on what council just said is the Frye objection being withdrawn? Council just said we're not arguing the general acceptance of root banding and I just want to make sure I'm arguing...
HH: I, I don't think he, said that...
JA: I didn't think he did, that's why...
HH: I know it came out that way, but I don't think...
JA: ...um and the motion doesn't reference if its one hair, doesn't really argue significance beyond Frye uhm...
HH: There are some issues I will decide whether or not its acceptable, the question of how much weight ah, sometimes you forget I am not to try a fact and whether it was one hair or two thousand hairs that may be a question for the trial fact to weigh in.
JB: I would disagree and tell you the reason that the sample size is important is because goes to the analysis and the methods of the analysis, ah I correctly(?)Miss Lowe.
HH: But the counter balance to that Mr. Baez is suppose you have one expert to say that one hair, a half a hair is enough and you have another expert that says it is not enough. Both of them will give their reasons why they feel that way. Ah, and it is that not a question for the trial fact? Particularly when, if they all agree on the methodology the question is whether or not the sample is sufficient. That's like some arguments that folks used to make with their analysis of blood alcohol levels with GCI and old breathalyzer-the gas chromatagraph.
JB: Well, I would say that there is a clear distinction between competing scientific theories vs. what's generally accepted.
HH: Okay.
(end)

It took me all day to do this-so I am probably far behind, I got interrupted or it would not have taken so long. I was interested in this exchange at the hearing. I still do not completely understand what was going on-but now I will post this, read the thread and see what folks have to say.

:websleuther:

Totally Awesome!!!!! Thank You!!!!
I do wish HHJP would let JB fall and not save him every time. The craziest thought occured to me...I know very little about lawyerin' but I seem to know as much, if not more than Baez...that is scary, 'caused everything I know, I learned from My Cousin Vinny.

 

[Chiquita71]

First, it is funny to see that the judge really does not see Casey as guilty, in the way that he gathers information. I do not have the ability to explain that any better right now. But, I can "get" that.

You know when are playing a game with a child and you let them win, so they will feel good about themselves? (Wouldn't do it all the time, kids need to learn how to lose too...) I can say, as a person observing that Casey is getting a very fair trial. I do think the judge is getting things ready for the jury. It is his job to instruct and guide them, yes? (I could be VERY wrong, my info is old and from television. Shame)

I get the feeling the judge does not want the defense to have any disadvantage, and that is okay with me. I feel like even giving the defense what they "want" has not stopped what is "right" and none of this really begins till that jury hears what they will hear. HHJP, is setting the table for his guests-he does not have to find whether or not Casey is guilty, right? He just has to make sure the law was followed? Excuse me for my "court trial 101" questions. TIA

:twocents:

 

[sleutherontheside]

I took note that NP seemed to "distance himself" from a fellow "expert Adina Schwartz who purported that she is a toolmark expert.

Adina Schwartz was a defense expert in the Gary Michael Hilton case in Tallahassee. She was basically exposed as a "non expert" that claims to have epert knowledge of toolmark evidence.

She didn't even bother to come for trial but rather did a Skype depo that was played at Hilton's trial.

Wasn't there a Schwartz that the defense decided not to use???

http://www.bulletpath.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Affidavit-NicholasPetracoCVSchwartz.pdf

Maybe it was a Scheck or Sheck??

Anyway....NP seemed rather concerned with being associated with Schwartz. Perhaps he retains a level of integrity that would not have served ICA well??

Just a thought.

 

[sleutherontheside]

And now we see why NP wouldn't be on the defense list. He has ethics.


Mr. Petraco said that he was often pushed by lawyers to declare that something was or was not a match, but that he has always resisted such pressure. The distinction is more than a semantic one, he said.

"People don't want to understand what the limitations of the method are," he said. "The most you could ever say is it's consistent with, or similar to. Does that mean it's absolutely the same? No."

He said it was a strict practice in the police laboratory to avoid declaring a match.

http://truthinjustice.org/jogger-case.htm


That rebuts the DT argument about the term "consistent with" now doesn't it??

 

[joypath]

And now we see why NP wouldn't be on the defense list. He has ethics.


Mr. Petraco said that he was often pushed by lawyers to declare that something was or was not a match, but that he has always resisted such pressure. The distinction is more than a semantic one, he said.

"People don't want to understand what the limitations of the method are," he said. "The most you could ever say is it's consistent with, or similar to. Does that mean it's absolutely the same? No."

He said it was a strict practice in the police laboratory to avoid declaring a match.

http://truthinjustice.org/jogger-case.htm


That rebuts the DT argument about the term "consistent with" now doesn't it??

:twocents: And again it shows how JAB wants to play the "semantics" game!

OR maybe it shows a significant lack of comprehension on the part of a certain defense gang playing "follow the leader, JAB"!:floorlaugh::floorlaugh: