2009.03.12 Casey Anthony Motion Hearing

[Hot Dogs]

I didn't watch the court hearings yesterday. I just followed along in this thread reading the play-by-play comments. But now I have watched the video of the hearing. It's the first time that I have watched any of the hearings. Baez does appear to be inexperienced in this and is often inarticulate. In spite of this, his questions to the CSI end up being understood and answered. Anyway, I came away from watching that with a different perpective than I got from reading the posts in this thread.

Baez's line of questioning with the CSI has a basic theme. Through the questioning, he was able to show that CSI does not transfer everything from their handwritten notes taken at the time of observation (bench notes) to their final report. After the daily reports are entered into a computer, the bench notes are destroyed.

During questioning, Baez was focused on the "white trash bag". He got CSI to say that Lee did ask to see it and was immediately told that the bag was at a lab in Tennessee. Baez was with Lee, the CSI, and other OCSO folks at their facility during the inspections done by Lee. Baez asks the CSI if he made notations about Lee asking for the bag. He says yes. Then Baez asks him to find that notation in the report. The CSI glances down for a brief period and says that it isn't in the report. We also know it isn't in the report because we have the report from a doc dump. Baez has the same docs that we do. He knows that Lee asked for that bag and was told it was out of state. He knows (and CSI affirmed) that this was hand-noted at the time. He knows that that bit of information is not in the report from the doc dump. Here comes the punchline.... Baez, CSI, the prosecution, the court, and now we... all know that the bench notes contained more information than ends up in the report (doc dump). Baez was banging away at this because the bench notes are quickly destroyed.

We had no clue that Lee asked for that bag because it didn't show up in the doc dump reports. But CSI and Baez remember it clearly. Also Baez begins to broach the subject of Lee finding an additional 17 hairs during his visit. This never gets anywhere because the State instantly objects based on it being outside the scope of Baez's motion. He tried it twice and was stopped each time. I think I may be able to guess at where Baez was going to go if he had not been stopped. It may be that Lee actually did find those 17 hairs (or many of them) and the report doesn't state that. The report has us thinking that these were strictly found by OCSO after Lee left. What may have happened is that Lee saw them and pointed them out to OCSO, and then OCSO began collecting them about 1.5 hours after Lee left. The notation that Lee found them may have been in the bench notes, but did not make it to the report. The bench notes are shredded.

In spite of being stopped by objections, Baez was able to show:

1) The CSI is unfamiliar with his own reports. He thought the white bag question posed by Lee was in the report. It isn't.

2) The CSI remembers things about the meeting with Lee that aren't in the reports.

3) The bench notes contained more information than the resultant reports.

4) The bench notes are destroyed soon after the daily reports are created.


I think that many posters in the thread yesterday were so focused on Baez's amateur demeanor that the missed what he was able to show in his line of questioning and his statements (which were affirmed by the CSI).

 

[Hot Dogs]

"Baez also pointed out that defense expert Dr. Henry Lee found 17 hairs and several stains while inspecting the trunk of Anthony's car. The state allowed Lee to examine the vehicle last fall — months after sheriff's investigators collected evidence from the vehicle."

We cannot come to this conclusion because the CSI was prevented from answering Baez's questions due to the objections from the State. Baez was stopped in mid-question (about the 17 hairs) and was unable to hear the CSI's response. I think that if there weren't the objection, we would have heard Baez ask something like "Dr. Lee found 17 more hairs. Is this true?" He probably would have gone on to ask about the stains... "Dr. Lee found several more stains. Is this true?"

This is from the sentinel's story. IIRC from the document dump regarding the forensics on the car, the tech re-processed the car after Lee looked at it and vacuumed up additional hairs and debris-does anyone else remember this? Those items were sent separately to the FBI lab.

The tech didn't go back to the car to collect anything after Lee left. The additional hairs and fibers came from items that were already removed from the car. For this collecting, there is no mention in the doc about a vacuum being used.

 

[faefrost]

Why would Baez have any right to the techs handwritten notes? They aren't the reports? They aren't what will be used in court. They are LE's work product. And I didn't think the other side ever got work product?

 

[Hot Dogs]

The docs can be maddening to follow and try to understand. It looks like both OCSO and Lee missed hairs that were later found. It may have been Lee's visit that caused OCSO to re-examine things in which they found hairs that both of them had possibly overlooked.

Back in August, OCSO found 7 hairs on various liners and covers that are part of the trunk furnishings (this is not the "white bag" trash). Then Lee shows up in November, looks at the "white bag trash", looks at the liners and covers from the trunk, and finds a hair in the trunk itself. The liners and covers had already been removed from the trunk, so when Lee looked in - the trunk was already stripped of all this stuff.

While Lee was there, three hairs were found amongst the trash. It says that "we" found this evidence.

About 1.5 hours after Lee leaves, OCSO begins checking stuff again. They find 14 more hairs on various trash, liners and covers.

It seems that Lee found one hair, and his visit prompted the finding of 17 more.

I'm no longer confident that what I said yesterday (above) is actually true. After watching the video of the hearings, I now have questions about the accuracy of the reports in the doc dump. The doc does tell you what I wrote above. The unresolved question is "Did OCSO write the report in a way that makes it seem like they found the additional hairs (except for one), instead of Dr. Lee?"

 

[Hot Dogs]

Why would Baez have any right to the techs handwritten notes? They aren't the reports? They aren't what will be used in court. They are LE's work product. And I didn't think the other side ever got work product?

The "right" to see the bench notes is a moot issue because the notes are destroyed. Baez may have successfully shown that the bench notes contain more information than the report that comes from them. I think the defense is gonna ride that pony hard at the trial. Baden essentially confirmed that when she was interviewed after walking out of the court.

 

[faefrost]

The "right" to see the bench notes is a moot issue because the notes are destroyed. Baez may have successfully shown that the bench notes contain more information than the report that comes from them. I think the defense is gonna ride that pony hard at the trial. Baden essentially confirmed that when she was interviewed after walking out of the court.

It doesn't matter if the bench notes contain more information then the final reports. They are still work product. the tech has testified to his final opinions in the report, and he may be cross examined about them in open court. The defense is entitled to the actual evidence. The techs opinions thoughts and such are however the property of his employer, beyond those entered into the final report. The defense does not get the detectives private notes to examine at will. They get the investigation reports. The same in the labs. This is normal.

 

[lawlady84]

The "right" to see the bench notes is a moot issue because the notes are destroyed. Baez may have successfully shown that the bench notes contain more information than the report that comes from them. I think the defense is gonna ride that pony hard at the trial. Baden essentially confirmed that when she was interviewed after walking out of the court.

No, but the CSI said at the end of the day, he takes his notes and he enters them into his computer. He has a chronological file of the notes. He said he destroys the handwritten papers. He never said if he deleted the computer files that contain his logged observations. Then, he said when a report is needed, he writes the report from his computer files.

JB never asked what happens to the chronological computer files used as a log. I would bet those log files aren't destroyed, because they detail what an employee did on a specific day - and that information could be needed for internal investigations.

 

[lawlady84]

I'm no longer confident that what I said yesterday (above) is actually true. After watching the video of the hearings, I now have questions about the accuracy of the reports in the doc dump. The doc does tell you what I wrote above. The unresolved question is "Did OCSO write the report in a way that makes it seem like they found the additional hairs (except for one), instead of Dr. Lee?"

I am a little surprised the defense is pushing the "Dr. Lee found all 17 hairs" as much as they are- given what happened to Dr. Lee at the Spector trial. If Dr. Lee was the "only one" who found this evidence, the Prosecution is surely going to introduce the Judge's opinion from Spector saying that Dr. Lee mishandled and possibly hid evidence to impeach his credibility. I think it would be better for the defense to argue Dr. Lee pointed out some hairs, and then OCSO went back and found more after- then it seems both parties discovered evidence, not just Dr. Lee. I think jurors would automatically question if Dr. Lee planted anything based on his impeachment.

 

[blots]

Yes it matters a GREAT deal. The defense could say there were other hairs in there that could have belonged to the REAL killer and that LE did not investigate them because they wanted only to focus on Casey as the killer. There is resonable doubt in those hairs.

There is no way the forensics team knew which hairs to grab and which hairs to leave to prove there was a decomposing body in the trunk and make the case that Casey was responsible.


I struggle with the 17 hair issue. That is a lot of hairs to miss while in the process of gathering evidence. In fact a person would have to have very poor sight and if you consider that magnifying lenses are worn while processing chances are you might miss one or two.

If they do indeed exist and were found by Dr. Lee as he bent over the car a month after it was processed I would consider all methods of transference. JMO:twocents:

 

[blots]

I am a little surprised the defense is pushing the "Dr. Lee found all 17 hairs" as much as they are- given what happened to Dr. Lee at the Spector trial. If Dr. Lee was the "only one" who found this evidence, the Prosecution is surely going to introduce the Judge's opinion from Spector saying that Dr. Lee mishandled and possibly hid evidence to impeach his credibility. I think it would be better for the defense to argue Dr. Lee pointed out some hairs, and then OCSO went back and found more after- then it seems both parties discovered evidence, not just Dr. Lee. I think jurors would automatically question if Dr. Lee planted anything based on his impeachment.

I like the way you think.

 

[magic-cat]

No, but the CSI said at the end of the day, he takes his notes and he enters them into his computer. He has a chronological file of the notes. He said he destroys the handwritten papers. He never said if he deleted the computer files that contain his logged observations. Then, he said when a report is needed, he writes the report from his computer files.

JB never asked what happens to the chronological computer files used as a log. I would bet those log files aren't destroyed, because they detail what an employee did on a specific day - and that information could be needed for internal investigations.

Actually if you go back and watch he DID say-he said they are in his office...the observations that is...which he said was something different than the notes or the report...

 

[magic-cat]

There is no way the forensics team knew which hairs to grab and which hairs to leave to prove there was a decomposing body in the trunk and make the case that Casey was responsible.


I struggle with the 17 hair issue. That is a lot of hairs to miss while in the process of gathering evidence. In fact a person would have to have very poor sight and if you consider that magnifying lenses are worn while processing chances are you might miss one or two.

If they do indeed exist and were found by Dr. Lee as he bent over the car a month after it was processed I would consider all methods of transference. JMO:twocents:

I think the hairs were not found INSIDE the trunk but rather in the garbage that was removed from the trunk. And there were not 17 additional hairs found I do not believe...I think it was a total of 17 hairs that were found by all. Is this correct?

 

[tasylshari]

Why is Baez always smirking, said something to the SA and smirked and nodded like a bobble head all the way back to his table.

Reminds me of my kids' Happy Drinking Bird

hahahahahahahahaha

What a loser! Did you see the list of disgust on the prosecutors face at whatever Jose asked her? As if to let him KNOW that he is really an idiot.

 

[lawlady84]

I guess what frushtrates me the most after watching this hearing is that jose just doesn't get this isn't a forensic case. At least I don't think so. I think the only important forensic info at trial will be from the experts testifying about the bag with the remains, and proving when it was placed there. The hairs and stains, don't really mean anything. Even if you find hairs from Tony Soprano in that trunk, it doesn't take away the overwhelming circumstantial evidence against her.

I think the defense will do a good job muddying the water, but when the jury deliberates, they will NEVER get past that 31 days and no proof ZFG ever existed. Period.

Yes yes yes! I am glad I just saw your post- I was thinking about this all this morning. We can talk about forensics and other murder trials, but here this isn't a random stranger killing where you need rock solid forensics & DNA to connect the murderer to the victim. Here, the victim is the (alleged) murderer's daughter. The closing argument for the prosecution, no matter the circus in between, is going to be:

"Casey denies knowing where her daughter, Caylee Marie Anthony, is. After frantic searches by family members, Casey is finally cornered and admits she hasn't seen her daughter for 31 days. 31 DAYS. What would you do if your adorable, 2 year old baby was missing? I would cry, scream, call 911, shout from the rooftops that I need help finding my baby. No, Casey went to blockbuster just 5 hours after Caylee was missing. Casey partied, Casey drank, Casey had not a care in the world. As you heard from her friends, Casey was living "la bella vita" while Caylee was missing. But Caylee wasn't missing, Caylee was dead in the trunk of Casey's car. Caylee was thrown away like trash while her mother partied. A mother has a duty to protect her child. If someone stole Caylee, why didn't Casey call the police? Instead, Casey made up imaginary "Nannys" - proven not to exist - to throw police off their investigation. Casey could have ended this awful situation on July 15th by telling police officers where Caylee's body was - Caylee could have had a proper funeral, and Caylee's family could have mourned her properly. Instead, Casey was so selfish she let Caylee rot and decompose for 6 months on the side of the road like trash. Is that a mother who loves her daughter? What would you do?"

IMO, unless JB can explain away the damning "mothers should know where their babies are" argument, no amount of forensic trickery is going to give a jury a reasonable doubt. Its just not reasonable for a mother to "not know" and not care where her child is.

 

[magic-cat]

I didn't watch the court hearings yesterday. I just followed along in this thread reading the play-by-play comments. But now I have watched the video of the hearing. It's the first time that I have watched any of the hearings. Baez does appear to be inexperienced in this and is often inarticulate. In spite of this, his questions to the CSI end up being understood and answered. Anyway, I came away from watching that with a different perpective than I got from reading the posts in this thread.

Baez's line of questioning with the CSI has a basic theme. Through the questioning, he was able to show that CSI does not transfer everything from their handwritten notes taken at the time of observation (bench notes) to their final report. After the daily reports are entered into a computer, the bench notes are destroyed.

During questioning, Baez was focused on the "white trash bag". He got CSI to say that Lee did ask to see it and was immediately told that the bag was at a lab in Tennessee. Baez was with Lee, the CSI, and other OCSO folks at their facility during the inspections done by Lee. Baez asks the CSI if he made notations about Lee asking for the bag. He says yes. Then Baez asks him to find that notation in the report. The CSI glances down for a brief period and says that it isn't in the report. We also know it isn't in the report because we have the report from a doc dump. Baez has the same docs that we do. He knows that Lee asked for that bag and was told it was out of state. He knows (and CSI affirmed) that this was hand-noted at the time. He knows that that bit of information is not in the report from the doc dump. Here comes the punchline.... Baez, CSI, the prosecution, the court, and now we... all know that the bench notes contained more information than ends up in the report (doc dump). Baez was banging away at this because the bench notes are quickly destroyed.

We had no clue that Lee asked for that bag because it didn't show up in the doc dump reports. But CSI and Baez remember it clearly. Also Baez begins to broach the subject of Lee finding an additional 17 hairs during his visit. This never gets anywhere because the State instantly objects based on it being outside the scope of Baez's motion. He tried it twice and was stopped each time. I think I may be able to guess at where Baez was going to go if he had not been stopped. It may be that Lee actually did find those 17 hairs (or many of them) and the report doesn't state that. The report has us thinking that these were strictly found by OCSO after Lee left. What may have happened is that Lee saw them and pointed them out to OCSO, and then OCSO began collecting them about 1.5 hours after Lee left. The notation that Lee found them may have been in the bench notes, but did not make it to the report. The bench notes are shredded.

In spite of being stopped by objections, Baez was able to show:

1) The CSI is unfamiliar with his own reports. He thought the white bag question posed by Lee was in the report. It isn't.

2) The CSI remembers things about the meeting with Lee that aren't in the reports.

3) The bench notes contained more information than the resultant reports.

4) The bench notes are destroyed soon after the daily reports are created.


I think that many posters in the thread yesterday were so focused on Baez's amateur demeanor that the missed what he was able to show in his line of questioning and his statements (which were affirmed by the CSI).

I am responding to the bolded portion of your post.

1.) Perhaps it was in his supervisors report? and perhaps we have not seen this report to date?

2.) Again, perhaps those same things are in his supervisor's report, who was present the entire time and whose report I do not believe that we have seen. Why didn't Baez just go ahead and question the supervisor since he was in the courtroom?

3.) Perhaps that info was not in the bench notes, but rather in the "observations" which are still in the CSI tech's computer in his office per his testimony.

4.) The observations are NOT destroyed...so that information may still be accessible there.

I think that there may be a bit more info in some other reports that we have yet to see and perhaps THAT is what the defense is really fishing for-is this information going to show up later? or was it completely left out?

 

[debs]

Yes it matters a GREAT deal. The defense could say there were other hairs in there that could have belonged to the REAL killer and that LE did not investigate them because they wanted only to focus on Casey as the killer. There is resonable doubt in those hairs.

ALL hairs were collected by LE, not LEE. I want to know what the forensics on the hairs show. Other than that, Lee found ONE hair, LE found the other 16. I think this is a fine example of splitting them.

 

[magic-cat]

ALL hairs were collected by LE, not LEE. I want to know what the forensics on the hairs show. Other than that, Lee found ONE hair, LE found the other 16. I think this is a fine example of splitting them.

So Dr. Lee only found one addional hair and the others were collected by LE? Perhaps the one that Dr. Lee found was a contamination hair from one of their own heads, and in all likelihhod, any additional ones that LE found after he and his group left were also contamination. I am sure they will have an analysis done of the hairs to show this-right?

 

[debs]

I didn't watch the court hearings yesterday. I just followed along in this thread reading the play-by-play comments. But now I have watched the video of the hearing. It's the first time that I have watched any of the hearings. Baez does appear to be inexperienced in this and is often inarticulate. In spite of this, his questions to the CSI end up being understood and answered. Anyway, I came away from watching that with a different perpective than I got from reading the posts in this thread.

Baez's line of questioning with the CSI has a basic theme. Through the questioning, he was able to show that CSI does not transfer everything from their handwritten notes taken at the time of observation (bench notes) to their final report. After the daily reports are entered into a computer, the bench notes are destroyed.

During questioning, Baez was focused on the "white trash bag". He got CSI to say that Lee did ask to see it and was immediately told that the bag was at a lab in Tennessee. Baez was with Lee, the CSI, and other OCSO folks at their facility during the inspections done by Lee. Baez asks the CSI if he made notations about Lee asking for the bag. He says yes. Then Baez asks him to find that notation in the report. The CSI glances down for a brief period and says that it isn't in the report. We also know it isn't in the report because we have the report from a doc dump. Baez has the same docs that we do. He knows that Lee asked for that bag and was told it was out of state. He knows (and CSI affirmed) that this was hand-noted at the time. He knows that that bit of information is not in the report from the doc dump. Here comes the punchline.... Baez, CSI, the prosecution, the court, and now we... all know that the bench notes contained more information than ends up in the report (doc dump). Baez was banging away at this because the bench notes are quickly destroyed.

We had no clue that Lee asked for that bag because it didn't show up in the doc dump reports. But CSI and Baez remember it clearly. Also Baez begins to broach the subject of Lee finding an additional 17 hairs during his visit. This never gets anywhere because the State instantly objects based on it being outside the scope of Baez's motion. He tried it twice and was stopped each time. I think I may be able to guess at where Baez was going to go if he had not been stopped. It may be that Lee actually did find those 17 hairs (or many of them) and the report doesn't state that. The report has us thinking that these were strictly found by OCSO after Lee left. What may have happened is that Lee saw them and pointed them out to OCSO, and then OCSO began collecting them about 1.5 hours after Lee left. The notation that Lee found them may have been in the bench notes, but did not make it to the report. The bench notes are shredded.

In spite of being stopped by objections, Baez was able to show:

1) The CSI is unfamiliar with his own reports. He thought the white bag question posed by Lee was in the report. It isn't.

2) The CSI remembers things about the meeting with Lee that aren't in the reports.

3) The bench notes contained more information than the resultant reports.

4) The bench notes are destroyed soon after the daily reports are created.


I think that many posters in the thread yesterday were so focused on Baez's amateur demeanor that the missed what he was able to show in his line of questioning and his statements (which were affirmed by the CSI).

I also found that this line of questioning opened up the right of the State to petition for Lee's "bench notes." I hope they do.

 

[magic-cat]

Also, since it IS noted that Dr. Lee asked for the bag and we know this because it was in a document dump, then why does it matter if it was noted that they TOLD him where the bag was? They told him it was not there and that means he could not examine it on that day. I do not see the point that Baez was trying to make with this. So every little tiny word that is said is not noted in the report for that to happen the entire thing would have to be video recorded or at least audio recorded, which it wasn't. This was an inconsequential thing-and I just do not get the point he was making at all.

 

[believe09]

We cannot come to this conclusion because the CSI was prevented from answering Baez's questions due to the objections from the State. Baez was stopped in mid-question (about the 17 hairs) and was unable to hear the CSI's response. I think that if there weren't the objection, we would have heard Baez ask something like "Dr. Lee found 17 more hairs. Is this true?" He probably would have gone on to ask about the stains... "Dr. Lee found several more stains. Is this true?"




The tech didn't go back to the car to collect anything after Lee left. The additional hairs and fibers came from items that were already removed from the car. For this collecting, there is no mention in the doc about a vacuum being used.

I do not remember it this way at all, but so far online I can only locate the FBI report on the car-not the OCSO report...I will see what I can find...