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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Referring back to someone's question on page 1 of this thread...didn't Baez call Dr. Boch's "report" an "affadavit"? :waitasec:
 
watergirl said:
*snort snort*
Click to expand...

and that was a great retort!! :takeabow:




I am confident with Dr. Halls qualifications and experience he did what he felt was adequate and necessary to render an opinion about plant growth. Common sense tells you that the defense is concerned about his testimony, otherwise they would have savored cross examining him in the courtroom to make a prosecution witness look bad.
 
MissJames said:
I don't suppose you have come across any evidence that Bock has ever testified or written any reports citing root growth as a timeline marker? :waitasec:
I would love to know what this crimefighter thinks of her client,ICA.
Click to expand...

http://books.google.com/books?id=XwAAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=dr.+jane+bock+and+plant+growth+to+determine+time+of+death&source=bl&ots=8fH0-dvSH5&sig=3_3-iA9UBQG0VR4CurxXOM8HVw4&hl=en&ei=BnooTYn8FMT68AbvrdXOAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#

pg 31 snip janetimeline.JPG


Something like this?????
 
MissJames said:
So if we were to start referring to JB as ALJB,that wouldn't really be name calling ,would it? :innocent:

OT please tell me there will be more repercussions for JB since he told the court there were NO REPORTS when obviously there was at least this one from JB.
Click to expand...

bbm
Judge Perry did mention the date of that report at the sanction hearing ....I know it did not slip by him and I hope he said something to JB during the sidebar...
 
 
mitzi said:
Referring back to someone's question on page 1 of this thread...didn't Baez call Dr. Boch's "report" an "affadavit"? :waitasec:
Click to expand...

Yes, and only to try to save his own a$$ for not turning it over as ordered by the Court on numerous occasions.

Referring to Dr. Bock's report as an "affidavit" is utterly ridiculous. It's not even an issue of semantics. It is a misrepresentation to the court and everyone from "bloggers" to HHJP saw straight through it. Insulting.


It was drafted in September, FGS!
 
http://www.biology-online.org/articles/green_revolution_botanical_contributions/plant_ecology.html

Forensic anthropology sometimes uses plant anatomy to determine an approximate time of death.

Plant ecology involves studying the growth patterns of vegetation in areas that have been disturbed (1). These patterns and the vegetative (non-flowering) portion of plants can be useful in estimating time of death (1,10,11). For example, when a body is discovered lying on top of a weed plant with a broken top, useful information can be obtained to define time windows for when the death occurred


http://www.biology-online.org/articles/green_revolution_botanical_contributions/limnology.html

And in case they plan to go for accidental death by drowning as a possible reasonable doubt scenario.......the above link talks about how marrow can be extracted to test for diatoms. BTW....it is one of Jane Bock's specialties.

Things become clearer.


http://www.biology-online.org/articles/green_revolution_botanical_contributions/references.html Both Jane Bock and David Hall are cited in the above links.
 
Wow !! I start the thread by getting very worried that there might be a storm on the horizon but by the time I read everything it becomes another puff of hot air.

I am just an alleged sleuther as all I do is play catch up and read all the fascinating info you guys dig up.

You guys rock and I am always amazed at the caliber of people I get to follow here.

Thanks to all of you for doing this in Caylee's honor.
 
I'm sure it'll boil down to it's all in the line of questioning. What Baez did or did not ask Dr. Hall. Word gymnastics. We'll see if and when we ever see the deposition transcription. In the meantime, I'm so amused that he's questioning the oldest and most prolific science there is ... this isn't metaphysics, it's not a diatribe about lottery strategies, we're not trying to tell you organic food is healthier than non-organic food, it's not like Kevin Trudeau is touting some book on Oprah. I think Baez and "scientific community" are two things that don't belong in the same sentence together. Ever.
 
pinkfly said:
Wow !! I start the thread by getting very worried that there might be a storm on the horizon but by the time I read everything it becomes another puff of hot air.

I am just an alleged sleuther as all I do is play catch up and read all the fascinating info you guys dig up.

You guys rock and I am always amazed at the caliber of people I get to follow here.

Thanks to all of you for doing this in Caylee's honor.
Click to expand...

ITA! I grow smarter everytime one of you posts.

I've seen cases where scientific experts disagree in their reports. I don't see how this botanical evidence needs a Frye hearing.

I will not predict the outcome of the motion as I'm not savvy enough for this topic, but I could see Judge Perry ruling that this is a matter for the jury to hear and decide which expert to believe.

BTW, Discovery ID is now running the program which featured the Eikellenbooms helping to solve the case by testing a jacket for touch DNA.
 
AZlawyer said:
This is a good motion, assuming the facts are true. Which, unfortunately, we can't assume. ;) I will wait to see the SA response before reaching any hasty conclusions.
Click to expand...
Oh great. Now I'm actually going to have to read it. Thanks a lot :maddening:

I figured it was just going to say..."This evidence be so unreliable cuz uhh quite franky it rains lots in FL and stuff grows all kinds of fast"...And I just can't handle that in my life today. Off to read.
 
CarolinaMoon said:
ITA! I grow smarter everytime one of you posts.

I've seen cases where scientific experts disagree in their reports. I don't see how this botanical evidence needs a Frye hearing.

I will not predict the outcome of the motion as I'm not savvy enough for this topic, but I could see Judge Perry ruling that this is a matter for the jury to hear and decide which expert to believe.

BTW, Discovery ID is now running the program which featured the Eikellenbooms helping to solve the case by testing a jacket for touch DNA.
Click to expand...

And speak of DNA, wasn't that report suppose to be back by now???? My guess is they found nothing.
 
sleutherontheside said:
http://www.biology-online.org/articles/green_revolution_botanical_contributions/plant_ecology.html

Forensic anthropology sometimes uses plant anatomy to determine an approximate time of death.

Plant ecology involves studying the growth patterns of vegetation in areas that have been disturbed (1). These patterns and the vegetative (non-flowering) portion of plants can be useful in estimating time of death (1,10,11). For example, when a body is discovered lying on top of a weed plant with a broken top, useful information can be obtained to define time windows for when the death occurred


http://www.biology-online.org/articles/green_revolution_botanical_contributions/limnology.html

And in case they plan to go for accidental death by drowning as a possible reasonable doubt scenario.......the above link talks about how marrow can be extracted to test for diatoms. BTW....it is one of Jane Bock's specialties.

Things become clearer.


http://www.biology-online.org/articles/green_revolution_botanical_contributions/references.html Both Jane Bock and David Hall are cited in the above links.
Click to expand...

I am a little confused about this motion? Is using plant growth to establish the length of time a body has been in the wilderness something new that has not been subjected to Frye or accepted by the Florida court? Would this be a basic evidence hearing challenging the specifics and procedure or would this be a Frye hearing challenging the science?
 
From this site, the Botanical Society of America's entry on Crime Scene Botanicals (Bock cited):

Final paragraph: "The value of botanical trace evidence in criminal and civil cases has been clearly demonstrated and is accepted by the courts."

I will keep looking for cases in Florida but that may exceed my sleuthing abilities... It seems that even if this needs a Frye, the SA will be able to demonstrate clearly the value, reliability and use of this field of forensics in the courtroom.

(Also noted that a google search for "frye hearing botany" now brings up this thread as the second hit. FWIW.)
 
LambChop said:
And speak of DNA, wasn't that report suppose to be back by now???? My guess is they found nothing.
Click to expand...

ITA. You KNOW Baez would be all over the news throwing someone else under the bus if anything was found. Not one peep. Yep, they found nuttin', zilch, zero, nada!
 
Aedrys said:
ITA. You KNOW Baez would be all over the news throwing someone else under the bus if anything was found. Not one peep. Yep, they found nuttin', zilch, zero, nada!
Click to expand...
AND ya know, Baez would have been all over the news last year IF his forensic team found anything, just one little piece of evidence, that could/would help ICA's defense when they again were given the time to re-examine the evidence at the sheriff's office.

I waited, and waited and waited for JB to tell the media about this. Only JB couldn't because he was going to the prison to see Robyn. Convenient or coincidence just seems to fall in his lap :banghead: .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 134 more.
Total: 392 (members: 135, guests: 257)

Online statistics

Members online
135
Guests online
257
Total visitors
392
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,383
Messages
18,253,500
Members
234,648
Latest member
WhereTheWildThingsAre
Back
Top