2011.06.04 TRIAL Day Ten (Morning Session ONLY)

[kjt300]

I just don't get it..

Why fight all of the evidence about the car? Why aren't they saying something like, "George put the body in the trunk and demanded that Casey not "mention" it to anyone until he dumped the body....that would explain why the car smelled, why a hair with banding was present, etc".

Of course it would make no sense, but at the very least it would play into Jose's odd and twisted "story"...

So again, why fight it?

MOO

 

[Ricki]

Wow. This witness has many papers to back up this so called junk science. This will be very damning for the DF

 

[ahi]

:bowdown:Awesome witness...LIKE LIKE LIKE LIKE...

 

[Patience]

Poster by laboratory to be used for educational purposes, thank goodness. No objections.

 

[SurfieTX]

Educational poster being put up to help explain the science to the jury.

 

[mombomb]

The hair portion of her extensive training was 6 months. This was during the year of on the job training. Rest of knowledge comes from reading articles and experiencing case work. She does examination then renders opinion.

End of voir dire by JB.

JA submits witness as expert. HHBP accepts her as expert on hair examination.

History of hair examination - since late 1700s. In U.S. since the late 1930's.

Forensic examination of hairs is done in 3 steps - collection, examination and comparison.

Hair examination is not a means of positive I.D. She can say consistent or can exclude - example - race. Can tell if hair was pulled or fell out. Can determine disease or chemical treatment.

Signs of decomposition shown in hair - first paper in 1988 which looks at hairs in all the growth phases and defined characteristics of post mort. hair banding. Next paper looks at nuclear hair banding. 2000 paper studies two cases of post mort. hair banding. 2001 two part paper - first looks at 22 post mort hair band cases. Post mort root band first seen at 2 days. Second portion looks at post mort hair put out for a period of time with no changes. These papers are all published in the Journal of Forensic Science.

Cause of root banding not known. Artifact has not been replicated in anything other than a decomposing body.

JA shows poster prepared by her lab for educational purposes.

 

[Rallihanna]

Witness is going to step down so they're getting her a mic.

 

[miss plum]

She is great.

 

[Tuffy]

She's explaining the study of hairs from known bodies at various stages of decomposition. She is also explaining that the studies don't explain 'why' the banding appears, just that it does only on post-mortem hairs.

 

[Liz]

Follower question: jurors following along several taking notes. Ashton with large poster exhibit on hair characteristics.

by bobkealing via twitter at 6:29 AM

 

[BigFatMommyDog]

I havent heard the term lavalier in years!

 

[Chiquita71]

JA: the original paper from 1988...

yes

JA: the last paper you talked about: hairs in evironments...

none of the hairs in that studies showed any changes.

JA: all of these studies are they all published?

yes

JA: does the research reveal what causes the hair band?

no, we are not sure exactly what causes it just what the microscopic appearance is

JA: is there any indication that this artifact is created something other than the contact between the hair and the decomposing body.

?

JA: may I approach the witness, this is a poster prepared by your lab for educational purposes, would it help you?

yes it would

JA: (bringing over a poster for visual reference while the witness explains a method that is used to determine if a hair is from a human cadaver.)

 

[Agatha_C]

bobkealing bob kealing
#caseyanthonytrial Follower question: jurors following along several taking notes. Ashton with large poster exhibit on hair characteristics.

 

[Tuffy]

Wondering if these studies she's referring to come from The Body Farm. Sure sound like it.

It does, doesn't it. I'm not sure how many facilities like The Body Farm, are out there. It might be the only one of it's kind.

 

[Harmony 2]

Why is the DT even fighting the fact that a "dead" Caylee WAS in the pontiac! They've already admitted that KC held a "drowned" Caylee in her arms. Why not just say that "yes" Caylee was transported to the dump site in the pontiac. They are so inconsistent with their own theory it makes me want to scream! :banghead:

Because of two words

duct tape

 

[sleutherontheside]

You just know JB's thinking...Their poster is prettier than my poster.

 

[Tipstaff]

:yes: Ms. Lowe is extremely intelligent. I cannot follow with my limited vocabulary and spelling skills.

Beg to differ - you are awesome!

 

[jmfstl]

One thing really bothers me is JB getting up from the defense table when the SA is presenting its case. I don't believe this should be allowed. If he cannot see the exibit it should be on his monitor.

 

[Laynee]

WOW something meaningful on the display easel, other than a huge calender JB, take note--this is what the easel is for!

 

[Scamperoo]

I just don't get it..

Why fight all of the evidence about the car? Why aren't they saying something like, "George put the body in the trunk and demanded that Casey not "mention" it to anyone until he dumped the body....that would explain why the car smelled, why a hair with banding was present, etc".

Of course it would make no sense, but at the very least it would play into Jose's odd and twisted "story"...

So again, why fight it?

MOO

Because there is no evidence to support this.