rosepetal1065
Ive got splinters..in the windmills of my mind....
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2008
- Messages
- 1,695
- Reaction score
- 13
Exactly, he presses for answers that, cook ICA's goose..even more
2011.06.06 TRIAL Day Eleven (Afternoon Session)
- Thread starter beach
- Start date
- Status
Exactly, he presses for answers that, cook ICA's goose..even more
whiteangora
I'm on the right track baby. I was "Born This Way"
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,748
- Reaction score
- -3
Wandering and hopelessly lost
Mountain_Kat
Heca Firimar !
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2010
- Messages
- 13,966
- Reaction score
- 45,141
JA insisting the court reporter read back the original question so that JB's can re-phrase and get a different answer.
SMART!
SMART!
You should text that to JB.
mombomb
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,437
- Reaction score
- -3
Continued Cross exam of Dr. Arpad Vass by JB.
Preliminary report issued in August 2008.
He doesn't know if his report became publicly immediately. He was made aware that it was issued to the public.
He was upset with all the media attention as shown in an email exchange with CSI Vincent.
He agreed his conclusions were being discussed before he finished his work. He was not pleased with it.
The carpet sample showed 54 chemical compounds - per his first report.
JB then showed him his second report.
Preliminary report #2 showed 51 chemical compounds. The reason for the differences is that they realized there was some overlap of gasoline. Some compounds have more than one name. They then eliminated some of the duplications, resulting in the 51 compounds.
In report #1, of the 54, 43 were consistent with decomp.
In report #2, of the 51, 41 were consistent with decomp.
After that, on the first report - only 19 overlapped with gasoline components.
In report #2, 17 overlapped with gasoline components.
He doesn't recall if he came up with the same percentage. He stated that his conclusions were, OF COURSE, not based on these numbers.
He considered the final report to be most accurate.
At the junk yard they got 3 Pontiac Sunfires - later corrected in the final report to 2. They intentionally chose the worst possible urban like situation to compare. They considered a new carpet to be an unfair comparison. He thinks the initial error of 3 cars, was that they took two samples from one of the two cars. He later did an affidavit correcting this error.
Sometimes he takes notes along the way, and sometimes he doesn't. Regarding bench notes, he did not review Dr. Wise's.
JA objects - HHBP - are you using Dr. Wise's bench notes? Objection sustained.
He doesn't know the history of the junk yard cars or the car in Florida. He is doing a comparative analysis. One of the two junk yard cars had trace amounts of chloroform. They did a qualitative analysis.
He agreed he has not done a study of chemicals in carpet in general.
Chemical compound of garbage depends on what is in the garbage.
He got a list of the items found in the trash. He did not see the items - just the list. He did not witness the actual garbage and did not know what the chemical breakdown of each item. However, they did sample the air of the composite of the garbage, but didn't recall the date.
JB asks for a moment.
The samples were taken on 8/30/08 - Exhibit 122 - Not on July 16. Air is free flowing and the chemical composition can change from moment to moment.
He doesn't know what was done to the garbage between 7/16 and 8/30/08.
He was directed to his table showing the breakdown of the air samples (table 1). He did not reference Exhibit 118 - the air sample of the trunk, in his table because the complete liner had been removed. It was not a valid comparison.
The table indicates that without doubt, the point source of the odor, was the trunk. They did an analysis showing trace amounts of sulfur and chloroform even after the liner had been removed, which he felt was not a valid comparison.
17 chemical compounds - 7 were relevant to decomp. Because of trace, they reduced it to 5. They were very, very conservative. This number was then reduced to 3 that did not overlap.
He mentioned difusion - if the trash was in the car and the liner was emanating, a small amount of that could have adhered to the trash.
You cannot account for, but you can make an assumption based on quantity.
Assumptions are sometimes relevant in conclusions - common sense included.
Preliminary report issued in August 2008.
He doesn't know if his report became publicly immediately. He was made aware that it was issued to the public.
He was upset with all the media attention as shown in an email exchange with CSI Vincent.
He agreed his conclusions were being discussed before he finished his work. He was not pleased with it.
The carpet sample showed 54 chemical compounds - per his first report.
JB then showed him his second report.
Preliminary report #2 showed 51 chemical compounds. The reason for the differences is that they realized there was some overlap of gasoline. Some compounds have more than one name. They then eliminated some of the duplications, resulting in the 51 compounds.
In report #1, of the 54, 43 were consistent with decomp.
In report #2, of the 51, 41 were consistent with decomp.
After that, on the first report - only 19 overlapped with gasoline components.
In report #2, 17 overlapped with gasoline components.
He doesn't recall if he came up with the same percentage. He stated that his conclusions were, OF COURSE, not based on these numbers.
He considered the final report to be most accurate.
At the junk yard they got 3 Pontiac Sunfires - later corrected in the final report to 2. They intentionally chose the worst possible urban like situation to compare. They considered a new carpet to be an unfair comparison. He thinks the initial error of 3 cars, was that they took two samples from one of the two cars. He later did an affidavit correcting this error.
Sometimes he takes notes along the way, and sometimes he doesn't. Regarding bench notes, he did not review Dr. Wise's.
JA objects - HHBP - are you using Dr. Wise's bench notes? Objection sustained.
He doesn't know the history of the junk yard cars or the car in Florida. He is doing a comparative analysis. One of the two junk yard cars had trace amounts of chloroform. They did a qualitative analysis.
He agreed he has not done a study of chemicals in carpet in general.
Chemical compound of garbage depends on what is in the garbage.
He got a list of the items found in the trash. He did not see the items - just the list. He did not witness the actual garbage and did not know what the chemical breakdown of each item. However, they did sample the air of the composite of the garbage, but didn't recall the date.
JB asks for a moment.
The samples were taken on 8/30/08 - Exhibit 122 - Not on July 16. Air is free flowing and the chemical composition can change from moment to moment.
He doesn't know what was done to the garbage between 7/16 and 8/30/08.
He was directed to his table showing the breakdown of the air samples (table 1). He did not reference Exhibit 118 - the air sample of the trunk, in his table because the complete liner had been removed. It was not a valid comparison.
The table indicates that without doubt, the point source of the odor, was the trunk. They did an analysis showing trace amounts of sulfur and chloroform even after the liner had been removed, which he felt was not a valid comparison.
17 chemical compounds - 7 were relevant to decomp. Because of trace, they reduced it to 5. They were very, very conservative. This number was then reduced to 3 that did not overlap.
He mentioned difusion - if the trash was in the car and the liner was emanating, a small amount of that could have adhered to the trash.
You cannot account for, but you can make an assumption based on quantity.
Assumptions are sometimes relevant in conclusions - common sense included.
celticthyme
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 894
- Reaction score
- 747
Oh God bless Dr Vass for trying to follow Baez' convoluted questioning. That he even tries to make sense of it, makes him appear to be dignified in his position as a witness, ( regardless of the fact that he has more brain cells in the tip of his pinky finger than Baez will ever hope to have in his head)..... JMO of course
joypath
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,667
- Reaction score
- 858
:maddening: JB seems to missing a HUGE point...Dr. Vass was being VERY conservative in his discussion of the chemicals as they relate to the essence of human decomposition, ummmmmm that's a tiny point IN CASEY's favor so to speak!
:maddening::maddening:
:maddening::maddening:
Miss Anarchy
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2009
- Messages
- 427
- Reaction score
- 0
Dr. Vass - Assumptions can be valid for conclusions. Including common sense.
Why do I feel that the Common sense part was direct to JB?
Why do I feel that the Common sense part was direct to JB?
Mamabear1963
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2009
- Messages
- 1,276
- Reaction score
- 6
Dr Vass: Commonsense included....:floorlaugh:
HHJP appreciates the break.
marie-chantal
Language analyst
- Joined
- May 9, 2011
- Messages
- 1,119
- Reaction score
- 93
JB is making me crazy with this questioning. Dr. Vass seems to know his stuff and I am really confused about what JB is trying to accomplish here (other than the fact that he's accomplished giving me a headache). I was yelling at my TV during the questioning about his chemistry background (when JB was asking Dr. Vass about the last time he took a chemistry class): "when was the last time you took a chemistry class, Jose?". Ugh.
Hamsterdance
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 3,715
- Reaction score
- 28
Vass clearly annoyed with JB, adds to answer with "Common sense included" for jb :floorlaugh:
rosepetal1065
Ive got splinters..in the windmills of my mind....
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2008
- Messages
- 1,695
- Reaction score
- 13
Okay, I thought he stung him
faefrost
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2008
- Messages
- 2,285
- Reaction score
- 0
Is JB actually looking as bad to the jury as he is looking to us? I mean to my eye it looks like a physicist trying to explain his job to a middle to low grade kindergardner. Is that the actual impression that he is leaving in the observers that count?
YellowSubmarine
If we couldn't laugh, we would all go insane!
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2009
- Messages
- 2,369
- Reaction score
- 4
#caseyanthony's defense served Dr. Vass with a subpoena during a recess earlier today in hallway. Source says defense wants paperworkby anthonycase via twitter at 12:51 PM
tiredblondy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2004
- Messages
- 5,666
- Reaction score
- 154
Just like the judge!:innocent:
- Status