2011.06.07 TRIAL Day Twelve (Morning Session)

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't really understand the big deal of this... they corrected it; doesn't change the testimony at all.
 
I am worried about mistrial right now.

I believe a mistrial has been a very possible outcome since JB stayed on this case. The good thing, though, is that mistrial just means they do it again...the evidence will still be there pointing at ICA.
 
All that proves is Jose theory that Caylee was never in that trunk.

I'm not following you. If all of the cans are air from the trunk collected at the same time and Dr. Vass only opened one, how does that prove JB's theory?
 
I'm really confused especially since I haven't been able to watch the trial this morning until now...
 
I don't think JB can make as much as he'd like out of the can mixup. The jury isn't going to buy that it's evidence of the vast conspiracy orchestrated by everyone against his client that JB has been pushing since the OS. On the other hand, fair is fair -- that was a pretty stupid mistake by JA and I don't buy that it was any kind of strategy. I dont' think you can begin to fault Vass, as others have noted.
 
Dog handlers are in the hall!
 
HHJP does seem to be different that the past month. Could be the trial is taking a toll if he doesn't feel well.

Wonder if something else isn't going on in regard to the huge amount of sidebars where the judge is schooling JB day after day.

Could there be pressure on the judge for a mistrial based on JB's lack of skill and the fact that the remainder of the DT is on the sidelines when their area of expertise would benefit ICA to have them cross.

Agree HHJP is much stricter than he was in the evidence hearings, etc. During those he was giving Baez many lessons and was preparing him for trial.

Now we are at trial, HHJP expects Baez to function as well as any death penalty Defence Lawyer. In other words we are seeing HHJP for who he is at trial, the real trial judge that earned him his reputation as being an excellent trial judge. His job is to protect anything from appellate issues, not to train Baez as a death penalty lawyer.

If it was me up there - I would be on my last nerve. :banghead:
 
I wondered who did discover it was the wrong piece of evidence.

I remember at the end of the day yesterday, JA said he would need to recall Dr. Vass briefly. I think he knew then that he had made a mistake but it was late enough in the day that he figured he'd bring it up this morning instead. Also, better to leave the jury impressed with Dr. Vass' testimony then to taint it with a minor issue.
 
IMO, karma is a B#*ch and if for some reason, this thing gets an appeal and she gets a new trial..she will get convicted in that trial too. ICA will not get away with it..nobody kills a 2 year old, and lives carefree.
 
I am so lost. Trying to understand.... there were two cans of stink, or three, or whatever....and they are saying that he was handed the 'wrong can' of stink to identify before he testified? Stink is stink. He was testifying to the stink, period.
What is the problem?!?!

Good post. And we need to remember this is just one thing in a long line of evidence against ICA. We still have a long way to go. jmo
 
Remember the defense had every oppurtunity to replicate the test and disprove Vass's findings. They didn't, and we all know why!
 
I'm wondering what GA & CA will do with the car once the trial is over. It's my understanding that it still smells horrible.
 
I'm really confused especially since I haven't been able to watch the trial this morning until now...

JA admitted to entering the wrong can into evidence. Corrected error. JB hopped and tried to capitalize.
 
This wasn't Vass's mistake at the lab, it was JA's mistake in asking him about the wrong can yesterday. It was JA's mistake, not Vass's. It doesn't color his work at all because it has nothing to do with his work. He did not misidentify this can when he went to process it. That is not the mistake at all. The chain of custody is intact. The only mistake was JA's in asking him to say that can was the right one. That has nothing to do with chain of custody or Vass's work. This is not a mistake to get upset over. JA has had a sterling reputation in his career and in the past three years. At least he admitted to his mistake. Baez has made millions of mistakes and never admitted or apologized for ONE of them. I trust Ashton anyday over Baez. If Baez harps on this, it's only going to make things worse for Casey.

On the stand Vass said it was something it wasnt. We do not know if he mixed up cans in his lab or not. It is very likey he has misread or not followed every protocal in his lab if he had a problem with reading this can to see if it was truely his work.

Dr.Vass seems ike a nice person but I wouldnt trust him proffessionaly.
 
It wasn't whether or not it was within the law. JB hardly is inexperienced and a seasoned prosecutor such as Jeff Ashton can let Baez walk into various holes left, right and centre. That is sneaky in my view.

JB is "hardly inexperienced"?? So, seasoned, big, bad JA can trick him?? How many lawyers are surrounding the defendant?? If JB is so prone to being misled, perhaps he should sit down and let someone else face the trickster, JA. :seeya:
 
Are you suggesting that the SA dumb it down to level the playing field?

No. There is a difference between vigorously advocating your position and laying various traps for an inexperienced defense attorney to fall into and objecting to a whole load of questions where, although the question may be technically objectionable because JB hasn't laid the proper foundation, the question is not at all unfair and would not be objectionable if JB was better versed in the rules of evidence.

The SA are in different position to a Defense Attorney. They are there to prosecute in the public interest not necessarily secure a conviction at all costs, even where the SA believes the Defendant is guilty.
 
I am unsure if the can was coming in here. All we have is Bill Shaeffer's guess. The SA objection was in relation to questioning regarding something not in evidence. There is nothing to indicate in the objection that the state were seeking to open the can.

The cans are in evidence (there were approx 4 cans, don't know if all have gone it or only 2 so far) - the question is was one going to opened to confirm if that was the one Dr Vass worked on. It's a non issue now anyway, it isn't going to be opened.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
66
Guests online
2,208
Total visitors
2,274

Forum statistics

Threads
601,164
Messages
18,119,811
Members
230,995
Latest member
MiaCarmela
Back
Top