2011.06.07 TRIAL Day Twelve (Morning Session)

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

The only good news about that is ICA will be delcared indigent and appointed a public defender who will not use any of the nonsense the DT is using. One way or another, in this trial or the next one, ICA will face justice.
 
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 think it will be destroyed. The smell will never leave it and no one will want to drive it.
 
A chemist and dog handlers and det yuri melich in hallway per tweet.
 
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?!?!

Vass only opened and smelled one can. That was the can he needed to identify. Apparently, he identified a can he had not opened and smelled. Same stuff, it's just a technical error.

Not a huge deal.
 
Dr. Michael ??????
must be the chloroform chemist
 
KB just asked, "What's to keep the jury from opening the cans during deliberations?"
 
Dr Michael Rickenbach (sp?) up

works for FBI, 15 years
Forensic chemist examiner since Dec 1999

A's in Forensic Science and Chemistry
PhD as well

And here we have the Expert in the area of Forensic Chemistry...
 
I really don't think this is a big deal; I'm sure it happens all the time. The smell was there no matter what- they were just referring to the wrong number. I certainly don't see this as being mistrial-worthy.
 
why is everyone making SUCH a big deal about the cans? the evidence was all tested correctly - ALL that happened was Ashton handed him the wrong can yesterday when admitting the evidence into the record. that is it! he had two or more cans on the table and picked up the wrong one. big DEAL! no mistrials or anything to worry about now that the record is clear.
 
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:

Oops. "Inexperienced" should be replaced with "experienced. Sorry.

And quantity does not equal quality.

And you are correct. JB should not be lead counsel on this case. But thats not the point.
 
I don't really understand the big deal of this... they corrected it; doesn't change the testimony at all.

JB said in his opening statement something to the effect that there were "sloppy" things done in this investigation. Look for him to harp on this even more, after this mistake. But i agree, it was just a technicality...
 
rickenbach
FBI Forensic Chemist Examiner since 12/99
 
I don't believe JA was being sneaky or a conspiracy...however, I'm worried this will be grounds for appeal. They can't afford the least little question as to the handling of evidence at trial. I personally would hate that kind of pressure.

I agree that this was an honest mistake but I don't think it will cause any appeal issues. JA did the right thing correcting the error. If he hadn't and if it came to light later then there could be an appeal. IMHO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
131
Guests online
2,347
Total visitors
2,478

Forum statistics

Threads
603,750
Messages
18,162,199
Members
231,839
Latest member
Backhand
Back
Top