2011.06.21 TRIAL Day Twenty-four (Afternoon Session)
- Thread starter beach
- Start date
New Posts
-
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #195
- Latest: photographer4
-
KY- I-75 Active Shooter Targeting Vehicles- Latest: Inthedetails
-
- Status
I think Casey and JB are enthralled with each other. They are each the President of the other's mutual admiration society.
mitzi
Watch us lie to cover for 'Princess'
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2008
- Messages
- 4,338
- Reaction score
- 9
When this trial started I had my doubts about chloroform being used. I truly believe it was used now.
Yeah....so did JB convince ya? :floorlaugh:
Azcrabcakes
New Member
- Joined
- May 14, 2011
- Messages
- 589
- Reaction score
- -2
Can that be used against her int he event of a mistrial?
BigFatMommyDog
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2008
- Messages
- 4,932
- Reaction score
- -25
Perfect visual
TotallyObsessed
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,096
- Reaction score
- 1
I would pay ALOT of money to watch that.
cecybeans
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2008
- Messages
- 2,319
- Reaction score
- 3
something tells me this one is gonna make its way into an awful lot of ladies wallets
mydailyopinions
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2008
- Messages
- 5,524
- Reaction score
- 448
Still_Snarky
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2008
- Messages
- 130
- Reaction score
- 6
this is almost painfull....almost.
TiaM
Calm and Watchful Now
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2010
- Messages
- 1,746
- Reaction score
- 0
Mz.Harleywood
Member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2010
- Messages
- 44
- Reaction score
- 0
CM not even going to sidebar...he's thinking..why bother!!!!!!!!!
coco puff
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2008
- Messages
- 1,276
- Reaction score
- 14
Drama Queen
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2008
- Messages
- 613
- Reaction score
- 0
I would bet that CM is sorry he ever signed onto this fiasco.
mombomb
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,437
- Reaction score
- -3
DIRECT EXAMINATION OF DR. MARCUS WISE BY JB:
He is a research scientist at Oakridge Laboratories in analytical chemistry. He has been there for almost 27 years.
PhD from Purdue. He belongs to the Boyscouts of America. No professional organizations.
Publications - he doesn't recall how many publications he has done - 15 to 20.
He has lectured on analytical chemistry and received awards.
This is the first time he has testified in court.
JB tenders him as an expert in analytical chemistry with no objection from JA.
A research scientist works on challenging scientific problems that need to be solved to push the frontiers of science to the next level. A forensic scientist can be a research scientist. Oakridge is a research lab. They can develop techniques. They don't run routine samples as a forensic lab would.
Evidence type samples are not as common in the work they do.
Protocols are usually in place in a forensic lab?
OBJECTION - SUSTAINED.
He is somewhat familiar with a forensic lab. Do they have more rigid standards relating to protocols?
OBJECTION - OVERRULED.
He has not worked in a forensics laboratory.
OBJECTION - SUSTAINED.
Are their standards more stringent? He has not run forensic protocols.
A research lab, they are working with protocols that can be varied.
They use methods routinely, like driving a car. They do not conduct proficiency exams. They don't run routine quality control procedures.
Contamination?
OBJECTION - leading and foundation - SUSTAINED
They run blank standards to see if an instrument has a large amount of contamination.
Quality control practices that would prevent contamination before sample reaches machine? He asked - how it would become contaminated?
OBJECTION - leading - SUSTAINED
His primary focus is to expand the boundaries of science. As an analytical chemist he is typically aware of major sources of contamination. Where?
OBJECTION - leading - SUSTAINED
No background monitor for contamination in the lab.
He was asked to run the samples to perform a qualitative analysis to determine what was in them. Dr. Vass requested that. The items were in Dr. Vass's office. He doesn't recall exactly where they were or what the shipping containers looked like. He then took the items to his lab and used a GCMS. He did not know the history of the item. He ran a qualitative analysis which tells you what is in it. It is not a quantitative analysis which tells you how much is there.
Did he tell Dr. Vass...
OBJECTION - vague - SUSTAINED
The test showed a significant peak.
A quantitative analysis ever done? It would have been a meaningless number.
Chloroform is volatile and evaporates easily. The rate it decreases is dependent on the temperature, the chemical nature of the surface, exposure to flowing air. If a trunk is closed, it may not escape as easily. A quantitative analysis of a little piece of carpet could be a lot less than on the original carpet and they did not have the info to back calculate that. He did not come up with a number because the number he would have come up with would have been set in stone and it would have been meaningless.
He received a gas bag sample. When he tested it, there was virtually nothing there. It was not surprising because it is his experience that chemicals in a bag go away in a few days. He does not know what was in the vapor in the trunk. The carpet was a point source.
The first analysis was to barely crack the lid, put a syringe in and pulled a small sample out and put that in his GCMS. He then wanted to concentrate the sample. They then put the sample into a clean bag and put the bag into an incubator and held at about 95 degrees for 2 days. A sample of that air was then removed and analyzed and again chloroform was the largest peak.
Standards of chloroform were purchased for this case, but they were not used because they did not do a quantitative analysis because it would not make any sense to do that. The standards were used to confirm the tentatively identified compound.
He was shown Defense Exhibit CJ. He recognized his handwritten notes of what was being done in the lab. He indicated that the system sample blank was reasonably clean - in this case it was not the objective that it was absolutely clean. (JA shaking his head). (ICA whispering to DS)
Large benzine peak from triple absorbent trap. Compromised?
OBJECTION - relevance - REPHRASE the QUESTION.
This is a trip blank of a triple absorbent trap - file name OCOSTB-01. This would have been an air sample.
Large benzine peak suggests benzine contamination. He doesn't know how it got there.
Pg 74 - the asterisk indicated that the trap had absorbed some water and he tried to purge it off so as not to clog the system. This is not uncommon.
Pg 75 - trap froze.
SIDEBAR #7 (4:29-4:33)
(Bill Shaeffer stating it was a mistake for JB to call this witness as he is just confirming AV's testimony)
Break to 4:40
He is a research scientist at Oakridge Laboratories in analytical chemistry. He has been there for almost 27 years.
PhD from Purdue. He belongs to the Boyscouts of America. No professional organizations.
Publications - he doesn't recall how many publications he has done - 15 to 20.
He has lectured on analytical chemistry and received awards.
This is the first time he has testified in court.
JB tenders him as an expert in analytical chemistry with no objection from JA.
A research scientist works on challenging scientific problems that need to be solved to push the frontiers of science to the next level. A forensic scientist can be a research scientist. Oakridge is a research lab. They can develop techniques. They don't run routine samples as a forensic lab would.
Evidence type samples are not as common in the work they do.
Protocols are usually in place in a forensic lab?
OBJECTION - SUSTAINED.
He is somewhat familiar with a forensic lab. Do they have more rigid standards relating to protocols?
OBJECTION - OVERRULED.
He has not worked in a forensics laboratory.
OBJECTION - SUSTAINED.
Are their standards more stringent? He has not run forensic protocols.
A research lab, they are working with protocols that can be varied.
They use methods routinely, like driving a car. They do not conduct proficiency exams. They don't run routine quality control procedures.
Contamination?
OBJECTION - leading and foundation - SUSTAINED
They run blank standards to see if an instrument has a large amount of contamination.
Quality control practices that would prevent contamination before sample reaches machine? He asked - how it would become contaminated?
OBJECTION - leading - SUSTAINED
His primary focus is to expand the boundaries of science. As an analytical chemist he is typically aware of major sources of contamination. Where?
OBJECTION - leading - SUSTAINED
No background monitor for contamination in the lab.
He was asked to run the samples to perform a qualitative analysis to determine what was in them. Dr. Vass requested that. The items were in Dr. Vass's office. He doesn't recall exactly where they were or what the shipping containers looked like. He then took the items to his lab and used a GCMS. He did not know the history of the item. He ran a qualitative analysis which tells you what is in it. It is not a quantitative analysis which tells you how much is there.
Did he tell Dr. Vass...
OBJECTION - vague - SUSTAINED
The test showed a significant peak.
A quantitative analysis ever done? It would have been a meaningless number.
Chloroform is volatile and evaporates easily. The rate it decreases is dependent on the temperature, the chemical nature of the surface, exposure to flowing air. If a trunk is closed, it may not escape as easily. A quantitative analysis of a little piece of carpet could be a lot less than on the original carpet and they did not have the info to back calculate that. He did not come up with a number because the number he would have come up with would have been set in stone and it would have been meaningless.
He received a gas bag sample. When he tested it, there was virtually nothing there. It was not surprising because it is his experience that chemicals in a bag go away in a few days. He does not know what was in the vapor in the trunk. The carpet was a point source.
The first analysis was to barely crack the lid, put a syringe in and pulled a small sample out and put that in his GCMS. He then wanted to concentrate the sample. They then put the sample into a clean bag and put the bag into an incubator and held at about 95 degrees for 2 days. A sample of that air was then removed and analyzed and again chloroform was the largest peak.
Standards of chloroform were purchased for this case, but they were not used because they did not do a quantitative analysis because it would not make any sense to do that. The standards were used to confirm the tentatively identified compound.
He was shown Defense Exhibit CJ. He recognized his handwritten notes of what was being done in the lab. He indicated that the system sample blank was reasonably clean - in this case it was not the objective that it was absolutely clean. (JA shaking his head). (ICA whispering to DS)
Large benzine peak from triple absorbent trap. Compromised?
OBJECTION - relevance - REPHRASE the QUESTION.
This is a trip blank of a triple absorbent trap - file name OCOSTB-01. This would have been an air sample.
Large benzine peak suggests benzine contamination. He doesn't know how it got there.
Pg 74 - the asterisk indicated that the trap had absorbed some water and he tried to purge it off so as not to clog the system. This is not uncommon.
Pg 75 - trap froze.
SIDEBAR #7 (4:29-4:33)
(Bill Shaeffer stating it was a mistake for JB to call this witness as he is just confirming AV's testimony)
Break to 4:40
JustMeDeb
New Member
- Joined
- May 31, 2011
- Messages
- 1,342
- Reaction score
- 0
And sanctioned if he ever utters the word "Panties" out loud again!
mitzi
Watch us lie to cover for 'Princess'
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2008
- Messages
- 4,338
- Reaction score
- 9
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand thaht is thaht! LMAO
ziggy
Active Member
Hey, anyone know how I can listen to this on my Android?
- Status