2011.06.21 TRIAL Day Twenty-four (Afternoon Session)

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Can't wait for the first question from Jeff - What did the carpet smell like? :)
 
fifteen89 said:
I think Casey and JB are enthralled with each other. They are each the President of the other's mutual admiration society.
Click to expand...

I was just throwing out what I heard last night. However, I do think it's possible that, on some level, JB is exhausted with her. Let's face it, his defense of his client is a mess. Not saying he couldn't be completely caught up in her, I don't know. moo
 
Okay, I could personally care less about Casey's fashion statements or lack thereof...My concern with the hideous sweater twist, wrap n' knot thing is the potential for her to slip something off the table (pen, paper clip(s), etc.,) and conceal it. That's just me though - a worry wart.
 
The witness is testifying about how a test is done 21merc7
 
mombomb said:
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
Click to expand...

MOMBOMB -- you are the BOMB! Thank you for your hard work
 
Whisperer said:
My theory is ICA poured the rest of the chloroform and even gasonline on the stain to get rid of the decomp smell.
Click to expand...

I agree. I think that's what she did. She either made or poured Chloroform in that trunk.
 
MagpieFromHinky Pamela
Nice little break. Back from recess now. Baez is annoying us again
1 minute ago Favorite Retweet Reply
 
nomoresorrow said:
Okay, I could personally care less about Casey's fashion statements or lack thereof...My concern with the hideous sweater twist, wrap n' knot thing is the potential for her to slip something off the table (pen, paper clip(s), etc.,) and conceal it. That's just me though - a worry wart.
Click to expand...

or a computer cord.....
 
Like this witness very much. Good teacher. I think I could start running tests myself by next week.
 
stmarysmead said:
"Jean C. said earlier that the jury doesn't like JA...."

I find that hard to believe.

Maybe because I don't think of this as the State of Fla vs. Casey Anthony...I think of this as Baby Caylee Anthony vs her Murderer.

JA is one of the voices for that little girl who can no longer speak. To dislike HIM is to try to silence HER.
Click to expand...

Did Jean C say how the jury liked the other attorneys?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 145 more.
Total: 393 (members: 146, guests: 247)

Online statistics

Members online
146
Guests online
247
Total visitors
393
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,379
Messages
18,253,420
Members
234,647
Latest member
KatlynS
Back
Top