Canadian forensic anthropologist Scott Fairgrieve joins Casey Anthony's defense

[Bree0372]

"My role in the case is basically peer review," Fairgrieve told the Orlando Sentinel. "I will be reviewing reports on the evidence. So far everything I've done has been remotely."

Snipped and bolded by me



He will review only the reports - not the evidence itself ? That's not much of a review.

Interesting that a new out-of-US expert turns up days after Baez is given copies of the crime scene photos and x-rays. I sure hope they haven't been transmitted to him.

If the Dr has been doing a Peer Review of "reports", wouldn't this mean that defense "experts" have written reports - even though Baez said there are no written reports to turn over to the Prosecution? Which we already know is not true.

Just thinking out loud.

 

[TinaD]

If the Dr has been doing a Peer Review of "reports", wouldn't this mean that defense "experts" have written reports - even though Baez said there are no written reports to turn over to the Prosecution? Which we already know is not true.

Just thinking out loud.

I'm thinking he's referrring to the reports prepared by the prosecution experts.

 

[Bree0372]

I'm thinking he's referrring to the reports prepared by the prosecution experts.

I thought about that too - after I made my post. Of course, I was on my cell and it was 3am. Note to self: do not make posts when you should be sleeping. :doh:

 

[kaRN]

Intermezzo found another case (linked here). ZsaZsa posted here that she knew the cadaver dog evidence was not allowed, but she wasn't sure why. The motion in limine that cherishtoo posted (#90 this thread) was a different case (federal case w/ different defendants). In the latter case, I heavily skimmed the motion (15+pgs) which included heavy commentary, argument and cited a lot of case law. particularly Frye. I can anticipate the "...but cadaver dog evidence has been routinely admitted" comments. I agree, but anything can be challenged. I don't know for sure but I anticipate the "touch dna" to be challenged by the State. As will the Body Farm evidence by the defense. The Frye hearings will be lengthy with a bit of testimony.

I could easily be wrong. I am making the assumption because the only two cases I have seen where Dr. Fairgrieve testified regarding cadaver dogs appear to be challenging the reliability of the "hits". A Frye hearing determines the admissibility of certain sciences considering certain variables. So, maybe it isn't a Frye challenge, but the defense just plans to use him to cast doubt on the dog hits at trial. In the case Intermezzo cited they were excluded (although not sure yet the basis of that ruling). In the latter case, not sure of the outcome; only the argument. I plan on researching both of those cases asap. I will post more when I have the "big picture".

Tks Beach! I have no doubt the dogs will be admissable. How many families have had their loved ones returned to them for proper burial because of these dogs. On the thread dedicated to the possibility of a drowning I started to wonder about the interval from death until the time a dog can ID the scent and found this amazing site. I`m sorry about the green background but it`s a great read!!

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]CADAVER SCENT PROJECT[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]by Adela Morris and Rita Martinez (CSST members)
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This research project was initiated in January of 1997 as a response to a frequently asked question by agencies that use our services. How, we are asked, do the dogs define death? At what point during the decomposition process of a human body will the dogs demonstrate that they recognize the scent as post-mortem?[/FONT]
[/FONT]

All our questions answered and more at this link. Thank you for your research Adela and Rita!!!!http://www.csst.org/cadaver_scent.html

 

[nums24]

Here is his deposition transcript:

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/27085404/detail.html

 

[LancelotLink]

Either I have been awake too long or I am getting senile. I read in the deposition from Dr. Fairgrieve (TY so much, Nums) that Jose hired this guy December 3, 2008.
Now, why in the heck would Jose hire a forensic anthropologist 8 days before Caylee was even found? Or should I say 2 weeks after Dominic Casey "poked" around for her body?

We know he was not hired to do anything with the cadaver dogs, but seems to me this is what he was "billed" as at first.

WTH??

Was Jose not out there telling every news outlet that he believed this child was alive?

 

[nums24]

Either I have been awake too long or I am getting senile. I read in the deposition from Dr. Fairgrieve (TY so much, Nums) that Jose hired this guy December 3, 2008.
Now, why in the heck would Jose hire a forensic anthropologist 8 days before Caylee was even found? Or should I say 2 weeks after Dominic Casey "poked" around for her body?

We know he was not hired to do anything with the cadaver dogs, but seems to me this is what he was "billed" as at first.

WTH??

Was Jose not out there telling every news outlet that he believed this child was alive?

You must be tired. The guy was retained by Baez before that, he was retained on 10/22/2008!!!! (page 21) He says: "He was retained to specifically review materials pertaining to the use of human remains detection dogs."

The letter of engagement with no fees listed was signed on 12/4/2008. It states JB is responsible for his travel expenses :skipping: lol!

The defense experts as of 2009 that attended a defense team meeting at the AAFS show in Denver 2009 were Fairgrieve, Dr. Bock, Dr. Kobilinsky, Kathy Reichs and Dr. Tony Falsetti, Forensic Anthropologist. Not present were Furton, Huntington, and Henry Lee.

He has no documented experiments, he's testified in 2 or 3 other cases. I can't believe this is what the defense has retained, no wonder Mr. Ashton wants this motion stricken. :banghead:

 

[mobius99]

You must be tired. The guy was retained by Baez before that, he was retained on 10/22/2008!!!! (page 21) He says: "He was retained to specifically review materials pertaining to the use of human remains detection dogs."

The letter of engagement with no fees listed was signed on 12/4/2008. It states JB is responsible for his travel expenses :skipping: lol!

The defense experts as of 2009 that attended a defense team meeting at the AAFS show in Denver 2009 were Fairgrieve, Dr. Bock, Dr. Kobilinsky, Kathy Reichs and Dr. Tony Falsetti, Forensic Anthropologist. Not present were Furton, Huntington, and Henry Lee.

He has no documented experiments, he's testified in 2 or 3 other cases. I can't believe this is what the defense has retained, no wonder Mr. Ashton wants this motion stricken. :banghead:

I soldiered thru the entire deposition and I am speechless. Dr. Fairgrieve is using anecdotal experiences to render his opinion?

He played hide-and-seek with a scrap of gauze that had a drop of his blood ONE TIME with ONE DOG. Ergo, trained cadaver dogs can give false positives. Seriously?!!!!!

 

[mobius99]

Why do you suppose JB sent Dr. Fairgrieve a ton of discovery that had nothing to do with his field of expertise?

 

[LancelotLink]

You must be tired. The guy was retained by Baez before that, he was retained on 10/22/2008!!!! (page 21) He says: "He was retained to specifically review materials pertaining to the use of human remains detection dogs."

The letter of engagement with no fees listed was signed on 12/4/2008. It states JB is responsible for his travel expenses :skipping: lol!

The defense experts as of 2009 that attended a defense team meeting at the AAFS show in Denver 2009 were Fairgrieve, Dr. Bock, Dr. Kobilinsky, Kathy Reichs and Dr. Tony Falsetti, Forensic Anthropologist. Not present were Furton, Huntington, and Henry Lee.

He has no documented experiments, he's testified in 2 or 3 other cases. I can't believe this is what the defense has retained, no wonder Mr. Ashton wants this motion stricken. :banghead:

I hear ya! I saw October 2008, but wasn't sure if that was a typo since the letter of engagement was written up and signed in Dec.
Thanks.
So, here's my problem, and I should probably find his CV first, but according to his CV discussed in the deposition, in 2008, he had never testified in a trial about cadaver dogs. Only as a forensics anthropologist. So, how and why would Baez find this guy?? According to the depo, he had never even testified in a case about cadaver dogs until 2010.

This is a great read, btw. Thanks again!! I was laughing, imagining the faces of LDB and JA.
And Sims read like a bit of a fussbudget...

ETA~CV shows the one case.
Sept/ 27, 2010 Ky v New

 

[nums24]

I hear ya! I saw October 2008, but wasn't sure if that was a typo since the letter of engagement was written up and signed in Dec.
Thanks.
So, here's my problem, and I should probably find his CV first, but according to his CV discussed in the deposition, in 2008, he had never testified in a trial about cadaver dogs. Only as a forensics anthropologist. So, how and why would Baez find this guy?? According to the depo, he had never even testified in a case about cadaver dogs until 2010.

This is a great read, btw. Thanks again!! I was laughing, imagining the faces of LDB and JA.
And Sims read like a bit of a fussbudget...

Sims is so weird :crazy: I really don't know how JA & LDB stay composed. JB is so rude in Furton's deposition, I posted it in the Defense Requests more time thread. Here is the link to Furton's report: http://www.wftv.com/pdf/27085526/detail.html

 

[LancelotLink]

Sims is so weird :crazy: I really don't know how JA & LDB stay composed. JB is so rude in Furton's deposition, I posted it in the Defense Requests more time thread. Here is the link to Furton's report: http://www.wftv.com/pdf/27085526/detail.html

Thank you, Nums! These depositions are just what I needed to wind down after that three day roller coaster ride. You think of everything!:bow:

 

[nums24]

Thank you, Nums! These depositions are just what I needed to wind down after that three day roller coaster ride. You think of everything!:bow:

Everything released can be found in the news & motions threads.

 

[LancelotLink]

Everything released can be found in the news & motions threads.

So, who is doing the cadaver dog testimony?

 

[nums24]

So, who is doing the cadaver dog testimony?

Until an order or hearing summary is issued, I have no idea. That was part of the sanctions motion and I don't know the end result and what was actually worked out. I wish I knew.

 

[LancelotLink]

Until an order or hearing summary is issued, I have no idea. That was part of the sanctions motion and I don't know the end result and what was actually worked out. I wish I knew.

I went back and watched the meeting about this.
http://www.wftv.com/video/26999580/index.html

Yep! HHJBP said he would look at reports and depositions and Furton might not be testifying.

You know what is sad? On his worst day, I would rather have JA as my attorney than JB on his best day.

 

[LancelotLink]

Why do you suppose JB sent Dr. Fairgrieve a ton of discovery that had nothing to do with his field of expertise?

Great question! Hedging his bets in case he couldn't get the desired answers from Furton or others?
Now I wonder about that exchange during the "odd question" hearing (for lack of a date) where Baez said something about experts crossing over and testifying in other fields. I thought he was advising the court that the state was trying to do this.

 

[sleutherontheside]

You must be tired. The guy was retained by Baez before that, he was retained on 10/22/2008!!!! (page 21) He says: "He was retained to specifically review materials pertaining to the use of human remains detection dogs."

The letter of engagement with no fees listed was signed on 12/4/2008. It states JB is responsible for his travel expenses :skipping: lol!

The defense experts as of 2009 that attended a defense team meeting at the AAFS show in Denver 2009 were Fairgrieve, Dr. Bock, Dr. Kobilinsky, Kathy Reichs and Dr. Tony Falsetti, Forensic Anthropologist. Not present were Furton, Huntington, and Henry Lee.

He has no documented experiments, he's testified in 2 or 3 other cases. I can't believe this is what the defense has retained, no wonder Mr. Ashton wants this motion stricken. :banghead:

That October 22, 2008 retainer date blew me away as well. He retained this man a mere 8 days after her indictment. So my question is....just how long was her in talks with Fairgrieve before then??

I also found it very interesting that at that time Fairgrieve was not being paid but that the Baez firm would agree to pay a certain dollar amount for his trip to Fl. and his expenses. That agreement as well as a confidentiality agreement was signed a week before the body was found.

Additionally Fairgrieve agreed to direct all media inquiries to him to be referred to TODD BLACK!!!!! He refers to him as a media consultant and not as a firm spokesperson.

 

[faefrost]

On page 42, this has got to be my personal favorite part of his testimony so far.

"We can talk about dogs with their ability to detect certain odours and they are used in a variety of different disciplines, however it is beyond the pale for somebody to conclude that if a dog signals it is coming from a deceased individual. It's not possible to make that determination unless we have a deceased individual at that location."

Ummm? Did JB never let this guy know that there is in fact a dead body in play? And that while not found at the cadaver dogs hit location, the actual remains were found wrapped in and surrounded by physical items and evidence tied to the locations of the dog hits?

He hasn't actually trained any dogs, nor has he published any papers on dogs. All of his experience seems to be with a civilian volunteer group of dogs, as opposed to actual Law Enforcement dogs and operations. And his major experience seems to be providing test material such as bones and teeth for the civilian volunteers to use to test their dogs. This isn't an expert... this is an "Igor".

 

[raregem]

Below is a cut and paste from the Jon Benet Ramsey -post #82 -by Madeleine.

It seems to reflect a thought regarding Baby Caylees' "burial". The stickers on her mouth etc.. Would like to hear your thoughts WSer's on this matter. There wasn't too much detail in the article link. Thanks.


POST :

"undoing" and John Douglas

http://web.archive.org/web/200010271...as1007_01.html

You have to look to see what the message is.

Sometimes you'll see a victim laid out nice and neat at a crime scene. The subject may go so far as to cover the corpse with a sheet or blanket.

There are various reasons for doing this. The killer may go into an explosive rage and then ask himself afterward, "What did I do?" He doesn't want to look at the crime he perpetrated, so he covers the victim.


When a parent kills a child

Or it could be that a close relationship existed between the killer and the victim. Let's say a parent kills a child and then buries the body. You may find that the child was carefully wrapped or the face covered to keep dirt from getting in the mouth. In essence, someone is caring for the child after death.

There's a word we use: "undoing." That's when someone tries to somehow lessen the damage after committing the crime, maybe by cleansing and bandaging the wounds. The killer may try softening the appearance of the crime by making the body's position restful and clasping the hands, almost like the victim is laid out. It's a way of symbolically erasing or reversing the crime, and it suggests remorse. Doing this gives the subject away. It's a personal crime -- strangers wouldn't likely do this.

-----------