Evidence subject to Frye - *UPDATED* 2011.05.09 (ATTN: ALL ORDERS IN!)

[Turnadot]

Would not an image stay with you for a long time? I know many jurors who have become ill just from looking at videos/pictures of crime scenes, including lawyers who have fainted - the Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom trial comes to mind. Personally, I don't see the difference and I'm not sure why one method to present evidence is more ethical than another. Not saying you have no right to your opinion, I guess I don't understand your reasoning.

I can only assume you've never taken a bite of food and tasted human decomp weeks after the fact. This jury is going to be traumatized enough without that on their plate.

IMO, there's plenty of evidence that will put KC away, no need for the jury to smell the car.

It's probably moot anyway because I doubt HHJP will allow the jury to sniff the trunk for themselves.

 

[faefrost]

I enjoy RH's sense of humor immensely! I like his stick, sting and move brand of humor.
However, his assertion that the work by Dr. Vass and his compounds had not been peer reviewed made me sit up and take notice. What?? I read on, hoping for evidence of this, a quote from Dr. Vass, something...
Oddly, I found no evidence in his blog. Perhaps he knows something I don't.
Years ago, I audited Dr. Bass's class on Forensic Anthropology, and came away with a healthy respect for this corner of the scientific world, but I digress..
Of course the work done by Dr. Vass has been peer reviewed. The very idea that his work on detectable compounds has not been reviewed by his peers is laughable.
See American Academy of Forensic Science 2002
Colorado
page 205

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdo...852CC99?doi=10.1.1.110.7203&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Postmortem Interval Decomposition Chemistry of Human Remains:
A New Methodology For Determining the Postmortem Interval

States this research project is to present to the forensic community a novel and accurate methodology of determining the postmortem interval.
It also states in this research project, he used 18 subjects.

Here's another, where he lists several compounds found. Not so secret...
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/231197.pdf

Anyway, I do love RH's sense of humor.

Questioning the admission of Dr. Vass's opinions and findings into evidence is a fair subject matter. While yes we can see the logical extension of how Dr. Vass's work leads into the conclusions of decomposition. It is a new application of science, and the courts and the legal system do all of us a great justice by approaching such things with caution. Just because it makes logical sense to us as laypeople,a nd seems to support the stated conclusion does not necessarily mean that it is truly scientifically conclusive. And that is where the danger lies in using new or unproven science in court. It is far to easy for a layperson to make those logical leaps and give too much credence to the scientific testimony that may or may not be as accurate as we might wish it to be.

All science has to go through this process of review and skepticism before it is entered before the court. It is a good healthy thing. And RH's questions and doubts about Dr. vass's work are well founded and reasonable. The two big ones being the proprietary nature of the database, and the small size of the study samplings. Now working in favor of Vass's theories is the fact that they seem to run to the same conclusions that known good indicators do. Namely the dog hits, some of the physical forensics, and the rather clearly stated human observations of the odor. But with only a study sampling of 4 prior examples of decomposition, can Dr. Vass's work stand independently and be conclusive by itself? Without relying on the weight of the outside corroborating indicators?

Personally, I think Dr. Vass is onto something with this approach. he is using well proven and refined technology to look for a pattern of organics materials to indicate an event. I am just not sure if it is fully ready for prime time or to stand on its own yet. So I will not be surprised if HHJP does decide to limit or block the testimony regarding it. Remember as much as we want to see a conviction, we don't want to see it for the wrong reasons. And we certainly do not want someone to be able to wave a magic sniffer box and declare "this crime was created here" before the judge jury and court, without anyone having a very clear and uncontroversial understanding of what the magic sniffer box is doing, how it works and what it is basing its conclusions on.

 

[CuriousG]

AFAIK, the 8:30 is off but the 9 am stands. http://myclerk.myorangeclerk.com/default.aspx Clerk's docket shows cancellation of 8:30 a.m. hearing, so all you Left Coasters can sleep in a bit and set the coffee pot to be ready for 6 a.m. rather than 5:30....

I'll probably still set the coffee pot to be ready at 5:30, I like to catch the "pre-game show" on the live links! See you guys in the A.M.

 

[watergirl]

I'll be able to watch the hearings, but I don't know how much I will be able to contribute to posting because I was completely lost on the defenses expert witnesses reports/depositions? I really don't understand Logan? I am unsure about what he is disputing?

Can anyone help me understand?

I read through it rather quickly - it's a snoozer... but I'll give it a shot.

1) I think Logan's main issue was that he did not see any QA/QC data, so assumed there wasn't any.

For example, when I collect groundwater samples and send them to the lab, I will get a report back with my water quality results as well as pages and pages of quality assurance/quality control data (QA/QC) data that you would have to ask a lab person to explain to you. I collect the samples, I dont analyze them, and I really don't need to understand the QA/QC data to report my results (not my forte). I just need to know that other people in my company can testify that the lab does a good job and produces consistently reliable results. :wink:

2) Another big issue was equipment calibration, I think he called it validation.

For example, let's say I go collect a groundwater sample. To do that, one of the meters I use measures pH, conductivity, temp, etc. Every day before I use any meter, I must calibrate it to a known solution (i.e., ph=4.0 and ph = 10.0 solutions). This assures me that the pH meter works as it should so I can use it and feel confident that it is going to give me reliable data.

According to Logan, Dr. Vass did not explain his validation or QA/QC procedures to any degree of satisfaction in either his report or literature publications. He runs a lab (or did) and may be a real stickler on that particular issue, and for all we know he may have that issue with everyone's data except his own. A valid point, but my gut tells me there's a whole lot of misrepresentation going on. Imagine that...

3) Additionally, according to Logan, air sample analyses applied to human decomp are not widely/commonly reproducible or utilized to the extent that everyone is able to validate the methodology and/or the signature chemicals indicative of human decomp.


That's my take. Hope it helps.
:twocents:

 

[Shadow5618]

OK, I confess I haven't read the whole thread, but in regard to the air sampling test, I don't see how this would differ a lot from routine HAZMAT investigations. Industrial hygienists are usually the folks who respond to, say, a chemical spill or train derailment and test the air to see if it's safe for the surrounding neighborhood. What they are doing is testing for chemicals like Chlorine, Sulfur, etc - other bad stuff that might be in the air and hurt people if they breathe it in. Dr. Vass's work appears to be essentially the same thing - testing for the presence of particular chemicals that are known to be released during decomposition. Industrial hygienists are real scientists and their work has been accepted for a long time especially at plants that produce potential hazards for the employees and surrounding areas. I don't really see the difference between that science and Dr. Vass's work. Maybe the real argument is in the different sampling techniques used by Dr. Vass, but air sampling whether in a car trunk or in a room or in the air beside a derailed train is all basically the same science. (I'm not an IH, nor do I play one on TV, but I used to work for an IH department and handle their compliance training which was VERY intense and VERY specific. Not junk science at all.) Just my 2 cents.

 

[darnudes]

Wouldn't that have been something?! Has anyone ever asked him what he would do to tackle this case?

I'm fairly sure he postulated some ideas on how he would have handled things on Steph Watts blogtalk radio. IIRC it came down to a plea deal, could be wrong on this though.

 

[darnudes]

I can only assume you've never taken a bite of food and tasted human decomp weeks after the fact. This jury is going to be traumatized enough without that on their plate.

IMO, there's plenty of evidence that will put KC away, no need for the jury to smell the car.

It's probably moot anyway because I doubt HHJP will allow the jury to sniff the trunk for themselves.

No I haven't and the thought of that is terrible - I agree it's moot, I doubt the State would do it or that Judge Perry would allow it.

 

[Turnadot]

Hi, darnudes, I apologise if I came off as rude in post #221; I didn't intend to.

 

[darnudes]

Hi, darnudes, I apologise if I came off as rude in post #221; I didn't intend to.

None needed you didn't sound rude at all. I can definitely see where you are coming from, was just not sure about the ethics issue. The traumatic issue - definitely get you on that one.

 

[Bullwinkle]

Case Against Casey: What's A Frye Hearing?

Frye Hearings Scheduled To Begin Wednesday Morning

http://www.wesh.com/r/27284181/detail.html

"Wednesday's hearing begins at 9 a.m.
WESH.com will stream the hearing live."

 

[Bullwinkle]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcfA9Ujesc0"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcfA9Ujesc0[/ame]

 

[logicalgirl]

---comment section button is at the top of the article---

Can I have some Fryes with that Clandestine Grave Detector?
Mar 22nd, 2011 by Richard Hornsby. 1 comment

Oh GOODY - off I go.............:great:

 

[ynotdivein]

OK, a day late and a dollar short as my grandma used to say, but AZ refreshed me on why the jury will likely not take a trip to the Pontiac:

Basically because (1) the smell has likely dissipated to some extent so the SA is unlikely to ask, and (2) the jurors are presumably not all familiar with the smell of human decomposition, so what information would it provide to them? It is more helpful for them to hear from people who can compare the car smell to the smell of human decomp.

 

[faefrost]

What rubbish RH writes at times. You can certainly see why he disabled the comment section.
I wonder how Alexander Fleming's discovery of Penicillium mold would have stacked up to peer reviews. He worked in a state of organized chaos; but for that fact we would not have had antibiotics when we did, as it was a culture plate left lying around for weeks that provided the answer to the treatment of bacterial infection -oh and once published his discovery was largely laughed at or ignored by his peers.
He also naturally had a great financial interest in his work, as we all do.

RH views the situation through the eyes of a "good" defense lawyer. While I may not agree with his conclussions I can respect his opinions and his arguements. At their heart his goals are to insure that defendants get a fair trial, with fair and properly presented evidence. There is nothing wrong with that. And there is nothing wrong with asking hard questions in order to insure that it happens.

And in this case he is asking some fair reasonable questions concerning Dr. Vass's work. He is not arguing that it is invalid, but he is asking questions that do need to be asked to use something new before the courts. he is doing a better job of asking those questions in his somewhat humorous blog than the entire defense team and their experts have to date.

As a "good" defense lawyer you can follow how his mind works. Yes he sees places to challenge evidence that we might not. He also clearly shows a dislike for and prejudice against "bad" defense lawyers. We may not always agree with him, especially when he says things that might indicate holes in our strongly held views, but he is certainly the type of lawyer you would want advocating for you should you ever need one.

 

[rhornsby]

I enjoy RH's sense of humor immensely! I like his stick, sting and move brand of humor.
However, his assertion that the work by Dr. Vass and his compounds had not been peer reviewed made me sit up and take notice. What?? I read on, hoping for evidence of this, a quote from Dr. Vass, something...
Oddly, I found no evidence in his blog. Perhaps he knows something I don't.
Years ago, I audited Dr. Bass's class on Forensic Anthropology, and came away with a healthy respect for this corner of the scientific world, but I digress..
Of course the work done by Dr. Vass has been peer reviewed. The very idea that his work on detectable compounds has not been reviewed by his peers is laughable.
See American Academy of Forensic Science 2002
Colorado
page 205

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdo...852CC99?doi=10.1.1.110.7203&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Postmortem Interval Decomposition Chemistry of Human Remains:
A New Methodology For Determining the Postmortem Interval

States this research project is to present to the forensic community a novel and accurate methodology of determining the postmortem interval.
It also states in this research project, he used 18 subjects.

Here's another, where he lists several compounds found. Not so secret...
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/231197.pdf

Anyway, I do love RH's sense of humor.

And that is my point, you can find a "few" studies here and there that find similar compounds, but since the entire database is secret, you can't determine whether all of the compounds that should be present in a decompositional event are in fact present.

Which leads to the fluoride problem, suddenly a hallmark of his database is missing and he is able to easily discount its absence. Strict peer review would have at least allowed other to opine whether the absence of the fluoride was significant or not.b

 

[beach]

RH views the situation through the eyes of a "good" defense lawyer. While I may not agree with his conclussions I can respect his opinions and his arguements. At their heart his goals are to insure that defendants get a fair trial, with fair and properly presented evidence. There is nothing wrong with that. And there is nothing wrong with asking hard questions in order to insure that it happens.

And in this case he is asking some fair reasonable questions concerning Dr. Vass's work. He is not arguing that it is invalid, but he is asking questions that do need to be asked to use something new before the courts. he is doing a better job of asking those questions in his somewhat humorous blog than the entire defense team and their experts have to date.

As a "good" defense lawyer you can follow how his mind works. Yes he sees places to challenge evidence that we might not. He also clearly shows a dislike for and prejudice against "bad" defense lawyers. We may not always agree with him, especially when he says things that might indicate holes in our strongly held views, but he is certainly the type of lawyer you would want advocating for you should you ever need one.

AMEN!

His opinions may not be what you want to hear and sometimes I don't agree, but I never walk away thinking he is an incompetent buffoon.

 

[rhornsby]

AMEN!

His opinions may not be what you want to hear and sometimes I don't agree, but I never walk away thinking he is an incompetent buffoon.

Praise be to Jesus!

 

[Softail]

I also appreciate RH's opinions, however, it seems that he does not follow the DETAILS of this case like some others here do.

That is where I see a disconnect. His opinions are from a broader general level, whereas, the devil is in the details. Thus, a legal perspective.

I enjoy reading everyone's opinion good, bad, or indifferent.

 

[joypath]

AMEN!

His opinions may not be what you want to hear and sometimes I don't agree, but I never walk away thinking he is an incompetent buffoon.

'Beach: Having had the :floorlaugh: "thrill of the stand" :sick: WAY too many times, I'm :innocent: cheering and praising to the heavens that the number of incompetent :crazy: buffoons "practicing" :waitasec: within his profession is (crossing fingers here) on the "down swing" :truce:...........and LOL residing in FLA!:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[rhornsby]

I also appreciate RH's opinions, however, it seems that he does not follow the DETAILS of this case like some others here do.

That is where I see a disconnect. His opinions are from a broader general level, whereas, the devil is in the details. Thus, a legal perspective.

I enjoy reading everyone's opinion good, bad, or indifferent.

Says you!