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

[LambChop]

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:

Only time I would think they would use it is if everything about the smell in the car is thrown out, except the car itself. I don't think that will happen. There is too much. jmo

 

[darnudes]

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.

Well he does have a job and I expect he's quite hard working so he may not catch every minute detail, but I've never seen him make a wrong call on this case so far. RH has it all over ICA's so called dream team, if I was in a jam I'd call him.

 

[Softail]

Says you!

Lol... Calm down. I LOVE your opinions, BUT there have been times where you have made comments that you clearly did not know the facts about. I remember a few, where people called you on it. Not picking on you AT ALL! Nobody is perfect. That is why I said I thought your comments were more General and broad from a defense attorney perspective. That is all.

Lively debate is good. Like I said, the devil is in the details, and everyone here at WS KNOWS the details.

Again, Sincere thanks for all you do here! I know I appreciate EVERYTHING YOU DO!

 

[Caligram]

Okay....I have learned from all of you on WS. I first tsuggested that SA take the jury on a field trip to smell the car. I thought it would be a deterrent to JB wanting tests on the decomp thrown out, and force him to withdraw his objections. I failed to consider the reaction of the members of the jury. So I agree, it would be cruel to submit the jury to that odor.
I do admit to wholehaertedly wanting to hit back at the defense for trying to discount anything relating to the trunk odor.

 

[suepitzl]

Here is the list of Forensic evidence to be argued in court this week. The Defense will argue to have this evidence excluded from Casey‘s murder trial:

–Stain in Casey’s Car Trunk shaped like body in fetus position
–Canine Alerts- Dogs alerting to human decomposition orders
–Heart Sticker found on Duct Tape placed over Caylee’s mouth & nose
–Dead Body Smell in the trunk Evidence
–Death Band Hair Evidence -Hair showing deceased human in Car Trunk
–Chloroform In Casey’s Car Trunk Evidence

 

[Bullwinkle]

In other words, the defense is just going to continue to grasp at straws. It won't work.

 

[LambChop]

Just an OT note here. As WS'ers we do not always get it right, BUT we do work at it until we do. lol Once the trial starts we'll see how close we really came to the truth.

 

[Softail]

Well he does have a job and I expect he's quite hard working so he may not catch every minute detail, but I've never seen him make a wrong call on this case so far. RH has it all over ICA's so called dream team, if I was in a jam I'd call him.

Oh. I agree. He has other things to do. But he has been wrong about certain facts. That's all I'm sayin.... I don't expect him to know everything. Just saying he doesn't know certain details like others do. That's all! Not picking on him! :whiteflag::whiteflag:

 

[LancelotLink]

I hope no one here thinks I was labeling RH as incompetent or a buffoon.

My comment deals with one thing and one thing only, the idea that his work on decomp compounds and his compound database were never peer reviewed. I also was wondering if RH had more information than I had.

I did not even broach the fluoride.

I discount the idea that just because we read something we do not wish to, we automatically cry foul. I rejected that notion when first presented and I reject it still. Upon reading it, I did not feel compelled to state in a thread here that this was worded to demean those who did not agree with the writer, but I will now. I for one have learned a great deal from this case, this site and the contributors. I do not recall any instance when I have decried any post as being hogwash simply because it did not fit into my interpretation of things.
One thing I have learned on this site is you can have a difference of opinion and no one's opinion trumps another.

 

[beach]

I hope no one here thinks I was labeling RH as incompetent or a buffoon.

<snip>

Oh heck no! I wasn't thinking about your post at all when I said that, my fav fedora'd chimp. :heartluv:
My intention (and the only thing on my mind when I posted) was to point out the difference between a competent defense attorney and...well, others. :innocent:

 

[LancelotLink]

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

I guess my question is how do you determine this database secret?
And I promise never to bring a blog into our discussion again, unless there is a thread for it.

 

[suepitzl]

Since RHornsby has created kind of a stir regarding Dr. Vass's work, I went back and read Val's post on his work. The relevant portion is this: Snipped: Can it be tested? YES &#8211; it can be tested because it is based on empirical data. But not only can it be tested it HAS BEEN TESTED. In fact, peer-reviewed papers NOT written by Dr. Vass have been published that state the PMI estimate via the use of the presence of decomposition gases may be more accurate for determining PMI than the SUBJECTIVE total body score historically used for this determination. IMO, it will be allowed.

 

[suepitzl]

Sorry forgot to link it: http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2010/06/02/concerning-the-junk-science-argument-against-vasss-work/

 

[LancelotLink]

<snip>

Oh heck no! I wasn't thinking about your post at all when I said that, my fav ferdora'd chimp. :heartluv:
My intention (and the only thing on my mind when I posted) was to point out the difference between a competent defense attorney and...well, others. :innocent:

I plead alien abduction!
:abduction:

Your post made me go back and check mine to make sure I didn't cross any lines. Personally, I need all differing POVs. And I :heartbeat:you, too.

Please forgive me for jumping into your post, but it brought up the whole not agreeing spectrum.

 

[Kimster]

I plead alien abduction!
:abduction:

:waitasec: I haven't been here all night. What other aliens are around here abducting our peeps?

 

[LancelotLink]

:waitasec: I haven't been here all night. What other aliens are around here abducting our peeps?

My apologies Green Goddess, I just got pizzed off. And if that wasn't bad enough, I dragged Beach into my hissy fit.

 

[Kimster]

My apologies Green Goddess, I just got pizzed off.

Well, chill out dear Lancelot. The trial hasn't even begun yet. :therethere:

 

[Lanie]

I went to page one of this thread to get the time for the hearing tomorrow (at least I think there is one tomorrow), and could not figure out why you all were so confused on what was going to be argued in the Frye hearing. I then got worried I missed some major developments before I finally noticed this was all from 2009. This has gone on too long....

Would someone please give me a clue when the hearing starts, and I could probably use the day, too. :crazy::crazy::crazy:

 

[LolaMoon08]

I couldn't be a lawyer... Prosecution or Defense... and I give a lot of credit to those who do dedicate their lives to this profession. I know there are other areas of law, but I just don't have the genetic makeup to be successful in any area of law. I dislike confrontation very much and anytime anyone tries to even start and argument with me, I just laugh and let them vent?

I do sometimes wonder how this case would have been like if someone as competent as RH had taken this case? Ahhh... what could have been???

 

[Trapshooter]

I went to page one of this thread to get the time for the hearing tomorrow (at least I think there is one tomorrow), and could not figure out why you all were so confused on what was going to be argued in the Frye hearing. I then got worried I missed some major developments before I finally noticed this was all from 2009. This has gone on too long....

Would someone please give me a clue when the hearing starts, and I could probably use the day, too. :crazy::crazy::crazy:

Lanie the hearings begin at 9am today, March 23, 2011!