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

[sleutherontheside]

HAHA maybe they're inhibiting his dopamine receptors!!

Perhaps the Red Bull??

 

[Mendara]

Good news

 

[gamom]

The defense didn't present any factual evidence! This defendant has never presented anything factual.

That is because the entire DT is confused as to what FACTUAL is? KC sure has heck does not have a clue.

 

[Nore]

I am just soooooo happy :great: I was so afraid it wouldnt make it in. I think this is one of the most important facts of this trial. Call me wicked but i cant wait to see Kc's face when all this is presented. :great: :floorlaugh:

 

[gamom]

I think that AZLawyer said that the SA could point out where they saw the shoulder, knee, hip, ect but not actually draw the outline. It will be enough if these jurors use common sense.

Good thing I am not on the jury. I would like to think that I have common sense, but in all honesty, as much as I tried I could not see the outline until I saw the photo with the blue outline drawn on it. Hopefully the jurors are able to see it better than I was. Now it pops out at me. :blushing:

 

[gamom]

As Judge Strickland would say- The irony is rich indeed - all of the A's have sold photos of Caylee and made hundreds of thousands of $ without working a day or lifting a finger to find her.
Now the photos of her remains and the photo of the stain in the trunk will convict ICA.

Caylee's very last photo taken in this world will hopefully be worth more than all the money the A's made on the other photos of her in her short, but very beautiful little life.

 

[missm]

Can't you just see the frushtrated little fisties hanging on to the black bars of her cell? No chocolate eggs for you, inmate!

 

[Ricki]

Good thing I am not on the jury. I would like to think that I have common sense, but in all honesty, as much as I tried I could not see the outline until I saw the photo with the blue outline drawn on it. Hopefully the jurors are able to see it better than I was. Now it pops out at me. :blushing:

I was not able to see it either until it was outlined. Then it became very clear what I was looking at. Sickening! I wonder how long the poster looked at that photo until he/she realized what he/she was seeing. That poster has very observation skills.

 

[strach304]

I am just soooooo happy :great: I was so afraid it wouldnt make it in. I think this is one of the most important facts of this trial. Call me wicked but i cant wait to see Kc's face when all this is presented. :great: :floorlaugh:

Great news! :great:

I think the hair and dog evidence is coming in too. Sticker and air may not imo. But this is very good.

 

[MissJames]

I haven't seen a motion for a Frye hearing regarding a test that would analyze the brain activity of JB.

I'd like to know whether or not his I-Pad /Blackberry usage in the courtroom has resulted in a change in his synaptic signaling process.

They seem to be doing something to his logic, reasoning, and judgement.

I think it's the RedBull :crazy:

 

[Chiquita71]

Here is what Richard Hornsby had to say regarding the stain evidence:-
It makes for an obvious conclusion; you don't need a scientist to tell them (Jury) what it may or may not mean.

I liked the part of the motion where HHJP says the defense did not provide any factual evidence to support their position.
When do they ever?

RespectfullyQuoted ZsaZsa
BBM

:floorlaugh:

 

[Baznme]

What am I not getting about this? If the Judge said the stain in the trunk evidence is in, why does the State now have to prove the burden?


Quote:
Originally Posted by cherishtoo
Judge rules stain in trunk will be in trial

Perry is still expected to hand down other rulings on several motions regarding numerous pieces of key evidence, including air samples from Casey's car, the presence of chloroform in the trunk and her alleged computer search for "how to make chloroform."

http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news...ll-be-in-trial

This article was updated Thursday, April 21, 2011 8:20 PM to add:

News 13's legal analyst David Fussell calls this ruling a "minor disappointment" for the defense.

"It's not a major upset," Fussell said. "The state still has to meet the burden of the threshold for the evidence to be admitted and that's a bit of a difficult threshold in cases where there's not a lot of science backing the evidence they're trying to introduce."

 

[MAMABEAR]

Have sit here and read all the post here today--on this thread---I have cried and laughed out loud. Some of the thoughts I have had with all this is probably as "evil" as ICA is. I can see ICA and her mother as this comes to the Jury right before their eyes.

I want Linda to be the one to show this outline and I want the camera to be on ICA and hope the mother is right behind her---so we can see them both. I want to see the electricity run thru their bodies as they see the outline of lil Caylee's body. Let them holler--"Make them stop".

I am so evil cuz I wanna see the pain. They have to show something---we have had pain realizing a rotting baby Caylee lay dead in the trunk of ICA's trunk and sit here watching them lie like dogs.

I may get banned for this post---but it is how I feel.

 

[katydid23]

What am I not getting about this? If the Judge said the stain in the trunk evidence is in, why does the State now have to prove the burden?


Quote:
Originally Posted by cherishtoo
Judge rules stain in trunk will be in trial

Perry is still expected to hand down other rulings on several motions regarding numerous pieces of key evidence, including air samples from Casey's car, the presence of chloroform in the trunk and her alleged computer search for "how to make chloroform."

http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news...ll-be-in-trial

This article was updated Thursday, April 21, 2011 8:20 PM to add:

News 13's legal analyst David Fussell calls this ruling a "minor disappointment" for the defense.

"It's not a major upset," Fussell said. "The state still has to meet the burden of the threshold for the evidence to be admitted and that's a bit of a difficult threshold in cases where there's not a lot of science backing the evidence they're trying to introduce."

Don't they just have to show foundation and relevance? In other words they just have to show why that stain is important information pertaining to the case itself, and that it is important in building a foundation for their theory.

 

[Caligram]

I wonder if JB is seeing red and about to grab the bull by the horns....oh wait.....wrong kind of bull.

 

[Caligram]

Fussell (Who is he, anywho?) says "minor disappointment" ....I say "Major Meltdown" for JB/CM and a Huge Hissy Fit for ICA.

 

[beach]

What am I not getting about this? If the Judge said the stain in the trunk evidence is in, why does the State now have to prove the burden?


Quote:
Originally Posted by cherishtoo
Judge rules stain in trunk will be in trial

Perry is still expected to hand down other rulings on several motions regarding numerous pieces of key evidence, including air samples from Casey's car, the presence of chloroform in the trunk and her alleged computer search for "how to make chloroform."

http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news...ll-be-in-trial

This article was updated Thursday, April 21, 2011 8:20 PM to add:

News 13's legal analyst David Fussell calls this ruling a "minor disappointment" for the defense.

"It's not a major upset," Fussell said. "The state still has to meet the burden of the threshold for the evidence to be admitted and that's a bit of a difficult threshold in cases where there's not a lot of science backing the evidence they're trying to introduce."

Don't they just have to show foundation and relevance? In other words they just have to show why that stain is important information pertaining to the case itself, and that it is important in building a foundation for their theory.

Yes, they have to establish a "foundation". In the most basic terms, it means they have to offer evidence and a reasonable explanation (relevance) of why they believe Caylee was in the trunk. For example, a perfect one would be the hair with the death band (if allowed). Canine alerts should do it, too. There are probably several others that aren't jumping out at me at the moment.

I really don't think the prosecutors wil have any problem establishing a foundation to get the stain evidence admitted. The defense likes minimizing it as a "minor setback". okay...whatever brush they want to paint it with is fine by me.

ETA: I asked on the Verified Atty. thread more specifically what would be required to lay the foundation...[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6374506&postcount=1311"]AZ answered me here[/ame].

ETA2: [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6374688&postcount=1314"]Katprint's opinion[/ame] of the standard is a little different. I guess we will have to wait until trial to see exactly what Judge Perry wants. Either way, I still don't think establishing a foundation will be a problem.

 

[Baznme]

As far as I'm concerned the 31 days and the stain in the trunk is enough.

 

[azwriter]

OMG I can't believe I'm crying. Hubby says I am obsessed.

He's right. But there is nothing wrong in being obsessed when it come to justice for Caylee.
jmo

 

[azwriter]

As far as I'm concerned the 31 days and the stain in the trunk is enough.

And don't forget to add the only true state (IMO) that Cindy has said in this case: Smells like there's been a dead body in the dam car.
jmo