First let me say, I love new technology, chances are slim this website would exist without it. New technology rocks. This site isn't about technology...it's about discussion. Internet technology is an entirely different animal.
Since the use of an air sample in the courtroom is unprecedented, at least to my limited knowledge, I am fairly sure Judge P will grant the defense a Frye hearing should they ask. I expect that to be the case.
I have heard that JA prosecuted and won a murder case, in which DNA was used for the first time for a murder case in Florida. I do not doubt this. I have a couple of quick questions about this fact though. One, was this the first murder case in the U. S. that had used DNA? Two, was there other cases (rape, assault, paternity etc), in which DNA was used previous to JA using DNA in his murder case? If DNA had been used in other states for murder cases, or if DNA had been used in criminal cases that were not for murder, before JA used DNA in his Florida murder case, then the precedent had already been set. Although it is impressive that JA was able to get the DNA in for the first time in a Florida murder case, I doubt that it was the first case using DNA ever anywhere in the U.S. Well, there's a first time for everything.....and if not prior to this case...then perhaps it will be due to this case.
In regards to the air sample; I do not think there has been any precedent set anywhere yet. If there has not been any cases ever, where an air sample has been used, I do not think the best place to try a totally untested (in the courtroom) procedure is a high profile case like this one. The Frye hearing will determine that right? I do think in the early days of DNA there were many appeals granted simply because DNA was new. I simply do not think a situation where a persons life hangs in the balance is an ideal testing ground for the legality of new technology. If "new" technology is to be used then that should be determined based upon evidence presented during the Frye hearing, and not becasue of any implied or assumed "celebrity"status of the client as that would demonstrate a bias.. Yes, there has to be a first time for it, I just do not think Judge P. will think this is the right case for a test. I think this because Judge P has had only a couple of appeals granted in the numerous cases he has presided over the years. And his records stand...based upon his actions as a Judge....and not the opinion of others right?
I think that even if the air sample is allowed in, that LKB will be able to dispute the findings so strongly that the jury will have reasonable doubt about the results of the air sample testing. There is room for rhetoric from both sides. I do not know if the entomologist reports will be addressed at the Frye hearing, but if they are brought into court, I think LKB will also be able to dispute the findings so strongly that the jury will have reasonable doubt about the results. In other words, I think the Adipocere-like substance is not Adipocere, the butyric acid found its way to the carpet from a decomp event from something other than human origin, the chloroform found was in amounts way too high to be from a decomposing body, and the single hair with decomp, well, from the thesis by the student who did his testing at one of the body farms, the death ring (band) did not form on any of his test subjects hair for a minimum of 89 days after death. Where there is ying...there is yang and neither side should be discounted. Which if LKB is successful in raising doubt to each of these, and the simple fact that there was no substantial human decomposition in the trunk at all, that will leave the prosecution with only the infamous odor. How difficult will it be for LKB to raise doubts about the odor, when there was only a trace of possible human decomp in the trunk, and there was a white garbage bag filled with maggots eating something that was decomposing. How big of a leap would it be for the jury to make to think that the odor everyone smelled was coming from the garbage bag, rather than from the traces of possible decomp, especially if LKB had already have brought reasonable doubt to those items? How big a leap will it be to discount both Cindy and George in their specific (excited utterance) description of decompositional odor???
I know I have not read about, or heard about every single case in America, that is not possible even with todays modern technology. But, I have never, ever heard of anyone being convicted of premeditated murder because someone, or several someones thought they smelled a decomposing body. If a Frye hearing is to try to introduce unprecedented methods for use in court, will GA, CA, LA, SB, YM, etc all have their noses tested at a Frye hearing to see if what they thought they smelled was can be admitted as evidence? It's all about interpretation.
I believe at one point early on, the SA believed Caylee had been in that trunk. I believe LE thoroughly investigated that possibility. I believe after the investigation into the trunk had been completed that the SA has come to the conclusion that Caylee had not been in the trunk, and I believe this because JA made no mention of the trunk when he gave his powerful scenario depicting the use of duct tape during the DP hearing. I believe it is media frenzy that is making such a big deal out of the smell of death, and downplaying the white trash bag. Based upon Andrea's selective soundbites in which to focus upon or her actual examination of evidence released thus far? I do not think the prosecution is going to bring the trunk into the trial. Based upon.........?So, when, at trial JA or LDB brings the trunk in at trial, I will be eating a big serving of humble pie LOL. All of the above is just speculation or opinion of what I think may happen at the Frye hearing, if there is one, and or what may happen at trial
