Laura Babcock Murder Trial 11.28.17 - Day 23

[Velma]

Lisa Hepfner‏
@HefCHCHNews
2m2 minutes ago
More
One blue circle was already on a photo that Rufalo got after his first analysis of the photos, asking him to look again at a different area. He didn't interpret it at first because it he says it's too difficult to identify as bone. #LauraBabcock

Lisa Hepfner‏
@HefCHCHNews
1m1 minute ago
More
Rufalo can't say whether the image, in this location, shows one object or two or three fragments sitting on top of one another. This is a bone forensic anthropologist Tracy Rogers identified as likely human. #LauraBabcock

Lisa Hepfner‏
@HefCHCHNews
42s42 seconds ago
More
"The incineration device," #Millard calls the machine. This last section Rufalo says shows something that "may not be a bone," but it could also be several things piled on each other. Image is poor quality. #LauraBabcock

 

[loveisthemovement]

Can the Crown ask the witness if they are being paid to testify and if so, how much?

ETA: Can't wait for the cross!

 

[DeaconBrodie]

I think DM hunted down the one person in the world who would testify that these were Deer bones.
He likely inquired a few experts, and picked the one that gave him the answer he wanted and needed.
The $5-10K payment certainly helped.

That's the way the system works.

If the Crown expert witness shops they have to disclose every exert hey consulted.

If the defence witness shops they only have to disclose the report of the expert witness that they intend to call.

The advantage that the Crown has though is that they already have a stable of experts who know what side their bread is buttered on. Experts are li lawyers, they can effectively argue either side of an issue.

 

[deugirtni]

She is actually an expert in both animal and human.

Wasn't twisting also part of the heat application to the bone?

From November 14th:

Trehearne asking Rogers if she can talk about the specifics of the deer bone she pulled for comparison to a human bone. For the most part, Rogers says she can't, as she's not an expert in animal bones. For the most part, she determines whether or not bones are animal or human.
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
Adam Carter?Verified account @AdamCarterCBC

 

[andreww]

I realize this is an anti-Millard crowd but seriously, he's doing what any decent lawyer would do. The crown's witness testified that those were human bones. At the time I said it was BS science because the photos were just not detailed enough. The other evidence showed that they were likely human remains, so the expert wasn't exactly going out on a limb with her opinion. But really, if she had been provided just those pictures with no context, I don't think there is any way possible that she would have identified the remains as human. It was bad testimony and Millard is rightfully calling them on it.

 

[Busymom4]

IMO, it's not that this witness does not deserve our respect for his professional accomplishments in his field(s), but I'm finding it hard to follow this after already hearing from Dr. Rogers. No disrespect to Mr. Rufolo himself or to his career.

Absolutely, My question would be does, his opinion on deer bones change knowing the size of the incinerator, the temperature it is heated at and how bones human and animal react in that process? Every action has a reaction, so the incinerator is an important aspect of his opinion, or at least in my mind should be. In addition I am wondering how many deer in the month of July are hunted and left and in need of disposal/incineration....I hope this jury is thinking this through rationally!

 

[andreww]

Can the Crown ask the witness if they are being paid to testify and if so, how much?

ETA: Can't wait for the cross!

You don't think the crowns professional witnesses weren't getting paid?

 

[Velma]

Millard asks again, "Could either bone be a human bone?"

Rufolo answers, "They don't exhibit the features of a human skeleton."

Millard, "To be fair, it is a blurry image, can you be 100 per cent scientifically certain?"

Rufolo, says no not all.

Justice Code asks again, if he can be certain they are bone? Rufolo believes they are bone but says he cannot confirm the species of bone.

by Shannon Martin 11:26 AM

Lisa Hepfner‏
@HefCHCHNews
1m1 minute ago
More
Rufalo says he "can't be certain at all" from these images, whether the bones are human or animal. Certain features are more suggestive of deer bones, he says. #LauraBabock

Lisa Hepfner‏
@HefCHCHNews
34s34 seconds ago
More
With near certainty, he agrees the photo shows bone. He can't be sure what species the bone came from because of poor quality, Rufalo tells Justice Code. #LauraBabcock

 

[Night_is_Mine]

I realize this is an anti-Millard crowd but seriously, he's doing what any decent lawyer would do. The crown's witness testified that those were human bones. At the time I said it was BS science because the photos were just not detailed enough. The other evidence showed that they were likely human remains, so the expert wasn't exactly going out on a limb with her opinion. But really, if she had been provided just those pictures with no context, I don't think there is any way possible that she would have identified the remains as human. It was bad testimony and Millard is rightfully calling them on it.

Exactly. DM is doing good work

 

[Chelseab]

Let’s hope the Crown puts DM’s expert through the ringer. I would love to see DM’s 5-10K be a complete waste and in turn hurt his case. We can only hope this won’t sit well with at least a few of the jurors.

 

[Velma]

Rufolo says he read Dr. Tracy Rogers report on her analysis, he says it did not change his opinion.
by Shannon Martin 11:28 AM

Lisa Hepfner‏
@HefCHCHNews
1m1 minute ago
More
Rufalo has seen Tracy Rogers' report. It did not change his opinion, he says. #Millard brings up Rogers' photo of a human bone next to a deer bone. #LauraBabcock

Lisa Hepfner‏
@HefCHCHNews
27s27 seconds ago
More
Rufalo says the Rogers bone photo shows the proximal end of the deer radius, not the distal end of the radius, an error in her report, he says with confidence. #LauraBabcock

marianne boucher‏
@CityCourtsTO
26s26 seconds ago
More
Millard asks if the Dr can be 100 percent certain it's deer bone.
He says no, one can't be certain, but more suggestive of a deer.

 

[Busymom4]

Well, he may be creating doubt about the bones....that is his job, I wonder how he will explain away the letters he wrote though.....

 

[Inspector_North]

So street lingo for deer is "girl"?

 

[Jealoushe]

From November 14th:

Trehearne asking Rogers if she can talk about the specifics of the deer bone she pulled for comparison to a human bone. For the most part, Rogers says she can't, as she's not an expert in animal bones. For the most part, she determines whether or not bones are animal or human.
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
Adam Carter?Verified account @AdamCarterCBC

Oh thanks...I guess she was an expert at knowing they were not animals bones.

 

[kaRN]

Lisa Hepfner‏
@HefCHCHNews
29s29 seconds ago
More
Appears to be two long bones on one of the tubes, possibly a radius and ulna, but not positive to state positively, because of glare from the blaze. It could also be ribs, he says. #LauraBabcock

Lisa Hepfner‏
@HefCHCHNews
10s10 seconds ago
More
It's the morphology, or shape of the bone that helps archaeologists determine whether a bone is human or not. Especially the end of the bone. #LauraBabcock

Only the human animal has radius and ulna bones. His expert agrees they're human???? Lol

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

 

[DeaconBrodie]

Can the Crown ask the witness if they are being paid to testify and if so, how much?

ETA: Can't wait for the cross!

That' is not relevant unless you're attacking the expert's credibility which would be very rare.

You attack their findings, not their credibility.

 

[Nosey Parker]

Well, he may be creating doubt about the bones....that is his job, I wonder how he will explain away the letters he wrote though.....

He didn't know what he was writing due to sleep deprivation??

 

[Night_is_Mine]

I like how DM is making sure the expert says he's not 100% sure it's deer bone. That it could be human. That way he doesn't come across as paid off . Smart man.

 

[Velma]

I realize this is an anti-Millard crowd but seriously, he's doing what any decent lawyer would do. The crown's witness testified that those were human bones. At the time I said it was BS science because the photos were just not detailed enough. The other evidence showed that they were likely human remains, so the expert wasn't exactly going out on a limb with her opinion. But really, if she had been provided just those pictures with no context, I don't think there is any way possible that she would have identified the remains as human. It was bad testimony and Millard is rightfully calling them on it.

I get what you're saying and why DM is calling this witness, but IMO it wasn't "bad" testimony. I can't forget that Dr. Rogers was inside of the incinerator for many hours and IMO has an advantage from having personally combed through the 'scene' of where the bones lay (even if these bones were not there at the time).

 

[Satchie]

It could be argued that Dr. Rogers has a bit of a bias too however. She had additional knowledge as to the use of the incinerator. And the argument that Dr. Rufolo sees animal bones all day so of course he'll see animal bones here - well, the same could be said of Dr. Rogers about human bones.

Just trying to be fair to the experts.

I agree, they are experts in different fields, and both agree the photo is very poor, and neither are saying definitively what was in the incinerator. Dr. Rodgers said "They appear to be human bones."

Scientists are quite accustomed to respectfully disagreeing with each other, they don't get offended and snarky when another professional offers a different opinion.