2010.11.29 Hearing: RE: Defense Won't Have Hair Expert @ Trial

[Itsy]

http://www.wftv.com/news/20723700/detail.html

Padilla, Bodyguards Tell All In Newly Released Interviews
Posted: 9:19 am EDT September 4, 2009

excerpt

"Casey had an even colder reaction to the finding that hair consistent with hers and Caylee's came from a dead body."

"She goes, 'Well, I'm alive,'" McLaughlin told investigators."

[NOTE: Tracy McL is not on either the State nor Defense Witness List, and neither is L. Padilla or Rob D.]

Hmmm, if Tracy M. is not on either side's list as a witness, will Casey's statement to her be allowed to come in at trial? I hope so, but am concerned that maybe it won't be.

 

[strach304]

I really don't understand why the state won't be using Rob Dick or Tracy M. They heard quite a bit of interesting info.

 

[Itsy]

Maybe it's considered hearsay? That would answer both of our questions. I know there's been talk about this here, but am too tired to remember details or to search for threads/posts...sorry, lol...6am is not far off!

fftobed:

 

[RR0004]

and to think...it only took 1 hair.

...which leads me back to thinking how well the As cleaned that trunk.

 

[Caligram]

Reminds me... did LE find any evidence in the vacuum cleaners taken from the Anthony's - or was GA actually smart enough to dispose of the one CA used to clean out the car and trunk.

 

[krisskross]

I really don't understand why the state won't be using Rob Dick or Tracy M. They heard quite a bit of interesting info.

They work for Leonard Padilla........ enough said. :floorlaugh:

Padilla, Rob Dick and Tracy injected themselves into this case. And ultimately they have little of evidentiary value to offer about the circumstances surrounding Caylee's death. Tracy might be seen like her boss, a bit of a loose cannon. Remember Padilla's daisy chain theory. :floorlaugh: The guy is tainted due to his ridiculous theories and media appearances. Tracy wrote to ICA and sent money to the jail. She also passed info about Roy Kronk to Cindy Anthony.

I dont think the State want Padilla or his peeps anywhere near this trial.

Wise decision imo

 

[LolaMoon08]

I really don't understand why the state won't be using Rob Dick or Tracy M. They heard quite a bit of interesting info.

I think it has a lot to do with the contract they signed with JB. I don't remember all the details, but I believe it was basically them not being able to talk to Casey and they were basically working for the defense? It was something like that?

Yes, their account of the events that happened in that house with Casey are interesting, but I don't think they are needed. We have Tim Miller! :great:

 

[Tulessa]

Thank g-d for small favors!

Priceless!! :floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[Anais]

http://www.wftv.com/news/20723700/detail.html

Padilla, Bodyguards Tell All In Newly Released Interviews
Posted: 9:19 am EDT September 4, 2009

excerpt

"Casey had an even colder reaction to the finding that hair consistent with hers and Caylee's came from a dead body."

"She goes, 'Well, I'm alive,'" McLaughlin told investigators."

[NOTE: Tracy McL is not on either the State nor Defense Witness List, and neither is L. Padilla or Rob D.]

That made the hairs on my neck stand up and sent a chill down my spine. I wonder if the SA will bring in the fact that the A's had thoroughly cleaned that car and tampered with evidence?

 

[SunnyinMO]

Hmmm, if Tracy M. is not on either side's list as a witness, will Casey's statement to her be allowed to come in at trial? I hope so, but am concerned that maybe it won't be.

I am not an attorney, but I think if Tracy doesn't testify regarding these statments, they would not be allowed, as they would be hearsay...IMO
IIRC she refused to talk to the LE for a while, got an attorney and I believe she was given use immunity for her depo. She also sent KC money in jail..this leads me to believe she did something she shouldn't have. JMO of course

 

[Jomo]

Here is an interesting and informative take on the motion.
Posted on March 17, 2011 by Valhall


http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2011/03/17/caylee-anthony-case-ashton-responds-in-a-hairy-argument/

 

[faefrost]

I understand that the defense has to vigorously challenge the evidence. But at what point does chasing some of these windmills pass the point of "vigorous defense" and enter into the realm of busywork or just plain old insanity.

The hair is a great example of this. JB focused on the hair from very early on, and has long made deep elaborate plans to fight against it. But somewhere in that intervening time it became a lot less important. The hair evidence was initially critical in proving that Caylee was not simply kidnapped, but was deceased. It was largely based on the hair that the initial Murder arrest occurred. But it became a much less critical piece of evidence once the childs remains were found. It is no longer a determining piece of evidence that a murder or death occurred. Now it is simply an indicator that the vehicle in question was tied to the body. Now that still makes it a strong piece of evidence. But lets be honest, there is no amount of scientific verbal hocus pocus that is going to get the car out of this equation at this point. Too much revolves around it. from too many different evidentiary fronts. Yeah you can challenge the hair, and two years ago that may have been enough to get murder off the table, but not now. Now you are fighting so much involving the car. You have the hair, the fluid, the forensic air tests, the dog hits, the LE witness reports of the smell, the independent or even hostile family reports of the smell, the tow guys reports of the smell, the overall circumstances involving the vehicle and how it started the whole investigation, the list goes on and on. I mean what at the end of the day is the defense expectations concerning some of the evidence challenges?

 

[AZlawyer]

Regarding JB's questioning of the states submitting of the New York hair banding Frye decision, Is already argued case law considered evidence or subject to cross examination? JB is objecting because he can not cross examine any witnesses from that case, but is that how it works? I thought that once a case is adjudicated and an order or ruling made public it was fair game to reference so long as it is properly cited? I didn't think that discovery, evidentiary or witness testimony rules applied to prior court decisions in that way? Am I missing something major there?

I don't JB was complaining about the State referencing a prior court decision; I think he was complaining about the State relying directly on the evidence (deposition transcript?) that was submitted to that other court. Essentially, the state was trying to introduce witness testimony through a deposition transcript taken in another case? If that's what was happening, I would have made the same objection.

I didn't watch the hearing, only followed along on the thread, so I hope I got that right.

 

[okiedokietoo]

This is the case the State was referring to:

Quote:The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff,
v
John Kogut, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Nassau County, September 19, 2005

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york...005-25410.html

re: Petraco and "postmortem hair banding"

 

[Novice Seeker]

Great. Thank you for sniffing around. Here is another question, correct me if I am wrong here.

From what i gathered from listening to the exchange between Baez and the judge, the DT originally hired this expert, but are not going to use his expertise in the trial. However, now the prosecution has asked the court to allow THEM to use this expert for their case. And it seemed like the judge was TRYING to give Baez some help in leading him to the proper way to make valid objections to prevent the state from using the expert. Is that correct?

That's the jest of the discussion I got to. What had me stumped was why HHJP asked JA WHY he had not spoke to this expert. JA explained, at least twice, that he couldn't because this expert had been retained by Baez and therefor JA was prohibited from pursuing it.

IIRC, this issue was brought up because Baez had filed a motion to have the PM banding thrown out because he claims that the prosecutor's expert witness for this matter is stating opinion AND there were no other experts that could support the experts opinion about the PM.

JA rebutted and said not true judge. JA explained to the court that one of Baez's own experts could validate this finding but had decided they weren't going to use him although Baez never submitted any report/finding/opinion from this expert. And, JA informed the judge that his hands were tied and couldn't reach out to this expert because Baez would not play nice(my words)

So, JP confronts Baez who starts ducking, accusing, hallucinating ie. pink elephants, lecturing the judge and Mason's hearing becomes worse and starts talking about escalators.

Finally, after JP is able to determine that Baez has no intention of putting this expert on the stand, JP informs the court that he will review the New York case laws involved with this expert's testimony and make his decision about the PM hair banding.

 

[ynotdivein]

Bumping this thread for WSers who want to continue the discussion of Mr. Petraco's role, after the 4/6/11 hearings...

 

[Just Jayla]

I really don't understand why the state won't be using Rob Dick or Tracy M. They heard quite a bit of interesting info.

Don't know about Rob and I am not sure he he can offer anything about Caylee that is first hand knowledge anyway-he can surely testify to KC's character, however.
TM would not be helpful to the state, IMO-She has been keeping in contact with KC and that might be something the defense could use against her, ie., does she keep contacting KC for publicity?

 

[Softail]

Bumping this thread for WSers who want to continue the discussion of Mr. Petraco's role, after the 4/6/11 hearings...

Thank you for bumping. I was a little lost on this yesterday.

 

[strawberry]

Thank you for bumping this; I had no idea what was going on. So this was the hair expert the dt decided not to use, then the State added him to their list? That's what the DT is objecting to? LOLOLOL

ETA: Or are they just objecting to the State referencing him in their pleading?

 

[ynotdivein]

I *think* that what happened was this:

1. The defense hired Petraco, who tested the hair and then never provided a report to them (bc IMO he decided that yes it is PM hair banding).
2. The defense did not include him on their wit list, because his testimony would tend to make KC look guilty.
3. Because he's hired by the DT, the SA can't depo him unless he is added to their witness list (insert image of gleeful DT here).
4. The SA wishes to rely on work that Petraco did in a NY case and apply it here.
5. The DT is absolutely against this door being opened into Petraco's work and findings, but wasn't quite sure on the spot yesterday how they could stop it if CJBP allows it.

I was fuzzy on it too and maybe someone will swoop by and cleanup what I'm misunderstanding, but that was the jist of it.

We all noted the obvious consternation caused on the DT side when CJBP was probing how they would react if he allowed this expert to be brought into the case. Much standing, conferring, etc. They did. not. like. the idea one little bit.