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

[mitzi]

I took note that NP seemed to "distance himself" from a fellow "expert Adina Schwartz who purported that she is a toolmark expert.

Adina Schwartz was a defense expert in the Gary Michael Hilton case in Tallahassee. She was basically exposed as a "non expert" that claims to have epert knowledge of toolmark evidence.

She didn't even bother to come for trial but rather did a Skype depo that was played at Hilton's trial.

Wasn't there a Schwartz that the defense decided not to use???

http://www.bulletpath.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Affidavit-NicholasPetracoCVSchwartz.pdf

Maybe it was a Scheck or Sheck??

Anyway....NP seemed rather concerned with being associated with Schwartz. Perhaps he retains a level of integrity that would not have served ICA well??

Just a thought.

Bold mine.

SOTS, I think it was something like Sheckter. :waitasec:

 

[txsvicki]

Even if the science is not fool proof, what are the odds that:

there was a decaying odor coming from the car
dogs detected scent of human decomposition
many people commented on the scent being "like a dead body"
there was a stain that wasn't there before but now is and looks like a toddler laying on one side
the car was abandoned by the owner
scientific instruments confirm decompositional componients in the "air" of the trunk
there was a hair that had marking indicating it came from a dead body

and and and..... alas, we find that the owner of the car is the mother of a dead little girl

This would all be more important if Caylee was not found... but she WAS! So this is just the sprinkles on the nuts in the big bowl of icecream I like to call KC's conviction.

Then there's the previous computer searches for shovel, weapons from household items, neck breaking, chloroform, and missing children. Chloroform computer search then a dead child's hair turns up in the trunk along with detection of chloroform and decomp in the trunk air, but the child is missing for awhile.

 

[katydid23]

First, it is funny to see that the judge really does not see Casey as guilty, in the way that he gathers information. I do not have the ability to explain that any better right now. But, I can "get" that.

You know when are playing a game with a child and you let them win, so they will feel good about themselves? (Wouldn't do it all the time, kids need to learn how to lose too...) I can say, as a person observing that Casey is getting a very fair trial. I do think the judge is getting things ready for the jury. It is his job to instruct and guide them, yes? (I could be VERY wrong, my info is old and from television. Shame)
I get the feeling the judge does not want the defense to have any disadvantage, and that is okay with me. I feel like even giving the defense what they "want" has not stopped what is "right" and none of this really begins till that jury hears what they will hear. HHJP, is setting the table for his guests-he does not have to find whether or not Casey is guilty, right? He just has to make sure the law was followed? Excuse me for my "court trial 101" questions. TIA
:twocents:

First of all I want to thank you for transcribing that fascinating exchange upthread. My jaw was on the floor when I was watching that portion of the hearing but it was going by so fast I could barely get it all. Even written out it is not clear because there were so many issues being thrown out so fast. So thank you. I cannot wait until a few of our experienced law experts weigh in on it.

I totally agree with your description of the way the judge is trying to even up the match between the two teams. I can relate to his position. My kids are 4 years apart and my son, the oldest used to love to play board games. He is very serious and analytical. His little sister, not so much. He used to get mad at me for helping her when they played Monopoly or Clue. Without my intervention she would have lost every game by a landslide,not that she really cared. But I would make sure and explain to him that it was better for him to win by playing fair, and being honest, than by taking advantage of being older and 'smarter' just because of his age. Eventually he got that and he would try and tutor her himself and he learned to appreciate that aspect of the game, not just the win/lose. My point is that this judge has to keep it a fair playing field because it is in fact a Death Penalty case. Although I have no respect for Casey Anthony, I DO have respect for our justice system. And if the impartial judge sees and is aware that there is a huge imbalance between the two teams then he has to try and level the playing field when he can. If Baez is about to walk off a cliff then it is fine with me if the judge points out the warning sign to him. That way, when the prosecution wins this case, it will not be overturned and declared unfair. IMO