2010.12.30 Motion to Exclude Unreliable Evidence (Plant or Root Growth)

Muzikman · Jan 7, 2011

This motion definitely needs some discussion and research. The defense is claiming that Dr. Hall doesn't know what he's talking about, based on answers during his depo.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/6872657...e-Unreliable-Evidence-of-Plant-or-Root-Growth

MM

faefrost · Jan 7, 2011

That's actually a surprisingly well written and interesting motion for this bunch. Have we seen Dr. Halls actual depositions or reports yet?

sleutherontheside · Jan 7, 2011

Is that because his answers given during his deposition were not understood?

I'll have to read the motion because off the top of my head, my first thought is......he must have failed to give them helpful information.

sleutherontheside · Jan 7, 2011

I find it very suspect that some of the Frye references in this motion refer to sex offenders and child abuse within the home environment.

WTH does that have to do with plant growth?? pg 5 at link listed.

Very shady. I doubt this possible attempt at slipping in info will go unnoticed.

strawberry · Jan 7, 2011

faefrost said:
That's actually a surprisingly well written and interesting motion for this bunch. Have we seen Dr. Halls actual depositions or reports yet?

I'm thinking it's the work of what's her name..the one without a TV? Or is she just for medical experts?

Muzikman · Jan 7, 2011

faefrost said:
That's actually a surprisingly well written and interesting motion for this bunch. Have we seen Dr. Halls actual depositions or reports yet?

I thought so too. Must have been written by... someone else. :innocent:

We haven't seen Hall's depo for the defense, but I would LOVE to, in order to see what they LEFT OUT of this motion. :seeya:

sleutherontheside · Jan 7, 2011

Also note that the letter from Jane Bock dated in September CLEARLY indicates it is a REPORT!!!!!!!!!!

countzero · Jan 7, 2011

I agree. Did JB and crew do a cut and paste on some of those 20 some motions filed because I felt while reading the beginning of this motion, I had read it last week. I was thinking maybe the title was wrong until I got to the substance of the motion. By the way, did JB take liberty again by stating that Dr Hall didn't examine Caylee's remain site but came to his conclusions by way of photos in this motion. Because the attachment letter says Dr Hall was on site Dec 15, 08.

Aedrys · Jan 7, 2011

Huh. Is anyone else besides me nervous about Dr. Hall now? After reading this motion, it seems like he's not going to be a very good expert witness, unless I'm missing something.

The other thing I noticed is the the defense never says his conclusions are flat out wrong, just that they are unreliable. So does that mean they're right but should be thrown out because of the way they were obtained?

Someone please reassure me. I am very alarmed after reading this motion, and that never happens when I read a defense motion.

Oh, and I noticed the dig at LE in there. The motion was pretty darn good until he did that. Sheesh, Baez, do all of your motions have to have whining in them?

JSR · Jan 7, 2011

Yeah JB didn't write this motion.

Marshmallow · Jan 7, 2011

this motion doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. It's put together with things that really don't even apply. I'm not concerned at this point.

Muzikman · Jan 7, 2011

Aedrys said:
Huh. Is anyone else besides me nervous about Dr. Hall now? After reading this motion, it seems like he's not going to be a very good expert witness, unless I'm missing something.

The other thing I noticed is the the defense never says his conclusions are flat out wrong, just that they are unreliable. So does that mean they're right but should be thrown out because of the way they were obtained?

Someone please reassure me. I am very alarmed after reading this motion, and that never happens when I read a defense motion.

Oh, and I noticed the dig at LE in there. The motion was pretty darn good until he did that. Sheesh, Baez, do all of your motions have to have whining in them?

Just remember, it came from the defense, so it is EXTREMELY slanted.

And we all know their propensity for leaving VITAL information out of motions.

Can't WAIT to see the State's response!! :woohoo:

Yeah, I noticed the major attempt to discredit LE too. Hope Ashton responds to that! heh
MM

LC446 · Jan 7, 2011

Aedrys said:
Huh. Is anyone else besides me nervous about Dr. Hall now? After reading this motion, it seems like he's not going to be a very good expert witness, unless I'm missing something.

The other thing I noticed is the the defense never says his conclusions are flat out wrong, just that they are unreliable. So does that mean they're right but should be thrown out because of the way they were obtained?

Someone please reassure me. I am very alarmed after reading this motion, and that never happens when I read a defense motion.

Oh, and I noticed the dig at LE in there. The motion was pretty darn good until he did that. Sheesh, Baez, do all of your motions have to have whining in them?

After reading that I was a little concerned too. Then I remembered the recent hearing and that JB is not above embellishing or putting his own slant on things. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if some of those quotes that he put in the motion are taken out of context. We shall see...

Aedrys · Jan 7, 2011

LC446 said:
After reading that I was a little concerned too. Then I remembered the recent hearing and that JB is not above embellishing or putting his own slant on things. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if some of those quotes that he put in the motion are taken out of context. We shall see...

Yeah, for a moment I was like, the hell, why would the state want an expert who didn't base his conclusions on any methodology but his own that he knew since he was 11? But then after a bit I realized this is a defense motion, so they must have left a lot of things out, I'm sure. What they are saying is just not adding up for me. It doesn't sound right even if they finally got someone competent to write their motions now. I think that's what happened. I was momentarily blinded by a really well written motion by the defense. That's dang near apocalypse inducing, you know? My brain couldn't handle it, LOL. The state's response to this will definitely be interesting.

Lanie · Jan 7, 2011

Well, if this is the Dr. Hall they are referring to:

http://www.spoke.com/info/pEl2iO9/DavidHall

then I'm not too worried.

I will give kudos to the defense, however, for what I considered a well-written motion with actual relevant case law. I could have done without the sniping in it, but I figure baby steps are still steps.

nums24 · Jan 7, 2011

I can not find any reports related to Dr. Hall, I've found this motion for sanctions that JB filed for evidence collected when Henry Lee examined the car:

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/03/04/sanctions.pdf

ETA: Here is the file which contains the discovery pages JB cited in the above motion, the page numbers are written in bottom right corner:

http://www.wftv.com/news/18530350/detail.html

logicalgirl · Jan 7, 2011

sleutherontheside said:
Also note that the letter from Jane Bock dated in September CLEARLY indicates it is a REPORT!!!!!!!!!!

So this was what Mr. Ashton was so "hot" about!!

ynotdivein · Jan 7, 2011

Lanie said:
Well, if this is the Dr. Hall they are referring to:

http://www.spoke.com/info/pEl2iO9/DavidHall

then I'm not too worried.

I will give kudos to the defense, however, for what I considered a well-written motion with actual relevant case law. I could have done without the sniping in it, but I figure baby steps are still steps.

From the link (thanks, Lanie! :seeya

"David W. Hall, Ph.D., Forensic Botanist David W. Hall, Ph.D., holds a Ph.D. in Systematic Botany from the University of Florida. He has a Master of Science Degree also in Systematic Botany from Georgia Southern University, Bachelor of Science in Biology. He has founded an environmental and forensic consulting firm headquartered in Gainesville, Florida, where he specializes in forensics and plant identification. He is the author of ten published books with several more in preparation, and the author of over 135 articles."

sleutherontheside · Jan 7, 2011

logicalgirl said:
So this was what Mr. Ashton was so "hot" about!!

Indeed it seems to have been a catalyst for the sanctions motion. I can't remember the term JB used....claiming it was not a report.

Not only does she use the term "report" in addressing it to JB but she also uses the term "report" in the first few sentences. One can not call a "report" by any other name unless "report" is left to interpretation by the reader.

KWIM???

I suspect that is where the term "willful" came into play.

logicalgirl · Jan 7, 2011

Muzikman said:
This motion definitely needs some discussion and research. The defense is claiming that Dr. Hall doesn't know what he's talking about, based on answers during his depo.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/6872657...e-Unreliable-Evidence-of-Plant-or-Root-Growth

MM

Thanks for starting this thread Muzikman. I just read the title of this motion and had instant heartburn and a headache.

I will be on pins and needles throughout the thread until this motion is heard.

ps: no way jose wrote this!

2010.12.30 Motion to Exclude Unreliable Evidence (Plant or Root Growth)

ROCKIN!

New Member

Retired WS Staff

Retired WS Staff

Well-Known Member

ROCKIN!

Retired WS Staff

self timeout

If justice doesn't get you, karma will.

Active Member

Active Member

ROCKIN!

Member

If justice doesn't get you, karma will.

Well-Known Member

Praying for Justice!

Peace Hawk

Retired WS Staff

Retired WS Staff

Peace Hawk

Similar threads

Online statistics

Forum statistics

We value your privacy