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

[drip~drop]

And just how was the state supposed to "preserve" the plant evidence? It is (was) a live plant and once uprooted cannot be expected to remain in the same condition for long. Even refrigeration wouldn't preserve a plant for a very long length of time, doing nothing would cause it to wither and die & freezing it would assure that it would shrink.

We plant extensively and ,lets say the squash....when it's done growing the stems begin to brown (die off) as that happens, the stems shrink.

~~~all that for free...no $3.00 required.:rocker:
imoo jmo jmho moo :cow:

 

[cecybeans]

What I find odd is that the defense cites a case in which child abuse was not recognized by a set of criteria that was not deemed scientific enough by the court to reach Frye thresholds for evidence.

That kind of case included behavioral science evidence (which is subject to many variables and interpretations), versus the evidence that Dr. Hall may or not be observing based on his experience.

One would think that the defense would have made a better point if they had chosen an example which involved something as quantifiable as root science. Comparing a physical/natural science case with a social science one just doesn't seem like comparing apples and apples to me. I think it waters down their argument and gives the prosecution ample room to list cases in which experts in his field might agree with his conclusions based on the physical evidence found. There might be different variables that affect plant growth, like weather, temp and so on, but the number of variables pale when compared with a case involving a complicated set of behaviors and a complicated psychological environment.

If they chose this example to telegraph something about an abusive environment being detectable, they may only be sending a message that environmental factors are not scientific enough to prove abuse (in case anyone wants to imply that KC was abusive based on various observable evidence), but I still don't see what it has to do with discrediting an opinion based on observing the physical environment of a remains site.

 

[Muzikman]

Interestingly enough...Dr. David W. Hall co-authored and article with Jane Bock regarding plant materials in solving crimes.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm and oooooops.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1311237

View attachment 13145

GREAT find, SOTS! Nice! Ooops is right. :great:

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

http://www.polfed.org/0206_p20_forensic_flowers.pdf

I found this to be interesting...a bit dated....but seems this ain't Dr. Halls first time at the rodeo...maybe not the circus that is JB and company....but I think he'll be able to hold his own in this case....IMO

 

[sleutherontheside]

A few things I noted while reading Jane Bock's "report"... Dated 9/28/10

She referenced plant growth variables including moisture, drought, soil chemicals (Nitrogen, potassium, calcium, herbicides), soil structure. Recalling fertilizer canisters being removed from Anthony home.

She observed photos from her first visit in February 2009....and states that she may have not been privy to all crime scene photos. Thus leaving room for an escape.

 

[sleutherontheside]

I took a look at the motions thread. WOW.... was there lots of activity immediately prior to, and after this report.

Hmmmmmmmmmm

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94377&page=4

 

[Itsy]

Interestingly enough...Dr. David W. Hall co-authored and article with Jane Bock regarding plant materials in solving crimes.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm and oooooops.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1311237

View attachment 13145

Snipped from the bottom left side of the first page of this article:

"David W. Hall is an extension botanist and an associate professor in the Dept. of Natural Sciences..."

I don't see "alleged" in front of his credentials... :snooty:
And this was written 20+ years ago, so I'd imagine his credentials are even more impressive at this time.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

As the case has gone on, I've printed out odds and ends of the discovery. Unfortunately, I didn't think to index it all. What I can say is that Hall did visit the site on December 15, 2008! His report is pp. 3810-12 in discovery.

One thing the defense does not address, and I've only given the motion a quick read, is that Hall also based his concludsions on the fact that the bones had to have been in a stable location for enough time for the bones to decompose to the point where the roots could begin to grow through them.

I'd go hunt it down, but I have an eyelid infection and have to limit my reading time.

I hope this helps.

 

[Intermezzo]

LOL, in the motion, Baez refers to him as an 'alleged biologist' and even Jane Boch calls him a Forensic Biologist in her REPORT.

It seems like Baez has something personal against almost everyone in this case the way he terms things. I sincerely doubt Dr. David W. Hall's credentials are in question, but let's refer to him as an alleged biologist. Lol, I can think of one person who is an allegedly something, though.

More on Dr. Hall:

http://www.ifri.fiu.edu/FBotanylecture.htm

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/bioassess/docs/plants/plant_id_tips_bcmtg_sept08.pdf

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&p...FpbnxuYXBsZXNmbnBzfGd4Ojc2NjA4NWQyOTU2NzFiM2M

http://www.myimagehosting.com/u/11850/9972/91564.pdf
This one is a good one. Quote:
"Dr. Hall has conducted forensic botany and other plant related training at Miami-Dade, the FBI Academy at Quantico, and throughout the United States."

Yeah, this guy sounds like a total goober, can't imagine why the State hired him. NOT.

Snipped from the bottom left side of the first page of this article:

"David W. Hall is an extension botanist and an associate professor in the Dept. of Natural Sciences..."

I don't see "alleged" in front of his credentials... :snooty:
And this was written 10+ years ago, so I'd imagine his credentials are even more impressive at this time.

bbm
Wonder how many people have referred to Baez as an "alleged" lawyer?
Just asking?:innocent:

 

[Itsy]

bbm
Wonder how many people have referred to Baez as an "alleged" lawyer?
Just asking?:innocent:

Depends on when they heard him speak or read a motion by him??

Sorry, lol...couldn't resist mods :truce:

 

[CarolinaMoon]

Found Hall's report! It's the first 3 pages here:

http://media.myfoxorlando.com/photogalleries/030509anthonydiscoverypages3802to3845/indexGallery.htm

 

[MissJames]

As the case has gone on, I've printed out odds and ends of the discovery. Unfortunately, I didn't think to index it all. What I can say is that Hall did visit the site on December 15, 2008! His report is pp. 3810-12 in discovery.

One thing the defense does not address, and I've only given the motion a quick read, is that Hall also based his concludsions on the fact that the bones had to have been in a stable location for enough time for the bones to decompose to the point where the roots could begin to grow through them.

I'd go hunt it down, but I have an eyelid infection and have to limit my reading time.

I hope this helps.

Ouch! Hope you feel better soon. :rose:
Does the defense not read the Discovery? Good Grief

 

[CarolinaMoon]

Ouch! Hope you feel better soon. :rose:
Does the defense not read the Discovery? Good Grief

Apparently Dr. Bock had it, but she didn't address the entire contents!

In addition, what little I've read of the motion mentions he only worked from pictures when he was in there right after LE finsihed with the site in 2008.

Repeating the link for the report (1st 3 pages)

http://media.myfoxorlando.com/photogalleries/030509anthonydiscoverypages3802to3845/indexGallery.htm

 

[sleutherontheside]

Dr. Hall states he worked from medical examiner photos.

 

[MissJames]

bbm
Wonder how many people have referred to Baez as an "alleged" lawyer?
Just asking?:innocent:

So if we were to start referring to JB as ALJB,that wouldn't really be name calling ,would it? :innocent:

OT please tell me there will be more repercussions for JB since he told the court there were NO REPORTS when obviously there was at least this one from JB.

 

[Ssejors]

LOL, in the motion, Baez refers to him as an 'alleged biologist' and even Jane Boch calls him a Forensic Biologist in her REPORT.

It seems like Baez has something personal against almost everyone in this case the way he terms things. I sincerely doubt Dr. David W. Hall's credentials are in question, but let's refer to him as an alleged biologist. Lol, I can think of one person who is an allegedly something, though.

More on Dr. Hall:

http://www.ifri.fiu.edu/FBotanylecture.htm

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/bioassess/docs/plants/plant_id_tips_bcmtg_sept08.pdf

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&p...FpbnxuYXBsZXNmbnBzfGd4Ojc2NjA4NWQyOTU2NzFiM2M

http://www.myimagehosting.com/u/11850/9972/91564.pdf
This one is a good one. Quote:
"Dr. Hall has conducted forensic botany and other plant related training at Miami-Dade, the FBI Academy at Quantico, and throughout the United States."

Yeah, this guy sounds like a total goober, can't imagine why the State hired him. NOT.

LOL!! The Goober seems to know his field!

Below BBM

"responsibilities have included teaching and the identification of all Florida plants. He has helped write the previous and current wetland jurisdictional rules for the State of Florida, and has assisted with the Federal wetland plant list and procedures.He has conducted numerous forensic botany, plant identification courses, seminars and workshops on botanical topics throughout the United States. Agencies requesting his expertise have included Federal, state and local governmental agencies, as well as several universities. He has accrued numerous awards for his agricultural and botanical research. Dr. Hall is listed from 1999 to 2008 in Who's Who in the World, and in the year 2000 he was named to the list of 2000 Outstanding Scientists of the 20th Century."

 

[sleutherontheside]

Additionally, Dr. Jane H. Bock

Jane Bock's research interests include the ecology and evolution of flowering plants in the Colorado Alpine and High Plains and similar areas elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere and the reproductive patterns of flowering plants. Her students work on the ecology and evolution of seed plants. The conservation and restoration of the western North American indigenous flora is a special concern.
http://www.janehbock.org/

 

[logicalgirl]

bbm
Wonder how many people have referred to Baez as an "alleged" lawyer?
Just asking?:innocent:

Quick Tricia, submit the WS Member list to this question please!

 

[logicalgirl]

LOL!! The Goober seems to know his field!

Below BBM

"responsibilities have included teaching and the identification of all Florida plants. He has helped write the previous and current wetland jurisdictional rules for the State of Florida, and has assisted with the Federal wetland plant list and procedures.He has conducted numerous forensic botany, plant identification courses, seminars and workshops on botanical topics throughout the United States. Agencies requesting his expertise have included Federal, state and local governmental agencies, as well as several universities. He has accrued numerous awards for his agricultural and botanical research. Dr. Hall is listed from 1999 to 2008 in Who's Who in the World, and in the year 2000 he was named to the list of 2000 Outstanding Scientists of the 20th Century."

Speaking of Goobers, every time you master-sleuths present posts with more information, and the posts are coming a mile a minute here, I'm just sitting here shaking my head at just how ridiculous Baez is with his motions - I mean this is just silly. And my head is about to fall off!:maddening:

 

[logicalgirl]

So he is saying in his report that he visited the crime scene in early December to study the ground, leaves, water levels, types of plants etc., then studied the medical examiners reports of the root development on the remains to say they had in his opinion been there for at least four months. And the leaves on top of the bags were clearly there from the early fall of 2008.

He also notes the lichen water marks on the trees and the standing water in puddles close to the remains, and the earth was primarily muck - that is water soaked.

I haven't seen what Dr. Jane Bock has to say - but just a quick guess is this one is a wrap.