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

[ynotdivein]

So.... the defense motion is challenging the entire field of forensic botany if I am reading it right. In their argument:

- this is not a legitimate scientific area of expertise, and even if it is...
- Dr. Hall is only alleged to be some sort of botanist, and even if he is actually a "forensic botanist"...
- he can't even tell us how thick the plant roots growing through that baby's bones should have been IF those roots ever actually existed because...
- LE biffed it and destroyed all the evidence.

Given the extent of Hall's work, and his clear significance in this field, and the fact that he has trained FBI and other LE, the only question I have left is, has this kind of evidence been allowed in at trial before.

So I googled "botany used in court cases" and the second hit took me to this very interesting overview, authored by Jane H. Bock and David O. Norris, which the authors conclude with this information:

"Most forensic botanists act as private consultants in crime matters. To be accepted to testify in a court case, forensic botanists must demonstrate that they are qualified to be expert witnesses. Their suitability for such testimony is judged by their experiences and educational credentials." (Emphasis mine.)

Fascinating.

(ETA--logical, am glad you are feeling better by the minute!)

 

[sleutherontheside]

http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200705/profile.asp
Profile: Of Murder and Microscopes
How botanist Jane Bock became a crime fighter
by Michelle Nijhuis
May/June 2007

Bock, 70, has been solving crimes through the esoteric art of forensic botany for 20 years. She calls it "botanical science applied to the interests of justice." She began as a traditional field botanist, spending time outdoors "stump sitting," with mouth closed, notebook open, and mind on the diverse and complex natural world. Those years of patient observation have enabled her not only to link suspects with crime scenes but also to pinpoint the dates and times of violent deaths, identify the contents of victims' last meals, and help shake confessions from stubborn subjects.

Forensic botany is nothing new. Bock likes to point out that Plato recorded Socrates' symptoms of hemlock poisoning and that when Charles Lindbergh's infant son was kidnapped and killed in 1932, an investigator caught the culprit by matching wood from a ladder used in the crime to a particular lumberyard. But beginning with her first case, Bock added a new type of analysis to this old science.

After Bock gave a speech to an association of mystery writers, she enjoyed a moment of literary notoriety: Seeds of Doubt, a novel by Denver attorney and author Stephanie Kane, includes an ebullient, Bock-like forensic botanist named Flavia Hart, who uses clues from a blooming thicket of dogwoods to help pinpoint when a body was left at a crime scene. Bock, who is delighted by her cameo appearance, describes her fictional counterpart as a "pushy old broad."

 

[ZsaZsa]

So is all the prosecution going to have to do is present Dr. Hall's credentials and then it's motion denied? I don't think you can author as many books and articles as him and not know what you're talking about.

Now I have seen his credentials I understand why he did not reference any other authoritative source. That's because he WROTE them all.

 

[ZsaZsa]

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:

He is getting some help writing motions, that's for sure, but I keep expecting to see one titled 'Motion to exclude all conversations with the Big Bad Policemen'.

 

[sleutherontheside]

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.

BBM

I saw that too.

 

[faefrost]

So.... the defense motion is challenging the entire field of forensic botany if I am reading it right. In their argument:

- this is not a legitimate scientific area of expertise, and even if it is...
- Dr. Hall is only alleged to be some sort of botanist, and even if he is actually a "forensic botanist"...
- he can't even tell us how thick the plant roots growing through that baby's bones should have been IF those roots ever actually existed because...
- LE biffed it and destroyed all the evidence.

Given the extent of Hall's work, and his clear significance in this field, and the fact that he has trained FBI and other LE, the only question I have left is, has this kind of evidence been allowed in at trial before.

So I googled "botany used in court cases" and the second hit took me to this very interesting overview, authored by Jane H. Bock and David O. Norris, which the authors conclude with this information:

"Most forensic botanists act as private consultants in crime matters. To be accepted to testify in a court case, forensic botanists must demonstrate that they are qualified to be expert witnesses. Their suitability for such testimony is judged by their experiences and educational credentials." (Emphasis mine.)

Fascinating.

(ETA--logical, am glad you are feeling better by the minute!)

So let me see if I get this straight? They are questioning;

A. That Botany, one of the oldest fields of human scientific research and studies, is a legitimate science?
B. That an "alleged" botanist (Phd) probably would not be able to tell you how fast that plants grow?
C. That said alleged Botanist cannot differentiate between a "plant" and a "tree"?

On a positive note it still remains a much better written motion than anything else seen to date. Even including some referenced case law. granted said case law seems to have something to do with psychologists and child rapists and not alot to do with actual hard science such as botony, biology, DNA etc... but it's a start.

This one is gonna be sooo much fun to watch!

 

[denjet]

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.

Curious, huh? ... equally as questionable for me is what the motion claims Dr Hall said in response to the defenses questions at deposition ...
The defense makes it sound like Dr Hall doesn't know much and isn't sure about what he does know and besides never actually examined any of the evidence ... which I'm positive is not the case ...

As some of you have already said ... the cases the defense cites seem to deal with psychology, child abuse ... well not about scientific evidence pertaining to at least a similar field of expertise ... you know, relevant ... :waitasec:

 

[comomx3]

I'm thinking a motion to exclude evidence is standard practice? Yes? If not, it sure speaks a ton to the case Baez is putting together. As a completely non-lawyer type- I would want some things presented so that I could refute it if I had things to refute from experts.

 

[sleutherontheside]

http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/News-and-Views/Archives/1992/When-Scientists-Become-Sleuths.aspx



Hall visited the woods where the girl said she was raped. Three species on the blanket--beard grass, dog fennel and beak-rush--matched plants growing at the rape site. And their growth stage matched that of the site's plants on the date of the rape. Then Hall checked the suspect's lawn and the park where the man said he had used the blanket. The plant species found on the blanket did not match the park's or lawn's flora. "Beard grass, dog fennel, and beak-rush all need a wet habitat to thrive," says Hall. Neither the park nor lawn was watery. But the rape site was a wetland.


At the trial, in Orlando in 1983, the defendant's attorney asked Hall if the same species of weeds found at the rape site could not also have blown onto the lawn and park where the accused man said he used the blanket. "They could, but not enough of them to produce the thousands of pieces found on the blanket," Hall said. In addition, he testified, the growth stages of the plants on the blanket and at the rape site matched.


http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Jsv9ajJhEE4J:www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/products/d-%2Bw-%2Bhall/forensic%2Bbotany/8254133/+dwhall%40forensic-botany.com&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Forensic Botany: A Practical Guide - Essential Forensic Science
by D. W. Hall

Format: Paperback 256 pages

526 days until publication

 

[denjet]

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

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

Thank you, thank you !! :rocker:

 

[sleutherontheside]

http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=113453

to convict a suspect by placing him at the scene of the crime or by establishing that an object or a body has been moved. The forensic botanist looks for plant material evidence on pants cuffs and pockets


Me thinks that one of the reasons for JB wanting the Eik's to examine evidence is to see if the State found any trace botanical evidence on Caylee's shorts that would be subject to testing by D.W. Hall. JMO

 

[sleutherontheside]

Another hmmmmmmm

http://www.hartnell.edu/faculty/jhughey/Files/botanicalcontributions.pdf

Article co-authored by Henry C. Lee.....reference credit to D.W. Hall on page 6 of article. #10

 

[logicalgirl]

Curious, huh? ... equally as questionable for me is what the motion claims Dr Hall said in response to the defenses questions at deposition ...
The defense makes it sound like Dr Hall doesn't know much and isn't sure about what he does know and besides never actually examined any of the evidence ... which I'm positive is not the case ...

As some of you have already said ... the cases the defense cites seem to deal with psychology, child abuse ... well not about scientific evidence pertaining to at least a similar field of expertise ... you know, relevant ... :waitasec:

Denjet? Hello? Using relevant and defense in the same sentence????

 

[sleutherontheside]

http://www.customs.gov.bm/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_14599_765_231000_43/http%3B/ptpublisher.gov.bm%3B7087/publishedcontent/publish/dpp___2009/conference_08_presentation/dr_david_hall_presentation.pdf

Article by Hall

 

[MissJames]

http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200705/profile.asp
Profile: Of Murder and Microscopes
How botanist Jane Bock became a crime fighter
by Michelle Nijhuis
May/June 2007

Bock, 70, has been solving crimes through the esoteric art of forensic botany for 20 years. She calls it "botanical science applied to the interests of justice." She began as a traditional field botanist, spending time outdoors "stump sitting," with mouth closed, notebook open, and mind on the diverse and complex natural world. Those years of patient observation have enabled her not only to link suspects with crime scenes but also to pinpoint the dates and times of violent deaths, identify the contents of victims' last meals, and help shake confessions from stubborn subjects.

Forensic botany is nothing new. Bock likes to point out that Plato recorded Socrates' symptoms of hemlock poisoning and that when Charles Lindbergh's infant son was kidnapped and killed in 1932, an investigator caught the culprit by matching wood from a ladder used in the crime to a particular lumberyard. But beginning with her first case, Bock added a new type of analysis to this old science.

After Bock gave a speech to an association of mystery writers, she enjoyed a moment of literary notoriety: Seeds of Doubt, a novel by Denver attorney and author Stephanie Kane, includes an ebullient, Bock-like forensic botanist named Flavia Hart, who uses clues from a blooming thicket of dogwoods to help pinpoint when a body was left at a crime scene. Bock, who is delighted by her cameo appearance, describes her fictional counterpart as a "pushy old broad."

I don't suppose you have come across any evidence that Bock has ever testified or written any reports citing root growth as a timeline marker? :waitasec:
I would love to know what this crimefighter thinks of her client,ICA.

 

[Aedrys]

So.... the defense motion is challenging the entire field of forensic botany if I am reading it right. In their argument:

- this is not a legitimate scientific area of expertise, and even if it is...
- Dr. Hall is only alleged to be some sort of botanist, and even if he is actually a "forensic botanist"...
- he can't even tell us how thick the plant roots growing through that baby's bones should have been IF those roots ever actually existed because...
- LE biffed it and destroyed all the evidence.

Given the extent of Hall's work, and his clear significance in this field, and the fact that he has trained FBI and other LE, the only question I have left is, has this kind of evidence been allowed in at trial before.

So I googled "botany used in court cases" and the second hit took me to this very interesting overview, authored by Jane H. Bock and David O. Norris, which the authors conclude with this information:

"Most forensic botanists act as private consultants in crime matters. To be accepted to testify in a court case, forensic botanists must demonstrate that they are qualified to be expert witnesses. Their suitability for such testimony is judged by their experiences and educational credentials." (Emphasis mine.)

Fascinating.

(ETA--logical, am glad you are feeling better by the minute!)

ITA. That's Baez for you - he has to go big. Can't just discredit the botanist, oh no, have to discredit the entire dang field of Botany. But wouldn't that also discredit his own expert? There has to be a smarter way to go about this, but as usual, Baez can't see it. It's like there's this straight and narrow path Baez could be taking, but he keeps off roading into stupid territory! And good Lord what an ego, taking on the entire FIELD of botany. Who does he think he is?

Heh. There's this game called Deadly Premonition, and in it, there's this creepy rich guy in a wheelchair that has this helper guy that talks for him. And everytime the helper guy talks, he ends with, "so says Mr. Stewart." It's like he's giving the rich guy authority. I'm going to start doing that when I talk about Baez from now on since he thinks he's such an authority on everything. So the entire Field of Botany should be thrown out along with Dr. Hall, so says Mr. Baez.

 

[Numbers]

I don't suppose you have come across any evidence that Bock has ever testified or written any reports citing root growth as a timeline marker? :waitasec:
I would love to know what this crimefighter thinks of her client,ICA.

Have they ever met?

Without a meeting, it would remain merely an intellectual exercise for Bock.

 

[denjet]

Denjet? Hello? Using relevant and defense in the same sentence????

:doh: WHAT was I thinking? :slap:

 

[MissJames]

Have they ever met?

Without a meeting, it would remain merely an intellectual exercise for Bock.

I doubt if they've ever met,but I hope Dr. Bock knows something about the case.If she loves fighting crime,all she would need to know is "31 Days".
I realize I have a completely different perspective from those who defend people charged with killing their 2 year olds,but if I considered myself a "Crimefighter" who puts the bad people away with plant evidence,I would have a hard time getting past the 31 days. And the decomp in the car,the lies, the tattoo,etc.......

 

[okiedokietoo]

A "report" is a "report" is a "report" .....unless you "purport" that it is nothing more than an "addendum" of "sorts". Especially when dealing with the subject of "hort" (-iculture)
(or a casual video conversation with a guy named "Mort")

JMO

Thanks Muzikman for starting this thread and thanks sleutherontheside for another great summation