2011.01.06 Baez Slapped with Formal Sanction

[drip~drop]

Dr. Lee on Nancy Grace, November 17, 2008.

GRACE: I know. I`ve been missing you, Dr. Lee. It`s nice to hear your voice. So did the car still stink to high heaven when you examined it?

LEE: Yes, when I examine the car, it still have the odor.

GRACE: Now, Dr. Lee, your testimony has been extremely impressive in the past. No one will ever forget the various demonstrations that you have done in high-profile court cases. When you say it smelled, is it true the car smells of decomposition?

LEE: The smell -- actually, it`s a rotten smell. It`s caused by any type of decomposition. The definition of decomposition, anything. It can be any food material. Can be human body. Can be any type of thing, decomposition. So the terms decomposed, human body odor, I don`t think any scientist can qualify to say -- just smell the odor, say that`s a human body.

GRACE: Well, Dr. Henry Lee -- everyone, with us, he is on the Anthony defense team -- I know that you have the highest regard for the Oak Ridge Laboratories in Tennessee. I trained there myself for a period of time. According to them, and their -- their specialty unit, the "body farm," there was evidence of human decomposition. Would that be consistent with the smell that you smelled, Dr. Henry Lee?

LEE: Here, that`s -- you know, I`m a scientist. I only can address some scientific issue. I cannot speculate. Decomposition, because the trunk -- don`t forget, I looked at not only the car. Also looked at the liner, the carpet. Also looked at the content of the material. And I don`t know anybody informed me or not -- there are a lot of garbage was collected. A lot of material was collected from the trunk.

GRACE: Like what?

LEE: Like what? Like food, like meat, like pizza box, like cheese, like ham, box (ph) of soda, and all different material in there. So basically, a lot of maggots and a lot of insects, all kind of material mixed together. So I cannot really elaborate too much on what I found because this is an active case. I cannot really reach a conclusion at this moment.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0811/17/ng.01.html


Page 36...Dr. Lee's inspection of Sunfire..

ONE HAIR FOUND
article 4 #H66336

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3715615/CASEY_ANTHONY_FORENSIC_FILES-PART_002_JANUARY_21_09

On same page. CSI Bloise found 3 more H-66337
1 Hair from sprite soda can...2 hairs from coca cola can

on next page, CSI Bloise found more...

So, Dr. Lee truthfully found 1 hair and CSI Bloise found the others...boy can they stretch the truth...JMHO

Justice for Caylee

Is Lee now saying there was meat, ham and cheese in the trunk.
And soda can smell like decomp? huh?:waitasec: oy.

:cow:moo

 

[Aedrys]

It is going to be interesting to see if Casey is ordered to appear at what was supposed to be a status hearing Friday. I think HHJP would want her there if this motion is going to be argued. Not sure, just seems like a good idea to me....

Me too. The best way to not give her any appeal is to have there everytime to see how her defense team is defending her. She can't wait until the last minute and then whine about her defense. She's known for years now how incompetent they are, yet they are still her boys. I really hope she's there for this. She really needs to be.

 

[strawberry]

OK I just got to the first lines of the motion and I am confused. Why would it be Defendant's motion? JB is the one found in contempt, not ICA. Shouldn't it have been JBs motion to reconsider? Do they expect the JAC to pay to defend JB from contempt? If so I'm sure they will have something to say about it...

 

[logicalgirl]

I guess I might feel a flash of concern if this report contained information not only that Dr. Spitz found mud inside the skull, but the mud was a different composition, minus the saline, than the mud found underneath and around the remains.

But would that be too far a stretch for the defense to consider?:banghead:

 

[Aedrys]

I just have to throw my non-legal opinion in here on this one.

IMO, this is what law school and having to pass a bar exam to be an attorney is all about.

If a trial can't take place without the attorneys involved being required to have a basic understanding of the rules and procedures that have to be followed, then our judicial system would shut down.

IIRC, it was all the way back to when Judge Strickland was presiding over this case when the rules of the court involving reciprocol discovery were discussed. Basically it was, the defense chose what kind of trial to have, they chose discovery based, so the State has to show what they have, AND so does the Defense.

As a layperson, I completely understood what was said, and I also understood what the state was asking for in their motion to compel, so I don't buy 2 people with law degrees didn't get it.

ITA. This is nothing but word games. If Mr 40+ years can't understand what's needed for the state, that's his fault. He should have know and explained it to Baez if Baez didn't know. So neither of them have any excuse on this one. Word games aren't going to win anything for this joke of a defense team. And I'm a layperson too, and I seem to get what the state wanted better than the defense as well, which is just sad.

 

[beach]

I hate to say this, but CM may have a point here. I have re read the motion a couple of times now:

From the Motion:

f. the prosecution (Mr. Ashton) responded on that same date asserting "The Court's Order required you to reveal "the substance" of the testimony of the witness. Such representation is inaccurate. See Exhibit "B" which required the defense to "...include the subject matter as to what the experts will testify to and the area of expertise for each expert.

Ok I think I got that word for word. So the argument put forth here is that substance and subject matter are two different things altogether, and I think he has a point. Subject matter would be what the botanist would testify to - plants at the scene, substance would be what the expert would say about the plants at the scene. So on this point, he is correct, in my opinion.

However, this point is moot because the last ruling by HHJP spelled out exactly what the defense had to produce - in writing. This is where the willful violation occurred and I got the impression the willful violation was the fact that the defense ignored HHJP's ruling as to the time the material was to be filed by. What I don't know is IF CM is correct in his stance that subject matter and substance are two different things and that they did, indeed, comply with the order, would that negate everything that followed, including the sanctions?

Judge Perry spelled everything out to a T in his Order granting the SA's motion for clarification. CM can blow all the smoke he wants but they still haven't complied. Has anyone seen any expert reports except for Dr. Bock's "affidavit" ?

"not anticipated" "unlikely" "may be called".

meh.

Perfect example. Just more vague blah blah blah... IMO, no report, no opinion, no sharing = no testifying, according to the order and FRCP.

 

[Paintr]

ITA. This is nothing but word games. If Mr 40+ years can't understand what's needed for the state, that's his fault. He should have know and explained it to Baez if Baez didn't know. So neither of them have any excuse on this one. Word games aren't going to win anything for this joke of a defense team. And I'm a layperson too, and I seem to get what the state wanted better than the defense as well, which is just sad.

BBM

The defense understands exactly what the state wants. The defense just wants to avoid giving it to them.

 

[zoey]

I hope that the next time the State just asks for the reports in the alloted ten days.....who cares if they get them all at once---When is the first report due?

 

[Lanie]

ITA. This is nothing but word games. If Mr 40+ years can't understand what's needed for the state, that's his fault. He should have know and explained it to Baez if Baez didn't know. So neither of them have any excuse on this one. Word games aren't going to win anything for this joke of a defense team. And I'm a layperson too, and I seem to get what the state wanted better than the defense as well, which is just sad.

LOL, I was just thinking about how Mason was saying 2 or 3 more attorney's might be coming and how it's a shame the State can't file a motion asking that no more attorneys who are incapable of passing a fundamental basics of courtroom law exam be allowed on this team. Sure would save a lot of time.

 

[Aedrys]

BBM

The defense understands exactly what the state wants. The defense just wants to avoid giving it to them.

Good point. I guess what I meant is the argument in the motion. I know darn well they knew, but if they think feigning ignorance because of one word is going to get them anything, they're dumber than I imagined. There is no way HHJP is going to believe that they didn't know what was required to give to the state. All HHJP has to do is call up someone from the gallery and ask them if they understand what the state wanted. (Not that he'll do that, but OMG that would be priceless). I guess I should say their fake argument holds no water.

 

[sumbunny]

What I don't understand, and perhaps you all can enlighten me. Baez claims his expert witnesses will rebut whatever the states expert witnesses claim.

Clearly the states expert witnesses have already given their opinions. So what is it that the defenses witness will rebut?

Isn't that what the prosecution is asking for? Clarification?? What EXACTLY Casey's expert witnesses DISAGREE with. Not just float the "whatever they claim, we will say NO defense"?

~confused~

 

[marspiter]

My thoughts on this motion:

The December 3rd order by HHJP granted the state paragraphs 5 and 6 of it's November motion. The defense has failed and continues to fail to provide notes taken by or for it's experts. Didn't JA make a comment that during the depo of a defense expert it was discovered that they did have notes that were taken? Which means the defense has willingly with held said discovery as granted by the December 3rd order.

As to subject matter v. substance. I agree that by providing the area of expertise the expert is going to testify to is sufficient to cover subject matter as CM has said. Yes it's basically playing word games as the courts actual intent from watching the proceedings was that the experts would be giving a brief summary as to their findings along with their notes. However the order does read subject matter which can be twisted to mean just the main topic ie forensic pathology: Conducted second autopsy on Caylee.

For tardiness and improper filing. The defense has failed on multiple occasions during this case to comply with orders in a timely fashion or file motions properly. Getting there at 5:02 is irrelevant. The papers should have been delivered at 12 noon on Dec 14th and no later. Mr. Slabaugh's affidavit provides no times or approximate times in which he emailed the clerk of court or inquired as to how best to deliver said documents do to their size. All it says is that he left that afternoon. The documents were already late and at that point the defense did not request an extension. After 12 noon on December 14th or in a time proceeding the deadline once the defense realized that the order could not be complied with as directed the defense should have requested said extension. They failed to do so thus they willingly submitted the required material late. Thus they willingly disregarded the courts order.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...-legal-analyst-blasts-new-defense-motion.html

 

[LancelotLink]

Defense only needed to submit the requested information on TWO of their experts, by 12 noon, December 14. This, IMO was doable.
Why they decided they needed to insert ALL, which reminds me of the excuses they gave wanting all the experts to sit in a circle together and discuss evidence, but I digress...
When asked in court why they missed the deadline, CM states, "I do not know."
JB stammers "Well, I needed to get ALL the CD's, and ALL this stuff, and ALL vitas, blah blah blah..."
Not one word about traffic. Not one word about CM's assistant (I guess she never informed him about WS and his failed attempt of emailing 300 pages, faxing 300 pages, driving 300 pages) GMAB.
If anyone misunderstood the court's rulings, it was the defense, and I believe it was a willful misunderstanding.
And I watched them all write the orders down as HHJBP spelled them out, even their incarcerated paralegal wriote it down. Then JB even rose for a clarification on the clarification.
I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. But, I understood the orders...
Once again, I'm not buying what they are selling. I hope HHJBP sees this as the load of piffle it is!!

 

[snowshuze]

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...-legal-analyst-blasts-new-defense-motion.html

In the comments:

Brainstorming without a brain.

:floorlaugh:

 

[beach]

For reference in re. the "substance" v. "subject matter" debate -

Here is the final Order

 

[marspiter]

I also agree with what many on here have said about the hairs found. CM continues to misrepresent what Dr. Lee found and did it again in this motion (paragraph 9-c).

 

[marspiter]

For reference in re. the "substance" v. "subject matter" debate -

Here is the final Order

Thanks Beach I missed that one as it wasn't attached to defense motion. That would explain why the defense failed to provide that order as an attachment to this motion.

OT: Sorry if I'm a little behind on this thread trying to catch up on my reading.

 

[LancelotLink]

Also, listening again to the response from CM is laughable. He never mentions anything articulated (?) in the motion to reconsider sanctions. He never even comes close to addressing the motion for sanctions. I believe I have seen enough of CM to know what his expertise is. He is most proficient at attempting to muddy the waters. What a disconnect we see here in this hearing. Then when they try to come together, they really just step all in it, dragging brand new attorney WS into the muck right along with.

 

[snowshuze]

All my emotions about this case....

<sigh>


I so want TRUE justice for this precious little girl.I am ashamed as a human being of the sideshow/circus her family and their attorneys are creating in her memory.

I don't WANT to feel amused/shocked/disgusted/downright pissed off at all the social and legal blunders, but daggone it.....