2011.04.01 Frye Hearing (DISCUSSION THREAD) - PM edition

[TakingALook]

Hi! Sorry if this has been mentioned I just got in after hearing the latest news on my way home from work. Cindy makes it sound like she used Febreze aerosol spray ... she said "can". I believe that it isn't the active ingredients in the deodorizers that could have effected the tests but rather the propellants. I would like to find out specifically when Febreze in aerosol form was first made available for sale in that market. www.pg.com says this "In 2008, the preeminent Febreze Fabric Refresher was upgraded to feature a fine mist spray." I know she is lying, let's prove it!

Great Post!!!!! My thoughts exactly. When I buy it, I get a refill in a plastic jug. I do have one aerosol can - but it was mixed with a 'cinnamon' or 'apple' fragrance for the Holidays. I haven't seen it in a can except for then.

 

[logicalgirl]

I guess I'm not really understanding, (as usual - heh heh) what the general worrying and head banging is about this hearing. These are Frye hearings - this stuff is going to only be heard once, and not by the jury. None of this nonsense JB was pulling today will be heard, because what can be heard will be decided by Frye.

Yes, Baez is pulling every silly trick he can - so what? HHJP stated today he is concerned about appellate issues and that is why he is allowing JB to down the garden path and around the actual garden - but that does not mean it will be heard at trial.:banghead: Of course we heard him suggest some complete rubbish, and question someone who's qualifications are highly questionable. This is JB we are talking about here!

HHJP said a couple of time today - there is no jury here. And be absolutely sure I will have read every word of every report and testimony and nothing I decide cannot be allowed in at trial will be.

As far as fretting about the trial being delayed - what has changed? One day of mind numbing testimony from one expert - and more testimony set for next week. Were we doing something else next week that has been put back? I don't think so...nothing has really changed.

HHJP will get the Frye hearings completed, he will rule on them and the trial will start at the date he selected. Easy peesy - the sky hasn't fallen in - honest!!!

 

[BChand]

And it has been bugging me all day, but it doesn't come in a can does it? Isn't it a BOTTLE?

Stupidest pet peeve ever, but can't they get anything right?

I "guess" this could be considered a can. Says it from 2005.

http://www.globalpackagegallery.com/main.php/key/closure?g2_itemId=17158

 

[pip]

I guess I'm not really understanding, (as usual - heh heh) what the general worrying and head banging is about this hearing. These are Frye hearings - this stuff is going to only be heard once, and not by the jury. None of this nonsense JB was pulling today will be heard, because what can be heard will be decided by Frye.

Yes, Baez is pulling every silly trick he can - so what? HHJP stated today he is concerned about appellate issues and that is why he is allowing JB to down the garden path and around the actual garden - but that does not mean it will be heard at trial.:banghead: Of course we heard him suggest some complete rubbish, and question someone who's qualifications are highly questionable. This is JB we are talking about here!

HHJP said a couple of time today - there is no jury here. And be absolutely sure I will have read every word of every report and testimony and nothing I decide cannot be allowed in at trial will be.

As far as fretting about the trial being delayed - what has changed? One day of mind numbing testimony from one expert - and more testimony set for next week. Were we doing something else next week that has been put back? I don't think so...nothing has really changed.

HHJP will get the Frye hearings completed, he will rule on them and the trial will start at the date he selected. Easy peesy - the sky hasn't fallen in - honest!!!

I didn't like it much when HHJP kept saying, well there isn't a jury here, so i'm going to go ahead and allow this. Um, huh? Do Frye hearings usually have a jury? Isn't it the Judges job to decide what is and isn't relative to the Frye issue and make a decision? I was disappointed in that position he settled into. Too soft. Ahhh, but what do I really know, nada. Just relaying my reaction to it.

 

[A_News_Junkie]

I "guess" this could be considered a can. Says it from 2005.

http://www.globalpackagegallery.com/main.php/key/closure?g2_itemId=17158

LOL - see my edit! I will learn one day to google first and post second! LOL

I need to get out more so I will know these things -------> if we could just get this trial done..........(oh, and all the other cases I follow....) then I would know these things! LOL

 

[ynotdivein]

I am looking at an aerosol can of Febreeze in my office right this very moment and remembering that when DH found it in the grocery store about a month ago, both of us were so very happy that the Febreeze people finally found a way to aerosolize this freshener. IMO, in 2008, to fully Febreeze a trunk, Cindy would have had to squeeze, and squeeze, and squeeze again that little handle.

But her new meds at the time prevent her from remembering that, yes?

 

[strawberry]

Ooooh new NG opening for ICA: The Case Against Tot Mom. LOL I've missed those two words. Tot. Mom.

 

[strawberry]

They just showed him and Little Dude!!

 

[faefrost]

I guess I'm not really understanding, (as usual - heh heh) what the general worrying and head banging is about this hearing. These are Frye hearings - this stuff is going to only be heard once, and not by the jury. None of this nonsense JB was pulling today will be heard, because what can be heard will be decided by Frye.

Yes, Baez is pulling every silly trick he can - so what? HHJP stated today he is concerned about appellate issues and that is why he is allowing JB to down the garden path and around the actual garden - but that does not mean it will be heard at trial.:banghead: Of course we heard him suggest some complete rubbish, and question someone who's qualifications are highly questionable. This is JB we are talking about here!

HHJP said a couple of time today - there is no jury here. And be absolutely sure I will have read every word of every report and testimony and nothing I decide cannot be allowed in at trial will be.

As far as fretting about the trial being delayed - what has changed? One day of mind numbing testimony from one expert - and more testimony set for next week. Were we doing something else next week that has been put back? I don't think so...nothing has really changed.

HHJP will get the Frye hearings completed, he will rule on them and the trial will start at the date he selected. Easy peesy - the sky hasn't fallen in - honest!!!

This!. Not enough thanks.

For those hemming and hawing about HHJP seeming lenient in his treatment of the defense. Think of it this way. If he shuts down defense presentations unheard at a pre trial evidentiary hearing, it becomes a huge issue for appeal. "OMG! She couldn't get a fair trial, if they had only been allowed to present xyz evidence she would have been exonerated". Whereas if he lets JB ramble on, gets it in the record, and then rules against it, it is fairly appeal proof. JA seemed to be forgetting that a little bit in his ire.

HHJP did telegraph some interesting tidbits today as he was schooling everyone. Notice he said that the SA could re depose Dr. Furton, and bring in Dr. Vass again to counter. I didn't take that to mean at a further Frye hearing. Nor did I take that to mean that the prosecutors would have to file some sort of motion for a rehearing of Frye issues. It sounded more to me that the prosecutors could re-depose Dr. Furton, and could expand on what Dr. Vass will be offering to counter it as a sign that much of this would be heard again at trial. And he was rather direct in his comments regarding Dr. Logan. The jury will not be hearing from that "expert".

I don't think the defense has come anywhere even close to meeting their burdens regarding the science. The dogs are a done deal. They are in. I think the judge is leaning towards letting the jury decide for themselves regarding decomposition odors and chloroform.

 

[A_News_Junkie]

Actually it comes in both.

Yeah, and I took a pic for you all of how I look now!

But, for the record I have less than JB and team by far!

 

[AZlawyer]

I "guess" this could be considered a can. Says it from 2005.

http://www.globalpackagegallery.com/main.php/key/closure?g2_itemId=17158

That's the one I use and I always call it a can.

Ingredient list:

http://www.pg.com/productsafety/ingredients/household_care/air_freshners/febreze/Febreze_Air_Effects.pdf

No chloroform for some reason? I guess they don't want us knocking out our pets and family members? :waitasec:

 

[Curious Me]

I had a friend that got free employee sample bottles of Frebz spray before it caught on. I have some of those original sample bottles from 1997.

Now, that CA states to using the products in question, it seems possible the chloroform may not get in at trial. However, there were the computer searches about how to make it. IDK, but CA just happened to remember now, and it is causing a big stir.

This site is interesting regarding products used in schools making the air toxic to our children: http://www.ewg.org/schoolcleaningsupplies/classroomcleaningfindings

 

[TakingALook]

I found my can.
It says: Febreze Air Effects Air Refresher. "Limited Edition" Apple spice & delight.

Ingred: Odor eliminator, water, fragrance, non-flammable natural propellant, quality control ingredients. No CFC's and contains NO Phosphates.

A Caution: about over use of concentrating or inhaling the contents can be harmful or fatal. Help stop 'inhalation abuse'. More info visit .. www.inhalant.org.

 

[LancelotLink]

Um, ok I'm watching the hearing. JA asks CA if she remembers saying she didn't put the dryer sheets there and she says no I don't that was 2009. But in the next breath says she remembers more and more from 2008 now than she used to. ????

What amazed me was CA being ever so uncertain of the date of the depo, but ever so clear that she was on new medication. GMAB!!!

 

[LancelotLink]

I had a friend that got free employee sample bottles of Frebz spray before it caught on. I have some of those original sample bottles from 1997.

Now, that CA states to using the products in question, it seems possible the chloroform may not get in at trial. However, there were the computer searches about how to make it. IDK, but CA just happened to remember now, and it is causing a big stir.

This site is interesting regarding products used in schools making the air toxic to our children: http://www.ewg.org/schoolcleaningsupplies/classroomcleaningfindings

Let us hope evidence is not balanced on the pinhead of CA's word.

 

[strawberry]

You guys have to turn on NG! I know she's whatever but she's in rare form tonight! She's pizzed! She said if anyone has PTSD it's her and Drew Petrimueuax from listening to the BS in the courtroom.

 

[logicalgirl]

I didn't like it much when HHJP kept saying, well there isn't a jury here, so i'm going to go ahead and allow this. Um, huh? Do Frye hearings usually have a jury? Isn't it the Judges job to decide what is and isn't relative to the Frye issue and make a decision? I was disappointed in that position he settled into. Too soft. Ahhh, but what do I really know, nada. Just relaying my reaction to it.

No no - for me that meant go ahead and get all these theories out because this is a Frye hearing to decide what will be let in or not. It doesn't matter because HHJP has not yet made his decisions. Go ahead and say whatever rubbish you want and get it off of your chest now, because no way is the jury going to hear the majority of this carp. :gavel: ...... ython:

I felt all warm and fuzzy about that....:skip:

 

[strawberry]

What amazed me was CA being ever so uncertain of the date of the depo, but ever so clear that she was on new medication. GMAB!!!

I looked at her depo. Thank goodness they index them. The only mention of medicine or medication was when LDB asked if she had eaten, was under any influence of alcohol or drugs and she said just my prescription medication. She didn't say NEW. She didn't say she JUST started it.

 

[strawberry]

C'mon, they're showing Yuuurrriiiiii!!!! And Vass!!!!!!!!!

 

[logicalgirl]

What amazed me was CA being ever so uncertain of the date of the depo, but ever so clear that she was on new medication. GMAB!!!

I don't get it.... first CA went around saying the smell in the trunk was old rotten pizza, and now she is saying it was the worst she has ever smelled.
And she said she didn't know what chloroform was so she had to look it up and this is a problem? So CA didn't know and ICA did? This is a good thing.

And she has now admitted the car stunk so bad she layered it in freshner sheets and used a can of febreeze or some kind of air freshner in it - and this is a bad thing?

I don't get it? This is all information that is positive for the State, isn't it?:waitasec: