2011.04.08 Frye Hearing Summary Thread

[Chiquita71]

CM: twenty two years...
JA: your honor...
HH: one lawyer at a time, not more than one lawyer making an argument. I am familar with that case, part of the innocence project...and that was a case of miss identifying the person.

DSimms: not just frye but the training of the individual, her employer the FBI, ...if another state adopts this methodology does not mean we should...

HH: okay. move to next motion. I thought you were doing rebuttal comments? What's next?

DSimms: mr. Baez will do that one

 

[Softail]

RUT ROH!!

Judge - I will not tolerate your editorial comments Mr. Baez. Please see the clerk if it continues!

 

[Lanie]

HHJP pointing out once again there is not jury in the courtroom as Baez takes the podium. He says he knows what is relevant and what is not relevant.

Baez tries to make a joke, and HHJP smacks him down. Mr. Baez, keep your comments relevant. (paraphrased). Again brings up the $100 fine.

 

[Chiquita71]

HH: I know what is relavant. don't need to interrrupt...if someone goes to far and gives me stuff I don't need...keep your comments confined to argument. no editorial comments. if you do give your 100 dollars to the court.

JB: to exclude the relevance of the stain in the trunk of the car. any probative value of this stain is outweighted by the (?). Don't need to bring before the court there are stains in the back of every americans car...something must make this stain relevant. this court has heard test about the bag of garbage. entered into evidence shows a wet soggy bag of garbage even after being in the trunk for some time.

looking at how moist it is one can reasonable conclude that any stain was pre-existing...gas cans in the car...furthermore this garbage.

 

[ynotdivein]

JB attempts to blame stain in trunk on garbage and gas.

 

[Softail]

JB - There was a glow that supposedly showed a body. No DNA on the stain. This stain has created mass hysteria.

 

[Chiquita71]

JB: luminal, shows there could be a stain of blood but when they did the tests they were negative. no proof it was a bio stain, was tested for DNA: was no dna on the stain. And, I've submitted those exibits to the court. What the stain has done is create "mass hysteria"

JA: asking about what the defense entered as "exihibits"

JB: and email between the FBI which created this hysteria that a form is a child's body. that if you enhance it looks like a child in the fetal position. JA: has no intention of bring up this stigmata....court: is this stain bio when there is no evidence of it?

A body in a trunk is bio evidence, but this jury and this court need something more than a stain in the car. Esp, when all the tests and steps to see if this was bio came back neg.

 

[Melanie]

JB: It's a wet soggy bag of garbage -- as it relates to the large stain in the trunk.

JB: There was gasoline cans in the car

JB: There was a glow as to a POSSIBLE human stain there, but when they did the surilogical (SP) test, there is no proof. It was also tested for DNA, and it came back as negative for DNA. What this stain has done has caused mass hysteria.

JA: Objection. Misunderstood, apologizes.

JB: Again, ridiculous hysteria that this stain looks like a child in a fetal position. I will leave up to JA that he has no intention of introducing this evidence. I think the challenge, or issue before the court, is the biological means, when there is no evidence of it. This court would need something "a bit more" than a stain in the trunk of the car, after all the tests could be or could not be a biological nature -- just because there is no DNA, semen, urine, etc.

TBC

 

[Chiquita71]

JB: despite all that they cannot confirm that stain is not bio in nature. Blu star and fbi by their own admission can get false positives from tests. I think the confirmatory tests say this is not bio in nature, therefore it is a stain.

We show there was a wet moist bag of garbage in the trunk of the car. anything else is a stretch. we think it shouldn't be mentioned anymore that stain was Bio and came from a decomp body.

JA: there has been no testimony to support this motion. I clearly pointed out the defendent bears the burden.

 

[Chiquita71]

JA: they have not presented any evidence of the facts contained. I have nothing attached to the motion I received. I don't know if the courts copy is different than I received. The defense has presented no evidence here.

 

[ynotdivein]

JB is giving away what he is afraid of--the stain "should not be mentioned... in opening statements..."

 

[Chiquita71]

JB: I would disagree. the clerks file is clearly stamped with attachments. I have submitted to all proper parties what I have said. There were DNA tests done.

if we need to stop the trial and have a preliminary (?). There is a photo in evidence with the garbage. What more do we need. If the court issues an order we need to meet some legal threashhold we will address that at trial time. it behooves our parties to move aside and get through the obvious things that should not be referenced in opening statements. That proper evidence will be entered in front of the jury...

 

[ynotdivein]

CJBP: In depos or reports, is there testimony concerning the composition of the stain?

 

[sleutherontheside]

Judge asked JA to "take a stab at this". Almost as if to say....do you have anything that makes sense to share with the court?

 

[Chiquita71]

HH: is there testimony as to the chemical comp of the state. we haven't heard any testimomy today. in depos or reports is there testimony concerning the composition of the stain?

JB: four chemicals found on the stain, however they are consistant with a plethera of items that do not mean they are bio or human. based on the testimony in hearings there is nothing that says this stain is bio in nature.

HH: who is the expert that would testify to that?

JB: giving names.

HH: I take it from your answer that while there are other poss causes of the stain, dr. Vass has the opinion it could be a decomposing body.

JB: it could be a banana. (this team must not have scurvy, they love fruit...oranges, apples, bananas...)

JA: fatty acids consistent with human beings. Libs, i think was also about the stain. he would say the amounts that were present are consistent with a certain stage of decomp. the act of decomp destroys DNA. That does not exclude that it was decomp.

HH: both very helpful. thank you. next motion.

 

[doogiesgirl]

Wow...just learned something new and very important I think.

Per JA the act of decomposition destroys DNA and thats why tests for DNA on decomp fluid comes out negative.

 

[logicalgirl]

HHJP: Mr. Baez we do not take 5 minute recesses - it is either a recess or not - recess for 15 minutes

 

[pip]

ICA looks stressed, her shoulders are pulled in tight and her facial expressions are very serious.

 

[logicalgirl]

I am loving HHJP today - we are getting a preview of trial attitude me thinks....

 

[Chiquita71]

JB: reading from a email between dr. vass and vincent.

JB: it is obvious they had investigation information. the way this unfolds vass finds a peak of chloroform and called OCSO. they do not know who ran the searches and do not know if miss anthony was home at the time.