2011.06.03 TRIAL Day Nine (Afternoon Session)

[53chevygirl]

Overrulled he can answer it ONE more time.....

JB stfu

 

[coloradoteacher]

I love how JB said that Bloise is not an expert of human decomposition thus saying and authienticating that there is such thing... validating Vass!!!!!!1
Scor!

 

[GiantPickle]

"once again, everything I did with my handwritten notes is in this report"

 

[dog.gone.cute]

:great: :great::great::great:

GO Mr. Bloise !!!

 

[Broderick]

Baez, plus one on the notes issue. Credit is due, where credit is due.

 

[uklaw]

Try this thread

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135704&page=30

Only the expert can speak for the expert, try above thread please

Do you have the post.

The fact remains that what you have stated does not meet the basic definition of hearsay.

Whatever your referring to is not hearsay as far as I can tell.

 

[Donjeta]

That was not a question. "you can't testify"

It was a statement.

And he had just testified that.

 

[nativeSFL]

Bloise is adorable. Love how he says jury: yoody. :heartluv:

 

[logicalgirl]

Three Strikes - And You Are Out Mr. Baez - please sit down!!

 

[Bobbarita]

Witness is awesome!

 

[jamiect]

This guy is certainly holding his own.

 

[Beyond Belief]

5 after 5 jb. people are hungry.

 

[mombomb]

JB through.

Redirect by LDB of Inv. Bloise.

Regarding negative results of using Blue Star - they are negative for BLOOD.

Regarding his notes, he handwrites notes as he goes along. He then makes a report from his notes. He then destroys his notes pursuant to OCSO policy.

JB objected to leading and hearsay. Overruled as to hearsay, as to leading sustained.

Once he has written a report from the notes, he then destroys them based on Legal Bulletin 97-09, based on that legal decision.

The Defense individuals inspecting the vehicle took the contamination precautions. They only wore gloves, not hair nets.

Based on his 23 years of experience and 35 to 40 decomposed bodies, it is his opinion that the odor was human decomposition.

JB objects to witness not qualified - overruled.

Recross by JB.

Regarding the destroyed notes, they cannot be inspected by the Defense. Everything in his report is accurate to his handwriting.

He agreed that during cross exam he used the word decomposition. He agreed that it was because he could not determine the type. LDB asked him about his experience and he could say it was human decomposition.

Witness excused.

 

[chasing.halos]

AWESOME WITNESS! Thank you Bloise! Caylee thanks you! :heart:

 

[sleutherontheside]

GB is NOT taking JB's chizz.

 

[Tipstaff]

So we end the day with JB making an Azz of himself with the witness. Thank you JB.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

:seeya: Jose --

How about letting us see YOUR "handwritten notes" from your "first visit" with your client, ICA ?

How about it, Jose ?

:seeya:

 

[momtective]

Good Gawd...sit down and shut-up JB!

 

[Chiquita71]

item 12 Crystal light bottle. Brown liquid.

JB: brown liquid

yes

JB: is that tobacco spit

I can't tell that

JB: packages of cheese

yes

JB: many packages of velvetta cheese

objection from LDB I have not been able to cover these things.

HHJP: correct sustained.

JB: I thought I was smarter than that.

HHJP: that was the other witness, the State is correct.

(Jose is flipping through his pages quickly)

HHJP: any redirect?

LDB: when you refer to the negative results as a results of using negative results for?

blood

LDB: when you inspect a car or preserve the evidence you take notes on a pad of paper how do you record what you are doing

on paper and activity log

LDB: do you then take those notes and make a report from your notes?

correct

LDB: once your report is completed you destroy the notes per the OCSO

objection
hearsay overruled
the other sustained

LDB: ?

I destroy the notes based on a legal decision and I destroy the notes

LDB: universal precausion taken to stop cross contaimination, when the defense was inspecting the car did they wear hair net?

just gloves but no hair nets?

LDB: just gloves?

correct

LDB: based upon the

JB: objection he is not a expert in human decom?

overruled

LDB: is the smell of a particular type of decomp

yes, I can say professionally speaking it was the smell of human decomposition

LDB: thank you your honor

JB: the notes that are since destroyed could never be inspected by the defense

no

JB: you can't testify there are things in your notes that are not in your report

everything is accurate to what I wrote

JB: asked the same thing

overruled

everything I did with my handwritten notes in reflected in my report

JB: asked the same again.

(missed what happened)

JB: you couldn't determine what kind of decomp it was

yes, but I used it as deomp in my report

JB: right that is because there are different types

correct

JB: that is why you did not specify it was human

correct

JB: but when LDB comes up now it is human

yes because she asked me about my experience

JB: but before you weren't talking about your experience

objection
sustained

objection
sustained

JB: someone else's opinion?

overruled

my opinion

JB: thank you

HHJP: excused subject to recall.

 

[GiantPickle]

JB shoulda conceded that the baby was in the trunk