2011.06.13 TRIAL Day Seventeen (Morning Session)

[nursebeeme]

Is this still proffer? Because I'm trying to listen only to what the jury is hearing.

The jury is removed, yes?

yes... it is still the proffer

**belch**

 

[scout35]

O/T

But when I see everyone gunning for ICA over every little thing, it actually makes me feel mildly sorry for her.

JMO

I don't know what difference it makes if she moves from chair to chair.

I see what you're saying and I essentially agree but I just have to think of Caylee and any feeling of "sorry" for ICA goes away.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

Is the jury present?

 

[TortillaChip]

JB loves to be in control of testimony, he thinks he is taking the wind out of JA's expert. As long as he is front and center, he could care less about the real point of this questioning, his tactics irritate me to no end.......

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

IIRC, and I may not, so someone please correct me if I am wrong (I know you will :floorlaugh yes, convicted felon, but I believe that made her sentence time served because it was something about not being allowed to sentence her to more than 364 or 365 days because after that she would have had to go to real prison. I don't know why that should matter, unless they just didn't want to take the chance and all of the precautions for protective custody when she hadn't been found guilty of this yet.

ICA was sentenced to time served for the fraud charges...she had one year of probation...which is over by now...JMHO

 

[momtective]

Is this still proffer? Because I'm trying to listen only to what the jury is hearing.

The jury is removed, yes?

More like a question and answer session in the absence of the jury, but not deemed a proffer.:waitasec:

 

[HRCODEPINK]

Inmates are shacked for a reason. They should not be allowed the luxury of chair hopping or moving anywhere. She should sit somber, still and respectful.

I have no problem with her hopping around and wailing and cursing up a storm as long as it is in front of the jury. I can't imagine it is lost on them that this is not being taken as seriously as she should be taking it and her disrespect for the court shows.

 

[bobloblaw]

This evidence seems weak and vague.

 

[nursebeeme]

Hi Doc F!

((no the jury is not present))

 

[Eidetic]

JA: State will call Stephen Shaw.
(He is sworn in)
SS: I'm Stephen Shaw.
JA: Okay Mr. Shaw how are you employed?
SS: I'm a hair and fiber examiner for the FBI laboratory
JA: And how long have you been employed in that capacity?
SS: I've held my current position for approximately 6 years.
JA: What educational background do you have that led you to your present position?
SS: I have a bachelors of science and a masters of science. Both degrees are in textile chemistry and bother degrees are from North Carolina State University.
JA: After you obtained your degrees did you immediately go to work for the FBI?
SS: No. After getting my degrees I was a research associate for the university for approximately 6 months, then I took another job in the textile industry where I was a senior research associate for approximately 6 months and then I began to work at the FBI laboratory.
JA: During your time with the FBI did you have additional training through the FBI itself?
SS: Yes I did.
JA: What type of training was that?
SS: I received to become a hair and fiber examiner, I received approximately a 1 year training program where I was under the direct guidance of qualified hair and fiber examiners and during that time I examined numerous hairs, numerous fibers and I had to complete tests throughout my training program including identification tests, matching tests, oral boards as well moot coordination exercises.
JA: And after that year time did you then begin working independently as a hair and fiber examiner?
SS: After completing that year time I began working independently as a hair and fiber examiner.
JA: Have you previously testified in that area in courts of law in the United States?
SS: Yes I have.
JA: Approximately how many times?
SS: 12 times.
JA: And in how many jurisdictions?
SS: I've testified prior in Florida, New York, Virgin Islands, California, Montana, Illinois, Virgina are a few.
JA: Alright. This time Your Honor I would submit the witness as an expert in the area of forensic hair and fiber identification and analysist.
HJBP: What says the defense?
JB: No objections.
HJBP: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury the witness will be accepted as an expert witness in the area of hair and fiber identification. You may continue Mr. Ashton.
JA: Sir back in the middle part of 2008, you were working at the FBI lab at that time, is that correct?
SS: That's correct.
JA: Did you become involved in doing a confirmation examination of a hair in the case involving Caylee Marie Anthony which was designated as Q12 that Karen Forsberg Row(?) had previously examined?
SS: Yes.
JA: What's the purpose of that process of confirmation?
SS: The confirmation process is really a quality insurance step to make sure anytime we have (Baez Objects, previous motions and objections on Frye. HJBP: Based upon that objection, objection will be overruled. Thank you.)
JA: Go ahead...
SS: So it's part of our quality insurance procedure so whenever we have an identification or we association we then ask and have a second examiner to do an independent examination to see if they can reach the same conclusion or not.
JA: Now when you do that you already know the conclusion the other examination has found?
SS: Yes we do.
JA: In this case were you looking to confirm the identification of apparent decomposition? Just that or the comparison from known hair as well?
SS: It was a confirmation for the apparent decomposition as well as microscopic similarities to a hair collected from a hair brush.
JA: And did you compare both the apparent decomposition and the microscopic similarity to the hair from the hair brush?
SS: Yes I did.
JA: Did there come a time in later 2008 when you were called upon to examine some additional evidence as to the same case?
SS: Yes.
JA: What came into the laboratory, first of all why did you do the second examination as opposed to Ms. Lowe?
SS: Because Ms. Lowe wasn't available at the time.
JA: Were you submitted what is referred to as a hair mass?
SS: Yes I was.
JA: If I could have states exhibit 271. Let me show you states exhibit 271 and ask if you recognize that as the item that was submitted to your laboratory.
SS: I do recognize it.
JA: And should that contain the hair mass that was submitted by the Orange County Sheriff's Office.
SS: Yes according to the laboratory markings it should.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

One thing I've learned about myself through all this evidence is that, while I find entomology and chemistry extremely fascinating, hair analysis puts me to sleep.

Who knew?

 

[Sleuth5]

Inmates are shacked for a reason. They should not be allowed the luxury of chair hopping or moving anywhere. She should sit somber, still and respectful.

She's not shackled in court. I would think that her right to aid in her own defense extends to moving to a different chair if she wants.

That said, it obviously can present a poor impression, as witnessed by the reaction here. Of course, it's a matter of accumulation for us.

 

[smeck]

Don't get me wrong, I have no affection for this girl what so ever...but some of this stuff (chair hopping?) is just off the wall, imo. She moves around...who cares? Should she be duct taped to her chair?

again, JMO

YES that would be appropriate

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

These questions should have all been already asked in his deposition I think HHJP is only allowing this because he knows this power point is going to come in. But he needs to stop him at some point. He is now just questioning the witness and going beyond the power point presentation.

You know, he asked Karen Lowe the other FBI forensic person WHY she didn't bring the hair with her to show the jury...Now that the State has it, he's afraid of it to be shown..JMHO

 

[Soulmagent]

He doesn't seem too fond of JA, either

If you ask me he should have tossed the power point out of court.

It was untimely.

 

[luv]

 

[gelfie68]

I think I may use this time to clean the house. I am totally not catching on and I am zoning out. I am not liking this witness.

 

[nursebeeme]

This evidence seems weak and vague.

it isn't case evidence per se.... it is his study on root banding and really drives home that the bands were found in Caylee's hairs in two different stages of decomp..

moo:twocents:

 

[Softail]

I believe that JA said this is not a proffer. The jury is not present, but CJBP is letting JB question this witness outside of the jury being present. This is because JB complained that he got B/W photos, and the ones in JA's PowerPoint are in color. In essence, JB is practicing his questions. IMO

 

[Tipstaff]

JB loves to be in control of testimony, he thinks he is taking the wind out of JA's expert. As long as he is front and center, he could care less about the real point of this questioning, his tactics irritate me to no end.......

Perhaps JB's questioning at this point will allow the State to refine their questioning and pin things down even more. A benefit maybe?