2011.06.13 TRIAL Day Seventeen (Morning Session)
- Thread starter beach
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2009
- Messages
- 29,841
- Reaction score
- 126,116
What lousy Father's Days George has had the last three years, huh.
cloud9
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2005
- Messages
- 1,872
- Reaction score
- -22
everyoneneedsavoice
Verified Health Professional - Registered Nurse
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2008
- Messages
- 1,810
- Reaction score
- 0
So, it's your opinion that JA asking the author and/or owner of the report; as opposed to LDB and/or FG; makes JA shady???? :waitasec:
Is that what you're saying?
Just trying to catch up...I need more coffee.
mombomb
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,437
- Reaction score
- -3
JURY BACK.
DIRECT EXAMINATION OF STEPHEN SHAW BY JA (continued):
What inspired this study? Started because of a thesis he came across where they had taken hairs from living individuals and had placed them in soil and water and had gotten apparent decomp at the root end. It was suggested that additional research be needed and that the hairs should be compared to post-mortem hairs and so that is what he did.
He probably would have done this study any way, but it became more of a priority because of the issues of this case.
Purpose of this study - to try to create banding in hairs from living individuals.
All hairs can decompose if exposed.
The hairs from the study came from volunteers.
JB OBJECTED - saying they didn't have a copy of this. OBJECTION OVERRULED.
He received hair samples from 18 and used 15. These were actually pulled from individuals - males and females - youngest 3, oldest 53.
Hairs were exposed - indoors on window sill, in potting soil, submerged. Outdoors exposed to sunlight, in wooded area and in three different vehicles - in trunk and under seat of vehicle being used and in the trunk of a vehicle in direct sunlight not used.
He used tape to fold over the tip end, leaving the root exposed. He then gave that to individuals to place in the vehicle.
He checked at one to 4 weeks and then checked at a longer time period. Some were collected early and some were left for 3 to 7 months.
Post-mortem banding (OBJECTION leading - OVERRULED)
He did not find any samples from live individuals which showed post-mortem banding.
Blind study - He included all the hairs with any possible changes as well as hairs from known deceased individuals. Given to 2 different examiners to compare. They were given 3 answer sheets - initial analysis and a confirmed analysis sheet. Examiner 1 correctly compared all the post-mortem hair, as well as one of the anti-mortem hairs as showing post-mortem banding. The second examiner also correctly identified all of the post-mortem hairs, and also initially identified one of the anti-mortem hair - different than the one the first examiner. In their final confirmed results - they both excluded the two anti-mortem hairs. This coming together is similar to real life conditions.
The study found hairs with apparent decomp. Post-mortem banding is a subset of decomp. None of the anti-mortem hairs showed post-mortem banding.
CD marked as EXHIBIT 301, published to Jury. Identified as the photo of the hair in this case. He identified the post-mortem band (a dark area in the middle).
OBJECTION BY JB - OVERRULED.
This pot-mortem banding was not seen in any of the photos in his study of hairs from live people.
No further questions.
JB - MOTION TO STRIKE. DENIED.
DIRECT EXAMINATION OF STEPHEN SHAW BY JA (continued):
What inspired this study? Started because of a thesis he came across where they had taken hairs from living individuals and had placed them in soil and water and had gotten apparent decomp at the root end. It was suggested that additional research be needed and that the hairs should be compared to post-mortem hairs and so that is what he did.
He probably would have done this study any way, but it became more of a priority because of the issues of this case.
Purpose of this study - to try to create banding in hairs from living individuals.
All hairs can decompose if exposed.
The hairs from the study came from volunteers.
JB OBJECTED - saying they didn't have a copy of this. OBJECTION OVERRULED.
He received hair samples from 18 and used 15. These were actually pulled from individuals - males and females - youngest 3, oldest 53.
Hairs were exposed - indoors on window sill, in potting soil, submerged. Outdoors exposed to sunlight, in wooded area and in three different vehicles - in trunk and under seat of vehicle being used and in the trunk of a vehicle in direct sunlight not used.
He used tape to fold over the tip end, leaving the root exposed. He then gave that to individuals to place in the vehicle.
He checked at one to 4 weeks and then checked at a longer time period. Some were collected early and some were left for 3 to 7 months.
Post-mortem banding (OBJECTION leading - OVERRULED)
He did not find any samples from live individuals which showed post-mortem banding.
Blind study - He included all the hairs with any possible changes as well as hairs from known deceased individuals. Given to 2 different examiners to compare. They were given 3 answer sheets - initial analysis and a confirmed analysis sheet. Examiner 1 correctly compared all the post-mortem hair, as well as one of the anti-mortem hairs as showing post-mortem banding. The second examiner also correctly identified all of the post-mortem hairs, and also initially identified one of the anti-mortem hair - different than the one the first examiner. In their final confirmed results - they both excluded the two anti-mortem hairs. This coming together is similar to real life conditions.
The study found hairs with apparent decomp. Post-mortem banding is a subset of decomp. None of the anti-mortem hairs showed post-mortem banding.
CD marked as EXHIBIT 301, published to Jury. Identified as the photo of the hair in this case. He identified the post-mortem band (a dark area in the middle).
OBJECTION BY JB - OVERRULED.
This pot-mortem banding was not seen in any of the photos in his study of hairs from live people.
No further questions.
JB - MOTION TO STRIKE. DENIED.
Different state, different rules?
I don't know, why I asked if a lawyer has commented on this on here.
The Eunice Burns
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2009
- Messages
- 774
- Reaction score
- 0
See? JB didn't "win" anything IMO. This was great on JA's part. Love it, love it, love it.
Donjeta
Adji Desir, missing from Florida
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,246
- Reaction score
- 633
Do you see the postmortem banding in this photo of Q12?
It's here.
Is that a fairly classic example of PM banding?
Objection overruled.
It's what I would identify as PM banding, yes. Above the root.
Was that seen in any of the photographs in your study involving live persons?
No.
No further questions.
Motion to strike will be denied.
It's here.
Is that a fairly classic example of PM banding?
Objection overruled.
It's what I would identify as PM banding, yes. Above the root.
Was that seen in any of the photographs in your study involving live persons?
No.
No further questions.
Motion to strike will be denied.
I think the 'thing' he has for JB is zero tolerance for <modsnip> who purport to be Attorneys, who raise objections on a nonsensical basis...
The SA wants to prove that she did NOT die in water... :twocents:
KenoshaKid
All the darkness in the world cannot put out a sin
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
- Messages
- 1,147
- Reaction score
- 0
Oops, JB just got an answer he wasn't expecting!
Have we seen her ask one question during this trial so far? If we have I missed it...:innocent: mostly she is the babysitter it seems to me...
This is using the supposition that JB looked at everything. Think about the jail house videos. SCREAMING error on JB's part.
- Status
Similar threads
Online statistics
- Members online
- 126
- Guests online
- 2,716
- Total visitors
- 2,842