Canadian forensic anthropologist Scott Fairgrieve joins Casey Anthony's defense

[kaRN]

Probably not,but it ties a dead Caylee (my apologies,that sounds so callous)to ICA's home and car,not Zanny's,not Jesse's,not Amy's and not Ricardo's or Roy Kronks. It also puts holes in the defense theory that Caylee was killed and moved after ICA went to jail.JMO : )

We have ICA's texts about the smell, Georges police interviews and Cindy's 911 call to tie the A's to the smell in addition to the dog handlers who probably wrote up....wait it's coming.... a report (LOL) on their dogs responses at the scene.
I'm not sure Dr Fairgrieve can poke holes in all of that or that JAC will pay for him to come from Sudbury when his peers on the subject all live in the States. JMO

Did the defense he offered his expertise on the admisability of cadavre dogs even win this motion in Limine?

 

[kaRN]

The defense hasn't even deposed the LE dog handlers yet per the motions thread. At least they hadn't by 11/29/2010.

 

[beach]

We have ICA's texts about the smell, Georges police interviews and Cindy's 911 call to tie the A's to the smell in addition to the dog handlers who probably wrote up....wait it's coming.... a report (LOL) on their dogs responses at the scene.
I'm not sure Dr Fairgrieve can poke holes in all of that or that JAC will pay for him to come from Sudbury when his peers on the subject all live in the States. JMO

Did the defense he offered his expertise on the admisability of cadavre dogs even win this motion in Limine?

Intermezzo found another case (linked here). ZsaZsa posted [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5892850&postcount=527"]here[/ame] that she knew the cadaver dog evidence was not allowed, but she wasn't sure why. The motion in limine that cherishtoo posted (#90 this thread) was a different case (federal case w/ different defendants). In the latter case, I heavily skimmed the motion (15+pgs) which included heavy commentary, argument and cited a lot of case law. particularly Frye. I can anticipate the "...but cadaver dog evidence has been routinely admitted" comments. I agree, but anything can be challenged. I don't know for sure but I anticipate the "touch dna" to be challenged by the State. As will the Body Farm evidence by the defense. The Frye hearings will be lengthy with a bit of testimony.

I could easily be wrong. I am making the assumption because the only two cases I have seen where Dr. Fairgrieve testified regarding cadaver dogs appear to be challenging the reliability of the "hits". A Frye hearing determines the admissibility of certain sciences considering certain variables. So, maybe it isn't a Frye challenge, but the defense just plans to use him to cast doubt on the dog hits at trial. In the case Intermezzo cited they were excluded (although not sure yet the basis of that ruling). In the latter case, not sure of the outcome; only the argument. I plan on researching both of those cases asap. I will post more when I have the "big picture".

 

[ThinkTank]

The defense hasn't even deposed the LE dog handlers yet per the motions thread. At least they hadn't by 11/29/2010.

- Kristin Brewer - Osceola Sheriff's Office - dog expert - depo done Nov 29, 2010

- Jason Forgey - OCSO - dog expert - depo done Nov 29, 2010

- Kevin Stenger - OSCO - dog Expert - depo done Nov 9, 2010

 

[passionflower]

Poor guy..............RUN AWAY as fast as you can.......KC ruins everyone's life! IMO

 

[Sun]

From the JAC earlier budget hearing when discussions were taking place about the dog expert: JB: our expert has a doctorate of veterinarian medicine he is an established scientist and is a very well known and very well respected individual in the dog community. ...CJP: And where is this expert from? JB: I know the University, I believe it is Georgia. Excuse me it is Alabama, it is Alabama. CJP: And has this expert testified before? JB: Yes. Not in this case. CJP: I know not in this case, but I am asking if he has testified in other cases? JB: Yes. And I can take it a step further in assisting the court. The dog handler testified in the bond hearing in this case not only have I consulted with this expert as to the training logs, all of the we have done a substantial amount investigation back ground of these canines. This expert has also reviewed the testimony of the dog handlers and has looked at some of the discovery in relation to the actual work that was done in this case.

Does Dr. Fairgieve have a doctorate of veterinarian medicine? Baez got CJPerry to approve 20 hours for this expert based on what was said in the JAC budget hearing. If Baez misled CJP at that hearing, and is now trying to substitute a different expert for payment of expenses, wouldn't the JAC have a problem with this?

 

[beach]

From the JAC earlier budget hearing when discussions were taking place about the dog expert: JB: our expert has a doctorate of veterinarian medicine he is an established scientist and is a very well known and very well respected individual in the dog community. ...CJP: And where is this expert from? JB: I know the University, I believe it is Georgia. Excuse me it is Alabama, it is Alabama. CJP: And has this expert testified before? JB: Yes. Not in this case. CJP: I know not in this case, but I am asking if he has testified in other cases? JB: Yes. And I can take it a step further in assisting the court. The dog handler testified in the bond hearing in this case not only have I consulted with this expert as to the training logs, all of the we have done a substantial amount investigation back ground of these canines. This expert has also reviewed the testimony of the dog handlers and has looked at some of the discovery in relation to the actual work that was done in this case.

Does Dr. Fairgieve have a doctorate of veterinarian medicine? Baez got CJPerry to approve 20 hours for this expert based on what was said in the JAC budget hearing. If Baez misled CJP at that hearing, and is now trying to substitute a different expert for payment of expenses, wouldn't the JAC have a problem with this?

Here is the info on Dr. Scott Fairgrieve. Don't see anything about about a degree in vet medicine from anywhere.

The most prestigious veterinary school in Alabama is Auburn University. I know a little bit about that college. (see avatar and tagline :angel

 

[LancelotLink]

I'm a tad confused here. Is this Dr. Fairgrieve part of the defense team or is he an expert witness? Have I missed something?

 

[beach]

Oh, I wanted to update and say I did a quick search on Westlaw re: the two cases I referred to in my post above (#103). I couldn't find what I was looking for quickly, but I plan to dig deeper. I have my last final exam tomorrow morning and need to get my bootie off of WS and FB. Westlaw is the devil when you get started searching...one thing leads to another and before you know it you've been on there for hours. I will pick it back up after I take my exam.

 

[beach]

I'm a tad confused here. Is this Dr. Fairgrieve part of the defense team or is he an expert witness? Have I missed something?

Expert witness.

fwiw, we should be able to see his CV soon. I believe he is one of the experts that is to be deposed Thursday and HHJP ordered his CV, summary opinion, etc be filed with the court by noon today.

 

[Sun]

I'm a tad confused here. Is this Dr. Fairgrieve part of the defense team or is he an expert witness? Have I missed something?

According to Baez's emails to JA, Dr. Fairgrieve is designated to possibly testify as to the defense K-9 issues. I guess I'm assuming that Baez is trying to use HHJP's approval for a dog expert to seek payment at a later date for expenses for Dr. Fairgrieve.

http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/Hi...ith Order For Additional Discovery12-9-10.pdf

 

[LambChop]

According to Baez's emails to JA, Dr. Fairgrieve is designated to possibly testify as to the defense K-9 issues. I guess I'm assuming that Baez is trying to use HHJP's approval for a dog expert to seek payment at a later date for expenses for Dr. Fairgrieve.

http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/Hi...ith Order For Additional Discovery12-9-10.pdf

But, but, but he's not an expert in dogs, unless he owns one of course. jmo

 

[cherishtoo]

From the JAC earlier budget hearing when discussions were taking place about the dog expert: JB: our expert has a doctorate of veterinarian medicine he is an established scientist and is a very well known and very well respected individual in the dog community. ...CJP: And where is this expert from? JB: I know the University, I believe it is Georgia. Excuse me it is Alabama, it is Alabama. CJP: And has this expert testified before? JB: Yes. Not in this case. CJP: I know not in this case, but I am asking if he has testified in other cases? JB: Yes. And I can take it a step further in assisting the court. The dog handler testified in the bond hearing in this case not only have I consulted with this expert as to the training logs, all of the we have done a substantial amount investigation back ground of these canines. This expert has also reviewed the testimony of the dog handlers and has looked at some of the discovery in relation to the actual work that was done in this case.

Does Dr. Fairgieve have a doctorate of veterinarian medicine? Baez got CJPerry to approve 20 hours for this expert based on what was said in the JAC budget hearing. If Baez misled CJP at that hearing, and is now trying to substitute a different expert for payment of expenses, wouldn't the JAC have a problem with this?

According his attached declaration (pg 27-30) to the motion in limine dated March 12, 2010 he stated, I am a forensic anthropologist specializing in human remains and Human decompositin. I have a Ph.D in Anthropology, and I have specialized in cadaver dog searches for nineteen years.

He doesn't mention any kind of training having to do with animals.

[ame="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30194903/Def-in-Limine-Cadaver-Dog"]Def in Limine Cadaver Dog[/ame]

 

[cherishtoo]

In the case mentioned above, I found an article that states that the judge denied the Motion in Limine as "moot".

http://whomurderedrobertwone.com/2010/04/09/gorilla-dust/

 

[beach]

I found this article particularly relevant concerning the admissibility of cadaver dog alerts. Especially the case People v. King (about 3/4 of the way down the page). (California Court of Appeals, 2004)

 

[beach]

From the JAC earlier budget hearing when discussions were taking place about the dog expert: JB: our expert has a doctorate of veterinarian medicine he is an established scientist and is a very well known and very well respected individual in the dog community. ...CJP: And where is this expert from? JB: I know the University, I believe it is Georgia. Excuse me it is Alabama, it is Alabama. CJP: And has this expert testified before? JB: Yes. Not in this case. CJP: I know not in this case, but I am asking if he has testified in other cases? JB: Yes. And I can take it a step further in assisting the court. The dog handler testified in the bond hearing in this case not only have I consulted with this expert as to the training logs, all of the we have done a substantial amount investigation back ground of these canines. This expert has also reviewed the testimony of the dog handlers and has looked at some of the discovery in relation to the actual work that was done in this case.

Does Dr. Fairgieve have a doctorate of veterinarian medicine? Baez got CJPerry to approve 20 hours for this expert based on what was said in the JAC budget hearing. If Baez misled CJP at that hearing, and is now trying to substitute a different expert for payment of expenses, wouldn't the JAC have a problem with this?

BBM

The above proffer made by JB convinces me that that is exactly what they plan on doing - challenging the admissibility of the cadaver dog hits.

I am wondering if he was referring to Fairgrieve at the time he made this proffer though. Maybe he was referring to another expert he had consulted??? Because as far as I can tell, Dr. Fairgrieve has no connection to Auburn University or any other vet school in Alabama.

 

[beach]

---snipped from this linked article

People v King (04 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8280 Court of Appeal California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, 2004)

The dog scent evidence was admissible, due to the fact that the dog was trained, certified and reliable:

• The dog's handler was qualified by training and experience to use the dog;
• The dog was adequately trained in distinguishing the odor of human cadaver scent;
• The dog has been found to be reliable in alerting on an area where a human cadaver scent has existed;
• The vehicle line-up wherein defendant's vehicle was placed and wherein the canine, Scout, and his handler participated was properly and fairly conducted;
• The defendant's vehicle and the scent within had not become stale or contaminated at the time of the line-up.

Also, this -

Summary:
As the majority of the United States cadaver dog industry is civilian based, it is important to understand the impact of case law. The actions of civilian cadaver dogs affect the law enforcement cadaver dog industry and vice-versa.
An alert from a cadaver dog is only reasonable suspicion. The dog alert must be corroborated by other evidence.

 

[beach]

The last sentence of the summary in my previous post is very important. "The dog alert must be corroborated by other evidence".

So, I don't think there is any doubt about the trunk alerts. Plenty of corroborating evidence there. I am not so sure about the alerts in the Anthony's backyard though.


Okay, I am outta here and gonna go study for my final now. LOL

 

[LambChop]

The last sentence of the summary in my previous post is very important. "The dog alert must be corroborated by other evidence".

So, I don't think there is any doubt about the trunk alerts. Plenty of corroborating evidence there. I am not so sure about the alerts in the Anthony's backyard though.


Okay, I am outta here and gonna go study for my final now. LOL

Best of luck to you for you exam.

 

[beach]

bumping

And thank you, LambChop! I am thrilled to say I finished the last one this morning!! :genie: :woohoo: