Defense files motion to vacate/motion for clarification?

[logicalgirl]

It's also getting more surreal by the day.

"Motion to Vacate and in the Alternative Motion for Clarification" <--Wha?

I suppose the title makes sense if one considers this to be a motion that has a combination of purposes?

All the same, the motion seems surreal to me, especially given the content and gothic horror novel language of Defense's previous filings.

We've heard about the Phantom Heart Sticker. More recently, there's been Defense's attempt to exclude evidence of an "imaginary stain, silhouette or fantasy image" that appears to be the size of a basketball, but really isn't because it doesn't exist. lol Move over, Edgar Alan Poe

(page 2, Motion and Memorandum...Exclude...Stain http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26331535/detail.html)

So, I suppose it should not be an additional stretch of credibility to see this motion, which I'm calling Defense's Motion to Vacate/Obfuscate/DillyDally.

CM has written 15 pages why Judge Perry should reverse his ruling that Dr. Hall's findings do not reach the Frye standard. So, what does this motion accomplish? It further annoys and irritates Judge P, who has just carefully 'splained why he made his rulings; it makes it more and more likely that Ashton is going to have an apoplexy from trying to contain his laughter; it wastes more court and case preparation time. Whatever. lol

jmo

Brilliant!!! :rocker:

 

[krisskross]

Why does it seem like the defense is trying to argue the motion "after" the ruling was already made? Reconsider, I will guess "no."

They are trying to portray Dr Hall as some sort of amateur quack, witch doctor. Looks to me, they are still hanging their hats on the body being placed there after ICA was locked up. :giggle: Suggest Roy Kronk did more than poke a stick. :bang::shush:

One would think if Dr Hall has no credability as a forensic botanist, Dorothy Sims could easily expose him on the stand, :waitasec: but nope, they choose to try and PREVENT him from being allowed to testify.:waitasec:

I don't think their efforts will be successful, but I can see the logic. If they got Dr Hall's testimony tossed, Dr Garavaglia and Dr Schultz would also have to amend their reports as both make reference to Dr Hall's conclusions.

The ultimate goal seems to be.........to prevent the jury hearing or seeing anything relating to roots growing through little Caylee's remains and bolster the SODDI reasonable doubt theory. :floorlaugh:

MOO

 

[Psmith]

Brilliant!!! :rocker:

lol I'm not sure there's enough coffee in the world to help me get beyond the Motion title. I have to read it one more time. :banghead: lolol

 

[krisskross]

Wow, and this folks shows you how much the defense needs the root growth testimony thrown out!!! The plant growth squarely puts Caylee being dumped around the last time she was seen alive which throws their some other person placed Caylee there while her mother was in jail. They need this testimony to go away because it seems one of their cornerstones to their defense is still that someone else placed Caylee on Suburban. Keeping this testimony in might be a huge blow for them!

ITA :seeya:

Sorry JSR didnt see your post before I hit submit.

 

[ynotdivein]

All the same, the motion seems surreal to me, especially given the content and gothic horror novel language of Defense's previous filings.

We've heard about the Phantom Heart Sticker. More recently, there's been Defense's attempt to exclude evidence of an "imaginary stain, silhouette or fantasy image" that appears to be the size of a basketball, but really isn't because it doesn't exist. lol Move over, Edgar Allan Poe

(page 2, Motion and Memorandum...Exclude...Stain http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26331535/detail.html)

Respectfully S&BBM... Anyone recall that Poe gem, "The Tell-Tale Heart"?

 

[Psmith]

They are trying to portray Dr Hall as some sort of amateur quack, witch doctor. Looks to me, they are still hanging their hats on the body being placed there after ICA was locked up. :giggle: Suggest Roy Kronk did more than poke a stick. :bang::shush:

One would think if Dr Hall has no credability as a forensic botanist, Dorothy Sims could easily expose him on the stand, :waitasec: but nope, they choose to try and PREVENT him from being allowed to testify.:waitasec:

I don't think their efforts will be successful, but I can see the logic. If they got Dr Hall's testimony tossed, Dr Garavaglia and Dr Schultz would also have to amend their reports as both make reference to Dr Hall's conclusions.

The ultimate goal seems to be.........to prevent the jury hearing or seeing anything relating to roots growing through little Caylee's remains and bolster the SODDI reasonable doubt theory. :floorlaugh:

MOO

I am sorry to be so confused about this motion lolol It is extraordinarily Byzantine.

From page 1:

As such, this Court's ruling that Dr. Hall's testimony was "pure opinion" and not subject to Frye, should be revisted based on the foregoing" [sic.]

This seems to suggest that Defense wants Hall's testimony reappraised from the opinion to the expert level?

From pages 3-4:

[We] would argue because this Court's order acknowledges Dr. Hall's methodology and later concludes that Dr. Hall used no methodology, the Court must grant a Frye hearing or exclude the evidence.

OK, so Defense wants Hall on the stand at the Frye hearing so they can discredit him and get Hall's entire testimony tossed, even as an opinion?


From page 6:

Even if the Court determines that Frye does not apply, Dr. Hall's conclusions must be excluded under the standard for pure expert opinion.

Got it. Why not say this on page 1? lolol

 

[Horace Finklestein]

This is what I got in a 5-minute scan of what smells like pure Cheney Mason to me:

If hes an expert citing only his opinion and not using expert methods then:

Why is he referencing 28-year old research literature? (ohhhh, the irony IS rich)
Why is he using a ruler?
Why did he use the word "methodology" in a sentence during his deposition?
Wouldn't that make him an expert welding more than mere opinion?

Oh, and if he is not an expert, he is a layperson, and has no right being called as an expert. (that falls under pot, kettle in my book)

FAIL.

:shakehead:

Especially after Andrea Lyon's bizarre "prosecutors want to kill pretty girls" witness!

 

[darnudes]

I thought this was argued by Simms orginally. Why is Mason filing the motion and not her? Does she perhaps not agree with him?

Looks to me that it was written by Simms and sent by Mason, that's my take on it anyway.

Not a bad motion, without knowing the case law or having any legal experience, it seems this motion may have a chance - although knowing Judge Perry's record like we do, I doubt he will grant it.

 

[Peepers McPeep]

I expected no less from the Defense table.
Makes ya want to find a nice little corner to crouch in..
pulling my hair out while giving a soft maniacle cackle...
Dear Ripley's Believe it or Not,
By the end of trial.. there were less than three hairs left in the courtroom.

McPeep

 

[logicalgirl]

I expected no less from the Defense table.
Makes ya want to find a nice little corner to crouch in..
pulling my hair out while giving a soft maniacle cackle...
Dear Ripley's Believe it or Not,
By the end of trial.. there were less than three hairs left in the courtroom.



McPeep

McPeep - here's an icon for you to make your own. Easier on the scalp - just hit repeat as long as it takes to feel better. :great:

ullhair: ullhair: ullhair: ullhair: ullhair: ullhair: ullhair: ullhair:



Er....I think it works for feathers too. :waitasec:

 

[watergirl]

Especially after Andrea Lyon's bizarre "prosecutors want to kill pretty girls" witness!

Elizabeth Rapaport, during the May 11, 2010 hearing.

http://lawschool.unm.edu/faculty/rapaport/publications.php

 

[Peepers McPeep]

McPeep - here's an icon for you to make your own. Easier on the scalp - just hit repeat as long as it takes to feel better. :great:

ullhair: ullhair: ullhair: ullhair: ullhair: ullhair: ullhair: ullhair:



Er....I think it works for feathers too. :waitasec:

AHH! TY, kindly. I forsee borrowing a cupful of :banghead:, as well..
I'm coming out of bafflement, and heading towards snarly over todays developments..Gonna go look for a saber toothed smilie..

 

[ynotdivein]

AHH! TY, kindly. I forsee borrowing a cupful of :banghead:, as well..
I'm coming out of bafflement, and heading towards snarly over todays developments..Gonna go look for a saber toothed smilie..

Peepers, I initially assumed the Motion to Vacate or Clarify meant:

Vacate--JB had planned another va-cay! Perhaps he and Geraldo made up and the yacht was available for a week in May; or perhaps there was another "unique" opportunity for him to lurk in the fake palm trees in some hotel lobby and waylay unsuspecting potential experts?

Clarify--After much consideration, CM wanted it clarified on the record that he is not having that much "fun" after all.

Then I realized what it was really all about.

Be not snarly, my friend. All will be well.

 

[RR0004]

I am sorry to be so confused about this motion lolol It is extraordinarily Byzantine.

From page 1:
This seems to suggest that Defense wants Hall's testimony reappraised from the opinion to the expert level?

From pages 3-4:


OK, so Defense wants Hall on the stand at the Frye hearing so they can discredit him and get Hall's entire testimony tossed, even as an opinion?


From page 6:


Got it. Why not say this on page 1? lolol

There were parts of this motion that made me skip to the end to see who the signed it...the defense or the State.

 

[mitzi]

Especially after Andrea Lyon's bizarre "prosecutors want to kill pretty girls" witness!

Exactly...and the infamous, "female prosecutors wear strap-ons." :maddening:

 

[logicalgirl]

Exactly...and the infamous, "female prosecutors wear strap-ons." :maddening:

No worries - the only thing LDB is strapping on is her big boots - and that's why Missie Lyon(s) beat it back to Chicago......:floorlaugh:

 

[ynotdivein]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRkovnss7sg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRkovnss7sg[/ame]

For those who don't YouTube, the lyrics:

You keep saying you've got something for me.
something you call love, but confess.
You've been messin' where you shouldn't have been a messin'
and now someone else is gettin' all your best.

These boots are made for walking, and that's just what they'll do
one of these days these boots are gonna walk all over you.

You keep lying, when you oughta be truthin'
and you keep losin' when you oughta not bet.
You keep samin' when you oughta be changin'.
Now what's right is right, but you ain't been right yet.

These boots are made for walking, and that's just what they'll do
one of these days these boots are gonna walk all over you.

You keep playin' where you shouldn't be playin
and you keep thinkin' that you´ll never get burnt.
Ha! I just found me a brand new box of matches yeah
and what he knows you ain't had time to learn.

Are you ready boots? Start walkin'!

 

[cuppy199]

Especially after Andrea Lyon's bizarre "prosecutors want to kill pretty girls" witness!

Yea I had to :waitasec: on that one. I think she might have it backwards it use to be alot of pretty girls got off because of there looks. :twocents: In other words she is young and pretty no way can she be guilty ummm yea right :banghead: