The Eikelenbooms and Touch DNA

[joypath]

Okay back from the "real world" and just want to remind folks: :twocents: IT IS MY BEST GUESTIMATE as which members of the scientific community will be performing the testing!!!!! :snooty: Would I take it to Vegas, yep but swear on a stack of religious texts as the absolute fact of the matter, NOPE!:twocents::twocents::twocents:


The crux of the state's argument was 2 fold as I saw it : to be able to get the staff who tested the materials on the stand and to be able to have the state expert analyst evaluate the data by comparing "apples to apples", neither of which is revolutionary when one think logically and lives in the real world~:dance:

 

[jon_burrows]

:laugh:

However, this may require them to ~mingle~ with the lowlife degenerate "we like to shoot people" American commoners.

I can see where this may present a true dilemma for them. Fame - cooties - fame - cooties - fame - cooties. Decision, decisions......

 

[jon_burrows]

Oh my threadache is killing me!

So we are going to try and connect someone to this case based on touch DNA just like JBR huh????? Didnt they determine that the touch DNA in that case was probably the underwearinspector or something as innocent as that?

So with testing Caylee's shorts and the bag.....theres the inspectors who inspected it. Probably someone had to touch the items while being manufactured, boxed, shipped, unpackaged at the store, put on display shelves, touched by.......millions of shoppers while on the shelves.......touched by cash register employee, box-boy, washing machine repairman man who had to move the canvas bag off the washing machine when he repaired it. oh wait......touch DNA......as simple as it sounds. Someone who had access to touch the item. Caylee's shorts, who knows......how many places had she been? What they won't find......touch DNA from ZFG............

I think that's exactly what the defense wants...anything to distract the jury and taint the jury pool. Whining about how they need the world famous dutch scientists (or whatever they're called) to do this earth shattering testing in the shed in their back yard (huge eye roll).

FWIW, I've never heard of them.

IMO

 

[ThinkTank]

BBM

Joypath, thank you so much for clearing up the question about who will be doing the DNA testing!

If we don't ever see these results in discovery or at trial, won't that pretty much tell us that the results were not in KC's favor?

I guess my original question from the beginning of this conversation a few pages back still remains.....

HOW is this a win for the defense with HHJP granting the motion? As I see it, the judge pretty much denied everything within the motion that the defense was requesting EXCEPT the ability to test the 2 pieces of evidence, which the State never objected to in the first place. The defense doesn't get to send it to Holland, and they don't get to have the E's do the testing. How is that granting the defense motion?

TIA!

We have not read the Motion or the Order yet, but judging by the entry on the docket

09/28/2010 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Test for DNA Evidence

it looks like Judge Perry has granted the part of the Motion that requested that the laundry bag and shorts be tested for DNA .... but denying the part of the Motion that requested the evidence be sent to the Netherlands and tested at a Lab which is not in the U.S. or accredited.

It is my understanding that the State (or the Judge) cannot refuse to allow the Defense to do their own testing -- so that was a given.

I do not see it as much of a win for the Defense though.

 

[Numbers]

BBM

Joypath, thank you so much for clearing up the question about who will be doing the DNA testing!

If we don't ever see these results in discovery or at trial, won't that pretty much tell us that the results were not in KC's favor?

I guess my original question from the beginning of this conversation a few pages back still remains.....

HOW is this a win for the defense with HHJP granting the motion? As I see it, the judge pretty much denied everything within the motion that the defense was requesting EXCEPT the ability to test the 2 pieces of evidence, which the State never objected to in the first place. The defense doesn't get to send it to Holland, and they don't get to have the E's do the testing. How is that granting the defense motion?

TIA!

You have to look at it from Baez's perspective. First, put one finger in a light socket. Then put a finger from the other hand in a meat grinder. Now bend over and put your head..... well, select that target carefully. Is it clear now? Getting the testing seems like *such* a victory compared to what else is going on in his life.

 

[Snaz]

We have not read the Motion or the Order yet, but judging by the entry on the docket

09/28/2010 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Test for DNA Evidence

it looks like Judge Perry has granted the part of the Motion that requested that the laundry bag and shorts be tested for DNA .... but denying the part of the Motion that requested the evidence be sent to the Netherlands and tested at a Lab which is not in the U.S. or accredited.

It is my understanding that the State (or the Judge) cannot refuse to allow the Defense to do their own testing -- so that was a given.

I do not see it as much of a win for the Defense though.

BBM

Thank you, ThinkTank!!! I had not seen that motion nor it's title...... NOW it makes sense!

 

[sleutherontheside]

I am curious as to why the defense would waive "Chain of Custody" arguments in this motion http://www.docstoc.com/docs/56021806/09272010-Defense-Motion-to-Test-DNA-Evidence yet they have stated in open court that they have a "chain of custody issue" with other evidence. Hmmmmmmmmm

 

[logicalgirl]

BBM

Joypath, thank you so much for clearing up the question about who will be doing the DNA testing!

If we don't ever see these results in discovery or at trial, won't that pretty much tell us that the results were not in KC's favor?

I guess my original question from the beginning of this conversation a few pages back still remains.....

HOW is this a win for the defense with HHJP granting the motion? As I see it, the judge pretty much denied everything within the motion that the defense was requesting EXCEPT the ability to test the 2 pieces of evidence, which the State never objected to in the first place. The defense doesn't get to send it to Holland, and they don't get to have the E's do the testing. How is that granting the defense motion?

TIA!

Hey Snaz - let the poor little guy have his "win"! In such a world of big losses like he's got coming up - let him have this one soft win to rest his butt on before the real whammies come his way. He's going to need at least one y'know.

 

[Kentjbkent]

We have not read the Motion or the Order yet, but judging by the entry on the docket

09/28/2010 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Test for DNA Evidence

it looks like Judge Perry has granted the part of the Motion that requested that the laundry bag and shorts be tested for DNA .... but denying the part of the Motion that requested the evidence be sent to the Netherlands and tested at a Lab which is not in the U.S. or accredited.

It is my understanding that the State (or the Judge) cannot refuse to allow the Defense to do their own testing -- so that was a given.

I do not see it as much of a win for the Defense though.

Motion Document (as well as others) have now been posted in the LIST MOTIONS thread at top of forum by MM.....

(Look UP!!!!)

Thanks MM!!

 

[Spangle]

I hope you guys don't mind a non-American chiming in on this, but I'm so confused by Baez wanting the E's so badly. It's not like America is some backwater without the labs and brilliant people to perform the touch DNA tests Baez wants. America, imo, doesn't need the E's to swoop in. I don't get it. Why does he want the Dutch?

1. By requesting something that can not be given, he can whine about being denied. Making huge drama over it. Some conspiracy theory against ICA. Making claims that THIS group would have come up with the proof to prove his client innocent, etc.

2. Delay, delay, delay. By requesting a firm that can not be used, he was hopeful that it would delay things, while everyone comes up with an agreeable solution.

 

[nums24]

I am curious as to why the defense would waive "Chain of Custody" arguments in this motion http://www.docstoc.com/docs/56021806/09272010-Defense-Motion-to-Test-DNA-Evidence yet they have stated in open court that they have a "chain of custody issue" with other evidence. Hmmmmmmmmm

I posed a question on the legal thread about this. In the words of JB "is something funky going on again?" Change of strategy?

 

[Leila]

Casey Anthony - Dr. G questioned, Defense allowed to inspect Caylee’s shorts

http://www.cfnews13.com/article/new...d,-Defense-allowed-to-inspect-Caylee’s-shorts

<snipped>

However, Judge Belvin Perry denied the defense’s request to have that testing conducted by a foreign laboratory.

Casey Anthony’s lawyers had a Dutch scientist lined up to do the testing for free, but the judge ruled the evidence cannot be taken out of the country, and must be done by a scientist accredited in the U.S. -- which the Dutch scientist is not.

Instead, both sides agreed on another lab -- National Medical Services, in Pennsylvania -- to conduct the DNA tests.

It looks like the Eikelenbooms are not going to do the testing after all, and I'm confident that the laboratory in PA will do a thorough job of the testing.

 

[ynotdivein]

You have to look at it from Baez's perspective. First, put one finger in a light socket. Then put a finger from the other hand in a meat grinder. Now bend over and put your head..... well, select that target carefully. Is it clear now? Getting the testing seems like *such* a victory compared to what else is going on in his life.

:rolling: :rolling: :applause: :applause: :applause: :bow:

 

[ynotdivein]

I am curious as to why the defense would waive "Chain of Custody" arguments in this motion http://www.docstoc.com/docs/56021806/09272010-Defense-Motion-to-Test-DNA-Evidence yet they have stated in open court that they have a "chain of custody issue" with other evidence. Hmmmmmmmmm

I posed a question on the legal thread about this. In the words of JB "is something funky going on again?" Change of strategy?

And then at the hearing this week, he couldn't be bothered to depose the state's witnesses who were responsible for transporting evidence from one point to another.

Shall we add "chain of custody concerns" to list of defense's plans for future appeals? :snooty:

 

[sleutherontheside]

And then at the hearing this week, he couldn't be bothered to depose the state's witnesses who were responsible for transporting evidence from one point to another.

Shall we add "chain of custody concerns" to list of defense's plans for future appeals? :snooty:

IIRC During a hearing a while back JB made a comment about NOT being willing to waive Chain of Custody for a particular item. I can't remember what it was. Later in the same hearing he stated they had an issue with chain of custody in another matter. He didn't specify which matter.

Because of those previous statements in court, JB's recent comment about certain LE being no more than "delivery" persons really struck me as OFF.

Can anyone remember during which hearing he made the comment about a chain of custody issue??

 

[nums24]

IIRC During a hearing a while back JB made a comment about NOT being willing to waive Chain of Custody for a particular item. I can't remember what it was. Later in the same hearing he stated they had an issue with chain of custody in another matter. He didn't specify which matter.

Because of those previous statements in court, JB's recent comment about certain LE being no more than "delivery" persons really struck me as OFF.

Can anyone remember during which hearing he made the comment about a chain of custody issue??

I believe it was the emergency hearing in July, here is something you posted about the chain of custody, perhaps this will help:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5360479&postcount=322"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - 2010.07.02 Actual Emergency Hearing Thread[/ame]

Here are the links to the 7/2/2010 hearing:

Part 1: http://www.wftv.com/video/24124701/index.html

Part 2: http://www.wftv.com/video/24125348/index.html

 

[sleutherontheside]

I believe it was the emergency hearing in July, here is something you posted about the chain of custody, perhaps this will help:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - 2010.07.02 Actual Emergency Hearing Thread

Here are the links to the 7/2/2010 hearing:

Part 1: http://www.wftv.com/video/24124701/index.html

Part 2: http://www.wftv.com/video/24125348/index.html

HaHa I must have had a JB moment and got lost in my color coded charts. How sad that I did in fact post about it before and then couldn't remember when I did so.

Wow Nums fast turn around. You stalking me?? HeeHee :angel:

 

[sleutherontheside]

Website for NMS Labs in PA.
http://www.nmslab.com/about-overview/

Company Overview
For more than 35 years, NMS Labs has been setting the standard for excellence in clinical toxicology and forensic testing—responding to the needs of healthcare providers, medical researchers, coroners, and the criminal justice system with state-of-the-art tests that other labs don’t or can’t provide. A national reference laboratory, NMS Labs is unsurpassed in its scope of tests, accuracy of results, client service, scientific expertise, and innovation in the areas of:


Forensic toxicology and criminalistics
Clinical toxicology and esoteric testing
Clinical research support
Expert consultative services


I am beginning to wonder IF DNA is the ONLY thing that the defense wants tested.

 

[nums24]

HaHa I must have had a JB moment and got lost in my color coded charts. How sad that I did in fact post about it before and then couldn't remember when I did so.

Wow Nums fast turn around. You stalking me?? HeeHee :angel:

LOL - I promise no stalking you, just trying to help. The chain of custody thing has me :waitasec:, I tried to find info last night, but I was way too tired. It was just good timing. :innocent:

 

[Starfish]

Baez claims they perfected "touch DNA"! He claims they are experts in trace recovery...He feels the American labs are geared towards the government and I guess he doesn't trust our labs will properly test or that they will lean towards the prosecution, is my take on it...JMHO

When someone doesn't trust others, it seems to me, they don't trust themselves...He understand how unethical he is (Baez) and is projecting and visiting that on others....JMHO


Justice for Caylee

AND......let's not forget there's that worldwide conspiracy to get his innocent client too....yeah