March 28, 2024, 05:40:32 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: NEW CHILD BOARD CREATED IN THE POLITICAL SECTION FOR THE 2016 ELECTION
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: MAGIC EYES RECAPS  (Read 108351 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
MuffyBee
Former Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 44737



« Reply #100 on: June 13, 2011, 12:57:40 PM »

11:15am Monday, June 13, 2011 Court is in session.

Next state witness is Elisabeth Fontaine, FBI

She is a forensic latent print examiner for the FBI. She has a masters degree in Forensic Science and a masters degree in chemistry and training at the FBI.  She completed an 18month training latent prints and other prints.  She has processed 75 thousand prints.  She successfully completed the FBI certification in fingerprinting.  She had a supervisor at first then worked on her own but still had her work looked over by someone else.  That is normal protocol.

She did work on the Caylee Marie Anthony.  It was on 3 piece of duct tape in the case.  He handed her a piece of evidence, she identified it as the bag that the duct tape was  in.  Did you separate the 3 pieces or were they already separated?  She is referring to her notes.  One item was separate, 2 were stacked or stuck together, she examined them stuck together and separated.  Q62, Q63 were approx. 6 inches in length.  The glue was almost gone and the duct tape was no longer sticky, it had migrated and formed a glob of fibers and glue.  She examined Q62 and Q63 for fingerprints, she was told that the duct tape was found on remains and in an area that could be flooded.  She had no expectations that there would be latent prints.  Because latent prints are very fragile and consist of oil, etc.  She still processed them the same for latent prints.  She found no latent fingerprints.  She did however find something she did see.  On Q63 she saw an outline of a heart shape that appeared on the edge of the duct tape.  She was using an alternate light source after super glue to analyze items.  That is used to raise otherwise invisible prints.  The outline was approx the size of the dime.  She compared it to the outline of a band-aid that you would wear for an extended period of time.  At the time, she didn't know that it would be important, she called over a supervisor to view it as well.  She came over and viewed it as well.  She did not photograph it because it was not her job, she notes it and continues on.  The FBI does not expect her to photograph the item, she went on to process it, she later tried to photograph it but it was gone.  She had already used solvents and performed other tests on the duct tape which removed the heart shaped residue.  She used a RAM dye stain.  She also used black powder and alternate black powder.  When she went back to take a photo of the heart shape residue, it was gone.  It was the size of a dime in the shape of a heart.  Jeff is done........

Baez is up..........

He is pleasing the court.  Who is the first person to get these items?  It went to evidence control then went to trace evidence, it is not detailed in her records.  She does not know the travel path of these 3 pieces of duct tape.  The FBI receives it and decides who is going to see it.  Evidence control got it and was sent to trace evidence and then to her.  Trace evidence contacted her to see if anything needed to be photographed, visible prints.  They were looking for hair, fibers?  Yes.  What is the first thing you did?  I don't remember what I did, I think I started with the one not stuck together.  When you got Q62 what is the first process you did. When I got the 3 pieces of duct tape, I looked at them to see if I could see any prints, it is the first step.  The second step is a laser to detect latent prints.  This allows you to see any items on the evidence?  Yes, we look at items with a laser for prints.  The 3rd step is ultra violet.  This helps you pick up fingerprints you could have missed? Yes.  What is step four? It goes to back to trace evidence for fibers, etc.  She then got the 3 pieces of duct tape they were now all separate.  Next step is super glue, all 3 pieces of duct tape were super glued to add moisture to the air, the air is attracted to the moisture and lets the super glue harden over the prints.  The next step is the Ruvis system.  It is an ultra violet light that is done through a camera, you look at not the object but at the monitor, it takes away any 3d effect on that item, debris...etc. The object is enlarged on the monitor.  The next step is the RAM dye stain that is used on super glue.  It gives the super glue a orange glow.  After the RAM, she uses alternate black powder.  The final step is the traditional black powder.  To test for oil left by latent prints.  Then you went on to Q63?  Yes.  When you saw this small item, it was something that you just visibly saw?  After processing the item it was no longer visible.  You saw this after you had gotten it back from the trace evidence twice?  Yes. After you received this you did a report and you said that they had no finger prints at all?  Yes.  You are aware that after you examine it, it goes on to another FBI examiner?  Yes.  And you are aware it was later contaminated?  Objection.......side bar.....side bar is over. 

9:00am Objection sustained.  Baez is still up.

You filled out a report?  Yes.  After doing a complete and total workup you were not able to find any fingerprints on any duct tape? No.  Baez is done.

Jeff is up..........

Was Q63 on top of Q64?  Yes.

Witness is excused.

Jeff Ashton says his next witness will not be here until tomorrow afternoon. 

Judge is talking to the jury.  He says the state will end their presentation Wed and the defense hopes to start then.  We are ahead of schedule.  We may probably be done by the end of next week with all of the evidence.  We may get you to deliberating the 25th or the 27th of June.  Side bar......Side bar is over. CJP is recessing till tomorrow afternoon at 1pm.  Court is adjourned for the day.

 
Logged

  " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."  - Daniel Moynihan
MuffyBee
Former Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 44737



« Reply #101 on: June 14, 2011, 03:50:39 PM »

Comcast has been down in my area 

Just came back up, will start typing now.
Logged

  " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."  - Daniel Moynihan
MuffyBee
Former Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 44737



« Reply #102 on: June 14, 2011, 03:52:06 PM »

1:45 Tuesday June 14, 2011 Court is in session

Alina Burroughs is the state witness.

Baez is now up.......

He is showing the witness a photo of the stamp in the photo.  Do you see 37cents?  Yes.  Do you know how long ago we had 37cent stamps?  I don't know when the letter was sent.  Did you see old items here, baby shower items? Yes.  There are star stickers here?  Yes.  You see Pluto and Mickey Mouse? Yes.  Did you see a lot of scrap book items in the room? Yes.  Did you see scrap book items for children? No, not for children.  Did you find any stickers in Caylee's room.  There was a scrapbook page.  They are not in evidence?  No.  Did you search Cindy and George's room?  Yes.  Did you find anything like a sticker in their room? No.  He is approaching the witness with a photo that is not introduced in evidence.  It is a photo of an item off of suburban object.  Is it a sticker?  I don't know, I have never held it.  Did you find that item at the Anthony home?  Not to my knowledge without measurements, I am not comfortable saying.  How far away from Suburban Drive was an elementary School?  Close not sure of a measurement.  He is showing her a photo for measurements?  She still can't give measurements.  You were involved at the scene of Suburban Dr for how many days? 9 days.  The only traffic allowed through was school buses. No other people were allowed down the street to pick up kids.  Was there anything there to give you an idea there was anything other than a school?  No.  Baez is done.  Witness is excused.

Next state witness is Robin........Baez objected to witness and Linda and he are having a side bar in the middle of the court.  Last witness is coming back to the stand.

Alina Burroughs is back on the stand..........

Mr Baez is up..............

He is now showing her the item that she looked at.  It is now received into evidence because Baez wanted to ask her about an item that was not in evidence because, he objected to it.  Witness is opening the envelope.  Have you seen the item?  It is the heart shaped sticker.  You did not find anything like that at the Anthony home?  No further questions.  Baez is done.........

Witness is excused.

 


Logged

  " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."  - Daniel Moynihan
MuffyBee
Former Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 44737



« Reply #103 on: June 14, 2011, 03:53:33 PM »

2:05 Wednesday June 14, 2011 Court is in session.

Next state witness is Cindy Anthony.

Linda is up...........

When you testified last, we had gone up through the time periods of July.  When your grand daughter was found on Dec 8, 2011, where were you?  Coming home from CA.  When you came in July 2008 through Dec 2008, did you ever notice items missing?  Yes, her teddy bear, name Teddy and her Winnie the Pooh blanket.  She hadn't seen the blanket since May.  Is the hair style you had in the videos that you had for a significant period of time?  Yes.  How about the length of your hair?  It changes.  The length of hair we see in the July 2008 videos how long was it? The same.  Is it processed?  Yes, it is highlighted or processed.  She is showing her a photo of Caylee.  Do you know when that was taken?  Early 2008, the first couple of months.  Do you see the length of her hair in that photo? Yes.  Had her hair grown?  Yes but I would trim the ends off to keep it healthy.  Did you process Caylee's hair, Absolutely not.  Do you have knowledge of what your daughter Casey had done on her hair?  Casey started doing different things after Caylee was born.  She cut it shorter and had highlights put in it but then she let it grow out and back to it's natural color.  Showing her another photo of Casey holding Caylee.  That photo was taken in the beginning of 2007.  Why do you think that?  Caylee is chunkier and the clothing she wore in that and her hair was a lot shorter and curlier when she was younger.  Showing Cindy her deposition.  Do you recall saying that the photo was taken around Caylee's 2nd birthday?  Objection-over-ruled.  Yes, I remember making that statement.  What hair style has your son Lee had in 2008 and before?  Short and then shaved down.  It would only get like an inch long.  He never processed his hair.  Does your mother live in the area.  Was she ever in the Sun Fire.  Yes.  Prior to June 2008, when was your mom in the Sun Fire?  I don't know.  When was the last time your mother was in the car?  I can't say.  What kind of hair does your mother have?  Shoulder length, blond, brown, mostly gray and white.  Have any of your brothers been in the Sun Fire?  I don't think so, maybe my older brother.  He keeps his hair very short and it is blond.  In 2008 were you aware there was any duct tape in your home?  I recall black duct tape, blue and possibly silver.  I used the black when we had protesters.  Was it kept anywhere other than the garage? No.  Was any of the duct tape in your home used at the command center.  No, not ours...kid finders did and George bought some.  I don't believe that came from our house. Have you ever made a statement that duct tape was used at the command center?  I don't know.  Linda is showing her, her deposition.  She now remembers that George told her that he put a piece of tape on the gas can, it came back from the sheriff's office without it.  The depo shows Cindy saying that it was used at the command center.  She recalls using duct tape at the command center but did not know where it came from.  Showing her a photo from the command center of a  poster of Caylee with the Henkle Brand duct tape on it.  She is showing Cindy a photo of canvas laundry bags.  Do those pictures accurately reflect the items you had?  Yes, the bottom one we used in Caylee's room for her stuffed animals.  Next photo is of the canvas laundry bags.  Cindy says they are the same that they had at home.  The top item is cylindrical?  She used it to keep Caylee's plastic balls in, then she put it in the laundry room on the shelf.  She hadn't looked for that item or seen that item for a long time.  The item at the bottom of the photo is a long canvas bag, it kept Caylee's stuffed animals but they were moved into a tree for stuffed animals and it was moved to the garage area.  Did you ever make the statement you saw the last item it was in Caylee's bedroom?  Yes but she forgot she had switched it out and put it in the garage.  She recalls saying that she said she made a statement that it was last seen in Caylee's bedroom.  Do you recall after the police made a search, it was no longer in Caylee's bedroom.  Yes but my memory has gotten better over time.  Showing Cindy a picture of the garage.  The two canvas bags we were referring to, were either on of them stored in the garage.  Cindy is circling a black garbage bag on a shelf.  They were stored that way to not collect dust.  After the search warrant of Dec 2008 did you see either one of those items again? No.  She is showing Cindy a photo of items in the shed.  It is little plastic balls that you would find in a ball pit.  Linda is showing her a photo of Casey and Caylee, Caylee is wearing a pink shirt with "Big Trouble" on it. Do you recognize that shirt?  The first time I saw it was at a depo in this case.  You have never seen that shirt at your house? Do you do the laundry at your house?  Usually, George does it sometimes.  You never saw the picture of Caylee in this shirt?  No.  Court is in afternoon recess. 
Logged

  " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."  - Daniel Moynihan
MuffyBee
Former Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 44737



« Reply #104 on: June 14, 2011, 04:23:24 PM »

3:05pm  Wednesday June 14, 2011, Court is in session.

Question from the jury, can we see exhibit 313, we did not see it after it was introduced.  JP thinks it was the heart shaped item.  The jury want to know if they can give a typed list of exhibits during deliberations.  Judge Perry wants it put on the document cam so the jury can see the heart shaped item found at the scene.  Baez has a problem with a sticker being shown because it was stuck to cardboard and it is now not stuck to cardboard.  Linda says it was not stuck to cardboard, it was photographed on the cardboard.  The judge is saying the jury will see 313 because that is what they asked for.  They may be able to hold it.  Baez says it was stuck to a piece of cardboard.  JBP says asks if there is record testimony that says it was stuck?  JBP is going to have the testimony of the CSI that recovered that item to say if it was stuck or not.  He is going to bring the jury in and show it to them and see if they want to hold it.  Baez is still arguing about it being altered.  The jury must be made aware that the sticker was stuck to the cardboard.  JBP wants to go off the record, call and find out if there was testimony that it was ever stuck to the cardboard.  He will tell the jury that he will get that exhibit and look at it in the meantime, we will bring in the jury and finish Ms. Anthony's testimony.

Cindy Anthony is back on the witness stand.  Court is in session.  3:20pm.

Baez is up...............

He is pleasing the court.  She does not want to look at him.  Your grand daughter was found on Dec 11, 2008 and the police executed a search warrant on your home?  Yes.  You did not go back for a couple days?  Yes.  You were home for a few days and got to see what the police did in your absence.  When you got home did you see a list of what they took?  No, it took a lot for us to get a copy of what they took.  On Dec 20, 2001 the police came back with a search warrant, did you have a confrontation with the LE, when they came back?  Yes.  George had to be taken to the back area?  Sustained.  Mrs Anthony did you tell LE that there was a missing blanket?  I don't know.  Are you aware that is a statement you made to them.  No.  Are you aware on the search warrant of Dec 11, 2008 there was mention of a Winnie the Pooh blanket. Objection........side bar......side bar over......oops side bar again over the heart shaped sticker matter, the judge must of received the info he wanted from the court about the testimony.  Side bar........side bar is over.

Baez is up........

Mrs Anthony, when you came home your house was a mess, the LE turned your house upside down and never put anything back?  Yes.  Included in the items they took, they took Caylee's bedding set?  Yes.  You knew then they were interested in Caylee's bedding?  They looked in every drawer turned over everything in most of the house.  He is asking Cindy about her depot.  What exactly was the question asked to you?  Objection...improper impeachment.  Baez says he is not trying to impeach her.  Linda is arguing to the judge this is hearsay.  Judge says he can read the question.  Baez reads were you asked.  Did Casey remove any duct tape from the house when she was out of jail, the two times she was out.  Cindy doesn't remember this.  It was a 2 day depo and she doesn't remember.  He is asking Cindy what she said, objection....JP tells him how to go about doing this.  Baez takes a moment with Mason.  Baez is showing Cindy her depo.  The date is July 29, 2009.  Having her read from the depot.  Did Casey remove any duct tape when she was out of jail for that period of time, the two period of times.  As far as I remember no, because we only had one roll of duct tape and George was using that.  It was your understanding that you only had one roll of duct tape?  Yes, we had one roll of duct tape, a black roll of duct tape for the protesters, I may have used it too.  He is showing Cindy evidence and also showing the jury, it is the photo of Casey with short hair playing with Caylee.  Now asking how long have you owned the Sun Fire?  Since 2000.  You hair length has changed many times, so has Casey, so has Caylee and so has your mother.  No my mother never had longer hair than 5 inches.  Lee's hair is usually very short.  Going back to photo with Casey and Caylee.  Caylee would of been younger than 2 years old?  Maybe 18 months.  The shorts are 24months.  Caylee no long fit into these shorts did she?  No.  She fit into 3t's.  She had outgrown these shorts?  Would whoever put these shorts on her did not know her size?  Sustained.  Linda has no questions.

Cindy may stand down. 

Judge Perry is talking to the jury.  Do they want to see a picture of it or have it handled by you?  They want both.  Linda says that it is was attached to cardboard and now is separated.  They are showing it to the jury.  They are passing it around to the jurors.  Judge Perry tells the jury when the evidence was collected it was attached to the cardboard.  The jurors are looking at the heart shaped sticker.

Next witness has several stipulations first, she is handing the judge something in writing.  The defense has no objections to the stipulation.  Linda wants the stipulations and the affadavits read.

The copies of the video taken by WFTV are true and accurate.  The parties have agreed to this fact and they are to be considered true in your deliberations.  He is reading and affadavit of a professional journalist of WFTV.inc.  Affadavit of person who took the video, he took on July 28, 2008 of a command center on Chickasaw Blvd.  Linda is introducing a photo and a video into evidence.  First is a photo of a Caylee Anthony missing poster with Henkle duct tape on it.  Now Linda says there are several more stipulations at this juncture.  Stipulation is read by the Judge, In 2008 Cindy Anthony was employed by Gentiva Health Services, these are business records and time card history reports.  No objections to the stipulations.  Received into evidence.  Linda has another stipulation, just is reading it.  In 2008, George Anthony was employed by Security Force.  These are true and accurate in your deliberations.  They are his work records and a weekly time report of George Anthony.  Received into evidence.  Linda has another stipulation with multiple documents.  Side bar.


Logged

  " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."  - Daniel Moynihan
MuffyBee
Former Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 44737



« Reply #105 on: June 14, 2011, 05:49:26 PM »

4:15pm  Wednesday June 14, 2011 Court is in session.

We are between witnesses, we are still at sidebar....sidebar is over.

Linda is up........

The stipulation they were talking about at side bar is placed into evidence.  Judge is reading it, It is from Photo Bucket and should be considered true and accurate in your deliberations.  Linda hands the judge 2 other stipulations.  The judge reads that the remains found on Suburban Dr. were of Caylee Marie Anthony.  All witnesses referring to Casey Marie Anthony are referring to the defendant of Casey Marie Anthony.

Next state witness is Jennifer Welch.

Frank George is up.........

Jennifer Welch has testified before in this case, she is a CSI for the OC Sheriff's office.  He is asking her about coming into contact with Casey Anthony to photograph of a tattoo on her back.  She took 23 photos on this instance, not all were of the tattoo.  They are showing a picture of Casey's back and the tattoo.  Shows clearly the Bella Vita tattoo.  Shows more photos of the tattoo.  Taken August 2009.

Witness is excused.

Next state witness is Bobby Williams.

Frank George is up...........

Mr. Williams works at Cast Iron Tattoo as the manager and the artist for the last 8 years.  He worked there in July 2008.  He has known Casey for roughly 7 years.  He saw her at the tattoo shop.  She came in to get tattooed.  She had an appt.  She made it over the phone 3 to 4 days prior.  When he spoke to her on the phone she told him she wanted the tattoo, Bella Vita done in a feminine type font.  He usually asks what they want ahead of time.  She came in July 2, 2008 and he drew the design and applied the tattoo.  It took 30 minutes to draw and apply.  He is being shown the Bella Vita tattoo on the shoulder of Casey Anthony, he says that is the one he did that day.  Side bar.........side bar is over.  4:40pm.

Hmmm they seem to be at break for 5 minutes.  Frank George asked that the witness be allowed to step down. Appears break is over and although jury has not been brought back in, they are having a side bar...sidebar is over.  4:55pm Jury is coming back in.

Bobby Williams is back on the stand.

Frank George is up..........

Showing a photo of the Bella Vita tattoo on Casey's back.  You drew out this design before it was applied?  Yes.  Did the defendant agree to it?  Yes.  Even the star like symbols?  Yes.  How was Casey that day?  Normal, seemed pretty happy.  We talked about the process of the tattoo, she was on the phone the majority of the time.  How much did that tattoo cost?  65 dollars, she paid in cash.  She stayed after the tattoo and they ordered pizza and she had a couple of slices, she paid.  She came in a couple of days later to make another appt for July 19, 2008.  She came by herself on July 2, 2008 she was alone, she came on July 15, 2008 and she was alone. she was alone on July 19, 2008.  She was happy and normal. She told him on July 15, 2008 that she was gonna bring a friend to the next appt.  He knew that she had a daughter.  She said that Caylee was with the nanny but she would bring Caylee to the July 19, 2008 appt.  Frank George is done.

Baez is up.........

Is it customary for people to get tattoo's for people that have passed? Yes.  Did you do the tattoos for Cindy and George Anthony?  Sustained.  Did you do any tattoos for any other member of the Anthony family?  Sustained. Baez is done.

Frank George is up...........

Did she appear to be mournful when she got the Bella Vita tattoo?  Sustained.  Side bar....side bar is over.  Witness can be excused.

Judge Perry is excusing the jury for the day.

Side bar....side bar is over, judge is looking at computer monitor. Mason is asking for a mistrial on several grounds.  The morphing of the skull and now the heart shaped sticker not being dime shaped and now the issue of remorse.  He is citing case law now....about consciousness of guilt.  Jeff says, as to tattoo the only evidence presented to this court is that her daughter was alive, absent from her custody against her will.  He is asking the judge about the defense question about a love one who had passed?  He says no grounds for mistrial.

Judge Perry says Motion for Mistrial will be denied. 

Jeff Ashton is saying the he needs to formally move in two cans of carpet samples.  Other than that the state is at rest.

The defense can't start until Thursday.  Mason wants to know whether the state is resting or not resting?  Jeff says they will finish tomorrow.  Court will be in session at 9am tomorrow morning.  Linda wants to know if they can take the defense on their word that they will have no witnesses till Thursday?  The judge says only the state will put anything on tomorrow.  They will do the last minute items and then rest.  Judge is talking about law concerning circumstantial evidence.  Both side are aware of the facts.  The facts are the facts.  Judge is asking about depositions for the grief expert.  Jeff says they have arranged that for Saturday.  Judge tells them to consider another case. Durband V State, it does not exactly deal with the issue of grief but it has some application to this case.  Court is in recess till tomorrow morning at 9:00am.






Logged

  " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."  - Daniel Moynihan
MuffyBee
Former Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 44737



« Reply #106 on: June 15, 2011, 01:24:20 PM »

9:15am Wednesday, June 15, 2011 Court is in session.

One issue before the judge brings the jury in.  The state has an exhibit issue.  They also have a new stipulation.
 
The stipulation will read that on
July 2, 2008 Casey Anthony got a tattoo "Bella Vita" this is true and accurate for your deliberations.  The state wants to enter two cans into evidence, they contain carpet samples.  They may be used later but any use will have a proffer to it.
Mason wants to know how the jury wanted the heart-shaped item yesterday, if they were not to be talking to each other about this case and were not deliberating.  No instruction will be given.

Jury is coming in.

The judge is reading the stipulation to the jury that Casey Anthony got a tattoo "Bella Vita" this is true and accurate and can be used in your deliberations.  The state just entered the 2 cans into evidence.

Linda says, "At this point, the state rests".  Judge asks for a side bar...side bar is over.

The judge is excusing the jury for the day, they will reconvene tomorrow morning, June 16, 2011 at 9:00am.

Taking up legal matters without the jury present.  Mason handed the court a whole lot of cases and a memorandum.  The cases he cited, the judge is familiar with all but Baugh and Kennedy.  He will read it or Baez can go straight into his argument without him reading it.  The state has already given him theirs on Monday.  He had an opportunity to read the states.

Mason is up........

Wish me luck, he is gonna mumble, lol.  It is established in the jurisprudence in this country, we are entitled to ask for a judgment of acquittal.  The Florida Supreme Court has a law he is citing, he is citing Serrano.  That was one of Mason's cases.  The Supreme Court reaffirmed that there is a special type of review, the motion of judgment of acquittal.  He is going on and on with case law for Judgment of Acquittal.  He is saying this case is based on purely circumstantial evidence.  The circumstantial evidence must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  He says Dr G. did not follow the law when she said it had to be a homicide based on circumstantial facts.  The state in preventing it's evidence has used the untruthfulness to family and friends and this began with the "Nanny" in 2006.  They don't know when the child died, where she died, how she died, who was with her when she died.  They do not know if it was an accidental death and if anyone helped to cover up an accidental death.  The state has not proven that there was no premeditation if there was a murder at all.  The evidence for a murder must beyond a reasonable doubt, Mason doesn't think the state has met that burden.  There has been in this case no premeditation, just a stacking of incidents, a stacking of evidence.  He is citing the case, Smith, a woman floating in the bay wrapped in chains and a blue bed spread floating around her.  Despite being missing for a long time, she was not reported missing by her husband for a very long time.  The court ruled in that court the state could not prove first degree murder because there was no premeditation, they lowered it to second degree murder.  In this case, we have no cause of death, under than the speculation of Dr. G.  Looks like CJP is not buying any of this, he is making his sour puss face.  Now Mason is talking about his doomed Serrano case.  Nelson Serrano was convicted of the execution style of 4 people, etc, etc.  He was in the wrong place at the wrong time.  There was no question to the cause of death but the issue was that Serrano was the shooter, it went on for weeks and weeks and years later it is in the appellate court.  It should reiterate that every reasonable hypothesis should be used to be assured that this case is beyond a reasonable doubt.  He is now talking about a case Linda handed him this morning about Felony Child Abuse making the murder First Degree.  Caylee Marie had no prior child abuse, no broken bones, no bone torquing.  Casey Marie Anthony was a loving, doting mother as seen by all witnesses.  Judge asks him about a case Louis V State, how would Mason square Louis with this.  Mason says Louis is trying to undo it but the law today is Brooks.  He is moving on to Kennedy V State....the Kennedy court said, the standard for aggravated child abuse, it talks about the court making an error in area in not finding out what aggravated child abuse.  The complete definition is that a reasonable parent would not cause the acts that would knowingly cause the child apparent pain and harm.  All the witnesses were asked about torture, discipline any acts at all by the defendant to her daughter.  None were found.  Aggravated child abuse was not found.  To count 3, aggravated manslaughter, it was raised to aggravated because Caylee was young.  The duct tape either being on the child or near the child means nothing. There has been no evidence as culpable conduct on the part of Casey Anthony.  Mason goes on and on and CJP says isn't it a little late in the day for that argument? Mason says they filed motions about Miranda rights but there is another aspect of it.  Mason goes on to say that statements Casey gave LE statements not voluntarily and the jury needs to disregard them.  She was never given Miranda rights even though she was put in a cage and surrounded by LE.  Mason is talking about other cases he has cited for CJBP to read.  The state is required to prove every element to beyond a reasonable doubt and they have not done that. He is citing another case that gave no cause of death.  Where is any cause of death in this case?  This is a special case because of the notoriety and needs to be looked at carefully, there is not enough evidence to prove these charges against Casey Anthony.  Talking about hair in the case now, the Supreme Court in Ballard reversed the judgment of Murder and the Death Penalty, there was not just hair evidence there was bloody evidence and a cause of death.  Talking about a death conviction of Cox, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction that was gained only because of circumstantial evidence.  The death sentence was not just commuted to life but acquitted.  Another case that was a death sentence, reversed to a 2nd degree murder because of no pre-meditation.  If the homicide is not pre-meditated it must not be first degree murder it must be 2nd degree murder.  In this case, this is an accidental death.  He is talking about Serrano and comparing it to the love that Casey had for Caylee.  The state is trying to make this loving relationship into something different.  He is talking about the heart shaped sticker not found close to the body.  The only evidence that any heart shape sticker was poofed by the FBI.  We have no evidence that about that heart shape sticker, the duct tape is questionable, did the duct tape fall down to the mouth?  The only person that had access to the duct tape is the grand father, that is what we learned yesterday.  Now directing his thoughts to case law provided to him by the State of Florida.  Judge Perry is asking him what record of accidental death can the court look at?  Mason says there is none but there is going to be, the state has the burden not the defense.  He is citing law, the state gave him.  In this case the cause of death was not in dispute.  The testimony of the defendant was proven wrong, there was no mystery about the cause of death.  More case law, I think provided by the state.  He isn't making much sense and jumping around and I am having a hard time making sentences out of it, lol.  He is going on about the Serrano case again.  Each case that the state gave him had cause of death.  How was this child killed, where was this child killed, was she killed at all.  He says that he has tried murder cases for 40 years and he knows all of these could have, may have, might of been can not exclude there was no murder at all, there was no pre-meditation, there was no history to establish aggravated child abuse.  All 3 of the first charges are screaming for acquittal.
Mason is done.......

Linda is up.....

The law is the law and while the great portion of what Mason dealt with, he tried to compare those cases to the unique facts in this case.  The cases she gave the court were not given because they were quite similar but because the court must lean toward the State of Florida.  The reason the Serrano Case was in the packet was because the defendants theory of innocence was an alibi.  The state had ample evidence to show Serrano's alibi was lacking.  In this case, the defendant said over and over to everyone that Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzales had taken her child.  That was proven never to have occurred.  The fact that the states opening included an accidental drowning changes none of the facts.  Dr G. has stated unequivocally that this was not an accident.  George Anthony has said this did not happen.  This cannot be an alibi compared to the alibi used in Serrano.  Linda is citing a case that the state did not die due to the defendant.  Dr Beaver could not perform a regular autopsy because of advanced decomp but still said it was a homicide.  Hypothesis propounded by the defense, Dr. Beaver said didn't happen because of his knowledge, the grave site and other common sense that it was a homicide.  A reasonable jury can decide that Caylee Marie Anthony died do to the fact that she had 3 pieces of duct tape applied to her nose and mouth, that she died to a high amount of chloroform or a combination of the two.  That Caylee's body was in her mother's trunk.  Casey did provide a motive to eliminate the child.  The state proved that Ms Anthony started to think about killing the child in March when she looked up how to make Chloroform, etc.  The state does not have to provide details of the death, it can be decided upon circumstantial evidence.  The only real case that needs to be decided for Judgment of Acquittal is in the Brooks case in 2005 by the Supreme Court.  The merger doctrine between aggravated child abuse and first degree murder, shaking a child to death could be considered to be aggravated child abuse, the court found the mechanism that resulted in the Dorsey case was more than a single instantaneous act.  Cites another case where a mother drowned her daughter by holding her down in a swimming pool.  Was holding the child a single act of child abuse?  The panels disagreed that the Brooks decision was Dicta.  The other opinions to have to do with this case is Lymm V State, where regardless the language of Brooks, the surrounding acts in Lymm would take it out of Brooks.  More than one hold or grip, did not constitute a single act of abuse.  Since a reasonable jury can conclude that the death of Caylee was by multiple pieces of duct tape, that would not be a single act of abuse. The administration of a poison would also keep it from being a single act of child abuse.  The next thing is premeditation, the question is, can the jury conclude due to Ms. Anthony's computer searches, that this was an intentional act by the defendant to cause the child's death.  There is  no fixed period of time for pre-mediation.  When she put not one but two then three pieces of duct tape over Caylee's face it was pre-meditated.  We request you deny a Judgment of Acquittal.  Linda is done......

Mason is up........

He thanks Linda for bringing up the chloroform.  He says there was no sign of chloroform in her remains.  They tried to prove there was chloroform used on the victim and they could not.  There were not 3 pieces of duct tape wrapped around this child's head, to do with cause of death or anything to do with Casey Anthony.  There is no witness, there is no possession.  There is only George Anthony using that duct tape on a gas can and a command center.  All the computer searches seem to have to do with self defense.  He is saying in the Johnson case, what a world of difference, he did not say that the evidence was based on guessing like Dr. G. did.  If the court will please read Abdul, a case cited by the defense.  They got gas and duct tape to light the victim on fire.  Norton they cited was a gun shot would and that was not establish pre-meditated murder, it goes to show how weak this case is.  Then go to Louis, there is a suggestion in that case that the drowning of holding the victim down is more than one case.  Bad cases do not make good law.  There is no evidence that mother dunked her child more than one time.  In this case there is no evidence that chloroform was used.  All of this is guessing and speculating and not in this country, I hope you look at all this information and come to Judgment of Acquittal.  Mason is done.

The judge says he has spent much time reviewing all the cases cited and the testimony in this case.  He has recessed until 11:15am, today.

Sorry if some of this doesn't make sense, Mason was citing law fast and mumbling and not finishing sentences.






Logged

  " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."  - Daniel Moynihan
MuffyBee
Former Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 44737



« Reply #107 on: June 15, 2011, 01:26:57 PM »

11:15am Wednesday June 15, 2011 Court is in session.

The judge says that both the state and the defense have presented their arguments for their judgment of Acquittal.  Both cite Serrano V State of Florida.  There is another case the court took into consideration, the court in that opinion went on to say, when faced with a judgment of acquittal the judge must rule in the light of the most favorable to the State.  Another says, under the circumstantial standard when viewed in the light the court must judge in favor of the state.  He goes on to say that the judgment of acquittal must be denied and it becomes the juries duty to decide whether there is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  Whether there is a premeditated design to kill the jury must decide that.  They must decide the nature of the weapon used, the manner of the homicide in question, where the elements of pre mediation are sought to be under circumstantial evidence, the jury must decide.  The succints of this case is that the defendant was in fact the last person with the victim and she did have motive.  In another case the evidence showed that the defendant was the last to be seen with the victim and he was no longer dating the victim's mother.  He was found with a blood spot on his pants, fiber evidence and he made statements that were inconsistent.  That evidence was enough to convict him of First Degree Murder and Kidnapping.  The next case has some interesting facts....in this case the evidence showed that the defendant who was 52 years old and met the victims mother, he was the last person seen with the victim.  The last time the child was seen, she was seen sleeping with the victim, then she abruptly disappeared.  The Supreme Court when deciding this case cited an Epperly V State decision, the victim was last seen leaving a motel, she left with the defendant, went to a lake house and ultimately disappeared, her body never being found.  The court goes into a long dissertation in that particular case and talks about premeditation and what premeditation meant.  There is another case the Supreme Court of Mass, which is still a good law in Mass, although it is not binding on this case.  This case shows that on the first floor a tenant heard moaning sounds in the cellar, she and her husband went to the cellar and found a boy lying naked on the cellar floor.  The police arrived and they took the boy for treatment to the hospital, he was later released, came back home and he got worse and then died.  The defendant was the last one seen with the victim.  He was seen with the defendant by two different people.  They observed the victim and the defendant together on the front porch.  The victim was found dead later on that day.  The court concluded that this was sufficient evidence that the child was last with the defendant and found naked lying in the cellar dead.  The next case is a Supreme Court of Arkansas a defendant and his co-defendant were the last seen with the victim.  The defendant was the one that said the co-defendant was the last one seen with the victim and the court found it was sufficient.  The court looked at Louis and found that on the doctrine of merger.  One the felony murder statue states that aggravated child abuse is related to first degree murder based on the number of times of aggravated child abuse.  In this case there is more than a single act of aggravated child abuse.  In this case there is 3 applications of duct tape, the use of chloroform, the child was placed in trash bags and another container.  The defendant said after the child was missing, she was alive and safe during this time.  There is more than one case of child abuse.  The defense's motion of Judgment of Acquittal are hear-by denied.  The jury must decide.  The state has provided sufficient evidence for all the charges.

The court is in recess till tomorrow morning at 9:AM.
Logged

  " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."  - Daniel Moynihan
MuffyBee
Former Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 44737



« Reply #108 on: June 16, 2011, 10:11:27 AM »

9:00am Thursday, June 16, 2011 Court is in session.

Defense first witness is Gerardo Bloise

Baez is up........

Gerardo Bloise is a CSI for the OC Sheriff's Office. 

Baez is pleasing the court.  On July 23, 2008  you were asked to inspect a vehicle?  Yes.  Who did this car belong to?  Tony Lazzaro.  You did an exterior and interior inspection of the car and you did an alternative light source test?  Yes, I did.  I checked the trunk area and I saw a stain in the trunk.  I then used a alternative light source and it was positive, I then a presumptive blood test.  What were the results?  Negative.  What did you do next.  I photographed the interior and exterior.  Did you place the car on a lift?  No.  Did you collect any items from Tony's car?  No.  What did you do Aug 6, 2008?  That was a search warrant at the Anthony family residence.  His assignment was to check the bedroom that belonged to Casey and check for clothing and inspect the clothing using an alternative light source and then collect any clothing.  He checked the living room area, the garage area.  Did you check George and Cindy's room? Just cursory.  You did go further in Casey's room?  Yes.  He is showing the defendant, defense exhibits.  The first one is of Casey's bedroom.  Describing the items in Casey's room.  A single bed, items on the wall, a dresser, a closet.  What were you there to do that day?  To collect clothing, check those items with alternative light source and collect the pieces of clothing.  You were going to now look at all of Casey's clothing?  Yes.  What was your goal?  To look for stains.  How do you do that?  I put some black cover on the window to get the room dark and then use alternative light source then check for stain, the separate that item then collect it as evidence.  What is this photo you are looking at now?  That is the closet.  Is that where you got all the items of clothing?  Most of them.  Did you do a thorough job of collecting clothing?  Yes.  Showing now  one of the items you inspected, did you find a suspected stain on this item?  That was the charcoal pants, no stain was found.  Were these pair of pants that Casey was wearing June 16, 2008? Yes.  You found no stains on these pants?  No.  Do you do one piece of clothing at a time?  Yes.  Do you photograph stains as you find them?  Yes.  He is showing the witness a stain and asking him about it.  What do you do with an item that has a stain?  I submit those items to the FBI lab.  Is that a large stain?  I would say a medium stain.  Showing witness another photo, is that another piece of clothing?  Yes, an arrow is on it to show stains, small stains.  These are the types of details you are looking for?  Yes, just stains like that.  After you inspected all of her clothing, what did you do next?  I collected it and submitted it to the FBI.  Were you wearing protective clothing?  Yes, I was in full gear, I do not speak, because I am by myself, lots of laughter.  Was Alina Burroughs with you?  Did you talk to her.  Oh no these pics were in the Lab, I was by myself.  When you were in Casey's room you were with Alina Burroughs and Det. Melich.  Did Det Melich go into the crime scene?  Yes.  Then I submitted the items to the FBI lab along with the photos and property forms.  Are these items protected in anyway from further contamination?  Yes, paper bags.  Like the bags we see here today?  yes. Baez is done.......

Linda is up......

The search warrant scope was for Casey's clothing only?  Yes.  You were aware that the pants worn by Casey Anthony, did you know they were washed by her mother?  Yes.  When you inspected Tony's Jeep did it smell like there had been a dead body in it?  No.  Linda is done.....

Baez is back up....

When you smelled Tony's Jeep, did it smell like there had been a bag of garbage left in it for 3 weeks?  No.  Baez is done.

Witness is excused.

Next defense witness is Heather Seubert.

She is the unit chief of the firearms unit in the FBI lab in Quantico.  She was the unit chief in the DNA unit, in 2008.  She worked with MDNA and Nuclear DNA. She is has tons of education and work with LE and the FBI     
What is serology?  The study of fluids, blood and semen.  She has studied in serology, she has trained other's at the FBI lab. She is very qualified.  The judge is declaring her an expert in Serology and DNA analysis.

How were you involved in this case.  I was assigned to this case when it was received at the FBI lab.  She made a report on Oct 8, 2008.  He is taking her section by section of this report.  What do Q's and K's mean?  They are assigned to items of evidence.  A q item is a unknown sample and a K item is a known sample.  Were you given items that had to do with a Pontiac Sun fire?  Yes, received under a letter of communication on July 8, 2008, items of evidence.  Side bar.....side bar is over. 

Judge says he needs to take up matters outside of the jury.  In recess for a special break. 9:50am

Looks like they are going in the judges chamber.  9:50am

Logged

  " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."  - Daniel Moynihan
MuffyBee
Former Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 44737



« Reply #109 on: June 16, 2011, 11:21:09 AM »

10:10am Thursday, June 16, 2011 Court is in session.

Back from special break.

The defense witness Heather Seubert is back on the witness stand. She is an expert witness from the FBI.

Baez is up....

Looking at two items, swabs from spare tire cover, collected from the Pontiac Sun Fire.  Mr Ashton is telling Baez how to introduce evidence, lol.  What is the first thing you did with these two swab items.  We examined them in the lab, a chemical test was done of that swab, performed by a biologist.  It is a test for the positive test for blood, each of those swabs were negative for blood.  Next item is a piece of spare tire cover, negative for blood.  That item was a spare tire cover, that item had brown and yellowish stains, they were tested and negative for blood.  The next item was a left side of trunk liner, it had brown and yellow stains, they tested negative for blood.  Next item is the right side of the trunk liner.  It had brown and yellow stains and they tested negative for blood.  What did you do with the swabs after they were tested for blood?  They are not kept by the lab.  Did you do any other tests on those items?  Yes on those items we also swabbed and tested for DNA typing.  The results were no DNA found.  Why did you do the DNA test?  We were looking for any other biological material that was not blood.  What can you get DNA from in a persons body?  Any cell of a human body besides one type of blood cells.  Next items are clothing items. First item was dark grey pants.  No chemical testing performed.  Next item was a blue pair of pants, had a stain that tested negative for blood.  Next item is a pair of jeans, no stains were observed.  Next  item is a light grey skirt, had stains, tested negative for blood.  Next  item was a yellow skirt, had stains that were negative for blood.  Next item was light yellow skirt, had stains, tested negative for blood.  Next item was a light blue shirt, had stains, tested negative for blood.  Next was a shirt, had stains, tested next for blood.  Next item was a bright pink shirt, had no stains.  Next item was a light pink shirt, had no stains. Next item was a green shirt, had no stains.  There was no blood on any of the clothing items received.  Next item is piece of the spare tire cover, tested for blood, negative.  Next item is a piece of the spare tire cover and tested negative blood.  Both of those items were tested next for DNA, both tested negative.  Talking about a report of Oct 9, 2008.  Next item is shovel and a label from the shovel blade.  They were examined for the presence of blood, they were negative, no DNA was found. Some touch DNA was found but it was not usable.  Talking about levels of DNA...objection...side bar....sidebar is over 10:40

Baez is up.......

Talking about touch DNA.  Baez is using his big pad.  What is Low Copy Number?  It is a type of DNA process but we know that there is going to be a limited number of DNA there, so you make more copies of the DNA to enhance the DNA profile.  With that result you have to figure in the Low Copy Number to have a reliable result.  Touch DNA is different from Low Copy Number.  You don't enhance Touch DNA, you only do that with Low Copy Number.  Telling the jury the whole DNA process.  To find a DNA type they need 200 RFU's.  Other labs and other kits can report lower levels, right?  Yes.  What is the threshold to exclude a person?  The 200 RFU's.  There is also a threshold at 50 RFU's at a peak. Other labs may use a threshold for a peak that is lower.  Is the FBI Lab Number conservative?  Yes.  The shovel had DNA but it was lower than the standards of the FBI lab.  Objection.....sidebar....sidebar is over 11:00am.

Brief legal matter outside the presence of the jury. 

Baez is proffering.  What is the peak RFU that was found on the shovel?  There was an X for the female at 55 RFU's.  Ashton asks if it can exclude a man?  She cannot draw any conclusion can be drawn.  Ashton wants the jury to be told of this.  Baez says he wants the fact known that there was an artifact.  Ashton wants to know what the relevance of that is.  Baez says that there is something there.  We are discussing DNA material past the 50 RFU threshold.  He wants the witness to say there was a portion of DNA there and nothing more?  Ashton says for what point?  It has no scientific point.  Baez says if the shovel is not relevant why is it in evidence.  Jeff gets up and the judge tells him to calm down.  Jeff says that this is scientifically meaningless.  The judge says he can ask about that in the State's cross.  The judge is asking the witness what those results mean, is it DNA?  It is a peak above 50 RFU, she has no other information.  It could be from a female it could be from a male.  There is no conclusion.  The judge says you can draw no conclusions from it?  No sir.  The judge says he will permit the question and the state can clear it up and the jury can take it for what it's worth.

Returning the jury.

Baez is up, witness is till on the stand.

We talked about how much DNA is present on the shovel.  You mentioned that at one of the markers you saw something at the  50 RFU point?  Yes.  What is the best way to summarize what is there and what is not there?  No result was there for DNA, at the sex point there was 55 RFU but it was not enough to report about.  It was inconclusive to which sex.  Jeff asks for a side bar.......11:10am



Logged

  " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."  - Daniel Moynihan
MuffyBee
Former Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 44737



« Reply #110 on: June 16, 2011, 12:27:12 PM »

11:10am Thursday, June 16, 2011 Court is in session.

Back from side bar.

The defense witness Heather Seubert is back on the witness stand. She is an expert witness from the FBI.

Baez is up....

Looking at report from March 19, 2009.  These items are duct tape from the ME's office.  They were submitted from the FBI.  She examined the top side of the tape, the silver side of the tape.  They were swabbed for biological material.  The logo Henkle was throughout the tape.  They found a DNA profile but it was below the threshold for the FBI reporting policy.  How many markers were there?  6 out of the 9 that were tested.  The witness is going to Baez's Big Pad. They looked for 13 areas on the DNA....talking about DNA.  She used two different DNA kits on the samples.  She listed out 9 of the 13 locations needed.  As it relates to the non-sticky side of the duct tape what did you find?  It did not meet my reporting threshold. How many markers do you need to exclude someone?  One marker.  Could you exclude Casey Anthony from the one marker?  Yes.  Could you exclude Caylee Anthony?  Yes.  She then tested the known blood samples from other family members, Lee, George, Cindy.  All of those individuals were excluded from this profile.  What did you do next to find out who this might be?  I tested the people in the lab.  Did you find someone who matched these markers.  She knew it was a female marker so she identified those people in the lab and it turned out to be Laurie Godison in the FBI lab.  Can this DNA contaminate DNA that was already there?  Depends on the quantity of the DNA.  On this item the profile was low, so she would expect to see a mixture and she didn't.  It is still possible that other DNA was contaminated?  No, I would of expected it to be contained there.  What if it was too low, would it still be there?  Objection..sustained.  Can contaminated DNA override DNA already there?  If a large presence of DNA was put over a small amount of DNA it would be possible.  The tape got to the FBI last in the line.  Yes.  Is that common?  What.  Would it have been better for the FBI to get the duct tape first?  Any time an item is touched it can be contaminated but my test would of been no different. Who decides where the evidence goes?  It follows the FBI protocol.  Was it your understanding that the duct tape had been exposed to numerous elements?  Yes, we knew it was outside in a swamp that had water in it at times.  Do the elements degrade DNA?  Sure, sunlight, humidity, different factors can effect DNA.  Why do the test?  Because it is still evidence in this case and I needed to test it for DNA.  You can still get DNA from items under water?  It is possible but there would be several different factors in the time the item was submerged, was it semen was it blood?  You can also get DNA profiles from someone who has been burned?  Yes.  Are there multiple variables that determine if a DNA profile can be found?  Do you know all the variables of an item?  No.  Is it possible for you to know if you can get DNA from an item before you test it?  Depends, if it looks like a blood stain, I think I can get one, other stains, I don't know.  Where would you stand a chance of getting a DNA profile on duct tape?  Top side or sticky side?  Jeff asks for a side bar, 11:40..side bar is over.....

The higher likely hood would be the underside touching someones face.  If it was put on violently, would you expect to find tissue on it?  Yes.  Did you test the sticky side?  Yes, it was inconclusive.  Was there a readout?  Yes there was a peak found at the D-3 location, it was a 17.  Is Caylee Anthony a 17 at the D-3 marker?  No, she is a 14/15.  Could you exclude Caylee Anthony at that marker?  Yes.  Could you exclude Casey Anthony at that marker?  Yes, she is also a 14/15.  Moving to her Aug 19, 2009 report.  What are the item you received on this report?  A pair of shorts.  Where did these shorts come from?  From the ME's office.  What tests were done on those shorts?  Tests for blood and semen, both were negative.  Next item is clothing, letters, stitching and stretch material.  Tested possible for blood but was found to be negative.  It was then sent for DNA typing, there was no DNA from that item.  Next item is a blanket.  Did you find blood on that blanket?  It tested possible for blood but it was negative.  No DNA was found on the blanket.  It was also looked at for the presence of semen, that was negative.  Next item is a laundry bag.  Ran blood tests, it was positive but insufficient quantity for testing for blood.  No DNA was present.  Next item is a blanket.  Tested for the blood and semen.  It had a possible test for blood but the test was negative, tested negative for DNA.  Baez just struck all evidence for this blanket, it was his mistake.  Next item is doll.  Where did the doll come from?  Collected from Sun Fire, was in the car seat.  Was tested for presence of blood that test was negative.  Next report was Dec 16, 2008. On page 2 of your report were you given the profiles of Cindy, George and Lee Anthony?  Yes, buccal samples.  Were you asked to conduct a paternity test for Lee Anthony being the father of Caylee Anthony?  Side Bar........

Judge is recessing for lunch.  12:00am.

Jeff is objecting to this question, Baez knows that the FBI does not do paternity testing and this was not in good faith.  Judge asks Baez was this a good faith question?  I have two very good faith reasons for asking this question.  First it was tested for paternity for Lee Anthony being the parent of Caylee Anthony.  The FBI does not normally do it but they did do it in this case and it was sent out after that.  It was in black and white in a report, how is that not in a good faith basis?  Jeff Ashton knew I was going to ask this question.  Jeff asks the FBI witness if she was ever asked to perform a paternity test for Lee being the father of Caylee?  On Sep 12, 2008, she spoke to Nick Savage that she could run the test and then send it to a further lab for testing.  Does that in any way mention Lee Anthony?  No.  Jeff says that LE did not ask for this test.  There is no good faith basis for that and that is hearsay and not relevant.  Baez is asking the witness, who did you think you they asked for the paternity test?  Nick Savage asked her if she could run the result and find out if Lee could be the father of Caylee.  So they ran the test and if he was a possible father they would send it to another lab.  She then reported out that Lee Anthony could NOT be the father of Caylee Anthony.  Jeff wants to know, how is this a good faith basis, asking what some LE asked someone to do.  That is not the question Baez asked and that is not what he was trying to tell the jury.  The judge says that he doesn't know what was in Baez or Jeff's mind but they are not to ask questions unless you want to ask the LE what they asked.  I am not going to venture to speculate why you asked that.  There is a case called Del Monte Banana Company, read it, it talks about good faith basis.  There is another case Brock, please read those cases for a good faith basis for asking questions.  That is all I am going to say.  Jeff wants the last question stricken and the judge says he will look at the question.  He does not have a hearing problem and the amplification of your objections does not need to be raised.  He will ask the court reporter to mark the last question and he will consider striking it.  Court is in recess till 1:30pm.
Edit make correction in red, per Magic Eyes.  MB

« Last Edit: June 16, 2011, 07:42:16 PM by MuffyBee » Logged

  " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."  - Daniel Moynihan
MuffyBee
Former Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 44737



« Reply #111 on: June 16, 2011, 02:58:08 PM »

Hi, just a quick note to let you know I will be gone today from about 4:00pm trial time today.  Sorry I won't be typing the last hour of today's trial.  I will be back tomorrow morning.  On the good side, I get my two grand daughters all afternoon, can't wait for huggin' and kissin', I really need it right now.  Sorry for the off-topic, just wanted to let everyone in the trial thread know what is going on. 
Logged

  " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."  - Daniel Moynihan
MuffyBee
Former Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 44737



« Reply #112 on: June 16, 2011, 03:00:21 PM »

1:40pm Thursday, June 16, 2011 Court is in session.

Defense witness Heather Seubert is back on the stand.

Baez is up........

Did you do a paternity test to see if Lee Anthony was the father of Caylee Anthony?  She is checking her report of Dec 16, 2008.  She says that report does not address that.  Baez tells her she has two reports on that day, she is still looking for it.  She can't find it, she is asking for a copy of it.  Baez is handing her a copy.  Can you read to the jury the results?  Based on the STR typing results the DNA obtained from Caylee Anthony could not have originated from Lee Anthony.  These types of tests are not done very often at the FBI lab are they?  Sustained.  Moving to the same report she doesn't have, lol.  She found it now.  Can you explain to the jury what you did with the car seat from the Pontiac Sun Fire? It was examined for the presence of blood, it was negative.  Did you do anything further with the car seat?  No.  Next item is the steering wheel cover from the Pontiac Sun Fire, she examined it for stains, no stains were found, no testing was done.  Next item is debris from the spare tire wheel well and a swab from the spare tire wheel well.  He didn't ask her a question about this.  He just asked her if they had gone over all her results and she said yes.  Baez is done.........

Jeff is up......

You did a phenylalanine test for blood in the stains from the trunk?  She explains how they do the test.  It changes color if blood is found.  When a body decomposes a body's blood also decomposes?  Would this test react to fat?  It is possible if there is intact red blood cells.  The stain you tested is being identified as being decomposition fluid?  Does your test, refute that?  No.  Does your test indicate that the fluid was not from a human body?  My testing was negative for blood, that is all I can testify to.  Could the stains still be decomposition fluid?  It is possible, it just wasn't blood.  What happens to DNA when cell decomposes?  The DNA is degraded.  When the cells break down the DNA breaks down.  In order for your testing to work, you have to have intact strands of DNA?  Yes, I need 13 markers.  If a cell is decomposing you don't expect to find DNA?  Yes, it breaks down when the body breaks down.  Jeff is referring her to Baez's Big Pad.  This result that counsel wrote on this chart this 50, what does it mean?  It is the reliable result in the laboratory, she explains the process to show what is needed to get any result at all on DNA.  50 is when the computer sees a true peak for DNA, that is what is set at the FBI lab for analysis.  What is a peak at 55 mean?  It was located at a certain marker and it was inconclusive, she can give no information on what this can mean.  It was the sex chromosome?  Yes.  You can't tell which sex this was?  It was just inconclusive.  Does this mean there is potentially an entire DNA profile there?  You could perform a low copy technique on it but I have no idea what that result would be.  You could never tell if this was a male or a female?  It is possible but I do not know.  There was a single result on the sticky side of the tape?  Yes, well below the threshold of our testing at that marker. Side bar.....Side bar is over. Now the judge wants to just see the attorneys and not the court reporter at side bar.  Shoot, that means no transcript later of what they are saying, must be juicy for no court reporter.  Judge and Attorney only side bar 2:15pm. Side bar is over........

The judge is going to let Mr Baez ask an additional question.  The marker that is on the sticky side of the duct tape, when you saw this, did you try to eliminate anyone besides Caylee and Casey?  Yes, I tried with all the lab personnel and all the known samples.  This is different because you only had one marker, this is different than the other one you had 6?  Yes the top side had 6 markers and the bottom side of the duct tape had 1 marker.  How many people did you go through.  All five of the known samples, then the known reference samples from the lab, there was 5 of them.  Did you find someone who could not be excluded?  That was inconclusive and did not meet her threshold to find or eliminate anyone?  Was there another individual that had that marker at that location?  Yes, one of their markers at D3 was a 16/17.  You saw no 16 at the D3, did you?  There was just a 17 at the peak.  This could be 2 things, a person could have 2 peaks or 1 peak?  Yes, a person could have 1 peak or 2 peaks.  You only found one peak?  Yes.  Because it was so low you could not find out what it was?  Yes, it was lower than the thresholds at the lab.  Baez is done.........

Jeff is up..........

The reality of this, is that this peak means nothing?  Right, it was inconclusive.  If it meant anything it is not the DNA of George Anthony?  Yes, Mr George Anthony did not have a 17.  She is clearing a mistake up, Caylee was a 14/15 and Casey is a 15/19, she is sorry for that mistake. Mr Baez spent a great deal of time asking you about blood, you testified that you tested for blood?  Yes, it is one of the tests we did.  If someone is shot or stabbed they would have blood?  Yes.  If someone is killed and it does not involve blood shed, it would not show blood?  Yes, I would have no way of knowing if it happened or not.  Were you involved in the order of the testing of the duct tape? No.  You were not expecting to find any DNA on the duct tape?  If any I would of expected to find it on the sticky side but after learning that the exposure and amount of time there was probably not going to be DNA.  For DNA to survive on an object in a swampy area for 6 months would be unlikely?  Objection. Sustained. Side bar......A deputy just told someone not to talk in the gallery, it was not Cindy or George.  Side bar is over.  2:35.  Jeff is still up....

How is the area the remains were found described to you?  Water in it, a swampy type of area.  What would happen to the DNA in Florida, in the heat for 6 months?  The cells would die and the DNA would degrade. Would that answer include all of the other items at the remains scene?  Yes.
Mr Baez asked you about a paternity test, the FBI doesn't normally do paternity tests?  Correct.  You got Caylee DNA's from a bone?  Yes, a tibia.  To do this paternity test, you tested Lee Anthony?  Yes and he wasn't.  To summarize all of the testing you have done here.  The stain in the car, all you know is that it was not blood?  Yes.  All of the DNA found at the remains scene was of a FBI lab staff member?  Yes.  Jeff is done......

Baez is up.......

You talked about cells breaking down, there is no longer an ability to get DNA?  Yes.  You can't tell when you can no longer get DNA from decomp?  It depends, if you use a tooth or a bone, that will remain longer....all of the other tissues will start to degrade and the ability to collect DNA is less likely.  Baez asks her if this is in the latter part of the decomp?  She says she can't give an answer, it would vary.  What you can say is that you did not get DNA or blood from the trunk of that car?  Correct.  Is it your understanding from the early stages of decomp there is blood?  Yes, the possibility would exist.  Would blood leak out on the carpet of a trunk liner?  Within the confinement of a trunk all of those fluids would run together.  If it is contained in a plastic bag and there is a hole in the bag could it leak out?  It is possible.  As you were giving the answer to Mr Ashton did you take into consideration what your protocols were?  Yes, what is based on the SOP of the lab.  The 17 allele you cannot give information on?  It was inconclusive.  When you discussed about the out door elements and the potential to find DNA, you did say the expectation if duct tape was place around someone's mouth you would.....sustained.  Would you expect to find more DNA on the sticky side or the non-sticky side?  The sticky side.  Baez is done...

Jeff is up.........

Blood spilled from the body, still continues to decompose?  Yes along with the other fluids.  Jeff is done.  Witness is excused.  Court is taking a break.











Logged

  " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."  - Daniel Moynihan
MuffyBee
Former Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 44737



« Reply #113 on: June 16, 2011, 04:05:20 PM »

3:10pm Thursday, June 16, 2011 Court is in session and back from a break.

Next Defense witness is Robin Maynard.

Baez is up............

She is the founder and president of Libby's Co.  In Dec 2008 she was a CSI for the OC Sheriff's Office.  Baez is showing her a photo.  It is of a card board mat with a pink,red heart shaped material.  When you collect an item of evidence like that, what do you do to record an item like that?  I was in the sifting operation.  A map couldn't be made in the area where I was, so I would sift and the evidence was collected.  I would note on the bucket where the item was located, which lane.  What lane was this in?  Lane 6, 45 feet from the baseline.  He is showing her a photo that is stipulated that it is not to scale.  He forgot to publish the heart photo to the jury, he is putting it back up.  Now he is showing where on that photo it shows which lane and where it was found.  She circled the information.  He is now putting up a photo of the map, she is showing where lane 6 is and where 45 feet from the baseline would be in lane 6.  He wants to know where the bones were found?  She says the bones that were sifted can not be exact, they were in buckets of material that needed to be sifted.  There were 13 bones that were found through sifting.  She put them down on the map according to where the bones were found.  Was there a bone found in this area?  She said yes there was a bone found in that area, she is not sure where it was located.  No cross.  She is excused.

Next defense witness is Ron Murdock.

He was also a state's witness.  he is a supervisor in the OC Sheriff's Office in the forensic unit.  Baez is asking him to hook up a display.  He is doing that with his laptop.  Can you draw a circle around the area in lane 6, 45 feet from the baseline, can you show us how far from the skull the heart-shaped sticker was found?  Baez is publishing it to the jury.  How far is the distance from the skull are to the area the heart-shaped sticker was found?  30feet.  He wants him to mark that with an X.  He is marking that location on a piece of paper.  Baez is done. No cross.

The witness is excused.


Logged

  " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."  - Daniel Moynihan
MuffyBee
Former Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 44737



« Reply #114 on: June 16, 2011, 04:24:29 PM »

3:30pm Thursday June 16, 2011 Court is in session.

Next defense witness is Jennifer Welch.

She also testified for the state.  She is a CSI for the OC Sheriff's Office.  Baez says they have entered into a stipulation for various exhibits. There are 7 exhibits in all.  You were in charge of documenting the scene on Suburban Dr?  Yes.  Were there a lot of items at the scene, trash?  Yes.  Over 300 items were collected?  Yes.  At some point did you just stop collecting trash?  Some big items, eventually.  Were there any bones found past a certain area?  No.  He is showing her a photo.  Does that appear to be items from sifting?  No they were just collected, not from sifting, they were not sent to the lab.  He is showing her another photos of items collected.  Were any of these items sent to the lab for testing?  No.  What lane were these in?  Collected from lane 4.  He is showing her another photo of items collected, they were not sent to the lab, they came from lane 1.  Next photo shows he shows her lane 1 and lane 4.  He  is  now showing her another photo of items collected, they were not sent to the lab, they were found in lane 3.  Now showing her another photo of items collected, they were not sent to the lab, they were collected from lane 3.  Now showing another photo of items collected, they were not sent to lab, they were found in the clearing east of the wooded area near the fence.  Baez is done.

Linda is up........

Inv. Welch would it be fair to classify the area that Caylee Marie's remains were found in as a trash dump?  Yes.  Witness is excused.

Next witness is Lorie Gottesman.

She is the supervisory forensic examiner for the FBI.  She has been there for 20 years.  She has lots of education.   What is a question document examiner?  She examines all kinds of evidence and compares question items with know items for known origin.  What training do you have in that?  Intensive training at the FBI.  She examines any type of written items, torn items, doesn't have to be a document.  She is a member of many scientific societies.  She has been an expert in court before more than 20 times.  She is declared an expert witness in Question Document Examination.  Do you work with various instruments?  Yes, the Esta Machine, the VSC a tool used for a variety of reasons, lights and filters, a camera, a monitor, she is able to see different spectrum's of light with it.  He is referring her to her report.  She received 3 pieces of duct tape, Q62, Q63, Q64.  They came from the victim, herself.  She is looking at her report so see where the items came from.  They came from the ME's Office.  What were you asked to look at these 3 pieces of duct tape for?  I was asked to look for a heart-shape or any remnants from one.  Did you use the VSC for this?  Yes.  Baez is showing a photo of the VSC in use with documents.  She is explaining to the jury how it works. It allows you to see, the human eyes cannot see.  She tried to see if she could see any residue of the heart-shaped sticker with the VSC.  After using all the different lights and filters, she was unable to find any sticker fragments or residue.  Was there any evidence of a sticker on these pieces of duct tape.  No.  After you conducted your examination were you asked to submit a DNA sample?  Yes. Why?  They found an unknown profile from a piece of the duct tape and they needed to eliminate it.  She gave them her DNA and later found out it was her DNA on the duct tape.  When she handled the duct tape, she handled it with care.  She wore gloves.  She has no idea how it happened or when?  You at no time sneezed on it or anything like that?  No sir.  Were they in protective material?  Yes, they were in a glassine material.  You exercised great care with these items?  Yes.  Were you given other items of evidence in this case?  Yes.  He is referring her to her report.  He is referring to trash items.  What were you asked to do in this report?  I was given a number of pieces of plastic and give an overall assessment of the plastic and try to match it with other pieces of plastic.  She was not able to match any of the bags found at the remains scene to the Anthony home.  Baez is done.

Jeff is up.........

You got the duct tape after latent print had already examined it? Yes, you knew they had saw something and noted it and then could not find it again?  Yes.  You tried to find pieces of garbage bags that matched known bags from the crime scene?  I tried to compare the bags from the ME's office to bags found at the Anthony's residence?  Yes and they did not match up.  Some of them she could say no, they were not a match and some were inconclusive.  Jeff is done.

Baez is up.....

When talking about the duct tape, you were asked to compare DNA from the suspects....Sustained.  Witness is excused and may go back home to Virginia.
Logged

  " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."  - Daniel Moynihan
MuffyBee
Former Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 44737



« Reply #115 on: June 16, 2011, 04:37:00 PM »

3:15pm Thursday, June 16, 2011 Court is in session.

Next defense witness is Cary Oien.

He is currently employed as the section chief of the FBI.  He has been with the FBI for over 15 years.  He has lots of education.  He was a trace examiner and a hair and fiber examiner at the FBI.  He is admitted as an expert in Hair and Fiber Analysis.  In Feb 2008, he manged the whole trace evidence unit for the FBI.  He conducted an examination of this case.  His report of Sept 2008, shows that Miss Lowe was not in the lab, he conducted the analysis because she was not in the lab.  He looked at the shovel, the one that came from Mr. Burner.  It was received into the trace unit for trace evidence.  It also had a sticker on it that was examined for hair and fiber.  He examined the stickers and mounted the debris on them.  On the sticker he found a quarter inch human hair that was Caucasian.  It was not big enough to compare to a known sample.  It was then submitted to DNA, he does not know what the results were.  As the section chief, to insure quality control in the lab?  Yes that is one of the jobs I do.  Each different unit also has their own quality control person.  The FBI lab is accredited with the right agencies.  It is a broad reaching accreditation program.  If a lab is not accredited by these organizations are they pretty much on there own or are they....objection.  Side bar..  Sidebar is over...Baez is done.......

Jeff is up.......

The hair fragment you found means nothing?  Yes.  The witness is excused.

The judge is excusing the jury for the day.  4:25pm

No other matters for today,  court is in recess till 9am, tomorrow morning.

Yay, I made it all the way through the testimony.  Grand kids are late, lol. 


Logged

  " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."  - Daniel Moynihan
MuffyBee
Former Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 44737



« Reply #116 on: June 17, 2011, 10:08:20 AM »

9:00am Friday, June 17, 2011 Court is in Session.

Defense witness is Dr. Timothy Huntington.

Baez is up......

Dr. Huntington is an Assistant Professor of Forensic Entomology.  He has lots of education. He consults as an expert with LE.  He has received lots of training.  He is Board Certified with the Board of Entomology. He has done a lot of studies in forensic entomology. (Now he his a diplomat for the bug world).  The judge has declared him an expert in forensic entomology.  He received a phone call from LKB on Dec 11, 2008 about this case and came to Florida on Dec 13, 2008.  He got the entomology report from Dr. Neal Haskell and then he reviewed specimens.  He received some of the specimens but not all of them.  He knows what species identification were and the number of insects collected.  Now he is talking about the bug world and what forensic entomology is.  Insects and dead people.  Can include insects infesting the people while they are still alive.  The help establish the time of death.  Insects discover dead bodies very quickly.  The witness is going to Baez Big Pad.  Baez is gonna give him multiple colors to make his points. He drew a lil bug and now going through the cycle of a bug's life.  Now talking about maggots and dead bodies, it is very easy to tell one stage from the next.  Maggots will leave a shell behind as they change, the shell can be evidence or disappear, they are very thin and flimsy.  The next flies go through 3 stages of development.  Grade school maggots, middle school maggots and high school maggots.  The jury must feel like they are back in 3rd grade science.  Pupae is the cocoon stage.  They are now changing into an adult fly.  He says to look 30 feet away from a dead body for insects trying to crawl away from them.  Ashton just asked for a side bar, I think he wants a hall pass......side bar over.  Judge announces a brief legal matter they need to do outside of the jury's presence.  The jury is excused.

Baez is up........

Dr. Huntington you did not conduct a post mortem interval did you?  No and neither did Dr. Haskell.  On July 2008 there were items collected, would it of been possible at that time to do a post mortem interval estimation?  Yes but it was not done.  Do you plan on only saying that you did not do a post mortem interval estimation?

Jeff is up....

If you could assume that the maggots were from a human body, you could find out when they were born?  He had no reason to assume they those maggots came from a human body.  Judge asks if Baez filed a report from Dr Huntington.  None of this made sense, they are now taking a 10 min break.  Mr George is requesting a side bar with the court reporter, the judge says that will count in their 10 min break.

9:55 ten minute break.
Logged

  " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."  - Daniel Moynihan
MuffyBee
Former Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 44737



« Reply #117 on: June 17, 2011, 12:05:54 PM »

10:10 Friday, June 17, 2011 Court is in session.

Back from a 10 minute break.

The defense witness is till Dr. Timothy Huntington.

Baez is up.............

The witness is going to Baez's Big Pad.  How does all this tell you how long a person has been deceased?  It all has to do with temperature.  If you know the stages of the insect and the temperature you can figure out how long it takes till the next stage.  It is basically a mathematical finding of the stages, species of the sample, developmental rates and the temperature.  Baez just asked him about "live human cadavers".  He has done studies on decomposition in the trunk of a car.  Showing a big photo of a car.  He conduced research in November of last year.  He received cars from a junkyard and got them icky.  He wanted to find out what kind of a barrier a trunk would cause to insects.  He placed bodies of pigs in the trunks of cars.  He didn't use any Pontiac Sun Fires.  This car was the most intact vehicle of the one's that were donated.  He inspected the trunk of the Pontiac Sun fire in this Case in July of 2009.  He looked for spaces and gaps to allow insects to pass through.  Back to the car in the big photo.  He placed dead pigs in the trunk of the car in September in Nebraska and waited and watched for insect colonization of the pig remains.  He did not camp out there, he was busy teaching but he did check it daily.  The weather was cool and rainy.  Insects being cold blooded, are not active in cold weather and rain greatly suppresses insect activity.  If you are a tiny insect, one drop of rain is like a 50 gallon bucket coming down on you.  Yes, he is saying all of this, lol.  Next big photo is the back window, blowflies are lining the windows.  This photo was taken on day 10 in September in Nebraska.  It is cooler in Nebraska in September than it is in the summer in Florida, yep he really said it. lol.  Blowflies show up soon after death, minutes after.  If you have a heart attack in a hammock they will be on you in minutes.  He has timed them at 13 seconds.  The fact that the flies in the car are now dead is important.  They go through there life cycle and die inside the closed container, they do not fight their way out.  They want to get in to the dead body more than they ever want to leave. Next big photo is of decomposed remains of a pig on day 11.  Covered in maggots, crawling away from the pig and looking for a place to pupate. The black material is decomp fluid, body fluids, body waste, maggot waste.  Is that stain distinguishable?  When you see a stain like this.........side bar.......

Judge just announced a brief legal matter that needs to be taken up outside the presence of the jury.  Jury excused 10:50am.
Logged

  " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."  - Daniel Moynihan
MuffyBee
Former Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 44737



« Reply #118 on: June 17, 2011, 12:28:35 PM »

Shoot, lol I am using Notepad and I still messed up.  Instead of posting the legal matters taken outside the presence of the jury, I posted the same post twice.  Don't even ask me how I did it.  This last guy has driven me buggy.  Here is what I remember when the judge excused the jury and then talked about whether this witness was going to testify to something not in his deposition.  The judge had them read parts of the Dr. Huntington's deposition and told them that he could testify to basic decomp and stains.  The judge didn't care about what color a stain was, because all stains are discolorations.  Jeff said that it was against a court order that this witness was now going to testify to things he did not have in his report.  Baez and Ashton argued about it.  Baez apologized to the court and then had the witness testify that Baez did not have anything to do with his report and did not ask him to testify to anything not in his report or add anything.  Everyone got upset and none of it made very much sense.  The judge just wanted this guy to testify and get it over with.  He said he could testify to general decomp, decomp stains and insect activity.  

There was a lot more but it all got down to the same thing, the judge was going to let this witness testify and Jeff Ashton was very unhappy about it and Baez looked as if he just won the lottery. Oh, one more thing, Jeff commented on Baez texting on his phone and pointed it out to the judge.  The judge got mad and said that he had enough of this editorializing.  He didn't care what Baez was doing, standing on his head, standing on one leg, etc, lol.  I am sorry again for messing up, Notepad must of even asked me if I wanted to delete that whole long thing and I said yes. lol.  I have been trying to break them up so they aren't so long so, sometimes I have more than one Notepad opened.  I may type fast but that doesn't make me one lil bit smarter.  

I do have all of the witnesses testimony when the jury came back and that will be posted next.  ::justice2NJ::
Edit to fix typo per ME.  MB
« Last Edit: June 17, 2011, 12:34:50 PM by MuffyBee » Logged

  " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."  - Daniel Moynihan
MuffyBee
Former Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 44737



« Reply #119 on: June 17, 2011, 12:47:09 PM »

11:40am Friday, June 17, 2011 Court is in session.

Dr. Timothy Huntington is still on the stand the jury is back in.

Baez is up.......

Can you tell me in this photo what is happening?  It is a decomposing pig with insect movement on day 11.  You see numerous maggots moving away to find a place to pupate.  Down here you see maggots that are already pupating.  They are burrowing into the carpet, they can and will actually pupate in the carpet, they think they are hiding.  You see a decomp ring that comes from a body, this part here trails away from the body.  This is where the maggots are pulling the fluid away from the body.  Could you take some paper towels and just wipe that up?  No, it is very greasy, if you took Crisco and let it burn and get disgusting it would be that kind of mess.  I don't even think that professional cleaners could get that out.  When you have seen a dead body on carpet, I have never seen a case where the carpet is cleaned, they are removed and destroyed.  Can you give us an example dealing with a stain in the trunk of a car?  The reason these particular cars are used is that there was never gonna be another use for these cars besides smashing, they were donated by a tow truck company.  These carpets were never gonna be cleaned because they were never gonna be used again.  I could of never done this experiment on a rental car or my wife's car.  What did you find in this study?  I learned that the barrier of a car, the trunk, poses very little barrier to insects, especially the blowflies after death.  They are very picky and they go in immediately.  They will only colonize a body for a certain point of decomp.  They had no problem gaining access to the trunk.  That would be in cooler temperatures?  Yes, I found it interesting that given the cool temperatures there were so many of them in the car in such a short time.  What insect evidence in this case  were you given to look at?  There were no early colonizers in the evidence, there was one leg of a blowfly, he doesn't even know if it was a blowfly.  One leg doesn't mean anything, if we looked hard enough we would find one in this court room.  Why is that important?  If we assume there is a body in a car trunk, there is not going to be one fly attracted to it, there are going to be many.  You would expect to find hundreds if not thousands of these blowflies, given they have 6 legs each, this would be a lot of legs.  He would of expected to find, hundreds, thousands of these insects not only in the trunk but in the passenger area.  The one leg means nothing especially since it was in a bag of trash.  What insects do we have here?  Most in the bag of trash were fruit flies, small brown flies that eat just about anything, they are very, very common, we all have them in our home at some point or another.  Since all that were recovered were found in the bag of trash, they mean nothing of forensic value.  They are exactly the types of insects you expect to find in a bag of trash.  Because these insects are so small they require very little food.  The numbers in the trash bag is not remarkable.  They are not early colonizers of a decomposing human body, they are one of the last flies that will colonize a dead human body.

Taking a lunch recess until 1:30pm.
Logged

  " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."  - Daniel Moynihan
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Use of this web site in any manner signifies unconditional acceptance, without exception, of our terms of use.
Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC
 
Page created in 1.469 seconds with 21 queries.