Caylee Marie Anthony MURDER TRIAL- DAY 29

1:30am Mon, June 27, 2011. Court is in session. Jury is not present.

Judge is talking to Baez about an expert giving inadmissible hearsay. Baez says that is not the case. Jeff says that under case law, this expert only found his information on the internet. Jeff says a witness cannot testify to his expert opinion, unless it is part of his research. He went into things that contained chloroform and that is hearsay. The judge says, I won't have a proffer but if it comes out in his testimony that it is hearsay, his testimony can be stricken and not allowed. Baez says he said that sidebar the correct interpretation of Lynn is that all info comes from text book or the internet, it is all hearsay. All data is not hearsay. Judge says, he can get info in ways of chemical analysis but it has to be his experience with him. Not an internet search, if that is the sole basis of my knowledge, that is where your run into a Lynn problem. I don't know what he is going to say, or the basis of what he is gonna say. You don't need an expert to read the internet. Judge says he is not requiring a proffer, he wants the jury brought in the court when he told them they would be, in 6 minutes. The judge told Baez to go out and confer with his witness about what he can and cannot testify to. Baez left the courtroom to confer with his witness.

Baez is up

Dr Furton has resumed the witness stand for a short proffer. Baez asks him what his knowledge is of chloroform? He said his basic knowledge over the years and his research. At the Frye Hearing you referred to a World Health Organization, what is that? It is a report on chloroform and what it can be found in. It is a peer reviewed article. How long have you been using the GC-MS? 25 years. How many times have you seen chloroform come up? At many and various times. Did you do any other research on chloroform in products? Yes, I did internet searches for scholars in chloroform. Are they reasonably qualified to help an expert come to an opinion? Depends where it comes from and if it is peer reviewed. You have been instructed not to use these recent internet searches in your testimony? Yes.

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

Have you ever done any research of chloroform in household products? No. It's presence in household products is from the internet, not any research you have done? Correct. Lynn says he can give an opinion but he cannot tell the jury what he has read. It is a violation of Lynn. Just because you read it somewhere doesn't make it expert testimony. Some of his opinion may be inadmissible as to hearsay and a violation of Lynn. Jeff is reading what Lynn means and says that this witness can not testify on hearsay to this jury.

Baez is up......

I thought this is what we agreed to after lunch. This is the way chemists get their information. He isn't saying I heard it at the bowling alley and now I am telling you about it. He is not to bolster his opinions, you made a ruling and this expert's opinions are just that. We are going around in circles.

The judge says the Dr can give his opinion but not say where he got his knowledge. If he is asked about it by the prosecution, he can then say where he got it.

1:55pm Jury is being brought in the courtroom.

The defense witness is Dr. Furton.

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

You were explaining to the jury which common products in? The most common is household bleach. It is in fatty type of materials, butter, oils, cheese things of that nature. You can find it in chlorinated drinking water. The GC-MS, would it pick up chloroform in these common products and drinking water? Yes. Do you have an opinion after looking at the 5 chemical compounds that Dr Vass said was the make-up human decomp? Yes, my opinion is that they are not unique to human decomp. They are reported in urban waste, trash bins, they are known not to be unique in human decomp.

Jeff is up........

Have you ever examined the spare tire cover? Jeff is showing him the spare tire cover. This is the spare tire cover? Yes. Do you see any bleach stains on that? No. The chemical reactions that make chloroform don't happen in a vacuum. The active ingredient in bleach would reflect some bleach being spilled on it? Yes. You don't have any idea if a coincidental reaction to bleach cause chloroform and what else is created? Where there any articles you read on this. I never read any articles on that. Your research in this area is only that chloroform could be created not how it can. What are you relying on to tell this jury that bleach and organic material can create chloroform? I am not involved in trying to come up with an interpretation to how it happened, just that it did. I am not saying they had to come from bleach. Each one of those cases, some other source would be needed to produce chloroform? I didn't do studies on that. Did the chloroform being purposely mixed and given to a child to it being accidentally made? That is correct. Isn't chloroform a carcinogen? It is present in cheese? Yes, it is scary. It is in very small amounts, parts per billion. More fatty materials like cheeses and butters and pasta products would have low parts per million of chloroform. Is there a limit of what can be in these products? Yes, in low parts per billion. In water, it is in low ranges? Yes, parts per billion or even lower. Jeff is pulling up the witness power point demonstration. Jeff is on slide #3, showing the chart from living and deceased humans. This shows the odor signature shows that we all smell different more than we are alive, when we are dead? Yes. Your point is that we haven't found the significant compounds in human decomp? Yes. Next slide, your student performed this study for a project, just this year? Yes. The student went to the morgue for the bodies and used a dust buster to collect the compounds. The collection medium is inferior to the triple sorbent trap? Yes. The triple sorbent trap is more likely to gather more compounds than the instrument your student used? Yes, the triple sorbent trap would better collect samples in smaller amounts. In this case your student, held the device over the mid section of the deceased for one minute? Yes. She did not do air samples of the morgue? No. There is going to be compounds in a morgue that are going to always be there? Yes. There were more odors found in the morgue than the crematorium? Yes. Next slide. This study of animal meat is processed meat? Rotted meat? Yes, unprepared food and allowed to decompose. These show that human and non human are very different? Yes. Next slide. You testified on direct that each one of these studies was slightly different. Which one was the most longitudinal? The Vass studies. Dr Vass is the only study that looked at this with longitudinal research? Yes. Which used the triple sorbent trap? Dr Vass and the Greek Dr. Is that the best method? It is one of the methods, I don't know if it is he best method. How many of your students studies used whole bodies and not body parts? None, Dr Vass and the Greek Dr. The other ones were items used in canine training aids...blood, adipose tissue, bone, placenta, human derived material not the whole body. These studies bear out that studies that look at whole decomposing bodies give you many more compounds? No, it doesn't find more compounds. You did not find that they found larger compounds? Yes, they did probably because they were using the triple sorbent traps. Dr Vass is the only one that used longitudinal data and triple sorbent traps? The Greek doctor used triple sorbent traps. He didn't do this study over a period of time? No. Do compounds change over a period of time? Yes. Of all of these studies how many of them are done in an air deprived environment? The Vass studies. The fact that Dr Vass found a larger number of compounds is because he was looking at it in another way. I don't know that, a body buried deep could be different than one on the surface. The more information the better? Yes. You state the chemical analysis of the odor is not good enough to establish human decom, you can say that they were able to eliminate odors. Can you tell us, can all 4 of the fatty acids found in the trunk of the car? Yes, by a dead human body in the trunk of a car with other additional chemicals. What other chemicals would you have to have? Those studies I would disregard to the chloroform found. In Dr Vass's study he did not run standards and I believe he saw based on the mass spectrum. Do you know have question about his 2008 paper was done thoroughly and properly? If you want to call it that, he did not run standards. Jeff is referring him to his depot and approaching the witness. He is having him read part of his depot. Is it true that in reference to those same studies in your depot that and I quote "I am not saying the study was not done properly or thoroughly?" Yes. Have you changed your opinions? No, I am not saying the work did not have merit, just other things needed to be done. In the study that was published recently you used the spectral library to find your results? Yes, we didn't do the standards. You still published the results? Yes. What can explain other than a decomposing human body? A combination of things, consumer products as well as a decomp event that doesn't have to be of human decomp. The other five volatiles he relied on because they overlapped with gasoline? Yes. There is nothing else to explain anything other than a dead human body? It could be a dead human body plus other decomposing organic material. The peer reviewed literature says that chloroform is a part of decomp? Yes. I would have to rely on the only two papers that did that analysis. OK, I AM TOTALLY LOST HERE, LOL. Do you recall giving a new depot this last Sat? Yes I do. Jeff is referring him to it. On Sat I asked you the following question: "Basically the presence of a human body in the trunk of that car could explain all of those findings, could be"? Yes. Now that is not what your saying? You said they could all be explained by a decomposing body? You said yes, are you saying now something different? No, there were other things in the trunk that could of caused the odor, like the gas. You did say that a decomposing body alone could cause the odor? Yes, it could be. Can you tell the jury another single event, other than a decomposing body? It could be a non-decomp event, or household products or gasoline in the trunk could combine and produce a similar signature. Did you find anything in the trunk that could cause this odor? Yes, in the trash bag, could of been in the salami package, the cheese, etc...that is just speculation, there are no peer reviewed articles on this. You do agree that something was decomposing in this car? Yes. What is there in the trunk that can account for all the findings of the Oakridge Natl Lab? First is the salami package, are you aware the package was empty? Yes, there were just traces. You would have to say even a small amount would be unable to produce a substantial odor? Yes. Next the Velveeta, do you know how much Velveeta is milk? Milk is in Velveeta but not a lot of cheese. If the Velveeta package was wet or dry would it give off odors? Less odor if it was dry. Showing him evidence items. Jeff is opening the first piece of trash evidence. He is showing him a box of Velveeta and broccoli and asking him if it would produce odor? No, not dry. Next item, it contains no food product. Would you expect it to give off odor of decomp? If it was wet and gave off fluid. There is no organic matter in this to rot? It would not be visible to the naked eye. Jeff is opening next item, do you see any food product? No, just a soiled box. This would not tend to give off the decomp odor that Oakridge found? Depends on the state it was in. Next item is foil wrapper with cheese residue on the inside. Jeff wants to pass it around to the jury. Baez objects, saying it is altered, it is over ruled but then Baez asks for sidebar.....sidebar over. Not sure if the jury inspected it or not. You would agree with me that there is not significant organic material in that trash to cause the decomp odor? No, I would not agree with that. I am just speculating, we don't know enough about the back ground materials and the source of the stain. We have gone through the only things in the trash and what was in that trash bag was not the source of the odor in the car? Would it leave a smell in the vehicle 2 years after it was removed? That would be highly unlikely. You have worked with canines and decomp? You would agree that the substance we just discuss that a well trained, humans remains detection dog would not alert on? Sustained. Jeff reserves right to recall him.

Baez is up.......

Did you see a bleach stain on this carpet? No. Why didn't you go to Iran and get that paper on chloroform? I didn't know what study he was referring to. I only relied on the articles that I had at my disposal. The ones you used to rely on were ones recognized in the US? I used peer reviewed articles. The Iranian wasn't? I don't know. Baez is showing him the chart on living and deceased people. These compounds that you site here, are they any of the ones that Dr Vass sited? No they are not, these are compounds in our study and they are different than Dr Vass's findings. Mr Ashton talked about the longitudinal studies, he means a long period of time, all the stages of human decomp. Would a odor of buried remains for over a year assist you in rendering an opinion in this case? Objection...sidebar...sidebar over. Dr Furton, in your opinion would a body that has been buried for over a year help you with your opinion in this case? I would have to look at the whole body of analysis, it is known that buried remains will vary with above ground remains. Chemicals will differ. Are you aware that Caylee Marie was last seen on June 16th, 2008 and the car was left at the Amscot on June 27th? Yes. Dr Vass's report did not include this time period? Not that I reviewed. Do you have an opinion that human decomp is a unique event? There was quite a bit of testimony about what else could count for these chemicals being in the trunk? Yes. Would that include the bag of garbage found in the trunk? Could they account for the compounds reported in this study? Yes. Do you know what the chemical composition of the trunk was before the trash was in there? No. Would you need to know this? Yes. Showing him the trash bag pics, one wet, one after drying. Do you see any difference between the two photos? Yes, the garbage has been removed and spread out. You have not seen any photos of the items before they were put in the dry room and that could of had items in the packages removed? No. The trash appears to be pretty clean? Sustained.

3:15pm Judge is taking a 15 minute afternoon recess.