Thursday, April 21, 2011

Casey Anthony: Judge Perry Rules: One down, more to go

Judge Belvin Perry has made a ruling on one of the the scientific motions. While we were expecting them all today, the judge only denied the defense motion to exclude mention of the stain in the trunk.

The defense seeks to exclude all evidence or any motion of the stain in the trunk of the Pontiac Sunfire automobile driven by the Defendant. As the movant, the Defendant bears the burden of proving the facts alleged in her motion and justifying the relief requested. Defendant however, did not present any factual evidence at the hearing in support of the grounds alleged in the motion, and therefore failed to meet her burden of proof. Consequently, any evidence relating to staining in the trunk of the automobile may be admissible upon proper presentation and foundation of the evidence.

The courthouse is closed tomorrow for Good Friday and we will have to wait for the rest. Let's hope Monday brings us the rest of the decisions.

To review what was said in court during the last Frye hearing session, I've copied a portion of Part 5.

Baez promised he would keep his comments brief.

He started by saying that probative value of the stain was outweighed by the prejudicial effect of the testimony. He said that he doesn't have to bring up evidence that most people have stains in the trunk of their car.

He then said that the stain had to have relevance to the case. The garbage bag was wet and moist, there was (sic) gasoline cans in the car. Presumptive tests used Blue Star and there was a glow that showed that there was a possibility of blood.

The test found that there was no DNA on the stain and was not serological of nature.

Ashton had stipulated to that. But, Baez pointed out, there was mass hysteria about the stain that it looked like the outline of a child. Baez even called it "stigmata-type" evidence.

Baez asserted that after all the tests were in, it was NOT biological in nature. The State went to GREAT EXPENSE to do these tests and found nothing.

He then went on to point out that presumptive tests (for blood, etc.) can have false positives.

Baez was insinuating that the stain came from the wet, moist garbage bag.

Next, it was Jeff Ashton's turn. He indicated there was no testimony presented in support of the motion. In his response, he clearly pointed out that the defendant has the burden of proof here. He said they have not agreed and there was nothing attatched to the motion (photographs) he received. He stated that even attaching the pictures would not make it proof. Dr. Vass found that there were elements which contained compounds consistent with human deposition.

Baez responded that he had proof that he he filed the attachments with the court. He mentioned that if they would have to STOP the trial to have a hearing, they could do that.

The judge asked if there is testimony concerning the composition of the stain.

Baez said there was testing for chemicals that were found in the stain. Baez also said that the chemicals are consistent with a plethora of other items. (Velveeta Defense)
Baez said that the non-physicist Arpad Vass would testify and Madhavi Martin would testify that there are other possible causes of the stain.

The judge indicated that Vass said the stain was consistent with decomposition.

Baez went back to the DNA and lack therein.

Ashton said that there were volatile fatty acids possibly consistent with decomposition, possibly of a human nature. Dr. Martin's LIBS testing was also mentioned. Ashton also said that DNA is not present in decomposition because decomposition destroys DNA.

Judge asked if there was any testimony regarding the composition of the stain...Baez answered Vass and Martin had that information.

Judge Perry Rules On Stain In Casey's Trunk


Nora said...

Okay, so are they saying remains of ancient mummies or of Neanderthals and have decomposed have no DNA? Really? They can tell what killed these ancient people, what diseases they had, and tons of other information from these mostly decomposed bodies. But, let the defense try to play the stain down. There is still PLENTY of evidence to show CA is responsible for what happened to Caylee. Starting with partying when Caylee was missing for a month; stealing; lying, etc.

ritanita said...

Nora, let's not forget that Dr. Madhavi Martin from Oak Ridge Labs tested the stain and identified fatty acids consistent with decomposition. No, Mr. Baez, it wasn't a banana!

The stain opens up the discussion of Caylee's body being in the trunk.

Poster: I accidentally zapped your wonderful comment about the mark on Caylee's face. I'm so sorry!

I would like to comment that the mark is a bruise. There was no break in the tissue. It wasn't a cigarette burn, they are nasty and leave a noticeable scar. I go along with the story that she fell against the edge of the table, one of the many boo-boos kids get during childhood.

Anonymous said...

From WFTV:
(With thanks)

Judge Belvin Perry DENIED the defense motions to disallow evidence involving the heart sticker, cadaver dog searches and alerts, and postmortem hair banding. The judge has yet to rule on air tests.


ritanita said...

I'm reading them now and should have a post up tonight or tomorrow!