Over the next three days, the Casey Anthony case will take a scientific detour, the primary purpose of which is for Judge Perry to decide whether to admit testimony from Dr. Arpad Vass regarding his decompositional odor analysis of Casey Anthony’s trunk, an analysis that supposedly revealed the presence of Chloroform – a compound alleged by Dr. Vass to be unique to decomposing bodies.
Who is Dr. Arpad Vass?
Dr. Arpad Vass is a “research chemist scientist and forensic anthropologist based at the Life Sciences Division of Oak Ridge National Laboratory.”
What is Decompositional odor analysis?
According to Dr. Vass, deceased human beings release volatile chemical compounds during the decompositional process. Dr. Vass claims these compounds are the same “odors” that cadaver dogs detect when searching for human remains.
As a result of this hypothesis, Dr. Vass (in conjunction with the FBI) has compiled a “Decompositional Odor Analysis Database” consisting of over 478 compounds that are released by decomposing bodies.
The development of this database is outlined in several of his research papers:
- Decompositional Odor Analysis Database
- Odor analysis of decomposing buried human remains
It is important to understand that the only person that knows all of the compounds in the database is Dr. Vass (and presumably the FBI), thus making it a proprietary database.
Why is the Defense Objecting to Dr. Vass’ Testimony
The Casey Anthony defense team is objecting to Dr. Vass’ testimony on the basis that it is based on “new or novel scientific techniques.” As a result, the defense has convinced Judge Perry to hold a Frye hearing to require the State to prove that Dr. Vass’ testimony is not based on new or novel scientific techniques.
What is a Frye Hearing?
A Frye hearing gets its name from Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), which held that before new or novel scientific techniques will be admissible, the court must find that the “scientific principles and methodologies” which the expert relies upon in rendering the opinion are generally accepted within the scientific community.
What is Generally Accepted within the Scientific Community mean?
Essentially, to be generally accepted within the scientific community, the methods and principles you relied upon in reaching your opinion must be generally accepted to be true and by your peers.
It is important to note that your peers do not have to agree with the opinion you reached, just agree that the methods and principles you relied upon in reaching your conclusion are generally accepted.
An excellent example of this occurred when the defense tried to exclude Dr. David Hall’s testimony in the field of botany. Judge Perry astutely pointed out that his testimony was purely opinion that was based upon general principles within the botany community.
How is Dr. Vass’ Testimony Different from Dr. Hall’s?
It may very well be that Judge Perry rules that Dr. Vass’ testimony is purely opinion testimony based on generally accepted “scientific principles and methodologies.”
However, Dr. Vass’ testimony differs from Dr. Hall in one major respect; Dr. Vass’ testimony is based upon a proprietary database that he developed through his own research.
The Heart of the Defense Argument
If you read Dr. Vass’ report in the Casey Athony case, it essentially requires the reader to take his word that the compounds he identified in Casey Anthony’s trunk suggest a “decompositional event” because they match the compounds in his database – a database of 478 compounds that are a mystery to everyone but him.
However, Dr. Vass’ research seems to have been developed for commercial and governmental purposes, as Dr. Vass has obtained a patent for a “Clandestine Grave Detector,” which is based on his research. Additionally, the FBI is part owner of the “Decompositional Odor Analysis Database” because they funded his research.
This commercial motive is important because Dr. Vass has a vested interest in his research being validated by utilizing his research on behalf of the State at the Casey Anthony trial.
This validation would stand in stark contrast to his 2008 work in the Charles Manson case where he attempted to use his research to identify “clandestine graves” at the infamous Barker Ranch. According to Dr. Vass, his research is so accurate that he can’t differentiate whether the decompositional event was from “an animal, Native American, or a dinosaur.”
Needless to say, they did not find any bodies on the Barker Ranch to validate Dr. Vass’ claims that a decompositional event took place; which begs the question, how do we know his conclusions were correct?
This is the same question that we must ask in the Casey Anthony case. If nobody but Dr. Vass has access to his database, how can anybody in the scientific community determine if the methods and principles he relied upon in compiling the database were generally accepted?
And if we can’t determine if his methods and principles were generally accepted, how can we let him testify to something that only he would know the answer to.
Another Problem of Dr. Vass’ Research
If you read Dr. Vass’ literature, he appears fixated on the issue of Fluorinated water – essentially believing that because we fluorinate our water, this compound is usually present in decompositional events.
However, fluoride was not present in his report in the Casey Anthony case. Instead, he accounts for the absence of fluoride to Caylee’s young age; meaning she did not live long enough to absorb the fluorine into her bones.
But the question must be asked, what basis does he have to dismiss the presence of fluoride? If his work has not been sufficiently peer reviewed, how can we know that the methods and principles he relied upon in reaching that conclusion are scientifically accepted?
From a statistical point of view, he has developed his database on a relatively small number of cadavers (according to his first paper, only four cadavers were used). Any statistician will tell you that you need at least 200 samples before you can make a statistically reliable conclusion. So it is difficult to believe that his reliance on such a small statistical sample would be accepted by peers in the scientific community.
Peer Review, Schmear Review
Essentially Dr. Vass has created a secret database that has not been peer-reviewed and cannot be peer reviewed – which is the hallmark of trusted scientific evidence.
(Yes, ValHall at the Hinky Meter did an excellent review of much of the science behind Dr. Vass’ work last year. While ValHal was of the opinion that his research was peer-reviewed, I respectfully disagree.)
Because any peer review of Dr. Vass’ research would by definition be incomplete unless the reviewer had complete access to his decompositional odor database. Without access to this database, it is impossible to thoroughly peer review his research.
And peer review is the hallmark for determining whether a principle or methodology is generally accepted within the scientific community.
86 responses to “Can I have some Fryes with that Clandestine Grave Detector?”
Whether the reader chooses to agree or not, this is a well-presented, articulate, logical and, concise read. Way to go RH! Another RH fan.
.
JB as Casey Defense = DP = Weakest Link, Goodbye!
.
CM as Casey Defense = LIFE = Deal or No Deal? No Deal
.
RH as Casey Defense = 15 Year Plea Deal = Priceless!!
Cyberborg, thank you for the kind words. But keep in mind that the scientific challenge will be conducted by Ms. Dorothy Sims; whom I believe is much more competent than JB, CM, and myself when it comes to this area.
Oh Richard, sorry to respectfully disagree with you. She was AWFUL. You could have done way way better, in my humble opinion.
Nah, you’re wrong there, lol. You are too kind.
Yes! Thank you! 🙂
Call me naive, but why would the FBI choose to finance and partner with an endeavor that was not credible or peer respected?
That is a good question, you should ask them because it is not the first time they have financed and supported forensic methods that have later turned out to be unreliable: FBI Abandons Controversial Bullet-Matching Technique.
Richard, I wonder if you have read Mason’s motion to vacate Judge Perry’s order re: Hall not being subject to Frye?
http://www.wesh.com/pdf/27276629/detail.html
I’d be interested to know if you think Perry may reconsider and allow this to be heard this week after all.
No, Mason is wrong, Judge Perry is right, there is order in the world.
Thank you! 🙂 I’ve been waiting for this promised article for months – well worth the wait. Would love to hear Valhall’s response to this.
Hello Mr. Hornsby!
You state…
“Because any peer review of Dr. Vass’ research would by definition be incomplete unless the reviewer had complete access to his decompositional odor database. Without access to this database, it is impossible to thoroughly peer review his research.
And peer review is the hallmark for determining whether a principle or methodology is generally accepted within the scientific community.”
This is not exactly correct. Well, it’s kind of way off of correct. You may need to define your “peer reviewed” point of view on this. In a “peer reviewed” journal the METHODOLOGY and the CONCLUSIONS of the work are reviewed for scientific soundness. It is either rejected or accepted upon that peer review for publication in that technical or scientific journal.
Now, there is NO requirement that a scientist reveal ALL of his collected data. I know this for certain because I am a peer-reviewed published engineer. There is no requirement to divulge your ENTIRE database. You only have to publish enough data to support your conclusions. (The amount of data to appease the review body will vary.)
Now, if you mean some legal definition of “peer reviewed” to which I am unfamiliar, where a scientist has to come with 20 gig of data because that’s what he’s collected….okay, I don’t know about that shnizzle.
Love the articulate discussion! It is a shame that RH and Valhall are not arguing this in front of Judge Perry. In my opinion … that’s where it counts. The SA typically does a good job of presenting their arguments and supporting them … the Defense? Not so much. My bet is that this will get ruled in as admissible, as a trial balloon (excuse pun) since it complements and is not exclusive evidence. It won’t make or break the case alone. This case and trial will be won and lost on presentation skill and … the Defense lacks an articulate focused to the point lead.
Thank you ValHall!
In support of Val is the whole field of global warming science. For years the lead researchers failed to release their data and the software that implemented their peer-reviewed published methods. Yet we heard repeatedly that the science was settled by many scientists and politicians alike. It was only until the last few years that those climate scientists began to release some of their data and software. What did we learn? Their data was of poor quality and their software did not accurately implement the methods described in their papers. But hey, it was all peer reviewed.
Valhal, I of course agree with you that most of Dr. Vass’ methods are based on sound science. The problem is that without complete access to his database, it is impossible to determine which compounds are always present in a decompositional event and which are not.
And when it come to admitting evidence that is intended to help support the imposition of the death penalty on someone, you better well hope that the principles the conclusion are based upon have been fully vetted by the scientific community.
And no, I am not requiring 20 gig of data – just a full accounting of the 400+ compounds in Dr. Vass’ database. If that is such a difficult hurdle, then maybe, just maybe opinions based on the database should not be admissible to support the imposition of the death penalty on another person…
Mr. Hornsby – there are a few points that were made during the Frye hearings.
1. The data collection methods at the Barker ranch were for underground samples using different methods and different equipment than that used in the Anthony case.
2. Dr. Vass’ database consists of many compounds, some of which may have nothing to do with decomposition – for example, a compound may have appeared one time in a trace amount which would have nothing to do with decomposition.
3. Dr. Vass did not depend on analysis of his database to make his findings. He depended on somewhere between 30 and 50 compounds which are usually found in decomposing bodies at some time in the decomposition process. Not all the compounds are found at all the stages of decomposition and it is the grouping of compounds at different periods of decomposition that are relevant.
4. All of the above are documented in the two peer-reviewed articles he cited.
5. Compounds that are found in gasoline were in the database were removed from the analysis.
6. Control samples of chloroform were taken from a trunk of a similar car with a similar carpet for the chloroform analysis.
7. All samples were analysed using machines that have been validated over and over again. The results of these machines have been validated. The interpretation of results is not a Frye issue.
So I am thinking that since you wrote your articles before the hearings, that maybe this information would make you change your mind – or not?
Richard, may I ask how long you have been on Bozo and Mumbles payroll? I could swear you have been doing all you can to help them out since this started almost 3 yrs ago. I don’t know how you defense attorneys go to sleep at night. Caylee Marie Anthony was not even three years old when she was murdered by her mother. Yeah I know she is up for the Mother of the year award, but how do you guys defend people like this? There is one thing I know for sure in this case. That sweet precious Baby did not wrap her head in duck tape….jumped into a black plastic bag….tie it up, then jump in another bag, then put herself in a laundry bag and hop all the way to Suburban St and lay down in the woods to die. And I think the whole world knows that Zanny the nanny does not exist.
I hope that sweet baby Caylee haunts you, Mumbles and grumbles til the day you all die.
Darla, I agree that the”sweet precious Baby did not wrap her head in duck tape….jumped into a black plastic bag….tie it up, then jump in another bag, then put herself in a laundry bag and hop all the way to Suburban St and lay down in the woods to die.”
But just because I agree with you, does not mean that I should blindly agree with the evidence the state desires to admit to prove the point.
Our judicial system is based upon blind, cold, logic; not emotion as you would desire.
Darla,
not to take away from you opinion, and not to stand-up for RH, but you do realize he is a defense attorney who allows “us”, the reader, a perspective not readily given…an insight if you will. RH provides consise information that is relevant to this case as it is this case that started his Blawg. It is important that when developing an opinion that you hear from both sides of the argument.
I doubt RH will be plagued by the hauntings of Caylee as he has been pretty much on her side since the begining. I would like to at least hope that Caylee haunts her mom till they day she dies…in the gallows
I mean no offense RH because I respect many of your offerings. But I’m leaning way over to Valhall on this one.
I think you’ve put forward a good “defense” objection, but for me you made the mistake of wearing your defense hat instead of a scientific hat or at least a defense hat with scientific data in hand, when you presented this argument.
Let’s see if Ashton one ups you and I’m betting it will be Ashton who gets the cigar on this one.
Of course you are, if you believe Casey guilty you would never want to believe in the possibility her prosecutors may be wrong.
I think Casey is guilty, but I also think that Dr. Vass’ research is self serving until he opens it up to examination by everyone, not just the FBI.
If one believes that Casey is guilty, one would never want to believe in the possibility that her defense team may be right.
But we are not talking about “right” and “wrong”. We are discussing scientific methodology and acceptability in the scientific community, and inductive (not deductive) reasoning by an expert. And probability.The defense has attacked the interpretation of the methodology, but not analyzed same and produced different opinion/s.
I work in the OR. We use GC/ MS for analysis of both anesthetic volatile agents (“gases”), as well as scavenger analysis of the room air breathed by everyone in the room not intubated and ventilated. If the scavenger analysis detects a certain quantity of anesthetic agent, it is generally accepted that the analysis is accurate, and the source of the agent is sought. (Probability.) For example, was there a series of “mask” cases in that OR that produced quantities of agent in the scavenger? Was a bottle of agent spilled or broken? Is there a leak of some kind in the anesthesia machine and breathing circuit? The agent detected is the sentinel signature that there was some kind of anesthetic leak and exposure. It isn’t necessary to investigate EVERY compound that might be in the air, if only specific compounds are targeted for analysis. We don’t need to know if there were cigarette smoke components in the air, to determine if there is a quantity of anesthetic that indicates a leak or a mask case exposure, for instance.
My understanding of Dr. Vass’ work is that while he has identified 400-some compounds that occur during the off gassing of chemicals in 4 buried adult corpses, these noted were sufficient to identify the DOMINANT and RELEVANT compounds emitted. Dr. Vass never said his analysis “proved” the existence of a corpse in Casey’s trunk. Rather, he said the air analysis signature was CONSISTENT WITH a decompositional event, due to the DOMINANT AND RELEVANT chemical signatures obtained. Similar to my anesthetic agent example above, it was not necessary for him to analyze and report every compound present and disclose these, as NONE of the DOMINANT AND RELEVANT compounds should have been present if a decompositional event had NOT likely taken place. The key is probability.
GC/ MS is generally accepted methodology. Vass used GC/ MS. The GC/ MS meet the criteria for generally accepted methodology. The interpretation (opinion) of those results is opinion based on THE ONLY valid research that exists from verified cadavers. It is not an invalid opinion because no one else has disproved it. The experts can battle their opinions over interpretation of results at trial, but the GC/ MS air sample analysis is sound for methodology.
I think Jeff Ashton will win this one.
KZ
Your point of view is nicely written and I appreciate the examples you have given.
Ahhh…If only I could hear Richard and Val providing live commentary presenting their like and opposing views during these Frye hearings…. The sciences are not my strongest forte so I have been studying everything I could find in hopes of understanding the important points made during the experts’ testimony. I wish I had both of you to “dumb-it-down” putting it in layman’s terms for me in real time. A dose of the wicked humor would probably lighten the mood as well. 😉
Richard, thank you for explaining the criteria for a Frye hearing in language a layman can understand. It is very helpful. I don’t know whether Dr. Vass’ info will be considered or not, but I am pretty certain of one thing. I don’t believe the jury will be as interested in what compounds specifically were present as they will be in the 31 days, no police report made, no job at Universal, no nanny needed, no nanny period, probably would have NEVER made a report, pole dancing at Fusian, Blockbuster with the boyfriend, car smelling like a dead body, no Zanny living at Sawgrass or anywhere else she claimed, no Juliette Lewis, no Zachary Hopkins, duct tape over the mouth and possibly the nose and on and on and on. I think those are the things that will capture the jury’s attention and make much more of an impression than flouride or any other compound being present or not. JMHO.
I agree with you TiaMaria. I have always thought lay testimony about the smell of death is much more compelling that a scientist saying he found a compound in the trunk.
not to mention the mother screaming “it smells like a damn dead body in the car” and dad agreeing. Both parents assesment of the vehicle upon initial inspection is validified because both parents were/ or are in a career position that would warrant such an opinion…CA an RN and GA a past police officer…
I am bothered by those who are ready to hang anyone who doesn’t agree 100% with everything the State says and does. I greatly enjoy RH’s articles and wish he would write more of them.
His point of view and opinions offer a perspective that is worthwhile and informative. even if we don’t agree or like it.
As a former chemist with an advanced degree in engineering, I performed standardized air quality testing required by the US EPA in an industrial setting when I first graduated from college, and later I was on the White House Task Force for Global Warming during the Clinton/Gore Administration. Vass’ application of standardized air testing methods to the decomposition of human bodies doesn’t seem “novel”. GC/MS use is the industry gold standard. If this methodology were not generally accepted, there would be no air quality testing possible worldwide, Californians would be unable to impose & enforce rigid air quality regulations on industry & private citizens, an entire division within the US EPA would have to be dismantled, & Mr. Gore would have to return his Nobel Prize. Jeff Ashton will provide a convincing argument that’ll override Mumbles & Bumbles & “rat’s nest hair” Sims’ most blusterful presentations. jmho
Note to JWG:
I totally agree with you on the “recent” leaks of scientific data from the Global Warming terrorists..erm, scientists. Mr. Gore definitely needs to return his Nobel Prize, refund movie tickets to those who went to see the travesty to science he called the “I.C.T.”, end this get-rich-quick “energy exchange” system, reduce his personal carbon imprint that is exponentially larger than any other US Citizen’s, & apologize to the world for misleading them with his version of “junk science”. IMO.
First, in statistics, the Confidence level is what’s important (such as 95% confidence level +/- 4), not just the sampling number, or “count”. In most cases, the “count” needed for reliable & repeatable results is n=25, and if you can get it, n=100, not n=200. Sure, the more the better, and in certain fields and applications, a sampling over 100 is possible but not necessary and in other fields and applications, not only is 100 not possible, but 25 is difficult; such is the case of decomposing bodies, apparently.
Proprietary databases are commonplace in research & in private industry in the scientific realm. Imagine Procter & Gamble’s “fragrance lab” (I’d call it the “odor lab” but technically they are fragrance chemists), and the application of a portable air testing device that would identify and measure quantity of chemical components in various fragrances which are mixtures. P&G wouldn’t disclose their database listing chemical components of their various “signature” fragrances; indeed, they would guard this proprietary database with every means possible. Other R&D researchers wouldn’t need access to the ENTIRE proprietary database to know the science behind it was valid & not novel.
Similarly, Vass’ research was funded by the US Govt, and as a result, he’s had to file periodic reports which are archived by the US Dept of Commerce/NTIS. Those reports are available to the general public upon request. Key chemical components are identified & measured for research, but it’s not essential to publish every single one contained in the database.
Can you imagine how irresponsible & unethical it would be to publish his entire database of chemical components of decomposing human bodies ? Think of the possible ramifications: some enterprising criminal entity would likely “mix up” a batch of chemical components & sell it or use it to mislead law enforcement and obstruct justice. Furthermore, consider that these are “human subjects” (though dead), which has its own set of regulations to consider & that the US Govt takes quite seriously.
You also imply that Vass has a “profit motive” that corrupts his research.
If Vass has had to engineer a portable GC/MS device that can be used in the field (where his bodies are, as opposed to an indoor lab like a P&G fragrance lab), where does that make him ‘the bad guy’? There are portable air quality measuring devices available, in other applications. In fact, I’ll bet everybody has heard of and may own their own home Carbon Monoxide monitors. It’s a similar concept. http://www.breathepureair.com/air_monitoring.html
Also, Clinton/Gore instituted the “technology transfer” program in which US Govt funded research that produced things like the fluorescing light (originally engineered for survival training for US soldiers) to be transferred to private industry so that some US Citizen who didn’t develop the original item could make millions mass producing it for consumers – which is how you got those neon-colored fluorescing light bands sold at rock concerts & at Toys-R-Us that the kiddies shut their bedroom lights off at night to play with or stick on their ceilings in shapes of stars to mimic the outdoor night sky. Profit motive wouldn’t have corrupted the research & development of night vision equipment!
It’s common knowledge, “a given”, that the private sector can’t or won’t tackle hardcore, basic R&D since they don’t want to put out the time, funds, personnel, or have the special knowledge or ability to gather the group of people with special knowledge for scientific projects. I believe Vass’ work is in this category. With technology transfer, private industry gets to shortcut the R&D process, increasing their profit margins. Win-win all around. jmho
While everything you say is very true, you miss the basic point when it comes to criminal cases – before a new or novel scientific theory can be relied upon, it must be proven to work.
Nobody has replicated Dr. Vass’ work and even Dr. Vass has not proven his methodology actually works.
But I’m not the judge, Perry is; and it is for him to decide.
I can understand some of the things as to why the defense does them but, it worries me with some of the shenanigans that have been done it could have repercussions for other currant and future defendents.
Makes PERFECT sense to me! Thank you very much.
“If you read Dr. Vass’ report in the Casey Athony case, it essentially requires the reader to take his word that the compounds he identified in Casey Anthony’s trunk suggest a “decompositional event” because they match the compounds in his database – a database of 478 compounds that are a mystery to everyone but him”.
hmmm, it almost sounds like the start of a certain relegion…
aside from my attempt at humor i am curious if they (defense) would need to show information that refutes Dr. Vass’s report? Regardless if its a “roprietary” data base there is still validity to it…take for instance the BAT Test, it started somewhere and my guess is it became seamingly difficult to refute it???
Me thinks that the Defense, although admirable in their many attempts to clear their client” are grasping and sooner or later there’ll be no more straws to grasp and that they will need to start developing a Defense to keep her off Death Row????
If you meant the BAC test for alcohol content, you might be shocked to know that results from intoxilyzer machines have not been admisisble in an Orange County courtroom for the better part of the last two decades (Thanks to DUI attorney Stu Hyman).
Also, when those machines are admissible, they are only admissible due to a statutory exception. Because no court in Florida has found that intoxilyzer results meet the traditional Frye predicate.
—-I hope that sweet baby Caylee haunts you, Mumbles and grumbles til the day you all die.—–
Huh? That’s a little extreme don’t you think? You’d rather live somewhere else in the world where if you even “look” a little guilty – they chop your head off?
Thank you so much for this blog entry! You laid the Frye information out in such a concise and easy to understand way. You made it very clear for a non-legal person! Although I do believe Casey is most likely guilty, I do see your point about Dr. Vass’ research. It will be interesting to hear the testimony and how the judge will rule.
I have a question about the disk that Baez left with Mr. Ashton on Monday. The disk contained over 5000 pages regarding Dr. Vass – some of it which may or may not be used during the questioning of Dr. Vass. Do you have any opinion about this? Is this something that happens all the time with opposing counsel…or was Mr. Baez pulling a fast one by trying to slip something in under the radar, or was he really offering the disk as a professional courtesy? As a non-legal person it appeared shady, but I want to know if this sort of thing happens all the time. Just curious!
Good article and comments.
I just peeked at the hearing. Do you think Baez scored any points? Have you ever seen a trial lawyer nearly break into tears, under similar circumstances?
What are your thoughts on the motion stating that Judge Perry has bias for law enforcement, do you think it will fly?
I know that they might be trying to limit analysis of Casey’s countenance in the court, but do you think the busy work she is engaged in furthers the notion that she is utterly unemotional about the death of her daughter, or is it the lesser of two evils, in contrast to allowing her to potentially exhibit inappropriate facial expressions and body language?
The Frye hearings have been a disaster so far. Although I don’t think Vass’ work should come in, I don’t think Baez did enough damage to keep it out. To top it off, the motion Mason filed was moronic. Because while I agree that Judge Perry’s findings were very favorable for the state, they were nonetheless his findings. And Mason’s understanding of the law is simply wrong.
The depth of the defense team’s ignorance has made commenting on this case completely un-enjoyable. Because they are so inept, you can almost guaranty the State will win on every major issue.
re: “the depth of the defense team’s ignorance”…….
which…seems to know, no bounds…… AND,
“Mason’s understanding of the law is simply wrong “………
and Baez’s understanding is even less so………and his ability to grasp and or articulate ANYTHING seems, well, severely impaired…
All above being the case (and having watched every bit of the hearings yesterday, as difficult as that was) I’m starting to feel a little apprehensive/queasy that this trial will be able to come to a natural conclusion.
Would you place odds on one or the other of them (Baez, Mason) being the cause of judge Perry ordering a mistrial on his own motion?
Judge Perry is way too smart for either Baez or Mason; this case will come to a natural conclusion.
However, I would not be surprised if Judge Perry made jury selection a pain for the defense and went to Pensacola or Panama. Conservative, God Loving all-american folk there. They would hang Casey in an instant and it would be a nightmare for the defense to have to stay for a month.
You said you wouldn’t be surprised if Judge Perry made jury selection a pain for the defense. Couldn’t this be viewed as a judge displaying bias in favor of the state? Couldn’t this been seen as a judge doing everything in his power to ensure that the defendant gets an unfavorable verdict? Do judges really play those tit for tat games when someone’s life is on the line?
If so….I think the judicial system, especially in the state of Florida, needs to be seriously revamped. No disrespect meant to you, Mr. Hornsby.
I am remiss to use the vernacular of the Anthonys, but I ABSOLUTELY agree with you, Mr. Hornsby! IMO, Judge Perry is light years in intelligence beyond Baez and Mason.
Omar, I respectfully disagree with you. If any of Judge Perry’s rulings were deemed unfairly biased toward the State, you’d hear much more of an outcry than just the five or so sourpusses at JBMission! lol…..If you guys want to continue to throw all your blind support behind your “mission” to create a conspiracy theory against Casey,….(to paraphrase JAWS): “You’re gonna need a bigger boat.”
Thanks, Richard. I spent 8 plus hours watching yesterday’s hearing; It was in the last hour or so that I found myself slipping from incredulous astonishment at the spectacle that was Baez’s examination of Doctor Vass, into being utterly stupefied – I think it hit the good doctor round about the same time – he just kind of blanched and seemed to fade right before my very eyes. What a going on, LOL!! 🙂 Poor judge Perry….he seemed “weary” to say the least!!
Still feeling somewhat shell shocked today, I began to imagine a scenario where Baez (or even Mason), in a blaze of moronic idiocy, the likes of which have never before been seen in a Florida courtroom, did SOMETHING that ultimately proved so irreversibly prejudicial to his very own client that it vitiates the entire trial.
I’ll try to keep my imagination in check!! 🙂
Thank you, Richard. Your article is easy to understand, informative and a pleasure to read.
I know this case would be an up hill battle for any defense lawyer, but I wish you where defending Casey because at least your arguments are well thought out. Baez has had over 2 years to prepare his arguments on many of these issues, yet he and his team appear unprepared and off topic at the hearings. I can’t understand why Baez called a Forensic Anthropologist as an “expert” when dealing with the cadaver dogs. Wouldn’t have made more sense to call their own expert trainer/handler (of cadaver dogs) to discuss training requirements, error rates, handler mistakes, false positives and dogs taking cues from their handlers that could lead to errors?
Even though I believe that the human body gives off specific gases at variable rates during the decomposition process, I completely understand your argument especially because it is so well written. I know that there are blind studies where someone verifying results does not have an entire data base-only the techniques and final results, but it would take many years for that person to be able to study decomposing bodies to compile a data base inorder to verify a previous “experts” findings. I think Dr. Vass knowing the smell of human decomposition and recognizing it when opening the sample is more compelling to me than the science. I can relate to specific items having specific smells, I can’t actually see chemical compounds.
“I think Dr. Vass knowing the smell of human decomposition and recognizing it when opening the sample is more compelling to me than the science. ”
I agree and also, beyond testifying how the smell that came out of the shipment container, decomposition he said, knocked him back a couple of feet – I thought his “skunk analogy” was perfect – ‘you don’t have to see the skunk to know that you are smelling the skunk’….
Didnt see your post before posting my own and I agree, next to the cadaver dog handler, Dr Vass is probably more qualified than any other witness to opine on the smell.
That should resonate with the jury particularly after they hear George Anthony’s initial thoughts on the subject.
The innocuous bag of empty food cartons will not fly.
I suspect they did not call a dog handler because no dog handler would dispute the training that Bones and Gergus had. If they did, their words would come back to haunt them whenever they tried to testify in future. In other words, they would be ruining their own careers whether as defense or prosecution witnesses. Hence a person who knows nothing about it and will never be called in another case to refute anyone.
One more question. Although they have asserted that it’s not a diminished capacity defense, more likely PTSD al a ‘ugly copin’ or OCD al a pathological lying, will the state be granted access to their own psychological evaluation of Casey?
I am not sure what the defense has listed Dr. Danziger for, but I believe Dr. Danziger will be used in the penalty phase. If so, this issue came up back when Andrea Lyon was on the case.
Because Baez waived a timing/notice requirement regarding psychological examination in the penalty phase, the State will be allowed to have their psychologist examine Casey.
Thank you for all the responses. Sorry for your displeasure in this case, but I can understand why.
Richard – is that another instance of Baez missing a deadline to his client’s detriment or was it unavoidable?
So, from your blog above, it is up to the State to prove the science is valid, it is NOT up to the defense to prove otherwise? Boy, it sure didn’t seem that was what was happening at this hearing. If that is the case, I would have thought that the State would have had to have other scientific witnesses to corroborate Dr. Vass’ science. What am I missing?
Richard, I would like to know what you thought of Mr. Biazs performance on Thursday, and what he said about being coerced by Mr. Ashton because of the sanctions that were hanging over his head. I really was embarrassed by his tantrum, but would like to know what you think of this?
Hi RH, I’m sorry you believed my comments re leaning towards Valhall’s comments rather than yours were based on my belief in ICA’s guilt. Not true, as for me there is plenty of proven evidence and behavior to convict her already. It because of the reading I’ve done and the discussions I’ve had with professions in the medical field and the police world as to how gases are measured. In my little corner of the world, breathalyzers are legal in our courts of law.
What I don’t want is another OJ fiasco. I watched every minute of that trial and I was shocked by the shoddy work of the prosecution and not at all surprised he was found not guilty. I certainly wasn’t “rooting” for him because I had no idea who he was before the trial, and wasn’t watching the trial with a color of skin bias since that particular one is not one we have here (we have our own thanks). I did think he was clearly guilty, but again very very poor show for the State. I do want ICA convicted, but only if the evidence can be proven that she and only she committed this crime.
If Dr. Vass’s work is accepted by HHJP, there will be time before Ms Anthony is put to death for scientists to step up with their arguments to prove he is wrong. The process of acceptance has to start somewhere – why not now? (I actually think she will get LWOP, but I digress)
No legal system is perfect but yours and mine are among the best in the world. Or maybe my opinion really is slanted since a local man has just been giving life with the opportunity of parole at 15 years for killing his pregnant wife, burning her body and tossing it on the side of the road by a local bog.
I do however always appreciate you presenting a fair and balanced opinion from a defense point of view – thank you.
That makes no sense, the whole point of a Frye hearing is to show that a scientific theory is not new or novel before it will be introduced; not go and find science to support it after the fact.
It is thinking like that which has led to many innocent people being executed, only to be exonerated once bad science is exposed.
At first, I felt as though this science should come in. Now I have changed my mind, not because of how it will, or will not, affect this case, but rather how it may potentially affect other cases.
Without further independent studies compiling the exact same data on death chemistry, other items and what their chemical composition might be alone and in combination with a human decompositional event, I fear that someone could be convicted of a crime with this technology alone. I worry about false positives, or faulty interpretations, in a situation where no body is recovered, and an innocent may be on trial. I’m not sure now is the time to set a precedent with this science. I also think that there is plenty of other testimony in this case that will bring in the smell of the car, including Casey’s own statement about a dead squirrel, that this ‘icing on the cake’ isn’t really necessary. I still don’t really buy that Casey used chloroform on Caylee, so the increased level detected seemed to be an anomaly to me. If they are using this science to prove that point alone, they still wouldn’t have me on board, as a juror, unless they have something else more substantial to prove this.
In spite of the defense’s stumbling and bumbling on this issue in the Frye hearing, do you think that there is a possibility that the judge won’t allow it in? It seems that he does his own research in addition to both side’s arguments.
I dont understand where you get anomaly from. Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry has been around since the 1950’s. It is used to analyze the air we breathe, its used in arson and explosives investigation,.Its also used in some airports to detect drugs or explosives in luggage. The instrumentation was NEVER a subject of Frye, even though poor Jose Baez had a melt down trying make it so. Dr Vass merely ran a test on the carpet sample and the most prevalent compound detected was chloroform.
Yes, the defense can attack his interpretation of the RELATIVE amounts but not the method used to detect it.
Just want to say thank you for always presenting your views so that us laymen can understand. I also want to say thank you for being a defense attorney and standing up for the rights of the accused. Guilty or not, Casey Anthony deserves a fair trial and I am so glad there are attorneys like you out there! I do believe Casey is guilty, but I believe the state must bear the burden of proof and the defense team must do everything in their power to defend her.
Richard, What is your opinion on the new motion claiming Judge Perry is biased?
SandraP said (snipped):
“Omar, I respectfully disagree with you. If any of Judge Perry’s rulings were deemed unfairly biased toward the State, you’d hear much more of an outcry than just the five or so sourpusses at JBMission! lol…..If you guys want to continue to throw all your blind support behind your “mission” to create a conspiracy theory against Casey,….(to paraphrase JAWS): “You’re gonna need a bigger boat.”
With all due respect, SandraP, what I was asking was in relation to Richard’s statement which is copied and pasted below:
Richard said (snipped):
“However, I would not be surprised if Judge Perry made jury selection a pain for the defense and went to Pensacola or Panama. Conservative, God Loving all-american folk there. They would hang Casey in an instant and it would be a nightmare for the defense to have to stay for a month.”
I was simply asking him if judges DO this type of thing out of spite. He brought the subject up. He implies that it’s within the judge’s power to make jury selection a pain for the defense. How is this NOT showing bias when considered in the context of the comments in which it was written??? Just because I CAN do something to make a job a “pain” for someone doesn’t mean I should. And it doesn’t mean that JP WILL…..it’s Richard’s comment. That’s why I’m asking him.
Judges do many things specifically because they are “legal.” Judges also don’t elaborate on why they do things specifically so they do not create a “record” that can be appealed.
Good point.
Good Morning Mr. horsby, Re: the flouride issue..
We have yet to see cindy WITHOUT a water bottle, ( so chances are IMO very great) they either had a house water purifier or one that attaches to the faucet. That said, that very well COULD be why her tiny bones didn’t absorb flouride. JMO
there are also so many things we haven’t seen in the discovery docs released….
AN’s list
1. Annie Downing’s entire statement
2. All the fiber evidence results
3. The botanical results
4. The geological results
5. Mark Hawkins interview
6. Clint House interview
7. Tape from shed shelves
8. Dryer sheets match?
9. Vacuum results
10. Washing machine recovered
11. Dominic Casey information
12. Casey’s early morning phone conversation with Tony
13. Deleted photos from casey’s computer
14. Animal hair results
15. Human hair match
16. Fingerprint from duct tape Q104
17. Chemical test on Caylee’s hair mass for chloroform
18. Results from pieces of trash bag at scene
19. Results of diaper match to scene
20. Cindy Anthony July 31, 2008 interview
21. Analysis of pieces of fabric from trunk
22. Skull dirt match – remains scene?
23. Photos in 3 disposable cameras
24. Weed barrier match?
25, Pavers match
26. Helen Davis interview and photos
27. Blanket from emergency kit in casey’s car
28. Eyelash in napkins analysis
29. Black plastic bag -things from casey’s car match to remains bag?
30. Confirmation on blood test from blankets, shorts, laundry bag, napkins
31. Trash box (listed in evidence)
32. Analysis of maggots
33. Turpenes in casey’s trunk analysis
34. Mallory’s deposition
35. Diary entry date June 21, 2008 or 2003?
36. Anthony’s notebooks
37. Handwriting analysis
38. George’s GJ testimony
39. Removed sheetrock
40. Luminol tests results from house
41. Computer forensics results
42. DNA results
43. Cindy’s phone convo with Tony L. the week of July 22, 2008
just to name a few… of course the JoseBFishin’ folks WON’T even ALLOW this list to be posted there ignore it, (like casey did her pregnancy) won’t make it go away.
The fact that Case chose to minimize Caylee even while she was pregnant with her, speaks loads about her DE-tachment from HER responsibility and IMO cindy holding Caylee first just gave case the ammo she needed to justify using Caylee as the rope in their fatal tug-o-war.
I wondered the same thing.
Regardless of whether Dr Vass’s odour analysis is as yet accepted or not accepted by the greater scientific community, I think he will prove a powerul witness for the state. He did exremely well on the stand. His testimony about the chloroform level will imo significantly hurt the defense. 10,000 times the level of what’s typical in a cadaver. And unfortunately for Miss Anthony, someone in her house just happened to google how to make the stuff. Vass has also imo debunked the squirrel shinola put forward by the defendant at some point. Baez failed miserably with the chloroform issue which supports the state’s theory that this child may have been chemically restrained before the tape was applied to her face.
Vass will also give his professional opinion on the smell of human decomposition and I don’t think anyone would argue his credentials on that one.
I am on the other side of this issue. I don’t believe that the searches for chloroform prove anything. Her friend had a poster about chloroform, and it could have been curiosity that drove her to googling how to make it, so that she could look knowledgeable and hip. I wouldn’t consider too much testimony from the jail snitch, because she was looking for a way to help herself. Plus, I believe that the state has decided that they aren’t going to use it anyway, which was an intelligent decision.
Casey Anthony never admitted to using chloroform in any letters, but yet she did mention Zanny the nanny. I see it as potentially mere coincidence that the levels were high. I believe that there may be some unknown circumstance, or some other unknown chemical breakdown that may explain the increased levels, such as cleaning agents, intentionally used, spilled in the car, or some other unknown about the car itself. If there was one point that Baez was able to make through his less than stellar performance, it was that the lab did not test the dryer sheets, Febreze, or other cleaners, used in combination or alone, in similar circumstances, in a closed trunk, along with decomp material, to determine if that could or would result in enhanced and elevated chloroform levels. There is no control sample evaluating if other agents would yield this result. It’s too much of a jump to conclude, beyond reasonable doubt, that chloroform was made and used in this case. I believe that insisting upon the chloroform as an agent used in Caylee Anthony’s death, based on inference from the incomplete data, is more harmful rather than helpful to the state’s case. The case is very strong without it, and this makes them appear to be desperately grasping at straws when they don’t need to. Unless there is additional hard evidence that substantiates this theory, it remains only a theory.
As to the smell of human decomposition, I believe that all of the oral and written testimony of witnesses, including Casey Anthony and her dead squirrel, will more than suffice to drive that point home to jurors.
I understand Frye hearings are about the science, so I wouldn’t be surprised if Judge Perry doesn’t allow testimony about the science, but given the fact Dr. Vass has worked with decomposing human remains for many years, would he be allowed to testify as to his opinion of the smell? Or is it black and white ..he either testifies or he doesn’t? As you said…the lay opinions of George, Cindy, the tow yard man and even Yuri Melich are more compelling than any machine.
Mr Hornsby, you write wonderfully and logically, etc,, but,I think, Logicalgirl at7:15 was saying, that if it comes in,,, scientist will have time before her execution to show that Dr Vass’ work DOES NOT WORK,, or is NOT good science..thanks for all your articles..AND, your unbiased opinions… brings help restore faith in our judicial system…
Richard,
The legal analyst for WFTV (Bill Scheafer) suggests that the defense may be setting up a strategy where George takes the fall to create reasonable doubt. According to him all the pieces would fall int place as George was the last person to see Caylee alive ( as he identified the clothes that she was found in). He also said that George would have had as much access to Caylee, which would nuetralize even the scientific evidence of the defense.
What do you think of such a theory and do you see such a theory actually holding water?
Dorothy Simms, according to her own website, is renowned for cross examining medical doctors who represent the big insurance companies, WCB claims, etc. Baez has a history of only seeking out the most renowned attorneys or scientists, in their particular area of expertise, and convinces them to join the team. As we’ve witnessed they don’t last very long for their own reasons due to their own agendas
What does Ms. Dorothy Simms bring to the table? She has developed software to assist attorneys to effectively question medical experts. She even works in the role of a “law whisperer” where the attorney is in court wearing an ear piece while she spoon feeds them questions from a remote site. Bizzaro, IMO.
Now they are trying to add two mental health experts to testify in the guilt phase way beyond the deadline. We’ll see what happens on Thursday. I’m getting off track here.
Since Simms did not question the scientist Dr. Vass the other day even though she is the expert litigator of specialists, unlike Baez who is not so much and it sure showed, it appears her expertise will be utilized elsewhere. IMO, she will be working her magic by convincing the jury that whatever mental health issue the experts diagnose her with showing the state of mind of the accused while she partied her face off for those 31 days is valid. She works on behalf of people who are accused of malingering with impossible to diagnose illnesses such as fibromyalgia, injuries like whiplash, etc. There’s a reason Dorothy Simms was brought on board and it wasn’t to sit at the defense table beside the defendant while Baez ineffectually questions experts.
And Mr. Hornsby, I’d love if you would repsond to my comment by offering your opinion on my interpretation of the facts. Right or wrong. Stupid or not. I’m quite convinced on my take on what’s happening but I don’t have a legal background. I do have common sense and I might disagree with your take which makes my opinions reduntant. Usually I don’t disagree with you because you do explain your opinions using layman’s terms that I get. You’re the expert. What do you think?
Kerry, I agree that Baez should step aside for more qualified attorneys. The problem is that I too am perplexed as to why he will not do so.
Richard, by your own admission, you are perplexed (as to relevant issues); Baez, by his own admission is confused. As well, he has advised the court that, “Mr. Mason is just as confused if not more so”…
This morning I’m sure I saw a motion titled, Motion to Re-clarify Courts Order on Motion to Clarify or in the Alternative Strike States Motion to Exclude All Moronic Statements heretofore Advanced by the Defendant…and by the way, we need more money and we want you to recuse yourself…… AND we Hereby Amend this Motion Prior to your Determination to Exclude or in the Alternative Strike Use of the Word “heretofore” because we realized we don’t know what it means…..well, to be clear and not MISSTATE facts, Baez says He Knows what it Means but I Remain Unconvinced and Even More So Confused…..
…I meant to end by saying, have you ever seen quite the likes of this? lol
M.Ed.Kai I admit that I was a little tipsy when I posted my 10:31 pm comment last night. That’s my excuse. I’m lost by your posts this morning but I still get what you’re saying. My take is that you weren’t really trying to say any-thing. You could, so you did. It did amuse me though. I thought it was very funny.
Richard, I will ask you a question that is probably inappropriate. Over the course of (almost) 3 years of following this case I heard that you married and had a child. A daughter I think. If you have since had a baby daughter who I would imagine is as cute as could be because there’s no getting away from it you are and I would guess your wife is too.
Has it is changed your take on things? I’m curious about that. If you do indeed have your own little baby girl does it change your feelings on this case? Understanding and condoning the murder of a 2 year old child? I’m wording this wrong. Your job as a defense attorney means you are defending any client no matter what they may have done. That is your job.
Is it different now that you are the loving father of this little child? Now you know the love a parent feels for their child. Simple question that I belabored but I am curious.
……I’m lost by your posts this morning
LOL, sorry, Kerry…It wasn’t my intent to respond to your post – only comment on the state of perpetual perplexity the defense in this case seems to precipitate……I sure don’t want to add to it!! 🙂
Very amusing, they should get a room.
Funny. Sexual tension, you think? lol
Simply put by this article Mr.Vass should not be allowed to testify. The Media outlets are no help of any kind. the woman Casey is Innocent Until Proven Guilty.
Dr. Vass’s anthropology dissertation has been archived @ http://tinyurl.com/drvass
On Monday, January 31, 2011, in Orlando, Florida, Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr. made an administrative order shutting down the freedom of speech at the Orange County courthouse.
A Very Biased Judge
http://florida.fija.org/orlando-florida-chief-judge-kills-1st-amendment/
The following is a quote from the [b]Preliminary report #2[/b] to the Orange County Sheriff Department, written by Dr Vass et al.
“Compounds in the sample were tentatively identified by mass spectral library match. Standards of the tentatively identified compounds have not been run.”
From
http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2011/04/07/Melich_-_Forensic_report.doc
Forensic GCMS analysis must be accompanied by running appropriate standards not just a comparison of TICs (total ion chromatograms) in a GCMS library!
Hopefully this preliminary report was followed up, with running appropriate standards for both retention time and spectral consistency to confirm the preliminary GCMS library matches of the TIC scans.
In Dr Vass’s article entitled “Odor Analysis of Decomposing Buried Human Remains” below
http://www.academia.dk/BiologiskAntropologi/Tafonomi/PDF/ArpadVass_2008.pdf
His methodology never mentions running standards and constituent confirmations but merely states “The HPCHEM method was used to calculate the peaks and areas using the quantitation database generated from aggregate data reviews” whatever that means.
….I would like to believe, but more detailed information is required……a skeptic.
The use of standards so basic to all analytical chemistry, that their omission puts his research in question.
In forensics its unthinkable!