how sweet it is!
Will the defense team, in the State v. Casey Anthony case, wave the white flag of surrender now?
I cannot resist a little giddiness at the rulings today by Judge Belvin Perry! After suffering through the horrible propaganda of the 48 Hours Mystery Show, the upcoming In Session hyperbole, and the pompous swagger of Mr. Jose Baez and Mr. Cheney Mason as they boast and posture about nothing these past few weeks, it is poetic justice to see how truth and justice will prevail and drive the defense back into their own conniving corners.
As you have likely heard by now, Judge Perry has ruled on three of the Frye issues before the court; and all were decided in favor of the State of Florida.
As Jackie Gleason would say, “HOW SWEET IT IS!”
Let’s look at the rulings each by each!
The Cadaver Dogs – Evidence is Coming In!
Read the ruling: Cadaver Dogs. In his ruling on the use of the two cadaver dogs, Judge Perry informs us that these animals are reliable in many situations and the defense did not meet its burden to argue against the admissibility of the canines. The defense argued that since the dogs could “alert” on any element of a human body – tissue or hair or blood, etc. – it cannot assume that a “body” was present. The Judge felt that the case law supported his decision. And not only that, because there were two dogs (at the Anthony home) alerting to the same spots in the yard, it supports the reliability of the dogs.
The “Phantom” Heart Sticker – It’s coming In, too!
Read the ruling: Phantom Heart Sticker. The defense argued that since the outline of the heart sticker can no longer be seen, it cannot be used against a defendant. Judge Perry says, not so fast as the jury is the trier of fact, and they should be allowed to hear the testimony of Elizabeth Fontaine, the fingerprint examiner, who will testify to the residue in the shape of a heart, that she observed. The Judge explains it this way:
The defense has presented nothing to establish that the state either intentionally or negligently lost or disposed of evidence or that evidence was unavoidably consumed. Ms. Fontaine’s testimony would consist of a description of something she observed while she was examining the duct tape for latent fingerprints. It can be analogized to the testimony of any other eyewitness who is asked to describe an item that is not in evidence. For example, a witness in a robbery trial would be allowed to describe a weapon he believed the perpetrator was carrying, even if that weapon was not in evidence, or to testify that the perpetrator’s car was red, even if no photograph of the car was in evidence.
The above paragraph is why I am so fond of Judge Belvin Perry! It makes perfect sense as he described it. He so simply tells us that just because something no longer exists before our eyes does not mean it was never there.
The Postmortem Banding – You Got it! It’s coming in!
Read the ruling: Postmortem Banding. Like the evidence of the stain in the trunk of Casey Anthony’s car, the smell of death in the car, and the “31 days” of partying, this evidence is a show-stopper. This is a piece of hair with decompositional banding around and through the hair root, that the jury is likely to conclude came off of the head of a deceased little Caylee Anthony. Who else could have died in that trunk?
The expert witness, Karen Lowe of the FBI, was very credible, in my opinion and is likely to convince jurors that because of the existence of this hair, the existence of a deceased Caylee Anthony in that trunk can then be concluded. Judge Perry, in his ruling, explains it this way:
Ms. Lowe’s testimony will assist the jury in understanding the testimony about hair found in the trunk of the Defendant’s car, it is based on scientific principle that has gained acceptance in the particular field to which it belongs, and Ms. Lowe is a qualified expert. The evidence will be admissible at trieal, so long as the state establishes a proper predicate, and the jury will be entitled to determine the credibility of her opinion, which it may accept or reject. Based on the foregoing, this Court finds that post-mortem root banding is admissible under Frye.
We have not yet heard from Judge Perry on the air test with the detection of chloroform that was discovered by Dr. Vass in the air sample he tested. We have not heard about the root growth issue as yet, either. Perhaps tomorrow we will learn of these two remaining decisions.
What is a Defense Team to do?
How will the defense team overcome this damning and utterly damaging evidence? They can try to match the State of Florida’s experts one by one, but if the Frye hearings are any indication of expert excellence, I believe the State of Florida has the upper hand, with an upper echelon class of experts.
Where is that white flag? Where is the defense “evidence” of innocence that was so often bandied about? Where is Zanny now?
Every trick, every deceit, every ill-advised movement to displace a judge or disqualify a whole prosecution team has come down to nothing for this defense to hold on to.
What’s in their bag of tricks now? A little jury tainting, perhaps? Perhaps, like a Henry Houdini, they will try to impress via smoke and mirrors – jumping from one dramatic claim to another in an effort to surprise and deceive?
Of course, the defense is not obligated to even put on a case, as the State has the burden of proof. Oh, this defense will put on a case, of course. However, even Henry Houdini, the great magician and escape artist – known for getting himself out of a lot of hot-water situations, could not escape this sinking ship.