« Ernest Miller Hemingway (July 21, 1899 - July 2, 1961) | Main | Elizabeth Bloomer Ford (1918-2011) »

July 05, 2011

"Scientific" Evidence at the Casey Anthony Trial: Come to think of it, it bothered us a little, too.

See at Deliberations "The Real Danger from Casey Anthony's Trial: Scary Scientific Evidence". Excerpt:

A cause of death that cannot be determined by the State’s medical examiner, but can be asserted on the stand by an anthropologist who has never done an autopsy. The morphing of a projected child’s photo into a picture of her skull. The description of a colorless decompositional fluid (which is typically black). Air samples that contain "the smell of death." A phantom image of heart sticker that “disappeared” before the examiner could return to photograph it.

Casey Anthony murder trial4.jpg

Posted by JD Hull at July 5, 2011 07:30 AM



Moe once spent 18 months convincing a local bar association to bring in Vincent Bugliosi to talk about trying cases so that Moe could truly learn from the Master.

If there was a case to be tried (Bugliosi would never try someone about whom there was reasonable doubt), it would never have been tried like this case.

Bugliosi's theory combined two apparent contradictions (which were no contradictions whatsover). He was able to do this because he understood what all great trial lawyers know---the rules of evidence don't matter. Circumstantial evidence and the The law of presumptive evidence (John D. Lawson) are what. There is a later title which Moe will post next week.

All great trial lawyers know these books. Dullards know neither Bugliosi nor the books.

Bugliosi's they was to KISS, while at the same time asking any witness called to testify every question that the defense could ask the witness.

The goal is to prevent the defense from asking any questions and to force the defense to call witnesses to put up a defense.

I suspect, given the presumptions arising out of the mother's failure to report the child as missing, that Bugliosi would have tried the case calling four witnesses.

JD who would they have been?

Hint---the most important evidence would have been negative evidence

Posted by: Moe Levine at July 5, 2011 07:32 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Remember me?