"When all is said and done, the jurors followed the instructions of the judge that they should reach an opinion based on the facts of the case and not by extraneous factors which seemingly motivated so many people not governed by a juror's oath to conclude that she was guilty - and they refused to make a decision which could end up taking another person's life on the basis of an emerging "science" which had never been introduced in court."
HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;
A backgrounder on this high profile Florida case can be found on Wikipedia at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Caylee_Anthony
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Orlando Sentinel got it right when it headed a story on the Casey Anthony trial by reporter Anthony Colarossi, "Experts on both sides will put science on trial." On the issue of whether the air samples and chloroform were evidence or junk science, Colarossi noted:
FOR THE PROSECUTION: Prosecutors want Dr. Arpad Vass, senior research scientist at Oak Ridge National Laboratory to testify about novel scientific work focusing on odor and air samples originating from the trunk of Casey Anthony's car.
This emerging science has never been used in a courtroom. Vass has identified chemical compounds collected for this case, which he says are consistent with human decomposition. Last week Vass testified about those findings and also said he discovered extremely high chloroform levels from a carpet sample pulled from the trunk.
FOR THE DEFENSE: Dr. Kenneth Furton, one of two forensic chemists used by the defense, directly disputes Vass, saying there are no "scientifically validated methods capable of identifying the presence of human remains based on presence or absence of specific chemicals. The science has not matured to the level."
He also said this science should not be permitted in court. "In some cases, novel methods turn out to be unreliable," Furton said.
Although the judge did admit the evidence - an erroneous decision in my view for the reasons articulated by the Defence - it is gratifying that the jurors were able to see through Dr. Vass's off-the-wall utterly anti-scientific evidence and reject it.
On the issue of the conclusions warranted by the duct tape, Colarossi noted;
FOR THE PROSECUTION: Orange-Osceola Chief Medical Examiner Jan Garavaglia identified Caylee's death as a homicide or "death at the hands of another" following her autopsy but listed the cause of death as "undetermined" and found no evidence of trauma.
Her homicide conclusion is based on the fact that the child's death — and the circumstances leading to it — were never reported to authorities. Garavaglia said during her deposition that the remains were "dumped in a field to rot with duct tape in the vicinity of the lower mandible."
FOR THE DEFENSE: Defense expert and noted forensic pathologist Werner Spitz challenges, in particular, Garavaglia's conclusion that duct tape was placed on the body before decomposition, keeping the mandible in place.
Spitz, who conducted a second autopsy on the remains, called Garavaglia's statement "flawed" in part because "the duct tape yielded no DNA from the deceased." Spitz said he could not conclude Caylee's death was a homicide based on his findings, saying "there is no scientific information available that the death was at the hands of another."
The jurors clearly agreed.
When all is said and done, the jurors followed the instructions of the judge that they should reach an opinion based on the facts of the case and not by extraneous factors which seemingly motivated so many people not governed by a juror's oath to conclude that she was guilty - and they refused to make a decision which could end up taking another person's life on the basis of an emerging "science" which had never been introduced in court.
Shame on the prosecutors for offering it.
Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story can be found at:
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-03-27/news/os-casey-anthony-science-experts-20110327_1_casey-anthony-cindy-anthony-caylee-marie/2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
