West Coast Florida Nesties
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
mrsmew- re:ca trial
Are you watching today, specifically right now, all this questioning about royalties..
Do you understand where Baez is going - I get that he is trying to discredit him (at least I think). But I don't understand what this invention thing has to do w/ anything.
Did he use it in the CA case? Is Baez trying to see that he fabricated results so that he could go to trial about it? Baez just mentioned something about he had to have some kind of court case to get the patent ( or something a long those lines)..
if you aren't watching.damn.I need a translator. :-)
Re: mrsmew- re:ca trial
Haha, I've only been half watching today and came in part of the way through this guy, so I'm not entirely sure what Baez was going for. I got the same impression you did - that maybe this guy used whatever his invention thing is for his analysis in this case, for the purpose of getting it verified in court. I don't understand all the patent stuff or anything, but again, my impression is that if he can use this invention thing and testify about it in court it gives it credibility or somehow helps it seem more legitimate? I don't know.
Also, whenever they even so much as mention the word "chemistry" my eyes glaze over, so I'm not really following very well.
I think the bottom line is Baez is trying to highlight how this witness might benefit personally from his testimony in this case - he's not just doing it out of the goodness of his heart to solve the case.
Ellie ~ 3.29.12
Wedding | Blog
What difference does that really make? If there was 1000000 gazillion molecules of chloroform was found, then it was found. His reasoning is irrelevant.. at least that's the way I see it.
I love the daily updates...I try to catch what I can on Bay News 9.
But I am sure that Baez is trying to say that the information from Dr. Vass might not be credible and that he is trying to get the royalties, etc. from his invention. I think Baez is awful and I know everyone so far agrees, BUT I think he might be on to something here. Not that it matters too much in the grand scheme of things, but it looks like he might finally have something to go on instead of his usual dummy-ness.
Right, I think he's trying to discredit him by implying that he might have reason to fabricate some/all of his testimony, to make his invention or whatever look good. Obviously he hasn't come right out and said it (at least that I've seen) but by highlighting that he has a personal interest in his analysis, the jury might connect the dots.
The interesting thing about juries to me (well, besides EVERYTHING) is that you never know what will click to some people and not to others. For example, in the case in which I was a juror myself, there was an expert witness (a doctor) called to testify about knee injuries. He was called by the defense. When the plaintiff's attorney cross-examined him, they brought out a past report the doctor had done in attempt to discredit him. Everyone on the jury heard the same testimony, but to half of us, the plaintiff's attorney did his job and blew the defense doctor out of the water. They completely disregarded his testimony from that point on. To the other half of us (including me), the plaintiff's attorney's attempts to discredit the doctor only made us believe MORE that the doctor was honest. We all heard the same thing, and drew completely different conclusions.
The point of that ramble is that you just never know what jurors may latch onto. So, there is definitely a chance that by insinuating that this guy may have something to gain personally by testifying a certain way, he may have completely discredited him to at least one juror. And then there goes your chloroform evidence, you know? Juries are crazy, man.
Ellie ~ 3.29.12
Wedding | Blog
The only way I can see that the royalties matter is if Vass made up the results. (again, I would hate to be on this jury).
I can see if there were trace amount of chloroform found and he (Vass) was trying to make it out to be something bigger than what it was. (meaning that he would get the patent/royalties-whatever).
But, from what he (Vass) says the amount of chloroform found was astronomical. (not the exact word.. but it was a large amount).
Did he seek out this job? Or did the State find him? If the state found him it's not his fault. If he contacted the State saying that he could test the air..well, then I could see how that's a little conflicting..
and i'm glad that Judge Perry is saying the work done @ Barker Ranch are irrelevant.
even IF there is chloroform in the car... that still doesn't mean CA killed Caylee.
Did she? IMO, probably.. but we are still waiting for some type of evidence that links Casey.. likeeee finger prints on a freakin' chloroform bottle.
I agree with you. Do I think she did it? Yeah, probably. There's just too much "weird stuff" that adds up to a bad, guilty picture for Casey.
But, at least so far, I don't think the state has proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. If I were a juror in this case, I surely would not be able to sign my name to a death penalty verdict at this point.
On the other hand, I do think their witnesses have gotten more compelling as time goes on, so we'll see what their big finish will be.
Ellie ~ 3.29.12
Wedding | Blog