O.J. Forensics Expert Consulted in Peterson Case

Fox News ^ | Monday, June 09, 2003 | Fox News

[Canadian Outrage]

Yes Queenie and Dr. Lee spoke rather specifically last night that he wanted to review the evidence BEFORE he made a decision!! And ALSO, ta da!! He actually spoke a couple of full sentences. LOL

[realpatriot71]

You wouldn't find it in the mother nor her child, for the same reasons. It was an "interesting" leak, but nothing that could be used in court. However, because of the national coverage this case is getting, that particular leak could very easily color any potential jurors to the prosecution's side.

I don't suppose the Founding Fathers could have ever predicted the nature of television on a court case :-)

[Canadian Outrage]

Alright, where are you all?? Conversations with myself are boring!! LOL I prefer talking with "the group"!!

[Canadian Outrage]

patriot: One of the forensic pathologists said that there would be concentrations in the liver. However since Laci's liver was missing but the umbilical cord and part of the placenta was present, there could very definitely be traces in the baby's liver. GHB does cross the placenta and will( after death) deposit in the liver. The same with caffein which they were able to detect in Laci's system. I know from when my daughter was having her first son, the Dr. said, Marlise, keep your intake of caffein beverages and other sources to a bare minimum because caffein very readily passes through the placenta and concentrates in the baby.

[Spunky]

"I just don't know enough about this field."

I don't either, but I have heard of lots of reports where they have dug up dead people years later to test for drugs.

There was a case not to long ago where a male nurse was sentenced for killing elderly people. Being elderly they just thought it was from natural causes. Eventually there was suspicion about the male nurse who was on duty whenever these elderly people died. They dug up the bodies and did forensic testing and found they had been injected with some lethal drug. If I recall correctly, the male nurse finally admitted he had been killing them.

I don't know if it depends on what kind of drug it is but evidently some drugs remain in your system for years if you are dead as per the above case.

[Canadian Outrage]

I remember that case too Spunky. I think that male nurse was overdosing them with insulin (at least there was one such case where that was the drug) and then there was another one that was injecting them with lethal doses of a differnt drug (the name of same escapes me). He was tried adn convicted also.

[Spunky]

Howlin said:"...I have a hard time remembering where I heard stuff."

Carolinamom said:" Same here. For example: Scott's trips to Mexico were not unusual (according to someone on TV Monday...sorry, cannnot for the life of me remember who) because of company business and the fact that his parents owned property there."

Carolinamom, there was a news article here on a thread that was telling all about Scott being in Mexico for some agriculture convention, shortly after Laci disappeared.

But I do not recall any article that ever mentioned that his parents owned property in Mexico.

I am pinging runningbear to see if she remembers ever reading about his parents owning property in Mexico.

[Canadian Outrage]

Spunky you are quite correct. There was NO article stating the Peterson's owned property in Mexico. That fact was just revealed on Monday night of this week by Ted Rowlands from the ModBee that has been on the case from the beginning and was one of the Only Reporters he would talk with regularly, at least in the first month or so.

[Spunky]

"That fact was just revealed on Monday night of this week by Ted Rowlands from the ModBee"

So has it since been in a ModBee article that I missed?

[Canadian Outrage]

Hey maybe your right about it Not being an Article. In any event Ted Rowlands SAID that!!

[Queen Jadis]

Aha seems like Mr. Lee do dahmaj controw.

[Queen Jadis]

Ted Rowlands whom I had respect for early in the case is now on the lower end of my esteem. Disappointing...but makes me appreciate Nancy Grace all the more.

[realpatriot71]

Well, I may have to stand corrected :-)

[Devil_Anse]

Thanks Jackie! Wrote ya back!

[Devil_Anse]

Good grief! Lee's "not getting paid", Geragos is "not getting paid", etc. They make it sound like we're watching the greatest humanitarians the world has ever known!

Something definitely NO RIGH with THAT! And IMO, anyone who believes these public people who are involved in this case are not counting big cash from somewhere, just fell off the turnip truck!

[Devil_Anse]

I don't see what physical evidence the State has as to cause of death and premeditation, either. But I live in hope that the State DOES have evidence (whether physical or not) of these things against SOMEONE, b/c I would hate to see the deaths of this mother and baby go unpunished!

Yes, unfortunately, I could see the State spending taxpayer money to hire an expert whom they might not use. The reason I say this is b/c I suspect that these high-profile experts make their swank livings playing a little game.

The way I see it, if an expert is hired by one side, that evidently creates a conflict for him as to working for the other side. Perhaps there is something in the contract he signs with the first side to hire him, that requires him to not do work for the opposing side. A "non-compete" clause for experts, if you will.

Now, if one side has someone well-known like Henry Lee to show off to the jury, the man's reputation alone makes him more likely to be listened to by the jury. Or, if they don't choose to bring him on as a witness, at least they know that the other side can't hire him to do work for them. By hiring him, they would have effectively taken him and his lab out of play as to being a useful weapon for their opponent. Still, though, seems the other side could subpoena the expert, though they would not have been directing the pre-trial work he performed.

Meanwhile, Henry Lee or whoever collects a handsome fee, whether he does any work or not. Nice.

BTW, if you want to keep a particular person out of the courtroom during your trial, one way to do that is to subpoena him or her. B/C once the person is under subpoena, he or she is subject to "the rule" (as it is called in some places.) At the beginning of the trial, one or both parties invoke the rule. The rule says that a witness is not allowed to come into court and hear the testimony of other witnesses, b/c hearing their testimony might taint his own testimony. (People will sometimes shade their testimony to match that of other witnesses.)

Thus, subpoenaing someone will keep him out of the courtroom during trial. This works, but with the exceptions that a victim is pretty much always allowed to sit in for the whole trial, regardless of whether or not he is under subpoena. And some judges do not subject the main police officer on a case to "the rule", so you probably couldn't keep him or her out, either. AND if the victim is dead, most judges will still let their very close family (i.e., parents) sit in regardless of whether the close family is under subpoena. And finally, of course the defendant has a right to be there for the whole trial regardless of whether he will be testifying or not.

Needless to say, even if subject to the rule, the witness WILL of course be in the courtroom for his own testimony!

If the State does engage Henry Lee or some other expert to do some sort of actual testing, etc., and if that testing tends to EXCULPATE the defendant, the State MUST disclose that evidence to the defense, or risk a reversal under a line of cases which originates with the Supreme Court case of Brady v. Maryland.

OTOH, if the defense hires Lee and has him do testing, if the testing comes out favorable to the State's case, I don't know of anything based on the U.S. Constitution which forces the defense to turn over such results to the State. But there may be discovery rules in CA that would force the defense to turn it over to the State.

So suppose the State gets several experts to do testing, and has them under contract. Suppose each of these experts finds only exculpatory evidence. The State would be required under Brady to turn over the exculpatory evidence to the defense. The State would obviously not want to put these experts on as its witnesses, though. The defense would then subpoena them, and try to make what it could of their exculpatory findings. But it seems to me that the defense would have to compensate these experts for the time they spent preparing to testify, and testifying, and that could get pretty steep.

All in all, it seems to turn into a real bonanza for the experts. Add in the money these people make for their TV appearances, and it starts to look like a very nice living.

[Devil_Anse]

WOW, Yaelle, you sound just like him!! ROFL!!!

[Devil_Anse]

Stop it!! You guys are cracking me up!!! I keep looking around to see if Henry Lee is standing behind me!!

[Devil_Anse]

where that browser has been

The computer's browser--or Scott himself?

[Diver Dave]

Ted Rowlands is not with the Modesto Bee. He's a reporter from KTVU in San Francisco/Oakland. I believe his "Mexico property" comment was on LKL.