DR. JANE H. BOCK (Expert)
University of Colorado
Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Dept.
Boulder, Colorado 80309

1. Dr. Bock curriculum vitae is attached as exhibit 1.
2. Dr Bock’s field of expertise or medical specialty is Forensic Botany.
3. If Dr Bock were called to testify, her specific subject area will be Forensic Botany.
4. The substance of the facts which Dr Bock would be called to testify, would depend on the following:

• Whether the State calls Dr. Hall as an expert witness.
• Whether Dr Hall’s opinions are approved by this court as being based on scientific principles (Frye
challenge)
• Whether Dr Hall can effectively survive cross examination.

If this Court should allow Dr Hall to testify, Dr Bock would be called to rebut his findings dealing with the recovery site and his conclusions based on viewing photographs of the recovery site.
5. A summary of Dr Bock’s testimony can be obtained from viewing her affidavit as listed under exhibit 2. She would rebut Dr Hall’s where he claims that he can determine the growth rate of roots, when he doesn’t even know the type of plant and without having viewed the root and seeing them from un-scaled photographs.

DR. SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE (Expert)
Chair, Department of Forensic Science
Laurentian University
935 Ramsey Lake Road
F-323A, Third Floor, Science 2 Bldg.

Sudbury ON P3E 2C6

1. Dr Fairgrieve’s curriculum vitae is attached as exhibit 3.
2. Dr Fairgrieve’s field of expertise or medical specialty is forensic anthropology.
3. If Dr Fairgrieve were called to testify his specific subject area will be that involving cadaver dogs.
4. If Dr Fairgrieve were called to testify would depend on the following:
• Will this Court for the first time in the history of this state admit testimony concerning cadaver dog “alerts” as substantive testimony.
• Will this Court allow a canine to testify, via a dog handler, given Miss Anthony’s 6th amendment rights to confront her accusers and despite the fact that all “alerts” in this case are unrecorded, and resulted in negative results for human remains?

The substance of Dr Fairgrieve’s testimony would depend on the above and to rebut the testimony of the cadaver dog handlers in this case.
5. Of course a dog cannot testify. In the event that the State attempts this unusual tactic, a summary of Dr Fairgrieve’s testimony is that cadaver dogs are a tool and nothing more, absent the finding of human remains in their searchers, very little can be ascertained from such alerts.

DR. HENRY LEE (Expert)
University of New Haven
Forensic Science Program
300 Orange Avenue
West Haven, Ct 05616

1. Dr Lee’s curriculum vitae is attached as exhibit 4.
2. Dr Lee’s field of expertise is Criminalistics.
3. If Dr Lee were called to testify, the subjects that he will render opinions on are crime scene analysis, collection and preservation as well as recovery.
4. Dr Lee inspected the Pontiac Sunfire driven by Miss Anthony. Dr Lee also inspected the recovery site photographs and also inspected the recovery site.
5. If Dr Lee were called to testify, the substance of the facts that he would be expected to testify would be to rebut any false claims raised by CSI investigators in this case. Until that occurs it is difficult to give a complete summary of his opinions and the grounds for those opinions.

DR. WERNER SPITZ (Expert)
23001 Greater Mack
St. Clair Shores, Michigan 48080-1996

1. Dr Spitz’s curriculum vitae is attached as exhibit 5.
2. Dr Spitz’s field of expertise is forensic pathology.
3. If Dr Spitz were called to testify, the subject that he would render opinions on are his autopsy findings and those of Dr Garavaglia.
4. The substance of the facts that Dr Spitz will testify is that on December 24, 2008, he conducted a second autopsy on the decedent and found no signs of trauma and could not find a cause of death.
5. The summary of Dr Spitz’s testimony would relate to the condition of Caylee Marie Anthony’s remains and her cause of death.

DR. KATHY REICHS
1818 Craigmore Drive
Charlotte, NC 28226
1. Dr Reichs’ curriculum vitae is attached as exhibit 6.
2. Dr Reichs’ field of expertise is forensic anthropology.
3. If Dr Reichs were called to testify, the subjects that she will render opinions on are forensic anthropology.
4. Dr. Reichs completed a full anthropological exam on Caylee Marie Anthony, she found no signs of antemortem trauma to Caylee Marie Anthony’s remains.
5. If Dr Reichs would be called to testify, the substance of the facts that she would be expected to testify to would be to rebut any false claims raised by the State’s forensic anthropologists. Until that occurs it is difficult to give a complete summary of her opinions and the grounds for those opinions.

DR. TIM HUNTINGTON (Expert)
Asst. Prof. of Biology
Concordia University, Nebraska
800 N. Columbia Ave.
Seward, NE 68434

1. Dr Huntington’s curriculum vitae is attached as exhibit 7.
2. Dr Huntington’s field of expertise is forensic entomology.
3. If Dr Huntington were called to testify, the subject matter that he would render opinions to testify, the subject matter that he would render opinions on are forensic entomology.
4. The substance of the facts that Huntington would testify to are to rebut the claims made by Dr Haskill in his report and any testimony that he may provide in that regard. The only exceptions that Dr Huntington does agree with are the insect identification (including coffin flies) and he agrees with Dr Haskill that Caylee Marie Anthony’s body decomposed at another location and NOT the recovery site.
5. Dr Huntington’s opinions will agree with Dr Haskill that there were NO coffin flies found in the trunk of the Pontiac Sunfire, and that based on the insect activity her remains decomposed at another location. If Dr Huntington were called to testify, he would rebut any other claims that were not based on any scientific explanations.

DR. KENNETH FURTON (Expert)
University Medical & Forensic Consultants, Inc.
10130 Northlake Boulevard, Suite 214
West Palm Beach, Florida 33412

1. Dr Furton’s curriculum vitae is attached as exhibit 8.
2. Dr Furton’s field of expertise is forensic chemistry.
3. If Dr Furton were called to testify the subject matter that he would render opinions on are forensic chemistry.
4. If Dr Furton were called to testify, the substance of facts that he would testify to would relate to the cadaver dog “alerts.” And those opinions rendered by the Oakridge laboratories.
5. The substance of Dr Furton’s testimony would if the were called to testify to are that the cadaver dog is a tool, not a witness. He will be able to testify about the procedures and limitations of cadaver dogs, as well as the odors of decomposition and the limitations in sound scientific principles currently used in decompositional odors.

DR. BARRY LOGAN (Expert)
National Medical Services, Inc.
3701 Welsh Road
Post Office Box 433A
Willow Grove, PA 19090

1. Dr Logan’s curriculum vitae is attached as exhibit 9.
2. Dr Logan’s field of expertise is forensic chemistry.
3. If Dr Logan were called to testify the subject matter that he would testify to is forensic chemistry.
4. If Dr Logan were called to testify would depend on the Court admitting for the first time in any State air samples tested by Oakridge Laboratories.
5. The summary of Dr Logan’s testimony is that he disagrees with the methodology employed by Oakridge laboratories in their “Forensic Report.” That the science employed is not recognized in the scientific community.

DR. JOHN LEESON (Expert)
1208 Wolverine Trail
Winter Springs, FL 32708

1. Dr Leeson’s curriculum vitae is attached as exhibit 10.
2. Dr Leeson’s field of expertise is digital forensics.
3. If Dr Leeson were called to testify the subject matter that he would testify to is digital forensics.
4. Dr Leeson has reviewed the reports issued by State experts Sandra Cawn and Kevin Stenger.
5. If Dr Leeson would be called to testify, the substance of the facts that he would be expected to testify to would be to rebut any false claims raised by the State’s forensic computer experts. Until that occurs it is difficult to give a complete summary of his opinions and the grounds for those opinions.

DR. WILLIAM RODRIGUEZ (Expert)
16465 Old Frederick Rd.
Mt. Airy, MD 21771

1. Dr Rodriguez’s curriculum vitae is attached as exhibit 11.
2. Dr Rodriguez’s field of expertise is forensic anthropology with an emphasis in taphonomy.
3. If Dr Rodriguez were called to testify the subject matter that he would testify to would be forensic taphonomy.
4. Dr Rodriguez has reviewed all reports dealing with the remains of Caylee Marie Anthony and those specifically discussing decomposition.
5. If Dr Rodriguez would be called to testify, the substance of the facts that he would be expected to testify to would be to rebut any false claims raised by the State’s forensic experts dealing taphonomy. Until that occurs it is difficult to give a complete summary of his opinions and the grounds for those opinions.

RICHARD EIKELENBOOM (Expert)
Poppeswegje 36, 8077 RT Hulshorst
The Netherlands

1. Richard Eikelenboom’s CV is attached as exhibit 12.
2. Mr. Eikelenboom’s field of expertise is DNA, crime scene analysis and trace recovery.
3. If Mr. Eikelenboom were called to testify, he would testify in the areas of DNA, crime scene analysis and trace recovery.
4. Mr. Eikelenboom has reviewed all of the reports and photographs taken at the recovery site and has personally inspected many of the items.
5. If Mr. Eikelenboom would be called to testify, the substance of the facts that he would be expected to testify to would be to rebut any false claims raised by the State’s forensic experts dealing with DNA, crime scene analysis or trace recovery. Until that occurs it is difficult to give a complete summary of his opinions and the grounds for those opinions.

DR. MICHAEL FREEMAN
1. Dr Freeman’s curriculum vitae is attached as exhibit 13.
2. Dr Freeman’s field of expertise is that of a forensic Epidemiologist.
3. If Dr Freeman were called to testify, he would testify in the area of forensic epidemiology.
4. Dr Freeman is still in the early stages of consultation, the defense has notified the State of this, he was listed in an abundance of caution to meet the deadlines set by this court. No further information can be provided at this time.

http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/SKMBT_C45210121512020.pdf

 

Certificate of Service:
This is a copy of the above and foregoing that has been furnished to the Office of the State Attorney, 415 North Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32801 on December 14, 2010 by facsimile, then later via the WWW and finally …

Transcribed by theJBmission.wordpress.com ~

About these ads