Does anyone know anything about this Dr. Baden or this procedure? Besides of course that he is the DH of an ex-defense team member.
Seems to me that the results of this would have helped the case.
Full video/transcripts-
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/transcript/casey-anthony-case-csi-look-forensic-evidence
Part of their discussion-
VAN SUSTEREN: In a perfect world with a fully professional autopsy, if you found those remains of that child six months after she died, and if it sat out in the open sun and maybe in swampy waters, is there some diagnostic test or autopsy means by which you can determine whether she died from drowning or suffocation?
BADEN: Yes, the diatoms. If she drowned, then the diatoms in the bone marrow which they examined. But they examined it for toxicology not these one-sell plans, can tell which body of water, pool, lake, and a bathtub that she may have drowned in, if she had drowned.
VAN SUSTEREN: You say diatoms. What is that, number one? And number two, you say it can tell. Are you saying it would tell with certainty?
BADEN: If it is positive, it is with certainty. Diatoms are like plankton, one-cell plants ubiquitous around the world. There are a few thousand different species. Normally, one can take water from whatever body of water and find four, five different species in the water that's like a fingerprint of the water.
If that's inhaled into the lungs, into the body, that goes by the bloodstream into the bone marrow so that after death if the bone marrow is examined and has the same five species as in the water, that indicates that child had inhaled that water and is evidence of drowning.
VAN SUSTEREN: One thing the viewers should know, and this is probably the dirty secret about trying cases, the gamesmanship between defense and prosecution. Sometimes both sides don't want a principle analyzed because they are afraid of what the result will be. In this instance this diatoms is that something every medical examiner knows about that should have been done here?
BADEN: I think all medical examiners know about it. I think it should have been done. As you indicated, maybe the prosecutor didn't want to do it. Maybe the defense didn't want to do it because they didn't want the results. But it could have been done, it should have been done and it want done.
Read more:
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-th...case-csi-look-forensic-evidence#ixzz1RWVLVmf2