Well, just when we thought Baez had taken first place over Cindy and George on hole-digging through misspeak, up steps Cheney Mason to the mic after Monday’s hearing and takes the lead by a neck, two lips, and a lot of bumbling. In a matter of minutes Cheney turned the whole “TES searchers were there, weren’t there or were knee-deep in alligator issue” into something closely akin to “Anthony speak”. Here’s what he said:
The public has been made to believe these people [Texas Equusearch and other searchers] searched the exact same area where the body was or tried to and couldn’t, the fact is they didn’t try to and they didn’t. They weren’t there and it was impassible at the time. So there are a lot of people mistaking things of what happened back in the summer of 2008 and what happened in the winter of 2008.
So Kathi Belich asks doesn’t that hurt your case? Cheney says no it doesn’t. Then another newswoman ask how it affects their case. Cheney’s response:
Well, if we’re able to establish a reasonable doubt, as to when the body got put there, and it comes at a time when Casey couldn’t have done it, we know conclusively somebody else had to do it. If we know somebody else put the body there, it’s a question of who and how and when. That’s all we’re pursuing. We don’t know. I wasn’t there. You weren’t there. All I know is that the people who have searched the area, many of them have given different stories about the condition of the place. Some say it was all under water as an excuse of why they couldn’t find the body. We have witnesses saying it wasn’t under water….so that means it wasn’t there.
So let’s get the last things out of the way first. A witness saying the area wasn’t under water DOES NOT mean the body wasn’t there. That statement is laughable and if that is the logic Mr. Mason plans to use in court, this trial is going to have soundbites that will go viral on youtube. I’m not real sure what Cheney’s message was supposed to be, but I’m almost certain he didn’t deliver it. He’s either saying that the place wasn’t under water during the rainy portion of the year, but was later during the drier part of the winter, OR he’s saying it was under water all the time and because they couldn’t ever search it then, by logic that defies reason, ergo…the body was there…OR “PUNT”. I’m not sure. But nothing he said made sense.
I have written several articles now on the water level issue. I have openly stated my concerns about the accuracy of Dr. Jawitz’s water level analysis. And I have gone to an expert in the environmental arena and ask him if he would analyze the report and the raw data and offer an opinion on the conclusions of the analysis. First I’ll list my articles in case new readers have not seen them:
Article on Richard Creque and other searchers:
http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2010/04/03/the-searchers-richard-creque-joseph-jordan-and-danny-ibison/
Article on Joseph Jordan and Laura Buchanan’s statements produced by the defense:
Analyzing the water analysis report:
http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2010/05/14/analyzing-the-analysis-the-waterlevel-report/
Revisiting the water level issue:
http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2010/05/14/revisiting-the-water-level-issue/
Rainfall analysis for August 11, 2008:
http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2009/11/24/rainfall-analysis-for-conditions-on-august-11-2008/
Rainfall analysis for September 1, 2008:
http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2009/11/24/rainfall-analysis-for-conditions-on-september-1st-2008/
So data was obtained from Orlando county’s stormwater management office. It was the same data that Dr. Jawitz should have been using in his water level analysis. The data packet obtained was:
Subdivision plat and legal description
USGS Report
Contour Areal (with elevations)
2008 monthly rainfall reports
Lake Conway Rain Gauge data – rainfall by minute
As I have stated in numerous articles and comments now, my main concern about the methodology used by Dr. Jawitz in his report is that there seemed to be insufficient topographical data to establish the correlation Dr. Jawitz used between “Area A” (the location of Caylee’s remains) and the monitoring well Dr. Jawitz used for measuring water depth during his study. The same incomplete topographical map was displayed in Dr. Jawitz’s report as was shown in the autopsy reports and that map does not have the required topographical data between the two points in question.
And as stated before my concern for that was that if the accurate survey data showed that Area A did not drain or otherwise communicate with the location of the monitoring well, as Dr. Jawitz has assumed in his report, then his methodology of simply taking the difference in elevation points between the two spots to determine what the water level was at Area A at any given point would be wrong.
The expert I went to has not yet decided if he is comfortable with me stating his name and exact credentials, and I will leave that up to him. If he chooses not to, I will understand his decision, and I will understand the reader’s decision to take the following as unconfirmed, since I am not naming my source at this time. If he chooses to, I will be very grateful, and will follow up with a second more formal report of his conclusions after studying the data listed above. The following are a series of comments he made to me as he worked through the data:
Thanks for the material; so far, I share your opinion about the topographic information. There is no way of determining if Area A was or was not inundated using that map. A detailed topographic survey would have to be done on the area preferably using 2 foot or less contour lines. Area A could be a depressional area which no doubt contains hydric soils capable of ponding water. No one can ascertain where to or even if it drains. I’ll keep working on it.
I then asked him how much the required survey would cost. His response:
It would probably cost around $4,000 – $5,000. It would be the same as the topographic survey that we did at your [proposed] wetland site (without the airplane). That survey was about $16,000 and gave us 1 foot contours. It also covered around 80 acres. The whole purpose of that survey was to give us information on the exact acreage of the sub-watershed, where the area of interest drained to, if there were any depressional areas, ridges, etc. What we couldn’t do, nor could any engineer, is use a USGS, general topographic map (such as the one used in the hydrology report) to accurately determine drainage, hydrology, ponding capacity, etc.
On conversing with him about the rain data, and whether he could ascertain if Dr. Jawitz had used the best data for the area (because it is unclear whether Dr. Jawitz used data that was best suited for the specific area), he responded:
Actually, all the rain data in the world doesn’t matter if you can’t get a good picture of the local topography in an area. It could be dry all around Area A, but if the water table is high, hydric soils are present, and it is a depressional area, it could hold water.
Ultimately his conclusion was:
As the report stands now, it would be inaccurate to determine that the water level at the point of interest would be the same as 68 feet away based on the data that he reviewed. However, the two areas could be the same in regards to their hydrology but there would be no way to know for sure without a detailed topographic survey. Really, the only thing you can tell using a USGS topo map is the general area of a watershed. Even then, those maps should not be readily relied upon.
He may be willing to follow up with more detailed information in a more formal presentation. To give what credentials I feel comfortable in sharing until I have permission to give more the man is Director of a the sustainable practices division of a national environmental services company. His area of expertise is in surveying, planning, designing, and supervising the installation, establishment and management of wetlands. As you can tell in his comments, I have worked with him professionally on a feasibility analysis in this area and have an immense amount of confidence in his knowledge and expertise.
In short, Dr. Jawitz could not draw the conclusions he did based on the data he used. The water analysis needs to be revisited, a detailed topographical survey conducted, and the analysis done with the appropriate and applicable data and corrected where needed.
And Cheney needs to stay away from the mic.
Valhall.
Related posts:
- Caylee Anthony case: An analysis of Dr. Jawitz’s report
- Analyzing the Analysis: The Waterlevel Report
- Revisiting the Water Level Issue
- Rainfall Analysis for Conditions on August 11, 2008
- Rainfall Analysis for Conditions on September 1st, 2008
Click here to join the discussion
