2009.10.09 Duct Tape Photos From Remains Released

[lindap61]

I see your point. In looking at the photo, I can see where it appears to be some kind of indentation and looking at it longer, I could convince myself that it is teeth impressions, but if you were to suggest it was something else, I could easily swing that way too. So I would have to disregard this impression if I was a juror looking at it.

Hi, I am on wesleuths all the time. I don't post much but I can see the indentation also. Ya know if they are teeth prints and casey teeth prints match, they have her. Just as good as finger prints.:dance:

 

[tankgirl]

Go to approximately 1:10 into this WKMG video showing the gas cans before they were seized the first time on August 1, 2008 and you will clearly see Henkel-logo duct tape on the can.

Agh.. listening to CA re the gas cans.. how "she (KC) just wanted to put them back.... so that she could "write a note of apology."

I didn't catch that before, but now it seems such a very strange thing to say.

okay, OT. sorry. Now what were you saying?

 

[cecybeans]

So your theory is that the duct tape was placed on the can after it was removed from the Anthony home on August 1, but before the photo was taken of the can with the duct tape on it on August 1? Who would have added the tape? And why? Only the killer would have known that Henkel duct tape would eventually become important to this case.

Thanks everyone. Minute inconsistencies need to be relevant or have actual demonstrable consequence in order to truly contribute to the discussion.

Otherwise we are getting into the kind of logic where, say, when a documented pathological liar claims an imaginary nanny has a white dog and a toddler then says she saw or played with a white dog it therefore means an imaginary nanny really exists. I have shortened this to WD=Z Effect to keep it more in line with equations that demonstrate relativity.

 

[sleutherontheside]

Now where's that merry-go-round picture again?

FWIW, I, too can clearly see half of an oval on the duct tape on the video. Thanks for the vid, JWG, and for all the explanations from AZlawyer!

Sigh, I can never look at any roll of duct tape the same again.




Weird, for some reason I want to go read that story about the Three Billy Goats Gruff...

Here ya go.........

 

[LambChop]

Thanks everyone. Minute inconsistencies need to be relevant or have actual demonstrable consequence in order to truly contribute to the discussion.

Otherwise we are getting into the kind of logic where, say, when a documented pathological liar claims an imaginary nanny has a white dog and a toddler then says she saw or played with a white dog it therefore means an imaginary nanny really exists. I have shortened this to WD=Z Effect to keep it more in line with equations that demonstrate relativity.

And it will all come down to what the jury believes is reasonable:

Is it reasonable to think that the duct tape was switched on the can by LE? No
Is it reasonable to think that after an accidental death the mother placed duct tape on her child's mouth to fake a kidnapping? No
Is it reasonable to think that a mother would not report her child missing? No
Is it reasonable to think that a mother would then lie to LE about her child's whereabouts? Absolutely not

Well you get the picture. It can go on and on.

It will be what makes the most sense to a juror not some remote possibility that has no basis in fact. jmo

 

[JWG]

This video was clearly done after Aug 1st. Probably done when the cans were returned.

I see gray on the can, but in no way can I see a logo.

This video is very interesting, but it does not clear up the problem of them not taking an evidence photo showing there was duct tape on the can before they took it into evidence.

Thanks for this video, wish I could find them like that.

Clearly the news report was done after the gas cans were seized, but why do you think it was done after the gas cans were returned to the Anthony home?

Actually, I can tell you the following. The cans were taken on Friday, August 1. News reporters hounded the Anthony's about it all day but they were not saying immediately what was taken. Finally, a couple days later they did mention what was taken, and that is when the report was done. The reporter mentions the cans being taken "last week", and while that makes a worst case date of Friday, August 8 for when the news report was made, it actually occurred on Wednesday, August 6. This is obvious because the latter piece of the noon broadcast discusses a press conference that had just been held with an attorney representing Jesus Ortiz's family. That event took place on August 6. :thumb:

According to discovery page 3220, the cans were returned directly to Cindy at 11:03 AM on Wednesday, August 13. The image of the cans shown in the news report was therefore actually captured by WKMG before August 1, and one of their reporters was able to dig it up :detective: for the news report when they learned the cans were important.

So, poor George believes KC returned the can without tape on it but he does not remember putting tape back on the can at any time prior to it being seized. He also said if he used the can he would have put tape on it, and much more neatly than what he saw in the evidence photos. George also claims that once he noticed the cans were stolen in June he rushed out and bought new ones in the three hours or so between reporting them missing and KC returning them. Thus, if he did get gas after that, it had to be in the new can(s), not the old ones.

With me so far?

Now go back to Mr. Burch's interview. All the way back to July 24. :run:

Mr. Burch actually describes the can George used to fill KC's Pontiac at the tow yard as "a small, round, very battered gas can. An old, metal one."

Hmmm...confusing...:waitasec:

But George did say that there were two cans taken. Maybe he used the other can? :idea:

Let's look at the property form for the items taken on August 1:

• One red plastic gas can, 1 gal size, located in the shed, south side of home
• One black plastic oil pan located in the shed south side of the home
• One red metal gas can, 2 1/4 gal size, located in the garage

Hmmm...there is only one metal container listed. :banghead:

 

[beach]

My daddy's voice keeps ringing in my head.

He used to tell me, "Some people will argue with a stop sign."

I used to be a rebellious little thing, but I'm old enough now to heed his message.

outta here :wave:

 

[JBean]

My daddy's voice keeps ringing in my head.

He used to tell me, "Some people will argue with a stop sign."

I used to be a rebellious little thing, but I'm old enough now to heed his message.

outta here :wave:

LOL which reminds me of what my dad told me and that was "it takes 2 to make an argument".

 

[LambChop]

LOL which reminds me of what my dad told me and that was "it takes 2 to make an argument".

LOL: Or discussion.

 

[notthatsmart]

Clearly the news report was done after the gas cans were seized, but why do you think it was done after the gas cans were returned to the Anthony home?

Actually, I can tell you the following. The cans were taken on Friday, August 1. News reporters hounded the Anthony's about it all day but they were not saying immediately what was taken. Finally, a couple days later they did mention what was taken, and that is when the report was done. The reporter mentions the cans being taken "last week", and while that makes a worst case date of Friday, August 8 for when the news report was made, it actually occurred on Wednesday, August 6. This is obvious because the latter piece of the noon broadcast discusses a press conference that had just been held with an attorney representing Jesus Ortiz's family. That event took place on August 6. :thumb:

According to discovery page 3220, the cans were returned directly to Cindy at 11:03 AM on Wednesday, August 13. The image of the cans shown in the news report was therefore actually captured by WKMG before August 1, and one of their reporters was able to dig it up :detective: for the news report when they learned the cans were important.

So, poor George believes KC returned the can without tape on it but he does not remember putting tape back on the can at any time prior to it being seized. He also said if he used the can he would have put tape on it, and much more neatly than what he saw in the evidence photos. George also claims that once he noticed the cans were stolen in June he rushed out and bought new ones in the three hours or so between reporting them missing and KC returning them. Thus, if he did get gas after that, it had to be in the new can(s), not the old ones.

With me so far?

Now go back to Mr. Burch's interview. All the way back to July 24. :run:

Mr. Burch actually describes the can George used to fill KC's Pontiac at the tow yard as "a small, round, very battered gas can. An old, metal one."

Hmmm...confusing...:waitasec:

But George did say that there were two cans taken. Maybe he used the other can? :idea:

Let's look at the property form for the items taken on August 1:

• One red plastic gas can, 1 gal size, located in the shed, south side of home
• One black plastic oil pan located in the shed south side of the home
• One red metal gas can, 2 1/4 gal size, located in the garage

Hmmm...there is only one metal container listed. :banghead:

I believe you have cleared up Ga inconsistency. GA at least appears to be wrong on this one. I really do wish they would provide the garage photo though. I have no idea when this picture was taken.

It is also interesting that the metal can was located in the garage when they collected it. I always assumed it was in the shed. I wonder if there is more video out there with better pictures. I saw a video yesterday of GA letting them in the garage on Aug 1st. I wish they would have panned left, we may have seen it right there. So what do you suppose they did with this duct tape from the Aug 1st collection? Did they put it back on there after dusting it and return it?

 

[notthatsmart]

So your theory is that the duct tape was placed on the can after it was removed from the Anthony home on August 1, but before the photo was taken of the can with the duct tape on it on August 1? Who would have added the tape? And why? Only the killer would have known that Henkel duct tape would eventually become important to this case.

I didn't really have a theory on that. Was just trying to clear up an inconsistency by GA. I think JWG has done that.

 

[LambChop]

I believe you have cleared up Ga inconsistency. GA at least appears to be wrong on this one. I really do wish they would provide the garage photo though. I have no idea when this picture was taken.

It is also interesting that the metal can was located in the garage when they collected it. I always assumed it was in the shed. I wonder if there is more video out there with better pictures. I saw a video yesterday of GA letting them in the garage on Aug 1st. I wish they would have panned left, we may have seen it right there. So what do you suppose they did with this duct tape from the Aug 1st collection? Did they put it back on there after dusting it and return it?

Why would LE be interested in the duct tape on August 1st? They were interested in the fact that the gas cans were in the trunk of the car. They had not found the remains yet so the duct tape had no meaning to them. No need to remove the tape and the can was returned with the tape exactly as they found it. jmo

 

[JWG]

I believe you have cleared up Ga inconsistency. GA at least appears to be wrong on this one. I really do wish they would provide the garage photo though. I have no idea when this picture was taken.

It is also interesting that the metal can was located in the garage when they collected it. I always assumed it was in the shed. I wonder if there is more video out there with better pictures. I saw a video yesterday of GA letting them in the garage on Aug 1st. I wish they would have panned left, we may have seen it right there. So what do you suppose they did with this duct tape from the Aug 1st collection? Did they put it back on there after dusting it and return it?

AFAIK, the can was not dusted for prints. The bottom of the can was swabbed and sent to the FBI for examination. The duct tape was not removed in August either. It was not considered suspicious at that time.

 

[notthatsmart]

I tried to answer this question for you however I guess you missed it so I added my post and bolded a statement in another to explain why the cotton would be gone.

Also with keeping in mind the absorption of the cotton fibers, the glue and plastic would have another effect. Any moister that the cotton fiber did absorb would stay in the fiber longer then fibers with out the "protection" because of the glue and plastic holding it in (along with the capillary effect) and keeping it from drying out longer. I think it's pretty much been established that cotton will deteriorate and given the conditions can happen somewhat rapidly (at least in the time frame that Caylee was in the elements).

The t-shirt shows full well what can happen. The tape I would say had significantly less cotton then the shirt. I would argue that the plastic and glue would not protect the cotton fiber in the conditions the tape was left in to the extent that you have presented. Given cottons nature to absorb liquids its very feasible that the cotton was deteriorated. Also Henkel didn't make that tape with out cotton fibers (as evident by many posts with documented evidence) which also adds greater weight to the cotton being there and then deteriorated.

Just a question do you have any evidence to show that Henkel made that exact brand/type/model of tape and didn't use cotton fibers?

I didn't really miss it. I feel that this is the best explanation that I have heard. I think the problem is, is that this is speculation and the FBI does not speculate. So, that being said, Le will have to produce that Henkel rep that will swear under oath that all products with this logo had cotton in them.

Even though I agree this is the best explanation, I still see it as a stretch that all traces of cotton would be gone. If I had a microscope, I would do my own test. First I would have to find this brand and buy it, then find a side of pork and wrap it and throw it in a low lieing area, wait 6 months. Still well before trial time. IMO I think one of the posters said they live in Avon ohio and the tape is still available at walmart.

 

[Harmony 2]

Was George ever asked about the Henkel duct tape? When he purchased it? Where it was kept? If he noticed a roll missing? How many rolls they owned? I read his statements but do not recall... Anyone?

 

[magnolia]

I didn't really miss it. I feel that this is the best explanation that I have heard. I think the problem is, is that this is speculation and the FBI does not speculate. So, that being said, Le will have to produce that Henkel rep that will swear under oath that all products with this logo had cotton in them.

Even though I agree this is the best explanation, I still see it as a stretch that all traces of cotton would be gone. If I had a microscope, I would do my own test. First I would have to find this brand and buy it, then find a side of pork and wrap it and throw it in a low lieing area, wait 6 months. Still well before trial time. IMO I think one of the posters said they live in Avon ohio and the tape is still available at walmart.

Bear in mind, your experiment with a side of pork placed in a low-lying area will not duplicate the same conditions. IMO

 

[Tulessa]

Jbean, Kick me for coming to this thread!!

Mumbles on the way out.............

 

[Nuisanceposter]

Bear in mind, your experiment with a side of pork placed in a low-lying area will not duplicate the same conditions. IMO

That's exactly what I was just saying to myself - you'd have to recreate the same conditions down to temperature, humidity, Hurricane Fay...just slapping tape over a side of pork and leaving it in a low-lying area is nowhere near recreating the same conditions in terms of weather and elements that Caylee's body sat through. IMO.

 

[logicalgirl]

Jbean, Kick me for coming to this thread!!

Mumbles on the way out.............

Tulessa! Wait for me! Pinkie finger promise - never again.!!!

 

[sumbunny]

perhaps slapping a piece of henkel tape on a live piglet and throwing it into a a hot trunk then triple bagging it before tossing it into a low lying area for six months might re create a close comparison, but i highly doubt anyone could kill a little piglet.. ...MOO