2010.02.16 Document Release: Stain on Trunk Liner

[RR0004]

With all of the pictures we have seen of the inside of the trunk of the car, has anyone ever seen that tire wedge that George said he kept screwed down inside the trunk?

I have looked for it and can't even find a suspicious screw hole that it might have screwed in to. Seems like we should have found some trace of it, doesn't it? Did George just make this up to try to "sell" a story?

Nor can I remember a report. Was inventory of the trunk taken? My thinking is that it had to have been. Hmmmmm...I'll have to search later.

 

[Reagan]

This might have been said already, but does anyone remember early on in the investigation, Yuri Melich stating that they even knew which position Caylee had laid in the trunk?
Did he say this before or after the e-mail where the tech says she sees an outline of a child.
It's been so long.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Here are your pictures, top and bottom of the wheel cover. I do see a stain, however, I can't make out a shape.
Just looks like a big stain that someone poured a cleaner of some sort directly on the stain to saturate it, I say this because I see a whiteish stain towards the edge of the original stain. There also appears to be some rust colored "markings" on the directions :waitasec:

I flipped the images to how the piece would have fit into the trunk liner

Thanks for the great pics.

I can‘t see anything on the carpet part, and on the non carpet part, it looks to me like stains that one would normally find in the trunk of a car. I realize with modern technology one can enhance etc, and get a much better look at an impression than we cannot see with the naked eye, however, this too would have to be addressed at a Frye hearing. Since the defense requested a Frye hearing in regards to the air sample, but did not address a stain/impression in the carpet in the trunk, I don’t think the SA gave the defense discovery indicating that the prosecution was going to go down that road.

I guess I feel a bit like RK did only for the opposite reason. He could see what no one else could see, he could see a skull, but no one else could see that skull until dec. 11th, only in my case, it seems that everyone can see what I can’t see.

 

[Harmony 2]

I keep reading claims that there was only traces of butyric acid in the trunk carpet. I have read the LIBS report repeatedly and cannot locate this information. Does anyone have a link or page number for this information? TIA

 

[Marina2]

Thanks for the great pics.

I can‘t see anything on the carpet part, and on the non carpet part, it looks to me like stains that one would normally find in the trunk of a car. I realize with modern technology one can enhance etc, and get a much better look at an impression than we cannot see with the naked eye, however, this too would have to be addressed at a Frye hearing. Since the defense requested a Frye hearing in regards to the air sample, but did not address a stain/impression in the carpet in the trunk, I don’t think the SA gave the defense discovery indicating that the prosecution was going to go down that road.

I guess I feel a bit like RK did only for the opposite reason. He could see what no one else could see, he could see a skull, but no one else could see that skull until dec. 11th, only in my case, it seems that everyone can see what I can’t see.

Digital enhancement of photographs have already been subjected to the Frye test in Florida.

http://www.fdiai.org/articles/Photo Finish.pdf

 

[notthatsmart]

I keep reading claims that there was only traces of butyric acid in the trunk carpet. I have read the LIBS report repeatedly and cannot locate this information. Does anyone have a link or page number for this information? TIA

Dr Vass had 2 reports. One was a preliminary and one was a final. Its in one of those reports IIRC. It was scrapings.

Off topic sorry, but you had provided a link to the trash bag inventory in the other thread and I was just wondering which ocso page that was since it had no numbers on the page or official heading. Just want to make sure that that list wasn't typed up by the news station and that that was an official report. Sorry to be off topic.

 

[notthatsmart]

Digital enhancement of photographs have already been subjected to the Frye test in Florida.

http://www.fdiai.org/articles/Photo Finish.pdf

I think it is the stain itself will have to have some human substance in the frye hearing before you can move on to digital enhancement. If it was just impression, then I could see using digital enhancement. However, the thread is called stain on the trunk liner. Are we thinking impression and no stain? I can not see an image through stain or impression. IMO

 

[Harmony 2]

Dr Vass had 2 reports. One was a preliminary and one was a final. Its in one of those reports IIRC. It was scrapings.

Off topic sorry, but you had provided a link to the trash bag inventory in the other thread and I was just wondering which ocso page that was since it had no numbers on the page or official heading. Just want to make sure that that list wasn't typed up by the news station and that that was an official report. Sorry to be off topic.

I have read about the scraping. My interpretation is that 'scraping' was the technique used to gather the VFA. I do not interpret that to indicate it was a trace amount. It could be a large area stain that was scraped.

(As far as the list it was in the article I provided a link to.)

 

[Marina2]

I think it is the stain itself will have to have some human substance in the frye hearing before you can move on to digital enhancement. If it was just impression, then I could see using digital enhancement. However, the thread is called stain on the trunk liner. Are we thinking impression and no stain? I can not see an image through stain or impression. IMO

I was only stating that digital enhancement of photographs have already been subjected to a Frye challenge. This was in response to a poster stating that digital enhancement of that stain/impression would be subject to a Frye hearing. Whether it is a stain or impression, how it got there, or if it contains human substance was not addressed in my post.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Digital enhancement of photographs have already been subjected to the Frye test in Florida.

http://www.fdiai.org/articles/Photo Finish.pdf

Thanks, I didn't know about that case. Does this mean that in all cases where digital enhancement can be used, there will be no Frye hearing?

In the case linked, they digitally enhanced fingerprints correct? If so, then they had his finerprints to compare them to, and that all makes sense to me, whereas, the possible indentation of a body laying in a trunk would seem to have nothing to compare it to, so I don't see how a digitally enhanced photo of what might be the form of a body could be anything more than speculation.MOO

 

[Marina2]

Thanks, I didn't know about that case. Does this mean that in all cases where digital enhancement can be used, there will be no Frye hearing?

In the case linked, they digitally enhanced fingerprints correct? If so, then they had his finerprints to compare them to, and that all makes sense to me, whereas, the possible indentation of a body laying in a trunk would seem to have nothing to compare it to, so I don't see how a digitally enhanced photo of what might be the form of a body could be anything more than speculation.MOO

At the end of that Frye hearing the judge stated that the experts demonstrated that the process of digital enhancement does not change the basic image. It seems to me that this would apply to any image, whether it's fingerprints, stains, or a robbery suspect caught on video camera. On the other hand, I think that the term "digital enhancement" is a subjective term. Images can certainly be changed with some types of digital enhancement, imo. Maybe there are limits to what types of enhancement can be done and may have been addressed at this Frye hearing by the experts.

Imo, digitally enhanced pictures of the stain won't be thrown out because they were digitally enhanced. The problem may be for the prosecution to definitively state that they clearly show the outline of Caylee as she lay in the trunk. The judge may rule that this is too speculative or prejudicial to be allowed.

 

[ynotdivein]

bumpity bump.

Some unanswered questions herein.

 

[ynotdivein]

Oh no. This thread will not suffocate under the weight of various other topics and agendas... I bump you, "2010.02.16 Doc Dump: Stain on Trunk Liner". Go forth and continue your good work.

 

[Reagan]

I'm sure this has been addressed a few times in this long ole thread. I haven't read through the entire thing for 2 months now.

Anyway, I was reflecting on this very subject last night. I read/hear the statements by GA concerning this stain, and I have to ask myself, "What stain?". There is no visible stain the size of a basketball, but not exactly round, that can be seen with the naked eye. (Excluding the wax like shape on the underside of the trunk liner, but GA wasn't speaking of that).

When the trunk liner photos were released, that trunk looked immaculate. The closer views of the carpeting showed signs of cleaning (i.e. balled up fibers consistent with scrubbing or steam cleaning).

How CA can look herself in the mirror after cleaning the purge of her own Granddaughter is beyond me. The reason I say CA is because 1) KC was too d@mn lazy to clean it. I mean she used like 1-2 paper towels to clean it up for crying out loud! Bounty: the quicker picker upper; that is unless you're cleaning up decomp. And 2) When retrieved from the tow yard, CA had the most time with the car.

Aside from the ALS (I believe?) lighting, and digital enhancements I have to again ask myself..... What stain?

 

[BondJamesBond]

When the trunk liner photos were released, that trunk looked immaculate. The closer views of the carpeting showed signs of cleaning (i.e. balled up fibers consistent with scrubbing or steam cleaning).

How CA can look herself in the mirror after cleaning the purge of her own Granddaughter is beyond me.

*snipped & bbm*

Assuming you mean, "in your opinion".

FWIW, IIRC, there was no chemical evidence (i.e. residues) of cleaning. Of course that doesn't preclude steam cleaning. Then, again, AFAIK there was no evidence IN the steam cleaner (??) recovered in Dec '08 either.

If I had to prove the trunk had been cleaned, I'd be hard pressed to do it based on what information has been released to-date, IMHO. Conversely, I'd be hard pressed to prove it hadn't been cleaned either.

 

[TorisMom003]

*snipped & bbm*

Assuming you mean, "in your opinion".

FWIW, IIRC, there was no chemical evidence (i.e. residues) of cleaning. Of course that doesn't preclude steam cleaning. Then, again, AFAIK there was no evidence IN the steam cleaner (??) recovered in Dec '08 either.

If I had to prove the trunk had been cleaned, I'd be hard pressed to do it based on what information has been released to-date, IMHO. Conversely, I'd be hard pressed to prove it hadn't been cleaned either.

So then that makes one ask the most obvious question........where did the stain go? Why is the stain not visible to the naked eye anymore?

 

[BondJamesBond]

So then that makes one ask the most obvious question........where did the stain go? Why is the stain not visible to the naked eye anymore?

...and a great question it is.

And the obvious answer is....I dunno.

I've certainly looked @ the carpet pics myself. And I'm like THE last person you want to interpret photo's, 'cause I'm prone to kitten-apparitions as my history of posting can attest.

Only thing I can offer up is that the photos I recall seeing are after the carpet sample had been cut from the wheel cover, hence, AFTER forensics had scrapped the carpet to gather up as much matter as possible. Soo...just w-a-guessin' here that the CSI team had their way w/ the carpet enough that it was less obvious to the naked eye :gasp: after they were done than it was before. I do know that the lighting for photo's has a drastic effect on what the end pic looks like vs. what it looks like in reality. So...perhaps the stain is a little more difficult to perceive in pics than it is when you're standing there looking @ it as George was, IYKWIM.

 

[TorisMom003]

Thanks BJB, makes sense. So then George will have to be called to the stand to give testimony about the stain, if the SA decides to bring that up at trial. Should be interesting. Between his testimony and Cindy's about the 911 call it should be a must see event.

Do we have confirmation that Cindy did in fact clean out parts of the car or was it just the clothes that she washed?

 

[Reagan]

BJB, yes of course in my opinion. I am clearly no expert in these things, but common sense (and years of scrubbing and steam cleaning due to dogs) leads me to believe that trunk was cleaned someway, somehow.

Are we even sure the steam cleaner was tested? Last I recalled, it was not. I could have missed that part.

Indeed it would be hard to prove that trunk was cleaned (by more than paper towels) given the info we have so far. I was just throwing my random thoughts out there. I'm not really set out to prove anything *shrug*.

Just saying... I see no stain. If a body lays in the trunk 2 or so days in the humid FL summer... decomposing, there will be bloat, purge, and permeation (sorry). I see nothing consistent of that in the photos (purging of bodily and decomposition fluids)

Perhaps there are photos we're not being shown due to the graphic nature? We were definitely not shown all of the duct tape photos that would show Caylee's hair matted in it.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Lee describes how his Dad cleans all their cars, and relatives cars, when they come to visit, he really 'details' them, to me that means a scrupulous cleaning, the kind of thing I only do when getting ready to sell a a car...
I don't think he would have missed the opportunity to do it to this car, with that smell and the stain he described....
IMO