Dissimilar head hair on Q107 and extra DNA segment on the duct tape

[AZlawyer]

I found this thread very difficult to follow, so, perhaps this is old news that I just couldn't find clearly documented already. :bang: So, if it isn't new news, perhaps this post will just serve to put a stake in the sand for this having been established by the released docs.

FWIW, in reviewing some of the motions I noted on handwritten page 8707 in an FBI email that the DNA on the duct tape was identified as having belonged to lab technician Lorie G.

Doc here on page 13 of 19 in the pdf.



ETA: If there's a member following this thread well enough to summarize it in a post...that'd be very helpful. TIA!

There was DNA from 2 different people found on the duct tape. One DNA profile was fairly complete and was consistent with lab tech #5 (Lorie G).

The second DNA profile was extremely incomplete and was consistent with lab tech #3, neighbor Brian Burner, 20.6% of the Caucasian population in America, 18.1% of the African-American population, 15.2% of the Hispanic-American population, and 26.1% of the Asian-American population. It was inconsistent, however, with Casey, Caylee, Cindy, George, and Lee--and Jesse, by the way, if anyone wondered! My guess would be lab tech #3.

 

[notthatsmart]

There was DNA from 2 different people found on the duct tape. One DNA profile was fairly complete and was consistent with lab tech #5 (Lorie G).

The second DNA profile was extremely incomplete and was consistent with lab tech #3, neighbor Brian Burner, 20.6% of the Caucasian population in America, 18.1% of the African-American population, 15.2% of the Hispanic-American population, and 26.1% of the Asian-American population. It was inconsistent, however, with Casey, Caylee, Cindy, George, and Lee--and Jesse, by the way, if anyone wondered! My guess would be lab tech #3.

So, it is consistent with Lab tech number 3, BB, and 20 percent of the American population. That is 60 million people ? ? I think it will be determined to be unknown. IMO

 

[AZlawyer]

So, it is consistent with Lab tech number 3, BB, and 20 percent of the American population. That is 60 million people ? ? I think it will be determined to be unknown. IMO

I agree--I think it will be unidentified, consistent with millions of people, and therefore completely unimportant to the case.

However, if it were DNA of a "perp," it certainly would have been destroyed, just as Caylee's DNA, which once must have been present on almost every square inch of that tape, was destroyed due to time and the elements.

 

[seagull65]

This seems to be a new hair isn't it? One just come up in evidence? Or is this the same one from last fall. I read it was determined to be from a Caucasian female and approx five inches long. All the females who were tech's or lab people have tested negative.

To me that means if it wasn't a hair from anyone involved in collection, and not Casey's then it's a hair from the dump. I'm moving on to the next thing.

yes Caucasian head hair 5" long, (I didn't remember them saying female but I could be wrong), determined to not be from Casey, Caylee (or I think any of the family IIRC, it's been a while though), and they ruled out those investigators who were listed.

Wasn't it located on the Disney bag or something else that was right by Caylee's remains? (The Disney bag seems potentially relevant not only because it was close to the remains but because it had the gatorade bottle with the syringe in it that had the steroids and chloroform, IIRC.) It's been a while though, I need to go back and refresh my memory.

IMO ruling out Casey, Caylee and investigators who appear to be a potential match was the logical first step and the next logical step would be ruling out people who are known to have been around Caylee or who had any interest or involvement with Caylee, anyone who could have gained access to her as far as they can tell, etc.

 

[seagull65]

A couple of options there.

1: Are we sure Area A was under water? and if so, for how long? one day? two days? a week?

2: IIRC the expiration date on the gatorade bottle was before June 08, so, sounds like old trash, but I suppose someone could have thrown it in there in early dec 08

3: It may be possible that the bag and bottle floated and was never submerged.

I think hair floats. This crime scene had to be very contaminated. I do not think they will be able to link the Disney bag to the crime, and if they do, then they will have to explain this extra hair. imo

all good points NTS, I never thought about the expiration date, thanks for that. About the water, IIRC the author of the water document (official documents) calculated that parts of area A could have had up to 6" of water at the highest water time (like a 10 day period in Aug IIRC.) It's bumpy ground, with roots, and had foliage on it, it's not a smooth surface. Who knows if the bag was on top of foliage, for example, or in one of the lowest recesses of Area A, if it floated on water at one time or not. It will be interesting to see more at trial.
I agree that if they link the Disney bag to the crime then the hair would have to be treated just as seriously. It wouldn't make sense to pick and choose and selectively exclude forensic evidence that was on the bag just because it was found not to come from Casey LOL. As far as the hair blowing in, you never know with wind, nature etc. Of course there were curtains of vines around the site, and when RK first reported his discovery (Aug 11-13) he told the dispatcher there was a board leaning on the log too, over the remains... I don't know if the bag might also have been sheltered by the board...who knows. Whatever the case, wind or no, that wouldn't mean, don't check the hair against people known to the case and rule them out of course.
If anyone got close enough later to drop a hair on the bag it seems like they would have had to see the remains.
One thing, I wonder if the hair could have been stuck to the bag somehow, otherwise seems like it might get knocked or blown off eventually with rain, the animals moving the remains, etc. The fact the Disney bag (with hair) was right by the remains, containing a bottle that has traces of chloroform and a syringe (IIRC), does make it seem potentially relevant. Anytime I read these evidence documents I'm just amazed at the crime scene investigators, the work they did there at that site IMO. I'm interested in the other hairs found at the scene too even if they're not as close and don't seem potentially as relevant, a perp could drop a hair walking in, etc.

 

[seagull65]

Seriously ? Not much disturbed? Six months in an overgrown area, where small animals distributed Caylee's bones over a large area, and a hurricane and flood, to mention a couple. It seems to me that if animals were removing bones and whatever from Caylee's remains, it would be much disturbed.

But the thread discussion was potential sources of the human hair, Logicalgirl, that's why I asked when someone said it was a "much disturbed crime scene". It sounded like they meant something to do with potential sources of the hair.
You are absolutely right about animals disturbing parts of the remains.

 

[seagull65]

I found this thread very difficult to follow, so, perhaps this is old news that I just couldn't find clearly documented already. :bang: So, if it isn't new news, perhaps this post will just serve to put a stake in the sand for this having been established by the released docs.

FWIW, in reviewing some of the motions I noted on handwritten page 8707 in an FBI email that the DNA on the duct tape was identified as having belonged to lab technician Lorie G.

Doc here on page 13 of 19 in the pdf.



ETA: If there's a member following this thread well enough to summarize it in a post...that'd be very helpful. TIA!

summarize the thread in one post? Well....I started the thread way back when, asking for info about the segment of DNA found on the duct tape, and the Q107 hair. People have posted various info on both throughout the thread as it has come out. Thanks for your post, too. I was surprised to see the thread had gotten some more posts in May or so, I was just catching up.

 

[seagull65]

Yes.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n17_v133/ai_6672255/
"Until recently however, the forensic use of DNA fingerprinting had been somewhat limited because the method requires micrograms of DNA--that means several hairs, or blood and semen spots in amounts larger than what is often found at a crime scene. Now two research teams, taking different approaches, have developed DNA analyses that can be performed on nanograms of DNA, an amount typically found in a single strand of hair. This is an important benchmark because hair is commonly found at crime scenes."

thanks, Pensfan!

 

[LambChop]

Hey, anyone check JW hair out....might be when she was hanging from the trees taking pictures. Just a guess but seriously we don't know when the bottle was put there and if it is even related. KC could have walked right by it. There just is not enough information from SA to determine if it has any value. jmo

 

[Leila]

I found it, finally. Pg. 3/78 here:
http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/Stories/Local/11-8634-8711[1].pdf

If I'm reading correctly, the adhesive side yielded the inconclusive DNA.
I still haven't found the emails discussing that they couldn't use the sample to exclude or include anyone.

I think this means the environment left the tape essentially blank, until it was collected.

Is it possible that in the manufacturing of the tape, the DNA or a worker at the manufacturing plant got onto the tape? Or, when LE collected the remains, a fragment of DNA was transferred to the tape? Or, there was DNA from some unknown individual in the trunk of Casey's car - someone who had done automotive work on the car at some time?

I can't see this as a basis to conclude that there's an accomplice in the murder of Caylee.

 

[treeseeker]

Is it possible that in the manufacturing of the tape, the DNA or a worker at the manufacturing plant got onto the tape? Or, when LE collected the remains, a fragment of DNA was transferred to the tape? Or, there was DNA from some unknown individual in the trunk of Casey's car - someone who had done automotive work on the car at some time?

I can't see this as a basis to conclude that there's an accomplice in the murder of Caylee.

Random DNA contamination is always possible. IMO, since Caylee's DNA wasn't identified on the tape, its highly unlikely that the DNA found was deposited before the tape was collected by LE. There would have been, at one time, a very large amount of Caylee's DNA on that tape. But by the time she was found, none remained (IIRC), IMO a strong indication of extensive weathering and exposure. Although possible, its unlikely that any other DNA deposited on the tape in the same time frame it was placed on Caylee would survive but Caylee's wouldn't.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

I agree--I think it will be unidentified, consistent with millions of people, and therefore completely unimportant to the case.

However, if it were DNA of a "perp," it certainly would have been destroyed, just as Caylee's DNA, which once must have been present on almost every square inch of that tape, was destroyed due to time and the elements.

Thank you, AZlawyer, for this wonderful explanation. Anything that showed up on that tape that wasn't destroyed along with Caylee's DNA (to whom it was stuck to) has to be something that was attached post-murder. Cross contamination ~ maybe even at the disposal site after the water receded.

 

[seagull65]

foreign DNA still on the tape wouldn't have to be from later contamination, though it seems a strong possibility. Another possibility would be if one area of the tape was just more sheltered from the elements than the rest, or if the tape was wiped clean but this one area was missed, or if only this person's DNA was deposited at this particular spot, etc. I wouldn't think every part of the tape would have picked up Caylee's DNA, but you'd expect a lot of the adhesive side would have (IIRC most of the adhesive side was gone by the time the remains were discovered.) moo

 

[cyberborg]

foreign DNA still on the tape wouldn't have to be from later contamination, though it seems a strong possibility. Another possibility would be if one area of the tape was just more sheltered from the elements than the rest, or if the tape was wiped clean but this one area was missed, or if only this person's DNA was deposited at this particular spot, etc. I wouldn't think every part of the tape would have picked up Caylee's DNA, but you'd expect a lot of the adhesive side would have (IIRC most of the adhesive side was gone by the time the remains were discovered.) moo

That'd be more believable if some of Caylee's DNA (or an A) was present as well but a stretch to conclude that with 99.99999999% of DNA lost to the elements just this foreign bit survived.

The most plausible explanation IMHO is cross-contamination after the fact in lab processing given the conditions and length of time.

 

[seagull65]

I agree about it possibly being from later contamination, but:
consider that the glue side was the side that may have made contact with Caylee and had most of her DNA deposits. Meanwhile, the ends or nonadhesive side could have had DNA from the person who applied the tape or who had handled it, but maybe little or none from Caylee.
Most of the glue layer on the adhesive side fell off during deterioration of the tape, it was just no longer present.
There's no glue layer to fall off the other side of the tape, but it is exposed to weathering also. It is much less deteriorated though.
In the end, the only bits of DNA that happen to be found aren't Caylee's.
Seems possible IMO.
I imagine they take steps to try to prevent or minimize contamination at the lab, but since they found potential matches there it seemed like that could be what happened. (I need to go back and re-read, it seems like one DNA sample might have been a complete match to a lab worker, the other only partial so was a potential match, sorry I'm forgetting, I will re-read.) I agree about the length of time etc, seems like a long time, but I have no idea how long DNA deposits can remain on a surface like that.

 

[cyberborg]

I do understand the point but, given there was only a partial segment :waitasec: it is somewhat moot and I believe I/we have better odds of winning the lottery. :twocents:

I am a fan of Occam's Razor and when we are so focused on arguing microscopic details like this to try to find something to save ICA with the mountain of circumstantial evidence then we are not in the weeds .... we are in the molecules. :crazy:

 

[pip]

Ever heard the expression 'Let's not split hairs over it?' All the evidence, forensic and circumstantial is overwhelming and leads to one person. Why split hairs? There is no doubt who is responsible, all that is left to determine is if the defense can fool one juror. The end.

 

[Leila]

Random DNA contamination is always possible. IMO, since Caylee's DNA wasn't identified on the tape, its highly unlikely that the DNA found was deposited before the tape was collected by LE. There would have been, at one time, a very large amount of Caylee's DNA on that tape. But by the time she was found, none remained (IIRC), IMO a strong indication of extensive weathering and exposure. Although possible, its unlikely that any other DNA deposited on the tape in the same time frame it was placed on Caylee would survive but Caylee's wouldn't.

It would appear that if Caylee's DNA didn't survive the elements, neither did the perpetrator's DNA survive. The only DNA found was from the two lab workers, long after Caylee's death.

I guess this puts this subject to rest............the DNA is not a factor.

 

[kaRN]

The Winnie the Pooh blanket alone trumps the DNA or lack of it IMO. Bet there were A dog hairs found on that that we won't hear about because we weren't supposed to know about that blanket recovered at the scene. Until....the accused blabbed all about it to her penpal. Ooopsy haha!!

 

[joypath]

The Winnie the Pooh blanket alone trumps the DNA or lack of it IMO. Bet there were A dog hairs found on that that we won't hear about because we weren't supposed to know about that blanket recovered at the scene. Until....the accused blabbed all about it to her penpal. Ooopsy haha!!

Great point to add to the logic already presented within other posts! Take this situation OUT of a murder investigation and put it into the realm of logic, then analyze. Given the amount of tape provided to be evaluated by scientists, the amount of tape applied to body surface and adhered to the surface, probably with slippage and agitation (ie. exfoliation of the epidermis, possibly causing abrasions, definitely causing lachrymal, oral and nasal exudates (yes, staying technical for OUR sanity!));all of which INCREASING the nuclear celluar materials present of the VICTIM/VOLUNTEER (if this were an experiment) near or on the adhesive/non-adhesive material of the tape SHOULD BE in a higher ratio than that of the PERP/EXPERIMENTER. The exposure of the PERP/EXP.'s "DNA donation" would be via handling (ie. positioning the tape onto the unwilling VICTIM/willing VOL., one of which would PROBABLY be struggling and thus would force the PERP to exert forceful pressure vs repositioning (ie. more exposure to the tape ADHESIVE surface!). NOW add in the non-variables to this experiment: time and the environmental impacts since to the best of our understanding the tapes were NOT redressed after primary application. Thus, laws of science help prove that the outlier DNA is a post-condition effect.