Evidence for "Dead body in the Damn Car"

[marspiter]

I'm not sure if the State gives a hoot what Casey has to say now...especially since Caylee was found in swamp infested water with duct tape stretched across her face. She'd have to be strapped to a lie detector machine or given sodium pentathol for me to even consider what she said was the truth (and even then I'd worry that her sociopathic mind could beat the machine and the drug). What do you think the State would like to know? I'm sure in the beginning they would have loved to have known where Caylee was buried, but if you're thinking they want to know the "why", I think they have plenty of motive already. Personally, I don't think any of us would even understand the "why". I'm truly interested in knowing what you think she can say that may save her.

The question wasn't directed at me but hey when has that ever stopped me from chiming in. I personally don't think there is anything Casey can say that can save her. The state pretty much has a good motive for the crime. They have a ton of circumstantial evidence in this case. The only part of this case that is relatively weak is the fact they don't have a definitive murder weapon. Which by law the state is not required to present a cause of death per say. However a cause of death would add greater weight to premeditation in this case.

So far Casey's best defense is the one her lawyers are presenting. Keep quite, and stand back and poke holes in the prosecutions case. Thats about the only thing they can do. I seriously doubt they would ever consider putting Casey on the stand. I just don't think they can. That and if JB knows answers to certain questions and allows Casey to purger herself....well he would also be looking at criminal charges. Given Casey's current statements and even the Judge saying the truth and Ms. Anthony are strangers Putting her on the stand would not be in her best interest in my opinion.

As to the car. I feel it was clearly abandoned because Casey knew the trash and squirrel stories just weren't going to hold water. Not considering how long that smell will stay in the car as compared to trash or roadkill debris. It was clearly a calculated maneuver on her part in my opinion. I think it's also pretty clear what was in that trunk was Caylee. Even George in a moment of clear thinking eluded to knowing what that smell was and basically said as much in the police interview. For me I think it's pretty well established that there was in fact a dead body in Casey's car. The evidence to me is very clear on this. Then you have the hair with decomp evidence and it's pretty clear who the dead body was. Also no one else that Casey knows (that is also know by others in Casey's circle and is in fact a real person) is missing.

To me the car evidence is pretty much as simple as basic math. 2+2=4

Decomp evidence (cadaver dogs, grave wax, ect, ect) + Hair of Caylee exhibiting root banding, and Caylee being found dead = dead Caylee in the Pontiac.

To me one piece of evidence that would have slammed this case closed on Casey was the pants that conveniently got washed by Cindy. That and of course a murder weapon. That being said however the car evidence to me is enough to convince me of Casey's guilt on its own, let alone the mile high pile of evidence the state has.

 

[BeanE]

Relevant and very interesting post by Richard Hornsby here:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4590774&postcount=299"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Rhornsby Legal Q&A #3 Relevant to the Anthony Case[/ame]

 

[Curious Me]

Relevant and very interesting post by Richard Hornsby here:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Rhornsby Legal Q&A #3 Relevant to the Anthony Case

His take on it seems right on the mark! The jury is going to hear more about the smell of decomp in that car - geez, it seems like everyone remarked it smelled like a dead body - GA even wanted to avoid naming it his grand-daughter. The jury isn't going to need the science. Thanks BeanE.

 

[Tulessa]

I don't know if this has been linked in already, but I just came across it while researching something else, and know it's of interest in this thread.

LE report on Cadaver dog w/car. Jason Forgey. dog Gerus.

pdf page 198

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/acrobat/2008-08/41844520.pdf

I dropped the defendant back off at her residence on Hope Spring, telling her I would call her if I needed anything prior to leaving. I was approached by her Father GA who stressed his concern that his daughter is holding information back. He and his wife ( the defendants Mother) fear something may have happened to Caylee.

BBM. Nuff said.

 

[BeanE]

George talks again about the decomp smell in the trunk in his deposition for the ZG civil case. Begins at 1:00.

Attorney: (paraphrased) When the car was found did you smell a smell that was really alarming to you?

George: (long pause) Again that's part of the record that the sheriff's department has. I have to say yes.

Attorney: (paraphrased) Did you tell them "I don't like that smell in the car..."

George: Yes cause there was a decomposition smell.

Attorney: You smelled that in the car?

George: Uh huh. Yes.

Attorney: (paraphrased) You were in law enforcement?

George: Right and there's certain smells, sir, you never forget.

Attorney: Did you learn that through your law enforcement years?

George: Absolutely. There's certain things you just never forget.


http://www.wftv.com/video/19141394/index.html

 

[chefmom]

His take on it seems right on the mark! The jury is going to hear more about the smell of decomp in that car - geez, it seems like everyone remarked it smelled like a dead body - GA even wanted to avoid naming it his grand-daughter. The jury isn't going to need the science. Thanks BeanE.

Totally agree, Curious! The SA will ask GA about the smell, he will talk about it, and KC will tell JB to "Make him stop!" Then, the SA will ask CA about the smell and she will have to hear herself on the 911 tapes, and KC will tell AL to "Make her stop!" The SA will bring up LA and ask him about the smell, and he will laugh and tell how bad it smelled, and KC will tell JB to "Make him stop!" Then, the jury will hear the towyard guy, the LE on the scene, the cadaver dog handlers, and everyone else who came in close proximity to that car talk about the unmistakable smell of decomposition that came from the trunk of that car, and KC will ball up her fist and snap at her attorneys to "Make them stop!" But, they won't stop. They will tell the jurors how they smelled death and how Caylee was found down the street, and there was never a ZFG, and all of the lies, lies, lies! And, KC will be found guilty of murdering her daughter. MOO.

 

[Curious Me]

Totally agree, Curious! The SA will ask GA about the smell, he will talk about it, and KC will tell JB to "Make him stop!" Then, the SA will ask CA about the smell and she will have to hear herself on the 911 tapes, and KC will tell AL to "Make her stop!" The SA will bring up LA and ask him about the smell, and he will laugh and tell how bad it smelled, and KC will tell JB to "Make him stop!" Then, the jury will hear the towyard guy, the LE on the scene, the cadaver dog handlers, and everyone else who came in close proximity to that car talk about the unmistakable smell of decomposition that came from the trunk of that car, and KC will ball up her fist and snap at her attorneys to "Make them stop!" But, they won't stop. They will tell the jurors how they smelled death and how Caylee was found down the street, and there was never a ZFG, and all of the lies, lies, lies! And, KC will be found guilty of murdering her daughter. MOO.

I totally agree with you, too, chefmom! Just loved your run down of the coming events. I just love when KC balls up her fists and makes her face scrunch up all ugly and mad. Wonder how her night is going tonight. Must be a special two or three ding dongs with cheese puffs night.

Stupid Girl, your children make the holidays magical and full of joy. Have another ding dong, Prisoner.

 

[Harmony 2]

Background Information

Mitochondrial DNA is Only Inherited from the Mother
nDNA versus mtDNA
Compared with Traditional nuclear nDNA analysis, Mitochondrial mtDNA offers three primary benefits to forensic scientists:
• Its structure and location in the cell make mtDNA more stable, enabling investigators to test older or degraded samples
• mtDNA is available in larger quantities per cell – smaller samples can be tested
• mtDNA can be extracted from samples in which nDNA cannot, especially hair shafts and bone fragments.
http://forensicscience.suite101.com/article.cfm/what_is_mitochondrial_dna

DNA Examinations

Hairs that have been matched or associated through a microscopic examination should also be examined by mtDNA sequencing. Although it is uncommon to find hairs from two different individuals exhibiting the same microscopic characteristics, it can occur. For this reason, the hairs or portions of the hairs should be forwarded for mtDNA sequencing. The combined procedures add credibility to each.
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/jan2004/research/2004_01_research01b.htm#fig81

Microscopical comparisons of human hairs have been used and generally accepted for over a century. The techniques are not novel, and the literature dealing with human hair characteristics and the reliability of the forensic hair comparison is extensive.

The forensic science community has generally accepted DNA analysis of hair and other biological materials.

Good court testimony usually requires educating the prosecutor and defense during pretrial conference(s) so that the record is clear regarding the use, reliability, and evidential value of forensic hair examinations.
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/april2005/standards/2005_04_standards02.htm

The age of an individual cannot be determined definitively by a microscopic examination; however, the microscopic appearance of certain human hairs, such as those of infants and elderly individuals, may provide a general indication of age. The hairs of infants, for example, are generally finer and less distinctive in microscopic appearance.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When hairs originate from a body in a state of decomposition, a dark band may appear near the root of the hair. This characteristic has been labeled a postmortem root band.


http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july2000/deedric1.htm#Hair Evidence

Evidence of a hair with decomposition- found in Pontiac's trunk

Q12.1 hair with apparent decomposition at proximal root end (trunk)
Q59 hair from hair mass (remains)
K1 hair from Casey Anthony
Q15 hair from Caylee’s hairbrush

page 2/3329 http://blogs.discovery.com/files/18530294.pdf

page 8/3335 http://blogs.discovery.com/files/18530294.pdf

page 57 http://www.wftv.com/pdf/18740657/detail.html

"The previously reported Caucasian head hair exhibiting characteristics of apparent decomposition at the proximal end (specimen Q12.1, FBI Laboratory report dated August 1, 2008, FBI Laboratory Number 080730003 TO LF) exhibits the same microscopic characteristics as the Caucasian head hairs found in Q59. Accordingly, specimen Q12.1 and the Caucasian head hairs found in specimen Q59 are consistent with originating from the same source.”

page 594 of 1405 http://www.wftv.com/download/2009/1009/21252103.pdf

page 625 of 1405 http://www.wftv.com/download/2009/1009/21252103.pdf

 

[Eidetic]

 

[Harmony 2]

Background Information

Evidence of a hair with decomposition- found in Pontiac's trunk

Q12.1 hair with apparent decomposition at proximal root end (trunk)
Q59 hair from hair mass (remains)
K1 hair from Casey Anthony
Q15 hair from Caylee’s hairbrush

page 2/3329 http://blogs.discovery.com/files/18530294.pdf

page 8/3335 http://blogs.discovery.com/files/18530294.pdf

page 57 http://www.wftv.com/pdf/18740657/detail.html


page 594 of 1405 http://www.wftv.com/download/2009/1009/21252103.pdf

page 625 of 1405 http://www.wftv.com/download/2009/1009/21252103.pdf

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sorry to quote myself but I wanted to address a point that has been brought up on other threads. The following Emails have been mentioned:

page 50/8907 from link

page 51/8908

http://www.clickorlando.com/download/2009/0929/21147154.pdf

The dates on both Emails is August 1, 2008. This is long before Caylee's remains were found. Moreover, the Email indicates that mtDNA has not been conducted and the hair has been sent to that department.

Once the hair from the decomposed remains Q59 was compared with Q12.1 (trunk) they were considered microscopically the same. The following statement is issued>>>>>> "The previously reported Caucasian head hair exhibiting characteristics of apparent decomposition at the proximal end (specimen Q12.1, FBI Laboratory report dated August 1, 2008, FBI Laboratory Number 080730003 TO LF) exhibits the same microscopic characteristics as the Caucasian head hairs found in Q59. Accordingly, specimen Q12.1 and the Caucasian head hairs found in specimen Q59 are consistent with originating from the same source.”

Please note the bolded and underscored in that statement above which states that 12.1 had apparent decomposition.

statement from page 594 of 1405 http://www.wftv.com/download/2009/1009/21252103.pdf

The confirmation form dated 12/17/08 states Q12.1 and Q59 are equal in decomposition characteristics. (form in quoted post)

 

[LambChop]

Good work, Harmony2 did you tag it. Great for referencing. Thanks a bunch.

 

[BeanE]

Excellent work, Harmony. Thank you so much.

:blowkiss:

 

[Marina2]

Snipped for brevity:

Once the hair from the decomposed remains Q59 was compared with Q12.1 (trunk) they were considered microscopically the same. The following statement is issued>>>>>> "The previously reported Caucasian head hair exhibiting characteristics of apparent decomposition at the proximal end (specimen Q12.1, FBI Laboratory report dated August 1, 2008, FBI Laboratory Number 080730003 TO LF) exhibits the same microscopic characteristics as the Caucasian head hairs found in Q59. Accordingly, specimen Q12.1 and the Caucasian head hairs found in specimen Q59 are consistent with originating from the same source.”

Please note the bolded and underscored in that statement above which states that 12.1 had apparent decomposition.

statement from page 594 of 1405 http://www.wftv.com/download/2009/1009/21252103.pdf

The confirmation form dated 12/17/08 states Q12.1 and Q59 are equal in decomposition characteristics. (form in quoted post)

Thank you, Harmony, for bringing all this together in one post. Do you know where we can find the email that uses the term "root band" instead of characteristics of decomposition? There was one posted here awhile back but I have no idea where to find it.

I want to add to the part I snipped from your post. When microscopically examined, both the trunk hair and the hair from the hair mass exhibit the same characteristics of decomposition. Experts will testify to this but, they will also testify that the hairs match in many other ways besides the decomposition at the root end. This will be very compelling evidence that the hair in the trunk came from a deceased Caylee and no other source. Besides confirming that Caylee is dead, this is one of the most important pieces of evidence finding the body yielded.

 

[notthatsmart]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sorry to quote myself but I wanted to address a point that has been brought up on other threads. The following Emails have been mentioned:

page 50/8907 from link

page 51/8908

http://www.clickorlando.com/download/2009/0929/21147154.pdf

The dates on both Emails is August 1, 2008. This is long before Caylee's remains were found. Moreover, the Email indicates that mtDNA has not been conducted and the hair has been sent to that department.

Once the hair from the decomposed remains Q59 was compared with Q12.1 (trunk) they were considered microscopically the same. The following statement is issued>>>>>> "The previously reported Caucasian head hair exhibiting characteristics of apparent decomposition at the proximal end (specimen Q12.1, FBI Laboratory report dated August 1, 2008, FBI Laboratory Number 080730003 TO LF) exhibits the same microscopic characteristics as the Caucasian head hairs found in Q59. Accordingly, specimen Q12.1 and the Caucasian head hairs found in specimen Q59 are consistent with originating from the same source.”

Please note the bolded and underscored in that statement above which states that 12.1 had apparent decomposition.

statement from page 594 of 1405 http://www.wftv.com/download/2009/1009/21252103.pdf

The confirmation form dated 12/17/08 states Q12.1 and Q59 are equal in decomposition characteristics. (form in quoted post)

It does not change the fact that she could not confirm that it was from a human decomposing body. At the end of the statement they said that q59 was not a known hair sample. They are not comparable as known hair samples. They have not proven the q12.1 is from Caylee. They are just saying it is microscopically similiar. Well that can mean a lot of things.

 

[joypath]

I remember in the Oj case the state tried to do the similar thing and the consistent with thing. Well dna doesn't work that way. Exclusion is easy, inclusion is very difficult.
__________________
The above statement is a mixture of apples and oranges!
DNA is a scientific measurement of proteins, whereas the evaluation of hair strands are done on a comparative basis, that is similiar to an exemplar (known sample) and consistant with (same physical condition as in observable elemental condition). You are talking about a advances in scientific techniques of over 20 years, the hair sample should NEVER be identified as a MATCH by physical means however, the advances of DNA and mtDNA do permit as you indicated statistical inclusion and exclusion of significantly higher accuracy than the OJ days!

 

[notthatsmart]

I think the problem lies with not having a known hair sample from Caylee. I read most of the fbi link and found that they refer comparisons to only suitable known samples. So when they say that comparison microscopy can be useful, they are talking about suitable known hair samples. I think that the hair from Caylee's remains became unsuitable when met with the elements. So, I don't know where you could get a suitable known hair sample.

Again, lack of evidence here. There is only one hair with the post mortem death band. The fbi says that a post mortem death band indicates that it may come from a decomposing body. It must mean many different things as well.

How did only one hair fall out?

 

[notthatsmart]

I remember in the Oj case the state tried to do the similar thing and the consistent with thing. Well dna doesn't work that way. Exclusion is easy, inclusion is very difficult.
__________________
The above statement is a mixture of apples and oranges!
DNA is a scientific measurement of proteins, whereas the evaluation of hair strands are done on a comparative basis, that is similiar to an exemplar (known sample) and consistant with (same physical condition as in observable elemental condition). You are talking about a advances in scientific techniques of over 20 years, the hair sample should NEVER be identified as a MATCH by physical means however, the advances of DNA and mtDNA do permit as you indicated statistical inclusion and exclusion of significantly higher accuracy than the OJ days!

Well if that is true, why can't they just say who it belongs to?

 

[RR0004]

I think the problem lies with not having a known hair sample from Caylee. I read most of the fbi link and found that they refer comparisons to only suitable known samples. So when they say that comparison microscopy can be useful, they are talking about suitable known hair samples. I think that the hair from Caylee's remains became unsuitable when met with the elements. So, I don't know where you could get a suitable known hair sample.

Again, lack of evidence here. There is only one hair with the post mortem death band. The fbi says that a post mortem death band indicates that it may come from a decomposing body. It must mean many different things as well.

How did only one hair fall out?

How about her hair brush?

 

[notthatsmart]

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july2000/deedric1.htm#Hair Evidence

Human Hairs

As stated previously, physical contact may result in the transfer of hairs. These can transfer directly from the region of the body where they are growing—a primary transfer—or they can transfer from the clothing of individuals—a secondary transfer. It has been reported that approximately 100 head hairs are shed by an individual each day. These hairs are shed on clothing and on items in the environment. Contact between a victim and a suspect's environment can easily cause a secondary transfer of hair. Hairs that are found on the clothing of suspects or victims and appear to have fallen out naturally may be the result of primary or secondary transfer. Hairs that have been forcibly removed may suggest a violent confrontation.

A hundred head hairs a day. How is it possible that they only found one hair?

 

[RR0004]

I think the problem lies with not having a known hair sample from Caylee. I read most of the fbi link and found that they refer comparisons to only suitable known samples. So when they say that comparison microscopy can be useful, they are talking about suitable known hair samples. I think that the hair from Caylee's remains became unsuitable when met with the elements. So, I don't know where you could get a suitable known hair sample.

Again, lack of evidence here. There is only one hair with the post mortem death band. The fbi says that a post mortem death band indicates that it may come from a decomposing body. It must mean many different things as well.

How did only one hair fall out?

Just curious why you would question the FBI's results. They have a phenomenal lab...why are you looking so hard for it to mean something else? We've discussed the way reports are written numerous times...there's no chicanery going on here.