Evidence for "Dead body in the Damn Car"

[Harmony 2]

It is my interpretation that the hair sample was known, but it was not suitable due to the 6months in the elements. Therefore not a suitable known hair sample. I know its a technicality, but I believe it will be challenged fiercly in court. The common characteristics would be destroyed by the elements. I am currently looking for that document that I have seen that explains the deterieration of head hair after death when exposed to rain, wind and sun. There may be a few characteristics left, but they determined that is was not a suitable known hair sample. They are comparing an unsuitable known hair sample to an unknown hair. I don't think that will fly in front of a jury listening to experts from both sides in an equal environment. MOO

Wouldn't they have stated it was destroyed or damaged beyond repair and could not be tested or compared? They were able to yield results. Did you see the article I posted about mitochondrial DNAs use for identifying victims of mass disasters where hair is damaged? Did you see the results of the mtDNA I posted?

 

[notthatsmart]

NTS I would like to refer you to Cyberborg's post above where he/she posted "Role playing, as a member of the Jury, it is not so much the interpretation of the document but in reality the presentation at trial by the FBI experts (who know precisely what they mean/meant) so it all boils down to ..... do the Defense argue semantics and interpretation when the experts are directly presenting at trial or ...... do the Defense do some work and perform their own counter expert analysis?"


Has the Defense hired their own experts to refute the findings of the FBI experts? I don't think this will be argued "fiercely" at trial because there is nothing to argue....the FBI said (in their language) that the hairs were similar.

Thats just it. Have they established fact? From what I saw in the Oj trial, the defense will put up experts with very compelling opinions and much experience and many graphs and pictures. As Barry Scheck was instrumental in showing the Jury that Dna was not meant for inclusion, but was meant for exclusion. He did it with graphs and site on technology and was very very effective. I am sure the defense is going to have one of those type of experts, and we are going to find out how accurate the Fbi can be.

 

[notthatsmart]

Wouldn't they have stated it was destroyed or damaged beyond repair and could not be tested or compared? They were able to yield results. Did you see the article I posted about mitochondrial DNAs use for identifying victims of mass disasters where hair is damaged? Did you see the results of the mtDNA I posted?

Yes I found it very interesting and thank you. I also wanted to add that Caylee was decomposing for those 6 months as well as her hair being exposed to the elements. I do believe you can find some characteristics and compare them to a known sample, for instance a family member. And then you can do dna test to confirm. But here we only have an unknown hair. I have read the dna reports on q12 and have not seen where the dna matches q56 Caylee's hair. MOO

I think by saying its an unknown suitable hair sample, they are stating it is destroyed. Moo

 

[mitzi]

Oye! NTS, you're giving me a headache!

 

[joypath]

Please let me share some experiences with mtDNA: more recent than the OJ case, the 911 identifications were conducted using both types of DNA, believe me, we did NOT have "textbook" pretty samples to work from and with and with YET we were able to give families some sense of dignity! And then there was this tiny little water situation in New Orleans where the DMORT team kept busy getting the deceased back to as many families as possible, including those souls who had pass many many years prior to Katrina's visit! Neither of these experiences were vacations for the forensic specialists but we gave it our ALL~

What am I attempting to achieve here: Just that the criteria utilized BEFORE the scientist sticks out his or her professional neck and establishes an identity is reviewed by one's peers, is assesed by standards, it meets minimum protocols and guidelines and for heaven's sake, each of us recognizes that we are dealing with the fragile emotional lives of FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS!

 

[RR0004]

Yes I found it very interesting and thank you. I also wanted to add that Caylee was decomposing for those 6 months as well as her hair being exposed to the elements. I do believe you can find some characteristics and compare them to a known sample, for instance a family member. And then you can do dna test to confirm. But here we only have an unknown hair. I have read the dna reports on q12 and have not seen where the dna matches q56 Caylee's hair. MOO

I think by saying its an unknown suitable hair sample, they are stating it is destroyed. Moo

Since when does 1 + 1 not = 2?

I concur with Mitzi...time for some Advil! LOL

 

[cyberborg]

It is my interpretation that the hair sample was known, but it was not suitable due to the 6months in the elements. Therefore not a suitable known hair sample. I know its a technicality, but I believe it will be challenged fiercly in court. The common characteristics would be destroyed by the elements. I am currently looking for that document that I have seen that explains the deterieration of head hair after death when exposed to rain, wind and sun. There may be a few characteristics left, but they determined that is was not a suitable known hair sample. They are comparing an unsuitable known hair sample to an unknown hair. I don't think that will fly in front of a jury listening to experts from both sides in an equal environment. MOO

BBM.

"Hair can provide crime investigators with important clues. Apart from burning, hair is virtually indestructible. It remains identifiable even on bodies in an advanced state of decomposition or attached to objects after a crime has been committed."

http://www.policensw.com/info/forensic/forensic7a.html

 

[RR0004]

CAVEAT:this is from memory: IIRC, the hairbrush submitted was a mixed sample shared brush, therefore would have hairs that were mircoscopically similar BUT the suitability as a prestine exemplar was not acceptable beyond that statement AT THAT TIME.


In the vernacular: "DARN, this hair looks like some on this brush but WTH? the GRANDMOTHER told us it was te victim's personal brush! HOW THE HECK did these weird, strange,unusual, differing, morphologically differing strands get onto the EXCLUSIVE BRUSH OF THE VICTIM per the good and sainted word of the granny?"

Yes Boys and Girls, GMOTY's sneaky trick of LYING about the hairbrush was going to be well-known, and while not an "obstruction of justice" it's a darn good thing she DIDN't go with her thought of giving up the CANINE toothbrush 'cause THAT sure would have been hard to explain as an "oops-see"

joypath...it's like you've been dropped from Heaven above. What a gift!

And you make me laugh. Now that's always a good thing.

 

[Trapshooter]

Please let me share some experiences with mtDNA: more recent than the OJ case, the 911 identifications were conducted using both types of DNA, believe me, we did NOT have "textbook" pretty samples to work from and with and with YET we were able to give families some sense of dignity! And then there was this tiny little water situation in New Orleans where the DMORT team kept busy getting the deceased back to as many families as possible, including those souls who had pass many many years prior to Katrina's visit! Neither of these experiences were vacations for the forensic specialists but we gave it our ALL~

What am I attempting to achieve here: Just that the criteria utilized BEFORE the scientist sticks out his or her professional neck and establishes an identity is reviewed by one's peers, is assesed by standards, it meets minimum protocols and guidelines and for heaven's sake, each of us recognizes that we are dealing with the fragile emotional lives of FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS!

joypath I am sure there are hundreds of families out there that thank you for bringing their loved ones back home after Katrina. I do not envy your job but I do respect your opinion!

Joypath, with respect, could you answer this question.....regarding the souls who had passed many years prior to Katrina, did they still have hair on their head? Thanks!

 

[babiesstolemydingo]

joypath...it's like you've been dropped from Heaven above. What a gift!

And you make me laugh. Now that's always a good thing.

Get out of my head! I was just thinking the exact same thing.

Joypath ... thanks for your great posts:Banane12:

 

[justthinkin]

3 hours of mtDNA discussion=bored jury

1 photo of Casey Anthony dirty dancing with another female after Caylee's disappearance=jury ready to convict.

 

[RR0004]

Okay, I can accept that. If the Fbi wants to change defintions of words, that is their perrogative. I wish they wouldn't do that though. I hope they explain to the Jury, because the Jury will probably interpret it wrong knowing the real definition.

Incidentally, I have not seen the Fbi use the words "same as" in these documents. Moo

Nope...have to disagree...I think the jury will understand perfectly.

 

[RR0004]

Oye! NTS, you're giving me a headache!

Geesh...do I know how to clear a room or what?!

 

[cyberborg]

Thats just it. Have they established fact? From what I saw in the Oj trial, the defense will put up experts with very compelling opinions and much experience and many graphs and pictures. As Barry Scheck was instrumental in showing the Jury that Dna was not meant for inclusion, but was meant for exclusion. He did it with graphs and site on technology and was very very effective. I am sure the defense is going to have one of those type of experts, and we are going to find out how accurate the Fbi can be.

Show me the money, i.e. experts focused on this.

Based on that recent motion the Defense have not been near the forensics evidence and yet have spent 36 hours at the prison working on DP mitigation.

I personally don't see a Scheck appearing to fight the losing battle of forensics when the focus is on SODDI with some role by KC and penalty mitigation.

I don't see an OJ moment -- we shall see eh?

 

[sleutherontheside]

Thats just it. Have they established fact? From what I saw in the Oj trial, the defense will put up experts with very compelling opinions and much experience and many graphs and pictures. As Barry Scheck was instrumental in showing the Jury that Dna was not meant for inclusion, but was meant for exclusion. He did it with graphs and site on technology and was very very effective. I am sure the defense is going to have one of those type of experts, and we are going to find out how accurate the Fbi can be.

I'd like to mention that after listening to Andrea Lyons and her discussions about jury members (killers in her words) and juries as a whole (they are stupid), that she recognizes that jurors get bored with charts and graphs.....and that she favors "just taliking " to them. Expect to see that in mitigation.....she's not relating to them......she's working acording to her plan. So....IMO after listening to her 3 + hours of lecture....this is NOT how she works....additionally LKB will be there to attempt to discredit or disprove any forensic findings based upon technicalities not charts and evidence. That....BTW....is one of the reasons she asked for a copy of the Standards and Procedures for the FBI and Body farm labs that conducted testing. THe defense (in this case) has nothing to present in the way of evidence because they have done nothing in that arena thus far other than make note of points to discredit. I would ask that if anyone is going to make blanket statements about what the defense is going to do....they research defense team members methods and protocol as it may just contradict what is posted.

 

[Trapshooter]

Okay, I can accept that. If the Fbi wants to change defintions of words, that is their perrogative. I wish they wouldn't do that though. I hope they explain to the Jury, because the Jury will probably interpret it wrong knowing the real definition.

Incidentally, I have not seen the Fbi use the words "same as" in these documents. Moo

Okay here's where the intelligence of the jury is insulted. Saying that the FBI has the "prerogative" to change the definitions of words is insulting to me and to the jury. Saying that the jury will "probably interpret it wrong" is another slam against the jury. Wasn't it AL herself that said insulting a jury's intelligence is turning them against you (defense)?

I don't think the jury will interpret a thing wrong, in fact, I am sure that the jury knows the definition of "similar" and "same". :banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[Just Jayla]

Biggest problem with all of our back and forth on this is that we have no idea what the FBI or the state still have not released-Doesn't mean we can't speculate anyway based on what we have, but there are things that we know for a fact have not been released but are in the state's possession (maggot studies, follow-up on Victoria Aleman, "ID" pulled from KC's wallet), and all of the DNA stuff could be amongst it as well-Seems they are saving the tastiest bits for last, maybe DNA, more hairs, fingerprints, too.

 

[Marina2]

Thank you.. you had said page 50 in the other post... I appreciate you finding it for me.... 1405 pages is alot to look through...


The date on that testing was December 19, 2008 (page 593). Caylee's remains had just been found 8 days before on December 11th. As AZlawyer noted they probably had not run the DNA testing on the tibia yet or did not have results. Therefore, they referred to it as not constituting a suitable head hair sample because they did not know who the remain's belonged to. I am assuming though... I do not know the date the tibia was tested off the top of my head. HTH

I'm not so sure that is the reason they used that term. A report dated June 25th, 2009 contains the same statement in reference to the Q59 hair mass.

Handwritten page number 9587:

http://www.wftv.com/download/2009/1009/21252103.pdf

 

[Harmony 2]

I'm not so sure that is the reason they used that term. A report dated June 25th, 2009 contains the same statement in reference to the Q59 hair mass.

Handwritten page number 9587:

http://www.wftv.com/download/2009/1009/21252103.pdf

This defines "suitable known hair sample" on page 308.

http://books.google.com/books?id=xg...=onepage&q=suitable known hair sample&f=false

It is copyrighted material otherwise I would screen print.

 

[noonie]

Too bad Cindy wasn't honest enough to give LE Caylee's true hairbrush in the first place. That could have helped get to the bottom of the truth here HUH?