Evidence for "Dead body in the Damn Car"

[Muzikman]

After reading the last few pages of this thread, it seem to me that some of this info by several posters about the trunk hair and hair mass should be put together and put in the Myth busters thread - Harmony2, that one long post of yours was awesome, with links and everything.

The FBI standards definitions is also good info.

This seems like a topic that raises it's head every so often, and having it all collected and easily accessible in the Myth Busters sticky thread would be extremely helpful in the future.

My 2 cents anyway...

 

[Marina2]

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.

From the link you provided:

Fundamentals of Forensic Science by Max M. Houck and Jay A. Siegel

"A known hair sample consists of anywhere between 50 and 100 hairs from all portions of the area of interest, typically the head/scalp or pubic area. The hairs must be combed and pulled to collect both telogen and anagen hairs. A known sample must be representative of the collection area to be suitable for comparison purposes. Braids, artificial treatment, graying--all must be noted and collected for a suitable known sample."

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


A suitable known sample is between 50 and 100 hairs and has been both combed and pulled to collect telogen and anagen hairs. Per this definition, I suspect that the Q59 hair is not suitable because they were not able to both comb hairs out and pull them out of her scalp to get samples of anagen (growing) hairs and telogen (dormant) hair. That helps me to understand why they still call it "unsuitable" even though it is a known sample. It does not negate the fact that no differences were found in the trunk hair and the hair found with Caylee.

 

[Tuffy]

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

I don't think the jury will have a problem interpreting the results or understanding the expert testimony on this. Most people have found these results to be pretty clear.

 

[joypath]

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

NAH, it was the hour for we east coasters!:angel:

 

[joypath]

I don't think the jury will have a problem interpreting the results or understanding the expert testimony on this. Most people have found these results to be pretty clear.

Tuffy: it has been my experience: and darn, that's all I have to go on!.....that the DELIVERY and PRESENTATION of logical, rational documented FACTS can be understood by many if not most UNLESS they're on a mission to obfuscate!



LOVE that word! from the Latin (bless those NUNS!), to be unclear,evasive,confusing,or in "anthony speak", a mistruth

 

[joypath]

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!

Short answer: many retain hair in close proximity to their body parts vs "on their heads" as we mortals might comprehend hair attachment per se. More specific answers become deeper and more graphic as one might imagine, be advised that the decomposition time for bone is significantly longer than that of soft tissue so DNA recovery within the marrow assisted in identification also. On a lighter note: God bless polyester from the swinging 60's-70's! and platform shoes!

 

[LambChop]

Tuffy: it has been my experience: and darn, that's all I have to go on!.....that the DELIVERY and PRESENTATION of logical, rational documented FACTS can be understood by many if not most UNLESS they're on a mission to obfuscate!



LOVE that word! from the Latin (bless those NUNS!), to be unclear,evasive,confusing,or in "anthony speak", a mistruth

Absolutely. I'm coming up on jury duty in the near future here at home. Chances are the jury will not see the report but listen to the FBI expert explain in layman's terms the connection to the two. My guess is SA will ask what percent of accuracy rate. If they can get DNA from very small remains from 911 and identify people that will impress a jury as who has not been touched by 911. The death hair came from either Mom or Caylee. Not hard for a jury to figure out. To argue whether it was suitable or not when it was on the child's head will only bring negative responses from the jury. Afterall look at the responses we are getting here. We are all potential jurors, are we not??

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

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), 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.

In regards to the evidence that we know of, we can argue definitions, semantics, things that are apparent, things that could be, things that are possible, and things that are the same as, until we are all blue in the face, there is one simple unquestionable fact that remains, we have not seen all the evidence.
Since we have not seen all the evidence, it is impossible to formulate a JUST opinion. Just meaning guided by truth, reason, justice and fairness.
Although it is interesting to speculate about the evidence we know of in regards to the trunk, and for that matter all the evidence we know of, it really is impossible to form a just opinion without seeing all the evidence that will be presented at trial. The poll at the top of the page is an interesting gauge as to what we are thinking with the evidence we have available.
It is possible that when we see the evidence we have not seen, this evidence will confirm what the majority now believes is true, but in all fairness, it is also possible that this evidence may negate what the majority now believes is true. We cannot arrive at the truth of the matter without all the evidence. So it stands to reason, at this point we simply cannot say with any real certainty that there was a dead body in the dam trunk, or that KC committed premeditated murder. We can speculate, which everyone who voted in the poll has done, but without all the evidence, it is purely speculation.
My point is, we need a new doc dump, because it seems both sides have debated the evidence we know of, and made their points from both sides, to a point where we are now debating whether or not when a tree falling in the forest makes a crashing sound if no one is there to hear it. Everything in the above post is my opinion only.

 

[RR0004]

In regards to the evidence that we know of, we can argue definitions, semantics, things that are apparent, things that could be, things that are possible, and things that are the same as, until we are all blue in the face, there is one simple unquestionable fact that remains, we have not seen all the evidence.
Since we have not seen all the evidence, it is impossible to formulate a JUST opinion. Just meaning guided by truth, reason, justice and fairness.
Although it is interesting to speculate about the evidence we know of in regards to the trunk, and for that matter all the evidence we know of, it really is impossible to form a just opinion without seeing all the evidence that will be presented at trial. The poll at the top of the page is an interesting gauge as to what we are thinking with the evidence we have available.
It is possible that when we see the evidence we have not seen, this evidence will confirm what the majority now believes is true, but in all fairness, it is also possible that this evidence may negate what the majority now believes is true. We cannot arrive at the truth of the matter without all the evidence. So it stands to reason, at this point we simply cannot say with any real certainty that there was a dead body in the dam trunk, or that KC committed premeditated murder. We can speculate, which everyone who voted in the poll has done, but without all the evidence, it is purely speculation.
My point is, we need a new doc dump, because it seems both sides have debated the evidence we know of, and made their points from both sides, to a point where we are now debating whether or not when a tree falling in the forest makes a crashing sound if no one is there to hear it. Everything in the above post is my opinion only.

Yes...I would definitely like to see the defense's explanations of the evidence as put forth by their experts.

 

[cyberborg]

In regards to the evidence that we know of, we can argue definitions, semantics, things that are apparent, things that could be, things that are possible, and things that are the same as, until we are all blue in the face, there is one simple unquestionable fact that remains, we have not seen all the evidence.
Since we have not seen all the evidence, it is impossible to formulate a JUST opinion. Just meaning guided by truth, reason, justice and fairness.
Although it is interesting to speculate about the evidence we know of in regards to the trunk, and for that matter all the evidence we know of, it really is impossible to form a just opinion without seeing all the evidence that will be presented at trial. The poll at the top of the page is an interesting gauge as to what we are thinking with the evidence we have available.
It is possible that when we see the evidence we have not seen, this evidence will confirm what the majority now believes is true, but in all fairness, it is also possible that this evidence may negate what the majority now believes is true. We cannot arrive at the truth of the matter without all the evidence. So it stands to reason, at this point we simply cannot say with any real certainty that there was a dead body in the dam trunk, or that KC committed premeditated murder. We can speculate, which everyone who voted in the poll has done, but without all the evidence, it is purely speculation.
My point is, we need a new doc dump, because it seems both sides have debated the evidence we know of, and made their points from both sides, to a point where we are now debating whether or not when a tree falling in the forest makes a crashing sound if no one is there to hear it. Everything in the above post is my opinion only.

Very true, although there has been assertion and speculation that the Defense will mount a fierce Schecter-like cross-examination of this evidence currently in play since it is interpreted by some as not reasonable enough in of itself.

I think we have presented our arguments though and agreed to disagree. Anything new will always need to be reviewed in context and can always tip the balance either way or maintain the status quo.

I personally don't see any evidence of the Defense taking this on and doubt they will fight this specific battle given other reinforcing statements and indicators which, if lost could do more harm than good .... towards conceding the murder details but focusing on someone else with KC peripherally involved. IMHO.

 

[LambChop]

We don't have to say it, LE said it, GA said it, CA said it, SB said it about the trunk of the car and since would be considered experts, they certainly would know that smell. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but given the poll I would say an overwhelming majority believes that Caylee was, in fact, in the trunk of KC's car after her death. Mom has Caylee, Caylee goes missing, Mom cannot provide any reliable information as to how Caylee's remains ended up in the ditch. Gravewax on the papertowel...not looking good. If there were no body in the trunk then why would KC abandon her car.

I think, too, the reason we may not have seen Dr. Lee is that he cannot deny what he could smell without sounding incompetent. If he does no future examination there is no need to comment.

Nothing in this case is about one specific thing but this is very damning and if they bring the jury to the car...it's all over. JMO

Also, it is up to the SA to prove their case against KC and so far I think they have done a very thorough job.

 

[marspiter]

Question?

In order for the defense to refute the evidence found in the trunk wouldn't they need to have their experts do a through inspection of the evidence? I guess they are just gonna stand back and try to blast holes in the prosecutions work with out really looking at the evidence themselves.

To me it never really sounded like Henry Lee did a very good inspection of the evidence and he is on media record claiming things were present that weren't actually there. Like the meat and other food items.

I know that has been talked about on here, but I think this discussion about the car will come back again once the defense releases their witness list. It would certainly be interesting if Dr. Lee isn't on the list.

 

[LambChop]

Obviously there is NOTHING wrong with Dr. Lee's nose!

 

[BeanE]

In regards to the evidence that we know of, we can argue definitions, semantics, things that are apparent, things that could be, things that are possible, and things that are the same as, until we are all blue in the face, there is one simple unquestionable fact that remains, we have not seen all the evidence.
Since we have not seen all the evidence, it is impossible to formulate a JUST opinion. Just meaning guided by truth, reason, justice and fairness.
Although it is interesting to speculate about the evidence we know of in regards to the trunk, and for that matter all the evidence we know of, it really is impossible to form a just opinion without seeing all the evidence that will be presented at trial. The poll at the top of the page is an interesting gauge as to what we are thinking with the evidence we have available.
It is possible that when we see the evidence we have not seen, this evidence will confirm what the majority now believes is true, but in all fairness, it is also possible that this evidence may negate what the majority now believes is true. We cannot arrive at the truth of the matter without all the evidence. So it stands to reason, at this point we simply cannot say with any real certainty that there was a dead body in the dam trunk, or that KC committed premeditated murder. We can speculate, which everyone who voted in the poll has done, but without all the evidence, it is purely speculation.
My point is, we need a new doc dump, because it seems both sides have debated the evidence we know of, and made their points from both sides, to a point where we are now debating whether or not when a tree falling in the forest makes a crashing sound if no one is there to hear it. Everything in the above post is my opinion only.

Excellent post, TDA. Thank you.

Let me please add that what we have is discovery, and discovery includes all information from the investigation of the case. It includes both inculpatory and exculpatory information, and includes information that will not be introduced as evidence. We won't know until the trial which specific pieces of information the SA will choose to introduce as evidence. Really, we shouldn't even call it evidence as this point, because it's not - it's simply information.

I'd also add that the defense has the option, and may choose, to not put on any defense. I doubt they'll go that route, but since your post attempts to clarify now vs then (trial), I thought I'd throw that in.

We could see all the information in discovery introduced by the SA, only some of it, or none of it at all (which I doubt, but could be). And then the defense may choose to say nothing in response (I doubt, but could be).

Meanwhile, to have intelligent conversation here, we make assumptions about which info the SA will introduce as evidence, and about what the defense will do. And we should all keep that in mind always - we express our opinions here based on the information available, and based on our assumptions.

We each must decide for ourselves which assumptions of our own and others are reasonable.

We each must decide for ourselves which opinions of our own and others are just, as well. And we sure run the gamut on that, from Casey is innocent to Kronk is guilty. Whether we are being just to others in our opinions, and in our expressions of our opinions, is something each of us certainly has to reconcile in our own heart, in our own soul, in our own conscience.

Thank you again for your post, TDA.

:cow:

 

[LambChop]

Opposing viewpoints, opinions, speculation, etc. make us think about the discovery that has been released to date. With opposing views it is always a challenge to make us consider what we have read in the doc dumps and to further examine other referenced materials to solve the mystery. As one poster said it is a giant puzzle and we are trying to find all the pieces. Thanks to all the experts who give us their time, joypath, azlawyer, tuba and the many others along with the victums of crime who have shared their personal stories with us it helps most of us feel we are doing something constructive not just sitting watching NG every evening for a scrap of news which is probably less than correct.

It's a process just like anything else and to some when the trial is over they will get some closure for the loss they feel for this prescious child we have all grown to love. JMO

 

[Just Jayla]

In regards to the evidence that we know of, we can argue definitions, semantics, things that are apparent, things that could be, things that are possible, and things that are the same as, until we are all blue in the face, there is one simple unquestionable fact that remains, we have not seen all the evidence.
Since we have not seen all the evidence, it is impossible to formulate a JUST opinion. Just meaning guided by truth, reason, justice and fairness.
Although it is interesting to speculate about the evidence we know of in regards to the trunk, and for that matter all the evidence we know of, it really is impossible to form a just opinion without seeing all the evidence that will be presented at trial. The poll at the top of the page is an interesting gauge as to what we are thinking with the evidence we have available.
It is possible that when we see the evidence we have not seen, this evidence will confirm what the majority now believes is true, but in all fairness, it is also possible that this evidence may negate what the majority now believes is true. We cannot arrive at the truth of the matter without all the evidence. So it stands to reason, at this point we simply cannot say with any real certainty that there was a dead body in the dam trunk, or that KC committed premeditated murder. We can speculate, which everyone who voted in the poll has done, but without all the evidence, it is purely speculation.
My point is, we need a new doc dump, because it seems both sides have debated the evidence we know of, and made their points from both sides, to a point where we are now debating whether or not when a tree falling in the forest makes a crashing sound if no one is there to hear it. Everything in the above post is my opinion only.

BBM-Amen to that!

 

[Horace Finklestein]

In regards to the evidence that we know of, we can argue definitions, semantics, things that are apparent, things that could be, things that are possible, and things that are the same as, until we are all blue in the face, there is one simple unquestionable fact that remains, we have not seen all the evidence.
Since we have not seen all the evidence, it is impossible to formulate a JUST opinion. Just meaning guided by truth, reason, justice and fairness.
Although it is interesting to speculate about the evidence we know of in regards to the trunk, and for that matter all the evidence we know of, it really is impossible to form a just opinion without seeing all the evidence that will be presented at trial. The poll at the top of the page is an interesting gauge as to what we are thinking with the evidence we have available.
It is possible that when we see the evidence we have not seen, this evidence will confirm what the majority now believes is true, but in all fairness, it is also possible that this evidence may negate what the majority now believes is true. We cannot arrive at the truth of the matter without all the evidence. So it stands to reason, at this point we simply cannot say with any real certainty that there was a dead body in the dam trunk, or that KC committed premeditated murder. We can speculate, which everyone who voted in the poll has done, but without all the evidence, it is purely speculation.
My point is, we need a new doc dump, because it seems both sides have debated the evidence we know of, and made their points from both sides, to a point where we are now debating whether or not when a tree falling in the forest makes a crashing sound if no one is there to hear it. Everything in the above post is my opinion only.

Since when do we need to see all the evidence to arrive at the truth? We may not know the particulars, but I think we know enough. Unless Casey is the victim of more coincidences and amazing circumstances beyond the imagination of Hollywood itself, it's a foregone conclusion that Casey is guilty.

 

[notthatsmart]

Question?

In order for the defense to refute the evidence found in the trunk wouldn't they need to have their experts do a through inspection of the evidence? I guess they are just gonna stand back and try to blast holes in the prosecutions work with out really looking at the evidence themselves.

To me it never really sounded like Henry Lee did a very good inspection of the evidence and he is on media record claiming things were present that weren't actually there. Like the meat and other food items.

I know that has been talked about on here, but I think this discussion about the car will come back again once the defense releases their witness list. It would certainly be interesting if Dr. Lee isn't on the list.

I do not believe any facts have been established to refute. There may be some kind of evidence hearings to determine what is allowed into trial. At that point they may refute and come back to examine.

I don't see any indication he has left the defense. Like you said, he has been out on the circuit. I believe he was there for the photo op at the dump site as well. I am still looking to see if he was an observer in the defense teams autopsy. In Dr Lees world, everything is microscopically small. If he can see tiny little pieces of cheese or ham or leftover drink in a soda can, that is a huge amount of food evidence to him. I don't see him lieing on the circuit.

Can you give an example of evidence that they should inspect?

As always Moo

 

[RR0004]

I do not believe any facts have been established to refute. There may be some kind of evidence hearings to determine what is allowed into trial. At that point they may refute and come back to examine.

I don't see any indication he has left the defense. Like you said, he has been out on the circuit. I believe he was there for the photo op at the dump site as well. I am still looking to see if he was an observer in the defense teams autopsy. In Dr Lees world, everything is microscopically small. If he can see tiny little pieces of cheese or ham or leftover drink in a soda can, that is a huge amount of food evidence to him. I don't see him lieing on the circuit.

Can you give an example of evidence that they should inspect?

As always Moo

NTS...I'm sure Dr. Lee or any expert in this situation knows what to inspect. I do forsee the defense trying to pull every trick out of the book to try to save their client. The State will be ready.

 

[JWG]

Lee's inspection was cursory and sloppy. He claimed to have found a hair or two in an item that OCSO had not yet inspected. After Lee left, OCSO went back and inspected the item and found over a dozen additional hairs.

Is Lee really that bad?

The item: the Pontiac trash bag. When: Before Caylee's remains were located.

Lee also mentioned on Nancy Grace a piece of meat, or even ham, was found (or implied he had found) upon his inspection.

Yet there is no such mention in any record from either side. IMO Lee was speculating at best, acting sloppy at worst.

At the end of the day, I believe both Lee (and Koby) told the defense that KC was screwed. Their work was done.

Similarly with the anthropology "expert" they consulted with. I do not recall her name but I do recall her saying that she would render an unbiased opinion for the defense. Then we never heard from the dear lady again.

All of the above need to be able to survive cross-examination. It appears right now none can.

I do not believe any facts have been established to refute. There may be some kind of evidence hearings to determine what is allowed into trial. At that point they may refute and come back to examine.

I don't see any indication he has left the defense. Like you said, he has been out on the circuit. I believe he was there for the photo op at the dump site as well. I am still looking to see if he was an observer in the defense teams autopsy. In Dr Lees world, everything is microscopically small. If he can see tiny little pieces of cheese or ham or leftover drink in a soda can, that is a huge amount of food evidence to him. I don't see him lieing on the circuit.

Can you give an example of evidence that they should inspect?

As always Moo