Fiber Analysis

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

So far we don't seem to be much further ahead, depite an interesting topic and some good minds. We already knew there were no trunk fibers found on the body, but that merely supports what we assumed anyway, that the body was 'bagged' before it was placed in the trunk..(at least it helps allay the horrible idea of little Caylee being placed in the trunk alive..thank God...but then I don't think many of us thought that anyway)

I can't think of anyway to 'trace' the fibers to their source, even forensics with all their tools will have a tough time doing that, although I am hoping some of those fibers match something like the cover on KC's bed, or the rug on her bedroom floor.

I have to come back to my original thought of 'Why so many fibers? and why so many different types of fibers? Especially in her hair?' Could it be her body was placed somewhere, for a time, in a place there were a lot of fibers? like beside the outside vent of the dryer? or perhaps on a shelf over the dryer? Seems unlikely, but some such a place..and at that point I am stuck
 
snow_walker said:
So far we don't seem to be much further ahead, depite an interesting topic and some good minds. We already knew there were no trunk fibers found on the body, but that merely supports what we assumed anyway, that the body was 'bagged' before it was placed in the trunk..(at least it helps allay the horrible idea of little Caylee being placed in the trunk alive..thank God...but then I don't think many of us thought that anyway)

I can't think of anyway to 'trace' the fibers to their source, even forensics with all their tools will have a tough time doing that, although I am hoping some of those fibers match something like the cover on KC's bed, or the rug on her bedroom floor.

I have to come back to my original thought of 'Why so many fibers? and why so many different types of fibers? Especially in her hair?' Could it be her body was placed somewhere, for a time, in a place there were a lot of fibers? like beside the outside vent of the dryer? or perhaps on a shelf over the dryer? Seems unlikely, but some such a place..and at that point I am stuck
Click to expand...

BBM

Some fibers may have already been on the tape before it was applied to Caylee. That still doesn't account for all the fibers in her hair. I was just looking at pictures of Caylee's room. Caylee's crib has a dust ruffle on the bottom. I wonder if her body could have been placed under her crib for a time, and her hair pick up fibers there.

I suppose her hair could have picked up fibers if placed on a rug, but I have a feeling Cindy vacuums a lot, so I don't know how many fibers that would account for.

If Caylee were lain on a rug, or possibly on KC's bed with that blue blanket on it, prior to death, and struggled while being taped, tossing her head side to side, that may be how her hair picked up so many fibers. May also be how the tape picked up some fibers. Not scientific - just thinkin'.

O/T - in looking at the pics of Caylee's room, and KC's room, I was struck by how many pics there are of Caylee as a younger baby, alone in the pics, and how few there are of KC with Caylee, and how few of Caylee when she was older. I never noticed this before. My immediate thought was that KC lost interest in Caylee after about her first year.

Back on topic - I was also struck by how very many items there are in both Caylee's and KC's rooms with blue fibers.

After reading about forensic fiber analysis yesterday until my eyeballs gave out, I too wonder how much we'll be able to learn. I hope the new 2,000 page doc dump might give us some more information and test results.
 
O/T - Jolyanna, I have to thank you. My eyes aren't so good, and you going through the pictures and pointing out different things has been very helpful to me, in this thread as well as others. Just had to take a quick second to say thanks!

:blowkiss:
 
BeanE said:
BBM

Some fibers may have already been on the tape before it was applied to Caylee. That still doesn't account for all the fibers in her hair. I was just looking at pictures of Caylee's room. Caylee's crib has a dust ruffle on the bottom. I wonder if her body could have been placed under her crib for a time, and her hair pick up fibers there.

I suppose her hair could have picked up fibers if placed on a rug, but I have a feeling Cindy vacuums a lot, so I don't know how many fibers that would account for.

If Caylee were lain on a rug, or possibly on KC's bed with that blue blanket on it, prior to death, and struggled while being taped, tossing her head side to side, that may be how her hair picked up so many fibers. May also be how the tape picked up some fibers. Not scientific - just thinkin'.

O/T - in looking at the pics of Caylee's room, and KC's room, I was struck by how many pics there are of Caylee as a younger baby, alone in the pics, and how few there are of KC with Caylee, and how few of Caylee when she was older. I never noticed this before. My immediate thought was that KC lost interest in Caylee after about her first year.

Back on topic - I was also struck by how very many items there are in both Caylee's and KC's rooms with blue fibers.

After reading about forensic fiber analysis yesterday until my eyeballs gave out, I too wonder how much we'll be able to learn. I hope the new 2,000 page doc dump might give us some more information and test results.
Click to expand...

BBM

Me too.

I've always thought KC controlled Caylee by sitting on her and holding Caylee's arms down with her (KC's) legs. It could have happened on either the bed or floor and would have explained fibers in Caylee's hair. The only way Caylee could have struggled back would have been to toss her head and legs...but to no avail. KC's hands would have been free to tape.
 
Wudge said:
"If" Caylee's body was inside a lined laundry bag that was sealed inside a series of black plastic bags, the odds of finding fibers from that car trunk on the black plastic bags would be extremely low to zero. However, "if" is not evidence. And I know of no clear and unyielding evidence that places Caylee inside the trunk.

FWIW
Click to expand...

BBM

Exactly.

But if Caylee were lying on a floor or bed, held down, and struggling for her life, there would be fibers from where she lay in her hair. It would take a few minutes to put all 3 strips of tape over Caylee's face, and if Caylee wasn't drugged, she'd struggle (and get fibers in her hair). Fibers like from KC's blue blanket pictured on her bed or from the carpeting on KC's floor. http://www.wftv.com/slideshow/news/18740442/detail.html (picture 3)
 
KenoshaKid said:
A hair from her decomposing scalp?
Click to expand...

As best I know, the single hair recovered from the trunk is not certified to be Caylee's hai,r nor is the alleged death band on that hair certified to be such. Moreover, if it was Caylee's hair, it obviously could have gotten there by numerous other transfer means. Furthermore, if a hair could get out of a laundry bag that was wrapped in serial black plastic bags, then trunk fibers could have gotten inside the black plastic bags. But there is no such fiber evidence, and that works strongly for the defense. Because all alleged circumstances are but speculation, and jurors are foreclosed from speculating.
 
Wudge said:
As best I know, the single hair recovered from the trunk is not certified to be Caylee's hai,r nor is the alleged death band on that hair certified to be such. Moreover, if it was Caylee's hair, it obviously could have gotten there by numerous other transfer means. Furthermore, if a hair could get out of a laundry bag that was wrapped in serial black plastic bags, then trunk fibers could have gotten inside the black plastic bags. But there is no such fiber evidence, and that works strongly for the defense. Because all alleged circumstances are but speculation, and jurors are foreclosed from speculating.
Click to expand...

IIRC, the hair with the alleged "death band" was narrowed down to coming from a female Anthony.

I'm guessing that the reason there was only one hair with the "death" band is because of the bagging. The stain, adipocere-like substance wiped onto napkins and car smell suggest leaking. Maybe multiple bags came after a tear in bag 1.

The fibers in Caylee's hair just might match fibers from the Anthony's vacuum cleaners and KC's floor carpet (or blue blanket). Which would be another link in the evidence chain.

jmo
 
doogiesgirl said:
What do you tell yourself about "EVERYONE" smelling death in that car? And what about the dog hits? I am not being sarcastic I am truly asking. MOO
Click to expand...


Who is the death scent expert that allegedly smelled death inside the car trunk? And is a bowser going to take the stand and testify that their nose smelled Caylee's death scent?

Death scents are generic. Death scents not unique to an individual. Moreover, a multitude of chemicals cause cadaver dogs to give false positives. In my book, dog evidence is right at the top of the junk science list. Moreover, dogs can't be cross examined. It's double bubble, toil and trouble, cauldron burn, cauldron bubble malarkey.

If you want to reliably place a dead Caylee in the trunk of the car so as to build a reliable premise upon which you could then infer in a highly reliable way, look for physical evidence. A finding of trunk fibers from Casey's car on the laundry bag would be an example of such evidence.
 
Jolynna said:
IIRC, the hair with the alleged "death band" was narrowed down to coming from a female Anthony.

I'm guessing that the reason there was only one hair with the "death" band is because of the bagging. The stain, adipocere-like substance wiped onto napkins and car smell suggest leaking. Maybe multiple bags came after a tear in bag 1.

The fibers in Caylee's hair just might match fibers from the Anthony's vacuum cleaners and KC's floor carpet (or blue blanket). Which would be another link in the evidence chain.

jmo
Click to expand...

Thank you. We agree that the single hair recovered from the trunk has not been said (or proven) to be Caylee's hair. And the fiber evidence from the trunk is exculpatory, not inculpatory.

'Guessing' and 'might' do not equate to evidence. Do we know of any inculpatory fiber evidence?
 
Wudge said:
"If" Caylee's body was inside a lined laundry bag that was sealed inside a series of black plastic bags, the odds of finding fibers from that car trunk on the black plastic bags would be extremely low to zero. However, "if" is not evidence. And I know of no clear and unyielding evidence that places Caylee inside the trunk.

FWIW
Click to expand...

BBM

For the sake of clarification, her body was double-bagged, in two (2) black plastic garbage bags and then placed inside the lined, off-white Laundry Bag!
 
reeseeva said:
BBM

For the sake of clarification, her body was double-bagged, in two (2) black plastic garbage bags and then placed inside the lined, off-white Laundry Bag!
Click to expand...

Thank you. I took the original post I responded to as having another order for the bags, but since that order would have favored trunk fibers having not been found, I posted against that order.

Net, given that black plastic bags are very smooth, if a black plastic bag had been the outside bag, that would have better explained the inability of forensic experts to find a single fiber from the trunk.
 
Wudge said:
Who is the death scent expert that allegedly smelled death inside the car trunk? And is a bowser going to take the stand and testify that their nose smelled Caylee's death scent?

Death scents are generic. Death scents not unique to an individual. Moreover, a multitude of chemicals cause cadaver dogs to give false positives. In my book, dog evidence is right at the top of the junk science list. Moreover, dogs can't be cross examined. It's double bubble, toil and trouble, cauldron burn, cauldron bubble malarkey.

If you want to reliably place a dead Caylee in the trunk of the car so as to build a reliable premise upon which you could then infer in a highly reliable way, look for physical evidence. A finding of trunk fibers from Casey's car on the laundry bag would be an example of such evidence.
Click to expand...


In a perfect world there would be "death scent experts", but as far as I know there are no "death scent experts", the closest we come are those who have smelled it and know it and the dogs trained to find it.

I am just curious if you completely disregard the "smell" factor testified by numerous people. Am I understanding you correctly that you completely throw out the "smell" because it cannot be proven scientifically to be the smell of death, and more specifically the death smell of Caylee Marie Anthiony? Is it your opinion that circumstantial evidence and the statements of numerous people regarding that circumstantial evidence should be disregarded by the jury? Do you believe that the jury should never see the tape of KC's father, the retired sheriff's deputy/detective telling LE that he has smelled the smell of dead bodies and it is one you never forget and that he smelled that smell in KC's trunk/car on July 15th when he got w/i 3 feet of it at the tow yard? Should the jury not hear CA's 911 tape saying that KC's car "smells like theres been a dead body in the d@mn car? Or her brother testifying that the smell "hit you like a wave"? Or YM's opinion that the smell he smelled was that of a decomposing body? Or the tow yard worker who said it smelled the same but not quite as strong as the car who's owner had committed suicide in it and had not been found for a week? Or the dogs that hit on her trunk for death? I just want to make sure I am understanding you correctly.

When you say that death scents are not unique are you saying that you think it possible some other dead body besides Caylee could have been in KC's trunk or that it could have been an animal. We know KC wouldn't put a dead animal in her trunk so it would have to be one she ran over or one under the hood. There is no evidence to support a dead animal any where near that car though. No little bits still stuck with a little animal hair stuck to it also. The lab that inspected the car would have found that.

I actually agree with you that the dogs could give a false positive to a death scent and that they cannot be interviewed or cross-examined. It is possible for, even a trained dog to be wrong. However....when the dog's findings are combined with human testimony, I'm inclined to believe the dog got it right in that instant. I mean think about it.....they are dogs, they don't know or care or have any feelings toward KC that would cause bias in their findings.

As far as the laundry bag having trunk carpet fibers on it.....it won't surprise me if it does not. How do we know that KC didn't use another trash bag to set under the laundry bag? Or anything else? LA testified that she is sloppy....so who is to say that she didn't just set that right on top of whatever was already laying there. Or she could have collapsed the blue basket and set it on top of that.......so many possibilities.

It would be a dream come true if all murderers left physical evidence to convict them. But then we wouldn't need trials would we? But we both know that's not always the case. Sometimes one has to put things together for themselves and ask "is this likely" with circumstantial evidence. Or does this make sense, is it reasonable to think this. Just think of how many murderers would be out walking around among us if murderers were only convicted when every piece of the puzzle can be proven with forensics. I know you only want the best evidence presented for Caylee's case so that KC can't walk and I am all for convictions that are based on fact. There are too many innocent people sitting on death rows but I don't think it unjust to deduce certain things based on reason and logic in the absence of "phyical evidence".

Don't think that I am picking at you.....I am not. I think these kind of conversations are very helpful and constructive. Hope you do too. DG

MOO
 
Wudge said:
Thank you. We agree that the single hair recovered from the trunk has not been said (or proven) to be Caylee's hair. And the fiber evidence from the trunk is exculpatory, not inculpatory.

'Guessing' and 'might' do not equate to evidence. Do we know of any inculpatory fiber evidence?
Click to expand...

The hair in trunk (Q 12.1) was from a dead person with the same mitochondrial DNA as Casey Anthony, which runs in the female line of a family. http://blogs.discovery.com/files/18530294.pdf p. 8. As Casey said, "well, I'm alive"...and Lee's alive, and Cindy's alive, and SP (grandma)'s alive...and really the only person who would have that mDNA who is not alive and became not-alive anytime recently is Caylee. But even if we assume that the death band evidence is insufficient to show this hair belonged to Caylee (rather than Casey, Cindy or Lee, for example):

The hair in the trunk (Q12.1) was also microscopically similar to the hair in Caylee's hairbrush. http://www.wftv.com/pdf/18740657/detail.html p. 29

The hair in the trunk (Q12.1) was also microscopically similar to the hair attached to the body found on Suburban (Q59). http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/3743-3801redacted.pdf p. 55.

The Q59 hair also had the same mDNA as Casey. http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/3743-3801redacted.pdf p. 41.

The tibia (Q61) attached to the same body as the Q59 hair contained the same DNA as Caylee's toothbrush (Q18-1) (which is the same DNA profile shown for Caylee in Jesse's paternity test, by the way). http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21147519/detail.html
 
AZlawyer said:
The hair in trunk (Q 12.1) was from a dead person with the same mitochondrial DNA as Casey Anthony, which runs in the female line of a family. http://blogs.discovery.com/files/18530294.pdf p. 8. As Casey said, "well, I'm alive"...and Lee's alive, and Cindy's alive, and SP (grandma)'s alive...and really the only person who would have that mDNA who is not alive and became not-alive anytime recently is Caylee. But even if we assume that the death band evidence is insufficient to show this hair belonged to Caylee (rather than Casey, Cindy or Lee, for example):

The hair in the trunk (Q12.1) was also microscopically similar to the hair in Caylee's hairbrush. http://www.wftv.com/pdf/18740657/detail.html p. 29

The hair in the trunk (Q12.1) was also microscopically similar to the hair attached to the body found on Suburban (Q59). http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/3743-3801redacted.pdf p. 55.

The Q59 hair also had the same mDNA as Casey. http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/3743-3801redacted.pdf p. 41.

The tibia (Q61) attached to the same body as the Q59 hair contained the same DNA as Caylee's toothbrush (Q18-1) (which is the same DNA profile shown for Caylee in Jesse's paternity test, by the way). http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21147519/detail.html
Click to expand...

During Cindy's depo the SA asked about Kc and Cindy coloring their hair.She said they both did.That could also rule them out for the hair that was found.
 
doogiesgirl said:
In a perfect world there would be "death scent experts", but as far as I know there are no "death scent experts", the closest we come are those who have smelled it and know it and the dogs trained to find it.

I am just curious if you completely disregard the "smell" factor testified by numerous people. Am I understanding you correctly that you completely throw out the "smell" because it cannot be proven scientifically to be the smell of death, and more specifically the death smell of Caylee Marie Anthiony? Is it your opinion that circumstantial evidence and the statements of numerous people regarding that circumstantial evidence should be disregarded by the jury? Do you believe that the jury should never see the tape of KC's father, the retired sheriff's deputy/detective telling LE that he has smelled the smell of dead bodies and it is one you never forget and that he smelled that smell in KC's trunk/car on July 15th when he got w/i 3 feet of it at the tow yard? Should the jury not hear CA's 911 tape saying that KC's car "smells like theres been a dead body in the d@mn car? Or her brother testifying that the smell "hit you like a wave"? Or YM's opinion that the smell he smelled was that of a decomposing body? Or the tow yard worker who said it smelled the same but not quite as strong as the car who's owner had committed suicide in it and had not been found for a week? Or the dogs that hit on her trunk for death? I just want to make sure I am understanding you correctly.

When you say that death scents are not unique are you saying that you think it possible some other dead body besides Caylee could have been in KC's trunk or that it could have been an animal. We know KC wouldn't put a dead animal in her trunk so it would have to be one she ran over or one under the hood. There is no evidence to support a dead animal any where near that car though. No little bits still stuck with a little animal hair stuck to it also. The lab that inspected the car would have found that.

I actually agree with you that the dogs could give a false positive to a death scent and that they cannot be interviewed or cross-examined. It is possible for, even a trained dog to be wrong. However....when the dog's findings are combined with human testimony, I'm inclined to believe the dog got it right in that instant. I mean think about it.....they are dogs, they don't know or care or have any feelings toward KC that would cause bias in their findings.

As far as the laundry bag having trunk carpet fibers on it.....it won't surprise me if it does not. How do we know that KC didn't use another trash bag to set under the laundry bag? Or anything else? LA testified that she is sloppy....so who is to say that she didn't just set that right on top of whatever was already laying there. Or she could have collapsed the blue basket and set it on top of that.......so many possibilities.

It would be a dream come true if all murderers left physical evidence to convict them. But then we wouldn't need trials would we? But we both know that's not always the case. Sometimes one has to put things together for themselves and ask "is this likely" with circumstantial evidence. Or does this make sense, is it reasonable to think this. Just think of how many murderers would be out walking around among us if murderers were only convicted when every piece of the puzzle can be proven with forensics. I know you only want the best evidence presented for Caylee's case so that KC can't walk and I am all for convictions that are based on fact. There are too many innocent people sitting on death rows but I don't think it unjust to deduce certain things based on reason and logic in the absence of "phyical evidence".

Don't think that I am picking at you.....I am not. I think these kind of conversations are very helpful and constructive. Hope you do too. DG

MOO
Click to expand...

Do I think a person who smells something bad for the first time and concludes the smell must have emanated from a dead body can reliably be trusted? No.

As regards any item of inculpatory evidence presented by prosecutors in a criminal trial, it would need to have a very high reliability coefficient before I would use that evidence to build a premise upon which I could conclude that the evidence supported proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

I said that death scents are not unique, because death scents are not unique; e.g., my death scent would be the same as yours, not different.

As for dogs testifying, I would trust a dog's testimony far moreso than I would trust the testimony of a dog handler who, supposedly, speaks the truth of what their dog allegedly told them -- it's just plain nonsense, and the fact that trial judges allow jury's to hear this rubbish demonstrates what junk science truly represents and how easy it is to be wrongfully convicted.

Regarding the universe of possibilities (re: 'so many possibilities'), possibilities are not evidence. Moreover, uncertainty increases as possibilities increase, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt is based on an extremely high level of certainty, not an extremely high level of uncertainty.

In circumstantial evidence cases, focus on the need to have evidence upon which highly reliable premises can be built and from which a juror could conclude in a highly reliable way that the evidence equated to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That certainly cannot be done with fiber evidence, for as best I know, there is no highly reliable inculpatory fiber evidence that supports any of the State's three main charges.
 
Wudge, all I can say is if I ever kill someone --- I hope you are on my jury!! LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 151 more.
Total: 3,197 (members: 152, guests: 3,045)

Online statistics

Members online
152
Guests online
3,045
Total visitors
3,197
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
603,330
Messages
18,155,053
Members
231,708
Latest member
centinel
Back
Top