(above BBM
Respectfully, I'm still confused as to the logic of this.
How could it matter if they indeed could make a positive/conclusive match between fibers on the duct tape and fibers from KC's clothing (or the other A's or their home)?
Ok - Say a stranger (I don't believe there was a stranger, mind you, just posing this hypothetically) abducted Caylee, or even someone other than George, Cindy, or KC, and put the duct tape on her mouth and nose. Because she was with KC or GA or CA all the time, and lived in their home, and rode in their vehicles, she likely had fibers from their clothing, home, and vehicles on her person. Some or those fibers could easily get on the duct tape, having already been on Caylee's hair, clothes, skin, etc. How would that be a big deal or significant?
If they found fibers from someone other than the A's clothes, home, vehicle,etc., that would be significant.
I guess them not finding fibers from anyone other than KC or the A's could add a little (very little IMO) strength to the argument that no one other than KC or the A's was involved in the crime. I really don't think that would help much though.
I'm not trying to be argumentative. I truly want to know what I'm missing. Obviously, they checked for fibers and analyzed them. So there had to be a possibility they could find some form of evidence. But what?
IMHO, I think it was only to show that they did, in fact, try to find evidence of a perp other than KC or one of the A's. That way, the defense can't say LE didn't look for evidence of a perp besides KC (or A's). I get that they had to do that. I'm not getting what folks think could be proved, or even suggested, if fibers from KC, GA, or CA can be link to anything from the crime scene (i.e. duct tape, laundry bag, remains, etc.) LE already assumes KC was with her mother the last day she was alive. As well as in the A home. Of course she was, she lived there. Of course she'd have fibers from her mother's clothes on her, too.
:waitasec::waitasec::waitasec: