In Retrospect-Kronk Believes He Saw Skull In August

[notthatsmart]

I know that an officer responded to the Aug 11th night time call and it is documented.
I know that an officer responded to the Aug 12th night time call and it is documented.
I know that Officer Cain and Officer Keutchlin responded on Aug 13th and it is documented.

My problem is that the news reports are saying that officers came out on August 12 and 13 with K9 units. I cant find their reports or documents. Does anyone know where they are?

And Jbean? Is this considered on topic? I am sorry if it is not. Should I be in a search thread? Can you point me in the right direction?

 

[BeanE]

I know that an officer responded to the Aug 11th night time call and it is documented.
I know that an officer responded to the Aug 12th night time call and it is documented.
I know that Officer Cain and Officer Keutchlin responded on Aug 13th and it is documented.

My problem is that the news reports are saying that officers came out on August 12 and 13 with K9 units. I cant find their reports or documents. Does anyone know where they are?

No, as discussed over the last few days in this thread, noone can find any documentation regarding LE searches - with or without dogs - of the area where Caylee's remains were found.

I'm in hopes we'll get something via discovery.

I very much want to know if a full and unhampered search of the area was conducted at any time by professional/trained searchers.

 

[Wudge]

You were quoted in my post and here is your quote again.

SNIP

Correct. I said that. I said nothing related to your asking me the following: "Can you please provide a link in which it states that the FBI's lab evidence is so non-credible that it can no longer be used as evidence in a court of law?"

HTH

 

[Friday]

QUOTE=Wudge=Post #1117 dated today:

"TES does not come across as being objective. Moreover, TES does not decide what is necessary or unnecessary."

In the past, Wudge, even when I've disagreed vehemently with your point of view, I have always been able to follow your logic and to credit you with an honest desire to focus on facts and evidence which you, yourself, believe to be pertinent. But I cannot think of a justifyable excuse for the bolded remark in your above post.

Yesterday in another, earlier post (#976), you said, "TES does not get to decide if what searchers know represents exculpatory and admissible evidence. That's for the Court to decide."

Several people here, including myself, responded to you with the information that TES (through its attorney) had indeed filed an appropriate legal objection with the Court, thereby leaving it up to the Court to decide if the Defense needed the personal records of thousands of searchers who had never searched anywhere near Suburban Drive. The Court agreed with TES that the Defense should only receive the personal records of searchers who actually searched in or around the Suburban area. Posters even offered to give you links to the actual Court hearing and related documents.

Despite all the above, today there is your short, rightous post declaring that "TES does not decide what is necessary or unnecessary." Try as I might, I cannot come up with a wholesome explanation for you to continue to imply, via that statement, that TES (out of bias? or mere arrogance?) tried to usurp or circumvent the Court's right to decide. Furthermore, it would seem that in the interest of appearing impartial and objective, it would be necessary to acknowledge, with appropriate respect, the fact that the Court agreed with TES regarding what records the Defense should have.

You ended your message by saying, "I will happily thank people if they have better information than I do at a point in time." I don't know what point in time you mean, but I won't hold you to it. I've had my say.

 

[AutomaticAuttie]

You were quoted in my post and here is your quote again. Now can you please cite the link or reference where the FBI has changed how it stands behind its evidence?

Can you also cite a link or a reference to the ugly history of scandals in the FBI?

Also for reference can you narrow down a time period in which this ugly history of scandal took place? Are we talking modern day or McCarthy era?

Your pretty much stating as fact that do to this history of scandal with in the FBI it has had to change how it supports its own findings and the policies of its labs. I am asking for citation of such. I think that's fairly reasonable given that this was stated as fact.

Also do to this ugly history of scandal do the courts take evidence from the FBI differently. Given that these scandalous actions are apparently so rampant in the FBI. I would figure court systems acrossed the country would put forth measures to ensure the information presented by the FBI is accurate.

Is there any evidence of the court systems applying such measure specifically against the FBI's findings? Perhaps a disclaimer given in the jury instructions to put less weight on evidence examined by the FBI?

Also as new means of collecting evidence, and new technologies arise labs do change their policies to reflect this new way of collecting or analyzing evidence. Also much of the standards for dealing with and testing new technology and evidence arises through much trial and error. I am sure the standards for dealing with DNA are not the same today as they were when the technology first arrived.

Many of the FBI's lab policy changes probably arose out of this scenario and not because of scandal or conspiracies. Just my opinion though.

Here are a couple of links for you!

http://www.truthinjustice.org/kevin-fox.htm

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/w/frederic_whitehurst/index.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1026703/posts

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004020783_fbi18.html

 

[Wudge]

QUOTE=Wudge=Post #1117 dated today:

"TES does not come across as being objective. Moreover, TES does not decide what is necessary or unnecessary."

In the past, Wudge, even when I've disagreed vehemently with your point of view, I have always been able to follow your logic and to credit you with an honest desire to focus on facts and evidence which you, yourself, believe to be pertinent. But I cannot think of a justifyable excuse for the bolded remark in your above post.

Yesterday in another, earlier post (#976), you said, "TES does not get to decide if what searchers know represents exculpatory and admissible evidence. That's for the Court to decide."

Several people here, including myself, responded to you with the information that TES (through its attorney) had indeed filed an appropriate legal objection with the Court, thereby leaving it up to the Court to decide if the Defense needed the personal records of thousands of searchers who had never searched anywhere near Suburban Drive. The Court agreed with TES that the Defense should only receive the personal records of searchers who actually searched in or around the Suburban area. Posters even offered to give you links to the actual Court hearing and related documents.

Despite all the above, today there is your short, rightous post declaring that "TES does not decide what is necessary or unnecessary." Try as I might, I cannot come up with a wholesome explanation for you to continue to imply, via that statement, that TES (out of bias? or mere arrogance?) tried to usurp or circumvent the Court's right to decide. Furthermore, it would seem that in the interest of appearing impartial and objective, it would be necessary to acknowledge, with appropriate respect, the fact that the Court agreed with TES regarding what records the Defense should have.

You ended your message by saying, "I will happily thank people if they have better information than I do at a point in time." I don't know what point in time you mean, but I won't hold you to it. I've had my say.

My reading on TES is just what I said; i.e., they do not come off as being objective. Frankly, I am reminded of dog search organizations and/or consultants. My experience is that they have a significant bias towards LE in criminal cases.

FWIW

 

[Nosey Parker]

My reading on TES is just what I said; i.e., they do not come off as being objective. Frankly, I am reminded of dog search organizations and/or consultants. My experience is that they have a significant bias towards LE in criminal cases.

FWIW

... Unless they are retained by a defence attorney

 

[marspiter]

Here are a couple of links for you!

http://www.truthinjustice.org/kevin-fox.htm

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/w/frederic_whitehurst/index.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1026703/posts

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004020783_fbi18.html

Thank you for the links. After reading through them I think there are a few things that should be noted however.

First article the FBI was asked by the local police to cease testing on the evidence.

Second article was about the Oklahoma city bombing in which both suspects were proven guilty by a jury of their piers. The article also doesn’t cite any sources other then Mr. Whitehurst. The article does not have any comment from the FBI not even a no comment.

It should also be noted that no comment was obtained from Mr. Burmeister. Also no real conclusion was absolved in the article. It should also be noted that Mr. Whitehurst runs a group called Forensic Justice Project which is part of the National Whitsle Blowers Center. Which indicates to me that his motives might have a certain bias.

The third article was a post made by a person named You Gotta be Kidding Me. I would need more validation then that. Like a link to the original Foxs news acticle.

The last article is dealing with the same topic as the third article but from an actual news paper source. It cites that in it’s investigating that 250 people where identified as having this type of evidence introduced and out of those there is 12 that are being considered for reversals on convictions. I noticed the article does not state how many convictions have been overturned. Only that 12 where questionable or reversed. I would have liked the numbered of reversed decisions. For all we know it could have been 1 or none at all with one in proceedings. The article isn't clear on this.

Mr. Whitehurst is also involved in this article as well. Noting his previous affiliation with National Whistle Blowers. Once again this article does not cite a source or have any rebuttal comment from the FBI. Not even a no comment.

To me these articles just don't show wide spread conspiracy and scandal in the FBI. Not saying they don't make mistakes or that evidence collection techniques don't change over time. Also if evidence analzyed by the FBI was so flawed I would think there would be better sources of reprimand by State Supreme Courts and Courts of Appeals and the Federal Government itself (such as Congressional Hearings). To me this just looked like a collection of articles from sources who have a dog in the fight from a news paper looking for a story they could print.

 

[Kentjbkent]

My reading on TES is just what I said; i.e., they do not come off as being objective. Frankly, I am reminded of dog search organizations and/or consultants. My experience is that they have a significant bias towards LE in criminal cases.
FWIW

Um, yeah.....in most experiences involving TES they are looking for the missing, which usually end up being CRIME victims, which leads to LE involvement....so yeah, I would agree that in your opinion, "they have a significant bias towards LE in criminal cases"

 

[marspiter]

Correct. I said that. I said nothing related to your asking me the following: "Can you please provide a link in which it states that the FBI's lab evidence is so non-credible that it can no longer be used as evidence in a court of law?"

HTH

That comment is from my previous quote not the quote you have in your current quote.

You also bypassed the rest of my post you quoted.

 

[Harmony 2]

Here are a couple of links for you!

http://www.truthinjustice.org/kevin-fox.htm

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/w/frederic_whitehurst/index.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1026703/posts

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004020783_fbi18.html

Adding these to AA's list. To tie it in to the Kronk subject of the thread I believe the defense will try to not only discredit Kronk but I think they will try to discredit the lab work done on this case.

http://www.bioforensics.com/conference/Examiner Bias/junk science.pdf

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8534

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111701681_pf.html

http://www.crimemagazine.com/tainting_evidence.htm

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Taint...the+Scandals+at+the+FBI+Crime+Lab.-a020789492

http://www.truthinjustice.org/FBI-crime-lab.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/16/60minutes/main3512453.shtml

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Okay, I'm not too proud to ask a stupid question. Can anyone explain to me what TES is supposed to be objective about? I thought it was a court's duty to be objective but not a search organization's. Should TES be honest? Certainly!! But TES's honesty isn't being questioned here, or is it? See how confused I am? Please help! :redface:

 

[Wudge]

That comment is from my previous quote not the quote you have in your current quote.

You also bypassed the rest of my post you quoted.

Correct. It was from your previous post, and it was not drawn from what I said. My point is, do not extend what I say. Quote me and make sure your questions are appropriately drawn from what I say.

 

[LambChop]

How do you discredit someone who just finds a body? And not sure what the incentive would be for different labs to give false results. The victum was 2 years old and the only one who seems to have unlimited funds is her mother. I would think to give false info someone in a lab would have to be paid a bribe. JMO

 

[RR0004]

My reading on TES is just what I said; i.e., they do not come off as being objective. Frankly, I am reminded of dog search organizations and/or consultants. My experience is that they have a significant bias towards LE in criminal cases.

FWIW

Their dedication is to find the missing. If you have followed this case from the beginning, you would know that LE was somewhat reluctant to have TES come out and search initially.

 

[RR0004]

Adding these to AA's list. To tie it in to the Kronk subject of the thread I believe the defense will try to not only discredit Kronk but I think they will try to discredit the lab work done on this case.

http://www.bioforensics.com/conference/Examiner Bias/junk science.pdf

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8534

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111701681_pf.html

http://www.crimemagazine.com/tainting_evidence.htm

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Taint...the+Scandals+at+the+FBI+Crime+Lab.-a020789492

http://www.truthinjustice.org/FBI-crime-lab.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/16/60minutes/main3512453.shtml

Ya think? What else can they do? Seems to be SOP when there's no defense.

 

[wonders]

Okay, I'm not too proud to ask a stupid question. Can anyone explain to me what TES is supposed to be objective about? I thought it was a court's duty to be objective but not a search organization's. Should TES be honest? Certainly!! But TES's honesty isn't being questioned here, or is it? See how confused I am? Please help! :redface:

ITA ExpectingUnicorns.
IMVHO the job of TES is to find the missing whatever the outcome may be.
Why everybody who has had anything to do with this case is being put under a microscope is totally beyond me. It's a shame. Mr Kronk and TES had nothing to do with Caylee's murder.

 

[marspiter]

Adding these to AA's list. To tie it in to the Kronk subject of the thread I believe the defense will try to not only discredit Kronk but I think they will try to discredit the lab work done on this case.

http://www.bioforensics.com/conference/Examiner Bias/junk science.pdf

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8534

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111701681_pf.html

http://www.crimemagazine.com/tainting_evidence.htm

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Taint...the+Scandals+at+the+FBI+Crime+Lab.-a020789492

http://www.truthinjustice.org/FBI-crime-lab.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/16/60minutes/main3512453.shtml

Just to note:

Article 1 comes from the Innocence Project. I can find no info in the article or in subsequent articles online that show the FBI did the testing in this case.

The second article once again deals with the lead bullet data and Mr. Whitehurst who is a member of the National Whistle Blowers Center and the Forensic Justice Project. The Alabama senator is mention however I see no follow up as to what happened to this Congressional Report.

The third article once again deals with this lead bullet analyses. Which was created 40 plus years ago. It should also be noted that the article says “Even the harshest critics concede that the FBI correctly measured the chemical elements of lead bullets.”
Once again Mr. Whitehurst is mentioned again in this article. However unlike the others this article has comments from both sides and is very compelling. Good info in this article as it shows the FBI admitting they have made mistakes in this particular type of evidence. It should be noted however that the case for Mrs. Anthony is not dealing with bullet evidence.

The forth article is from writers of a book called Tainting Evidence: Inside the Scandals at the FBI Crime Lab. It’s only citation is the book itself and also has and ad selling the book below the article.

Fifth article is also from Tainting Evidence: Inside the Scandals of the FBI Crime Lab. This time the sales ad for the book is right at the top of the article with the authors name.
Should be noted that Mr. Whithurst is mentioned again as the books main source.

Sixth article once again talks about the lead bullet evidence.

Seventh Article once again talks about the lead bullet evidence.


So basically in essence from all the articles I have seen posted the only thing mentioned is this lead bullet evidence. Not wide spread conspiracy and contamination of all types of evidence, but allegations that this lead bullet evidence was over stated and that flaws were found in this evidence collection technique. A technique that is 40 plus years old.
Also This Mr. Whithurst seems to be the underlying source for most of these articles.

 

[Friday]

This snip from Devil's Advocate's post is prompting me to suggest a possible explanation why RK would be able to notice something in the woods that neither his companions, nor Cain, could pick out. It's going to sound farfetched at first, but bear with me....


From DA's post: "I have been in novelty shops that have those confusing pictures that you have to stand at just the right angle to see. I sometimes can look for an hour and never see it, while my brother walks up and says its right there."


OMG, my son can do that too---because he's color-blind! Like 7% of all males, my son is "green-red" color blind! That doesn't merely mean he can't tell the difference between red and green, it means he also can't tell the difference between colors like green and yellow, green and brown, etc.

BUT, more importantly, because color-blind people are not distracted (or misled) by colors or hues, they are amazingly adept at noticing shapes.
For example, in one glance, my son can spot a little brown bird in a big tree that I have difficulty seeing when I'm staring right at it. That same ability makes him a skillful hunter.

Color-blind people are far less hampered by lack of color-contrast between say, a black garbage bag, dark green vines, brown soil, and deep shade because color-blind people never see much contrast between colors at any time. But, boy, shapes stand out to them--bigtime.

 

[Wudge]

Okay, I'm not too proud to ask a stupid question. Can anyone explain to me what TES is supposed to be objective about? I thought it was a court's duty to be objective but not a search organization's. Should TES be honest? Certainly!! But TES's honesty isn't being questioned here, or is it? See how confused I am? Please help! :redface:

Prosecutors advocate for the People. Criminal defense attorneys advocate for those accused of a crime. LE is a prosecution support organization, and I don't get the feeling that TES does not take marching orders from LE and/or is not beholding to LE in any way.

FWIW