PI's following out of state lead on Picture of Caylee.

[NancyT]

You mean the Fernandez part? Not sure. I havent seen it yet in any documents other than Caseys version of the name. On the Sawgrass note, it doesnt list this and in the P. Reprt I see a Kissimee address but no name Fernandez. Hope someone esle would know.

http://www.myorangeclerk.com/myclerk/Default.aspx

Off to the left, click on, case search, then civil. Then type in, last name, Anthony, first name, Casey and hit, search for cases. Once that loads, click on details to reveal this:
Subject ID Full Name Party Type Status
D-A CASEY ANTHONY DEFENDANT
P-A ZENAIDA FERNANDEZ-GONZALEZ PLAINTIFF
P-A JOHN BRYAN MORGAN ATTORNEY

 

[icherish]

Long time lurker; first time poster. I read or heard somewhere yesterday (10-07-08) that KC found a male friend who had a photograph of the real ZG. I do not remember where I read or heard that. I was under the impression that the child was in the photo. It is interesting that this photo turns up around the time that KC needs to file her Answer to the civil lawsuit. Has anyone found a link to this photo yet? I wonder if it is a genuine photograph or a work of art created on a program like photoshop. If it is genuine, then why not publish it for a world search for the lady? How could she harm the child if she has the child when the whole world is looking for her and watching her?

Hi Wanda, welcome!

I haven't seen a link to the photo yet, but it sure will be interesting to see..that is, IF there is anything to see. For all we know, it could be a photo of Casey and Caylee with some woman's backside in the picture and she's saying it's the "real" Zanny. :liar:

 

[Celt1997]

http://www.myorangeclerk.com/myclerk/Default.aspx

Off to the left, click on, case search, then civil. Then type in, last name, Anthony, first name, Casey and hit, search for cases. Once that loads, click on details to reveal this:
Subject ID Full Name Party Type Status
D-A CASEY ANTHONY DEFENDANT
P-A ZENAIDA FERNANDEZ-GONZALEZ PLAINTIFF
P-A JOHN BRYAN MORGAN ATTORNEY

Good find! This is the first time I've seen this particular Zenaida referred to with the "Fernandez" part.

 

[Seranade]

Well, you're free to believe anything you'd like and I'd be the first to state (and have in this thread already) that IF they can't distinguish the hair scientifically to belong to Caylee or Casey exclusively (though there is more to determining who it might belong too aside from the DNA testing as there is a lot of difference between baby hair and adult hair) it probably does mean that it's Mitochondrial DNA is the only DNA results yielded from the hair/hairs.

Choosing to believe this however when this information hasn't been released to the public though? I could respect your earlier posts where you said you were waiting for more evidence before reaching an opinion on the photo, but I don't respect when someone just chooses to believe whatever they want because it's what they want to believe. That's basing an opinion on nothing, IMO.

Unless of course, you can show me where (and I've not had a chance to read any of today's documents yet) where it was indeed stated that there was no root attached? I know there has been a lot of speculating back and forth, but so far from what I've seen, that's all it's been.

Off this topic:
I didn't read all the posts since I participated in the thread, but I did read 2 pages, then hopped to the end. I see posters stating that Z's middle name starts with a C and no F. I thought the lawsuit clearly stated it was ZFG? Is F-G a middle/last name? Or, is it, a maiden/married last name? Anyone know?

My OPINION has not been pulled out of a hat, but is the result of deductive reasoning.

Nuclear DNA is more comprehensive than mtDNA and can distinguish betwen Casey and Caylee while mtDNA cannot. As has been stated many times before mtDNA was used to test the hair in the trunk. (hence the many arguments we hear that since Casey is alive, the hair must have belonged to Caylee) Why did they not use the more inclusive nuclear DNA testing? It is MY OPINION, since we have no evidence whatsoever that the sample was degraded, that they performed mtDNA because there was no root attached, which you need to have in order to perform nuclear DNA testing. If there was no root attached, ipso facto they did not find a postmortem root band.

Post-mortem banding occurs within 1 mm of the root. In fact, it's properly called "post-mortem root banding". This phenomenon will not occur if the hair has come away from the scalp of a decedent shortly after death.

http://www.aafs.org/pdf/Seattleabstracts06.pdf

If the hair root has tissue attached, Nuclear DNA analysis; If there is no tissue and/or root, Mitochondrial DNA analysis.

www.ct.gov/dps/lib/dps/Mitochondrial.pdf.ppt

 

[Pink Panther]

No picture yet?







No. I guess not.

 

[Blink34]

Tim Miller of TES said tonight on NG that he has lost his last glimmer of hope of finding Caylee alive. According to Padilla, Tim has all the same information LE has. I wonder why he didn't know about the death bands on Caylee's hair.

I believe he stated that Tim has "access" to the same information, not "has the same information". Tim is focused on finding Caylee, and frankly is not concerned with the criminal case as a practical matter.

 

[NancyT]

My OPINION has not been pulled out of a hat, but is the result of deductive reasoning.

Nuclear DNA is more comprehensive than mtDNA and can distinguish betwen Casey and Caylee while mtDNA cannot. As has been stated many times before mtDNA was used to test the hair in the trunk. (hence the many arguments we hear that since Casey is alive, the hair must have belonged to Caylee) Why did they not use the more inclusive nuclear DNA testing? It is MY OPINION, since we have no evidence whatsoever that the sample was degraded, that they performed mtDNA because there was no root attached, which you need to have in order to perform nuclear DNA testing. If there was no root attached, ipso facto they did not find a postmortem root band.

Post-mortem banding occurs within 1 mm of the root. In fact, it's properly called "post-mortem root banding". This phenomenon will not occur if the hair has come away from the scalp of a decedent shortly after death.

http://www.aafs.org/pdf/Seattleabstracts06.pdf

If the hair root has tissue attached, Nuclear DNA analysis; If there is no tissue and/or root, Mitochondrial DNA analysis.

www.ct.gov/dps/lib/dps/Mitochondrial.pdf.ppt

You can go back and read my posts from last night (but I'd imagine you already did that) where I said the same about the Nuclear vs. Mitochondrial testing. I clearly said that you get Nuclear DNA only when you have a root and if there is no root, you can only yield Mitochondrial DNA. I'd not seen a single post of you saying any such thing, so my guess is, you read my posts last night.

I also went on to say, that the band is formed at or near the root, so if the band was there, but the hair strand/strands broke, we might not know if the follicles consisted of a band or not.

So, you might want to stop posting links to back up what I stated last night.

As for my post that you quoted, I was challenging you to show me where they ONLY yielded Mitochondrial DNA as opposed to Nuclear DNA? You said you were going to choose to believe there was no root. So, what do you base that assertion on? Can you show me where there was NO root? I'd appreciate that link.

 

[NancyT]

I believe he stated that Tim has "access" to the same information, not "has the same information". Tim is focused on finding Caylee, and frankly is not concerned with the criminal case as a practical matter.

I don't know where the post is that you quoted, but even if a hair contains a band and Tim knows about it, he's certainly not going to go on Nancy Grace and blab about inside information. He's professional and if the information is put out there, it will be LE releasing it, not Tim Miller.

 

[Blink34]

My OPINION has not been pulled out of a hat, but is the result of deductive reasoning.

Nuclear DNA is more comprehensive than mtDNA and can distinguish betwen Casey and Caylee while mtDNA cannot. As has been stated many times before mtDNA was used to test the hair in the trunk. (hence the many arguments we hear that since Casey is alive, the hair must have belonged to Caylee) Why did they not use the more inclusive nuclear DNA testing? It is MY OPINION, since we have no evidence whatsoever that the sample was degraded, that they performed mtDNA because there was no root attached, which you need to have in order to perform nuclear DNA testing. If there was no root attached, ipso facto they did not find a postmortem root band.

Post-mortem banding occurs within 1 mm of the root. In fact, it's properly called "post-mortem root banding". This phenomenon will not occur if the hair has come away from the scalp of a decedent shortly after death.

http://www.aafs.org/pdf/Seattleabstracts06.pdf

If the hair root has tissue attached, Nuclear DNA analysis; If there is no tissue and/or root, Mitochondrial DNA analysis.

www.ct.gov/dps/lib/dps/Mitochondrial.pdf.ppt

Very Respectfully, I completely disagree with your opinion. I did however notice you picked up the ipso facto from my post the other day,which is cool.

You are basing your opinion re: the presumed mtdna result has to do with the root presence or unavailability.

I believe the presumed mtdna result is available as opposed to the full Nuclear DNA profile for one reason only: Caylee's paternity has not been established conclusively.

That being said, we can deduct for certain who it does not belong to.
As both KC's parents are perfectly alive and established.

It is my opinion if they have not already, once Caylee's paternity has been established through DNA of the father and KC, you will see a definitive DNA result as to the hair, and any other samples containing her DNA.

Which again imo, is the basis for the many versions from the A's as to Caylee's parentage; which I might add seemed to coincide with "reported sightings". If there was a possible Dad in the state- there was a sighting, with the exception of Texas, which was just where TES is from.

 

[icherish]

My OPINION has not been pulled out of a hat, but is the result of deductive reasoning.

Nuclear DNA is more comprehensive than mtDNA and can distinguish betwen Casey and Caylee while mtDNA cannot. As has been stated many times before mtDNA was used to test the hair in the trunk. (hence the many arguments we hear that since Casey is alive, the hair must have belonged to Caylee) Why did they not use the more inclusive nuclear DNA testing? It is MY OPINION, since we have no evidence whatsoever that the sample was degraded, that they performed mtDNA because there was no root attached, which you need to have in order to perform nuclear DNA testing. If there was no root attached, ipso facto they did not find a postmortem root band.

Post-mortem banding occurs within 1 mm of the root. In fact, it's properly called "post-mortem root banding". This phenomenon will not occur if the hair has come away from the scalp of a decedent shortly after death.

http://www.aafs.org/pdf/Seattleabstracts06.pdf

If the hair root has tissue attached, Nuclear DNA analysis; If there is no tissue and/or root, Mitochondrial DNA analysis.

www.ct.gov/dps/lib/dps/Mitochondrial.pdf.ppt

Great explanation, Seranade...very clear and simple.

IMO, if they had Caylee's nuclear DNA and root banding on her hair, it'd be a whole different picture. Casey would be charged with homicide and in the slammer.:behindbar

I think what they have is her mtDNA and proven evidence (Body Farm results) of human decomp in the car. Pretty strong evidence in the court of public opinion, yes..... but to prosecute for murder and secure a conviction they need to prove that dead body was indeed Caylee's.

 

[Seranade]

You can go back and read my posts from last night (but I'd imagine you already did that) where I said the same about the Nuclear vs. Mitochondrial testing. I clearly said that you get Nuclear DNA only when you have a root and if there is no root, you can only yield Mitochondrial DNA. I'd not seen a single post of you saying any such thing, so my guess is, you read my posts last night.

I also went on to say, that the band is formed at or near the root, so if the band was there, but the hair strand/strands broke, we might not know if the follicles consisted of a band or not.

So, you might want to stop posting links to back up what I stated last night.

As for my post that you quoted, I was challenging you to show me where they ONLY yielded Mitochondrial DNA as opposed to Nuclear DNA? You said you were going to choose to believe there was no root. So, what do you base that assertion on? Can you show me where there was NO root? I'd appreciate that link.

Excuse me? That was awfully rude of you considering as how my original post on the subject was one in which I was agreeing with you and it got me thinking, so I went on a quest for links. I assume it is not against TOS to go and find links to back up what another poster is saying.

And I did not say that I choose to believe there was no root, I said (to Lanie I think) since there is no evidence the sample was degraded it is my OPINION that there was no root attached to the sample.

I see what you are saying. If the lab had to test for mtDNA and not for nuclear DNA, then the hair had no root. If the hair had no root how could there have been a root band?

Sherbie, my answers are in red:

 

[Blink34]

I don't know where the post is that you quoted, but even if a hair contains a band and Tim knows about it, he's certainly not going to go on Nancy Grace and blab about inside information. He's professional and if the information is put out there, it will be LE releasing it, not Tim Miller.

We are in agreement, as said in my post, Tim is focused on finding Caylee, as is everyone one of us in TES.
The post I was quoting was in my response differentiating what Tim actually said.

 

[NancyT]

Very Respectfully, I completely disagree with your opinion. I did however notice you picked up the ipso facto from my post the other day,which is cool.

You are basing your opinion re: the presumed mtdna result has to do with the root presence or unavailability.

I believe the presumed mtdna result is available as opposed to the full Nuclear DNA profile for one reason only: Caylee's paternity has not been established conclusively.

That being said, we can deduct for certain who it does not belong to.
As both KC's parents are perfectly alive and established.

It is my opinion if they have not already, once Caylee's paternity has been established through DNA of the father and KC, you will see a definitive DNA result as to the hair, and any other samples containing her DNA.

Which again imo, is the basis for the many versions from the A's as to Caylee's parentage; which I might add seemed to coincide with "reported sightings". If there was a possible Dad in the state- there was a sighting, with the exception of Texas, which was just where TES is from.

Are you backing up Seranade in the fact that we only have Mitochondrial DNA? That may well be true, but I've not seen it anywhere?

 

[NancyT]

Excuse me? That was awfully rude of you considering as how my original post on the subject was one in which I was agreeing with you and it got me thinking, so I went on a quest for links. I assume it is not against TOS to go and find links to back up what another poster is saying.

And I did not say that I choose to believe there was no root, I said (to Lanie I think) since there is no evidence the sample was degraded it is my OPINION that there was no root attached to the sample.

Well, I didn't mean it to be rude, but do apologize because I've been known to just put it out there without thinking about how something may come across. I do it in real life as well as online, so it's truly a personality flaw.

All I really want to know is, do we know for a fact, that they were only able to obtain Mitochondrial DNA?

 

[Chezhire]

snipped:
All I really want to know is, do we know for a fact, that they were only able to obtain Mitochondrial DNA?

No, NancyT - we do not.

 

[Lanie]

Good find! This is the first time I've seen this particular Zenaida referred to with the "Fernandez" part.

Same here, and I find it very interesting. Now it's not just a matter of finding 2 different ZGs who have SO much in common, but 2 ZFGs. :laugh:
Lanie

 

[Seranade]

Very Respectfully, I completely disagree with your opinion. I did however notice you picked up the ipso facto from my post the other day,which is cool.

You are basing your opinion re: the presumed mtdna result has to do with the root presence or unavailability.

I believe the presumed mtdna result is available as opposed to the full Nuclear DNA profile for one reason only: Caylee's paternity has not been established conclusively.

That being said, we can deduct for certain who it does not belong to.
As both KC's parents are perfectly alive and established.

It is my opinion if they have not already, once Caylee's paternity has been established through DNA of the father and KC, you will see a definitive DNA result as to the hair, and any other samples containing her DNA.

Which again imo, is the basis for the many versions from the A's as to Caylee's parentage; which I might add seemed to coincide with "reported sightings". If there was a possible Dad in the state- there was a sighting, with the exception of Texas, which was just where TES is from.

LOL! I had no idea you had a copyright on "ipso facto"! And in fact, I do not recall reading that from you. I own about 5000 books so I could have picked it up anywhere, probably a legal terminology class who knows?

And respectfully, they do not need to know Caylee's paternity in order to do a full nuclear DNA profile, if the root is attached. They can match the DNA from other known samples, such as her tooth brush or hair brush.

 

[Blink34]

Are you backing up Seranade in the fact that we only have Mitochondrial DNA? That may well be true, but I've not seen it anywhere?

Absolutely not.
I am saying that if we PRESUME based on LE statements that their is only a mtdna result, IT IS ONLY DUE TO THE FACT that Caylee's parentage has yet to be established conclusively.

To get a full DNA profile you need KC, Caylee, and Caylee's Dad for comparison for the Nuclear result.

I am saying in my opinion, if the reports are correct on the mtdna result it says 2 things to me:

1) We know that the hair is not KC's because her DNA profile is available, AND she is alive.

2) Until ( if it has not already) Caylee's paternity is conclusive via DNA, it is impossible to deliver a DNA profile as their is absence of the paternal markers.

I have posted on this since that presumed mtdna result "came out" I think that is why KC has not been arrested as of yet for one reason. You have to know conclusively it is Caylee's DNA in that trunk, kwim?

 

[Seranade]

Well, I didn't mean it to be rude, but do apologize because I've been known to just put it out there without thinking about how something may come across. I do it in real life as well as online, so it's truly a personality flaw.

All I really want to know is, do we know for a fact, that they were only able to obtain Mitochondrial DNA?

Not a problem, I just got my feelings hurt because I appreciated you so much for putting me onto that line of inquiry.

And I have been trying desperately to find a quoted source that says mtDNA was all they obtained. For some reason, NG and others are continuously making the argument that they did, thus the numerous statments from her and others that since the sample is the same as Casey's the only way we know it is Caylee is because of the root banding which ipso facto (lol) rules out Casey since she is alive and shaking her booty.

 

[Blink34]

LOL! I had no idea you had a copyright on "ipso facto"! And in fact, I do not recall reading that from you. I own about 5000 books so I could have picked it up anywhere, probably a legal terminology class who knows?

And respectfully, they do not need to know Caylee's paternity in order to do a full nuclear DNA profile, if the root is attached. They can match the DNA from other known samples, such as her tooth brush or hair brush.

No worries, and I certainly do not have the copyright, I think that would fall under trademark possibly as "phrase".. dunno, I digress.

Respectfully, there is no way to definatively conclude Caylee is actually Caylee (from a DNA perspective) to the degree of certainty a person's DNA affords, without paternal DNA. That would be exactly why in this country in certain civil proceedings the law can compell prospective
"dad"s to submit to DNA tests; it is the standard.