Serological Reports (blood)

[ZsaZsa]

I don't pretend to know if semen was or was not found on the blanket. However, the existence of a Koala blanket (unsourced at this time as best I know) appears to be secure.

As days and weeks roll by, I am getting evermore the feeling that the government might well have another baby Sabrina case on its hands (Marlene, Steve and Sabrina Aisenberg).

It was around this time of the year that baby Sabrina was reported missing in 1997. Coincidentally, her disappearance was another Florida case (Tampa ... Hillsborough county).

Sabrina's parents, Steve and Marlene Aisenberg, were eventually charged with obstruction of justice and conspiracy. That case was every bit the crimetainment fodder that this case is. Media denizens had a field day with Marlene being dragged from her home with her hands handcuffed behind her back.

The FBI had Steve on tape admitting that he killed Sabrina, and Federal prosecutors had tons of other incredibly incriminating statements from wiretaps and a bugging of the Aisenberg's house.

Prosecutors had the tapes transcribed, took them to a Grand Jury and got the indictments they sought.

In the crime forums I posted in, I was a lonesome voice that held to 'not guilty' prior to the pending trial. The Grand Jury had received transcripts, so I took pause.

In the end, baby Sabrina was never found, and Marlene and Steve Aisenberg were awarded 2.9 million dollars. History has its lessons.

FWIW

That makes me sick it is so obscene. They got $2.9 million for murdering their baby! There are a lot more terrible miscarriages of justice like this than 'mistakes' made by the FBI that is for sure.

 

[missyjane77]

Could a donor of any of the body fluids potentially be identified by antigens or other characteristics, even if the fluids are not complete?

Not sure if this has been answered, but the only way to identify a person is through DNA. Again, IF the person is a secretor, their blood type antigens will be in other bodily fluids, so they could rule people out, but DNA is the only sure-fire way to know.

 

[USARDOG]

Some examples of corroborative evidence are: false or misleading statements made to LE or others; dog sniffing and/or dog tracking (bowser's nose) evidenc
e; the behavior of a defendant, including behavior taken to be consciousness of guilt.

HTH

Oh come now, are you saying dog tracking evidence is equivalent to "false or misleading" evidence? Are you saying cadaver dog indicating a find is to be viewed as "false or misleading, in court?" I don't ever remember hearing any jury instructions like this.

 

[Wudge]

That makes me sick it is so obscene. They got $2.9 million for murdering their baby! There are a lot more terrible miscarriages of justice like this than 'mistakes' made by the FBI that is for sure.

The transcripts being far different than what could be heard on the tapes was not a mistake or mistakes. It represented corrupt acts (manufacturing evidence). Simply put, the government attempted to frame the Aisenbergs.

Moreover, the U.S. Attorney's office did not contest the award request made by the Aisenberg's attorney, Barry Cohen. Rather, it left the decision on the amount to be awarded entirely to Judge Merryday (my recollection).

 

[Wudge]

Oh come now, are you saying dog tracking evidence is equivalent to "false or misleading" evidence? Are you saying cadaver dog indicating a find is to be viewed as "false or misleading, in court?" I don't ever remember hearing any jury instructions like this.

I simply said that dog evidence is corroborative evidence (bun). It's not inculpatory evidence (beef).

 

[ZsaZsa]

The transcripts being far different than what could be heard on the tapes was not a mistake or mistakes. It represented corrupt acts (manufacturing evidence). Simply put, the government attempted to frame the Aisenbergs.

Moreover, the U.S. Attorney's office did not contest the award request made by the Aisenberg's attorney, Barry Cohen. Rather, it left the decision on the amount to be awarded entirely to Judge Merryday (my recollection).

There was no framing involved. The only lesson to be learned is to get better tape equipment next time.

 

[USARDOG]

I simply said that dog evidence is corroborative evidence (bun). It's not inculpatory evidence (beef).

Then perhaps placing that statement next to a statement about false and misleading evidence could also be a good demonstration of false and misleading, in a judicial manor that is, as it would lead the casual reader, or perspective juror to arrive at a false conclusion that any dog provided evidence was false and misleading.

 

[Wudge]

Then perhaps placing that statement next to a statement about false and misleading evidence could also be a good demonstration of false and misleading, in a judicial manor that is, as it would lead the casual reader, or perspective juror to arrive at a false conclusion that any dog provided evidence was false and misleading.

I said 'examples'. I used semi-colons to separate them. Adduce as you will.

 

[MissJames]

You have the right case.

My rememberance is that it was the FBI (Lab I believe) who first heard what was not on the tapes, twenty-four different times.

It's a good thing that the FBI has made any mistakes in this case, or I might think the FBI can not be trusted (ok, I think that).

BBM
If you believe the FBI can't be trusted ,doesn't that prejudice your view of this case? Or any case ,for that matter?

 

[Wudge]

BBM
If you believe the FBI can't be trusted ,doesn't that prejudice your view of this case? Or any case ,for that matter?

No. On any case, I assess the evidence without having preconceived notions of a white hat organization. I don't overweight evidence based on it coming from a particular source. Moreover, the FBI should be a white hat organization, but it is not.

As regards holding a prejudice in this case, I do have a prejudice. Truth be told, I have the same prejudice in every case. For in every case, I hold defendants or suspects or persons of interest to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a Court of law.

That is a prejudice our Constitution affords everyone, but not all assessors of evidence care enough about our Constitution to give individuals that prejudice.

HTH

 

[MissJames]

No. On any case, I assess the evidence without having preconceived notions of a white hat organization. I don't overweight evidence based on it coming from a particular source. Moreover, the FBI should be a white hat organization, but it is not.
As regards holding a prejudice in this case, I do have a prejudice. Truth be told, I have the same prejudice in every case. For in every case, I hold defendants or suspects or persons of interest to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a Court of law.

That is a prejudice our Constitution affords everyone, but not all assessors of evidence care enough about our Constitution to give individuals that prejudice.

HTH

BBM
If you,or anyone,for that matter,don't trust those participating in the gathering of evidence,the testing of evidence,the reporting on evidence and witnessing at trial pertaining to the evidence,you are prejudiced ,and can not assess the evidence without preconceived notions.The evidence can't be trusted because the FBI producing the evidence can't be trusted.
Do you have trust issues with LE and prosecuters also?

 

[Wudge]

BBM
If you,or anyone,for that matter,don't trust those participating in the gathering of evidence,the testing of evidence,the reporting on evidence and witnessing at trial pertaining to the evidence,you are prejudiced ,and can not assess the evidence without preconceived notions.The evidence can't be trusted because the FBI producing the evidence can't be trusted.
Do you have trust issues with LE and prosecuters also?

Yes. The history of both organizations is one of extreme corruption.

 

[RR0004]

Yes. The history of both organizations is one of extreme corruption.

I'm so sorry you feel that way...truly.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Yes. The history of both organizations is one of extreme corruption.

I am still looking for even one system that is not corrupt. Have you found one (judicial included)?

 

[Wudge]

I am still looking for even one system that is not corrupt. Have you found one (judicial included)?

In God I trust.

 

[magic-cat]

No. I wasn't kidding. The Koala blanket will become exculpatory physical evidence if not connected to Casey and Caylee or the Anthonys and Caylee. A large number of pictures of Caylee exist. Have you ever seen a Koala blanket in one of those pictures?

The brand was Koala wudge...it didn't have A koala on it...:crazy:
And I just may have seen this blanket or it could have been one of the ones that Cindy described as one of three that Caylee always was put to bed with. The fact there was ANOTHER baby blanket at all just cements it for me that mommy dearest wrapped her up good and tight before bagging her and sacking her and tossing her out on the side of the road.:furious:

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

In God I trust.

Well, amen! I'm really happy we agree on that! But it seems like we humans manage to mess with that, as well. Sorry. I'll stop. We're OT.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

No. I wasn't kidding. The Koala blanket will become exculpatory physical evidence if not connected to Casey and Caylee or the Anthonys and Caylee. A large number of pictures of Caylee exist. Have you ever seen a Koala blanket in one of those pictures?

Why would this be considered evidence even if there's no connection? And if you consider this evidence, do you also consider the balloon and all other garbage found at the dump site equally important?

 

[magic-cat]

In God I trust.

OT:
Unfortunately, God does not do lab tests, so we have no choice but to rely on the decency of at least a portion of our fellow man...ALL people are not corrupt or for sale or out to do others in, and since God is not available to oversee the processing of evidence? We MUST rely on those who ARE and that is our fellow man...

Believe me, I would LOVE if God could wrap it all up nice and neat and all the i's would be dotted and the t's would be crossed and the bad guy would always be brought to justice and the good guy would never be wrongly accused, let alone convicted, but since that paradise is not the one which we are fortuate enough to exist within, we are left with what we have-imperfect as it is...

And it is this same corrupt system that you say you have no faith in which you continually use as support for your arguments-letter of the law...:waitasec:

 

[magic-cat]

LE will need to place the Koala baby blanket with Casey and Caylee or with the Anthonys and Caylee. Moreover, if the blood on the blanket is determined to be Caylee's blood, it would be all the more important (extremely) to do so. Otherwise, the blanket alone would prove to be evidence that is highly exculpatory.

As regards men associated with Casey, LE should certainly have a list --I'll assume they've done some real detective work. If semen was found on the blanket and LE can't match the DNA to the men on their list, then that, too, would be significant exculpatory evidence.

Not really because that list could easily miss someone who was a one night quickie or someone new that was an unknown to anyone. Casey wasn't a nun after all and she could have slept with a few people that nobody knows about but Casey and whomever they might have been. So even if there was shown to be blood or semen on the blanket and they could not match it to a known boyfriend, that still does not prove it does not belong to an as yet unknown boyfriend.

Bottom line, that does not clear Casey.