The Duct Tape Match #3

[sumbunny]

I find the theories about blue fiber contamination of the duct tape fascinating. I'm wondering if it all could have happened in the car. I realize that the fibers on the car seat cover are probably too blue gray to be classified as blue, but if the tape roll was in contact with the carseat, it might have left fibers that remained on the edges. I'm also thinking it could be possible that KC had some blue item in the back seat or in the trunk and the tape roll was in contact with that.

If the contamination took place in the car, after KC had removed the roll from the garage, that might explain things. Except for the fact that GA was awfully firm about saying he himself could have never put that duct tape on the can. Wonder if he read about the blue fibers and didn't want to tie them to the garage?? I'm going to try to see if I can find any blue clothes KC may have had that could have been in the car at some point, or perhaps something blue in the garage. I'm thinking that blue fibers from some kind of terrycloth towel would have easily transferred.

Her famous blue dress at fusion?

 

[notthatsmart]

Wow I just spent an hour reading about how the fbi examines duct tape. They really know a lot about it. The purchase rolls each year and examine them. They know the glue they know the fabric and they know the backing very well.

In light of the fact that the FBI stated that the fabric from the scene and the fabric from the gas can was inconsisted with coming from the same source, Is it possible the FBI could end up on the defense witness list?

 

[sleutherontheside]

Wow I just spent an hour reading about how the fbi examines duct tape. They really know a lot about it. The purchase rolls each year and examine them. They know the glue they know the fabric and they know the backing very well.

In light of the fact that the FBI stated that the fabric from the scene and the fabric from the gas can was inconsisted with coming from the same source, Is it possible the FBI could end up on the defense witness list?

Ummmmmm doubtful. If the prosecution opts to put them on the stand.....the defense can cross. I don't think that given the other FBI findings, that JB would INVITE them to the party. KWIM?

 

[Wudge]

We still await the reports from the Questioned Documents Unit on the edge-matching attempt.

Matching tape ends is not rocket science and doesn't take decades. The FBI lab has been publically humiliated, yet again. This time it's for evidence contamination. And any thought that this humiliated lab might have held back on key evidence would be wishful thinking.

 

[christee]

Hi Christee :seeya: ... hope you are keeping those knees warm.

I did the logo line-up as a sort of proxy to the edge-match in an attempt to determine where Q66 might fit. It seemed from that little exercise that the only place Q66 would fit is with Q104. Therefore, I think the only meaningful edge match is between the gas can tape and the Q104 tape. Unfortunately, the only image out there of Q104 is pretty terrible, and it is really bad where I think the match would occur. So, until we get better images, it is kind of a futile exercise. :bang:

Oh how nice of you to show concern for my personal comfort! :blushing:
I didn't think I'd seen any photos or images showing comparison of the ends of the tape.

*sigh*, I need more pics to look at...

 

[christee]

Matching tape ends is not rocket science and doesn't take decades. The FBI lab has been publically humiliated, yet again. This time it's for evidence contamination. And any thought that this humiliated lab might have held back on key evidence would be wishful thinking.

I don't think the tape evidence is considered contaminated especially since LE identified the source of the hair/DNA. For me, this hair wouldn't alter the significance of any other possible DNA or evidence on the tape since the hair cannot literally change other evidence.
On a simpler level, the evidence has to have human involvement to be tested, and humans make mistakes. This mistake is not a huge blunder!

 

[JWG]

Matching tape ends is not rocket science and doesn't take decades. The FBI lab has been publically humiliated, yet again. This time it's for evidence contamination. And any thought that this humiliated lab might have held back on key evidence would be wishful thinking.

I don't think the "evidence contamination" is anything new. As I understand it, this sort of thing happens all the time. That is why elimination material is brought into the case. That is why Jurys hear the case.

We get all wrapped up in DNA found on the tape without thinking objectively about who's DNA was not found: Caylees'.

To me that says that old DNA from Caylee or the murderer was not found due to degradation, and any DNA found would be due to investigative handlers.

I am not seeing this as an issue at trial.

 

[JWG]

Matching tape ends is not rocket science and doesn't take decades. The FBI lab has been publically humiliated, yet again. This time it's for evidence contamination. And any thought that this humiliated lab might have held back on key evidence would be wishful thinking.

Doh...forgot to address the edge-matching. :doh:

Just because we have not seen it does not mean it has not already been done. Via Muzikman :rocker:, I have found many times when documents have been released but not uploaded to media websites. On top of that, prosecution has not released all they have, although they are trying (2000 pages the other day).

 

[christee]

Doh...forgot to address the edge-matching. :doh:

Just because we have not seen it does not mean it has not already been done. Via Muzikman :rocker:, I have found many times when documents have been released but not uploaded to media websites. On top of that, prosecution has not released all they have, although they are trying (2000 pages the other day).

I agree Dr J,
But if they need help with matching wonder why they haven't asked for WS' help?
It woulda been done already!

And ITA also that we've not seen all the docs. If there are any still undiscovered, "MM" will sniff them out!

 

[CBTampa]

BLUE FIBERS
You know those blue cotton rags mechanics use..they wipe the oil dipsticks with them and stuff? George, being Mr. Auto guy, may have had some on the shelf in the garage in contact with the duct tape.. Maybe he used them too to wipe down any spill on the gas can.. if he overfilled the can it may leak out the vent where he has the duct tape..so he may wipe around that leaving blue fibers on the tape edges. On second thought, if he routinely lifted the tape so he could open the vent while pouring the gas into the mower and it sloshed out the vent a bit, he would have wiped it down before sticking the tape back down. I don't think he'd be using Cindy's bath towels to do that with..if ya know what I mean I think they call those "shop towels" too. Just a thought. Something like these: http://www.wipersource.com/servlet/the-67/Mechanic's-Shop-Rags,-Blue/Detail

What about the blue shirt that KC is wearing the Globe picture? Wonder if this has been compared. I am just thinking...

 

[magic-cat]

Folks might have noticed that the duct tape logo repeats in an offset pattern, sort of like one would see on wallpaper. However, unlike wallpaper, the logo offsets are not spaced such that I can take a single roll of tape and paper my wall in a seamless fashion. In other words, the left edge of the tape will never line up with the right edge. The "tiling pattern" is not quite right. :waitasec:

I took some measurements of the longer strip that FairNBalanced posted earlier this year and, without going into the math (yeah, trust me), I determined that every 8th roll will have the same tiling pattern. Notthatsmart noted earlier that about 300,000 rolls of the tape had been sold in North America over a 10 year period. However, only 37,500 of those rolls would have the tiling in question. :dance:

The roll FairNBalanced found would fit within the same tolerance window as the Caylee tape. Again, taking measurements from the FairNBalanced tape, the "I" in "Inc." seen on his tape but not on the Caylee tape falls within the width tolerance allowed by the roll cutters. However, if I understand the way these machines work, the FairNBalanced tape could not have been cut from the same process window as the Caylee tape. He is still safe from being pegged as Zenaida. :thumb:

In other words, if I set up my machines on one day to produce tape, every eighth should look like the Caylee tape but none should look like the FairNBalanced tape. Now suppose I turn off my machinery and set everything back up the next day and make another manufacturing run. The same set of cutters that produced Caylee tape might now produce FairNBalanced tape (but not Caylee tape). Every eighth tape will look like FairNBalancedtape. This is due to the slight allowable differences in tolerance.

Bottom line is, we are probably looking at fewer than 20,000 rolls being produced that look like the Caylee tape. These rolls were distributed to over 1400 Lowes in North America, or about 14 rolls per Lowes (1.4 rolls per year).

P.S. - If I were to testify I suppose I should have diagrams and possibly a Flash animation that shows the cutting of rolls. Sorry for not doing that here. :doh:

Has anyone told you yet today that YOU ROCK DUDE? If not allow me to step up and say so! I had never seen this comparison of the I in Inc at the side of the tape as opposed to a piece that did NOT have it...That is some super sleuthing dude! Reaffirms for me that the tape on the gas can and the tape on the baby ARE indeed from the same roll.

 

[coco puff]

Matching tape ends is not rocket science and doesn't take decades. The FBI lab has been publically humiliated, yet again. This time it's for evidence contamination. And any thought that this humiliated lab might have held back on key evidence would be wishful thinking.

Yeah, the FBI are really the bad guys here. I'm wondering since apprently they are so inept at their job that perhaps they were wrong about the duct tape found on Caylee NOT being consistant with the gas can duct tape.

 

[Wudge]

I don't think the "evidence contamination" is anything new. As I understand it, this sort of thing happens all the time. That is why elimination material is brought into the case. That is why Jurys hear the case.

We get all wrapped up in DNA found on the tape without thinking objectively about who's DNA was not found: Caylees'.

To me that says that old DNA from Caylee or the murderer was not found due to degradation, and any DNA found would be due to investigative handlers.

I am not seeing this as an issue at trial.

I agree. Labs do screw all all the time, which results in wrongful convictions, and crooked lab technicians/examiners create further wrongful convictions.

I don't know why the State would bring the contamination up at trial or any of the lab work that benefits the defense; i.e., tapes that don't match, a hair that does not belong to Casey, unsourced DNA and nothing that places Casey where Caylee's body was found. But you can expect the defense to make sure the jury hears about this exculpatory evidence.

 

[JBean]

Yeah, the FBI are really the bad guys here. I'm wondering since apprently they are so inept at their job that perhaps they were wrong about the duct tape found on Caylee NOT being consistant with the gas can duct tape.

I don't think it is about villifying the FBI as much as examining what problems the prosecution may come up against because of different FBI findings.

 

[Wudge]

Yeah, the FBI are really the bad guys here. I'm wondering since apprently they are so inept at their job that perhaps they were wrong about the duct tape found on Caylee NOT being consistant with the gas can duct tape.

People like to crown the FBI with white hats when history amply shows that would be a huge error.

Nevertheless, in this case, it appears we are not dealing with corruption, just incompetency (contamination), at least, so far. Still, the FBI lab and it's examiners do have a history of corruption -- a little research might illuminate things, re: I. Michael Malone, Richard Hahn, Thomas Thurman, Terry Rudolph, Wallace Higgins, Robert Heckman and David Williams.

I'm not saying that we should expect to find lab corruption (FBI or otherwise) in this case -- I did hold so for Cynthia Sommer's case. But incompetency can be just as ruinous.

 

[coco puff]

People like to crown the FBI with white hats when history amply shows that would be a huge error.

Nevertheless, in this case, it appears we are not dealing with corruption, just incompetency (contamination), at least, so far. Still, the FBI lab and it's examiners do have a history of corruption -- a little research might illuminate things, re: I. Michael Malone, Richard Hahn, Thomas Thurman, Terry Rudolph, Wallace Higgins, Robert Heckman and David Williams.

I'm not saying that we should expect to find lab corruption (FBI or otherwise) in this case -- I did hold so for Cynthia Sommer's case. But incompetency can be just as ruinous.

I am familiar with someof the past mistates of the FBI. I guess my point would be that you are pointing out potential mistakes made on the duct tape anaylisys by the FBI. Those mistates aren't always in the favor of the defendent. Perhaps the non-match was a mistate too. Anyway, They are not perfect but I know they have got many perps off the street with their good work. I consider myself illuminated now. :innocent:

 

[notthatsmart]

To stay on topic I will start with the duct tape not matching.

The Fbi stated the fibers were consistent with coming from a different source.
The Fbi stated there was no dna to match GA CA KC LA.
The Fbi admitted that they contaminated the tape. (thank you)
When the Fbi techs were discussing an image in the trunk, The Fbi supervisor stepped in and said it is highly speculative and we dont speculate. ( Good supervisor thank you)
The Fbi has seemed to clear KC from this dump site.

I dont see the Fbi as being on anyones side. They seem to be a third party source. They have the tools to help us determine things.

On the other hand, Nick Savage was helping with interviews. Not sure who's side he is on. I think it is just that we are in the middle of the fact finding mission and sometimes it hurts when there is a truth that doesn't fit our theory.

 

[cyberborg]

To stay on topic I will start with the duct tape not matching.

The Fbi stated the fibers were consistent with coming from a different source.
The Fbi stated there was no dna to match GA CA KC LA.
The Fbi admitted that they contaminated the tape. (thank you)
When the Fbi techs were discussing an image in the trunk, The Fbi supervisor stepped in and said it is highly speculative and we dont speculate. ( Good supervisor thank you)
The Fbi has seemed to clear KC from this dump site.

I dont see the Fbi as being on anyones side. They seem to be a third party source. They have the tools to help us determine things.

On the other hand, Nick Savage was helping with interviews. Not sure who's side he is on. I think it is just that we are in the middle of the fact finding mission and sometimes it hurts when there is a truth that doesn't fit our theory.

BBM.

How so?

Given the length of time that the remains were at the dump site there is no practical expectation of any DNA surviving those conditions. There was basically no DNA and thus no DNA match to anyone.

As an exception, the one DNA sample was determined to be contamination and identified as a lab tech, the other is un-determined because it is only partial and so ... doesn't prove much of anything IMO.

I don't know how you can cite 3 random items A B, and C, taken out of context and reach a conclusion of therefore D. Don't you need to consider everything in totality and not be selective.

Please explain. I am confused by your conclusion.

 

[Friday]

Respectfully snipped from JWG Post #347, this thread.

We get all wrapped up in DNA found on the tape without thinking objectively about who's DNA was not found: Caylees'.

To me that says that old DNA from Caylee or the murderer was not found due to degradation, and any DNA found would be due to investigative handlers.

I am not seeing this as an issue at trial.

Thank you JWG! I've been wanting to shout this out in huge caps to everyone! Since exposure to the elements erased even Caylee's DNA (which had to have been ALL OVER that tape when it was first put on her) then the unindentifiable partial DNA containing "17" is not related to her murder or murderer!!

During trials, it's so easy for defense attorneys like LKB to take highly complex scientific forensic evidence and convert it into a weapon of mass destruction aimed straight at the jury's most precious and valuable asset -- COMMON SENSE. To further guarantee the annihiliation of an English-speaking jury's ability to question or even understand all this extremely complex scientific data, the data itself will be discussed and disputed on the witness stand by a collection of brilliant "famed forensic scientists" like Dr. Henry Lee, whose English-speaking skills are so god-awful that it's impossible to understand much of what they say!
So there. I've had my say. I feel better now. :blowkiss:

PS: To banish any doubt, I will add that I have the same objection to forensic scientists with seriously inadequate English-speaking skills, regardless of whether they're testifying for the defense or the prosecution. As a jurror, listenening to them is like trying to make sense of my last sentence with some of the words blacked out.

 

[notthatsmart]

BBM.

How so?

Given the length of time that the remains were at the dump site there is no practical expectation of any DNA surviving those conditions. There was basically no DNA and thus no DNA match to anyone.
As an exception, the one DNA sample was determined to be contamination and identified as a lab tech, the other is un-determined because it is only partial and so ... doesn't prove much of anything IMO.

I don't know how you can cite 3 random items A B, and C, taken out of context and reach a conclusion of therefore D. Don't you need to consider everything in totality and not be selective.Please explain. I am confused by your conclusion.

Bold 1 About the duct tape dna. There is not enough to include but there is enough to exclude, but there was dna.

Bold 2 it can prove exclusion.

Bold 3 right now I am sleuthing the physical evidence and trying to stay on topic with the duct tape.
In its totality:

10000 lies

300 truths

1 unknown ( could be a lie could be the truth)
I can not determine what is a lie and what is the truth. I can not base my opinion on a mixture. Some can add it up and say that the one unknow is a lie because there were more lies than truth. I cant do that.

So in this thread, I am only talking about this duct tape.