Evidence for "Dead body in the Damn Car"

[Searchfortruth]

And then there's the testimony of Det. Melich, many jurors would not need anymore than this to conclude a dead body was in Casey's car.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLb0RYC1q5o&feature=player_embedded#

 

[sadyjade]

Annnnnnnnnd .... exit stage left!

Just an educated conclusion, moo

 

[Phumi]

Just want to include something from the fbi linky NTS included in post #228


"Conclusions
There are several possible conclusions that can be reached from the microscopic examination and comparison of human hairs. When the questioned hair(s) is compared to the known hairs using a comparison microscope, the full length of the hair(s) as well as the full range of microscopic characteristics must be considered. Following their analyses, hair examiners may conclude the following:

The questioned hair exhibits the same microscopic characteristics as the hairs in the known hair sample and, accordingly, is consistent with originating from the source of the known hairs.


The questioned hair is microscopically dissimilar to the hairs found in the known hair sample and, accordingly, cannot be associated to the source of the known hairs.


Similarities and slight differences were observed between the questioned hair and hairs in the known hair sample. Accordingly, no conclusion could be reached as to whether the questioned hair originated from the same source as the known hairs.


When a hair exhibits the same microscopic characteristics as hairs in the known hair sample, a qualifying statement may be added to the report. This statement may read as follows:

Hair comparisons are not a basis for absolute personal identification. It should be noted, however, that because it is unusual to find hairs from two different individuals that exhibit the same microscopic characteristics, a microscopic association or match is the basis for a strong association."

...SoThe remains are identified as Caylee's. The hair with the remains is Caylee's. The hair with the remains is microscopically similiar to the hair in the trunk which exhibit characteristics of having come from a dead body. Finding hairs from 2 different individuals that exhibit the same microscopic characteristics is rare.

So we can either conclude the trunk hair is Caylee's OR the weather changed the hair in the woods to be microscopically similar to Caylee's hair. Wow! What are the odds.

 

[Phumi]

And the FBI had this to say about "Caylee's Hair":

"The previously reported Caucasian head hair exhibiting characteristics of apparent decomposition at the proximal end (specimen Q12.1, FBI Laboratory report dated August 1, 2008, FBI Laboratory Number 080730003 TO LF) exhibits the same microscopic characteristics as the Caucasian head hairs found in specimen Q59. Accordingly, specimen Q12.1 and the Caucasian head hairs found in specimen Q59 are consistent with originating from the same source." handwritten page number 9616

I just can't bring myself to believe that the elements would degrade the hair mass to the point that it would exhibit the same microscopic characteristics as the one found in the trunk. And, like you said, I think we can all agree that the hair found on the skull was Caylee's.

ETA: What will the argument be? The hair from the hair mass has the same microscopic characteristics as the one in the trunk only because it was exposed to the elements for six months? The elements caused the microscopic characteristics to be similar? I could see blaming the elements if no similarities were found but not if they are so similar that they are consistent with originating from the same source. As far as the FBI confirming the results, they never do. Not even in DNA testing do they say it is absolutely a match.

Sorry Marina2--just read this. Very similiar to my last post.:blushing:

 

[Firefly]

Cindy summed it up right from the beginning. Her own words are the best hard evidence thatwill be difficult to refute as an initial reaction to the crime scene that was undisturbed by anyone other than her. She was in her right mind, laser angry but wanting to get to the bottom of things, during those first initial hours of finding the car. She hadn't looked for Casey with a vengence until that moment because there was no reason to. (I wonder if had there been NO decomp smell in the car, how alarmed would they have become in finding Casey?) It was crystal to her that she needed to find her daughter. After doing so and finding Caylee had been missing for 31 days, had her brain wired for what was the most logical and likely scenerio that has transpired. She did NOT say it smells like there has been a rotting pizza in the car. She did say dead body in almost the same breath that she states she found her daughter and the grandbaby is missing. It was to drive home the point, in the 911 call, that the smell was significant and serious w/o having to utter her desperate thoughts in words out loud that she had a sinking feeling that her granddaughter was dead and probably the reason for the odor. How incredibly horrific for her in that moment... for ANY mother. I think she was sanest, level headed mother and human being she has ever been in that moment. It has been what and how things have transpired since and her contradictory actions that make us sit up straighter and take notice of how important her initial words were. A woman's intuition should never be messed with because we are usually right on the money.

 

[joypath]

PHUMI and MARINI2: heck, I'd even go so far as to say that the posts are similiar and consistant, originating from the cohesive, rational thought process of rarified Sapiens grey matter dendrites shooting off synaptic arcs!


LOL and suitable for framing with the limited edition publication from the Danbury Mint~

 

[Harmony 2]

FYI

What is Mitochondrial DNA?
Inherited From the Mother, mtDNA is Perfect for Cold Cases

Mitochondrial DNA is Only Inherited from the Mother
What sets mtDNA apart is that, unlike nuclear DNA which is equally inherited from both father and mother, mtDNA is inherited only from the mother, because all our mitochondria are descended from those in our mother's egg cells.

This means that Mitochondrial DNA is passed from a mother to her children, which also makes it useful for tracing individuals’ maternal lineage. So, that while both sons and daughters inherit mtDNA from their mothers, only daughters can pass their mtDNA to their children.

http://forensicscience.suite101.com/article.cfm/what_is_mitochondrial_dna

The age of an individual cannot be determined definitively by a microscopic examination; however, the microscopic appearance of certain human hairs, such as those of infants and elderly individuals, may provide a general indication of age. The hairs of infants, for example, are generally finer and less distinctive in microscopic appearance.

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july2000/deedric1.htm#Hair Evidence

Carry on.... :angel:

 

[magnolia]

ok. I think it's about time that we can at least agree that there was a dead body in the pontiac.
Here what I have if anyone want's to disagree please do so:

1. KC discusses smell...speaks of a "dead squirrel"
2. CA says the car smells like "there is a dead body in the dam car.'
3. GA talks about the dead body smell in car
4. LA talk about the dead body smell in car
5. LE talks about the dead body smell in car
6. two independent cadaver dogs hit on the trunk of the car
7. body farm evidence confirms smell as decomposition
8. coffin flies lead to decomp
9. hair with "death ring" belonging either to KC or Caylee and we know KC is alive

anything else I'm missing. Because after all of this I can certainly conclude without a reasonable doubt (actually no doubt) that there was a "dead body in the dam car"

I believe this post sums it up quite well. It's the totality of the evidence in this case that will provide a conviction for Casey.

You're exactly right Searchfortruth. When you look at 1-8,the number 9 piece of the puzzle fits very well. IMO, the jurors will also conclude there was a "dead body in the damn car".

 

[Phumi]

PHUMI and MARINI2: heck, I'd even go so far as to say that the posts are similiar and consistant, originating from the cohesive, rational thought process of rarified Sapiens grey matter dendrites shooting off synaptic arcs!


LOL and suitable for framing with the limited edition publication from the Danbury Mint~

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[AZlawyer]

Just want to include something from the fbi linky NTS included in post #228


"Conclusions
There are several possible conclusions that can be reached from the microscopic examination and comparison of human hairs. When the questioned hair(s) is compared to the known hairs using a comparison microscope, the full length of the hair(s) as well as the full range of microscopic characteristics must be considered. Following their analyses, hair examiners may conclude the following:

The questioned hair exhibits the same microscopic characteristics as the hairs in the known hair sample and, accordingly, is consistent with originating from the source of the known hairs.


The questioned hair is microscopically dissimilar to the hairs found in the known hair sample and, accordingly, cannot be associated to the source of the known hairs.


Similarities and slight differences were observed between the questioned hair and hairs in the known hair sample. Accordingly, no conclusion could be reached as to whether the questioned hair originated from the same source as the known hairs.


When a hair exhibits the same microscopic characteristics as hairs in the known hair sample, a qualifying statement may be added to the report. This statement may read as follows:

Hair comparisons are not a basis for absolute personal identification. It should be noted, however, that because it is unusual to find hairs from two different individuals that exhibit the same microscopic characteristics, a microscopic association or match is the basis for a strong association."

...SoThe remains are identified as Caylee's. The hair with the remains is Caylee's. The hair with the remains is microscopically similiar to the hair in the trunk which exhibit characteristics of having come from a dead body. Finding hairs from 2 different individuals that exhibit the same microscopic characteristics is rare.

So we can either conclude the trunk hair is Caylee's OR the weather changed the hair in the woods to be microscopically similiar to Caylee's hair. Wow! What are the odds.

Notice that the FBI manual does not permit its analysts to say that the hairs come from the same source. The strongest conclusion they are permitted to reach is that the 2 samples are consistent with originating from the same source. In other words, if 2 hairs appear to be EXACTLY the same, the FBI will still only say they are "consistent with" originating from the same source.

 

[Marina2]

Sorry Marina2--just read this. Very similiar to my last post.:blushing:

No apologies necessary Phumi. It's just the logical conclusion. One I'm sure the jurors will draw from the evidence. I'm enjoying reading the opposing opinions though. It gives a good preview of what we're in for when the defense puts on it's case.

 

[notthatsmart]

I see something new, so I will respond. Some post are insinuating that the hair being exposed to the elements for 6 months caused it to be microscopically similiar to the hair in the trunk. I respectfully disagree.

What I said was, that the hair being exposed to the elements for 6 months, caused it to be not a suitable known hair sample. That is just my opinion and not stated as fact.

Therefore, I still believe we are comparing an unsuitable known hair sample to an unknown hair sample.

Similar is a broad word. Even with a microscope. At trial each characteristic will have to be compared and explained. I think a suitable known hair sample contains many many characteristics. As the hair loses its source of life, the elements begin to naw at each and everyone of those characteristics. So, it would be nice if the FBI was more specific about the characteristics.

 

[LambChop]

I see something new, so I will respond. Some post are insinuating that the hair being exposed to the elements for 6 months caused it to be microscopically similiar to the hair in the trunk. I respectfully disagree.

What I said was, that the hair being exposed to the elements for 6 months, caused it to be not a suitable known hair sample. That is just my opinion and not stated as fact.

Therefore, I still believe we are comparing an unsuitable known hair sample to an unknown hair sample.

Similar is a broad word. Even with a microscope. At trial each characteristic will have to be compared and explained. I think a suitable known hair sample contains many many characteristics. As the hair loses its source of life, the elements begin to naw at each and everyone of those characteristics. So, it would be nice if the FBI was more specific about the characteristics.

I understand what you are saying NTS but it amounts to "splitting hairs" so to speak if it were to be presented to the jury as such. Plain and simple, DNA from Caylee's bone proved it was the body of Caylee. The hair mass attached belongs to Caylee. The DNA from the hair in the trunk clearly belongs to Caylee.

Since I am not an expert and this makes sense to me this is what I would process. Not being an expert I feel confident the FBI and the other labs involved have proven the hair belonged to Caylee. I could say, too, I don't believe the FBI but what's the point I'm not an expert. I am, however, looking forward to the defense's experts trying to argue these facts in court. Buckle up!!!!

Also, the hair coloring. I read that both KC and CA color their hair and that the hair from the trunk was not colored so that would rule out lighter hair with the dark band. Of course I can't remember where I read it but I think it is in here somewhere. We know from pictures and CA admitting on TV that they colored their hair so it's not worth the effort to track it down, for me anyway since we know the hair in the trunk was Caylee's. Also infants have finer hair than adults, and the FBI would not have to tell me that.

 

[Phumi]

If the sample is unsuitable, then it can't be used for testing. That is what unsuitable refers to. The fact that both microscopic AND DNA tests were done, tells us that the samples were suitable.

 

[Phumi]

I see something new, so I will respond. Some post are insinuating that the hair being exposed to the elements for 6 months caused it to be microscopically similiar to the hair in the trunk. I respectfully disagree.

What I said was, that the hair being exposed to the elements for 6 months, caused it to be not a suitable known hair sample. That is just my opinion and not stated as fact.

Therefore, I still believe we are comparing an unsuitable known hair sample to an unknown hair sample.

Similar is a broad word. Even with a microscope. At trial each characteristic will have to be compared and explained. I think a suitable known hair sample contains many many characteristics. As the hair loses its source of life, the elements begin to naw at each and everyone of those characteristics. So, it would be nice if the FBI was more specific about the characteristics.

BBM


No. Similar is NOT a broad word here--in fact FBI guidlines say:

"Similar is a term used to describe an association among questioned and known hairs. This term implies that no significant unexplained differences exist among the known and questioned hairs or that they are indistinguishable. This term has been used interchangeably with consistent with, cannot be eliminated, could have come from, could have originated from, match, microscopically alike, and the same as. "

Note the last phrase--"the same as"

 

[magnolia]

Just want to include something from the fbi linky NTS included in post #228


"Conclusions
There are several possible conclusions that can be reached from the microscopic examination and comparison of human hairs. When the questioned hair(s) is compared to the known hairs using a comparison microscope, the full length of the hair(s) as well as the full range of microscopic characteristics must be considered. Following their analyses, hair examiners may conclude the following:

The questioned hair exhibits the same microscopic characteristics as the hairs in the known hair sample and, accordingly, is consistent with originating from the source of the known hairs.


The questioned hair is microscopically dissimilar to the hairs found in the known hair sample and, accordingly, cannot be associated to the source of the known hairs.


Similarities and slight differences were observed between the questioned hair and hairs in the known hair sample. Accordingly, no conclusion could be reached as to whether the questioned hair originated from the same source as the known hairs.


When a hair exhibits the same microscopic characteristics as hairs in the known hair sample, a qualifying statement may be added to the report. This statement may read as follows:

Hair comparisons are not a basis for absolute personal identification. It should be noted, however, that because it is unusual to find hairs from two different individuals that exhibit the same microscopic characteristics, a microscopic association or match is the basis for a strong association."

...SoThe remains are identified as Caylee's. The hair with the remains is Caylee's. The hair with the remains is microscopically similiar to the hair in the trunk which exhibit characteristics of having come from a dead body. Finding hairs from 2 different individuals that exhibit the same microscopic characteristics is rare.

So we can either conclude the trunk hair is Caylee's OR the weather changed the hair in the woods to be microscopically similar to Caylee's hair. Wow! What are the odds.

I see something new, so I will respond. Some post are insinuating that the hair being exposed to the elements for 6 months caused it to be microscopically similiar to the hair in the trunk. I respectfully disagree.

What I said was, that the hair being exposed to the elements for 6 months, caused it to be not a suitable known hair sample. That is just my opinion and not stated as fact.

Therefore, I still believe we are comparing an unsuitable known hair sample to an unknown hair sample.

Similar is a broad word. Even with a microscope. At trial each characteristic will have to be compared and explained. I think a suitable known hair sample contains many many characteristics. As the hair loses its source of life, the elements begin to naw at each and everyone of those characteristics. So, it would be nice if the FBI was more specific about the characteristics.

NTS, did you perhaps overlook the post from Phumi I have quoted above?

 

[LambChop]

I know some people have issues with the FBI. They are like any other agency, company, etc. There are wrong doers, sloppy workers, etc. in all lines of business and this past year we have seen the worst of the worst but the FBI has done some great things too. The same FBI is capable of finding evidence to support KC's claim of innocence if it is there. It just isn't. So to be fair to the FBI it is easy for us to criticize their work if we are not experts ourselves but we all know by their reports they are trying to be objective. We've all watched CSI and are amazed at what the capabilities are. If defense has issues with the FBI then they need to do their own testing. Only thing we have heard is how the testing which has been done is junk. Nothing from their camp and no attempt to look at evidence up close and personal.

If I were innocent I would want the FBI to turn over every leaf because the evidence speaks for itself. It is Caylee's one last chance to speak on her own behalf. The FBI gives her a voice. The juror's will give her justice.

 

[BeanE]

Notice that the FBI manual does not permit its analysts to say that the hairs come from the same source. The strongest conclusion they are permitted to reach is that the 2 samples are consistent with originating from the same source. In other words, if 2 hairs appear to be EXACTLY the same, the FBI will still only say they are "consistent with" originating from the same source.

Thank you for pointing that out, AZL. It's a point I've always found interesting, and it's important to know.

 

[notthatsmart]

BBM


No. Similar is NOT a broad word here--in fact FBI guidlines say:

"Similar is a term used to describe an association among questioned and known hairs. This term implies that no significant unexplained differences exist among the known and questioned hairs or that they are indistinguishable. This term has been used interchangeably with consistent with, cannot be eliminated, could have come from, could have originated from, match, microscopically alike, and the same as. "

Note the last phrase--"the same as"

I didn't see this link. Do you have this link, I would like to take a look at it.

 

[notthatsmart]

NTS, did you perhaps overlook the post from Phumi I have quoted above?

I totally disagree with that post. It continues to base its findings on a suitable known hair sample. We don't have that here.