Evidence for "Dead body in the Damn Car"

[joypath]

My understanding of the trunk hair is that they do not have the root end so that is why they can't exactly say it is 100% match, is that correct? But because a small child's hair is so fine, never been colored (my hairdresser calls it virgin hair, lost mine when I started to go gray) it would be more consistent coming from the child than the mother and we know the Mom is not deceased and she has colored her hair in the past as we have photos. If the child was still missing I would see this as a point to argue, but she is not.

Totally correct: the root was not present therefore only MtDNA could be determined, hence the hair belonged to a female of the Anthony lineage (yes, stastically there is a small chance tha some stranger could be the donor BUT the statistics are in the favor of the Anthony/Pleasea(sp) donation based on the other factors you cited. This point of argument is something Dr. Kobe from the defense team will try to wrap his sword around for the jury, watch for his dance of the amino acids sequencing with LKB

 

[AZlawyer]

Per section 14.4 of the FBI standards--
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/april2005/standards/2005_04_standards02.htm--

the FBI will opine that a microscopic hair comparison is "INCONCLUSIVE" if there is "an inadequate known hair sample." Here the FBI did not say the comparison was "inconclusive"--they drew conclusions.

 

[Harmony 2]

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.

Responding to bolded and underscore:

It is your opinion...
This article says that mitochondrial DNA is used in cases where there might be damage.

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is Useful for Identifying Victims of Mass Disasters
These energy producing mitochondria have their own DNA molecules that are used to create a DNA profile, which is called mitochondrial DNA or mtDNA. In humans, the mitochondrial DNA genome consists of about 16,000 DNA building blocks (base pairs), representing just a fraction of the total DNA in cells.

Because mitochondria are structurally strong and protect the DNA they contain, mitochondrial DNA is useful for identifying victims of mass disasters, like the Tsunami, where the nuclear DNA in the cells could have been degraded or damaged. It is also often used in Cold Cases.

Most cells in our bodies contain between 500 and 1000 copies of the mtDNA molecule, which makes it a lot easier to find and extract than nuclear DNA.

Also mtDNA is optimal because:

Compared with Traditional nuclear nDNA analysis, Mitochondrial mtDNA offers three primary benefits to forensic scientists:

•Its structure and location in the cell make mtDNA more stable, enabling investigators to test older or degraded samples
•mtDNA is available in larger quantities per cell – smaller samples can be tested
•mtDNA can be extracted from samples in which nDNA cannot, especially hair shafts and bone fragments.

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

The page you gave on a prior post is not the accurate page number because I could not find anything on that page that said Q59 was an unsuitable sample. There were alot of graphs on that page 50 you gave. Can you check again and I will check again, too. Thanks...

 

[Phumi]

So Joypath...just because I have a feeling this might come up again...
can you explain this...
When the trunk hair was compared to the hairbrush hair, the report was that they were microscopically similar, but a more meaningful conclusion could not be drawn because it was not a suitable known sample..

 

[Phumi]

My understanding of the trunk hair is that they do not have the root end so that is why they can't exactly say it is 100% match, is that correct? But because a small child's hair is so fine, never been colored (my hairdresser calls it virgin hair, lost mine when I started to go gray) it would be more consistent coming from the child than the mother and we know the Mom is not deceased and she has colored her hair in the past as we have photos. If the child was still missing I would see this as a point to argue, but she is not.

And they can look at the length and color of the hair since KC, CA and Caylee do not share length and color.

 

[AZlawyer]

http://www.wftv.com/download/2009/1009/21252103.pdf

I think NTS requested this link. p. 412 Casey's hair is described as, among other things, "art trt," i.e., artificially treated.

 

[joypath]

So Joypath...just because I have a feeling this might come up again...
can you explain this...
When the trunk hair was compared to the hairbrush hair, the report was that they were microscopically similar, but a more meaningful conclusion could not be drawn because it was not a suitable known sample..

CAVEAT:this is from memory: IIRC, the hairbrush submitted was a mixed sample shared brush, therefore would have hairs that were mircoscopically similar BUT the suitability as a prestine exemplar was not acceptable beyond that statement AT THAT TIME.


In the vernacular: "DARN, this hair looks like some on this brush but WTH? the GRANDMOTHER told us it was te victim's personal brush! HOW THE HECK did these weird, strange,unusual, differing, morphologically differing strands get onto the EXCLUSIVE BRUSH OF THE VICTIM per the good and sainted word of the granny?"

Yes Boys and Girls, GMOTY's sneaky trick of LYING about the hairbrush was going to be well-known, and while not an "obstruction of justice" it's a darn good thing she DIDN't go with her thought of giving up the CANINE toothbrush 'cause THAT sure would have been hard to explain as an "oops-see"

 

[Phumi]

CAVEAT:this is from memory: IIRC, the hairbrush submitted was a mixed sample shared brush, therefore would have hairs that were mircoscopically similar BUT the suitability as a prestine exemplar was not acceptable beyond that statement AT THAT TIME.


In the vernacular: "DARN, this hair looks like some on this brush but WTH? the GRANDMOTHER told us it was te victim's personal brush! HOW THE HECK did these weird, strange,unusual, differing, morphologically differing strands get onto the EXCLUSIVE BRUSH OF THE VICTIM per the good and sainted word of the granny?"

Yes Boys and Girls, GMOTY's sneaky trick of LYING about the hairbrush was going to be well-known, and while not an "obstruction of justice" it's a darn good thing she DIDN't go with her thought of giving up the CANINE toothbrush 'cause THAT sure would have been hard to explain as an "oops-see"

Thanks Joypath--Love your sense of humor, too!

 

[Trapshooter]

Yes Boys and Girls, GMOTY's sneaky trick of LYING about the hairbrush was going to be well-known, and while not an "obstruction of justice" it's a darn good thing she DIDN't go with her thought of giving up the CANINE toothbrush 'cause THAT sure would have been hard to explain as an "oops-see"

Snipped

Oh dear! Can you imagine us "splitting hairs" over dog hair? :banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[christee]

CAVEAT:this is from memory: IIRC, the hairbrush submitted was a mixed sample shared brush, therefore would have hairs that were mircoscopically similar BUT the suitability as a prestine exemplar was not acceptable beyond that statement AT THAT TIME.


In the vernacular: "DARN, this hair looks like some on this brush but WTH? the GRANDMOTHER told us it was te victim's personal brush! HOW THE HECK did these weird, strange,unusual, differing, morphologically differing strands get onto the EXCLUSIVE BRUSH OF THE VICTIM per the good and sainted word of the granny?"

Yes Boys and Girls, GMOTY's sneaky trick of LYING about the hairbrush was going to be well-known, and while not an "obstruction of justice" it's a darn good thing she DIDN't go with her thought of giving up the CANINE toothbrush 'cause THAT sure would have been hard to explain as an "oops-see"

...and if she would do something that sneaky and deceitful what else did CA do just as sneaky and deceitful to alter testing and interpretation of the physical evidence?

 

[notthatsmart]

Responding to bolded and underscore:

It is your opinion...
This article says that mitochondrial DNA is used in cases where there might be damage.


Also mtDNA is optimal because:

Compared with Traditional nuclear nDNA analysis, Mitochondrial mtDNA offers three primary benefits to forensic scientists:

•Its structure and location in the cell make mtDNA more stable, enabling investigators to test older or degraded samples
•mtDNA is available in larger quantities per cell – smaller samples can be tested
•mtDNA can be extracted from samples in which nDNA cannot, especially hair shafts and bone fragments.

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

The page you gave on a prior post is not the accurate page number because I could not find anything on that page that said Q59 was an unsuitable sample. There were alot of graphs on that page 50 you gave. Can you check again and I will check again, too. Thanks...

Page 594 of this link:
http://www.wftv.com/download/2009/1009/21252103.pdf

It should be noted that the hairs recovered from q59, do not constitute a suitable known head hair sample.

 

[cyberborg]

Would you offer what would be a "suitable known hair sample"? I am asking because if I were to be (as a potential juror) asked to make such a distinction, I would certainly feel comfortable concluding that "consistent with" coupled by the fact that it was Caylee's hair they were comparing it to would be a "suitable known hair sample. If you are asking me to follow your thought process here, I would need for you to tell me what would be a"suitable known hair sample"?

Bump for response.

 

[notthatsmart]

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.

Okay, the bolded part is the terminology. The unbolded part is just a statement that the term has been used in many ways.

Here is the definition of similar:

Main Entry: sim·i·lar
Pronunciation: \ˈsi-mə-lər, ˈsim-lər\
Function: adjective
Etymology: French similaire, from Latin similis like, similar — more at same
Date: 1611

1 : having characteristics in common : strictly comparable
2 : alike in substance or essentials : corresponding <no two animal habitats are exactly similar &#8212; W. H. Dowdeswell>
3 : not differing in shape but only in size or position

Here is the defintion for same:

Main Entry: 1same
Pronunciation: \&#712;s&#257;m\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old Norse samr; akin to Old High German sama same, Latin simulis like, simul together, at the same time, similis like, sem- one, Greek homos same, hama together, hen-, heis one
Date: 13th century

1 a : resembling in every relevant respect b : conforming in every respect &#8212;used with as
2 a : being one without addition, change, or discontinuance : identical b : being the one under discussion or already referred to
3 : corresponding so closely as to be indistinguishable
4 : equal in size, shape, value, or importance &#8212;usually used with the or a demonstrative (as that, those) in all senses

Again, i suppose it is a matter of interpretation of the document, but I don't believe the Fbi ever meant to say that similar meant same as. MOO

 

[Harmony 2]

It certainly wasn't a suitable known sample until after they tested the tibia's DNA. Do you mean after that?

Page 594 of this link:
http://www.wftv.com/download/2009/1009/21252103.pdf

It should be noted that the hairs recovered from q59, do not constitute a suitable known head hair sample.

Thank you.. you had said page 50 in the other post... I appreciate you finding it for me.... 1405 pages is alot to look through...


The date on that testing was December 19, 2008 (page 593). Caylee's remains had just been found 8 days before on December 11th. As AZlawyer noted they probably had not run the DNA testing on the tibia yet or did not have results. Therefore, they referred to it as not constituting a suitable head hair sample because they did not know who the remain's belonged to. I am assuming though... I do not know the date the tibia was tested off the top of my head. HTH

 

[cyberborg]

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.

Okay, the bolded part is the terminology. The unbolded part is just a statement that the term has been used in many ways.

Here is the definition of similar:

Main Entry: sim·i·lar
Pronunciation: \&#712;si-m&#601;-l&#601;r, &#712;sim-l&#601;r\
Function: adjective
Etymology: French similaire, from Latin similis like, similar &#8212; more at same
Date: 1611

1 : having characteristics in common : strictly comparable
2 : alike in substance or essentials : corresponding <no two animal habitats are exactly similar &#8212; W. H. Dowdeswell>
3 : not differing in shape but only in size or position

Here is the defintion for same:

Main Entry: 1same
Pronunciation: \&#712;s&#257;m\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old Norse samr; akin to Old High German sama same, Latin simulis like, simul together, at the same time, similis like, sem- one, Greek homos same, hama together, hen-, heis one
Date: 13th century

1 a : resembling in every relevant respect b : conforming in every respect &#8212;used with as
2 a : being one without addition, change, or discontinuance : identical b : being the one under discussion or already referred to
3 : corresponding so closely as to be indistinguishable
4 : equal in size, shape, value, or importance &#8212;usually used with the or a demonstrative (as that, those) in all senses

Again, i suppose it is a matter of interpretation of the document, but I don't believe the Fbi ever meant to say that similar meant same as. MOO

BBM.

Firstly, we need to use the FBI manual as the dictionary and not our own.

Role playing, as a member of the Jury, it is not so much the interpretation of the document but in reality the presentation at trial by the FBI experts (who know precisely what they mean/meant) so it all boils down to ..... do the Defense argue semantics and interpretation when the experts are directly presenting at trial or ...... do the Defense do some work and perform their own counter expert analysis?

As a Juror, the former 'splitting hairs' would NOT convince me at all and I'd go with the FBI expert testimony UNLESS the Defense has an equal expert who has done their own testing and analysis and I can compare the opinions based on common sense and the bigger overall picture of the case, as presented.

Lets face it, while these points in the mountain of evidence will be cursorily examined (unless the trial is going to take months) the Jury will be looking at the holistic snapshot view of the whole case, the complete mountain.

A mix of common sense, human nature to make connections and, the volume of circumstantial evidence will carry the day, rendering this particular debate moot. A done deal.

I think the Defense is focused totally on the penalty phase and is not doing too much for the trial.

 

[AZlawyer]

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.

Okay, the bolded part is the terminology. The unbolded part is just a statement that the term has been used in many ways.

Here is the definition of similar:

Main Entry: sim·i·lar
Pronunciation: \&#712;si-m&#601;-l&#601;r, &#712;sim-l&#601;r\
Function: adjective
Etymology: French similaire, from Latin similis like, similar — more at same
Date: 1611

1 : having characteristics in common : strictly comparable
2 : alike in substance or essentials : corresponding <no two animal habitats are exactly similar — W. H. Dowdeswell>
3 : not differing in shape but only in size or position

Here is the defintion for same:

Main Entry: 1same
Pronunciation: \&#712;s&#257;m\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old Norse samr; akin to Old High German sama same, Latin simulis like, simul together, at the same time, similis like, sem- one, Greek homos same, hama together, hen-, heis one
Date: 13th century

1 a : resembling in every relevant respect b : conforming in every respect —used with as
2 a : being one without addition, change, or discontinuance : identical b : being the one under discussion or already referred to
3 : corresponding so closely as to be indistinguishable
4 : equal in size, shape, value, or importance —usually used with the or a demonstrative (as that, those) in all senses

Again, i suppose it is a matter of interpretation of the document, but I don't believe the Fbi ever meant to say that similar meant same as. MOO

BBM

Yes. That's exactly what the FBI meant to say, and they explain it very clearly in their manuals. They aren't required to use words in the same way as Webster's (or whoever) defines those words.

 

[notthatsmart]

Thank you.. you had said page 50 in the other post... I appreciate you finding it for me.... 1405 pages is alot to look through...


The date on that testing was December 19, 2008 (page 593). Caylee's remains had just been found 8 days before on December 11th. As AZlawyer noted they probably had not run the DNA testing on the tibia yet or did not have results. Therefore, they referred to it as not constituting a suitable head hair sample because they did not know who the remain's belonged to. I am assuming though... I do not know the date the tibia was tested off the top of my head. HTH

It is my interpretation that the hair sample was known, but it was not suitable due to the 6months in the elements. Therefore not a suitable known hair sample. I know its a technicality, but I believe it will be challenged fiercly in court. The common characteristics would be destroyed by the elements. I am currently looking for that document that I have seen that explains the deterieration of head hair after death when exposed to rain, wind and sun. There may be a few characteristics left, but they determined that is was not a suitable known hair sample. They are comparing an unsuitable known hair sample to an unknown hair. I don't think that will fly in front of a jury listening to experts from both sides in an equal environment. MOO

 

[Trapshooter]

It is my interpretation that the hair sample was known, but it was not suitable due to the 6months in the elements. Therefore not a suitable known hair sample. I know its a technicality, but I believe it will be challenged fiercly in court. The common characteristics would be destroyed by the elements. I am currently looking for that document that I have seen that explains the deterieration of head hair after death when exposed to rain, wind and sun. There may be a few characteristics left, but they determined that is was not a suitable known hair sample. They are comparing an unsuitable known hair sample to an unknown hair. I don't think that will fly in front of a jury listening to experts from both sides in an equal environment. MOO

NTS I would like to refer you to Cyberborg's post above where he/she posted "Role playing, as a member of the Jury, it is not so much the interpretation of the document but in reality the presentation at trial by the FBI experts (who know precisely what they mean/meant) so it all boils down to ..... do the Defense argue semantics and interpretation when the experts are directly presenting at trial or ...... do the Defense do some work and perform their own counter expert analysis?"


Has the Defense hired their own experts to refute the findings of the FBI experts? I don't think this will be argued "fiercely" at trial because there is nothing to argue....the FBI said (in their language) that the hairs were similar.

 

[notthatsmart]

BBM

Yes. That's exactly what the FBI meant to say, and they explain it very clearly in their manuals. They aren't required to use words in the same way as Webster's (or whoever) defines those words.

Okay, I can accept that. If the Fbi wants to change defintions of words, that is their perrogative. I wish they wouldn't do that though. I hope they explain to the Jury, because the Jury will probably interpret it wrong knowing the real definition.

Incidentally, I have not seen the Fbi use the words "same as" in these documents. Moo

 

[joypath]

Bump for response.

Originally Posted by sadyjade [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4640766#post4640766"]

[/ame]
Would you offer what would be a "suitable known hair sample"? I am asking because if I were to be (as a potential juror) asked to make such a distinction, I would certainly feel comfortable concluding that "consistent with" coupled by the fact that it was Caylee's hair they were comparing it to would be a "suitable known hair sample. If you are asking me to follow your thought process here, I would need for you to tell me what would be a"suitable known hair sample"?

A suitable KNOWN hair sample is: over 25 individual hair strands with the roots intact, collected under standardized conditions using aseptic techniques, documented as ownership by a known party and legitimized by signatures of the collector, tester and donor. It would also be appropriate that the collection site be the same as the assumed donor site, ie: pubic to pubic BUT not mandatory IF nuclear DNA will be utilized as the genetic marker/confirmer.


The key points to the suitability of this sample: volume, condition, recognized identity/ownership of the EXEMPLAR to be compared with that of the UNKNOWN or random or "test" sample