Evidence for "Dead body in the Damn Car"

[AZlawyer]

The hair on the skull was not a suitable known hair sample. The link is in this thread, I will try to find it for you.

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

 

[notthatsmart]

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

Here is the link. Page 50. It should be noted that the hairs recovered from q59 do not constitute a suitable known hair sample.

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

 

[notthatsmart]

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

Is there anything after that? And if there is, where is it?

 

[AZlawyer]

Is there anything after that? And if there is, where is it?

Yes, they tested the tibia and it had Caylee's DNA (based on comparisons to the hairbrush as well as to the JG/Caylee paternity report). Then the hair on the skull became a suitable "known" sample because it was known who it came from. That's all they mean by a "known" sample. A hair sample from an UNIDENTIFIED body found in the woods would never be a suitable "known" hair sample, but once the body is identified through DNA it would be suitable to treat it as a known sample.

 

[The World According]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GgX8KjFPnY[/ame]

 

[Marina2]

Bold one: I did not say that a hair with a post-mortem death band, which is indicative in at least one scenario as having originated from a decomposing body.

I stand corrected. Several hairs were in the trunk. Only one was found that was consistent with human decomp. I am not sure anyone ever said there was a post mortem death band.

But later in an email from the fbi lab tech, she said she could not confirm the hair was from a human decomposing body.

Bold is mine.

Quoted from Karen K. Lowe (LD) (FBI) email:
"My report is on Cary's desk and I've spoken to the poc in Tampa- TFO Steven McElyea (407-508-0972) and advised of my results (and advised that I can't say absolutely that the hair came from a dead body but is consistent...)"

My interpretation of her statement is that she cannot say in her report or while testifying that it is "absolutely" from a dead body but that she can use the word "consistent". This is true for most, if not all, forensic test results. Even DNA is not "absolute". Imo, that is all she is saying in her email. We will hear expert testimony to the likelihood that hair with the "characteristics of decomposition at the root end" came from anywhere other than a dead body.

 

[InspectorGadget]

There were bugs in the bag, pg 4/43 here:
http://www.wftv.com/news/18530366/detail.html

Maggots were observed on the black plastic diner tray, taken from the trash bag. Later, maggots were also shaken from the paper towels, also from the bag.

Hello Treeseeker

I think that if the maggots had been feeding on a decomposing body, they would have been outside the bag. The best explanation for the maggots, IMO, is that they have fed on whatever was on the plastic tray. My guess would be meat. Perhaps someone cleaned out Tony's fridge & dumped some meat that was past its use by date. Perhaps Casey cooked a casserole & having diced raw meat, discarded the fatty portions of the meat, placed them on a plastic tray & chucked them in the trash. Having fed on the meat, no more meat left in the bag, only maggots & adipocere & some paper towels used in the kitchen.

Cindy & George were beyond worried when they picked the car up, beyond angry & agitated at having to pay out money they couldn't afford. They just feared the worst. I call it catastrophising. Most parents would know what I am speaking of.

 

[notthatsmart]

Yes, they tested the tibia and it had Caylee's DNA (based on comparisons to the hairbrush as well as to the JG/Caylee paternity report). Then the hair on the skull became a suitable "known" sample because it was known who it came from. That's all they mean by a "known" sample. A hair sample from an UNIDENTIFIED body found in the woods would never be a suitable "known" hair sample, but once the body is identified through DNA it would be suitable to treat it as a known sample.

Are you sure it became a suitable known hair sample after the dna test? Have they put that in a document? It is my understanding that the elements can destroy the characteristics needed to deem it a suitable known hair sample.

One would assume that identification is the only thing you need, however I am sure there is much more than that that constitutes a suitable known hair sample. I will look for the links. Thanks for pointing out this important info. Here is some info and link.

Biological or Environmental Alteration

The microscopic appearance of hairs is affected by natural biological fluctuations and environmental influences. For this reason, it is important that known hair standards are collected contemporaneously to the deposition of questioned hairs. Head hairs are most affected by these factors, whereas pubic hairs are less influenced. A time period of several months to years can detract from a meaningful head hair comparison, whereas several years may not severely impact on meaningful pubic hair comparisons.

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

I think the environment may play a big role in what constitues a suitable known hair sample.

 

[LambChop]

I read yesterday in one of the reports referenced here that they were able to match the death ban hair with another death ban hair on the remains. Not sure which report it was in, I will have to go back and check. The hair in the trunk belonged to either KC or Caylee. When the remains were found it was confirmed to be consistent with Caylee. Plus they knew it was Caylee's because the hair had not been chemically treated as were CA and KC's hair. Does that make sense?

 

[notthatsmart]

I stand corrected. I have used the words post mortem root band in some of my post. I can find no fbi text that uses these words. They just refer to it as a dark root end. So from here on out I will use dark root end. Sorry for my mistake.

 

[LambChop]

Background Information

Evidence of a hair with decomposition- found in Pontiac's trunk

Q12.1 hair with apparent decomposition at proximal root end (trunk)
Q59 hair from hair mass (remains)
K1 hair from Casey Anthony
Q15 hair from Caylee’s hairbrush

page 2/3329 http://blogs.discovery.com/files/18530294.pdf

page 8/3335 http://blogs.discovery.com/files/18530294.pdf

page 57 http://www.wftv.com/pdf/18740657/detail.html


page 594 of 1405 http://www.wftv.com/download/2009/1009/21252103.pdf

page 625 of 1405 http://www.wftv.com/download/2009/1009/21252103.pdf

From Harmony2's post. I believe this connects hair mass Q59 to the hair found in the trunk. We know the remains belonged to Caylee. Sometimes it is hard to read these reports but I think this is very clear. Hope this helps.

 

[notthatsmart]

I read yesterday in one of the reports referenced here that they were able to match the death ban hair with another death ban hair on the remains. Not sure which report it was in, I will have to go back and check. The hair in the trunk belonged to either KC or Caylee. When the remains were found it was confirmed to be consistent with Caylee. Plus they knew it was Caylee's because the hair had not been chemically treated as were CA and KC's hair. Does that make sense?

I could not find anywhere that it said the word match.
I can not find anywhere that it said the hair belonged to either Kc or Caylee.
Only that they could not be excluded.
When the hair was found, it was found to be consistent with an non suitable known hair sample.

It appears the fbi is comparing unknown hair samples to unknown hair samples.

Could not find where it said that Kc's hair was chemically treated.
Could not find where it said that Caylees hair was untreated.

If someone could find links to fbi reports that answer these questions and that implicate Kc, then I could possibly change my mind about the trunk.
It could just as easily be Kc's hair with a dark root end. I could be someone elses hair with a dark root end.

At this point I think I am going round and round about the same subject. I believe that I have made my point. I interpret the documents made by the fbi differently than the majority.

It is my opinion that the fbi's statement of facts do not conclude that q12 hair found in the trunk belongs to Kc or Caylee. It also does not conclude that it is of human decomposition. That backed by the email from the fbi lab tech that said she could not confirm that q12 was of human decomposition.Moo

 

[LambChop]

NTS, at this point, with all due respect no matter what information is provided you seem to not trust the reports. The report are what they are. You obviously see one thing while 275 people see something entirely different so not sure any of us can provide you with the fact that there was not, in fact, a dead body in the car. All evidence provided by the labs so far prove otherwise. It is hard to prove a negative.

 

[AZlawyer]

I could not find anywhere that it said the word match.
I can not find anywhere that it said the hair belonged to either Kc or Caylee.
Only that they could not be excluded.
When the hair was found, it was found to be consistent with an non suitable known hair sample.

It appears the fbi is comparing unknown hair samples to unknown hair samples.

Could not find where it said that Kc's hair was chemically treated.
Could not find where it said that Caylees hair was untreated.

If someone could find links to fbi reports that answer these questions and that implicate Kc, then I could possibly change my mind about the trunk.
It could just as easily be Kc's hair with a dark root end. I could be someone elses hair with a dark root end.

At this point I think I am going round and round about the same subject. I believe that I have made my point. I interpret the documents made by the fbi differently than the majority.

It is my opinion that the fbi's statement of facts do not conclude that q12 hair found in the trunk belongs to Kc or Caylee. It also does not conclude that it is of human decomposition. That backed by the email from the fbi lab tech that said she could not confirm that q12 was of human decomposition.Moo

If you acknowledge that the skull is Caylee's, what is the point of disagreeing that the hair from the skull was a "suitable known sample"? We can just agree to call it "Caylee's hair," right?

 

[notthatsmart]

NTS, at this point, with all due respect no matter what information is provided you seem to not trust the reports. The report are what they are. You obviously see one thing while 275 people see something entirely different so not sure any of us can provide you with the fact that there was not, in fact, a dead body in the car. All evidence provided by the labs so far prove otherwise. It is hard to prove a negative.

I do trust the reports. I just interpret them differently. I feel that all the evidence provided by the labs so far confirm my interpretation. I believe it will be up to cross examination and comparable experts on an equal playing field (not 275 to 1) that will play a role in the juries determination. If anything, there is clearly reasonable doubt in my opinion. Moo

 

[notthatsmart]

If you acknowledge that the skull is Caylee's, what is the point of disagreeing that the hair from the skull was a "suitable known sample"? We can just agree to call it "Caylee's hair," right?

We can agree to call it Caylee's hair from the skull. We can not agree to call it a suitable known hair sample. I base that on a possible 6 months of exposure to the elements.

I think if you break it down to suitable and known, you only have known, you do not have suitable. So therefore you do not have a suitable known hair sample and you are therefore comparing unsuitable known hair samples to unknown samples.

I know it sounds technical, but I do believe it will be fiercly challenged in court with reputable experts. After reading the fbi report, I am not sure there is a fact to dispute. They do not confirm it.

If you are a Lawyer, do they not have to establish a fact in order to dispute a fact? I understand that reports can never be 100 percent, but this fbi report has no scale at all. They just say consistent with. They could say likely or most likely, but consistent with is too broad.

My conclusion after reading the facts that were stated in the fbi reports is that just simply don't know the origin of q12 or that it was of human decomp.

I feel I have established my opinion after reading the facts and see no sense in continuing the q12 hair unless someone can come up with something new. What do you think?

Always Moo

 

[Marina2]

If you acknowledge that the skull is Caylee's, what is the point of disagreeing that the hair from the skull was a "suitable known sample"? We can just agree to call it "Caylee's hair," right?

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.

 

[RR0004]

We can agree to call it Caylee's hair from the skull. We can not agree to call it a suitable known hair sample. I base that on a possible 6 months of exposure to the elements.

I think if you break it down to suitable and known, you only have known, you do not have suitable. So therefore you do not have a suitable known hair sample and you are therefore comparing unsuitable known hair samples to unknown samples.

I know it sounds technical, but I do believe it will be fiercly challenged in court with reputable experts. After reading the fbi report, I am not sure there is a fact to dispute. They do not confirm it.

If you are a Lawyer, do they not have to establish a fact in order to dispute a fact? I understand that reports can never be 100 percent, but this fbi report has no scale at all. They just say consistent with. They could say likely or most likely, but consistent with is too broad.

My conclusion after reading the facts that were stated in the fbi reports is that just simply don't know the origin of q12 or that it was of human decomp.

I feel I have established my opinion after reading the facts and see no sense in continuing the q12 hair unless someone can come up with something new. What do you think?

Always Moo

A) She is a lawyer (has been confirmed)...and
B) Anyone has the ability to move on...opinions intact.

JMHO

 

[Searchfortruth]

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.

 

[sadyjade]

We can agree to call it Caylee's hair from the skull. We can not agree to call it a suitable known hair sample. I base that on a possible 6 months of exposure to the elements.

I think if you break it down to suitable and known, you only have known, you do not have suitable. So therefore you do not have a suitable known hair sample and you are therefore comparing unsuitable known hair samples to unknown samples.

I know it sounds technical, but I do believe it will be fiercly challenged in court with reputable experts. After reading the fbi report, I am not sure there is a fact to dispute. They do not confirm it.

If you are a Lawyer, do they not have to establish a fact in order to dispute a fact? I understand that reports can never be 100 percent, but this fbi report has no scale at all. They just say consistent with. They could say likely or most likely, but consistent with is too broad.

My conclusion after reading the facts that were stated in the fbi reports is that just simply don't know the origin of q12 or that it was of human decomp.

I feel I have established my opinion after reading the facts and see no sense in continuing the q12 hair unless someone can come up with something new. What do you think?

Always Moo

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"?