Evidence for "Dead body in the Damn Car"

[notthatsmart]

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.

They used it for testing and it is not a suitable known sample. I have posted the links. Please post a link that says its a suitable known hair sample.

 

[notthatsmart]

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.

Where is there a report that the hair in the trunk clearly belongs to Caylee. This important to me. I think the truth is important here. Is there a Dna match? Not from what I can tell. It only says that Kc and Caylee can't be excluded.

 

[ZsaZsa]

They used it for testing and it is not a suitable known sample. I have posted the links. Please post a link that says its a suitable known hair sample.

AZ Lawyer has already answered you on post #221 regarding the terminology used to describe 'suitable known' samples.

 

[LambChop]

Maybe this will work...sorta like the head bone connected to the neck bone, etc. DNA taken from the remains of Caylee Marie Anthony confirmed it was indeed Caylee. The hair mass attached does indeed belong to Caylee whether or not is was suitable to be tested. The hair in the trunk belonged to Caylee since it belonged to either Caylee or KC. Once they have the DNA from the remains they can establish that the hair from the trunk does indeed belong to Caylee. Whether or not the hair mass is suitable or not for testing it was established through the bone sample that it was Caylee. So the hair mass and hair from the trunk would be similiar but not exact because of damage done from the elements. Experts does this make sense? Am I on the right track her? As I said, not an expert but I get it. Just tryin to help out.

 

[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

See Q59 States clearly that DNA from hair mass of remains and sample from truck are consistent with either KC or Caylee they are the same. DNA samples from the bone confirms the hair is Caylees.

 

[Phumi]

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

It's at the FBI link you cited. I just went to the home page and went further into hair analysis at that site. I'm sorry. I didn't bookmark it.

 

[Phumi]

They used it for testing and it is not a suitable known sample. I have posted the links. Please post a link that says its a suitable known hair sample.

Where did they say they tested a unsuitable sample? If it is not suitable, they don't test it.
I think you misunderstand. The hairbrush sample was not suitable to test against the trunk hair beyond the initial microscopic comparison. In the FBI link they say that the protocol for a suitable sample is usually about 25 known sample hairs to test against the unknown hair or hairs. The hairbrush was a mixture of hairs from Caylee and Casey and perhaps others in the house. Therefore, it was not suitable. The hair from the remains yeilded enough (>25 hairs) hairs. Therefore, it fit the protocol and was a suitable sample and was tested. If you read at the link you provided, you will see that whenever they mention suitable sample, they talk about the sample being suitable for the TYPE of test they wish to conduct. A sample without a root, for instance, may not be suitable for certain DNA tests, but may well be suitable for a mitochondrial DNA test and a microscopic analysis.

 

[BeanE]

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

Near the beginning of the document in the Terminology section #3:

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/april2005/standards/2005_04_standards02.htm

O/T For reference for anyone interested, when I'm looking for a document containing a quote, I copy a portion of the quote, paste it into the Google search box, hit the search button, and the document pops up within the first few links.

 

[Phumi]

Where is there a report that the hair in the trunk clearly belongs to Caylee. This important to me. I think the truth is important here. Is there a Dna match? Not from what I can tell. It only says that Kc and Caylee can't be excluded.

See my above post of FBI synonyms. Cannot be eliminated is among those listed as being synonymous with THE SAME AS.

I contend cannot be eliminated and cannot be excluded are the same. You may disagree.

 

[RR0004]

Where did they say they tested a unsuitable sample? If it is not suitable, they don't test it.
I think you misunderstand. The hairbrush sample was not suitable to test against the trunk hair. In the FBI link they say that the protocol for a suitable sample is usually about 25 known sample hairs to test against the unknown hair or hairs. the hairbrush was a mixture of hairs from Caylee and Casey and perhaps others in the house. Therefore, it was not suitable. The hair from the remains yeilded enough (>25 hairs) hairs. Therefore, it fit the protocol and was a suitable sample and was tested. If you read at the link you provided, you will see that whenever they mention suitable sample, they talk about the sample being suitable for the TYPE of test they wish to conduct. A sample without a root, for instance, may not be suitable for certain DNA tests, but may well be suitable for a mitochondrial DNA test and a microscopic analysis.

Thank you for making it so clear. It is important to state what they found in context.

 

[comomx3]

If it were squirrel wouldn't there be evidence of the squirrel remains? Fur? Etc.

 

[LambChop]

If it were squirrel wouldn't there be evidence of the squirrel remains? Fur? Etc.

Yes, that's correct. The squirrel could not supply a suitable match. LOL. I think LE ruled out the squirrel.

 

[RR0004]

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.

Good word. Almost as good as ugly coping.

 

[LambChop]

Where is there a report that the hair in the trunk clearly belongs to Caylee. This important to me. I think the truth is important here. Is there a Dna match? Not from what I can tell. It only says that Kc and Caylee can't be excluded.

I think it is FBI talk for were are not going to say 100% but unless Caylee has a twin were 99% sure it's Caylee because we know it's not KC.

 

[RR0004]

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.

Am I missing something here? Is it a wild leap to assume that the hair that was attached to Caylee (dead may I add) is consistently similar to a hair that had signs of decompositon (no dead animals found) from the trunk...one that was ruled to be Casey's or Caylee's? If the defense goes the "it's not exactly the same" route or starts to question the "terminology" it will have disastrous results IMO simply because it will confound the average juror (I'm confounded!). I believe the jury will see it as nothing more than the defense's attempt to trip up the State's expert(s). They would have a more leveled playing field IMO if they attacked the evidence with an expert's examination and testimony(reports will due-LOL)...but that has yet to happen. My message to them is ..."put up or shut up"!!

 

[mydailyopinions]

Am I missing something here? Is it a wild leap to assume that the hair that was attached to Caylee (dead may I add) is consistently similar to a hair that had signs of decompositon (no dead animals found) from the trunk...one that was ruled to be Casey's or Caylee's? If the defense goes the "it's not exactly the same" route or starts to question the "terminology" it will have disastrous results IMO simply because it will confound the average juror (I'm confounded!). I believe the jury will see it as nothing more than the defense's attempt to trip up the State's expert(s). They would have a more leveled playing field IMO if they attacked the evidence with an expert's examination and testimony(reports will due-LOL)...but that has yet to happen. My message to them is ..."put up or shut up"!!

I agree..
Along with it, I also say that the defense mine as well tell the jury to "forget they have any common sense in this case"

 

[LambChop]

Wonder how the comment KC made to TMc about the hair in the trunk with signs of decomposition where KC said she was still alive. Defense would not want the jury to hear that. Kind of an odd statement from a mother who believes her child is only missing.

 

[joypath]

The terminology is mired in semantics (no silly, not Hebrew! laboratory jargonese!!!!!): what one in street language uses as OKAY, good enough, fine, acceptable, within limits,within range,falls within the standards,has enough to be real,is sweet, dyn-o-mite! or whatever else one might use to indicate SATISFACTORY is exactly what the FBI term "suitable" means! THE SAMPLE Q59 is acceptable to compare to any other unknown or known exemplar and make a conclusion! THEY DID just that by saying Q59 is similiar in qualities that we measure, discuss, compare,argue about, dance around the campfire,look under a microscope (including a stereoscope!), run thru a GC/MS and for heaven's sake, sometimes EAT (Okay...not the last test! but you all get my belabored point).


And you all wondered why we MD write scrips with nasty hand-writing and in Latin?! HA~ It's a secret club! J/K~

 

[LambChop]

I agree..
Along with it, I also say that the defense mine as well tell the jury to "forget they have any common sense in this case"

AL has already taken care of that. Stupid jurors! :loser:

 

[LambChop]

The terminology is mired in semantics (no silly, not Hebrew! laboratory jargonese!!!!!): what one in street language uses as OKAY, good enough, fine, acceptable, within limits,within range,falls within the standards,has enough to be real,is sweet, dyn-o-mite! or whatever else one might use to indicate SATISFACTORY is exactly what the FBI term "suitable" means! THE SAMPLE Q59 is acceptable to compare to any other unknown or known exemplar and make a conclusion! THEY DID just that by saying Q59 is similiar in qualities that we measure, discuss, compare,argue about, dance around the campfire,look under a microscope (including a stereoscope!), run thru a GC/MS and for heaven's sake, sometimes EAT (Okay...not the last test! but you all get my belabored point).


And you all wondered why we MD write scrips with nasty hand-writing and in Latin?! HA~ It's a secret club! J/K~

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.