MythBuster Thread Discussion Area

[Rumpole]

No. They can't hold back the evidence. But they can't disclose things they don't have yet from the FBI, and they don't necessarily disclose things in a timely manner even if they "have to." But they are not holding things back from the defense in hopes that the defense will not have time to effectively respond by the time it is disclosed, because the judge will never let that happen. If they try to bring in something new at trial, it will be excluded. If they try to bring in something new too close to trial, the judge will reschedule the trial.

Without "holding back" evidence surely Prosecution can decide what order to release documents in?

We have have had around 6 -7 K pages so far, a certain amount of work is necessary to format, check etc for release.

 

[AZlawyer]

Without "holding back" evidence surely Prosecution can decide what order to release documents in?

We have have had around 6 -7 K pages so far, a certain amount of work is necessary to format, check etc for release.

When I have a case with thousands of pages of documents I will choose the "easiest" things to release first. Not because I am "allowed" to (nothing in the rules allows this) but because it is easiest! "At least I can partially comply with the deadlines," I think to myself , "even if it will take me a little longer to look through the rest of this stuff and figure out where it all fits in." Come to think of it, nothing in the rules allows me to figure out where the evidence fits in before I release it to the other side, but I don't know any attorney who would dream of just sending out unreviewed documents.

So my answer is, no, the prosecution cannot (according to the rules) decide what order to release the documents in, but yes, probably they are doing that, but no, probably the motive is not to hide anything from the defense, so I would not expect that the things that haven't come out yet are "all the best things." If LE had a "smoking gun," it would be EASY to figure out how it fit in to the rest of the evidence, the State would WANT to get it into evidence at trial, and therefore the State would WANT to disclose it as quickly as possible. Why why why why why would they be hiding it??? If I were the SA, I would be hand-delivering a copy of the "smoking gun" document over to Baez with little puffy glittery heart stickers all over it, not hiding it.

 

[Rumpole]

When I have a case with thousands of pages of documents I will choose the "easiest" things to release first. Not because I am "allowed" to (nothing in the rules allows this) but because it is easiest! "At least I can partially comply with the deadlines," I think to myself , "even if it will take me a little longer to look through the rest of this stuff and figure out where it all fits in." Come to think of it, nothing in the rules allows me to figure out where the evidence fits in before I release it to the other side, but I don't know any attorney who would dream of just sending out unreviewed documents.

So my answer is, no, the prosecution cannot (according to the rules) decide what order to release the documents in, but yes, probably they are doing that, but no, probably the motive is not to hide anything from the defense, so I would not expect that the things that haven't come out yet are "all the best things." If LE had a "smoking gun," it would be EASY to figure out how it fit in to the rest of the evidence, the State would WANT to get it into evidence at trial, and therefore the State would WANT to disclose it as quickly as possible. Why why why why why would they be hiding it??? If I were the SA, I would be hand-delivering a copy of the "smoking gun" document over to Baez with little puffy glittery heart stickers all over it, not hiding it.

I think we are in agreement?

I think all will eventually be released well before the trial and certainly no key evidence withheld for a "Perry Mason" moment in court.

I do think that the prosecution can at least "play the rules" on timing of some evidence release. May not be strictly to the rules, but easy enough to justify as some stuff simply not ready for release, citing the thousands of pages that ARE released.

 

[john's mom]

I have a question that has probably been asked already, but I haven't seen it. Does Baez have to release info to the SA for discovery? And if so, (not that I think he has anything to turn over) will it be released also due to the Sunshine Law?

TIA

 

[AZlawyer]

I have a question that has probably been asked already, but I haven't seen it. Does Baez have to release info to the SA for discovery? And if so, (not that I think he has anything to turn over) will it be released also due to the Sunshine Law?

TIA

Defense has to disclose:
(i) the statement of any person listed in subdivision (d)(1)(A) [of the disclosure rule--i.e., any trial witness], other than that of the defendant;
(ii) reports or statements of experts made in connection with the
particular case, including results of physical or mental examinations and of scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons; and
(iii) any tangible papers or objects that the defendant intends to use in the
hearing or trial.

Whether these things will be released may depend on what documents the media asked for. If the media asked for "every document disclosed to the defense," they won't get this stuff. If the media asked for "every document disclosed to or received from the defense," they will get it. No one so far has been able to tell me where to find the Sunshine Law request(s) made by the media.

 

[Rumpole]

:eat:

 

[Roze]

When I have a case with thousands of pages of documents I will choose the "easiest" things to release first. Not because I am "allowed" to (nothing in the rules allows this) but because it is easiest! "At least I can partially comply with the deadlines," I think to myself , "even if it will take me a little longer to look through the rest of this stuff and figure out where it all fits in." Come to think of it, nothing in the rules allows me to figure out where the evidence fits in before I release it to the other side, but I don't know any attorney who would dream of just sending out unreviewed documents.

So my answer is, no, the prosecution cannot (according to the rules) decide what order to release the documents in, but yes, probably they are doing that, but no, probably the motive is not to hide anything from the defense, so I would not expect that the things that haven't come out yet are "all the best things." If LE had a "smoking gun," it would be EASY to figure out how it fit in to the rest of the evidence, the State would WANT to get it into evidence at trial, and therefore the State would WANT to disclose it as quickly as possible. Why why why why why would they be hiding it??? If I were the SA, I would be hand-delivering a copy of the "smoking gun" document over to Baez with little puffy glittery heart stickers all over it, not hiding it.

How I wish you were.

 

[carrie]

Hi Guys. Carrying this over from the mythbusters thread so that, if we really and truly need to debate it, we can do so here.

Originally Posted by tweety933
I keep hearing people refer to the heart sticker on the 3 pieces of duct tape that was found on Caylee's face. FBI forensics report debunks this myth on page 3798 of the discovery.

You are incorrect Tweety.

If you will read the excerpt below from page 3168 of the Discovery documents you will see that LE found residue in the perfect shape of a heart on the duct tape that had been over Caylee’s mouth, as well as a sticker that perfectly matched the shape. Sticker was in the immediate vicinity but no doubt had fallen off due to exposure to the elements.

If we are going to debate this further, we should probably carry the discussion over to the “Mythbusters Discussion Thread.”


(BELOW IS EXCERPTED and Transcribed by me FROM PAGE 3168 of Discovery Documents)

“ . . . Once at the medical examiners office, Dr. Utz . . . and I better examined what was collected. When Dr. Utz went to remove the tape, he noticed that the tape was attached on both ends to the child’s hair. The hair had to be cut in order for the duct tape to be removed. This tape was later sent to the FBI lab in Quantico.

While processing the duct tape at the FBI in Quantico, the latent print unit noticed residue in the perfect shape of a heart. The heart was not hand drwan and residue appeared to be consistent with the adhesive side of a heart shaped sticker. It appears that the sticker was put on the duct tape intentionally. In the search area, Investigators located a small heart shaped sticker similar in size to the residue found on the tape. The sheet from which this sticker came was not recovered from the scene.” Page 3168

 

[tweety933]

What date was this discovery (p..3168), I'd love to read this about the residue found! Also, question, should I delete my post on the myth buster thread?

 

[AZlawyer]

What date was this discovery (p..3168), I'd love to read this about the residue found! Also, question, should I delete my post on the myth buster thread?

p. 16 of this link:
http://www.wftv.com/news/18530424/detail.html

 

[tweety933]

p. 16 of this link:
http://www.wftv.com/news/18530424/detail.html

After reading that excerpt from the Sheriff's Department, I once again read p. 3798, and I am confused as to the actual report verses the Sheriff's Departments characterization of that report.

Could you please help me understand how both those reports could be true?

TIA

 

[carrie]

What date was this discovery (p..3168), I'd love to read this about the residue found! Also, question, should I delete my post on the myth buster thread?

Hi tweety-
I think it was in the february doc dump. I see that AZLawyer has kindly provided you with a link to that portion of the docs (Thanks AZ). Just FYI, if you go to this link [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=233which"]Anthony Case Resource Links, Case Calendar and Time Line Analysis Forum - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame] is the thrid sub forum in the main Caylee forum (Anthony Case resource Links, case calendar, etc.) and then click on the sticky thread called "Official Documaents, Audio, etc.", there you will find links to all the docs from the beginning of the case, as well as transcripts of jail calls, 911 calls, and much more. Happy reading.

About deleting your other post, I don't know. We were kind of supposed to put the busted myths there, and any discussion about them here. i guess we kind of derailed it. Maybe JBean will help us.

 

[carrie]

After reading that excerpt from the Sheriff's Department, I once again read p. 3798, and I am confused as to the actual report verses the Sheriff's Departments characterization of that report.

Could you please help me understand how both those reports could be true?

TIA

I'd b glad too. making my Dad a sandwhich and will back in a few minutes to explain.

 

[tweety933]

After reading that excerpt from the Sheriff's Department, I once again read p. 3798, and I am confused as to the actual report verses the Sheriff's Departments characterization of that report.

Could you please help me understand how both those reports could be true?

TIA

Could ANYONE?

Also, I do know of a piece of evidence Q-100 that is a piece of duct tape (Henkle brand found at the scene), that was not one of the three placed on Caylee's face, but have not seen the FBI report on that yet, has anyone else seen the analysis of that piece of evidence....because maybe THAT piece of tape is the one that actually had heart residue, but it was not one of the three placed on her face.

 

[carrie]

After reading that excerpt from the Sheriff's Department, I once again read p. 3798, and I am confused as to the actual report verses the Sheriff's Departments characterization of that report.

Could you please help me understand how both those reports could be true?

TIA

The docs can be confusing because they are so technical and information is scattered throughout not necessarily in chronological order. You pretty much have to read ALL of them, which many of us have, (there are thousands of pages) to begin to try and piece the picture together. I confess that even having read them all more than once, I still get confused and often wait to glean conclusions from some of the supersleuths here on the board. If you want to see what I mean by supersleuths, check out a few threads on the Anthony Case Resouce subforum here: [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=233"]Anthony Case Resource Links, Case Calendar and Time Line Analysis Forum - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

What Bond, JWG, IBYounger, AZlawyer and several other do over there is amazing.

As for the questions at hand. Page 3798 states:
“the Q62 through Q64 pieces of tape were examined for the presence of any stickers. No stickers or sticker fragments were observed on these items.”

What they’re saying is that there were no stickers or fragments of stickers (obviously : ). Apparently, though it sounds the same to laymen (for lack of a better word) residue and sticker fragments aren’t the same thing, and therefore one statement really doesn’t contradict the other.

I’m assuming they looked for the fragments because of the sheet of stickers they found at the site. I hadn’t noticed that being found at the site until you mentioned it, actually. So I guess because they found the sticker residue on the tape as well as an actual sticker that matched the shape of the residue, and then found a sheet of puffy heart stickers that didn’t match, they were trying to be thorough and look for perhaps the presence of more than one sticker on the duct tape? Or maybe fragments of the one they found? We also know from the search warrants that were issued immediately after little Caylee’s remains were found, that they also looked for heart stickers/sheets of heart stickers at the Anthony home.

I hope this helps. No doubt some other folks can explain it better than I have? Or correct me if need be?

 

[AZlawyer]

After reading that excerpt from the Sheriff's Department, I once again read p. 3798, and I am confused as to the actual report verses the Sheriff's Departments characterization of that report.

Could you please help me understand how both those reports could be true?

TIA

IIRC, p. 3798 (I don't have a link to it so I'm going by memory) said there were no stickers or parts of stickers found on the tape over the face. The FBI verbal report to OSCO was that there was sticker residue found on the tape in the shape of a heart. So...no stickers, no parts of stickers, but residue of a sticker.

I think.

 

[tweety933]

IIRC, p. 3798 (I don't have a link to it so I'm going by memory) said there were no stickers or parts of stickers found on the tape over the face. The FBI verbal report to OSCO was that there was sticker residue found on the tape in the shape of a heart. So...no stickers, no parts of stickers, but residue of a sticker.

I think.

Well, I am a layperson, and the adhesive on the back of a sticker is a part of a sticker, especially if it in a shape that could be considered sticker backing adhesive. But I'm not an FBI evidence analyst, so what do I know...

Hopefully, the official FBI written report concerning this "adhesive in the shape of a heart" on those Q62-64 pieces (tape on face) will be released confirming the verbal report "re-stated" by Orange County on page 3168.

Still curious as to Q-100 piece of duct tape, has anyone seen any FBI written reports concerning that piece of evidence (Henkle duct tape found at dump site, not on face)?

 

[carrie]

IIRC, p. 3798 (I don't have a link to it so I'm going by memory) said there were no stickers or parts of stickers found on the tape over the face. The FBI verbal report to OSCO was that there was sticker residue found on the tape in the shape of a heart. So...no stickers, no parts of stickers, but residue of a sticker.

I think.

Well put AZ. :clap:

You said it so much more simply and clearly than I did - lol. Thanks.

 

[Jolynna]

Myth: That Caylees decomp was found on paper towels inside trash bag from trunk of pontiac.

Fact: The report states that something like adipocere was found on the paper towels.
Unless and until further testing is done, there is no reliable evidence that proves caylees decomp was on the paper towels.(It could just have easily been make-up, soap or any other product with similar compounds, of which there are many).

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c3...welanalyis.png

I would like to debate this post on the myth buster thread.

According to the link provided, the substance on the paper towels was full of maggots and attracting flies. The fatty acid ratios of the substance were also consistent with the composition of pig or human decomposition.

Maggots don't live & thrive on soap, makeup and other similar compounds. If soap attracted flies people would stop taking baths.

I think the maggots take away the possibility of the substance being soap or makeup and that that part of this myth buster should be taken out.

I also think that the "fatty ratios of the substance are consistent with pig or human decompostion" needs to be added.
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c341/jazlynsmum1/papertowelanalyis.png

 

[carrie]

Well, I am a layperson, and the adhesive on the back of a sticker is a part of a sticker, especially if it in a shape that could be considered sticker backing adhesive. But I'm not an FBI evidence analyst, so what do I know...

Hopefully, the official FBI written report concerning this "adhesive in the shape of a heart" on those Q62-64 pieces (tape on face) will be released confirming the verbal report "re-stated" by Orange County on page 3168.

Still curious as to Q-100 piece of duct tape, has anyone seen any FBI written reports concerning that piece of evidence (Henkle duct tape found at dump site, not on face)?

On pg 3747 of the same doc, the writer requests that the duct tape (referring to Q100 in the list of evidence immediately before) be compared to the duct tape found on the remains. I'm pretty sure then that Q100 was NOT on the remains (as you say). I'm quessing it must have been a piece of duct tape they found somewhere at the site, perhaps near the remains, and they want to see if it matches. Writer also requests Q100 be compared to duct tape taken from the Anthony home. Not sure if any subsequent reports on it have been released.