Stain in Trunk May Show Outline of Child**REVISIT FOR READING*

[MD MOMMY]

They were probably just chicken grease or burrito juice.

Or urine splatters from pee'ing in parking lots.

 

[3doglady]

OK, pp. 50-55 of this doc explains that the FBI did not obtain any DNA typing results for any of the trunk liner samples. I believe it is a big overstatement for ClickOrlando to say that the FBI determined that the stain did not contain any bodily fluids. You can't always get DNA results from an item that contains DNA (especially if it gets "cleaned" first....).

http://www.clickorlando.com/download...9/21146801.pdf


Someone else posted a link to this document in which the FBI explains BEFORE it did this testing (p. 73) that it would "attempt to recover any possible DNA" but it was "highly unlikely to recover a type." Which says to me that they believed recovery of DNA from this particular item would be very difficult REGARDLESS of whether the stain was composed of bodily fluids or not. And it looks like they were right.

http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFile...-8858-8939.pdf

I think AZ's post answer questions about DNA in the trunk liner.

 

[celticthyme]

Will if bleach were used, then it would be a bleach stain and not a blood stain.

Bleach reacts very differently on synthetic/ nylon fibers than it does on natural fibers. Unfortunately I've ruined enough clothes to know this

 

[Just Jayla]

I seldom watch the show if I have a choice, but I would if they would let Kimberly Guilfoyle interview Baez, she believes in plain speaking, and he could not B.S. her..

My girl Megan Kelley could hammer on him as well.....sorry for the OT, just imagining the prospect of someone actually grilling this guy.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

We know there was a stain because GA mentioned it early on. It sounded as if he was talking about a stain that he had never witnessed before picking up the car and we know - I mean he said - he looked in the trunk on the 24th of June - but then he said he never looked - Oh heck, but I recall he said a "basketball sized" stain.

So, if the stain is not blood, can the Lab peeps figure out what caused the stain under all those cleaning products that CA or whoever used to scrub the trunk clean?

 

[AutomaticAuttie]

Bleach reacts very differently on synthetic/ nylon fibers than it does on natural fibers. Unfortunately I've ruined enough clothes to know this

Isn't the stain that was found dark in color? I don't disagree that bleach may work different on nylon vs. natural fibers. However, bleach doesn't darken a fiber/cloth matieral.

 

[AutomaticAuttie]

I think AZ's post answer questions about DNA in the trunk liner.

What doesn't make sense to me is this....If there is a stain that is extremely visible with the naked eye, weather it be from blood or bodily fluid one would think you could get some sort of DNA from it. How many times does someone try and clean up blood splatter to later find out forensics were still able to get DNA from it?

 

[3doglady]

Hydrogen peroxide takes blood out. As a nurse I used it more than once. I'm sure CA would know about that.

 

[AZlawyer]

What doesn't make sense to me is this....If there is a stain that is extremely visible with the naked eye, weather it be from blood or bodily fluid one would think you could get some sort of DNA from it. How many times does someone try and clean up blood splatter to later find out forensics were still able to get DNA from it?

DNA can be pretty fragile. This DNA was left in a hot car trunk for close to a month, for example, which is not a good way to preserve DNA. If any cleaning took place, the DNA was likely further damaged.

 

[AutomaticAuttie]

DNA can be pretty fragile. This DNA was left in a hot car trunk for close to a month, for example, which is not a good way to preserve DNA. If any cleaning took place, the DNA was likely further damaged.

That may be, but they would still be able to do testing to distinguish if is blood or not. Apart from pulling DNA form it.

 

[AutomaticAuttie]

Hydrogen peroxide takes blood out. As a nurse I used it more than once. I'm sure CA would know about that.

So does hydrogen peroxide kill the DNA off so to speak or just remove the blood stain?

 

[AZlawyer]

That may be, but they would still be able to do testing to distinguish if is blood or not. Apart from pulling DNA form it.

Yes, I think we saw an email from someone at OCSO saying they tested the stain for blood and it was not blood. But did anyone really expect it to be blood? I was thinking more decomp fluids, etc.

 

[AutomaticAuttie]

Yes, I think we saw an email from someone at OCSO saying they tested the stain for blood and it was not blood. But did anyone really expect it to be blood? I was thinking more decomp fluids, etc.

Hmmmm......I don’t know that I am convinced that the stain was from bodily fluids.

 

[3doglady]

So does hydrogen peroxide kill the DNA off so to speak or just remove the blood stain?

I think so, it is an oxygenating bleach. Someone posted a link earlier in this thread that stated oxygenating bleach kills DNA. I don't think the stain had blood in it, but CA may have thought so. Since the odor came from the trunk they had to think the stain was the cause.

 

[kpalma715]

So does hydrogen peroxide kill the DNA off so to speak or just remove the blood stain?

Or what I am wondering is, can choloform clean the blood stain and dna off? Wondering if this is what GA and CA did when they started possibly cleaning the stain in the car.

 

[Hot Dogs]

What doesn't make sense to me is this....If there is a stain that is extremely visible with the naked eye, weather it be from blood or bodily fluid one would think you could get some sort of DNA from it.

OCSO never reported a stain that was in the shape of a child lying in fetal position (FP). They were looking right at the liner both in the car and outside. They took the pictures. The alleged FP stain can't be "extremely visible" or obvious because it never caught the attention of OCSO. Further, the FBI lady could only see it in one of many photos and even that one must be viewed in a particular way to see it. That comes very close to personal pareidolia on the part of the FBI. It may be why we only see mention of it in an email exchange rather than in a signed report doc.

We still don't know if we are looking at the same picture that she was. But even if it is, she was looking at the original jpeg file and we are looking at a copy of a copy. As we can see, the quality is horrible by the time you see it on your monitor. It isn't even in color.

 

[AutomaticAuttie]

OCSO never reported a stain that was in the shape of a child lying in fetal position (FP). They were looking right at the liner both in the car and outside. They took the pictures. The alleged FP stain can't be "extremely visible" or obvious because it never caught the attention of OCSO. Further, the FBI lady could only see it in one of many photos and even that one must be viewed in a particular way to see it. That comes very close to personal pareidolia on the part of the FBI. It may be why we only see mention of it in an email exchange rather than in a signed report doc.

We still don't know if we are looking at the same picture that she was. But even if it is, she was looking at the original jpeg file and we are looking at a copy of a copy. As we can see, the quality is horrible by the time you see it on your monitor. It isn't even in color.

I never said anything about it being a FP stain. I stated that the stain was visible with the naked eye. And in fact OCSO reported a stain from the beginning as did George state that there was a stian the size of a basket ball.

 

[treeseeker]

I remember a news clip very early one, where a LE officer discussed being able to tell Caylee had been in the trunk 11 days, how she laid, and that there was an amyloid substance in the trunk stain. I didn't find the clip, was looking for it shortly after it played on TV.

 

[countzero]

This isn't a very nice thought and it's gross just thinking about it but I am wondering what exactly CA saw. I haven't a clue as to what decomp looks like on carpet. Wood flooring, yes. But not carpet. Can anyone explain how it would have visually looked before CA got to cleaning it?

 

[impatientredhead]

OCSO never reported a stain that was in the shape of a child lying in fetal position (FP). They were looking right at the liner both in the car and outside. They took the pictures. The alleged FP stain can't be "extremely visible" or obvious because it never caught the attention of OCSO. Further, the FBI lady could only see it in one of many photos and even that one must be viewed in a particular way to see it. That comes very close to personal pareidolia on the part of the FBI. It may be why we only see mention of it in an email exchange rather than in a signed report doc.

We still don't know if we are looking at the same picture that she was. But even if it is, she was looking at the original jpeg file and we are looking at a copy of a copy. As we can see, the quality is horrible by the time you see it on your monitor. It isn't even in color.

Local LE reported a stain, as did George, and LE said they could see the position the body had been a couple of weeks before the email we are discussing. I went digging for posts when this was first released because I didn't think it was new info. LE did not specify the position in the press.