Will Duct Tape be Casey’s Sticking Point? – The Cloth
The defense side of the Casey Anthony murder trial has invested many frames of media to emphasizing the “difference” between the four pieces of duct tape found at the crime scene and the piece of duct tape found on George’s old metal gas can. Let’s be clear the “defense team” doesn’t just include Casey and her entourage of lawyers, it also includes Cindy, George, Lee and Brad Conway, Cindy and George’s lawyer. Brad continues to state he doesn’t work for the defense, only for Cindy and George, but his actions continue to reflect a far different reality. Brad went so far as to hold a press conference, immediately before the discovery release of the forensics on the crime scene duct tape pieces, announcing those pieces of duct tape did not come from the same roll of duct tape as that piece on the gas can because they were “microscopically different”. Immediately after the discovery release the three-person defense team of Jose, Linda and Todd hit the news program circuit and centered their focus on issues of “duct tape”.
These “issues” focus on three things:
* The forensic results of the cloth comparison between the four pieces of duct tape at the crime scene and that of the duct tape on the gas can.
* DNA that was present on one piece of duct tape removed from Caylee’s skull that had foreign DNA – ultimately found to be that of an FBI employee.
* An allele, found in DNA testing of the pieces of duct tape at the crime scene, which neither Casey nor Caylee possess in their DNA.
So let’s look at these one at a time.
First, let’s talk about duct tape in general. As illustrated on this Duck Tape University site, and illustrated below, any brand of duct tape is constructed in three layers fused together by pressure and heat. These three layers are the polyethylene backing (usually gray), the cloth (which gives the tape it’s “strength, and makes it real damned hard to tear), and the adhesive.
A really good youtube video is below that walks you through the manufacturing process for duct tape. No matter what brand of duct tape you want to talk about, this manufacturing process will be similar to what you see in this video.
It’s actually preferable that you take the time to watch that video because there’s some things I’d like to point out right now that will play into analyzing certain defense claims later. The first thing is, take careful notice of just how many rolls are made in one “production run”. A production run consists of those huge rolls of cotton cloth and polyethylene backing being consumed into one huge roll (the mother of all rolls!) of duct tape. That duct tape is then “unrolled” into smaller, consumer-sized, rolls that are then packaged and shipped out to retail stores. So the important point here is that for two rolls of duct tape to be from two different production runs from the same manufacturing shop would require one of two things:
1. You purchased them from two different stores around the same time, but one store was stocked by production run X and the second store stocked by production run Y.
2. You purchased them at the same store, but a good period of time passed so that when you went and got the second roll, a new production run had been shipped to the store.
Now, for scenario 2, the time that would have to pass before a single production run of duct tape was consumed and the same store received from a new run would be dependent on how popular (i.e. how quickly) the brand of duct tape in question was being consumed. So if Brand X constitutes 50% of the duct tape market, it might not be but a month before a new production run was hitting the same store. But if Brand Y is, say, less than 1.0% of the market, it might take months to a whole year before the same store received duct tape from a new production run.
Henkel Brand Fire Resistant Duck Tape, the duct tape found both at the crime scene and on the gas can, constitutes less than 1% of the total U.S. duct tape market. And the reason this statistic is important in the case is that it greatly decreases the probability that the five pieces in question came from different rolls, let alone different production runs. After all, unless you are in the business of making the current trendy “duct tape clothing”, and you’ve decided to make that clothing out of less than fashionable gray duct tape with oval black Henkel branding on it, you’re probably not going to run through a roll of duct tape in a year’s time. I live in a 105 year old home that I’m constantly in the process of remodeling and we use duct tape to seal off areas that are under construction, so we use above and beyond the normal consumer. We’ve only had to buy a new roll of duct tape every couple of years at our higher rate of usage. Add to this that Henkel stopped making this brand of duct tape in 2007, and you’re left with…these duct tape pieces (all attached to the Anthonys via Caylee’s remains and George’s gas can) had to have come from either the same roll of tape, or a possible multi-pack of duct tape that (as can be seen in the video) would have come from the same production run.
But let’s pretend, as the devil’s advocate, that they came from different production runs. What difference would that make? Only variations acceptable within the specs (as we will discuss), but not the difference noted in the forensics. First we need to look at what the “microscopic difference” is between the duct tape pieces found at the crime scene, and the piece found on the gas can. It is reduced to the following six lines of Quantico analysis notes found on page 627 of this released discovery:
Notice in Q66 (duct tape from George’s gas can) that the double asterisk observation “off-white cotton” is not present in the analysis of Q64 (one of the pieces of duct tape that was on Caylee’s skull). This, and this alone, is the difference between the four pieces of duct tape found at the crime scene and the piece on the gas can. And to emphasize that this is the only difference, we review the analysis of all other aspects of the comparison of the crime scene duct tape to that found on the gas can on pages 67 and 68 of this released discovery:
Please note that after analysis of the adhesive and the backing, the laboratory analyst’s conclusion was that they either were from the same roll, or from the same manufacturing process. So the question becomes, did Henkel use different manufacturing processes to make their Fire resistant duck tape? Well, the answer is no. And it is born out by reviewing the product specifications provided to law enforcement by Henkel upon subpoena. You can read those specifications in this released discovery. Now for those not used to dealing in product specifications used by a manufacturer, a bit of explanation may be needed at this time. A product specification is how a manufacturer of an end product (say duct tape for purchase at your local Lowe’s) controls the quality of both the raw materials that go into the production of that product, as well as the quality of the final product before allowing it to ship out for consumption. When the raw materials come in from the manufacturer’s supplier (i.e. in this case the cloth, the adhesive (including the separate products that are mixed to make the adhesive), and the backing) a quality control check is done to ensure that raw material meets the specifications Henkel has put out. If a raw material falls out of an acceptable variance on those specifications, it will be returned to the supplier (i.e. rejected). The same holds true for the final product. If, say, a random sample of a production run of duct tape didn’t meet tensile requirements, or some other required parameter, the entire lot may need to have additional testing done or be rejected due to poor quality.
That’s important because when we look at Henkel’s specification for the cloth we find the following statement:
“65/35 warp polyester cotton cloth”
What this means is, the warp (we’ll get to what that is in a minute) is made of a 65% polyester/35% cotton blend. This specification tells us that the cloth that came into the Henkel factory had to have a warp made of this blend, or it would be rejected. So what is warp…let’s do some duct tape terminology here.
In this wiki image we have a good illustration of how a woven cloth is constructed:
So the cloth of a piece of tape will have a larger diameter “weft” cord that is woven laterally and then a finer cord, but higher thread count per inch “warp” that is woven in and out of the rows of weft. It is the warp in the cloth construction we are concerned with because the microscopic analysis of the weft showed to be identical for all five pieces of tape (i.e. they all contained a weft made of “off-white poly (d) sl ribbon”
. But the warp is the one where the gas can tape had a cotton content, where the duct tape pieces at the crime scene did not. It should be noted that in addition to the “difference” of the cloth content between the pieces at the crime scene and that on the gas can being listed on page 627 of this document the similarities of the cloth are also noted on that page. Those similarities are – the cloth weave is identical for thread count for both warp and weft:
So between backing, adhesive, weave and cloth content we are left with only one dissimilarity between the four pieces of duct tape at the crime scene compared to the one piece of duct tape on George’s gas can – the cotton content of the warp. As we’ve established in the product specifications from Henkel, the warp had to have originally been made of 65% polyester/35% cotton, so where is the cotton in the crime scene duct tape, and does it’s absence mean the tape couldn’t have come from the same roll as the gas can duct tape?
The answer to the last question is – No…it doesn’t mean they didn’t all come from the same roll. And the explanation to why we can answer that way comes in the answer to “where did the cotton go?” The first important thing to understand about cotton is that, well, it’s a plant. When you wear a 100% cotton garment you are wearing 100% plant material. Cotton thread is 100% pure cellulose from the cotton plant. Cellulose is a carbohydrate which for all you dieters out there reduces to “a long chain of sugar molecules”. You’re wearing a starch when you wear cotton. This open-cell naturally occuring polymer “starch” of cotton is what makes it more absorbent than say a synthetic fabric such as polyester. But the organic nature of cotton is also what makes it far more susceptible to decay than the synthetic fabrics. Cotton, just like the organic cells of your body, decomposes under microbial action…because it’s pure food for those microbes. This is why cotton is used in what is called “Cotton Strip Assays” which are tests of soil to measure the microbial activity in a given piece of property. The results from this test can determine if the soil is sufficient for crop growth.
A cotton strip assay consists of taking cotton strips and burying them in the soil and then coming back in a set number of days and pulling strips out of the ground and analyzing them for how much they have decayed. The scientist can then go back after another period of time has passed and pull more strips out to analyze further decay. Based on this “attack” of the cotton (i.e. how much of it has gone away), the microbial activity level in the soil can be established. You can read about cotton strip assays here and here. (The second link is interesting because it actually discusses utilizing cotton strip assays in soil analysis in the Florida everglades!) As stated in the second link, cotton is used above other media for these analyses because:
“Decomposition rates of cotton strips are exceptionally high compared to those of plant material and clearly do not represent realistic rates; pure cellulose is not the equivalent of roots or plant litter.
In other words, the cotton decomposes so rapidly that the testing period of the soil to establish the end data is significantly shortened in comparison to using other media for measurement. It simply goes away fast! In the first paper you will see that measurable decomposition is detectable within 1 week of the cotton strips being buried.
But, you might say, the cotton wasn’t buried! No, it wasn’t. It was attached to a decomposing human body, which was in a bag, which was flooded and submerged with swamp water infested with organic matter and microbial life. In fact, in contact with a decomposing body is about as microbial as you can get. So there were plenty of little microbes to find the food source the cotton content of the warp represented.
So is there really a difference between the duct tape at the crime scene and that on George’s gas can? Yes, there is, but once there wasn’t. And the difference now is one that a Henkel representative and a bug-guy can explain in very basic, easy-to-understand terms – probably with accompanying pictures!
We will address the other issues of the duct tape in later posts.
Valhall.
Related posts:
- Will Duct Tape be Casey’s Sticking Point? – Loose Ends
- Will Duct Tape be Casey’s Sticking Point? – The Connections
- Will Duct Tape be Casey’s Sticking Point? – A Possible Source – Update
- Will Duct Tape be Casey’s Sticking Point? – The DNA
- 200,031 Reasons I believe Casey is Guilty
Tags: adhesive, brad conway, casey anthony, caylee anthony, cotton, cotton strip assays, decomposition, duct tape, henkel, warp, weft
67 People have left comments on this post
Just wanted to say I just discovered your site through the caylee daily yesterday and have found it to be so informative. Will you be addressing the Allele found in the DNA – could this be the FBI agent also or does it lend itself to the theory that casey had help?
Hi Cyndi!
Yes, I will. I hope to focus in on the two instances of “other DNA” in the next part of the big duct tape review. I have my own personal opinions on how the “17 allele” could back fire for the defense in more than one way.
I will be leaving shortly and will be gone for most of the day. I apologize in advance for any new commentors whose posts will be pending approval while I am gone. I look forward to reading your input when I return this evening.
The defense team knows this-or, at least, Linda Kenney-Baden does. Which shows me the defense team is out there tainting a jury pool. This is an easy one to prove for the prosecutor. Looking forward to your part 2.
Hey there Val,
In your future post, be sure to discuss the logo comparison, specifically where the logo gets “cut off” at the edge of the tape. See my post here: http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4325908&postcount=314
BTW, **great** article.
I am in awe of the findings on the Zenaida Myspace connection and this duct tape information. I need one of those icons that bow down in praise here. Great, great work. I love your site. Thanks for sharing this with us. Also, JWG, all I can say, again, is wow, absolutely incredible work!
I say good luck to Baez and Co. trying to prove this isn’t the same source roll of tape.
I am a regular poster at InSessions and just recently learned of your site.
Bravo and Kudos for for all your hard work and a great job.
Oh my, Valhall….. you are amazing! Thank you for writing this in terms that the general layman (me!!) can understand. I sometimes have such a hard time with parts of the discovery documents, and you laid it all out so nicely for us.
I look forward to reading many more posts by you!
Hello to Val and Jwg , I have mentioned this before in a post sticky tape is on a Dora episode she gets it from her backpack backpack lol Dora always repeats herself anoying. But also Mt.Dora was the last place Cindy took her . Find it interesting. Love your posts very informative.Happy sleuthing!
Hi Val.
Just discovered your site in the last couple of days but have followed you on WS. Thanks so much for this explanation. You presented it in such a way that anyone will be able to easily understand. Can’t wait for the next installment!
JWG,
Thanks for kind words. Yes! I’m in. The next duct tape segment will, in fact, be a review of your awesome work. I look forward to writing that one up!
Tracey,
Thank you for the kind words! I look forward to reading your thoughts on these issues in the future.
Howdy desmom and welcome welcome. Please come back and share often!
Snaz,
Thank you so much for your comments. I’m glad you found it helpful and I look forward to visiting with you in the future!
Wow, I’m blown away by all of your wonderful and easy to understand information. I too just found your website by way of the Caylee Daily and will check back here often. Thanks so much for all of your hard work. Justice for Caylee
Thank you, Laura. I look forward to visiting with you on these issues.
Very interesting! Thanxs for informative beeswax. The hive is getting bigger and the honey flowing! The STING is near! Nice work Valhall!
Bookmarked!
Hey there Whaa??
Thank you and please come back and share your thoughts.
Valhall,
I am so astonished at your level of knowledge, and explaining it in a way that anyone can understand it. I pray that the State Attorney explains this duct tape make up and the difference the way you have. If they do, I have no doubt the jury will “get it” and not be swayed by the smoke and mirrors from the defense.
Kudos!!
Regina,
Thank you for the kind words. I hope it has helped. Sometimes these things get a spin on them that confuses people and my intent to was to sort down to the FACTS of the matter and present them to try to clear up some issues around this. It’s disingenuous of Brad and the defense team to say this is some big show-stopper for the prosecution. It’s not at all. It’s easily explanable. (If I can do it an expert darned sure can.)
Valhall,
I found a link to your site at The Caylee Daily, what great work you and JWG are doing. I found your posts to be very informative and easy to understand. I like that you back up the things you are saying with facts. I just wanted to tell you that I appreciate your hard work, stay the course. Here’s to Justice for Caylee.
Brenda
Valhall
Good day to you! I also “found” you through the CD, and am so glad that I did. I consider myself a “hinky” aware individual; in other words “hinkiness” gets my antenna up! I do not aspire to the coincidence of coincidences. One coincidence? Yeah. Two? Perhaps. Three? Highly doubtful. Four? Forgettaboutit, no way. I admire the work you’ve done on this site, and your articles are easy to understand, and VERY informative!
“Just the facts, ma’am, just the facts.” Everyone speculates; the trick is to temper your speculation with factual information. Once again, keep up the good work! Kudos.
Justice for Caylee
Thank you so much, LJ! Please share often and I look forward to reading your thoughts on these issues.
This has to be one of the most interesting readings about this case,Thank you very much.
this was awesome
I’m glad you liked it, James, and thank you.
I just want to let you know that you ROCK!
Thanks for taking the time to explain this in a more simplified way for many people to understand.
Regarding the DNA – you made it look like more than “just a bunch of numbers” to those of us who don’t completely understand it all!
KUDOS to you ValHall!!
JFM,
Thank you so much for the supportive words!
Hi Valhall. Great job in explaining this.
One thing I was curious about was where you said “the question becomes, did Henkel use different manufacturing processes to make their Fire resistant duck tape? Well, the answer is no. And it is born out by reviewing the product specifications provided to law enforcement by Henkel upon subpoena. ”
What I saw in that document was that they did not CURRENTLY use different processes for that tape, but I did not see it state that they NEVER did. In fact , it said “Revision number 2″ and the current revision was dated 2/22/2005.
So does that mean there might be a loophole IF before that date there was some of this tape made with everything identical except for without cotton included in the fabric layer? Probably both sides already know whether this is true. If you know of somewhere that Henkel stated they have never changed the fabric portion of this tape, please let me know where that is. People sometimes do keep duct tape for years if they don’t use much of it, so it is not that unlikely that someone might have a roll manufactured over 3 years earlier.
But unless Henkel states that pre 2005 they indeed manufactured this tape without cotton (but with everything else the same) then there is no sign it was from a different run. That would not prove it is from the same exact roll but it would not preclude that either, since I agree that, with the sole difference being the absence of a very biodegradable product in the tape pieces that had probably been for 6 months in a swamp exposed to the elements, it seem reasonable that it degraded.
Wichi,
The answer to your question is found in a comparison of the two revisions. The changes that took place from revision 1 to revisions 2 included: certification via testing in accordance with the standards listed in the paragraph of the first page of revision 1; and the addition of the Henkel brand stamp on the outside of the duct tape.
So if you have a roll of this duct tape that has the branding on the tape, that confirms it was manufactured under revision 2 of the specification. Which means the duct tape was manufactured sometime between February 2005 and 2007 when Henkel stopped making this line of product.
You may view both revisions of the specification here:
http://www.thehinkymeter.com/Library/CMA/Henkel_Docs_Certification.pdf
Valhall – Whew! Thanks for clearing that up. I had only seen Revision 2 before so was not sure.
I hope that anyone including both media outlets and amateurs who were shooting video or taking photos at the A’s Search HQ in the early days will look very carefully through their images to see if there are any more glimpses of that tape Who knows? someone might even have footage of one of the A’s using that kind of tape!
Sorry if I missed the answer to this somewhere or even that it may have already been mentioned …. but what about the duct tape that was on the back of the signs/posters that Cindy & George made and brought to the rally ? Thought I saw a pic somewhere not too long ago and it showed the same brand of duct tape had been used… Have you heard about this ?
Thanks in Advance
Hi Patricia!
I’m enjoying your comments. Yes, that point is brought out in the third part of the Duct tape series.
http://www.thehinkymeter.com/?p=460
I used to have them entitled part 1, 2 and 3, but decided to rename them to what they were discussing. Not sure that was a good idea or not!
Informative article, Valhall. I hope this thread is still open to questions and comments. As I was pondering these pieces of evidence the thought occurred to me that the manufacturer of the fabric could easily have ran out of the poly/cotton threads for the warp for part of the bolt and replaced them with 100% poly. I don’t know how wide the bolts are but it could be only a small section and be less than 2%, which would pass inspection. I’ve seen QC pass product that was over the limit, sometimes even getting an official go ahead for the deviation. This deviation wouldn’t weaken the product, in fact, just the opposite. Poly is stronger than cotton. But, I’ve also witnessed production supervisors instructing to deviate from specs and cover the fact, anything to make a quick buck. It isn’t likely that QC would discover this unless they were inspecting each warp thread, which they don’t, I’m sure.
My other point is that looking closely at the threads in the photos, it doesn’t look like the threads are out of proportion. The weft should be slightly thicker than the warp threads and they are. Have you ever untwisted a thread? When you take off the outer wrapped thread, they both have a zigzag look to them from being twisted together. I The warp threads, not only don’t have that look, I can see a twist to the thread. It looks to me like the thread is pretty much intact. I can also see some that look frayed or untwisted. My final point is that a forensic scientist should be able to discern whether the whole thread, inner and outer fibers are still there. If the outer wrap is missing, they would or should make note of that and would likely state that it may be due to decomposition. There is no such statement.
Kind Regards
We’ll have to disagree on this point.
Could you please elaborate on that?
No problem at all, Zub…
http://www.thehinkymeter.com/?p=342
I was at a hardware store this evening and the duct tape display on the shelves caught my eye– why not look to see if they had a roll of Henkel. No, nothing, of course not. BUT something else caught my eye, and I remembered what Roy Kronk was said to have called his tape– 100 mile and hour tape. Well, guess what!? There IS such a thing on the market, it’s called ‘HURRIANE TAPE’ made by BUNKER INDUSTRIES. I caught some wording on the inside of the roll core, something to the effect of 100 x’s as strong… I made some notes on a pad of paper and looked up the website.
Clearly, regular (or special heat resistent) duct tapes would not hold up to what this tape is designed to endure! Hands down, put a roll of each in front of a guy wanting a tough product, he’ll grab the Bunker brand in one of it’s many colour choices. (the hardware store had a huge stock of the tape, all ‘white’ or translucent white.
The website has a video to compare the strength of duct tape to ‘Hurricane Tape’. Hurricane tape has not much in common to the specs of the Henkel 500, adhesive is completely different, the scrim is a woven fabric, vs the thin poly later sandwiched with a poly/cotton fine scrim, and the Hurricane tape is not designed for heat applications, although it’s use range is to 93 degrees C (around 200 F). And, it’s tensile strength is 380 lbs/inch (width and length). It will stretch almost 20% before breaking and is claimed to have ‘long term water resistance’.
Could be this is more like the tape, or the design of the tape that Kronk would prefer, vs the chinsy little fine heat resistant Henkel with stick rubber adhesive and easy tear qualites.
THIS is more likely called ‘100 Mile An Hour’ tape.
http://www.bunkerinc.com/default.htm
Zubenelschemali,
I did notice a description of the threads, not that there is actually an ‘outer’ thread, although I may be wrong, it could be that in plying the threads, one is ‘fatter’ than the other, so the finer one would appear to be on the outside.
In the forensics reports, there is a clear description of the threads, describing the “S” twist and the “Z” twist. If you take two threads and ply them together, you must pay attention to the direction of the twist in the threads so that you don’t ‘undo’ their twist as the plying is done or it will soften/weaken the twist of the threads.
It was curious that the reports mentioned ‘poly’ threads but not ‘cotton’ in the ones I remember. Could it be that the cotton had degraded more, or were the specs changed for this lot of Henkel… maybe the cotton deteriorated too much. It is curious that only poly was mentioned vs a blend.
I was thinking about KC petitioning for financial assistance from the State of Florida asking that the State pay for her defense. I do not live in Florida, but what I find very intriguing is that JB has asked for a change of venue for obvious reasons, but now with this new development, isn’t most Floridians insulted that she wants them the true workers and taxpayers to foot the bill, how will this affect jury selection within Florida?
She has pissed off the whole world for the most part, her family, primarily her mother has slapped LE and dedicated searchers and anyone who doesn’t believe in KC and her lies, collects disability, her husband unemployed, new boat, new bling, new tattoo etc, and they want the citizens of Florida to pay for her defense and be fair minded jurors?
What do you think Val? Too many mad and rightfully so potential jurors? They can’t try this case anywhere but Florida?
Kleat –
My theory is that Kronk’s 100-mile-an-hour description of duct tape was a little joke. According to Jill Kerley, Kronk was always using duct tape; for instance, he used duct tape on his car to hold a loose tail light in place.
She could be right about that since Kronk got two traffic citations in the spring of 1992 for “Driving Vehicle in Unsafe Condition,” which would be consistent with using a piece of duct tape to keep a tail light attached to the car.
So I think “100-mile-an-hour duct tape” probably meant, “This duct tape will hold the tail light on my car even if I drive one hundred miles an hour.”
DRIVING 100 mphs! There we go… Interesting that the (probably newer than Kronk’s taping times as described) tape is described as ‘100 x’s’ stronger than regular duct tape.
Yes, I agree it was a saying– my goodness, one does not need 100 mph qualites of any description, wind or driving to do what Casey did.
Man Val:
My God you missed your calling!!!!I pray nightly, honestly that God leads the prosecutors and the A’s to your blog. I say dear lord, you have given so many gifts to us all, and thank you for giving this wonderful woman the desire to keep truth in all the eyes that read her and always give her the patience it takes to willingly and loyally keep thousands of people holding to hope, and for teaching many faith in the pursuit of JUSTICE for defenseless victims.
Thank you Val for you and your courage by keeping the truth alive and assuring us that where others would try to keep us in the dark. All the other breakdowns were fantastic, this one summed it up to the point that I don’t have any contributions to add except to voice emotion. Thank you
Kleat, a z twist thread will have a thread wrapped from right to left around the inner core. You can see this even in common sewing thread.
Valhall, I can’t agree with your assessment of qualifiers. First of all you have to take in to account the most important modifier or qualifier of any report, the author. Each has their own style and unless there hard and fast rules, I would assume each has their own style of reporting their findings. For example, one might write “it came from” rather than “is consistent” if they want this piece of evidence to seem more valid. In the reverse, if they wish they didn’t have to report on anything that might be exculpatory to the much hated “totmom” they might use consistent as a way of making it sound less positive. Maureen Bradley wrote the report on the glue making them”like” with each other, Karen Korsberg Lowe wrote the fabric portion.
Ms Bradley’s statement that they are, “comparable to one another in all physical attributes…” is contradicted by Ms Lowe’s statement that the fabric portions, “are microscopically dissimilar…”. Perhaps the chemistry unit doesn’t get out the microscope? Just kidding. Ms. Bradley gave her self an out, though, so that the two reports don’t disagree.
The more important difference between these two segments of reports is the use of the conjunction, “or” in the first. “…or from rolls of tape manufacture in the same manner.” This part of the statement would be true of all of Henkle’s 2000° tape. This shows a very viable alternative which must be the case, since the fabric didn’t match and is not consistent with coming from the same roll as the other, but is consistant with being manufactured by Henkle. She could make the bold statement that they are or they did come from the same source roll because she added OR they were manufactured in the same manner. All duct tape is manufactured in the same manner. The logo makes it consistent with belonging to Henkle. The only thing she found for sure, is that the glue matched, it was manufactured at the orders of Henkle and is the same model. She clearly did not show it was likely made in the same lot as the other.
Ms. Bradley’s style may be to use emphatic words like “they are from the same” then add a disclaimer, such as, “OR”.
Zub,
I have several issues with your argument. First, I don’t really feel like you took the time to read the article I linked in my comment above, because the statements you make about use of language and writing style and centering on or/and/either such not same different “stuff”, doesn’t take into account that as I personally believe I thoroughly discussed in that article, neither of these laboratory personnel are required to put ANY extraneous reasoning into why the physical characteristics they observe and report on may be the way they are.
As a follow up to that, I would state that you centering on the differences in reporting and writing styles actually supports exactly what I’m saying in that article. In other words, Ms. Bradley may be completely comfortable with putting interpretations in with her observations in a scientific report, whereas Ms. Lowe may not be comfortable with those extrapolating statements at all. That interpretation is included by one person and not by the other means absolutely nothing in the long run (as discussed in the article), because the interpretation is more appropriately expected and left for the witness stand by whomever may be the expert witness. And – that expert witness or witnesses may be Ms. Bradley and Ms. Lowe themselves! But there is a time and place for things, and I don’t necessarily agree that a scientific report on laboratory testing is the proper place to discuss the list of possible causes for an observed similarity or difference.
To the argument that all duct tape is made the same, well that’s not true in the strict application of that statement, but I will agree it is all made SIMILARLY. I WILL agree that all Henkel Firebrand 200 degree high-temp duct tape would be made exactly the same. In fact, that pretty much causes you some issues with your argument. While the statement “could be from the same run” or “roll”, or whatever “lot size” you want to stick in that statement, doesn’t prove that the disparate pieces of Henkel tape found at the crime scene and on the gas can were from the same roll, it does prove – just as you stated yourself – they were made exactly alike. And this has been discussed at length and with supporting documents that the specification under which the tape was made makes this necessarily so.
Now if we want to take a stance we are going to try to create some “doubt” that the pieces of tape at the crime scene and on the gas can were possibly made so dissimilar that the crime scene pieces did NOT have the cloth called out in the manufacturing specification, then we leave ourselves in a rather “losing position”. First of all, we’re not dealing with a mom and pop company here with little or no processes, we’re dealing with a large international company that has fairly significant standards to which they produce the variety of products they manufacture. So in order to prove that there’s some rogue roll of Henkel duct tape out there that was produced from thread COMPLETELY out of spec to the Henkel manufacturing standards, you’re going to have to produce the change notice, the procurement waiver on accepting the raw cloth out of spec, the QA/QC waiver when the finished product was accepted out of spec – and the list goes on.
Without those documents, you have not proven the null hypothesis. So, you are left with nothing but making a speculative, unfounded, unprovable statement in court that for some reason a major manufacturing company decided to create one roll, run, lot or whatever out of spec and all the departments involved (from procurement to final product QA/QC) were involved in some massive cover-up of this deviation!
Sounds like an Anthony-style conspireh to me!
Wow
With all of the trouble around you Val, your brain is still sharp as a tack.
Kick ass response! That was very Ali-rope-a-dope-esque with a TKO at the end!
Well, WSH, this is actually not a debate of “opinion”. It is, in fact, a debate of FACT. There are either documents proving that there was a run of Henkel Fire resistance 200 degree F duct tape made with out-of-spec cloth, or there are not. The defense can get up and ask all the questions of the Henkel representative they want in order to try to “plant” that theory in the jurors’ minds, but the Henkel representative is going to come to that trial, if necessary, armed with EVERY procurement document and final QA/QC document for the past 5 years to prove they didn’t make a run out of spec.
It IS a question that can be answered definitively.
Kick ass! That is not an opinion either, lol.
Lorna you are so right about Val, the ability this woman has to help me see, clearly and directly into the situation is awesome. and I pray right along with you that the prosecution makes it part of their schedule, daily, to read through her brightly lit path of reason and understanding, it would be enormous help to them., it has been valuble to all of us who read here, and ernestly seek justice for this innocence.
My name is Henkel and I’m going rogue.
lol Lily.
Call it what you like, Val, but I did read your article in full. You just skipped over the use of OR and I thought it was important enough to include. Also, while they may not be “required” to include any extraneous reasoning in their report, I don’t believe it is prohibitited, as shown by the statement in another document that Caylee’s remains were likely moved by animals before disarticulation took place.
If Ms Bradley had inspected the fibers at the microscopic level, she couldn’t have made the statement she did, unless she only kept the OR half of the statement. I’m sure you will see this at trial.
I have seen first hand, international companies shipping product out of spec and often they either don’t know it or don’t care, even medical parts. If that weren’t the case you would never hear of recalls, in the most extreme cases. Yes, sometimes the deviation isn’t a problem and they do the proper paperwork so they are covered. But, it would be quite believable that the company that manufactured the fabric (not Henkle or Suretape) ran out of the poly/cotton blend while setting up the run and replaced a few warp threads with 100% poly of the same weight, and it went through final inspection, no problem.
I really don’t understand you you can say “Therefore, they originated from the same source roll of tape or from rolls of tape manufactured in the same manner.”, overrules and has more authority than, “…are microscopically dissimilar in fiber composition to the fiber composition of specimen Q66… Accordingly they are not consistent with originating from the same source as Q66.” Yes, the chemistry of the glue (the report came from the chemistry unit and was reporting on this) is consistant with being from the same roll OR manufactured in the same way. But the fabrics were not consistant with one another. She was looking at the trace evidence, not the chemistry.
Have you looked closely at the photos of all the tape, closer than to just measure them? The texture looks twisted, just as it should. If the outer thread of the warp were the part that was cotton, then the z twist would be completely missing and the lab tech wouldn’t have said it was a z-twist or would have said that it was but the outer wrap is missing. If the core and the outer twist thread were both poly and cotton and the cotton had disappeared there would be a loose and frayed look on all of the warp threads, which I don’t see. Some areas look quite solid. Finally, there were still areas stuck together that had the glue still in place. Are you telling me that the glue didn’t dissolve but the cotton fibers underneath did and there would be no trace of cotton left for the trace evidence person to see?
Zeb,
Did I, indeed, say that?
I am not going to argue with you about this Zeb concerning some devious intentional product manufacturing by Henkel knowing it was made with out-of-spec cloth. As I stated earlier, the defense has every right to ask the questions to try to plant that doubt in the jurors minds, and I do not believe it will work out well for them.
I have not checked, but I’m willing to bet Henkel is a ISO 9001 certified company. With the major industrial companies they supply, they would almost have to be. If they are ISO 9001 certified, there will be little hope of convincing the jury that there was some undocumented substandard monkey-business that just happened to produce ONE roll of out of spec duct tape in the Orlando area. Pieces of a roll that just happened to be exposed to a rotting body, swamp water and microbial action for 6 months.
Actually, your exact words were, “Please note that unlike the definitive statement made in the first analysis, this statement is qualified. It does not state they did NOT come from the same roll. It does not state they COULD NOT come from the same roll. It states there is a difference (inconsistency) that could indicate they came from separate sources. This statement does NOT establish “the null hypothesis”.” I wouldn’t consider including the word “or” qualifying it as a definitive statement. I guess we’ll just have to wait for trial to see how this plays out. We’ll agree to disagree. Thank you for your time.
It wouldn’t have been one roll. The warp threads would run through the whole length so many rolls would come from the section with these threads.
I am not implying that Henkle was devious, that’s just silly. This isn’t that big a deal. Poly is stronger than cotton and if it fell within the 2% deviation standard they have set there would be no paperwork on it. There are knee brackets used in making prosthetics, out there, supplied by an ISO certified company that had the screw holes oversized. The top edge was hit with a rounded tool to roll over the edge so that the oversize guage used to inspect wouldn’t go in. The company that sold them isn’t responsible for the deviation. They outsourced that product. I made them aware of it and lost that job many years ago. That company went out of business shortly after. So, if it would have mattered to Henkle, if they didn’t have anyone like me, they would be in the dark.
Kleat.
I don’t know if RK was in the military or not but I was and we ran on duct tape for repairs of all kinds. It was know as “100 mile an hour tape” regardless of the brand. In short, everyone knew what it was in military lingo.
Zub?:
I can understand your logic, but can’t understand why it is that you have not touched base with the science of how cotton is tested? Shouldn’t you look at EVERYTHING? Val did, so there isn’t only going to be Henkel experts, there may very well be cotton experts too. What are your thoughts on cotton? I understand it now due to Val’s factual research, so can you explain that too? (cotton decay)?
Zub,
Yes, I stand behind those words. I do not believe I have said anything in error in those statements. I agree with you – the matter will be decided by the jury at trial.
That seems like a reasonable explanation for the source of Kronk’s little term! Makes sense.
Alan, I think Kronk was in the navy– his wife certainly still is. (she may have mentioned Kronk in the forces in her self-serving interview)
I don’t know if you are very passionate about this particular subject because you have esoteric insider knowledge and no opinion on the case, or you have that knowledge coupled with some stake or interest. I will tell you this, as a everyday anybody, (or maggot, as some would like to call me -joke), I respect your opinion as well as Val’s. Okay, Val more-so, granted; I like her. I admit to bias.
On the other hand, as a potential juror (in general, not for this case), some of this stuff gets exhausting for me. Unless I share your comprehension of the subject by natural ability, being directly involved in the industry, or have the burning desire to learn something because it its interesting (like anatomy, & physiology, medical science, some forensics and psychology), I can become intellectually lazy. Yes. I might even daydream.
I mean no offense and I probably shouldn’t comment in a section that I haven’t researched thoroughly ( my apologies to Val too). But in this case, there will be people like me.
I know the answer to the case is the sum of all parts, and I would try to listen intently on the miniscule differences of manufacturing, potential defects, suppliers deviations from standard materials; YET STILL, this tape is NOT in every household, MOST people have not purchased it ( I have never seen it and I love tape)…. And something will play in the back of my mind, like that catchy tune you’ve heard and can’t seem to shake, even if you hate it. That muzak is: I know the Anthonys had that rare duct tape (that I have NEVER seen). Similar duct tape was found on the remains. MOST IMPORTANTLY: This woman NEVER told ONE person her daughter was missing in nearly a month!
This is making an absolutely simplistic statement, I realize. However, a lot of this case has been incredible hair splitting and asking absurd questions, like in early SNL , “what if Eleanor Roosevelt could fly”. Yes it is possible, but what are the odds? Yes, I know the devil is in the details, but the link to the last person who saw Caylee alive is Casey: no nanny. No one has linked R Kronk to this specialized type of duct tape. How do I jump to an unknown assailant at this point? Please help me with that.
Maybe you don’t care, and simply love duct tape (no snark).
In that case, carry on. Sorry….
No disrespect Vallie.
Valhall’s point–>
“Pieces of a roll that just happened to be exposed to a rotting body, swamp water and microbial action for 6 months.”
Right on– microbes (and moulds, fungus) will like to snack on cotton a little better than poly, plus cotton will absorb water, moisture from the air etc, nicely too once all protection around it has degraded, then there’s the heat, maybe the environment in that bag was acidic too, but I don’t know what pH would be or if that’s a factor in cotton deterioration. As the rubber adhesive degrades, it produces some nasty degrad’n products too, cotton will be the first to go, poly would survive longer in these conditions, obviously.
this, as a everyday …”an”
» Kleat said: { Mar 12, 2010 – 04:03:39 }
Thanks Kleat, you are smart, and not lazy like me.
1 Trackback(s)