Items that could have Latents

I’d like to add something here about the Whitney Designs laundry bag. While the canvas outer bag itself would probably not catch a latent, I could swear I read in descriptions of the bag that the inner surface of it was coated with a moisture-resistant vinyl type of coating. I can’t find where I read that before, but I’m almost certain that was established. That inner coating could retain a latent.

The same holds true for the lettering from Caylee’s shirt. They could hold latents as well.

Whoa so there was Henkel duct tape and non Henkel duct tape? which was over the mouth and nose? why would she use 2 different brands of duct tape? wonder what brand? wonder what brand she borrowed from Amy that she couldnt return? Betcha the latents are on one of those pieces of tape…

Hi Vall,I found the site that has a description of the bags,and you are correct the inside linning is vinyl. Here is the site and both shapes of the bags are on there.
http://www.whitney-design.com/productDetail.aspx?ID=2516&node=Laundry Care&sub=Hampers and Sorters

Here is the rectangle one also and it is vinyl lined also.
http://www.whitney-design.com/productDetail.aspx?ID=2013&node=Laundry Care&sub=Hampers and Sorters

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21252257/detail.html

On page 871 of the 1400+ doc. the ME requested the FBI to test for latents on 2 pieces of black plastic, believed to have come from the bags that held Caylee. But I don’t see them listed in the FBI’s report as having been tested or received. Am I missing this finding? Or were they never sent due to latent prints found by OCSO?

Thanks Val

I wonder if the public will ever know.

Mrs C Hop……Henkel duck tape was found on Caylee’s skull…..3 pieces. It is possible that the non Henkel duct tape has nothing to do with Casey. That wooded area was a dumping ground for all sorts of items. And then again, it could!

Olive – now that i’ve read your comment those black plastic bags seem to be as good a bet too!

Raise your hand if you think the prosecution has been holding on to those latent prints as part of the “ongoing investigation,” which, if I understand correctly, means that they don’t have to release them until they are ready to (under the Sunshine rules). Also raise your hand if you think their mentioning the prints yesterday was a calculated move on their part, designed to remind the defense that yes, they, the prosecution, have exactly the type of evidence they need to convict Ms. PP.

Thank you very much, Smith!

Curious,

There were 3 pieces of Henkel tape on the skull, and a 4th piece separate from the remains. We have had no information on whether latents exist on the 4th piece (Q104). Then there were three pieces of “non-Henkel” duct tape also at the scene. As Olive stated, they may have nothing to do with Caylee.

Yes, that exchange about forensic information that has not been released has the forums buzzing. Linda Drane-Burdick said, “90% or more of the forensic information that is going to be disclosed to the defense has already been disclosed.” Ashton said there were some “latent print related items” that he could not recall seeing in the discovery. Baez said there were some “latent evidence issues” that had not been turned over to the defense.

Is there any chance the remaining latent print information pertains to the items picked up at Cindy’s request on August 7, 2008 (the DVD cases, hair straightener, etc. that had supposedly been handled by Zanny)? I know the defense listed those items among many others in a January 2009 motion (motion heard in March) and then argued five months later at an August 2009 hearing that they still had not received any of the information they had asked for in January. I’ve lost track, but I have a vague recollection that there was some question regarding the location of the lab that processed those prints (FBI or a Florida crime lab).

Curiousmom…..Did the prosecution mention the latent prints first or did Baez? I thought Baez oops again…and mentioned latent evidence being withheld.

Is there any chance the remaining latent print information pertains to the items picked up at Cindy’s request on August 7, 2008 (the DVD cases, hair straightener, etc. that had supposedly been handled by Zanny)?

Maura

First, I can’t believe that you are human and can’t remember something ( or lost track). lol
Secondly, I thought that we already learned that there wasn’t any other person’s fingerprints on those items??

Danna, I’m not sure who it was who first said it.

It’s entirely possible the “latents” information will turn out to mean nothing.
But, it would be a ginormous stroke of luck for Casey Anthony if there was not one single print on anything at the scene where Caylee’s remains were found. Personally, I think there is something that the prosecution has, which is why they haven’t released it just yet. I think if they had NOT found anything on those items from the remains site, we would already have heard about it.
The death penalty was put back on the table after Caylee’s remains were found, most likely because of the duct tape. It’s also possible that the prosecution discovered evidence, like prints, that clearly links Casey to the items at the remains site.

But, I’ve been wrong before, and I definitely may be wrong this time.

Your welcome Val,would those prints be washed away by the water? Also didn’t Ashton say the FBI didn’t released the results of those prints yet?

Curiousmom, I agree there must be a reason for DP. I believe they have something.

Is this the motion you are referring to Maura?
Page 4 discusses fingerprint info.

http://www.wftv.com/news/18594108/detail.html

I have a question. Ashton was saying he had no control over the results being released by the lab, hence the Judge’s comment about getting their lawyers involved. So does that mean they the prosecution, has whatever this is and why couldnt they give it to the defense like the other items?
I guess I mean, why these being held and not other evidence?

Yes, that is the January 28 motion, and this is the section pertaining to the fingerprints
analysis of the Pontiac and the items turned over by Cindy on August 7:

22. Fingerprints:

a. (i) A copy of the latent print and print card as set forth in discovery page 3173; (ii) A copy of the 18 fingerprint lifts as set forth in discovery page 3233; (iii) A copy of the eight areas of latent fingerprint lifts developed with dye stain as set forth in discovery page 3234; and (iv) A copy of the fragment of the latent fingerprint lift from exterior trunk of the vehicle as set forth in discovery page 3194.

b. All photographs, latent lift cards, and other duplications of the latent lifts that are in possession of any law enforcement agency including but not limited to the Orange County Sheriff’s Department and/or FBI;

c. Any and all automated fingerprint searches performed on the above latent fingerprints.

******

What I don’t recall seeing is a forensic report about fingerprint analysis of the items turned over by Cindy. I do recall seeing a negative DNA report about the plug on the inflatable mattress, but I don’t recall a fingerprint report. That doesn’t mean it hasn’t been released – only that I don’t remember reading anything about latents (or the absence of latents) on the DVD cases, hair straightener, etc.

The prosecution must hand over whatever they have to the defense. Ashton’s argument is that the prosecution cannot hand over what they have not themselves received from the FBI or Oak Ridge.

Judge Strickland told the defense they would need to get the Oak Ridge lawyers involved if the defense wanted information from Oak Ridge that Oak Ridge would not voluntarily hand over to the state or the defense.

Didn’t the judge state that someone had to make a motion so that the Fbi would release the latents? I think this was said a prior time in court. I may be wrong but still no motion has been made.

I bet the Prosecution knows what is on those latent prints verbally and since it is not in writing they don’t have to disclose it. Eventually, the will get it but isn’t it like making the defense squirm some. I think JB is already figuring he picked the wrong client but it has brought him much media attention. In my opinion, the media attention makes him look more and more like a fool. Keep on waddling Andrea.

Image is so important and the jury has to bond with you and buy your story…. they buy you first and its very hard to buy the defense lawyers in any shape and form. That could influence how a jury decides. I know they are supposed to go on evidence but i’m sure there are many studies that show there are other components on verdicts and the likeabiity and the bonding with one side or another based on attornies.

I would like to think a jury would be totally objective but there are too many human characteristics that disprove such an empirical theory.

Thanks Maura. So we are assuming the SA thinks it may yield good news for them even if they don’t have the report yet.

Also, Baez did not claim Oak Ridge was withholding test results. He did not say what he wanted from Oak Ridge that the lab would not give him. Maybe he was referring to bench notes or the specifics of a testing methodology. If you read the motion QB linked above at 08:01:44, you’ll see the defense asked for the moon, not simply test results.

I remember that motion well but I don’t recall it being addressed at a hearing. I will have to go back and look for that.

It’s interesting also that the discovery page numbers are referenced in the motion. Have we seen those page numbers in any of the discovery?

Miss Eloise said: { Jan 27, 2010 – 08:01:41 }
Thanks Maura. So we are assuming the SA thinks it may yield good news for them even if they don’t have the report yet.

*****

I’m not making any assumptions since I don’t know exactly what the FBI has that has not been disclosed in discovery.

http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/11021-11050.pdf

I think it may be in here. I think that there were latents on the flat iron. Will look through.

I got it. Thank you.

I know you are talking about Latent Fingerprints etc., but I don’t recall any Discovery regarding the contents in any of the Vacuums retrieved from the Anthony House either. Didn’t they take vacuums and a shampooer?

Not that one could imagine CMA actually vacuuming or shampooing carpet or floors LOL. Still…..those items could have evidence from within the house.

Q307-308 g 6_(PDF 11988-12070) DNA analysis here, not prints on the flat iron.
Cindy, George, Lee, Caylee and (Burner) were excluded as possible contributors to Q 307/308. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15175852/Casey-Anthony-DNA-evidence-2-6-Nov-09

QB said: { Jan 27, 2010 – 08:01:15 }
I remember that motion well but I don’t recall it being addressed at a hearing. I will have to go back and look for that.

It’s interesting also that the discovery page numbers are referenced in the motion. Have we seen those page numbers in any of the discovery?

*****

The motion was first heard on March 12. Jeff Ashton told Linda Kenney-Baden that she could get the information she was seeking directly from the FBI. Kenney-Baden told him her that her own experience was that the FBI would not release information directly to private attorneys and that the prosecution had to make the request and then share the information with the defense. Judge Strickland told Kenney-Baden to try to get the information directly from the FBI, and if the FBI would not give her the information, then they could take it up again. Jeff Ashton gave Kenney-Baden the name of Amanda Choi (general counsel for the FBI) and a phone number that turned out to be a bad number.

Kenney-Baden tried for several months to get the information from the FBI and was ultimately told the FBI was not comfortable handing the information to the defense and wanted the requests to come from the prosecution (which is what Kenney-Baden told the court back in March). The defense then wrote a 91-page motion, dated August 20, 2009, outlining the attempts by the defense to get the information from the FBI. Ultimately, Linda Drane-Burdick told the defense to forward ALL requests directly to her and that she would make sure the requests were handled in a timely manner.

You’ll notice in yesterday’s hearing that at the end, Jeff Ashton offered to expedite the defense’s requests for FBI information by working personally with Linda Kenney-Baden rather than have the defense make a request to Linda Drane-Burdick first. That was rich, and I had a feeling Judge Strickland was biting his tongue as he listened to Ashton’s generous offer. LOL

Presence of more than one contributor . Casey Anthony is potentially the major contributor. They couldn’t test the minor contributor further, they could only do the exclusionary test above.

Maura,
I now remember the hearing and the argument around it.
Thank you.

QB –

I forgot to add that the discovery page numbers referenced in the January 28, 2009 motion had all been released to the public prior to January 28, 2009.

This probably a very silly thought/question but i will go ahead anyway. How in the world did Casey manage to aviod prints on ANYTHING!! I know we are all hoping, praying that there is a print somewhere but i just can’t seem to grasp the fact that there “may or may not be” a partial print or 1 print?? I would love to know if it was pure dumb luck, environmental elements that washed evidence away?? I refuse to think Casey is some criminal genius!! Just seems so over the top tragic that there is not abundant, overwhelming forensic evidence linking her killer to this babys MURDER!! That just makes my heart heavy

Nickel, I am with you 100%. I’ve been saying that for a year and a half. How could little PPP have done everything the state is saying she did and not leave ONE fingerprint anywhere?? It just doesn’t make sense. Nobody is that lucky, and we know for a fact that she’s just not that smart. It’s puzzling to the point of “frushtration”. I guess now I know how truly “frushtrated” Casey is. LOL

I read AL writings on AEDPA (think it is?) anywho she is an attorney who feels and believes on filing motion after motion, but from what I understood this is an effort to cover all and anything in a appeal. She states that at the collateral stage ineffective counsel doesn’t qualify under AEDPA.

I am glad that she has this belief and instructs her students to this because I have a gut feeling KC will excercise this after she is convicted.

IMO KC left plenty of evidence she killed Caylee, her car, her tattoo, her squirrel, her video’s, her texting, her stealing, her ugly coping, her photobucket, her refusal to report Caylee missing for 30+ days, her lack of having any of Caylee’s clothes with her, the packet of pullups left at her house, her lack of not assisting in searching for Caylee, and most of all her desire to have noting to say to the dispatcher when Cindy reported the baby gone.

» Chicagojudy said: { Jan 27, 2010 – 10:01:25 }

Well for the dump site, we know that the remains were partially or entirely submerged at some point. And they were there at the highest point of heat & humidity and through several rain systems. Add to that, movement, or a current in that location, and animals, and you have trace evidence nudged or washed away, or literally dragged away.

Remember, there weren’t any fingerprints on any items of the garbage in the trunk either. Purportedly this occurred due to the climate. If not, then someone cleaned it up.

The trunk was most certainly cleaned, but not enough where elimination of the odor was accomplished.

There was a full six months before the remains were recovered. And you can bet that if Casey had been more diligent about recovering her car, there wouldn’t have been a smell. There might not have been a car. Maybe she would have dumped it or even torched it somewhere, knowing her fondness for portable gas.

Maura,

Doesn’t the defense want other non ‘results’ documents and information from the labs? Wasn’t that what Baez and Ashton were discussing? Along the lines of benchnotes and other non-result information to evaluate the quality of the work (to discredit the results or the personel involved– ie: ‘contaminated’ issues, etc) that Ms. Kenny-Baden talked about so long ago.

I doubt that the FBI could withhold results from the state. So this has to be something other than what the lab would normally send. That would explain why Ashton has nothing to do with this, it’s between the defense and the lab.

IMO there is no inconceivable way any DNA could be found, if Cindy washed the grey slacks in the trunk due to odor, I am sure water at the crime scene erased a lot. They found a cigarette but in a murder here in my town but due to the rain it could not be tested for DNA, they did find out who committed the murder because the guy bragged about it but it was his brand of cigarette.

So I can believe that there maybe at one time foot prints and stuff that got washed away.

That does sound familiar Kleat.

Last October, WESH had a report saying the lack of DNA and fingerprints was not unusual.

*****

Expert: Lack Of DNA In Caylee Case Not Unusual
Attorney Also Questions New Casey Anthony Motions
5:28 pm EDT October 1, 2009

ORLANDO, Fla. — A DNA expert said Thursday it is not surprising that duct tape found on Caylee Anthony’s skull lacked fingerprints or DNA.

Dr. Bruce Levy, who also is the chief medical examiner in Tennessee, said it also is not unusual that the FBI found DNA from one of its own technicians in a sample.

Levy’s comments come as Anthony defense team seeks to have charges against her dismissed, citing what they call a lack of evidence linking Anthony to her daughter Caylee’s death.

Casey Anthony is charged with first-degree murder and is in Orange County Jail awaiting trial next year.

Levy examined the recent FBI lab results on duct tape found across Caylee skull when he remained were discovered in an Orange County woods in December 2008. He said it is not surprising little DNA was left once the body was found.

“If it was on the body while it was exposed to the elements, you may find very degraded DNA or a small fragment,” he said.

In its reports, the FBI admitted it did find DNA belonging to one of its own female technicians. Levy said that can happen very innocently and does not mean the lab tests were botched.

“Any person coming into contact or coming near that body can leave DNA evidence unless they’re enclosed in a cocoon,” Levy said.

WESH 2 has learned that Casey Anthony’s defense continues to maintain there is an unknown DNA fragment on the duct tape that does not belong to Caylee, Casey or Cindy Anthony, who is Anthony’s mother and Caylee’s grandmother.

“I think the defense is going to want to make it as significant as they can…that it belongs to the perpetrator,” said Levy.

Levy, a veteran of hundreds of criminal trials, says that might not be Anthony’s best defense.

“I think if you want to hang on to one little fact in a sea of facts you may lose sight of the whole case,” he said.

*******

The situation is not that Casey was clever enough to avoid leaving DNA and fingerprints but rather that by the time the remains were found after six months in a hot swamp, original (as of the time the remains were left) DNA and fingerprint evidence had disappeared.

The items that had been in the trunk of the Pontiac, such as the Dora backpack and package of wipes, were free of latent prints by the time they were processed in October 2009 even though they had been in OCSO storage since July 2008.

What the defense wants from Oakridge is something that Ashton can not compel, Oakridge has given everything that they are willing to provide, and the request is something they’ve discussed before in court (Kenny-Baden). Baez used a term like ‘forensics related’ and it was nothing missing from the FBI other than the latent information.

Baez then picks up on the latent issue. Kenny-Baden and Ashton to speak directly, is to sort out the Oakridge problem of not wanting to give anyone anything more.

The fatty analysis test of the stain in the trunk was never made public, either. I think it’s a smart move for the prosecution to withhold the compelling items, or items that may bias a jury pool. It proves to me they’re trying to give Miss Poopy a fair trial, and one that could be held in Orange County. I can have patience waiting for the forensics, but I’m getting a little antsy waiting for the trial date to be set. The defense is obviously stalling because they’re still trying to find a defense!

Kleat,

In reference to 11:01:06

Thanks for making that more clear.

kp

It was my impression that Oak Ridge is refusing to hand something over to the defense, which is why Ashton said the dispute was between the defense and Oak Ridge and why Judge Strickland said the defense would need to get the Oak Ridge lawyers involved.

It was not my impression that the FBI is refusing to turn anything over but rather that the FBI is in possession of discovery that will be – but has not yet been – released to the state. Ashton referred to “latent print related items” that he could not recall seeing in the discovery, which suggests he knows exactly what those latent print related items are and fully expects them to become part of the discovery. That would be consistent with Linda Drane-Burdick’s statement that “90% or more of the forensic information that is going to be disclosed to the defense has already been disclosed.”

In prior hearings, the defense has demanded specific discovery items that the prosecutors said they didn’t have and that were still in the possession of the FBI or other agency. It was understood that the prosecution would eventually receive those items, but until that happened, the defense would have to wait. IMO, we heard a similar argument in Monday’s hearing.

I’ve always felt that any chance of prints was washed away, with caylee’s body being under water and exposed to elements for so long

I am so glad for Maura who posts with extreme accuracy and great recall.

I greatly appreciate your input Maura.

Thank you

Thanks for the feedback I realize the elements took a real toll on prints, etc. I guess i just wish that were not so. Sure we all feel that way!

Blueonblue: “I don’t recall any Discovery regarding the contents in any of the Vacuums retrieved from the Anthony House either. Didn’t they take vacuums and a shampooer?”

I believe so. One of the commenters here also mentioned a while back that the SA declined the FBI’s offer to analyze the contents of the vacuums etc. I’d have to guess there’s a good reason for that, although why wouldn’t they let those tests be conducted, since the offer was made?

Only thing I can come up with is they know the vacuums were replaced by the Anthonys before they were turned over. Dunno…

Maura,

Yes, benchnotes and who knows what else, to find some inconsistency somewhere. Sorry I didn’t read your comment before responding re: benchnotes. I’m sure there are the two issues. The defense seems to be holding out for everything, including what the state has no right to get involved with, as a delay tactic to not comply with reciprocal discovery.

Maura, do you think there’s another perpetrator to blame in the defense? I’m thinking the problems for Kronk go to his credibility of the August sighting, and if that’s called into question, goes to the body not being in the woods on that date. The suggestions of another killer, would go to the nanny person, one of the ZG’s, or boyfriends, maybe even Amy, if she’s foolish enough to go visit Baez in his office. Jesse does have the Georgia link, storage unit, etc. These targets seem to still be in the picture, as Kronk is not a real suspect, but a critical witness to discredit.

Lurker since you began your site, Valhal…

and what an intelligent, thoughtful site it is.
It is wonderful to read reasoned and informed analysis instead of wild speculation.
And this includes many of your excellent posters…like attracts like.

I have not kept track of all the discovery, but I wondered if the hypodermic in the Gatorade bottle had been ruled out for latents? Thinking that perhaps being inside the bottle might have preserved prints from the elements…

I had been hoping at one time that the tight seal of the tape against Caylee’s face would have preserved latent prints. Then I realized that decomposition is an acidic process and that might have actually hastened the disappearance of any finger prints. Also, the swamp water, itself is probably very acidic in nature so same problem there even aside from the fact that things were submerged for so long. I also worry that this acidic environment will have destroyed any drug evidence that might have remained in the hair mat hair shafts. It makes me angry because I suspect there were people who allowed the body to remain where it was after they knew where it was to accomplish this very purpose.
I also play the “what if…if only” game with myself as in, “What if Mr. Kronk was listened to in August. But, in the long run, I have read about so many cases that ended in conviction of first degree murder with much less evidence than what is present here in this case. That’s what keeps my hopes up that one day Caylee will have her day in court.
Cindy handing items over to LE and stating that they were at Zany’s home makes me nervous. I don’t think she would do that without knowing who’s prints were on them…she already knew it would not show a family member IMO…this is yet to be seen.
Cindy being “cooperative” is like,
“Here, let me help you push this big ‘ole heavy Trojan horse through the gates.”

This all seems a little backwards to me

The Defense needs to get the Oak Ridge lawyers involved if they want information from Oak Ridge.

Oak Ridge would not voluntarily give to THE STATE or the DEFENSE??

The state is pressing charges against Casey for the death of Caylee. Wouldn’t they need the “proof” also? Are they relying on word-of-mouth information?

We may be assuming something that is not, It is possible that the state really does not want the evidence included or they would have been contacting the lawyers of oakridge a long time ago to make sure they get a conviction.

I cant imagine the prosecution saying….well it sure would be nice if we had the latent print evident to present to the jury, but if we don’t then that’s o.k.

Not logical

Using various technologies and techniques it is possible to retrieve fingerprints from nearly any surface or material – including cloth or burlap. Water is not guaranteed to wipe out a fingerprint and can actually preserve a print now and then which would otherwise have evaporated. Specular reflection, polarization, various frequencies of laser, and/or refraction can all play important roles in securing a useful fingerprint from a given surface without chemically altering either the print or the surface in question. In some instances, the best technique will require the use of alloying chemicals to develop a print due to the material porosity or granularity. These techniques rely frequently on chemicals which selectively bond with amino acids or other properties associated with biological films.

Lasers can allow one to see prints under other materials – like blood. Lasers can also be used in conjunction with various chemicals to alloy chemicals into the ridge detail of a print for enhancement purposes. Specular reflection will cause polarization of surfaces covered by transparent films such as those caused by body oils or sweat. Polarizing filters will then be effective in making such prints visible even on cloth and body surfaces.

Prints on the sticky side of tape will generally be preserved through deformations in the adhesive instead of or in addition to some staining through transparent films. Such prints will not normally be disturbed by water inundation or by evaporative processes.

I seem to recall that, at Baez request, Cindy had rounded up quite a few items that were in her home that he was interested in that she gave to him. Is there a way that the prosecution could confiscate these items from Baez, or are they worthless as evidence since they were illegally withheld from LE and their custody compromised?

I have to add one thing. If I were on a jury I would certainly put a lot of weight into the fact that “grieving grandparents” found it a good time in life to replace vacuum cleaner(s,) rug shampooer(s,) a washing machine and perhaps a dryer. You couldn’t push me through that tunnel of BS no matter what direction you aimed me in or how much force or lubrication you used. Nope, no way…and that’s the kind of evidence I’m talking about. It’s not latent fingerprints, for sure, but who needs latents with evidence and BS like that laying around for the easy pickings? Oh, how I love how stupid they are.
LE tried to convince Casey to stop things from snowballing…but, too late…now, it’s more like a BS ball, barreling along and nobody can stop it.
So, THAT’s what they manufacture in that family business George was talking about. BS balls!
I pray there will be at least one more trial after the murder trial unless they decide to split it up and make it two separate trials. I’m very patient.
Thanks to Val and all of you who have explained the evidence above with what incomplete evidence that you have. I do have some trouble with the technical stuff and I’m very glad some can make some heads and tails out of it… but I have no shortage of emotional involvement here and I love to see people mess up and have to pay for the horrible things that they can do to children.

“It is possible that the state really does not want the evidence included or they would have been contacting the lawyers of oakridge a long time ago to make sure they get a conviction.”

The state HAS to provide the defense with whatever they receive from any testing facility, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, so the defense will get everything. Otherwise, the entire case could be tossed out for withholding evidence.

The state may have heard preliminary answers via the phone, etc. Perhaps there was additional testing performed. But they will need documents. When they have received them, again, they will have to be turned over regardless of whether the state likes the results or not. They will not be stupid enough to throw a case by hiding a result from one test.

Are they playing with the timing, who knows? We know that the defense has basically not handed over any discovery or witness lists, so both sides might be behaving in a less than perfect manner.

Like Maura said, who knows what the defense wants from Oakridge? Maybe they’re looking for personnel files so they can dig up dirt on the people who ran the tests… it could be anything, anything at all.

None of the stuff that you point out necessarily points to Casey as the culprit – washing machines, vacuums, etc. It is a hell of a stretch to go from that to it proving anything about Casey and Caylee. It is a leap that I doubt most jurors would be willing to make. It could be argued just as easily that it was done to protect someone else entirely – a different family member or close friend.

thanks WSH,

I was having a hard time understanding why the judge didn’t tell the prosecution to get the info from Oakridge since they would also be needing it.

so if the defense gets the Oakridge lawyers to release the evidence to them(the defense) then they would have to provide them to the prosecution, then they may or may not be released in discovery. Is that correct?

It might also be true that the Anthony’s replace all of those things every few years and this just happened to coincide with one of those years.

It is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty not guilty until proven innocent.

Another point on the Vacuums and carpet cleaner, they were not taken from the house until after the remains were found.

With two dogs, two cats, and people, a vacuum will need to be emptied (whether it be a bag or a canister) frequently. Meaning only that the contents of the vacuums six months later would more than likely not relate to anything collected in them in June or July.

If they had taken the cleaners the day the took the car…that would be a different story.

Nitasch, I thought about that also but even if bags were replaced couldn’t there be an errant hair or a little crushed maggot (sorry for the visual) caught in the hose?

I mean, if true that the FBI asked if LE wanted the tests it seems odd that overworked LE wouldn’t take them up on it — on the off-chance…

Hi Vahall,

I have been reading here for some time now ( ok I was lurking ) and I absolutely love this site. Thank you for making things understandable for all to read. I also want to thank you for the sense of humor you add to such a serious situation.
I don’t know if anyone caught what JA said first when he started talking about the latent prints. He said “I know” and then changed it to “I believe”. I am thinking there are latent prints on something/things and I hope its an important something/things that point directly to KC.

The state would have taken the itemsw if they thought them probative. They took everything else they wanted. I do not think that any conclusion can be reached on the Anthony’s replacing this stuff.

I certainly do not see how it could be taken to prove guilt of Casey about anything. The absence of the items does not give one the right to assume that there WAS evidence in them to be found.
Especially not so long after the crime.

William Hill, the state DID take the items with a search warrant. As far as I know, they never had them tested.

I don’t think I could reach a conclusion on the Anthony’s replacing the vaccuums, however, sure does make it suspicious since Cindy is the one that reported the car smelled like it had a damn dead body in it. Don’t you think? Maybe no conclusions but you have to wonder just how much did they love their granddaughter……TO DEATH???

That is my point – they took them and then returned them. So how does that say anything about Casey’s guilt or innocence?

I would doubt that they did not take them apart and put them back together.

Stocirpa said: { Jan 27, 2010 – 02:01:47 }
I seem to recall that, at Baez request, Cindy had rounded up quite a few items that were in her home that he was interested in that she gave to him. Is there a way that the prosecution could confiscate these items from Baez, or are they worthless as evidence since they were illegally withheld from LE and their custody compromised?

******

Cindy gave Baez Casey’s receipts (after LE turned them down) and Casey’s Universal lanyard. I don’t believe the state can confiscate those items.

Casey, not Cindy, gave Baez a box of items in September 2008, and Baez turned those items over to the FBI after the remains were found. The FBI gave them to OCSO, and they are currently in storage.

Maura

There should be some serious chain of custody for those items produced, because they were with the defense for 3 months before OSCO was made aware of them.

I’ve never heard the Anthonys replaced any vacuum cleaners.

A lot of people insist George and Cindy cleaned the car, but from what I’ve seen in discovery, any clean-up was superficial.

The car wasn’t released from Johnson’s until 1:55pm. It was only then that George was able to go through the locked gate, open the door, open the trunk, try to start the car, put gas in the tank, and then drive to the office to meet Cindy. That had to take 10 minutes, so it’s 2:05pm.

George and Cindy spoke for a couple of minutes before leaving the lot, and it’s a seven-minute drive back to Hopespring Drive. It was raining, so I doubt they made better time than that. Now it’s around 2:15pm.

Cindy took the items out of the car and placed them on appliances in the garage while George took the battery out of the trunk. That was probably another 8-10 minutes, so it’s close to 2:25pm. George’s Epass records show he was hitting a transponder on 528 westbound at 2:29pm; the toll he hit is about five minutes away from the Anthony house, so George did not hang around the house at all. He did not return to the house until a minute before the deputies arrived.

Cindy looked on the computer at a Facebook account at 2:40pm, and she must have gone back to Gentiva shortly after that per the testimony of Debbie Bennett. It takes Cindy 15-20 minutes to drive to Gentiva from home. Debbie said she herself left work around 3:00, 3:15, 3:30pm and saw Cindy arrive back at the office after picking up the car. Debbie said she thought Cindy returned to work around 1:30-2:00pm, but it had to be closer to 3:00. At any rate, Cindy didn’t hang around the house cleaning the trunk before heading back to work.

Cindy returned to Hopespring between 4:00-5:00pm (she was texting Casey at 4:30pm). She left around 6:00pm to pick up Amy at the mall. So Cindy had time to clean the trunk before she left to pick up Amy but that doesn’t mean she did clean the trunk. Cindy told OCSO she removed the items that had been in the trunk and also sprayed the trunk with Febreze. She may also have placed the dryer sheet in the trunk and on the rear passenger seat. I tend to believe that’s all she did to the car on July 15.

Hours later, deputies showed up only a couple of minutes after George got home, around 9:45pm. With the approval of OCSO, the Anthonys moved the car out of the garage and into the driveway. OCSO was there all night long, and the family wasn’t alone again until early the following morning. Casey was on the phone with Tony for a long time that morning. Cindy said she and Casey worked on a Caylee MySpace page and contacted Casey’s friends in the morning. George went to work (his Epass records confirm he was hitting the toll again at 11:52am). Lee said he went home to sleep then returned to Hopespring after noon (he said Casey had already been picked up by detectives and taken to Universal). I tend to think nothing was done to clean the car in the morning.

Around 5:00pm, Detective Charity Beasley arrived to take the car and items that had been in the car into evidence. When Beasley arrived, the car was parked on the road in front of the house.

So did Cindy, George, or Lee do any car cleaning on the afternoon of July 16 before Beasley arrived? I tend to think not because the car was visually inspected as soon as it arrived in the OCSO forensics bag at 7:46pm, and Yuri Melich said the trunk contained “some type of dirt residue” that was vacuumed up by OCSO along with numerous hairs.

In other words, the trunk didn’t appear to have been vacuumed when it was checked by forensics because there was dirt on the liner visible to the naked eye. Moreover, the forensics people should certainly have been able to tell if any attempt had been made to shampoo the carpet liner because the carpet would not have had time to dry by the time it was being inspected and because the technicians would have picked up fresh shampoo chemicals/scent when the liner was processed.

At least that’s how I am understanding Ashton’s communication to the FBI in April 2009 not to bother processing the vacuums taken from the house (two uprights) and garage (a shopvac and a wetvac). He told them not to bother because the CSIs and lab technicians who processed the trunk said the trunk showed no signs of having been cleaned just prior to being taken into evidence.

Makes sense, Maura. I’ve only read mild speculation about the vacuums being replaced, was just wondering if that could possibly be the reason why LE did not have them further examined by the FBI but you have cleared that up. Appreciate the explanation.

Midwest Mom said: { Jan 27, 2010 – 02:01:04 }
thanks WSH,

I was having a hard time understanding why the judge didn’t tell the prosecution to get the info from Oakridge since they would also be needing it.

so if the defense gets the Oakridge lawyers to release the evidence to them(the defense) then they would have to provide them to the prosecution, then they may or may not be released in discovery. Is that correct?

******

The state has to share everything with the defense, and they have to share it within 15 days of getting it. When discovery is being shared with the defense, the state first makes the discovery part of the official case record by filing the discovery with the court. Only at that point does the discovery become public record and only at that point can the public/media get copies.

The defense only has to share with the state what they intend to introduce at trial. They have to file the discovery they intend to use with the court, and at that point it becomes public record. Other than motions, the defense has barely filed anything with the court, and that’s why we have seen virtually no defense discovery.

The dispute is between Oak Ridge and the defense. If Oak Ridge loses and has to turn over whatever the defense wants, then it will be the defense’s discovery and the defense will only be required to share with the state if the defense intends to use the information at trial. If Oak Ridge gives a courtesy copy of the information to the state, then the state will probably file it with the court at some point, but since the defense will already have a copy, there won’t be any pressure on the state to get it in the official case record anytime soon.

It’s like the Mallory Parker November 12, 2009 SAO deposition. Baez was there for the deposition, so technically that deposition discovery has already been shared with him. If Baez asks for a copy of the deposition transcript, then the state will have to file a copy of the transcript with the court right away, and only then will we get to read it.

WSH-

LE has to show chain of custody for all items taken into evidence, but I don’t know that the defense does. Casey gave those items to Baez for DNA testing, and Baez handed them over to LE along with a four-page DNA report. I don’t think Baez is obligated to provide any other documentation.

Weird. After hitting submit the page went white and the post never appeared.

I can’t seem to post.

Sorry Mid West Mom

I see that Maura has answered your question, even though I did not. She did a better job than I would have anyway.

Maura

I wanted to post earlier that if the defense has some big revelation with the evidence given directly to them ( ie Zanny’s DNA), there will be a cloud of suspicion. First, they were given by Casey. And secondly, there aren’t any control measures in place for handling evidence such as chain of custody. Plus, they took so long to let LE know that they were in possession of all of that evidence.

Did OSCO send any of that out for testing as well?

WSH –

The FBI wouldn’t test any of the items because the FBI didn’t get them first. I doubt OCSO wanted to waste money testing them after the items had been in the possession of the defense since early September and had been handed to Baez by the only suspect in Caylee’s murder. No point in testing them.

Maura

Do you have an opinion or hunch on what the defense is looking for from Oak Ridge?

WSH –

No.

Richard Hornsby on WS Hornsby #1 thread on November 28:

Yes, the F.B.I. could tell the prosecutors over the phone their tentative results before they put them in writing or release the final results. Under Florida law, a LEO is only required to provide his final report to the defense, not notes, or tentative reports. (However, if the person is part of an established science, they are held to their scientific field’s own standards on report writing and not retention.) However, the death penalty was put back on the table eight months ago in April. Whatever supports the State’s justification for the death penalty has to have been released by now.

Richard Hornsby on WS Hornsby #1 thread on November 28:

There will be no secret evidence produced by the State that will magically appear at trial of which we have never heard. The only evidence that is being withheld are the autopsy photos, which is authorized by statute as an exception to the Sunshine Laws (was enacted because of the Dale Earnhardt death). See Section 406.135, Florida Statutes, “Autopsies; confidentiality of photographs and video and audio recordings; exemption.”

Richard Hornsby on WS Rhornsby #2 thread on December 1:

“. . . what [Baez] fails to mention is that the primary forensic evidence being offered against his client is based on traditional and peer reviewed science; entomology and botany.”

“Ironically though, the evidence regarding body decomposition originates from the body farm in Tennessee, which is one of the only criminal based forensic sciences that has been sufficiently documented and based on the scientific method. ”

Richard Hornsby on WS Rhornsby #2 thread on December 10:

“The prosecution is required to turn over any evidence or reports that would be favorable to the defense or exculpatory – this is known as Brady Material.

On the flip side, there is no corresponding obligation for the defense to provide incriminating expert opinions to the state. For example, if the defense hires an expert entomologist to review the discovery material and that entomologist either agrees with the State’s experts or comes up with a finding that is not beneficial to the defense, there is no requirement that the defense disclose that expert to the state.

However, if the defense team’s entomologist makes some exculpatory findings and some incriminating findings, the defense is required to disclose both findings if they want to use the entomologist at trial.”

So, in essence, what Mr. Hornsby is saying is that the defense can completely omit adverse information from a given expert if they choose to ignore his findings, but they cannot “stack the deck” if they choose to use that expert in court.

Interesting!

Maura and WSH:

I think that I remember an answer from counsel for oakridge to the discovery where they said ixnay on several things and then the defense objected to it? I would have thunk that was the material in question?

Or counsel for the feebees maybe? seems like some one told them no you are not entitled to this and that and that once upon a time.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/23430306/Casey-Anthony-felon-paperwork-25-January-2010

Oops, meant to post that on the convicted felon thread… My bad.

I’m sure Casey is well aware of how the camera focuses on her every MOVEMENT- which is even more notable when she is sitting at the table by herself (without Jose and Cavewoman by her side), thus, shielding her body language from the camera’s view.

In reviewing yesterday’s check fraud, aka – THEFT- proceedings/sentencing, I noticed Casey sat STILL as a rock, without batting an eyelash (from what the camera angle showed), during the conversation between the SA & Defense regarding the latent prints/evidence.

If I didn’t know better, I could swear Casey had an ‘oh sh*t’ moment when hearing the words ‘latent’ (either prints or evidence, at this point I can’t recall), therefore, she KNEW all eyes were upon her, hence, her STILL as rock body language.

When/if reviewing the video, check her out…you will see that she doesn’t even BREATHE at that moment.

I am not good at going back and finding things in the documents, so I am sorry I do not have a link. One thing that I don’t know for sure whether it went on to a lab or not, was some weed barrier plastic found near the body. I know I am right on this, as I came across it more than once while reading the docs. I have wondered many times whether it is a match to what the As have in their backyard

Val, My hand is up again? I think if they did vacuum the car that would be great. You can not completely clean out all the hoses maybe empty contents of the bag or cup but not the hoses. Can you do an article on some of the evidence and how there would be no way of completely cleaning it. No pressure just curious and trying to pick your brain…lol ty

Maura said: { Jan 27, 2010 – 12:01:28 }
It was my impression that Oak Ridge is refusing to hand something over to the defense, which is why Ashton said the dispute was between the defense and Oak Ridge and why Judge Strickland said the defense would need to get the Oak Ridge lawyers involved.
**************************************************

Why would Oak Ridge refuse to hand ANY EVIDENCE over. Isn’t the purpose of Oak Ridge to discoever latent finger prints…or not. What would they want to keep it to themselves for? I’m not understanding this at all. Unless it’s in the state’s favor for Oak Ridge to not hand it to the defense until a few weeks before trial & maybe there’s an unspoken agreement between Stae & Oak Ridge. I’m not getting this at all!

Gina,

The defense asked for alot of information from the labs beyond test results. iirc they asked for all the testing procedures, information related to the equipment used for the tests, and information regarding all of the staff involved in the testing processes. Its my belief that the information being withheld (and not being released to either party) is the information about the employees. I believe they did release CV’s on the employees which will state their qualifications, but I believe the defense request was much more extensive and asked for their performance reviews, disciplinary actions etc………jmo

During Cindy Anthony’s SAO interview, she was shown a picture of two bags of trash (State’s Exhibit 6). She wasn’t told where the bags were when the picture was taken, but she was asked if she recognized anything in the picture.

I read the documents that were released on November 6, 2009, and I came across something interesting on page 10461, notations next to information about the daily max/min temperatures for July 15 and July 16, 2008:

July 15: “Dad 911 trashbags to dumpster”
July 16: “Bags out evid. 2300″

Following is a link to a picture of two white trash bags that appear to be on the bottom of a dumpster:

http://media.myfoxorlando.com/photogalleries/040609casephotosset2/1/lg/Trash_bag_0869208.htm

The bags are in close proximity, so IMO, they were thrown in the dumpster close in time.

My speculations:

There were two bags of trash in the car — one in the trunk and one inside the car.

George may have observed the bag that was inside the car through the rear-side window or the rear window when he was putting gas in the car.

He got in the car and started it, but then he made a snap decision to throw the bag that was inside the car over the the fence and into the dumpster before driving the car out of the tow yard. S.B. (tow yard manager) didn’t see him do it because he was walking away from the car toward the tow yard exit.

I would be willing to bet that investigators took both white trash bags out of the dumpster and the bag that didn’t contain the pizza box also contained evidence that is relevant to the case (which may include latent fingerprints on the bag and/or on items that were inside the bag), albeit no specific evidence regarding the second bag of trash has been released with documents that are available to the public.

Gina said: { Jan 27, 2010 – 11:01:07 }

Why would Oak Ridge refuse to hand ANY EVIDENCE over. Isn’t the purpose of Oak Ridge to discoever latent finger prints…or not. What would they want to keep it to themselves for? I’m not understanding this at all. Unless it’s in the state’s favor for Oak Ridge to not hand it to the defense until a few weeks before trial & maybe there’s an unspoken agreement between Stae & Oak Ridge. I’m not getting this at all!

******

I don’t believe Oak Ridge is refusing to hand over evidence related to the Casey Anthony case. And Oak Ridge doesn’t handle fingerprinting – that issue is with the FBI, and it appears some discovery pertaining to latent prints has not been disclosed yet, but there was no accusation that an agency such as the FBI refused to hand over evidence or test results.

The defense asked Oak Ridge for a mountain of information that was not related to the case. For instance, they wanted all Oak Ridge’s government contracts, grants, and communications relating to the work of Dr. Arpad Vass for the last 12 years. That’s the sort of thing the defense wants and Oak Ridge says it can’t provide.

I would be willing to bet that investigators took both white trash bags out of the dumpster and the bag that didn’t contain the pizza box also contained evidence that is relevant to the case (which may include latent fingerprints on the bag and/or on items that were inside the bag), albeit no specific evidence regarding the second bag of trash has been released with documents that are available to the public.

————–

This is an interesting theory. I’ve never picked up on the two trash bag comment in the interview before.
I would think we would have heard more about it by now, if the second bag was actually related to the case and the car…..so I tend to think it wasn’t. Still, if the defense is trying to keep it all quiet (Casey, George, and Cindy certainly won’t speak up if they are trying to cover up the existence of the second bag), the info would only come from the prosecution side.

Bringing over from another site:

In the documents ALL the pieces of duct tape mention hairs, weft/warp, fibers and no latent fingerprint…

EXCEPT THIS ONE!!!!
Q104 – Tape crime scene crime scene (8.5″ length) – no trunk fibers – no cotton content in warp making it dissimilar to Q66 – Henkel brand – hair present – caucasian fringe hairs, very fine, light brown – fibers blue cotton, red cotton, off-white (d), black (d) (mostly opague), grey-brown (d), blue (d) – known taken, warp off-white poly (d) rd; weft off-white poly (d) sl ribbon (no cotton so unlike Q66)
:

Q104 is Henkel brand Duck tape.

http://www.thehinkymeter.com/?p=999

There are multiple close-up pictures of the surface of Q104 so we know that there are no visible prints on the adhesive. It was also submerged in moving water off and on so it could have had any regular latent prints washed away. I would be very surprised if this tape had prints on it.

Please stop deleting my post, it is very relevant here, from a well respected site.
Q104……………..

the documents ALL the pieces of duct tape mention hairs, weft/warp, fibers and no latent fingerprint…
EXCEPT THIS ONE!!!!
Q104 – Tape crime scene crime scene (8.5″ length) – no trunk fibers – no cotton content in warp making it dissimilar to Q66 – Henkel brand – hair present – caucasian fringe hairs, very fine, light brown – fibers blue cotton, red cotton, off-white (d), black (d) (mostly opague), grey-brown (d), blue (d) – known taken, warp off-white poly (d) rd; weft off-white poly (d) sl ribbon (no cotton so unlike Q66)

I have to comment a little bit late in time to a reaction of a commenter to my above comment on the subject of the washing machine, shop vac and vacuum and the possibility of their having been discarded. I did not see it until now and I feel the need to respond.
Cindy washed the soiled slacks (and Caylee’s bedding every week for some reason) and who knows what else she washed and then may have replaced the washing machine. Cindy vacuumed the home where a murder might have taken place and then may have gotten a new vacuum. Shop vac may have been used to clean the garage floor where a decomposing body might have been transferred out of the trunk of a car…it’s obvious why LE seized those items when they did but would have been great had they seized them earlier. But they didn’t know what they learned until later so they did not see the significance of those items early on. Finding Caylee’s body sent them flying to the family home for a reason and they THEN seized those items. (They had drawn some conclusion from what they saw in the woods.) Testing might have been deferred if LE found out these were not the original items in the home during the time of the crime. (One possible conclusion.) Fibers are caught sometimes, outside of the collection bag in a vacuum and certainly along the tubing leading to the bag. Filters in vacuums often are filthy and clogged with dust and hair. LE thought these items were significant enough to seize them and we have no idea why they decided not to subject them to testing. Coming to conclusions regarding circumstantial evidence about these things is no worse or more unfair than all the other conclusions we may and HAVE come to concerning this case. A lot of this case is circumstantial and we have all drawn a lot of conclusions and we’ve been doing so for coming up on 2 years now.

Commenter wrote:
“It is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty not guilty until proven innocent.”

I agree with this but fail to see why my opinion brings this statement out in someone. I made no claims in my comment about Casey being found guilty before she is presumed innocent. I simply made a statement about something I would put weight in IF I were sitting on a jury which would mean that I had not found her guilty yet. I have read cases where the accused discarded a rug or a couch, etc shortly after someone “went missing” and was later found murdered and the juries in those cases did, in fact, figure this information into their decisions. (I sure hope so!)

“does not give one the right to assume that there WAS evidence in them to be found”

Read my comment again if you wish. I did NOT conclude that there was any evidence in the items. I was more interested in the timing of the items being discarded.
Juries have the right to assume and that is exactly what they do. They weigh the circumstantial evidence right along with the physical evidence and they make their decisions as they see fit. I also have the right to assume what conclusions I might draw if I were sitting on a jury and you have the right to disagree. You do sound a bit defensive in your choice of words and coming back 4 times to elaborate on your point of view…I’m not sure why.
I could be wrong and if I am, I apologize. Everyone should feel comfortable in posting here in spite of the fact that there will be disagreements. I don’t expect that people will always agree with me but, please, at least read carefully what someone has written before being disagreeable with something that they did not think or write. I’m here to learn and I need not make any comments at all if they will be met with a confrontational attitude. I have no use for it at all.

I had a very strange experience today. I applied for a job at a school and they require fingerprints for a background check. It was determined by the police that I do not have fingerprints. Apparently washing dogs 6 days a week and the cleaning and sanitizing chemicals at the shop have scarred and worn them away.
Naturally the first thing I did was get on the internet to find out how this is possible. According to everything I can find it is not possible.

I have to get some kind of waiver from the Secretary of the State of Ohio to have another type of background check that will take 2 months at the earliest. By then the job will be gone.

I spent a couple of hours being really devastated by this as their are few jobs anyway around here. How about that irony? I literally worked my fingers to nothing an now can’t get a job.

Maybe some latent print expert reading this has run across this before?

OMG a different detective just called me and said he is ordering a material that should bring up my prints. I can go back on thursday for a redo!! sigh of relief.

Well, I still have no prints. The detective says that it is not at all uncommon with people that work with their hands and the prints will not come back. He said they can do a name background check, but the school system may not accept it. crap.

Tob,

Well, there’s always bank robbing. It’s not like you’re not qualified.

(I hope you get the job you want.)

Oy. I have heard quite a few jokes about embarking a new life of crime in the past couple of days. Fat fifty year old grandma available for hinky future! I was very surprised to learn that fingerprints can disappear. I have the fiction education that you have to shave your finger tips or have plastic surgery. Thank goodness most criminals do not work hard enough over a number of years to erase them.

We will see what the board of education has to say tomorrow on the job front. I don’t have high hopes, they have to protect the kids and I am sure they have other applicants that aren’t so much trouble.