Comments on: Items that could have Latents http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2010/01/27/items-that-could-have-latents/ ...because something's just not right. Sat, 28 Jan 2012 15:01:20 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: tob http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2010/01/27/items-that-could-have-latents/#comment-9958 tob Thu, 11 Feb 2010 23:07:03 +0000 http://www.thehinkymeter.com/?p=1578#comment-9958 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. 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.

]]> By: Valhall http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2010/01/27/items-that-could-have-latents/#comment-9957 Valhall Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:43:08 +0000 http://www.thehinkymeter.com/?p=1578#comment-9957 Tob, Well, there's always bank robbing. It's not like you're not qualified. :P (I hope you get the job you want.) Tob,

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

:P

(I hope you get the job you want.)

]]> By: tob http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2010/01/27/items-that-could-have-latents/#comment-9956 tob Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:40:57 +0000 http://www.thehinkymeter.com/?p=1578#comment-9956 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. :cry: 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. :cry:

]]> By: tob http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2010/01/27/items-that-could-have-latents/#comment-9716 tob Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:25:36 +0000 http://www.thehinkymeter.com/?p=1578#comment-9716 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. 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.

]]> By: tob http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2010/01/27/items-that-could-have-latents/#comment-9713 tob Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:13:25 +0000 http://www.thehinkymeter.com/?p=1578#comment-9713 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? :cry: 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? :cry:

]]> By: Mimi http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2010/01/27/items-that-could-have-latents/#comment-8355 Mimi Sun, 31 Jan 2010 19:56:05 +0000 http://www.thehinkymeter.com/?p=1578#comment-8355 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 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.

]]> By: sue http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2010/01/27/items-that-could-have-latents/#comment-8254 sue Sat, 30 Jan 2010 06:55:28 +0000 http://www.thehinkymeter.com/?p=1578#comment-8254 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) 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)

]]> By: William Hill http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2010/01/27/items-that-could-have-latents/#comment-8241 William Hill Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:19:02 +0000 http://www.thehinkymeter.com/?p=1578#comment-8241 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. 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.

]]> By: William Hill http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2010/01/27/items-that-could-have-latents/#comment-8240 William Hill Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:14:37 +0000 http://www.thehinkymeter.com/?p=1578#comment-8240 Q104 is Henkel brand Duck tape. http://www.thehinkymeter.com/?p=999 Q104 is Henkel brand Duck tape.

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

]]> By: sue http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2010/01/27/items-that-could-have-latents/#comment-8228 sue Fri, 29 Jan 2010 17:39:23 +0000 http://www.thehinkymeter.com/?p=1578#comment-8228 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) :?: 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)
:?:

]]>