Casey/Caylee Anthony Case: Tattoo and Duct Tape Photos Released
Orlando, FL– The State Attorney’s Office Has released additional discovery this morning including photos of Casey Anthony’s tattoo and the duct tape found across the mouth of 34 month old Caylee Anthony’s skull.
First Set Of Docs Here
blinkoncrime.com will be posting the images and discovery as soon as it becomes available. More Images Here.
Shovel and Duct Tape Here
Party Pics Here
Check back for updates
Related Posts
Related Posts:
420 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
wpg-
Where would Casey get ‘pure grade chloroform’? Do you mean pharmaceutical grade? I don’t think that’s even available here and if it is how would Casey get it? Black market? Or, did she make it as some believe? I have trouble with the latter…I just can’t see Casey making this in her garage, it’s not like whipping up a batch of brownies or something.
Where do you think she got the chloroform?
When you speak with him again Blink, maybe you can consider VERY hot steam cleaning? I’ve heard that it kills germs, but does it eliminate all traces of biological material? Perhaps in concert with a cleaning solution/agent?
I wonder if all local rug cleaning rental facilities have been investigated to determine if anyone used a commercial carpet cleaner that was not from the house.
Peggy, chloroform looks surprisingly easy to make. You only need a couple of common ingredients plus ice and you can whip it right up. There’s even a handy youtube video that demonstrates how to do it.
Only speculating here-
IMO, I think it’s pretty safe to say that the defense is going to challenge the results from Oak Ridge. The report mentions ‘experimental’ and some of the tests are fairly new (few years old) and there’s only a handful of peer reviews.
Will the tests preformed at Oak Ridge meet the Daubert or Frye standard(not sure which one Florida uses)? Is it possible this stuff won’t come in at trial?
I definately think it will come in, but I do agree it will be contentious expert V expert testimony.
I think what we have not seen yet will corroberate the findings in the “sniffer” so to speak.
B
I wonder if anyone thought to test out the deli meat/pizza rotting in a trunk over the summer theory (per Cindy).
Then they could take the jury on a field trip.
Car A could be the one where food was permitted to rot in the trunk. Car B could be the Pontiac. With witness testimony on the smell and their own noses, I would think that jurors might distinguish between the two aromas.
Then you might not need the chemical composition breakdown from Oak Ridge.
More docs released! WFTV!
Thanks Marine Mama..
Did I read that correctly? Are they releasing George’s GJ testimony now?
Peggy, that’s what I understand from the WFTV report. I’m trying to call someone now to find out how it could be that his testimony would be deamed public.
Unless the judge has so ordered, the Grand Jury testimony will NOT be made public. What is being released, again per Judicial decision, has to be something else. I’m looking for the order.
The GJ testimony will never be made public, by law. It is the transcripts of their depositions for the State.
B
Found it, but can’t copy and paste it. Dated 10/06 it so states:
“Ordered and adjudged that the State’s Motion for Transcription of Grand Jury of George Anthony taken/heard before the Grand Jury on October 14, 2008 is hereby GRANTED, the original of said transcript shall be delivered to the State Attorney and all of the requirements of grand jury secrecy pursuant to Florida Statute 905.27 shall remain in effect pending further order of this court.”
Has anyone heard any more? Was this transcript released, publicly? When did the judge give the order, if so?
Gavi
Good gravy that one threw me!!! I’ve never heard of GJ testimony being made public! Couldn’t imagine a scenario where it might be. The last line didn’t do much to ebb my bewilderment, “shall remain in effect pending further order of this court.” I thought … say what? Whew!
Gav-
Thanks, let me know what you find out.
btw-Little Timothy is OFF the ventilator! He’s on the mend. God bless you and thank you for your kind words the other day.
Blink-
Is that Florida law re: GJ testimony?
Blink, yes. It’s FL law. That’s why it threw me! I couldn’t imagine, and as I said, the judge’s last sentence regarding further order of the court, really found me astounded.
Regarding Little Timothy, thanks for letting me know that B. Been there, done that. My hopes and prayers remain for a full recovery. YOU get well and stay well, huh?
heart.
Gavi
O, Blink, I negated to say that when this first broke I thought it might be depositions they were releasing to the public. Though not standard procedure, it’s not uncommon here, in FL, for the State to take depositions, and especially in such cases where there are so many inconsistencies.
Blink, yes it’s FL law. Perchance it should be of any interest, I took this from the Reporter’s Handbook. I’d link to it, but I’m not sure it would post.
Secrecy and Disclosure.
Historically, grand juries proceed in secret. The grand jury session, deliberations, and voting are closed.15 The courts so jealously guard that veil of secrecy they have closed proceedings merely ancillary to the grand jury session. In Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. v. Doe, 460 So. 2d 406, 409 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), the court held that the grand jury statute required closure of ancillary hearings conducted out of the grand jury’s presence, but while the grand jury was in session. As discussed, the court in Afendoulis determined the grand jury statute mandated closure of motions to repress and hearings on the motions. In sum, although most of the interests in grand jury secrecy are protected if the grand jury session itself is closed, the courts have been receptive to arguments which urge that the cloak of secrecy be extended beyond the grand jury session itself. That cloak, however, does not exempt criminal investigative records compiled independent of, and prior to, a grand jury session, although presented to the grand jury, from disclosure under the Florida Public Records Act.16
The United States Supreme Court has enumerated the policies underlying grand jury secrecy:
1. The fear that witnesses will not come forward voluntarily if their identity is not protected;
2. The fear that witnesses will be less likely to give full and frank testimony if their identity is known so that they become subject to retribution or inducements;
3. The risk that the indicted will flee if indictments are made public prior to arrest;
4. The danger that a potential defendant might influence the votes of grand jurors; and
5. The protection of the reputation of an individual who is accused but not indicted by the grand jury.17
Florida Statutes Section 905.24 (2007), codifies those policies and mandates: “Grand jury proceedings are secret, and a grand juror or an interpreter appointed pursuant to s. 90.6063(2) shall not disclose the nature or substance of the deliberations or vote of the grand jury.” Although there are no criminal sanctions which apply to a violation of that section, the courts routinely rely on that provision to deny access to grand jury-related matters.
In addition, Florida Statutes Section 905.27(2007) prohibits grand jurors, state attorneys and all other court personnel from disclosing to anyone, except under certain narrowly-specified circumstances, the testimony of a witness examined before the grand jury or other evidence received by it.
The statute declares it unlawful:
for any person knowingly to publish, broadcast, disclose, divulge, or communicate to any other person, . . . in any manner whatsoever, any testimony of a witness examined before the grand jury, or the content, gist, or import thereof, except when such testimony is or has been disclosed in a court proceeding.18
In effect, the statute attempts to prevent the press and grand jury witnesses from forever publishing truthful information concerning merely the gist of a grand jury witness’ testimony. The United States Supreme Court, however, deemed this statute unconstitutional insofar as it applied to witnesses speaking about the nature of their own grand jury testimony after the investigation has been completed.19 Florida Statutes Section 905.27 (2007), no longer should impede state grand jury witnesses from discussing with reporters their grand jury testimony, especially once the grand jury proceeding has concluded
P.S. I’d posted earlier (late last night) to tell you that my prayers remain with you guys. It’s good to hear that Timothy’s better. Thank you for letting me know that.
re:#394 Suz, Made me have a VERY CREEPY thought. What if she bound her hands, tape over mouth/nose dropped her in the pool. Once drowned she floated to the center of the pool. Casey borrowed shovel. Put ladder up and used shovel to get her out of the pool. Layed her down by the pool, then moved her over by the playhouse perhaps out of neighbors view. Bagged her and then transported her to the trunk. That would explain the dogs hitting in those areas as well as chlorform in the trunk.
Someone had mentioned here and I don’t remember who at this moment. Teeth impressions in the duct tape from tearing the tape. I did see the photo in reference. Could they match that through her dental records alone, or would they need to take an impression from her?
HI Gloria…On Q 62, tape number 12 on the right end is the impression of Casey’s lower arch impressioin and on number 15 on the left end is her upper impression. She held Caylee in her left hand, the roll in her right hand, placed the tape in her mouth and pulled from her posteriors to the front. She placed it as far back as possible to get maximum leverage. Number 15 was torn top to bottom on left side and right side. This was the first pioece torn off. http://www.wftv.com/slideshow/news/21249759/detail.html
Earmark, thanks for that, on a scale of 1-10, how certain are you of that?
B
Blink…thanks. I don’t know if it’s Casey’s teeth but if not we must come up with a new scenario. A 10 that it is someones arch. I believe Casey killed her daughter and placed her in those woods. There is a possibility someone else was involved but I hope not.
Understood earmark, we agree.
B