Disclaimer– exclusive original content copyright and property of Internet Network News, LLC and Blinkoncrime.com. Reproduction of this article in whole or in part without proper attribution and source link is strictly prohibited without prior written permission.

 Discovery Review Part II

Orlando, FL– In Part I, we reviewed the Latent Lift Myth. 

Adding to the quagmire of why Linda Kenney Baden maintains there are no prints on the duct tape, one reviews Ms. Baden’s amended motion for discovery.

Ms. Baden requests the specific 18 latent lifts and subsequent file information from the FBI reports in “this matter”. However, those tests were performed from items removed from the Anthony home by Orange County Sheriffs Office, not the FBI, thus the “THERE ARE NO LATENT LIFTS IN THIS CASE”.

How does the defense attorney entrusted to interpret the forensic evidence in a death penalty case not know with what agency that information is held? It was released months ago. 

Within the discovery, their is an email indicating a few areas of the tape were swabbed in the final testing process (CU) with methanol. This is performed on the non-adhesive side of the tape. Does it make sense if your sole intent was to extract DNA from this tape that you would be reduced to swabbing only the side of the tape NOT affixed to Caylee’s face?

It only makes sense if your goal is to preserve the integrity of what appears on the adhesive side, and exclude the possibility of DNA on areas that will not compromise the sample in that regard.  

Fibers Differ

Although the FBI has concluded  that the adhesive on the duct tape from the crime scene, on Caylee’s skull, and the Anthony home are CHEMICALLY THE SAME, Brad Conway releases the portion of the report that states that microscopically the tape fabric composition of the samples are dissimilar.

Now, admittedly I had the where- with- all to choose the smartest girl in my IPS class to be my lab partner while everybody else joked around and blew each others bunsons out. However, my guess is if you were to match conditions to the tape from the crime scene to that on the gas can and shelf from the shed, they would magically appear “SIMILAR”.

Difference between quantitative and observed, no? If that is the defense teams idea of junk science, I might agree. This brand of duct tape has not been manufactured since 2007.

How hard do we think it is going to be for the State to locate this exact production batch? They are as close to an MSDS report away.

Weed Eaters

In the CSI notes from OCSO, initial responders, we note 4 different areas where Agent Bloise marks 4 areas; 3 are under wood chips and the 4^th is under the platform of 16×16 pavers from the July yardscaping.

Buried within the FBI contact logs from the latest discovery, we learn that OCSO has at least one of those, if not all, in evidence. Where were they sent and what are the results? Could they be in the company of the much anticipated soil samples taken from the Anthony yard?

The examination and testing of soil samples from the trunk have also not been disclosed to date.

The OTHER Laundry Bag 

As reported exclusively at blinkoncrime.com, the original report of the laundry bag had the incorrect model.

The rectangular laundry bag, referred to as K33 in the most recent report, was recovered at the Anthony home on a top shelf in the East side of the garage.

In the latest FBI report, K33 appears under the “additional items from the vehicle” category. Not in the items from the residence and is examined with the items found with the Dora backpack or diaperbag as it is sometimes referred to.

What does that mean? Category oversight, OR, did OCSO find out that laundry bag was removed from Casey’s car?

To be Continued:

Part III The Disappearing Lingering Stain  

Disclaimer– exclusive original content copyright and property of Internet Network News, LLC and Blinkoncrime.com. Reproduction of this article in whole or in part without proper attribution and source link is strictly prohibited without prior written permission.

 Discovery Review Part I

Orlando, FL– In the last 2 weeks in the case against infamous tot-mom Casey Anthony, The defense appears to be in an all out media blitz to support their recent motions for dismissal. Most legal analysts feel they have  missed the deadline for such tactics, and that could very well be the reason for the affront on public opinion recently.

The blinkoncrime.com editors have been scouring the recent discovery release. 

There are some very compelling facts the Spin Twins de Baez have conveniently overlooked.

The Duct Tape

Reported exclusively  at blinkoncrime.com last June, the Henkel Duck tape industrial grade was located on the skull of Caylee Marie, the  gas can and the shed at the Anthony residence. Today, WFTV after rifiling through some old footage, reminds us what we already knew.

(Editors note: Say what you will about Kathy Belich, that Dom Casey cheat sheet with her picture and “disseminating hatred towards the family” remark had her in that news room with a whip and a hot iron all day until they found it– I don’t blame her.)

Yesterday at Brad Conway’s client driven press conference, he specifically referenced there are no fingerprints on the duct tape. I heard it again this morning by Linda Kenney Baden.

Let’s break this down folks, shall we?

On NO document, that we have seen, does it state anywhere that there are no prints on that duct tape. Specifically, I am referring to FBI Evidence ID Q62, Q63 and Q64.

In fairness to the defense, with a combined experience mean of 2o years in the “expert” fields, less Jose “josebgood@yahoo.com” Baezs’ token 3 years, I can see how such academics could come to that conclusion for the time being.

Within the response to Kenney Baden’s discovery request from the FBI, this statement appears:

THE FBI DID NOT RECEIVE LATENT LIFTS IN THIS CASE

It does not say “latent impressions”, which in the forensic “speak” means all friction ridge detail images.

Seriously? With a woman’s very life hanging in the balance we are expected to believe such a panel does not know the difference between a latent lift and a friction ridge image in 2009? Not to be glib, but as a practical matter, as a layperson, just imagine when your scotch tape slips off the cutter and you stand there for 10 minutes trying to thread it again with your fingernail. If that did not immediately furrow your brow, you will be wrapping all the christmas presents this year.

 These assertions by the defense team are nothing more than an attempt to double dare the State to open their Kimono. Insert euphamisms at will. 

As a matter of fact, a close look at the examination protocol used by the FBI,  tells a very, very different story. 

Tape Q62, Q63, Q64 is originally presented  NOT to be tested for DNA. Who gets it first? Latent Print U and Chem. Why is this important? Because the two work together when we are talking about applying chemically based “lifting” techniques such as sticky powder, for example.  

(more…)