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.
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.
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 4th 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
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