Fingerprints and gloves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
The latent prints they were talking about today. Could RK have handled any of the bags that he found Caylee in? Could that be a reason the defense wants to say he's the SOD or nanny? Good Lord I sure hope he didn't touch anything.
 
Lynni said:
The gloves... Cindy being a nurse, would she keep medical gloves around the house? I know some people "borrow" things from their employer-maybe she had some. I don't know anyone who keeps those around but me.
Click to expand...
Yes, I worked in nursing homes and home health, and I have tons of latex gloves at home.
 
Does anyone know if the Fbi has done this in the past? Are they allowed to hold inculpatory evidence until trial? How would that serve the people of Florida? If they have something inculpatory, lets get it out and get this over with before one more cent is spent. Why would the Fbi only give the state 90 percent of its findings? Will Jb now try to sopoeana the Fbi records? Is that what the Judge was telling him to do?
 
The judge was telling JB to ask the FBI for the info instead of asking parties that don't have it to somehow encourage a third party to provide it. JB likes to ask for everyone else to provide info so that he does not incurr costs. The Judge told him months ago to contact the FBI directly as Orange COunty was outside the jurisdiction. JB......has not obtained what he wants......so in his opinion......it's someone elses fault. JB needs to ask. He has a reason for not doing so......what that reason is......can be debated. Feel free to read some articles by AL discussing costs of discovery and how to minimize costs incurred by the defense. It may explain much.
 
notthatsmart said:
Does anyone know if the Fbi has done this in the past? Are they allowed to hold inculpatory evidence until trial? How would that serve the people of Florida? If they have something inculpatory, lets get it out and get this over with before one more cent is spent. Why would the Fbi only give the state 90 percent of its findings? Will Jb now try to sopoeana the Fbi records? Is that what the Judge was telling him to do?
Click to expand...

The 10% evidence, per the prosecution's statement today, is being withheld by Oakridge Laboratory, not the FBI, and to this, JB agreed.

Interestingly, it seemed that JB either forgot or didn't realize there was latent print evidence still out there. The prosecutor (can't remember his name, sorry) asked JB if he was waiting on anythng other than the Oakridge lab stuff, and JB said no, but then a few minutes later, the prosecutor says something to the effect of "oh yea, we do still have that latent print info" - which I thought was interesting. Again, I can't tell whether JB didn't know they had that info or he just totally forgot about it...
 
njustice said:
The 10% evidence, per the prosecution's statement today, is being withheld by Oakridge Laboratory, not the FBI, and to this, JB agreed.

Interestingly, it seemed that JB either forgot or didn't realize there was latent print evidence still out there. The prosecutor (can't remember his name, sorry) asked JB if he was waiting on anythng other than the Oakridge lab stuff, and JB said no, but then a few minutes later, the prosecutor says something to the effect of "oh yea, we do still have that latent print info" - which I thought was interesting. Again, I can't tell whether JB didn't know they had that info or he just totally forgot about it...
Click to expand...


he also wasn't to pleased with the state atty mentioned that perhaps lkb should be the one contacting him for the info since she knew what she wanted or needed better than jb...he wasn't happy.....
 
njustice said:
The 10% evidence, per the prosecution's statement today, is being withheld by Oakridge Laboratory, not the FBI, and to this, JB agreed.

Interestingly, it seemed that JB either forgot or didn't realize there was latent print evidence still out there. The prosecutor (can't remember his name, sorry) asked JB if he was waiting on anythng other than the Oakridge lab stuff, and JB said no, but then a few minutes later, the prosecutor says something to the effect of "oh yea, we do still have that latent print info" - which I thought was interesting. Again, I can't tell whether JB didn't know they had that info or he just totally forgot about it...
Click to expand...

I heard that differently...I thought JA (prosecutor) said something like he believes the only thing you are waiting on is to Oakridge Lab stuff and JB said "NO" like a petulant child...meaning he thinks the State is withhodling other stuff. I listened to it a few times because I couldn't make out something JA said...
 
magic-cat said:
does anyone recall the single fingerprint on the page all by itself in one of the doc dumps? It was just a lone fingerprint with no explanation at all...hmmm...explanation forthcoming? Perhaps...
Click to expand...

yes!!
 
JB was also asking for info that is not pertinent to the states case. Such as Dr. Vass' financial records. The state isn't going to have that info as it has nothing to do with proving Casey's guilt. So they wouldn't be required to give that to the defense in discovery as it has nothing to do with their case or evidence that will be presented to show Casey's guilt imho.

Yes the FBI may be holding on to some evidence..for what purpose is only speculation. Perhaps they are holding onto it for the state because of the sunshine laws. Perhaps it's because they want to do further testing because they know this trial is still as ways out. The only ones that know the answer to that are the FBI and the SA.

My question is why hasn't the defense turned over anything? They claim they have evidence but so far nothing has surfaced. The defense can't even agree on a start date for the trial or definitive dates for full discovery discloser.

The state honestly doesn't mind keeping Casey in jail until her trial. You would think her lawyers would be pressing hard to go to trial and get this over with if their client is so innocent.

Has anyone been able to pinpoint what evidence may contain a finger print based on previous doc dumps?

If Casey's finger prints were found on items at the scene and GA, CA, and LA's weren't, given that the items from the scene where in the A home. That would certainly be another nail in the coffin.
 
Tulessa said:
Interesting. JA refers to the evidence as latent prints but JB refers to it as latent evidence.
Click to expand...
It is interesting that Jose refers to this as latent "evidence". He has stated (time and time again) that discovery is not evidence until it has been subjected to the "rigors of cross examination".
 
When JA started talking he said "I know" and changed to "I believe" there are latent prints. Did any one here catch that? IMO they may have something (latent prints) that ties KC directly to the murder.
 
On page 39-40 of this link, there is a report dated December 15th, where the FBI requested latent fingerprint examinations on the Anthonys from the duct tape.

On page 40, the report states:

"The requested latent print examinations were conducted but no latent prints were detected."

IMO this does not mean that there were no prints on the tape, but that there were no prints from GA, CA or LA on the tape. To my knowledge, there hasn't been a report released eliminating KC or Caylee's prints from the tape yet.. or did I miss it?

http://content.yudu.com/Library/A15ddx/AnthonyDNAtests/resources/index.htm?referrerUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yudu.com%2Fitem%2Fdetails%2F42066%2FAnthony-DNA-tests
 
notthatsmart said:
Does anyone know if the Fbi has done this in the past? Are they allowed to hold inculpatory evidence until trial? How would that serve the people of Florida? If they have something inculpatory, lets get it out and get this over with before one more cent is spent. Why would the Fbi only give the state 90 percent of its findings? Will Jb now try to sopoeana the Fbi records? Is that what the Judge was telling him to do?
Click to expand...
Basically, he was telling him to take it up with the FBI and do what he had to do. BTW...where's the defense's discovery?
 
debbie0604 said:
On page 39-40 of this link, there is a report dated December 15th, where the FBI requested latent fingerprint examinations on the Anthonys from the duct tape.

On page 40, the report states:

"The requested latent print examinations were conducted but no latent prints were detected."

IMO this does not mean that there were no prints on the tape, but that there were no prints from GA, CA or LA on the tape. To my knowledge, there hasn't been a report released eliminating KC or Caylee's prints from the tape yet.. or did I miss it?

http://content.yudu.com/Library/A15ddx/AnthonyDNAtests/resources/index.htm?referrerUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yudu.com%2Fitem%2Fdetails%2F42066%2FAnthony-DNA-tests
Click to expand...

Yes, I remember many of us discussed that report at length when it came out, because why exclude everyone except Caylee or KC? Seems you only do that when you are trying to rule out everyone except the culprit, and I do remember that it does not discuss at all whether they can be matched to KC/Caylee...
 
I really do wonder and I wish I knew how all of this works with regard to how much information is required to be released in a case like this. It makes me wonder if:

A: Because of the Sunshine law, the defense is not allowed to retain ANY information before the case goes to trial, and

B: If there is a fingerprint of KC out there tied to the murder and LE is required to release it anyway, why haven't they released it by now so they can shut up the defense?

All I can come up with in response to my own queries is that if they have evidence like that, they are going to hold out as long as they possibly can, until they are forced to reveal that info. I also know that everything they have presented, up till now, is batches and batches of what can be called "evidence" - but we don't have LE's story yet on how this makes sense, and what kind of picture they are going to paint for us, so I'm trying to hold out and have some patience.

I do know a while back, before some of the most damning evidence came out, there were some leaks, remember those? And I remember someone interviewed whoever was responsible for those leaks and that person indicated that they did have fingerprints or worse. I'm wondering if that was just media distortion or we are all going to be blown away when all of the evidence comes out...
 
debbie0604 said:
On page 39-40 of this link, there is a report dated December 15th, where the FBI requested latent fingerprint examinations on the Anthonys from the duct tape.

On page 40, the report states:

"The requested latent print examinations were conducted but no latent prints were detected."

IMO this does not mean that there were no prints on the tape, but that there were no prints from GA, CA or LA on the tape. To my knowledge, there hasn't been a report released eliminating KC or Caylee's prints from the tape yet.. or did I miss it?

http://content.yudu.com/Library/A15ddx/AnthonyDNAtests/resources/index.htm?referrerUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yudu.com%2Fitem%2Fdetails%2F42066%2FAnthony-DNA-tests
Click to expand...

It means no latent prints were detected--at all. If they had found prints and they were not GA, CA or LA's, they would have said "Latent prints were detected. Upon comparison with elimination prints of GA, CA, and LA, the latent prints were not consistent with the elimination prints." Or something similar.

However, as I mentioned above, there is some possibility that it means no latent prints were detected using the techniques they had used so far, leaving open the possibility of using a more sophisticated technique later and finding new latent prints.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 62 more.
Total: 2,577 (members: 63, guests: 2,514)

Online statistics

Members online
63
Guests online
2,514
Total visitors
2,577
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
593,907
Messages
17,995,356
Members
229,276
Latest member
SeymourMann
Back
Top