1220 users online (214 members and 1006 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Wake Forest, NC
    Posts
    1,914

    Evidence: CY's pink pajamas

    *I'm cross posting this from the main thread so that people can readily find this and hopefully add to it when discussing this evidence in particular. If it's a problem, I understand if you need to delete it.*


    I had a chance to review some of the testimony regarding the pajamas CY was found in.

    Day 6, part 7: http://www.wral.com/specialreports/m...ideo/10725048/
    beginning @ 9:00, the evidence is discussed - CY's t-shirt, pants and fleece shirt -- all clothing she was wearing that day.

    1) The t-shirt had NO visible blood whatsoever. Agent Holley tested it for chemical presence of blood and it was negative.

    2) The fleece shirt - no visible blood --- Agent Holley tested it for chemical presence of blood and it was positive.

    3) The pajama pants - It is interesting to me that the blood was found on the bottom of the left and right pant legs and on the seat of the pants. To me, this indicates that she was wearing these when she was standing next to the body and certainly when the prints were made in the bathroom. It sounds like the blood was visible but very light --- this indicates that they were possibly washed. I can't imagine how she was able to avoid getting even a trace of blood on her shirt as it was all over her hands. Maybe the shirt was washed too and no stains remained.

    4) Two socks were found. One was bloody; one was not.

    Agent Holley @ 41:00
    http://www.wral.com/specialreports/m...ideo/10735811/

    Images of pajamas





    __________________________________________________ ______

    Regarding prints in the hallway --- Day 6, part 1 --- @ 39:00, there is discussion of some small prints on the carpeting leading into the bathroom. There is no discussion or video footage of a trail of prints from the body to that area right outside the bathroom. It is very difficult to see these due to the lighting.http://www.wral.com/specialreports/m...ideo/10723727/

    I heard several times at trial that there is NO trail of CY's footprints and that is what is puzzling when considering the child wandering around alone.

    As well, there is absolutely no blood in her bedroom. They used a crime scene imager to identify blood in the room. None. If she's running around loose for 10 hours, she wouldn't have gone into her room at all?
    Last edited by sunshine05; 06-02-2014 at 07:44 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,363
    Thank you for this.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    9,533
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshine05 View Post
    *I'm cross posting this from the main thread so that people can readily find this and hopefully add to it when discussing this evidence in particular. If it's a problem, I understand if you need to delete it.*


    I had a chance to review some of the testimony regarding the pajamas CY was found in.

    Day 6, part 7: http://www.wral.com/specialreports/m...ideo/10725048/
    beginning @ 9:00, the evidence is discussed - CY's t-shirt, pants and fleece shirt -- all clothing she was wearing that day.

    1) The t-shirt had NO visible blood whatsoever. Agent Holley tested it for chemical presence of blood and it was negative.

    2) The fleece shirt - no visible blood --- Agent Holley tested it for chemical presence of blood and it was positive.

    3) The pajama pants - It is interesting to me that the blood was found on the bottom of the left and right pant legs and on the seat of the pants. To me, this indicates that she was wearing these when she was standing next to the body and certainly when the prints were made in the bathroom. It sounds like the blood was visible but very light --- this indicates that they were possibly washed. I can't imagine how she was able to avoid getting even a trace of blood on her shirt as it was all over her hands. Maybe the shirt was washed too and no stains remained.

    4) Two socks were found. One was bloody; one was not.

    Agent Holley @ 41:00
    http://www.wral.com/specialreports/m...ideo/10735811/

    Images of pajamas





    __________________________________________________ ______

    Regarding prints in the hallway --- Day 6, part 1 --- @ 39:00, there is discussion of some small prints on the carpeting leading into the bathroom. There is no discussion or video footage of a trail of prints from the body to that area right outside the bathroom. It is very difficult to see these due to the lighting.http://www.wral.com/specialreports/m...ideo/10723727/

    I heard several times at trial that there is NO trail of CY's footprints and that is what is puzzling when considering the child wandering around alone.

    As well, there is absolutely no blood in her bedroom. They used a crime scene imager to identify blood in the room. None. If she's running around loose for 10 hours, she wouldn't have gone into her room at all?
    Wouldn't she have had to go to her room to get that black shoe that agent Holley said also tested positive for blood?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    591
    Thanks for the post and the thread. However, I think it would be more useful to separate out the substantiated evidence (i.e. the testimony about the blood on the PJ's) from the opinions (reason why the blood is found on certain spots of the PJ's) and the unsubstantiated claims (no blood in her bedroom, can you provide a link for this like you did with the PJ's?).

    Thanks.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    9,533
    Quote Originally Posted by oenophile View Post
    Thanks for the post and the thread. However, I think it would be more useful to separate out the substantiated evidence (i.e. the testimony about the blood on the PJ's) from the opinions (reason why the blood is found on certain spots of the PJ's) and the unsubstantiated claims (no blood in her bedroom, can you provide a link for this like you did with the PJ's?).

    Thanks.
    Color me baffled. Isn't witness testimony about the blood on the PJs (witness opinion) the same thing as unsubstantiated claims (witness opinion)?

    JMO
    Last edited by MyBelle; 06-03-2014 at 05:23 AM. Reason: edit for clarity

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    591
    Quote Originally Posted by MyBelle View Post
    Color me baffled. Isn't witness testimony about the blood on the PJs (witness opinion) the same thing as unsubstantiated claims (witness opinion)?

    JMO

    No. There are differences in witness testimony. A witness can say that they performed tests and determined that there is blood on an object. Unless under cross examination the defense challenges the test or the process or whatever, you can consider that there was indeed blood on the object.

    Another witness can state that they did not see blood on the object. This is their observation, but it does not substantiate whether or not there was blood on the object, it only shows what the observer saw.

    In addition, there is a difference between witness observation and witness opinion. In the second case, the witness provided an observation that they did not see blood on the object. If you ask the witness why they didn't observe blood on the object, and the witness says that they believe it is because the object didn't touch blood, that is an opinion. At that point, the witness is drawing a conclusion based on their knowledge of the facts.

    In the above:
    1. It is a fact that the test detected blood on the object.
    2. It is a fact that the second witness did not see blood on the object.
    3. It is an opinion of the second witness that the reason no blood was observed was because the object didn't come in contact with blood.

    If a test detects blood, then there is an overwhelming probability that there was blood. However, if someone does not observe blood, that doesn't mean that there was no blood. It could mean that the conditions were not right to see blood, that the blood was not visible, that the observer misremembered, or finally it could mean that there was indeed no blood (but this is not the necessary conclusion). Taking both pieces of testimony together, you must conclude that there was blood on the object.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Wake Forest, NC
    Posts
    1,914
    Quote Originally Posted by oenophile View Post
    No. There are differences in witness testimony. A witness can say that they performed tests and determined that there is blood on an object. Unless under cross examination the defense challenges the test or the process or whatever, you can consider that there was indeed blood on the object.

    Another witness can state that they did not see blood on the object. This is their observation, but it does not substantiate whether or not there was blood on the object, it only shows what the observer saw.

    In addition, there is a difference between witness observation and witness opinion. In the second case, the witness provided an observation that they did not see blood on the object. If you ask the witness why they didn't observe blood on the object, and the witness says that they believe it is because the object didn't touch blood, that is an opinion. At that point, the witness is drawing a conclusion based on their knowledge of the facts.

    In the above:
    1. It is a fact that the test detected blood on the object.
    2. It is a fact that the second witness did not see blood on the object.
    3. It is an opinion of the second witness that the reason no blood was observed was because the object didn't come in contact with blood.

    If a test detects blood, then there is an overwhelming probability that there was blood. However, if someone does not observe blood, that doesn't mean that there was no blood. It could mean that the conditions were not right to see blood, that the blood was not visible, that the observer misremembered, or finally it could mean that there was indeed no blood (but this is not the necessary conclusion). Taking both pieces of testimony together, you must conclude that there was blood on the object.
    Respectfully, I'm confused about the point you are trying to make. I'm just not following.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    9,533
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshine05 View Post
    Respectfully, I'm confused about the point you are trying to make. I'm just not following.
    I'm not either because I thought a jury decided the credibility of a witness.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    9,533
    Quote Originally Posted by oenophile View Post
    No. There are differences in witness testimony. A witness can say that they performed tests and determined that there is blood on an object. Unless under cross examination the defense challenges the test or the process or whatever, you can consider that there was indeed blood on the object.

    Another witness can state that they did not see blood on the object. This is their observation, but it does not substantiate whether or not there was blood on the object, it only shows what the observer saw.

    In addition, there is a difference between witness observation and witness opinion. In the second case, the witness provided an observation that they did not see blood on the object. If you ask the witness why they didn't observe blood on the object, and the witness says that they believe it is because the object didn't touch blood, that is an opinion. At that point, the witness is drawing a conclusion based on their knowledge of the facts.

    In the above:
    1. It is a fact that the test detected blood on the object.
    2. It is a fact that the second witness did not see blood on the object.
    3. It is an opinion of the second witness that the reason no blood was observed was because the object didn't come in contact with blood.

    If a test detects blood, then there is an overwhelming probability that there was blood. However, if someone does not observe blood, that doesn't mean that there was no blood. It could mean that the conditions were not right to see blood, that the blood was not visible, that the observer misremembered, or finally it could mean that there was indeed no blood (but this is not the necessary conclusion). Taking both pieces of testimony together, you must conclude that there was blood on the object.
    With all due respect if an expert witness does a scientific test on a piece of evidence then the opinion they offer is an expert opinion substantiated with the test. They do not offer an unsubstantiated opinion. If a professional law enforcement officer says he didn't observe blood, his observation is substantiated with professional training, education and experience. These are expert opinions that are substantiated.

    An eyewitness offers their observations and opinions about what they saw and the jury decides what is credible and what is not. Gracie did both when she observed a man come into her store. Her opinion was that he was about her height.

    JMO

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,363
    Quote Originally Posted by MyBelle View Post
    Wouldn't she have had to go to her room to get that black shoe that agent Holley said also tested positive for blood?
    This is a puzzle to me, the shoes in the bed and only one of them testing positive for blood.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    9,533
    Quote Originally Posted by JusticeFever View Post
    This is a puzzle to me, the shoes in the bed and only one of them testing positive for blood.
    What puzzles me is what is supposed to be the significance of the shoes at all whether they were on the bed or in her room? Neither the prosecution or defense really made a point other than only one of them had blood.

  12. #12
    If there was no visible blood, the pj's would have had to been washed.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    591
    Quote Originally Posted by MyBelle View Post
    With all due respect if an expert witness does a scientific test on a piece of evidence then the opinion they offer is an expert opinion substantiated with the test. They do not offer an unsubstantiated opinion. If a professional law enforcement officer says he didn't observe blood, his observation is substantiated with professional training, education and experience. These are expert opinions that are substantiated.



    An eyewitness offers their observations and opinions about what they saw and the jury decides what is credible and what is not. Gracie did both when she observed a man come into her store. Her opinion was that he was about her height.



    JMO

    With all due respect, a LE officers observations are not on the same level as an expert witness doing a scientific test. A LE officers observation is NOT a substantiated fact simply because it is a LE officer that makes the observation. And it is not considered an "expert opinion".

    I agree that a jury decides what is credible and what is not. And I agree that a police officer's observations should, in general, be considered more credible than another eyewitnesses. BUT, LE officers seem to "magically" remember things that are convenient to their narrative. These observations gain credibility if they are included in the officer's original notes written at the time of the observation. But they are by no means established fact.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    27,181
    Quote Originally Posted by oenophile View Post
    No. There are differences in witness testimony. A witness can say that they performed tests and determined that there is blood on an object. Unless under cross examination the defense challenges the test or the process or whatever, you can consider that there was indeed blood on the object.

    Another witness can state that they did not see blood on the object. This is their observation, but it does not substantiate whether or not there was blood on the object, it only shows what the observer saw.

    In addition, there is a difference between witness observation and witness opinion. In the second case, the witness provided an observation that they did not see blood on the object. If you ask the witness why they didn't observe blood on the object, and the witness says that they believe it is because the object didn't touch blood, that is an opinion. At that point, the witness is drawing a conclusion based on their knowledge of the facts.

    In the above:
    1. It is a fact that the test detected blood on the object.
    2. It is a fact that the second witness did not see blood on the object.
    3. It is an opinion of the second witness that the reason no blood was observed was because the object didn't come in contact with blood.

    If a test detects blood, then there is an overwhelming probability that there was blood. However, if someone does not observe blood, that doesn't mean that there was no blood. It could mean that the conditions were not right to see blood, that the blood was not visible, that the observer misremembered, or finally it could mean that there was indeed no blood (but this is not the necessary conclusion). Taking both pieces of testimony together, you must conclude that there was blood on the object.
    That's what makes the most sense to me as well. The child had blood on her pajamas (was not cleaned) and the officer, for whatever reason, missed it. Scientific tests trump observations. Meredith washed the pajamas before submitting them for tests, so other observations would have been consistent with the original observation ... with the problem being that the condition of the pajamas had changed between the observations.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    That's what makes the most sense to me as well. The child had blood on her pajamas (was not cleaned) and the officer, for whatever reason, missed it. Scientific tests trump observations. Meredith washed the pajamas before submitting them for tests, so other observations would have been consistent with the original observation ... with the problem being that the condition of the pajamas had changed between the observations.
    When do you think Meredith washed them?

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 09-04-2016, 04:46 PM
  2. CA CA - Colton, WhtFem 321UFCA, 45-55, GSW, flannel pajamas, Jun'87
    By Snufamonbobball in forum The Unidentified
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 08-26-2014, 11:46 AM
  3. Scent Evidence ... Reliable Evidence Or Junk Science?
    By Wudge in forum General Information & Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-13-2009, 11:55 AM
  4. Pink Pajamas under the pillow
    By Toltec in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 03-27-2006, 03:47 PM

Tags for this Thread