2009.10.09 Duct Tape Photos From Remains Released

New Posts

LambChop said:
This is very true. And if there was just the duct tape with the remains that was similiar to duct tape from the house it could be a stretch. But there was more. There was the blanket which CA admits was missing so this is a little bit less of a stretch now but could be explained away very easily, true. And then we have the laundry basket (which is the same make, different model than the one in the home but this too has been reported as missing). Now there is a problem with defense because now there are at least two other items we know came from the home and that makes the duct tape more likely than not to have come from the A's household.

We all know Henkel tape was found in the A's household. We all know that cotton under certain conditions degrades rapidly. Common sense tells us it's not a stretch to believe the duct tape on Caylee's face came from the A's household given the fact that other missing items from the home were also found at the scene. Put this all together with a mother who has lied to LE about the whereabouts of her child and it sounds like a pretty tight package to me.

jmo
Click to expand...

BBM

I have said all along and still believe that it will not be any one particular piece of evidence that will get her. In the end it will be the totality of it all brough together. The defense has major obsticles to overcome. I think the jury will not disregard the duct tape evidence IMO when you factor in all of the other stuff that brings it together.

And of course there's "my daughter has been missing for the past 31 days and I've gone through other means to try and find her myself." Yes the jury will find that an extremely bitter pill to swallow once they realize the only reason Caylee was reported missing was because of the Grandparents! JMO
 
LambChop said:
This is very true. And if there was just the duct tape with the remains that was similiar to duct tape from the house it could be a stretch. But there was more. There was the blanket which CA admits was missing so this is a little bit less of a stretch now but could be explained away very easily, true. And then we have the laundry basket (which is the same make, different model than the one in the home but this too has been reported as missing). Now there is a problem with defense because now there are at least two other items we know came from the home and that makes the duct tape more likely than not to have come from the A's household.

We all know Henkel tape was found in the A's household. We all know that cotton under certain conditions degrades rapidly. Common sense tells us it's not a stretch to believe the duct tape on Caylee's face came from the A's household given the fact that other missing items from the home were also found at the scene. Put this all together with a mother who has lied to LE about the whereabouts of her child and it sounds like a pretty tight package to me.

jmo
Click to expand...

Actually there is more to the laundry bag story. Heaven help me 'cause I can't remember the specifics, but there was a round bag, just like the one found with Caylee, that was reported by the A's as having held those playballs at one time. There may even be a picture of it. I think the info was in Cindy's and George's depositions, but not sure. IIRC, that "round" bag was reported by them to have been stored in the garage with the "rectangular" bag.
 
ExpectingUnicorns said:
Hmmm. I don't believe the statement that I bolded. But am interested in who you think might have done that and why.
Click to expand...

I do not know. I am having a hard time even speculating on this one. The problem I have is:

Ga stating he did not put that duct tape on that can.
Ga stating that when they returned the can on Aug 13th, it did not have duct tape on it.
No evidence number for the duct tape on the can from the Aug 1st collection. Where is that?
No photo from the tool shed where the can was collected. Where is that?
No statement from Tl saying whether or not he saw duct tape on the can.
No statement from Sb saying that he saw duct tape on the can.

How hard is it? Just go to Tl, and ask him. Just go to Sb and ask him. Just provide the photo from Dec 11th collection with evidence in place in the shed.

My hinky meter goes up on LE when I see these inconsistencies. Its a simple fix, just provide the photos. So, my answer is, I do not know. thanks
 
notthatsmart said:
I do not know. I am having a hard time even speculating on this one. The problem I have is:

Ga stating he did not put that duct tape on that can.
Ga stating that when they returned the can on Aug 13th, it did not have duct tape on it.
No evidence number for the duct tape on the can from the Aug 1st collection. Where is that?
No photo from the tool shed where the can was collected. Where is that?
No statement from Tl saying whether or not he saw duct tape on the can.
No statement from Sb saying that he saw duct tape on the can.

How hard is it? Just go to Tl, and ask him. Just go to Sb and ask him. Just provide the photo from Dec 11th collection with evidence in place in the shed.

My hinky meter goes up on LE when I see these inconsistencies. Its a simple fix, just provide the photos. So, my answer is, I do not know. thanks
Click to expand...

BBM

Per GA's depo, he didn't say that it was not on the can when LE returned it. He said he could not remember.

pg. 211, lines 5-10

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21310228/detail.html


I keep seeing it referenced and I am drawing a blank - who is SB?
 
steadychick said:
Actually there is more to the laundry bag story. Heaven help me 'cause I can't remember the specifics, but there was a round bag, just like the one found with Caylee, that was reported by the A's as having held those playballs at one time. There may even be a picture of it. I think the info was in Cindy's and George's depositions, but not sure. IIRC, that "round" bag was reported by them to have been stored in the garage with the "rectangular" bag.
Click to expand...

Yep. And it's missing.
 
Astraea said:
This analysis is wonderfully put. Cotton is used in the products you aforementioned, because of its ability to withstand degradation due to water events, more so then many other materials. I would thus be lead to believe that when one adds glue to one side and a plastic coating to the other, said cotton, even a minute fraction, would be protected from the elements.
Click to expand...

Your reading into my comment something that isn't there actually. Do to cottons nature (capillary action) if any cotton were exposed and not protected by the glue and plastic (such as the ends) it would cause that fiber and the fibers around it to become "wet".

In high school they do an experiment where you scratch the surface of a penny and place it in acid. The zinc in the penny will deteriorate in the acid and leave the copper jacket of the penny unharmed...thus you get a hollow penny.

So you would have the same kind of thing going on. The cotton fiber would deteriorate as shown by the T-shirt evidence and http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-0407103-131120/unrestricted/Gordon_thesis.pdf

In the items I mentioned (mop heads) cotton is not used because of it resistance to deterioration. It is used because of its absorption quality. Anyone who has used a cotton mop and left it in the bucket knows a cotton mop head will deteriorate. As joypath was saying the t-shirt was of a treated higher quality type cotton then what would be found in the tape that and there would be more cotton fiber in the t-shirt then in a 9 inch piece of duct tape.

The pictures of the t-shirt clearly show how cotton will deteriorate when exposed to the elements. So my original statement was to show the flawed logic in thinking that the glue and plastic would "protect" the fibers....because it wont do to cottons absorption. Also cotton does not with stand degradation as shown in the study linked above and the photos of the shirt. My examples were used to show cottons capillary nature (absorption). Not exactly sure how my examples show cotton is resistant to deterioration.

HTH
 
LambChop said:
Simon Birch?????
Click to expand...

thanks LambChop :)

I am embarrassed :blushing: to say, I still don't know who that is. lmao


I googled, but all I came up with was the title of a 1997 film. haha
 
beach2yall said:
thanks LambChop :)

I am embarrassed :blushing: to say, I still don't know who that is. lmao


I googled, but all I came up with was the title of a 1997 film. haha
Click to expand...

If it is the same person, SB was the man from the tow yard. GA had brought cans with him when he came to pick up the car. There is nothing in SB's statement about what is on the gas cans because at the time LE did not know that Caylee's face was wrapped with duct tape. Nor would TL. If statements from both were taken by LE it has not yet been released. TL or SB may not have noticed anything other than they were gas cans. jmo
 
LambChop said:
If it is the same person, SB was the man from the tow yard. GA had brought cans with him when he came to pick up the car. There is nothing in SB's statement about what is on the gas cans because at the time LE did not know that Caylee's face was wrapped with duct tape. Nor would TL. If statements from both were taken by LE it has not yet been released. TL or SB may not have noticed anything other than they were gas cans. jmo
Click to expand...

Okay! Now I gotcha! I just always referred to him as the towyard guy. LOL

Thanks for the info, LambChop!
 
beach2yall said:
Okay! Now I gotcha! I just always referred to him as the towyard guy. LOL

Thanks for the info, LambChop!
Click to expand...

Not sure why it would be important to prove the tape was on the can prior to Caylee's death when the A's from the 24th of June on were the only one's who had access to the cans. The tape could have been put on the can on July 1st when GA mowed the lawn. It really is not important. What is important is that it is Henkel duct tape and it was photographed by LE with the tape on the can when they collected the cans after Caylee was reported missing in July. It is also still on the can today as evidence. If defense wants to check the can they are free to do so and compare it to the picture. Somewhere in the doc dumps I feel I have seen a picture in color of the can with the same tape still on the can. Anyone else remember that? jmo
 
LambChop said:
Not sure why it would be important to prove the tape was on the can prior to Caylee's death when the A's from the 24th of June on were the only one's who had access to the cans. The tape could have been put on the can on July 1st when GA mowed the lawn. It really is not important. What is important is that it is Henkel duct tape and it was photographed by LE with the tape on the can when they collected the cans after Caylee was reported missing in July. It is also still on the can today as evidence. If defense wants to check the can they are free to do so and compare it to the picture. Somewhere in the doc dumps I feel I have seen a picture in color of the can with the same tape still on the can. Anyone else remember that? jmo
Click to expand...

I *think* the pic was on one of the news stations websites in color. I found one here though.
http://patrishka.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/gas-can-with-duct-tape.jpg

eta and here..

http://patrishka.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/gas-can1.jpg
 
Wasn't he the guy at the tow yard? Simon Birch that is?:waitasec:

As usual you are way ahead of me Lambchop! I've got to get out of Safari and into my Firefox - this way is so slow!
 
logicalgirl said:
Wasn't he the guy at the tow yard? Simon Birch that is?:waitasec:

As usual you are way ahead of me Lambchop! I've got to get out of Safari and into my Firefox - this way is so slow!
Click to expand...

I have had problems with my provider this past week. Very, very low and I kept getting tossed out. Okay today. Must be the Mercury retrograde. LOL
 
notthatsmart said:
You will find here pc 21f is made without cotton. thanks

http://www.shurtape.com/default.aspx?Tabid=75&Level1=39
Click to expand...

I meant post your research showing a Henkel duct tape with the logo made without cotton.

okiedokietoo said:
NTS
No. It does not help to put this in context, although, this might.
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21147538/detail.html
Click to expand...

notthatsmart said:
I have read this doc that you posted many times, but how do we know that is the model of tape Pc-621 that was found on Caylee? IIRC there is another model fd-30. There may be many models with the Henkel logo on it. IMO
Click to expand...

The information came directly from Henkel reps and they know their products. When asked they gave the information provided by Okiedokie. They did not provide information saying two products with the logo were produced... one with cotton and one without.


(Sorry for the delay in responding... busy with end of school stuff- prom- and problems with my laptop)
 
LambChop said:
Not sure why it would be important to prove the tape was on the can prior to Caylee's death when the A's from the 24th of June on were the only one's who had access to the cans. The tape could have been put on the can on July 1st when GA mowed the lawn. It really is not important. What is important is that it is Henkel duct tape and it was photographed by LE with the tape on the can when they collected the cans after Caylee was reported missing in July. It is also still on the can today as evidence. If defense wants to check the can they are free to do so and compare it to the picture. Somewhere in the doc dumps I feel I have seen a picture in color of the can with the same tape still on the can. Anyone else remember that? jmo
Click to expand...

They have not provided a picture of it in the shed on collection day Aug 1st that I know of . They should have that photo based on protocol of taking pictures of evidence before collecting them. I do not understand why they do not provide these pictures. Ga stated that it did not have duct tape on it when they collected it from the shed on Aug 1st, that he was there, he opened the shed for them. That sounds like something that could easily be cleared up by showing us the photo of it in the shed.

I am also concerned about the way Ga answered the question on page 209 of his deposition. Last line 25 was the question, first line 1 on page 210. It just seems kind of a wierd way to answer that. Can you look at it and make sense of it? thanks
 
notthatsmart said:
They have not provided a picture of it in the shed on collection day Aug 1st that I know of . They should have that photo based on protocol of taking pictures of evidence before collecting them. I do not understand why they do not provide these pictures. Ga stated that it did not have duct tape on it when they collected it from the shed on Aug 1st, that he was there, he opened the shed for them. That sounds like something that could easily be cleared up by showing us the photo of it in the shed.

I am also concerned about the way Ga answered the question on page 209 of his deposition. Last line 25 was the question, first line 1 on page 210. It just seems kind of a wierd way to answer that. Can you look at it and make sense of it? thanks
Click to expand...

NTS, have you gone back to re-read all the answers that were provided to you on this subject in November 2009 in the thread "The Duct Tape Match #3"? It would be helpful if you woudl explain exactly why you don't think your questions were answered back then.
 
AZlawyer said:
NTS, have you gone back to re-read all the answers that were provided to you on this subject in November 2009 in the thread "The Duct Tape Match #3"? It would be helpful if you woudl explain exactly why you don't think your questions were answered back then.
Click to expand...

For example, I'm pretty sure someone posted this photo of the gas can with duct tape, with an evidence card in front of it dated August 1, 2008, 11:30 am. This is the photo used at George's deposition, as you can tell by the fact that the deposition exhibit sticker is on the corner.

As Valhall mentioned to you on 11/5/09, [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4392789&postcount=407"]http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4392789&postcount=407[/ame], SA Ashton stated at George's deposition (p. 163): "This photograph was taken August 1st of 2008, according to our records."
 

Attachments

  • 10.jpg
    10.jpg
    52.3 KB · Views: 46
AZlawyer said:
For example, I'm pretty sure someone posted this photo of the gas can with duct tape, with an evidence card in front of it dated August 1, 2008, 11:30 am. This is the photo used at George's deposition, as you can tell by the fact that the deposition exhibit sticker is on the corner.

As Valhall mentioned to you on 11/5/09, http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4392789&postcount=407, SA Ashton stated at George's deposition (p. 163): "This photograph was taken August 1st of 2008, according to our records."
Click to expand...

I think the next obvious question will be, "how do we know where the picture was taken? It could have been taken at the OCSO evidence unit and not the Anthony home." :waitasec: And the truth of the matter is :angel: that because there is plain brown paper underneath the can, it was probably taken at the police station and not the Anthony home. So I guess that means the possibility is still out there for OCSO to have placed the tape on the can after taking it into evidence from the Anthony's but before photographing it at the station, because, well, maybe it seemed like a good idea at the time? :idea:

Of course, standard procedure is to photograph the item as it is first found, and then later photograph it again as it is being entered into evidence. There were probably a dozen or so photographs of the can taken that day, only one of which needed to be shown George. And just because we have not seen a photo of the can in the shed when it was first taken does not mean that such a photo does not exist nor does it mean defense has not seen such a photo. There are lots of photos we have not seen simply because they have not been the subject of a public records request. The state attorney is under no obligation to release a photo unless it is requested. :thumb:
 
AZlawyer said:
For example, I'm pretty sure someone posted this photo of the gas can with duct tape, with an evidence card in front of it dated August 1, 2008, 11:30 am. This is the photo used at George's deposition, as you can tell by the fact that the deposition exhibit sticker is on the corner.

As Valhall mentioned to you on 11/5/09, http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4392789&postcount=407, SA Ashton stated at George's deposition (p. 163): "This photograph was taken August 1st of 2008, according to our records."
Click to expand...

Yes I agree there are photos of the can on Aug 1st, however, have not seen a photo of the evidence in place in the shed. Would not be a big deal to me if Ga was not saying the duct tape wasn't there. He appears to have deep concern about this. That is all I was pointing out. That is my only concern. I am not disputing that there are pictures of the can with duct tape, but disputing that tape was on there when they collected it.

I understand that they are not obligated to show us all the pictures in evidence, however, there at that time while taking a deposition from Ga about it, they had opportunity to show him that picture in the shed and refresh his memory. They failed to do so, and that makes my hinky meter go up. It is a problem for the state and whoever collected the can will have to get on the stand and explain what happened. IMO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 202 more.
Total: 4,615 (members: 203, guests: 4,412)

Online statistics

Members online
203
Guests online
4,412
Total visitors
4,615
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,358
Messages
17,967,978
Members
228,755
Latest member
Spartan12!!
Back
Top