2009.10.09 Duct Tape Photos From Remains Released

notthatsmart said:

Because the glue on the tape, protects the fabric. If there is glue, then there is protected fabric, yet no cotton. That would indicate that the tape was made without cotton. Hence no match. IMO

Click to expand...

thedeviledadvocate said:

IIRC the tshirt was made of cotton, what I am having trouble comprehending is, if there indeed was ever any cotton in the duct tape found at the scene of the remains, why or how could every trace of cotton from said duct tape be completely gone, when quite a bit of the tshirt remained? It would seem that cotton protected by the tapes backing, entwined with other non cotton fibers, and then covered with glue, would have a better chance of still being in existence, than would a cotton tshirt that was completely exposed?

Click to expand...

thedeviledadvocate said:

IIRC the tshirt was made of cotton, what I am having trouble comprehending is, if there indeed was ever any cotton in the duct tape found at the scene of the remains, why or how could every trace of cotton from said duct tape be completely gone, when quite a bit of the tshirt remained? It would seem that cotton protected by the tapes backing, entwined with other non cotton fibers, and then covered with glue, would have a better chance of still being in existence, than would a cotton tshirt that was completely exposed?

Click to expand...

LambChop said:

If you are talking about the remains site, the only cotton left from the t-shirt was the collar, maybe a few pieces with fibers, but no shirt. Where did you see there was a t-shirt?

Click to expand...

kcsmom76 said:

These pictures just sent chills through my soul. Poor Caylee.

Click to expand...

marspiter said:

Just an observation. The glue would protect the cotton to a certain degree. However cotton has certain properties that well...make it cotton. Cotton has certain capillary actions that cause it to absorb liquids. So if any of the cotton was exposed that capillary action would cause the liquid to absorb into the entire fiber strand. So you could still have glue and not have cotton because the "ends" of the cotton fiber on the edges would be exposed and would absorb the liquid (water, decomp fluids, what have you) thus causing the fiber to deteriorate and leave the glue behind.

So your assumption that the tape was made with out cotton because the glue is still present and would protect the cotton is actually flawed when you consider the capillary nature of cotton and it's absorption of fluids. Hence why cotton works great for oil lamps and most industrial mop heads are cotton too.

Click to expand...

joypath said:

Excellent hypothesis, however in my best evaluation of the literature available, the tape fibers were/are simple cotton fibers, untreated and available as "wicking" media within the grossly contaminated water source. This water along with the other environmental conditions over the time period of exposure would provide a marvelous "soup" for degradation. Now the teeshirt is a more intricate article, a product machine created in a tight weave, prepared with a chemical dye that coated the cotton fibers and strengthened them, minimizing the wicking effect and as a direct consequence of that, less internalized "rot". The teeshirt may have spent more time in a differing physical environment, ie. soil vs acidic water, and the biochemical changes would be modified.

The FBI scientists HAD TO REPORT exactly what the observed on each "Q" sample, making comments regarding "matches"/similar to/resembles/looks like/kinda is the same as" are all part of the opinion component of the report UNLESS the reporter/scientist chooses to make a defining statement on the report.

Click to expand...

LambChop said:

Thank you for clearing this up for us Joypath. Plus there must be body acids in the decomposition that would speed up the process, correct?

Click to expand...

joypath said:

Excellent hypothesis, however in my best evaluation of the literature available, the tape fibers were/are simple cotton fibers, untreated and available as "wicking" media within the grossly contaminated water source. This water along with the other environmental conditions over the time period of exposure would provide a marvelous "soup" for degradation. Now the teeshirt is a more intricate article, a product machine created in a tight weave, prepared with a chemical dye that coated the cotton fibers and strengthened them, minimizing the wicking effect and as a direct consequence of that, less internalized "rot". The teeshirt may have spent more time in a differing physical environment, ie. soil vs acidic water, and the biochemical changes would be modified.

The FBI scientists HAD TO REPORT exactly what the observed on each "Q" sample, making comments regarding "matches"/similar to/resembles/looks like/kinda is the same as" are all part of the opinion component of the report UNLESS the reporter/scientist chooses to make a defining statement on the report.

Click to expand...

joypath said:

Short answer, yep!
Part of the "soup" previously mentioned. BELOW: GRAPHIC COMMENT::sick:




Again, use real life experiences as in the "wonderful sensations and tastes" that remain after vomiting/barfing up gastric fluids/stomach contents aka enzymatic digestive juices and you'll get a tiny idea of the experience of decomposition fluid. :sick:

and now, I apologize for the graphic analogy but ......bet I got my point across!) :innocent:

Click to expand...

JWG said:

NTS, we did point you to the official docs from Henkel that clearly described the composition of that particular brand of duct tape. At that point you began arguing that perhaps the tape was manufactured in China, and because Chinese manufacturing standards seem to be of lesser quality than US standards, perhaps the Chinese manufacturing plant "forgot" to use fabric containing cotton. :bang: When we pointed out that the Henkel and Shurtape websites state that their manufacturing facilities are located only within the lower 48 United States, you argued that the website might be in error, and that it did not "prove" they did not outsource the tape manufacture to a third party. :snooty:

At that point I packaged up all the posts involved in the exchange and sent the whole thing to Linda Kenny-Baden and told her that her work was done. :thumb:

Click to expand...

Astraea said:

I hope this doent sound awful, but I am a relatively new poster here. I am just wondering if you are what we call a "Verified Expert"? If you are, could you please tell me in what areas?

Sorry to have to ask :blushing:

Click to expand...

JWG said:

NTS, we did point you to the official docs from Henkel that clearly described the composition of that particular brand of duct tape. At that point you began arguing that perhaps the tape was manufactured in China, and because Chinese manufacturing standards seem to be of lesser quality than US standards, perhaps the Chinese manufacturing plant "forgot" to use fabric containing cotton. :bang: When we pointed out that the Henkel and Shurtape websites state that their manufacturing facilities are located only within the lower 48 United States, you argued that the website might be in error, and that it did not "prove" they did not outsource the tape manufacture to a third party. :snooty:

At that point I packaged up all the posts involved in the exchange and sent the whole thing to Linda Kenny-Baden and told her that her work was done. :thumb:

Click to expand...

Astraea said:

I hope this doent sound awful, but I am a relatively new poster here. I am just wondering if you are what we call a "Verified Expert"? If you are, could you please tell me in what areas?

Sorry to have to ask :blushing:

Click to expand...

notthatsmart said:

Bold1
I have not seen an document that shows the tape found on Caylee was that brand. So, the document can not be used without first determining that that is the actual brand/model. I have looked for documentation and I understand it is difficult, so the Le has a big job there. I have done some Shurtape research and found that they do make brands without the cotton blend. There are several grades with several different ingredients depending on the customer demand. Several different model numbers. To assume that the logo was used for only one brand/model is not the way I look at things.

Bold 2:
I am not arguing from my point of view. I would hope that there are some sleuthers left in the thread that would wish to discuss this duct tape into detail.

Bold 3: I have yet to determine where this tape was actually made. I am finding that Henkel and Shurtape both have companies around the world. I would think that the tape was made in North Carolina by one of shurtapes original factories (something point) , however that is just assuming again, I don't like to do that.

I am in search of the whole truth about this duct tape, there is so much that we just don't know about it. Thanks

Click to expand...

ynotdivein said:

NTS I am grateful for the challenges you present, for they encourage posters to further buttress their positions. I respect your tenacity. I do not particularly want to dive in here because I am well aware of your position and intentions on this site. Nevertheless.... why not dive in (again).

If you have a sample of duct tape with an internal cotton weave (Henkel or not, no matter) in your home I would ask that you go tear off a smidge. Look at it from the side. Now think that water is one of nature's most relentless forces. It shapes natural landscapes, and it seeps into the smallest crevices. It has a harder time with man-made plastics however. Swamp water, and the bacteria it contains, would plausibly seep in the sides of the tape and combine to deteriorate the soluble natural cotton fibers in the Henkel duct tape while leaving the insoluble backing and adhesive side intact. Hence the tape still wrapped around Caylee's decayed face/skull/mandible and stuck to her hair. Hence the absence of cotton fibers but the presence of man made adhesives and backing...

JMO.

Click to expand...

For professional reasons (aka I like being employed where I am) and a few of our cases have made the WS "radar"/discussion forum, I have declined to be officially verified/cleared/sanctioned/beatified/as a Websleuths expert in my area of vocational expertise. As flattering as that title is from LambChop, I am unworthy to wear it. I will continue to post from my phenomenological frame of reference for our discussions, tho!

Click to expand...