2009.10.09 Duct Tape Photos From Remains Released

My grandson works for Lowes and they routinely get rid of discontinued stock at a greatly reduced price. I would think this tape may have gone on sale when they received a notice that it would be no longer available. Unlike a small hardward store that would keep them on the shelf until they are gone. jmo
 
Yes joypath did explain (beautifully I might add) one part of the topic, but it certainly does not discount the point that you have quoted.

I mean no offense to joypath, but I was under the impression that to call one an expert at WS, they needed to be verified. I am not saying that I dont believe her, but I also feel that it will be better to rely on the evidence of the experts who will be testifying on this matter. At this time I am only looking at the evidence that is available to me, and it says that the tape is microscopically dissimilar in regards to the fibres.

Yet the very experts referred to above are not to be believed either according to statements on other threads...so who exactly are we to believe in this matter? Not the experts for the trial, not the people who aren't verified experts here. So no one? I'm just confused here and am trying to get clarification because it seems there is no one that can be believed or trusted about this case, unless the reference is to the experts of the defense that we haven't seen or heard from in a very long time.

The jurors are going to have to trust someone at trial. The experts who are able to make the most sense to them is who they are going to believe. As for WS, anyone that can help us understand the facts better is appreciated, verified expert or not. It's rather rude to just say that because someone is not an verified expert, then they are immediately thrown to the side and not believable. That goes against having an open mind and weighing everything everybody says, regardless if they are an expert or not.

Playing fair means listening to everyone and then making a thoughtful choice from there, not ignoring every non-verified person just because they don't meet a certain standard. I, for one, am thankful for the people here that know way more than I do, verified expert or not. I wouldn't understand a lot of things, especially scientific things regarding evidence like the duct tape, if it wasn't for people like Joypath. They have earned my respect, verified expert or not.
 
snipped and bbm
I find it intriguing that "you are sure the defense did".
May I ask where this certainty is coming from?

ITA. They did this, but no depositions or anything else to get this case going for the last year and a half? There's no way they did this. It'd be way too much work for them to undertake, judging by what they didn't do up until Cheney Mason and now Judge Perry entered the picture.
 
In the most general terms the average American tends to believe that people are truthful. Look at KC's friends given her history. They were aware she told some lies but not were not aware that she was a thief. History of stealing from the family proves that. Friends might miss something and think they lost it and they may have. We will never know.

The fact that people do trust others, unless they suspect foul play is involved, there is every reason to believe that anyone picked for a jury will trust the experts to provide them with the information they need to come to a conclusion. That would be from both sides.

The fact that money would be involved, for some, would set off their "hinky meter". The duct tape is an uphill battle for defense because it clearly is what it is. There is no tissue, no blood for defense to disagree with. There is a picture of the skull with the duct tape on it. No one will need an expert to explain the picture. jmo
 
and there is also the tape on the Caylee poster - so three instances of this tape associated with KC
 
In the most general terms the average American tends to believe that people are truthful. Look at KC's friends given her history. They were aware she told some lies but not were not aware that she was a thief. History of stealing from the family proves that. Friends might miss something and think they lost it and they may have. We will never know.

The fact that people do trust others, unless they suspect foul play is involved, there is every reason to believe that anyone picked for a jury will trust the experts to provide them with the information they need to come to a conclusion. That would be from both sides.

The fact that money would be involved, for some, would set off their "hinky meter". The duct tape is an uphill battle for defense because it clearly is what it is. There is no tissue, no blood for defense to disagree with. There is a picture of the skull with the duct tape on it. No one will need an expert to explain the picture. jmo
That deserves an AMEN!!!
 
I would like to make note that page 9637 of the docs states that q66 (duct tape on red gas can) is 2 1/2 inches long, however on page 9649 it states that q66 is 2.75 inches long. I am wondering if they are getting these q numbers mixed up, but a quarter of an inch is a big difference. It should also be noted on page 3220 they take the red metal gas can into evidence on Aug 1st and return it on Aug 13th, however no mention of any duct tape. They also state that they take 8 pictures. I know there is only one grainy black and white floating around. That being said, I believe that the q66 duct tape that they are comparing to was put on the gas can after Kc was in jail. IMO

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21252257/detail.html

http://www.wftv.com/news/18530350/detail.html
 
I would like to make note that page 9637 of the docs states that q66 (duct tape on red gas can) is 2 1/2 inches long, however on page 9649 it states that q66 is 2.75 inches long. I am wondering if they are getting these q numbers mixed up, but a quarter of an inch is a big difference. It should also be noted on page 3220 they take the red metal gas can into evidence on Aug 1st and return it on Aug 13th, however no mention of any duct tape. They also state that they take 8 pictures. I know there is only one grainy black and white floating around. That being said, I believe that the q66 duct tape that they are comparing to was put on the gas can after Kc was in jail. IMO

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21252257/detail.html

http://www.wftv.com/news/18530350/detail.html

Hmmm. I don't believe the statement that I bolded. But am interested in who you think might have done that and why.
 
Common sense. IMO

Thank you NTS. And that is exactly what the jury will use to determine that the duct tape on the can, posters of Caylee and at the remains site are all from the A's home. It makes more sense that they were all from the same or similiar roll from the household than to over complicate it with "what ifs" given the fact that this is not one single piece of evidence alone pointing to KC. Very damning and points right in the direction of KC without any other person who would have had the opportunity, motive and most of all physical custody of the child at the time. It's not complicated so why try to make it so. Juries are into common sense not some type of speculative theory. They like things in neat little packages that make sense. It is proven right here on this forum. jmo
 
I think it would be great for the prosecutor to have matching duct tape but in looking at all the evidence as a whole I think as a juror I would not need that to think she wrapped Caylee in it. So if you took that matching duct tape out of the equation and reviewed all the other evidence it would not change my mind about what happened and who I felt was responsible. There is no smoking gun but obvioulsy the grand jury did not need one to press charges as the body was not even discovered yet. MOO
 
And in the end the jury will only consider what is believable regarding the duct tape. The fact that it was taped in such a way on the child's mouth to obstruct the nose and mouth is what they will see. If you did that to a live child, the child would die. That is what they will see and that is what will be in their heads. Not a pretty site and hard for defense to argue that what you are seeing means nothing. jmo
 
Thank you NTS. And that is exactly what the jury will use to determine that the duct tape on the can, posters of Caylee and at the remains site are all from the A's home. It makes more sense that they were all from the same or similiar roll from the household than to over complicate it with "what ifs" given the fact that this is not one single piece of evidence alone pointing to KC. Very damning and points right in the direction of KC without any other person who would have had the opportunity, motive and most of all physical custody of the child at the time. It's not complicated so why try to make it so. Juries are into common sense not some type of speculative theory. They like things in neat little packages that make sense. It is proven right here on this forum. jmo

Lambchop YOU ROCK!!!!! The thanks button just wasn't enough! ITA! You said exactly what I've been thinking, only better than I could have put it in words!

And might I add that the defense has been fighting common sense for dollar signs since this case started. If they had used common sense at all, we wouldn't be where we are NOW. The only ones using common sense has been LE and SA, and that will be shown clearly at trial.
 
And in the end the jury will only consider what is believable regarding the duct tape. The fact that it was taped in such a way on the child's mouth to obstruct the nose and mouth is what they will see. If you did that to a live child, the child would die. That is what they will see and that is what will be in their heads. Not a pretty site and hard for defense to argue that what you are seeing means nothing. jmo


Lambchop most excellent post! ITA when it comes to the jury and common sense, and believability. When I review the case etc. I try to view it as if I am a prospective juror as I've been in the past and it really helps to define things as well as eliminate alot of frustration in regards speculation vs. to coming to a rational conclusion with a solid explanation. In the end it will be how the SA lays the case out before the jury. It's like you said, they do like things in neat, tidy little packages!
 
I think it would be great for the prosecutor to have matching duct tape but in looking at all the evidence as a whole I think as a juror I would not need that to think she wrapped Caylee in it. So if you took that matching duct tape out of the equation and reviewed all the other evidence it would not change my mind about what happened and who I felt was responsible. There is no smoking gun but obvioulsy the grand jury did not need one to press charges as the body was not even discovered yet. MOO

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
 
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.


Yes, LC...too much evidence that connects to Inmate Anthony...

Understand, this is why CA talking to Inmate Anthony about someone having a "key" to their home..remember during one jailhouse visit, CA asks Inmate Anthony if anyone has been in her home, Inmate Anthony responds, ma, I told you she had a key...still we will hear of this invisible person who had a key to the Anthony home...far stretch but they will try to use this with this UNK stray hair to their advantage but IMO, it won't fly...too much overwhelming evidence that points to Inmate Anthony. I do hope whoever sits on this jury does use common sense to put the totality of evidence and not just one piece...JMHO

Justice for Caylee
 
Yes, LC...too much evidence that connects to Inmate Anthony...

Understand, this is why CA talking to Inmate Anthony about someone having a "key" to their home..remember during one jailhouse visit, CA asks Inmate Anthony if anyone has been in her home, Inmate Anthony responds, ma, I told you she had a key...still we will hear of this invisible person who had a key to the Anthony home...far stretch but they will try to use this with this UNK stray hair to their advantage but IMO, it won't fly...too much overwhelming evidence that points to Inmate Anthony. I do hope whoever sits on this jury does use common sense to put the totality of evidence and not just one piece...JMHO

Justice for Caylee

Kind of makes your "hinkymeter" go off, too, when we think about GA befriending RC. Was he planning on setting her up by giving her a key? It sounds way out there but was does not with this case?????
 
Yes, LC...too much evidence that connects to Inmate Anthony...

Understand, this is why CA talking to Inmate Anthony about someone having a "key" to their home..remember during one jailhouse visit, CA asks Inmate Anthony if anyone has been in her home, Inmate Anthony responds, ma, I told you she had a key...still we will hear of this invisible person who had a key to the Anthony home...far stretch but they will try to use this with this UNK stray hair to their advantage but IMO, it won't fly...too much overwhelming evidence that points to Inmate Anthony. I do hope whoever sits on this jury does use common sense to put the totality of evidence and not just one piece...JMHO

Justice for Caylee

I have to say that it would be detrimental to the defense to attempt such an explanation IMO. The invisinanny will never, ever fly. Let's be realistic is CA and GA, LA all going to get on the stand and commit perjury in regards to the invisinanny. If I were a juror I would see straight through the farce of jailhouse vidoes and how CA and Casey are so cunning and manipulative. Rather they attempt to be.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
85
Guests online
772
Total visitors
857

Forum statistics

Threads
589,925
Messages
17,927,735
Members
228,002
Latest member
zipperoni
Back
Top