Stain in Trunk May Show Outline of Child**REVISIT FOR READING*

treeseeker said:

Sorry for no link, but Dr. Vass did mention cleaning chemicals being in the trunk carpet, which prevented an accurate comparison to similar Pontiac from Tennessee. He did not elaborate on recent, residual, or whether chemicals appeared in both cars.

I am wondering, though, if LE noticed whether or not the trunk carpet was damp when they were first called to the A's. IMO, not enough time to dry from any thorough cleaning, from junkyard pick-up to LE arrival

Click to expand...

treeseeker said:

Sorry for no link, but Dr. Vass did mention cleaning chemicals being in the trunk carpet, which prevented an accurate comparison to similar Pontiac from Tennessee. He did not elaborate on recent, residual, or whether chemicals appeared in both cars.

I am wondering, though, if LE noticed whether or not the trunk carpet was damp when they were first called to the A's. IMO, not enough time to dry from any thorough cleaning, from junkyard pick-up to LE arrival

Click to expand...

These results still do not rule out the remote possibility that an unusual variety of products or materials (not present in the trunk at the time of vehicle discovery) may have had some contribution to the overall chemical signature.

Click to expand...

Harmony2 said:

Thanks for your reply Treeseeker. Is this the statement you are referring to? In my interpretation it states it is a remote possibility that an unusual variety of products or materials may have contributed... not that they did. Isn't he referring to the odor and the knowledge gasoline was kept there?



http://media.myfoxorlando.com/photo...606-O_CASEY_ANTHONY_PG._1925-1990_Page_15.htm

Click to expand...

reeseeva said:

BBM

And what about the credibility of Dr. Henry Lee Forsensic specialist???

Click to expand...

lizzysf said:

Also, remember the day that George and Casey had the scene at the house about getting the tire thing out of Casey's trunk? This could be the day she actually took the canvas bag from the garage (was this the 24th?) Coincidently, I have always had suspicion that this was the day she dumped Caylee after the close call with George.

Click to expand...

treeseeker said:

I think we're talking about the same report, just updated - pgs 6556-6557 of Dr. Vass' report dated 4/0/09, where he mentions the possible presence of chemicals in the carpet interfering with extractive testing:

http://www.wesh.com/download/2009/0619/19801995.pdf

although various chemicals may interfere with the air sampling, they also probably interfered with chemical extractions.

Click to expand...

Harmony2 said:

I know Cindy admitted to spraying Febreeze and washing clothes/knife which IMO seems similar to COD type behavior. Both Cindy and George seem to be very tidy, neat and organized individuals. I know the results from wash vacs have not been released. What evidence do we have that they actually did clean the trunk? Is it speculation based on the other info or were there cleaning chemicals found in the trunk? Moreover, I have read that choroform can be used as a cleaner but wouldn't the fumes knock someone out if it was used to clean a trunk? I have read over and over people accusing them of cleaning and I really would like to know about the proof of such an activity. TIA

Click to expand...

AutomaticAuttie said:

Really, pajamas and barefeet? Where does it say that? Do you have a link, cause I missed that one?

Click to expand...

Wudge said:

I'm far more than cynical, which was really a compliment to how I feel about this type of rubbish for evidence -- more than a few trial judges would allow an alleged expert to testify to what made the image or impression.

Impressions are highly subjective and but inkblot material in my book. I am greatly reminded of how such nonsense was used in the first trial of Dr. Sam Sheppard in 1954. On the witness stand, the coroner, Dr. Gerber, described what he found on the bloody pillowcase from the murder bed.

Wonder what his defense attorney was doing during this testimony. You would think Dr. Sheppard would have known there was no such surgical instrument like that that existed.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

lizzysf said:

So are bite marks considered inkblotter science in your book too? The science behind dental impressions seems to be helping win convictions as well. (although you will say wrongful convictions)
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater here, Wudge. Science has advanced since 1954.

Click to expand...

LambChop said:

Wudge said:

I'm far more than cynical, which was really a compliment to how I feel about this type of rubbish for evidence -- more than a few trial judges would allow an alleged expert to testify to what made the image or impression.

Impressions are highly subjective and but inkblot material in my book. I am greatly reminded of how such nonsense was used in the first trial of Dr. Sam Sheppard in 1954. On the witness stand, the coroner, Dr. Gerber, described what he found on the bloody pillowcase from the murder bed.

Wonder what his defense attorney was doing during this testimony. You would think Dr. Sheppard would have known there was no such surgical instrument like that that existed.

Click to expand...

In the 1954 trial (Sheppard's first trial), William Corrigam was Sam's attorney. He objected over and over to Dr. Gerber's incredible speculation and inability to specifically name the alleged surgical instrument, but, time and again, Judge Blythin overruled Corrigans objections.

The celebrity status of Dr. Gerber, Judge Blythin, chief prosecutor Mahon and each of the jurors was simply incomprehensible. Judge Blythin was not going to let his time on center stage receive anything less than rave reviews from the citizens of Cleveland.

Moreover, the court had selected sixty-four jurors to enter voir dire, and their names were listed in Cleveland's newspapers along with their addresses and phone numbers. The first trial represented verdict by peacocks.

In Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U. S. 333 (1966), the Supreme Court destroyed Judge Blythin and cited a 'carnival' atmosphere that surrounded the first trial. If the venue is not changed for Casey's trial and you are interested in a preview of what the Supreme Court would rule, read Sheppard v. Maxwell.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/384/333/case.html

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

ExpectingUnicorns said:

Wow lizzysf, you've put a lot of work into this!! And I didn't quite understand all of it until Amity's last post. And I really like it except for the fact that it would require that Caylee's body could be the only thing in the trunk during that entire process. While that certainly could be possible, I can't really see Casey taking everything else out; i.e., the blue collapsible basket, the wheel well cover (it would have made an outline too where it overlapped onto the carpeting in the trunk), etc. She certainly could have taken these things out and just put them in the back seat but it seem improbable. I can't think of any reason why she would have done that before putting the body in there. There was plenty of room for Caylee's little body without moving anything. But I'm bad at science and chemistry so please understand this is a handicapped observation.

Click to expand...

lizzysf said:

Photo has A and B marking 2 impressions they found. We know the outline of the body they think they see is "B" by the notes. What is "A"? The blue bin? Garbage bag? Neither of which had any material in it which would leak and create a stain underneath. So was the "A" impression also formed from staining around the item also, as my theory suggests? Everything remained in the trunk with the body.

These notes refer to those areas as impressions or 'stains'.

Click to expand...