FBI Investigating Email That Could Land Cindy In Jail #2

New Posts

Janis396 said:
If it were "nothing at all" the FBI wouldn't be looking into it. I'll reserve judgment until I hear the results of their investigation.
Click to expand...

If it were nothing at all then why the heck is she spouting out to people what she did indeed do? She obviously thinks it's a big deal IMO. IMO she thinks she is in control.
 
Chilly Willy said:
I just can't figure out what the big deal is about the hairbrush. LE wanted a sample of Caylee's hair and Cindy provided it. Done deal. There is no "right" or "wrong" hairbrush. It's amazing how people can get so worked up over nothing at all.
Click to expand...
Did you catch this in the forensic reports?:

Q 12.1 Hair from specimen Q12 debris from left side of trunk liner
Q 15 Hairbrush (Item K-3)

Results of Examination:
A Caucasian head hair found in specimen Q12 exhibits characteristics of apparent decomposition at the proximal (root) end. This hair is microscopically similar to the Caucasian head hair recovered from the Q15 hairbrush, however a more meaningful conclusion cannot be reached as this is not a suitable known hair sample.
Click to expand...
http://www.wesh.com/download/2008/1126/18155477.pdf

Why wasn't it a 'suitable' sample? The thought that occurred to me is that none of Caylee's hair was on the brush Cindy submitted. If that's the case, Cindy may be in trouble - the FBI doesn't like it when you screw around with evidence.
 
DianeB said:
Did you catch this in the forensic reports?:


http://www.wesh.com/download/2008/1126/18155477.pdf

Why wasn't it a 'suitable' sample? The thought that occurred to me is that none of Caylee's hair was on the brush Cindy submitted. If that's the case, Cindy may be in trouble - the FBI doesn't like it when you screw around with evidence.
Click to expand...

Thank you SO much for this post!! :clap: How anyone could think what Cindy did is "nothing at all" regarding giving LE a hairbrush that wasn't exclusively Caylee's should get a clear wakeup call from this.
 
The poor tax payers, that have to pay for all the wild goose chases the ants have put LE through.............they should have to pay for the deceit.............run away bride had to pay!!!
 
DianeB said:
Did you catch this in the forensic reports?:


http://www.wesh.com/download/2008/1126/18155477.pdf

Why wasn't it a 'suitable' sample? The thought that occurred to me is that none of Caylee's hair was on the brush Cindy submitted. If that's the case, Cindy may be in trouble - the FBI doesn't like it when you screw around with evidence.
Click to expand...


Coupled with CA's statement at the bond hearing - "there is no evidence". Makes you think!
 
Chilly Willy said:
I just can't figure out what the big deal is about the hairbrush. LE wanted a sample of Caylee's hair and Cindy provided it. Done deal. There is no "right" or "wrong" hairbrush. It's amazing how people can get so worked up over nothing at all.
Click to expand...

Lee wrote down what was said between him and KC in jail. The LE then confirmed what he wrote with the video. Why have him write it down, when they listened to the whole thing in the first place?? For the same reason this is a big deal. It shows wither a person is working with or against LE. IF the person themselves is trying to hide stuff.

Just like the video.. they can get the evidence in several ways. That isn't the issue. The e-mail points that she purposely chose not to get the brush with the most and best evidence on it. And that she knew it when she did it.

It's not nothing at all. It's a choice she made. It was made early in the investigation. That is a big deal. Cindy has had contact with witnesses, evidence, etc. Yep, it's a big deal.
 
tippytoes said:
Admittedly, as I watched that CA video, my brain was rattling in my head ad threatening to shut down, but didn't she say that "now that Nejame is out of the picture" they can return to helping the FBI?

Does anyone believe Nejame, who admits the grandparents are in denial, stopped them from helping to build a case against Casey? True, he may have advised them to further their end game of not helping, but now that he's resigned, they are willing to help? I think that was "scared talk" from someone who did nothing wrong....
Click to expand...

Which video are you referring to? I didn't hear that. Sometimes though, I have to tune her out a bit so I miss things. It's that or go nuts!
 
DianeB said:
Did you catch this in the forensic reports?:


http://www.wesh.com/download/2008/1126/18155477.pdf

Why wasn't it a 'suitable' sample? The thought that occurred to me is that none of Caylee's hair was on the brush Cindy submitted. If that's the case, Cindy may be in trouble - the FBI doesn't like it when you screw around with evidence.
Click to expand...

This is where Mark Nejame did the best he could with this pair. He hung around long enough to get George throuth the ordeal of testifying before the Grand Jury. George obviously needed his emotional support in order to go in and testify to the odor in the car evidence and other topics.

When George testifies at the trial, he is triply bound to tell the truth. He told pretty much the same story to the OCSO, FBI, and the Grand Jury. I doubt he contradicted anything he said to them.

Cindy, on the other hand has a big problem with credibility. If, indeed, there was none of Caylee's hair on that brush, the FBI lab knew that a long time ago when the initial testing was done. If every hair on the brush was comparable to Casey's and the hair in the trunk was not, and as the mitochondrial DNA is the same as Casey's... do the math.

Cindy needs to find a lawyer of her own, ASAP. There are so many things she has done that will end up possibly hurting Casey even more than George's damning testimony. Cindy's interviews with LE and the press will be her downfall.

A jury could read that as a cover up. If there's a cover-up for her daughter, BINGO!
 
Janis396 said:
Thank you SO much for this post!! :clap: How anyone could think what Cindy did is "nothing at all" regarding giving LE a hairbrush that wasn't exclusively Caylee's should get a clear wakeup call from this.
Click to expand...

I guess there is nothing wrong with washing pants that were in a car that smelled like there had been a body in the damn car, a knife from the car that smelled like there had been a dead body and spraying Febreeze to cover the dead body smell. There is also nothing wrong with lying to police when you initially dial 911 either. I hear people say how CA was most truthful in her 911 calls..I disagree..her very first call was a LIE like everything else IMO.
 
Wow!!! I listened to the whole 11 minutes of CA! They will not have her testify. She is not capable. They will play tapes but can anyone really see her on the stand? There will be no chance for anyone else to speak...
 
DianeB said:
Did you catch this in the forensic reports?:


http://www.wesh.com/download/2008/1126/18155477.pdf

Why wasn't it a 'suitable' sample? The thought that occurred to me is that none of Caylee's hair was on the brush Cindy submitted. If that's the case, Cindy may be in trouble - the FBI doesn't like it when you screw around with evidence.
Click to expand...

DING! DING! DING!

Nice catch, Diane. Scientists like to have a known hair sample in this case for comparative analysis (especially lacking nuclear DNA). They would first compare a known Caylee hair sample with the collected evidence for color, length, and other distinguishing markers under a microscope. Caylee's hair was not colored (I'm assuming) and Casey's is. Right off the bat they can see it's not the same person's hair. While they obviously got MtDNA off the evidence hair, it would be nice to have a real known Caylee hair for a full comparison. Not giving LE a hair sample, if you have one, is cheating them out of making a full comparison.
 
MD MOMMY said:
I guess there is nothing wrong with washing pants that were in a car that smelled like there had been a body in the damn car, a knife from the car that smelled like there had been a dead body and spraying Febreeze to cover the dead body smell. There is also nothing wrong with lying to police when you initially dial 911 either. I hear people say how CA was most truthful in her 911 calls..I disagree..her very first call was a LIE like everything else IMO.
Click to expand...


:clap::clap: You said it, MD MOMMY! :blowkiss: This has never been about Caylee for the A-Team.
 
DianeB said:
Did you catch this in the forensic reports?:


http://www.wesh.com/download/2008/1126/18155477.pdf

Why wasn't it a 'suitable' sample? The thought that occurred to me is that none of Caylee's hair was on the brush Cindy submitted. If that's the case, Cindy may be in trouble - the FBI doesn't like it when you screw around with evidence.
Click to expand...

If the sample hair did not match, the report would say so. It would not say the hair sample was not suitable. Apparently some people believe that Cindy is so smart she would have known that, although the hairs looked similar under a microscope, the hair in the brush she provided wouldn't be suitable. I don't give her that much credit. If LE needed a different sample, they could have asked for one. Or they could have used their other DNA samples from Caylee for comparison. Providing a brush with Caylee's hair in it, as requested, is in no way screwing with evidence. Removing the hair from the brush before handing it over to LE would be.

My kids didn't have their own brushes when they were little, they shared mine.
 
Chilly Willy said:
If the sample hair did not match, the report would say so. It would not say the hair sample was not suitable. Apparently some people believe that Cindy is so smart she would have known that, although the hairs looked similar under a microscope, the hair in the brush she provided wouldn't be suitable. I don't give her that much credit. If LE needed a different sample, they could have asked for one. Or they could have used their other DNA samples from Caylee for comparison. Providing a brush with Caylee's hair in it, as requested, is in no way screwing with evidence. Removing the hair from the brush before handing it over to LE would be.

My kids didn't have their own brushes when they were little, they shared mine.
Click to expand...
Cindy's email comment was “I never lied. I just never went to my bathroom to get the hairbrush that I used only for Caylee.”

In Cindyspeak, that could mean something as meaningless as Cindy simply handing over a brush without saying 'This is Caylee's.'

What is it that leads you to conclude that even a single hair of Caylee's was on the brush Cindy gave to LE?

Cindy deliberately supplied the wrong brush. She may not have known whether any of Caylee's hair would be on the one she gave to LE, but she purposefully withheld the brush she knew would contain samples of Caylee's hair in an effort to -what, exactly?
 
DianeB said:
Cindy's email comment was “I never lied. I just never went to my bathroom to get the hairbrush that I used only for Caylee.”

In Cindyspeak, that could mean something as meaningless as Cindy simply handing over a brush without saying 'This is Caylee's.'

What is it that leads you to conclude that even a single hair of Caylee's was on the brush Cindy gave to LE?

Cindy deliberately supplied the wrong brush. She may not have known whether any of Caylee's hair would be on the one she gave to LE, but she purposefully withheld the brush she knew would contain samples of Caylee's hair in an effort to -what, exactly?
Click to expand...

The forensic report says the hair sample from the brush was microscopically similar to the hair found in the trunk. No one else in that household has hair that would be microscopically similar to Caylee's. Maybe Cindy did her own DNA testing on the hair before turning the brush over to LE?
 
Chilly Willy said:
The forensic report says the hair sample from the brush was microscopically similar to the hair found in the trunk. No one else in that household has hair that would be microscopically similar to Caylee's. Maybe Cindy did her own DNA testing on the hair before turning the brush over to LE?
Click to expand...

Nah, no one thinks Cindy did her own DNA test. I think she wasn't counting on the fact that only Casey's would be microscopically similar. She wasn't quite smart enough with her switcheroo.
 
This is how the FBI defines 'suitability' of hair samples:
Head hairs and pubic hairs exhibit a greater range of microscopic characteristics than other human hairs; therefore, head and pubic hairs are routinely forensically compared. An adequate selection of known hair samples includes both random pullings and combings. The number of hairs necessary to represent a suitable known sample varies with the individual. Twenty-five randomly selected head hairs are generally considered adequate to represent the range of hair characteristics of that individual. It is recommended that the same number of hairs be collected from the pubic region. The selection of hairs to be mounted from a known hair standard may be random, but representative, especially when the known standard consists of many hairs.
Click to expand...
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/jan2004/research/2004_01_research01b.htm

The lack of suitability could mean there weren't enough hairs of a 'known standard' for comparison. Maybe there were none. We don't know.

Had Cindy handed in the brush she used "only for Caylee", all of the hairs would have been identical and would have provided a 'known standard'. Cindy messed up, and was caught by her own written admission.

Whether the FBI is able to definitely identify the 'death band' hair as being Caylee's using other samples of her DNA is not known. The test results released were those of a hair comparison.

There are many forensic results not yet released - the maggot tests, the tests on the shovel, the composition of the stain found in the trunk, whatever it was that Dr. Lee found...
 
DianeB said:
This is how the FBI defines 'suitability' of hair samples:
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/jan2004/research/2004_01_research01b.htm

The lack of suitability could mean there weren't enough hairs of a 'known standard' for comparison. Maybe there were none. We don't know.

Had Cindy handed in the brush she used "only for Caylee", all of the hairs would have been identical and would have provided a 'known standard'. Cindy messed up, and was caught by her own written admission.

Whether the FBI is able to definitely identify the 'death band' hair as being Caylee's using other samples of her DNA is not known. The test results released were those of a hair comparison.

There are many forensic results not yet released - the maggot tests, the tests on the shovel, the composition of the stain found in the trunk, whatever it was that Dr. Lee found...
Click to expand...

They will not be able to definitely identify the death band hair as being Caylee's because they don't want to destroy the root, which would be necessary in order to do full DNA testing.
 
Chilly Willy said:
They will not be able to definitely identify the death band hair as being Caylee's because they don't want to destroy the root, which would be necessary in order to do full DNA testing.
Click to expand...
You think?

I think if LE gets hold of "Caylee's brush" and finds hair with an intact root, they certainly will do a full DNA comparison.

Why do I think that Cindy has thoroughly cleaned that brush by now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 59 more.
Total: 3,327 (members: 60, guests: 3,267)

Online statistics

Members online
60
Guests online
3,267
Total visitors
3,327
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,398
Messages
17,968,354
Members
228,767
Latest member
Mona Lisa
Back
Top