2009.10.09 Duct Tape Photos From Remains Released

[marspiter]

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.

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

Given the fact that the cotton in the tape was protected by backing and glue, would it not take sometime before the cotton would be exposed to the water. After I read the water report requested by Jeff Ashton, I could not see where "area A" had been under water very often. How is it possible with so much protection, and to include overlapping that all of the cotton deteriorated?

On another note, I have asked a question in the chemist thread that has not been answered. Given the fact that Chloroform in high levels, 200 ppm vs normal 200 ppb is able to kill humans, how can it not kill flies? I hope you can help answer that in the appropriate thread thanks.

I tried to answer this question for you however I guess you missed it so I added my post and bolded a statement in another to explain why the cotton would be gone.

Also with keeping in mind the absorption of the cotton fibers, the glue and plastic would have another effect. Any moister that the cotton fiber did absorb would stay in the fiber longer then fibers with out the "protection" because of the glue and plastic holding it in (along with the capillary effect) and keeping it from drying out longer. I think it's pretty much been established that cotton will deteriorate and given the conditions can happen somewhat rapidly (at least in the time frame that Caylee was in the elements).

The t-shirt shows full well what can happen. The tape I would say had significantly less cotton then the shirt. I would argue that the plastic and glue would not protect the cotton fiber in the conditions the tape was left in to the extent that you have presented. Given cottons nature to absorb liquids its very feasible that the cotton was deteriorated. Also Henkel didn't make that tape with out cotton fibers (as evident by many posts with documented evidence) which also adds greater weight to the cotton being there and then deteriorated.

Just a question do you have any evidence to show that Henkel made that exact brand/type/model of tape and didn't use cotton fibers?

 

[ZsaZsa]

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

What does it matter that they do not show the gas can in the shed?
George states in his deposition ( p163 and 164) that it is the same can that Casey brought back on June 24th, that the duct tape was on it then, and the can remained in the shed unused until August 1st when Police took it.

 

[Kristie]

In the beginning, I remember reading that LA had used the gas can(s?) to mow his lawn. I have been trying to find the article/document where this was stated but so far, no luck. Does anyone else remember this?

 

[Aedrys]

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

The assumption here is that George always tells the truth. Of course he's going to say the tape wasn't there! He and CA have been doing EVERYTHING to protect and cover up Casey's crime. I wouldn't take much of what he says as truth. The tape was there, there's pictures, and LE and SA are under no obligation to provide someone not directly involved in the case with every picture and documentation they want. We'll see everything at trial.

 

[LambChop]

If this subject were a "horse" we'd all be charged with "cruelty to an animal".

It's not reasonable to think that LE put Henkel tape on the can when it was 4 months before the remains were found. Plus GA admitted the cover is missing and he uses duct tape to cover the hole. GA being the kind of guy he is would make sure that hole was covered to avoid spillage or fumes. Not complicated. Makes sense. jmo

 

[LambChop]

It may be in LA's depo that he borrowed a gas can to cut his lawn.

 

[beach]

If this subject were a "horse" we'd all be charged with "cruelty to an animal".

I was just about to ask if anyone else is experiencing a profound instance of deja vu.


:banghead:

ther_beatingA_Dead:

 

[LambChop]

I was just about to ask if anyone else is experiencing a profound instance of deja vu.


:banghead:

ther_beatingA_Dead:

beach2yall. I hate to mention it......but your horse is drawing flies.

 

[celticthyme]

I would really like to know how the LENGTH OF TAPE on the gas can compares to those strips she used on Caylee. If it is similar . . . . HUGE !

 

[JWG]

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

Go to approximately 1:10 into this WKMG video showing the gas cans before they were seized the first time on August 1, 2008 and you will clearly see Henkel-logo duct tape on the can.

 

[MADJGNLAW]

http://www.wftv.com/slideshow/news/21249759/detail.html

This is what I see:

Pictures of Duct Tape - Q64
1 – Q64
2 – Q64
3 – Q64
4 – Q64
16 – Q64
17 – Q64

Pictures of Duct Tape - Q63
5 – Q63
6 – Q63
7 – Q63
8 – Q63
9 – Q63

Pictures of Duct Tape - Q62
10 – Q62
11 – Q62
12 – Q62
13 – Q62
14 – Q62
15 – Q62

I don't see a heart shape on the tape with my old eyes, but it does not mean one is not on it, just means, (Me, Myself) I don't see it.

To me, all edges on the tape appear to have been torn from the roll, not cut with scissors or a knife, so she could have left prints, BUT...with the amount of deterioration on the adhesive side, given the elements it was in and time...I say it really would be a Miracle if any were found.

As I look at these pictures, given the condition the tape is in, I can't help but know Caylee tried everything in her power to hold on to every last piece of evidence she could. God bless you Caylee.

Is it just me or is there a bunch of little tiny holes and one larger hole in the duck tape? Look at the 3rd picture. In the 17th picture it looks like a square/hole. Maybe they took a piece for a sample?. http://www.wftv.com/slideshow/news/21249759/detail.html

 

[AZlawyer]

Is it just me or is there a bunch of little tiny holes and one larger hole in the duck tape? Look at the 3rd picture. In the 17th picture it looks like a square/hole. Maybe they took a piece for a sample?. http://www.wftv.com/slideshow/news/21249759/detail.html

They did cut a little piece out--I think for DNA testing.

 

[AZlawyer]

Go to approximately 1:10 into this WKMG video showing the gas cans before they were seized the first time on August 1, 2008 and you will clearly see Henkel-logo duct tape on the can.

WOW!! Thank you!

Case closed. :gavel:

 

[Anais]

Go to approximately 1:10 into this WKMG video showing the gas cans before they were seized the first time on August 1, 2008 and you will clearly see Henkel-logo duct tape on the can.

JWG You Rock!

Holy Smokes! Thanks a million, that certainly clears things right on up!

 

[LambChop]

Go to approximately 1:10 into this WKMG video showing the gas cans before they were seized the first time on August 1, 2008 and you will clearly see Henkel-logo duct tape on the can.

Thanks so much JWG. Can we move this up to the Myth thread to insure easy access??? This subject comes up alot.

 

[beach]

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.

--respectfully snipped; BBM

JWG has eased all your concerns!

Go to approximately 1:10 into this WKMG video showing the gas cans before they were seized the first time on August 1, 2008 and you will clearly see Henkel-logo duct tape on the can.

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

WOW!! Thank you!

Case closed. :gavel:

 

[notthatsmart]

Go to approximately 1:10 into this WKMG video showing the gas cans before they were seized the first time on August 1, 2008 and you will clearly see Henkel-logo duct tape on the can.

This video was clearly done after Aug 1st. Probably done when the cans were returned.

I see gray on the can, but in no way can I see a logo.

This video is very interesting, but it does not clear up the problem of them not taking an evidence photo showing there was duct tape on the can before they took it into evidence.

Thanks for this video, wish I could find them like that.

 

[flourish]

Now where's that merry-go-round picture again?

FWIW, I, too can clearly see half of an oval on the duct tape on the video. Thanks for the vid, JWG, and for all the explanations from AZlawyer!

Sigh, I can never look at any roll of duct tape the same again.




Weird, for some reason I want to go read that story about the Three Billy Goats Gruff...

 

[beach]

This video was clearly done after Aug 1st. Probably done when the cans were returned.

I see gray on the can, but in no way can I see a logo.

This video is very interesting, but it does not clear up the problem of them not taking an evidence photo showing there was duct tape on the can before they took it into evidence.

Thanks for this video, wish I could find them like that.

Here is the online article referencing the video link that JWG posted. (It is basically a transcript of the video, quoting CA verbatim). The article is dated August 6th. So....I'm thinking if the gas cans were in the possession of LE from August 1st-13th, and this report aired on August 6th, the video HAD to be taken on or prior to August 1st. Following me here?

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/17111283/detail.html

 

[AZlawyer]

This video was clearly done after Aug 1st. Probably done when the cans were returned.

I see gray on the can, but in no way can I see a logo.

This video is very interesting, but it does not clear up the problem of them not taking an evidence photo showing there was duct tape on the can before they took it into evidence.

Thanks for this video, wish I could find them like that.

So your theory is that the duct tape was placed on the can after it was removed from the Anthony home on August 1, but before the photo was taken of the can with the duct tape on it on August 1? Who would have added the tape? And why? Only the killer would have known that Henkel duct tape would eventually become important to this case.