Tulessa
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2009
- Messages
- 23,016
- Reaction score
- 3,531
Yes, I did notice that too.
I wonder if there is any significance to that?
Yes, I did notice that too.
Yes, I worked in nursing homes and home health, and I have tons of latex gloves at home.The gloves... Cindy being a nurse, would she keep medical gloves around the house? I know some people "borrow" things from their employer-maybe she had some. I don't know anyone who keeps those around but me.
Does anyone know if the Fbi has done this in the past? Are they allowed to hold inculpatory evidence until trial? How would that serve the people of Florida? If they have something inculpatory, lets get it out and get this over with before one more cent is spent. Why would the Fbi only give the state 90 percent of its findings? Will Jb now try to sopoeana the Fbi records? Is that what the Judge was telling him to do?
The 10% evidence, per the prosecution's statement today, is being withheld by Oakridge Laboratory, not the FBI, and to this, JB agreed.
Interestingly, it seemed that JB either forgot or didn't realize there was latent print evidence still out there. The prosecutor (can't remember his name, sorry) asked JB if he was waiting on anythng other than the Oakridge lab stuff, and JB said no, but then a few minutes later, the prosecutor says something to the effect of "oh yea, we do still have that latent print info" - which I thought was interesting. Again, I can't tell whether JB didn't know they had that info or he just totally forgot about it...
The 10% evidence, per the prosecution's statement today, is being withheld by Oakridge Laboratory, not the FBI, and to this, JB agreed.
Interestingly, it seemed that JB either forgot or didn't realize there was latent print evidence still out there. The prosecutor (can't remember his name, sorry) asked JB if he was waiting on anythng other than the Oakridge lab stuff, and JB said no, but then a few minutes later, the prosecutor says something to the effect of "oh yea, we do still have that latent print info" - which I thought was interesting. Again, I can't tell whether JB didn't know they had that info or he just totally forgot about it...
does anyone recall the single fingerprint on the page all by itself in one of the doc dumps? It was just a lone fingerprint with no explanation at all...hmmm...explanation forthcoming? Perhaps...
It is interesting that Jose refers to this as latent "evidence". He has stated (time and time again) that discovery is not evidence until it has been subjected to the "rigors of cross examination".Interesting. JA refers to the evidence as latent prints but JB refers to it as latent evidence.
Basically, he was telling him to take it up with the FBI and do what he had to do. BTW...where's the defense's discovery?Does anyone know if the Fbi has done this in the past? Are they allowed to hold inculpatory evidence until trial? How would that serve the people of Florida? If they have something inculpatory, lets get it out and get this over with before one more cent is spent. Why would the Fbi only give the state 90 percent of its findings? Will Jb now try to sopoeana the Fbi records? Is that what the Judge was telling him to do?
On page 39-40 of this link, there is a report dated December 15th, where the FBI requested latent fingerprint examinations on the Anthonys from the duct tape.
On page 40, the report states:
"The requested latent print examinations were conducted but no latent prints were detected."
IMO this does not mean that there were no prints on the tape, but that there were no prints from GA, CA or LA on the tape. To my knowledge, there hasn't been a report released eliminating KC or Caylee's prints from the tape yet.. or did I miss it?
http://content.yudu.com/Library/A15ddx/AnthonyDNAtests/resources/index.htm?referrerUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yudu.com%2Fitem%2Fdetails%2F42066%2FAnthony-DNA-tests
On page 39-40 of this link, there is a report dated December 15th, where the FBI requested latent fingerprint examinations on the Anthonys from the duct tape.
On page 40, the report states:
"The requested latent print examinations were conducted but no latent prints were detected."
IMO this does not mean that there were no prints on the tape, but that there were no prints from GA, CA or LA on the tape. To my knowledge, there hasn't been a report released eliminating KC or Caylee's prints from the tape yet.. or did I miss it?
http://content.yudu.com/Library/A15ddx/AnthonyDNAtests/resources/index.htm?referrerUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yudu.com%2Fitem%2Fdetails%2F42066%2FAnthony-DNA-tests