2010.04.23 FBI Lab Submissions/Key Items LIST ONLY

Discussion in 'Caylee Anthony 2 years old' started by Woe.be.gone, Apr 23, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Woe.be.gone

    Woe.be.gone Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,993
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The following will be very difficult to explain. I hope it will be a starting point in order to discuss some of the following items that OSCO submitted to the FBI for testing.

    To begin with, an old note I made from the May 1, 2009 Doc Dump, Pgs. 3796/7 ~
    Q59 - Caucasion Hair Mass / hairs do not match anyone but match Q12.1 - no known hair sample.

    Q59 (as far as I can tell) is associated with duct tape


    Q107 seems a key item in Docs. today

    Here's the problem - the number of an item changes from OSCO to the FBI. The FBI assigns a new number.
    To add confusion, both OSCO and FBI use numbers that begin with the letter Q.

    When OSCO found a group of evidence on December 11, 2008, where Caylee's remains were found, they assigned a number such as

    H-60518 ~ under this a group of items was listed, #1 to the final number of items in that group.

    #1 is Disney Bag (but the FBI assigns a new number with a Q)

    I noticed that they are interested in the "World of Disney Bag" and it looks like that number is Q89 (it's listed as #1 in group H-60518)

    #4 - H-60418 is Q91 (OSCO uses Q numbers too just to confuse things!) ~
    Two pharmacy folds of paper used to place Art. #1-3 on for photography

    I wanted to know what items #1-3 are (pdf. 149/50 cfnews13) and found the following:

    #1 Disney Bag (Q89 is associated but I'm not sure who assigned)
    #2 Nothing listed for number two (wth?) just skips to #3 with no blank space between 1 and 3.
    #3 One Gatorade "Cool Blue" bottle with unknown liquid substance, possible toilet paper roll cardboard and unknown item inside roll (Q90 is referenced)

    :waitasec: what and where is #2? Later on pdf.176 ~
    OSC Property Form dated 12-11-09, recv'd.1515, I see,

    #2 - 1 Vial of sus Entomology Evidence from off of above ALT #1 Disney Bag


    To make matters more confusing, I notice the following

    Q107 (H-60518) #4 Q91 Two Pharmacy folds of paper used to place Art. #1-3 on for photography.
    There's a note that says FBI has changed the Q107 number to another before placing it on a slide.

    Q107 had head hair (caucasion) not same as found on Q59 & K2 and not belonging to scene investigators 1-7.

    As much as I can figure, they have a hair that is unidentified and needed to rule out that it came from an Agent. I'm not sure if the hair was found on duct tape or was on the Disney Bag - it seems to be one of those though.


    If anybody can figure any of this out or see things clearly, please let us know.
     
  2. Loading...


  3. Astraea

    Astraea New Member

    Messages:
    389
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Woe...we had a slight discussion about the hair today in the Defense Strategy? thread :) It was my understanding that the hair is from the Disney Bag. I may be mistaken though. I will have to look at the documents again!
     
  4. nort

    nort New Member

    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The gatorade bottle that came out of the disney bag was put on brown paper to be photographed and the hair is on the paper. Thats how I understood it.
     
  5. treeseeker

    treeseeker New Member

    Messages:
    592
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    IIRC, the FBI isn't handling the entomological evidence - other such evidence from the trunk and TL's trash bag were sent to a bug expert. So, perhaps this vial (item #2) was also. Just a guess.
     
  6. Dear Prudence

    Dear Prudence New Member

    Messages:
    2,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://www.wftv.com/pdf/18740700/detail.html
    page 3705 (or PDF pg. 115)

    The Q-107 is the FBI's number, on their report they cross-reference the OCSO's numbers which are H-60518, the property form I linked above on which the OC 'Q' numbers were handwrote.

    The hair was found on a pharmacy fold of paper that was used to place under items #1-3 for photography. Items 1-3 are as follows:
    1. "World of Disney" bag
    2. Vial of sus. entymology evidence collected from #1 above, the Disney bag
    3. Gatorade bottle with unknown liquid substance, possible toilet paper cardboard & unknown item inside roll

    Since the hair was found on the paper upon which the above items were set it could have originated from any of those items or from LE personnel handling those items. From a previous doc dump we know the hair is not from KC or Caylee and from this doc dump we know it is not from any LE tech that handled the evidence.
     
  7. JBean

    JBean Retired WS Administrator

    Messages:
    52,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    don't we have threads on most of these items? or is this all new?
     
  8. LambChop

    LambChop Former Member

    Messages:
    21,160
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    An unidentifed hair from a Disney bag could have come from a Disney employee. Obviously something was put in the bag from a Disney store so the hair could have come from any number of sources, including where it orginated. jmo
     
  9. Tracey276

    Tracey276 New Member

    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hi lambchop. I haven't posted in a while. But I just wanted to add, I have never had a hair from an employee in any of my shopping bags, I don't think. But in this case, wouldn't it just be the case and add more confusion to this craziness? :)
     
  10. Woe.be.gone

    Woe.be.gone Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,993
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I looked but didn't find a thread about the Disney Bag or 'hairs found' or even 'numbering systems', etc.
    The general Doc.Dump thread had already been locked so I started this thread knowing you'd move it if it fit better somewhere else.
    It doesn't really fit under a specific item per se imo.

    I'm trying to sort out if there are two questionable hairs in the case (Q59) or just the one that was found on the photo paper
    (Q-107 but I think the FBI changed the number for the hair when they put it on a slide).
    Some of the same forms have been released time and time again so I figured there must be something new about the info contained on them.

    Did anyone notice on a Property Form dated December 12, 2008, the following? (pdf. 113/289 cfnews13)

    Item 11 - 1 - Small black plastic bag, tied with unknown contents and "Hershey's" wrapper (A)

    Off to the right hand margin next to Item 11 there's a hand drawn arrow pointing to the above with the word 'This' written there as to draw attention to item 11.

    I don't recall this item being discussed before.
     
  11. Woe.be.gone

    Woe.be.gone Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,993
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Why remove it from the Property form though? The item was collected from where the Disney bag was found. When they transfer items, they fill out other forms showing the item has changed hands or put into storage, etc.

    Just seemed weird that they indicated #4 (paper) contained #1 through #3 but then they removed #2 from the list so you couldn't tell what #2 was.

    A long time ago I heard in Discovery they sometimes bury or switch up information so it's not too clear what's going on. :waitasec:
     
  12. Woe.be.gone

    Woe.be.gone Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,993
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Does Mickey Mouse have hair? Could be his. :crazy:
     
  13. Dear Prudence

    Dear Prudence New Member

    Messages:
    2,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    IIRC, Q59 is Caylee's hair that was found with her remains on Suburban. It is a hair mass that did have duct tape attached to it and had to be cut off. So, as far as I know there is only one unidentified piece of hair from the scene. I think we see the same forms in multiple doc dumps because a copy of every single form ever produced goes with each piece of evidence whenever it is transferred between agencies or even departments within the same agency. It's just a chain of custody protocol, doesn't mean there's always new info.

    Regarding item #2, the entomological evidence from the disney bag, being blanked out from the form to the FBI, I think Treeseeker is right. It wasn't sent to the FBI for examination so someone just marked it off the form.

    Interesting about the tied black bag. Contents unknown? I don't recall this being discussed before either.
     
  14. Woe.be.gone

    Woe.be.gone Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,993
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    48
    In a previous Doc Dump Page 3796-7 it states ~
    Q59 Causasion Hair Mass/hairs do not match anyone but match Q12.1
    but no known head hair sample.

    I think the above is in the Docs released 5-1-09 (I'll go look - my notes are crappy).

    Also I'll check out exactly what form I was looking at where #2 is not listed as I thought it was a copy of the OSCO Property form. Do you think LE simply submits a copy of that to the FBI? Because there is no blank line between items 1 and 3.

    Yes black bag tied with Hershey's wrapper. :waitasec:
     
  15. OKaraMia

    OKaraMia New Member

    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    maybe that hair belongs to DC?
     
  16. Woe.be.gone

    Woe.be.gone Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,993
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Good guess! I think you're right. I looked again where I saw the #1 and #3 items listed (without the #2) and there's a cover letter prior to the list that states "Evidence Being Submitted". The letter is from Orlando Sheriff's Office to the FBI.

    Furthermore, I read the following paragraph on an FBI Report (handwritten pg. 5595) of 5/1/09 Doc Dump; it reads, "Botanical examinations are not currently being conducted in the Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory. ..."

    So much for my mysterious discovery - ha!
     
  17. Woe.be.gone

    Woe.be.gone Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,993
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    48
    snipped

    Sorry to quote myself here but I've looked everywhere for page 3796-7 of any document - FBI or OSCO. I can't find those pages and they are not in the 5/1/09 Doc. Dump. I'm at a loss as to where I wrote the Q59 comment down from.

    I did find Q59 listed as hair mass. Then Q59-1 was labeled as the hair sent for toxicology exams (not including chloroform). There's an amendment later that says Q59-1 should really be Q59.3. To remind, no alprazalam or clonazepam was detected (they add that tests are not 100 percent proof).:waitasec:

    I came across the following (written pg.3328 released 1/21/09)
    Q12 Debris from left side of trunk liner
    Q12-1 Hair from specimen Q12 debris from left side of trunk liner

    A caucasion head hair found in specimen Q12 exhibits characteristics of apparent decomposition at the proximal (root) end. (pg. 3329)

    I'm confused about my note (that I can't find the pages 3796-7 to support) that says, "Q59 hairs do not match anyone but match Q12.1 (but no known hair sample.) wth?
    If Q59 is Caylee's hair, why would they say no known hair sample?
    Does anybody know where all the FBI docs can be read in order by page number?


    As an example of confusion, on FBI Report released 6/19/09 pg. 6604, I noticed the following -
    Q208 One piece of plastic (H-60493, Item 27, Q107)
    Q324 Debris from front of pizza box (1B76, E4257871, H-66337, Q59)
     
  18. Dear Prudence

    Dear Prudence New Member

    Messages:
    2,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They say "no known hair sample" because Caylee was missing so there is no way for them to take a known sample from her. They can take hair from her hairbrush or pillow/bedding or bathtub to get a probable sample.
     
  19. Woe.be.gone

    Woe.be.gone Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,993
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    48
    How did they already have a Q59 (hair mass) then though? Isn't that the hair from the skull that was held by the tape? Q59 matches with the trunk debris hair Q12-1. Which makes us think Caylee was in the trunk because Q12-1 had decomp evidence.
     
  20. Dear Prudence

    Dear Prudence New Member

    Messages:
    2,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm not good at explaining things, but I'll try. Maybe someone else will help. Q12 was the hair from the trunk that showed possible decomposition. It was enough of a sample to test for mitochondrial DNA which is inherited from maternal relatives only. So, the hair in the trunk was determined to come from Caylee or Casey since they both have the same mitochondrial DNA.

    Once Caylee was found, Q59 (the hair mass) was compared to Q12 and they matched. But, they still don't have what they call a "known sample" because they have no live person to take a hair sample from. Even though common sense tells us all that they do have a known sample of Caylee's hair, they don't call it that.
     
  21. treeseeker

    treeseeker New Member

    Messages:
    592
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    DearPrudence's explanation is how I understood the hair comparison, too. mtDNA isn't used to positively identify a person. So the Q59 hairs and the Q12 hair match, but DNA won't prove that they were Caylee's. IIRC, there was no DNA left in the Q59 hairs.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice