Fiber Analysis

[sumbunny]

Do I think a person who smells something bad for the first time and concludes the smell must have emanated from a dead body can reliably be trusted? No.

As regards any item of inculpatory evidence presented by prosecutors in a criminal trial, it would need to have a very high reliability coefficient before I would use that evidence to build a premise upon which I could conclude that the evidence supported proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

I said that death scents are not unique, because death scents are not unique; e.g., my death scent would be the same as yours, not different.

As for dogs testifying, I would trust a dog's testimony far moreso than I would trust the testimony of a dog handler who, supposedly, speaks the truth of what their dog allegedly told them -- it's just plain nonsense, and the fact that trial judges allow jury's to hear this rubbish demonstrates what junk science truly represents and how easy it is to be wrongfully convicted.

Regarding the universe of possibilities (re: 'so many possibilities'), possibilities are not evidence. Moreover, uncertainty increases as possibilities increase, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt is based on an extremely high level of certainty, not an extremely high level of uncertainty.

In circumstantial evidence cases, focus on the need to have evidence upon which highly reliable premises can be built and from which a juror could conclude in a highly reliable way that the evidence equated to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That certainly cannot be done with fiber evidence, for as best I know, there is no highly reliable inculpatory fiber evidence that supports any of the State's three main charges.

Would you trust someone who's smelled death many times and who claimed that the trunk smelled of a decomposed human? george claims he had smelled death and knew that the trunk smelled of death. Even prayed it wasnt' his daughter/grandaughter in the trunk.

Quite sure the F.B.I and LE have smelled death many many times.
Why would these people lie about what they smelled? It serves no purpose.

 

[magic-cat]

"If" Caylee's body was inside a lined laundry bag that was sealed inside a series of black plastic bags, the odds of finding fibers from that car trunk on the black plastic bags would be extremely low to zero. However, "if" is not evidence. And I know of no clear and unyielding evidence that places Caylee inside the trunk.

FWIW

Well, here is my theory, Wudge, and it is based on the evidence. Casey, having killed Caylee and bagged her up into garbage bags-doubled garbage bags for safety sake...you know Casey-she is a good mother-wouldn't want any of Caylee's bodily fluids leaking out now would she?...then placed her in the trunk of her car. She of course wore gloves while she did this task so there would be no fingerprints on the bags. (Her mother being a nurse lends credence to the theory she could easily have worn surgical gloves since her mom would have daily access to these if she chose to have a few pairs for herself.) SO she puts Caylee's bagged body into the trunk and off she goes on her merry little way...then a few days later, say, the 18th when she borrowed the shovel from her neighbor, having begun to SMELL SOMETHING, she removes Caylee from the trunk using the shovel and once again wearing surgical goves, and at that point places her inside the waterproof lined Canvas laundry tote and returns her to the trunk until she sees an opportunity to toss her out of the trunk on the side of the road like so much trash.

Caylee's remains having laid in that floodplain for six months and having been scavenged by all manner of wildlife would not have a lot in the way of evidence attached to it, now would it? Water is known for that-washes away the evidence you see...:croc:

Oh yeah and a hair from a corpse with her same mitochondrial dna is evidence enough for me and I would guess it will be enough for your average juror...She is toast!

 

[Wudge]

Would you trust someone who's smelled death many times and who claimed that the trunk smelled of a decomposed human? george claims he had smelled death and knew that the trunk smelled of death. Even prayed it wasnt' his daughter/grandaughter in the trunk.

Quite sure the F.B.I and LE have smelled death many many times.
Why would these people lie about what they smelled? It serves no purpose.

No. And I'll still wait to see if the State puts an expert on the smell of death on the witness stand.

 

[Wudge]

SNIP


Oh yeah and a hair from a corpse with her same mitochondrial dna is evidence enough for me and I would guess it will be enough for your average juror...She is toast!

A premediated murder cannot be proven from a hair with an alleged death band. The same would be true if LE had found fibers from the trunk of Casey's car on the laundry bag.

Casey might end up being 'toast', but it would not be because the evidence we know of supports highly reliable premises that equate to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

HTH

 

[whiteangora]

In a perfect world there would be "death scent experts", but as far as I know there are no "death scent experts", the closest we come are those who have smelled it and know it and the dogs trained to find it.

MOO

snipped

I'm pretty sure the Body Farm at Oakridge TN is renowned as being involved in the study of death scents and decomposition.

 

[100%Agave]

Oops....my bad....I thought this was the fiber analysis thread.

Where did that go?

 

[Jamiejy]

BBM

Some fibers may have already been on the tape before it was applied to Caylee. That still doesn't account for all the fibers in her hair. I was just looking at pictures of Caylee's room. Caylee's crib has a dust ruffle on the bottom. I wonder if her body could have been placed under her crib for a time, and her hair pick up fibers there.

I suppose her hair could have picked up fibers if placed on a rug, but I have a feeling Cindy vacuums a lot, so I don't know how many fibers that would account for.

If Caylee were lain on a rug, or possibly on KC's bed with that blue blanket on it, prior to death, and struggled while being taped, tossing her head side to side, that may be how her hair picked up so many fibers. May also be how the tape picked up some fibers. Not scientific - just thinkin'.

O/T - in looking at the pics of Caylee's room, and KC's room, I was struck by how many pics there are of Caylee as a younger baby, alone in the pics, and how few there are of KC with Caylee, and how few of Caylee when she was older. I never noticed this before. My immediate thought was that KC lost interest in Caylee after about her first year.

Back on topic - I was also struck by how very many items there are in both Caylee's and KC's rooms with blue fibers.

After reading about forensic fiber analysis yesterday until my eyeballs gave out, I too wonder how much we'll be able to learn. I hope the new 2,000 page doc dump might give us some more information and test results.

I was just saying that to myself as I was looking through the photos of their rooms there are alot of baby pics of Caylee but not any on that board of her older.

 

[Turnadot]

Would you trust someone who's smelled death many times and who claimed that the trunk smelled of a decomposed human? george claims he had smelled death and knew that the trunk smelled of death. Even prayed it wasnt' his daughter/grandaughter in the trunk.

Quite sure the F.B.I and LE have smelled death many many times.
Why would these people lie about what they smelled? It serves no purpose.

BBM

I sure as heck would. An "expert" on what a decomposing human body smells like is a homicide detective, imo.

 

[Searchfortruth]

No. And I'll still wait to see if the State puts an expert on the smell of death on the witness stand.

They have (bond hearing) and they will...Det. Melich with homicide investigation experience testified that the smell in Casey's car was the smell of human decomposition. Judge Strickland was interested in Melich's "opinion" of the smell during the bond hearing, I bet the jurors in the trial will be as well.

 

[cecybeans]

No. And I'll still wait to see if the State puts an expert on the smell of death on the witness stand.

I don't think it is necessary to prove scientifically, or beyond any shadow of a doubt, that GA, the manager at Johnson's, LE or anyone else involved, actually smelled human decomp. The fact that they all were familiar with the unique odor and identified it as such - that their anecdotal impressions are completely consistent - and the fact that they have various and conflicting possible motives - would make a jury trust their judgement. Their perception is supported by other evidence, including the cadaver dogs and air sample results. Their perceptions are not proof positive, but they are an important contribution to the overall analysis of innocence or guilt.

As you know, circumstantial evidence is not meant to be considered individually, and has worth when combined as a body of evidence - interlocking puzzle pieces that together complete the picture. However, when evidence discussed here, I notice that you separate elements you consider weak for some reason and formulate your argument as if the entire argument hinges on the strength of an individual piece that stands alone. I seriously doubt that circumstantial evidence in any trial is overwhelming proof that a crime was committed, but it does not have to be - it simply has to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The strength of circumstantial evidence is not simply an arithmetic accumulation by percentage points, but an aggregate that combines to form a permutation of probability that is stronger than each individual piece.

The fact that reasonable people identify the smell of the car as that of a dead human body, and the fact that their perceptions are corroborated by other evidence, lends credence to the veracity of perceptions that otherwise might be questioned if standing alone. If we need an "expert" to testify that three or more people observed the same thing, there is no reason to have witnesses to begin with.

I understand that a defense attorney will be poking holes and questioning the laws of physics to plant doubt in the minds of jurors, but I think that for all intents and purposes, the folks on here are overwhelmingly convinced of guilt and have the right to not be subject to the same criteria for judgement to which a jury must adhere.

 

[AZlawyer]

So...back on topic...

I agree with Wudge that the lack of fiber evidence connecting the trunk with the crime scene is good for the defense. I can see that many of us disagree with his assessment of the other evidence, but does anyone have anything else to say about the fiber evidence?

 

[cecybeans]

I'm just hoping they can identify the type of article that the blue fibers may have come from - narrow it down to either clothing or a blanket or coat or something specific. I'm sure that the content of the fibers would be a good clue.

 

[100%Agave]

So...back on topic...

I agree with Wudge that the lack of fiber evidence connecting the trunk with the crime scene is good for the defense. I can see that many of us disagree with his assessment of the other evidence, but does anyone have anything else to say about the fiber evidence?

I agree that it is an issue that the defense will use to their advantage. I have to wonder through how much figer evidence we would expect to see as matching transfer, if say, Caylee was only in 2 plastic trash bags before disposal and the laundry bag was added at the time of disposal.

Also, if say, KC had minimum contact with Caylee's body at the time she killed her, maybe she actually did wrap her in the WTP blanket to keep her still so there would be more fiber transfer from the WTP blanket on Caylee than transfer from KC's clothes. Then once she was bagged, KC's clothes would no longer come in contact with her body or the duct tape. Since she disposed of Caylee's body at least 2 days after Caylee died, any contact made to Caylee or the laundry bag would not be the same clothes that she killed her in. And with CA washing everything in sight and the probability that KC would have thrown away any clothes that she was wearing during the crime or the disposal and the length of time that passed and the conditions of the disposal site, how much transfer fiber would be realistically be expecting to finde?

I know that was a long paragraph to ask the final question but.....


Do we think that this is all of the fiber evidence or is something else out there that we are not aware of yet? It didn't seem to me that they compared everything.....maybe I am wrong since I am not good at reading the forensic reports.

 

[TopGunner]

Hey everyone - just a reminder: Please stay on topic, thanks!

 

[KenoshaKid]

I'm not sure how much weight the fiber evidence will have, anyway. I mean, KC was with her the last day she was seen alive, of course there's probably transfer evidence on Caylee from KC. I'm not sure how much that would prove. I think what it would do perhaps is exclude another person, vs include KC, who is included because she lives in the same house with the victim. Boy, I am not making myself very clear, am I? :crazy: Thoughts?

 

[AZlawyer]

If Caylee was wrapped in the WTP blanket in the trunk, perhaps that would prevent trunk fibers from getting on her but would still allow leaking of decomp fluid to create the stain? (sorry)

 

[100%Agave]

If Caylee was wrapped in the WTP blanket in the trunk, perhaps that would prevent trunk fibers from getting on her but would still allow leaking of decomp fluid to create the stain? (sorry)

Not if she was wrapped in the trash bags, one sealed and the other not, before she was placed in the trunk.

Then the plastic bags would contain the decomp fluid but KC may have found things a little mushier than she expected and worked the body and trash bags into the laundry bag, which I understand had a plastic liner in it, for the final disposal.

I don't think that she wrapped Caylee in 2 trash bags and the laundry bag at the same time.

Maybe 1 trash bag sealed, then a second bag within a short time, and finally the laundry bag when she realized that she would not be able to pick up caylee and the trash bags without the possibility of them ripping open. I know it was hot in florida (I live in Tampa) but I don't think that Caylee's body would have been nothing but liquid at the time of disposal. Definitely some leakage from the nose, mouth, etc but not a big bag full of liquid.

I am not sure why everyone thinks that the sealed trash bag would have leaked. My trash bags don't leak unless I poke a hole in them and the outdoor type garbage bags are really strong. Think about how much you can stuff in there before you have a problem with puncturing them. I know these were cinch bags which don't seal as well as twist tie bags, but if the cinch was placed in the correct position, I can see the bag not leaking.

Does this make sense? It is the way that I see things going down.

And to stay on topic, if this scenario is how it went down, then I can see that there would be very little transfer from KC or the trunk.

 

[Wudge]

I don't think it is necessary to prove scientifically, or beyond any shadow of a doubt, that GA, the manager at Johnson's, LE or anyone else involved, actually smelled human decomp. The fact that they all were familiar with the unique odor and identified it as such - that their anecdotal impressions are completely consistent - and the fact that they have various and conflicting possible motives - would make a jury trust their judgement. Their perception is supported by other evidence, including the cadaver dogs and air sample results. Their perceptions are not proof positive, but they are an important contribution to the overall analysis of innocence or guilt.

As you know, circumstantial evidence is not meant to be considered individually, and has worth when combined as a body of evidence - interlocking puzzle pieces that together complete the picture. However, when evidence discussed here, I notice that you separate elements you consider weak for some reason and formulate your argument as if the entire argument hinges on the strength of an individual piece that stands alone. I seriously doubt that circumstantial evidence in any trial is overwhelming proof that a crime was committed, but it does not have to be - it simply has to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The strength of circumstantial evidence is not simply an arithmetic accumulation by percentage points, but an aggregate that combines to form a permutation of probability that is stronger than each individual piece.

The fact that reasonable people identify the smell of the car as that of a dead human body, and the fact that their perceptions are corroborated by other evidence, lends credence to the veracity of perceptions that otherwise might be questioned if standing alone. If we need an "expert" to testify that three or more people observed the same thing, there is no reason to have witnesses to begin with.

SNIP

On the thread below, we previously discussed some falsehoods you still hold to be true: reference posts 180 and 189. If you wish to post there, I will respond.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3974044&highlight=totality#post3974044

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

A premediated murder cannot be proven from a hair with an alleged death band. The same would be true if LE had found fibers from the trunk of Casey's car on the laundry bag.

Casey might end up being 'toast', but it would not be because the evidence we know of supports highly reliable premises that equate to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

HTH

I have to agree with you, the evidence we know of will not be enough proof to equate beyond a reasonable doubt, at least it would not if I were on the jury. The fibers in this thread are just one of the pieces of evidence that seem to be more exculpitory than inculpitory. If I were on a jury and was told that there might have been a dead body in the trunk of a car, but there was a bag of maggot infested trash in the trunk of that car for at least a couple weeks in the summer sun of Florida, I would tend to believe there was a strong possibility that any horrible smell from said trunk would probably have come from the trash vs. the posibilty of a dead body. I am certain we do not have all the evidence in front of us, but with the evidence we have been presented so far in this fascinating case, I can't find a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. When an FBI report says q12 exhibits characteristics of apparent decomposition at the proximal (root) end, as a juror I need more info. Apparent decomp sounds like maybe to me. So, in order for me to find someone guilty in a dp case, I need more than one solitary hair that might suggest decomp. Yes, when a number of circumstances point in the same direction, it can be used to help determine things, but in my opinion, that is not the case here. If for instance, the trunk scenario of having Caylee's body is not pursued by the prosecutor because the fibers do not match, then all circumstantial evidence involved with the trunk will not come into evidence at trial. Were that to happen the smell of death, the coffin wax, the alleged decomp hair won't even come into play at trial. So, because we are all guessing at what might come into play at trial, and because we are speculating and forming opinions based on what we read in these threads and on the docs and pictures we are all allowed our own opinions. As new doc dumps emerge, I may reform a previous opinion based on newly released documents. I am not afraid to change my opinion. I think we all need to keep an open mind and evaluate all newly released evidence. These fibers, the FBI docs, the maggot infested trash, and the relative newness of air sample evidence gives me the opinion that the prosecutor will not go down the trunk road in trial. I know there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence out there, but each new doc dump seems to disqualify some of that mountain. Just my opinion of course, but if the future brings more docs that disintegrate current circumstantial evidence, then the prosecutions case may not be nearly as strong as the early indications were.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

BBM

For the sake of clarification, her body was double-bagged, in two (2) black plastic garbage bags and then placed inside the lined, off-white Laundry Bag!

sorry if this is ot but can anyone provide me with a link to verify this clarification? I have heard the triple bag theory, but have yet to find anything to substantiate this.