Serological Reports (blood)

[Wudge]

Only until someone counters with the sort of contrary position you, for example, might normally take in the defense of the accused. First, the defendant is not wholly excluded from being an indirect "donor" of semen, known or unknown, though I'm aware she is apparently not a male. She had intimate contact with a number of them. We have evidence of multiple male "friends," and that Caylee, the victim, was at least occasionally present in bed with the defendant and a BF. So perhaps was her blanket, which traveled with Caylee and the defendant and to which the defendant had access.

LE will need to place the Koala baby blanket with Casey and Caylee or with the Anthonys and Caylee. Moreover, if the blood on the blanket is determined to be Caylee's blood, it would be all the more important (extremely) to do so. Otherwise, the blanket alone would prove to be evidence that is highly exculpatory.

As regards men associated with Casey, LE should certainly have a list --I'll assume they've done some real detective work. If semen was found on the blanket and LE can't match the DNA to the men on their list, then that, too, would be significant exculpatory evidence.

 

[Wudge]

Hi wudge.
Not necessarily. By the same token that there is no direct link to Casey, simply because there might be something like semen on the blanket does not in any way prove when that semen might have been deposited. It could have been while Casey was sleeping in the bed with Ricardo and Caylee and some of the semen from their copulation may have gotten onto Caylee's blanket, which would have also been in the bed with them. For that to be highly signifigant, I would think they would have to prove WHEN it came to be on the blanket and under what circumstances. We must apply the same standard to this potential evidence as all the evidence (or lack thereof) that does implicate Casey.:innocent: Casey was, by all reports, quite promiscuous, and she often took her child with her to parties, etc, so that semen, if there were any, which there wasn't, could have contaminated that blanket a year ago.


You are kidding on this one right wudge? Because the Anthonys or Casey did not say it then that means it wasn't theirs? The multitude of lies and omissions told by all these "players" discredits anything they have or have not said. The Anthonys did not say is no standard of proof and does not mean a thing. They also did not say a Pooh blanket was missing until they KNEW LE was looking for it...so???:waitasec:

No. I wasn't kidding. The Koala blanket will become exculpatory physical evidence if not connected to Casey and Caylee or the Anthonys and Caylee. A large number of pictures of Caylee exist. Have you ever seen a Koala blanket in one of those pictures?

 

[lizzysf]

Where was the Koala blanket found?

 

[seagull65]

An unknown semen donor works strongly for the defense. Obviously, Casey is excluded from being the semen donor. Unidentifiable semen found on a baby blanket where Caylee's remains were located is still more highly significant exculpatory evidence.

I agree

of course semen could have been transferred to the blanket in some circuitous way and for whatever reason not washed (remotely possible). But I think, if there are even trace amounts or components of semen surviving on any of the items with Caylee after being out there in the heat, rain and elements all that time, possibly even submerged in water part of the time, I think it would be pretty exculpatory. It would mean there were more than trace amounts to start with, and there are more common sense ways it could wind up there than having been transferred by Casey or in some other circuitous way.

 

[seagull65]

the koala (tag) blanket makes me think of the teddy pull ups. I'm not sure of the origin of either one. Time to look at old pictures again (for the blanket at least).

 

[robotdog]

she proably stole the koala blanket,,

maybe someone is missing one :banghead:

 

[Friday]

Only until someone counters with the sort of contrary position you, for example, might normally take in the defense of the accused. First, the defendant is not wholly excluded from being an indirect "donor" of semen, known or unknown, though I'm aware she is apparently not a male. She had intimate contact with a number of them. We have evidence of multiple male "friends," and that Caylee, the victim, was at least occasionally present in bed with the defendant and a BF. So perhaps was her blanket, which traveled with Caylee and the defendant and to which the defendant had access.

Re bold and colored by me: Thank you for pointing out the above.

 

[panama]

An unknown semen donor works strongly for the defense. Obviously, Casey is excluded from being the semen donor. Unidentifiable semen found on a baby blanket where Caylee's remains were located is still more highly significant exculpatory evidence.

Known Semen:
Well the "known semen" batch was used as a control -- it was used to ensure that actual honest-to-goodness semen indeed tested as such. It means that the tests are working properly.

Blanket:
In the case of the Blanket, Q103, it tested positive for "acid phos" which DOES NOT confirm semen. This positive result means "there could be semen; do more tests."

When they did another test, (i.e., they looked for "p30") the test came back negative. And, we have:
acid phos + NEG p30 = NEG for semen.

So, overall, the presence of blood was not confirmed on anything. The presence of semen was not confirmed on anything.

Pheno and Hemo:
Most likely "pheno" and "hemo" refer to testing methods. See [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4406903#post4406903"]this[/ame].

The phenolphthalein test can give false positives in response to substances that have nothing to do with blood or humans. That's why they move on to the hemochromogen test. This test did not give a positive result though. The result was QNS -- the sample wasn't large enough or good enough to get any results.

So, imo, no blood on anything tested; no semen on anything tested.

p.s., I'll post a summary with item numbers etc. in a while. (If this isn't necessary, lemme know. Just so people can see what exactly doesn't have any blood or semen.)

 

[ClockWatcher]

Where was the Koala blanket found?

I have been searching for an additional blanket that would account for this Koala Blanket. I was able to find in the following doc, a reference to an a blanket, but haven't found exactly which blanket it is. This one was found under the shorts:

http://www.wftv.com/_blank/18740668/detail.html

Starting at the bottom of 3417 and to the next page. (This may be the Pooh Blanket?)

And this one:
One page 3421: Miscellaneous Blanket Item # 32 H-60493 (Pink)

This info contained in CSI Jenny Welch report


This document is a honker! 122 pages, but far and away one of the most interesting that I've read to date.

CSI daily search logs from the remains scene, search warrant items...bunches of stuff in this doc.

 

[seagull65]

panama, if it was known to be negative for both blood and semen, wouldn't they state "neg" on the document? Is it a confirmed negative or unknown due to only partial finding or findings not at a threshhold to confirm?

edited to add: Where does it describe the additional testing performed, I didn't see this so far in the documents. Thanks!

 

[seagull65]

It's interesting about the serological evidence found on the remnants of the shirt but not the shorts, it adds to my feeling that Caylee probably didn't have the shorts on. Although the shorts were probably also just not as absorbant a fabric, having some synthetic in them.

 

[Wudge]

Known Semen:
Well the "known semen" batch was used as a control -- it was used to ensure that actual honest-to-goodness semen indeed tested as such. It means that the tests are working properly.

Blanket:
In the case of the Blanket, Q103, it tested positive for "acid phos" which DOES NOT confirm semen. This positive result means "there could be semen; do more tests."

When they did another test, (i.e., they looked for "p30") the test came back negative. And, we have:
acid phos + NEG p30 = NEG for semen.

So, overall, the presence of blood was not confirmed on anything. The presence of semen was not confirmed on anything.

Pheno and Hemo:
Most likely "pheno" and "hemo" refer to testing methods. See this.

The phenolphthalein test can give false positives in response to substances that have nothing to do with blood or humans. That's why they move on to the hemochromogen test. This test did not give a positive result though. The result was QNS -- the sample wasn't large enough or good enough to get any results.

So, imo, no blood on anything tested; no semen on anything tested.

p.s., I'll post a summary with item numbers etc. in a while. (If this isn't necessary, lemme know. Just so people can see what exactly doesn't have any blood or semen.)

I don't pretend to know if semen was or was not found on the blanket. However, the existence of a Koala blanket (unsourced at this time as best I know) appears to be secure.

As days and weeks roll by, I am getting evermore the feeling that the government might well have another baby Sabrina case on its hands (Marlene, Steve and Sabrina Aisenberg).

It was around this time of the year that baby Sabrina was reported missing in 1997. Coincidentally, her disappearance was another Florida case (Tampa ... Hillsborough county).

Sabrina's parents, Steve and Marlene Aisenberg, were eventually charged with obstruction of justice and conspiracy. That case was every bit the crimetainment fodder that this case is. Media denizens had a field day with Marlene being dragged from her home with her hands handcuffed behind her back.

The FBI had Steve on tape admitting that he killed Sabrina, and Federal prosecutors had tons of other incredibly incriminating statements from wiretaps and a bugging of the Aisenberg's house.

Prosecutors had the tapes transcribed, took them to a Grand Jury and got the indictments they sought.

In the crime forums I posted in, I was a lonesome voice that held to 'not guilty' prior to the pending trial. The Grand Jury had received transcripts, so I took pause.

In the end, baby Sabrina was never found, and Marlene and Steve Aisenberg were awarded 2.9 million dollars. History has its lessons.

FWIW

 

[seagull65]

Could a donor of any of the body fluids potentially be identified by antigens or other characteristics, even if the fluids are not complete?

 

[panama]

panama, if it was known to be negative for both blood and semen, wouldn't they state "neg" on the document? Is it a confirmed negative or unknown due to only partial finding or findings not at a threshhold to confirm?

edited to add: Where does it describe the additional testing performed, I didn't see this so far in the documents. Thanks!

Well, they did state negative in a couple places -- both in the tables and in the summary reports. And, you're right, some of the "no blood confirmed" is due to a QNS or "Quantity Not Sufficient" result. This means that there's just not enough sample to say whether there was blood either way. (Which, in itself, is telling...)

Ok, so I'm working on making a pdf document that contains all of the serological/blood/semen pages that was in the honking 2000 page doc dump. Some of them are spread out. Right now I'm just making sure it's complete, and I'll post it here when it is. Then we'll all be on the same page. (Uh, no pun intended ).

 

[USARDOG]

There were many things found on that lot that have nothing to do with the case. I believe some shotgun shells were also found. Do some think these shotgun shells will also become exculpatory evidence because they cannot be connected to either Caylee or KC?

This does not make sense to me at all.

 

[Friday]

No. I wasn't kidding. The Koala blanket will become exculpatory physical evidence if not connected to Casey and Caylee or the Anthonys and Caylee.

I'm getting the impression from your posts that evidence that is not inculpatory, automatically becomes evidence that should be regarded as exculpatory. Am I misunderstanding?

A large number of pictures of Caylee exist. Have you ever seen a Koala blanket in one of those pictures?

No, I haven't. ROFL Why do you ask?

 

[marspiter]

<respectful snipping>


Right. I'm saying that testing for "pheno" could mean that they tested for the presence of phenotypic elements of blood (i.e., any antibodies/antigens at all). I'm not saying that they checked for which type of antibodies and/or antigens were present. It seems feasible that you need a better quality sample to do this, but that the sample they had could be tested for general antibodies/antigens.

But, I hear you. It definitely seems like a weird way to refer to antigens/antibodies. I just, for the life of me, can't think of what else pheno could possibly mean if it's a component of blood.

But maybe it's not actually a component of blood.

The reason I assumed the subheadings under "Blood" were components of blood is because

1. The three things under the "Semen" heading are certainly components of semen.
2. "Hemo" sounds like a known component of blood, and "pheno" sounds like a (perhaps funny way to reference) known component of blood.
3. There are lines under "Remarks" that say:

At some point I thought maybe pheno/hemo were testing methods, but I figured the language in above remarks ruled this out. Maybe I figured wrong, though. Because...

Apparently there's something called a "hemochromogen test." There's also something called a "phenolphthalein test." [a couple of links: weblink pdflink]. Anyway, both of these tests are used to detect the presence of blood. Again the language "tested (positive) for pheno" seems odd if pheno is a kind of test. Unless what they actually mean is "tested positive for pheno reactivity." That would make some sense.

Lastly, I was searching through the document release again, and I came across the following on page 11,991. (That page is in the "Part 27" document here.)



This is consistent with the results in the table that we've been discussing, I believe. (Assuming that only finding a for pheno corresponds to "the possible presence of blood was positive".)

Hemo and Pheno are two types of tests conducted to find the presence of blood.

This is "Pheno" test:
Kastle-Meyer color test: Phenolphthalein is the active chemical reagent in this particular test. When blood, hydrogen peroxide, and phenolphthalein are mixed together, a dark pink color results. This color change is due to the hemoglobin (the oxygen-containing molecule within red blood cells) causing a chemical reaction between hydrogen peroxide and phenolphthalein.

The other test is as stated above Hemochromogen test. Which looks for small minute crystals of blood in a sample.

 

[Wudge]

I'm getting the impression from your posts that evidence that is not inculpatory, automatically becomes evidence that should be regarded as exculpatory. Am I misunderstanding?



No, I haven't. ROFL Why do you ask?

If it's 'evidence', and it does not work for the State, then ...

 

[seagull65]

That was such a tragic case, Wudge. I lived in Tampa at the time that was going on. I admit I suspected the parents, but maybe they were completely innocent, who knows. And of course now we still don't know what happened to Sabrina or where she is. So sad. I almost said we'll never know, but who knows, maybe justice will be done one day.

I hope (and pray) justice will be done for Caylee-- the one thing we ALL agree on, obviously

 

[Wudge]

That was such a tragic case, Wudge. I lived in Tampa at the time that was going on. I admit I suspected the parents, but maybe they were completely innocent, who knows. And of course now we still don't know what happened to Sabrina or where she is. So sad. I almost said we'll never know, but who knows, maybe justice will be done one day.

I hope (and pray) justice will be done for Caylee-- the one thing we ALL agree on, obviously

Pay close attention to the mountain of evidence in this case, put a mark by any item of evidence that is truly inculpatory evidence. It won't take long.