Friction Ridges Duct Tape and Suds - Blink II
Page 1 of 1 • Share •
Friction Ridges Duct Tape and Suds - Blink II
mom_in_il on Tue 06 Oct 2009, 1:14 am
Friction Ridges Duct Tape and Suds
Posted by Blink | Saturday 3 October 2009 12:49 pm
Discovery Review Part II
Excerpt:
Orlando, FL– In Part I, we reviewed the Latent Lift Myth.
Adding to the quagmire of why Linda Kenney Baden maintains there are no prints on the duct tape, one reviews Ms. Baden’s amended motion for discovery.
Ms. Baden requests the specific 18 latent lifts and subsequent file information from the FBI reports in “this matter”. However, those tests were performed from items removed from the Anthony home by Orange County Sheriffs Office, not the FBI, thus the “THERE ARE NO LATENT LIFTS IN THIS CASE”.
How does the defense attorney entrusted to interpret the forensic evidence in a death penalty case not know with what agency that information is held? It was released months ago.
Within the discovery, their is an email indicating a few areas of the tape were swabbed in the final testing process (CU) with methanol. This is performed on the non-adhesive side of the tape. Does it make sense if your sole intent was to extract DNA from this tape that you would be reduced to swabbing only the side of the tape NOT affixed to Caylee’s face?
It only makes sense if your goal is to preserve the integrity of what appears on the adhesive side, and exclude the possibility of DNA on areas that will not compromise the sample in that regard.
Read more: http://blinkoncrime.com/2009/10/03/cayleecasey-anthony-case-friction-ridges-duct-tape-and-suds/
Posted by Blink | Saturday 3 October 2009 12:49 pm
Discovery Review Part II
Excerpt:
Orlando, FL– In Part I, we reviewed the Latent Lift Myth.
Adding to the quagmire of why Linda Kenney Baden maintains there are no prints on the duct tape, one reviews Ms. Baden’s amended motion for discovery.
Ms. Baden requests the specific 18 latent lifts and subsequent file information from the FBI reports in “this matter”. However, those tests were performed from items removed from the Anthony home by Orange County Sheriffs Office, not the FBI, thus the “THERE ARE NO LATENT LIFTS IN THIS CASE”.
How does the defense attorney entrusted to interpret the forensic evidence in a death penalty case not know with what agency that information is held? It was released months ago.
Within the discovery, their is an email indicating a few areas of the tape were swabbed in the final testing process (CU) with methanol. This is performed on the non-adhesive side of the tape. Does it make sense if your sole intent was to extract DNA from this tape that you would be reduced to swabbing only the side of the tape NOT affixed to Caylee’s face?
It only makes sense if your goal is to preserve the integrity of what appears on the adhesive side, and exclude the possibility of DNA on areas that will not compromise the sample in that regard.
Read more: http://blinkoncrime.com/2009/10/03/cayleecasey-anthony-case-friction-ridges-duct-tape-and-suds/
mom_in_il- Supreme Commander of the Universe With Cape AND Tights AND Fancy Headgear
Permissions of this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum