Caylee Marie Anthony #123 4/14/09 - 4/17/09

[Dolce]

Also, that report was for "latent prints" only, which would be different from prints in adhesives if I am understanding this right. "Latent prints" would have been what they were searching for on the shiney side of the tape as they would not be detectable by the naked eye, only by adding chemical...now finger prints within adhesive would be visible once  the take was un-wound, therefore making them prints and NOT "latent prints".  Does that make sense??

la·tent print (plural la·tent prints)
noun   
Definition:   
a fingerprint that is left at a crime scene and remains invisible until chemically treated
 

[SunnyinTX]

Like walk out on me.....aaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww 

That sounds like a reward to me not a punishment.

Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya, Georgie Boy.

 

such drama...both of them making a big thing about walking out...wish they had taken their asses outta there and then be held in contempt. For once in his life GA tried to act likes he had something between his legs other than bunched up tidy whites and now his ass has to come back and answer the questions!!  George it's all about the timing and yours SUCKS!!!

[QuietMonkey]

Oprah Winfrey: Viewers sound off about George, Cindy Anthony
posted by halboedeker on Apr 14, 2009 2:21:42 PM
Discuss This: Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Linking Blogs | Add to del.icio.us | Digg it

Viewers are sharing their disappointment that Oprah Winfrey wants to interview George and Cindy Anthony in May.

Here's a sample:

"Who has done the research for Oprah? Do they really know what they are getting in to? I wonder..."

And another:

"Personally, if O doesn't know all the ins and outs of this case, the A's are going to walk all over her. She should really consider putting this interview off until next year or so...or better yet, replace them with another guest.."

You can see the comments at Oprah.com
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2009/04/oprah-winfrey-viewers-sound-off-about-george-cindy-anthony.html

http://www.oprah.com/index

Sounds like Monkey's to me!! 

[Tamikosmom]

source: http://www.wftv.com/_blank/18740657/detail.html

pages 55-56

bump

I'm not interpreting this .. just posting it.

OK, reading again...this looks like there were no prints on the tape...... and it also looks like only prints for the 3 A's were sent to be compared to any prints IF any were found for elimination purposes only.

Thanks Sunny.

I got it right.  So the media sources did get it right.

Janet

[goodnmad]

Sunny

Q76 is red gas can with duct tape

tape test results refer to Q62-64

I assume it is from the remains

[QuietMonkey]

Also, that report was for "latent prints" only, which would be different from prints in adhesives if I am understanding this right. "Latent prints" would have been what they were searching for on the shiney side of the tape as they would not be detectable by the naked eye, only by adding chemical...now finger prints within adhesive would be visible once  the take was un-wound, therefore making them prints and NOT "latent prints".  Does that make sense??

la·tent print (plural la·tent prints)
noun   
Definition:   
a fingerprint that is left at a crime scene and remains invisible until chemically treated
 

Maybe there were "visible" prints? This is only discussing "latent prints", which I'd expect they would check for also!

[Dolce]

Oprah Winfrey: Viewers sound off about George, Cindy Anthony
posted by halboedeker on Apr 14, 2009 2:21:42 PM
Discuss This: Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Linking Blogs | Add to del.icio.us | Digg it

Viewers are sharing their disappointment that Oprah Winfrey wants to interview George and Cindy Anthony in May.

Here's a sample:

"Who has done the research for Oprah? Do they really know what they are getting in to? I wonder..."

And another:

"Personally, if O doesn't know all the ins and outs of this case, the A's are going to walk all over her. She should really consider putting this interview off until next year or so...or better yet, replace them with another guest.."

You can see the comments at Oprah.com
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2009/04/oprah-winfrey-viewers-sound-off-about-george-cindy-anthony.html

http://www.oprah.com/index

  Go Monkeys!!!   

[Sassycat]

What about the garbage bags? Was there ever any mention of the garbage bags being tested for finger prints? Maybe they found her prints on the gb's? I skim through lots of things and maybe missed this, but I don't remember hearing anything about prints being found or not found on them. Just wondering if any monkey knows or remembers off hand? I know the tape is probably a better source being that it's very sticky, but being there was double gb's maybe there's a slight chance a finger print could still be found? Just being hopeful I guess that they found some sort of print somewhere. If any other A's prints were found, I'd of expected they'd have been arrested already.

I don't recall any mention of this QM ... I'm sure they would have checked for prints.

The other question is what about and DNA on the duct tape -- aisde from Caylee of course, Says Casey ripped it with her teeth -- couldn't there be some of her DNA from her skin or saliva there?

Very good question - and I think it is very possible!

[Tamikosmom]

Thanks Sunny.

I got it right.  So the media sources did get it right.

Janet

I meant to say ... YOU got it right.

Janet

[akmom]

Oprah Winfrey: Viewers sound off about George, Cindy Anthony
posted by halboedeker on Apr 14, 2009 2:21:42 PM
Discuss This: Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Linking Blogs | Add to del.icio.us | Digg it

Viewers are sharing their disappointment that Oprah Winfrey wants to interview George and Cindy Anthony in May.

Here's a sample:

"Who has done the research for Oprah? Do they really know what they are getting in to? I wonder..."

And another:

"Personally, if O doesn't know all the ins and outs of this case, the A's are going to walk all over her. She should really consider putting this interview off until next year or so...or better yet, replace them with another guest.."

You can see the comments at Oprah.com
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2009/04/oprah-winfrey-viewers-sound-off-about-george-cindy-anthony.html

http://www.oprah.com/index

Sounds like Monkey's to me!! 

Woot!  Monkey's doing their Monkey Business!!! 

[goodnmad]

ok, now I am just confused about fingerprints 

I am confused as Dr. Henry Lee about ham and cheese 

[SunnyinTX]

Why would they run finger print testing on the duct tape if there was nothing to compare them against?  There has to be something there for a comparison to be made.  They eliminated 3 players in this crime per their list, but did not list who the finger prints matched.  So if we go on common sense and believe that there are fingerprints on the duct tape are we to conclude that after these 3 were ruled out they did not search for any other match? 
Sorry I do not buy that, they found their match and they just wanted to be sure that none of the others matched as well to throw in an accomplice.  I did not see Caylee's name on the exclusion list, I wonder if they tested hers as well?
Sorry I do not buy the media story of "no fingerprints found on the tape", it would be redundant to run comparison on clean tape.

And casey's could have been sent separately.....so it would be on a separate report...I don't but the no fingerprints found either....I do think it was misinterpreted

[QuietMonkey]

 

[Dolce]

With all of these document dumps I believe there is a trick to reading them.  The trick is simply this - do not focus on what is within them but rather what has not been released!

You do not run finger print testing against an item void of any finger prints.  What a huge waste of tax payer money.  The Prosecution has a HUGE case full of evidence I am sure and that makes me SMILE!!  The media is not reading things carefully and posting false information to the public.  When this goes to trial we are all going to be blown away I am sure.

[SunnyinTX]

What about the garbage bags? Was there ever any mention of the garbage bags being tested for finger prints? Maybe they found her prints on the gb's? I skim through lots of things and maybe missed this, but I don't remember hearing anything about prints being found or not found on them. Just wondering if any monkey knows or remembers off hand? I know the tape is probably a better source being that it's very sticky, but being there was double gb's maybe there's a slight chance a finger print could still be found? Just being hopeful I guess that they found some sort of print somewhere. If any other A's prints were found, I'd of expected they'd have been arrested already.

I do not remember it either..but I think there is still a lot of forensics we haven't seen yet.

[goodnmad]

http://www.essortment.com/all/fingerprintssec_rwkx.htm

So now that we know what fingerprints are, how do people leave them behind at a crime scene? Since your fingers are covered in skin, they are also covered in skin pores. Skin pores produce oils and sweat, which are distributed on your fingers. When you touch something, those liquids are left on the surface, in the shape of your fingerprints (just like a rubber stamp with ink on it). It's those compounds that can be detected by forensic technicians, using a number of methods. The oily compounds left behind are often detected by good old fingerprint powder, just as you see on any TV detective movie. Like everything however, science has advanced fingerprint powders quite a lot since the early days. Modern fingerprint powders contain various compounds that did not even exist when fingerprint powders were invented (making them far more sensitive), and are usually applied using special soft fiberglass brushes, which do less damage to the fingerprints. When a fingerprint has not yet been detected, it's known as a "latent print" (latent for short). Modern science has found many other ways to detect latents, however. When you touch an object, the chemicals in your sweat may be absorbed into that object (paper is a good example of this), and there are now chemicals which can develop these latents quite nicely. Even paper, which has been soaking wet, can now be successfully examined for fingerprints, using advanced chemicals. The Laser has been a great boon to law enforcement officials as well, due to its ability to detect certain fingerprints. Some types of Lasers cause chemicals in some fingerprints to "fluoresce" or glow, which allows them to be photographed as evidence. There are also dyes that can be sprayed on pieces of evidence to help fingerprints to be more visible to the Laser. The Laser has been extremely useful in obtaining fingerprints from human bodies, a feat that was nearly impossible only a few years ago. Many surfaces, which were difficult to obtain useable fingerprint from in the past, are now routinely examined successfully due to all of these scientific advances.

[Sassycat]

ok, now I am just confused about fingerprints 

I am confused as Dr. Henry Lee about ham and cheese 

     That's ok GnM.  GA thinks garbage in a car for 19 days smells like decomp.   
I'm confused, too.   

[Dolce]

Why would they run finger print testing on the duct tape if there was nothing to compare them against?  There has to be something there for a comparison to be made.  They eliminated 3 players in this crime per their list, but did not list who the finger prints matched.  So if we go on common sense and believe that there are fingerprints on the duct tape are we to conclude that after these 3 were ruled out they did not search for any other match? 
Sorry I do not buy that, they found their match and they just wanted to be sure that none of the others matched as well to throw in an accomplice.  I did not see Caylee's name on the exclusion list, I wonder if they tested hers as well?
Sorry I do not buy the media story of "no fingerprints found on the tape", it would be redundant to run comparison on clean tape.

And casey's could have been sent separately.....so it would be on a separate report...I don't but the no fingerprints found either....I do think it was misinterpreted

Yes, but that was "latent prints".  The good Dr. Baden (the man) was speaking about prints within the adhesive being visible to the naked eye, and "latent prints" are those which are not visible to the naked eye unless enhanced with chemicals. 
I am going to look at what is not here versus what is, and that says a lot.

[A_News_Junkie_Monkey]

Janet -- you're welcome.

I'm not 100% sure what the statements in the docs mean, could be interpreted either way IMO. 

Yes, I have been kicked right out of the cage numerous times today. 

goodnmad

After reading the document ... I am inclined to agree with you all that something is hinky.  Why was Casey's fingerprints not eliminated ... only her mother, father and brother?

I cannot comprehend why all the news medias ... even the Orlando publicabtions ... interpreting this document as excluding Casey when ... it does not.

I apologize for not making the effort to catch up when I was allowed back into the cage but ... I was on a google mission attempting to find just one new article that implied that Casey's fingerprints could have been on that duct tape.

Thank you again.

Janet

Janet - sorry walked away, glad you found goodnmad's post.  That was what I was trying to direct you to. 
Anyway, I think the reporters are reading just that no latent prints were found and not understanding that that information pertained to three specific persons prints that were asked to be compared.  But they see no latent prints and print it!
Monkeys read closer! LOL 

Edit typo

[Dolce]

http://www.essortment.com/all/fingerprintssec_rwkx.htm

So now that we know what fingerprints are, how do people leave them behind at a crime scene? Since your fingers are covered in skin, they are also covered in skin pores. Skin pores produce oils and sweat, which are distributed on your fingers. When you touch something, those liquids are left on the surface, in the shape of your fingerprints (just like a rubber stamp with ink on it). It's those compounds that can be detected by forensic technicians, using a number of methods. The oily compounds left behind are often detected by good old fingerprint powder, just as you see on any TV detective movie. Like everything however, science has advanced fingerprint powders quite a lot since the early days. Modern fingerprint powders contain various compounds that did not even exist when fingerprint powders were invented (making them far more sensitive), and are usually applied using special soft fiberglass brushes, which do less damage to the fingerprints. When a fingerprint has not yet been detected, it's known as a "latent print" (latent for short). Modern science has found many other ways to detect latents, however. When you touch an object, the chemicals in your sweat may be absorbed into that object (paper is a good example of this), and there are now chemicals which can develop these latents quite nicely. Even paper, which has been soaking wet, can now be successfully examined for fingerprints, using advanced chemicals. The Laser has been a great boon to law enforcement officials as well, due to its ability to detect certain fingerprints. Some types of Lasers cause chemicals in some fingerprints to "fluoresce" or glow, which allows them to be photographed as evidence. There are also dyes that can be sprayed on pieces of evidence to help fingerprints to be more visible to the Laser. The Laser has been extremely useful in obtaining fingerprints from human bodies, a feat that was nearly impossible only a few years ago. Many surfaces, which were difficult to obtain useable fingerprint from in the past, are now routinely examined successfully due to all of these scientific advances.

  Thank you GoodandMad this is what I was trying to say!!  They did not say "NO FINGER PRINTS" they said "NO LATENT FINGERPRINTS"!!!