The Duct Tape

Could this be a Major Connection?

Posted on February 17th, 2010 by Valhall

It’s small. 1/4″ across. And some may think it of no signficance. But it could potentially big a BIG connection. It’s a small impression on Q62, one of the three pieces of Henkel brand duct tape strapped across Caylee’s nose and mouth.





But it could be further proof that Caylee’s duct taped, dead body was in Casey’s trunk. Because the most likely item to have caused this impression is called a quick connect wire terminator. These terminators are used extensively in automobile wiring systems.

And they are also used extensively by do-it-yourself car owners who want to make after-market modifications – such as adding rear speakers just behind the backseat in the trunk of a car. I was able to obtain one version of a quick connect terminal and make a couple of impressions on a piece of duct tape using white out.





As you can see, the quick connect I was able to get hold of has a slightly different profile than the impression on Q62, but there are other brands that exactly match the imprint seen on that piece of evidence. For instance, there is the Tyco brand quick connect terminal.



These connectors are used as wire end connectors on everything from engine electrical wiring, to speaker wiring, to tail light wiring (which would be inside the trunk of the car).

Could this be further evidence against Casey?

Valhall.


http://www.thehinkymeter.com/?p=1716

Wow, that duct tape in the video (with George) may not be complete proof but it's like the old saying goes, If it walks like a duck, etc. I have numerous rolls of duct tape in my house but I sure don't have anything that say Henkel on it, anyone else????

Just plain ol' duct tape here...

i am the duct tape queen.. it fixes ANYTHING.. i have pink duct tape, silver ductape, yellow ductape.. but guess what... i have NEVER even seen henkel brand duct tape in all my travels..

dont know statistically how rare it is, i know i read in a report a while back, but i know i have never seen it.

I think the duct tape in the background is fascinating BUT...Unless it can be proven that it was brought there by the A's, it won't help much. I'm sure the defense will just say it was brought there by the "real killer".

FystyAngel wrote:I think the duct tape in the background is fascinating BUT...Unless it can be proven that it was brought there by the A's, it won't help much. I'm sure the defense will just say it was brought there by the "real killer".

Oh, ye of little faith.......

I was reading at Val's blog and I am wondering if I am misunderstanding something. A poster mentioned there were bite marks found on the tape. Is that true? I assume they would be Casey's, in trying to tear the tape with her teeth. Here is the link to the picture where the bite marks are tagged.

http://www.thehinkymeter.com/images/CMA/q62measure3.jpg

If so, I would have to conclude that bite marks could be as damning as fingerprints. And if she was starting the tearing of the pieces of tape with her teeth, it seems there would be more teeth impressions. Any thoughts?

Piper, there may have been bite marks found on the duct tape but I can't tell from the picture you linked to. I don't believe bite marks are quite as damning as fingerprints, but they were used to convict Ted Bundy. The bite marks used against Bundy were from one of his victim's bodies. If there are bite marks on the duct tape, it will be interesting to see if they are clear enough to test for a match with Casey's teeth. It would be great if this turns out to be something that can be used as another nail in Casey's coffin during the trial.

Here is a link to a good article about bite mark evidence from TruTV.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/forensics/bitemarks/1.html

Bite marks are not as damning as fingerprints... unless at the same time, they are able to get DNA from the bite mark.... but I don't think that's the case here.

Many people have been convicted because of bite mark evidence, and then later proven to be innocent.... (Ray Krone is a good example) http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/394.php

If they can seriously tell that there are marks from the tape that came from teeth (possibly from being torn with teeth), I think that would just be more circumstantial evidence... and they would be able to use it to determine more accurately how KC might have actually placed the duct tape on Caylee's face.

Frankly, if there never is a smoking gun (which I'm still not convinced there isn't), I believe KC will be convicted... they have tons of circumstantial evidence against her. Many people have been convicted on much less (Scott Peterson, for one) and after all, it is still EVIDENCE. Circumstantial evidence is known to be more reliable than eye witness testimony at times.

And when the State lays it all out for the jury, it will be very clear that there is only ONE person who had means, motive AND opportunity. They will fit all the puzzle pieces together very neatly for the jury....

JMO

Piper wrote:I was reading at Val's blog and I am wondering if I am misunderstanding something. A poster mentioned there were bite marks found on the tape. Is that true? I assume they would be Casey's, in trying to tear the tape with her teeth. Here is the link to the picture where the bite marks are tagged.

http://www.thehinkymeter.com/images/CMA/q62measure3.jpg

Piper wrote:If so, I would have to conclude that bite marks could be as damning as fingerprints. And if she was starting the tearing of the pieces of tape with her teeth, it seems there would be more teeth impressions. Any thoughts?

Piper, a posted named Thinker at HM asked about the bite marks, and where they were being seen. This is the answer that was given by Earmark:

earmark said: { Feb 19, 2010 - 04:02:38 }

Thinker…The wftv pictures of the duct tape are of Q62, Q63, and Q64. The bite arch is on Q62. Number 15 is of the whole reverse side of Q62 with the upper bite mark on the left end. Number 12 is the whole of the obverse side of Q62 with the lower bite impression on the right end. Look at number13 reverse side (left end) her molars, bicuspisds and cuspid are tearing from the top to bottom of the tape. You can see her right central, not as clear for her left central, her left lateral and cuspid are very clear. The left side two bicupids and first molar are not clear but you can see where the second left molar hits on the tape just to the upper left of H in Hinkle. This is because when you bite hard with your right teeth your left teeth seperate somewhat as you slide to the right.

http://www.wftv.com/slideshow/news/21249759/detail.html

BBM

Honestly, I am still not sure I can see bite marks.... How could her tooth imprint be to the upper left of the word 'Henkel'?? It looks to me like see would almost have to have had the width of that whole piece of tape in her mouth.... but what do I know? Maybe I am completely missing it.

Can anyone help me out? I, personally, think those marks could be from lots of things.... not saying they aren't from teeth, but how can one be so specific about which teeth made which marks on a piece of tape that has been through the mill... unless one is a dental forensics expert, and even then I am skeptical.

As mentioned in Earmark's response, here is picture #12 from WFTV:


Here is WFTV's #13:


And this is WFTV's #15:

im lost too snaz... i dont see teeth marks... however, the tape seems to have been wripped instead of cut (at least not with a SHARP knife.) so i guess it is plausible that they could have some teeth marks in them...

Snaz, thanks for all of this info. I couldn't see anything on that very first picture with the gauge. I see impressions on these, but I couldn't say it was teeth imprints. Maybe if you printed out an enlarged picture and connected the "dots" it might show a clearer image of what we're looking at....honestly

Piper, I can't connect the dots, because I can't see them. I really don't see what some people are saying they see. Like you, I see impressions, but I can't see that they are specifically bite marks.

I guess I'll just wait and see what, if anything, comes out in this last bit of discovery. Sometimes, I think we "see" what we want to believe is there. Not saying there aren't bite marks, but to me, this is kind of like the "heart residue" on the duct tape and the stain in the "image of a child in a fetal position".

If we get any indication from the State they really do have proof of any of these things, I will probably need someone to specifically point them out. I guess my imagination is not as good as some people's.

Will Duct Tape be Casey’s Sticking Point? – The DNA

Posted on April 24th, 2010 by Valhall

Original article posted on October 29, 2009

There are reasons why “rules” are set on the law enforcement side of DNA forensics. These “rules”, self-imposed from lessons learned over time, have to do with the quality of DNA sample, purity of sample (is it a mixture and can the DNA of multiple donors be extracted?), and quality of overall data return. These rules have been put in place to prevent “false positives” or, simply put, to avoid convicting an innocent person based on spurious returns. This guiding principle, that locks down the prosecuting side of a criminal case on what they can and can’t (with confidence) use as DNA evidence against an accused, is why the defense is currently treading on very, very shaky ground.

The first step in analyzing the situation of the “foreign DNA” on the duct tape at the crime scene is to make sure we understand basic genetics and, subsequently, DNA testing. All we need is an elementary understanding – so that’s what I’m going to aim for imparting.

First let’s talk about genetics and what an “allele” is. When the gleam in your daddy’s eye met up with the demure of your momma’s smile and created the “you” we all love, your daddy contributed what is called a haploid, via his sperm, and your momma contributed a haploid, via her egg. A haploid is, in layman’s terms, half a person waiting to be created. When the fertilization process “took” and created you, the haploid of your daddy found the haploid of your momma and they joined together “until your death do they part” to create a diploid – the whole person that is you. In this awesome process of the creation of human life a miraculous joining of the “right parts” of the separate haploids took place. In other words, the chromosome of your daddy that has the gene for hair-color sought out the chromosome of your momma that had the gene for hair-color and they hooked up – and the same for all the other chromosomes that make you – you. Two chromosomes that carry the same type of genes (for instance, hair-color) are called homologous chromosomes. So all the little chromosomes (eye-color, hair-color, etc.) found their homologous mates and “hooked up” for life – your life. (We’ll stay away from eye-color because, believe it or not, it is one of the most complicated physical traits you have from a genetic standpoint. That’s because your eye color is not determined by just one gene (i.e. one set of alleles) but by a combination of genes (multiple sets of alleles) and then it gets more complicated because you can have “partial expression” of each of the alleles in a gene. That’s why a brown-eyed girl and a blue-eyed guy can have a green-eyed baby!)

On a chromosome (let’s stick with the hair-color gene, so we’ll just talk about the chromosome that has that one), there are multiple “gene loci” – i.e. the locations for the separate genes. So on the chromosome that has your hair color, there may also be a gene that decides whether you’ll have curly hair, straight hair, etc. These gene loci on one haploid mate up with the same gene loci on the other haplois during the haploid-to-diploid process. So the gene for hair color that your daddy contributed is a “variation of that gene” or an allele. And the same holds true for the “variation of that gene” your momma contributed. So for every phenotypical (i.e. physical) trait you have, you get two alleles – one from momma and one from daddy. These combine to create your “genotype” (i.e. the combination of two alleles that define that gene type for you) and that genotype, depending on the combination of the two alleles and the dominant/recessive natures of them, etc., creates your “phenotype” (i.e. the physical expression of that genetic trait). So you get brown hair, or blonde hair, or red hair, etc.

Read the rest:
http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2010/04/24/will-duct-tape-be-caseys-sticking-point-part-2/

i don't know if I am just too sick, or if I have taken too many meds, but I sure didn't understand any of the above statement.

Maybe I will wait till I get a little better before I try reading this again.

This is an excellent two-part post by BondJamesBond at WS regarding the duct tape and its placement. Thought you might be interested in reading it:

Part 1:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5156620&postcount=377

Part 2:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5156832&postcount=379

From Part 2, number 2:



OMG.... this is the first time I have EVER been able to see the image of a child in a fetal position in the stain from the trunk..... I feel sick.

Although that pix is small it is labeled and I could at last see the image of what appeared to be a child with it's knees bent....I'll bet my bottom dollar that Cindy sez it's a stain from the solvents that she used to clean the trunk and it's just ironic that it looks like a child....

Estee, if you click on the pictures, they will enlarge to almost full screen and you can see them much better.