Are KC's Fingerprints at the Crime Scene?

AJ, with all due respect, I think you are reading the referenced document incorrectly......





What this document says to me is that fingerprint examinations were requested for CA, GA & LA for specific pieces of duct tape (Q62-Q64 from the Medical Examiner's Office).... and of those REQUESTED (which were only CA, GA & LA), no latent prints were detected.

It does not say anything about KC's prints one way or the other. That says everything to me. I believe if there were no prints period, they would have stated that. What they LEFT OUT of that report tells me everything I already suspected.

In fact, Maura does an excellent job of explaining all this on an old CSO thread:

http://www.crimesearchersonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=750&catid=21:caylee-anthony&Itemid=129

AJ.... good discussion we have going here!!!

I understand that Maura's comments were strictly her opinion.... as are ours.....

You stated:
On account that the report states there were NO Latent Prints Detected, would mean unless they are lying, that there were no latent prints. The only thing they cud have got the latent prints from, was the tape.

This is where we disagree. I don't see anywhere on that report where it says there were NO latent prints found..... it says "The requested latent print examinations were conducted, but no latent prints were detected."



The only ones requested were CA, GA & LA... so those are the ones the report is referring to not being found. Nowhere in that report does it shows any request of prints to be compared against KC's, nor does it say KC's prints are not found.



I do not disagree that the tape pieces (Q62-Q64) is what is being examined. What is moot here is whether they are comparing elimination fingerprints or latent fingerprints..... the type is just semantics.

AJ, with all due respect owed you, it is NOT a FACT that the report shows no fingerprints were found. Just as a side note, according to everything I personally have read on other websites, the general consensus is that the report does NOT say KC's prints are not on the tape.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.... and wait until trial. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion just as I am entitled to mine....

AJ, you stated:
"One always need to keep in mind, that they are basicaly giving their opinions of what they hear or read."

Your statement is why I say it is not FACT that the report shows there were no prints found.... it is certainly open to interpretation, and only those involved in the investigation know what the FACTS are. You read it one way... and I read it quite another. I can live with that.

Thanks for the hearty discussion on this!

Tish and AJ, there is quite a bit of info on the Henkel "Duck" tape thread... you may want to have a look there...

Awaiting Justice,

Unless there is a report that says, Casey Marie Anthony's fingerprints were NOT on that duct tape, then we have to wonder if her fingerprints were on it or not. There is no facts to back that up. JMO.

Interesting article by Blink On Crime regarding fingerprints on duct tape:

http://blinkoncrime.com/2009/02/17/casey-anthony-case-murder-of-34-month-old-caylee-update-states-attorneys-office-we-are-done-playin-footsie-its-a-match/

Snipped:
Blink on Crime has reported its sources stating that partial fingerprints belonging to the accused, Casey Marie Anthony, have been found by the FBI on ductape found at the scene. While my source’s stand by that assertion, it will not be specifiied as a finding in tomorrow’s release. Blink on Crime will be reporting on the Discovery documents as they are made available.

And a little background on Blink On Crime:

http://scaredmonkeys.com/2009/02/16/scared-monkeys-welcomes-blink34-true-crime-blog-blink-on-crime-to-family/

awaiting justice wrote:thanks for that link Tish. Up until now, I didnt realize that the state was acyaully on the band wagon. The article says something by the state was filed but there is no link... I wud like to see it ! This is great news...

AJ, if you are referring to the link to the documents filed by the State regarding the Henkel Duct Tape, I posted that in the duct tape thread yesterday...... interesting read...

AJ, well, again, we find ourselves with differing opinions....

Blink said her source said the FBI did, indeed, find prints belonging to KC on the duct tape, but that the information would not be specified as a finding in the new doc dump.... that is EXACTLY what happened.... the report did not show that there WERE prints found, but it also did not show that there were NO prints found.... it only stated that prints belonging to CA, GA & LA were not detected on the duct tape.

You keep making the statement that "the report does in fact say there were no latent prints" (your exact words). The FACT is, AJ, is that it is YOUR OPINION that the FBI report says there are no prints found. It is MY OPINION that the report does NOT state for a fact there were NO prints found..... it simply states no fingerprints BELONGING TO CA, GA & LA were found.

Regarding your comment about elimination prints being the "confusion' (again, your word)..... Elimination prints are simply inked prints used for comparison against possible latent prints in order to "eliminate" them as possible suspects. The FBI report does state that the Anthonys (CA, GA & LA) elimination prints were submitted for comparison against any latent prints found on the duct tape...... it further states that none were found. My whole 'argument' is that the report is ambiguous, at best. I believe the report was phrased the way it was (and released as such) specifically so as not to include whether or not there were prints belonging to KC.....

BTW, many people believe exactly as I do... that does not mean we have "misread" (once again, your word) the document..... it is open to interpretation. And I, for one, believe it was intentionally done that way. I am entitled to MY OPINION just as you as entitled to YOUR OPINION. Nothing is FACT in this instance except that we both have our OPINIONS.

My opinion is that the FBI did find KC's prints on the duct tape... and that will bear out at trial, if not before.

My interpretation is that KC's prints were found on the duct tape, they are just not releasing that evidence at this point. But, it is fact that no prints were found from GA, CA or LA. I believe that what they aren't releasing vs what they have released speaks volumes. To me, it kind of goes without saying.

Obviously, AJ, you and I will never agree on this subject. You brought up a lot of NEW issues in your last post that I will not even address with you at this point.

I stand by MY OPINION that the report DOES NOT IN FACT state that there are no latent prints detected....only those of CA, GA & LA were referenced. As I said previously, you are entitled to YOUR OPINION and I am entitled to MY OPINION. I suppose that according to your thought process, those who share my same opinion, and there are many, are INCORRECT... and only those who agree with you are CORRECT.

As I also said previously, we will just have to agree to disagree......

Piper wrote:My interpretation is that KC's prints were found on the duct tape, they are just not releasing that evidence at this point. But, it is fact that no prints were found from GA, CA or LA. I believe that what they aren't releasing vs what they have released speaks volumes. To me, it kind of goes without saying.

I agree, Piper..... I think they are holding that specific bit of discovery until such time as they are ready to release it.... as I understand it, as long as it is under investigation, it is considered a working document and the State is not required to release it at this time.

Trial will be interesting, won't it?

I formed my opinion from the earlier discovery released in regards to no prints found from GA, CA or LA. My question was, why rule out their prints if there were no prints to be found? That leads me to believe to this day, prints were found on the duct tape and they belong to the one and only suspect, KC Anthony.

Here is MY interpretation of the following document. I normally wouldn't get into this one BUT, because it has been such a great debate, I feel compelled to do so. I have spent the better part of today, reading & re-reading the following documentation. http://cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/Stories/Local/fbireport.pdf

It begins on page one, by stating what they are examining and where it came from.


Now, it goes on to say the following....


It is my interpretation that there are no "Latent Prints Detected" on the three pieces of tape tested. This is the tape that had to be cut from Caylee's skull. I was surprised that (in this document) there wasn't more detail, as far as size...width, length, etc. of the pieces of tape.

It is also my interpretation that the three Anthonys that are mentioned, really means nothing because since there were "no latent prints detected", there would be nothing to compare. As far as the term "Elimination Prints" (IMO) if there are no "latent prints detected", there is nothing to "eliminate" FROM.

After having it all explained to me, I can absolutely see where some people interpret what is written, in a completely different way. The sentence "The requested latent print examinations were conducted, but no latent prints were detected." means to me that there were no latent prints at all. But I can also see that some interpret it as meaning that if the lab was "requested" to MATCH or COMPARE the "elimination" prints of the Anthony's listed, then that would result in the sentence above. With no mention of KC at all.

After going over this sentence "The requested latent print examinations were conducted, but no latent prints were detected." about a hundred times, it still is MY conclusion that "no latent prints" is just that, no latent prints. It's MY opinion that some people think otherwise and that's ok. Each is entitled to their own opinion. I just think that if there were ANY prints on the tape at all, the report would have been written differently. It may have said something like...the "elimination prints are excluded" or something as such.

What I did find interesting throughout todays research, is this picture from the crime scene...

Duct tape found at crime scene (a match to the duct tape on Caylee and on Gas Can at Anthony Home)
Photo Found Here

Now, the reason I find it so interesting is this...THIS piece of tape would NOT have been taken to the ME's office, as it is was NOT on Caylee's remains. SO, here is yet another piece of tape that we do not have a report on. There very well may be prints on THAT tape. I have not searched for other photo's or documents on tape, so there could be more.

Now as far as other evidence against her, IMO, this just proves that there IS more that we just don't know about yet. There is plenty already, IMO. Tracey's statements blew me away. I don't know why, it should NOT have surprised me but KC is just so damned COLD.

C4C...You are so right....LIES, LIES, LIES. KC couldn't tell the truth if HER life depended on it! (JMO)

[edit] Latent prints
Although the word latent means hidden or invisible, in modern usage for forensic science the term latent prints means any chance of accidental impression left by friction ridge skin on a surface, regardless of whether it is visible or invisible at the time of deposition.

They were going to check GA, CA & LA's prints against this type of print, but there were none.

[edit] Patent prints
These are friction ridge impressions of unknown origins which are obvious to the human eye and are caused by a transfer of foreign material on the finger, onto a surface.

I think there were patent prints, that they were able to see and have already been compared and matched to KC's. I hope this makes sense, and this is just my opinion.

C4C... I think you may be right about the patent prints....

No matter what kind of prints they may have..... I believe they do have KC's prints from the duct tape around Caylee's mouth.... it matters not to me the type of print they have. As I have said many times before... it's all a matter of how they phrase it.

Of course, as always.... this is MY OPINION.

I was trying to give the benifit of doubt when I made the statement that I can understand how the report can be read differently. After spending another whole day, reviewing my post and the document.....

My conclusion is this. THAT document leaves no room for misinterpretation! Not in my mind. I'll post, yet again the screenshots to make my points.


It clearly reads..."The items listed below were examined in the Latent Print Operations Unit:" Not ANY OTHER UNIT. NOT examining for ANY OTHER TYPE OF PRINTS. (Not yelling, just tying to point out highlights)

Now, moving on to the conclusion....


I'm sorry if anyone is upset with me for this but the "RESULTS OF EXAMINATIONS" really leaves no room for error. There are NO LATENT PRINTS DETECTED. (again, not yelling, just making a point) Nothing to compare to, PERIOD.

This document clearly states there are no latent prints PERIOD.

Now, I am NOT saying that there are not other types of prints or other tape, etc. Maybe there are. I PRAY there are! This document, however, does not leave any room for misinterpretation.

I wanted to kind of keep neutral but I got a call today, telling me today that I am "too nice" to make my own statement. Believe it or not, it irritated the shit out of me all day as I read & re-read all of this shit. Maybe the statement that I'm too nice is correct, but damn sure not "too nice" to tell what I believe to be the truth.

OK, after reading through this entire thread a few times, let me see if I understand this.

The "latent print" operations unit of the (FBI?) found NO latent prints. CA, GA, LA's prints were taken and sent along with the pieces of duct tape Q62-Q64, but being that there were NO "latent prints", there was nothing to compare them too, in regards to Q62-Q64.

However, there are "OTHER" divisions in the (FBI?) that do different kinds of print analysis??? Correct?

So, if there were ANOTHER kind of print on Q62-Q64 it would NOT be listed on THIS report????

Would it be be strange that if a CLEAR print (patent, plastic, ect) were found that they would be sending it to another lab division to look for a latent (invisible?) print and have this separate report?

I'm so confused.

So, let me see if I got this right.

There are NO latent prints found on Q62-Q64. No ones! However, are some saying here there could be "other kinds" of prints on the listed specimen? And there may be another report from a different division?

And finally, there was a clear, singular print released in the documents on a blank page. There was nothing else on the page, just the print. Has there been ANY word anywhere of what this print was?

I also found it interesting that the specs on the Q62-Q64 duct tape was not in the discovery that I have seen. We don't know where this tape was found, what size pieces they are or if they were even on the body, do we?
I just wonder if these exact pieces are not the one(s) that will be key.
Trying to imagine how the duct tape would be removed in the medical examiner's office. IMO, it would be 3 pieces. One small piece from each side of the face (2) and then the middle larger piece. Sadly, this IMO, would be Q62, Q63 and Q64. So, if that, in fact, is the case and no latent prints were found, I'm hoping there were other examinations in a different division and a clear print were found.
Or there is a possibility that there were other pieces of duct tape that was torn off and maybe discarded because as we all know, when you tear off duct tape, many times, the first strip gets stuck and we discard it. That's what I am hoping is the case here.

So, in essence, I'm asking:

1. Are there other divisions who could have examined the tape and have results?

2. Whose print was on the singular page with NO text on the page? Where was it from? Why is there absolutely NOTHING else on that page?

3. Does anyone remember if there were mention of other pieces of duct tape found at the scene that was mentioned but we don't see analysis on yet?
What do we know about Q66???? I just added this because I saw it on another site!

I remembers an article I posted once somewhere that states there are exceptions to the sunshine law that state there will be some evidence that the state will release to the defense that we, the public, does not get to see BEFORE trial. I will look for it and post here, when I find it. I just don't believe if the state has a "clear" print or something that is truly spot on as KC, that they haven't shared this with the defense. I think that would be too dangerous to keep from the defense. It would come back to bite them in the behind, if they withheld some strong evidence like that from the defense. When I re read that article, I will see what the criteria is, that enables the state to not release under the sunshine law. maybe that will explain better to me, if it's impossible to believe there is a clear print or something else extremely dead on and pointing to KC.

Sorry this post was so long and a little redundant in what I was saying, asking. I was thinking and typing at the same time. And wanted my entire thought process and questions here. lol!

I did find this report that says they found latent prints on the DVD's CA gave the investigators and said "Zani" gave them to KC. These prints were KC's. I know it's not really pertinent to this subject here. Just saying they do have her prints and were/are comparing them to things.

http://media.myfoxorlando.com/photogalleries/050109anthonycasemiscdocuments/1/lg/5265-5353_Page_06.htm

awaiting justice wrote:Umm.. sorry not sure what you mean... Yes, they have KC's fingerprits and DNA.. they wud have had them from booking back last summer...

I was asking for a link to the page that you were saying was blank....

LOL, AJ. I know what you wanted. I am looking still. It's driving me insane. I know I saw it. It was an entire white page with the only thing on it, being the single finger print.

The link above, in my previous post, didn't have any significance to our discussion here, other than I just was showing for reference a spot in the documents where they in fact, did have and test KC's prints. I said lol above because I knew when I posted it, that it was not really a complete post and that someone would be like, what the hail does this have to do with anything. I was in a hurry and just didn't want to lose the page..
So, yea, I'm still looking for that darned single print. LOL!

Yes, AJ, I didn't mean my reference to KC's prints to really be in reference to anything we were discussing. I just added it as a place showing a place I saw that LE did have her prints and shows they were comparing it to items. Sometimes, I'm so into my own head, that I think everyone else will just KNOW what is going on in there. LOL!
As for the print I am looking for, it was just a page with a print on the top of it. I don't know that it even said anything on it. I think it had a lot of people discussing what it was and who it belonged too. I just remember seeing a blank page with only one print on it. So, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it really has any significance here either. LOL! It is just driving me nuts now, wanting to see it and what it was about. LOL! If it was in reference to Q66, I will search for that and maybe find it. If you do find it, can you post it for me? I'm going nuts looking for it.

Please everyone bare with me here, as I am trying to go back through ALL of the evidence and reports from the beginning. I'm trying to put this case together in my mind and in a document to see what exactly this case looks like against KC, as the prosecutor might present it. I also am going back from the beginning to look at it as a juror would and see what I may conclude.
Although, I see no other conclusion than absolute guilt and the imposition of the DP. I really do, especially after hearing Tracy's interviews. KC really and truly did not and does not care AT ALL, about anyone but herself. So, if we start to see tears, as we kind of did the last time in court, I would bet my life on it, that they are ONLY because she got caught and is NOT being seen as the victim!
Sorry, a little off topic on this one. I'll go back on topic with my next post. This just got me a little upset thinking about how KC acts.

Here is the document I was talking about with the single finger print on the blank page. A big, big thank you to Sunni. She found this for me.

I don't know who this print belongs too. Any thoughts on this from anyone?

Forensic Report on Decomposition (released 8/7/9)


http://crimesearchersonline.com/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=14&Itemid=128&limitstart=5

In my opinion, from what I've read and have formed of my own opinion, KC's prints are there, on something, and it's my feeling a piece of tape that will connect her directly to Caylee's murder. Let alone all of the other obvious evidence they have. In regards to a rare, fire-resistant, industrial duct tape, applied in mulitiple pieces...the FBI and LE has just not released the evidence at this point and time. Guess we will all see at the trial, but hopefully before. They had a damn good reason to bring the DP back in so quickly after Caylee's remains were found.

Piper,

I totally agree with you. I definitely think they have KC spot on with hard evidence. Do you remember how many days it was AFTER Caylee's body was found that the state announced it was seeking the death penalty? I will look myself. I just thought if someone was on and knew off hand they could make it easy for me. LOL!
I think knowing how long after they found her that they announced would tell me if they did it only based on finding the body or if they had time to get some results back.

Thanks AJ. I agree with you. I think the print is more than likely from the trunk. To me, I guess that wouldn't be any big deal, as of course, KC's print would be on her trunk.

WOW. What a thread!!!!!!

Everybody did a lot of investigative work and had a lot of interesting posts here.
I read the docs when they come out but sometimes have a hard time understanding them; I come to places, like here, to get a better understanding by learning from the people who do all the hard work.(All of you)
I respect each and everyone of you who posted here and respect your conclusions/thoughts on the fingerprint subject.
I was holding out hope that there WAS some type of print and maybe the state was saving it until last to give to the defense, but after reading all the facts stated here, I'm just not sure anymore.
So, wonder, if not a print, why they put the DP back on the table? They have to have something more than what we've seen, although what we have seen is pretty damning.

You would think that the state has something pretty damning since they put the death penalty back on the table, but I don't even want to guess what they might have until they release it. I guess it is always possible that the state thinks 31 days, plus the trunk, plus the items found at the crime scene that are linked to items in the Anthony home are enough for the DP. They could also have put the DP back on the table to try to scare KC into admitting guilt and taking a plea.

Mimi, I stand by my previous comments that we do NOT know for sure that there are no prints belonging to KC found at the crime scene...... and anything stated anywhere by anyone (other than one involved in the investigation... and they aren't talking) is one's opinion only. I, personally, believe the prints are there. I think we are going to have to wait until trial to know EXACTLY what they have in that regard.

J4A, I am one of those who does not believe the State put the DP back on to try to 'scare' KC into admitting guilt and taking a plea. Mostly, because I don't think this particular SA's office would play that game in this high-profile case. And secondly, because even if they would do it for that reason, I think they know by now NOTHING will scare KC.... KC is a psychopath, and psychopaths don't process fear like the average human.

Snipped from "Inside the Psychopath Mind":

While psychopaths can process happiness, the same does not happen in case of fear.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Inside-the-Psycopath-Mind-41912.shtml

I believe the prosecution has plenty to convict KC and I also don't think they will offer her a plea..... Actually, I will correct myself and say this.... the only plea I think the State might be willing to go for is IF KC will tell exactly what happened to Caylee (that means the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth..... and remember, Judge Strickland even said "Ms. Anthony and the truth are strangers."), they would be willing to reduce the DP to LWOP. And I don't believe KC will EVER admit anything she did to Caylee.

As always, JMO.

Snaz wrote:J4A, I am one of those who does not believe the State put the DP back on to try to 'scare' KC into admitting guilt and taking a plea. Mostly, because I don't think this particular SA's office would play that game in this high-profile case. And secondly, because even if they would do it for that reason, I think they know by now NOTHING will scare KC.... KC is a psychopath, and psychopaths don't process fear like the average human.

Snipped from "Inside the Psychopath Mind":

While psychopaths can process happiness, the same does not happen in case of fear.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Inside-the-Psycopath-Mind-41912.shtml

I believe the prosecution has plenty to convict KC and I also don't think they will offer her a plea..... Actually, I will correct myself and say this.... the only plea I think the State might be willing to go for is IF KC will tell exactly what happened to Caylee (that means the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth..... and remember, Judge Strickland even said "Ms. Anthony and the truth are strangers."), they would be willing to reduce the DP to LWOP. And I don't believe KC will EVER admit anything she did to Caylee.

As always, JMO.

Snaz, you are probably right that the state didn't put the DP back on the table to scare KC. I was just throwing that out there as a possibility. I hope the state realizes that trying to scare a psychopath won't work. It better be more than a scare tactic because putting the DP back on the table caused the start of the trial to be delayed by several months. I'm sure the state probably put the DP back on the table because they are comfortable that they have enough evidence to get a conviction. I agree that the only plea the state should ever consider is LWOP in exchange for the truth about what KC did to Caylee.

I had wondered at one time if the state was using this as a scare tactic. However, after seeing the state and how passionate they seem to be about this case, I changed my mind. I think they know something we all don't know and it really got to them. Heck, even if they have only SEEN what we have seen in documents, we have to remember, they saw this HORROR, up close and personal. I know many, if not all of us, have cried about the mere thought of what was done to sweet, tiny, little Caylee. So, can you just imagine what it will feel like to a juror who WILL have to look at her remains and photos of her tiny face with duct tape across the mouth and KNOW what she suffered. I think that is what truly caused the state to seek the DP in this case. I don't necessarily, even think a juror would really need much more than we know right now, to sentence this uncaring, unfeeling, callous monster to death.

And just for the record, I was against the DP for the longest time before this case. The reason being, I think death is obviously too final to even be 1% unsure if a person has committed the crime or not. But I am human and have had different reactions to this case.

lastly, I think we will see a lot more evidence in trial, that will be jaw dropping though. Remember, there are rules of evidence, that say not everything is released as a public record, that the defense already has. So, I'd bet the farm, there is more.

http://blinkoncrime.com/category/caylee-anthony-case/

I found another interesting article on the fingerprint discussion. I am so confused as to what is and what isn't on the tape in reference to finger prints. I'm going to say, for me, I will never be sure, until I hear it at trial. LOL! I just thought these were some interesting articles and I wanted to share them, if anyone wants to visit Blink and read them.

The laundry bag is another interesting piece of information. Where was this actually found? Was it in the garage or in KC's car? Hmmm....

AJ,

Yes, with that observation, you are probably right. Ah shucks. Well, I guess it doesn't make that big of a difference really. The laundry bags being the same still link back to the Anthony home, whether in the car or the garage.

Also, the Blink articles I posted here, I just noticed Snaz had posted them under the thread for the duct tape. However, I think them being in both places is appropriate being they discuss both finger prints AND the duct tape. So, hopefully, it's ok to be on both threads. Otherwise, J4A or Fysty, you are always free to move or delete my postings when needed. I always defer to your great wisdom on these things.

OK, folks, here we go again. Bringing the discussion of latent prints out again. What do you think?

http://www.thehinkymeter.com/?p=569

OK.... I am gonna go out on a limb here (and I suspect I'll be hearing from AJ about this...), but I STILL believe they have found fingerprint(s) on the duct tape. Given that the clothing was subjected to the elements for all those months and was deteriorated to the degree that it was, I don't believe the prints will be found there.... and as AJ stated, that would be no big deal to find any Anthony print on Caylee's clothes.

The only other item they could have found prints on (assuming Valhall's assessment is correct) would be the stone piece found in the areas of the remains. And if that is where they have a print (let's for the moment assume it belongs to KC).... well, I'm good with that, too!!!

I just have never quite given up on the belief that there was one or more prints found at the scene... and my money is still on the duct tape.

Let 'er rip, AJ........

Hahaha, AJ... it's OK... sometimes we get on a theory and just can't let go......... honestly, NOTHING more we learn either before trial or at the actual trial will surprise me..... NOTHING!

All I can say is I just cannot wait until trial and we get to have this thing laid out for us by LDB in her closing statement...... that's when we will probably get the clearest picture about what happened.

BTW, thanks for not ripping into me about those prints on the duct tape.... LOL I just can't let that one completely go.... And if they are not there come trial time, I will gladly bow to your wisdom.......

i dont think usable (can be argued in court as unreliable)..prints survived the submersion in the hurricane flooding, however, i do believe that the duct tape (sticky side) contained epithelial cells that can be used for DNA typing. These skin cells are shed constantly, and if you touch the sticky side of duct tape you can leave thousands of them behind.

crossing fingers... and prints at the crime scene would be FANTABULOUS too..

OK, here's a question though. IF the state did have KC'S fingerprints, wouldn't Baez have this knowledge already?

I guess I'm just looking to hear everyone's thoughts on IF Baez knows IF the state has them or not, at this point. And if in fact they do have prints, could the state not have given this info to him by now? I know there is some evidence that both the SA and the defense can have and NOT release until trial. Could this possibly be one of those items?

if it turns out, there are prints and the defense has known this for some time, boy, he's good, to be able to go out on the national circuit and with a straight face say she is innocent.

What about friction ridge prints? I read a post on Blink's by Blink about friction ridge prints, the type that would be on the sticky side of the duct tape, although those pieces of tape look too damaged to have any prints, who knows?

Tracey6434 wrote:OK, here's a question though. IF the state did have KC'S fingerprints, wouldn't Baez have this knowledge already?

I guess I'm just looking to hear everyone's thoughts on IF Baez knows IF the state has them or not, at this point. And if in fact they do have prints, could the state not have given this info to him by now? I know there is some evidence that both the SA and the defense can have and NOT release until trial. Could this possibly be one of those items?

if it turns out, there are prints and the defense has known this for some time, boy, he's good, to be able to go out on the national circuit and with a straight face say she is innocent.

As I understand it, they can retain certain information and not hand it over to the defense right away. I believe they are able to hold evidence as long as they are still "investigating" the information.... So I believe they could have KC's prints and not have given that info to JB and crew as of yet. If they have been able to obtain KC's prints from the crime scene, they would want to hold that as long as possible.

So, in short, yes... they could have KC's prints and JB NOT know about it at this point..... as I understand it.... LOL

Tracey6434 wrote:
if it turns out, there are prints and the defense has known this for some time, boy, he's good, to be able to go out on the national circuit and with a straight face say she is innocent.

Tracey....HE'S A LAWYER

Fysty, low opinion of lawyers huh?

sitemama wrote:Fysty, low opinion of lawyers huh?

NO ~~~>

aj... ?????????? what is this key that you speak of???

how in the heck did i miss that??

I BET that is why CA made it a point in the depo to point out that KC gave ZG a KEY!!!!!!! them sneaky b@stards!! in that case, at least we are SURE that ZGs prints are NOT on that key .. LOL!!

aj.. i think i am with you on this whole DC thing... he was WAY to close to have not had some "info" ... IMO i dont see how anyone in this mess is above tampering.. they have proved it time and again... lying is a lifestyle for these people.. evidence tampering is in no way a stretch... **ie. cleaning out the car that BOTH CA and GA were fully aware housed a dead body**

i just hold out hope that DC will do the right thing when push comes to shove.. i pray that he turns states evidence and spills the beans.. all of them.. and if he does, OH my they will have to create an entire anthony wing in the PRISON!!!