Latest Posts

Remember Erika Courtney, the Anthony’s worst nightmare

Casey Anthony’s parents speak, promo

The Anthony’s speak on AETV

ROY KRONK: Let defamation case against Casey Anthony go to trial

Advertisements

Casey Anthony update 26 June 2009 It’s not about Caylee

Received this from one of the people who post on the site. 

So often we “bloggers” have asked ourselves, where is the one family member, that ONE blood relative who will step forward and demand Justice for Caylee? There are hundreds of thousands of Americans who are demanding that justice, loud and clear. Yet her family seems to have a different agenda. One blogger took it upon herself to ask that question of a great uncle of Caylees’.

She made a call to Ohio and stated that our facts come directly from LE and she asked when is ONE family member going to take a stand for Caylee?

She was told “well Caylee died you know” and then she was told that “George and Cindy had spent several days recently in Ohio with family and had a really good time.” This was the week of the vigil-which not one family member attended.  Lee did do a drive by lookyloo. Yes we saw you Lee.

It appears that now that George and Cindy have the money, they are no longer the “poor bankrupt relations, but are being taken back into the “fold’.  Is the entire family going to unite in the ‘business” Cindy has begun? Are they all going to bask in the “fame and fortune ‘ gained by Caylees’ murder. They can even boast now that Casey is housed in the same wing as Billy Bob Thornton daughter, MY MY the lifestyle of the rich and famous.- all at the cost of a beautiful little child.  How proud they must be-the family that spends together. Or is that spins?

I thought Rick Pleasea might do the right thing at one time-but so far HE is keeping a low profile. I would like to challenge just ONE blood relative-please come stand with us-stand up and demand Justice for Caylee- can ONE of you do that?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh my goodness, all this about the autopsy report being released and the crying George did in court was all a show.  Not to mention that they had to go on National TV and put on a show for the world on the 16th of June about it being a year since they had seem her, blah, blah, blah!  Why am I not surprised?  And why did I know that they are all a show.

RECAP: Evidence Report Part 2 of 2

fbilabtop
Results of Examinations:
Comparison of geologic materials for the purposes of determining a common origin is accomplished by
using one or more analytical techniques.
These techniques can include:
Munsell color determination in a light box under day light conditions; the determination of
texture using stereobinocular and pétrographie microscopes; and the identification of components
present and their relative abundances using stereobinocular and pétrographie microscopes and
additional instrumental methods as needed. The actual tests performed are dependent on the
type(s) and quantity of the geologic material present, and the needs of the examination/analytical
requirements. The properties expressed are used as comparison criteria. When specimens are
indistinguishable in all their observed properties, the possibility that the compared specimens
originated from the same source cannot be eliminated.

Twenty-two pairs of footwear and a transport bag (Q249 through Q29,3) were
submitted for comparison of any soil present to soil recovered from the vicinity of the crime
scene (K15 though K30). The footwear was received packaged in pairs. Because of the
possibility of transfer between items packaged in contact with each other, the debris from each
pair of shoes was recovered to a single container and examined collectively. Each container of
debris from a pair of shoes is denoted with the specimen numbers of both shoes, for example,
Q249-Q250. Specimen Q253 contained a fragment of glass embedded in the sole of the shoe.
This glass fragment could not have been the result of transfer from specimen Q254 and is
denoted as debris from specimen Q253.

No geologic materials were recovered from specimens Q249-Q250, Q251-Q252, Q254, Q255-Q256,
Q257-Q258, Q259-Q260, Q263-Q264, Q265-Q266, Q267-Q268, Q271-Q272, Q273-Q274, Q279-Q280,
Q283-Q284, Q287-Q288, and Q291-Q292.
Debris containing geologic materials was recovered from specimens Q253, Q261-
Q262, Q269-Q270, Q275-Q276, Q277-Q278, Q281-Q282, Q285-Q286, Q289-Q290, and Q293.
These specimens were examined visually using a stereo binocular microscope. Specimens Q253,
Q261-Q262, Q281-Q282, Q285-Q286, Q289-Q290, and Q293 contain insufficient geologic
materials for meaningful comparison to the recovered soils from the crime scene (K16 through
K18 and K20 through K29). Specimens K15, K19, and K30 are principally composed of plant
materials, and contain insufficient geologic materials for comparison.

Soil and/or sediment recovered from specimens Q269-Q270, Q275-Q276, and Q277-
Q278 is different in color than the soils and debris from the crime scene (K15 through K30).
Additionally, abundant plant material is present in soils from the crime scene that is not present
in the soil and/or sediment recovered from specimens Q269-Q270, Q275-Q276, and Q277-Q278.

Accordingly, the soil and/or sediment recovered from specimens Q269-Q270, Q275-Q276, and
Q277-Q278 did not originate from the crime scene as represented by specimens K16 through
Kl 8 and K20 through K29.

The inability to associate specimens through a mineralogical examination does not
preclude that the item(s) could have been present at the area in question. Soil differs both across
the land and down the soil profile as a function of parent material, climate, biological activity,
geography, and time, yielding soil which is distinct from place to place and with depth below the
surface. These changes can occur abruptly or gradually. Therefore, the soil samples from a
specific location must be interpreted to represent only that site, and may not exemplify all soils in
the area or soil that may have been present in the past.

Botanical examinations are not currently being conducted in the Federal Bureau of
Investigation Laboratory. Universities and local extension services may be of some assistance in
the analysis of plant material.

Debris recovered from the trunk of a vehicle (Q26 through Q28), and debris recovered
from a shovel (Q46 and Q46.1) were submitted in an attempt to determine the provenance of any
soil present. There is insufficient soil present in the debris from inside the trunk and from the
trunk interior and fender well interior (Q27 and Q28, respectively), with which to undertake a
provenance study. Debris from the trunk (Q26) contains mineral grain with textural features of
widely differing environments. Although it is possible that these different environments were
once present in the same location across geologic time, this material probably represents an
accumulation of materials from different sources collected into the trunk over a period of time.
Because these materials are intimately mixed, no sources of these materials can be determined.
Multiple soils were recovered from the shovel and label on the shovel (Q46 and
Q46.1, respectively). This examination was discontinued after the discovery of the victim’s
body.

Remarks:
The results of other examinations will be the subject of separate reports. The
specimens will be returned to you under separate cover at the completion of the FBI Laboratory
examinations. The supporting documentation for the opinions and interpretations expressed in
this report is retained in the FBI Laboratory files.

For questions about the content of this report,
please contact Geologist/Forensic Examiner Maureen C. Bottrell at (703) 632-xxxx. For
questions regarding the status of the specimens, please contact Evidence Control Unit Request
Coordinator Erin Martin at (703) 632-xxxx.
Maureen C. Bottrell
Trace Evidence Unit
This report contains the opinions/interpretations of the examiner(s) who issued the report.