Casey Anthony: Duct Tape Matches Duct Tape at the Anthony Home
Did it or didn’t it. It appears we FINALLY have an answer!
From MyFox Orlando:
The State Attorney’s Office released about 500 pages and photographs of legal and investigative documents in the case against Casey Anthony Wednesday morning.
The big news: investigators say the duct tape discovered on Caylee Anthony’s skull at the crime scene matches duct tape stuck on a gas can at the Anthony’s’ house.
Photos released show strips of silver-colored duct tape and several plastic bags scattered at the site where Caylee’s remains were found. Right now reporters are digging through the information. In the hundreds of pages of discovery, photographs of the crime scene and more interviews. At least one interview with Casey Anthony’s friends say she had an emotional breakdown and “wanted to be committed”
Orange County detectives reports says that the small skull was near a black plastic bag, the skull didn’t have any flesh left on it, but “quite a bit of hair” was still present,
Detective Yuri Melich says “I immediately noticed that there appeared to be a piece of silver duct tape across the mouth area of the skull, then goes on to say, “The tape appeared to have been purposely placed there.”
This entry was posted on February 18, 2009 at 7:07 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post's comments.
Tags: Anthony Body Found, Anthony Duct Tape, Anthony Eulogy, Anthony Family, Anthony February 18, Anthony Funeral, Anthony Memorial, Anthony Suicide, Anthony Text Message, Anthony Text Messages, Anthony Trial, Anthony Update, Brad Conway, Casey Anthony, Caylee, Caylee Anthony, Caylee Body Found, Caylee Duct Tape, Caylee Eulogy, Caylee February 18, Caylee Funeral, Caylee Memorial, Caylee Update, Cindy Anthony, George Anthony, Jose Baez, Lee Anthony, Leonard Padilla, Missing Child, Missing Girl, Nancy Grace, Roy Kronk, Tim Miller, Todd Black, Tot Mom
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
February 18, 2009 at 11:09 am
This is going to be a sad day in the A household today and forever! Wow This is BIG!!!
February 18, 2009 at 11:42 am
But NO FINGERPRINTS??? Someone must have been wearing gloves……….
Any more about the “Velveeta cutting” knife found in the trunk??
February 20, 2009 at 2:50 am
This Duct Tape “match” DOES seem a bit far-fetched and seemingly the least-likey piece of “We’ve got you now!” evidence in this case, BUT, there ARE, in fact, ways of actually scientifically comparing and proving a torn-off or scissor-cut piece of Duct Tape with a roll with the same “batch-code”. Contrary to what we all tend to think, there are manufacturing differences in every roll, somewhat like the lines which make-up our fingerprints, which experts in these types of cases can and do narrow-down and single-out. More intersting was the recent report that neither George, Cindy, or Lee’s fingerprints were found on the Duct Tape (no mention of Casey’s), suggesting that the roll from which it came was “new” and not previously in the Household. All in all, this particular issue still remains cloudy. As for Nancy Grace, say what you will, but make sure you know what you’re talking about… Her former long-time Fiance, the love of her life, was brutally and violently murdered some years ago, and she absolutely very damn well DOES know what it’s like to have been, and still BE, a Crime Victim. Good thing YOU’RE not a “clueless” Reporter!
February 21, 2009 at 12:41 am
I like Nancy Grace. I think she keeps stories alive and media interest strong and doesn’t let victims become forgotten.
February 22, 2009 at 2:48 am
Just want to clear-up the meaning of “Victim” for those who may not know there are actually two applications for this word, per the Dictionary, and the Law. No matter what word precedes or follows it (i.e. “Crime”, “of Circumstance”), both recognize a Victim as (1)”One who is DIRECTLY Acted-on, as being injured or destroyed”, and (2)”One who is ADVERSELY AFFECTED by a Direct Act upon another and subjected to overwhelming oppression or hardships as a result”.
(This is the one used by Attorneys for their “living” clients/survivors, as it is Legal opinion that “any person” who is “affected by”, “suffers from”, or “bears the burdens” generated by “an act upon an individual close to that person” is, in fact, also a
Victim of that Crime). Certainly the “living” don’t know what it’s like to be the one whose life no longer exists, but Jackie Kennedy, Sharon Tate’s husband, John Walsh, Nicole Simpson’s family, Lacy Peterson’s parents, George and Cindy Anthony, and yes, Nancy Grace) all have been referred to, stated verbally and in print, by police, reporters, attorneys, and even in broadcasts between themselves, as being “Victims of this/that Crime”. It’s true, viewers either can’t get enough of her, or can’t stomach her, and I myself don’t always agree with how she puts some things across, but to “Iuvanrs” above, Thanks for at least recognizing unparrelled dedication, concern for the truth, and heart-felt compassion for “victims” of tragedies (living and dead) and fallen Military, rather than taking cheap shots at her past personal activities. So the heck WHAT. Is anyone here interested in sharing your perfect Angelic life? Let’s move ON huh.
February 26, 2009 at 12:56 am
Well, you’re doing better, you’ve got half of it right. Yes, Nancy’s fiance was the Victim who DIED. However, our dispute still lies with your statement that she “Was never a Victim of any Crime in her lifetime”, and your failure to realize that Criminal Law recognizes those left behind as “Crime Victims” as well. One does NOT need to be DEAD to be a Victim of a Crime. A Crime is in fact a “happening”, an “event”, and whoever it generates an infliction upon as a result of it, IS considered a Victim within the realm of that act, even if they are living. Victims of a Crime encompass BOTH scenerios. Pay closer attention to the reporters, attorneys, police, and family members of whatever Crime like this you come across, and I’ll bet my life that you will surely hear what I mean, and hopefully gain an understanding that living survivors are not “clueless” as to what it feels like to be a “Victim”.
February 27, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Tina4washington/michellefrommadison,
I have been informed that you have the same IP address and that your responses are coming from the same computer. I”m sure you could be two different people, using one computer, but some of my readers are concerned. Not a big issue for me but it isn’t necessary.
My site has always been a place for discussion, without taking any personal shots at anyone. I love the fact that you have a different point of view than many on this site. But please, remain respectful and the second name that’s agreeing with all of your statements isn’t necessary
Thanks!
February 27, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Works for me! Let’s just keep it clean. That’s all I ask on this Web site.
February 28, 2009 at 12:58 am
WOW! I can only say 3 things…. (1) I have been one of those Kreuzer’s readers with suspicions about “Tina4Washington” all along. While the technical explanation about this “different person” sounds convincing, and although Kreuzer may elegantly accept it, I’m afraid, upon learning this revelation, future responses-in-agreement from the same computer cannot help but continue to generate mistrust on an even greater level than before. The fact that “Tina” hasn’t gone on the Websites at her own place and respond on her own computer is, sorry, just too coincidental. (2) Operating a “basic” computer is just that. Basic. Theorizing that people don’t understand the basics is ridiculous. I’m not only sure that those concerned people on several other Sites were knowledgible enough to figure this out, but the “Basics” ARE the very thing most people know. It takes “basic” knowledge to even do what we’re all doing. Consider the source?? (3) My best-friend’s husband is a Criminal Attorney with 18 years under his belt. Every entry in which I’ve attempted to explain the Law’s blanket view on Crime Victims, living and dead, is accurate. I’m now done with this, as my desire to take advantage of the interesting, enjoyable opportunity of communicating thoughts on current News and Issues is why I’m here, and far more important to me than needing to win what has become a stupid argument.
February 28, 2009 at 9:03 am
I’ve always taken people for their word. I just hope that everyone can keep the Web site civil. That is all I have ever asked of everyone
February 28, 2009 at 9:08 am
Honeydog,
Very nice response. I hope that everyone can stick to the topic at hand and discuss. If everyone can stay on topic and have a great discussion, maybe the talk will benefit all. My suggestion is this: if you don’t feel it necessary to respond to anyone’s particular comments, all of us can always ignore them and carry on a discussion as if they are not there. I won’t take away a comment unless it is slanderous or is…i’m blanking on the word right now
Distasteful. That’s it! I hope that everyone continues to read as I have enjoyed the discussions you have all brought to the table!
Thanks!
April 19, 2011 at 12:57 pm
Excellent, I have a few questions though is it ok to post them here?