All About Chloroform#2

[Oakley]

Good point. Thank you.

However, wasn't there further email about the early release of chloroform info being a mistake - referring to the release not the info - but still my question is when the report(s) did come out - which I think was about a month or so later but not released to public for quite some time after that - did they confirm or contradict the "very high levels"?

I think these are the e-mails you are talking about. It is my understanding (which may or may not be correct) that the "mistake" was releasing the information prematurely, not necessarily the very high levels of chloroform.

----Original Message-----
From: Vincent, Michael (OCSO)
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 3:34 PM
To: 'Vass, Arpad Alexander'
Subject: RE: **Exempt**

Doc,

On another note. I want to apologize for the prerelease of your findings so far. I didn’t agree with it, for some reason and I still can’t figure out why, they wanted to release all our findings.

ASL/CSI Michael J. Vincent
OCSO/Forensics Unit

-----Original Message-----
From: Vass, Arpad Alexander
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 8:31 AM
To: Vincent, Michael (OCSO)
Subject: RE: **Exempt**

Mike, I try very hard not to second-guess people since I am well aware that I know very little of what is really going on in an investigation, but I think the early release of the chloroform data was a mistake. Since I am saying nothing to anyone outside my group, I am now getting criticized for other reasons and feel that it might be time to back away from this work. I will of course get the next report out to you and Yuri as promised as soon as I can. On a final note, some of the products we have seen include Pinene and Limonene. This could point to a (possibly) shallow marshy area with decaying vegetation. Is there such an area anywhere near where the car was found? Is it possible to get a topo map of the area? Would it be possible to speak to the individual leading the search from Necrosearch? Arpad

Arpad A. Vass, Ph.D.

 

[Lanie]

I have always believed the chloroform was somehow significant, and have yet to see anything that shows otherwise.

I don't have the link, but IIRC it was in the July or Aug 2009 doc. release about the chloroform found being in parts per million, when the expected levels would be parts per trillion. In my uneducated opinion, that means they found approximately at least 100 times more chloroform than what they should have.

 

[Brini]

Chloroform is produced during decomp and is one of the many chemicals produced during the process.

Personal Dr. Vass being who he is I think would account for such with in a certain range knowing that its a product of the decomp process.

To me its seems he is mentioning it because the amount found is not with in the normal range of what would be produced by decomp. Then again I could be way off base.

Yeah this case has been a little strange from the begining but most of the evidence in this case is pretty standard stuff.....this chloroform though just comes way out of left field for me.

Makes me wonder why Dr. Vass brought it up then kind of backed away saying well maybe we shouldn't have discussed it in his emails or something to that effect.

No, you're right.

Chloroform is a decomp product. However, it is not found in the levels that were present in the car.

 

[Brini]

Yes - odd to say the least. But please tell me more about "very high levels" - that's why I was asking. I know original media reports said "very high levels" and then there were discussions of whether this could have been some "accidental" creation from unintentional combining of certain chemicals and then there was discussion about chloroform being one of the products of decomp. But then came the doc dumps and I'm trying to find out if someone who understands such things better than I do, can determine from any of them whether the level was indeed "very high" or whether there are other explanations for a higher level or what might have been learned - if anything - from the reports. Ideally, someone will state what was proven or disproven (to them) and provide a link or a quote from the report/document and explain why they reached the conclusion they now have about "very high levels" or why they don't think they actually are that high or why a high level might still be a product of decomp.

Please remember that I said, "I tend to agree" that the chloroform was a product of decomp - not that I know it was - I'm still open to the possibility that it was more than that - but not willing to make the leap from the computer search to a conclusion that KC actually used it on Caylee without more understanding of the "science" than I now have. (After seeing some of the reports in the document dumps, I understand more about why an "expert" is called to the stand to testify about the conclusions that reports lead to rather than just giving the jury the report and letting them reach their own conclusions. Some of this stuff is a bit over my head and I need some WS "experts" to exlpain it.)

I really can't think how detectable levels of chloroform would be accidently combined from other products in the trunk of a car.

Anybody ever throw the trunk open, on a hot day, and smell swimming pool?

 

[Woe.be.gone]

In another thread BondJamesBond mentioned that he thought the chloroform was a product of decomp - a theory I tend to agree with - however, I mentioned that I had been told that "experts" had determined the levels were too high to be just the product of decomp - and he suggested that I bring this up in the chloroform thread so here I am.

The person who told me that is not on WS but I think I recall it being discussed here too - only some of that discussion was before certain document dumps. So I'm wondering if there was clarification in any of the doc dumps that settled this - were the levels too high to be product of decomp? What are your thoughts on this argument now?

And BJB, I hope you stop by to weigh in on this as well........

We can then ask the question, "Why would the high chloroform levels found in the trunk be caused by human decomposition of a small child?"

I found the following interesting, taken from the Technology Transfer Network Air Toxics Web Site regarding Chloroform (revised January 2000)

Under "Assessing Personal Exposure" the following:

"Chloroform can be detected in blood, urine, and body tissues. However, these methods are not very reliable because chloroform is rapidly eliminated from the body, ..."

Under "Sources and Potential Exposure" the following:

"Chloroform may be released to the air from a large number of sources ... chlorination of drinking water, wastewater, and SWIMMING POOLS." bbm

So, if chloroform is rapidly eliminated from one's body what would be the cause of a child's decomposing body to release a large amount of chloroform behind? I would think that could happen if the child had died due to drowning in the swimming pool.

note: Please don't read that I said that is what happened, I'm only suggesting that it could still be the cause. I think it's more probable than having the high chloroform levels being caused by decomposition from a non drowning death. The chloroform could also still be from an outside source as well.

I also noted that chloroform can be used in photographic processing and/or also it is used to extract morphine from poppies - - among many other usages, freon etc. (www.osha.gov)

It has been discontinued as a consumer product since 1976 but is still used in commercial applications with guidance given to the manufacturer as to how it should be handled.

One might like to know that as recently as 1976 it could be found in toothpaste and from what I can tell it is used to manufacture Teflon (great!) and plastics? No wonder I've had cancer, as I used to heat up my coffee in a big plastic cup to carry with me on my ride to work everyday :bang::boohoo:

 

[Whyamisointerested]

We can then ask the question, "Why would the high chloroform levels found in the trunk be caused by human decomposition of a small child?"

I found the following interesting, taken from the Technology Transfer Network Air Toxics Web Site regarding Chloroform (revised January 2000)

Under "Assessing Personal Exposure" the following:

"Chloroform can be detected in blood, urine, and body tissues. However, these methods are not very reliable because chloroform is rapidly eliminated from the body, ..."

Under "Sources and Potential Exposure" the following:

"Chloroform may be released to the air from a large number of sources ... chlorination of drinking water, wastewater, and SWIMMING POOLS." bbm

So, if chloroform is rapidly eliminated from one's body what would be the cause of a child's decomposing body to release a large amount of chloroform behind? I would think that could happen if the child had died due to drowning in the swimming pool.

note: Please don't read that I said that is what happened, I'm only suggesting that it could still be the cause. I think it's more probable than having the high chloroform levels being caused by decomposition from a non drowning death. The chloroform could also still be from an outside source as well.

I also noted that chloroform can be used in photographic processing and/or also it is used to extract morphine from poppies - - among many other usages, freon etc. (www.osha.gov)

It has been discontinued as a consumer product since 1976 but is still used in commercial applications with guidance given to the manufacturer as to how it should be handled.

One might like to know that as recently as 1976 it could be found in toothpaste and from what I can tell it is used to manufacture Teflon (great!) and plastics? No wonder I've had cancer, as I used to heat up my coffee in a big plastic cup to carry with me on my ride to work everyday :bang::boohoo:

One of my thoughts has always been that poor Caylee had wanted to go and swim and had swam the night before, and had snuck out and drown while KC was on Facebook or whatever, and that somehow the connection was between the chlorine and cleaning products( used to clean the smell out of the car(not found in the car,cleaners that we wouldnt even know about),and the decomp..???..

However,,,,Interesting to note that cholorform is used in photographic processing..So that might be something Found in a lab at Full Sail Univ.??maybe??I believe one of KC's hobbies were photos..that was very obvious with her computer usage and bedroom wall hangings etc...???:bang:

omg--just thought of something--KODAK---wow...I wonder if that is how she could have obtained it somehow??

 

[magic-cat]

Casey had not worked for Kodak since before August of 2005 when she left to take her leave to give birth to Caylee and for pregnancy (she had already been placed on "light duty" prior to this departure). She was then, officially terminated in April 2006 by Colorvision, who had taken over Kodak, due to the fact that she never completed her paperwork or did anything to indicate she still wished to continue working for them, so it is doubtful that she obtained it from Kodak/Colorvision.

 

[Whyamisointerested]

right, she had been gone from Kodak etc. for quite some time, I know.. however, might she know about the use of chloroform and photography? I cant imagine that at the kodak booth there was Chloroform ...But she might have taken classes and knew about the Chloroform that way??Did she ever develop photographs at home, where she would have had something?? Was she close friends with someone who was a photographer??hmmm..Just tossing out ideas...

 

[magic-cat]

right, she had been gone from Kodak etc. for quite some time, I know.. however, might she know about the use of chloroform and photography? I cant imagine that at the kodak booth there was Chloroform ...But she might have taken classes and knew about the Chloroform that way??Did she ever develop photographs at home, where she would have had something?? Was she close friends with someone who was a photographer??hmmm..Just tossing out ideas...

And you're ideas are thought provoking...but in this case, we do after all have those google searches of how to make chloroform and I doubt if she was searching how to make it that she had obtained any from another source. I swear I think she duct taped a chloroform soaked rag over that baby's face and left her to die in the trunk of her car. I think she taped it tightly, and that it was only dislodged after Caylee decomposed and the wildlife had a go at her. I believe it was the entire reason for the duct tape, and the heart sticker was her way of saying goodbye and goodriddance. I am one of those who DOES believe she was routinely using something, most likely chloroform, to knock Caylee out. I think she had been doing it for at least weeks, and perhaps even months and I think she administered that lethal dose and threw her in the trunk TO die. Thus the high levels of chloroform IN the trunk. The soaked rag would have continued to emit vapors for some time, and once it was soaked into her face and the duct tape and probably her hair as well it continued to permeate the trunk. :furious:

 

[Whyamisointerested]

Yes I do believe that there were times when Caylee was unaccounted for..hmmm...The problem is wouldnt we have other evidence of Chor. usage...IDK maybe we do and we dont know it yet? Where would the soaked rag be? Wouldnt there be particles on the duct tape?Is there??

 

[BondJamesBond]

In another thread BondJamesBond mentioned that he thought the chloroform was a product of decomp - a theory I tend to agree with - however, I mentioned that I had been told that "experts" had determined the levels were too high to be just the product of decomp - and he suggested that I bring this up in the chloroform thread so here I am.

The person who told me that is not on WS but I think I recall it being discussed here too - only some of that discussion was before certain document dumps. So I'm wondering if there was clarification in any of the doc dumps that settled this - were the levels too high to be product of decomp? What are your thoughts on this argument now?

And BJB, I hope you stop by to weigh in on this as well........

Sorry to take so long, aafromaa. Thanks for bringing it over here.

The "unusually high levels of chloroform" were mentioned in this LIBS report from the body farm, pg 27 and again on pg 29:

http://www.wftv.com/download/2008/1024/17794795.pdf

it states the amount of chloroform is much higher than usually found during decomp.

Big TY, treeseeker! :clap: I haven't been able to stay current on the case and your link sent me right where I wanted to go.

No, you're right.

Chloroform is a decomp product. However, it is not found in the levels that were present in the car.

"Aye, there's the rub". :thumb:

First - lemme say I'm not trying to convince anyone...just doin' what I can to help w/ what little I do understand :bang: We have WS that are much more qualified than I to speak to the details (where'd Bev go anyway?). They can chime in and fix anything I post that needs it.

I also don't think anything we post here is going to settle this definitively either...just based on the information we have...and how we have to parse words & expert opinions, but, lemme take a shot anyway.

1) Don't be too concerned about where you can find chloroform in day-to-day items as a source for this trunk event. The levels of chloroform in the trunk were high enough to be commented on as distinguishing, which wouldn't be achieveable by things that we can interact with (e.g. dryer sheets, pool water, etc.). You could pack the trunk full of dryer sheets, or fill it w/ pool water and you'd never get the amount of chlorine necessary. Just can't get there from here.

2) Everything is relative. The scientists are comparing the amount of chloroform present relative to other things (e.g. its concentration in air) AND relative to what SHOULD be there. Well the SHOULD part gets confusing, 'cause first they gotta show that there are 2 "shoulds". First, they have to compare things they find in Casey's trunk to what they think should be there if NO human decomposition took place - remember that is their first objective - priority#1!!! Did a HDE take place in that trunk?!? Hell yes, it did. Conclusive.

3) Speculating about whether of not the concentrations and components they find tell us anything more (e.g. cause of death) is tougher...cause there is no database on how much chloroform SHOULD be in the trunk for human decomposition events. "Experts" have commented in the media on their opinion...and that's fine...just realize we all have opinions and these aren't scientifically proven conclusions...just opinions to consider + and -. To prove what the level of chloroform SHOULD be in the trunk just isn't gonna happen. It takes too much data to prove it statistically...we don't have it...not gonna get it.

Of course Arped is going to comment on the chloroform observation. Its only good practice to bring this up as remarkable. Wish he had commented that he expected to see some (he was silent on that). I believe his comment is prolly fueling the notion that this was somehow chloroform that was pure/pharmaceutical grade, etc. However, as was treated by Dog2Mom (IIRC) in the emails thread, GC's are measuring the relative amounts of the compounds...not the form that they are in....so Arped wasn't looking at information that told him it was pure chloroform in the trunk...just looking at an amount much higher than 'background' that suggested to him it should be investigated further.

None of this explains the computer search on making chloroform. I know, I know. So...this certainly leaves room to consider that the chloroform present was in addition to that which originated from the HDE...just leaves the door open. Just one hell of a coincidence IMHO and that's just one opinion. We read in the emails 'bout the chloroform info being released and Arped getting some grief. IMHO, this grief coming from his colleagues was prolly over the notion that the chloroform was esp. high. IMHO, LE wanted to turn a family member quickly in this case and thought the computer searches might do the trick. They took a gamble and lost. And as a result...we have this confusion over what is prolly a coincidence..yet...won't hurt SA's case any either.

The blanket soaked in decomp 'standard' that was obtained...well...IIRC, it was encapsulated somehow, but, consider that the child was in the trunk in an arid environment for a much, much, much longer time than Caylee Chloroform is very volatile. I'm not surprised that - even if they took every precaution to preserve - the level of chloroform remaining in this blanket sample was nil/NDA. Also noteworthy, that the child was wrapped in a blanket vs. Caylee (I believe) prolly spent time in the trunk in the plastic bag(s). This means Caylee's decomp was likely under even more anaerobic (oxygen-deprived) (vs. aerobic) conditions than the blanket standard. Too much detail needed here, but, early stages of decomp (owing to internal organs, etc. encapsulated by the covering of skin, etc.) is anaerobic. In Caylee's case...being inside a plastic bag ensures anaerobic conditions ++ IMHO. Human decomp in anaerobic conditions INCREASES the amount of chloroform generated vs. aerobic conditions. So...one thing to consider in all of this is when 'experts' comment on what amount/concentration of chloroform SHOULD be present (a) they don't have a database to compare the results against to make this statement statistically, and (b) they may not be taking into account the ++ anaerobic conditions Caylee's HDE experienced since esp. media 'experts' were commenting on this BEFORE Caylee was found (e.g. didn't know about the plastic bags).

4) Read this exceprt closely from page 27 of link treeseeker provided:

"Of particular interest is the large concentration of chloroform (not a common ingredient in commercial products) and the presence of sulfur containing compounds in the Florida trunk carpet sample which are particularly characteristic of decompositional events."​

B & Color BM for emphasis. Choice of wording & punctuation leaves room for interpretation, of course, but, this is 'bout as good as it gets.

My apologies for ramblin' and poorly organized post...just gettin' it out there FWIW. There are plenty of holes to poke in this...just consider that it is intended to help, not convince.

 

[doogiesgirl]

I had a hard time reading all the scientific stuff so forgive how ignorant I sound but when I tried reading those emails b/t OCSO and BF I got to feeling like the Dr. from the BF was trying to backtrack alittle after someone leaked that there were unusually high concentrations of chloroform detected in the trunk. I must had misunderstood as I got to thinking well maybe he (the Doc) is not so confident in the levels he found. So did those emails just completely go over my head? Anyone? Thanks...moo

 

[Tuffy]

I had a hard time reading all the scientific stuff so forgive how ignorant I sound but when I tried reading those emails b/t OCSO and BF I got to feeling like the Dr. from the BF was trying to backtrack alittle after someone leaked that there were unusually high concentrations of chloroform detected in the trunk. I must had misunderstood as I got to thinking well maybe he (the Doc) is not so confident in the levels he found. So did those emails just completely go over my head? Anyone? Thanks...moo

That was exactly my initial reaction to the email, too.

From: Vass, Arpad Alexander
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 8:31 AM
To: Vincent, Michael (OCSO)
Subject: RE: **Exempt**

Mike, I try very hard not to second-guess people since I am well aware that I know very little of what is really going on in an investigation, but I think the early release of the chloroform data was a mistake. Since I am saying nothing to anyone outside my group, I am now getting criticized for other reasons and feel that it might be time to back away from this work. I will of course get the next report out to you and Yuri as promised as soon as I can. On a final note, some of the products we have seen include Pinene and Limonene. This could point to a (possibly) shallow marshy area with decaying vegetation. Is there such an area anywhere near where the car was found? Is it possible to get a topo map of the area? Would it be possible to speak to the individual leading the search from Necrosearch? Arpad

Arpad A. Vass, Ph.D.

Especially the bolded statement. I wish the criticisms were explained. Was he criticized for releasing the results early, or were the results themselves criticized?

He says that he thinks the release of the results was a mistake. I wonder what caused him to regret it?

 

[BondJamesBond]

Especially the bolded statement. I wish the criticisms were explained. Was he criticized for releasing the results early, or were the results themselves criticized?

He says that he thinks the release of the results was a mistake. I wonder what caused him to regret it?

*snipped*

FWIW, IMHO, in the scientific community, you are surrounded by critics...its the nature of the beast - so to speak. By that I mean that scientists are supposed to be critical thinkers. That, by its very nature, means that experts disagree on how anything is interpretted. In addition to facts, egos get involved and it can become a game of who has the biggest reputation in a given field, etc. Scientists like to shoot each other down as a means to suggest they are smarter than the other guy. Add to it that there are typically procedures & protocol to follow when releasing technical findings/reports. When a non-scientific entity, (e.g. LE/SA) decides to do something for their own reasons...not necessarily based on the pure technical information...this can lead to bucking the scientists. Scientists like to think they are purists...after the truth w/o politics. I realize I'm generalizing, but, am doing so to make a point. I live/work in this kinda world professionally and see the kinda thing all the time.

Arped has to deal w/ his colleagues and protect his reputation which is his career/livelihood. When his colleagues found out what was being said in the news they prolly knew it sounded like a buncha hack science (owing to expected chloroform) and started giving Arped and his management some grief...suggesting they were doing less than a thorough job (see 'shooting each other down' above). When, almost certainly as you can tell from Arped's email he had no say in how the info was used by LE/SA. Poor guy. He didn't wanna get pulled from working on it, so he suggested letting things cool off a bit IOW...doing some internal damage control.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I had a hard time reading all the scientific stuff so forgive how ignorant I sound but when I tried reading those emails b/t OCSO and BF I got to feeling like the Dr. from the BF was trying to backtrack alittle after someone leaked that there were unusually high concentrations of chloroform detected in the trunk. I must had misunderstood as I got to thinking well maybe he (the Doc) is not so confident in the levels he found. So did those emails just completely go over my head? Anyone? Thanks...moo

I took it as he was sorry that info was leaked, but he feels he and his people had nothing to do with the leak (but how would he really know as you can't control other people), so therefore, he's uncomfortable because he means no harm and doesn't want to hurt the case. Maybe he was saying he doesn't want this kind of negative attention so it would be best if he bow out?

My impression was that he was not backing down from his findings but that maybe he didn't want the publicity if it was going to be so hot and ugly.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

After reading Bond's post above, I feel kind of stupid posting anything about anything science related but one more thing I read about Chloroform that I'm not sure I've seen mentioned in laymen's terms anyway is:

Taken from a Company's specs "MSDS Number C2915" effective 7/2/09 regarding Chloroform - "When released into air, this material is expected to have a half-life of greater than 30 days."

What exactly does this mean?

 

[Tuffy]

After reading Bond's post above, I feel kind of stupid posting anything about anything science related but one more thing I read about Chloroform that I'm not sure I've seen mentioned in laymen's terms anyway is:

Taken from a Company's specs "MSDS Number C2915" effective 7/2/09 regarding Chloroform - "When released into air, this material is expected to have a half-life of greater than 30 days."

What exactly does this mean?

It will take greater than 30 days for chloroform to decay to half of its initial value.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

It will take greater than 30 days for chloroform to decay to half of its initial value.

So that would mean that the amounts they determined were present in the trunk must have been one half again more than what they could actually measure when they had the evidence in hand. Right?

Also I read that Chloroform should never be stored in plastic or metal containers.

 

[BondJamesBond]

...not sure it'll help, but, after re-reading above...here's another angle.

What they are doing is effectively trying to reverse-engineer what was actually in the trunk. Its a bit like tasting a cake and determining the recipe from your keenly developed sense of taste. Add to that what you can learn from cake recipes. From most recipes you have a good idea of the relative amounts of each different kind of common ingredient (e.g. 2x as much flour as sugar and 1000x as much flour as vanillin, etc.) should be in the cake. If you tasted a cake and thought, "Whoa! Waaaay too much vanillin!" well, then, you might think someone (a) added too much, or (b) spilled the vanillin bottle into the batter Add a little sleuthin' and learn that on the day after the cake was baked you found a receipt for a new bottle of vanillin...and AHA!! You think you've solved it. Right? The baker put in too much! You knew it!!

Then you learn the truth. The baker forgot to stir the batter, and it just so happens that the bite you got contained 100% of the vanillin that was in the cake!!

Moral of the story...we make assumptions when we draw conclusions. Some assumptions are good ones...and some...well...not so much.

What do we know?

• We know that chloroform is produced from anaerobic HDE
• We know an HDE took place in Casey's trunk
• We know chloroform was detected in Casey's trunk & not in a similar one w/o a HDE
• We know Casey searched how to make chloroform March '08

Now...IMHO the first three items in that list are repeatable...IOW...do the same thing 100 times and you're likely to get the same results ~100 times.

The last thing in that list...well...that's where you make an assumption on how much initiative you think Casey is capable of. My :twocents: I can't think of one other example that shows Casey demonstrated the kinda effort it would've taken to either obtain or produce chloroform. Make your own assumption, but, I can't get from Casey-read-about-it TO Casey-did-something-about-it.

BTW...in the case of the Pontiac trunk...its more like the scientists have to sort out from everything we think might've been in the pantry...if it was too much vanillin that screwed up the cake. That's a toughie fershure.

 

[BondJamesBond]

So that would mean that the amounts they determined were present in the trunk must have been one half again more than what they could actually measure when they had the evidence in hand. Right?

Sorta...but not really. Getting that info from an MSDS is taking information from a very specifically determined set of conditions and applying to one that had wildy varying conditions. In general...that 'half-life' concept is correct (although it doesn't decay), but, I wouldn't draw the conclusion that you did...even though I understand why you did.

Take for example the trunk filled w/ chloroform...then G&C open it and ventillate it for...oh...say...overnight. That has much more of an effect on what was measured by LE than the 'half life' of a steady-state situation (e.g. MSDS measurement).

Also I read that Chloroform should never be stored in plastic or metal containers.

For safety & use purposes.