Page 45 of 82 FirstFirst ... 35 43 44 45 46 47 55 ... LastLast
Results 661 to 675 of 1223
  1. #661
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,167
    For the record the components of early decomposition have higher conc. of products from anaerobic reactions because more of the decomposition takes place inside the body. Decomposition tends to more aerobic when it all leaks out.

    The products found here are more consistent with those early stages, that's why we are all refering to the body being in trunk for first 2.5 to 3 days.

    I DO NOT think chloroform is a factor in the crime, or more correctly there is not enough evidence of that YET. There was a higher than expected amount of chloroform in the trunk. But that can be explained. My suggestion is cleaning products. Bleach mixed with other solvents. You are warned not to do that because of reactions causing chlorine and chlorine products.
    Do not go gentle into that good night.
    _________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


  2. #662
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    713
    Exactly, it doesn't say the amount was unusual for an anaerobic event and it doesn't say that it was usual. It doesn't say that chloroform was used as a murder weapon, but it does say that NO additional chemicals, e.g. acetone or alcohol, which are the main components of manufactured chloroform, were detected.

    It says that "residues of chloroform" were found within some specimens, but not all specimens. The report says that the standards have not yet been run so we don't know if the amount was so unusually high as to indicate that chloroform was introduced to the body before the hde took place. Until standards are made available we don't know if the amount was higher than usual in a hde or not.

    There are no standards whatsoever for child hdes. None. And that is exactly what the defense experts are going to point out.

    p.s. Hercule, the 2.5 days is based on the LIBS results, not the MSC results.


  3. #663
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,337
    Quote Originally Posted by Bev View Post
    Chloroform is detected in ALL human decomposition events. A higher level of chloroform is detected in those events in which the body was kept in an anaerobic condition.

    The report says that compounds that were tentatively identified by mass spectral library match have NOT yet been run for standards.

    Lanie, correct, a larger amount than is typically seen in human decomposition, but it does not say that the amount is unusual for a hde in anaerobic conditions.

    From the forensic report (emphasis mine):

    Carbon, "disulfide *
    . , appears very early in human decomposition (<100ADDsa) *
    Q ' appears in both aerobic and anaerobic decomposition

    Carbon tetrachloride
    appears very early in human decomposition (<100 ADDs)
    appears in both aerobic and anaerobic decomposition
    potentially a human specific marker (not seen in select animal remains)

    Chloroform
    appears very early in human decomposition (<1Q0 ADDs)
    primarily detected in deprived oxygen (anaerobic) decompositions

    Dimethyl trisulfide
    appears very early in human decomposition (<100 ADDs)
    appears in both aerobic and anaerobic decomposition

    Dimethyl disulfide
    appears very early in human decomposition (<100 ADDs)
    appears in both aerobic and anaerobic decomposition
    Chloroform (at least in this report) is set apart from the other VOCs as being detected primarily in anaerobic decompositions.

    ETA: So it stands to reason that if chloroform is primarily detected in deprived oxygen (anaerobic) decompositions and the amount detected is "an unusually large concentration of chloroform - far greater than what is typically seen in human decomposition--then the amount of chloroform detected in this case is far greater than typically seen in any type of human decompostion. Maybe it's just the way the report is worded?


  4. #664
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    713
    Right, Indigo, it is detected in early human decomp AND primarily detected in anaerobic decomps. Thanks for posting that.


  5. #665
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,337
    Quote Originally Posted by Bev View Post
    Right, Indigo, it is detected in early human decomp AND primarily detected in anaerobic decomps. Thanks for posting that.

    Therefore if the amount of chloroform is higher than normally detected in human decompostion, they have to be referring to anaerobic decomposition, right? Otherwise....I dunno...


  6. #666
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    713
    I don't know, Indigo. Quite frankly, I don't think this report tells us much of anything, at least in any detail to make it meaningful. These reports when they're written are going to be a big bone of contention among the experts because there is no data base of child decomp. events.


  7. #667
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,337
    Quote Originally Posted by Bev View Post
    I don't know, Indigo. Quite frankly, I don't think this report tells us much of anything, at least in any detail to make it meaningful. These reports when they're written are going to be a big bone of contention among the experts because there is no data base of child decomp. events.
    ITA, these reports will be front and center--a battle of the experts. Just thinking about the back and forth this will create makes me dizzy.


  8. #668
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,842
    Quote Originally Posted by Bev View Post
    Exactly, it doesn't say the amount was unusual for an anaerobic event and it doesn't say that it was usual. It doesn't say that chloroform was used as a murder weapon, but it does say that NO additional chemicals, e.g. acetone or alcohol, which are the main components of manufactured chloroform, were detected.

    It says that "residues of chloroform" were found within some specimens, but not all specimens. The report says that the standards have not yet been run so we don't know if the amount was so unusually high as to indicate that chloroform was introduced to the body before the hde took place. Until standards are made available we don't know if the amount was higher than usual in a hde or not.

    There are no standards whatsoever for child hdes. None. And that is exactly what the defense experts are going to point out.

    p.s. Hercule, the 2.5 days is based on the LIBS results, not the MSC results.
    The report clearly states an unusually high level of chloroform was found. I don't know if there are standards set for child hdes or not, I'll take your word for it. Be that as it may, IMO, this would have to be the very first time this laboratory has ever done testing having anything to do with the decompositon of a child, otherwise, if this were a typical occurance, they would have run into it before, and wouldn't feel it necessary to make a note of these elevated levels of chloroform.
    I think I'll go with what the report says.
    Lanie


  9. #669
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    594
    I still believe that any elevation in the numbers on chlorophorm amounts could have been due to pool chlorine interacting during early decomp. Many of the other elements would have evaporated completely but the chlorine could cause the numbers for naturally occuring chlorophorm to be elevated. I don't think KC had the know how or the ambition to manufacture chlorophorm for use--even with the help of the world wide web...


  10. #670
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,167
    Quote Originally Posted by Clock's Tickin View Post
    I still believe that any elevation in the numbers on chlorophorm amounts could have been due to pool chlorine interacting during early decomp. Many of the other elements would have evaporated completely but the chlorine could cause the numbers for naturally occuring chlorophorm to be elevated. I don't think KC had the know how or the ambition to manufacture chlorophorm for use--even with the help of the world wide web...
    I am sort of on your side. Chemical reactions COULD have resulted in raised chloroform levels and are certainly one explanation that the defence could put forward. However, in regards to pool chemicals being the source of a significant portion of the chloroform: Pool water is dilute. I have no exact data, but obviously the pool chemicals are dilute so as not to be unpleasnt, let alone dangerous to humans. Even if Caylee's body supplied entire lungs-full of pool water to the trunk, the volume would be small and the amount of chlorine close to none. I prefer to consider cleaning chemicals with high concentrations of chlorine.
    Do not go gentle into that good night.
    _________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


  11. #671
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    713
    The tests are performed on specimens from all ages of cadavers, the problem is that they have no data base of controlled human child decomposition events with which to compare it. Yes, they have a data base of controlled human adult decomposition events, but there is none for children. When specimens are tested, those tests are run against those control samples collected from known, observed and measured human decomposition events. They can test specimens all day long, but if there is nothing to compare it with, it is essentially, scientifically meaningless. An example would be the lack of measured floridines found in the specimens from the car trunk, they have measured the rate at which floridines leach from the body in controlled adult human decomposition but the rate, if any, of children is unknown. The reason for that is that child bodies are not used at the Body Farm for controls, so while they can take an educated guess and assume that children have not yet ingested enough floridines as adults have which can then be measured. However, they still do not know for adults or children how much floride is absorbed, at what rate and under what circumstances the floride is ingested and absorbed in living people, so while they can measure the rate at which floride leaches from adult cadavers they cannot state with scientific certitude that this rate is a marker of human decomposition.

    The data base is information collected from controlled human decomposition events over 100 adds which is known and observed. That is how they built their data base at the body farm.

    Their library is something all together different from the data base. The library is a program that compares the chemical signature of known substances such as gasoline by brand, household cleaning products by brand and those chemicals used to make up those products along with the signature of other gases such as chloroform, alcohol, methane, etc.

    The report is saying that an unusually higher level than usual, in the opinion of the observer, of chloroform has been recognized. This is his educated and informed opinion - it is known that chloroform is manufactured after death, that it is manufactured quite early in the process and that higher levels are observed in anaerobic conditions. The report also makes very clear that those components used in the manufacture of chloroform by means other than human decomposition have NOT been observed, namely acetone and alcohol. He doesn't scientically know yet why this level is as high as it is, because he has not run it against the data base. The report also does NOT mention chlorine as unusually high as it would be if the chloroform had been manufactured by means other than human decomposition.

    This is a PRELIMINARY report. Now we can make all kinds of suppositions and assumptions from this preliminary report, but until the report is written and I doubt that it is for many reasons, that is all we have - suppositions and assumptions. What this report is telling us is that a human decomposition took place in the trunk of the car, that an unusually high amont of chloroform was detected, but higher levels of chloroform are detected in anaerobic conditions, which can explain why the amount if higher than usual. There is not one place in that report where that level of chloroform can be explained by means of introduction PRIOR to death. There is no such thing as a "typical occurance" in science. There is known and unknown data. Even if it was "typical" it would be necessary to "make a note of it" because assumption isn't a scientific method of observation. Based on this report alone, no scientist is going to stand up in court and say with scientific certitude that this higher level of chloroform is the result of manufactured chloroform being introduced to the victim before death and that there are no other reasonable, scientific explanations for this level of chloroform (and we're talking about RESIDUES found in the trunk on some samples and not others and traces were found on the control samples) detected in that trunk - there is NO data base of control samples of human child decomposition events. An accumulation of evidence might point to the decomposition of a child in that trunk, but this report ALONE does not confirm that with scientific certitude.

    So I'm going to go with what the report says, too.


  12. #672
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,623
    Quote Originally Posted by Hercule Poirot View Post
    I am sort of on your side. Chemical reactions COULD have resulted in raised chloroform levels and are certainly one explanation that the defence could put forward. However, in regards to pool chemicals being the source of a significant portion of the chloroform: Pool water is dilute. I have no exact data, but obviously the pool chemicals are dilute so as not to be unpleasnt, let alone danggerous to humans. Even if Caylee's body supplied entire lungs-full of pool water to the trunk, the volume would be small and the amount of chlorine close to none. I prefer to consider cleaning chemicals with high concentrations of chlorine.

    Bold is mine.
    So, Hercule, Given there were high concentrations of chlorine, to presumably clean the trunk, how much would this compromise the odor analysis given, as opposed to no cleaning agents interferring with the decompositional odor in the trunk? In other words, would the decomp odor analysis be higher, maybe for longer than 2.6 days? Just a thought


    "There are two kinds of fools: those who can't change their opinions, and those who won't" ..... Josh Billings


  13. #673
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,337
    Quote Originally Posted by Hercule Poirot View Post
    I am sort of on your side. Chemical reactions COULD have resulted in raised chloroform levels and are certainly one explanation that the defence could put forward. However, in regards to pool chemicals being the source of a significant portion of the chloroform: Pool water is dilute. I have no exact data, but obviously the pool chemicals are dilute so as not to be unpleasnt, let alone dangerous to humans. Even if Caylee's body supplied entire lungs-full of pool water to the trunk, the volume would be small and the amount of chlorine close to none. I prefer to consider cleaning chemicals with high concentrations of chlorine.
    I agree, Hercule Poirot. The chloroform had to come from a concentrated source to last as long as it did and to penetrate the carpet and airspace(even after carpet was removed) so completely. It was the primary compound found in the analysis. Personally, I believe the report rules out human decomposition as the source.


  14. #674
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    713
    Indigo, the chloroform wasn't the "primary compound found in the analysis. The "primary compound" was gasoline as it was in the control sample and in the garage of OCSD.


  15. #675
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,167
    Quote Originally Posted by reeseeva View Post
    [/I][/B]
    Bold is mine.
    So, Hercule, Given there were high concentrations of chlorine, to presumably clean the trunk, how much would this compromise the odor analysis given, as opposed to no cleaning agents interferring with the decompositional odor in the trunk? In other words, would the decomp odor analysis be higher, maybe for longer than 2.6 days? Just a thought
    We are guessing at amounts. I am just saying that there is a sinificant amount of chlorine in some cleaning products. That is why the "How to make Chloroform" recipes use bleach to supply chlorine. I think that the concentrated chemicals that you put in pools would also be a source, but by the time it is diluted to Parts Per Million in the pool water, you would need gallons and gallons to supply measureable amounts to the trunk. Choloform is just one of the decomposition measured. It appears SULFUR compounds are significant and not likely to be from cleaning products. I believe a lot of the chemicals that we report as "NASTY SMELL" are sulfur compounds.
    Do not go gentle into that good night.
    _________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Page 45 of 82 FirstFirst ... 35 43 44 45 46 47 55 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Chloroform in the trunk of caseys car
    By miimaa in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 1034
    Last Post: 09-07-2008, 04:29 PM
  2. Chloroform Murders/Abductions
    By Mullins in forum General Information & Discussion
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 09-05-2008, 10:06 AM
  3. The Timing of the Chloroform Searches
    By ThoughtElf in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 09-04-2008, 05:50 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •