Syringe in bottle contained traces of chloroform

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe this isn't even what you're asking, but using something a a control doesn't mean using it as a solvent.


Definition of control :
A control in an experiment is a group, sample, test, etc. that is used in comparison to the group, sample, test, etc. that the experiment is actually done for. Controls can also be samples in which the expected value is known. This is the part of the expirement that does not change.

http://www.everythingbio.com/glos/definition.php?ID=4288

You're right...I think I phrased that wrong. The control being the expected or predicted known value found in the solution tested after using that known substance (in this case a solvent) for testing.. is that correct?
 
Question. Since the main substance they were looking for was Chloroform..did they initally test the liquid for that first, and then upon finding Testosterone also, did a secondary test using Chloroform as one of the contol solutions to extract the Testosterone? I wonder why they would even choose Chloroform as a solvent in this case, as opposed to another solvent for the third control, even though the normal range of the test solution could be exacted? My question may not even make sense... can you shed some light on this? TIA!

I disagree? I don't think they performed tests specifically looking for chloroform? I'm neither a scientist, nor a Law Enforcement agent, but I might think like one... and I have slept at a few Holiday Inns. :wink:

I would think that when definitive cause of death in a murder investigation is unknown and the burden is on the State to try to figure it out, then it is likely they instructed that the samples be analysed to determine all possible substances found? (Back to the whole 'mass spectrometer' CSI references.) I think they tested for many substances, discovered the testosterone, & chloroform was present.

Having said that, chloroform is used in many, many control and suspension solutions for forensic and environmental tests. This is why this is so fascinating. Isolating the controls from the results. In the control solutions (which is a norm range from which they can start with) I think they might have found chloroform ranges beyond the control ranges.

HTH
 
ITA with both of you, and tried to present a biased view of this evidence, but got shot down, at the very nature of my questioning:waitasec: I think posters, for example, Wudge, help us to see beyond evidence, that appears to be so incriminating, but unravels to be nothing more than coincidence. I so appreciate the alternative mindset, as it stretches our minds to the reality of the situation

Like many others, I anxiously await the trial to learn more about the reality of this situation that we can only speculate about. We are discussing our beliefs based on the information we have been given to date, and in some cases, based on the explanations we get from media or other posters.

That said, if it turns out that chloroform truly was found in the syringe and gatorade bottle, and we already know that the Body Farm documented high levels of chloroform in the trunk, and we know someone in that home was looking up chloroform on the computer, that seems like an alarming set of coincidences to me.

Prior to this case, I have had no reason to research chloroform. I am certain that if the air in my trunk were tested, it would not test positive for chloroform, and I can not believe that finding chloroform in a syringe & bottle is common in the Orlando area.

Is there 100% proof yet that all of these are connected? No, not in what has been released. Is it reasonable to believe that these three are just simply coincidental? That is what a jury will have to address.
 
Maybe this isn't even what you're asking, but using something a a control doesn't mean using it as a solvent.


Definition of control :
A control in an experiment is a group, sample, test, etc. that is used in comparison to the group, sample, test, etc. that the experiment is actually done for. Controls can also be samples in which the expected value is known. This is the part of the expirement that does not change.

http://www.everythingbio.com/glos/definition.php?ID=4288

Excellent. Want to add that controls can also be 'triggers' that isolate different chemical substances & reactions. (i.e. separate white blood cells from red)
 
Well my head is :banghead::crazy:I just don't know how to read any of these doc's, unless they are in layman's terms. I went back over to the article and question why would they go into such detail about what was found if not true? I know the media makes mistakes....quite a bit. But, this would be an awful mistake and I think the defense would be banging on the court house door to file some slander/other motions for false reporting on their DP client. I thank all here who can break down this science because it's really hard to interpret.... They are claiming that the syringe was used? Tests from the FBI show chloroform was in the bottle and in the syringe. I will assume that there is more discovery that has not been released?
Thank you all so much!


"Snip" http://www.wftv.com/news/21539718/detail.html

VIDEO REPORT: Details Emerge From Documents http://www.wftv.com/video/21545320/index.html


At the scene where investigators found Caylee’s remains, they recovered a Disney bag that contained a Cool Blue Gatorade bottle. Even after the six months from time Caylee was last seen alive and the time her remains were found, the bottle contained a liquid that still smelled of household chemicals and a used syringe.

Tests from the FBI show chloroform was in the bottle and in the syringe. Eyewitness News had reported previously that there were traces of chloroform found in the trunk of Casey’s car.

Forensic experts told Eyewitness News Chloroform could be a by-product of decomposition, but the level found in the trunk would be too high to be natural from a small child. That may suggest chloroform from another source was in the trunk.
 
You're right...I think I phrased that wrong. The control being the expected or predicted known value found in the solution tested after using that known substance (in this case a solvent) for testing.. is that correct?

Yes/no. Provides to expected range & some controls cause change. When you have to separate organic/chemicals -> think of a bloody mary. If you wanted to analyse the alcohol content in one that is already mixed, you would separate the juice from the vodka, and the worchestershire sauce. Different controls will separate the substances for analysis.
 
I disagree? I don't think they performed tests specifically looking for chloroform? I'm neither a scientist, nor a Law Enforcement agent, but I might think like one... and I have slept at a few Holiday Inns. :wink:

I would think that when definitive cause of death in a murder investigation is unknown and the burden is on the State to try to figure it out, then it is likely they instructed that the samples be analysed to determine all possible substances found? (Back to the whole 'mass spectrometer' CSI references.) I think they tested for many substances, discovered the testosterone, & chloroform was present.

Having said that, chloroform is used in many, many control and suspension solutions for forensic and environmental tests. This is why this is so fascinating. Isolating the controls from the results. In the control solutions (which is a norm range from which they can start with) I think they might have found chloroform ranges beyond the control ranges.

HTH
Ah...I see. So you don't think they were specifically testing for Chloroform. That clarifies alot. It was just found during the testing, along with the Testosterone et al. I misunderstood. I thought that is what they were specifically hoping to find, and in thinking that, I wondered why they would use a chloroform test solution which the defense may say created test error of true levels of Chloroform actually found... (despite known normal range of the control)...just introducing something for the defense to attack as testing error. KWIM?
 
Can you tell, by looking at the documentation that is available to us (http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/11571-11670.pdf (page 71)) if it looks like the liquid that was found in the syringe itself is primarily chloroform that was injected and that the testosterone was only what might have been left from a previously used syringe? We are thinking that it was used to inject Caylee with chloroform primarily. That is what would make it the "smoking gun." If it doesn't hold enough for that then it seems it might just be more garbage that was dumped at the same site. Is there any way you can tell that?
Wow, sorry for picking your brain so hard. But I'm not smart enough to understand what the documentation is saying.

This is what ThoughtElf had me looking at last night. Still working on it. I've been reading through their method and the documents and ended up busting out the old Quant book to brush up on my MS theory (it's one thing to use it regularly and understand it yourself...but something completely different to try and explain it and make any sense, lol).
At first glance, I can tell you that the first thumbnail you posted shows that chloroform WAS one of the compounds in the syringe (qualitative analysis...answers the "what is it?" question). I'm still reading through their stuff to find their quantitative result (the part that tells us "how much"). You'll notice that the ion fragments for the standard have a much higher intensity... but I'm not quite sure if this (alone) provides enough information to make a determination about concentration of chloroform in the syringe. Do you have a direct link to their GC (or LC, whatever they used) chromatographs and their standard curve?
To quantify, you typically inject known, increasing concentrations of a standard and then integrate to find the area under the peak for each standard at the retention time for the compound of interest. *You can do this because area is proportional to concentration*. The concentration is plotted against the area beneath each peak (should be a linear response) and then you find the equation for the best-fit line. A sample of unknown concentration can then be analyzed...and the concentration of chloroform in the unknown can be calculated by plugging the area beneath the peak into the equation and solving for the concentration. It's the whole y=mx+b thing.... the standard curve allows you to determine the slope (x) and y-intercept (b), so once you measure x of your unknown (the area) you can solve for y (concentration).
Hope this kind-of answers your question... I'll keep looking and try to tell you what you were really interested in knowing. :) Just wanted to give ya some type of answer right now so you didn't think I'd bailed on ya!
 
Y'all are going to gather bail money and come get me when LE looks at my most recent computer searches - right? RIGHT?
 
Ah...I see. So you don't think they were specifically testing for Chloroform. That clarifies alot. It was just found during the testing, along with the Testosterone et al. I misunderstood. I thought that is what they were specifically hoping to find, and in thinking that, I wondered why they would use a chloroform test solution which the defense may say created test error of true levels of Chloroform actually found... (despite known normal range of the control)...just introducing something for the defense to attack as testing error. KWIM?

OK, that makes sense. Didn't we question why they didn't test for Chloroform a while back? So, it could be that they were not testing for it, they just happen to come across it? So that would mean that they did not use Chloroform to break down the chemicals? Am I understanding this right? Sorry to sound so ignorant...:blushing:
 
IMHO...syringe in bottle of Gatorade posssibly still unrelated. Looks like a pre-purchased job like...

terumo3cc.jpg


...that someone injected before/after going to the gym and tossed.

Interesting to note that it appears they checked for lidocaine and pesticide.

Ask yourself if you think Casey would place the cap back over the needle and put the syringe back in the packaging...

Gatorade botte...anabolic steroid...
 
This is what ThoughtElf had me looking at last night. Still working on it. I've been reading through their method and the documents and ended up busting out the old Quant book to brush up on my MS theory (it's one thing to use it regularly and understand it yourself...but something completely different to try and explain it and make any sense, lol).
At first glance, I can tell you that the first thumbnail you posted shows that chloroform WAS one of the compounds in the syringe (qualitative analysis...answers the "what is it?" question). I'm still reading through their stuff to find their quantitative result (the part that tells us "how much"). You'll notice that the ion fragments for the standard have a much higher intensity... but I'm not quite sure if this (alone) provides enough information to make a determination about concentration of chloroform in the syringe. Do you have a direct link to their GC (or LC, whatever they used) chromatographs and their standard curve?
To quantify, you typically inject known, increasing concentrations of a standard and then integrate to find the area under the peak for each standard at the retention time for the compound of interest. *You can do this because area is proportional to concentration*. The concentration is plotted against the area beneath each peak (should be a linear response) and then you find the equation for the best-fit line. A sample of unknown concentration can then be analyzed...and the concentration of chloroform in the unknown can be calculated by plugging the area beneath the peak into the equation and solving for the concentration. It's the whole y=mx+b thing.... the standard curve allows you to determine the slope (x) and y-intercept (b), so once you measure x of your unknown (the area) you can solve for y (concentration).
Hope this kind-of answers your question... I'll keep looking and try to tell you what you were really interested in knowing. :) Just wanted to give ya some type of answer right now so you didn't think I'd bailed on ya!

I grok it fully & I bow to your expertise.

Now, dumb it down. :D How's about this as an interpretation of the method used:
* control standards were used to test for peaks
* The height of the linear peak (white space below it) is used to plot baseline for the concentration
* by applying a formula that only a chemist would know, the concentration of the chloroform is determined

Now then, off with thee to run hither and tell us what that concentration is.
:smooch: :woohoo:
 
imho...syringe in bottle of gatorade posssibly still unrelated. Looks like a pre-purchased job like...

terumo3cc.jpg


...that someone injected before/after going to the gym and tossed.

Interesting to note that it appears they checked for lidocaine and pesticide.

ask yourself if you think casey would place the cap back over the needle and put the syringe back in the packaging...

Gatorade botte...anabolic steroid...

thank you....................
 
OK, that makes sense. Didn't we question why they didn't test for Chloroform a while back? So, it could be that they were not testing for it, they just happen to come across it? So that would mean that they did not use Chloroform to break down the chemicals? Am I understanding this right? Sorry to sound so ignorant...:blushing:
I'm confused too sister. I was actually wondering why they would introduce Chloroform in a test solution if they were testing for Chloroform..haha. I kept thinking...why not use something else so the defense can't say it created skewed results and the only Chloroform found was caused by the test solution! I think i'll go over to the carseat thread and muck around there for awhile... LOL
 
Y'all are going to gather bail money and come get me when LE looks at my most recent computer searches - right? RIGHT?

ThoughtElf that makes two of us!!! Hopefully they will have enough bail money for me too! LOL

I have never searched chloroform until now. I would hate for LE to look at my computer. :blushing:
 
BBM.

Premeditation is not the sole instance in which the DP may be asserted.
Like I said, take the discussion elsewhere and read the posts you are responding to more carefully. You will save yourself a lot of aggravation. :)
 
Let me just clarify that no one, to my knowledge, has verified themself to be a chemist or scientist.
This is the internet and admin does not know who or what anyone is unless they choose to tell us and/or prove it to Tricia.

This means that it is up to you if you choose to believe anyone that posts as an 'expert" .

If anyone has claimed to be an expert, I am not doubting or insulting you so please do not take it that way.

This is just a general disclaimer that applies to anyone that is posting as a professional in any area. But posters need to be aware that we don't know this for a fact and they just need to draw conclusions based on your posts.

If someone posts what they know, for example, about law, but does not claim to be a lawyer then no harm no foul. Same applies to all professions across the board.

I'm guilty...not of saying that I'm an "expert"...but of claiming to be a chemist by both profession and education. If it would help (and you'd like to verify) I would be more than happy to send you a copy of my college transcript (or any other documentation you'd like to see). Just thought I'd offer. :)
 
Ah ha...I understand you view on the above charge. I see your point but I do think she did it and I do think they have more evidence to support the charge, Although it has not been made available to the public. We shall see.

I believe she did it too I just have not seen any proof of it.
 
Unlike our highly inexperienced Baez, LDB has been trying cases for 20 years. I TRUST that she knows the standards required to bring charges and that she has the evidence to back them up. The judge, apparently concurs. The truth will prevail.
Does she have a 100% conviction rate?
I mean why even go to trial?

Our justice system is an adversarial one by nature, so it will be full legal arguments. If there was only one way to skin a cat and a charge was sufficient to prove guilt, no one would have to go to trial. prosecutors could just declare them guilty as charged and have a judge sign off.

The point is, we can all have an idea about guilt or innocence but unless we look at all the evidence including what the defense may have to offer, where the prosecution is weak, and information that is contrary to popular opinion we can't really have the full picture. This is the beauty of our justice system.


So, while I agree that the SA feels that she has a strong case and she may very well have, much can happen before a verdict and anticipating those things is interesting to me anyway. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
198
Guests online
1,955
Total visitors
2,153

Forum statistics

Threads
589,170
Messages
17,914,915
Members
227,742
Latest member
Snugglebear
Back
Top