Syringe in bottle contained traces of chloroform

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wudge said:
On her show, Nancy Grace is not acting as an Officer of the Court.

I explained why such lies are told. It's to improve ratings and make money. They know the vast majority of the public remembers headlines far moreso than anything else. And they also know that the vast majority of the public will not do their own research (or thinking). We live in a culture that features fast foods and jumps to conclusions. Shows like Nancy Grace's take advantage of our culture.
Click to expand...

But for balance you can always tune to Geraldo who will give the Official Defense point of view each time, in equally sensational a manner and with much less accuracy. He also has a huge audience, so they will be impacted and 'taken advantage' of also.
 
USARDOG said:
No, people in South Florida do not drain their pools in the winter, because it never gets cold enough to freeze. Many people use their pools year around down there, I always did.

In addtition, if the pool is drained empty, and big rains come, it can cause the pool to float, and so pop out of the ground.
Click to expand...

Yahoo...Something I know about on this thread...

The A's have an Above Ground pool, as a matter of fact, it looks like the same one we have.

It does get to cold to use in Central Florida, but you never drain them, cause once you do, you have to replace the liner (and that is expensive!).

However that being said, Ours is now "winterized" per say, cause no one will get into again till about the end of March beginning of April.

Yes...Native Floridians are wimps when it comes to cold!
 
Friday said:
Before final conclusions are posted and this thread begins its inevitable slide into dormancy, I would like to tell you what a privilege its been to watch those of you with analytical or scientific interests and/or skills participating in this thread. Of course I'm impressed by your knowledge, but that's not what has kept me here following along with you through 1,300 posts, hundreds of which were mostly dry, scientific data.

I've stayed here for the long haul because it's been a pleasure to witness your determination, your resourcefulness, and most of all, your interactions with each other...your cheerful willingness to collaborate, to acknowledge your own mistakes without rancor, to give generous credit when due, and to graciously reply to questions from those with much less knowledge.

Threads like this naturally elevate Websleuths above its counterparts, but it's WS's members whose kindness, humanity, and restraint have created an overall atmosphere that makes it a pleasure, and a privilege, to belong.
Click to expand...

And I wouldn't dismiss all your hard work just yet. Let it simmer for a while then go back to it and make sure nothing was overlooked and that everything was taken into account. Just a thought. Perhaps one small detail changes the end result and you discover that there was a significant amount of chloroform in the bottle.

Regarding TV news and Nancy Grace "bombshells," I look at these shows with a grain of salt and through a filter. But I do watch them and at times learn from them. I just sift through the repetitive or inflammatory information.
 
carrie said:
I can't explain it I'm afraid. However, here are the numbers of some of the posts that clarified it for me. I would still be interested in DogMoms take on it but would be very (very) surprised if she has a different conclusion than Bond, JWG, and Vallhall who I greatly admire for their brain power. Hopefully, she'll (DM) weigh in when she gets back.

POST #s
1328
1340
1345
1351
1359
1371
Click to expand...

Thank you for looking up those posts for me, reading them over again did help. I am not doubting what any of those posters wrote but I'm just a little slow on the uptake when it comes to science. Was hoping someone could link in the docs where it shows the quantity of chloroform found and kind of explain what I was looking at.
 
BondJamesBond said:
QS: Good to see you again. :wave:

D2M: Like to hear if/when you've got a handle on concentrations. I only scanned through once and IIRC the ethanol peak was off chart. I didn't get anything on the water concentration, which is big piece o' the puzzle. Assuming you have your scissors and scales out 'bout now ;)
Click to expand...

Hey there, I'm late (as always) but here as promised! So...what's my assignment? :)
 
Lexiintoronto said:
I'm a lab tech and every 2 or 3 year old patient that I've either had to take a blood sample from or give an injection to had to be restrained by the parent, even the chronically ill children who are used to needles. It's also usually difficult to find a vein because they're normally chubby and their veins are small.

If KC did inject Caylee, maybe she temporarily knocked her out with chloroform vapours? To me, giving an IV injection to a child seems too advanced for KC. (She strikes me as a person who takes the easy way out of everything and wouldn't bother to learn something that's complicated).
Click to expand...


This makes me wonder about Cindy Anthony. Could she have had old nursing books around that Casey got into to study and look to see how to inject a child/where and what part of the body to inject a needle into and if that didn't work what other means to use to silence Caylee would work? Does this sound right.
I also wonder if any Grandparents or relatives of Casey were diabetic and used insulin. Just maybe Cindy taught Casey how to inject the grandparent who was having a blood sugar issue and Casey. Could the syringes found near Caylees remains have come from a diabetic relative??
 
DogMom2JoeAndWillie said:
Hey there, I'm late (as always) but here as promised! So...what's my assignment? :)
Click to expand...

I think that it's been determined that chloroform is present, but can anything be gleaned from the tables to quantify the levels? We're coming to a realization that the levels present could be equal to or lesser than tap water?
 
JWG said:
I think I can help put the concentration of chloroform in perspective.

Page 11578 shows the GC-MS plot with the Q238.1 finding of chloroform (I have circled in red):

View attachment 6127

This is a zoomed image of the top plot found on the previous page 11577. Note that in this view the chloroform barely shows as a blip relative to the fatty acids and other compounds found:

View attachment 6128

But even that image is a zoomed view of the bottom plot from page 11577. In that plot, chloroform does not even show up:

View attachment 6129

So, IMO, chloroform is an insignificant component of the Gatorade liquid.
Click to expand...

I can explain this one. Look at the difference in the y-axis on these chromatographs. When you're working with the software, you can select different parts of your "run" and zoom in on parts of the chart to "see" results that wouldn't show up, otherwise. In the first thumbnail the y-axis is showing between 0-2000...on the second it's showing between 0-800000...on the third it's got all the way to 1.4x10^7....big changes in the axis skew the way you see the results. Helpful hint is to ALWAYS pay extra attention to units and to the scale of any graph you're shown.... simply adjusting your scale can make the results LOOK very different from what they really are. Hope this helps.
 
DogMom2joeandwillie......so what does that mean....are the levels only trace levels in both the bottle/liquid/syringe????.....like tap water?

or high levels lethal??? not what you would find in tap water?

and thank you again :hug:
 
JWG said:
Well, I don't know how to read the plot well enough to tell you what the concentration is. :bang: I believe that the area underneath the entire plot represents the total contribution of all constituents, and the area under the curve at ~5.046 retention time represents the contribution of chloroform. so if you take the area represented by chloroform and divide it by the area under the entire curve, you get the concentration. (help me out here Bond and Dog :slap:).

Eyeballing it :eye:, the concentration looks insignificant.

BTW, the most abundant compound found in the Gatorade bottle is ethanol (at ~2.472 retention time). It is ~14,000 times more abundant than chloroform. If I am reading the plot correctly. :waitasec:
Click to expand...

You're REALLY close...but not quite (please don't think I'm being rude,). :) The area beneath the curve for chloroform is important (at 5.046 retention time) like you said, but the area beneath the entire curve is not (you'd always end up with a value of 1 statistically). To find how much chloroform there is you have to set up a standard curve using KNOWN concentrations of chloroform, find the equation for the best-fit line, and THEN use the area measured from your unknown sample to calculate the concentration in the unknown sample with the equation.
 
the suspense is killing me..........:nerves:
 
TakeNote said:
the suspense is killing me..........:nerves:
Click to expand...
After reading the scientific posts, I'm becoming very disappointed. I was so hoping the "smoking gun" to nail Casey had emerged but it seems this may not be the case. I'm still not figuring out though how what remains in the bottle can determine how much was in it originally? :waitasec:
 
QuietStorm said:
Thank you. I am excruciatingly embarrased and have learned it's not good to stay up all night and try to think logically at the same time.

At least I am sure I can compare DNA when I need to. 'Nuff said.
Click to expand...

OFF TOPIC -- No need to be embarrassed. :) One thing about written text as opposed to spoken words, sometimes it hard to know the "tone" of the poster's message.

I don't remember if it was late at night or not, but once I disagree insistently with another poster about something we'd both been researching for several days. I kept saying it was one way and she kept saying it was another. I'd go back and check the docs and insist I was correct. I did this 3 or 4 times. :blushing::blushing:

Come to find out I was wrong. I was apparently looking at two numbers and seeing them backwards. I was SO embarrassed after insisting I was right (which at least you didn't do - lol). Worse, i had confused others - lol. In the grand scheme of things it's not important now.

Just trying to say, we've ALL been wrong at least once so don't sweat it. :)
 
panthera said:
After reading the scientific posts, I'm becoming very disappointed. I was so hoping the "smoking gun" to nail Casey had emerged but it seems this may not be the case. I'm still not figuring out though how what remains in the bottle can determine how much was in it originally? :waitasec:
Click to expand...

I am deeply grateful for the people that know more than I do in this regard (if a case ever comes up with physics, though, I got ya covered haha), I guess at this point.. boy if there's Chloroform in my tap water, I'm gonna start drinking more bottled.
 
DogMom2JoeAndWillie said:
You're REALLY close...but not quite (please don't think I'm being rude,). :) The area beneath the curve for chloroform is important (at 5.046 retention time) like you said, but the area beneath the entire curve is not (you'd always end up with a value of 1 statistically). To find how much chloroform there is you have to set up a standard curve using KNOWN concentrations of chloroform, find the equation for the best-fit line, and THEN use the area measured from your unknown sample to calculate the concentration in the unknown sample with the equation.
Click to expand...

Thank you for explaining. I think I speak for many when I say what we most want to know is whether you agree with JWG and Bond, Vallhall that the concentration of chloroform is such that it could not in any way be harmful or used to harm Caylee? Is that what you see?


ETA: Dumbed down into simple English for all of us non science majors. PLEASE.
 
carrie said:
OFF TOPIC -- No need to be embarrassed. :) One thing about written text as opposed to spoken words, sometimes it hard to know the "tone" of the poster's message.

I don't remember if it was late at night or not, but once I disagree insistently with another poster about something we'd both been researching for several days. I kept saying it was one way and she kept saying it was another. I'd go back and check the docs and insist I was correct. I did this 3 or 4 times. :blushing::blushing:

Come to find out I was wrong. I was apparently looking at two numbers and seeing them backwards. I was SO embarrassed after insisting I was right (which at least you didn't do - lol). Worse, i had confused others - lol. In the grand scheme of things it's not important now.

Just trying to say, we've ALL been wrong at least once so don't sweat it. :)
Click to expand...

It's hard for a perfectionist not to be perfect, but I'm keeping it in perspective. Thanks for your help and kind words.
 
Arrrrgh. Flyin down the istate on bb and can't chime in much. Dogmom simplify and assume say 4 biggest peaks equal 100% then approx areas and normalize then note we dunno how much water
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 181 more.
Total: 4,033 (members: 182, guests: 3,851)

Online statistics

Members online
182
Guests online
3,851
Total visitors
4,033
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,836
Messages
17,959,820
Members
228,622
Latest member
crimedeepdives23
Back
Top