I have already addressed what you call conflicting testimony, I will do it again but it really was explained in court. One expert Dr Vass studies only decomposing bodies. He is used to seeing SMALL amounts of chloroform sometimes, but compared to those amounts, what was in Casey;s car was shockingly high compared to those small amounts, and basically could not be from a decomposing body based on the amount.
The other expert studies all kinds of chemicals and areas, some of which had chloroform or a cleaning product that might have caused it. Compared to what he sees since he studies COMPLETELY different areas than Vass, it wasnt shockingly high. It was still high, but he'd seen it before.
It is possible to have chloroform from cleaning products, but not likely is what I heard. Especially the cleaning products nowadays. If it was the result of a cleaning product, wouldnt the defense have shown us the product and how it caused chloroform? You think on a trial where someone is fighting for her life, they wouldnt have tried to explain that?
Jennifer Ford specifically said that not knowing the cause of death was her problem. She didnt say manner. The evidence seems clear to the majority that it was murder, and that is what you need by law, not cause of death. She was given a cause of death (suffocation by duct tape), but she seemed to think that since the ME couldnt find it scientifically (since Casey led everyone on a wild goosechase long enough for the remains to be only bones), that therefore she couldnt convict of murder. There are many cases where not even a body is found, yet you can convict someone of murder.