Syringe in bottle and traces of chloroform #2

Discussion in 'Caylee Anthony 2 years old' started by knt, Nov 6, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. knt

    knt New Member

    Messages:
    441
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  2. Loading...


  3. JBean

    JBean Retired WS Administrator

    Messages:
    52,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    [ame=http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91214]Thread #1[/ame]

    Please continue here the other thread is too long.
     
  4. JBean

    JBean Retired WS Administrator

    Messages:
    52,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    please see title of thread for current topic.
    thank you
     
  5. RR0004

    RR0004 New Member

    Messages:
    20,001
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wow JB! I feel like I was just transported to another dimension. I didn't know you could do that. Cool!

    ETA: okay, but now the question is, "Where was I?"
     
  6. JBean

    JBean Retired WS Administrator

    Messages:
    52,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    LOL I like to watch and see how long it takes for everyone to figure it out.
    Next time I'll give you warning so you can buckle up.

    ETA: click on your name and go to all your posts. click on that and you can see where you were.
     
  7. TakeNote

    TakeNote Mother to little post it my boy wonder & Founding

    Messages:
    6,187
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i wanted to bring this over from the first thread.....not sure if its much help....but it is to me....when we start talking about numbers and Q's and whats what :) plus i wanted to ask something else after reading

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TakeNote

    Results of examinations pg 75

    Q240.1.1 liquid from within Q240
    Q240 plastic bag

    secimen Q240.1.1 was a mixture of immiscible liquids (whitish and yellow) the whitish aqueous-portion of Q240.1.1 was similar to Q238.1 (possibley some type of cleaning product) a mixture of testosterone compounds was identified withine the yellowish, oily-portion of Q240.1.1

    Q238 bottle
    Q238.1 was liquid from within Q238
    Q238.1 was a whitish/murky liquid and while not specifically identified, could be from a ype of cleaning product. additionally, a mixture of testosterone compounds was identified with Q238.1

    Q241 unknown liquid substance from the vehicle no chloroform , similar to urine
    Q244 Doll chloroform was not identified within specimen

    the only part of the report on this page or any other written page for results that states NO Chloroform found is ......
    Q241 .....which looked like it could be urine
    Q244 Doll

    the others state cleaning product......maybe same substances you would find in chloroform???

    sorry i dont know how to link from the other thread :)
    quote from :carrie
    You're right. It does not state specifially "NO chloroform." My bad on that, this is becoming frustrating.

    But the point is, they don't say there IS any chloroform. Since they were specifically requested to look for substances that could have been used to murder Caylee (and they've heard about the chloroform levels in the trunk), don't you think if there was a significant amount of chloroform (enough to matter) they'd mention it? It would be pretty remiss if they failed to mention it.

    The person conducting these tests surely doesn't expect everyone else in LE to be able to grasp/read/make use of the graphs and highly technical part of the report.

    The persons receiving this report need the answers in plain words just like most of us. Think about how many people involved in the case that might need to understand the results of this testing. They can't all be chemists. The SA isn't a chemist, nor most of the folks at OSCO. If most of us can't read this and understand it, neither can they. That's why I believe if there was a significant amount of chloroform found in anything they tested (enough to be harmful to Caylee), it would be explained in plains words somewhere in the report, likely here in this summary you reference. KWIM?

    question from me.....:)

    im hoping there is another report that will break down what they are calling cleaning product.....:).....who knows.....its really nice to be able to talk and discover and pick apart things with you all :).....i think this group of people here on w/s are the best!
     
  8. magic-cat

    magic-cat Mother to Many

    Messages:
    4,566
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here is a thought, and correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it highly possible that there might just be some other reports, conclusions about these items that are NOT included in this particular batch of documents that will surface or come to light in a LATER doc dump? We have seen it a million times, and I will give a for instance for the sake of comforting those who are losing hope that NOTHING has been found which links Casey to the scene: the papertowels.

    How many times did we see info about the trash bags and the trunk and the car and info SURROUNDING the papertowels, but we did NOT see anything or even KNOW about the papertowels for a LOOOONNNNGGGG time?

    I think that it could be a similar case scenario here. There is MORE that has to do with this that we are not privy to...YET.

    So we should continue to analyze the best we can with what we have, listen to the braniac scientists who are guiding us through this maze, and keep our fingers crossed that fate or karma or whatever you want to call it is looking out for Caylee and WILL see justice accomplished for her.

    Personally, even if it is a trace of chloroform then that is more than should logically be found in the vicinity of a dead child whose mother's auto also had chloroform inside of and whose home computer also had searches done for same...The coincidence factor is getting more and more narrow and if chloroform keeps showing up then there is a reason for it-trace or not-chloroform should not have logically been found near Caylee...so

    maybe there IS something to it and maybe there isn't but the odds are getting smaller that chloroform did not factor into this SOMEHOW...

    jmoo
     
  9. RR0004

    RR0004 New Member

    Messages:
    20,001
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I just love it...the title reads now "OT Posts". One way to clean it up fast. The crazy thing was that at first it said something about "Caylee in the trunk/ Poll"...so I was totally lost. Back on track now. Thanks.
    But, that was cool!
     
  10. RR0004

    RR0004 New Member

    Messages:
    20,001
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MC- I'm wondering if there are a bunch of Feds sitting in a room having a good chuckle over this. I know the defense is scrambling to figure out what it all means. I think it could be a one-two punch. First lull them into thinking they've got nada, then bam...hit them with the follow-up report.
     
  11. butwhatif?

    butwhatif? New Member

    Messages:
    3,594
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
  12. magic-cat

    magic-cat Mother to Many

    Messages:
    4,566
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That is exactly what I am thinking. There is more to this than we are seeing right now.
     
  13. RR0004

    RR0004 New Member

    Messages:
    20,001
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
  14. RR0004

    RR0004 New Member

    Messages:
    20,001
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Really, think about it. Why would you give up your bug findings (big wow) and this? It kinda has a counter effect, right? We all know that the Feds will hold on to stuff (because they can) for awhile...the question here is why give up this?
     
  15. butwhatif?

    butwhatif? New Member

    Messages:
    3,594
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    LOL....I'm not completely sure. We'll get some of the experts to translate for us, but what I'm seeing is that the chemical compounds found in the syringe match what is in sustanon.

    Note that the crystals are not soluble in water, only chloroform, ethanol and fixed oils.

    And this could explain why it was concealed with the cardboard:

    Heres the table from the docs for comparison


    [​IMG]
     
  16. panama

    panama New Member

    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here's the procedure followed for preparing the solutions of Q238.1, 240.1.1, and the positive chloroform control for the the GC/MS. (Valhall, you probably used this to get the ppx, but I don't think I saw it mentioned anywhere in the other thread. Could easily be wrong though :). Anyway, thought it could be useful for reference.)

    It's on page 11527, screenshot follows.

    pg11527.JPG


    Also: nice work, Val, Dog, et al. Go science! :)
     
  17. lizzysf

    lizzysf Inactive

    Messages:
    1,143
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's a 4 compound anabolic steroid; use popular in the UK for Testosterone Replacement therapy. (therapeutic anabolic steroid) Not available in the US..but smuggled in frequently in the black market from Russia and Mexico as a popular drug of choice for bodybuilders. (non-therapeutic use) I have not been able to find a sister drug for it's exact compounds available per RX in the US yet....still searching, but I am thinking the syringe found is non-therapeutic use anabolic steroids.. NOTHING I am turning up in the US is compounded like Sustanon.
     
  18. Valhall

    Valhall Keeper of the Mystic Fish

    Messages:
    1,001
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually, no, but this confirms one of my assumptions (not all! - I'm going to get those confirmed today by getting with the guys who do this all the time).

    One thing I think we can feel good about is that the 238.1 is, in fact, of an order of magnitude of 10 ppb (but again, I'll pass this all by my guys because I could be pulling a real bonehead here). Because as we see on this page, there was sufficient sample size in the bottle to not have to add solution (i.e. tested sample was not diluted). The question remains though (and this is where we need feedback from Dogs and Bond and then I'll report back what my guys say) - is the test set up such that it takes into account the dilution ratio so that the reported returns are already adjusted back to the original sample size???

    If so - then the 100 ppt order of magnitude should be correct, if not, then that could jump to the same order of magnitude as 238.1 (i.e. 10 ppb). We'll see!

    And thank you! Finding these pages out in this gigantic discovery is PAINFUL!
     
  19. ZsaZsa

    ZsaZsa Active Member

    Messages:
    9,548
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    I think so too- it's all about strategy- since they are the ones who control what is dumped and when, why wouldn't they want to send Baez into a tailspin every few weeks...
     
  20. doogiesgirl

    doogiesgirl New Member

    Messages:
    2,379
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  21. JWG

    JWG New Member

    Messages:
    1,787
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Didn't realize that you were looking for this. I had it in a spreadsheet.

    Testing was on each of the following samples:

    • 0.5 mL H20
    • 0.5 mL 238.1
    • 0.5 mL Testmix (MeOH, EtOH, acetone, i-propanol
    • 20 uL 240.1.1 + 480 uL H20
    • 200 uL 241 + 300 uL H2O
    • 0.5mL .001% v/v CHCL3 (1 uL CHCL3 + 100 mL H2O)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice