All About Chloroform#2

Status
Not open for further replies.
In my searches, I've found that triclosan - from cleaning products - and chlorine CAN produce chloroform. BUT, as said many times over, the probability of the EXACT quantities and conditions (pH, temp, molecular ratio's, etc) neccessary for the two compounds to react to produce chloroform would be pretty slim. Although...there WAS detergent in the trunk, AND during the execution of the SW immediately after the crime scene was released, showed LE/CSI removing bug spray containers - having nozzles of some sort - AND pool chemicals, I can assume chlorine, can't I?? Unless they use non chlorine methods - Bacquacil, etc. They're hydrogen peroxide based.
 
Interim report: tests on prawn debris showed raised levels of mayonaise and a tomato substance.

I am now taking legal advise.
I do have a wittness who is prepared to testify under oath that she did not see any Thousand Island dressing at the table last night. An extensive search of the house and the fridge in particular has failed to find any trace. There are no traces or residues on any jar or container.

I claim I did not manufacture TID.

(snip)

I will dispute to my dying swallow... anyone found in possession of or even in proximity with multiple empty Velveeta wrappers can ever be described as a cook.

:biglaugh: :biglaugh:

fortytwo said:
Seriously, though. I didn't say that the likelihood is null, I said it approached it. I don't see purchase to be a likely option either. Yes it is accessible, but those access points are few and probably easily discovered.

More simply, I just don't feel that drugging or poisoning by chloroform is a particularly needful part of the scenario. I feel that LE pursued the possibility out of due diligence, and that SA made it public for the usual reasons.

Alternative explanations for the presence of chloroform have been presented quite plausibly by JWG, Bev, and others. Theirs seem more reasonable to me at this time.


I will not be devastated if in time I am proven wrong, nor will I be elated if chloroform should be found to to be irrelevant. It just seems that the avenue has been pursued as far as possible with the data at hand.

Agree w bolded. JMO2! :clap:
 
What is in today's evidence to show that Casey made chloroform?

If pool chemical is non chlorinated.. why did they take it?

What other cleaners were taken to show a mix of chloroform transpired in the trunk?

Do we still need more evidence here to prove chloroform was used?
 
The search warrant AFTER Caylee's body was found specifically included chemicals that could be used to make chloroform. LE even took the yard pump sprayers.

I think something found WITH Caylee pointed them in that direction.

JMO

What do you think might have been found that could suggest chloroform?

Let's revisit this discussion....
 
Happy to discuss but my view would be that LE most likely trying to ELIMINATE the possibility that CMA brewed up chloroform.

My thoughts exactly.. and did NG mention saturate with chloroform tonite by chance.. I did not watch so I will have to go search that out. I am afraid the chloroform theory is not holding up.
 
I wanted to share that I visited this past week with a PhD chemist that I work with about the issue of the elevated levels of chloroform found in the trunk. I asked him this question:

"Let's say that a child drowned in a pool that had chlorine in it and then that child's body was hid in a trunk for several days. Would the pool water present on the body or in the lungs be able to cause abnormal levels of chloroform in the trunk air?"

Answer:

"No. The trace amounts of chlorine present along with an inadequate amount of hydrocarbons to convert it to chloroform would not create appreciable amounts of chloroform."

When I heard him mention that hydrocarbons needed to present to convert chlorine to chloroform I remembered that the gas cans were in the trunk for 2 or 3 days and so I ask the following:

"What if there were two gas cans in the trunk as well. Mind you they would be either empty or near empty because the gas was poured into the car fuel tank, but nonetheless, there would be residual gas in the cans. Would this provide enough hydrocarbon presence to convert the chlorine from the pool water into chloroform."

Answer:

"No. See the problem is that the human body is very efficient at breaking chloroform down, so the insignificant amount of chloroform that might be converted (if any were at all) would not keep up with how fast the body broke it down."

Now, what I did not ask (and actually just thought of) was whether the efficiency of the human body to breakdown chloroform would be sustained after death...I need to follow up with that question.

Just thought I'd share this in case there is any value you find in it.
 
I wanted to share that I visited this past week with a PhD chemist that I work with about the issue of the elevated levels of chloroform found in the trunk. I asked him this question:

"Let's say that a child drowned in a pool that had chlorine in it and then that child's body was hid in a trunk for several days. Would the pool water present on the body or in the lungs be able to cause abnormal levels of chloroform in the trunk air?"

Answer:

"No. The trace amounts of chlorine present along with an inadequate amount of hydrocarbons to convert it to chloroform would not create appreciable amounts of chloroform."

When I heard him mention that hydrocarbons needed to present to convert chlorine to chloroform I remembered that the gas cans were in the trunk for 2 or 3 days and so I ask the following:

"What if there were two gas cans in the trunk as well. Mind you they would be either empty or near empty because the gas was poured into the car fuel tank, but nonetheless, there would be residual gas in the cans. Would this provide enough hydrocarbon presence to convert the chlorine from the pool water into chloroform."

Answer:

"No. See the problem is that the human body is very efficient at breaking chloroform down, so the insignificant amount of chloroform that might be converted (if any were at all) would not keep up with how fast the body broke it down."

Now, what I did not ask (and actually just thought of) was whether the efficiency of the human body to breakdown chloroform would be sustained after death...I need to follow up with that question.

Just thought I'd share this in case there is any value you find in it.

Awesome info! Thanks! (Oops, I should have just hit the Thanks button. Did that now. While I'm editing, will add that getting information such as this is so helpful. The talking heads in the media share some info, but many/most have personal agendas that taint their info.)
 
I wanted to share that I visited this past week with a PhD chemist that I work with about the issue of the elevated levels of chloroform found in the trunk. I asked him this question:

"Let's say that a child drowned in a pool that had chlorine in it and then that child's body was hid in a trunk for several days. Would the pool water present on the body or in the lungs be able to cause abnormal levels of chloroform in the trunk air?"

Now, what I did not ask (and actually just thought of) was whether the efficiency of the human body to breakdown chloroform would be sustained after death...I need to follow up with that question.

.

Snipped

Thank you for the useful info. :)

Since chloroform is actually one of the compounds produced during decomposition, I wonder too if the body does cease breaking it down after death. I'm very interested in hearing his response to your follow-up question. :waitasec:
 
Okay, I got back with my chemist. First, I need to clear something up that I misstated.

"No. See the problem is that the human body is very efficient at breaking chloroform down, so the insignificant amount of chloroform that might be converted (if any were at all) would not keep up with how fast the body broke it down."

should read

"No. See the problem is that the human body is very efficient at breaking chlorine down, so the insignificant amount of chloroform that might be converted (if any were at all) would not keep up with how fast the body broke the chlorine down."

That's what you get when you get an engineer repeating a chemist. lol

Okay, so I took notes today during our conversation and made sure I got things as correctly as "me 'lil brain" could get them.

The importance of the above statement is that chlorine in combination with an appreciable amount of hydrocarbons is required to convert to chloroform. The metabolic functions of the body are not what he is talking about when he says "efficient at breaking chlorine down". So it doesn't matter if the person is dead or alive. The chemical reaction is inherent to the chlorine and the constituents of the human body.

Pool chlorine is usually either calcium hypochlorite or sodium hypoclorite. This chlorine is ClO4 with +7 charge. It doesn't want to be at this particular state. So it is "looking" for the chance to reduce itself to lower charge. This is what makes it an excellent oxidizer. It is looking to suck in electrons and spit out oxygen (Redox reaction - reduction and oxidation). As soon as it comes in contact with something that allows it to, it will begin to oxidize.

This natural redox reaction will result in the chlorine reducing to a salt (calcium or sodium). The natural process is NOT to create chloroform. That would take the addition of significant amounts of hydrocarbons in order to achieve the CHCl3 of chloroform (i.e. the addition of the carbon and hydrogen).

He asked me to send him the list of compounds found in the testing of the carpet. What he wants to look at is whether there is a significant amount of chlorinated compounds in that list. If there is enough chlorinated compounds in the list, then chlorine COULD be indicated as a reason for elevated chloroform. But if they are absent, then the chloroform is most likely from a pure source of chloroform. Of course, the list we have are only the 16 or so compounds that were flagged also as indicative of decomposition, so we don't know the full list of compounds found in the carpet. So that might hinder this discussion.

I'll get back with you after he reviews things.
 
Okay, I got back with my chemist. First, I need to clear something up that I misstated.



should read



That's what you get when you get an engineer repeating a chemist. lol

Okay, so I took notes today during our conversation and made sure I got things as correctly as "me 'lil brain" could get them.

The importance of the above statement is that chlorine in combination with an appreciable amount of hydrocarbons is required to convert to chloroform. The metabolic functions of the body are not what he is talking about when he says "efficient at breaking chlorine down". So it doesn't matter if the person is dead or alive. The chemical reaction is inherent to the chlorine and the constituents of the human body.

Pool chlorine is usually either calcium hypochlorite or sodium hypoclorite. This chlorine is ClO4 with +7 charge. It doesn't want to be at this particular state. So it is "looking" for the chance to reduce itself to lower charge. This is what makes it an excellent oxidizer. It is looking to suck in electrons and spit out oxygen (Redox reaction - reduction and oxidation). As soon as it comes in contact with something that allows it to, it will begin to oxidize.

This natural redox reaction will result in the chlorine reducing to a salt (calcium or sodium). The natural process is NOT to create chloroform. That would take the addition of significant amounts of hydrocarbons in order to achieve the CHCl3 of chloroform (i.e. the addition of the carbon and hydrogen).

He asked me to send him the list of compounds found in the testing of the carpet. What he wants to look at is whether there is a significant amount of chlorinated compounds in that list. If there is enough chlorinated compounds in the list, then chlorine COULD be indicated as a reason for elevated chloroform. But if they are absent, then the chloroform is most likely from a pure source of chloroform. Of course, the list we have are only the 16 or so compounds that were flagged also as indicative of decomposition, so we don't know the full list of compounds found in the carpet. So that might hinder this discussion.

I'll get back with you after he reviews things.

Right at the end of the trunk odour analysis report, there is a table (in 2 parts) that shows the full results.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...y-anthony-documents-102408,0,5346622.htmlpage
 
Thank you, Devon! Didn't keep reading when I went in to get the results!

I'll get that list to him in the morning.
 
HP (prawn debris) and 42 (velveeta)...you two crack me up! I read threads all the time where posters laugh and say the beverage they were sipping just blew out their nose. Here's my personal testimony...I just blew ice tea out my nose!!! Thanks for the laughs!

Here's a question so as to keep my post on topic:
Forget the movies, in real life situations, wouldn't a chloroform cloth placed over the tender skin of a toddler cause chemical skin burns? TIA.
 
Just thinkin here...

If she say chloroformed Caylee once and used enough to kill her. Did this someplace and put Caylee already dead in the trunk. Wouldn't that chloroform gone into her lungs and then as the body decomposed just dissapated?

The reports and NG say "HIGH LEVELS" of cholorform. As the body decomposed in the car, could have the cholorform that was inhaled be released from the body?

I am thinking it would have been absorbed into the body and not nessasarily been found in the carpeting.

If "pure chloroform" was found in the carpeting would it be more like from a spill?

Just thinking.. here.. need to go get caffeine.

Need to find out if an amount of chloroform enough to kill a small child was used and the child inhaled the chloroform with the source (rag and bottle) not found, could the chloroform leak out through the body?
 
i just don't believe that chloroform was used on caylee at all. when this all began i ran the same 'how to make chloroform' search that casey did and every single site warned that 1.chloroform leaves chemical burns 2. chloroform only works for approx 15-20 mins 3. chloroform causes nausea and vomiting. casey would have read the same things. i just don't believe she'd choose to abuse caylee in a manner that would leave obvious marks, only be effective for 20 mins and result in her having to deal w/ a 2yr old throwing up all over cindy's precious carpets.
i don't think she'd go the trouble, or even be capable of making it (and certainly not pure) and finally, if you're trying to kill something so small that it can't protect itself and whose life you could end w/ one carefully placed hand, why bother?
 
i just don't believe that chloroform was used on caylee at all. when this all began i ran the same 'how to make chloroform' search that casey did and every single site warned that 1.chloroform leaves chemical burns 2. chloroform only works for approx 15-20 mins 3. chloroform causes nausea and vomiting. casey would have read the same things. i just don't believe she'd choose to abuse caylee in a manner that would leave obvious marks, only be effective for 20 mins and result in her having to deal w/ a 2yr old throwing up all over cindy's precious carpets.
i don't think she'd go the trouble, or even be capable of making it (and certainly not pure) and finally, if you're trying to kill something so small that it can't protect itself and whose life you could end w/ one carefully placed hand, why bother?

Especially when muscle relaxers or OTC cold medicines would knock them out for a long time with less mess.
 
i just don't believe that chloroform was used on caylee at all. when this all began i ran the same 'how to make chloroform' search that casey did and every single site warned that 1.chloroform leaves chemical burns 2. chloroform only works for approx 15-20 mins 3. chloroform causes nausea and vomiting. casey would have read the same things. i just don't believe she'd choose to abuse caylee in a manner that would leave obvious marks, only be effective for 20 mins and result in her having to deal w/ a 2yr old throwing up all over cindy's precious carpets.
i don't think she'd go the trouble, or even be capable of making it (and certainly not pure) and finally, if you're trying to kill something so small that it can't protect itself and whose life you could end w/ one carefully placed hand, why bother?

I think it was used. I do not think it was used repetitively as an anesthetic because what you say is right...it's a short-term "knock out".

I think KC chloroformed Caylee so that she could drown her easier. That way she didn't fight or scream.
 
i just don't believe that chloroform was used on caylee at all. when this all began i ran the same 'how to make chloroform' search that casey did and every single site warned that 1.chloroform leaves chemical burns 2. chloroform only works for approx 15-20 mins 3. chloroform causes nausea and vomiting. casey would have read the same things. i just don't believe she'd choose to abuse caylee in a manner that would leave obvious marks, only be effective for 20 mins and result in her having to deal w/ a 2yr old throwing up all over cindy's precious carpets.
i don't think she'd go the trouble, or even be capable of making it (and certainly not pure) and finally, if you're trying to kill something so small that it can't protect itself and whose life you could end w/ one carefully placed hand, why bother?

Thanks for posting this. I've always had a problem with chloroform levels in the trunk for several reasons. One is that we immediately decided KC was chloroforming Caylee after the google searches - that whole search seemed to be to be about accidental causes of death around the house, not about how to make a baby go to sleep. Something in CA's medicine cabinet (xanax or benadryl) would be a lot easier - much less work than making and then transporting chloroform in some container in the car, because KC would have had to keep it in the car to administer it after removing Caylee from the house. I doubt she would use a purse flask. The experts that were on shows in the early days also seemed to think that its volatility made it relatively hard to mix - needed ice to keep the components cool - it sounded like more work to me than what KC wouldn normally like to do . How stable would it have been in the kind of heat that a car in Florida reaches in the summer? The interior reaches 120 degrees F very quickly with the windows up. Do we know the flash point of choroform? Also we immediately thought that the chloroform involved could have only come from Caylee's body, hence from KC herself.

I was always struck by how quickly some of the experts said chloroform degraded or broke down. In order for the chloroform to be from Caylee, it would have had to have been in the trunk for at least a month. Obviously we know the trunk was opened several times during the interim (gas can incident if nothing else - and to put the bag of garbage from AL's house in it). So some of the fumes might have escaped. But it sat for two weeks in a hot car lot. Perhaps a chemist could help comment if heat accelerates the breakdown.

Experts also mentioned early on that some car cleaning solvents had chloroform or would produce chloroform when reacting with other substances.

My initial thought, when I had heard the car was cleaned out by her parents after they brought it home, was that some cleaning solvent had been used to get rid of the stain or the smell in the trunk and it left a high chloroform signature afterwards.

Lee did say when he first walked into the garage that the smell hit him and that it was very strong. It is strange that he and his sister went into the garage to speak later, when LE was taking statements, and nobody from LE noticed the smell. I always wondered if Lee had been over earlier, when his father was there and when CA had gone back to work. If GA had been steamcleaning the trunk and airing the car out, maybe he made enough progress for the car not to totally reek with the trunk closed or the garage doors shut (for LE to notice it that night), until the dogs came the next day and hit on the trunk and YM smelled it as well.

It seems to me that if the decomposition smell had been noticed from a closed car by LE that night, a homicide detective would have been called immediately and the car impounded on the spot.

I cannot find this in the reports but I have a feeling LE knew that the car situation was being ignored by the Anthonys the night LE was called. GA could have not only steamcleaned the car that night but also have done it again on the morning of July 16 when KC and LE were "touring" Universal. If he used strong cleaning solvents that might just as easily explain high trace levels of chloroform when the car was finally impounded.

If the water used to clean the car was dumped out in the yard, it would also help explain the various cadaver dog hits if it had traces of decomp fluid.

Valhall I hope maybe you might ask your chemist friend if these scenarios are possible. Because it might be premature for us to assume just how or why the chloroform was in the trunk. I know the toxicology reports may show repeated drug use (and according to several forensic pathologists on NG even repeated chloroform may not show up in hair samples like other drugs that stay in the blood), but until we ever get a COD we might want to keep our options open - she could have been shaken or had a broken neck for all we know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
98
Guests online
3,944
Total visitors
4,042

Forum statistics

Threads
593,590
Messages
17,989,562
Members
229,167
Latest member
just_a_shouthern_gal
Back
Top