2009.08.07 Emails between Oak Ridge and OCSO

[Oakley]

Quote Respect Marspiter

Me too. Can someone remind me what date the chloroform searches were done?

Thanks

March 2008. I think it was March 17 and March 21--2 days in either direction from KC's birthday.

That was what I thought, that it's an archaic, obsolete substance for legitimate medical use.

I think it's possible it was used to clean the car trunk. I'm not sold on the idea of KC using it to drug Caylee. What was the date of the chloroform search again? Going to go check... Wish I could remember the dates of these details.........

Hope I did this right. TEB- dates posted above.

 

[jandkmom]

Thanks for the compliment, but I am far from being an expert; I only have a BS in Chemistry. I've just been around analytical chemistry labs a good bit because my Mom owns/operates one and has for as long as I can remember. I focused on the use of GC-MS for the identification and quantification of mescaline in ancient peyote samples for my undergraduate research project, but I really only know the basics.
The best explanation that I can give you is that distillation is carried out on a mixture that is in the liquid phase. You separate the components of a mixture by boiling point when you employ simple distillation. Boiling point is a physical property, so separating a mixture by boiling point only requires heat; no chemical reactions take place in the separation process. You begin with a mixture of two chemicals and are (in theory) able to separate the mixture into two parts that consist of one pure chemical that remains unchanged (there are no chemical reactions). A classic example is the distillation of a mixture of benzene and toluene because it best illustrates the "ideal" conditions required for the separation of a two component mixture by boiling point (if you want more info, read up on Raoult's law and Dalton's law... I don't wanna put everyone to sleep... if i haven't already!). In reality, it is nearly impossible to COMPLETELY separate a mixture into separate, purified components without taking advantage of the chemical reactivity of the different chemical components in the mixture. For example, a mixture of ethanol and water can't be separated by simple distillation; it is necessary to create a change in pressure OR add another component that will create a CHEMICAL (not physical) change within the mixture so that the two components may be separated.
Regardless of whether or not the mixture is azeotropic, the separation of a liquid system into its pure chemical components can be done without destroying any of the sample. If you have a two component mixture of volume equal to 10mL, you can separate it into component A of volume equal to 2mL and component B of volume equal to 8mL (volume A+volume B=10mL, so there is no significant "loss"). Evaporation is used WITH re-condensation when simple distillation is performed, so both the sample and the end products are in the liquid phase.
The main point is that the azeotrope is a mixture of TWO SEPARATE CHEMICALS and the different chemicals still have DIFFERENT CHEMICAL PROPERTIES from one another. Don't think of it as A+B=C; think of it as A+B=A+B. Each chemical species maintains it's OWN IDENTITY even though the boiling point of the mixture makes it APPEAR as if an entirely different chemical has been formed.

When you perform analysis with GC-MS, you inject a VERY small volume of your sample into the injection port. The sample is COMPLETELY vaporized upon injection (so it's in the gas phase) and the mobile phase (also a gas) moves the sample through the column where it CHEMICALLY interacts with the stationary phase (the coating on the walls inside the column). The evaporation of the liquid sample is a physical change and the less volatile (lower molecular weight) compounds will move through the column more quickly, BUT the CHEMICAL reactions between these compounds and the stationary phase are also involved in the separation process. Not only are you using separation by boiling point with GC-MS, but you are also using separation based on POLARITY (a chemical property) and based on retention time (also related to chemical property).
Another difference is that since the volume injected is so small with GC-MS, it is nearly impossible to separately collect each individual eluent when it comes off the column. GC-MS detects chemical species in the ppm and ppb ranges... you can imagine how difficult it would be to collect 10ppb methanol in a vial when it is eluted from the column.
I really hope this has helped out a little bit without getting too confusing. I am not very good at explaining things, but am happy to try. Let me know if there is anything that doesn't make sense or if I need to clarify.

Wow!!!! What a coincidence. The Anthony's have a BS in Chemistry too

 

[The Eunice Burns]

Hope I did this right. TEB- dates posted above.

Thanks! March. So, if it was used to clean the trunk as opposed to being an off gassing (don't know if that is the correct terminology) of some other substance, and we have the Google search........that just adds to the pile of premed. Were there any tests done on the other surfaces of the trunk? Such as the sides, any metal, etc. I know it's been discussed re: the effects of chloroform on skin (somewhere in one of the threads), but would it leave a telltale mark if it was used on a rag and then wiped across a surface? A streak, or a damaged surface mark? Thinking out loud........

 

[DogMom2JoeAndWillie]

Dogmom - You definitely sound like you know more about this than most of us! Thanks for this info...I am gathering from your post that you think that there WAS chloroform (pure and simple) in the trunk. Is this what you think or is there some other theory that could tie into your knowledge about this subject matter???

Thank you so much for the compliment, but I hope you guys don't think I'm too knowledgeable about this stuff. I'm afraid I'll disappoint and end up causing more confusion because I don't explain my thoughts very clearly sometimes. If it makes sense in my head, it probably won't make sense to anybody else when I put it in text, LOL.
Thanks for asking this question; it sums up what I was trying to say much more clearly that I ever would have been able to. Pure and simple, my answer is yes. I think that if they detected chloroform at significant levels in the sample taken from KC's trunk but were unable to identify any chloroform in their control samples, then there was most likely chloroform in the trunk. I don't know where it came from or how it got there, but they were obviously able to identify and quantify it based on their reports. It's not really a "maybe" kind of thing... if the instrument detected chloroform it was present in the sample... period. I wouldn't rule anything out... the sample could have been contaminated, mislabeled, improperly handled, etc. My point is that regardless of how it got there, chloroform WAS IN THE SAMPLE. (I'm assuming that they quantified it, since they said that it was present at "significant levels"... but I'm not sure how much has to be present for the levels to be considered "significant"... and I should probably read up on their methodology, too).
Hope this helps and isn't too crazy sounding

 

[Jolynna]

Chloroform is dangerous. You can't breathe it or touch it. The danger to shelter personnel is the reason most states now outlaw its use for euthanasia at shelters. At one time it was considered a humane way to eliminate unwanted animals.


Deleware does still use it. BUT, the protocol is for the chloroform to soak a gauze/cotton dispenser in a container that the animal NEVER comes in contact with. Just being in the same chamber as the soaked gauze is enough to kill. Personnel are instructed to wait a full 1/2 hour after the animal has ceased breathing to even open the chamber.

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache...m+euthanasia+animal&cd=17&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Even to kill it is considered cruel to slap a soaked rag over an animal's face.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

As long as I'm thinking about claims I've heard in the past somewhere - does anyone recall hearing that AD worked for a Vet?

Don't get mad at me and say I'm dragging innocent people in, etc. I'm not saying it's true just that I remember hearing it.

I noticed that the report states that Vets use chloroform; that caused me to think about hearing once that AD had worked for a Vet.

Anyone recall this and was it ever substantiated?

okay - tomorrow I'm going to have my head examined :crazy: I finally found the post/s that led me to post the above.

If anyone is interested they are on the Who is Annie D. Thread
the first one is post no. 449 dated 12/29/08. the poster says that she read on a message board (no source given) that (paraphrasing) AD worked at a Vet clinic parttime neutering dogs and that it was AD who supplied KC pharmaceutical grade chloroform and xanax. She goes on to say that three people besides KC should be in jail too.
Based on that post someone goes on to elaborate that AD had been stealing narcotics from the Vet clinic. Post No. 486 same thread.

Herein lies the problem - I remember this - yes. But it is based on non-sourced posts that anybody could have made up or just innocently posted as info they had heard. As far as I can tell none of the information was ever sleuthed out.

One more thing I came across that I found interesting. Prior to locating Caylee's body there was interest in a church location on Curry Ford Road. Interestingly there is a Vet located nearby who was called to supply the address of the church. Cell phones & pings thread #2 (type in vet and the post will come up - I forgot to note the post no.) dated around 10/28/08.

 

[DogMom2JoeAndWillie]

Wow!!!! What a coincidence. The Anthony's have a BS in Chemistry too

LOL, jandkmom!!! :floorlaugh:

I should've known better than to use that abbreviation....hehe. :doh:

You do make a good point.... but I thought they had a BS in Junk Science??:waitasec:

 

[sarah7855]

OMG that number has been around since at least the mid-sixties! Ummm, while we are admitting bad uses for this number, I once gave it out when someone asked for my number and I didn't want to give him mine. :blush: Thanks for the trip down memory lane.

I just called and it gave me today's weather, tonight's forecast and tomorrows forecast. Of course this is August... no problem forecasting Florida weather in August... "hot and humid with a chance of scattered thunderstorms" :raincloud: She could have been calling it to check the next days weather but not to see if it was a good "dump day" since she'd already parked the car at Amscot.

Wow! I had no idea it had been around that long, but I'm glad I am not the only one who has used it for something other than its intended purpose

Anyhow, you got tomorrow's forecast? Huh. I've never been able to get the next day's...oh well, who knows with Casey? Certainly not me! :crazy:

 

[LinasK]

Respectfully bolded by me.

Cindy works in an office organizing visiting nurses, not in a nursing home. I hope that clears things up a bit! There is NO WAY she had access to chloroform in her duties at work. She never even saw patients!
:blowkiss:

Yes, Gentiva is a Home Health Agency. Patients are seen in their homes. I used to work for them in California.

 

[Brini]

Not that I know of...the only thing I can think of is a chemist working in a lab just doesn't know they don't use this stuff anymore...I was involved in the Veterinary profession since the early 70's and we never had it...don't know about hospitals...have to do some research.

People hospitals haven't had it in a LOOOOOOONG time. No medical facility keeps it.

 

[Brini]

okay - tomorrow I'm going to have my head examined :crazy: I finally found the post/s that led me to post the above.

If anyone is interested they are on the Who is Annie D. Thread
the first one is post no. 449 dated 12/29/08. the poster says that she read on a message board (no source given) that (paraphrasing) AD worked at a Vet clinic parttime neutering dogs and that it was AD who supplied KC pharmaceutical grade chloroform and xanax. She goes on to say that three people besides KC should be in jail too.
Based on that post someone goes on to elaborate that AD had been stealing narcotics from the Vet clinic. Post No. 486 same thread.

Herein lies the problem - I remember this - yes. But it is based on non-sourced posts that anybody could have made up or just innocently posted as info they had heard. As far as I can tell none of the information was ever sleuthed out.

One more thing I came across that I found interesting. Prior to locating Caylee's body there was interest in a church location on Curry Ford Road. Interestingly there is a Vet located nearby who was called to supply the address of the church. Cell phones & pings thread #2 (type in vet and the post will come up - I forgot to note the post no.) dated around 10/28/08.

My vets don't use chloroform.

I think it's illegal for vets too (but I'm not sure).

 

[Brini]

Thank you so much for the compliment, but I hope you guys don't think I'm too knowledgeable about this stuff. I'm afraid I'll disappoint and end up causing more confusion because I don't explain my thoughts very clearly sometimes. If it makes sense in my head, it probably won't make sense to anybody else when I put it in text, LOL.
Thanks for asking this question; it sums up what I was trying to say much more clearly that I ever would have been able to. Pure and simple, my answer is yes. I think that if they detected chloroform at significant levels in the sample taken from KC's trunk but were unable to identify any chloroform in their control samples, then there was most likely chloroform in the trunk. I don't know where it came from or how it got there, but they were obviously able to identify and quantify it based on their reports. It's not really a "maybe" kind of thing... if the instrument detected chloroform it was present in the sample... period. I wouldn't rule anything out... the sample could have been contaminated, mislabeled, improperly handled, etc. My point is that regardless of how it got there, chloroform WAS IN THE SAMPLE. (I'm assuming that they quantified it, since they said that it was present at "significant levels"... but I'm not sure how much has to be present for the levels to be considered "significant"... and I should probably read up on their methodology, too).
Hope this helps and isn't too crazy sounding

And stats. Those are also stats terms.

HATED stats!

 

[DogMom2JoeAndWillie]

And stats. Those are also stats terms.

HATED stats!

EWWWW! Sig-figs are the devil! LOL

 

[JWG]

Thank you so much for the compliment, but I hope you guys don't think I'm too knowledgeable about this stuff. I'm afraid I'll disappoint and end up causing more confusion because I don't explain my thoughts very clearly sometimes. If it makes sense in my head, it probably won't make sense to anybody else when I put it in text, LOL.
Thanks for asking this question; it sums up what I was trying to say much more clearly that I ever would have been able to. Pure and simple, my answer is yes. I think that if they detected chloroform at significant levels in the sample taken from KC's trunk but were unable to identify any chloroform in their control samples, then there was most likely chloroform in the trunk. I don't know where it came from or how it got there, but they were obviously able to identify and quantify it based on their reports. It's not really a "maybe" kind of thing... if the instrument detected chloroform it was present in the sample... period. I wouldn't rule anything out... the sample could have been contaminated, mislabeled, improperly handled, etc. My point is that regardless of how it got there, chloroform WAS IN THE SAMPLE. (I'm assuming that they quantified it, since they said that it was present at "significant levels"... but I'm not sure how much has to be present for the levels to be considered "significant"... and I should probably read up on their methodology, too).
Hope this helps and isn't too crazy sounding

One other thing to note is that the discovery of chloroform in the trunk prompted the OCSO computer forensics people to search for the word on the computer. Discovery of the Google search on the computer came after the substance was discovered in the trunk. Not the other way around.

The search term probably would never have been found otherwise. After all, an investigator is not going to scroll through tens of billions of bytes of data looking for interesting words. It simply is not practical.

 

[archenemy toenail]

I wonder if Oak Ridge (or any other agency investigating this case) has experimented by attempting to make chloroform accidentally with different mixtures of cleaning chemicals in a car trunk similar to Casey's to see if the presence of chloroform isn't really just a huge coincidence? Casey was so lazy and it would have been so unnecessary to use it on little Caylee to subdue/overpower/kill her, I just can't wrap my mind around Casey making some. But maybe she did...and aside from the obvious how and when of Casey doing the deed, the chloroform question is probably the one I'd like most to have answered in this case.

 

[DogMom2JoeAndWillie]

This is a little OT, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. For those of you who are interested in reading up on how chemistry is involved in forensics, I have two copies of a textbook titled Investigating Chemistry: A Forensic Science Perspective that I'm willing to loan out. They were no cost to me, I picked them up off of a "free book" table in the Chemistry Department at the University I'm working for. I'm assuming that the Faculty has decided to switch to a different text or they have started using a newer edition of this text. Either way, it's got lots of good information and it sticks to the basics, so it's pretty easy to read/understand (even if you're not a crazy chemist). I'd post this in the book-club forum... but it doesn't seem to get much activity and I thought that quite a few of you guys would be interested. Feel free to contact me for more info.

 

[treeseeker]

Thanks, DogMom. I almost understood that lol! I think, but am still not sure, that if the chloroform had been an accidental by-product of a random mixture, it would be "some substance" containing chloroform. Since it was just chloroform, nothing else - no acetones or esters - it appeared to be pharm grade, and the reason Dr. Vass was looking for a source per his email. It takes distillation to produce just chloroform after you've mixed the chemicals. And...I could have this entirely wrong. I do think this is along the same line of thought the lab had when they made their report, though.

 

[memorylane01]

"Coffin flies" helped LE solve another case a few years back. Interestingly, the victim in that case was found with plastic making a gag over her mouth and nose. The defendant admitted hiding the victim's death for years, but said the victim died of natural causes and that the plastic had been placed over the victim's mouth and nose after death as a shroud. Flies helped the prosecutors prove otherwise.

Dr. Haskell, the same entomologist mentioned in the OSCO e-mails, solved the case.

The New York Times wrote about the case:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/science/12file-fly.htm

scuttle flies, or “coffin flies,” insects that cannibalize dead bodies after they have undergone initial decomposition. “We knew it was a long time since Mom had been seen, and I thought, ‘If we have the blow flies, we can tell what season she went missing,’ ” Dr. Haskell said. “When I got the insect specimens, I was really disappointed.”
​

But then Dr. Haskell realized the significance of the blow flies’ absence: Ms. Smith had to have been put into the garbage can either directly after she died or while she was still alive, barring the blow flies’ access to the corpse. (Coffin flies, on the other hand, could have gotten to the body because they often tunnel through tiny nooks and crannies.) “That showed me that West had to have lied about what she did with her mother,” Dr. Haskell said. After only two hours of deliberation, a jury pronounced Ms. West guilty of her mother’s murder. Ms. West is serving a life sentence at a prison in southern Nevada.​

So this could be the reason for the duct tape....AND the reason she finally decided to discard the body. I wonder if the flies were in there when GA was looking for the gas cans.

 

[DogMom2JoeAndWillie]

Thanks, DogMom. I almost understood that lol! I think, but am still not sure, that if the chloroform had been an accidental by-product of a random mixture, it would be "some substance" containing chloroform. Since it was just chloroform, nothing else - no acetones or esters - it appeared to be pharm grade, and the reason Dr. Vass was looking for a source per his email. It takes distillation to produce just chloroform after you've mixed the chemicals. And...I could have this entirely wrong. I do think this is along the same line of thought the lab had when they made their report, though.

The whole point of GC-MS is to identify each of the chemicals that make up "some substance"... no matter how that substance was created (whether by accidental mixing of household products or through the use of pure chemical). The sample they took inside the trunk would have had MANY different chemicals... it would be impossible for them to find ONLY chloroform in the trunk (otherwise their "control samples" would have been "blanks", meaning that they contained NOTHING). Think of ALL the chemicals (from plant sources, from decomp, etc.) that have been mentioned throughout the thread. Those would have also been present in the sample. Chromatography takes a MULTIPLE component sample and breaks it down into each individual chemical component... so there is really no way that the ONLY thing they found was chloroform. They would have had to see the other scent causing chemicals that were mentioned, too. Hope this helps. It's like taking your shampoo bottle and reading the ingredient list on the back... each of those ingredients are put into the bottle to make the shampoo, just like each of the chemicals found in the trunk make up the sample that they analyzed. Hope I'm helping.

ETA: I'm pretty sure that the only "grades" that chloroform can be purchased in are "reagent grade" and "HPLC grade"... the difference is the purity of the chemical based on assay. HPLC grade is something like 99.9% pure chloroform while reagent grade is like, 95% percent pure chloroform... one is used for general lab procedure while the other is used for quantification with liquid chromatography.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

My vets don't use chloroform.

I think it's illegal for vets too (but I'm not sure).

Thanks, I don't know if they do or don't. But in the emails the Scientist questioned the LE officer about Vets.

I remembered that it had been mentioned that AD had worked for a Vet. I searched to substantiate my claim. When I found it, I found that it had been posted as hearsay, that is, it was not supported.

I never claimed that Vets use chloroform although that has been brought up within this forum. I was saying - nevermind. :bang:

Obviously someone uses it somewhere either legally or illegally because one can buy it or make it themselves. Oh and it showed up in KC's trunk. We know that RM thought it was funny to use it to win a woman over. Whatever yanks ones chain I guess.

Dr. Vass asks Mike in email no. 17 in post no. 1 of this thread if any of the family members had access to hospital, labs, or veterinary clinic, etc. because they were concerned about the high level of chloroform found in the trunk.