All About Chloroform#2

[JWG]

JWG,

Thanks for sharing this and for taking the time. I'd like to share some calculations here so you can cross check me. This is an attempt to guesstimate how much chloroform they are saying was present in their testing and extrapolate it out for the entire trunk volume...just to get a feel for the volume of chloroform we might be talking about.

I couldn't find the exact specs on a 1998 Pontiac Sunfire, but from here

http://www.kbb.com/kbb/UsedCars/Spe...re_Trade-In_Excellent.aspx?SelectedTabIndex=1

I got 13.1 cu. ft of trunk space and I think it's probably close enough.

** [ SNIP ] **

Geez Val, I did not wake up expecting to have to do math before finishing the first half a pot of coffee! :coffee:

But, I sure appreciate you kicking this off and trying to quantify the amount, putting it in terms someone like me can understand (i.e., relating the volume to that of a shot glass :martini.

I started off to dutifully check your math, hoping I would not have to dust off my old chemistry books and head down the path of MOLs. :nerves: But, before I got too far I noticed that good 'ol Wikipedia had done most of the work for me. :applause:

Referring to the Wiki page on [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloroform"]chloroform[/ame] and looking at the table on the right, I see under the hazards section near the bottom the U.S. permissible exposure limit is 50 ppm. That's not only a nice, round low-PPM number to work with, but Wiki also conveniently lists the equivalent density: 240 mg/m3.

So running with your trunk volume of 0.371 m3: :run:

• 240 mg / m3 * 0.371 m3 = 89.04 mg, or 0.08904 grams
• Wiki says the density of chloroform is 1.48 g/cm3
• My 0.08904 grams of pure chloroform would occupy a volume of 0.060162162 cm3, or 60.16216216 mm3.
• A 60.2 mm3 cube is nearly 4 mm on a side, or a little bigger than 1/8 inch and a little less than 3/16th of an inch on a side. :thumb:

That's a pretty good-sized drop of "pure" chloroform, IMHO. Although I was unable to measure the quantity I made, I can say for certainty it was not anywhere close to that amount. :snooty:

Also, FWIW, I reran the experiment using 5 mL of fingernail polish, and did not appreciably increase the number of resulting bubbles. The point being, I would need to significantly increase the volume of pool water or the amount of chlorine in the water to begin approaching the amount found in the trunk.

So, kind of going full circle here a bit, but based on my very, very crude and unscientific experiment, the concentration of chloroform in the trunk appears to be far greater than what would be expected from 1) normal decomposition of a small child and 2) that which would be produced from lungs filled with chlorinated water, regardless of the source of the acetone.

 

[JWG]

P.S. I need to add a point of clarification on the calculations above. THEY AREN'T RIGHT! haha What I mean is they assume equal concentration of chloroform through-out the entire 13.1 cu. ft. of the trunk and this would not be the case.

Chloroform is 4.5 times heavier than air so the chloroform would have "fallen out" of the air and the highest concentration would be at the carpet level. Since the "low ppm" estimate in the forensic report is taken at the carpet level where the chloroform would have collected at a higher concentration, that means the actual amount of total chloroform in the overall volume of the trunk would come out much less than what I calculated.

So...the calcs are just to give a WORST CASE scenario on the volume of chloroform we're talking about.

There are other variables too that play into it not being a worst-case scenario, not the least of which is that the trunk chloroform does not represent all of the chloroform produced. Since Caylee was stuffed in a bag with a blanket, I would expect the majority of the chloroform that was produced stayed in the bag, some of it being absorbed by the blanket. Unfortunately, 6 months exposure to the elements would have eliminated traces of the chemical.

 

[countzero]

You "guys" ROCK!!! :clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[ibyoungr]

Unless Casey had made chloroform after reading up on it in March and used for sex purposes only...lets say with TonyR (note that they mention how awesome it was in the texts) Her homemade chloroform spills on the trunk of the car.

Would this produce that amount of chloroform?

I am not saying this happened or even was likely. I was wondering about the how much chloroform could spill in the back of a car and cause the results that JWG and Valhall are discussing.

 

[Mrs.Peacock]

I am just not convinced that Casey had the sense or forethought to manufacture chloroform or use in in a manner of "soft" death. That just doesn't follow the sequence of events of the BIG blowup/fight. Would it not be considered that perhaps she duct taped Caylee and then drowned her?

 

[Valhall]

There are other variables too that play into it not being a worst-case scenario, not the least of which is that the trunk chloroform does not represent all of the chloroform produced. Since Caylee was stuffed in a bag with a blanket, I would expect the majority of the chloroform that was produced stayed in the bag, some of it being absorbed by the blanket. Unfortunately, 6 months exposure to the elements would have eliminated traces of the chemical.

VERY good point on the blanket! That portion of total chloroform (well, any portion that left the trunk with Caylee), would not show up in the forensics of the trunk carpet...so you are absolutely spot on that it decreases the over-estimation of the calculations!

This chloroform issue is going to drive me bonkers!!!

 

[Valhall]

I just got through visiting with my chemist friend about this whole deal of no fingerprints on the duct tape and the chloroform. This is what I asked him...

"If my fingers were wet with chloroform and I tried to use duct tape, would I leave a fingerprint in the adhesive?"

Answer...

"Probably not. Your fingers would slide off the duct tape as the solvent ate up the adhesive. Then when the solvent had evaporated from your fingers the adhesive would be left on your fingers."

I asked him if we could try this in the lab and he said yes. We're planning to do this later this afternoon. I also asked him if I could try with no gloves on and his comment was that he wouldn't recommend it (just from an HSE policy standpoint), but that "it wouldn't be as bad as you probably think if you did get it on your fingers."

After visiting with him about this and hearing the part about the adhesive ending up on your fingers because the solvent lifts it off the duct tape, I remembered the clear goo on the knife from KC's car. Could she have used the knife blade to scrape the adhesive off her fingers???

Just a thought.

Anyways, I'll share my little experiment with you later in the day.

 

[fortytwo]

I've never given much attention to the issue of missing fingerprints. After five months of exposure to the outdoors it would be much more surprising if they had found anything. Remember, it took the resources of the FBI latent prints lab to even find the sticker adhesive. These adhesives can be the next thing to indelible, and there was not enough left from the sticker for the ME's inspection to reveal. Why should fingerprints have done that well?

I've seen a lot of old duct tape in the field on job sites, and it actually tends to delaminate and degrade fairly quickly, at least in terms of months. After taking into account submersion (possibly multiple), animal activity, and general weathering I'm inclined to think it fortunate that the tape survived as well as it did.

Still, we can hope. There's still that other piece of tape.

 

[Roze]

I've never given much attention to the issue of missing fingerprints. After five months of exposure to the outdoors it would be much more surprising if they had found anything. Remember, it took the resources of the FBI latent prints lab to even find the sticker adhesive. These adhesives can be the next thing to indelible, and there was not enough left from the sticker for the ME's inspection to reveal. Why should fingerprints have done that well?

I've seen a lot of old duct tape in the field on job sites, and it actually tends to delaminate and degrade fairly quickly, at least in terms of months. After taking into account submersion (possibly multiple), animal activity, and general weathering I'm inclined to think it fortunate that the tape survived as well as it did.

Still, we can hope. There's still that other piece of tape.

I heard one single ME say early on that it was likely that no fingerprints would have survived the elements. I remember thinking that, that was probably the sad truth. But still, I hope...

 

[Valhall]

So I got to play with chloroform. The experiment with the duct tape confirmed two things: 1. if your fingers or the duct tape are wet with chloroform it's hard to make a fingerprint because the adhesive plasticizes and your fingers just slip across it, 2. even if you did originally get a fingerprint on the adhesive, the chloroform would eventually plasticize the adhesive and with any pressure from the outside of the duct tape (i.e. in placement), the fingerprint would go away. In addition, it confirmed that chloroform plays heck on getting duct tape to stick.

The adhesive from duct tape is grey on your fingers when it comes off (and it's real dang hard to get back off your fingers!!!)...so the clear goo on the knife isn't the duct tape adhesive.

P.S. Getting limited amounts of chloroform on your fingers isn't a big deal. It just dries your skin out. If it got on more sensitive skin I can see it causing the irritation or even worse, but it didn't bother my hands at all.

 

[fortytwo]

So I got to play with chloroform. The experiment with the duct tape confirmed two things: 1. if your fingers or the duct tape are wet with chloroform it's hard to make a fingerprint because the adhesive plasticizes and your fingers just slip across it, 2. even if you did originally get a fingerprint on the adhesive, the chloroform would eventually plasticize the adhesive and with any pressure from the outside of the duct tape (i.e. in placement), the fingerprint would go away. In addition, it confirmed that chloroform plays heck on getting duct tape to stick.

The adhesive from duct tape is grey on your fingers when it comes off (and it's real dang hard to get back off your fingers!!!)...so the clear goo on the knife isn't the duct tape adhesive.

P.S. Getting limited amounts of chloroform on your fingers isn't a big deal. It just dries your skin out. If it got on more sensitive skin I can see it causing the irritation or even worse, but it didn't bother my hands at all.

I'm guessing that you "didn't inhale".

 

[Valhall]

I'm guessing that you "didn't inhale".

LOL...no I didn't. But the phone call to set up time with the chemist was funny. I said, "Hey, I'll bring the duct tape if you'll bring the chloroform!" and he said, "Party's on!!!"

hahaha

I did go away with a headache after we were through in the lab, and I'm pretty sure it was from the vapors. We had a LOT of chloroform out. lol He poured more than 250 cc into an open cup and we messed around with the duct tape and with cloth and stuff. He went ahead an put a piece of duct tape in the cup and covered the cup with parafilm to see what happens to the duct tape after soaking over night.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Dear Baby ManyWhiteHorses - I grieve the world's loss of your spirit. I thank God your death was used to assist in the fight for justice for Caylee. I hope you are both playing together right now, and are best friends forever.

Bittersweet, isn't it..I just needed to thank you for that siggy..:clap:

I caught that Baby ManyWhiteHorses aided in the Caylee evidence investigation...they are both very safe and protected now, Val..the only consellation with these heinous crimes on innocent children..

Sorry, o/t, I know...:waitasec:

 

[Just Jayla]

Sorry if this is has been established, but is it certain that KC's prints were not found on the tape? I know GA/CA/LA fingerprints were stated to not be on the tape, but I have forgotten whether KC's were ever addressed in later doc dumps.

 

[Mystic]

So I got to play with chloroform. The experiment with the duct tape confirmed two things: 1. if your fingers or the duct tape are wet with chloroform it's hard to make a fingerprint because the adhesive plasticizes and your fingers just slip across it, 2. even if you did originally get a fingerprint on the adhesive, the chloroform would eventually plasticize the adhesive and with any pressure from the outside of the duct tape (i.e. in placement), the fingerprint would go away. In addition, it confirmed that chloroform plays heck on getting duct tape to stick.

The adhesive from duct tape is grey on your fingers when it comes off (and it's real dang hard to get back off your fingers!!!)...so the clear goo on the knife isn't the duct tape adhesive.

P.S. Getting limited amounts of chloroform on your fingers isn't a big deal. It just dries your skin out. If it got on more sensitive skin I can see it causing the irritation or even worse, but it didn't bother my hands at all.

thanks Valhall, I definately have no idea about chloroform and how long a person would stay knocked out from it. I am wondering how long the reaction you received would effect, in other words if KC used it on Caylee. And lets say her original plan was to drown her... she leaves a knocked out Caylee in the bedroom & goes to prepare the ladder by the pool or just carries her out to the pool with ladder up. She discovers she can't manueveur it and decides on duct taping her instead. Would that length of time after knocking her out change the ability for the duct tape to stick? (like does the residue or reaction you had dry out in minutes or not at all?)

 

[christee]

VERY good point on the blanket! That portion of total chloroform (well, any portion that left the trunk with Caylee), would not show up in the forensics of the trunk carpet...so you are absolutely spot on that it decreases the over-estimation of the calculations!

This chloroform issue is going to drive me bonkers!!!

Valhall,
I SO totally agree abt the chloroform!
BBM

It's a nagging pain in my side...oke:

 

[jon_burrows]

OMG, I was reading some of the reports about the chloroform levels in the trunk and the mixtures of chemicals, etc., and I must say, I found myself completely confused and lost.

If I were a juror, I'd want to hear from the experts for both sides and have them just cut to the chase. I don't want to be confused by all the scientific ratios of pig vs. human vs. cleaning supplies. I'm not sure I would need to know how they got there, just get there. Does anyone else feel the same way? I think often times all the forensic science confuses jurors.

Your post makes me think the prosecution shouldn't even bring up chloroform unless they have proof Casey bought it or made up a home-made brew. We'll never know if Casey used chloroform. The prosecution expert will say one thing while the defense expert says the opposite. The defense could say Casey googled it after seeing it on her friend's page. I think the prosecution should stick to the facts that can't be disputed (31 days, laundry basket, imaginary nanny, lies and more lies, the rare Henkel tape matching the same type on the gas can, the overwhelming smell of decomp in the car confirmed by dogs, GA, CA, tow yard guy, LE, etc.).

I don't think the prosecution mentioned a possible theory on how Laci was killed. They simply didn't know, presented the facts, and let the jury decide.

The placement of the duct tape is much more compelling evidence as to how the crime was committed.

IMO

 

[Valhall]

thanks Valhall, I definately have no idea about chloroform and how long a person would stay knocked out from it. I am wondering how long the reaction you received would effect, in other words if KC used it on Caylee. And lets say her original plan was to drown her... she leaves a knocked out Caylee in the bedroom & goes to prepare the ladder by the pool or just carries her out to the pool with ladder up. She discovers she can't manueveur it and decides on duct taping her instead. Would that length of time after knocking her out change the ability for the duct tape to stick? (like does the residue or reaction you had dry out in minutes or not at all?)

Chloroform evaporates super fast. So any on the skin would be gone probably less than 1 minute after getting it on your skin. A soaked blanket or rag would still be wet with the chloroform. While I did prove that getting the duct tape wet with chloroform diminishes the sticking ability, I've also concluded that's most likely not what happened. In order for the duct tape to get wet enough with chloroform to cause it not to stick, there would have to be a saturated rag near or on Caylee's mouth, and there wasn't one with the remains, so I can't construct in my mind any other way the tape could get that contaminated.

 

[Capri]

I just got through visiting with my chemist friend about this whole deal of no fingerprints on the duct tape and the chloroform. This is what I asked him...

"If my fingers were wet with chloroform and I tried to use duct tape, would I leave a fingerprint in the adhesive?"

Answer...

"Probably not. Your fingers would slide off the duct tape as the solvent ate up the adhesive. Then when the solvent had evaporated from your fingers the adhesive would be left on your fingers."

I asked him if we could try this in the lab and he said yes. We're planning to do this later this afternoon. I also asked him if I could try with no gloves on and his comment was that he wouldn't recommend it (just from an HSE policy standpoint), but that "it wouldn't be as bad as you probably think if you did get it on your fingers."

After visiting with him about this and hearing the part about the adhesive ending up on your fingers because the solvent lifts it off the duct tape, I remembered the clear goo on the knife from KC's car. Could she have used the knife blade to scrape the adhesive off her fingers???

Just a thought.

Anyways, I'll share my little experiment with you later in the day.

(Bolded by me)
Clear goo? Val- can you lead me in the direction of a link for the clear goo? Thx

......Found the link for it: http://www.wftv.com/news/19334859/detail.html

 

[txsvicki]

I still think there was actual chloroform in that trunk to displace the oxygen and make sure that death was the final resulst and/or to set up a kidnap scenario. I really thought there would have been a choloroformed soaked rag like a wick from chloroform in the truck or a gap in the duck tape to make sure that the fumes got there. The trial should answer my questions somewhat but probably not completely.