Evidence for "Dead body in the Damn Car"

[Jolynna]

Thanks for putting all that info into a single post.

In light of the facts established in your post, it brings several questions to my mind. At some point the maggots must have eaten any and all traces of whatever decomp remains that were ever in the trunk, except for a bit of butyric acid scrapings, and then migrated into the white trash bag to feast on the decomposing fatty substance like Adipocere.


http://www.deathonline.net/decomposition/body_changes/grave_wax.htm

Adipocere begins to form within a month. If a body is readily accessible to insects Adipocere is unlikely to form.

http://deathonline.net/decomposition/corpse_fauna/flies/maggots.htm

Maggots can consume 60% of a human body in a week.

There were enough maggots in the white bag for GA to hear them making a popping sound. Therefore, it stands to reason there had to be some food source within the white bag. The black tray in the pictures you provided is an area where some of these maggots were found, so at some point in time there had to be a food source within that black tray, at least it is likely there was.
In my interpretation of the entomologist report, the fatty decomposing substance like Adipocere is NOT Adipocere and it seems Adipocere is unlikely to form if it is readily accessible to insects (which the above link seems to indicate). Also the link states Adipocere begins to form within a month, so yes 2.6 days does fit within a month, although it does seem unlikely it would form with insects having access, and in such a short period of time.
Since maggots can consume a large amount of food (for example more than half a human), in a weeks time, and we know there were enough maggots in the white trash bag to make a popping sound, do we not have to assume at one point in time, there simply had to be food items in that white trash bag?

Now, using the same process used by the experts. Since there were insects that had access to the fatty decomposing substance like Adipocere, the conditions in that bag were consistent with facts proving Adipocere was unlikely to form. And since maggots can consume a large amount of food in 17 days, and maggots were found in the white trash bag making a popping sound, the conditions found in the white trash bag are consistent with an event that suggests there was at one time food within the white trash bag.
Since we have established the presence of food likely being present in the white trash bag, and the Adipocere not being in the white trash bag, any decomposing odor in the trunk would likely have emitted from the decomposing food that the maggots had eaten in order to survive and multiply inside the white trash bag.
In conclusion, the conditions in the trunk were not consistent with Adipocere being likely to form, but the conditions do show it is likely there at one time was food in the white trash bag, and this could be the cause of the odor of decomposition. It should be noted, the decompositional event in the trunk could have been from human origin.
As always my entire post is moo.

Bolded by me.

In response to the parts I bolded, according those who investigated the trash, there was no food in the white trash bag. According to our own Websleuth chemist and Arpad Vass, who essentially created the field of Forensic Biology, the substance found on the napkins is consistent with the results of human decomposition.

Originally Posted by DogMom2JoeAndWillie http://www.websleuths.com/forums/ima...s/viewpost.gif

Palmitic acid (C16H32O2), stearic acid (C18H36O2), and myristic acid (C14H28O2) are all saturated fatty acids. "Saturated" means that there are no double bonded carbons in the molecule...so there are as many hydrogens in the molecule as possible... the molecule is "saturated" with hydrogen atoms. Oleic acid (C18H34O2) is most abundant FA in human adipose tissue, and it is UNsaturated. If you hydrogenate the double bond (remove the double bond and add hydrogen) of oleic acid you end up with stearic acid (one of the saturated FA's). Palmitoleic acid (C16H30O2) is also a monounsaturated fatty acid, found throughout human adipose tissue. According to Vass' report, recently decomposing samples will have lots of oleic fatty acids (unsaturated). The unsaturated FA's are converted into saturated fatty acids (like stearic acid) over time. This means that some of the oleic acid was converted into other fatty acids while the paper towels were in the hot trunk during the summer. This explains why the the other fatty acids are present...they're products of decomposition and hydrolysis, hydrogenation, oxidation, etc. It also explains why they found lower levels of oleic acid than they would have expected for a recently deceased body...the substance on the paper towels was months old (regardless of where it came from/when decomposition began).
Vass concludes in the end of his report that the sample was consistent with human decomposition and (based on what I've read this evening) I agree with his conclusion.

THC and cannibinol are indicative of the pot....I don't think that the presence of myristic, palmitic, oleic, and/or stearic acids in the pot is significant. The results section of the study says that they only found all four FA's present in half of the samples that they analyzed. They also fail to give any real quantitative information... they don't tell us HOW MUCH of each of these FA's they found in the pot samples...but I'm going to do my best to estimate and explain my thought process. You've got to remember that they're working with very sensitive instruments (GC-MS) in this study, so they could have been identifying very small, trace amounts of FA's. I doubt that the amount of fatty acid they found on the paper towels could have come from whatever weed KC (or whoever it was) had. I can see where they were able to identify the THC and cannibinol... but they said that SMALL amounts were present. IIRC, pot is something like 5% THC...so if there was a gram of pot in the trunk (thats about a joint) they would've found around 50 milligrams of THC (which would be easy to identify/measure). The sample size they used for the fatty acid study was 100 milligrams...so there would've been a pretty low amount of THC (they abbreviate it CBD+CBN in their table). They give the ratio of fatty acid to CBD+CBN....and they got really little numbers. Assume that the 100 milligrams of pot was 5% THC, then 5 milligrams was actually THC. If they found 0.15 was the ratio of palmitic acid to THC, you can write the equation 0.15=x/5 and then calculate that x=0.75 milligrams of palmitic acid. That means that 1 gram of pot (a joint) would have 7.5 milligrams of palmitic acid in it....which is insignificant in comparison to the amount they found on the paper towels.

OK...I probably just confused everybody....maybe I made a little bit of sense, though! I hope this helps answer the questions you guys have. I'm sorry if it doesn't...I'm not very good at explaining things. If I don't make sense, please let me know and I will do my best to do better.

The maggots were "coffin fly" maggots, not blow fly maggots. Blow flies show up shortly after death. Coffin flies are attracted to "riper" food.

Being triple-bagged and sealed in a hot car trunk in humid Florida is an ideal environment for adipocere formation.

Here's a link to a New York Times article about how Neal Haskell used the presense of "coffin fly" maggots rather than "blow fly" maggots to show that a murder victim was put in a trash can either before death or immediately afterwards. Because the victim had been sealed in a hot air-tight container the entire body saponificated (turned into adipocere). Even after 3 years the body was preserved, although it was in a liquid, goopy state.

THE TRUTH REVEALED BY BUGS: THE CASE OF BROOKEY WEST: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/science/12file-fly.html?_r=1

 

[Harmony 2]

Thanks for putting all that info into a single post.

In light of the facts established in your post, it brings several questions to my mind. At some point the maggots must have eaten any and all traces of whatever decomp remains that were ever in the trunk, except for a bit of butyric acid scrapings, and then migrated into the white trash bag to feast on the decomposing fatty substance like Adipocere.


http://www.deathonline.net/decomposition/body_changes/grave_wax.htm

Adipocere begins to form within a month. If a body is readily accessible to insects Adipocere is unlikely to form.

http://deathonline.net/decomposition/corpse_fauna/flies/maggots.htm

Respectfully snipped for brevity:

Good morning my friend!!

I am studying for an exam for my licensure so I do not have time to address your whole post. There are posts in the Caylee forum that address those points. I just wanted to point out this study showing a case where adipocere was formed in 3 days.

http://www.biomedsearch.com/nih/Early-adipocere-formation-case-report/19782320.html

 

[Phumi]

I was just about to link a good post of yours from the dead folks thread, Harmony!
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4621619&postcount=144"]http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4621619&postcount=144[/ame]

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

:waitasec:
Um...how did "we" establish no adipocere in the bag?
The lab reports confirm that there was adipocere on the paper towels in the bag. The adipocere likely formed elsewhere and was wiped up by the papertowels that were placed in the bag.

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21540599/detail.html

After rereading the information yet again, in the link supplied, I have even more questions about the validity of the trunk evidence, based on this link.

Page 10453

4 or more days could be sufficient for decomposition to be exhibiting advanced purging of fluids with tissue breakdown.
If this is correct, does it not negate the experts claims of 0.7 to 2.6 days?

http://www.wesh.com/download/2009/0619/19801995.pdf

Page 6265
Stated on this page this indicate a post mortem interval of less than 2.6 days
(range of 0.7 to 2.6 days)

Dr Haskell did the report calling for 4 or more days, and Dr. Vass did the report suggesting less than 2.6 days.

These are both experts, and we have both statements in evidence. One of these statement must be incorrect.
Does conflicting information like the above within the experts reports give the defense an opportunity to try to raise reasonable doubt?

To answer the question how did we establish no Adipocere in the bag on page 6557

http://www.wesh.com/download/2009/0619/19801995.pdf

Fatty acids, such as the ones detected (palmitic, stearic, myristic, oleic), indicate a fat decomposition product like Adipocere (grave wax) present on the paper towels.

It clearly indicates a fat decomposition product. was on the paper towels
It clearly indicates this fat product is LIKE ADIPOCERE
It clearly does not indicate ADIPOCERE was present on the paper towels

If he wanted to indicate ADIPOCERE (grave wax) was on the paper towels, the above statement should have read
Fatty acids………indicate ADIPOCERE (grave wax) on the paper towels.

Now of course this is just my own personal interpretation of what that sentence does or does not say. Someone else may read it differently. I just happen to believe that this sentence was misread by the media and they made multiple statements that this is grave wax. I believe they are incorrect.
Even if my interpretation of the above is incorrect, I believe that the experts analysis’s and opinions are filled with many statements like the one above, that can be interpreted in more than one way, and causes a lot of confusion, which is fueled by the media reporting misunderstood or misread information as fact. As always, my entire post is moo

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Respectfully snipped for brevity:

Good morning my friend!!

I am studying for an exam for my licensure so I do not have time to address your whole post. There are posts in the Caylee forum that address those points. I just wanted to point out this study showing a case where adipocere was formed in 3 days.

http://www.biomedsearch.com/nih/Early-adipocere-formation-case-report/19782320.html

I'm not disputing how quickly adipocere can be formed, I'm just of the opinion that in this case, I don't believe it happened that quickly. I do not think it was adipocere on the paper towels, and again that is my opinion only.

 

[Phumi]

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21540599/detail.html

After rereading the information yet again, in the link supplied, I have even more questions about the validity of the trunk evidence, based on this link.

Page 10453

4 or more days could be sufficient for decomposition to be exhibiting advanced purging of fluids with tissue breakdown.
If this is correct, does it not negate the experts claims of 0.7 to 2.6 days?

http://www.wesh.com/download/2009/0619/19801995.pdf

Page 6265
Stated on this page this indicate a post mortem interval of less than 2.6 days
(range of 0.7 to 2.6 days)

Dr Haskell did the report calling for 4 or more days, and Dr. Vass did the report suggesting less than 2.6 days.

These are both experts, and we have both statements in evidence. One of these statement must be incorrect.
Does conflicting information like the above within the experts reports give the defense an opportunity to try to raise reasonable doubt?

To answer the question how did we establish no Adipocere in the bag on page 6557

http://www.wesh.com/download/2009/0619/19801995.pdf

Fatty acids, such as the ones detected (palmitic, stearic, myristic, oleic), indicate a fat decomposition product like Adipocere (grave wax) present on the paper towels.

It clearly indicates a fat decomposition product. was on the paper towels
It clearly indicates this fat product is LIKE ADIPOCERE
It clearly does not indicate ADIPOCERE was present on the paper towels

If he wanted to indicate ADIPOCERE (grave wax) was on the paper towels, the above statement should have read
Fatty acids………indicate ADIPOCERE (grave wax) on the paper towels.

Now of course this is just my own personal interpretation of what that sentence does or does not say. Someone else may read it differently. I just happen to believe that this sentence was misread by the media and they made multiple statements that this is grave wax. I believe they are incorrect.
Even if my interpretation of the above is incorrect, I believe that the experts analysis’s and opinions are filled with many statements like the one above, that can be interpreted in more than one way, and causes a lot of confusion, which is fueled by the media reporting misunderstood or misread information as fact. As always, my entire post is moo

Here's the problem with your opinion. You are not basing it on any real scientific knowledge or testing. You are basing it on YOUR interpretation of the testing done by others and the picking apart of wording. In another thread I linked a paragraph from an FBI lab report manual that says words like consistent with, similar to, like, all equate to THE SAME AS in scientific jargon.

To be fair, I don't know if you are a scientist, but I have not seen you identify yourself as such. We have a respected scientist saying he found a substance like, similar to, consistent with adipocere. I doubt that this scientist would risk his reputation and put that in a report if there was a chance that it was bacon grease or decomposing velveeta. I am not a scientist, but it is clear to me, that it is easy to continue to say I disagree with the findings or the wording of the findings. But it is a very weak argument. In fact, it is no argument at all if you don't have the credentials or any scientific study to back it up.

Please find one instance of a well-respected scientist mistaking a lab-tested substance for adipocere when in fact it was a decomposing processed meat product. At that point you will have the basis for a valid argument.

 

[Pondering Mind]

With respect this is just pure speculation, right? An Urban Myth?

The only inference that we have that there was any waste food is from HL when on NG and no samples were taken, no documentation, no testing, he didn't even return to complete his examination.

So based on an inference we are running [again] with meat and cheese and trying to scale it from trace (an ounce) to a larger and larger amount that we 'speculate' someone dumped in the trash.

There is no basis in discovery documentation or reported lab tests for this speculation. This thread has become the Rumor Thread.

We have already discussed and concluded over and over about what caused the dead body smell in the trunk --- and tests have even been performed with pizza!!!!!

Does everyone agree that we are flogging a dead horse with some desperation -- the Defense badly needs the trunk to be rotten potatoes. It is just an Urban Myth.

It was a precious little two year old named Caylee if you care to read the whole thread and not exclude the facts along the way.

The wheels on the trunk go round and round, round and round, round and round.

Thank you so much cyber! (and others) I'm reading through this thread this morning and feel like I have entered the twilight zone once again! As you said this has been discussed endlessly and in most cases confirmed. (such as there was NO food in the pizza box. That is a fact unless one believes all branches of LE are lying :waitasec No matter how much some may wish that the evidence was different, it's not going to change it..it is what it is..ther_beatingA_Dead::..

ITA with you on all points. This has turned into a rumor thread or maybe better yet..should be called the 'wishful thinking' thread..And if one cares to know the facts, they're all here, including the docs, and not hard to find. But then again, that's IF one really wants to know the truth..Oy vey.....:banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[Pondering Mind]

I'm not disputing how quickly adipocere can be formed, I'm just of the opinion that in this case, I don't believe it happened that quickly. I do not think it was adipocere on the paper towels, and again that is my opinion only.

So are you saying that the Body Farm is wrong, lying? Please help me out here, what are you basing your opinion that the adipocere did not form that quickly in this case or that there was none on the paper towels on? Thanks, I really am curious as to where your info is coming from..

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Bolded by me.

In response to the parts I bolded, according those who investigated the trash, there was no food in the white trash bag. According to our own Websleuth chemist and Arpad Vass, who essentially created the field of Forensic Biology, the substance found on the napkins is consistent with the results of human decomposition.

The maggots were "coffin fly" maggots, not blow fly maggots. Blow flies show up shortly after death. Coffin flies are attracted to "riper" food.

Being triple-bagged and sealed in a hot car trunk in humid Florida is an ideal environment for adipocere formation.

Here's a link to a New York Times article about how Neal Haskell used the presense of "coffin fly" maggots rather than "blow fly" maggots to show that a murder victim was put in a trash can either before death or immediately afterwards. Because the victim had been sealed in a hot air-tight container the entire body saponificated (turned into adipocere). Even after 3 years the body was preserved, although it was in a liquid, goopy state.

THE TRUTH REVEALED BY BUGS: THE CASE OF BROOKEY WEST: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/science/12file-fly.html?_r=1

Thanks for the interesting thread at the bottom of your post.

I agree that those who inspected the trash bag found no food, according to the reports. However, I am of the opinion that there must have been food in that white bag at some point in time prior to said inspection, because you would not normally find maggots where no food is present. So, I believe maggots ate any food that may at one time have been in the white bag.

My post that was quoted was entirely speculation, based on adipocere forming within a month, and maggots being capable of consuming 60% of a human in 7 days, and maggots being in the white trash bag.

First and foremost, in regards to the coffin flys, and actually any evidence and or expert reports that are made from evidence collected from the white trash bag, my own opinion is that since that white bag sat in a dumpster for roughly 30 hours, and dumpsters (even dumpsters that have no dead bodies in them) are known to have coffin flys in them. The tow yard attendant was quoted as saying there was a car that had a body in it for several days in the towyard, and the smell was awful. This leads me to believe that coffin flys would have been attracted to that car, and when that food source expired they then may look for food in the dumpster in the towyard. The towyard guy also said he had thrown food from other cars into that dumpster. So, I have formed the opinion that it is possible that coffin flys were present in the dumpster where the white trash bag was placed, and that these coffin flys could have entered the white bag, and this would contaminate the white trash bag as far as from an evidentiary standpoint. In my opinion anyway.

I am somewhat certain there was a dead body in the dam car. I just seem to find more questions than answers every single time I go back and reread the expert reports, and documents. LOL

As always, my entire post is moo

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Here's the problem with your opinion. You are not basing it on any real scientific knowledge or testing. You are basing it on YOUR interpretation of the testing done by others and the picking apart of wording. In another thread I linked a paragraph from an FBI lab report manual that says words like consistent with, similar to, like, all equate to THE SAME AS in scientific jargon.

To be fair, I don't know if you are a scientist, but I have not seen you identify yourself as such. We have a respected scientist saying he found a substance like, similar to, consistent with adipocere. I doubt that this scientist would risk his reputation and put that in a report if there was a chance that it was bacon grease or decomposing velveeta. I am not a scientist, but it is clear to me, that it is easy to continue to say I disagree with the findings or the wording of the findings. But it is a very weak argument. In fact, it is no argument at all if you don't have the credentials or any scientific study to back it up.

Please find one instance of a well-respected scientist mistaking a lab-tested substance for adipocere when in fact it was a decomposing processed meat product. At that point you will have the basis for a valid argument.

I respect your opinion.
I will be the first one to post I WAS WRONG, when Dr. Vass gets on the stand and when the defense asks, “was that Adipocere on the paper towels?” and Dr. Vass replies “Absolutely!” And then no further questions regarding Adipocere are asked by the defense.
Until then, my opinion remains that it is not Adipocere.

 

[Jolynna]

It is my opinion that the scientific evidence from Dr. Hall, Dr. Vass, Dr. Haskell as well as from the anthropologist who discussed the animal scatter pattern is powerful and in accord. According to Hall's report, Haskell's report and Caylee's autopsy report, Caylee was out on Suburban from late June/early July until she was found in December.

Coffin fly remains in both the Pontiac trunk and in the white trash bag led Haskell to surmise in his report the advanced purging of fluids and tissue breakdown consistent with a decomposing body in that trunk before the body was disposed of elsewhere between June 20-June 27. Page 1 http://www.clickorlando.com/download/2009/1106/21539770.pdf

The bugs & bug cases found with Caylee's bones and at the remain's site led Haskell to conclude that Caylee's death and the insect colonization occurred in the later portion of June to early July 2008. Page 11, http://www.clickorlando.com/download/2009/1106/21539770.pdf

According to Haskell's report, the trunk still reeked of decomposition six months after the white trash bag and trunk liner were removed. This report from Vass finds the chemical signatures from the trunk consistent with a dead human body, not food. http://www.wesh.com/download/2009/0619/19801995.pdf

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

So are you saying that the Body Farm is wrong, lying? Please help me out here, what are you basing your opinion that the adipocere did not form that quickly in this case or that there was none on the paper towels on? Thanks, I really am curious as to where your info is coming from..

In post 494, I explained how I came to the opinion that it is not Adipocere on the paper towels, so no, I am not saying the body farm is wrong or lying.
I apologize if my opinions are upsetting anyone. I am supplying the links to back up how I formulated my opinions. I am not stating any of my opinions as fact. Yes, I am scrutinizing the terminology used by the experts, and I am allowed to formulate an opinion on what those words say. I am pointing out what I believe to be conflicting statements made by Dr. H and Dr. V. It is my opinion the 4 or more days (Dr. H) conflicts with 0.7 to 2.6 days (Dr. V). It is my opinion that the maggots ate the food in the white trash bag(that in my opinion is contaminated), during the 17 days the bag was in the trunk. In light of everything in the above paragraph I am not convinced there was a dead body in the dam car Whether anyone agrees or disagrees with my opinions is entirely up to the individual. As always, my entire post is moo.

 

[joypath]

Hi joypath

Thank you for explaining that.

If you look at post 1003, the documents say that the proximal end (root) was preserved under a microscope.

Does this mean that because it is decomposed it has no root left, and would the roots of naturally shed hairs decompose in the same way albeit without the "death band"?

Greetings again and GREAT thought-provoking questions!

Reading the FBI doc: they state that they have retained the proximal end under glass (MY INTERPRETATION: FOR court presentation & further evaluation as needed, ie defense team) The remaining strand was submitted for stereo & comparison microscopy with the limited evaluation of "similiarity" as the exemplar comparison was not within acceptable standards (NO WE WILL NOT RE-VISIT THE SEMANTICS ISSUE!). Then they did mtDNA testing on the strand and compared it with a known sample of CASEY's hair as the mtDNA demonstrated maternal lineage, and this is where they find the hair belongs to a female decendant of that lineage but the microscopy & physical evaluation concluded that it was not of an adult member but of a member who was young and had never chemically treated the hair.


?would the roots of naturally shed hairs decompose in the same way albeit without the "death band"?

Scientifically the answer is NO because the requisite body proteins & emzymes and the subsequent bacteria that devour them are no longer present when the hair is "gone with the wind" in the environment.

Hope this helps vs confuses the issue

 

[Pondering Mind]

In post 494, I explained how I came to the opinion that it is not Adipocere on the paper towels, so no, I am not saying the body farm is wrong or lying.
I apologize if my opinions are upsetting anyone. I am supplying the links to back up how I formulated my opinions. I am not stating any of my opinions as fact. Yes, I am scrutinizing the terminology used by the experts, and I am allowed to formulate an opinion on what those words say. I am pointing out what I believe to be conflicting statements made by Dr. H and Dr. V. It is my opinion the 4 or more days (Dr. H) conflicts with 0.7 to 2.6 days (Dr. V). It is my opinion that the maggots ate the food in the white trash bag(that in my opinion is contaminated), during the 17 days the bag was in the trunk. In light of everything in the above paragraph I am not convinced there was a dead body in the dam car Whether anyone agrees or disagrees with my opinions is entirely up to the individual. As always, my entire post is moo.

whoo, the deviled..if you are not a defense attorney, then you missed your calling, lol! Thanks for answering!

I don't think your opinions are upsetting anyone, (although I speak only for myself) it's just not being able to follow the case as often anymore and then reading some of your posts, I thought there was new "facts" that had come to light and perhaps I had missed them..although the posts clearly state that it's your 'opinion' only..I s'pose it was just the way it reads. my fault! I'll be awaiting more of your theories..while I respectfully am in total disagreement with you, I have to say that your posts are most definitely ....interesting and very insightful reads!

 

[Phumi]

I respect your opinion.
I will be the first one to post I WAS WRONG, when Dr. Vass gets on the stand and when the defense asks, “was that Adipocere on the paper towels?” and Dr. Vass replies “Absolutely!” And then no further questions regarding Adipocere are asked by the defense.
Until then, my opinion remains that it is not Adipocere.

Of course I never stated that the defense would not try to discredit these findings. But since you brought it up, they are going to have to get themselves an expensive hired gun to pull some weird science out of his whoopsiedaisy to do it. Or maybe they will just go with "Members of the jury, please disregard the adipocere on the paper towels in my client's vehicle, as it tends to make her look extremely guilty."

 

[RR0004]

Thanks for putting all that info into a single post.

In light of the facts established in your post, it brings several questions to my mind. At some point the maggots must have eaten any and all traces of whatever decomp remains that were ever in the trunk, except for a bit of butyric acid scrapings, and then migrated into the white trash bag to feast on the decomposing fatty substance like Adipocere.


http://www.deathonline.net/decomposition/body_changes/grave_wax.htm

Adipocere begins to form within a month. If a body is readily accessible to insects Adipocere is unlikely to form.

http://deathonline.net/decomposition/corpse_fauna/flies/maggots.htm

Maggots can consume 60% of a human body in a week.

There were enough maggots in the white bag for GA to hear them making a popping sound. Therefore, it stands to reason there had to be some food source within the white bag. The black tray in the pictures you provided is an area where some of these maggots were found, so at some point in time there had to be a food source within that black tray, at least it is likely there was.
In my interpretation of the entomologist report, the fatty decomposing substance like Adipocere is NOT Adipocere and it seems Adipocere is unlikely to form if it is readily accessible to insects (which the above link seems to indicate). Also the link states Adipocere begins to form within a month, so yes 2.6 days does fit within a month, although it does seem unlikely it would form with insects having access, and in such a short period of time.
Since maggots can consume a large amount of food (for example more than half a human), in a weeks time, and we know there were enough maggots in the white trash bag to make a popping sound, do we not have to assume at one point in time, there simply had to be food items in that white trash bag?

Now, using the same process used by the experts. Since there were insects that had access to the fatty decomposing substance like Adipocere, the conditions in that bag were consistent with facts proving Adipocere was unlikely to form. And since maggots can consume a large amount of food in 17 days, and maggots were found in the white trash bag making a popping sound, the conditions found in the white trash bag are consistent with an event that suggests there was at one time food within the white trash bag.
Since we have established the presence of food likely being present in the white trash bag, and the Adipocere not being in the white trash bag, any decomposing odor in the trunk would likely have emitted from the decomposing food that the maggots had eaten in order to survive and multiply inside the white trash bag.
In conclusion, the conditions in the trunk were not consistent with Adipocere being likely to form, but the conditions do show it is likely there at one time was food in the white trash bag, and this could be the cause of the odor of decomposition. It should be noted, the decompositional event in the trunk could have been from human origin.
As always my entire post is moo.

...except that the substance was present on a paper towel that was likely used to wipe up a decomposing Caylee and then placed in the bag. As far as the rest, at this stage, anyone can make their own assumptions, but I'll wait and see the defense's reports.

 

[feddup]

I had a dead rat in my garage and couldnt stand the smell for 3 days, it was awful. I am surprised that most people dont know the difference between the smell of a dead animal or human, totally different than rotten food or pizza.

 

[RR0004]

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21540599/detail.html

After rereading the information yet again, in the link supplied, I have even more questions about the validity of the trunk evidence, based on this link.

Page 10453

4 or more days could be sufficient for decomposition to be exhibiting advanced purging of fluids with tissue breakdown.
If this is correct, does it not negate the experts claims of 0.7 to 2.6 days?

http://www.wesh.com/download/2009/0619/19801995.pdf

Page 6265
Stated on this page this indicate a post mortem interval of less than 2.6 days
(range of 0.7 to 2.6 days)

Dr Haskell did the report calling for 4 or more days, and Dr. Vass did the report suggesting less than 2.6 days.

These are both experts, and we have both statements in evidence. One of these statement must be incorrect.
Does conflicting information like the above within the experts reports give the defense an opportunity to try to raise reasonable doubt?

To answer the question how did we establish no Adipocere in the bag on page 6557

http://www.wesh.com/download/2009/0619/19801995.pdf

Fatty acids, such as the ones detected (palmitic, stearic, myristic, oleic), indicate a fat decomposition product like Adipocere (grave wax) present on the paper towels.

It clearly indicates a fat decomposition product. was on the paper towels
It clearly indicates this fat product is LIKE ADIPOCERE
It clearly does not indicate ADIPOCERE was present on the paper towels

If he wanted to indicate ADIPOCERE (grave wax) was on the paper towels, the above statement should have read
Fatty acids………indicate ADIPOCERE (grave wax) on the paper towels.

Now of course this is just my own personal interpretation of what that sentence does or does not say. Someone else may read it differently. I just happen to believe that this sentence was misread by the media and they made multiple statements that this is grave wax. I believe they are incorrect.
Even if my interpretation of the above is incorrect, I believe that the experts analysis’s and opinions are filled with many statements like the one above, that can be interpreted in more than one way, and causes a lot of confusion, which is fueled by the media reporting misunderstood or misread information as fact. As always, my entire post is moo

...except that we have the reports to read ourselves. I have never read about the adipocere in a newspaper.

 

[Marina2]

Respectfully snipped:

Then they did mtDNA testing on the strand and compared it with a known sample of CASEY's hair as the mtDNA demonstrated maternal lineage, and this is where they find the hair belongs to a female decendant of that lineage but the microscopy & physical evaluation concluded that it was not of an adult member but of a member who was young and had never chemically treated the hair.

Bold is mine.
Is there a report that explains how they determined the hair belongs to a female? It's my understanding of mtDNA that LA would have the same mtDNA as Casey and Caylee. I'm very interested in how they can tell that the mtDNA is from a female.

 

[LambChop]

TDA, you need to explain how you think the coffin flies contamined the trash bag while in dumpster. Where do you think these little guys come from? Do you think they were just hanging around waiting for a dead body to show up, LOL? They would have to come from the environment because they surely did not originate in the trash bag they had to come from somewhere. As is stated above the coffin flies are not the same as blow flies and show up later after decomp has started. They don't show up for a ham sandwhich as the blow flies would have finished that up pronto as you stated.

I do not believe coffin flies would hang around a dumpster unless dead bodies were deposited on a regular basis. And even if they were there they would be going after any decomposition in the bag which they did. KC was not riding around town with her own special coffin flies, they had to have come from outside the trunk.

The definition of contaminant would be: complex materials such as hair or skin particles arising from sources not related to the ongoing investigation. So I think to use the word contaminated is misleading.