Flies and Maggots in the trunk - forensic entomology #1

[kgeaux]

<<Henry Lee said on Nancy Grace last night that there were maggots IN the trunk,>>

That guy and Dr. Baden both make me ill.

Nancy announce Dr. Lee was working for the defense as she introduced him! She said he had examined the car for the defense.

Thanks for the link that was very interesting. Still though, where is the proof of testing on the maggots. That info would be so much more telling!

That article contains an error, I think. It talks of the hair found on the shovel matching Caylee's, but I thought NO HAIR was found on the shovel?

What REALLY bugs me, is KC talking about the smell so early on....way before Caylee was deceased. How could she have known there would be such a stench in her car at a later date ?? I mean, we all know pretty much that she planned out the whole thing, how did she know Caylee's body would decompose in her trunk and cause that smell ??

I think it was an error, LOL! June 5 as opposed to June 25. Even if Lee says that Caylee began complain on the 5th, we can't really take his unsubstantiated word for it. The 25th has text messages to confirm that date.....so unless earlier text messages dated from the 5th show up, I'm going to believe someone just screwed up!

 

[AutomaticAuttie]

True...DMTS and DMDS are really not so bad smelling, actually....most of those chemicals aren't particularly gross to me....but, I'm a Flavor Chemist, and have dealt with them (and far more worse smells than those) on a regular basis to develop flavors for food. You'd be surprised what some of the "things" that are blended together (to make a finished flavor) smell like individually....LOL

These naturally occuring chemicals in the foods as you mentioned are waaaay beyond miniscule, and contribute little to the actual "flavor" or "smell" of those foods. Coffee has over 500 individual naturally occuring chemical components, BUT, only 10 - 20 blended in the proper combinations gives you the "actual" flavor/smell.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, it's not the actual "component" per se, but the COMBINATION of the components as a "whole" which would identify a particular odor/flavor.


Aaaand....I'll shut up now !! LOL[/QUOT


Being a chemist and all, what do make of the 5 compounds from which are being used to draw a conclusion.

Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorform
Dimethyl trisulfide
Dimethyl disulfide

Maybe I missed it in reading the report but I didn't find putrescine and cadaverine listed on there:waitasec:which are key in cadavar dog alerting?

 

[kgeaux]

True...DMTS and DMDS are really not so bad smelling, actually....most of those chemicals aren't particularly gross to me....but, I'm a Flavor Chemist, and have dealt with them (and far more worse smells than those) on a regular basis to develop flavors for food. You'd be surprised what some of the "things" that are blended together (to make a finished flavor) smell like individually....LOL

These naturally occuring chemicals in the foods as you mentioned are waaaay beyond miniscule, and contribute little to the actual "flavor" or "smell" of those foods. Coffee has over 500 individual naturally occuring chemical components, BUT, only 10 - 20 blended in the proper combinations gives you the "actual" flavor/smell.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, it's not the actual "component" per se, but the COMBINATION of the components as a "whole" which would identify a particular odor/flavor.


Aaaand....I'll shut up now !! LOL[/QUOT


Being a chemist and all, what do make of the 5 compounds from which are being used to draw a conclusion.

Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorform
Dimethyl trisulfide
Dimethyl disulfide

Maybe I missed it in reading the report but I didn't find putrescine and cadaverine listed on there:waitasec:which are key in cadavar dog alerting?

And, thus the FBI conclusion of "decomposition of a POSSIBLY human source" was found in the trunk.

 

[AutomaticAuttie]

And, thus the FBI conclusion of "decomposition of a POSSIBLY human source" was found in the trunk.

I am talking about the body farm not FBI. And it says this in the conculsion.....

“The correlation between all the techniques, the comparison to what is known about the decomposition of human and animal remains, indications of early decomposition products and the presence of the five key major compounds associated with human decomposition (primarily the sulfur containing compounds) indicates that a portion of the total odor signature identified in the Florida vehicle trunk is consistent with a decompositional event that could be of human origin.”

“These results still do not rule out the remote possibility that an unusual variety of products or materials (not present in the trunk at the time of vehicle discovery) may have had some contribution to the overall chemical signature.”

 

[kgeaux]

I am talking about the body farm not FBI. And it says this in the conculsion.....

“The correlation between all the techniques, the comparison to what is known about the decomposition of human and animal remains, indications of early decomposition products and the presence of the five key major compounds associated with human decomposition (primarily the sulfur containing compounds) indicates that a portion of the total odor signature identified in the Florida vehicle trunk is consistent with a decompositional event that could be of human origin.”

“These results still do not rule out the remote possibility that an unusual variety of products or materials (not present in the trunk at the time of vehicle discovery) may have had some contribution to the overall chemical signature.”

I'm sorry. I phrased my post very badly. Here's a somewhat cleaned up version: So, nothing here that overrides the FBI results that decomp POSSIBLY from a human source was found in the trunk.

The more I read, the "iffier" the evidence becomes. Because I don't see either of these conclusions saying "Caylee was dead in the trunk." or even "some human was dead in the trunk." The conclusions include the possibility but fall far short of what I think prosecution will need.

 

[AutomaticAuttie]

I'm sorry. I phrased my post very badly. Here's a somewhat cleaned up version: So, nothing here that overrides the FBI results that decomp POSSIBLY from a human source was found in the trunk.

The more I read, the "iffier" the evidence becomes. Because I don't see either of these conclusions saying "Caylee was dead in the trunk." or even "some human was dead in the trunk." The conclusions include the possibility but fall far short of what I think prosecution will need.

I feel the same way!

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

True...DMTS and DMDS are really not so bad smelling, actually....most of those chemicals aren't particularly gross to me....but, I'm a Flavor Chemist, and have dealt with them (and far more worse smells than those) on a regular basis to develop flavors for food. You'd be surprised what some of the "things" that are blended together (to make a finished flavor) smell like individually....LOL

These naturally occuring chemicals in the foods as you mentioned are waaaay beyond miniscule, and contribute little to the actual "flavor" or "smell" of those foods. Coffee has over 500 individual naturally occuring chemical components, BUT, only 10 - 20 blended in the proper combinations gives you the "actual" flavor/smell.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, it's not the actual "component" per se, but the COMBINATION of the components as a "whole" which would identify a particular odor/flavor.


Aaaand....I'll shut up now !! LOL[/QUOT


Being a chemist and all, what do make of the 5 compounds from which are being used to draw a conclusion.

Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorform
Dimethyl trisulfide
Dimethyl disulfide

Maybe I missed it in reading the report but I didn't find putrescine and cadaverine listed on there:waitasec:which are key in cadavar dog alerting?

What I was originally trying to say was that it's amusing to see that many different chemicals seen in something so bad, like as in human decomposition, are the same as those found in something so pleasant as chicken or beef....and many other everyday foods....in differing amounts.

Now....IIRC, different compounds form in different quantities at different stages of human decomposition. Cadaver dogs....and dogs in general....have an extremely acute sense of smell. Cadaverine and putrescine ARE part of that decomp process....at what stage and in what quantities they are formed or when their amount increases, I can't tell you. I'm a FLAVOR chemist, not a forensic expert. BUT, seems to me that those components WERE present, but perhaps at levels not detectable by the equipment used at the Body Farm....yet in such a quantity that the sensitivity of the cadaver dogs training and sense of smell picked up on it.

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

I feel the same way!

Somehow....I can almost positively say, we have YET to see the "real" evidence. There's a lot of info NOT bound by the Sunshine Laws....the public may only first hear of it at trial. IMO

 

[Wrinkles]

I'm not sure where this quote came from in an earlier post:

&#8220;These results still do not rule out the remote possibility that an unusual variety of products or materials (not present in the trunk at the time of vehicle discovery) may have had some contribution to the overall chemical signature.&#8221;

Obviously, this will be a circumstantial case. The jury will start out, somewhere, but at the roots of the case will be a tiny girl gone and her own mother having no answers (gads, who will be able to get beyond that one?) They will then proceed through many other circumstantial bits... I can see someone saying, "Okay, so it doesn't rule out this possibility, but just how often might someone smell this type of smell due to a variety of products or materials. Have you been able to reproduce this smell using the type of materials found in the trash bag found in the trunk?"

Just how often can this same smell be reproduced without a dead body, has anyone played with the mixes to try to concoct it?

Oh, and as I write that this is a circumstantial case, I am stricken... Baby gone, mom has no answers that have been found to be valid... I can't get beyond that, I wonder how a jury will (or if any of them possibly can).

Wrinkles

 

[magic-cat]

I noticed in the FBI interview that Cindy kept referencing the bag full of pizza and maggots...

There WAS NO PIZZA in that bag. Why does she keep saying that? If the bag was full of maggots then there is a hope that by the time LE got there to get the bag that same night or very early the next day that some of them were still IN the bag...If they were, then it very well could be an open and shut case if maggots have Caylee's dna inside them.

 

[kgeaux]

I'm not sure where this quote came from in an earlier post:

“These results still do not rule out the remote possibility that an unusual variety of products or materials (not present in the trunk at the time of vehicle discovery) may have had some contribution to the overall chemical signature.”

Obviously, this will be a circumstantial case. The jury will start out, somewhere, but at the roots of the case will be a tiny girl gone and her own mother having no answers (gads, who will be able to get beyond that one?) They will then proceed through many other circumstantial bits... I can see someone saying, "Okay, so it doesn't rule out this possibility, but just how often might someone smell this type of smell due to a variety of products or materials. Have you been able to reproduce this smell using the type of materials found in the trash bag found in the trunk?"

Just how often can this same smell be reproduced without a dead body, has anyone played with the mixes to try to concoct it?

Oh, and as I write that this is a circumstantial case, I am stricken... Baby gone, mom has no answers that have been found to be valid... I can't get beyond that, I wonder how a jury will (or if any of them possibly can).

Wrinkles

I'm afraid I agree with you.

I don't think we're going to see a smoking gun; there are just "openings" in all the test conclusions for the defense to walk through.

 

[Chezhire]

FYI - the test results of any scientific testing are rarely, if ever, 100% conclusive and, therefore, require expert testimony to put it into context for the jury. Expect to hear the experts for each side discuss the results and to ultimately offer an opinion re: whether or not the results support the inference that they are being offered to prove and, if so, to what degree they support same.

 

[Chezhire]

SNIPPED: "... and as I write that this is a circumstantial case, I am stricken... Baby gone, mom has no answers that have been found to be valid... I can't get beyond that, I wonder how a jury will (or if any of them possibly can). "

ITA Wrinkles. I cannot see how a jury will get beyond those things. I predict that they will convict Casey, I'm just not yet sure of the degree of the homicide/manslaughter conviction.

 

[AZlawyer]

FYI - the test results of any scientific testing are rarely, if ever, 100% conclusive and, therefore, require expert testimony to put it into context for the jury. Expect to hear the experts for each side discuss the results and to ultimately offer an opinion re: whether or not the results support the inference that they are being offered to prove and, if so, to what degree they support same.

I do have some concerns about the trial, however, because many jurors lately seem to expect forensic and other expert evidence to be 100% positive. Maybe this comes from what people see on TV--CSI etc.? But in my practice I have never seen a 100% positive expert report.

 

[impatientredhead]

[/B]


What I was originally trying to say was that it's amusing to see that many different chemicals seen in something so bad, like as in human decomposition, are the same as those found in something so pleasant as chicken or beef....and many other everyday foods....in differing amounts.

Now....IIRC, different compounds form in different quantities at different stages of human decomposition. Cadaver dogs....and dogs in general....have an extremely acute sense of smell. Cadaverine and putrescine ARE part of that decomp process....at what stage and in what quantities they are formed or when their amount increases, I can't tell you. I'm a FLAVOR chemist, not a forensic expert. BUT, seems to me that those components WERE present, but perhaps at levels not detectable by the equipment used at the Body Farm....yet in such a quantity that the sensitivity of the cadaver dogs training and sense of smell picked up on it.

Putriscene and cadavarene would have definitely been present but they would not be included in the testing because they are not specific to human decomposition. They are produced by all animal tissue during decomp, and can actually be found in live humans as well (smaller amounts, generally in an infection area).

Putriscene and cadavarene are believed to be largely what we smell in decomp, but it is not what the dogs hit on. The body releases 300 plus chemicals when decomposing, they hit on some combination of those.

 

[impatientredhead]

I do have some concerns about the trial, however, because many jurors lately seem to expect forensic and other expert evidence to be 100% positive. Maybe this comes from what people see on TV--CSI etc.? But in my practice I have never seen a 100% positive expert report.

I think this is exactly what is confusing about these reports. Scientific language doesn't really deal in absolutes. Even paternity tests say 98.3% or 99.2% probality. We are not going to see a report that say, yes, absolutely is.

 

[Indigo]

There's always an alternative explanation in the world of science, otherwise there would be no paid experts. However, in this case, the "innocent" explanation would have to be a doozie! There are a number of unusual compounds found in Casey's trunk that can easily be explained by the presence of human decomposition. The alternative would be akin to a scientific fairytale:

Something like: A pig and a dog were hanging out in Casey's trunk while picnicking (on beef )and painting each other's toenails. The pig said, "hey, what's this?" and opened up a bottle of bleach. (it was hard to see in the dark) Just then, the driver hit a big bump and in one horrific moment the fingernail polish remover combined with the bleach, creating the deadly compound chloroform. Both the pig and the dog expired on the spot, but the driver, not being aware they were hanging out in her trunk left them there for 2.6 days. There was quite some cleaning up to do...


I don't mean to offend or make light of this case--it's just that the alternative scenario is--just silly. I hope that jurors can see through the scientific mumbo jumbo. JMO

 

[kgeaux]

I do have some concerns about the trial, however, because many jurors lately seem to expect forensic and other expert evidence to be 100% positive. Maybe this comes from what people see on TV--CSI etc.? But in my practice I have never seen a 100% positive expert report.

Maybe juries want more definitive evidence because of shows like CSI, but I tend to think it's due to the numbers of people who have been released (some from death row) after having been wrongly prosecuted. People see these "mistakes" made by prosecution, and they can realize what the "mistake" cost the poor guy who's been sitting around for the last decade or two of his life, and they want to prevent that from happening again. And if that means holding prosecution to a higher bar, then that's what needs to be done.

I think this is exactly what is confusing about these reports. Scientific language doesn't really deal in absolutes. Even paternity tests say 98.3% or 99.2% probality. We are not going to see a report that say, yes, absolutely is.

It would have been better had they spoken in percentages. Instead, the words "probably" and "could possibly" fall far short of PROBABLY and "most possibly," don't they?

Nobody is asking for absolutes. People are asking why several chemicals released in human decomp were NOT found.....?

My personal opinion is that Casey caused Caylee's death....whether accidentally or on purpose, I don't know. But with the evidence we've seen thus far, I'd have a hard time convicting. I really hope those maggots were blowfly maggots and that they contain human dna, or that there is a 'smoking gun' somewhere. But the more time goes on, the more I doubt that.

 

[AZlawyer]

There's always an alternative explanation in the world of science, otherwise there would be no paid experts. However, in this case, the "innocent" explanation would have to be a doozie! There are a number of unusual compounds found in Casey's trunk that can easily be explained by the presence of human decomposition. The alternative would be akin to a scientific fairytale:

Something like: A pig and a dog were hanging out in Casey's trunk while picnicking (on beef )and painting each other's toenails. The pig said, "hey, what's this?" and opened up a bottle of bleach. (it was hard to see in the dark) Just then, the driver hit a big bump and in one horrific moment the fingernail polish remover combined with the bleach, creating the deadly compound chloroform. Both the pig and the dog expired on the spot, but the driver, not being aware they were hanging out in her trunk left them there for 2.6 days. There was quite some cleaning up to do...


I don't mean to offend or make light of this case--it's just that the alternative scenario is--just silly. I hope that jurors can see through the scientific mumbo jumbo. JMO

:rolling: The prosecutors should use that in closing argument!!! :rolling:

 

[Dr. Know?]

:rolling: The prosecutors should use that in closing argument!!! :rolling:

That's such a great closing argument! Way to go. I too live in AZ.