In the doc you linked....down to pg 2519.....says there was a mistake....no pizza as previously reported.
Oh, Lord. Good thing I've already chanted my mantra on Websleuths so many times!! Do you remember it? "Kgeaux has been wrong in the past. Kgeaux will be wrong in the future. Kgeaux may be wrong RIGHT NOW." I guess we know which part of the mantra applies here! Did I make your head spin?
Oh, ME TOO!!!! At least I was in good company for a minute or two!
Ding Ding Ding....NOT !!! LOL (sorry) No pizza in bag !!!!! Or anywhere...just box....re read pg 2519......prior report made a MISTAKE...just did an experiment for ha ha's....pg 2287 is where they dump the bag out and no pizza, only box.....THESE type of statements are what were confusing me !! LOL
Maybe it should've been more of a "clink, clank, clong" huh? I totally misread the statement on 2519.....I thought it said no "wrapped" pizza was found in the car. Probably nobody on earth was more confused than me!
Bold by me...
I'm sure that a fresh ham (as in raw) would result in maggots during decomposition. Most ham purchased in the stores is smoked, as in fully cooked. I'm not sure it would produce the same results.
Lee might be barking up a dead hog's backside here. (Pun intended)
I think so too, but he specified that maggots were found in the trunk during his re-examination, along with ham and cheese. I would "think" (and please see my mantra!) that the "ham" is "pepperoni" and that the items refer to the remnants of pizza.....perhaps not a decomposing slice, but a little bit stuck to the edges of something.
Where does it say that ANY of these items were in teh trunk, tho. I can't find it stated anywhere in the docs. And the meats used on pizza are usually loaded with preservatives and cooked, not raw. Your statment makes sense, but I want some EVIDENCE that any of those items were actually in the bag or in the trunk - you seem to assume that they are.
No, Gaia, I'm not assuming they were found in the trunk. Dr. Voss says that if those items were EVER in the trunk, it is unknown to what extent they will have skewed the results.
I shared above that I think the "ham" was probably "pepperoni." If it was anything other than RAW ham, I totally agree that we would not see decomp, or maggots.
AND....I think we can rule out the wrapped up animal carcass....LOL. I STILL love that one.
BUT....maybe an animal killed for sport and wrapped up ?? Ah, crap, i need to stop thinking...LOL
Oh, I can totally see Casey wrapping up the little squirrel bodys all tight in saran wrap, so she could take them home and give them a decent burial.........NOT! It is funny, isn't it, the way the results are worded?
Hi all...Anyway, about the maggots.......I don't recall reading any report that there were any maggots found other than those
inside the bag, and these were apparently found along with
small flies and at least some food items. Of course you may have all sorts of species of fly in the US that we don't see in the UK, but we do have flies that will lay eggs on
cooked meat, so I am wondering if the maggots/flies found were not the 'flesh eating' type (yuk!:sick
but the 'dump your eggs anywhere suitable' type. I just find it odd if it's correct that the maggots where only in the bag.
Welcome! Your question is one that drives me insane once I start to think about it! As far as I know, we have NEVER been told that the maggots were of the blowfly variety, but LE has mentioned them as though there was some significance.......which would only be true if the maggots were blowfly maggots.
I know, my head is spinning!
The paragraph stating animal carcass, rotting meat, etc., was from
Preliminary report #1. The corresponding paragraph from
Preliminary report #2 states: These results 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.
Both paragraphs are pretty much the same thing, but the latest (Preliminary report #2) paragraph seems in its wording to be making a slightly tighter conclusion than the first did, by using the words
remote and
unusual variety.
What makes it all confusing is that Preliminary report #2 was actually released in the first document dump, the first forensics report that we read, and report #1 came out in the second dump.
Thanks, PaperMoon! I was going to publically bow out of the conversation if I'd messed that up, too! It would be time to get my hiney to the eye doc!