i wanted to bring this over from the first thread.....not sure if its much help....but it is to me....when we start talking about numbers and Q's and whats what
plus i wanted to ask something else after reading
Quote:
Originally Posted by TakeNote
Results of examinations pg 75
Q240.1.1 liquid from within Q240
Q240 plastic bag
secimen Q240.1.1 was a mixture of immiscible liquids (whitish and yellow) the whitish aqueous-portion of Q240.1.1 was similar to Q238.1 (possibley some type of cleaning product) a mixture of testosterone compounds was identified withine the yellowish, oily-portion of Q240.1.1
Q238 bottle
Q238.1 was liquid from within Q238
Q238.1 was a whitish/murky liquid and while not specifically identified, could be from a ype of cleaning product. additionally, a mixture of testosterone compounds was identified with Q238.1
Q241 unknown liquid substance from the vehicle no chloroform , similar to urine
Q244 Doll chloroform was not identified within specimen
the only part of the report on this page or any other written page for results that states NO Chloroform found is ......
Q241 .....which looked like it could be urine
Q244 Doll
the others state cleaning product......maybe same substances you would find in chloroform???
sorry i dont know how to link from the other thread
quote from :carrie
You're right. It does not state specifially "NO chloroform." My bad on that, this is becoming frustrating.
But the point is, they don't say there IS any chloroform. Since they were specifically requested to look for substances that could have been used to murder Caylee (and they've heard about the chloroform levels in the trunk), don't you think if there was a significant amount of chloroform (enough to matter) they'd mention it? It would be pretty remiss if they failed to mention it.
The person conducting these tests surely doesn't expect everyone else in LE to be able to grasp/read/make use of the graphs and highly technical part of the report.
The persons receiving this report need the answers in plain words just like most of us. Think about how many people involved in the case that might need to understand the results of this testing. They can't all be chemists. The SA isn't a chemist, nor most of the folks at OSCO. If most of us can't read this and understand it, neither can they. That's why I believe if there was a significant amount of chloroform found in anything they tested (enough to be harmful to Caylee), it would be explained in plains words somewhere in the report, likely here in this summary you reference. KWIM?
question from me.....
im hoping there is another report that will break down what they are calling cleaning product..........who knows.....its really nice to be able to talk and discover and pick apart things with you all .....i think this group of people here on w/s are the best!