Syringe in bottle and traces of chloroform #2

[magic-cat]

The defense is strangely quiet.

 

[iluvmua]

Has anybody else heard of the possibility of a syringe being used prior to the recent document dump?

 

[cecybeans]

Okay, this is just a guess, but what would be the effect on a toddler of being injected with a pre-loaded syringe of steroids? If chloroform is pretty much off the table, then what other combination of substances potentially lethal to a small child could we be talking about, on the off chance this is related?

Perhaps the SA released that in discovery as a shot across the bow just to see if Lee and Baden were even still on the team to figure it out. Of course the FBI was asked to test for chloroform concentration in probably everything they could, given the elevated amounts in the trunk. But if there is an Anthony family fingerprint on that syringe - even somebody elses (say it turned out to be GA's testosterone meds) - it would still tie KC in as she would be the only one with access.

It doesn't exactly look like some druggie concoction either. Just trying to think of possible alternatives before I give up on its being related to the crime scene.

 

[lizzysf]

Ok so if there is a US drug compatable....where does that leave the chloroform? Or am I missing something? moo

The Chloroform being a separate issue for now.. My search was to find a US drug compatible to Sustanon (a compounded drug which has the same 4 chemical elements found in the syringe) available per RX in the US, to establish whether or not what was found in the syringe could have been used for rx replacement therapy.. if not, what is in the syringe was illegal steroid for bodybuilding. The Chloroform portion of the sample is an issue better left to the chemists to sort out as to whether it was a by-product of something or an actual intentional addition to the solution.
I have gone thru the PDR and no compounded drug like this is available in the US for prescription use.

ADDED LINKS:
http://www.drugs.com/international/sustanon.html
http://www.drugs.com/ingredient/testosterone.html

 

[debs]

Okay, this is just a guess, but what would be the effect on a toddler of being injected with a pre-loaded syringe of steroids? If chloroform is pretty much off the table, then what other combination of substances potentially lethal to a small child could we be talking about, on the off chance this is related?

Perhaps the SA released that in discovery as a shot across the bow just to see if Lee and Baden were even still on the team to figure it out. Of course the FBI was asked to test for chloroform concentration in probably everything they could, given the elevated amounts in the trunk. But if there is an Anthony family fingerprint on that syringe - even somebody elses (say it turned out to be GA's testosterone meds) - it would still tie KC in as she would be the only one with access.

It doesn't exactly look like some druggie concoction either. Just trying to think of possible alternatives before I give up on its being related to the crime scene.

technically, it wouldn't take anything in a syringe to cause a death except air. Get it into a vein and wait for the air bubble to do its work.

I don't think that's what happened here, though.

 

[seagull65]

was just reading the docs on docstock for the first time (didn't get a chance over the weekend) and wondering about the steroids, ethanol, and chloroform in the Gatorade bottle and syringe. Should have looked here first! You answered some of my questions.
I didn't get why NS told the lab not to run further tests on the other bottle with the liquid that smelled like urine? No DNA or anything?

 

[seagull65]

I wonder why someone would have steroids/ethanol/chloroform in a bottle together? If someone wanted to inject someone else to subdue or kill them, why not just the chloroform and save their steroids for their own use or whatever? Why include the steroids? Or if the preparation was for someone's own use why would they have chloroform/ethanol in with their steroids? Seems like such a strange combo either way.

edited to add: oh, did the syringe just contain the steroids originally but mixed over time with contents of the bottle?

edited to add: duh, just read Butwhatif's post above regarding the steroid having to be dissolved in chloroform, ethanol, or fixed oils. Thank you!

 

[snow_walker]

I have been trying to figure out what concentration the steriod was at.. the thing is.. I was wondering if the bottle could have contained concentrated chloroform, with a syringe once used for steroids..and once the chloroform was used or evaporated, was the bottle filled with tap water, or did it get filled with water during the flooding.. if so, then the amount of chloroform in the bottle would have been very diluted from it's original amount.
Maybe the thing to go by would be the amount of steroid and the amount of chloroform in the syringe.. both things would have been equally diluted by any water that was subsequently added to the needle..
I can't figure it out though, so does anyone else know?

 

[cecybeans]

technically, it wouldn't take anything in a syringe to cause a death except air. Get it into a vein and wait for the air bubble to do its work.

I don't think that's what happened here, though.

True, but I was just wondering if there was any specific effect injecting other things could have - I wanted to rule out "household weapons".

Really, the whole duct tape across the face is macabre enough, and according to law is certainly enough to prove what needs to be proved - but if there is something else involved, I am just curious to figure out what it might be.

 

[cecybeans]

Gatorade is primarily water, sugar, sodium chloride and potassium chloride (well, and dyes)- if water has enough chloroform to register on the test - and the testosterone could come from needle residue, do we have any reason to believe that any other chemicals were added to this, or could this just be a used needle inside cardboard inside a bottle of Gatorade??

When I lived in FL I had my water tested (and got a double osmosis filter afterwards) and found we had more chlorine in the water than a swimming pool. They also put alum in the water to mask the smell.

So I guess the chloroform could come from whatever water was used in the Gatorade unless someone thinks it is in higher concentration than that. And unless this test indicates every single chemical isolated, can we just assume they they were specifically testing for chloroform and drugs?

 

[Valhall]

Okay, I have some answers. The person I got with is a PhD chemist who has years in analytical work.

First this is what I asked (I attached the specific test charts, each labeled according to the references in the question):

All test samples were 0.5 mL in volume.
Q238.1 had enough volume of the "pure" sample to fill the test volume (i.e. was not diluted).
Q240.1.1 did not have sufficient volume. There was 20 microL of "pure" sample and it was diluted in 480 microL of water, then the 0.5 mL test sample was taken from this mixture.
is a positive control test sample mixed at 0.001% chloroform in water (1 microL of CHCL3 in 100 microL of water).

I know that to take the qualitative results of a HS-GC-MSD and extract quantitative concentrations is fairly complicated, but I'm not necessarily wanting to learn how to do that. What I want to learn is can you take these qualitative results and use the as a normalizing point thereby coming up with an "order of magnitude" estimate on the other two samples.

For instance, since Q238.1 is 100% pure sample, can the 10 ppm of the test be used to estimate that the Q238.1 sample is of the order of 10 ppb chloroform?

Using this calculation:
Y = 10 ppm * (1300/1300000)
Where 1300 is the relative abundance of the chloroform in Q238.1 and 1,300,000 is the relative abundance of the chloroform in the control mixture.

Then when we get to 240.1.1 - which is diluted to make up the required 0.5 mL test sample. I have this question:

Is the dilution taken into account during the test so that the results that are returned are corrected back to the original "pure sample" volume? In other words, is a dilution ratio entered into the software, or do the results have to be adjusted manually, after the test is run, to get to what the pure sample would be without dilution?

Here is his response paraphrased (since I did not get permission to quote him).

First he got on to me for doing "big hammer" stuff and then concedes with "Otherwise what you propose will work, but only for ballpark numbers."...which is all I want, orders of magnitude.

Okay, then for the second question on the dilution, he states that it does not appear to have any adjustment for the dilution, but instead appears to be the raw data straight as ran. I will quote him here...

"In my opinion, sample 240.1.1 is nondetectable. Those peaks are so small that it would be hard to convince me that they are above the limits of detection."

And then he says that, yes, it will have to be corrected for dilution.

So, I have gone back and asked him if on the 240.1.1 reading - uncorrected - does it appear to be in the range of 100 ppt (order of magnitude). I haven't gotten that answer yet. But, for the time being, using that as a reading of the uncorrected results, we get:

total sample volume = 0.5 mL = 500 microL
fraction of test sample that is "pure" sample = (20/500) = 0.04
100 ppt/.04 = 2500 ppt = 2.5 ppb

So adjustment for dilution on the syringe would place it in the range of 1 to 10 ppb which is right at the same concentration for Q238.1. Only problem with this estimate is that right now I'm trying to adjust something that a chemist states should be rendered undetectable so probably all bets are off.

I'll share if he has more to offer.

 

[Tulessa]

Page 510 states-
A trace of clonazepam possibly indicated, but not enough signal. Sorry if that's OT.

 

[carrie]

This (kinda) clears things up for me.

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=...cTdvvg&sig=AFQjCNFTjILTg7cwbW6ocwuOjB3ee0lu-A

Good find butwhatif - at first glance I didn't but now I see where you're going with this.

 

[carrie]

Okay, I have some answers. The person I got with is a PhD chemist who has years in analytical work.

First this is what I asked (I attached the specific test charts, each labeled according to the references in the question):



Here is his response paraphrased (since I did not get permission to quote him).

First he got on to me for doing "big hammer" stuff and then concedes with "Otherwise what you propose will work, but only for ballpark numbers."...which is all I want, orders of magnitude.

Okay, then for the second question on the dilution, he states that it does not appear to have any adjustment for the dilution, but instead appears to be the raw data straight as ran. I will quote him here...

"In my opinion, sample 240.1.1 is nondetectable. Those peaks are so small that it would be hard to convince me that they are above the limits of detection."

And then he says that, yes, it will have to be corrected for dilution.

So, I have gone back and asked him if on the 240.1.1 reading - uncorrected - does it appear to be in the range of 100 ppt (order of magnitude). I haven't gotten that answer yet. But, for the time being, using that as a reading of the uncorrected results, we get:

total sample volume = 0.5 mL = 500 microL
fraction of test sample that is "pure" sample = (20/500) = 0.04
100 ppt/.04 = 2500 ppt = 2.5 ppb

So adjustment for dilution on the syringe would place it in the range of 1 to 10 ppb which is right at the same concentration for Q238.1. Only problem with this estimate is that right now I'm trying to adjust something that a chemist states should be rendered undetectable so probably all bets are off.

I'll share if he has more to offer.

Thanks a million for this Valhall, and for trying so hard to get some answers for us.

At the risk of sounding stupid (why not, I've done it before, lol), what does this mean if your calculations are correct? Does this mean, as you thought previously, that the level/concentration/whatever of chloroform is too low to have been an instrument of harm to Caylee?

Thanks in advance. Sorry to be so dense.

 

[Valhall]

Thanks a million for this Valhall, and for trying so hard to get some answers for us.

At the risk of sounding stupid (why not, I've done it before, lol), what does this mean if your calculations are correct? Does this mean, as you thought previously, that the level/concentration/whatever of chloroform is too low to have been an instrument of harm to Caylee?

Thanks in advance. Sorry to be so dense.

Okay, first let's talk about the syringe. When the chemist states he feels it is under detectable limits, that means you really aren't very wise to try to do anything with it. In other words - you kind of toss it out. That's most likely why this was not reported in the summary report for the HS-GC-MSD.

But with that aside, talking about 10 ppb for the bottle (and just assuming the same for the syringe). As stated before, you can get this much (or more) in your chlorinated drinking water.

The EPA allows 80 ppb of TTHM's (total trihalomethanes) in your drinking water. One of the THM's is chloroform - a natural byproduct of the chlorination process for your drinking water. What this 80 ppb means is if you didn't have any of the other THM's, you could have up to 80 ppb of chloroform in your drinking water.

So, I would say - a big "no" to the chloroform in this being lethal.

 

[Valhall]

Okay, he just responded to my second email and stated he would not do anything with a below detectable limits reading.

Then he said 10 ppb "isn't that big a deal" and went on to reference chlorinated water ... lol. So, there you go.

 

[carrie]

Okay, first let's talk about the syringe. When the chemist states he feels it is under detectable limits, that means you really aren't very wise to try to do anything with it. In other words - you kind of toss it out. That's most likely why this was not reported in the summary report for the HS-GC-MSD.

But with that aside, talking about 10 ppb for the bottle (and just assuming the same for the syringe). As stated before, you can get this much (or more) in your chlorinated drinking water.

The EPA allows 80 ppb of TTHM's (total trihalomethanes) in your drinking water. One of the THM's is chloroform - a natural byproduct of the chlorination process for your drinking water. What this 80 ppb means is if you didn't have any of the other THM's, you could have up to 80 ppb of chloroform in your drinking water.

So, I would say - a big "no" to the chloroform in this being lethal.

Thank again Valhall for all your effeorts concerning this.

I guess we can let this whole chloroform issue rest now. It's been quite a ride - lol.

 

[lizzysf]

Thank again Valhall for all your effeorts concerning this.

I guess we can let this whole chloroform issue rest now. It's been quite a ride - lol.

Are you going to call NG with the update? Let her down easy Carrie..
BOMBSHELL! NO significant Chloroform found in syringe at dumpsite! Let's unleash the chemists..

 

[snow_walker]

I still wonder if the dilution happened before the (possible) use of the chloroform to harm Caylee, or after. Or of it is possible to draw any conclusion on the whole subject..was the testosterone in the needle also very diluted or was it at about the right strength for injection? If one was diluted then the other should have been diluted equally.. but if the testosterone was at a high strength and the chloroform at a miniscule amount, then any chloroform found in it was not a factor in Caylee's death.

 

[Valhall]

I still wonder if the dilution happened before the (possible) use of the chloroform to harm Caylee, or after. Or of it is possible to draw any conclusion on the whole subject..was the testosterone in the needle also very diluted or was it at about the right strength for injection? If one was diluted then the other should have been diluted equally.. but if the testosterone was at a high strength and the chloroform at a miniscule amount, then any chloroform found in it was not a factor in Caylee's death.

The testosterone propionate was so high in concentration that they went to the split method (i.e. allows dilution of high concentration compounds). If I'm reading the reports right they actually double-diluted to get the test. propionate down to where they might detect other compounds.

But on that interpretaton, I would like to get feed back from Dog or Bond on. That's how I'm reading it.