Syringe in bottle contained traces of chloroform

[carrie]

This was asked repeatedly in this thread, but someone posted links to specific pages.

OK, page 11641 of this link

http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/11571-11670.pdf

is a chart, this was referenced by one poster as the proof of the chloroform being present.


Pages 11984 and 11985 of this link

http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/11911-11987.pdf

seem to be where the results of the testing are given. It doesn't say anything about chloroform being in anything. I don't understand.

Why would the results say there isn't any chloroform in anything if there, indeed, is? :waitasec:

I'm not sure about how to understand the charts and other data the way it's displayed, that's why I wish someone who knows about this stuff would help us. :waitasec: However, I do understand the written summary that doesn't list chloroform as being found in any of the tested objects/evidence.

I tried to post the actual chart and pages but I can't figure out how I haven't done it before. If you go to the pages I've noted, however, you will see the info to which I'm referring.

 

[cecybeans]

Time to look for our resident SME's....

 

[ThoughtElf]

Maybe we need a mythbuster discussion.

Yes. We need an expert citation that discusses:

• the amount of chloroform found in the bottle - the test control solutions for that do not *appear* to have chloroform in them, but that isn't a certainty yet
• the fact that chloroform was part of the positive control used in testing/extracting the testosterone in the syringe (that is a fact), but we don't know if the results are higher than the amount used int he control solution
• we need norm ranges for the control solutions & we need a comparison to the result ranges

Who can bust this mtyh?

 

[ThoughtElf]

Good am caught up as much as I can... still not seeing specifically what it is that connects the syringe (or bottle eg) to KC? I gather it's the location itself which everyone finds suspicious, and the chloroform components in trunk. However it seems fingerprints are the only real hope prosecution has of tying this to KC. :twocents:

arrot:

&/or a link connecting Casey directly to physical access to chloroform

 

[Dear Prudence]

OK, page 11641 of this link

http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/11571-11670.pdf

is a chart, this was referenced by one poster as the proof of the chloroform being present.


Pages 11984 and 11985 of this link

http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/11911-11987.pdf

seem to be where the results of the testing are given. It doesn't say anything about chloroform being in anything. I don't understand.

Why would the results say there isn't any chloroform in anything if there, indeed, is? :waitasec:

I'm not sure about how to understand the charts and other data the way it's displayed, that's why I wish someone who knows about this stuff would help us. :waitasec: However, I do understand the written summary that doesn't list chloroform as being found in any of the tested objects/evidence.

I tried to post the actual chart and pages but I can't figure out how I haven't done it before. If you go to the pages I've noted, however, you will see the info to which I'm referring.

When I asked your same questions yesterday I was referred to this page:
http://www.clickorlando.com/download/2009/1106/21540506.pdf
see p. 11526 at this link

It does list chloroform in a column labeled "compound(s) detected" but I would still like to hear from one of our scientists here if they can confirm this and determine at what levels chloroform was found.

 

[carrie]

I've tried to get it, but it seems very far fetched to me. Also, I hope I have always made my position clear that I am no advocate for Casey, I think she's guilty as sin and I await the day she stands up in court to receive her punishment.

I, for the record, believe she is guilty as well, if not of premeditated murder, then at least of child abuse/neglect. I believe this mostly because of the lack of concern she's shown for her child, and the 31 days, and the lies (imaginanny, etc.).

( OT ) -- I do realize, as Wudge points out, all that is not enough for a jury to convict her, however.

But I'm still not seeing where the docs (not the newspapers or media) state there was chloroform found in any of the evidence from the remains site. If someone could point out where it shows this in the docs I would greatly appreciate it.

 

[Chiquita71]

Hello WS

Why would the news have reported on this if it was not true? What does Kathi B have to say about all of this? Is there any way we can know what is true? I just want to know what is the correct information.

I get that the news likes to "get the scoop" but it does not make sense that they would have reported this in the news. Just to remind WSers, no one here needs to feel bad that we are debating this: it was the media who said, first, that chloroform was found in the needle, yes? Or do I have that information wrong also?

...just my opinion...

 

[JBean]

Let me just clarify that no one, to my knowledge, has verified themself to be a chemist or scientist.
This is the internet and admin does not know who or what anyone is unless they choose to tell us and/or prove it to Tricia.

This means that it is up to you if you choose to believe anyone that posts as an 'expert" .

If anyone has claimed to be an expert, I am not doubting or insulting you so please do not take it that way.

This is just a general disclaimer that applies to anyone that is posting as a professional in any area. But posters need to be aware that we don't know this for a fact and they just need to draw conclusions based on your posts.

If someone posts what they know, for example, about law, but does not claim to be a lawyer then no harm no foul. Same applies to all professions across the board.

 

[ThoughtElf]

When I asked your same questions yesterday I was referred to this page:
http://www.clickorlando.com/download/2009/1106/21540506.pdf
see p. 11526 at this link

It does list chloroform in a column labeled "compound(s) detected" but I would still like to hear from one of our scientists here if they can confirm this and determine at what levels chloroform was found.

Ok, here is the method I have been using - note that I am a neophyte when it comes to chemistry, but hope this helps:
1. I looked up the controls used for the testing of items @238.1 (bottle) and Q240.1.1 (syringe)
2. The vendors & test names are provided first on page 53 here (vendor specifics are in test steps in following pages):
http://www.clickorlando.com/download...6/21540506.pdf
3. Next, I went to the other pdf with the print results - chloroform was part of one of the control tests used on the syringe to extract the testosterone - see pages 11640 & 11641. I think it falls within the normal range, but am not sure. The PASS designation seems to match the hand-written chloroform range on the preceding pages --> implying that the chloroform in the syringe is a NORMAL finding due to the control test solution used.
4. I haven't found (yet) that the control solutions used on the liquid in the bottle had chloroform in it, therefore we have no starting range by which to analyze/evaluate the results for that > Help on this one would be especially useful

 

[carrie]

When I asked your same questions yesterday I was referred to this page:
http://www.clickorlando.com/download/2009/1106/21540506.pdf
see p. 11526 at this link

It does list chloroform in a column labeled "compound(s) detected" but I would still like to hear from one of our scientists here if they can confirm this and determine at what levels chloroform was found.

Thank you so much. That page is at least clearer (to me) that at least some amount/level of chloroform was detected. Thanks.

It would be nice to understand the significance of this amount of chloroform. I don't know enough about it to determine. Confusing that the docs seem to contradict themselves at times (IMHO). But that may just be my uneducated (in forensics/chemistry at least) perception of them.

Disclaimer: Before anyone thinks I'm criticizing LE I'm not. I'm just saying I don't always understand the docs.

 

[Shalya]

I haven't been able to get through this whole thread (I've been trying... the kids are really wild today and needing mommy's attention!).

Is testosterone present in steroids that are used for people with breathing problems such as emphysema and athsma?

 

[carrie]

Hello WS

Why would the news have reported on this if it was not true? What does Kathi B have to say about all of this? Is there any way we can know what is true? I just want to know what is the correct information.

I get that the news likes to "get the scoop" but it does not make sense that they would have reported this in the news. Just to remind WSers, no one here needs to feel bad that we are debating this: it was the media who said, first, that chloroform was found in the needle, yes? Or do I have that information wrong also?

...just my opinion...

Yes, the thread was started based on a news link. And, yes, you're correct, IMO, that no one is at fault or wrong for discussing any of this.

I just want to know whether there was, in fact, a significant amount of chloroform found in the syringe/bottle to show harmful intent/some kind of wrongdoing in connection with said chloroform.

As far as the news/media, one cannot always accept as fact what they report.

 

[ThoughtElf]

IF - and that is a BIG if - I am reading this correctly... they also tested the chloroform result in the syringe against the chloroform in the bottle. Presumably to see if there was 'native' chloroform in the syringe that was not a by-product of the testing solutions.

On page 11529 they tested both 238.1 & 240.1.1 with a "test mix' control solution then analyzed the samples by GC/MS using PE/PI Mode.

We need:

• list of the control solutions used on both 238.1 & 240.1.1
• list of components in control solutions - with normal ranges expected to be found in results
• instruction on what the methods & modes are
• interpretation details on the individual 238.1 & 240.1.1 testing
• range interpretation of results for 238.1 & 240.1.1 comparison test

Break out the experts!

 

[The World According]

Speaking of "junk science", you know that JB will make his way on some news outlet and claim that all of this evidence released is just "junk science" LOL :banghead:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh7-rlpTnJg"]YouTube- Caylee Anthony-Decomposition/Pizza Trunk Theory[/ame]

 

[The World According]

Q244 = the doll

But it also lists all the chemicals found in the liquid in the bottle (Q238.1) and no chloroform is listed. Q240.1 is the syringe. It was not analyzed.

Can anyone tell me where it says there was any chloroform found?

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRJX9tyz2dc"]YouTube- Small Flies Could Be Big Evidence Against Casey Anthony[/nomedia]

 

[carrie]

Ok, here is the method I have been using - note that I am a neophyte when it comes to chemistry, but hope this helps:
1. I looked up the controls used for the testing of items @238.1 (bottle) and Q240.1.1 (syringe)
2. The vendors & test names are provided first on page 53 here (vendor specifics are in test steps in following pages):
http://www.clickorlando.com/download...6/21540506.pdf
3. Next, I went to the other pdf with the print results - chloroform was part of one of the control tests used on the syringe to extract the testosterone - see pages 11640 & 11641. I think it falls within the normal range, but am not sure. The PASS designation seems to match the hand-written chloroform range on the preceding pages --> implying that the chloroform in the syringe is a NORMAL finding due to the control test solution used.
4. I haven't found (yet) that the control solutions used on the liquid in the bottle had chloroform in it, therefore we have no starting range by which to analyze/evaluate the results for that > Help on this one would be especially useful

[(above respectfully BBM]

Thanks TE. This (especially the part I bolded) is some of what is confusing me. You explained so much better than I could have though . Because I don't understand that type of thing, I end to rely on the part written in more plain English, the summary/report of findings, which seems to say there is not any chloroform, or perhaps no significant amount. . . . Big SIGH . . . Wonder how we can figure this out. I mean, was this possibly just some cleaning fluid with a trace/normal/expected amount of chloroform? Or was it much more sinister?

 

[lizzysf]

IF - and that is a BIG if - I am reading this correctly... they also tested the chloroform result in the syringe against the chloroform in the bottle. Presumably to see if there was 'native' chloroform in the syringe that was not a by-product of the testing solutions.

On page 11529 they tested both 238.1 & 240.1.1 with a "test mix' control solution then analyzed the samples by GC/MS using PE/PI Mode.

We need:

• list of the control solutions used on both 238.1 & 240.1.1
• list of components in control solutions - with normal ranges expected to be found in results
• instruction on what the methods & modes are
• interpretation details on the individual 238.1 & 240.1.1 testing
• range interpretation of results for 238.1 & 240.1.1 comparison test

Break out the experts!

Question. Since the main substance they were looking for was Chloroform..did they initally test the liquid for that first, and then upon finding Testosterone also, did a secondary test using Chloroform as one of the contol solutions to extract the Testosterone? I wonder why they would even choose Chloroform as a solvent in this case, as opposed to another solvent for the third control, even though the normal range of the test solution could be exacted? My question may not even make sense... can you shed some light on this? TIA!

 

[carrie]

YouTube- Small Flies Could Be Big Evidence Against Casey Anthony

I think the poster wanted to see where it's stated clearly in the docs rather than a news/media interpretation that that's what the docs state. JMHO

 

[ThoughtElf]

The first tests - page 11527 (note I am not covering item 241):


238.1

• Had an odor consistent with cleaning fluids
• FTIR Analysis - Individual sample analaysed by FTIR
• Headspace GC/MS - individual sample mixed with 0.5ml negative Millipore control water, & Test mix solution lot #MPR09292008
• see printout for results

240.1.1

• Also had an odour consistent with cleaning fluids
• cloudy & a yellowish oily-like liquid
• FTIR - TWO samples were tested separately from 240.1.1
• * yellow liquid
• * murky/cloudy substance
• See printouts for results

Lots more to do, but I need a break.

 

[carrie]

Question. Since the main substance they were looking for was Chloroform..did they initally test the liquid for that first, and then upon finding Testosterone also, did a secondary test using Chloroform as one of the contol solutions to extract the Testosterone? I wonder why they would even choose Chloroform as a solvent in this case, as opposed to another solvent for the third control, even though the normal range of the test solution could be exacted? My question may not even make sense... can you shed some light on this? TIA!

Maybe this isn't even what you're asking, but using something a a control doesn't mean using it as a solvent.


Definition of control :
A control in an experiment is a group, sample, test, etc. that is used in comparison to the group, sample, test, etc. that the experiment is actually done for. Controls can also be samples in which the expected value is known. This is the part of the expirement that does not change.

http://www.everythingbio.com/glos/definition.php?ID=4288