2009.11.06 Forensic Entomology Report Released #2

[treeseeker]

This would make sense because of the THC residue found-THC is very resinous, it would stick around perhaps even after a shower, or under her nails if she had been handling marijuana the day before at TL's (where she was all day on Sunday).
Or, as a poster suggested earlier, maybe the stains on the towel were bong water, but I think the stains gave indications of something else under alternative light sources.
Not to get off track, I do think she could have wiped this from her hands, but then another poster reminds us that the decomp matter on the towels was later stage....Would adipocere or decomp fluid continue the process of decomp without a host body/on the towels?

ETA-I just noticed I am way off topic, that this is the entomology thread ----Sorry!!

Sort of on-topic, really. Dr. Vass addressed the independent decomp of the towel substance in his report, and yes some VFA conversion processes will continue sans body. But the VFAs in the towels, indicating a more advanced state of bodily decomp, were not on the trunk liner. What was on the trunk liner wasn't all that attractive to the coffin flies, there weren't that many in the trunk itself.

If the trunk had been thorougly cleaned, we'd find either no VFAs or traces of all the VFAs, not just one, IMO, if there had been a spill in the trunk at the time the towels were used.

Also to note, no thc was detected in the trunk, that we saw.

 

[Just Jayla]

Sort of on-topic, really. Dr. Vass addressed the independent decomp of the towel substance in his report, and yes some VFA conversion processes will continue sans body. But the VFAs in the towels, indicating a more advanced state of bodily decomp, were not on the trunk liner. What was on the trunk liner wasn't all that attractive to the coffin flies, there weren't that many in the trunk itself.

If the trunk had been thorougly cleaned, we'd find either no VFAs or traces of all the VFAs, not just one, IMO, if there had been a spill in the trunk at the time the towels were used.

Also to note, no thc was detected in the trunk, that we saw.

Right, so it would have to be from her hands, or a clean-up somewhere other than her car (so no exposure to the trunk).... The THC clearly could have been on there earlier and she just used an already soiled towel from TL's trash. Makes great sense, thanks!

 

[Just Jayla]

Sort of on-topic, really. Dr. Vass addressed the independent decomp of the towel substance in his report, and yes some VFA conversion processes will continue sans body. But the VFAs in the towels, indicating a more advanced state of bodily decomp, were not on the trunk liner. What was on the trunk liner wasn't all that attractive to the coffin flies, there weren't that many in the trunk itself.

If the trunk had been thorougly cleaned, we'd find either no VFAs or traces of all the VFAs, not just one, IMO, if there had been a spill in the trunk at the time the towels were used.

Also to note, no thc was detected in the trunk, that we saw.

KC's silver heart ring from Tiffany's that disappeared.....CA asks her about it, she says she got it from JeffH...Of course, she could have just pawned it for some dough, but I wonder instead if she got it dirty and removed it somewhere....

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

I saw earlier that a poster suggested the towels were used by Casey to wipe her hands. I think that's a possibility. I've always thought the idea of using a couple of paper towels to clean up decomp and grave wax was a bit off.

I may be wrong, it just seemed an odd choice. The more I think about it, the more I think the towels were used to wipe something else (not the trunk carpet.)

. . . or used to protect her hands while she was transferring something she didn't want to touch.

 

[Tuffy]

. . . or used to protect her hands while she was transferring something she didn't want to touch.

Even better, ExpectingUnicorns! Picking up something, maybe Caylee, that has adipocere on it. Grab a few paper towels...

 

[ZsaZsa]

Right, so it would have to be from her hands, or a clean-up somewhere other than her car (so no exposure to the trunk).... The THC clearly could have been on there earlier and she just used an already soiled towel from TL's trash. Makes great sense, thanks!

I'd have to go back and read it again, but I feel sure Dr Haskell said there was more decompositional material on the towels than would be present by merely wiping one's hands on it- He states that the Most likely explanation would be that the towels were used to clean up the decompositional fluids from the carpet in the trunk....

 

[Harmony 2]

Yay we are all on the same page in the direction of our thinking (I think LOL)!

 

[Harmony 2]

I'd have to go back and read it again, but I feel sure Dr Haskell said there was more decompositional material on the towels than would be present by merely wiping one's hands on it- He states that the Most likely explanation would be that the towels were used to clean up the decompositional fluids from the carpet in the trunk....

Butyric acid was the only volatile fatty acid found on the trunk carpet and it was not found on the paper towels/napkins in the trash bag. I can provide a screen print of the info if you want.

ETA: Here is the statement:

Page 12
http://www.wesh.com/download/2009/0619/19801995.pdf

Here is the paper towel info:
page 7 of same report

 

[Eidetic]

...and yet I thought I read in the reports that she wasn't at the "bloating stage"...and I think they explained why she wouldn't be...gosh, I just may have to go back in the dark hole.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15084977/Forensic-Entymology-Report
Page seven paragraphs two and three (of interest bolded by me):

Given(1) the time line when Caylee Anthony was last seen (June 16, 2008), (2) the impounding of the car on June 30, 2008, and (3) the abandonment of the car at Amscot on the 27th of June 2008, it is likely that remains were removed from the car between June 19 and 27. This interpretation is supported by the degree day accumulation needed to initiate purging of fluids (35 to 40 ADDs B10) with hot temperatures driving the decomposition. This 35 to 40 ADD was achieved on June 19, and decompositional fluids (including purge fluid), would have been present thereafter. In addition, I traveled to the Orange County Florida crime lab to inspect the car (specifically the car trunk) in mid-December 2008. Even after nearly 6 months of time passing and with the trunk carpet liner removed, strong decompositional odor was still present.

The presence of large numbers of phorids implies that the decomposing tissue in the trunk was accessible (not in a sealed container). If the decomposing tissue in the trunk were a human body, given the high temperatures it would likely have proceeded to the bloat stage during this interval (June 19 through the 27), and considerable loss of fluids would have results. Because evidence of large amounts of decompositional grease (as would be associated with post-bloat stage decomposition) was not observed in the trunk, the most likely interpretation is that the body was removed after purging occurred but before decomposition proceeded to post-bloat. These conditions imply the remains were removed earlier in this earlier interval (June 19-22) rather than later (June 23-27).

 

[Harmony 2]

Thanks, for helping me clear the part up about samples from the trunk interior.
So now, I have to ask this question; is it possible that whatever was attractive to the insects in the trunk was also attractive to the insects in the dumpster? and if that is possible, would it not be possible for the insects from the dumpster to infiltrate the white trash bag? and if so, would that not contaminate the white trash bag and its contents?
In my opinion, the answer to these 3 questions is yes, and I think that makes the findings questionable.
Can anyone help me clear this up? I am not understanding how they can use evidence that may be contaminated. I hope I am barking up the wrong tree here. I could be very wrong here, I'm not a bug guy. It just seems to me that dumpsters have lots of bugs in them and they would have flown into the white trash bag where there were obviously a whole bunch of other insects.
TIA to anyone who helps me clear these questions up.

It would make no difference whether the bugs came from a dumpster or outer space- what they settled on and fed on in the plastic trash bag was Caylee's decomposing body fluids on the paper towels.
They also collected flies from the trunk, as stated in Dr Haskell's report.

I think they might have a difficult time using the paper towels since chain of custody was broken on the bag - UNLESS they can get some DNA off of the towels. Just my 2 cents.

FYI..Here is a photo of the dumpster with the trash bag in there taken on July 16, 2008.

http://media.myfoxorlando.com/photogalleries/040609casephotosset2/1/lg/Trash_bag_0869208.htm

 

[RR0004]

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15084977/Forensic-Entymology-Report
Page seven paragraphs two and three (of interest bolded by me):

Given(1) the time line when Caylee Anthony was last seen (June 16, 2008), (2) the impounding of the car on June 30, 2008, and (3) the abandonment of the car at Amscot on the 27th of June 2008, it is likely that remains were removed from the car between June 19 and 27. This interpretation is supported by the degree day accumulation needed to initiate purging of fluids (35 to 40 ADDs B10) with hot temperatures driving the decomposition. This 35 to 40 ADD was achieved on June 19, and decompositional fluids (including purge fluid), would have been present thereafter. In addition, I traveled to the Orange County Florida crime lab to inspect the car (specifically the car trunk) in mid-December 2008. Even after nearly 6 months of time passing and with the trunk carpet liner removed, strong decompositional odor was still present.

The presence of large numbers of phorids implies that the decomposing tissue in the trunk was accessible (not in a sealed container). If the decomposing tissue in the trunk were a human body, given the high temperatures it would likely have proceeded to the bloat stage during this interval (June 19 through the 27), and considerable loss of fluids would have results. Because evidence of large amounts of decompositional grease (as would be associated with post-bloat stage decomposition) was not observed in the trunk, the most likely interpretation is that the body was removed after purging occurred but before decomposition proceeded to post-bloat. These conditions imply the remains were removed earlier in this earlier interval (June 19-22) rather than later (June 23-27).

Oh, bless you. I interpreted it all wrong. I assumed the loss of liquid occured after the bloating (see bloating and loss of liquid didn't mean the same thing to me...don't ya have to have liquid to be bloated?), but before the body entered the "final" stage of decomposition.
Way too much info for me to handle.

 

[mitzi]

Oh, bless you. I interpreted it all wrong. I assumed the loss of liquid occured after the bloating (see bloating and loss of liquid didn't mean the same thing to me...don't ya have to have liquid to be bloated?), but before the body entered the "final" stage of decomposition.
Way too much info for me to handle.

BBM

Not sure, but I would think the bloating is caused by gases, not liquids. Gosh, talking about this just makes me sick. :sick:

 

[RR0004]

BBM

Not sure, but I would think the bloating is caused by gases, not liquids. Gosh, talking about this just makes me sick. :sick:

Yup...that's exactly what fills the body and then it's as if the body fills to the point of an "explosion" of liquid. Believe it or not, I just saw it on a CSI Miami rerun. How freaky is that!? Actually they explained the body being eaten alive inside by bacteria during this stage...hence the gas that's produced. EEEW! I'm done.

 

[Daylight/1257]

Yup...that's exactly what fills the body and then it's as if the body fills to the point of an "explosion" of liquid. Believe it or not, I just saw it on a CSI Miami rerun. How freaky is that!? Actually they explained the body being eaten alive inside by bacteria during this stage...hence the gas that's produced. EEEW! I'm done.

Thanks for that information! Really.

(Note to self: remember not to bring food to the computer room.):biggrin:

 

[FifthEssence]

Just heard on JVM, that the new forensic science used in this case, ie: the smell in the trunk - will have to be presented in a separate hearing called a FRYE HEARING, and it will be determined if it is admissable in trial.
Only when opinions of an expert are based on “new and novel” scientific techniques are they subject to a Frye inquiry.


Found a couple links, one explains the Federal standard and the other refers to the State of Florida.
FL - http://www.palmbeachbar.org/members/Oct_02_Ted.pdf
Federal - http://www.lectlaw.com/files/exp08.htm

 

[RR0004]

Just heard on JVM, that the new forensic science used in this case, ie: the smell in the trunk - will have to be presented in a separate hearing called a FRYE HEARING, and it will be determined if it is admissable in trial.
Only when opinions of an expert are based on “new and novel” scientific techniques are they subject to a Frye inquiry.


Found a couple links, one explains the Federal standard and the other refers to the State of Florida.
FL - http://www.palmbeachbar.org/members/Oct_02_Ted.pdf
Federal - http://www.lectlaw.com/files/exp08.htm

You betcha JB will ask for this!

 

[The World According]

Just heard on JVM, that the new forensic science used in this case, ie: the smell in the trunk - will have to be presented in a separate hearing called a FRYE HEARING, and it will be determined if it is admissable in trial.
Only when opinions of an expert are based on “new and novel” scientific techniques are they subject to a Frye inquiry.


Found a couple links, one explains the Federal standard and the other refers to the State of Florida.
FL - http://www.palmbeachbar.org/members/Oct_02_Ted.pdf
Federal - http://www.lectlaw.com/files/exp08.htm

Thank you for the links, at one time in history DNA evidence was all new too.

 

[RR0004]

Thank you for the links, at one time in history DNA evidence was all new too.

People also thought the work they did at the Body Farm (Tenn.) was weird in general. I became a fan when I discovered Patricia Cornwell.

 

[Harmony 2]

Fly Evidence use to get guilty verdict in murder case:
Caylee Anthony Prosecution Expert, Dr. Neal H. Haskell, Entomologist, used coffin fly & and blow fly evidence to convict Brookey Lee West of murder. I’ve included an article on the murder case below. This murder case did not have all the circumstantial evidence like Casey Anthony’s case. Yet, after only two hours of deliberation, a jury found Brookey West guilty of murder. The Caylee Anthony case Prosecutors have an expert with a record of getting a murder conviction based on coffin/blow fly evidence. This coffin fly evidence is powerful and the prosecution has a proven powerful expert. You can’t get better than that.http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21540599/detail.html

Dr. Haskell has also testified for the defense and a guilty verdict was rendered against David Westerfield.

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_entomology_and_the_law[/ame]

David Westerfield
In the United States, forensic entomology became well known through the trial of David Westerfield in 2002 for the abduction and murder of seven-year-old Danielle Van Dam. In this San Diego case, the courtroom became a battle over conflicting reports from four forensic entomologists, Dr. Robert D. Hall, Dr. David Faulkner, Dr. M. Lee Goff, and Dr. Neal Haskell. Dr. Haskell, Dr. Hall, and Dr. Faulker argued that forensic entomology established a time interval that the body of Danielle Van Dam was dumped, which proved to be after Westerfield was already under police surveillance, while Dr. Goff insisted that the victim's body was colonized by larvae earlier than the other three entomologists estimated.

 

[Jolynna]

Dr. Haskell has also testified for the defense and a guilty verdict was rendered against David Westerfield.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_entomology_and_the_law

Dr. Haskell has testified in many, many cases, both for the defense and for government agencies.

The Brookey West case is especially interesting to me because of the similarities of that case to the case against KC. In both, the lack of blow fly remains where there should have been blow fly remains shows the victim was sealed up either before death or shortly afterwards.

We haven't seen Haskell's report about the bugs found at the Suburban site. Various flesh-eating flies, beetles and worms prefer carrion in different decomp stages. Finding blow fly remains on Suburban under Caylee's scattered bones would prove beyond a shadow of doubt (imo) that Caylee was left on Suburban while stilll decomposing. Other insects found (or not found) are also valuable information.,

The blow fly evidence in this case as well as the "bone scatter pattern" evidence is something the jury will easily understand. It is less complex than Dr. Haskell's testimony in other cases. Dr. Baden, on Geraldo last night, even cited some of the entomology report. Only Dr. Baden was sort of misleading and he left out the part about the maggot activity stopping because of flooding...

jmo