2009.11.06 Forensic Entomology Report Released #2

[ZsaZsa]

I agree, but I can almost guarantee the defense will bring it up. Chain of custody is a big deal.

Can you think of any plausible suggestion that the contents were interfered with during the time it was out of 'custody'?- what other person (a)knew it was there ( b) had access to decomposing material from Caylee (c) could insert that material into the bag before it was retrieved by Y.Melich. I think they would be better off leaving this one alone, it only serves to confirm the unlikelihood of it happening..

 

[butwhatif?]

The fluids (Adipocere) came from Caylee - and they were in Casey's 'custody' when they were found. In a locked car that she had left at Amscot.

The only people that knew the bag had been taken out of the car and left by the dumpster were George and Simon Birch the tow yard manager- so unless one of them had got hold of some of Caylee's decomposing body, put it in the bag before Y.Melich retrieved it the contents would have been unchanged.

BBM- Where in the docs does it state that? I know that that is the conclusion that most people drew from the docs, but assumptions have been thrown in too.

Firstly the presence of adipocere was not confirmed, only suspected since it said something "LIKE" adipocere was found.

Secondly I see nowhere that it states that Caylees decomposition was detected on those paper towels .(Through DNA).

Please link me to to any reports that refute these points if I have overlooked them.
I'm not claiming that Caylees decomp wasn't on the PT, just noting the wording of the report, which leaves it wide open to various possibilities.

Now if they can determine that the critters were feeding off decomp, then its a pretty safe bet that it was adipocere and nothing else.
JMO
ETA: Just to clarify (before I get a ton of sarcastic replies), I do think Caylee was in that trunk. I'm just not convinced that the trash is related. I believe it was left there in an attempt to mask or excuse the nasty smell of decomp. But that's just MPO.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

BBM- Where in the docs does it state that? I know that that is the conclusion that most people drew from the docs, but assumptions have been thrown in too.

Firstly the presence of adipocere was not confirmed, only suspected since it said something "LIKE" adipocere was found.

Secondly I see nowhere that it states that Caylees decomposition was detected on those paper towels .(Through DNA).

Please link me to to any reports that refute these points if I have overlooked them.
I'm not claiming that Caylees decomp wasn't on the PT, just noting the wording of the report, which leaves it wide open to various possibilities.

Now if they can determine that the critters were feeding off decomp, then its a pretty safe bet that it was adipocere and nothing else.
JMO
ETA: Just to clarify (before I get a ton of sarcastic replies), I do think Caylee was in that trunk. I'm just not convinced that the trash is related. I believe it was left there in an attempt to mask or excuse the nasty smell of decomp. But that's just MPO.

I don't know about chemicals and compounds etc. I do know a little about words and how they can be used to completely change the meaning of something. In the first paragraph of the entomology report he starts by saying large numbers of larvae, puparia and some adults of Diptera phoridae were recovered from the trunk and white trash bag.
One would think you found a lot of Diptera in the trunk but on further examination of this doc, there was very little bug evidence at all found in the trunk, the majority was found in the white trash bag that had sat in a dumpster that could have had Lord knows how many awful insects in it, that could have gotten into the white trash bag.
Next he says the large number indicates the presences of sufficient decompostional material to attract significant numbers of this species.
One would think the decompositional material is human, but he never says that in this entire doc. He does say the presence of a leg from Diptera (one single leg, kind of like one single hair that has a dark root that might be caused from decomposing) supports this finding.
Initial entry into trunk actually George and towyard guy, but in this spot I would assume he is talking about when Vincent opened the trunk and saw flies.
Later he says it is difficult to render species level ID without adult specimens of the species available to ID. Once the family level ID was complete (OK it must have been difficult to complete this), Vincent searched trunk for phorid adults with negative results.
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THIS SPECIES CAN ALSO BE FOUND ON DECAYING ORGANIC MATERIAL FROM OTHER SOURCES. (as noted in this do)

If the decomposing tissue were a human body (out of context)

The whole report to me seems to be filled with ambiguous meanings, doubletalk, sidestepping, suppositions, and things that are likely to be consistant something that resembles the truth.
Read this report closely, and slowly. I have reread this report 8 times now and each time I find something new that I don't like.

I don't think Dr. Haskell is being dishonest. I believe he is saying that LE's proposed timeline is entomologically(if thats a word lol) possible. But I don't think he is convinced that there are human remains involved, some sort of decomposing composition but possibly some decomposing composition that is not from a human.
Sorry if my opinion offends anyone, but I think it would be easy for anyone to draw the wrong conclusions from this report. I also still think the white trash bag being in the dumpster contaminites the bug evidence.

 

[Just Jayla]

I don't know about chemicals and compounds etc. I do know a little about words and how they can be used to completely change the meaning of something. In the first paragraph of the entomology report he starts by saying large numbers of larvae, puparia and some adults of Diptera phoridae were recovered from the trunk and white trash bag.
One would think you found a lot of Diptera in the trunk but on further examination of this doc, there was very little bug evidence at all found in the trunk, the majority was found in the white trash bag that had sat in a dumpster that could have had Lord knows how many awful insects in it, that could have gotten into the white trash bag.
Next he says the large number indicates the presences of sufficient decompostional material to attract significant numbers of this species.
One would think the decompositional material is human, but he never says that in this entire doc. He does say the presence of a leg from Diptera (one single leg, kind of like one single hair that has a dark root that might be caused from decomposing) supports this finding.
Initial entry into trunk actually George and towyard guy, but in this spot I would assume he is talking about when Vincent opened the trunk and saw flies.
Later he says it is difficult to render species level ID without adult specimens of the species available to ID. Once the family level ID was complete (OK it must have been difficult to complete this), Vincent searched trunk for phorid adults with negative results.
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THIS SPECIES CAN ALSO BE FOUND ON DECAYING ORGANIC MATERIAL FROM OTHER SOURCES. (as noted in this do)

If the decomposing tissue were a human body (out of context)

The whole report to me seems to be filled with ambiguous meanings, doubletalk, sidestepping, suppositions, and things that are likely to be consistant something that resembles the truth.
Read this report closely, and slowly. I have reread this report 8 times now and each time I find something new that I don't like.

I don't think Dr. Haskell is being dishonest. I believe he is saying that LE's proposed timeline is entomologically(if thats a word lol) possible. But I don't think he is convinced that there are human remains involved, some sort of decomposing composition but possibly some decomposing composition that is not from a human.
Sorry if my opinion offends anyone, but I think it would be easy for anyone to draw the wrong conclusions from this report. I also still think the white trash bag being in the dumpster contaminites the bug evidence.

Your opinion is not offensive at all-Here's what I want to know, and the lawyers here can clarify where I may be mistaken...the FBI indicated more than once that OCSO has to make their own conclusions based on the FBI's findings. The FBI is not trying the case, they are providing their expertise-and nothing more. So same with this PhD, he can't do the state's work for them, he can only get as close as possible to the scenario they are presenting by using the data he has with certain variables in mind.

Is it typical of science experts to be tentative about results where so many variables are in play? My thoughts go to the OJ Simpson case, and the confusion over how DNA tests worked, and their accuracy-Now years later, we know just how effective DNA matching is-but then, 15 years ago, how well could their experts articulate the results of DNA matching in a high profile case? I might be tentative if I were an expert here, too.

And these experts do bear in mind that someone's life is on the line here, so I think they are going to leave a lot of interpretation to LDB, which can still work because KC's stupidity has actually closed a lot of gaps (even though there is still so much to know!)

 

[AZlawyer]

Your opinion is not offensive at all-Here's what I want to know, and the lawyers here can clarify where I may be mistaken...the FBI indicated more than once that OCSO has to make their own conclusions based on the FBI's findings. The FBI is not trying the case, they are providing their expertise-and nothing more. So same with this PhD, he can't do the state's work for them, he can only get as close as possible to the scenario they are presenting by using the data he has with certain variables in mind.

Is it typical of science experts to be tentative about results where so many variables are in play? My thoughts go to the OJ Simpson case, and the confusion over how DNA tests worked, and their accuracy-Now years later, we know just how effective DNA matching is-but then, 15 years ago, how well could their experts articulate the results of DNA matching in a high profile case? I might be tentative if I were an expert here, too.

And these experts do bear in mind that someone's life is on the line here, so I think they are going to leave a lot of interpretation to LDB, which can still work because KC's stupidity has actually closed a lot of gaps (even though there is still so much to know!)

Expert reports from UNBIASED experts are always tentative and mention every possible alternative the expert can think of. The fact that the FBI reports look like this tells us that they are not just trying to bolster the state's case. They are trying to find out what the evidence really shows.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Expert reports from UNBIASED experts are always tentative and mention every possible alternative the expert can think of. The fact that the FBI reports look like this tells us that they are not just trying to bolster the state's case. They are trying to find out what the evidence really shows.

I agree, and would add, I find the fact that the FBI owned up to the accidental incident where a tech's DNA inadvertantly ended up on a piece of evidence shows the FBI wants to stay on the up and up in this case.

The frustrating part for me is in the interpretation by us laymen on these reports. Just a for instance, the syringe in the bottle. We want the smoking gun so bad we are very easily manipulated by that original broadcast about the chloroform in the syringe. I think the press tells us what to believe, then we glance through the docs, and see what we want to see instead of reading carefully. It upsets me that I can let myself get conned by the media lol, but that's just me.

Thanks for your recent posts in this thread AZ they have been very helpful.

 

[Just Jayla]

Expert reports from UNBIASED experts are always tentative and mention every possible alternative the expert can think of. The fact that the FBI reports look like this tells us that they are not just trying to bolster the state's case. They are trying to find out what the evidence really shows.

Yes, I should have added, unbiased! Now the question is how skilled will AL be at exploiting those cracks for KC's purposes? Again, my opinion is that if LDB presents this case well, other circumstantial evidence will bolster the forensics, not the other way around.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

I don't know about chemicals and compounds etc. I do know a little about words and how they can be used to completely change the meaning of something. In the first paragraph of the entomology report he starts by saying large numbers of larvae, puparia and some adults of Diptera phoridae were recovered from the trunk and white trash bag.
One would think you found a lot of Diptera in the trunk but on further examination of this doc, there was very little bug evidence at all found in the trunk, the majority was found in the white trash bag that had sat in a dumpster that could have had Lord knows how many awful insects in it, that could have gotten into the white trash bag.
Next he says the large number indicates the presences of sufficient decompostional material to attract significant numbers of this species.
One would think the decompositional material is human, but he never says that in this entire doc. He does say the presence of a leg from Diptera (one single leg, kind of like one single hair that has a dark root that might be caused from decomposing) supports this finding.
Initial entry into trunk actually George and towyard guy, but in this spot I would assume he is talking about when Vincent opened the trunk and saw flies.
Later he says it is difficult to render species level ID without adult specimens of the species available to ID. Once the family level ID was complete (OK it must have been difficult to complete this), Vincent searched trunk for phorid adults with negative results.
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THIS SPECIES CAN ALSO BE FOUND ON DECAYING ORGANIC MATERIAL FROM OTHER SOURCES. (as noted in this do)

If the decomposing tissue were a human body (out of context)

The whole report to me seems to be filled with ambiguous meanings, doubletalk, sidestepping, suppositions, and things that are likely to be consistant something that resembles the truth.
Read this report closely, and slowly. I have reread this report 8 times now and each time I find something new that I don't like.

I don't think Dr. Haskell is being dishonest. I believe he is saying that LE's proposed timeline is entomologically(if thats a word lol) possible. But I don't think he is convinced that there are human remains involved, some sort of decomposing composition but possibly some decomposing composition that is not from a human.
Sorry if my opinion offends anyone, but I think it would be easy for anyone to draw the wrong conclusions from this report. I also still think the white trash bag being in the dumpster contaminites the bug evidence.

I highly respect your opinion. It is a good thing that these documents are looked at closely. IMO it's better for us to understand their weaknesses now before it all goes to trial than to be unprepared for what we might hear the defense argue. I appreciate your detailed examination and feel your questions and doubts have a solid basis. And I also agree that Dr. Haskell is not being dishonest.

Where we differ, though, is that I think you give him too much credit for wordsmithing. I think the problem might be just the opposite. While he is a noted and highly respected authority in forensic etymology ~ he may have a problem in organizing and presenting and communicating his thoughts on paper. (That left/right brain thing?) Because while you got the impression that he might be mincing his words I'm pretty sure I remember him using the word "body" and "remains" several times. I don't think he'd use these terms unless he were referring to a human body or human remains. I think we'll all feel reassured when he gives his testimony at the trial. But I do thank you for heightening my awareness of your valid concerns.

And if you all have difficulty in understanding what I'm trying to say it's not because I have any left/right brain thing going on ~ It's just a lack of any brain at all!!! :crazy:

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Thank you very much for your input, and my thanks to Just Jayla and AZ as well.
I do think more bug reports are forthcoming in a future doc dump, and I am looking forward to seeing the good doctor on the stand.

 

[ynotdivein]

I highly respect your opinion. It is a good thing that these documents are looked at closely. IMO it's better for us to understand their weaknesses now before it all goes to trial than to be unprepared for what we might hear the defense argue. I appreciate your detailed examination and feel your questions and doubts have a solid basis. And I also agree that Dr. Haskell is not being dishonest.

Where we differ, though, is that I think you give him too much credit for wordsmithing. I think the problem might be just the opposite. While he is a noted and highly respected authority in forensic etymology ~ he may have a problem in organizing and presenting and communicating his thoughts on paper. (That left/right brain thing?) Because while you got the impression that he might be mincing his words I'm pretty sure I remember him using the word "body" and "remains" several times. I don't think he'd use these terms unless he were referring to a human body or human remains. I think we'll all feel reassured when he gives his testimony at the trial. But I do thank you for heightening my awareness of your valid concerns.

And if you all have difficulty in understanding what I'm trying to say it's not because I have any left/right brain thing going on ~ It's just a lack of any brain at all!!! :crazy:

Thanks to all involved in this discussion. DeviledAdv, I second Expecting's thanks for expressing your valid concerns. I think you're right, we all feel so strongly about this case and then we read the docs and are susceptible to seeing what we want to see. It's hard to stay objective and I hope no one mistakes your attempts to keep us on track for anything other than that!

I keep reminding myself that there are more document dumps to come, and that they know much more than we do at this point. We are trying to do a jigsaw puzzle with probably 1/2 or more of the pieces still missing... Still, a pretty clear picture is forming.

We do know that this site is visited by LE and legal, and I suspect that the lawyers on both sides are checking in to see what information is most persuasive to an interested and highly intelligent group such as is found on WS, and what pieces cause confusion and could be disruptive at trial.

And I do know that I am continually impressed by the intelligence, ethics, and general goodness of the people here. :heart:

 

[RR0004]

I agree, and would add, I find the fact that the FBI owned up to the accidental incident where a tech's DNA inadvertantly ended up on a piece of evidence shows the FBI wants to stay on the up and up in this case.

The frustrating part for me is in the interpretation by us laymen on these reports. Just a for instance, the syringe in the bottle. We want the smoking gun so bad we are very easily manipulated by that original broadcast about the chloroform in the syringe. I think the press tells us what to believe, then we glance through the docs, and see what we want to see instead of reading carefully. It upsets me that I can let myself get conned by the media lol, but that's just me.

Thanks for your recent posts in this thread AZ they have been very helpful.

...and yet we discovered all wasn't as it appeared to be and pretty d#rn quickly, if you ask me. We had the need to wrap our collective brains around the reports and with the help of knowledgeable folks we were able to interpret the results ourselves. The media will always be in it for the "shock and awe" value. We will always be in it for the truth. JMO

 

[Harmony 2]

I asked a doctor/writer of forensics the following questions on his blog site:


http://writersforensicsblog.wordpress.com/2009/05/14/dead-folks-and-decay/

I am an avid reader of forensic material. I plan on purchasing your books to further educate myself.

It would be greatly appreciated if you could answer the following questions.

Background:
A two year old goes missing in the middle of a hot summer in Florida. A month after she goes missing the mother’s vehicle is discovered and the trunk has a strong odor of decomposition. Inside the trunk is a trash bag with adipocere like material on some paper towels. The paper towels are infested with maggots. Butyric acid is found on the trunk carpet. Five months later the skeletal remains of the two year old are found dispersed in a swampy area. It is discovered the remains had originally been placed in two trash bags and a laundry bag but were later scattered by animals.

Question: Would it be able to be determined if the adipocere on the paper towels came from the child since there is no DNA? Would the adipocere from a toddler be able to be distinguished from bacon or other food items?

I look forward to reading your books and thanks in advance for your reply.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, in a nutshell he declined to respond siting medico and legal issues. If you are interested go to the link to read his response to me. His site is informative. He did respond to some hypotheticals about adipocere in the reply section. He stated that adipocere would not have DNA among other interesting tidbits.

 

[KenoshaKid]

I don't know about chemicals and compounds etc. I do know a little about words and how they can be used to completely change the meaning of something. In the first paragraph of the entomology report he starts by saying large numbers of larvae, puparia and some adults of Diptera phoridae were recovered from the trunk and white trash bag.
One would think you found a lot of Diptera in the trunk but on further examination of this doc, there was very little bug evidence at all found in the trunk, the majority was found in the white trash bag that had sat in a dumpster that could have had Lord knows how many awful insects in it, that could have gotten into the white trash bag.
Next he says the large number indicates the presences of sufficient decompostional material to attract significant numbers of this species.
One would think the decompositional material is human, but he never says that in this entire doc. He does say the presence of a leg from Diptera (one single leg, kind of like one single hair that has a dark root that might be caused from decomposing) supports this finding.
Initial entry into trunk actually George and towyard guy, but in this spot I would assume he is talking about when Vincent opened the trunk and saw flies.
Later he says it is difficult to render species level ID without adult specimens of the species available to ID. Once the family level ID was complete (OK it must have been difficult to complete this), Vincent searched trunk for phorid adults with negative results.
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THIS SPECIES CAN ALSO BE FOUND ON DECAYING ORGANIC MATERIAL FROM OTHER SOURCES. (as noted in this do)

If the decomposing tissue were a human body (out of context)

The whole report to me seems to be filled with ambiguous meanings, doubletalk, sidestepping, suppositions, and things that are likely to be consistant something that resembles the truth.
Read this report closely, and slowly. I have reread this report 8 times now and each time I find something new that I don't like.

I don't think Dr. Haskell is being dishonest. I believe he is saying that LE's proposed timeline is entomologically(if thats a word lol) possible. But I don't think he is convinced that there are human remains involved, some sort of decomposing composition but possibly some decomposing composition that is not from a human.
Sorry if my opinion offends anyone, but I think it would be easy for anyone to draw the wrong conclusions from this report. I also still think the white trash bag being in the dumpster contaminites the bug evidence.

Great post, thedevilsadvocate. Re: the sentence I bolded - I don't think he really CAN say its human because that's not his area of expertise. His job is just to state the bug facts.

 

[Harmony 2]

I just went back and looked at the report
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/19/6551.6591.pdf (pages 3 and 12)
and it appears that the butyric acid (referred to as being consistent with early decomp) was found directly in "scrapings" from the trunk carpet. So it makes sense, if Caylee's body was bagged early, that the carpet "scrapings" would contain only early decomp products.

Good morning AZ... Thanks for that information!!

I believe the evidence tells a story of what happened to Caylee. Sometimes a new piece of the puzzle is revealed and our theory changes to fit that information. I had always held that Caylee was wrapped in her blanket immediately after death. Decomposition set in and volatile fatty acid (butyric acid) was released seeping through the blanket. She was then bagged to quell the fluid leaking unto the trunk carpet. The double bagging and laundry bag came later and this may be when the adipocere got on the napkins. I think the napkins were used to wipe/clean hands and not to clean the trunk carpet, otherwise the butyric acid/trunk fibers would be on the napkins and they are not (see attachment about the results on paper towels).

Way back at the beginning of this case I had theorized that Caylee was dumped on or about the 24th of June. I changed my theory, when the Body Farm info was released, to disposal at 2.6 days because I was under the impression the total odor signature would include the whole trunk and not just the carpet. However, I am now wondering if the bagging and the tieing of the bag shut, trapped or contained the odor in the trash bags as she further decomposed into an advanced stage of decomposition. In other words, I am now wondering if she remained in the trunk alot longer then the 2.6 days and this is when the coffin flies came in since they are attracted to advanced decomp on a carrion. So even though my theory is subject to change as we learn more from the doc results I am now leaning toward a later disposal at Suburban Dr.

I think the entomology information is an extension of the Body Farm results.

Thoughts?

 

[RR0004]

Good morning AZ... Thanks for that information!!

I believe the evidence tells a story of what happened to Caylee. Sometimes a new piece of the puzzle is revealed and our theory changes to fit that information. I had always held that Caylee was wrapped in her blanket immediately after death. Decomposition set in and volatile fatty acid (butyric acid) was released seeping through the blanket. She was then bagged to quell the fluid leaking unto the trunk carpet. The double bagging and laundry bag came later and this may be when the adipocere got on the napkins. I think the napkins were used to wipe/clean hands and not to clean the trunk carpet, otherwise the butyric acid/trunk fibers would be on the napkins and they are not (see attachment about the results on paper towels).

Way back at the beginning of this case I had theorized that Caylee was dumped on or about the 24th of June. I changed my theory, when the Body Farm info was released, to disposal at 2.6 days because I was under the impression the total odor signature would include the whole trunk and not just the carpet. However, I am now wondering if the bagging and the tieing of the bag shut, trapped or contained the odor in the trash bags as she further decomposed into an advanced stage of decomposition. In other words, I am now wondering if she remained in the trunk alot longer then the 2.6 days and this is when the coffin flies came in since they are attracted to advanced decomp on a carrion. So even though my theory is subject to change as we learn more from the doc results I am now leaning toward a later disposal at Suburban Dr.

I think the entomology information is an extension of the Body Farm results.

Thoughts?

I know somewhere in those reports they did explain the rate of decomposition and how they arrived at their claims...but I'd rather eat dirt than go back in and look. LOL

 

[treeseeker]

Good morning AZ... Thanks for that information!!

I believe the evidence tells a story of what happened to Caylee. Sometimes a new piece of the puzzle is revealed and our theory changes to fit that information. I had always held that Caylee was wrapped in her blanket immediately after death. Decomposition set in and volatile fatty acid (butyric acid) was released seeping through the blanket. She was then bagged to quell the fluid leaking unto the trunk carpet. The double bagging and laundry bag came later and this may be when the adipocere got on the napkins. I think the napkins were used to wipe/clean hands and not to clean the trunk carpet, otherwise the butyric acid/trunk fibers would be on the napkins and they are not (see attachment about the results on paper towels).

Way back at the beginning of this case I had theorized that Caylee was dumped on or about the 24th of June. I changed my theory, when the Body Farm info was released, to disposal at 2.6 days because I was under the impression the total odor signature would include the whole trunk and not just the carpet. However, I am now wondering if the bagging and the tieing of the bag shut, trapped or contained the odor in the trash bags as she further decomposed into an advanced stage of decomposition. In other words, I am now wondering if she remained in the trunk alot longer then the 2.6 days and this is when the coffin flies came in since they are attracted to advanced decomp on a carrion. So even though my theory is subject to change as we learn more from the doc results I am now leaning toward a later disposal at Suburban Dr.

I think the entomology information is an extension of the Body Farm results.

Thoughts?

The 2.6 days was actually estimated by the LIBS reading of the trunk carpet. The carpet contained inorganic elements consistant with human decomposition - except for fluoride. IIRC, the odor analysis was consistent with an early decompositional event, consistent with the LIBS finding.

Pg. 8 of Dr. Vass' report:
http://www.wesh.com/download/2009/0619/19801995.pdf

 

[treeseeker]

I think its possible Caylee's body was very briefly in the trunk before being placed in the bags. The flies found their way into the bags, where they largely remained, until Caylee's body was removed from the trunk. The flies were then disturbed, and those that escaped the body bag found their way to the white trash bag from's TL's.

I don't know how to use the bug evidence to corroborate this idea, but I think it could push the dump date back quite a bit from 2-3, even 4 days.

 

[Jolynna]

I think its possible Caylee's body was very briefly in the trunk before being placed in the bags. The flies found their way into the bags, where they largely remained, until Caylee's body was removed from the trunk. The flies were then disturbed, and those that escaped the body bag found their way to the white trash bag from's TL's.

I don't know how to use the bug evidence to corroborate this idea, but I think it could push the dump date back quite a bit from 2-3, even 4 days.

All kinds of flies can get in and out of sealed or tied up trash bags. I've posted links previously showing that even blow flies can manage to get into tie twisted closed trash bags. Coffin flies have burrowed through several feet of dirt and into coffins. They'd be in and out of and between the trash bags at will.

 

[ZsaZsa]

BBM- Where in the docs does it state that? I know that that is the conclusion that most people drew from the docs, but assumptions have been thrown in too.

Firstly the presence of adipocere was not confirmed, only suspected since it said something "LIKE" adipocere was found.

Secondly I see nowhere that it states that Caylees decomposition was detected on those paper towels .(Through DNA).

Please link me to to any reports that refute these points if I have overlooked them.
I'm not claiming that Caylees decomp wasn't on the PT, just noting the wording of the report, which leaves it wide open to various possibilities.

Now if they can determine that the critters were feeding off decomp, then its a pretty safe bet that it was adipocere and nothing else.
JMO
ETA: Just to clarify (before I get a ton of sarcastic replies), I do think Caylee was in that trunk. I'm just not convinced that the trash is related. I believe it was left there in an attempt to mask or excuse the nasty smell of decomp. But that's just MPO.

I hope you don't construe my answer as sarcastic. Certainly not intended..
I am looking at Dr Haskell's report- Page 7 -I am not good at capturing part of a file,so I will just quote it - and he's talking about Coffin flies-
Since the majority of these specimens were recovered from paper toweling
in the plastic garbage bag in the trunk of the car,it is likely that in addition to the decompositional fluids on the carpeting of the trunk of the car, an additional source for attracting these flies would have been fluids on the paper towels themselves. Given the association of towels with the car, it seems MOST LIKELY that the paper toweling was used in an attempt to clean the decompositional fluids purged from the remains in the trunk of the car during very hot temperatures in mid-June.
If you scroll down to the last paragraph on this page (7)
he says- Therefore, the presence of large numbers of larvae,puparia and some adults of Diptera Phoridae: Megasella Scularis a species of scuttle fly/coffin fly recovered from the trunk of the Pontiac Sunbird and from inside the white plastic trash bag with blue handles indicates the presence of sufficient decompositional material to attract significant numbers of this species. End Quote'
I don't think there was anyone other than Caylee decomposing in the car- where else would those decompositional fluids have arisen other than from her? You cannot get DNA from Adipocere, but they did find hairs in the bag too, it would be good if they could extract some DNA from that.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Can you think of any plausible suggestion that the contents were interfered with during the time it was out of 'custody'?- what other person (a)knew it was there ( b) had access to decomposing material from Caylee (c) could insert that material into the bag before it was retrieved by Y.Melich. I think they would be better off leaving this one alone, it only serves to confirm the unlikelihood of it happening..

Not to mention WHY anyone would go to these lengths to frame casey... Seriously, was it Zanny again? I know Zanny broke into Casey's house to steal duct tape, but how did Zanny get her hands on this evidence?