All About Chloroform#2

[Bev]

I think you're right Devon.

 

[Rumpole]

Bolded by me. That is not what the report says. Paraphrasing here, as I have already quoted this twice, it says higher levels of chloroform than are typical (and typical is their word, not mine) in a human decompositional event were found. That is what it says. And I disagree with "there is no such thing as a typical occurance in science." Just staying on topic with dead bodies, a typical scientific occurance with a dead body would be that body is no longer breathing. A typical occurance would be if a dead body were exposed to a certain degree of temperature over a certain amount of time, it would decompose at a certain level. If it didn't, then there would be an investigation into what is different between this dead body and the typical dead body.
There is not anything in the report explaining the chloroform prior to death because they don't have that information. They know where it could come from, human decomp, but apparently they feel there is a higher concentration than can be explained by decomp, and a chance mixing of say, acetone and chlorine, but they ruled that out, also. It stands to reason what is left would be chloroform, already made, introduced into the trunk at some time prior to the samples being taken. They also ruled out contamination by the garage the car was kept in, and tested other control trunk specimens, and eliminated this being a natural occurance in this specific car model. So, I do agree with you there, they are not saying when it was introduced, or where it came from, they are just saying where it did not come from.
FWIW, I have no idea if chloroform was used in Caylee's death or not. I do, however, find the evidence very compelling Casey was, at some point, in possession of chloroform, and that chloroform somehow got into the trunk of her car.
Lanie

I am with you most of the way. I like the train of thought. But they did not rule out the POSSIBILITY that chloroform (some) was created in the trunk as cleaning took place, nor that cleaning products left in the trunk from weeks ago (KC cleaning) or recently (CA cleaning), did not combine and form some chlorine compounds including chloroform.

 

[Bev]

No, I'm sorry, you're wrong. In science there is NO such thing as a "typical occurance" - there is and will always remain, observed datum which forms a data base from which comparisons are drawn and hypothesis are made. You don't assume anything in science - you observe that the body has stopped breathing but that doesn't tell you the body is dead, it tells you that the body has stopped breathing. There is a collection of data that tells you if the body is dead, among them brain wave activity and heart muscle activity. If the assumption was that the person was dead because he stopped breathing there would be no reason for medical intervention at the event.

This report does not indicate that the higher amount is the result of the introduction of manufactured (other than human decomposition in anaerobic conditions) before death. In fact, if you want to make suppositions, it would tend to support the opposite - neither alcohol nor acetone were found in any amounts that would indicate artificial means of manufacture. Chloroform is a compound gas - it is a mixture of chlorine and alcohol/acetone whether adulterated or not. (And by adulterated I mean brands such as Clorox and Walgreen's alcohol.) Despite what Nancy Grace claims, there is no such thing as "pure chloroform" - chloroform is a compound gas and when produced commercially it will bear that signature of that manufactured chloroform because no two commercially produced chemicals are exactly alike. If it was a homemade manufacture then it would have the signature of those chemicals used to manufacture it at home.

That report states that the level of chloroform was higher than that found in human decomposition but human decomposition does not always take place in anaerobic conditions, that would be rare, not "typical". "Typically" bodies are embalmed and buried in caskets, so anything that would be typical to a dead body would not necessarily be "typical" in the body farm data base. That is the purpose of the body farm - to measure atypical human decomposition rates. There is a world of difference when we use the word "typical" and what the word means at the body farm science labs. They are not saying where it comes from or where it DOESN'T come from.

Hercule, they use the ratio of calcium to magnesium as a constant in human decomposition - if it is 5 : 1 on the 90th day of adds at a typical 33c then they can calculate backwards as to what it would be on the first day of decomp. I don't know how they calculate the ratio, but I would imagine it is by weight of the minerals which would make it 30 : 1 on the first day. The human body has by weight 30 parts of calcium to every 1 part of magnesium - after death this concentrates.

p.s. The library of chemical signatures has millions of samples for comparison.

 

[BondJamesBond]

No, I'm sorry, you're wrong. In science there is NO such thing as a "typical occurance" - there is and will always remain, observed datum which forms a data base from which comparisons are drawn and hypothesis are made. You don't assume anything in science - you observe that the body has stopped breathing but that doesn't tell you the body is dead, it tells you that the body has stopped breathing. There is a collection of data that tells you if the body is dead, among them brain wave activity and heart muscle activity. If the assumption was that the person was dead because he stopped breathing there would be no reason for medical intervention at the event.

This report does not indicate that the higher amount is the result of the introduction of manufactured (other than human decomposition in anaerobic conditions) before death. In fact, if you want to make suppositions, it would tend to support the opposite - neither alcohol nor acetone were found in any amounts that would indicate artificial means of manufacture. Chloroform is a compound gas - it is a mixture of chlorine and alcohol/acetone whether adulterated or not. (And by adulterated I mean brands such as Clorox and Walgreen's alcohol.) Despite what Nancy Grace claims, there is no such thing as "pure chloroform" - chloroform is a compound gas and when produced commercially it will bear that signature of that manufactured chloroform because no two commercially produced chemicals are exactly alike. If it was a homemade manufacture then it would have the signature of those chemicals used to manufacture it at home.

That report states that the level of chloroform was higher than that found in human decomposition but human decomposition does not always take place in anaerobic conditions, that would be rare, not "typical". "Typically" bodies are embalmed and buried in caskets, so anything that would be typical to a dead body would not necessarily be "typical" in the body farm data base. That is the purpose of the body farm - to measure atypical human decomposition rates. There is a world of difference when we use the word "typical" and what the word means at the body farm science labs. They are not saying where it comes from or where it DOESN'T come from.

Hercule, they use the ratio of calcium to magnesium as a constant in human decomposition - if it is 5 : 1 on the 90th day of adds at a typical 33c then they can calculate backwards as to what it would be on the first day of decomp. I don't know how they calculate the ratio, but I would imagine it is by weight of the minerals which would make it 30 : 1 on the first day. The human body has by weight 30 parts of calcium to every 1 part of magnesium - after death this concentrates.

p.s. The library of chemical signatures has millions of samples for comparison.

Bev - I'd hate to think of what we'd be paying you for this advice in terms of $ if we had to cough up the going rate. Thanks so much for taking the time (and having the patience) to re-re-re-explain this information.

Only chloroform involved here was from HDE - I'm sold.

 

[Rumpole]

I have lost the plot here somewhat.

However, I do not think I have seen anything to refute my point?

Amongst all the stuff that the preliminary report describes, one thing is the scientists' own alert about raised chloroform levels. The sort of note that might be phrased as a "need for further study" in a scientific paper. All I am saying is that this note of caution is just that and, not an alert about large ammounts of extra chloroform. The report is not hypothesising what might have caused this raised level, but we at WS are. It could come from KC's criminal use of bought, or manufactured chloroform, it could come from the decomposition itself producing more in this specific case, or it could come from chemicals in cleaning products. My guess is the cleaning products. Certainly the defence can cite, and argue the possibility of a number of reasons for the presence of chloroform other than dastardly application by KC.

 

[Bev]

Well, Mr. Bond, it is an interesting subject and I enjoy discussing it. There is always, always, the possibility that chloroform was used as a murder weapon, but this report has absolutely zero evidence to support that. Was it prudent of LE to look into that possibility based on other evidence, such as the computer search? Yes, you can never be too prudent or dilligent in looking at possibilities.

 

[Rumpole]

Well, Mr. Bond, it is an interesting subject and I enjoy discussing it. There is always, always, the possibility that chloroform was used as a murder weapon, but this report has absolutely zero evidence to support that. Was it prudent of LE to look into that possibility based on other evidence, such as the computer search? Yes, you can never be too prudent or dilligent in looking at possibilities.

I think we are in perfect agreement. Lets stop and have a coffee.

 

[Indigo]

Indigo, the chloroform wasn't the "primary compound found in the analysis. The "primary compound" was gasoline as it was in the control sample and in the garage of OCSD.

This is what I'm referring to, Bev .(emphasis mine):

The initial carpet sample was enclosed in a sealed metal can. A preliminary analysis was performed by collecting a small (0.8 ml) sample of air from the can and injecting the air into a gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer. Several compounds were observed in this sample (primarily chloroform); however, it was deemed necessary to concentrate the sample in order improve the sensitivity for the lower abundance compounds...

In the less sensitive preliminary test, the primary compound or most abundant compound found was chloroform. It was deemed necessary to concentrate the sample so that lower abundance compounds could be isolated.

 

[Lanie]

No, I'm sorry, you're wrong. In science there is NO such thing as a "typical occurance" - there is and will always remain, observed datum which forms a data base from which comparisons are drawn and hypothesis are made. You don't assume anything in science - you observe that the body has stopped breathing but that doesn't tell you the body is dead, it tells you that the body has stopped breathing. There is a collection of data that tells you if the body is dead, among them brain wave activity and heart muscle activity. If the assumption was that the person was dead because he stopped breathing there would be no reason for medical intervention at the event.

This report does not indicate that the higher amount is the result of the introduction of manufactured (other than human decomposition in anaerobic conditions) before death. In fact, if you want to make suppositions, it would tend to support the opposite - neither alcohol nor acetone were found in any amounts that would indicate artificial means of manufacture. Chloroform is a compound gas - it is a mixture of chlorine and alcohol/acetone whether adulterated or not. (And by adulterated I mean brands such as Clorox and Walgreen's alcohol.) Despite what Nancy Grace claims, there is no such thing as "pure chloroform" - chloroform is a compound gas and when produced commercially it will bear that signature of that manufactured chloroform because no two commercially produced chemicals are exactly alike. If it was a homemade manufacture then it would have the signature of those chemicals used to manufacture it at home.

That report states that the level of chloroform was higher than that found in human decomposition but human decomposition does not always take place in anaerobic conditions, that would be rare, not "typical". "Typically" bodies are embalmed and buried in caskets, so anything that would be typical to a dead body would not necessarily be "typical" in the body farm data base. That is the purpose of the body farm - to measure atypical human decomposition rates. There is a world of difference when we use the word "typical" and what the word means at the body farm science labs. They are not saying where it comes from or where it DOESN'T come from.

Hercule, they use the ratio of calcium to magnesium as a constant in human decomposition - if it is 5 : 1 on the 90th day of adds at a typical 33c then they can calculate backwards as to what it would be on the first day of decomp. I don't know how they calculate the ratio, but I would imagine it is by weight of the minerals which would make it 30 : 1 on the first day. The human body has by weight 30 parts of calcium to every 1 part of magnesium - after death this concentrates.

p.s. The library of chemical signatures has millions of samples for comparison.

First of all, I said a dead body is no longer breathing, which is not the same thing at all as someone not breathing automatically being dead. One does not equal the other. The report states, very clearly, this is not typically found, I did not come up with those words, I read them in the report, and I quoted them from the report.
I could be wrong about how chloroform is made, as I am not a scientist. I take it you are saying if I took acetone, and chlorine, and mixed up a batch of chloroform, what would be in the container would be acetone and chlorine, so where exactly does the chloroform come in? Is this like an oil and water mix, because I thought since a and b made c, it would be more like mixing blue and yellow to get green.
This report was generated to give to LE to help them in their investigation of a crime. It makes absolutely no sense for them to make it so confusing as to send LE to get a search warrant to look for something that would naturally be there in the first place. Sulfur compounds are mentioned, and directly tied to decomp in the report. I don't see LE getting a search warrant for sulfur compounds. It clearly states in the report the chloroform levels are higher than what is seen in human decomp. It doesn't say, and it should, if this were what they were wanting to relay to laypeople LE, higher chloroform levels than in human decomp, but consistant with anaerobic decomp, or even sometimes seen in anaerobic decomp. This is written in the report, I am not pulling it out of thin air. You are adding to it by saying it is explained by anaerobic decomp, because that isn't in there. It is on one of the tests, but not this one.
Lanie

 

[Lanie]

Bev - I'd hate to think of what we'd be paying you for this advice in terms of $ if we had to cough up the going rate. Thanks so much for taking the time (and having the patience) to re-re-re-explain this information.

Only chloroform involved here was from HDE - I'm sold.

I'm not. :blowkiss:
Lanie

 

[Lanie]

I have lost the plot here somewhat.

However, I do not think I have seen anything to refute my point?

Amongst all the stuff that the preliminary report describes, one thing is the scientists' own alert about raised chloroform levels. The sort of note that might be phrased as a "need for further study" in a scientific paper. All I am saying is that this note of caution is just that and, not an alert about large ammounts of extra chloroform. The report is not hypothesising what might have caused this raised level, but we at WS are. It could come from KC's criminal use of bought, or manufactured chloroform, it could come from the decomposition itself producing more in this specific case, or it could come from chemicals in cleaning products. My guess is the cleaning products. Certainly the defence can cite, and argue the possibility of a number of reasons for the presence of chloroform other than dastardly application by KC.

Bolded by me.
Don't forget stolen, that's what I am going with...:crazy::crazy::crazy:
Lanie

 

[Recovering-Lurker]

I don't know if chloroform was used on Caylee, etc., but why would LE put on one of the most recent search warrants that they were looking for chloroform, ingredients to make chloroform and containers that could be used to mix chloroform in, if the only chloroform involved was from HDE? Are they just covering their bases?

 

[Rumpole]

Bolded by me.
Don't forget stolen, that's what I am going with...:crazy::crazy::crazy:
Lanie

Thank you.

I thought of a few other "coulds"

Looks like Bev's gone you can't argue.

If you want to argue with me keep it short. Pithy" as BO would say

 

[Lanie]

This is what I'm referring to, Bev .(emphasis mine):




In the less sensitive preliminary test, the primary compound or most abundant compound found was chloroform. It was deemed necessary to concentrate the sample so that lower abundance compounds could be isolated.

That's what I'm saying. Chloroform, chloroform, it seems to be everywhere. Computer searches for it, IIRC tattoo guy said he used it to clean his equipment, but I don't have a link for that, so take it as hearsay, chloroform found in the trunk in unusual amounts for the conditions, according to the report, and search warrant including ingredients to make chloroform, or receipts for such. IMO, that's an awful lot to swallow as coincidences.
Lanie

 

[Rumpole]

I don't know if chloroform was used on Caylee, etc., but why would LE put on one of the most recent search warrants that they were looking for chloroform, ingredients to make chloroform and containers that could be used to mix chloroform in, if the only chloroform involved was from HDE? Are they just covering their bases?

To eliminate from their inquiries as they say?

 

[Rumpole]

That's what I'm saying. Chloroform, chloroform, it seems to be everywhere. Computer searches for it, IIRC tattoo guy said he used it to clean his equipment, but I don't have a link for that, so take it as hearsay, chloroform found in the trunk in unusual amounts for the conditions, according to the report, and search warrant including ingredients to make chloroform, or receipts for such. IMO, that's an awful lot to swallow as coincidences.
Lanie

Unless LE have a lot more than we have been told. Chloroform is going nowhere. IMO

 

[Lanie]

Thank you.

I thought of a few other "coulds"

Looks like Bev's gone you can't argue.

If you want to argue with me keep it short. Pithy" as BO would say

I am 'debating', not 'arguing'. :blowkiss:
I don't have any strong theories about how Caylee died. I was just as easily going with beaten to death until the bones came back with no fractures or trauma. This might very well be a coincidence, but for me it seems too much of a stretch.
Pithy enough?
Lanie

 

[Lanie]

Unless LE have a lot more than we have been told. Chloroform is going nowhere. IMO

I am sure they do. But since they have it, and I don't, I have to go with what I've been given. Which I have to say has been a lot, and makes me very grateful I don't live in FL.
Lanie

 

[Rumpole]

I am 'debating', not 'arguing'. :blowkiss:
I don't have any strong theories about how Caylee died. I was just as easily going with beaten to death until the bones came back with no fractures or trauma. This might very well be a coincidence, but for me it seems too much of a stretch.
Pithy enough?
Lanie

I like a good argue, but a debate will do.

I have seen a bit of "science" first hand in my time and the mystique is gone.

I just can't get enthusiastic about "raised level" Unless they upgrade to "swimming in the stuff"
Just on the imagination level, can not picture KC and chloroform.

 

[curiositycat]

Unless LE have a lot more than we have been told. Chloroform is going nowhere. IMO

I do believe that you may be wrong, with respect.:blowkiss: The fact that someone, probably KC, was doing computer searches for chloroform is going to influence a jury.

I believe, also, that they have some more important information regarding the chloroform that has not been released.

JMO