Stain in Trunk May Show Outline of Child**REVISIT FOR READING*

[Harmony 2]

Just the gases from decay escaping the cinched bag top..mixing with moisture in the trunk (again from the body) and dropping all over the exposed carpet... well, at least that's my theory..
Anaerobic Organic Decomposition.
The products from the breakdown create acids, gases, and other products which cause volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and putrefactive effects. VOCs are produced during the early stages of human decomposition. Methane is also produced.

The inside of the trunk would be rainforest like conditions..
1. Hot
2. Humid
3. Lots of anaerobic decomp (which they said they found mostly in the air sample..body in the bag, in a trunk, very little oxygen)
Acid rain is a huge problem in rainforests for these reasons.
Acid rain is rain or any other form of precipitation that is unusually acidic, i.e. elevated levels of hydrogen ions (low pH). It has harmful effects on plants, aquatic animals, and infrastructure. Acid rain is mostly caused by emissions of compounds of sulfur, nitrogen, and carbon which react with the water molecules in the atmosphere to produce acids.
When these gases escape from the bag into the humid trunk air and fall in condensation...it is no different than acid rain.
So I do believe the exposed carpet could change in appearance saturated in these acids. Lighter perhaps than the silhouette?

Do you have a link or research information to back up that anaerobic decomposition is like a "acid rain" reaction or "rain forest conditions"? I would like to read it...

 

[lizzysf]

Do you have a link or research information to back up that anaerobic decomposition is like a "acid rain" reaction or "rain forest conditions"? I would like to read it...

Anaerobic decomp isn't like acid rain. Google acid rain/rainforest and read. 3 conditions common in rainforests: heat, humidity and lot of anaerobic decomp.
which are 3 conditions (naturally occuring conditions) that create the acid rain phenomenom. Why do I think the trunk was similiar to a rainforest?
Heat, Humidity, lots of anaerobic decomp. The body is high in water content, the heat of a Florida trunk, and we know the decomp was mostly anaerobic by report. Moisture forms as the body decays, VOC's are present which form acids when in contact with water, acidic condensation is formed in the trunk.

Check wiki for anaerobic decomp and acid rain/rainforest for reference.

I have some basic background in sciences which helped me on this THEORY... If anyone with stealthier creds in the sciences would opine that would be awesome! Because my belief is that she was already in the bags while in the trunks, and the "stain" was not blood or body fluids.. it got me thinking about what else it could be..
I am not presenting my theory as a fact...just something to kick around.

If you took a non-sealed container of water (amount calculated at the percentage of what Caylee's water content would have been based on weight and size) , placed it in 2 black (heat absorbing color) garbage bags cinched (but not sealed) in a trunk and left it in the Florida heat (high 90's wasn't it?) and after a day or so, opened the trunk I bet there would be condensation formed in the trunk. Of course, I haven't tested this theory.. but it seems probable.

 

[Wudge]

(chuckle)

I can just hear the prosecutor delivering his opening statement.

The People will call Mrs. Tarotcard to the stand and using her tea-leaf reading expertise to divine an impression in the trunk of Casey's car, the facts will show that it was made by Caylee's dead body. Next, the People will have call the local psychic to the stand who will testify ......

(Rorschach would be eating his heart out.)

 

[lizzysf]

(chuckle)

I can just hear the prosecutor delivering his opening statement.

The People will call Mrs. Tarotcard to the stand and using her tea-leaf reading expertise to divine an impression in the trunk of Casey's car, the facts will show that it was made by Caylee's dead body. Next, the People will have call the local psychic to the stand who will testify ......

(Rorschach would be eating his heart out.)

While I think your analysis is a bit cynical...you are right in that LE will have a heck of a time presenting this photo of a silhoutte in court...even though the image may be amazingly suggestive, without the hard science to formulate a plausible explanation for the image, I don't think they would even attempt it. So let's hope that if what they believe they see is the outline of a body, that they are running every test they can to try to prove it.

 

[doogiesgirl]

Anaerobic decomp isn't like acid rain. Google acid rain/rainforest and read. 3 conditions common in rainforests: heat, humidity and lot of anaerobic decomp.
which are 3 conditions (naturally occuring conditions) that create the acid rain phenomenom. Why do I think the trunk was similiar to a rainforest?
Heat, Humidity, lots of anaerobic decomp. The body is high in water content, the heat of a Florida trunk, and we know the decomp was mostly anaerobic by report. Moisture forms as the body decays, VOC's are present which form acids when in contact with water, acidic condensation is formed in the trunk.

Check wiki for anaerobic decomp and acid rain/rainforest for reference.

I have some basic background in sciences which helped me on this THEORY... If anyone with stealthier creds in the sciences would opine that would be awesome! Because my belief is that she was already in the bags while in the trunks, and the "stain" was not blood or body fluids.. it got me thinking about what else it could be..
I am not presenting my theory as a fact...just something to kick around.

If you took a non-sealed container of water (amount calculated at the percentage of what Caylee's water content would have been based on weight and size) , placed it in 2 black (heat absorbing color) garbage bags cinched (but not sealed) in a trunk and left it in the Florida heat (high 90's wasn't it?) and after a day or so, opened the trunk I bet there would be condensation formed in the trunk. Of course, I haven't tested this theory.. but it seems probable.

I like your theory but help me coz I can't quite figure out how she's laying where she would leave an outline like you describe but be in the plastic bags and laundry bag. Or are you saying she wasn't in the canvas laundry bag at this point...only the two plastic bags? KC didn't put her in the canvas laundry bag until the time she decides to dump her? I don't think she could be in the canvas bag all that time and leave an outline of a child's body....it would be an outline of the canvas container. So if she is only in the two plastic bags.....KC had to dump her quickly or decomp would get in the trunk...right? MOO

 

[sumbunny]

(chuckle)

I can just hear the prosecutor delivering his opening statement.

The People will call Mrs. Tarotcard to the stand and using her tea-leaf reading expertise to divine an impression in the trunk of Casey's car, the facts will show that it was made by Caylee's dead body. Next, the People will have call the local psychic to the stand who will testify ......

(Rorschach would be eating his heart out.)

sounds a lot like the mr casey's theory. We know how he likes to listen to psychics.

 

[lizzysf]

I like your theory but help me coz I can't quite figure out how she's laying where she would leave an outline like you describe but be in the plastic bags and laundry bag. Or are you saying she wasn't in the canvas laundry bag at this point...only the two plastic bags? KC didn't put her in the canvas laundry bag until the time she decides to dump her? I don't think she could be in the canvas bag all that time and leave an outline of a child's body....it would be an outline of the canvas container. So if she is only in the two plastic bags.....KC had to dump her quickly or decomp would get in the trunk...right? MOO

Great point! Maybe she was just in the 2 plastic bags until before the dump.. It would make more sense in that a distinguishable outline would be more likely sans the canvas bag. So the condensation seeps through the carpet up to the point her body applies pressure to the surface..leaving the area under her protected.. Still creates the outline.
A stain does create an outline...and nowhere in the docs does it specifically say UNDER the body.. that is something we automatically inferred. When I first posted this "acid rain" type theory, I speculated that it pooled UNDER the body. I thought about it, and realized it would also be on the carpet around the body as well...so how would an image be formed if it's in both places? I then had to revamp the theory to AROUND the body not UNDER. It would still be 'a large stain' as so vaguely described in the doc.

I had never considered the thought that she wasn't in the canvas bag yet, just the 2 garbage bags.. Great observation!

 

[Wudge]

While I think your analysis is a bit cynical...you are right in that LE will have a heck of a time presenting this photo of a silhoutte in court...even though the image may be amazingly suggestive, without the hard science to formulate a plausible explanation for the image, I don't think they would even attempt it. So let's hope that if what they believe they see is the outline of a body, that they are running every test they can to try to prove it.

I'm far more than cynical, which was really a compliment to how I feel about this type of rubbish for evidence -- more than a few trial judges would allow an alleged expert to testify to what made the image or impression.

Impressions are highly subjective and but inkblot material in my book. I am greatly reminded of how such nonsense was used in the first trial of Dr. Sam Sheppard in 1954. On the witness stand, the coroner, Dr. Gerber, described what he found on the bloody pillowcase from the murder bed.

DR. GERBER: "In this bloodstain [on the pillow], I could make out the impression of a surgical instrument."


Dr. Gerber went on to testify that Marilyn Sheppard was slain by blows to her head from a heavy two-bladed surgical instrument that was around three inches long and that had teeth on the end of each blade. Dr. Gerber further testified that the surgical instrument contained teeth or claws that made an impression upon the pillow, which left an unmistakable ‘blood signature.’]

The jury convicted Dr. Sheppard of murdering his wife, Marilyn Sheppard, and twelve years passed before Dr. Sheppard won his appeal (poisoned venue) and a second trial was held in 1966 in which Dr. Sheppard was acquitted. Under cross-examination in the second trial, Dr. Gerber responded to the following questions from the defense attorney relating to the 'surgical instrument'.


DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, now, Dr. Gerber, just what kind of surgical instrument do you see here?

GERBER: I'm not sure.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Would it be an instrument you yourself have handled?

GERBER: I don't know if I've handled one or not.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Of course, you have been a surgeon, have you, doctor?

GERBER: No.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Do you have such an instrument back at your office?

GERBER: [Shakes head to indicate no.]

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Have you seen such an instrument in any hospital, or medical supply catalogue, or anywhere else, Dr. Gerber?

GERBER: No, not that I can remember.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Tell the jury, doctor, where you have searched for the instrument during the last twelve years.

GERBER: Oh, I have looked all over the United States.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: And you didn't describe this phantom impression as a surgical instrument just to hurt Sam Sheppard's case, did you doctor? You wouldn't do that, would you?

GERBER: Oh no. Oh no.


Dr. Gerber was the star witness in the first trial. His testimony destroyed the Sheppard family.

(Impression analyses malarkey and dribble is not even junk science in my book; I hold it to be an exercise in cauldron stirring 101 ... double bubble, toil and trouble, cauldron burn, cauldron bubble. )

 

[carrie]

My bold. I have to correct myself. This makes more sense... The condensation did not settle UNDER the bag, but around the bag where the body lay. It seeped under the bag only to the point where the body stopped it. The outline of the body is around the body, not under the body (think about a vase on a dusty table, you lift up the vase and see the outline.. only in this case, it is moisture.) The carpet around the body would be affected by the chemicals released in the air from the body decomposing, which is brought down by the condensation. The body was in the bags already.

FBI Intelligence Analyst Karen B. Cowan wrote in an e-mail dated Tuesday, Sept. 30, 2008, that "a very interesting photo exists of the trunk liner, which you have, which highlights the very large stain. If you look closely at this photo, there appears to be the outline or silhouette of a child in the fetal position. You can make out what may be the back, bottom, and legs most clearly. The image is best viewed on a computer screen, rather than a printout, but several of us can see this image and agree there is good chance we are seeing something significant."

But two days later, on Oct. 2, FBI supervisory photographic technologist Richard W. Vorder Bruegge told Cowan the lab would not speculate about what left the image: "Others can draw their own conclusions about that."

The stain Cowan observed was found not to be caused by any biological liquid, such as blood or fluids from decomposition. No DNA was found in the stain
Again, because she was in the bags.

(Above BBM)

. . . OR, perhaps . . . because the trunk had been throroughly cleaned?

 

[carrie]

I'm far more than cynical, which was really a compliment to how I feel about this type of rubbish for evidence -- more than a few trial judges would allow an alleged expert to testify to what made the image or impression.

Impressions are highly subjective and but inkblot material in my book. I am greatly reminded of how such nonsense was used in the first trial of Dr. Sam Sheppard in 1954. On the witness stand, the coroner, Dr. Gerber, described what he found on the bloody pillowcase from the murder bed.

DR. GERBER: "In this bloodstain [on the pillow], I could make out the impression of a surgical instrument."


Dr. Gerber went on to testify that Marilyn Sheppard was slain by blows to her head from a heavy two-bladed surgical instrument that was around three inches long and that had teeth on the end of each blade. Dr. Gerber further testified that the surgical instrument contained teeth or claws that made an impression upon the pillow, which left an unmistakable ‘blood signature.’]

The jury convicted Dr. Sheppard of murdering his wife, Marilyn Sheppard, and twelve years passed before Dr. Sheppard won his appeal (poisoned venue) and a second trial was held in 1966 in which Dr. Sheppard was acquitted. Under cross-examination in the second trial, Dr. Gerber responded to the following questions from the defense attorney relating to the 'surgical instrument'.


DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, now, Dr. Gerber, just what kind of surgical instrument do you see here?

GERBER: I'm not sure.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Would it be an instrument you yourself have handled?

GERBER: I don't know if I've handled one or not.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Of course, you have been a surgeon, have you, doctor?

GERBER: No.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Do you have such an instrument back at your office?

GERBER: [Shakes head to indicate no.]

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Have you seen such an instrument in any hospital, or medical supply catalogue, or anywhere else, Dr. Gerber?

GERBER: No, not that I can remember.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Tell the jury, doctor, where you have searched for the instrument during the last twelve years.

GERBER: Oh, I have looked all over the United States.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: And you didn't describe this phantom impression as a surgical instrument just to hurt Sam Sheppard's case, did you doctor? You wouldn't do that, would you?

GERBER: Oh no. Oh no.


Dr. Gerber was the star witness in the first trial. His testimony destroyed the Sheppard family.

(Impression analyses malarkey and dribble is not even junk science in my book; I hold it to be an exercise in cauldron stirring 101 ... double bubble, toil and trouble, cauldron burn, cauldron bubble. )

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Ah, the voice of reason.

 

[lizzysf]

I like your theory but help me coz I can't quite figure out how she's laying where she would leave an outline like you describe but be in the plastic bags and laundry bag. Or are you saying she wasn't in the canvas laundry bag at this point...only the two plastic bags? KC didn't put her in the canvas laundry bag until the time she decides to dump her? I don't think she could be in the canvas bag all that time and leave an outline of a child's body....it would be an outline of the canvas container. So if she is only in the two plastic bags.....KC had to dump her quickly or decomp would get in the trunk...right? MOO

Also, remember the day that George and Casey had the scene at the house about getting the tire thing out of Casey's trunk? This could be the day she actually took the canvas bag from the garage (was this the 24th?) Coincidently, I have always had suspicion that this was the day she dumped Caylee after the close call with George.

 

[Harmony 2]

[/B]

(Above BBM)

. . . OR, perhaps . . . because the trunk had been throroughly cleaned?

I know Cindy admitted to spraying Febreeze and washing clothes/knife which IMO seems similar to COD type behavior. Both Cindy and George seem to be very tidy, neat and organized individuals. I know the results from wash vacs have not been released. What evidence do we have that they actually did clean the trunk? Is it speculation based on the other info or were there cleaning chemicals found in the trunk? Moreover, I have read that choroform can be used as a cleaner but wouldn't the fumes knock someone out if it was used to clean a trunk? I have read over and over people accusing them of cleaning and I really would like to know about the proof of such an activity. TIA

 

[lizzysf]

I'm far more than cynical, which was really a compliment to how I feel about this type of rubbish for evidence -- more than a few trial judges would allow an alleged expert to testify to what made the image or impression.

Impressions are highly subjective and but inkblot material in my book. I am greatly reminded of how such nonsense was used in the first trial of Dr. Sam Sheppard in 1954. On the witness stand, the coroner, Dr. Gerber, described what he found on the bloody pillowcase from the murder bed.

DR. GERBER: "In this bloodstain [on the pillow], I could make out the impression of a surgical instrument."


Dr. Gerber went on to testify that Marilyn Sheppard was slain by blows to her head from a heavy two-bladed surgical instrument that was around three inches long and that had teeth on the end of each blade. Dr. Gerber further testified that the surgical instrument contained teeth or claws that made an impression upon the pillow, which left an unmistakable ‘blood signature.’]

The jury convicted Dr. Sheppard of murdering his wife, Marilyn Sheppard, and twelve years passed before Dr. Sheppard won his appeal (poisoned venue) and a second trial was held in 1966 in which Dr. Sheppard was acquitted. Under cross-examination in the second trial, Dr. Gerber responded to the following questions from the defense attorney relating to the 'surgical instrument'.


DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, now, Dr. Gerber, just what kind of surgical instrument do you see here?

GERBER: I'm not sure.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Would it be an instrument you yourself have handled?

GERBER: I don't know if I've handled one or not.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Of course, you have been a surgeon, have you, doctor?

GERBER: No.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Do you have such an instrument back at your office?

GERBER: [Shakes head to indicate no.]

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Have you seen such an instrument in any hospital, or medical supply catalogue, or anywhere else, Dr. Gerber?

GERBER: No, not that I can remember.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Tell the jury, doctor, where you have searched for the instrument during the last twelve years.

GERBER: Oh, I have looked all over the United States.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: And you didn't describe this phantom impression as a surgical instrument just to hurt Sam Sheppard's case, did you doctor? You wouldn't do that, would you?

GERBER: Oh no. Oh no.


Dr. Gerber was the star witness in the first trial. His testimony destroyed the Sheppard family.

(Impression analyses malarkey and dribble is not even junk science in my book; I hold it to be an exercise in cauldron stirring 101 ... double bubble, toil and trouble, cauldron burn, cauldron bubble. )

We haven't seen the photo. Not all cases are the same. They could be testing more specifically for chemical compounds found from within the outline in comparison to the chemicals found in the carpet around the outside perimeter of the outline. Tedius, yes..but not impossible. Science is a wonderful thing. Without it, we would all be subject to polio, measles and the likes. So don't knock the potential of science based on a different case, in a by-gone era, with a different scenario. What techniques did they use in 1954?
added for clarification: 1954 not referencing your age but the year of the case you cited..LOL

 

[lizzysf]

[/B]

(Above BBM)

. . . OR, perhaps . . . because the trunk had been throroughly cleaned?

Entirely cleaned, with the "stain" still present..
I don't think even as much as Cindy wants to free Casey, that she could clean so well that every last molecule of blood, body fluid, or decomp hairs could be erased. There was no blood or body fluids. The one decomp hair found, IMO, was from transfer of an already bagged body and divine luck.

 

[lizzysf]

I'm far more than cynical, which was really a compliment to how I feel about this type of rubbish for evidence -- more than a few trial judges would allow an alleged expert to testify to what made the image or impression.

Impressions are highly subjective and but inkblot material in my book. I am greatly reminded of how such nonsense was used in the first trial of Dr. Sam Sheppard in 1954. On the witness stand, the coroner, Dr. Gerber, described what he found on the bloody pillowcase from the murder bed.

DR. GERBER: "In this bloodstain [on the pillow], I could make out the impression of a surgical instrument."


Dr. Gerber went on to testify that Marilyn Sheppard was slain by blows to her head from a heavy two-bladed surgical instrument that was around three inches long and that had teeth on the end of each blade. Dr. Gerber further testified that the surgical instrument contained teeth or claws that made an impression upon the pillow, which left an unmistakable ‘blood signature.’]

The jury convicted Dr. Sheppard of murdering his wife, Marilyn Sheppard, and twelve years passed before Dr. Sheppard won his appeal (poisoned venue) and a second trial was held in 1966 in which Dr. Sheppard was acquitted. Under cross-examination in the second trial, Dr. Gerber responded to the following questions from the defense attorney relating to the 'surgical instrument'.


DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, now, Dr. Gerber, just what kind of surgical instrument do you see here?

GERBER: I'm not sure.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Would it be an instrument you yourself have handled?

GERBER: I don't know if I've handled one or not.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Of course, you have been a surgeon, have you, doctor?

GERBER: No.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Do you have such an instrument back at your office?

GERBER: [Shakes head to indicate no.]

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Have you seen such an instrument in any hospital, or medical supply catalogue, or anywhere else, Dr. Gerber?

GERBER: No, not that I can remember.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Tell the jury, doctor, where you have searched for the instrument during the last twelve years.

GERBER: Oh, I have looked all over the United States.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: And you didn't describe this phantom impression as a surgical instrument just to hurt Sam Sheppard's case, did you doctor? You wouldn't do that, would you?

GERBER: Oh no. Oh no.


Dr. Gerber was the star witness in the first trial. His testimony destroyed the Sheppard family.

(Impression analyses malarkey and dribble is not even junk science in my book; I hold it to be an exercise in cauldron stirring 101 ... double bubble, toil and trouble, cauldron burn, cauldron bubble. )

So are bite marks considered inkblotter science in your book too? The science behind dental impressions seems to be helping win convictions as well. (although you will say wrongful convictions)
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater here, Wudge. Science has advanced since 1954.

 

[Wudge]

So are bite marks considered inkblotter science in your book too? The science behind dental impressions seems to be helping win convictions as well. (although you will say wrongful convictions)
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater here, Wudge. Science has advanced since 1954.

Correct. Bite mark analysis is neither empirically grounded nor supported by science -- so much for 'science' advancements since 1954.

Moreover, numerous wrongful convictions have been based on experts testifying in error as regards their bite mark 'conclusions' (BS). With alleged bite mark expert Dr. Michael West being nothing more than an expert con man by my measure.

Further, in the next few years, look for the FBI to drop bite mark analyses from their laboratory menu.

(Double bubble, toil and trouble, caudron burn, cauldron bubble, eye of toad, skin of newt, bring forth the Piper, to play his flute.)

 

[treeseeker]

I know Cindy admitted to spraying Febreeze and washing clothes/knife which IMO seems similar to COD type behavior. Both Cindy and George seem to be very tidy, neat and organized individuals. I know the results from wash vacs have not been released. What evidence do we have that they actually did clean the trunk? Is it speculation based on the other info or were there cleaning chemicals found in the trunk? Moreover, I have read that choroform can be used as a cleaner but wouldn't the fumes knock someone out if it was used to clean a trunk? I have read over and over people accusing them of cleaning and I really would like to know about the proof of such an activity. TIA

Sorry for no link, but Dr. Vass did mention cleaning chemicals being in the trunk carpet, which prevented an accurate comparison to similar Pontiac from Tennessee. He did not elaborate on recent, residual, or whether chemicals appeared in both cars.

I am wondering, though, if LE noticed whether or not the trunk carpet was damp when they were first called to the A's. IMO, not enough time to dry from any thorough cleaning, from junkyard pick-up to LE arrival

 

[AutomaticAuttie]

So are bite marks considered inkblotter science in your book too? The science behind dental impressions seems to be helping win convictions as well. (although you will say wrongful convictions)
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater here, Wudge. Science has advanced since 1954.

I would say more like "junk science" imo.

 

[reeseeva]

Correct. Bite mark analysis is neither empirically grounded nor supported by science -- so much for 'science' advancements since 1954.

Moreover, numerous wrongful convictions have been based on experts testifying in error as regards their bite mark 'conclusions' (BS). With alleged bite mark expert Dr. Michael West being nothing more than an expert con man by my measure.

Further, in the next few years, look for the FBI to drop bite mark analyses from their laboratory menu.

(Double bubble, toil and trouble, caudron burn, cauldron bubble, eye of toad, skin of newt, bring forth the Piper, to play his flute.)

BBM

And what about the credibility of Dr. Henry Lee Forsensic specialist???

 

[Snaz]

I know Cindy admitted to spraying Febreeze and washing clothes/knife which IMO seems similar to COD type behavior. Both Cindy and George seem to be very tidy, neat and organized individuals. I know the results from wash vacs have not been released. What evidence do we have that they actually did clean the trunk? Is it speculation based on the other info or were there cleaning chemicals found in the trunk? Moreover, I have read that choroform can be used as a cleaner but wouldn't the fumes knock someone out if it was used to clean a trunk? I have read over and over people accusing them of cleaning and I really would like to know about the proof of such an activity. TIA

Red by me:

Another, maybe even better, question would be WHY would someone use chloroform to clean the trunk of the average car... how many of us have used that particular "cleaning" product to clean our cars? (That's assuming we are not trying to destroy any evidence of a dead body that may be in our trunk.)

So maybe the chloroform from the trunk is not from the cleaning of it, after all..... More likely, it is from the decomposing child KC carried around in her trunk for 2.6 days.