The dead squirrel

[Dear Prudence]

When Zhu Zhu pets crawl up into your engine, they look exactly like dead squirrels. IMO.

I'll bet dead Zhu Zhu pets can crawl better than dead squirrels can crawl. But maybe this is a better subject for the Hornsby thread.

 

[RR0004]

Dr. Lee has not inspected the undercarriage of the Pontiac. (for whatever reason)
I followed all the links posted in this thread in an effort to find the results from OCSO in regard to what was or was not found on the undercarriage. I also searched without luck for two hours trying to find this information elsewhere. Could someone please point me to the page number on the link that provides this information. I am under the impression that no squirrel or parts of a squirrel were found on this undercarriage, but would like to see documented confirmation of this. However, due to the following, I’m not all that sure that the squirrel or lack of the squirrel will have an impact on this case.

On page 6566 of the released docs, you will find the conclusions made by Dr. Vass in regard to the odor signature in the trunk from the carpet removed and analyzed from that trunk. He lists six items that indicate that a portion of the total odor signature in the Florida vehicle trunk is consistent with an early decompositional event that could be of human origin. This conclusion has led to many forming the opinion that the odor in the trunk was caused by human decomposition. The opinion I formulate from this conclusion is that the defense will ask this question Although the total odor signature in the trunk is consistent with an early decompositional event, that could be of human origin, are there other possibilities that could reasonably explain these conclusions, that are not of human origin? If yes, what are these possibilities? My point is that although I can agree that it is likely that these conclusions are correct, and the decompositional event in the trunk was from human origin, I want to be certain there is not a reasonable argument that the decompositional event may be from something other than human origin.
On page 6557 it is stated that Fatty acids, such as the ones detected, (palmitic, stearic,
myristic, oleic) indicate a fat decomposition product LIKE ADIPOCERE(grave wax) on the paper towels. NOTE he does not say it is ADIPOCERE he says a fat product like ADIPOCERE. Later in paragraph While the amounts of these acids can vary, the fatty acid ratios detected on the paper towels are quite consistent with those identified in human and PIG decomposition studies. Many have formed the opinion based on this report that there was ADIPOCERE on the napkin and it was from human decomp. I understand how someone could have that opinion. My opinion was formulated by realizing that the white trash bag may have come from the kitchen since there were items in the garbage that would normally have been found in a kitchen trash bag, and since it likely came from the kitchen, I am of the opinion that the fat decomposition product on the paper towels is not ADIPOCERE, but instead is pig fat (possibly bacon fat). I am of this opinion because in my own home I have wiped up bacon grease with napkins and threw the napkins in the trash. To further support my opinion all five components listed on page 6563 Ketone (propanone), Alde Hyde (decanal), Alde Hyde (butanal), Alcohol (hexanol), and Alcohol (ethanol), are detected in human remains, but all five are also found in pig remains.
Therefore, my final opinion based on the above information from the documents is that the substance found on the napkins is pig fat (bacon grease), not ADIPOCERE. That the odor signature from the carpet sample could be of human origin, but it could be from some other origin. And finally, that amount of amount of decompositional material found in the interior of the trunk was not abundant enough to be the cause of the odor that has come to be known as the Smell of Death in this case, and that same odor was still detectable several months later.
Lastly, I will say there is no indication that a squirrel (dead or alive) was ever in the trunk. Also there is no indication that pizza was found in the white trash bag. Tests were done to prove the odor did not come from a squirrel or pizza. I could not find any tests done to prove that the odor could not have come from the remaining items that were found in the white trash bag.
Someone mentioned that butyric acid was found in the scrapings from the carpet in the trunk. They mentioned that butyric acid is found in human decomp and in rancid butter. I just thought I should mention that butyric acid is also found in vomit. Obviously there was no rancid butter in the trunk, however, a towel that was used to wipe up vomit, then placed in the dirty laundry with other dirty laundry (there was mention of possible laundry in the trunk, in GA’s deposition, and even if I am mistaken about GA’s depo, I will say from personal experience I have had dirty laundry in my trunk) may have transferred trace amounts of vomit to the carpet of the trunk, that could explain the butyric acid on the carpet.
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/19/6551.6591.pdf

I believe I am part of a minority that does not believe KC is guilty of premeditated murder. I also believe that I am part of the majority that wants justice for Caylee, and in my opinion justice for Caylee will require finding out the whole truth about what happened to her. Whether the state is correct and KC is guilty of premeditated murder, or there was an accident that caused Caylee’s demise, or that SODDI, I do not know. My opinion that KC is not guilty of premeditated murder is not based on half truths or lies, my opinion is based on reading the docs, and my own interpretation of reading those docs. It is disheartening to me, when I have worked rather hard to state my case as to how I formed my opinion, only to have it disregarded as fabrication, mistruth or attempting to spread rumor. I assure everyone, that is not my intent. My intent is to find out the whole truth about what happened to Caylee. I also believe there are a number of exceptional sleuthers who are very adept at posting links, while others are not, either way I respect their opinions. I am not in any way trying to sway anyone to change their opinion, I am simply stating my own opinion, and how I arrived at that opinion

Opinions are always appreciated...so now that you have concluded it wasn't Caylee in the trunk (though you seem to ignore the hair, the dogs, the air tests-specifically the chloroform), I would imagine the next step would be (IMO) to come to a reasonable conclusion as to who did kill Caylee. Perhaps, a thread could be started on that. Because therein lies the necessary truth.

PS- and NO (in keeping with the thread topic)...there was no squirrel.

 

[amethyst221]

Because I am not sure whether a squirrel or lack of a squirrel will have any impact on the trial I would like to expound on my previous post.

If an expert was told the FBI determined grave wax to be found on a paper towel, And then was asked if this grave wax could be mistaken for bacon grease, I would expect that expert to say the FBI would have no problem distinguishing between the two. However, if the expert was told a fat decomposition product, like grave wax was found on a paper towel, and the question was could it be mistaken for bacon grease, he would say It’s possible as least visually, particularly if it has been there for awhile.
I would also like to say that I do not reject the experts conclusions. I have used the experts conclusions to come to my own opinion. Under cross examination, I believe the defense will ask that expert many question about the experts conclusions for clarification. One such question might be, Dr. Vass is the fat decomposition product ADIPOCERE? I would like the answer to that question.
I think it is reasonable for me to think it is possible for the trace evidence found on the paper towel to possibly be bacon fat, I do not think this is anecdotal evidence. It is simply my opinion, that it is kitchen trash, people cook bacon in the kitchen all the time, and it is circumstantially reasonable to think it is a possibility because the five components stated in the report are found in pig decomp. I also think some people occasionally do not cook the entire contents of a package of bacon at the same time.
I agree that most people have dealt with bacon grease and would not confuse it with human decomp, if they did I would certainly not accept an invitation to breakfast at their house. I believe we are talking trace evidence here, and not big fat globs of greasy fat, just tiny miniscule amounts. Does anyone really want to know what are in hot dogs? Coffin flies have been mentioned, but the white trash bag sat in a dumpster for 30, and coffins flies have been known to reside in dumpsters. I think the white trash bag may be contaminated because of this 30 hour duration in the dumpster. I read where one cadaver dog hit on the right rear fender well of the Pontiac, but I wasn’t aware that 2 cadaver dogs hit on it. There was also a hair that had a possible death ring, but I was under the impression from the FBI report that the death ring was inconclusive due to not having other hairs to compare it to. So I still stand by my opinion that it is reasonable to suspect that the substance may be bacon grease.
I am not saying bacon grease smells like a dead body, but I am saying I do not think there is enough decomp evidence to cause the terrible smell either.

Again, excuse me, it is just my opinion, but you seem to be reaching so far and so hard to try to come up with anything, based on mere general suppositions, to reject anything, however reasonable, the state might contend. I could say that in my experience, there are lost tribes of cannibals who cook full packages of bacon or store it along with leftover human remains, then clean up with paper towels after throwing away the empty packages in car trunks, thus accounting for these findings. But it has nothing to do with proven facts in this case, is merely wild supposition, and would persuade no one.

 

[Tulessa]

Again, excuse me, it is just my opinion, but you seem to be reaching so far and so hard to try to come up with anything, based on mere general suppositions, to reject anything, however reasonable, the state might contend. I could say that in my experience, there are lost tribes of cannibals who cook full packages of bacon or store it along with leftover human remains, then clean up with paper towels after throwing away the empty packages in car trunks, thus accounting for these findings. But it has nothing to do with proven facts in this case, is merely wild supposition, and would persuade no one.

Again, thank you was not enough!

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Opinions are always appreciated...so now that you have concluded it wasn't Caylee in the trunk (though you seem to ignore the hair, the dogs, the air tests-specifically the chloroform), I would imagine the next step would be (IMO) to come to a reasonable conclusion as to who did kill Caylee. Perhaps, a thread could be started on that. Because therein lies the necessary truth.

PS- and NO (in keeping with the thread topic)...there was no squirrel.

I totally agree there was no squirrel, I do think that my conclusion was that KC is not guilty of premeditated murder. I do not think anywhere in my post that I concluded that Caylee was never in the trunk, I do however think that may be a possibility. As for the air tests, I concluded that it might be bacon grease because of the five componants listed in the air sample report. I think the SODDI theory is something the defense is actively pursuing, at least that is what I am guessing because of the recent KRONK hoopla MOO

 

[BeanE]

I do not know of any evidence that states anything about vomit or bacon. I was just using those items to try to make sense of what I read in the docs, and reasonable possibilities as to how my conclusions may be possible. Much in the same way, when I first started following the case that I concluded that KC has a penchant for telling half truths etc. I don't always know these for a fact, and haven't found them in the docs but I reasonable conclude she may be a liar.
There are 5 components in the report that are consistant with pig (bacon), how can I reasonably think it may be bacon, because bacon is found in a kitchen, and the towel where the trace of evidence was, was found in a kitchen garbage bag. Isn't that circumstantial reasoning?

The key word is reasonable, I think. The further away from the facts an alternative explanation the defense uses gets, the less likely a juror is to find it reasonable.

To use your example, a conclusion that KC is a liar is very reasonable, as we have ample evidence of her dishonesty from a number of sources.

Conclusions that stretch one's sense of logic until a basis in fact is hard to see any longer, or is gone completely, is not going to be found reasonable to most jurors. Certainly conclusions that are based on fabrication are not going to be found reasonable by most jurors.

 

[Harmony 2]

I totally agree there was no squirrel, I do think that my conclusion was that KC is not guilty of premeditated murder. I do not think anywhere in my post that I concluded that Caylee was never in the trunk, I do however think that may be a possibility. As for the air tests, I concluded that it might be bacon grease because of the five componants listed in the air sample report. I think the SODDI theory is something the defense is actively pursuing, at least that is what I am guessing because of the recent KRONK hoopla MOO

If not in the trunk then where was Caylee?

Note: This is my 666th post and thought I would use it to respond to you :angel:

 

[RR0004]

I totally agree there was no squirrel, I do think that my conclusion was that KC is not guilty of premeditated murder. I do not think anywhere in my post that I concluded that Caylee was never in the trunk, I do however think that may be a possibility. As for the air tests, I concluded that it might be bacon grease because of the five componants listed in the air sample report. I think the SODDI theory is something the defense is actively pursuing, at least that is what I am guessing because of the recent KRONK hoopla MOO

...and I can appreciate your attempts to refute the facts. It's been done...and done...and done some more. So let me put this another way...how did Casey transport Caylee to the swamp? And if it wasn't Casey who killed and transported Caylee...then who? Truly, we won't know any more specifics about the trunk until it's laid out for us at trial (or if new docs are released)...but at least we can agree...there was no squirrel...just Casey lying about the smell in her car. You would think if the odor was so offensive to her, she would have at least removed the garbage bag from the trunk of her car.
Do you (or anyone) honestly believe that the State would bring Murder 1 charges against someone with evidence that can be (mis)interpreted as bacon grease?

 

[Bittiness39]

Another thing to keep in mind, is that the squirrel was brought up by Casey. It has been proven time and time again that she does not tell the truth. I understand her parents wanting to believe that if KC says there was a squirrel/were squirrels in the car then it must be true...but not one thing she has told anyone connected to this case has been proven to be true.

 

[MD MOMMY]

I feel like I'm in the movie Groundhog Day..seriously. It seems every thread turns into the trunk and grave wax LOL and it's always the same ole' peeps in the debate LMAO.

ETA...not to be confused with the movie Dead Squirrel Day of course.

 

[manatee]

I feel like I'm in the movie Groundhog Day..seriously. It seems every thread turns into the trunk and grave wax LOL and it's always the same ole' peeps in the debate LMAO.

ETA...not to be confused with the movie Dead Squirrel Day of course.

"things that make you go hmm?"

 

[logicalgirl]

:

I feel like I'm in the movie Groundhog Day..seriously. It seems every thread turns into the trunk and grave wax LOL and it's always the same ole' peeps in the debate LMAO.

ETA...not to be confused with the movie Dead Squirrel Day of course.

:banghead: I vote this the quote of the Day!

 

[Tulessa]

I feel like I'm in the movie Groundhog Day..seriously. It seems every thread turns into the trunk and grave wax LOL and it's always the same ole' peeps in the debate LMAO.

ETA...not to be confused with the movie Dead Squirrel Day of course.

You made my day! :woohoo:

 

[sumbunny]

Another thing to keep in mind, is that the squirrel was brought up by Casey. It has been proven time and time again that she does not tell the truth. I understand her parents wanting to believe that if KC says there was a squirrel/were squirrels in the car then it must be true...but not one thing she has told anyone connected to this case has been proven to be true.

I'll give her "she's close to home, and maybe i'm a spiteful *****" to her truthful statements...other then that you're right.

 

[manatee]

note to self...Do not argue with people that don't know the simple facts of the case (cadaver dogs etc)..."waste, huge waste"...no offense really...but please study the case before you make claims. Some of us have been here since day 1....sorry day 31. :banghead: it's my fault for arguing not yours, however.
I guess we should remember "When you argue with a fool, people watching may not know the difference."

 

[RR0004]

Another thing to keep in mind, is that the squirrel was brought up by Casey. It has been proven time and time again that she does not tell the truth. I understand her parents wanting to believe that if KC says there was a squirrel/were squirrels in the car then it must be true...but not one thing she has told anyone connected to this case has been proven to be true.

Yes, absolutely...why would anyone acknowledge a foul smell in their car...and not just once...yet fail to mention that their child had been kidnapped?

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

The key word is reasonable, I think. The further away from the facts an alternative explanation the defense uses gets, the less likely a juror is to find it reasonable.

To use your example, a conclusion that KC is a liar is very reasonable, as we have ample evidence of her dishonesty from a number of sources.

Conclusions that stretch one's sense of logic until a basis in fact is hard to see any longer, or is gone completely, is not going to be found reasonable to most jurors. Certainly conclusions that are based on fabrication are not going to be found reasonable by most jurors.

So it is okay to think KC is lying about the squirrel, but it is illogical to think that bacon fat is commonly found in kitchen trash bags?
My opinion is that it is logical to think one might find bacon fat in a kitchen trash bag, and that KC was probably lying about the squirrel.

 

[RR0004]

So...IOW...I do believe we will hear about the darn squirrel(s) at trial.

 

[MD MOMMY]

Another thing to keep in mind, is that the squirrel was brought up by Casey. It has been proven time and time again that she does not tell the truth. I understand her parents wanting to believe that if KC says there was a squirrel/were squirrels in the car then it must be true...but not one thing she has told anyone connected to this case has been proven to be true.

Right and they have so many reasons to believe her since she's always been 100% honest with them. Well heck, even if she did lie, she eventually told the truth after it was dug out of her, per CA. KC was even honest about her pregnancy after 7 whole months of being pregnant. Guess she couldn't lie her way out of delivering a baby.:waitasec:

 

[RR0004]

So it is okay to think KC is lying about the squirrel, but it is illogical to think that bacon fat is commonly found in kitchen trash bags?
My opinion is that it is logical to think one might find bacon fat in a kitchen trash bag, and that KC was probably lying about the squirrel.

Personally, I don't see the connection, but I have a question...was there any sodium or sugar found on the napkin?