Adipocere and DNA testing
Original article posted on November 24, 2009
Adipocere is formed during decomposition through the process of saponification. Saponification is the hydrolysis of a fat or oil by the introduction of water. Hydrolysis, in turn, is the decomposition of a chemical via the addition and interaction with water. Breaking that down to simpler terms it is the “breaking apart of” a chemical compound by adding water. It is not the same as “dissolving” a compound in water, but hydrolysis can take place during the dissolving process. For instance, when a salt is dissolved in water, its ions can react with water and create weak acids or weak bases in a hydrolysis process – so in addition to getting a solution of the salt dissolved in water you can also have a brew of sorts containing some amounts of new products due to the breakdown of the salt molecules.
In saponification, when the water is added, the hydrogen and oxygen of the water interact with the molecule of the compound, in this case triglycerides (basically, “fat”
, to form to new products: glycerol and soap. Saponification IS the process by which your bar of soap is made. So let’s break this process down further so we can understand how adipocere is made.
Triglycerides can be viewed as being in two parts: one part is made up of what is called a “glycerol backbone”. Basically, glycerol (a sugar-based alcohol) can be viewed as three carbons bonded together and each one of these carbons have what is called a hydroxyl radical associated with them. An hydroxyl radical is simply an oxygen and a hydrogen (OH) with a negative charge. That negative charge makes the hydroxyl radical want to find something with a positive charge…just like a little magnet waiting to smack up against a piece of metal. So in a triglyceride molecule what these three hydroxyl radicals hook to are three fatty acids with positive charges. (As a side note, the minute a hydroxyl radical “hooks up” with another molecule and becomes neutral it is then referred to as a “hydroxyl group” instead of a “hydroxyl radical”.) So the triglycerides in our body are made up of the glycerol backbone (alcohol) hooked to three fatty acids via an “ester linkage” (which is just the name they give to the bond between any alcohol and an acid).
Let’s stop and look at what we’ve got before saponification takes place. An alcohol (glycerol) hooked to fatty acids. So far do you see anything in this description of a triglyceride that contains your DNA? The answer is NO. Triglycerides are fats/oils created by your body. There is no DNA in triglycerides.
Okay, so let’s get back to saponification. So we take our triglyceride and we add water to it and the process of hydrolysis takes place. During hydrolysis of the triglyceride the water reacts and breaks the ester linkage between the glycerol backbone and the three fatty acids. What you are left with is the glycerol and “soap”. The “soap”, in our case, is adipocere. So let’s look at what we’ve got now. We’ve got a glycerol that came from the triglyceride which did not contain DNA, and a new product “soap” which came from the fatty acids and water, neither of which contained DNA. So we’ve got two substances now and neither of them contain DNA.
So the first question to ask is: Does PURE adipocere have DNA? The answer is: No.
The next question to ask is: But CAN a sample of adipocere from a corpse have DNA? The answer is: Yes.
So let’s set up a thought experiment on how this can be so.
You’re an odd duck and you spend your weekend hiking through wetlands in your waders. You’re 5 miles into this swamp and you come across a “floater” (a dead guy). He appears to have a good layer of adipocere formation on him. There’s no way you can carry him out (and who would want to), but you feel the right thing to do is try to get back to the authorities, tell them about your discovery, and maybe help them ID him.
Scenario 1:
You’re not into cutting parts of dead bodies off to carry back for DNA testing so you take your pocket knife out and scrape it across his cheek, wipe it into a napkin and take that back for DNA testing. Will that work? Most likely – yes. Not because the adipocere has DNA, but because as you take the scraping your knife blade is also running against the underlying skin tissue and you’ll most likely get a DNA sample.
Second scenario:
You feel bad for the poor guy floating there so you decide you’re going to try to at least move him to a more respectable location before you leave, so you reach down and grab his arm with your hand and your hand just slips off because of the adipocere. You’ve got it on you and you realize you don’t want to have any part of this so you take your pocket knife, scrape the adipocere off your fingers, put it in a napkin and head back. Will that work? Odds are – no. Because first of all, your fingers probably never touched the underlying skin tissue – just the adipocere. Your scraping of the adipocere from your fingers probably did get some DNA – but not from the dead guy – from you.
Third scenario:
Just like the second scenario, but you’ve got some gloves on so that when you attempt to grab the guy and your hand slips off, the adipocere sticks to your gloves. You give up, scrape your gloves, put the scraping in a napkin and head back. Will that work? Most likely – no. Just like in scenario two, odds are you didn’t touch anything but the adipocere and now you’re not going to scrape your own skin, so your scraping consists of adipocere, which we’ve determined has no DNA.
I’ve set up the above three scenarios to show you how DNA testing of the adipocere on the napkins found in the trash of Casey’s trunk could come out: 1. Caylee’s DNA (if the underlying skin tissue was disturbed), 2. Casey’s DNA (if the underlying tissue from Caylee was not disturbed and the adipocere on the napkins was wiped from Casey’s bare hands), 3. No DNA (if the underlying tissue from Caylee was not disturbed and the adipocere on the napkins was wiped from Casey’s gloved hands). And also to help you understand HOW any of those three returns could reasonably occur.
I have read nothing to date (doesn’t mean it’s not there, might mean I missed it) that adipocere was discovered on the trunk liner. This indicates to me that the adipocere on the napkins most likely did not come from Casey wiping on the trunk liner, but from her own hands when handling Caylee. I back this opinion (and it is just my opinion) with the following scenario:
You’re headed to the stadium for a tailgate party. You’ve pre-cooked your hot dog weiners and you’re planning to just hook up with a friend who has a grill and warm them a bit when you get there. Of course, you’ve kept them in the frig since cooking them. A layer of grease has formed that will melt off when they are heated at the stadium. You’re running behind schedule and you throw everything into the trunk, not really taking the time to properly secure things. You get to the stadium and find that your tub of greasy weiners has spilled out in your trunk. You gather them all up and find there’s grease on your trunk carpet. You take a napkin and attempt to wipe it up. Will you get all of it? Answer: No – you’ll get some of it, but you’ll also rub it into the carpet…such is the nature of grease, wax, soap – adipocere. It would take going home and using a solvent/degreaser to properly remove all of the grease. And as we’ve discussed previously, the chemical analysis of the carpet liner which showed the presence of chloroform, did not show the presence of any other solvents/cleaners. It does not appear the liner was chemical cleaned – unless we want to go with some one using chloroform as their cleaner, and that’s highly illogical.
Based off the evidence we have been supplied to date, and barring missing some important information within the 12,000+ pages of discovery, it appears the adipocere on the napkins was either wiped directly off Caylee’s body, or off Casey’s hands after handling Caylee’s body. I personally lean toward the latter scenario.
Valhall.
Helpful references:
http://www.chemistry.nmsu.edu/studntres/chem112.spring.1997/Hydrolysis.html
http://www.biology-online.org/9/1_chemical_composition.htm
http://www.chem.latech.edu/~deddy/chem122m/L06U00Soap122.htm
Related posts:
- Adipocere formation and the stain in the trunk
- Community discussion on the formation of adipocere
- 11/06/09 Bug Report – Entomology
- Decomposition Gases in Casey’s Trunk
- Will Duct Tape be Casey’s Sticking Point? – The DNA
Tags: adipocere, casey anthony, caylee anthony, DNA, grave wax, hydrolysis, saponification
53 People have left comments on this post
Thank you Valhall, another finely crafted analysis of the evidence report’s.
I guess this will be another issue that Ms. Burdick and Ms. Baden go toe to toe over.
I hope we get lucky with the next doc-dump and get the trunk liner and carpet sample report’s! What is that stain!!??
Oh, and as a side thought, the odor of decomp. What makes it last so long and why is it so difficult to remove the odor from the any items and area?
Thank you, CW. I hope I wrote it clearly enough. My main goal was to show that three possibilities can come back on DNA testing of adipocere:
1. Pure adipocere (uncontaminated with tissue cells) = no DNA
2. Adipocere contaminated with Caylee’s skin cells (either by disturbance or sluffing or maybe a wound seeping into the adipocere) = Caylee’s DNA
3. and then the possibility of the adipocere being contaminated with Casey’s DNA.
Natural sluffing of skin cells into the adipocere make the odds slim to be able to get a valuable reading off of adipocere. I can’t speak about how much more likely it would be to get a usable DNA result if, say, there were an open wound, but I would imagine the possibility would increase.
But in summary – the adipocere itself doesn’t have DNA…only contamination of the adipocere by skin and other tissue cells, or body fluids can produce DNA.
I have read Dr Haskell’s (Entomology) report and he does state that there were decompositional fluids on the carpet in the trunk of Casey’s car. He is talking about what attracted the Coffin flies.
Hi JPB,
Yes, he does. I believe there was as well. But that’s not the same as adipocere.
Oh, OK thanks, maybe I was assuming the Adipocere had melted in the heat.
Excellent presentation, one small caveat regarding dealing with “floaters”—-they have a tendancy to EXPLODE when “man/woman handled, given that scene, our hapless “helper” would probably participate in adding more organic material to the recovery scene, ’specially if his/her name was RALPH! Therefore, leave newly discovered floaters ALONE……and let the professionals tease out DNA!
OMG, joy! Your practicality cracks me up this time.
As for me, I’d most likely run screaming like a girl…because I am. ha!
LOL Just providing a public service: WHY the heck sould you all experience free of charge what they pay me so highly to do…………LOL over that “highly paid, comment!”
I was gonna say…..I’d go with the unwritten scenario #4. Freak out, run like hell and inform the proper authorities to handle it. I couldn’t handle stumbling across a “floater”.
Also, that’s got to be one of the strangest, yet best analogies I’ve ever seen lol. It helped put things in perspective.
I really hope they can get DNA off those paper towels. From what I remember, the stain in the trunk came back with no DNA, correct?
Ive actually thought about what I would do in that scenario before. (more than once Ive spent the weekend at the lake then hear on Mondays news that a drowning victim had been found on the same lake and sometimes you hear about the drowning and they dont find the body). I know that joy neednt worry about me touching the body. And they very well might rename me Ralph.
Hi Reagan! Your memory is flawless, no DNA from the stain in the trunk.
Also commented on, no decomp. fluid present, IIRC!
My plausable theory: staining from mold & bacterial residue as the illustrious constant cleaners attempted to “tidy up” the vehicle. Given the heat, moisture and humidity along with the “closed environment” of that trunk, bacterial/mold multiplication would probably be accelerated!
Valhall
I have often thought that once Casey had seen Caylee decomposing in the trunk, with insects possibly in her mouth, that seniero # 1 would work.If she used the napkin hard enough to clean off her face/mouth area, would that not collect DNA? This of course would be before she taped the mouth, possibly to prevent more insects to invade her mouth.
I believe the reason there was no decomposition fluid in the trunk was because she was bagged in so many bags before she was put in the trunk and all the fluids were inside the bags. Her body weight made the impression on the trunk floor from lying there for a few days and the “stain” was from someone trying to clean up the awful smell from that spot. That is why there was no DNA in the stain. Just my opinion.
In the street we had this “creed”. Float a bloater and bag on board. Which meant, manuver a backboard or basket beneath the victim, then board and all, bag, and let the coroner deal with the mess .. er, I mean rest.
Memories, (ladada) like the “coroners” of my mind.
Faded water colored memories,(ladada) of the way we were.
willow
Reagan, I hope it’s Casey’s DNA they get off the napkins, eh, joypath?
Thanks joypath. That’s a very plausible theory indeed. I hope the next doc dump addresses the stain in the trunk again.
Hey Willow! Wouldn’t it be more damaging if Caylee’s DNA were on the napkins? We already know KC handled the trash bag, but if Caylee’s DNA were present, it would be more evidence to tie her to being in the trunk, I would think. Aside from the death band hair, we really don’t have much to link a dead Caylee being in the trunk. Having grave wax/death wax belonging to Caylee in KC’s own trunk is damning, IMO. It means she handled a deceased Caylee at one point.
Sorry, not sure where I’m going with this. Just thinking aloud.
Reagan, you bet! I am assuming (well, hoping beyond hope) that Caylee’s DNA will be on the napkins. For all of the bug activity/decomp/fluid seepage, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn’t be, and if Casey’s DNA is there as well, it’s a slam dunk against her, directly tying her to the trunk and Caylee’s remains, as a print on the duct tape would have done, but hasn’t. It’s utterly strong circumstantial (IMO) that Caylee was in the trunk. It’s thus far probable that Casey put her there. My apologies, anyway. I should have clarified that. Think aloud, all you want Reagan! I learn so much from such wandering thoughts of those, such as yourself, who know so much than it is that I do!
Double winks.
Willow
oops. So much more than it is that I do. And I got the words to the Babs song wrong, too. Let’s try this again …
Memories, like the coroners of my mind,
Misty (not faded) water colored memories …
Must have been a senior moment …
After thoughts, Reagan, joypath, Val, Clockwatcher, anyone, regarding adipocere. Is there a reason for the rather rapid formation of the adipocere, so that it would be present so soon after Caylee’s death, and in spite of the bug/bacterial activity? Is adipocere formation accelerated by high (as in the trunk) and humid temperatures, as would be in the trunk, if one considered her body was covered, perhaps located in one bag, at the time, collecting moisture from the natural process of decomposition. Does that make sense to you guys at all? I don’t quite know how to word it, having been out of the field for a while, now.
Willow
O, and please, forgive my sometimes sick sense of humor. It comes with having had to make the best of the worst situations, in order to be able to deal with some of them. But, it’s not COPING. At least I don’t think that it is.
Is it? (((Sigh))). Nah.
Willow
Diana: no DNA in the stain because there wasn’t any celluar material. Had there been epithelial cells or specific blood cells, DNA could have been retrieved.
eyespy:
Had our brave heroine taken the time to clean off Caylee’s face, any article that she used probably would have retained epithelial cells. Scrubbing Caylee’s face would have resulted in further skin slippage, not a pretty sight. Taping the orifices to prevent insect infestation would be a futile endeavor, those “critter” are industrious and detemined. Plus I revert back to my thought that trying to put duct take on a wet, slippery surface would be difficult at best AND “Mother of the year”(remember when Cindy rattled off THAT quote!) would have to HOLD her dead, mottled child upright as no trunk/car/Casey clothing fibers were found on the tape.
Again: just MHO!
Willow:
Gee thanks for all the “messes”….yep, the policy is contain and cover, hoping the “explosion” is controlled and in the decomp. room. Following Locard’s principle…Casey gave up part of herself in the crime scene(s) and took something….and Caylee did the same!….Here’s hoping both DNAs are present on some piece of evidence that would not be part of Caylee’s-Casey’s normal interaction.
Willow:
Your theoy of the adipocere development is a good one, it’s my belief that the production occurred on the body parts most protected from the atmosphere/insects, the section of her body simmering in the dampness and the saponification was accelerated by the atmospheric conditions
Joypath:
That is certainly a vision……Casey struggling with a slippery mess.And now i do wonder what hygenic area she might have been in to apply the tape and leave absolutely no fibers at all.IMO i believe her pants had some of Caylee’s er um secretions on them, and had they not have been washed, a transfer of DNA/ adipecore would have been possible, and placed her ah,within the timeframe and certain proxsimity of Caylee.
eyespy, as sad as it makes me, all of us, I’m not at all certain that Casey didn’t tape/murder Caylee inside the house, or within the playhouse. I’m also not convinced that the duct tape wasn’t meant to silence her, as well as to have suffocated her. You made a point my thought processes are expounding upon. “hygenic area”. These little playhouses are made entirely of a hard plastic material, and the Anthony’s were meticulous in their cleanliness. This would have been the case, I would suppose, within the playhouse as well. There would be no fibers there. Could it be that the pool ladder was up because as her little girl suffered and died in the playhouse, Casey took a dip? Thinking psychologically, could she have hit the pool to wash the “act” of murder off of herself? Could that be why the cadaver dogs hit on the backyard? Other than thinking she’d bury Caylee in the back yard, I just saw no point to her removing her from the trunk of her car to the yard. Perhaps that isn’t what happened. Perhaps she moved her from the yard to the trunk. There are just so many possibilities.
Gosh, I so love you gals and guys! You teach me so much and cause me to think!
And Joypath, I would assume her arms would be covered with adipocere, and it was probably by the arms that Casey manipulated her?
Sorry, I just forgot to say something, Joypath, seems to me Casey would have had to be in a panicked, manic, state indeed to do something so “not pretty” as scrubbing Caylee’s face.
Hi all!
I’ve been trying to catch up on my studies today. Lots of thought-provoking manna here to consider!
Okay, first, I can’t, at this time, accept that there were no decomp fluids in the rug. And the reason I’m having a hard time with this is how long the smell endured – months after it had been taken into LE custody and even after the carpet was removed from the trunk. That tells me there was contamination of surfaces with “funk”. I know there are several of you, as well as many in other places, that believe she bagged Caylee as soon as she killed her, but there appears to me to be evidence to the contrary:
1. The adipocere on the napkins. This means Casey handled Caylee’s body after substantial decomposition.
2. The smell and the stain (and I’m not talking about the alleged “child-shaped stain”, but the “basketball sized stain” that was visible even to George.) This points to leakage of decomposition fluids.
Concerning the apparent accelerated formation of adipocere, one thing I’ve learned on this subject is that the onset and rate of adipocere formation seems to be highly variable. But some of the things in this case that appear to be factors in accelerating adipocere forming are: Caylee being a “fat-faced” little toddler (adipocere tends to form at the fatty locations of the body like the cheeks, the buttocks and the belly); being clothed; being bagged; anaerobic decomposition – and, here’s one for thought – IF Caylee was drowned, a wet body in a humid, hot trunk which would tend to have a hard time drying out.
I have just read Dr Haskell’s report again (ugh) and he definitely says there were fluids in the carpet of the trunk… it is on page 7, second paragraph.. Would those fluids contain any DNA?
My question is – at what temperature would Adipocere start to melt? Was it hot enough for it to simply liquify as soap might in hot moist conditions? If Caylee was decomposing there, and she was dragged across the carpet in order to ‘bag her up’ as it were, and Adipocere was sheared off, would it not be possible for it to have liquified after it was in the trunk in the heat? I realize it has no cells but apart from DNA testing how can a connection to Caylee be proved? Just by the identifying the individual chemicals that comprise Adipocere?
Thanks
Hey there Just Passing By,
No – I don’t believe it could have gotten hot enough to melt the adipocere. With the majority of adipocere being palmatic acid (anywhere from 50 to 90%), I have included the MSDS for palmatic acid to show what would be required:
http://www.sciencelab.com/xMSDS-Palmitic_acid-9926382
The melting point is just under 142 F. While the surfaces of the inside of a car can get to those levels, that’s due to radiant heat through unshaded windows. I do not believe a closed trunk could get near that temperature.
One thing I want to be sure is clear – I did not state that “adipocere has no cells”, what I stated was that adipocere can only have DNA if it is contaminated with cells (typically epilethial – i.e. skin cells, but can also be from body fluids such as blood). The typical thing is that the amount of skin cells in adipocere is so minute that DNA returns can’t be obtained. I’m stating this not to correct you, but to make sure my statements are clear, because I wouldn’t want to cause confusion on this.
Val, WOW!!! Thank you, thank you, for all of the information! ‘Hope we didn’t take you away from your studies, Val. As for Just Passing By’s comment, why wouldn’t there be DNA, then, in the stain, if in fact the stain was due to body fluids rather than Adipocere?
Willow
P.S. Val, the car still smells.
Okay, let’s talk about body fluids.
One of my favorite lines in the series Star Trek: Next Generation is when they meet up with an alien life form that calls us humans “ugly bags of mostly water”. There was even a documentary made named “Earthlings: Ugly Bags of Mostly Water”.
We really are. So let’s look at our body fluids, including: sweat, saliva, mucous, urine and even feces (in the fresh form). For every one of these fluids, if we could break the total fluid down into the separate parts, we would find there is a carrier (i.e. water, blood plasma/blood serum, etc.) that is contaminated with cells from our body. The fluids themselves do not contain DNA, but the cells they get contaminated with or inherently carry (red blood cells, white blood cells, skin cells, and other tissue cells such as intestinal tract, urinary tract, etc.) are what carry the DNA that can be picked up in testing of these fluids. (Sperm is a kind of different issue, so we’ll just ignore it.)
Okay, let’s say you’re working in your yard and you hurt yourself and bleed onto the ground. Microbial and bacterial activity will “eat up” the DNA in that blood over time if it is just left there. So these decomposition fluids are issuing out of a decomposing body that is already under microbial and bacterial attack and causing the very pressure that pushes the fluids out. In other words, the fluids issuing are already infested with microbial and bacterial life. Then they hang out (in some degree or another) in a skanky carpet for 31 days in a dark, hot trunk.
Do you see where I’m going? This is exactly what joy is pointing toward when she says she speculates the “stain” in the carpet may be caused by microbial/bacterial activity.
Val, Joypath, yes (I see where you’re going). But it makes me none to confident that DNA will be found in the basketball sized stain, then. An odor is an odor but it ain’t DNA, and if memory serves me correctly the odor comes from the microbial/bacterial activity which commences in the abdomen/intestinal tract?
Sorry to ask so many questions, and I do so appreciate your time and attention to all of this, and us.
Willow
Valhall
Again an excellent synopsis, just one TINY correctiion: The human DNA is contained in cells that contain a nucleus, human erythrocytes aka red blood cells DO NOT have a nucleus when they are circulating throughout the blood stream during their 120 day (average) life-span. The DNA that is “picked up” in the testing of the fluids is the released DNA from the nucleus of the cells when the cell is lysed.
BTW: one of the great things of testing serum/plasma(the yellow fluid when the blood sample “seperates” into its components) is the ability to discover if the “owner” has produced antibodies to specific disease states or innoculations, believe it or not, this has HELPED in forensic identifications!
oh, joy, thank you!
Okay, I want to learn more on this subject. Since the red blood cells do not have a nucleus, I am assuming you mean that the lysing that takes place is with the white blood cells, yes?
Willow:
Questions lead to answers and the questions I’ve seen on THIS blog have been AMAZING! INSIGHTFUL and it appears that folks also READ the answers/comments (trust me, a rarity in the real world and blog world!)
The “lovely” odor of decomposition comes from the destruction of the body tissue throughout the entire corpse, the charming bacterial living in the anerobic conditions of the gut become “STARS” of the show, basically because the entire body is now an anaerobic package (anaerobic=without oxygen exchange. As I sure you are aware, the amines produced include cadaverine and putricine and they will be present in any anaerobic body system (CNS, lymphatic and blood)
Valhall:
The lysing of the ALL nucleated cells is the destruction of the celluar wall done in the laboratory to release the nuclear DNA. Destruction of the red blood cells CAN occur within the body before the 120 day cycle (i.e. giving a patient the wrong blood type, a person receiving a poison or chemical, ….) Normal RBC lysis occurs within the spleen at the end of the RBCs’ life releasing the biliverdin and bilrubin.
Willow,
In addition to what joy just pointed out, there are two main sources of decomposition fluids. There are the “purge fluids” that you so accurately stated come up, under pressure from the intestinal tract, and then there are the serous fluids (i.e. “serum like fluids”
that can issue from the skin itself.
Okay, thank you, joy! I was getting confused at first with the red blood cells not containing DNA, then their lysing would not release any. So I understand now.
Curiously, in researching this issue, it appears that the red blood cells are the main food in the blood for bacteria during the decomposition process.
I just gotta laugh! “Lovely” odor of decomposition. Unforgetably lovely! I just love some of the descriptions you and joypath come up with! Heroine Casey! Lovely odor of decomp! But back to the exchange between you and Joypath. I’ll be reading!
Ever more fondly,
Willow
Whoa! Who would have thought that? “Red blood cells are the main food in the blood for bacteria during the decompostion process.”
I have a rather interesting paper that could lead to some great discussion concerning the possibility of this “child-shaped stain”. I think I’ll write up a review of it for the purpose of opening dialogue. It’s not really connected with the Anthony case per say, but it might be interesting to see what brainstorming comes of discussing it….just in case this alleged “stain” is really there!
For now I leave you and will see you all tomorrow. Thanks for helping me learn tonight!
Okay, I got with some one who knows far more than me on this and found that, once again, I should never rely on my 45 year old memory capacity to recall literature. I should always first find it in writing. So I have corrected the situation and hopefully didn’t cause too much damage before doing so!
As usual, thanks for your insite. Your article was very informative and perhaps provides us with some direction for the next data dump. Was there DNA on the napkins and if so, will it tie Casey to the body?
Willow: First let me say I really enjoy the thoughful statements and information everyone shares here. Your scenario is good. I have thought since very early on that Casey didn’t know what to do with Caylee. She took her to the back yard, put her in the playhouse (to better conceal her) and had planned to bury her in an area that would not garner much attention from the Anthonys (digging up the bamboo roots would have been her story if asked). However, once she borrowed the shovel and tried to dig in an area (early discovery stated that there was an area around the pool that had been disturbed but LE stated it was simply too hard to dig because of the root growth) she came to the conclusion that it was too much work. From that point she goes to the house, grabs the trashbags and laundry bag to contain Caylee and the decomp that was beginning to happen. Sorry for the long post. I was just trying to tie the disturbed area around the pool with the hit on decomp from the dogs.
Valhall- Thankyou for the Adipocere information . Feel free to correct/lecture me any time….lol
I confuse myself frequently, hope I don’t have a similar effect on you.
Just Passing By,
You don’t have to worry about that. I confuse myself enough…I never have to rely on others for that part!
Nana,
Thanks for sharing that. The hits on the backyard are perplexing and any critical thinking through how that could have occurred is welcomed!
I am so looking forward to your write up on the paper, Val. Such information as the formation of adipocere, and how it is that red cells contain no DNA, may have been touched upon during my emergency medical studies, or during one of the many autopisies, but I just don’t recall. Our main objective was cause of death and how we might have prevented it, or better understood why there was nothing we could have done. So what happened to the body post mortem, wouldn’t have stuck to me anyway; well, other than the sight and smell that we had to deal with, at times. This is then, so fascinating! Or as you no doubt know, you can’t imagine just how wonderous the body until you view an autopsy or two, huh?
Other than all of that, HA! I am, in my developing years, most oftentimes confused, though every now and then a fleeting moment of brillance may burst forth from the fog. Not often. But on occassion.
Willow
HOW IN THE WORLD COULD THAT CRAZY AZZ POS STAND TO LOOK AT HER CHILD’S DECOMPOSING BODY? THIS WOULD HAVE TO BE A HEARTLESS PERSON TO WITTNESS SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND THEN HANDLE IT BESIDES. YUK!
I’ve smelled the odor of decomp before and it smells awful, just plain awful.
I am reposting joypath’s post to Willow, because I think she accidentally left it on the wrong the comment thread:
And thank you joypath for adding this! I have missed hearing from you on these forensic matters.
Val, thanks for posting this. Have both Joypath and I posted in the wrong place? I did respond to her/this response, regarding evidences of perspiration (nix the DNA) on the doll as opposed to urine. Should it have been posted here?
Listening to Lyon’s lecture and can’t do two things at once, like write and comprehend at all the same time.
Willow