Analyzing the Analysis: The Waterlevel Report

When Caylee was found there was a young male who lived in the neighborhood who walked through his wooded area behind his home and got close enough to video tape some of the police activity going on at the time. He also gave a detail by detail account of how flooded the area was and how high the water was from all the rain fall. IIRC a reporter was following him and interviewing him. I can not find this video clip but if someone remembers it, it would be very interesting to see again.
Anyone else remember this? It would have been right around the time little Caylee was found and anyone posting clips on forums would have posted it for reference. I wish someone could find this.

Val:
For some reason I cannot get through. I will try again. On Richard Hornsby’s blog, someone, he or she, calling themself Heckler is saying quiet a few things that you might find interesting. Would love to hear your feedback. “They” won’t talk to Richard, perhaps they will talk with you. Interesting to observe what this “person” is saying. I think it’s someone from the Defense, or a friend of Caseys.

Nope, you’re getting through. Every one of your comments on this have shown up. They just went to moderation first.

I have no comment on heckler, and we’ll just leave the subject at that.

squishy, I know the video clip you’re talking about and I will try and locate it. If I find it I will post it here.

Val:

Didn’t Dr. Jawitz also mention hanging a sensor 6 ft above ground and subtracting this air pressure reading from the total pressure readings at the well? Seems to me that this would account for depth of water above area A since that would cause a change in air pressure on this second pressure sensor. Or am I misunderstanding how that would work?

It has been a long time since I did the dumb little pressure measurements in high school using a coke bottle and water and a sensor. I could easily be misremembering how it goes….

Squishy…here you go.

http://www.wesh.com/video/18256239/index.html

Has that rude person on Hornsby’s blog tried to post here?

Val… I don’t uderstand AT ALL what blink is trying to say.. I mean I think that George’s change in actions have been strange but I just thought that he was obeying Cindy as usual… Could you explain what you think about what is being said in simple terms?

» earmark said: { Dec 23, 2009 – 02:12:34 }
Squishy…here you go.

http://www.wesh.com/video/18256239/index.html

Yep..thats it…

Thanx

: )

Based on your analysis of the water depth study conducted by an expert, I would say that his conclusion is definitely faulty if his points of reference were faulty. At the very least, this expert should seriously consider the issues you have raised which he apparently did not consider before, during or after he did his analysis of the area. We bloggers are certainly blessed by having someone of your caliber willing to look at things at a much greater depth than we could possibly envision.

Thank you so much for being on the ball and tackling this complex issue on our behalf and for your willingness to break down the issues so that we bloggers can easily understand their relevance to determining when and to what extent the area in which Caylee’s remains were found was flooded, swampy or dry between June and December 2008.

Kimberlee,

I would rather not want to try to speak for Blink. Maybe we will be fortunate enough for her to drop by and give you some answers.

Stocirpa,

What would be nice is to have Dr. Jawitz speak to these questions. Perhaps there are some issues that have come to light for him since performing this analysis that would lead him to make an amended report? It is such an important report, and if wrong, could cause great confusion in the court room, and be used to effect the jury in an adverse manner.

» William Hill said: | Edit { Dec 23, 2009 – 12:12:11 }

Val:

Didn’t Dr. Jawitz also mention hanging a sensor 6 ft above ground and subtracting this air pressure reading from the total pressure readings at the well? Seems to me that this would account for depth of water above area A since that would cause a change in air pressure on this second pressure sensor. Or am I misunderstanding how that would work?

Yes, you are misunderstanding. The second transducer is there to record atmospheric pressure at the monitoring well site. The way Dr. Jawitz is measuring the water depth is by taking a pressure reading at a submerged point which would be a total pressure of

P(total) = P(a) + P(H)

where P(H) = pressure due to hydrostatic head
P(a) = atmospheric pressure

So with the second hanging pressure transducer he is getting a simultaneously reading on P(a). He then takes his P(total) from his submerged transducer and

P(total) – P(a) = P(H)

1 psi = 2.31 ft of head, water

so he can take the calculated P(H) and get total depth of water over the submerged pressure transducer.

I read the doctor’s report again and I think that the two sensors allowed him to measure water pressure at the sensor in the well. This means that he could tell the depth of the water. When the water depth changed such that the land at area A became inundated he would know from this dual sensor set up.

The second sensor at 6 feet above the ground was so that he could account for variances in water depth caused by changes in air pressure, I think. Which is why this number is subtracted from the total pressure reading on the first sensor.

This all seems to make sense to me and I believe that it would accurately reflect what occurred at the site during 2009. the only other things that you would need to know, it seems to me, is that there is in fact a correlation between the depth of the river and the depth of the inundation at area A. I think that this was determined to be true by Dr. Jawitz during 2009 and that the study would therefore be a valid way to determine depth of inundation at area A during 2008.

I just saw your post. Okay. My new understanding after reading the report again was right. So I will now have to read your stuff again to see if I get why this doesn’t give an accurate reflection of the water depth in 2008.

Okay, I get it. I am no longer confused.

Thanks.

Kimberlee- I would be glad to attempt to clarify anything I can-
B

Wow! It doesn’t get any better than this! Bloggers on board/experts in their perspective fields of study, working in unison to determine the truth of the matters at hand! I am impressed, ladies!

Thank you.

P.S.

Not to forget, what most kind and gracious folk you are.

Val,

A couple observations from Dr. Jawitz’s report.

First, eyeballing it rather than doing the math, it looks like the 95% confidence intervals correspond to roughly 3 to 3.25 inches. In other words, if Jawitz’s regression formula predicts the test well was under 12 inches of water, he can state with 95% confidence that it was under 9 to 15 inches of water.

Now his plot in figure 9 does not have the level of detail I’d like to see, but that mini-spike of inundation closely following the larger spike in late August looks like it could fall on or about September 1. Maybe this is the August 28 he refers to in his report, or maybe not.

If we were to add an additional 3 inches of water depth to the test well, It looks to me like Area A would have some standing water as late as the first few days of September. Maybe I am fudging things too much?

The above aside, Jawitz mentions the poor correlation between the test well and Econ river when the river is below 6 feet. I would argue when looking at his plot that his correlation between the two is poor when the Econ river is above 8.3 to 8.5 feet. See figure 6. IMO, the test well tends to run deeper than predicted when the Econ is above that 8.3 to 8.5 feet.

Do you see the same thing I see?

Merry Christmas everyone!

Maybe our kind hostess can delete all of my previous posts on this issue which are encompassed by this post at some point. I feel that it is important to repost the entire set of comments as one because of missing attributions on where I got a key pearagraph from and who it really originates from.

From what I have been able to learn from the topographic information,
watershed information, and maps in Google Earth about this area, there
is an intermediate confining layer which consists of Miocene clay, silt,
and sand through which the surficial aquifer runs in most areas of
Orlando. This layer has many breaches in it in various places which
allows the surficial aquifer water to seek a lower depth and flow above
the upper Floridian Aquifer which is confined by limestone and dolomite.
The average depth of this confining unit layer is more than 15 feet
below the surface although it goes shallower in some places and deeper
in others.

Roads and other black tops have some impact on the surficial aquifer
water transport system, but not much. Most of the impact to this aquifer
caused by blacktop surfaces is the blocking rain water from entering the
surficial transport. It is this surficial aquifer transport system which
supplies water from the river to the lower elevations where the swamps
are. So the river is not really 2 miles away at all since the surficial
runoff from the river is transported to all of the swampy areas which
surround the area where Caylee’s remains where dumped.

Of far greater impact to surficial water flow than black tops are the
various sinkholes which occur naturally in the region. Sinkholes can
channel this water down all the way through the limestone and dolomite
layers forming the ceiling of the upper Floridian aquifer. However, in
general, these remain relatively few in number.

This means that there is a correlation between the river level and the
surficial aquifer water flow and that the roads in the area are not
likely to have blocked off any significant flow of water through the
surficial aquifer transport system.

Sources:

http://fl.water.usgs.gov/
Google Earth
maps which I sent Val a copy of
http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri034257/resources/wri03_4257_adamski.pdf

It is noteworthy that this surficial transport system runs from the
surface to a depth of about 200 – 250 feet. It is this water which will
percolate up in just about any location in Florida when you dig a hole
deeper than 5 feet. This is caused by groundwater pressure. Also, most
creeks and small streams and swamps are fed through groundwater seepage
in Florida. The amount of groundwater pressure is effected by water
levels in the larger rivers in the area and overflows which occur during
major rain events, among other things.

This means that it would be highly improbable that there is a disconnect
between either the Little Econlockhatchee or the Econlockhatchee and the
surrounding creeks and swamps comprising the wetlands of the area. Most
of the smaller lakes in this part of Florida started life as a sinkhole
and then were filled through seepage from the surficial water transport
system. Over time, the bottom and sides of the sink hole lakes becomes
transformed to a less permeable material than the surficial materials
around them – that is they become covered in clay or rocks. This means
that many of the lakes in an area do not significantly contribute to
this water except when they over-flow their banks.
One final point before I stop for Xmas. The gauging point on the Little
Econ is 2.7 miles away from area A according to the good doctor.
However, this gauge point is not at the end of the Little Econ primary
channel. It is simply at a convenient location where measuring the river
will allow the USGS to know the depth or flood stage of the Little Econ.
The doctor does not say that the RIVER is 2.7 miles away – only that the
gauge site is.

Sinkhole formation – the maker of marshes and swamps and lakes

This section is, for the most part, a quotation and paraphrase of part
of a paper written about the Tampa area of Florida.

Lee, T.M., Haag, K.H., Metz, P.A., Sacks, L.A., 2009, Comparative
Hydrology, Water Quality, and Ecology of Selected Natural and Augmented
Freshwater Wetlands in West-Central Florida: U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 1758, 152 p. http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1758

The landscape of central Florida is a mantled karst terrain and wetlands
are one of the dominant landforms. Mantled karst terrain is
characterized by numerous topographic depressions, or sinkholes, that
occur where limestone is overlain by a covering of relatively insoluble
sands and clays. Rainfall dissolves the limestone, forming sinkholes,
solution pipes, and other karst features that are partially covered by
the sand and clay deposits (Sweeting, 1973). Where the water table is
close to the surface, the limestone dissolution is relatively shallow
and the resulting land subsidence can create wetlands, lakes, or marshes
(Sinclair and others, 1985; Ewel, 1990; Winter and Woo, 1990). As the
limestone dissolves, cavities are formed, the clay covering layer
collapses, and sand infiltrates or “pipes” into these openings(Sinclair
and others, 1985; Tihansky, 1999). These sand-filled columns may
increase the potential for leakage beneath wetlands, or lakes, if the
underlying clay layer is substantially disrupted, and especially if
water levels are relatively low in the underlying aquifers.
Alternatively, the presence of organic-rich wetland sediments may impede
leakage. Because of the long history of karstification in Florida,
sinkholes exist in all stages of development, from ancient stable
depressions formed during lower sea level stands to depressions formed
recently.

These depressions are the swamps and marshes which surrounded the area
where Caylee’s remains were dumped. The large swamp on the other side of
Suburban drive and the smaller one amidst which the remains were cast
were both likely formed by the karstification process described above.
The surface water here in these depressions is simply an extension
through ground water of the Little Econ in flood stage.

Conclusion

In point of fact, the topography maps that I have been able to find all
show the primary channel of the Little Econ coming to within less than a quarter
of a mile of the area A swamp on the surface. The groundwater charts all show
the influence of the Little Econ extending well past the area A point on the
map of the wetlands in the area. Also, the topography of the swamp there
is more or less like a foot print shaped depression surrounding the area
A berm of land or rise. There is some variation in the depth of the
depression at several points, but in each case the variation is only a
few inches one way or the other. There does not seem to be any land
feature which could act to constrict water flow and cause the water to
inundate area A earlier than when the depth of inundation throughout the
foot print reaches about 18 inches, give or take a few inches in places.

The data points of witness statements could be mostly true and still
have Dr. Jawitz be correct in his analysis since the area A site is more
or less an island in the midst of a depression. All of the people who
said that they saw water could have seen standing water in the
depression, but the water would not have been high enough to actually
inundate area A, except during a small window of time. Bear in mind that
area A is not a clearing. It has a lot of plants and they would blend in
with the plants in the marshy area. You might well see water as far as
you could see, because the plants would limit the distance that you have
line of sight on the area of the berm.

It is worth noting that most of the witness data points come from people
who have seen the area under less than ideal conditions. Mr. Kronk and
company saw it while being worried about poisonous snakes in the area.
The police officers from August 11 – 13 only observed the area after
dusk. Ms. Wray (I can’t believe that we are considering her a data
point), allegedly, saw it while wandering the dry portions and while
being nuts. The TES folk, who reported water, all reported same without
making any effort to determine the extent of inundation or if there were
means to circumnavigate the inundated area to reach any potentially dry
ground further into the swamp.

It would not surprise me if other worrisome animals also came into play
in the minds of those who were there – alligators and crocodiles come to
mind, as do smaller critters such as rodents. All good reasons not
to spend a lot of time exploring the area in depth.

Finally, we know from the ME that decomposition could not have
progressed very far along when the body was dumped in area A. Which
means that there should have been the noisome odors of death in the
vicinity during at least some of these expeditions to the periphery of
the swamp, yet no one detected it (including a well trained cadaver
dog). This tells us that none of these expedition members could have
been in too close of a proximity to area A – especially Tyler.

I believe that the analysis done and memorialized by Dr. Jawitz was
fairly accurate (as accurate as indirect correlation studies on hydrology can
be). The hydro geology extant for the area, coupled with the science produced
by Dr. Jawitz, have produced a reliable result, in my opinion, and can be
reproduced with a high degree of agreement in the resultant formula of correlation.

This means that taking the data points from the Little Econ gauge during 2008 and
applying the correlation formula developed by Dr. Jawitz will provide us with a
close approximation of the depth of inundation at area A during the period of
June 16 through December 11, inclusive.

pearagraph/paragraph – not sure how i got THAT e in there. Brother…

Probably singing “and a partridge in a pear tree” at the same time you were typing.

lol

You can see the maps that I sent to Val here:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/20477555/combined-topographicaerial-map-Caylee-Anthony-remains

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/20477663/Close-up-topographic-map-Caylee-Anthony-remains

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/20477611/topographical-map-Caylee-Anthony-remains

There are other maps in the citations that I included with my comment.

William and Val, wasn’t the area measured to determine any depressions (sunken areas) where Caylee was found?

Willow,

No – a full topographical survey was not done for area containing both the remains and the monitoring well.

That is – in fact – my main argument against the ability to vet the validity of the report.

William, I agree with your conclusions. However, I also point out there still appears to be non-correlation between the Econ depth and Area A inundation when the Econ is above roughly 8.3 feet, based on the plot Dr. Jawitz produced.

I have to say I can’t fully agree with all of William’s statements in relation to the overall swamp area where Caylee was located and the Little Econ River. Those are questions I would like to hear Dr. Jawitz expound on. For instance, I would like to know, if this area is draining to the Little Econ, over what length of the river is it doing so. Also, the aquifer pressure would need to be known in order to establish if there is a point of discontinuity (i.e. a possible stepwise change) in the relationship between the drainage of the aquifer to the Little Econ (if there is any at all) when looking at various river levels. In other words, is there a river level in which said drainage no longer occurs? Is there a river level in which said communication could be reversed? Is said communication at or upstream of the river monitoring point or downstream of it?

The major point, as JWG has stated, is that the LOCAL topography data is incomplete and therefore we do not know if there is retention capacity at Area A which would need to be exceeded prior to it having communication with the location of the monitoring well.

Lastly, there is no island effect involved here as far as the witness accounts – not in the localized perspective. We know that much based on the limited topography we do have.

Well, what the heck Val! If there were no such measurements, the entire report is flawed, in my honest opinion.

Now I am devastated. I will not be able to sleep at night, My life is over.

Not really.

I will see if I can dig up the particulars on Val’s latest comments. You can clearly see an island effect on the topology map close up that I sent you I thought. I will dig some more. I do not see how you coud disagree about the data points as far as the witnesses go . I think that I am dead on about that. I also think that I am dead on about the dog. A dog has more than 220 million olfactory receptors in its nose, while humans have only 5 million.Dogs smell 1000 times better than humans and if they were close enough to actually see the rise where area A was then they should have had a sign from Tyler. After all, they had such a sign at the Anthony home and that was nearly the same time frame. Plus the primary decomp event had to have occurred here from what the ME said so there should have been a LOT more decomp products around here than there were at the Anthony home.

Well, William, look at the close up topography map, take it into paint or some other program and draw a big red circle around this island you claim to have found. Cause I can’t find it.

I can’t tell what you mean by your comments on the witnesses. Roy Kronk states the “object” was not just by the water, or in some water, but partially submerged (and more so two days later). And Richard Cain verifies he never went into the water just poked ona pile of leaves by the water.

Tyler (a land cadaver dog) was no less than 5 feet from the body if he was there at all – not certified to detect within that distance – and not a water cadaver dog. There was a good wind blowing lateral to the closest point of approach for Tyler.

And why do you think that between June and September 1 (when Tyler may have been there) that decomposition would have virtually halted to where the remains were in the same condition as in June when they contaminated the trunk (which is what the cadaver dog hit against)?

Just keep working on me. I’m listening….I assure you.

I thought that there were dog hits in the Anthony back yard also. It was those that I was talking about – being outside they would have had comparable weathering.

This study answers part of your questions, I think.

http://www.stormwater.ucf.edu/FILES/Wanielista%20-%20application%20of%20alternative%20hydrograph.pdf

I have just sent you cmail on a potential contact person at sjwmd. They can most likely answer all of your questions in one fell swoop.

I am still looking for a definitive study and I will try my hand at drawing on the map.

ooooops cmail/email

my fingers have a mind of their own

I have also just emailed you Dr. Jawitz’s contact information.

Val, I am still 100% behind your logic and reasoning. I appreciate the fact that you are willing to retain an open mind and seriously consider the validity of the points raised by William and can only hope that Dr. Jawitz will be of similar persuasion. It seems to me that he should at least be willing to revise the maps and measurements upon which he relied to arrive at his conclusions concerning the water depth in Area A to include the currently missing parameters and measurements which, as you state, prevent you and others from arriving at the same conclusions as he. Good luck as you continue in your quest to ensure that clear and convincing evidence is submitted to the court – and to ensure that the defense is not given an opportunity to successfully attack the basis upon which Dr. Jawitz’s conclusions lie.

The Little Econ flows INTO the Econ. It flows in a Northernly direction for most of it’s length and then flows North-East for the remainder. All of the major drainage conduits drain into the Little Econ from storm drain systems in the populated areas in that segment of Orange county.

http://www.epa.gov/region4/water/tmdl/florida/documents/29b_modeling_report_econ_ndo.pdf

This site answers all of your questions, I think!!!

http://www.orange.wateratlas.usf.edu/river/?wbodyatlas=river&wbodyid=1011

Let me know if you still need additional things found to believe.

A canal from the Area A swamp feeds into the Orange County outfall canal. The OCOC feeds into the Little Econ directly. The Little Econ flows into the Econ directly.

The map on this page will answer all of the above through using the zoom function and moving hand functions. It allows you to pan to the Suburban drive location and follow the flow of the surface water through the canals and into the Little Econ.

Ta da….

Oops My bad

http://www.orange.wateratlas.usf.edu/river/?wbodyatlas=river&wbodyid=1011#waterbodycharacteristics

Ta da again….

» William Hill said: | Edit { Dec 26, 2009 – 12:12:10 }

I thought that there were dog hits in the Anthony back yard also. It was those that I was talking about – being outside they would have had comparable weathering.

No – the dogs hit on the backyard within 1 or 2 days of the car being cleaned out…which is mostly likely when the backyard was contaminated in the first place.

Tyler wasn’t near the remains until a month and half later.

Thanks for all the awesome work, William. You’ll have to give me time to study it now.

I did look at your map with the “island” marked. I think you’re missing the point I’m trying to make. Do you see that circular greenish-blue area in the middle of your island? That is where Caylee was. That’s a depression. Your island, in fact, supports my concerns. There is a depression in that area that appears to have its own retention capability. The unanswered question is – does that area where Caylee was found drain to the area where the monitoring well was located. We still can’t answer that.

Ah… I was missing your point because I didn’t think that that was a depression. It has no markings for feet on it and I would have expected it to in a topology map. I will have to switch back over to MS Windows and use my map membership again and see what the legend tells me (it doesn’t print in the pdf for some reason).

I’ll get back to you on that round spot.

Also, okay, on the dogs – I guess. Although my point was that the body would have been around the Anthony home only a short time. Probably stashed in the play house in the yard before it could be moved into the trunk of the car. So I figured that with such a small exposure the dogs still hit on it a month later. If true, then it would be reasonable to assume that the place where the decomposition finished up might well still have a dog detectable scent when Tyler was there.

Be back in a bit from my MS Windows excursion.

Yep. It is a depression. So… it could contain water for some period after the rise is dry. Also, we do not know how much of a depression it is and if it drains surficially to the lower depression surrounding the “island” and making up the larger body of that part of the swamp.

Oh, and I know it is not really an island and a foot print – it was just convenient to describe it that way for me. Only I guess the islands and foot prints are in the eyes of the beholder….

No problem, William. I understood what you were conveying.

I just sent you a better picture of the canal leading from the swamp and then the other canal connecting to the Little Econ.

William,

I may go ahead and approach the person whose contact info you provided me to get their opinion on this. I will not approach Dr. Jawitz, however. I have an extreme conviction that people who are named on the witness list, or who have provided expert opinions (reports), and therefore most likely will be a witness, should not be approached.

I feel this way about mainstream media doing it as well, btw.

I’ll get hold of the other person though.

Val,

I just did a blow up of the topographic survey 400% in the Autopsy report and the depression at area A is quantified in it as being 6 inches. As a matter of fact when it is blown up you can see all of the information necessary to understand how water would shed from Area A, direction of flow as water recedes, how water will pool, etc. The information here combined with the other information in the sites that I found gives you answers to all of your questions, I think.

The valley gutter in the diagram is the canal which feeds water to OCOC. The slope of the gutter is clear from the numbers presented for elevation periodically along it`s length.

I do not see anything still missing in order to determine the report of Dr. Jawitz to be accurate.

When you blow up the topographical diagram you will notice a bunch of different property addresses listed (including book # and page #). If you go to this site http://or.occompt.com/recorder/eagleweb/docSearch.jsp you can bring each of these plats up and look at the survey for each one. These surveys have lots more information than that which appears in the topo diagram/map in the Austopsy report. Each one will have a plat image and you can collect these for all properties listed and then put them all together to form a detailed map/diagram of the entire area.

Austopsy/Autopsy

One of the plats has useful information and some additional detail. The others are less useful, except to help define the GPS coordinates of the swamp and marsh. When I wrote the above I was actually looking at a plat which contained all kind of minutia from the general area but outside of the ones mentioned in the Autopsy report.

Still, if you combine the information that you can garner from the plat pages with the other information in the topological map provided in the Autopsy report and the hydrogeologic information from the OC water atlas and other sites, you end up with a wealth of information about the locations involved in the dump site (more than enough to determine water flows and connectivity to the Little Econ).

I will now wait for you to digest the info, and contact the other person that I sent you information on, and go from there.

One final note, the photograph of the area A site shows a depression of only inches and that coincides with the information contained in the map provided. Also, on this map, the ovals and circles are simply place marks and not indicative of depressions since the other photographs clearly show that there is no depression on the other designated areas and the map shows that there are no elevation changes associated with them.

William,

I’ve got a few things I want you to look over. They pertain to the characteristics of the Floridan Aquifer (which is what is under the Orlando area) and then also to the communication between surface water and aquifer at the exact location we’re looking at.

First, the Floridan Aquifer is considered a confined aquifer and in the location of Orlando has a very low permeability cap above it that retards recharge from surface waters. You can read about it here:

http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/guide/aquifers.html

and here:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_g/G-text6.html

Then to the recharge rate at the exact location we’re looking. If you will go to this map:

http://ufdcweb1.uflib.ufl.edu/ufdc/?m=hd1X&i=30716&vo=03&vp=5257,258

which is a real bitch to navigate, but – you’ll just have to suffer through it the same as I did – you’ll see that the entire area where the Anthony home, the swamp, and Caylee’s remains are located is characterized as a “poor recharge area” (denoted in green) for the Floridan aquifer system. It is designated to recharge at a rate of 0 to 3 inches per year. (I’m thinking that would have a negligible effect on any short-term analysis – say, rainfall accumulations from June to September, for instance.)

So basically, what that reduces the area to is a surface water drainage area (i.e. virtually disconnected from the aquifer, basically).

That’s all I’ve been able to look at so far. I want to study your canal diagrams next.

Thanks for all the work you’ve put in on this. It’s awesome, and it has me learning a lot.

There is a surficial aquifer which is recharged in this entire area much more easily and which sits above the the upper Floridian Aquifer. It flows on top of the intermediate confining layer. The Upper Floridian Aquifer is nearly 500 feet below the surface in this area and most of that is beneath dolomite and limestone. So there is almost no communication with surface waters and it does recharge extremely slowly. The areas with the most communication near this location are those with sinkholes which have brought the surficial aquifer water to a depth which allowed it to melt through the dolomite and limestone and cause a sand pipe through which surficial waters are able to mix into the Upper Floridian Aquifer.

I will now read through everything that you have provided a link on….

This citation has sections on the surficial aquifer in orange county and it is the one that I cited in the first part of my comment which you replaced for me http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri034257/resources/wri03_4257_adamski.pdf.

Quote of the abstract from: http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri034257/

ABSTRACT: Ground water is the main source of water supply in central Florida and is critical for aquatic habitats and human consumption. To provide a better understanding for the conservation, development, and management of the water resources of Orange County, Florida, a study of the hydrogeologic framework, water budget, and ground-water quality characteristics was conducted from 1998 through 2002. The study also included extensive analyses of the surface-water resources, published as a separate report.

An increase in population from about 264,000 in 1960 to 896,000 in 2000 and subsequent urban growth throughout this region has been accompanied by a substantial increase in water use. Total ground-water use in Orange County increased from about 82 million gallons per day in 1965 to about 287 million gallons per day in 2000. The hydrogeology of Orange County consists of three major hydrogeologic units: the surficial aquifer system, the intermediate confining unit, and the Floridan aquifer system. Data were compiled from 634 sites to construct hydrogeologic maps and sections of Orange County. Water-level elevations measured in 23 wells tapping the surficial aquifer system ranged from about 10.6 feet in eastern Orange County to 123.8 feet above NGVD 29 in northwestern Orange County from March 2000 through September 2001. Water levels also were measured in 14 wells tapping the Upper Floridan aquifer. Water levels fluctuate over time from seasonal and annual variations in rainfall; however, water levels in a number of wells tapping the Upper Floridan aquifer have declined over time. Withdrawal of ground water from the aquifers by pumping probably is causing the declines because the average annual precipitation rate has not changed substantially in central Florida since the 1930s, although yearly rates can vary. A generalized water budget was computed for Orange County from 1991 to 2000. Average rates for the 10-year period for the following budget components were computed based on reported measurements or estimates: precipitation was 53 inches per year (in/yr), runoff was 11 in/yr, spring discharge was 2 in/yr, and net lateral subsurface outflow and exported water was 1 in/yr. Evapotranspiration was 39 in/yr, which was calculated as the residual of the water-budget analysis, assuming changes in storage were negligible.

Water-quality samples were collected from April 1999 through May 2001 from a total of 26 wells tapping the surficial aquifer system, 1 well tapping the intermediate confining unit, 24 wells tapping the Upper Floridan aquifer, 2 springs issuing from the Upper Floridan aquifer, and 8 wells tapping the Lower Floridan aquifer. These data were supplemented with existing water-quality data collected by the U.S. Geological Survey and St. Johns River Water Management District.

Concentrations of total dissolved solids, sulfate, and chloride in samples from the surficial aquifer system generally were low. Concentrations of nitrate were higher in samples from the surficial aquifer system than in samples from the Upper Floridan or Lower Floridan aquifers, probably as a result of agricultural and residential land use. Water type throughout most of the Upper Floridan and Lower Floridan aquifers was calcium or calcium-magnesium bicarbonate, probably as a result of dissolution of the carbonate rocks. Water type in both the surficial and Floridan aquifer systems in eastern Orange County is sodium chloride. Concentrations of total dissolved solids, sulfate, and chloride in the aquifers increase toward eastern Orange County. Data from 16 of 24 wells in eastern Orange County with long-term water-quality records indicated distinct increases in concentrations of chloride over time. The increases probably are related to withdrawal of ground water at the Cocoa well field, causing an upwelling of deeper, more saline water. The most commonly detected trace elements were aluminum, barium, boron, iron, manganese, and strontium. In addition, arsenic was detected in 12 of 59 samples, and selenium was detected in 19 of 58 samples. Concentrations generally were low; no samples had concentrations that exceeded any of the Maximum Contaminant Levels. Radon was detected in all ground-water samples in concentrations ranging from 56 to 14,700 picoCuries per liter.

Pesticide compounds were detected in low concentrations in 8 of 16 ground-water samples from the surficial aquifer system and in 2 of 14 samples from the Upper Floridan aquifer. The most commonly detected compounds were atrazine and its degradate, deethyl atrazine. Pesticides were present in shallow ground water primarily in urban areas around metropolitan Orlando. The source of pesticide compounds in ground-water samples probably is lawn-care and other household products containing pesticides. Pesticide concentrations did not exceed any Maximum Contaminant Levels.

Data from this study indicate that ground water is an abundant resource in Orange County, Florida. The quality of ground water generally is within the Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Regulations established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; however, water-quality samples for this study were collected under drought conditions. Additional study to document water quality during various hydrologic conditions would be beneficial to understanding the occurrence and distribution of constituents such as pesticides.

If you look at this site you will see that it is comparable to the one that requires the tough navigation which you cited. http://sjr.state.fl.us/groundwaterassessment/recharge.html

There are places where the Upper Floridian Aquifer comes close to the surface and those are the places with the highest recharge rates. Around the Econs the rate of recharge is particularly low, this does not equate to no communication with the surficial aquifer and these rivers though and it is the surficial aquifer which seeps into the swamps and marshes in the area and provides a lot of their water volume.

I have looked over everything that you provided and it has not modified my opinion on how ground water and river water communicate in this particular swamp. I have discovered though that the valley gutter is not the canal that I have pictured leading to the OCOC. It is simply a small roadside gutter which terminates in a ditch which then procedes to connect with the canal.

I am back to digging once more.

I did enjoy looking at the materials that you provided though. Educational….

Val,

I have now been through all of the sites in depth that you wanted me to look at, but I am still left with the belief that the surficial aquifer provides the groundwater route between the Little Econ and the swamp/marsh of interest. I would say that your best bet at this point would be to send an email to the person that I gave you the contact information on. She is associated with the experts who manage this water management district and will have the most current information at her finger tips, I should think.

I will await any more comments and go from there.

There is “suspicious activity” on my email account, so I may abandon it. I tried to send this via email. But will post, knowing that you can delete.

Valhall

I believe that you have the best intentions with your blog. It is admirable to utilize your skills and given scientific talents. I have enjoyed reading here. I am interested in human nature, the law and forensics.

I am glad that you took down your personal info and photos. It was nice to read, and certainly you seem to be a person who appears to be quite decent.

But if I were to advise you, from no field of expertise except for a keen perception and observation of human nature and or a “high emotional IQ”, I would advise you not to reveal such intimate aspects of your family, particularly on the net. You make yourself too vulnerable in the world of crazies. Don’t be tempted to reveal everything because an unknown “calls you out”.

If we write something (even with the use of a pseudonym) that we can be proud of, we don’t have to be ashamed , or prove something. Have an open mind, and question a lot. If it is a measured opinion, it is worthy. Besides, what have these people given up in terms of intimate details of mistakes and foibles on a very personal level that have tarnished the posts? They have given nothing.

Do not post your family to prove authenticity to someone whose identity you do not know.

I hope that I haven’t insulted your intelligence.

Street smarts should not be devalued.

WSH

If you get a chance you may want to take a look at this site it has software which you can download and which will give you information on groundwater in Florida.

http://water.usgs.gov/software/lists/groundwater/

CORRECTION

Besides, what have these people given up in terms of intimate details of mistakes and foibles on a very personal level -those who have tarnished the posts of others? They have given nothing.

I hope this makes more sense…WSH

You might also find this site interesting:

http://fisc.er.usgs.gov/Contacts/fldiralpha.php

lots of potential

WSH,

I didn’t take it down. It’s in the Library as I stated it would be when posting yesterday. As for my family, my children don’t live with me and are grown now. I think they’ll be okay. My family was not posted to prove anything. As I stated in the write up, it was so you could get to know me.

I do appreciate your words of advice, and I personally think street smart is the smartest smart you can have.

Okay, William, you’re going to have to give me time. I’m still waddling through the first blob of beef you threw at me.

Val,

Water mostly runs out of the swamp and surrounding land mass and into the Little Econ. This being true, for the purpose of the correlation equation, it would make no difference if the communication occurs mostly from aquifer water to the river or from surface water to the river. Right? When the surficial aquifer is full (like during the hurricane) you would get more water movement into the river by surface routes (through the canals which were built expressly for this purpose). When the surficial aquifer is not full, water movement into the Little Econ switches predominately to surficial flows.

How do we know this?

One reason that we know it is that every land development project is required by law to ensure that the volume of water toward the Little Econ remain the same and that water content remain the same from a pollutant, BOD, nutrient standpoint (this is likely to change in the near future since this regulation actually causes the water quality to deteriorate over time since there is no longer the same bio-mass using the nutrients as before). Every storm drain, canal, ditch, and retention pool was built for exactly this reason in Orlando during the recent Urbanization.

The volume is not constant, but it must match the volume exactly which existed prior to the new development for the particular weather patterns occuring at any given time. So the communication with the river is by both surficial flows and surface flows, but the amount of communication must remain static at the end of each project.

Tada… I think.

Val,

You really only need to digest this one and look at the corresponding laws and regulations alluded to in the report to see that this last assertion of mine must be true,

http://www.stormwater.ucf.edu/FILES/Wanielista%20-%20application%20of%20alternative%20hydrograph.pdf

Since this assertion is true because of the laws for permitting and regulation in Orlando, then the amount of communication must be staying fairly static although the MODE of communication may have been changed to surface waters instead of surficial aquifer waters.

One final point, the canal flowing to OCOC was, originally, placed there to DRAIN the swamp and to maintain this so that the lots could be developed in the land project which developed Hope Spring, I am pretty sure. Without it, Hope Spring and other roads would stay inundated for long periods of time. This must be true since earlier topo maps show the entire area as one large swamp and marsh. The canal may have since been modified to allow the swamps to remain now without continuous draining, but it or one like it had to originally serve as a drain.

Okay, William, I have finished that last report you linked. Very interesting. I want to look at some aspects of it before I respond. And, by the way, thanks for the awesome work in this area, you are really helping to pull together the information we need to understand Dr. Jawitz’s report.

I have also turned all information over to a hydrologist/wetlands expert for review. This person is NOT in the state Florida because what I’m trying to avoid right now is the possibility of just getting an “acquiescing” response from some one who may work with Dr. Jawitz, may have studied on him, or may have some other reason for not objectively reviewing his report.

I will eventually get with the person you provided contact information for, but only after my contact has completed their review.

Fun stuff!

» Valhall said: { Dec 26, 2009 – 05:12:02 }

» William Hill said: | Edit { Dec 26, 2009 – 12:12:10 }

I thought that there were dog hits in the Anthony back yard also. It was those that I was talking about – being outside they would have had comparable weathering.

No – the dogs hit on the backyard within 1 or 2 days of the car being cleaned out…which is mostly likely when the backyard was contaminated in the first place.

Tyler wasn’t near the remains until a month and half later.
*******************************************************************************************

I do not agree that it is any more likely that the cleaning of the car brought the smell of death into the yard than that Caylee’s body was physically located in the yard for a time.

I would point out that a car trunk is also not a particularly friendly environment when it comes to preservation of decomp residual traces. It is not air-tight, had cyclical temperature variations from extreme heat to fairly cool, had a population of insects that feed on liquefied biological materials, and probably had a lot of other chemicals intermingling with it for at over a month.

I believe that these dogs indicating on decomp is indicative that Tyler should have been able to detect the decomp at site A if he were actually brought to within feet of the primary decompositional event site. Since he did not indicate, he must not have been that close to area A and that makes the witness value of his owner suspect for verifying water at area A on that date. He could have seen standing water in the depression surrounding area A instead of actually covering area A.

Just thought that I better restate this clearly since I did not like how I had left it originally because of my running after the other water research.

WSH, thank you for your comment to Val, which prompted her response, which dispelled near the same concerns I had for her and her beautiful family. Heck, for all we know, she may really live in Nebraska! Though I do suppose that you live west of the Hudson. And any-which-way you turn the globe, I’m still east of Mississippi.

Willow

Oh Gawd, I am really going to sound stupid here, as I am so trying to follow all that the two of you, Val and William, are conferring on, regarding the water level in the area where Caylee was found. Not only do I live in Florida, and less than a mile from the Everglades, I know because I live here that due to the elaborate drainage system put into place, to drain and manage the flow of water, until our entire neighborhood flooded, and I had a foot of water inside, we weren’t considered a high risk flood zone. Now we are. After the fact.

Over the course of the past few months an entire new drainage system was installed, tearing up many a yard, not to negate the roads, that’s SUPPOSED to keep such flooding from happening again ( and mind you, we weren’t supposed to flood in the first place). Only time, and the next hurricane/tropical storm, or two, will determine whether or not the new system works, like the old one was supposed to, but didn’t. So though we know HOW the flood control system was SUPPOSED to have worked during the time period surrounding Hurricane Fay, who’s to specifically to say how it worked in all areas, and again considering every UNKNOWN dip and decline and upslope that decided the street directly in front of our home was transformed into literal river that swept every car away that was parked in the swales, whereas 6 houses down, there wasn’t but 4-6 inches in the street, and nevermind that when you stand at either end of the street it looks fairly level.

And again, not to negate all of those pesky sinkholes that you don’t know are there because when you mow the grass it all appears level, though the grass in the depressions is higher than the grass surrounding them, but you do notice after a good rain when the water pools in the depressions and stays there. I just don’t know how anyone can assume that where Caylee’s remains were would have been dry because #1. the drainage system put into place would have made it so; #2. because of the many eyewitness accounts that the paricular area was under water, which would be nothing unusual for Florida; #3. are there exact measurements regarding the depth of the area where Caylee was found? I tend not to think so. Not in exacts anyway.

Also, I read that one needs to dig but a mere five feet to hit water here. That’s nonsense. When they dug our pool they had to start double pumping at around 4 feet, and they double pumped for more than a week before they could dig the remaining two feet! When we dug our pond we had to stop at about 30 inches because the ground was too wet. Any deeper and it would bubbled up on us and that would have been the end of that.

In other words, what I’m living, in Florida, doesn’t mesh with what I’m reading, though I concede that I may just not be understanding, for as much all of this is so much Greek to me. So if you could, please, William or Val, explain all of this in simpler terms? What does it all mean?

Sorry to be so ignorant regarding such matters, other than to assume that inspite of what the South Florida Water Management district says, in order to be sure, I’m sandbagging, until the new system proves itself where the last one failed.

Willow

Five feet was a general rule of thumb for every where in Florida. I originally said four feet, but I then changed it to 5 to account for the highlands as well. Actually, in Tampa it is really less than three feet in some places.

The area where you live is a flood plain, naturally speaking. The drainage will work most of the time but Nature will still throw the occasional curve and defeat what man has done. Even with your new system in place, you will still have a risk of this happening again.

I will gather my thoughts and then try to go over the rest of your post point by point some time today.

I am assuming that you are in some place like Palm Beach county or Dade. Perhaps Ft. Lauderdale or even Everglades City.It would not surprise me if the water table were at 30 inches or even 24 inches in that part of Florida. It would not surprise me if the water table were at 30 inches or even 24 inches in that part of Florida. The point is that these are the some of the lowest elevations in Florida. I would expect you to hit water in the Keyes for example in about a foot or a foot and a half of digging.

That is the problem with trying to account for all of Florida in a single statement. there are places in Florida where the water table is more than 8 feet as well. I was trying to convey a relatively high water table and use a median depth to do so. 5 feet is wrong in your area and in many areas of Florida, but it reflects a median depth for all of Florida more or less.

Let’s try that again:

I am assuming that you are in some place like Palm Beach county or Dade. Perhaps Ft. Lauderdale or even Everglades City. It would not surprise me if the water table were at 30 inches or even 24 inches in that part of Florida. The point is that these are some of the lowest elevations in Florida. I would expect you to hit water in the Keyes for example in about a foot or a foot and a half of digging.

That is the problem with trying to account for all of Florida in a single statement. there are places in Florida where the water table is more than 8 feet as well. I was trying to convey a relatively high water table and use a median depth to do so. 5 feet is wrong in your area and in many areas of Florida, but it reflects a median depth for all of Florida more or less.

There are no measurements in the swamp where area A is located which account for the period when the baby’s remains where there. That is precisely the problem and why there is controversy as to when water was inundating the area and to what depth. You are correct that it would not be unusual to hear of flooding in any given place in the lowlands of Florida. Happens all of the time.

The area of Orlando that we are interested in is relatively a height compared to most of Southern Florida.

I am not assuming that the area was dry because of the drainage system in the area. I am using the formula that Dr. Jawitz found to be comparatively accurate and the numbers from the river in the area to gauge what areas were inundated and what areas were not. I have been arguing with Val over the probability that the formula is accurate and that there is a correlation between the depth in the Little Econ and the level of water at area A.

Val’s take on it is that there is not enough information contained in the maps and report provided by Dr. Jawitz to know if the study is accurate. My take is that the things provided by the doctor, combined with the general scientific literature on the area is enough to determine that the correlation formula is accurate and that there is in fact a correlation between these two things.

I am not dismissive of the eye witness testimony on there having been water in the area. Although it is a known fact that eye witness testimony is not generally reliable for determining the truth of a matter when taken alone. I am saying that the human eye and mind can be tricked by many things into seeing something which is not true. It is possible that these people are mistaken on the level of inundation at area A since none of them were actually ON AREA A. Perspective can make things look different than they actually are.

Hey – I wonder what do the neighbors say about the water level in that area from June to December? Any interview comments anyone know about? (Not comments from searchers, but from the folks who live there…

William

Actually I have two issues with the report:

1. Is the correlation between the Little Econ River and the monitoring well valid? This is what you have been working on and I have been trying to play catch up on.

2. Is the ASSUMPTION that the water level at Area A would be 1.54′ less than the water level at the monitoring well correct? THIS is the major problem I have. Nothing you have presented so far answers this question, nor does it even make me feel better about it.

I will not be able to answer that then. I have run out of material.

There is nothing that I have been able to find on the web about that specific swampy parcel of land which will tell me the soil make up in that exact location. I can only tell what it is in the general area and extrapolate that it is similar there.

Oh, well….

William,

I think you’re getting hung up on the “soil make up”. I’m talking about a PHYSICAL, topographical barrier causing retention between Area A and the well monitoring site.

But you do bring up one of the issues I plan to speak with you about at a later point and that is saturated conditions versus non-saturated conditions.

That point aside, I’m literally saying the lack of full topography between Area A and the well cause us to not know if Area A would drain (surface flow not sub-surface) to the monitoring well location.

Val,

The point is the same. Nothing that I have found will give me the kinds of detail mecessary to dispell this. I have looked at more than a hundred topological maps recently of the area and not one provides the minutia necessary to determine that. I have looked at a bunch of soil studies in the general area, but none from that particular location. I have seen water saturation reports on the watershed during certain storms and the runoff which resulted, but once more not at that particular swampy parcel of land.

I am out of ammunition and I give up.

mecessary/necessary

Well, don’t feel like you’ve been in a shooting contest with me. I’m still reading the hordes of information you’ve shared. And I am moving toward accepting the correlation between the river and the well. I was just trying to clarify that there are two issues at play here.

We have much to do still on this – I believe. Including letting my hydrology/wetland person get through analyzing, and then contacting the Florida person.

When you guys are finished, please write up a water analysis “handbook for dummies”.

I don’t. Just a metaphor.

I mean that I have found nothing and now believe that I will find nothing at the level of detail necessary to answer those last questions on this parcel of land. The only way to really answer it would be to go there with suveyor equipment and check. Although, a detailed enough set of photographs might do just as well.

Yes, there are still things to be figured out.

suveyor/surveyor

I could have said that I have been spit-balling and now I am out of paper and I give up.

William,

Hey dude, thanks so much for putting it in layman’s terms. You just don’t know how grateful I am! South FL is sickeningly low level. I’m a mountain goat out of my element. But anyway, we worry about salt water infiltration something fierce, here. The ecosystem is so fragile, and they are forever digging and draining and dredging and collapsing ground, all for the sake of development. Think it’s time I moved back north, and made a living spit-balling. You cracked me up!! Me suspects that you may be a bit like Val, and never give up until you have the answers. But of course, I could be wrong. Still, great job, William! It’s a double pleasure to have two brains working together, spewing forth information that baffles the mind and challenges one’s iffy intelligence.

Willow

Val:

Found some more paper or ammunition!

This site has enough pictures from the swamp to determine the approximate lay of the land at the swamp for both the area of the well and site A. http://www.myfoxorlando.com/subindex/news/anthony_case

I am now convinced that the well communicates directly with the area A site on both the surface and through surficial groundwater. It is possible to use the aerial photos in the series to find the approximate position of the well and to see all gross ground features between the well and the area A site. There are also more than enough close-up pictures in the series to determine the particulars of ground layout and slope by using the diagram in the report in conjunction with the photographs.

Take a look at the pictures by pulling them into a program which allows you to blow up each one and you will see what I mean (it will take a while – there are lots of them and you have to lay them out using internal cues to figure out where each one fits in the puzzle.)

Yes, I mis-spelled ammo on purpose. For once!!!

Darn! I wrote ammunition instead!!! Oh well….

William,

I clicked on your link, but it’s just taking me to a Fox news page with a bunch of stuff, do you have a more direct link, or possibly the specific name of the page I ought to be looking at?

Thanks.

http://media.myfoxorlando.com/photogalleries/021809remainsfoundOCSOpictures_set1/indexGallery.htm

Change the set number from 1 – 10 and you will have the entire range of pictures to look at.

I’m going to comment first on this study

http://www.stormwater.ucf.edu/FILES/Wanielista%20-%20application%20of%20alternative%20hydrograph.pdf

Okay, first off, this is a different area than where we’re talking about, and it should be noted that within this study the two subcatchments studied, which had a good distance between them and varying topography and soil between the two areas showed marked differences in behavior. So the applicability to our area is in question, but we will go ahead, for the sake of consideration and assume we can apply the conclusions of this paper to our area. Even if we are found in error to do so later. In other words, let’s try it.

Second, we should note that in the study the two subcatchments had been in an “extended period of recession” (i.e. low rainfall, low river levels, low surface water conditions) prior to the initiation of measurements. In fact, in the conclusions this period is described as “exceedingly dry”. This period of recession had resulted in a low storage level in the surficial aquifer at the time this study was initiated, and as the conclusions state may have led to “rapid infiltration” of surface water to the suficial aquifer.

The area we are looking at had not been in such conditions prior to the important dates (August 11th through September 3rd, 2008). So, again, we must take into account this difference between our area and the studied area when applying conclusions, and this difference IS important, and can’t be neglected. Because when looking at surface water movement due to surficial aquifer storage – if the aquifer is full, things act different.

This, the monitoring wells for this study were in RIPARIAN locations with a distance from the river being no greater than 15 meters. The location we are looking at is not considered a riparian location, and has been previously discussed would have drainage characteristics affected by urbanization between it and the Little Econ river. For that reason, we will look at only the FR station monitoring well and conclusions in this paper because it is in a semi-urbanized area compared to the HR station.

Using that logic, which is sound, we look at what they found in the area between the stations HR and FR. Of importance is that they did not find any evidence of the river charging the surficial aquifer (i.e. it was one-way flow to the river). Their findings were that for the rain event (4.29 inches of precipitation) they studied 47% of the river flow was “old water” (i.e. water with a high retention time in the surficial aquifer – had been there already and was pushed out due to hydraulics). 24% of the river was “new water” and that was a result of the combination of surface water run-off to the river from riparian areas and inflow of new water infiltrating down to the surficial aquifer, mixing with old water and issuing into the river.

William!

http://media.myfoxorlando.com/photogalleries/021809remainsfoundOCSOpictures_set1/indexGallery.htm

These are the same pictures I researched, along with the topography map from the autopsy and the 3D animation created by law enforcement in order to try to determine if the area where Caylee was found drained or not. THEY CLEARLY SHOW THE GROUND RISING TO THE SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST!

How can you view these pictures and say you are now convinced that this area drains AT ALL, let alone to the location of the monitoring well – which I dare you to pick out one of these pictures and show me exactly where that well would be. You can’t do it. You have no concept of distance in these pictures to be able to ascertain if the location of the well is even visible (which I challenge it is NOT).

The background topography in ALL of these pictures, along with the 3D animation, shows the ground rising as you move toward where the monitoring well was placed.

I will have to pull all of the pictures into a draw program and lay them out as I see them. The file will be quite large, but I will send it to you once I have it done. I have the pictures laid out on printed paper. It will be a while but I will send it along in email. I am judeging the location of the well based on the diagram and the measurements there-in and doing a little geometry. I do not claim to be exactly in the right place but I will bet I am in the ballpark.

I am also using the diagram to guess at distance in deciding which picture goes where and how far it covers. Granted it entails a lot of guesses, but it is the best that we will get and I believe it is accurate enough to answer your questions. Everything about all of this is based on educational guesses after all.

William,

For the sake of analyzing transport time of water through the aquifer to the river, you’ll need to be looking at Darcy flow through a porous media.

http://www.fuelcellknowledge.org/research_and_analysis/heat_and_mass_transfer/mass_transport_in_porous_media/viscous_flow/viscous_flow.pdf

BTW, one of the two engineering awards I won was in this area. It involved a slew of empirical testing, software modeling and the creation of a predictive neural network for Darcy flow through varying permeable media with a host of changing parameters. To apply the basic Darcy flow is simplistic in approach…there are many HoT’s that affect the actual flow through a permeable zone. But application of the basic Darcy flow equation is acceptable for what we’re doing because we’re just trying to get a ballpark feel for how rapidly the surficial aquifer water would flow to the river. Because if we are going to try to apply infiltration of surface water to the surficial aquifer as an explanation of “where the water went” when it rained on Caylee – we have to establish how quickly the surficial aquifer evacuates to the Little Econ. After all, that IS your argument.

Just because there is a rise in the ground does not mean that you cannot deduce the actions that water will take. It is nonsense that only a depression in relation to the areaA and the well will allow you to discern a relationship between drainage and the well water level. Any way, I do not agree that the ground is rising. I will show that as well. Give me a week or so to pull iot all together and who knows how long to send it once I do. Hope your mail box will accept a big file.

William,

No problem. I’m assuming we have until June to figure this one out. lol

Hey, if the file you create becomes too big to email, just email me on the backside and we’ll work out a different way for you to transfer.

You definitely know more science than me. No question as far as liquids go and many other areas. I may well surprise you on a thing or two as far as my intuition of the pictures goes though.

As for the final math involved in the Darcy equations – I am not going to deal with that. I am starting with the assumption that all of the soil which looks alike is alike. It may not be, but once more I have no way of determining this and the same goes for the physical characteristics there of.

Well, then you and I have reached common ground on one thing. I’m not going to be attempting to crunch the numbers either. For the record, neither did Dr. Jawitz.

I think the main point I’m trying to make is the transport of ground water is a nontrivial issue, and since your argument is that Area A is draining to the monitoring well and the river via this transport mechanism, this nontrivial issue becomes paramount to deciding whether you’re right or I’m right. (With my position being, I don’t think surficial water movement was that big a factor in the drainage of Area A. I think – based on the witness accounts and the saturated conditions of the area, combined with a common sense assumption the surficial aquifer was full and therefore had a significant pore pressure that would retard infiltration of surface water – evaporation and a very very slow infiltration were all that was at play at mitigating standing water at Area A. That is – UNLESS – the missing topography data shows a surface drainage system. Then I’m all wet and Caylee wasn’t.)

Yup.

I do however think that the recent rains did not create a full surficial aquifer since that area of Florida has been in drought for a long time in between these rains from what I have read. I believe that I can establish that the ground does not slant in the direction that you think it does all the way to the well. I also think that there is a step-wise, on again – off again slanting there – kind of like a leveying effect if you will. So that you get local slanting opposite to the actual slanting in some places on the way to the well. At any rate, talking about it now will not convince you so I will pull it all together and then you can decide.

According to my reading of the information provided by Dr. Jawitz:

the well is 65 feet south east from Suburban drive
the well is 68 feet from area A and area A is paralell to Suburban road
therefore the southeatern most segment of area A is straight line measurement 68 feet away
the ground that the well was located on was 1.5 feet lower than the ground at area A

area A is 500 feet from the retention pond shown here set2, photo 50

which then gives you a scale to use in deteremining distance to guess the approximate location of the well in this picture. You also have the autos which you can use to help.

Then you simply have to find as many pictures as you can of the approximate terrain between area A and the computed location of the well.

Agreed?

I sent you an email with my method

The red dot is my calculation of the approximate well location.

I arrive at this as follows:

blow up image 300 percent.

overlay a ruler.

each tick mark on ruler is computed based on dividing distance from
closest point in pond to outermost point in area by 500.

This gives me 18.5 feet per tick mark in my program on my monitor.

I then computed the location of the well based on triangulation from the
information that I know which is 65 feet southeast of suburban drive and
68 feet from south eastern most point of area A. All based on the same
scale of tick marks.

I will need your opinion on this method before I continue to build the humongus file of cropped pictures, since there will be no reason to continue if you do not agree that this gives me a reasonable location for the well.

By the way, I then changed my ruler to a even bigger blow up so that I could compute the area where the well should be. Unfortunately the red mark that I used is so big that it covers about one square tick mark because you could not see it in all of that green otherwise. However, the actual place for the mark is in the center of the red dot.

Anyone looking at this – forget the first calculation and picture since I think that I chose the wrong pond to start from. I am now sending Val a different picture as my starting point and will go from there. I think the retention pond was the one on the other side of the road instead of the one behind the trees that I chose first.

Please be patient. I am waiting on Val to give me her opinion.

Close enough, William. If anything, your red dot is further away than it should be because of errors due to perspective (diminishing distance in pic relative to true distance), etc.

William,

What are your feelings on the retention ponds?

SInce it says on Suburban drive, I think the second one is the correct one. The other one is really not so much ON the drive.

Of course, that means that I chose the wrong one originally and that all of my work so far is kaput! I still think there may be enough pictures to establish things from the new location. We will have to wait and see.

Perspective is a concern, but I have a program that I will check on which may give me a better idea of how far off it is because of that. If it is not too far off then I will go from the dot establlished. If it is, then I will go from where that program tells me it should be.

Either way, It will take a bit longer since I originally printed out pictures based on the wrong pond.

Such is life….

What I was asking, William, is why are the retention ponds retaining water if infiltration is such that it would drain standing water? Are these man-made retention ponds with geomembranes, or what?

The pods are man made – I am not sure how they are made. I know that they are placed at various points along the canals to help keep the all of the flood water from simply rushing down a river and none of it entering the aquifer.

So no membrane, I would think. But I do not know.

pods/ponds

I would bet that they are made so that water seeps out of them slowly to serve as a kind of resevoir for the surficial aquifer. Just a guess.

I see your poijnt though. How could the ponds retain so much water unless the aquifer was topped off. I will have to research that, but I suspect that they are partially clay lined to impede surficial flow until the aquifer is low and then they flow more easily until a vcertain level is reached.

I would think the second retention pond is the correct one if they said on Suburban Drive.

I can tell you one thing for certain after studying all of these pictures in depth, there is no way that the eye witness testimony is meaningful. Before LE pulled out over a ton of vegetation you could not see more than 2 to 3 feet into the swamp anywhere near area A and almost every where else. You could not walk into the woods without tearing down the very vines that LE had to tear down in order to string the grid and you could not see the ground at all, let alone tell where the water started and ended.

If you would like I can point out a few of the pictures that show all of this.

There is no way that the officers or Kronk or anyone else got near area A prior to December 11. there is no way that Kronk could have seen any thing like a skull from the road side of the swamp curtain. It is doubtful that they could have navigated very far into the swamp period since the moss and vines were still intact for these pictures prior to LE tearing and cutting it down. Except in one place where you can see freshly torn branches and where I assume that Kronk went in to the swamp on December 11 before calling the police.

It might be possible to circumnavigate to a point to see area A from the school side and walking laterally down Suburban Drive behind the curtain of moss and branches and vines. Unfortunately, the way the pictures were taken only shows before the big weed-out and after it, but not in the midst of it.

He didn’t see the object from the roadway. He saw it after he walked into the brush.

I’m not real sure it smart to say “there’s no way”. There’s too many people who apparently found a way.

I said unless it was from the side, behind the curtain of moss and branches and vines. Which were not disturbed until LE took them down. That would be the way. But that would mean that there was a lot of dry ground behind there also.

Of course this is just as far as getting in there from Suburban Drive, there is a gate in the fence behind the swamp where you can get in there from the rear by the houses. There is no way to know how many vines and moss were strung every place in the inside of the swamp. It might have been totally different than the outside layer.

Although, there are a lot of indications that LE had to cut a lot of branches on the inside of the swamp as well to move around and collect evidence. You can see freshly broken and cut branches in multiple pictures.

Multiple opictures as in a fairly large number of pictures.

Amyway, I am continuing to study and pull it together and I think that I will still have some interesting things to show you when I get done.

Actually, now that I look at Kronk’s diagram it appears that is what he did. He walked in from the school side behind the first layer of moss and branches and vines.

I have never seen a LE animation. Where did you find that at?

Here is the 3D video:

http://www.wftv.com/video/20321952/index.html

And here are some frames from it:

http://www.wftv.com/slideshow/news/20318602/detail.html

I concede defeat on this issue. I can determine some of the terrain from the video and still pictures that I could find, but not enough to be sure of how water sheds 65 feet away from area A. The helicopter pictures do give me glimpses of the ground in the approximate location of the well, but they do not give me access to the ground all the way between area A and the well.

I have learned some things during the exercise:

1.) area A is seperated from area B by 18 inches
2.) area F is seperated from area A by 7 feet, 4 inches
3.) there are land features between the well and area A which include dips and rises.
4.) these contours are independent of the general slope of the land as there is a bit of a valley heading perpendicular away from Suburban drive.

The 3d animation is very good. Thanks for telling me where that was. I agree that it is not possible to tell key points necessary to validate D. Jawitz` findings.

Your site has been a bit of a lark for me, but …

Take care and good journey thorugh life.

No need to concede, William. We’re actually not trying to determine on our own if he is wrong or not, but attempting to see if we can validate. Which at this point, I don’t think we can. I am still going to go through the steps agreed upon (i.e. to wait for the expert I went to to respond and then contact the person you gave me info on in Florida).

Your last comment sounds as though you are leaving us. I hope you will continue to stop by occasionally and input, because I have enjoyed the awesome work you’ve done and the way you may me look at things from a different perspective.

In case you don’t – I have enjoyed our conversation and Godspeed to you!

I would miss you William. But if you don’t come back, thanks for keeping it interesting while you were here.

PS:

I still can’t get properly focused enough to evaluate what you two guys have been writing about back and forth on this thread, lol.

If you want your own copy of the crime scene fly though video you can download it using firefox
here: http://vid.trb.com/orlnews/video/2009/8/7/ANTHONYS/Anthonys.flv

If you do not use that browser, then you can instead search for wget for your OS and install it. then put the following in a file using a text editor:

http://vid.trb.com/orlnews/video/2009/8/7/ANTHONYS/Anthonys.flv

Then just run wget against that file and viola! you will have your own copy of this video downloaded. The video is about 28 meg.

Assuming the 3D animation to be generally accurate, I have taken the video into a video editing program and captured enough still frames to garner the best perspective of ground features between area A and the likely placement of the Jawitz well. What at first appears to be land features which block water flow, are actually shadow gradients meant to depict depth changes. There does not appear to be any land features depicted in this video which would cause discontinuity between the well location and area A with respect to surface flow.

How did I choose the approximate location of the well? Good question. I did it using internal points of reference combined with the knowledge that area A is 18 inches from area B and that area F is 7 feet 4 inches from area A.

Granted that I will have some perspective errors but I should have been in the ballpark on well location. The only real question is whether the video accurately reflects the lay of the land outside of the central land mass which contains the area of interest to LE. On this, I have nothing on which to base an opinion. Given the method that they used in producing the video through perpendicular shots along the ground at other locations in the woods, I think it likely that the depiction is fairly accurate throughout. There is no way to really know this though….

There are features which force flow around them in various places in the video, but in each case there appears to be no actual blockage of the flow which would cause backup pooling at area A and a dearth of surface water flow to the approximate well location. The place is rampant with gullies and rivulet channels throughout and this seems likely to give flow paths to the water to get it from area A to the augured well hole.

I am satisfied that water would flow more or less continuously between the two points so long as the inundation remained sufficiently high.

Coupling this with the information on drought (which undoubtedly challenges your original assumptions on the stream flow ion study), I think that it is reasonable to find that there is a high degree of connectivity between the well and area A across the surface of the land and through the surficial aquifer (providing that all of the 3d video reflects the land accurately). I also believe that it is reasonable to find that there is correlation between the well and the river. I, therefore, deduce that Caylee was not all wet….

Oh – do you need a towel?

Just kidding about you being all wet – couldn’t resist. I have no clue if this all means anything since I would first have to verify that the entire 3d video is realistic. I may try to do that though. I might be able to find some contact information on the authors.

I may very well need one, William! Thanks for the awesome efforts you have put into this. I was not able to ever view the fly-over video (not sure what I’m being stupid about on that).

Great work, and thank you.

Decided to address your post about this study a bit further http://www.stormwater.ucf.edu/FILES/Wanielista%20-%20application%20of%20alternative%20hydrograph.pdf .

It is true that the location of this study is not the same as the location of the area A swamp, however, it is part of the same river system and part of the sub-catchments used in the study are actually within a few miles of our swamp of interest. The ground in the study should be fairly similar to the ground at our swamp of interest as well and the piezometrics of the two areas should be nearly the same under similar circumstances (this is confirmed by looking at data collected in the study and data collected at the Little Econ over multiple years), which means that water should be flowing predominately into the river and the depth of the river provides an indication of water volume which has moved surficially during a given period of time. that is to say, there is a correlation between the current river volume and the current surficial aquifer flow conditions and fullness.

The OCOC is for all intents and purposes an extension of the Little Econ which abuts our swamp of concern, making these riparian surface features in nature, if not in actuality. I would challenge one to cite a difference between abutment of a small river and abutment of the OCOC.

So, it is not so far a stretch to apply this study directly to our area of concern. At least not in my opinion. Especially when the period of time that we are interested in is at least as dry as the droughts were in the 1990s, and probably more so.

this is mostly for anyone else besides Val.

The piezometrics of the two areas (actually three since there are two sub-catchments in the one study and they are separated by a significant distance) should be the same since the water table is about the same in Seminole and Orange county and the confinements on the surficial aquifers are at about the same general depth and the surface material capping the areas are made of approximately the same materials. It would make sense that the pressure being applied would be equivalent under these relatively similar circumstances.

Of course the study in question is mostly concerned with the amount of new surficial water finding it’s way into the river during a particular storm instead of over-all surficial flow into the river and the amount of connectivity that exists between the river and the surficial aquifer. Still, it does give us a ballpark feel for what might exist between the Little Econ and the surficial aquifer by way of the OCOC and direct surficial flows.

» William Hill said: { Jan 4, 2010 – 06:01:28 }

this is mostly for anyone else besides Val.

For some reason I’m feeling very left out.

Sorry, but that is what you get for being a science brain!

Hey, William, did you get my email about the pictures?

sorry, can’t resist…

What’s this William Hill? After all of our Holiday baked goods, are you saying that everyone besides Val needs to hit the gym for Piezometrics? Jeeze…I’m having enough aches and pains from the Pilates!

Next you’ll be telling us about Torte reform…

Just now got it and I am answering it.

Oh, my! I’m not ever going to get so busy that I miss a few days, not ever again, and even because in being away I missed the possibility of you’re leaving us, William, even though you didn’t leave, it sounded like you were going to; and we would indeed surely miss you.

Willow

8O

Wow…

Thank you for all that info. I may not understamd more than half of it but I enjoy reading it!

Val.

You might try getting the file that I posted about above and running it straight through your movie player software. It should work with most of them. I could probably help you figure out what is wrong with your browser setup, but hardly seems worth it since you can do it this way. Unless you simply want to get it working, then it might be worth it.

Using the latest google earth info, I just went in to see what level of detail I could get at the location of the swamp for the dump site and the lay of the land between there and the well site. There is substantial agreement between google earth portrayal of the surface features and the ones used in the fly through video, including the rivulets and run-off channels in the area.

I am going to call this one verified at this point since I doubt that I will get better confirmation than this that the fly through video is an accurate portrayal of the land features throughout the range of interest. I doubt that google earth and the ocso used the same data set to produce their topography depictions, so I am considering this as a two source verification. One by camera work of forensic field technicians and the other by detailed satellite research, and over-flight data, using infra-red, ultraviolet, and visual spectrums to piece together the information.

8) 8O

This link, posted by Kari on the Lee Anthony: “He knows what he has done.” thread,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQTTrHTfkJA has additional proof that there was no water inundation during the searching in August. According to Mr. Drew Tate, he walked into a lower dry river bed by the wooden fence and followed this river bed for some distance.

» squishy said: { Dec 23, 2009 – 10:12:02 }

When Caylee was found there was a young male who lived in the neighborhood who walked through his wooded area behind his home and got close enough to video tape some of the police activity going on at the time.

» earmark said: { Dec 23, 2009 – 02:12:34 }

http://www.wesh.com/video/18256239/index.html