Good find, DBrow.
I’m SURE that one of the Anthony family members could have manufactured the brew of chloroform, as they seem to be brainiacs. /heavy sarc
Wasn’t a car from a junk yard also tested and showed traces of chloroform? Wasn’t it revealed that things like clothes washing detergents would also prove positive for chloroform?
Is it any wonder that the jury discounted that fantasy forensic junk presented by the Prosecution?
So here is the simple solution to your traces statement. If in fact that traces are evident in those items you mentioned, then is it also assumed that traces of the rest of those compounds were found? No mention of that now was there?
“Is it any wonder that the jury discounted that fantasy forensic junk presented by the Prosecution?”
That’s my point. The jury hears ONLY the trial material and must decide based on that.
The rest of us hear SOME of the trial, and the other 90% of input is TV analysis, Internet posts, endless speculation (o thin data) from talk radio and the pop press.
I was very surprised to hear that a hair sample showed “signs of decomposition”, for example. I read the Journal of Forensics every other month and have never heard of that particular item.
And say I asked you to sniff something, would you say “gee, that smells like chloroform”? If so, might I ask when you smelled a reference sample? In other words, since chloroform has been tightly regulated for some time now, when would you have had a chance to smell real chloroform to know what a car in a tow impound smelled like?