Differences in the GCMS Test of the Trunk Carpet Sample Taken from Casey Anthonys Sunfire Done by Dr.

Rickenbach and the GCMS Test Done by Drs. Vass and Wise
The GCMS test of the carpet from the trunk of Casey Anthonys car done by Dr. Rickenbach in no way negates or disproves the test done by Dr. Vass and Dr. Wise because they are two different kinds of test. The Vass and Wise test was a quantitative test while Rickenbachs test was a qualitative test. Rickenbach's test measured the mere presence of chloroform in the carpet sample while the test done by Vass and Wise measured levels of compounds present in a similar sample. In addition to being different kinds of tests, the way the samples are handled is different for each test. For the quantitative test, the samples are handled in such a way to preserve the amounts of compounds present in the sample at the time of collection, and they are preserved in airtight cans; in addition, the tester creates an external standard in order to accurately identify quantities. For the qualitative test, a sample is NOT preserved in an airtight container because the test is not performed to find levels of compounds, only what compounds are present; in addition, the tester creates an internal standard rather than an external standard. The internal standard used by Rickenbach, is merely a negative and positive control for the tester to ensure that the GCMS is working correctly; the negative control is just running the GCMS with nothing in it to ensure that it does not detect the compound when it should not while the positive control is running the GCMS with a known sample of the compound to ensure that the GCMS will detect it when it should. Rickenbach testified that he was not qualified to speak about levels of chloroform because that is not the kind of test he did. He also said that he was surprised to find any chloroform at all. This is why the jury had to go over the evidence and why those who think she is not guilty need to do so as well because those who think that Rickenbach's test in some way refuted the Vass and Wise test are just plain wrong.

External and Internal GCMS Standards

External standards come from an outside company whose main goal is to produce standards for use by any person at any place in the world. Any 'errors' they have in their standards will be seen by many people and they will make purchasers of those standards aware of any contamination. So while external standards can save people a LOT of time and provide more accurate/confident results, they are fairly expensive. An Internal Standard is made by the people who are using the GC/MS machine themselves. The purity of the standard can vary on a day to day basis depending on who made the standard, what glassware they used, what bottle of chemicals they used, etc. etc. Also, the 'error' of said standard isn't really known. It's MUCH cheaper to use an internal standard, but the accuracy of your results suffer. The term standard in chromatography is employed in two ways. It can be used to describe a reference substance, the retention time of which is compared with the retention time of an unknown substance for identification purposes. Alternatively, it can be used to provide a reference peak height or peak area which can be compared with the peak heights or areas of the substances of interest to provide quantitative information. A standard employed in either application can be used in two ways, either as an internal standard or as an external standard. An internal standard is added as a known quantity to the sample itself, but must be chosen so that it is adequately resolved from its neighbors so that accurate measurements can be made. By using a synthetic sample mixture the response factors of the solutes of interest and the internal standard can be determined. Then, from the retention of the standard and the retention ratios of the solutes of interest to the standard, the identity of the components of interest can be confirmed. From the peak heights or areas of the standard and those of the solutes of interest the amount present of each solute

of interest can also be assessed. The external standard is used when a suitable internal standard that can be separated from the components of the mixture can not be selected. In this case the external standard is run as a separate chromatogram under exactly the same conditions. The properties of the standard from the separate chromatogram are then compared with the properties of the solutes in the chromatogram of the mixture. In general, analyses obtained by employing an internal standard provide more accurate results than those employing an external standard. http://www.chromatography-online.org/topics/standard.html Another reference is at the following link, but there are a variety of articles on the internet that explain the difference between the two standards. http://books.google.com/books?id=xnWg1uM94TEC&pg=PA401&lpg=PA401&dq=gcms+external+intern al+standard&source=bl&ots=NrRzm3dPkJ&sig=7725spzr2CAcxF5g2mCPTTK6Uo&hl=en&ei=0e2QTveFCcjp0QG008VR&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=res ult&resnum=9&sqi=2&ved=0CHkQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false

A Simplified Analogy
Okay, for those who still dont get it, I am going to make it as simple as possible. You wake up in the morning, look out your window and see an overcast sky. You notice some puddles an inch or of an inch deep. As you gaze out the window, you know that it rained over night because there are puddles of water on the ground. You then wonder how much rain fell while you were asleep during the night, but this is not the first time you wondered about this. The last time you did was before you went to bed last night. You knew it was going to rain during the night, so you got yourself a 12-inch long plastic cylinder, marked off each inch from the bottom to the top of the cylinder, and placed it in an open space in your yard. You then retrieve the cylinder from the yard, and when you look at it, you see that the water level in the cylinder is 3 inches. This tells you, with an instrument that was designed to give you specific quantitative data, that the amount of rain that fell over night was 3 inches. Now, in this analogy, looking out your window is a qualitative test of the weather; its raining. There are some shallow puddles on the ground that tell you that it rained, but they dont tell you how much it rained because puddles are not designed to tell you the quantity of rainfall. This is similar to the QUALITATIVE test of the carpet sample with the GCMS. This test only indicates what compounds are present in the sample because the test is not designed to give information about the quantities of compounds in the sample, just as looking out your window can tell you what kind of weather is present without telling you how much weather there actually was. The cylinder that was placed in the yard overnight gives you specific quantitative data about the rain, how much it rained over night, because that is what it is designed to do. This is similar to the QUANTITATIVE test that was done of the carpet sample; it provides QUANTITIES of compounds in the sample because that is what it is designed to do, just as the marked cylinder is designed to tell you how much rain fell over night. The puddles show that it rained, not how much, because they are not designed to do that. The rain captured in the cylinder proves how much it rained because that is what it is designed to do. Do the shallow puddles you saw looking out your window contradict the quantitative data that you got from the cylinder? Of course they dont because the puddles were not designed to give quantitative data; they can provide qualitative data about the weather but not quantitative data about the weather. It is the same with the GCMS tests; the QUALITATIVE GCMS test does NOT contradict the QUANTITATIVE GCMS test because the former IS NOT designed to measure quantities while the latter test IS designed to measure quantities.

News Articles Pertaining to Dr. Rickenbachs Testimony

Rickenbach said chloroform is a volatile substance that doesn't stay around long. He told prosecutor Jeff Ashton he would have expected the chloroform to dissipate by the time the fabric was tested. "I was surprised to even get any results for chloroform," he said. http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-06-07/news/os-casey-anthony-trial-day-12-20110607_1_anthonycase-chloroform-casey-anthony ================================================ WFTV-Channel 9s Steve Barrett highlighted the testimony of Dr. Michael Rickenbach, an FBI forensics chemist. Rickenbach said he was very surprised to even get a result for chloroform from a carpet sample from Anthonys car. (The sample had been packed in non-airtight box.) http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2011/06/casey-anthony-less-coughing-in-courtand-fewer-notes-too.html ================================================ Rickenbach, however, did not want to offer specific levels, saying it would not be appropriate because he conducted qualitative testing, confirming chloroform's presence, rather than quantitative testing, which would detect its level. Under questioning from prosecutor Jeff Ashton, Rickenbach said the samples were sent to him in a cardboard box, not a sealed container, which could have allowed some of the chloroform to evaporate, lowering the levels present. Having the car trunk open for a time might also lower the levels, he said. http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/07/forensic-chemist-police-dog-handler-take-stand-in-caseyanthony-trial/ ================================================ On Tuesday, Dr. Michael Rickenbach, an FBI forensics expert testified at the Casey Anthony trial, noting he was surprised to detect chloroform emanating from evidence taken from Casey's car trunk. Baez cross-examined Rickenbach, attempting to discredit the technology used to identify the various chemicals found in the trunk of Casey's car. Rickenbach, however, remained steadfast that chloroform was found inside the trunk a constant theme among the testimony of prosecution experts during the trial. Residues of chloroform were detected on that specimen, said Rickenbach, referring to a carpet sample taken from the trunk. Although during cross-examination Rickenbach conceded that the he did not find the chloroform levels high, on re-direct the prosecution clarified through testimony that the sample was packaged in a manner that chloroform would have dissipated.

Rickenbach noted that in essence, he was very surprised to even detect chloroform. http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-national/fbi-expert-testifies-at-casey-anthony-trial-surprised-atpresence-of-chloroform ================================================ Rickenbach, however, said he was surprised to have gotten any result at all. Normally, the chloroform would have evaporated. He also said the tire cover was sent to him in a cardboard box, which was not airtight, and would allow chloroform to leak out of it. http://www.baynews9.com/article/news/2011/june/258201/ ================================================ During cross examination, Baez attacked the technology used to identify the chemicals found in Casey's trunk. But Rickenbach insisted that one questionable chemical was inside the trunk. "Residues of chloroform were detected on that specimen," said Rickenbach. Baez asked if the level of chloroform was high and Rickenbach said, "No." However, prosecutors questioned him about how the carpet sample was packaged, in a non-airtight box which would have allowed chloroform to dissipate. "I was very surprised to even detect chloroform," Rickenbach said. http://www.wftv.com/news/28153797/detail.html ================================================ Dr. Michael Rickenbach, who works for the FBI, said he was "surprised" to find the chloroform residue because the chemical is volatile and dissipates quickly. He said he found chloroform residue on a spare tire cover and signs of a chemical that could be chloroform on the trunk liner http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/06/07/Chemist-Chloroform-traces-found-in-trunk/UPI40501307479625/ ================================================ Rickenbach said the chloroform levels were not exceptionally high, but he was surprised to find any chloroform at all, saying it is not something he typically finds. http://www.clickorlando.com/news/28154764/detail.html ================================================ Prosecutors also called Dr. Michael Rickenbach, a forensic chemist examiner with the FBI, who told jurors he was surprised that residue of chloroform was detected on fabric from a spare tire cover taken from the trunk.

Rickenbach said chloroform is a volatile substance that doesn't stay around long. He told prosecutor Jeff Ashton he would have expected the chloroform to dissipate by the time the fabric was tested. "I was surprised to even get any results for chloroform," he said. http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/casey-anthony-trial-jurors-hear-testimony-focusing-on-1523421.html ================================================ Video of Rickenbach's testimony http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-national/fbi-expert-dr-michael-rickenbach-testifies-on-june-7-2011about-chloroform-found-casey-anthony-s-trunk-video Transcription of that testimony http://www.scribd.com/doc/65945894/Rick-en-Bach-Testimony