The Tube of Blood

SweetCaroline · Jan 13, 2016

I just finished Episode 4 and kinda skimmed these threads before jumping in to comment on something that bugged me, so please forgive me if this has already been discussed. At the end of Episode 4, Avery's attorneys are looking through the evidence box and find a tube of blood. They get all excited because there's a needle-sized hole in the rubber stopper of the tube. One of the lawyers even says that he spoke with someone at LabCorp who said they don't do that. I work for LabCorp, drawing blood, and have for many years. I can tell you that this is untrue. The way the blood gets into the tube in the first place is that the needle is double-ended, but the bottom end is covered with a plastic hub. The top end of the needle punctures the skin, then when the tube is popped in, the bottom part punctures the rubber top of the tube. So any tube with blood in it should have a hole like that in the top.

Sorry, I just had to say something because that was bothering me! Lol. Back to watching...

missy1974 · Jan 13, 2016

thanks SweetCaroline! I didn't think it was that out of the ordinary either. Hubby has to go for blood work today.... think I might have to go with him LOL

norest4thewicked · Jan 13, 2016

SweetCaroline said:
I just finished Episode 4 and kinda skimmed these threads before jumping in to comment on something that bugged me, so please forgive me if this has already been discussed. At the end of Episode 4, Avery's attorneys are looking through the evidence box and find a tube of blood. They get all excited because there's a needle-sized hole in the rubber stopper of the tube. One of the lawyers even says that he spoke with someone at LabCorp who said they don't do that. I work for LabCorp, drawing blood, and have for many years. I can tell you that this is untrue. The way the blood gets into the tube in the first place is that the needle is double-ended, but the bottom end is covered with a plastic hub. The top end of the needle punctures the skin, then when the tube is popped in, the bottom part punctures the rubber top of the tube. So any tube with blood in it should have a hole like that in the top.

Sorry, I just had to say something because that was bothering me! Lol. Back to watching...

This is true ^^^^^ And, then, there is the little detail about the preservative in the blood and how it looks after so many years compared to the fresh blood that was found in the vehicle. I would say that for me, this is the most compelling piece of evidence that points to his guilt.

Jaiddie · Jan 13, 2016

SweetCaroline said:
I just finished Episode 4 and kinda skimmed these threads before jumping in to comment on something that bugged me, so please forgive me if this has already been discussed. At the end of Episode 4, Avery's attorneys are looking through the evidence box and find a tube of blood. They get all excited because there's a needle-sized hole in the rubber stopper of the tube. One of the lawyers even says that he spoke with someone at LabCorp who said they don't do that. I work for LabCorp, drawing blood, and have for many years. I can tell you that this is untrue. The way the blood gets into the tube in the first place is that the needle is double-ended, but the bottom end is covered with a plastic hub. The top end of the needle punctures the skin, then when the tube is popped in, the bottom part punctures the rubber top of the tube. So any tube with blood in it should have a hole like that in the top.

Sorry, I just had to say something because that was bothering me! Lol. Back to watching...

For me, it wasn't so much the hole in the vial that drew my suspicion, as it was that the BOX had obviously been tampered with. There is suposed to be a chain of custody where if someone had legitimate reasons for opening it, they would have had to use official LE procedures to seal it back up again (time, date, etc...) instead of just slapping a piece of scotch tape over it and calling it a day.

Tawny · Jan 13, 2016

Jaiddie said:
For me, it wasn't so much the hole in the vial that drew my suspicion, as it was that the BOX had obviously been tampered with. There is suposed to be a chain of custody where if someone had legitimate reasons for opening it, they would have had to use official LE procedures to seal it back up again (time, date, etc...) instead of just slapping a piece of scotch tape over it and calling it a day.

MaxManning · Jan 13, 2016

SweetCaroline said:
I just finished Episode 4 and kinda skimmed these threads before jumping in to comment on something that bugged me, so please forgive me if this has already been discussed. At the end of Episode 4, Avery's attorneys are looking through the evidence box and find a tube of blood. They get all excited because there's a needle-sized hole in the rubber stopper of the tube. One of the lawyers even says that he spoke with someone at LabCorp who said they don't do that. I work for LabCorp, drawing blood, and have for many years. I can tell you that this is untrue. The way the blood gets into the tube in the first place is that the needle is double-ended, but the bottom end is covered with a plastic hub. The top end of the needle punctures the skin, then when the tube is popped in, the bottom part punctures the rubber top of the tube. So any tube with blood in it should have a hole like that in the top.

Sorry, I just had to say something because that was bothering me! Lol. Back to watching...

Yes, this is one of the main reasons I said that I felt manipulated. Because how is it reasonable for the documentary crew to spend all the time explaining this aspect as being evidence of a plant, then.... not explain how it was impossible to get blood in the tube without that hole.

Surely they can see that leaving that out has an emotional impact on people accepting a plant was possible -- even Strang was as elated as we ever seen him in the documentary.

So, if anyone has a chance to chat with those documentary people about how they felt they were fair and not manipulative, that's the one that should be brought up straightaway. That was one of the first things I researched and it gave me a bad feeling to know I had drank that kool-aid.

Yes, possibly tampering on the box etc. I get it. But the needle hole was a big deal in my mind, until I researched it.

MaxManning · Jan 13, 2016

Jaiddie said:
For me, it wasn't so much the hole in the vial that drew my suspicion, as it was that the BOX had obviously been tampered with. There is suposed to be a chain of custody where if someone had legitimate reasons for opening it, they would have had to use official LE procedures to seal it back up again (time, date, etc...) instead of just slapping a piece of scotch tape over it and calling it a day.

Honestly, my take on the box appearing to be tampered with, is that everyone is human. Sure it's suspicious, but if they opened that box and there was no tube with a hole in the top, would it have had the same effect ? naw.

To be fair, you gotta go through that evidence room and look at if anything else could look as if it was tampered with, and get an idea of how common that might be and consider if someone being careless at their job is nefarious.

Clearly Strang was more elated by the hole than the box having evidence consistent with tampering. I understand why!

But once a jury hears that there is no way that blood gets in the tube without the hole, now the box part can be sold as human error of a clerk. Which, if we are honest, is indeed plausible. My bet is that in trial, they didn't even mention the hole as being suspicious, because the jury would feel the same letdown as I did -- and then be less likely to believe them about the box tampering.

maybe they did present the hole to jury as they did to us ? trial transcripts will reveal that. Then that might shed light on why jury didn't take the tampering as seriously after feeling that letdown.

SoBeCzar · Jan 13, 2016

SweetCaroline said:
I just finished Episode 4 and kinda skimmed these threads before jumping in to comment on something that bugged me, so please forgive me if this has already been discussed. At the end of Episode 4, Avery's attorneys are looking through the evidence box and find a tube of blood. They get all excited because there's a needle-sized hole in the rubber stopper of the tube. One of the lawyers even says that he spoke with someone at LabCorp who said they don't do that. I work for LabCorp, drawing blood, and have for many years. I can tell you that this is untrue. The way the blood gets into the tube in the first place is that the needle is double-ended, but the bottom end is covered with a plastic hub. The top end of the needle punctures the skin, then when the tube is popped in, the bottom part punctures the rubber top of the tube. So any tube with blood in it should have a hole like that in the top.

Sorry, I just had to say something because that was bothering me! Lol. Back to watching...

The blood is drawn into a vacuum tube and then capped. It is not kept in a syringe like you have a photo of here. You don't put a cap on the tube and then poke a a needle thru it to put the blood in. The defense asked about the process and were told there should never be a hole in the cap. Why put a cap on it to protect it from contamination or evaparation and puncture it? That makes no sense.

colette · Jan 13, 2016

The vacuum tube (blood tube) already has the cap on it, that is the way it comes. Then you stick the tube up into the plastic holder with the smaller needle inside and the vacuum helps the blood flow into the tube. You can take the rubber top off but then you loose the vacuum. This method allows the person drawing the blood to change tubes for different tests without moving the needle that is in the patients arm. If someone wanted to take blood from this tube without making an extra hole they could just go into the same hole. Which to me did look a little big, like it had been re-punctured. Also the blood did look in good shape when they showed the tube. It was nice and red and very liquid.

MaxManning · Jan 13, 2016

colette said:
The vacuum tube (blood tube) already has the cap on it, that is the way it comes. Then you stick the tube up into the plastic holder with the smaller needle inside and the vacuum helps the blood flow into the tube. You can take the rubber top off but then you loose the vacuum. This method allows the person drawing the blood to change tubes for different tests without moving the needle that is in the patients arm. If someone wanted to take blood from this tube without making an extra hole they could just go into the same hole. Which to me did look a little big, like it had been re-punctured. Also the blood did look in good shape when they showed the tube. It was nice and red and very liquid.

So you agree the presence of the hole means nothing. It looking a "little big" is an observation, is there is any way to tell if it had been re-punctured ? I would suppose not, or we'd have heard that.

But interested more in what you say about the blood -- it looks in good shape. What might you glean from that ? in terms of whether it was used to plant blood evidence or not ?

SoBeCzar · Jan 13, 2016

Ok I understand that description. The cap was lavender which I searched and is used for EDTA tubes. In the documentary the defense stated the asked about the process and was told there should never be a hole in the cap. I would think a cap without a hole would be used for storage. I will try to google that one. But now I understand why everyone is more troubled about the broken seals on the box. Thanks!

Thanks colette and SweetCaroline for getting this thru my thick skull.lol

MysticJynx · Jan 13, 2016

MaxManning said:
Yes, this is one of the main reasons I said that I felt manipulated. Because how is it reasonable for the documentary crew to spend all the time explaining this aspect as being evidence of a plant, then.... not explain how it was impossible to get blood in the tube without that hole.

Surely they can see that leaving that out has an emotional impact on people accepting a plant was possible -- even Strang was as elated as we ever seen him in the documentary.

So, if anyone has a chance to chat with those documentary people about how they felt they were fair and not manipulative, that's the one that should be brought up straightaway. That was one of the first things I researched and it gave me a bad feeling to know I had drank that kool-aid.

Yes, possibly tampering on the box etc. I get it. But the needle hole was a big deal in my mind, until I researched it.

I'm Curious What is the difference between the two toppers? For long time storing would they use the same stopper that they used to get the blood in there. Seems one is for retrieving blood to get in the vial the first one. and the second is to long time store it air tight. So again what is the difference between the two toppers? Would they really store a blood tube container with a hole in the top for 10 years?

SoBeCzar · Jan 13, 2016

What got my son and I was when LE told SA they had his blood and he said you've taken so much I am surprised I have any left. Could recent blood he had drawn have been used to tamper with evidence? This documentary makes me question everything about this case.

SoBeCzar · Jan 13, 2016

MysticJynx said:
I'm Curious What is the difference between the two toppers? For long time storing would they use the same stopper that they used to get the blood in there. Seems one is for retrieving blood to get in the vial the first one. and the second is to long time store it air tight. So again what is the difference between the two toppers? Would they really store a blood tube container with a hole in the top for 10 years?

Now we can go back and see if we can identify which one it was!

Tawny · Jan 13, 2016

SoBeCzar said:
What got my son and I was when LE told SA they had his blood and he said you've taken so much I am surprised I have any left. Could recent blood he had drawn have been used to tamper with evidence? This documentary makes me question everything about this case.

That was a really weird comment to me too. We only saw one vial, how much of his blood was taken over the years?

SoBeCzar · Jan 13, 2016

The stopper is at 1:03:43 episode 4 named indefensible. It is not the stopper for retrieving blood. It is the one you would use for storage.

MysticJynx · Jan 13, 2016

SoBeCzar said:
Now we can go back and see if we can identify which one it was!

The topper shown in the series is the rubber topper to the right. the one I would think they use for storage. but I'm not expert im just wondering myself. I have to find that other picture someone posted of a vial with the same top and it did not have a noticable hole in the top. Should have saved that.

colette · Jan 13, 2016

MaxManning said:
So you agree the presence of the hole means nothing. It looking a "little big" is an observation, is there is any way to tell if it had been re-punctured ? I would suppose not, or we'd have heard that.

But interested more in what you say about the blood -- it looks in good shape. What might you glean from that ? in terms of whether it was used to plant blood evidence or not ?

I was thinking the blood was not clotted or thick, it could easily be used to smear. It would not take much to put blood in several places being that it was so liquid, IMO. Not sure about what tube tops they use for legal storage of blood for the courts. The rubbery looking top just looks like most vacu type tubes I have seen in my nursing career.

colette · Jan 13, 2016

MysticJynx said:
The topper shown in the series is the rubber topper to the right. the one I would think they use for storage. but I'm not expert im just wondering myself. I have to find that other picture someone posted of a vial with the same top and it did not have a noticable hole in the top. Should have saved that.

Usually you don't see the hole in the rubber top after you draw blood, it is very small and kinda closes up. That is why I was thinking the hole had been made bigger by someone putting another needle in it.

Madeleine74 · Jan 13, 2016

When was that blood drawn? How old was the blood in the vial by Oct 30, 2005?

The Tube of Blood

Active Member

Well-Known Member

True Crime Writer

Active Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Just Sayin'

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Just Sayin'

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Knower of Things

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics