DNA: What does the evidence say?

[BigCityAccountant]

Think that is the cherry pepsi can.

NO, under the console. It looks like it could be a key to me.

 

[missy1974]

NO, under the console. It looks like it could be a key to me.

Hey BCA I think mystic is right... it's the can. You can see it from the other view. I see what you see.... but it's the bottom of the can because it's sitting in the cup holder and there is a space at the bottom where you can see a portion of the can.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Hey back at ya!

No, I was talking about under the cup holder. But ok--I see it now from the picture you posted. The cup holder is a slide out and not a "built-in" cupholder. So, it is hovering a 1/4" or 1/2" above the "built in" console portion where the gear shift is.

 

[missy1974]

Yep BCA... they took such terrible photo's that I had to look at a few before I was sure because I could see where you would see "a key"

It don't matter.... we know they got the key from the middle console before they took the pics hahahaha Just kidding... well ... not really LOL ;-)

 

[shadowraiths]

FBI admits flaws in hair analysis over decades

The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.

Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project, which are assisting the government with the country’s largest post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.

The cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death. Of those, 14 have been executed or died in prison, the groups said under an agreement with the government to release results after the review of the first 200 convictions.​

Washington Post

 

[dexter75]

What a scary place it is today.

We trust so many, only later to read articles such as this.

Not to mention there ARE the GOOD men & women at work who have nothing but THE best of intentions! SMH

FBI admits flaws in hair analysis over decades

The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.

Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project, which are assisting the government with the country’s largest post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.

The cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death. Of those, 14 have been executed or died in prison, the groups said under an agreement with the government to release results after the review of the first 200 convictions.​

Washington Post

 

[missy1974]

Defendants Motion for Order Allowing Access to Prior Court File

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...Order-Allowing-Access-to-Prior-Court-File.pdf

This is the motion asking the courts to seal the file and allow access to the defense, along with the state and court, to open the box with the vial. There are some other documents attached to the motion.

One that I was interested in was from LabCorp, where it is stated they consumed 1ml of the blood sample. I have not been able to find how much blood is supposed to be or is typically drawn into the 10ml lavender topped EDTA vial. I have looked everywhere! LOL I have read that the proper amounts must be drawn so the EDTA levels are correct, but what is the proper amount? *sigh* I have also read that the vacuum part of it is designed to draw the proper amount of blood. So was it 8ml? 7ml? 9ml? that was originally drawn... It has been one of those things that has frustrated me, might have to take a trip to the hospital lab some day LOL

Anyway... they consumed 1ml, and the FBI noted 5.5 ml's when they received the vial. I would like to know how many ml's of blood was in that vial to begin with.

 

[Sarah]

Anyway... they consumed 1ml, and the FBI noted 5.5 ml's when they received the vial. I would like to know how many ml's of blood was in that vial to begin with.

Wow! I don't know how you're managing to get through all these documents and keep on top of everything.
I'm reading, reading, reading . . . trying to fit my normal life around it . . . and still not really making a dent in it LOL

I'd love to know the answer to that too - it's the one thing that would really make me sit back and reconsider my position on this case.
Of course, the other spanner in the works is that 10 years is a long time and I have no idea how much evaporation could be expected over that period.

 

[missy1974]

LOL Sarah I have given up on reading "everything", there is just so much! But because of the formats of the documents, "find" is your friend!!!
The vial of blood has always bothered me, so it sticks out to me. 5.5ml of blood seemed so low in a 10ml vial, so when I read that LabCorp noted they consumed 1ml..... 6.5 still seems low to me. I have not found and do not think that it is noted anywhere the volume of blood that was taken originally in 1996. *sigh* And I can't find how much blood would normally be drawn into a 10ml vial anywhere, including the manufacturer's site! It just says take the proper amounts or whatever so that it has the proper EDTA levels. I have read that they are made to draw the proper amounts, because of the 'vacuum'.

I don't know about evaporation, but since the blood was "fresh", I'm assuming it's because it was sealed well, which would decrease chances of evaporation.

Should also be noted that Nick Stahlke testified that his estimated amount of blood for all the stains in the RAV4 would be 1-2ml's (not including TH's blood) Day 12 pages 26/27. I went looking for the testimony again just now, and I read something that I found odd and stuck out to me ....

A. About the only thing I can tell you is that a natural stain would -- or a drop of blood contains about a .05 milliliters.

so if a natural drop of blood is .05ml, and there were 6 .... that should have been .30ml's, but he estimates it was 1-2ml's.

So, if we have a 10ml vial. There was 5.5ml when the FBI got it, LabCorp writes that they consumed 1ml, and Stahlke testifies to estimating 1-2ml of SA blood in the RAV4.... we have at most 8.5ml of blood total if adding them all. Unreasonable? I don't know.

 

[Sarah]

8.5ml doesn't sound unreasonable to me, but I really don't know either.
It's one area that I'd like to see investigated further - either to knock the whole planted blood scenario on the head once and for all or to prove conclusively that it was put there as part of a frame up.
Whichever way it went would be a pivotal factor in the case for me.

The only reference point I have for evaporation are those old ink cartridge refills for fountain pens.
When we last moved house, I found a few at the back of a drawer - I can't remember the last time I used a fountain pen so they must have been 12/15 years old.
They're probably as well sealed as you can get, but still most of the ink had evaporated away.

I know that EDTA acts as an anti-coagulant in order to preserve samples, but would it have any impact on evaporation?
What I'd really like to see is a comparison with another vial of a similar age in order to compare volumes.
In fact I'd also really like to see a repeat of the EDTA test on a known sample from a similarly aged vial as a control.
(I don't want much do I?!?!)

The maths with the volumes is tantalising, but I just don't understand enough to draw any conclusion about it at the moment.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

LOL Sarah I have given up on reading "everything", there is just so much! But because of the formats of the documents, "find" is your friend!!!
The vial of blood has always bothered me, so it sticks out to me. 5.5ml of blood seemed so low in a 10ml vial, so when I read that LabCorp noted they consumed 1ml..... 6.5 still seems low to me. I have not found and do not think that it is noted anywhere the volume of blood that was taken originally in 1996. *sigh* And I can't find how much blood would normally be drawn into a 10ml vial anywhere, including the manufacturer's site! It just says take the proper amounts or whatever so that it has the proper EDTA levels. I have read that they are made to draw the proper amounts, because of the 'vacuum'.

I don't know about evaporation, but since the blood was "fresh", I'm assuming it's because it was sealed well, which would decrease chances of evaporation.

Should also be noted that Nick Stahlke testified that his estimated amount of blood for all the stains in the RAV4 would be 1-2ml's (not including TH's blood) Day 12 pages 26/27. I went looking for the testimony again just now, and I read something that I found odd and stuck out to me ....

A. About the only thing I can tell you is that a natural stain would -- or a drop of blood contains about a .05 milliliters.

so if a natural drop of blood is .05ml, and there were 6 .... that should have been .30ml's, but he estimates it was 1-2ml's.

So, if we have a 10ml vial. There was 5.5ml when the FBI got it, LabCorp writes that they consumed 1ml, and Stahlke testifies to estimating 1-2ml of SA blood in the RAV4.... we have at most 8.5ml of blood total if adding them all. Unreasonable? I don't know.

Chiming in here...

I don't think you will find a "standard" amount of blood drawn. Everyone's veins are different, thus for one person the tech might be able to draw 10 ml, but for another with poor veins, they might only be able to drawn 4 ml. It all depends on the person. The best chance of finding out how much was really draw at that point, would be to go back to the original blood draw paperwork and see if the lab tech wrote it down. If she/he didn't--you will never know...

...and geez--I cannot type...for forgive my typos...LOL

 

[missy1974]

Pretty sure we will never know how much was in there. But there is a standard... and they have to have a certain amount so the additives have the proper concentration levels, in this case EDTA.

I have wondered if the FBI tests that were done on the vial, and the concentration levels of EDTA, could give us an indication of the original amount, but I'm not sure.

It's just one of those things that drives me crazy. And really.... maybe they should be marking or noting how much blood was drawn, so it doesn't drive me crazy, geesh LOL

 

[Justiceseeker35]

Does anyone know or if there's any documents showing that when the FBI received the charred shin bone with tissue on it for DNA analysis.. did they ever conclusively match the DNA to TH? Or did they only "rely" on SC (good and truthful) testimony/reports that it matched the partial profile from her pap test?

 

[missy1974]

I read your post earlier, and I finally found the FBI lab results Justiceseeker!

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...osure-of-Potentially-Exculpatory-Evidence.pdf

I have to say... I am a bit confused about Page 6 of that document.... November 2?



by the way... there is quite the discussion going on 'elsewhere' about the fbi/culhane/item BZ (charred remains)

 

[BigCityAccountant]

I read your post earlier, and I finally found the FBI lab results Justiceseeker!

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...osure-of-Potentially-Exculpatory-Evidence.pdf

I have to say... I am a bit confused about Page 6 of that document.... November 2?

by the way... there is quite the discussion going on 'elsewhere' about the fbi/culhane/item BZ (charred remains)

2006 not 2005

 

[missy1974]

ohhhhhhh thanks BCA! I was just glancing at before I posted it and when I saw the 2nd, I was like huh? LOL

going back and looking at the document... they were looking for mtDNA in more bones, which they were unable to do. I wonder what made them send more bones to the FBI at that time? And it does say something about the DNA generated at the time would be packaged and sent back.

Geesh... their reports are as confusing as CH's LOL

 

[Justiceseeker35]

ohhhhhhh thanks BCA! I was just glancing at before I posted it and when I saw the 2nd, I was like huh? LOL

going back and looking at the document... they were looking for mtDNA in more bones, which they were unable to do. I wonder what made them send more bones to the FBI at that time? And it does say something about the DNA generated at the time would be packaged and sent back.

Geesh... their reports are as confusing as CH's LOL

Yes, I have read through the item BZ controversy on Reddit. Sheesh everyone in this whole trial seems to have an agenda. My big glaring problem with this item BZ is that SC (state crime lab dna analyst) was supposedly taking tissue samples from this charred bone and conclusively matching the DNA from the bone tissue to the DNA of TH's pap test. While all the while this bone fragment BZ was already boxed, taped up and shipped by Dr. Eisenburg to the FBI. Dr. Eisenberg has photos and a chain of custody. SC does not have photos or a chain of custody just a report that says she did this dna testing. Dr. Eisenberg states at trial the state crime lab didn't have the bones. Soooo here we are back again doubting her (SC) credibility. We know she botched the bullet testing (used the sample up, no retests, contaminated the control), we know she had some issues with being intoxicated at work. Do we know she actually tested item BZ??? If the SUV is at the State crime lab then she has access to TH's blood. Just saying... (memos from investigators directing her about what the evidence should show) The FBI only does a mtDNA test. Why couldn't they do the DNA profile match? IS SC a better DNA analyst???

 

[missy1974]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/making-murderer-steven-avery-freedom-7535824

the mirror has picked up the story... and embellished it (like they do haha) the 4th picture shows what the poster at reddit brought up. You can click through and see all her pictures of relevant testimony, etc.

I was going to try to do a summary of it earlier and then got sidetracked, so I'm glad they put it out there LOL

The only thing that I would add to the "story" is that the picture that SC references as the bone with muscle tissue attached is part of the powerpoint presentation, and it does get admitted as exhibit 338, but that photo is cropped from Exhibit 385, which is a photo that Dr. Eisenberg took herself to document what exactly she was sending to the FBI before she sent it.

And I think the point of the original post was... when exactly did SC take her samples, labelled as BZ, if Dr. Eisenberg received the bones on November 10th, examined them, and then sent some (including the bone with charred muscle tissue) to the FBI. She is very clear in both trials that she sent them to the FBI, not the Crime Lab where SC works.

 

[Justiceseeker35]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/making-murderer-steven-avery-freedom-7535824

the mirror has picked up the story... and embellished it (like they do haha) the 4th picture shows what the poster at reddit brought up. You can click through and see all her pictures of relevant testimony, etc.

I was going to try to do a summary of it earlier and then got sidetracked, so I'm glad they put it out there LOL

The only thing that I would add to the "story" is that the picture that SC references as the bone with muscle tissue attached is part of the powerpoint presentation, and it does get admitted as exhibit 338, but that photo is cropped from Exhibit 385, which is a photo that Dr. Eisenberg took herself to document what exactly she was sending to the FBI before she sent it.

And I think the point of the original post was... when exactly did SC take her samples, labelled as BZ, if Dr. Eisenberg received the bones on November 10th, examined them, and then sent some (including the bone with charred muscle tissue) to the FBI. She is very clear in both trials that she sent them to the FBI, not the Crime Lab where SC works.

Lets say she was under intense pressure to lie about this conclusive match, now we have to question all her DNA matches in this case. Kratz's email to her alluded to her responsibility in getting SA an exoneration in the rape case. Could she have felt intense guilt? Especially if she thinks he's guilty of murder.

 

[Madeleine74]

IF one is at the point where there isn't a single piece of evidence or witness that can be believed, it's probably time to give up on this case, because if the allegation is that everyone except the defendant is lying or has an agenda, that's just not going to fly. It's akin to thinking a calculator's results have to be double checked because the multiplication can't be trusted. The mind can conjure up all kinds of scenarios but the test is not how creative one can be, but is there evidence of that occurring and is it a reasonable doubt based on something other than imagination.