The Tube of Blood

New Posts

Madeleine74 said:
When was that blood drawn? How old was the blood in the vial by Oct 30, 2005?
Click to expand...

Believe the vial of blood was put into evidence in 1996.


seems like they want you to take the needle out when transferring blood into another vial. Remember they could not just take blood from him into the purple vial. the blood had to be measured and put into that purple vial with the Edta.


"Syringe draws are acceptable, however, it is important to add the blood to the appropriate
volume of anticoagulant within one minute of completion of the draw and adequately mix the
specimen. A small volume syringe is recommended (<20 mL) as clotting may occur with larger
volume syringes during the collection procedure. When transferring the blood to the appropriate
evacuated containers, the needle should be removed following safety procedures, a transfer
device applied to the syringe and the diaphragm of the rubber tube stopper punctured to allow the
evacuated tube to flow slowly into the tube.
The blood should never be forced into an evacuated
tube by exerting pressure on the syringe plunger. Hemolysis may result, potentially alt
ering the
results, or the topper may pop off, spraying blood.
http://www.esoterix.com/sites/defau...Coagulation Special Collection Procedures.pdf
 
9+ year old blood in an EDTA tube... hmmmm.... If it were fresh blood, maybe, but by any reasonable standard that's old blood.
 
MaxManning said:
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.
Click to expand...

BBM - was this the same clerk whose husband was a juror? Just asking....
 
MysticJynx said:
Believe the vial of blood was put into evidence in 1996.


seems like they want you to take the needle out when transferring blood into another vial. Remember they could not just take blood from him into the purple vial. the blood had to be measured and put into that purple vial with the Edta.


"Syringe draws are acceptable, however, it is important to add the blood to the appropriate
volume of anticoagulant within one minute of completion of the draw and adequately mix the
specimen. A small volume syringe is recommended (<20 mL) as clotting may occur with larger
volume syringes during the collection procedure. When transferring the blood to the appropriate
evacuated containers, the needle should be removed following safety procedures, a transfer
device applied to the syringe and the diaphragm of the rubber tube stopper punctured to allow the
evacuated tube to flow slowly into the tube.
The blood should never be forced into an evacuated
tube by exerting pressure on the syringe plunger. Hemolysis may result, potentially alt
ering the
results, or the topper may pop off, spraying blood.
http://www.esoterix.com/sites/defau...Coagulation Special Collection Procedures.pdf
Click to expand...

I have mentioned this before, will mention again in hopes you or someone else might know.

You mention the blood has to be measured. How precise is that measurement ?
Is that measurement logged ?

Is there a log for any removal of blood from the tube ? if so is there any kind of measurement of how much is removed ? how precise ?

Point being -- if that blood was taken and measured in 1996, shouldn't we be able to tell if the same amount of blood is in the vial or not ?
 
Madeleine74 said:
9+ year old blood in an EDTA tube... hmmmm.... If it were fresh blood, maybe, but by any reasonable standard that's old blood.
Click to expand...

But what does that mean ?

That's the point. If we can't measure the amount of time that the blood in the rav4 was outside of avery's body, we can't determine if it came from the tube or not.

Someone on older thread mentioned the consistency of old blood, and colette has now again mentioned the look of the blood. So I am interested if someone with expertise in blood, can at minimum make an observation based on the visual appearance of the blood in the tube and the visual appearance of the blood in the rav4 -- taking into account the time it likely was exposed to that environment.

I am assuming that no one can do that, because I would expect that it'd be mentioned by now. So when people bring up the appearance of the blood, I'm trying to understand if it's helpful at all ?


So it's been in a tube... it's been well preserved... maybe it hasn't... But the bottom line is, is there something that can distinguish between the blood in the rav4 and the blood in the vial. If everything getting mentioned cannot be used for that purpose, it's nice to know knowledge, but not relevant to draw any conclusions.

Unless someone is suggesting that the blood in there was removed and NEW blood was added. But why ? Open to hearing a theory such as this and why.

I am interested in the larger hole observation. But given my very shallow knowledge on the subject, it'd be nice to have a few people with knowledge agree that it's consistent with removal of blood or maybe consistent with just another type of equipment used to collect the blood ? I have no idea why the hole would be larger when removing blood than when taking blood. As someone with no knowledge, I'd assume they'd be the same size. But I don't trust that, given how little I know!
 
MaxManning said:
I have mentioned this before, will mention again in hopes you or someone else might know.

You mention the blood has to be measured. How precise is that measurement ?
Is that measurement logged ?

Is there a log for any removal of blood from the tube ? if so is there any kind of measurement of how much is removed ? how precise ?

Point being -- if that blood was taken and measured in 1996, shouldn't we be able to tell if the same amount of blood is in the vial or not ?
Click to expand...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/n0l9x5mor...UTF-8''Exhibit 435 FBI EDTA analysis.PDF?dl=0

that is a report from the FBI about the EDTA results. If I am reading it correctly, it contained approximately 5.5ml of blood (in a 10 ml vial).
I don't know if there is a log somewhere, or maybe written on the vial, of how much was in it originally. I did come across something that said any blood needed for testing would be very small, would be interesting to know how much blood was in it when it was taken originally.
 
MaxManning said:
I don't know. I am not saying there was no tampering, but just saying that human error is also plausible.

I am also saying that if any evidence of tampering exists, questioning and investigating how that happened should be a valid response. So if that led to discovering a clerk of a juror or anyone else that might seem suspicious, sure I think you look even further.

My mention of human error being plausible, was by no means a suggestion to look the other way and not question and investigate. I'd be open to hearing from who drew the blood or whoever was last person in that evidence via a log or something to testify if that hole existed, and if they recalled the evidence of tampering. Also whether they were certain they properly sealed the evidence.

I think that should all be the very minimum based on what we know.
Click to expand...

Looks like that "box" may have been kicked around enough to have some tape slapped on it. You know.....keeping it handy until a victim of some sort showed up.

moo
 
missy1974 said:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/n0l9x5mor...UTF-8''Exhibit 435 FBI EDTA analysis.PDF?dl=0

that is a report from the FBI about the EDTA results. If I am reading it correctly, it contained approximately 5.5ml of blood (in a 10 ml vial).
I don't know if there is a log somewhere, or maybe written on the vial, of how much was in it originally. I did come across something that said any blood needed for testing would be very small, would be interesting to know how much blood was in it when it was taken originally.
Click to expand...

The amount needed testing is irrelevant. It's the amount of blood found in the Rav4. It's likely that samples of the blood found was taken for the tests, so the tested amount is likely drastically less than the amount of actual blood found.
 
MaxManning said:
The amount needed testing is irrelevant. It's the amount of blood found in the Rav4. It's likely that samples of the blood found was taken for the tests, so the tested amount is likely drastically less than the amount of actual blood found.
Click to expand...

lol I guess I should have made my point more clear. If any of that blood was used for testing before the FBI testing, it wasn't much. So knowing the amount that was drawn back in 96 would be helpful to know how much (if any) was missing. I don't know how much is typically drawn to be kept in a vial that size. I agree with you.... I would like to see and learn more! but we do know according to the FBI dude that approximately 5.5ml was in that vial in 2007 when he tested it ;-)

or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are wondering? LOL
 
missy1974 said:
lol I guess I should have made my point more clear. If any of that blood was used for testing before the FBI testing, it wasn't much. So knowing the amount that was drawn back in 96 would be helpful to know how much (if any) was missing. I don't know how much is typically drawn to be kept in a vial that size. I agree with you.... I would like to see and learn more! but we do know according to the FBI dude that approximately 5.5ml was in that vial in 2007 when he tested it ;-)

or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are wondering? LOL
Click to expand...

I'm saying :

Suppose 5.5ml was in the tube in 1996, and an estimated .5 ml of avery blood was found in rav4

Then if we measure and find 5ml remaining in the tube NOW, math tells me that we need to understand why the amount of blood found in the rav4 is the same amount missing from the tube.

right ?

That would be awfully suspicious. Just don't know how precise these measurements are, for both collection of blood from a person and collection from rav4.

Do they have a measurement of how much blood they found ? One we could see as reliable?
 
Why are people thinking any blood removed had to be taken out with a needle? I'm thinking the lid could have been popped off and the blood accessed with a cotton bud.

I noted in an earlier thread someone said the blood in the car was lighter in colour (looked fresher) than the blood in the vial. My observation on this is that we can't tell from the photographs the real colour of the blood in the car. I tried to sell a red coat once and it was impossible to get a photo of it showing the correct shade of red. It was dark red and looked orangey-red in the pictures, even photographed outside in natural light.
 
Was checking out this article today -- http://www.convolutedbrian.com/photographs-through-tinted-automobile-windows.html

Was hoping that maybe there's some crazy chance that it'd be possible for their to be photos through the rav4 windows before it was opened.

Significance would be that we'd expect to see the blood stains that were attributed to Steve Avery.

Most believe that the planting would likely happen before it arrived at the scene, others believe that it could have happened after. Would be nice to rule out the latter if possible.

In reading about what would be possible to see through the windows, based on the tinting, Brian also mentions the curious aspect of why they wouldn't open the vehicle immediately.

If she was still a missing person at this point, and you can't see in the car, wouldn't you want to get inside to look for clues to lead you to her if she is still alive ?

Why was it believed at this point, that she had to be dead ? One good answer would be , if you knew she was dead and the rav4 was empty.

As pointed out in this article, it seems there was greater concern about the door not being opened, than gleaning information on a missing person.

Yes, I do think this is suspicious.

Will have to check trial transcripts when they get released to maybe get a better explanation. But seems clear to me that If I thought there was a possibility she was alive, I'd open the door immediately.
 
Tortoise said:
Why are people thinking any blood removed had to be taken out with a needle? I'm thinking the lid could have been popped off and the blood accessed with a cotton bud.

I noted in an earlier thread someone said the blood in the car was lighter in colour (looked fresher) than the blood in the vial. My observation on this is that we can't tell from the photographs the real colour of the blood in the car. I tried to sell a red coat once and it was impossible to get a photo of it showing the correct shade of red. It was dark red and looked orangey-red in the pictures, even photographed outside in natural light.
Click to expand...

I don't think any one is assuming that. It's just a discussion about the protocol of taking blood, removing blood, and the equipment involved in the case of this blood. Certainly, they could open the tube, pour out blood or whatever. But if the tube and the stopper match what lab experts would expect, that's the first test, right ? Proving it was opened would seem to be a far larger task than proving what you see doesn't match the protocol.

In terms of visually gleaning relevant information about the blood, I'd trust a expert before myself! So I am interested in people with experience dealing with blood might say about anything regarding that blood. But on the other hand, all of it is moot, unless there is a means of proving it's the same blood from the tube. I don't think "It looks like the same color/consistency" is gonna cut it in court.
 
When you draw blood from a person using a vacutainer, (typically like what is done to every person that has blood drawn in a lab), the blood vial will fill up automatically to replace the amount of vacuum air in the vial. If the patient's BP is low, or we don't have access to a good vein, smaller amounts are drawn. We usually can tell how much the lab will need for testing by looking at it.

The end of the CBC purple top looked as though someone had used a syringe to draw blood and inject it via a large gauge needle into the CBC tube and perhaps multiple blood vials for testing. I have done this a lot over the years, especially when the femoral vein or subclavian vein is accessed, but in an ICU or ER setting. I can't think of why they would have done that in this case if the blood draw was a routine one.
 
I want to know if they were taking new blood from the most recent arrest, as SA said they had taken so much he was surprised he didn't have any left, why was the blood in evidence from 3/13/96 checked on? Where was the blood evidence they were taking at the time? That would help me a lot. Also the evidence box from the crime he was exonerated from only contained one vial. They said the expected boxes of evidence. And I would have expected more than one vial to have been stored in the styrofoam container since it was very large. Also possible hair or something.
 
I spoke with the head of the lab where I used to work and asked her about the EDTA in CBC vials. She said the hospital lab keeps the blood specimen refrigerated for a week at the most and then it is tossed.

I have never seen blood that was 9 years old still in a blood vial. I would imagine all preservatives would have broken down over time by that point, if it was stored as it appeared on the video.

I was not bothered by the blood on the cap as I have sent specimens looking like that to the lab. What bothered me was the broken seal on the evidence box that was scotch taped over with no regard.

Also, the lab tech that did the DNA testing and testified, really messed up. By adding her own DNA, the test was moot. Inconclusive. To say otherwise is totally unprofessional and unethical according to my lab rat friends. IMOO
 
SoBeCzar said:
I want to know if they were taking new blood from the most recent arrest, as SA said they had taken so much he was surprised he didn't have any left, why was the blood in evidence from 3/13/96 checked on? Where was the blood evidence they were taking at the time? That would help me a lot. Also the evidence box from the crime he was exonerated from only contained one vial. They said the expected boxes of evidence. And I would have expected more than one vial to have been stored in the styrofoam container since it was very large. Also possible hair or something.
Click to expand...

Did you think that blood looked kinda fresh? It did to me, and I thought I misheard them say it was from 1996. I am not normally into conspiracy, but wow. Something sure is not right.
 
Thank you!
tortoise said:
why are people thinking any blood removed had to be taken out with a needle? I'm thinking the lid could have been popped off and the blood accessed with a cotton bud.

I noted in an earlier thread someone said the blood in the car was lighter in colour (looked fresher) than the blood in the vial. My observation on this is that we can't tell from the photographs the real colour of the blood in the car. I tried to sell a red coat once and it was impossible to get a photo of it showing the correct shade of red. It was dark red and looked orangey-red in the pictures, even photographed outside in natural light.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 195 more.
Total: 3,414 (members: 196, guests: 3,218)

Online statistics

Members online
196
Guests online
3,218
Total visitors
3,414
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,210
Messages
17,965,206
Members
228,720
Latest member
CourtandSims4
Back
Top