The Tube of Blood

[oceanblueeyes]

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...

Thank you so much for your informative post.

I am coming in late on this particular thread so this question may have already been asked.

Doesn't the manufacturers of the empty blood vials used for drawing blood from anyone already coat the vial with an additive that prevents the blood from coagulating? If there isn't an additive in the vial doesn't the blood begin to coagulate and breakdown pretty quickly?

So if this vial in question was already coated with an additive before taking his blood then why didn't the lawyers have their experts test to see if the additive was present?

If the blood was indeed planted then all they would have had to do is examine the blood taken from her vehicle that belonged to Avery to see if the coagulating additive was also present. Even a defense lawyer fresh out of law school would know to check and see if it had the additive.

TIA

 

[SweetCaroline]

Thank you so much for your informative post.

I am coming in late on this particular thread so this question may have already been asked.

Doesn't the manufacturers of the empty blood vials used for drawing blood from anyone already coat the vial with an additive that prevents the blood from coagulating? If there isn't an additive in the vial doesn't the blood begin to coagulate and breakdown pretty quickly?

So if this vial in question was already coated with an additive before taking his blood then why didn't the lawyers have their experts test to see if the additive was present?

If the blood was indeed planted then all they would have had to do is examine the blood taken from her vehicle that belonged to Avery to see if the coagulating additive was also present. Even a defense lawyer fresh out of law school would know to check and see if it had the additive.

TIA

I'm still catching up on the series, so I'm not sure that the blood found in the van was not tested for EDTA. Yes, each tube has a different additive (or no additive) which is indicated by the color of the top of the tube. The lavender tube has potassium EDTA, which prevents clotting and preserves it. Like someone else said, in the medical field we don't keep blood more than a week. So I'm not sure how well-preserved blood would be after that many years.

I also agree that it's possible the top could've been popped off and blood removed that way. I'm not saying evidence wasn't planted, because I don't know. My only point was that the fact there was a hole in the top of the tube, doesn't prove it was tampered with. HTH.

 

[bessie]

Thank you so much for your informative post.

I am coming in late on this particular thread so this question may have already been asked.

Doesn't the manufacturers of the empty blood vials used for drawing blood from anyone already coat the vial with an additive that prevents the blood from coagulating? If there isn't an additive in the vial doesn't the blood begin to coagulate and breakdown pretty quickly?

So if this vial in question was already coated with an additive before taking his blood then why didn't the lawyers have their experts test to see if the additive was present?

If the blood was indeed planted then all they would have had to do is examine the blood taken from her vehicle that belonged to Avery to see if the coagulating additive was also present. Even a defense lawyer fresh out of law school would know to check and see if it had the additive.

TIA

My question in this case would be not what effect EDTA has on a blood sample, but how long is EDTA itself detectable? Admittedly, I might have missed the answer if it was posted early on. :lookingitup:

 

[Soulmagent]

Nurse was to testify she punctured Avery blood vial; experts say holes common.

http://mobile.onmilwaukee.com/movies/articles/makingamudererbloodvial.html

There is a photo of a document and it shows only part of it but number 13 on the list was deemed to be cross contamination due to the person collecting the samples not changing his gloves before processing TH's truck ,after processing SA's Grand Am.

 

[Madeleine74]

"Furthermore, the documentary makes a big deal of the seal being broken on the vial's packaging (it was kept in the Manitowoc County Clerk of Courts office and was evidence related to Avery’s earlier wrongful conviction case for a sexual assault). However, a review of court records in the case shows that the court was told by the defense that then Manitowoc County DA E. James Fitzgerald and members of Avery’s defense team met and opened packages of evidence in the 1985 court file with the court’s approval to determine what to send out for additional tests. On June 19, 2002 at 12:25 p.m., Fitzgerald opened the box with the blood vial in it and closed it again two minutes later."

 

[Soulmagent]

"Furthermore, the documentary makes a big deal of the seal being broken on the vial's packaging (it was kept in the Manitowoc County Clerk of Courts office and was evidence related to Avery’s earlier wrongful conviction case for a sexual assault). However, a review of court records in the case shows that the court was told by the defense that then Manitowoc County DA E. James Fitzgerald and members of Avery’s defense team met and opened packages of evidence in the 1985 court file with the court’s approval to determine what to send out for additional tests. On June 19, 2002 at 12:25 p.m., Fitzgerald opened the box with the blood vial in it and closed it again two minutes later."

What I am failing to get is ,why the 1996 vile of blood is the one referred to when the box is the 1985 evidence box.

Anyway another snip from the article

In his closing argument, the defense attorney said, "The vial of blood has a hole – what appeared to be …a hole in the middle right there, which is where professionals would gain access to the blood if they need it." They then said the vial topper was "taken off."

This matched the testimony of an FBI expert who had said the vial’s top was taken off. However, this is the same expert the defense tried to discredit for testifying that the EDTA present in the blood vial was not present in the Avery blood found throughout Teresa Halbach’s car.

So the needle hole is covered but the top was taken off.

 

[SoBeCzar]

I'm still catching up on the series, so I'm not sure that the blood found in the van was not tested for EDTA. Yes, each tube has a different additive (or no additive) which is indicated by the color of the top of the tube. The lavender tube has potassium EDTA, which prevents clotting and preserves it. Like someone else said, in the medical field we don't keep blood more than a week. So I'm not sure how well-preserved blood would be after that many years.

I also agree that it's possible the top could've been popped off and blood removed that way. I'm not saying evidence wasn't planted, because I don't know. My only point was that the fact there was a hole in the top of the tube, doesn't prove it was tampered with. HTH.

This question is directed toward the latter part of your comment. You say the fact that a hole was in the top doesn't prove it was tampered with. Since the box had been opened and just scotched taped over doesn't that mean the evidence should be considered tampered with? There is no new seal placed and dated or signature of who accessed it. We cannot possibly know who or why the seal was broken and what was done with the blood. Or are you just speaking of your thoughts towards the tube itself?

 

[Soulmagent]

The posted link also has this quote in it about the scotched tape.

The defense was trying to point out the seal was already broken so someone could have easily accessed the vial later. They said it had just Scotch tape reapplied, but when they opened it for review, it was sealed with nothing – including no tape.

 

[Madeleine74]

And that box was opened for review in 2002, over 3 years before the murder.

Could be this vial of blood is actually much ado about nothing.

 

[kelthesleuth]

Phlebotomist here. The purple top/ EDTA sample is for strong anticoagulation , used for full blood count and blood films. I can't find any consensus on how long a sample lasts and in what condition they are kept in to maintain freshness? But this was apparently a 10 year old sample and it was still fresh/liquid, I assume this was important to Buting because it meant it was still usable (for planting).

It is very likely the hole is the original hole of entry into the blood bottle when the blood was taken, blood is taken using a vacutainer and needle, blood is collected through a vacuum so there is no air entry (prevents coagulation) in the tube, that's why it is maintained for however long with the EDTA in there, it is still possible to say it is easy to retrace the old hole with a new one but it's much easier to say that it is the phlebotomy drawing hole. It makes perfect sense to say that the hole is the original drawing hole and that labcorp didn't test on the sample as it was retained for the case file therefore it didn't need any further testing hence why it was all packaged up? I can't think why anyone would flip the lid off a blood bottle to syringe somebodies blood from them and into it, not in the 21st century western world. I know Buting got excited that LabCorp states they don't make holes in bottles but then they don't take the blood from the person? A phlebotomist does that. However, I had thought that labs inserted needles in to samples when they need to obtain blood for testing so maybe this is not how it's done? But I would have thought flipping off the lid on that sample would have affected the sample eg. caused coagulation.

I thought it was more significant about the 'tampered' box but now I've seen the post on page 3 - that an MC DA opened it in 2002 - that may explain the packaging.

Slightly separate issue but I wonder what human rights grounds SA would have had regarding the blood sample remaining in his case file after 2003 as he was acquitted of the rape. I know in the UK it takes 3 years for the data (not sure on actual samples) to be destroyed and that's when someone hasn't been convicted, but it is a special case being acquitted after conviction.

 

[Soulmagent]

Phlebotomist here. The purple top/ EDTA sample is for strong anticoagulation , used for full blood count and blood films. I can't find any consensus on how long a sample lasts and in what condition they are kept in to maintain freshness? But this was apparently a 10 year old sample and it was still fresh/liquid, I assume this was important to Buting because it meant it was still usable (for planting).

It is very likely the hole is the original hole of entry into the blood bottle when the blood was taken, blood is taken using a vacutainer and needle, blood is collected through a vacuum so there is no air entry (prevents coagulation) in the tube, that's why it is maintained for however long with the EDTA in there, it is still possible to say it is easy to retrace the old hole with a new one but it's much easier to say that it is the phlebotomy drawing hole. It makes perfect sense to say that the hole is the original drawing hole and that labcorp didn't test on the sample as it was retained for the case file therefore it didn't need any further testing hence why it was all packaged up? I can't think why anyone would flip the lid off a blood bottle to syringe somebodies blood from them and into it, not in the 21st century western world. I know Buting got excited that LabCorp states they don't make holes in bottles but then they don't take the blood from the person? A phlebotomist does that. However, I had thought that labs inserted needles in to samples when they need to obtain blood for testing so maybe this is not how it's done? But I would have thought flipping off the lid on that sample would have affected the sample eg. caused coagulation.

I thought it was more significant about the 'tampered' box but now I've seen the post on page 3 - that an MC DA opened it in 2002 - that may explain the packaging.

Slightly separate issue but I wonder what human rights grounds SA would have had regarding the blood sample remaining in his case file after 2003 as he was acquitted of the rape. I know in the UK it takes 3 years for the data (not sure on actual samples) to be destroyed and that's when someone hasn't been convicted, but it is a special case being acquitted after conviction.

See that was another issue I thought of.
The evidence when he was proven innocent should have been disposed of ,was there other items that were not as well? Or did they just save this one box?
Also I had thought when his case went to the high courts ,all his evidence followed him to that court , maybe a lawyer can answer that .

 

[Really?]

:welcome:.............kelthesleuth....thanks for your input.

In regards to the evidence being "kept" I think they hung onto it for a reason....aaaaaannnd they jumped at the chance to use it.

 

[kelthesleuth]

See that was another issue I thought of.
The evidence when he was proven innocent should have been disposed of ,was there other items that were not as well? Or did they just save this one box?
Also I had thought when his case went to the high courts ,all his evidence followed him to that court , maybe a lawyer can answer that .

Agree, I would be interested to hear an explanation on these points.

 

[missy1974]

Ok, so if the evidence tape was cut and scotch taped back up in 2002... why not have Fitzgerald testify to that?

IIRC Lenk was linked to that evidence box as being the last one to 'sign' for it, does anyone remember when that was? I looked online and I just can't find it, but I'm sure it was in the documentary. Just curious to know the date.

 

[MaxManning]

Phlebotomist here. The purple top/ EDTA sample is for strong anticoagulation , used for full blood count and blood films. I can't find any consensus on how long a sample lasts and in what condition they are kept in to maintain freshness? But this was apparently a 10 year old sample and it was still fresh/liquid, I assume this was important to Buting because it meant it was still usable (for planting).

It is very likely the hole is the original hole of entry into the blood bottle when the blood was taken, blood is taken using a vacutainer and needle, blood is collected through a vacuum so there is no air entry (prevents coagulation) in the tube, that's why it is maintained for however long with the EDTA in there, it is still possible to say it is easy to retrace the old hole with a new one but it's much easier to say that it is the phlebotomy drawing hole. It makes perfect sense to say that the hole is the original drawing hole and that labcorp didn't test on the sample as it was retained for the case file therefore it didn't need any further testing hence why it was all packaged up? I can't think why anyone would flip the lid off a blood bottle to syringe somebodies blood from them and into it, not in the 21st century western world. I know Buting got excited that LabCorp states they don't make holes in bottles but then they don't take the blood from the person? A phlebotomist does that. However, I had thought that labs inserted needles in to samples when they need to obtain blood for testing so maybe this is not how it's done? But I would have thought flipping off the lid on that sample would have affected the sample eg. caused coagulation.

I thought it was more significant about the 'tampered' box but now I've seen the post on page 3 - that an MC DA opened it in 2002 - that may explain the packaging.

Slightly separate issue but I wonder what human rights grounds SA would have had regarding the blood sample remaining in his case file after 2003 as he was acquitted of the rape. I know in the UK it takes 3 years for the data (not sure on actual samples) to be destroyed and that's when someone hasn't been convicted, but it is a special case being acquitted after conviction.

What about the size of the hole ? I am going to admit that I am confused by so many aspects of this tube of blood, as I have heard so many different people that I concede have far more knowledge than I about these things, say seemingly conflicting things. Maybe they are all saying consistent things and my understanding is deeply flawed

But someone mentioned the size of the hole as being odd, in that it was larger than she'd expect and lead us to believe that another needle was used to draw blood from that tube, after it was collected.

Does the size of the hole suggest anything other than you'd expect ? does it suggest that blood was taken and not removed from the tube ? or does it suggest that blood was taken and then some removed later possibly ?

Or does it suggest nothing to you ? haha


From what I can gather, the tube had EDTA - which I don't think was EVER disputed, and was widely regarded as fact. It makes sense why they used EDTA as well. So, I get the point that the blood at the crime scene could appear the same as blood that has been preserved with EDTA.

My opinion based on all the expert analysis is that there is no way to confirm that the blood in the rav4 came from the tube or that it didn't come from the tube. There is no expert analysis that says they are sure of that. The prosecution expert after being asked the right questions admits that the absence of EDTA detection in their test, doesn't mean the blood doesn't have EDTA in it. Just that their test is not precise enough to say that definitively.

It's like taking a pregnancy test before it can be detected via that test. The fact that you can take a pregnancy test BEFORE it's detectable and it doesn't show you as pregnant, doesn't mean you aren't pregnant. Just means that the test itself has a minimum threshold of detection for whatever chemistry involved right ? - same thing ?

So we are back to the tube/stopper itself and the packaging as to possibly determine if tampering might have happened. right ?

So is there anything you can glean from that tube/stopper/packaging that might exclude a given theory -- blood was removed or blood wasn't removed ?

 

[kelthesleuth]

Thank you too ...Really?... :happydance:

I can't see the reason for why they would keep it for so long or not acquire a new one if needed. If it was frozen it would have kept but I'm not sure for how long, probably years with the preservative in there too but if it ran as perfect as liquid in the bottle like it did in the footage, it would have needed to be thawed beforehand but it seemed as though it had been stored in the case file box all that time?

 

[kelthesleuth]

Ok, so if the evidence tape was cut and scotch taped back up in 2002... why not have Fitzgerald testify to that?

IIRC Lenk was linked to that evidence box as being the last one to 'sign' for it, does anyone remember when that was? I looked online and I just can't find it, but I'm sure it was in the documentary. Just curious to know the date.

I think it was 2001/2002?

 

[missy1974]

I found the answer to my own question..... in episode 4 they show the opening of the box. The transmittal form that goes with the evidence in 2002 to the crime lab is filled out by Sgt. Lenk (detective at the time).
So when evidence is opened or seals are broken, do they not have to put a new seal on it??? and if they didn't, why not just say it. Either way, it allows for the possibility that anyone had access to it. Not to mention it was sitting on a counter in the office.... why is that anyway??? don't they have some sort of storage or something? The county clerk that testified pretty much said she tried to keep it closed, even seemed annoyed by the box.... why not put it away? he had been exonerated, what was the purpose of having it sitting there. arrgh so many questions LOL

I also have some doubts about this EDTA testing and how reliable it was after doing a bunch of reading. Seems to be that there is some questions about EDTA deteriorating when exposed to sunlight, the concentration of the EDTA to begin with (which depends on how much blood was drawn in the first place), the length of time it sits, lots of questions. I imagine that is why this test has only been used 2 times in a courtroom.

FWIW, my hubby had blood taken yesterday, I asked him for pictures, but he didn't want to look crazy... the lid was purple but not the same, it was the plastic one that was pictured on here earlier, but he looked anyway, and he said the hole was no where near as big as the picture I showed him. I think that can be explained by knowing if the Lab that used that tube used a needle or if they took the lid off to get blood for testing. From everything I have read, there is no "standard", some do it one way, some do it another.

 

[kelthesleuth]

What about the size of the hole ? I am going to admit that I am confused by so many aspects of this tube of blood, as I have heard so many different people that I concede have far more knowledge than I about these things, say seemingly conflicting things. Maybe they are all saying consistent things and my understanding is deeply flawed

But someone mentioned the size of the hole as being odd, in that it was larger than she'd expect and lead us to believe that another needle was used to draw blood from that tube, after it was collected.

Does the size of the hole suggest anything other than you'd expect ? does it suggest that blood was taken and not removed from the tube ? or does it suggest that blood was taken and then some removed later possibly ?

Or does it suggest nothing to you ? haha


From what I can gather, the tube had EDTA - which I don't think was EVER disputed, and was widely regarded as fact. It makes sense why they used EDTA as well. So, I get the point that the blood at the crime scene could appear the same as blood that has been preserved with EDTA.

My opinion based on all the expert analysis is that there is no way to confirm that the blood in the rav4 came from the tube or that it didn't come from the tube. There is no expert analysis that says they are sure of that. The prosecution expert after being asked the right questions admits that the absence of EDTA detection in their test, doesn't mean the blood doesn't have EDTA in it. Just that their test is not precise enough to say that definitively.

It's like taking a pregnancy test before it can be detected via that test. The fact that you can take a pregnancy test BEFORE it's detectable and it doesn't show you as pregnant, doesn't mean you aren't pregnant. Just means that the test itself has a minimum threshold of detection for whatever chemistry involved right ? - same thing ?

So we are back to the tube/stopper itself and the packaging as to possibly determine if tampering might have happened. right ?

So is there anything you can glean from that tube/stopper/packaging that might exclude a given theory -- blood was removed or blood wasn't removed ?

Agree with you that from what I've seen and heard about the EDTA testing by the FBI that it doesn't sound as though they can prove or disprove whether it is from a tube.

Depending on how the blood was taken from SA and deposited into that blood bottle, I only assume it was taken with a needle that went straight in to that bottle because that's how I know it to be done; at least it's not general practice in the UK to open a blood bottle and pour blood into it or to take blood with a syringe, you would only do so in extreme circumstances if it was really difficult to draw blood from a patient and I'm talking in-hospital too. From this, I would could expect a single entry hole to have been made at least once in that tube top. My personal feeling when I saw it is that the whole dark spot isn't the hole but that it's a tiny bit of blood on there also, which can occur when you take blood from people, sometimes I get no blood whatsoever at the top and see the tiniest little incision from my needle that really is only just noticeable so nothing to size of the hole in the tube top or you can leave a little spot of blood behind which is possible is what the whole thing is.

The only way I'd know that is if someone in the documentary categorically said they can see the 'hole' but that also there was a blood spot on the entry site. You would have thought that if it was tampered with then the person who did that would have used a hypodermic needle the same size as the needle that goes in to the blood bottle when taking blood. So if that spot is a complete hole, then it is possible something larger went in there. However, if that hole goes all the way through that tube top from start to finish which you'd assume it would then I'm surprised the sample hadn't leaked out somewhat after or why it is black!?

 

[mcwhit]

Bigger question imo being brought up in this thread is why on earth they still had the vial of blood in the first place.

EDIT: well, I don't know about bigger. Whether or not blood was taken from the vial is a very big question...