There Was Opportunity for Blood Beyond the 1996 Vial [Updated 06-13-2017]

The blood smear by the ignition switch of Teresa Halbach's RAV4

"Experts experiments confirm SA's trial attorneys correct about blood being planted but incorrect about how it was done. #MakingAMurderer" - Kathleen Zellner, Twitter, December 4, 2016

UPDATE JUNE 13, 2017: The following are excerpts from Kathleen Zellner's motion for post-conviction relief filed on June 7, 2017. In the motion she explains that the blood planted in Teresa Halbach's RAV4 came from Steven Avery's bathroom sink on the evening of November 3rd, after he reopend a cut to his right middle finger and dripped blood into the sink, neglecting to clean it up because his brother Chuck was waiting for him, so that they could drive to Menards; and when he came home that night he went straight to bed, not noticing until the next morning that most of the blood in the sink was gone. 

Post-Conviction Exhibits #8. Group exhibit of video recordings from news interviews of Steven Avery (11/9 WFRV, 11/18, WBAY), in which he states that he believes law enforcement removed his blood from his trailer, and in one interview states he believes law enforcement removed his blood from his sink.

Mr. James will testify that the blood stains in the RAV-4 were selectively planted and one blood stain was placed by the ignition with an applicator. Mr. James will testify that Mr. Avery's blood did not come from the 1996 blood vial, but was instead blood dripped by Mr. Avery into his bathroom sink in 2005, which was removed and dripped into the RAV-4. Mr. James will testify that the blood stain on the rear cargo door was not the result of Ms. Halbach being thrown into the rear cargo area of the RAV-4 after she had been shot, as the State contended. 

Failure of Trial Defense Counsel to Investigate Mr. Avery's Claim that His Blood Was Removed from His Bathroom Sink and Planted in the RAV-4

On the evening of November 3, 2005, Mr. Avery was having dinner at his mother's residence, and when he walked outside her residence, a uniformed officer pulled up in a MCSD squad car and asked if he could speak with him. Later, Mr. Avery learned that this individual's name was Sgt. Colborn. Sgt. Colborn asked Mr. Avery if a female from AutoTrader Magazine had come to the property on Monday to take pictures of a vehicle they were selling. Mr. Avery told Sgt. Colborn that a female from AutoTrader had come to the property at approximately 2:30 p.m. and had photographed a van his sister was selling. Mr. Avery contended that she was on the property for less than five minutes. Mr. Avery told Sgt. Colborn that he noticed her photographing the van and he exited his trailer to pay her. Mr. Avery observed Ms. Halbach leave the property and turn left on Highway 147. Sgt. Colborn misrepresented, in a report written months later, that Mr. Avery said 3:00 p.m., not 2:30 p.m. Mr. Avery's affidavit is consistent with all of his prior statements to police that Ms. Halbach was on the Avery property sometime between 2:00 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. (Affidavit of Steven A. Avery, Sr. "Affidavit of Steven Avery", attached and incorporated herein as P-C Exhibit 4).

Mr. Avery then drove his Pontiac Grand Am from his parents' residence to its usual parking spot in front of his garage. Mr. Avery then walked next door to his sister's trailer, where he attempted to unhitch the trailer. In so doing, Mr. Avery broke open the cut on the middle finger of his right hand. His finger was dripping blood as he walked back to his car to retrieve his cell phone charger. While in his car, Mr. Avery dripped blood from his finger onto the seats and the gear shift. From his car, Mr. Avery walked to his trailer, entering through the door at the south end. Mr. Avery dripped blood on the floor as he entered the bathroom to find a piece of tape to put on the cut. Mr. Avery dripped blood onto the rim and basin of the sink and the bathroom floor. He did not wash away or wipe up the floor or sink because his brother Charles Avery ("Chuck") was waiting for him to go to Menards in Manitowoc with him. He hastily wrapped his finger in masking tape and exited the trailer through the front door. Mr. Avery forgot to lock the south door on the front of the trailer. He did not clean the blood out of his sink prior to leaving the trailer at approximately 7:30 p.m. to go to Menards with his brother Chuck. (Affidavit of Steven Avery, P-C Exhibit 4). Menards in Manitowoc was an approximately 23-minute drive from the Avery property. (Affidavit of Steven Avery, P-C Exhibit 4). Mr. Avery and Chuck checked out at Menards at 8:06 p.m. (Menards Surveillance Video, attached and incorporated herein as P-C Exhibit 5).

Blood stains were noted on the molding (Item AA) and the inside living room door (Item CQ) of Mr. Avery's trailer. (3/31/2006 WSCL DNA Report, attached and herein as P-C Exhibit 6, STATE 5245, 5249). Mr. Avery's Pontiac was unlocked and visible blood was on the gear shift. Anyone who examined the interior of his trailer or vehicle would have recognized that the locations of the various blood stains indicated Mr. Avery had a cut on his hand. (Affidavit of Steven Avery, P-C Exhibit 4).

Mr. Johnson, a family friend of the Avery's and owner of Mr. Avery's trailer, remembers observing the cut on Mr. Avery's finger at least one week prior to October 31, 2005. (Affidavit of Roland A. Johnson, "Affidavit of Rollie Johnson," attached and incorporated herein as P-C Exhibit 7).

At approximately 7:30 p.m., Mr. Avery was exiting the Avery property onto Highway 147 when he observed taillights of a vehicle close to the front of his trailer. (Affidavit of Steven Avery, P-C Exhibit 4; Menards Surveillance Video, P-C Exhibit 5). Mr. Avery contends that the only way the vehicle could enter his property from the direction it was pointed was if it was driven by way of Kuss Road and then across the field to the front of his trailer. Mr. Avery believes the vehicle's taillights were similar to those of the RAV-4 and not a squad car. Mr. Avery instructed his brother Chuck to turn around and drive back to the trailer, but by the time they drove back to Mr. Avery's trailer, the vehicle had departed into the darkness. (Affidavit of Steven Avery, P-C Exhibit 4). Mr. Avery and Chuck went to Menards and the county jail to drop off money for Mr. Avery's girlfriend. (Affidavit of Steven Avery, P-C Exhibit 4). Mr. Avery arrived home at approximately 10:00-10:30 p.m.  Mr. Avery did not enter the bathroom and went straight to bed. (Affidavit of Steven Avery, P-C Exhibit 4).

On November 4, 2005, Mr. Avery awoke at his normal time of 6:00 a.m. When he entered the bathroom of his trailer to take a shower, he observed that most of the blood in and around his sink had been removed. (Affidavit of Steven Avery, P-C Exhibit 4).

Mr. Avery consistently expressed his belief to his attorneys and the media that the blood of his found in Ms. Halbach's vehicle was planted and that it came from his trailer. In one interview, he said he dripped blood from his finger into his bathroom sink. (Video Clips from 11/9/05 NBC-26 WFRV interview and 11/18/05 WBAY interview, attached and incorporated herein as P-C Group Exhibit 8).

At 10:30 a.m. on November 4, 2005, Lt. Lenk and Det. Remiker arrived at the Avery property to interview Mr. Avery. (Pages from MTSO Summary Report, P-C Group Exhibit 11, STATE 80). In the early evening, Mr. Avery smelled cigarette smoke when he entered his bedroom to retrieve a cable for his mother's television. Neither Mr. Avery nor his girlfriend smoked. Mr. Avery believes his trailer was entered unlawfully a second time. (Affidavit of Steven Avery, P-C Exhibit 4; 11/9/05 Interview of Steven Avery and Execution of Search Warrant, "11/9/05 Execution of Search Warrant," attached and incorporated herein as P-C Exhibit 9, STATE 553-54).

On November 5, 2005, when Mr. Avery was preparing to leave for a trip to the family properly in Crivitz, he noticed the south front door of his trailer had been pried open. Specifically, Mr. Avery observed pry marks on the south door of his trailer. (Affidavit of Steven Avery, P-C Exhibit 4; Affidavit of Rollie Johnson, P-C Exhibit 7). He remembered locking this door after Lt. Lenk and Det. Remiker left on the morning of November 4, 2005. (Affidavit of Steven Avery, P-C Exhibit 4).

As Mr. Avery's brother Chuck left for Crivitz, he observed headlights in the area where Ms. Halbach's vehicle was discovered by the pond. Chuck called Mr. Avery at 7:20 pm. to check on the headlights, but by the time Mr. Avery arrived by Chuck's trailer, the lights were gone. (Affidavit of Steven Avery P-C Exhibit 4) (Page from Steven Avery's Phone Records, attached and incorporated herein as P-C Exhibit 10) (Pages from MCSD Summary Report verifying Chuck's phone number, attached and incorporated herein as P- C Exhibit 11, STATE 93).

ORIGINAL POST, PUBLISHED MARCH 14, 2017

The blood vial was stored in Avery's 1985 case file (a cardboard box) because it was collected in 1996 as part of his 1995 motion for DNA testing to exclude both himself and Penny Beernsten.

EDTA is a blood preservative that would be present in a sample of Avery's blood stored by law enforcement. The FBI said EDTA was not present in the blood found in Teresa Halbach's RAV4.



1. At Avery's trial for the 1985 rape, Penny Beernsten identified Avery as her attacker. A state forensic examiner testified that a hair recovered from a shirt of Avery’s was consistent with Beernsten’s hair. Avery presented 16 alibi witnesses, including the clerk of a store in Green Bay, Wisconsin, who recalled Avery, accompanied by his wife and five children, buying paint from the store. A checkout tape put the purchase at 5:13 p.m. Beernsten put the attack at 3:50 p.m. and estimated it lasted 15 minutes, which meant that Avery would have to leave the scene of the attack, walk a mile to the nearest parking area, drive home, load his family into the car, and drive 45 miles in just over an hour.

2. After losing several appeals, on June 13, 1995, Avery’s new attorney filed a motion with the trial court seeking the release of certain evidence for DNA testing, stating that “DNA testing would exclude both the victim and Mr. Avery. They collected a vial of blood from him in 1996 for the appeal.

3. A petition for DNA testing was granted in 1995 and showed that scrapings taken of Beernsten’s fingernails contained the DNA of an unknown person. The court ruled that the tests were unable to eliminate Avery, and a motion for a new trial was denied. There were two separate DNA samples that could have led to Avery's release. The first one proved inconclusive. As the Innocence Project, which took on Avery's case, reported, a fingernail scraping sample showed that there was unknown DNA underneath Beerntsen's nails. But as the Netflix series explained, DNA in that situation can only be broken down into groups called "alleles." And though there were alleles that matched Avery, there were also alleles that could not have belonged to him. However, because he was a match for some of the DNA, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals found that "the DNA evidence does not make it any more or less probable that Avery assaulted P.B."

4. On April 23, 1996, Avery filed a motion for postconviction relief, requesting “an order vacating the conviction and sentence in this matter and granting him a new trial on the grounds that evidence demonstrates a reasonable probability of a different result on retrial.” Avery’s motion, based on the DNA testing results, stated that the “DNA analysis of fingernail scrapings from the victim constitute newly-discovered evidence and reveal the presence of DNA which could not have come from either the victim or Mr. Avery” and that “such DNA most likely came from the perpetrator of this offense.” 

5. On July 29, 1996, Avery filed a supplemental motion for postconviction relief requesting “an order vacating the conviction and sentence in this matter and granting him a new trial on the grounds that the state withheld material, exculpatory evidence at the time of trial.” Avery’s motion was based on his recent discovery that, prior to trial, the sheriff’s department had failed to provide either Avery or Avery’s trial counsel with information regarding an “alternative suspect living in Sheboygan County who matched the description of the perpetrator.” The trial court conducted a hearing on Avery’s motion for a new trial on the basis of newly-discovered evidence. According to the expert who conducted the forensic DNA testing: there was DNA present in the scrapings taken from P.B.’s fingernails that did not match DNA samples from either Avery or P.B; thus, “there was at least one additional individual present.” Therefore, the trial court denied the motion for a new trial, even though P.B. said there was only one assailant and even though she never mentioned another individual present.

6. The 1996 vial of Avery's blood, collected for the appeal filed in 1995, was stored in a cardboard box (exhibit 468) at the office of the Clerk of the Court for Manitowoc County, along with other evidence from his 1985 case. 

7. In April of 2002, attorneys for the Wisconsin Innocence Project obtained a court order for DNA testing of 13 hairs recovered from P.B. at the time of the crime. The state crime laboratory reported that, using the FBI DNA database, it had linked a hair to Gregory Allen, a convicted felon who bore a resemblance to Avery. Allen was then serving a 60-year prison term for a sexual assault in Green Bay that occurred after the attack on P.B.

8. In September 2002, a Circuit Court judge signed an order for two items of evidence from the Avery's 1985 court file (hair and fingernail cuttings) be transferred to the State Crime Lab in Madison for further DNA testing. This court file also would have contained Avery's 1996 blood vial. Lenk, who was the "designated evidence custodian" for the entire Manitowoc County Sheriff's department at the time, claimed during Avery's 2007 trial that he did not access the evidence box and that he sent a deputy named Mike Shallue with a presigned form to retrieve hair and fingernail cuttings as ordered by the court. When Shallue retrieved the items of evidence, Lenk said he didn't check to see which items Shallue actually retrieved from the box at the Clerk of the Court's Office because he "trusted him and the court" with the task.

9. The buccal swabs that had been collected from Avery in 1985 were in Sherry Culhane’s possession in 2002-2003 to test Avery’s DNA for the court order obtained by the Wisconsin Innocence Project. This testing eventually led to his exoneration and release from prison for his wrongful conviction in the sexual assault against Penny Beersten.



10. On September 11, 2003, a request brought by the Manitowoc District Attorney’s Office and the Wisconsin Innocence Project to dismiss the charges was granted and Avery was released after serving 18 years for the sexual assault of Penny Beersten, a crime he didn't commit. Gregory Allen, a felon and "notorious sexual predator" who resembled Avery, actually better fit Beersten's description of her attacker. And DNA in a pubic hair found on Beersten after her attack was found to have, in fact, belonged to Allen, not Avery. And that single bit of evidence freed Avery after he spent nearly two decades in prison.

11. In 2003, Culhane returned Avery's 1985 buccal swabs to Manitowoc County. They were received by Dave Remiker on October 13, 2003. Therefore, since October 2003, MTSO has had Avery’s buccal swabs from his 1985 conviction, which could have been used to plant DNA or to mix with someone else's blood to fabricate blood DNA.





There may have been opportunity for blood other than the 1996 vial:

1. Apparently, in 1985, which was pre-DNA testing, they didn't collect blood from Avery. Or did they collect blood from him in 1985, and the 1985 vial is missing from his case file because it was used to plant Avery's blood in 2005?

2. There may also be a 2001-2003 vial of Avery's blood missing from the Fox Lake prison hospital (search the comments to this blog post for "Raduenz").

There are a couple of possibilities as far as the source of blood other than a blood vial:

1. Blood in Avery's trailer from cutting his finger. Regarding the CD box found in Teresa's RAV4, Nick Stahlke described the blood as "basically covering 50 percent of the surface of this CD box," (day 11 page 209). Maybe Avery's blood that dripped from his cut finger was collected from his home, reconstituted with water or saline, and the CD box was used as a "palette" when planting the blood in the RAV4.

2. Blood from the Grand Am that Avery drove to Crivitz the morning of November 5th, or a bloody rag found inside the vehicle when it was seized on November 6th (it would make sense that Avery used a rag of some sort to wrap his cut finger, and that rag could have been inside the Grand Am when it was seized on November 6th).

Note: A bloody rag was not collected by Wendy Baldwin from Avery's Grand Am on November 5th. Wendy Baldwin collected a bloody rag from a silver station wagon near the pond in the salvage yard at 9:03 a.m. on November 6th, when the Grand Am was in Marinette County (CASO page 109).

Below is a screen shot from NBC26's November 8th interview with Steven Avery. The cut to his finger is no longer bandaged or bleeding and is in the process of healing. Avery told Milwaukee Magazine ("Blood Simple") that he cut his finger loading tin roofing onto a flatbed, and every time the cut was reopened he "bled like a stuffed pig." He said he reopened the cut on November 5th when helping install a tin roof in Crivitz. Nobody, including law enforcement, asked Steven Avery when he orignally cut his finger. In fact, in Avery's November 5th and 6th interviews in Crivitz, neither DCI Agent Skorlinksi nor Marinette County deputy O'Neill noted the cut to Steven's finger. A women is missing and your main suspect has a fresh cut to his finger, but you don't ask him about when and how he cut it?



Detectives said Roland Johnson told them on February 6, 2006 that he saw Steven Avery "just prior" to Halloween 2005 (day 19 page 148). He said it wasn't unusual for Allan Avery and his sons to have cuts since they worked in a junkyard, but he noticed this particular cut to Steven's hand or finger because it was a "pretty nasty gash" that he thought needed stitches. Because Roland wasn't interviewed until three months after Teresa went missing, his recollection was vague. Roland testified he saw Avery with a cut that looked similar to Exhibit 19. He also testified he saw Avery within a month of Halloween and that it could have been a week before Halloween but he couldn't remember.

Chuck Avery told Marinette County deputy Sievert on November 7th that he and Steven left for Menard's in the flatbed at 6:30 p.m. on Thursday and "picked up trusses and insulation and a few odds and ends." Blaine Dassey told DCI agents on November 11th that Chuck and Steven asked him if he wanted to go to Menard's with them to get the "trusses for a shed they were going to build up north." Steven told Skorlinski on November 6th that he and Chuck loaded a TV onto the flatbed around 5 p.m. on Friday. He said: "The insulation was all there and everything else. So it was all loaded. All we had to do was the TV and tie it down."

Nobody mentioned loading tin roofing during the week of October 31st; however, we know that tin was in Crivitz the weekend of November 5th because Steven reopened the cut installing the roofing on that day. The tin roofing must have been loaded onto the flatbed on Thursday, November 3rd and then driven by Chuck to Crivitz on Friday, November 4th, or it was loaded the week before Halloween and driven to the cabin in Crivitz on Friday or Saturday, October 28 or 29th. This means Lenk and Remiker would have seen that Steven had a cut to his finger when he allowed them to search his trailer without a warrant on the morning of November 4th (they insisted Steven be present during the search).


Law enforcement seized Avery's 1996 Grand Am and a flatbed truck in Marinette County at 11:50 a.m. on November 6th. The Grand Am was towed to Marinette County impound. The battery cables were disconnected. The doors, trunk and hood of the vehicle were sealed with evidence tape.

There isn't a CASO report about how the Grand Am was transported from Marinette County's impound to the State crime lab in Madison (Avery said a substantial amount of gas was missing when it was returned to the family). The Grand Am was in the State crime lab by November 8th because Groffy photographed it on that day. So the blood from the Grand Am may not be an option unless it was transported to CASO on November 6th.

However, when the Grand AM was moved to the State crime lab may not matter at all, because all Sherry Culhane had to do was relabel the Grand Am swabs as RAV4 swabs of Avery's blood. And the blood in the RAV4 identified by Culhane as Avery's could have been anybody's blood, planted by Kratz or somebody else on November 5th or 6th.

According to current post-conviction counsel's expert, Dr. Reich, the most common way for forensic evidence to be planted is by re-labeling the forensic swabs (P-C Group Exhibit 15,138).

We know that Avery bled in the Grand Am because fresh stains of his blood were found on the console area and seat fabric (day 12 page 34).

The cut on Steven Avery's right middle finger presented an opportunity to frame him via planted blood in just the right places.

Kratz would have known about Avery's fresh cut to his right finger because Lenk, Remiker and O'Neill would have seen the cut prior to November 6th, and this information would have been shared with him, the District Attorney who played a "detective" role throughout the investigation.

The blood was planted in the RAV4 after it was removed from Avery Salvage Yard on November 5th.

State crime lab employee John Ertl said he left the Avery property at 8:45 p.m. on November 5th, the same time as the driver of the trailer who transported the RAV4 to the crime lab. Kratz also left the Avery property at 8:45 p.m. Ertl testified that he arrived in Madison at 1:15 a.m., and finished securing the RAV4 at about 2:00 a.m. Ertl wasn't asked is Kratz was with him at the crime lab while this was being done.

Note that nobody reported seeing any blood in the RAV4 when it was at the salvage yard, but blood was photographed in the RAV4 by the next morning, when it was at the crime lab being processed by Ron Groffy and Steve Harrington, both State crime lab employees.

Therefore, the blood smear by the ignition had to have been planted before mid-morning of November 6th, by the time State crime lab personal arrived. 

Ron Groffy, a forensic imaging analyst, testified that he and Steven Harrington, a forensic print analyst, where present at the crime lab on November 6th.

Groffy testified that his supervisor called him mid-morning on November 6th and asked if he could come in and assist in the investigation. 

On November 6th Groffy was able to access the inside of the RAV4 because the driver's door was unlocked (everyone said the doors were locked when it was at Avery Salvage Yard). He unlocked the other doors by reaching over first to unlock the passenger's door and then was able to get to the other doors by similar maneuvers. 

Somebody unlocked the RAV4 without there being a record of it. Did Kratz get the spare key (the valet key) from Ryan Hillegas after he took it from Teresa's home?

On November 6th (day 10 page 62), Groffy testified that he took only four photographs (exhibits 289, 290, 292, and 293) and then a decision was made between him and his supervisor, Lucy Meier, "not to process the Toyota any more that day and that they would instead wait until morning when the forensic DNA analyst and other types of people would benormally working."



During his testimony, Groffy said he did presumptive tests for two areas on November 6th: the stain near the ignition and the large stain in the cargo area. 

Groffy also testified that he did not photograph these two stains, the ignition stain and the large stain in the cargo area, on November 6th (exhibit 291).  

Therefore, Groffy swabbed these two areas to do presumptive tests for blood before any photographs were taken. [Groffy testifed that on November 7th and 8th he was directed to photograph these stains again, plus other blood stains by bloodstain-pattern analyst Nick Stahlke.] 

Why would a crime lab photographer, who was called in to take pictures, enter the RAV4 and then take blood swabs before taking any photos of the blood stains? His job was to document evidence prior to processing by analysts. Why would he do presumptive testing of blood, especially before photographing the areas? Someone had to tell him to do this.

Did Kratz instruct Harrington, a senior crime lab employee, to make sure someone did presumptive testing on the ignition smear and large stain in the cargo area on November 6th?  

Was Kratz also at the crime lab on November 6th, instructing Groffy and Harrington?

Harrington was a print analyst for the State crime laboratory who was present in the lab with Groffy on November 6th (Harrington retired from the Wisconsin State Crime Lab in 2006 and did not testify at either Steven's or Brendan's trial).

The only blood stain purported to be Avery's and noted by Groffy and Harrington was the stain near the ignition. Groffy did not testify to seeing any other stains other than Teresa's blood stains in the cargo area.

The blood smear by the RAV4's ignition had to have been planted in the RAV4 by the morning of November 6th, before Groffy performed presumptive testing on bloodstains by the ignition and in the cargo area (day 10 page 62).

Harrington was quick to officially report that presumptive swabs taken November 6th indicated the presence of human blood in the cargo area and ignition area.

On November 6, 2005, a preliminary report was received from the Wisconsin State Crime Lab indicating a presumptive positive finding of human blood located within the interior of Teresa Halbach's vehicle. Steven Harrington of the State of Wisconsin Crime Laboratory confirmed that technicians had located the presumptive human blood in the rear cargo portion of the vehicle as well as the ignition area of the vehicle (page 24).

Affiant was also informed by Investigator Tom Fassbender that blood was found in the 1997 Toyota Rav 4 belonging to Teresa Halbach and located within the Avery Auto Salvage Compound. Steven Harrington of the State of Wisconsin Crime Laboratory in Madison stated that technicians had located presumptive blood in the rear cargo portion of the vehicle and also in the front of the vehicle in the innitinn area. Steve Harrington further indicated that technicians also located visible palm prints on the rear hatch area of the Toyota Rav 4 (page 60).

What was Steve Harrington's role on November 6th? Was his presence on November 6th at the instruction of Kratz? Was he instructed to do ensure presumptive tests of the ignition smear and the cargo stain were completed that day?

Harrington immediately reported the results of the presumptive tests, which gave probable cause to search Avery Salvage Yard, including all residences and garages, and resulted in the filing of a criminal complaint against Steven Avery. 

The presumptive testing for blood was done before any photographs were taken. Wouldn't protocol dictate that presumptive testing for blood be done by a DNA analyst, which in this case (as well as Avery's other cases), was forensic scientist Sherry Culhane, who didn't arrive in the crime lab until November 7th?

Why didn't Harrington testify at either Steven or Brendan's trial? Is there a DCI report of his activity? He was the senior crime lab personnel at the lab on November 6th, and he was the one to report the positive results of the presumptive tests for blood by the ignition. Was he there on Kratz's instruction to order the testing and report the findings immediately? 

To summarize:

Groffy testified that he did presumptive tests for the stain by the ignition and for the large stain in the cargo area before he took any photographs.

Groffy testifed he took only four photographs on November 6th, which didn't include the blood smear by the ignition or the large blood stain in the cargo area.

The ignition smear and the cargo stain were the only areas tested by Groffy on November 6th. Groffy did not mention seeing any other blood stains in the RAV4 on November 6th.

Groffy waited until November 7th or 8th to take photos of the ignition smear and the large blood stain in the cargo.

Culhane came to the crime lab on the morning of November 7th and proceeded to swab blood stains for both presumptive blood and DNA.

Culhane testified at pre-trial that she first swabs a stain to do a presumptive test for blood. She then swabs the stain to collect it for evidence. So Groffy swabbed the stain near the ignition on November 6th and Culhane swabbed it twice on November 7th.

Culhane said that three other crime lab personnel were there on November 7th: Mike Riddle, Ron Groffy and Nick Stahlke (apparently, Steve Harrington was only there on November 6th, per Kratz's instruction?).

Latent fingerprint and footwear examiner Riddle took an inventory of the RAV4 contents. Forensic scientest Stahlke went over the vehicle to identify blood stains to be photographed and collected into evidence.  

Groffy testified that he took only four photographs of the RAV4 on November 6th (perhaps with direction by Harrington and Kratz), and that on November 7th and 8th he was directed to photograph other blood stains by blood stain pattern analyst Nick Stahlke..

"And then you, and another individual by the name of Steve Harrington, he was also there. That's correct, Steve was also there at that time.  He is currently retired."" 

"These photographs were taken on November 6th, right? Some of them were, that's correct, sir." 

"My activities were limited to photographing the exterior portions of the RAV4. And then the interior portions that we could get photographs of without actually having to go inside the vehicle and get those pictures before other analysts could have a chance at processing the vehicle.  And then a decision was made with you and your supervisor, Lucy Meier, not to process the Toyota any more that day and that you would instead wait until morning when the forensic DNA analyst and other types of people would be normally working; is that right?"

"All of the other photographs that we didn't discuss as having been taken on November 6; were those taken on November 8th? They would have been taken on November 7th and 8th."

Culhane matched five blood stains in the RAV4 to Avery: A6, A8, A9, A10 and A12. Two of the five bloodstains were cut from fabric.

A6 - questioned stain cut from the driver's seat
A8 - questioned stain recovered from an area to the right of the ignition
A9 - questioned stain cut from the front passenger seat
A10 - questioned stain recovered from a black CD case
A12 - questioned stain recovered from the metal panel around the rear passenger door entrance 

Dr. Marc Lebeau, Chief of the Chemistry Unit for the FBI Laboratory, tested three swabs for the preservative EDTA, which was in Avery's 1996 blood vial. The three swabs sent to Lebeau purportedly were swabbed blood stains from near the ignition (A8), a door panel (A12), and a CD case that was inside the RAV4 (A10). Swabs of the two bloodstains cut from fabric in the RAV4 (A6 and A9) were not sent to Lebeau.

Lebeau said his opinion was blood stains in the RAV4 did not come from Avery's 1996 blood vial. "Did you find EDTA in the tube of blood of Steven Avery?" special prosecutor Norm Gahn asked. "Yes we did," he said. "Did you find EDTA in any of the three bloodstains swabs from Teresa Halbach's RAV4?" Gahn said. "No, we did not," he said.

Kathleen Zellner noted in her August 2016 press conference after filing the motion for post-conviction scientific testing that "there was not confirmatory DNA testing done," which could mean they never did any tests to confirm the samples were or were not Avery's blood.

"No one who's guilty would ever allow this extensive testing to be done. From fibers, to contaminates, to DNA, to blood agents, all of those things are going to be done in this. I think the thing you most want to take away with this is read the motion. No one who's guilty would ever allow this to happen. Because these tests are going to establish definitely the age of the blood in the victim's vehicle. So we are going to know through radio carbon or DNA methylation whether the blood in the RAV was planted from the '96 vial. In addition to that, there were many, many items that should had been DNA tested that weren't. There was presumptive DNA testing done. There was not confirmatory DNA testing done. So for us, the case is amazing how much forensic evidence there is that can be tested. For the public, I think that it also will be very encouraging because we're going to find out one way or the other was the evidence planted. And we're also going to be able to get test results that we believe will completely exonerate Mr. Avery."

Were the six swabs above actually taken from the RAV4? Perhaps Zellner will present a trace analysis of Steven Avery's blood from the RAV4.

From Lebeau's report, "FBI Report of Examination" (exhibit 435):

• Items Q46, Q47 and Q48 are swabs of blood stains taken from the crime scene (CASO page 989)
• Item Q49 is a liquid blood sample from Steven Avery in a lavender-top 10 ML tube with approximately 5.5 ML of blood in it
• Swabs K2, K3 and K4 are control swabs taken in proximity to the blood stains for swabs Q46-48 (CASO page 1077)

In his report, Lebeau noted two sets of control swabs. Therefore, including the three swabs of blood stains purportedly from the RAV4, Lebeau received nine swabs and a liquid blood sample from a vial of Avery's blood (the 1996 vial):

• Three swabs from RAV4 blood stains
• Two sets of control swabs from areas near the blood stains
• Liquid blood sample from a vial of Avery's blood (the 1996 vial)

The three swabs from the RAV4 blood stains and one set of control swabs tested negative for EDTA. The second set of control swabs was not tested because "Buting requested that the FBI preserve one half of each of those samples for independent testing." Therefore, "one half of those swabs are reserved." Also, "Buting requested that the controls that were taken also be -- that the FBI only consume one half of those, and that is the case. So one half of the controls are available" (day 17 page 8).

Although Buting requested "that the FBI only consume one half of the control swabs," he twice questioned Lebeau on cross examination about "the three swabs you did not test." Lebeau's answer was based on the fact that he did not test the other set of duplicate control swabs. He did test the three swabs of blood stains that he received, plus the one set of the control swabs. He did not test the second set of control swabs because the defense requested that they be reserved. Therefore, it was nonsensical and misleading for Buting to question Lebeau about the other three swabs he didn't test as if they were actual blood stains rather than control swabs.

The control swabs were not bloodstained swabs; rather, they were swabs to test for environmental EDTA contamination. They two sets (a total of six control swabs) were duplicates taken very close to the bloodstained areas. Since one set of control swabs was tested and showed no environmental EDTA contamination, Lebeau asserted with a high degree of certainty that the untested set of control swabs would not show environmental EDTA contamination since they were essentially duplicates of swabs that had already tested negative.

Nowhere in Lebeau's testimony was foundation laid for any of the "three swabs you didn't test" other than the control swabs. Lebeau should not have answered, as he did other times, to multipart questions posed by Buting, and the State should have objected to Buting's questions about not testing all the control swabs, as they did at other times during Lebeau's testimony.

Lebeau under cross examination by Buting (day 17 page 227):

Q. You only tested three swabs that were reported to have been taken, or found, in the Teresa Halbach vehicle, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Do you know how many other swabs or how many other stains were also found in that vehicle?

A. No, I don't.

Q. Your opinion that there's no EDTA in the swabs from the Halbach vehicle, then, is limited to the three swabs that were presented to you, isn't that right?

A. Could you repeat that?

Q. You expressed an opinion a little more broadly than perhaps you intended to, I believe, which was that your opinion was -- let me look for my notes -- that the stains in the Halbach -- blood stains in the Halbach vehicle could not have come from the purple vial that you tested, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. But you're actually referring only to the three stain swabs that you tested, correct?

A. No, I believe my original testimony is what I meant.

Q. Well, are you telling me right now, that even though you never tested three other swabs of separate blood stains found elsewhere in the RAV4 vehicle, that you're willing to express an opinion that none of those three swabs have EDT either?

A. I am willing to -- to conclude that.

Q. Oh, you are?

A. Yes, sir. If I can elaborate.

The question that followed was edited out of "Making a Murderer":

Q. Well, no, let me finish my -- my question. So even though you didn't test those other three swabs, you are prepared to state that they could not have come from the blue -- the purple-topped vial that you tested of Mr. Avery's blood?

In fact, both before the testimony above (earlier, during direct) and after (later, in cross), the three untested control swabs were discussed. There were two sets of control swabs for each of the three tested bloodstained swabs, but only one set of control swabs was tested and the other set was preserved for future appeals. This other set was the only untested swabs in Lebeau's possession; and there were, in fact, three of these control swabs untested.

Click here for is a link to a reddit thread about DNA exhibits 311, 312, 313, 314, 315 and 14 and 15.

According to page 3 of Exhibit 14, DNA profiles developed from items A6, A8, A9, A12, B1, B3, B4, B5 and C are consistent with originating from the same male, Steven Avery (item C did not test positive for blood).

All "A" samples are from Teresa's RAV4. The "A" samples A1-A4, A6-A10, A11, A12 and A23 indicated the presence of blood.

All the "B" samples are from Avery's Grand Am. The "B" samples B1-B5 indicated the presence of blood.

Culhane matched four blood stains in the Grand Am to Avery: B1, B3, B4 and B5. Only one of the four blood stains was cut from fabric. 

B1 - questioned stain recovered from the passenger side of the front console
B2 - questioned stain recovered from the top of the center console
B3 - questioned stain recovered from the center console near the rear window button
B4 - questioned stain recovered from the gear shift
B5 - questioned stain cut from the back seat driver's side

To summarize:

1. There were five blood stains in the RAV4 purportedly matching Avery's DNA profile; three were swabbed blood stains and two were cuttings from seat fabric.
2. There were four blood stains in the Grand Am matching Avery's DNA profile; three were swabbed blood stains and one was a cutting from seat fabric.
3. The only three blood stains (purportedly from the RAV4) sent to Lebeau for testing were swabbed blood stains, not cuttings from fabric. 
4. Lebeau did not receive the swabs of the two cuttings from fabric in the RAV4 that Culhane said originated from Avery.

What if the three swabs of blood stains sent to Lebeau for EDTA testing actually came from Avery's Grand Am and not Teresa's RAV4?

According to Zellner's post-conviction counsel's expert, Dr. Reich, the most common way for forensic evidence to be planted is by re-labeling the forensic swabs. (Affidavit of Dr. Reich, P-C Group Exhibit 15,138).

Did they pull another switcheroo like they did with burn barrel #2?

Why not also send swabs of the two bloodstained cuttings from fabric in the RAV4? 

Is it because the difference in the fabric of the RAV4 versus the Grand Am could be detected, so they couldn't risk swapping the swabs?

Did they send three swabs from Avery's fresh blood stains in the Grand Am rather than three swabs of planted blood stains from the RAV4. Is this why Kratz was very confident that the FBI wouldn't find EDTA in the blood stains?

Avery drove his Grand Am to Crivitz early on the morning of November 5th. It was seized by law enforcement on November 6th. Avery's Grand Am with his fresh blood in it was also in the evidence room at the same time as Teresa's RAV4. Culhane took samples of both.

If the three swabs of blood stains sent to Lebeau were swabs of blood from Avery's Grand Am, then there wouldn't be EDTA in the stains because the blood came from a fresh cut to Avery's right middle finger.

Zellner could prove this by testing the car seat cuttings. The RAV4 cuttings and than the Grand Am cutting would be different because the fabric is different.

The Grand Am was released back to Chuck Avery on April 3, 2006 (CASO page 886). Zellner didn't need the evidence swabs from CASO because she had access to the Grand Am itself:

"Avery alleges that, at some point (he does not specify when), custody of the Grand Am was transferred to Calumet County, where it remained for "an extended period of time." Eventually (again, Avery does not specify when), the Grand Am was released to Avery's family members. Avery alleges that at the time it was released the Grand Am needed to be repaired and that it was missing a substantial amount of gas" (Avery v. Calumet County, October 29, 2012).

I'm more convinced than ever that blood was planted from a vial and swapped over for grand am swabs for FBI test. The active bleeding on the right. Note the drop size and frequency of drops. The left is literally a spill. I'm sure Zellner knows. #makingamurderer @ZellnerLaw pic.twitter.com/XVy3hvefc3

— Brutus (@cadaverdogbrutu) November 14, 2017

The following are the sources from Avery’s trial.

Day 11, page 64:

http://i.imgur.com/n0u8Jlk.png

Sherry Culhane claims buccal swabs from 1985 were sent back to Manitowoc.

Dave Remiker at Manitowoc signs for the buccal swabs on October 13, 2003.

Day 18, page 192:

http://i.imgur.com/UnWmHJ0.png

Remiker in his November 4th phone call with Wiegert confirms that Manitowoc has Avery’s buccals swabs. Remiker confirms the contents and says “they haven’t been opened.”

www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlyBVBJKTeM

Wiegert testified on day 18:

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Jury-Trial-Transcript-Day-18-2007Mar07.pdf#page=191

Pages 191-194 [excerpts]:

Kratz: All right. Let's break that into its -- its components then. When were you first informed that a vial of Steven Avery's blood existed anywhere within the confines of Manitowoc County?

Wiegert: Again, that would have been back in December of '06 is when I first was made aware of that.

Kratz: All right. Were you able, then, to determine, back in April of 2006, that Manitowoc County, that is, the law enforcement officials within Manitowoc County, did not, in fact, have Steven Avery's blood?

Wiegert: Yes, they did not have Steven Avery's blood.

Kratz: Now, before December of '06, were you asked to check into that very possibility?

Wiegert: Absolutely. We, as part of the investigation and, again, as you had indicated before, the defense had made some -- there were some comments made about planting issues. So we did the best we could at that time. We searched in all the places which you would logically think that there might be some DNA, blood, things like that. I believe it was the April of '06, I had contacted Detective Remiker at Manitowoc County and said, this is what I'm hearing, what I need you to do is check your evidence at the sheriff's department, tell me, do you have any type of blood, DNA, things like that. (Strang & Kratz dialogue then continues) Detective Remiker reported back to me. He indicated that they had fingernail scrapings, hair samples, and DNA swabs, from Mr. Avery. And as you know, the DNA swabs have already been introduced here. He had indicated DNA swabs were still sealed by the Crime Lab.

Kratz: Then, back to my original question, when was the first time that you were informed that the Manitowoc County Clerk of Court's Office had a vial of blood in their possession or control?

Wiegert: On or about December 13th or 14th of 2006.

Blood is personal 
By hollieluluboo, TickTockManitowoc
November 19, 2017

Recent discussions on other subs about the blood and the impossibility of it being planted from a fresh bleed got me thinking again. I spent years working with patients in hospitals (I work in research now) and took lots and lots of blood samples. One thing I noticed over the years is everyone's blood is different. I could take 10 blood samples and they would all be of different colours and consistencies, ranging from pink through varying shades of red to black and highly viscous to quite liquid. One morning I was taking blood from a man who I will never forget. I had not met him before, he was very nice and chatting away as he sat on the side of his bed. I inserted the needle into his vein and before I got the vacutube anywhere near the needle there was a massive pool of blood all over the floor. It was literally running straight out the other end of the needle in a gush, with the liquidity of water. He turned out to be on a massive dose of heparin and had forgot to mention it.

I remembered that SA was prescribed Atenolol at the time of his arrest. We all know it is taken to lower blood pressure but I started to wonder what's its effects were on the properties of blood. It's not something I had heard discussed before but made a bet with myself that it made blood more liquid.

Atenolol is a selective hydrophillic (non-lipophillic) (loves water, doesn't like fats) beta blocker, primarily used for slowing down the heart and reducing blood pressure. It turns out there are many studies, mostly, but not all, older which have looked at the effects of beta blockers on blood platelets, like this one. Overall, they appear to reduce platelet aggregation, and therefore blood clotting, by a mean of about 13% with non-selective beta blockers reducing platelet aggregation more than selective ones.

This means if you are taking Atenolol your blood is likely to be a bit more liquid than average, possibly a paler red and will clot more slowly than average. Even KZ's testing on blood drying failed to take this into account.

There are also many studies which have been done on blood drying time in air, like this one. According to this particular study, a small drop of average blood will dry in about 60 mins at room temperature in air. This time is decreased as temp increases and increased as temp decreases. If we go by this study, the blood drop could take 2 hours to dry in air at 15 degrees centigrade. This study says treatment of the blood with anticoagulants did not affect the drying time, however technically Atenolol is not an anticoagulant. EDTA (binds calcium) and Heparin (binds an enzyme) are both examples agents used as anticoagulants. Beta blockers seem to reduce platelet aggregation, or clumping, by acting on collagen in the cell wall and also cell membrane stability.

Normal blood clotting time can be between 7 minutes and 1.5 hours depending on your body and any diseases you may have (assuming you are not taking any medications).

For the week of 31st Oct 2005 in manitowoc county the max temp was 16 degrees centigrade with average temp being 13 degrees. This means a small blood drop could take a minimum of 2 hours to dry. If we factor in the clot reducing action of Atenolol, this could increase clotting and drying time to 2 hours and 16 mins, with a slightly reduced temp of 13 degrees this could extend to about 2.5 hours. That's a lot longer than the optimum 30min window given by KZ.

Blood can be successfully lifted, transplanted (from sink, grand am, trailer hinge, wherever) and redydrated up to 10 hours from fresh bleed (cannot remember where I read this but it was in a research paper. If I find it again I will add the link). Here is another paper showing it can be done but it's not as comprehensive to read - you need to buy it.

That's all I have for now as I'm typing from my phone. If you can add anything else, please do.