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, 2016UPDATE 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).ORIGINAL POST, PUBLISHED MARCH 14, 2017
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).
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).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?
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).
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.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?).
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.
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)
- 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)
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?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.
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?
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- The only three blood stains (purportedly from the RAV4) sent to Lebeau for testing were swabbed blood stains, not cuttings from fabric.
- Lebeau did not receive the swabs of the two cuttings from fabric in the RAV4 that Culhane said originated from Avery.
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).
The following are the sources from Avery’s trial.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
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.
Kratz left the Avery property at the same time the driver who hauled the RAV4 to the state crime lab in Madison left. This was at 8:45 PM on November 5th. The RAV4 arrived at the state crime lab at 1:15 a.m. and was secured in storage by 2 a.m.
ReplyDeleteDid Kratz plant the blood in the RAV4 at the crime lab after it was put in secure storage? The planter would need access to the secure storage. Did Kratz have a key? Did he plant fabricated DNA? Did Culhane fabricate the DNA for him?
MTSO had Avery's 1985 buccal swabs, which were delivered to Culhane in 2002 for DNA testing that eventually led to Avery's 2003 exoneration. After Avery was exonerated, Culhane returned the buccal swabs to MTSO. Remiker signed for them on October 13, 2003. Were they then returned to Avery's 1985 case file at the office of the Clerk of the Court?
The swabs could have been used to fabricate DNA blood evidence, and then this fabricated blood could have been planted in the RAV4 during the time the vehicle was in transit to the crime lab in Madison (the trip from Avery's to the crime lab took more than an hour longer than it should have) or during the early morning hours of November 6th after it had been secured in the crime lab.
Remiker in his November 4th phone call with Wiegert confirmed that MTSO had Avery’s buccals swabs. Remiker confirmed the contents and said “they haven’t been opened.”
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlyBVBJKTeM
They could have used the buccal swabs to fabricate Avery's DNA in any blood sample. Was Avery's DNA mixed with someone else's blood and then planted?
They had Avery's buccal DNA to plant or mix with someone else's blood to fabricate blood DNA.
You can spin the white blood cells out of blood and insert amplified DNA from anything: hair, saliva, etc. You insert that profile into only the red blood cells to fabricate blood DNA. The problem is, fabricated blood DNA will not be methylated, and testing can prove this. One of the tests Kathleen Zellner is doing is the DNA methylation test. This test would confirm if DNA was fabricated. To summarize, real blood DNA is methylated; fabricated blood DNA is not (it lacks certain molecules that are attached to the DNA).
Buccal swabs. This is the key. Was buccal swab DNA mixed with blood that was planted in the RAV4? If Manitowoc received Avery's buccal swabs back in 2003, they should be in evidence storage, where the blood and other evidence was held in his 1985 case file. If these buccal swabs cannot be found, that would be very strong evidence of planting.
We don't know if these swabs are still in inventory in the evidence room.
They had vials of his buccal swabs! It gives a whole new meaning to Kratz's sarcastic remark about Manitowoc County running around with vials of Avery's "sweat!" Turns out maybe they were! Kratz always reveals a bit too much when speaking.
Zellner indicated in her August motion and said at the press conference after filing the motion: "There was not confirmatory DNA testing done."
They never did any tests to confirm any of the samples were or were not Avery's. Without any confirmation, it could've been bungled, erroneous, or completely fabricated.
Just had blood drawn (self.TickTockManitowoc)
ReplyDeletesubmitted 3 days ago by hos_gotta_eat_too
Saw it collected in a tube, so of course the questions spilled out of me.
The one interesting thing...the girl said there is absolutely no reason EVER for there to be blood coagulated between the glass and stopper..She turned my vial upside down and said "see, it's vacuum sealed, so until that stopper is removed, that blood will never go up in that area"
So, I was correct. That stopper on Avery's blood vial has been removed.
I would love for a comparison to be made between his vial and every vial of blood ever held as evidence by every county in Wisconsin, and I would bet his tube is the only one with that coagulation there.
[–]chromeomykiss 33 points 3 days ago
Isn't removal of the stopper how it was stipulated Labcorp accessed the vial to obtain their small sample for in 1996?? As stated, Labcorp procedure was they did not put the hole in the top.. that was done by the nurse who drew the blood and filled the vial.
Really the whole issue about the vial is the unfettered access out in the open in the Manitowoc County Clerk's Office to unsealed boxes of case files that contained biological evidence inside a box with cut evidence tape that had been resealed with Scotch tape by former DA E James Fitzgerald.
And the argument that it was the WI Innocence Project that accessed that box and cut the evidence tape is a fallacy.. the last signature on the box is from Fitzgerald who opened it in the presence of the WIP attorneys as well as possibly a few others (potentially MG or someone from MTSO). It had to have then been at least one of Fitzgerald's/Clerk's Office/Evidence Tech's job to reseal that box with EVIDENCE tape and NOT Scotch tape as the appeal was still ongoing. If that had been done then the ENTIRE issue of this box and access to a vial of SA's blood would be a moot point.
It was the crux of the argument made by S&B in their Defendant's Statement on Planted Blood..
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Defendants-Statement-on-Planted-Blood.pdf
But the issues of the vial itself diverted the attention away to the EDTA testing, the needle hole in the purple top and the blood around the vacuum sealed portion due to the stopper being removed.
And unfortunately the "red letter day" turned into the "red herring" on the vial tampering rather than the access.
[–]DarthLurker 7 points 2 days ago
I never understood why it mattered who made the hole in the vial top, even if it was made when his blood was drawn it's still a fully functional hole that a syringe can use.
I agree though, the lack of following any procedure around everything these "cops" do is criminal.
CONTINUED...
[–]justagirlinid 1 point 2 days ago
ReplyDeletethose tubes pretty much seal after use, no? otherwise there would be air getting in/blood leaking out of all of these tubes. Also, it's very unlikely (almost impossible) that a second needle could/would pierce the exact same travel line as the first.
[–]OliviaD2 2 points 2 days ago
THIS THIS THIS!!! You are right my friend...........
And of course my secondary ?.. who would use a crusty old tube of blood anyway?? I suppose one would keep it in case a person died and they wanted biological evidence, in which case it should have been frozen. Also, if DNA was extracted, they would likely have the extracted DNA frozen. This would what one would want to use for any future DNA tests. Once the DNA is extracted and frozen it is stable. I would think the system would keep the DNA. The DNA in a tube of blood would continue to degrade with time.
Oh well, ,we know the standards of these labs are not very high :) :) :) :)
[–]MMonroe54 6 points 3 days ago
I did, too, recently, and noted how the tops looked. The hole is because of the narrow tube that is attached to the needle in your arm. I saw one purple or lilac top and one orange top. The phlebotomist shook both tubes as soon as she disconnected them, presumably to mix the EDTA with the blood.
I agree about what the real issue is about the blood vial: easy access and the unsealed container.
[–]JLWhitaker 3 points 3 days ago
obtain their small sample for in 1996??
Was it just then? Note the dates on the box. Also opened in 2002. I can't make out the full notes for that, but they run sideways on the box. Exhibit 472.
There is another photo that shows it better - Exhibit 450
"xxx-19-02, 12:25, opened per xHH? instruction by E J Fitgerald LAP
"6-19-02, 12:27, contains S Avery's whole blood sample EJP? and another set of initials"
[–]chromeomykiss 4 points 3 days ago
That is when Labcorp had the vial and took their small sample for DNA comparison against the fingernail scrappings.
and yes.. those initials on outside of box from 2002 are from E James Fitzgerald... that is stated in the Defendant's Statement on Planted blood.... it is in there where it is stated WIP was there as well as "PERHAPS OTHERS"... which is where I get that MG may have been present.. you know since he claims he to be so helpful in SA's exoneration. ;)
No the samples were taken in 1996 at Fox Lake and then shipped to Labcorp for the testing.
The 2002 look inside the box was to determine what was in there. It should have been resealed as the 1985 appeal was still active in 2002 at the time they opened it.
CONTINUED...
[–]foghaze 2 points 2 days ago
ReplyDeleteOk so Labcorp sends the vial back in 1996 where it sat until 2002.
Here is what happens in 2002:
http://i.imgur.com/qFOK8K0.png
Note they opened the vial box to see the contents but it is not sent to the lab. It remained in MCSD evidence box. There is no reason on earth for this vial's purple top to have ever been opened.
Here is the source for that info. Page 14
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Defendants-Motion-for-Order-Allowing-Access-to-Prior-Court-File.pdf
Note they opened the vial box to see the contents but it is not sent to the lab. There was no reason for the top to be removed by LE in 2002. It remained in MCSD evidence box until S&B found it in 2006.. There is no reason on earth for this vial's purple top to have ever been opened. It was drawn from the prison and sent to Labcorp in 96 and sent back to MCSD in 96.
[–]foghaze 2 points 2 days ago*
Someone opened it to verify there was blood in there but it wasn't at a lab. Labcorp sent the vial back to Manitowoc in 96. It is not noted anywhere that actual samples were taken beyond that in any documentation.
Here is proof the vial was received in 96:
http://imgur.com/a/6Q6Ou
[–]JLWhitaker 1 point 2 days ago
Isn't it true that Labcorp would have taken samples from the tube in 1996, hence opening the tube cap?
[–]foghaze 1 point 2 days ago*
It says Lab Corp took out 1ml.
A kit containing one sealed tube of Avery's blood was received by Lab Corp. on January 4, 1996. Exhibit 2. The lab consumed only one milliliter of Avery's blood in its tests. Exhibit 3. (from the same document noted above).
[–]JLWhitaker 1 point 2 days ago
Thanks for the research. So the vacuum was broken at least once. That would mean than any later surreptitious access would be undetected.
And think about this. Even if that box of stuff was locked up somewhere in evidence, the two people accused of planting stuff had access. They were official parties. They worked night shifts - at least one did.
It will be interesting to see what KZ's theory is of how it happened - if this sample or some completely different sample.
CONTINUED...
[–]desertsky1 11 points 3 days ago
ReplyDeleteI definitely think the vial was messed with but Zellner tweeted defense was right about the blood planting but wrong about how, so I wonder still
[–]foghaze 10 points 3 days ago
FBI agent LeBeau states it was "obvious" someone had taken the purple cap off Steven Avery's EDTA blood vial. (TT: 3698) Nurse says they are not easily removed. So, who, when and why was it taken off?
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/56h6ik/fbi_agent_lebeau_states_it_was_obvious_someone/
[–]OliviaD2 9 points 3 days ago
I assume it was taken off by whomever used it for testing, which would be the WI state crime lab. If I understand correctly, this blood was drawn to do DNA testing.
However, once it has been removed, it would be difficult to know whether it had been removed more than once. That would be the significant issue.
[–]foghaze 9 points 3 days ago
No one used this at the crime lab. The only thing sent to them from Manitowoc in 2002 was hair, buccal swabs and fingernail scrapings.
The blood drawn from 1996 appears to have never been utilized and was sent back to Manitowoc's evidence facility in 1996 and remained here until Strang and Buting found it.
[–]JLWhitaker 3 points 3 days ago
See Exhibit 450. The box was also opened on 6/19/2002.
[–]OliviaD2 1 point 2 days ago
Thanks :) I'm getting this together now? My initial point got a little sidetracked by my use of "crime lab". The main point was that is was opened by someone at least once, now twice. And I'll look at the exhibit before asking more.
[–]JLWhitaker 2 points 2 days ago
No worries. Foghaze provided additional info. I'm still not clear if Labcorp would have taken off the cap for the 1996 testing?
[–]OliviaD2 1 point 1 day ago
Well, of course no one can no for sure what they did, but using logic I have to assume a tube would be sent to a lab for testing. Obviously they didn't use the whole tube, so one has to assume they took some out. The usual way to do this is with a pipette, to not damage fragile cellular components. In a normal world, I would think they would spin the whole tube down to separate out the different components (which ideally is done to a sample ASAP). I can only assume since this was evidence, they had to return some? Anyway, if they did testing, the most logical assumption is they took the top off. I suppose the only way to know for sure would be to track down the person who did the test, or someone who worked in that lab at that time ... but that probably is not likely...
[–]JLWhitaker 1 point 1 day ago
Yep, they took out 1ml.
CONTINUED...
[–]OliviaD2 1 point 1 day ago
ReplyDeletea microliter I can't make the little u-y here, lol.. is considered minimum needed for RFLP testing so that would have been more than enough.
[–]JLWhitaker 2 points 3 days ago
It was also accessed on 6/19/2002. The box was opened.
[–]foghaze 1 point 2 days ago
Yes the box was opened but we are talking about taking the purple cap off. No reason for LE to take that cap off in 2002. They were simply looking at the contents of the box.
[–]OliviaD2 1 point 2 days ago
P.S. okay, I get it now, lol.. as I thought... the blood was drawn for The earlier DNA testing, which I'm assuming at that time was farmed out to another lab, Lab Corp. And in 2002, they now had buccal swabs, no need to take blood for DNA.
The MAIN point is that the tube was opened at least once, in fact at least twice that they know of. Before I ask why it was opened in 2002 I'll read .. so I don't ask a redundant question.. :) :)
[–]foghaze 2 points 2 days ago
The vial is never said to have been opened in 2002. It's just the box. They were checking the contents. LE should not have opened the Vial when doing this. It's all very confusing to say the least.
[–]OliviaD2 1 point 2 days ago
LOL.. sure is confusing. What matters most is that it was opened at least once, by Lab Corp. I assume only because this was LE 'evidence' it was returned, otherwise it would have been chucked. It makes sense it would not be opened in 2002, as one would hope even the WI crime lab wouldn't use that gnarly old blood for any testing, maybe they wanted to see what old blood looked like ??
[–]foghaze 2 points 2 days ago
At any rate I don't think this vial matters anyway. KZ tweeted not too long ago that the blood was planted but not the way S&B theorized. To me that says they used something else. I've always wondered if/why there was no blood vial from the 85 case. They drew PB's blood, why not Avery's? Certainly for if not for anything else aside from blood typing they would need to verify Avery didn't have any diseases for PB to worry about right?
CONTINUED...
[–]OliviaD2 1 point 1 day ago
ReplyDeleteLOL, I agree. Long ago I didn't think much of the blood vial, which is why I haven't paid much attention to it :) I'm not sure why I even got into this discussion.. probably procrastination :). I think it's basically just an intellectual debate, it doesn't really matter - in the big picture.. it doesn't really matter whether or not the plug was removed. That still won't answer the ?
Good lord, you think they would, I think they only cared about nailing Avery. I don't think they cared about the victim, or justice or the safety of the community .. clearly. Honestly i don't know why the citizens aren't the biggest critics of these baffoons! Do they realize what they are supporting?
[–]JLWhitaker 6 points 3 days ago
Yes! Just wrote that. They opened the box in 2002 as well. See Exhibit 450.
[–]OliviaD2 1 point 2 days ago
Thanks JL, I haven't followed the history of the tube closely.... might perhaps I'll review it now. :)
I also don't put faith in agent LeBeau, although he is right on this one.
I'm unsure about the vial being used for any planting. It's unfortunate the documentary made such a big deal about the "hole in the top". This created a red herring, IMO. The most significant thing the blood tube/storage container shows us is written in another comment here. I can't remember the user now.... it shows how sloppy the MCSD was with their evidence. Doesn't seem far fetched in that system that just about anyone could get their hands on just about anything. And, well, we certainly no all about that now :)
[–]cancerman4B 7 points 3 days ago
It is very easy to remove the stopper
https://youtu.be/iIfGhbehepM
[–]thom_driftwood 7 points 3 days ago
Isn't the argument that it was taken off when they were exonerating him in the 1985 case? I could've sworn I saw guilters riding that argument.
[–]foghaze 5 points 3 days ago*
No because this vial was drawn at the prison in 1996. There is no documents stating his blood vial was ever sent to the crime lab.
[–]OliviaD2 1 point 2 days ago
but they did do some earlier DNA testing that before the exoneration tests.. the court turned these down, they were too new. It now seems to me that this was the blood sent to the lab, Labcorp, which presumably did the testing for the state.
[–]foghaze 2 points 2 days ago
but they did do some earlier DNA testing that before the exoneration tests.
Did they actually do testing in 96 or was it turned down before the actual testing occurred?
CONTINUED...
[–]OliviaD2 1 point 1 day ago
ReplyDeletePost-Conviction Investigation
After losing several appeals, 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 tests were unable to eliminate Avery, however, and a motion for a new trial was denied.
This is from the innocence project webpage. In order to not be able to eliminate him, they would have had to test his DNA. I recall reading about this, is was RFLP testing, which the courts were still struggling with (although they have no trouble with bogus EDTA testing). Even though the petition was granted in '95, they take their sweet time to get anything done, so I'm assuming this was that testing.
Sad, because it did introduce doubt. I swear the more I learn about the legal system the more depressed I get, which is why I left this all 10 months ago, lol............ https://www.innocenceproject.org/cases/steven-avery/
I also remember Griesbach talking about this at some legal conference, and he probably does in his book. He was pretty good with his facts about the rape case, he went off later on .. :P
[–]OliviaD2 1 point 1 day ago
Actually, you are making me think, though :)... I'm think it's fairly safe to say the WSCL was using the same equipment in 2005 that they were in 2002. i.e the same sequencer, the same software. Which would mean they had electropherograms from sequencing SA's DNA in a case file.. kept ? .. somewhere... ding ding ding... pretty easy to just change the date on a printout... of course.. just speculating. However, anything is possible, IMO :)
[–]cancerman4B 8 points 3 days ago*
Ive had over 1,000 blood draws in the last seven years and i have definitely seen blood in between the stopper and glass plenty of times. The stoppers are slightly tapered.
https://youtu.be/YoLFXKk8QL0 at the 30:30 mark an expert one of the nations leading experts in blood collection (who had nothing to do with the case) talks about it. "Its both typical and common"
http://imgur.com/qqaN2i8
http://imgur.com/50gLBTV
[–]OliviaD2 1 point 2 days ago
The top is not 'vacuum' sealed in the sense that most people think. Vacutainer is the name of a blood draw system (the one that I believe all medical labs use now). The 'vacuum' is set up in the sample tube to 'suck' the blood into it, making for a much more quick and efficient blood draw, and allowing for multiple tubes to be filled from one needle stick.. i.e. the needle that goes into the sample tube can be used for multiple tubes. Once the stopper is pierced to put blood in, the vacuum no longer exists.
So, a tube filled with blood is not "vacuum sealed".
I also assume blood getting in between the stopper and the glass would be more likely here, as it appears to me the blood was stored on its side, and also moved around at least a few times; i.e taken on/off a shelf, carried around. I could see some sloshing around occurring. In the medical world, blood tubes are usually kept upright most of the time.
CONTINUED...
[–]OliviaD2 9 points 3 days ago*
ReplyDeleteThe top would have been taken off at least once, in order to do the tests which the blood was drawn for, presumably the DNA tests which exonerated him of the rape charges.
[–]hos_gotta_eat_too[S] 5 points 3 days ago
they wouldn't draw blood out of the tube using a needle for testing?
[–]missingtruth 9 points 3 days ago
The lab doesn't pull blood back through a needle to remove it from the tube for testing. It tears up the blood cells. Hemolysis sometimes even happens when it's initially drawn and you have to be drawn again.
The lab removes the stopper and pipettes the blood out of the tube.
[–]purged6 2 points 2 days ago
Thanks for this clarification. I asked about this in another sub and I was told that they use a pipettte for safety reasons. I wondered why lab techs couldn't be trusted handling needles. Your explanation makes much more sense.
[–]Rayxor 2 points 2 days ago
Absolutely not. That is never done.
Once blood is drawn, you no longer have the vacuum. The vacuum is there to provide a pressure differential which draws the blood into the tube. When the tube stops filling, the pressure has reached an equilibrium. There is no longer a vacuum in the tube.
[–]OliviaD2 1 point 2 days ago
Thank you /u/Rayxor and /u/missingtruth for providing that info, especially pointing out the purpose of the Vacutainer system (which is a TM, but I can't do the superscript here.. or maybe I can, but I don't know how..:) ) The vacuum is to draw the blood into the tube, as you explain. There is a needle that is inserted into the plug when the blood is drawn. I was just about to reply to /u/hos_gotta_eat_ and see you already have!
Also, HOS, asap the whole blood needs to be spun down in a centrifuge - tubes are put in this machine that spins the around at high speed, i.e centrifugal force. This separates the cellular portions of the blood from the liquid. These different layers are separated using a pipette. In the medical world, what is needed is used and the rest tossed. For blood banks, research, etc. or if anything will need to be stored it will be frozen. A -80 deep freeze normally for long term storage. Here is a good general reference re: all things blood collection and processing.
As we all know by now (I recognize all my my old regulars here, good to see you - oh and that's old as in around here since the beginning, lol; not age ) the forensics/LE/prison laboratories (and I would assume 'medical' systems are a whole different animal. Lord knows what they do there.
I don't know why they would keep a crusty old tube of blood for decades. I'm assuming it has to do with the fact that they keep a lot of stuff for 'evidence'. I'm thinking that before the days of buccal swabs, perhaps blood was the biologic sample kept on file.
The article I gave the link to is good because it also discusses some of the effects of things like UV light, and other forms of light on blood. (i.e. think blood left out in the environment). Also, as cells, and cellular components degrade with time (which always happens), chemicals are released, and these can further compromise your sample.
So, a needle goes into the top of the tube when the blood is put in. This nicely allows multiple tubes to be filled from one needle puncture - the needle is pulled out and put in the next tube. People who regularly draw blood are very skilled at this and do it quickly. Most people aren't even aware of this because 1. they don't want to watch so are looking away, or 2. they are looking at the needle in their arm.
Apparently now I guess there is question as to why this blood was drawn. I assumed it was for some kind of testing, why else. Unless the 'system' decided they wanted to have blood samples. Would be interesting to talk to someone who works/worked in that world, although I doubt they are here :) https://www.path.org/publications/files/TS_rbp-eia_blood_collct.pdf
CONTINUED...
[–]hos_gotta_eat_too[S] 7 points 3 days ago
ReplyDeletethe nurse said there is absolutely no reason the top should be removed on a blood sample..ever.
[–]foghaze 10 points 3 days ago*
the nurse said there is absolutely no reason the top should be removed on a blood sample..ever.
Exactly!
Also to add, FBI agent LeBeau states it was "obvious" someone had taken the purple cap off.
http://i.imgur.com/4Z1nIvd.png
[–]cancerman4B 3 points 3 days ago
This video shows how easy it is to remove a stopper. It also shows how blood is taken from a tube (they use a pipette)
https://youtu.be/iIfGhbehepM
[–]BelieveMeIHaveTried 2 points 2 days ago
I do it if I have blood in a syringe that I've taken from a cannula, I don't have a safe needle transfer device, and I need to put blood in the tube. But it's not best practice. the lids just pop off. In a properly resourced lab environment it shouldn't happen.
[–]Rayxor 1 point 2 days ago
Maybe she meant during blood collection. The nurse doesn't work in the lab. In the lab they certainly will remove the cap to draw off samples for testing.
I'm actually surprised this is still being asked here.
If you need more info to convince yourself, please pm me. I've taken blood hundreds if not thousands of times. I worked in a hospital lab when I was younger. I did rotations in hematology, chemistry, and blood banking. I am very familiar with the types of samples used.
[–]Rayxor 1 point 2 days ago
Not until its in the lab and the need to perform the lab tests.
[–]ICUNurse1 8 points 3 days ago
Absolutely!!!! Never. I have said this many times and have been shot down. We draw our own labs in the ICU. It has never happened to me.
[–]Colorado_love 8 points 2 days ago
As a nurse, I've mentioned this several times.
That tube was re-stuck with a large bore needle AFTER the fact. I have no doubt in my mind about that!
CONTINUED...
[–]Whiznot 4 points 2 days ago
ReplyDeleteZellner tweeted that Avery's planted blood came from a source other than the subject vial. I believe that she can prove that the blood was planted from some other source.
[–]Mr_Precedent 3 points 2 days ago
The 1985 Manitowoc blood sample that Kratz said Wiegert was checking to "make sure what it was".
[–]ryanHdidit 3 points 2 days ago
I think the blood in the tube is barking up the wrong tree. I do believe that the blood could easily make it at least part way between the rubber seal and the glass. Remember the shuttle disaster? It was because of the O-rings made by Morton Thiokol. THey didn't factor in that rubber expands when heated and contracts when cooled. The disaster happened b/c the launch happened on an unseasonably cool day when the 0-rings, in the cooler weather, were in a contracted state, and were thus unable to form an adequately tight seal. Gas escaped, caught fire, and, well, we know the rest. Now a rubber stopper in a test tube is not an o-ring for a space shuttle, but I think the same principles apply.
That blood was around for a very long time, and there is no way to determine, over the decades, what extremes of temperature it might have been exposed. It gets very cold in Manitowoc. We also don't know whether the tube was always kept upright.
The other problem that I have with the blood coming from the evidence in Manitowoc is that if there were a conscious conspiracy afoot to plant evidence, I'm pretty sure that that the evidence of this planting would be destroyed as much as possible. In other words, it would have made sense for the planters to dispose of the vial of blood after the needed sample used for planting was extracted.
Yet another problem with the blood held in evidence in Manitowoc is that it introduces more elements into the so-called conspiracy. I actually agree with the Guilters that the more people implicated in the frame, the less likely it is that this is the explanation for what happened. I do not know the extent of Lenk and Colborn's involvement, but I suspect that it was passive rather than active.
Figuring out the blood is a big problem because if it wasn't planted, we're probably all wrong, and Steven Avery really did kill Teresa Halbach. We're all here, hopefully, because that doesn't make any sense. I've spent so much time thinking about this.
I don't rule out that it could have come from the vial in question. I just think that's way too pat. I think Ken Kratz planted the blood when he followed the RAV4 all the way to Madison where the crime lab is located. I know he left at the EXACT same time that JE and GZ (not that GZ, the other one who took the photographs of the RAV4) did. THese were the guys from the crime lab. It took them at least an hour longer than it should have to get there, and then, once the RAV4 arrived in Madison, it took another hour to get it unloaded from the trailer.
Was Ken Kratz there that night? I don't know for sure, but if he was, that would confirm my theory. I think Kratz was there, and I also think it's possible that either Fassbender, Baldwin or Weigert might have been there as well.
The one person who would know is the person who drove the truck which pulled the trailer containing the RAV4. That person's name, NM, is listed on the sign in/out sheet for 11/05/2005, and as mentioned he left the same time KK and JE left ASY. I was able to get this person's phone number, and I called him to ask whether he remembered whether Ken Kratz was there at the crime lab. He paused for a long time and said, "I can't talk about that, I'm sorry" and hung up.
By the way, as far as Ken Kratz on the sign in/out log, his sign out on 11/05/2005 is easy to miss because he doesn't use his name. Instead, he is signed out under Calumet CO DA, at 20:42 (page 5 as the pdf is paginated)
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/CASO-Crime-Scene-Logs.pdf
CONTINUED...
I've the blood didn't come from the vial, where did it come from then? My theory still has to answer this questions. And that is, I confess, my theory's weakness (leaving aside, for the moment, that Kratz, nor the others mentioned, may not have been at the crime lab during the wee hours of 11/06/2005).
ReplyDeleteHas it been thoroughly disproven that it would be impossible to plant blood if the source for that blood was dried blood from a blood soaked rag?
I don't believe that RYan and Kratz were working in concert. I believe that Ken Kratz had access to the evidence room in Calumet County and had access, therefore, to THs and also SAs DNA from items of clothing and personal items collected at where TH once lived, and also ASY. SAs DNA could have been used by Kratz to plant the "hood latch" DNA. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what he did. AS for the bullet, if Ken Kratz had the gun in an evidence locker in Calumet, he could have surreptitiously taken that gun out of the office. The magic bullet could very easily have been one that Kratz collected himself after firing Avery's gun. The bones also could have come from the evidence locker. Every pd has dozens, if not hundreds of unsolved cases that require evidence to be stored for fifty years or more. Kratz could have dug up a few of these bones, crushed them, baked them etc., smeared a little of THs DNA from other items held in evidence, and voila, you have a body (without really having a body). If he did this, he was clever about it because he chose a victim who had been shot in the head. Thus he dropped in a fragment from the skull that showed evidence of the kind of beveling you'd expect to see from a gunshot.
What are the odds that of all those itty bitty pieces of bone, most not bigger than the size of a quarter, one piece would show sure signs of a gunshot? If you see Kratz on news shows, or listen to him on radio shows, there is a fervor that he had about the evidence that he planted. Who better than he to know for sure that the bullet came from Avery's gun? Who better than he to speak on the hood latch DNA with certainty and authority? WHo better than he to ridicule the theory that it was a VAST LE conspiracy when it really only consisted of him (and maybe TH and MW)?
So why do I think that KK and RH were not working in concert? Because the letter that KK sent to SA gave me every reason to believe that KK genuinely thinks that SA was the perpetrator. If he had been working with RH (and RH was the real killer), KK would know that it wasn't SA, and therefore wouldn't be asking SA to do a tell all for a book he planned to write.
So, if RH and KK were not working in concert, there were probably not two separate planters of evidence working without knowledge of the other. It's possible, but it makes it all less likely.
Then again, it depends on the extent of the planting. Kratz might have done A LOT of evidence planting, while RH might have just planted THs blood after she died. If the scratches on RHs hands mean anything, if he killed TH, they look like they were left while he was strangling her. This is VERY commonly how boy/girl murders go. A lover becomes enraged in a moment of fury, and strangles the object of his love ... to death. But this method of murder does not create blood. So, if this is how RH murdered TH, where did HER blood come from?
If RH, after killing TH drove the RAV4 back to ASY, I do believe that it is possible that he planted THs blood in the back. IF he had her body, as I surmise, he would have had a source of her blood, obviously, and this source would be more than sufficient to leave the much more voluminous imprint we see in the cargo area of the RAV4.
If the blood in the back of the RAV4 belonging to TH wasn't left by her killer, then we're back to Kratz (or whoever you think planted the blood).
CONTINUED...
[–]OliviaD2 1 point 2 days ago*
ReplyDeleteTHIS THIS THIS!!
I also do not think the vial was used for planting (I could of course be wrong).
I was so excited I had to comment. I entertain (in my private fantasy world) multiple possibilities.. one being that there did not need to be any real blood at all. Or blood belonging to SA or TH. A little more far fetched, but until I can rule out certain things, they are still potential theories (thinking like a scientist). I am not accepting anything from WSCL as valid. Some of it could be, but to be thorough I need it verified by an unbiased source, retested if possible. And it should be possible with these blood samples.
I don't know how this will pan out, but I sure have the learned enough through all of this to write one hell of a crime novel, or 2.... :)
i've written this out, but I have nowhere to post my musings so they are in my computer.. until I get them here or somewhere.. I was going to blog but have been too lazy :) :( One potential way to reconcile your theory is that they didn't need to extract DNA from any blood in the car. They needed some blood in the car for optics. But they had a DNA sources: they had a buccal swab, DNA that was previously extracted would have been stored. From what was done according to the initial DNA report.. it sure looks like the primary goal was not to ID a 'missing person', but to pull a murderer out of the State database. They KNEW SA would be in the state database, being a felony sex offender at one time (just because you are exonerated doesn't been they take you out of the database). It's like the Hotel California. I'll write this all out... . along with my 25 or so other rough drafts.. some day..
Also, recall, no bones ever yielded any useful DNA. The only "ID" of the remains, which is shaky was done on a piece of "tissue". Bones burned as badly as these would not be expected to yield any usable DNA, even mtDNA (which can be used for very degraded samples, included burned, but not too badly burned remains). What I don't understand this: IF a bone had a piece of tissue left on it, it would not be as badly burned (in fact, this is what Eisenberg testified to, that the bone apparently almost unburned). This would be a perfect source of mtDNA! Yet, it was not used. I have to assume this because they never say "bone". They call everything else they tested "bone fragments". What they tested was called "charred remains", I'm assuming the same thing that SC tested. (I'm talking about the FBI of course, who does the mtDNA testing). Anyway, there is a lot of bizarredness (I made that up) surrounding the "ID of the remains". Which of course, was really done (again) in a press conference on 1/19/06. With the big headline "Remains confirmed as Halbach"... by the FBI. Followed by a lot of inaccurate reporting. In the public's mind those "bones" were TH, despite the fact that the FBI report was not even used in the trial, only SCs data. There was no press conference after that data was released... . hmmmm Anyway.. a lot to say here.. :)
[–]Zenock43 1 point 2 days ago
Can someone tell me definitively, when they drew blood from him, they only drew blood into one kind of tube.
I've had blood drawn many many times for various reason. But never have they only taken one tube of blood from me. I think three was the minimum they have ever taken. With different color caps. (I believe red is straight blood with no additives.)
However, I have never been investigate for a crime. So maybe when they draw blood for investigative reasons, they only draw one tube with EDTA in it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/5zsflb/just_had_blood_drawn/
Strang and Buting thought they got the blood from Avery's 1996 vial that was stored in the 1985 case file at the office of the clerk of the court. The blood vial was stored in Avery's 1985 case file (a cardboard box) because it was collected in 1996 as part of his motion for DNA testing to exclude both himself and Beernsten.
ReplyDeleteWas there a vial of Avery's blood stored at the prison hospital from a different year? Is that what Zellner means by her tweet on December 4, 2016:
"Experts experiments confirm SA's trial attorneys correct about blood being planted but incorrect about how it was done."
Did the framer(s) formulate a plan in 2003 (before he was exonerated and released) to frame Avery for a crime.
Was Joshua Radandt a willing participant in this framing?
"BRUECHERT believed ROGER RADUENZ was related to the family who owned the RADANDT GRAVEL PIT south of the AVERY property."
Fifteen months after Teresa Halbach went missing, Thomas Bruechert contacted MTSO to inform them that Roger Raduenz told him ex-inmates of Steven Avery, soon after his 2003 release for the 1985 wrongful conviction, broke into the prison hospital, stole his vial of blood, and turned it over to inmate Raduenz, who was about to be released.
Raduenz was in Fox Lake prison with Avery (Avery was in Fox Lake from 11/28/01 - 6/10/03 and was moved to Stanley on 6/10/03, where he stayed until his 9/11/03 release). Raduenz was released from prison sometime after 10/8/2003.
CASO detectives Gary Steier and Wendy Baldwin interviewed Bruechert on January 24, 2007 at his home in Manitowoc.
There is a tape of Roger Raduenz's interview, but it isn't available, perhaps because it being held as evidence. It is recorded on Calumet County log under an incorrect name - RADOVENZ.
Radandt stated he wouldn't have been asked to help carry out blood from prison by inmates because he was friendly with the guards. How friendly? He had privileges (he said they let him use tools).
Raduenz stated he could not be sure if he had given her (Teresa) a ride because of the way women change their hair. Was he in the habit of picking up women he didn't know? Was he covering his tracks in case they actually inspected his van? He needn't have worried: a cursory look through the windows and job done!
Raduenz was a driver for Dedicated Systems.
It's unfortunate (and perhaps "convenient" for law enforcement) that Raduenz died six months after Steven and Brendan were convicted.
March 18, 2007: Avery is found guilty of intentional homicide and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He is acquitted of mutilating a corpse.
April 25, 2007: Dassey is found guilty of sexual assault, party to a homicide, and mutilation of a corpse.
October 16, 2007: Raduenz dies at the age of 65.
THOMAS BRUECHERT had reported to the MANITOWOC COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT that a ROGER R. RADUENZ had told him he was in prison with STEVEN AVERY. RADUENZ informed BRUECHERT that after STEVEN AVERY was released, some other inmates at the prison broke into the prison hospital, stole the vial of STEVEN AVERY's blood, and then tumed the blood over to RADUENZ, who was being released from prison.
In the CASO report, Steier doesn't reveal when MTSO contacted CASO about Bruechert's statements. He first told MTSO his story but they didn't write a report, of course.
It was more than a year after Teresa disappeared and just before Avery's trial when Bruechert was interviewed by CASO. CASO wrote that "Thomas Bruechert indicated he was waiting for investigators to speak with him about the incident."
If Bruechert took that van ride with Raduenz in the fall or December of 2006, and he contacted MTSO soon after, why didn't CASO interview him sooner than January 24, 2007, two weeks before Avery's trial was about to begin (February 12, 2007). Did MTSO fail to notify CASO sooner, or maybe CASO took their time contacting Bruechert so that Avery's defense wouldn't have time to investigate the story.
PAGE 1043
ReplyDeleteTYPE OF ACTIVITY: Interview of: Thomas Jon Bruechert
DATE OF ACTIVITY: 01/24/07
REPORTING OFFICER: Inv. Gary Steier
On Wednesday, 01/24/07, at approximately 9:41a.m., I (Inv. STEIER), along with Inv. WENDY BALDWIN, both of the CALUMET COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, interviewed THOMAS JON BRUECHERT.
THOMAS BRUECHERT had reported to the MANITOWOC COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT that a ROGER R. RADUENZ had told him he was in prison with STEVEN AVERY. RADUENZ informed BRUECHERT that after STEVEN AVERY was released, some other inmates at the prison broke into the prison hospital, stole the vial of STEVEN AVERY's blood, and then tumed the blood over to RADUENZ, who was being released from prison.
RADUENZ indicated he had befriended BRENDAN DASSEY and RADUENZ and DASSEY would watch STEVEN AVERY's whereabouts around the AVERY salvage property. BRUECHERT stated RADUENZ went on to tell him that RADUENZ had come upon TERESA HALBACH, who had run out of gas on I43. He had tried to have sex with her, she refused and he killed her. After this was completed, he placed TERESA HALBACH's vehicle at the AVERY'S SALVAGE YARD with AVERY'S blood, which he had stolen from prison, inside TERESA HALBACH's vehicle.
Inv. BALDWIN and I met THOMAS BRUECHERT at the residence of 820 Redfin Court, Manitowoc, Manitowoc County. THOMAS BRUECHERT indicated he was waiting for investigators to speak with him about the incident.
BRUECHERT stated he was given a ride by ROGER RADUENZ in ROGER RADUENZ's white van when RADUENZ informed BRUECHERT of the story he had told the MANITOWOC COUINTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.
BRUECHERT stated he had met ROGER RADUENZ at the SALVATION ARMY in the City of Green Bay. RADUENZ took BRUECHERT for a ride in his van and while riding with RADUENZ in his van, told him the story that RADUENZ and STEVEN AVERY were in the same prison. BRUECHERT did not know which prison RADUENZ was referring to. BRUECHERT said RADUENZ stated the inmates at the prison were mad at STEVEN AVERY. BRUECHERT indicated the blood was stolen by the inmates and given to RADUENZ along with very small cameras. This was used to set up STEVEN AVERY for the murder of TERESA HALBACH.
BRUECHERT was unclear how the miniature cameras were used in the setup of STEVEN AVERY, but indicated they make very small cameras, which were given, along with the blood, to ROGER RADUENZ when he left the prison.
BRUECHERT indicated ROGER RADUENZ was a very dangerous man. RADUENZ would watch the back way to STEVEN AVERY's property, and when STEVEN AVERY would leave is when ROGER RADUENZ would move in and set up STEVEN AVERY.
BRUECHERT contradicted himself by indicating that state inmates have a code. When asked further about the code, BRUECHERT stated RADUENZ, being a state inmate, would have a code like a code of silence and would not speak about this to anyone other than to other inmates about what had taken place. BRUECHERT stated, however, RADUENZ had confided in him inside RADUENZ's van.
BRUECHERT was asked when the conversation had taken place inside the van between himself and RADUENZ. BRUECHERT estimated it to be a warrn day and told investigators he believed September, 2005. Inv. STEIER informed BREUCHERT that TERESA HALBACH had not been killed until later that year and was still alive in September,2005. BRUECHERT then indicated he thought it was in the fall or December of 2006.
CONTINUED...
BRUECHERT indicated he was scared of RADUENZ who is always known to have a knife or gun on him. BRUECHERT indicated he was so scared to be in the van, he got out of the van and stayed at a VILLAGE INN.
ReplyDeleteBRUECHERT indicated RADUENZ was a trucker. BRUECHERT stated he did not know the whereabouts of ROGER RADUENZ and was tryrng to locate where he was.
BRUECHERT believed ROGER RADUENZ was related to the family who owned the RADANDT GRAVEL PIT south of the AVERY property.
BRUECHERT indicated he had never been in prison but had spent some time in the WINNEBAGO RESOURCE CENTER approximately 20 years ago.
The female subject who was present, who wished not to be identified, identified only by her first name of SANDRA, indicated she also knew ROGER RADUENZ. She indicated she contacted her son, TRAVIS LEMAY (ph), approximately 32 years of age, by cell phone and asked her son, TRAVIS, if he knew where RADUENZ was.
According to SANDRA, TRAVIS told her over the phone that ROGER RADUENZ was trouble and THOMAS BRUECHERT should stay away from him. SANDRA also indicated TRAVIS said he had beaten up ROGER RADUENZ once and did not like him. SANDRA also indicated TRAVIS stated he has not seen ROGER RADUENZ since. SANDRA indicated ROGER RADUENZ was never a truck driver but drove a white panel van, which he drove with stolen goods in the back. SANDRA indicated ROGER RADUENZ would steal stuff and transport the stolen items in his van. She described it as a white moving truck like a U-haul type.
The interview ended at approximately 10:00 am.
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CASO-Investigative-Report.pdf
CASO detectives wrote their reports to obfuscate. The following is a rearrangement of the report above in a more logical order for a smoother flow. The writing in all caps is commentary.
ReplyDeletePage 1043 - COMMENTARY IN CAPS
Type of Activity: Interview of: Thomas Jon Bruechert
Date of Activity: 01/24/07
Reporting Officer: Inv. Gary Steier
BRUECHERT FIRST CONTACTED MTSO AND RECOUNTED THE STORY THAT RADUENZ TOLD HIM WHEN THEY RODE TOGETHER IN RADUENZ'S WHITE VAN.
Thomas Bruechert had reported to the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department that a Roger R. Raduenz had told him he was in prison with Steven Avery. Bruechert stated he was given a ride by Roger RADUENZ in Roger RADUENZ's white van when RADUENZ informed Bruechert of the story he [Bruechert] had told the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department.
CASO MET WITH BRUECHERT AT HIS HOME IN MANITOWOC AFTER MTSO INFORMED CASO OF THEIR CONTACT WITH BRUECHERT.
On Wednesday, 01/24/07, at approximately 9:41a.m., I (Inv. Steier), along with Inv. Wendy Baldwin, both of the Calumet County Sheriff's Department, interviewed Thomas Jon Bruechert. Inv. Baldwin and I met Thomas Bruechert at the residence of 820 Redfin Court, Manitowoc, Manitowoc County. Thomas Bruechert indicated he was waiting for investigators to speak with him about the incident.
BRUECHERT RECOUNTED THE STORY THAT RADUENZ TOLD HIM WHILE HE RODE WITH RADUENZ IN HIS WHITE VAN, THAT HE WAS IN THE SAME PRISON WITH AVERY AND, AFTER AVERY WAS RELEASED, INMATES BROKE INTO THE PRISON HOSPITAL, STOLE THE VIAL OF AVERY'S BLOOD, AND GAVE IT TO RADUENZ WHEN HE LEFT PRISON (THEY KNEW HE WAS ABOUT TO BE RELEASED, SO THEY STOLE IT WITH THE INTENTION OF GIVING IT TO RADUENZ SINCE HE WAS ABOUT TO BE RELEASED).
Bruechert stated he had met Roger Raduenz at the Salvation Army in the City of Green Bay. Raduenz took Bruechert for a ride in his van and, while riding with Raduenz in his van, told him the story that Raduenz and Steven Avery were in the same prison. Bruechert did not know which prison Raduenz was referring to.
Bruechert said Raduenz stated the inmates at the prison were mad at Steven Avery.
Raduenz informed Bruechert that after Steven Avery was released, some other inmates at the prison broke into the prison hospital, stole the vial of Steven Avery's blood, and then turned the blood over to Raduenz, who was being released from prison.
BRUECHERT STATED THAT RADUENZ TOLD HIM THAT HE ALSO WAS GIVEN, ALONG WITH THE BLOOD, MINIATURE CAMERAS, WHICH WERE USED IN THE SETUP OF AVERY.
Bruechert indicated the blood was stolen by the inmates and given to Raduenz along with very small cameras. This was used to set up Steven Avery for the murder of Teresa Halbach. Bruechert was unclear how the miniature cameras were used in the setup of Steven Avery, but indicated they make very small cameras, which were given, along with the blood, to Roger Raduenz when he left the prison.
BRUECHERT STATED THAT RADUENZ SAID HE BEFRIENDED BRENDAN DASSEY AND THE TWO OF THEM WOULD WATCH AVERY'S WHEREABOUT AROUND THE AVERY PROPERTY. WHY WOULD HE DO THIS UNLESS HE WAS AN INFORMANT? AND WHY DID HE INVOLVE BRENDAN? WAS HE AN INFORMANT WHO WAS INSTRUCTED TO DO SO BY LE BECAUSE BRENDAN WAS THE CLOSEST TO STEVEN AVERY?
Raduenz indicated he had befriended Brendan Dassey, and Raduenz and Dassey would watch Steven Avery's whereabouts around the Avery salvage property.
CONTINUED...
BRUECHERT STATED RADUENZ IMPLICATED HIMSELF IN THE MURDER OF TERESA HALBACH, CLAIMING HE CAME UPON HER ON 1-43, WHERE SHE HAD RUN OUT OF GAS, AND HE TRIED TO HAVE SEX WITH HER BUT SHE REFUSED SO HE KILLED HER. I-43 IS A HIGHWAY SO IT IS UNLIKELY THAT HE WOULD HAVE ASSAULTED HER THERE WITH THE HIGH LIKELIHOOD THAT THERE WOULD BE WITNESSES TO THE CRIME. HE DIDN'T ELABORATE ON THE DETAILS OF THIS ALLEGED ASSAULT. TERESA HAD ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE BY TEXTING #HELP ON HER CINGULAR CELLPHONE, SO WHY WOULD SHE SEEK ASSISTANCE FROM A STRANGER? DID RADUENZ ABDUCT HALBACH FROM THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, FORCE HER TO DRIVE HER RAV4 WITH HIM IN THE BACKSEAT WITH A GUN TO HER HEAD TO ANOTHER LOCATION, WHERE HE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED HER AND KILLED HER? BUT IF SHE WERE OUT OF GAS, THAT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE. HAD HER CAR BEEN ABANDONED ON I-43 BECAUSE SHE WAS OUT OF GAS, SOMEONE WOULD HAVE SEEN IT THERE, YET THERE ARE NO REPORTS OF THAT. IS RADUENZ MAKING UP THE I-43 ENCOUNTER OR ANY ENCOUNTER WITH HALBACH?
ReplyDeleteBruechert stated Raduenz went on to tell him that Raduenz had come upon Teresa Halbach, who had run out of gas on I43. He had tried to have sex with her, she refused and he killed her. After this was completed, he placed Teresa Halbach's vehicle at the Avery's Salvage Yard with Avery's blood, which he had stolen from prison, inside Teresa Halbach's vehicle.
BRUECHERT STATED THAT RADUENZ TOLD HIM HE USED THE "BACK WAY" INTO THE AVERY PROPERTY TO SETUP AVERY. BRUECHERT ALSO MENTIONS RADANDT'S GRAVEL PIT WHILE TELLING THIS STORY, BUT WITHOUT MUCH ELABORATION, UNLESS CASO LEFT OUT THE DETAILS IN THEIR REPORT (IS THERE ANY AUDIO RECORDING OF THIS INTERVIEW?). ALL THAT IS WRITTEN ABOUT RADANDT IS THAT BRUECHERT BELIEVES RADUENZ IS RELATED TO THE RADANDT FAMILY WHO OWNS THE GRAVEL PIT SOUTH OF THE AVERY PROPERTY. DID RADUENZ TELL BRUECHERT AND DID BRUECHERT TELL CASO THAT RADUENZ WAS WATCHING THE AVERY PROPERTY FROM RADANDT'S DEER CAMP, WAITING FOR THE AVERYS TO LEAVE SO EVIDENCE COULD BE PLANTED? DID RADUENZ KILL HALBACH IN RADANDT'S GRAVEL PIT OR AT RADANDT'S DEER CAMP?
Raduenz would watch the back way to Steven Avery's property, and when Steven Avery would leave is when Roger Raduenz would move in and set up Steven Avery.
Bruechert believed Roger Raduenz was related to the family who owned the Radandt Gravel Pit south of the Avery property.
BRUECHERT STATED THAT HE WAS SCARED TO BE IN THE VAN [AFTER HEARING THIS STORY], SO HE GOT OUT AND STAYED AT A VILLAGE INN. BRUECHERT SAYS RADUENZ WAS A VERY DANGEROUS MAN WHO ALWAYS WAS KNOWN TO HAVE A KNIFE OR GUN ON HIM.
Bruechert indicated he was so scared to be in the van, he got out of the van and stayed at a Village Inn.
Bruechert indicated Roger Raduenz was a very dangerous man. Bruechert indicated he was scared of Raduenz who is always known to have a knife or gun on him.
BRUECHERT STATED RADUENZ, BEING A STATE INMATE, FOLLOWED A CODE OF SILENCE AND WOULD NOT SPEAK ABOUT WHAT HAD TAKEN PLACE TO ANYONE OTHER THAN OTHER INMATES, BUT RADUENZ CONFIDED IN BRUECHERT, WHO HAD NEVER BEEN IN PRISON, WHILE INSIDE RADUENZ'S VAN (BRUECHERT HADN'T BEEN IN PRISON BUT HAD BEEN IN AND OUT OF COUNTY JAIL).
Bruechert contradicted himself by indicating that state inmates have a code. When asked further about the code, Bruechert stated Raduenz, being a state inmate, would have a code like a code of silence and would not speak about this to anyone other than to other inmates about what had taken place. Bruechert stated, however, Raduenz had confided in him inside Raduenz's van.
Bruechert indicated he had never been in prison but had spent some time in the Winnebago Resource Center approximately 20 years ago.
CONTINUED...
BRUECHERT COULDN'T REMEMBER THE EXACT TIME RADUENZ TOLD HIM THIS STORY WHILE DRIVING IN HIS VAN, BUT THOUGHT IT WAS IN THE FALL OR DECEMBER OF 2006, A YEAR OR SO AFTER TERESA HALBACH DISAPPEARED.
ReplyDeleteBruechert was asked when the conversation had taken place inside the van between himself and Raduenz. Bruechert estimated it to be a warrn day and told investigators he believed September, 2005. Inv. Steier informed Bruechert that Teresa Halbach had not been killed until later that year and was still alive in September, 2005. Bruechert then indicated he thought it was in the fall or December of 2006.
BRUECHERT STATED THAT RADUENZ WAS A TRUCKER, BUT BRUECHERT'S FRIEND, WHO WAS PRESENT DURING THE INTERVIEW, SAID RADUENZ WAS NOT A TRUCKER BUT DROVE A WHITE U-HAUL TYPE VAN, WHICH HE DROVE AROUND WITH STOLEN GOODS IN THE BACK.
Bruechert indicated Raduenz was a trucker. Bruechert stated he did not know the whereabouts of Roger Raduenz and was trying to locate where he was.
The female subject who was present, who wished not to be identified, identified only by her first name of Sandra, indicated she also knew Roger Raduenz.
Sandra indicated Roger Raduenz was never a truck driver but drove a white panel van, which he drove with stolen goods in the back. Sandra indicated Roger Raduenz would steal stuff and transport the stolen items in his van. She described it as a white moving truck like a U-haul type.
She indicated she contacted her son, Travis Lemay (ph), approximately 32 years of age, by cell phone and asked her son, Travis, if he knew where Raduenz was.
According to Sandra, Travis told her over the phone that Roger Raduenz was trouble and Thomas Bruechert should stay away from him. Sandra also indicated Travis said he had beaten up Roger Raduenz once and did not like him. Sandra also indicated Travis stated he has not seen Roger Raduenz since.
Page 1046
ReplyDeleteTYPE OF ACTIVITY: Interview of Roger R. Raduenz
1325 N. 8th Street, #121 Manitowoc, WI 54220, No Phone
DATE OF ACTIVITY: 01/26/07
REPORTING OFFICER: Inv. Gary Steier
On Friday, 01/26/07, I (lnv. STEIER), along with Inv. WENDY BALDWIN, both of the CALUMET COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, did interview ROGER R. RADUENZ. M/W, DOB 11/09/42, at his apartment complex of 1325 N. 8th Street, Manitowoc, WI.
Investigators identified themselves as from the CALUMET COLINTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT and informed RADUENZ they were investigating the TERESA HALBACH murder. RADUENZ indicated he had nothing to say.
Inv. STEIER informed RADUENZ an individual, who he had given a ride in his van, had told investigators a story. RADUENZ remembered the individual, describing him as the guy from Two Rivers. RADUENZ also indicated the guy was always in jail.
RADUENZ was asked if he knew STEVEN AVERY. RADUENZ replied he only knew him from the junkyard.
RADUENZ was asked if he was ever in prison with STEVEN AVERY. RADUENZ indicated he probably was in prison at the same time as STEVEN AVERY but never had contact with him.
RADUENZ indicated no one had ever given him anything to take out of prison nor had anyone given him blood to take out of prison.
RADUENZ indicated he was out of prison before anything like that had ever happened.
RADUENZ stated he was familiar with the story Inv. STEIER began to explain to him (the story of prison inmates smuggling STEVEN AVERY's blood out of the prison).
RADUENZ denied having any mutual acquaintances between himself and STEVEN AVERY while in prison.
RADUENZ then informed investigators he was in MANITOWOC COUNTY JAIL with STEVEN AVERY the first time STEVEN AVERY was charged with a rape case in the 1980s. RADUENZ indicated he was in the same cellblock as STEVEN AVERY but did not speak with him nor was he in the same cell as STEVEN AVERY.
RADUENZ said no other inmates would have been talking with STEVEN at the time because they were both in isolation. No other inmates were in the same cell as himself nor was anyone else in STEVEN AVERY's cell.
CONTINUED...
RADUENZ denied ever being aware of any blood from STEVEN AVERY while he was in the MANITOWOC COUNTY JAIL or while STEVEN was in prison. RADUENZ indicated he was not aware about it and DNA was not even talked about back then.
ReplyDeleteRADUENZ denied telling a story about STEVEN AVERY's blood to THOMAS BRUECHERT.
RADUENZ also denied ever having met or having contact with TERESA HALBACH.
RADUENZ indicated THOMAS BRUECHERT had probably told the story to get ROGER RADUENZ in trouble.
RADUENZ did recall giving THOMAS BRUECHERT a ride in the winter of 2005.
RADUENZ stated in the fall of 2005, he was a truck driver for DEDICATED SYSTEMS. RADUENZ indicated he was an over the road truck driver and was never in the area. He indicated his truck driving would take him to Texas, Florida, Louisiana and Atlanta. RADUENZ indicated when he did return from his truck driving routes, he was only in the area one or two days and he would be gone again with an over the road delivery. RADUENZ indicated he lived in his truck semi trailer at the time he worked for DEDICATED SYSTEMS. RADUENZ indicated he did not have a home address, only a P.O. Box at the time. RADUENZ indicated he did have all his log books to show where he was back in 2005. When Inv. STEIER asked to see his log books in his apartment, and asked if the log books were in his apartment, RADUENZ indicated he did not want to answer that because they would probably get stolen now.
Inv. STEIER then showed RADUENZ his badge and produced for RADUENZ a photo ID of a CALUMET COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT employee as well as a WI Driver License. RADUENZ then indicated he was okay in believing I worked for law enforcement.
RADUENZ was again asked if he had told the story to THOMAS BRUECHERT of how he smuggled STEVEN AVERY's blood out of prison. RADUENZ again denied the implication that he was involved in TERESA HALBACH's murder or framing STEVEN AVERY.
RADUENZ indicated he would not have been asked by prison inmates to help carry blood out because he was friendly with the guards. RADUENZ indicated his being on the good side of the prison guards allowed him to work with tools and do maintenance. RADUENZ indicated he would never do anything like that to start with because it would break his trust with the guards and he would not have been allowed to use the tools in the maintenance position.
RADUENZ indicated the story was a lie and THOMAS BRUECHERT was a liar. RADUENZ indicated BRUECHERT had asked him for $20.00 during the time he had given him a ride in the fall of 2005.
RADUENZ indicated he did not know TERESA HALBACH and he had not killed TERESA HALBACH.
RADUENZ indicated he had been at the AVERY'S SALVAGE YARD looking for parts prior to TERESA HALBACH's disappearance. RADUENZ stated he hung around with AL AVERY but did not hang around with nor was he friends with STEVEN AVERY or any of his brothers.
RADUENZ indicated the only thing he had to do with the AVERYS was on a previous occasion he had gotten parts from the AVERY'S SALVAGE YARD. That was the only thing he had in common with STEVEN AVERY. RADUENZ indicated the last time he had been to the AVERY'S SALVAGE YARD, he had looked for a power steering pump for his van. He indicated the AVERY brothers were too busy to wait on him. He did find a van, however, he did not purchase the power steering pump from the AVERY'S SALVAGE YARD.
RADUENZ indicated he believes the last time he had been at the AVERY'S SALVAGE YARD, which was to buy the power steering pump, would have been in September, 2005.
CONTINUED...
RADUENZ was asked by investigators if he had ever helped a stranded motorist on I43.
ReplyDeleteRADUENZ indicated he could recall helping a stranded Sheboygan motorist in a canteen truck.
RADUENZ was asked if he had ever given TERESA HALBACH a ride. RADUENZ indicated not that he remembered. RADUENZ was asked if he knew what TERESA HALBACH looked like. RADUENZ indicated he had seen a picture of her in the paper. RADUENZ stated he still would not be sure if he had given her a ride because of the way women can change their hair.
RADUENZ indicated there was a time when he worked out in Washington State for a MANPOWER COMPANY. RADUENZ indicated there were two girls that worked for MANPOWER with two different names. RADUENZ indicated they turned out to be the same individual. RADUENZ then indicated the woman had changed her name three times but was the same woman just using three different names. RADUENZ indicated he had gone to this place too many times and had noticed this female using multiple names. RADUENZ then indicated that if Inv. BALDWIN were to shave her head, he would not recognize her. RADUENZ indicated a lot of blacks do that now, they have their hair up and the next time you see them in the same spot they are bald.
RADUENZ indicated he had never picked up a white female on I43 who was a stranded motorist or given assistance to a white female.
RADUENZ indicated he did not kill TERESA HALBACH and there would not be any reason for him to do that. RADUENZ also denied taking TERESA HALBACH's body and placing it by STEVEN AVERY's trailer in an attempt to frame STEVEN AVERY. RADUENZ also indicated he did not take any of STEVEN AVERY's blood and place it on the AVERY compound in an attempt to frame STEVEN AVERY.
RADUENZ theorized that someone with motive would have done the murder. RADUENZ lacked motive.
RADUENZ indicated he did not need a business card from Inv. STEIER because he knew that he was a police officer and if he had any information, he could call the MANITOWOC COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT OR the CALUMET COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.
The interview ended at approximately 1:03 p.m. The ROGER RADUENZ interview was recorded. The recording CD was placed into evidence.
As investigators were leaving the apartment complex, Inv. STEIER did notice a white van with WI registration of 626-JNP. A vehicle registration check of the van listed to a ROGER RADUENZ. Inv. STEIER and Inv. BALDWIN were able to look through the numerous van windows into the interior of the vehicle. Inv. STEIER and Inv. BALDWIN did not observe any dried bloodstains or any substance that would appear to be bloodlike.
The following is a breakdown of the locations and dates that Avery and Raduenz were in prison per Steier's CASO report, page 1050, properly organized and analyzed.
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CASO-Investigative-Report.pdf#page=1050
PRISON DATES FOR AVERY AND RADUENZ PER PAGE 1050 OF CASO FILE
ReplyDeleteAvery:
Dodge, 11/29/82 - 1/28/83
Kettle Moraine, 1/28/83 - 6/21/83
WCCS-SB, 6/21/83 - 8/12/83, released 8/12/83
Dodge, 3/18/86 - 4/25/86
Green Bay CI, 4/25/86 - 5/20/86
County Jail, 5/20/86 - 5/21/86
Green Bay CI, 5/21/86 - 7/11/86
Manitowoc County Jail, 7/11/86 - 7/14/86
Green Bay CI, 7/14/86 - 4/19/94
Fox Lake, 4/19/94 - 10/19/98
CCA Whiteville, 10/19/98 - 11/28/01
Fox Lake, 11/28/01 - 6/10/03
Stanley, 6/10/03 - 9/11/03
Radandt:
Waupun, 10/2/81 - 6/2/83
??????, 6/2/83 - dd/mm/yyyy
Waupun, dd/mm/yyyy - 7/24/84, released 7/24/84
Manitowoc County Jail with Avery, 1986, per Raduenz interview with Steier
Dodge, 5/22/86 - 7/17/86
Waupun, 7/17/86 - 8/11/87, released 8/11/87
Dodge, 4/18/91 - 6/13/91
Waupun, 6/13/91 - 8/2/93
Kettle, 8/2/93 - 12/15/98, released 12/15/98
Fox Lake, dd/mm/yyyy - 10/8/03
Waupun, 10/8/03 - dd/mm/yyyy, released dd/mm/yyyy
THE REPORT BELOW BY STEIER IS A MESS. IT SAYS RADUENZ WAS IN ONE PRISON FROM JUNE 1983 TO OCTOBER 2003 AND MOVED FROM PRISON TO PRISON UNTIL HE WAS RELEASED FROM WAUPUN IN JULY 1984. NOW HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE?!
ReplyDeleteSTEIER HAS ACCESS TO PRISON RECORDS THAT THE PUBLIC DOESN'T, SO WHY WOULD HE USE AS PRISON LOCATOR WEBSITE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC TO LOCATE RECORDS FOR RADUENZ WHEN HE COULD USE WILENET, A LAW ENFORCEMENT WEBSITE, ETC.
AVERY AND RADUENZ WERE IN FOX LAKE PRISON TOGETHER SOMETIME BEFORE AVERY WAS MOVED TO STANELY ON 6/10/2003, WHICH WAS THREE MONTHS BEFORE HIS EXONERATION AND RELEASE ON 9/11/2003.
STEIER BOTCHES HIS REPORT AND DOESN'T LIST WHEN RADUENZ AGAIN WAS INCARCERATED AFTER HIS 12/16/1998 RELEASE, BUT HE WAS IN FOX LAKE WITH AVERY UNTIL AVERY'S RELEASE.
STEIER DOESN'T LIST THE DATE RADUENZ ENTERED FOX LAKE PRISON AND HE DOESN'T LIST HIS RELEASE DATE FOR HIS LAST INCARCERATION (IT APPEARS TO BE 10/8/2003). SO IF A BLOOD VIAL WAS STOLEN BY INMATES, IT WAS STOLEN AT FOX LAKE AND GIVEN TO RADUENZ PRIOR TO HIS LEAVING PRISON ON OR AFTER 10/8/2003.
THE FOLLOWING IS THE REPORT ARRANGED IN SEQUENTIAL ORDER. .
PAGE 1050
TYPE OF ACTIVITY: Comparison of Prison Locations for Roger Raduenz and Steven Avery
DATE OF ACTIVITY: 1/25/07
REPORTING OFFICER: Inv. Gary Steier
On Thursday, 01/25/07, I (Inv. STEIER) used Wilenet, a law enforcement website for the State of Wisconsin, to determine WI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS locations for STEVEN A. AVERY and ROGER R. RADUENZ. Both records from the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS were printed and are attached to this report.
I compared the correction facilities where STEVEN AVERY and ROGER RADUENZ were located during their time of incarceration. In comparing the locations, ROGER RADUENZ and STEVEN AVERY were not incarcerated in the same facility at the same time.
Information provided on the offender.doc.state.wi.us website shows ROGER R. RADUENZ was incarcerated from 09/01/81at WCI RECEPTION to 10/02/81 where he was incarcerated at WAUPUN PROPER. RADUENZ stayed at WAUPUN PROPER from 10/02/81 to 06/02/83 where he was transferred to FOX LAKE until 10/08/03. On 10/08/03 he was returned to WAUPUN PROPER for release on 07/24/84.
RADUENZ was again incarcerated on 05/22/86 at DODGE RECEPTION until 07/17/86. He was moved to WAUPUN PROPER and released 8/11/87.
On 04/18/91, RADUENZ was again at DODGE RECEPTION until 06/13/91 when he retumed to WAUPUN PROPER until 08/02/93. He was moved KETTLE MORAINE INSTITUTION until 12/15/98, at which time he was released.
[The part about him again being incarcerated is missing from the report, so date of incarceration is dd/mm/yyyy.]
STEVEN A. AVERY's records of the location of his incarceration show 11/29/82 DODGE RECEPTION. He was moved out for a court appearance on 12/22/82 and returned on 12/23/82 to DODGE RECEPTION. He stayed at DODGE RECEPTION until 01/28/83, where he moved to KETTLE MORAINE. On 06/21/83, he was moved to WCCS-SB POWERS where he stayed until 08/12/83 when he was released.
On 03/18/86, STEVEN AVERY was again in DODGE RECEPTION until 04/25/86, when he was moved to GREEN BAY CI until 05/20/86. On 05/20/86, he was moved to the MANITOWOC COUNTY JAIL for court and returned from Manitowoc County on 05/21/86 to Green Bay. STEVEN AVERY was moved from Green Bay again for court on 07/11/86 to Manitowoc County and then returned from Manitowoc County to GREEN BAY CORRECTIONAL on 07/14/86. AVERY stayed at GREEN BAY CORRECTIONAL until 04/19/94, where he was moved to FOX LAKE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION until 10/19/98. On 10/19/98, he was moved to CCA WHITEVILLE until 11/28/01. On 11/28/01, he returned to FOX LAKE CORRECTIONAL until 06/10/03. On 06/10/03, he was moved to STANLEY and was released from STANLEY on 09/11/03.
Roger R. Raduenz died on October 16, 2007.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.deathfigures.com/index.php?q=Raduenz&state=WI
Michael Raduenz died the day after his brother, Roger, on October 17 2007. He died in Casa Grande at RTA Hospice House, aged 58.
http://www.tributes.com/obituary/show/Michael-A.-Raduenz-81901894
Very odd that Roger and Michael died within one day of each other.
Kathy Raduenz is one of Roger Raduenz's six sisters. Their stepfather's obituary at this link:
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=Zimmer&GSiman=1&GScid=88179&GRid=132676575&
Raduenz's mother, died on September 25, 2006. Her obituary at this link:
http://findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi/http%22//%3C/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=132883760
The stepfather's obit in 1984 lists Lorraine's two sons and six daughters; however, Lorraine's obit in 2006 only lists one son and five daughters. Roger and sister Rogene were not mentioned.
Roger Raduenz was formerly married to Shirley Rouse Raduenz.
Roger and Shirley both lived in Bremerton, WA at some point.
According to the following link, Raduenz's last residence before his death on October 16, 2007 was Two Rivers, WI.
http://www.locateancestors.com/raduenz-wisconsin/
Can this be explained? (self.TickTockManitowoc)
ReplyDeletesubmitted by hos_gotta_eat_too
Was re-reading Zellner's Rolling Stone article and noticed this:
The Wisconsin Department of Justice will respond to the motion requesting access to the evidence, though Zellner maintains that a 2007 court order has already guaranteed Avery the right to conduct future DNA tests on any of the evidence being held by authorities, and said she does not anticipate any problems.
"Mr. Avery has already completed a series of tests that will conclusively establish his innocence," Zellner stated. She says the tests she is requesting now will offer further proof of her client’s innocence and, she believes, offer further evidence to support her theory on who really killed Teresa Halbach.
What DNA tests can be done before the motion was filed that can prove him innocent...she has made that claim before, but I am stumped figuring out what she had access to that she could test his DNA against.
Anyone know?
[–]AVERYMANOR
His medical records. The blood KZ had drawn from SA while incarcerated, for TH's murder.
Maybe the results of this science compared to Culhane's DNA/alleles reporting is contradictory.
She had the power to prove his innocence and consulted with SA. "I can get you out now", or, "If you can hang in there, I can prove who did this to you". He chose the latter.
Wasn't there something about gallbladder issues and SA saying they took a lot of blood from him when he was locked up for the PB rape? IIRC, during his "wrongful" 18 years he had some medical issues.
KZ probably used "blood" evidence obtained from SA during the PB case and "blood" evidence obtained while he was incarcerated for that wrongful conviction (medical issues).
I believe the purple top tube of blood came from SA when the Innocence Project got involved to help prove him innocent.
I believe there was blood evidence available, prior to the famous purple top tube that Strang and Buting overlooked/didn't think about. KZ didn't.
[–]OpenMind4U
First, we need to understand what KZ had prior the Motion: she has full Discovery including ROW Lab data which has more blood-related 'parameters' which SC official reports don't specified and wasn't used during the Trial (hence, we cannot see).
Second, in 2005, the above stated 'parameters' possibly means nothing to forensic analyst/'expert' as SC. Today, these 'parameters' could mean a lot. Which 'parameters' for example? Let say the one who points to 'toxicology' (which could be modified based on certain medication person takes) or/and AGE markers.
In 2005, SA was having certain health problem and did take certain medication as per evidence.
So here are few possible 'speculations' (based on very limited non-expert knowledge and without seeing the row data):
if such medication 'traces' were not in ROW data (but should be because he was taking this medication) then blood evidence is not from 2005;
if ROW data shows wrong carbon data (AGE) pointing to older than 2005 year then (again!) blood evidence is not from 2005.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/63aga2/can_this_be_explained/
Something else off with the lab report and the blood in the Rav.
ReplyDeleteself.MakingaMurderer
submitted 1 year ago by LaxSagacity
The blood, the CD case.
http://i.imgur.com/bJV3vYi.jpg
On day 11 of the trail, pg 209. Nick Stahlke the blood stains expert described the CD case blood as;
basically covering 50 percent of the surface of this CD box
I know the q-tip theory is a bit controversial. However doesn't it seem possible blood was put onto the cd case, and whatever put the blood smear on the ignition knob was wiped from that? Think of an artist putting paint on a pallet.
The next day he states
in fact, in this particular case, it was more of a wipe pattern or a smearing of that -- of blood on that -- the rest of that CD case. That is not observable on this photo. So, in other words, it's a very light coat of what appeared to be a red brown stain.
Pg 21-22
So with the blood being planted. Insane to suggest they actually have his blood unsecured in liquid form. Amazing. Now there also was an object in the car that blood was wiped/smeared.
[–]vallka 3 points 1 year ago
judging by the photos there was a small blood drop on the CD case, how was that 50 percent of the surface???
[–]LaxSagacity[S] 2 points 1 year ago
The blood splatter analyst's claim is the 50%. But very thin. Smeared, wiped.
[–]ieatbuttertarts 5 points 1 year ago
Pardon my ignorance, but then are we presuming then that Avery randomly bled out all over the CD case at some point?
[–]LaxSagacity[S] 3 points 1 year ago
I guess he must have, then wiped and smeared it with something.
[–]PuppyBabyMan 7 points 1 year ago
I'd also seen the testimony where Stahlke stated that over 50% of the CD box was covered in blood (though most not visible in the photo) and it sounded preposterous.
In what scenario is a murderer, who is hiding his victims vehicle while simultaneously bleeding all over her car browsing for the latest No Doubt CD in her CD case?
Your suggestion of a pallet is a far more logical explanation.
[–]chromeomykiss 4 points 1 year ago*
Good analysis of that blood report as it relates to the evidence pictures and testimony available so far. The ungloved SA active bleeder scenario in the Rav4 is not matching up very well to deductive reasoning of available evidence. And neither is the scenario of a gloved active bleeder when the same deductive reasoning is applied. So that leaves us with either SA was actively bleeding wearing gloves only some of the time and wiped all fingerprints, or SA was never in Rav4 actively bleeding with gloves or no gloves and ALL the SA blood in the Rav4 is planted, not just the ignition area.
Edit: and scenario of whoever planted blood if it was planted could have used the CD case as palette is a great addition to consider an ALL SA's blood planted in Rav4 scenario.
UPDATES TO THIS BLOG POST ON 4/30/2017
ReplyDeleteGroffy testified that he took only four pictures on November 6th: Exhibit 289, 290, 292, and 293.
Groffy testified that he did not photograph the stain by the ignition on November 6th (exhibit 291), nor did he photograph the stains in the cargo area on November 6th. 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 other blood stains by blood stain pattern analyst Nick Stahlke.]
Steve 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 that was noted by Groffy and Harrington was the stain neear the ignition. Groffy did not testify to seeing any other stains other than Teresa's blood stains in the cargo area.
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 stains 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 testing was done before any photographs were taken. Wouldn't protocol have been to wait for the analyst, Culhane, to do the presumptive testing?
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?
UPDATES TO THIS BLOG POST ON 4/30/2017
ReplyDeleteGroffy testified that he did presumptive tests only for the stain by the ignition and for the stains in the cargo area.
The ignition smear and the cargo stains were the only areas tested by Groffy on November 6th. Other blood stains presumably coming from Avery were not mentioned or tested by Groffy on November 6th.
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.
Groffy didn't take photos of the ignition smear and the large blood stain in the cargo area until November 7th and 8th.
Culhane came in the next morning, 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, perhaps?).
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."
UPDATES TO THIS BLOG POST ON 4/30/2017
ReplyDeleteThe 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.
The cut on Steven Avery's right middle finger presented an opportunity to frame him via planted blood in just the right places. Whoever planted the blood had to have known about Avery's cut finger in order to even attempt any blood planting. Even more importantly, they knew exactly where the cut was to plant it around the ignition.
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. The blood smear by the ignition was 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.
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? Did Kratz instruct Harrington, a senior crime lab employee, to make sure someone did presumptive testing on the ignition smear and blood stains in the cargo area on November 6th? Was Kratz also at the crime lab on November 6th? 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?
The blood smear by the RAV4's ignition had to have been planted in the RAV4 by the morning of November 6th, before Groffy started taking pictures (day 10 page 62).
[–]onepieceofgumleft[S] 5 points 5 hours ago*
ReplyDeleteIt was the State (and KK) who contacted the FBI to do the test for EDTA. And I doubt it was their idea. I'm almost certain that it was SA's defence team that wanted the test done after they found the vial with the broken evidence seal.
KK knew what would happen if EDTA showed up, and probably knew that it was going to show up if an "accurate" test had been performed. Feeding that story to an informant, Bruechert, about there being a second "stolen" vial was their back up plan in my very strong opinion.
That guy came forward with the story 15 months after TH was murdered (?) ... and only 1 month after SA's lawyers discovered the vial in MCSO evidence (?) (with broken evidence tape).
[–]2much2know 5 points 5 hours ago
I'm almost certain that it was SA's defence team that wanted the test done after they found the vial with the broken evidence seal.
Actually there was no test being done at that time to detect EDTA. The State and LeBeau (FBI) came to the judge basically at the last minute during the trial to say they developed a test and asked permission from the court for him to testify to the results. The defense argued to not let the results allowed but of course the judge ruled in favor of the State.
[–]PubTender 7 points 5 hours ago
did LeBeau ever verify that the blood he tested......
NOPE! He most certainly did not test to confirm it was SA's blood.
[–]MMonroe54 3 points 3 hours ago
Yeah, someone else said that he did not test for DNA, so all he could really testify to is that the swabs he tested did not contain EDTA. The prosecution said they were the same swabs that contained SA's DNA.
[–]SukItUp 4 points 4 hours ago
Forgive me if this is common knowledge (may have been highlighted in MAM and I forgot about it), but I just stumbled across and re-read the email from KK to SC from 2/7/06 - 10 months BEFORE all of this happened. In his email, KK writes "MW is checking the 1985 Manitowoc blood sample taken, to make sure what it was. So YOU tested that sample back then? How bizarre is that? Were you also the analyst that got him out of prison in 2003?"
So, at least KK, MW, and SC knew about the '85 blood sample in early 2006.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/6ar6o7/best_evidence_ive_found_that_supports_the_theory/
There are a couple of possibilities as far as the source of blood other than a blood vial:
ReplyDelete1. Blood in Avery's trailer from cutting his finger. There would have been enough to plant the blood smear by the ignition, but there may not have been enough for the other areas, especially the CD case (Nick Stahlke described the blood as "basically covering 50 percent of the surface of this CD box," day 11 page 209). Or maybe Avery's blood found on a rag was rehydrated and smeared onto the CD box, and the CD box was used as a "palette" when planting other 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.
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).
u/LovingAnyway posted about Groffy, with Steve Harrington, doing presumptive tests on blood at the ignition and in the cargo area on November 6th before any photos were taken of in the interior of the RAV4.
ReplyDeleteWho's lying about unlocking the RAV4? self.MakingaMurderer
submitted 1 year ago * by FIB1
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/4860d6/whos_lying_about_unlocking_the_rav4/
[–]LovingAnyway 1 point 1 year ago*
I was researching this last night for the chain of custody thread. I ran out of steam.
Exhibits 295 - 301 are specifically the pictures I need to find out were taken on 11/6 to aid your find, FIB1. Groffy was tough to pin down how many doors he opened and what pictures he took on 11/6. He took photos, per testimony, over the course of three days under the direction of three other techs.
"Q. Okay. Could you just tell us which ones, if any, were taken on the 6th?
A. That would be State's Exhibit 289, 290, 292, and 293, of the ones that I have."
[http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Jury-Trial-Transcript-Day-10-2007Feb23.pdf#page=61] Page 67
Darn. He says he didn't take the rear cargo pix on the 6th.
But wait! Buting caught him in a lie right off the bat because Groffy did presumptive test on blood at ignition and CARGO AREA on the 6th, with Harrington:
“Q. Okay. And the two of you then did this presumptive test for blood?
A. That is not correct. I did the presumptive test for the blood.
Q. Okay. Was that a phenolphthalein test or was that some other test?
A. That is what we called a phenolphthalein test.
Q. Okay. So is it specific for human and animal, or just any kind of blood?
A. I do not have that knowledge, sir.
Q. Okay. But, you did get a positive on the ignition stain and that larger area that you mentioned over in the cargo area, kind of on the passenger side?
A. That's correct I had a positive test for those two areas.
Q. Those are the only two areas that you tested, though?
A. That is correct.
Q. Did you do any other tests that day or take any other pictures?
A. 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."
[http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Jury-Trial-Transcript-Day-10-2007Feb23.pdf#page=50] Page 65 and 66
CONTINUED...
So, only exterior and broad interior from open doors so not inside the vehicle...yet totally inside the vehicle to do presumptive tests.
ReplyDeleteAnd if he did the blood test, then he got the cargo door open somehow and I would imagine, took some of the photos 295 to 301, eh?
Groffy opened the cargo door:
Q. Did you notice whether there were ever more items in the rear of this area, or was it always, when you first saw it, did it look like this?
A. When I opened up the cargo door and took this photograph, that was what was in the back of that vehicle, sir." Same link, page 69
Notice Buting says "When you first saw it"...and tested the cargo stain for blood, right?
I wondered why Buting was asking for items not in the photos...did Groffy see this or that...and him not recalling. Wow...read this on Page 70:
"Q. And would you have -- would you have been asked to take photographs of any of those kinds of items before they had been removed or touched in anyway?
A. I may or may not have been, it would have been at the discretion of the analyst processing the vehicle whether or not they wanted that photographed."
"I may or may not have been" Could SH have directed him to NOT take photos of some items in the vehicle? The top of the lanyard? Cameras? Something? On the 6th?
Okay, continuing to Page 73, Buting seems to think Groffy is the guy who opened the tailgate with a key:
"Q. And does that look like that's where the key goes in, as well?
A. I believe that's the position where the key was put in, yes."
Groffy might have meant in general, but he used past tense.
Edit: TL;DR - Groffy lied in his testimony on cross right away (didn't include pix he took of rear cargo area interior on 11/6); Proof is he says he did presumptive test for blood on ignition and cargo area on 11/6); Groffy testifies HE opened cargo door; Groffy admits that if instructed by an analyst, items could have been removed without photographic documentation; and finally, Groffy slips and says "the key was put in" as past tense.
[–]ahhhreallynow 2 points 1 year ago
Q. And would you have -- would you have been asked to take photographs of any of those kinds of items before they had been removed or touched in anyway? A. I may or may not have been, it would have been at the discretion of the analyst processing the vehicle whether or not they wanted that photographed.
Is it not his job to show the vehicle as it was first opened, with everything intact? This is a potential crime scene. It is supposed to be recorded as such.
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.
ReplyDeleteThere 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 is not an option unless it was transported to CASO on November 6th. However, blood from a rag in the Grand Am would provide opportunity. 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), so it would make sense that he 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.
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).
CONTINUED...
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.]
ReplyDeleteWhy would a crime lab photographer, who was called in to take pictures, enter the RAV4t and then take blood swabs before without taking any photos of the blood stains? His job was to document evidence prior to processing by analysts. Why would he do this? 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?
I suspect the ex-boyfriend, who was leading the searches and was given access to the Avery property.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Zellner, the ex-boyfriend, Ryan Hillegas, is the primary suspect. She even names him as the killer in her June 7, 2017 motion for post-conviction relief.
Deletehttps://static1.squarespace.com/static/55203379e4b08b1328203a7d/t/593879d729687f407255fdce/1496873472937/2017.06.07+-+Motion+for+Post-Conviction+Relief.pdf
Then maybe I was (am) correct?!?! And I'm not even in law enforcement..
ReplyDeleteExcerpts from Zellner's letter to Judge
ReplyDeleteSwabs Had Insufficient Quantity of DNA for Methylation and/or Radiocarbon Testing
Dr. Reich analyzed the swabs from blood stains in the victim’s vehicle at his laboratory, Independent Forensics in Lombard, Illinois, to determine if the DNA present on the swabs was of sufficient quantity for further testing. In particular, Dr. Reich examined Items A6, A8, A9, A10, and A12 (Trial Exhibits 331-334 and 336) to determine whether the DNA present was of sufficient quantity for DNA methylation. Dr. Reich, after analyzing these samples, determined that there was probably an insufficient amount of DNA present on the swabs for the proposed DNA methylation tests. However, Dr. Reich advised Mr. Avery’s counsel to send these swabs to Dr. Christopher Mason of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City to confirm that there was not enough DNA on the swabs for DNA methylation analyses.
------> as you can see, no Carbon Date test was even attempted yet because the simpler test, the DNA Methylation test, couldn't be performed due to insufficient quantity from 5 (from five not six!) swabs....moving on, to Dr. Mason...
On February 3, 2017, Dr. Mason received the samples. On February 20, 2017, after performing an independent examination, Dr. Mason concluded that because the DNA yield was so low, the evidence was inadequate for reliable DNA methylation testing. In fact, Dr. Mason informed Mr. Avery’s post-conviction counsel that the quantity of DNA on some of the samples was undetectable. Mr. Avery’s counsel informed Mr. Fallon of Dr. Mason’s conclusions on February 27, 2017.
Dr. Reich also examined Item A7 (Trial Exhibit 335), blood flakes recovered from between the center console and driver’s seat of the victim’s vehicle, to determine whether the DNA present was of sufficient quantity for radiocarbon testing. Dr. Reich determined that the quantity of DNA was too low for radiocarbon testing. Dr. Reich recommended that the flakes be sent to Dr. Mason to combine with the previously sent swabs to attempt DNA methylation testing again because only 1 nanogram of DNA is needed for a reliable DNA methylation test result. Mr. Avery’s counsel is expecting Dr. Mason to report on his efforts to conduct DNA methylation testing with the additional flakes added to the prior insufficient DNA samples from the swabs.
CONTINUED...
[–]OpenMind4U 7 points 2 days ago*
ReplyDeleteHow did Sherry Culhane get his DNA if there was so little DNA?
SC would NEVER be able to get ANY DNA from these 6 swabs, period! Absolutely no way she can perform PCR with undetectable quantity AND/or with not even 1 nanogram of quantity....to perform presumptive blood test and PCR (copy, replication)/DNA extraction - you need FEW nanograms. So, here is my answer: SC was using another swabs from another source!!!
Do you think they added water to those samples they gave to KZ?
NO! To extract DNA, DNA solution needs to be added...so, it's not about 'adding' anything to existing swab...it's about someone was SWAPPING again the swabs. The Lab probably had two sets of swabs under the same number/tag. One set (6 swabs) were rubbed into REAL SA blood (taken from his GrandAm or from his recently collected blood while in custody, or possibly from SA sink) and SC got her 'famous' full match to SA profile...another set was empty, slightly brushed with whatever looks like blood or whatever...Who knows?!
Therefore, I'm not making separate 'MaM Forensic Files' post for SA blood from RAV4 yet because I'm waiting for TRACE result and another report from Dr. Mason...I simply don't want to 'announce' another EVIDENCE FABRICATION yet....but I'm absolutely sure this is exactly 'where it's going'!!!
So, what's RAV4 actually have? You and I would NEVER know until KZ will get physical RAV4 for re-test!...but I'm absolutely sure: these 6 swabs didn't came from RAV4.
My opinion and I'll stay by it until proved otherwise.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/6wweil/about_that_sink_blood/
[-]magiclougie
ReplyDeleteThe RAV4 was transported from ASY to the WI crime lab in an enclosed trailer starting around 9 PM on November 5th, arriving around 1 AM, and being secured by 2 AM at the lab. Nobody reported seeing blood in the RAV4 when it was at ASY. The first mention of blood being in the RAV4 was by lab techs sometime after noon on November 6.
Here is the link to KZ letter:
http://media.graytvinc.com/documents/Zellner+letter.pdf
[–]missingtruth 11 points 2 days ago
So... if there is not enough DNA on the swabs and on some swabs not detectable at all, and these are the same swabs that the crime lab tested and said were SA's blood DNA, how is that even possible? Dr. Reich and Dr. Mason can not get 1 tiny nanogram of DNA from these samples but the crime lab was able to detect and print a full DNA match to SA to show the jury?
IMO, that blood is the only viable evidence in this case that ties SA to this crime at all and these samples have obvious serious problems. All the other evidence was nothing more than a circus side show. I expect these blood samples will be the center ring act that will lead to SA's exoneration.
I'd like to see the Judge force the crime lab to retest these swabs (under supervision from an outside source) and see if they yield SA's full DNA profile. Oh, wouldn't that be interesting.
[–]OpenMind4U 8 points 2 days ago
I expect these blood samples will be the center ring act that will lead to SA's exoneration.
Exactly right! This what I'm saying all along. SA blood from RAV4 will be (and already is!) the strongest evidence of his innocence!
I'd like to see the Judge force the crime lab to retest these swabs...
No-no-no... please read all my comments bellow. No forensic lab would be EVER test these swabs for DNA with such quantity. No Madison lab, no any other lab in world!!! Judge order or no Judge order! What needs to be done is to re-test RAV4 itself!!! Re-test what kind of 'bloody' stains RAV4 has by physically re-swab RAV4!!!!
CONTINUED...
[–]OpenMind4U 5 points 1 day ago*
ReplyDeleteTalking about SC...hmmm...let's be logical and objective here for a second. (I'll try:).
RAV4 has been swabbed presumably at Madison Lab, not at ASY;
not only SC was involved on swabbing RAV4. We learned that there were others who physically took the swab and swiped into bloody stains in RAV4 (as per trial testimonies);
SC was the one who performed presumptive blood test, DNA extraction/PCR on all these 6 swabs of SA blood from RAV4;
SC was the one who made final DNA report with FULL DNA match to SA profile;
SC was involved in cutting portion from 3 of these six swabs for FBI EDTA testing, much later - more than YEAR later! Meaning, these swabs were in good preserved condition for 'split' and share with FBI, in 2007;
FBI got these portions from swabs and said: no EDTA!...without admitting any problems with quantity of the blood on these 'portions';
now, we learned that none of these 6 swabs have enough DNA quantity (and few has no DNA quantity at all!). Meaning, whoever used these 6 swabs could NEVER get any reliable DNA result and/or absolutely no DNA extraction at all. OK....how such thing can happen? Let's assume DOJ/CASO had horrible 'evidence preservation facility' and ALL these 6 swabs were degraded at the same time, 10 years later. Possible? I don't think so but let's 'assume' for a second. So, what's next?
IMO, the next step should be to contact FBI (I'm sure FBI evidence preservation facility is much better runs, by FBI protocol, isn't?) and let FBI submit their 3 portions from these swabs. It's not about EDTA anymore!....It's about to see the quantity of DNA on their evidence....and if quantity is the same then you have FRAUD on much higher level than Madison/CASO/MTSO/DOJ and 'TH Murder' case of WI. If quantity is higher then 'TH Murder' case is FRAUD, period.
I'm sorry for 'beating the dead horse'...but MtDNA test from these 6 swabs makes no difference what's so ever....person cannot just bleed in so many places (dropping his blood here, transferring his blood there) leaving the FULL DNA blood profile in 2007 and 10 years later - all these blood evidence evaporates!....absolutely impossible...and absolutely NOWAY MtDNA must be performed right now...or even attempt to be performed on these 6 swabs. Ohhh NO! Prosecution claimed that RAV4 has SA blood in it with full DNA profile evidence. SHOW this evidence, today.....not exist! Only on paper.
And if prosecution evidence is lost (evaporates, conveniently!) then re-Trial....it's like Brady...even worse.
CONTINUED...
[–]JJacks61 17 points 2 days ago
ReplyDeleteswabs w/ ones taken from the Grand Am
Culhane had access to the Grand Am. That's an easy source for a little game of switcheroo. For a senior lab tech to pull the shit she pulled with the deviation, this would be easy.
How much pressure do you think Kratz laid on her for being the lab analyst that "freed Avery" in 2003? And yea, that led to this f'ing lawsuit that he has to deal with (SEE what you did!) I can hear him saying something like that to her.
I bet he didn't fail to mention that to her about a million times.
[–]7-pairs-of-panties[S] 15 points 2 days ago
It could have been SC but it didn't have to be. All that needed to happen was swapping swabs. If the labeling was even somewhat right they could have done it.
When the hood was planted it was BEFORE SA had hired DS& JB. They wouldn't have worried about using an old blood vial if they thought SA would have a public Pretender. KK fought for months to keep blood vial out of court. GK had a heart attack shortly after finding out blood vial would be admitted in court.
The swapped & manipulated everything why not the blood In RAV? I think SC did lots of suspect things in this case, but for the swab switching they wouldn't have needed her.
[–]MrDoradus 14 points 2 days ago
There are so many things wrong with all the surrounding evidence when it comes to these blood stains in the RAV4 that it's really hard to pinpoint what happened before they got there and how they got there. And that said it's hard to conclusively say what KZ thinks did or didn't happen.
But my take on this is that she does in fact now believe the blood was planted from the sink and that it wasn't just her reserve theory she had to use. Though you are right, she would likely have been forced to make this argument even if she didn't believe in it.
But there are a few things that support this "new" (SA has been telling about the blood in the sink from the start) theory; as another user already pointed out the DNA on the swabs of these blood drops was so low in quantity that the DNA methylation test was not possible to be performed. So if this blood was in fact watered down to be planted in the car it would also mean the real swabs of these blood stains would have a lower amount of DNA on them. Which is the case according to DNA quantification performed.
Then there was another thing not already mentioned in the comments before, that being that another of KZ's expert, JS, testified that the blood drops on the carpet of the RAV4 were planted because fresh blood dripping on such a carpet would be absorbed in it and would not form flakes like the ones that were actually observed. Lending further credibility to these flakes actually forming on a hard surface before they were planted in the RAV4. Meaning it supports the sink theory.
All in all, looking at everything the blood in the sink being used does make sense even if it sounds a bit far fetched.
CONTINUED...
[–]OpenMind4U 10 points 1 day ago
ReplyDeleteSo if this blood was in fact watered down to be planted in the car it would also mean the real swabs of these blood stains would have a lower amount of DNA on them. Which is the case according to DNA quantification performed.
Absolutely correct!...and few swabs who have undetectable quantity (quantity not exist = 0 or not enough for any DNA extraction) have no DNA on them. So, here is my question: which 3 swabs have been used for FBI's EDTA testing AND how come such swabs portions have enough blood quantity for successful EDTA testing? You see where I'm going?...watering blood sample should have more risk to have EDTA than not watering blood!:) Water (even sterile water) has minerals which not 'belongs' to blood!...lol...
Hope FBI's EDTA test 'bites' State back, big time... because now they need to justify which swabs have been used for EDTA.
[–]OliviaD2 7 points 1 day ago
Hi Pal, I've been sick for awhile.. catching up :) Where are you getting the quantifications from? Are they published somewhere now? If they were too low, then the test results might not be valid at all.
[–]OpenMind4U 7 points 1 day ago
And IMO SC didn't use these low quantity DNA swabs at all!...she used another ones, with plenty of quality and quantity of SA blood (from SA sink or GrandAm or fromever)...and FBI got portions from these 'full' quantity swabs....RAV4 has red color water, as much as I'm concern...these 'non usable'' 6 swabs from RAV4 have been switched for forensic testing with another 6 swabs...I can guarantee you...I don't believe these 6 swabs were not preserved properly (degraded) into condition of not detectable DNA!!! prosecution was screaming how much SA blood in RAV4...now, State has NONE!!!...ooops, evaporates...boom...poof...
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/6wweil/about_that_sink_blood/
Been a lurker far too long.... (self.TickTockManitowoc)
ReplyDeletesubmitted 16 hours ago by Escwilson28
I've been getting on Reddit, Twitter, Facebook family pages for several months now reading as much as I can and going through as much of the transcripts I can. This case has really opened my eyes. I tried to get people around here (Arkansas) to watch MAM and just do a little research in general to see how many innocent people are locked up and damaged our DOJ is. But nope they won't open their eyes until it's them or someone they love. It's crazy how so many people are still so blind. With all that said though I have a question. I know their is some of you that have really put your heart in to this case. I want to know what every one thinks about TK and DV, how deep do you think they are in to framing these guys? I believe with everything in me that SA blood in the RAV was actually just swapped with his blood from his car. I don't believe none of the blood in the RAV was his at all. Anyone else think that? I'm sure it's been disgust on here before so forgive me for bringing it back up.
[–]MrDoradus 9 points 15 hours ago
It's hard to tell, pretty much everyone in the MTSO (CASO even) department had an axe to grind with SA if they really thought he was guilty, or if they had enough history with him. So I'm not sure if any of the possibly involved individuals needed to be pushed far to "tweak" the case. So as far as motivation goes, pretty much everyone had at least the "we're helping bring a guilty man to justice" one, so anyone could have been the one that planted the evidence.
But sure, the two you mentioned had the most to lose in the lawsuit and likely still had a lot of influence over any officer, higher or lower ranking, in the MTSO. So with this motivation, coupled with means to act upon it by orchestrating the frame up, it does make sense for one to think they were involved.
And sure, it's indeed possible that your theory is the correct one. Only time will tell and hopefully KZ will be able to prove it one way or the other. Though her latest blood spatter expert did give an opinion that it's quite likely the blood planted in the RAV4 was dried before it was planted. Giving credibility to KZ's theory of who planted the blood.
[–]bennybaku 12 points 13 hours ago
I think this is why the blood flakes could be very important.
[–]Escwilson28[S] 7 points 8 hours ago
Oh I believe so deep in my heart and soul that SA and BD are innocent. The thought of TK and DV makes me so disgusted. I believe they are the deepest in this that anyone can get. They wouldn't dare let SA take their homes from them. They was getting so mad having to watch all the publicity involving SA when he got out and how he was fixing to expose all the low lifes. I don't care about SA past before his wrongful conviction. Nor do I like the fact of hearing people bring up the letters he wrote to his children's mom. If I knew I was locked up for something I didn't do and my the wife was saying she wasn't going to bring my kids to see me....yea I'd tell her I was going to kill her also. I think if the blood did come from the tube, when they knew the defense picked up on it and was going to have the FBI test it and they simply switched the swabs with that of his blood in his car. Basically there is not one single piece of evidence I believe to be real. Not the blood, the bones, nothing. I just don't understand the human beings behind this. Yea I'm just gonna keep lurking because I get mad and sad both just sitting here thinking about it. I couldn't imagine how SA feels. I cried when I seen the look on his face when the verdict was read.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/6z3ksm/been_a_lurker_far_too_long/
[–]bigmouthlurker
ReplyDeleteCulhane's quack science testimony permanently identifies her as beyond incompetent. I am still dumbfounded they allowed that testimony back in '85 when the absolute most definite thing she could say was that the hair found on the sweater was Caucasian human hair and that Avery also has Caucasian human hair, which is pointless to talk about since the witness ID was Caucasian male. She claimed she had compared "hundreds and hundreds of cases" hair samples in her career but there are 50,000 on a single person so she had not yet even reached a point of expertise on even one person. She could only say the hairs were human but the judge allowed it and then she managed to sneak in the idea that the comparison was definitive and specific.
It's very upsetting to see a scientist destroy the integrity of science but I give credit to Vogel in that questioning for doing exactly what he had to do to give Culhane the impression of someone who was not a quack. The whole introduction of 'hair science' lasts for probably 20 minutes to the point that a generic juror might have the idea Culhane can make a conclusion beyond race and species, but it's all Smoke and Mirrors by Vogel. Culhane can't make any conclusions but after 20 minutes of serologist minutia the jurors are cross-eyed and will believe anything she says. By the time the cross-exam happens they don't even hear everything she just said discredited to the point of obliteration.
I doubt her testimony was much of a factor since they had the mistaken ID but I know a quack when I hear one and Culhane fits the description.
The sad part is that the pubic hairs they had to compare (pre-DNA test) can not be distinguished between male or female and she admitted this. But she implied her comparison of head hair was possible to identify specific source. It's not a scientific statement but she played along. She knew what Vogel was implying and she did not disagree. That discredits her forever. She made statements of pure quackery and the defense attorney made the statements irrelevant with his cross-exam, so I still wonder why the judge allowed it except to stack the deck against Avery.
And when I think of these same quack lab techs who never were fired despite blatant quackery being asked to test blood from the RAV4 for EDTA, and simply taking the sample from the cargo area where TH's blood was and, of course, not finding any EDTA, when the whole point was to test the blood samples from around the key area...or else mixing the two samples up because they are incompetent...then I can see a way this whole mess could've been avoided if the losers involved in the '85 case were fired to begin with.
Science is only as reliable as the people who practice it and there is clear proof of a deficiency in reliable scientists in WI. It all goes back to the first principle of proving a murder instead of proving the location or source of a hair. The two are not equivalent.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/68i8xw/innocent_people_convicted_from_flawed_hair/
Planted Evidence and Reasonable Doubt (self.TickTockManitowoc)
ReplyDeletesubmitted 5 months ago by InfiniteAffinity
I believe that SA should have been found not guilty at his criminal trial. The standard to reach a guilty verdict is, "beyond a reasonable doubt."
I believe the key was planted. Subjectively, I do not believe the story of the hidden key. Objectively, TH's DNA was not on the key. In closing KK even gave his infamous, "even if you think the key was planted" speech. Could anyone believe the key was not planted beyond a reasonable doubt?
If I came to the conclusion that even one piece of evidence was planted- I would vote not guilty. How can you trust the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, if you conclude evidence was likely planted? I'm not willing to wade through the evidence after that. Not guilty.
KK is a moron... key planted? No worries we got red stuff in the car and an elusive bullet.
Plenty of other evidence you should trust because we're the government and we said those weren't planted.
I really don't understand the folks who think it's OK for the police to plant evidence when"they know the guy's guilty."
[–]bigmouthlurker
it's ponderous to think they had access to a key and the vehicle but did not get any TH dna on the key while in the process of planting SA DNA on it. Maybe it took place so long after the search that they had nothing from TH to plant on it but they had to know that a personal car key with no DNA from the owner makes absolutely no sense. And it makes no sense that SA cleaned the key and then touched it because he figured no one would ever find it and connect it to TH's vehicle. None of that makes sense to me. They planted the blood in the vehicle but didn't put blood on the hood latch? They either had enough TH DNA to transfer to the bullet or else those test results were fabricated by Culhane and the bullet had no TH DNA on it. I'm not convinced only LE had access to the remains and SA blood.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/64ig4u/planted_evidence_and_reasonable_doubt/
So Where Did the Blood Come From?
ReplyDelete[–]ThorsClawHammer [score hidden] an hour ago
If consistency in statements is your litmus test for what is truthful, you will have no trustworthy witnesses left in this case. Good luck finding any whose statements didn't either change between first interview and trial or didn't contradict the statements of others.
[–]rachabe [score hidden] 5 hours ago
This case is so convoluted that it's hard to know or trust any "evidence" that has been collected and documented. How do we know that the blood on the dash even matches what the lab has possession of? This is such a shoddy investigation, I can't believe people got awards for it.
I am not trying to be argumentative at all, but I have no idea how his blood is on the dash. There are so many arguments on each side that just cannot be explained. I have a hard time understanding how a brutal murder could have occurred during the day during business hours of a family-run business. I don't understand how no one heard or saw anything out of the ordinary. There is too much information missing or not trustworthy for me to believe SA is guilty.
Well the cops didn't seem to have much trouble framing and putting SA in prison for 18 years for a crime he didn't commit and they didn't lose much sleep over it, so in my opinion they are capable of anything. And the scheme wasn't too elaborate or there wouldn't be this many holes. And it may just be 2-3 crooked law enforcement involved in the planting.
Well prosecution said she was tortured, stabbed, raped, and chained to a bed in his trailer. I find it hard to believe if this happened that no one heard a thing. OP is right, there is SA blood in the RAV that should not be there. But, additionally, there is no DNA of TH in his trailer and there should be. Too many inconsistencies in this case.
[–]lickity_snickum [score hidden] 5 hours ago
Some of the same people who had unfettered access to the RAV were in and out of that trailer. It doesn't have to be Ryan.
You asked a question, I gave you a response, why so shitty? My opinion, not necessarily what happened
CONTINUED...
[–]FeenixArisen [score hidden] 4 hours ago
ReplyDeleteI think there is a much more elegant answer. The labs that work for the DA get the results that they are asked to get. The samples are always exactly so small that all of it is destroyed in the testing. Who would ever know the difference? It isn't like these DNA tests are being conducted in an environment where there is oversight from an outside party. One groin swab and you can print out all the reports you want on any sample from then on.
The doc didn't even need to try and twist how obvious this is. The paperwork for the tests basically flat out says "we need this to be Avery's". The people doing the tests, they are paid very well. They will cover up any corruption because if the truth came out then everything they have ever done would be considered tainted.
The blood near the ignition is ludicrous. If he left blood there he would have left blood all over the place. The gear shifter would have blood. The hood would have blood. The rambler hood would have blood.
There is still a very fishy chain of custody when it comes to the Rav 4. They talk about how the tow truck driver climbed under the vehicle to dismantle the drive shaft(s), all because it was that critical that they don't touch the locked doors. What a load of shit, they would have had those doors open immediately looking for clues and they could have done so with no threat of damaging evidence.
[–]FeenixArisen [score hidden] 3 hours ago
I think he is guilty as fuck, but all the evidence was planted, faked, tampered with, or outright fabricated. The notion that there would be vertebrae just laying around in the back yard is absurd. After police and news reporters come to question him about her disappearance, he is going to go on a family vacation while her vehicle sticks out like a sore thumb, ready to be found by anyone passing by. He cleans the garage floor beyond the capacity of forensic science to find anything, but hangs the gun he used to kill her over his bed.
[–]Soonyulnoh2 [score hidden] 4 hours ago
Sample takers could have switched or split the samples from the Pontiac and labeled them "RAV"(AC took these samples with a swab and distilled water-REALLY AC? That great "tech", why was he taking a sample anyway?) If this didn't happen, then killer got blood from a tissue or rag in garage days/weeks/months before murder and rehydrated it (soooooo easy, just try it with very warm distilled water, ALL the blood will come out of the tissue)!!
[–]rymaples [score hidden] an hour ago
One thing I've noticed a lot is that people think in order to believe the blood was planted by RH or whoever is that the planter went in the trailer with expectations of finding the blood. That doesn't really make any sense. It is believable that someone was in his trailer looking for something to plant in the RAV4 and that person came across the blood. You don't have to believe that is true, but you do have to admit that is possible.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/76pnkm/so_where_did_the_blood_come_from/
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).
ReplyDeleteCulhane 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
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
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)
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)
HuNuWutWen wrote:
ReplyDelete... is there anyone, any sensible person, who trusts the "scientific" claims made by prosecution "experts" in this case ?... no, and with verifiable reasons, logic and actual scientific methods, these idiots have been exposed on numerous counts, Eisenberg, Culhane, LeBeau, all of them, idiots, liars...
... which particular item is yet to be retested by KZ ?...the Rav4.
... which particular item is KZ having difficulty gaining access to ?...the Rav4...
... Steven's freedom is inside that Rav4, and the State knows it...
... it really is that simple...
... because, if KZ cannot undo that blood evidence, the conviction will stand. PERIOD. END OF....
... so, let's get on with it, shall we ?...
... what is the State afraid of ?...
... I believe that Gene used blood from that vial to frame Steven...
... I believe that Gene was under the impression that EDTA was not detectable, because at that time the specific FBI test protocols, (which he was aware of) were discredited, due to valid questions regarding accuracy, therefore no "test" existed which could legally disqualify his planted blood evidence...and that's exactly how this played out, right ?...
... the "test" that LeBeau cobbled together ?...please...but it stood, so here we are today...
... I don't think a Quantico-trained detective would needlessly roll the dice, take the chance that any blood from Steven's trailer was in fact Steven's...Jodi lived there...imagine if testing revealed that the blood in the Rav4 was Jodi's ?...or the blood was contaminated with some element that should not be present ?... Gene would not gamble the entire case so recklessly, not when he had perfectly usable blood evidence at his disposal...
...just let KZ get her people inside that Rav4, and all of this can be put to rest, one way or the other...
...there's no such thing as the perfect crime...
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/7pl9nd/question_on_the_fbi_edta_testing/
HuNuWutWen wrote:
How many junkyard dogs were there at ASY ?...at least one, but I think Chuck had a dog too, didn't he ?... junkyard dogs have one job...guard the junkyard at night...generally speaking, junkyard dogs have that reputation...don't f--k with junkyard dogs...Andy and Jimmy and Dave were well aware of Steven's dog...
...anyhow, it gets real quiet at night, in rural America...like," hear a pin drop" kinda quiet... and it gets real dark too, like "pitch black, can't see shit" kinda dark...
...not the best sort of conditions to be flailing around with tree branches, car hoods, flashlights, tow trucks in beep-beep reverse warning alarm...lol...I think maybe the dogs would hear ya...
...don't get me wrong, it would be hilarious to watch Andy scramble up onto the roof of the Rav4, as the dogs snarl and bite his sorry ass...there's Andy, trapped, left his cell phone in the Rav4, dogs are circling, Andy tries to squeeze through the sunroof, gets stuck, and that's where Pam finds him...hahahaha...
...I don't think the decision to move the Rav4 onto the back property line was even made until the morning of the 5th...when they realized that ASY had been basically abandoned, Earl was all alone...opportunity to augment the frame...
...I think the Rav4 was initially stashed in the vicinity (walking distance) of ASY, but when report came from Crivitz that the whole fam damily had arrived...well, Jimmy and Andy had free-run of the place, they decided to concentrate the evidence as close to Steven as possible...
...but I think it was done in broad daylight, Andy drove in the back way, past the crusher, disabled the Rav4...
... I think the engine was still warm when Pammy "found" the Rav4...
...Jimmy was waiting in the quarry for Andy, they dropped the keys off at the evidence locker, Gene picked up the keys and the vial, later that evening...
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/7nwejn/rav_was_towed_into_position_asy/
HuNuWutWen wrote:
ReplyDeleteThe blood came from the vial, Occam's Razor...
... Gene K. was Quantico-trained, in 2005, he was aware, at that time, that the reliability/admissability of test protocol to detect the presence/concentration of EDTA was under scrutiny, (those particular protocols still are))...he himself is openly critical of forensic evidence and processes, to the point of discounting the validity of same... when it suits his purpose...
...at the time, this was the "latest" information that Gene was working with, Gene was a learned man, an educated man, he was not going to roll over and accept personal ruination from the likes of Avery, or Kocourek for that matter......
...remember, at the time, everyone was scrambling around trying to resurrect, reinstate and validate the testing protocols which Lebeau oversaw...
...real piece'o'work this guy was huh ?....tested only 1/2 the samples with which he was provided, and then testified UNDER OATH as to the results of samples which he did not test...how the hell does judge Willis allow this ?... he testified as to the existence of results which he himself KNEW did not exist...is it just me ? or ?..
...yeah, LeBeau was "pretty sure" that those untested samples would yield the same result as those samples which did in fact undergo his questionable testing...only in Willis' court, swear to gawd these fucking idiots are amazing...remember Willis was all about not wanting to "confuse the jury"...I don't think it was the jury who was confused...
...it really could be that I'm complicating this whole thing unnecessarily, we will see when KZ finally gets her people inside that Rav4...those are the ONLY results we can trust...
...could be very simply that all of Steven's blood that's inside the Rav4 INDEED came from that vial, and all of this resistance and obstruction from Schimel and his ilk truly is the last-ditch feeble effort to buy time, for those aging, retired criminals...
...Sometimes, the simplest explanation is the correct one...
DarthGatorMaid wrote:
"pretty sure" that those untested samples would yield the same result as those samples which did in fact undergo his questionable testing...
Maybe he did test the other three and the result wasn't on their side. Why wouldn't he test every sample sent to him? It's high profile case, this isn't the normal procedure. I would think if the result was in their favor it would've been 100% in their favor meaning they tested 100% of the samples. I'd be interested in knowing if there was a way to show those samples were tested and used.
HuNuWutWen wrote:
Here we are, 12 years on, scratching our heads at the blatant malfeasance, misconduct and ineptitude, not to mention all of the lying, and unethical, illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, ridiculous behaviors on display...
...what the hell are we all doing here ?...
...Dean and Jerry were reputedly 2 of the better attorneys in that area, available at that time to defend Steven...
...why didn't Steven have his own expert witnesses to refute the specious assertions of LeBeau, Eisenberg, and Culhane ?...
... I ask myself, what is it we expect Ms. Zellner to achieve here ?...
...I ask myself, how come Dean and Jerry didn't already do that stuff...could they not find even 1 reputable expert, to expose the lies, provide reliable test results, effectively shut down this kangaroo court ?...apparently not...
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/7n8d7z/kathleen_zellner_zellnerlaw_4m4_minutes_ago_only/
RELABELING THE FORENSIC SWABS
ReplyDelete[–]thed0ngs0ng
They didn't even need Steven Avery's blood in the RAV4. They just needed to report that it was Steven Avery's blood. Buting and Strang didn't bother testing the blood swabs. With Ertl's involvement I wouldn't be surprised if it was animal blood or plasma and the tests were just dry labbed (yes this is common enough that a special name was given to describe it.) Dry labbing can refer to supplying fictional (yet plausible) results in lieu of performing an assigned experiment.
Ertl's involvement in the Ken Hudson case proves to me that he will fabricate and lie about DNA results.
https://www.wisconsinwatch.org/2017/09/dna-tests-in-wisconsin-murder-raise-questions-amid-alleged-evidence-tampering/
The fact that KZ's scientists couldn't detect a single nanogram of DNA is a big red flag that the state crime lab either fabricated or altered the evidence used to convict Steven Avery
[–]bigmouthlurker
I wonder what the time line was from when they photographed the finger that had been cut and when they found the blood that would've been left by the cut finger? It's like, LE had the vehicle but they needed to find a wound or some hair from SA. They saw he had a cut on his finger and then put the blood where the cut would be. If he'd had a cut on his leg then they plant the blood in a different spot to explain why it came from his leg. With no cuts then they obtain hair with root and put the hair on the seat back. There's basically no chance for you if LE wants to frame you. They will guarantee that a jury thinks you were in that vehicle.
This is why it's so important that indictments or arrest warrants are preceded by verified information and not merely suspicious coincidences. A vehicle matching TH's vehicle is found on the scrap yard. Ok. Is that enough for an arrest warrant? Not in my book. Blood is on the console. Ok. so, prove it is SA's blood before the warrant. Don't assume it is SA's blood, arrest SA, take blood from him, and then confirm the blood is SA's. That only works with honest LE. With dishonest LE they have to find another way to prove SA was in the vehicle before arresting him or else the arrest is how they collect the evidence to plant in the vehicle.
If they found and identified the blood before anyone knew that SA had a cut on his finger then it would be too much of a coincidence that they guessed he had a cut finger. No, I'll bet that there was absolutely no blood on that RAV console until LE determined where SA had a cut and then the blood was planted to fit the cut. It's certainly implausible that he left no fingerprints in or outside the vehicle but was bleeding profusely on a key that also had no blood on it but only had sweat DNA? But it's very plausible that the blood only appeared in that location once LE confirmed SA had a verified injury so they could match the location.
This is why the details have to be cataloged. If Avery is taken into custody and his hand is photographed before the blood is confirmed as his in the RAV then it's possible it was planted after SA had blood drawn. I think LE worthy of the name should be able to document that the blood was identified prior to their knowledge of the cut and not the other way around. It gets into causation: The cut didn't cause the blood; rather, the cut gave LE the knowledge of where to plant the blood they obtained after the arrest or after swabbing the sink. One followed the other.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/8atr74/blood_vial_exchange/
DNA Stability Studies Tend To Point Finger At DNA Analyst S. Culhane (self.TickTockManitowoc)
ReplyDeleteby magilla39
The DNA was planted at the WI State Crime Lab, and the most likely suspect is DNA Analyst S. Culhane.
How many WI State cases depend on the DNA analysis of S. Culhane? This may be the undiscovered liability that prevents the state from admitting any wrong doing in this case.
It has to be Culhane or Fassbender or both in conspiracy.
Proof: Zellner's team has proven that the DNA on the bullet and the hood swab was planted. Agreed? So who planted the DNA.
S/A Tom Fassbender picked up Teresa's pap smear slides at Bellin Health and they were sealed and sent directly to Sherry Culhane, who kept them in a locked cabinet (see related post for references). Therefore, if it was previously tested DNA for Teresa, it had to be from the pap smear sample. Using any other sample might mix in someone else's DNA, which would be too risky (the test data was always recorded). Moreover, due to the chain of custody, if it was the pap smear sample it had to be Tom Fassbender, Sherry Culhane, or both together in conspiracy.
[–]jakse1
Exactly! Why is POG the one venturing out to the salvage yard instead of her mom, stepdad, and brothers? And there is no way in hell, if my child was missing and they found the car, I would accept LE NOT immediately opening up that car. I would have ended up arrested because I would have gone nuts knowing the car is there with possible clues to her whereabouts and LE was not even attempting to search for clues and waited until the next day to process it.
They knew she was dead and the car's only value to them was to link it to SA. POG seemed to know it as well because her call never mentions TH...sounded like she was on a scavenger hunt and calling to confirm she won. Wonder if her phone records would show a call to KH after hanging up with LE. Doubt it.
[–]tuckerm33
This is a great OP. It is not the first to suggest SC as contaminating the evidence on purpose and or planting the evidence, but I like this angle.
One of the big pieces of suspicion has always been the handwritten memo by Culhane during a phone conversation with Fassbender, when he tells her to put TH in the house or garage (trial exhibit 341).
This thing with SC and contaminating the bullet with her own DNA, using an intern to test evidence in such a high profile case, and then destroying the testable evidence in the process. It is so obvious that something very criminal happened here, that it is nearly comical.
But the jury, (assuming there is an unbiased jury), the jury is sitting there, looking at each other and saying to each other, "she must be telling the truth, who would dare try to pull off something like this and think they would get a way with it?
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/7esrzw/rh_in_nov_2005_police_tell_us_where_to_search_rh/
[–]jdell408
ReplyDeleteGreat post but I have to say I disagree with you on the blood in the Rav 4. It will not come back as planted because it was most probably transferred over from the actual blood they had in the 2nd car they impounded where SA left a decent amount of blood from the cut on his finger.
There are other piles of spew that came out of SC's mouth during this trial and I could not believe how atrocious and egregious this crime lab operated.
My worry is that the DNA from hood latch will come back as being bucal but the blood in the Rav-4 will come back as legit and it wont be enough to over turn anything.
IMO, they need to get the hood latch test done first and show the willingness to plant evidence then absolutely jump all over the crime lab showing how not only is it possible that they simply tested the wrong swabs for Avery DNA, they handled them so carelessly that any one of the 100s of people with keys to that office could have walked in at anytime and switched them.
But again, the key to it all is showing the willingness to plant, not the actual method of planting itself.
[–]dark-dare
*An Inspector General’s Office audit issued warnings on the Wisconsin Crime Lab’s DNA section.(1)
It turns out that security has been none too good. The lab uses CODIS, and the FBI has protocols in place to keep the system clean from mixups.
The 2006 inspection revealed that access to the DNA lab was open and persons not associated with the lab and testing were visiting the DNA area. Whether logs of persons entering the lab were kept is unknown, but unlikely. This raises the specter that outside persons biasing lab results. Trial testimony shows that field investigators were instructing, via email, DNA lab personnel on what the investigators wanted for results. Now, we know that unauthorized people could easily enter the DNA lab and directly influence results. If an investigator wanted incriminating evidence, the doors were open.
The report noted “This unrestricted access to the lab by non‑DNA staff presents opportunities for inadvertent or deliberate misuse of the CODIS system or the alteration of information.”
This unrestricted access is contrary to rules governing use of CODIS.*
From Convoluted Brian's Site.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/5fscr7/she_helped_lock_avery_up_in_1985_got_him_out_in/
SBRH33
ReplyDeleteI strongly believe she should not have floated the blood theft from Avery's bathroom in her motion. While limited in plausibility I think it weakened the claim and sounded foolish on paper.
Occam's Razor always prevails in planting situations. It's about an opportunity, ease of availability and places the percentages of being caught in the act at near zero.
The blood vial presented all three scenarios.
It was accessible by virtually anyone with a badge and a hello.
It was controlled by the police department involved in the civil matter- lends itself to motive.
Some player in the matter, like Gene Kushe, for instance, with his DNA background (DNA evidence can be faked), knew the blood was old in the vial, its expiration date was set at March 1996. The blood was drawn in 1993?. That makes it a 14-year-old sample, 11 years expired by the time Mark Lebeau got his hands on it. Gene could have suggested the use of the vial because the EDTA present would have degraded to the point of non-detection by 2005-07. SO someone could have easily withdrawn a few microliters from that vial by inserting a simple hypodermic in the pre-existing stopper hole and planted it where they needed it, whenever they needed it.
Kratz and company realized the conundrum they were in and needed a powerhouse entity to certify that the blood vial contained EDTA and that the swabs did not contain EDTA. Enter Mark Lebeau, FBI- stage right. Act 4.
IMO, it has always been the blood vial as the source of the planting in the RAV4.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/aucxuq/mark_lebeau_the_unscientific_conclusion_of_his/
SBRH33
ReplyDeleteIn a very real sense, Kratz and company were teetering on the edge of an epic loss in 2007.
Dr Eisenberg's extraordinary trial blasphemy
Mark Lebeau's weak testimony
The deleted voicemail exclusions
The barring of Debra Kakatsch testimony
All four were nuclear missiles averted by Ken Kratz and the two weasels.
Lebeau was a complete stooge for the State, and it wasn't his first time either. He was caught red-handed before making shit up in his lab to help the State convict an innocent person. William Sybers was acquitted because of the junk science presented by Mark LeBeau and Dr. Ballard.
LeBeau assumed the swabs contained Steven Avery's blood. He made no testing offer to confirm the swabs were what they were.
You have to read Janine Arzizu's testimony carefully.
DeleteShe blows gaping holes in Mark Lebeau's lab methodology and extrapolations. There were entire pages of blank results from his analysis of swabs. It is even noted that someone went back into his finding and changed the results of the testings and signed off on them. Some very shady shit went on with the blood swabs and Mark Lebeau testing of them. Considering he only tested 3 of the 6 swabs sent to him should illuminate just how unscientific his methodology was.
https://theanalyticalscientist.com/fields-applications/making-a-murderer
Mark Lebeau reviewed his own lab work in the Avery case. He didn't have a peer review performed by a third party. He admits this in his own testimony.
By the way the Avery case isnt Mark Lebeau's first rodeo in hot baking his scientific anyalisis to side with the State prosecution of a criminal defendant. He has been caught before red handed in 2003 for faking lab results that helped convict a defendant to which the defendant was eventually aquited becuase of the discovery of Mark Lebeau's dirty lab secrets. It is particulary eye brow raising that Ken Kratz/ Norm Ghan turned to Mark Lebeau for the EDTA testing in 2007, which remarkably was a test he helped genertate for the OJ Simpson trial. The EDTA test was sham then as it was obviuously in the Avery case. Janine Arvizu illustrated that with her critical anaylisis of Mark's lab work.
But I believe he said they often used their own blood. Where else would they get blood, if not from lab scientists whose DNA is already known and therefore doesn't have to be identified? It's not as if they have a blood bank handy.
Well, actually they do have blood banks handy, and scientists are required to use them.
Labs working with blood samples are required by a series of protocol to use certified blood sources for any and all lab experiments and case work. The following Q&A is straight from Janine's testimony.
Janine Arvizu: Well, from the data, from the record, it's not really possible to tell. But my understanding is that this is a sample prepared by Mark LeBeau. MAL represents his initials and that he volunteered his blood sample for this particular sample. And created -- created a purple-topped tube, did an extract, and then determined that he was able to actually detect EDTA in this sample of his blood.
DeleteStrang: Now, is that -- would that be considered a proper positive control, in your opinion?
Janine Arvizu: No, it is not.
Strang: And why not?
Janine Arvizu: Control samples, there's rules, essentially, for control samples. Control samples are of known origin and purity. They have been tested to determine their actual composition. And then there's typically a certificate of analysis that tells you, we have analyzed it and we note, with this degree of confidence, that this is exactly what's in this sample. He, essentially, just took a sample out of the production line, his own, introduced it, and called it a positive control. So it's not, it doesn't really conform to sort of the -- the quality standard for what a positive control is.
Strang: So when you say a certified known quantity, but here, this is a control in order -- he is using this as a control to -- just to find EDTA; is that right?
Janine Arvizu: Yes, to see whether he can detect EDTA during the course of this run.
Strang: So what would be a proper positive control for that?
Janine Arvizu: If they had a whole blood standard, and there are supply houses that sell those kind of whole blood standards, that had a known quantity of EDTA present in it.
Strang: So there are commercial labs that sell certified specific --
Janine Arvizu: Yes.
Strang: -- things like this?
Janine Arvizu: Yes.
Strang: And those are intended to be used as a positive control?
Janine Arvizu: That's correct. Those are reference materials intended for that use.
Strang: Well, why would this be any different, if he puts it in a purple-topped tube?
Janine Arvizu: Because he doesn't know how much EDTA is in that purple-topped tube. So the fact that he detected it means it was there, but how significant is that? Was that -- was that a very concentrated sample or a very diluted one; he doesn't really know.
This is why Janine Arzivu's testimony was critically vital to the defense. She blew giant holes in Mark Lebeau's scientific methods and extrapolations. She nailed Mark LeBeau to the cross.
DeleteSadly, her critical testimony and debunking of Mark Lebeau's lab work flew over the jurors heads, or perhaps thier heads were already buried in the sands of bias at that point. Its difficult to determine.
Where is the great Steven Moore now? ...Nowhere.
It doesn't surprise me that Steven Moore would support his fellow G-Man. The FBI is a fraternity like any other organization.
Mark Lebeau is a flawed human being, caught manipulating his own science to place an innocent man in prison because of his hubris and willingness to subvert his constitutional duty to truth and justice. He should have lost his job a long time ago in 2003 when he was caught red-handed falsifying his own lab work as illustrated and documented in the link below.
It is incredulous he was involved in the Steven Avery frame up. Makes sense though because of his past willingness to comport with the direction of State Prosecutors to support their theories for convictions.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1260298.html
The State couldn't change their narrative. That they were married to so to speak.
DeleteIf there were a retrial I always wondered if Ken Kratz would have been the prosecutor.
Or would the State have handed it off to someone else?
FBI Scientist’s Statements Linked Defendants to Crimes, Even When His Lab Results Didn’t
The end of the article gets into this story about Brian Avery. Not sure there is a relation, but uncanny the way the State of Wisconsin refuses to grant this AVERY a new trial.
A jury had convicted 19-year-old Brian Avery in 1995 of participating in two armed robberies at Milwaukee convenience stores. Prosecutors built their case on witness identification and Avery’s confession during police interrogation, court records show. (Avery recanted his confession and declared his innocence thereafter.) The trial judge sentenced him to more than 20 years in prison.
Lawyers at the Wisconsin Innocence Project took up Avery’s case in 2007. They hired a video analyst to measure the robber’s height in surveillance footage. The images had been too fuzzy to use at trial. But in intervening years, software engineers had developed programs to filter and sharpen pictures and others to measure the distance between pixels.
https://www.propublica.org/article/fbi-scientists-statements-linked-defendants-to-crimes-even-when-his-lab-results-didnt
SBRH33
DeleteMark performed many shady practices when toying with Avery's blood samples. This was one of them. Using the expired EDTA tube as a control sample.
That tube should never have been used as a control sample. For one it was expired. It had an expiration date of March 1996.
Lebeau tested that tube for EDTA and used it as a control sample for the blood swabs in February 2007. 11 years past its expiration date
Thus it was impossible for him to have known the exact quantity of EDTA present in the tube.
The blood coming from the vial makes much more sense then someone stealing it from Steves bathroom.
The blood swabs sent to Lebeau being swapped and mislabeled from Steves Grand Am make much more sense then what Mark analyzed in his lab using the most unscientific methods available to him.
He had used the S.A. vial as a pos control. And he should not have. Janine Arvizu explained exactly why that should not have happened in her testimony.
The extremely troubling way Janine Arvizu's testimony unfolded in 2007 was preposterous by cross-examination standards.
She testified 4 days after Mark LeBeau testified. She should have testified directly behind Mark so the jury could fully understand what was being refuted. I question the decision to put Janine on the stand to refute Mark LeBeau's EDTA analysis 4 days after the fact. It makes zero sense.
How the hell was the jury going to recall what Mark testified to 4 days later?
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/aucxuq/mark_lebeau_the_unscientific_conclusion_of_his/