Steven Avery: Making of a Murderer

[McHrozni]

McHrozni:

You have scientific knowledge yet appear to embrace a Schrodinger's cat reality here. Status unknown. This is abject nonsense surely like the waif a little pregnant. Evidence was planted, Steve has alibis for Africa, and she was shot in the back of the head execution style then incinerated.
Why in God's good name do you see uncertainty?

The evidence of a frame job is tentative at best, it's mostly innuendo and breaches of protocol, but not a credible story of how it happened. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that evidence for it requires suspension of disbelief, whereas Averys' guilt only requires him to be a bit more cunning than what he's given credit for.

In light of that I'm not prepared to buy the story of a frame job.

McHrozni

 

[quadraginta]

How does her own DNA in a control sample invalidate the presence of Steven Averies' DNA in a different sample? I remember that from the show, and it was never explained. I am somewhat familiar with the tests, and near as I can tell, the greatest danger of such contamination is that you'll generate a mixture of technicians' DNA and that of the interest of the investigation, complicating the interpretation, maybe even make it impossible to study.

This clearly wasn't the case here. What is therefore your basis for dismissing the result due to the contamination from a known source?

McHrozni

Others here will be able to answer this better than I can, but I'll take a shot anyhow.

My understanding is that the purpose of the control samples is to ensure that proper procedures were followed. If the control is contaminated then that means that the entire test procedure is no longer considered within acceptable limits to make an accurate conclusion.

IOW, if the test had been done right there would be no contamination, not 'a little bit'. An error with the control samples means there could be an error anywhere in the process.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Adam Scott case and negative controls in DNA profiling

In the book Misleading DNA Evidence, Peter Gill provides Recommendation Number 2 on page 23. "If a negative control shows a partial, or full, DNA profile, then this indicates that the batch of samples concurrently processed may be compromised and should be completely rerun." At this point in the book Professor Gill is discussing the Adam Scott case, in which a negative control that turned up positive was ignored, among other problems. In this case Scott was wrongfully accused of an assault before the laboratory error (which involved the accidental misuse of a plastic tray) was discovered. Professor Gill wrote, "A contaminated negative control should have rung alarm bells, but it was dismissed without any further action." (p. 22)

I would add that a negative control also came up positive in the Gary Leiterman case, and few doubt that the presence of John Ruelas's DNA (which was found with Leiterman's DNA), at least, is the result of contamination. I see no reason whatsoever to conclude that the contamination in the Avery case was necessarily from the analyst's speaking over the experiment, although it is certainly a plausible route. I have only found one narrow exception to the recommendation given above, and I am not aware of any evidence that the Avery case falls into this exception.

 

[JREF2010]

Im still curious what the Bullet charts and raw type data looked like.
Is this another bra-clasp piece like Sollecito's? Where its a garbage can of peaks and the Prosecution Lab picked the peaks they wanted and many below RFU values (shouldnt have been used).

The bullet DNA is talked about but theres no data written about it. As in numbers and alleles and all that other stuff I know very little about, but some do.

 

[Samson]

From Shaun Attwood:

For testing, bullets were sent to DNA Analyst Sherry Culhane, whose lab notes showed direction from Special Agent Tom Fassbender directing her to “try to put [Teresa] in [Steven’s] house or garage.” She went on to testify that the expectation “had no bearing on my analysis at all,” which was her attempt to cover her tracks after the conspiracy had been exposed. As part of a team effort to frame Steven, Sherry violated critical aspects of scientific protocol. Sherry had also played a role in Steven’s first wrongful conviction. After comparing a hair from Steven’s T-shirt with a hair found on Penny Beerntsen, Sherry had concluded that the hairs were a possible match. When prosecutor Vogel’s role in Steven’s first wrongful conviction was on the verge of being exposed, Vogel blamed the conviction on Sherry’s hair analysis. It also took Sherry over a year to carry out the DNA test that exonerated Steven in the Beerntsen case. Sherry found traces of Teresa’s DNA on the bullet from Steven’s garage, while also finding traces of her own DNA on the control samples. The test was contaminated. She should have performed the test again, but that option wasn’t available because she had used up the entire sample. To put Teresa in Steven’s garage, Sherry ignored the protocol and glossed over problems because the test results gave Kratz exactly what he was looking for.

 

[JREF2010]

SCulhane...these prosecutor puppet labs need to be neutralized, like dealing with interrogations (at least film and audio...and time limits etc..).

these "pro-prosecution labs" are popping up in a lot of these cases.

the Smirking Culhane....

reading the case docs on the blood vial, is interesting.
1) the defense finds the vial
Logically so, it is the defense who deserve to present the vial.. right?

But instead quote from case doc:

"and the vial of blood at issue here is evidence that the defense, not the state, intended to introduce at trial."

"How surprisingly strange, then, that only the state will have opportunity to test that blood scientifically and the defense will be left without time or means to conduct independent testing or even to challenge the states scientific testing."
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...equential-Independent-Testing-and-Funding.pdf

Willis and gang wouldnt even allow a order that the Defense could be present during Culhanes lab trainee day while running the bullet samples, that were conveniently "all used up"...and like a good puppet, placed TH in the garage as requested.

Will Culhane do prison time for falsifying Lab work? Is that a form of perjury? I doubt the Wisconsin Capital; Hill want to open that can of worms.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

I had been meaning to comment on this upthread when someone mentioned the extremely poor handling of the bone fragment evidence.

If you read the trial transcripts the prosecution introduced this whiz-bang machine that produced 3-D visualizations of the entire area, measuring all these distances between buildings, the burn pit and garbage cans, etc. with high accuracy. The obvious intent was to put on a show about how professional and exacting they were in their crime scene investigation.

This contrasts dramatically with the actual handling and (lack of) recording evidence in situ.

Why would you bring in this expensive machine and do all this nearly worthless 3-D visualization and then not even photograph the "bone dump" or pile in situ?

 

[Samson]

I had been meaning to comment on this upthread when someone mentioned the extremely poor handling of the bone fragment evidence.

If you read the trial transcripts the prosecution introduced this whiz-bang machine that produced 3-D visualizations of the entire area, measuring all these distances between buildings, the burn pit and garbage cans, etc. with high accuracy. The obvious intent was to put on a show about how professional and exacting they were in their crime scene investigation.

This contrasts dramatically with the actual handling and (lack of) recording evidence in situ.

Why would you bring in this expensive machine and do all this nearly worthless 3-D visualization and then not even photograph the "bone dump" or pile in situ?

Of course this is the way to pile the obvious suspect into jail.
This is pro forma.
I see people like McHronzi overthinking the case, Avery had nothing to do with this crime, this is clear and in front of us.
Once state resources are deployed to tell the plebecite their suspect is guilty it is all over clover.
Fortunately Avery will be released, and there will be learnings.

I loathe that word learnings, I only repeat it because it was used by an abject moron in the Lundy case in New Zealand.
Her name is Sue Schwalger.

 

[marplots]

Of course this is the way to pile the obvious suspect into jail.
This is pro forma.
I see people like McHronzi overthinking the case, Avery had nothing to do with this crime, this is clear and in front of us.
Once state resources are deployed to tell the plebecite their suspect is guilty it is all over clover.
Fortunately Avery will be released, and there will be learnings.

That's certainly a new development. Cite?

 

[JREF2010]

Its interesting to me, and Ive only followed one or two of these cases in more depth and the similarities are astounding.

The "game plays" by the prosecution who is corrupt is playing the same chess-moves, media, the prosecution lab person is the same , the cops finding the evidence the same over and over.....
the release of the prison informant slander , right when the appeals starts, timed negative press.... Factbender and Mr Sweaty on tv for its propaganda surge....

same thing is played out, no wonder Zellner jokingly made a tweet 5 months in advance that the Prison Snitches will have new evidence soon...or something like that. Shes probably seen this up close so many times how the Prosecution thats Wrongfully Convicted someone responds.

"and some credible witnesses come forward as they often do, when the scientific testing starts" she said from experience and observing it.

Ive only seen a couple of these cases and the two are bizarre in similarities.

sorry not really a question or debate post....just a newbie observation.

fits into the Skeptic Forum though.

 

[Samson]

That's certainly a new development. Cite?

Kathleen Zellner states it to be so, and her record is flawless. That is my cite, she says direct appeals are not the answer, and of course that is shown to be true. Look for something more inventive.

 

[marplots]

Kathleen Zellner states it to be so, and her record is flawless. That is my cite, she says direct appeals are not the answer, and of course that is shown to be true. Look for something more inventive.

Gee whiz that gal has some credibility if you can construct such a powerful counterfactual based on her say-so.

Meanwhile, the facts remain the same: Steven Avery has been convicted of murder. He is serving time for it. His conviction has been upheld on appeal.

Please do not make up stories or claims about him being released that aren't true.

 

[Samzilla]

Its interesting to me, and Ive only followed one or two of these cases in more depth and the similarities are astounding.

The "game plays" by the prosecution who is corrupt is playing the same chess-moves, media, the prosecution lab person is the same , the cops finding the evidence the same over and over.....
the release of the prison informant slander , right when the appeals starts, timed negative press.... Factbender and Mr Sweaty on tv for its propaganda surge....

same thing is played out, no wonder Zellner jokingly made a tweet 5 months in advance that the Prison Snitches will have new evidence soon...or something like that. Shes probably seen this up close so many times how the Prosecution thats Wrongfully Convicted someone responds.

"and some credible witnesses come forward as they often do, when the scientific testing starts" she said from experience and observing it.

Ive only seen a couple of these cases and the two are bizarre in similarities.

sorry not really a question or debate post....just a newbie observation.

fits into the Skeptic Forum though.

my understanding from reddit is the letter was written before she made that statement. that is to say, she found out about the prison letter and then made that tweet. but for whatever reason the letter didn't make its way to the press until recently.

i don't claim this as fact, just that i believe this is the general consensus on reddit regarding that letter.

 

[Samson]

Gee whiz that gal has some credibility if you can construct such a powerful counterfactual based on her say-so.

Meanwhile, the facts remain the same: Steven Avery has been convicted of murder. He is serving time for it. His conviction has been upheld on appeal.

Please do not make up stories or claims about him being released that aren't true.

The arrow of time points in two directions. I am making up nothing that does not exist in the future.
I am extremely confident. By the way I have a record of correct predictions Marplots.

 

[McHrozni]

Others here will be able to answer this better than I can, but I'll take a shot anyhow.

My understanding is that the purpose of the control samples is to ensure that proper procedures were followed. If the control is contaminated then that means that the entire test procedure is no longer considered within acceptable limits to make an accurate conclusion.

IOW, if the test had been done right there would be no contamination, not 'a little bit'. An error with the control samples means there could be an error anywhere in the process.

You misunderstand, I know what negative control does. You were close, negative control ensures proper procedures were followed and more importantly, to determine whether any DNA lingers in the equipment used that could carry over from sample to sample. This is a major concern, because if you transfer a single cell or DNA from a single cell from one sample to a sample with little or no human DNA, you can falsely implicate the donor of that DNA.

Contamination with the DNA of a lab worker however is much less of a concern. The worst thing that can result from it is that a weak sample with a small amount of DNA of interest will be hidden by a much stronger signal coming from DNA of the lab technician or that the sample will be more difficult or even impossible to interpret due to complex mixture.

I don't see how DNA from a laboratory worker discredits the samples that clearly weren't contaminated in this way, especially in this case. This case deals with a simple DNA sample from a single donor, so contamination from a laboratory worker shouldn't produce any false results.

McHrozni

 

[marplots]

The arrow of time points in two directions. I am making up nothing that does not exist in the future.I am extremely confident. By the way I have a record of correct predictions Marplots.

My mistake. I didn't account for prophetic talents.

 

[quadraginta]

You misunderstand, I know what negative control does. You were close, negative control ensures proper procedures were followed and more importantly, to determine whether any DNA lingers in the equipment used that could carry over from sample to sample. This is a major concern, because if you transfer a single cell or DNA from a single cell from one sample to a sample with little or no human DNA, you can falsely implicate the donor of that DNA.

Contamination with the DNA of a lab worker however is much less of a concern. The worst thing that can result from it is that a weak sample with a small amount of DNA of interest will be hidden by a much stronger signal coming from DNA of the lab technician or that the sample will be more difficult or even impossible to interpret due to complex mixture.

I don't see how DNA from a laboratory worker discredits the samples that clearly weren't contaminated in this way, especially in this case. This case deals with a simple DNA sample from a single donor, so contamination from a laboratory worker shouldn't produce any false results.

McHrozni

The contamination from a lab worker was a false result.

This leaves the question; "How many more?".

The test was invalid at that point. Its results had no business being presented in a court of law.

And even if it was (which it should never have been), there should at the very least have been a full and comprehensive explanation given to the jury explaining why, by any generally acceptable lab standards, the test procedure was invalidated by that control.

I don't know if that happened at Avery's trial. Did it?

 

[McHrozni]

The contamination from a lab worker was a false result.

Yes. But the contamination from a lab worker didn't bring Steven Averys' DNA into the blood. The blood in the Rav4 was his. No one disputes that, not even the defense.

The test was invalid at that point. Its results had no business being presented in a court of law.

There is no scientific nor legal reason to demand that. If the negative sample was contaminated with Steven Averys' DNA, you'd have a rather solid case, but not if it was the DNA of the lab worker.

And even if it was (which it should never have been), there should at the very least have been a full and comprehensive explanation given to the jury explaining why, by any generally acceptable lab standards, the test procedure was invalidated by that control.

I don't know if that happened at Avery's trial. Did it?

As far as I remember from the series, it was. The SOP was to invalidate the entire series if contamination was found, however the prosecution argued the requirement has no scientific merit. It could be a part was edited out - a cross contamination with another sample invalidates the series, but not contamination from a laboratory worker.

McHrozni

 

[marplots]

This deserves some emphasis. Sloppy police work, errors or mismanagement do not, necessarily, eliminate all evidentiary value. It might make the jury's job harder (finder of facts), but we do not live in a perfect world.

Further, tainted evidence in one area doesn't necessarily spread to other evidence gathered.

 

[Samson]

This deserves some emphasis. Sloppy police work, errors or mismanagement do not, necessarily, eliminate all evidentiary value. It might make the jury's job harder (finder of facts), but we do not live in a perfect world.

Further, tainted evidence in one area doesn't necessarily spread to other evidence gathered.

The pattern is common.
Amanda Knox of course understands how all the other evidence replaces the "double dna" knife.
Except it does not.
Just as in the Avery case she had a cast iron alibi, a time stamped cartoon that finished when Meredith was dead by the hand of another.