Steven Avery: Making of a Murderer

[Chris_Halkides]

DNA contamination in the Gregory Turner case

The idea that the prosecution knows more about science than the people who wrote the original SOP is...interesting. If the SOP had specifically stated that a positive result from a lab worker would not have invalidated the result, then I might be more willing to accept this result. However, one might wish to consider the Gregory Turner case. The technician contaminated the ring with a victim's DNA, as well as her own. She had also contaminated two previous cases with her own DNA. When worker contaminates a sample with his or her own DNA (or any DNA), it opens up the possibility that the worker is not working with sufficient care. The Gary Leiterman case (linked to above) is a cautionary tale.

The DNA in this instance deserves scrutiny for another reason IMO. I looked into this a while ago, and I recall that DNA from bullets is sometimes degraded, presumably from the heat. It would make sense to examine this DNA for signs of degradation.

 

[McHrozni]

The DNA in this instance deserves scrutiny for another reason IMO. I looked into this a while ago, and I recall that DNA from bullets is sometimes degraded, presumably from the heat. It would make sense to examine this DNA for signs of degradation.

That's almost easier done than said (yes, you red that right). Degraded DNA profile will show a significant drop in signal from longer fragments. All samples will show the drop, but in undegraded samples the drop could be as low as 10%, whereas degraded samples can show drops in excess of 50%. It is not unusual for a sample to only yield short makers and longer markers are undetectable.

I'd like to see electropherograms of the blood stains in Rav4. If they don't show significant degradation the blood was drawn recently and didn't come from a decades-old vacutainer.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

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.

She also had a video of a CSI team handling the evidence later used against her in a manner that could result in cross-contamination. The cases are notably different, Knox case used DNA evidence of Knox from an apartment she lived in as evidence she murdered someone there. Steven Avery was found guilty (in part) because his blood was found in a car of a murdered woman.

You can't compare the two. Amanda Knox is a farce, Steven Avery a complex case with few clear answers.

McHrozni

 

[Samson]

She also had a video of a CSI team handling the evidence later used against her in a manner that could result in cross-contamination. The cases are notably different, Knox case used DNA evidence of Knox from an apartment she lived in as evidence she murdered someone there. Steven Avery was found guilty (in part) because his blood was found in a car of a murdered woman.

You can't compare the two. Amanda Knox is a farce, Steven Avery a complex case with few clear answers.

McHrozni

I like to compare all these cases.
There is a very well written book by activist Shaun Attwood. A book of that nature can't be written without colliding with the facts, among which are numerous demonstrating it was impossible for Steven Avery to be involved in the crime. Cheap on kindle, "Unmaking a Murderer".
There are books for most of these cases, a particular favourite of mine is Footsteps in the Snow, the story of the false conviction of John Tessier for the killing of an 8 year old girl.

 

[JREF2010]

The DNA in this instance deserves scrutiny for another reason IMO. I looked into this a while ago, and I recall that DNA from bullets is sometimes degraded, presumably from the heat. It would make sense to examine this DNA for signs of degradation.

Thats what I keep wondering, where are the DNA charts and all the data that the experts can confirm or reject....or find is associated to a rat?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Donald Riley article on DNA contamination

"Good PCR technique is no guarantee that contamination didn't influence the results. Steps must be taken to try and detect contamination. Negative controls are blank PCRs that have all the components of the evidentiary PCRs but have no other DNA added intentionally. Fortunately, there are often two negative controls used, one when the DNA is extracted, and another when the PCR is set up. Any PCR signal in the negative control would warn that contamination has occurred. Unfortunately, the negative controls are virtually the only warning of PCR contamination. Negative controls may alert the analyst to general contamination occurring within the lab or the lab reagents. These controls don't offer protection against contamination occurring before the samples arrived at the PCR lab. Negative controls also can't rule out contamination of individual samples. The individual samples lack individual signs of contamination if it occurs. Unlike a human patient, a PCR is incapable of showing signs of infection (contamination) such as fever or undue pain. PCRs also have no immune system to ward off contaminants." From a 2005 article by Donald Riley that is a good introduction to the problems of PCR-based DNA profiling IMO.

 

[JREF2010]

and the bullet has that similar peculiar issue where nothing else in the area shows anyone was shot there in the garage, like the bra clasp in the Kercher case. Not one other spec or trace of any blood or DNA to show there was a shooting to the head and this bullet which only shows up much later, just like the bra clasp.

so thats what I wonder about, has anyone seen the raw data that shows its blood dna or even credible RFU levels etc..? Or is it another sample like the bra clasp with tiny peaks in the below 20rfu , for example.

I dont know where this case is heading, even if its pretty obvious the evidence was planted, with all the other types of contamination, called corruption,bias and politics, Zellner might need to move the trial a long distance away from Manitowoc.

 

[JREF2010]

the news is sparse, the tweets are few.

the fact is Zellner might have to prove who the real killer is. cases with false confessions and planted evidence and a motivated local police "face saving" is going to be tough.
wonder if RH is being watched closely?

 

[marplots]

the news is sparse, the tweets are few.

the fact is Zellner might have to prove who the real killer is. cases with false confessions and planted evidence and a motivated local police "face saving" is going to be tough.
wonder if RH is being watched closely?

Or, it could be they have the real killer in jail already and Zellner is looking for a way to dump him.

 

[Samson]

Or, it could be they have the real killer in jail already and Zellner is looking for a way to dump him.

I don't think so. The prosecution case is that he did a crime on his site. The evidence shows it all happened elsewhere.

 

[quadraginta]

Or, it could be they have the real killer in jail already and Zellner is looking for a way to dump him.

It could be but Zellner's track record doesn't seem to be one of getting people out of jail on the basis of sketchy tactics or appeals to reasonable doubt, but rather of the exoneration of her clients. She has made the assertion that she won't take on a client she doesn't believe is innocent.

There's no reason to think that she has changed all of a sudden.

She might be wrong about Avery, but if she is it's gonna spoil a really good record so far.

 

[McHrozni]

Thats what I keep wondering, where are the DNA charts and all the data that the experts can confirm or reject....or find is associated to a rat?

Primers are chosen to be unique to humans. Non-human DNA will not be replicated or even detected with commonly used forensic kits.

Special kits for various animal species (cats, dogs) do exist, but they won't replicate human DNA, or DNA of any other animal than the one they're designed for.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

"Good PCR technique is no guarantee that contamination didn't influence the results. Steps must be taken to try and detect contamination. Negative controls are blank PCRs that have all the components of the evidentiary PCRs but have no other DNA added intentionally. Fortunately, there are often two negative controls used, one when the DNA is extracted, and another when the PCR is set up. Any PCR signal in the negative control would warn that contamination has occurred. Unfortunately, the negative controls are virtually the only warning of PCR contamination. Negative controls may alert the analyst to general contamination occurring within the lab or the lab reagents. These controls don't offer protection against contamination occurring before the samples arrived at the PCR lab. Negative controls also can't rule out contamination of individual samples. The individual samples lack individual signs of contamination if it occurs. Unlike a human patient, a PCR is incapable of showing signs of infection (contamination) such as fever or undue pain. PCRs also have no immune system to ward off contaminants." From a 2005 article by Donald Riley that is a good introduction to the problems of PCR-based DNA profiling IMO.

tl,dr: Negative controls check lab work and don't rule out tampering with the evidence before it came to lab.

Not all contamination are equal. A contamination from a known source (a lab worker) is different to a contamination with either unknown DNA or (heaven forbid!) DNA of the defendant. If there was Steven Averys' DNA in the negative control, the entirety of DNA evidence could be dismissed. That wasn't the case, so it stands.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

so thats what I wonder about, has anyone seen the raw data that shows its blood dna or even credible RFU levels etc..? Or is it another sample like the bra clasp with tiny peaks in the below 20rfu , for example.

RFU stands for "ReFerence Units", an arbitrary unit with no absolute meaning. If the peaks are 20 RFU doesn't tell you anything about signal to noise ratio in the sample, or anything else if you don't know what the manufacturer says. I know Applied Biosystems requires 300 RFU to guarantee results, but I also know the noise in their kits is about 5 RFU or less, you can usually read the profile with 20 RFU well enough.

McHrozni

 

[Chris_Halkides]

relative fluorescence unit

RFU stands for relative fluorescence unit. Link

IIUC JREF2010 used the word "rat" to suggest some sort of evidence tampering that might be uncovered by release of the electronic data files or other defense-led examination of the DNA data. Maybe we should coin the term "rat malfeasance unit" RMU and grade the various pieces of evidence accordingly. Or RGU, relative gardening unit...

 

[JREF2010]

yeah I meant "rat" as in slang: corrupt, sneaky, etc..

The burden is on the defense now seems only DNA can prove it was someone else and even then it has to be an open minded Judge.

Who was the guy in MaM who did the sketch drawing (and had the picture of Steve framed...) , he refused to accept the DNA results from the first wrongful conviction. It was a very telling example of how some of the police feel about Steve Avery.

Zellner needs a huge break to get Steve out. Im not sure if proving tainted evidence or planting will do it, assuming the State of Wisconsin will be on the hook for >$100mill.

 

[Samson]

I am reading Jerry Buting's book on kindle.
Shaun Attwood in his book makes a suggestion that meth fueled drug dealers did the crime.
This could well be so. What needs to be resolved is the coincidence involved, just in time delivery I guess might be an analogy. I have just got to Colborn and Lenk in Buting, so I can't spoil any plot. Buting's book is serious and details other cases.
Both books are on kindle

Unmaking a murderer by Shaun Attwood

Illusion of Justice by Jerry Buting.

 

[Samson]

This is a brief extract frome Buting's book that intrigues me.

And speaking with a Green Bay television reporter, Sheriff Peterson had dismissed the notion that Avery had been framed by saying, “If we wanted to eliminate Steve, it would’ve been a whole lot easier to eliminate Steve than to frame Steve.” The reporter apparently had a hard time believing what she was hearing and asked what he meant by “eliminate.” Sheriff Peterson obligingly explained. “If we wanted him killed, it would be much easier to kill him.”

..................................

I am trying to figure whether this means American police routinely kill people.

 

[JREF2010]

wow. you know thats another mystery to me of this case is the destroying of the body. it seems to me unimaginable but then I think if people today want to destroy the evidence they go to greater lengths due to DNA and Forensic technology getting so tough on the perp's. Meth heads killed her? thats a new one. Colburn finds it and theres the openning for the frame job and his promotion.

Zellners new post up
To all skeptics, doubters and haters, just be patient because we are really going to make you mad.

 

[marplots]

This is a brief extract frome Buting's book that intrigues me.

And speaking with a Green Bay television reporter, Sheriff Peterson had dismissed the notion that Avery had been framed by saying, “If we wanted to eliminate Steve, it would’ve been a whole lot easier to eliminate Steve than to frame Steve.” The reporter apparently had a hard time believing what she was hearing and asked what he meant by “eliminate.” Sheriff Peterson obligingly explained. “If we wanted him killed, it would be much easier to kill him.”

..................................

I am trying to figure whether this means American police routinely kill people.

Oh come on, this is the US, a civilized country. They'd hire it out.