Steven Avery: Making of a Murderer

[Chris_Halkides]

Fingernail DNA and Peter Gill's book

I agree that the writing is from someone who does not understand much about DNA. I skimmed the link to the decision itself that I found in one of the two links I provided, but there was not much more detail on the testing itself. Suppose that this were clearly a two-person mixture (no extra alleles and no missing alleles) with Penny Beernsten as one of the two donors. Then if Avery's profile matched some alleles but not others, he would still be excluded. Many people share a few alleles; therefore, such a possibility seems reasonable to consider.

The Wisconsin court seemed to be conceding that Avery was excluded, but arguing that the foreign DNA underneath Beernstein's fingernails could have come from casual contact and might not be from her assailant. "As such, the State contends that 'the DNA testing which excluded the defendant and the victim as the source of the DNA, really does not have much probative force in excluding the defendant as the assailant.'" This is possible, but it does not change the fact that foreign fingernail DNA is exculpatory with respect to a non-donor, because DNA from casual contact is known to be uncommon. Some time ago I wrote a summary of fingernail DNA studies, based upon Peter Gill's book, "Misleading DNA evidence." link.

 

[McHrozni]

I agree that the writing is from someone who does not understand much about DNA. I skimmed the link to the decision itself that I found in one of the two links I provided, but there was not much more detail on the testing itself. Suppose that this were clearly a two-person mixture (no extra alleles and no missing alleles) with Penny Beernsten as one of the two donors. Then if Avery's profile matched some alleles but not others, he would still be excluded. Many people share a few alleles; therefore, such a possibility seems reasonable to consider.

The Wisconsin court seemed to be conceding that Avery was excluded, but arguing that the foreign DNA underneath Beernstein's fingernails could have come from casual contact and might not be from her assailant. "As such, the State contends that 'the DNA testing which excluded the defendant and the victim as the source of the DNA, really does not have much probative force in excluding the defendant as the assailant.'" This is possible, but it does not change the fact that foreign fingernail DNA is exculpatory with respect to a non-donor, because DNA from casual contact is known to be uncommon. Some time ago I wrote a summary of fingernail DNA studies, based upon Peter Gill's book, "Misleading DNA evidence." link.

Well, presence of the DNA from a third person really isn't exonerating evidence all by itself. It's useful to look into to determine whether you've missed something, but DNA in principle can't prove someone wasn't present at the scene or whatever, it can only show who was present or in this case, had contact with the victim.

McHrozni

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Peter Gill's book "Misleading DNA Evidence"

My summary that I presented in the Ramsey thread here(link in previous message) was based upon pp. 46-49 and pp. 68-80 in Professor Gill's book on DNA forensics. Here is a quote from p. 74: "In summary, this research and data demonstrate that the incidence of foreign DNA beneath the fingernails in the general population as a result of casual social contact is low. Even if the foreign DNA is detected, then invariably this profile can be sourced to a person's intimate partner rather than to a random individual and foreign profiles tend to be at a low level."

Fingernail DNA is one area in which enough research has been done that one can start making arguments on the basis of probability. I don't think that a comparable amount of research has been done on the frequency of foreign DNA in clothing, just as a for instance. One can defend the court on the basis that most of this research was performed later, yet their reasoning looks weak in hindsight.

ETA
If the data are available, someone should look at the known profile of the true perpetrator (from a reference sample) and compare it to the fingernail sample. My hypothesis is that he would probably not be excluded as a donor.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

shared alleles?

"Ten years later, in 1995, Avery sought DNA testing on fingernail scrapings taken from the victim immediately after the crime. Those tests revealed genetic markers consistent with both the victim and Avery, so that the laboratory could neither conclusively exclude Avery (on the off-chance that he and the victim shared those markers), nor identify him as the perpetrator. Those tests, however, also revealed DNA from another, unknown person, which could not have come from Avery." link

It sounds as if only a few alleles showed up and that Mr. Avery and Ms. Beernsten happened to share them. If so, then one could not say who donated them at the time. But there was also one or more alleles not belonging to either one. The scientist who did this work was Anita Lynn Matthews.

I also found a footnote on page 4 of a 2006 court filing. "DNA tests of the fingernail scrapings could not conclusively exclude Avery from a mixture of DNA, although several additional alleles were discovered in the mixture which could nothave come from either the victim or Avery. Unfortunately, no statistical estimates could be provided at that time to bolster Avery's continued claim that he was not the perpetrator of that offense."

 

[McHrozni]

"Ten years later, in 1995, Avery sought DNA testing on fingernail scrapings taken from the victim immediately after the crime. Those tests revealed genetic markers consistent with both the victim and Avery, so that the laboratory could neither conclusively exclude Avery (on the off-chance that he and the victim shared those markers), nor identify him as the perpetrator. Those tests, however, also revealed DNA from another, unknown person, which could not have come from Avery." link

It sounds as if only a few alleles showed up and that Mr. Avery and Ms. Beernsten happened to share them. If so, then one could not say who donated them at the time. But there was also one or more alleles not belonging to either one. The scientist who did this work was Anita Lynn Matthews.

I also found a footnote on page 4 of a 2006 court filing. "DNA tests of the fingernail scrapings could not conclusively exclude Avery from a mixture of DNA, although several additional alleles were discovered in the mixture which could nothave come from either the victim or Avery. Unfortunately, no statistical estimates could be provided at that time to bolster Avery's continued claim that he was not the perpetrator of that offense."

In other words, all alleles of both Steven Avery and the victim were present in the sample. The DNA did not exclude him, but since it would have to be a mixture of at lease three people, it isn't very incriminating either.

In all likelihood the Y-filer kit would get him out.

McHrozni

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The true culprit was someone else

On the basis of DNA from a hair sample, we now know that the rapist in 1985 was Gregory Allen, and that Mr. Avery's alibi witnesses were probably telling the truth (he was elsewhere at the time). Therefore, the actual sample was probably a mixture of Ms. Beernsten's DNA with her assailant, Mr. Allen. I agree that YSTR profiling would be helpful.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Speculation. Two scenarios. In the first, the garage is searched and no bullet is found. Later, after it appears a bullet would be excellent evidence to convict, a bullet is found in the garage.

Scenario two: The garage is searched. It's messy and a bullet is small. So the search is for "obvious" stuff, not specifically a bullet. Later, when it appears the victim may have been shot, the police return and look closer and a bullet is found.

My diagnosis? Someone in this thread watches too many television police dramas.

I agree that it is one or the other.

Scenario two is not consistent with the record. They searched the garage very thoroughly, even tested the floor for possible blood stains. Found nothing. That is what makes the magic bullet so magic. It arrived in a scene that was thoroughly searched with DNA that was otherwise completely absent from that scene.

Scenario one does not present such challenges.

 

[Dr. Keith]

If he wrapped her up in blankets, paper and maybe some gauze before shooting the amounts of free blood could be minimal, small enough to be cleaned with ease. He could dispose of all the blood-soaked material in the barrel and the bonfire.

McHrozni

Have you ever cleaned a large mammal? Like hung a deer from a tree to gut it and quarter it for further processing? Because the police have accused Steven of cutting her up and feeding her into this fire.

Even with good planning and and a dedicated set of tools and clothes you will still find that you bring blood back into the house. Not to mention the massive mess under the tree.

And it's not like you can just wipe the blood off of hard surfaces. Even in the back woods they have luminal.

 

[JREF2010]

The Bones-
I just watched a truecrime show with the perp being involved in the search-party for the victim. this case is similar if Zellner is right. but if RH did it, the scenario for the piles of bones seems to be missing, when did this happen? how and where?
I mean theres not a skeleton theres a box of tiny pieces of bones. if it was AC and L, where and what did they do to accomplish this? whats the theorys? how could a body be reduced in such a way by an amateur or even a cop whose afraid of losing his pension (again amateur?).

could it be RH did it and AC and L, did the horrific bone work and disposal?

Zellner said the experts confirmed Strang and Buting were right about planting but wrong about how...or something like that.

hmmm? its obvious? not for me.

 

[Samson]

The Bones-
I just watched a truecrime show with the perp being involved in the search-party for the victim. this case is similar if Zellner is right. but if RH did it, the scenario for the piles of bones seems to be missing, when did this happen? how and where?
I mean theres not a skeleton theres a box of tiny pieces of bones. if it was AC and L, where and what did they do to accomplish this? whats the theorys? how could a body be reduced in such a way by an amateur or even a cop whose afraid of losing his pension (again amateur?).

could it be RH did it and AC and L, did the horrific bone work and disposal?

Zellner said the experts confirmed Strang and Buting were right about planting but wrong about how...or something like that.

hmmm? its obvious? not for me.

A few ideas are in this sketch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWWg5shNWR4

 

[Fixit]

My summary that I presented in the Ramsey thread here(link in previous message) was based upon pp. 46-49 and pp. 68-80 in Professor Gill's book on DNA forensics. Here is a quote from p. 74: "In summary, this research and data demonstrate that the incidence of foreign DNA beneath the fingernails in the general population as a result of casual social contact is low. Even if the foreign DNA is detected, then invariably this profile can be sourced to a person's intimate partner rather than to a random individual and foreign profiles tend to be at a low level."

Fingernail DNA is one area in which enough research has been done that one can start making arguments on the basis of probability. I don't think that a comparable amount of research has been done on the frequency of foreign DNA in clothing, just as a for instance. One can defend the court on the basis that most of this research was performed later, yet their reasoning looks weak in hindsight.

ETA
If the data are available, someone should look at the known profile of the true perpetrator (from a reference sample) and compare it to the fingernail sample. My hypothesis is that he would probably not be excluded as a donor.

Helpful find Chris. Cheers.

 

[JREF2010]

Im checking in everyday to Zellners tweets...assuming its all nearly done and she knows the outcomes by now there seems to be a silence but confidence not retraction in the mystery tweets alluding to a point, but not giving any details.

I wonder, what if she knew the tests produced nothing? would there be back tracking or less confident remarks and a noticeable shift in approach (more emphasis on the cell phone for example, or more emphasis on RH instead of DNA...for example)

The test day has gone past the 90 days, one test, DNA methlylation of the blood in the Rav , was to be extended if the RC14 tests were a bust. So that could have extended the time frame also.

Dr. Horvaths methylation was noted in the doc to be with in months and was 97% correct on some testing. The Blood Vial would easily be aged outside any error.

But theres also the buccal swabs and items from SA that arent based on it being the Blood Vial from the MaM. Which makes me wonder if thats what she meant in her tweet about the earlier lawyers were right = it was planted, but not like they thought (blood vial)...instead maybe it was a different earlier source of DNA mixed in with other blood.

Or I guess, Zellner was insinuating the "other" meant PoofyHairedLab SC had something to do with this?

Watching episode 2 is great on MaM, when the local yocals are sued for $36 million, the Avery Bill is passing, all the suits on capital hill want a photo-shot with Steve the Junkyard dog wrongfully convicted.... $450,000 to be awarded from the suits on Capital Hill for a tv media crowd no doubt, the AVERY BILL.....

Koucek and his boys in the frying pan and the heat was turned on... the Severely Obese sketchy artist was the most obstinate when he was caught lying, but he at least gave a unprofessional insight to how biased they were against Avery, even denying the Bernstein DNA was real , insinuating Steve still raped her in his mind (or he was just a bad actor as a lawyer trying to deny DNA over his sketchy drawing.)

Rohr, Koucek, the Sketchy Artist cop, Petersen , Colburn, Lenk....
the ignored G.Allen call seems was reported by Colburn, he was doing his junior position duty but those above Colburn ignored it and did the crime as I see it now. Colburn got the call and reported it. The higher ups had the injustice cancer in their blood. (all over Sandra Morris? yuk...) These are the people with the $36 mill Motive. Oddly Lenk and Colburn kept finding all the evidence or were nearby all the time when they shouldnt have even been on the property at all. (conflict of interest big time)

They still dont answer the who, where, why, when of the Bone crushing and the bone pits and why several locations of bones. I mean who was doing this?

Anyone wonder Who was chopping up th bones and burning the body?
1)RH and/or roommate
2) Randant
3) ST and BD
4)Ziper
5) the Gardners Lenk and Colburn
6) Steve and BD
7) Eric Idle

I'll guess the Sketchy Artist didnt do anything physical. Kourcek and Vogel wouldnt get their hands dirty, KRatz and Factbender and Mark Weaslegart...

 

[McHrozni]

Have you ever cleaned a large mammal? Like hung a deer from a tree to gut it and quarter it for further processing? Because the police have accused Steven of cutting her up and feeding her into this fire.

No, I haven't. I don't see this scenario is likely either. The way I see it she was burned in the barrel first and placed in the fire - before or while it was burning if it was Steven Avery, or after it burned out of it was someone else. If he chopped up an already burned corpse there wouldn't be significant amounts of blood, no blood at all is quite likely in fact.

Even with good planning and and a dedicated set of tools and clothes you will still find that you bring blood back into the house. Not to mention the massive mess under the tree.

And it's not like you can just wipe the blood off of hard surfaces. Even in the back woods they have luminal.

Luminol is useless in this case. Contrary to what the crappy shows like CSI might have told you, it's not a compound that reacts to blood. It's a compound that reacts to many metal ions, including iron, which is why it will glow in the presence of blood. Soil will always glow to some extent though, so luminol in the back woods would be a desperate tactic to begin with.

You know what else you need to use luminol? Complete darkness. The glow is very faint, and it's hard to use it outside. Add these two together, but there is a third point which could be stronger than those two combined.

Hiding the blood on soil from investigators is easy, put some manure over it then pour a little water on top. Luminol has the exact same reaction to manure as it has to blood, which will mask it completely. Furthermore you shouldn't have traces of human DNA left by morning, two days tops, because the bacteria in the manure will degrade it. Even if you don't do anything chances are the bacteria in the soil will degrade the DNA within a short amount of time. Cigarette butts left outside overnight don't produce a viable profile more often than not, and they're considered a good DNA donor. In this case the blood would be outside for five days and nights before any investigators came to the scene.

McHrozni

 

[JREF2010]

I guess the bones dont matter to the Judge/Judges. They werent allowed in for retesting.

Even though there were fragments found at the deer camp and Avery requested these be tested the Judge turned it down. Even though the defense would pay for it the Judge turned it down.

The bones if proven to be at the quarry would be huge, why would a Judge close this opportunity to find out.?

11. Most of Ms. Halbach’s bones and 29 of her teeth were not found in Mr.
Avery’s burn pit. State expert Leslie Eisenberg testified that the volume of
bones discovered in the burn pit was “two- to three-fifths of what might be
expected.” (TT:2/28:225). Dr. Eisenberg also admitted that the bones had
been moved prior to their location in Mr. Avery’s burn pit. Dr. Eisenberg
testified that she suspected that the bones found in the Radandt quarry,
which included a pelvis, were human. (TT:3/1:10-11, 28).

(If we center 2/5 to 3/5 we are left at Dr. Eisenberg saying, 50% of the bones were accounted for.....very strange?)

the Request

● Calumet County property no. 8675: Mr. Avery is requesting DNA
testing on the alleged human pelvic bones recovered from the quarry
property southwest of the Avery Salvage Yard in order to conduct more
advanced DNA testing to determine the origin of these bones.
● Calumet County property nos. 7958 and 7963: Mr. Avery is requesting
DNA testing on the burnt material found at the Radandt deer hunting
camp west of the Avery Salvage Yard to determine whether there are
any items of evidentiary value at the deer camp.

 

[Dr. Keith]

No, I haven't. I don't see this scenario is likely either. The way I see it she was burned in the barrel first and placed in the fire - before or while it was burning if it was Steven Avery, or after it burned out of it was someone else. If he chopped up an already burned corpse there wouldn't be significant amounts of blood, no blood at all is quite likely in fact.



Luminol is useless in this case. Contrary to what the crappy shows like CSI might have told you, it's not a compound that reacts to blood. It's a compound that reacts to many metal ions, including iron, which is why it will glow in the presence of blood. Soil will always glow to some extent though, so luminol in the back woods would be a desperate tactic to begin with.

You know what else you need to use luminol? Complete darkness. The glow is very faint, and it's hard to use it outside. Add these two together, but there is a third point which could be stronger than those two combined.

Hiding the blood on soil from investigators is easy, put some manure over it then pour a little water on top. Luminol has the exact same reaction to manure as it has to blood, which will mask it completely. Furthermore you shouldn't have traces of human DNA left by morning, two days tops, because the bacteria in the manure will degrade it. Even if you don't do anything chances are the bacteria in the soil will degrade the DNA within a short amount of time. Cigarette butts left outside overnight don't produce a viable profile more often than not, and they're considered a good DNA donor. In this case the blood would be outside for five days and nights before any investigators came to the scene.

McHrozni

You seem to disagree with the prosecution quite a bit on how this crime was committed. I'd say in that regard, we agree.

 

[Samson]

You seem to disagree with the prosecution quite a bit on how this crime was committed. I'd say in that regard, we agree.

Jerry Buting also disagrees.

“We do not and have never claimed that the police killed Teresa Halbach. In that respect, they have that in common with Steven Avery. However, the person or persons who did kill Teresa knew exactly who the police would really want to blame for this crime.”

He was the closest American to the case. The discussion about whether Avery is guilty is a settled matter in the eyes of successive defence attorneys, so it is a wild goose chase to create scenarios in the woodlands that involve Avery.
The interest is of course endless in how these things proceed all the way to complete train wreck.
One vital clue I have missed is stated by Buting.
And in my words, he more or less says, the prosecutors get so involved with victims' families they must surrender to cognitive dissonance for their own sanity and fight ferociously to deny the facts and keep inmates in jail.
They shot the albatross.

 

[Samson]

here are Jerry's words I found:"

"We are there to defend the person accused of killing their loved one, and it is rare that a case comes to trial with any doubt in the minds of the victim’s family members about whether the defendant is guilty as charged. Victims’ rights advocates from the prosecutor’s office are with the family constantly, in and outside the courtroom, so the families naturally bond with the prosecution—and trust that the prosecutors are going after the true perpetrator. This is one reason why prosecutors can be so stubborn about reopening a case even after DNA tests of critical evidence have excluded the original defendant. How do prosecutors explain to a victim, or a victim’s family, that they imprisoned the wrong person and, in doing so, allowed the guilty party to escape justice?"

 

[McHrozni]

I guess the bones dont matter to the Judge/Judges. They werent allowed in for retesting.

Even though there were fragments found at the deer camp and Avery requested these be tested the Judge turned it down. Even though the defense would pay for it the Judge turned it down.

The bones if proven to be at the quarry would be huge, why would a Judge close this opportunity to find out.?

There was probably more to the story than this. Unidentified human remains are usually tested to determine where they came from, are they not?

11. Most of Ms. Halbach’s bones and 29 of her teeth were not found in Mr.
Avery’s burn pit. State expert Leslie Eisenberg testified that the volume of
bones discovered in the burn pit was “two- to three-fifths of what might be
expected.” (TT:2/28:225). Dr. Eisenberg also admitted that the bones had
been moved prior to their location in Mr. Avery’s burn pit. Dr. Eisenberg
testified that she suspected that the bones found in the Radandt quarry,
which included a pelvis, were human. (TT:3/1:10-11, 28).

(If we center 2/5 to 3/5 we are left at Dr. Eisenberg saying, 50% of the bones were accounted for.....very strange?)

These are two estimates who say the same thing. One produced a range of options the other opted for a more precise number, which just happens to be right in the middle of the estimate.

McHrozni

 

[JREF2010]

here are Jerry's words I found:"

"We are there to defend the person accused of killing their loved one, and it is rare that a case comes to trial with any doubt in the minds of the victim’s family members about whether the defendant is guilty as charged. Victims’ rights advocates from the prosecutor’s office are with the family constantly, in and outside the courtroom, so the families naturally bond with the prosecution—and trust that the prosecutors are going after the true perpetrator. This is one reason why prosecutors can be so stubborn about reopening a case even after DNA tests of critical evidence have excluded the original defendant. How do prosecutors explain to a victim, or a victim’s family, that they imprisoned the wrong person and, in doing so, allowed the guilty party to escape justice?"

thats interesting, I didnt know thats how it works but I have noticed the victims are often surrounded by the state/system/prosecution/police....I think its intentional to get the victims on their side for media purposes too.

 

[JREF2010]

in addition to the Bones...theres some reading material that explains the confiscation of the burn barrels, then the removal by the MCSD/Calumet etc....then the barrels come back to the property eventually and after that the bones are found!