• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Steven Avery: Making of a Murderer Part 2

"A Path Forward" on tool mark analysis

JTF said:
You certainly have the right to give a hand wave to the talking points in my post, but your mix of pot shots with selective commentary (e.g., Luminol issue only), provides me with ample motivation to put forth the following challenge(s).

1) Please point out why the following statement in my post is "highly misleading."

"Subsequent testing was unable to produce a definitive source for the Luminol reaction, but analysts were able to determine that the concrete floor had been cleaned with bleach and pain thinner."

SNIP
3) Please point out why the following statement(s) in my post are "highly misleading."

"Dassey constructed a drawing of his uncle's garage depicting Halbach, Avery, and Dassey in their locations when Teresa was murdered via gunshot(s) to the head. Two bullet fragments were found in the garage and one of those bullets bore traces of Halbach's DNA. State crime lab firearms expert William Newhouse concluded that this bullet had been fired from a rifle found hanging over Avery’s bed. Newhouse linked ammunition found in Avery's desk drawers to this bullet fragment."
Click to expand...
Regarding point 1, I have demonstrated with citations from the forensic literature that the substance was not bleach, nor was it a bleach-cleaned bloodstain. You have been told this repeatedly, and your response is to offer an insult instead of an explanation. And this was after you were called out for exaggerating the strength of the luminol reaction. Can you cite forensic evidence demonstrating that bleach and paint thinner were used? If you cannot, then it isn't worth discussing.

Regarding point three, The National Research Council's 2008 report Ballistic Imaging stated, “A significant amount of research would be needed to scientifically determine the degree to which firearms-related toolmarks are unique or even to quantitatively characterize the probability of uniqueness.”

The 2009 NAS Report “Strengthening Forensic Science: A Path Forward” concluded in part, “Toolmark and firearms analysis suffers from the same limitations discussed above for impression evidence. Because not enough is known about the variabilities among individual tools and guns, we are not able to specify how many points of similarity are necessary for a given level of confidence in the result. Sufficient studies have not been done to understand the reliability and repeatability of the methods.”

In 2011 Paul Giannelli wrote, "In a different passage, the [NAS] report remarked that “[m]uch forensic evidence ‘including, for example, bite marks and firearm and toolmark identifica- tions’ is introduced in criminal trials without any meaningful scientific validation, determination of error rates, or reliability testing to explain the lim- its of the discipline.” (Id. at 107-08.)"

In 2017 Sarah L. Cooper wrote, “However, overall, Strengthening concluded that ‘The scientific knowledge base for tool mark and firearms analysis is fairly limited.’” She went on to say, “The NAS [National Academy of Sciences] commented that ‘[t]his AFTE [association of firearms and tookmark examiners] document, which is the best guidance available for the field of tool mark identification, does not even consider, let alone address questions regarding variability, repeatability, or the number of correlations needed to achieve a given degree of confidence.’”

Thus Mr. Newhouse's claim of uniqueness is unscientific. Maybe someday the pro-guilt commenters will stop offering up rose fertilizer while claiming that it smells like roses.
 
Last edited:
Roger Ramjets said:
If Avery is innocent then this damning evidence needs to be handwaved away explained, and there is only one improbable logical explanation - the cops framed him. :eek:

That also means his big cleanup in the garage, large bonfire in the burn pit (complete with human remains), and having a meeting with Teresa Halbach earlier are all mere coincidences that the cops took advantage of. Of course they also had the remarkable luck to find her dead body and vehicle in locations that made it easy to frame him - or did they plan it all out ahead and actually caused these 'random' events to coincide?

How did the cops manage to get Teresa's hacked up body into the burn pit without Steven noticing, and how did they make sure he would set fire to it? How they fake all the other evidence? And who actually killed her - was it them, someone they paid to do the deed, or an unrelated murder that just happened to sync up with their plans? Perhaps one day the cops will come clean and tell us how they did it...

“When you have eliminated the evidence, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” It's simply elementary.
Click to expand...

That pretty much sums up the absurdity of Steven Avery not being the killer.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
Regarding point three, The National Research Council's 2008 report Ballistic Imaging stated, “A significant amount of research would be needed to scientifically determine the degree to which firearms-related toolmarks are unique or even to quantitatively characterize the probability of uniqueness.”

The 2009 NAS Report “Strengthening Forensic Science: A Path Forward” concluded in part, “Toolmark and firearms analysis suffers from the same limitations discussed above for impression evidence. Because not enough is known about the variabilities among individual tools and guns, we are not able to specify how many points of similarity are necessary for a given level of confidence in the result. Sufficient studies have not been done to understand the reliability and repeatability of the methods.”

In 2011 Paul Giannelli wrote, "In a different passage, the [NAS] report remarked that “[m]uch forensic evidence ‘including, for example, bite marks and firearm and toolmark identifica- tions’ is introduced in criminal trials without any meaningful scientific validation, determination of error rates, or reliability testing to explain the lim- its of the discipline.” (Id. at 107-08.)"

In 2017 Sarah L. Cooper wrote, “However, overall, Strengthening concluded that ‘The scientific knowledge base for tool mark and firearms analysis is fairly limited.’” She went on to say, “The NAS [National Academy of Sciences] commented that ‘[t]his AFTE [association of firearms and tookmark examiners] document, which is the best guidance available for the field of tool mark identification, does not even consider, let alone address questions regarding variability, repeatability, or the number of correlations needed to achieve a given degree of confidence.’”

Thus Mr. Newhouse's claim of uniqueness is unscientific. Maybe someday the pro-guilt commenters will stop offering up rose fertilizer while claiming that it smells like roses.
Click to expand...

Newhouse fired the same ammunition from Avery's rifle and compared them to the bullet fragments and shell casings found in Avery's garage.

I doubt any of names you quoted above would disagree with Newhouses findings considering all three markers matched (shell casing, firing pin and rifling marks).

newhouse-casing-comparison-4.jpg


newhouse-casing-comparison-3.jpg


newhouse-bullet-comparison-2.jpg
 
Samson said:
Here is one of the interviews with Avery between Halbach's disappearance and his arrest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtrzOgH2k10

Someone notes in the comments his style is unchanged from interviews after his exoneration previously for the rape.
Click to expand...


How does this refute the victims bones being in his burn pit where he had an 8 hour bonfire the night the victim disappeared, the victims belongings being in his burn barrel where he also had a fire the night the victim disappeared. The murder weapon hanging on the wall over his bed and his nextdoor neighbour admitting they both raped and killed the victim before placing her body in his bonfire?
 
Last edited:
Essexman said:
How does this refute the victims bones being in his burn pit where he had an 8 hour bonfire the night the victim disappeared, the victims belongings being in his burn barrel where he also had a fire the night the victim disappeared. The murder weapon hanging on the wall over his bed and his nextdoor neighbour admitting they both raped and killed the victim before placing her body in his bonfire?
Click to expand...
He either did it or was framed, so knowing those fires occurred makes plausible planting the evidence there.
I think you may be one of the few who believe Brendan actually had sex with Halbach.

But it is more the fact he looks pretty candid in those interviews, fixing the interviewer with a steady gaze, and answering the questions with no confusion except where appropriate to his genuine lack of knowledge. The car discovery and so on are described by him in a way that rings true.

Maybe he is good, very very good for an alleged 70 IQ. (I have him several clicks better than that regardless of guilt status).
 
Samson said:
He either did it or was framed, so knowing those fires occurred makes plausible planting the evidence there.
Click to expand...
You see, the cops who framed him had it all figured out. First they waited until Avery was cleaning up and about to have a big bonfire, then they pulled out the body they had prepared earlier and slipped it into the burn pit while he wasn't watching. At this point they had already planted the vehicle and smeared some of Steven's blood on it. Then during the 'investigation' they shot a bullet out of his gun and dipped it in some of the victim's DNA that they had kept.

But all that manufactured circumstantial evidence wasn't enough. They needed a false confession to go with it, which is why they brainwashed Dassey into saying that he was involved by cunningly asking him questions about the crime!

Now that we know what happened in this case, it's obvious that no conviction involving the police is safe, since any evidence they present must could be faked. We might as well get rid of jury trials altogether - if the accused professes their innocence that alone is enough doubt!
 
Worthless

I would bet that Avery's demeanor or "style" was quite different when he ran a woman off the road and put a loaded gun in her face. That demeanor or "style" likely mirrored how he presented to not 1, but 2 women who later came forward to accuse Avery of sexual assault. The key to determining guilt or innocence is to follow the evidence and the evidence in this case points to Avery's guilt. IMO, when making definitive judgements about guilt or innocence, reading body language is a worthless endeavor.
 
Last edited:
JTF said:
I would bet that Avery's demeanor or "style" was quite different when he ran a woman off the road and put a loaded gun in her face. That demeanor or "style" likely mirrored how he presented to not 1, but 2 women who later came forward to accuse Avery of sexual assault. The key to determining guilt or innocence is to follow the evidence and the evidence in this case points to Avery's guilt. IMO, when making definitive judgements about guilt or innocence, reading body language is a worthless endeavor.
Click to expand...
I am a subset of the curious set of human beings.
Steven Avery achieves a high level of equanimity.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
You see, the cops who framed him had it all figured out. First they waited until Avery was cleaning up and about to have a big bonfire, then they pulled out the body they had prepared earlier and slipped it into the burn pit while he wasn't watching. At this point they had already planted the vehicle and smeared some of Steven's blood on it. Then during the 'investigation' they shot a bullet out of his gun and dipped it in some of the victim's DNA that they had kept.

But all that manufactured circumstantial evidence wasn't enough. They needed a false confession to go with it, which is why they brainwashed Dassey into saying that he was involved by cunningly asking him questions about the crime!
Click to expand...

Dont forget, the cops also waited for Avery to have a cut finger and get blood on the gear shift of his own car so they could replicate it in Halbachs car. Then they randomly threw some of Halbachs bones in the quarry and Brendan just so happened to tell them that's were Avery hid some of the bones!

This giant frame-up operation all went so smoothly. :rolleyes:
 
two books by John Ferak

Students of these cases should read two books by John Ferak, "Failure of Justice" and "Wrecking Crew." The former book covers the Beatrice Six case, and the latter book covers the Steven Avery case. Bobby Dassey emerges a plausible alternative suspect, with possible after-the-fact assistance from Scott Tadych.
 
Surprised this hasn't made the thread yet:

https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...12+-+Motion+to+Stay+&+Remand+FILE+STAMPED.pdf

Basically, Zellner is alleging a Brady violation for withholding information about a witness favorable to Steven Avery's defense. The witness was the paperboy, who reported seeing Bobby Dassey and an older bearded dude pushing Halbach's car towards the Avery junkyard. The paperboy, Thomas Sowinski, reported such to the police and was told, "We already know who did it," and was never contacted again.
 
xjx388 said:
Surprised this hasn't made the thread yet:

https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...12+-+Motion+to+Stay+&+Remand+FILE+STAMPED.pdf

Basically, Zellner is alleging a Brady violation for withholding information about a witness favorable to Steven Avery's defense. The witness was the paperboy, who reported seeing Bobby Dassey and an older bearded dude pushing Halbach's car towards the Avery junkyard. The paperboy, Thomas Sowinski, reported such to the police and was told, "We already know who did it," and was never contacted again.
Click to expand...



Another fabricated and coached witness statement by Zellner to keep her BS circus going.
 
here we go again

JTF said:
You certainly have the right to give a hand wave to the talking points in my post, but your mix of pot shots with selective commentary (e.g., Luminol issue only), provides me with ample motivation to put forth the following challenge(s).

1) Please point out why the following statement in my post is "highly misleading."

"Subsequent testing was unable to produce a definitive source for the Luminol reaction, but analysts were able to determine that the concrete floor had been cleaned with bleach and pain thinner."
Click to expand...
We have been through this before, but you have yet to show any effort to understand the salient issues. On the basis of a negative TMB test, we know that there was no blood present. On the basis of the negative TMB test and the peer-reviewed forensic literature, we can rule out bleach-cleaned blood. Therefore, making a big deal about what gave rise to the positive luminol reaction is misdirection. Luminol is a relatively fast and easy way to cover a good deal of ground, yet there are many false positives, not all of which have been well characterized. This last point was made in a 2007 review article by Barni and coworkers (citation available upon request). What you wrote suggests that blood was cleaned up, but there is no evidence that supports such an inference.
 
Last edited:
White, Leo, Ofshe, and Kassin

Roger Ramjets said:
They needed a false confession to go with it, which is why they brainwashed Dassey into saying that he was involved by cunningly asking him questions about the crime!
Click to expand...
Those of us who have criticized the criminal justice system's handling of Mr. Dassey have quoted both from experts associated with the case (White and Leo) and independent experts (Ofshe and Kassin). We have offered a number of specific examples of how the police contaminated Mr. Dassey's account. Your comment is...a wholesale misrepresentation of the interrogation. If you are able to offer rebuttals to what has been quoted here, it might yet be possible to have a productive conversation about Mr. Dassey's putative involveement.
 
heat degradation of DNA

"Forensic Examination of Burnt Human Remains" link. This study reviews several articles which detail attempts to amplify DNA from samples subjected to burning or to heat. Most of them were unsuccessful. The authors wrote about one such study: "However, considering that the dental pulp is somewhat protected from heat by the surrounding enamel and dentine, this severe DNA degradation after such a short period of heating also suggests the poor heat resistance of DNA."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom