Steven Avery: Making of a Murderer

[JREF2010]

one day turn around for dna?
one day turn around for metals?

we know exhibit 277 is the bullet and the Judge approved this request by Zellner and paid for by defense.

 

[JREF2010]

The EDS detector separates the characteristic X-rays of different elements into an energy spectrum and EDS system software is used to analyze the energy spectrum in order to determine the abundance of specific elements. A typical EDS spectrum is portrayed as a plot of X-ray counts vs. energy (in keV). Energy peaks correspond to the various elements in the sample. Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy can be used to find the chemical composition of materials down to a spot size of a few microns and to create element composition maps over a much broader raster area. Together, these capabilities provide fundamental compositional information for a wide variety of materials, including polymers and metals.

SEM/EDS is the tool Zellner has a pic of.
Fairly quick test for metals.

 

[marplots]

The EDS detector separates the characteristic X-rays of different elements into an energy spectrum and EDS system software is used to analyze the energy spectrum in order to determine the abundance of specific elements. A typical EDS spectrum is portrayed as a plot of X-ray counts vs. energy (in keV). Energy peaks correspond to the various elements in the sample. Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy can be used to find the chemical composition of materials down to a spot size of a few microns and to create element composition maps over a much broader raster area. Together, these capabilities provide fundamental compositional information for a wide variety of materials, including polymers and metals.

SEM/EDS is the tool Zellner has a pic of.
Fairly quick test for metals.

What do you expect such tests to demonstrate?

 

[Wayward son]

What do you expect such tests to demonstrate?

This is what Zellner said in her original request:

No presumptive blood testing was performed on the bullet or fragment nor was any scientific testing done to determine the organ (i.e., heart, liver, brain) from which Ms. Halbach’s cells, from the bullet fragment, originated. No ballistic expert testified to the fact that it is highly improbable that any .22 LR, much less two, could have exited Ms. Halbach’s skull.
/
Mr. Avery is requesting Neutron Activation Analysis (“NAA”) to compare the elements contained within Item FL, the bullet fragment recovered from his garage, and the unspent .22 LR shells taken from his bedroom.
/
Mr. Avery requests the following items for ballistic testing:
A. Item FL: the bullet fragment recovered from Mr. Avery’s garage.
B. Unspent .22 LR shells from Steven Avery’s bedroom (contained within Calumet County inventory no. 8436).

 

[Wayward son]

So for me the questions are:
Why was this test approved this time, but not the last time?
Why was this test approved and carried out so fast?

Both Zellner and the State know the results of the previous re-tests as the results were sent to Zellner and the State simultaneously. Zellner and Avery seem very happy with the results. Asking once again for this previously denied test is in line with Zellner's past behavior of seeking to overturn every single piece of evidence.

 

[marplots]

This is what Zellner said in her original request:

No presumptive blood testing was performed on the bullet or fragment nor was any scientific testing done to determine the organ (i.e., heart, liver, brain) from which Ms. Halbach’s cells, from the bullet fragment, originated. No ballistic expert testified to the fact that it is highly improbable that any .22 LR, much less two, could have exited Ms. Halbach’s skull.

Probably not related to the test described. Wouldn't the probability of two bullets exiting depend on how many bullets entered?

Mr. Avery is requesting Neutron Activation Analysis (“NAA”) to compare the elements contained within Item FL, the bullet fragment recovered from his garage, and the unspent .22 LR shells taken from his bedroom.

That sounds like the test described, although all it could prove is that the bullet fragments recovered either were or were not consistent with the unfired rounds Avery had in the bedroom. If they match, then not too good for Avery, if they don't match, then the prosecution just claims Avery used other bullets.

 

[Wayward son]

If they match, then not too good for Avery, if they don't match, then the prosecution just claims Avery used other bullets.

I mean sure the prosecution can claim whatever they want - but what matters is whether the judge(s) will believe the claims. And that will depend on what Zellner has found for the other pieces of evidence. If none of the other pieces of evidence show evidence of planting I am sure the State can easily talk their way out of one piece that does hint at that. If several pieces of evidence show evidence of planting than their stories start to look ridiculous.

Keep in mind that Zellner has undoubtedly come up with a theory of what happened, based on the evidence that she has acquired so far, and she has most likely informed the judge/DOJ of what specific evidence she was looking for with this requested test - which is why the judge/DOJ agreed to this request as quickly as they did and the test was performed as quickly as it was (my understanding is that it was requested and approved on Friday, sent for testing on Monday and returned on Tuesday). This for a test and piece of evidence which she had previously requested and had been denied. She is looking for something specific and that is based on either the results of the other tests or the testimony of witnesses that have come forward (or both).

Now, I could be wrong about all that, and this could have just been a hail Mary, last kick at the can. If the rest of Zellner's evidence is not strong then, for instance, her claims about the cell phone leaving the property will undoubtedly not hold up against any story the State brings to explain them...kind of like your idea that Brendan drives the Rav to account for the cell phone leaving the property which I guess went something like this?:

Bus driver drops off Brendan and Blaine at about 2:30 and sees Teresa taking pictures.
Brendan sprints over to Rav4
Avery: "Go drive the Rav4 away with the cell phone and then after a bit turn the phone off and drive the Rav back, so you can help me rape and kill this girl."
Brendan: "Wait? What?"
Avery: "Just do it. I only have a couple seconds to explain, but look, I am a criminal mastermind who knows that they might be able to trace this cell phone, so if the cell phone leaves the property they won't think it was me."
Brendan: "Ummm...if you worried about things being traced back to you, then why would decide to kill someone who you called to come to our property?"
Avery: "I don't know. I am pretty stupid and definitely not a criminal mastermind."
Brendan: "Ok....but I can't drive, and everyone in this whole area knows me, so aren't you afraid that someone might notice me driving this vehicle? Especially since I don't have a driver's license or even a learner's permit? or that I might get in an accident and then will definitely be traced back to you? Not quite sure why you are putting the driving responsibility on the person who can't drive? Why don't you do it?"
Avery: "Well, I can't do it. What if Jodie calls?"
Brendan: "....."
Avery: "I don't know. I am pretty stupid and definitely not a criminal mastermind. Now get going, while I take Teresa inside to prepare for the raping and killing of her while taking a recorded phone call and while leaving no trace of her behind in the trailer because I am a criminal mastermind."

 

[marplots]

I mean sure the prosecution can claim whatever they want - but what matters is whether the judge(s) will believe the claims. And that will depend on what Zellner has found for the other pieces of evidence. If none of the other pieces of evidence show evidence of planting I am sure the State can easily talk their way out of one piece that does hint at that. If several pieces of evidence show evidence of planting than their stories start to look ridiculous.

Keep in mind that Zellner has undoubtedly come up with a theory of what happened, based on the evidence that she has acquired so far, and she has most likely informed the judge/DOJ of what specific evidence she was looking for with this requested test - which is why the judge/DOJ agreed to this request as quickly as they did and the test was performed as quickly as it was (my understanding is that it was requested and approved on Friday, sent for testing on Monday and returned on Tuesday). This for a test and piece of evidence which she had previously requested and had been denied. She is looking for something specific and that is based on either the results of the other tests or the testimony of witnesses that have come forward (or both).

I guess we'll wait and see what she finds. As much as I think the evidence favors Avery committing the crime, no one wants an innocent man in jail.

...kind of like your idea that Brendan drives the Rav to account for the cell phone leaving the property which I guess went something like this?:

Not my idea, you've mixed me up with someone else. My comment on the cell phone stuff was that it's pretty darn hard to prove a location with it at all, given the nature of radio signals and the difficulty of reconstructing the situation as it existed ten years ago. Maybe Zellner can do it, maybe not.

 

[Wayward son]

Not my idea, you've mixed me up with someone else.

You are correct. I apologize.

 

[Samson]

I guess we'll wait and see what she finds. As much as I think the evidence favors Avery committing the crime, no one wants an innocent man in jail.



Not my idea, you've mixed me up with someone else. My comment on the cell phone stuff was that it's pretty darn hard to prove a location with it at all, given the nature of radio signals and the difficulty of reconstructing the situation as it existed ten years ago. Maybe Zellner can do it, maybe not.

She claims to have done it.
People who doubt Zellner probably doubt the repeatable nature of gravity.

 

[marplots]

She claims to have done it.
People who doubt Zellner probably doubt the repeatable nature of gravity.

You mean astronauts?

 

[Samson]

You mean astronauts?

Zellner is predictable like gravity in all it's manifestations. Astronauts are always falling, like the Manitowoc coppers into Zellner's web.
You have to love the idea that people who put people in cages for their nefarious ends end in cages, probably hanged live from meat hooks.

 

[quadraginta]

You mean astronauts?

Sure.

They're gonna be the very first ones who doubt the repeatable nature of gravity.

That's why they're stuck up there ... forever ... after all.

 

[McHrozni]

one day turn around for dna?
one day turn around for metals?

I can't say about metals, but one day turnaround for DNA is entirely possible. You need 2-3 hours for extraction, about 3 hours for amplification, 45 minutes for detection and maybe half an hour to interpret the result and write a report.

A skilled expert can do it in one day without any overtime.

McHrozni

 

[Chris_Halkides]

"to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty"

No, I have not. However I might consider it if you can convince me that the claims on stevenaverycase.com are false. Specifically, I need solid evidence of the following:-

SNIP
7. The bullet was not matched to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty to have been fired from Avery's exact rifle, or if it was then the State Crime Lab or Calumet County did participate in the frame-job by providing Manitowoc County officers with a bullet and DNA to plant.
SNIP

The phrase "to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty" lacks meaning, and an argument has been put forward by the National Commission on Forensic Science that it should no longer be used: "Additionally, the legal community should recognize that medical professionals and other scientists do not routinely use “to a reasonable scientific certainty” when expressing conclusions outside of the courts since there is no foundational scientific basis for its use."

Broadly speaking forensic analysis involving pattern matching can be influenced by domain irrelevant information; therefore, I see no reason not to be skeptical about the rifle. Moreover, why should one trust the State Crime Lab given their track record in this case (see my posts on DNA contamination), or given the general problem that state crime labs are part of law enforcement, not independent entities?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

A chapter on firearms in a book on forensic science reform

Here is a passage from a new book Forensic Science Reform, there is a chapter called "Firearms Identification", authored by Sarah L. Cooper:
"With regards to firearms identification evidence, concerns at a national level manifested in 2008. In 2008, the National Research Council of the National Academies published its Ballistic Imaging Report, which focused on the feasibility of a national ballistics database.43 The Committee underscored that the report was not intended to be an overall assessment of firearms identification as a discipline. However, in assessing the feasibility of a national ballistics database, the report also considered the uniqueness of firearms related toolmarks and found that a definitive correlation had not been fully demonstrated.44 In particular, the report found the validity of the fundamental assumptions of uniqueness and reproducibility of firearms-related toolmarks had not yet been fully demonstrated.45 The Committee was of the view that a significant amount of research would be needed to scientifically determine the degree to which firearms-related toolmarks are unique, or even to qualitatively characterize the probability of uniqueness.46"

Cooper goes on to discuss the 2009 NAS report on strengthening forensic sciences in the US, which suggests that only DNA profiling has been shown to be able to individualize evidence. The courts have apparently not been using the 2009 report, from what I can gather. Professor Paul Giannelli also discussed firearm evidence and the law and quotes from the 2009 NAS report. At the Washington Post, Spencer Hsu and a colleague reported on the error rate in a forensic laboratory in the District of Columbia.

 

[marplots]

Here is a passage from a new book Forensic Science Reform, there is a chapter called "Firearms Identification", authored by Sarah L. Cooper:
"With regards to firearms identification evidence, concerns at a national level manifested in 2008. In 2008, the National Research Council of the National Academies published its Ballistic Imaging Report, which focused on the feasibility of a national ballistics database.43 The Committee underscored that the report was not intended to be an overall assessment of firearms identification as a discipline. However, in assessing the feasibility of a national ballistics database, the report also considered the uniqueness of firearms related toolmarks and found that a definitive correlation had not been fully demonstrated.44 In particular, the report found the validity of the fundamental assumptions of uniqueness and reproducibility of firearms-related toolmarks had not yet been fully demonstrated.45 The Committee was of the view that a significant amount of research would be needed to scientifically determine the degree to which firearms-related toolmarks are unique, or even to qualitatively characterize the probability of uniqueness.46"

In other words, “to a reasonable scientific certainty.”

 

[Samson]

Here is a passage from a new book Forensic Science Reform, there is a chapter called "Firearms Identification", authored by Sarah L. Cooper:
"With regards to firearms identification evidence, concerns at a national level manifested in 2008. In 2008, the National Research Council of the National Academies published its Ballistic Imaging Report, which focused on the feasibility of a national ballistics database.43 The Committee underscored that the report was not intended to be an overall assessment of firearms identification as a discipline. However, in assessing the feasibility of a national ballistics database, the report also considered the uniqueness of firearms related toolmarks and found that a definitive correlation had not been fully demonstrated.44 In particular, the report found the validity of the fundamental assumptions of uniqueness and reproducibility of firearms-related toolmarks had not yet been fully demonstrated.45 The Committee was of the view that a significant amount of research would be needed to scientifically determine the degree to which firearms-related toolmarks are unique, or even to qualitatively characterize the probability of uniqueness.46"

In other words, “to a reasonable scientific certainty.”

Exactly. The work was still to be done in 2008, yet Avery was convicted on this bogus evidence in 2006.
But this still fails at the higher standard that the word reasonable is to be regarded as inadequate for convicting if I understand Chris.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

In other words, “to a reasonable scientific certainty.”

In my personal experience, scientists often characterize their answers probabilistically, such as speaking in terms of 95% confidence. I have never heard anyone talk about a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, a phrase which is more and more dubious, the more I think about it. The passage above is concerned with whether or not ballistic analysis produces individualization, as much as it is concerned with the error rate of this determination. So, no, I don't agree that the two passages are even talking entirely about the same thing.

 

[marplots]

In my personal experience, scientists often characterize their answers probabilistically, such as speaking in terms of 95% confidence. I have never heard anyone talk about a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, a phrase which is more and more dubious, the more I think about it. The passage above is concerned with whether or not ballistic analysis produces individualization, as much as it is concerned with the error rate of this determination. So, no, I don't agree that the two passages are even talking entirely about the same thing.

I don't think you can escape the notion.

If I say there is a 95% probability for an event (based on confidence intervals) I am still expressing an opinion about "scientific certainty" since such an interval is set with that idea in mind. In the end, we are talking about the judgement of the witness on the stand. Their opinion.