IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags "Making a Murderer" , Brendan Dassey , documentaries , murder cases , Steven Avery , Teresa Halbach , tv shows

Closed Thread
Old 27th February 2017, 03:43 AM   #3441
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,919
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
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
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th February 2017, 11:31 AM   #3442
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 26,244
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
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.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th February 2017, 11:42 AM   #3443
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,042
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.
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 27th February 2017 at 12:57 PM.
Chris_Halkides is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th February 2017, 03:10 PM   #3444
JREF2010
Graduate Poster
 
JREF2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,786
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.
JREF2010 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th February 2017, 10:57 PM   #3445
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,475
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.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 07:13 PM   #3446
JREF2010
Graduate Poster
 
JREF2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,786
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-co...nd-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.

Last edited by JREF2010; 1st March 2017 at 07:16 PM.
JREF2010 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2017, 01:27 AM   #3447
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,246
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?
AlaskaBushPilot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2017, 03:26 AM   #3448
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,475
Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot View Post
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.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2017, 04:09 AM   #3449
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
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?
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2017, 05:23 AM   #3450
JREF2010
Graduate Poster
 
JREF2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,786
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.
JREF2010 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2017, 08:44 AM   #3451
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,475
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
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.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2017, 12:28 PM   #3452
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
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.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2017, 11:58 PM   #3453
Samzilla
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 196
Originally Posted by JREF2010 View Post
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.
Samzilla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2017, 12:33 AM   #3454
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,475
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
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.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2017, 12:48 AM   #3455
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,919
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
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
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2017, 01:17 AM   #3456
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
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.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2017, 01:19 AM   #3457
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 26,244
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
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?
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2017, 01:40 AM   #3458
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,919
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2017, 01:52 AM   #3459
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
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.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2017, 04:09 AM   #3460
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,475
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
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.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2017, 04:39 AM   #3461
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,042
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.
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 3rd March 2017 at 04:44 AM.
Chris_Halkides is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2017, 05:27 AM   #3462
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,919
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
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
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه

Last edited by McHrozni; 3rd March 2017 at 05:35 AM.
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2017, 05:30 AM   #3463
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,919
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
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
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2017, 12:39 PM   #3464
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,475
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
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.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th March 2017, 10:42 AM   #3465
JREF2010
Graduate Poster
 
JREF2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,786
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
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?
JREF2010 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2017, 10:30 AM   #3466
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,042
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.
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)
Chris_Halkides is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th March 2017, 06:30 AM   #3467
JREF2010
Graduate Poster
 
JREF2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,786
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2017, 08:24 PM   #3468
JREF2010
Graduate Poster
 
JREF2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,786
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?
JREF2010 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2017, 08:34 PM   #3469
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by JREF2010 View Post
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.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th March 2017, 09:52 PM   #3470
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,475
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
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.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th March 2017, 12:37 AM   #3471
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 26,244
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
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.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th March 2017, 05:15 AM   #3472
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,919
Originally Posted by JREF2010 View Post
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
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th March 2017, 05:18 AM   #3473
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,919
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
"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
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th March 2017, 05:22 AM   #3474
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,919
Originally Posted by JREF2010 View Post
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
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 13th March 2017, 08:00 AM   #3475
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,042
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...
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 13th March 2017 at 08:15 AM.
Chris_Halkides is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th March 2017, 07:26 AM   #3476
JREF2010
Graduate Poster
 
JREF2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,786
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.
JREF2010 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th March 2017, 12:55 AM   #3477
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,475
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th March 2017, 04:40 PM   #3478
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,475
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.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th March 2017, 08:33 PM   #3479
JREF2010
Graduate Poster
 
JREF2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,786
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.
JREF2010 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th March 2017, 08:41 PM   #3480
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
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.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:47 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.