Steven Avery: Making of a Murderer

[marplots]

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides

Did the police who questioned Brendan Dassey realize that he could go away for life? Did they realize that they were putting words into his mouth? Did they know about Mr. Dassey's mental limitations? The answer to the first question is obviously "yes," and my answer to the second and third questions is "probably." If the police are willing to do that, then upon what basis can we exclude the possibility of framing Mr. Avery? I can't.

You think Dassey framed him? Could be.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by marplots

It occurred to me there was someone else at the crime scene who was carrying around Steven Avery's blood.

Steven Avery.

It occurred to me some time ago that TH must have incredibly fastidious blood. Despite being raped, killed shot, dismembered and burned at the Avery compound, outside of her car her dna was only found on a single key, a single bullet and in the fire pit. Two of those items being found by an officer who was told not to be on the scene and only after through searching by other officers turned up nothing.

Very courteous of her to avoid messy bleeding. Either that or Avery is the second coming of Dexter.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

It occurred to me some time ago that TH must have incredibly fastidious blood. Despite being raped, killed shot, dismembered and burned at the Avery compound, outside of her car her dna was only found on a single key, a single bullet and in the fire pit. Two of those items being found by an officer who was told not to be on the scene and only after through searching by other officers turned up nothing.

Very courteous of her to avoid messy bleeding. Either that or Avery is the second coming of Dexter.

I don't think anyone disputes that she went to Avery's that day, so not finding DNA in the way you expect is already a mismatch. Either they aren't so hot at finding DNA or they simply didn't check the right places.

The prosecution is not actually required to lay out, point for point, how the murder happened.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by marplots

I don't think anyone disputes that she went to Avery's that day, so not finding DNA in the way you expect is already a mismatch. Either they aren't so hot at finding DNA or they simply didn't check the right places.

The prosecution is not actually required to lay out, point for point, how the murder happened.

No, but when they do lay it out and yet can't find the evidence to back up their claims there should be some red flags. If you say she was gang raped and stabbed in a certain room of the house but find no DNA in the entire house, save her own key, then you do bounce up against some credibility issues. Or at least you should.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

No, but when they do lay it out and yet can't find the evidence to back up their claims there should be some red flags. If you say she was gang raped and stabbed in a certain room of the house but find no DNA in the entire house, save her own key, then you do bounce up against some credibility issues. Or at least you should.

Agreed. Especially when you develop your theory of the crime after knowing what evidence is available. They probably over-relied on Dassey's fable. Or maybe the cops really are that bad at forensics.

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

It occurred to me some time ago that TH must have incredibly fastidious blood. Despite being raped, killed shot, dismembered and burned at the Avery compound, outside of her car her dna was only found on a single key, a single bullet and in the fire pit. Two of those items being found by an officer who was told not to be on the scene and only after through searching by other officers turned up nothing.

Very courteous of her to avoid messy bleeding. Either that or Avery is the second coming of Dexter.

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

[DragonLady]

Quote:

If he wrapped her up in blankets, paper and maybe some gauze

Did anyone mention missing any of those things?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I'd guess that family couldn't afford to lose a bunch of blankets, towels, or even old clothes without someone noticing.

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by DragonLady

Did anyone mention missing any of those things?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I'd guess that family couldn't afford to lose a bunch of blankets, towels, or even old clothes without someone noticing.

Did they have an inventory of his stuff?

A bunch of old newspapers would also work, anything that will adsorb the blood really.

You don't need much if you only wrap the head, two T-shirts or a towel and three old newspapers to go along either of those plus a plastic bag should be more than enough to capture pretty much all the blood.

McHrozni

[Samson]

Originally Posted by DragonLady

Did anyone mention missing any of those things?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I'd guess that family couldn't afford to lose a bunch of blankets, towels, or even old clothes without someone noticing.

Originally Posted by McHrozni

Did they have an inventory of his stuff?

A bunch of old newspapers would also work, anything that will adsorb the blood really.

You don't need much if you only wrap the head, two T-shirts or a towel and three old newspapers to go along either of those plus a plastic bag should be more than enough to capture pretty much all the blood.

McHrozni

Did it cross your minds to read the Jerry Buting book?
I have read scores of these books, and it is a huge effort to get to print. Why pontificate when the case is settled by the activists? I can assure you, Steven Avery did not do this crime.
Please invest a tiny amount of cash in Buting's book.

https://www.amazon.com/Illusion-Just...ons+of+justice

16.39 $US

Read the whole tome then pontificate about how Steve did the crime.
What is the point in coming to a critical thinking debate without knowledge?

The key issue is this fails as a skeptical forum because there is insufficient attention paid to the research of people very very close to the subjects under discussion.

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by Samson

Did it cross your minds to read the Jerry Buting book?

Does it address the point(s) I raised?

McHrozni

[Samson]

Originally Posted by McHrozni

Does it address the point(s) I raised?

McHrozni

It addresses all the evidence.
But I have read 2 books and do not plan to go searching for references.
Here are some key issues.
1. The key they found with Steve's dna but none of Teresa's was a valet key, and it could not unlock the rear door. This strongly suggests it was planted, as the key in Steve's possession should have been the one Teresa was using when last seen. Normally the valet key would be in the glove box or in Teresa's room. If in the glove box it was easy to recover and plant. If in her room that would require someone like her brother.
2. Jerry Buting had a puzzle on his hands, he had pretty well worked out his client was innocent, but had to explain the blood in the car, so he tracked down all sources of SA blood, and voila, there was the vial Lenk had access to.
3. The bullet in the garage was introduced after the initial searches. These were conducted before the pathologist could establish the skull bullet wounds. So there was the planted statement by Brendan followed by the bullet discovery with her dna.

I have no idea why you would focus on hypothetical constructions involving Steve when he had such excellent alibis and there was so much planted evidence. This really is a walking quacking looking duck.
There is nothing unusual about this. We saw it in Arthur Thomas, Raffaele Sollecito and Mark Lundy, the latter being slightly more elaborate.

There are many more cases, where the initial appearance of guilt is helped along by planted evidence. The trick is to tell whether the cops are really dumb, or really crooked.

[JREF2010]

some post on reddit insinuating end of April.... the Tsunami. its been a long wait.
Brandons release maybe in June for appeal response also posted.
According to earlier comments this has gone on a little past the initial estimate of time, but maybe in next 15 days the test results. will it be enough?

the SUV, bullet, key.....hmmm?

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by Samson

It addresses all the evidence.
But I have read 2 books and do not plan to go searching for references.
Here are some key issues.
1. The key they found with Steve's dna but none of Teresa's was a valet key, and it could not unlock the rear door. This strongly suggests it was planted, as the key in Steve's possession should have been the one Teresa was using when last seen. Normally the valet key would be in the glove box or in Teresa's room. If in the glove box it was easy to recover and plant. If in her room that would require someone like her brother.

The conclusion is baseless. Steven Avery would've had access to the valet key just as much as anyone finding the car would. If the detectives moved the car to Steven Averies property they would have access to the main key as well and wouldn't need the valet key from her brother. Involving her brother makes the conspiracy larger and thus less believable.

Quote:

2. Jerry Buting had a puzzle on his hands, he had pretty well worked out his client was innocent, but had to explain the blood in the car, so he tracked down all sources of SA blood, and voila, there was the vial Lenk had access to.

Sure. What kind of a vial was it and when it was drawn? You have the book, do you not? Check it please

Quote:

3. The bullet in the garage was introduced after the initial searches. These were conducted before the pathologist could establish the skull bullet wounds. So there was the planted statement by Brendan followed by the bullet discovery with her dna.

Is there any evidence for this assertion or is it mere speculation?

Quote:

There are many more cases, where the initial appearance of guilt is helped along by planted evidence. The trick is to tell whether the cops are really dumb, or really crooked.

Is there any firm evidence the said evidence was planted in this case, or are these all speculations?

McHrozni

[marplots]

Originally Posted by McHrozni

(on the bullet)
Is there any evidence for this assertion or is it mere speculation?

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.

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by marplots

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.

Yeah. The first scenario is hugely problematic, since finding the bullet with the victims' DNA in your garage isn't something you can explain away easily ... or at all, without a claim it was planted there to be honest.

If there was a conspiracy to frame Steven Avery, it would have to include fewer than three people. Lenk and one other deputy perhaps, but no more. It's difficult to make a case for that, it's all conjecture and speculation. This fact doesn't prove framing didn't happen of course and I welcome a fresh investigation of the innocence project. Either an innocent man will be set free (again) or else the faith in the US justice system will be (somewhat) improved. It's a win-win situation, really.

McHrozni

[Samson]

Originally Posted by marplots

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.

Originally Posted by McHrozni

Yeah. The first scenario is hugely problematic, since finding the bullet with the victims' DNA in your garage isn't something you can explain away easily ... or at all, without a claim it was planted there to be honest.

If there was a conspiracy to frame Steven Avery, it would have to include fewer than three people. Lenk and one other deputy perhaps, but no more. It's difficult to make a case for that, it's all conjecture and speculation. This fact doesn't prove framing didn't happen of course and I welcome a fresh investigation of the innocence project. Either an innocent man will be set free (again) or else the faith in the US justice system will be (somewhat) improved. It's a win-win situation, really.

McHrozni

I do doff my hat to you artful dodgers and weavers who engage at a fey critical thunkin level with a pile of satire to boot.
Cool.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by Samson

I do doff my hat to you artful dodgers and weavers who engage at a fey critical thunkin level with a pile of satire to boot.
Cool.

I'm still waiting on Zellner to inject a round of fresh speculation and drama. Any news? I checked her website and all I could find on Avery was a donation page.

Avery's been in jail on this beef for ten years or so. Can't be getting any younger.

[JREF2010]

there are boneheads like the severely obese cartoonist cop who framed steve in his picture the first time who still denys Steve was innocent. He explained his own conspiracy the DNA that freed Avery the first time was planted/corruption and was not accepted by him.

so with that, both parties have the conspiracy theorys they hold onto like a religion.

This means the beliefs of both partys wont change even if BD is released in June and Steve ends up owning Manitowoc County...imo.

the Guilters will still believe in their Guilty Religion and the InnocenceTeam's will cry wrongful conviction if the jail cell doors arent opened for them, denying the Judges decision as the truth.

Zellner has a mountain to climb called Mt. DNA. The Carbon 14 will be interesting.
Her recent twitter does actually offer new evidence that some of the results are in and shes ramping it up. ...so is Ken Kratz.

[Chris_Halkides]

"There were two separate DNA samples that could have led to Avery's release. The first one proved inconclusive. As the Innocence Project, which took on Avery's case, reported, a fingernail scraping sample showed that there was unknown DNA underneath Beerntsen's nails. But as the Neflix series explained, DNA in that situation can only be broken down into groups called "alleles." And though there were alleles that matched Avery, there were also alleles that could not have belonged to him. However, because he was a match for some of the DNA, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals found that 'the DNA evidence does not make it any more or less probable that Avery assaulted P.B.'" Link.

"These kinds of samples can only be broken down into groups called alleles, with Beerntsen and Avery sharing the same alleles. But another grouping of alleles was discovered in the scrapings, which Avery’s lawyers contended belonged to the true attacker.

"Yet even with this, his appeal was denied, with the judge claiming there was no evidence to prove the alleles didn’t come from Beerntsen’s husband or another person who may not be the attacker. As Stephen Glynn, Avery’s civil-rights lawyer, notes in Making A Murderer, 'If you ever want to read an opinion that will show you how strongly this system is designed to perpetuate a conviction as opposed to examine whether or not someone could in fact be innocent, read the court of appeals decision in the Steven Avery case.'" link

It would be nice to see the DNA data for ourselves, but the court's reasoning looks...dubious. This is another instance when fingernail DNA might have implicated the true culprit, who was not Steven Avery.

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides

"There were two separate DNA samples that could have led to Avery's release. The first one proved inconclusive. As the Innocence Project, which took on Avery's case, reported, a fingernail scraping sample showed that there was unknown DNA underneath Beerntsen's nails. But as the Neflix series explained, DNA in that situation can only be broken down into groups called "alleles." And though there were alleles that matched Avery, there were also alleles that could not have belonged to him. However, because he was a match for some of the DNA, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals found that 'the DNA evidence does not make it any more or less probable that Avery assaulted P.B.'" Link.

Oh for the love of Benji. This looks like the writing of someone who doesn't have the faintest clue about what DNA testing looks like.

DNA is not broken down into groups called alleles, alleles are variants of genes we all carry. DNA testing looks for which variants of certain genes you carry and determines what is the probability there is another person in the population with the exact same makeup. Forensic testing doesn't actually look at genes, it looks at tandem repeat sequences in front or behind a coding region. The numbers in the result are the number of repeats in that allele of your genome. We know, from testing, how common a certain number of repeats is and can infer what is the probability another person has the exact same combination as you do. The usual goal is to go to above 10^-13, i.e. you'd expect fewer one person in every 10,000 billion people to have that genetic make-up, so it is incredibly unlikely you have two people with that particular make-up. The only exception is identical twins, even inbreeding for several generations doesn't result in identical profiles with the kits we have - we test for a sufficient number of alleles, the population will be genetically unviable before you get people with identical profiles.

In theory one allele that shouldn't be there excludes your suspect as the culprit, although this is not strictly the case in rare cases of heteroplasmia or if you have a weak sample where non-specific binding became important. This is where those 300 RFU we talked about previously come in, this is the limit where the manufacturer guarantees the results had to come from specific binding. The other possibility is that you're dealing with a mixture of DNA from two or more people.

If the DNA profile is a match for Steven Avery but there are other alleles also present that he does not carry it is possible the sample is a mixture of DNA of Steven Avery and another person. Statistical tools exist to calculate the odds Steven Avery is indeed the donor of some of the DNA, you can get them above 10^-10 in many cases, which should be enough to go beyond reasonable doubt. If all of his alleles are present and there are other alleles also present which implicate a mixture of three people or less, the calculation will show he was a likely donor. If none of his alleles are missing the DNA can not exclude him as a donor.

If, however, a single allele Steven Avery has is missing from the DNA profile, he is all but excluded as the donor. Two missing alleles exclude him beyond any reasonable doubt. This is only true if other alleles in the portion of the sample are above the 300 RFU or whatever other limit the manufacturer specified.

In other words if you want to exclude Steven Avery you need to look for what is missing, not what is present.

Quote:

It would be nice to see the DNA data for ourselves, but the court's reasoning looks...dubious.

I hate to break it to you, but my take is the court knows a whole lot more about DNA testing than whomever wrote that article. It could well be the courts' decision is scientifically sound and the fingernail scrapings incriminated him more than they exonerated him.

McHrozni

[Chris_Halkides]

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]

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides

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]

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]

"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]

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides

"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]

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]

Originally Posted by marplots

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]

Originally Posted by McHrozni

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

A few ideas are in this sketch

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

[Fixit]

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides

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]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by McHrozni

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]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

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]

Originally Posted by 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.?

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

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by 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?"

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!