Brendan Dassey's Habeas Corpus Petition Granted

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Coroner, Deb Kakatsch, was barred from participating in the investigation. And she was probably the only one that did NOT have a conflict of interest.
 
missy1974 said:
The Coroner, Deb Kakatsch, was barred from participating in the investigation. And she was probably the only one that did NOT have a conflict of interest.
Click to expand...

Yes and she was more than willing to buck the status quo, in order to do the right thing IIRC. So naturally, her honest observations were most unwelcome in this investigation.
 
missy1974 said:
The Coroner, Deb Kakatsch, was barred from participating in the investigation. And she was probably the only one that did NOT have a conflict of interest.
Click to expand...
Hi, Missy. Do you have a link for this interesting bit of information.

TIA. :)
 
The worst part about the Coroner is, that they didn't just not allow the Manitowoc Coroner, Deb Kakatsch on the property to investigate, they didn't even call in the Calumet County Coroner (or any coroner) or a forensic anthropologist to investigate and aide in the recovery of the bones. And IIRC Kakatsch had a forensic anthropologist lined up or with her. How this whole case might be different, on all sides, if we knew more about those bones and that pit. At the very least, I'm sure someone would have taken proper pictures. JMO
 
bessie said:
:seeya: Thanks, Missy!
Click to expand...

No problemo :) I think there is some other correspondence (between officials, maybe the emails) around somewhere about this too, but at the moment, I just don't have time to hunt it down, if I find it later, I'll post it.
 
None of the coroner's entry being blocked caused a jury to doubt that it was TH's remains (they were able to use her most recent PAP test and match the DNA profile to some muscle tissue on one of the bones), none of that gave the jury doubt that TH was murdered, none of that was part of the appeal, so it's an issue that MaM viewers raise, but not one that impacted legally either at the trial court level or the CoA level.

SA's defense didn't suggest the remains were someone else--someone not TH. SA later for a time blamed his brothers and suggested one of them murdered TH, thus conceding those were TH's remains and those remains were in fact on Avery property.
 
Madeleine74 said:
None of the coroner's entry being blocked caused a jury to doubt that it was TH's remains (they were able to use her most recent PAP test and match the DNA profile to some muscle tissue on one of the bones), none of that gave the jury doubt that TH was murdered, none of that was part of the appeal, so it's an issue that MaM viewers raise, but not one that impacted legally either at the trial court level or the CoA level.

SA's defense didn't suggest the remains were someone else--someone not TH. SA later for a time blamed his brothers and suggested one of them murdered TH, thus conceding those were TH's remains and those remains were in fact on Avery property.
Click to expand...

So wonder how they explain that high heat temps. destroys DNA fairly quickly, within about 20 minutes of a body burning from the forensic article i linked to throughout a couple of these threads. Maybe their forensic study was wrong? Perhaps there is another way to prove who the person is, dental records perhaps? Oh that's right i think there was only fragments of teeth found and that was also dubious as to who it belonged to? And they say out of all the body parts that survive being burned in a fire that the teeth are better to survive than bones. Wonder what happened to the rest of the teeth of TH's?
 
Zellner mentions it in the latest motion she filed. So we will see if it becomes a bigger part of the proceedings now that she is involved. JMO
 
Karinna said:
So wonder how they explain that high heat temps. destroys DNA fairly quickly, within about 20 minutes of a body burning from the forensic article i linked to throughout a couple of these threads. Maybe their forensic study was wrong?
Click to expand...

You've asked that same question like 3 times now. And no one here can possibly answer it. If you want to know how 'they' would explain it, then contact them (Manitowoc County or WI DOJ) and ask. They all have email; maybe they'll surprise you and answer. The evidence is what it is. The trial record and testimony is what it is. Muscle tissue was found and was tested and according to the tests, it matched TH. I use the trial record as the basis for the evidence.
 
Madeleine74 said:
None of the coroner's entry being blocked caused a jury to doubt that it was TH's remains (they were able to use her most recent PAP test and match the DNA profile to some muscle tissue on one of the bones), none of that gave the jury doubt that TH was murdered, none of that was part of the appeal, so it's an issue that MaM viewers raise, but not one that impacted legally either at the trial court level or the CoA level.

SA's defense didn't suggest the remains were someone else--someone not TH. SA later for a time blamed his brothers and suggested one of them murdered TH, thus conceding those were TH's remains and those remains were in fact on Avery property.
Click to expand...

The reason people question the coroner's entry being blocked, wasn't just about the identity of whose bones they were (though that is in question too, hence Zellner wanting to test the bones for that reason)...it was more a fact that she could have testified to if they had been moved there from a different burn site, IMO. Even Ertl recognized that the scene had been altered, which is supposedly why he decided against photos of the bones in situ. I, personally, find that reasoning ridiculous, but he was the one in charge.
 
SA conceding that the remains on the Avery property were TH but that someone must have planted those remains there is an interesting gotcha because if the convicted says it's her...but someone else killed her... well that removes the "it's not really TH" suggestion, or it should.
 
And the jury never got to consider that the Coroner was blocked from going to the scene. It wasn't allowed. It's in the transcript that I linked. Personally, for me (and Jaiddie LOL), it's a big deal, I don't think we are alone. JMO
 
Madeleine74 said:
You've asked that same question like 3 times now. And no one here can possibly answer it. If you want to know how 'they' would explain it, then contact them (Manitowoc County or WI DOJ) and ask. They all have email; maybe they'll surprise you and answer. The evidence is what it is. The trial record and testimony is what it is. Muscle tissue was found and was tested and according to the tests, it matched TH. I use the trial record as the basis for the evidence.
Click to expand...

But see, the thing about trial evidence is that it is only as good as what is allowed into evidence. If you have dishonest investigators, possibly exculpatory evidence is withheld. Just because evidence was presented at trial, does not mean that it tells the whole story. Read the link I posted about Kevin Fox. Investigators found a pair of boots that actually had the name of the real killer printed inside them. They ignored this evidence and went after Kevin. So the boots were not presented at trial, but that didn't mean Kevin was guilty. He was completely innocent and the real killer was eventually arrested and prosecuted. Kevin was exonerated and won a civil suit. There is case after case like this. So some of us don't feel that just because something "wasn't presented at trial" , it means a darn thing.
 
Effects of high temperature on different restorations in forensic identification: Dental samples and mandible
(quote)
Introduction:

The forensic odontologist strives to utilize the charred human dentition throughout each stage of dental evaluation, and restorations are as unique as fingerprints and their radiographic morphology as well as the types of filling materials are often the main feature for identification. The knowledge of detecting residual restorative material and composition of unrecovered adjacent restoration is a valuable tool-mark in the presumptive identification of the dentition of a burned victim. Gold, silver amalgam, silicate restoration, and so on, have a different resistance to prolonged high temperature, therefore, the identification of burned bodies can be correlated with adequate qualities and quantities of the traces. Most of the dental examination relies heavily on the presence of the restoration as well as the relationship of one dental structure to another. This greatly narrows the research for the final identification that is based on postmortem data.
Aim:

The purpose of this study is to examine the resistance of teeth and different restorative materials, and the mandible, to variable temperature and duration, for the purpose of identification.
Identification of human remains in mass disasters is a difficult task. Identification of burned bodies starts with the objects that have remained with the body. Teeth are considered to be the most indestructible components of the human body. Teeth have the highest resistance to most environmental effects like fire, desiccation, and decomposition. Teeth survive most natural disasters and provide a positive, personal identification of an otherwise unrecognizable body. It begins with the correlation of dental records to observed restorations.[7] As the destruction of the burned victims of the third, fourth, and fifth categories is extensive, such remains cannot be identified and odontologists are called to assist in the identification.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3009553/
 
Madeleine74 said:
SA conceding that the remains on the Avery property were TH but that someone must have planted those remains there is an interesting gotcha because if the convicted says it's her...but someone else killed her... well that removes the "it's not really TH" suggestion, or it should.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, sounds similar to a coerced confession. Saying anything to get the harassment to stop. Not saying that was why it was said, but wouldn't surprise me.
 
missy1974 said:
And the jury never got to consider that the Coroner was blocked from going to the scene. It wasn't allowed. It's in the transcript that I linked. Personally, for me (and Jaiddie LOL), it's a big deal, I don't think we are alone. JMO
Click to expand...

It is highly suspicious that a respected professional was barred from the scene. I can't think of any innocent reason for that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 167 more.
Total: 2,004 (members: 168, guests: 1,836)

Online statistics

Members online
168
Guests online
1,836
Total visitors
2,004
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,892
Messages
18,148,510
Members
231,578
Latest member
youngluteplayer
Back
Top