Bones

[ZOOL]

The fragment with tissue is labeled BZ here, and it was Culhane who tested it - http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Steven-Avery-Trial-Exhibit-14-and-15.pdf

And a news article about the problem with the chain of custody on BZ -
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/making-murderer-steven-avery-freedom-7535824

The subject of BZ has also come up recently in both the "Top" of ZellerLaw's tweet-section, and in "Photos"

 

[missy1974]

Funny Zool..... I just checked to see their recent "likes" and noticed that too ;-)

 

[BigCityAccountant]

The subject of BZ has also come up recently in both the "Top" of ZellerLaw's tweet-section, and in "Photos"

I didn't get into the bones as much--so relying on Missy here--but didn't the FBI test the bones after the state crime lab and confirm they were TH's?

 

[ZOOL]

I didn't get into the bones as much--so relying on Missy here--but didn't the FBI test the bones after the state crime lab and confirm they were TH's?

I think the tweeting about BZ and Sherry Culhane's analysis of STR results is just a rehashing of Att. Buting's cross-examination of the lab technician's decision to make her "best judgment call" based upon little loci evidence; something for which she had never done before, and something for which she was also the Technical Leader; and thus, if there was a "review", there existed a shaky ethical conflict of sorts.

I do not recall if the FBI reviewed the charred bones for a DNA analysis.

ETA: hmmmmm...just read the Mirror article.

 

[missy1974]

I didn't get into the bones as much--so relying on Missy here--but didn't the FBI test the bones after the state crime lab and confirm they were TH's?

ugggh, I had to go hunting this one down... I remember having to search before LOL I found it (and bookmarked it haha)

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...osure-of-Potentially-Exculpatory-Evidence.pdf

I haven't really gone into any depth with the analysis of the bones/charred material either. As much as I can be "conspiracy theorist", I find it hard to believe that it is not TH's remains. I know there was another young lady that died a few days later, but I just can't see it.

I'm more in the "the bones were moved there" camp ;-)

 

[missy1974]

I guess I should have added this ....



From the email Kratz sent to Culhane
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c.../Trial-Exhibit-343-Kratz-Email-to-Culhane.pdf

This comment has always made me think that the results were not as conclusive as it was thought to be or said by LE. But I do still think that it was TH. JMO

 

[ZOOL]

I guess I should have added this ....

View attachment 91811

From the email Kratz sent to Culhane
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c.../Trial-Exhibit-343-Kratz-Email-to-Culhane.pdf

This comment has always made me think that the results were not as conclusive as it was thought to be or said by LE. But I do still think that it was TH. JMO

I think the name of the other 25-year-old female was Carmen Boutwell. I also believe that the Randant-Quarry-George Zipperer-vicious-dog-theory is an extension of the BZ "conspiracy". But the references in the ten-page, Mirror, photo-display are certainly thought-provoking.

 

[missy1974]

While trying to find the FBI report, I came across this site. https://stopwrongfulconvictions.wor...he-dna-evidence-teresa-halbach-investigation/

For anyone wanting to know more about BZ, this is a good read, and it shows testimony and documents. IIRC the main issue with BZ is... how did Culhane test it when Eisenberg makes it very clear that after examining it, she sent it to the FBI, NOT the crime lab.

 

[ZOOL]

While trying to find the FBI report, I came across this site. https://stopwrongfulconvictions.wor...he-dna-evidence-teresa-halbach-investigation/

For anyone wanting to know more about BZ, this is a good read, and it shows testimony and documents. IIRC the main issue with BZ is... how did Culhane test it when Eisenberg makes it very clear that after examining it, she sent it to the FBI, NOT the crime lab.

Do you think it might be something simple like, Culhane cut off a sample of the tissue and tested that in the Crime Lab on November 11; meanwhile Eisenberg took the bone fragment and sent that to the FBI on November 16?

 

[missy1974]

Do you think it might be something simple like, Culhane cut off a sample of the tissue and tested that in the Crime Lab on November 11; meanwhile Eisenberg took the bone fragment and sent that to the FBI on November 16?

I really don't know. The dates overlap a bit and Eisenberg is quite clear that she sent it to the FBI, so I'm not sure at what point it made a stop at the Crime Lab. It could very well be that there is record of it somewhere and we just don't have it. I also doubt that they would separate the tissue from the bone but anything is possible!

 

[BigCityAccountant]

I think the tweeting about BZ and Sherry Culhane's analysis of STR results is just a rehashing of Att. Buting's cross-examination of the lab technician's decision to make her "best judgment call" based upon little loci evidence; something for which she had never done before, and something for which she was also the Technical Leader; and thus, if there was a "review", there existed a shaky ethical conflict of sorts.

I do not recall if the FBI reviewed the charred bones for a DNA analysis.

ETA: hmmmmm...just read the Mirror article.

Thanks Zool and Missy!

I find that KZ's between a rock and a hard place. If she goes after SC's work and discredits it--she'll also have to admit SC didn't know what she was doing with the DNA in the exoneration--thus opening up that can of worms again. If I was the prosecuting attorney--I'd be hoping for that--and that he may just be sitting there again for the PB rape. Oh my gosh, what a twist that would be.

 

[missy1974]

Culhane should be the poster child for lab tests to be done "blind". ;-)

 

[zerbert]

Rape has a 6 year statute of limitations in Wisconsin, looks like. If they want to get Avery for anything at all if he's exonerated for 2005, it would have to be murder or some sort of reckless homicide. http://research.lawyers.com/wisconsin/wisconsin-statutes-of-limitations.html

 

[ZOOL]

While trying to find the FBI report, I came across this site. https://stopwrongfulconvictions.wor...he-dna-evidence-teresa-halbach-investigation/

For anyone wanting to know more about BZ, this is a good read, and it shows testimony and documents. IIRC the main issue with BZ is... how did Culhane test it when Eisenberg makes it very clear that after examining it, she sent it to the FBI, NOT the crime lab.

You know, before we get too carried away by the recent revelation surrounding BZ, it should be noted that Lynne Blanchard is an internet blogger who does not have any credentials that would be accepted by a court of law. She is merely the author of a book which appears to be a Kindle electronic publication, and the author of a Word-document. She does however state in her About on the Amazon page that "She graduated from Kent State University with a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry and worked in the field of coatings and polymers in various technical and sales roles."

In my mind, very little of the above qualifies her to evaluate the DNA analysis, or testimony of the witnesses in the Avery Case. Moreover, she writes:

•The shin bone photograph was used twice at both trials to illustrate how they were able to obtain testable material from a fire that caused such extensive damage that the crowns of the teeth were completely burned; yet the timeline and circumstances of the handling of this one important bone do not add up. Dr. Eisenberg stated that she sent it directly to the FBI. If Culhane removed a section from it before Dr. Eisenberg received it, she would have been doing so with no confirmation that the bone was even human. She would have also been altering evidence before Dr. Eisenberg would have had a chance to examine it. It wouldn’t make sense.

IIRC, Dr. Eisenberg never stated that she sent the material to the FBI before Culhane had a chance to do what Culhane did. So Blanchard's opinions ought to be digested lightly. I seriously doubt that Kathleen Zellner would like to base her DNA arguments on a blogger with a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry and work "in a field of coatings and polymers."

 

[missy1974]

Zool ~ I was just putting the link in to give a general idea of what the "controversy" is over BZ, and actually, all of her information came from a poster on reddit, which is also where the Mirror got their information fyi LOL It has it all on one page though, with pictures and links, it's easier than trying to find and follow the "story" on your own. There are a whole bunch of blogs and forums, most of which are opinion based and I don't think we should take or use any of them as experts ;-)

I looked into and read it weeks ago and I did go looking for all the documentation and pictures on my own to verify (sorry, I don't normally take anyone's word for it unless I can see it myself haha) I do think there is a question there about exactly when did SC have it in her lab, when the bone went to Eisenberg and Eisenberg is clear that she did not send it to the crime lab, she sent it to the FBI after she determined it was human in nature. It doesn't mean there is no explanation, it just means that we don't know at this point.

 

[ZOOL]

Zool ~ I was just putting the link in to give a general idea of what the "controversy" is over BZ, and actually, all of her information came from a poster on reddit, which is also where the Mirror got their information fyi LOL It has it all on one page though, with pictures and links, it's easier than trying to find and follow the "story" on your own. There are a whole bunch of blogs and forums, most of which are opinion based and I don't think we should take or use any of them as experts ;-)

I looked into and read it weeks ago and I did go looking for all the documentation and pictures on my own to verify (sorry, I don't normally take anyone's word for it unless I can see it myself haha) I do think there is a question there about exactly when did SC have it in her lab, when the bone went to Eisenberg and Eisenberg is clear that she did not send it to the crime lab, she sent it to the FBI after she determined it was human in nature. It doesn't mean there is no explanation, it just means that we don't know at this point.

Missy ~ :razz:

 

[missy1974]

Missy ~ :razz:

LOL I hope that zap was for Eisenberg and Culhane and not me :giggle:

 

[ZOOL]

LOL I hope that zap was for Eisenberg and Culhane and not me :giggle:

Missy ~ I just noticed that the little emoticon I used reveals "Shout out" when a cursor rolls over it.

On the other hand, on the Websleuths Editor 001 page for smilies it is listed as "razz". My intent was to show a sincere appreciation for not only what you had written but also for your on-going efforts. Kind of a razzamatazz or razzle dazzle if you will: This was the late-19th/early-20th century equivalent to Rock & Roll. I suppose that's why we wiggle our bodies round and round: Razz-a-ma-tazz! Razz-a-ma-tazz!

But..."Shout out"? No. I do not like that interpretation. It conjures up a negative feeling. Consequently I apologize for using said-emoticon and will cease from using it until Websleuths reconsiders the cursor-name-change.

Sorry, ZOOL

 

[missy1974]

naaaaaaa Zool.... no offense was taken at all, I'm not that uptight hehehe

 

[BigCityAccountant]

BCA ~ if you have the thought that Kratz knows something and is scared.... does that change your feelings at all? Does it make you question SA's guilt? Or do you think it's something unrelated to the case? I'm just curious.

BCA and Zool ~ I totally agree about his behaviour (sorry, I'm Canadian haha dang u's LOL) and it being an excuse, etc. I was just saying that he insists the drugs didn't come until "after" the cases. He also doesn't acknowledge that he had any issues with his behaviour before the trials.... so there is that LOL I think the more he talks, the more he digs his hole deeper IMO

ETA: I'm off to work... keep posting... it gives me something to read while I'm there haha

I'm questioning, but I can't get past the bones being planted while the dog was there. SA would have heard that dog barking or at least someone else on the property would have hear it and mentioned it. They checked out the lights because they thought someone was in the yard, so it would only stand to reason if the dog was barking because someone else was one the property planting the bones--the Avery's would have checked that out also. BUT--there was no in depth interview of Josh R. He was at the hunting camp and saw the fire at 4:30 pm, bones were found on his property and he also helped with the search. He is my prime suspect, if SA didn't do it. I'm off to work also..