For Those Who Do Not Think Avery was Framed & Evidence Planted - Discuss

[Deleted member 39678]

Well... We'll all certainly look forward to that. 0.o

I find it interesting when members post a "Great post" and don't bother to say why it's great or bother to add anything to why it's great.

JMO

 

[Karinna]

I find it interesting when members post a "Great post" and don't bother to say why it's great or bother to add anything to why it's great.

JMO

I think it's pretty self explanatory, IMO. To me it just means someone really likes what you post and are in agreeance with it, and adds something the other poster hadn't thought of.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

An Introductory Post on the EDTA Testing Done in the Steven Avery Case

In Ms. Arvizu's opinion, it was “quite plausible” that the bloodstains swabbed from the RAV4 contained EDTA, “but the lab simply was not able to detect it” (324:59). However, Ms. Arvizu did not testify that EDTA was present in the swabs. Nor did she explain why, if Avery's blood vial was the source of the bloodstains in the vehicle, the EDTA levels in those bloodstains would have been below the FBI's detection limit given the FBI's finding that the blood in the vial contained significant amounts of EDTA (324:5-104).

This is why I question this experts opinion about the FBI not finding EDTA in the blood samples from the RAV4. She didn't explain how it's possible for the vial to have "significant amounts of EDTA" but at the same time say that EDTA could have been quite plausibly present but the FBI lab couldn't detect it.

That just doesn't make any sense to me. She didn't even try and use a "UV light degraded the EDTA" excuse.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/ev...dta-evidence-used-in-the-steven-averymak.html

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I think it's pretty self explanatory, IMO. To me it just means someone really likes what you post and are in agreeance with it, and adds something the other poster hadn't thought of.

I agree it's because a poster likes the post.

It doesn't make it a "Great post" though. Especially when the post goes against the rules of the forum like providing a link when stating something as fact.

It's funny that I have to defend myself on the only thread I feel comfortable posting on in this sub-forum. JMO

 

[Karinna]

Who took the blood samples in this case? And is there any chance that any blood swabs/samples were taken from inside SA's trailer after had a deep cut on his finger if there were bloody tissues, bandaids or whatever else SA might have used to stop the bleeding?

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I found this to be interesting. BBM

Regarding the Avery samples, the FBI was unable to detect EDTA using LC-MS[SUP]3[/SUP]. It was concluded that EDTA was not in the samples analyzed.

When reading the recently released FBI reports on the analysis of Avery's blood[SUP]3[/SUP][SUP],[/SUP][SUP]4[/SUP], it seems that the LC-MS part has all in all been suitably performed, with a number of steps taken to ensure that false positives and negatives would not occur, e.g., use of “mass fingerprint”, retention time, addressing that EDTA binds to metals, and use of an “internal standard” (Dolan, 2012) (adding and monitoring a “twin” molecule of EDTA, which is used to spot if anything has gone wrong with the analysis). The method does not appear to be “thrown together”, but is based on a previous method reported some years earlier (Miller et al., 1997).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5071312/

 

[Karinna]

I agree it's because a poster likes the post.

It doesn't make it a "Great post" though. Especially when the post goes against the rules of the forum like providing a link when stating something as fact.

It's funny that I have to defend myself on the only thread I feel comfortable posting on in this sub-forum. JMO

I think it's okay to post an opinion and someone posts Great post. I take it if someone doesn't provide a link then it is just their opinion. Thats how i look at it anyway.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Who took the blood samples in this case? And is there any chance that any blood swabs/samples were taken from inside SA's trailer after had a deep cut on his finger if there were bloody tissues, bandaids or whatever else SA might have used to stop the bleeding?

What has any of this got to do with not believing Avery was framed and LE planted evidence?

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I think it's okay to post an opinion and someone posts Great post. I take it if someone doesn't provide a link then it is just their opinion. Thats how i look at it anyway.

That's not how it works here though.

 

[Karinna]

I found this to be interesting. BBM

I agree there are many interesting articles on EDTA but there is a lot of discrepency about it as well, so what to believe?
There is also this article and various others about the issue
Tainting Evidence: Inside the Scandals at the FBI Crime Lab
http://www.crimemagazine.com/tainting-evidence-inside-scandals-fbi-crime-lab


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5071312/

I agree there are many interesting articles on EDTA but there is a lot of discrepency about it as well, so what to believe?
There is also this article and various others about the issue
Tainting Evidence: Inside the Scandals at the FBI Crime Lab
http://www.crimemagazine.com/tainting-evidence-inside-scandals-fbi-crime-lab

 

[Karinna]

What has any of this got to do with not believing Avery was framed and LE planted evidence?

I don't know that's why i'm asking.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

This makes perfect sense to me.

But what of the FBI's actual 2007 testing process during the Avery case? Was it sensitive enough to detect EDTA?

"If blood is preserved with EDTA there will be a 'boatload' of it present in a bloodstain sample," McCord said. "The question of sensitivity would only arise if the blood was diluted after it was shed."

What matters is the FBI testing for EDTA in the Avery case and not the Simpson case. The defense tried to confuse the jury by using the infamous O J Simpson trial and the problems that case had. JMO

http://www.businessinsider.com/making-murderer-edta-test-quality-2016-1

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I don't know that's why i'm asking.

I think you're asking on the wrong thread.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

So far I've found plenty of source's saying that the FBI EDTA testing is valid. On the defense side I can only find some who say that they don't know but maybe EDTA can degrade to a level that maybe the FBI can't detect.

I'm going with the FBI for now and not "maybe."

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I agree there are many interesting articles on EDTA but there is a lot of discrepency about it as well, so what to believe?
There is also this article and various others about the issue
Tainting Evidence: Inside the Scandals at the FBI Crime Lab
http://www.crimemagazine.com/tainting-evidence-inside-scandals-fbi-crime-lab

I'm not confused with the EDTA evidence. The defense wants confusion because it helps their cause. JMO

 

[Deleted member 39678]

The more articles I read using EDTA as a key word the more I see why there's a false belief that the FBI rushed to develop a test for EDTA in the Steven Avery case. There's a bunch of them.

And their all wrong. The one thing I see that binds them is that they're all pro-Avery articles so far. JMO

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I think that Zellner is counting on the radiocarbon testing to go her way. If it does then you have one type of test in conflict with another. Old blood that doesn't have EDTA in it. So where did it come from?

She either needs to prove that the FBI test for EDTA is wrong or somehow prove that LE had another source Avery's "old" blood to plant in the RAV4.

It doesn't end with a Radiocarbon test result in my opinion.

JMO

 

[Limaes]

What has any of this got to do with not believing Avery was framed and LE planted evidence?

Absolutely nothing. You know, I often check the "Do" thread for confirmation that evidence was planted against the still convicted murderer Steven Avery but...nothing, zero, zilch, nada. After more than 12 months no one can produce a dang thing.

 

[Limaes]

This makes perfect sense to me.



What matters is the FBI testing for EDTA in the Avery case and not the Simpson case. The defense tried to confuse the jury by using the infamous O J Simpson trial and the problems that case had. JMO

http://www.businessinsider.com/making-murderer-edta-test-quality-2016-1

The Defense also tried to block the testing. The same testing that KZ isn't brave enough to take on. JMO

 

[Limaes]

I think it's okay to post an opinion and someone posts Great post. I take it if someone doesn't provide a link then it is just their opinion. Thats how i look at it anyway.

Threads are supposed to stay on topic. If you believe there was framing, you're in the wrong thread and are off topic. Ranch has repeatedly stated this in a polite and civil manner. Please respect his right to post his opinion without the pile-on posts.