Item #FL - when was bullet fragment found?

[proudfootz]

I didn't find any thread specifically about item #FL, the bullet supposedly found that allegedly had Teresa's DNA on it.

Watching a video on YouTube the poster put up a document, Receipt of Confidential Report of Laboratory Findings submitted by Mark Wiegert (page 754 of CASO) which seems to indicate the WI STATE CRIME LAB received this evidence on 11/21/05.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CASO-Investigative-Report.pdf

During Steven's trial it was claimed the bullet fragments weren't found until March of 2006.

Steven Avery trial focuses on bullet fragments

Another discrepancy? Or am I missing something?

 

[missy1974]

The 11/21/05 date I believe is in reference to the gun, the Marlin rifle, item DD.

Here is a report from 11/21/05 that they collected and took those items to the State crime lab:

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CASO-Investigative-Report.pdf#page=275

 

[proudfootz]

The syntax isn't really clear to me. Thanks!

 

[proudfootz]

This also has the same sort of anamoly:

 

[missy1974]

This also has the same sort of anamoly:

This is the report that Wiegert made his report on on page 754 of the CASO report. You can see the stamp on the top that says it was received by Calumet County Sheriff on May 11/06

Read the 3rd paragraph.

The Wisconsin State Crime Laboratory in Madison received the following evidence on March 16, 2006:

Item FK: (not typing it all out)
Item FL: (not typing it all out)

I saw this on reddit also. What this poster put up and said is basically what Wiegert did... he read the first paragraph, reported that... read the conclusion, reported that... he missed the middle and didn't specify that FL/FK was received on March 16, 2006.

I really think this is absolutely nothing as far as the reporting goes. I still believe that FL is messed up and was either planted with DNA on it, was done in the lab or was just cross contaminated or whatever. The fact that FL was on top of dust, that SC deviated from protocol for this specific test, gives lots of reason to question it, but Wiegert's report is just poor reporting (although it did say that a lab report was attached which would clarify it if it was read thoroughly).