The Tube of Blood

[SweetCaroline]

Okay, so for reference, I took a picture of a tube I just drew. I haven't done anything with the tube at all except draw blood into it. This is the size of the hole made by a standard 21 G venipuncture needle. Keep in mind, this is a 10mL tube whereas the one in the evidence box was either a 4 or a 6. (I didn't have a small tube with the same kind of top).

For the record, I just finished the series and I believe evidence was planted. I just wanted to show that the hole in the top of the tube didn't necessarily mean anything.

 

[missy1974]

Thanks SweetCaroline! I have a question.... would it be considered normal, or is it possible that blood could be around that hole? I heard an interview with Strang who said something about the blood and spatter around the hole, so I'm curious.

 

[SweetCaroline]

Yeah, if you look closely (sorry the quality is bad, I used my webcam and then had to crop out any HIPAA stuff) you can see a tiny drop of blood where the needle hole is. It's very common.

 

[TheDuchess]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/theres-one-big-problem-crucial-220545816.html

I realize this is being discussed already, but wanted to post something in one of the comments that I think is a really good point:

"So we're expected to believe that the prosecution had exculpatory evidence but decided not to bring it forth because the evidence that the defense was proffering was not persuasive enough? So now the prosecution knows how a jury will perceive evidence before they even discuss it amongst one another? Ludicrous. That belies every tactic I saw the prosecution use during the trial."

I hope it's ok to post this. It's just a general point that some random person made, but I thought it was a good one.

 

[SoBeCzar]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/theres-one-big-problem-crucial-220545816.html

I realize this is being discussed already, but wanted to post something in one of the comments that I think is a really good point:

"So we're expected to believe that the prosecution had exculpatory evidence but decided not to bring it forth because the evidence that the defense was proffering was not persuasive enough? So now the prosecution knows how a jury will perceive evidence before they even discuss it amongst one another? Ludicrous. That belies every tactic I saw the prosecution use during the trial."

I hope it's ok to post this. It's just a general point that some random person made, but I thought it was a good one.

So a nurse says she poked a hole with a needle in the top of the blood vial. Did she also open the evidence box and not sign and date a new seal choosing to scotch tape the old one leaving no indication of who or why it was opened? Yeah right. Whoever opened that box didn't want us to know who they were or what they were doing. Otherwise they would have followed the simple procedures. Reminds me of the LE officer who claimed he didn't sign in when he visited the RAV4 when it was found because the log had not yet been created. The defense easily showed that was bs when they compared the time of day he had testified to to the time he actually signed out.
I agree with you. This seems to be "after the fact cya" we are supposed to swallow.

 

[MaxManning]

Small little detail, not really relevant to any evidence, and bordering on gossip

Steve's ex-wife Lori is now Lori Dassey. Yes, she is married to Barb Janda's ex-husband/boyfriend, who is the Dassey boys father.

Wanted to mention it because if you recall, Jodi said Steve ordered her not to talk to Chuck Avery. Guessing this bit of gossip might point to why.

 

[SoBeCzar]

Small little detail, not really relevant to any evidence, and bordering on gossip

Steve's ex-wife Lori is now Lori Dassey. Yes, she is married to Barb Janda's ex-husband/boyfriend, who is the Dassey boys father.

Wanted to mention it because if you recall, Jodi said Steve ordered her not to talk to Chuck Avery. Guessing this bit of gossip might point to why.

This article gives some possible background. Lori married Peter Dassey, Brendans father.
http://www.maxim.com/entertainment/making-a-murderer-findings-2016-1
It is an interesting read.

 

[BlueShoe]

It is an interesting read, as you say. In that article they say that Brendan is Steven Avery's young cousin. I thought he was his nephew. Odd mistake, if that's what it is, in an article all about family relationships.

 

[SoBeCzar]

It is an interesting read, as you say. In that article they say that Brendan is Steven Avery's young cousin. I thought he was his nephew. Odd mistake, if that's what it is, in an article all about family relationships.

Good catch. I missed that. Brendan is his nephew. Sloppy work. Take the article with a big grain of salt.

 

[MaxManning]

It is an interesting read, as you say. In that article they say that Brendan is Steven Avery's young cousin. I thought he was his nephew. Odd mistake, if that's what it is, in an article all about family relationships.

Sounds like a mistake. I don't see how he can be anything but his uncle.

 

[Soulmagent]

Okay, so for reference, I took a picture of a tube I just drew. I haven't done anything with the tube at all except draw blood into it. This is the size of the hole made by a standard 21 G venipuncture needle. Keep in mind, this is a 10mL tube whereas the one in the evidence box was either a 4 or a 6. (I didn't have a small tube with the same kind of top).

For the record, I just finished the series and I believe evidence was planted. I just wanted to show that the hole in the top of the tube didn't necessarily mean anything.

If the tube from evidence is a 4 or 6 ml tube ,then what tube is the FBI testing for EDTA? His report clearly states that Q49 Listed as a liquid blood sample from SA in a 10mL lavender -top blood tube contained approx 5.5mL of blood.

 

[Sinsaint]

Sounds like a mistake. I don't see how he can be anything but his uncle.

Dassey stated in his confession Steven is his sister's brother. Maybe someone read his confession and got more confused than Dassey.

 

[SweetCaroline]

If the tube from evidence is a 4 or 6 ml tube ,then what tube is the FBI testing for EDTA? His report clearly states that Q49 Listed as a liquid blood sample from SA in a 10mL lavender -top blood tube contained approx 5.5mL of blood.

My apologies, I didn't read that it was 10mL. The tube looked smaller than that to me in the video.

 

[Soulmagent]

My apologies, I didn't read that it was 10mL. The tube looked smaller than that to me in the video.

Your not the only one saying it . A lot of people who claim to work in some capacity with the tubes have also said this.Its the internet though so people can say whatever so I guess I will keep looking for the size in documents.

 

[missy1974]

I know the amount of blood that would have been needed to plant has been discussed, so when I read this, I copied it. I'm a little confused because he says a natural drop is .05ml but then goes on to say the 6 spots would have been total 1-2ml, if they were considered passive drops, that doesn't make much sense to me LOL but he's the expert! (I haven't read all the testimony yet)
So.... what we know is the old vial was a 10ml vial.... when the FBI got it for testing, it had approx. 5.5ml's of blood. And this witness testified that his educated guess would be 1-2 ml required to use.. uhm I mean to produce those stains.


Day 12, page 26-27 Nick Stahlke

A. If you try to quantitate the amount of -- the number of stains you could get from a small amount of blood, it can be a large number of actual stains.
Q. From a very small amount of blood?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you have no way to give us an accurate quantity of the blood that made the stains you observed in the passenger compartment of the car?

A. About the only thing I can tell you is that a natural stain would -- or a drop of blood contains about a .05 milliliters.

Q. And do you think .05 milliliters could have made every stain you observed in the passenger compartment of that car?

A. No.

Q. Twice that?

A. It would have been much more than that.

Q. And what do you mean by much more?

A. It probably would have been -- If you want me to quantitate the amount of blood that was required to use those -- or produce those stains, I would have to guess between one and two milliliters.

Q. One and two milliliters?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. That's a guess?

A. That's a guess.

Q. But based on your experience?

A. Yes.

Q. And your training?

A. Right.
clarified further:
Q. (By Attorney Strang)~ Just to be clear here, Mr. Buting reminds me, when you say one to two milliliters of blood, you are not including the blood staining in the cargo area?

A. That's correct.

Q. So just the passenger seats forward to the ignition area?

A. That's correct.

 

[MysticJynx]

I've been reviewing the Video from the series, where they are opening that box with the blood. It has two pieces of evidence tape, one from Jan 2 1996 when the Tech took the blood, and it was opened and resealed with the clear tape on 3-13-96. I have decided that the box in question was not opened in 2002. And I will tell you why. The persons who would have opened these items would have been the LAB. Not the lawyers. In 2002 when SA was exonerated, it was done so by using the pubic hairs that were sent to the lab. As on the form that JL wrote out he states he sent 1 item as marked in that column. Then the next column it wants its description. , where JL wrote.
1- Box of items to be tested by use of D.N.A. procedures. (Per Circuit Court Order). These items were exhibits held by the court since the end of trial. (Hair and fingernail cuttings)

There is no mention of the blood being sent to the lab for testing in 2002. Possibly cause that blood would have been expired in March of 1996 like it said on the vacutainer. So that would mean the blood from 1996 should never have had the second clear seal broken at all after March of 1996.

So who sliced that tape between 2002 and 2005 when TH went missing?

JMO

 

[Soulmagent]

I've been reviewing the Video of opening that blood box. I have come to the conclusion that we don't know if someone went into that box because the last people to have opened it did not close it correctly to protocol, a piece of scotch tape, come on. The DA at the time of 2002 says it was when SA was working on being exonerated. The red evidence tape on the boxes was from 1-2-96, the Clear evidence tape was placed on it after it was re opened to presumably test it, resealing the box on 3-13-96. She did her job the first Lab Tech. I believe it was said that JL that signed off on this the box of evidence being sent to the Lab. Does that mean that the person at the Lab did not reseal the box according to protocol? If so then might I ask who was the one who tested the items in the box? Wasn't that SC? What is protocol when you come into evidence box that you open and the blood expired? do you use this blood for testing? Do you inform someone the blood is expired and should be discarded? No you put a piece of scotch tape on it and send it back? Is this the same one who back in 85 it was junk science that got help get him convicted when she matched SA's hair analysis to a hair found on PB? Then she received the box in 2002 but did not actually test it till 2003? Then she contaminated the only thing that could really define TH being in the garage?
The box could have easily been opened simply by removing the small piece of scotch tape and replacing it. Couldnt you test test that scotch tape for DNA. Should have the person who sealed the box that way and any others that may have touched it. I would think a piece of tape would be a good source of DNA. If not get them for tampering get them for not following protocol. There is a reason they have these protocols right? Why is it that all of them were thrown out the window when it came to SA?

And one last question. If it was the pubic hairs that were tested that freed SA, why would that box with an expired tube of blood be opened by anyone at all? If she did not open it who did?

I trust nothing she tested at this point.

 

[MysticJynx]

I trust nothing she tested at this point.

ha ha I deleted that message and changed my mind after a lil further review. I don't even think it was opened or taken from the original evidence box until someone tampered with it. I am about to edit it in the picture now.

 

[andreww]

I found it very disturbing that when the FBI did the EDTA test, there were only i believe two samples tested from the RAV4. Why not send four blind samples, two from the vial, two from the RAV4, and let the FBI tell which was which.

 

[Madeleine74]

Well logically, if the allegation is that all 6 blood drops/smears from SA were planted, then 2 of them should be enough to trigger the alert in the test (assuming that EDTA test works as designed). I agree they should have tested some from the vial, just to validate their EDTA test, if nothing else.