The Tube of Blood

[missy1974]

NSS ~ your unanswered question, is it this one? (from your first post)

EDTA was found in the sample taken directly from the lavendar topped tube.

(At what concentration did it show? If it is just a trace, this is not a very sensitive test)

Something tells me that I looked for this when the info first came out and I couldn't find it either. Here is something else to think about..... IIRC Lebeau also shook the vial before testing, like any good scientist would do.... but what would a lay person, who is not a scientist do that if they were removing blood from that vial to plant?

Myself, when the vial info came out, I was more interested in finding out how much blood was in the vial. FBI noted 5.5ml's of blood in the vial. There is a document that shows LabCorp consumed 1ml in their testing. That is only 6.5ml's, and it seems way too low for a 10ml vial. Those vials are made to get the proper or standard amount based on the EDTA in the vial. Knowing the concentration of EDTA may help in being able to figure out how much blood was in there in the first place. Oh and Stahlke testified that SA's blood in the RAV4 might be 1-2ml's.

 

[NSS]

Thank you missy. Yes the total of the blood was helpful.

EDTA was found in the tube samples - no surprise there.

No EDTA found in car samples....that's where my mind gets stuck in a loop on possibilities.
A)The blood was a clean sample direct from donor.
B) It came from the tube but was open to the elements and degraded to where EDTA was no longer detectable. (knowing how clear the DNA in this sample was could at least help me see just how degraded it was).
C) The EDTA was so diluted by the act of smearing that it was undetectable by this particular test.
D) Once outside the vacuum sealed tube how easily does such a small amount of anti coagulant survive?
E) Since EDTA is evaporated in the tube as protocol, then blood is added, once removed from the tube and smeared will the EDTA not dissipate/evaporate into the air?

So many questions that would have left me needing to know more about any testing if I had been a juror.

 

[NSS]

Was luminol used to detect the blood in the RAV4 or was it in plain sight?

LE seem to have had more luck than the leprechauns in this case.

 

[Justiceseeker35]

Thank you missy. Yes the total of the blood was helpful.

EDTA was found in the tube samples - no surprise there.

No EDTA found in car samples....that's where my mind gets stuck in a loop on possibilities.
A)The blood was a clean sample direct from donor.
B) It came from the tube but was open to the elements and degraded to where EDTA was no longer detectable. (knowing how clear the DNA in this sample was could at least help me see just how degraded it was).
C) The EDTA was so diluted by the act of smearing that it was undetectable by this particular test.
D) Once outside the vacuum sealed tube how easily does such a small amount of anti coagulant survive?
E) Since EDTA is evaporated in the tube as protocol, then blood is added, once removed from the tube and smeared will the EDTA not dissipate/evaporate into the air?

So many questions that would have left me needing to know more about any testing if I had been a juror.

With the way KK so arrogantly stated no EDTA would be found on the swabs. Also the fact that the swabs were not verified at the FBI they were SA's based on DNA matching to the control tube from the clerk's office. Then I believe they were bogus swabs, not even from the rav4.

 

[missy1974]

Was luminol used to detect the blood in the RAV4 or was it in plain sight?

LE seem to have had more luck than the leprechauns in this case.

I'm not sure if they used luminol in the RAV4. I don't recall reading that they did.

 

[missy1974]

With the way KK so arrogantly stated no EDTA would be found on the swabs. Also the fact that the swabs were not verified at the FBI they were SA's based on DNA matching to the control tube from the clerk's office. Then I believe they were bogus swabs, not even from the rav4.

Right!!!! Not verifying that they were even testing blood seems insane to me! That right there seems to be a reason not to allow the test at all.... but hey, I'm not a judge LOL

 

[Mintgiver]

I think because they were identified by "known samples." The lab KNEW the first came from a vial marked, "Steven Avery." They only KNEW the others were crime scene samples. There could be be another test report that shows the samples were Avery's. I don't think they could run a DNA and an EDTA test at the same time.