Zellner Tweets

[Limaes]

.
KZ has people from all over the world reaching out to her to help, why would she use a controversial method, when there are other methods to prove SA's innocence.

Any blood spatter experts among them by any chance?

 

[Limaes]

Nooooo
A new poster came on with " what if "
As per the usual folks chime in with opinions..
You stated you don't care what the hub dub defense has to say..or along those lines. ( watching the Lion's game and don't care to go back)
My point is/was..this is his DEFENSE TWEET THREAD..which you have no problem commenting.
My point is it seems IMO there's no problem insulting/questioning Zellner or her logic,
just don't give explanations or scenarios..facts if you will, that actually show she's doing exactly what she knows she should be to defend her client.
Because, well, you don't care to hear it..

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

My comment, which you seem to have zeroed in on and ignored the scientific research that was provided, was in reference to the defense opinion piece you provided.

 

[CoolJ]

Any blood spatter experts among them by any chance?

Help me out here. What good would a blood splatter expert do in this case?

 

[Limaes]

Just quickly because I have to go to work....

1. Wasn't it in early 2006 in an email from Kratz to Culhane, something about Wiegert checking on the blood to see if it was what it was? So who knew about the blood early on? The State or was it just SA rambling on about ALL the blood they have taken from him over the years. I don't think SA had any way of knowing that it was literally sitting in a box on the counter in Manitowoc County Court house.

2. LeBeau's EDTA testing was peer reviewed? When and where is this? The only peer reviewing of EDTA testing I am aware of without going hunting is the 1996 EDTA test for the OJ case, and it was peer reviewed and determined to not be reliable, I think?

3. The FBI lab is only available to the State and LE, it is not available to defendants AFAIK. So the defense was expected to find a lab to do a test that was not being done and pay for that? They didn't have unlimited funds like the State did. Wasn't it determined that Buting and Strang made less then minimum wage on this case with the funds available to them from SA's settlement?

4. Literally having a test done while the trial has already started is not playing fair IMO. The State knew about the blood long before the defense did, again IMO, and why did they wait to have the FBI do the test? Give the defense time to possibly find someone?

I think it's quite possible that some of these world renowned scientists that have contacted Zellner have 'peer reviewed' the FBI's testing, and I would not be surprised to find out that it's just an unreliable test period.

JMO

Navel gazing over when the State knew about the existence of the blood vial sweeps aside the real issue.

The blood vial was the most vital part of their defense, it was to be their showcase moment, their "red letter day". They did not reveal that the vial would be introduced as evidence until 6 days before the deadline.

You can say that the State knew of the vial since Nov '05 but they did not know the Defense was intending to walk into the courtroom with the styrofoam packaging and tell the jury that this is where they got his blood from until it was far too late. It was a dirty tactic imo, but fortunately it was thwarted by science and the Courts.

Four weeks into the trial, and the defense finally decides they want to do their own testing and asked for a continuance or a mistrial (lost count of how many times they called for a mistrial).

This is some of what the Judge had to say

“The Court also concludes that if the defendant had felt the testing of the blood was important, the defendant had adequate opportunity in which to arrange for such testing. The defendant could have sought release of the blood vial much earlier and requested permission to test it himself under Section 971.23 (5).

In the alternative, if the defendant did not want to risk spending resources on a test which could possibly produce inconclusive or unfavorable results, the defendant could have disclosed the existence of the blood evidence earlier, asked the Court to set a deadline for the State to conduct any testing that it wished to conduct and still allow the defense adequate time to make its own decision as to whether or not it wanted to independently test the blood vial, all of which could accomplish — been accomplished well before the start of trial in this case.

The Court believes the defense decision not to pursue identification of the blood vial until very close to the discovery deadline was a decision that the defense was entitled to make.

[...]

Finally, by waiting until shortly before the time it was permitted to do so, the defense may have left the State with less time to prepare to meet the evidence and, specifically, with not enough time in which to conduct the State’s own tests. It certainly appeared, based on the original State request to adjourn the trial, that that may well have been the case here."

Source = http://static1.squarespace.com/stat...40/Jury-Trial-Transcript-Day-16-2007Mar05.pdf

 

[Limaes]

Help me out here. What good would a blood splatter expert do in this case?

The State had a blood spatter expert testify at SA's trial as to how the blood came to be there. The defense never called their own expert to dispute the testimony and explain how it was allegedly planted. To this day, they still haven't.

If their theory is that the cops planted the blood, using a Qtip for example, why do they not have expert opinion to bolster their case?

 

[missy1974]

There are points that are being missed...

The FBI had done the test before, for the OJ trial, which was later found to maybe not be so reliable, after being reviewed IIRC And again, the FBI lab is not available to defendants. I think there was another lab that was doing similar tests, but also not very reliable. So what was Buting and Strang supposed to do? Pull a scientist out of thin air and pay that scientist in monopoly money to do a test that they had never done before? All I can say to that is ... whatever LOL

I recall seeing the video where both sides, State and Defense, and I believe Wiegert opened the box and found the blood vial in it. The defense, even if they knew about the box, didn't know what was in it (if anything) until it was opened, I thought they had to get permission to open it from the courts? But again... the point is being missed.... in early 2006, there is an email acknowledging the "blood", if for whatever reason Wiegert didn't find that vial of blood, it's just further evidence of his poor investigation skills I guess.

One of the only smart things the judge did was ordering that the blood vial and swabs, etc. were to be preserved for testing at a later date if/when testing was to be done by the defense. Whether all those items have been preserved is yet to be known. JMO

I will say the above is JMO because I really don't have the time to look for links at the moment.

 

[CoolJ]

The State had a blood spatter expert testify at SA's trial as to how the blood came to be there. The defense never called their own expert to dispute the testimony and explain how it was allegedly planted. To this day, they still haven't.

If their theory is that the cops planted the blood, using a Qtip for example, why do they not have expert opinion to bolster their case?

How could a blood splatter expert prove whether blood was planted? Seems a little outside their scope.

 

[MzOpinion8d]

How could a blood splatter expert prove whether blood was planted? Seems a little outside their scope.

Because a blood spatter expert knows how drops of blood should look if they dripped of someone's body vs being placed there by a QTip or other means.

 

[CoolJ]

Because a blood spatter expert knows how drops of blood should look if they dripped of someone's body vs being placed there by a QTip or other means.

Wait. What blood are we talking about here?

 

[CoolJ]

The State had a blood spatter expert testify at SA's trial as to how the blood came to be there. The defense never called their own expert to dispute the testimony and explain how it was allegedly planted. To this day, they still haven't.

If their theory is that the cops planted the blood, using a Qtip for example, why do they not have expert opinion to bolster their case?

And what did the state expert say?

 

[missy1974]

And what did the state expert say?

I especially liked his testimony about the quantity of a natural blood drop, and what his educated guess of how much of SA's blood was in the RAV4.

I'm going to cheat and link a previous post that I made in another thread because I just don't have the energy or time right now to look up links to things we have discussed already ;-) I hope the link works!

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...resa-Halbach-s-Murder&p=12842437#post12842437

 

[CoolJ]

I especially liked his testimony about the quantity of a natural blood drop, and what his educated guess of how much of SA's blood was in the RAV4.

I'm going to cheat and link a previous post that I made in another thread because I just don't have the energy or time right now to look up links to things we have discussed already ;-) I hope the link works!

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...resa-Halbach-s-Murder&p=12842437#post12842437

Are bloodstain experts and blood spatter experts two different specialties of forensic scientists?

 

[dexter75]

I especially liked his testimony about the quantity of a natural blood drop, and what his educated guess of how much of SA's blood was in the RAV4.

I'm going to cheat and link a previous post that I made in another thread because I just don't have the energy or time right now to look up links to things we have discussed already ;-) I hope the link works!

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...resa-Halbach-s-Murder&p=12842437#post12842437

Yes! Was thinking this same thought as I replied earlier ( great minds ) but was to into watching my LIONS WIN!!!

 

[dexter75]

Any blood spatter experts among them by any chance?

She ( KZ ) has email, FB and twitter if you would like to ask her yourself:seeya:

 

[dexter75]

Because a blood spatter expert knows how drops of blood should look if they dripped of someone's body vs being placed there by a QTip or other means.

We have a blood thread here

 

[missy1974]

Are bloodstain experts and blood spatter experts two different specialties of forensic scientists?

I'm not sure... but I think so? Stahlke testified about the blood in the RAV4, including the spatter on the back door. I went back to read his qualifications, in the testimony, he was referred to as a blood stain expert (nothing about spatter, but he testifies about it). I continued to read for a bit... the wording is interesting... the bloodstains are described as the transfer of blood from a bloody object, or bloody item, or blood source, onto an unstained surface He is asked if it could have come from SA's cut... which it could have.... but of course, it's direct testimony. I haven't read his cross examination recently, but I'm pretty sure it was also pointed out that it "could have" come from other sources too. Also.... the "quantity" still makes me question the stains as well.

Sometimes I read this stuff and I just cannot believe that a jury convicted, although, I also have the benefit of going over the testimony more than once, having documents they didn't have, having the photo's to look at whenever I want. JMO

 

[dexter75]

My comment, which you seem to have zeroed in on and ignored the scientific research that was provided, was in reference to the defense opinion piece you provided.

Nope, didn't zero in on it and didn't ignore research.
Not sure how I can be any clearer
Moving on..

 

[dexter75]

I like your thought provoking post.

It will be interesting to see how Zellner reacts if things don't go the way she anticipates. JMO

IMHO
She'll react like the boss she is, and keep fighting

 

[CoolJ]

I'm not sure... but I think so? Stahlke testified about the blood in the RAV4, including the spatter on the back door. I went back to read his qualifications, in the testimony, he was referred to as a blood stain expert (nothing about spatter, but he testifies about it). I continued to read for a bit... the wording is interesting... the bloodstains are described as the transfer of blood from a bloody object, or bloody item, or blood source, onto an unstained surface He is asked if it could have come from SA's cut... which it could have.... but of course, it's direct testimony. I haven't read his cross examination recently, but I'm pretty sure it was also pointed out that it "could have" come from other sources too. Also.... the "quantity" still makes me question the stains as well.

Sometimes I read this stuff and I just cannot believe that a jury convicted, although, I also have the benefit of going over the testimony more than once, having documents they didn't have, having the photo's to look at whenever I want. JMO

And you didn't have someone in the jury room manipulating you into a guilty verdict. Maybe even threatening you into a guilty verdict. JMO

 

[IDK]

IMHO
She'll react like the boss she is, and keep fighting

:loveyou: Exactly!