The defense witness absolutely testified that there was no limit of detection provided to her. So, I’m not sure if one was determined afterwards, or she somehow missed it. Even if there is one for that assay that she somehow missed, it still doesn’t matter without a few other pieces of information:
Most importantly. What is the concentration of EDTA in that archived tube of blood? I have no idea what decades of storage does to EDTA in whole blood, and neither does the prosecution. I need to see that the assay that you developed can detect any EDTA in that specific tube of blood. This would take an afternoon to perform.
Almost as importantly. Can you detect that EDTA in the blood sample once that specific blood sample has been dried on the interior surface of a car for several days (or however long it was between the murder and the discovery of this blood). Again, this would be trivial to perform.
In other words, you can never prove that there is no EDTA in that sample. But, if you want me to believe your negative result, then you need to prove to me that if there was, in fact, EDTA in that sample that you’d be able to detect it. This is called a positive control. Without a positive control, a negative result is, in every experiment ever, meaningless.
“The Last Word” which can be viewed on You Tube about Johnny Frank Garret is another case similar to Avery, but to me much worse. This one almost makes me believe ghosts are real due to the ending.
And ultimately this is the problem with arguing against conspiracy theories. Every additional fact or piece of evidence is just another opportunity to come up with increasingly implausible explanations. For someone to plant the blood the following would have to happen:
(1) Someone would have to remember Avery’s blood is in the evidence room, enter the room unnoticed, rummage through the evidence box, extract the blood, and secret out the blood without anyone being aware
(2) A cop would have to be the first one to find the car in a place where no one else had seen it
(3) That cop would have to be in on the conspiracy
(4) Then the car would need to be moved onto the Avery property and staged without anyone knowing
On top of that, you have to consider the coincidence of Avery specifically requesting Halbach, attempting to conceal that he was the one requesting her, being the last known person to see her, him having a bonfire on that night, and him having a cut on his finger. It’s just wholly impractical and implausible. Adding on top of that the necessity of the FBI lab making an error doesn’t appreciably change the possibility of the blood being planted since that possibility is so astronomically low already.
But if anyone cares to read here is the FBI paper on the testing method:
The key was planted, the entire search may have been unlawful. An investigation will likely uncover mountains of misconduct that wasn’t presented at the trial. At some point every piece of evidence is questionable. However, even if there is sufficient evidence to convict him that can be proven reliable he did not get a fair trial.
This is ultimately the problem with the documentary and Avery’s defenders. They raise this conspiracy theory defense but never offer a plausible story for how it happened, let alone a reasonable one. And that is because there really isn’t one. Any explanation quickly loses touch with reality or involves other people that have no reason to be part of a conspiracy
The defense does not need to prove that there was a frame. The prosecution has to prove that there wasn’t one, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yes, things like the *67 calls seem odd. But so does the phone call confirming the license numbers. So does the key suddenly appearing in a room that had been repeatedly researched. So does the lack of Halbach’s DNA on that key. So do the bone fragments being found somewhere other than the supposed burn pit. So does the fact that, other than on one bullet, Halbach’s DNA was not found in the garage, but Avery’s was (indicating that it was unlikely that the garage had been thoroughly cleaned, something difficult or impossible anyway due to the clutter). So does the lack of Dassey’s DNA everywhere.
Avery may have done it but, from what I can see, the prosecution didn’t prove it.
No. The State has to prove all of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, not disprove any defense theory that may or may not have merit. The State has no burden to disprove things which may be implausible on their face.
I mean no offense, I really don’t because you sound like many other intelligent people I talk to about this, but are you people really listening to yourselves about this? Yeah, there was a bunch of bone fragments of the victim in his yard, but there were some elsewhere!!! Her DNA was found on a bullet in his garage, but her DNA was not found elsewhere!!
And his own DNA was in his garage! (Which would be consistent with Avery cleaning it and then recontaminating it, just like the car key).
What in your mind would the State have to do to convince you of someone’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Because a bullet with DNA, a car key in the house, charred bones in the yard, his blood in her car in his junkyard, and a victim whom he had only a business relationship last seen at his house. I mean, that is slam dunk stuff. What more should the State do?
It isn’t a matter of disproving defense theories, it’s a matter of showing that there is valid evidence that the defendant committed the crime.
The prosecution has to show that the evidence is authentic, that’s why we have things like chain of custody. Showing that it’s authentic means a number of things such as showing that there wasn’t contamination or relocation of evidence, either accidental or intentional. Any good defense is going to require them to do that.
Asking them to do that is not the same as asking them to “disprove any defense theory that may or may not have merit”. By your reasoning, if I’m understanding it, juries should simply believe the police and defense attorneys shouldn’t be able to question evidence.
I think the defense did a pretty good job of showing that only a handful of people would have needed to be in on the conspiracy, and essentially just Coburn and Lenk. Lenk had worked on the 1983 rape case and, having just been deposed about it a few weeks prior, it would have been fresh in his mind. He had access to the evidence room, which wasn’t tightly controlled. Coburn could have found the car, and the two of them could have moved it onto the property.
Coburn and Lenk were there when the key was found, seemingly unsupervised, having possibly found the car a couple days prior (which may have had the key in it). They found the key in a room that had already been thoroughly searched, cataloged, and re-assembled.
Lenk was there when they found the bullet in a garage that showed no indication of ever having been cleaned by anyone – did you see that place? – and only after the forensic evidence had come back suggesting that Halbach had been shot.
Now, maybe the crime lab tech was in on it too, but if Lenk planted the bullet, maybe he dabbed some blood on it too.
Who else, besides Coburn and Lenk, do we need in on this conspiracy?
I’m not convinced that he “specifically requested her” – the nature of the request hasn’t been made clear, and given that she had been out there several times before, and that it was her assigned area, I’m not sure whether him saying “Hey, can Teresa come out and take pictures again” is evidence of stalking, which seems to be the implication. For that to be true, there would have to be some chance that it wouldn’t have been Teresa, that AutoTrader was in the habit of honoring requests for specific photographers, that she had previously expressed a desire not to go out there (towel incident doesn’t rise to that, IMHO).
I also don’t see what the *67 calls would have achieved if he was trying to conceal who was requesting her, considering he gave out his home address on Avery frickin’ Road and that she had been there before. And again, I’d need some indication that any trickery would have been necessary. By all accounts, she knew exactly whose house she was going to and she didn’t object in the slightest.
So you have the bones and the fact that she was there at some point that day, and then a whole lot of evidence all tied somehow to Lenk and Coburn. It doesn’t look good for Steven, but I also don’t see that it would need to be some massive conspiracy to plant some evidence to make sure he was convicted, which is all the defense was proposing.
Halbach complained of harassing phone calls. Was it confirmed that these were the *67 calls from Avery?
Was that ever explained? It’s easy to imagine plausible scenarios – cop got car info from landlord or relative, etc. and wanted to confirm it – but why didn’t defense ask?
Of course they could only show a tiny portion of the whole testimony, but my impression is defense misused opportunities. They challenged the blood EDTA test because three of six swabs weren’t tested. :smack: Silly. They should have challenged based on the fact that no control experiment was performed (using blood from the vial to create a fake drop and testing that). The (almost irrelevant) control part of a DNA test was screwed up, and defense made a big deal of it. Were they trying to confuse the jury? (Or was the misplaced emphasis due to the film’s producer?)
The defense of Brendan seemed especially bad. There were several conversations between Brendan and his mother that tended to refute his confession. Were these played for the jury? (In at least one case it wasn’t, as film tells us.)
No, the “harassing phone calls” (I can’t seem to find much info on them) supposedly happened during several weeks leading up to her disappearance. Since Steven’s phone records were pulled and thoroughly examined, and seemingly nobody else’s were, he’s actually one of the few people we can say with any certainty wasn’t making those phone calls.
From her home, her boyfriend, or the local hardware store. One reason we know it was planted was that it didn’t have her DNA on it. It was probably her key, found during the illegal search, and then cleaned to remove anyone else’s DNA, and then Avery’s DNA planted on it. But it doesn’t matter, it’s not valid evidence, nor is anything else that the sheriff’s department had access to.
I will say that there’s one thing the defense brought up that confuses me. They used the hole in the stopper of the blood vial as evidence that blood may have been taken from it. They said that experts told them that such a hole is not normal.
I’ve had many blood samples drawn. They always fill the tubes through a hole in the stopper by pushing it over a tube that is attached to the needle.
This video confirms this (don’t watch if you’re bothered by needles and blood). It even shows this being done with a tube with a purple top.
So it seems like that hole is a normal thing. Of course the broken seals on the evidence box is still a problem.
I will say that there’s one thing the defense brought up that confuses me. They used the hole in the stopper of the blood vial as evidence that blood may have been taken from it. They said that experts told them that such a hole is not normal.
I’ve had many blood samples drawn. They always fill the tubes through a hole in the stopper by pushing it over a tube that is attached to the needle.
This video confirms this (don’t watch if you’re bothered by needles and blood). It even shows this being done with a tube with a purple top.
[/QUOTE]
That hole should close up if done when the blood was extracted. I though they were indicating a bigger hole than should have been there, but I’d have to watch it again to check the details. It’s not strong exculpatory evidence though.