Netflix - Making a Murderer - Steven Avery, Brendan Dassey

These cases are suggested by forum members for research and information. Injustice Anywhere has not reviewed the details of each case and does not necessarily endorse any claims made within this section. Cases we currently advocate for can be viewed in the "Injustice Anywhere Featured Cases" section, located in the board index.
Forum rules
These cases are suggested by forum members for research and information. Injustice Anywhere has not reviewed the details of each case and does not necessarily endorse any claims made within this section. Cases we currently advocate for can be viewed in the "Injustice Anywhere Featured Cases" section, located in the board index.

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Dan O. » Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:45 am

"What is a BD Hemogard™ closure? "
... and remember that you can never assume that you are completely anonymous or that you cannot be identified by your online comments. -- (from the ISF membership agreement)
Dan O.
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Home is where I hug my cat

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Sinsaint » Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:20 pm

Rolfe wrote:
Chris_Halkides wrote:Dried blood stains have sometimes been studied for DNA persistence, but I don't recall seeing any studies of whole blood. There could be some, however.

Yes, that's what I said above. I think if you wanted to keep blood long term for DNA, you'd use a dried filter-paper blot. I have my doubts about the stability of the stuff in liquid anticoagulated form.

Which means I have some doubts about whether blood taken from that tube would actually give a good DNA ID of Avery after ten years. I'd like to see some experimental verification of that. I realise that if the blood really was as degraded as I suspect it was, that would mean the smears in the car can't have come from the vacutainer tube, but that's all the more reason for finding out.

I suppose, did this occur to the prosecution? Did they maybe check this out and found that the old blood sample really did give a positive ID of Avery? It would be interesting to know.

Guys, have you ever seen a vacutainer full of blood that's been lost in the post for two or three months? It ain't pretty, I can tell you. One that's been in a drawer or somewhere for years, through hot American summers - I dread to imagine.


This is an interesting discussion. It got me thinking of the Dr. Schneeberger case. But the difference with that case was that the blood had been stored in his arm so normal storage conditions in that case were 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. In this case none of us can be sure how old the sample was or how it had been stored prior to ending up in the clerk's office. I'm not even sure how long she had it sitting in there.

Your discussion has made me question how long ago the blood vial sample was taken. I know he had an appeal in 1996 (which is why I assumed the vial/blood was collected around that time). At that time DNA was only advanced enough to say certain alleles under the victims fingernails couldn't have come from Avery. It wasn't until he was granted the right to have the pubic hairs tested in early 2000's that the lab worked up a full genetic profile of Avery. Maybe it's possible that the vial in question was obtained from him in 2002, which would make the blood in the vial much fresher. But, if blood degrades at the rapid rate you've described, under not so great storage practices, then we are left to speculate under what conditions was it stored? And, under those conditions, would a blood sample of that age have the ability to generate a DNA profile.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Chris_Halkides » Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:34 pm

In the Raymond Clark case (Yale University graduate student murdered), there was DNA on the victim's underwear that was year's old, that had come from the crawlspace-like place where her body was found. The donor of the DNA had a criminal record, but he also had the tightest possible alibi defense. Under controlled conditions DNA can be quite persistent.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Dan O. » Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:07 pm

Are the photos we've seen of the actual blood vial or are they of a movie prop?
... and remember that you can never assume that you are completely anonymous or that you cannot be identified by your online comments. -- (from the ISF membership agreement)
Dan O.
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Home is where I hug my cat

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Sinsaint » Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:58 pm

Dan O. wrote:Are the photos we've seen of the actual blood vial or are they of a movie prop?


I can't tell if the photos are or not. They showed the real vial in the documentary though.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Rolfe » Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:10 pm

I'm kind of interested in the burning of the body. Apparently this was supposed to be done without the aid of any purpose-built incinerator or crematorium. How is that possible, that it was reduced to ashes and a few burned bones? I'm not an expert at this, but that's not an easy thing to do by any manner of means. People think it's relatively easy to make a body disappear in a bath of acid or alkali or by burning it, but it's not. Any of those methods requires a lot of supplies and a lot of time when the murderer is undisturbed to be able to dismember the body, pour away acid and add more, heat the acid bath, tend the fire, move the bits on the outside to the hotter part and so on. Plenty of people have tried this sort of thing and found it was essentially impossible.

So how long is Avery supposed to have had, undisturbed, to tend to an open fire in which he was able to reduce a body to ash and a few disconnected bones? I have a huge amount of disbelief about this part.
User avatar
Rolfe
 
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:28 pm
Location: West Linton

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Chris_Halkides » Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:11 pm

Rolfe,

I think Charlie Wilkes also expressed doubt about this upthread.
Chris_Halkides
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:33 pm

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Rolfe » Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:22 pm

Dan O. wrote:"What is a BD Hemogard™ closure? "

BD is Becton Dickinson, who make the vacutainers. The closure is a rubber sleeve fitted over the needle to prevent blood drops escaping as the needle goes in the vein and again as the vacutainer is withdrawn from the needle. They were introduced as a modification when people started to become concerned about blood-borne pathogens in the laboratory.

Actually the BD vacutainers are horrible. I simply can't list all the disadvantages they have. The rubber sleeve was a fudge to comply with concerns about blood droplets that might contain HIV and things like that. They make a poor system worse. They're easy to pull off and frankly that's what I do. If someone was daft enough to order the needles with the sleeves in the first place. Our patients don't have HIV or hepatitis C.

There is a much much better system called the Monovette, made by Sarstedt. However that came in later than the vacutainers, and by that time people were in the habit of using vacutainers. Farm animal vets like them because they make sampling an entire herd of cattle relatively easy and BD make packs specifically for this purpose. The NHS started using Monovettes in 1988 though (or at least NHS England introduced them in Sussex the day I had to have a convalescent serology sample taken, leading to the unusual occurrence of the patient instructing the nurse how to use the thing). They're now standard throughout the NHS as far as I can see.

Vets just love their goddammed vacutainers though. You should see the huge stacks of the things sitting in our cold stores. Boxes and boxes and boxes. And Americans love them too. Goes with their love of strange non-SI units that should have been binned decades ago. No accounting for habit.
User avatar
Rolfe
 
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:28 pm
Location: West Linton

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Rolfe » Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:28 pm

Sinsaint wrote:This is an interesting discussion. It got me thinking of the Dr. Schneeberger case. But the difference with that case was that the blood had been stored in his arm so normal storage conditions in that case were 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

Sorry I'm not following you. Blood still in the patient isn't usually considered to be "stored".

Sinsaint wrote:In this case none of us can be sure how old the sample was or how it had been stored prior to ending up in the clerk's office. I'm not even sure how long she had it sitting in there.

Your discussion has made me question how long ago the blood vial sample was taken. I know he had an appeal in 1996 (which is why I assumed the vial/blood was collected around that time). At that time DNA was only advanced enough to say certain alleles under the victims fingernails couldn't have come from Avery. It wasn't until he was granted the right to have the pubic hairs tested in early 2000's that the lab worked up a full genetic profile of Avery. Maybe it's possible that the vial in question was obtained from him in 2002, which would make the blood in the vial much fresher. But, if blood degrades at the rapid rate you've described, under not so great storage practices, then we are left to speculate under what conditions was it stored? And, under those conditions, would a blood sample of that age have the ability to generate a DNA profile.

I really don't know. Surely to God the date of the blood sample is known? That's what labels are for. There is a label on the tube in the photo, a printed one, so it should have the date.

If I were the prosecution I would have thought of this and had it checked. If that blood sample was too degraded to generate a profile, end of that line of attack. So I suspect they did check it and it did generate a profile. I seem to remember someone talking about testing telomere length to see if the DNA was fresh and if I'm remembering that right, it suggests the sample did have coherent DNA in it.
User avatar
Rolfe
 
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:28 pm
Location: West Linton

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Rolfe » Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:32 pm

Chris_Halkides wrote:In the Raymond Clark case (Yale University graduate student murdered), there was DNA on the victim's underwear that was year's old, that had come from the crawlspace-like place where her body was found. The donor of the DNA had a criminal record, but he also had the tightest possible alibi defense. Under controlled conditions DNA can be quite persistent.

Yes, but that would be dried. DNA survives much better on dried samples than in liquid form. (Try getting that over to vets who are used to putting swabs in liquid or jelly transport medium to send to the lab. The "air-dried swab" isn't something they're catching on to which is a pain.)

Don't get me wrong, it's perfectly possible that blood sample had coherent DNA in it. I would just like to know it had been checked, because speaking as a haematologist I know how liquid blood degenerates at cellular level, and anything more than a few days old, say a week, is virtually useless to me. Unless all you want is a haemoglobin reading, and even then, anything that's been delayed in the post for weeks goes in the bin, end of. Unopened.
User avatar
Rolfe
 
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:28 pm
Location: West Linton

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Samson » Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:35 pm

Rolfe, the documentary is worth watching. In New Zealand I gave a card no for a month free trial and they took a dollar from my account. If I do nothing they will continue to take $12.99 a month. So effectively it cost a dollar to watch the series, by far the best investment in crime study I ever made.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Rolfe » Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:38 pm

Sinsaint wrote:
Dan O. wrote:Are the photos we've seen of the actual blood vial or are they of a movie prop?

I can't tell if the photos are or not. They showed the real vial in the documentary though.

The photo that was linked to showed an EDTA vacutainer with a slightly eccentric needle hole and a drop of blood on the outslde. I could get you these wholesale. We have an entire refrigerated portocabin full of the things. It looks as normal and as ordinary as could be.

However, these people showing that photo are carrying on about how these features are NOT normal. I struggle to see how they'd have faked up something they say is so atypical, as an illustration. I think it's the real thing.

The "hole in the vial" is a red herring. It's normal. Worry about the broken seal part, because blood could have been removed from the vacutainer simply by taking the lid off. Anyone who wanted to remove some of that blood would almost certainly just have taken the lid off and replaced it afterwards. There's only one hole in that lid and it's the hole that the blood entered by.
User avatar
Rolfe
 
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:28 pm
Location: West Linton

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Rolfe » Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:41 pm

Chris_Halkides wrote:I think Charlie Wilkes also expressed doubt about this upthread.

It's sure as hell baffling me. And after Lockerbie I'm wary of not challenging something that seems to be the bleedin' obvious, simply because you automatically assume someone in the defence team must have covered that base.
User avatar
Rolfe
 
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:28 pm
Location: West Linton

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Rolfe » Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:42 pm

Samson wrote:Rolfe, the documentary is worth watching. In New Zealand I gave a card no for a month free trial and they took a dollar from my account. If I do nothing they will continue to take $12.99 a month. So effectively it cost a dollar to watch the series, by far the best investment in crime study I ever made.

I thought it was about £30 or $30 or something like that. I might well do it when I get a week when I think I'll have the time to watch it. I don't want to shell out and then find I didn't get through it all because of other commitments.
User avatar
Rolfe
 
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:28 pm
Location: West Linton

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby charlie_wilkes » Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:46 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:You guys and your blood container. Get with it - the case hinges on Colborn's call to Lynn! OK, I've tracked down the evidence on this. It's on trial day 7 and Strang's cross starts at p.180. Krantz doesn't deal with it at all in chief. All the defence has is a CD supplied by the Sheriff's office with calls that could have been made at any time between 03 and 12 Nov. There is no way to tell from the CD when exactly Colborn called Lynn. Colborn thinks he was just running a routine check having been given the registration number by Investigator Weigert. He thinks he made the call on the 3rd but isn't sure [note: despite being heavily involved in the search and despite arriving at the Avery's place and speaking with Steve Avery on 03 Nov to ask about Ms Halbach's visit the day she went missing, he made no notes of any kind about the case until the following June, yet his testimony includes the claim that Avery told him she had been there at 2.30 p.m.]. His assumption is he made the enquiry right after Weigert called and said there was a missing person.

I'm having difficulty working out why this doesn't make sense. What I'm saying is: I don't grasp Charlie's theory about it. I also think both sides were playing games on this issue in the trial, not exploring it properly. The defence was content to leave a whiff of suspicion and the state was relieved it went no further than that [ETA or actually happy to let the defence impale itself on a non-point]. As I said before, it should have been easy to see when exactly and how many times, Lynn consulted the data base to retrieve that info but it suited both sides not to investigate it further.

In his closing, Strang suggests the call did not come from a police radio and suggests that Colborn may have been operating on his day off, the 4th. But he did not put that to Colborn, which I think is improper, or not allowed, or liable to encounter objection or disapproval and to be considered significant in my jurisdiction as it very likely is in Wisconsin and throughout the common law world. You really should confront witnesses on points where you suggest their account may be materially open to doubt to give them a fair chance to deal with the point. In fairness, he does suggest Colborn was actually looking at the vehicle when he made the call, which ought to have been impossible as it had not been found by the 3rd, and Colborn, of course, denies it.

I'll see if I can dig up Lynn's evidence (assuming she gave any, which is far from certain). Her surname sure would help if anyone knows it.


Why do you find my reasoning so hard to understand? To me it is pure common sense.

Forget the details. We don't know the exact circumstances of the call, and they do not matter - as long as we're satisfied that (1) Colborn did in fact make this call as recorded, and (2) he did so before the car turned up in Avery's junkyard.

Consider instead why he would make such a call under any circumstances?

Obvious answer: He had a plate number, but not the identity of the owner.

OK, so how would that come about?

Someone found the abandoned car and told Colborn about it, or Colborn found it himself. Colborn called in the plate to find out whose it was.

But Colborn couldn't admit this on the stand, could he? He might as well admit the cops moved the car to Avery's junkyard after they found it somewhere else.

So, he made up a lame story. He said Weigert gave him the plate number, and told him it corresponded to a missing person, without mentioning Halbach's name. Ergo Colborn had to call a dispatcher to get the name. And this supposedly happened after Colborn was already investigating Halbach's disappearance. Bullshit.
User avatar
charlie_wilkes
 
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Sinsaint » Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:59 pm

Rolfe wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:This is an interesting discussion. It got me thinking of the Dr. Schneeberger case. But the difference with that case was that the blood had been stored in his arm so normal storage conditions in that case were 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

Sorry I'm not following you. Blood still in the patient isn't usually considered to be "stored".

Sinsaint wrote:In this case none of us can be sure how old the sample was or how it had been stored prior to ending up in the clerk's office. I'm not even sure how long she had it sitting in there.

Your discussion has made me question how long ago the blood vial sample was taken. I know he had an appeal in 1996 (which is why I assumed the vial/blood was collected around that time). At that time DNA was only advanced enough to say certain alleles under the victims fingernails couldn't have come from Avery. It wasn't until he was granted the right to have the pubic hairs tested in early 2000's that the lab worked up a full genetic profile of Avery. Maybe it's possible that the vial in question was obtained from him in 2002, which would make the blood in the vial much fresher. But, if blood degrades at the rapid rate you've described, under not so great storage practices, then we are left to speculate under what conditions was it stored? And, under those conditions, would a blood sample of that age have the ability to generate a DNA profile.

I really don't know. Surely to God the date of the blood sample is known? That's what labels are for. There is a label on the tube in the photo, a printed one, so it should have the date.

If I were the prosecution I would have thought of this and had it checked. If that blood sample was too degraded to generate a profile, end of that line of attack. So I suspect they did check it and it did generate a profile. I seem to remember someone talking about testing telomere length to see if the DNA was fresh and if I'm remembering that right, it suggests the sample did have coherent DNA in it.


Lol... Sorry. Dr. Schneeberger was accused by a patient of raping her in 1992. So, he inserted a 15 cm Penrose drain in his arm with some other guy's blood and an anticoagulant in it. He agreed to allow police to take his blood but insisted it be taken from a certain location. That sample proved he didn't rape her. The woman hired a PI that managed to steal his Chapstick and the profile from that said he was the rapist. In 1997 the police reopened the case and requested another sample. Same deal but that time they had trouble getting the blood out. The lab tech said the blood was too degraded for testing.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby charlie_wilkes » Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:16 pm

Rolfe wrote:
Chris_Halkides wrote:I think Charlie Wilkes also expressed doubt about this upthread.

It's sure as hell baffling me. And after Lockerbie I'm wary of not challenging something that seems to be the bleedin' obvious, simply because you automatically assume someone in the defence team must have covered that base.


Yeah, I have been harping on this throughout the thread. I have followed quite a few murder cases where someone tried to do this, and I have seen police photos of the results they get. They never pull off anything close to the crispy bone shards found in this case.

Go back up to the top of the previous page, where Jay has posted some comments made by one of Avery's lawyers. The defense researched this and arrived at the same conclusion we have. They presented it effectively during the trial, with an interesting result. One of the charges against Avery was mutilating a corpse, and he was acquitted of that charge, implying that the jury did not accept the prosecution's claim that Avery burned the body in his fire pit.

But they convicted him of murder anyway.

This goes to the core of my exasperation, which is that people can accept that the evidence was planted, but they can't accept the implication, which is that a cop had to kill this girl to acquire the evidence. Oh no!

Oh yes, boys and girls...

Another interesting fact is that someone found a few cremated bones in a gravel quarry near the Avery property, and these featured in the trial as additional putative remains of Teresa Halbach. I initially thought, ok, killers routinely dump bodies in quarries because they are easy to cover over, so it might be unrelated. I thought it was more likely the killer (Lenk) had access to a gas-fired furnace of some kind. But now I'm starting to wonder. Did he actually cremate the body at the quarry? He would know what was required and he could pull it off with a propane blowtorch or the like. But Jesus, that would take some time, and it would be risky.

Somebody did it, somehow.
User avatar
charlie_wilkes
 
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Dan O. » Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:23 pm

Rolfe wrote:
Dan O. wrote:"What is a BD Hemogard™ closure? "

BD is Becton Dickinson, who make the vacutainers. The closure is a rubber sleeve fitted over the needle to prevent blood drops escaping as the needle goes in the vein and again as the vacutainer is withdrawn from the needle. They were introduced as a modification when people started to become concerned about blood-borne pathogens in the laboratory.


Perhaps I should have accentuated the quotes. The post was intended to put an end to the discussion because anyone that googled that phrase should have come across their marketing blurb:

BD Vacutainer® Plus plastic whole blood tube. Pink BD Hemogard ™ closure. Paper label. Additive: K2EDTA (spray dried) - BD Vactutainer® brand sterile hematology tubes with the BD Hemogard ™ closure help to protect lab personnel from contact with blood on the stopper or around the outer rim of the tube, as well as from blood splattering upon opening the tube. The rubber stopper is recessed inside the plastic shield so any drops left by a blood collection needle remain isolated from potential contact.
... and remember that you can never assume that you are completely anonymous or that you cannot be identified by your online comments. -- (from the ISF membership agreement)
Dan O.
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Home is where I hug my cat

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Rolfe » Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:40 pm

Sinsaint wrote:Lol... Sorry. Dr. Schneeberger was accused by a patient of raping her in 1992. So, he inserted a 15 cm Penrose drain in his arm with some other guy's blood and an anticoagulant in it. He agreed to allow police to take his blood but insisted it be taken from a certain location. That sample proved he didn't rape her. The woman hired a PI that managed to steal his Chapstick and the profile from that said he was the rapist. In 1997 the police reopened the case and requested another sample. Same deal but that time they had trouble getting the blood out. The lab tech said the blood was too degraded for testing.

That really happened? If you'd included that in a murder mystery I'd have laughed it out of court as being way too far-fetched. You're surely not saying he had the same drain with the other blood in it in his arm for five years? I'm boggling on that.
User avatar
Rolfe
 
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:28 pm
Location: West Linton

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Sinsaint » Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:42 pm

charlie_wilkes wrote:
Rolfe wrote:
Chris_Halkides wrote:I think Charlie Wilkes also expressed doubt about this upthread.

It's sure as hell baffling me. And after Lockerbie I'm wary of not challenging something that seems to be the bleedin' obvious, simply because you automatically assume someone in the defence team must have covered that base.


Yeah, I have been harping on this throughout the thread. I have followed quite a few murder cases where someone tried to do this, and I have seen police photos of the results they get. They never pull off anything close to the crispy bone shards found in this case.

Go back up to the top of the previous page, where Jay has posted some comments made by one of Avery's lawyers. The defense researched this and arrived at the same conclusion we have. They presented it effectively during the trial, with an interesting result. One of the charges against Avery was mutilating a corpse, and he was acquitted of that charge, implying that the jury did not accept the prosecution's claim that Avery burned the body in his fire pit.

But they convicted him of murder anyway.

This goes to the core of my exasperation, which is that people can accept that the evidence was planted, but they can't accept the implication, which is that a cop had to kill this girl to acquire the evidence. Oh no!

Oh yes, boys and girls...

Another interesting fact is that someone found a few cremated bones in a gravel quarry near the Avery property, and these featured in the trial as additional putative remains of Teresa Halbach. I initially thought, ok, killers routinely dump bodies in quarries because they are easy to cover over, so it might be unrelated. I thought it was more likely the killer (Lenk) had access to a gas-fired furnace of some kind. But now I'm starting to wonder. Did he actually cremate the body at the quarry? He would know what was required and he could pull it off with a propane blowtorch or the like. But Jesus, that would take some time, and it would be risky.

Somebody did it, somehow.


Yes, I'm of the mind to agree on this point. For one, it would be difficult to maintain such a high temperature for such a long time. Two, and what isn't really discussed, is how large an area this fire would need to be to generate that degree of heat. One of the points that Fassbender or Weigert made to Dassey was that the actual area of fire was small. He insisted Dassey must have seen her body in the fire because the actually area in square feet would be too small not to see her burning in there. Fine, lets assume the burn pit was 4 feet by 4 feet. How can you generate the extreme heat you need in an a rather small, open air fire? Personally, I can't see it could be done.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Sinsaint » Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:43 pm

Rolfe wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:Lol... Sorry. Dr. Schneeberger was accused by a patient of raping her in 1992. So, he inserted a 15 cm Penrose drain in his arm with some other guy's blood and an anticoagulant in it. He agreed to allow police to take his blood but insisted it be taken from a certain location. That sample proved he didn't rape her. The woman hired a PI that managed to steal his Chapstick and the profile from that said he was the rapist. In 1997 the police reopened the case and requested another sample. Same deal but that time they had trouble getting the blood out. The lab tech said the blood was too degraded for testing.

That really happened? If you'd included that in a murder mystery I'd have laughed it out of court as being way too far-fetched. You're surely not saying he had the same drain with the other blood in it in his arm for five years? I'm boggling on that.


Lmao... Oh yes I am!
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Sinsaint » Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:45 pm

Rolfe wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:Lol... Sorry. Dr. Schneeberger was accused by a patient of raping her in 1992. So, he inserted a 15 cm Penrose drain in his arm with some other guy's blood and an anticoagulant in it. He agreed to allow police to take his blood but insisted it be taken from a certain location. That sample proved he didn't rape her. The woman hired a PI that managed to steal his Chapstick and the profile from that said he was the rapist. In 1997 the police reopened the case and requested another sample. Same deal but that time they had trouble getting the blood out. The lab tech said the blood was too degraded for testing.

That really happened? If you'd included that in a murder mystery I'd have laughed it out of court as being way too far-fetched. You're surely not saying he had the same drain with the other blood in it in his arm for five years? I'm boggling on that.


Lmao... Yes I am!
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Rolfe » Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:55 pm

Dan O. wrote:Perhaps I should have accentuated the quotes. The post was intended to put an end to the discussion because anyone that googled that phrase should have come across their marketing blurb:

BD Vacutainer® Plus plastic whole blood tube. Pink BD Hemogard ™ closure. Paper label. Additive: K2EDTA (spray dried) - BD Vactutainer® brand sterile hematology tubes with the BD Hemogard ™ closure help to protect lab personnel from contact with blood on the stopper or around the outer rim of the tube, as well as from blood splattering upon opening the tube. The rubber stopper is recessed inside the plastic shield so any drops left by a blood collection needle remain isolated from potential contact.

Sure. I don't need to google it, I use the things every day. I just explained to you that it was a retrofit fudge to take account of concerns about blood-borne diseases. The original vacutainers didn't have them, and indeed the original training on how to use the things was to perform the venepuncture then wait for a drop of blood to fall into the holder so you were sure you were in the vein.

Yeah, it helps. It's not perfect. Without the sleeve you're very likely to get blood on your fingers, with it, it's much less likely. A wee drop on the bung though, yes. In fact, without the sleeves you get a larger drop of blood on the bung, and I'm used to seeing the larger drops of blood as we don't usually use the sleeves. Why not? Because they're a bloody pain when you're finding it difficult to get the vein. Yes I have used them because people keep screwing up the order and the un-sleeved ones are harder to get. As I said, you can just pull the sleeve off and bingo, easier to use.

(Good grief, use Monovettes, you can't get blood on your hands if you try, with these. Far better system. And the double-pointed needles are permanently shielded so much safer. And since every needle has its own holder - which shields the second point - you don't have to worry about the separate holders and either cleaning them or throwing them out. And saying that, I use the vacutainers every day and we seldom see a Monovette.)

I'd say there probably was a sleeve on the needle when Avery's blood was taken, because the drop on the bung is so small. But I wouldn't die of shock if people pull these sleeves off all the time, because they get in the way.

Look, Dan, give it up. There is blood in that vacutainer. It got in somehow, and I really don't think someone removed the bung and put Avery's blood in the open vial and put the bung back in. It's not how they're used, and if you do that once you don't do it again because the bung won't stay in without the residual vacuum holding it there. So the blood got in there through a needle that was piercing the bung. There is only one needle hole in that bung, and it perfectly corresponds with the usual appearance of a vacutainer used in the normal way. That hole you can see is how the blood got into the vacutainer.

If it isn't, where is the central hole without the blood drop you're so sure must be what was made when the blood went into the tube? There isn't one. Definitely not.

This doesn't wreck your pet theory. Someone could easily have taken blood out of the vacutainer, by the obvious and normal method of taking the stopper out. They just didn't do it by sticking a new needle through the bung. If they did, they must have used the same hole as the blood went in by, because there aren't two holes. And that hole is eccentric, which the super-sleuths say it couldn't be.

This is just silly. It's a normal vacutainer, and it looked like that when the blood was first put into it.
User avatar
Rolfe
 
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:28 pm
Location: West Linton

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Rolfe » Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:58 pm

Sinsaint wrote:Yes, I'm of the mind to agree on this point. For one, it would be difficult to maintain such a high temperature for such a long time. Two, and what isn't really discussed, is how large an area this fire would need to be to generate that degree of heat. One of the points that Fassbender or Weigert made to Dassey was that the actual area of fire was small. He insisted Dassey must have seen her body in the fire because the actually area in square feet would be too small not to see her burning in there. Fine, lets assume the burn pit was 4 feet by 4 feet. How can you generate the extreme heat you need in an a rather small, open air fire? Personally, I can't see it could be done.

I don't believe it. How long was the fire supposed to have been burning for? Avery would have needed to stand over it pretty much all the time, feeding it and moving body parts to the centre. And as you say, a small fire couldn't have been hot enough. I haven't watched the documentary, but all the descriptions I've read suggest the body was burned in an incinerator.
User avatar
Rolfe
 
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:28 pm
Location: West Linton

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:00 pm

charlie_wilkes wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:You guys and your blood container. Get with it - the case hinges on Colborn's call to Lynn! OK, I've tracked down the evidence on this. It's on trial day 7 and Strang's cross starts at p.180. Krantz doesn't deal with it at all in chief. All the defence has is a CD supplied by the Sheriff's office with calls that could have been made at any time between 03 and 12 Nov. There is no way to tell from the CD when exactly Colborn called Lynn. Colborn thinks he was just running a routine check having been given the registration number by Investigator Weigert. He thinks he made the call on the 3rd but isn't sure [note: despite being heavily involved in the search and despite arriving at the Avery's place and speaking with Steve Avery on 03 Nov to ask about Ms Halbach's visit the day she went missing, he made no notes of any kind about the case until the following June, yet his testimony includes the claim that Avery told him she had been there at 2.30 p.m.]. His assumption is he made the enquiry right after Weigert called and said there was a missing person.

I'm having difficulty working out why this doesn't make sense. What I'm saying is: I don't grasp Charlie's theory about it. I also think both sides were playing games on this issue in the trial, not exploring it properly. The defence was content to leave a whiff of suspicion and the state was relieved it went no further than that [ETA or actually happy to let the defence impale itself on a non-point]. As I said before, it should have been easy to see when exactly and how many times, Lynn consulted the data base to retrieve that info but it suited both sides not to investigate it further.

In his closing, Strang suggests the call did not come from a police radio and suggests that Colborn may have been operating on his day off, the 4th. But he did not put that to Colborn, which I think is improper, or not allowed, or liable to encounter objection or disapproval and to be considered significant in my jurisdiction as it very likely is in Wisconsin and throughout the common law world. You really should confront witnesses on points where you suggest their account may be materially open to doubt to give them a fair chance to deal with the point. In fairness, he does suggest Colborn was actually looking at the vehicle when he made the call, which ought to have been impossible as it had not been found by the 3rd, and Colborn, of course, denies it.

I'll see if I can dig up Lynn's evidence (assuming she gave any, which is far from certain). Her surname sure would help if anyone knows it.


Why do you find my reasoning so hard to understand? To me it is pure common sense.

Forget the details. We don't know the exact circumstances of the call, and they do not matter - as long as we're satisfied that (1) Colborn did in fact make this call as recorded, and (2) he did so before the car turned up in Avery's junkyard.

Your (1) and (2) are agreed.

Consider instead why he would make such a call under any circumstances?. Obvious answer: He had a plate number, but not the identity of the owner.

OK, so how would that come about? Someone found the abandoned car and told Colborn about it, or Colborn found it himself. Colborn called in the plate to find out whose it was. But Colborn couldn't admit this on the stand, could he? He might as well admit the cops moved the car to Avery's junkyard after they found it somewhere else.

So, he made up a lame story. He said Weigert gave him the plate number, and told him it corresponded to a missing person, without mentioning Halbach's name. Ergo Colborn had to call a dispatcher to get the name. And this supposedly happened after Colborn was already investigating Halbach's disappearance. Bullshit.

Maybe I'm being dumb. Lenk kills her. Lenk knows her car's make, model, colour, registration and whereabouts. Why is Colborn independently seeking that info? Please contrive a plausible scenario in which Colborn happens upon a Toyota and phones in to check it against the data base.
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13800
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Sinsaint » Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:00 pm

Rolfe wrote:
Dan O. wrote:Perhaps I should have accentuated the quotes. The post was intended to put an end to the discussion because anyone that googled that phrase should have come across their marketing blurb:

BD Vacutainer® Plus plastic whole blood tube. Pink BD Hemogard ™ closure. Paper label. Additive: K2EDTA (spray dried) - BD Vactutainer® brand sterile hematology tubes with the BD Hemogard ™ closure help to protect lab personnel from contact with blood on the stopper or around the outer rim of the tube, as well as from blood splattering upon opening the tube. The rubber stopper is recessed inside the plastic shield so any drops left by a blood collection needle remain isolated from potential contact.

Sure. I don't need to google it, I use the things every day. I just explained to you that it was a retrofit fudge to take account of concerns about blood-borne diseases. The original vacutainers didn't have them, and indeed the original training on how to use the things was to perform the venepuncture then wait for a drop of blood to fall into the holder so you were sure you were in the vein.

Yeah, it helps. It's not perfect. In fact, without the sleeves you get a larger drop of blood on the bung, and I'm used to seeing the larger drops of blood as we don't usually use the sleeves. Why not? Because they're a bloody pain when you're finding it difficult to get the vein. Yes I have used them because people keep screwing up the order and the un-sleeved ones are harder to get. As I said, you can just pull the sleeve off and bingo, easier to use.

I'd say there probably was a sleeve on the needle when Avery's blood was taken, because the drop on the bung is so small. But I wouldn't die of shock if people pull these sleeves off all the time, because they get in the way.

Look, Dan, give it up. There is blood in that vacutainer. It got in somehow, and I really don't think someone removed the bung and put Avery's blood in the open vial and put the bung back in. It's not how they're used, and if you do that once you don't do it again because the bung won't stay in without the residual vacuum holding it there. So the blood got in there through a needle that was piercing the bung. There is only one needle hole in that bung, and it perfectly corresponds with the usual appearance of a vacutainer used in the normal way. That hole you can see is how the blood got into the vacutainer.

If it isn't, where is the central hole without the blood drop you're so sure must be what was made when the blood went into the tube? There isn't one. Definitely not.

This doesn't wreck your pet theory. Someone could easily have taken blood out of the vacutainer, by the obvious and normal method of taking the stopper out. They just didn't do it by sticking a new needle through the bung. If they did, they must have used the same hole as the blood went in by, because there aren't two holes. And that hole is eccentric, which the super-sleuths say it couldn't be.

This is just silly. It's a normal vacutainer, and it looked like that when the blood was first put into it.


We could sorta all agree that the hole in the top is a non-issue. The issue is whether the vial sample could generate a DNA profile.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Sinsaint » Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:07 pm

Rolfe wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:Yes, I'm of the mind to agree on this point. For one, it would be difficult to maintain such a high temperature for such a long time. Two, and what isn't really discussed, is how large an area this fire would need to be to generate that degree of heat. One of the points that Fassbender or Weigert made to Dassey was that the actual area of fire was small. He insisted Dassey must have seen her body in the fire because the actually area in square feet would be too small not to see her burning in there. Fine, lets assume the burn pit was 4 feet by 4 feet. How can you generate the extreme heat you need in an a rather small, open air fire? Personally, I can't see it could be done.

I don't believe it. How long was the fire supposed to have been burning for? Avery would have needed to stand over it pretty much all the time, feeding it and moving body parts to the centre. And as you say, a small fire couldn't have been hot enough. I haven't watched the documentary, but all the descriptions I've read suggest the body was burned in an incinerator.


My thoughts as well. Just wondering out loud... Could there be a study done to see a) how long it would take to burn a body in a fire pit b) how large an area would your pit need to be c) with the amount of heat generated in said fire, how close could other structures be without being damaged and d) would the person tending the fire be at risk for burning his beard hairs, face, hands, etc? I bet The Body Farm could do a study like that.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Rolfe » Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:08 pm

Sinsaint wrote: We could sorta all agree that the hole in the top is a non-issue. The issue is whether the vial sample could generate a DNA profile.

Yes. I'm coming round to thinking it could, because it would be fairly easy to prove if it couldn't and I doubt if the prosecution would have missed that trick. I'm just surprised nobody's sure of the date the sample was taken.

Also the thing about the seal being broken. There's no need at all to pierce the bung to remove blood from the vacutainer and for a layman without the knowledge of what the bung was for and possibly no easy access to another needle and syringe, I don't even see them thinking of doing that. If blood was removed it was by opening the tube. But what about that seal and who had access to the sample and who knew it was there?

It's all very sloppy. What was a blood sample doing in a desk drawer in the first place? These things should be stored in and by the lab. (Our refrigerated Portacabin again, acquired when the cold store in the building proved to be too small for the volume of work we were doing and the number of samples we had to keep.)
User avatar
Rolfe
 
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:28 pm
Location: West Linton

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Rolfe » Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:09 pm

Sinsaint wrote:My thoughts as well. Just wondering out loud... Could there be a study done to see a) how long it would take to burn a body in a fire pit b) how large an area would your pit need to be c) with the amount of heat generated in said fire, how close close could other structures be without being damaged and d) would the person tending the fire be at risk for burning his beard hairs? I bet The Body Farm could do a study like that.

I'm sure this is well known by people who study these things. Historical funeral pyres. Disposal of animal remains. That sort of thing.
User avatar
Rolfe
 
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:28 pm
Location: West Linton

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby charlie_wilkes » Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:13 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:I can see Strang being played by Dustin Hoffman. I preferred the other guy, Buting, but it may only be a question of taste. They were both pretty good IMO.

I'm not sure Strang could not get his head round the idea the cops did it so much as that he and Buting were hamstrung by the difficulties they would face if they came right out and accused the cops of murder. I don't mean a hit squad would be sent round to nail them but that the case would become an ultra-high risk, winner-takes-all binary decision for the jury to acquit Avery at the cost of finding the cops guilty of a heinous conspiracy. For most people, but especially those living in the community which the cops for the most part protect, that would be an extremely difficult thing to do. That's why Buting and Strang strained to suggest the murder could have been committed by anybody but the cops just happened to 'help' the evidence point at Avery. Strang even suggested to the jury that this may have been a version of 'noble cause corruption' but I doubt he really believed that. The timing of the depositions and the murder and the extreme steps taken by certain cops, going way beyond the normal call of duty when it comes to framing, strongly suggest direct involvement. It's also why Krantz put it the other way - either the cops did it or Avery did. It was as if the jury was being asked: who is of greater value to this community, the police or this family of ne'er do wells?


You have put your finger on the problem. No one within the community or the local system can possibly break this log jam. No one ever investigated Lenk. An outside agency would have to investigate him to get to the bottom of this.

Lenk, for his part, did not ask his fellow cops to collaborate with him in murder. He acted alone, knowing they would not investigate or accuse him. In fact, they would protect him if he was accused. Avery's lawyers were indeed hamstrung.

I am re-reading Breaking Blue by Timothy Egan. In 1930s Spokane WA, a crooked police detective named Clyde Ralstin ran a gang of thieves. They shot and killed a cop in a nearby town during a heist. Another Spokane detective cracked the case and presented it to the chief. Here's how Egan summarizes the response:

The chief was well aware of the complaints about Ralstin. This latest information did not seem to surprise him so much as it left him looking helpless. He couldn't bring the hammer down on Detective Ralstin because it would damage the entire department at a time when it was under siege from the newspapers, the federal prosecutor, the county. And Ralstin could do more than seriously tar the reputation of the Spokane Police Department. If cornered, he could end careers, force men into jail, break up families. Is that what Sonnabend [the accusing detective] really wanted - to ruin the lives of other policemen?

Those were the stakes then. In the end, it was covered up with a conspiracy of silence. The truth didn't come out until the late 1980s.
User avatar
charlie_wilkes
 
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Samson » Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:26 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
charlie_wilkes wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:You guys and your blood container. Get with it - the case hinges on Colborn's call to Lynn! OK, I've tracked down the evidence on this. It's on trial day 7 and Strang's cross starts at p.180. Krantz doesn't deal with it at all in chief. All the defence has is a CD supplied by the Sheriff's office with calls that could have been made at any time between 03 and 12 Nov. There is no way to tell from the CD when exactly Colborn called Lynn. Colborn thinks he was just running a routine check having been given the registration number by Investigator Weigert. He thinks he made the call on the 3rd but isn't sure [note: despite being heavily involved in the search and despite arriving at the Avery's place and speaking with Steve Avery on 03 Nov to ask about Ms Halbach's visit the day she went missing, he made no notes of any kind about the case until the following June, yet his testimony includes the claim that Avery told him she had been there at 2.30 p.m.]. His assumption is he made the enquiry right after Weigert called and said there was a missing person.

I'm having difficulty working out why this doesn't make sense. What I'm saying is: I don't grasp Charlie's theory about it. I also think both sides were playing games on this issue in the trial, not exploring it properly. The defence was content to leave a whiff of suspicion and the state was relieved it went no further than that [ETA or actually happy to let the defence impale itself on a non-point]. As I said before, it should have been easy to see when exactly and how many times, Lynn consulted the data base to retrieve that info but it suited both sides not to investigate it further.

In his closing, Strang suggests the call did not come from a police radio and suggests that Colborn may have been operating on his day off, the 4th. But he did not put that to Colborn, which I think is improper, or not allowed, or liable to encounter objection or disapproval and to be considered significant in my jurisdiction as it very likely is in Wisconsin and throughout the common law world. You really should confront witnesses on points where you suggest their account may be materially open to doubt to give them a fair chance to deal with the point. In fairness, he does suggest Colborn was actually looking at the vehicle when he made the call, which ought to have been impossible as it had not been found by the 3rd, and Colborn, of course, denies it.

I'll see if I can dig up Lynn's evidence (assuming she gave any, which is far from certain). Her surname sure would help if anyone knows it.


Why do you find my reasoning so hard to understand? To me it is pure common sense.

Forget the details. We don't know the exact circumstances of the call, and they do not matter - as long as we're satisfied that (1) Colborn did in fact make this call as recorded, and (2) he did so before the car turned up in Avery's junkyard.

Your (1) and (2) are agreed.

Consider instead why he would make such a call under any circumstances?. Obvious answer: He had a plate number, but not the identity of the owner.

OK, so how would that come about? Someone found the abandoned car and told Colborn about it, or Colborn found it himself. Colborn called in the plate to find out whose it was. But Colborn couldn't admit this on the stand, could he? He might as well admit the cops moved the car to Avery's junkyard after they found it somewhere else.

So, he made up a lame story. He said Weigert gave him the plate number, and told him it corresponded to a missing person, without mentioning Halbach's name. Ergo Colborn had to call a dispatcher to get the name. And this supposedly happened after Colborn was already investigating Halbach's disappearance. Bullshit.

Maybe I'm being dumb. Lenk kills her. Lenk knows her car's make, model, colour, registration and whereabouts. Why is Colborn independently seeking that info? Please contrive a plausible scenario in which Colborn happens upon a Toyota and phones in to check it against the data base.

Lenk has already smeared the blood. There must be a good reason he did not himself leave the car on the lot. But whatever it is he decides it is best the car is found independently.?
Presumably he says to Colborn this is obviously Avery's work, he saw her last. Let's get the car to the lot to get us a crime scene to investigate.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Rolfe » Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:38 pm

Here, look. This is sort of what I was thinking.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... st11088727
User avatar
Rolfe
 
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:28 pm
Location: West Linton

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Dan O. » Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:44 pm

If you want to talk about the supposed cremation, who else has done the basic research on what it take to cremate a body? I have done a quick search to find the normal Temprature for a crematorium. Unfortunately, I'm doing all this on a first gen iPad so I haven't been able to properly record and document my findings. I also looked at the resources that Steven had access to. A normal wood fire is not hot enough. An industrial aluminum smelter would do very well but the smelter at the Avery yard was for melting down aluminum cans. Melting aluminum requires much lower temperatures than a smelter. The wood fired boiler if it's designed only for generating hot water will be ineffective. If it's a steam generator it might do a better job.

One of the experts discounted the aluminum melter and boiler because they had apparently been unused. He mentioned that the boiler was cold but didn't test how long it would take for that boiler to cool down. He said their was unburned paper in the boiler firebox and unmelted cans in the melter. But isn't that exactly what a perp would do to cover up having used such devices? Cans wouldn't normally be put into the melter until there were enough cans collected to fired it up because it might be needed to melt some other aluminum alloy first.

Wood fires with forced air have been used historically for smelting various metals and thus generate sufficient temperatures for cremation. A pottery kiln also reaches the right temperature. I don't know of any in the area though.

The two methods I feel are most probable are a wood fire pit with forced air acceleration and a commercial creamotorium. I would expect the condition of the bones would hold evidence to which method was used. Was this evidence covered in the trial? If not, why?

Use of the crematorium is going to require access from inside. We should look at the owners and employees to see if there are any associations to the known actors.
... and remember that you can never assume that you are completely anonymous or that you cannot be identified by your online comments. -- (from the ISF membership agreement)
Dan O.
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Home is where I hug my cat

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby charlie_wilkes » Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:53 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
charlie_wilkes wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:You guys and your blood container. Get with it - the case hinges on Colborn's call to Lynn! OK, I've tracked down the evidence on this. It's on trial day 7 and Strang's cross starts at p.180. Krantz doesn't deal with it at all in chief. All the defence has is a CD supplied by the Sheriff's office with calls that could have been made at any time between 03 and 12 Nov. There is no way to tell from the CD when exactly Colborn called Lynn. Colborn thinks he was just running a routine check having been given the registration number by Investigator Weigert. He thinks he made the call on the 3rd but isn't sure [note: despite being heavily involved in the search and despite arriving at the Avery's place and speaking with Steve Avery on 03 Nov to ask about Ms Halbach's visit the day she went missing, he made no notes of any kind about the case until the following June, yet his testimony includes the claim that Avery told him she had been there at 2.30 p.m.]. His assumption is he made the enquiry right after Weigert called and said there was a missing person.

I'm having difficulty working out why this doesn't make sense. What I'm saying is: I don't grasp Charlie's theory about it. I also think both sides were playing games on this issue in the trial, not exploring it properly. The defence was content to leave a whiff of suspicion and the state was relieved it went no further than that [ETA or actually happy to let the defence impale itself on a non-point]. As I said before, it should have been easy to see when exactly and how many times, Lynn consulted the data base to retrieve that info but it suited both sides not to investigate it further.

In his closing, Strang suggests the call did not come from a police radio and suggests that Colborn may have been operating on his day off, the 4th. But he did not put that to Colborn, which I think is improper, or not allowed, or liable to encounter objection or disapproval and to be considered significant in my jurisdiction as it very likely is in Wisconsin and throughout the common law world. You really should confront witnesses on points where you suggest their account may be materially open to doubt to give them a fair chance to deal with the point. In fairness, he does suggest Colborn was actually looking at the vehicle when he made the call, which ought to have been impossible as it had not been found by the 3rd, and Colborn, of course, denies it.

I'll see if I can dig up Lynn's evidence (assuming she gave any, which is far from certain). Her surname sure would help if anyone knows it.


Why do you find my reasoning so hard to understand? To me it is pure common sense.

Forget the details. We don't know the exact circumstances of the call, and they do not matter - as long as we're satisfied that (1) Colborn did in fact make this call as recorded, and (2) he did so before the car turned up in Avery's junkyard.

Your (1) and (2) are agreed.

Consider instead why he would make such a call under any circumstances?. Obvious answer: He had a plate number, but not the identity of the owner.

OK, so how would that come about? Someone found the abandoned car and told Colborn about it, or Colborn found it himself. Colborn called in the plate to find out whose it was. But Colborn couldn't admit this on the stand, could he? He might as well admit the cops moved the car to Avery's junkyard after they found it somewhere else.

So, he made up a lame story. He said Weigert gave him the plate number, and told him it corresponded to a missing person, without mentioning Halbach's name. Ergo Colborn had to call a dispatcher to get the name. And this supposedly happened after Colborn was already investigating Halbach's disappearance. Bullshit.

Maybe I'm being dumb. Lenk kills her. Lenk knows her car's make, model, colour, registration and whereabouts. Why is Colborn independently seeking that info? Please contrive a plausible scenario in which Colborn happens upon a Toyota and phones in to check it against the data base.


Colborn independently sought info because he was not involved in the murder, so he didn't know what was going on.

That is the really important point here. One can debate why Colborn made the call, but he damn sure would not have done so under any circumstances, if he had participated in the murder.

So, I think Colborn (or someone) probably found the car near where Lenk shot the girl. He may have realized it was probably her car, but he wasn't sure, so he called in the plate to find out.

Think about it. If Lenk acted alone, he didn't have a second driver. The blood in the back of the victim's car tells us the killer loaded her body into her car after he shot her in the head. Probably he used her car to drive her to wherever he cremated her, so he wouldn't transfer physical evidence. But then he had to go back to retrieve his own car and leave hers behind, after dressing it up with a few streaks of Avery's blood.

It's possible Lenk arranged for Colborn to find the car. In any case, once it was found, by Colborn or someone who reported it to Colborn, Lenk then pitched his story: "Avery was the last person to see her alive, so he must have killed her. We need to get in with a search warrant to prove it. So let's move the car to Avery's junkyard." There's your noble cause corruption. All the other cops could tell themselves they were acting in the interests of justice.
User avatar
charlie_wilkes
 
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Sinsaint » Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:58 pm

Clive wrote:Maybe I'm being dumb. Lenk kills her. Lenk knows her car's make, model, colour, registration and whereabouts. Why is Colborn independently seeking that info? Please contrive a plausible scenario in which Colborn happens upon a Toyota and phones in to check it against the data base.


Theory only... Lenk is working independently. Colborn knew nothing of Lenk's involvement. Colborn heard through the grapevine that Teresa was missing and last known to be with Avery. He found her car and decided to call Lenk first with his find. It's not entirely far fetched he would confide information with Lenk prior to officially relaying the information through the proper channel, after all, Lenk was the person Colborn first went to with the "a detective called and said someone was serving time for a rape he didn't commit" information. Based on the general attitude of LE Avery was probably guilty of that crime but was getting off on some type of error. After a discussion both agree Avery was involved in Halbach's disappearance and they were just going to perform a civic duty by ensuring Avery wouldn't get off this time. Colborn and Lenk work together to get the SUV onto Avery's property.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:58 pm

charlie_wilkes wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:I can see Strang being played by Dustin Hoffman. I preferred the other guy, Buting, but it may only be a question of taste. They were both pretty good IMO.

I'm not sure Strang could not get his head round the idea the cops did it so much as that he and Buting were hamstrung by the difficulties they would face if they came right out and accused the cops of murder. I don't mean a hit squad would be sent round to nail them but that the case would become an ultra-high risk, winner-takes-all binary decision for the jury to acquit Avery at the cost of finding the cops guilty of a heinous conspiracy. For most people, but especially those living in the community which the cops for the most part protect, that would be an extremely difficult thing to do. That's why Buting and Strang strained to suggest the murder could have been committed by anybody but the cops just happened to 'help' the evidence point at Avery. Strang even suggested to the jury that this may have been a version of 'noble cause corruption' but I doubt he really believed that. The timing of the depositions and the murder and the extreme steps taken by certain cops, going way beyond the normal call of duty when it comes to framing, strongly suggest direct involvement. It's also why Krantz put it the other way - either the cops did it or Avery did. It was as if the jury was being asked: who is of greater value to this community, the police or this family of ne'er do wells?


You have put your finger on the problem. No one within the community or the local system can possibly break this log jam. No one ever investigated Lenk. An outside agency would have to investigate him to get to the bottom of this.

Lenk, for his part, did not ask his fellow cops to collaborate with him in murder. He acted alone, knowing they would not investigate or accuse him. In fact, they would protect him if he was accused. Avery's lawyers were indeed hamstrung.

I am re-reading Breaking Blue by Timothy Egan. In 1930s Spokane WA, a crooked police detective named Clyde Ralstin ran a gang of thieves. They shot and killed a cop in a nearby town during a heist. Another Spokane detective cracked the case and presented it to the chief. Here's how Egan summarizes the response:

The chief was well aware of the complaints about Ralstin. This latest information did not seem to surprise him so much as it left him looking helpless. He couldn't bring the hammer down on Detective Ralstin because it would damage the entire department at a time when it was under siege from the newspapers, the federal prosecutor, the county. And Ralstin could do more than seriously tar the reputation of the Spokane Police Department. If cornered, he could end careers, force men into jail, break up families. Is that what Sonnabend [the accusing detective] really wanted - to ruin the lives of other policemen?

Those were the stakes then. In the end, it was covered up with a conspiracy of silence. The truth didn't come out until the late 1980s.

You could go back even farther, to early 18th century London and the self-designated Thief Taker General, Jonathan Wild, who set up as a free enterprise law enforcement operation which was also doubling as a criminal operation, fencing stolen goods, 'finding' them and restoring them for reward, apprehending highwaymen while also running gangs of thieves, impeaching turncoats, swearing away the lives of renegades until an exasperated Parliament passed the so-called Jonathan Wild Act to criminalise thief taking and caught Wild himself in its maw, taking him via the Old Bailey in terror to swing from a gibbet at Tyburn. To keep track of the status of his many accomplices and adherents Wild maintained a ledger in which h entered crosses to denote their standing. Two crosses against your name meant you were done for and likely to be destroyed one way or another. The 'double cross' comes from this practise.
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13800
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Dan O. » Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:06 pm

Rolfe wrote:Look, Dan, give it up. There is blood in that vacutainer. It got in somehow, and I really don't think someone removed the bung and put Avery's blood in the open vial and put the bung back in. It's not how they're used, and if you do that once you don't do it again because the bung won't stay in without the residual vacuum holding it there. So the blood got in there through a needle that was piercing the bung. There is only one needle hole in that bung, and it perfectly corresponds with the usual appearance of a vacutainer used in the normal way. That hole you can see is how the blood got into the vacutainer.


You are still missing my point. I am simply demonstrating by the reference from a disinterested third party that the existence of residual blood on top of the vacutainer seal was a well known phenomenon.

This is just silly. It's a normal vacutainer, and it looked like that when the blood was first put into it.

What you are saying is that the single hole and the drop of dried blood is an indication That the blood in the vial was never used after the draw. Is it normal to draw blood and do nothing with it?

On the other hand, you have told us that if someone wanted to extract blood from such a container, removing the bung and replacing it would leave the vacutainer without a residule vacuume to retain the bung.
... and remember that you can never assume that you are completely anonymous or that you cannot be identified by your online comments. -- (from the ISF membership agreement)
Dan O.
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Home is where I hug my cat

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:09 pm

charlie_wilkes wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
charlie_wilkes wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:You guys and your blood container. Get with it - the case hinges on Colborn's call to Lynn! OK, I've tracked down the evidence on this. It's on trial day 7 and Strang's cross starts at p.180. Krantz doesn't deal with it at all in chief. All the defence has is a CD supplied by the Sheriff's office with calls that could have been made at any time between 03 and 12 Nov. There is no way to tell from the CD when exactly Colborn called Lynn. Colborn thinks he was just running a routine check having been given the registration number by Investigator Weigert. He thinks he made the call on the 3rd but isn't sure [note: despite being heavily involved in the search and despite arriving at the Avery's place and speaking with Steve Avery on 03 Nov to ask about Ms Halbach's visit the day she went missing, he made no notes of any kind about the case until the following June, yet his testimony includes the claim that Avery told him she had been there at 2.30 p.m.]. His assumption is he made the enquiry right after Weigert called and said there was a missing person.

I'm having difficulty working out why this doesn't make sense. What I'm saying is: I don't grasp Charlie's theory about it. I also think both sides were playing games on this issue in the trial, not exploring it properly. The defence was content to leave a whiff of suspicion and the state was relieved it went no further than that [ETA or actually happy to let the defence impale itself on a non-point]. As I said before, it should have been easy to see when exactly and how many times, Lynn consulted the data base to retrieve that info but it suited both sides not to investigate it further.

In his closing, Strang suggests the call did not come from a police radio and suggests that Colborn may have been operating on his day off, the 4th. But he did not put that to Colborn, which I think is improper, or not allowed, or liable to encounter objection or disapproval and to be considered significant in my jurisdiction as it very likely is in Wisconsin and throughout the common law world. You really should confront witnesses on points where you suggest their account may be materially open to doubt to give them a fair chance to deal with the point. In fairness, he does suggest Colborn was actually looking at the vehicle when he made the call, which ought to have been impossible as it had not been found by the 3rd, and Colborn, of course, denies it.

I'll see if I can dig up Lynn's evidence (assuming she gave any, which is far from certain). Her surname sure would help if anyone knows it.


Why do you find my reasoning so hard to understand? To me it is pure common sense.

Forget the details. We don't know the exact circumstances of the call, and they do not matter - as long as we're satisfied that (1) Colborn did in fact make this call as recorded, and (2) he did so before the car turned up in Avery's junkyard.

Your (1) and (2) are agreed.

Consider instead why he would make such a call under any circumstances?. Obvious answer: He had a plate number, but not the identity of the owner.

OK, so how would that come about? Someone found the abandoned car and told Colborn about it, or Colborn found it himself. Colborn called in the plate to find out whose it was. But Colborn couldn't admit this on the stand, could he? He might as well admit the cops moved the car to Avery's junkyard after they found it somewhere else.

So, he made up a lame story. He said Weigert gave him the plate number, and told him it corresponded to a missing person, without mentioning Halbach's name. Ergo Colborn had to call a dispatcher to get the name. And this supposedly happened after Colborn was already investigating Halbach's disappearance. Bullshit.

Maybe I'm being dumb. Lenk kills her. Lenk knows her car's make, model, colour, registration and whereabouts. Why is Colborn independently seeking that info? Please contrive a plausible scenario in which Colborn happens upon a Toyota and phones in to check it against the data base.


Colborn independently sought info because he was not involved in the murder, so he didn't know what was going on.

That is the really important point here. One can debate why Colborn made the call, but he damn sure would not have done so under any circumstances, if he had participated in the murder.

So, I think Colborn (or someone) probably found the car near where Lenk shot the girl. He may have realized it was probably her car, but he wasn't sure, so he called in the plate to find out.

Think about it. If Lenk acted alone, he didn't have a second driver. The blood in the back of the victim's car tells us the killer loaded her body into her car after he shot her in the head. Probably he used her car to drive her to wherever he cremated her, so he wouldn't transfer physical evidence. But then he had to go back to retrieve his own car and leave hers behind, after dressing it up with a few streaks of Avery's blood.

It's possible Lenk arranged for Colborn to find the car. In any case, once it was found, by Colborn or someone who reported it to Colborn, Lenk then pitched his story: "Avery was the last person to see her alive, so he must have killed her. We need to get in with a search warrant to prove it. So let's move the car to Avery's junkyard." There's your noble cause corruption. All the other cops could tell themselves they were acting in the interests of justice.

I don't get the highlighted bit. Drill down a bit more.

You know, it's a two man job getting that vehicle to where it was found. Nobody walks in America if they can drive. So, you need one to drive her car and one to drive the two of them away. Colborn and Lenk. Obviously. But why the heck is Colborn then calling in the registration on tape on or about the 3rd or 4th?
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13800
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:14 pm

Sinsaint wrote:
Clive wrote:Maybe I'm being dumb. Lenk kills her. Lenk knows her car's make, model, colour, registration and whereabouts. Why is Colborn independently seeking that info? Please contrive a plausible scenario in which Colborn happens upon a Toyota and phones in to check it against the data base.


Theory only... Lenk is working independently. Colborn knew nothing of Lenk's involvement. Colborn heard through the grapevine that Teresa was missing and last known to be with Avery. He found her car and decided to call Lenk first with his find. It's not entirely far fetched he would confide information with Lenk prior to officially relaying the information through the proper channel, after all, Lenk was the person Colborn first went to with the "a detective called and said someone was serving time for a rape he didn't commit" information. Based on the general attitude of LE Avery was probably guilty of that crime but was getting off on some type of error. After a discussion both agree Avery was involved in Halbach's disappearance and they were just going to perform a civic duty by ensuring Avery wouldn't get off this time. Colborn and Lenk work together to get the SUV onto Avery's property.

How did he find her car? Just driving around he came across it? Too convenient. Like finding the key and the bullet.
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13800
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Dan O. » Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:17 pm

charlie_wilkes wrote:It's possible Lenk arranged for Colborn to find the car. In any case, once it was found, by Colborn or someone who reported it to Colborn, Lenk then pitched his story: "Avery was the last person to see her alive, so he must have killed her. We need to get in with a search warrant to prove it. So let's move the car to Avery's junkyard." There's your noble cause corruption. All the other cops could tell themselves they were acting in the interests of justice.


No it isn't. Lenk would have to intercede between the time Andrew made the call to Lynn and before he could tell Lynn that he is sitting on the car of a missing person. Andrew was on the phone this entire time. There is no indication in Andrew's voice that he is being interrupted or strangled with the phone cord to stop that call.
... and remember that you can never assume that you are completely anonymous or that you cannot be identified by your online comments. -- (from the ISF membership agreement)
Dan O.
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Home is where I hug my cat

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Dan O. » Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:30 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:You know, it's a two man job getting that vehicle to where it was found. Nobody walks in America if they can drive. So, you need one to drive her car and one to drive the two of them away. Colborn and Lenk. Obviously. But why the heck is Colborn then calling in the registration on tape on or about the 3rd or 4th?


In a situation where the murder happens on a public road: the body is tossed into the back of the victim's vehicle and the victim's vehicle is driven to a nearby secluded spot. The perp then walks the short distance back to their car and drives away. The perp can then come back later with a second driver or just a moped or bicycle that fits in the back of their own vehicle to move the victims vehicle to it's final destination.

Except for the short duration of the murder itself, all that is visible is an unremarkable car alone on the side of a road. I see these all the time and assume someone had car trouble. Should I be thinking there's been a murder?
... and remember that you can never assume that you are completely anonymous or that you cannot be identified by your online comments. -- (from the ISF membership agreement)
Dan O.
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Home is where I hug my cat

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Rolfe » Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:34 pm

Dan O. wrote:You are still missing my point. I am simply demonstrating by the reference from a disinterested third party that the existence of residual blood on top of the vacutainer seal was a well known phenomenon.

Well fine. Say so then. I'm not interested in reading lab equipment catalogues to get a point you could type perfectly well in the thread. Guessing games are pointless.

Dan O. wrote:What you are saying is that the single hole and the drop of dried blood is an indication That the blood in the vial was never used after the draw. Is it normal to draw blood and do nothing with it?

Of course not. The vial is opened by removing the stopper to access the blood inside.

Dan O. wrote:On the other hand, you have told us that if someone wanted to extract blood from such a container, removing the bung and replacing it would leave the vacutainer without a residule vacuume to retain the bung.

It's not that simple. The problem with putting the bung back on a manually-filled tube is really when it's full. There's only a small amount of air in there, you compress it and the bung comes back out very readily. Given that you're handling the tube a lot at this point and not necessarily with a test tube rack to put it into it's a problem. After you're done it once or twice and had the bung come out, you don't do it again.

In the lab, on the other hand, you have racks and stands for the tubes, so things don't fall out so readily. More importantly, you've taken some sample out of the tube so there's more air in there so less compression is needed when you put the stopper back in. It's not really a problem by that stage.

I was only using that as an illustration of why people don't normally take the caps off vacutainers and fill them like that. Nobody suggested that was done in this case, but it would be the only way you could look at this tube and explain the visible hole as being created when something was taken OUT. Unless the person taking the blood out carefully used the original hole. Which means that the original hole was eccentric, which we're being told was impossible.

The vacutainer looks entirely normal. It looks exactly as it would look if it had been used in the normal way. The hole in the stopper is normal and not evidence of tampering. That's all I'm trying to say.
User avatar
Rolfe
 
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:28 pm
Location: West Linton

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Samson » Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:46 pm

I see some planning needed for the Lenk theory, he must keep liquid the blood he draws until needed, or can he reconstitute dried blood?
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby charlie_wilkes » Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:46 pm

Dan O. wrote:
charlie_wilkes wrote:It's possible Lenk arranged for Colborn to find the car. In any case, once it was found, by Colborn or someone who reported it to Colborn, Lenk then pitched his story: "Avery was the last person to see her alive, so he must have killed her. We need to get in with a search warrant to prove it. So let's move the car to Avery's junkyard." There's your noble cause corruption. All the other cops could tell themselves they were acting in the interests of justice.


No it isn't. Lenk would have to intercede between the time Andrew made the call to Lynn and before he could tell Lynn that he is sitting on the car of a missing person. Andrew was on the phone this entire time. There is no indication in Andrew's voice that he is being interrupted or strangled with the phone cord to stop that call.


What do you think happened, Dan? Colborn definitely made this call, for some reason. Do you believe Weigert gave him the license plate number of a missing person, without telling him who the person was?

I don't believe that.

This supposedly happened after Colborn had begun to investigate Halbach's disappearance. Under those circumstances, it would make sense if Weigert said, "here's Teresa Halbach's license plate FYI," but in that case Colborn would have had no need to find out whose plate it was.

It would make no sense for Weigert to say, "here's the license plate of a missing person" without mentioning Halbach's name. That's the story Colborn told on the stand, because he had to explain it somehow.
User avatar
charlie_wilkes
 
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby anonshy » Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:49 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:
Clive wrote:Maybe I'm being dumb. Lenk kills her. Lenk knows her car's make, model, colour, registration and whereabouts. Why is Colborn independently seeking that info? Please contrive a plausible scenario in which Colborn happens upon a Toyota and phones in to check it against the data base.


Theory only... Lenk is working independently. Colborn knew nothing of Lenk's involvement. Colborn heard through the grapevine that Teresa was missing and last known to be with Avery. He found her car and decided to call Lenk first with his find. It's not entirely far fetched he would confide information with Lenk prior to officially relaying the information through the proper channel, after all, Lenk was the person Colborn first went to with the "a detective called and said someone was serving time for a rape he didn't commit" information. Based on the general attitude of LE Avery was probably guilty of that crime but was getting off on some type of error. After a discussion both agree Avery was involved in Halbach's disappearance and they were just going to perform a civic duty by ensuring Avery wouldn't get off this time. Colborn and Lenk work together to get the SUV onto Avery's property.

How did he find her car? Just driving around he came across it? Too convenient. Like finding the key and the bullet.


wife is a DVM, has been drawing blood for decades, when she tells me there is something wrong with the tube, I tend to believe her. She watched th episode with the blood vial and has since looked at the pictures. She is very much in agreement that a droplet of 10 year old blood would not remain on a slick plastic surface especially if the tube was store horizontally as this package was, she is less concerned about the off center hole, it is odd but it is the accumulated facts like age, chain of custody, broken seals, that make the totality of the vial significant

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Sinsaint » Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:51 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:
Clive wrote:Maybe I'm being dumb. Lenk kills her. Lenk knows her car's make, model, colour, registration and whereabouts. Why is Colborn independently seeking that info? Please contrive a plausible scenario in which Colborn happens upon a Toyota and phones in to check it against the data base.


Theory only... Lenk is working independently. Colborn knew nothing of Lenk's involvement. Colborn heard through the grapevine that Teresa was missing and last known to be with Avery. He found her car and decided to call Lenk first with his find. It's not entirely far fetched he would confide information with Lenk prior to officially relaying the information through the proper channel, after all, Lenk was the person Colborn first went to with the "a detective called and said someone was serving time for a rape he didn't commit" information. Based on the general attitude of LE Avery was probably guilty of that crime but was getting off on some type of error. After a discussion both agree Avery was involved in Halbach's disappearance and they were just going to perform a civic duty by ensuring Avery wouldn't get off this time. Colborn and Lenk work together to get the SUV onto Avery's property.

How did he find her car? Just driving around he came across it? Too convenient. Like finding the key and the bullet.


Not necessarily. Teresa was reported missing on the 3rd. At that point search parties hadn't formed yet to actively look for the SUV. Colborn could have accidentally found it before anyone else, assuming his call was made on the 3rd. He confirmed his find with the dispatcher and then decided to call Lenk to let him know first what he found. It snow balled from there.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Sinsaint » Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:55 pm

Dan O. wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:You know, it's a two man job getting that vehicle to where it was found. Nobody walks in America if they can drive. So, you need one to drive her car and one to drive the two of them away. Colborn and Lenk. Obviously. But why the heck is Colborn then calling in the registration on tape on or about the 3rd or 4th?


In a situation where the murder happens on a public road: the body is tossed into the back of the victim's vehicle and the victim's vehicle is driven to a nearby secluded spot. The perp then walks the short distance back to their car and drives away. The perp can then come back later with a second driver or just a moped or bicycle that fits in the back of their own vehicle to move the victims vehicle to it's final destination.

Except for the short duration of the murder itself, all that is visible is an unremarkable car alone on the side of a road. I see these all the time and assume someone had car trouble. Should I be thinking there's been a murder?


Always. I'm a pessimist like that.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Sinsaint » Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:02 pm

Samson wrote:I see some planning needed for the Lenk theory, he must keep liquid the blood he draws until needed, or can he reconstitute dried blood?


Let's assume Lenk is the killer... Or for shits and giggles he's not. Colborn finds the SUV on the 3rd and tells Lenk. He and Lenk decide Avery killed her so civic duty requires they see to it he goes to prison and stays there this time. Lenk walks across the street, gets some blood out of the vial, Colborn drives him back to the SUV to plant the blood and drive the SUV to Avery's yard.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Rolfe » Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:04 pm

anonshy wrote:My wife is a DVM, has been drawing blood for decades, when she tells me there is something wrong with the tube, I tend to believe her. She watched th episode with the blood vial and has since looked at the pictures. She is very much in agreement that a droplet of 10 year old blood would not remain on a slick plastic surface especially if the tube was store horizontally as this package was, she is less concerned about the off center hole, it is odd but it is the accumulated facts like age, chain of custody, broken seals, that make the totality of the vial significant

Don't be daft. The droplet of blood dried soon after the sample was collected and it's been there ever since. It's small, and unless you deliberately tried to flake it off with a fingernail, it would stay where it was. I doubt if it was enough to run off even if the tube had been stored horizontal right from the start, but it was probably upright until the drop had dried.

Maybe your wife never sees vacutainers after they get to the lab, after they've been tested, after they've been stored for a while. The appearance of that tube is entirely normal. People seem to be trying to imagine things wrong with that rubber stopper that simply aren't wrong.

Chain of custody and broken seals. They're the angles to be going for. It would have been perfectly possible to remove blood from that tube and replace the stopper without leaving any sign that had been done, so you don't need any shenanigans to be apparent on the stopper itself anyway.
User avatar
Rolfe
 
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:28 pm
Location: West Linton

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Sinsaint » Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:05 pm

Rolfe wrote:
anonshy wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:wife is a DVM, has been drawing blood for decades, when she tells me there is something wrong with the tube, I tend to believe her. She watched th episode with the blood vial and has since looked at the pictures. She is very much in agreement that a droplet of 10 year old blood would not remain on a slick plastic surface especially if the tube was store horizontally as this package was, she is less concerned about the off center hole, it is odd but it is the accumulated facts like age, chain of custody, broken seals, that make the totality of the vial significant

Don't be daft. The droplet of blood dried soon after the sample was collected and it's been there ever since. It's small, and unless you deliberately tried to flake it off with a fingernail, it would stay where it was. I doubt if it was enough to run off even if the tube had been stored horizontal right from the start, but it was probably upright until the drop had dried.

Maybe your wife never sees vacutainers after they get to the lab, after they've been tested, after they've been stored for a while. The appearance of that tube is entirely normal. People seem to be trying to imagine things wrong with that rubber stopper that simply aren't wrong.

Chain of custody and broken seals. They're the angles to be going for. It would have been perfectly possible to remove blood from that tube and replace the stopper without leaving any sign that had been done, so you don't need any shenanigans to be apparent on the stopper itself anyway.


Damn it Clive! When did you get a wife?
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Rolfe » Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:10 pm

Samson wrote:I see some planning needed for the Lenk theory, he must keep liquid the blood he draws until needed, or can he reconstitute dried blood?

I assume he would have had another small tube ready to put the blood he removed into. There are plenty things around the home you could use, something small with a cap. I was going to say the plastic pot 35mm film comes in but hey, nobody uses that any more. The plastic gloves in the hair colourant I used to use come in suitable plastic pots. Or maybe the police have vials for storing evidence that would do.

You could just pour s few drops off, or better still use some sort of pipette. Kitchens have these too, for basting.

So long as the container was small and had a lid of some sort (maybe you could improve the seal with sticky tape) the blood would stay liquid long enough.
User avatar
Rolfe
 
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:28 pm
Location: West Linton

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Rolfe » Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:11 pm

Sinsaint wrote:Damn it Clive! When did you get a wife?

Jings, I fixed that quote screw-up almost immediately. Gimme a break!
User avatar
Rolfe
 
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:28 pm
Location: West Linton

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Dan O. » Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:14 pm

charlie_wilkes wrote:
What do you think happened, Dan? Colborn definitely made this call, for some reason. Do you believe Weigert gave him the license plate number of a missing person, without telling him who the person was?


I already told you exactly what I thought happened. I think Weigert called Colborn and passed on the missing person report. Colborn then called Lynn to double check the details ... "Can you run Sam-William-Henery-582 and see if it comes back to (inaudible)“. It's all very normal.

Btw, has anyone tried to determine what the inaudible sections of that recording say?

I subsequently read the transcript and it turns out that my theory is just what Andrew says he believes happened.

I asked earlier why Lynn didn't question why Andrew was calling about this plate. The answer could be the (inaudible) bit was "Teresa". This would make it clear that Andrew was just verifying information he already had and not reporting something that he just discovered.

Is nobody else interested in comparing the cross from the documentary with the transcript of that event? It seems to me that a lot of information was "compressed" out of the original in making the documentary. I remember a Hugh ***** storm being raised when 1 little bit was compressed out of George Zimmerman's 911 call. The silent reaction here is baffling.
... and remember that you can never assume that you are completely anonymous or that you cannot be identified by your online comments. -- (from the ISF membership agreement)
Dan O.
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Home is where I hug my cat

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby charlie_wilkes » Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:17 pm

Sinsaint wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:
Clive wrote:Maybe I'm being dumb. Lenk kills her. Lenk knows her car's make, model, colour, registration and whereabouts. Why is Colborn independently seeking that info? Please contrive a plausible scenario in which Colborn happens upon a Toyota and phones in to check it against the data base.


Theory only... Lenk is working independently. Colborn knew nothing of Lenk's involvement. Colborn heard through the grapevine that Teresa was missing and last known to be with Avery. He found her car and decided to call Lenk first with his find. It's not entirely far fetched he would confide information with Lenk prior to officially relaying the information through the proper channel, after all, Lenk was the person Colborn first went to with the "a detective called and said someone was serving time for a rape he didn't commit" information. Based on the general attitude of LE Avery was probably guilty of that crime but was getting off on some type of error. After a discussion both agree Avery was involved in Halbach's disappearance and they were just going to perform a civic duty by ensuring Avery wouldn't get off this time. Colborn and Lenk work together to get the SUV onto Avery's property.

How did he find her car? Just driving around he came across it? Too convenient. Like finding the key and the bullet.


Not necessarily. Teresa was reported missing on the 3rd. At that point search parties hadn't formed yet to actively look for the SUV. Colborn could have accidentally found it before anyone else, assuming his call was made on the 3rd. He confirmed his find with the dispatcher and then decided to call Lenk to let him know first what he found. It snow balled from there.


I think that is more or less what happened, but Lenk strikes me as a man who makes his own luck. He was Colborn's superior. He might have engineered this discovery somehow.
User avatar
charlie_wilkes
 
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby charlie_wilkes » Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:25 pm

Dan O. wrote:
charlie_wilkes wrote:
What do you think happened, Dan? Colborn definitely made this call, for some reason. Do you believe Weigert gave him the license plate number of a missing person, without telling him who the person was?


I already told you exactly what I thought happened. I think Weigert called Colborn and passed on the missing person report. Colborn then called Lynn to double check the details ... "could you run Sam-William-Henery and see if it comes back to (inaudible)“. It's all very normal.


I don't think it's normal to pass on a missing person report with the license plate but not the name of the missing person.

But, sure, you can hypothesize garbled transmissions if that's what it takes to make your explanation work. I can't say it's not possible.

In any case, I see this as a secondary point. Whatever Colborn's reason for making the call, I don't think he would have done so if he had a hand in murdering Halbach. On that much we seem to agree.
User avatar
charlie_wilkes
 
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Sinsaint » Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:26 pm

Rolfe wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:Damn it Clive! When did you get a wife?

Jings, I fixed that quote screw-up almost immediately. Gimme a break!


Just thought it was funny. Last I knew Clive intends on being a life long bachelor.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby charlie_wilkes » Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:31 pm

Rolfe wrote:
Samson wrote:I see some planning needed for the Lenk theory, he must keep liquid the blood he draws until needed, or can he reconstitute dried blood?

I assume he would have had another small tube ready to put the blood he removed into. There are plenty things around the home you could use, something small with a cap. I was going to say the plastic pot 35mm film comes in but hey, nobody uses that any more. The plastic gloves in the hair colourant I used to use come in suitable plastic pots. Or maybe the police have vials for storing evidence that would do.

You could just pour s few drops off, or better still use some sort of pipette. Kitchens have these too, for basting.

So long as the container was small and had a lid of some sort (maybe you could improve the seal with sticky tape) the blood would stay liquid long enough.


I would use a small syringe with a cap that fits over the needle.
User avatar
charlie_wilkes
 
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Sinsaint » Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:34 pm

charlie_wilkes wrote:
Rolfe wrote:
Samson wrote:I see some planning needed for the Lenk theory, he must keep liquid the blood he draws until needed, or can he reconstitute dried blood?

I assume he would have had another small tube ready to put the blood he removed into. There are plenty things around the home you could use, something small with a cap. I was going to say the plastic pot 35mm film comes in but hey, nobody uses that any more. The plastic gloves in the hair colourant I used to use come in suitable plastic pots. Or maybe the police have vials for storing evidence that would do.

You could just pour s few drops off, or better still use some sort of pipette. Kitchens have these too, for basting.

So long as the container was small and had a lid of some sort (maybe you could improve the seal with sticky tape) the blood would stay liquid long enough.


I would use a small syringe with a cap that fits over the needle.


I have a saltwater aquarium that I use test tubes and pipettes to test for nitrates, nitrites, ammonia and such. You can buy that stuff at any pet store.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby anonshy » Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:16 pm

Sinsaint wrote:
Rolfe wrote:
anonshy wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:wife is a DVM, has been drawing blood for decades, when she tells me there is something wrong with the tube, I tend to believe her. She watched th episode with the blood vial and has since looked at the pictures. She is very much in agreement that a droplet of 10 year old blood would not remain on a slick plastic surface especially if the tube was store horizontally as this package was, she is less concerned about the off center hole, it is odd but it is the accumulated facts like age, chain of custody, broken seals, that make the totality of the vial significant

Don't be daft. The droplet of blood dried soon after the sample was collected and it's been there ever since. It's small, and unless you deliberately tried to flake it off with a fingernail, it would stay where it was. I doubt if it was enough to run off even if the tube had been stored horizontal right from the start, but it was probably upright until the drop had dried.

Maybe your wife never sees vacutainers after they get to the lab, after they've been tested, after they've been stored for a while. The appearance of that tube is entirely normal. People seem to be trying to imagine things wrong with that rubber stopper that simply aren't wrong.

Chain of custody and broken seals. They're the angles to be going for. It would have been perfectly possible to remove blood from that tube and replace the stopper without leaving any sign that had been done, so you don't need any shenanigans to be apparent on the stopper itself anyway.


Damn it Clive! When did you get a wife?


They have their own lab and ship out very little, I agree that access, chain of custody and the seals are the biggest aspects of the vial, they speak to the same issue anyways

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Bruce Fischer » Fri Jan 22, 2016 12:21 am

"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4416
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Jan 22, 2016 3:01 am

Sinsaint wrote:
Rolfe wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:Damn it Clive! When did you get a wife?

Jings, I fixed that quote screw-up almost immediately. Gimme a break!


Just thought it was funny. Last I knew Clive intends on being a life long bachelor.

Clive has an ex wife but now lives in sin. The discussion seems to have drifted a little off topic since I was last here.
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13800
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Jan 22, 2016 3:10 am

Dan O. wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:You know, it's a two man job getting that vehicle to where it was found. Nobody walks in America if they can drive. So, you need one to drive her car and one to drive the two of them away. Colborn and Lenk. Obviously. But why the heck is Colborn then calling in the registration on tape on or about the 3rd or 4th?


In a situation where the murder happens on a public road: the body is tossed into the back of the victim's vehicle and the victim's vehicle is driven to a nearby secluded spot. The perp then walks the short distance back to their car and drives away. The perp can then come back later with a second driver or just a moped or bicycle that fits in the back of their own vehicle to move the victims vehicle to it's final destination.

Except for the short duration of the murder itself, all that is visible is an unremarkable car alone on the side of a road. I see these all the time and assume someone had car trouble. Should I be thinking there's been a murder?

In America, definitely yes. Just watch TV. It's all right there.

OK, apart from your moped/bicycle trick which, let's face it, is as improbable as walking, we do have a two man job and in your scenario, which I find perfectly credible, there is no room for Colborn to be calling in the car. I bet the defence got that CD and listened to all of it (it must go on for hours and hours) and came across the Colborn call and was struck by it in the same way we are but, like us, failed to figure it out satisfactorily. It may just be as Colborn said that Weigert gave him the reg. number and he got it run through the data base as a matter of routine, at that point not knowing that Lenk had bumped her off and not knowing either that the finger would be pointed at Avery. It was the third when Colborn went to Avery's place and spoke with him so he may have acquired the info before heading out. Then no long after, Lenk tells him what went down and enlists his assistance. IOW the call may be a red herring.
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13800
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Jan 22, 2016 3:12 am

Sinsaint wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:
Clive wrote:Maybe I'm being dumb. Lenk kills her. Lenk knows her car's make, model, colour, registration and whereabouts. Why is Colborn independently seeking that info? Please contrive a plausible scenario in which Colborn happens upon a Toyota and phones in to check it against the data base.


Theory only... Lenk is working independently. Colborn knew nothing of Lenk's involvement. Colborn heard through the grapevine that Teresa was missing and last known to be with Avery. He found her car and decided to call Lenk first with his find. It's not entirely far fetched he would confide information with Lenk prior to officially relaying the information through the proper channel, after all, Lenk was the person Colborn first went to with the "a detective called and said someone was serving time for a rape he didn't commit" information. Based on the general attitude of LE Avery was probably guilty of that crime but was getting off on some type of error. After a discussion both agree Avery was involved in Halbach's disappearance and they were just going to perform a civic duty by ensuring Avery wouldn't get off this time. Colborn and Lenk work together to get the SUV onto Avery's property.

How did he find her car? Just driving around he came across it? Too convenient. Like finding the key and the bullet.


Not necessarily. Teresa was reported missing on the 3rd. At that point search parties hadn't formed yet to actively look for the SUV. Colborn could have accidentally found it before anyone else, assuming his call was made on the 3rd. He confirmed his find with the dispatcher and then decided to call Lenk to let him know first what he found. It snow balled from there.

Still too convenient. Lenk is a cop. He would know where to hide a vehicle so it could not be found by accident, at least until he was ready for it to be 'found'.
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13800
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Samson » Fri Jan 22, 2016 3:13 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:
Rolfe wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:Damn it Clive! When did you get a wife?

Jings, I fixed that quote screw-up almost immediately. Gimme a break!


Just thought it was funny. Last I knew Clive intends on being a life long bachelor.

Clive has an ex wife but now lives in sin. The discussion seems to have drifted a little off topic since I was last here.

I suspect if death did not part you from your ex, it is not possible to then live in sin. No blank slate.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Endorsed Case: Brendan Dassey - Making a Murderer - Net

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:51 am

Notice that in his evidence Colborn, after hearing the tape, then gets into a very short disagreement with Strang about who told who the vehicle was a Toyota. He says he thought Lynn told him that but Strang replays the call and it's clearly Colborn who tells Lynn. Again, I imagine this got the defence team all excited when they first heard it. But what's the big deal? Weigert could have told Colborn to run a check on her car, giving him the make and registration, to verify who owned it, whether anything was recorded against it (parking tickets or violations or finance liability - not that Colborn asked Lynn about any of those things). Colborn said it was routine. I don;t see what's wrong with that answer. Why not verify the info doubtless given by the family to Weigert to make sure they had not erred in some particular? That would result in the police looking for the wrong vehicle.

OTOH, if there is something sinister about the call, what on earth is Colborn doing making it? If he happened upon the vehicle by chance, not knowing anything about Lenk's activity, why not call in the location and claim the credit for having solved part of the mystery? If he did know something bad, what possible purpose would there be in acquiring information he already knew or could obtain from Lenk? He would know his call was recorded and that Lynn might remember it anyway even if it weren't. I am calling red herring.

Another thing that bothers me is why Colborn should be sticking his neck so far out in the first place. He took the call in 1995 and referred the caller to a detective. So what? How would that make him liable for anything? It would be cool to have his deposition from the civil suit to see what was being out to him. I seem to recall some of it aired in the series and that it was suggested he was in some kind of hot water but, if so, the defence certainly did not bring that out in cross examination at Avery's trial.
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13800
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Endorsed Case: Brendan Dassey - Making a Murderer - Net

Postby Samson » Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:06 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:Notice that in his evidence Colborn, after hearing the tape, then gets into a very short disagreement with Strang about who told who the vehicle was a Toyota. He says he thought Lynn told him that but Strang replays the call and it's clearly Colborn who tells Lynn. Again, I imagine this got the defence team all excited when they first heard it. But what's the big deal? Weigert could have told Colborn to run a check on her car, giving him the make and registration, to verify who owned it, whether anything was recorded against it (parking tickets or violations or finance liability - not that Colborn asked Lynn about any of those things). Colborn said it was routine. I don;t see what's wrong with that answer. Why not verify the info doubtless given by the family to Weigert to make sure they had not erred in some particular? That would result in the police looking for the wrong vehicle.

OTOH, if there is something sinister about the call, what on earth is Colborn doing making it? If he happened upon the vehicle by chance, not knowing anything about Lenk's activity, why not call in the location and claim the credit for having solved part of the mystery? If he did know something bad, what possible purpose would there be in acquiring information he already knew or could obtain from Lenk? He would know his call was recorded and that Lynn might remember it anyway even if it weren't. I am calling red herring.

Another thing that bothers me is why Colborn should be sticking his neck so far out in the first place. He took the call in 1995 and referred the caller to a detective. So what? How would that make him liable for anything? It would be cool to have his deposition from the civil suit to see what was being out to him. I seem to recall some of it aired in the series and that it was suggested he was in some kind of hot water but, if so, the defence certainly did not bring that out in cross examination at Avery's trial.

He is Lenk's underling, so he will immediately call Lenk. Lenk will say do nothing right now, there is only one way forward to be certain we efficiently get the obvious killer, Avery....
Lenk will not be thinking at that moment the logged call could haunt the case, but rather this is my case, and it must be managed my way.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Rolfe » Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:07 am

charlie_wilkes wrote:I would use a small syringe with a cap that fits over the needle.

That's assuming he had access to things like syringes and blind luer caps. He may have done, but I was thinking what could be used if he didn't.
User avatar
Rolfe
 
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:28 pm
Location: West Linton

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Rolfe » Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:10 am

anonshy wrote:They have their own lab and ship out very little, I agree that access, chain of custody and the seals are the biggest aspects of the vial, they speak to the same issue anyways

Pity help the patients then, but quality assurance in practice labs isn't really the topic. I think she's approaching that vacutainer picture already primed with how it's obviously been tampered with and evidence of all sorts of evil, and so is predisposed to see abnormality in something which in other circumstances she wouldn't give a second glance to.
User avatar
Rolfe
 
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:28 pm
Location: West Linton

Re: Endorsed Case: Brendan Dassey - Making a Murderer - Net

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:46 am

Samson wrote:He is Lenk's underling, so he will immediately call Lenk. Lenk will say do nothing right now, there is only one way forward to be certain we efficiently get the obvious killer, Avery....
Lenk will not be thinking at that moment the logged call could haunt the case, but rather this is my case, and it must be managed my way.

So he immediately calls Lenk. How might the convo go?

C: Hey, Lenk! I found her car. Am I hero or what?
L: Quiet, you damn fool! I bumped her off. She's in the boot, trunk
C: What? You did what?
L: Say 'what' again. I dare you. I double-dare you. I did it for you as well as me. That makes you my underling, right?
C: Fine, so what do we do now?
L: Obviously, you call in to check the number, make, model, owner etc
C: Why? We already know that and it will be suspicious that I come across the car, call it in, but don't tell anybody I found it or where I found it.
L: Because [answer to be supplied by Charlie, Samson or anyone else who buys this scenario because I'm stumped] and then we take the car over to the Avery place tonight, dump it, remove the plates, disconnect the battery, daub some blood I got out of a vial after consulting this Scottish vet I happen to know and take away the key which will later turn up somewhere's else ....
C: Scottish what? Which war were they in?
D: no, dumbass, not that kind. The ones who treat animals and shit
C: ::doh::
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13800
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Endorsed Case: Brendan Dassey - Making a Murderer - Net

Postby Rolfe » Fri Jan 22, 2016 6:41 am

:roll:
User avatar
Rolfe
 
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:28 pm
Location: West Linton

Re: Endorsed Case: Brendan Dassey - Making a Murderer - Net

Postby Samson » Fri Jan 22, 2016 6:49 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Samson wrote:He is Lenk's underling, so he will immediately call Lenk. Lenk will say do nothing right now, there is only one way forward to be certain we efficiently get the obvious killer, Avery....
Lenk will not be thinking at that moment the logged call could haunt the case, but rather this is my case, and it must be managed my way.

So he immediately calls Lenk. How might the convo go?

C: Hey, Lenk! I found her car. Am I hero or what?
L: Quiet, you damn fool! I bumped her off. She's in the boot, trunk
C: What? You did what?
L: Say 'what' again. I dare you. I double-dare you. I did it for you as well as me. That makes you my underling, right?
C: Fine, so what do we do now?
L: Obviously, you call in to check the number, make, model, owner etc
C: Why? We already know that and it will be suspicious that I come across the car, call it in, but don't tell anybody I found it or where I found it.
L: Because [answer to be supplied by Charlie, Samson or anyone else who buys this scenario because I'm stumped] and then we take the car over to the Avery place tonight, dump it, remove the plates, disconnect the battery, daub some blood I got out of a vial after consulting this Scottish vet I happen to know and take away the key which will later turn up somewhere's else ....
C: Scottish what? Which war were they in?
D: no, dumbass, not that kind. The ones who treat animals and shit
C: ::doh::

The blood was already daubed.

Oh by the way, who shot Halbach?
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Endorsed Case: Brendan Dassey - Making a Murderer - Net

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:22 am

Samson wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Samson wrote:He is Lenk's underling, so he will immediately call Lenk. Lenk will say do nothing right now, there is only one way forward to be certain we efficiently get the obvious killer, Avery....
Lenk will not be thinking at that moment the logged call could haunt the case, but rather this is my case, and it must be managed my way.

So he immediately calls Lenk. How might the convo go?

C: Hey, Lenk! I found her car. Am I hero or what?
L: Quiet, you damn fool! I bumped her off. She's in the boot, trunk
C: What? You did what?
L: Say 'what' again. I dare you. I double-dare you. I did it for you as well as me. That makes you my underling, right?
C: Fine, so what do we do now?
L: Obviously, you call in to check the number, make, model, owner etc
C: Why? We already know that and it will be suspicious that I come across the car, call it in, but don't tell anybody I found it or where I found it.
L: Because [answer to be supplied by Charlie, Samson or anyone else who buys this scenario because I'm stumped] and then we take the car over to the Avery place tonight, dump it, remove the plates, disconnect the battery, daub some blood I got out of a vial after consulting this Scottish vet I happen to know and take away the key which will later turn up somewhere's else ....
C: Scottish what? Which war were they in?
D: no, dumbass, not that kind. The ones who treat animals and shit
C: ::doh::

The blood was already daubed.

Move to strike. Non-responsive.
Samson wrote:Oh by the way, who shot Halbach?

I'm asking the questions here. However, I am just and merciful. We are taking it as read, for the purposes of this discussion, that Lenk shot her and we are trying to fit Colborn's call into that notion. Comprendez?
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13800
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Endorsed Case: Brendan Dassey - Making a Murderer - Net

Postby Samson » Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:50 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Samson wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Samson wrote:He is Lenk's underling, so he will immediately call Lenk. Lenk will say do nothing right now, there is only one way forward to be certain we efficiently get the obvious killer, Avery....
Lenk will not be thinking at that moment the logged call could haunt the case, but rather this is my case, and it must be managed my way.

So he immediately calls Lenk. How might the convo go?

C: Hey, Lenk! I found her car. Am I hero or what?
L: Quiet, you damn fool! I bumped her off. She's in the boot, trunk
C: What? You did what?
L: Say 'what' again. I dare you. I double-dare you. I did it for you as well as me. That makes you my underling, right?
C: Fine, so what do we do now?
L: Obviously, you call in to check the number, make, model, owner etc
C: Why? We already know that and it will be suspicious that I come across the car, call it in, but don't tell anybody I found it or where I found it.
L: Because [answer to be supplied by Charlie, Samson or anyone else who buys this scenario because I'm stumped] and then we take the car over to the Avery place tonight, dump it, remove the plates, disconnect the battery, daub some blood I got out of a vial after consulting this Scottish vet I happen to know and take away the key which will later turn up somewhere's else ....
C: Scottish what? Which war were they in?
D: no, dumbass, not that kind. The ones who treat animals and shit
C: ::doh::

The blood was already daubed.

Move to strike. Non-responsive.
Samson wrote:Oh by the way, who shot Halbach?

I'm asking the questions here. However, I am just and merciful. We are taking it as read, for the purposes of this discussion, that Lenk shot her and we are trying to fit Colborn's call into that notion. Comprendez?

Ah Colborn's call.
Charlie and Dan O will settle this.
In the bar, or maybe outside.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Endorsed Case: Brendan Dassey - Making a Murderer - Net

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:58 am

Samson wrote:Ah Colborn's call.
Charlie and Dan O will settle this.
In the bar, or maybe outside.

Precisement, as Poirot would say. We are trying to construct a plausible scenario, consistent with police involvement in the murder or framing, in which Colborn would make that call. I am unable to do it and need help from those suggesting the call means something. I mean, it obviously does mean something but the question is simply what.

Btw. it occurs to me that if the defence really wanted to demonstrate (rather than merely suggest as they did to the jury) that Colborn made the call on his cell phone, they could easily have demanded his cell phone records to check it out. Or maybe they did in some pre-trial application which was rejected.
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13800
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Endorsed Case: Brendan Dassey - Making a Murderer - Net

Postby Dan O. » Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:46 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Samson wrote:Oh by the way, who shot Halbach?

I'm asking the questions here. However, I am just and merciful. We are taking it as read, for the purposes of this discussion, that Lenk shot her and we are trying to fit Colborn's call into that notion. Comprendez?

How about:
[October 31, 2005] Steven's sister wants to sell a car. Steven calls AutoTraider and requests a photographer he's used before. Teresa gets the assignment from AutoTraider and drives out to Avery's Auto Salvage. Teresa is spotted leaving Avery's later that day. [begin speculation] Lenk driving an unmarked county police vehicle pulls Teresa over, shoots her in the head using a 22 he happens to be carrying, stuffs her in the back of her '99 Toyota RAV4 and moves the vehicle off the main road. [begin conspiracy speculation] Lenk involves another person in Teresa's murder to help conceal Teresa's vehicle and retrieve his own. [end of the day October 31, 2005]
[forward to November 3] Teresa's family files a missing person report. Weigert calls Colborn and asks him to check out Teresa's last known location. Colborn calls Lynn to verify the details. Colborn visits Avery Auto Salvage. He is familiar with the place having been a customer years earlier. The yard is accessed through a single road and a gate that passes two of the on property residences and the main office. Colborn talks to Steven Avery. [end November 3]
[forward to November 5 (Saturday)]Teresa's family and community begin searching for her at the Avery Salvage yard where she was last seen alive. One group travels a short distance down the main road circling the yard and spots the vehicle superficially hidden right off that road. [end community search as the yard becomes a crime scene]

To speculate further on the Lenk conspiracy, somewhere between the October 31 shooting and the November 5 discovery of the RAV4, Lenk has to remove Teresa from her vehicle and move the RAV4 past the gate, past the Avery residences, past the junkyard dog (isn't there always a junkyard dog?), cover it up and get out of there without being spotted. In this same time he has to partially cremate Teresa's body and plant the remains in multiple locations and plant the burned remains of Teresa's belongings in Steven's burn barrel. He's going to need help. It's also going to be extremely risky moving the RAV after it's been reported missing.
... and remember that you can never assume that you are completely anonymous or that you cannot be identified by your online comments. -- (from the ISF membership agreement)
Dan O.
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Home is where I hug my cat

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Dan O. » Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:21 am

Bruce Fischer wrote:Injustice Anywhere Endorses The Brendan Dassey Case

http://www.groundreport.com/injustice-anywhere-endorses-the-brendan-dassey-case/


Is there any chance of getting the interrogation tapes? These need to be parsed very carefully to build the chains of how each fact became known to Brendan.
... and remember that you can never assume that you are completely anonymous or that you cannot be identified by your online comments. -- (from the ISF membership agreement)
Dan O.
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Home is where I hug my cat

Re: Endorsed Case: Brendan Dassey - Making a Murderer - Net

Postby erasmus44 » Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:49 am

I always wondered about one point in the interrogation where they asked him how many times Avery shot the victim and he said "1?", "2?", "11?" - it suggests they may have been holding up a piece of paper for him to look at and he couldn't tell whether the two 1's meant "2" or "11" - I can't think of any other reason he would jump from 2 to 11.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 2915
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby Bruce Fischer » Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:26 am

Dan O. wrote:
Bruce Fischer wrote:Injustice Anywhere Endorses The Brendan Dassey Case

http://www.groundreport.com/injustice-anywhere-endorses-the-brendan-dassey-case/


Is there any chance of getting the interrogation tapes? These need to be parsed very carefully to build the chains of how each fact became known to Brendan.


They are on YouTube. I posted a link to part 1. They are posted on that YouTube channel. We have not gone thru minute by minute at this point to see if there is anything blatantly edited out. I have reached out to the group running the Dassey support site.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4416
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Endorsed Case: Brendan Dassey - Making a Murderer - Net

Postby ScifiTom » Fri Jan 22, 2016 12:53 pm

To everyone

Hey everyone, I just found out right now that a brother of WWE style want to join the fight to help out Brendan Dassy and it is something to do with WWE company and maybe a huge help even it going to hit big even here the official link and enjoy reading this!!!

http://whatculture.com/wwe/brother-of-m ... mpaign=wwe

This might as well be a huge help for WWE, to make a move this way!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Freedom, The innocent 2
Kirstin B. Lobato
Dustin A. Turner
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4253
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Endorsed Case: Brendan Dassey - Making a Murderer - Net

Postby charlie_wilkes » Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:37 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:Notice that in his evidence Colborn, after hearing the tape, then gets into a very short disagreement with Strang about who told who the vehicle was a Toyota. He says he thought Lynn told him that but Strang replays the call and it's clearly Colborn who tells Lynn. Again, I imagine this got the defence team all excited when they first heard it. But what's the big deal? Weigert could have told Colborn to run a check on her car, giving him the make and registration, to verify who owned it, whether anything was recorded against it (parking tickets or violations or finance liability - not that Colborn asked Lynn about any of those things). Colborn said it was routine. I don;t see what's wrong with that answer. Why not verify the info doubtless given by the family to Weigert to make sure they had not erred in some particular? That would result in the police looking for the wrong vehicle.

OTOH, if there is something sinister about the call, what on earth is Colborn doing making it? If he happened upon the vehicle by chance, not knowing anything about Lenk's activity, why not call in the location and claim the credit for having solved part of the mystery? If he did know something bad, what possible purpose would there be in acquiring information he already knew or could obtain from Lenk? He would know his call was recorded and that Lynn might remember it anyway even if it weren't. I am calling red herring.

Another thing that bothers me is why Colborn should be sticking his neck so far out in the first place. He took the call in 1995 and referred the caller to a detective. So what? How would that make him liable for anything? It would be cool to have his deposition from the civil suit to see what was being out to him. I seem to recall some of it aired in the series and that it was suggested he was in some kind of hot water but, if so, the defence certainly did not bring that out in cross examination at Avery's trial.


Colborn was loyal to his fellow cops and was fully on board with whatever was needed to keep them and the department out of trouble. This is pretty much the norm in police departments everywhere.

I don't want to make too much of the phone call. For me, it establishes that Colborn was not involved in the murder, which is contrary to what I suspected when I first started to look at this case. I thought Lenk and Colborn did it together. This call tells me, as a matter of practical certainty, that I was wrong. If Colborn had been involved in the murder, he would not have called a dispatcher to run the license plate four days later. He would have had no reason to do so.

That is the main takeaway from the phone call. But I think the call also establishes, as a matter of probability, that Colborn found the car at a different location before it turned up in Avery's junkyard.

I don't buy the idea that Weigert gave Colborn a plate number and asked him to do research. If Weigert wanted the particulars of the vehicle - liens, accidents, citations, etc. - his office afforded direct access to a database. He had no need to ask the department's lead patrol officer to call a dispatcher.

In any event, Colborn did not ask the dispatcher for detailed information. He wanted one piece of information - who owns this car? That, to me, suggests a call from the field by someone who found the abandoned car. But if people refuse to believe it, or insist on other possibilities, I will only press the argument so far.

Dan produced a timeline. I will do likewise.

Oct 2005 - The Manitowoc County Sheriff's Dept., under siege because of Steven Avery's lawsuit, conducts covert surveillance of Avery's activities. They are looking for anything that could be used to discredit him or implicate him in criminal activity. Investigators obtain phone records and interview people who have had dealings with Avery, including employees of Auto Trader magazine.

Oct. 30 - Lenk learns that Halbach has an appointment at Avery's junkyard the next day. Very likely he has also discovered that Avery has made crude overtures and she doesn't like going there. He spots an opportunity - the same kind of opportunity Mark Winger spied when his wife, whom he wanted to kill, reported off-color remarks by a cab driver. Lenk realizes he can murder this girl and pin it on Avery. With Avery discredited, charged with murder, the lawsuit that threatens to destroy him financially and professionally will settle for pennies on the dollar. As indeed it did.

Oct. 31 - Lenk waits until Halbach leaves the Avery compound. He pulls her over in an unmarked police car and identifies himself as a police detective. She has no reason not to trust him. He tells her a story about an accident or stolen vehicle involving some member of her family, and she follows him a short distance to a spot he has picked out. When she steps out of her car, he shoots her in the head with a .22. He then loads her body into the back of her car, pulls it out of sight, and leaves the crime scene. Later that night, he comes back. He drives her car, with her body in it, to the place where he will cremate it. Is that a gas-fired furnace at a facility to which he has key access, or is it something he has rigged up at the gravel quarry? I don't know. In any case, he removes her body from the car and leaves it where he intends to cremate it. He then returns to the scene of the murder, and the place where he has left his own car. He smears a few streaks of Avery's blood, acquired from the evidence locker, in various places on her car. He again pulls the car out of sight where it probably won't be found immediately. At this point, he has completed the riskiest phase of the crime. If someone finds the car sooner than he would like, he will have to improvise.

Oct. 31 - Nov. 3 - Lenk incinerates the body, collects the remains, and prepares the inventory of evidence he will use to implicate Steven Avery in the murder.

Nov. 3 - Halbach's family reports her missing. Manitowoc County Sheriff's investigators immediately seize on the fact that Avery was the last person known to have seen her. Lenk asks Colborn to investigate on that basis. He instructs Colborn to interview Avery. He also gives him a short list of other places to check, known to police as locations where criminals have abandoned stolen vehicles in the past. One of them is the spot where Lenk has left Halbach's car. Lenk confirms a tacit understanding that Colborn will report directly if he learns anything of importance.

Nov. 3 or 4 - Colborn finds the abandoned car. He suspects it is Halbach's, and he calls the dispatcher to make sure. He then calls Lenk, who instructs him to come to his office. Lenk's position is this: "Avery has been bothering this girl for weeks. She was afraid to go out to his place, but she went there anyway, and no one has seen her since. It's pretty clear what happened. We need to get that car into his junkyard, because a group of volunteers is going to walk through there tomorrow. Then we can get a warrant to search his property and find the evidence we need." That night, Lenk and Colborn move the car and stage it as it was found on Nov. 5.
User avatar
charlie_wilkes
 
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am

Re: Endorsed Case: Brendan Dassey - Making a Murderer - Net

Postby charlie_wilkes » Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:47 pm

ScifiTom wrote:To everyone

Hey everyone, I just found out right now that a brother of WWE style want to join the fight to help out Brendan Dassy and it is something to do with WWE company and maybe a huge help even it going to hit big even here the official link and enjoy reading this!!!

http://whatculture.com/wwe/brother-of-m ... mpaign=wwe

This might as well be a huge help for WWE, to make a move this way!!!


I hope they body slam the Manitowoc County court system and sheriff's dept.
User avatar
charlie_wilkes
 
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am

Re: Endorsed Case: Brendan Dassey - Making a Murderer - Net

Postby Sinsaint » Fri Jan 22, 2016 3:04 pm

erasmus44 wrote:I always wondered about one point in the interrogation where they asked him how many times Avery shot the victim and he said "1?", "2?", "11?" - it suggests they may have been holding up a piece of paper for him to look at and he couldn't tell whether the two 1's meant "2" or "11" - I can't think of any other reason he would jump from 2 to 11.


I'll have to read the transcripts again but I thought one of the investigators mentioned finding ten or eleven shells to Brendan and then soon after Dassey said Avery shot her ten or eleven times.

ETA: Found it. March 1st interrogation page 72. Prior to page 72 Dassey said one shot. He was prodded and then said two shots. Later...

Fassbender: ... Remember weee got a number of shell casings that we found in the garage. I'm not gonna tell ya how many but you need to tell me how many times, about, that she was shot.

...

Brendan: About ten.

...

Wiegert: That makes sense. Now we believe you.

Just a person observation but how could they not believe him. They had basically told him what they wanted him to say right before he said it.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Endorsed Case: Brendan Dassey - Making a Murderer - Net

Postby Dan O. » Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:09 pm

Oct. 30 - Lenk learns that Halbach has an appointment at Avery's junkyard the next day. Very likely he has also discovered that Avery has made crude overtures and she doesn't like going there. He spots an opportunity - the same kind of opportunity Mark Winger spied when his wife, whom he wanted to kill, reported off-color remarks by a cab driver. Lenk realizes he can murder this girl and pin it on Avery. With Avery discredited, charged with murder, the lawsuit that threatens to destroy him financially and professionally will settle for pennies on the dollar. As indeed it did.


How does Lenk learn this? Does Steven have a cell phone or just a land line? A cell phone tap requires assistance inside the phone company and leaves evidence. After the murder, his conspirator would be looking at a good chance of being caught in the scandle and may end up sharing the murder rap with Lenk if he doesn't preemptively make a plea deal.

If the tap just involves a hard line, Lenk could do this on his own. The equipment is easily available and only requires access to the line to install. As I said earlier, you just have to be sure nobody is taking photographs of the property when you are sneaking around.

But why go to all this trouble of following Teresa off the property only to have to get her and her vehicle back onto the property. Just coax her into Steven's trailer (nobody lockes their doors in this rural area) handcuff her to the bed and stab her. The best that Steven could do would be to call the police immediately. Lenk shows up to secure the crime scene and let the detectives figure out what happened. Any trace of him would be attributed to him verifying that the victim was dead. More likely Steven would panic and try to cover up the evidence. There's the perfect crime and 100% compatible with the known evidence.


Speculation is fun. But it's way to early to be jumping to conclusions. What does the evidence have to say? Did Steven have a cell phone? Are the phone records available?

Did Teresa have a cell phone? Was OnStar installed in the '99 RAV4?

What was on the flash card found in the back of the RAV4? Did they handle it like Italians?
... and remember that you can never assume that you are completely anonymous or that you cannot be identified by your online comments. -- (from the ISF membership agreement)
Dan O.
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Home is where I hug my cat

Re: Endorsed Case: Brendan Dassey - Making a Murderer - Net

Postby Sinsaint » Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:18 pm

New Steven Avery court documents.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/keydocuments/
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Endorsed Case: Brendan Dassey - Making a Murderer - Net

Postby Bruce Fischer » Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:30 pm

Sinsaint wrote:New Steven Avery court documents.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/keydocuments/


I contacted the owner of this website because they claim on YouTube that they are the "official website" for Steven Avery. As it turns out, they have no affiliation at all with Avery. Does anyone know any more about this site?
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4416
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Endorsed Case: Brendan Dassey - Making a Murderer - Net

Postby Sinsaint » Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:57 pm

Bruce Fischer wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:New Steven Avery court documents.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/keydocuments/


I contacted the owner of this website because they claim on YouTube that they are the "official website" for Steven Avery. As it turns out, they have no affiliation at all with Avery. Does anyone know any more about this site?


I was told on another site the about website was set up with crowdfunding money to get Avery's transcripts out. Every time they reach the goal more documents seem to pop up. That's all I know.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Endorsed Case: Brendan Dassey - Making a Murderer - Net

Postby charlie_wilkes » Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:59 pm

Dan O. wrote:
Oct. 30 - Lenk learns that Halbach has an appointment at Avery's junkyard the next day. Very likely he has also discovered that Avery has made crude overtures and she doesn't like going there. He spots an opportunity - the same kind of opportunity Mark Winger spied when his wife, whom he wanted to kill, reported off-color remarks by a cab driver. Lenk realizes he can murder this girl and pin it on Avery. With Avery discredited, charged with murder, the lawsuit that threatens to destroy him financially and professionally will settle for pennies on the dollar. As indeed it did.


How does Lenk learn this? Does Steven have a cell phone or just a land line? A cell phone tap requires assistance inside the phone company and leaves evidence. After the murder, his conspirator would be looking at a good chance of being caught in the scandle and may end up sharing the murder rap with Lenk if he doesn't preemptively make a plea deal.

If the tap just involves a hard line, Lenk could do this on his own. The equipment is easily available and only requires access to the line to install. As I said earlier, you just have to be sure nobody is taking photographs of the property when you are sneaking around.

But why go to all this trouble of following Teresa off the property only to have to get her and her vehicle back onto the property. Just coax her into Steven's trailer (nobody lockes their doors in this rural area) handcuff her to the bed and stab her. The best that Steven could do would be to call the police immediately. Lenk shows up to secure the crime scene and let the detectives figure out what happened. Any trace of him would be attributed to him verifying that the victim was dead. More likely Steven would panic and try to cover up the evidence. There's the perfect crime and 100% compatible with the known evidence.


Speculation is fun. But it's way to early to be jumping to conclusions. What does the evidence have to say? Did Steven have a cell phone? Are the phone records available?

Did Teresa have a cell phone? Was OnStar installed in the '99 RAV4?

What was on the flash card found in the back of the RAV4? Did they handle it like Italians?


We're missing lots of information, but we have a core set of reliable facts. I don't agree that it's too soon to draw conclusions.

In the Kercher case, we pored over an archive of data and reconstructed the crime in great detail. The output of our research and analysis was very useful in strengthening the claim that Amanda/Raffaele are innocent.

But, by the time we performed that analysis, I had long since figured out the basics of what happened, i.e., Guede broke in and killed Meredith when she arrived home, and he alone was responsible for the murder. Nothing came out of our research that overturned that basic conclusion.

It's the same here. The essence of this murder is not that complicated.

1. The physical evidence was planted by a cop - Lenk.
2. He had to kill the victim to get that kind of evidence.

People follow that reasoning, but they don't want to accept where it leads. They latch onto marginal possibilities, like maybe someone else killed her, and the cops stumbled upon the crime scene and turned it to their advantage.

I don't think that way. I go with the obvious. If we learn something that shows I'm wrong, so be it. Until then, I'm satisfied Lenk did it. But he was never investigated, so I can only guess at the details of how he went about it. The timeline above is my guesswork.

Regarding the specific point you raise, I don't know that Avery's calls were being tapped. The police have contacts who help them informally and off the record. They could get Avery's telephone billing records and use them to investigate his activities and business dealings. Someone at Auto Trader might have told an investigator, possibly Lenk himself, about the appointment.
User avatar
charlie_wilkes
 
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am

Re: Endorsed Case: Brendan Dassey - Making a Murderer - Net

Postby Dan O. » Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:41 pm

1. The physical evidence was planted by a cop - Lenk.
2. He had to kill the victim to get that kind of evidence.


The finding of the court is that you are wrong on both counts. But courts have been known to get it wrong now and then so we'll just ignore that for now. While your claims are possible, they are not certain. You have to eliminate the other possibilities before you can assert what is left is the truth.

Let's start by listing the physical evidence
1a. Purported remains of the victim (bone fragments, chared ball of fat and muscle, tooth)
1b. Purported partially incinerated belongings of the victim (camera, cell phone)
1c. The victim's car
1d. Key to the victim's car
1e. Bullet (or fragment of) with victim's DNA
1f. Victim's blood in the back of the victim's car.
1f. Suspect's blood inside victim's car

For 1a we can suppose the simple scenario: perp kills victim, perp incinerates victim, perp leaves remains where they were found. For this part, perp could be Lenk or Steven or somebody else. We could also have the perp kills the victim and someone else cremated the body and spread the remains. That could be for instance Lenk is the killer but leaves the body where it will incriminate Steven and Steven then attempts to destroy the evidence. Or, another permutation, Steven kills her, cremated the body and dumps the remains in the quary but Lenk moves the bones back to the yard to close the case.

We need to aproach this like a scientific investigation. We can't act like a group of jurors deciding a person's fate on gut feelings. We need real evidence to eliminate the false possibilities.
... and remember that you can never assume that you are completely anonymous or that you cannot be identified by your online comments. -- (from the ISF membership agreement)
Dan O.
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Home is where I hug my cat

Re: Making a Murderer - Netflix

Postby His Grey Eminence » Sat Jan 23, 2016 2:15 am

Rolfe wrote:I have worked in a haematology laboratory for my entire career. I was using these things from the mid-1970s, on a daily basis. Not only that, I was opening parcels of samples taken using these tubes, samples taken by a wide range of other people. The samples are packed rubber-bung-up, so that the first thing you see when you open the box is the rubber bung ends of 50 tubes. I practically see them in my sleep.

Nonsense, we all know you see Samsonite suitcases in your sleep.

You mean, it's wasn't even refrigerated, let alone frozen? I'd have thought all that would be left in it would be a sort of black sludgy soup. I don't know, but my gut instinct suggests that any DNA would be pretty degraded.

I don't know how it was stored, but freezing EDTA blood for later DNA analysis is very very normal. You just want not to go overboard with the freeze-thaw cycles. Yes the cells probably start to lyse but that doesn't effect DNA stability much and shouldn't effect EDTA assay.

The EDTA test sounds like rubbish. You have to know that it's definitely sensitive enough to show up positive even on a small dried blood smear, and I don't think that was done.

I am sorry to hear that because the method was developed by Bruce Budowle who is fairly popular round these parts
http://jat.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/7/521.long

Some, but not enough to judge, documents on the Avery case are uploaded here
http://www.techinsider.io/edta-blood-te ... rer-2016-1

I have done a very little bit of ms but my theory is very weak. But from the looks of it they use a liquid chromatography step to isolate the putative EDTA fraction and then do an ms-ms decomposition. Because EDTA is a chelator it isn't practical to look for a single species of the intact molecule.

There is quite a wide variation in stability but they get a 160 Da species that is relatively stable, a 132 Da species that is less stable and a 247 species that is also unstable and 46 Da fragment that is below detection level. In order to pass they set the very stringent guidelines that they need to see all three species and within certain parameters of ratios of intensity.
However, sometimes there positive controls at low concentrations will fail one of these guidelines, yet still look very EDTA like. In other words, I think this test has a very low false positive rate, but possibly a high false negative rate.

At the moment the documents upload only show the positive control testing - and this had the 1ul control of Avery's stored blood failing the stringent guidelines but still looking EDTA-like. But the 2ul of blood passing. I do agree with you that this is not an adequate positive control and there should have been some attempt to dry some blood on a car-like surface, leave it a week or so and then collect and process it.

However, it will be interesting to see what the actual tests of the unknown samples look like and if none of the species are present, not even the relatively stable 160 Da fragment, I would tend to the view that this was a true negative.

Incidentally, the unknown swabs, allegedly of Avery's blood, only appeared to have been labelled item 9569, item 9572, item 9574. I know if I was a dodgy cop who had framed Avery I would be doing my darnest to make sure the swabs I sent to the FBI did not contain EDTA and I don't think it would be very hard to clone these swab identifiers. After all, the FBI didn't do a DNA check at the same time.
His Grey Eminence
 
Posts: 273
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 7:50 pm

Re: Endorsed Case: Brendan Dassey - Making a Murderer - Net

Postby His Grey Eminence » Sat Jan 23, 2016 2:27 am

Just a though on validating blood smears versus using 2 microliters of blood from a tube: one way possibly to improve the method would be to a simultaneous LC-MS-MS of the haem molecule. Since that may have a similar stability to EDTA.
So that when haem detection fell below a certain level on a sample - regardless of the method of blood storage/collection - then the likelihood of false negatives for EDTA would increase. It might be a more robust quality control method than trying to replicate the conditions of each blood smear analysed.
Although I imagine the FBI don't get much call to do EDTA testing.
His Grey Eminence
 
Posts: 273
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 7:50 pm

Re: Endorsed Case: Brendan Dassey - Making a Murderer - Net

Postby Samson » Sat Jan 23, 2016 2:39 am

This will be interesting to say the least. Batten the hatches.

Kathleen Zellner ‏@ZellnerLaw Jan 12
Visit w/Steven Avery at Waupon CC. He is identical to the other 17 innocent men we've cleared. Won't quit until he's out. #MakingAMurderer
1,288 retweets 2,537 likes
Reply Retweet 1.3K
Like 2.5K
More

https://twitter.com/ZellnerLaw
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Endorsed Case: Brendan Dassey - Making a Murderer - Net

Postby ScifiTom » Sat Jan 23, 2016 7:51 am

charlie_wilkes wrote:
ScifiTom wrote:To everyone

Hey everyone, I just found out right now that a brother of WWE style want to join the fight to help out Brendan Dassy and it is something to do with WWE company and maybe a huge help even it going to hit big even here the official link and enjoy reading this!!!

http://whatculture.com/wwe/brother-of-m ... mpaign=wwe

This might as well be a huge help for WWE, to make a move this way!!!


I hope they body slam the Manitowoc County court system and sheriff's dept.


To Charlie

You know Charlie I never thought if WWE would help out this whole case and proven it into a huge success of like a body slam. But no word yet, even now I found out another link of a YouTube rap song for freedom to be sent of innocent for Brendan by his brother Brad!!!

Watch on youtube.com


http://prowrestlingsheet.com/dassey-bre ... -murderer/

So I am no fan of Rap. But I do believe the WWE superstar is going to be John Cena. So if I am right, then John Cena is our answer from Brendan Dassy favorite wrestler! But I could be wrong. So who ever it is. I hope it a good one to join this case, of sending a helping hand and let hope this work out good enough!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Freedom, The innocent 2
Kirstin B. Lobato
Dustin A. Turner
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4253
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Endorsed Case: Brendan Dassey - Making a Murderer - Net

Postby ScifiTom » Sat Jan 23, 2016 8:22 am

To everyone

You know I might not be a genus in here, even yes I was a fan of wrestling even let face it. It is the best way to have a story line of some wrestler to support of innocent and why not. It would work. I truly think that Dean Ambrose is our man even he just like Brendan Dassey in a way. Look at both of them. There both bad of acting even they might act like a villain even I too was a fan of wrestling. But now I am hearing that there is a WWE T-shirt to wear for Wrestliemania even if we can wear it for the fans to prove his innocent!!!

http://img11.deviantart.net/3487/i/2012 ... 4uzvft.jpg

http://www.zickydice.bigcartel.com/

But you know if Zick Dice is really a huge help for the innocent and if he willing to help out. Let contact him and see if he can join us! It would be great even a WWE superstar did went out of his way name X-Pac even then Brad never meant any harm. But we do need to stand up, even come on we need to take action. Beside Brad you did nothing wrong. I am on your side my man even we need to take a stand, even I can care less of what some silly cop said to me. BITE ME! I am here for the innocent and I support the innocent: I supported Amanda Knox, Ryan Ferguson, Kirstin Lobato & now Brendan Dassey!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Freedom, The innocent 2
Kirstin B. Lobato
Dustin A. Turner
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4253
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Endorsed Case: Brendan Dassey - Making a Murderer - Net

Postby charlie_wilkes » Sat Jan 23, 2016 1:44 pm

ScifiTom wrote:To everyone

You know I might not be a genus in here, even yes I was a fan of wrestling even let face it. It is the best way to have a story line of some wrestler to support of innocent and why not. It would work. I truly think that Dean Ambrose is our man even he just like Brendan Dassey in a way. Look at both of them. There both bad of acting even they might act like a villain even I too was a fan of wrestling. But now I am hearing that there is a WWE T-shirt to wear for Wrestliemania even if we can wear it for the fans to prove his innocent!!!

http://img11.deviantart.net/3487/i/2012 ... 4uzvft.jpg

http://www.zickydice.bigcartel.com/

But you know if Zick Dice is really a huge help for the innocent and if he willing to help out. Let contact him and see if he can join us! It would be great even a WWE superstar did went out of his way name X-Pac even then Brad never meant any harm. But we do need to stand up, even come on we need to take action. Beside Brad you did nothing wrong. I am on your side my man even we need to take a stand, even I can care less of what some silly cop said to me. BITE ME! I am here for the innocent and I support the innocent: I supported Amanda Knox, Ryan Ferguson, Kirstin Lobato & now Brendan Dassey!!!


This synergy is so powerful I feel I must stand back for my own safety.
User avatar
charlie_wilkes
 
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am

Re: Endorsed Case: Brendan Dassey - Making a Murderer - Net

Postby charlie_wilkes » Sat Jan 23, 2016 3:16 pm

Dan O. wrote:
1. The physical evidence was planted by a cop - Lenk.
2. He had to kill the victim to get that kind of evidence.


The finding of the court is that you are wrong on both counts.


Hmm. In fact, the court did not find that I was wrong on the first count. They acquitted Avery of the charge of mutilating a corpse. They accepted that someone else burned the body at a different location and dumped the remains on Avery's property. The defense was able to convince them of that much. But they refused to accept the obvious implication, just as you are doing.
User avatar
charlie_wilkes
 
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am

Re: Endorsed Case: Brendan Dassey - Making a Murderer - Net

Postby Samson » Sat Jan 23, 2016 5:25 pm

Charlie, in your theory do you think it's likely Lenk erred by missing the skull fragment with the half bullet hole? That would have made a cleaner story of strangling, requiring no Halbach blood on the property. And not requiring the added complication of Dassey having to agree Steve shot her?
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Endorsed Case: Brendan Dassey - Making a Murderer - Net

Postby Sinsaint » Sat Jan 23, 2016 6:50 pm

Middleton's story is that he panicked, a strange claim as he then admits to carefully cleaning his home of all evidence of Aprina being there and hiding her body. Then, while his fiancée went into town to buy supplies to make s'mores, he placed Aprina's body in a fire pit that he dug for this purpose, covered her with wood and kerosene, and set her remains on fire. He and his fiancée sat by the fire until midnight, presumably roasting marshmallows. Middleton burned Aprina's remains for three days.


A search warrant (HERE, 5 page pdf) resulted in officers seizing over 100 items including: a chainsaw, tools, women's makeup, fixtures, material from the burn pit, sixteen possible teeth,a bag of marijuana and many other items. What else was found?


http://wethepeopledanecounty.blogspot.com/2014/06/what-happened-to-aprina-paul-media.html

Bones and bone fragments recovered from the fire pit will be examined this week, Rock County Coroner Jenifer Keach said.


http://www.gazettextra.com/article/20131104/ARTICLES/131109917

Hmmm... Three days to burn her body which still resulted in full bones as well as bone fragments and at least half of her teeth. Only one of Teresa's teeth was found in Avery's burn pit.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Endorsed Case: Brendan Dassey - Making a Murderer - Net

Postby Sinsaint » Sat Jan 23, 2016 6:59 pm

Some conflicting reports...

Neighbors had seen a fire burning outside the house for “about a week,” according to WISC-TV. - See more at: http://www.gazettextra.com/article/2013 ... SF0RH.dpuf


http://www.gazettextra.com/article/2013 ... /131109953

JANESVILLE, Wis. (AP) _ At least one neighbor noticed a fire burning for almost a week in a Rock County burn pit before investigators discovered female bone fragments there.

The bone fragments were found as authorities were investigating the disappearance of Aprina Paul. She was last seen on Oct. 27.

Stacy Wagner tells The Janesville Gazette that she has a clear view of her neighbor's yard and noticed a fire burning there Oct. 28. She says the fire kept going day and night, with flames about the size one would expect from a campfire.

Wagner says her first inkling of trouble came when deputies showed up Friday night.

Investigators are working to determine who the bone fragments belonged to. A man who lives in the home has been arrested on a probation hold.


http://wiba.iheart.com/articles/madison ... -11793124/

the complaint said. Also, approximately 22 teeth and two fillings were found.


http://host.madison.com/news/local/crim ... 6dccf.html
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Endorsed Case: Brendan Dassey - Making a Murderer - Net

Postby charlie_wilkes » Sat Jan 23, 2016 8:53 pm

Samson wrote:Charlie, in your theory do you think it's likely Lenk erred by missing the skull fragment with the half bullet hole? That would have made a cleaner story of strangling, requiring no Halbach blood on the property. And not requiring the added complication of Dassey having to agree Steve shot her?


Lenk could not have anticipated Dassey's role in the case, or the narrative in which Avery shot Halbach in his garage.

Lenk concentrated on the basics and took a practical approach. A .22 is clean and quiet, which is why Lenk chose it, but Avery might also have used a .22, and he might have shot the victim outdoors in a location where blood evidence would be hard to find. So this was not a fatal flaw.

But Lenk erred in other ways. If one assumes Avery made the eccentric choice to burn a body behind his garage, then he would have no need to load the body in the back of the victim's car. Nor would he transfer a small fraction of the burned remains to a barrel near his fire pit. These facts do not fit at all with the narrative Lenk intended to depict. They are far more telling than the bullet holes.

What we have here is classic staging. Lenk did not make any stupid mistakes, but he was constrained by a need for stealth and secrecy. He could not avoid leaving clues that reveal what really happened.

And this is what happened. It's not that hard to see through the deception. The only reason Lenk got by with it is because he was a police detective, above suspicion and with the entire local system at his back. He teed up a convenient story, however crudely, and everyone else ran with it. Goodbye Avery, goodbye lawsuit. Goodbye Teresa Halbach, whoever you were.
User avatar
charlie_wilkes
 
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:58 am

Re: Endorsed Case: Brendan Dassey - Making a Murderer - Net

Postby Sinsaint » Sat Jan 23, 2016 9:18 pm

Image

Interesting... If true.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Possible Wrongful Convictions: Member Submissions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests