Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight
What? the murder happened on october 31st, the car was discovered on november 5th. What the heck are you talking about?
I am talking about the lack of police procedure's (Mostly from FBI Guy Moore's blog) regarding the MISSING piece's of evidence that would support any evidence that was gathered, Like... FOOTPRINTS to & from the Rav4.
So I ask you AGAIN.
Why was there NO impressions of the Footprints taken at the location of where the Rav4 was found?
And do you not find it strange that no impressions of the footprints where ever taken?
Like FBI Guy Mr Moore says in his blog, preserving as much evidence as possible at a crime scene is up most in priority so why did the LEAD investigator forget basic fundamental procedures & allow people to contaminate the crime scene with Footprints?
Gathering the Obvious Entry/exit points of the Vehicle by getting impressions of any footprints at the crime scene is usually No 1 on a lead investigators priority. Why was this information never gathered?
You get what I'm saying now? And don't get Strange. lol
Now do you find it strange that the fingerprints found on/in the Rav4 were never send for identification?
Pls don't say that they were, cos the fingerprints were only compared to members of the Avery family & close friends/in laws.
Btw whose blood are we talking about when you mention Remiker said that there was blood in the car?
I agree that Remiker would/could/should have found/seen TH blood in the car, i am in no doubt about that. But by doing so he contaminated a crime scene by not allowing the Crime Lab to take a Fresh look at the Rav4 in it's last resting place & according to Mr Moore that is unforgivable.
Moore to the Story..........Episode 8.
I am convinced (at least based solely on what I have been shown on Netflix) beyond a reasonable doubt that the police in this matter manipulated and/or planted at least some of the evidence. Therefore, I do not believe that the trial and investigation against Steven Avery were legitimate.
This is not my final and complete conclusion! This is a conclusion based solely and only on information attained from the documentary. I have yet to view Episodes 9 and 10.
FBI EDTA Test
I hope that I have established in this article that I have no particular pre-existing bias towards the guilt or innocence of Steven Avery, nor his trial. Therefore, what you are going to get from me is my actual feelings on the matter, not my view of what I wish were true or what might be true. What I am providing you is what I believe to be true to the best of my abilities.
In every trial, opposing experts face each other and contradict everything that the other one has said. Usually, one is not 100% right and the other 100% wrong. However, one is usually more right than the other. It's simple logic that both can't be right. So what does it jury do with that information? Is their job to assess which expert they believe to be more credible, for whatever reason. That is what I am endeavoring to do, but as an experienced FBI agent, rather than simply a ‘peer’ of the accused.
Picture
Based only on what I saw in the documentary, I find the FBI's test of the EDTA, absent any persuasive supporting or contradicting information at this point, to be the most credible.
If I believed that the FBI Lab was so compromised that none of their work could be trusted, then what you would've heard from me as a reasonable person was that I give more credibility to the defense expert because frankly, the prosecution seems crooked and the FBI Lab can’t be trusted. But my experience in 25 years in the FBI, even aware of the small fraction of the hundreds of thousands of prior FBI Lab examinations in error, leads me to believe that the FBI test is more likely correct than not. I say this not because I am a fan of the FBI, but because I believe it to be true. My integrity, my reputation and therefore “my money” depends upon my skill as an investigator and my ability to come to correct conclusions, not my loyalty to my former agency.
If I am subsequently made aware of reliable scientific evidence which indicates that the FBI lab erred on this test, I will just as quickly allow that information to affect my conclusions. If you as a reader believe that my bias has influenced my decision in this matter, I would suggest that you stop wasting your time reading these articles, because if I am biased on that point, then why would anything else I say be of value to you? Blind, actionable bias, like corruption, is an all-or-nothing proposition.
Picture
That said, I did not mean to infer in earlier articles that because the EDTA test done by the FBI Lab was negative for the presence of EDTA that Steven Avery was definitively guilty of the crime.
Yes, I completely accept the possibility that a source of blood different from the questioned vial was sent to the FBI. I noted that Kratz’ statement in court said only that the FBI test proved that the blood didn't come from “that vial.” I found that a curious way to state that fact. However, the FBI Lab not testing the vial in any way to ensure that the blood was—at least—Steven Avery’s, would be surprising to me. That type of error would seem to me to be similar to a doctor amputating the wrong leg. He may have done a nice, professional job with the amputation, but the results were doomed from the start because a basic and crucial validating step was missed. Again, I don't know the rest of the facts, such as whether the blood was typed or even DNA processed to validate that that blood sent to the FBI lab was the blood of Steven Avery.
Was the sample DNA-tested? I do not know the FBI procedures regarding this. However, DNA tests are expensive and they are time-consuming. If a rush was put on that test, it is less likely that DNA extraction and comparison, or even or even blood typing was done.
Is it possible that EDTA on in/on the RAV4 could have evaporated or in some way subsided in the drying process in the blood? I don't know because I don't know the scientific facts regarding EDTA in this matter, and I have intentionally not engaged in the necessary offline research at this point.
AVERY’S GUILT?
When I say that the EDTA results make it more likely that Steven Avery is guilty, I am saying that because in order for a police evidence-planting scheme to work, several more layers of conspiracy have to be added. Now, it's not just taking blood out and applying it to a vehicle, now it involves switching blood samples sent to the FBI. It's not impossible, but it raises the level of difficulty and probability.
BRENDAN DASSEY TRIAL
I can't wait to see how Ken Kratz prosecutes Brendan Dassey, absent using Dassey’s ‘confession’ which Kratz has already invalidated in court. I also wonder how he's going to do it without physical evidence of any kind. I wonder how he's going to do it after repeatedly claiming that one man and one man only murdered Teresa Halbach. I wonder how he's going to do it and sleep at night.
Frankly, though, he might get away with it, because evidence doesn't seem to be a big issue for Ken Kratz or some jurors.