The need for a control sample is to confirm that proper laboratory procedures and protocols were followed.

If proper procedures are followed, then we can have confidence in the results.

If contamination of samples is discovered, the results are scientifically useless because that is proof positive that proper safeguards against contamination were not followed. End of story.

The judge should not allow the jury to hear unscientific 'evidence' and hope they are savvy enough to realize it is bull****.

This isn't really answering my question. Let me try this. How did the results of the control sample effect the results of the actual sample?

In other words, does it challenge in anyway whether or not Teresas DNA was on the bullet if the control sample had the DNA of the person testing the sample?

It proved that the lab was prone to contamination, and thus the findings about DNA on the bullet were not trustworthy.

Yes, it challenges the alleged finding of DNA on the bullet, since we will never know - due to the dirty lab - whether the DNA was on the bullet before it got to Culhane's work bench.

And my response to you is that if you think there is a law on the books according to which this evidence should have been excluded, then that would be grounds to appeal his conviction. I'm advising you that if you believe this is the case, you should volunteer your services to help Avery's defence team make this case in their appeal. He has lawyers working for him and they haven't based their appeal on this, so they would probably be interested if there is a valid legal argument that they have missed.

Or alternatively, if you think the evidence was correctly admitted according to the current law, but you believe the laws are unjust, you should petition your congressman to get the law changed.

..and my advice to you is that if you believe scientifically unsound 'evidence' should be allowed to influence juries, you should get your law degree and petition courts to allow just any insane 'evidence' to be heard in courtrooms.

Trustworthy/ not trustworthy isn't a binary state. The contaminated negative control makes the results less trustworthy, but not necessarily completely useless as evidence.

Arguably, the fact that the lab admitted to the contaminated negative control sample could be evidence in favour of their professionalism/ ethical standards. So this would speak against your theory of the case of a massive conspiracy to frame Avery and cover up the real killer.

If you find a dog turd in your salad, there's no sane reason to suppose the rest of the meal is safe to eat - especially when there have been numerous complaints about contamination at that particular restaurant.

Unless you happen to like dog turds.

See, I thought thats where you would go with this. In other words, it doesn't matter what came out of that lab. Even if another test was done where the sample wasn't contaminated you would just say "the previous test was contaminated, so this one could be too".

If they were truly professional, they would have thrown their 'results' in the garbage when they found their samples were contaminated in the lab.

That they tried to finesse the issue is a testimony to their dedication to obtaining a conviction rather than to scientific truth.

Culhane explained it herself at the trial:


Culhane's decision to file a deviation of protocol and her analysis of the results, as testified above, were not disputed by any expert witness during Avery's trial nor by any of Zellner's recent experts. Thus, we can deduce there is no legitimate "reason to dismiss what was found on the actual sample."

Not sure why exactly you are pulling this out of your ass. That's your business.

Had the lab followed correct scientific protocols and procedures, I would not be able to successfully argue that their findings are absolute **** that no sane person would ever accept.

As it is the 'DNA on the bullet' is not a fact, it is a very dubious claim at best.

So what?

This is a forum where I can object to junk science no matter what the judge allowed in court.

As every sane person can see, I have produced very legitimate reasons to reject junk science in courts of law. Obviously this scientifically invalid garbage can have a deleterious effect on weak minded individuals.

Where am I getting this from? You just said it. You said that because the control sample was contaminated the lab was "dirty" and that is the reason to dismiss the findings of the test.

Why would this not apply to any other test in that lab?

Well shes a scientist and you're not so..

I already posted a link to other complaints about this lab.

So you are correct - no sane reason to trust anything coming from that facility.

So what?

Zellner's a lawyer with a winning record and you're not, so...

Exactly. If there are actually legitimate arguments for Culhane's DNA analysis of the bullet to be thrown out or at least discounted, it should be explained by actual scientists. This was not forbidden at trial, nor is it forbidden now (although it would likely be useless now).

Instead, the only people actually claiming it's "junk science" and "scientifically invalid garbage" are armchair scientists who are emotionally invested in Avery's innocence.


Here's some further testimony:

You probably should try and learn something about the scientific method.

Do you really think these control samples are something that Culhane made up as a joke and are not important?

Try reading a book sometime.

I understand what control samples are. They are a filter to compare a fake test with the real test by making sure the results of the fake test are accurate.

However, like with most fields of study there are exceptions to rules. She explained (a scientist with a respectable job in her profession) why she asked for a deviation.

-She only had one test to run
-Only the control sample was impacted
-The actual test didn't contain the same positive result as the control, meaning what effected the control didn't effect the actual test.
-She knows what effected the control. It was her talking.
-There was nothing tested of TH that day making it impossible for the source of her dna to be anything but the bullet.


You can read all the books you want, it won't help you review things objectively.

To make sure the fake results are accurate?

WTF?

It's pretty obvious why she asked for a 'deviation' from accepted professional standards - the test did not conform to normal scientific protocols.

These protocols are not something you can simply ignore just because you can't get the results you want by adhering to them - they are a necessary part of the scientific method. Ignore them and you are deviating from science.

Lots of excuses that no sane person would entertain for a second.

I have no problem assessing this case objectively.

You are apparently heavily emotionally invested in defending the police and prosecution in this case no matter how blatant their deviation from sound principles they are.

LOL more lunacy from the Fralyeight account.

WTF? Have you lost your mind? SC kept all the evidence in a cupboard by her desk. Why she didn't keep it where it belongs in the evidence locker at the charge of the evidence custodian is anyone's guess. If you were a real person on a real account, to try and justify SC's work in the crimelab would just make you look impossibly dumb. But you're a shill, so I get it.

They are to test the accuracy of the real tests by comparing them to the fake tests.



Scientsts can ask for deviation from protocols. Its a thing.



These aren't excuses. They are all perfectly viable reasons to reject any assertion that the bullet wasn't the source of Teresas DNA. Even if you think the bullet evidence should have been thrown out in court, any objective, sincere seeker of the truth would conclude that the source of her dna was the bullet.



You are heavily invested in conspiracy theories are you not? Perhaps that is why you have trouble viewing things objectively. You think anytime the government is involved there is foul play.

This is probably bull **** but even if its true, what does that have to do with anything? Nothing else with Teresas dna on it was tested that day, and no other test yielded results for her dna that day.

I am not dumb here, you are dumb. If her dna was contaminating the lab we would see it on other tests..