Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Making a Murderer Making a Murderer

11-13-2017 , 08:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Can someone explain the big deal with the bullet? The control sample was contaminated with DNA not found on the actual sample, aside from protocol is there a reason to dismiss what was found on the actual sample if the jury is informed of the contamination?
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****.
11-13-2017 , 08:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
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?
11-13-2017 , 08:54 PM
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?
11-13-2017 , 09:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
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?
It proved that the lab was prone to contamination, and thus the findings about DNA on the bullet were not trustworthy.
11-13-2017 , 09:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
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?
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.

Last edited by proudfootz; 11-13-2017 at 09:11 PM. Reason: emphasis for the slow ponies
11-13-2017 , 09:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
Yes, the bullet DNA test was scientifically invalid, and thus shouldn't be heard by a jury. It is junk science.

As everyone already knows, the police publicly admitted at the outset that officers from the department involved in the lawsuit labored under conflict of interest and would not be investigating this case.

My post was about these issues - you replied to my post. So it should be painfully clear what my post has to do with your post.

"That dubious evidence shouldn't even have been heard in court."
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.
11-13-2017 , 09:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
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.

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.

11-13-2017 , 09:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
It proved that the lab was prone to contamination, and thus the findings about DNA on the bullet were not trustworthy.
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.
11-13-2017 , 09:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
Trustworthy/ not trustworthy isn't a binary state. The contaminated negative control makes the results less trustworthy, but not necessarily completely useless as evidence.
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.

Last edited by proudfootz; 11-13-2017 at 09:19 PM. Reason: cut post to addres particular topic
11-13-2017 , 09:21 PM
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".
11-13-2017 , 09:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
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 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.
11-13-2017 , 09:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Can someone explain the big deal with the bullet? The control sample was contaminated with DNA not found on the actual sample, aside from protocol is there a reason to dismiss what was found on the actual sample if the jury is informed of the contamination?

Culhane explained it herself at the trial:

Quote:
A. Concerning the bullet, this was a little bit
unusual, because there was nothing to cut. And
there was nothing -- I didn't feel like, by
swabbing it, that I would get enough DNA off of
the item, so I actually put the entire bullet
into the tube, with my reagents, and washed all
the DNA off that was on that tube.
Because this was a little unusual, most
of our samples are swabbings or cuttings, I had
two of our newer analysts sit next to my
workbench and watch me. And as I was doing it, I
was explaining what I was doing and why I was
doing it. And I felt like I was far enough away
from my workbench so that my talking wouldn't
interfere; but, obviously, that was incorrect.


Q. If when -- If your DNA profile had been on the
bullet, would that have changed anything?


A. Yes.


Q. Please explain that to the jurors?


A. If my DNA had been on the evidence sample, I
would have reported that as a mixture of DNA from
myself and Teresa Halbach and I would have done a
statistical analysis referred to as a likelihood
ratio. That type of contamination is different
than what actually happened.


Q. If your -- If the control in this case had
contained a DNA profile that was unrecognizable
to you, would that have changed anything?


A. Yes.


Q. Please explain that to the jury.


A. I would not have requested a deviation because it
would not have been appropriate; it would have
been inconclusive, just like our protocol calls
for.


Q. Explain to the jurors why you felt that deviation
was appropriate in this situation.


A. First of all, there were a couple of reasons, my
DNA was in the control, not the evidence sample.
And because I was the analyst using it --
processing it, I knew what the source of the DNA
was. And I felt this was probative evidence, and
I felt it was appropriate simply -- primarily
because it was my own DNA and it was in the
evidence sample.

Had it been any other profile, had it
been mixed with the sample, again, I would have
reported it, but I would have reported it as a
mixture, and all the information would have been
in my report just like it was in this report.

All the information was there, but I
felt it was appropriate because I could not go
back and re-extract. I was stuck with what I
had; I couldn't redo anything to remedy the
situation. And I felt it was probative evidence,
so I reported it.


Q. Did the presence of your DNA profile in the
control, in any way, cause the presence of Teresa
Halbach's DNA profile on the bullet?


A. No.


Q. Was there any mixture on the bullet?


A. No.


Q. Who's profile did you find on the bullet?


A. It was a single source of DNA, meaning from one
person, and it was consistent with Teresa
Halbach.


Q. And the control in this case contained your
profile?


A. Correct.

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."
11-13-2017 , 09:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
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".
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.
11-13-2017 , 09:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
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.
So what?

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

Quote:
Thus, we can deduce there is no legitimate "reason to dismiss what was found on the actual sample."
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.
11-13-2017 , 09:32 PM
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?
11-13-2017 , 09:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
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.
Well shes a scientist and you're not so..
11-13-2017 , 10:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
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?
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.
11-13-2017 , 10:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Well shes a scientist and you're not so..
So what?

Zellner's a lawyer with a winning record and you're not, so...
11-13-2017 , 10:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Well shes a scientist 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:

Quote:
Q. Ms Culhane, why do scientists allow for deviation
in protocols?

A. Because every situation, each case that we work
and every situation, is different. And sometimes
there are circumstances that warrant deviating
from the stated protocol.

Q. And did this situation with the bullet warrant
deviation from the protocol?

A. In my opinion, yes.

Q. And why?

A. Because my DNA was not in the evidence sample, it
was only in the control, and it was a source that
I could track. It was me. It was introduced
when I was handling the tubes. It had no
bearing, no scientific bearing on the type of the
evidence sample at all. It was no mixture. It
was a single source sample that was consistent
with Teresa Halbach, and for those reasons I felt
it was appropriate.

Q. And did the fact of your profile being in the
control in this case have any impact whatsoever
on Teresa Halbach's DNA being on the bullet?

ATTORNEY BUTING: Objection, been asked and
answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.
11-13-2017 , 10:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
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?
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.
11-13-2017 , 10:41 PM
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.
11-13-2017 , 10:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
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.
To make sure the fake results are accurate?

WTF?

Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
-She only had one test to run {so she should have done it correctly instead of screwing it up - ya think?}
-Only the control sample was impacted {unsubstantiated claim}
-The actual test didn't contain the same positive result as the control, meaning what effected the control didn't effect the actual test. {unsubstantiated claim}
-She knows what effected the control. It was her talking. {unsubstantiated claim}
-There was nothing tested of TH that day making it impossible for the source of her dna to be anything but the bullet.{DNA lasts more than one day - just FYI}
Lots of excuses that no sane person would entertain for a second.

Quote:
You can read all the books you want, it won't help you review things objectively.
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.
11-13-2017 , 10:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
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.

LOL more lunacy from the Fralyeight account.

Quote:
-There was nothing tested of TH that day making it impossible for the source of her dna to be anything but the bullet.
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.
11-13-2017 , 11:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
To make sure the fake results are accurate?

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



Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
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.
Scientsts can ask for deviation from protocols. Its a thing.



Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
Lots of excuses that no sane person would entertain for a second.
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.



Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
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.
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.
11-13-2017 , 11:16 PM
Quote:
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.
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..

      
m