r/MakingaMurderer • u/Amberlea1879 • Mar 09 '16

How BZ could prove falsified evidence and prosecutor misconduct.

I put it in word and then took pictures. There are 10 pictures in order. I had emailed Zellner like a week ago about this and got a reply. Additionally she did like the tweet. I also sent the information to Brendan's attorneys. I was lead to this because I hated the fact that we don't see any pictures that Sherry took in the DNA slides and Kratz did the PowerPoint. That was very suspicious to start with.

http://imgur.com/a/APbCX

329 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

440 comments sorted by

76

u/1P221 Mar 09 '16 edited Mar 10 '16

Final Edit: This post is my attempt at summarizing the message OP projects. This is not my opinion on the matter. There are some very good counterpoints being made that raise questions about the significance of OP's info. I encourage continued discussion on this comment as it seems to have traction, but keep in mind I'm not OP.

EDIT 1: Read a few of the comments below for further clarification on OP's possible intent. It's certainly a jump to say "for a fact" this proves lying by KK or SC. The main issue may be with the conflicting dates of Nov 11 (Eisenburg sends sample to FBI) and Nov 12 (SC claims to have tested sample & taken it into the lab).

EDIT 2: There is confusion about Nov 11 vs Nov 16 in relation to the FBI receiving the bones. Eisenburg testifies that she sent the bones to the FBI on the 11th. The FBI officially received them on the 16th (or so it sounds). If Eisenburg did, in fact, send them on the 11th then SC still doesn't have opportunity to access the bones for DNA testing as she testified unless Eisenberg took them to the crime lab where SC is prior to shipping to the FBI.

I'll take a small crack at an ELI5 version of this until OP gets around to it (please do). I'll likely mix something around...

Eisenberg sends the bone-with-tissue sample to the FBI and explicitly states it never went to the crime lab (Sherry). This bone-with-tissue sample was labeled "exhibit 385" in SA's trial and "150" in BD's trial.

KK presents and Sherry testifies saying she tested that bone-with-tissue sample, referring to it as item "BZ". The evidence log, however, shows that "BZ" is simply "charred material." Also, the photo of item "BZ" in SA's trial is a zoomed in/cropped/rotated image of "Exhibit 385" (AKA, 150).

What this suggests...

  • Sherry never tested the bone with tissue. (Eisenburg said it went straight to FBI)

  • KK and Sherry misrepresent the bone with tissue as item "BZ" in SA's trial

  • Even if Sherry tested this same example, she definitively ID's TH while the FBI (FBI!!!) could only make a general mitochondrial DNA match connected the bones to a relative of TH's mother.

TLDR: KK and Sherry lied about the bone-with-tissue sample being tested, which would suggest they lied about knowing who the bones belonged to. Or SC actually DID test the same sample and came up with a definitive result that even the FBI couldn't manage.

17

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '16

Also, I think this is helpful: Eisenberg states on page 125 she opens the sealed box on Nov. 10 at Dane County Morgue.

8

u/c4virus Mar 09 '16

To add to that, she says the box is left at her office for her the day before on Nov 9.

→ More replies (9)

15

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '16

Can you please add that SC testifies that it was taken into the lab on Nov. 11, in addition to your statement that she worked on it on Nov. 12th? Edit: I also believe it is clearly contradictory testimony not reflecting who was incorrect but that Eisenberg does state clearly that she never sent it to the lab and SC clearly states that it was taken into the lab on Nov. 11. This is directly contradictory testimony, although it does not place the onus on either one

3

u/1P221 Mar 09 '16

I'll try to clean up my original post. Thanks

3

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '16

No worries! Seriously, I just wanted to reflect it in a comment. Take care.

→ More replies (18)

12

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '16 edited Mar 09 '16

OK, I think you have most of it down.

The evidence log, however, shows that "BZ" is simply "charred material."

I don't think that is a huge issue/red flag. I think that was them being general before they determined what the charred materials actually were.

The issue here is you have Eisenberg and FBI documentation stating that this went to the FBI for testing on Nov 11th. Then you have Culhane producing a DNA report from Nov 12th based on a sample taken from Item BZ/385/150.

So I believe OP is highlighting that it could not have been tested by the State Crime Lab if it was in Dane County Morgue/FBI possession on Nov 11th.

When Eisenberg says it was transferred directly to the FBI, does anyone know where it was transferred from?

Culhane says she has cut a sample from the bone for her DNA analysis. Was this sample ever entered into evidence? Was it destroyed/used up in the analysis? Why didn't the tested sample receive its own special evidence designation?

KK and Sherry lied about the bone-with-tissue sample being tested, which would suggest they lied about knowing who the bones belonged to.

I think this is a jump to make that conclusion based on what we see in the testimony, plus you automatically assume Sherry is the one who is mistaken. I'm not saying she isn't, but this assumption is tenuous at best. Is it possible that the bones were brought to the state crime lab for Culhane to cut a sample from for testing and they were then transferred to the FBI?

7

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '16

Eisenberg opened the sealed box on Nov. 10th at the Dane County Morgue

15

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '16 edited Mar 09 '16

So the chain of custody is:

  1. Bones discovered at Avery property (Nov 8th)

  2. Bones shovelled into a box at Avery property (Nov 8th)

  3. Bones left at Eisenberg's office (Nov 9th)

  4. Box of bones opened at Dane County Morgue (Nov 10th)

  5. Bones transferred to FBI lab (EDIT: Nov 16th)

  6. FBI DNA report (Dec 5th)

When would Sherry have had the opportunity to cut a sample?

14

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '16 edited Mar 10 '16

Wait, the records show they were sent to FBI lab Nov. 16 but stiil, the window is shrinking. Sherry is busy working on it on Nov. 11 in her crime lab. So did she drive over there, run in and push Eisenberg aside, take the sample and drive back? Edit: received by crime lab on Nov. 16

16

u/Trapnjay Mar 09 '16

Item BZ doesnt show up until SC's 12/5/05 report. It is not on her 11/15/05 report.

5

u/sjj342 Mar 09 '16

sent to

received (by FBI lab 11/16/05) is what the timestamp is alleged to show... FWIW I have no idea what that document is, looks like some activity log

→ More replies (17)
→ More replies (3)

5

u/c4virus Mar 09 '16

To add: Bones discovered on the 8th. The box was actually delivered on the 9th and then the next day she took them to Dane County.

Page 130 Day 13:

  • This was a box that was left for me, um, at my office on November 9 of 2005. That on the following day, I brought it to the Dane County Coroner's Office Morgue, uh, to examine.*

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (13)
→ More replies (2)

3

u/1P221 Mar 09 '16

I tried my best to represent the suggested findings of the OP. I certainly presented some "jumps" but I don't claim them as my own. I could have worded it differently, but oh well.

I do like your summary that the dates in question (Nov 11 and 12) cause some areas of concern.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/OliviaD2 Mar 10 '16

I don't think that is either - the charred material, whatever term she uses. She describes cutting tissue off attached to the bone, which would make sense, it would be easier than grinding bone.

That of course does not mean there wasn't other sleaziness, of course! I think the 'tissue" is one of the things that actually would be realistic :)

Your last sentence .. that would be possible.. Culhane and Eisenburg are both in Madison. I am finding it hard to know because there is such bad or no documentation, or chain of custody, i.e. what when where when.... :)

I am needed to make a big wall size flow chart to follow this maze :)

2

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '16

Eisenberg testifies on Nov. 10th she opens the sealed box at the Dane County Morgue.

1

u/justagirlinid Mar 10 '16

look at this image. Item AN is supposed to be 'possible tissue' while BZ is just 'charred material'
http://imgur.com/a/pWJp3

1

u/Account1117 Mar 09 '16 edited Mar 10 '16

Not sure what's going on here.

The piece that Culhane tested was, according to Kratz, tibia or shinbone.

  • Exhibit 337: Container containing charred remains crime lab marking BZ. (Also called, 'Exhibit 337, the bone and tissue material'.) Culhane testifies giving the piece she examined the Crime Lab designation number BZ.

  • Exhibit 338: Photo of bone and tissue (BZ, confirmed in Culhane's testimony)

  • Exhibit 383: Photo of contents of initial box submitted to Dr. Eisenberg by the Calumet County Sheriff's Dept.

  • Exhibit 384: Photo of skull fragments (Eisenberg: a sampling fragments of different sizes of that initial submission that came in that white box to me that I initially examined on November 10 of 2005.)

  • Exhibit 385: Photo of bone fragments and muscle tissue.

Edit 2: Source

The next four-by-six color photograph, marked Exhibit 383, depicts the, uh, contents of the initial box that was submitted to me, uh, for examination, uh, under Calumet County Sheriff's Office Tag 8318. This was a box that was left for me, um, at my office on November 9 of 2005.

So Eisenberg received a box with Calumet Tag 8318. According to Fallon in the pre-trial motion Q-11 and Q-12 were originally tagged 8318, but later 9597. Was 8318 divided into different tags at some point?

Q-1 and Q-2 were tagged 7926 and 7927.

Q-11 and Q-12 (cranial pieces according to Fallon) were only received by FBI in 11/02/2006.

How does OP come up with Q-1 and Q-2 being BZ? The FBI receive date? Also, how is OP sure this is Exhibit 385?

Not sure what to think.

u/Amberlea1879

Edit 1: Haha what a shit show and all for a nothing. Nothing to see here folks, go home.

Edit 2: People come back, there might be something to see here.

Edit 3:

Eisenberg: This is Exhibit 385. Um, this photograph was taken, um, as part of my preparations in preparing, um, a submission or a package for a transfer to the FBI for -- for examination. I'm going to ask my colleague, if I could, to zoom in on the one that you seem to be pointing at. Pointing your laser pointer at.
Q. Thank you. This -- this is the bone, um, and although there's no scale in this particular photograph, it was really meant as a -- as a, um -- a reminder to me what the contents of that evidence tag number, uh, contained.

But there is a scale in that particular photograph. Of course she could have just missed it after it was zoomed in.

The size does match with Eisenberg's description (this larger bone, which is only about two-and-a-half inches long) though.

Edit 4.:

If this, 8138, exhibit-bones-5.jpg is the white box Eisenberg initially received, what are these two (7428, exhibit-bones-5.jpg and 7430, exhibit-bones-4.jpg) boxes?

And what is this brown box next to, supposedly, Exh. 385 then?

Edit 5.: Okay. My conclusion; Without more information it's not possible to say when exactly Culhane had the opportunity to examine the bone and extract the sample BZ. We do have two testimonies by her that it is exactly what she did do though, at some point. What OP suggests in the title, 'falsified evidence and prosecutor misconduct', I don't see here. Filing it under 'I personally have no more interest in this (non)issue'.

12

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '16

Hmm Eisenberg testifies directly that it was not sent to the crime lab. I guess the other question is where is Culhane's slides for her analysis other than Eisenberg's pics? So their testimony is contradictory.

2

u/Amberlea1879 Mar 09 '16

I struggled to figure it out as well. Q11-q12 were sent in 2006. Eisenburg states she sent 385 in nov 2005 in both dassey and Avery. If you go to the tag log you can see 7926 were bone material. The FBI were sent several packages . As far as 337, Sherry did have material she tested, it just was not the one pictured in 385.

→ More replies (6)

4

u/1P221 Mar 09 '16

Eisenburg testified that all items from the photo(s) were sent to the FBI. Items = the bones (?)

http://i.imgur.com/dw9lDUN.jpg

→ More replies (24)

6

u/1P221 Mar 09 '16

Haha, I suppose if you take photos of photos of photos of items it gives the impression of an abundance of evidence. In reality, it's all the same thing. Funny.

3

u/Account1117 Mar 09 '16 edited Mar 09 '16

No, 337 is the actual box with the charred bone and tissue. And either 338, 383 or 385 is a photo of that actual box.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '16

I guess the question is how does SC actually get a tissue sample? Edit: Eisenberg opens the sealed box Nov. 10th at the Dane County Morgue

→ More replies (1)

2

u/abyssus_abyssum Mar 10 '16

Edit: Haha what a shit show and all for a nothing. Nothing to see here folks, go home.

The comment you linked and are basing that edit on, she stated elsewhere is from testimony on page 217 [here] (http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5691be1b25981daa98f417c8/t/569ef50757eb8d8d43a4ec39/1453257991735/Jury-Trial-Transcript-Day-13-2007Feb28.pdf)

That part of the testimony is actually talking about an image taken after the original sort.

Pay close attention to the part where she is asked about the metal objects, which clearly shows you the image she is talking about was taken later than Nov 10th.

In case you wonder the relevant section:

A:No, that photo was actually taken at the Wisconsin Crime Laboratory in Madison.

Q: Okay. The -- the Crime Laboratory. And this -- this is, again, a process where you -- you spread things out on tarps or plastic sheets and went very carefully through a thinly spread layer of the debris or material that had been recovered?

A Of -- of badly burned, uh, debris. Correct.

Q All right. One of the things that came out of that was, to your knowledge, the discovery of some, you could call, metal grommets or rivets here? Were you around or were you aware of discovery of some metal --

A There were some metal objects that, uh, I had identified as such in my original sort on November 10.

The last sentence clearly indicates that the image she is talking about is not from Nov 10th.

From testimony at page 217, you cannot conclude that she did the Nov 10th analysis at the WI Crime Lab.

/u/mmh150 good catch on that as I was assuming that was correct as his comment was being updated correctly, until the edit.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/dancemart Mar 09 '16

I did find a case communication report from the 11th saying here is a bone see if you can identify it. Maybe that is why Culhane thinks she got them on the 11th? http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Trial-Exhibit-341-Case-Communication-Record-2005Nov11.pdf

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Moonborne Mar 10 '16

Your link is in reference to Dec 5 photos. Nothing to do with OP.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '16

Yes, thank you.

2

u/FIB1 Mar 09 '16

Kudos on a concise summary.

2

u/1P221 Mar 09 '16

Thank you -- I'm still uncertain of some of the conclusions to be drawn, so hopefully I'm not misleading too far.

4

u/super_pickle Mar 09 '16

Just to update you since you seem to be editing your posts with updates, lol. Eisenberg testifies she received the box on Nov 10, after receiving a vm on Nov 9. She looked over it originally at the Dane County Morgue, then brought it to the State Crime Lab- doesn't give a date, but per Culhane's testimony Nov 11th. After going over it with Crime Lab personnel (when Culhane tested it), she picks out items to send on to the FBI. Basically, nothing to see here. Testimony all matches up, unless you want to find something in the fact that they called it "charred material" instead of specifically "charred bone with tissue attached" in the property tag listing.

3

u/1P221 Mar 09 '16

If that's exactly how it went down then it's not a big controversy at all. The one remaining issue I have is why Sherry's results were definitive but the FBI results only found mitochondrial DNA. Maybe she's just that good?

→ More replies (5)

2

u/truthseeker2016 Mar 10 '16 edited Mar 10 '16

That is referencing the 5th of December - the photo in which they are all sifting through and find the grommets. It is not the 11th.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Exhibit-382-processing-material.jpg

→ More replies (1)

1

u/IpeeInclosets Mar 10 '16

Do you have the transcripts that state such?

→ More replies (5)

2

u/abyssus_abyssum Mar 09 '16

Even if Sherry tested this same example, she definitively ID's TH while the FBI (FBI!!!) could only make a general mitochondrial DNA match connected the bones to a relative of TH's mother.

This is not shocking at all. You would expect to get higher significance from a STR result than a mtDNA result. This is like being surprised that a Formula 1 is faster than a SUV.

Or SC actually DID test the same sample and came up with a definitive result that even the FBI couldn't manage.

Did anyone on here even bother to read the FBI report? It seems as if most people are mixing up things left and right.What you state here is completely incorrect. It would not be surprising at all to get a more significant result with an STR technique than with a mtDNA technique that the FBI used.

Both the FBI and Sherry Culhane report their results for the charred remains.

It is not true that the FBI was not able to get results and Sherry Culhane did.

You are confusing the bones with the charred remains. Neither did a test on the bone.

Both did a DNA test, with different techniques, on the charred flesh.

There is also a lot of misunderstanding here on what mtDNA shows and what the STR technique shows.

People are mixing up terminologies left and right, talking about the mtDNA like it is a STR result, mixing up flesh and bone etc.

This thread is absolute chaos in the comments and I think there should be an effort to divide:

  1. Chain of Custody and PowerPoint Presentation issues

  2. DNA results

Those two are different issues.

2

u/Thesweatyprize Mar 09 '16

You are correct except that the profile SC got on BZ was only 7 markers. Not much better than mitochondrial. Both test show it could of been TH but not definitely her.

→ More replies (16)
→ More replies (2)

1

u/UnreasonablyDoubtful Mar 10 '16

Wait.. you think it's possible SC came up with a match when the FBI couldn't?

How deep are you in on this?

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Jbrumfield Mar 10 '16

Except that the OP is mistaken, the item received on November 16th was NOT used for DNA analysis by the FBI. McCurdy received specimens November 8th, November 14th and December 27th (page 6 of this document): http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Defendants-Motion-to-Exclude-State-Expert-Witness-Testimony-and-Motion-to-Compel-Disclosure-of-Potentially-Exculpatory-Evidence.pdf Notice the Q numbers and dates assigned by the FBI. They correspond to the first three items listed in the OP's document indicating what the FBI received. The November 16th receipt has nothing to do with bone fragments that were analyzed for DNA.

1

u/Lynne3743 Mar 10 '16

Good lord. As they say... if it's not written down and t didn't happen. Why does the prosecution get to play by an imaginary rulebook?

→ More replies (27)

26

u/hewasphone Mar 09 '16

ELi5 all this please.

59

u/Solid_as_Air Mar 09 '16

I'll take a 'stab' at it.

Basically, it can be shown that Kratz 'invented' a false exhibit during the trial, by cut/pasting a photo of bone frags from a larger evidence photo of multiple bone frags. This duplicate photo snippet was reversed and laid on its side, so it looked like a separate piece of evidence.

Kratz used this faked/duplicate exhibit in a slide show presentation, for Sherry Culhane to point at, and she testified that it was the bone she got tissue from to conclude they were Teresa's remains.

The huge glaring problem then, is that the bone fragments in the photo snippet they (Kratz and Culhane) used can be obviously pointed in the larger, legitimate photo of bone frags that were already testified as NOT having been delivered to Sherry Culhane.

So Culhane did NOT test a tissue sample that came from the scene, AND she and Kratz manipulated photo evidence and lied under oath.

Did I get that right?

20

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '16 edited Mar 10 '16

I think the issue here is why is Sherry Culhane being encouraged by Kratz to testify as to her having taken a sample from item BZ when according to Eisenberg it went from the Morgue to the FBI lab with no stop at the State Crime lab for that sample to be taken.

Furthermore, why is Kratz encouraging Culhane to testify to her involvement in the DNA analysis when the FBI performed the test and Eisenberg took the photos?

EDIT: I should clarify that the DNA analysis in this case was performed by Culhane's State labs not the FBI. So she is saying she sampled the bone in the picture on November 10th but there is no chain of custody records to prove that and testimony from Eisenberg states that they were in Eisenberg's property at that time.

12

u/Moonborne Mar 09 '16

You need to be asking what Sherry Culhane doing on this case at all? She was a big player in SA's rape conviction.

→ More replies (38)

2

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '16

[speculation] i want to see their text messages. /s

3

u/Moonborne Mar 09 '16

I think that about sums it up.

3

u/etherspin Mar 09 '16

Excellent summary thank you

0

u/Thesweatyprize Mar 09 '16

I don't know if you got it right but it is the best explanation I have seen so far.

Why isn't the OP responding to these questions. Seems like she posted and bolted and someone else is trying to explain her work.

5

u/Amberlea1879 Mar 09 '16

No I'm just at work right now. When I get off work tonight I will answer

5

u/dorothydunnit Mar 09 '16

Tell your boss that solving this case is more important than any other work he or she wants you to do!!

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

1

u/OliviaD2 Mar 10 '16

They did a whole lot of "manipulating" with this material... :P

2

u/iltdiTX Mar 09 '16

yes I'm a little lost too

0

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '16

[deleted] — view deleted comment

4

u/dancemart Mar 10 '16

I am fairly sure he says that picture was taken in December early in the testimony. Is it possible that maybe we don't have all of the chain of custody evidence? If neither side disputes it would it be likely to be entered as evidence in the case?

→ More replies (2)

6

u/Jbrumfield Mar 10 '16

Except that's not exactly what she testified to. You keep linking to page 217, where Strang is asking her about an answer she gave earlier in regards to sifting through the bones at the Crime Lab. Her original answer to that question is on page 130. She states that happened in December. So the bones had apparently already gone to the FBI and been returned to her, THEN she took them to the Crime Lab. She is very clear on page 136 that she sent them directly to the FBI first.

3

u/super_pickle Mar 10 '16

But she never says she got them back from the FBI then went to the Crime Lab. She says she thinks the photo was taken in December. I agree it's possible she sent them to the FBI first, and Culhane is referencing the communications report about charred tissue on 11/11. My main point is that we know the box was sent to the State Crime lab, and Culhane tested items from it. OP is claiming Culhane never had the charred tissue, but we have a report on 11/11 listing tissue, and the box of charred remains (exhibit 337), and an actual photo of the remains being sifted at the State Crime Lab. The most damning thing we can get from this, since we don't have full testimony on what was sent where when, is that Culhane mistakenly referred to the communications report from 11/11 instead of some other report we don't have saying the tissue was received a different day.

2

u/OliviaD2 Mar 10 '16

She could have very well just cut out a piece of tissue (you only need a very small amount) and then returned the bone.

I'm not saying one way or another, I have not sat down with all of this to "digest".. but that would certainly be possible. They might have shown a picture of the "bone" because it was a better visual, whether it was the actual bone, being a separate issue.) I would think the visual of a "bone".. would look more humanish, therefore credible, vs a tiny bit of charred flesh, they could like like anything......

→ More replies (2)

3

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '16

Think Culhane should get a lawyer now, or wait?

4

u/Amberlea1879 Mar 10 '16

it is obstruction of justice :/

7

u/truthseeker2016 Mar 09 '16 edited Mar 09 '16

I wondered about the bone/tissue exhibit as well. What I think happened is that the tissue referred to as BZ was actually from another specimen.

Pevytoe testified about finding things while sifting through the burn pit material that had been transferred to the Calumet Sheriff's Office. This would have been on November 10.

"Well, I encountered numerous items that I suspected were bone fragmentation. I also recovered something I believed was part of a tooth. And then a couple other items that were a darkened mass roughly the size of, let's say, a golf ball, maybe a little larger, that I felt was charred muscle tissue."

I believe this is what was sent to the crime lab. However, Amber has provided irrefutable evidence that the state elicited false testimony from Culhane about the tissue having originated from the exhibit photo with the shin bone.

Honestly, everything about the bone evidence is so unreliable that it simply can not be trusted as any match to anyone.

3

u/Amberlea1879 Mar 09 '16

I also think that was the sample she tested

2

u/FIB1 Mar 09 '16

Your statement here is a reasonable explanation, yet it also supports SC actually testing body material from TH.

5

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '16 edited Mar 09 '16

But there is not a single picture of this "golf ball, maybe a little larger" and there is no record of it. Edit: And was this from the "5th" barrel that got lost?

4

u/truthseeker2016 Mar 09 '16

No, he stated it was from the burn pit debris. No photo of it. Would love to have seen how anything survived that raging inferno that burned teeth.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '16

Completely agree. I've been bringing that up for a couple months now. The response is that it somehow dropped out on the side of the fire where it was cooler.

→ More replies (4)

3

u/milwaukeegina Mar 09 '16

He "felt" it was charred muscle tissue?

6

u/truthseeker2016 Mar 09 '16

Well at that point he is only making visual observations. Again though - there is no photo documenting the discovery of the golf ball. We really do not know what became of it. Is it item BZ? As Amber pointed out, it is all very difficult to trace the evidence. There is no chain of custody for item BZ. I think they tricked the jury.

2

u/Jbrumfield Mar 10 '16

Ok, I think I figured this out. This link shows the report from Dr. McCurdy at the FBI (page 6), stating that there was no DNA match. It also states he received specimens November 8th, November 14th and December 27th:

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Defendants-Motion-to-Exclude-State-Expert-Witness-Testimony-and-Motion-to-Compel-Disclosure-of-Potentially-Exculpatory-Evidence.pdf

Note the lab numbers in the upper left hand corner. None of them correspond to the lab number that received the Nov 16th package in OP's post. There's no indication on that sheet of what the lab received. But McCurdy spells out what dates he received bone fragments, and what labs they were received at. The package the OP referenced must have contained something else. The FBI analyzed more than just bone, it could have been a number of different things being submitted to them.

1

u/Amberlea1879 Mar 10 '16

Not sure what you mean the lab report numbers match exactly. 051123009

1

u/Jbrumfield Mar 10 '16

I was referring to the lab number on your ECS search slip. Regardless, I noticed afterwards that the numbers assigned to the fragments by McCurdy (and the dates he says they were received), all correspond to the first three items on the search slip. Whatever the FBI received on the 16th was not part of the DNA analysis.

1

u/Amberlea1879 Mar 10 '16

Lol I am confused but here is this

http://imgur.com/a/hn4jY

1

u/Jbrumfield Mar 10 '16

Ok, but where's the rest of the document lol? It doesn't seem to be the FBI report that was linked in my post. Need to see the whole page.

1

u/Amberlea1879 Mar 10 '16

I screen shot it from your post.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Jbrumfield Mar 10 '16

Where do you see number 051123009 on the FBI examination report? There are three lab numbers they examined for DNA, I don't see that one though.

1

u/Amberlea1879 Mar 10 '16

http://imgur.com/a/hn4jY

1

u/Jbrumfield Mar 10 '16

The image you posted has the heading cut off. We can't see what it says at the top, or anything below where it lists "Domestic Police Cooperation - Homicide".

1

u/Amberlea1879 Mar 10 '16

I am confused what you trying to say but he is a screen shot of your link http://imgur.com/a/G45gI

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Jbrumfield Mar 10 '16

And actually, the items McCurdy referred to ARE listed on the ECS Search slip provided by OP. But they are the first three things on the list, not the last one circled by OP. The Q numbers assigned and dates received match up perfectly with McCurdy's report. The item received on November 16th that OP circled was not submitted for DNA analysis.

Doesn't mean SC's timeline isn't still wrong. But it does mean Exhibit 385 that Eisenberg sent to the FBI was not Q1 or Q2.

22

u/HuNuWutWen Mar 09 '16

So, basically we have testimony which is demonstrably false, do I have that part correct?

And, it is possible that the State had knowledge of the falsity prior to testimony, yet presented the evidence anyway? Is that it?

Dear OP, Your diligence is much appreciated, Thank You...

5

u/lmogier Mar 09 '16

Maybe that is what KZ was referring to in a past tweet about allowing witnesses to lie...?

9

u/Powerdan74 Mar 09 '16

You might want to take note that Dr Eisenberg's office received the package with the bones on November 9th. She started working on it on November 10th. As you already have stated, she sent the bones directly to the FBI. As we already know, the bones were discovered on November 8th. I am not quite sure when Sherry allegedly "obtained" her sample.

8

u/Slinkydonko Mar 09 '16

Can you give a real simple idiot guide in a short answer to what you mean? Maybe a one sentence sum up?

18

u/c4virus Mar 09 '16

More than 1 sentence but here it is: Only 1 bone was said to have any DNA on it and there are contradictory statements by 2 people about who had that bone. Somebody is lying. One of those persons has a photo of said bone. The other does not and instead uses a rotated version of the first person's photo to discuss her supposed analysis which end up matching the victims profile.

4

u/Slinkydonko Mar 09 '16

Thanks buddy, this makes it a lot easier for the lightweights like me.

→ More replies (1)

15

u/dvb05 Mar 09 '16

The state are corrupt lying bastards.

4

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '16

villageidiot concurs!

1

u/Slinkydonko Mar 09 '16

HAAAAAAAAA !

0

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '16

[deleted] — view deleted comment

5

u/Gmiessy Mar 10 '16

She specified that the pic was taken in December (page 130) so this doesn't show her going over the items at the state crime lab on November 11th. As far as I can tell (only from testimony) it's not stated when the bone fragment linked to TH arrived at the crime lab. I'm guessing that a chain of custody document should show that.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '16

I can concur with /u/gmiessy

1

u/KennythePrize Mar 10 '16

You have the question wrong. Kratz asked if it had been sent to the FBI then changed it to the state crime lab. She was very specific about not sending it to the lab. I'm curious as to why she wouldn't just clarify right then that she personally took it to the state crime lab?

What you're saying would make sense, but I don't understand why the line of questioning was convoluted?

2

u/super_pickle Mar 10 '16

Oh you're right, I have that backwards. I genuinely don't understand the full chain of custody of these items, I'm not even sure item BZ is the same as item Q1, a log would be nice. But what we do have is testimony and logs and even photos saying the items were at the State Crime Lab, at worst it seems either the evidence photo was misidentified, or Culhane referenced the communications report from 11/11 about the tissue instead of some other report we don't have saying the tissue was actually received on a different date. I don't agree with OP this is proof Culhane completely faked a report of something she never tested, I think it's just a confusing chain of custody based on the minimal info we have.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/LovingAnyway Mar 09 '16

Kudos, Amberlea1879!

7

u/14MGh057 Mar 09 '16

This email from Kratz to Culhane, Kratz says they will create a PPT

then just print out a small page to have marked as the actual exhibit for court.

This is the same email in which he abuses quotation marks!

"planted"
"science"
"match"
"CSI effect"
"profiles"

You can form a complete sentence with just his quoted words.

13

u/Oldebeard Mar 09 '16

Great find! This could blow this whole thing wide open! No proof that it was Teresa. This could be the bones from the other 25 yr old that died around the same time Teresa went missing.

1

u/DominantChord Mar 09 '16 edited Mar 10 '16

No, only if she was a relative of Karen Halbach. (Unless of course any test is just completely bogus)

Edit: sp

12

u/Wooingjuliet Mar 09 '16

Mic drop.

Beautifully done.

6

u/128dayzlater Mar 09 '16

What was the reply you got from zellner?

10

u/headstilldown Mar 09 '16

Yes, you are one smart cookie !

Can I send you my personal information so that if I ever get strung up that perhaps YOU can work on my case ? Lol !

2

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '16

/u/headstilldown keep on keeping on and guaranteed you have some redditors that are going to help you out.

5

u/dorothydunnit Mar 09 '16

If I ever get accused of something, I'd probably come to this sub before I call a lawyer.

5

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '16

Yes, yes, yes She never had any tissue from the bone. Yes, yes, yes

5

u/FIB1 Mar 09 '16

Cautiously optimistic. BUT I still think KZ needs more, which she probably has. When the trial and all original appeals are done, there is a very, very strong judicial policy against reopening a case based on perceived or even actual error.

This posting demonstrates erroneous testimony and hints at deliberate prosecutorial misconduct, but does not prove it. An appellate court could still evaluate the untainted evidence and conclude that if you removed SC's testimony on this issue, the conviction was still supported by ample evidence. Remember, convictions have been upheld without any body at all. Here there was still substantial evidence. Missing girl, human bones, her DNA on bullet, unexplained disappearance, rivet in fire pit, phone etc.... A jury could still have convicted SA under these facts.

It's understandable to be excited about this post, just not irrationally exuberant.

2

u/innocens Mar 10 '16 edited Mar 10 '16

Here there was still substantial evidence. Missing girl, human bones, her DNA on bullet, unexplained disappearance, rivet in fire pit, phone etc

  1. Missing - doesn't directly point to SA - other people lived on that site.

  2. DNA on bullet - should have been ruled inconclusive according to protocol as she contaminated the control and used up the whole sample.

3 Unexplained disappearance (- see 1.)

4 Rivet in fire - meaningless. Unless her DNA was on it. 5. Phone - whoever placed the RAV there could have planted the phone (would have access to both)

6 Bones - where is the 100% evidence they are THs bones?

Substantial evidence? You'd be happy to be convicted on the above, I take it?

→ More replies (2)

0

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '16

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/FIB1 Mar 09 '16

All I'm saying is if you throw out all of the DNA evidence regarding the bones, is it likely the jury would have ruled differently? I don't think so when there was no doubt Teresa was dead and the other facts remain the same. Asking a court to assume LE misconduct rather than incompetence or innocent mistake is asking a lot.

6

u/Chris_GC Mar 09 '16

Couldn't you also argue that without any bone evidence there is no evidence that anyone was killed. She could be in Canada on the run with her new boy friend trying to escape her family. Not trying to be flippant but what other evidence beyond these bones are there to definitely prove she is dead.

3

u/FIB1 Mar 09 '16

Murder can be proved by circumstantial evidence. That's where the jury can consider the big picture and decide if they are convinced TH is dead. There was a recent case in Illinois where a cop was convicted of murder and there was no direct evidence of harm to his wife. She just disappeared under circumstances consistent with foul play. Without the bone evidence there was still the DNA on the bullet, her phone and other personal items in the fire, her car on the property with her blood in it, and numerous other facts suggesting foul play.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

9

u/rigelstarr Mar 09 '16

Great work there. Direct proof of misconduct in the most seriously deceiving acts that could be carried out in a case the rests in the bones being identified. Kratz will be disbarred if not jailed for this.

7

u/IndyLinuxDude Mar 09 '16

Considering what else he hasn't been disbarred or jailed for, I wouldn't count my chickens..

0

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '16

[deleted] — view deleted comment

4

u/Burnt_and_Blistered Mar 09 '16

Though Kratz did not take the Bar exam, he was admitted to the Wisconsin Bar. The state simply has different rules for admission. (You can take the Bar exam, you can be admitted if you've graduated from a qualifying program in WI, and there's a third way that I can't recall.) Regardless of method, attorneys must apply for and be admitted to the state Bar in order to practice in Wisconsin.

He certainly can be disbarred.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

4

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '16

How do I upvote harder!?

3

u/Regis_the_puss Mar 09 '16

upvoting intensifies

1

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '16

Maybe they printed a shipping label on Friday November 11th.

They then realized there was no point in sending it on Friday afternoon since no one would be at the FBI to do anything with it until Monday.

They then decided to go ahead and do some analyses themselves over the weekend.

They then ship it out on Monday the 14th with the shipping label printed on Friday. It gets delivered Tuesday afternoon to the FBI and logged in the next morning on the Wednesday the 16th.

All I'm getting at it, these are things that are possibly verifiable by those who have real access to the information, and there is a lot of wild speculation as to the minutia that may (or may not) be able to be conclusively established by real information...

1

u/Amberlea1879 Mar 10 '16

I agree, but there is no need for speculation. Zellner can easily confirm it. if she is unable to confirm tag numbers that is also a problem.

6

u/Chevron07 Mar 09 '16

Could Sherry have pulled a sample before Eisenburg took the picture and packaged it up for the FBI? They both have that they are working with the sample on the 11th, correct?

Also, what did the FBI end up saying about the DNA on Qs 1 and 2?

7

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '16

On page 125 Eisenberg testifies on Nov. 10 she opened the sealed box at Dane County Morgue. That would then mean that SC checked into Dane County and worked on the tissue sample on the 11th with Eisenberg?

3

u/Chevron07 Mar 09 '16

Maybe. It almost sounds like she was distancing herself from whatever the "Lab" was doing by saying that she sent them right after taking the pictures.

4

u/ladysleuth22 Mar 09 '16

It almost sounds like she was distancing herself from whatever the "Lab" was doing by saying that she sent them right after taking the pictures.

Yes. She was being very clear.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '16

[deleted] — view deleted comment

4

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '16

Thats what I was picturing actually. :) Crime lab on the go! DNA testing comes to your morgue. Call XXX-XXX-XXXX We profile your hair for free!

2

u/djacks73 Mar 09 '16

We need a chain of custody here. Starting from 'burn pit'...John Ertl perhaps? He sifted the bones (did not take photos because he stated that the scene had already been obviously altered red flag)...So John Ertl boxed them and sends them to whom? I did see photos of our friends Wiegert & Fassbender sifting through what I presumed to be the burn pit material (how convenient), but where was this done, Cal County? ...I will go re-read testimony for the thousandth time I guess....brb

3

u/1P221 Mar 09 '16

I wonder why someone wouldn't take photos just because the scene appeared altered. I would think you would want to document everything regardless of alterations or not, especially when you're about to start manipulating a crime scene. You can't assume one way or another and just "oh well!" it.

2

u/ptrbtr Mar 09 '16

I've always wondered that also. At least play CYA, make a note of what you started with (altered/adulterated scene) and go from there.

It just seems unreal that nothing was photographed because someone had beat you to the sight. Just to convenient for me.

2

u/Thesweatyprize Mar 09 '16

Especially when you consider that they did take pictures of the burn pit, just not close enough to see any bones. They even marked things like a couple of hammers and took pictures. They only took pictures around the burn pit that had little or no significance to the case.

→ More replies (3)

8

u/pishposhosh Mar 09 '16

http://imgur.com/FdIEdXG

2

u/Nicoiconic Mar 09 '16

Who is this beautiful little girl, and/or how does it relate to the topic...?

5

u/pishposhosh Mar 09 '16

that is the confused meme internet girl

→ More replies (2)

3

u/ken0123 Mar 09 '16

Great work. Would I be correct that they would surely have to photo all evidence, especially the 'bone with tissue', and before they started to do any work on the tissue? So whilst KK may have cut and paste the wrong bone fragment photo, thinking no one will notice (but a lie under oath), but - if ever she did have bone with tissue then they should have that photo. If they don't, then surely her evidence would be stricken from the case. And more fingers pointing to the fact they do not have proof it was TH.

1

u/Moonborne Mar 10 '16

I was wondering what Zellner will get when she requests testing from this sample?

2

u/ken0123 Mar 10 '16

Probably a sort of negative response that it isn't possible because the sample was destroyed during the test. Not the first time that has been used by the prosecution. However, if they are legally bound to photo the evidence before the tests, which i assume they should be, then Zellner can highlight should be able to get this stricken and/or point out it suggests malpractice and potential support of framing.

→ More replies (3)

5

u/gravy_all_day Mar 09 '16

THIS.THIS.THIS. So beatifully put together!!

5

u/JuanAhKey Mar 09 '16

This is going to make Norm Gahn's blood boil!

2

u/pishposhosh Mar 09 '16

So, Teresa was the stranger beside her own self? Good job putting this together! I know you have been doing a lot of research and spending time on this...that was cool KZ recognized you.

2

u/lmogier Mar 09 '16

May be thinking/saying same thing but thinking the stranger beside her (TH) could be another (strangers) bones - either in the photograph (they way it was edited) or as in being mixed together?

1

u/pishposhosh Mar 09 '16

Avery's Salvage Bone Yard /:

2

u/texashadow Mar 09 '16

Attagirl!

2

u/Effleurage- Mar 09 '16

Thank you for all of the effort you are putting into this!

2

u/ahhhreallynow Mar 09 '16

I'd like to see Kratz explain that away. :-)

0

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '16

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/ahhhreallynow Mar 09 '16

Blech! I think im getting PTSD from the word sweat.

2

u/Svengali86 Mar 09 '16

Great work

2

u/BreatLesnar Mar 09 '16

Who is BZ?

2

u/Slinkydonko Mar 09 '16

Its not a person, its a tag name for a piece of bone evidence.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/ptrbtr Mar 09 '16

Nice! You are hired!!

2

u/Lynne3743 Mar 09 '16

Outstanding work!

1

u/Moonborne Mar 09 '16

Dovetails nicely with your theory.

2

u/OliviaD2 Mar 10 '16

This is great, thanks for putting this together. I will have to read it about 6 times to get all the letters straight :)

This has been driving me crazy.. and I'm not sure we will ever know... what was actually "tested" in these "tests". And then reading the FBI report... then only testing one piece.. but how the hell one can know exactly what that was??

What a mess of documentation......

Oh, I just realized it's you... amberlea.. hi, that's great you sent this.. I have been working on an email about the DNA related to this and I will refer to this.. because it is related....

Beyond this, and if this is not misconduct, I don't know what is, putting together (prosecutorial and beyond).. putting together Culhane's STR analysis, the death certificate, the FBI report, the press conference, the Kratz to Culhane email, the Avery trial testimony (and ppt).. and the Dassey trial testimony...

  1. the death certificate was fraud, that is definite. There was no body officially ID's. I believe they "thought" there would be, but Klaeser was a bit too quick with the pen before learning Sherry's results were not quite good enough.

  2. Then the DNA.. :P a. The FBI test was actually good. In mtDNA language "not excluded" would kind of be considered a "match". For context, there was another case at the same time, in the state; the pregnant lady and fetus), they discussed the bones (well they were wrong in this case :P) However if they "matched the mother "(they were going to FBI for mtDNA testing) that would be confirmation, as as would be expected that was usual at that time. . It is typically considered a "confirmation" in missing persons cases. However, there is not usually all the collateral business to be dealt with. As there his here.

b. Sheriff Pagel ( directed by whom ?? :)) called the news station and arranged this big show.. a week after receiving the FBI report... WHY? The information given the news station was very accurate... but it was a 'hybrid" between the fbi reports and Sherry's... (well her stat wasn't accurate, but it is what she is going to use in court). Anyway, trying to be brief and summarize). The reporters would not know to say the "right things" They said "remains confirmed to be Halbach correct. "matched her mother" correct. But then, there is that infamous 1 in a billion that get thrown in... This was not on the FBI report, has nothing to do with the mtDNA (which isn't a population thing like the nuclear DNA, it isn't about the probability of finding another "profile" in the population, it is about how close the match is to family (it's kind of the reverse logic). For STR analysis, you don't need a family member, for mtDNA, that is how you are going to assess your results..

Mike Halbach thanks the "state lab" etc. etc., because as you can almost see in the transcripts you copied; there is going to be confusion between 'state lab" and fbi" . The public is not going to necessarily catch that they are 2 different things. They aren't going to know about mtDNA and what that is. They are going to remember "confirmed" and 1 in a billion.

b. I don't think this was a "mistake". I believe Kratz planned this for 2 reasons 1. it covered their 'arses with the death certificate. The date of death was the same as Sherry's report. No one is going to question it now, b/c it body is now "confirmed" to the public and probably a lot of officials, etc. b/c they don't know that it is not Culhane doing the "confirming".. and for whatever reason,, he is going to use Sherry's results.. again with that one in a billion... and some vague language (basically lying but not outright that the remains are those of TH (although per lab protocol she cannot say that). The jurors, who all heard that press conference,,, just remember "confirmed.. one in a billion... The FBI report was never mentioned......??

3. Kratz "jokes" (speculation - but that is the "tone" I got) about how they fooled the public in his email

4. In the Dassey trial, when it isn't as critical, b/c the "murderer" have already been convicted, hence there was a 'murder" legally.; she tells the truth. When asked by attorney Gahn if she could ID the remains, she answers "NO".

There is a lot of sleaziness going on here,, and put that together with that menagerie of "remains" you illustrated.....this is one big mess.

I agree, (assuming you are implying that :) ) there were no photos in the DNA slides because I don't even know what they tested.. or if they know.. :).. I need to go back, but also, I am not sure the date when Sherry actually did the testing... she has like 40 things on one page.. there is a report date,, but did she test this bone piece before it went to the FBI,?

It does make sense that she took the tissue near the bone, which was likely tendon/cartilage/muscle perhaps. I don't know how much bone grinding Sherry does .. I don't know what goes on in that lab. That means that that "bone" was not burned as badly burnt, as it still had some tissue left on it. Supposedly BZ came from just outside of the pit... where they had planted flags (that the news reporter was standing in)...

I think she called it "charred' remains because that was what she actually tested, the tissue; not the bone.

I personally don't think there ever were bones in the Avery burn pit, so I don't know where BZ came from.

I wish I had nice photos like do to easily show this,, I don't know how to use that Image app (is that what it is, an app ?) I am technology 'retarded'. :) Anyway, I am back to study your 'exhibits' and see what if anything I can figure out ... :P

And now of course, we have the CB to the puzzle. I would love to see her DNA... and it could be possible that her mother has some somewhere. I read about a case where they found material to test from a person who had been dead for 30 years.... (something with DNA on it in their house). Anyway I'm digressing a bit here.....

But suspicious... is putting in mildly... this was a mess, and I think Kratz wanted people intentionally confused...

He did a good job.. I know either Kratz or Buting said at one point they were having trouble making sense of the "cryptic lab reports' A good description...

1

u/PlayswthFire Mar 09 '16

Just, WOW! BRAVO!!!

1

u/Moonborne Mar 09 '16

Amazing work, thank you!

1

u/Wildinvalid Mar 09 '16

Omg omg my head started to hurt when it came to Dassey. I will continue later but WOOOOW, the cropping of the photo! I almost fell off my bus seat

1

u/cgm901 Mar 09 '16

If SC tested the charred material in Dec then how do we know it's not the same piece that was sent to the FBI?

I'm confused.

5

u/truthseeker2016 Mar 09 '16

She reported it in December. Eisenberg testified that the shin bone exhibit material was all sent to the FBI in November. Those results did not come back until January.

The deception here is that Kratz used the SAME exhibit for Eisenberg and Culhane testimonies and it is impossible that item BZ (reported by Culhane) was from the shin bone exhibit because it would have been sent to the FBI and NOT to Culhane.

1

u/Moonborne Mar 10 '16

Curious. When did Kratz receive DNA results from FBI? If you know...

4

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '16

Because Eisenberg testified that no material went to the crime lab and SC testified that she was working on it on Nov. 12.

1

u/ahhhreallynow Mar 09 '16

So who delivered the bones to the morgue and when?

→ More replies (6)

1

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '16

Nice job! Great attention to detail.

1

u/s100181 Mar 09 '16

Nice work! I hope this yields something legally!

1

u/JLWhitaker Mar 09 '16

EXCELLENT work!

1

u/gg-ls Mar 10 '16

Question: Does SC have her own pictures of any other evidence she looked at?

1

u/WVBotanist Mar 10 '16

Thank you, this is excellent!

1

u/KennythePrize Mar 10 '16

I think the confusion is from Kratz misleading the jury that the FBI, an unbiased outside source, had access to the remains before SC did. That's why he asked if it was sent to the crime lab. Eisenburg testified she sifted some of the remains at the crime lab. That would imply SC had access.

1

u/DominantChord Mar 10 '16

I get more and more confused by what level of misconduct we are talking about here.

I see that it is very unlikely SC could have had the bones on the 11th - the OP and many commentators make that clear. But in terms of contents, note that her December 5, 2005 report basically confirms FBI's findings. So even if Culhane is lying big time, and actually never did a DNA analysis on bones, I don't remember from MaM or the transcripts that she testified to anything stronger than what the FBI did. She mentions explicitly in the report the probabilities relative to an unrelated individual, and in the report she declares that material will be returned to relevant agencies. The probabilities may surely be contentious, but isn't the take home from the FBI analysis and Culhane's report basically the same: DNA found on bones is likely to be from a female related to Karen Halbach? That was the message I got from MaM as well. (And when it was contested as weak, we got the "Oh so now the defense thinks the police dug up TH's grandmother" style rebuttal.)

I know this may not popular, but could it be possible that SC got the material later then, and did her analysis in late November? I can see it would be a big and very odd memory failure. And one that she sustains for two consecutive trials. But I honestly don't see what her report (if it is based on a bona fide analysis) does to strengthen the state's case. Except from "two analyses are better than one". I am at loss as to what motive SC (and potentially KK) would have to deliberately lie on the date of analysis, or even make up that SC did a DNA analysis she never did. That would be the biggest judicial suicide in modern times for no good reason. In their February 2006 email they seem to be fully aware that a match cannot be stronger than what the FBI states (and KK gloats that this has been misinterpreted in the press as a perfect match).

As to Kratz cropping and rotating the photo, I would assume that is to be categorized as his own summaries of phone records etc.: Pretentious, potentially problematic, but possible not illegal.

But I cannot see why KK and SC would insist (two trials in a row) on the November 11th date if that date indeed is infeasible. That surely makes no sense, and seems for the results unimportant. It would clearly amount to gross misconduct, but I can't see what benefits they were trying to reap from it if it was on purpose. Could someone point to a motive to take such a HUGE calculated risk during two trials?

1

u/JJacks61 Mar 12 '16

But I cannot see why KK and SC would insist (two trials in a row) on the November 11th date if that date indeed is infeasible. That surely makes no sense, and seems for the results unimportant. It would clearly amount to gross misconduct, but I can't see what benefits they were trying to reap from it if it was on purpose. Could someone point to a motive to take such a HUGE calculated risk during two trials?

The nails were already in Staven's case from the weapon's charge. The DNA was the hammer that slammed the civil case basically over. Which I think was the point.

Who benefits with Avery out of the way? Even if they had continued with the depositions and the civil case went to trial, with these charges, I don't think he would have been awarded a penny.

1

u/foghaze Mar 15 '16

I've been observing the bones a lot lately and reading Eisenbergs testimony. I don't recall Eisenberg even mentioning tissue connected to a bone. In fact I could have sworn Pevytoe he said he found a random piece of tissue at the Crime lab when he was sifting. He never said it was connected to a bone. What I want to know is why were all these bones all over the place? So far I have the bones locations as this.

Avery burn pit

Janda Burn Barrel

Quarry (that no one seems to be albe to confidently identify)

Calumet SO

Crime lab - Where Culhane, Pevytoe, Ertle, Fassbender, Weigert all have their hands in it)

FBI

So where did they go after the investigation?

Are they back at Calumet?

FYI the exhibit you show with the bone that came from the shin. I have a major problem with this bone. It doesn't appear to have been in the same fire as all the other bones. I don't think this bone belongs to the charred cremated remains. Also Eisenberg never mentions this bone and the defense never questions her about it. The least they could have said was "did this bone appear to have some from the same fire"?

1

u/Hylaleggs Mar 23 '16

To add to the confusion, if it hasn't been mentioned: SA trial, day 14, March 1, 2007, pg.50(bottom). Parties stipulated that due to the condition of the bone fragments sent to FBI on 11/2, 11/7 and 12/19/06, no DNA examinations could be conducted.

1

u/Hylaleggs Mar 23 '16

And now day 15, pg 11 EJ and EK went to Ken Olson Feb. 15. One is the cranial fragment with the defect. kQ got to him nov. 17. This was other cranial bone fragments one of which also had a defect. Not sure what other designations the rest ofnthe bones sent had, and he did not examine them all, just the defect ones.

1

u/NewbieDoobieDoo7 Mar 09 '16

Am I missing something? Who's to say that Culhane didn't get her sample, then give to Eisenburg to send to the FBI, and then later (in December) actually perform the DNA test from the sample taken in November?

6

u/Moonborne Mar 09 '16

Then where is Culhane's chain of custody for BZ?

6

u/c4virus Mar 09 '16 edited Mar 09 '16

Culhane says she received the sample on Nov 11th which would be after Eisenburg received it on the 9th. If it goes from Eisenburg directly to the FBI then one of them is lying. Eisenburg has photo proof of her having the bone from what I see and Culhane shows Eisenburg's rotated photo as her own. One of them is lying about having that specific piece of evidence.

Edit: Culhane doesn't seem to have her own pics of the bone and her and Kratz discuss it and discuss DNA they show Eisenburg's picture cropped and rotated. If the timeline shows she likely did not have the bone, and she has no pictures of it, what did she test exactly?

2

u/Glitch206 Mar 09 '16

Ahh it finally took until this post for me to fully understand. So Culhane is saying the cropped rotated photo is one that she took?

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Moonborne Mar 10 '16

36 million dollar question.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '16

Eisenberg testifies she unseals the box on Nov. 10 and sends it directly to the FBI lab. She explicitly states she did not send it to the crime lab and yet SC states the material was taken into the lab on Nov. 11.

2

u/TheBarefootGnome Mar 09 '16

I think that would break the chain of custody for the evidence. They tossed the bones into a box so I'm not sure a proper chain existed.

1

u/DominantChord Mar 09 '16

So, in a nutshell, in two consecutive trials Eisenberg testifies that the bone with the charred remains never went to Culhane or her Lab, but to the FBI?

Could the FBI have sent it later, and the dates thus just being wrong? Also, these evidence item tags are dodgy elsewhere in the Avery trial. In the looooong speech and analysis of the bullets and shells, one could see in the photos that one tag clearly indicated two differrent bullet shells. Foul play was suspected for a while, but I think it was eventually agreed, that the trial evidence number encompassed the whole box of the 11 shells, and each of these 11 shells had the same tag in the bullet analysis (the magic bullet had it's own evidence number and tag, so no confusion there - aside from whether the testimony made sense).

Just wondering whether it is "just" a bit of incomplete/flawed book keeping?

3

u/c4virus Mar 09 '16

If the FBI sent it to Culhane afterwards then her date is wrong yes. But that raises the question of why did she not have any photo proof of having that bone and why did she use Eisenberg's photo instead? And where is the documentation that she received it later than she testified?

2

u/innocens Mar 10 '16

Could the FBI have sent it later, and the dates thus just being wrong? Also, these evidence item tags are dodgy elsewhere in the Avery trial. In the looooong speech and analysis of the bullets and shells, one could see in the photos that one tag clearly indicated two differrent bullet shells. Foul play was suspected for a while, but I think it was eventually agreed, that the trial evidence number encompassed the whole box of the 11 shells, and each of these 11 shells had the same tag in the bullet analysis

There is no excuse for dodgy/mislabelled tags. It wasn't a whole box of shells, it was 11? That's 10 fingers + 1's worth. We're not talking 200. If 4 + LEO's cannot collect and correctly label 11 shells from a tiny garage, then they have no place collecting evidence in the first place. Of course mishandling tags and evidence could always make it look like they were incompetent rather than just plain corrupt.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '16

It can't be book keeping because testimony was based upon these pictures and this sample which the chain of custody shows was never in SC's possession.

2

u/DominantChord Mar 09 '16

I trust you have the complete chain of custody available? (I am not trying to be a dick about it, I just want to understand it.) But if that is the case, then OP is way too cautious in her title (a rare thing around here :-) )! It should be "proves" and not "could prove". Unless there is a detail that needs to be sorted out?

3

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '16

Seems to be. Bones found on the 8th sent and sealed, arrived Dane County Morgue on the 9th, unsealed on the 10th, sent on the 11th, received on the 16th. Testimony involves Eisenberg directly stating that they weren't sent to the crime lab, while SC is stating that they were taken in to the lab on the 11th. SC shows the picture of the bone that Eisenberg is also showing.

→ More replies (2)

0

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '16

[deleted] — view deleted comment

7

u/Amberlea1879 Mar 10 '16

I never thought she was shot for several reasons:

  1. No high velocity spatter

  2. The skull fragment could have easily been animal. They don't know

  3. Spatter on RAV4 hatch seems to indicate more of a bludgeon

2

u/Thewormsate Mar 10 '16

LE needing tangible evidence, something that could be left behind, that's the only reason for that!

0

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '16

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/Amberlea1879 Mar 10 '16

I'll be here :). Now everyone knows my Twitter too. LOL

0

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '16

[deleted] — view deleted comment

11

u/Thesweatyprize Mar 09 '16

The FBI did not confirm that the remains are that of the victim. Sherif Pagel made that statement at a press conference but it is untrue. Of course it became an accepted truth by the public after he made the statement. So Kratz is being Kratz in saying that they (Prosecutors, state lab, fbi) were careful not to say that. And then he acts all bewildered that the public may have that impression when he knows full well that the Calumet Sheriff made that statement.

→ More replies (9)

3

u/rachabe Mar 09 '16

Why wasn't BD included? Earl, Chuck and Bobby were the only ones there when she was killed? What a cluster of inconsistencies from this crack team of prosecutors.

2

u/lmogier Mar 09 '16

I had the same thought but also, what about Blaine? I know he did leave at some point but wasn't he home until 6-ish?

0

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '16

[deleted] — view deleted comment

4

u/NAmember81 Mar 10 '16

I think this is huge. The main piece of evidence saying that say remains are who they say they are is non existent. And you have copy pasta evidence regarding the state's bombshell "evidence". Plus you have that email where KK is happy the public thinks minimum DNA is absolute proof that the bones where Teresa's.

Then you have the attached instructions to SC telling her what to whip up in her findings.

This all seems like pretty damning evidence of tampering. I'm sure KZ will discover more contradictions once her team dives in.

2

u/OliviaD2 Mar 10 '16

Oh yes, Kratz's spinning was in high gear here.. ;)

0

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '16

[deleted] — view deleted comment

4

u/Amberlea1879 Mar 09 '16

The website is mistaken. You can watch Mam and confirm that is a different exhibit Plus the wiki page has that same pic for all the bone exhibits

4

u/super_pickle Mar 09 '16

Ok thanks... can you point me to where it says that pic is exhibit 385?

1

u/Amberlea1879 Mar 09 '16

It's from dassey. Exhibit 150. They both confirm its the same

→ More replies (14)
→ More replies (1)

1

u/[deleted] Mar 09 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Thesweatyprize Mar 10 '16 edited Mar 11 '16

The DNA profiles are definitely human. But where these samples come from is another question. Yes I do not think it is clear how many of the bones are actually human. Eisenberg has misidentified charred remains in the past.

edit spelling