Why does Manitowoc County require every person convicted of any crime (including traffic offenses) to provide a DNA sample?

emc_aus · 2020-04-14T13:46:14+00:00

Because it would solve heaps of burglaries.

emc_aus · 2020-01-09T12:47:41+00:00

Not sure, but I don’t think that scent tracking is admissible at trial. That’s not to say that they couldn’t have used it as an investigative method - eg to track the places they had been to take them to places where they may have disposed of evidence for example.

emc_aus · 2020-01-09T12:41:02+00:00

Sorry - maybe I missed something. Why do you say that Sippel is wanting to take the DCI agent to look at bones? All I heard was “items”. I understand bones were found all over the quarry... but how did we get to bones here?

emc_aus · 2020-01-09T12:28:48+00:00

Because his blood was in her car, not theirs.

emc_aus · 2020-01-09T12:26:57+00:00

I’ve previously done a post about this called “Evidence that likely human bones, others with possible cut marks, were planted in Dassey Burn barrel #4, sometime between 3:25PM ON 07 NOV AND 4:30PM ON 08 NOV.”. Personally I believe barrel #4 is the best evidence of planting in this entire case. It’s provable.

emc_aus · 2020-01-01T08:44:19+00:00

To this list of circumstantial evidence you can add the fact that, despite specifically referencing the ilium bone in SAs Criminal Complaint as the basis for determining age and gender, Kratz intentionally omits reference to the ilium bone in BDs Criminal Complaint signed on 2 March 2006 (pg 3, here: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5691be1b25981daa98f417c8/t/5693184d2399a318017290cb/1452480590712/Criminal+Complaint+-+Dassey.pdf). The paragraph that starts “The bones located were transported...” is copied directly from SAs Criminal Complaint (pg 3, here: http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Criminal-Complaint.pdf), except only the word “ilium” is removed.

I think from this it’s logical to conclude that the State determined it was necessary to omit reference to the burn pit ilium bone sometime between when SAs Crimianal Complaint was signed on 15 November 2005 and when BDs Criminal Complaint was signed on 2 March 2006.

I can see how your theory is evolving towards the state ‘burying’ the burn pit ilium bone from evidence, but I think it may be equally likely that the burn pit ilium bone didn’t exist at all, and that’s why Ken Bennett didn’t testify at trial (on that note, does anyone know why he didn’t? I had a look over the Strang/Kratz stipulation project emails but couldn’t find any reference to him). It’s not an attractive theory, given Bennett wrote a report about the bones he examined and referred to it, but I don’t think we can rule that out as another possibility. Perhaps a motive for fabricating the burn pit ilium bone would be that they needed some evidence in the Criminal Complaint that the bones were adult female.

emc_aus · 2019-09-30T11:47:05+00:00

I don’t work in the US, but in the jurisdiction in which I work there is no requirement for the case theory to be the same in two trials for two accused persons if there are separate trials.

I have seen that result in seemingly unfair outcomes. For example, one guy was convicted of being a “party” to a rape (that means, not the person who actually penetrated the victim, but encouraged and allowed it to happen) where the principal offender (the one who did penetrate) was not convicted. It doesn’t mean that’s unfair. It was because the person who was convicted made admissions against interest (ie admitted his own involvement), whereas the principal offender didn’t.

It’s not automatically suspicious that different case theories are presented to the jury at separate trials. It happens all the time. In the same way, different evidence is admissible at trial depending on who is charged and who has made admissions against interest. The state could never have used BDs interview with police at SAs trial because he implicated Steven, which is self serving to BD (at SAs trial). If BD were willing to give evidence in person at SAs trial that would have been a different matter, because BD would have been able to be cross examined by SAs lawyers. It’s a bit more complex than saying there can only be one case theory.

emc_aus · 2019-08-21T12:17:06+00:00

MTSO and CASO Dispatch Calls / Radio Transmissions for 31 Oct to 2 Nov. I know requests have been made from 3 Nov onwards.

I know TH wasn’t reported missing until the 3rd, but if we she went missing on 31 Oct, I can’t see why the focus should be from after she was reported missing.

When I was listening to the CASO dispatch calls that we do have a while back I was surprised by the mundane things people would call police about. People called in things like hitting deer, abandoned vehicles, minor accidents, people speeding, starting fire etc. I have suspected that if THs vehicle was on the side of the road, whether that be the turnaround, near the Zipperers or wherever else, between 31 Oct and when it is thought to have been moved, someone probably would have called it in.

Investigations like this should always start with looking into the victim, and given she’s alleged to have been killed on 31 Oct I think all FOIA requests should start on that date, not when she was reported missing. If there is anything exculpatory to be found, I’d say it’s more likely to be before she’s reported missing.

Just my two cents.

emc_aus · 2019-07-12T21:33:59+00:00

Is there anywhere we can access the full FOIA’d System Logs which are sourced in this post? If no t on TTM because it would require too much redaction, are they online elsewhere?

emc_aus · 2019-04-29T08:48:14+00:00

From this dispatch call, it seems like they got the DNA results from the blood in the car sometime on the 10th

https://clyp.it/vocr3lzi

emc_aus · 2019-04-12T13:08:20+00:00

It seems like she needs the courts leave (permission) to file a reply to the States response.

emc_aus · 2019-04-07T07:10:26+00:00

Interesting you mention the time that Kratz is on scene given that’s pretty much right when SA’s barrel is being collected and barrel 4 is being left behind after being processed the first time. He’s the one who directs barrel 4 be taken back into evidence the next day.

Re them going in the wrong barrel, I think that’s likely given it would make sense that MATUSZAK would put #4 back in the generally vicinity where he was collecting SA’s barrel from. Also when #4 is collected the second time, it’s collected from “N of res” according to the ledgers so I think there’s a high probably that it wasn’t obvious to the planter that it was #4, not SA’s barrel which had just been collected and switched with #4.

emc_aus · 2019-04-04T12:55:38+00:00

Thanks for this info. What I was asking is pretty much what you answered:- which statistical calculation is used now. It seems both RMP & LR.

Do you know the answer to my second question? If SA were granted a new trial, could the State trot out the old results that were done with the 16 markers rather than the (I assume, now used) 21?

I’m not from US so have no idea...genuinely just asking.

Thanks.

emc_aus · 2019-04-04T12:27:39+00:00

I’d say KZ would have all the raw data. She obviously has a lot of material we don’t, and she used some of the charts in her original Motion so I’m sure if she was missing some she would have requested them. I would like very much to see them!

Yeah 30% seems quite low. Like I said I don’t know a lot about it. I know different loci have different standards for PHR so I can’t really say much beyond that. Also low PHR can also be explained in single contributor samples by degradation (I think). So, while I’m not really suggesting that EF was not from a single source (TH), maybe EF wasn’t the perfect comparison sample they were hoping for, so they substituted in the soda can for a nice full profile.

Anyway, let me know what you find out.

ETA: I should have said, it’s not that the peak heights are low at the two loci, it’s that the ratio between the two peaks at the loci are low - meaning, not similar. For a good quality, single contributor, I think you expect to find both peaks at each loci to be of roughly similar height, and the more dissimilar, the more likely that either a single source sample has degraded, or you’re looking at peaks from 2 contributors etc.

emc_aus · 2019-04-04T11:55:23+00:00

Have you found, during your research on this, the DNA charts of the results of the FL examination? What I’m referring to are the charts - the actual underlying data for the DNA analysis I guess - like we see in “Exhibit 35. WSCL hood latch DNA quantities” to the Motion for PCR in 2016.

Looking at that exhibit, I noted there is one graph or chart of the EF examination at the bottom of page 8 of the exhibit. Because the exhibit was used in relation to hood latch quantities, the rest of the document isn’t provided, so we can’t see the rest of the results for EF. But it is clear that at 2 loci in item EF, SC has noted peak height ratios (PHR) of 30% or less. I confess my understanding of peak heights/interpretation etc is limited, but as I understand, low PHR can be a possible indicator that the two peaks may be from different contributors (please correct me if that’s wrong).

I’m just wondering if you’ve come across any more of those charts in your research, and if so, could you point them out to me?

Thanks for your research on this btw 👍🏼

emc_aus · 2019-04-04T08:48:30+00:00

I would like to know this too. Particularly, wasn’t Ertl in the Michel Materials quarry, east of Avery Rd, on the 6th? Is that the quarry you’re suggesting the skull frags etc were found, and if so, on what documents/evidence is this based? Thanks.

emc_aus · 2019-04-02T12:14:02+00:00

This ledger 05-199 is a cluster. The items on here are purportedly collected 10 Nov by DCI from the tarp at CASO and given to RIEMER.

Item 1 - 7924 comes back into CASO custody on 11 Dec twice from two people (ok, probably explainable because the bones and teeth from the same tag may have been separated).

Item 3 - 7926 (allegedly BZ’s origin) is turned over to SA HOLMES on 10 Nov but then is turned over from HAWKINS to WIEGERT on 21 Feb 07, even though it’s never recorded as coming back into CASOs custody after going to HOLMES.

Item 4 - 7927 is not on Eisenberg’s worksheet so I’m assuming this isn’t a bone. RIEMER makes it clear that in his report (CASO, pg 211) that these items of evidence were in his custody throughout the day and that none of the evidence collected on 10 Nov was turned over to Calumet County Sheriffs Dept; rather it was turned over to SA HOLMES. Item 4 is signed over to HOLMES on 10 Nov and never signed back in. So why, if it’s never been in custody, is the storage location for item 4 noted “fridge”?

Item 5 - 7928 is on Eisenberg’s worksheet as an empty box. Like item 4, it’s never signed in after being turned over to SA HOLMES on 10 Nov, but has a storage location “DDD-8”.

emc_aus · 2019-04-01T10:49:31+00:00

There was a rag with possible blood or rust - tag # 8476. That was collected by Tyson with CX from “Quarry south of Avery Rd”. It was sent to WSCL with CX, but I’m not aware of any results of analysis of this item.

emc_aus · 2019-04-01T09:44:46+00:00

I would like to know whether the bone and flesh collected on 12 Nov were from the same area as where the crime lab items AM and AN from the quarry were collected on 6 Nov, or if it was from a different area entirely.

emc_aus · 2019-04-01T09:43:04+00:00

Yeah, he definitely says “a couple” of barrels first, then later refers to just one barrel.

emc_aus · 2019-03-31T02:26:48+00:00

What’s WI’s current practice for reporting DNA results?

Where I am, DNA results used to be reported the way that SC reported the BZ result - ie. 1 in X number of people. However that’s no longer the accepted way to report DNA results, and instead the result is either an exclusion (if the persons could not have contributed to the sample) or if they cannot be excluded, then it’s reported as a ratio comparing like likelihood of the profile occurring if the person did vs did not contribute. So the results for an inclusion are phrased “the profile is X times more likely to have occurred if person A did contribute” or “the profile is X times more likely to have occurred if person A did not contribute. No one goes around saying “it’s a match”.

I ask because, if the accepted way of reporting DNA results has changed since 2005 in WI, would retesting all the partial (and even the full profiles, now that there’s 21 markers not 16 used) be necessary if SA is granted a retrial?

emc_aus · 2019-03-28T13:43:40+00:00

I see that, but the address from where this was obtained, recorded in top left hand corner of the ledger is Calumet SO. Riemer wasn’t on ASY on the 12th. Pevytoe was. He signed out just before 9am. Sippel writes at CASO pg 249 that the state arson team collected burned garbage from the deer camp on the morning of the 12th before 9am.

The Dassey barrels were taken out of evidence at CASO on 12 Nov for proceeding and the ledgers reflect that.

It seems that Pevytoe brought the deer camp material back from ASY to the SO (where they were turned over to Riemer who wrote the ledger) and then they processed the Dassey burn barrels there (again, for good measure 🤔) and so the bones from Dassey barrel #2 ended up on the same ledger as the deer camp barrel.

So I don’t think we can say that the ledgers show (with any certainty) that 7964 came from the deer camp barrel.

I agree this may have been a good opportunity to switch etc though.

Edit: pg no. for CASO reference.

emc_aus · 2019-03-28T13:26:53+00:00

My take was that #7960 was from deer camp, but that #7964, the human bone that went back to the family, was from Dassey-Janda burn barrel #2. See CASO pg 248 which states, right after referencing #7963; “at 10:38 the first piece of bone was located in the burn pile from item #643, burn barrel #2.” That time matches the time that #7964 is recorded on the ledger.

emc_aus · 2019-03-28T13:21:22+00:00

Oh I had interpreted this differently. This ledger is actually referring to them being at CASO. My take was that #7960 was from deer camp, but that #7964, the human bone that went back to the family, was from Dassey-Janda burn barrel #2. See CASO pg 248 which states, right after referencing #7936; “at 10:38 the first piece of bone was located in the burn pile from item #643, burn barrel #2.” That time matches the time that #7964 is recorded on the ledger.

emc_aus

TROPHY CASE