Testimony Notes – 26 Feb 2007
The State’s DNA expert was dissected by the defense attorney, Jerome Buting. On Friday, the prosecution presented their dog and pony show. They made a point that Sherry Culhane had performed the test that allowed Avery to be released from his false imprisonment of eighteen years.
The prosecution had attempted to preempt a defense strike by addressing a sample contamination issue. Culhane testified that she had contaminated a control sample during a test crucial to the prosecution. Culhane stated that the contamination did not affect the results.
Buting showed that Culhane delayed the DNA test that freed Avery for a year. He also tried to demonstrate the involvement of Culhane in the false conviction of Avery. Then she testified that a hair on his shirt was a match to the victim. Although the belief at the time was that hairs could be matched accurately, perhaps forensic scientists and technicians need to be more discerning rather that blindly follow the need to convict. Buting was denied the effort to pursue Culhane’s involvement in that trial.
Two disturbing pieces of information came out. First, there was an email from the Special Prosecutor Ken Kratz to Culhane on how to deal with the contamination problem. This email was not submitted as evidence. It was presented as a matter for concern.
The second item was a direction from Special Agent Tom Fassbender to Sherry Culhane directing her to place Teresa Halbach in Avery’s Home and garage. This reminiscent of the Oklahoma City scandal involving the same behaviors from detectives who wanted to slant a case. Detectives would tell a veteran forensics supervisor, Joyce Gilchrist, who they suspected and magically the evidence, along with her sworn testimony, would match the desired suspect.1
It seems to me the attempt to direct laboratory results is at least, a great lapse in ethics. Further, this will have the effect of clouding the work of persons in the crime lab. In this case, due to irregularities in the analysis of a bullet fragment, this has a direct impact. This also demonstrates that like Sheriff Tom Kocourek in the false conviction case, the special investigator, and others, had determined who they wanted for the crime and pushed to make the evidence fit.
Culhane’s error rate was shown to be the highest of her group although her analysis time was seventy percent of the other analysts. She explained this by stating she did more samples than others. This is damaging since she was claiming high output as an excuse for errors; even errors that lead to false convictions. In addition, there were 350 items to be tested, a very high number for the lab.
No Avery DNA was found on any door handle of the Halbach Toyota. None of his DNA was found on the 22 caliber rifle taken from his home.
Earlier, the prosecution made a big show of leg irons and handcuffs. No Halbach DNA was found on these restraints. No Brendan Dassey DNA was found on the scene.
Buccal swabs of Avery were returned to Manitowoc County Sheriff’s Department in November, 2005. The alleged sample from the hood latch was received in April 2006. This led to the introduction of theory that the DNA had been planted as well. This was accepted by Judge Willis. It is not very clear in regard to the origin and custody chain of the hood latch DNA sample.
Culhane testified that Avery’s DNA was found on the plain sight Toyota key. His DNA was found in six locations inside the Halbach vehicle. This included blood drops and stains. She agreed that she could not determine if the DNA was planted.
Halbach’s DNA was found in her vehicle, including blood stains. Her DNA was found on a bullet fragment found in plain sight in Avery’s garage in March 2006. Her DNA was found nowhere else in Avery’s home or garage.
The DNA on the bullet was destroyed in the test performed by Culhane. This was also the test that was compromised by Culhane which she blamed on a distraction while training others. This test was required to be marked as inconclusive by the forensic lab protocol. Yet, she obtained special dispensation and satisfied Fassbender’s request.2
Her testimony contradicted the Dassey confession that Special Prosecutor Ken Kratz tried to use as a pre-conviction tool.
Blood spatter testimony was given by Nick Stahlke of the State crime lab. He explained for the prosecution, about the various bloodstains and their significance.
references
in category Steven Avery
