Support NeoGAF

[SneakersSO]

I always assumed you would stick the needle through the rubber stopper and squirt the blood in.

Otherwise, you squirt the blood into an open vial, then stick a stopper on it? Seems like there would be a good chance of blood spilling a lot during that process.

I figured they were designed to be punctured initially. I was scratching my head about that during the documentary as well.

The blood would be removed with a syringe, but you normally open the tube and then remove your needed sample with another syringe. Why would someone damage one of the key components designed to keep oxygen & other contaminants out by poking a hole in it?

 

[GDGF]

Haven't finished the entire thing yet (watching it with the GF and we're on part 6) but this is literally one of the most engaging things I have ever seen on Netflix.

 

[Sniper McBlaze]

Here's the thing sniper - they called the DNA testing center that ran the tests & handled the evidence originally, and they told them they do not poke holes into the testing tube, that it is not a part of their procedure.

Not only that, but all of the evidence seals on the evidence box were all broken and then resealed with tape. There was clearly some tampering going on.

You don't poke holes per se, but you get a hole indirectly from the needle you use to get the blood.

If they use that vacutainer in any other way the blood is contaminated. The hole thing must be a misunderstanding.

Here is a video of how you get the blood sample: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e58lLJ-2gBI

 

[Talladega Knight]

Here's the thing sniper - they called the DNA testing center that ran the tests & handled the evidence originally, and they told them they do not poke holes into the testing tube, that it is not a part of their procedure.

Not only that, but all of the evidence seals on the evidence box were all broken and then resealed with tape. There was clearly some tampering going on.

I think there was some miscommunication there. Didn't they ask the DNA testing center if they removed blood with a syringe?

 

[NeoGold123]

You don't poke holes per se, but you get a hole indirectly from the needle you use to get the blood.

If they use that vacutainer in any other way the blood is contaminated. The hole thing must be a misunderstanding.

Here is a video of how you get the blood sample: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e58lLJ-2gBI

Do you have any knowledge of the equipment that is used in phlebotomy?

Edit: quickly looked up a relevant article to demonstrate the equipment used

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1998221-technique#c2

If a syringe was used for drawing blood, use the needle remover on the sharps container to remove the needle, then use an adapter to transfer the blood into the sample tubes

 

[Sniper McBlaze]

Do you have any knowledge of the equipment that is used in phlebotomy?

Well, I use it everyday at work. It's mostly practical knowledge, but I know there has to be atleast one incision point in that vial.

 

[FlyinJ]

If the hole should be there or not is irrelevant. The containers evidence seal was broken and another dated seal was not applied, just scotch tape. That is the damning part.

They could have just opened the vial and stuck a syringe in.

 

[NeoGold123]

Well, I use it everyday at work. It's mostly practical knowledge, but I know there has to be atleast one incision point in that vial.

What line of business are you in? This is a common standard for phlebotomists everywhere.

 

[Sniper McBlaze]

What line of business are you in? This is a common standard for phlebotomists everywhere.

I'm a nurse. I work in Sweden though, but the process with EDTA vials and how you use the vials are pretty much the same in the whole western world.

If a syringe was used for drawing blood, use the needle remover on the sharps container to remove the needle, then use an adapter to transfer the blood into the sample tubes

I don't see the relevance here? You have a needle that goes into a vein or an artery and you also have an adapter with a needle for the vial.

 

[Outtrigger888]

Ex boyfriend seems suspect as fuck. The way he was talking to the camera just seemed suspicious. I have a very keen eye for people's behaviors.

Avery tore up cars all the time, but left hers intact on the edge of his property. Jesus fuck I don't think I can watch anymore. I'm only on episode 2.

 

[SneakersSO]

I'm a nurse. I work in Sweden thought, but the process with EDTA vials and how you use the vials are pretty much the same in the whole western world.

The DNA testing center & police themselves said there should not be a hole there. Prosecution didn't even use the idea that the hole is meant to be there.

 

[NeoGold123]

I'm a nurse. I work in Sweden thought, but the process with EDTA vials and how you use the vials are pretty much the same in the whole western world.

That's what I would assume as well. Now, you may be thinking of a preliminary cap that is used while the MTs are still running tests, but once they're done, it's put into a long term stopper like what's seen in the documentary.

 

[Concept17]

Those 2 detectives give me the creeps. They just look like the perfect fit for dirty cops in an episode of any cop show ever.

 

[Sniper McBlaze]

The DNA testing center & police themselves said there should not be a hole there. Prosecution didn't even use the idea that the hole is meant to be there.

I don't know how the process works with EDTA vials, but it closes itself somehow over the point where the needle went in so the blood stays in a vaccum.

Do you have a picture or a timestamp of when you can see the vial? I can't remember in what episode you saw it.

 

[Concept17]

Ex boyfriend seems suspect as fuck. The way he was talking to the camera just seemed suspicious. I have a very keen eye for people's behaviors.

Avery tore up cars all the time, but left hers intact on the edge of his property. Jesus fuck I don't think I can watch anymore. I'm only on episode 2.

Not even on the edge, really. The car was very close to his house, when he could have either disposed of it, or placed it somewhere much farther away. He also had a lot more material to work with to hide the car itself, and not just nearby scraps and branches.

 

[Sniper McBlaze]

That's what I would assume as well. Now, you may be thinking of a preliminary cap that is used while the MTs are still running tests, but once they're done, it's put into a long term stopper like what's seen in the documentary.

Fuck me... I just assumed it was the original sample. I need to see the vial more closely again. If it's not the orginal blood sample I just wasted a lot of time, haha.

 

[Homeboyd]

Not even on the edge, really. The car was very close to his house, when he could have either disposed of it, or placed it somewhere much farther away. He also had a lot more material to work with to hide the car itself, and not just nearby scraps and branches.

It wasn't anywhere near his house

 

[SneakersSO]

I don't know how the process works with EDTA vials, but it closes itself somehow over the point where the needle went in so the blood stays in a vaccum.

Do you have a picture or a timestamp of when you can see the vial? I can't remember in what episode you saw it.

Go to the 100 minute mark on episode 4, and it carries over into the beginning of episode 5. Its there.

 

[Sniper McBlaze]

Go to the 100 minute mark on episode 4, and it carries over into the beginning of episode 5. Its there.

Thanks!

That is a standardized vaccutainer. There is nothing shady about that hole at all, it's needed to get the blood inside of there.

Edit: The lawyer also said he spoke to the "labcore person" (sic) and they said they don't put needle in the vaccutainers. Well, they don't, it's the probably the medical personnel at the jail who does it.

 

[Dalek]

Thanks!

That is a standardized vaccutainer. There is nothing shady about that hole at all, it's needed to get the blood inside of there.

So why would the evidence be cut open and then sealed again with scotch tape? In your opinion?

 

[SneakersSO]

Thanks!

That is a standardized vaccutainer. There is nothing shady about that hole at all, it's needed to get the blood inside of there.

Could be, but such an obvious claim wasn't used to dismiss this as evidence in the case. In fact, the testing agency that provided the tube seemed to find it suspicious. I'm not saying you're wrong, but there is has got to be an obvious explanation as to why it was submitted into evidence if its so easily explained. Remember, no one has challenged the veracity of that hole.

The evidence seals were broken though, meaning someone definitely opening that container when they shouldn't have been.

 

[Dalek]

Could be, but such an obvious claim wasn't used to dismiss this as evidence in the case. In fact, the testing agency that provided the tube seemed to find it suspicious. I'm not saying you're wrong, but there is has got to be an obvious explanation as to why it was submitted into evidence if its so easily explained. Remember, no one has challenged the veracity of that hole.

The evidence seals were broken though, meaning someone definitely opening that container when they shouldn't have been.

And of course-there's only one item in that evidence. So whoever opened it needed access to the only thing in the box. And I can assume it wasn't to just look at the color of blood.

 

[Sniper McBlaze]

So why would the evidence be cut open and then sealed again with scotch tape? In your opinion?

Probably because no one really gave a shit when they bagged that evidence. I've never seen how other evidence material can look, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's just small town police laziness. I don't think anyone suspected that piece would ever be used again.

 

[SneakersSO]

Probably because no one really gave a shit when they bagged that evidence. I've never seen how other evidence material can look, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's just small town police laziness. I don't think anyone suspected that piece would ever be used again.

Dude, the FBI got involved. It was a state wide case that reached apex exposure back then. This was something that would've been easily explained. The prosecution explained things with LIES! You think if they didn't have some kernel of doubt to dismiss this, they wouldn't have done so?

 

[Sniper McBlaze]

Could be, but such an obvious claim wasn't used to dismiss this as evidence in the case. In fact, the testing agency that provided the tube seemed to find it suspicious. I'm not saying you're wrong, but there is has got to be an obvious explanation as to why it was submitted into evidence if its so easily explained. Remember, no one has challenged the veracity of that hole.

The evidence seals were broken though, meaning someone definitely opening that container when they shouldn't have been.

I just think we have too little information to really see that vials importance. I'm just saying that from what I can see and what I can hear in the documentary nothing feels out of place with that blood sample.

I would love to the see the testing agency's statement on it.

 

[Sniper McBlaze]

Dude, the FBI got involved. It was a state wide case that reached apex exposure back then. This was something that would've been easily explained. The prosecution explained things with LIES! You think if they didn't have some kernel of doubt to dismiss this, they wouldn't have done so?

Well, maybe someone opened it to test something in the same time as they realized he was innocent of the rape?

I don't know enough about evidence routines to make a valid assumption.

 

[Homeboyd]

Well, maybe someone opened it to test something in the same time as they realized he was innocent of the rape?

I don't know enough about evidence routines to make a valid assumption.

And maybe Lenk is crooked as fuck

#lenkisthelink

 

[NeoGold123]

Thanks!

That is a standardized vaccutainer. There is nothing shady about that hole at all, it's needed to get the blood inside of there.

Edit: The lawyer also said he spoke to the "labcore person" (sic) and they said they don't put needle in the vaccutainers. Well, they don't, it's the probably the medical personnel at the jail who does it.

Probably just a procedural difference, but we use two types of caps, the screw on that is pierced for tests and such, and the kind used in the doc, which is put on when the sample is scheduled for longterm storage. There's really not a difference between them otherwise though, so I can see other places having different norms.

 

[Sniper McBlaze]

And maybe Lenk is crooked as fuck

#lenkisthelink

Could be, but this "documentary" has the same problems as the Paradise Lost trilogy. It shows one side and just ignore the things that don't fit with the story they want to tell.

 

[hawk2025]

Could be, but this "documentary" has the same problems as the Paradise Lost trilogy. It shows one side and just ignore the things that don't fit with the story they want to tell.

No, it doesn't. It makes some omissions that, even after hashing out all the information in this thread, is ultimately small potatoes relative to the wealth of information that's actually shown.

By the way, adding quotes around documentary isn't particularly original criticism. It's a documentary, period.

 

[ZQQLANDER]

Dude, the FBI got involved. It was a state wide case that reached apex exposure back then. This was something that would've been easily explained. The prosecution explained things with LIES! You think if they didn't have some kernel of doubt to dismiss this, they wouldn't have done so?

Just because the FBI was involved doesn't mean they handled the evidence. Because Steven wasn't charged federally I wouldn't be surprised if the FBI was instructed NOT to handle /take ownership of any of the evidence for chain of custody reasons.

Can't really tell either way for sure.

 

[Sniper McBlaze]

Probably just a procedural difference, but we use two types of caps, the screw on that is pierced for tests and such, and the kind used in the doc, which is put on when the sample is scheduled for longterm storage. There's really not a difference between them otherwise though, so I can see other places having different norms.

Know that you mention I see what you mean.

I usually use these babies.

The one in the documentary has that other cap. Unfortunately I don't know enough about the lab at my hospital to say if they also have different caps.

 

[Sniper McBlaze]

No, it doesn't. It makes some omissions that, even after hashing out all the information in this thread, is ultimately small potatoes relative to the wealth of information that's actually shown.

By the way, adding quotes around documentary isn't particularly original criticism. It's a documentary, period.

The quotes sure did help get my point through. What we have is a wealth of information, but it's information delicately chosen to make people believe Steven Avery is innocent. I wish they got more information from other sides of the story.

 

[Homeboyd]

The quotes sure did help get my point through. What we have is a wealth of information, but it's information delicately chosen to make people believe Steven Avery is innocent. I wish they got more information from other sides of the story.

No it's a wealth of information that shows how badly they fucked up this trial and why he and dassey deserve a new one.

 

[Dalek]

Could be, but this "documentary" has the same problems as the Paradise Lost trilogy. It shows one side and just ignore the things that don't fit with the story they want to tell.

The "Other Side" that you are referring to is the "truth" as it was told to the public by this county in the last 20-something years and has been the status quo. The documentary is here to present a differing argument to the "norm". To be dismissive of that is just silly.

 

[SneakersSO]

Could be, but this "documentary" has the same problems as the Paradise Lost trilogy. It shows one side and just ignore the things that don't fit with the story they want to tell.

What do you mean? It shows the exact things the prosecution used to get a conviction. Very little is omitted. Here are the biggest omissions from the documentary:

-The leg irons, which we just saw pictures of. They were fuzzy pink leg cuffs, typically used in the bedroom among couples, which came up with no dna evidence of hers.

-Steven Avery's DNA on the hood latch of Teresa's Rav4. And even though Kratz keeps attesting it was sweat (partially because he wants to sell the idea that Avery also raped Teresa), the source of the DNA was never concluded. Prosecution keeps attesting its sweat, but no test actually confirms that.

-Steven Avery's calls to her the day that she died, and that two of them were blocked with *67. Keep in mind, this is easily explained by the fact that she called her office asking them to contact Steven to call her because she needed directions to get to his place. Also, they had an appointment for her to come out that day that was made in advance. And they have a prior professional history.

The prosecutor mentions that things were not mentioned in the documentary, however, these seem to be the biggest elements of evidence in the case that were not presented. All this is essentially inconsequential to the actual case, since it makes zero impact on what this documentary depicts. The reason the prosecution & Kratz find it so important is because Brendan's 2nd confession, another heavily 'guided' confession I might add, indicates that Steven Avery disabled the car battery, which would corroborate the hood latch DNA. Except for when you look at the other facts of evidence including:

1. The car still operated, the car battery wasn't actually disabled.
2. None of Steven Avery's fingerprints are found anywhere on the RAV4.
3. None of Brendan's DNA or fingerprints are found anywhere on the RAV4.

 

[hawk2025]

The quotes sure did help get my point through. What we have is a wealth of information, but it's information delicately chosen to make people believe Steven Avery is innocent. I wish they got more information from other sides of the story.

No, it isn't.

I don't know what else to say. Consider this: Why would filmmakers spend ten years of their lives selectively choosing footage and evidence that, when they confronted themselves, they would think a guy was guilty of murder?

 

[NeoGold123]

Know that you mention I see what you mean.

I usually use these babies.

The one in the documentary has that other cap. Unfortunately I don't know enough about the lab at my hospital to say if they also have different caps.

Yeah! That's actually a really great example since you can see those barcodes on the tube, those are typically used by the machines in the laboratory when they're running the standard tests.

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

Good god, I just got to the end of episode 4. The blood vial.

This show is amazing. And the fact thats its true, just blows my mind, This is literally one of the best docs ever.

 

[y2dvd]

Crazy how big this show is. Every morning show is talking about it. Opie been talking about it for the past two days. Same with the z100 crew.

The editing is superb. Each episode plays out like a crime drama would, except this involves real people. I kept thinking, "how are they able to have each episode end in cliffhangers? It's a documentary! It shouldn't be able to be edited like this!" Add to the fact that it is probably clear to most of the audience that there were obvious misconduct on the justice side, people are raging.

 

[MisterR]

Could be, but this "documentary" has the same problems as the Paradise Lost trilogy. It shows one side and just ignore the things that don't fit with the story they want to tell.

I really don't think that's the case at all. They show a lot of what the prosecution has.

 

[Tubie]

There are so many things to love and admire when it comes to how well crafted this Documentary is. This thing is going to win multiple Emmys

Spoiler

(that also helps Steven and Brendan by shinning a big spotlight on their cases)

just on how well it was done.

One thing I really liked was the overall sound and music.

The theme really gave me The Last of Us vibes before I even found out it was the same guy doing the music here, and that's a really good compliment.

 

[Dalek]

It's weird to think that two incredible documentaries, The Jinx and this both came out in the same year.

 

[Nickdogmoneycash]

I'm about to start this, is there anything I should know before-hand, or should I go in blind?

 

[Homeboyd]

I'm about to start this, is there anything I should know before-hand, or should I go in blind?

Just go blind. It'll tell you everything you need to know. You can go on Google research crusade to learn more after it's over.

 

[Dr.Acula]

The DNA testing center & police themselves said there should not be a hole there. Prosecution didn't even use the idea that the hole is meant to be there.

See, that's the thing. The vacutainer hole was highlighted early on in the doc, but was kinda forgotten about later. Possibly the prosecution did bring in an expert to testify it was normal, but maybe it wasn't shown?

I mean, the whole series is about the perversion of evidence, leaving certain things out and focusing too much on other things in order to create a narrative. In a lot of ways, the show is cautioning us against the show itself.

 

[Glass Shark]

.

 

[EthanC]

Could be, but this "documentary" has the same problems as the Paradise Lost trilogy. It shows one side and just ignore the things that don't fit with the story they want to tell.

Yep. Hard to consider anything as stupidly biased as this a documentary.

 

[Izuna]

Not very scientific. FBI should have tested both samples (from car and stored tube) to see if it came up in either.

Fmfl

 

[FlyinJ]

Just because the FBI was involved doesn't mean they handled the evidence. Because Steven wasn't charged federally I wouldn't be surprised if the FBI was instructed NOT to handle /take ownership of any of the evidence for chain of custody reasons.

Can't really tell either way for sure.

Like I said before, the hole is irrelevant.

The seal was broken on the box containing the blood sample, and was reseated with scotch tape.

This is a massive fuck up. The way evidence is handled is a seal is placed around it and a date and case code is written on it. This case code can be referenced in documentation that explains why the seal was applied. If the seal is ever broken, a new seal is applied with the a new date and case code that can be referenced as to why the evidence was accessed.

It is actually incredibly illegal to not apply a dated and coded seal to a piece of evidence. This is to prevent evidence tampering.

It's such a huge breach of security the fact that no evidence seal was applied should be investigated as a crime in and of itself.