Game Maker Blood Splatter Particles Definition. 5/12/2017 0 Comments Celebrities You Won't Believe Are Atheists. Just reporting the truth about some celebrities. Game Maker Blood Splatter Particles Definition Chemistry. Every day she came home with another large rock. By third grade, Julia was complaining of being burned out on her elementary school routine. The mixture of boredom and anxiety, weekly tests, increasing homework, rote memorization for standardized exams. Blood splattered from rounds that were more penetrative than the forcefulness of the first blast (the closeness of which had literally detached and vaporized the leader's body at the ankles, for fuck's sake Bulma, ease up on the nuclear particles next time, jeez, she thought). She had flipped the toggle to a different damage type – causing a nearly artistic streaking of her kill's almost purple blood across her face and chest.
From time to time there have been discussions on both Truther and Guilter forums about the potential impact of 'coaching' on what are supposed to be objective and neutral scientific tests and experiments. Without doubt, it is a realistic concern – affecting both the accuracy of results and their admissibility.
Most often, I have seen the discussion by Truthers, in the context of a telephone message left for Culhane before she tested the bullet found in the garage. The telephone message was emphasized in a portion of Buting's closing argument – highlighted on MaM – in which he said;
So I can imagine how frustrating it might be when you get a phone message that tells you this, early on, try to put her in his house or garage. Now, this is not blind testing, by any means. These agents are telling Ms Culhane what they want. And this is November 11th. Well, here it is, she's working on this bullet fragment now, in March. And she still has not found one item that links Teresa Halbach to Mr. Avery's house or garage. So she's got to feel some pressure.
Game Maker Blood Splatter Particles Of Truth Watch Online
Truthers have frequently expressed their outrage regarding the implications of such a statement. Not surprisingly, Zellner discusses the statement in her Big BriefTM , under the heading 'Ms. Culhane's Bias Against Steven Avery.'
I confess the telephone message does not cause me a lot of concern. Ill-advised perhaps, but when one is talking about something as objective and reproducible as dna test results, performed by someone who previously was a key figure in exonerating Avery, the risks of bias seem at least relatively small.
Maybe I'm wrong. But what seems more pernicious to me – and is completely ignored by Zellner, her experts, and Truthers – is the potential impact of the subtle 'suggestions' made to experts conducting much more subjective 'scientific' analyses by the defense attorney who pays them, then feds them with biased information on which their opinions are based. I'm talking, of course, about the various expert Affidavits referenced by Zellner's PC Motion.
Some of the Affidavits at least acknowledge the biased information they have been spoon-fed by Zellner, such as that of Mr. McCrary, who recites that he was provided with specific police reports and affidavits allegedly establishing that Ryan misled investigators and directed Pam to the the location of the RAV4 on Avery's lot, after first giving her a camera so she could take a picture. The opinions which follow are not exactly surprising, given this start.
We also have Dr. Blum, who says he was shown a picture of Ryan's hand, and pictures of Teresa's fingernails, and then opines:
It is my opinion, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty in the field of forensic pathology, that Mr. Hxxxxs' right hand, as observed in Group Exhibit B, appears discolored. It is my opinion that this discoloration may indicate a contusion or bruise on Mr. Hxxxxxs's right hand.
He then decides there are also abrasions on his hand and that
It is my opinion, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty in the field of forensic pathology, that the abrasions I observed on the back of Mr. Hxxxs' left hand are consistent with scratches inflicted by fingernails.
Gee, where did those pictures come from? Awfully blurry, aren't they? Do we have any idea if they are accurate or have been retouched or 'enhanced'?
Next, he remarks that two 'volunteers' from Zellner's office did a 'reenactment' of what Zellner thinks Ryan did to Teresa, and concludes that
Specifically, the injury pattern I observed on Mr. Hxxxxs' left hand is consistent with abrasions inflicted by fingernails while Mr. Hxxxxx was standing behind and manually strangling or throttling another person.
Kinda like asking someone to pick out a suspect from a lineup after having watched a video depicting one of them commit the crime. I wonder if any other things might be 'consistent with' scratches on a hand? Maybe climbing over or under a fence? And who might this 'other person' be?
Is this anything like 'blind testing?'
Similarly, there is Palenik, who identifies what might be particles of red paint and a 'manufactured wood product' such as particle board, and then mentions that representatives of Zellner's defense team have also brought examples of just such materials found in Avery's garage for his further review. How helpful of them.
One of the subtler but potentially more significant issues of testing bias relates to the infamous 'Brain Fingerprinting' and Mr. James' analysis of the blood on the RAV4 rear door.
In retrospect, it is apparent that soon after Zellner got into the case, she was attracted to the super- sciency sound of 'Brain Fingerprinting.' By April 9, 2016, she was gleefully tweeting:
6th Trip: SA to undergo most advanced testing in world to show his innocence. 'Truth never damages a cause that is just.' MakingAMurderer
And indeed, Mr. Farwell's Affidavit – one of the few that states when the particular testing was actually done – says that he did his brain analysis of Avery on May 6, 2016, just a couple of weeks before Zellner was telling the Court of Appeals she needed more time to complete a brief she obviously had no intention of filing. (As acknowledged by her tweet on May 31, 2016 after she got the extension, in which she said 'New evidence: For a post-conviction not pro se appeal. MakingAMurderer Rome:Not BuiltinDay.')
It was, of course, not until she filed (or mis-filed) the Big Brief^TM on June 7, 2017 that we learned she was first turned on to 'Brain Fingerprinting' by Avery's convict chum Salas, disregard of whose words prompted Zellner to call Avery's appellate counsel 'ineffective' along with Buting and Strang
But Zellner plainly heeded his counsel. Although we do not know when she first contacted Dr. Farwell, it was obviously some time prior to May 6, 2016, because she had to have learned before then that that in order for the test to be done, she needed some information that would be known to the real killer than was not revealed in the trial where Avery was present, or in news accounts. Otherwise, 'Brain Fingerprinting' couldn't detect the non-existence of a memory that only the real killer would possess.
Kinda like asking someone to pick out a suspect from a lineup after having watched a video depicting one of them commit the crime. I wonder if any other things might be 'consistent with' scratches on a hand? Maybe climbing over or under a fence? And who might this 'other person' be?
Is this anything like 'blind testing?'
Similarly, there is Palenik, who identifies what might be particles of red paint and a 'manufactured wood product' such as particle board, and then mentions that representatives of Zellner's defense team have also brought examples of just such materials found in Avery's garage for his further review. How helpful of them.
One of the subtler but potentially more significant issues of testing bias relates to the infamous 'Brain Fingerprinting' and Mr. James' analysis of the blood on the RAV4 rear door.
In retrospect, it is apparent that soon after Zellner got into the case, she was attracted to the super- sciency sound of 'Brain Fingerprinting.' By April 9, 2016, she was gleefully tweeting:
6th Trip: SA to undergo most advanced testing in world to show his innocence. 'Truth never damages a cause that is just.' MakingAMurderer
And indeed, Mr. Farwell's Affidavit – one of the few that states when the particular testing was actually done – says that he did his brain analysis of Avery on May 6, 2016, just a couple of weeks before Zellner was telling the Court of Appeals she needed more time to complete a brief she obviously had no intention of filing. (As acknowledged by her tweet on May 31, 2016 after she got the extension, in which she said 'New evidence: For a post-conviction not pro se appeal. MakingAMurderer Rome:Not BuiltinDay.')
It was, of course, not until she filed (or mis-filed) the Big Brief^TM on June 7, 2017 that we learned she was first turned on to 'Brain Fingerprinting' by Avery's convict chum Salas, disregard of whose words prompted Zellner to call Avery's appellate counsel 'ineffective' along with Buting and Strang
But Zellner plainly heeded his counsel. Although we do not know when she first contacted Dr. Farwell, it was obviously some time prior to May 6, 2016, because she had to have learned before then that that in order for the test to be done, she needed some information that would be known to the real killer than was not revealed in the trial where Avery was present, or in news accounts. Otherwise, 'Brain Fingerprinting' couldn't detect the non-existence of a memory that only the real killer would possess.
Enter Mr. James, the blood spatter analyst. His Affidavit recites that he was shown photos of the blood on the rear door of the RAV4, and concluded, somewhat cautiously:
To a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, it is my conclusion that the bloodstain pattern on the rear cargo door of Ms. Halbach' s RA V-4 was not created in the manner described by the prosecution and their experts at Mr. Avery' s trial.
Okay, he disagrees. As we know, the 'manner described by the prosecution' was basically an educated guess that the spatter occurred when Teresa's body was tossed in the car.
Blood Splatter Video
But James proceeds further. Prompted (or should I say 'educated'?) by yet another demonstration by Zellner's staff of a staged attack of a victim with a hammer, Mr. James becomes willing to go further in his Affidavit, saying:
The bloodstain patterns that were most similar to the pattern observed on Ms. Halbach ' s rear cargo door were consistent with when the victim ' s body was in a prone position on her back on the ground with her head near the driver's side of the rear bumper and the attacker was kneeling over her, striking her with a bloodied object, consistent with a hammer or mallet, while the rear cargo door was open. A bloodstain pattern was created that closely resembled the pattern on Ms. Halbach ' s cargo door, which was photographed and attached as Exhibit F.
Fancy that. 'Consistent with' exactly what Zellner says happened. He elaborates by saying the blood spatter didn't come from a knife attack, gunshot, or throwing the body in the car, without specifically discussing other possibilities.
Somewhere along the line, however, Mr. James' opinion seems to have become much stronger still. At least in the mind of Dr. Farwell. Obviously, Dr. Farwell has been told some version of Mr. James' findings, long before the May 3, 2017 date of Mr. James' Affidavit. In describing his May 6, 2016 'Brain Fingerprinting' test and assumptions, Dr. Farwell states:
Forensic science testing has demonstrated that the perpetrator initially attacked and wounded or killed Teresa Halbach under completely different circumstances and in a different location than anything that was discussed in Mr. Avery's trial. Recently obtained blood-spatter evidence has demonstrated definitively that the perpetrator struck Teresa with an object when she was behind her car and the rear cargo door was open. This deposited blood-spatter evidence on the inside of the cargo door that could not have been deposited in any other way.
Somehow, 'consistent with' turned into 'definitive.' Armed with the knowledge the blood spatter 'could not have been deposited in any other way,' Dr. Farwell proceeds to declare Avery innocent. In describing his conclusions, Zellner plays an interesting game of misleading attribution. She says:
Specifically, Dr. Farwell used the opinion of Mr. James that, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty in the field of bloodstain pattern analysis, the bloodstain pattern observed on the interior cargo door of Ms. Halbach's RA V-4 is consistent with a cast-off pattern, which in turn indicates that Ms. Halbach was hit with an object when she was behind her car and while the cargo door was open. (See ,Par. 138, supra) (Affidavit of Dr. Lawrence Farwell, P-C Exhibit 100, 1144).
The first part of the sentence above, that the pattern is 'consistent with' a cast-off pattern, is accurate. But James certainly never said that Halbach was definitively hit with an object when she was behind the car and the cargo door was open. It is correct that Dr. Farwell assumes this when doing his test, and his test results depend on the statement. But what Dr. Farwell relies upon is simply a false representation of what James said. The other citation, Paragraph 138 of the Big Brief,TM, has nothing to do with the subject at all.
Zellner also says, in an attempt to prop up the assumption on which the 'Brain Fingerprinting' is based, that:
The experiments overseen by Mr. James demonstrate that Ms. Halbach was struck on the head after she opened the rear cargo door. She fell to the ground next to the rear bumper on the driver's side where she was struck repeatedly by an object similar to a mallet or hammer.
What Zellner does not say, of course, is that the 'experiments' supposedly 'overseen' by James are simply a 'reenactment' of a purely hypothetical scenario performed by Zellner's staff, which prove nothing except that the blood pattern could possibly have arisen from such an event.
This, we are apparently supposed to believe, is even better than the 'airtight alibi' that Zellner seems to have forgotten about when the Big Brief^TM was filed. Of course, one thing is certain: it can't be reproduced by anyone, because the 'secret' information is no longer secret. We all now know what the real killer supposedly knows.
Is this science? Or is it what it appears to be – a coached, paid for opinion that is largely based on an attorney's distorted representations about an another expert's coached, paid-for opinion? Are we seriously supposed to get worked up about a phone call to Dr. Culhane in light of this heavy-handed coaching?
