Skip to content
Steven Avery & Brendan Dassey— Case Archive
Steven Averytrial-daytrial-dayThomas J. FallonNorman A. GahnKenneth R. KratzJerome F. ButingDean A. StrangMark WiegertJanine ArvizuScott FairgrievedirectcrossredirectrecrossDay 20 - March 9, 2007Janine Arvizu questioned what the FBI’s EDTA non-detections could establish. Scott Fairgrieve testified that burned bones had been moved but could not identify an original burn site. Mark Wiegert addressed the uncertain date and identity in Lisa Buchner’s reported van-photography sighting.
← Day 19Steven AveryDay 21 →

Day 20 - March 9, 2007

EDTA Testing, Burn-Site Testimony, and Reported Van Sighting

Judge Patrick L. Willis
16Proceedings
5Pages
3Witnesses
1,838Lines
Day 20 of 27
Appearing:
Thomas J. Fallon Norman A. Gahn Kenneth R. Kratz Jerome F. Buting Dean A. Strang Mark Wiegert Janine Arvizu Scott Fairgrieve

Janine Arvizu questioned what the FBI’s EDTA non-detections could establish. Scott Fairgrieve testified that burned bones had been moved but could not identify an original burn site. Mark Wiegert addressed the uncertain date and identity in Lisa Buchner’s reported van-photography sighting.

Full day summary

Janine Arvizu testified that the FBI did not detect EDTA in three tested RAV4 bloodstains, but said its instrument detection limit did not establish what the method could detect in a swabbed stain. She accepted the method as a valid qualitative test while maintaining that the non-detections could not rule out EDTA or the possibility that the tested stains came from Avery’s preserved blood tube. She had not tested the samples herself and would not draw conclusions about untested swabs. Forensic anthropologist Scott Fairgrieve agreed that two skull injuries were gunshot wounds sustained before burning, but could not determine whether they preceded death. He testified that burned bones had been moved between locations and said the concentration behind Avery’s garage was more consistent with movement there than movement away. He could neither identify nor exclude an original burn site. Outside the jury’s presence, the court found the defense’s expert disclosure slightly misleading but declined to limit the testimony or impose a sanction. The court also received a stipulation concerning Avery’s two October 31 calls with Jodi Stachowski. Mark Wiegert testified about Lisa Buchner’s reported sighting of a woman photographing a van. Buchner had not identified the woman or fixed the date; Wiegert later acknowledged that she said the sighting could have been a week or two earlier than October 31.

1. Janine Arvizu — Direct/Cross/Redirect/Recross/Redirect

Janine Arvizu testified about the limits of the FBI’s EDTA results for three RAV4 bloodstains. She agreed that EDTA was not detected in the tested extracts but said those results could not establish its absence.

→
Procedural
Session opening and appearances
5 lines
Direct
Janine Arvizu — Direct Janine Arvizu Jerome F. Buting
450 lines

Defense expert Janine Arvizu testified that the FBI’s EDTA non-detections did not rule out EDTA in the tested RAV4 bloodstains, citing an unestablished method detection limit and a two-microliter sample called not detected.

Cross
Janine Arvizu — Cross Janine Arvizu Norman A. Gahn
310 lines

Arvizu confirmed EDTA non-detections in three RAV4 bloodstains and positives in blood-tube samples, but maintained that the FBI's instrument detection limit did not establish what its method could detect in a stain.

Redirect
Janine Arvizu — Redirect Janine Arvizu Jerome F. Buting
55 lines

Arvizu said the FBI's EDTA non-detections could not establish absence near a detection limit or exclude the blood tube as a possible source of the three tested RAV4 stains.

Recross
Janine Arvizu — Recross Janine Arvizu Norman A. Gahn
18 lines

Arvizu said the blood tube's expiration date did not establish EDTA breakdown and agreed that its EDTA was still acting as an anticoagulant.

Redirect
Janine Arvizu — Redirect Janine Arvizu Jerome F. Buting
24 lines

Arvizu reaffirmed her EDTA opinion concerning the vehicle stains, and the court admitted Exhibits 499 and 500 without objection.

Highlights

Janine Arvizu — Directtestimony highlightReviewing the instrument data, Arvizu contrasted an EDTA-positive one-microliter spot with a two-microliter sample from Mr. Avery’s blood tube that the laboratory called not detected.Janine Arvizu — CrossadmissionArvizu confirmed that the FBI did not detect EDTA in Q-46, Q-47, or Q-48, the three identified RAV4 bloodstain extracts.Janine Arvizu — Redirect“It is insufficient to establish the absence of EDTA at or near its detection limit.”— Janine ArvizuArvizu stated the qualification central to her interpretation of the non-detections.Janine Arvizu — Redirecttestimony highlightArvizu said non-detection in Q-46, Q-47 and Q-48 did not necessarily mean those samples contained no EDTA, and she could not conclude from the FBI data that the three RAV4 stains could not have come from the blood tube.

2. Scott Fairgrieve — Direct (Part 1)

Defense anthropologist Scott Fairgrieve questioned whether the recovery documentation established where the remains were burned, while acknowledging he could not identify or exclude the area behind Avery's garage as the original burn site.

→
Direct
Scott Fairgrieve — Direct Scott Fairgrieve Dean A. Strang
313 lines

Fairgrieve agreed with key skeletal findings but said the recovery record did not let him identify where the cremated remains were originally burned.

Highlights

Scott Fairgrieve — Directtestimony highlightFairgrieve agreed with Dr. Eisenberg that the remains were consistent with one mature female and that two skull injuries were gunshot wounds, while distinguishing skeletal trauma findings from a determination of cause of death.

3. Fairgrieve Burn-Site Opinion: Expert-Disclosure Objection and Ruling

Outside the jury’s presence, the court allowed Dr. Fairgrieve’s burn-site testimony despite finding his amended expert disclosure slightly misleading.

→
Procedural
Fairgrieve burn-site opinion: expert-disclosure objection and ruling
31 lines

The State challenged Fairgrieve's burn-site opinion as different from his expert disclosure. The court found the disclosure slightly misleading but declined to exclude the testimony or sanction the defense.

Highlights

Fairgrieve burn-site opinion: expert-disclosure objection and rulingrulingThe court found the disclosure slightly misleading but declined to prevent the testimony or sanction the defense.

4. Scott Fairgrieve — Direct/Cross/Redirect/Recross (Part 2)

Fairgrieve testified that burned bones had been moved but could not identify their original burn site. After his testimony, the court received a stipulation about two October 31 calls between Avery and Jodi Stachowski.

→
Direct
Scott Fairgrieve — Direct examination resumes Scott Fairgrieve Dean A. Strang
41 lines

Fairgrieve said burned bones had been moved but could not identify their original burn site or how they were transported.

Cross
Scott Fairgrieve — Cross Scott Fairgrieve Thomas J. Fallon
417 lines

Fairgrieve acknowledged moved bones and limits on his review but could neither identify the original burn site nor rule out the burn pit.

Redirect
Scott Fairgrieve — Redirect Scott Fairgrieve Dean A. Strang
58 lines

Fairgrieve reaffirmed that he could not identify or exclude a burn site, and described tire-fuel test burns and possible ways burned remains could be moved.

Recross
Scott Fairgrieve — Recross Scott Fairgrieve Thomas J. Fallon
27 lines

Fairgrieve qualified his odor testimony on recross, and the court received a stipulation establishing the times and approximate lengths of two calls between Avery and Jodi Stachowski.

Highlights

Scott Fairgrieve — Direct examination resumes“Well, the fact that we have burned bones in at least two locations, logically, they have been moved.”— Scott FairgrieveStates the basis for Fairgrieve's opinion that the remains were moved.Scott Fairgrieve — Direct examination resumestestimony highlightAsked about the concentration of bones behind Avery's garage, Fairgrieve says it is more consistent with bones being moved to that location than from it.Scott Fairgrieve — CrossadmissionFairgrieve could not rule out the burn pit as the original burn site. He said he had no evidence supporting the barrel as the place where the body was burned, but would not say whether the barrel was more or less likely; he also could not identify the boiler or smelter as the original site.Scott Fairgrieve — Recrossevidence eventStrang read a stipulation that Steven Avery had two approximately 15-minute calls with Jodi Stachowski on October 31, 2005, beginning at 5:36 p.m. and 8:57 p.m. The State joined it, and the court received it.

5. Mark Wiegert — Direct/Cross/Redirect/Recross (Recall)

Mark Wiegert testified about the location and uncertain date of Lisa Buchner’s reported sighting of a woman photographing a van.

→
Direct
Mark Wiegert — Direct Mark Wiegert Dean A. Strang
25 lines

Wiegert said Buchner's initial report placed a photographer sighting within a three-day window, without a recalled van color or weather.

Cross
Mark Wiegert — Cross Mark Wiegert Kenneth R. Kratz
26 lines

Wiegert described Buchner's reported photographer sighting near an intersection and identified two vehicles there that Halbach had photographed; the court struck part of a speculative answer.

Redirect
Mark Wiegert — Redirect Mark Wiegert Dean A. Strang
22 lines

Wiegert said Ms Buchner could not identify the photographer or fix the day of her sighting, and he knew of no other female photographer in the area during the specified dates.

Recross
Mark Wiegert — Recross Mark Wiegert Kenneth R. Kratz
16 lines

Wiegert addressed uncertainty in Ms Buchner's sighting timeline; the court warned jurors about outside information and admitted Exhibit 501.

Highlights

Mark Wiegert — Directtestimony highlightWiegert confirmed that Buchner had placed her reported sighting on one of three days—October 31, November 1, or November 2—and said she could not recall the weather or the van's color.Mark Wiegert — Redirect“Ms Buchner didn't say who was taking a picture. She couldn't even give me a description of who it was; she said it was a female.”— Mark WiegertWiegert distinguished Ms Buchner's report of a female photographer from an identification of Teresa Halbach.Mark Wiegert — Recrosstestimony highlightWiegert confirmed hearing Ms Buchner say her reported sighting could have occurred a week or two earlier, rather than necessarily on October 31.
← Day 19Steven AveryDay 21 →