This question is specifically to Lost, do you think there was reasonable doubt in the casey anthony trial?

Ok but in order for it to be "reasonable" to suspect they did those things you need evidence. A fingerprint, witness, a method for this to happen. Something reasonable. That is how reasonable doubt works.

Sorry bro, every piece of your evidence is tainted, and not just "potentially" tainted. It is literally tainted as reported by the technician who did the testing.

And that's why I ask if you've seen the documentary. Regardless of whether you think they had an agenda or it was bias or whatever, don't you have some kind of urge to ask, "why? why the f*ck is every single piece of evidence somehow invalidated? why did it take 6 effing months to find it? How did she get her own effing DNA in the sample? why did the investigators call her and tell her to make sure she found what they wanted? why was lenk always on the scene?

How are you not even questioning this? How can you call us not-reasonable for not being skeptical to some degree? Most people who actually watched this documentary must have some kind of doubt as the the legitimacy of this investigation's findings. You are arguing super f*cuking hard for the prosecution and it just doesn't make sense.

Lost, have you ever followed another trial? Especially a high profile murder case? You realize that they sort of techniques used to create doubt is always done by defense attornies don't you? That is their job. To attempt to poke holes in the story. There is no way to be absolutely sure about anything. There will always be things that make you wonder or seem off. Literally every murder trial has this because if those things weren't there, there wouldn't be a trial.

This is my point. Did you watch the documentary? So you're telling me that the people looking for fingerprints should have found their own fingerprints as proof that they planted evidence? I'll tell you who's prints they didn't find - SA and BD anywhere on or around the car.

A method? Are you effing joking? A very large portion of this documentary was dedicated to showing and PROVING IN COURT they had the means and the method.

I think maybe you didn't watch the documentary or skimmed through it or something.

So what physical evidence can you show me that points to steven being framed. A consistent method was not shown in the doc. It showed how some things on their own look funny, much like truthers do when they argue 9-11 was an inside job, but there is no consistent method. For example, they don't point to who all was involved, who killed teressa etc.. They just say "hey look, this guy was a detective, this guy had access to stevens blood and found a bunch of evidence" "hey look, this guy could have deleted voicemails"

these are the kinds of things we expect to find in EVERY trial.

Fair enough, but there's usually SOMETHING that the defense cannot refute.

In this case, there isn't anything that's not irrefutable. On top of that, we add an irrefutable motive, irrefutable means and irrefutable method for this being a frame and you have a sensational documentary that most of us watched.

I think steven avery is likely guilty, but don't understand how anyone can buy the narrative put forward and believe in the integrity of all the evidence.

Becuase they were precluded from doing so.

Suppose Buting could have held a press conference where he set forth a wildly speculative theory, but Kratz already did that.

this is not true. The defense is paid a lot of money to poke holes in every expert, every witness etc.. And good lawyers can do this with any evidence presented.

Is that because when people are guilty and there's evidence clearly proving guilt they usually take a plea deal?

What law are you talking about?

Critique of the New Yorker.

http://www.film-podcast.com/#!Delibe...cf2bfd5cce00a0

Sure, that is usually the case. I would say the stronger the evidence and ultimately the poorer the suspect the more likely they are to take a plea. I do think most people who go to trial are guilty though.. Statistically speaking.

I edited my wording. The judge precluded them from offering alternative suspects.

I'm near 100% convinced you have not seen the doc or you skipped the absolute most important parts. Buting clearly shows using a f**king diagram who was involved in every important piece of evidence finding AND what method he could have used. If you want evidence that points to this let me draw your attention to these facts:

Lenk Not supposed to be on the scene
Lenk signed for the blood vial when taken as evidence
Lenk caught in lie as to what time he arrived at the vehicle
Lenk signed out on logs for vehicle crime scene but not signed in
Lenk finds the key but it has no TH DNA on it
Lenk finds the key but it's likely a valet key
Lenk finds the key on the 7th search
Lenk is at the crime scene 6 months later when the bullet is found

this is true and not fair imo. If they had evidence of another suspect that would not be the case imo.

says who?
Neither of those are entirely true. It is possible he arrived before they started the sign in protocol.
yes, lenk was involved in the case.. SO what? Why do you think this was not allowed?

They obviously use their best guys when something important comes up.

It was allowed, but wouldn't be in literally any other professional capacity. Why police can ignore conflicts when working professionals would likely be fired I don't understand.

Part of the reason you stop this sort of thing is to prevent the appearance of impropriety.

Oh my god, you are a pure troll. I'm going to get the exact quotes from the Documentary I watched with screen shots and then you should be banned.

Here you go citing this one sided doc as authority. Jesus christ you are a dummy.

A Look Around The Area.
http://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurde..._salvage_yard/

There was no law, no nothing that said lenk or anyone from manitwoc county couldn't be there. What happened was the DA didn't want them there because they thought it would present doubt at the trial and the DA told the media they were not involved. Besides that there was no requirement that they couldn't be there.

Here are the transcripts, exhibits etc from the trial. http://www.stevenaverycase.org/

How do you expect to get such things when the people who possibly planted the evidence were also in control of the evidence?

Lol.. So we will always have this suspicion I guess. You can always say "the police could have did this" or "they could have did that" usually, if something like this happens some witness comes clean out of guilt. People don't keep secrets very well.. look at watergate.