If you don't think people are outraged at the bad police work, you sir, are the one that's misguided.

What? Someone demanded my opinion about it. I never said I cared.

Whoever killed TH is a ****ed up individual agreed?

The bullet in the garage was tied to a gun avery kept above his bed. So it is not only "loosely tied to avery"

The key did have other DNA on it, it just couldnt be identified

There is no hint of any police corruption based on the blood in the Rav4. Your only objection to this is someone in charge of the evidence in the county had access to averys blood. that is a very weak argument considering the dude had no motive to frame avery.

how did the police **** up with dna under the hood?

Brandens confession was not coerced. You obviously didn't read any of the transcripts. WHy did branden lie about having a bonfire in november? Why would he lie about this if he was innocent? Kind of a weird thing to choose to lie about don't you think? Is it just coincidence that the same fire he lied about having was later the fire that most likely burned TH dead body? The same fire that he now admits to participating in?

BD's confession was not used because he refused to testify against SA because he then lied and said he was completely innocent. Something that he also didn't tell his mom in their recorded phone call.

Tell us what reasonable doubt is? I think it is you that doesn't understand this concept.

SO how is it coercion when he didn't go along with the investigators who were intentionally deceiving him? If he was being coerced it would have went like this..

"Do you remember her tattoo on her stomach"

"ya"

how did he get that one right when the police were intentionally lying to test him for the sole purpose of making sure he wasn't just going along with what they were asking him?

Because it confused the jurors to give him a chance to be acquitted despite overwhelming evidence pointing to his guilt.

Just to be clear here, the supposed reasonable doubt here is the fact that Avery's own team open the blood vial in 2002 and it wasn't resealed properly->means it is possible for someone to use the blood to frame him -> because Lenk was in litigation with Avery we should make the leap to assume there was a reasonable chance he did indeed frame him -> we should continue to give this theory that has absolutely zero basis other the defense team's imagination credence despite a scientific, though not conclusive, test rebutting it.

Sorry, doesn't seem very reasonable to me...

forgetting to change gloves after touching some other evidence with avery dna if i remember well , but it s hard to keep track of every breach of protocol

he didn't forget to change his gloves according to his testimony. What makes you think he did?

<br />
<br />
the problem here is that there are no overwhelming evidence, everything is tainted by incompetence and/or framing.<br />
<br />
- The bullet that link theresa to his garage, was found in a weird way and tested with total disrespect of protocol, is vaguely linked to avery, and anyway could have been planted with dna by the killer and/or framer.<br />
- the key found in the room is suspicious as ****, found in a last chance to convict way and with no DNA of theresa<br />
- blood in the car is the most damning evidence but still shadowed by police malpractice<br />
- DNA under the hood is ridiculous at best since the police ****ed up again<br />
- brandon confession is most likely what got him in jail, do i really need to say why it s super concerning.<br />
- some supposed harassment from avery to the victim that are hearsay at best <br />
- A theory of the murder that nothing support appart from the ****ty confession of his nephew that were not even usable in his trial.<br />
<br />
<br />
I dont blame anyone from the jury who would let a murderer go in that situation. On the other hand i d blame fully the DA and the police for ****ing up everything<br />
I do think avery might be the murderer and yet still deserve a chance to a proper trial.<br />
<br />
I think the theory of the serial killer framing avery seems more credible than what the DA told the jury, which as i said earlier is a longshot but still show how bad the DA narrative is.[/QUOTE]

You seem to have left out a dead woman's burned body found in his yard. Minor detail, I realize. Easily dropped off by Lenk or random neighborhood serial killer.

Also lol at random serial killer theory being more likely than something backed up by all sorts of dna/blood/physical evidence.

I know, they don't understand that reasonable doubt is not supposed to be based on wild speculations like this.

There's no wild speculation about the DNA evidence on the bullet.

There's no wild speculation about the clear conflict of interest with investigators and the DNA tech that conducted the tests in his case.

There's really no wild speculations being made at all, unless you count 2 different narratives of TH being murdered, or a complete lack of forensics evidence found in the trailer and/or garage.

Yes there is, a bullet from avery's gun had TH dna on it. Unless you have evidence that points to another scenario other than avery shot her, it is wild speculation.

Sure, but if Avery bled in the victim's car on the day she died when he was the last known person to see her then you must convict.

Yeah, this. Except regarding the bolded, as has been covered ITT, there's no reason to believe Lenk would have been sued (and the defense didn't even present any reason), unless you think hearing Colborn's story in 2003 and having him write a statement is a reason to be sued.

Right,

Honestly what Lenk did would if anything, help avery's case in 2003. Nothing he did put avery in prison in 1985 and nothing he did after that kept him there.

I know you know this, but she (the DNA analyst) contaminated the test.

That one has been debunked after kratz tried to use it as something ignored in the documentary.
It's been said enought time that i won't go look for it for you.

The fact that he potentialy sux at framing doesn't mean he is helpful you twisted troll

What? He was hired in 88, 3 years after avery was convicted of the rape charge and all he did after that was till Colborn to file a report after Colborn told him about the phone call in 2003... Colborn told his supervisor at the time (not lenk) about the phone call in 1995.. To reiterate. Him telling colborn to file a report in 2003 that he ****ed up in 1995 only helps avery.

Wtf are you talking about?

On the 3rd Nov Sgt Colborn forgets information he received by phone call regarding a missing person.
But instead of calling the officer who gave him this Info he decides to call dispatch(suspect, prob not) but the 3rd is when Colborn gets 2 name to visit(Zipperer & SA) to help with the missing persons & goes to the avery property to speak to none other that SA, NOW how did colborn know to visit SA, remember TH was only reported missing that day & the only info available to Investigators was Auto Trader & they had TH appointment as Barb.J with her Phone No.
But Colborn knows better? WHY? & he did not even visit Zipperer that NT if you believe his statement, But what statement of colborns do you believe that NT his 1st or 2nd?
I guess he also forgot that he was involved in a civil suit case that involved SA.
Even with the times given in Colborn 2 statements there is about 1h to 1.15hrs missing that nt that is not accounted for.
And when they finally caught up with Zipperer(by phone call) he refused to talk to them & wanted Teresa Halbach Arrested for trespassing (Motive for murder?) when told she was a missing person (Strange--YEAH) also when they visited Ms Zipperer she refused to let them in the House & spoke to the officers through a F***ing window.
Oh & his dog that he liked to threatened ppl with.

Seems that the 3rd of NOV was a bad day memory wise for Colborn & its all in his transcripts.
Thank F**k he lost the election for sheriff in 2006. I rest my case your honor.

Only Teresa's DNA was found on the bullets.

There is a quote from strang somewhere that says the guy didn't change his gloves. The guy testified that that wasn't true though. So it is really just based on strangs quote which doesn't really mean much.

He visited avery because that was the last known person to see her.

Strang also still claims Steven Avery used *67 in those 2 calls because he valued his privacy, yet for some reason he never showed one other instance of Steven using *67 during the trial. Was he just a ****ty lawyer?