Btw lost, can you please stop quoting random snippets of testimony's without a link. I mean its your choice what you do but if you actually want me or someone else to engage with you, we should be able to read the whole thing.

I didn't say that. I said I'm not sure if they planted it or not, but the fact that they can't follow basic procedures and can't follow their own laws/rules, makes it MUCH more likely that they would. I don't assume that they planted it but a ton of evidence seems awfully fishy and awfully weirdly found.

If a neutral 3rd party found some of the key evidence like the key or that the car wasn't found in 10 minutes in a giant yard, or that none of the Sheriffs involved at all in the previous case where involved at all in the investigation, yes I would be more certain but there is a lot of doubt. Again I have no idea if SA did it, what I do know is that the justice system in Wisconsin is very faulty and it's even worse in MC. B/c of that, I find it hard to convict SA. The story the prosecution presented makes no sense based on all the evidence. The fact that 2 different stories were used to get both and Brendan Dassey is just amazing.

I want a re-trial for both of the parties and I want a impartial jury that wasn't tampered by the prosecution. I want officers who follow the law or at least the most important pieces of their laws/rules. I want a lawyer who doesn't f with their own defendant. If another jury finds SA guilty, great, but the original case is clearly not very fair.

Didn't you link earlier to the website that contains all the trial transcripts?

tenpinbowling.jpg

Dean Strang on criminal justice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSncof1uvV8

Makes me want to go play poker with a bunch of nits.

Anyone giving credence to the 'Mr. Zipperer' did it theory?

Yes, I just don't want to look for a specific persons testimony every time I have to reference something.

Pretty sure I included not only the link, but the page of the transcript as well, soooo...

do PR firms have nefarious ways of gaining control of established yet dormant forum accounts or is this thread a genuine last autist standing deathmatch

Yes. it's called "astroturfing." had a good deal of that in the Amanda Knox thread.

As ridiculous as Jodi made herself seem in that interview, I still find it odd that she and her "story" have pretty much completely drifted off the radar.

+



Yeah?

Lol, ok then.

BTW you people keep bringing up the Amanda Knox thread like it's this group's Sioux Falls. Wtf happened there? Must've been some real traumatic ****.

that soundcloud link posted the page before is pretty good for people who want some professional talk about the documentary

https://soundcloud.com/real-crime-pr...file-episode-1

Colborn Running for Sheriff:



pg 149

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...-2007Feb20.pdf

I'm not sure anyone has ever suggested anything anywhere near this.
I think most would be satisfied with a thorough untainted "by the book" investigation and trial.
If he did it great. Prove it. You know he's not that clever so it shouldn't be too hard right.
But the investigation was a cluster from start to finish, why? The pre trial press conference by Kratz was a thing of pure evil genius and that alone should be a jailable offence in itself to me. Why was that necessary? Is it even legal?

Nothing about this trial was fair or just. I think that's all most wish for.

it s so obviously this

I know what atroturfing is but what's happening here in the Knox thread seems more advanced. I pegged Skillz as a shill after on the 4th page of this thread, but its not like he has a Dec '15 reg date. he's been on 2p2 almost 10 years ago.

do you know how firms get control of account like his and 237 from the Knox thread? this is the one mystery the thread might be able to solve.

so you used to be a normal poster on 2p2. from July 2010 to July 2012 you posted 20 times. you didn't post in 2011, you posted once in 2013, then nothing in 2014 and 2015.

you've posted in this thread 10x a day since it gained momentum. is it just a perfect coincidence that you love both defending the virtue of midwestern sherrif departments and terrible internet posting?

So I read all of the DNA lady's testimony last night. Seriously, everything about this case and the way the police handle it is loony.

Clifs of her testimony;

- She's a "supervisor" of sorts at the DNA lab

- Her time is split about 70% of the time doing actual analysis, and 30% administrative work

- There are ~12 analysts in the DNA lab

- The caseload for their lab, and all labs in Wisconsin is on the rise

- The contamination rate in their testing is also on the rise

- She performed analysis and gave testimony in the 1985 trial, with regards to hairs found on the victim that she linked to SA

- She also performed the work in 2003 that exonerated SA with the new technology available

- Part of her job is to assign work to the other analysts

- They do not to blind testing. With that I mean, they typically know full well who's test they are conducting

- She chose to do the SA case testing herself

- She tested over 100 different items, with the exception of the bullet (tested later than much of the other evidence), none of the evidence tested ever put TH in the trailer or garage

- She wrote down on her notes from phone calls surrounding the bullet with the investigators "try to put TH in the garage"

- The desks they use in the crime lab had cabinets, in which they put some of their active cases.

- She kept many DNA items relating to the SA case in her cabinet

- Their lab employs a protocol that has them introduce a negative control that stays through the testing process

- The job of the negative control is to let the analyst know whether or not the test gets contaminated. If DNA shows up in the negative control, the test has been contaminated.

- She uses a "buffer" method to extract the DNA off the bullet. This means she submerses the bullet in liquid, and any alleged DNA on the bullet is then transferred to the liquid for testing.

- The "buffer" method makes it basically impossible to re-extract in the event of an issue with the test.

- The negative control is introduced after the "buffer" process.

- They test many different DNA samples at the same time, in a bank of tubes. That is to say, the test on the bullet was ran simultaneously with other tests.

- At the end of the test, the negative control came back contaminated with DNA

- According to their own lab's protocol, she should deem the results inconclusive based on that alone.

- She knew full well the probative value of TH's DNA being found on the bullet

- She decided to put in an exception report, that gets peer reviewed and reviewed by her supervisor, in an effort to draw conclusions from her contaminated test.

- She had literally, not once, ever asked for an exception report before in her career, despite the fact that she had what appeared to be a higher contamination rate, or at least more instances of contamination, then others in the lab.

- She could only think of one other, apparently undocumented time, where another person in her lab filed for an exemption.

- She had been subject to an efficiency test, from an outside independent firm, around the same time she conducted the test on the bullet, and it came back partially contaminated

looks like you cracked the case.

Colburn helped frame Avery for murder, because he was afraid he might be named in a lawsuit, and he was afraid that might cost him his chance at being sheriff.

Defense lawyers must dream of having people such as yourself on the jury. Make up a scenario, and watch the jury run with it.

It's a roman noir written by Mr bean.
GL to anyone buying the right to the movie and who want to make it believable

Or they thought he was guilty but were unable to convict him without framing and are morrons

Or they didn't frame anyone and were able to convict him because he was guilty. Boring, I know.

That's very possible the problem beeing that they still acted like morrons and made that ****ty situation.
Wether he is guilty innocent and them guilty or innocent the problem is that they had no clue of what was appropriate as related by many lawyers Da and various law enforcement