Seems like I wasn't the only one calling shenanigans on looking at the jury while giving answers.

Big Jerry lettin'em know what's up.





Trial Transcripts

2 non-MC evidence collection techs on scene admitting to not being able to do much because of the weather and had nothing to do, even though they are more than qualified to do the search of SA's trailer.

Big Jer giving them the business...

Trial Transcripts

Nah, def nothing wrong with any of that.

One of my most WTF moments was the reveal of the bolded. Just unreal.

Trial Transcripts

pg 112: Qualified evidence collection technician/photographer stating he was not able to take pictures of any of the crime scenes before they were altered as well as email Fassbender about his concerns regarding this aspect of the investigation.

It's really ironic how you fight so vehemently that we could not possibly know better than the jury who heard the case as we weren't there and therefore are all wrong.
Yet now you're hinting you know better than Buting and Strang, the only real competant fully believable characters in all of this. High opinion of yourself much?

First search of SA's trailer is 3 hours. LOL PoorSkillz....

There have already been 2 extremely qualified evidence techs / photographers testify that not only were they there, they "had time to kill" because of the weather. They are just waiting for the tow truck to come haul away the RAV 4 (which, btw, hasn't even been opened yet! That doesn't happen until it's back at the Crime Lab. Yeah, THAT Crime Lab that J-Butes filed the ethics report on.)

Yet the three people with the most to gain from SA's guilty verdict are assigned to search SA trailer. This is just so outlandish it's unreal. An officer from Calumet County is ALSO assigned to the trailer, but his job his job is NOT to server the search warrant nor is it to search for Teresa Halbach who might be alive. You might think, "well, his job is to collect evidence - but you would be wrong. His job is to WATCH the three MC officers conduct the search. 1 Calumet, 3 Manitowoc. This makes absolutely no sense.

Hey buddy, relax a little. No, I'm not hinting I know better than Buting and Strang. I'm hinting they're full of ****.

When did defense attorneys become known as bastions of truth? I guess when a Netflix show portrayed them as gods. Except now the transcripts are available...

I take everything Buting and Strang (and Kratz) say with a grain of salt.

Trial Transcripts

Hmmm...Colborn and Lenk collecting blood from Avery's trailer before the RAV 4 has even been opened yet.

lolmurderweapon

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/photos/

Odds that SHERRY "It's 5 o'clock somewhere" CULHANE invalidates the 2nd most important DNA test she's ever done: 1/5000

Trial Transcripts

Bet you didn't know they were swabbing all kinds of Avery blood at the Crime Lab that fateful November, 2005

Guaranteed there's no EDTA in that blood.


Trial Transcripts

Watched Pam Smart documentary yesterday.. that bitch is guilty too.

Who's Pam Smart?

LOL trying to communicate effectively = shenanigans.

Is going to law school and learning how to give a good closing argument "shenanigans"?

It would be pretty funny to take a pole of people IIT, I would bet the vast majority of people saying SA is definitely guilty would be the same people saying Knox was obviously innocent

Google her, she was this lady that convinced these teenagers to murder her husband. One of which was a student at the school she worked at. She claims they murdered her husband out of jealousy because she wanted to break off the relationship. Pretty interesting actually, it was the first trial televised in its entirety in the US.

I do not know enough about Knox to comment.

I do think that Casey Anthony was guilty but should have been found Not guilty. OJ should have been found guilty, Zimmerman not guilty, those are some high profile trials that come to mind.

Anyway, it is not my position that SA is def guilty. it is my position that he most likely did it and it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. That does not mean it was proved beyond no doubt. Often times people confuse this subtle difference and it amazes me.

I actually think it is you that doesn't know what it means.

Dateline will talk about SA tonight

http://www.nbcnews.com/dateline

This ****s still going?

So your theory is that people who believe Amanda Knox is innocent are shills for a PR firm?

And people who believe Avery is guilty are also shills? Who has hired this PR firm to promote Avery's guilt? Is it Ken Kratz hiring the PR firm? The sheriff? Colburn? Lenk? Manitowoc Tourism Board? Maybe they're all pooling funds?

This firm is then, what, hacking people's 2+2 accounts? Or this PR firm finds dormant accounts and offers the owners money in exchange for access? Or PoorSkillz somehow found out a PR firm was promoting Avery's guilt and offered them access to his account for money?

Perhaps the simplest explanation is PoorSkillz is just a guy who really believes Avery's guilty.

The new trend of those expert people who somehow know the absolute truth of the case and chalk up those that don't see it as shills/trolls is cool. A bunch of people trying to make sure everyone knows they are part of the in crowd.

Surprise, people have differing opinions.

I don't think skillz is anymore wrong in thinking Avery is guilty then saus is for thinking he is innocent.

The biggest problem with people like skillz or whoever comes from when they try to explain the glaring problems especially in regards to conflict of interest.

Pro-tip: when you've already ITT literally disagreed with the judge's thoughts on reasonable doubt (given in his instructions to the jury in the trial under discussion), it's time to stop condescendingly telling people they're using the term wrong.