Here is how that works:

Person says: "A" is true.

Person provides link (or document) stating, this is support for why "A" is true.

The link states, "A" might be true (with the implication it might not be true).

Person has misunderstood or misrepresented the source.

Or

Person says "A" is true.

Support provided says "A" is not true.

Person has misunderstood or misrepresented the source.

Or

Person says "A" is true.

Support provided says "B" is true, but says nothing about A.

Person has misunderstood or misrepresented the source.

Or

Person says "A" is true.

Support is a snippet that says "A" is true.

The rest of the document says "A" is true but there are applicable qualifiers which may apply in this case.

Person has misunderstood or misrepresented the source.

Your ignorance is disgusting.

I don't necessarily agree with fraley's speculation on what happened, just wanted to clear some things up for you.

My original reply to 3 applies to 1-3.

4. Well that also depends on what we're discussing - whether Steven's guilty or whether the prosecution proved it to you. Either way, read Ertl's testimony.

5. It's not speculation that she was shot in the head. Both Eisenberg and Fairgrieve testify that she was shot in the head twice.

6. She's not just a "prosecution expert", she was the forensic scientist on the scene, an expert on bones. If you read the transcripts you will learn that the most of the bones at the quarry were animals, and a couple couldn't be sure whether animal or human - there were no bones at the quarry confirmed to be human.

7. Lol who do you want to explain it to you? You can research it for yourself if you want, it's ****ing science - I hope science isn't too biased for you too.

8. Again, refer to my original reply to 3.

Ok then. You haven't even read the experts' testimonies, but have already dismissed their opinions as wrong and "biased". You're basically swimming in your own sea of ignorance and confirmation bias.

Okay. So you concede T.H. was never in the house. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the prosecution argue T.H. was subdued and forced into S.A.'s bedroom?

You are changing the goalposts, now aren't you. I don't care what Erkle says because that is besides the point in contention. Your point was that B.D.'s statement did not matter because it was not used at S.A.'s trial. Then you attempt to counter this particular point by offering B.D.'s trial testimony - from his own trial. Cant' have it both ways (which I am sure is not the case when you get together with Lenk and Colborn).

More ignorance from you. What the experts testify was speculation. They did not prove to any scientific degree that T.H. was shot in the head. However, arguendo, if she was shot in the head then it could not have been in the garage (leaving aside the fact there is no blood evidence from the garage) IF she was then placed in the car thereafter - otherwise there would be copious amounts of blood.

Couldn't be sure, yet the pelvic bones (some of the biggest bones in the body - except for on yours which is between your ears) were not found in S.A.'s pit or the burn barrel.


Yes, I would like someone to explain to me how an open fire that size could have burned T.H.'s body to that degree (and also, while you are at it, have them explain why bone remnants magically appear in the burn barrel). I appreciate Mr. Cameltoe's dissertation on how fire works, but as for him reaching a compelling conclusion that that particular fire in S.A. open pit burned T.H.'s body on the night of 10/31/2005 - I am left wanting.

So, you are conceding B.D. did not enter T.H.'s car. So, what happens to the part about them driving T.H.'s body to the (dry) pond and then back to the house? (Which comes from B.D.'s statement). How do you explain T.H. being in the back of the car at all?

No, as usual, you are in hysterics and are taking the issue one step too far.

In the particular case of Fraley and Juicy Fruit Snack, they have a habit of misunderstanding or misrepresenting their sources. So that I can avoid dealing with you (who is in particular a huge pain in the ass) I won't render any comment on your Skillz (or lack thereof as stated in your name).

That has been demonstrated many times in this thread. I have had little to do with that. We have some posters here such as LostintheSauce that have read just as much (if not more) about the case than these guys (and probably you). The significant difference is that LostintheSauce consistently provides accurate representations of the sources, constantly has to correct these others about theirs, and in general makes very reasonable and logical points (and asks appropriate questions).

I am sorry to break it to you, but on that basis, despite being undecided on whether S.A. was involved in the killing, I can confidently state LostintheSauce is way, way WAY better at arguing his chosen side than Fruit Snack and Fraley (and you, btw).

Let me put it this way: I asked one poster who claimed that after doing outside research a number of his friends formed the opinion that S.A. actually did the crime which was a significant departure from their opinion from the show, just what outside information caused them to change their opinion.

No response. The fact of the matter is I keep reading about "all the facts and evidence left out of the show" and then it turns out to be a hill of ****.

So, here's your chance: what is all this extra evidence?

No one testified she was shot in the head with the bullet found in the garage. That is pure speculation.

I could be wrong but I don't think they argued this at SA trial. But they did a big media release prior to the trial stating this and skewing every potential jurors opinion.

.

tl;dr: just read the damn trial transcripts

Yes, IIRC, they did a switcheroo at closing. Up until then the house was part of the puzzle (recall Bobby ' s big testimony about how T.H. was headed to the house?).

Where did I state that someone "testified she was shot in the head with the bullet found in the garage"? That can't really be determined.

However, the bullet found in the garage that was tested had Teresa's DNA on it. That's a fact.

You can start with this:

http://stevenaverycase.com/what-maki...idnt-tell-you/

http://stevenaverycase.com/was-evidence-planted/

It's a fact but the way they were treating evidence in that lab, it's possible that the sample was contaminated. Obviously it might not have been but there is no way to retest but there are clear issues with the lab that was used.

Again the story doesn't make sense--she was either shot in the garage and there should be blood possibly all over the place (or SA is Dexter) (you've seen the picture of the garage) or the bullet magically got into the garage for some reason or another.

There were issues, yes. But Teresa's DNA didn't show up on the negative control, and Culhane's DNA didn't show up on the bullet, so it pretty much rules out the bullet being contaminated.

Why were Steven and Brendan cleaning a 3x3ft area on the night of the murder? Read Ertl's testimony for some insight.

I just find it shocking to think it's more likely she was shot in the garage and there's zero blood in garage due to Dexteresque cleanup than to think that

She was not shot in the garage and a bullet with TH DNA was planted, or a random bullet was found and contaminated with TH DNA in the lolLab.

Those really are the only possibilities.

That site has been blasted all over as a sham site...

That's not how science works actually.

Conclusions we can draw from the test on the bullet;

- the negative control was contaminated

- TH's DNA was present on the sample from the bullet

Things we can't conclude from the test on the bullet.

- only the negative control was contaminated

- the DNA sample from the bullet was not contaminated

That is not actually a fact.

The results of the test that Sherry Culhane ran state that the bullet that was given to her by the evidence collectors had DNA from TH on it.

no

The negative control proves at least one instance of contamination in the lab. There is no way to know it's limited to the control, because if it's contaminated, clearly lab protocols failed.

The fact that you use the contaminated control to argue this is actually proof the bullet was not contaminated is beyond the pale. Your intellectual dishonesty is frightening.

You constantly parade around that Halbach's DNA was found on a bullet in the garage, and every time neglect to mention the control was contaminated. You may as well go into a career designing propaganda posters.

Did the defense have a blood splatter expert testify that we should see more blood than we saw? If the answer is no, then I think your theory that more blood would necessarily be expected is just what you would personally expect. Neither of us are experts and it is apparent they couldn't find an expert that would help their case.

Lol Fraley and skillz

Skillz going to have more posts itt than he did from signing up until his previous last post in like 2012.

❤️oski

There was no blood found in the garage or the bedroom.

You claim TH was shot 11 times.

So, I don't need an expert to tell we should expect to find some blood.

Right, bc you know more than they do. got it.

At last some decent investigative reporter's trying to do the leg work.

http://www.postcrescent.com/story/ne...ords/79700752/

Yo Poorskillz are you sure that you picked the right side? Cos this ball ain't stopping.

BTW youcancallmekarma say's Hi....

http://imgur.com/ckgVhjV
How about this Poorskillz.......http://imgur.com/r/MakingaMurderer/iY88FbN?

Given I have never shot someone, I believe it is entirely reasonable (and correct) to expect some blood.

Is that a particular fact you need an expert's opinion on?

Are you telling us your opinion is that people shot on the head do not bleed?