So, I'll assume that by this standard you have sworn testimony from SA denying the fire as well.

I dont think you answered my question when i asked it the first time, now would you send him to jail with your 80% guilty.

He knows because he checked her VM. He's the stalker and was having an affair with her. He killed her after 10/31.

His DNA all over her car and felt it had to be destroyed. He had raped her and needed to cremate her body to destroy evidence.

what is SA's sworn testimony denying it??

If you want more info on the process, you can read Sturdivant's testimony for one.

The anthropologist became involved on the 10th I believe.

they left things out of the doc that were inconsequential.

- SA calling TH, a contractor he's hired to do work isn't evidence of anything

- TH's personal affects being found in the same place her bones were found isn't surprising or any more/less damming than the bones themselves

- SA's DNA on the hood latch again is no more/less damming than the blood in her car. The prosecutions own DNA expert couldn't conclude that the DNA didn't come from blood, because she didn't run that test.

What does this even mean? It's a fact Steven denied it. It's also a fact that Steven later admitted it. It's all on tape. He also refused to testify.

I thought I did.

No.

I will read it.

So, to recap what you just told me. She never saw the actual burn sight herself with the bones in it.

The bones were excavated with shovels, and haphazardly, not with any archeological processing of what was found in which specific quadrant or anything.

And the prosecutions's anthropologist
made her conclusions based on that.

Maybe you did and i didnt see it because of the spam from some people here.
Sorry if you thought i attaqued you but i think it s a way more important point than him beeing 80% guilty only since i dont think it s something people should really focus on since noone really have proper information to really say if it s 20% or 80%.

She made her conclusion based "on the overwhelming majority of burned human bone fragments behind the garage, in the area and adjacent areas of the burn pit, the finding of very delicate and fragmentary dental structures within that universe, if you will, of burned human bone fragments behind the garage and absolutely none, for example, in burn barrel number two. And it's my opinion that if transport occurred from the burn barrel to the burn pit, that there would have been a greater representation left over in the burn barrel of more of the skeleton. And I do not see that."

procedure and protocole are optionnal in manitowoc county, your mumbojumbo about referencing everything for an investigation and beeing methodical is not very important as long as people already made up their mind about a suspect.

Cross examination:

Direct examination:

Her opinion does not even rely on what you describe as "haphazard" excavation.

It means you have to apply the same standard to everything. You can't selectively apply standards for evidence.

You seem to think that it's fine that the prosecution put forth no motive for the murder of TH. But you have issue with the fact that the defence did not put forth a motive (except they actually did put forth a motive, you just disagree with it).

When someone pointed out that some witnesses originally said there was no fire that night, you threw your arms up in the air (metaphorically or course) and said "what was their sworn testimony". It's fine if you want the standard to be based on sworn testimony, and going along with that I asked you to point out where SA's sworn testimony was claiming he did not have a fire.

FYI, I'm aware he didn't testify, and it was a loaded question on my behalf. I asked it to prove a point that you selectively apply different standards to evidence being discussed.

(I don't expect you to acknowledge pure doing it or even understand what I just said)

Right, that was her opinion. The prosecution's expert witness. The defences expert witness had a differing opinion, funny how that works.

The defense's expert witness's opinion (who they specifically chose) was that he couldn't give an opinion.

Exactly.

You're attacking the little details, but the big picture is there's her bones in his firepit when he had a fire capable of burning a human being the night she went missing.

There's no evidence that bones were planted in Steven's yard.

Therefore, there's no reason to believe the bones were planted besides mere guesswork or speculation.

A reasonable doubt is not a doubt which is based on mere guesswork or speculation. That's why Steven's in prison.

Glad we agree that your opinion on the excavation procedure is a strawman.

I'm kinda ashamed that I'm still checking in on this thread (I still never revisited the show following not being able to take the bogus anymore 4-5 eps in) but in the context of some of the ridiculousness posted here mainly from reddit (HIVE MIND INDEED thank you CCuster_911) that is indeed pretty funny.

I have only posted about the tv series itself and I'd want to reject doing anything else, just like this show should have been rejected (that it hasn't other than admirably by HBO and instead has been welcomed lustily or bloodthirsty like this and become a cultural phenomenon when it has nothing good to offer is I guess what still has me rustled and unable to ignore) and all this could have been avoided, but from reading the thread I think the overall points here that someone linked to http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/...ry?id=36429891 on a rational level (morally I'd still wish to reject this piece or elements of it) holds up just fine versus the reddit, the brother, the old serial killer, the whatever exactly this is http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15...l#post49265895, the fuzzy handicapping, the rival car dealership if that was what the latest really was, the police the FBI, the CIA THE JFK 911 & we didn't start the fire.

I can't say that I really hope that there are many silent people lurking - we should do something better - but if they do I hope they at least recognize some of this: Then there was this whole shill paranoia some pages back which really did seem real but nonetheless laughable. It would be tempting to create some narrative between that very paranoia and those very same people's theories. Instead I will just note that the backslapping each other's posts and the personal attacks (YOU TROLL YOU) is predominantly done by one side and for what little it's worth in my lurking eyes it doesn't reflect well on them.

I should say that my problem isn't with guilt or not guilt, it is with this tabloid documentary and the tabloidism and immorality it has spewed and if I'm in opposition to anyone here it's people who loved the tv series and now act accordingly.

All we agreed on is that the prosecutions expert didn't consider all the facts before giving her opinion.

So, like I said, you're not going to acknowledge that you were applying 2 different standards to evidence. Gotcha.

No. I'm pretty sure she did...

I really don't think too many people ITT are arguing for SA being innocent.

Battle of experts are really quite stupid and commonplace in trials.

They are both bias and taking the side of one expert as the undisputed truth is not the correct approach.