Can you do a fact and speculation list on SA's first case?

I asked the question correctly the first time and you ignored it. Subsequent statements have been in shorthand because I was on my phone.

The question remains, what changed the percentages? You claimed you spoke with a number of your friends and were confident that the confidence level in their opinion moved substantially (towards SA doing it). As stated by you, this was a result of doing outside research.

Again, I simply ask what outside research caused this shift? If you don't know, then you don't know. I guess it did not occur to you to ask during these conversations. I guess we will take your word for it.

Not really. If we agree the trial was unfair, there is no value in arguing the case based on what happened in that trial. The whole process is in error and the contents must be discarded.

If you want to speculate, that is fine and it is interesting (and I understand that you have been very careful to state whatever opinions you have are based on "x", "y" and "z" and that you believe it is futile to really opine as to whether SA actually killed TH and I commend you for it - that is very reasonable). If, instead, you want to come in here and say you know he is innocent or that he actually killed her (which you are not doing) I think that is silly.

Yet, with that given, if people wish to undertake such futile endeavors, that is their choice. I believe it is entirely reasonable to comment on the quality and competency of their arguments. Thus far, I have not been shy in stating those trying to convince the rest of us that SA actually killed TH are doing an extraordinary poor job. Those arguing the other way are doing a much better job in comparison, but for what it is worth, they will not sway my opinion because we still need a proper trial. Once that is done, we will have all the facts before us and we can analyze the matter within that context (with the understanding that if someone wishes to rely on something outside of the trial, they will bear a significant burden of showing why it should be considered, etc.).

I mentioned before that pictures are not very reliable about color. Because of différents camera lightning and possibly filters . I think I remember some pic where the car look green

Yes, he answered it, and he has been consistent in stating his belief is that the trial was not proper, but based on a number of factors, SA is certainly in the picture if not the primary suspect (if that is not the case, please correct me). That is a very reasonable position.

To elaborate on this analogy you chose:

I agree that an elephant in the neighborhood makes it possible an elephant walked through the door.

However, a reasonable person would also expect to see some evidence such as a broken door or a trashed foyer before they could reasonably believe that an elephant walking through the door isn't an absurd proposition.

Again, I asked you to provide something to back up your claim and you admit you don't have anything.

Your are arguing from your "feelings." It is not my problem that you generally fail at whatever goal you have while posting in threads. I understand you "feel" bad that others do not share your problem.

Maybe these types of discussions are not for you. Maybe you should start a poll in OOT about what you should have for lunch.

Again, is it the English you are having trouble with?

You proposed a proposition where a conviction would be sought on one fact. As I correctly pointed out, you need more than that. You have to actually establish there was a murder (in the case of a murder case). Here, you do have the body, but if you don't mention it, you don't have enough.

Your proposal is to have one and only one exhibit: Blood stain on car.

That is not enough.

Stop being ******ed and get with the program.

Here's one person's opinion (from reddit) that also describes some of my issues with the show:

I'm not going to argue about it with you or anyone, just presenting what I think you're asking for.

Or maybe just like a few cops that didn't need to be there in the first place, not only being there, but specifically volunteering to search the trailer.

Sorry, elephants, not cops.

Ok, lets replace 7th with 4 hours.

Yes, that is the elephant in the neighborhood part. Now where's the evidence that the elephant was in the room?

It's also funny that so much attention is focused on the key, one of the lesser pieces of evidence. This is purposeful. If the key was the key to the case, then it would matter a lot more. Unfortunately, the key was really the only piece of evidence the defense could shine some truly reasonable doubt on. As Kratz even says in the closing statements, "Forget about the ****ing key, we have a boatload more evidence" (paraphrasing).

This is a very good point. It really hits the nail on the head.

It IS questionable, but under our jury system, that is for the jury to decide. In this case, the jury overlooked any potential impropriety and accepted the evidence. If the procedure was correct (for example, if the evidence was properly admitted over objection) under our system, we must accept the jury's findings.

That is a fact. This is where people misinterpret the documentary. The doc. is saying (at least on this particular point) - look, this is how it works, but is it actually fair?

The documentary simply states that even if this trial is procedurally correct (and they really do not have the capacity to make the case otherwise) is the process fair? The documentary's position is that it is NOT fair.

I start with the premise that the trial was procedurally correct - but only on a technicality: whatever errors in the process were waived by SA when he chose to not pursue a mistrial (and I believe there is a healthy debate over whether one or more substantive errors were present in the proceedings with me agreeing with the doc. that there was). That was his choice - but the real issue is, even though it was SA's choice NOT to move for mistrial, were the circumstances he faced in making that decision FAIR?

Here, the decision came down to finances. As Dean stated, a retrial would be beyond SA's financial capabilities. He would run the risk of having a public defender handle the re-trial. Given the performance of Lou and others, how much confidence could SA have in that option? Meanwhile, the State has unlimited resources (at least in comparison to SA) and have enough juice to move the FBI (for example) to run a test for them on short notice.

Again, what type of decision could SA really make? Take the chance that his current attorneys were persuasive enough not withstanding the errors with the process or have a do-over with much less competent (presumably) public defenders?

Is that fair? It is the system, it usually works, but is it fair here? Can this system that depends so much on financial resources for a proper defense be FAIR for people with little means?

I think the answer is "no," it is unfair. Whether one wants to believe the problems are bigger than this, is left to the individual viewer. At least in this case, the only reasonable conclusion is that in THIS small town, with entrenched LE and strong social bias among the community, can SA, a poor outcast, receive a fair shake? You have to answer "No."

So, the bigger question is really about given this problem, do we care enough to change the system? Are we okay with allowing these types of cases to happen knowing it is not really a danger to most of us? Are we okay with having the justice system serve the majority at the expense of the poor and socially unconnected?

That is your personal choice. If you believe it is not fair, then the discussion should be about what can be done and whether it can be done.

The story of SA and whether he actually killed TH is just collateral to the bigger points of the show.

Did they actually find the handcuffs and leg irons, and if so where were they.

Can you read? Can you just pull your head out of your butt for two minutes to actually think beyond whatever perverse, cop-loving agenda you have?

I have not advocated for one second that "the elephant is in the room." I have specifically stated that is a futile endeavor. On the other hand, you take the position elephants do not even exist even though there have been multiple sightings in the neighborhood.

Just as a reasonable person would not deny that elephants exist.

As for me, to make it very clear to you, I merely state my opinion that the elephant is in the neighborhood (and probably reading the trial transcripts).

Thanks for this post because i didn't understand why they did nothing about most of those blunders.

Yes, in his trailer bedroom. There was no blood or TH dna. He uses them with jodi.

Good post. Agree with those comments pretty much 100%.

Yes.

They found them on their "brief" 2-3hr search of the trailer on Nov 5, when they were simply looking for 'possible info on a missing person'

It really was a dilemma.

And that is the essence of the show. SA was forced to make a choice between the lesser of two evils. His choice, which was based on his financial situation, sunk all grounds for appeal based on procedural errors.

As a result, he had an unfair trial, but he basically chose to accept it because his only other option was worse.

Hey dude, I'm just trying to play along with your silly elephant analogy. Cool it with the personal attacks, please.

Also, when did I say elephants don't exist?

Were you just trying to prove the existence of elephants? I'm very confused now.

FYP

The whole point of the documentary and subsequently this thread are that these "facts" that you are presenting here are subject to a relatively enormous amount of invalidation. I am going to guess that the Crime Lab is going to come more into focus here soon.

I used Krantz' analogy. Blame him.

Under this analogy, your position is that elephants do not exist. You already used the "maybe aliens did it" which amounts to the same thing.

Another great rebuttal from lostinsauce. Oski is convinced.