Can you show me where I state my position is that elephants do not exist?

Doesn't the fact they were there lead you to believe BD's story was fabricated?

Exactly.

Or as pertains to our conundrum, some evidence of an actual crime scene, unquestionable test results and forensics, solid, reputable scientists doing satisfactory work and a group of LEOs with no conflict of interest doing the investigation.

Unfortunately we have none of that.

Glad to see you are reading my posts again.

Lostinsauce, are you saying that Culhane and the crimelab are corrupt and all the evidence from there should be invalidated?

I usually quickly skim through, so I read the shorter ones.

You indicate you do not believe aliens exist (see the second-to-last post; unless you differentiate between "Aliens" and "Ancient Aliens"). As applied to this case, you are basically saying it is possible to argue that aliens did it, but because they have not been proven to exist, this relies on not only accepting aliens exist beyond a theoretical possibility, and that one of those aliens committed the crime.

Under the elephant analogy, the elephant is the possibility that SA was framed by planted evidence. You do not acknowledge there was anything beyond a hypothetical possibility (and that is being generous to you) that this could have happened where the evidence suggests that this scenario has moved well beyond a mere hypothetical into reasonable possibility territory (i.e. the elephant not only exists, but it has been spotted in the neighborhood).

Same

Ya you clearly don't understand.

You are right in saying: I have stated multiple times I have no opinion on his guilt/innocence. (Or whatever the exact quote is, on phone so not looking it up).

That is a factual statement, you have repeatedly stated you have no opinion on SAs guilt.

The hilarious part is that any rational person knows that you do have an opinion and it's incredibly obvious.

That's what humans who watch something do. They form an opinion based off their gut reaction. Obviously you can think the fairness of the trial and whatnot is the most important part, a lot of people say that, but a lot of people also don't lie and say they have no opinion. Everyone does.

Stop going around acting like you are posting from a complete middle ground. That's not how the human brain works.

If a gun was stuck to your head asking what are your thoughts on SAs guilt, you are not responding I don't know. But I think you have lied to yourself and to keep it up you are going to tell me you would. This is where more laughter will come.

Understand?


If you are intentionally being disingenuous about your thoughts on the case I don't see how anyone should take your opinion all that seriously. But you are right, you have been very careful to never reveal your opinion on his guilt from what I have seen

Lol wat? You've lost me now. Please don't try to explain either lol.

Then I guess where we are in disagreement is that his blood in her car isn't enough for you to conclude he played some role in her death. In WI you only have to be generally aware and participate in some way to be charged with 1st degree homicide so even if he was lets say the driver to dump the body.. he is still guilty of murder.

Of course there is other evidence but as you failed to realize my point was that the evidence you guys call question to is not important when we have his blood in her car.

Also, oski

there are several murder trials conducted without the body being found. That should not be required to conclude someone committed murder beyond reasonable doubt.

So, like I said, put up or shut up. You clearly have nothing to back up your "feeling."

You should find someone else to troll, because you are going to get nowhere with this (not that you seem to mind).

Are you trolling me?

The post you quoted answered your question. And I've answered it before, too.

Listen. I don't have much time to spend on your ignorance.

You don't run a murder trial in a vacuum. You don't offer just one exhibit that does not prove each element of the crime.

You cannot wrap your infertile bean around that concept, so I will just leave it at that.

It is not my problem you cannot articulate your points properly. Either learn how to write better, or stop writing (at the very least, don't try to keep making argument based on post hoc additions to your initial premise).

Done. You are an idiot - accept it and move on with my full and complete blessing.

I would say that the crime lab's evidence processing shows signs of (at best) complete incompetence or (at worst) corruption, if not both. When you have a detective on video coercing a confession then calling in and ordering which results are needed to fit the confession, something is wrong. Again, DNA on hood latch is a great example, and its not the only one.

Common sense.

Way to miss the point.. Completely.

If Culhane was corrupt, why would she report that the bullet's negative control was contaminated?

Why would she not also "find" DNA on more items, like the key or items in the bedroom?

I think if it shows anything, reporting the contamination on the bullet's negative control shows that she wasn't corrupt and she was willing to report any mistake. Now what exactly shows that she was corrupt? And since the only error seems to be with the bullet's negative control, what exactly shows "complete incompetence" to dismiss all the evidence?

No. I am not trolling you. I did not realize the following was your answer (and perhaps, I should have):

Thank you.

I will point out that these items have already been offered and discussed many times in this thread by others. I believe the consensus here (and I may be mistaken) is that these extra items are not really that compelling.

1. Character evidence. That is not relevant to proving a crime. In this case, especially, the character of SA is not probative especially in light of the fact there are a number of other people in the area that have similar bad acts to their credit.

2. DNA under the hood. That seems to ask more questions than answered. How does SA's DNA get on the latch when there are no fingerprints? If he was wearing gloves, then how was the DNA transferred? Also some have pointed out this evidence was not "discovered" for nearly 6 months which seems odd.

3. Personal items of TH. I don't understand how this matters. We already have her bones in SA's firepit. How does finding remnants of the phone, etc. add to this?

4. Phone calls. I have never understood why this is compelling to people. If SA was disguising himself, he did a poor job of that since he arranged to have TH come to the property (even if it was under his sister's name - it was his sister's car btw). Also, (IIRC) TH called SA at about 1:30 to confirm she would be able to make it for the appointment. Why would she call SA if he made the reservation under his sister's name? Obviously, he contacted her and asked her to confirm (or does that not seem plausible)?

This is why I say that despite my opinion that it is futile to argue the "real truth" of the matter one way or another (absent some stone-cold evidence) people saying they are convinced SA is guilty (and I am not saying you are one of them) based on "all these other things we were not shown in the documentary," are drastically overplaying their hand. None of this stuff is compelling except for the DNA on the hood - and it is only compelling based on the possibility that evidence is bona fide. As of now, there seem to be too many issues surrounding the provenance of that evidence.

Is there anything else?

I did a Google search for just Mantiwoc I think and a local paper's story about the town's police force came up. It commented on how they are fine and upstanding and NOT the county sheriff who screwed up the Avery case. It was pretty amusing. It even noted how the town police department had a social media presence while the county did not and the town police were getting a lot of misdirected grief.

No social media presence? Reasonsble doubt.

It used to be virtually impossible and it is still extremely difficult to convict someone of murder without a body or remnant of a body.

Police planting evidence. Reasonable doubt.

Oh cool, so if I want to kill someone all I have to do is get a policeman to plant evidence and I can walk scott-free? Good to know.