Well first off my not guilty thought has no barring on the results of the edta test. I just dont think it was beyond reasonable doubt.

I do think he is innocent, but im not convinced hes innocent.

The question of the edta test in my mind is the desire for a result or pressure and truthfulness of the person doing it rather than the methidlogy of testing for edta itself.

The need/desire for supporting results runs fairly deep.

I think you mean "bearing"? In which case, the results should most definitely have a bearing on your thoughts. It is probably the most important piece of evidence. If his blood wasn't planted, he's guilty.

First of all, why do you assume the FBI has a need/desire for results supporting the cops in this case? You think they would rather crooked cops continue to operate and an innocent man be locked up for life? I would assume they have a desire for the truth.

Second of all, if the methodology is fine (which most scientists agree it is), desire has nothing to do with it. You put the stuff in a machine and it spits out the results. Or are we saying the FBI just falsified everything? Is this reasonable?

Yes bearing. Not guilty in a legal sense. I can think he should be found not guilty and that he did the crime. I dont think it was a fair trial or that the prosecution proved what they claimed.


Its incredibly reasonable to doubt the validity of a rushed test performed by the FBI. I also like how the guy quoted in that article hasnt even read all the edta files of the case. He also said the claimed methodolgy frok the fbi analyst was proper, not the actual test as he didnt see it performed.

Also i bet you could find a similar expert with a contradictory opinion on the subject(in fact i believe people have come forward with as much)

Also i am not interested in treading water discussing the case. Nor do i care in researching. I am a casual fan of the case than enjoys calling out bull****.

My stance is based almost entirely on the doc so its obviously pro innocent bias and im fine with that. I dont care enough to camaign for his retrial or try to solve it either.

All the prosecution had to prove was that Steven was guilty of murder, not necessarily in the exact way they described it.


The protocol had been in place since 1997, they just made some tweaks to it. I believe they spent a couple months working on it for the Avery trial.

He says he's continuing to look through it, so I'll keep you updated (although it sounds like you're firmly stuck in your position no matter what information there is).

And lol, of course he didn't see the actual test performed, or else you'd be claiming he couldn't be trusted either.


I haven't really seen anything from anyone who went over the methodology who eventually didn't claim it was sound. Some scientists have nitpicked little details surrounding the test, mainly that we don't know how much was tested (if it was less than 5uL that's a problem, but that's very very unlikely, as 5uL = the surface area of 1/10 of a penny, and those Rav4 stains were obviously much bigger than that), but pretty much everyone has agreed that the test does what it says it does.

Here's some helpful reading material: http://stevenaverycase.com/blood-edta-test-explained

Cool. Now you sound like oski did a few weeks ago, just please don't turn into his current form:

Not at all. I dont argue innocence or guilt i just laugh at people who do. I am not sure what provoked you to even ask me the question. I am basically playing devils advocate to random posts itt.

I am fine in my ignorance, i see no value in researching the case and definitely no value in trying to convince others of my POV.

Oski is lying to himself.

You definitely know way more about the case than i do. So does lost in the saus. I just dont give a **** about the case. Avery isnt special. There are people being railroaded across the country. There are people murdering accross the country. **** happens. People should spend their time lobbying for criminal justice reform not individual cases.

The sidelines is a fun spot to be in this thread

Well then this completely negates the burden of proof doesn't it? This means they could potentially convict him even if the jury thought he didn't kill Teresa Halbach? Does killing a cat count as murder?

The sad truth is, you are probably right. And therein lies the problem.

So the jury is just supposed to guess or speculate on how the murder occurred?

The jury considers all the evidence, or lack of evidence, and comes to a conclusion whether there's proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Steven murdered Teresa, not a cat.

No, they are supposed to objectively examine all the evidence and then decide, based on that evidence, whether the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I mean had Buting/Strang been able to provide one iota of evidence that the bones/key/bullet/blood/DNA were all planted by police (or even that one of them was), the jury might have reasonable doubt.

It's really not as complicated as you seem to think. There was an overwhelming amount of physical and circumstantial evidence, all pointing to one person. There was zero evidence that any of the evidence was fabricated or planted. What exactly is a jury supposed to do in this case? Read articles about how cops have planted evidence in other cases before, and then find him not guilty? I mean, that's not how the system works. They can only go by the law and the evidence that is presented to them.

My statement was, and remains true.

1. You claimed I made "several misstatements of fact on this case." Yet, when challenged, you failed to identify any instance of that happening.

2. You have not provided any evidence outside of the documentary that adds to deciding the issue as to whether SA received a fair trial. Indeed, the only relevant evidence you provided supports the position that SA did not receive a fair trial.

So, because you cannot provide anything outside of the doc. that is relevant to the issue, my statement is true.

If you want to keep pretending you are digging up nuggets of gold from the transcripts, then be my guest. Just understand, the reality is that you are wasting your time (not that you have anything better to do).

The jury that was 7/3/1 not guilty at first. The one with conflicted jurors with questionable ties (this goes to more lol judge). Not to mention jury actually saying they were afraid if they could set him up they could set them up.

Yes the jury was the culmination of all the Justice and fairness in this case.

Some of Oski's false statements:

On the hole in the vial:
Still waiting on that scene, bud.


On TH's bones being found in the quarry:
Eisenberg:
Q All right. Now, the bone that you suspected to
be the iliac crest, can you say to a reasonable
degree of scientific certainty that that, uh, is
human bone?
A No, sir, I cannot.

Fairgrieve:
Q. On that, Dr. Eisenberg testified, as I recall,
5 that she only suspected that she was seeing human
6 bone fragments, maybe two from the pelvis, one
7 from the iliac crest and that there were other
8 bones that she initially suspected to be human,
9 some of which she later determined were animal --
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. -- bone, and some of which remain undetermined,
12 still possibly human and possibly not?
13 A. Yes, that's my understanding.
14 Q. Do you have any reason to disagree with that?
15 A. No, I do not.


On gunshots to the head not being confirmed to any scientific degree:
Eisenberg:
Q The opinion that the internal beveling observed
in the left parietal bone is characteristic of a
gunshot or bullet entrance wound, do you hold
that opinion to a reasonable degree of scientific
certainty?
A Yes, sir, I do.
Q The opinion that -- The opinion that the internal
beveling observed in the occipital bone left of
the midline, is characteristic of gunshot or
bullet entrance wound, do you hold that opinion
to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty?
A Yes, sir, I do.

Fairgrieve:
Q. And you do not take any issue with the fact that
22 there is clear evidence of at least two gunshot
23 to the cranial pieces, which were able to be
24 recovered?
25 A. That's correct.

On there being no indication of cleanup in the garage:
Ertl:
There was another area that wasn't just a spot on
25 the floor, it was more of a smear.
1 Q. Can you describe this smear in greater detail.
2 A. Roughly 3 to 4 foot diameter area. Faintly
3 glowing under the luminol. No specific spots or
4 stains.

Q. So what did that tell you, as a forensic
13 scientist, about that large area and its reaction
14 to luminol but did not react to the more specific
15 phenolphthalein test?
16 A. Well, there was something that had been spread
17 out in a large area that was reacting. I don't
18 know what. And what cross reacts, cleaning
19 chemicals dilute blood, would react, but it may
20 not show up with phenolphthalein if it was
21 diluted enough.

Yawn:

1. Is my opinion. That is subjective. I am telling you what I took from the documentary. Others feel differently. You cannot possibly claim that my opinion on a subjective matter is an asserted fact. The reality is that you just do not agree with my opinion.

2, 3, and 4. are expert opinions. On each of these "facts" (as you claim) I am quite certain there are experts that found the opposite.

A "fact" would be: S.A. was wrongfully imprisoned for 45 years. S.A. did not burn his cat, he tripped and accidentally knocked it into the fire. Bobby Dassey doesn't even live on the Avery property. S.A. never ran anyone off the road and pointed a gun at them. Etc.

Do you not know the difference between a fact and an opinion? No wonder you struggle with this so much. This is why you reading the transcripts is a complete waste of time - you do not have the capacity to glean any useful information from them.

What makes this sadder for you is that I avoid the transcripts and I have demonstrated much more command of the material than you have. Of course, that is not saying much because you do not seem to have the intelligence or education to grasp concepts fundamental to these types of discussions.

Read the transcripts? By all means, go ahead.

Explain how the bolded is an opinion:

This scene doesn't exist, you still have yet to admit it.

Lol I presented the defense's expert Fairgrieve's opinion for 2 and 3, which he shared with Eisenberg's. There was no opposing expert for Ertl. Of course you wouldn't know any of that though.

Also, they're expert opinions that refute your statements, such as your claims that TH's bones were found in the quarry.

You're so clearly delusional as Custer has also pointed out numerous times already. It's hilarious the depths you sink to in order to avoid admitting you were ever wrong. I just wanted to point it out once more.

Back to ignoring your ignorant ass that your head calls home.

Obviously these weren't a thing at the time and was just an example of something the department could have done short of actually bowing out of the investigation line they said they would. After all there was video made of some part of the search (we should take his boots...)

They are opinions. Do you not understand the difference? I appreciate that YOU take these snippets of opinion as fact, but they are not. They do not have any particular meaning outside of the trial - and the trial is at issue. So, you are working with testimony that really doesn't mean anything. We get that you believe it and that these opinions mean something, but they do not because the process is in question.

Anyhow, as I stated before,

none of these have anything to do with whether the trial was fair. You keep conflating the issue presented in the doc. and the issue of whether SA actually killed TH.

Can you explain for all of us how the determination of whether TH was shot twice in the head relates to the fairness of the trial?

You can't, because it doesn't.

Wait. Hold on a sec....the "obvious" motive to plant evidence in the OJ case was racism, but there was no motivation from anyone to plant evidence in the Steven Avery case?

There was motive for the cops to plant evidence in the avery case. There was no evidence this happened though. If all we had was motive in the OJ case and no physical evidence that evidence was planted id feel the same way.

Circular arguments with Fraley. Coming to PBS in June.

Fraley treats this like a debate and will say anything to further his argument.

Please tell me how my argument was circular then explain what that means. It is clear you don't know what a circular argument is.

Was the one person Steven or Brendan?

That's your problem? That I loosely use the term circular?

Just ignore the fact you argued they had no motive over ~20 posts.

You should look into some of the judicial abuses of power from family court. That should give you a deeper insight on how power corrupts - even with no external factors (like the lawsuit that was filed in the SA case).

There is one case in particular (in Indiana) where the judge did the following:

1. Ruled against the Father and drastically cut his visitation time (okay that happens). However,

2. Father started complaining on Facebook; judge found him in contempt of court and prosecutor ended up charging him with "intimidating a judge."

3. Net result: He was sent to prison for 5 years; has not seen his kids since.

In Sacramento:

Judge that formally worked with the firm employing Mother's counsel:

1. Left the courtroom in the middle of trial (during Father's cross-examination) and did not return.

2. Later declared the trial concluded and ruled against Father on every point - ordered Father to sell all his property and pay Mother's attorney fees.

3. Father filed an appeal.

4. Two days later, Judge called Father's work and Father was fired.

5. Judiciary oversight committee and Court of appeals found the judge's actions were an abuse, but committee ordered no sanction; court of appeal did not overturn the judgment (in family court, it is very difficult to overturn a judge).

In Ohio:

1. Father and Mother separated and followed an informal 50/50 sharing arrangement with no issues.

2. When they finally decided to file for divorce, Family Law Judge ordered child custody evaluation. This is expensive. Evaluator had connections to judge.

3. Evaluator recommends full custody to mother even though she was not asking for it.

4. Father makes private facebook post that is only visible to his contacts. Somehow judge finds out, and orders Father to post a pre-written statement (from the judge) and keep it there for 30 days.

5. Father initially complies, but then decides enough is enough and takes down post.

6. Judge does not send him to jail, but Father has not seen his son since.

And on and on. There is a lot of motive for protecting the "herd" once you are a member of that "herd" - regardless if it means abusing the public trust you have sworn to serve (this goes for judges, attorneys, and court-appointed experts alike).

I argued that Lenk didn't have a motive. Not that the police (which is a very vague group of people anyway) didn't have a motive. I mean, if you want to get technical the police always have a motive to plant evidence.

Family courts are a ball grinder for fathers. Believe me I know.