http://www.kratzlawfirms.com/

So, the scene I was referring to is ep5 and starts at 13:05. He states that he is more worried about the blood than he was before. That he was very happy when he discovered it but he is now worried the fbi will come up with a 'dishonest' test to show the blood was different than what is in the vial.

So it is clear from that scene that the physical condition of the vial is not the great find he thought it was. He doesn't use those words but it is clear that the vial is no longer important for the defense.

Hey bud, you must have missed my post:


Lol no.


I'll save us all time: the scene doesn't exist lol.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

As you see from the post of mine above, I explained it as Pokeraz has. This whole thing is Poorskillz just living up to her name.

By the way, I only watched the doc once; have stated that before, and added the disclaimer that I may not always recall parts of the 10 hour doc. with perfect accuracy.

The point here is that people were besides themselves that from the doc. I was able to understand the hole in the vial was not important (and nor was anything else related to that evidence) without the defense being able to link current blood evidence to the blood stored in the vial.

Anyhow, if it is incomprehensible to anyone that a viewer with experience in the legal field can draw that conclusion, then I guess you don't understand the skillset of an attorney (or reasonably intelligent viewer). It's not like the Zodiac Killer's code had to be deciphered.

What. That logic doesnt flow at all. He mentioned no concerns over the physical condition of the vial(more sepcifically the hole he stated earlier showed that blood was removed and planted in the rav 4).

His only concern in that quote is that the test the fbi will come up with will falsely conclude the blood from the vial was not in the rav 4.

The existence of the hole has absolutely no bearing on the test by the FBI.


So in conclusion, the physical aspects of the vial(aka the hole) were never even remotely referenced in his concerns and definitely do not fall logically from the quote.

Meanwhile, earlier on ITT:

#RevisionistHistory

Ok, I see it differently. He is in essence saying that the argument he was going to make that blood was removed from that vial due to the hole in the top and blood seepage around the cap was going to be nullified by the FBI test showing (valid or not, does not matter) the blood could not have come from that vial of blood since there is not EDTA present.

So it is clear, that the physical state of the blood vial no long matters and was not the smoking gun he thought it was going to be.

I'm sorry you couldn't get that out of that segment, but that is what was being said.

You are a silly boy. It's called an evolving position. I am troubled by a lot of things. But as evidence is gathered, it has the ability to change my mind about how I think about things. I'm sorry I don't get entrenched in a position and moronically refuse to change my mind as I learn new things.

And besides, I am still trouble that the blood vial was tampered with. At least in respect to the seal being broken. I'm not sure that is in conflict with Buting stating that that line of evidence would be refuted by the FBI test. Not everything in life is black and white.

He also on the phone earlier directly states that the hole itself is the important factor. And that he talked to labcorp and they dont out holes in it. And that this means blood was planted. The entire scene revolved around the physical conditions of the box containing the vial and the vial itself. The blood itself was not shown as a major factor (because obviously its physical state is know. Its SAs with edta in it to perserve).


Also there is fundamental difference between the ohysical condition of the blood and the ohysical condition of the vial(but none of that matters, he never makes a quite that inolies the hole is standard which is what the major break through of finding the vial revolved around).

Sorry bro. You are grasping hard.

Lol I'm just pointing out that after watching the documentary you thought the blood sample was tampered with.

Now, of course, you think it was made abundantly clear by Buting when talking about how the FBI will make up a "dishonest test" that he was actually explaining that the vial hole was normal. Certainly doesn't seem like you thought that at the time lmao.

Will oski ever admit this statement:

is wrong?

No, that is not what I said. You do understand that both things could be true simultaneously? That the blood vial was tampered with and the FBI would come up with a test showing the blood did not come from the vial.

No matter what Buting believed about the blood vial, he is stating in that scene that it is not going to matter like he thought was going to be due to the testing to be done to show the blood was not the same.

You forget that no one knew this at the time they watched, except for people who actually worked with those vials and oski (as he remembers it at least).

Without knowing the hole was normal, the vial was infinitely more suspicious.

Without knowing the evidence seal on the box was broken legally in a meeting with Steven's old lawyers, the box was infinitely more suspicious.

You even stated yourself after initially watching, "I am also very troubled by the blood sample having been tampered with."

This whole debate was originally about how MaM was deceptive in its representation of these items. Oski argued it wasn't because, as he stated:

This scene doesn't exist, but it helped support oski's argument at the time. Since this false statement has been disproved, oski's argument pretty much falls flat.

Yeah, I pulled that out of my post because that was something I learned afterwards. It really doesn't change the fact that Buting made it clear that the vial they found was not going to mean as much as they had hoped.

... because "I don't trust the FBI" and "they're gonna come up with some dishonest test that somehow claims that the blood in the vial is different than what was found at the scene."

Then later we're shown selectively edited footage of testimony where the FBI's Chief of the Chemistry Unit looks either corrupt, incompetent, or both.

Meanwhile, in the show, it seems like the test is trashed by an independent consultant (who in her actual testimony basically admitted that she didn't even look at certain areas of the report all that closely).

So yeah, in the show we find out the vial doesn't mean as much as they hoped because of a "dishonest test", not the physical condition of the vial which is never explained.

Look, I understand what you are saying. He doesn't say 'hole' or 'physical'. But the fact is, the only reason he was excited by the blood vial, was the physical appearance of the vial which he felt showed it was tampered with. So when he states later that the blood vial is not going to be as important as he thought, it is obvious that he is saying the physical state of that vial is no longer that important.

It makes no difference at all whether the vial was tampered with or not. Just that the FBI was going to be able to explain away the physical appearance of the vial.

Yes, it does matter to both the viewer and the jury if there's proof the vial was tampered with (such as the hole in the vial or an illegally broken evidence seal). If the vial was tampered with, it makes the FBI's "dishonest test" seem a lot more likely to be "dishonest".

If the hole in the vial wasn't normal, and there was no explanation for how it got there, I'd probably find Steven not guilty.

evolving positions itt.

Kind of funny oski told me he believed I didn't watch the doc because I told him I didn't remember that scene.

Come to discover, the scene doesn't even exist lol.

#evolvingpositions

The longer you tell this lie the more convinced you may be that it is true.

What if oski has been the astroturfer all along?

^this. If someone could demonstrate the blood in the rav4 wasn't his or didn't come from his body and there was some ****ery going on there I would find him not guilty as well. I would still think he most likely did it though but that the evidence wasn't strong enough to convict.

His blood in the victims car is the strongest piece of evidence imo.

LOL no. It was quite clear you hadn't seen it at some point. You were defo Kenny Kratzying the sh*t out of this thread by throwing in everything the doc "didn't show you" even though you hadn't seen it.

As per, this is all IMO.

Lost, you either misunderstood me at some point or you are lying. I came itt with the doc fresh in my mind having saw it a week or so before I started posting.

I did ask you questions about where you stood on stuff that was in the doc. Not because I didn't know what was in the doc but because I wanted you to think about how the doc was dishonest.

There was no indication I didn't see the doc aside from your own confirmation bias.