it is actually mark who stretches the english language to make up his own definition of "reasonable" doubt.

Not entirely true, and I'm speaking only about myself here.

STRONG LIKE BULL

But, but we were provoked.....

Not to speak for PoorS, but I honestly don't base my opinions on how many reddit posters agree with me.

Again, as I've said multiple times, if you are convinced the cops planted the evidence, nothing will probably change your mind. I see no reason to believe they planted the evidence, nor have I seen any proof that they did so. If there had been proof that even a single piece of the evidence was planted, SA would likely have been found not guilty. Stuff like "But why didn't he crush the car?", is not proof that evidence was planted. Likewise, Lenk finding pieces of evidence is not proof he planted that evidence.

No one has ever said it's not possible. But without any proof it's all speculation. Perhaps Zellner will find some proof and I will be forced to change my opinion of the case. But I doubt it, mainly because I doubt the evidence was planted in the first place.

Oh geez, is marksmann still writing pompous essays on how he's the only one who understands reasonable doubt?

I'm confused. The bulk of reddit discussion has always been that Avery's innocent, but it has actually begun migrating toward the side of guilt more and more as of late.

Thanks for the post. However I have to admit I am finding it hard to understand the distinction you are drawing.

You say you believe 100% that he was guilty. What are you basing this belief on if not on the case presented by the prosecution? What is the difference between saying you are 100% certain of the suspect's guilt based on the prosecution's case and saying that the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt? Unless you are basing your position of certainty of guilt on information extraneous to the trial, which doesn't seem to be what you are saying.

Also just to circle back to the Avery case, based on your experience on a jury you say all the jury members carried out their civic duty conscientiously. On what basis can you assume that the members of the Avery jury did not do the same?

You're wrong. That's not what I asked. Go back and read how I phrased the question. Literally, I was asking the "not-guilty" crowd who thinks he "isn't guilty". There's a subtle difference. I'm asking who thinks he committed murder.

I obviously know the legal terms "guilty", "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" etc. To suggest I don't know what these mean is just stupid.

My question is not meaningless. I'm interested. Am I not allowed to be interested? Discussing the evidence and interpreting it is fun and more so when trying to figure out if he actually committed the murder or not. At least to me. You're entire response is pretty pathetic. I'm literally asking and interested to know who thinks SA actually committed the murder and how confident each is of this. There's no rule that this type of discussion can't take place. If you don't like my question, then ignore it. Don't twist what I said. Don't call me stupid. Don't go off on a tangent. Discuss my question constructively or move along.

It's obvious to what should be everyone that SA was not given a 100% fair trial. Just the prosecutor tainting the jury with that press conference should end any debate of that.

Ok, revots is probably ignoring me now too, so this is directed to the grown folks. I'll play bad cop to markksman's good cop, because he's far too polite to these dumb mother****ers.

Also, I'll play the bold-the-entire-goddam-thing game.

It's not about being convinced they planted evidence, nor is it about needing to prove they did. In the same way the defendant is given the presumption of innocence and the state needs to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the LEOs need to prove everything they did was to the letter/by the book/above board/dealer's choice for what colloquialism you prefer. You won't hear it phrased as the following because usually it's not about outright planting evidence, it's about all the other numerous factors in play, but, essentially, THEY NEED TO PROVE THAT THEY DID NOT PLANT EVIDENCE even if nobody made a hint of a whiff of an accusation. It's all tied together with the presumption of innocence, because the defendant is the only one with that luxury. THAT IS WHY THERE ARE SO MANY STRINGENT PROTOCOLS CONCERNING EVIDENCE COLLECTION AND LEO BEHAVIOR. It all leads to the possibility of imprisoning a living human; everybody involved needs and wants to be sure as the gravity of this endeavor is not to be taken lightly.


Sweet christ it was tilting reading this thread and seeing the huur no proof of planting duur over and over.

Follow up:

I hope one of the big takeaways from all this, regardless of what side you're on, is: When you hear about somebody 'going free' because of a 'technicality' think about this case and understand, unless you're dealing with pure fiction it's rarely a ****ing 'technicality'. It is that there was sufficient suspicion surrounding the collection of evidence, sufficiently enough protocols broken, that no sane and just society would consider imprisoning a person based on it.

BOLD GAME STRONG DOG

I disagree. There's quite a lot of discussion about evidence and what it means and whether SA actually murdered TH or not.

The process of the justice system sucks. The end. No more discussion there. Now let's get back to whether we think SA murdered TH or not.

Yes

Yeah, I meant not just the ignore function but the manual ignoring i.e. actively not reading a post and acknowledging said ignoring... Ok, uh, nvm.

Anyhow about your other question of SA's innocence, I put him at 4% guilty and maybe 3.98% of that is due to the cat incident. We can talk about that if you like.

#TeamCat

How exactly are they supposed to prove they didn't plant evidence... when there is no proof they planted evidence?

The entire basis of the defense, was that SA was framed. If he was framed, then someone planted the evidence. Not just one piece of it... all of it. The car, the bones, the blood, the DNA, everything.

Yet the defense was unable to prove any of it was planted. Their best hope was the test on the blood. When that didn't pan out the way they hoped, they attacked the test itself.

Actually, the defense didn't have to prove the evidence was planted. They just had to create enough doubt in the minds of the jury. They failed. If the investigation was such a cluster**** as you seem to think it was, it should have been easy for 2 top-flight defense attorneys to convince the jury.

In the end, there was nothing incompetent or sinister in how the case was investigated. The state met its burden, and a murderer was put away. The system worked, and TH's family got some small amount of closure.

An anecdote about The Evidence:

So, my sister is an immigration attorney, not a criminal attorney. She had not watched MaM nor followed the buzz. Basically all she'd read was an article about what they 'left out'. We were talking and I was giving her the rundown. She asked what evidence they found and I listed the car, the burn barrel, the blood, the key, the bullet fragments and she interrupted me to ask, "But what did they find in his actual house?" I told her the key, and the bullet in the garage and she said, "Oh.. Uh... Hmmm..." This was right at the beginning of our talk and there was no discussion yet about any suspicious circumstances. Her unbiased kneejerk response was that finding evidence on somebody's property but outside their actual living quarters is nowhere near the slam dunk people seem to think.

I just vomited in my mouth a little. I'm gonna tag in markksman.

No but srsly that was the most circular bull**** ITT and that's saying something. But as for this:

Like, I dunno, maybe they had a jury full of revotses? I mean, if we're cutting the **** and being real for a second there are a lot more revotses in the world than there are 5ives.

Most people don't think it's a slam dunk.

Good thing. Because you seem pretty stupid.

A vocal minority maybe? She found it very weird the location of the car was even admitted as evidence, though she kept stressing 'I'm not a criminal attorney so I might be wrong', lol.

In reality, what it seems the defense were hoping for was to present the vial with the hole in it and not test the blood.

According to the State's motions, the defense knew about the vial since July 2006 at the latest.

The defense had their "red letter day" vial discovery on December 14th, 2006, the day before the December 15th deadline for general discovery of evidence.

With only a couple months until the trial started in February 12th, 2007, the prosecution filed a motion to either exclude the vial as evidence or delay the start of the trial so they could test it and prove there was no EDTA. The defense fought this motion, and the judge sided with the defense.

However, the FBI Chemistry Unit made the test a high priority and finished it in time for the trial. The results were not good for Steven.

Only then did the defense want to do their own test, and asked the judge for a mistrial or to delay the trial. This time, the judge sided with the prosecution, and here's an excerpt of his explanation:

His full explanation is much more in-depth and really well-put IMO.

Basically IMO, the defense's strategy was to sneak the vial into the trial without allowing it time to be tested.

You can read a more detailed summary of the issue at http://stevenaverycase.com/avery-blood-edta-test-rushed

Sick burn bro etc but hmmm, I thought we had a peace treaty. Maybe I DON'T reed as gud as I thought.

I even answered the question about the thing you wanted to talk about:

lul PoorShillz going HAM ITT

1. Look guys they totally didn't plant this one specific piece of evidence in this one specific manner using Dat Vial that my shill site has a zillion printed words about.
2. ????
3. Profit!