Seriously dude? Lol, just wow.

Apparently Yeota is done with the background in the phone call nonsense. That's good.

lOl Wait till you hear the Digital enhansement of it. wanna link?

Pevytoe

Cross Examination

Q. To your eye, this mass of rusty, steel wires from the tires, appeared to have bone fragment intermingled with them?

A. Correct.

Q. You could draw to conclusion from that about how the bone fragments came to be intermingled in the wires?

A. That's correct. They were entwined in there to the point where I actually had to physically, so to speak, separate and try to recover. They weren't right on the surface easily removed. But they were into the depth of the wire at times.

Q. And you can think of possibilities of how that might have happened, one would be that a body had been atop a -- an intact tire at the time that both were burned?

A. That's one possibility.

Q. That's one possibility. Another possibility would be that the tires already had been burned at some earlier time and a body was atop that layer? That's the second possibility?

A. That's a possibility.

Q. A third possibility would be that bone fragments, after the body was burned, not on top of the wires, bone fragments could have been moved into the wires or tossed into the wires, somehow disturbed, so that they were introduced into the wire mesh you have described?

A. That's a possibility, yes.

Q. And we probably could go on, but the reality is, you can't narrow down to any one of the possibilities we could identify?

A. That's correct.


Redirect Examination

Q. Counsel asked you some questions regarding the
spool of left over radial -- steel belted radial
tire?

A. Yes.

Q. And is it possible, from the condition in which
you examined it, that one other scenario is that
it had been -- could have been raked out of a
fire?

A. Yes, that's another one of the possibilities of
how the bone and the mass of the wires got
together as they are, through attending of the
fire.

Q. And I wanted to have you elaborate a little
further on another point counsel raised, and that
is, eventually there was a bobcat that was used
to excavate the site entirely?

A. Correct.

Q. Specifically, so that we're clear, that did not
happen on November 10th; is that correct?

A. That's correct, it happened on the 11th.

Q. On the 11th. And prior to doing that, you
mentioned something about after all the items
were removed from the pit?

A. Correct.

Q. And what was the surface of the ground like, at
that point, after all of the loose debris and
everything was removed?

A. In the bottom of the burn pit?

Q. Yes.

A. In the bottom of the burn pit, it was a real --
it had an appearance, I guess you could call it
like blacktop, but it was very crusty and black
and thick mass that came off as if it had been
adhered to. It's consistent of what I have seen
in fires like that. And we broke that apart to
make sure, some of it was soil, some of it was
burnt remains of what appeared to be tire
products in there.

Q. All right. Well, that was my next question, that
crusted surface, like, is that consistent with
the residue left over from tires burning?

A. It's similar to what I have seen in that same
situation, yes.

Q. All right. And did you remove that layer of
soil?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And I take it, it was only after
that, then, after all the other items of
evidentiary significance were removed, that an
excavation occurred, on Friday, the 11th?

A. That's correct.


Brendan's Trial

Uh, yes. Um, as part of the scene examination, I wanted to look at everything, and I started looking at this entwined mass of wire. And I noticed that inside the wire, deeply inside of in some cases, were some white fragments that I looked at closer, and identified those to be bone material. And they were entwined in there to the point where I actually had to, physically, pull apart the wire in order to get there. It wasn't just on the surface. It was actually down entwined into the wires.

****, Oski's on to us! Abort Operation Zander Road! Revots, call Kratz and tell him we need an emergency meeting at Astroturf HQ!


I was hoping he'd do my challenge.

Back at ya.

Nobody here put any weight in the "creepy abandoned house" evidence. But, it seemed important enough to you to point out it was 15 miles away.

about the same time, discussion flares up about how cell phone records show TH was 12 miles off the property. Not hard to see where you were heading with that in retrospect.

You can wave it away all you want, but it's a reasonable conclusion based on your posting history here.

Yes, you caught me. I somehow have insight to whatever cock bull story zellner will come up with next.

I do not think the murder happened on the abandon property, clearly it happened somewhere on the salvage yard. I was only pointing out how weird it was that Avery would have such a thing. Which btw, requires just as much of a stretch as the stuff the avery fans post here.

Odd choice of the word "us" since you have not been relevant ITT for nearly two months. I certainly was not directing my comments towards you as that has proven to be a fruitless endeavor.

We all get your position, so no need to answer every new issue by restating and relinking your entire argument.

Most people in this thread do not agree with you. You seem intent on convincing them otherwise, but you never address any new issues and you never provide any new information.

You are just a parrot that can type.

Lol, it baffles me that someone with the kind of respect oski has on this forum would draw such crazy conclusions.

Oski mad though. What up buddy?

Btw, poorskillz why do you keep rehashing old arguments? Oh thats right, because people keep asking the same questions.

Oh yeah, It's so weird that nothing was made of it in a murder trial where the prosecution claims SA lured the victim.

Yet, even though you wanted to impart some importance to that address and made sure to point out it was "a creepy abandoned building" 15 miles away, you didn't really mean to imply anything - especially since this information is not new - but you just decided to bring it up out of the blue when you did.

cool.

I think the 'framing' strategy won't work. Unless there is video evidence or a confession, this will fail. Better to find another suspect or win a motion for new trial based on procedural errors.

it was talked about in the murder trial, and actually.. The only reason I brought it up is because it was just added by those people who take donations to get new transcripts, photos from the trial etc..

That was just released about a week ago along with the stuff eddy posted. The only reason I brought it up just now is because that photo was just released.

I believe the procedural errors are waived; or at least the appeals process on those have been exhausted.

SA needs to show new evidence. A good depiction of that process is shown in Paradise Los 3 when they argue to Ark. Supreme Court.

Yes. There is really little point in discussing the substance of the case with those posters. Even if you just want to throw out a question for discussion, they jump in even though everyone knows exactly how they will respond. It is tiresome, and I have basically removed myself from this thread.

I have been reading Moore's blog on the case and it is really a good read. I would recommend it (thanks Smacc). I find it interesting that the pro-conviction posters basically ignore anything brought up in this thread from Moore. But, that's pretty much par for the course.

Oski's just jealous that we're getting paid $1,000/month to make a few posts on a 2p2 thread and he's not.

Yeah, I get it. Along with the "spooky abandoned house" 15 miles away stuff. Yep.

I have tried to respond to all of smaccs wall of texts. If there is stuff you feel I didn't respond to I am happy too. Not that you are really seeking dialogue anyway because you know, we are shillz getting paid and all.

Not at all. Having to present myself as a blathering idiot would not be worth it. I guess that is actually a step up for you, so that and 1k is a good deal.

Btw, i didn't say anything about the distance between the house and the salvage yard. Oski is mistaken. This is all I said and I bolded that part that pretty much demonstrates how oski is wrong about his assertions.

****, meant to post this to the astroturfing group, how do I delete?


Oski gonna Oski.

Yeah, you know, every time someone seems to encounter a long-post that is not convenient for their beloved position, it becomes a "wall-of-text" instead of a thoughtful essay.

Anyhow, if you feel compelled, read the Moore blog, he lays all of his points out very clearly and in an orderly fashion.

If you don't want to, then don't.

If it matters to you, I find his blog compelling and it fits right in line with what most of us have been stating from day one in this thread - it just comes from someone who is not biased (or if so, is biased in favor of law enforcement - but, no discernable bias seems present); is working through the documentary as he writes; is purposely ignoring outside sources for now (sound familiar? This is what I did so that I could have a baseline opinion based only on the documentary); and then he will research sources outside the doc.

Anyhow, it is exponentially more interesting and insightful than anything posted in this thread for the past number of weeks. The endless response to new questions with pat answers is really tiresome, especially PS's insistence that expert testimony establishes "fact" as if the expert was acting in the capacity of a judicial reference rather than as an advocate.

Oski, I have read a lot of analysis from several people on the case. I will read the "moore blog" though.. Just for you. Because I love you buddy.

Even when you lie about your old friend fraley.

Yeah, okay.

Banner day when Poorshillz' posting gets mistaken for your own.

Anyhow, I guess I alter my posts above. I guess I was addressing my post to Poorshillz' as well. Fascinating that Poorshillz seems to know about the "creepy looking farmhouse about 15 minutes away."