Because sweat doesn't have DNA in it

What's your point?

It was never claimed during the trial that sweat had DNA.

Instead, what was claimed was this:

"Now, Mr. Gahn and his questioning, and Ms Culhane is going to tell you, that DNA evidence, again, is not just from blood. It can be from skin cells which are left through perspiration, sweat, okay, saliva and sweat and all those other kinds of bodily fluids that we talked about. So when somebody's hands are sweating and you handle something, it's possible that you can leave your DNA on that thing that you handled."

You know just enough to mock something, but not enough to realize you actually look like an idiot when you do so.


In one of his early police interviews, he claimed it was the first time he ever took off work in the afternoon. LMAO, guilty or not, that's a hell of a coincidence!

[QUOTE=golfnutt;50795829] I'm not getting my point across here. I agree that he could of had those cuts on his hand from work. What I am saying is if you have a fresh cut on your hand you are more likely to bleed in a scuffle than a person without any cuts. So during the murder he could of still bled even if there was no knife in play.

[QUOTE=golfnutt;50795829] True, I definitely wanted to hear more about the ex in the show.

Golfnut has no clue what he's talking about.

There's no reason to believe that the ex ever accessed TH's phone or voice mail. He only accessed her phone records, and with three other friends of TH's there as well.

He also remembered when he last saw TH, it was the day before she died. He didn't remember (or didn't want to say) the exact time of day 1.5 years later when he testified, not one day later.

Let me reiterate: Golfnut has no clue what he's talking about.

Also, while it's true that Ryan was her exbf, they had broken up several years prior and remained good friends. Seems less sinister that way though.

There also seems to be some strange obsession with the ex-bf not being "thoroughly investigated". Being friends with a missing person is not a crime and therefore there is nothing to investigate you for.

It was not a kidnapping until the car/blood was found on Avery's lot. It was not a murder until the remains were found in Avery's yard. At that point, the investigation is going to focus on the guy who lives there, who's blood was in the car, and who asked the victim to come to his house the day she disappeared. This idea that everyone who ever knew TH should be considered equally suspect, ignoring all the physical evidence pointing towards Avery, is one of the dumber conspiratard arguments that keeps getting repeated.

Investigations don't involve assuming everyone is guilty because they knew the person. They involve searching for evidence, and identifying suspects based on that evidence. All the evidence pointed towards Avery. Which is why team conspiracy just keeps repeating "it was all planted" as the response.

Ryan Hillegas claims to have guessed Teresa's password - thus he could have deleted the voicemails that were deleted.

No one else is known to have had such access.

Apparently someone noticed there were 18 voicemails as of the day Teresa was reported missing, and no one thought to copy them as they might contain clues as to her whereabouts.

Since Teresa reported she was receiving harassing phone calls, it stands to reason that if there was any concern that she might be in danger, whoever was harassing her might be a person of interest. That person might have left a message that is now lost.

With any luck, a new and thorough investigation will be able to clear this up.

Yes yes. Revots the ******ed knows how investigations should be conducted. Surprising no one, people with a clue disagree. Virtually every reputable lawman in the country pretty much agrees that this investigation had tunnel vision and was incredibly sloppy.

You can reiterate whatever you want. I am pretty sure I know more about labs, death certificates, depositions, discovery, and law enforcement than you do. Maybe.

You think that trial was the first time he was asked what time of day he last saw TH alive?

I have a feeling that he was asked within days when she was reported missing. From many people. There was most likely defense depositions. There was witness preparation. Reiterate: It wasn't 1.5 years later that he was asked what time of day he saw her last. You might think that though.

I don't know if they broke up and remained good friends. The best person who can verify that information was murdered. Statistically, he is the most likely suspect. It does not mean at all that he is guilty. Allowing him to enter a crime scene that was limited to law enforcement is unacceptable.

That would be bonkers.

But maybe PoorSkillz does believe that when they're searching high and low for Teresa that no one thought to ask when he'd last seen her, or that he recall for himself that occasion only a few days prior.

That sounds much more likely.

On the other hand, if no one asked the ex when he'd last seen Teresa until the day of his testimony in court, that's another very odd occurrence.

Not only did Hillegas hack into her phone account, but apparently he took up residence in her house after her disappearance!

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurd...ed_at_teresas/

So assuming R.H. is not gay we can rule out S.B. bedroom & also the front room because S.B. works shifts, I guess that leave's T.H. room, strange to think too much more about that.

I don't claim to be an expert. 99% of questions at a trial though have already been asked and answered before. If you have ever testified at a trial, you would know that.

I would be willing to wager that RH was asked by investigators the last time he saw her, he was asked by her family, he was deposed by the defense in advance, and he was prepared how to answer that question in court by the prosecution.

If you want to believe it was 1.5 years later that was the first time he has been ever asked that question and it was in a courtroom in a homicide case, go right ahead.

You answered a question you didn't even ask. You are correct that RH may not recall 1.5 years later. That is why it is done in advance to preserve testimony.

Perhaps instead of saying I am wrong, take some time to research the rules of our courts and even the theory behind the rules.

Every reputable lawman in the country, lol. Wrong. Most cops laugh at the internet conspiratards.

Such a sloppy investigation that they found a mountain of evidence all pointing to one person, enough to get him convicted by a jury and put away for the rest of his life.

Well there you go, a longtime friend stayed at her house when she was missing. You solved the case. Not sure why the cops didn't ignore the blood/car/bones/DNA etc. and focus on the "real killer".

I'm agreeing with you.

When I came forward as a witness in a murder case, I was questioned by police before I ever went before the Grand Jury to testify.

Nicely sidestepping the question of why Teresa's voicemails were considered irrelevant when she was missing and deleted.

Nicely sidestepping 99% of the shady circumstances surrounding the "evidence".

Cross posted from someone on reddit. Points are good.

...all the things I would have to agree with in order to make sense of his guilt.

SA was not afraid of law enforcement. He was either arrogant enough or stupid enough to think he could get away with planning and executing the murder of a young girl and be arrogant or stupid enough to believe he could do this without being caught. Bear in mind he had already been convicted of crime he didn't commit, but he believed he could get away with a crime he did commit.

SA willingly put his imminent settlement and hard won freedom in jeopardy by planning this murder. As much as he must have thought he could get away with it, there had to be some doubt in his mind that he could get caught.

SA willingly brought his 16 year old nephew into this, with no thought or care as to how this would effect his quiet, shy, virgin nephew, who looked up to him. He was such a monster that he just did not care that he was potentially ruining his nephew and his whole families lives by commiting this awful crime, not to mention taking an innocent life.

SA is a cruel, sadistic murderer. It wasn't enough to kill TH, but he wanted to rape and torture her first, and again, make his nephew join in.

SA is methodical, meticulous, cunning, and above all else a fast worker. He apparently lured, subdued, raped, tortured, shot and killed, and burned his victim down to tiny pieces, got rid of her possessions, cleaned at least two crime scenes, and hid her car, showered, changed, had lunch, dinner, talked to Jodi twice, all in the space of 10 or so hours. That is no mean feat for even the smartest and quickest (physically and mentally) criminal.

SA allowed LE to look around his property and agreed to answer questions without hesitation, days after he was thought to have done all this.

SA arrogantly spoke to reporters right next to the spot he burned TH's body, laughing and joking like he hadn't a care in the world.

SA is an oscar worthy actor/liar. Not only this but he has not slipped up one time in 10 years.

MTSO were not worried or motivated by the civil suit Avery was bringing against them.

Manitowoc's involvement with the investigation is not suspicious or sinister, even though Pagel declared a conflict of interest and assured the public that they had no involvement other than to supply equipment and resources.

There was nothing suspicious about the search that yielded the key or bullet.

There was nothing suspicious about the documentation of the burn pit, cremains and burn barrels.

There was nothing suspicious about the coroner being banned from the scene due to a possible conflict of interest, even though this conflict of interest issue was not a problem when RH was swanning around the crime scene and MTSO cops, Lenk and Colburn, were magically pulling key evidence out of their asses.

There was nothing suspicious about POG finding the RAV4 in 20 minutes in a yard with 1000s of cars.

There was nothing suspicious about Colburn calling in the RAV4 on the 3th and the vehicle being logged into evidence also on the 3th.

There was nothing wrong with Dassey's confession. Despite a federal judge's 91 page, thorough, and very carefully considered opinion to the contrary.

KZ either, has no nose for the truth and has been fooled by SA snd MaM, just like the rest of us, or, she knows he is guilty but is willing to stake her reputation, credibilty and her own money, for the sake of 15 minutes of fame.

I think I recall you wrote that you are interested in justice for TH's family. Noble gesture.

You think SA is guilty. Are you interested in people who are doubtful about his guilt becoming convinced of his guilt? Or do you want to antagonize people? Do you have any interest in understanding how investigations and labs and the legal system works? Can you recognize that you may not be right about everything? I will be the first person to say I may be wrong.

I will give you the benefit of one more reply. Statistically speaking, it is a 75% chance that a female homicide victim was murdered by someone she had intimate relationships. If your wife or girlfriend or ex-girlfriend is murdered, be prepared to be questioned. That is not a strange obsession. It does not mean you are guilty.

During an investigation, there is the continuing gathering of evidence. For purposes to ensure they have the right suspect as well as using whatever they can at a trial.

And here is where you should realize and by happy that investigations continue. They caught another suspect 6 months later. So, you write that all the evidence pointed to Avery. It certainly seemed that way. Yet, there is now another person convicted of murder. Who was not friends with TH or called TH. Whose blood was not in the trailer or in her car.

So, what is it? Do you stop the investigation once you have the likely suspect or continue? Since other suspects do appear later, it is not that you assume everyone is guilty, but you keep an open mind. And you certainly protect a crime scene.

Do you think it is ok that the ex-boyfriend was allowed to enter a crime scene? Should they have let Brendan Dassey enter the crime scene? Obviously not since he could have removed the bullet that was evidence or anything else that may have indicated his involvement.

No I have no interest in antagonizing people. I just have little patience for unfounded conspiracy theories. In my opinion they are a slap in the face to the Halbach family. It must be hard to see so many people who had no involvement in the case, demanding that the murderer of their daughter/sister be released. And, just like Ronald Goldman was practically forgotten during the OJ trial, Teresa Halbach and the horrible death she suffered seems to be forgotten as well.

You seem to think the police should have investigated RH more closely since most murders are committed by people close to the victim. I would agree with this if there was not such an overwhelming amount of evidence pointing squarely at someone else, from the very first moments of the investigation. It is not a crime to remain friends with someone after having dated them, or to be active in the search for a missing friend. It is not a crime to guess someone's password and try to check their voicemail to see if it will help you find them. Had anything come up that pointed to RH being the killer (or Tadych for that matter, to address another popular theory), then of course the cops would be obliged to investigate. It is not tunnel vision when all the evidence points to one person. It is simply following where the evidence leads.

I have a question for you... I realize you do not trust the police and think the investigation was flawed. OK, fine. But how come you seem so invested in the real killer being someone other than Avery? Why do you seem to want it to he Hillegas, or Tadych, or whoever? The girl is dead and absent planting of all the evidence, Avery killed her. Why do you find that possibility so difficult to accept?

^^ SAIG mob can't/won't explain Why T.H. & S.A. cell phone 's ping of off 2 separate towers when they are supposed to be in ASY.
And Poorskills etc are using the use of the Denny Rule to their full advantage in this thread. That ruling Was the biggest advantage that the prosecution had, and allowed them to get away with murder, literally imo.

Each of the first 3 items (in fact almost every item on the list) can be very simply explained by the bolded. Avery was a violent sociopath. He didn't care about Halbach's pain, or what could happen to his nephew, or money he might win in a lawsuit, or the police finding out. He was simply filled with murderous rage towards women. Why does any psycho kill an innocent woman? There is almost never a reason that makes sense to a normal person. They will almost always get caught and would be far better off not doing it. But they do it anyway, because they are monsters who get off on hurting women.

Yes, the prosecution has a distinct advantage when they can propose two mutually contradictory theories of the crime and still somehow secure convictions.

How can anyone not have a reasonable doubt when it's clear the prosecution doubted its own case?

I trust the police. They are still human. They make mistakes. I have no interest in Steve Avery being not guilty. Or her ex-boyfriend being found guilty.

I do believe in innocent until proven guilty, the prosecution not making unproven statements to the media in advance of a trial, and everyone has a right to a defense.

Do you think SA was guilty in 1985? Should he even have been allowed to appeal? You had eye witness testimony and a jury found him guilty. Were the people who thought he was innocent conspiracy theorists?

And they go on TV prior to trial saying Steven Avery committed rape and after he is in jail they continue saying Steven Avery committed rape. Yet, he was never tried or convicted of rape.

What conspiracy does this fall under?