Please try and understand, the only reason we are talking about loof is because you brought her up. I do not care if loof is unreliable, only you should and since you accept her as the most reliable thing on the earth you have to ackonwledge that avery is lying. The only reason I am showing you what loof did is to point out to you that the evidence you wish to use as reliable hurts you more than it helps you.

So TH visited averys burn pit? His Garage, his trailer, and his bathroom before? Also, not a dog expert but how long does the scent stay? It would seem to me that the experts who handled these dogs are not reaching the same conclusion as you, why do you think that is?

Um, we alredy know the bullet didn't go through her skull. If it did it wouldn't be in the garage. Zellner is just presenting a red herring here. Furthermore, I don't buy anying in that brief she filed. Other lawyers who have commented on it have pointed out how much of a mess it is and how it is full of misinformation.

There is no reasonable doubt here, try and present a case that matches all the evidence and isn't bat **** insane. There is no reasonable alternative to SA killing her.

No evidence other than a dead persons DNA on the bullet you mean?

There are a million ways she could have framed avery if that is what you claim could have happened. IF she had TH DNA and items from the avery house, why not just put her dna on the handcuffs for example? This would have been much simpler. Then others could examine the cuffs and see her dna was on them. Why not put her dna on the key?

Footz,

Unrelated question but are you a 911 truther?

Actually, it was the prosecution that seemed to place a great deal of reliance on dogs.

You're correct - it is an irrelevant question.

You seem to have a talent for zeroing in on irrelevancies.

Yes, we know it didn't go through anyone's skull, or any other part of anyone's body. It went through wood.

Maybe this is evidence in the Pinnocchio murder case?

Lawyers like Ken Kratz have dismissed the scientific findings? LOL!

You're wrong. The pile of dubious 'evidence' such as that presented by the prosecution against Steven and Brendan amounts to nothing but reasonable doubt.

No sane person would accept the test botched by Sherry Culhane.

This is the sort of criminal case that can't be solved by asking a bunch of rhetorical questions.

Again, your focus is on what is irrelevant.

Ahh, so you are a 911 truther.You're proodfootz from youtube right? No wonder you're so cynical.

No, I mean I have seen lawyers dissertation of Zellners brief. I am not even sure if kratz has commented on it directly.

First of all, zellne is presenting arguments she knows she can't. She cannot present any arguments that could have been heard at trial or his orignal appeals. Yet her brief is full of them. For example the the point could have been raised at trial or any of his original appeals that the bullet had wood on it. Yet it wasn't. So she needs new evidence that WOULDN"T have been available to the lawyers at the time.

All in all, its pretty obvious that she didn't file this brief with any hopes of winning. #mam right?

Not that I accept anyone claims there was wood on the bullet because zellner seems to have a habbit of exaggerating what her experts say in her brief. Youd have to show me where this expert said this. Betchya he says something like "it is consistent with x".

Since it's still in play there's no real reason to suppose her arguments won't prevail as they usually do.

Yes, you'll find if you wade any deeper into the sciences that scientists tend to be less dogmatic than you'd like.

If you cared to do something other than make up what you 'think' people are actually writing, you could look them up. I recommend this new app for your computer called Google.

If you don't care what the truth is, carry on as you've been doing.

Well if we are talking about the sciences, its not like any of these results were peer reviewed. But it doesn't matter because I am not saying his report is wrong (even though it is unlikely anyone would try and challenge anything thats not peer reviewed) I am saying I remain unconvinced his report says what zellner says it does until I see otherwise.

More importantly, why are you telling me about science? Aren't you the one who rejects respected scientific journals like Poular Mechanics?

LOL!

I think you'll find that is a magazine that sells advertising space, and is not in fact a scientific journal.

You love this thread Farley. You also "won". Bad guys are in jail. You should want a little more closure for the Halbach family and I hope you can understand that this is certainly not a 100% guilty case. Preponderance of doubt perhaps which I believe is the 95% confidence level.

Everyone is left guessing what truly happened. BD's story doesn't match much of the evidence.

I have two questions, and take yourself out of this specific case. Do you think it is ok for an ex-boyfriend to be allowed to enter a crime scene that was limited to law enforcement? And, related, what purpose did that serve? Anything he found would be incredibly suspicious.

Statistically, he is 100x more likely to have committed murder than a random stranger. It of course does not mean he did it, but until the investigation is concluded, he has to be a top suspect. His initial answer to police that he was only a friend combined with him hacking and accessing her voicemail shoots him up to the top of any list that he needs to be examined further. There is no question that he should be on the list of people specifically not allowed to enter a crime scene. His being allowed to enter the area corrupts the entire crime scene and calls into question any evidence collected. He isn't even her current boyfriend. Until there is a trial, everyone is a suspect.

There could be others involved. Geez, just like BD was added 6 months later to the case. Which is why you don't stop investigating and continue looking at every possible suspect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you actually going to listen to my answers if I explain what I think about all those things

My own reaction is that I'd have no problem with ex-BF joining a search for a missing person.

Once it turns into a crime scene, that's a good time to pull the plug on that.

First and foremost, the Halbach family does have closure. The people who cared about her are now being targeted by truthers, threatened and harrassed because they saw a clever piece of propaganda. I've talked to some of them. None of the people I talked to who knew TH thinks anyone else killed her but SA. You guys are not fighting for them. You're fighting for Avery. I sometimes have trouble understanding how nerutypical people feel and think but I have people I care about and if this happened to one of them I'd be very upset.

Enough of what he did say does match the evidence though. And there is a mountain of evidence that he was with avery that night and helped him clean his garage and tend to a fire. His case is a bit different than averys but I think both should have been convicted and both should meet the burden of proof required by the state. Which is "reasonable doubt" not "no doubt at all" there will always be doubt in any synthetic proposition. That is just the reality.

No, and he didn't. He assisted with a missing persons case and was not allowed at the crime scene after her remains were found. If your friend/sister was missing and her vehicle was located on a large multi acre property would you go look for her there? What if it was a small town with less than 50 personel in law enforcement. What then?

He was only her friend. They hadn't dated in years. And he told police he was her ex on nov 4th. Its in the police reports. Skillz linked it itt. So no, I don't find this suspicious.

This is one of the dishonest stories in the doc. It wasnt just RH and her roommate that accessed her Phone logs (and it wasn't her voicemail) It was RH, her roommate and a handful of friends. Including females. The doc left out the names of the women he mentioned on the stand (cutting them out mid sentance with clever editing) So no, this is not creepy to me. If my friend, sister was missing me and my friends and family would also be trying to access any information we could to figure out what happened. What would you do?

Sure, but that is looking at everything in a vaccuum. Who else could have committed the murder once averys blood was identified in her vehicle and her remains were located on his property? Up until that point they didn't know if she was dead or alive. After that evidence was located the suspects were narrowed down to people who live on the ASY. Which is why they spent all their time interviewing the averys and jandas.

Honestly, police should retrace the steps of the person missing in a missing person case and start there. Of course family and friends should be interviewed and they were. What are you expecting here?

That is not how you quantify what is a scientific journal. Nature sells advertising space.

Someone close to them is biased. I get it and it doesn't bother me.



Two separate trials with different scenarios and even number of people involved. Not even close to being conclusive.

Yes, once remains were found and they started gathering evidence. Outlandish for him to be near there. Go ask any law enforcement agency in the world. He was not clear by any stretch.


It is illegal. He isn't law enforcement. They deleted messages too. Criminal. I would let the police access it and document any and all evidence.



Hmmm. Nobody. Oh wait. BD! Geez, there are others to investigate. Maybe SA and RH are friends. Maybe RH paid SA to eliminate her. It happens.

This was a flawed investigation with protocols widely violated. SA still may be guilty but if evidence was disqualified (but not while trial) a conviction would be much more difficult. And way too much evidence came under question. Like all of it. And the 'confession' has more holes than Swiss Cheese. You shouldn't have to rely on a confession being pieced together.

That has to be the worst confession either. Like why did he confess to cutting her hair until the police couldn't find any hair and he admitted he was lying? Why say something like that? Because he is disturbed or frightened or thinks that is what they want to hear.

Absolutely allowed to search. Him leading or being part of a search team doesn't rule out his involvement. I would watch his search efforts closely, especially as a leader. What happens if he killed her in a river but is sending out the entire search team to the forest?

Once it is a crime scene, he is instantly pulled and interviewed, alone. This is homicide. You don't take chances and he is someone that needs to be ruled out. Them thinking it is SA in one day doesn't mean he gets to enter. They may have the wrong person with SA or they could have been working together.

Here's a link to some of the rigorous peer reviewed science papers published in Popular Mechanics:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/jay-lenos-garage/



Just to try and steer this onto Making a Murderer, which specific scientific papers were published in PM about the Halbach case?

Its illegal to access your friends phone records when shes gone missing? This is the first I've heard of that. This seems like a pretty standard thing for friends and family to do. If I was missing I know damn sure my wife and friends would check my phone records.

They (the people we were talking about) Did not access her voice mail. That was her brother and he claims he doesn't remember deleting any messages. It could be like most phones that messages get deleted after so many days, theres really no evidence that any messages were deleted with any sort of malacious intent.

Lets say for example you had 1 person access her voicemail, delete messages, access her phone records, lie to police, call in the plates, plant evidence and this person had access to avery's blood. Then you'd have a point but none of this was one person. And most of it there is no evidence for. Once you start to examine each of these claims individually they break down and you certainly can't use what multiple people are doing to pin point a suspect. Where all these people working together? If you say they weren't then the case for each one indvidually is extremely weak.

But lets examine your case for RH and why he should be investigated.

1) He and a handful of other friends both female and male accessed TH phone records to see if they could pinpoint her location.

2) He was her friend for 5 years and dated her before that

3) He assisted with her search when she was missing

4) ... I actually can't think of anything else you presented

So we have a guy who is actively assisting family and friends to locate TH. The car is found and its still unkown what happened to TH. I in this case personally don't see a problem allowing him and others on the perimeter of a crime scene to look for her. I can see why some people might but honestly, not to the extent you do.

You can use this argument for anyone. Maybe julie the lady with the cadaver dogs paid SA to kill her, maybe Ken kratz did, maybe you did etc.. RH and SA didn't know each other. You don't think that was looked into?

This was a very unique case, we had a man who had recently sued the county for 18 million dollars, and two former members of law enforcement who worked for that county for another 18 million, who lived on a very large property, who was accused of killing someone. There was literally no way to investigate this case and appease everyone while at the same time locate evidence he was involved.

I am pretty sure I read that police did find hair. You can't match hair without the roots, I will have to look more into that though but the absence of evidence argument doesn't work here because we have positive evidence BD was involved. Its also possible he was lying about some aspects because he was being pressured from others to lie and didn't know what to say. That is equally as viable as arguing he was lying because he was coerced which honestly I find to be ridiculous. He confessed to this crime multiple times and at points would maintain his confession for days before recanting it. Told his mom over the phone he was involved. TO argue all this was coerced is silly. Some of it may have been, we will never know what we can know is that BD was involved.

They are all suspects. It is illegal to access her phone. For preservation of evidence, the police should have done it. The story about guessing her sister's birthday was a joke.

[QUOTE=fraleyight;52768591]

Everyone is a suspect.


Like the agency who said they were not going to be involved was involved more than anybody else.

This part is stale for both of us.

So all 4 of them are lying? To what? Protect RH the true killer?

Actually 5, because TH brother said that he guessed her vm pw using the same pw.. Her bday.

And again, Hopefully if you ever go missing people will care enough about you to figure out what happened to you. I for one am pretty confident my wife and my friends will "hack" my stuff "illegally" to figure out where I have been.

Did they say that? Or did they say the other county would be leading the investigation?