So this wasn't used in trial? Dasseys court case is not separated by days so its much harder to find information or a particular testimony.

I find it likely there was at least some truth to the claim to be presented during the pre trial stage.

I have provided several examples how the documentary misleads. What do you think of them editing out "at least" from scotts testimony mid sentence? What was the point of that? Do you not see a huge difference in context between

"the fire was 3 ft high"

and

"the fire was at least 3 ft high"

Just one example of many of edited testimony.

Were these alleged remarks used in the trial?

Then I suppose we would know more about the exact circumstances and context of these alleged remarks than the vague material presented in the links provided.

We also know that with regard to Kayla's testimony it was shown the remarks attributed to Brendan turned out to be invented and Brendan never said any such thing.

How about ryans? They butchered his testimony. Bouncing around to different parts of the testimony, leaving out actual answers to actual questions. Leaving out the important detail that when they got into Teresas computer it was 4 friends who did it collectively. Both male and female to give us the illusion that Ryan is a creep.

Again, the consequences of the police lying and the prosecution selective editing were much greater than the consequences of a TV program.

I am not sure, that is what I was asking you lol.

Yes, but I was specifically replying to eddies comment that the doc didn't do such a thing. When clearly they did. It isn't just that they left out important facts, it is that they did little things like that during the whole series to distort the truth.

If none of these allegations were tested in court, it is, as I pointed out, a nothingburger of the prosecution throwing more character assassination at the accused and tainting the jury.

A bunch of little things which supposedly made people 'look bad' is hardly worthy of the outrage against the documentary when the big things the police and prosecution actually did deprived two Americans of their liberty.

All of this information was presented in court. The jury weighed it in their deliberations. They came to the conclusion that it wasn't sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt of Avery's guilt. Just because you don't agree with the jury's conclusion doesn't make the process corrupt.

An example of corruption would be if information that was supposed to go to the defence had been suppressed.

That dubious evidence shouldn't even have been heard in court.

Meanwhile, here's the news:



http://www.postcrescent.com/story/ne...sey/852081001/

Nope. Control sample only cite verbatim where the evidence wasn't accepted by the courts due to corrupted lab results.

Your point is? How does this equate to actual objective evidence?

You haven't actually made any valid points yet & both examples you gave aren't objective examples of evidence they're just stuff you personally disagree with & find suspicious.

So can you provide objective examples to support your claims or not?

LOL @ corpus vile not understanding that the court accepting scientifically useless lab test is evidence the trial was rigged against the accused.



Duh - the reason they have control samples is to determine whether there is contamination in the lab. Something we also know from long history of problems at Sherry 'Put Teresa in Avery's Garage' Culhane's lab:

++++++++++++++++++

The complaint includes six disciplinary letters to analysts, in which the name of the analyst has been blacked out. According to the letters:

* An analyst in 2002 falsely claimed to have done a fingerprint match, then submitted falsified documentation to support it. The person drew a written reprimand.

* An analyst in an unnamed portion of the lab was fired in 2004 after supervisors documented "an extremely high error rate (and) a pattern in inattentiveness" over three years.

* A DNA analyst was suspended for two days for being drunk on the job in 2006. The misconduct occurred around the same time and in the same laboratory where evidence in the Avery case was analyzed, Buting said.

* An analyst received a two-day suspension in 2004 for incorrectly eliminating a suspect in a fingerprint match. The same analyst had "false positive" fingerprint matches in two previous instances.

* In another instance in 2004, an analyst received a letter of reprimand for erroneously identifying a fingerprint for a background check.

* A fingerprint technician was suspended for three days in 2005 for a series of incidents, including taking fingerprint cards home and making two erroneous identifications on background checks.

"It is evident that serious negligence or misconduct may have compromised an unknown number of Wisconsin cases," Buting said in his complaint. "The documents ... reveal extensive problems and apparently insufficient responses. If the allegations are true, they deeply affect Wisconsin's criminal justice system."

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/pro...6c0cce9e3.html

You are describing little bit of elements missing from editing that aren't proving that avery is obviously guilty like kratz pretended or what anyone would expect from people talking about massive lie and manipulations.

If you believe this to be the case, why don't you offer your services to Avery's defense team to file an appeal on this basis?

If you believe junk science should be allowed in courtrooms, why don't you get a law degree and submit some amicus curiae briefs to get astrology, tea leaf reading, and phrenology testimony heard by more juries?

It's a stupid argument since it s much harder to overturn a conviction than to prevent it in the first place.
What makes the documentary interesting is not if avery is guilty or not. It's how easy it is to get your life trainwrecked by justice if you don't have millions to defend yourself. Even with 400k and decent lawyers he got screwed hard.

That in a vacuum doesn't prove avery is guilty. Its the mountain of evidence against him. The point is that the doc misrepresented a large portion of evidence to make it appear the case against avery was very weak, which isn't the case.

For example ryan. The only incriminating thing against him is that him and a bunch of friends got into Teresa's computer. This can easily be explained by concerned friends looking for her. It cannot easily be explained as anything incriminating when you realize it was a group of friends doing this so the Doc misrepresents what happened.

Also with scott. You have one of many people that testified to seeing the fire. The fire is pretty crucial because it shows avery was running a large fire late into the night. So instead of presenting the facts surrounding the fire the Doc misrepresents Scotts testimony to make it appear as if his story kept changing. Nothing about his testimony was out of the ordinary. Some details changed over time like with any eye witness but the important details remained the same. He saw a fire he considered to be large after picking up Barb.

Those are two examples. I can name several others.

I agree with this but I don't agree anyone was deprived of their liberty. That is the point, you only think this because the documentary (which is dishonest propaganda) allowed you to have presuppositions. When you look at everything objectively, you will see there is no foul play here.

I'm not sure what this has to do with my post.

The two points raised by Eddie Mitchell were:
- negative control on bullet DNA tests;
- discovery of evidence by Lenk and Colborn.

If you think there is a valid legal argument for why evidence against Avery should have been excluded due to these points, you are free to offer your services to Avery's team to help them in their appeal. Or if you think the laws should be changed so that such evidence would become inadmissible, you can petition your congressman to get it changed.

Lol tell Loudz he forgot to include brain fingerprinting in his list there.

This is it in a nutshell. They're arguing what are ultimately separate issues & conflating their own personal burden of proof criteria with the standard criteria, ditto on evidence.

You mistakenly believe I was misled by the documentary.

I didn't form an opinion about Steven's innocence until doing further research.

Brendan is obviously innocent - as the court pointed out the only evidence against him is the coerced statements edited by police and prosecution.

ETA: if you think being in prison is not being deprived of your liberty, there's any number of people in prison who will trade places with you.

Yes, the bullet DNA test was scientifically invalid, and thus shouldn't be heard by a jury. It is junk science.

As everyone already knows, the police publicly admitted at the outset that officers from the department involved in the lawsuit labored under conflict of interest and would not be investigating this case.

My post was about these issues - you replied to my post. So it should be painfully clear what my post has to do with your post.

"That dubious evidence shouldn't even have been heard in court."

Can someone explain the big deal with the bullet? The control sample was contaminated with DNA not found on the actual sample, aside from protocol is there a reason to dismiss what was found on the actual sample if the jury is informed of the contamination?