Unless of course you want to speculate without evidence that SC intentionally sprinkled some TH dna on the bullet and decided to at the same time tell everyone that she ****ed up the control sample. Of course, not only would you have no evidence, reason or logical argument to suggest such a thing (not that logic is your strong suit) but you'd also have to explain how someone could be so stupid to plant DNA on something yet admit to ****ing up the control test rather than fudging the results.

Says the guy who once attended a "Steven Avery is Guilty" party.

LOL.

I did not call you dumb. I did, however, call you a shill.

And just so its clear:

(SC's sworn testimony)

A.Okay. When you say cupboards for storage, these
are like drawers?
A. No, you just open the door and there's shelving.
Q. Okay. There's shelves underneath the bench you
are actually working on?
A. Yes.
Q. That's the lab bench where you are doing certain
tests?
A. Yes.
Q. Extractions usually?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And are these cupboards or these shelves
you are talking about, are they -- they have
doors on them?
A. Yes.
Q. Are they like open wire mesh kind of doors?
A. No, they are regular locked wooden doors.
Q. Solid doors?
A. Yes.
Q. And they have locks on them?
A. Yes.
Q. And there's two separate shelves, or two separate
cupboards?
A. There's two shelves in each cupboard and there's
two separate cupboards.
Q. Okay. And each analyst has two of those?
A. Yes.
Q. And that's so that if you are working on one big
case, you don't mix up the items from that case
with some other case you are working on?
A. Yes, it's just storage space for evidence that's
being worked.
Q. So you wouldn't mix one case -- evidence from one
case that you are working and put it in the same
cupboard with another?
A. No. We do store several cases, but the cases
are -- the items of evidence within the case are
packaged and sealed.
Q. Sure. All right. So you -- you do try and keep
the evidence from one case all together?
A. We try, yes. But we have several cases in that
area at the same time.
Q. Okay. And so in this case, when you would be
working on any of the evidence in this case, you
would try and keep all of the evidence that's not
up on the bench, you would try and keep it all in
one cupboard?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And is the key that only you have to
the cupboard, or do all the analysts keys work on
the same cupboard?
A. All the analysts have a key.
Q. And the key works for all of these cupboards?
A. Yes.
Q. So you could open up someone else's cupboard?
A. Yes.
Q. Or they could open up yours?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Not that you would want to, but I'm just
trying to establish that for the record?
A. Right.
Q. Now, when you take evidence out of your cupboard
and start working it on your bench, is it always
put back at the end of the day and locked in the
cupboard?
A. No.
Q. Sometimes you have tests and things that work
overnight, right?
A. Yes.

...

WTF are you talking about? What party?

Reading comprehension...

F.
T.
L.

I don't know how lab techs generally test evidence or what is acceptable. But being she was certified to do this by the state with regular inspections I doubt this is that out of the ordinary. But again, even if it were. It doesn't answer the question. What you are suggesting doesn't make sense because... Again...

If TH dna was contaminating evidence that day how come nothing else had any of her dna on it? Why did her DNA get on this one item? The most logical conclusion is that that item is the source of her dna.

I comprehended it just fine. You said anyone who is trying to justify SC work is dumb. You said this in a direct quote where you suggested I was justifying her work.

So let me get this straight some people just "contacted" you where you "talked" about how guilty, just, you know, HOW GUILTY Steven Avery really is and that's where the Asperger's kicked in and you saw the light?

What in the ****ing blue hell? No ffs.

I was in a group discussing the case and explaining why I thought avery was guilty and was invited to a group of other people who think he is guilty. You know kind of like the dozens and dozens of groups who think he is innocent. The ones I am sure you are apart of. Some of teresas friends were in that group.

I have explained this to you directly several times and for some reason you still don't comprehend what is being said to you. You can stop trying so hard to not understand and listen.

You're comprehension is garbage you shill. OBVIOUSLY, you did not bold the most important part where I said:

Then I said:

LOL how did the invitation go? "Hey buddy! Listen ughh, looks like you really think SA is guilty huh? Why don't you join our SA is a murderer group and we can all talk about just how guilty he is! (even though he's already in jail).

WTF is going on here?

That IS calling me dumb. It doesn't matter if you think I am being paid to post on 2p2. You are still calling me dumb because

You know the groups that mock 9-11 conspiracy groups? It's kind of like that. But yes, several people are absolutely in shock that people think this man is innocent. After discussing the case with great minds such as yourself who think anyone posting on a poker website who thinks hes guilty must be doing it for the sweet commission deals, people on the rational side of the argument started to flock together.

You can join the group if you want to see if its legit. I know I am not getting paid by anyone and so far no one has approached me telling me about these lucrative offers you seem to think exist.

No. I do not. Isn't that worse than the conspiracy group itself?

I dont think any rational person or people don't band together to hear each other talk about how well justice was served in this case and how it must be preserved. That's totally fcuking insane.

Have you no shame at all?

What fascinates me is how propaganda works and how unwilling people are to change their beliefs when presented with logical reasons to. Not necessarily that "justice was served".

You're not a real person. But if you were, have you ever thought about what a ridiculous negative freeroll you are on? When SA and BD are exonerated and truth outs, you are going to look so terribly bad. I would never allow you around children nor would I hire you to do any sort of job that requires thought/reasoning capabilities.

You can join this side if you want. We are freerolling.

He can indeed object & we can in turn dismiss his objection as having no validity. That's all these people have they don't agree with the evidence or think it should have been allowed. They think defence should be able to name alt suspects & that press conferences shouldn't be allowed or that the prosecution can change narratives or that physical evidence for rape should be required etc.

They've absolutely no objective valid examples of tainted evidence or unfair due process though. Just stuff they disagree with which they then conflate with being objectively valid points.

This is the exact same argument Amanda Knox's groupies gave for DNA evidence when Knox's DNA was found on the murder weapon & Sollecito's on Ms Kercher's bra clasp- Dr Stefanoni's lab was "contaminated dontcha know" & the exact same answer was given by people who had actually studied the case that outa the 147 samples in her lab more than simply Knox AND Sollecito's DNA would be contaminated & it would show on other samples.


^^ All these murderer advocates have is tired stale tropes.
DNA is always contaminated
Confessions are always false or coerced.
Courts of law are always rejected for their icons while accusation cool for "alternate suspects" (who are basically anyone but the convicted murderers).
Bars are always raised be they police procedural due process or burden of proof for the Special Ones
Murderer groupies regardless of the particular case simply sing from the same hymn sheet when making their weak & invalid excuses.
Hell they even use the same made up lexicon "guilter", coined by Amanda Knox groupies & now adopted by groupies itt & innocent Adnan Syed's groupies& this is to describe those who have actually read the court documents/transcripts, studied the evidence & agree with courts of law verdicts.

Just a bunch of addled cultists, ultimately.

UNBELIEVER oops I mean SHILL! SHIIIIIIIIIIL!!!!!

It says right in Lostinsauce's excerpt that "the items of evidence within the case are packaged and sealed", so I'm not sure why it matters whether it's in a cupboard, a storage locker, or tucked in someone's couch.

I have Lostinsauce on ignore, so I may be missing some crucial details on why storing items in a cupboard is relevant, but I highly doubt it.


+1

+1

Yet another murderer groupie trope. Amanda Knox's groupies wailed about the murder weapon been stored in a box which was originally used to store a calendar, never mind that it was also sealed.

Just the same old same old weak arguments & irrelevant objections from them.

So even by your own logic Culhane's contamination of the 'fake test' indicates that she could very well have contaminated the 'real test'.

Deviation from protocols which protect the integrity of the results casts the results in doubt.

They are. Admitting the test was screwed up and then fishing around for reasons to accept the unreliable results anyway.

The problem is there is no reason to conclude the DNA was on the bullet before it got to the contaminated lab.

Since Culhane screwed up the test with contamination, there is no reason for anyone to assert that the DNA was on the bullet before it got to the contaminated lab.

No - I'm just one of those people who follows the evidence wherever it leads.

It is perfectly objective to be skeptical of results coming from a lab run by an incompetent with a long history of sloppiness and chicanery, and where the very test we are talking about has indisputable evidence of contamination.

Now everyone knows for a fact you are either deluded or a liar.

Otherwise you'd be able to quote me ever writing that on this or any other forum.

Of course, that is a real possibility, since we have evidence that Culhane received instructions from police investigators to 'try and place Teresa in Avery's house or garage'.

In the link I already provided there is evidence people in Culhane's lab sometimes did deliberately fudge results.

The facts have a habit of always ending up on my side. You might want to think about that.

How did Cuddly Stevie get "screwed hard"? Specifically? Seeing as he had decent lawyers & $400k to splash around? Just goes to show even 400k & a good lawyer can't get you off when you're GAF & up against overwhelming evidence, doesn't it?

Btw you come up with those valid objective examples of tainted evidence, unfair due process or corruption yet? Which you claim are impossible to write off? Whenever you're ready Eddy.