Honestly bro, you are losing it.

According to you, this strengthens your belief that BD is guilty of killing Teresa Halbach?

Why most you refer to everything as if it is a dichotomy? This weakens your theory that he is being coerced. Nothing more, nothing less.

there is evidence that fits his confession. He knew she was shot more than once in the head, he knew she was put in the back of the car after she died, he lied about the burn pit and evidence suggests she was burned in the burn pit. Why did he lie about being at the burn pit in november? Why would he lie about this?

Read the Links, explain's it better than I ever could.

Fraley can you show me forensic evidence to back up the confession?


Or maybe listen to this Dude, juan tescrue for a better perspective on the whole case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql_EAI2JbUI

If the latter were the case, which you suggest, he would be SLOPPY always. He clearly isn't sloppy all the time, only when convenient which makes no sense. The story makes sense if he opens the latch with no gloves and his DNA/prints are everywhere. But one and not the other makes no sense. Again, most of the stuff makes sense whatever way you put it by itself but together it's so ridiculous it makes no sense. I think this is where the disconnect is between you and everyone else.

Another fact that you couldn't see another poster was making fun of your name b/c it's a not only a weird name but the beginning looks like farley means you are either just not following anything or have little to no logic. Maybe you lack logic b/c arguing with you has become not only exhausting but at times infuriating. I can't make sense of a story where a murder leaves his house clean but the defense says that's where he killed said person but for some reason leaves random DNA in weird places but for some reason is a magician and leaves no finger prints for some reasons. Like again I ask you why is he dexter--shoots woman in head but leaves no blood of the victim but for some reasons leaves bullet which MC sheriffs find months after the fact but does a list of really stupid things. Why be super genius at hiding things but super stupid at hiding things at the same time. Most people are one or the other, you keep arguing that he is basically both when it's convenient for your argument which makes no sense.

He recalled that he doesn't remember that? WTF are you even saying? This is beyond comical.

I've already showed you actual news footage and newspaper clippings that explain every single detail that BD was coerced into saying. If it didn't take him 10 tries "to be honest" then he simply regurgitated stuff from the news. This is exactly what his cousin did as well.

On top of the massive media assault launched on the Avery's in Nov, 2005 that listed extremely graphic details of every single piece of evidence found as they found it, use your human reasoning abilities and figure out what possible ways someone could know these facts when A) this is a town of 1400 people and B) The cops and investigators are related to the families on both the defense and prosecution.

Trial Transcripts

pg 69 to ~ 90.

This stuff about the Crime Lab is better than fiction. Jerry B's report on their ethics and procedures was no joke. Here's the TLDR:

Sherry Culhane collected DNA samples from both the Grand Am and the RAV 4 where she simply left them on her desk overnight to dry. Then, along with every single piece of evidence that she ever received from the Avery case, she places them in a cupboard below her desk for 5 months accessing them as she needs to do tests. This cupboard is locked but can be opened with a key that every technician and management personnel in the Crime Lab has.

All of this, even though they have a perfectly good, well managed evidence room and qualified evidence custodian where one would assume evidence from the biggest case the county has ever seen should probably be kept.

On Dateline tonight:

1) Zellner bought a '99 Toyota Rav 4 in order for her and her team to understand that evidence better.

2) Do you think you have new evidence that will free Steven Avery? Zellner: "We do."

3) They do have alternate suspects

4) They are doing every possible forensic test available

Trial Transcripts

90% of Sherry Culhane's cross examiniation by Jerry B. is left out of the doc and she looks terrible. There's simply no way an employee rises and stays in her position (Head DNA Analyst, Supervisor and Trainer) with a performance record like hers. Something's clearly wrong.

Not to mention, someone with her credentials (or lack there of) shouldn't even be in her position. She was basically grandfathered in because of her tenure.

She does not have a masters degree, which is/was a requirement for her position.

There is actually a lot of stuff about BD's confession that is exaggerated. He never put too much emphasis on what happened in the bedroom. In fact he suggested there was not that much blood in the bedroom and the sheet which contained all the blood was burned after. His main focus in terms of cleanup, was the garage. He said there was a 2x2 pool of blood that they cleaned up and that steven had planned to crush the car at some point. Steven probably got the most sloppy with the car because in his mind with thousands of cars it was well hidden.

What happened does not require a mastermind. There are things we don't know that require explanations sure, but you will have that in EVERY murder trial. There is also a lady who was recently just charged with killing her husband, no blood, no dna evidence to link her to his death and she wasn't a suspect for almost 2 years.. They figured out she did it because they found a security tape of her dragging his body. So there are crime scenes like that.


As for my name, the only reason that didn't stick with me right away is because Chris is my first name.

Do you understand why this question about the tattoo was asked?

I also find it funny that somehow I am being called illogical when suggesting this is a clear logical fallacy

"lenk was deposed for a lawsuit"

"lenk found evidence at the salvage yard incriminating avery"

"therefore Lenk framed avery"

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Obviously.

I promise you, had they said one more time: "Brendan, we already know you saw the tattoo, so if you want us to help you, you have to be honest, okay?"

You'd have him seeing the tattoo.

Have you read the SA trial transcripts yet?

barba crescit caput nescit

Putting everything aside, I find it very interesting that we can look at the same confession and read it two completely different ways. Did they say "come out and be honest with us" when he started telling them about putting her in the car after she died? They didn't press him much about that at all.

Yes, I read most of the SA trial transcripts, I actually read most of them before I even jumped in this thread and provided you links to these in one of my first few comments in the thread.

Do they have free access to all the evidence to run these tests?

Ie. Are they able to get the rav4 blood if they want to run some tests on it?

Zellner claims she has new evidence to exonerate SA. Her method of obtaining this evidence is not relevant if the evidence in itself is good enough to exonerate him. I am guessing based off of what she said she is going to say something with the rav 4 and the claim of what happened is not logical.

Imo, whatever it is will require a stretch of the truth. We shall see though. I am very curious what it is.

Fraleyight, others too...

If we learned from an independent, reliable source that there was evidence that would 100% identify the killer(s) in this case, how much would you wager that it was/wasn't Steven Avery.

I'd probably go 5k not Avery.

while i think the trial was unfair, having doubt on avery beeing the murderer seems reasonnable.
Beeing sure he didnt do it is a pretty big stretch

Do we know what the evidence is before wagering? If this is just hypothetical evidence that we know nothing about other than it identifies the killer, I would wager quite a bit that the killer would be identified as SA. By quite a bit I mean anything I could afford to lose.

Just hypothetical evidence that is 100% conclusive

I would bet around 10% of my yearly salary on SA.

Betting only 10% is a pretty good definition of reasonable doubt.

If I had no reasonable doubt, I would take all my money and borrow as much as I could get my hands on to bet.