Actually there were 6 blood stains and most of them were caused by dripping says the blood spatter expert who testified.

this is what I am talking about oski. I never said any of this. You and others have created a strawman of what i said.. This is not the only time this has been done to me itt.

Master said I said something wasn't in the doc because I didn't see it (so did you) and all I said was I didn't recall it and it turns out that wasn't even in the doc.

I want an apology for you either misunderstanding me or lying about what I said. I gave you two examples. Now either admit you made a mistake or apologize for lying.

OK oski? Which post came first? Holy ****ing hell...

Lol so you think they did a competent job. Lololololololololololololololol

Yeah I consider moving items on top of found evidence before photographing it faking the evidence scene. What else would one call it? Would any competent crime scene investigator claim this is standard operating procedure?

"Oh look this key fell out of the book case. Wait place these items on top of it before photographing it."

I am saying the number of RAV 4s he is likely to come across in a week probably can be counted on one hand. Calling to verify he has the exact license plate number is just lol.

So if he finds a RAV 4 with all the same digits but one he will let it go? A police officer already discussed in depth why this behavior did not make sense, in this thread.

I didn't deny she was in the car. It s the presence of dassey that nothing confirm while avery's one is more inconsistant.

If he was running an illegal search and found an RAV 4 vehicle why would he call it in in that case either? He knows his phone call would be recorded by the dispatch. He could just write down the plate, drive to the station, check it himself, or run the plate in his own police cruiser, right? Furthermore if his intention was really to find the car illegally you'd think he'd have gathered this information on his own before doing the search. He has those resources right as an officer?

His statements in his testimony seemed reasonable to me. He was informed of a missing person and given a plate number and vehicle description and was calling to verify that the plate number was that of the missing person Theresa Halbach given to him by his source. That seems more logical to me than he ran an illegal search without knowing that information and then called into his dispatch to verify that he found the "correct" vehicle.

We allways come back to the same problem a normal cop wouldnt be questioned at all, manitowoc county are toxic to the whole investigation and every single action they perform become questionable.

People should really listen to that true crime podcast that was posted a few times, the fbi guy is really good and very credible at judging what we have been shown.

When did anyone "move items on top of found evidence before photographing it"? Please show me the picture.

I explained why the stuff was still in/on the bookcase - because, as Colborn testifies, they put everything back into the bookcase before the photo. This was not a big deal in the trial, but you seem to have a different interpretation of the law than most and a keen eye for injustice. Maybe you can do some research into how this is considered "faking the evidence scene" and you can post it here and also email it to Zellner. You can also email the judge why he was wrong about "reasonsble doubt".

PS, Fraley, Revots, etc: If it comes out that SA did not do it and he was framed(again), what will you have to say? You guys are so damn sure of your position, so I'm curious how that news would affect you.

They will pull a Kusche and say he still probably did it and DNA doesn't prove anything

I don't think any of us have ever said it's impossible that Steven didn't do it.

We believe there's proof that Steven did it beyond any reasonable doubt (at least by the court's definition, which I'm aware you disagree with).

If it's proven he didn't do it and was framed, I will admit that I was wrong.

But again, there's plenty of evidence incriminating Steven and literally nothing showing that he was framed.

Question for you and the rest: if Steven admitted he was guilty, what will you say?

Will you admit you're wrong or will you claim he's been brainwashed into believing he killed her, just like people are now claiming him and the rest of his family have been brainwashed into believing they had a bonfire on Halloween?

If steven admit to be guilty, people think theres a 20-80% chance of that depending on people so no people wont have to come up with excuses.
The question is wether or not he has been framed.
So as usual you completly miss the point and i ll have to spell the question you should have asked:
"if it ever happend that someone prove theres 0% framing or 0% unprofessional conduct what will you say"

We will continue to say what we've been saying.

Yes, it's possible that SA did it.

And, boy did the investigators really botch this by not mitigating the clear conflict of interest they had in this case.

And then we'll all continue being reasonable people that understand what a conflict of interest is.

You and so many others just don't seem to understand that it's impossible to prove a negative.

Let me try to put this in a context you can understand: let's say you were playing in a poker tournament and at some point you are seated at the same table as your friend. This is a "conflict of interest", but you didn't ask the tournament director to switch you to another table.

There's no proof that you played any differently than usual, although you did make one very smart fold against your friend. Now people are accusing you of cheating for the rest of your life, despite no evidence you actually did anything wrong. Is this fair?

Oh and ESPN televises your table and selectively edits reaction shots to make it seem like you two are colluding. And they explain that you once staked your friend in a tournament.

Now, I can't prove eddymitchel cheats at poker, but there was a clear conflict of interest with him sitting at the same table as his friend, and he even staked him once. And if you judge by their (edited) reactions with each other, it's obvious there was something going on. And how could he make that one fold?! Whether he was cheating or not, clearly there was some kind of unethical activity by eddymitchel!

If he admits it and is proven guilty by an impartial third party I will say lock his ass up forever. LDO.

I do not buy into any brainwashing theories here.

Eddymitchel doesnt have the opportunity(from any rule i know) to say hey i m friend with X dont put me at the same table because i dont want any suspiscion of collusion. Nor is it eddymitchel responsability to disclose that conflict of interest either.

Thanks for continuing to prove how inept you are at contributing to that thread.

So why do you think Steven lied on multiple occasions about what he did on Halloween and claimed he didn't have a bonfire on that night?

Why wouldn't he or Brendan mention having the bonfire when if he was innocent there was nothing suspicious about having one yet on November 6th?

Did they both just misremember having a bonfire, even though Steven quite clearly remembered the details of the rest of that day?

Whose "responsability" is it to disclose your clear "conflict of interest" then? After seeing ESPN expose your lies, I'll now forever think of you as a cheater until you can prove you didn't cheat.

You're welcome.

you are so dumb it s boring, if ESPN catch me colluding on camera i m a cheater , if i play at a table with a friend i am not a cheater.
And i am pretty sure people would be glad to be able to avoid playing with friends and risking to eliminate each other or have to avoid doing suspicious plays.

The situation you are comparing your crap exemple to is

- they ve done some suspicious stuff
- it was announced that they wouldnt be in a situation like that to avoid it
- They volunteered to get in that situation instead of recusing themself.

it s like if i could volunteer to play at my friend table and the organiser lied about us not knowing each other, and we colluded in front of camera


As i said before you are dumb as ****

if they caught SA on film killing TH then yes he's guilty. just like if they caught someone else on film doing it or planting evidence, they are guilty.

as others have stated, I'm not sure if SA did it but the entire situation was f'ed up. the fact that the cops/testers/prosecution never followed their own protocol/rules/etc. makes everything questionable. if you think this is the only time they've ever done it, I got a ocean front view in Oklahoma. this to me is the much bigger issue, SA is just in a pawn in the middle of it. the fact that he's gotten ****ed already, let's just say not for corruption but a poor investigation that led to nothing when it came to wrongdoing put on anyone makes me question the entire justice system in the area.

fraley, the fact that you post on other boards with members of the MC area/TH family makes you much more biased.

the reason I'm upset and many others are more upset than just about SA is the fact that something like this could happen to me or someone I know and the police and the rest of the justice system fails to follow rules that I/my friends can still be put in jail for life even though everything the cops had done could have potentially be contaminated that nothing will happen to the cops/technicians/prosecution--there is literally no real non partisan oversight to the system, no true accountability. all I ask is to follow your ****ing protocols when doing investigations and any other part of your investigation/justice system. If I did it and you caught me, great put me in jail but don't play hard and fast with your protocols to do it.

Does Steven later admit to having a bonfire on that day? or is it only Brendan that later admitted that there was a fire on that day? I agree that's very suspicious if indeed it was later proven or Steven admitted to having a fire on that day. No reason for him to deny having a fire on that day if he was indeed innocent of the crime.

Just to be clear, you think finding the key in plain view on the 7th search of a tiny trailer was perfectly normal and not possible evidence of something suspicious happening?