Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Making a Murderer Making a Murderer

02-02-2016 , 06:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by housenuts Making a Murderer
Fraley,

In your opinion where did the murder take place? Just wondering if you think it happened in trailer/garage and Avery did expert job of cleaning, or if you think it took place somewhere else.
I think avery strangled her to death in the bedroom then shot her in the garage to make sure she was dead. After shooting her he put her in the back of the rav 4 to take the body to the pond. THe pond was dry so they brought her back and burned her.

Then they cleaned up the blood in the garage and burned the sheets on the bed. This is how bd said it happened and it fits the evidence.
02-02-2016 , 06:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
This is what I am also talking about. You simply cannot read.

"Also I have not seen you comment." That states, I have not seen you comment on that issue, which means I am not asserting that you put forward a position one way or another.

"That is in direct conflict with your claim that Lenk was needed because there were no qualified tech available."

Please try to tell us you have not made the claim that Lenk was there because he had to be there due to a shortage of qualified techs. In this case, there are two tech stating that Lenk was allowed in the trailer and they were told to walk the grounds. So, Lenk was not "needed" to search the trailer as there were already two qualified techs present and they were assigned non-tech work while Lenk was allowed in the trailer.

So, go get your shine box and stop crying like a little baby.
I said there was a shortage of techs. I never said there was 1 tech.
02-02-2016 , 06:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
This is why you are an idiot. The other poster chided you for demanding an apology after I posted to you.

You posted the above as if he stated the sequence incorrectly, when he actually did. Now, to make things worse for you, you substitute an unrelated post. You have some mental issues because now you are just arguing over nothing and demanding apologies for people "misunderstanding" or "misrepresenting" your idiocy.

The problem is you. If you want an apology, I suggest you look in the mirror and apologize.
Wow? Are you that incapable of admitting when you're wrong? I demanded an apology before you said anything about not talking to me and you called me an idiot for it when in fact I demanded an apology before you said you would ignore me.
02-02-2016 , 06:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
By the way, if the murder happened as BD describes, and then TH was put in the back of the car, shouldn't we expect to find a lot more blood?
Im happy you brought this up, this is good indication that absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence because she was clearly in the back of the car after she died. So we can apply this same logic to "where is all the blood in the bedroom" but I suspect you are going to use some special pleading here or somehow deny she was in the back of the rav 4.
02-02-2016 , 06:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
I'm guessing the swabs that Sherry took of the Grand Am were also very consistent with the stains in the RAV 4. In fact, it was probably the exact same blood! But who knows, they were left on her desk in the open air to dry and in a locker that (literally) 50 people had access too.

NBD, biggest case of her career.
The blood stains I am referring to were caused by gravity. Meaning they dripped down. The bloodstain on the ignition of the rav 4 appeared to be caused the same way as the bloodstain on the ignition of avery's grand prix. According to the bloodstain expert.
02-02-2016 , 06:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
I know this is just speculation, but in my experience, single people don't often chance the seat position, and for some reason, it tends to be all the way forward.
oski, you know i love your work in threads regarding criminal cases, but this is an extremely bizarre statement
02-02-2016 , 06:42 PM
Fraleyight, I asked before but I don't think you answered me. Are you in law enforcement?
02-02-2016 , 06:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
I said there was a shortage of techs. I never said there was 1 tech.
Correct. But that was to further your point that Lenk was necessary. The fact two other techs were on site along with Lenk disproves your point when they say they were excluded from the trailer and ordered to walk the grounds. There was no shortage of techs. The "1" tech in question, Lenk, was not necessary - and yet, there he was.

You owe me an apology for insulting my intelligence.
02-02-2016 , 06:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Then they cleaned up the blood in the garage and burned the sheets on the bed. This is how bd said it happened and it fits the evidence.
bedsheets are missing? not that surprising given avery's lifestyle, but is there more on this?

lack of any TH hairs/dna in bedroom a little concerning for this theory.

ability of avery/bd to shoot her in a garage and effectively clean up any and all blood splatter also concerning imo.
02-02-2016 , 06:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
The blood stains I am referring to were caused by gravity. Meaning they dripped down. The bloodstain on the ignition of the rav 4 appeared to be caused the same way as the bloodstain on the ignition of avery's grand prix. According to the bloodstain expert.
planted blood is not susceptible to gravity and wouldn't drip down? i'm confused.
02-02-2016 , 06:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
You disagree with the court's instructions on reasonable doubt.

At least you've learned how to spell the term.

Baby steps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
It's in response to this:


How do you prove there wasn't framing?

How do you prove aliens didn't come down from the sky and kill Teresa?

A reasonable doubt is not a doubt which is based on mere guesswork or speculation.
Lets say we all agree with the instruction given by the judge to the jury. Explain to me why you think the bolded means there was no reasonable doubt in this case?
02-02-2016 , 06:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Wow? Are you that incapable of admitting when you're wrong? I demanded an apology before you said anything about not talking to me and you called me an idiot for it when in fact I demanded an apology before you said you would ignore me.
I'm sorry but you are wrong. You could not be more wrong. I suggest you re-read the posts from yesterday so that you can see how ******ed you are. Let me offer a clue: complaining (falsely) that I did something to you and did not apologize is not "demanding an apology;" it is complaining. You didn't demand an apology until after I made that post referenced by the other poster.

In any event, who gives a **** about this? Every precious thing you have said is laid right out in the thread. I know you blame me for others thinking you are an idiot, but really, you should blame yourself.
02-02-2016 , 07:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeti Making a Murderer
oski, you know i love your work in threads regarding criminal cases, but this is an extremely bizarre statement
Well, if you take it out of context, sure. I am simply asking about whether there are any pictures of the car seat placement. If the seat is all the way up front, then it is unlikely BD was in the car.

And I certainly prefaced my comment that it is just speculation, and that whatever "information" I have on the seat placements of single people is based on my own (albeit) limited experience. The bigger question is simply was there even enough room for BD to be in the car.

(and by the way, yes, the question as stated was really dumb - I didn't need to add all the extra stuff).
02-02-2016 , 07:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Im happy you brought this up, this is good indication that absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence because she was clearly in the back of the car after she died. So we can apply this same logic to "where is all the blood in the bedroom" but I suspect you are going to use some special pleading here or somehow deny she was in the back of the rav 4.
Yes. We all agree she must have been in the back of the car. The question is if she:

1. Had her throat slit; and
2. Was shot 11 times - at least twice through the head, and
3. placed in the back of the car.

Would we not expect to find more blood?

Just to help you out, this line of questioning does not concern whether TH was in the back of the car, it concerns the manner in which she was killed. The conclusion advocated is that this is another example of why B.D.'s story could not have been true.

*** This is why you are ruining the discussion. You are jumping on points not being made and making everything tedious. You need to bow out because, but for your posts, this thread is really interesting.
02-02-2016 , 07:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vajennasguy Making a Murderer
Fraleyight, I asked before but I don't think you answered me. Are you in law enforcement?
Well, given his posts, he certainly qualifies to be a Wisconsin judge.
02-02-2016 , 07:15 PM
nobody's actually clicking the links that poorskills keeps posting to his dumb Avery shill site, right?
02-02-2016 , 07:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
I think avery strangled her to death in the bedroom then shot her in the garage to make sure she was dead. After shooting her he put her in the back of the rav 4 to take the body to the pond. THe pond was dry so they brought her back and burned her.

Then they cleaned up the blood in the garage and burned the sheets on the bed. This is how bd said it happened and it fits the evidence.
Except it doesn't.

No trace of TH in the entire house.

No evidence of sheets being burned or missing.

No mention of all the "extras" offered by B.D. that did not seem to happen (e.g. slitting her throat and having her bound to the bed).

No explanation as to why the garage would have no traces of TH's blood (or anyone else's) yet they found deer blood and the garage was in a condition indicating no cleanup.

No explanation as to why there was not much blood in the car. If you claim she was wrapped in a sheet, understand the blood marks do not support that.

No explanation as to why TH's bones were found in 3 separate locations.

No explanation as to how the open fire could have burned TH's body in such short time (if at all).

No trace of BD in the car.

Other than that, pretty solid theory, bro.
02-02-2016 , 07:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostOstrich Making a Murderer
nobody's actually clicking the links that poorskills keeps posting to her dumb Avery shill site, right?
.
02-02-2016 , 07:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
I said there was a shortage of techs. I never said there was 1 tech.
But there wasn't though. I already posted proof twice.
02-02-2016 , 07:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
It's in response to this:

How do you prove aliens didn't come down from the sky and kill Teresa?
02-02-2016 , 07:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
*** This is why you are ruining the discussion. You are jumping on points not being made and making everything tedious. You need to bow out because, but for your posts, this thread is really interesting.
I disagree. I think fraley is bringing valuable insight, and I hope he sticks around.

Having read at least some of the transcripts and done outside research, fraley is way more knowledgeable on the case than you are.

You've admitted that your knowledge is based entirely on the show, but instead of trying to learn, you speak like you're an expert and arrogantly try to argue that he's wrong despite not knowing the facts. When he shows facts proving you wrong, you instead resort to personal attacks, calling people shills and astroturfers and telling people to leave.

It's not just you - there's quite a few people like you in this thread. Still, you are probably the only person I've seen who claims the vial and evidence seal were accurately represented in the show, and you still haven't even admitted you were wrong about that (or alternatively provided the source for the scene you talked about where they explain that the hole in the vial is normal - maybe you could prove us all wrong!).

I enjoy your presence ITT also though. It's entertaining.
02-02-2016 , 07:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Except it doesn't.

No trace of TH in the entire house.

No evidence of sheets being burned or missing.

No mention of all the "extras" offered by B.D. that did not seem to happen (e.g. slitting her throat and having her bound to the bed).

No one ITT claims her throat was slit. I don't know how much of Brendan's confession was true, and it wasn't even used in Steven's trial.

No explanation as to why the garage would have no traces of TH's blood (or anyone else's) yet they found deer blood and the garage was in a condition indicating no cleanup.

There was a 3x3ft spot that lit up with luminol. Brendan testified at his trial that him and Steven cleaned up a 3x3ft spot of what "looked like blood" that night with bleach, paint thinner, and gasoline. Steven also told Jodi that Brendan was helping him clean. I suggest you read the forensic scientist Ertl's testimony.

No explanation as to why there was not much blood in the car. If you claim she was wrapped in a sheet, understand the blood marks do not support that.

The blood was consistent with her head resting against the part of the car where blood was found. I think this is Stalkhe's testimony, but I could be wrong.

No explanation as to why TH's bones were found in 3 separate locations.

They were found in 2 locations - the burnpit and the burn barrel. I suggest you read the forensic scientist Eisenberg's testimony for her opinion on why the main location was the burnpit.

No explanation as to how the open fire could have burned TH's body in such short time (if at all).

It's quite possible with the tires and car seat they used for fuel. If you want an explanation, I suggest you read the arson investigator Pevytoe's testimony.

No trace of BD in the car.

Other than that, pretty solid theory, bro.
Hope this clears some things up for you.
02-02-2016 , 08:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
I disagree. I think fraley is bringing valuable insight, and I hope he sticks around.

Having read at least some of the transcripts and done outside research, fraley is way more knowledgeable on the case than you are.

You've admitted that your knowledge is based entirely on the show, but instead of trying to learn, you speak like you're an expert and arrogantly try to argue that he's wrong despite not knowing the facts. When he shows facts proving you wrong, you instead resort to personal attacks, calling people shills and astroturfers and telling people to leave.

It's not just you - there's quite a few people like you in this thread. Still, you are probably the only person I've seen who claims the vial and evidence seal were accurately represented in the show, and you still haven't even admitted you were wrong about that (or alternatively provided the source for the scene you talked about where they explain that the hole in the vial is normal - maybe you could prove us all wrong!).

I enjoy your presence ITT also though. It's entertaining.
I can tell you one point that you and Fraley prove: There is a significant difference between reading something and actually understanding it.
02-02-2016 , 08:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
I can tell you one point that you and Fraley prove: There is a significant difference between reading something and actually understanding it.
How can you say if someone understood something that you have not even read? Your hubris is disgusting.
02-02-2016 , 08:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Hope this clears some things up for you.
Um, it doesn't because the person I was responding to, Fraley claims BD's confession as gospel.

1. No trace of T.H. in the entire house (no response from you).

2. No evidence of bed sheets missing or burning (no response from you).

3. B.D. states they cut her throat. Fraley states the B.D. statement is accurate. Now you claim nobody claims the throat was slit - so, nobody can logically claim B.D.'s statement is accurate, right? Fraley has a bit of a problem there.

4. Interesting point. I swear I just read your prior point that "this was S.A.'s trial." I don't recall B.D. testifying in Steve's trial. Do you?

5. But the question is that if she was shot in the head, why isn't there more blood in the car? (you skirt this question entirely).

6. Bones were found in Burn Barrell, Quarry and S.A.'s fire pit. I suggest you consider something besides the prosecution expert's opinion.

7. Again, Pevytoe's explanation notwithstanding, there has been no solid evidence that S.A.'s open burn pit could have burned T.H.'s body to that degree in such a short time (if at all). I appreciate you are in love with law enforcement, but really, you need to take a step back from the sack.

8. And like I said, no trace of BD in the car (no response from you).

What you have cleared up is that if anyone had a remnant of doubt that you are wearing blinders here, that doubt has been erased.

      
m