Quote:
Originally Posted by AngerPush
Are you trolling me?
The post you quoted answered your question. And I've answered it before, too.
No. I am not trolling you. I did not realize the following was your answer (and perhaps, I should have):
Quote:
people realize that there is a lot of shady/awful things about SA that were never mentioned in the doc or were downplayed. That's the heart of what I'm saying. The background of it.
There are other "circumstantial" type items that were either downplayed or not mentioned such as the DNA under the hood, the items of TH's found in or near the burn pile, SA's phone calls to TH, etc etc.
Thank you.
I will point out that these items have already been offered and discussed many times in this thread by others. I believe the consensus here (and I may be mistaken) is that these extra items are not really that compelling.
1. Character evidence. That is not relevant to proving a crime. In this case, especially, the character of SA is not probative especially in light of the fact there are a number of other people in the area that have similar bad acts to their credit.
2. DNA under the hood. That seems to ask more questions than answered. How does SA's DNA get on the latch when there are no fingerprints? If he was wearing gloves, then how was the DNA transferred? Also some have pointed out this evidence was not "discovered" for nearly 6 months which seems odd.
3. Personal items of TH. I don't understand how this matters. We already have her bones in SA's firepit. How does finding remnants of the phone, etc. add to this?
4. Phone calls. I have never understood why this is compelling to people. If SA was disguising himself, he did a poor job of that since he arranged to have TH come to the property (even if it was under his sister's name - it was his sister's car btw). Also, (IIRC) TH called SA at about 1:30 to confirm she would be able to make it for the appointment. Why would she call SA if he made the reservation under his sister's name? Obviously, he contacted her and asked her to confirm (or does that not seem plausible)?
This is why I say that despite my opinion that it is futile to argue the "real truth" of the matter one way or another (absent some stone-cold evidence) people saying they are convinced SA is guilty (and I am not saying you are one of them) based on "all these other things we were not shown in the documentary," are drastically overplaying their hand. None of this stuff is compelling except for the DNA on the hood - and it is only compelling based on the possibility that evidence is bona fide. As of now, there seem to be too many issues surrounding the provenance of that evidence.
Is there anything else?