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

02-03-2016 , 06:58 PM
Completely shocked that poor skillz can't follow an analogy.
02-03-2016 , 06:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pwn_Master Making a Murderer
Oh cool, so if I want to kill someone all I have to do is get a policeman to plant evidence and I can walk scott-free? Good to know.

All the lols
02-03-2016 , 07:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
A reasonable doubt is not a doubt which is based on mere guesswork or speculation. That's why Steven's in prison.
Maybe it's the word reasonable that keeps tripping you up. Reasonable falls in line with rational thought.

While it is amusing that people try to assign percentages to what the threshold is, it was intentionally worded the way it was because each person has to view the evidence through their own filter, when on a jury.

That you keep using the word speculation still shows me you do not understand reasonable doubt. It's not about speculating about what else could have happened. That is not part of the process at all. When considering the evidence if you are able to pause and think something doesn't sit right or quite make sense, that is a Reasonsble doubt.

Your talk of speculation has nothing to do with the evidence presented to the jury. Reasonable doubt refers only to the prosecutions case and version of events. Notice it is beyond a reasonable doubt and not reasonable doubts, so a prosecutor who makes a strong case but then creates one glaring issue opening up the ability of jurors to wonder if that was what happened.

To reach a level beyond a reasonable doubt you have to pretty much believe the events as layed out by the prosecution are what happened. Any questions, concerns or second guessing can fall into reasonable doubt. You keep trying to place some sort of burden on the defense in regards to a jury finding reasonable doubt. That burden does not exist in any way shape or form.
02-03-2016 , 07:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pwn_Master Making a Murderer
Oh cool, so if I want to kill someone all I have to do is get a policeman to plant evidence and I can walk scott-free? Good to know.
Just kill them and try not to leave evidence at all. As the Sheriff of Manitowoc will tell you, it's easier just to kill someone than to frame them.
02-03-2016 , 07:09 PM
Never thought I'd said this, but Custer is right. You guys have this weird mob mentality in which you are all jumping on Fraley, Skilz, and others as shills and trolls just b/c they disagree with you. It's just so bizarre. What's even more odd is that the ones jumping all over them are the same people arguing for this elaborate conspiracy theory without a shred of actual evidence.

I have to say, I admire all of you. Not many people would have the patience to continue to hurl poo at each other without getting anywhere. I'm pretty sure this thread is on its 10th circle already.
02-03-2016 , 07:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pwn_Master Making a Murderer
Oh cool, so if I want to kill someone all I have to do is get a policeman to plant evidence and I can walk scott-free? Good to know.
  1. Put a cup of your blood and swabs of your DNA on your front porch.

  2. File a lawsuit against the country you live in.

You are now above the law according to experts ITT.

Extra tip: the bigger the lawsuit the better. If you file the lawsuit for $100billion, there's 100billion reasons why you'd be framed.
02-03-2016 , 07:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
You CLEARLY do not understand reasonable doubt, it's origins nor it's actual I tended purpose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
For most people that raises a Reasonsble doubt all on its own. Maybe you don't understand reason or Reasonsble?
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
Seriously if you can not even get the basics down wtf are you doing trolling this thread so hard. Why are people arguing with him on minutiae of evidence when he does not even comprehend the concept of reasonable doubt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
Buy your "WhatisReasonableDoubt" Russian Nesting Dolls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
No. You still don't understand reasonable doubt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
#reasonsbledoubt
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
Lol none of you even know what Reasonsble doubt is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
That you keep using the word speculation still shows me you do not understand reasonable doubt.
.
02-03-2016 , 07:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
That you keep using the word speculation still shows me you do not understand reasonable doubt.
It's from the judge's instructions to the jury. Please email your concerns to him.
02-03-2016 , 07:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
It used to be virtually impossible and it is still extremely difficult to convict someone of murder without a body or remnant of a body.
Idk if I would agree with the latter. It is certainly easier to convict with a body but idk if I would call it "extremely difficult" you can still prove someone killed someone using forensic evidence. The example I brought up where his blood is in her car is a good one imo and I think if that was their strongest piece of evidence, that alone would have got him convicted. Take away the bullet, body, bullet being matched to a gun he keeps above his bed, her phone and pda burned outside his house, her key in his trailer.. He still gets convicted just based on the fact that his blood was found in her car with her blood in it as well when he should have never been in the car.
02-03-2016 , 07:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
Maybe it's the word reasonable that keeps tripping you up. Reasonable falls in line with rational thought.

While it is amusing that people try to assign percentages to what the threshold is, it was intentionally worded the way it was because each person has to view the evidence through their own filter, when on a jury.

That you keep using the word speculation still shows me you do not understand reasonable doubt. It's not about speculating about what else could have happened. That is not part of the process at all. When considering the evidence if you are able to pause and think something doesn't sit right or quite make sense, that is a Reasonsble doubt.

Your talk of speculation has nothing to do with the evidence presented to the jury. Reasonable doubt refers only to the prosecutions case and version of events. Notice it is beyond a reasonable doubt and not reasonable doubts, so a prosecutor who makes a strong case but then creates one glaring issue opening up the ability of jurors to wonder if that was what happened.

To reach a level beyond a reasonable doubt you have to pretty much believe the events as layed out by the prosecution are what happened. Any questions, concerns or second guessing can fall into reasonable doubt. You keep trying to place some sort of burden on the defense in regards to a jury finding reasonable doubt. That burden does not exist in any way shape or form.

You must have broke the PoorSkillz bot. I fully expected a copy/paste of:

Spoiler:
A reasonable doubt is not a doubt which is based on mere guesswork or speculation. That's why Steven's in prison.


for the umpteenth time.
02-03-2016 , 07:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
Maybe it's the word reasonable that keeps tripping you up. Reasonable falls in line with rational thought.

While it is amusing that people try to assign percentages to what the threshold is, it was intentionally worded the way it was because each person has to view the evidence through their own filter, when on a jury.

That you keep using the word speculation still shows me you do not understand reasonable doubt. It's not about speculating about what else could have happened. That is not part of the process at all. When considering the evidence if you are able to pause and think something doesn't sit right or quite make sense, that is a Reasonsble doubt.

Your talk of speculation has nothing to do with the evidence presented to the jury. Reasonable doubt refers only to the prosecutions case and version of events. Notice it is beyond a reasonable doubt and not reasonable doubts, so a prosecutor who makes a strong case but then creates one glaring issue opening up the ability of jurors to wonder if that was what happened.

To reach a level beyond a reasonable doubt you have to pretty much believe the events as layed out by the prosecution are what happened. Any questions, concerns or second guessing can fall into reasonable doubt. You keep trying to place some sort of burden on the defense in regards to a jury finding reasonable doubt. That burden does not exist in any way shape or form.
Good post.

Speculation: "Prosecutor says "X" happened, but that does not rule out that "Y" happened." If there is no evidence for the jury to base them accepting that "Y" could have happened to the exclusion of "X" they are not to take the possibility of "Y" into account. To do otherwise, would be speculation on potential facts not before the jury.

When the judge instructs that the jury should not use speculation, this is what that means.

Not-Speculation: "Prosecutor says "X" happened and offers "A", "B" and "C" as proof. Jury considers evidence leading them to believe item "A" is not bona fide. Because of that, jury must evaluate the degree of confidence that "A", "B" and "C" happened when considering the apparent issues with "A." If their resulting opinion is that the prosecution did not meet its burden under these circumstances, there is reasonable doubt.

This result is not based on speculation, it was based on the facts of the case.

Premature Jack-Speculation: Needing a Jack to fill in inside straight when not getting proper pot or implied odds.
02-03-2016 , 07:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalerobk2 Making a Murderer
Never thought I'd said this, but Custer is right. You guys have this weird mob mentality in which you are all jumping on Fraley, Skilz, and others as shills and trolls just b/c they disagree with you. It's just so bizarre. What's even more odd is that the ones jumping all over them are the same people arguing for this elaborate conspiracy theory without a shred of actual evidence.

I have to say, I admire all of you. Not many people would have the patience to continue to hurl poo at each other without getting anywhere. I'm pretty sure this thread is on its 10th circle already.
Well duh. Fraley is posting links that contradict his claims and never skips a beat changing subjects & Skillz thinks that police impropriety is so outlandish that only 911 truthers believe it and is so far fetched it has about the same possibility of happening as aliens having done it despite Avery doing 18 years in jail from the same types of things from the same police department for the same exact crap.
02-03-2016 , 07:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
If Culhane was corrupt, why would she report that the bullet's negative control was contaminated?

Why would she not also "find" DNA on more items, like the key or items in the bedroom?

I think if it shows anything, reporting the contamination on the bullet's negative control shows that she wasn't corrupt and she was willing to report any mistake. Now what exactly shows that she was corrupt? And since the only error seems to be with the bullet's negative control, what exactly shows "complete incompetence" to dismiss all the evidence?
I don't expect you to read this but:

I mean she wasn't in the lab by herself.

Because she had two people watching her perform the test (which also seems ridiculous), we can conclude that there were others who knew the results and of the contamination. Obviously she can't turn over conclusive results that others will be able to testify were contaminated. Also to add to that, her deviation from protocol was justified in reports that show she deviated from protocol in order to deviate from protocol. That's just too many deviations for me. "Oversights" she calls them.

I don't doubt that the bullet she received had TH's DNA on it. Why a bullet that allegedly passed through a person's head or body has so little DNA on it that only one test would be able to be performed (as confirmed by Sherry's naked eye) is extremely questionable, is it not? Same with the key, I don't doubt that the key she was given had SA's DNA on it. IMO, the planter made a mistake by not also getting TH's DNA on it, but figured a key that started TH's car with SA's DNA on it would be enough. They were right after all.

I'm still researching trying to figure out why the RAV-4 was immediately removed from the salvage yard. This is another red-flag in my mind but no one seems to be questioning it, so perhaps this is standard. But the fact that they hauled 2 cars to the LAB instantly and one of them has blood in it confirmed on the scene is strange. If his Grand AM had blood in it, you potentially have a murder scene. All the forensics should have been performed before it was moved. The RAV-4 wasn't open until it was in the LAB and out of sight of anyone. So here you have one car hauled to the lab AFTER it was confirmed to have SA's blood in it and could be the actual crime scene, and then TH's car hauled to the lab before it's even opened to see what's inside.

Remember, every picture you see of the inside of TH's car is taken AT THE LAB, not at the salvage yard.

There's also, of course, Jerome's official report of the incompetency and potential reasons for investigation of "The Crime Lab" in this report.
02-03-2016 , 07:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
Maybe it's the word reasonable that keeps tripping you up. Reasonable falls in line with rational thought.

While it is amusing that people try to assign percentages to what the threshold is, it was intentionally worded the way it was because each person has to view the evidence through their own filter, when on a jury.

That you keep using the word speculation still shows me you do not understand reasonable doubt. It's not about speculating about what else could have happened. That is not part of the process at all. When considering the evidence if you are able to pause and think something doesn't sit right or quite make sense, that is a Reasonsble doubt.

Your talk of speculation has nothing to do with the evidence presented to the jury. Reasonable doubt refers only to the prosecutions case and version of events. Notice it is beyond a reasonable doubt and not reasonable doubts, so a prosecutor who makes a strong case but then creates one glaring issue opening up the ability of jurors to wonder if that was what happened.

To reach a level beyond a reasonable doubt you have to pretty much believe the events as layed out by the prosecution are what happened. Any questions, concerns or second guessing can fall into reasonable doubt. You keep trying to place some sort of burden on the defense in regards to a jury finding reasonable doubt. That burden does not exist in any way shape or form.
I take issue with a lot of the things you said.. First of all when they say " reasonable doubt is not based on speculations" what they mean is the doubt you have should be reasonable and be based on common sense. Doubting something based on making guesses or speculation is not doubting something reasonably. So if you doubt that someone committed a crime because for example "the police seem corrupt" that is not doubting something reasonably, that is just speculation. If you however, doubt that the police acted honestly because someone says they saw them plant evidence and you accept that persons testimony, then it is reasonable to doubt that that piece of evidence is reliable.

As for this "To reach a level beyond a reasonable doubt you have to pretty much believe the events as layed out by the prosecution are what happened. " That is not entirely true either, you just have to reach the conclusion "beyond a reasonable doubt " that based ONLY on the evidence provided at trial that the defendant did what he is being accused of. You do not necessarily have to reach the conclusion that the prosecutors have everything right or that their story is entirely correct.

"Your talk of speculation has nothing to do with the evidence presented to the jury. Reasonable doubt refers only to the prosecutions case and version of events. Notice it is beyond a reasonable doubt and not reasonable doubts"

Please show me where itt either me, poorskills or anyone else did not understand burden of proof? Anywhere. I understand how burden of proof works. This is why we vote guilty/not guilty and not guilty/ innocent because we are only addressing one prong of a two prong issue. We never address innocence because it isn't the defendants job to prove this. We understand this and have never indicated otherwise.
02-03-2016 , 07:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by prana Making a Murderer
Well duh. Fraley is posting links that contradict his claims and never skips a beat changing subjects & Skillz thinks that police impropriety is so outlandish that only 911 truthers believe it and is so far fetched it has about the same possibility of happening as aliens having done it despite Avery doing 18 years in jail from the same types of things from the same police department for the same exact crap.
wtf? When did I do this? are you referring to the %'s things? because I already addressed that with you.
02-03-2016 , 07:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
I would say that the crime lab's evidence processing shows signs of (at best) complete incompetence or (at worst) corruption, if not both. When you have a detective on video coercing a confession then calling in and ordering which results are needed to fit the confession, something is wrong. Again, DNA on hood latch is a great example, and its not the only one.
This I agree with. The presence of any contamination, which we know for a fact there was an admitted contamination of the control, would lead me as a juror, to distrust any other tests that were performed in that lab.

If you cannot protect the integrity of the control, your lab protocols are not being adhered to. You lab is no longer a trustworthy source in my mind.

I don't know if it is purposeful corruption or laziness and incompetence. Either way, those results cannot be relied upon to send a man away for life.
02-03-2016 , 07:42 PM
Great post lostinsauce, you've convinced oski that the lab is in on it too.
02-03-2016 , 07:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
I take issue with a lot of the things you said.. First of all when they say " reasonable doubt is not based on speculations" what they mean is the doubt you have should be reasonable and be based on common sense. Doubting something based on making guesses or speculation is not doubting something reasonably. So if you doubt that someone committed a crime because for example "the police seem corrupt" that is not doubting something reasonably, that is just speculation. If you however, doubt that the police acted honestly because someone says they saw them plant evidence and you accept that persons testimony, then it is reasonable to doubt that that piece of evidence is reliable.

As for this "To reach a level beyond a reasonable doubt you have to pretty much believe the events as layed out by the prosecution are what happened. " That is not entirely true either, you just have to reach the conclusion "beyond a reasonable doubt " that based ONLY on the evidence provided at trial that the defendant did what he is being accused of. You do not necessarily have to reach the conclusion that the prosecutors have everything right or that their story is entirely correct.

"Your talk of speculation has nothing to do with the evidence presented to the jury. Reasonable doubt refers only to the prosecutions case and version of events. Notice it is beyond a reasonable doubt and not reasonable doubts"

Please show me where itt either me, poorskills or anyone else did not understand burden of proof? Anywhere. I understand how burden of proof works. This is why we vote guilty/not guilty and not guilty/ innocent because we are only addressing one prong of a two prong issue. We never address innocence because it isn't the defendants job to prove this. We understand this and have never indicated otherwise.
+1

In before mark explains that you don't understand "reasonsble doubt".
02-03-2016 , 07:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokeraz Making a Murderer
This I agree with. The presence of any contamination, which we know for a fact there was an admitted contamination of the control, would lead me as a juror, to distrust any other tests that were performed in that lab.
They reported the contamination!

If they report the contamination for one exhibit, why would you think the other ones where they don't report any contamination are also contaminated???
02-03-2016 , 07:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bank Making a Murderer
Good post. Here it is formatted since the reddit link is dead.

I know there is a lot of buzz about Colburn and what this person said and what time line is and so forth, but I have a problem with the entire RAV4 they found. There are many issues with it...


1. 1999 RAV4 was the only year that Toyota made two colors that are very close, one is dark green and the other is green blue. Teresa's vehicle was dark green yet the Crime Lab shows photo it is the greenish blue.

2. A broken blinker light with a replacement blinker that is laying in RAV4 in the cargo hold, yet Teresa's vehicle had no damage and according to the John the propane dealer who saw it drive away, states it looked shiny new with no damage.

3. The RAV4 they have found has been towed, which bent the frame.

4. The latest pic of Teresa holding her keys in front of her vehicle, notice the missing paint on the top of the passenger door? Well, the crime lab photo of the RAV4 they say is hers, is not missing paint in those places.

5. In yet another crime lab photo of the RAV4, it shows sever rust and damage to the passenger side where the two doors meet and we know this was not on Teresa's vehicle.

6. Her real keys are missing, and now we have a valet key? Is it because the real key would not start the duplicate RAV4?

7. Its known as a Salvage Yard Scam to switch VIN on two vehicles to sell a stole vehicle. Was a switch made on the Vehicles in order to hide the real murder scene and that explains where all the blood is?

8. The battery cable was disconnected, it is standard to disconnect the negative battery cable to tow a vehicle. Why tow it if you can drive it, unless you can't because its so damaged that it would draw unwanted traffic police attention.

9. The blood in the back of the RAV4, there should have been much more unless her heart came to rest prior to being placed there. It would suggest this was post mortem.

10. Her license plate was not attached to her vehicle and found crumpled up in the trunk of another vehicle. Is this because to transfer the plates on to the duplicate, would have made fresh metal scratches and drawn even more suspicion?



So now let me ask you this, Who would have a means to....


1. Incinerate a body at 1700 degrees to produce just bones

2. Tow a vehicle with out showing records of such

3. Crush Teresa's real RAV4 to hide the actual murder scene

4. Have access to planting Steven's blood

5. Have the know how and ability to switch VIN's so easily

6. Locate a replacement RAV4 on quick notice

7. Have the inside knowledge of how to stage a crime scene

8. Have a questionable past issue with the truth

9. Have not one but three motives



I want you to look at the list.

1. We know that Mark Fassbender investigated Avery's incinerator, it was not used for months.

2. Why would Steven tow the vehicle?

3. If Steven did it why not crush the vehicle with her body in it and bury it somewhere

4. Steven admitted early on and has always stated that he leaded his palms onto Teresa's vehicle and that's why they may find his palm prints on her RAV4, yet no prints, NONE, not even the girl that drove this car for 2 years are found?

5. The switching of VIN numbers is called "SALVAGE Yard Scam"

6. A car dealer would, especially one that had been in the business of Auto Sales his entire life.

7. Someone in Law Enforcement

8. Someone that had lied for 18 years, keeping an innocent man in prison and allowing a rapist to roam freely.

9. First motive, Rival Business. Second, Revenge. Third, $36,000,000.00

Who would have an incinerator, a tow truck, a crusher, replacement vehicle with no prints and no real evidence to link the real murderer, VIN switching knowledge, access to your own pick of vehicles and contacts in the Auto business, High rank individual beyond questioning, Manitowoc County Sheriff.

Guess what, he is the President of Cleveland Auto Sales and Salvage. He was a deputy in 1985, he was the undersheriff in 2005 and is now the Sheriff of Manitowoc County Police Department.
He and he alone fits all that would be needed to fulfill the requirements for this type of accident and he is the one saying all over, that Netflix is taking things out of context and out of order, and says that's how its done to keep every one confused. He is saying this in my opinion because He himself is the one that did this and so he knows how it works.

Just saying, don't get distracted. Focus on what a killer would need to accomplish the tasks. That is how you find the real killer.

Know as a Salvage Yard VIN Scam http://www.vinetching.com/vin-switching.html

Also http://cleveland-auto-sales-salvage....-sales-salvage

Friday, February 16, 2007 An anonymous letter and 970 items of evidence Buting said he found a letter last fall in the Calumet County file on the case, and said it was found in the Green Bay post office after Halbach disappeared. The letter allegedly said "body burned in smelter, 3 a.m. Friday," and Buting took that to mean an old smelter near an old Avery salvage building. He said police did nothing with the letter, and did not send it to the crime lab for analysis until he asked. "Is that because a body being burned in a smelter doesn't fit your theory?" Buting asked. Fassbender said the smelter had been examined by arson investigators and "it hadn't been used for a while." "It would not make sense to burn the bones in the smelter and take the bones and place them in your own backyard, would it?" Buting asked.
(No one ever check the Sheriff's Incinerator at his Salvage Yard but this seems to be very much what the letter could be referring to.)
BTW - I should have stated that I buy more into the theory that the current Sheriff, someone who has likely been a long time Rival of the Avery's business wise and clearly has the means to pull off every aspect of the frame (including 99% of the wild theorized frames).

I don't so much buy into the car switched car theories.

After reading the testimony, it was clear that the tow-truck had to first pull the car out of the space laterally and had some issues finding a place to hook the winch. I could see the light being damaged in this scenario easily.

But again, a damn tow-truck driver probably shouldn't be laterally dragging and damaging a murder scene before anyone gets a chance to process it.

Last edited by lostinthesaus; 02-03-2016 at 07:58 PM.
02-03-2016 , 07:53 PM
The defense brought up the contaminated test. All evidence submitted in a trial is open for interpretation. This is why the defense was allowed to challenge the evidence. How is this not fair?
02-03-2016 , 08:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet Making a Murderer
Just kill them and try not to leave evidence at all. As the Sheriff of Manitowoc will tell you, it's easier just to kill someone than to frame them.
What about Steven's blood in the victim's car? Are you still under the delusion that the police broke the seal on the blood vial as the documentary would lead you to believe, or have you been educated that Steven's team broke the seal on the vial themselves in the civil case? The allegation is that the failure to properly seal the tube after Steven's team broke the seal gave Lenk the opportunity to plant blood, but there has been zero evidence other than opportunity showing that he did indeed do that. And further there is a scientific test, though imperfect, that refutes this bit of speculation by Avery's defense team.
02-03-2016 , 08:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
They reported the contamination!

If they report the contamination for one exhibit, why would you think the other ones where they don't report any contamination are also contaminated???
Because sloppy work leads to contamination. Likely contamination they are unaware of. The only reason they were aware of the contamination of the control, is because it was her own DNA. I don't recall where I read this, but there were claims she didn't change gloves between handling some of the different pieces of evidence. That could easily transfer DNA.
02-03-2016 , 08:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokeraz Making a Murderer
This I agree with. The presence of any contamination, which we know for a fact there was an admitted contamination of the control, would lead me as a juror, to distrust any other tests that were performed in that lab.

If you cannot protect the integrity of the control, your lab protocols are not being adhered to. You lab is no longer a trustworthy source in my mind.

I don't know if it is purposeful corruption or laziness and incompetence. Either way, those results cannot be relied upon to send a man away for life.
Bigger issue from this. Obviously you are well-educated and have a firm grasp of science. I would suggest that someone with your intellect is close to an outlier on a rural jury. How would your average jury be able to properly deal with these issues?
02-03-2016 , 08:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer

I mean she wasn't in the lab by herself.

Because she had two people watching her perform the test (which also seems ridiculous)
What is ridiculous about it? Is it ridiculous when a surgeon has med students observing a procedure?

Quote:
Same with the key, I don't doubt that the key she was given had SA's DNA on it. IMO, the planter made a mistake by not also getting TH's DNA on it, but figured a key that started TH's car with SA's DNA on it would be enough.
Again you are playing amateur forensic scientist. The most recent person to handle an item can sometimes be the only DNA present when tested. The object doesn't automatically keep the DNA of everyone who ever touched it.

Quote:
I'm still researching trying to figure out why the RAV-4 was immediately removed from the salvage yard. This is another red-flag in my mind but no one seems to be questioning it, so perhaps this is standard. But the fact that they hauled 2 cars to the LAB instantly and one of them has blood in it confirmed on the scene is strange. If his Grand AM had blood in it, you potentially have a murder scene. All the forensics should have been performed before it was moved.
First you state that maybe taking the car to the lab is standard, so obviously you don't know if that is incorrect procedure or not. Then you follow up by saying all the forensics should have been done in Avery's salvage yard. If moving the car is standard procedure, then your conclusion that they shouldn't have moved it is clearly wrong, wouldn't you agree?

      
m