That was the entire point of the finding. Whether it is reached by the hole (which was conceded as irrelevant by the Defense in their post-trial papers) or by the prosecution breaking the seal (the civil defense team did), OR by the fact the box was not sealed - the point to be proven in all cases is opportunity. That is all.

Where it goes from there is another issue - but said issue is the same in every case.

It is when the defense was excluded from participating on the basis of "risk of contamination."

You're wrong. Read the testimony.

Or hell, at least read what a negative control is.

Yeah I mean, clearly I have nothing to gain or lose here and I am not an expert. I'm here to discuss my thoughts on the subject. If I forget to preface or conclude my posts with IMO, then please manually insert it yourself before reading. Cheers.

It's too bad Avery didn't testify.

Strang: did you kill th?

Avery: no.

Then we'd be able to tell poor, revots and fraley to just read the testimony since testimonies are taken as gospel here.

What Oski said.

If even one piece of evidence is planted by the police, none of the evidence that they could have gotten away with planting or manipulating can be trusted.

I think the key is enough to warrant at least an investigation/grand jury or whatever. If the cops get found guilty of planting evidence, SA retrial seems automatic and, if guilty, hopefully they go to prison.

If the seal was broken without SA team's knowledge, that would be evidence in itself that blood was planted. The viewer was not made aware that SA's team had knowledge of the reason why it was broken.

Yes, completely ridiculous when:

A) The surgeon's results could potentially be the most important and significant of his department and career.

B) The surgeon's success in the surgery could land an innocent man in jail, or let a murderer walk free.

C) When the Hospital just got done stating that no one else can be present because it can increase the chances of contaminated surgical tools and prevent the surgery from being a success.

What was presented in the documentary was meant to imply the box was broken into, which is something much more than opportunity.

Was any evidence presented of the blood being planted?

Or was there only evidence of the opportunity for blood to be planted?

note: even this opportunity still requires quite a bit of imagination - knowledge that this vial exists, breaking into the clerk's office and breaking into the guarded Rav4 without anyone noticing, no EDTA being found in the blood, etc. - there was no evidence presented of any of this...

I'm telling him to read Culhane's testimony to gain an understanding of the science involved and not remain ignorant.

By the same reasoning, there's no evidence Avery put the blood there and the burden is on the prosecution to show that.

Also, read the blood pattern analyst Stahlke's testimony.

Was any evidence presented of Avery putting the blood there?

Or was there only evidence of the opportunity that Avery put the blood there?

note: even this opportunity still requires quite a bit of imagination, or lack thereof - it requires access to the vehicle, entering into the vehicle without anyone noticing, wearing gloves as to not leave any prints, wearing a hairnet as to not leave any hairs, yet after going through all these precautions somehow having blood leak out of glove and not having the wherewithal to clean up the blood, etc. - there was no evidence presented of any of this...

Its his ****ing blood lol. Wtf?

No. It just proves opportunity.

1. Evidence seal broken: Only shows custody has been breached and box could have been accessed without anyone accounting for it.

2. Evidence seal not properly re-sealed (scotch tape): Only shows custody has been breached and box could have been accessed without anyone accounting for it. This does not change regardless of what the viewer is shown.

3. Hole in Vial: Only shows there is a hole in the vial. In order to get to the vial, the box has to be accessed (see points 1 and 2). The defense may have misunderstood what the hole meant (or didn't mean) at the point it was found, but the reality is that the hole does not increase the chance of planting - access has already been established. The reason the hole does not mean anything is because the vial could have been accessed by removing the lid (as was done by one of the labs). This also does not change regardless of what the viewer is shown.

Opportunity: That is all that is established, in all cases.

There is evidence that it came from avery anyway. The stain on the ignition of the rav 4 was the same stain on the ignition of the grand prix owned by avery. And some of the blood was caused by dripping meaning it was not a tiny amount like what you would find a q tip or something.

He's the last known person to see her when she was on his property where the Rav4 was found. He had a cut on his finger. There was no EDTA found in the blood. The analyst said it's consistent as coming from a cut. The key was found in his room. The bullet with Teresa's DNA matched the gun in his room. Etc. etc.

Now again, what evidence is there that the blood was planted?

His ****ing blood is in an opened exhibit case and opened vial in the easily accessible evidence room lol. Wtf?

Criminal trials and prosecutor's burden of proof: How do they work?

Bro my original point was that the doc was slanted. Not that they left a smoking gun out or something. I know that character stuff is not evidence. I've said that I know that. I don't know how I possibly could've been more clear. I know all of these things have been discussed itt. I wasn't making what I thought was some amazing revelation of evidence never before heard or read anywhere else. Sheesh.

Also, opportunity to access the box unnoticed was certainly covered by the Defense as well. I believe Lenk had basically complete and anonymous access to the evidence room (at least that is what I recall about Dean's cross of Lenk).

Lol wow, it is almost axiomatic that when you find blood somewhere it came from the person who was bleeding.

My original point was also that it was slanted - especially in downplaying SA's prior bad acts.

Nothing for you or I do argue about here.

As for the rest, you certainly met your own objective as none of the stuff was really compelling. But, then again, I was hoping there would be something more to it.

We have a difference of opinion, that's all. I don't see that any of "The Evidence Making a Murderer Didn't Show You" is worth anything. It doesn't move the needle for me one bit.

If on the other hand, if we had a tidbit about how SA burned the clothes he was wearing on 10/31 or if they found he had tracked a lot of mud in the garage or trailer (or something out of the norm there) , etc. I would be very interested.

But, nothing thus far.

Mind you, I don't put much weight in the switching cars and stuff like that. That is too tall to consider. I would speculate that regardless of who killed TH (even if it was SA) it was a spur of the moment thing based on a combination of factors - the most important one being opportunity in that the killer saw she was isolated and vulnerable and gave into his impulses to either rape and then kill her or just kill her outright.

Based on that, I think the answer is between SA, Bobby, Tadych, Allen(?), or some random who got her on the road near the Avery Yard.

Lol it's so cute how you still cite the documentary. But seriously, read the transcripts.

Criminal Trials: They're So Unfair!!!

A one-thousand page essay on the Avery Trial after extensive research of only watching the Netflix show

By Oski

Like in the O.J. case?