Let's be honest, anyone who can't admit there is a distinct possibility that evidence was planted, is full of ****.

Her bones, her car, his blood, bullet from his gun, her dna on the bullet, her key in his trailer that matches the lanyard found in her car.. No I do not think there is a distinct possibility all that was planted and I do not think the most important piece of evidence (his blood in the rav 4) has any reasonable possibility that it was planted.

Just because someone thinks there was misconduct doesn't mean they believe the guy was framed.

No **** but this is what I was responding to.

Again does anyone Know the reason why A.Colborn was a customer of the Avery's?

And do you guys think this affected his election campaign?


LoL Nice troll avatar Fraley.

I've already went over this with you - the reason no one answers your questions is because they're idiotic and irrelevant.

Just finished watching the Staircase. Lol at people wondering why the FBI would do bogus stuff to support local law enforcement.

What?? lol

1) contest bullet was from his gun.

2) contest reliability of test that TH dna was actually on that bullet and not from contaminated source.

3) plant game strong

They main reason I don't think the stuff was planted is because Lenk, Colborn et al. are all too stupid to successfully plant to this level.

That being said, Avery is too stupid to do a Dexter level cleanup of his blood filled bedroom and garage.

1) depends how accurate you think Ballistic fingerprinting is. If you think it is relatively accurate then I would say its demonstrable that the bullet with her DNA came from his gun. At the very least it is extremely likely it came from his gun.

2) Considering nothing else was contaminated with her DNA, I would also say this test is reliable, not with scientific certainty but reliable enough to be relatively sure it is true.

"You're wrong". - We've got him/her on the ropes. There's no argument anymore. It's just "you're wrong" now.

The trial was completely unfair being held in that location in the wake and aftermath of the media blitz headed by Kratz. Was it illegal, unconstitutional or otherwise rights violating? We will let Zellner argue those points to those who can and will decide. We have an appeal system for these reasons. I'm confident Zellner will prevail.

If he does get a new trial, will your stance change? Or will you blame Netflix for their bias in setting an obvious murdering, raping, child molestor free?

The rats seem to be jumping ship. You and fraleyight (ironic Pro-Wrestling avatar) are all that remain here and your firm stance is being held in place by weak arguments over definitions that are pointless now, irrelevant statements and their source and the continued urge to prove your post 2 weeks ago about nothing contained a word or two that meant nothing.

The human instinct to have to be "right" has had devastating effects in this case. It's abundantly clear to anyone following this case that there is something remarkably wrong with the way this situation developed and was handled. I hardly see anyone say anything about Avery's guilt on reddit anymore. Some stick to fact correcting but none of the "he's guilty, nothing to see here" advocates/shills remain. There are just too many overwhelming facts, circumstances and developments and too much evidence to say "your'e all wrong, he's guilty."

"Moira and Laura, you were wrong"
"Netflix, you are wrong"
"Jerome and Dean, you were and are wrong"
"Kathy and Innocence Project Lawyer Bushnell you and your entire team are certainly wrong"
"All of reddit, WRONG".

At this point, "you're wrong" sounds to me like, "you're right, I just refuse to be wrong".

Didn't zellner just pay to have the entire property tested for luminal or something? You think if she was serious she would be taking this line? Of course she isn't going to find any blood if she tests the area 15 years later.

Some rags and some bleach equals Dexter level.

It does not take a genius (or in this case 2 geniuses) to wipe blood off a floor.

Like, what lawyer thinks they can overturn a conviction using the lack of blood argument 15 years later? this is a joke to get publicity. Start using some critical thinking here.

This is one big argument from popularity.We don't decide whats true based on popular opinion.

You're arguing the incorrect points. No one is going to give 2 sh*ts about the bullet when they realize there are probably literally hundreds of bullets lying around the yard, the gun was at the Crime Lab for 5 months before a bullet was found and tested and the circumstances surrounding the bullet DNA test contain the following:

1) Not enough DNA to do more than one test - extremely low probability for a bullet passing through a body or head.
2) A phone call from lead investigator ordering which specific results are to be found on this bullet.
3) A lab tech who admits to leaving every single piece of evidence in her cabinet under her bench that 10-30+ people have access too for 5 months.
4) A lab tech who contaminated the one and only test possible.
5) A lab tech who DID NOT FOLLOW PROTOCOL and then BLATANTLY VIOLATED REPORTING PROTOCOL to allow the results.
6) A report showing clear and multiple ethical and procedural issues with this specific Crime Lab in Wisconsin that involves ranks all the way to the Department of Justice in the State of Wisconsin.

Do you see why arguing the absolutely ridiculous point of the validity of these test results is pointless?

I agree. Also, just because there are hundreds of hours of footage of the misconduct doesn't mean that those who recorded the misconduct were biased.

Oh really? Okay, then how do we decide what's true?

No, because the standard of evidence is not beyond a reasonable doubt, only the conclusion after examining ALL EVIDENCE is. The bullet is just another small piece of a bigger puzzle.

There are several ways, but arguing that "everyone agrees with me so I must be right" is a fallacy. If that were the case then the world would be flat because at one time everyone believed this to be true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Don't know. Don't care. I know that the Innocence Project (who deal specifically and exclusively with DNA exonerations) is involved. I know her record speaks for itself and I believe her to be a true champion of justice. She is the literal exact opposite of the "The Prize".

Yeah real great publicity if it turns out she's "wrong, he's guilty, nothing happened here". You are mind blowingly terrible at the very thing you keep urging everyone to utilize, critical thinking.

How long does DNA stick around? Given you seem to be an expert.

So you do not think the amount of publicity she is getting is going to be good? Even if she isn't successful in getting him exonerated? Have you heard of her before this? How many lawyers can you name off the top of your head? 5, 6 maybe? And she is one of them.

This is good publicity no matter which way you slice it.

Confirmed forum bot.

I guess, "you're wrong" is a better way to argue your case.