but it leaves deer blood undisturbed.

DNA found in Quarry, Someone sent this to KZ.

http://imgur.com/qvX2YLH

Also about the luminol testing tbh it wasin't about that imo it was ALL about timing, investigating procedures & the fact that SA appeal has asked for the warrents to be looked at as being illegal.(clerk of court filed for more time on this on 2-9-16)
She has IMO evidence of a rather large investigation into the trailer with Camera imagery (in 2 episode) where you could see the Grain of the wood on the panels of trailer.
(find new evidence) & when she receive's the bones & fragments found along with & those items are tested for burn patterns/dept & substances i'm sure more evidence will come to light that TH body was not burned in SA pit.

Plan A. tunnel vision. PlanB. Other suspects.(No Family IMO) Plan C. Pressure the Planters. Ofc this is not enough unless she has actual 100% proof that SA is innocent, as she ain't gonna find anything in the blood as #innocent's are convinced the Swabs sent to the F.B I were from the grand am.

I disagree, do you think stevens defense lawyers from his trial have taken a hit on their reputation because they lost? The general publics opinion is that this man is innocent, at least the people that are most vocal about this situation think that. No matter the outcome Zellner will be viewed as a hero "fighting the good fight" if you will. So I think that her taking this case will do nothing but positively influence the general opinion of her while at the same time making her famous.

And, yes I know new evidence is required to overturn a conviction. That is my point, she is using the "where is the DNA angle" that is not new evidence.

the blood was cleaned up with spot cleaning. Why would there be no deer blood if they just cleaned in spots?

Stop using the facts of the case to refute oski's MaM-based arguments.


Here's how Zellner is looking on Google Trends:



Guess which point in that graph she took the case at.

p.s. fraley, I had to block your avatar before it gave me a seizure.

Is this a joke? You are still arguing that they cleaned the crimes scene and removed all DNA from BD and TH?

Zellner's already famous.

Her fame comes from overturning convictions.

Making the bold statement she will get SA a new trial is very risky If she just going for a publicity stunt - especially to her reputation in professional circles.

And my point is you don't know what angle Zellner Is taking, so you are wasting your time speculating over the meaning of her actions.

Also Zellner's and Strang/Buting ' s positions are not comparable.

Spot cleaning is a fact of the case now?

Also, the lawyer in a high profile case being googled is indicative of something?

You're right I don't know. My convictions that she is doing this for publicity is not anywhere near a certainty. We will see though and I have never heard of her before this and apparently neither has lost. So I would argue that her fame has risen quite a bit since taking this case.

ya im probably going to change it

It's a fact that a large spot in the garage lit up with luminol like it had recently been cleaned with bleach.

It's a fact that Brendan both confessed and testified that he cleaned up that large spot with Steven on the night of the murder.

It's a fact that the jeans Brendan wore that night had bleach stains on them.

It's a fact that Brendan's mom told detectives that Brendan came home that night with bleach on his jeans and told her he was helping Steven clean the garage.

It's a fact that Strang says Steven told Jodi that night that he'd been doing a little cleaning and that Brendan was over.



It indicates she's experienced a dramatic rise in popularity from taking on this case.

No Flashing lights pls.


Cops Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmqWvUb1lqY

So did Mama Avery.

wow. really going out in a ledge there.

This just in, Ken Kratz only prosecuted the case because he knew 10 years later a doc series about it would be hugely popular.

He tried being a huge creep in 2011 to gain notoriety but it didn't work nearly as well;

All of this is not possible, they are both pretty dumb and according to repeated arguments itt, it takes a criminal genius to clean a floor with bleach.

What a false equivalency that was from Pegtown. LOL, kratz took the case before it was popular you silly goose.

Lol, wow? Lost did the same thing with SA's Mom. Do you guys see the difference between being involved in something that becomes popular and getting involved in something because it is popular?

Heh.

But o snap my bad, I thought this was the thread discussing TV's Making A Murderer with other viewers who had, uh, viewed the show.

Goddamn that's well said.

As to the first bold, I was going to ask even before reading this if there were actually people arguing the other side, or just a few vocal contrarians.

As to the second bold, this is why I think arguing about bull**** on the internet IS important. I don't mean this thread, I mean in general, all bull****, like who should be rightfully selected to the NBA all star game, or whether a movie's plot make sense, etc. There's this unspoken fallacy that, hey, sure, when the point being argued is trivial then people will be irrational and ridiculous but when the stakes are raised and it's something that Really Matters people will buck up and bring their A level brain game, but history has not only shown this to not be true but actually the opposite. People get more stubborn and irrational when the stakes are raised and that leads to the travesty that is the SA case. Deep down I know I'm being overly optimistic but I think if you (me, them, anybody) get used to being wrong once in awhile and realizing it's not the end of the world, maybe that insight can be applied when a man's life is on the line.

There are like 4 people that regularly post in this thread arguing SA is guilty. Around the same arguing he is innocent and everyone else itt claiming that they are undecided.

As for the general population, most are of the opinion that they think he is innocent as apposed to guilty. Since you're curious.

Dramatic re-enactment of the prosecution:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOSdtsJg_LU

Just to be clear, my opinion that he is guilty is not based on the tv show. The tv show has a clear bias to its viewers. This is fine though because I feel like if the show was impartial it would have been boring.

There was never a point in recorded history where the leading scientific minds thought the world was flat; but the ignorant populace did, this is true. You're not on the same side of this fallacy that you think you are.

If anything I thought the show pulled quite a few punches. Aside from that OMGWTF moment of the coerced confession I initially posted about (which is still HOLY**** even to somebody seasoned like myself), this is like a kiddie pool introduction to the world of corrupt law enforcement.

Wait, before I jump to assumptions, who do you consider "its viewers"?