exactly. which is why a bonfire on oct 31 (if it even did actually happen) is not noteworthy.

yes a $36 million premeditation

Agree..it's not definitive either way, but it's a lot closer to definitely guilty than definitely innocent. It's between reasonable doubt or beyond reasonable doubt, not between guilty or innocent. Nothing in the evidence supports a positive conclusion of innocence.

As others have stated, we're not saying he "definitely did it", just that he almost certainly did it and it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it.

I agree with this. This is where you have to decide if the "evidence" was planted or not.


Basically, can look at it this way and reach your own conclusion. I'll put my own percentages in brackets.

Was evidence planted? (75% yes, 25% no)

If planted, did SA still do it? (10% yes, 90% no)

If not planted, did SA do it? (100% yes, 0% no)


The word planted also includes contaminated. ie. the bullet may not have been planted, but it very well could have been contaminated.

evidence have been planted doesnt mean he didnt do it , it mean 95% of evidences are trash because impossible to trust.
He can have done it and they had such a terrible case that they had to plant.

Let's just assume that the chance of each event happening without any evidence of such pointing to it is 75% (I'm aware that planting the blood is not independent of planting the Rav4, but we'll assume that even if the Rav4 was 100% planted, the odds of successfully stealing and planting the blood without leaving a trace of this happening is still 75%, and the same applies for the bones considering the Averys and a dog and later over 100 people were on the property).

Rav4 is planted - 75%

Key is planted - 75%

Blood is planted - 75%

FBI test is wrong - 75%

Bones are planted - 75%

Bullet is contaminated - 75%

Brendan was coerced into falsely confessing to him and Steven committing murder - 75%

The chance of each of these events happening is .75^7 = 13%


The individual chance of most of those events is much closer to 0% than 75% imo, which quickly makes the odds of this all happening pretty damn improbable (I'd say the chance of the blood being planted combined with the FBI test being wrong is very close to 0%). If just one of those events is a 5% chance, the chance of all that happening already becomes less than 1%.

Uh, no. This isn't like trying to flip heads 10 times in a row.

Each piece being planted makes each subsequent piece of evidence all the more likely to have also been planted.

I was going to post that but thanks to you i dont have to break my resolution not to reply to troll posts.

If this isn't the shilliest piece of math logic I have ever read.

You must have missed this part:

I also fail to see how Lenk planting a key makes it more likely that Culhane contaminated the bullet, the FBI test was dishonest, or the investigators coerced Brendan into a false confession, unless you think they're all in cahoots as well.

Who did find the bullet ?

the fbi test wasn't wrong, it was just a bad test.

let's assume the blood had 0.5% edta.

if the test is only able to find edta if it's 1% of the sample, then it not finding edta does not mean the test was wrong. in fact the test was 100% right. it did not find >= 1% edta.

unfortunately the test wasn't to determine if there was or was not edta at all. it was just to determine if it was able to find it at the levels required for there to be a positive in the test.

I haven't read too many people saying the FBI test was dishonest, just that it doesn't prove what you think it proves.

Also, I don't think too many people are saying Culhane intentionally contaminated the bullet, just that she had a high rate of contamination, the test it self was clearly contaminated and therefore she shouldn't be drawing conclusions from it.

Idk what you've read, but you seem to not fully understand the test. The test was able to detect EDTA at levels higher than 13mg per liter. The blood in the vial was determined to still have EDTA in it at over 1000mg/liter. The test proved to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that the blood was not from the vial.

Pretty clear Wisconsin has a systemic disease impacting their entire legal system where there is no oversight or culpability at any level. Over time people cut corners and get lazy. That incompetent people are never fired doesn't help either.

Pretty easy to see how all those things could happen in such a completely broken system devoid of legitimate responsibility. Nobody has to be in cahoots they just have to work in some level of government in Wisconsin.

This may be true for individual pieces of evidence that could theoretically have been planted by one or two people.

It is not true for the items such as the FBI test that would have required a more wide ranging conspiracy. As the number of conspirators increases, the likelihood that the conspiracy could have been pulled off without detection decreases.

The blood in her car is all that is needed to convict imo.. You have to reach the conclusion that that particular piece of evidence was planted or that the tests were not accurate. If you do not reach that conclusion you have to convict him.

you answer wrongly here.
Lenk found the key and found bullet, if one is planted most likely the 2nd is aswell and even if it wasnt it s impossible to figure out. Before it even get to the hand of incompetent lab it s already tainted.
Finding a bullet seems trivial and putting dna on it has to be trivial aswell

Don't forget the FBI was involved as well, so how about this:

It's a systemic disease in the entirety of the USA. Corrupt cops, corrupt crimelabs, corrupt judges, corrupt politicians, corrupt justice system.

The prison-industrial complex has created a huge conflict of interest, and that alone is enough reasonsble doubt for every person currently in prison to go free.

I witnessed these injustices firsthand while watching the Wire, and now again while watching Making a Murderer. I will stand for it no longer, and I will make it known through my 2p2 posts!

Unfortunately, no one understands what reasonsble doubt means except me...


Am I doing this right?

Lol right? I am still waiting for an example from the innocent crowd of a murder trial where they feel reasonable doubt was not presented.

So you are saying many people don't also think he's guilty?

At any rate lol if you think being aligned with a bunch of people who base their opinion on a TV miniseries, means you must be right somehow. Critical thinking is not the strong suit of a lot of TV viewers in USA#1.

It's not noteworthy, unless a woman's bones are found in the location of said bonfire. That makes somewhat of a difference as to how noteworthy that particular bonfire was, wouldn't you agree?

I wonder how many Americans ITT are also voting for Trump lol