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

03-26-2016 , 09:21 PM
So the Photo with TH Phone No & Zander Rd address was a hustle shot.
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...-Photo-Log.pdf

Makes sense.
03-26-2016 , 10:03 PM
Dean Strang & Keith Findlay. Exonerations & Innocence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hewST9AKEyU
03-27-2016 , 04:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
Police would never do anything to risk their jobs.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...ommit-perjury/
Yes, lots of similarities between that and several cops working together to steal a blood vial from an evidence locker, plant the blood in 6 locations inside a victims car, contact the fbi and ask them to falsify an EDTA test, plant a key that matches a lanyard they wouldn't have known about (probably the sister in on it too tbh), Fire a bullet into concrete to create fragments, plant the fragments in the garage ( 4 months after the initial search because you know "levels") spray the victims DNA on the fragment.. then BOOM! The insurance company that covers manitwoc county doesn't have to pay out a claim for a retired sheriff and retired DA acting shady 20 years ago.

I can see how you drew the connection there sir.
03-27-2016 , 04:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smacc25 Making a Murderer
So the Photo with TH Phone No & Zander Rd address was a hustle shot.
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...-Photo-Log.pdf

Makes sense.
What are you saying here?
03-27-2016 , 04:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smacc25 Making a Murderer
<OMG lOl
I doubt that the bones are even human so how do they become Direct evidence? lOl
Read the link I posted, the FBI did not I repeat The FBI DID NOT identify TH form the charred remains they examined. ( No Tissue survived on the piece's the FBI examined)
Where is this "Tooth evidence". Photo's of where it was found would be good, Who done the DNA testing(tooth) would also be a good start from you, instead of "but the TOOTH",
Also why was the crime lab expert only allowed to take photo's of 2 burn barrels containing her property & NO Photo's of the BONES when the burn barrel containing the bones must have been What 6/12 inches away from TH property burn barrel.
Is this not suspicious to you?
No Photo's of Bones in/on yard/firepit?
No Photo of initial finding of small piece of Bone found beside firepit?

BTW 1/65,000 DNA Report is in the Link I last posted for you.
Basically Show me Proof that TH Bones were EVER on SA property, like a normal investigation would provide.
lOl No Photo evidence of the most important piece's of evidence in the trial & SA lawyer's managed to miss it, JB & DS must be kicking themself's that DNA evidence was in it's infancy & they missed it to be quite frank.


Who?
Spoiler:

I will just say that the fact you think experts in the relevant fields here can't tell the difference between animal bones and human bones when they are confident enough to say these are human bones is truly remarkable.
03-27-2016 , 10:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
I will just say that the fact you think experts in the relevant fields here can't tell the difference between animal bones and human bones when they are confident enough to say these are human bones is truly remarkable.
Are you saying that Dr Leslie Eisenberg has never in her career mistaken animal bones as human?
Cos its not something I would bet on.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...1-Bones/page13
03-27-2016 , 10:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
What are you saying here?
That TH Gave SA her Phone No willingly to gain future business for hustle shots/autotrader & maybe if doing a hustle shot they would arrange to meet at Zander Rd to photograph the vehicle & avoid anyone noticing that the photo was on Avery property so autotrader or uncle sam did not link to TH/Avery's.
03-27-2016 , 10:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smacc25 Making a Murderer
Are you saying that Dr Leslie Eisenberg has never in her career mistaken animal bones as human?
Cos its not something I would bet on.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...1-Bones/page13
There was more than one person who identified these as human bones.
03-27-2016 , 10:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smacc25 Making a Murderer
That TH Gave SA her Phone No willingly to gain future business for hustle shots/autotrader & maybe if doing a hustle shot they would arrange to meet at Zander Rd to photograph the vehicle & avoid anyone noticing that the photo was on Avery property so autotrader or uncle sam did not link to TH/Avery's.
smacc, there is no way that is someone writing a note for someone. You can tell its written in such a way that people can see it if it is put up somewhere.
03-27-2016 , 11:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Yes, lots of similarities between that and several cops working together to steal a blood vial from an evidence locker, plant the blood in 6 locations inside a victims car, contact the fbi and ask them to falsify an EDTA test, plant a key that matches a lanyard they wouldn't have known about (probably the sister in on it too tbh), Fire a bullet into concrete to create fragments, plant the fragments in the garage ( 4 months after the initial search because you know "levels") spray the victims DNA on the fragment.. then BOOM! The insurance company that covers manitwoc county doesn't have to pay out a claim for a retired sheriff and retired DA acting shady 20 years ago.

I can see how you drew the connection there sir.
One person could have accomplished that, btw., especially given the time the evidence was in police custody and Lenk's unlimited access to the crime scene.

Also: the DNA result is questionable; The FBI did not falsify the EDTA test, the issue is whether the test is reliable, and was sensitive enough.

Anyhow, I am not saying one person did all this, just that one person could have done what you put on your list.
03-27-2016 , 11:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
smacc, there is no way that is someone writing a note for someone. You can tell its written in such a way that people can see it if it is put up somewhere.
This stuff about the note is nonsense. KK's theory was the SA enticed TH to a location where he could control, rape and then murder her.

The note was not used as part of the prosecutor's argument (apparently), obviously, there is nothing important about it - at the very least, the inferences you are inviting others to draw simply are not supported.
03-27-2016 , 11:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smacc25 Making a Murderer
Hi Oski
I read the rest of the FBI Guy & was pleasantly surprised the way he honestly broke down the crime scene's of the Garage, trailer & most importantly to me the bones(part 7 2/2)

It was good to hear an Experienced Investigator call B.S on the Key & Bullet. And the way he has broke down the crime scene of the bones was good stuff, with the way the MCSO did not do anything to preserve the crime scene or take care in removing the bones or the way the bones were handled after excavation, also the bad practice of the prosecution witnesses on the stand, why no one on the MCSO followed protocol AT ALL or used the professional's that were available.
It was also a breath of fresh air to hear the protocols of the FBI & how a major player from mantiowoc had to call the FBI lab to get the(EDTA) tests done in a timely manor etc.
2 More suspects to his list now because of access to area & suspicion of alibi's all perfectly valid points.


The BD & Barb recorded phone call from May was on reddit & in it you can clearly see that all Brendan was hiding was the fact he helped SA clean something reddish/black from the garage & this was why he thought he was wrong to do so & that the detectives accused him of being a crack user & told Barb that indeed BD's blood had come back with crack in his system, interestingly he names a friend of the family's who offered BD some(tbh I say it was Meth) by offering him a bowl of some sort.
I have been surprised at just how "matter-of-fact" Moore has been thus far about police mistakes or breaches of protocol. I found his insights very interesting, especially since he tends to readily understand the gravity of the mistakes and breaches and then explains the problems.

Thus far, he seems agree the documentary has made a compelling case that the investigation was corrupted.

Now, given his insights on the documentary, I am eager to see what he will say about the "evidence" outside the documentary, especially the list of "things the documentary did not show you." I have never been impressed by any of the points on that list, so I would like to see if he can find or explain why anything on the list is compelling. At least in this particular thread, nobody has done so.

Anyhow, I also find it interesting that nobody arguing SA's guilt seems willing to address any of Moore's points thus far, even though you had taken the trouble of quoting some of the material.

I also would like to see if he digs deeper into his primary suspects: Hillegas or the roommate.
03-27-2016 , 01:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer

The note was not used as part of the prosecutor's argument (apparently), obviously, there is nothing important about it - at the very least, the inferences you are inviting others to draw simply are not supported.
Well never thought I'd agree with Oski but there's a first time for everything.
03-27-2016 , 01:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
Well never thought I'd agree with Oski but there's a first time for everything.
Well, you certainly like the "Brown Thumb" thread. And we certainly agree on that.
03-27-2016 , 05:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
There was more than one person who identified these as human bones.
Spoiler:
03-27-2016 , 05:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
I have been surprised at just how "matter-of-fact" Moore has been thus far about police mistakes or breaches of protocol. I found his insights very interesting, especially since he tends to readily understand the gravity of the mistakes and breaches and then explains the problems.

Thus far, he seems agree the documentary has made a compelling case that the investigation was corrupted.

Now, given his insights on the documentary, I am eager to see what he will say about the "evidence" outside the documentary, especially the list of "things the documentary did not show you." I have never been impressed by any of the points on that list, so I would like to see if he can find or explain why anything on the list is compelling. At least in this particular thread, nobody has done so.

Anyhow, I also find it interesting that nobody arguing SA's guilt seems willing to address any of Moore's points thus far, even though you had taken the trouble of quoting some of the material.

I also would like to see if he digs deeper into his primary suspects: Hillegas or the roommate.
Unfortunately Moore put back last weeks episode because of the bombings in Brussels, I hope he's had time this week to review episode 8 & onward's.

I agree its been a breath of fresh air to read his insight's into the evidence/mistakes in procedure's & how protocol was not followed especially on the bones, bullet & Key's, its a pity Moore could not do much analysis on the Blood found in the Car.

Regarding the "suspects" It will be interesting if Moore does more investigating of the prime suspects he believe's could hold more answers, I believe he will add GZ to the list or the Zipperer property as a whole.

I would love Moore to do this again after reading/reviewing the Transcripts that the Mantiowoc 3 keep shouting about.
And I don't ^^mind them not questioning the articles from Moore OR the last 2 links I put in about the Bones but they want to argue about a piece of paper just shows that actually what their clinging onto now is in fact Paper thin.

So yeah I am also eager to read his next few installments & what direction he takes on the suspects & the evidence left out especially the sweaty sweaty DNA & as I said hopefully once he starts on gathering the evidence left out by reading the transcripts I Hope he can't just put them down & feels compelled to review/reveal details.

Happy Easter Oski .
http://gmancasefile.com/moore-to-the...take-episode-8

Last edited by smacc25; 03-27-2016 at 06:15 PM. Reason: Whats this Brown Thumb thread? ;)
03-27-2016 , 06:25 PM
A discussion of four of the issues in Making a Murderer from a UK perspective with James Welsh, a criminal barrister, and the former Head of the Covert Operations Unit at Scotland Yard, Kevin O'Leary. BPP University of Law School.

Once you get to the end of the first video (titled The Issue of Bias), there are three others to watch (The Issue of Suggestion, The Issue of Forensics, and The Issue of Ethics). Hope you guys enjoy these!

http://law.bppeloqua.com/making-a-murderer-confirmation
03-27-2016 , 06:33 PM


A tweet from Barb D......... Jeez
03-27-2016 , 06:36 PM
Another article on dem Bones.
https://www.dovepress.com/forensic-i...-article-RRFMS

#GoZellner
03-27-2016 , 07:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
One person could have accomplished that, btw., especially given the time the evidence was in police custody and Lenk's unlimited access to the crime scene.

Also: the DNA result is questionable; The FBI did not falsify the EDTA test, the issue is whether the test is reliable, and was sensitive enough.

Anyhow, I am not saying one person did all this, just that one person could have done what you put on your list.
Not true, remiker was the first to the car and lenk is the only one who had access to the vial
03-27-2016 , 07:20 PM
You're making an assumption that remiker was first to the car based on the day it was "found"
03-27-2016 , 07:22 PM
No one can know when Lenk arrived cause they couldn't log it properly for convenience or incompetence.
03-27-2016 , 07:41 PM
The log book doesn't change the fact that remiker was the first to be called after the car was found and arrived to the car before calling other officers.
03-27-2016 , 07:43 PM
If blood was planted, remiker and lenk both had to be involved. There is no way around that fact. I would also argue that a bunch of other people would have to be involved. Like the clerk at the courthouse where the blood was kept. There are others too, you guys are underplaying how many people would have to be involved. Conspiracy theorists often do this though.
03-27-2016 , 07:53 PM
Also oski is incorrect. The for sale sign was brought up and court and was used as evidence.

      
m