I'm just done not getting anything back. You make a point and all you get is questions returned to avoid the point, like bashing my head against a brick wall


For example, when brought up that the forensic bones expert said the bones weren't moved, despite them BEING MOVED TO WHERE SHE MADE THAT EVALUATION, you just get "Oh you mean the professional that made that decision?"

There is no way she can make that judgment.... Because the bones were moved from the pit to her already. Unless you are claiming she can magically determine that they couldn't have been moved from somewhere else, in which case I'd like to hear some of that logic

So I guess we are done talking about the audio in the phone call then?

Lmao I'm going to have to bring this one back out from retirement:

READ THE TRANSCRIPTS


Eisenberg never says the "bones weren't moved to where she made that evaluation", and she even explains how they were "moved to where she made that evaluation" in her ****ing testimony! In fact, she even ****ing agrees in her testimony that bones were moved before the investigation!

However, what Eisenberg also says is that it's most likely that the bones were originally burned in the pit then some pieces were moved to the barrel. She gives strong reasoning for her conclusion.

You think the opposite is true, that the bones were "most likely moved to the pit", but the only reasoning you've given so far is untrue nonsense that shows your ignorance.

If you don't know the details, that's fine. But show some ****ing humility then, or else you're nothing more than a dumb wanker.

There is no possible way any reasonable human can make a judgment like that once the evidence has already been tainted

She never saw the bones until they got to her. So how can she say she knows what they would have looked like before they got moved to her to begin with? How can she make any possible inferences about the movement at all? She can't unless she is a magician

Q. All right. Now, you did offer an opinion that
you believe the location for the primary burning
episode here was the burn pit behind the garage;
is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Would you please elaborate for us your reasoning
on that?

A. Number one, in the order of priority, would be
that the overwhelming majority of fragments,
burned fragments that were identified by me as
human, were found in that location behind the
garage, in and adjacent to the burn pit, that
there were, in my opinion, many small, delicate,
brittle fragments that would have been left
behind some place else had that not been the
primary burn location.

And if that had been the case, I would
have been able to recognize those fragments from
another location and did not, except for burn
barrel number two. And that all the human bone
fragments that were fragmented and badly burned
from that location, show the same -- the --
approximately the same degree of charring,
burning, and calcination variously throughout the
material recovered in the burn pit and adjacent
areas.

Q. Since you have concluded that the burn pit was
the location of the primary burning episode, tell
us why, in your opinion, burn barrel number two
would not have been?

A. I believe that burn barrel number two would not
have been the primary burn location because I
would have expected to find more bone fragments
that I would have been able to -- bone fragments,
and human bone fragments, and dental structures
that I would have been able to identify as human
in burn barrel number two than actually I was --
than actually were found.

or a forensic anthropologist.


Now let's hear your reasoning for why the bones were "most likely moved to the pit".

What you just quoted, again, shoes nothing that she can say with a certainty


How did the tiny small fragments get to her if they "likely would have been left behind if they were moved"?

Top thing on reddit right now.

"It’s absolutely shocking to see cellphone records that were part of the discovery that were turned over to the defense...document her route leaving the property. She goes back the same way she came, she’s 12 miles from the property on the last ping,” Zellner says. “They screwed it up.”

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/04/08/k...ry-441470.html

No, but it shows Eisenberg's opinion that the most likely primary burn site was the burn pit by Steven's garage and it shows her reasoning for that opinion.

Now let's hear your reasoning for why the bones were "most likely moved to the pit".


From Sturdivant's testimony:

A Yes. Uh, I don't have the exact time, but at some
point later on, um, in the afternoon, the Crime Lab
did show up. Um, I believe it was John Ertl, Guang
Zhang, um, and Chuck Cates who arrived with a van and
set up a sifting apparatus, a large sifting
apparatus, on a tripod that required two and three
people to assemble it.

Q All right. And, um, after they came with their
equipment -- Well, first of all, before they came
with their equipment, were -- were there -- was
there anything removed, or any shovels taken to
that pit, anything disturbed in the fire pit
area, before the arrival of the Crime Lab, by
yourself or any other law enforcement officer in
your presence?

A Nothing was introduced, um, between the time that we
discovered the pit and the time that the Crime Lab
arrived. We did not have proper equipment, gloves
or, uh, proper clothing to, uh -- to, uh, process
that.

Q Did the Crime Lab provide the necessary equipment
to begin processing?

A They did.

Q In addition to, um -- Tell us about the sifting
apparatus?

A Well, the sifting apparatus is a large tripod that
has these large, I think they're maybe three foot in
length, a couple of feet wide, different strains of
different sizes so the debris, as you -- as you moved
it around, certain things would fall through, certain
things would remain above.

And so as -- After setting that up
and -- and getting it all set up, we then took
the debris from that debris pile, put it on top
or shoveled it on top of these screens as in
sifted through it, and, again, the small
particles would fall through, the large ones
would remain.

There were two different types of
strains. And we picked out what we thought were
bone fragments. Um, other things to include
metal grommets, as well as a, uh, zipper. And
all of those items that -- Again, we -- I'm not
an anthropologist. I'm not trained in that
field. We picked out things that we thought
might be bone fragments, to include teeth, and
placed them in a box which was then, um, taken by
the Crime Lab.

frales, you never responded to this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...8ce_story.html

“It’s not really junk science, it’s misinterpreted science,” said forensic expert Larry Daniel of Raleigh, N.C., who has consulted and testified for the prosecution and the defense in numerous cases, including a capital murder case in Fayetteville, N.C., where police claimed the cell-tower data showed a man was at the crime scene. “It is useful and can be used. But in the hands of a novice, this is dangerous science.”


That's how I feel on that matter until actual details are provided.

If Steven's innocent, all the power to her and I hope she proves it, but I highly doubt that's the case.

Ya I quoted that part, but the article in general is a good read whether you believe it or not.

I think it is great that the FBI got involved in this case because of the allegation of planted blood. The FBI, in my belief, didn't have a bias. They processed the test and told the results. That is why the FBI is so valuable. Oversight of state and local police.

The defense gambled too heavily on the planting scenario. Which Kratz successfully turned the trial into a focus on the probability of planting evidence. The defense, in hindsight, should have focused on the procedure violations that may have caused more reasonable doubt.

^ I think the defense realized this gamble, which is why they didn't bring a motion earlier to have the tests done.

Agreed. It was already too late. Especially trying to tie the 1985 case with the same officers because of a perceived grudge...with no evidence. That hole in the top of the vial as some evidence that it was then planted in the car was too far fetched. Huge gamble that failed.

Kratz turned the trial into a planting/not-planting game. He did a great job. Deflected all the attention from the procedural errors that could have made a lot of evidence inadmissible.

This is the biggest piece of new info.......
https://stopwrongfulconvictions.word...investigation/

Moore to the story.

http://gmancasefile.com/moore-to-the...es-part-1-of-2

Yip so true yeota, she tried to justify bad police procedures by placing TH in the pit & has been called out on it after the trial by many experts questioning her judgement with 2 basic forensic questions like....

1. Why did TH bones not have any traces of accelerant or rubber from tires, 2 any residue from the oily soil from the burn pit.

Simple forensics 101 for a scientist of her caliber. I posted pig bones, fraley says she would never analysis animal bone as human, I posted link to where she done exactly that & fraley responds with, but 2 people would not do it. LMAO.

I started writing a long response but I realized it wasn't really going to go anywhere.

I mostly agree with you but I think those all require more than one person unless Lenk did it all by himself which is next to impossible and I fail to see the reason for him to.

That is not a big piece of information. That is a misleading story. The bones were clearly hers for reasons I gave you already.

Don't know what you want but all the experts who testified agreed that tires were involved as fuel for the fire. They knew this because her bones were intertwined with the metal belts from tires.

I disagree, here's a simple explanation, when experts for the prosecutiom stand in court under oath & say well we can give you a reason why we say the bones were never moved is because we observed the sifting equipment removing the bones, that is not done by using a scientific process.
i.e your eyes do not perform a scientific test with any degree of scientific certainty.
And that is why Dr Eisenberg was laughed at by ppl from her profession. LMAO
I wonder what they were saying behind closed doors about her reasoning. And what poorskillz posted just backs it up, that she failed in her duty to tell the truth.

Thanks for proving again that when you did thing up together that they get mixed in with each other, again simple logic.

Interesting that in the past few days, all of a sudden the "evidence" linking TH's phone number to an "abandoned house" about 15 miles is introduced in this thread for no apparent reason.

It seems there was a reason, after all.

couldn't these belts have been in the fire pit from previous burns and when the bones were placed in the fire pit and stirred around a bit caused some intertwining? or was the intertwining such that it could've only happened if both items were burned together?

serious question.

Some reddit posts.

Asked whether she and her team have identified suspects in the case, Zellner says yes—and that they are all men who knew Halbach. “We have a couple. I’d say there’s one, leading the pack by a lot. But I don’t want to scare him off, I don’t want him to run,” she says, explaining why she won’t say more. In that same conversation, Zellner said both law enforcement and defense attorneys failed to investigate Halbach’s life, noting that the victim was a very nice person just starting her career. When told that sometimes people who are very nice can still be murder victims, Zellner agrees, adding, "And women who have bad judgment about men are murdered"*.

STEVE AVERY'S NEW ATTORNEY IS GOING HARD—AFTER THE COPS SHE SAYS FRAMED HIM

ZELLNER interview posted 3/29/16, says only TWO MAIN MURDER SUSPECTS/
Here is a link to the video of Kathleen Zellner's interview that posted today: http://video.ibt.com/share/16983

I also believe that people in power on the side of the prosecution took part in framing Steven Avery after her car and body were discovered.

“So it’s absolutely shocking to see cellphone records that were part of the discovery that were turned over to the defense...document her route leaving the property. She goes back the same way she came, she’s 12 miles from the property on the last ping,” Zellner says. “They screwed it up.” Zellner also tells Newsweek that the defense team apparently didn’t realize that Daylight Savings Time ended on October 30, 2005—and that not all cellphones reset automatically—which meant that their timeline for the two independent witnesses who saw Halbach leave the Avery property was off by an hour.

I am not sure, I would imagine that the belts being intertwined suggests they were burned together. That is also what was testified to by experts in the trial.