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

11-13-2017 , 11:19 PM
Unless of course you want to speculate without evidence that SC intentionally sprinkled some TH dna on the bullet and decided to at the same time tell everyone that she ****ed up the control sample. Of course, not only would you have no evidence, reason or logical argument to suggest such a thing (not that logic is your strong suit) but you'd also have to explain how someone could be so stupid to plant DNA on something yet admit to ****ing up the control test rather than fudging the results.
11-14-2017 , 01:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
You are heavily invested in conspiracy theories are you not? Perhaps that is why you have trouble viewing things objectively. You think anytime the government is involved there is foul play.
Says the guy who once attended a "Steven Avery is Guilty" party.

LOL.
11-14-2017 , 01:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
This is probably bull **** but even if its true, what does that have to do with anything? Nothing else with Teresas dna on it was tested that day, and no other test yielded results for her dna that day.

I am not dumb here, you are dumb. If her dna was contaminating the lab we would see it on other tests..
I did not call you dumb. I did, however, call you a shill.

And just so its clear:

(SC's sworn testimony)

A.Okay. When you say cupboards for storage, these
are like drawers?
A. No, you just open the door and there's shelving.
Q. Okay. There's shelves underneath the bench you
are actually working on?
A. Yes.
Q. That's the lab bench where you are doing certain
tests?
A. Yes.
Q. Extractions usually?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And are these cupboards or these shelves
you are talking about, are they -- they have
doors on them?
A. Yes.
Q. Are they like open wire mesh kind of doors?
A. No, they are regular locked wooden doors.
Q. Solid doors?
A. Yes.
Q. And they have locks on them?
A. Yes.
Q. And there's two separate shelves, or two separate
cupboards?
A. There's two shelves in each cupboard and there's
two separate cupboards.
Q. Okay. And each analyst has two of those?
A. Yes.
Q. And that's so that if you are working on one big
case, you don't mix up the items from that case
with some other case you are working on?
A. Yes, it's just storage space for evidence that's
being worked.
Q. So you wouldn't mix one case -- evidence from one
case that you are working and put it in the same
cupboard with another?
A. No. We do store several cases, but the cases
are -- the items of evidence within the case are
packaged and sealed.
Q. Sure. All right. So you -- you do try and keep
the evidence from one case all together?
A. We try, yes. But we have several cases in that
area at the same time.
Q. Okay. And so in this case, when you would be
working on any of the evidence in this case, you
would try and keep all of the evidence that's not
up on the bench, you would try and keep it all in
one cupboard?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And is the key that only you have to
the cupboard, or do all the analysts keys work on
the same cupboard?
A. All the analysts have a key.
Q. And the key works for all of these cupboards?
A. Yes.
Q. So you could open up someone else's cupboard?
A. Yes.
Q. Or they could open up yours?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Not that you would want to, but I'm just
trying to establish that for the record?
A. Right.
Q. Now, when you take evidence out of your cupboard
and start working it on your bench, is it always
put back at the end of the day and locked in the
cupboard?
A. No.
Q. Sometimes you have tests and things that work
overnight, right?
A. Yes.
11-14-2017 , 02:07 AM
Quote:
WTF? Have you lost your mind? SC kept all the evidence in a cupboard by her desk. Why she didn't keep it where it belongs in the evidence locker at the charge of the evidence custodian is anyone's guess. If you were a real person on a real account, to try and justify SC's work in the crimelab would just make you look impossibly dumb. But you're a shill, so I get it.
...
11-14-2017 , 02:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
Says the guy who once attended a "Steven Avery is Guilty" party.

LOL.
WTF are you talking about? What party?
11-14-2017 , 02:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
...
Reading comprehension...

F.
T.
L.
11-14-2017 , 02:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
I did not call you dumb. I did, however, call you a shill.

And just so its clear:

(SC's sworn testimony)

A.Okay. When you say cupboards for storage, these
are like drawers?
A. No, you just open the door and there's shelving.
Q. Okay. There's shelves underneath the bench you
are actually working on?
A. Yes.
Q. That's the lab bench where you are doing certain
tests?
A. Yes.
Q. Extractions usually?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And are these cupboards or these shelves
you are talking about, are they -- they have
doors on them?
A. Yes.
Q. Are they like open wire mesh kind of doors?
A. No, they are regular locked wooden doors.
Q. Solid doors?
A. Yes.
Q. And they have locks on them?
A. Yes.
Q. And there's two separate shelves, or two separate
cupboards?
A. There's two shelves in each cupboard and there's
two separate cupboards.
Q. Okay. And each analyst has two of those?
A. Yes.
Q. And that's so that if you are working on one big
case, you don't mix up the items from that case
with some other case you are working on?
A. Yes, it's just storage space for evidence that's
being worked.
Q. So you wouldn't mix one case -- evidence from one
case that you are working and put it in the same
cupboard with another?
A. No. We do store several cases, but the cases
are -- the items of evidence within the case are
packaged and sealed.
Q. Sure. All right. So you -- you do try and keep
the evidence from one case all together?
A. We try, yes. But we have several cases in that
area at the same time.
Q. Okay. And so in this case, when you would be
working on any of the evidence in this case, you
would try and keep all of the evidence that's not
up on the bench, you would try and keep it all in
one cupboard?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And is the key that only you have to
the cupboard, or do all the analysts keys work on
the same cupboard?
A. All the analysts have a key.
Q. And the key works for all of these cupboards?
A. Yes.
Q. So you could open up someone else's cupboard?
A. Yes.
Q. Or they could open up yours?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Not that you would want to, but I'm just
trying to establish that for the record?
A. Right.
Q. Now, when you take evidence out of your cupboard
and start working it on your bench, is it always
put back at the end of the day and locked in the
cupboard?
A. No.
Q. Sometimes you have tests and things that work
overnight, right?
A. Yes.
I don't know how lab techs generally test evidence or what is acceptable. But being she was certified to do this by the state with regular inspections I doubt this is that out of the ordinary. But again, even if it were. It doesn't answer the question. What you are suggesting doesn't make sense because... Again...

If TH dna was contaminating evidence that day how come nothing else had any of her dna on it? Why did her DNA get on this one item? The most logical conclusion is that that item is the source of her dna.
11-14-2017 , 02:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
Reading comprehension...

F.
T.
L.
I comprehended it just fine. You said anyone who is trying to justify SC work is dumb. You said this in a direct quote where you suggested I was justifying her work.
11-14-2017 , 02:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
I said I was invited to pro guilty groups by friends of hers after they saw me commenting in pro innocent groups. That is where I talked to people that knew her. I have said this half a dozen times.
So let me get this straight some people just "contacted" you where you "talked" about how guilty, just, you know, HOW GUILTY Steven Avery really is and that's where the Asperger's kicked in and you saw the light?
11-14-2017 , 02:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
So let me get this straight some people just "contacted" you where you "talked" about how guilty, just, you know, HOW GUILTY Steven Avery really is and that's where the Asperger's kicked in and you saw the light?
What in the ****ing blue hell? No ffs.

I was in a group discussing the case and explaining why I thought avery was guilty and was invited to a group of other people who think he is guilty. You know kind of like the dozens and dozens of groups who think he is innocent. The ones I am sure you are apart of. Some of teresas friends were in that group.

I have explained this to you directly several times and for some reason you still don't comprehend what is being said to you. You can stop trying so hard to not understand and listen.
11-14-2017 , 02:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
I comprehended it just fine. You said anyone who is trying to justify SC work is dumb. You said this in a direct quote where you suggested I was justifying her work.
You're comprehension is garbage you shill. OBVIOUSLY, you did not bold the most important part where I said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
If you were a real person on a real account, to try and justify SC's work in the crimelab would just make you look impossibly dumb.
Then I said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
But you're a shill, so I get it.
11-14-2017 , 02:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
What in the ****ing blue hell? No ffs.

I was in a group discussing the case and explaining why I thought avery was guilty and was invited to a group of other people who think he is guilty. You know kind of like the dozens and dozens of groups who think he is innocent. The ones I am sure you are apart of. Some of teresas friends were in that group.

I have explained this to you directly several times and for some reason you still don't comprehend what is being said to you. You can stop trying so hard to not understand and listen.
LOL how did the invitation go? "Hey buddy! Listen ughh, looks like you really think SA is guilty huh? Why don't you join our SA is a murderer group and we can all talk about just how guilty he is! (even though he's already in jail).

WTF is going on here?
11-14-2017 , 02:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
You're comprehension is garbage you shill. OBVIOUSLY, you did not bold the most important part where I said:



Then I said:
That IS calling me dumb. It doesn't matter if you think I am being paid to post on 2p2. You are still calling me dumb because
Spoiler:
I am not being paid to post on 2p2
11-14-2017 , 02:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
LOL how did the invitation go? "Hey buddy! Listen ughh, looks like you really think SA is guilty huh? Why don't you join our SA is a murderer group and we can all talk about just how guilty he is! (even though he's already in jail).

WTF is going on here?
You know the groups that mock 9-11 conspiracy groups? It's kind of like that. But yes, several people are absolutely in shock that people think this man is innocent. After discussing the case with great minds such as yourself who think anyone posting on a poker website who thinks hes guilty must be doing it for the sweet commission deals, people on the rational side of the argument started to flock together.

You can join the group if you want to see if its legit. I know I am not getting paid by anyone and so far no one has approached me telling me about these lucrative offers you seem to think exist.
11-14-2017 , 02:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
You know the groups that mock 9-11 conspiracy groups?
No. I do not. Isn't that worse than the conspiracy group itself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
People on the rational side of the argument started to flock together.
I dont think any rational person or people don't band together to hear each other talk about how well justice was served in this case and how it must be preserved. That's totally fcuking insane.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
You can join the group if you want to see if its legit.
Have you no shame at all?
11-14-2017 , 03:08 AM
Quote:
I dont think any rational person or people don't band together to hear each other talk about how well justice was served in this case and how it must be preserved. That's totally fcuking insane.
What fascinates me is how propaganda works and how unwilling people are to change their beliefs when presented with logical reasons to. Not necessarily that "justice was served".
11-14-2017 , 03:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
What fascinates me is how propaganda works and how unwilling people are to change their beliefs when presented with logical reasons to. Not necessarily that "justice was served".
You're not a real person. But if you were, have you ever thought about what a ridiculous negative freeroll you are on? When SA and BD are exonerated and truth outs, you are going to look so terribly bad. I would never allow you around children nor would I hire you to do any sort of job that requires thought/reasoning capabilities.

You can join this side if you want. We are freerolling.
11-14-2017 , 04:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Well shes a scientist and you're not so..
He can indeed object & we can in turn dismiss his objection as having no validity. That's all these people have they don't agree with the evidence or think it should have been allowed. They think defence should be able to name alt suspects & that press conferences shouldn't be allowed or that the prosecution can change narratives or that physical evidence for rape should be required etc.

They've absolutely no objective valid examples of tainted evidence or unfair due process though. Just stuff they disagree with which they then conflate with being objectively valid points.
11-14-2017 , 04:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
This is probably bull **** but even if its true, what does that have to do with anything? Nothing else with Teresas dna on it was tested that day, and no other test yielded results for her dna that day.

I am not dumb here, you are dumb. If her dna was contaminating the lab we would see it on other tests..
This is the exact same argument Amanda Knox's groupies gave for DNA evidence when Knox's DNA was found on the murder weapon & Sollecito's on Ms Kercher's bra clasp- Dr Stefanoni's lab was "contaminated dontcha know" & the exact same answer was given by people who had actually studied the case that outa the 147 samples in her lab more than simply Knox AND Sollecito's DNA would be contaminated & it would show on other samples.


^^ All these murderer advocates have is tired stale tropes.
DNA is always contaminated
Confessions are always false or coerced.
Courts of law are always rejected for their icons while accusation cool for "alternate suspects" (who are basically anyone but the convicted murderers).
Bars are always raised be they police procedural due process or burden of proof for the Special Ones
Murderer groupies regardless of the particular case simply sing from the same hymn sheet when making their weak & invalid excuses.
Hell they even use the same made up lexicon "guilter", coined by Amanda Knox groupies & now adopted by groupies itt & innocent Adnan Syed's groupies& this is to describe those who have actually read the court documents/transcripts, studied the evidence & agree with courts of law verdicts.

Just a bunch of addled cultists, ultimately.

Last edited by corpus vile; 11-14-2017 at 04:54 AM.
11-14-2017 , 04:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
...
UNBELIEVER oops I mean SHILL! SHIIIIIIIIIIL!!!!!
11-14-2017 , 05:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
I don't know how lab techs generally test evidence or what is acceptable. But being she was certified to do this by the state with regular inspections I doubt this is that out of the ordinary.
It says right in Lostinsauce's excerpt that "the items of evidence within the case are packaged and sealed", so I'm not sure why it matters whether it's in a cupboard, a storage locker, or tucked in someone's couch.

I have Lostinsauce on ignore, so I may be missing some crucial details on why storing items in a cupboard is relevant, but I highly doubt it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
What fascinates me is how propaganda works and how unwilling people are to change their beliefs when presented with logical reasons to. Not necessarily that "justice was served".
+1

Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
They've absolutely no objective valid examples of tainted evidence or unfair due process though. Just stuff they disagree with which they then conflate with being objectively valid points.
+1
11-14-2017 , 06:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
It says right in Lostinsauce's excerpt that "the items of evidence within the case are packaged and sealed", so I'm not sure why it matters whether it's in a cupboard, a storage locker, or tucked in someone's couch.
Yet another murderer groupie trope. Amanda Knox's groupies wailed about the murder weapon been stored in a box which was originally used to store a calendar, never mind that it was also sealed.

Just the same old same old weak arguments & irrelevant objections from them.
11-14-2017 , 06:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
They are to test the accuracy of the real tests by comparing them to the fake tests.
So even by your own logic Culhane's contamination of the 'fake test' indicates that she could very well have contaminated the 'real test'.

Quote:
Scientsts can ask for deviation from protocols. Its a thing.
Deviation from protocols which protect the integrity of the results casts the results in doubt.

Quote:
These aren't excuses.
They are. Admitting the test was screwed up and then fishing around for reasons to accept the unreliable results anyway.

Quote:
They are all perfectly viable reasons to reject any assertion that the bullet wasn't the source of Teresas DNA.
The problem is there is no reason to conclude the DNA was on the bullet before it got to the contaminated lab.

Quote:
Even if you think the bullet evidence should have been thrown out in court, any objective, sincere seeker of the truth would conclude that the source of her dna was the bullet.
Since Culhane screwed up the test with contamination, there is no reason for anyone to assert that the DNA was on the bullet before it got to the contaminated lab.

Quote:
You are heavily invested in conspiracy theories are you not?
No - I'm just one of those people who follows the evidence wherever it leads.

Quote:
Perhaps that is why you have trouble viewing things objectively.
It is perfectly objective to be skeptical of results coming from a lab run by an incompetent with a long history of sloppiness and chicanery, and where the very test we are talking about has indisputable evidence of contamination.

Quote:
You think anytime the government is involved there is foul play.
Now everyone knows for a fact you are either deluded or a liar.

Otherwise you'd be able to quote me ever writing that on this or any other forum.
11-14-2017 , 06:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Unless of course you want to speculate without evidence that SC intentionally sprinkled some TH dna on the bullet and decided to at the same time tell everyone that she ****ed up the control sample. Of course, not only would you have no evidence, reason or logical argument to suggest such a thing (not that logic is your strong suit) but you'd also have to explain how someone could be so stupid to plant DNA on something yet admit to ****ing up the control test rather than fudging the results.
Of course, that is a real possibility, since we have evidence that Culhane received instructions from police investigators to 'try and place Teresa in Avery's house or garage'.

In the link I already provided there is evidence people in Culhane's lab sometimes did deliberately fudge results.

The facts have a habit of always ending up on my side. You might want to think about that.
11-14-2017 , 10:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
It's a stupid argument since it s much harder to overturn a conviction than to prevent it in the first place.
What makes the documentary interesting is not if avery is guilty or not. It's how easy it is to get your life trainwrecked by justice if you don't have millions to defend yourself. Even with 400k and decent lawyers he got screwed hard.
How did Cuddly Stevie get "screwed hard"? Specifically? Seeing as he had decent lawyers & $400k to splash around? Just goes to show even 400k & a good lawyer can't get you off when you're GAF & up against overwhelming evidence, doesn't it?

Btw you come up with those valid objective examples of tainted evidence, unfair due process or corruption yet? Which you claim are impossible to write off? Whenever you're ready Eddy.

      
m