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

11-14-2017 , 11:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
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.
Sadly, corpus vile can't tell the difference between the world-class forensics lab run by Stefanoni and the ****show Sherry Culhane presided over: We know for a fact that her lab was a mess and that this particular DNA test on the bullet was contaminated and therefore useless.

An inconvenient fact that always seems to be edited out of the memory of those who rant and rave over alleged 'manipulations' in the award winning documentary.
11-14-2017 , 11:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
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.
i still dont get why you bother writing answers they wont even read before trashing you.
Ofc it s a big deal that the only evidence that validate a ****ty narrative from the DA is coming from a botched test lab, the fact that they cannot even discuss it honnestly prove that they arent worth your time.
Without even talking about the new tests from zellner that evidence was terrible.
11-14-2017 , 11:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
i still dont get why you bother writing answers they wont even read before trashing you.
Naturally there's no hope in persuading some of these agenda-driven folks. If they can't see that police fed Brendan all the incriminating 'details' that make up his so-called confession, then they are laboring under severe mental deficits. Nothing anyone can do with logical argument or evidence will help them.

Quote:
Ofc it s a big deal that the only evidence that validate a ****ty narrative from the DA is coming from a botched test lab, the fact that they cannot even discuss it honestly prove that they aren't worth your time.
It's beyond irony that they shriek night and day about the film editing thousands of hours of material down into ten episodes as being 'deceptive' yet have no problem with cops who lie, prosecutors who can't tell the truth, or their fellows who conveniently forget to mention Culhane's forensic lab follies.

Quote:
Without even talking about the new tests from Zellner that evidence was terrible.
They even wrote down they were more interested in trying to pin the crime on Steven than they were ongoing where the evidence led:

11-14-2017 , 12:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
i still dont get why you bother writing answers they wont even read before trashing you.
Ofc it s a big deal that the only evidence that validate a ****ty narrative from the DA is coming from a botched test lab, the fact that they cannot even discuss it honnestly prove that they arent worth your time.
Without even talking about the new tests from zellner that evidence was terrible.
Please cite verbatim where the trial court established the shell as the "only" evidence submitted to the court for Cuddly Steve & where he was convicted "only" on this one sample of evidence. Or else stop being dishonest.

We're not the ones falsely passing off the control sample as actual evidence being contaminated, you are.
So again stop being dishonest.

And I don't read Loudfootz posts as I have it on ignore yonks now & when I briefly took it off ignore, it was the same tired spurious baseless fallacious unintelligent highly strung bs it's always spouted, which is why it ended up on ig to begin with as one can only take so much stupid combined with cray-cray.
11-14-2017 , 12:05 PM
What other evidence place the crime in avery's place?
11-14-2017 , 12:13 PM
As usual you didn't read or understand the post you are quoting. I talk about where the crime is supposed to happend and not at all if avery did it.
11-14-2017 , 12:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
What other evidence place the crime in avery's place?
You mean other than Teresa's remains, covered RAV 4, belongings & Avery's blood in the car & DNA under the hood latch?
Evidence was already covered by the court. They're not being retried on the internet & onus not on anyone agreeing with the court's verdicts to prove guilt again on a message board.

Nor is anyone who agrees with the verdicts under any obligation to entertain the repetition of already failed defence arguments.

I asked you to provide evidence of tainted evidence and/or unfair due process and you responded with subjective things you personally disliked but which don't amount to evidence to support your claims or beliefs.

And that you're now trying to rehash the evidence again rather than either provide actual valid examples of wrongdoing or tainted evidence or at least moot a new argument that the defence never tried, only highlights how you don't have anything compelling, sorry.

Nor have you or anyone else justified the Docu Twins propaganda.

Truth's easy to defend & highlight. You guys have no case here, sorry.
11-14-2017 , 12:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
As usual you didn't read or understand the post you are quoting. I talk about where the crime is supposed to happend and not at all if avery did it.
Happened on his property I reckon the garage. You don't understand that certainty isn't required by a court or a precise blow by blow account. It's why we have trials with that whole bard thing. It's why the prosecution can change their narrative & theories even if you think that just shouldn't be allowed for Cuddly Steve. Even if Teresa was murdered elsewhere on his property it still wouldn't nullify the evidence against Avery. You just don't get it.
11-14-2017 , 12:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
Please cite verbatim where the trial court established the shell as the "only" evidence submitted to the court for Cuddly Steve & where he was convicted "only" on this one sample of evidence. Or else stop being dishonest.

We're not the ones falsely passing off the control sample as actual evidence being contaminated, you are.
So again stop being dishonest.

And I don't read Loudfootz posts as I have it on ignore yonks now & when I briefly took it off ignore, it was the same tired spurious baseless fallacious unintelligent highly strung bs it's always spouted, which is why it ended up on ig to begin with as one can only take so much stupid combined with cray-cray.
Hilarious that corpus vile adopts Buffalo Bill's way of talking - not surprising as corpus is a huge fan of slasher films and is himself a murder groupie.

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

Notice the way Buffalo Bill er, sorry corpus vile tries to put other people's humanity on ignore and refers to humans as 'it'?
11-14-2017 , 12:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
You mean other than Teresa's remains, covered RAV 4, belongings & Avery's blood in the car & DNA under the hood latch?
Evidence was already covered by the court. They're not being retried on the internet & onus not on anyone agreeing with the court's verdicts to prove guilt again on a message board.

Nor is anyone who agrees with the verdicts under any obligation to entertain the repetition of already failed defence arguments.

I asked you to provide evidence of tainted evidence and/or unfair due process and you responded with subjective things you personally disliked but which don't amount to evidence to support your claims or beliefs.

And that you're now trying to rehash the evidence again rather than either provide actual valid examples of wrongdoing or tainted evidence or at least moot a new argument that the defence never tried, only highlights how you don't have anything compelling, sorry.

Nor have you or anyone else justified the Docu Twins propaganda.

Truth's easy to defend & highlight. You guys have no case here, sorry.
Woosh
What evidence place the killing inside. Once you admit nothing but the botched test results what evidence place the murder on the property.
11-14-2017 , 12:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
As usual you didn't read or understand the post you are quoting. I talk about where the crime is supposed to happened and not at all if avery did it.
All we know for sure is that the prosecution presented no evidence in court that would convince any rational person any crimes against Teresa occurred in any of the places they claimed.

Not in Steven's house, not in his garage.
11-14-2017 , 12:24 PM
In the meantime, here are Ricciardi and Demos talking about the real story behind the making of their documentary as a prophylactic against the invented 'motives' dreamed up buy some of the more demented critics...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gei-w1jSGYs
11-14-2017 , 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
All we know for sure is that the prosecution presented no evidence in court that would convince any rational person any crimes against Teresa occurred in any of the places they claimed.

Not in Steven's house, not in his garage.
Not true. Her car was found on the property and some belongings and remains were found there. So it's possible something happened on avery's property.
11-14-2017 , 12:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
Not true. Her car was found on the property and some belongings and remains were found there. So it's possible something happened on avery's property.
I'm referring to crimes against Teresa like kidnapping, rape, or murder.

Not in Steven's house or garage (even though cops instructed Culhane to try and place her there).

These were the stories cops coerced Brendan to repeat and they are without factual foundation.
11-14-2017 , 12:40 PM
Steven used bleach so well that we ll never be sure
11-14-2017 , 12:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
Steven used bleach so well that we ll never be sure
LOL!

Yup, Steven and Brendan wiped all this down erasing all the blood droplets from forward spatter and back splatter



...after blowing someone's head off in this garage:



Then replaced all the old dust with new dust so it would look like there was no clean up at all.

All in a couple of hours.

Yet somehow missed the bullet!

Last edited by proudfootz; 11-14-2017 at 01:09 PM.
11-14-2017 , 01:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer

Woosh
What evidence place the killing inside. Once you admit nothing but the botched test results what evidence place the murder on the property.
Again you have zero evidence that the evidence was botched, just the control sample.

I've just listed several samples of evidence that place the murder on the property. You apparently disagree it's evidence which is your prerogative. I otoh agree with the verdict & accept the submitted evidence.

Yet again you're attempting to rehash. Same as I've seen other supporters do in other cases & indeed on other threads on this very site.

Here's what's relevant atm wrt The Railroaded Ones:
The merits of the majority's argument vs Hamilton's, re Dassey.
Whose argument is more accurate& correct wrt interpreting the law

Whether or not Zellner's latest motions to reconsider etc have anything valid in them, which could get a reversal & lead to Cuddly Steve getting a retrial.

In terms of simple debate the only relevant thing is whether or not advocates for the murderers can justify the Docu Twins Crapflix piece as in plausibly explain why they needed to engage in such deception, which has already been highlighted itt.

The actual evidence phase is over years now, it's not up for debate if you're gonna engage in the same failed argument that the defence did, essentially.
Things which you personally don't consider evidence aren't nullified in an objective sense because you personally disagree with it, & by "you" I mean collectively. You all need to stop conflating your personal beliefs or criteria with objective evidence & standard criteria.
Otherwise none of you will be taken seriously as you'll simply come across as unreasonable, with an emotional attachment to murderers & rapists, hence your inability to provide actual evidence for your beliefs.

Last edited by corpus vile; 11-14-2017 at 01:22 PM.
11-14-2017 , 01:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
Not true. Her car was found on the property and some belongings and remains were found there. So it's possible something happened on avery's property.
.

Ya like murder...
11-14-2017 , 01:33 PM
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.

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.


Just gonna leave this here for you and your shill minions since some idiot cherry-picked a few lines from the verbatim transcript I posted and tried to invalidate the point.

Quote:
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.
11-14-2017 , 01:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel
Not true. Her car was found on the property and some belongings and remains were found there. So it's possible something happened on avery's property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
.

Ya like murder...
Notice all the 'evidence' is stuff easily transported - a car, some bits of plastic, a 'like new' spare key (not the real key Teresa used), some ashes.

Obviously something did happen, but most likely it was evidence being planted on a guy the cops had a grudge against. That is where all the evidence is pointing.

Zero evidence that Teresa was ever in the house or garage, let alone that any crimes against her were committed either location.
11-14-2017 , 01:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
.

Ya like murder...
If hunting game for food is considered murder, then lock them up and throw away the key.

And even if it's not, lock them up anyway.
11-14-2017 , 01:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
Again you have zero evidence that the evidence was botched, just the control sample.
That sentence is hilarious.
11-14-2017 , 01:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
That sentence is hilarious.
Okay then. Please cite verbatim where the court accepted that the shell was contaminated & rejected it due to this, thanks, since it's so hilarious. That way we can all get the joke.

Until then yet again you have zero evidence that the evidence was contaminated. Zero zip bupkas niente big fat duck egg, Eddy. Ya dig?

So whenever you're ready with that verbatim passage & remember the truth is easy to defend, my murderer advocating friend. Thanks in advance mate.
11-14-2017 , 01:56 PM
Control samples are put in place to monitor for contamination and/or the potential for contamination as it pertains to DNA test results.

Evidence from this murder case was left in the open air, over-night, and in cupboards where as many as 20+ people had access 24 hours per day.

The control sample then comes back as contaminated, which I guess needs pointing out, INDICATES THE TEST COULD BE CONTAMINATED.

There's zero doubt in my mind that Culhane did find Teresa's DNA on whatever she was instructed to. But the fact that her control samples were contaminated indicates there is a higher than acceptable probability the tests were contaminated. I think we all know how.

And wouldn't ya know it? She used up the entire sample on the test. What are the chances?!?!
11-14-2017 , 02:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
Okay then. Please cite verbatim where the court accepted that the shell was contaminated & rejected it due to this
You do understand that demands for such things are the hallmarks of a shill, right?

There is no "verbatim" transcript where the court accepted the shell was contaminated. Nor is there verbatim anything that you have demanded. Had there been, SA would not be in jail, there'd be no MaM and no 2+2 thread.

"Show me proof that the court agrees with your argument" is ridiculous. The argument exists BECAUSE the court did not agree.

      
m