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

11-14-2017 , 02:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
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.
^^^^

This is one of the things that should never have happened - what judge in his right mind would allow contaminated evidence to be heard by a jury?
11-14-2017 , 03:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
What other evidence place the crime in avery's place?
All of it. As you very well know.

So... I don't much about this scene... is it fun, being a murder-groupie? Do you get some kind of perverted satisfaction out of it? I'd imagine that you do, since murder-groupies generally congregate around a particular kind of case involving the sexually motivated murder of women.
11-14-2017 , 05:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 57 On Red Making a Murderer
All of it. As you very well know.

So... I don't much about this scene... is it fun, being a murder-groupie? Do you get some kind of perverted satisfaction out of it? I'd imagine that you do, since murder-groupies generally congregate around a particular kind of case involving the sexually motivated murder of women.
You should ask corpus vile - he's a huge fan of slasher flicks and has adopted the persona of one of the characters in a film where young women are terrorized and murdered.
11-14-2017 , 07:19 PM
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.
You must spend hours staring into the mirror.
11-14-2017 , 08:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
So even by your own logic Culhane's contamination of the 'fake test' indicates that she could very well have contaminated the 'real test'.
No it doesn't because she can conclude reasonably where the contamination came from and that contamination wouldn't effect the results of the actual test. If for some reason the control had TH DNA on it then it'd be a different conversaton.



Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
Deviation from protocols which protect the integrity of the results casts the results in doubt.
Considering the test results don't cast anything in doubt to anyone reasonable, no.


Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
They are. Admitting the test was screwed up and then fishing around for reasons to accept the unreliable results anyway.
They are not admitting the test was screwed up. The results are not unreliable as explained to you. So again, no.



Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
The problem is there is no reason to conclude the DNA was on the bullet before it got to the contaminated lab.
Yes there is reason to conclude that because again, nothing else tested that day had teresas DNA on it. Do you think the DNA just decided to jump on the bullet fragment which was sealed in an evidence container?



Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
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.
Um yes there is. Because there is no other reasonable source for the DNA.



Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
No - I'm just one of those people who follows the evidence wherever it leads.
No you're not. You're one of the people who lead the evidence to your conclusion as evidenced by other beliefs you have and beliefs you have in this thread.



Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
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.
The lab was certified. Should we just let all the killers in wisconsin go who have been sentanced due to results from this lab?



Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
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.
Its a reasonable deduction. You believe 9-11 was an inside job performed by the government, you believe JFK was shot by some government group and covered up by the government, you are now hinting that you believe the las vegas shooting was also some conspiracy and you believe avery was framed by several government agencies.

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'.
Common for prosecuters to tell their lab techs what evidence they want tested and what results are important to them. Do you really honestly think that Kratz is suggesting to Culhane to plant DNA here? Like, is that really a thought you are seriously having?
11-14-2017 , 08:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
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.



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.



They even wrote down they were more interested in trying to pin the crime on Steven than they were ongoing where the evidence led:

This again, does not tell her to pin the crime on Steven. It lays out what evidence they want tested and what results are important to them. Anyone who thinks this is a suggestion to plant evidence is being utterly absurd.

If they were conspiring to plant evidence why the **** would she make note of it? Do you think she forgot who they were framing?
11-14-2017 , 08:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
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.
There is indeed evidence Teresa was in the house and garage.

-Bobby sees her outside taking pictures, a while later sees her car but not her.
-Loof the scent tracking dog alerted both to the garage door and stevens bathroom
-There is a bullet from a gun above averys bed that contains teresas DNA on it
-Dassey told police and his family that she was in the house
11-14-2017 , 08:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
This again, does not tell her to pin the crime on Steven. It lays out what evidence they want tested and what results are important to them. Anyone who thinks this is a suggestion to plant evidence is being utterly absurd.

If they were conspiring to plant evidence why the **** would she make note of it? Do you think she forgot who they were framing?
Try to put Teresa in Steven's house or garage - these are instructions from cops to Culhane.

There is no other way to read it without indulging in pretzel logic.

No one said Culhane was particularly bright.

A real scientist would be able to test samples without respect for what results her bosses wanted.
11-14-2017 , 08:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
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!
1) These pictures are from march I believe, plenty of time to collect dust.
2) No one is suggesting he chopped up her body in the garage, so there is no need to pretend there would be some huge bloodbath
3) Everything in the garage wasn't tested. That isn't even feasible to request such a thing. So there is no way to know if some of those items have spatter on them.
4) The bullet fragment was very small, easy for both avery and the police to miss
5) in november they didn't have a lot of reason to check the garage. So their search in the garage wasn't as exhaustive.
6) he shot her with a .22 caliber lr. From what I have read about this it wouldn't have caused much spatter or blood to begin with. This is all assuming she wasn't already dead.
11-14-2017 , 08:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
Try to put Teresa in Steven's house or garage - these are instructions from cops to Culhane.

There is no other way to read it without indulging in pretzel logic.

No one said Culhane was particularly bright.

A real scientist would be able to test samples without respect for what results her bosses wanted.
Wow, so you do think they are telling her to frame Steven. Rather than the perfectly reasonable interpretation that doesn't require a million illogical assumptions that this means: Here is the evidence we need tested, here is what we are looking for.

It isn't about what results her boss wanted. It is about her knowing what to test and what kind of tests to run and what results are worth notifying him.
11-14-2017 , 08:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
There is indeed evidence Teresa was in the house and garage.

-Bobby sees her outside taking pictures, a while later sees her car but not her.[Lately we learned that Bobby in fact saw Teresa leave ASY]
-Loof the scent tracking dog alerted both to the garage door and stevens bathroom [Loof found evidence Teresa was outside of house and garage - so what?]
-There is a bullet from a gun above averys bed that contains teresas DNA on it[The bullet could not be traced to any specific rifle, and as we know the DNA test was botched]
-Dassey told police and his family that she was in the house[The coerced statements from Brendan aren't worth much as evidence]
Over all, no evidence of Teresa in the house being constrained, raped, tortured, stabbed, shot, cut into little pieces, etc as prosecution claims.

Since prosecution tale has zero evidence to confirm it, all reasonable people doubt its veracity.
11-14-2017 , 08:36 PM
[Lately we learned that Bobby in fact saw Teresa leave ASY] no we didn't. I have already pointed out to you the abundance of other explanations to someone saying boby told them she left.
[Loof found evidence Teresa was outside of house and garage - so what?] Loof alerted that she was inside the trailer, and alerted around the door inside the garage. Suggesting she was in there too.
[The bullet could not be traced to any specific rifle, and as we know the DNA test was botched] There are two bullet fragments in the garage. The fragment without Teresas DNA couldn't be linked to any gun. The fragment with her DNA was linked to the gun above avery's bed.
[The coerced statements from Brendan aren't worth much as evidence] Lol ok, if you say so.
11-14-2017 , 08:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
1) These pictures are from march I believe, plenty of time to collect dust.
Still no evidence of any crime against Teresa found in garage (or house for that matter).

Quote:
2) No one is suggesting he chopped up her body in the garage, so there is no need to pretend there would be some huge bloodbath
As the pics that I posted show, shooting someone even once will produce plenty of tiny blood drops spraying all over the area. In the fantasy of Ken Kratz Teresa was shot eleven times.

No way in hell that could be cleaned up without a trace. Only insane people could believe such a crazy story.

Quote:
3) Everything in the garage wasn't tested. That isn't even feasible to request such a thing. So there is no way to know if some of those items have spatter on them.
Interestingly there is a chemical test called luminol which would show investigators where there was blood. It's not an especially difficult thing to spray this stuff and take a photo.

Zero evidence Teresa was shot in this place.

Quote:
4) The bullet fragment was very small, easy for both avery and the police to miss
Steven allegedly cleaned up thousands of tiny, almost invisible droplets of blood from eleven bullet wounds but missed a bullet that was just sitting on the floor.

Quote:
5) in november they didn't have a lot of reason to check the garage. So their search in the garage wasn't as exhaustive.
The cops even chopped up the concrete looking for evidence of a killing there but didn't find anything.

The lack of evidence indicates a lack of murders in this place.

Quote:
6) he shot her with a .22 caliber lr. From what I have read about this it wouldn't have caused much spatter or blood to begin with. This is all assuming she wasn't already dead.
A bullet with enough energy to supposedly penetrate a skull is surely energetic enough to spatter some blood.

A dead body full of blood is going to spatter pretty much the same as live body - it is physics that creates blood spatter not some magical vital spirits.
11-14-2017 , 08:57 PM
You really have no idea what you're talking about. Blood spatter and blood evidence in general cannot be predicted to an exact science. Just because a bullet penetrated someones skull doesn't mean that blood spatter will always be found.

Dead people do bleed less. If you're heart isn't running you don't have any bloodflow.
11-14-2017 , 09:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
No it doesn't because she can conclude reasonably where the contamination came from and that contamination wouldn't effect the results of the actual test. If for some reason the control had TH DNA on it then it'd be a different conversaton.
Yes, we can reasonably conclude that Culhane is unable to prevent samples from getting contaminated in her lab.

This is consistent with the many disciplinary letters about her sloppy, shoddy operation gets with depressing regularity.

Quote:
Considering the test results don't cast anything in doubt to anyone reasonable, no.
A lab where contamination is rife does cast doubt on any results. Sorry, that's just the reality.

Quote:
They are not admitting the test was screwed up. The results are not unreliable as explained to you. So again, no.
Yes, the conclusions coming from a lab where they cannot avoid contamination are worthless as evidence.

Quote:
Yes there is reason to conclude that because again, nothing else tested that day had teresas DNA on it. Do you think the DNA just decided to jump on the bullet fragment which was sealed in an evidence container?
All we know for sure is that Culhane could not prevent contamination of samples in the most important case of her career.

No rational person would place any confidence in this lab's work.

Quote:
Um yes there is. Because there is no other reasonable source for the DNA.
There is no reason to think this bullet had Teresa's DNA on it before it got to Culhane's sloppy lab where she can't prevent samples from becoming contaminated.

Quote:
No you're not. You're one of the people who lead the evidence to your conclusion as evidenced by other beliefs you have and beliefs you have in this thread.
Sorry, but you are wrong again. If Culhane didn't have a reputation of being a sloppy worker, and the lab didn't have a history of disciplinary letters regarding drunkenness on the job, bad laboratory practices, and outright fraud I might be tempted to give her the benefit of the doubt.

But taking instructions from cops about what they want her to find shows bad faith, and the contaminated sample is just the cherry on top of this comedy of incompetence.

Quote:
The lab was certified. Should we just let all the killers in wisconsin go who have been sentanced due to results from this lab?
How do we know these alleged killers are killers? Based on this bumbling moron who holds their lives in her clumsy hands?

Culhane is also the person who helped convict Steven of the rape he didn't commit in 1985.

Quote:
Its a reasonable deduction.
Since you can't provide proof of your false claim, you now suggest it was a 'reasonable deduction'?

You'd be better off just avoid blabbing stuff you just make up on the fly instead of being proved a liar again and again.

Considering how poor folks like you and corpus vile are in arguing your ideas, if I was in a position to pay shills to help the defense I'd hire guys like you to pose as anti-Avery advocates.

Quote:
Common for prosecuters to tell their lab techs what evidence they want tested and what results are important to them. Do you really honestly think that Kratz is suggesting to Culhane to plant DNA here? Like, is that really a thought you are seriously having?
I'm just following the evidence - you should try it some time.

What purpose is there in cops to tell a forensic scientist what results they want to prop up their 'theory'? If investigators were honest they would wait to see what the evidence showed before they tried to put together a theory.

As it is we can see this was a very agenda-driven 'investigation' with nothing but dubious behavior and dishonesty evidenced among cops and the prosecution.
11-14-2017 , 09:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
[Lately we learned that Bobby in fact saw Teresa leave ASY] no we didn't. I have already pointed out to you the abundance of other explanations to someone saying boby told them she left.
Sadly, the actual transcript shows that Bobby did admit to people close to him that he saw Teresa leave ASY:

AVERY: And he said he [sic] left. She left.
SCOTT TADYCH: That's right.
BARBARA TADYCH: Yeah. She left.
AVERY: Yeah.
BARBARA TADYCH: Yeah.
AVERY: Well, he [Bobby] didn't testify for that.

This confirms Bryan Dassey's statement:



Quote:
[Loof found evidence Teresa was outside of house and garage - so what?] Loof alerted that she was inside the trailer, and alerted around the door inside the garage. Suggesting she was in there too.
Loof was inside the trailer?

Link to this.

Loof was inside garage?

Link to this.

Quote:
[The bullet could not be traced to any specific rifle, and as we know the DNA test was botched] There are two bullet fragments in the garage. The fragment without Teresas DNA couldn't be linked to any gun. The fragment with her DNA was linked to the gun above avery's bed.
A bullet fragment that could have come from any number of weapons, not any particular one.

Again, zero evidence of back spatter on the gun in Steven's house or evidence it was cleaned to remove blood from close quarters shooting.

Quote:
[The coerced statements from Brendan aren't worth much as evidence] Lol ok, if you say so.
You might like coerced statements fed to Brendan by cops, but sane people know they are useless as evidence.

That you think coerced statements are good evidence indicates you are agenda-driven and have contempt for discovering what actually happened.
11-14-2017 , 09:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
You really have no idea what you're talking about. Blood spatter and blood evidence in general cannot be predicted to an exact science. Just because a bullet penetrated someones skull doesn't mean that blood spatter will always be found.

Dead people do bleed less. If you're heart isn't running you don't have any bloodflow.
You have no idea what you are talking about.

Forensic scientists studying blood spatter don't need to use actual living test subjects to create samples to compare to crime scenes.

You are trying too hard to advance your agenda by simply reflexively disagreeing with everything without thinking.

Just FYI - blood spatter from the infliction of wounds is not the same thing as blood flow from wounds after they are inflicted.

Read a book some time. Or watch a documentary.

Join the real world!
11-14-2017 , 09:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
If you find a dog turd in your salad, there's no sane reason to suppose the rest of the meal is safe to eat - especially when there have been numerous complaints about contamination at that particular restaurant.

Unless you happen to like dog turds.
If you think this is a compelling argument for why there should be a law that samples with contaminated negative controls should never be admitted as evidence, go ahead and launch a petition to get the law changed.
11-14-2017 , 09:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
If you think this is a compelling argument for why there should be a law that samples with contaminated negative controls should never be admitted as evidence, go ahead and launch a petition to get the law changed.
If you think admitting questionable 'science' is a good idea, that's your problem.

Me, I'll stick to real science over pseudo-science.
11-14-2017 , 09:45 PM
https://imgur.com/a/h3Hkj

It was brutus that entered the trailer and alerted near the bathroom, not loof. I never said loof entered the garage. I said he alerted around the garage door as if he wanted to enter.

Linking balistics report for you also in must a moment.

Edit: I see how what I was saying initially would have been confusing. I was saying he was alerting to the door that enters the garage. Not alerting inside the garage.

Last edited by fraleyight; 11-14-2017 at 09:56 PM.
11-14-2017 , 09:48 PM
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...-2006May10.pdf

Item FL is the one with Teresas DNA on it, Item FK is the one you are referring to that could have been fired from a gun of the same type. FK didn't test positive for any of Teresas DNA.

So again, you are wrong.
11-14-2017 , 09:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
You have no idea what you are talking about.

Forensic scientists studying blood spatter don't need to use actual living test subjects to create samples to compare to crime scenes.

You are trying too hard to advance your agenda by simply reflexively disagreeing with everything without thinking.

Just FYI - blood spatter from the infliction of wounds is not the same thing as blood flow from wounds after they are inflicted.

Read a book some time. Or watch a documentary.

Join the real world!
None of this has any relevance to what we are talking about. I am not talking about the ability to create scenarios to compare to actual blood spatter. I am talking about predicting that there should be a certain amount of blood spatter when 1) we don't know how far away he was when he shot her 2) we don't know if she was alive or dead 3) we don't know what angle she was shot at 4) we don't know if something was wrapped around her head when she was shot and a million other variables I can name for you.

So a dead persons blood doesn't coagulate when a wound is inflicted but does when it is open. Got it.
11-14-2017 , 09:54 PM
Quote:
Sadly, the actual transcript shows that Bobby did admit to people close to him that he saw Teresa leave ASY:

AVERY: And he said he [sic] left. She left.
SCOTT TADYCH: That's right.
BARBARA TADYCH: Yeah. She left.
AVERY: Yeah.
BARBARA TADYCH: Yeah.
AVERY: Well, he [Bobby] didn't testify for that.

This confirms Bryan Dassey's statement:
As has been pointed out to you. Scott wasn't on the phone when avery said this. Scott was talking in the background. As has been pointed out to you, barb is confirming she believes teresa left. Of course she believes this. She thinks avery is innocent. Luckily, facts aren't determined by what Barb thinks.
11-14-2017 , 10:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
As has been pointed out to you. Scott wasn't on the phone when avery said this. Scott was talking in the background. As has been pointed out to you, barb is confirming she believes teresa left. Of course she believes this. She thinks avery is innocent. Luckily, facts aren't determined by what Barb thinks.
I produced the transcript to make my point.

Backed up by an affidavit from yet another source.

You resort to an interpretive dance.

Try coming over to the real world and leave your pretend world behind.
11-14-2017 , 10:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
None of this has any relevance to what we are talking about. I am not talking about the ability to create scenarios to compare to actual blood spatter. I am talking about predicting that there should be a certain amount of blood spatter when 1) we don't know how far away he was when he shot her 2) we don't know if she was alive or dead 3) we don't know what angle she was shot at 4) we don't know if something was wrapped around her head when she was shot and a million other variables I can name for you.

So a dead persons blood doesn't coagulate when a wound is inflicted but does when it is open. Got it.
Along with all the other 'don't knows' we don't know that Teresa was shot.

We also don't know Steven had anything to do with it.

You conveniently leave all this out - quite ironic for someone screaming about a documentary supposedly leaving things out.

      
m