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

11-14-2017 , 10:04 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.
You still don't even know what blood spatter refers to.

You are doing a great job making the anti-Avery advocates look bad.
11-14-2017 , 10:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
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.
The state's witness admitted the test bullet from the gun found in Steven's home did not match the bullet found in the garage:

21 Q. All right. Now, again, this is one of those
22 split screen ones. The one on the right is the
23 test fired bullet and the one on the left is Item
24 FL, right?
25 A. Yes

1 Q. In any event, the test fired bullet on the right
2 shows quite a bit of differences in the land area
3 from the one on the left, does it not?
It seems
4 to have some extra ridges or bulges sticking out
5 of some sort?
6 A. There are differences on -- between both bullets.
7 I don't know what you're referring to
8 specifically. There's a great deal of
9 differences on the bullet on the left side of the
10 photograph when you compare it to the bullet on
11 the right side of the photograph.
12 Q. A great deal of difference, right?
13 A. Absolutely, yes.

Looks like I was right. Again.

Do you ever wonder why the facts always end up on my side while you are left with nothing?
11-15-2017 , 12:13 AM
Quote:
The state's witness admitted the test bullet from the gun found in Steven's home did not match the bullet found in the garage:
That isn't what he said. He said there are differences between the two bullets. That does not mean that he is saying item FL didn't match the gun. In fact, he said directly in his testimony and in his report that it did.
11-15-2017 , 12:18 AM
And were you able to make a determination as to
6 whether Exhibit 277, bullet designation FL, was
7 fired from the Marlin Glenfield .22 caliber rifle
8 in front of you?
9 A. Yes, I was.
10 Q. And what conclusion were you able to reach?
11 A. In this case, I was able to be more specific.
12 And, in fact, because of markings on the bullet
13 in State's Exhibit 277, I was able to conclude
14 that this bullet had been fired from this
15 specific gun.
16 Q. All right. So Exhibit 277 had been fired from
17 Exhibit 247?
18 A. Yes, that's correct.
11-15-2017 , 12:26 AM
Also, that is an interesting place to cut off his testimony because right after that he explains the differences you are referring to between item fl and the test bullet he used.

Q. A great deal of difference, right?
13 A. Absolutely, yes.
14 Q. And yet you are saying that this bullet on the
15 right, which was fired from the gun that you had
16 in front of you earlier, is a match with the
17 bullet on the left, the fragment, despite the
18 great deal of differences; is that right?
19 A. I'm saying there's enough detail there, and not
20 in this position in that photograph, but in the
21 composite of positions that we -- some of which
22 we see exhibited in other photographs, for me to
23 conclude that, yes, that bullet in my FL, Exhibit
24 277, was fired from that Marlin rifle.
25 Q. And in doing that you have to discount the
156
1 differences that you find on the bullet from the
2 test fire?
3 A. I have to understand them, yes.

4 Q. All right. Let's go to the next one and can you
5 tell us which exhibit that is?
6 A. Oh, your number is 427.
7 Q. Okay. 427 is on the screen now. Again, we see
8 -- show us the line on this one, from the
9 microscope, from one to the next?
10 A. It runs here. See the discontinuity,
11 particularly in this area right here, you see the
12 different colors?
13 Q. Right.
14 A. That's the dividing line that separates the image
15 of the bullet in 277 from my test fired bullet.
16 Q. And your test fired bullet, also, there's another
17 vertical line running down the line of it, the
18 center of it, right?
19 A. Yes, that's right.
20 Q. And that's not the microscope line, that's on the
21 bullet.
22 A. That's a design feature of the bullet that
23 remained in tact after firing it.
24 Q. That's not a designed feature that's on the Item
25 FL?
157
1 A. No.
11-15-2017 , 01:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
-Dassey told police and his family that she was in the house
-Dassey also told police and his family that he had nothing to do with the murder.

You're using Dassey's confession as evidence that Teresa was in the house?

Okay, SA said TH left. Therefore I have proof that she left SA's on that fateful day.
11-15-2017 , 01:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Also, that is an interesting place to cut off his testimony because right after that he explains the differences you are referring to between item fl and the test bullet he used.

Q. A great deal of difference, right?
13 A. Absolutely, yes.
14 Q. And yet you are saying that this bullet on the
15 right, which was fired from the gun that you had
16 in front of you earlier, is a match with the
17 bullet on the left, the fragment, despite the
18 great deal of differences; is that right?
19 A. I'm saying there's enough detail there, and not
20 in this position in that photograph, but in the
21 composite of positions that we -- some of which
22 we see exhibited in other photographs, for me to
23 conclude that, yes, that bullet in my FL, Exhibit
24 277, was fired from that Marlin rifle.
25 Q. And in doing that you have to discount the
156
1 differences that you find on the bullet from the
2 test fire?
3 A. I have to understand them, yes.

4 Q. All right. Let's go to the next one and can you
5 tell us which exhibit that is?
6 A. Oh, your number is 427.
7 Q. Okay. 427 is on the screen now. Again, we see
8 -- show us the line on this one, from the
9 microscope, from one to the next?
10 A. It runs here. See the discontinuity,
11 particularly in this area right here, you see the
12 different colors?
13 Q. Right.
14 A. That's the dividing line that separates the image
15 of the bullet in 277 from my test fired bullet.
16 Q. And your test fired bullet, also, there's another
17 vertical line running down the line of it, the
18 center of it, right?
19 A. Yes, that's right.
20 Q. And that's not the microscope line, that's on the
21 bullet.
22 A. That's a design feature of the bullet that
23 remained in tact after firing it.
24 Q. That's not a designed feature that's on the Item
25 FL?
157
1 A. No.
Seriously bro, why are you here? You actually spent part of your day digging through transcripts to find some questionable lines to try and show that MCLE has been right all along and that SA is guilty...even though this is the verdict they achieved 11 years ago and has remained unchanged? This makes no sense. 2x the posts than 2nd place to voice your opinion against the filmakers, documentary, and SA? Not a single thing you see wrong despite 10 hours of footage and numerous revelations since?

You are definitely not here for the reasons you state you are.
11-15-2017 , 04:47 AM
Lol hadn't logged in & came across this gem from our saucy friend & it was just too funny to pass up & ignore.

Quote:
You do understand that demands for such things are the hallmarks of a shill, right?
Asking someone to provide proof of their whacky claims is the hallmark of a shill okay. Whom am I shilling for Saucy? Precisely? And for what purpose/agenda?

Quote:
There is no "verbatim" transcript where the court accepted the shell was contaminated.
I know.

Quote:
Nor is there verbatim anything that you have demanded.
This I also know.

Quote:
Had there been, SA would not be in jail, there'd be no MaM and no 2+2 thread.
This is yet another thing I know. It's why I was extraordinarily confident making my request.

Quote:
"Show me proof that the court agrees with your argument" is ridiculous. The argument exists BECAUSE the court did not agree.
Ah but you're conflating a lost argument for contamination with actual evidence for contamination..which is why nobody with an IQ exceeding double digits entertains your fallacies for so much as a nanosecond. Do you finally see?

Nobody is interested in your conflation & repetition of already failed arguments as it's not that far removed from a proof by assertion fallacy, really. Spam iow.

Now when you have actual fuhreelz no foolin' valid objective examples for corruption contamination & coercion (which all appeared to occur parallel to each other), then your adherence to already failed arguments can be comfortably dismissed.

Do you see now why you & Loony Loudz are on ignore? Nothing but fallacies & irrelevant objections from you Pizzagaters.
11-15-2017 , 06:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
That isn't what he said. He said there are differences between the two bullets. That does not mean that he is saying item FL didn't match the gun. In fact, he said directly in his testimony and in his report that it did.
I published the courtroom testimony where he admitted the item FL was grossly different than the test bullet from the alleged murder weapon.

It's too bad the facts are in conflict with your assertions. Again.
11-15-2017 , 06:44 AM
Gosh seems that even Jim Hagerty is starting to see the light... Finally.

https://www.inquisitr.com/4613030/ma...y-dassey-fire/

https://www.inquisitr.com/4619864/ma...s-first-alibi/

Quote:
Avery originally told Marinette County deputies that a few minutes after Halbach left his property, his mother arrived to give him his mail.
Let's see what Ma Avery has to say about Cuddly Steve's claim.
https://i.imgur.com/QsyDVg5.png?2

...Oops.
11-15-2017 , 07:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
Gosh seems that even Jim Hagerty is starting to see the light... Finally.

https://www.inquisitr.com/4613030/ma...y-dassey-fire/

https://www.inquisitr.com/4619864/ma...s-first-alibi/
People can't remember details about a day when nothing much happened.

What a find!

As for the claim Steven called Auto Trader claiming Teresa never showed - that has been debunked a long time ago.

The Fabian story has already been debunked in this thread.

This Jim Hagerty doesn't seem to be very well informed.

And this is what happens when you put people on ignore - you don't see that the stories you are flogging have been discussed and dismissed already by people more familiar with the material than you are.

Quote:
Let's see what Ma Avery has to say about Cuddly Steve's claim.
https://i.imgur.com/QsyDVg5.png?2

...Oops.
So Dolores Avery doesn't know anything about the missing woman either.

Good find!
11-15-2017 , 08:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
If you think admitting questionable 'science' is a good idea, that's your problem.

Me, I'll stick to real science over pseudo-science.
Why are you harping on this? That has nothing to do with what I am saying.

Look - the jury was presented with all the information, the bullet DNA test and the fact that the negative control was contaminated. The lawyers on both sides had the opportunity to make arguments to them regarding what weight they should give to this information. The defence probably made some arguments along the lines of the one you made.

I wasn't privy to the jury's deliberations, I have no idea what weight they ultimately gave to the bullet evidence. The bullet is not a particularly central part of the case, so they could easily have disregarded it completely and still found Avery guilty. But who knows, maybe it turned out to be the key piece of evidence that tipped them from not guilty to guilty. None of us will ever know.

I really have no opinion on how important the botched negative control is in the grand scheme of things. How much weight I would give it would depend on other factors - how common contaminated negative controls are in general, and whether the lab in question had ever handled the victim's DNA, among others. But I can't see any particular reason why a jury couldn't be trusted to weigh all the relevant factors in their deliberations.

But if you think there are compelling reasons that there should be a law on the books that would have excluded this evidence altogether, go ahead and petition congress to make your case.
11-15-2017 , 10:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
Seriously bro, why are you here? You actually spent part of your day digging through transcripts to find some questionable lines to try and show that MCLE has been right all along and that SA is guilty...even though this is the verdict they achieved 11 years ago and has remained unchanged? This makes no sense. 2x the posts than 2nd place to voice your opinion against the filmakers, documentary, and SA? Not a single thing you see wrong despite 10 hours of footage and numerous revelations since?

You are definitely not here for the reasons you state you are.
Do you have amnesia? It wasn't me that dug through the transcripts.
11-15-2017 , 10:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
I published the courtroom testimony where he admitted the item FL was grossly different than the test bullet from the alleged murder weapon.

It's too bad the facts are in conflict with your assertions. Again.
Yes, and I published the very next series of questions where he explained why they were different and why it didn't matter.

Its good to see you're not willing to admit when you're wrong.
11-15-2017 , 10:58 AM
Michael Griesbach doesn't seem too impressed with Zells.

http://www.postcrescent.com/story/op...ase/420015001/
11-15-2017 , 11:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Yes, and I published the very next series of questions where he explained why they were different and why it didn't matter.

Its good to see you're not willing to admit when you're wrong.
Heh disingenuous little slither isn't he? Like Alfred Molina in Raiders of the Lost Ark or possibly Burke from Aliens
11-15-2017 , 01:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
Look - the jury was presented with all the information, the bullet DNA test and the fact that the negative control was contaminated. The lawyers on both sides had the opportunity to make arguments to them regarding what weight they should give to this information. The defence probably made some arguments along the lines of the one you made.
+1

People bringing up the investigation as the reason the trial was unfair (and that we need a new one) make no sense.

1. Assuming the investigation was horrible for the sake of argument, that fact isn't going to change with a new trial. A new trial will not change the investigation.

2. In Steven's trial, the main focus was already on attacking the investigation - not just the bullet test, but the "conflicts of interest", the evidence planting claims, the burnpit excavation, etc.

Avery advocates aren't asking for a fair trial, they're asking for a mulligan.
11-15-2017 , 05:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Yes, and I published the very next series of questions where he explained why they were different and why it didn't matter.

Its good to see you're not willing to admit when you're wrong.
It certainly does matter if the test bullet and the bullet in evidence are different - it means they are not a match.

When the word 'different' begins to mean 'the same' then I will gladly admit I was wrong.
11-15-2017 , 05:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
It certainly does matter if the test bullet and the bullet in evidence are different - it means they are not a match.

When the word 'different' begins to mean 'the same' then I will gladly admit I was wrong.
So, not only can ProudFootz determine what test results are acceptable and which are not appropriate for a deviation in a lab.. He can also determine which bullets come from which gun better than a ballistics expert.

You don't fail to disappoint.
11-15-2017 , 05:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
+1

People bringing up the investigation as the reason the trial was unfair (and that we need a new one) make no sense.

1. Assuming the investigation was horrible for the sake of argument, that fact isn't going to change with a new trial. A new trial will not change the investigation.
True enough - a botched investigation can't be undone.

But the fruits of a botched investigation have no place in a court of law.

Quote:
2. In Steven's trial, the main focus was already on attacking the investigation - not just the bullet test, but the "conflicts of interest", the evidence planting claims, the burnpit excavation, etc.

Avery advocates aren't asking for a fair trial, they're asking for a mulligan.
Justice advocates are asking for a fair trial, and if that can't be had then people who stand for justice can't rationalize putting people in prison based on a farce.
11-15-2017 , 05:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
So, not only can ProudFootz determine what test results are acceptable and which are not appropriate for a deviation in a lab.. He can also determine which bullets come from which gun better than a ballistics expert.

You don't fail to disappoint.
If the 'expert' is arguing things that are grossly different are the same, that 'expert' needs his head examined.

If you are arguing that contaminated samples and botched tests have any place in a court of law it's obvious that determining the truth isn't of much value for you.

Justice advocates such as myself do think it would be good to have solid and reliable evidence used in courts.
11-15-2017 , 06:00 PM
Quote:
If the 'expert' is arguing things that are grossly different are the same, that 'expert' needs his head examined.
He made it very clear why this difference doesn't matter. One bullet had a different design feature than another. Why would that effect what happens to the bullet after its fired? Strang didn't know what he was looking at, the expert did. Pretty simple. What is your education on this matter to challenge him? Do you not understand his answer? Whats the deal? Just admit you were wrong, it would be very humble of you to do so.
11-15-2017 , 06:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Just admit you were wrong, it would be very humble of you to do so.
This is very ironic coming from you.

I've shown you to be wrong many times in the past few pages, yet you never seem able to bring yourself to admit you're wrong.

As testimony showed, there was no evidence the ballistics work of this fellow was even peer reviewed.
11-15-2017 , 06:53 PM
For those interested in the discussion about science, some reading.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/...ence-courtroom
11-15-2017 , 07:44 PM
Initially you said this

"The bullet could not be traced to any specific rifle"

Can any bullet be traced to a specific rifle? If the answer is no and that is your opinion, why did you not just say that?

Of course, tests can be wrong and some areas of scientific study are more accurate than others but the best methods we do have available linked the bullet to his rifle. You are now changing your contention from what the expert said, to what the defenses challenge was to challenging the entire field all together.

      
m