Zellners expert never claims either of these things in his affidavit. I don’t care what he says in the tv show but if even zellners own expert doesn’t put his name on these claims, how can you?

Wat? I’ll screen shot the rest if needed...

That’s not Dr Paleniks affidavit. That’s zellners appeal to the court. He doesn’t say in his affidavit (which is attached to that argument) what zellner claims he says. Misrepresenting her witness statements, along with filing at the wrong court, and not even presenting new evidence to begin with. Are the reasons her
Appeal was denied.

Statements like “consistent with wood” or “maybe wood” or “probably not blood” or “it could be paint”

Are not to be interpreted as “I’ve concludrd this is wood and paint” of course for zellner who’s representing a guilty person they must.

Even worse lol. The bullet was on the floor of a garage for 6 months. Why is everyone so surprised that a few particles of wood and a very tiny drop of paint are found on the fragment? It’s a ****ing garage lol.

Doesn’t matter because this extremely tiny amount of unidentifiable substance in both cases is just that, unidentifiable. It’s just more grasping at straws.

That bullet could have been there for years. There is zero evidence it was expended in 2005.

There's no reason to substitute your wild speculation for the fact that the provenance of the mangled slug is unknown.

No one is surprised that the bullet was shot into something made of wood. AFAICT Teresa was not a wooden mannequin. LOL!

Occam's Razor suggests it has nothing to do with any crime against Teresa Halbach.

No one said the particles were unidentifiable.

Again, there is no need for you just to make things up as you go along.

1) zellners expect never claimed it went through wood. He merely said it was consistent and possible. (This is what’s in his affidavit anyway)
2) zellners expert never claimed there was wood or paint on the bullet he merely said it was possible and consistent (on his affidavit anyway)
3) none of this matters anyway because your deduction isn’t logical let’s assume there is wood on the bullet, this is your argument in logical form.

P1) if a bullet has traces of wood and paint it didn’t go through someone’s body
P2) the bullet has traces of wood and paint

Conclusion: the bullet didn’t go through a body

Can you honestly defend premise 1?

It's a pity you neither watch the documentary nor read the documents. But I get it - you're afarid you might actually learn something.

This is from Palenik's affidavit:

Bullet #FL Analyisis

"Numerous wood fragments are present in, on and/or under the waxy substance. Further analysis could elucidate their specific relationship to the waxy substance. Other wood fragments appear to be directly adhering to or embedded in the lead of the bullet. This later observation suggests that at least some of the wood was deposited when the energized bullet encountered a wooden object. Some of the fragments observed are individual particles of wood. One particle appears to be an agglomeration of woody fragments, possibly originating from a manufactured wood product such as chip or particle board. Isolation and analysis of these particles would be required if their specific identity ( e.g. species, type of wood product) is of interest."

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...Dr-Palenik.pdf

It would appear she does accurately represent Palenik's affidavit. Meanwhile you misrepresent both Zellner and Palenik.

If whoever denied the appeal is as hard of reading as you appear to be, the courts might need to institute literacy tests.

Of course, we know that Palenik did in fact say just plain 'wood'. So all your rhetorical flights of pretend outrage come to nothing.

We're discussing the case of Steven Avery - and it's become apparent to intelligent observers that he is not guilty.

But you'd actually have to look at the evidence instead of hiding from it.

The form of my argument is more like this:

P1) There is no evidence Bullet #FL had any contact with a human body
P2) There is evidence Bullet #FL had contact with a wooden object
C) Bullet #FL struck a wooden object and not a human body

Fair enough, I was confusing what he said about the paint with the wood I was wrong

This logical deduction isn’t even valid. The formation doesn’t even lead to the conclusion. Not to mention p1 is just begging the question of the conclusion.

Could the bullet have passed through Teresa, and given it was a tiny fragment of the original bullet the piece with bone on it originally be stuck in Teresa’s head and the fragment we are left with had particles of wood from the garage floor?

That theory seems to be consistent with her experts findings and doesn’t require all the hooplah needed for a calumet officer to plant a bullet from a random gun hoping it’s Avery when they already have a mountain of evidence against him and later deciding to forge a test then admit there was a contamination in the control sample. Yanno, it doesn’t require a theory that is insane.

I'm just going where the evidence leads instead of going the opposite direction, which is where your pretzel logic goes.

A lot of 'could haves' and 'maybes' in your speculative flight of fancy for any sane person to conclude anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

There's no indication the mangled bullet fragment wasn't lying there for six years. You've got bupkis in that bullet.

Yet you choose the insane option.

Since you allegedly have a 'mountain of evidence' why are your clinging for dear life to this bullet which proves absolutely nothing?

Lol no I mean the syllogism you provided was legit invalid. The two premises don’t even lead to the conclusion you provided.

Your theory is insane. The bullet was fired from his gun and has her dna on it. There is no planting theory for that that makes sense.

If the DNA wasn’t on the bullet originally and was planted why the **** wouldnt she also fudge the test?

The DNA from Teresa couldn’t have been added from the mistake in the control either. Shelly’s dna being introduced to a control doesn’t somehow make Teresa appear on the actual sample.

And who planted the bullet? It was calumet officers in the garage in March. If we’re now going to say calumet is planting evidence you’d just be saying that about everything if manitwoc never even participated in the investigation.

Your other possibility is equally insane. Why would Steven be firing bullets in the garage? And if you do agree it’s possible Steven did that 6 years ago then you also agree it’s possible they missed the bullet on a cursory search in November.

It's just a bullet that could have been there before Steven even got out of jail on that jacked up rape charge. Or after he was in custody on the jacked up murder rap.

As we know cops told her to 'put Avery in the house or garage' and that's just what she ended up doing. It pays to obey orders from a cop.

All Culhane contaminating samples that need to be pristine proves is that she's an incompetent who runs a ****ty lab and can't even get through the most important case she'll ever see without ****ing it up.

Apparently it's just a random bullet that has nothing to do with the case, if we go by the indisputable evidence.

Who says Steven fired that bullet? It could have been there six days, six weeks, six years before it was collected as evidence.

That's the funny thing you might learn about firearms - there's more than one person alive who can discharge one.

Technically, you are correct: I used empirical facts in the place of speculative premises to lead to a conclusion.

My bad.

Lol no you don't, Jasus you're dishonest. You falsely asserted as empirical fact that Avery was framed for his wrongful conviction & that contamination occurred with the bullet fragment, neither of which are remotely true & in fact a prime example of: .


Not to mention your Oliver Stone style conspiralunacy involving a boatload of different LE agencies & God knows who else in cahoots, also falsely asserted as Empirical fact despite not a scintilla of evidence to support your illogical raving. You truly are a liar & a complete charlatan as well as a textbook example of psychological projection, reduced now to Groundhog Day mode obstinately repeating what was already long debunked several times over just like Knox's murderer groupie cult on the Knox thread.

Meanwhile your scummy murderous icons still where they so richly deserve to be in the Greybar Hotel where anything can kick off at anytime



....& will continue to stay there despite the baseless wailing of you murderer advocates & the Docu Twins latest murderer shilling exercise in Innocence Fraud.

Give it up Loudz nobody sane is buying your tiresome long refuted crap regardless of your mindless pig headed repetition.

Talk to the nurse and see if you can't get your dose of medication increased.

Not interested in your blustering baseless deflective waffle. Cite verbatim via court sources where Avery being framed for rape & contamination re the bullet fragment occurred as "Empirical fact" or else stop conflating your paranoid fantasies with actual facts you big eejit. You're a total fraud.

corpus vile - If the Thorazine isn't helping, you may need surgery.

Footz,

I'm sorry I'm not being clear. I am asking how small wood particles indicate she wasnt shot with that bullet?

There is the essential problem. Any theory which tries to exculpate the killers becomes baroque and absurd, and William of Ockham wouldn't like it. Obviously Avery and Dassey committed the crime.

But Making A Murderer has nothing to do with law or justice. It's a media product for profit. The dodgy couple who produced it asked the Innocence Project flacks to point them to a case they could make money out of -- same for the Serial podcast -- and of course they were only ever going to argue 'miscarriage of justice,' because 'Cops Arrest Right Guy, Court Duly Convicts' just isn't a story.

Similarly, Oliver Stone was never going to make a movie showing how Lee Oswald murdered President Kennedy and Patrolman Tippit, because there's no money in that. You coin it by tricking the rubes into thinking they've got some secret and special knowledge of a great conspiracy and they know better than the police and the courts who've actually gone over all the evidence.

Sure, the courts get it wrong sometimes. But the gossip-and-innuendo method adopted by unscrupulous defence lawyers and their media outriders... that's not really how you address wrongful convictions. In the Bridgewater Four case in England, the media pretended that the convictions were overturned because the appeal court found the men 'innocent', but in fact the appeal court said no such thing, the overturn was purely due to a procedural irregularity and 'there was sufficient evidence to allow a jury rightly directed to convict,' a form of words that the Court of Appeal often uses.

You are not making yourself look good at this point.

Although I think Footz is unreasonable, he seems to be the most reasonable out of the truthers.

The guy with the donkey avatar just insults people and misspells words; also refusing to defend his views with reasoned arguments and evidence. Smacc buys into every theory on the planet and lost is hardly ever here anymore.