Commanchie wrote: » You make a holy show of yourself. This case was used in Unis for case study on wrong arrest and conviction. Theyre wrong too?
horse7 wrote: » Am I the only one falling asleep when it's on,it seems to go very slow.
walshb wrote: » Another defense red herring. Making out that he was so so stupid. Maybe he was, but he still admitted and provided details that were corroborated. Details due to him being involved, nothing else.. should we discount this because “he’s not the brightest spark?”
Mountainsandh wrote: » But walshb, Season 2 has a lot more science based evidence. If you trust in science to provide evidence, then season 2 will provide enough to sway your mind. I'll reiterate on the DNA for example. Take an item that is bound to be handled by several people, like a key, or a hood latch.You would expect to find DNA on these, right ? You would probably expect to find DNA from whoever touched these items ? So if 3 people handled a key, you would expect to find 3 types of DNA on it, maybe mixed up, maybe not. You would expect to find a certain amount of DNA. Like, probably less DNA than what you'd get on a toothbrush, but more DNA than what you'd find on a sheet of paper someone held up for a minute. The key found in SA's property had only one type of DNA : Steven's. It did not have Teresa's DNA. The amount and quality of the DNA was similar to what you'd find on a tooth brush. To demonstrate how much DNA Steven might have deposited on the key, Kathleen Zellner got Steven to hold a similar key for 12 minutes, then the key was forensically examined. The amount of DNA left on it from the experiment was very slight, whereas the evidence key was loaded with it. It was not established what kind of DNA landed on the key, because a test to determine whether it was blood DNA or not was refused. For the hood latch, KZ ran an experiment again, where lots of people handled the latch, and DNA amounts were established. Again, they were less than what was proposed as evidence, and evidence showed one single type of DNA there : Steven's. You'd think there'd be something from Teresa's, or maybe her Dad's, or her mechanic. No. These are not things Kathleen Zellner can make up. These are just experiments, witnessed by experts in those fields, analyzed by experts or labs that do these analyses, to try and reproduce what the prosecution put forward as evidence. Reproducing something that you allege happened is really a basic way to show that your evidence is solid. None of what the prosecution put forward as evidence could be reproduced with the scientific experts presents.
walshb wrote: » Dassey admitted to and provided accurate details surrounding events..
the whole year inn wrote: » Which unis done that? Have you a link.
Uncharted wrote: » Do yourself a massive favour and watch the second series. Youre opinion is utterly outdated and irrelevant in the light of fresh evidence now. You can thank me later
walshb wrote: » I will. Btw, does the prosecution have a film maker to sway their side? Fresh evidence that needs to be argued and challenged is what I’ll look for. Evidence not that there is “doubt,” but that the men could not have been involved is what the defense needs...
Commanchie wrote: » No what defence of murder is to raise reasonable doubt. THAT IS ALL. Thats defined
Commanchie wrote: » Ok so youre sayig he admitted it himself thats enough for you. A federal judge ruled he was coerced into admitting involvement. So on your logic hes innocent
walshb wrote: » Yes, reasonable doubt. Doubt with actual bite/substance..it’s not here..
retro:electro wrote: » Why is there no forensic evidence of a crime being committed or any evidence at all of Teresa’s presence in the garage or the bedroom?
walshb wrote: » You’re back? Being called/implied a gob****e won’t endear you to me.. Anyway, haven’t you better things to be doing than arguing with me? Your words..
Essien wrote: » The bit I can't wrap my head around is how/why, if he wasn't involved in the murder, did the ex become involved in the alleged cover up? I believe there was police interference designed to convict Steve, but I just don't get why a civilian would become involved. How does that conversation even begin without someone risking their career?
Field east wrote: » (1) remember the young chap in cork who killed a younger near Neighbour if his and he got very involved in the search for the poor chap (2) similar in England over I think 10 years ago a school helper killed two very young chaps in his house and , again got very involved in helping in the search for them until he was found out (3) similar in the Naul case .
Essien wrote: » The search i can totally understand. But the cover up, as in moving the Rav4 to Averys, all the calls to the police, somehow getting possession of THs diary etc. I don't understand that bit. For me, I can't see the motive in him doing that if he's not involved in the murder.
walshb wrote: » Avery is in prison on a lot more evidence than Joe O’Reilly.. Anyone think he’s innocent?
Uncharted wrote: » GO WATCH THE SECOND SERIES!!! It's all there for you to see!!!
RocketRaccoon wrote: » Sure I can say the exact same about Gerry Conlon. Making out he was tortured so bad he admitted to it, maybe he was but maybe he wasn't.
enfant terrible wrote: » How many parts in season 1 and 2?
walshb wrote: » I think you need to let go of this comparison. It’s quite insulting to what Gerry endured before breaking. Dassey’s confession isn’t remotely comparable.. Dassey gave them details and implicated Avery. Why? Easy...because Dassey was involved..
