MadDog76 wrote: » Despite all of this, seven Jurors initially voted Not Guilty, three Jurors were undecided and only two (the relatives?) Jurors voted Guilty ........... but those two Jurors dug their heels in and declared that they would never ever reconsider their vote .......... the remaining Jurors, to their shame, folded.
murpho999 wrote: » Possible because they heard more evidence than we did in the show.
Maximus Alexander wrote: » I don't know if he was guilty or not, but the prosecution's case certainly seemed to be far too weak to justify a conviction. There were holes in their story, their timelines didn't make a lot of sense. There was quite clearly a presumption of guilt, when the opposite is what a defendant should be afforded. He may be guilty, but you're only supposed to convict if you're certain that he is, and I don't see how the jury could have been.
John_D80 wrote: » 2. Cast off patterns
John_D80 wrote: » Do you realize how silly you sound? When you base your opinion on a documentary that is blatantly lop-sided and other peoples forum posts. Take the time to actually dig a little deeper for yourself instead of recycling other peoples opinion.
In regards to the documentary, the test showed that no EDTA was detectable in the blood swabs. Without a limit of detection, this information means nothing, absolutely nothing. It is possible that the test could only detect EDTA if EDTA composed at least 50% of the sample. The amount of EDTA in blood tubes is miniscule, almost negligible compared to the amount of blood. We are talking about 7 milligrams of EDTA in a 4-mL blood tube. If 0.1 mL was taken out, it would, at most, contain 0.2 mg of EDTA. The blood was swabbed from the vehicle, and probably only 1/10 of the blood (0.01 mL of actual blood), thereby diluting it further. The swab used was also wetted with some sort of solvent, maybe 0.1 mL. Now, there’s only 0.002 mg of EDTA in the blood swab. The swab most likely was diluted further for test purposes, probably taking the swab and re-suspending into at least 1 mL of solution. Using my numbers, which are probably conservative, the test would have to be able to detect 0.0002 mg (0.2 µg) of EDTA in 1 mL of sample. Outside of the amount of EDTA present in a 4-mL blood tube, these numbers are hypothetical for illustrative purposes only. The testing that would have been required to scientifically validate this test would have required some time. After following standard validation procedures, I would have taken blood from an EDTA vial (any blood) and put it onto a vehicle surface. After the blood was completely dry, I would have used the same blood swabbing and collection procedure used during the investigation, and then tested that sample. This would be a positive control, since the technician would know that there was EDTA in that sample. Does the newly-developed test detect the EDTA? If so, repeat it at least 10 times, and you have a strong scientific ground to make the statement that there was no EDTA present in the blood from the vehicle. If the test does not detect EDTA from the experiment above, one cannot make any mention about the presence or absence of EDTA in the blood swabs from the vehicle because the test could not detect EDTA amounts that small. I do not know all of the work that went into developing the EDTA detection test. However, using the results and drawing a conclusion based on those results, without having a well-defined test with a limit of detection, is a LIE. I will not mention using the results from only 3 swabs to extrapolate results onto the untested swabs. That was just plain unethical, and I am glad a rebuttal witness for the defense made that clear.
smash wrote: » Do you realise how silly you sound? You've read a transcript and said "He's guilty because of the blood in the car" without looking in to it further. Do you know that the blood found on the door frame was in a position that if it had been there while the door was closed it would have been smudged and smeared and transferred to the door and run down the sil? But it wasn't... because the rubber strip on the door was carefully ripped away in an exact spot as to not disturb the blood. There's even dust lines on the door that show the rubber had been recently removed
John_D80 wrote: » I dont expect anyone to read the entire transcript. I never said I did. Oh you've read a lot on forums? As opposed to the actual source? Sorry you're point is proven. I concede absolutely. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
weisses wrote: » Your 2 points contradict each other The testing could not find EDTA ... Experts also claimed that the testing methods could be flawed .. The fact one cannot find something doesn't mean it's not there
John_D80 wrote: » 1. Its not CERTAIN where the blood came from. Its only strongly speculated that it was from his hand as that was the only known deep wound he had the time. Could easily have come from elsewhere on his body and possibly did. The absence of fingerprints actually supports the fact that it. 2. Cast off patterns and complete absence of EDTA proved the other bloodstains could not have been planted and could only have come directly from a human source.
smash wrote: » Like I said and other have said. Please provide a few bullet points and links to back them up rather than expecting people to read the complete transcript.
smash wrote: » No, I've read a lot about it through various forums. Out of all the forums and news articles you're the only one who seems to know about this irrefutable additional blood evidence... And you wont give us a link tell us more about it.
John_D80 wrote: » A link to what? Its all there in the actual court transcript which I already sent links for. How much more proof do you need other than what you can read yourself?
John_D80 wrote: » In fairness man you didn't even know about the other bloodstains until I told you about it so its obvious you have only watched the documentary and made your mind up solely on that.
smash wrote: » Ok, well send us a link.
Senna wrote: » But he was proven guilty and there was significant evidence, his case has also been denied a retrial at all levels, it's not all a conspiracy but of course everyone is wrong and the TV viewing public are right, but TV knows all.
John_D80 wrote: » I actually was editing my post to include more details as you were posting.
smash wrote: » Perhaps you would like to discuss these blood stains so we're aware of them, or would you prefer to just point people at a court transcript that's a few thousand pages long?
John_D80 wrote: » There were only two bloodstains mentioned in the doc. I'm talking about the other ones that were left out of it. The people whose testimony I am referring to weren't even shown in the documentary actually.
smash wrote: » The blood evidence was disclosed in the documentary. The testimonies from the experts weren't credible because of a few reasons:The blood evidence was contaminated. The FBI tests on the blood weren't thorough. Both of these points were argued by the defence and other experts. The positions and splatter of the blood in the car has also been shown to be easily replicated in the same way that it was found in the car.
John_D80 wrote: » Well if previously undisclosed (in the doc) physical DNA evidence isn't good enough for you, then I don't think anything would be. He was in that car. Of that there is no doubt. No matter what I put forward it will be dismissed as speculation or as 'planted' evidence. Feck it. He must be innocent so.
MadDog76 wrote: » Ok ......... if the blood came from an open wound on Avery's hand then that means he wasn't wearing gloves ......... right? Why was Avery's fingerprints not found in the car? Two possible explanations ........ 1. Steven managed to clean/wipe every square inch of the car ensuring that his fingerprints would be removed ......... but managed to miss his own visible bloodstains? 2. The blood was planted. Do you have any other possible explanation or would you like to move on to another piece of "irrefutable" evidence?? EDIT: Just so you know, I have read the Trial transcript ........ more than once, in fact.
Lorne Malvo wrote: » Innocent until proven guilty with SIGNIFICENT evidence.
John_D80 wrote: » Hmmm ok. The doc stated Averys blood was found in two places in the car as far as I remember. The other (avery) blood stains that weren't mentioned in the doc were shown to only possibly be directly from an openwound (most likely the wound on his hand) based on the testimony of blood experts. Something to do with splatter shape as far as I remember. Where do you think these other blood splatters came from came from if not directly from him??
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bed6f1d088326d5eb21c0139847332c7.svg)