Steven Avery (making a murderer) Guilty or innocent?

weisses · 08-02-2016 11:39AM

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.

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

irishmover · 08-02-2016 11:49AM

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:

How many times have you conceded in this thread? Do you always use this as a tactic in any discussion you have with anyone?

John_D80 · 08-02-2016 11:49AM

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

the EDTA was only one factor of provenance. And actually the EDTA was accepted by the court. The experts showed that the conditions whereby EDTA would have evaporated could not possibly have taken place.

smash · 08-02-2016 11:52AM

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:

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 · 08-02-2016 12:00PM

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

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.

smash · 08-02-2016 12:06PM

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.

Dig a little deeper in to what exactly? I watched the documentary and decided to follow the reports on-line to get more information about the evidence. These reports are coming from millions of source, and only those which are credible or point to additional evidence are placed in the opening posts on the threads. This way the bullsh*t is weeded out.

Here's some info from what is believed to be a very credible source about the EDTA testing:

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.

Source: http://brobible.com/entertainment/article/scientist-explained-blood-evidence-making-murderer-garbage/

Maximus Alexander · 08-02-2016 12:14PM

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.

donspeekinglesh · 08-02-2016 12:17PM

John_D80 wrote: »

2. Cast off patterns

Blood spatter analysis is not exactly a settled science.

murpho999 · 08-02-2016 01:10PM

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.

Possible because they heard more evidence than we did in the show.

HardenendMan · 08-02-2016 01:18PM

murpho999 wrote: »

Possible because they heard more evidence than we did in the show.

Oh yeah, all this irrefutable evidence that everybody knows about but won't discuss.

smash · 08-02-2016 01:23PM

murpho999 wrote: »

Possible because they heard more evidence than we did in the show.

Then why can't anyone find out or tell others what this evidence was? So far the only stuff that anyone can come out with is unsubstantiated or has been debunked.

MadDog76 · 08-02-2016 01:26PM

murpho999 wrote: »

Possible because they heard more evidence than we did in the show.

Such as? The evidence, all of it, is available in the public domain.

The Jury was tainted .......... the whole State of Wisconsin was convinced of Avery's guilt by Ken Kratz' Public Press Conferences before the Trial ......... it was, in effect, Trial by Media.

Two of the Jurors are related to officers of the Manitowoc Sheriff's Department.

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.

smash · 08-02-2016 01:28PM

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.

And some have since stated that they were in fear for their safety.

The Raptor · 08-02-2016 01:54PM

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.

There wasn't any blood on the key either. I'm sure John D would have read that in his link from yesterday, from the first day of the trial.

There was blood on the ignition but not on the key.

Highly corrupt police department if you ask me.

Jester252 · 08-02-2016 02:10PM

To everyone who watched Making a Murderer just realise that you watched a 10 hour, one sided argument.

MadDog76 · 08-02-2016 02:16PM

The Raptor wrote: »

There wasn't any blood on the key either. I'm sure John D would have read that in his link from yesterday, from the first day of the trial.

There was blood on the ignition but not on the key.

Highly corrupt police department if you ask me.

He must have cleaned the key, he's smart ........ but wait, why didn't he clean the blood off the ignition then? ........ actually he couldn't have cleaned the key, his DNA was found on it .......... but it was only his DNA? ......... he must have forgotten to clean his blood off the ignition but he remembered to clean the key and then he put his own DNA back onto the key ...... yes, that's it, that's what happened ........ actually none of that makes any sense, I'm confused ........ I hope John D has all the answers for us!

MadDog76 · 08-02-2016 02:17PM

Jester252 wrote: »

To everyone who watched Making a Murderer just realise that you watched a 10 hour, one sided argument.

How stupid of us all :rolleyes:

Senna · 08-02-2016 02:50PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

He must have cleaned the key, he's smart ........ but wait, why didn't he clean the blood off the ignition then? ........ actually he couldn't have cleaned the key, his DNA was found on it .......... but it was only his DNA? ......... he must have forgotten to clean his blood off the ignition but he remembered to clean the key and then he put his own DNA back onto the key ...... yes, that's it, that's what happened ........ actually none of that makes any sense, I'm confused ........ I hope John D has all the answers for us!

So no chance the key was cleaned and left in the trailer by avery, but at some point he picked it up again, in the 5 days days he was in the trailer after the murder. Of course not, don't be ridiculous.

MadDog76 · 08-02-2016 02:55PM

Senna wrote: »

So no chance the key was cleaned and left in the trailer by avery, but at some point he picked it up again, in the 5 days days he was in the trailer after the murder. Of course not, don't be ridiculous.

So he cleaned the key, because he's so clever, but he forgot to dispose of it properly, even though he had 5 days to do so, and he also forgot to clean the blood from the car.

He cleaned the key ....... yes, that makes sense.

smash · 08-02-2016 03:02PM

Senna wrote: »

So no chance the key was cleaned and left in the trailer by avery, but at some point he picked it up again, in the 5 days days he was in the trailer after the murder. Of course not, don't be ridiculous.

What are the chances that the police would have found the key on one of the first 7(?) searches of the trailer?

Maximus Alexander · 08-02-2016 03:03PM

It's certainly hard to believe a chain of events that relies a man who left his victim's car on his property with his blood rather visibly smeared on it, along with their burnt remains in a fire pit mere feet from his window, having the foresight to clean the car key. But then fail to dispose of that car key. Or the car, despite having a car crusher on his property. Or the charred remains.

MadDog76 · 08-02-2016 03:08PM

A question that has always bothered me and I've never really come up with a reasonable explanation ........... the Prosecution/Police say Teresa was murdered on October 31st (because that was the day she was known to be on the Avery property) but nobody reported her missing until November 3rd .......... not her friends, not her work colleagues, not her room-mate, not her ex-boyfriend, not her family/brother ......... nobody.

Senna · 08-02-2016 03:16PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

So he cleaned the key, because he's so clever, but he forgot to dispose of it properly, even though he had 5 days to do so, and he also forgot to clean the blood from the car.

He cleaned the key ....... yes, that makes sense.

So you think cleaning a key, which takes two seconds with a rag is the same as cleaning a jeep of all evidence and let's face it, he doesn't know which blood is his and which is hers?

Is it possible he planned to drive/hid the Jeep somewhere else so kept the key and didn't get the opportunity to get rid of it(jeep) in the end?

All equally futile arguments, as I think the key was planted, but I'm certainly not going to dismiss every argument because thats the general TV watching publics belieft.

Senna · 08-02-2016 03:21PM

smash wrote: »

What are the chances that the police would have found the key on one of the first 7(?) searches of the trailer?

I think the key was planted, I think it was in the Jeep and taken out by that detective, he wiped it and put it in the trailer.
I just have a problem with people believing hes innocent because they planted evidence, so if people want to speculate and believe their ideas to be true, then there can be counter arguments that make as much sense.

A retrial would be best, but I think he'll be found guilty again.

smash · 08-02-2016 03:23PM

Senna wrote: »

So you think cleaning a key, which takes two seconds with a rag is the same as cleaning a jeep of all evidence and let's face it, he doesn't know which blood is his and which is hers?

Senna wrote: »

I think the key was planted, I think it was in the Jeep and taken out by that detective, he wiped it and put it in the trailer.

So where was her DNA? Not on the key she'd been using for years previously...

ScumLord · 08-02-2016 03:24PM

Senna wrote: »

So you think cleaning a key, which takes two seconds with a rag is the same as cleaning a jeep of all evidence and let's face it, he doesn't know which blood is his and which is hers?

Is cleaning a key of all DNA evidence that easy?

I think the police involved need to be investigated. Whatever they were at the broke some laws in the process. They've shown they had made up their minds and would make the evidence fit.

smash · 08-02-2016 03:25PM

Senna wrote: »

I just have a problem with people believing hes innocent because they planted evidence, so if people want to speculate and believe their ideas to be true, then there can be counter arguments that make as much sense.

A retrial would be best, but I think he'll be found guilty again.

What are your opinions on other suspects, or on reports that were never followed up on? Here's a good post from 2009, well before the documentary and archived to prove it hasn't been edited since:

https://web.archive.org/web/20091112001155/http://www.convolutedbrian.com/an-alternative.html

HardenendMan · 08-02-2016 03:28PM

Senna wrote: »

I think the key was planted, I think it was in the Jeep and taken out by that detective, he wiped it and put it in the trailer.
I just have a problem with people believing hes innocent because they planted evidence, so if people want to speculate and believe their ideas to be true, then there can be counter arguments that make as much sense.

A retrial would be best, but I think he'll be found guilty again.

You think the key was planted, yet hold a presumption of guilt rather than innocence. No body can say he is innocent or guilty. Therefore he is not guilty. How bloody hard is this concept to grasp for people??

Senna · 08-02-2016 03:39PM

HardenendMan wrote: »

You think the key was planted, yet hold a presumption of guilt rather than innocence. No body can say he is innocent or guilty. Therefore he is not guilty. How bloody hard is this concept to grasp for people??

We'll then, how bloody hard is it to take the jury's verdict, the professional bodies who have reviewed the case and don't believe an injustice occurred, or the lengthy appeals process where evidence is reviewed.
A forum like this is a place for speculation and opinions, it's not a legal institution where laws have to be upheld.

ScumLord · 08-02-2016 03:44PM

Senna wrote: »

We'll then, how bloody hard is it to take the jury's verdict, the professional bodies who have reviewed the case and don't believe an injustice occurred, or the lengthy appeals process where evidence is reviewed.

The problem is the documentary at the very least highlights corruption in the entire westconsin legal system, from police all the way up to defence and prosecution working together to convict a minor.

Brendan's lawyer should be in jail. He got away with undermining the basic tenets of the US legal system. When he was outed in front the the entire country all he got was a slap on the wrist.

I think the bottom line for a lot of people is they simply don't trust the legal system in that state.

Steven Avery (making a murderer) Guilty or innocent?

Comments