Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thanks, I didn't read them all, but I just did a google search and found this:
2005, investigators searched and luminol tested Avery's garage. They were not focusing on the garage as a possible crime scene, so they did not move equipment out for a thorough search. They performed an 8 minute sweep on November 5, when looking for signs of Teresa alive. On November 6, they searched the garage for about two hours. The garage was luminol tested, and a number of areas reacted to the luminol, including one large 3' by 3' stain. Luminol can react to a number of materials, including blood, bleach, and iron.
In addition, Brendan Dassey testified that he helped Avery clean a large, reddish-black stain in the garage on October 31, 2005, with a mix of gasoline, paint thinner, and bleach. Luminol testing confirmed a large stain that reacted to luminol, which does react to bleach. It is almost impossible to believe that Teresa was shot 11 times while standing up in a dirty garage, and all blood spatter managed to be cleaned. Was evidence planted?
Household bleach can degrade DNA but won't destroy it, so they should still have found DNA even if it is degraded to the point that it can't be identified as belonging to a particular person. I'm not saying it didn't happen in the garage, I'm just saying that I'm not at all convinced that it did. I think Avery is creepy and I think he may well have killed the victim but I just don't buy the story of the way it happened, it's too full of holes
How it happens is not all that relevant (despite what many would lead you to believe). The only burden was to prove Avery was complicit in her murder. There was more than enough to convict.
I have not seen the documentary although I have read a lot about the case. I am no expert but I have seen enough crime shows to know that it is very difficult to get completely rid of blood. Particularly when there is splatter like with multiple gunshots; it ends up in every tiny crevice. I can recall many Forensic Files episodes where a perpetrator was undone by a tiny spot of blood in a hidden place. It seems impossible for someone to clean up blood so well.
Where the murder actually took place is a red herring fed to you by the defense and Avery advocates. Whether or not the murder occurred in the garage has no relevance to his guilt or innocence.
Where the murder actually took place is a red herring fed to you by the defense and Avery advocates. Whether or not the murder occurred in the garage has no relevance to his guilt or innocence.
I don't think I am easily fed 'red herrings'. It matters a great deal in this and any case whether the prosecution lied, even when the defendant is guilty. We simply can't tolerate a system that relies on altered or false evidence or testimony to "make their case" When that happens doubt is cast on the legitimacy of the entire system.
I don't think I am easily fed 'red herrings'. It matters a great deal in this and any case whether the prosecution lied, even when the defendant is guilty. We simply can't tolerate a system that relies on altered or false evidence or testimony to "make their case" When that happens doubt is cast on the legitimacy of the entire system.
See, this is where you are lying or misrepresenting the truth and are taking the defense conjecture and trying to pass it off as fact. There is nothing indicating evidence was altered or false. The defense speculated it could of been altered or false based on a conflict of interest, but they never provided any evidence to support the conflict of interest resulted in evidence getting planted.
That is what is so frustrating with people like you, you restate the defense narrative as if its proven fact when its nothing more than conjecture.
There are only unproven suspicions that evidence was planted or altered. I do not get why you have to misrepresent the truth.
See, this is where you are lying or misrepresenting the truth and are taking the defense conjecture and trying to pass it off as fact. There is nothing indicating evidence was altered or false. The defense speculated it could of been altered or false based on a conflict of interest, but they never provided any evidence to support the conflict of interest resulted in evidence getting planted. That is what is so frustrating with people like you, you restate the defense narrative as if its proven fact when its nothing more than conjecture. There are only unproven suspicions that evidence was planted or altered. I do not get why you have to misrepresent the truth.
Do you know the difference between disagreeing with someone and calling someone a liar or claiming they are misrepresenting the truth? In case you didn't, the first is called a discussion, the latter is trolling.
Do you know the difference between disagreeing with someone and calling someone a liar or claiming they are misrepresenting the truth? In case you didn't, the first is called a discussion, the latter is trolling.
You posted a faulty and inaccurate premise. You either did this intentionally (lied) or have no idea what you were talking about. That is not trolling, that is being critical of the statement you made.
Quote:
We simply can't tolerate a system that relies on altered or false evidence or testimony to "make their case" When that happens doubt is cast on the legitimacy of the entire system.
There is no indication of altered or false evidence in this case.
48 Hours did a new story on this last night. An attorney experienced in reversing convictions has taken his case (sorry I can't remember her name but I've seen her before on other cases/true crime shows) and she says she has new evidence that will prove he's innocent.
If he is innocent AGAIN that police department needs to be gutted and completely rebuilt. And some cops need to go to jail. And Avery's nephew needs to sue too. 48 Hours showed the cops feeding him info and then making him regurgitate it. Apparently he's low IQ and didn't have a lawyer or any support. He immediately retracted everything as soon as his mom had a chance to talk to him.
48 Hours did a new story on this last night. An attorney experienced in reversing convictions has taken his case (sorry I can't remember her name but I've seen her before on other cases/true crime shows) and she says she has new evidence that will prove he's innocent.
If he is innocent AGAIN that police department needs to be gutted and completely rebuilt. And some cops need to go to jail. And Avery's nephew needs to sue too. 48 Hours showed the cops feeding him info and then making him regurgitate it. Apparently he's low IQ and didn't have a lawyer or any support. He immediately retracted everything as soon as his mom had a chance to talk to him.
I found this article where they mention some 'tweets' and statements she has made that might provide some insight into her defense strategy:
48 Hours did a new story on this last night. An attorney experienced in reversing convictions has taken his case (sorry I can't remember her name but I've seen her before on other cases/true crime shows) and she says she has new evidence that will prove he's innocent.
Her claims are bull****, and the claim is most likely being made to get some publicity for herself (i.e. get paid to be on 48 Hours). If any "new" evidence existed, it would be public. Avery has a little more than a non zero chance at being exonerated. Any new evidence would have to be viewed within the totality of evidence against him and that evidence is quite strong.
Her claims are bull****, and the claim is most likely being made to get some publicity for herself (i.e. get paid to be on 48 Hours). If any "new" evidence existed, it would be public. Avery has a little more than a non zero chance at being exonerated. Any new evidence would have to be viewed within the totality of evidence against him and that evidence is quite strong.
She is saying the same bull**** his first lawyers were saying:
Quote:
At the time Wisconsin State Crime Lab gun expert William Newhouse could not testify that a bullet found in a crack in Avery's garage was shot from a .22-caliber rifle seized from his bedroom.
No, but unfortunately that is not the bullet with her DNA on it. That one could of only been fired from his weapon.
This proves she is an idiot:
Quote:
"Rub key on Avery's clothes for skin cells. Presto."
The DNA on the key was transferred via sweat.
Quote:
Ms Zellner is now pouring over 38 boxes of case files after filing for a new appeal citing violations of due process rights last week.
This proves her claims are not substantiated by anything. She is able to discredit the science within a week of gaining access of the evidence? Bull****. Her "new evidence" is all based on her conjecture and no substance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
