Brendan Dassey: Guilty of Teresa Halbach's rape, torture, and murder?

[Corrupt2theCore]

That's not really a proper argument to say anything about what the red fluid could've or couldn't have been. It certainly does not rule out blood.
Brendan Dassey swore under oath that it could've been blood. His other story was that it could've been a red car fluid (transmission fluid), that got on the floor after Steven "poked" somewhere under the car. I don't know much about cars, but I find it hard to believe transmission fluid can actually leak from underneath a car after "poking" it.
Teresa's DNA was found on a bullet in the garage. Whatever the source of the DNA was is unknown and could've been blood. Her bones were found just outside the garage. The bloodhound Loof showed "much interest" in the garage, a place where Teresa supposedly had never been according to Steven.

Transmissions have cooling lines that go to a radiator for cooling, but would have to be "poked" fairly hard. I know a fair amount about the scientific testing done in crime labs, and it's something that is next to impossible to beat. It's not worth lying because science will tell the truth eventually. With that being said, it is scientifically impossible for T.H. to have been killed inside of S.A.'s trailer, or garage. The scientists themselves couldn't rid a structure of all of someone's DNA after being shot and stabbed.... or shot.... or stabbed.... or whatever version of the story one choices to believe. It's simply not possible.

 

[RANCH]

Transmissions have cooling lines that go to a radiator for cooling, but would have to be "poked" fairly hard. I know a fair amount about the scientific testing done in crime labs, and it's something that is next to impossible to beat. It's not worth lying because science will tell the truth eventually. With that being said, it is scientifically impossible for T.H. to have been killed inside of S.A.'s trailer, or garage. The scientists themselves couldn't rid a structure of all of someone's DNA after being shot and stabbed.... or shot.... or stabbed.... or whatever version of the story one choices to believe. It's simply not possible.

Do you have a link that proves it's scientifically impossible to destroy all of someones DNA that is left at a crime scene that involves gunshots and stabbing? Thanks.

 

[proudfootz]

I suspect people who work around automobiles can tell the difference between blood and transmission fluid.

Since no evidence of human blood in the garage where this cleanup occurred, or on the jeans with the bleach stains, it seems like the most likely option is it was some sort of automotive fluid being cleaned.

 

[ACJL]

Do you have a link that proves it's scientifically impossible to destroy all of someones DNA that is left at a crime scene that involves gunshots and stabbing? Thanks.

Didn't John Ertl actually say he could do it?

Since no evidence of human blood in the garage where this cleanup occurred, or on the jeans with the bleach stains, it seems like the most likely option is it was some sort of automotive fluid being cleaned.

Because neither blood nor transmission fluid was on the jeans it means it wasn't blood?

 

[proudfootz]

Because neither blood nor transmission fluid was on the jeans it means it wasn't blood?

If the claim is that there was blood on the floor, one would hope to see some evidence of it.

I can't recall which test was run on the jeans to detect transmission fluid - can you remind me?

 

[ACJL]

If the claim is that there was blood on the floor, one would hope to see some evidence of it.

I can't recall which test was run on the jeans to detect transmission fluid - can you remind me?

Brendan explained he made sure he didn't touch the "red fluid"

 

[CoolJ]

Brendan explained he made sure he didn't touch the "red fluid"

Time to move past this. There was no blood in the garage. Fact.

Why are we discussing old stuff that has been rehashed a million times when we have a wealth of new information that has given us many more pieces to the puzzle??

 

[ACJL]

Time to move past this. There was no blood in the garage. Fact.

Why are we discussing old stuff that has been rehashed a million times when we have a wealth of new information that has given us many more pieces to the puzzle??

It was never proven it wasn't blood. It's not a fact. Even at trial Brendan maintained, under oath, it could've been blood. Can't be ruled out.

Which parts of the new information eliminate Steven as a suspect?

 

[CoolJ]

It was never proven it wasn't blood. It's not a fact. Even at trial Brendan maintained, under oath, it could've been blood. Can't be ruled out.

Which parts of the new information eliminate Steven as a suspect?

 

[CoolJ]

Get real. If it were blood from a gruesome murder, you don’t think that would have been confirmed by now?
Not to mention, even it were blood, this was a hunting family. It wouldn’t have meant anything. It was never confirmed to be blood let alone TH’s blood, which was nowhere to be found in either of the make believe crime scenes.

As for the 2nd question, where did I say anything about new information eliminating Steve as suspect. That has already been done my friend, ad nauseum.

What I said was, we have many more pieces to the puzzle. Everyone who has been paying attention can see much more clearly the overall and wide ranging deceit involved with this case from day 1. It can no longer be denied.

 

[ACJL]

I'm getting real. You're the one who dismisses the possibility it's blood without offering any plausible reason.

I see you're now saying it could be blood but it would be from an animal. It sounds more plausible to you that now all of a sudden there was an animal bleeding in the garage on the 31st behind a lawnmower?

Once again there are hints out there it could've been blood and you have nothing, zip, nada to prove otherwise. Likewise I can't say for sure it was in fact blood. It was never confirmed to have been blood, nor was it confirmed anywhere it was something else or was more likely to be something else. There are hints out there that it was blood. The description matches blood, and Brendan drew a picture matching the scene of the garage with the blood. A bullet with TH's DNA was found feet away from it, the bloodhound Loof showed much interest in the garage and tracked TH's scent to there. Cleaning the garage would've been a pretty good alibi for the both of them, but neither ever used it as such. Plenty of reason to not just dismiss it, especially not when a defendant testifies under oath it could've been blood (apparently coming from under a car after poking it??)

As for the 2nd question, where did I say anything about new information eliminating Steve as suspect. That has already been done my friend, ad nauseum.

What I said was, we have many more pieces to the puzzle. Everyone who has been paying attention can see much more clearly the overall and wide ranging deceit involved with this case from day 1. It can no longer be denied.

You have to say that before I can ask you about it?

Steven has never been eliminated as a suspect. If he was he wouldn't be in jail right now. How do these new pieces actually help to solve anything? For all we know this could mean Bobby was Steve's accomplice, because Steven is not eliminated as a suspect, he still does not have an alibi, he still had opportunity, and he can still be connected to all pieces of evidences. Nobody else can.

 

[Karinna]

According to Zellners forensic team:
(quote)
According to reports, a team of crack forensics experts have been combing Avery Salvage Yard and using the most technologically-advanced 'Luminol' testing, with the aim of proving that Ms Halbach was not killed in either the garage, or his trailer, as was claimed in court back in 2006.

Zellner has stated: “We are continuing to examine every aspect of Mr Avery’s case and all of his legal options. We are confident Mr Avery’s conviction will be vacated when we present the new evidence and results of our work to the appropriate court.”
Luminol testing is used to find blood not visible to the naked eye; according to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, scientists can "take advantage of the luminol reaction to locate potential blood evidence that would be undetectable through visual examination. The light, or luminescence, emitted in the luminol reaction is thought to result when an oxidizing agent, such as blood, catalyzes the oxidation of luminol by hydrogen peroxide in a basic solution."

No blood was found in Mr Avery's home or garage, but traces of it were found in her car, a Toyota Rav 4. Presumably, the new testing will prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the claim of death occurring in the garage or trailer was false - which would open up questions about the whole case; perhaps enough to demand a retrial.
Steven Avery’s lawyer has 'new evidence' that could prove his innocence

 

[Karinna]

From KZ's Motion for Post Conviction relief
(quote)
“Mr. Avery confirms his idiocy by flinging Ms. Halbach into the back of her vehicle undoubtedly to create a blood stain pattern on the cargo door that would provide Mr. Kratz’s blood spatter expert with a chance to display his own idiocy in misinterpreting the stain to fit Mr. Kratz’ s script. Not to be outdone, Mr. Avery, the savant, reappears and is able to remove his fingerprints, the blowback blood on the gun, and all of the blood spatter on the garage floor, giving credence to the saying, ‘Even miracles take a little time.'”
June 7, 2017 Avery- Zellner Motion For Relief | Dna Profiling | Pro Se Legal Representation In The United States

 

[proudfootz]

If the claim is that there was blood from a crime committed against Teresa Halbach at any specific location (including Steven Avery's garage), it is merely a claim without supporting evidence. It's not up to anyone to prove the perfectly ordinary claim that there was no blood from Teresa there, it is up to those making the extraordinary claim to supply something more than mere speculation.

 

[CoolJ]

I'm getting real. You're the one who dismisses the possibility it's blood without offering any plausible reason.

I see you're now saying it could be blood but it would be from an animal. It sounds more plausible to you that now all of a sudden there was an animal bleeding in the garage on the 31st behind a lawnmower?

Once again there are hints out there it could've been blood and you have nothing, zip, nada to prove otherwise. Likewise I can't say for sure it was in fact blood. It was never confirmed to have been blood, nor was it confirmed anywhere it was something else or was more likely to be something else. There are hints out there that it was blood. The description matches blood, and Brendan drew a picture matching the scene of the garage with the blood. A bullet with TH's DNA was found feet away from it, the bloodhound Loof showed much interest in the garage and tracked TH's scent to there. Cleaning the garage would've been a pretty good alibi for the both of them, but neither ever used it as such. Plenty of reason to not just dismiss it, especially not when a defendant testifies under oath it could've been blood (apparently coming from under a car after poking it??)



You have to say that before I can ask you about it?

Steven has never been eliminated as a suspect. If he was he wouldn't be in jail right now. How do these new pieces actually help to solve anything? For all we know this could mean Bobby was Steve's accomplice, because Steven is not eliminated as a suspect, he still does not have an alibi, he still had opportunity, and he can still be connected to all pieces of evidences. Nobody else can.

The fact that you are continuing to go on about a red stain that hasn’t been, nor ever will be confirmed to be blood, let alone relevant blood, lets us all know how much the “guilters” are grasping at straws trying to find something, anything to hold on to.
Again, why is this even being discussed? It is irrelevant. It is an obvious distraction away from new relevant info which is blowing this case wide open.

As for Steven being eliminated as a suspect....maybe you are unfamiliar with how the American criminal justice system works. Zellner needs an evidentiary hearing, she is not trying to eliminate him as a suspect at this point, she is trying to get in front of a Judge. You ain’t seen nothing yet.

Truth Wins!

The coverup continues....

 

[ACJL]

The fact that you are continuing to go on about a red stain that hasn’t been, nor ever will be confirmed to be blood, let alone relevant blood, lets us all know how much the “guilters” are grasping at straws trying to find something, anything to hold on to.
Again, why is this even being discussed? It is irrelevant. It is an obvious distraction away from new relevant info which is blowing this case wide open.

As for Steven being eliminated as a suspect....maybe you are unfamiliar with how the American criminal justice system works. Zellner needs an evidentiary hearing, she is not trying to eliminate him as a suspect at this point, she is trying to get in front of a Judge. You ain’t seen nothing yet.

Truth Wins!

The coverup continues....

Not at all. Guilters don't need straws. There's plenty of evidence and if that red fluid was blood that would just fit perfectly with every other piece of evidence there is, such as a nearby bullet with Halbach's DNA on it, nearby burned cremains, Dasseys drawing which marked the spot where she died coincidentally at the same spot where stain with the exact same size was found, his under oath statement that it could've been blood, contradicting his story that it was transmission fluid coming from "underneath" the car after "poking" it there.

Let's turn it all around... everything that you have said about the stain so far, how it hasn't been proven it was blood, etc, can all be said about everything you have ever claimed about Steven's innocence.

 

[CoolJ]

Not at all. Guilters don't need straws. There's plenty of evidence and if that red fluid was blood that would just fit perfectly with every other piece of evidence there is, such as a nearby bullet with Halbach's DNA on it, nearby burned cremains, Dasseys drawing which marked the spot where she died coincidentally at the same spot where stain with the exact same size was found, his under oath statement that it could've been blood, contradicting his story that it was transmission fluid coming from "underneath" the car after "poking" it there.

Let's turn it all around... everything that you have said about the stain so far, how it hasn't been proven it was blood, etc, can all be said about everything you have ever claimed about Steven's innocence.

Exactly. Nothing in this case has been proven at any level, let alone reasonable doubt. All we have is a bunch shady characters with strong motive to get back at SA for bringing to light their corruptness.

 

[ACJL]

Exactly. Nothing in this case has been proven at any level, let alone reasonable doubt. All we have is a bunch shady characters with strong motive to get back at SA for bringing to light their corruptness.

Steven has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and one of the reasons for that is there was no evidence of "shady characters with strong motive to get back at SA".

All evidence points to him and him alone, even after the umteenth motion of Zellner.

 

[proudfootz]

Steven Avery was also convicted of the 1985 assault against Penny Beernsten 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

Just goes to show what a shoddy police investigation and a motivated prosecutor can accomplish!

 

[Karinna]

Exactly, it's not like the jury got it right in the PB case. And consequently a vicious rapist was still out there on the loose to perpetrate again on other unsuspecting females. And SA did a lot of years for a crime he didn't commit.
And i am not aware of SA's MO being a penchant to rape females.
He has never been accused of such ever. So why would SA suddenly decide to do such a thing? It's BS and a lie, and IMO he and BD never raped TH.
What on earth would Steven Avery's motive be to kill TH? Far as i can see he didn't have one, but others living there might have who had previous intimate relationship with her, or BoD with his penchant for the macabre & violent *advertiser censored* he viewed?