Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery - #2

[missy1974]

I watched the Kelly File on Fox the other night, where Kratz and Strang were both on. Kratz is the one that keeps saying sweat DNA (I've seen him quoted in other articles while reading too) He says that was the most compelling evidence. When Strang was asked about it, he said it was not "sweat", that is Kratz' theory, not proven, it's transfer DNA, meaning skin cells (not quoting, just going by what I remember)

There are so many things in this case that have left me baffled.... just adding this to the list LOL Could it be something that was planted too? Could taking something of Steven Avery's (i.e. clothes, washcloth) and rubbing it on the latch cause this transfer? Was the battery connections tested? Even if he was wearing gloves and disconnected the battery, there has to be DNA on them too. And if he was bleeding through the gloves at this point... no blood on the hood or battery but it was randomly dripping inside the vehicle? Was there ANY fingerprints found on the hood/latch? I know that SA's weren't... but was anyone's????

 

[steveml]

BBM. I'm going to be confident and say that is not true. Her DNA was on a bullet fragment found in the garage in approx. the 8th search of the garage. This fragment was found by Manitowac LE who were not supposed to be investigating due to conflict of interest. For that reason, the DNA is suspect. Also, if this bullet was believed to have gone through the skull of TH, blood or tissue should have been present. It was only reported that her DNA was there, not blood or tissue. That also makes some suspicious of this bit of evidence.

If you have a source to some new evidence regarding your claim please share!!!

Here's a bit if useful info. regarding the bullet/EDTA detection methods...

http://chadsteele.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/some-clarity-to-some-of-evidence-in.html?m=1

 

[stephsb]

What I just can't fathom is how we are expected to believe that Avery cleaned this crime scene spotless and then left blood in her car. Just makes little sense to me


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tawny]

What I just can't fathom is how we are expected to believe that Avery cleaned this crime scene spotless and then left blood in her car. Just makes little sense to me


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm because of the AMAZING job he did hiding it with those twigs and panels duh! Why do something like dispose of it via crusher when you can hide it behind sticks!!!????!?!?!?!?!?

/end sarcasm

 

[Lamima]

I have to think because I was not paying attention but it was either Msnbc or Cnn discussing the case.. It just made me snap and think " well that would be a problem."

Like I said I am hopefully watching this weekend. It has been a horrendous month and I am looking forward to some down time and good tv.

Did you watch 'The 5' on Fox tonight maybe? they were discussing and Greg G spoke confusingly but what he was trying to say is they found a bullet with her blood...a bullet that came from SA's gun that was over his bed. Maybe you misheard from that???

 

[Really?]

Exactly how I feel. If it was someone on the property, as soon as LE latched onto SA, they would have been super relieved and SUPER helpful. JMO.

I'm still in the camp that LE did it because if the lawsuit. It's just that simple. Sad to sad by the way.

 

[Marah]

There's no evidence that Steven gave Teresa "the creeps". If he did, why did she head out there in her own after leaving a cheery voicemail?

Pretty sure the message was on Barb's machine NOT on SA's.

 

[norest4thewicked]

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm because of the AMAZING job he did hiding it with those twigs and panels duh! Why do something like dispose of it via crusher when you can hide it behind sticks!!!????!?!?!?!?!?

/end sarcasm

For those who keep bringing up the crusher, a vehicle can't just be driven up to a crusher and crushed. It has be be prepared. And that preparation time would be something that SA didn't have. The engine has to be removed, tires taken off, fluids drained, etc. This argument needs to be put to bed.

 

[ziggy]

Here's a bit if useful info. regarding the bullet/EDTA detection methods...

http://chadsteele.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/some-clarity-to-some-of-evidence-in.html?m=1

Excellent thanks. That was brought out in the trial footage on cross, but seems the jury didn't get it. The blame here goes to the judge, who should not have allowed these results into evidence - one, a contaminated and invalid test and two, a test that is known to produce false negatives.

 

[ziggy]

I will agree, I have no idea what DNA can be extracted from. If someone told me they could get DNA from sweat, I'd believe them, because it can be obtained from other fluids.

Maybe the point of contention is one of semantics where someone said "Sweat DNA", which might not be a term, yet one might agree that DNA could be obtained from sweat?

Maybe someone can clear this up, but this article suggests that excreted fluids can contain DNA, depending on whether there is "sufficient information". So it could vary from person to person possibly ?

Correct: Sweat DNA is not a term, but DNA can be obtained from sweat. DNA testing can determine if the source is secreted or excreted or skin cells. Sufficient information is whether or not there is enough DNA info to form a profile, not something that varies from person to person, but rather the quality of the sample.

 

[steveml]

What I just can't fathom is how we are expected to believe that Avery cleaned this crime scene spotless and then left blood in her car. Just makes little sense to me


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To add to the things that don't make sense :-

Car crusher readily available yet car parked, hidden with amateurish camouflage items.
Car key allegedly kept in bedroom, when complete disposal or removal would have been entirely simple.
Leg-irons that were allegedly used to restrain TH kept on premises, when disposal would have been entirely simple.
TH allegedly shot on premises, yet SA leaves shell-casings in full view, when disposal or removal would have been entirely simple.
TH allegedly shot on premises, yet SA makes no attempt to hide or dispose of guns.
Two different people are in prison for a crime in which the State provided two different versions of what they think happened. It's impossible for both versions to be correct.

 

[ziggy]

I keep wondering was the claim that she was shot in the head a definite, or did the piece that was examined look like a piece that COULD have been from a gun shot.

And that I think about it, if she was shot, we can't tell if it was really from the .22. That is only what LE claims, but couldn't it have been any gun?

In trial transcripts from BD's trial, Leslie Eisenberg testified at length, as did a colleague, that two pieces of skull found in the charred remains exhibited malformations both on the inside and outside of the skull that, to their scientific or medical certainty, were consistent with a gunshot wound.

See Dassey transcript Day 4 - Eisenberg direct starts on page 50.

 

[ziggy]

For those who keep bringing up the crusher, a vehicle can't just be driven up to a crusher and crushed. It has be be prepared. And that preparation time would be something that SA didn't have. The engine has to be removed, tires taken off, fluids drained, etc. This argument needs to be put to bed.

The only reason those preparations take place is to comply with environmental regulations. [Edited to add] And so that the crushed material has value and is sellable. Are you saying that SA would commit murder but not violate environmental regulations? Seems odd.

 

[steveml]

For those who keep bringing up the crusher, a vehicle can't just be driven up to a crusher and crushed. It has be be prepared. And that preparation time would be something that SA didn't have. The engine has to be removed, tires taken off, fluids drained, etc. This argument needs to be put to bed.

No, I'm afraid it doesn't. I've explained this previously. Engine does 'not' need to be removed. The only reason the tyres/fluids/battery etc. are removed are for environmental/recycling reasons. That car could have been crushed immediately - therefore this issue should remain well and truly open. The removable items are a recommendation by government/state (and are subject to a fine if not adhered to) and have nothing at all to do with the 'crushing' ability of the car-crusher.

Do you really think SA thought 'hmm...I won't crush this one without removing the recyclables as I may be subject to an environmental fine?' I certainly don't think so.

 

[norest4thewicked]

Now we will have more to talk about.


http://deadline.com/2016/01/investi...useries-in-front-page-special-tca-1201677975/

 

[Really?]

For those who keep bringing up the crusher, a vehicle can't just be driven up to a crusher and crushed. It has be be prepared. And that preparation time would be something that SA didn't have. The engine has to be removed, tires taken off, fluids drained, etc. This argument needs to be put to bed.

Yes. You are correct. Legally.

But if you just killed a gal, why bother with technicalities.

 

[Sleuther87]

It is mentioned in one of the points under the CA section of the post-conviction motion. I'm at work ATM so don't have my doc handy, but can post the information they allege he received when I get home.

My understanding is everyone was interviewed early on (including Brendan) , although how thoroughly and in what context is anyone's guess. I can't say for certain on DNA, but believe you are probably correct (at the very least, they came looking for EA's, since he was hiding under clothes)

Ok, just skimmed through that piece and there's mention CA was interviewed by police on November 6th (doesn't say to what extent).

Them "feeding CA info" doesn't seem like a big deal to me, especially without knowing the date of when it occurred. Seems like it happened after they had already found the key.

 

[norest4thewicked]

Considering that everything he did to cover this crime up to make it APPEAR that he was being framed, nothing would surprise me. The reason all of these points seem so ridiculous is because he knew exactly what he was doing and had had 18 years to plan it out exactly the way it would look as if he was framed if he ever got the chance. And he did get the chance.

 

[missy1974]

Now we will have more to talk about.


http://deadline.com/2016/01/investi...useries-in-front-page-special-tca-1201677975/

This will be interesting. However, if it is all the stuff I have read this past week in court documents, articles, evidence (or lack of), and what Kratz has been pushing as the evidence that convicted him, I doubt I will be swayed to believe that it means SA and BD don't deserve a retrial. JMO

 

[norest4thewicked]

This will be interesting. However, if it is all the stuff I have read this past week in court documents, articles, evidence (or lack of), and what Kratz has been pushing as the evidence that convicted him, I doubt I will be swayed to believe that it means SA and BD don't deserve a retrial. JMO

Hopefully it will be presented in a way that helps people understand the situation better.