They could do that. Or we can apply the knowledge we have now. There was at least one other rifle of the same model on the property.
Mr. Kratz wants to argue that there was proof that that bullet came from the .22 rifle that was found in Mr. Avery’s trailer, but that’s not really the case. It was similar, but they could not completely exclude any other gun.
‘Making a Murderer’: Steven Avery’s Lawyer on the Evidence Left Out – Rolling Stone
No bone, no blood, no human tissue. There is no evidence this fragment struck anything other than wood.
As I have already expressed my conclusion based on the evidence, we will simply have to disagree on this.
My thinking is that if the forensic laboratory technician could not prevent the contamination of a control sample, I have zero confidence that they could prevent the contamination of other evidence. For similar reasons I wouldn't feel safe eating food prepared in a kitchen infested with rats.
I was never lead astray.
The knowledge we have now? What knowledge states that that there was no blood on the bullet fragment?
WhT you seem to be doing is substituting claims by Avery’s attorneys as evidence. They aren’t. Zellner has repeatedly misled in her filings.
Those red drops could be almost anything, including blood. It was never tested for that. The reasoning Zellner states that it is unlikely to be blood is because it was previously tested for DNA. That’s it.
The bullet was matched to THAT rifle. Not a model. Not a similar rifle. That specific rifle that was hanging over Avery’s bed. It’s in the trial transcripts.
I would believe that your conclusions were based on actually evidence if you could provide some that is exculpatory for Avery, or inculpatory for someone else. Instead it seems you are dismissing the actual evidence piece by piece by piece, and substituting conjecture that it was all planted without therr being any actual proof of such.