I think SA likely did kill her. But call me old fashioned, I'd like to see actual proof. As for the bullet, the woman testifying about it admitted on the stand that once she had contaminated the only existing and very tiny sample of dna on it, the test should have been ruled inconclusive, by her own words and her own protocol. So, I don't really know what to make of the bullet. My belief is that likely a few people who live on the property do know what happened to her and were involved with the crime itself or at least the cleanup and cover up of the crime. I do not believe SA acted alone if he acted at all. I do not believe SA and his nephew could have cleaned up a scene so well. There are more averys and / or tadychs who know the truth. Is there one piece of conrete, physical evidence that does NOT have a murky, shady, planted type of angle to it ? If so, I cannot recall it.
Question for everyone ..........if SA had not been wrongfully convicted prior , would you feel as certain about his innocence this go around?
Polygraphy everyone who lived on the property in 2005 and you 'll see the truth ! Moooo
Issue is that everyone seems to assume there needed to be some big cleanup. I don't see evidence of that.
Sure, if you create a narrative that has a big bloody mess, then I get it.
But the only evidence of a big bloody mess that we have is a 3x3 / 3x4 spot in the garage that may or may not be her blood.
Which is why I keep saying, that if anyone is saying 2 people weren't capable of cleaning up that spot, I'd like to understand why.
Lots of talk about blood splatter. We have zero evidence of blood splatter. So one of 3 things are plausible in order of probability :
1. There was no blood splatter because a pillow or something of that nature was over the head when shooting. - very plausible
2. The killing didn't take place in the garage. - very plausible
3. There was blood splatter but it got cleaned up -- highly unlikley imo
So why everyone feels we need to accept Kratz's version that came from a coerce brendan as a litmus test for whether 1 or 2 people could have killed her and cleaned up a mess of unconfirmed magnitude is confusing to me.
I am pretty certain that no one accepts it happened that way. So why even argue it anymore ?
But, looking at 1 & 2, it's common sense that they are something we have to consider and are both plausible.
Only reason I say #1 is more probable is because
There is a luminol hit on averys garage floor that may or may not be th's blood
brendan's mother reports brendan told her he was cleaning avery's garage floor, after questioning him about his bleached pants that night.
Tadych's co worker gave statement that the day of avery's arrest that tadych spoke of blood in his son's laundry mixed in with his clothes.
Nothing that is proof, but it's things that fit together that give weight to the probability.
Just tired of the "how could they clean up the mess" conversation, because no one even believes they could if it happened the way kratz described. So why even use it as a litmus test for anything ??
But if ANYONE believes that, speak up and explain to us how you believe they could clean it up. My opinion is that the person doesn't exist but people keep talking to Kratz, who we all agree gave a crappy narrative.
jmo