For Those Who Do Not Think Avery was Framed & Evidence Planted - Discuss

[Madeleine74]

I'm now finally listening to the long KK interview (the one on YouTube). Additional revelations about MaM pile up on what a con was perpetuated. They should be sued for fabricating what they did:

- Filmmakers make it look like Lenk handled Avery's blood in 2002-ish & they accomplish this by showing a closeup of an evidence transmission form that contains Lenk's signature at the bottom, accompanied by dramatic music and then a cut to the blood vial. Except no blood was sent with that form. What was sent was "hair and nail clippings." Turns out Lenk never was near Avery's blood, which the filmmakers knew, as did the defense team, but the filmmakers decided to use that form that happened to contain Lenk's signature to insinuate that Lenk planted blood. It was all made up!

- Lenk never knew there was a blood vial in the clerk's office, something the filmmakers and defense knew. Lenk never was near the blood, didn't touch it, didn't know it was in a box in the clerk's office.

- The vial with the hole in the top (and the scene in which Buting calls it a "red letter day"), that hole in the vial stopper was supposed to be there and a nurse who drew the blood testified that she was the one who put the hole in the purple stopper from drawing the blood and depositing the blood in the vial. Filmmakers knew there was no malfeasance with that vial, and at trial the whole blood vial hole was debunked soundly. Yet the filmmakers still chose to make the blood vial a central part of their narrative, 10 years later. They of course didn't bother showing that the vial evidence was debunked, but it was.

- The filmmakers, deciding to further the blood conspiracy, manufactured a scene by splicing together questions Lenk was asked on the stand with his answers to different questions, all done to make it look like he was hiding something with the blood. It was made up!

 

[BigCityAccountant]

I'm now finally listening to the long KK interview (the one on YouTube). Additional revelations about MaM pile up on what a con was perpetuated. They should be sued for fabricating what they did:

- Filmmakers make it look like Lenk handled Avery's blood in 2002-ish & they accomplish this by showing a closeup of an evidence transmission form that contains Lenk's signature at the bottom, accompanied by dramatic music and then a cut to the blood vial. Except no blood was sent with that form. What was sent was "hair and nail clippings." Turns out Lenk never was near Avery's blood, which the filmmakers knew, as did the defense team, but the filmmakers decided to use that form that happened to contain Lenk's signature to insinuate that Lenk planted blood. It was all made up!

- Lenk never knew there was a blood vial in the clerk's office, something the filmmakers and defense knew. Lenk never was near the blood, didn't touch it, didn't know it was in a box in the clerk's office.

- The vial with the hole in the top (and the scene in which Buting calls it a "red letter day"), that hole in the vial stopper was supposed to be there and a nurse who drew the blood testified that she was the one who put the hole in the purple stopper from drawing the blood and depositing the blood in the vial. Filmmakers knew there was no malfeasance with that vial, and at trial the whole blood vial hole was debunked soundly. Yet the filmmakers still chose to make the blood vial a central part of their narrative, 10 years later. They of course didn't bother showing that the vial evidence was debunked, but it was.

- The filmmakers, deciding to further the blood conspiracy, manufactured a scene by splicing together questions Lenk was asked on the stand with his answers to different questions, all done to make it look like he was hiding something with the blood. It was made up!

.
Sorry to intrude, but I noticed you mentioned that the nurse testified. For the record, she did not testify.

IIRC, The nurse, Marlene Kraintz, wasn't called to testify because the prosecution didn't think the defense had raised the blood hole theory at trial strongly enough to warrant rebuttal.

Kraintz died in 2012.

https://onmilwaukee.com/movies/articles/makingamudererbloodvial.html

Sorry to intrude, just thought I would set the record straight.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

.
Sorry to intrude, but I noticed you mentioned that the nurse testified. For the record, she did not testify.

IIRC, The nurse, Marlene Kraintz, wasn't called to testify because the prosecution didn't think the defense had raised the blood hole theory at trial strongly enough to warrant rebuttal.

Kraintz died in 2012.

https://onmilwaukee.com/movies/articles/makingamudererbloodvial.html

Sorry to intrude, just thought I would set the record straight.

One word describes how I feel about this post. Nitpick.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

One word describes how I feel about this post. Nitpick.

The :devil: is in the details.

:truce:

:escape:

 

[Deleted member 39678]

The :devil: is in the details.

:truce:

:escape:

Sometimes. Just not in this case. It was inconsequential to the point the OP was making. That means it was a nitpick IMO.

 

[Madeleine74]

Too bad no one told Zellner about the importance of details because that brief she filed months ago happened to contain several errors, and not just spelling errors.

Isn't it interesting, RANCH, how instead of demanding proof of malfeasance in a murder investigation, all it takes is a rumor, speculation, or a perceived feeling of a red flag, and that's used to accuse people ranging from family, friends, detectives, or anyone who crossed paths with Avery, of perpetuating some of the worst crimes imagined (everything from planting evidence, to formulating a conspiracy, all the way up to the murder of TH). No evidence and no proof required--just a feeling and a belief and denial, a manufactured fictional film, and someone else (anyone else, as long as it isn't the convicted killer) is guilty of something nefarious. Imagine if that was the standard used in the court system.

 

[Madeleine74]

Here's another irony: instead of feeling anger and rage at 2 filmmakers who absolutely conned and manufactured a story narrative to further an agenda, who did not tell the truth, who were embedded with the defense during the trial (they rode w/the defense team to court each day, they accompanied the defense on many excursions), who purposely left crucial evidence out of their film and falsely claimed they didn't "have time in 10 hours of film shown" to show all the evidence, but managed to find time to show the elder Avery munching on lettuce...

Instead of admitting what a cluster-youknowwhat MaM is, the effort is to double down on the denial and refuse to hold 2 con women filmmakers accountable for bold faced lies and splicing multiple scenes to create fiction. The public's been had. A fraud's been perpetuated. Anyone who watched that series (I watched all episodes) and believed they were seeing the truth should be furious about being lied to over and over.

 

[Madeleine74]

I see, thanks. So, if she wrote it down, it's more probable that she seen it on the dash?

It's possible she saw the number on the car. Or, she could have been given the VIN# from something else, because the VIN# is included on various documents (vehicle registration as one example). Or, she could have gotten it directly from SA.

 

[CoolJ]

Too bad no one told Zellner about the importance of details because that brief she filed months ago happened to contain several errors, and not just spelling errors.

Isn't it interesting, RANCH, how instead of demanding proof of malfeasance in a murder investigation, all it takes is a rumor, speculation, or a perceived feeling of a red flag, and that's used to accuse people ranging from family, friends, detectives, or anyone who crossed paths with Avery, of perpetuating some of the worst crimes imagined (everything from planting evidence, to formulating a conspiracy, all the way up to the murder of TH). No evidence and no proof required--just a feeling and a belief and denial, a manufactured fictional film, and someone else (anyone else, as long as it isn't the convicted killer) is guilty of something nefarious. Imagine if that was the standard used in the court system.

If that were the standard in the courtroom. As compared to what we see in cases like this....Maybe we would be better off. JMO

 

[Deleted member 39678]

It's possible she saw the number on the car. Or, she could have been given the VIN# from something else, because the VIN# is included on various documents (vehicle registration as one example). Or, she could have gotten it directly from SA.

When I need a VIN number from someone I ask if they have their insurance card with them. A lot of people carry that in their wallet but don't realize that it has the VIN number of their car on it.

 

[dexter75]

One word describes how I feel about this post. Nitpick.

No it isn't nitpicking at all.
Nitpicking IMO would be saying her sweater was sky blue instead of baby blue.
This person is deceased. Therefore, BCA chiming in to say " hey, I don't think she testified " really isn't nitpicking, is it?

I'm being totally respectful when I say BCA has been nothing short of kind & considerate, and 100% respectful to everyone on this forum, you've said so yourself, RUNCH 😊
IMO to kindly state a fact, respectively state a fact, full well knowing she has a good chance of getting reported, or told off , or talked down to not to upset anyone or invade the thread, but to help keep accurate information about the case on the forums. Isn't that what makes WS great? I don't know about anyone else, but I have noticed quite a few new names here in recent months. I think it's fantastic! We owe it to them regardless where we stand on this case to give as accurate information as possible, don't we?
JMO, not trying to intrude on your thread.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 39678]

No it isn't nitpicking at all.
Nitpicking IMO would be saying her sweater was sky blue instead of baby blue.
This person is deceased. Therefore, BCA chiming in to say " hey, I don't think she testified " really isn't nitpicking, is it?

I'm being totally respectful when I say BCA has been nothing short of kind & considerate, and 100% respectful to everyone on this forum, you've said so yourself, RUNCH 
IMO to kindly state a fact, respectively state a fact, full well knowing she has a good chance of getting reported, or told off , or talked down to not to upset anyone or invade the thread, but to help keep accurate information about the case on the forums. Isn't that what makes WS great? I don't know about anyone else, but I have noticed quite a few new names here in recent months. I think it's fantastic! We owe it to them regardless where we stand on this case to give as accurate information as possible, don't we?
JMO, not trying to intrude on your thread.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

The point that BCA brought up was inconsequential to what Madeleine was posting about. That makes it nitpicking in my opinion.

I don't feel that minor gaffes should be regarded as being a major issue that requires a post correcting it for the benefit of new members to this sub-forum.

 

[Limaes]

Here's another irony: instead of feeling anger and rage at 2 filmmakers who absolutely conned and manufactured a story narrative to further an agenda, who did not tell the truth, who were embedded with the defense during the trial (they rode w/the defense team to court each day, they accompanied the defense on many excursions), who purposely left crucial evidence out of their film and falsely claimed they didn't "have time in 10 hours of film shown" to show all the evidence, but managed to find time to show the elder Avery munching on lettuce...

Instead of admitting what a cluster-youknowwhat MaM is, the effort is to double down on the denial and refuse to hold 2 con women filmmakers accountable for bold faced lies and splicing multiple scenes to create fiction. The public's been had. A fraud's been perpetuated. Anyone who watched that series (I watched all episodes) and believed they were seeing the truth should be furious about being lied to over and over.

Con women is the perfect description. Isn't it sad that Teresa has four women working against her and her family by aiding her murderers? They're no better than BD & SA in my eyes.

JMO

 

[Limaes]

BJ is up to her ol' tricks again. smh

https://www.reddit.com/r/SuperMaM/comments/5wd64r/barb_thinking_th_is_alive/

 

[Madeleine74]

The point that BCA brought up was inconsequential to what Madeleine was posting about. That makes it nitpicking in my opinion.

I don't feel that minor gaffes should be regarded as being a major issue that requires a post correcting it for the benefit of new members to this sub-forum.

Everyone knows (or should know) the hole in the vial was normal and they should inquire why a "documentary" manufactured a lie.

Notice how the lies are stacking up. Further, notice the silence and denial.

 

[Madeleine74]

BJ is up to her ol' tricks again. smh

https://www.reddit.com/r/SuperMaM/comments/5wd64r/barb_thinking_th_is_alive/

I don't for one minute think BJ believes TH is alive. She's just parroting the craziest factions in fandom.

 

[Madeleine74]

Con women is the perfect description. Isn't it sad that Teresa has four women working against her and her family by aiding her murderers? They're no better than BD & SA in my eyes.

JMO

I don't have an issue with a vigorous defense, and that's what SA got. BD was failed by his family and was sacrificed at the altar of trying to save Uncle Stevie when he slam dunk could have had a plea to get out in 15 years, possibly less.

But the lies, the con... I'm so glad the jury heard the conspiracy allegations, because they soundly rejected them.

 

[dexter75]

Everyone knows (or should know) the hole in the vial was normal and they should inquire why a "documentary" manufactured a lie.

Notice how the lies are stacking up. Further, notice the silence and denial.

With all due respect, we aren't " allowed" to post a response to anything here.
Perhaps this is the reason for the silence?
JMO


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[BigCityAccountant]

The point that BCA brought up was inconsequential to what Madeleine was posting about. That makes it nitpicking in my opinion.

I don't feel that minor gaffes should be regarded as being a major issue that requires a post correcting it for the benefit of new members to this sub-forum.

.
While I may have pointed out one particular mention of un-truth in a prior posting and not commented on the entire posting which is laden with un-truth's~~it certainly wasn't my intention to "nit-pick". I don't see any benefit in spreading false information. It has always been my understanding you were here seeking the TRUTH.

Sorry to interrupt, carry on.

 

[Safeguard]

With all due respect, we aren't " allowed" to post a response to anything here.
Perhaps this is the reason for the silence?
JMO


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Good post!

To expound...
The reason I feel it's a good post, is because it addresses the dilemma we have, in any real discussion, in a thread where everyone is required to have the same opinion.