- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Making A Murder O-T Lounge Thread
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:24 pm to Hog on the Hill
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:24 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:
His blood vial in evidence was pierced with a hypodermic needle
didnt they rule that the blood from the vile was not the same as the blood from the vehicle that was sampled?
4
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:24 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:
His blood vial in evidence was pierced with a hypodermic needle and Lenk had motive, means, and opportunity to plant his blood in the car.
At least one poster has asserted that you would have expected the vial to be punctured because that's how the blood is inserted in the first place.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:25 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
. Imagine Brendan trying to write his own brief from prison.
Brendan didn't even know what the word "inconsistent" means.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:26 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:My issue with your posts isn't you saying he shoulda been exonerated, that's fair enough. Yea sure, that's possible. But you're basically saying it's not possible that he killed her, or at least insinuating it.
I'm saying that it's possible, not that it definitely happened. It's not that difficult to collect someone's sweat. Do you seriously disagree? If you have someone in your custody 24/7 it should be easy.
But when you say, "there's no good reason to believe he murdered her", that's showing a serious bias to the point that I don't know you're viewing all of the evidence fairly.
Again, I'm not talking guilty/not guilty or 100% certain type feelings, we're just talking about "believing" he did it. I think it's perfectly logical to believe he did it. It's also logical to believe he was framed, but who knows, acting like we're 100% certain in this case shows a lot of bias IMO.
This post was edited on 1/4/16 at 4:27 pm
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:27 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
At least one poster has asserted that you would have expected the vial to be punctured because that's how the blood is inserted in the first place.
Was there ever an explanation for the broken seals on the packaging containing the vial?
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:29 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
At least one poster has asserted that you would have expected the vial to be punctured because that's how the blood is inserted in the first place.
In that exact scene, Buting calls the place from which the blood came and they specifically tell him that is NOT what they do. So this would be 100% false assuming that what he was told on the phone was true.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:30 pm to McLemore
quote:
Was there ever an explanation for the broken seals on the packaging containing the vial?
Not that I recall, might have missed it though. There were lots of weird things that were never explained.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:30 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
At least one poster has asserted that you would have expected the vial to be punctured because that's how the blood is inserted in the first place.
Well that one poster is wrong because the lab testers specifically said they don't do that to their vials.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:30 pm to Happygilmore
quote:No, no one "ruled" that. That's not subject to a ruling.
didnt they rule that the blood from the vile was not the same as the blood from the vehicle that was sampled?
The FBI expert witness said that they did not find evidence of EDTA in the blood samples taken from the RAV4. EDTA was present in the blood vial as a preservative.
However, an expert witness for the defense pointed out correctly that being unable to find EDTA in the blood does NOT mean that EDTA is not there. It could be that your test for EDTA is not good enough to detect the presence of EDTA. This expert witness stated her opinion that it was impossible, based on the test the FBI did, to determine whether the blood in the car came from the blood vial or not.
In other words, the test wasn't good enough to find trace amounts of EDTA, and it could have been true that if there was EDTA in the car samples, then it was present in amounts that were undetectable by the test.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:31 pm to Happygilmore
From what I could gather, the FBI examination did not detect the EDTA which you would expect to see had the blood been taken from the vial. However, it wasn't made clear what the FBI's detection limits were. It's entirely possible that the EDTA was there in the blood in the car, but the FBI just didn't detect it. With that in mind, you can't reasonably draw the conclusion that the blood in the car wasn't from the vial.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:31 pm to McLemore
quote:
Was there ever an explanation for the broken seals on the packaging containing the vial?
there may have been, but it wouldnt have been shown on the documentary, as this was from the point of view of the defense, and a reasonable explanation would have countered that. we would have to look up the court transcripts, and i dont know how to do that.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:32 pm to Happygilmore
quote:
didnt they rule that the blood from the vile was not the same as the blood from the vehicle that was sampled?
The FBI did that testing and it hadn't been done in 10 years before that date, and it was done in the OJ trial. In other words, there was highly questionable procedures involved in that.
They were testing for preservatives in the blood found inside the RAV4. The blood in the vial has preservatives in it, while Steven's blood wouldn't have any preservatives in it.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:33 pm to McLemore
quote:No there was not. It's extremely suspicious and I can't believe people in this thread are ignoring this or wishing it away. Just goes to show that some people will go through whatever kind of mental gymnastics is required to justify their preconceived notions. Confirmation bias is a powerful thing.
Was there ever an explanation for the broken seals on the packaging containing the vial?
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:33 pm to weedGOKU666
quote:
but the FBI just didn't detect it. With that in mind, you can't reasonably draw the conclusion that the blood in the car wasn't from the vial.
And the expert witness said exactly that, that you can't rule out that it came from the vial while they were being cross examined on the stand.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:33 pm to McLemore
quote:I think that was from when the blood was tested in 2003 to exonerate SA, could have been wrong though. I still find it amazing that a test to exonerate him sat in the crime lab for 1 year, but when they are trying to convict him it was tested within days. So messed up the state would spend milions to convict him, instead of owning up to the mistakes they made in 85 and paying him. SA even said it wasn't about the money.
Was there ever an explanation for the broken seals on the packaging containing the vial?
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:34 pm to Happygilmore
quote:
didnt they rule that the blood from the vile was not the same as the blood from the vehicle that was sampled?
Nope. The expert testified that the test run did not show EDTA. That doesn't mean there wasn't EDTA. The coverage of the blood assays was spotty. I don't recall the details regarding testing the blood in the vial for EDTA or the prosecution otherwise establishing that EDTA was def used in the vial. The expert testified that the test run would've conclusively shown that there was NO EDTA had the test been negative. But the converse isn't true.
Also, I never understood why the test wasn't available when the defense wanted it, but then it magically appeared when prosecution wanted it. And the FBI hadn't run the test in a decade. Very weird. This may be explained in some article etc but I haven't seen it.
The B/P is on the prosecution throughout the trial, and this is yet another example of failing to meet that burden (unless the documentary omitted something big).
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:36 pm to McLemore
quote:
Also, I never understood why the test wasn't available when the defense wanted it, but then it magically appeared when prosecution wanted it. And
and the defense said as much in their press conference after the trials. Maybe the EDTA levels would drop as time went on?
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:36 pm to J Murdah
quote:
I think that was from when the blood was tested in 2003 to exonerate SA, could have been wrong though.
Hmm, makes sense, but the defense attys seemed giddy and freaked out when they saw the broken seals. I need to rewatch after having read a gazillion other bits on the case.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:36 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:Has anyone in this thread asserted there wasn't police wrongdoing or planting evidence? I don't think i've seen anyone specfifically state that.
No there was not. It's extremely suspicious and I can't believe people in this thread are ignoring this or wishing it away. Just goes to show that some people will go through whatever kind of mental gymnastics is required to justify their preconceived notions. Confirmation bias is a powerful thing.
Most every poster that has said they think he's guilty has also said there was also some shoddy police stuff going on.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:36 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:
No there was not. It's extremely suspicious and I can't believe people in this thread are ignoring this or wishing it away.
the documentary didnt show every single word or moment of the trial.
you say it like if it wasnt in the documentary, it didnt happen, and that is absurd, but there were tons of information not in the documentary.
Page 14 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News