- 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 4:37 pm to tiggerthetooth
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:37 pm to tiggerthetooth
so every blood sample used in every trial may or may not have the preservative in it, and thats what they have to go on?
2
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:47 pm to Happygilmore
quote:Though I didn't explicitly say that I meant "no there was not an explanation in the documentary" that is what I meant.
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.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:50 pm to Happygilmore
quote:
but there were tons of information not in the documentary.
and while that was everyone's first suspicion, the filmmakers have adamantly denied leaving any significant evidence out of the case. They showed all the significant evidence for each side's case. Wouldn't you rather ask this question and find an answer instead of just assuming it was done without asking any questions at all?
This post was edited on 1/4/16 at 4:51 pm
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:50 pm to Happygilmore
quote:
so every blood sample used in every trial may or may not have the preservative in it, and thats what they have to go on?
Basically, which is why its so heinous.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:56 pm to tiggerthetooth
With the blood EDTA, the bottom line is this:
The test won't give a false positive. If the test detects EDTA, then EDTA is there.
The test CAN give a false negative. If the test does not detect EDTA, it's still possible that EDTA is present.
Not finding EDTA in the Avery case does not mean that the blood came from a bleeding Avery. It still could have come from the vial that was in evidence, that had been pierced with a hypodermic needle, and had the evidence seals broken for no apparently explainable reason that was mentioned in the documentary.
The test won't give a false positive. If the test detects EDTA, then EDTA is there.
The test CAN give a false negative. If the test does not detect EDTA, it's still possible that EDTA is present.
Not finding EDTA in the Avery case does not mean that the blood came from a bleeding Avery. It still could have come from the vial that was in evidence, that had been pierced with a hypodermic needle, and had the evidence seals broken for no apparently explainable reason that was mentioned in the documentary.
This post was edited on 1/4/16 at 4:58 pm
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:57 pm to tiggerthetooth
quote:
and while that was everyone's first suspicion, the filmmakers have adamantly denied leaving any significant evidence out of the case. They showed all the significant evidence for each side's case
yet they only interviewed the defense through the entire documentary save for brendens first (terrible0 attorney. they left out information that didnt paint the defense so great. you can definitely tell its slanted.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:58 pm to Happygilmore
quote:For example?
they left out information that didnt paint the defense so great. you can definitely tell its slanted.
If you mean the link that the OP posted, that shite is worthless. Seriously, it is understandable why the documentary wouldn't include any of that.
I'd be interested to know if they reached out to any of the prosecution or their witnesses. They may have, and were simply turned down.
This post was edited on 1/4/16 at 5:00 pm
Posted on 1/4/16 at 5:02 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:
quote:
ETA:
AND WHAT EXONERATING EVIDENCE?!
Did you even watch the documentary
Do you know what exonerating evidence means?
That'd be like a video proven alibi of him in another place at the time of the murder.
There was no exonerating evidence anywhere in the documentary. Maybe shitty or planted evidence against him, but nothing that comes close to exonerating him,
Posted on 1/4/16 at 5:05 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:Yep, that's why I went back to my statement to the poster regarding a perceived bias on his part.
Do you know what exonerating evidence means?
That'd be like a video proven alibi of him in another place at the time of the murder.
There was no exonerating evidence anywhere in the documentary. Maybe shitty or planted evidence against him, but nothing that comes close to exonerating him,
Posted on 1/4/16 at 5:05 pm to shel311
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.
Most every poster that has said they think he's guilty has also said there was also some shoddy police stuff going on.
Exactly.
And then gave theories as to what we think happened. Which, given the body, car, and timeline, I theorized he did it, just not indoors, then burned her body.
His past issues and sexual tendencies only strengthened my theory in my mind.
Obviously shady shite went down and the murder did not happen indoors or how Brendan said it did.
This post was edited on 1/4/16 at 5:08 pm
Posted on 1/4/16 at 5:06 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:It exonerates him of the theory that the prosecution was arguing in his trial.
Do you know what exonerating evidence means?
That'd be like a video proven alibi of him in another place at the time of the murder.
There was no exonerating evidence anywhere in the documentary. Maybe shitty or planted evidence against him, but nothing that comes close to exonerating him,
Posted on 1/4/16 at 5:07 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:It's a plausible theory. I also dont think it's a crazy theory to say he was 100% framed of the murder. The issue starts when posters start speaking in absolutes and making it black and white when it's cleary a very, very gray issue.
Exactly.
And then gave theories as to what we think happened. Which, given the body, car, and timeline, I theorized he did it, just not indoors, then burned her body.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 5:07 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:Sorry dude but your theory doesn't hold up to even 60 seconds of rational scrutiny. It makes absolutely no sense.
Exactly.
And then gave theories as to what we think happened. Which, given the body, car, and timeline, I theorized he did it, just not indoors, then burned her body.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 5:09 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:
It exonerates him of the theory that the prosecution was arguing in his t
Which we aren't arguing. No one in this thread is arguing that is true.
No one.
You and I have been arguing my theory that you said didn't make sense. There is zero evidence that can exonerate him from the crime.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 5:11 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:
Sorry dude but your theory doesn't hold up to even 60 seconds of rational scrutiny. It makes absolutely no sense.
How could you poke holes in a theory that he killed her on the grounds outdoors them drove her body to the burn pit and hid her car?
Then the cops planted evidence to attempt to make it a stronger case.
What pokes holes in that?
Posted on 1/4/16 at 5:17 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:I mean, you can poke holes in it(though I agree with your basic theory), but you can't 100% disprove it or toss it aside like the poster is doing with certainty.
How could you poke holes in a theory that he killed her on the grounds outdoors them drove her body to the burn pit and hid her car?
Then the cops planted evidence to attempt to make it a stronger case.
What pokes holes in that?
Posted on 1/4/16 at 5:21 pm to Happygilmore
I just finished watching it. The guy got framed.....period
Posted on 1/4/16 at 5:21 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:
How could you poke holes in a theory that he killed her on the grounds outdoors them drove her body to the burn pit and hid her car?
Then the cops planted evidence to attempt to make it a stronger case.
What pokes holes in that?
I already posted my reasons earlier, and you responded to them, so I know you already know.
The best evidence that breaks your theory is that fact that some of Halbach's burned bones were found outside of the salvage yard and nowhere near Avery's burn pit.
You haven't accounted for the presence of the other burn pit, which is quite possibly (IMO it's very likely) the site where the body was actually burned. At this point, any explanation you could offer for this would simply be an ad hoc hypothesis designed to prevent your theory from being falsified.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 5:23 pm to Hog on the Hill
Why is the other site with a much smaller amount of and less buried burnt bones most likely the main burn site?
Posted on 1/4/16 at 5:24 pm to TheCaterpillar
Could he have not just tried to scatter the bones that were visible in the main burn pit after the fact?
Page 15 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News