- 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 5:24 pm to shel311
Posted on 1/4/16 at 5:24 pm to shel311
quote:The problem is that his "theory" has no real evidence to support it. He's simply altering the prosecution's theory in an attempt to deal with the inconsistencies in the prosecution's account, but he's still ignoring key facts AND common sense. He suggested the body was dismembered, but why? It makes no sense to dismember a body you are going to burn into ash. He also fails to account for the other burn pit.
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.
He seems to disagree with the prosecution's theory, so if that's the case, why does he persist in believing that Avery committed the murder? He's having to invent a new theory so that he can continue believing that Avery is guilty. This is ad hoc, and it's suggestive that Caterpillar is suffering from confirmation bias.
1
Posted on 1/4/16 at 5:31 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:An expert witness testified that when bodies are burned and then the remains are moved, that the primary burn site usually has fewer remains than the location where the remains have been moved to. This makes sense, because if you're trying to move remains, you're going to try to get all of them, otherwise what's the point? Leaving a few remains at the primary location makes sense when there's a large amount of ash and debris from the bonfire. So if you get most of the remains and move them, and mistakenly leave a few behind, then you would get the pattern that was found to exist--few remains off the property, lots conveniently in Avery's burn pit.
Why is the other site with a much smaller amount of and less buried burnt bones most likely the main burn site?
Why on earth would Avery burn the body off his property and then move the remains to a fire pit in his own back yard? That defies explanation. It makes sense if you think from the perspective of someone trying to pin the murder on Avery, however.
Oh, and her phone was found in the barrel that was used to move her remains. If Avery is burning her body, why isn't he also burning her phone? Again, that makes no sense.
(But personally I can't recall the documentary saying her phone was in the barrel--is that actually true? That's something that you said)
quote:I'm not sure what you're asking here. Which burn pit are you calling the main burn pit? Are you talking about Avery?
Could he have not just tried to scatter the bones that were visible in the main burn pit after the fact?
This post was edited on 1/4/16 at 5:35 pm
Posted on 1/4/16 at 5:34 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:You're using reason and logic to explain what a dude with a 70 IQ has done if he were to cover up a crime. He's proven to not be the brightest dude out there with the details of some of his other run ins.
He suggested the body was dismembered, but why? It makes no sense to dismember a body you are going to burn into ash. He also fails to account for the other burn pit.
quote:I don't think that's a fair assessment at all.
He seems to disagree with the prosecution's theory, so if that's the case, why does he persist in believing that Avery committed the murder? He's having to invent a new theory so that he can continue believing that Avery is guilty. This is ad hoc, and it's suggestive that Caterpillar is suffering from confirmation bias.
There's only 1 fact here, and that's that you or I or anyone except for a small handful of people know if Avery commited this crime, so speaking in absolutes does nothing but show a bias on your part, to be honest.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 5:42 pm to shel311
quote:So let's get this right--he's smart enough to incinerate a body into ash, but not smart enough to know that incinerating a body into ash obviates the need to dismember the body. That makes no fricking sense, even if he's assumed to be a very stupid person, because it requires special pleading. "He's so stupid he'll do this stupid thing, but not stupid enough that he won't do this smart thing."
You're using reason and logic to explain what a dude with a 70 IQ has done if he were to cover up a crime. He's proven to not be the brightest dude out there with the details of some of his other run ins.
A theory that relies entirely on the stupidity of the defendant to explain the inconsistencies in the theory is a really bad theory.
quote:Which absolutes am I speaking? There have been some, but I'm curious to see what else you think I've said absolutely.
I don't think that's a fair assessment at all.
There's only 1 fact here, and that's that you or I or anyone except for a small handful of people know if Avery commited this crime, so speaking in absolutes does nothing but show a bias on your part, to be honest.
It is absolutely a fact that Caterpillar's conception of what happened is ad hoc--he's coming up with an explanation of how Avery committed the crime that explains the inconsistencies in the prosecution's theory. He's persisting in his belief that Avery is guilty, despite the fact that he appears to agree that the prosecutorial theory used to convict him was incorrect. He also appears to agree that law enforcement planted evidence against Avery.
His theory is actually weaker than the prosecution's because he's admitting that law enforcement planted evidence.
This post was edited on 1/4/16 at 5:44 pm
Posted on 1/4/16 at 5:43 pm to shel311
I also said my theory doesn't rely on dismemberment. You must've missed that.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 5:44 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:Can you restate your (yet again) amended theory? In other words, please change your theory again in such a way to avoid falsification.
I also said my theory doesn't rely on dismemberment. You must've missed that.
Better yet, can you explain why you believe Avery is guilty? I'm more interested in knowing that.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 5:47 pm to Hog on the Hill
I am going off the body, car, him being last to see her, etc.
Nothing else. Not looking at prosecutions and changing it.
I think Brendan had nothing to do with it. We have no idea if she was raped or tortured. We just know she's there, her cars there, her bloods there, her phone and shite were burned there, and he was with her last.
Nothing else. Not looking at prosecutions and changing it.
I think Brendan had nothing to do with it. We have no idea if she was raped or tortured. We just know she's there, her cars there, her bloods there, her phone and shite were burned there, and he was with her last.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 5:48 pm to TheCaterpillar
Which evidence do you believe was planted by the cops?
edit: We also don't know that he was with her last. He was the last KNOWN person with her. That doesn't mean we KNOW he was the last person with her. Do you understand the distinction?
edit: We also don't know that he was with her last. He was the last KNOWN person with her. That doesn't mean we KNOW he was the last person with her. Do you understand the distinction?
This post was edited on 1/4/16 at 5:51 pm
Posted on 1/4/16 at 5:51 pm to Hog on the Hill
Man you're very flustered over my theory 
Tell me what you think happened?
Tell me what you think happened?
Posted on 1/4/16 at 5:52 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:
We have no idea if she was raped or tortured.
We do know that nobody - including you - would have ever thought about "raped or tortured" if a mentally retarded child had not been coerced into saying such a thing and then have it spread far and wide by the DA at a press conference.
You might even say that here and now - 10 years after the fact - you are STILL susceptible to that dirty trick from the DA.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 5:53 pm to mikelbr
Like I said, I remember when I was immature about things in life.Enjoy your ignorance while you can.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 5:55 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
We do know that nobody - including you - would have ever thought about "raped or tortured" if a mentally retarded child had not been coerced into saying such a thing and then have it spread far and wide by the DA at a press conference.
You might even say that here and now - 10 years after the fact - you are STILL susceptible to that dirty trick from the DA.
No doubt.
A DA that was proven to be a piece of shite sexual deviant, liar, and opiate addict.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 6:02 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:
Man you're very flustered over my theory
Tell me what you think happened?
I don't know what happened, but I believe that the prosecution's theory is incorrect. I don't believe that the evidence points to Avery as the murderer.
All I could really do is suggest what may have happened. For instance, Halbach could have left the property before encountering her murderer, who shot her, put her in the back of her car to move her body, took her to the off-premises burn site where her charred pelvis fragment was discovered, then moved the rest of her remains in the barrel to Avery's burn pit, then parked the RAV4 on Avery's property.
Did Avery commit the murder? Possibly, but there is plenty of room for doubt.
Unfortunately, the police didn't pursue any other leads, so we'll probably never know.
This post was edited on 1/4/16 at 6:03 pm
Posted on 1/4/16 at 6:32 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:If he burned them offsite he could then just throw the remains in any old car and crush that car and nobody ever finds any burnt bones. But no, the same mastermind that left no blood evidence in a (allegedly) very messy murder and dismemberment just throws the bones out in his back yard pit...the most obvious place the police would look.
Why on earth would Avery burn the body off his property and then move the remains to a fire pit in his own back yard?
There needs to be a new trial
This post was edited on 1/4/16 at 6:34 pm
Posted on 1/4/16 at 6:37 pm to AlbertMeansWell
prove it
Posted on 1/4/16 at 6:48 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:Not gonna lie, I'm hung up on this quote from you on page 11, it is IMO very much an absolute:
Which absolutes am I speaking? There have been some, but I'm curious to see what else you think I've said absolutely.
quote:
which is probably true because there is no good reason to believe he murdered her
I may be reaching a bit, but it sure sounds like you think it's pretty cut and dry, when it's really quite the opposite.
quote:Why can't it be both, why can't he have murdered her AND the police planted evidence?
His theory is actually weaker than the prosecution's because he's admitting that law enforcement planted evidence.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 6:52 pm to shel311
I love how people are getting pissed about spoilers.
It's not a fricking fictional series. It's real life. The outcome of the trial has been out there for almost ten fricking years. My goodness
It's not a fricking fictional series. It's real life. The outcome of the trial has been out there for almost ten fricking years. My goodness
Posted on 1/4/16 at 6:53 pm to AlbertMeansWell
quote:You should change the thread title IMO. Whatever is inside the thread is on whoever clicks on it, but they can't avoid the topic.
I love how people are getting pissed about spoilers.
It's not a fricking fictional series. It's real life. The outcome of the trial has been out there for almost ten fricking years. My goodness
Fwiw, I never heard of this story before it released, and I didn't know the verdict or much of anything before I watched it this weekend.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 7:42 pm to shel311
quote:If there is a good reason to believe, without reasonable doubt, that he murdered her, then what is it?
I may be reaching a bit, but it sure sounds like you think it's pretty cut and dry, when it's really quite the opposite.
The evidence presented in the documentary all has room for reasonable doubt. So yeah, there's no good reason to believe he did it. He MAY have done it, but there doesn't appear to be a good reason to believe that.
quote:
Why can't it be both, why can't he have murdered her AND the police planted evidence?
It's possible, but if the police planted that evidence, then what evidence ties Avery directly to the murder? If you allow that the police planted Avery's DNA, then what ties him directly to her murder? The bones in his back yard? Whoops, it looks like her body was burned elsewhere and then moved. The car on his property? Someone else could have put it there, which makes a lot of sense if her body was moved elsewhere and then planted in his back yard. So what's left?
If you doubt the veracity of the DNA evidence and Brendan's confession, then you're left with an extremely weak circumstantial case.
This post was edited on 1/4/16 at 7:45 pm
Posted on 1/4/16 at 7:47 pm to AlbertMeansWell
Your terrible thread is still terrible.
Fix your OP and put some damn links to provide some info at least for your "official" OT thread about a TV show.
Fix your OP and put some damn links to provide some info at least for your "official" OT thread about a TV show.
Page 16 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News