Making a Murderer (w/ Spoilers)

#601
#601
Sandvol said:
Really? It is for me. How do you know it was planted? Yes, her DNA was on the bullet. Why focus on all the evidence that wasn't there? Why not focus on the evidence that was there?
Click to expand...

How do you know her DNA was on the bullet? The technician contaminated the experiment during the test.
 
#602
#602
PotS said:
How do you know her DNA was on the bullet? The technician contaminated the experiment during the test.
Click to expand...

Can't remember which test was brought into question but technician contaminated with her DNA. The technician's DNA being on the bullet can be explained as contamination. The victim's DNA on the bullet cannot.
 
#603
#603
trevols81 said:
And everything you cited as truth has been either: (1)highly questionable, (2)borderline illogical/impossible, (3)open for interpretation, or (4)the cops had plenty of time to plant evidence.

Did I miss anything?
Click to expand...

Highly questioned by the attorneys of course. But they offered no proof, no alibi's, no corroboration, no opposing witnesses, nothing to support their allegations. Holds very little weight in a courtroom.
 
#604
#604
SamRebel35 said:
When the evidence that wasn't there is blood and brains on a bullet that supposedly passed through a human skull, it is kind of relevant.
Click to expand...

Maybe if Avery's attorneys showed some scientific study and produced an expert witness who could support the fact that every 22 caliber bullet that passes through a human head and then fragments and lies in a garage for four months and each fragment should still be contaminated with brain, blood, skin and skull matter and remain on the fragment through collection and analysis then I guess they should have. Pooh, pooh on Avery's attorneys.
 
#605
#605
SamRebel35 said:
Culhane is a shill for the state. Don't care what state that happens to be in. She was instructed by investigators to place TH in the garage. Magically, she did... With a bullet that didn't have a microliter of blood on it despite having supposedly passed through a skull and brain.
Click to expand...

Can you support your allegation with any facts?
 
#606
#606
Sandvol said:
Maybe if Avery's attorneys showed some scientific study and produced an expert witness who could support the fact that every 22 caliber bullet that passes through a human head and then fragments and lies in a garage for four months and each fragment should still be contaminated with brain, blood, skin and skull matter and remain on the fragment through collection and analysis then I guess they should have. Pooh, pooh on Avery's attorneys.
Click to expand...

Fragments? That bullet was basically a whole compressed .22 round. Not a lot of science to be conducted. If that bullet passed through her head, it should have blood on it. The real question is, how likely is it for a .22 round to enter and exit a human skull without fragmenting?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#608
#608
SamRebel35 said:
Fragments? That bullet was basically a whole compressed .22 round. Not a lot of science to be conducted. If that bullet passed through her head, it should have blood on it. The real question is, how likely is it for a .22 round to enter and exit a human skull without fragmenting?
Click to expand...

I don't know. Why didn't the defense produce an expert witness? The only facts we have are the bullet fragment was obtained, that is how it was described, and it tested positive for the victim's DNA and was identified as being fired from Avery's rifle. Those are the only facts.
 
#611
#611
Sandvol said:
I don't know. Why didn't the defense produce an expert witness? The only facts we have are the bullet fragment was obtained, that is how it was described, and it tested positive for the victim's DNA and was identified as being fired from Avery's rifle. Those are the only facts.
Click to expand...

The bullet "fragment" is literally the only thing in the garage that tested positive for TH DNA (also tested positive for Culhane DNA. Was she also murdered in the garage?). The bullet was found under extremely fishy circumstances (5 months after the garage had been searched) by an extremely fishy character (Lenk, who was not supposed to be anywhere near this crime scene unsupervised). Then it was analyzed by someone who was being instructed to find a certain conclusion that matched the state's narrative (Confirmation bias for 1000, Alex). You don't find that the least bit troubling given that this garage is where she was supposedly murdered? Why is there not ONE additional nucleotide of DNA ANYWHERE in the garage? Or in the trailer where the torture and throat slashing and hair cutting was going on?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#612
#612
SamRebel35 said:
The bullet "fragment" is literally the only thing in the garage that tested positive for TH DNA (also tested positive for Culhane DNA. Was she also murdered in the garage?). The bullet was found under extremely fishy circumstances (5 months after the garage had been searched) by an extremely fishy character (Lenk, who was not supposed to be anywhere near this crime scene unsupervised). Then it was analyzed by someone who was being instructed to find a certain conclusion that matched the state's narrative (Confirmation bias for 1000, Alex). You don't find that the least bit troubling given that this garage is where she was supposedly murdered? Why is there not ONE additional nucleotide of DNA ANYWHERE in the garage? Or in the trailer where the torture and throat slashing and hair cutting was going on?
Click to expand...

Grounds for reasonable doubt for 1000, Alex.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#613
#613
SamRebel35 said:
After we know she has been instructed to be an advocate rather than a scientist, what difference does it make? The evidence is tainted.
Click to expand...

While I have many issues with the way the cops handled this case, I'm not sure why the above statement is all that surprising.

Culhane is a forensic analyst who works for the State of Wisconsin. She's there to test evidence found by investigators who also work for the State of Wisconsin. It shouldn't shock anyone that her customer (for lack of a better term) would tell her what it is that they're trying to accomplish.

Now, I think she failed to follow lab protocol, and I think that was well-proven.
 
#614
#614
Sandvol said:
Can't remember which test was brought into question but technician contaminated with her DNA. The technician's DNA being on the bullet can be explained as contamination. The victim's DNA on the bullet cannot.
Click to expand...

It was the bullet DNA test, I checked. And Culhane contaminated the control, and the defense did bring in an expert to dispute the validity of the test once Culhane had contaminated it. Summarizing, in a typical test, if the control comes back positive for contamination, the whole experiment is toast because you've just introduced an alternative variable into the experiment.

The trouble here is that they used the entire DNA sample on the first try; Culhane blew it and the state had no more dna to test.

So, because the dna was "was consistent with Teresa's dna", the state emplored the jury to "just use common sense to determine who's blood was on the bullet."

Why use science when we can just use common sense?
 
#615
#615
SamRebel35 said:
After we know she has been instructed to be an advocate rather than a scientist, what difference does it make? The evidence is tainted.
Click to expand...

So, again who instructed her to be an advocate? She takes a piece of evidence, puts it in a machine, and waits for a readout. Then it is put into another machine to see if it matches known samples. She can't make a machine give her false results.
 
#616
#616
PotS said:
It was the bullet DNA test, I checked. And Culhane contaminated the control, and the defense did bring in an expert to dispute the validity of the test once Culhane had contaminated it. Summarizing, in a typical test, if the control comes back positive for contamination, the whole experiment is toast because you've just introduced an alternative variable into the experiment.

The trouble here is that they used the entire DNA sample on the first try; Culhane blew it and the state had no more dna to test.

So, because the dna was "was consistent with Teresa's dna", the state emplored the jury to "just use common sense to determine who's blood was on the bullet."

Why use science when we can just use common sense?
Click to expand...

The courts have consistently ruled that when technician's DNA gets into the samples as long as that can be ruled out it is still valid. In criminal trials they often get DNA samples that are contaminated by field personnel or lab technicians and as long as they can be explained it doesn't rule out other DNA results that can't be explained. This is in case after case. (And, the science wasn't ruled out. The defense attacked the credibility of the technicians doing the science. They just asked the jury to use common sense like they do to weigh every piece of evidence.)
 
Last edited:
#617
#617
SamRebel35 said:
The bullet "fragment" is literally the only thing in the garage that tested positive for TH DNA (also tested positive for Culhane DNA. Was she also murdered in the garage?). The bullet was found under extremely fishy circumstances (5 months after the garage had been searched) by an extremely fishy character (Lenk, who was not supposed to be anywhere near this crime scene unsupervised). Then it was analyzed by someone who was being instructed to find a certain conclusion that matched the state's narrative (Confirmation bias for 1000, Alex). You don't find that the least bit troubling given that this garage is where she was supposedly murdered? Why is there not ONE additional nucleotide of DNA ANYWHERE in the garage? Or in the trailer where the torture and throat slashing and hair cutting was going on?
Click to expand...

That is the defense's narrative. I have no reason to question the integrity of Culhane. Why would she risk all her professional credibility for Manitowoc County? We as taxpayers pay state forensics crime labs to do their jobs and to be credible. When a piece of forensic evidence like DNA results implicate their client an attorney can do two things: (1) Instruct his client to cop a plea deal, or (2) attack the credibility of the lab. It is too difficult to attack the science so the only thing they can attack which they do in every instance like this is the technician or the evidence gatherers. Every time.
 
#618
#618
bamawriter said:
While I have many issues with the way the cops handled this case, I'm not sure why the above statement is all that surprising.

Culhane is a forensic analyst who works for the State of Wisconsin. She's there to test evidence found by investigators who also work for the State of Wisconsin. It shouldn't shock anyone that her customer (for lack of a better term) would tell her what it is that they're trying to accomplish.

Now, I think she failed to follow lab protocol, and I think that was well-proven.
Click to expand...

No, not exactly. More of the propaganda from the attorneys and media. Culhane had two students that day and she said she thought that was the reason she might have contaminated the "control" sample. There was no contamination of the "bullet" sample. But, of course the defense wants the sample thrown out because the "control" was contaminated. Court says no.
 
#619
#619
Sandvol said:
So, again who instructed her to be an advocate? She takes a piece of evidence, puts it in a machine, and waits for a readout. Then it is put into another machine to see if it matches known samples. She can't make a machine give her false results.
Click to expand...

Garbage in = Garbage out

Happens all the time.
 
#621
#621
Criminals instruct their attorneys to attack the results of state crime labs all the time. Damn the dastardly crime labs. Damn those DNA tests. They sure don't mind using DNA tests to exonerate themselves. It was the same crime lab which exonerated Avery in his first criminal case. Wonder if his attorneys questioned their methods then? Garbage in equals garbage out.
 
#622
#622
Sandvol said:
Criminals instruct their attorneys to attack the results of state crime labs all the time. Damn the dastardly crime labs. Damn those DNA tests. They sure don't mind using DNA tests to exonerate themselves. It was the same crime lab which exonerated Avery in his first criminal case. Wonder if his attorneys questioned their methods then? Garbage in equals garbage out.
Click to expand...

You can be as snarky as you would like. It doesn't make you right. Gathering input from parties invested in the case is not, and should never be part of the scientific process. If you're ok with how that went down, then you aren't ok with science.
 
#623
#623
I'll give you credit for one thing, Sandvol: you've taken a beating on here from basically everyone yet haven't budged from your positions. I admire the conviction (or is it narcissism??) :)

I need to find some time to read those transcripts.
 
#624
#624
Sandvol said:
Highly questioned by the attorneys of course. But they offered no proof, no alibi's, no corroboration, no opposing witnesses, nothing to support their allegations. Holds very little weight in a courtroom.
Click to expand...

No alibis... child please.
 
#625
#625
SamRebel35 said:
Fragments? That bullet was basically a whole compressed .22 round. Not a lot of science to be conducted. If that bullet passed through her head, it should have blood on it. The real question is, how likely is it for a .22 round to enter and exit a human skull without fragmenting?
Click to expand...

The state was convinced it was evidence, so it was.... herp, derp
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top