It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Making a Murderer: Judge Orders New Testing of Steven Avery Evidence

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: Greggers

What are you talking about? There were voicemail recordings from Hallbach to her employer saying she was indeed uncomfortable and felt vulnerable. You're just making stuff up. Those details ARE in the series. No question.


That came directly from the Time article. I didn't make it up. So, please, stop accusing me of "making stuff up."

Someone asked a question, and I did my best to answer it. I watched the series about halfway through and didn't see any of what you speak. Then I went online and did some research on my own (as expose series are notorious for stitching facts together in a way that supports a narrative), and I was disappointed to see they were in fact doing that in some cases, so I stopped watching.

Now, it could be that they were just holding out certain details to create suspense and drama, but those details were filled in later. In which case, perhaps you should take it up with Time magazine, or -- if you care to go through the trouble -- cite the episode and time in the series where these events are discussed so we can independently verify your claim.
edit on 26-11-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: SRPrime

So basically even though there is no actual empirical evidence, you've decided he guilty because someone said through hear-say that Theresa said he was creepy.

First, I never said I thought he was guilty.

I was attempting to answer a question about which facts were left out of the documentary by citing a Time article and my initial reaction to it.

I also mentioned that there is a dramatic benefit to supporting a narrative of innocence vs. guilt in such a series, which is obviously true, as none of us would be discussing this if he was painted to be a guilty party.

Furthermore, there is empirical evidence. Sweat DNA on the car he claimed he never touched, her BONES and her belongings on the property... a virtual mountain of evidence. The main claim of the defense is that such evidence was planted, but no one claims the evidence doesn't exist.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 04:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: SRPrime

So basically even though there is no actual empirical evidence, you've decided he guilty because someone said through hear-say that Theresa said he was creepy.

First, I never said I thought he was guilty.

I was attempting to answer a question about which facts were left out of the documentary by citing a Time article and my initial reaction to it.

I also mentioned that there is a dramatic benefit to supporting a narrative of innocence vs. guilt in such a series, which is obviously true, as none of us would be discussing this if he was painted to be a guilty party.

Furthermore, there is empirical evidence. Sweat DNA on the car he claimed he never touched, her BONES and her belongings on the property... a virtual mountain of evidence. The main claim of the defense is that such evidence was planted, but no one claims the evidence doesn't exist.



The alleged crime scene was compromised and possibly contaminated when the Police allowed everyone and there dog to search the Avery property...
Dont you find it strange that Halbachs brother seemed to be in charge of a search party on the Avery's property, And under his and Halbachs ex-boyfriends instructions.. "You go look up there, within minutes, they find the car. hidden in plain sight?
Avery had plenty time (days) to dispose of Halbach elsewhere, yet somehow we are to believe he chose to hide her remains and all her belongings feet from his trailer....The evidence was planted..every single bit of it.

Christ they found a bone fragment feet from her car, Hundreds of yards from the fire pit with the bone fragments in it...I'll give you a clue how it got there..Whoever planted the car dropped the bone fragment on the way to planting Halbachs bones in Avery's fire pit. Simple.
As for Avery's "Sweat" DNA found on the car hood... DNA is DNA..it could have been from Sweat, saliva, blood, seminal fluid, faeces etc etc..Something the Police or a third party could have picked up and planted anytime...Open Avery's trash can and find a anything of Avery's and i'll guarantee Avery's DNA will be on it...

You know what, It doesn't matter anyway...The whole system is bent. They are all cahoots with each other to get the results they were looking for. Just like the first conviction they made the evidence fit Avery. Avery had them over a barrel for $40 million and forced retirment...A jail sentence for the bastards was never going to happen.

The only question is...Who did Murder Halbach and plant the evidence on Avery...My money us on the Ex.


edit on 27-11-2016 by Soloprotocol because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: SRPrime

So basically even though there is no actual empirical evidence, you've decided he guilty because someone said through hear-say that Theresa said he was creepy.

First, I never said I thought he was guilty.

I was attempting to answer a question about which facts were left out of the documentary by citing a Time article and my initial reaction to it.

I also mentioned that there is a dramatic benefit to supporting a narrative of innocence vs. guilt in such a series, which is obviously true, as none of us would be discussing this if he was painted to be a guilty party.

Furthermore, there is empirical evidence. Sweat DNA on the car he claimed he never touched, her BONES and her belongings on the property... a virtual mountain of evidence. The main claim of the defense is that such evidence was planted, but no one claims the evidence doesn't exist.



The alleged crime scene was compromised and possibly contaminated when the Police allowed everyone and there dog to search the Avery property...
Dont you find it strange that Halbachs brother seemed to be in charge of a search party on the Avery's property, And under his and Halbachs ex-boyfriends instructions.. "You go look up there, within minutes, they find the car. hidden in plain sight?
Avery had plenty time (days) to dispose of Halbach elsewhere, yet somehow we are to believe he chose to hide her remains and all her belongings feet from his trailer....The evidence was planted..every single bit of it.

Christ they found a bone fragment feet from her car, Hundreds of yards from the fire pit with the bone fragments in it...I'll give you a clue how it got there..Whoever planted the car dropped the bone fragment on the way to planting Halbachs bones in Avery's fire pit. Simple.
As for Avery's "Sweat" DNA found on the car hood... DNA is DNA..it could have been from Sweat, saliva, blood, seminal fluid, faeces etc etc..Something the Police or a third party could have picked up and planted anytime...Open Avery's trash can and find a anything of Avery's and i'll guarantee Avery's DNA will be on it...

You know what, It doesn't matter anyway...The whole system is bent. They are all cahoots with each other to get the results they were looking for. Just like the first conviction they made the evidence fit Avery. Avery had them over a barrel for $40 million and forced retirment...A jail sentence for the bastards was never going to happen.

The only question is...Who did Murder Halbach and plant the evidence on Avery...My money us on the Ex.



As I said, the argument is that the evidence was planted. The argument was not that it doesn't exist.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: SRPrime

So basically even though there is no actual empirical evidence, you've decided he guilty because someone said through hear-say that Theresa said he was creepy.

First, I never said I thought he was guilty.

I was attempting to answer a question about which facts were left out of the documentary by citing a Time article and my initial reaction to it.

I also mentioned that there is a dramatic benefit to supporting a narrative of innocence vs. guilt in such a series, which is obviously true, as none of us would be discussing this if he was painted to be a guilty party.

Furthermore, there is empirical evidence. Sweat DNA on the car he claimed he never touched, her BONES and her belongings on the property... a virtual mountain of evidence. The main claim of the defense is that such evidence was planted, but no one claims the evidence doesn't exist.



The alleged crime scene was compromised and possibly contaminated when the Police allowed everyone and there dog to search the Avery property...
Dont you find it strange that Halbachs brother seemed to be in charge of a search party on the Avery's property, And under his and Halbachs ex-boyfriends instructions.. "You go look up there, within minutes, they find the car. hidden in plain sight?
Avery had plenty time (days) to dispose of Halbach elsewhere, yet somehow we are to believe he chose to hide her remains and all her belongings feet from his trailer....The evidence was planted..every single bit of it.

Christ they found a bone fragment feet from her car, Hundreds of yards from the fire pit with the bone fragments in it...I'll give you a clue how it got there..Whoever planted the car dropped the bone fragment on the way to planting Halbachs bones in Avery's fire pit. Simple.
As for Avery's "Sweat" DNA found on the car hood... DNA is DNA..it could have been from Sweat, saliva, blood, seminal fluid, faeces etc etc..Something the Police or a third party could have picked up and planted anytime...Open Avery's trash can and find a anything of Avery's and i'll guarantee Avery's DNA will be on it...

You know what, It doesn't matter anyway...The whole system is bent. They are all cahoots with each other to get the results they were looking for. Just like the first conviction they made the evidence fit Avery. Avery had them over a barrel for $40 million and forced retirment...A jail sentence for the bastards was never going to happen.

The only question is...Who did Murder Halbach and plant the evidence on Avery...My money us on the Ex.



As I said, the argument is that the evidence was planted. The argument was not that it doesn't exist.

I dont even think there is a argument...It was planted. The ex done her in.
Lets have a look at the ex's phone call record before she disappeared. That was what the Police should have focused there attention on other than Avery calling for a advertisment.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

I dont even think there is a argument...

Sure there is, legally speaking.The argument is that the crime scene was compromised and the evidence planted. You may not believe there is merit to the counter-argument, but that doesn't mean there's no argument in the legal sense.

And in any case, my point stands: No one has ever claimed there is no evidence. The claim is that the evidence was staged.
edit on 27-11-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics
 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join