Making a Murderer -- DID STEVEN AVERY REALLY KILL TERESA HALBACH?

[Blindgreed1]

You don't present evidence or logic, Gunnar.

You oppose evidence and logic, make false claims, and tell people who explain their reasoning and provide sources that it's irrelevant (or suggest that they're not intelligent enough to know what they're talking about) if what they present doesn't support what you believe.

I don't think it's in your DNA to be able to engage in a rational exchange of opinion and fact when you've already dug your heels in.

In any case, I always do my homework, which is not limited to watching a defense mini-series. Upthread, you criticized that homework because only the tv show was relevant to you. Flip flop.

I read LeBeau's CV when the case went to trial and read it again years later when the Netflix series came out. You can view it here: content/uploads/2016/01/Trial-Exhibit-433-CV-of-Marc-LeBeau.pdf . He was a qualified forensics expert for years before the Avery trial. Some forensic professionals who watched the series attest to his findings. Others say that the testing protocols should be updated.

So, if new blood testing by a defense-approved expert using an approved updated protocol is conducted and it proves conclusively that Avery's blood collected from Teresa's car is negative for EDTA, will you acknowledge that the blood was not planted and the 'framed' theory is seriously weakened? Or, will you change course and claim that the new tests are irrelevant/tainted because they undermine your theory? I suspect the latter.

If ever you're interested in doing some homework, you can find the trial transcripts, evidence docs, expert CVs and such here: http://www.stevenaverycase.org/jurytrialtranscripts/ http://www.stevenaverycase.org/exhibits/

There's no flip flop, and I've presented facts. I happen to know a bit more about blood analysis than what you give me credit for and I can see flaws in the prosecutions theory that contamination vs. blood from an EDTA tube and I've examined it personally. You can't say without any doubt that the difference is a boatload of EDTA vs. trace amounts in a sample is conclusive. It all depends on the storage conditions, expiration date of the tube, how well it's mixed after collection and a multitude of other variables. What is conclusive is that EDTA doesn't exist in the human body.
If a reputable independent lab performs the analysis and finds there's no EDTA in the sample, I will concede, but trust me that isn't going to be the finding here. If you want to talk about flip flops, read back to where you stated the Avery family could pull off this elaborate coverup of a murder one day and praise Brandon's release the next. That's text book flip flopping.